"Water Resources Development Act of 2026: Stakeholder Priorities"

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2026:5                         STAKEHOLDER PRIORITIES6=======================================================================78                                (119-34)910                                HEARING1112                               BEFORE THE1314                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON15                    WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT1617                                 OF THE1819                              COMMITTEE ON20                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE21                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2223                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2425                             FIRST SESSION2627                               __________2829                           DECEMBER 17, 20253031                               __________3233                       Printed for the use of the34             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure3536[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3738     Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-39     transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/40                             transportation4142                                __________4344 62-963 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 202645-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4647             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE4849                      Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman50                     Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member51Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,52  District of Columbia               Arkansas,53Jerrold Nadler, New York               Vice Chairman54John Garamendi, California           Daniel Webster, Florida55Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaomas Massie, Kentucky56Andre Carson, Indiana                Scott Perry, Pennsylvania57Dina Titus, Nevada                   Brian Babin, Texas58Jared Huffman, California            David Rouzer, North Carolina59Julia Brownley, California           Mike Bost, Illinois60Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Doug LaMalfa, California61Mark DeSaulnier, California          Bruce Westerman, Arkansas62Salud O. Carbajal, California        Brian J. Mast, Florida63Greg Stanton, Arizona                Pete Stauber, Minnesota64Sharice Davids, Kansas               Tim Burchett, Tennessee65Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Dusty Johnson, South Dakota66Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey67Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Troy E. Nehls, Texas68Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Tracey Mann, Kansas69Patrick Ryan, New York               Burgess Owens, Utah70Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                 Eric Burlison, Missouri71Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio,           Mike Collins, Georgia72  Vice Ranking Member                Mike Ezell, Mississippi73Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan        Kevin Kiley, California74Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Vince Fong, California75Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Tony Wied, Wisconsin76Robert Garcia, California            Tom Barrett, Michigan77Nellie Pou, New Jersey               Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska78Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan     Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,79Laura Friedman, California           Pennsylvania80Laura Gillen, New York               Jeff Hurd, Colorado81Shomari Figures, Alabama             Jefferson Shreve, Indiana82Maxwell Frost, Florida               Addison P. McDowell, North83                                     Carolina84                                     David J. Taylor, Ohio85                                     Brad Knott, North Carolina86                                     Kimberlyn King-Hinds,87                                       Northern Mariana Islands88                                     Mike Kennedy, Utah89                                     Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri90                                     Jimmy Patronis, Florida9192            Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment9394                 Mike Collins, Georgia, Chairman95                Frederica S. Wilson, Florida, Ranking Member96John Garamendi, California           Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,97Jared Huffman, California            Arkansas98Patrick Ryan, New York               Thomas Massie, Kentucky99Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                 Brian Babin, Texas100Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio            Mike Bost, Illinois101Laura Friedman, California           Doug LaMalfa, California102Shomari Figures, Alabama             Bruce Westerman, Arkansas103Julia Brownley, California           Brian J. Mast, Florida104Mark DeSaulnier, California          Tracey Mann, Kansas105Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Eric Burlison, Missouri106Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan,       Kevin Kiley, California107  Vice Ranking Member                Vince Fong, California108Nellie Pou, New Jersey               Tony Wied, Wisconsin109Laura Gillen, New York               Jeff Hurd, Colorado110Eleanor Holmes Norton,               David J. Taylor, Ohio, Vice111  District of Columbia               Chairman112Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Brad Knott, North Carolina113                                     Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri114                                     Jimmy Patronis, Florida115                                     Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)116117                                CONTENTS118119                                                                   Page120121Summary of Subject Matter........................................   vii122123                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE124125Hon. Mike Collins, a Representative in Congress from the State of126  Georgia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and127  Environment, opening statement.................................     1128    Prepared statement...........................................     2129Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, a Representative in Congress from the130  State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water131  Resources and Environment, opening statement...................     3132    Prepared statement...........................................     4133Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of134  Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and135  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     5136    Prepared statement...........................................     6137138                               WITNESSES139140Julie A. Ufner, President and Chief Executive Officer, National141  Waterways Conference, Inc., oral statement.....................    12142    Prepared statement...........................................    14143Charles Camillo, Executive Vice President, Midwest Flood Control144  Association, oral statement....................................    29145    Prepared statement...........................................    30146Bryan Jones, President, Mid-Atlantic Division, HNTB Corporation,147  oral statement.................................................    32148    Prepared statement...........................................    34149Noel Hacegaba, Chief Operating Officer and Incoming Chief150  Executive Officer, Port of Long Beach, California, oral151  statement......................................................    36152    Prepared statement...........................................    38153154                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD155156Submissions for the Record by Hon. Mike Collins:157    Statement of Dan Ginolfi, Executive Director, American158      Coastal Coalition..........................................     8159    Statement of Chett Chiasson, Chairman of the Board of160      Directors, American Association of Port Authorities........     9161    Statement of Andrew Kimball, President, New York City162      Economic Development Corporation...........................    10163    Letter of December 11, 2025, from Beth Callaway, Executive164      Director, Interstate Council on Water Policy, to Hon. Mike165      Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking166      Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment....    85167    Statement of Sunny Simpkins, Executive Director, National168      Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies....    86169Submissions for the Record by Hon. Frederica S. Wilson:170    Letter of December 17, 2025, from Vic Bianes, PE, President,171      and Scott D. Grayson, CAE, Chief Executive Officer,172      American Public Works Association, to Hon. Mike Collins,173      Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member,174      Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment............    44175    Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers.........    45176    Letter of December 17, 2025, from Michele Stanley, President177      and Chief Executive Officer, National Stone, Sand & Gravel178      Association, to Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon.179      Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water180      Resources and Environment..................................    48181    Statement of Melissa Samet, Legal Director, Water Resources182      and Coasts, National Wildlife Federation...................    49183    Statement of Paul Anderson, President and Chief Executive184      Officer, Port Tampa Bay....................................    58185186                                APPENDIX187188Questions to Julie A. Ufner, President and Chief Executive189  Officer, National Waterways Conference, Inc., from:190    Hon. Brian Babin.............................................    93191    Hon. Jeff Hurd...............................................   104192Questions to Charles Camillo, Executive Vice President, Midwest193  Flood Control Association, from:194    Hon. Brian Babin.............................................   106195    Hon. Jeff Hurd...............................................   107196Questions to Bryan Jones, President, Mid-Atlantic Division, HNTB197  Corporation, from:198    Hon. Brian Babin.............................................   108199    Hon. Jeff Hurd...............................................   108200Question to Noel Hacegaba, Chief Operating Officer and Incoming201  Chief Executive Officer, Port of Long Beach, California, from202  Hon. Brian Babin...............................................   109203204[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]205206                           December 12, 2025207208    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER209210    TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Water Resources and211Environment212    FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and213Environment214    RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Water Resources215Development Act of 2026: Stakeholder Priorities''216_______________________________________________________________________217218                               I. PURPOSE219220    The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the221Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on222Wednesday, December 17, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. EST in 2167 of the223Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony at a hearing224entitled, ``Water Resources Development Act of 2026:225Stakeholder Priorities.'' The hearing will allow Members to226receive testimony from water resources stakeholders, such as227local officials, levee district managers, and others to discuss228priorities related to primary mission areas of the United229States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for the Water Resources230Development Act (WRDA) of 2026.231232                             II. BACKGROUND233234THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS_CIVIL WORKS235236    The Corps is the Federal Government's lead water resource237development and management agency.\1\ Its mission is to deliver238``vital engineering solutions, in collaboration with [their]239partners, to secure our Nation, energize our economy, and240reduce disaster risk.'' \2\ The Corps water resource program241dates back to 1824 when it was established for the purpose of242improving river navigation.\3\ The role of the Corps has243evolved and expanded since then to include other main water244resource responsibilities.245---------------------------------------------------------------------------246    \1\ Corps, About Corps Water Resources Planning, (last accessed247Nov. 25, 2025), available at https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/toolbox/248guidance.cfm?Id=0&Option=Planning%20Fundamentals249&Type=About#::text=The%20U.%20S.%20Army%20Corps%20of.250    \2\ Corps, Mission and Vision, (last accessed Nov. 25, 2025),251available at https://www.usace.army.mil/About/Mission-and-Vision/.252    \3\ Id.253---------------------------------------------------------------------------254    Today, the Corps' primary civil works responsibilities are255to support coastal and river navigation, address flood risk256management and storm damage, and protect and restore aquatic257ecosystems.\4\ Specifically, through its eight divisions and 38258district offices, the Corps manages over 14,000 miles of259levees, 740 dams, 12,000 miles of inland and intercoastal260waterways, and 218 lock chambers.\5\261---------------------------------------------------------------------------262    \4\ See generally Anna Normand & Nicole Carter, Cong. Rsch. Serv.263(IF13112), Water Resources Development Acts: Primer and Action in the264119th Congress (Sept. 25, 2025), available at https://www.congress.gov/265crs-product/IF13112 [hereinafter CRS Report IF13112].266    \5\ Corps, Value to the Nation, (last accessed Nov. 25, 2025),267available at https://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Value-to-the-268Nation/.269---------------------------------------------------------------------------270    The Corps also provides outdoor recreation opportunities,271offers water supply storage to state and local partners,272assists in emergency response, and is a leading producer of273hydropower in the United States.\6\ Many Corps projects are274multipurpose, incorporating navigation, flood risk management,275and/or ecosystem restoration in conjunction with water supply276and conservation, recreation, and/or hydropower into their277design, construction, and operation.\7\ The Corps, at its278sites, sees 269 million recreational visitors a year, provides27925 percent of the country's hydropower output, and manages 135280reservoirs with municipal and industrial water supply.\8\ The281Corps also provides support in responding to natural disasters282by supporting the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)283when requested or through the Flood Control and Coastal284Emergencies program (often referred to as ``P.L. 84-99'').\9\285---------------------------------------------------------------------------286    \6\ Id.287    \7\ CRS Report IF13112, supra note 4.288    \8\ Corps, Value to the Nation, (last accessed Nov. 25, 2025),289available at https://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Value-to-the-290Nation/.291    \9\ Id.292---------------------------------------------------------------------------293    The Corps' infrastructure portfolio is currently valued at294$227 billion.\10\ This valuation is referred to as its295``capital stock'' and includes all water resources296infrastructure built by the Corps since 1928.\11\ The estimated297capital stock value increased $7.1 billion on average each year298until 1982 when it peaked at $393 billion.\12\ The Corps has299reported that deterioration, general wear and tear of300infrastructure needs, and asset retirements have contributed to301a decline in the value of the capital stock.\13\ Furthermore,302the Corps has a growing construction backlog in addition to303various authorized but unfunded studies and operation and304maintenance activities.\14\305---------------------------------------------------------------------------306    \10\ Corps, Capital Stock: Summary, (last accessed Nov. 25, 2025),307available at https://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Value-to-the-308Nation/Fast-Facts/Capital-Stock/Summary/.309    \11\ Id.310    \12\ Id.311    \13\ Id.312    \14\ CRS Report IF13112, supra note 4.313---------------------------------------------------------------------------314    To achieve its civil works mission, the Corps plans,315designs, and constructs water resources development projects,316typically in partnership with, and utilizing the financial317support of, non-Federal interests, commonly referred to as318project sponsors. The Corps' planning process requires that319Federal water resources investments reflect national320priorities, encourage economic development, and protect the321environment, and that the Corps seek to maximize net public322benefits to society.323324WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ACTS325326    Congress generally authorizes Corps studies, projects, and327programs and makes changes to agency policies through328legislation referred to as Water Resources Development Acts329(WRDAs). Congress has developed and enacted WRDAs330intermittently since the 1980s and has biennially enacted a331WRDA since 2014.\15\332---------------------------------------------------------------------------333    \15\ Id.334---------------------------------------------------------------------------335    Authorizing provisions in WRDAs can be project-specific,336programmatic, or general directives for the Corps. Project-337specific authorizations most often fall into one of three broad338categories: project studies, construction projects, or339modifications to existing projects. Furthermore, water resource340projects typically require two types of Congressional341authorization: (1) authority to study the feasibility of the342project and (2) authority to construct (and operate and343maintain, as applicable) the project.\16\344---------------------------------------------------------------------------345    \16\ Id.346---------------------------------------------------------------------------347    Most recently, WRDA 2024 was signed into law as Division A348of the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024349(P.L. 118-272) in January 2025.\17\ WRDA 2024 authorized 17 new350construction projects, four project modifications, one project351for construction based on a feasibility study carried out by a352non-Federal interest, and over 200 new or modified feasibility353studies.\18\354---------------------------------------------------------------------------355    \17\ WRDA 2024, Pub. L. 118-272, 138 Stat. 2996.356    \18\ Id.357---------------------------------------------------------------------------358    WRDA 2024 made policy reforms to empower the non-Federal359sponsors of projects, increase transparency, and improve360project delivery. For example, WRDA 2024 facilitated the361creation of Continuing Authorities Program (CAP), a new pilot362program for alternative project delivery. Additionally, the363legislation amended sections 203 and 204 of WRDA 1986 to364clarify and enhance the responsibilities of non-Federal365interests in conducting studies and construction activities for366authorized projects.\19\ WRDA 2024 also improved transparency367and consistency to assist non-Federal entities achieve368compliance with the P.L. 84-99 program and the process to369modify existing projects under Section 408.\20\370---------------------------------------------------------------------------371    \19\ Id., at Sec. 1107(a), 1109, 1110.372    \20\ Id., at Sec. 1105, 1146.373---------------------------------------------------------------------------374    Further, WRDA 2024 included the Grace F. Napolitano375Priority for Water Supply, Water Conservation, and Drought376Resiliency Act, which emphasizes the Corps' role in water377supply and water resiliency efforts.\21\ WRDA 2024 instructed378the Corps to prioritize and maximize water supply, water379conservation, and drought resiliency efforts that are in380alignment with the authorized purposes of water resources381development projects.\22\382---------------------------------------------------------------------------383    \21\ See Subtitle B, Title I, Division A of WRDA 2024, supra note38414.385    \22\ Id., at Sec. 1161, 1162, 1108.386---------------------------------------------------------------------------387388IDENTIFYING WATER RESOURCE NEEDS389390    Generally, the first step in developing a project through391the Corps is to study the feasibility of the proposed project,392which typically requires Congressional authorization. Once393authorized, the Corps enters into a cost-sharing agreement with394a non-Federal project sponsor to initiate the feasibility395process. The cost of a feasibility study is usually split396evenly between the Federal Government, which is subject to397appropriations, and the non-Federal project sponsor.\23\398---------------------------------------------------------------------------399    \23\ CRS Report IF13112, supra note 4400---------------------------------------------------------------------------401    Under current law, the feasibility reports should generally402be produced within four years with a Federal cost of no more403than $5 million.\24\ Waivers of the feasibility criteria for404project studies are available under section 1001 of the Water405Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014.\25\406---------------------------------------------------------------------------407    \24\ WRDA 2024, Pub. L. 118-272, 138 Stat. 2996.408    \25\ 33 U.S.C. 2282c.409---------------------------------------------------------------------------410    During a feasibility study phase, the Corps' district411office prepares a draft study report containing a detailed412analysis on the economic costs and benefits of carrying out the413project and identifies any associated environmental, social, or414cultural impacts. The feasibility study typically describes,415with reasonable certainty, the economic, social, and416environmental benefits and detriments of project alternatives417being considered, and identifies the engineering features,418public acceptability, and the purpose, scope, and scale of419each.\26\ It also contains the views of other Federal and non-420Federal agencies on project alternatives, a description of non-421structural alternatives to the recommended plans, and a422description of the anticipated Federal and non-Federal423participation in the project.\27\424---------------------------------------------------------------------------425    \26\ Id.426    \27\ Id.427---------------------------------------------------------------------------428    After a full feasibility study is completed, the results429and recommendations of the study are submitted to Congress in430the form of a Report of the United States Army Corps of431Engineers Chief of Engineers (more commonly referred to as a432Chief's Report).\28\ If the results and recommendations on the433proposed project are favorable, then the next step is434Congressional authorization for construction of the project,435which is typically given in a WRDA.436---------------------------------------------------------------------------437    \28\ Corps, Planner's Library, (last accessed Nov. 25, 2025),438available at https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/toolbox/439library.cfm?Option=Direct&Group=Main&Item=Chief%20Report440&Sub=None&Sort=Default.441---------------------------------------------------------------------------442    Section 902 of WRDA 1986, as amended, generally allows for443increases in total project costs of up to 20 percent (after444accounting for inflation of construction costs) without445additional Congressional authorization.\29\ A Post-446Authorization Change Report (PACR) is developed when an447authorized project encounters a cost increase greater than 20448percent of the authorized amount, changes in scope of the449project, location, or design modifications.\30\ Typically,450Congress will then consider the PACR for inclusion in a WRDA.451---------------------------------------------------------------------------452    \29\ Anna Normand & Nicole Carter, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (R47946),453Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects (Aug. 29, 2025),454available at https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47946.455    \30\ Wes Coleman & Jeremy LaDart, Post Authorization Change Reports456(PACRS)--Myths, Mysteries, and Legends, United States Army Corps of457Engineers, (May 20, 2021), available at https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/458toolbox/webinars/20May21-PACRs.pdf.459---------------------------------------------------------------------------460461ADDITIONAL CORPS AUTHORITIES462463    The CAP program enables the Corps to undertake small-scale464projects with limited scope and cost without requiring project-465specific Congressional authorization.\31\ These projects466typically require a cost-share with a non-Federal project467sponsor.\32\468---------------------------------------------------------------------------469    \31\ See generally Anna Normand, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (IF12635),470Continuing Authorities Programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,471(updated Aug. 6, 2025), available at https://www.congress.gov/crs-472product/IF12635.473    \32\ Id.474---------------------------------------------------------------------------475    There are currently nine CAP categories:476     LStreambank erosion and shoreline protection; \33\477---------------------------------------------------------------------------478    \33\ See the Flood Control Act of 1946, 33 U.S.C. 701r Sec.  14.479---------------------------------------------------------------------------480     LBeach erosion control; \34\481---------------------------------------------------------------------------482    \34\ See the Act of August 13, 1946, 33 U.S.C. 426g Sec.  3.483---------------------------------------------------------------------------484     LNavigation improvement; \35\485---------------------------------------------------------------------------486    \35\ See the River and Harbor Act of 1960, 33 U.S.C. 577 Sec.  107.487---------------------------------------------------------------------------488     LMitigation of shore damage by Federal navigation489projects; \36\490---------------------------------------------------------------------------491    \36\ See the River and Harbor Act of 1968, 33 U.S.C. 426(i) Sec.49211.493---------------------------------------------------------------------------494     LRegional sediment management/beneficial use of495dredged material; \37\496---------------------------------------------------------------------------497    \37\ See the WRDA 1992, 33 U.S.C. 2326 Sec.  204.498---------------------------------------------------------------------------499     LFlood control; \38\500---------------------------------------------------------------------------501    \38\ See the Flood Control Act of 1948, 33 U.S.C. 701s Sec.  205.502---------------------------------------------------------------------------503     LAquatic ecosystem restoration; \39\504---------------------------------------------------------------------------505    \39\ See the WRDA 1996, 33 U.S.C. 2330 Sec.  206.506---------------------------------------------------------------------------507     LRemoval of obstructions and clearing channels for508flood control; \40\ and509---------------------------------------------------------------------------510    \40\ See the Act of August 28, 1937, 33 U.S.C. 701g Sec.  2.511---------------------------------------------------------------------------512     LProject modifications for improvement of the513environment or drought resiliency; \41\ and514---------------------------------------------------------------------------515    \41\ See the WRDA 1986, 33 U.S.C. 2309a Sec.  1135516---------------------------------------------------------------------------517     LStormwater management projects.\42\518---------------------------------------------------------------------------519    \42\ See section 1108 of the WRDA 2024, 33 U.S.C. 2289b.520521    Congress has also provided authority for the Corps to522assist with the planning, de sign, and construction of drinking523water and wastewater projects in specified areas, known broadly524as Environmental Infrastructure (EI) assistance.\43\ The EI525programs support publicly owned and operated facilities, such526as distribution and collection works, stormwater collection and527recycled water distribution, and surface water protection and528development projects.\44\529---------------------------------------------------------------------------530    \43\ WRDA of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-580, 106 Stat. 4835, Sec.  219.;531WRDA of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-53, 113 Stat. 352, Sec.  552.; WRDA of5322022, Pub. L. No. 117-263, 136 Stat. 3819, Sec.  8376.533    \44\ Corps, Environmental Infrastructure, (last accessed Nov. 25,5342025), available at https://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-535Works/Environmental-Infrastructure/.536---------------------------------------------------------------------------537538                       III. OUTLOOK FOR WRDA 2026539540PENDING CHIEF'S REPORTS541542    Currently, the Committee is in possession of two Chief's543Reports for possible inclusion in WRDA 2026: Surf City, Onslow544and Pender Counties, NC (coastal storm risk management) and545Columbia River Turning Basin (navigation). The Committee546maintains a list of all Chief's Reports submitted by the547Secretary of the Army possible for WRDA 2026 consideration on548its website at https://transportation.house.gov/wrda-2026/.549550ANNUAL 7001 REPORTS551552    Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014 (P.L. 113-121) required the553Corps to transmit an annual report to the authorizing554committees that identifies, for potential Congressional555authorization, completed feasibility reports, proposed556feasibility studies submitted by non-Federal interests through557a public comment period, proposed modifications to authorized558water resources development projects or feasibility studies,559and proposed modifications to environmental infrastructure560program authorities. This report is entitled ``Report to561Congress on Future Water Resources Development'' and is due by562February 1st of each year. The Committee has not officially563received the 2025 Section 7001 report. The non-Federal proposal564submission period for the 2026 Section 7001 report was open565from April 17, 2025, through August 15, 2025.\45\ The Committee566maintains a list of all existing Section 7001 Reports on its567website at https://transportation.house.gov/wrda-2026/.568---------------------------------------------------------------------------569    \45\ Proposals by Non-Federal Interests for Inclusion in the Annual570Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development, 90 Fed. Reg57116114 (Apr. 17, 2025).572---------------------------------------------------------------------------573574                             IV. WITNESSES575576     LJulie Ufner, President and Chief Executive577Officer (CEO), National Waterways Conference578     LCharles Camillo, Executive Vice President,579Midwest Flood Control Association580     LBryan Jones, President, Mid-Atlantic Division,581HNTB Corporation582     LNoel Hacegaba, Chief Operating Officer, Port of583Long Beach, California584585    WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2026: STAKEHOLDER PRIORITIES586587                              ----------588589                      WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2025590591                  House of Representatives,592   Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,593            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,594                                                    Washington, DC.595    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room5962167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Collins597(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.598    Mr. Collins. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and599Environment will come to order.600    I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to601declare a recess at any time during today's hearing. Without602objection, so ordered.603    I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the604subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at605today's hearing and ask questions. Without objection, so606ordered.607    As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into608the record, please also email it to DocumentsTI@mail.house.gov.609    I now recognize myself for the purpose of an opening610statement for 5 minutes.611612 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE COLLINS OF GEORGIA, CHAIRMAN,613        SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT614615    Mr. Collins. Today's hearing is the first of a series that616this subcommittee will hold before drafting a Water Resources617Development Act, WRDA, for 2026. To kick off the WRDA 2026618process, today we have the opportunity to hear from619stakeholders from across the Nation about the importance of620Army Corps Civil Works programs and maintaining a consistent 2-621year WRDA schedule.622    WRDA is one of the most important pieces of legislation623that we work to draft and pass here at the Transportation and624Infrastructure Committee, and we are proud to do so regularly.625Every 2 years since 2014, Congress has passed a bipartisan,626consensus WRDA bill into law, helping communities across this627country. I look forward to working once again with my628colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue this629important tradition.630    WRDA is a critical vehicle to meet the water resources631needs in the communities nationwide. Reliable water navigation632systems allow for the safe and efficient shipping of cargo that633is fueling our economy. Levees protect homes and businesses634from flooding. Dams and reservoirs, like Lake Lanier in Georgia635where I grew up visiting with my family, also provide flood636control for communities, electricity, and opportunities for637recreation.638    WRDA 2024 included several important provisions for water639needs in the State of Georgia and the country as a whole.640Specifically, WRDA 2024 authorized a feasibility study for641Tybee Island ecosystem restoration and storm damage risk642reduction and modified the feasibility studies for Savannah643Harbor and New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, updating these644prior authorizations to effectively and efficiently meet645changing needs.646    In Georgia, 2025 was the busiest year on record for the647Port of Savannah, and the Port of Brunswick became America's648number one port for automobiles. A consistent 2-year WRDA649process is essential in helping our ports keep up with growing650demand and grow our Nation's economy.651    An important part of the WRDA process is the partnership652between the Federal Government and non-Federal partners and653stakeholders who come together to solve local water resources654needs. It is great to see a panel of witnesses today655representing diverse interests and geographic areas, but who656are brought together not only by water resources issues, but657also by the solutions that WRDAs can provide.658    I look forward to hearing from each of you today on the659importance of WRDA in assisting with flood control, inland660waterway navigation, coastal restoration, beach renourishment,661and ensuring safe movement of goods through maritime662transportation.663    [Mr. Collins' prepared statement follows:]664665 Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Collins, a Representative in Congress666    from the State of Georgia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water667                       Resources and Environment668    Today's hearing is the first of a series that this subcommittee669will hold before drafting a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) for6702026. To kick off the WRDA 2026 process, today we have the opportunity671to hear from stakeholders from across the nation about the importance672of Army Corps Civil Works programs and maintaining a consistent two-673year WRDA schedule.674    WRDA is one of the most important pieces of legislation we work to675draft and pass here at the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,676and we are proud to do so regularly. Every two years since 2014,677Congress has passed a bipartisan, consensus WRDA bill into law, helping678communities across the country. I look forward to working once again679with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue this680important tradition.681    WRDA is a critical vehicle to meet the water resources needs in682communities nationwide. Reliable water navigation systems allow for the683safe and efficient shipping of cargo, fueling our economy. Levees684protect homes and businesses from flooding. Dams and reservoirs, like685Lake Lanier in Georgia--where I grew up visiting with my family--also686provide flood control for communities, electricity, and opportunities687for recreation.688    WRDA 2024 included several important provisions for water needs in689the State of Georgia and the country as a whole. Specifically, WRDA6902024 authorized a feasibility study for Tybee Island ecosystem691restoration and storm damage risk reduction and modified the692feasibility studies for Savannah Harbor and New Savannah Bluff Lock and693Dam, updating these prior authorizations to effectively and efficiently694meet changing needs.695    In Georgia, 2025 was the busiest year on record for the Port of696Savannah, and the Port of Brunswick became America's number one port697for automobiles. A consistent two-year WRDA process is essential in698helping our ports keep up with growing demand and grow our nation's699economy.700    An important part of the WRDA process is the partnership between701the federal government, non-federal partners, and stakeholders, who702come together to solve local water resources needs. It is great to see703a panel of witnesses today representing diverse interests and704geographic areas, but who are brought together not only by water705resources issues, but also by the solutions that WRDAs can provide.706    I look forward to hearing from each of you today on the importance707of WRDA in assisting with flood control, inland waterway navigation,708coastal restoration, beach renourishment, and ensuring safe movement of709goods through maritime transportation.710711    Mr. Collins. I now recognize Ranking Member Wilson for 5712minutes for an opening statement.713714   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FREDERICA S. WILSON OF FLORIDA,715RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT716717    Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding718today's hearing.719    Through biennial enactment of Water Resources Development720Acts, this committee is addressing the water-related needs of721our States and local communities. WRDAs are a shining example722of how Congress can efficiently and effectively meet the723bipartisan needs of our communities when we decide it is better724to work together than apart. Again, I look forward to725continuing my partnership with you, with Chairman Graves, and726with Ranking Member Larsen to get this done.727    Mr. Chairman, each of our communities experience unique728water resources challenges. We seek to address these challenges729through predictable enactment of WRDAs, providing the Corps730with the tools necessary to address community needs. As731stressors or local priorities change over time, this committee732has stayed vigilant to ensure that the Corps has the authority733and resources necessary to address local needs.734    The history of the Corps bears this out. The Corps' Civil735Works responsibility was initially focused primarily on736navigation, developing the coastal and inland harbors necessary737for the efficient movement of goods to our young Nation. That738responsibility was later expanded to incorporate large-scale739flood control, in part, due to widespread flooding along the740Mississippi River that devastated communities and livelihoods.741    More recently, as more communities realized the economic,742environmental, and public health benefits from restoring their743environment, Congress expanded the Corps' responsibility to744include watershed and ecosystem restoration, the benefits that745can be seen in the Florida Everglades, coastal Louisiana, and746in the Great Lakes.747    In fact, just last week, we celebrated the 25th anniversary748of enactment of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan749through WRDA 2000. This decades-long partnership between the750Corps, the State, and other non-Federal partners shows how751large-scale environmental restoration projects can have a752tangible, dramatic, and lasting benefit to our communities, our753economies, our human and environmental health, and our quality754of life.755    Lastly, in WRDA 2024, the Congress gave the Corps new756direction to work with communities to support local efforts to757enhance water supply, water conservation, and drought758resiliency needs.759    Mr. Chairman, as we develop a new WRDA bill for 2026, we760need to build on the successes of the last few WRDA bills and761the enhanced direction for the Corps to partner with762communities of all types--large and small; urban, rural, and763Tribal; economically well-off and communities that struggle to764make ends meet--to address their local water resources765challenges.766    It is my hope that WRDA 2026 will continue to ensure that767the next generation of flood control, navigation, environmental768restoration, and water supply and conservation projects and769studies are authorized and allowed to proceed.770    We must continue to promote community resilience to the771challenges faced by extreme weather events and changes to772climate conditions on the ground, whether there is too much773water, including coastal and inland flooding events, or too774little water, such as areas facing increased frequencies of775drought conditions.776    And we must ensure that all communities are given the777opportunity to work with the Corps to resolve their water778resources challenges.779    Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have started to hear concerns780from Members on both sides of the aisle that recent changes in781the communication policies of the Corps have led to delays and782denials of sharing even the most basic information about Corps783projects in Members' districts. As the chairman knows, seamless784communication between the Corps and Members' offices is785essential for successful development and implementation of WRDA786laws and projects. I hope that these bureaucratic holdups can787be quickly dispensed with, lest they cause challenges in this788committee completing its critical work to develop a new WRDA.789    I look forward to working with you on this proposal and on790our continued partnership to develop another successful WRDA791this Congress. So, let's get to work.792    And I yield back.793    [Ms. Wilson of Florida's prepared statement follows:]794795  Prepared Statement of Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, a Representative in796Congress from the State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on797                    Water Resources and Environment798    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing.799    Through biennial enactment of Water Resources Development Acts,800this committee is addressing the water related needs of our states and801local communities.802    WRDAs are a shining example of how Congress can efficiently and803effectively meet the bipartisan needs of our communities when we decide804it is better to work together than apart.805    Again, I look forward to continuing my partnership with you, with806Chairman Graves and with Ranking Member Larsen to get this done.807    Mr. Chairman, each of our communities experience unique water808resources challenges. We seek to address these challenges through809predictable enactment of WRDAs--providing the Corps with the tools810necessary to address community needs.811    As stressors or local priorities change over time, this Committee812has stayed vigilant to ensure that the Corps has the authority and813resources necessary to address local needs.814    The history of the Corps bears this out. The Corps' civil works815responsibility was initially focused primarily on navigation--816developing the coastal and inland harbors necessary for the efficient817movement of goods to our young nation.818    That responsibility was later expanded to incorporate large-scale819flood control, in part, due to widespread flooding along the820Mississippi River that devastated communities and livelihoods.821    More recently, as more communities realized the economic,822environmental and public health benefits from restoring their823environment, Congress expanded the Corps' responsibility to include824watershed and ecosystem restoration--the benefits that can be seen in825the Florida Everglades, Coastal Louisiana, and the Great Lakes.826    In fact, just last week, we celebrated the 25th anniversary of827enactment of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan through WRDA8282000.829    This decades-long partnership between the Corps, the state, and830other non-federal partners shows how large-scale environmental831restoration projects can have a tangible, dramatic, and lasting benefit832to our communities, our economies, our human and environmental health,833and our quality of life.834    Lastly, in WRDA 2024, the Congress gave the Corps new direction to835work with communities to support local efforts to enhance water supply,836water conservation, and drought resiliency needs.837    Mr. Chairman, as we develop a new WRDA bill for 2026, we need to838build on the successes of the last few WRDA bills and the enhanced839direction for the Corps to partner with communities of all types--large840and small; urban, rural, and tribal; economically-well-off and841communities that struggle to make ends meet--to address their local842water resources challenges.843    It is my hope that WRDA 2026 will continue to ensure that the next844generation of flood control, navigation, environmental restoration, and845water supply and conservation projects and studies are authorized and846allowed to proceed.847    We must continue to promote community resilience to the challenges848faced by extreme weather events and changes to climatic conditions on849the ground--whether there is too much water, including coastal and850inland flooding events, or too little water, such as areas facing851increased frequency of drought conditions.852    And we must ensure that all communities are given the opportunity853to work with the Corps to resolve their water resources challenges.854    Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have started to hear concern from855members, on both sides of the aisle, that recent changes in the856communication policies of the Corps have led to delays and denials of857sharing even the most basic information about Corps projects in858members' districts.859    As the Chairman knows, seamless communication between the Corps and860members' offices is essential for successful development and861implementation of WRDA laws and projects.862    I hope that these bureaucratic holdups can be quickly dispensed863with, lest they cause challenges in this Committee completing its864critical work to develop a new WRDA.865    I look forward to working with you on this proposal, and on our866continued partnership to develop another successful WRDA this Congress.867    Let's get to work, and I yield back.868869    Mr. Collins. I now recognize the ranking member of the full870committee, Mr. Larsen, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.871872 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING873     MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE874875    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair.876    In the interest of time, we are voting around 10:30, I am877going to ask unanimous consent to put my full statement in the878record.879    But I do want to reiterate a point that the ranking member880made. I too have heard concerns on both sides of the aisle881about changes in the communication policies of the Corps that882are actually driven out of the Department of Defense, and it883seems that this is a ridiculous policy. It is a shortsighted884policy.885    My district this past weekend has been the victim of major886flooding where the Corps is on the ground working side by side887with the local emergency operations center folks. My staff is888on the ground working side by side with the emergency889operations center folks in order to birddog problems, and those890include problems with the Corps.891    Are the Corps of Engineers folks supposed to run, scurrying892away like rats, when my staff approaches them in a room to ask893for help in order to get culverts cleared out, in order to get894dikes inspected, in order do get levees inspected? We have to895go ask the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, for permission896to save lives in my district?897    This is the practical impact of a ridiculous, shortsighted898policy that is being applied to the Corps of Engineers. How the899rest of the DoD wants to handle it is up to them, but we are in900flood season where I am from, and we can't have delays waiting901for the DoD to sign off on my staff talking to the local Corps902of Engineers folks about the problems we are facing. I wanted903to be sure to get that across.904    Other than that, I really do look forward to the testimony905we have here today, and I yield back. Thank you.906    Mr. Collins. I thank Mr. Larsen. And as to your unanimous907consent request, without objection, so ordered.908    Mr. Larsen of Washington. I appreciate that.909    [Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]910911 Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress912    from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on913                   Transportation and Infrastructure914    Thank you, Chairman Collins, for starting the development of a new915Water Resources Development Act (WRDA).916    In the Pacific Northwest and across the country, businesses and917communities understand the critical importance of ports, harbors and918inland waterways to keep the goods we rely on moving.919    These critical investments are needed not only to sustain our920current businesses, communities, and local economies, but also to921prepare our region for anticipated growth in populations over the next922few decades.923    A recent Association of Washington Businesses report forecasts that924the population of the state of Washington will grow to 10 million925people by 2050, from about eight million today.926    While recent federal and state efforts have helped address some of927the critical infrastructure backlog, robust investment is needed to928keep pace with forecast growth, to embrace emerging industries and to929maintain the region's quality of life.930    The report identifies an estimated need for over $9 billion in931critical port investment, $4 billion for fish habitat, and over $70932billion in water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure investments933for just the State of Washington--showing the magnitude of the934investment challenges ahead.935    Since 2014, this Committee has addressed local water resource936challenges through regular enactment of bipartisan WRDAs.937    WRDAs support projects that address local water resource needs--938such as maintaining levees and expanding port capacity--to create jobs939in construction and support industries and businesses that benefit940directly from Corps projects.941    Regular, predictable enactment of WRDA bills also allows for the942implementation of critical and timely policy reforms that improve the943function and flexibility of the Corps to respond to local water944resources challenges.945    WRDAs are a great example of the strong bipartisan work this946Committee can produce.947    In WRDA 2024, this Committee successfully authorized the948construction of 21 new projects covering every facet of the Corps'949missions, as well as 162 new feasibility studies for future water950resource development projects.951    WRDA 2024 also authorized or modified more than $5 billion in952environmental infrastructure assistance for community driven projects,953including $242 million for locally supported water and wastewater954infrastructure projects in western Washington state.955    These federal, state and local partnerships are critical to help956address the growing water and wastewater infrastructure needs957throughout the country.958    WRDA 2026 is an opportunity to build on the bipartisan successes of959the last few bills.960    We can continue to advance efforts to expand America's navigational961capacity and strengthen its supply chains through port, harbor and962inland waterways development.963    We can continue to work on job-creating investments that address964the water resources challenges facing communities and support national,965regional and local economies.966    We can continue to help communities prepare to face the challenges967posed by climate change, including extreme weather events and drought.968    We can continue to give all communities access to the Corps'969technical and planning expertise, including Tribal, minority and970disadvantaged communities.971    Beyond the regular enactment of WRDAs, Congress also provides972funding to the Corps for project planning, construction, operation and973maintenance so communities can quickly benefit from water resources974improvements.975    The $17 billion downpayment made by the Bipartisan Infrastructure976Law was a great start, but Congress and the administration need to977continue robust investment in our water infrastructure in the future.978    Lastly, I have started to hear concerns from members on both sides979of the aisle that recent changes to the communication policies of the980Corps have led to delays and denials of sharing even the most basic981information about Corps projects in members' districts.982    As the Chairman knows, seamless communication between the Corps and983members offices is essential for successful development and984implementation of WRDA laws and projects.985    I hope that these concerns can be quickly addressed.986    I look forward to the continued partnership with Chairman Graves,987Chairman Collins, and Ranking Member Wilson in developing a bipartisan988WRDA 2026.989    With that, I yield back.990991    Mr. Collins. I was trying to remember what I was supposed992to say.993    I would like to now welcome our witnesses, and thank them994for being here today. You probably know, but I am going to just995briefly go over and explain the lighting system. There are996three lights in front of you. The green means go, yellow means997you are running out of time, and when it turns red, please998conclude your remarks.999    I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full statements1000be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.1001    I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing1002remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided1003answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in1004writing. Without objection, so ordered.1005    I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open1006for 15 days for any additional comments and information1007submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record1008of today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered.1009    I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a1010letter from the American Coastal Coalition dated December 15,10112025; a letter from the American Association of Port1012Authorities dated December 15, 2025; and a letter from the New1013York City Economic Development Corporation dated December 16,10142025. Without objection, so ordered.1015    [The information follows:]10161017    Statement of Dan Ginolfi, Executive Director, American Coastal1018        Coalition, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Mike Collins1019    Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Wilson, thank you for this1020opportunity to provide the Committee with the views of the American1021Coastal Coalition on priorities for the Water Resources Development Act1022of 2026.1023    The American Coastal Coalition represents America's coastal1024communities with federal beach nourishment projects and other coastal1025sustainability needs. Along America's developed coasts, beach1026nourishment is the most effective means for protecting against coastal1027storms and flooding. Many of the provisions in WRDA have impacts on our1028members and their coastal projects, and we are pleased to offer this1029testimony to help the committee craft water resources policy to better1030serve our nation's coastal communities.1031                             3x3x3 Process1032    In WRDA 2014, the 3x3x3 ``SMART Planning'' process was established1033in law, meaning that all Corps studies should require 3 years, cost a1034maximum of $3 million, and involve all 3 levels of the Corps. When it1035comes to beach nourishment projects, some are complex while some are1036quite simple to plan and implement. However, $3 million dollars and 31037years of time quickly became the baseline for all types of studies and1038modifications, including Limited and General Revaluation Reports,1039regardless of their complexity.1040    Prior to WRDA 2024, the Corps already had a process to allow1041studies to exceed the 3x3x3 framework when necessary. Nonetheless,1042Section 1103 of WRDA 2024 expanded studies to allow them to take up to10434 years and cost $5 million. This expansion was driven by demands from1044higher levels of the Corps to achieve a design level closer to 100%1045before moving into Pre-construction Engineering and Design (PED) and1046Construction.\1\1047---------------------------------------------------------------------------1048    \1\ The Committee has previously received testimony from both the1049Assistant Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers which has1050tangentially dealt with the time and cost issue. Secretary Telle wants1051to assure that studies get completed more quickly, and the Chief has1052expressed his desire that the level of planning design of feasibility1053studies be increased so that Congress and non-Federal interests can1054have a more accurate idea of the final cost of projects. Those two1055goals are inherently at odds since it will take more time and money to1056get to a higher level of design. Once again, proper study management by1057all three levels of the Corps is the best answer to managing both study1058duration and cost.1059---------------------------------------------------------------------------1060    Despite that WRDA provision, current Corps policy still adheres to1061the 3x3x3 baseline. The American Coastal Coalition's position is that1062the duration and cost of a study should not be dictated by legislation.1063    The true solution is proper study management by all three levels of1064the Corps. While we acknowledge that some Corps studies are justly long1065and expensive, legislating their cost and duration, though well-1066intentioned, has proven to be an error. We urge the Committee to1067correct this in WRDA 2026 by simply deleting the previous legislative1068provisions.1069                       Funding for District Staff1070    District staff salaries are paid primarily through study funding.1071Relying on project studies to fund Corps personnel is neither good1072policy nor an effective strategy. We urge the appropriators to provide1073for a dedicated funding stream for District Corps personnel to enable1074the agency to deliver its services at the highest level possible.1075                     Planning Centers of Expertise1076    The ACC and its members often rely on the expertise provided by the1077Corps' Coastal Planning Center of Expertise (PCX). Many years ago, the1078Corps created PCXs for its various Business Lines. Coastal storm risk1079management projects are currently categorized under the flood control1080business line, but a separate Coastal PCX was created and has1081successfully overseen much of the coastal project portfolio.1082    Unfortunately, it has now been determined that each PCX must be1083moved from its Division home to a District. The ACC believes this is a1084bad idea, at least for the Coastal PCX, which is proposed to be moved1085to the New York District from the North Atlantic Division.1086    The PCX performs essential planning, engineering, and project1087management functions and cannot effectively maintain a national1088capacity when relocated to the district level. The Coastal PCX should1089function as an arm of Corps Headquarters with a national scope, rather1090than inheriting the limited vision of a single district whose staff1091salaries are tied primarily to specific local projects.1092    We respectfully urge this Committee to adopt an amendment to1093Section 2033(e) of WRRDA 2007 which will enable at least the Coastal1094Planning Center of Expertise to perform its advocacy and oversight1095roles for all coastal studies nationally as a part of Corps1096Headquarters.1097    Thank you for your attention to our testimony.10981099   Statement of Chett Chiasson, Chairman of the Board of Directors,1100 American Association of Port Authorities, Submitted for the Record by1101                           Hon. Mike Collins1102    Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and distinguished members1103of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony1104on the development of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of11052026 and the needs of the United States maritime transportation system.1106    The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) represents the1107public port authorities that handle the vast majority of the nation's1108overseas trade. America relies on its ports to move essential goods,1109support local and regional economies, and provide the infrastructure1110that sustains twenty six percent of the nation's gross domestic1111product. The partnership between ports and the federal government, and1112particularly the United States Army Corps of Engineers, is fundamental1113to maintaining safe, efficient, and globally competitive navigation1114channels.1115    AAPA appreciates the Committee's commitment to regular, biennial1116WRDA legislation. Consistent authorization cycles allow ports, states,1117and the Corps to plan, finance, and deliver projects that strengthen1118economic competitiveness and national security. The federal government1119must remain a strong partner in these efforts so our nation's waterways1120can continue to serve as reliable gateways for commerce and community1121resilience.1122    Even with the significant investments made through the1123Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, there remain billions of1124dollars needed across the nation's waterways. The demand for modern,1125resilient, and efficient maritime infrastructure continues to grow as1126vessel sizes increase, global supply chains evolve, and coastal1127communities face more frequent extreme weather events. AAPA urges1128Congress to enact a robust WRDA that makes the best use of federal and1129non-federal investments and advances practical policy reforms that1130accelerate project delivery.1131    AAPA recommends several measures for inclusion in WRDA 2026 that1132would improve federal navigation. First, Congress should examine the1133requirement under WRDA 1986 that non-federal sponsors repay an1134additional ten percent of navigation construction costs at the end of1135construction. This charge was originally intended to cover1136administrative expenses, yet non-federal partners have no role in1137overseeing those costs. Other Corps mission areas do not require such1138repayment. Eliminating this outdated provision would reduce unnecessary1139burdens on local sponsors and support the advancement of critical1140navigation improvements.1141    Second, Congress should ensure predictable and sustainable Harbor1142Maintenance Trust Fund allocations for Donor and Energy Transfer Ports.1143Donor ports collectively generate more than half of total Harbor1144Maintenance Tax collections and Energy ports play a central role in1145America's energy independence and strategy. While WRDA 2020 set a goal1146that at least twelve percent of annual Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund1147appropriations should support these ports, qualifiers in the law have1148led to inconsistent implementation. Removing these qualifiers and1149directing the Secretary to follow congressional intent would provide1150stability and ensure that these critical hubs receive the support1151needed to maintain safe and efficient operations.1152    Third, AAPA encourages Congress to authorize expedited contributed1153funds authority for small navigation projects. Many smaller projects1154encounter delays when bids slightly exceed the authorized cost, often1155due to routine inflation and market fluctuations. Allowing a non-1156federal sponsor, with Corps concurrence, to contribute up to five1157million dollars within the partnership agreement would provide the1158flexibility needed to award contracts and advance projects without1159requiring additional legislative action. This approach would reduce the1160growing backlog of modification requests and help more communities1161benefit from timely completion of needed improvements.1162    Fourth, AAPA recommends additional flexibility within the statutory1163902 cost limit for small navigation projects. Raising the allowable1164contract award threshold from twenty percent to thirty percent above1165the government estimate for projects under fifty million dollars would1166address inflation pressures and give the Corps practical tools to award1167contracts without repeated statutory adjustments. This reform would1168provide local sponsors and the Corps with flexibility that reflects1169real world project delivery conditions.1170    AAPA supports a WRDA that builds on past successes and strengthens1171the ability of ports and the Corps to partner effectively. The federal1172government plays an indispensable role in sustaining the nation's1173navigation system, and continued investment in this infrastructure is1174critical for economic growth, supply chain stability, and community1175protection. Strong, predictable WRDA legislation ensures that ports can1176plan responsibly, address emerging needs, and maintain the safe1177movement of goods that Americans rely on every day.1178    Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and members of the1179Subcommittee, thank you for your leadership and for the opportunity to1180share the views of the American port industry. AAPA looks forward to1181working with you throughout the WRDA process and to supporting policies1182that keep our nation's maritime gateways strong, secure, and globally1183competitive.1184    Thank you.11851186    Statement of Andrew Kimball, President, New York City Economic1187 Development Corporation, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Mike Collins1188    Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, and Members of the1189Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of1190the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). This biennial, bipartisan1191legislation is essential to advancing our nation's economic growth and1192infrastructure while safeguarding the environment. A strong federal1193partnership is critical to ensuring America's maritime competitiveness,1194reinforcing transportation systems, and fostering the industries that1195drive our economy.1196    I serve as President of the New York City Economic Development1197Corporation (NYCEDC), a mission-driven nonprofit dedicated to building1198a vibrant, inclusive, and globally competitive economy for all New1199Yorkers. As part of this work, NYCEDC manages the Manhattan Cruise1200Terminal on the Hudson River and supports the development of New York1201City's greenways, including the Manhattan Waterfront Greenway. I submit1202this testimony to underscore the importance of the WRDA process and to1203request two specific actions in WRDA 2026: first, the deauthorization1204of a portion of the Hudson River federal navigation channel to enable1205modernization of the Manhattan Cruise Terminal; and second, the1206deauthorization of a portion of the Harlem River to advance the North1207Harlem Waterfront Greenway, closing a critical gap in a low-income1208community currently cut off from waterfront access, thereby impeding1209long-term economic growth through a continuous greenway. These projects1210advance WRDA's core purpose: modernizing waterfront infrastructure that1211serves both economic and strategic national interests. The 2026 cycle1212offers a unique opportunity to deliver on that vision.1213    The cruise industry is a key component of the nation's economic and1214strategic advantage. As the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports, the1215travel and tourism industry accounted for 3.03% of US GDP in 2023,1216contributing more than $585 billion in tax revenue annually and1217accounting for almost 7% of all government income. In the US alone, the1218cruise industry supported over $65 billion in total economic impact in12192023, nearly 300,000 jobs and $25 billion in wages. This growth1220reflects the continued recovery and expansion of the cruise sector1221post-COVID, helping to channel spending into lodging, dining,1222entertainment, retail, and local transportation in port communities.1223    The Manhattan Cruise Terminal (MCT) plays a large part in this1224economic generation, serving as the country's oldest municipal cruise1225terminal and 5th largest cruising homeport. From its days at the turn1226of the 20th century receiving ocean liners, to the modern-day cruise1227vessels that connect Americans and international visitors from the1228Caribbean to Canada and across the Atlantic, the Manhattan Cruise1229Terminal is a key port that is uniquely positioned to drive economic1230impact across the Eastern Seaboard. In 2024, MCT handled approximately12311.15 million passengers and served as a vital economic engine for New1232York City, contributing $500 million in economic impact, and supporting12333,000 jobs across the maritime, hospitality, and transportation1234sectors.1235    Beyond its economic and historical significance, MCT is a strategic1236national asset. Situated in the heart of the Port of New York, a1237deepdraft gateway with direct access to major road, rail, and air1238corridors, the terminal offers unmatched connectivity to nearly 301239million people within 100 miles. Its location positions it to support1240commerce, defense, and emergency response. Each year, the Navy and1241Coast Guard berth at MCT during Fleet Week, bringing combatant,1242auxiliary, and amphibious ships alongside Piers 88 and 90 for public1243tours and demonstrations, underscoring its ability to host modern1244military vessels. More broadly, the Port of New York and New Jersey1245ranks among the nation's largest deepwater hubs, with maintained1246channels for oceangoing ships and extensive intermodal links to inland1247destinations. In contingencies, the Department of Transportation and1248Maritime Administration hold priority authority over civil1249transportation facilities for national defense, making accessible,1250well-equipped berths like MCT critical for rapid surge and humanitarian1251response. As recently as March 2020, the USNS Comfort berthed at MCT to1252support New York's hospital system during COVID-19, and after Hurricane1253Sandy, it was evaluated as a staging point for military response1254vessels.1255    For this asset to continue serving the City, region, and country,1256modernization is imperative. MCT's 90+ year-old infrastructure is1257undersized, outdated, and nearing the end of its useful life. In its1258current state, the terminal cannot meet the needs of the cruise1259industry or the surrounding community. The existing piers are unable to1260accommodate modern cruise vessels, fully implement shore power,1261integrate with the transportation network, or provide meaningful1262waterfront access. Without decisive action, New York risks losing its1263competitive edge as a homeport, forfeiting jobs, tax revenue, and1264tourism dollars to other cities domestically and abroad. NYCEDC's WRDA1265deauthorization request is essential to enable modernization of MCT and1266unlock significant investment to strengthen cruise infrastructure.1267    To address these needs, NYCEDC's Manhattan Cruise Terminal Master1268Plan lays out a bold vision to transform MCT into a next-generation1269global maritime hub. Developed after a year of engagement with1270community and industry stakeholders as well as a navigation and safety1271risk assessment, the plan focuses on four priorities:1272      Modernize and Electrify: Replace three aging piers with1273two consolidated piers capable of hosting two 8,000-passenger ships and1274one 6,000-passenger vessel simultaneously. Implement full shore power1275and integrate renewable energy systems such as solar and thermal1276exchange cooling.1277      Enhance Public Access: Expand waterfront open space,1278improve pedestrian and bike connectivity, and activate the Hudson River1279waterfront as a year-round public realm.1280      Advance Environmental and Economic Goals: Reduce1281emissions, meet FEMA flood elevation standards, and strengthen New1282York's maritime economy while creating thousands of jobs and sustaining1283tourism growth.1284      Improve Transportation Efficiency: Relocate passenger1285loading and unloading off the West Side Highway to reduce congestion1286and conflicts with the Greenway and Route 9A.12871288    To realize this vision, the project will construct a consolidated1289passenger terminal and transportation hub, supported by a new electric1290substation capable of powering three berths, the terminal building,1291operational equipment, and harbor craft. It will also create a public1292plaza for waterfront access while accommodating the most modern cruise1293ships, preserving and expanding the industry's economic impact. To1294build the terminal and 1,125-foot-long piers with 350-foot mooring1295dolphins, WRDA deauthorization of 647 feet of the federal navigation1296channel is required.1297    Deauthorizing the portion of the federal navigation channel around1298the Manhattan Cruise Terminal enables the City to continue planning,1299designing, and permitting a project that roots the maritime industry's1300positive economic impact in New York City. Without deauthorization, the1301City will not be able to build a terminal that can accommodate the1302ships the cruise industry is building. Financing a project of this1303scale will be dependent on public-private partnerships ensuring the1304industry can invest in a terminal that meets its needs and the City can1305invest in a terminal whose infrastructure will last and serve the1306community for years to come. Without investment, the country risks1307losing the New York-based cruise industry, costing hundreds of millions1308in annual economic impact and thousands of jobs. Securing1309deauthorization in 2026 is therefore critical to avoid jeopardizing1310private investment and long-term planning for a project that has the1311potential to deliver enormous benefits to the community and the City at1312large.1313    Further supporting the continuity of modern waterfront1314infrastructure, NYCEDC's second request to deauthorize a portion of the1315Harlem River would unlock transformative infrastructure investments1316that connect people to the waterfront and drive long-term economic1317growth through a continuous greenway.1318    For nearly a decade, NYCEDC has worked closely with the NYC1319Department of Transportation and the NYC Department of Parks and1320Recreation to connect Manhattan Waterfront Greenway, a continuous 32-1321mile path for pedestrians and cyclists along the entire waterfront of1322Manhattan. This vision, first conceived in the 1990s, activates over13231,000 acres of continuous open space, larger than Central Park, keeping1324New York competitive with global waterfronts. Already, the Hudson River1325Greenway is the busiest bike path in the United States with nearly13267,000 users daily.1327    Today, over 85% of the Manhattan Waterfront Greenway is complete,1328but persistent gaps remain. The North Harlem gap is one of the most1329challenging, where limited waterfront land and the narrowness of the1330Harlem River in this section complicate greenway development.1331Deauthorizing just 80-feet wide and one mile long from the channel's1332western side would allow the City to advance the greenway's1333development. The proposed greenway structure would be an outboard1334facility up to 40-feet-wide and would be similar to the East Midtown1335Greenway, which NYCEDC completed in 2023.1336    This project is the product of extensive stakeholder engagement and1337a rigorous Navigational Safety Risk Assessment, ensuring no impact to1338maritime navigation or commerce. When complete, the North Harlem1339segment will connect residents to an inaccessible waterfront, add1340nearly 2,000 linear feet of walking and biking paths, and close one of1341the last gaps in a network decades in the making. More than a local1342improvement, this milestone will demonstrate America's ability to1343deliver transformative infrastructure: strengthening communities,1344catalyzing economic development, and reaffirming our commitment to1345public access.1346    The modernization of the Manhattan Cruise Terminal and the build1347out of the North Harlem Greenway are commitments to the City, region1348and country's economic vitality and community well-being. NYCEDC urges1349Congress to support this WRDA action and help secure the future of New1350York City's working waterfront.1351    Thank you for your consideration.13521353    Mr. Collins. As your written testimony has been made part1354of the record, the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral1355remarks to 5 minutes.1356    With that, Ms. Ufner, you are recognized for 5 minutes for1357your testimony.13581359  TESTIMONY OF JULIE A. UFNER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE1360OFFICER, NATIONAL WATERWAYS CONFERENCE, INC.; CHARLES CAMILLO,1361 EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, MIDWEST FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION;1362      BRYAN JONES, PRESIDENT, MID-ATLANTIC DIVISION, HNTB1363  CORPORATION; AND NOEL HACEGABA, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AND1364     INCOMING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PORT OF LONG BEACH,1365                           CALIFORNIA13661367  TESTIMONY OF JULIE A. UFNER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE1368          OFFICER, NATIONAL WATERWAYS CONFERENCE, INC.13691370    Ms. Ufner. Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Larsen, Ranking1371Member Wilson, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for1372the opportunity to testify today on priorities for the Water1373Resources Development Act of 2026.1374    My name is Julie Ufner, National Waterways Conference, and1375I am president and CEO. NWC is the only national organization1376that represents, under one umbrella, all U.S. Army Corps of1377Engineers Civil Works business lines, from navigation, flood1378control, water supply, hydropower, ecosystem restoration, and1379recreation, before Congress and the administration.1380    Many of our members work directly with the Corps across the1381entire Civil Works arena, and many of our members are non-1382Federal sponsors of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studies and1383projects. They are States, local, Tribal governments, as well1384as special purpose public districts, like ports, flood control,1385levee districts, water agencies. These sponsors share project1386costs and often assume long-term operation and maintenance1387responsibilities after the project is completed.1388    At its core, WRDA exists because there are many water1389resource challenges that are too complex and too costly for1390local communities to handle. WRDA relies on a partnership of1391the Congress, Corps, and non-Federal sponsors. Congress1392provides projects, sets policy, and appropriates Federal1393funding. The Corps provides technical expertise, conducts1394studies, develops guidance, and delivers projects. And non-1395Federal sponsors bring local funding, knowledge, and long-term1396responsibility. WRDA works best when all three are aligned.1397    This brings me to the first major theme we are hearing from1398our members, and that is communication; the importance of1399clear, consistent communication.1400    Sponsors continue to experience gaps in engagement during1401feasibility studies, project delivery, and permitting. In our1402experience, early communication often prevents issues that1403later become too costly or difficult to resolve.1404    Second, sponsors are concerned about keeping projects on1405track and within authorized estimates. Extended feasibility1406timelines, evolving design assumptions, and gaps between1407authorization and appropriation can compound over time.1408    For example, projects that are authorized may not be funded1409immediately, or may be funded incrementally over multiple1410appropriation cycles, during which costs rise even when scope1411doesn't change. This misalignment creates uncertainty for both1412the Federal and non-Federal partners.1413    Finally, non-Federal sponsors emphasize the importance of1414predictability in Corps reviews and decisions across all1415policies and programs. How and when determinations are made,1416including reviews, eligibility, real estate, and internal1417reviews, directly impact local planning, financial commitments,1418and the ability to move forward. Greater certainty equals more1419durable partnerships and better projects.1420    NWC is working through a member-driven process to develop1421specific recommendations for WRDA 2026. We do recognize that1422not every challenge requires legislation. Some issues may be1423more appropriately addressed through implementation, guidance,1424or congressional oversight.1425    In closing, I want to emphasize how important it is to our1426local communities that WRDA stay on a biennial basis.1427Predictability matters. When the project is consistent,1428communities benefit, partners can plan with confidence, and1429projects are better positioned to move from one WRDA cycle to1430another. Quite simply, WRDA is a partnership that works, and it1431benefits us all.1432    Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify, and I am1433happy to take any questions.1434    [Ms. Ufner's prepared statement follows:]14351436  Prepared Statement of Julie A. Ufner, President and Chief Executive1437              Officer, National Waterways Conference, Inc.1438    Thank you, Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson, and members1439of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on the ``Water1440Resources Development Act of 2026: Stakeholder Priorities.''1441    My name is Julie Ufner. I am President of the National Waterways1442Conference, Inc. (NWC). Prior to coming to NWC in 2019, I served as the1443Associate Legislative Director for Environment, Energy and Land Use at1444the National Association of Counties (NACo) for 17 years.1445    By way of an overview, my testimony addresses multiple policy and1446implementation issues relevant to the development of the Water1447Resources Development Act of 2026 (WRDA 2026), including but not1448limited to communication and coordination among Congress, the U.S. Army1449Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps), and non-Federal sponsors;1450challenges related to project delivery, cost growth, and timelines; and1451the importance of predictable, reliable investment across the full1452range of Corps mission areas. These issues reflect concerns raised by1453NWC members nationwide, and the testimony is organized by topic so1454readers may refer directly to sections of interest.1455    NWC appreciates the leadership of this Subcommittee and its long1456tradition of cooperation and collaboration in addressing the nation's1457water resources needs. On behalf of our members, we welcome the1458opportunity to share perspectives that may be helpful as Congress1459considers WRDA 2026.1460    While this testimony outlines a range of member-identified issues,1461NWC is currently engaged in a member-driven process to develop formal1462WRDA policy recommendations. We appreciate the Committee's openness to1463exploring both legislative and non-legislative options to ensure the1464Civil Works program continues to deliver effectively across Corps1465mission areas and across the country, and we look forward to continued1466engagement as that process moves forward.1467                               About NWC1468    Established in 1960, NWC is the only national organization to1469advocate in favor of national policy and laws that recognize the vital1470importance of America's water resources infrastructure to our nation's1471well-being and quality of life. Supporting a sound balance between1472economic and human needs and environmental and ecological1473considerations, our mission is to effect common sense policies and1474programs, recognizing the public value of our nation's water resources1475and their contribution to public safety, a competitive economy,1476national security, environmental quality and energy conservation.1477    NWC membership is comprised of the full spectrum of water and1478waterways resource infrastructure stakeholders, including port1479authorities, flood control associations, levee boards, water supply1480districts, waterways shippers and carriers, national and regional1481associations, port authorities, agriculture, dredging contractors,1482hydropower producers, engineering consultants and state and local1483governments. We proudly say we represent all of the Corps Civil Works1484business lines. Many of our members are non-Federal sponsors of Corps1485Civil Works projects, and responsible for significant financial1486commitments for the construction and maintenance of these projects. We1487work diligently and collaboratively with our Federal partners to ensure1488the nation can reap the multiple benefits provided by these1489investments. To that end, our membership is keenly interested in the1490enactment of comprehensive water resources legislation, and we look1491forward to working with the Committee as it moves forward in this1492process.1493    In support of that collaborative partnership, NWC maintains a1494Memorandum of Understanding with the Corps that establishes a framework1495for engagement, information exchange, and coordination, and recognizes1496the respective roles and responsibilities of each organization in1497advancing the Corps Civil Works program and related water resources1498infrastructure activities.1499                            Why WRDA Matters1500    WRDA is the statute through which Congress authorizes the Civil1501Works missions of the Corps. It establishes the authorities for1502studies, projects, and policy updates that support navigation, flood1503risk management, ecosystem restoration, water supply, hydropower, and1504recreation. WRDA provides the authority, and the annual Energy and1505Water Appropriations Acts provides the funding. Both are required for1506work to advance.1507    WRDA ensures that the nation's water resources infrastructure keeps1508pace with changing economic, environmental, and community needs. Ports1509depend on navigation reliability. Communities depend on levee and flood1510control programs that protect lives and property. States and local1511governments rely on clear authorities for water supply, restoration,1512and coastal protection. Without a regular WRDA, planning becomes1513uncertain, project delivery slows, and communities face greater risks1514and higher costs.1515    WRDA also connects Federal policy with local reality. Communities1516and the Corps work together to identify risks, develop solutions, and1517ensure that projects reflect both national purpose and local needs.1518WRDA gives Congress the opportunity to review and authorize this work1519in a transparent and deliberative way.1520    We appreciate the committee's leadership in maintaining a1521dependable two-year WRDA cycle. Since the Water Resources Reform and1522Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014), this consistency has allowed1523partners to plan budgets, advance feasibility studies, make informed1524business decisions, and respond to emerging risks with greater1525confidence. A missed WRDA cycle delays new authorizations, increases1526cost escalation, and undermines navigation and flood risk management1527decisions that depend on timely Federal action. The nation is better1528served when WRDA remains regular, reliable, and aligned with community1529needs.1530       Who Non-Federal Sponsors Are and How the Partnership Works1531    Non-Federal sponsors are generally state, local, or tribal1532governments, as well as special districts that function as extensions1533of state or local government and are funded directly by the communities1534they serve. Special districts are established under state law, governed1535by public boards, and carry out responsibilities delegated by the1536state. Examples include port authorities, levee districts, and water1537and flood control districts, along with regional agencies that manage1538navigation, water supply, or flood protection. Together, these1539governmental entities bring statutory authority, local funding, and1540long-term stewardship to the WRDA partnership.1541    Most Corps projects require a shared investment between the Federal1542government and non-Federal sponsors. Sponsors contribute funding,1543acquire and provide real estate, coordinate locally, and assume long1544term operation and maintenance responsibilities once construction is1545complete. These commitments ensure that Federally authorized projects1546reflect both national purpose and community needs, and they also1547represent substantial public investments at the state and local levels.1548    Non-Federal sponsors work closely with the Corps before1549construction ever begins. They help define risks, supply essential1550data, shape feasibility studies, and determine whether solutions are1551appropriate for consideration in WRDA. They also coordinate with their1552Congressional delegations to ensure that WRDA proposals align with1553local priorities and national objectives. This early and continuous1554engagement is central to ensuring that projects are technically sound,1555economically justified, environmentally responsible, and grounded in1556the realities of the communities that will carry them forward.1557    The WRDA process depends on this partnership. When Congress, the1558Corps, and non-Federal sponsors communicate clearly, consistently, and1559freely, projects advance more efficiently and with greater certainty.1560This alignment helps keep Federal water resources policy responsive,1561balanced, and connected to the communities responsible for long term1562implementation.1563   The WRDA Partnership Model and Why It Works When All Three Points1564                              Communicate1565    WRDA is built on a partnership among Congress, the Corps, and non-1566Federal sponsors. Each carries responsibilities that are distinct but1567interdependent, and the effectiveness of the WRDA process depends on1568open communication among all three. Congress provides the authorities1569for studies and projects, establishes national policy direction, and1570conducts oversight of how Civil Works missions are carried out. The1571Corps provides the technical foundation for these decisions, evaluating1572feasibility, engineering, environmental considerations, and economic1573justification. Non-Federal sponsors provide the local context, cost-1574sharing, and long-term stewardship that allow authorized projects to1575move from planning to construction and operation.1576    This model works because each partner depends on the others to1577supply information that only they can provide. Congressional staff rely1578on the Corps for accurate technical details, and on non-Federal1579sponsors for the community perspective that informs whether a potential1580WRDA provision is workable or needed. The Corps relies on sponsors to1581identify risks, provide local data, and carry out responsibilities that1582cannot be fulfilled at the Federal level. Sponsors, in turn, rely on1583both Congress and the Corps for clear authorities, transparent1584processes, and predictable guidance so they can plan budgets, acquire1585real estate, coordinate utilities, and meet their contractual and long-1586term obligations.1587    When these channels of communication function as intended, the WRDA1588process produces projects and policies that are technically sound and1589grounded in community needs. Studies advance more efficiently, project1590delivery is more predictable, and communities can plan responsibly for1591long term investment. When communication is restricted, delayed, or1592inconsistent, key information may not reach Congress, sponsors cannot1593plan effectively, and the alignment that WRDA depends on becomes1594strained. Uncertainty increases, timelines slip, and the quality of1595potential WRDA submissions may suffer because partners lack access to1596the information needed to shape proposals.1597    Maintaining consistent and open communication among Congress, the1598Corps, and non-Federal sponsors is therefore essential. It ensures that1599Federal water resources policy reflects both national priorities and1600the realities on the ground, and it preserves the integrity of a1601partnership model that has supported infrastructure, navigation, flood1602protection, and ecosystem restoration efforts for decades.1603  Challenges Identified by Non-Federal Sponsors in Preparing for WRDA1604                                  20261605    As Congress prepares for WRDA 2026, NWC has been gathering input1606from non-Federal sponsors across every region of the country. These1607sponsors include state and local governments, levee districts, water1608agencies, navigation districts, and port authorities who partner1609directly with the Corps to plan, fund, and deliver Federally authorized1610water resources projects. Their experience provides an essential1611perspective on how Federal policies and implementation practices affect1612the ability of communities to participate in and benefit from the WRDA1613process.1614    The purpose of this section is to share the challenges that non-1615Federal sponsors are currently encountering as they work with the Corps1616to advance feasibility studies, navigate real estate requirements,1617comply with program rules, and deliver authorized projects. Some of1618these challenges arise from long-standing policies that predate recent1619WRDA reforms. Others relate to newer provisions in WRDA 2024 that are1620still awaiting implementation by the Assistant Secretary of the Army1621for Civil Works (ASACW). In still other cases, sponsors are responding1622to evolving Federal practices or administrative directives that are1623creating uncertainty in planning and project delivery.1624    Not every issue highlighted here will require legislation. Some may1625be addressed through implementation guidance, administrative actions,1626or focused Congressional oversight. However, each issue represents a1627real-world barrier encountered by the partners who carry significant1628financial responsibility and legal obligations under Federally1629authorized projects. The WRDA partnership model depends on1630transparency, predictability, and shared understanding among Congress,1631the Corps, and non-Federal sponsors. Identifying these challenges early1632in the WRDA 2026 process helps ensure that all three points of the1633partnership can work together to maintain a responsive and effective1634national water resources program.16351. Minimum Necessary Real Estate Interests and LERRDs Practices1636    Non-Federal sponsors must provide land, easements, rights-of-way,1637relocations, and disposal areas for Corps projects, collectively known1638as ``LERRDs.'' These requirements are governed by long-standing USACE1639real estate regulations and standard estates, many of which predate1640recent WRDA reforms. Sponsors have repeatedly expressed concern that1641these requirements often mandate fee title or perpetual easements even1642when a lesser estate would fully support project construction, access,1643and long-term function.1644    In WRDA 2024, Congress included a provision (Section 1104)1645directing the Corps to obtain only the minimum real estate interest1646necessary for a project. The ASACW identified this provision as1647requiring policy development before it can be implemented--the guidance1648has not been issued yet. Until it is released, districts must continue1649relying on existing requirements, including templates that often1650require more expansive or permanent interests than a project may truly1651need. Implementing this section should be fairly straightforward for1652the Corps, as it is noted that the Corps has already required, in its1653own guidance, that minimum interests in real property necessary to1654support various types of projects be identified, and that if a non-1655standard estate or real estate policy deviation is needed, it needs to1656be coordinated with the Corps division and headquarters Real Estate1657offices, with the aim of ensuring that the justification is sound, the1658proposed action is within the law, and project authority will serve the1659project's purposes. (See, e.g., USACE, Real Estate Policy Guidance1660Letter No. 31--Real Estate Support to Civil Works Planning.)1661    As a result, non-Federal sponsors remain concerned about higher1662acquisition costs, reduced landowner cooperation, and delays associated1663with larger or more burdensome real estate requirements. Some districts1664also prohibit real estate acquisitions until late-stage design, which1665compresses schedules and increases local risk. Sponsors stress that1666these challenges will persist until the WRDA 2024 provision is1667implemented.1668            NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:1669      WRDA 2024's minimum interest provision has not yet been1670implemented, and Corps districts continue to require fee title or1671perpetual easements where lesser interests may be sufficient.1672      Larger-than-necessary easements raise costs and reduce1673landowner participation.1674      Some districts delay authorization for acquisition until1675late-stage design.1676      Continuing variation in real estate practices across1677districts.16781679    Members request stronger alignment between WRDA 2024 and district1680practice, including:1681      Clear guidance reinforcing the use of easements when they1682provide adequate access and long-term project performance, with fee1683title reserved for cases where it is truly necessary.1684      Flexibility for sponsors to select nonperpetual or1685smaller area easements for time limited projects such as beach1686renourishment.1687      Reconsideration of district policies that categorically1688require fee title for dredged material placement sites.1689      Updated crediting approaches for very large or Mega1690Projects, including valuation of land at the time of real estate1691certification for each construction package, within defined criteria.16922. Streambank Stabilization and Restoration Easements1693    Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act authorizes small projects1694to stabilize streambanks and protect infrastructure such as roads,1695bridges, utilities, and agricultural lands. Many non-Federal sponsors1696rely on this authority because it allows rapid, targeted intervention1697at locations vulnerable to erosion. Sponsors report, however, that1698current real estate requirements for certain stream or habitat1699restoration projects may require fee title above the ordinary high-1700water mark even when a stabilization or conservation easement would1701support long-term project access and durability.1702    This creates obstacles for projects in rural, agricultural, or1703privately owned corridors where landowners are unwilling to convey full1704ownership. Sponsors emphasize that streambank stabilization often1705succeeds when landowners trust that the government will take only what1706is necessary. Requirements that exceed project needs can discourage1707participation, raise costs, and delay projects intended to prevent1708infrastructure failure.1709            NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:1710      Fee title required above the ordinary high-water mark1711even for limited stabilization features.1712      Higher acquisition costs and reduced landowner1713willingness to participate in projects.1714      Delays that increase erosion risk or force local1715governments and special districts to self-fund interim measures.1716      A need to clarify when habitat or restoration components1717do and do not trigger different real estate interest requirements above1718the ordinary high-water mark.1719      Encourage use of stabilization or conservation easements1720as the default interest unless a documented engineering need requires1721fee title.1722      Allow sponsors to propose corridor tailored easement1723templates for multi-landowner reaches where fee title is impractical.1724      Provide flexibility for phased real estate acquisition in1725areas with accelerating erosion so sponsors are not delayed by late-1726stage design requirements.1727      Improve coordination between real estate and engineering1728teams to ensure real estate requirements match the project's actual1729stabilization footprint.1730      Encourage alignment between Corps real estate1731requirements and existing state conservation or agricultural easement1732programs.1733      Allow the Corps to accept pre-existing easements or state1734held interests when they offer equivalent access and long term1735protection needed for project maintenance.17363. Section 408 Review Requirements and Delays1737    Section 408 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires Corps1738approval before any entity alters or affects Federal Civil Works1739infrastructure. This applies not only to large projects but also to1740local improvements such as bridge replacements, levee tie-ins,1741municipal utility crossings, and highway construction. Non-Federal1742sponsors acknowledge the importance of protecting Federal assets but1743report significant variation across districts in how Section 408 is1744applied and how long reviews take.1745    Because sponsors must coordinate 408 approvals with local1746contracting, state permitting, and regulatory deadlines, inconsistent1747or prolonged reviews create cost and schedule risks. Some sponsors1748report uncertainty about whether 408 applies when a Federal project has1749been deauthorized or substantially modified, or how fees and cost1750recovery are calculated. These uncertainties complicate planning and1751can delay essential local improvements.1752    WRDA 2024 Section 1105 (Section 408 Program Review Process)1753addresses Section 408. It aims to standardize and streamline the review1754process by directing USACE to establish clear, concise, and specific1755guidance to ensure consistency across districts; provide pre-1756application meetings upon request by non-Federal entities to discuss1757design standards, recommend design package submissions, and identify1758potential conflicts and authorize use of contributed funds. However,1759this provision has not yet been implemented.1760    Additionally, WRDA 2024 Section 1244(c) requires the Government1761Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a thorough review of the Section1762408 program. GAO is beginning this study. Separately, USACE has1763undertaken rulemaking on Section 408; a proposed rule was issued and1764comments received, but a final rule has not been released.1765            NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:1766      Major variation in Section 408 expectations across1767districts; 408 reviews continue to be a major source of delay and1768inconsistency for many NWC members.1769      A need for clear, concise, and specific guidelines on1770when and how Section 408 applies, to ensure consistency across1771districts.1772      A need to clarify whether, when, and how Section 4081773applies after project deauthorization or modification, or to legacy1774footprints.1775      Unpredictable timelines that disrupt local contracting.1776      Uncertainty about applicable fees or cost recovery1777procedures.1778      Consider whether non-Federal sponsors could play a1779greater role in 408 reviews, for example, whether a certified engineer1780could perform a 408-certified analysis on behalf of the non-Federal1781sponsor, under USACE standards, to improve timeliness while maintaining1782safety.17834. P.L. 84-99 Emergency Levee Repair and Dual Levee Systems1784    P.L. 84-99 authorizes the Corps to provide emergency assistance for1785the repair and rehabilitation of eligible levees and flood control1786works following floods and coastal storms. For non-Federal sponsors,1787this program is a core Federal safety net that helps restore damaged1788infrastructure quickly, reducing local financial burdens and1789maintaining protection for communities, agriculture, and critical1790infrastructure.1791    Established in 1976, the P.L. 84-99 Rehabilitation and Inspection1792Program has operated for nearly 50 years with a clear emergency1793response purpose: to repair flood-damaged levees as efficiently as1794possible so communities are not left exposed for extended periods of1795time.1796    In recent years, NWC members report that the program has1797increasingly shifted away from its Congressionally intended emergency1798response mission and toward a more prospective planning and compliance1799framework. Sponsors describe heightened documentation demands, expanded1800eligibility reviews, stricter expectations related to systemwide1801improvement frameworks, and longer pre-approval processes before1802repairs can begin. NWC has consistently stressed the need to keep P.L.180384-99 aligned with its original purpose and to avoid layering on1804requirements that Congress did not authorize.1805    Rather than focusing on rapid rehabilitation after flood events,1806districts are increasingly applying requirements more typical of long-1807term construction programs. As a result, sponsors report that it can1808take 2 to 3 flood seasons to complete repairs that were intended to be1809addressed on an emergency basis.1810    For communities with limited budgets and narrow construction1811windows, these delays increase financial risk, prolong exposure to1812flood hazards, and raise local costs. Sponsors also report uncertainty1813regarding reimbursement timing and whether emergency or interim repairs1814can be undertaken with confidence while awaiting Federal action.1815    One example of how eligibility has been narrowed through policy1816rather than statute involves dual levee configurations. In some river1817systems, non-Federal sponsors design flood protection using two levees1818based on topography, existing land uses, or the need to protect1819critical infrastructure, agricultural assets, or developed areas.1820    Under current P.L. 84-99 policy, when a Federally constructed levee1821is located landward of a non-Federal levee, the Federal levee is1822designated as the primary levee. The non-Federal levee is designated as1823secondary unless it is the levee that directly protects life safety.1824Once designated as secondary, the non-Federal levee loses eligibility1825for P.L. 84-99 rehabilitation assistance.1826    NWC members report that this policy can discourage appropriate dual1827levee designs and create inequities for sponsors that construct and1828maintain levees to Corps standards but are excluded from emergency1829assistance solely because of system configuration. Significant1830commercial, agricultural, and residential investments may rely on the1831outer or non-Federal levee, yet that levee may remain ineligible for1832rehabilitation assistance following flood damage.1833    This approach undermines local flood risk management strategies and1834leaves communities exposed during future flood seasons despite1835substantial local investment in flood protection infrastructure.1836    WRDA 2024 included Section 1146 (Systemwide improvement framework1837and encroachments), which addresses the P.L. 84-99 program. Among other1838changes, this provision amends the program to establish criteria for1839non-Federal interests to remain eligible for repair and rehabilitation1840assistance for levee systems under a systemwide improvement framework.1841This provision has not yet been implemented.1842    In the meantime, sponsors report uncertainty about whether1843districts are accepting new P.L. 84-99 submissions or whether1844additional requirements may apply. Several districts appear to be in a1845transitional posture as program guidance evolves following the recent1846WRDA provisions and internal policy reviews. In some cases, sponsors1847have been told informally that additional documentation may be required1848or that reviews may take longer, even though no formal changes have1849been made.1850    This variation across districts leaves sponsors unsure how their1851requests will be evaluated or what timelines to expect, making it1852difficult for sponsors to plan for upcoming flood seasons or initiate1853repairs with confidence while district-level expectations remain in1854flux.1855            NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:1856      The Corps' shift of the P.L. 84-99 program away from its1857Congressionally intended emergency response focus towards a more1858prospective planning and compliance framework.1859      Short windows of time to use funds and persistent1860problems with timely delivery for repair projects.1861      Longer and slower review processes delaying essential1862repairs.1863      Expanded documentation requirements not specified in1864statute.1865      Unpredictable and slow reimbursement timelines.1866      Difficulty performing sponsor-led interim repairs with1867confidence in reimbursement.1868      Loss of eligibility based on system configuration rather1869than function or condition.1870      Inconsistent district-level expectations and uncertainty1871about eligibility as guidance continues to evolve.1872      A need to establish a longer window and clearer process1873for using P.L. 84-99 funds, faster contracting authority, and more1874opportunities for non-Federal sponsor-led implementation of repairs.1875      A need to solve the problem of communities either1876operating damaged facilities or self-funding repairs without certainty1877of reimbursement, by allowing a waiver or exemption for non-Federal1878sponsors, in circumstances where disaster funding is delayed, to ensure1879rehabilitation reimbursement for repairs undertaken in good faith while1880waiting for Federal approval.18815. Section 902 Cost Limits and Construction Pauses1882    Section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 19861883establishes the maximum allowable total cost for a Corps project. This1884is commonly referred to as the Section 902 limit. It serves as a1885statutory cap that prevents the Corps from obligating or expending1886funds on a project once total costs exceed a defined threshold.1887Congress intended Section 902 to promote fiscal discipline and ensure1888that major Federal investments do not move forward without updated1889Congressional approval when costs rise significantly.1890    The Section 902 limit is based on several factors, including the1891authorized project cost, inflation adjustments, and certain cost1892estimate updates. Although the calculation framework appears1893straightforward, it has become increasingly difficult to manage in1894practice. Projects now experience long timelines between feasibility,1895authorization, and construction. Inflation, supply chain conditions,1896labor costs, environmental compliance requirements, and evolving1897engineering data can all push project costs upward over time. Even when1898non-Federal sponsors maintain strong controls on their side, external1899factors can increase the total project cost and place the project near1900or over the 902 limit.1901    When a project approaches or exceeds its Section 902 limit, USACE1902cannot award contracts or continue progressing major elements of work.1903The Corps must prepare a Post-Authorization Change Report (PACR),1904secure approval from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil1905Works, and ultimately obtain a new Congressional authorization. This1906process can take years. In the meantime, contractors reprice bids,1907schedules slip, and communities wait for projects that have already1908demonstrated Federal interest and national benefit.1909    These delays directly affect non-Federal sponsors. Local1910governments, state agencies, and special districts often have legal1911obligations, real estate commitments, and community expectations that1912continue regardless of pauses in the Federal share. Project1913interruptions can disrupt local planning cycles, complicate financial1914commitments, and create uncertainty for industry partners and1915residents. These challenges occur with navigation, flood risk1916management, coastal resilience, ecosystem restoration, and water supply1917projects.1918    NWC members report that Section 902 is particularly difficult for1919smaller projects under approximately $50 million. Smaller projects tend1920to have tight cost margins, and even moderate price adjustments can1921bring them close to or above the statutory cap. When this happens, work1922must pause until Congress provides new authority. For non-Federal1923sponsors, a project that was intended to move quickly can stall for a1924year or longer, despite the availability of the local cost-share and1925clear operational need. These smaller investments often support1926regional and rural economies. Delays can cause missed construction1927windows, disrupt dredging schedules, and undermine the reliability of1928the water resources infrastructure system.1929    The underlying issue is not a conflict with the Section 902 goal of1930fiscal discipline. Rather, the challenge is ensuring that necessary1931infrastructure projects do not become stuck due to statutory caps that1932may not reflect current economic conditions or real-world project1933timelines. The question for Congress is whether targeted updates could1934help the Corps and non-Federal sponsors manage risk more effectively1935while preserving Congressional oversight. Flexibility for inflation,1936improved tools for phased or incremental delivery, or clearer processes1937for smaller projects could help maintain accountability without slowing1938delivery of nationally significant infrastructure.1939            NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:1940      Concerns about project delivery delays tied to Corps1941processes that halt or slow construction.1942      Rising project costs and uncertainty created by1943inflation, supply chain pressures, and changing Federal requirements.1944      Challenges with inconsistent application of Corps1945policies across districts, leading to unclear expectations for planning1946and budgeting.1947      The need for greater predictability in Corps timelines,1948decision points, and Federal approvals.1949      Frustration when local cost-share obligations continue1950while Federal progress stalls.1951      Concern that long pauses in Corps processes undermine1952local planning cycles, public expectations, and financing.1953      Strong interest in ensuring that all project categories,1954including small navigation and flood risk reduction projects, maintain1955steady progress once authorized.1956      Difficulty aligning local budgets with Federal pauses or1957reauthorizations, especially when sponsors have contractual or legal1958obligations they cannot delay.1959      A need for expedited contributed-funds authority for1960small projects; consider increasing allowable contract award1961flexibility by raising the Section 902 limit variance, or allowing non-1962Federal sponsors to pre-authorize contributed funds within the PPA,1963with USACE concurrence, so contracts can be awarded when bids come in1964slightly above the 902 limit without waiting for new legislation.19656. Recognizing and Advancing Multi-Use Benefits in Corps Projects1966    Many Corps Civil Works projects provide benefits that extend well1967beyond the single business line under which they are authorized or1968evaluated. For non-Federal sponsors, these multi-use benefits are often1969essential to securing local financing, building public support,1970achieving resilience goals, and meeting state and regional1971requirements. However, Federal policy and Corps planning guidance do1972not always fully recognize or capture these broader benefits, which can1973complicate project justification, funding eligibility, and long-term1974implementation.1975    Non-Federal sponsors increasingly propose and design projects that1976address multiple regional needs at once, such as reducing flood risk1977while restoring habitat, improving water quality, enhancing recreation,1978or supporting navigation reliability. Local sponsors may also invest1979their own funds to incorporate multi-use features that provide social,1980environmental, and economic value to their communities. When Federal1981evaluation processes narrowly categorize benefits under a single Corps1982mission area, it can understate the full value of a project and create1983obstacles to Federal participation.1984    This issue has gained visibility across multiple WRDA cycles.1985Project sponsors have consistently highlighted the practical1986challenges. For example, multi-benefit flood risk reduction projects1987often deliver measurable environmental, recreational, and water1988management outcomes that are not fully reflected in a traditional1989single-purpose benefit cost analysis. As a result, sponsors face1990difficulties advancing solutions that align with both local priorities1991and modern resilience needs.1992    Non-Federal sponsors emphasize that the Corps' current evaluation1993framework may not fully capture:1994      The ecosystem and water quality benefits embedded in1995flood risk reduction and stream restoration projects.1996      The groundwater recharge and habitat outcomes associated1997with levee setback projects.1998      The economic and community benefits of recreation1999facilities that accompany ecosystem or resiliency improvements.2000      The navigation-reliability benefits associated with2001nature-based features that also provide habitat or erosion reduction.2002      The climate adaptation value of projects designed to2003provide overlapping protections across multiple risk categories.20042005    Sponsors note that when multi-use benefits are not recognized or2006counted, projects may appear less cost-effective at the Federal level2007even though they deliver significant regional and national value. This2008can limit the use of innovative solutions, discourage integrated2009project designs, and reduce the ability of sponsors to pursue the most2010resilient and sustainable approaches.2011    Non-Federal sponsors believe this issue is especially important as2012communities face increasing climate-related hazards, aging water2013infrastructure, and pressures to maximize the value of public2014investments. Multi-use solutions often represent the most efficient way2015to meet overlapping community needs, and improved recognition of these2016benefits would better align Corps practices with modern integrated2017water management.2018            NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:2019      Narrow benefit classification that does not reflect the2020full set of outcomes a project provides.2021      Difficulties justifying multi-benefit project features2022when benefits fall outside the Corps' primary mission area for the2023study.2024      Challenges aligning Corps planning criteria with state2025and local requirements for integrated water management.2026      Limited flexibility in incorporating sponsor-funded2027enhancements that improve resilience or environmental performance.2028      Risks that multi-use features may not receive Federal2029credit or may complicate the approval process.2030      A need to recognize and advance multi-use benefits in the2031evaluation and implementation of Corps projects.20327. Cost Overruns and Delays and Design Maturity Expectations2033    Non-Federal sponsors are experiencing growing delays, rising costs,2034and significant uncertainty due to evolving expectations about design2035maturity at the feasibility stage.2036    NWC shares Congress's and the Corps' goal of delivering authorized2037water resources projects efficiently, predictably, and in a manner that2038reflects responsible stewardship of Federal and local resources. Our2039members recognize the complexity of the Civil Works program and the2040constraints under which both Congress and the Corps operate.2041    Cost growth and schedule delays across the Civil Works portfolio2042are not confined to the construction phase. In many cases, these2043challenges begin earlier, during feasibility studies and the transition2044from study to design, and compound over time as projects move through2045authorization and funding.2046    Non-Federal sponsors care deeply about this issue because they are2047full partners throughout the project lifecycle. Sponsors include2048states, local governments, tribal governments, and special purpose2049public entities established under state law, such as flood control2050districts, port authorities, water districts, levee districts, and2051similar public agencies. Many of these special purpose districts2052function as extensions of state or local government and are funded2053directly by the communities they serve.2054    Non-Federal sponsors share costs during feasibility studies,2055design, and construction and assume responsibility for long-term2056operation and maintenance once projects are completed. These entities2057often operate within fixed or voter-approved revenue structures and2058must plan and budget years in advance based on anticipated scopes,2059schedules, and cost estimates. When studies extend, design assumptions2060change, or timelines shift, the financial and planning impacts are felt2061immediately at the local level.2062    The Corps has taken meaningful steps to address cost growth and2063schedule risk, including reassessing how much design detail is2064completed earlier in the process. The recently adopted 35 percent2065design standard reflects a good-faith effort by Corps leadership to2066improve cost certainty and reduce downstream risk. At this time, NWC is2067not taking a position on the 35 percent design standard and believes2068additional discussion with the Corps and non-Federal sponsors is2069warranted.2070    Members have raised concerns, however, about how the 35 percent2071design standard fits within existing feasibility study and project2072delivery frameworks. In particular, sponsors have noted uncertainty2073about how design expectations at the feasibility stage interact with2074schedule targets and cost assumptions under the 3x3x3 framework, as2075well as how this approach would align with the 5x5x3 authority included2076in the Water Resources Development Act of 2024, which has not yet been2077implemented. Additional guidance on how these elements are intended to2078work together would support more consistent application and clearer2079expectations.2080    Regardless of whether projects proceed under 3x3x3 or a future20815x5x3 framework, non-Federal sponsors remain concerned that the2082fundamental drivers of cost overruns and delays persist. These2083challenges stem from the cumulative effects of extended feasibility2084studies, evolving design assumptions, gaps between authorization and2085appropriation, and incremental funding over multiple years.2086    In many cases, Chief's Reports are authorized years before2087construction funding becomes available. During this period, inflation,2088labor and materials pricing, real estate requirements, and staffing2089costs continue to rise. Over the past five years, these increases have2090been substantial, meaning that cost estimates developed during2091feasibility or early design frequently no longer reflect construction2092realities by the time funding is available.2093    Once projects enter construction, incremental appropriations2094further extend schedules and compound cost growth. While these funding2095practices reflect broader budget constraints and competing national2096priorities, they directly affect both Federal and non-Federal partners2097and limit the ability of sponsors to plan with certainty.2098    NWC recognizes that the feasibility, authorization, and2099appropriations processes each serve important and distinct purposes,2100and we do not suggest that any single element is flawed in isolation.2101However, when these phases operate on disconnected timelines, cost2102growth and schedule delays become systemic rather than exceptional,2103regardless of design standards or delivery frameworks.2104    In that spirit, NWC has reached out to the Corps to request a2105partnership discussion with non-Federal sponsors focused on2106feasibility, design, funding alignment, and cost growth. Our members2107want to be part of the solution and bring practical, real-world project2108delivery experience. NWC believes continued collaboration among2109Congress, the Corps, and non-Federal sponsors is essential to improving2110outcomes while preserving the integrity of the Civil Works program.2111            NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:2112      Applying a 35 percent design standard across the board2113may present challenges for larger, more complex, or phased projects,2114where design progression and risks evolve over time.2115      There is an inherent balance that must be struck between2116keeping feasibility studies streamlined and affordable while also2117advancing sufficient design detail to support authorization decisions.2118      Some sponsors have indicated that expectations for design2119detail during feasibility may, in certain cases, exceed what can be2120supported within available feasibility study funding.2121      One size does not fit all for project cost estimating2122because projects differ widely in scope, uncertainty, complexity,2123schedule, and institutional context.2124      The disconnect between authorization and appropriation2125means that even a refined estimate at authorization can become outdated2126if a project waits multiple fiscal years for construction funding.2127      Members worry that the current approach drives risk-2128averse cost estimating and higher contingencies without truly reducing2129cost risk and may make it impractical to bring large projects forward2130for authorization.2131      For some sponsors, the additional design work required2132upfront may increase non-Federal costs that cannot be recouped if the2133project does not ultimately receive appropriation.2134      Sponsors also seek clarity on how 35 percent design2135maturity will interact with the statutory 5x5x3 framework, once2136implemented, and what flexibilities may exist for projects where the2137required level of design cannot be reasonably achieved within2138feasibility constraints.2139      They also need clarity on what flexibilities may exist2140for projects where the required level of design maturity cannot be2141reasonably achieved within feasibility constraints, and how these2142expectations will be applied consistently across Corps districts.2143      A need for clarity on what flexibilities may exist for2144projects where the required level of design maturity cannot be2145reasonably achieved within feasibility constraints, and how these2146expectations will be applied consistently across Corps districts.2147      A need to consider the differences between uncertainty2148(how well we know internal and external factors) and complexity (size,2149time horizon, number and interactions of elements) and how these2150factors can affect the determination of project costs.2151      Whether a tiered design-maturity framework should be2152considered that differentiates small, moderate, and large or phased2153projects.21548. Non-Federal Delivery Tools and Corps Governance2155    For decades, Congress has provided a set of authorities that allows2156non-Federal sponsors to participate more directly in delivering water2157resources projects, when doing so can save time, reduce cost, or2158accelerate public benefits. These include Section 203 feasibility2159studies, Section 204 construction projects, Section 1043(b) project2160implementation pilots, and other authorities such as Section 211. Each2161was created to recognize that many local partners have technical2162capacity, local knowledge, and capital resources that can be mobilized2163more quickly than the Federal process allows. The core concept behind2164these tools is partnership. When structured well, they give non-Federal2165sponsors flexibility to advance work within the parameters of Federal2166law while preserving the Federal interest, safety standards, and2167environmental compliance.2168    However, the implementation of these authorities often falls short2169of Congressional intent. Non-Federal sponsors report that the delivery2170tools do not function as intended because of internal Corps governance2171practices that add layers of review, introduce procedural uncertainty,2172and delay decision-making. Although Congress designed these authorities2173to decentralize and streamline delivery, in practice the Corps applies2174many of the same planning, policy, and technical review requirements2175that apply to Federally executed projects. This can make alternative2176delivery functionally indistinguishable from the traditional Corps2177process, erasing the benefits Congress intended.2178    A central part of the challenge relates to the Corps' internal2179governance structure. The agency operates through a hierarchy that2180flows from headquarters to divisions to districts. While this structure2181supports national consistency, it can create bottlenecks when decision2182authority is not delegated to the level closest to the work. Many non-2183Federal sponsors report that districts are willing to make decisions or2184approve work, but divisions require extensive policy reviews, iterative2185resubmittals, or elevate decisions to headquarters. In some cases, even2186routine approvals must move through multiple layers, adding months or2187years to schedules. When this occurs, the non-Federal delivery tools2188established by Congress cannot be used efficiently because sponsors are2189still subject to lengthy Federal internal processes that were never2190designed for decentralized delivery.2191    This situation creates several practical problems for non-Federal2192sponsors. First, uncertainty in approval timelines makes it difficult2193to plan financing, maintain contractor availability, or coordinate with2194state and local permitting processes. Second, Federal review delays can2195increase project costs and jeopardize the ability of local governments2196to meet their cost share obligations. Third, each district and division2197may interpret Congressional authorities differently, creating regional2198inconsistencies that complicate long-term planning and create2199inequities among project sponsors. Fourth, when internal Corps reviews2200extend for months or years, the benefit of alternative delivery is lost2201entirely, making it more difficult for communities to address urgent2202flood, navigation, ecosystem, or water supply needs.2203    Finally, the absence of a clear path for timely policy decisions is2204a recurring barrier. Non-Federal sponsors report that unresolved legal2205or policy questions can sit for years without clear guidance or2206elevation. Without a predictable way to resolve these issues, sponsors2207cannot proceed with design, right-of-way acquisition, or contracting.2208As a result, Congressional intent to encourage non-Federal initiatives2209and shorten delivery timelines remains largely unrealized.2210            NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:2211      Lengthy Corps district and division reviews slow sponsor-2212led progress.2213      Policy questions not elevated promptly by districts for2214resolution.2215      Challenges using Section 203, 204, and Section 1043(b)2216effectively.2217      Sponsors facing uncertainty, despite Congressional intent2218to streamline delivery.2219      A need for an output-based delivery approach, where2220sponsors commit to deliver defined outputs and USACE limits its review2221to life safety, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and2222authorization compliance.2223      A need to allow sponsors to begin acquiring rights-of-way2224at the design maturity level they are comfortable with, with USACE2225crediting only those interests actually needed for the project; and for2226audit-based approaches for real estate acquisitions, focusing USACE2227review on a sample of transactions and ensuring systems are in place2228for tracking and access.2229      A need for more efficient decision-making and review,2230including setting timelines for division decisions and allowing waivers2231to bypass division review in specified circumstances.2232      A need to clarify and, where necessary, strengthen2233authorities like Sections 203, 204, and 1043(b), and improve work-in-2234kind and contributed-funds policies so sponsors can advance work when2235Federal appropriations are uncertain.2236      A need for PACR reform, including developing a faster,2237more focused mechanism to handle cost and scope changes, targeting2238decision timelines of months rather than years.22399. Project Partnership Agreements and Permitting Requirements2240    A Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) is the core legal contract2241between the Corps and a non-Federal sponsor that establishes the cost2242share, assigns responsibilities, and incorporates the Federal laws and2243policies that govern delivery of a water resources project.2244    For sponsors, signing a PPA is a major legal and financial2245commitment that triggers local appropriations, bonding, real estate2246acquisition, and long-term operation and maintenance obligations.2247Because of this, sponsors must be able to rely on the terms of the2248agreement and understand the requirements they are accepting. In recent2249years, however, PPAs have become increasingly complex as more layers of2250Federal guidance, interpretation, and evolving policy get folded into2251the agreements. This can create significant uncertainty when sponsors2252are preparing to sign and proceed.2253    In practice, sponsors report that the PPA process has become slower2254and less predictable. Routine agreements often require multiple rounds2255of review not only at the district level but also at the division and2256headquarters levels, which adds time and introduces inconsistent2257interpretations of the same statutory or policy language. When2258districts and divisions are not aligned, PPA execution can stall for2259months or years even when sponsors are ready to advance work. This2260uncertainty creates real consequences for local governments that must2261coordinate their own procurement schedules, contracting requirements,2262and financing timelines with Federal sequencing.2263    Another challenge is that the PPA often incorporates Federal2264requirements that did not exist when the feasibility study was2265completed or when the project was authorized. This can place non-2266Federal sponsors in difficult positions because they are legally bound2267by state budgeting cycles and must explain to elected officials and2268local taxpayers why costs or obligations have shifted late in the2269process. These changing requirements also create cases where a PPA2270includes provisions that differ from what sponsors understood during2271feasibility or authorization, making it harder to maintain local2272support for Federally authorized projects.2273    Inconsistency across Corps districts is also a recurring issue.2274Sponsors describe cases where one district interprets a WRDA provision2275broadly, allowing a reasonable path forward, while another district2276interprets the same provision in a far more restrictive way. This makes2277it difficult for multi-jurisdictional sponsors, regional consortiums,2278or sponsors who work with multiple districts to plan effectively. It2279also creates inequity across the country, because similarly situated2280communities can experience very different timelines and requirements.2281    In addition, sponsors note that, when they wish to advance work2282with local funds, the Corps sometimes requires additional Federal2283permits or approvals even after NEPA compliance is complete. This2284undermines the purpose of project partnership, which is to allow2285Federal and local entities to work together to advance an authorized2286project efficiently. Congress has provided tools that allow sponsors to2287move forward when they have the capacity, but if the Corps requires2288duplicated reviews or new permits, those tools cannot be used as2289intended.2290    Overall, sponsors view PPAs as essential, but they need the process2291to be predictable, transparent, and grounded in clear Federal guidance.2292When the terms of a PPA shift late in the process, or when agreements2293sit unexecuted because internal Corps governance requires multiple2294layers of review, communities face delayed benefits and increased2295costs. Sponsors have emphasized that they respect Federal standards and2296oversight but believe the current PPA process could be streamlined in2297ways that preserve accountability while better aligning with2298Congressional intent and local fiscal realities. The goal is not to2299weaken Federal review but to improve efficiency, consistency, and2300fairness so that authorized projects can move into construction and2301deliver the national and local benefits Congress intended.2302            NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:2303      Inconsistent inclusion and application of PPA provisions2304across districts.2305      Whether there should be a requirement for a non-Federal2306sponsor, which wants to carry out design or construction work after2307execution of an agreement, to obtain additional Federal permits beyond2308those that would have been required if USACE constructed the work2309(assuming that NEPA and related Federal laws have been satisfied).2310      Difficulty aligning and incorporating updated WRDA2311provisions with current PPAs.2312      Challenges interpreting which requirements control during2313construction.231410. Navigation Funding Metrics and Access to the Harbor Maintenance2315        Trust Fund2316    Navigation projects depend on stable and predictable Federal2317funding, yet the current approach for prioritizing and allocating2318dollars does not always reflect the national economic and strategic2319value of certain waterways. Historically, ton miles have been the2320primary metric used to determine funding priority for maintenance2321dredging and navigation needs. While ton miles are an important measure2322of cargo movement by weight and distance, they do not capture the2323broader economic, national security, and supply chain importance of2324waterways that move high value, high consequence, or strategically2325essential goods. Several non-Federal sponsors have raised concerns that2326relying on ton miles alone disadvantages shorter waterways and regions2327where the commodities moved are critical to national energy2328reliability, fuel distribution, or specific industrial sectors, even if2329the total cargo tonnage is lower. When the funding model does not2330recognize these dimensions, channels that serve vital national2331interests can remain underfunded, which increases the risk of service2332interruptions, economic instability, and loss of Federal investment2333already made in those systems.2334    These concerns intersect with how the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund2335(HMTF) operates. The HMTF was designed to provide a stable, formula-2336driven source of funding for harbor maintenance. Under the statutory2337framework established through the CARES Act and WRDA 2022, HMTF2338receipts are treated by Congress as off-budget and are supposed to be2339appropriated according to a formula that grows with collections. When2340Congress passes a full-year Continuing Resolution instead of a new2341appropriations bill, however, the Corps receives only the prior-year2342HMTF appropriation rather than the higher formula amount that Congress2343could have appropriated. The off-budget treatment cannot be2344retroactively applied in the following year, which strands funding2345capacity that Congress intended to make available.2346    This occurred in fiscal year 2025 when the Corps received $2.7712347billion, the fiscal year 2024 level, instead of the $3.087 billion2348permitted by the formula. Approximately $316 million could not be2349accessed and could not be recovered in fiscal year 2026 because the2350Energy and Water Appropriations funding for that year only applies the2351fiscal year 2026 formula amount. For port authorities, navigation2352districts, local governments, and the dredging industry that rely on2353stable dredging cycles and Federal predictability, stranded HMTF2354authority creates vulnerabilities that complicate planning, increase2355maintenance backlogs, and undermine the national interest in safe and2356reliable navigation channels.2357    For non-Federal sponsors, the problem is two-fold. First, the2358funding priority system does not fully account for the economic or2359strategic value of certain waterways, which results in chronic2360underfunding maintenance of projects that carry high-consequence goods2361or serve critical regional infrastructure. Second, even when Congress2362intends to provide adequate funding through the HMTF, continuing2363resolutions can prevent the Corps from accessing the full amount the2364law allows, leaving sponsors without the maintenance support they rely2365on to keep channels open, safe, and competitive. These combined2366pressures create uncertainty, increase local financial burdens, and2367place additional strain on inland and coastal systems that are2368essential to national commerce.2369    Non-Federal sponsors have emphasized that reliable access to the2370HMTF and funding metrics that more accurately reflect national2371priorities are crucial for long-term planning, economic stability, and2372resilience. The underlying issue is not a lack of Federal commitment2373but a misalignment between statutory intent, appropriations mechanics,2374and the metrics used to determine which waterways rise to the top of2375the funding queue. Realigning these elements would allow navigation2376projects across the country to be maintained according to their true2377national importance, rather than solely their tonnage characteristics,2378and would provide the predictability needed for communities to sustain2379safe and efficient navigation systems.2380            NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:2381      Ton-mile metrics that undervalue high-importance or2382shorter navigation systems.2383      Stranded HMTF authority during continuing resolutions,2384including $316 million in fiscal year 2025, and a need to allow future2385appropriations bills to reach back and apply off-budget treatment to2386HMTF amounts that were stranded during a full-year continuing2387resolution.2388      Missed dredging windows that increase cost and reduce2389reliability.2390      Difficulty planning maintenance cycles without2391predictable funding.239211. The Importance of Meaningful Consultation and Clear Communication2393        with Non-Federal Sponsors.2394    Non-Federal sponsors serve as essential partners in carrying out2395Federally authorized water resources projects. They bring local2396resources, technical capacity, and long-term operational responsibility2397to projects that serve national economic, environmental, and safety2398interests. Because of this partnership, sponsors depend on clear,2399timely communication from the Federal government to plan effectively2400and meet their obligations. Federal actions that alter project scope,2401delivery timelines, funding availability, or compliance requirements2402directly affect the sponsors tasked with managing these2403responsibilities at the local level.2404    This importance of consultation is also grounded in Federal policy.2405Executive Order 13132 on Federalism requires Federal agencies to engage2406with state and local governments when Federal actions have direct2407effects on their responsibilities or impose compliance costs. The2408Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (P.L. 104-4) reinforces this principle by2409directing agencies to avoid shifting substantial costs or burdens to2410state, local, or special district governments without early and2411meaningful dialogue. These frameworks reflect the same shared-2412responsibility model at the core of WRDA, where Federal and non-Federal2413partners must coordinate to deliver infrastructure that serves national2414and regional needs.2415    When communication is delayed or incomplete, sponsors may face2416contract complications, unanticipated local cost increases, scheduling2417disruptions, or legal constraints that make compliance difficult.2418Recent developments have underscored how quickly uncertainty can grow2419when sponsors do not have reliable visibility into how Federal2420decisions are made or how they will be implemented in the field. The2421subsections below highlight specific areas where communication2422challenges have created real impacts for sponsors and where2423strengthened consultation is essential for WRDA 2026.2424            A. Federal Funding Pauses and the Need for Transparency2425    In October 2025, the Office of Management and Budget announced that2426an estimated $11 billion in Corps Civil Works projects were being2427paused. No public list identifying the affected projects has been2428released. Non-Federal sponsors, industry partners, and even some2429Congressional offices report learning about potential impacts only2430through informal, need-to-know conversations with the agency. This2431level of uncertainty is highly unusual in a program where projects have2432already been authorized by Congress and appropriated through annual2433Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts.2434    For sponsors, the practical concern is how potential delays may2435affect ongoing planning, contracting, and project execution. Many2436sponsors have already signed Project Partnership Agreements, committed2437local funding, acquired real estate, and prepared to move forward based2438on Congressional authorization and appropriations. When questions arise2439about Federal timing or contract actions, sponsors may need to adjust2440schedules, revisit contracting assumptions, or prepare for potential2441changes in project sequencing.2442    These uncertainties can also affect the communities and industries2443that rely on water resources infrastructure. For example, if a port is2444preparing for a channel deepening project and has already invested in2445landside facilities to support larger vessels, a delay in Federal2446channel work could affect when those facilities can be fully utilized.2447Industries planning to route goods through that port may need to adjust2448their logistics. Similar considerations apply to flood risk reduction,2449ecosystem restoration, or water supply projects, where changes in2450timing may affect local preparedness, construction windows, or project2451benefits.2452    The concern being raised is not about the merits of any individual2453pause, nor about the decision-making process itself. Rather, sponsors2454are seeking clarity where possible so they can manage their local2455obligations responsibly, communicate with governing bodies, and plan2456for potential adjustments in project delivery.2457            NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:2458      No public list identifying the projects subject to the2459estimated $11 billion pause.2460      Sponsors learning of impacts only through informal, need-2461to-know communication channels.2462      Financial risk for obligations being undertaken pursuant2463to signed PPAs.2464      Uncertainty affecting navigation reliability, dredging2465schedules, flood risk reduction, and other nationally significant2466missions.2467      Difficulty managing construction seasons, local budgets,2468and contracting timelines.2469      Reduced confidence in the predictability of the2470partnership model for both WRDA and Energy and Water Development2471Appropriations.2472            B. Communication Protocol Changes Affecting Congressional2473                    and Sponsor Engagement2474    Earlier in this testimony, WRDA was described as a three-way2475partnership among Congress, the Corps, and non-Federal sponsors. That2476partnership only works when all three are able to communicate openly2477about project needs, technical issues, and implementation challenges.2478On October 15, 2025, the Department of War issued a directive requiring2479Corps districts to obtain approval from the Office of the Assistant2480Secretary of War for Legislative Affairs (ASW(LA)) before engagement2481with Federal or state elected officials or their staff. While we2482understand the intent to ensure consistent messaging, this change has2483raised concerns about how it may impede the quality and completeness of2484information available to Congress as it prepares to develop WRDA 20262485and establish FY2026 appropriations.2486    Congressional staff have historically relied on technical2487assistance from Corps district, division, and headquarters offices and2488non-Federal sponsor input to understand project status and needs,2489technical constraints, and regional priorities. That information helps2490staff evaluate potential WRDA provisions, weigh the implications of2491proposed changes, and respond to constituents.2492    Since the October 15th Department of War directive, non-Federal2493sponsors and others have reported situations where districts are2494hesitant or unable to discuss project details, feasibility status, cost2495pressures, or implementation concerns without higher-level approval. If2496non-Federal sponsors or Congressional staff cannot readily engage with2497the Corps on these sorts of issues, the result may be fewer, less2498detailed, or less accurate WRDA proposals and a weaker factual2499foundation for committee deliberations and appropriations.2500    At the same time, our members in the field report that they are2501experiencing more difficulty obtaining information from their local2502Corps offices on project timelines and needs, implementation of recent2503WRDA provisions, and the status of specific studies or construction2504efforts. Sponsors depend on this information to manage local budgets,2505plan contracts, communicate with their own governing bodies, and2506coordinate with their Congressional delegations. When information moves2507more slowly or becomes harder to access, it complicates both oversight2508and day-to-day project management.2509            NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:2510      Congressional staff have more difficulty obtaining2511timely, detailed information from districts to support WRDA proposals2512and oversight.2513      Districts indicate they cannot discuss project history,2514status, or technical details without higher-level pre-approval.2515      Sponsors encountering delays or limitations when seeking2516basic information on study milestones, construction schedules, and2517implementation of WRDA provisions.2518      Risks that incomplete or outdated information will reach2519Congress, affecting the quality of WRDA submissions and decision-2520making.2521      Slower identification and resolution of issues that could2522otherwise be addressed early through direct engagement among Congress,2523the Corps, and non-Federal sponsors.2524            C. Additional Areas Where Early Consultation Is Essential2525    Beyond these specific examples, sponsors consistently stress that2526timely and meaningful consultation is vital whenever Federal actions2527have direct implications for local planning or financial commitments.2528This includes implementation of new WRDA provisions, updates to2529guidance documents, shifts in national funding priorities, or changes2530in program execution that affect real estate requirements, permitting2531expectations, or project sequencing.2532    Early communication allows sponsors to plan responsibly, manage2533risks, and align Federal actions with local obligations. When2534consultation occurs late or not at all, the consequences fall2535disproportionately on communities that must absorb financial exposure,2536renegotiate contracts, or delay critical infrastructure improvements.2537    In many cases, these impacts raise the same federalism and unfunded2538mandate concerns that Executive Order 13132 and the UMRA were designed2539to address. While the Corps primarily implements policy through2540guidance, memoranda, and program execution rather than formal2541rulemaking, the practical effect on non-Federal sponsors can be2542comparable to regulatory action, particularly where Federal decisions2543alter cost exposure, project sequencing, or local financial2544commitments.2545    EPA has established a formal, structured Federalism consultation2546process to implement Executive Order 13132, entitled EPA's Action2547Development Process. Guidance on Executive Order 13132: Federalism,2548Nov. 2008), which governs how the agency engages state and local2549governments early when Federal actions have Federalism implications.2550While EPA's actions are often regulatory, the underlying principle is2551directly relevant to Civil Works implementation, where guidance,2552memoranda, and program execution decisions can have comparable fiscal2553and planning impacts on non-Federal sponsors. A similarly structured,2554predictable consultation framework within the Corps, tailored to the2555Civil Works mission, would help surface issues earlier, reduce2556downstream friction, and improve shared understanding across2557headquarters, divisions, districts, and non-Federal sponsors.2558    This kind of top-down awareness paired with bottom-up input would2559improve transparency, reduce unintended consequences, and support more2560effective project delivery.2561            NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:2562      Limited visibility into WRDA implementation timelines.2563      Inconsistent and late-stage communication about policy2564updates or guidance development.2565      Difficulty planning long-term capital budgets without2566reliable scheduling information.2567      Delays in identifying and addressing implementation2568challenges at the district level.2569      Strengthen early consultation when Corps actions impact2570state and local and public districts responsibilities.2571      Use consultation to improve outcome rather than slow2572decision-making.2573      Lack of a consistent early consultation framework for2574guidance or implementation actions with federalism or cost implications2575for non-Federal sponsors.2576                                Closing2577    Thank you for the opportunity to share the perspectives of NWC and2578the non-Federal sponsors we represent. The challenges outlined in this2579testimony reflect the real-world experience of communities that partner2580with the Corps every day to plan, fund, and deliver projects that serve2581national needs. We recognize that not every issue raised here will2582require legislative action, and we are continuing to work closely with2583our members to develop practical solutions for those areas the2584committee believes are appropriate for WRDA 2026. We appreciate the2585committee's continued commitment to a strong and effective WRDA2586partnership, and we look forward to working with you as WRDA 2026 moves2587forward.25882589    Mr. Collins. Thank you.2590    Mr. Camillo, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for your2591testimony.25922593TESTIMONY OF CHARLES CAMILLO, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, MIDWEST2594                   FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION25952596    Mr. Camillo. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Larsen, Ranking2597Member Wilson, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the2598opportunity to be here today to participate in this time-2599honored tradition of public participation in the legislative2600process.2601    I am Charles Camillo, executive vice president of the2602Midwest Flood Control Association. Our mission is to be a2603leading advocate to shape policy and secure investments that2604protect people and safeguard communities from destructive2605floods.2606    We are at a pivotal moment on the upper Mississippi River.2607With the implementation of navigation and ecosystem2608improvements authorized through NESP [Navigation and Ecosystem2609Sustainability Program] and UMRR [Upper Mississippi River2610Restoration Program], our region now has two of the three2611necessary components to implement a holistic approach on the2612upper Mississippi River. All that remains is the third leg of2613that stool: systematic flood control.2614    The Great Flood of 1993 devastated the Midwest. The flood2615caused anywhere from $15 billion to $20 billion in economic2616damages. It is important to note, though, as we gather here2617today, that the existing flood control infrastructure in place2618at that time that was authorized and funded by Congress,2619designed and implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,2620and maintained and nurtured by the local levee districts,2621prevented an additional $19 billion in economic damages. This2622highlights in a very real way the criticality of undergoing the2623authorization process that we are participating in today.2624    Flood control advocates came close to realizing the dream2625of achieving the third leg of the stool when Congress2626authorized a thorough study through the Upper Mississippi River2627Comprehensive Plan authorized by WRDA in 1999. But the2628stakeholders across the region could not really agree on a2629plan, and we failed to reach the necessary benefit-to-cost2630justification thresholds through the study. So here we are2631today, 32 years after the devastation caused by the Great Flood2632of 1993, and our risk remains unchanged.2633    To this end, the long-term objective of the Midwest Flood2634Control Association is to build lasting relationships to find a2635long-term comprehensive solution to the flood problems on the2636upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers that we can all agree2637upon.2638    We applaud recent legislation advanced through this2639committee. WRDA 2022 authorized the Upper Miss Flow Frequency2640Study, while WRDA 2024 authorized the Upper Mississippi River2641System Flood Risk and Resiliency Study. We see those studies as2642the potential first steps to achieving the long-sought vision2643for systematic flood protection. We pledge our commitment to2644being a good partner to find an acceptable long-term solution.2645    But in the meantime, our immediate near-term objective is2646to help our levee and drainage districts--there are 74 of2647them--to preserve and maintain their current level of2648protection and accreditation.2649    We have some reservations with the flow frequency study and2650its potential impact on current levels of protection and2651accreditation. We maintain the position that flow frequency2652studies should not be done in a vacuum.2653    We understand and appreciate that the Corps of Engineers2654needs the flow frequency data to understand what is happening2655on the river, but we want the Corps of Engineers to also use2656that data to develop actionable solutions to offset changes to2657flood profiles. Releasing new profiles without actual solutions2658will impact levee accreditation and cause significant increases2659in flood insurance rates and significant decreases in property2660values.2661    The Midwest Flood Control Association strongly supports the2662passage of a WRDA bill in 2026. Our immediate priorities for2663such a bill are included in our formal written statement2664submitted for the record.2665    The Midwest Flood Control Association is very optimistic2666about the future. We like what we are hearing from our2667engagements with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the2668Army for Civil Works. We also applaud the leadership at the2669headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They asked2670stakeholders to challenge them on policy and legislation and to2671give them realistic proposals with specifics, something the2672Corps of Engineers can sink their teeth into. We feel the2673priorities we set forth above do just that.2674    We also thank the division and districts for their2675willingness to meet and exchange ideas. At the end of the day,2676they will be the ones who will need to deliver for us.2677    Again, the Midwest Flood Control Association thanks this2678committee for your dedication to the bipartisan approach and to2679improving the lives of Americans from across the country and2680for giving us this opportunity to present our views today.2681    [Mr. Camillo's prepared statement follows:]26822683   Prepared Statement of Charles Camillo, Executive Vice President,2684                   Midwest Flood Control Association2685    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,2686    Thank you for the opportunity to be here today in the Nation's2687Capitol and for allowing us to participate in this time-honored2688tradition of public participation in the legislative process. I am2689humbled to be here today to represent a sample of the local people who2690live, work and thrive along our Nation's waterways in the American2691Heartland. The people I represent commend this committee's unyielding2692commitment to a bipartisan approach and look forward to working with2693you to develop sustainable solutions to water resources challenges2694across the country.2695    I am Charles Camillo, Executive Vice-President of the Midwest Flood2696Control Association. Our association represents around 75 levee and2697drainage districts along the Missouri, Illinois and Upper Mississippi2698Rivers. The Midwest Flood Control Association's mission is to be a2699leading advocate to shape strategic policies and secure federal and2700local investments that protect people, safeguard communities and secure2701the regional economies across Iowa, Illinois, Missouri and the greater2702Midwest from destructive floods. While we strongly support and advocate2703for our allies in the navigation industry, our partner ports and2704harbors, and our friends in the conservation and environmental2705stewardship arenas, I am here today as a champion for flood control.2706    We are at a pivotal moment on the Upper Mississippi River. With the2707implementation of the Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program--2708first authorized through WRDA 07--and the continuation of the Upper2709Mississippi River Restoration Program--first authorized in WRDA 86--our2710region now has two of the three necessary components to implement a2711holistic approach to address the needs of the Greater Upper Mississippi2712River drainage basin. All that remains is the third leg of that stool--2713systematic flood control.2714    The Great Flood of 1993 devastated the Midwest. According to the2715U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the flood led to the deaths of 47 people,2716damaged or destroyed more than 70,000 homes and caused the evacuation2717of approximately 74,000 people. The flood also caused anywhere from $152718billion to $20 billion in economic damages. Adjusted for inflation that2719amount would be more than doubled in today's dollars. It is important2720to note, though, as we gather here today that the existing flood2721control infrastructure at that time--that was authorized and funded by2722Congress, designed and implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,2723and maintained and nurtured by the local people though their levee and2724drainage districts--prevented an additional $19 billion in economic2725damages. This highlights in a very real way the criticality of2726undergoing the authorization process that we are participating in2727today.2728    Flood control advocates on the Upper Mississippi River came close2729to realizing their dream of achieving the third leg of the stool when2730Congress authorized a thorough study through the Upper Mississippi2731River Comprehensive Plan Study authorized by WRDA 99. When the U.S.2732Army Corps of Engineers released that study in 2008, they did not2733recommend a plan due to the inability of any alternatives to reach the2734necessary benefit-to-cost justification thresholds. So here we are2735today, 32 years after the devastation caused by the Great Flood of27361993, and our risk remains unchanged.2737    To this end, the long-term objective of the Midwest Flood Control2738Association is to build lasting relationships and work with the U.S.2739Army Corps of Engineers and the other regional stakeholder groups--2740Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, the Mississippi River Cities2741and Town Initiative, Neighbors of the Mississippi and other levee2742districts and associations--to find a long-term comprehensive solution2743to the flood problem that we can all agree upon.2744    The Midwest Flood Control Association applauds recent legislation2745advanced through this Committee and WRDA. Section 8219 of WRDA 20222746authorized a Hydraulic Evaluation of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois2747Rivers, commonly referred to as the Upper Miss Flow Frequency Study;2748while Section 1227 of WRDA 2024 authorized the Upper Mississippi River2749System Flood Risk and Resiliency Study. We see those studies as the2750first steps to achieving the long-sought vision for systemic flood2751protection. The Midwest Flood Control Association supports both studies2752and pledges its commitment to be a good partner with the U.S. Army2753Corps of Engineers and other regional stakeholders to find an2754acceptable long-term solution.2755    The Midwest Flood Control Association also recognizes that it could2756take the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers up to 10 years from now to2757complete both the Flow Frequency Study and the Upper Miss Flood Risk2758and Resiliency Study; and even that is dependent on securing funding2759and finding a non-Federal cost-share sponsor. To that end, the2760immediate near-term objective of the Midwest Flood Control Association2761is to help our levee and drainage districts preserve and maintain their2762current levels of protection and accreditation until the long-term2763objective can be achieved.2764    The Midwest Flood Control Association certainly has some2765reservations with the ongoing Flow Frequency Study and its potential2766impact on the current levels of protection and accreditation. We2767maintain the position that Flow Frequency Studies should not be done in2768a vacuum. We understand and appreciate that the U.S. Army Corps of2769Engineers needs the flow frequency data to understand what is happening2770on the river, to establish a new water surface and flood profiles and2771to inform the larger, but separate, Flood Risk and Resiliency Study. To2772be clear, we want the Corps of Engineers to have that data. We want the2773Corps of Engineers to use that data. But we want the Corps of Engineers2774to have and use that data to develop realistic, actionable solutions to2775offset or mitigate any resultant changes to the water surface and flood2776profiles. Releasing new flood profiles without actionable solutions2777will impact levee accreditation and cause significant increases in2778flood insurance rates and significant decreases in property values.2779    For instance, many of our agricultural districts estimate that they2780would see a reduction in property values ranging from $1,000-$2,000 per2781acre. For a levee district of 15,000 acres--the average size of our2782agricultural districts--that represents a reduction of $15 to $302783million in property values. Our urban districts on the other end of the2784spectrum also face severe impacts. The Southwestern Illinois Flood2785Prevention District represents the crown-jewel of our association's2786membership from the standpoint of risk/consequences as it protects more2787than 150,000 people living in 25 separate communities that support2788roughly 60,000 jobs. The district also protects refineries,2789manufacturing sites and portions of interstates 55, 64, and 70 from2790inundation. All told, the Southwestern Illinois Flood Prevention2791District protects more than $18 billion in property values. It is2792estimated that the district will see a 20-30% reduction in property2793values--$3.6 billion to $5.4 billion--if it were to lose its 500-year2794level of protection.2795    Further, if the Flow Frequency Study results in changes to the2796water surface and flood profiles and the Flood Resiliency Study does2797not receive funding or does not find a non-Federal sponsor willing to2798provide the necessary cost-share, it serves few other purposes than to2799be used as a regulatory tool for PL 84-99 compliance or FEMA2800accreditation.2801    There is an existing tool or solution to address changes in flood2802protection--the 408--permission process. Our membership, however, knows2803from experience that the way the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers2804interprets and implements 408 permissions--at least on the mainstem2805upper Mississippi River--negatively alters the process and leaves it2806useless for maintaining existing levels of protection and levee2807accreditation.2808    With this in mind, the Midwest Flood Control Association strongly2809supports the passage of a WRDA bill in 2026. Our immediate priorities2810for such a bill include:2811    1)  Limiting the applicability/use of the results of the Flow2812Frequency Study to planning purposes only until the U.S. Army Corps of2813Engineers develops actionable solutions to address or offset any2814potential changes to water surface elevations and flood profiles.2815    2)  Designating the results of the Flow Frequency Study as2816preliminary until the final disposition of the Upper Mississippi River2817System Flood Risk and Resiliency Study or any spin-off studies that2818posit actionable solutions to address or offset any changes to water2819surface elevations and flood profiles.2820    3)  Preventing agencies from using the preliminary data from the2821Flow Frequency Study as a regulatory enforcement tool for P.L. 84-992822eligibility/enforcement or FEMA accreditation while the Flow Frequency2823Study is deemed preliminary.2824    4)  Developing a means for levee and drainage districts to maintain2825the current level of protection and accreditation at their own expense2826when Flow Frequency Studies result in documented changes to water2827surface elevations.2828    5)  Calling on the Administration to bring a commonsense approach2829to standardize and streamline the 408 permission process.28302831    The Midwest Flood Control Association is very optimistic about the2832future. We like what we are hearing during our engagements with the2833Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. We look2834forward to working with the Honorable Assistant Secretary, Adam Telle,2835as they prepare to launch their initiatives to deliver quality2836infrastructure across the nation.2837    We also applaud the leadership at the Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps2838of Engineers. Major General Jason Kelly, the Deputy Commanding General2839for Civil Works has publicly emphasized his commitment to get creative2840to address stakeholder concerns where the Corps of Engineers can. He2841asked us to challenge them on policy and legislation, to give them2842clean asks, to give them realistic proposals with specifics, something2843the Corps of Engineers ``can sink their teeth into''. We feel the2844priorities we set forth above do just that.2845    Again, the Midwest Flood Control Association thanks this Committee2846for your dedication to improving the lives of Americans from across the2847county and for giving us this opportunity to present our views today.28482849    Mr. Collins. Thank you.2850    Mr. Jones, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for your2851testimony.28522853  TESTIMONY OF BRYAN JONES, PRESIDENT, MID-ATLANTIC DIVISION,2854                        HNTB CORPORATION28552856    Mr. Jones. Thank you, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member2857Larsen--good to see you--Ranking Member Wilson, and members of2858the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify2859today on the importance of WRDA.2860    We appreciate the committee's commitment to enact this2861important bill into law every 2 years, a regular cadence that2862keeps projects moving, provides greater certainty to local2863communities, and ensures that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers2864responds effectively to the Nation's evolving needs. This2865legislation helps make our communities safer, increases the2866resilience of our infrastructure, and strengthens our supply2867chain and trade routes through strategic investments in2868America's ports and waterways.2869    My name is Bryan Jones. I am president of HNTB's Mid-2870Atlantic Division. HNTB is an employee-owned infrastructure2871solutions firm that has provided planning, design, and2872construction management for large-scale public and private2873projects across the United States for more than 110 years. We2874are a longstanding partner to the Corps, delivering Civil Works2875projects that reduce flood risk, strengthen communities, and2876support economic resilience.2877    Members of the subcommittee, this work is personal to me. I2878grew up on a farm in rural south Louisiana near the confluence2879of three rivers that were essential to my family's livelihood2880getting our grain from farm to market every single year. I also2881witnessed firsthand the consequences of catastrophic system2882failures from hurricanes like Katrina and Rita in 2005, to the2883devastating inland floods of south Louisiana in 2016.2884    These experiences and many others have shaped my conviction2885that reliable water infrastructure supported by WRDA's2886predictable authorization cycle is essential to the safety and2887security of our communities, as well as our national2888competitiveness.2889    Those in this room know all too well that there is no such2890thing as ``fast enough'' when it comes to delivering2891infrastructure improvements. As the Corps and non-Federal2892sponsors see growing demands to deliver projects quickly with2893limited resources, Congress can help by ensuring that they have2894the flexibility to leverage private-sector expertise through a2895broad range of delivery and financing tools that reflect the2896scale and the complexity of today's Civil Works program.2897    Integrated design-build contracts, for example, enhance2898coordination between design and construction on technically2899complex projects, accelerate delivery, and reduce schedule risk2900while maintaining cost discipline. Incremental funding2901approaches also allow large multiyear projects to move forward2902efficiently with an annual appropriation.2903    Public-private partnerships and other collaborative2904delivery models can further the Corps' capacity, enabling more2905work to be delivered faster with more effective risk2906allocation.2907    Broader and more consistent use of these tools represent a2908prudent evolution of the Civil Works program, supporting timely2909public benefits, limiting long-term cost growth, and maximizing2910the return on Federal and non-Federal investment.2911    HNTB is proud to support the Corps' work by delivering on-2912time and on-budget for projects nationwide.2913    With tremendous thanks to this committee and Chairman Sam2914Graves for their work in authorizing the project, one example2915of this work is with the Kansas City District of the Corps to2916design levee, floodwall, and railroad closures, reducing flood2917risk to the community and protecting more than $10 billion in2918infrastructure.2919    Another highlight of our work is in New Orleans, which is a2920vital gateway, as you well know, for U.S. commerce, requiring2921flood risk reduction systems and navigation projects to support2922one of the world's busiest ports and waterways. HNTB planned2923and designed projects, such as the West Closure Complex Pump2924Station, the Seabrook Gate Complex, and the Morganza to the2925gulf floodwalls, which strengthen storm surge defense while2926safeguarding key shipping routes.2927    As we look ahead--in closing--to WRDA 2026, I ask that the2928subcommittee, one, continue to support streamline permitting2929reforms that enable efficient Corps delivery; two, ensure2930adequate feasibility phase funding to allow timely and2931technically sound outcomes for complex projects; three, to2932continue and expand authorities that promote concurrent2933reviews, programmatic approaches, and pilot innovations; four,2934to allocate resources to advance innovative funding and2935financing tools, including public-private partnerships, to2936optimize project delivery.2937    It has been an honor, Mr. Chairman, to speak with you2938today, and the committee, about WRDA's role in shaping our2939communities and supporting economic growth, and at the proper2940time, I welcome any questions that you may have. Thank you,2941sir.2942    [Mr. Jones' prepared statement follows:]29432944 Prepared Statement of Bryan Jones, President, Mid-Atlantic Division,2945                            HNTB Corporation2946    Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and Members of the2947Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning on2948the importance of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). We2949appreciate the Committee's commitment to enact this important bill into2950law every two years--a vital cadence that keeps critical water2951infrastructure projects moving, provides certainty to local communities2952and ensures the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, along with state and2953local partners, can respond effectively to the nation's evolving needs.2954This legislation advances goals we all share: making our communities2955safer, increasing the resilience of our infrastructure and improving2956our supply chain and trade routes through strategic investments in2957America's ports and waterways.2958    My name is Bryan Jones, and I am the President of HNTB's Mid-2959Atlantic Division. HNTB is a U.S. employee-owned infrastructure2960solutions firm that has provided planning, design and construction2961management for large-scale public and private projects for more than2962110 years. We have extensive experience partnering with the Corps to2963design and deliver major civil works and military construction2964projects--building stronger levees, smarter drainage systems and2965resilient ports. The bottom line is driving outcomes: reducing flood2966risk to communities, keeping local economies moving after storms and2967strengthening America's competitiveness. As the President of our Mid-2968Atlantic Division, I directly oversee our work across seven East Coast2969states, from Pennsylvania to South Carolina, and support our work with2970the Corps firmwide.2971    This work is personal to me. I grew up in south Louisiana. I've2972seen what a storm surge or stalled rainstorms can do when defenses fall2973short--specifically Katrina in 2005 and the catastrophic flooding in29742016. Those experiences shaped my understanding of water resource2975policy and belief that well designed water systems are foundational to2976resilient transportation systems and a strong American economy.2977    These systems are critical to our nation's economic2978competitiveness, and WRDA's dependable two-year authorization cycle2979provides for the necessary long-term planning and investment that2980sustain them. The work of this subcommittee in reliably enacting WRDA2981allows private-sector partners such as HNTB to support communities,2982local leaders and the Corps in advancing projects that drive economic2983growth and strengthen supply chains.2984    Members of this subcommittee know all too well that this work is2985never finished and there's no such thing as ``fast enough'' when it2986comes to infrastructure improvements. We continue to see greater demand2987for investments in infrastructure to meet needs we have now, as well as2988the needs of future generations. Proactively addressing these needs at2989the Federal level helps maximize local investments as well and reduces2990the likelihood of having to rebuild following disaster events,2991increasing the stability of local communities; this is critical in an2992environment where every dollar counts.2993    As agencies such as the Corps are challenged to move quickly and2994stretch limited resources, expanding private-sector partnerships and2995innovative financing and delivery tools are critical to meeting the2996nation's growing water resource challenges. Firms such as HNTB are2997essential to providing necessary experience and capacity both to the2998Corps and its non-Federal sponsors. We have a deep bench of talent2999nationwide, and are efficient and nimble, with the ability to respond3000and adapt to evolving market conditions.3001    Legislation that supports tools such as non-traditional funding and3002innovative project implementation approaches within the Civil Works3003program can accelerate project delivery, reduce risk and improve3004overall outcomes without diminishing accountability. The Fargo-Moorhead3005Flood Diversion Project provides an example of how public-private3006partnerships can leverage non-Federal capital and expertise to advance3007a complex, nationally significant project, while preserving the Corps'3008central role in safety, engineering oversight, environmental compliance3009and protection of the Federal interest. Similarly, authorities enacted3010by Congress, including section 1043(b) of the Water Resources Reform3011and Development Act of 2014, allow non-Federal entities to carry out3012water resources projects consistent with Corps standards when Federal3013appropriations, alone, are insufficient to meet pressing infrastructure3014needs.3015    Stakeholders also strongly support the Corps' expanded use of3016innovative contracting and funding mechanisms that reflect the scale3017and complexity of the Civil Works portfolio. Integrated Design and3018Construction contracts offer important advantages on technically3019challenging projects by improving coordination between the design and3020construction phases, accelerating timelines and reducing schedule risk3021while promoting cost discipline. In addition, incremental funding3022approaches--such as those currently being demonstrated on the3023Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir--provide a practical means of3024sustaining progress on large, multi-year projects in the context of3025annual appropriations. The use of P3 structures and other collaborative3026contracting methods, when applied thoughtfully, can enable delivery of3027more work, faster, and with more sophisticated risk transfer.3028    From the standpoint of project sponsors and external partners,3029broader and more consistent use of these tools represents a prudent3030evolution of the Civil Works program, enabling the timely delivery of3031public benefits, reducing long-term cost escalation and maximizing the3032return on both Federal and non-Federal investments.3033    Delivering on time and on budget is important to HNTB because we3034know that communities can't afford delays. With tremendous thanks to3035this committee and Chairman Sam Graves for their work in authorizing3036the project, HNTB was able to build on our decades of working with the3037Kansas City District Corps of Engineers to design levee, floodwall and3038railroad closures. This project made huge strides in reducing flood3039risk to the community and in protecting more than $10B in3040infrastructure. Our team partnered closely with the exceptionally3041capable Corps team, combining our collective deep expertise with our3042innovative approaches to deliver resilient, risk-informed solutions for3043the community.3044    Another key project to highlight is our work in New Orleans, which3045is a vital gateway for U.S. commerce, requiring flood risk reduction3046systems and navigation projects to support one of the world's busiest3047ports. HNTB planned and designed projects such as the West Closure3048Complex Pump Station, Seabrook Gate Complex and Morganza to the Gulf3049floodwalls, which strengthen storm surge defenses while safeguarding3050shipping routes. The upcoming IHNC Lock Replacement--long overdue after3051being authorized in 1956--will modernize failing infrastructure, remove3052persistent navigation bottlenecks and protect the reliability of cargo3053movement vital to the Mississippi River system and the national3054economy.3055    While outside the purview of WRDA, HNTB is also proud to support3056the expansion of Arlington National Cemetery, preserving its sacred3057legacy. In partnership with the Corps, we honor the military community3058while leveraging private-sector innovation to deliver timeless3059solutions that accelerate progress for our nation's military families.3060    As we look ahead to WRDA 2026, we ask this subcommittee . . .3061      To support clear and streamlined permitting reforms to3062enable the Corps to deliver its regulatory mission efficiently,3063promoting economic development with the appropriate protection for the3064aquatic environment;3065      To recognize that design maturity funded adequately3066during the feasibility phase enables a more robust, timely and3067technically accurate outcome and to seek ways to reform the feasibility3068study paradigm allowing sufficient authorization to complete large-3069scale, technically complex engineering analyses in support of national3070needs;3071      To continue enabling the Corps to focus on delivery of3072complex, large-scale water resources infrastructure solutions,3073including by expanding authorities enabling concurrent reviews, greater3074use of programmatic approaches and pilot innovations; and3075      To support allocation of resources for initiatives and3076tools that facilitate use of innovative funding and financing methods3077(including public-private partnerships) to optimize project delivery.30783079    Thank you for your time, consideration and work in shaping the3080future of our nation's water resources infrastructure. It has been an3081honor to speak with you today about WRDA's role in shaping our3082communities and supporting economic growth. I welcome any questions3083that you may have.30843085    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Jones.3086    I now recognize Mr. Garcia to introduce our next witness.3087    Mr. Garcia of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank3088you for the opportunity to waive onto the subcommittee today. I3089know that votes were just called, but I am grateful that we get3090to have our final witness today.3091    I want to introduce Dr. Noel Hacegaba.3092    Noel, thanks for being here. First, let me start by3093personally congratulating you. Dr. Hacegaba is our new CEO at3094the Port of Long Beach and comes well prepared to do that job.3095And we just want to congratulate you and are excited to work3096with you, as we have for many years.3097    The port and the city are very lucky to have your3098leadership. We know that you are going to continue to do great3099work at our port. Had the privilege of working with Noel when I3100was mayor of Long Beach for 8 years, and Noel and I actually3101had a chance to work together in city hall even prior to that3102work.3103    You have been an incredible advocate for ports and for3104trade. You have been a driving force in our port for some of3105the most impactful projects, including a number of terminal3106projects planned and underway that will grow the ability to3107move cargo across the country and, of course, around the world.3108    Noel also directed the port's response to the global supply3109chain disruptions during the pandemic, and he helped establish3110a supply chain information highway, a digital platform to3111improve efficiency and data sharing across our national freight3112network.3113    Couldn't be more grateful to have him here today. And with3114that, Mr. Chairman, thanks again for waiving on, and I would3115like to yield back.3116    Mr. Collins. Dr. Hacegaba, you are now recognized for 53117minutes.31183119    TESTIMONY OF NOEL HACEGABA, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AND3120     INCOMING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PORT OF LONG BEACH,3121                           CALIFORNIA31223123    Mr. Hacegaba. Thank you, Congressman Garcia, for your very3124generous introduction and for your longstanding support for a3125strong American port system.3126    Good morning, Chairman Graves, Chairman Collins, Ranking3127Member Larsen, Ranking Member Wilson, and members of the3128committee. It is an honor and a privilege to testify before3129this distinguished subcommittee today.3130    My name is Noel Hacegaba, and as Representative Garcia3131said, I currently serve as chief operating officer, but on3132January 1, I have the great pleasure of assuming the role of3133chief executive officer at the Port of Long Beach.3134    Together with the men and women of the International3135Longshore and Warehouse Union, and our marine terminal3136operators and supply chain partners, the Port of Long Beach3137moves more than $300 billion in cargo annually through every3138congressional district, supporting 2.7 million jobs across3139America. In the first quarter of 2025, we moved the most3140containers of any U.S. port.3141    Though we are a California port, we have moved billions of3142dollars worth of cargo through many of your home States,3143including Georgia, Missouri, Washington, and Florida. We export3144soybeans from the Midwest, hay from Arizona, cotton from Texas,3145almonds from California, and pork and beef from Texas,3146Colorado, Kansas, and the Midwest.3147    Additionally, the Port of Long Beach is one of 18 federally3148designated commercial strategic seaports, which means our3149infrastructure directly supports national security needs in3150time of crisis.3151    I am here today to present priorities, not just on behalf3152of the Port of Long Beach, but in partnership with a broader3153port community, including the California Association of Port3154Authorities, who just elected me as their president, as well as3155the American Association of Port Authorities and the Coalition3156for America's Gateways and Trade Corridors.3157    The policies this committee advances through the Water3158Resources Development Act are essential for our economy and3159national security. Thank you for working to deliver a3160bipartisan bill every 2 years.3161    The first priority I will outline for WRDA 2026 is a need3162for reauthorizing our Deep Draft Navigation Project. This3163project will deepen and expand the Federal channels at our port3164to 80 feet, improving safety and enhancing efficiency for3165vessel operations, particularly larger and heavier ships.3166    Long Beach is the only west coast port capable of berthing3167very large crude carriers which hold more than 1 million3168barrels of oil each. We bring in over 200 million barrels of3169oil annually, and this project will enhance energy security by3170facilitating safer navigation.3171    Thanks to WRDA 2022, the project has an authorized Chief's3172Report and received full preconstruction engineering design3173funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Our request for3174WRDA 2026 is the approval of a Post-Authorization Change3175Report, or PACR, which we have been diligently working on with3176our partners at the Corps.3177    Second, I want to thank this committee for its work over3178the years to ensure Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund dollars are3179fully allocated for their intended purpose. The port3180respectfully requests your continued support to ensure that3181annual distribution of these funds is not viewed as optional.3182    As both a donor and energy transfer port, we estimate that3183the Port of Long Beach alone generated $400 million in HMT3184revenues in 2024. We are asking for equitable funding for donor3185and energy ports.3186    Funds for in-water expanded uses were authorized in WRDA31872020, but have been received only once by qualifying donor and3188energy ports in the fiscal year 2024 Army Corps workplan. This3189resulted in $49 million for Long Beach, which we are using for3190dredging as well as critical seismic and safety improvements at3191our wharves and quays.3192    Ports need reliable HMT expanded use funding to complete3193safety improvements, and we ask for the committee's help in3194advancing this priority through WRDA.3195    While today's hearing is on WRDA, I also want to thank the3196committee for your work on the surface transportation3197reauthorization bill, as ports need both strong water and3198landside networks to support critical supply chains.3199    In closing, the Port of Long Beach appreciates the3200committee's leadership to ensure America's maritime3201infrastructure remains strong and globally competitive through3202WRDA. There is no substitute to seeing port operations3203firsthand, so I personally invite each of you to tour the Port3204of Long Beach, including those of you who have already done so,3205as there is always something new to see. And I promise the3206weather will be perfect.3207    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the committee,3208thank you again so much for the opportunity to testify, and I3209would be pleased to answer any questions at the appropriate3210time.3211    [Mr. Hacegaba's prepared statement follows:]32123213   Prepared Statement of Noel Hacegaba, Chief Operating Officer and3214    Incoming Chief Executive Officer, Port of Long Beach, California3215    Good morning, Chairman Graves, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member3216Larsen, Ranking Member Wilson and Members of the Committee, it is an3217honor and a privilege to testify before this distinguished subcommittee3218today.3219    My name is Noel Hacegaba, and I serve as the current Chief3220Operating Officer and incoming Chief Executive Officer of the Port of3221Long Beach. The Port of Long Beach is a nationally significant trade3222gateway, moving more than $300 billion in cargo annually and supporting32232.7 million jobs across the United States. We moved the most containers3224of any port in the U.S. in the first quarter of 2025 and continue to3225move the most tonnage of any port on the West Coast. Approximately half3226of that tonnage consists of energy commodities that fuel our national3227economy.3228    Before addressing the Port of Long Beach's specific Water Resources3229Development Act (WRDA) priorities, I would like to thank Congressman3230Garcia, the Port's hometown Representative, for his steadfast support3231of the Port and for his leadership on the Congressional PORTS Caucus.3232As the Congressman can attest, seeing port operations first hand is the3233best way to understand the enormity of the Port of Long Beach's3234contributions to the nation and I would like to personally invite each3235of you to pay us a visit in Long Beach. Many of you have already done3236so, and I thank you for that, and I welcome you back as there is always3237something new to see as we continue to grow and modernize our Port.3238    I also want to thank the Committee for its commitment to delivering3239the bipartisan WRDA bill on a biennial basis. WRDA plays a critical3240role in strengthening America's economy, supply chain resilience, and3241national security by providing federal investments in our nation's3242ports and waterways. From the Port of Long Beach's perspective, WRDA is3243must-pass legislation and we applaud the Committee's leadership in3244advancing these critical infrastructure investments for all Americans.3245    I am here today on behalf of the Port of Long Beach and in3246partnership with the broader port community, including the American3247Association of Port Authorities, the California Association of Port3248Authorities (CAPA), California Marine Affairs and Navigation3249Conference, and the Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade3250Corridors. Just last week, I was elected President of CAPA by our3251State's 11 ports, so I am highlighting priorities that benefit not only3252the Port of Long Beach, but more broadly American ports and our3253partners along the supply chain.3254    America's seaports are essential national assets. Our seaports3255connect American producers and consumers to global markets, support3256millions of jobs nationwide, and serve as a cornerstone of our3257industrial and economic competitiveness. The Port of Long Beach,3258together with our strong workforce anchored by the men and women in the3259International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), marine terminal3260operators and regional and national partners, moves cargo to and from3261communities in every congressional district and supports strong,3262resilient supply chains across the country. With 6,000 refrigeration3263spaces, the Port of Long Beach is the leading gateway on the West Coast3264to transport perishable cargo such as meats, seafood and produce from3265California's breadbasket and America's heartland. We export soybeans3266from the Upper Midwest, hay from Arizona, cotton from Texas and the3267Atlantic South, almonds from California, and pork and beef from Texas,3268Colorado, Kansas and the Midwest.3269    In fact, the Port of Long Beach manages billions of dollars in3270trade for many of your home states. Georgia ranks seventh in the nation3271in total trade value supported by the Port of Long Beach, with cargo3272valued at more than $3.6 billion including cars, car parts, fork lifts,3273bulldozers, and clothing. We move more than $2.3 billion in cargo to3274and from Florida including clothing, electronic equipment, medical3275equipment, and vehicle tires. $2.1 billion in cargo through Washington,3276including clothing, consumer electronics, suitcases, and lamps.3277Finally, $2.1 billion across Missouri including clothes, aluminum,3278electronics, furniture, and energy commodities. While the bulk of the3279value represented is on the import side, hundreds of millions in value3280is also for exports, and all this trade supports thousands of American3281jobs in your home districts.3282    There is a good chance that many that people watching today's3283hearing are doing so on a screen that came through the Port of Long3284Beach, as more than 80% of U.S. televisions move through the San Pedro3285Bay ports complex.3286    WRDA is essential to keeping the flow of imports and U.S. exports3287moving and to keep our gateways safe, efficient, and competitive.3288    At the Port of Long Beach, our ability to safely accommodate modern3289vessels, move cargo efficiently, and compete in the global supply3290market depends on safe, navigable deep water channels and supporting3291in-water infrastructure. Consistent federal partnership through WRDA3292ensures that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) can plan,3293authorize, and deliver the projects that keep our channels and harbors3294ready to ensure America is leading the global economy.3295    Last year, the Port of Long Beach moved nearly 10 million3296containers, and more than 200 million barrels of oil. The main channel3297reaches 76 feet making Long Beach the only West Coast port capable of3298berthing a Very Large Crude Container ship (VLCC), which can hold more3299than one million barrels of oil each. The Port of Long Beach is also3300the only port in Southern California with four terminals capable of3301receiving liquid bulk cargo, which includes crude oil.3302    The policies in WRDA that have allowed the Port of Long Beach to3303work with the USACE to support these commercial maritime operations and3304safely move energy commodities are critical to America's economy and3305our national security. The Port of Long Beach is one of 18 federally3306designated Commercial Strategic Seaports. In that role the Port stands3307ready to protect this nation. Recently, we hosted the largest Army3308Reserve exercise ever, where more than 9,000 reservists underwent3309training across multiple sites, including the Port of Long Beach. Our3310participation in supporting this critical need put the safety and3311reliability of our maritime infrastructure on center stage for national3312security. Keeping American ports like Long Beach competitive not only3313economically benefits our nation, but is a matter of national security,3314and I want to thank you all for your leadership and investment in port3315infrastructure to ensure American ports continue to be global leaders3316on trade.3317                         Deep Draft Navigation3318    A top priority for the Port of Long Beach is our Deep Draft3319Navigation project. This project will deepen the main federal channel3320from 76 to 80 feet, improving safety, and enhancing efficiency for3321vessel operations by allowing VLCCs to call at maximum capacity under3322most weather and tide conditions without waiting offshore. The project3323will bolster the Port's ability to deliver significant national3324economic benefits.3325    Thanks to WRDA 2022, the project has an authorized Chief's Report3326and received full Preconstruction Engineering and Design funding from3327the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Our request for WRDA 20263328is the approval of a post authorization change report (PACR) which we3329have been diligently working on with our partners at the Corps.3330Authorizing the PACR for this project in the forthcoming WRDA will help3331ensure our infrastructure keeps pace with evolving cargo volumes,3332vessel size, and global competition. We seek the Committee's assistance3333in ensuring that the USACE completes the PACR for inclusion in WRDA33342026.3335               Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund/Donor Ports3336    I also want to thank this committee for its longstanding work over3337the years to ensure Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) dollars are3338fully allocated for their intended purpose. I recognize the significant3339work the Committee put into the distribution of these critical funds3340and the Port respectfully requests your continued support to ensure3341that annual distribution of these funds is not viewed as optional.3342    In particular, funds for in-water expanded uses have been received3343only once by qualifying donor and energy ports since they were3344authorized in WRDA 2020. This occurred in the FY24 USACE workplan which3345resulted in the distribution of $49 million for Long Beach, which the3346Port is using for dredging at our berths and for critical seismic and3347safety improvements at our wharves and quays. For the Port of Long3348Beach alone, more than $500 million in critical safety projects are3349planned over the next 10 years in our capital investment plan. A3350reliable and automatic allocation of HMT expanded use funding is3351essential to making sure these safety improvements are completed.3352    As both a donor and energy port, we estimate that the Port of Long3353Beach alone generated approximately $400 million in HMT revenues in33542024. Over the last decade, the Port of Long Beach has proudly3355supported our fellow U.S. ports' dredging projects by generating3356billions to the fund. We are not seeking the creation of a new funding3357stream. We are simply calling for collected HMT funds to be allocated3358according to congressional intent to invest a mere fraction of the fund3359to protect our National Commercial Strategic Seaport and other ports3360that keep our economy moving and generate billions of dollars in3361revenues for their states and this country.3362                Comprehensive Infrastructure Investments3363    While today's hearing focuses on water infrastructure, the purview3364of this Committee is much more expansive and I want thank the Committee3365for the work that it is also doing to prepare for the next surface3366transportation reauthorization bill. Entities like ports rely on strong3367water and surface transportation networks to support critical supply3368chains. Modernized navigation and improved freight fluidity can reduce3369vessel delays and idling, improve operational efficiency, and3370complement our ongoing work to transition to cleaner, more sustainable3371goods movement. The Port of Long Beach remains committed to support a3372more competitive, future-ready maritime industry. Ensuring that3373waterside access and landside capacity grow together is vital to the3374country's economic prosperity.3375    In closing, the Port of Long Beach appreciates the Committee's3376leadership and bipartisan work to ensure America's maritime3377infrastructure remains strong, modern, and globally competitive. WRDA3378is a critical tool for protecting our economic vitality and keeping our3379supply chains moving efficiently and safely. Mr. Chairman, Ranking3380Member, and Members of the Committee, thank you again for the3381opportunity to testify. I look forward to working with you to advance3382this important legislation, and I would be pleased to answer any3383questions.33843385    Mr. Collins. Thank you.3386    The chair has been notified there will be a series of votes3387occurring on the House floor. The subcommittee shall stand in3388recess, subject to call of the chair.3389    I am sorry if I didn't--Ms. Wilson wants me to clarify3390myself. The chair has been notified there will be a series of3391votes occurring on the House floor. The subcommittee shall3392stand in recess, subject to call of the chair.3393    [Recess.]3394    Mr. Collins. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and3395Environment will reconvene the previously recessed hearing.3396    I now yield myself 5 minutes for questioning.3397    Ms. Ufner, non-Federal sponsors are an essential part of3398the Army Corps of Engineers. I know that is what you were3399talking about in your opening statement. In your experience,3400how has the Corps worked effectively with these non-Federal3401sponsors just to carry out our Civil Works projects?3402    Ms. Ufner. Thank you for the question, Congressman.3403    Non-Federal sponsors are an integral part of getting3404projects on the ground. They actually work with the Corps to3405identify water resource challenges on the ground. And once3406those challenges are identified, they do enter into a formal3407agreement with the Corps, called a Project Partnership3408Agreement, which lays out their cost share as well as their3409Federal requirements and any long-term obligations that they3410have throughout the process.3411    And I just want to note here that the non-Federal sponsors,3412their funding comes from public entities, so they do share a3413responsibility to the taxpayer, as does the Federal Government3414when designing these projects.3415    Thank you.3416    Mr. Collins. Are there ways that the Corps can improve its3417budgeting process, maybe with multiyear budgets?3418    Ms. Ufner. Thank you for the question. So the question is,3419can the Corps improve their processes, correct, whether it be3420multiyear or--and there are many different ways that you can3421look at this. Primarily, we are going to say communications,3422that if there is the ability of the--it works best among all3423stages of Government if we can communicate, and this is even3424before policies are proposed, studies, projects, and there3425needs to be touch points throughout the process to really do3426discussion about what is working and what is not working, what3427is feasible, and what we can do moving forward.3428    Mr. Collins. And I know that was number one on your list3429when you were doing your opening statement, but can you expound3430on that just a tad bit more on the communication?3431    Ms. Ufner. What, the communication?3432    Mr. Collins. Yes, ma'am, on being more clear.3433    Ms. Ufner. There are a couple things that we did flag in3434the back on the communication. My earlier answer focused on3435primarily rules and regulations, but we do flag within the3436testimony concerns with the Department of War memo on3437engagement with congressional staff, especially during the WRDA3438process.3439    Taking a step back, we realize, as a non-Federal sponsor,3440how important Congress and the Corps is through this process,3441because the Corps can provide technical assistance to both our3442non-Federal members as well as Congress, and so it is really3443important that we have that engagement.3444    Mr. Collins. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.3445    Dr. Hacegaba--I got it, didn't I?3446    Mr. Hacegaba. Hacegaba.3447    Mr. Collins. Hacegaba. Or Dr. Noel. In Georgia, we have3448seen a serious lack of operations and maintenance dredging work3449done in our navigability in our ports. Have you seen that at3450the Port of Long Beach or had similar experiences?3451    Mr. Hacegaba. We have, Chairman. There is an old saying3452that what happens in Long Beach, at our port, eventually3453cascades across the country, and that is how critical our port3454is to the Nation's transportation system.3455    Mr. Collins. Can you give me any pointers on how we can fix3456some of that?3457    Mr. Hacegaba. Well, to take this project that we brought3458before this committee today and the PACR that we are3459requesting, this Deep Draft Navigation Project would enable us3460to handle larger ships that will handle more energy product.3461That is not only good for the Nation's economy, but it3462prioritizes and strengthens national security as well.3463    Mr. Collins. All right. Okay. Thank you.3464    I don't really have time to ask another question, but I am3465going to anyway.3466    Mr. Jones, HNTB has recently been recognized for its work3467on public-private partnerships with the Corps. In your3468experience, how has the P3 approach worked to reduce cost,3469accelerate schedules, or otherwise improve project outcomes?3470    Mr. Jones. Yes, well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. HNTB, as you3471noted, does have the experience with public-private3472partnerships. We see that, across the board, that there are3473opportunities to significantly expand the Corps' capacity3474compared to the traditional delivery model by utilization of3475P3s.3476    I think it is worth noting, though, that P3s are not a3477silver bullet. They are not to be used in every instance. But3478in working with either the Corps or the non-Federal sponsor,3479understanding what the project is, what the goals of the3480project are, and then consider what alternative delivery3481opportunities there may be, P3 may, in fact, be the best3482opportunity to one, accelerate the project delivery, get that3483project online quicker, and leverage private resources that can3484be brought to bear to accelerate often delayed project3485schedules.3486    Mr. Collins. All right. Thank you. Thank you.3487    I am definitely out of time, so I yield back.3488    The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Ms. Wilson,3489for 5 minutes.3490    Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chair.3491    Dr. Hacegaba, as the chair of the Florida Ports Caucus, I3492understand your port's goal of remaining competitive in the3493global market. In your testimony, you discussed your request3494for a Post-Authorization Change Report in WRDA 2026. Can you3495discuss what Congress should do to keep the PACR process3496predictable and timely?3497    Mr. Hacegaba. Ranking Member, thank you for your question.3498It is a great question because the reason why we are3499championing this PACR within the WRDA 2026 is because a project3500of this type supports the Nation's priorities for national3501security as well as supports the national economy. And when you3502look at the PACR, what we are doing is trying to rightsize the3503funding necessary to deliver this project at a time when costs3504have escalated for a variety of different reasons.3505    And as this subcommittee is well aware, over time, most3506projects that are under the discretion of Army Corps have also3507experienced escalation in costs. And what we are trying to do3508is rightsize the funding necessary to deliver this project in3509order to get this project of national significance up and3510running to support national security as well as the Nation's3511economy.3512    Ms. Wilson of Florida. Okay. Thank you.3513    Ms. Ufner, it has come to my attention that many of my3514colleagues are having difficulty getting information from the3515Corps as they are forced to wait for the Pentagon to clear the3516sharing of information. Can you discuss how this change in3517information sharing has the ability to hinder project3518development and delivery?3519    Ms. Ufner. Thank you for this question. And to your point3520about the Department of War memo, we are hearing about3521challenges both from the congressional and from the non-Federal3522sponsor level. From the congressional, we are definitely3523hearing some examples of getting the communication that they3524need to get from the Corps.3525    And one of the things we keep on stressing is that WRDA is3526essentially a three-legged stool or a triangle, that if one3527partner is unable to provide information, it makes it unsteady.3528    From a non-Federal sponsor angle, we have heard examples of3529non-Federal sponsors asking the Corps for needs assessments and3530other information that they have been unable to obtain due to3531uncertainty surrounding how the Corps can interface with3532entities outside the Corps with this memo.3533    Ms. Wilson of Florida. Okay. Thank you.3534    Mr. Jones, since becoming a Member of Congress, I have been3535pushing to move WRDA into a regular 2-year cycle. The cycle is3536important because it delivers certainty and routine as we3537process our Nation's needs.3538    Can you discuss how maintaining a consistent cycle helps3539the industries, local sponsors, and the Federal Government?3540    Mr. Jones. Yes, well, thank you for the question, Ranking3541Member.3542    As you alluded to, the 2-year cycle of WRDA is critical. I3543think you heard from all of us this morning the criticality of3544that 2-year cycle. What it does, Congresswoman, is it provides3545predictability to the Corps of Engineers as well as the non-3546Federal partners who are out on the ground trying to deliver3547projects. There is some assurity that, with the 2-year cycle,3548that the folks on the ground know what to expect, know how to3549plan, understand the funding that lies ahead for their3550projects, where there might be funding gaps that they can look3551to fill.3552    As in any area of business, particularly in private3553business of which I am fortunate to be a part of, understanding3554the schedule and having predictability is essential to3555everything that we do, and I don't see it to be any different3556in delivering public infrastructure projects that are delivered3557through WRDA.3558    Ms. Wilson of Florida. Okay. Thank you very much.3559    I ask unanimous consent that statements from the following3560organizations be made a part of today's hearing record: the3561American Public Works Association; the American Society of3562Civil Engineers; the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel3563Association; the National Wildlife Federation; and the Port of3564Tampa Bay.3565    I yield back.3566    Mr. Collins. Without objection, so ordered.3567    [The information follows:]35683569Letter of December 17, 2025, from Vic Bianes, PE, President, and Scott3570    D. Grayson, CAE, Chief Executive Officer, American Public Works3571  Association, to Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S.3572      Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and3573   Environment, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Frederica S. Wilson3574                                                 December 17, 2025.3575Congressman Mike Collins,3576Chair, Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee,3577Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2351 Rayburn House3578        Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-1010.3579Congresswoman Frederica Wilson,3580Ranking Member, Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee,3581Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2080 Rayburn House3582        Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-0924.3583    Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson,3584    The American Public Works Association (APWA) represents 32,0003585public works professionals across North America who serve in both the3586public and private sectors providing expertise at the local, state and3587federal government levels. Working in the public interest, our members3588are responsible for designing, building, operating, and maintaining3589America's vast infrastructure network that is so fundamental to our3590economy, environment, public health, and safety. This includes water3591infrastructure such as ports and harbors, inland waterway navigation,3592and water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater, drainage and flood3593control systems. APWA members strongly value our collaboration with our3594federal partners, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency3595and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Civil Works Program, to3596successfully deliver critical water resources improvements for3597communities across the country.3598    For close to 85 years, Congress has provided federal funds through3599vital infrastructure financing programs to municipalities to address3600local water quality challenges. These long-standing programs are3601essential to the strength of our communities and this investment, along3602with the $50 billion in supplemental funding provided through the3603Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA), has gone a long3604way to ensuring water systems can continue to serve their communities.3605Water infrastructure projects grow our economy, create jobs, protect3606our environment, and provide a better quality of life for all3607Americans. The Water Resources Development Act and associated water3608infrastructure programs are an essential part of this system. As we3609look forward, APWA urges the Committee to consider the following for3610its 2026 water infrastructure package.3611Program Reauthorization3612      Reauthorize the Clean Water and Drinking Water State3613Revolving Fund programs through 2031 and authorized funding at $3.253614billion for each program.3615      Reauthorize the Water Infrastructure Finance and3616Innovation Act (WIFIA) program and maintain the existing authorized3617levels and authorize funding at $75.6 million.3618      Reauthorize the Clean Water Infrastructure Resilience and3619Sustainability program, Midsize and Large Drinking Water System3620Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability program and Drinking Water3621System Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability program through36222031.3623      Reauthorize the Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse3624Municipal Grant through 2031 and increase authorized funding to $4003625million.3626      Reauthorize the Drinking Water Infrastructure Risk and3627Resilience program through 2031.3628Legislation3629      H.R. 5566--Sustainability and Resilience Program3630Reauthorization3631      H.R. 5661--Water Preservation and Affordability Act3632      H.R. 5868--Water Cybersecurity Enhancement Act3633      H.R. 5730--Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Grant3634Reauthorization Act3635      H.R. 3861--Clean Water SRF Parity Act3636      H.R. 2093--To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control3637Act with respect to permitting terms, and for other purposes3638      H.R. 6229--To reauthorize the Water Infrastructure3639Finance and Innovation Act of 2014, and for other purposes3640Additional Priorities3641    APWA would also like to highlight to the Committee the importance3642of workforce development programs. The water industry's workforce is3643aging and not achieving a full rate of replacement. This puts a strain3644on employees who may be required to perform double duty merely to3645maintain basic operations. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates3646that the water sector will need about 220,000 new jobs annually to keep3647up with demand.3648    The Congressional intent codified in IIJA recognized the importance3649of ensuring a strong pipeline of skilled and diverse workers in the3650water and wastewater sector and the part that public works plays in3651establishing and growing that workforce. APWA was proud to have played3652a key role in incorporating that language into the law and continues to3653support the maintenance of dedicated programs that recruit, train, and3654retain new water industry professionals.3655Conclusion3656    Each day public works professionals are diligently working to3657protect and maintain the critical infrastructure that is so essential3658to protecting our health and quality of life. Because of our shared3659commitment, APWA looks forward to continuing to work with you and your3660staff on this legislation to help public works professionals meet our3661water infrastructure challenges. If you have questions or comments3662regarding this letter or APWA's water priorities, please contact APWA3663Government Affairs Manager Leah Harnish.3664            Sincerely,3665Vic Bianes, PE,3666President, American Public Works Association.3667Scott D. Grayson, CAE,3668Chief Executive Officer, American Public Works Association.36693670CC:  Congressman Sam Graves, Chair, Committee on Transportation and3671Infrastructure3672     Congressman Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on3673Transportation and Infrastructure36743675Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Submitted for the3676                   Record by Hon. Frederica S. Wilson3677    The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) thanks the committee3678for the opportunity to submit the following statement for the record3679detailing our priorities for the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)3680of 2026. We also wish to express our appreciation to the committee for3681its commitment to keeping WRDA on schedule for reauthorization, as it3682has done biennially since 2014. Doing so ensures greater certainty and3683predictability for new and ongoing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)3684water resources projects and provides an opportunity to make needed3685updates to federal water resources policy. ASCE looks forward to3686working with the committee in the weeks and months ahead to further3687improve our nation's water resources infrastructure.3688    Over the past two WRDA cycles, Congress has enacted into law3689multiple key policies supporting the safety and enhancement of our3690nation's infrastructure. This includes reauthorization of the National3691Levee Safety Program, the authorization of a new national inventory of3692low-head dams in 2022, and reauthorization of the National Dam Safety3693Program along with an adjustment to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund3694cost share formula in 2024. In March 2025, ASCE released the latest3695version of its Report Card for America's Infrastructure. Thanks in3696large part to the enactment of these policies in WRDA, grades for all3697four of the water resources infrastructure Report Card chapters3698improved from 2021 to 2025, with the grades for Dams and Levees both3699improving from ``D'' to ``D+'', Ports improving from ``B-'' to ``B'',3700and Inland Waterways improving from ``D+'' to ``C-''. Congress passing3701effective WRDA legislation every two years is critical to the3702condition, capacity, resilience, and lifespan of our nation's water3703resources infrastructure. We are grateful for the opportunity to3704continue to be a part of that conversation and encourage the3705committee's support for the following ASCE priorities.3706                 Support for High Hazard Potential Dams3707    The United States is home to more than 92,000 dams serving a3708variety of functions from water storage and flood control to irrigation3709and recreation. Of those dams, 18 percent (or nearly 17,000 dams) are3710classified as having high-hazard potential. This means a failure of one3711of these dams would likely result in the loss of life and significant3712destruction of property. While hazard potential is not an indicator of3713a dam's overall condition, almost 2,600 of the nation's 17,000 high-3714hazard potential dams have been assessed to be in poor or3715unsatisfactory condition. Since 2012, the number of high-hazard3716potential dams has grown by nearly 20% due to increased downstream3717development. Compounding the problem, the average age of the nation's3718dams is 64 years, which is 7 years older than in 2021, and 7 out of 103719dams nationwide are more than 50 years old according to the Association3720of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO). These trends, along with3721increasingly severe weather events producing higher levels of3722precipitation, will continue to place increased strain on the nation's3723high-hazard dams.3724    Federal programs like the National Dam Safety Program provide3725states with grant funding to support certain administrative and dam3726monitoring activities by state level dam safety programs. However,3727these state assistance grants may not be used to support dam3728rehabilitation projects or dam repairs. One of the few federal funding3729streams available to support dam repair and rehabilitation is the High3730Hazard Potential Dam Rehabilitation Grant Program, or HHPD Program. The3731HHPD Program was first authorized in 2016 under the Water3732Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act and provides3733competitive grants to states to support rehabilitation projects for3734dams that pose the greatest risk to the public. Since 2019, the HHPD3735Program has provided $71.1 million in grant funding across 40 states3736and Puerto Rico, despite being historically underfunded through annual3737appropriations and having much of the funding provided through the3738Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act reprogrammed or rescinded.\1\3739---------------------------------------------------------------------------3740    \1\ https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/learn/dam-safety/3741rehabilitation-high-hazard-potential-dams/awards#20193742---------------------------------------------------------------------------3743    The HHPD program's legislative authority is set to lapse in3744September of 2026. Reauthorization of this critical program will be3745necessary to ensure that it is available to address the growing3746challenges to high-hazard dams nationwide. As such, ASCE strongly3747encourages the inclusion of H.R. 5414, the Dam Assessment and3748Mitigation Support (DAMS) Act into any WRDA legislation taken up in3749Congress in 2026. The DAMS Act would reauthorize the HHPD program for3750five years. It would also allow states to use their own risk-based3751priority systems, in lieu of federally created systems, to identify3752dams in greatest need and better prioritize grant applications in a3753manner that best meets the needs of their own communities.3754 Revision of National Dam Safety Program State Assistance Grant Formula3755    In 2024, WRDA reauthorized the National Dam Safety Program, which3756had lapsed at the end of Fiscal Year 2023. The National Dam Safety3757Program provides resources to states to support inspection and3758monitoring activities, staffing needs, and emergency planning through3759State Assistance Grants. The 2024 reauthorization of this program3760ensures those funds can continue to flow directly to state dam safety3761programs. WRDA 2024 also included provisions to incorporate low-head3762dams into the National Inventory of Dams. Low-head dams are small,3763river spanning structures which produce dangerous currents that have3764been shown to harm public safety. ASCE supported the incorporation of3765these structures into the inventory to improve the overall safety of3766the nation's dams. State Assistance Grant allocations to states are3767determined by multiple factors, including number of dams in a state.3768WRDA 2024 altered this formula factor by including the number of low-3769head dams in addition to dams (33 U.S.C. Sec.  467j(a)(2)(A)(ii)(I) &3770(II)). This poses multiple challenges to states and may affect their3771ability to receive valuable resources for their dam safety programs.3772    While the development of a national inventory of low-head dams3773continues to be a priority for ASCE, it is a process that is still in3774its early stages and not yet fully developed. Additionally, many states3775do not regulate or collect data on low-head dams, and the federal3776government currently lacks the resources and proper mandate to provide3777incentives to states to collect and upload low-head dam data into the3778budding inventory. Until USACE has had time to properly develop the3779low-head dam inventory, including assisting states with the process of3780counting and collecting data on low-head dams, factoring low-head dams3781into the total number of dams that determine State Assistance Grant3782allocations may divert funding away from states that have significant3783dam safety needs but lack the capacity to properly account for low-head3784dams. These circumstances reduce the overall safety of the nation's3785dams. To address these challenges, ASCE recommends striking the3786language incorporating low-head dams into the grant formula from the37872024 law and to instead continue supporting robust efforts to grow and3788develop the National Low-Head Dam Inventory.3789          Reauthorization of the National Levee Safety Program3790    USACE has identified more than 24,000 miles of levees across the3791country providing flood protection to over 2,300 communities3792nationwide. The nation's levee systems protect more than 23 million3793people, and $2 trillion worth of property value--including 7 million3794buildings and 5 million acres of farmland--that sit behind them. Since3795the creation of the National Levee Safety Program, USACE has made3796significant progress developing a national regulatory and support3797framework to improve the safety of the nation's levees.3798    The National Levee Safety Program was first authorized in 2014 for3799the purposes of supporting the standing up of state levee safety3800programs, creating a comprehensive database of the nation's levees,3801developing guidelines for levee safety best practices, and supporting3802repair and rehabilitation of the nation's levees. The National Levee3803Safety Program was last reauthorized in the 2022 WRDA and has continued3804to make significant progress. In 2024, USACE produced the first3805National Levee Safety Guidelines, providing a consistent yet flexible3806set of best practices for levee management, reducing flood impact,3807utilizing nature-based solutions to improve levee safety, and3808addressing the needs of underserved communities living behind levees.3809Additionally, USACE has made significant progress developing its3810National Levee Database, providing more detailed data on USACE's levee3811portfolio, as well as dams owned and operated at the state and local3812level. As previously noted, this progress played a large role in ASCE's3813decision to raise its grade for the nation's levees in its 2025 Report3814Card for America's Infrastructure from D to D+.3815    The National Levee Safety Program's legislative authority is set to3816expire at the end FY 2028. In 2024, the House's WRDA bill included a 4-3817year reauthorization of the National Levee Safety Program. That3818provision, however, was not included in the Senate WRDA bill, and was3819thus not included in the final WRDA signed into law by President Joe3820Biden in early 2025. To ensure that it can continue to develop and3821provide needed assistance to states, ASCE strongly encourages the3822inclusion of a 5-year reauthorization into WRDA 2026.3823             Addressing the Water Resources Project Backlog3824    In each WRDA bill, Congress authorizes new navigation, ports, and3825flood protection projects and feasibility studies for USACE to begin3826work on. In 2024, Congress authorized 21 new water resources projects3827with an authorized total federal funding level of more than $103828billion. While authorization of new projects every other year is3829essential to USACE planning, and provides the agency with a degree of3830predictability, Congressional appropriators have not been able to fund3831water resources projects at a fast enough pace, creating a current3832project backlog of more than $100 billion. This backlog results in3833project delays, increased overall costs, and can create challenges to3834project development and design. ASCE encourages Congress, including the3835Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, House Transportation &3836Infrastructure Committee, and House and Senate Appropriations3837Committees, to work closely with the USACE to develop plans and3838strategies to address and reduce the water resources project backlog.3839    Utilize Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for Maintenance Dredging3840                               Activities3841    Waterside infrastructure needs, such as maintenance dredging, are3842paid for through the federal Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF). The3843HMTF collects revenue through a 0.125% user fee on the value of cargo3844shipped. The 2020 WRDA included full utilization of the $10 billion3845balance of the HMTF by allowing $500 million to be appropriated in FY38462021, with an increase of $100 million annually until 2030. The full3847expenditure of the HMTF has been a longtime priority and ASCE strongly3848supported Congress's effort to address this issue in 2020.3849    Dredging is a critical and continuously needed activity for ports.3850Channel depth determines the size of vessels that can call at a port,3851and maintenance dredging is important for making sure ports can safely3852accommodate large ships and compete with one another.3853    In 2025, Ports received the highest grade on ASCE's Report Card for3854America's Infrastructure, earning a grade of B. Port investment3855decisions are largely driven by the need to upgrade aging facilities3856and maintain the depth of channels and harbors to keep them safe and3857navigable. To help ensure the continued functionality of our nation's3858ports, ASCE urges Congress to continue to spend down the balance of the3859HMTF on maintenance dredging activities.3860                               Conclusion3861    ASCE appreciates the opportunity to provide the committee with this3862statement on its priorities for the 2026 Water Resources Development3863Act. We strongly believe that our nation must prioritize investments in3864its water resources infrastructure to ensure public safety, a strong3865economy, and the protection of environmental resources. Support for3866America's dams, levees, ports, and inland waterways is needed to close3867the growing funding gap and to ensure the country has world-class 21st3868century infrastructure.38693870Letter of December 17, 2025, from Michele Stanley, President and Chief3871 Executive Officer, National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, to Hon.3872 Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member,3873  Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Submitted for the3874                   Record by Hon. Frederica S. Wilson3875                                                 December 17, 2025.3876The Honorable Mike Collins,3877Chairman,3878Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, U.S. House of3879        Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,3880        Washington, DC 20515.3881The Honorable Frederica Wilson,3882Ranking Member,3883Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, U.S. House of3884        Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,3885        Washington, DC 20515.3886    Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson:3887    On behalf of the over 500 members of the National Stone, Sand &3888Gravel Association (NSSGA), I am writing to share our priorities for3889the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2026 ahead of the3890Subcommittee's upcoming stakeholder priorities hearing. NSSGA3891represents aggregates producers and manufacturers of equipment and3892services that support the construction industry. Our members employ3893more than 100,000 hardworking men and women responsible for producing3894the essential raw materials found in every home, building, road, port,3895dam, and public works project across the nation.3896    Aggregates are critical components in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers3897(USACE) projects authorized under WRDA. These materials are vital for3898improving ports and harbors, enhancing waterway infrastructure and3899navigation, protecting shorelines, mitigating flooding, and supporting3900ecosystem restoration efforts. Our industry also plays a key role in3901environmental applications, including erosion control, water filtration3902systems, wastewater management, drinking water purification, and3903wetland restoration.3904    NSSGA strongly supports the biennial reauthorization of WRDA to3905provide certainty and sustained funding for these essential3906infrastructure projects. This predictability enables aggregates3907producers to plan effectively and supply the building materials needed3908for vital water infrastructure initiatives. We applaud the3909Subcommittee's efforts to gather stakeholder input and urge Congress to3910prioritize the following in WRDA 2026:3911      Continued Investment in USACE Civil Works Projects:3912Authorize and fully fund projects that address navigation improvements,3913flood risk management, coastal protection, and ecosystem restoration.3914These initiatives not only bolster economic competitiveness but also3915create jobs and support communities reliant on reliable water3916infrastructure.3917      Streamlining Permitting and Regulatory Processes: Promote3918policies that expedite project reviews while maintaining environmental3919protections to reduce delays and costs associated with infrastructure3920development.3921      Material Neutrality and Performance-Based Standards:3922Encourage the use of non-discriminatory, performance-based criteria for3923materials in USACE projects to foster innovation, sustainability, and3924cost savings for taxpayers.39253926    NSSGA appreciates the bipartisan tradition of WRDA, and the3927aggregates industry stands ready to provide the essential materials to3928support our nation's water infrastructure projects. Please consider3929NSSGA as a resource as you continue your important work of advancing3930this legislation.3931            Sincerely,3932                                           Michele Stanley,3933      President and CEO, National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association.39343935cc:  The Honorable Sam Graves3936    The Honorable Rick Larsen39373938Statement of Melissa Samet, Legal Director, Water Resources and Coasts,3939    National Wildlife Federation, Submitted for the Record by Hon.3940                          Frederica S. Wilson3941    Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and Members of the3942Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the National3943Wildlife Federation's priorities for the Water Resources Development3944Act of 2026.3945    The National Wildlife Federation is the nation's largest3946conservation advocacy organization with almost eight million members3947and supporters and affiliates in 52 states and territories. Our members3948represent the full spectrum of people who care deeply about wildlife:3949they are bird and wildlife watchers, hikers, gardeners, anglers,3950hunters, forest stewards, and farmers. The National Wildlife Federation3951has championed clean and healthy rivers and streams since our founding3952in 1936. Conserving our wetlands, streams, rivers, and shorelines for3953wildlife and communities is at the core of our mission.3954The Nation's Water Resources Challenges Are Growing at an Alarming Rate3955    America's communities and infrastructure are being tested like3956never before. Increasingly severe storms and floods are wreaking havoc3957on communities and infrastructure, putting people at risk and causing3958billions of dollars of damage each year. America's treasured wildlife3959is in crisis, including the freshwater species most affected by water3960resources projects. The overwhelming societal and economic toll of3961these crises affects us all. The common-sense reforms outlined in this3962statement would build on recent Water Resources Development Acts to3963help keep communities safe, allow our treasured wildlife to thrive, and3964protect billions of dollars of federal and state investments.3965Severe Storms and Floods Are Wreaking Havoc on Communities3966    The nation is facing increasingly severe storms and floods, extreme3967droughts, massive wildfires and record high temperatures. We have3968suffered more billion-dollar inland flood disasters in the last decade3969than in the prior three decades combined.\1\ We have endured the3970highest frequency of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes over the last eight3971years than ever before.\2\ The human suffering caused by these and many3972smaller disasters is unfathomable, with low-income communities bearing3973a disproportionate share of the harm.3974---------------------------------------------------------------------------3975    \1\ NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) U.S.3976Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (2025) (https://3977www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/), DOI: 10.25921/stkw-7w73.3978    \2\ Id. (citing AOML, 2025) (``the U.S. has been impacted by3979landfalling category 4 or 5 hurricanes in six of the last eight years3980(Harvey, Irma, Maria, Michael, Laura, Ida, Ian, Helene), which is the3981highest frequency on record'').3982---------------------------------------------------------------------------3983    The ever-mounting toll of human suffering and hundreds of billions3984of dollars in yearly economic losses \3\ from natural disasters shows3985no sign of abating and every sign that it will continue to grow.3986Research shows that both the intensity and number of extreme storms3987will continue to increase. In some locations, future extreme events3988could be twice as intense as historical averages.\4\ By 2050, high3989tides could cause ``sunny day'' flooding in coastal communities 25 to399075 days a year.\5\ By 2100, previously rare extreme rainstorms could3991happen every two years.\6\ By the end of the century, homes and3992commercial properties currently worth more than $1 trillion could be at3993risk of chronic flood inundation.\7\ Over the next 30 years, the ``risk3994of coastal floods damaging or destroying low-income homes will triple''3995resulting in the flooding of more than 25,000 affordable housing units3996each year.\8\3997---------------------------------------------------------------------------3998    \3\ E.g., Joint Economic Committee Report June 2024 (https://3999www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2024/6/flooding-costs-4000the-u-s-between-179-8-and-496-0-billion-each-year) (The total cost of4001flooding in the United States is estimated to be ``between $179.8 and4002$496.0 billion each year in 2023 dollars.'').4003    \4\ Madakumbura, G.D., Thackeray, C.W., Norris, J. et al.4004Anthropogenic influence on extreme precipitation over global land areas4005seen in multiple observational datasets. Nat Commun 12, 3944 (2021).4006https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24262-x.4007    \5\ NOAA High Tide Flooding Report, 2021 State of High Tide4008Flooding and Annual Outlook.4009    \6\ Megan C. Kirchmeier-Young, Xuebin Zhang, Human influence has4010intensified extreme precipitation in North America, Proceedings of the4011National Academy of Sciences June 2020, 117 (24) 13308-13313;4012DOI:10.1073/pnas.1921628117.4013    \7\ Union of Concerned Scientists. Underwater: Rising Seas, Chronic4014Floods, and the Implications for US Coastal Real Estate (2018).4015    \8\ Maya K Buchanan et al, Sea level rise and coastal flooding4016threaten affordable housing, Environ. Res. Lett., 15 124020/ (2020)4017(Also highlighting that even low levels of flooding can ``cause4018profound disruptions to families already struggling to make ends meet''4019and can be particularly challenging to remedy in affordable housing4020units, which are often in poor repair to begin with.)4021---------------------------------------------------------------------------4022Our Treasured Wildlife Has Been Pushed to the Brink4023    The changing weather, combined with historic and ongoing4024destruction and degradation of vast swaths of habitat, have pushed4025America's wildlife into crisis, helping to drive the planet's ongoing40266th Mass Extinction of species.\9\ As many as one-third of America's4027plant and wildlife species are vulnerable, with one in five imperiled4028and at high risk of extinction.\10\4029---------------------------------------------------------------------------4030    \9\ Gerardo Ceballos, Ehrlich Paul, Raven Peter, Vertebrates on the4031brink as indicators of biological annihilation and the sixth mass4032extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences June 2020,4033117 (24) 13596-13602; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1922686117 (``The ongoing sixth4034mass extinction may be the most serious environmental threat to the4035persistence of civilization, because it is irreversible. . . . the4036sixth mass extinction is human caused and accelerating. . . . '').4037    \10\ Stein, B. A., L. S. Kutner, J. S. Adams eds. 2000. Precious4038Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States. New York:4039Oxford University Press.4040---------------------------------------------------------------------------4041    America's freshwater species, which are most affected by water4042resources projects, have been particularly hard hit. Approximately 404043percent of the nation's freshwater fish species are now rare or4044imperiled.\11\ Nearly 60 percent of the nation's globally significant4045freshwater mussel species are imperiled or vulnerable, and an4046additional 10 percent are already extinct.\12\4047---------------------------------------------------------------------------4048    \11\ Jelks, H. L., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, et al. 2008.4049Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and4050diadromous fishes. Fisheries. 33: 372-407.4051    \12\ Williams, J. D., M. L. Warren, K. S. Cummings, J. L. Harris,4052and R. J. Neves. 1993. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the4053United States and Canada. Fisheries 18: 6-22; Lydeard, C., R. H. Cowie,4054W. F. Ponder, et al. 2004. The global decline of nonmarine mollusks.4055BioScience 54 321-330.4056---------------------------------------------------------------------------4057    Our wildlife crisis extends well beyond rare and endangered4058species, and now affects many widespread and previously abundant4059creatures, such as the little brown bat, monarch butterfly, and many of4060our most beloved songbirds. State fish and wildlife agencies have4061identified more than 12,000 species nationwide in need of conservation4062action, and fully one-third of North America's bird species require4063urgent conservation attention.\13\4064---------------------------------------------------------------------------4065    \13\ Stein, B. A., N. Edelson, L. Anderson, J. Kanter, and J.4066Stemler. 2018. Reversing America's Wildlife Crisis: Securing the Future4067of Our Fish and Wildlife. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation.4068---------------------------------------------------------------------------4069    The historic loss and degradation of wildlife habitat across the4070country makes each additional acre of loss or degradation even more4071consequential for the long-term viability of our nation's fish and4072wildlife. At least ten states have lost more than 70 percent of their4073wetlands, which provide essential fish and wildlife habitat, while 224074states have lost 50 percent or more of their original wetland4075acreage.\14\ The construction of levees to reduce the frequency and4076duration of flooding in the lower Mississippi River Valley has been4077identified as the single largest historic contributor to wetland losses4078in the country, according to the Department of the Interior.\15\ Fish4079and wildlife have also been severely harmed through the pervasive4080alteration of natural stream flows, including from reservoirs and locks4081and dams, which have occurred in 86 percent of the almost 3,000 streams4082assessed by the U.S. Geological Survey.\16\4083---------------------------------------------------------------------------4084    \14\ T.E. Dahl and S.M. Stedman. 2013. Status and trends of4085wetlands in the coastal watersheds of the Conterminous United States40862004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife4087Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National4088Marine Fisheries Service. (46 pp); Dahl, T.E. 2006. Status and trends4089of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. U.S.4090Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.4091(112 pp); Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the4092conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. U.S. Department of the4093Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. (82 pp); Dahl,4094T.E., and Johnson, C.E., 1991, Status and trends of wetlands in the4095conterminous United States, mid-1970's to mid-1980's. U.S. Department4096of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. (28 pp).4097    \15\ Report to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior, The4098Impact of Federal Programs on Wetlands, Volume II, at 145 (1994).4099Approximately 80 percent of the bottomland hardwood wetlands in the4100lower Mississippi River basin have already been lost approximately.4101Report to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior, The Impact of4102Federal Programs on Wetlands, Volume I at 39.4103    \16\ U.S. Geological Survey, Ecological Health in the Nation's4104Streams, Fact Sheet 2013-3033 (July 2013); Carlisle, D.M., Meador,4105M.R., Short, T.M., Tate, C.M., Gurtz, M.E., Bryant, W.L., Falcone,4106J.A., and Woodside, M.D., 2013, The quality of our Nation's waters--4107Ecological health in the Nation's streams, 1993-2005: U.S. Geological4108Survey Circular 1391 (120 pp).4109---------------------------------------------------------------------------4110         Building on Past Reforms Will Improve Project Outcomes4111    The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) plays an integral role in our4112nation's response to these interconnected crises. The Corps is charged4113with bolstering community resilience and securing clean and healthy4114waters for people and wildlife alike. To help achieve these essential4115goals, Congress has given the Corps critical directives and tools in4116multiple, overwhelming bipartisan Water Resources Development Acts.\17\4117---------------------------------------------------------------------------4118    \17\ For example, since 2018 Congress has included multiple4119provisions in the Water Resources Development Acts that allow and4120encourage the Corps to: take advantage of the risk-reduction potential4121of our natural defenses like healthy wetlands and floodplains; advance4122effective hydrologic modeling including through partnerships with the4123National Laboratories and academic communities; and improve outreach4124and engagement with communities and Tribes.4125---------------------------------------------------------------------------4126    For example, multiple provisions in the Water Resources Development4127Acts of 2018, 2020, and 2022 strengthen and facilitate the Corps'4128consideration of common-sense, low impact nonstructural solutions for4129reducing flood impacts.\18\ These provisions build on the Congressional4130directive established in 1974 for the Corps to carefully assess4131nonstructural measures including home elevations and voluntary buyouts4132to ensure that the Corps formulates ``the most economically, socially,4133and environmentally acceptable means of reducing or preventing flood4134damages.'' \19\4135---------------------------------------------------------------------------4136    \18\ E.g., Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (Sec.  1149);4137Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (Sec. Sec.  114, 115, 116, 118,4138119); Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (Sec.  8118).4139    \19\ 33 USC 701 b-11, WRDA 1974 Sec.  73.4140---------------------------------------------------------------------------4141    These common-sense nonstructural solutions have long been4142recognized by the Corps as ``proven methods'' for reducing flood4143damages that are ``very effective'' in both the short term and the long4144term.\20\ Nonstructural measures are also ``very cost effective when4145compared to structural measures,'' \21\ including in small rural4146communities and other larger geographies that flood from multiple4147sources.\22\ Nonstructural measures typically produce $5 to $7 in4148benefits for every $1 spent.\23\ By improving community resilience,4149such measures can also help reduce the need for future--and typically4150very costly--disaster response and recovery.\24\ \25\ \26\4151---------------------------------------------------------------------------4152    \20\ USACE Fact Sheet, Nonstructural Flood Risk Management Measures4153(emphasis added). The cost-effectiveness of nonstructural measures is4154due in part to the fact that they are ``sustainable over the long term4155with minimal costs for operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation,4156and replacement.'' Id.4157    \21\ Id.4158    \22\ Letter to Assistant Secretary of the Army Adam Telle from Chad4159Berginnis, Executive Director of the Association of State Floodplain4160Managers (November 12, 2025).4161    \23\ National Institute of Building Sciences, Natural Hazard4162Mitigation Saves 2019 Report at 77, 84.4163    \24\ From 2016 to 2025, the Corps received $53.3 billion in4164supplemental funding, which in some years approached or exceeded the4165levels of annual appropriations. Congressional Research Service, U.S.4166Army Corps of Engineers: Supplemental Appropriations, June 16, 2025.4167    \25\ From 2005 to 2018 Congress enacted 13 supplemental bills4168related to flooding and natural disasters, providing a total of almost4169$45 billion to the Corps. For the same period, annual discretionary4170appropriations for flood-related projects and activities totaled $234171billion. Congressional Research Service, Army Corps of Engineers Annual4172and Supplemental Appropriations: Issues for Congress, October 1, 2018.4173    \26\ With ever increasing effects from storms, these emergency4174supplemental appropriations have also dramatically increased over time,4175with the Corps receiving ``$1.1 billion in the 1990s, $19.2 billion in4176the 2000s, and $29.0 billion in the 2010s.'' Congressional Research4177Service, Supplemental Appropriations for Army Corps Flood Response and4178Recovery, February 20, 2020. Of the $29.0 billion in supplemental4179funding provided in the 2010s, $18.6 billion was for completing new or4180ongoing flood risk reduction projects. During the same period,4181construction funding for flood risk reduction projects through the4182regular appropriations process averaged $8.4 billion a year. Id.4183---------------------------------------------------------------------------4184    Congress also has advanced cost-effective and environmentally4185protective water resources projects by, among other things, directing4186the Corps to: account for the costs of any transfers of flood risks4187onto other communities as a project cost; improve community resilience4188in the immediate aftermath of floods and other natural disasters4189through emergency debris removal; and protect vital habitats that4190provide natural flood protection and sustain fish and wildlife4191resources, including by first avoiding and then offsetting unavoidable4192damage to those habitats.4193    The recommendations outlined below would improve the Corps' ability4194to implement these important directives--implementation that is all the4195more important in the face of the many competing needs for federal4196funding, the Corps' $1 billion plus construction backlog, and the4197increasing flood and storm challenges facing communities across the4198country.4199                            Recommendations4200    Through our extensive experience with Corps projects across the4201country--and with communities affected by those projects--it is clear4202that additional direction is needed to ensure that the Corps implements4203the most effective, cost-effective, and environmentally sound solutions4204to the many water resources challenges facing the nation. To help the4205Corps achieve these vital goals, the National Wildlife Federation4206respectfully urges Congress to include policy reforms in the next Water4207Resources Development Act that:4208    1.  Improve project cost estimates by establishing clear criteria4209to guide the development of cost estimates. This will improve project4210planning, protect taxpayers, and provide certainty to non-federal4211sponsors.42124213    2.  Maximize emergency debris removal benefits by ensuring that the4214Corps' emergency debris removal contracts do not incentivize the4215unnecessary removal of healthy vegetation and habitats. This will4216safeguard communities, wildlife, and taxpayers.42174218    3.  Facilitate voluntary nonstructural measures by removing4219arbitrary implementation barriers and reducing the non-federal cost4220share for such measures. This will help reduce flood risks for4221communities, while protecting wildlife and saving taxpayer dollars in4222both the short and long term.42234224    4.  Ensure utilization of federal and state fish and wildlife4225expertise by ensuring that Corps planners take advantage of4226recommendations made pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act4227that derive from the special expertise of federal and state fish and4228wildlife experts. This is a common-sense, cost-effective way to improve4229projects and planning efficiency.42304231    5.  Clarify the need to offset new impacts resulting from4232activities carried out under updated operating plans, as required for4233all Corps projects. This will protect communities and wildlife, align4234Corps project goals, and protect billions of dollars of federal and4235state investments.42364237    Each of these policy reforms is discussed in more detail below.4238    The National Wildlife Federation also urges Congress to ensure that4239the Corps continues to swiftly advance important ecosystem restoration4240efforts, including those designed to restore the Mississippi River,4241coastal Louisiana, America's Everglades, the Ohio River, the Delaware4242River, and the effort to stem the ongoing threat and harm from invasive4243carp through the Brandon Road Lock and Dam project. We also encourage4244Congress to support swift advancement of the Lower Mississippi River4245Comprehensive Study and the authorization of associated recommended4246tiered studies, including the tiered studies for the ``Lower4247Mississippi River Restoration Program'' and ``Systemic Management of4248the Greater Mississippi River Basin.''4249    The National Wildlife Federation greatly appreciates the4250committee's role in advancing and overseeing the Corps' implementation4251of these studies and projects that are so vitally important to the4252health, well-being, and resilience of people and wildlife.42531. Improve Project Cost Estimates4254    Congress should improve the Corps' project cost estimates by4255establishing clear criteria to guide the development of these4256estimates. This will improve project planning, protect taxpayers, and4257provide certainty to non-federal sponsors.4258    The Corps' project cost estimates often are not reliable, with the4259actual costs of many Corps projects skyrocketing far above the amount4260originally authorized by Congress.\27\ Escalating project costs place4261heavy burdens on taxpayers and non-federal sponsors who pay the same4262percentage of total costs no matter how high those costs might climb.4263Widespread cost increases also call into question the project selection4264process itself.4265---------------------------------------------------------------------------4266    \27\ The Corps is allowed to increase construction costs without4267Congressional approval for construction cost increases: (1) due to4268inflation, cost indexes, and ``additional studies, modifications, and4269actions (including mitigation and other environmental actions)4270authorized'' by Federal law; and (2) by an additional 20 percent for4271modifications that do not materially alter the scope or function of the4272project as authorized. 33 U.S.C. Sec.  2280(1-2).4273---------------------------------------------------------------------------4274    The Corps agrees that many of its project cost estimates are4275unreliable,\28\ with rising costs affecting projects large and small.4276In recent years, the Corps has seen ``bids on important navigation and4277flood control projects come in at double or triple the previous cost4278estimates.'' \29\ Between FY2004 and FY2012, two-thirds of the 87 Corps4279flood control projects budgeted for construction suffered from4280skyrocketing project costs.\30\4281---------------------------------------------------------------------------4282    \28\ House of Representatives, Appropriations Committee, Oversight4283Hearing on the State of the Civil Works Program (February 25, 2025);4284USACE, Interim Guidance for Change Management on Civil Works Projects4285(18-Jul-2025).4286    \29\ House of Representatives Appropriations Committee Report,4287Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill4288at 7.4289    \30\ GAO-14-35, Army Corps of Engineers: Cost Increases in Flood4290Control Projects and Improving Communication with Nonfederal Sponsors4291Flood Control Cost Overruns (December 2013) at 15 (referred to4292hereafter as ``Flood Control Cost Overruns'').4293---------------------------------------------------------------------------4294    The Corps' Chief of Engineers recently told Congress that accurate4295cost estimates require an engineering design maturity level of at least429635%, but the Corps has ``allowed projects to be authorized with4297engineering well, well below that 35% threshold.'' \31\ The result are4298cost estimates that are ``way, way too optimistic.'' \32\4299---------------------------------------------------------------------------4300    \31\ House of Representatives Appropriations Committee, Oversight4301Hearing on the State of the Civil Works Program (February 25, 2025).4302    \32\ Id.; USACE, Interim Guidance for Change Management on Civil4303Works Projects (18-Jul-2025).43044305              Examples of Cost Increases for Corps Projects4306------------------------------------------------------------------------43074308------------------------------------------------------------------------43092,532%....................................  American Rivers Common4310                                             Features project, CA4311                                            Original cost estimate of4312                                             $57 million increased to4313                                             $1.5 billion, due in part4314                                             to significant design4315                                             changes needed to ensure4316                                             public safety.\33\431743181,238%....................................  Larose to Golden Meadow4319                                             project (pump component),4320                                             LA4321                                            Original cost estimate of4322                                             $800,000 increased to $10.74323                                             million, due to design4324                                             changes required to handle4325                                             the actual site4326                                             conditions.\34\43274328274%......................................  Olmstead Lock and Dam4329                                             project, IL and KY4330                                            Original cost estimate of4331                                             $775 million increased to4332                                             $2.9 billion, due in part4333                                             to unaccounted for4334                                             construction4335                                             challenges.\35\43364337151%......................................  Turkey Creek Basin project,4338                                             KS and MO4339                                            Original cost estimate of4340                                             $43 million increased to4341                                             $108 million, including $104342                                             million increase for work4343                                             required to access the4344                                             construction site.\36\43454346113%......................................  Roanoke River Upper Basin4347                                             project, VA4348                                            Original cost estimate of4349                                             $29 million increased to4350                                             $61.7 million, due to4351                                             required redesign to4352                                             address the discovery of4353                                             hazardous waste sites.\37\4354435598%.......................................  Monongahela Locks & Dam4356                                             project, PA4357                                            Original cost estimate of4358                                             $556 million increased to4359                                             $1.1 billion.\38\4360------------------------------------------------------------------------43614362    Congressional\\ appropriators\\ also\\ recognize\\ this\\4363problem,\\ and have advised the Corps that Class 3 Cost Estimates4364should be provided in feasibility studies before a Chief's Report is4365signed.\39\ A Class 3 Cost Estimate requires an ``intermediate level of4366project design'' that includes a ``thorough investigation of the4367factors that present the most risk during Construction'' such as4368``geotechnical surveys, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, and site4369characterization, to include utility mappings.'' \40\4370---------------------------------------------------------------------------4371    \33\ https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/4372p16021coll6/id/2194/rec/1.new.4373    \34\ GAO-14-35, Flood Control Cost Overruns at 15.4374    \35\ https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Portals/64/docs/Projects/4375FactSheets/Olmsted.pdf?ver=2020-02-27-101155-187.4376    \36\ GAO-14-35, Flood Control Cost Overruns at Appendix III.4377    \37\ Id.4378    \38\ https://www.lrp.usace.army.mil/Portals/72/docs/Mission/4379Planning%20Program%20Project4380%20Management/2021-116LowermonWEBOverviewPage(April2021).pdf.4381    \39\ House Report 118-580, Energy and Water Development and Related4382Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2025 (July 11, 2024) at 24.4383    \40\ House Report 119-213, Energy and Water Development and Related4384Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2026 (July 21, 2025) at 10-11.4385---------------------------------------------------------------------------4386    As Congressional appropriators highlighted in the 2025 House Energy4387and Water bill report, Class 3 Cost Estimates are essential at the4388feasibility study phase because:43894390        a project cannot be found technically feasible, economically4391        justified, and environmentally acceptable without the scope4392        definition, engineering, and design maturity necessary to4393        understand the true costs of delivering that project in a4394        manner consistent with applicable laws and regulations.\41\4395---------------------------------------------------------------------------4396    \41\ Id.43974398    The Corps' project cost estimates also understate costs because4399they do not account for a number of critical cost categories,4400including: the full life cycle of the project; delays in funding or4401sub-optimal funding streams; residual flood risk or the shifting of4402flood risks onto other communities despite longstanding requirements to4403account for these costs \42\; and the loss of ecosystem services4404including natural flood protection.4405---------------------------------------------------------------------------4406    \42\ 33 USC Sec.  2283 (requiring the Corps to calculate the4407benefits and costs of residential flood risks and upstream and4408downstream impacts, among other things).4409---------------------------------------------------------------------------4410    To help address these problems, Congress should establish clear4411criteria to guide the Corps' development of project cost estimates,4412including requiring that feasibility study cost estimates: rely on at4413least an intermediate level of project design that includes a thorough4414investigation of the factors that present the most risk during4415construction; account for delays in funding or sub-optimal funding4416streams; account for residual flood risks and any shifting of flood4417risks onto other communities; account for life cycle cost outlays; and4418account for lost ecosystem services including natural flood protection.44192. Maximize Emergency Debris Removal Benefits4420    Congress should maximize the benefits from emergency debris removal4421by directing the Corps to update its emergency debris removal contracts4422to ensure that those contracts are not incentivizing the unnecessary4423removal of healthy vegetation and habitats. This will provide important4424safeguards for communities, wildlife, and taxpayers.4425    Communities face an ever-increasing need for emergency debris4426removal to recover from devastating floods, hurricanes, tornados and4427fires. The scale and frequency of these major weather-related disasters4428continue to increase in the U.S. at an alarming rate, with the number4429of $1+ billion disasters increasing by 155% in just the past 54430years.\43\4431---------------------------------------------------------------------------4432    \43\ NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)4433U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (2025) (https://4434www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/).4435---------------------------------------------------------------------------4436    The Corps plays a critical role in helping communities recover from4437floods, hurricanes, tornados, and fires through emergency debris4438removal that is typically conducted through contracts with private4439companies.\44\ However, key terms and payment structures in these4440contracts are inadvertently incentivizing the unnecessary removal of4441healthy vegetation and habitats that are critical for preventing4442riverbank erosion, reducing the risk of destructive landslides,4443delivering natural flood protection, and providing vital fish and4444wildlife habitat.\45\ In some areas, unnecessary debris removal has4445destroyed residential infrastructure, adding to the significant costs4446of rebuilding. In the process, taxpayer dollars are wasted on payments4447for unnecessary and destructive debris removal.4448---------------------------------------------------------------------------4449    \44\ The Corps carries out emergency debris removal under its own4450authorities and under mission assignment from the Federal Emergency4451Management Agency.4452    \45\ Recognizing the need to improve the debris removal process,4453Congress passed The Disaster Contracting Improvement Act in 2024 to4454``establish an advisory group to encourage and foster collaborative4455efforts among individuals and entities engaged in disaster recovery4456relating to debris removal, and for other purposes.'' Pub. L. 118-1534457(December 17, 2024).4458---------------------------------------------------------------------------4459    Contracts that tie payments to the volume of debris removed--4460instead of to the removal of storm debris that is putting communities4461and homeowners at risk--are a key driver of unnecessary debris removal.4462Debris removal contracts tied to volume caused significant problems in4463North Carolina following Hurricane Helene, when contractors removed4464healthy live trees still rooted in the ground; left parts of the Little4465River bank completely bare; destroyed an important beaver-formed4466wetland that provided extensive natural flood storage; crushed4467endangered Elktoe mussels; and destroyed endangered Hellbender4468habitat.\46\ Hundreds of homeowners in California reported damage to4469driveways, septic systems, wells, and other infrastructure from4470excessive debris removal following the devastating fires in 2017.\47\4471---------------------------------------------------------------------------4472    \46\ Benji Jones, ``The government stepped in to clean up a4473disaster in North Carolina. Then they created another one.'' Vox, July447423, 2025 (https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/420513/flooding-debris-4475removal-hurricane-helene-wildlife); Kati Myers, ``As Army Corps and4476debris contractors near crucial deadlines, some worry rivers are4477damaged.'' BPR News, May 22, 2025 (https://www.bpr.org/bpr-news/2025-447805-22/as-army-corps-and-debris-contractors-near-crucial-deadlines-some-4479worry-rivers-are-damaged).4480    \47\ Laurel Rosenhall, ``As complaints mount about fire clean-up,4481disaster contractors give big money to California dems.'' CalMatters,4482October 9, 2018 (https://calmatters.org/politics/2018/10/as-complaints-4483mount-about-fire-clean-up-disaster-contractor-gives-big-money-to-4484california-dems/).4485---------------------------------------------------------------------------4486    Problems with volume-based debris removal are not limited to Corps4487contracts. State debris removal contracts tied to volume led to the4488removal of healthy trees and other inappropriate materials following4489the devastating Kentucky floods in 2022, as repeatedly highlighted by4490Corps advisors.\48\ One homeowner in McRoberts Kentucky reported that4491their entire house had been removed without notice while they were4492attempting to salvage their belongings.\49\4493---------------------------------------------------------------------------4494    \48\ Jared Bennett and Justin Hicks, ``How flood cleanup left4495Kentucky disaster victims feeling violated and vulnerable.'' Kentucky4496Lantern, April 27, 2023 (https://kentuckylantern.com/2023/04/27/how-4497flood-cleanup-left-kentucky-disaster-victims-feeling-violated-and-4498vulnerable/.4499    \49\ Id.4500---------------------------------------------------------------------------4501    To help address these problems, Congress should direct the Corps4502to: comprehensively evaluate the standard contract terms and fee4503structures that the agency uses in its emergency debris removal4504contracts (including volume-based provisions); and make appropriate4505modifications to those terms and fee structures to facilitate effective4506and expedient removal of disaster-generated debris that poses a risk to4507public safety while minimizing the risk of unnecessary debris removal4508that harms property, natural systems, or wildlife.45093. Facilitate Nonstructural Solutions4510    Congress should facilitate the use of voluntary nonstructural4511measures to reduce flood risks by removing arbitrary barriers to4512implementation and reducing the non-federal cost share for these4513measures. This will help reduce flood risks for communities, while4514protecting wildlife and saving taxpayer dollars in both the short and4515long term.4516    For more than 50 years, Congress has required the Corps to4517carefully assess home elevations, voluntary buyouts, floodproofing and4518other types of nonstructural measures to ensure that the Corps is4519``formulating the most economically, socially, and environmentally4520acceptable means of reducing or preventing flood damages.'' \50\4521Congress has repeatedly re-emphasized the need to assess these common-4522sense measures in recent Water Resources Development Acts.\51\ Despite4523these directives, Corps leadership recently paused all Corps studies4524assessing ``non-structural measures at scale''.\52\4525---------------------------------------------------------------------------4526    \50\ 33 USC 701 b-11, WRDA 1974 Sec.  73.4527    \51\ E.g., Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (Sec.  1149);4528Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (Sec. Sec.  114, 115, 116, 118,4529119); Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (Sec.  8118).4530    \52\ DCG-CEO Interim Guidance: Projects Involving Non-Structural4531Measures at Scale (August 6, 2025). The Corps has not made this Interim4532Guidance available to the general public but the description can be4533accessed at the Corps Nonstructural Flood Risk Management web page4534(``Until further direction from the DCG-CEO, USACE study teams, in4535coordination with their vertical teams, will pause completion of final4536feasibility reports involving non-structural measures at scale.''). The4537purpose of this Interim Guidance was confirmed by Assistant Secretary4538for Civil Work Adam Telle during a September 17, 2025 Senate4539Environment and Public Works Committee (hearing video at 1.06).4540---------------------------------------------------------------------------4541    As long recognized by the Corps, nonstructural measures are4542``proven methods'' for reducing flood damages that are ``very4543effective'' in both the ``short and long term'' and ``very cost4544effective when compared to structural measures.'' \53\ Nonstructural4545measures are particularly cost-effective in smaller and rural4546communities, and well as more populated areas that flood from multiple4547sources.\54\ Nonstructural measures produce $5 to $7 in benefits for4548each dollar spent.\55\4549---------------------------------------------------------------------------4550    \53\ USACE Fact Sheet, Nonstructural Flood Risk Management Measures4551(emphasis added). The cost-effectiveness of nonstructural measures is4552due in part to the fact that they are ``sustainable over the long term4553with minimal costs for operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation,4554and replacement.'' Id.4555    \54\ Letter to Assistant Secretary of the Army Adam Telle from Chad4556Berginnis, Executive Director of the Association of State Floodplain4557Managers (November 12, 2025).4558    \55\ National Institute of Building Sciences, Natural Hazard4559Mitigation Saves 2019 Report at 77, 84.4560---------------------------------------------------------------------------4561    Despite these substantial benefits, some longstanding Corps4562policies undermine the selection and implementation of nonstructural4563measures, including by transferring a portion of nonstructural project4564costs onto individual homeowners.\56\ For example, to participate in a4565Corps-offered home elevation, homeowners must pay out-of-pocket for a4566significant array of elevation-associated costs. Since individual4567homeowners do not incur out-of-pocket costs for structural projects,4568policies that impose those costs onto individual homeowners for4569nonstructural measures can discourage selection and participation in4570those measures--even when those nonstructural measures are a more cost-4571effective and less damaging way to address the community's water4572resource challenge than a structural solution.4573---------------------------------------------------------------------------4574    \56\ USACE, Guidance for Nonstructural Project Planning and4575Implementation (July 22, 2024) (identifying ineligible costs that are4576not based on statutory mandates).4577---------------------------------------------------------------------------4578    Homeowners who participate in Corps-offered voluntary buyouts can4579also incur significant out-of-pocket costs because the buyout awards4580are typically too low to cover the cost of a comparable home in an area4581that does not flood.\57\ Meanwhile, mobile home owners and renters are4582unlikely to receive any benefits at all. These cost transfers create4583stark inequities for small, rural and/or low-income communities where4584homeowners cannot afford to participate in nonstructural measures but4585are not offered a structural solution because it is not economically4586justified.4587---------------------------------------------------------------------------4588    \57\ Buy-out awards are typically very low because they are based4589on the depressed home values that plague areas with chronic flooding.4590---------------------------------------------------------------------------4591    Lack of effective interagency coordination also undermines the4592Corps' ability to support nonstructural measures like highly effective4593voluntary floodplain easements. Improved coordination could help4594facilitate the use of easements, including through targeted use of4595wetland reserve easements which are of great interest to landowners as4596demonstrated by the heavily oversubscribed USDA Wetland Reserve4597Easement Program. For example, landowners in Arkansas, Kentucky,4598Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee collectively sought to4599enroll 176,138 acres into this program in FY2019, but funding was4600available to enroll just 18,534 acres (leaving more than 90% of the4601applications unfunded).\58\4602---------------------------------------------------------------------------4603    \58\ Information provided by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation4604Service (just 98 applications were funded out of a total of 1,0124605submitted for these states). Unfunded wetland reserve easement4606applications roll over from year to year.4607---------------------------------------------------------------------------4608    Modifying the non-federal sponsor's cost share requirement for4609nonstructural features would also facilitate the use of these cost-4610effective measures, while saving money for taxpayers and non-federal4611sponsors in the long term. Reducing the non-federal cost share to 25%4612for nonstructural features would incentivize non-federal sponsors to4613pursue these solutions and align the Corps' nonstructural cost-share4614requirements with those that apply to grant programs managed by the4615Federal Emergency Management Agency. Importantly, this would also save4616taxpayer dollars in the long term as nonstructural solutions typically4617cost less and do more to eliminate the risk of future flood damages4618than structural projects.4619    To facilitate the use of voluntary nonstructural measures, Congress4620should: (1) require the Corps to include the cost of all work required4621to elevate a home as a project cost (e.g., the costs to satisfy4622building code requirements triggered by the elevation); (2) direct the4623Corps to fund home buy-outs at a level equal to the pre-disaster fair4624market value of the home plus a supplemental payment equal to an amount4625that will allow the owner to purchase a comparable home in a safe4626location within the same county in which the home to be acquired is4627located; (3) ensure that renters and mobile home owners dislocated by a4628home buy-out receive relocation assistance; (4) clarify the Secretary's4629authority to transfer a portion of construction funds to another4630federal agency to help implement targeted nonstructural measures; and4631(4) reduce the non-federal cost share for nonstructural features to463225%.46334. Utilize Federal and State Expertise4634    Congress should ensure that Corps planners take advantage of4635recommendations made pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act4636that derive from the special expertise of federal and state fish and4637wildlife experts. This is a common-sense, cost-effective way to improve4638projects and planning efficiency.4639    The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act has integrated federal and4640state fish and wildlife expert review into Corps planning since 1958.4641The Corps consults with the Fish and Wildlife Service (and where4642applicable, the National Marine Fisheries Service) on project-specific4643fish and wildlife impacts and on opportunities for mitigating any such4644impacts. State fish and wildlife agencies are encouraged to consult4645with the Corps on these impacts and opportunities. The Corps is4646required to give ``full consideration'' to these expert4647recommendations.\59\4648---------------------------------------------------------------------------4649    \59\ 16 U.S.C. Sec.  662.4650---------------------------------------------------------------------------4651    These longstanding and critically important reviews facilitate4652project planning by ensuring the Corps has the advantage of4653recommendations that derive from the special expertise of federal and4654state fish and wildlife experts, such as methods and metrics for4655assessing fish and wildlife impacts and mitigation opportunities.4656However, Corps planners often do not utilize these recommendations,4657leading to projects that cause unnecessary harm and mitigation plans4658that are ineffective.4659    Designing, building, and operating water projects to sustain fish4660and wildlife populations is critical to the public and the economy.4661Wildlife conservation contributes $115.8 billion in total economic4662activity and supports more than 575,000 jobs nationwide.\60\ In 2022,4663the public spent $394.8 billion on wildlife recreation, $250.2 billion4664on wildlife-watching activities, $99.4 billion on fishing, and $45.24665billion on hunting.\61\ Wildlife recreation is enjoyed by tens of4666millions of people across the nation \62\, including:4667---------------------------------------------------------------------------4668    \60\ National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, ``Conservation Economy4669in America: A Snapshot of Total Fish and Wildlife-Associated Direct4670Investments and Economic Contributions'' (September 2025).4671    \61\ U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife4672Service, 2022 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-4673Associated Recreation at 3-4 (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/4674documents/Final_2022-National-Survey_101223-accessible-single-4675page.pdf).4676    \62\ FHWAR, National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-4677Related Recreation, State Surveys (available at https://4678www.fishwildlife.org/afwa-informs/national-survey). All participant4679numbers are based on participants over 16 years of age who participated4680in fish and wildlife recreation within their home state. All4681participation percentages are based on the percentage of the state4682population over 16 years of age.4683---------------------------------------------------------------------------4684      22% of Arkansas residents (1.6 million people)4685      15% of Georgia residents (4.8 million people)4686      19% of Kentucky residents (2.5 million people)4687      26% of Minnesota residents (2.8 million people)4688      19% of Missouri residents (2.9 million people)4689      11% of New York residents (7.6 million people)4690      14% of Texas residents (11.9 million people)4691      72% of Washington residents (4.4 million people).46924693    To reduce harm to fish and wildlife resources and improve planning4694efficiency, Congress should direct the Corps to utilize recommendations4695made pursuant to Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act reviews that derive4696from the special expertise of federal and state fish and wildlife4697experts to the maximum extent practicable (e.g., recommendations4698regarding methods and metrics for assessing wildlife impacts;4699assessments and determinations of those impacts, and methods for4700effectively mitigating those impacts). Congress should further direct4701the Corps to coordinate with State, Territorial, and Tribal Fish and4702Wildlife Agencies and ensure projects are consistent with the State4703Wildlife Action Plans or similar state-developed wildlife recovery4704plans.47055. Clarify the Need to Offset New Impacts from Operations and4706        Maintenance4707    Congress should clarify the need to offset new impacts resulting4708from activities carried out under updated operating plans and water4709control manuals, as required for all Corps projects. This will protect4710communities and wildlife, align Corps project goals, and protect4711billions of dollars of federal and state investments.4712    The Corps has been required to offset impacts to fish and wildlife4713for almost 40 years, and since 2007 has been required to include a4714specific mitigation plan with project studies to help guide this4715work.\63\ However, the Corps is not developing these mitigation plans4716when it updates operating plans and water control manuals for many4717older projects--even when the activities carried out under those plans4718will cause significant new harm to fish and wildlife resources and the4719plans will remain in place for decades. As a result, the Corps is4720leaving the many key benefits that could be achieved through mitigation4721off the table.4722---------------------------------------------------------------------------4723    \63\ 33 U.S.C. Sec.  2283(d)(1); Congressional Record Senate,4724S11981 September 24, 2007 (specific mitigation plans are required4725whenever a project is ``reevaluated for any reason''); see also4726Congressional Record--Senate, Water Resources Development Act of 2007,4727May 15, 2007 at S6122.4728---------------------------------------------------------------------------4729    For example, in 2017 the Corps issued the first report in more than473040 years updating the navigation maintenance plan for a 195-mile reach4731known as the middle Mississippi River. That report did not include the4732specific mitigation plan required by WRDA 2007, despite the Corps'4733acknowledgement that the updated plan would destroy a substantial4734amount of aquatic habitat and have ``a significant adverse effect on4735the fish community.'' \64\4736---------------------------------------------------------------------------4737    \64\ Final Supplement I to the Final Environmental Impact Statement4738for the Mississippi River Between The Ohio And Missouri Rivers4739(Regulating Works) (May 2017) at 35, 190 (the project will result in4740the loss of at least ``1,100 acres (8%) of the remaining unstructured4741main channel border habitat'' on top of the loss of 35% of this habitat4742already caused by the project) and Appendix H, at H-581 (stating4743mitigation is not mandatory because the SEIS ``is not a report being4744prepared for authorization by Congress'').4745---------------------------------------------------------------------------4746    The Corps' failure to offset impacts from operations often4747translates into the agency working at cross purposes. The Corps is4748failing to offset severe damage to rivers, wetlands, and floodplains4749from project operations even as it works to restore those same types of4750habitats through hundreds of Congressionally authorized projects and4751studies across the country.4752    To redress this problem, Congress should clarify the longstanding4753requirement to offset new impacts to fish and wildlife resources from4754activities carried out after the approval of, and pursuant to, updated4755operating plans and water control manuals.4756                               Conclusion4757    The National Wildlife Federation appreciates the Committee's4758commitment to improving Corps planning to protect and restore the4759nation's vital water resources for people and wildlife. We respectfully4760urge Congress to implement the reforms outlined in this testimony to4761make communities safer, ensure the best use of taxpayer dollars, and4762allow the nation's treasured wildlife to thrive. The National Wildlife4763Federation stands ready to help make these recommendations a reality.4764Thank you again for the opportunity to provide our recommendations for4765the Water Resources Development Act of 2026.47664767Statement of Paul Anderson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Port4768    Tampa Bay, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Frederica S. Wilson4769    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony4770regarding the importance of the Committee's commitment to enact a4771biennial Water Resources Development Act, commonly known as WRDA. This4772comprehensive and bipartisan legislation is crucial for our national4773economic and infrastructure growth.4774    I am speaking not only as the past Chairman of both the American4775Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) and the Coalition for America's4776Gateways and Trade Corridors (CAGTC), a former Federal Maritime4777Commissioner, but most importantly as President and CEO of Port Tampa4778Bay. I have been afforded the opportunity to witness firsthand the4779tremendous benefits of WRDA's biennial funding for all of America's4780ports and trade gateways. Having had the ability throughout my career4781to advocate on behalf of hundreds of projects furthers my deep4782investment in the continuation of the robust project development and4783bipartisan support of projects that benefits all Americans through the4784WRDA process.4785    WRDA's biennial cycle enables planning and execution of vital4786projects, including those at Port Tampa Bay. It grants the Army Corps4787of Engineers authority for water infrastructure projects, ensuring4788maintenance of waterways, flood control, navigation, and environmental4789restoration. WRDA supports economic growth, protects our environment,4790and ensures the safety and well-being of our communities enhancing the4791lives of every American. Congress must continue to support this4792biennial legislation and provide the necessary authority to carry out4793important projects critical to minimizing delays in updating this4794infrastructure to keep up with the demands of maritime commerce.4795    This testimony will address the Harbor Maintenance provisions4796enacted in recent Water Resources Development Acts, concerns regarding4797the implementation of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF), and the4798importance of continued bipartisan support as the Subcommittee begins4799its work toward WRDA 2026--particularly as these issues relate to Port4800Tampa Bay's federally authorized channel deepening project.4801    Port Tampa Bay is Florida's largest port by tonnage and is a4802critical component of the nation's federal navigation system. The Port4803serves as a major gateway in the Gulf, providing fuel for 45% of the4804State of Florida, construction materials, agricultural products, and4805containerized cargo that support Florida's economy and national supply4806chains. Port Tampa Bay's annual economic impact totals $34 billion4807annually, generating $1.2 billion in local and state tax revenue and4808supports 192,000 direct and indirect jobs. The federally authorized4809deepening of Port Tampa Bay's main ship channel from 43 feet to 47 feet4810is essential to maintaining navigational safety, improving operational4811efficiency, and accommodating the larger vessels that increasingly4812serve U.S. ports. The Subcommittee's longstanding leadership in4813advancing WRDA authorizations has been instrumental in allowing4814projects such as Port Tampa Bay's channel deepening to move forward.4815    Congress's approval of Port Tampa Bay's General Reevaluation Report4816(GRR) in the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 reflects the4817bipartisan commitment of this Subcommittee and the full Committee to4818modernizing the nation's navigation infrastructure. That authorization4819enables the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Port Tampa Bay to advance4820project design and construction, with the Port currently expending non-4821federal matching funds to complete the Project Development and4822Engineering (PD&E) phase. This partnership between Congress, the Corps,4823and non-federal sponsors exemplifies the WRDA model--federal4824authorization coupled with local investment to deliver nationally4825significant infrastructure.4826    Port Tampa Bay strongly supports the Harbor Maintenance provisions4827enacted in recent WRDAs, including reforms intended to ensure the full4828utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) for its4829intended purpose. These provisions are critical to addressing dredging4830backlogs and maintaining the reliability of federally authorized4831navigation channels. However, Port Tampa Bay is increasingly concerned4832with recent pauses and delays in the execution of U.S. Army Corps of4833Engineers navigation projects associated with HMTF expenditures. These4834disruptions undermine the certainty Congress has sought to provide4835through WRDA and create challenges for ports that are making4836substantial non-federal investments based on expected federal4837participation. As an example, for a project of the scale and complexity4838of Port Tampa Bay's channel deepening, funding predictability and4839timely Corps execution are essential. Delays increase costs, complicate4840construction sequencing, and risk diminishing the return on investments4841already made by the Port and its partners.4842    As the Subcommittee begins consideration of WRDA 2026, Port Tampa4843Bay respectfully urges the continuation of the bipartisan approach that4844has long defined WRDA. Stable authorization policy, transparent HMTF4845implementation, and uninterrupted navigation project delivery are4846essential to allowing ports to plan responsibly and leverage non-4847federal funding effectively. Port Tampa Bay strongly supports the4848Harbor Maintenance provisions enacted in recent WRDAs and appreciates4849the leadership of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment4850in advancing these reforms. We respectfully request continued oversight4851of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, timely execution of U.S. Army4852Corps of Engineers navigation projects, and sustained bipartisan4853collaboration as WRDA 2026 is developed. The successful completion and4854long-term maintenance of Port Tampa Bay's channel deepening project4855depend on these commitments, and we thank the Subcommittee for its4856continued support of the nation's ports and water resources4857infrastructure.48584859    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Crawford for 54860minutes.4861    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.4862    Mr. Camillo, you probably know this better than anybody in4863the room or--but just for the purposes of a refresher, I am4864going to ask that you indulge me on this. The Water Resources4865Development Act of 2007 established a National Committee on4866Levee Safety to make recommendations to Congress on a Federal4867levee safety program. Although the committee submitted its4868recommendations in 2009, it has remained dormant since.4869    In 2022, the Corps and FEMA signaled plans to reestablish4870the committee with a scope that appeared to exceed4871congressional authority and limit independent recommendations,4872raising concerns among levee owners. All that effort was4873withdrawn in 2023. The Corps has indicated plans to reestablish4874the committee.4875    Levee owners report increasing top-down directives and4876internally developed policies from the Corps with insufficient4877stakeholder input, even from levee owners with a proven record4878of meeting Federal levee standards.4879    In response to this, during WRDA 2024, I submitted a4880request that would create a levee owner's advisory board to4881restore the collaborative approach to flood protection that4882many levee owners in my district and the larger Mississippi4883Valley believe has been ignored by the Corps.4884    That said, can you speak to the impacts that you have4885observed from your levee owner-operators on the failed National4886Committee on Levee Safety?4887    Mr. Camillo. Thanks for the question, Congressman.4888    Levee operators, they are on the front lines. They are out4889there on those levees every day. Nobody knows more, nobody4890knows better how to protect those levees than they do. To4891protect people, protect property, infrastructure, they know it.4892They know the risks better than anyone because they live behind4893those levees and they work behind those levees. Anything that4894gives them more involvement, more oversight is going to be most4895welcomed by any levee operator anywhere along the Mississippi4896River.4897    To a levee district, I think they would tell you that levee4898safety program, Public Law 84-99, other programs, are really4899cutting their legs out from underneath them, that they are4900imposing mandates, many of them unfunded, that are just4901literally kicking their legs out from under them.4902    The CEOs, the chief engineers of those levee boards, are4903usually hired by elected levee board members, and those levee4904board members have people they need to answer to as well.4905    And so they are imposing those mandates to give them4906oversight, to give them more voice in shaping policy and4907management would be most welcome.4908    Had the Midwest Flood Control Association been in existence4909when you received that letter of support--I think a few years4910ago it was signed off on by the Mississippi Valley Flood4911Control Association, the Missouri River Levee and Drainage4912Districts, and the Association of Louisiana Levee Boards--we4913would have signed that letter.4914    Mr. Crawford. Is it sufficient to say that overhauling this4915defunct committee and creating a levee owner's advisory board4916is necessary in reengaging local owner-operators of Federal4917levee systems to improve flood protection?4918    Mr. Camillo. Sir, I didn't quite catch the question.4919    Mr. Crawford. I said, do you think it is sufficient to say4920that overhauling this defunct committee and creating a levee4921owner's advisory board is necessary in reengaging local owner-4922operators of Federal levee systems to improve flood protection?4923    Mr. Camillo. Yes, Congressman. I think that what you would4924need there is--I believe the old committee, when it was4925dissolved--even before it was dissolved--did not have--for4926instance, the fact it was waived, there was no accountability,4927no transparency there. I think that would be warranted for4928anything going forward.4929    Mr. Crawford. Also, you know this very well, some of the4930highest rated levees in the Nation, and my levee districts, are4931continuously improving their levees, as you have indicated in4932your comments. Along the Mississippi, White, and Arkansas4933Rivers, you find hundreds of structurally sound and4934professionally managed levees. Despite that, the levee4935districts within my district are constantly battling FEMA and4936Corps due to overarching rules and regulations.4937    As the executive vice president of the Midwest Flood4938Control Association, which you represent roughly 75 levee4939districts yourself, can you speak on the challenges presented4940by FEMA and the Corps that directly impact your district's4941ability and the communities they protect?4942    Mr. Camillo. Yes, Congressman. So on the upper Mississippi,4943take this flow frequency study, for instance, we don't have the4944MRT project up there. It is a lot different system. It is all4945Public Law 84-99, if they are in any program whatsoever.4946    Take a flow frequency study. If you release those results,4947the Corps needs that data. If they study that data and they4948release and it changes the flow frequency, okay, the flood4949line, the flood profiles, without any solutions--so there is a4950potential solution out there that is being studied now. The4951last time we studied something for the upper Mississippi was49521999 that resulted in a plan that was sent to Congress in 2008,4953but it didn't recommend a plan. It studied a host of4954alternatives, but it didn't make any recommendation, yet the4955new flood profile was out there. So now we are getting ready to4956release another flood profile.4957    We are very happy. We have talked with the Corps, they have4958convinced us, we are assured that they are using the right4959science to develop this flow frequency study. Unlike the MRT4960project, if you have a flood profile change in the MRT, you4961automatically can just raise your levees. I am simplifying4962things, but you don't need additional authorization. You just4963have to wait in line for more appropriations. That is not the4964case on the upper Mississippi.4965    There is a tool, and that is called section 4084966permissions. But the way section 408 permissions are being4967interpreted on the upper Mississippi River right now leaves4968very little room for levee raises. They will widen your levees,4969they will do it for relief wells, things of that sort, but4970going higher, they are putting so much high contingencies on4971that that it is really unachievable for your local levee4972districts.4973    Mr. Crawford. I have to cut you off there, Mr. Camillo. I4974am sorry, but I have exceeded my time by a minute, so I will4975yield.4976    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Friedman for 54977minutes.4978    Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the4979witnesses for coming here and joining us today.4980    The projects and studies authorized by WRDA help with4981waterways, navigable channels, water quality, et cetera, and in4982my district, probably the most important one of these is the4983L.A. River. We have been working for years to upgrade that4984infrastructure to prevent flooding, which people don't remember4985was a huge problem in Los Angeles and sometimes still is, and4986we have a huge rain event coming just this week.4987    We are also making that river accessible to the public in4988building parks and bikeways along it. In fact, just a couple4989months ago, I brought Ranking Member Larsen, and he was really4990shocked to see the number of people that were using that4991recreation in a dense, park-poor area on a weekday afternoon.4992So I look forward to continuing to see that resource4993revitalized for my community.4994    And I want to come back to that, but first I want to turn4995to a key priority for the ports of Los Angeles, having funded4996the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund with revenues from the Harbor4997Maintenance Tax, which is the HMT. In fact, donor ports like4998Long Beach account for 50 percent of all HMT revenue, yet4999historically, they have received less than 2 percent of HMT5000revenue in return. So they are donor ports and they are not5001getting that revenue back.5002    So in 2020, Congress enacted section 102 of WRDA 2020,5003which provided 12 percent of annual HMTF revenue for expanded5004uses at donor and energy ports.5005    Mr. Hacegaba, even though this funding was authorized in50062020, as you know, it took 4 years for the Port of Long Beach5007to receive a payment of $49 million. Can you elaborate on how5008the port is using that funding and also what you will be using5009that kind of funding for in the future? Briefly, if you can do5010it.5011    Mr. Hacegaba. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman.5012    It is important to distinguish between the donor and energy5013port funding allocated through WRRDA 2014, which is continuing5014to be allocated. And the additional funding through that, what5015you referenced, section 102 for in-water expanded uses, that5016was authorized in WRDA 2020.5017    So what that means for us, the Nation's second busiest5018port, a massive economic engine that generates nearly 3 million5019jobs and moves cargo through every congressional district, what5020that meant for us is, in contrast, section 102 funding, which5021was not included in the fiscal year 2025 Corps workplan, is5022about $380 million nationwide. For Long Beach, that is a5023difference of $5.7 million, without section 102, versus $495024million that we received the year prior. So you are talking5025about nearly a 90-percent drop in funding that is critical to5026keep this project that is important for national security and5027the national transportation system to be delivered.5028    Ms. Friedman. Sure. And we all saw during COVID that the5029ports are so essential in terms of supply chain. We saw boats5030not being able to get in and out and what that meant for5031consumers, what that meant for prices. So I look forward to5032engaging with my colleagues to make sure that the funds are5033allocated as congressionally directed.5034    I want to go back now to the L.A. River, and I am going to5035direct my questions to Ms. Ufner. I want to talk about, and it5036was brought up before, the deeply concerning directive that was5037issued on October 15 by the Department of Defense. They like to5038call it the Department of War because I guess they don't5039believe in defense or peace. But this directive requires the5040Corps districts to obtain approval from the Office of the5041Assistant Secretary of War for Legislative Affairs before5042engagement with Federal or State-elected officials or their5043staff.5044    Now, we have ongoing communication with the Corps all the5045time about issues on the L.A. River, for approval of new5046bridges that have been funded, for flood improvements so that5047we keep our communities safe. We have had several conversations5048with the Corps' L.A. District over the course of this year to5049get critical updates on ongoing projects, like the restoration5050project. But now they can't talk to us. They literally, under5051this directive, can't talk to a Member of Congress before5052getting signoff from the Secretary of War, which makes no sense5053to me at all.5054    I want to know from you how you think that this new5055bureaucracy and bloat is going to impact costs, how it is going5056to impact the ability to protect people from flooding, to get5057these funded projects done at a time when tariffs are already5058driving the costs up increasingly every single week, what kind5059of effect is this going to have?5060    Ms. Ufner. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman.5061    This could potentially have an impact definitely on the5062WRDA process, let alone with everyday conversations with the5063Corps. The challenge is, if you have all three Federal--all5064three partners work together on WRDA, making sure communities5065are safe with water, the communication is key at the end of the5066day, because you have to communicate what is working, what is5067not working.5068    The Corps has to have the ability to go to Congress and5069say, hey, here are some of the water problems within the5070communities, and here are some of the non-Federal sponsors that5071have come to me. The non-Federal sponsors need to go to the5072Corps and say, hey, I am having this problem, could you help us5073design something where I can take to Congress. And if that leg5074is taken out of the equation, it may impact the future WRDA5075cycle.5076    Ms. Friedman. Thank you. Well, I am extremely concerned5077about the impact of this on life and safety, so I want to thank5078you so much for being here.5079    And I yield back.5080    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Babin for 55081minutes.5082    Dr. Babin. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,5083everyone. And I just want to thank all of our illustrious5084witnesses for being here today.5085    I represent Texas' 36th District, which includes numerous5086U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects, such as the Houston Ship5087Channel, the Ike Dike, Sabine-Neches Waterway, Cedar Bayou,5088Anahuac Channel, and many, many others.5089    And, Ms. Ufner, if I could ask you the first question. As5090president and CEO of the National Waterways Conference, you5091represent non-Federal sponsors across the country who partner5092with the Corps and often shoulder a significant local cost for5093projects. Many Texas communities are frustrated by the long5094delays, rising costs, inconsistent Corps requirements, even5095after Congress has already acted.5096    What specific reforms should Congress prioritize in WRDA50972026 to speed up project delivery, control cost growth, and5098ensure non-Federal sponsors, especially in States like Texas,5099are not bearing unnecessary burdens once a project is5100authorized?5101    Ms. Ufner. Thank you for your question. There are existing5102provisions in previous WRDA bills that address ability of non-5103Federal sponsors to take on some responsibilities, like section5104203 for the studies, 204 for the construction, 1043. In5105reality, these on the ground have not been working as intended5106because of the number of requirements that are being put on5107non-Federal sponsors by the Corps.5108    The challenge seems to be that there are maybe multiple5109cooks in the kitchen, and so if there is a way to give more5110authority or give non-Federal sponsors the ability to take on5111more responsibility, because at the end of the day, we want to5112get these projects to the finish line.5113    Dr. Babin. Okay.5114    Ms. Ufner. And creating a win-win.5115    Dr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. One real quick, if you don't mind.5116How important is it that WRDA 2026 focuses not just on new5117authorizations, but on ensuring Corps fully and consistently5118implements reforms that Congress has already enacted? How5119important is that?5120    Ms. Ufner. I apologize. I missed part of that question.5121    Dr. Babin. Okay. How important is it that WRDA 2026 focuses5122not just on new authorizations, but on ensuring that the Corps5123fully and consistently implements what the Congress has already5124enacted?5125    Ms. Ufner. That is a great question. To your point, the5126ASA's office is currently going through implementation for WRDA51272024. There are a number of provisions yet to be implemented.5128    There are some provisions that won't need legislation, that5129simply need guidance or implementation, but there are5130definitely some that may need congressional oversight that you5131may want to look at how certain provisions within WRDA are5132working, where are the pain points, and why those pain points5133exist.5134    Dr. Babin. Thank you. Mr. Jones, you have worked closely5135with the Corps on major flood protection, navigation, and port5136projects, and you have seen firsthand how delays and5137uncertainty affect local communities and private investment.5138From an industry and delivery standpoint, what changes to WRDA5139policy or Army Corps practices would most improve certainty,5140accelerate timelines, and reduce the risk of cost escalation5141for critical infrastructure projects?5142    Mr. Jones. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. As5143you were alluding to, and Julie was as well, the study5144requirements, Congressman, are oftentimes too rigid. The study5145requirements can be protracted over many years and in some5146cases decades, so working as best we can to reduce that5147timeline and to reduce the study period and ultimately get5148these projects into implementation is critical.5149    Again, working with the Corps of Engineers to understand5150which agency is best suited to lead the project. In all5151instances, perhaps it is not the Corps of Engineers. Perhaps it5152is a non-Federal sponsor, and giving those and ensuring that5153those agencies and non-Federal participants have the tools and5154the resources and the latitude by which to ultimately achieve5155the project goal.5156    Quite simply, not to overthink the project and to overstudy5157the project, but to understand what is the intent of the5158project, what are we trying to do to best serve our5159communities, and ultimately find the quickest solution.5160Sometimes it may involve the private sector, either through5161private funding, through an innovative financing mechanism, or5162just alternative delivery applications.5163    And again, just simply, Congressman, thinking outside the5164box and ultimately trying to achieve what the project is5165ultimately trying to achieve.5166    Dr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Jones. I have a couple more5167questions, but I will have to submit those. Thank you to the5168other witnesses as well.5169    Yield back.5170    Mr. Collins. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms.5171Scholten for 5 minutes.5172    Ms. Scholten. Thank you, Chair Collins, Ranking Member5173Wilson. Welcome to our guests, our witnesses today. Thank you5174for your thoughtful preparation and helping us get a better5175handle on what we hope will be a very productive WRDA5176reauthorization process.5177    I come from Michigan's Third Congressional District. Proud5178to represent the good people of west Michigan in Congress where5179water is a way of life. This is so critical.5180    I am eager for our committee's work on what will hopefully5181be a seventh consecutive bipartisan Water Resources Development5182Act to ensure Congress is helping communities navigate local5183water resource challenges, boost regional economies, create5184jobs, and protect our natural environment. This process is5185inherently a collaborative effort between Congress, the Corps,5186and local stakeholders.5187    I think we all can agree that it works best when we are in5188communication with one another instead of having a single top-5189down approach from Washington that does not take local5190stakeholders into consideration.5191    However, a new Trump administration process requires5192approval from so-called Department of War, the Department of5193Defense, before local Corps districts share regional priorities5194for upcoming WRDA. While I am hopeful this routine exchange of5195information will eventually be green lit by the Department of5196War, I am concerned that this policy will get in the way of a5197robust and thoughtful WRDA 2026.5198    Dr. Hacegaba, can you speak to how critical it is that5199there is congressional coordination between Congress and the5200Corps district offices and local stakeholders like yourselves,5201how critical that is for a thoughtful WRDA process.5202    Mr. Hacegaba. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman.5203There's an old saying, teamwork makes the dream work.5204    Ms. Scholten. Absolutely.5205    Mr. Hacegaba. And when it comes t the important work before5206this subcommittee, it really takes next level coordination and5207collaboration to get things done. Case in point, the project5208that we are advocating here for on behalf of the Port of Long5209Beach, this is something that we have been talking to the Army5210Corps for years now.5211    Having their partnership, having their engagement and5212involvement throughout every phase of the project has brought5213this project to what it is now, and what we are advocating for5214today is in WRDA 2026 to authorize the PACR, which will help us5215to deliver this as quickly as possible.5216    Ms. Scholten. Thank you. Thank you.5217    Mr. Jones, it seems like you maybe wanted to say something.5218Invite your comment as well.5219    Mr. Jones. Well, I was just going to piggyback off of what5220he said. Again, the old saying is, all politics is local,5221right?5222    Ms. Scholten. Yes.5223    Mr. Jones. As we all know in this room, local knowledge of5224projects, boots on the ground as was talked about with levee5225authorities. I had the opportunity to grow up with individuals5226who were farmers and served on levee boards. They knew the5227levee systems and the flood control systems better than anyone.5228    Ms. Scholten. Absolutely.5229    Mr. Jones. I would just encourage, again, as we have talked5230about this morning, increased communication that is driven from5231boots on the ground all the way up to State oversight as well5232as Federal oversight.5233    Ms. Scholten. Absolutely. I know our office is going above5234and beyond being proactive, doing a lot of outreach to our5235local stakeholders on this issue. We invite feedback throughout5236this process. We have got to get this right. There is a lot at5237stake.5238    I am so proud, as I mentioned, to represent so much of the5239Great Lakes Water Basin, miles of Lake Michigan shoreline as5240well as a small workhorse harbor in Grand Haven. This harbor5241supports over 450 jobs and generates $88 million annually in5242regional economic impact.5243    Earlier this year, Grand Haven's inner harbor was5244threatened by a potential delay in dredging, something that we5245know is threatening a lot of our waterways. A delayed dredging5246cycle could have increased shipping costs by upwards of 305247percent at a time of already crippling inflation and disrupted5248supply chains, could have resulted in an estimated to $3 to $55249million in additional costs that would have been passed down to5250hard-working families in west Michigan and across the country.5251    While I was able to work alongside the Corps as well as5252State and local leaders, again, those local politics, teamwork5253making the dream work, to ensure the project proceeded on5254schedule, this story emphasizes how critical the Corps' work5255truly is and the good deal of work that Members of Congress5256have to do to ensure that these projects continue to move5257forward.5258    That is why it is so concerning to me that the Trump5259administration has proposed over $2 billion in funding cuts to5260the Corps. The President's budget also requests a 15-percent5261reduction to Corps construction and a staggering 58-percent5262slash to operations and maintenance activities. We simply can't5263afford not to keep these dredging cycles on schedule.5264    Ms. Ufner, can you touch on the importance of reliable5265robust funding to ensure that ports like mine back home in5266Grand Haven and those throughout the Nation can remain5267operational and best support local economies to keep our supply5268chains moving.5269    Ms. Ufner. We do support robust funding for these purposes.5270Thank you.5271    Ms. Scholten. Thank you. Agree that it is essential to make5272sure that we keep the funding levels where they are. Fantastic.5273I am seeing a nod. I will take that as an affirmative yes. One5274thing that I am incredibly passionate about is permitting5275reform.5276    I apologize. I got so excited, Mr. Collins.5277    Mr. Collins. Good.5278    Ms. Scholten. I will yield back. I will submit my question5279for the record.5280    Mr. Collins. There you go. The Chair now recognizes Mr.5281Bost for 5 minutes.5282    Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Chair.5283    Mr. Camillo, I am going to say these things, but I don't5284have to tell you this. I think you know my district just as5285well as I do since you live there. My district in southern5286Illinois has three separate navigable waterways with everything5287that is on the Mississippi almost to St. Louis, everything on5288the Ohio as long as it touches the State of Illinois, and then5289the Kaskaskia.5290    With that being said, our levee systems are vitally5291important for protecting farmlands, homes, and communities. We5292all know how to stack sandbags. We all know how to fill5293sandbags. We know what the importance of our levee systems are5294and the concerns that we have. While I appreciate the work of5295the Corps and what it does to help ensure the waterways are5296safe and functioning, I have heard a lot of concerns from5297constituents about the potential impact that the flow frequency5298study could have on flood insurance and levee certification for5299levee districts on the river.5300    Do you share those concerns, and can you provide an example5301of impacts that could be affected if the profile changes?5302    Mr. Camillo. Yes. Thanks, Congressman, for the question. So5303there are two different areas I would touch on. First is5304agriculture. A lot of our levee districts in your region5305especially are agricultural, and you are looking at around, on5306average, about 15,000 acres per levee district.5307    There are some that are 10, some that are 25, but around530815. In talking with the levee operators there, if they were to5309lose their 50-year flood--their flood status on the 50 years,5310if that drops below there, they are looking at anywhere from5311$1,000 to $2,000 per acre so that is $15 to $30 million per5312acre at a time when the ag industry is kind of suffering the5313way it is.5314    On the flip side of that, the urban areas, the Metro East,5315Southwestern Illinois Flood Prevention District, I think a5316sliver of that is in your district. That levee district5317protects 150,000 people in 25 different communities, parts of5318Interstate 55, parts of Interstate 64, parts of Interstate 70,5319all those refineries over there in Hartford and Roxana.5320    It protects about $18 billion, 60,000 jobs and $18 billion5321in property values. If they were to lose their 500-year5322accreditation status, we are looking at a 20- to 30-percent5323drop in property values. That is a $3.6 to $5.4 billion drop in5324property values.5325    Mr. Bost. Well, additionally, can you kind of speak to the5326importance of--I know what the problems are, but as far as5327flood protection levee districts as it relates to navigation,5328like what we have had the problem with whenever the Len Small5329levee blew in the--they still call it the holiday flood, but it5330was no holiday for me.5331    Mr. Camillo. Yes, sir. I am familiar with that issue as5332well. Look, navigation improvements and flood control, it is a5333symbiotic relationship. You can't have one without the other.5334    The navigation, the improvements for navigation, the5335improvements for flood control, they work together in tandem5336like the wheels of a bicycle making sure everything operates.5337So you have revetments and dikes, those protect the levees from5338scour. You have the levees. Without the levees, that river5339would run bluff to bluff, and so the two work together to lock5340that channel into place to make it usable at high water and low5341water.5342    Mr. Bost. Yes. So my other question I have got here is, and5343concerns deal with the fact that a lot of our--we talked about5344the ag areas. When the levee systems were put up and the levee5345districts were created, property tax in the State of Illinois5346is what was used to try to keep and maintain the levees.5347    Unfortunately, that works in a community like a5348municipality that can have the property tax level they need to5349repair those. Do you have any suggestions on what we would do5350in the future with my ag levees? Because they are barely able5351to keep them up because of that.5352    Mr. Camillo. You are talking about individual agricultural5353levees?5354    Mr. Bost. No, no. I am talking about the levees that need5355to be improved in our levee districts that usually have ag land5356that pay their taxes.5357    Mr. Camillo. If they lose those property values and their5358property taxes go down, that is less money that they are going5359to have to maintain and operate those levees themselves because5360they have a lot of--if there is a repair, there is a cost share5361that comes into it if there is a flood, but for the most part,5362they are maintaining this, operating this 365 on their own5363dollars. That makes that levee less safe if they don't have the5364money to maintain and operate it properly.5365    Mr. Bost. I appreciate that. My time is about expired, and5366I will yield back.5367    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Pou for 55368minutes.5369    Ms. Pou. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me just thank5370each and every one of our witnesses for your testimony. Let me5371also thank Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson for5372holding this very important hearing today.5373    My home State of New Jersey depends on waterways, ports,5374and flood protection to stay economically competitive. From the5375Passaic River to the Meadowlands, our communities are grappling5376with aging infrastructure, rising flood risk, and clogged5377navigation channels that threaten safety and economic growth.5378This is to say nothing of critical decades-old flood mitigation5379projects that remain in limbo.5380    Maintaining safe navigation in these waterways is no easy5381feat. It requires a functioning Federal Government to5382collaborate with State and local government to ensure that5383community needs are addressed.5384    Last year, we saw the Port Authority of New York and New5385Jersey partner with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to make5386substantial improvements for the port's berth maintenance5387dredging, the berth's rehabilitation, and the berth's5388reconstruction.5389    If we are to build on this success, then a fresh bipartisan5390WRDA must continue to equip communities with the tools to5391deliver the long-term solutions for modern, resilient ports,5392waterways, and flooding infrastructure.5393    I have two questions, and I hope to be able to get to them5394very quickly. First question, Mr. Hacegaba, as COO of one of5395the largest, busiest ports in the Nation, you have firsthand5396experience managing large-scale navigation infrastructure.5397    As a Representative of New Jersey, home to the New York and5398New Jersey Port Authority, I am particularly interested in how5399Federal cost-sharing requirements affect port planning. Under5400WRDA 1986, non-Federal sponsors of navigation channel5401improvement must repay an additional 10 percent of the total5402project cost at the end of the construction to cover the U.S.5403Army Corps' administrative expenses.5404    My question to you is how does the requirement to repay5405affect your ability to plan, finance, and budget for harbor5406deepening projects?5407    Mr. Hacegaba. Congresswoman, thank you very much for your5408question and your interest in ports. I like to say that before5409the pandemic, ports were invisible, and all of a sudden they5410were thrust into the spotlight, and all of a sudden they are5411famous, right?5412    I think it is fair to say that investments in ports like5413ours and the one that you represent, New York-New Jersey are5414investments in the Nation's economy and Nation's transportation5415system.5416    And when it comes to these investments, we can't do it5417alone. We rely on deep partnerships with Federal agencies, and5418WRDA has become instrumental in our ability to deliver these5419projects that not only deepen and widen channels, but enable us5420to move more cargo, and the more cargo we move through our5421port, the more cargo we can shift to every single congressional5422district and the better we can serve the American people.5423    Ms. Pou. Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you for that.5424    In your testimony, you point out the unequal distribution5425of donors and energy transfer allocations at the Port of Long5426Beach. This is a concern that I share with our port authority5427which didn't receive this funding in 2023 and in 2025.5428    So how would a 12-percent Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund5429allocation for donor and energy transfer ports build your5430capacity and what kind of financial return on the investment do5431you foresee for the HMTs?5432    Mr. Hacegaba. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.5433So for the Port of Long Beach, we generate about $400 million5434in HMT revenues a year.5435    We estimate we get about 2 to 3 percent back, so that gives5436you a sense of the inequity in terms of how much we generate5437versus what we get, and when you look at the projects that we5438are collaborating with the Army Corps on, for example, those5439funds are necessary to deliver these projects that are critical5440to the Nation's security and to the American economy.5441    Ms. Pou. Thank you. Thank you so very much.5442    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.5443    Mr. Taylor [presiding]. The gentlelady yields.5444Representative Burlison is recognized for 5 minutes.5445    Mr. Burlison. Ms. Ufner, in your testimony, you highlighted5446a key challenge that non-Federal sponsors frequently encounter5447when it comes to attempting to deliver water resource projects5448in a timely way, apparently, the internal governance structure5449of the Army Corps of Engineers. Can you shed some light on how5450the internal governance of the Corps has contributed to these5451delays?5452    Ms. Ufner. It is probably very similar to Congress when you5453have committees, subcommittees, and--oh, this is a new one,5454subcommittees with the districts, the committees with the5455divisions, and of course Congress with headquarters, so it is5456about consulting with all levels to make sure that things are5457aligned.5458    And there are entities who may have different views about5459what should be required, and sometimes that is where a lot of5460the challenges come with non-Federal sponsors. This back and5461forth about what is feasible within their Project Partnership5462Agreement and what is not, so that is what is causing some of5463the delays.5464    Mr. Burlison. So would you say that they are operating in a5465way that is kind of top-down? They actually take direction from5466the top or the local agencies, or is somewhere along the line5467the direction and the message getting lost by the time it5468actually gets to the local office?5469    Ms. Ufner. It may depend on the issue, but there are5470definitely--there are chains of command that go up and back5471down about--there are more efforts from the Federal level5472headquarters to delegate more to the districts. Sometimes the5473question becomes--there has been a number of staff turnover5474also at USACE where there is a lot more uncertainty there and5475the checks and balances within the agency.5476    Mr. Burlison. How have these internal delays impacted the5477costs and actually the people that need these resources?5478    Ms. Ufner. Whether it be permitting, studies, projects, we5479have found that there have been numerous delays where if5480something might have been estimated to take several months but5481may take several years to even get approval. Earlier in the5482testimony, I talked about section 203, 204. Those authorities5483ideally should be a quick turnaround and it could take several5484years to get.5485    Mr. Burlison. It is unfortunate.5486    Ms. Ufner. But the whole process is very complex.5487    Mr. Burlison. Thank you.5488    Mr. Jones, in your testimony, you emphasize that expanding5489private-sector partnerships is essential to addressing our5490Nation's growing water resource challenges. Can you expand on5491how these private-sector partnerships could play an important5492role?5493    Mr. Jones. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. Yes,5494as I said in my testimony and earlier, P3s do have a role to5495play here. Oftentimes, the ability to bring private capital to5496bear on a project oftentimes has the potential to accelerate5497those projects.5498    Public-private partnerships are not a silver bullet for5499delivery. We know that. But there are many water resources5500projects where it has proven to be successful. The Corps, in5501fact, has piloted the implementation and the execution of5502public-private partnerships and water resources already and5503with great success. I would encourage the subcommittee as you5504are looking at the next WRDA legislation to further encourage5505the utilization of P3s in this space.5506    Mr. Burlison. Thank you.5507    Mr. Hacegaba, in your testimony, you emphasized that WRDA5508plays a critical role in strengthening our economy. Its impact5509is clear to me from my home State of Missouri. Just in the year55102024 alone, we exported approximately $401 million in soybeans5511alone, contributing to, I think, a total of $3 billion in5512exports, even though Missouri is a landlocked State. We have5513tremendous rivers.5514    Can you elaborate on how important WRDA is in maintaining5515our strong U.S. supply chain and the economies even for States5516like Missouri?5517    Mr. Hacegaba. Thank you for that question, Congressman,5518critically important. By deepening and widening our channels,5519we can handle more of your soybeans, export those to global5520markets, and that strengthens jobs and Missouri's economy, and5521it strengthens the Nation's economy.5522    Mr. Burlison. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony.5523    I yield back.5524    Mr. Taylor. Gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes Ms.5525Norton for 5 minutes.5526    Ms. Norton. Thank you.5527    Dr. Hacegaba, your testimony highlighted how the Water5528Resources Development Act plays a critical role in5529strengthening national security. I agree with you.5530    The Potomac River is the only source of drinking water for5531the Nation's Capital. The Army Corps of Engineers produces the5532drinking water for the Nation's Capital, which has only 1 day5533of backup water supply. If the river becomes unusable for5534drinking water, which could happen at any time, whether through5535manmade or mutual events, national security, the operations of5536the Federal Government, DC residents, and the National Capital5537region's economy would be at risk.5538    What are the risks to national security with the Nation's5539Capital having only one source of drinking water and only 1 day5540of backup water supply?5541    Mr. Hacegaba. Congresswoman, thank you very much for your5542question. The Port of Long Beach is one of 18 federally5543designated commercial strategic seaports. This is one of the5544fundamental reasons why what happens in our port affects the5545Nation's security.5546    But I can also tell you that WRDA is instrumental in5547helping ports like ours, especially donor ports, energy5548transfer ports deepen and widen channels to accommodate more5549cargo, and those cargo flows feed into the Nation's economy,5550and this is why it is critically important that we continue to5551invest in ports like ours in order to continue strengthening5552the Nation's security.5553    Ms. Norton. Thank you.5554    Ms. Ufner, in your testimony, you discussed the benefits of5555flood risk reduction and stream restoration projects and the5556importance of maintaining steady progress for these projects5557once authorized. With the increase in extreme weather events,5558including heavy rains due to climate change, how important is5559it that Congress provide full funding projects?5560    Ms. Ufner. Thank you for the question. To me, this is5561almost a twofold answer that, first off, authorization to5562address these issues is really, really important, and each5563community, as you know from being in DC, has their own unique5564challenges, and appropriations are very important.5565    When we talk about water projects, at least from our non-5566Federal sponsors standpoint, we are often seeing a disconnect5567between authorization and appropriations because of the amount5568of funds that are available. The water needs within our5569communities are significant and the need to fund them also5570exists.5571    Ms. Norton. Ms. Ufner, what steps can Congress take to5572prioritize the construction of these projects?5573    Ms. Ufner. From within the local communities, correct,5574Congresswoman? On what Congress should do to----5575    Ms. Norton. Yes.5576    Ms. Ufner. Congress really should consider looking at5577provisions that they have passed in previous WRDA bills to5578assess what is working to address the needs within local5579communities, and if something is not working, really dig into5580the reasons why to determine how we can move forward, because5581at the end of the day, all of our communities just want to be5582safe and have a reliable supply of drinking water.5583    Ms. Norton. Thank you. I yield back.5584    Mr. Taylor. Thank you. The gentlelady yields. The Chair5585recognizes Representative Mast for 5 minutes.5586    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate that greatly.5587    I want to thank you all for your testimony today. Little5588bit of it I caught in person. A little bit of it I caught on5589the screen, but I appreciate all the testimony. I have some5590questions for you, Ms. Ufner, and the rest of the panel in5591part, but we will see. Would you say that every community has5592their own individual needs? You recognize that? I think we all5593can, right? You have seen one community, you have seen one5594community, or just simply put, would you say all communities5595have the same needs? Frank and obvious question.5596    Ms. Ufner. Simple answer. We have always said if you have5597seen one port, one levee district, you have seen one port or5598levee district.5599    Mr. Mast. Right. They are all unique. They have unique5600Representatives, unique stakeholders, unique ecological inputs.5601They are all unique. So I deal a lot with Lake Okeechobee in5602the State of Florida managed by the Army Corps of Engineers5603based on an operations schedule called LOSOM: Lake Okeechobee5604System Operating Manual.5605    The schedule dictates charges based on lake level, weather5606forecasting, safety, time of year, what the levels of the lake5607are right at that time, a host of different things.5608    And in certain circumstances, the Army Corps of Engineers5609will open gates, send water through the St. Lucie River and the5610Caloosahatchee Canal, these are two separate sides of this5611lake, into estuaries which are described as beneficial by the5612Army Corps of Engineers.5613    So when you look at that, except transfers to the St. Lucie5614Estuary, they are not beneficial, they are not essential, they5615actually don't do anything good for our community. We want5616zero. And you go to the other side of the State and they want5617some of those discharges. It is a good thing for them. It goes5618to the point of if you have seen one, you have seen one.5619    So my constituents, they don't want to get harmed by this.5620Currently folks on the west, they are begging for water5621transfers because they don't have enough water. Like I said, my5622community is saying don't give us any water, none of it is5623beneficial to us.5624    So do you think the Corps should listen to local people and5625include their feedback to determine what is beneficial,5626impactful, or harmful when it comes to water quality and5627environmental protections?5628    Ms. Ufner. Communication is really key, and if the Corps is5629partnering with local communities, that is when the listening5630and the coordinating becomes really important, and we can take5631the top-up or the top-down approach to this, and it has always5632been NWC's perspective that the local communities understand5633their local needs the best and that is what communications need5634to occur.5635    Mr. Mast. Yes. Fair enough.5636    Doctor, how are you doing today?5637    Mr. Hacegaba. Very well, Congressman. Thank you.5638    Mr. Mast. Good. Glad to hear it. Are there divers operating5639in the Port of Long Beach at any given time inspecting things5640such as vessel hulls and divers operating there, inspecting5641hulls and moorings, things like that?5642    Mr. Hacegaba. The short answer is yes, Congressman, there5643are divers, yes.5644    Mr. Mast. Seems obvious, right? If these inspections5645couldn't be undertaken because the divers couldn't see their5646hand in front of their face due to water quality--I know a lot5647of different water bodies, different water qualities--would the5648port have to shut down?5649    Mr. Hacegaba. Well, anything that gets in the way of5650commerce or anything that gets in the way of life, human safety5651would be a cause for concern, and we would evaluate in5652coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard.5653    Mr. Mast. There you go. I think you pointed to it well,5654right? Anything that is a cause for safety is something that we5655need to be looking at. I deal with it in my community. Again,5656we are supposed to have Bahama blue water in our area. We get5657nasty discharges out of this lake that end up making it look5658like guacamole, and I mean that literally. Sometimes it is so5659thick that birds can walk on top of it, fish get suspended in5660it because of what they discharge unnecessarily into my5661community. Thank you all again for your testimony today. I wish5662you all the best.5663    Yield back.5664    Mr. Taylor. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair5665recognizes the gentlelady from the great State of Ohio, Ms.5666Sykes for 5 minutes.5667    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you very much and looking forward to5668discussing some of the local projects that we have in my5669community in Ohio's 13th Congressional District, and thank you,5670one, for your patience and your time today to all of our5671witnesses.5672    So as I said, I am from Ohio's 13th District in northeast5673Ohio, and we have areas like Peninsula, Boston Township, Boston5674Heights, and the residential areas neighboring the Cuyahoga5675Valley National Park.5676    These areas are expanding, which is fantastic, because it5677is the best place on Earth, of course, but this level of5678expansion does require smaller communities to modernize their5679water systems to provide accessible and affordable water and5680sewer services to their residents. And it helps to incentivize5681businesses to move into and invest in the communities, but we5682know how hard it is for a municipality, especially small ones,5683to acquire their own water treatment facilities.5684    I often tell a story about a local mayor when I was first5685elected and I asked him what can I do to help, and he looked at5686me and he said, ``I don't know, because no one's ever asked me5687that question.''5688    In a couple of months, he figured it out and has been5689asking me, thankfully, for a lot of support, which has mostly5690been around water and sewer projects. And so in 2024, I was5691able to secure two WRDA authorizations, one for Summit County5692and one for Stark County, and despite these efforts, my5693appropriation requests for these were not included in this5694year's appropriations.5695    I understand my grievance regarding appropriations is not5696adequate for this particular panel or committee, but it is5697still worth stating that when a community who expects these5698resources to come, who quite literally said no one has ever5699asked me how I can help you, we provide the help, but then they5700are not funded, it is pretty devastating and unfortunate.5701    And so my question for you, Ms. Ufner, is I know you are5702mostly non-Federal sponsors of Corps of Engineers projects, but5703can you talk a little bit about how critical the funding part5704is? I mean, it is great that we authorize the language, but the5705funding, I see, Mr. Jones, you are nodding, too, so please jump5706in after Ms. Ufner.5707    Ms. Ufner. Yes, the funding is important. I do want to take5708a step back here, because this is one of the things that we5709really hear commonly with our non-Federal sponsors or potential5710non-Federal sponsors. We got money in WRDA, when are we going5711to get it, and I really think it is partially an educational5712process, taking a step back on behalf of all of us saying,5713okay, we got money in WRDA, now we have to go to appropriations5714and really frame all over again why this project is so5715important to the community.5716    Mrs. Sykes. Mr. Jones.5717    Thank you.5718    Mr. Jones. Thank you, Congresswoman. You saw me nodding5719there. Look, obviously, the difference in authorization and5720appropriation is critical, right? And most Americans don't5721realize that construction new start appropriations is another5722significant hurdle that can take years, sometimes decades after5723a project is authorized, and so there is a false sense of hope5724that once an authorization is cleared and there are5725opportunities to talk about that with the public, the public5726expects that that project is going to construction oftentimes5727months after that authorization, and that is oftentimes not the5728case, right? As you have alluded to.5729    These authorizations sometimes result in inhibiting5730projects from being funded from other sources, and I think that5731is an opportunity for this committee to consider in WRDA 2026.5732    In other cases, authorizations actually prohibit funds from5733other sources being directed towards that project. Particularly5734around mitigation, funding sources come in from FEMA or CDBG5735disaster recovery, Department of Agriculture, and so forth.5736    And finally, there should be an incentive, I believe, to5737commit other sources of funds, whether Federal or non-Federal,5738to these projects in order to ultimately achieve the schedule5739that is desired and expected by the public.5740    Mrs. Sykes. Fantastic. Thank you so much. Thank you both5741for answering that question, because it just goes to show how5742complicated this is, and I have heard several of my colleagues5743complain about the bureaucracy of this process, which is really5744harming and raising the cost of many.5745    I will very quickly turn everyone's attention to Mr.5746Camillo. I have a question for you. The city of Massillon,5747which is in my district, they have repeatedly and I have5748repeatedly discussed in this subcommittee desperate funding5749needs for a sluice gate replacement.5750    Again, I know this is not an Appropriations Committee, but5751still, in that bureaucracy, we have been having a hard time5752getting answers for them to be assisted, and quite literally, I5753am not willing to stand by and wait for a disaster.5754    So, Mr. Camillo, you have a lot of experience with this5755type of infrastructure. What are your insights as to what my5756community could experience in the event that this is not taken5757care of?5758    Mr. Camillo. The appropriations process is always a5759challenge because of prioritization, and there is only so much5760funding to go around. We recommend a lot of times for our local5761levee districts to see what is available through the States.5762    For fixing gates, the local State FEMA is sometimes of5763assistance to those. There are other programs within the State5764that we have them reach out and try until the Federal process5765comes through.5766    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you for extending me a little extra time.5767I yield back.5768    Mr. Taylor. The gentlelady yields. The Chair recognizes5769Representative Westerman for 5 minutes.5770    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to all5771the witnesses for being here today. I have great respect for5772this process having served as the ranking member on the5773subcommittee and working through a WRDA bill a few years ago,5774so this is exciting, because it is usually something we can5775come together and agree on.5776    Ms. Ufner, as you mentioned in your testimony, Congress is5777best able to deliver effective, timely, and locally driven WRDA5778reauthorizations when Federal and non-Federal partners5779collaborate and engage in conversations, hopefully like the one5780that we are having here today.5781    As you may be aware, in 2024, the U.S. Army Corps of5782Engineers recreation sites welcomed approximately 260 million5783visitors nationwide, including millions across Arkansas. As5784chair of the Natural Resources Committee, I think those numbers5785dwarf the number of visitors to our national parks, even.5786    Corps-managed lakes and parks such as those surrounding5787Lakes Ouachita, DeGray, and Greeson are cornerstones of our5788tourism economy and our outdoor heritage. These sites are not5789only vital to local economies, they also provide safe,5790affordable access to public lands for fishing, boating, and5791camping. However, many of these areas are facing aging5792infrastructure and significant deferred maintenance.5793    Additionally, fees collected onsite are not always5794reinvested in the locations where they are generated, and as we5795look toward the 2026 WRDA bill, what opportunities do you see5796to prioritize the maintenance and modernization of recreation5797facilities in naturally rich States like Arkansas and across5798the country?5799    Ms. Ufner. Thank you, Congressman, for your support and5800your question. Aging infrastructure is a huge issue across the5801board, not only for recreation, but for ports, flood control,5802water districts, and it is just an ongoing issue that is a very5803complex situation, because in some cases you have Federal5804regulations that also may impact the aging infrastructure as5805well as how to obtain funding for it, so it is about5806identifying those two parts: permits, sometimes, and funding5807issues.5808    And to Mr. Camillo's point that there is a priority of5809deciding what is going to be funded, so it is about identifying5810the challenges that are out there and directly going after5811them.5812    Mr. Westerman. So you mentioned permits, and I can't let5813that pass without talking about the need for permitting reform.5814Could permitting reform help stretch our recreation5815infrastructure dollars further?5816    Ms. Ufner. The question was does permitting reform help5817stretch----5818    Mr. Westerman. Could permitting reform help stretch our5819recreation infrastructure dollars further on Corps facilities?5820Or maybe another way to answer that, does it take a long time5821to get a permit and add cost to the project?5822    Ms. Ufner. You must have heard my thought pattern behind5823this. If it does take a long time to get a permit and there are5824a multitude of requirements, when you are talking about non-5825Federal sponsors, they have a limited amount of money to deal5826with, because they are also funded by the communities that they5827serve. So the longer the permit process goes, the more5828requirements, the more that they may have to hire consultants5829to do this, so anything that helps them streamline to get a5830project off the ground is helpful.5831    Mr. Westerman. I am just thinking back, when I first came5832to Congress, Lake Ouachita is one of my favorite places to5833recreate. It is where I grew up. There was a local organization5834that volunteered to do maintenance, to pick up trash, and all5835they wanted to do was make things better, and they were told5836they had to cease and desist. They couldn't do that because the5837regulations wouldn't allow them to help make the place better.5838    We did get a little bit of relief on that, but it is still5839a problem. That is something I think we need to address here in5840Congress.5841    I could spend the whole time talking about recreation and5842permitting, but also, I have a lot of major waterways in my5843district, including the Arkansas, the Red River, and the5844Ouachita River.5845    Many of the levee districts along these rivers face5846challenges in maintaining their levees in accordance with the5847Corps system of guidelines. So we have these levees run through5848very rural areas and we have limited resources to be able to5849keep the levees up in the condition that they need to be in,5850which creates a safety issue. And then we will have a big flood5851and the levee washes out and everybody is standing around5852trying to figure out who is going to fix the levee. The local5853levee district probably is responsible for it, but the local5854levee district has no funding to fix it.5855    So I will just ask the whole panel, do you see any5856opportunity for collaboration between Federal and non-Federal5857partners to address the safety issues being faced by our rural5858levee districts in these communities? Mr. Camillo, would you5859like to go first?5860    Mr. Camillo. Again, those folks are down there walking5861every day on those levees. They know what is needed, and you5862are right, there is--when I talk to our levee districts, the5863challenge is that a lot of the unfunded mandates, if they5864belong to the P.L. 84-99 program, for instance, it is making it5865almost unaffordable. And I think our fear in our area is that5866more and more levee districts are going to be withdrawing from5867that program if the cost is all of a sudden outweighing the5868benefit of being into those systems. So there just needs to be5869some relief on the unfunded mandates.5870    Mr. Westerman. And with an engineering background, I have5871always believed it to be true that good maintenance pays for5872itself over time. If you can keep these levees up and they5873don't fail, then the cost is much less than after these levees5874fail and destroy property outside the levee, plus then you have5875got the cost of rebuilding the levee.5876    Mr. Jones, did you have more to add?5877    Mr. Jones. Thank you, Congressman. Prior to you walking in,5878I commented that I grew up in a rural area on the banks of the5879Mississippi River and the Atchafalaya River, so I understand5880these rural levee systems very well. I believe there are5881opportunities, again, for programs dedicated specifically to5882these rural communities that do face these significant5883maintenance and capital project costs.5884    Another opportunity is to consider based on the risk not to5885over--and I say this with all due respect to the engineering5886community of which I work--not to overdesign projects that5887ultimately raise the cost of them beyond the point of5888achievement, again, for the sake of overdesign, for a risk that5889may never actually occur. And so I think there are5890opportunities in that regard, too, to understand what the real5891risk is and design to that likelihood.5892    Mr. Westerman. Mr. Chairman, you have been overly generous.5893I didn't realize the time was going the wrong way there. I5894yield back.5895    Mr. Taylor. No problem at all. Gentleman yields. The Chair5896will recognize itself for 5 minutes of questioning.5897    First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for being here,5898not just for your time and expertise, but for the sacrifices5899you all made to be here with us, and that doesn't go unnoticed,5900and it is very appreciated.5901    Many communities in my district still lack adequate5902drinking water infrastructure, and with the Ohio River running5903right along my district, looking forward to reauthorizing WRDA5904this Congress. From removing regulatory barriers to investing5905in water infrastructure, there is a lot of work to be done5906which could benefit southern Ohio.5907    Mr. Jones, I will turn to you first. We have seen that5908public-private partnerships have historically led to both5909faster project delivery and lower costs for taxpayers. The Army5910Corps has seen those same benefits with projects during a pilot5911program that specializes in public-private partnerships.5912    Through just four projects, the pilot program saved over5913$500 million in more than 23 years of time. So, Mr. Jones, if5914this program were to be reauthorized in the upcoming WRDA, how5915could Congress improve these public-private partnerships to5916further save taxpayer dollars and deliver these projects in a5917more timely fashion?5918    Mr. Jones. Thank you for the question, Congressman. As you5919alluded to, talk about the use of P3s in the water resources5920space, critically important tool in the toolbox. I would5921encourage us to use it as much as possible as this subcommittee5922and Congress looks to move to the next reauthorization of WRDA.5923    I would encourage you to expand that authority. There have5924been pilot projects and projects that you have alluded to that5925have been very successfully executed.5926    Again, this is not a silver bullet. It is not made for5927every project, but for those projects that do have the ability5928to generate revenue and use that revenue to accelerate5929construction, we should be looking for that opportunity.5930    We see this across the economy, whether it is in5931transportation or in private commercial construction and now5932with the development of AI and data centers and the like, and5933water resources shouldn't be any different. There are5934opportunities to leverage the private sector and private5935capital to accelerate construction, again, saving time and5936ultimately saving money. It seems like a no-brainer to do so.5937    Mr. Taylor. Thank you. In 2016, the Army Corps conducted a5938risk assessment of the Portsmouth-New Boston Levee System in5939which the evaluation identified the levee to be at high risk.5940Behind the levee, there are 11,000 of my constituents and 265941critical structures that serve the needs of the community.5942    While I am grateful that funding was obtained in 2022,5943high-risk infrastructure should not be forgotten in areas prone5944to flooding, especially along the Ohio River.5945    I was dismayed to hear in your testimony, Ms. Ufner, that5946this instance is not uncommon, that the rehabilitation and5947inspection program is not being used properly to provide5948repairs for flood damaged levees, but rather more prospective5949planning and compliance framework.5950    Ms. Ufner, in the upcoming WRDA reauthorization, how can5951Congress reform this program so that levees can be repaired5952before a major flooding event occurs?5953    Ms. Ufner. Thank you for your question. At the bottom line,5954I think communication really needs to occur to find out what5955the specific problem is with the levees, and I will tell you5956all of our non-Federal sponsors are telling us different5957challenges within the districts that they may have.5958    There is a huge concern with the permitting and the5959unfunded mandates and the new requirements, and there seems to5960be sometimes shifting of responsibilities that haven't been5961there before, and so it is just making it clear that the5962responsibilities under the statutory language are correct.5963    Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thank you. So in a situation like this5964one where it is deemed to be a very high risk in 2016 and it is5965not funded until 2022, you put that up to more of a permitting5966delay problem than a communication problem?5967    Ms. Ufner. I am sorry, I missed part of the question.5968    Mr. Taylor. Oh, that's okay. In this situation we are5969talking about, it was a project that was recognized as high5970risk 6 years before it was funded, so would you say that is5971more of a failure of the permitting process than of a lapse in5972communication?5973    Ms. Ufner. Well, if it is a funded issue, it is tied to the5974whole appropriations, correct? So there is a delay between the5975authorization and appropriations, and that is an ongoing issue5976and that is by the nature of the beast of how WRDA works in one5977committee and appropriations in another. And to your point, if5978it is a high hazard, communicating it to the Appropriations5979Committee and then assessing what the priorities are.5980    Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thank you. I have used up my time. I am5981going to behave since I let everybody else have extra.5982    The Chair recognizes Representative Figures for 5 minutes.5983    Mr. Figures. Thank you. Thank you to all the witnesses for5984being here. You're getting to the end of the line here, so5985congratulations. I represent the Second Congressional District5986of Alabama, which includes the Port of Mobile, which is now the5987deepest port in the gulf thanks to the recent completion a5988couple months ago of a significant dredging process that got5989our port down to a depth of, I believe, about 48 feet now, and5990so I come here with that perspective.5991    So I approach water resources policy with a focus on how5992congressional decisions translate into real impacts for ports,5993the workers there, communities that depend on reliable maritime5994infrastructure, and ports like Mobile and obviously ports that5995you guys work with and represent, they rely on long-term5996planning.5997    They make multiyear capital investments based on the5998expectation that when Congress sets policy and provides5999direction through the Water Resources Development Act, that6000direction will be carried out as intended and that the dollars6001will flow therefrom to support those directives.6002    Congress was explicit in WRDA 2020 about fully utilizing6003the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and expanding eligible uses6004of those dollars, including for donor and energy transfer6005ports.6006    Yet this administration's budget and workplans, as has been6007discussed throughout the hearing, have underfunded dredging and6008zeroed out those expanded uses, and I represent a port that is,6009you know, I make the case that we are the most recent6010beneficiary, biggest beneficiary of significant dredging6011investments, and so it is critical that we hold the6012administration accountable for this and try to change this6013going forward with WRDA.6014    Dr. Hacegaba, from a port operator's perspective, can you6015explain how deviating from clear congressional intent on the6016Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund affects a port's ability to plan,6017invest, and remain competitive?6018    And in particular, if you could put yourself in the shoes6019of the Mobile Port, I know you work in Long Beach, but a port6020now that has significantly enhanced its capacity to be able to6021import and export goods into this country. They are doing that6022obviously for the first time, and so there is a lot of6023planning, strategic planning that goes into that, a lot of6024expectations that go into that. Can you explain what sort of6025uncertainty you would feel, knowing the need for the dredging?6026    Not sure how familiar you are with the geography of Mobile6027Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, but there is a lot of sediment at6028the end in Mobile Bay that travels down literally from6029throughout this country, so can you explain how this6030environment would affect you approaching that job.6031    Mr. Hacegaba. Certainly, and thank you for your question,6032Congressman. As a matter of fact, I have been to Mobile and was6033very impressed. It was during the summer, so it is hard to6034forget my visit, but have been very impressed with the6035development and the growth that I have seen from afar in your6036port, and you are exactly right.6037    This is how critical your work as a subcommittee is in6038funding these projects. Any time you enable ports like Mobile6039or Long Beach or ports across the Nation to deepen, to widen6040their channels, improve navigational safety, increase capacity,6041you are basically investing in the national economy. You are6042fortifying national security.6043    For us at the Port of Long Beach, projects take many years6044to design, develop, finance, deliver, and it is critically6045important that we have a predictable and certain funding stream6046in order to be able to deliver projects on time.6047    In earlier commentary, it was talked about the necessity to6048streamline the permitting process, because as we all know, time6049is money, and as projects get delayed, costs only go up, and so6050it becomes critically important to deliver these projects as6051quickly as possible. That is the reason why we at the Port of6052Long Beach support full authorization of HMT revenues. This is6053why we support and are asking for equitable funding for donor6054and energy ports.6055    Mr. Figures. Thank you.6056    Ms. Ufner, locks and dams. I represent in my district the6057Black Warrior/Tombigbee River Waterway, which needs significant6058repairs, replacements, and maintenance in the lock and dam6059system. Can you talk a little bit about that. I don't know--I6060apologize if I missed it when I stepped out, but I don't know6061if we have talked indepth about the need for that type of6062funding and that type of support as we are going forward.6063    Ms. Ufner. One of our members, Tombigbee. There is such6064incredible need for funding across the board in the water6065realm, and I know we keep on stressing it, whether it be locks6066and dams, ports, et cetera, but the locks and dams especially6067are extremely important to the inland waterway to really move6068goods to market.6069    And when you look at the Midwest, especially along6070Mississippi or Pennsylvania or all the other areas and the6071amount of goods that go to and from, really support our6072national economy, and equal funding for that to make sure that6073we remain strong and that we can address these aging6074infrastructure to make sure that the economy and the6075communities are safe.6076    Mr. Figures. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.6077    Mr. Taylor. Thank you. The gentleman yields. The Chair6078recognizes Representative Kiley for 5 minutes.6079    Mr. Kiley of California. Thank you, Mr. Chair.6080    Ms. Ufner, I wanted to ask you about an issue we have been6081dealing with in my district, because I suspect that maybe it is6082not the only area where this has occurred and perhaps there6083might be an opportunity to fix the larger issue.6084    So the town of Roseville in my district had a project6085authorized under WRDA 2022, under Section 219, Environmental6086Infrastructure. Congress then appropriated $75,000 in the6087relevant appropriations bill for fiscal year 2023 for the6088project, but since then, the town has had a hard time working6089with the Army Corps on getting the project off the ground. And6090I am concerned, and growing increasingly concerned, that the6091Corps doesn't have clear, uniform procedures to support local6092communities, to support them in allowing them to proceed with6093project implementation.6094    So I think it would probably be helpful if the Corps could6095issue clearer guidance that the district offices across the6096Nation would follow.6097    So I wanted to ask you, have you heard of other authorized6098projects having trouble implementing Section 219, Environmental6099Infrastructure projects, and do you think the Corps could issue6100clearer guidance to district offices across the country?6101    Ms. Ufner. Congressman, if it is okay, I would love to get6102back to you on that answer.6103    Mr. Kiley of California. That would be great. Thank you. I6104don't know if any other witnesses have thoughts.6105    [No response.]6106    Mr. Kiley of California. Thank you very much. I yield back.6107    Mr. Taylor. The gentleman yields.6108    The Chair recognizes Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.6109    Mr. Garcia of California. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,6110again, to all our witnesses, and thanks for allowing me to6111waive on today.6112    I wanted to just ask Dr. Hacegaba, I just wanted to use6113this opportunity to ask you about the Port of Long Beach Deep6114Draft Navigation Project. It is a project that obviously I am6115familiar with. During when I was mayor, we worked a lot with6116the port and the whole team on advancing it. And we know that6117the WRDA process is obviously complex, but I know that also6118bipartisan members of this committee have been involved in this6119effort and are strongly supportive of these types of projects.6120    I am grateful to hear the news that, just last week, the6121administration had removed the pause that the Corps put on the6122project. Certainly, we look forward to working with anyone that6123wants to make the Post-Authorization Change Report that you6124referenced in your opening remarks as it refers to WRDA for61252026.6126    For those who aren't familiar with this project, could you6127just share a little bit more detail why it is important, not6128just for the port, but really for trade across the country?6129    Mr. Hacegaba. Yes, certainly. And thanks again for your6130question, Congressman. And thank you again for your very6131generous introduction and longstanding support of, not just the6132Port of Long Beach, but ports across the Nation.6133    This Deep Draft Navigation Project is important because it6134enables a port like ours, who happens to be the second busiest6135and moves cargo across every single congressional district, it6136enables us to handle larger ships that carry more cargo and it6137allows us to enable even more imports and exports. And our6138partnership with the Army Corps is such that WRDA enabled them6139to invest moneys in this project to keep it moving forward.6140    I will say this, Congressman, we were very surprised when6141we learned of the pause because this project is a project of6142national significance. But we are very grateful that the pause6143has been lifted. We are working closely with Army Corps to get6144the project back on track.6145    And, again, the reason investments in ports like these and6146projects like these are so important is because you think about6147the positive economic impact that ports like ours have on the6148national economy, you are talking about 2.7 million jobs, cargo6149to every congressional district in the country.6150    Mr. Garcia of California. Great. Thank you. And I think we6151all saw, of course, during the pandemic, just some of the6152supply chain disruptions that were happening, how6153infrastructure and seaports are so important, how investments6154are critical to move cargo and to actually keep the economy6155strong. We are talking about, as you know, millions of jobs6156across the country are dependent on--oftentimes on ports in6157California just alone, and so I think that is really important.6158    I know there is a tight timeline to have a Post-6159Authorization Change Report completed ahead of WRDA6160reauthorization. Do you know if the Army Corps of Engineers has6161indicated when they expect that report to be completed?6162    Mr. Hacegaba. We don't have a certain timeframe,6163Congressman, but I can tell you that Brigadier General Lloyd6164was at our port just a couple of weeks ago, and we fully6165engaged discussions with the Army Corps. We are very optimistic6166that we can meet the deadline to get this in WRDA 2026.6167    Mr. Garcia of California. Great. And I just want to add6168just for the record, also, it is really important that the Army6169Corps is clear and works, not just with our port partners, but6170with Members of Congress. I think oftentimes it is difficult to6171get information to our ports, and certainly to us in the6172Congress, on how critical it is that the Army Corps projects6173move forward and that we get regular updates. So I just want to6174make sure that we are aware of that.6175    Just finally before I close, briefly, on the allocation of6176Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund dollars, can you just share one6177or two examples, Noel, about how important those dollars are to6178a port like Long Beach and so many others?6179    Mr. Hacegaba. Absolutely. The reason this is so important6180is--you take the donor ports, as an example. Donor ports6181generate about half of all HMT revenues, but we only get about61822 percent in return. Yet these donor ports happen to be the6183ports that have the greatest impact to the local and national6184economy. This is why projects like these, reauthorizing WRDA6185with section 102, for example, with expanded in-water use, is6186so important to enable us to be a bigger economic engine for6187the American people.6188    Mr. Garcia of California. Great. Thank you.6189    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.6190    Mr. Taylor. Thank you. The gentleman yields.6191    The Chair recognizes Mr. DeSaulnier for 5 minutes.6192    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to6193the witnesses.6194    I represent a district in the East Bay of the San Francisco6195Bay area. I have represented the San Francisco Delta, bay area6196delta for a long time. It provides a large amount of clean6197water to the State of California, including Los Angeles, and to6198the ag industry.6199    So my question for Ms. Ufner, how can areas like that, with6200almost 8 million people, and also being a great resource to the6201agricultural industry that produces one-third of all the fruits6202and vegetables in the United States, as we go through this6203investment in infrastructure in areas like that, how do we make6204sure that the regional plans--and the bay area has a lot of6205government. You have got nine counties, and I don't know how6206many cities and special districts--how do we coordinate that6207and use this to make sure that we are doing the best investment6208for a place like that, the largest estuary west of the6209Mississippi, that has huge impacts not only on people who drink6210water, but the national economy vis-a-vis the ag industry in6211particular?6212    Ms. Ufner. That is a challenging--when you are looking--6213because you are asking about a regional focus, how do you bring6214everyone to the table. Regardless of whether you are talking6215your area or other areas, you have a combination of both large6216and small governments as well as special districts, and they6217have different capacity needs. And getting them talking about6218it and the available funding that--because when you are talking6219about the Federal share versus the non-Federal share, non-6220Federal sponsors usually have a limited amount of money that6221they can bring to the table, which is based on whether it be6222taxes or community.6223    So it is about educating and bringing them together,6224whether it be in a townhall, and that is getting more into6225details, but it is about how to bring different size levels of6226government to the table to talk about these challenges and what6227they have available.6228    Mr. DeSaulnier. And in the context of sea level rise, which6229the bay area, like most areas such as ours, there is a bigger6230challenge. So we have invested a lot in our levees to keep the6231infrastructure up, trying to have that regional approach. And6232we can learn from other areas that are similar to that.6233    Mark Twain famously said, in California, whisky is for6234drinking, and water is for fighting. So trying to get this6235opportunity, from an engineering perspective, in an area like6236that that is so crucial to get this right, and to your point,6237having come from local government, Prop 13 was a good thing for6238some people. I will include myself from a personal standpoint.6239But the maintenance of effort in the local match is always a6240problem. And it is not a good financial model because, clearly,6241the benefit to the economy on the west coast, in this instance,6242and to a place with--what is the California's GDP would be the6243fourth largest in the world right now, and water is so6244important.6245    Mr. Jones, what can we learn from the Corps in this moment6246in sort of following on in that, in regions like this, how we6247can coordinate better with local and regional and State6248agencies on the pure engineering and the delivery of projects?6249I think this is something we can agree on, on a bipartisan6250level we have in this committee, is project delivery is6251important, particularly in this kind of environment.6252    Mr. Jones. Sure. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.6253    You spoke of some 80 jurisdictions in your area, that is an6254immense challenge. One of the things that we know, though, is6255that water knows no political boundaries, and so water is6256moving about amongst those 80 different political6257jurisdictions. So it is going to take immense communication and6258coordination.6259    From the engineering perspective, though, understanding and6260trying to remove as best we can the political factors in the6261discussion and allowing the data and the science and the6262engineering solutions to ultimately lead the conversation,6263right. Obviously, there will be political influence and6264discussion. There will be community input and discussion. Every6265stakeholder will have their say and priority.6266    But prior to you coming in, I talked about my background6267being from southern Louisiana.6268    Mr. DeSaulnier. Similar.6269    Mr. Jones. Very similar. In the aftermath of Hurricane6270Katrina and the inland floodings in the State, and bringing6271those folks to the table to, one, educate them on how water6272flow actually occurs, where the water needs to be, and the6273various uses.6274    And simply put, I would just offer that there is no such6275thing as overcommunication in this regard, and trying to have6276every stakeholder understand what their needs are, but as6277importantly, understand what the needs of their fellow6278stakeholders are, and ultimately try to achieve some regional6279priorities and then work towards those goals.6280    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you so much.6281    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.6282    Mr. Taylor. Thank you. The gentleman yields.6283    Are there any further questions from any members of the6284subcommittee who have not been recognized?6285    Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for today. I would6286like to thank each of the witnesses for your testimony.6287    The subcommittee stands adjourned.6288    [Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]62896290                       Submissions for the Record62916292                             ----------62936294 Letter of December 11, 2025, from Beth Callaway, Executive Director,6295Interstate Council on Water Policy, to Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman, and6296    Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water6297   Resources and Environment, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Mike6298                                Collins6299                                                 December 11, 2025.6300The Honorable Mike Collins, Chair,6301The Honorable Frederica Wilson, Ranking Member,6302U.S. House of Representatives,6303Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water6304        Resources and Environment, 2251 Rayburn House Office Building,6305        Washington, DC 20515.6306    Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson:6307    The Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) expresses our6308appreciation to Congress for the successful completion of the Water6309Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2024 (Public Law No. 118-272).6310Among its many beneficial provisions, Congressional efforts to address6311the challenges faced by non-Federal sponsors in US Army Corps of6312Engineers (USACE) Project Partnership Agreements (PPAs) in WRDA 20246313represent important progress toward more equitable and effective6314collaborations with non-Federal partners.6315    Looking ahead, ICWP is eager to continue working with Congress to6316build on these achievements and further advance equitable solutions for6317non-Federal partners in WRDA 2026.6318                  Request for PPA Reforms in WRDA 20266319    ICWP urges Congress to finalize and enact PPA reforms during WRDA63202026 development. As stipulated by WRDA 2024, ICWP and our members have6321worked collaboratively since its passage with the Government6322Accountability Office (GAO) to inform its analysis regarding potential6323reforms to USACE PPA requirements, specifically those related to6324indemnification and operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and6325rehabilitation (OMRR&R).6326    ICWP expects that GAO's recommendations for any necessary changes6327to existing law or policy will be incorporated into statute. Through6328such codification, Congress can provide the clarity and certainty that6329non-Federal partners need to participate fully and confidently in USACE6330projects. Enshrining these reforms will ensure their continuity and6331empower non-Federal organizations to advance water resource objectives6332in alignment with their respective laws, policies, and long-term6333interests.6334Indemnification reform6335    ICWP requests that the Committee include language in WRDA 2026 that6336replaces the current blanket indemnification requirement with a more6337balanced approach to liability.6338      Section 103(j) of WRDA 1986 requires non-Federal6339interests to hold the United States harmless from damages. This6340stipulation is often at odds with the constitutions and laws of many6341states as well as the policies of nonprofit organizations.63426343      Our previous commentary on WRDA 2024 highlighted that 226344states currently face direct conflicts between PPA requirements and6345their state laws. Many state constitutions prohibit agencies from6346obligating funds without an appropriation or incurring indebtedness on6347behalf of the state before such appropriation is made.63486349      The current indemnification requirement forces non-6350Federal parties to assume indeterminate liabilities, which may arise at6351unpredictable times and costs for uncertain reasons. This broad6352assumption of liability often exceeds limits set by state tort law and6353creates a significant barrier to beneficial water resource projects.63546355    ICWP urges Congress to eliminate or replace blanket indemnification6356with a more equitable, shared liability model, allowing non-Federal6357partners to participate equally in USACE-partnered projects.6358Define an endpoint for OMRR&R obligations6359    ICWP also calls for the establishment of a clearly defined endpoint6360for OMRR&R obligations.6361      Section 103(j) of WRDA 1986 requires non-Federal sponsors6362to bear 100 percent of these costs. Historically, USACE limited this6363obligation to the standard 50-year design life of a project. However, a6364policy change in 2012 now requires perpetual non-Federal6365responsibility.63666367      This open-ended commitment places an undue burden on non-6368Federal entities and discourages future participation. Setting a6369defined endpoint for these obligations would provide a more equitable6370and sustainable partnership framework.6371         Address Beneficial Use of Dredge Material in WRDA 20266372    Additionally, ICWP requests that WRDA 2026 address the beneficial6373use of dredge material.6374      While beneficial reuse for flood control and ecosystem6375restoration is a priority, it can increase project costs due to greater6376transportation distances.63776378      USACE has set an ambitious goal of 70 percent beneficial6379use by 2030, but progress toward this target has been hindered by6380delays in completing internal guidance. For example, in the Great Lakes6381region, USACE's requirement to select the least cost alternative for6382dredge disposal may conflict with beneficial use objectives and limit6383opportunities for local community benefits.63846385    ICWP encourages Congress to consider requiring that USACE allow6386greater flexibility and enable pursuit of beneficial use of dredge6387material to allow for more local community benefits.6388                               Conclusion6389    ICWP remains committed to collaborating with Congress to develop a6390WRDA 2026 solution that supports equitable engagement by project6391partners and ensures USACE fulfills its Federal obligations on PPAs. By6392implementing a fair approach to PPA liability, clearly defining OMRR&R6393endpoints, and prioritizing flexible, beneficial use of dredge6394material, Congress can advance water resource initiatives that best6395serve the nation's water resource needs.6396    For further questions or clarification, please contact ICWP6397Executive Director Beth Callaway.6398            Sincerely,6399                                             Beth Callaway,6400            Executive Director, Interstate Council on Water Policy.64016402 Statement of Sunny Simpkins, Executive Director, National Association6403 of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, Submitted for the Record6404                          by Hon. Mike Collins6405    Dear Chairmen Graves and Collins and Ranking Members Larsen and6406Wilson--6407    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National6408Association of Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA)6409regarding priorities for the Water Resources Development Act of 20266410(WRDA 2026). We are grateful for this Committee's longstanding6411bipartisan commitment to advancing water resources legislation and for6412your dedication to building more resilient communities across our6413nation.6414                              About NAFSMA6415    Founded in 1978, NAFSMA is an organization of public agencies whose6416mission is the protection of lives, property, and economic activity6417from the adverse impacts of storm and flood waters. Many NAFSMA member6418agencies serve as non-federal sponsors in partnership with the U.S.6419Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on flood risk management and ecosystem6420restoration projects.6421    For more than 46 years, NAFSMA has advocated for sound public6422policy and encouraged technological and programmatic improvements in6423water resources management. Our focus spans flood risk infrastructure6424management, floodplain management and insurance, water quality, and6425related environmental issues. We have long supported a biennial WRDA to6426authorize critical water resources projects and policies that guide6427USACE activities nationwide.6428                        The Case for WRDA Reform6429    As Congress prepares WRDA 2026, NAFSMA respectfully submits the6430following priorities for consideration. These proposals address6431documented barriers that delay projects, increase costs at both the6432local and federal levels, and limit effective non-federal partnerships.6433Our recommendations are grounded in the real-world experience of our6434member agencies, which represent the frontlines of flood risk6435management and water infrastructure delivery across the nation.6436                Priority 1: Innovative Project Delivery6437    Through previous WRDAs, Congress has directed USACE to utilize6438alternative project delivery approaches to meet the nation's water6439resource needs. While these authorities represent meaningful progress,6440NAFSMA has identified concerns and opportunities to improve their6441implementation.6442Section 203--Non-Federal Feasibility Studies6443            Concerns6444      Study cost reimbursement is capped at the original6445authorization amount, with no adjustment for inflation.6446      Non-federal sponsors do not receive reimbursement for6447USACE technical assistance costs.6448      Authority is limited to feasibility studies and does not6449extend to subsequent planning phases.6450            Recommendations6451      Allow the Secretary to increase study limits for complex6452projects where warranted.6453      Make USACE technical assistance costs eligible for6454reimbursement or credit.6455      Expand Section 203 authority to include General or6456Limited Reevaluation Reports and Post-Authorization Change Reports.6457Section 204--Non-Federal Construction6458            Concern6459      There is no mechanism to address construction cost6460changes that occur during a multi-year funding process, creating6461uncertainty and potentially stranding non-federal investment.6462            Recommendation6463      Apply the Section 902 cost escalation process to non-6464federal construction to ensure equitable treatment of cost changes.6465Section 1043(b)--Non-Federal Implementation Pilot6466            Concerns6467      This valuable authority is temporary and limited in6468scope.6469      Current implementation requires non-federal sponsors to6470follow the same processes as USACE, undermining the efficiency gains6471Congress intended.6472            Recommendations6473      Make the authority permanent and incorporate the pilot's6474advanced funds provision to allow transfer of unobligated federal funds6475to non-federal sponsors.6476      Direct USACE to adopt a standards-based approach similar6477to those used successfully by other federal agencies.6478            Standards-Based Approach6479    NAFSMA recommends that USACE look to the Federal Highway6480Administration (FHWA) and the Department of Housing and Urban6481Development (HUD) as models. FHWA's Local Agency Program relies on6482certification, allowing qualified local agencies to operate with6483appropriate oversight rather than step-by-step federal involvement. HUD6484similarly establishes standards and audits for compliance instead of6485requiring grantees to mirror federal procedures.6486    Under a standards-based framework, USACE would establish clear6487requirements, certify capable non-federal sponsors, and conduct6488periodic audits--preserving federal oversight while enabling the6489efficiency Congress intended. Flexibility is essential to the6490standards-based approach because flood challenges vary significantly6491across communities. Geography, hydrology, existing infrastructure, land6492use, and fiscal capacity all influence what solutions are feasible in a6493given locale. Built-in flexibility allows agencies and local6494governments to meet performance objectives while tailoring strategies6495to their unique conditions.6496    In addition, this approach would also address local agency6497accountability concerns raised in the 2020 and 2026 Senate Reports6498accompanying the 2020 and draft 2026 Senate Energy and Water6499Appropriations Bills using a proven federal model.6500Section 221--Design Review Process6501            Concern6502      Uncertainty around credit for non-federal design work6503discourages sponsors from using their capabilities.6504            Recommendation6505      Establish a milestone-based review process with 90-day6506USACE review periods and preliminary credit determinations.6507  Priority 2: Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA)6508Concern6509    Despite legislative intent, a 2020 rule prohibits WIFIA and6510therefore the Corps Water Infrastructure Financing Program (CWIFP) from6511financing congressionally authorized projects. This restriction does6512not apply to the Department of Transportation's TIFIA program and6513creates an unnecessary barrier to leveraging federal financing for6514water resources projects.6515Recommendations6516      Define congressionally authorized projects as local6517assets when non-federal sponsors hold title and responsibility.6518      Allow WIFIA and CWIFP loans for projects on non-federal6519lands when the non-federal sponsor owns and maintains the project.6520Draft language that would allow financing for federal projects:6521    Financial assistance for a project under this subtitle may not be6522used by or transferred to a Federal Entity, applied to any physical6523asset owned by a Federal Entity, nor through the extension of such6524financial assistance, contractually obligate the Federal Government to6525provide additional financial assistance for a project beyond the face6526value of the WIFIA financial assistance, plus any capitalized interest6527allowed under this subtitle.6528    Provided further if the project, is in whole or in part, a project6529currently authorized by an Act of Congress for the Army Corps of6530Engineers to construct, the project must also satisfy one of the6531following:6532    1)  The project has been authorized for construction by the Army6533Corps of Engineers and subsequently completed. The completed project is6534owned, operated and maintained by a non-Federal entity.6535    2)  The project has been authorized for construction by the Army6536Corps of Engineers, has not been constructed, and:6537      a.  The project is being constructed in whole by a non-Federal6538entity; or6539      b.  A non-Federal entity constructs a part of the project and6540seeks Financial assistance under this subtitle for only such part.65416542    In conjunction with the limitation above, if the recipient of6543financial assistance for a project under this subtitle is an eligible6544entity other than a Federal entity, agency, or instrumentality, and the6545dedicated sources of repayment of that financial assistance are non-6546Federal revenue sources, such financial assistance shall, for purposes6547of budgetary treatment under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (26548U.S.C. 661 et seq.)--6549    (1)  be deemed to be non-Federal; and6550    (2)  be treated as a direct loan or loan guarantee (as such terms6551are defined, respectively, such Act); and6552    (3)  entitled to non-cash budgetary treatment.65536554    These changes would unlock significant financing opportunities for6555flood risk management infrastructure while stretching limited federal6556appropriations further.6557         Priority 3: Project Design and Section 902 Cost Limits6558Concern6559    A conflict exists between SMART planning objectives and cost6560estimate confidence requirements. Large, complex projects cannot6561reasonably reach 35 percent design before authorization, yet current6562policy creates uncertainty around cost limits.6563Recommendations6564      Provide for separable elements or phased authorization6565for large projects, including multi-year appropriations.6566      Authorize projects using the June 2023 Design Majority6567Memo standards (Class 3 estimates at 10-60 percent design).6568      Use the existing Section 902 and Change Control Board6569process to manage cost adjustments.6570      Allow grandfathering for studies that have reached the6571selected plan milestone.6572              Priority 4: Project Real Estate Requirements6573    Real estate acquisition remains one of the most significant sources6574of delay and cost escalation in USACE projects, often extending6575timelines by 18-24 months.6576Section 1104--Non-Standard Estates6577            Concerns6578      The process is overly rigid and does not reflect regional6579real estate conditions.6580      Delays of 18-24 months are common and significantly6581increase project costs.6582            Recommendations6583      Define standard estates to include public lands,6584conservation easements, and cooperative agreements.6585      Delegate approval authority to District Commanders.6586      Establish a 180-day review period for non-standard estate6587requests.6588Section 103--Credit Process for Real Estate6589            Concern6590      Validation of appraisals and approval of credit authority6591often exceed the appraisal validity period.6592      Backlog of LERRDs (Lands, Easements, Rights of Way,6593Relocations, and Disposals) crediting at USACE District offices across6594the Country, totaling more than $250,000,000 alone within the State of6595California.6596            Recommendations6597      Extend appraisal validity when federal delay occurs.6598      Base validity on the offer date rather than close of6599escrow.6600      Delegate real estate credit authority to the District or6601Division level.6602      Establish a 120-day review timeline.6603      Establish a pilot project within the South Pacific6604Division that would authorize a non-federal sponsor to receive LERRDs6605credit at the time the USACE approves the LERRDs Certification Package6606for construction, subject to the following conditions:6607      +  Real property must be acquired in accordance with the Uniform6608Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of66091970, as amended (Uniform Act or URA) and 49 CFR part 24, the6610implementing regulation.6611      +  USACE will review and concur within 30 days of submitting all6612appraisals over $2,000,000. Concurrence is assumed if a written6613response is not provided within 30 days. (USACE concurrence is limited6614to whether the appraisal met USPAP standards.)6615      +  USACE will review and concur within 30 days of submittal any6616settlement of over 20% or $50,000, whichever is higher, of just6617compensation. Concurrence is assumed if a written response is not6618provided within 30 days. (USACE concurrence is limited to whether the6619NFS followed the Uniform Act.)66206621    Our members consistently report that real estate requirements are6622the single largest source of project delay. Issuing take letters at 906623percent design is often infeasible for non-federal sponsors, and we6624encourage collaboration on more realistic timelines.6625                 Priority 5: Section 408 Clarification6626Concern6627    It is currently unclear whether flood risk management projects that6628have been formally deauthorized remain subject to Section 4086629permissions, creating uncertainty and inconsistent application across6630USACE Districts.6631    In many cases, non-federal sponsors are intentionally pursuing6632deauthorization because projects have reached the end of their original6633federal service life. These legacy projects often no longer meet6634current design standards, risk profiles, or community needs.6635Deauthorization allows non-federal sponsors to responsibly6636recapitalize, modernize, and manage this infrastructure at the local6637level using updated approaches, funding mechanisms, and integrated6638stormwater or resilience strategies.6639    This lack of clarity undermines the purpose of deauthorization and6640can impose unnecessary federal review requirements on infrastructure6641that is no longer a federal project.6642Recommendation6643      Clarify that deauthorized projects are not subject to6644Section 408 requirements.66456646    Despite recent guidance, obtaining Section 408 permission continues6647to require substantial staff time and funding, delaying projects that6648protect communities.6649             Priority 6: Coordination of Technical Reviews6650Concern6651    Technical reviews for federal projects are conducted in a linear,6652sequential manner, with feasibility study reviews often taking longer6653than subsequent design reviews. This sequencing extends overall project6654schedules, increases costs, and limits the ability of non-federal6655sponsors to advance meaningful design work early in the process.6656    Because feasibility reviews can consume a disproportionate amount6657of time, opportunities to advance additional design in parallel are6658missed. This results in less-developed designs at key decision points,6659contributing to greater uncertainty in cost estimates and less6660efficient project delivery.6661Recommendation6662    Direct USACE to establish predictable review timelines and improve6663coordination by integrating feasibility, technical, policy, and risk-6664informed reviews into standard, concurrent processes wherever6665practicable. An integrated review approach would allow additional6666design to proceed during feasibility, leading to more mature designs,6667improved cost estimate confidence, and a more efficient overall6668process.6669    Non-federal sponsors are significantly affected when permitting and6670review delays jeopardize funding tied to state, local, or federal grant6671timelines. In some cases, these delays result in the loss of awarded6672funds or require costly reapplications. Congress should explore6673opportunities to empower non-federal sponsors to support federal6674permitting and review capacity while maintaining appropriate federal6675oversight and accountability.6676     Priority 7: Integrating Stormwater Management into Flood Risk6677                          Management Projects6678Concern6679    Stormwater management and flood risk management projects frequently6680occur in the same geographic areas but lack coordinated authority and6681integration. As storms continue to intensify, communities are6682experiencing increased pluvial flooding--flooding caused by heavy6683rainfall overwhelming local drainage and stormwater systems often6684independent of riverine or coastal flooding.6685    Pluvial flooding is occurring with greater frequency and severity6686due to more intense rainfall events, aging stormwater infrastructure,6687and increased impervious surfaces. When stormwater considerations are6688not integrated into flood risk management projects, opportunities are6689missed to address the full spectrum of flood risk facing communities.6690Recommendation6691      Authorize non-federal sponsors to incorporate stormwater6692management designs into flood risk management project planning and6693design.66946695    Integrating stormwater management with flood risk reduction would6696enable multi-benefit projects that more effectively address pluvial and6697riverine flooding together, maximize the value of federal and local6698investment, and deliver improved flood protection and water quality6699outcomes for communities.6700                   Benefits of These Recommendations6701    NAFSMA's proposed reforms would:6702      Accelerate project delivery by reducing timelines and6703administrative barriers.6704      Improve financing access through WIFIA for6705congressionally authorized projects.6706      Control costs through realistic inflation adjustments and6707cost management flexibility.6708      Increase local capacity by expanding non-federal6709implementation authority.6710      Enable innovation through multi-benefit, integrated water6711resources approaches.6712                               Conclusion6713    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, NAFSMA appreciates6714the opportunity to present these priorities for WRDA 2026. The6715bipartisan tradition of water resources legislation has delivered6716tremendous benefits nationwide, and we are confident WRDA 2026 will6717continue that legacy.6718    These practical, targeted reforms address the real barriers our6719member agencies face every day in protecting communities from flood6720risk. By empowering capable non-federal sponsors, streamlining6721processes, and enabling innovative financing and multi-benefit6722solutions, Congress can accelerate delivery of critical water6723infrastructure while stretching limited federal resources.6724    NAFSMA stands ready to serve as a resource to the Committee as you6725develop WRDA 2026. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.6726We welcome any questions.67276728                               Appendix67296730                              ----------67316732  Questions to Julie A. Ufner, President and Chief Executive Officer,6733       National Waterways Conference, Inc., from Hon. Brian Babin67346735    Question 1.a. Ms. Julie Ufner, as President and CEO of the National6736Waterways Conference, you represent non-Federal sponsors across the6737country who partner with the Army Corps and often shoulder significant6738local costs for projects. Many Texas communities are frustrated by long6739delays, rising costs, and inconsistent Corps requirements, even after6740Congress has acted. What specific reforms should Congress prioritize in6741WRDA 2026 to speed up project delivery, control cost growth, and ensure6742non-Federal sponsors--especially in states like Texas--are not bearing6743unnecessary burdens once a project is authorized?6744    Answer. The National Waterways Conference (NWC) appreciates the6745opportunity to respond to the questions for the record and to build on6746the testimony submitted for this hearing. NWC represents a broad cross-6747section of non-Federal sponsors and stakeholders engaged across the6748U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Civil Works program, including6749navigation, flood risk management and storm damage reduction, water6750supply, hydropower, and dam safety interests. Within Texas, NWC6751represents and has heard directly from a range of members involved in6752multiple Civil Works business lines, and several of the issues6753discussed below reflect concerns raised by Texas-based sponsors and6754other non-Federal interests.6755    In its testimony, NWC raised a number of policy, delivery, and6756implementation issues affecting Civil Works projects nationwide. In6757this response, NWC highlights a subset of those issues that have risen6758to the surface as particularly relevant to the upcoming Water Resources6759Development Act of 2026 (WRDA 2026), while also acknowledging that not6760all challenges are easily or best addressed through new authorization6761language. In some cases, implementation, Corps-level action, or6762Congressional oversight may be more appropriate or more timely than6763statutory changes.6764    NWC approaches these questions using a two-pronged lens. First, we6765identify areas where WRDA 2026 could provide clarity, direction, or6766refinement to improve project delivery and reduce unnecessary delay or6767cost exposure for non-Federal sponsors. Second, we identify areas where6768existing authority already exists, but where implementation challenges,6769inconsistent application, or ongoing rulemakings suggest that oversight6770or further evaluation may be the more effective path forward at this6771time.6772    NWC also recognizes and strongly supports Congress's consistent6773enactment of WRDA since 2014. The regular passage of WRDA has provided6774much-needed predictability for authorizing studies, projects, and6775policy direction, and NWC views itself as a long-standing partner in6776that authorization process. At the same time, NWC recognizes that WRDA6777represents only the first step in a multi-step process. Projects and6778policies authorized through WRDA must ultimately be funded through the6779annual appropriations process and, critically, must be implemented6780effectively by the Corps.6781    From NWC's perspective, ensuring timely and effective funding and6782implementation of WRDA provisions, as well as other existing6783authorities, is as important as enacting new authorization language.6784Understanding why certain provisions are delayed, inconsistently6785applied, or not implemented at all can help inform not only future WRDA6786cycles, but also appropriations decisions and oversight priorities. For6787that reason, this response seeks to be candid about where statutory6788changes may be appropriate, where implementation challenges persist,6789and where additional Congressional engagement or oversight could help6790achieve the outcomes Congress intends.6791               A. Minimum Necessary Real Estate Interests6792    Non-Federal sponsors continue to experience significant delays,6793increased costs, and landowner resistance related to how the Corps6794defines and acquires real estate interests for Civil Works projects.6795These challenges are particularly acute for ecosystem restoration,6796natural infrastructure, floodplain reconnection, and other multi-6797benefit projects, but they extend across business lines, including for6798many flood control and coastal storm damage reduction projects.6799    Sponsors are not seeing changes on the ground, despite repeated6800Congressional direction emphasizing the use of minimum necessary real6801estate interests, including most recently in WRDA 2024. This is not6802because the Corps lacks authority. Rather, it reflects a disconnect6803between existing policy, statutory direction, and how real estate6804decisions are being made and implemented at the district level.6805    What Is Actually Happening on the Ground. From the sponsor6806perspective, real estate has become one of the least predictable and6807most time-consuming components of project delivery.6808    Sponsors report that districts frequently require fee title or fee-6809like estates even where project purposes could reasonably be met6810through easements, rights-of-entry, or other limited real estate6811interests. While districts may acknowledge that alternatives are6812theoretically allowable, they are often not supported in practice.6813    Where districts are willing to consider alternatives, sponsors6814report that non-standard real estate agreements can take several years6815to execute. These timelines are not feasible for communities facing6816flood risk, navigation constraints, or environmental degradation, and6817they introduce uncertainty that complicates project planning,6818financing, and landowner engagement.6819    Additionally, every Corps district seems to have different6820standards for when real estate acquisition can start on a project. Real6821estate is normally at the cost of the non-Federal sponsor and is led by6822the non-Federal sponsor. However, sponsors have noted how some Corps6823districts normally may not allow real estate acquisitions to start6824until, for example, the 50 percent design is reached, whereas other6825Corps districts may require as much as 90 percent design before real6826estate acquisition can start. The philosophy appears to be that the6827Corps does not want to risk acquiring property prior to sufficient6828design maturity, to ensure that everything that is acquired is needed6829for the project. Since the acquisition risk falls on the non-Federal6830sponsor, the non-Federal sponsor should be allowed to start6831acquisitions at the design maturity level at which they are6832comfortable, with the Corps only crediting for the real estate6833interests used for the project.6834    Sponsors also report that real estate requirements often surface6835late in the project lifecycle, after feasibility work has advanced or6836design assumptions have been established. This can force sponsors to6837reopen landowner negotiations, revise project footprints, or delay6838projects entirely. The cumulative effect is increased cost, loss of6839willing landowners, erosion of local support, and in some cases,6840projects that stall or fail to advance.6841    Why This Is Happening and Where the Corps Is Struggling. This is6842not fundamentally a statutory problem. The Corps already has policy6843that allows the use of easements and other limited real estate6844interests where they are sufficient to meet project purposes. That6845flexibility predates WRDA 2024.6846    In practice, however, districts frequently default to fee title6847because it is viewed internally as the lowest-risk option. Fee title is6848administratively clean. It simplifies questions of access, enforcement,6849long-term responsibility, and future modification. In a risk-averse6850institutional environment, it reduces ambiguity and limits the need for6851ongoing interpretation or justification.6852    This default behavior is reinforced by several structural factors:6853      Existing real estate guidance has not kept pace with6854modern project types such as natural infrastructure and multi-benefit6855restoration.6856      Approval pathways for non-standard estates are perceived6857as time-consuming, uncertain, or subject to second-guessing.6858      District staff are incentivized to minimize internal6859review risk rather than tailor estates to project needs.6860      There is no consistent, project-type-specific framework6861defining what ``minimum necessary'' means in practice.68626863    As a result, even where flexibility exists, it is often not6864exercised. The issue is not whether the Corps can use alternative6865estates. It is the lack of clarity around when, how, and under what6866conditions those alternatives are acceptable and defensible across6867districts and divisions.6868    WRDA 2024 reinforced the principle of minimum necessary real estate6869interests, but sponsors are not yet seeing changes because6870implementation guidance has not been issued or existing policies6871consistently applied. In the absence of that guidance, districts have6872continued to rely on existing practices.6873    This underscores a deeper point. There should not have been a need6874for new statutory language, because the Corps already had authority and6875policy to exercise flexibility. The fact that Congress acted reflects6876the persistent gap between policy on paper and practice on the ground.6877    What Can Be Addressed Through WRDA 2026. WRDA 2026 presents an6878opportunity to move beyond restating principles and instead clarify6879expectations and reduce ambiguity in how minimum necessary real estate6880interests are applied. Congress may wish to consider:6881      Scope of Necessary Real Estate Interest: Reiterating that6882the ``minimum real estate interest'' necessary for project purposes is6883the maximum interest the non-Federal sponsor can be required to6884provide.6885      Project-Type-Specific Real Estate Frameworks: Directing6886the Corps to develop and apply project-type-specific real estate6887frameworks that clearly identify when easements or other limited6888estates are appropriate.6889      Document and Justify: Requiring the Corps to document and6890justify when fee title is required in cases where limited interests6891could otherwise meet project purposes.6892      Provide Clarity: Clarifying that real estate decisions6893should be based on the functional needs for construction, maintenance,6894and rehabilitation, and aligned with project risk and long-term6895performance rather than default administrative preference.6896      Provide the Non-Federal Sponsor More Acquisition6897Flexibility: Since the acquisition risk falls on the non-Federal6898sponsor, allow the non-Federal sponsor to start acquisitions at the6899design maturity level at which they are comfortable, with the Corps6900only crediting for the real estate interests used for the project.6901      Streamlined Real Estate Acquisition Process: Streamline6902the real estate acquisition process by relying more on audits versus6903reviewing all acquisitions, and developing a tracking system; this6904would help reduce Corps staffing needs and decrease acquisition times.69056906    When the non-Federal sponsor for any reason--whether to ensure6907fairness to land-owners, to avoid uneconomic remnants, or for the non-6908Federal sponsor's convenience or other purposes--lawfully acquires an6909interest greater than the minimum the Corps has determined is needed6910for project purposes, the non-Federal sponsor may choose to provide the6911minimum interest to the Corps while retaining fee simple title (or any6912estate greater than the minimum required for project purposes). In such6913cases, the current policy of crediting the non-Federal sponsor for the6914value of the lesser interest--that is, for the amount the non-Federal6915sponsor would have had to expend to obtain the basic minimum interest--6916should be followed.6917    These steps would not remove Corps discretion, but would provide6918clearer guardrails and expectations, helping districts make decisions6919that balance legal certainty with delivery efficiency.6920    Implementation and Oversight Considerations. In parallel, several6921issues are primarily implementation-related and may be best addressed6922through oversight rather than new statutory authority.6923    These include:6924      Timely issuance and consistent application of WRDA6925implementation guidance (including specifically for WRDA 2024).6926      Ensuring existing real estate policy flexibility is6927actually being used in practice.6928      Improving internal consistency across districts and6929divisions to reduce late-stage real estate surprises.69306931    From the sponsor perspective, oversight and follow-through on6932enacted provisions can be just as important as new WRDA language.6933Without implementation, statutory direction alone will not resolve the6934real estate challenges sponsors continue to face.6935  B. Design Maturity Requirements and the 35 Percent Design Threshold6936    Non-Federal sponsors are increasingly concerned about how design6937maturity expectations are being applied across Corps Civil Works6938projects, particularly the growing expectation that projects advance to693935 percent design earlier in the project lifecycle. Sponsors report6940that this shift is materially changing where cost, risk, and6941uncertainty are borne, often without improving project delivery6942outcomes.6943    The issue is not opposition to better project definition or cost6944accuracy. Sponsors understand the value of sound design and disciplined6945decision-making. The concern is that the 35 percent design threshold is6946being advanced as a broad solution to cost growth and delays without6947sufficient clarity, flexibility, or alignment with how projects are6948authorized, funded, and delivered in practice.6949    What Is Actually Happening on the Ground. From the sponsor6950perspective, advancing projects to 35 percent design often requires6951significant upfront investment before there is any assurance that6952construction funding will follow. This shifts financial risk to non-6953Federal sponsors earlier in the process, particularly for smaller or6954resource-constrained communities.6955    Sponsors also report confusion about how the 35 percent design6956expectation interacts with existing Corps planning and delivery6957frameworks, including the 3x3 process and the more recent 5x56958framework. In practice, it is often unclear whether advancing design6959earlier actually accelerates delivery, or whether it results in design6960work that must later be revisited due to funding delays, changed6961conditions, regulatory requirements, or evolving project scope.6962    In some cases, sponsors report that advancing design without6963funding predictability increases exposure to inflation and market6964volatility. Design assumptions can become outdated before construction6965begins, requiring rework and undermining the goal of improving cost6966certainty.6967    Sponsors further note that the 35 percent design expectation was6968developed and applied without meaningful engagement with non-Federal6969sponsors, despite the fact that sponsors are responsible for a share of6970design costs and bear much of the risk if projects stall or are6971delayed.6972    Why This Is Happening and Where the Corps Is Struggling. The Corps6973is attempting to address longstanding concerns related to cost growth,6974scope changes, and extended delivery timelines. From the Corps'6975perspective, advancing design maturity earlier is intended to reduce6976uncertainty and support better decision-making.6977    However, this approach assumes a level of continuity between6978authorization, design, and construction funding that does not exist in6979practice. Authorization and appropriations are separate processes, and6980projects frequently experience significant gaps between design6981advancement and construction funding. Advancing design without aligning6982it to realistic funding pathways can therefore increase inefficiency6983rather than reduce it.6984    Internally, sponsors report, and Corps leadership has acknowledged6985in some cases, that there is not full agreement within the Corps on how6986the 35 percent design threshold should be applied, how flexible it6987should be by project type, or how it aligns with broader delivery6988reforms. In the absence of clear and consistent guidance, districts6989apply the expectation unevenly, leaving sponsors uncertain about what6990is required, when it is required, and why.6991    The result is a uniform expectation applied across projects with6992very different risk profiles, delivery timelines, and funding pathways.6993    What Can Be Addressed Through WRDA 2026. WRDA 2026 provides an6994opportunity to bring greater clarity and balance to how design maturity6995expectations are used as a delivery tool.6996    Congress may wish to consider:6997      Scalable and Risk-Based: Clarifying that design maturity6998requirements should be scalable and risk-based rather than uniformly6999applied across all project types and sizes. This could include7000recognizing that the appropriate level of design maturity may vary7001depending on project size/complexity, funding certainty, and delivery7002timelines. One size does not fit all for a portfolio of projects that7003range so drastically in size and complexity.70047005      Align Design Advancement Expectations: Direct the Corps7006to better align design advancement expectations with realistic funding7007pathways in order to reduce rework and unnecessary early expenditures.7008Greater transparency around how design thresholds are intended to7009reduce cost growth, and the conditions under which they are most7010effective, would help sponsors and districts make more informed7011decisions.70127013      Greater Flexibility: Pulling back on strict, universal7014mandates, or providing a simplified process to get a Corps7015headquarters/Assistant Secretary of the Army waiver from such mandates.70167017    These steps would preserve the Corps' ability to improve project7018definition while acknowledging the financial and practical realities7019faced by non-Federal sponsors.7020    Implementation and Oversight Considerations. Several aspects of7021this issue are primarily related to implementation and may be best7022addressed through oversight rather than new statutory authority. These7023include clarifying how the 35 percent design expectation aligns with7024existing 3x3 and 5x5 frameworks, ensuring consistent application across7025districts and divisions, and creating opportunities for structured7026sponsor engagement before significant policy shifts affecting cost-7027sharing are adopted.7028    From the sponsor perspective, improved communication and7029transparency around design expectations would reduce uncertainty and7030help ensure that efforts to control cost growth do not inadvertently7031introduce new risks or delays.7032           C. Section 902 Cost Limits and Construction Pauses7033    From the non-Federal sponsor perspective, Section 902 has become a7034recurring point where otherwise viable projects slow or stall, not7035because the project purpose has changed, but because projected costs7036exceed the authorized limit. It has been observed that most of the cost7037growth in many projects can be attributed to incremental funding and7038the delays in receiving that funding, wherein inflation and market7039changes, particularly for steel and other construction materials, can7040have a profound impact on cost growth. Sponsors increasingly experience7041Section 902 as a disruption to project delivery that introduces7042uncertainty, delay, and additional cost exposure, even when there is7043agreement that the project remains necessary and aligned with its7044original authorization.7045    What Is Actually Happening on the Ground. Non-Federal sponsors7046report that Section 902 issues most often arise after a project has7047already advanced through feasibility, design, or early stages of7048implementation. Project costs have increased significantly due to the7049broad cost escalation that has affected the entire U.S. economy since7050the pandemic. In many cases, projected cost increases reflect not only7051inflation, but market conditions, or refined engineering estimates as7052project details are better understood, rather than a fundamental change7053in project scope or purpose. Delays in continued funding for a project7054also often contribute to cost escalation as a result of the foregoing7055factors.7056    Once a project is projected to exceed its authorized cost limit,7057sponsors experience delays while the Corps prepares post-authorization7058documentation and seeks the approvals required to proceed. During this7059period, projects may slow or pause, contracts may be deferred, and7060timelines become uncertain. From the sponsor perspective, this pause is7061especially problematic because costs often continue to rise while work7062is delayed.7063    Sponsors consistently report several impacts:7064      Construction or project advancement is delayed while7065post-authorization approvals are pursued.7066      Non-Federal cost exposure increases as project7067management, design, and mobilization costs continue during the pause.7068      Local budgeting and financing become more difficult due7069to uncertainty around timing and total project cost.7070      Public confidence erodes when projects appear stalled7071despite continued need and sponsor commitment.70727073    A common theme raised by sponsors is that the delay required to7074address the cost exceedance can itself contribute to additional cost7075growth, increasing the likelihood that Section 902 issues will recur.7076    Why This Is Happening and Where the Corps Is Struggling. Section7077902 serves an important Congressional oversight function by requiring7078Congressional approval when a project's authorized cost limit is7079exceeded. Once that threshold is crossed, the Corps has limited7080discretion and must prepare detailed documentation and seek new7081authorization before proceeding above the cap.7082    The challenge sponsors identify is that Section 902 does not7083distinguish between cost increases driven by fundamental changes in7084project scope and those driven by inflation, market escalation, or7085refined estimates that occur as projects mature. As project delivery7086timelines lengthen, these non-scope-related cost increases are becoming7087more common, triggering Section 902 processes even when the underlying7088project remains sound.7089    Internally, the Corps is required to follow a compliance-driven7090process that can take significant time to complete. Districts must7091pause or slow work while documentation is prepared and reviewed, even7092when there is alignment between the Corps and the sponsor that the7093project should continue moving forward. While Congress ultimately7094retains authority to raise the authorized cost limit, sponsors7095experience the practical consequences of delay during the approval7096process.7097    What Can Be Addressed Through WRDA 2026. Based on input from non-7098Federal sponsors, WRDA 2026 presents an opportunity to better align7099Section 902 processes with modern project delivery realities while7100preserving Congressional oversight. Congress may wish to consider:7101      Distinguish Cost Escalation from Scope/Purpose Change7102Under Section 902: Seeking approaches that more clearly distinguish7103between cost increases driven by changes in project scope or purpose7104and those driven by inflation, market conditions, or refined cost7105estimates. This could be addressed in part through revisions to the7106Section 902 cost + escalation formula to adequately account for actual7107escalation (not driven by scope/purpose changes) and to eliminate the7108need for some Change Control Board reviews and project re-7109authorizations, which can further delay projects. From the sponsor7110perspective, treating these situations the same can unnecessarily7111disrupt delivery when the project purpose remains unchanged.71127113      Execute Projects as Authorized: As part of the foregoing,7114providing the Corps with clear instruction to execute the project that7115has been authorized by Congress, and to limit the circumstances for7116revising the scope, function, or cost-share proportion of the7117authorized project as defined in official project documentation.7118Redefining project fundamentals can cause considerable uncertainty and7119increased cost for local sponsors, and waste precious resources for all7120partners.71217122      Prevent Delay-Driven Cost Escalation: Allowing certain7123activities to continue while post-authorization approvals are pursued7124could help prevent additional cost escalation caused by delay. Sponsors7125have emphasized the importance of avoiding full construction pauses7126when Section 902 thresholds are triggered but Congressional action is7127anticipated.71287129      Provide More Efficient Mechanisms to Handle Cost and7130Scope Changes Other Than Through Post-Authorization Change Reports:7131Providing additional, more efficient mechanisms to handle at least some7132cost and scope changes other than through post-authorization change7133reports (PACRs). PACRs are commonly taking several years to complete,7134and have become a bureaucratic nightmare, with reviews often taking7135longer than the actual work.71367137      Clarify Section 902 for Long-Duration Projects: Clarify7138expectations for how Section 902 should apply to long-duration7139projects, where cost escalation over time is foreseeable. Clearer7140direction could reduce uncertainty, improve predictability, and limit7141repeated disruption for projects that remain aligned with their7142original authorization.71437144      Update Authorized Cost Limits to Reflect Modern Project7145Costs: Consider raising or adjusting authorized cost limits under7146Section 902 to reflect inflation, market conditions, and the scale of7147modern Civil Works projects. Members have emphasized that existing caps7148were established under very different cost environments and7149increasingly do not reflect the realities of delivering large, long-7150duration projects today, resulting in avoidable disruption even when7151projects remain aligned with their original authorization.71527153      Update Project Delivery Approaches: Provide specific7154guidance and direction for the Corps to evaluate and implement means7155for more effective and efficient delivery of projects, including7156shortening and making contracting timelines more efficient; modernizing7157project contractor involvement, design and construction management, and7158delivery approaches; and enabling the Federal government to more easily7159adopt commercial practices.71607161    Implementation and Oversight Considerations. In addition to7162potential WRDA action, sponsors have noted that oversight may be needed7163to examine how Section 902 processes are being implemented in practice.7164Areas of concern include the length of time required to complete post-7165authorization documentation, consistency of application across7166districts and divisions, and whether internal review processes could be7167streamlined to reduce unnecessary delay. Sponsors also have expressed7168concern about existing funding processes for projects, including the7169use of incremental funding versus fully funding projects from the7170beginning.7171    From the sponsor perspective, improving transparency and7172predictability in how Section 902 is administered would materially7173improve project delivery outcomes, regardless of whether additional7174statutory changes are enacted.7175 D. Strengthening and Clarifying Non-Federal Sponsor Project Delivery7176                              Authorities7177    Over the years, Congress has created and modified several7178authorities which allow non-Federal sponsors to accelerate projects by7179taking the lead on more work, including Section 203 (of WRDA 1986) for7180studies, Section 204 (of WRDA 1986) for construction, and Section71811043(b) (of WRRDA 2014) pilot program for construction, and Contributed7182Funds Agreements. These are all important tools. However, in practice,7183they are not saving non-Federal sponsors time or money in delivering7184critical flood risk reduction, navigation, and ecosystem restoration7185projects.7186    What Is Happening on the Ground. Non-Federal sponsors increasingly7187view existing sponsor-led delivery authorities, including Sections 203,7188204, Section 1043(b), and similar tools, as underutilized relative to7189their original intent. These authorities were created to leverage7190sponsor capacity, accelerate delivery, and reduce pressure on Corps7191staffing by allowing capable non-Federal sponsors to perform portions7192of studies or construction with Federal oversight.7193    In practice, sponsors report that when these authorities are used,7194the delivery model often resembles traditional Corps execution rather7195than a true sponsor-led approach. Federal review layers, documentation7196requirements, and approval timelines frequently mirror those applied to7197Corps-delivered projects, limiting the efficiency gains these7198authorities were intended to provide.7199    Moreover, there have been instances where non-Federal sponsors may7200desire to advance tangible work contributions on a water resources7201development project in advance of a Federal interest determination,7202when seeking a project authorization through a non-Federally led7203Section 203 feasibility study. As part of this, they have sought, but7204generally have been unable, to enter into a partnership agreement with7205the Corps (under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970), prior7206to their completion of the 203 study, to get credit for the cost of7207such tangible work contributions that would be completed by the non-7208Federal sponsor prior to Federal authorization of the study. This has7209discouraged some non-Federal sponsors from early implementation of7210important tangible work contributions on water resources development7211projects.7212    To reduce risk and provide greater certainty to be considered for7213credit, some non-Federal sponsors are seeking an amendment to Section7214203 to clarify that non-Federal sponsors may enter into a partnership7215agreement (under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970) with the7216Corps in advance of a Federal interest determination for a non-7217Federally led feasibility study under Section 203.7218    Many non-Federal sponsors have the wherewithal to pursue non-7219traditional delivery of critical Civil Works projects, however the7220current implementation of these authorities often creates more risk and7221uncertainty for sponsors than traditional delivery mechanisms. The7222Corps has an enormous backlog of authorized projects and is7223underutilizing tools that would help the nation to build more, build7224faster, build cheaper, conserve more water, and achieve more ecosystem7225restoration.7226    Why This Is Happening and Where the Structure Breaks Down. Sponsors7227understand the need for Federal oversight, particularly with respect to7228life safety, NEPA compliance, and adherence to authorized project7229purposes. The issues arise when review expectations extend beyond those7230core Federal interests and effectively recreate full Corps control over7231scope, sequencing, and delivery methods.7232    Members have identified several recurring challenges:7233      Review standards are not clearly defined as outcome-7234based, leading to iterative and open-ended comment cycles.7235      Corps division and headquarters review timelines are7236often unclear, creating uncertainty and delay.7237      Districts apply sponsor-led authorities inconsistently,7238sometimes due to risk aversion or lack of clear guidance.7239      Sponsors performing significant portions of work may7240still be required to obtain permits or approvals that undermine the7241efficiency of sponsor-led delivery.72427243    From the sponsor perspective, these issues reflect a lack of7244clarity about how much discretion sponsors are intended to have under7245existing law and what the Federal role should be once a sponsor elects7246to use these authorities.7247    What Can Be Addressed Through WRDA 2026. Based on input from7248sponsors, WRDA 2026 presents an opportunity to reinforce Congressional7249intent behind sponsor-led delivery authorities by clarifying how they7250should function in practice. Congress may wish to consider:7251      Clarify Output-Based Federal Review Standards: Clarifying7252that sponsor-led delivery authorities are intended to operate under7253output-based standards, with Federal review focused on life safety,7254NEPA compliance, and consistency with authorized purposes, rather than7255replicating full Corps-controlled delivery models.72567257      Define the Federal Role in Sponsor-Led Delivery:7258Reinforcing that, when a non-Federal sponsor elects to perform work7259under Sections 203, 204, Section 1043(b), or similar authorities, the7260Federal role is oversight and acceptance, not day-to-day project7261management or redesign.72627263      Establish Clear Review Timelines for Division and7264Headquarters: Providing clearer expectations for the timing of division7265and headquarters reviews for sponsor-led work to reduce uncertainty,7266prevent open-ended review cycles, and improve delivery predictability.72677268      Reinforce Congressional Intent to Leverage Sponsor7269Capacity: Reaffirming that these authorities were created to leverage7270non-Federal sponsor expertise and capacity, accelerate project7271delivery, and reduce pressure on Corps staffing, not to recreate7272traditional Corps execution through parallel review processes.72737274      Section 203 Clarification: Clarifying that non-Federal7275sponsors may enter into a partnership agreement (under section 221 of7276the Flood Control Act of 1970) with the Corps in advance of a Federal7277interest determination for a non-Federally led feasibility study under7278Section 203.72797280    Section 1043(b) Clarifications: Clarifying that projects can be7281delivered using local, not Federal requirements. In addition, making it7282easier for non-Federal sponsors to provide the Corps with funds to7283strategically advance projects, including by improving the contributed7284funds agreement process by providing greater certainty on the timing of7285when decisions will be approved or denied. This would be a common-sense7286approach to what has become an unnecessarily cumbersome process.7287    Implementation and Oversight Considerations. Oversight may be7288warranted to assess how sponsor-led delivery authorities are being7289implemented across districts and divisions. Sponsors continue to7290observe that similar projects can face materially different review7291expectations, depending on location, creating uncertainty and7292discouraging broader use of these authorities. Greater consistency in7293how these tools are applied would improve predictability and confidence7294for sponsors considering sponsor-led delivery.7295    Oversight may also be appropriate to examine whether existing7296internal guidance and review practices align with Congressional intent.7297Although these authorities were created to enable sponsor-led delivery7298with focused Federal oversight, sponsors report that implementation7299often replicates traditional Corps execution models. Reviewing how7300guidance is interpreted and applied could help identify where review7301expectations exceed what is necessary to protect Federal interests.7302    In addition, oversight could focus on division and headquarters7303review practices for sponsor-led work, including the length of reviews7304and the clarity of decision points. Sponsors report that undefined or7305open-ended review timelines can delay projects even when statutory7306authority is clear. Greater transparency around review sequencing and7307decision timelines would improve delivery outcomes.7308    Finally, oversight could examine how effectively current7309implementation leverages non-Federal sponsor capacity. Sponsors have7310raised concerns that risk aversion can lead to unnecessary Federal re-7311review of work performed under sponsor-led authorities, limiting the7312efficiency gains these tools were intended to provide. Clarifying7313acceptance criteria and improving transparency around Federal7314acceptance decisions could help ensure these authorities function as7315Congress intended.7316         E. Strengthening the Corps' Project Delivery Processes7317    What Is Happening on the Ground. The Corps is tasked with7318delivering a large and complex portfolio of Civil Works projects,7319including construction and maintenance, yet its workforce capacity is7320declining, it faces a massive, long-term project backlog, and costs and7321delays are continuing to rise. Some estimates of the backlog are7322approaching $100 billion.7323    Why This Is Happening and Where the Corps Is Struggling. The Corps'7324project backlog is being driven by several factors, including7325insufficient and incremental funding, budgetary constraints and7326shutdowns, aging infrastructure with increasing maintenance demands,7327staffing and hiring challenges, complex regulatory requirements,7328bureaucratic and planning delays, and inefficient, incremental project7329delivery.7330    The Corps has acknowledged these problems, including its project7331delivery issues, and is attempting to address some of these7332longstanding concerns by taking steps to improve its performance and7333engineer solutions through initiatives such as its ``Revolutionize7334USACE Civil Works initiative.'' Such initiatives include overhauling7335traditional delivery of the Civil Works program using innovative tools,7336modernizing internal processes, and pursuing alternative financing7337approaches, and streamlining permit processes and eliminating7338duplicative reviews to expedite permit decisions for infrastructure7339projects. However, many sponsors believe that such programmatic7340modifications have been insufficient.7341    What Can Be Addressed Through WRDA 2026. Based on input from non-7342Federal sponsors, WRDA 2026 presents an opportunity to focus on some of7343the Corps' project delivery issues, including project prioritization,7344streamlining project delivery and planning, alternative project7345delivery methods, and accountability and structural changes. Congress7346may wish to consider:7347      Establish Specific Goals and Timelines: Directing the7348Corps to establish specific goals and timelines for implementing7349improved project delivery design and construction approaches, and7350reporting back to Congress within a reasonable set timeframe on their7351implementation plan for each of the Corps' project-related business7352lines.73537354      Transform Project Delivery Models: Encouraging the Corps7355to transform its project delivery models, including by transitioning7356from project-specific, siloed approaches to one of taking a more7357portfolio- and programmatic-centric approach for more efficiently7358delivering all of the Corps' business lines, to reduce project costs7359and delivery timelines.73607361      Leverage Non-Federal Capabilities: Encouraging the Corps7362to better utilize the capabilities of local sponsors and private7363entities to assist in project implementation. (See also the discussion7364on ``Strengthening and Clarifying Non-Federal Sponsor Project Delivery7365Authorities,'' above.)73667367      Accelerate Permitting Processes: Streamlining permitting7368requirements and eliminating duplicative reviews to expedite decision-7369making.73707371      Early Stakeholder Coordination: Strengthening outreach7372and engagement with non-Federal interests, including engaging with7373project sponsors and stakeholders early to set realistic schedules,7374define project scopes, and avoid delays. (See also the discussion on7375``Strengthening Communication and Consultation,'' below.)73767377    Implementation and Oversight Considerations. Oversight may be7378appropriate to assess how the Corps is developing and implementing7379changes to its project delivery processes across its districts and7380divisions, including steps the Corps is taking to transform its project7381delivery models, modernizing internal management processes,7382streamlining permitting and other approval processes (including7383eliminating duplicative reviews to expedite permit decisions for7384infrastructure projects), and pursuing alternative financing approaches7385(including leveraging non-Federal public and private capabilities).7386    Oversight also may be appropriate to assess what the Corps is doing7387to develop and implement better and more uniform internal controls to7388keep projects on time and on budget, develop and use better data7389systems to track maintenance and other project needs and ensure7390accountability, reduce the number of non-policy issues which must move7391up and down the chain for approval (including by delegating more7392authority downward), and establish a realistic process to resolve7393policy, legal, waiver and other issues in a timely manner.7394            F. Strengthening Communication and Consultation7395    What Is Happening on the Ground. Non-Federal sponsors and7396stakeholders continue to experience gaps in communication and7397coordination with the Corps, particularly during periods of policy7398development, implementation, and guidance issuance. While Congress has7399taken steps to encourage early engagement and public input, sponsors7400report that communication often diminishes after initial comments are7401collected, even as policies and guidance are finalized and implemented.7402    Sponsors also report challenges obtaining timely information from7403Corps districts on issues that may affect Congressional engagement or7404local decision-making. In some cases, districts have indicated they are7405limited in what they can share due to internal restrictions, creating7406uncertainty for sponsors and for Congressional staff seeking to7407understand project status or implementation impacts.7408    Why This Is Happening and Where the Breakdown Occurs. Sponsors7409recognize that the Corps operates within constraints related to7410communications with Congress and other stakeholders. However, recent7411interpretations of internal Department of War guidance, including the7412Department of War memo on state and federal elected official engagement7413(Oct. 2025), have created confusion about what information districts7414can share and with whom. In practice, this has led some districts to7415limit engagement even on factual or process-related matters,7416particularly when an issue may intersect with Congressional interest.7417    At the same time, sponsors have observed that major policy7418decisions affecting project delivery are sometimes made without7419sufficient engagement with non-Federal sponsors who bear cost-sharing7420responsibilities. A frequently cited example is the adoption of the 357421percent design maturity expectation. Sponsors report that this policy7422was developed and implemented without meaningful consultation, despite7423significant cost and risk implications for non-Federal partners. Even7424within the Corps, there appear to be differing views on whether this7425approach will achieve its intended goals.7426    Members have also emphasized that, for certain sponsor-led7427authorities, particularly Section 1043(b) and Contributed Funds7428Agreements, current implementation introduces unnecessary risk and7429uncertainty. Sponsors report that projects delivered under these7430authorities are sometimes required to meet Federal requirements that go7431beyond what is necessary to protect Federal interests, undermining the7432purpose of sponsor-led delivery. Sponsors have suggested that greater7433clarity around the use of local requirements, as well as more7434predictable timelines for approval or denial of Contributed Funds7435Agreements, would help these tools function as intended and better7436leverage non-Federal capacity.7437    What Can Be Addressed Through WRDA 2026. WRDA 2026 presents an7438opportunity for Congress to reinforce expectations around communication7439and consultation, particularly where policies or guidance materially7440affect non-Federal sponsors. Congress may wish to consider:7441      Establish Expectations for Timely Implementation and7442Transparency: Directing the Corps to issue implementation guidance for7443new WRDA authorities within a reasonable specific timeframe (e.g., 12-744418 months), and to communicate clearly to Congress--and to the public--7445when additional time is needed. Where the Corps determines that a7446provision cannot be implemented as enacted, Congress should be informed7447of the reasons, including legal, technical, or resource constraints.7448Providing this feedback would improve transparency, support effective7449oversight, and inform future authorization and appropriations7450decisions.74517452      Clarify Applicability of WRDA 2026 Provisions to7453Previously Authorized Projects: Clarify the applicability of WRDA7454provisions to previously authorized projects, including that the7455provisions of WRDA 2026 apply to projects authorized under previous7456WRDAs.74577458      Require Iterative Consultation During Implementation of7459WRDA Provisions: Directing the Corps to provide a additional,7460structured opportunities for non-Federal interest engagement after7461initial public comments are collected and before final implementation7462guidance is issued for WRDA provisions that materially affect non-7463Federal sponsors. This would ensure that implementation approaches7464reflect practical impacts identified during early execution planning.74657466      Clarify Expectations for Sponsor Engagement on Policies7467Affecting Cost and Risk: Directing the Corps to engage non-Federal7468sponsors when developing or revising policies that materially affect7469sponsor cost exposure, delivery timelines, or risk allocation,7470including design maturity expectations. This would reinforce that7471sponsors who cost-share projects are included in discussions before7472policies are finalized.74737474      Require Transparency Around New or Revised Delivery7475Policies: Requiring the Corps to clearly document and communicate the7476rationale, objectives, and expected outcomes of new delivery policies,7477including how those policies are intended to reduce cost growth or7478delay. Clear articulation of intent would allow sponsors and districts7479to assess whether policies are functioning as intended.74807481      Direct Clear Communication Parameters for Civil Works7482Engagement: Clarifying that internal communications guidance, including7483Department of Defense or Department of War directives, should not be7484interpreted to limit routine, factual, or process-related communication7485between the Corps, non-Federal sponsors, and Congressional staff on7486Civil Works matters. This would help prevent overly restrictive7487interpretations that impede coordination.74887489      Encourage Early Identification of Implementation7490Challenges: Directing the Corps to identify and communicate anticipated7491implementation challenges associated with WRDA provisions, including7492areas where additional guidance, resources, or coordination may be7493needed. Early identification would allow Congress and sponsors to7494address issues before they result in delay or cost escalation.74957496    Implementation and Oversight Considerations. Oversight may be7497warranted to examine how internal communications guidance is being7498interpreted and applied across the Corps, including the impacts of the7499Department of War memo on routine information sharing. Clarifying what7500districts can appropriately communicate to sponsors and Congressional7501staff could help reduce confusion and restore effective coordination.7502    Oversight also could focus on how the Corps engages non-Federal7503sponsors during the development and implementation of policies and7504guidance that affect cost-sharing, delivery timelines, and risk7505allocation. Greater transparency and two-way communication would7506support more predictable project delivery and strengthen the Federal7507and non-Federal partnership model that underpins the Civil Works7508program.7509                    G. Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund7510    Recent changes moved the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund off budget7511to allow full use of revenues paid into the system. However, the way7512CARES Act language was structured has created an unintended issue when7513annual HMTF appropriations are below the authorized amount, including7514through continuing resolutions and the Congress wants to make up for7515that reduction in a future year.7516    The CARES Act language providing the appropriations process off-7517budget treatment for specific amounts of appropriations from the HMTF7518only provides that treatment for the specified amounts if they are7519appropriated in the specified year. If a lower amount is appropriated,7520the difference between the two amounts cannot be provided that off-7521budget treatment in a future year appropriation. This occurred when FY-75222025 funding under the continuing resolution was less than the7523authorized off-budget amount, but the Congress could not apply the off-7524budget treatment to that unappropriated amount if it was added to the7525FY-2026 total authorized off-budget appropriation, so it was not added.7526To enable Congress to apply that off-budget treatment to recoup that7527FY-2025 appropriations shortfall in a future year, the CARES Act7528language would need to be amended to allow this.7529    This issue is driven by appropriations mechanics rather than7530authorization, and addressing it would require engagement beyond the7531authorizing committee, with other committees with the involvement of7532other committees with jurisdiction over budget execution. The issue is7533flagged here to highlight the need for further examination and7534coordination to ensure that Trust Fund revenues are fully and timely7535applied as intended.7536          H. Additional Issues Raised by NWC or Other Sponsors7537    In addition to the issues discussed above, NWC raised several other7538matters in its testimony that continue to affect project delivery and7539sponsor engagement. At this time, NWC is not offering specific WRDA75402026 recommendations on these issues, for several reasons. In some7541cases, the Corps is currently engaged in rulemaking or implementation7542efforts, and it would be premature to propose statutory changes before7543those processes are completed. In other cases, the challenges7544identified relate less to gaps in authority and more to how existing7545authorities are being implemented, interpreted, or managed at the Corps7546level.7547    From NWC's perspective, these issues may be better addressed7548through continued engagement with the Corps, targeted oversight, or7549follow-on evaluation once ongoing rulemakings and implementation7550efforts are complete. NWC raises them here to acknowledge their7551importance and to note that they remain areas of concern for non-7552Federal sponsors, even if they are not ripe for legislative action in7553WRDA 2026.7554    These issues include, among others:7555Public Law 84-99 (P.L. 84-99) Emergency Repair Authorities7556    Sponsors have expressed concerns over how the Corps is attempting7557to shift the P.L. 84-99 program away from its Congressionally intended7558emergency response focus towards a more prospective planning and7559compliance framework. Members also have raised concerns that P.L. 84-997560repairs are taking too long to deliver, leaving communities exposed to7561continued flood risk. Specific issues raised include the inability to7562use emergency contracting procedures throughout construction, real7563estate requirements for repairs that exceed what is necessary for7564existing infrastructure, and limitations on reimbursing non-Federal7565sponsors that are capable of performing emergency repairs directly.7566These issues are currently intertwined with ongoing Corps rulemaking7567and implementation decisions.7568    Non-Federal sponsors see a need to solve the problem of communities7569either operating damaged facilities or self-funding repairs without7570certainty of reimbursement, by allowing a waiver or exemption for non-7571Federal sponsors, in circumstances where disaster funding is delayed,7572to ensure rehabilitation reimbursement for repairs undertaken in good7573faith while waiting for Federal approval. Sponsors also see a need to7574establish a longer window and clearer process for using P.L. 84-997575funds, faster contracting authority, and more opportunities for non-7576Federal sponsor-led implementation of repairs.7577Section 408 Review Requirements and Delays7578    Sponsors have expressed concerns over the major variation in7579Section 408 expectations across Corps districts, and how 408 reviews7580continue to be a major source of delay and inconsistency for many7581sponsors. They see a need for clear, concise, and specific guidelines7582on when and how Section 408 applies, to ensure consistency across7583districts, and believe non-Federal sponsors could play a greater role7584in 408 reviews, to improve timeliness while maintaining safety.7585    WRDA 2024 Section 1244(c) requires the Government Accountability7586Office (GAO) to conduct a thorough review of the Section 408 program.7587GAO is beginning this study. WRDA 2024 Section 1244(c) requires the7588Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a thorough review of7589the Section 408 program. GAO is beginning this study. Separately, the7590Corps posted a regulatory plan on the Administration's Unified Agenda7591of Regulatory Actions in 2022, where the Corps was proposing to convert7592its 408 policy guidance that governs the section 408 program to a7593binding regulation. The Corps has solicited stakeholder comment on the7594plan, but has not undertaken a formal rulemaking on Section 408 to7595date.7596Dredging at Coast Guard Anchorages7597    Section 106 of WRDA 2020 provided that the Corps ``may perform7598dredging at Federal expense within and adjacent to anchorages7599established by the Coast Guard pursuant to existing authorities.'' 467600U.S.C. Sec.  70006 authorizes the U.S. Coast Guard to define and7601establish anchorage grounds for vessels in all harbors, rivers, bays,7602and other navigable waters of the United States. The Coast Guard7603establishes and regulates anchorages through Title 33, Part 110 of the7604Code of Federal Regulations, designating specific areas for vessels to7605anchor for safety, logistics, or during delays.7606    Some sponsors have expressed concern that, notwithstanding the7607language of Section 106, certain Corps districts have taken the7608position that it did not have the authority to dredge in Coast Guard7609authorized anchorages. They seek a clarification that the Corps has the7610authority to dredge all Coast Guard authorized anchorages.7611Lands, Easements, Relocations, Rights-of-Way, and Disposals (LERRDs)7612    Local sponsors, because their contributions of LERRDs are required7613to be performed in advance of construction by the Corps, can expend a7614large proportion of their project cost-share requirement years before7615the Corps commences construction. When credit for these expenditures is7616fixed at the non-Federal sponsor's cost-at-completion, it has the real-7617world effect of decreasing the value of these contributions and7618increasing the cash requirement when the Corps commences construction.7619Sponsors see a need to value LERRDs at the time they are required for7620construction, not at the time they are first acquired or completed, by7621indexing the costs of LERRDs appropriately to ensure the contributions7622by each party are valued equitably. Sponsors believe this would help7623protect sponsors from runaway cost escalation due to Federal delays in7624project implementation.76257626    Question 1.b. How important is it that WRDA 2026 focus not just on7627new authorizations, but on ensuring the Corps fully and consistently7628implements reforms Congress has already enacted?7629    Answer. It is extremely important that WRDA 2026 focuses not just7630on new authorizations, but on ensuring the Corps fully and consistently7631implements reforms Congress has already enacted. That is a key aspect7632of implementation oversight, as discussed in the above responses. Local7633sponsors expend substantial energy and resources in the interest of7634ensuring that the Corps follows its own regulations and agreements. It7635is vital that Congress also engage in robust oversight of the Corps'7636implementation of the Civil Works program.7637    WRDA 2026 presents an opportunity for Congress to reinforce its7638expectations about and track progress with the Corps' implementation of7639the project authorizations and policy provisions in both WRDA 2026 and7640past legislation, including but not limited to those related to7641addressing the problems of project cost growth and schedule delays,7642developing and implementing changes to its project delivery processes,7643implementation of non-Federal sponsor project delivery authorities, and7644communication and consultation, particularly where these materially7645affect non-Federal sponsors.76467647  Questions to Julie A. Ufner, President and Chief Executive Officer,7648        National Waterways Conference, Inc., from Hon. Jeff Hurd76497650    Question 1. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Indian and Insular7651Affairs over on the House Natural Resources Committee, I'm particularly7652interested in WRDA's impact on tribal governments and their role as7653non-Federal sponsors. Previously, WRDA expanded the Army Corps'7654authorities to work with tribal governments through initiatives such as7655the Tribal Partnership Program, which allows the Corps to collaborate7656with tribes to study and determine feasibility of projects that will7657significantly benefit their communities. Ms. Ufner, in your7658perspective, how can we build on past WRDAs' support for tribal7659governments, and further empower tribal communities as we look towards7660the 2026 bill?7661    Answer. The National Waterways Conference (NWC) membership consists7662primarily of state and local governments, special districts, ports, and7663other non-Federal sponsors that partner with the U.S. Army Corps of7664Engineers (Corps) across the Civil Works program. While NWC does not7665represent tribal governments, whose sovereign status and government-to-7666government relationship with the Federal government are distinct, we7667can offer process-level observations that may be helpful as Congress7668considers how WRDA can continue to support effective engagement and7669project delivery.7670    Recent Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs) have expanded the7671Corps' statutory authorities to work with tribal governments, including7672through initiatives such as the Tribal Partnership Program (TPP). The7673TPP, first authorized in WRDA 2000 (Section 203), allows the Corps to7674partner directly with federally recognized Tribal Nations by allowing7675Tribes to enter cost-sharing agreements for feasibility studies and7676construction of water resources development projects, with the Federal7677government covering significant portions of the costs. The program's7678primary objective is to carry out water-related planning and7679construction projects that provide a substantial benefit to Tribal7680communities.7681    The TPP supports projects that address economic, environmental, and7682cultural needs, including:7683      Flood Risk Management: Reducing hazards from floods,7684hurricanes, and storm damage.7685      Environmental Restoration: Protecting aquatic ecosystems7686and restoring degraded habitats.7687      Cultural Resource Preservation: Protecting and preserving7688natural and cultural resources significant to a Tribe.7689      Technical Assistance: Providing hydrologic, economic, and7690environmental data and analysis.7691      Watershed Planning: Conducting comprehensive evaluations7692and strategic assessments of water resource needs.76937694    While there are similarities, these Tribal authorities operate7695outside the traditional non-Federal sponsor framework used with states7696and local governments and are grounded in the Federal Trust7697responsibility and legally required government-to-government7698consultation. As structured, these provisions establish mechanisms for7699collaboration that differ in eligibility, process, and, in some cases,7700cost-sharing from standard Civil Works project delivery models7701involving non-Federal sponsors.7702    While NWC does not work directly with Tribes, our experience7703representing non-Federal sponsors suggests that the effectiveness of7704any delivery authority depends heavily on how clearly it is implemented7705and how consistently it is applied across Corps divisions and7706districts. Across the Civil Works program, authorities intended to7707improve project delivery often fall short not because of statutory7708limitations, but because implementation guidance is delayed, applied7709unevenly, or difficult for partners to navigate. This dynamic can7710affect all Corps partners, including those operating under Tribal-7711specific authorities.7712    NWC also recognizes that many Corps Civil Works projects intersect7713with Tribal interests, including projects that affect Tribal lands,7714treaty-protected resources, or cultural resources. In such cases,7715coordination challenges can arise when engagement occurs late in the7716project lifecycle or through separate, siloed processes. In appropriate7717circumstances, structured opportunities for early information-sharing7718among Tribes, non-Federal sponsors, and the Corps may help surface7719concerns earlier, clarify constraints, and improve understanding of7720respective roles and responsibilities. Such engagement would not7721replace required Tribal consultation or the Federal Trust7722responsibility but could complement those processes by improving7723transparency and reducing the risk of conflict or delay later in7724project development.7725    As Congress looks toward WRDA 2026, continued attention to how7726existing Tribal partnership authorities are implemented may be7727warranted. Oversight examines how these provisions are being used in7728practice, how consistently they are applied across Corps districts, and7729whether administrative or staffing barriers are affecting execution7730could help inform future legislative decisions. Greater clarity around7731implementation and accountability may also provide Congress with better7732insight into whether existing authorities are functioning as intended7733or whether additional direction is needed.77347735    Question 2. In the American West, water forms the backbone of our7736way of life--and families, ranchers, and water managers in Colorado7737depend on sound, reliable water policy and project delivery. Too often,7738roadblocks such as Endangered Species Act Section 7 reviews and7739National Environmental Policy Act reviews create difficult delays to7740getting projects moving. When it comes to these Army Corps projects,7741Congress should follow the science when it comes to addressing7742environmental concerns and protecting vulnerable species, but we must7743move away from broad, sweeping determinations that threaten needed7744water infrastructure for our communities. Ms. Ufner, as we craft the7745next WRDA bill, what does a balanced approach between conservation and7746project construction look like? What reforms should we make going7747forward to ensure we are meeting our economic and human needs while7748preventing unnecessary delays?7749    Answer. From the perspective of non-Federal sponsors working with7750the Corps' Civil Works program, a balanced approach between7751conservation and project construction means protecting environmental7752resources while ensuring that authorized projects can move forward in a7753timely and predictable manner.7754    In practice, balance is achieved when Endangered Species Act (ESA)7755and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews are science-based,7756proportionate to project impacts, and aligned with authorized purposes7757and construction timelines. They should not be roadblocks to project7758development.7759    Sponsors consistently support environmental protection, but7760experience delays when reviews become overly broad, are applied7761inconsistently across districts, or are disconnected from the actual7762risk posed by a project. In regions with limited construction windows,7763these delays can result in an entire season being lost, increasing7764costs and prolonging exposure to flood risk or water supply challenges.7765    Going forward, reforms should focus on improving coordination,7766predictability, and efficiency rather than weakening environmental7767standards. Earlier and more integrated ESA and NEPA engagement, greater7768use of programmatic and tiered reviews where impacts are well7769understood, and clearer alignment between environmental review and7770project delivery schedules would help reduce unnecessary delay while7771preserving conservation outcomes. Recent Council on Environmental7772Quality guidance emphasizing tailored approaches for time-sensitive and7773emergency actions reflects principles that are directly relevant to7774many Civil Works projects.7775    As Congress considers WRDA 2026, reinforcing expectations for early7776coordination, consistent application of existing flexibilities,7777predictability, accountability and transparency in conducting reviews7778and determining how tradeoffs are evaluated would help ensure that7779environmental reviews support informed decision-making rather than7780becoming a primary driver of delay. In many cases, continued oversight7781to ensure effective and consistent implementation of existing7782authorities will be as important as new statutory direction.77837784 Question to Charles Camillo, Executive Vice President, Midwest Flood7785               Control Association, from Hon. Brian Babin77867787    Question 1. Mr. Charles Camillo, flood protection is a top priority7788for many Texas communities, particularly when it comes to levees and7789emergency repairs after major flood events. Your testimony raises7790concerns that emergency programs are drifting away from their original7791purpose. What should Congress do in WRDA 2026 to ensure emergency flood7792repair and levee rehabilitation programs are focused on rapid response7793and protecting lives and property, rather than being slowed down by7794excessive processes and paperwork?7795    Answer. Thank you, Congressman Babin, for your question on ensuring7796levee readiness in Texas and nationwide. As Executive Vice-President of7797the Midwest Flood Control Association, I feel more qualified to discuss7798matters as they pertain to levee districts along the Mississippi River7799and other inland waterways, such as those in Texas and many other7800states. Our members would like to see some simple tweaks to the way PL780184-99 is administered:7802    First, we would like to explore the possibility of continuing or7803extending the emergency categorizations during the rehabilitation7804process until all necessary repairs are complete. Doing so would enable7805the extension of certain requirements that lead to delays in completing7806the repairs.7807    Second, we would like to see the federal government allow non-7808federal sponsors to perform the design and construction during the7809repair process and get reimbursed after the Corps of Engineers inspects7810and approves the completed works.7811    Third, we would like to see a tweak to the permitting process for7812PL 84-99 repairs. If the repair is going to restore the project to the7813previous condition, we would like to see the Risk-Informed Decision-7814Making process and permitting process bypassed as they are not7815necessary if there no changes to the project.7816    Fourth, amend PL 84-99 (33 U.S.C. Sec. 701n) to clarify that7817adequate maintenance and upkeep alone results in a project being7818eligible for repair or rehabilitation assistance. Alternatively, at the7819Non-federal sponsors request, a determination of eligibility may be7820based on voluntary levee safety activities identified by the Corps of7821Engineers.7822    To your specific question about Texas communities, as a flood7823control advocate, I do hear many concerns from levee operators from7824your region and across Texas that the Corps of Engineers'7825administration of the PL 84-99 program--particularly revisions to 337826CFR Part 203--is shifting from its statutory emergency response purpose7827under 33 U.S.C. Sec. 701n.7828    Additionally, since the Federal Emergency Management Agency's7829(FEMA) Risk Rating 2.0 launch in 2021, some Texas Non-federal levees7830have not been fully recognized by FEMA or the Army Corps of Engineers7831for the flood damage reduction benefits they provide. Instead, lacking7832detailed information about these local levees federal assumptions are7833made that fail to recognize the full level of protection provided or7834the robustness of those levee systems.7835    This lack of recognition causes:7836      Flood insurance premiums to be up to 25% higher for7837locally built levee systems than for federally built levee systems.7838      Unfair treatment to communities that locally funded7839design, construction and ongoing operation and maintenance for their7840own flood protection.78417842    To refocus PL 84-99 on rapid response and protecting lives,7843property and infrastructure, and to recognize local efforts and7844investment, Congress could explore some possible solutions beyond those7845listed above being championed by various flood control advocates for7846WRDA 2026:7847    First, recognize the capacity of Non-federal sponsors and direct7848that levee owners' engineers be allowed to perform certified risk7849assessments for Corps of Engineers' review and upon approval use those7850results in FEMA's premium setting within 180 days.7851    Second, establish a Levee Owners Board to enable representation of7852Non-federal levee sponsors nationwide in agency policymaking and7853programs.7854    Third, require collaboration with willing levee owners under WRDA78552020 Sec. 131 to identify deficiencies and remediate with realistic7856cost and timeline estimates.7857    These measures could possibly realign the Corps of Engineers toward7858engineering and lead to more prioritized and affordable investments7859that promote and support sound federal and local flood risk management7860projects and activities.7861    Thank you for your consideration of these requests. Please let me7862know if there are any questions or if additional information or7863discussion is warranted.78647865 Question to Charles Camillo, Executive Vice President, Midwest Flood7866                Control Association, from Hon. Jeff Hurd78677868    Question 1. Agriculture is also an extremely robust and important7869industry in my district--I am proud to represent many producers and7870rural communities in Colorado's Third District. Mr. Camillo, from your7871experience with the Mississippi River System, can you describe to us7872how the Corps' flood control and navigation missions intersect and how7873both need to be strong to support our agricultural industry, from7874protecting farms and rural communities to ensuring the efficient7875movement of crops and inputs such as fertilizer?7876    Answer. Thank you for the question, Congressman Hurd.7877    The navigation and flood control improvements designed, constructed7878and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers along the rivers7879comprising the Mississippi River system have a symbiotic relationship.7880You really cannot have one without the other. Navigation and flood7881control improvements work together in tandem--like the two wheels of a7882bicycle--to keep our economic engine along the rivers moving forward7883during both the high water seasons and low water seasons.7884    Levees, flood control reservoirs, river training dikes and7885revetments all serve dual purposes. Without levees, the rivers would7886run from bluff to bluff during floods. Levees and flood control7887reservoirs help to confine floodwaters to the high-water channel7888between the levees, while protecting communities and farms from those7889floods. So in that regard, levees and reservoirs also benefit port7890facilities, terminals, grain elevators and the roads and infrastructure7891that serve them by keeping them dry and operating during times of7892flood. Flood control reservoirs also store potential flood waters7893during wet periods and release them to augment low flows for navigation7894during the dry periods.7895    Likewise, navigation improvements--in the form of dikes and7896revetments--help to generally lock the river into place. If a river7897were allowed to freely meander with no controls, we would not have7898reliable municipal and industrial freshwater intakes, bridge approaches7899or port facilities. Dikes and revetments also protect levees from scour7900and erosion during periods of flood. While levees protect farms and7901producers from floods, the navigation locks and dams allow continued7902transport of goods during drought and low water periods. For farmers,7903that low water period generally coincides with harvest season, so the7904impact can be tremendous.7905    I recently had a conversation with a farmer that perfectly7906illustrates the effectiveness of the inland navigation system and its7907impact on producers and their ability to keep remain competitive in the7908global economy. That Illinois farmer told me that it costs him more per7909bushel to truck his soybeans for fifty miles from his farm to the7910elevators and terminals across the river from St. Louis in Cahokia,7911Illinois, than it does to ship those soybeans for the 1,300 miles from7912the elevator to the export distribution center in Destrehan, Louisiana.7913It is that efficiency and cost-effectiveness that makes our inland7914waterway system the envy of the world.79157916    Question to Bryan Jones, President, Mid-Atlantic Division, HNTB7917                   Corporation, from Hon. Brian Babin79187919    Question 1. Mr. Bryan Jones, you've worked closely with the Corps7920on major flood protection, navigation, and port projects, and you've7921seen firsthand how delays and uncertainty affect local communities and7922private investment. From an industry and delivery standpoint, what7923changes to WRDA policy or Army Corps practices would most improve7924certainty, accelerate timelines, and reduce the risk of cost escalation7925for critical infrastructure projects?7926    Answer. Representative Babin, from an industry and project delivery7927standpoint, certainty and predictability are among the most important7928factors influencing whether critical infrastructure projects move7929forward efficiently and attract sustained non-Federal investment.7930Delays and uncertainty--particularly early in the project lifecycle--7931often drive cost escalation and erode local confidence, even for7932projects with strong non-Federal support.7933    One of the most impactful changes WRDA could advance is continued7934reform to the feasibility and preconstruction phases, especially for7935large or technically complex projects such as the Coastal Texas7936Protection and Restoration Project and the Buffalo Bayou and7937Tributaries Resiliency Study. Stakeholders consistently emphasize the7938need for a risk-informed approach that better aligns study scope,7939design maturity, and documentation with project complexity and Federal7940interest. Greater flexibility in how and when design maturity is7941achieved can reduce rework, improve cost and schedule estimates, and7942better position projects for timely authorization and construction.7943    From a project execution standpoint, sponsors also highlight7944challenges in aligning Federal mitigation and disaster recovery7945funding--including resources provided through FEMA, HUD, and USDA7946programs--with advancing Corps-authorized projects. In many cases,7947these funds cannot be applied to accelerate design or construction,7948even when the Corps project represents the most effective long-term7949solution to the underlying risk. A future WRDA could authorize targeted7950pilot programs allowing a limited number of projects to test7951coordinated use of eligible mitigation or recovery funds.7952    Sponsors further point to funding execution challenges for multi-7953year projects as a source of uncertainty and cost escalation. WRDA7954authorities that support incremental funding approaches and innovative7955contracting methods can help reduce start-and-stop inefficiencies,7956sustain construction momentum, and improve schedule certainty.7957    Finally, stakeholders strongly support continued use of WRDA-7958authorized pilot programs to test new delivery tools, contracting7959approaches, and process reforms on a limited and controlled basis.7960Pilot authorities allow the Corps to evaluate effectiveness before7961scaling reforms enterprise-wide, reduce risk to the Federal government,7962and provide Congress with real-world data to inform future policy7963decisions.7964    Taken together, these WRDA-focused changes could improve certainty,7965accelerate delivery timelines, and help control costs, while enabling7966the Corps to deliver effective water resources infrastructure solutions7967for the Nation.79687969    Question to Bryan Jones, President, Mid-Atlantic Division, HNTB7970                    Corporation, from Hon. Jeff Hurd79717972    Question 1. Mr. Jones, you mention in your testimony that Congress7973should support clear and streamlined US Army Corps permitting reforms,7974and I agree wholeheartedly. I introduced legislation that passed the7975House last week within the PERMIT Act to direct the Corps to eliminate7976thousands of backlogged jurisdictional determinations and wetland7977delineations, which have caused delays for project owners and put7978projects in limbo. In your view, what are some other Corps regulatory7979barriers or backlogs that present the biggest hindrances for getting7980critical projects authorized and constructed?7981    Answer. Representative Hurd, thank you for your leadership on the7982PERMIT Act and for addressing a source of delay that project owners7983across the country routinely face. From the perspective of the7984regulated public and private-sector firms that work closely with the7985Corps, uncertainty and delay in the regulatory process can, at times,7986be more challenging than the substantive requirements themselves.7987    While permitting reforms are essential to streamlining the Corps'7988Regulatory mission in support of economic development, implementation7989of the Civil Works program presents its own set of delivery challenges.7990From a project delivery standpoint, one of the most frequently cited7991obstacles is the duration and administrative complexity of the7992feasibility phase, particularly for large or technically complex7993projects. Stakeholders consistently point to the need for WRDA reforms7994that better align determinations of Federal interest with a risk-7995informed study approach. Although greater design maturity can improve7996estimates of cost, schedule, and resource needs, the upfront investment7997required to achieve this level of detail can be difficult for sponsors7998to manage under current frameworks. For example, as the Alamosa Levees7999project advances with funding provided in the FY 2026 appropriations8000act, flexible and risk-informed study activities can help efficiently8001deliver resilient solutions for affected communities.8002    Stakeholders also raise concerns about statutory and regulatory8003barriers that limit integration between the Corps and other Federal8004mitigation and disaster recovery programs. Funds provided through FEMA8005mitigation and recovery programs, HUD's Community Development Block8006Grant, and similar USDA programs are often restricted from being8007applied toward advancing Corps-authorized projects, even when those8008projects address the same underlying risks. Stakeholders suggest that8009the rigorous study and evaluation required for Corps-authorized8010projects should serve as a foundation for more effective integration of8011Federal funding. WRDA-authorized pilot programs could allow a limited8012number of projects to test coordinated use of eligible mitigation and8013recovery funds, under clear guardrails and congressional oversight, to8014improve efficiency and project delivery while protecting the Federal8015interest.8016    Finally, while somewhat adjacent to the jurisdiction of this8017subcommittee, sponsors also highlight funding execution challenges for8018multi-year projects. WRDA authorities that support incremental funding8019approaches and innovative contracting methods can help sustain8020construction momentum, reduce cost escalation, and improve schedule8021certainty.8022    Collectively, these WRDA-focused reforms would improve8023predictability, reduce unnecessary delay, and help ensure critical8024infrastructure projects move to construction efficiently and8025responsibly.80268027 Question to Noel Hacegaba, Chief Operating Officer and Incoming Chief8028  Executive Officer, Port of Long Beach, California, from Hon. Brian8029                                 Babin80308031    Question 1. Dr. Noel Hacegaba, Texas is a major energy-producing8032and exporting state, and our ports are critical to moving energy8033commodities, manufactured goods, and agricultural exports to global8034markets. How do timely Corps navigation projects and a predictable WRDA8035authorization cycle directly support America's energy security, supply-8036chain resilience, and global competitiveness--and what are the8037consequences when those projects are delayed?8038    Answer. Representative Babin, the delivery of these critical8039navigation projects supports commerce, good-paying jobs, and national8040economic benefits, including cargo valued at over $300 billion that8041supports more than 2.7 million jobs across the nation. The Port of Long8042Beach brings in the most tonnage of any West Coast port, including 41.78043million tons annually in energy commodities critical to U.S. energy8044security. The Port of Long Beach is also the only port on the West8045Coast capable of berthing a Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC), which can8046hold two million barrels of crude. Without the Army Corps preserving8047deeper drafts in the federal channels, larger vessels (such as VLCCs)8048must be lightered or await changes in tide or weather conditions before8049going to berth, leading to less efficient and more expensive cargo8050movement. These costs are ultimately passed on to the American8051consumer.8052    Predictable WRDA authorization is essential because it ensures8053consistent investment in critical infrastructure projects, helping to8054maintain and upgrade ports and waterways. Maintaining port8055infrastructure is crucial for the nation's energy supply, as it8056facilitates the efficient import and export of energy resources like8057oil and natural gas. Port infrastructure also enhances supply chain8058resilience by ensuring the smooth and reliable transportation of goods.8059Reliable WRDA authorization is vital for keeping the nation's critical8060port infrastructure in a state of good repair, ultimately strengthening8061America's position in global markets and enhancing economic security.80628063                                  [all]