FY 2027 Budget for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation

ok folks uh this this hearing of the uh energy and water development subcommittee will come to order um while i'm thinking about what i'm gonna say cause i don't know I've got a lot on my mind. I'm gonna ask the ranking member member who's generally better organized than I am,

And here.

and she's here, and the the Vice Chairman of the entire committee to uh to hold forth.

Well, thank you. Thank you very much, Mister Chairman uh and thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today, because your agencies really do critical work to support our economies and our families back home and if we neglect those investments, it puts our communities and our nation in serious danger from threats like droughts and floods and power outages and a lot more. Just looking at the Howard Hanson Dam in my state, last year during historic flooding, it stored record amounts of water, stopping about five feet of uh flooding in Auburn and protected communities in Kent, Renton, Tukwila and elsewhere. When the Green River levee breached on December fifteenth, The Corps was there to reduce the dam flows within hours and deployed personnel and resources alongside our King County crews and manage the careful return to normal operations. That is exactly the kind of rapid, coordinated technical response that only the Corps can provide. But Trump wants to slash funding for the Corps in this budget and zero out funding for work on Howard Hansel. Now fortunately in our last funding bill, Chair Kennedy and I worked together to reject those cuts and others, and made strong investments in the Army Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation. Howard Hanson got the funding it needed to keep moving forward. As did the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan, which is really crucial to securing reliable water access for a lot of our farmers and our communities in my state. But we've got a lot more work to do on those projects and others, and unfortun- unfortunately we now have more cuts to reject. Because this budget shows Trump didn't learn his lesson. He has proposed reckless cuts all so he can blow an extra half trillion dollars on more. His budget would slash the Bureau of Rec by a fifth, a fifth, and that's without considering the fact that the infrastructure cliff, uh, we are barreling towards this fall. Over the past five years, funding from that bipartisan infrastructure law provided nearly half of all reclamation funding. And that well is drying up. And if we don't act, crucial water resources will dry up next, along with funding for a lot more, uh, so much else. Meanwhile, Trump's budget would also slash funding for the Army Corps by more than a third. The construction account would get chopped almost in half. We're talking about an enormous backlog of Army Corps projects, deferred construction, critical repairs, that these cuts would abandon. Work we cannot delay without rolling the dice and leaving communities facing unacceptable risks, deadly floods, harsh droughts, and that is not hypothetical. This is the fourth year in a row we've had a drought in Washington State. And we are not alone. The Colorado River Basin is twenty-six years into a mega drought, and maybe and just maybe having its worst year on record right now. In Texas, Corpus Christi is staring down a full-on water crisis. And this is not the time to slash water projects. In addition to the threat of Trump's proposed cuts, the Army Corps has been rocked by Trump's staffing cuts. He has decimated the Corps workforce, a twelve percent loss since twenty twenty four, and meanwhile h- uh h- hiring has been frozen. Y- you just can't keep up, let alone accelerate projects while sending engineers and project managers packing. And if funding cuts and staffing shortages weren't bad enough, There's also the rampant blatant political sabotage. After zeroing out funding for blue states like mine last May, the Trump administration paused over eleven billion dollars for Army Corps projects in blue states and cities in October. Communities got frozen out, simply because of who they voted for. And incredibly, we have yet to receive any commu- communication on whether those projects are going to now be moving forward. We need pr- transparency and we need basic fairness. But we're all getting - all we're getting right now is a run-around from all of you and the Pentagon.

Mm-hmm.

And I have to mention the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Trump wants to shortchange that fund by over one point eight billion dollars and shortchange donor and energy transfer ports like we have in Washington State. So I want you all to know I'm gonna make sure we do fully fund the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and make sure that states like mine get their fair share. That goes for the rest of the budget, too. We cannot let Trump open the floodgates for defense contractors or while our families and our farmers barely get anything. I will not let him zero out projects like the Howard-Hansen dam that is so critical to keep keeping people stay safe. Instead, I hope we toss Trump's budget in the trash can where it belongs, and then work in this committee in a bipartisan way. to write a bill that addresses these critical challenges and helps our families back home. And by the way, that does need to include addressing the infrastructure cliff that's fast approaching when the bipartisan infrastructure law expires very fast, coming up this fall. So with that, I will turn it back over to you.

Thank you, Senator. Um, Madam Secretary, Mister Secretary General, I think it'd be fair to say that, uh, um, that I've been very supportive of the corps. And I understand uh, what you go through. You you serve you serve many masters. Um. I'll be blunt, I know this isn't your budget. Uh, it was crafted for you to a large extent. I get that. Um, nothing unusual or wrong about that. uh most presidents uh put together a budget and they do it with the omb as a quarterback and uh obviously you have input but you don't have the final say and then the budgets come to us and uh we we hardly ever never to my in in my judgment or or to my memory have just adopted what a presidential budget has suggested so i i get all that Nonetheless, what - what is in your budget is - it's not dispositive, but it's - it's - it's persuasive. I mean, it tells us what the President's priorities are. Um, I wanna talk about a number of things today. I wanna talk about - and maybe in answering questions you can - you can, uh, include, um, what's on my mind in your answers, but we - we've gotta do something about cost overruns. We've just got to, folks. We gotta do better. Uh, number two, I know you're gonna wanna talk, cuz I've talked to secretary about this. You got a new idea on district salaries and expenses. You wanna talk about that. Uh, I wanna talk as well about uh what Senator Murray talked about, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Now, now folks, people pay taxes. the the the the harbor maintenance trust fund um contains money that the that people pay directly to use our ports. And it's supposed to be there to help our ports and help with draining. Drainage. And I get that that it helps to h- take some of that money to spend in other parts of the budget. And if we were pursuing a balanced budget, I might could live with that. But we we we we don't have a balance. And so, instead of trying to take money out of the harbor maintenance trust fund to balance the budget, you're not doing that, you're taking money out of the harbor maintenance trust fund to spend on something else. And and we we we need to have a prayer session about that. Um. I've got some questions, but I'm gonna save them. Um, why don't why don't we move to your statements? Um, if you have a written text, I appreciate that, but try to read it fast. J- I'd rather you just talk to us. OK, rather than read a written statement, but that's up to you. Uh, Madam Secretary, I'll start with you.

Great. Good after, good afternoon. Uh, thank you Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the subcommittee. I'll probably just read a little bit and then highlight some things.

OK.

Um, but thanks for the opportunity to testify in support of President Trump's fiscal year twenty twenty seven budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation and the central Utah project and discuss the President's vision to make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous through the delivery of water and power. Uh, of course, as you've mentioned, Bureau of Reclamation manages and delivers water for agriculture, municipal and industrial uses, supports flood control and recreation, and produces higher power across the western United States. Uh, reclamation's projects and programs serve as the backbone of the West's water and power infrastructure and a driver of economic activity across hundreds of river basins. Reclamation's activities support economic output valued at approximately thirty-four point one billion billion annually and sustain more than four hundred and fifty thousand jobs.

Mm-hmm.

Um, so as it relates to what we're looking for for the FY twenty-seven reclamation request is one point two billion. In gross discretionary appropriations of this total one point one billion is for the water and related resource account, six uh sixty four million for the policy administration account, and thirty two million for the California Bay Delta account. The request also includes sixty six point nine million in the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. Uh in addition as we're looking at CUPCA, uh the FY twenty twenty seven budget requests seventeen million for the Central Utah Project Completion Act, uh really focused on construction of the Utah Lake drainage basin and delivery system. which is the final component of the project. And the funding supports construction of the Spanish Fork pipeline and design of the Mona pipeline. Uh, also wanted to highlight with the FY twenty twenty seven budget and the reclamation continues to utilize those existing resources uh to support its water supply management and conservation activities uh in addition we had the one big, beautiful Bill Act, which was signed into law by President Trump that provided a billion dollars to reclamation for construction of water storage and conveyance facilities. Uh, and to date, Reclamation has allocated eight hundred and eighty-nine million of that, uh, to support modernizing Western water infrastructure and improving storage capacity, uh, which includes five hundred and forty million for California, hundred million in Utah, thirty million for Idaho, uh, and also looking at storage opportunities with with Lake Shasta,

Mm-hmm.

uh, and at the same time some projects in South Dakota and North Dakota. Uh, also we're very focused on Colorado River and and the drought, uh, so looking for, continue to look for those conservation activities and trying to make sure that we protect Lake Mead and Lake Powell. Uh, so with that, we continue to work on applying, uh, funding towards infrastructure projects that address the deferred maintenance, improve water delivery reliability, enhance dam safety, and strengthen system performance. Uh, so we've been working on hundreds of projects nationwide, and im- implementing and establishing the program authorities. Uh, so with that, thank you for the opportunity to speak on President's FY twenty-seven budget request for the Department of Interior. And Kupka, I look forward to the questions today. Thank you.

Mister Secretary.

Chairman Kennedy, Vice Chair Murray. Uh, I'm here today to talk about the President's FY twenty-seven Army Civil Works budget. Uh, this budget is focused on our core missions, and if you ask yourself what are the core missions of the Corps of Engineers, we think of it in three ways. Uh, we enable commercial navigation. Uh, we protect Americans from flood risk and we restore aquatic ecosystems. I'll hit on a couple of those. Sir, if you think about waterborne commerce, Something that's important to both of your states. This is the most efficient form of transportation that humanity has ever devised. And if we don't build, operate and maintain that system, we can't compete globally. You think about flood risk. The Corps of Engineers builds, operates and maintains world-class flood risk reduction infrastructure. Uh, it's something that the Corps of Engineers has done well throughout most of its history and at times has come up short. This budget focuses on that. We can't compete globally if we're underwater. And just to highlight a couple projects that are included in this budget, the big ones. Under the category of navigation, the budget includes a hundred and thirty-three point seven six million dollars for the completion of a new Montgomery lock near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on the Ohio River. It includes three nine hundred and thirty-one million dollars uh for flood risk, including four hundred and twenty million dollars for Prado Dam in California, which is our most at-risk dam across our inventory. Uh, the budget also includes four hundred and ten million dollars for aquatic ecosystem restoration, which is in a sufficient amount, uh, to co- totally restore the Everglades in Florida, five years ahead of schedule.

Tell me about that Everglades again.

There's sufficient funding in the budget to stay on track to fully restore the Everglades, uh, five years ahead of ahead of schedule. This is one of the, uh, the biggest projects hap- that's happening in the United States of America right now.

That's new money?

It, that, this new money that's requested and, and it's gonna be in addition to other money that's been provided, and of course future uh needs that will come to you in future fiscal years for that.

Right. OK, sorry to interrupt.

Yes, sir, no problem. Um, most importantly, and Chairman Kennedy mentioned this, the budget includes a new way uh uh to, to delineate how we budget for district salaries. If you think about the Corps of Engineers, we have thirty-nine civil works districts across the country. These are our, unlike most agencies, ninety-eight percent of our workforce is outside the beltway in these districts. in all of your states. And the way that the, that you appropriate, the way that we budget currently includes within project amounts that you appropriate about thirty-three cents on the dollar goes to pay the salaries of the employees in those districts those are great employees we need them uh, they're doing amazing work. But this budget seeks to separate out those salaries and expenses from the project costs, for two reasons. One, it increases transparency. You need to know what you're buying. When you appropriate money for a project, Uh, in my view we can all make better decisions, uh, if we know what's underneath those numbers. And the second reason is incentives. I had a district commander come to me early on and say, sir, I like what you're doing here. As a district commander, I'm torn every day between delivering infrastructure. I meet with my infrastructure delivery team on Monday, and we're excited about delivery. And on Tuesday, uh, I, I meet with my, my resource team and my HR team, and we say, sir, the project that we thought was gonna be completed this year is actually extending into next year. This fills our district's budget hole. And that commander told me, I'm not so mad on Tuesday that that project's being extended. I'm not as mad as I should be. This budget fixes that. This takes our commanders out of that tension between delivering infrastructure and maintaining their district. Delivering infrastructure is what this is about. This budget fix is part of our building infrastructure, not paperwork initiative, a twenty-eight point plan we unveiled in February. This is a key part of it. And so my request today is that the subcommittee will join us in that effort. Uh, I thank you for your time and look forward to your questions.

Well, we'll talk about it in a second. It's hard for me to believe, Mister Secretary, that uh an an accounting measure's gonna solve our problems at the core. But we can talk about it. General

Uh, Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Murray, thank you for the opportunity to talk today and I'll just have a discussion with you for the time I've got.

Please.

First, uh, Senator Murray, thanks for highlighting Howard A. Hanson Dam. I was out there right after um the water managers and Colonel Sanborn and her team did an amazing job working hand in hand with the state and King County to manage the floods coming in the the southern part of the city of Seattle um record pools, the on the Green River, tremendous work. What Colonel Sanborn and her team are doing right now which I wanna highlight is working to repair all those levees before the next atmospheric rivers hit so really um, proud of that team out there for using the funds that this committee's provided in FCCNE to get those levies repaired as fast as possible with our state and our local partners. Senator Kennedy, turning to the costs. Um, when I was last in front of this committee, we absolutely acknowledged that we've got to improve our delivery. And that starts with three basic things. First and foremost, we've gotta get the engineering right, and we gotta do that before we ask the authorizing committees to authorize a project, and before we asked this committee to appropriate funds for that. We've too often come in and said, " Hey, this is the - how much this project would cost." And we really didn't have that project well-defined and I'll put it " Hey, Congress, we - we need to build a house" as an ex- you know, as an example, when we should have advanced the engineering to say we need a four-bedroom house with a two-car garage on a quarter acre plot of land that has drainage issues. We have not done that. And so that is our commitment to you, that we're, I am not gonna sign any chief's report unless we have advanced the engineering to the point where we actually know what we're asking Congress to authorize and appropriate for. The second thing we've gotta do is we've gotta get the project management right. And what that is is putting good realistic schedules together. Where we could use help is stable, predictable funding allows us to most efficiently deliver these projects. Uh, and it is one of our priorities to finish what we start, and - and that is our commitment to you. The third thing we have to do is make sure we get the team right. We've - the secretary has granted us almost three thousand, um, ability to hire three thousand new folks and we've got about two thirds of those on board right now, to include a thousand folks that aren't just moving, uh, lower ranking person to a high ranking position, but it is actually bringing in external hires, talent from, um, the civilian workforce. So that's our commitment to you, is doing everything we can to get the engineering right, get the project management right, and get the team right. And I thank you and look forward to answering your questions.

All right, generally, uh, thank you, thank you, uh, lady and gentlemen, I usually am a I have reserved questions and I am most of my time. I - I just got one right quick. Um. Secretary Till, you you just moved one point four billion dollars out of other fund, out of other projects to the Everglades. Who told you to do that?

Chairman Kennedy, thank you for the question. The law that included that for for which those funds were derived gave the army the flexibility to reallocate funds and in many cases Those pro- these projects were appropriated, uh.

Who told you to do that?

The law gives, gave us flexibility to do that.

You did that on your own? That's your testimony?

We, we followed the notification procedures that were required under that law.

Yeah, but you did, you, you made that decision.

Yes, sir, I did.

And nobody told you to do it.

No, sir.

OK. Where'd you get that one point for? And you're asking for more money now for the Evergrades. Is that right?

Well, Senator, there's forty six billion dollars.

Are you asking for more money now for it?

The President's budget includes four hundred and forty six million dollars for

More.

Everglades restoration, that's correct, sir.

In addition to the one point four billion that you just took out of other projects.

The, yes, sir, that's correct, your your information.

OK. What projects did you take that one point four billion for the Everglades out of?

Senator, I'd have to get it back to you on the sources.

You don't remember?

Uh, there there's multiple, it's there are multiple sources, but the sources were

Yeah, who who, which ones?

They were from pro- past, uh, infra- uh, past acts like the Infra- Infrastructure and Geocreation Act, the BBA eighteen, and DERSA.

You took it out of the West Shore Project in Louisiana, didn't you?

Uh, n- no, sir.

You took it out of the Lake Pontchartrain Project in Louisiana, didn't you?

No, sir, that that project is underway in in the

You took it out of the Co-Meet Project in Louisiana, didn't you?

No, sir, I did not.

You took it out of the a project in East Baton Rouge Parish, didn't you?

No, sir.

How about the Grand Isle Project?

No, sir, that project is not correct.

You're telling me you didn't take any money out of these, at anybody's instruction, to spend on the Everglades while you're asking for even more Evergl- Evergl- Everglades money in the current budget.

Senator, the projects that you just listed in Louisiana are all on track. Those are great projects. I've been working to - to - we've been working to deliver those.

So your testimony is that you on your own, nobody told you to do it, you took money out of these projects, but they're still on course to spend extra money in the Everglades. Is that your testimony, Mr. Secretary?

No, sir, that is not my testimony.

OK. Tell me what your testimony is then.

There are age funds throughout, the forty six billion dollars total in age funds, some of them more than ten years old. This is a disgrace. I mean, we have forty six billion dollars that Congress has provided to us that we haven't found the ability to execute. There are other projects that do have the ability to execute. And when we have age funds that can be applied to something that will uh save lives and protect critical ecosystem uh restoration projects uh those are things that we where we use those

Mr. Mr. Secretary,

the authorities that have been providing to us

I wanna come back to this but I'm I'm you know God gave me the right to remain silent but not the ability you know I I I have protected you and the Corps every step of the uh uh uh of the way up here I have pr- I have defended the core. When some of my colleagues wanted to dog cuss you and change you and and I have defended you. But I don't uh you I don't understand this moving money to the Everglades. And we're gonna have to have a prayer session about that. You wanna talk about how best to make the core efficient. Tell us the truth. I don't believe you did this alone, Mister Secretary. I think somebody told you to do it.

Mister Chairman, we'll be happy to hear it.

Just wait a minute, Mister Secretary, I'm talking. I wanna know who it was, and I wanna know why you did it. And I don't believe you that, that this, this money didn't come out of somebody's hand. 'Kay? Um. You can't spit in my face and tell me it's raining. That's how I feel. Uh, those are my questions for now, but I'll have others. Um, Madam Vice Chair, do you have some?

I do. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, Assistant Secretary Tello, we talked about this recently, but I hear constantly from ports and harbors back home in Washington about how much they rely on the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. And despite the importance of this funding, your budget request is just as insufficient as last year. Your proposal would mean a cut of nearly two billion dollars from what we just enacted and it would provide zero funding for donor and energy transfer ports. That is just not acceptable. Will you commit to us today that donor ports, like Seattle and Tacoma, will receive their full fair share of HMTF dollars as Congress intended for FY twenty-six?

Y- yes, ma'am, in in fiscal year twenty-six, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act provided what amounted to thirteen percent, uh, for those donor and energy transfer ports, and we are on track with that FY twenty-six funding.

And you will commit to us that you will get that out as we intended.

Senator, we will absolutely follow the law.

OK, well these these ports are our gateway to the world. Um, they are major economic engines for our state and for our country, and I will not sit by on what Watch my state get short change. Know we're watching. Assistant Secretary Travenick, thank you for being here, you know that the West is in the midst of a really historic drought. More than seventy percent of the West is currently experiencing drought conditions. And because of those serious challenges, we are facing the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act both provided billions in critical funding to the Bureau of Rec to help with projects fixing aging canals and dams and building new water storage and improving water efficiency, so important, recycling, desalination, helping our farmers and helping our rural communities. That funding has made a huge difference. But this administration has slowed down money getting out the door, and that needs to change. We are now staring down a cliff of one point six six billion dollars in funding each year for water projects, when the bipartisan infrastructure law funding comes to an end this October, and tens of billions more across key programs elsewhere. But your budget proposes nothing to address that massive shortfall. So I wanted to ask you today, is it this administration's view that we should make massive cuts to drought funding so we can have more money for defense contractors, which is how the budget appears to me?

Uh, thank you, Senator, for the question. As you mentioned, yes, we are seeing drought across the western states. Um, and we are working really hard to continue to get those previous dollars out the door. Uh, so as it relates to those aging infrastructure dollars, they they're they're moving. We were able even to get some more moving this this week. Uh, you mentioned too where we have the the one big beautiful bill, uh, so for water storage, water conveyance. Uh, so that is where we are are focused on making sure that we are trying to get infrastructure dollars. uh, taking care of some of the - the projects that have been out there. And then of course, looking ahead with the - with the budget that we do have, trying to make sure that we're operating, maintaining, and making sure that we're modernizing the infrastructure that we do have. And then at the same time, working with our various partners, so in order to make those dollars go for- farther, right? It's working with the different partners, the different states, the different districts. Um, so it's - it's gonna take all of us working together to make sure that we can, you know, work towards solving the drought the best we can.

Well, just so this committee and everybody understands, This funding, um, is a huge cliff in October. And that means drastic cuts to all of these programs that all of our states rely on. And we need to work within this committee to make sure we don't face a huge disaster with all of that. Assistant Secretary Till, let me go back to you. This committee relies on timely, factual information from the Army, uh, core districts to do our job. Uh, last October the Department of Defense issued a gag order requiring all congressional communication to be routed through the legisl legislative affairs at the Pentagon. We are now seeing major project decisions, like the release of the updated spin plans or the transfer of projects announced before us, before Congress, and sometimes even our local partners are notified. I can't stress enough that our local partners are not mere spectators to this. They are our partners and they're major financial stakeholders. in core projects. And we're all aware of the blatantly political announcement made by OMB Director Russ Voet during last fall's shutdown that the administration would pause or cancel eleven billion dollars in essential core projects. That is why our FY twenty-six bill was very clear. The core has to execute funding as Congress intended. It can't terminate or pause or alter the scope of a project without prior written justification from this committee. And as we talked about, I have heard about multiple instances where you have terminated studies, including those funded with congressional direct uh directed spending without any prior notification. I wanted to ask you today, why did you ignore the law and fail to notify Congress?

Vice Chair Murray, thank you for the question. As we discussed in your office, uh, no projects, uh, as you've described them, have been terminated. There have been instances where district commanders have made recommendations up the chain to terminate projects that they believe are at a dead end. Uh, those projects have not reached General Graham's desk. To my knowledge, they haven't reached my desk, as we discussed. Uh, it is important for our districts to communi- to communicate with non-federal sponsors. There have been no terminations, um, that, and in fact I would say that the letter that you referenced in our previous meeting is an, uh, an example of why it's important for the left hand and the right hand to know what's going on in an organization. This is why it's important to coordinate.

Well, I don't know who's left hand or right hand is, but I will submit for the record a list of terminated projects. And we wrote into our bill very specifically uh, that we would be notified and we're not. So I will submit that for the record today.

Without objection.

Um, a- and again, Secretary Till, as we discussed last week, Washington State has a lot of ongoing projects with the Army, of course. We uh we Howard Hanson, we just talked about Duckabush, deepening Seattle and Tacoma harbors. Those are just a few. So I can't underscore in strong enough terms how important these projects are, not just to my state, but to our entire nation. And um uh we talked about Howard Hanson Dam and thank you for being out there. This is addressing dam safety issues, it's providing water supply, we need it for flooding before we have a complete disaster out there, and it is important for our critical salmon habitat, so many important reasons. And I had to fight tooth and nail, as the chairman will remember, um uh and I appreciate your help, sir, um to get secure funding for that project, about five hundred million, um because that project was ripped out of the twenty-five budget. So I'm gonna ask you today, do you commit to execute every dollar of congressionally appropriated funding exactly as b has been directed for those projects?

Yes, ma'am, we uh executed the contract on the Howard Hanson dam uh within the time frame that this committee provided in the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of f- f- for fiscal year twenty-six.

Oh, thank you. We will be watching very carefully to make sure that's followed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, ma'am. Senator Hyde-Smith.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and welcome. Those, are you willing to testify and take on this job, and it's good to see you there, Mr. Secretary. I can't think of anybody better. to run the uh army corps civil works and we've worked together a long time on many issues and uh i think you are fit for this position no doubt i wanna cover three topics today first being the azu backwater pumps that i've worked on for a long time and i know you're very very familiar with that and then the arca butler dam repairs it's very important that i know that you guys are familiar with and the building infrastructure not paperwork initiative that uh I wanna talk about. But to take a secretary tell and general Graham the uh I was just thrilled to see money in the budget for the funding for the actual construction of the Yazoo Backwater Area project you know we uh as Ag Commissioner in the state we had a half a million acres underwater for over six months that could not be farmed, and it has been a major problem there. And, I mean, it is so vital to save lives, the public infrastructure, but the billions of dollars of agriculture losses because of these flooding issues that, um, for decades the taxpayers have been putting the bill through crop insurance, and it was really good when it was good, but, boy, it was really bad when it was bad. But they've had to have the indemnity payments and several forms of disaster relief. I can think of so many times of driving through there during that flood and uh people begging for so many months and years for help with that issue. But this um this project will give one of the most rural underserved areas of the country, which has been devastated for years. This is gonna give that little community an opportunity to flourish. I have never understood how we got to uh the many years that it should have been done and had not been done so you can imagine how excited I am that this is in the budget. But uh we've recently learned that the fiscal year twenty twenty seven total capability for this project has increased since the time the budget was prepared. So should Congress appropriate funding above the amount proposed in the budget, are you confident those additional funds can be put to good use, can be dispersed the way they should be, and make a major difference in the lives of all of those people down there in the South Delta and Mississippi.

Uh, Senator Hinesmith, thank you for the question, you're absolutely right. This project was authorized in nineteen forty one as part of the Mississippi River and Tributary System. Uh, we're in the May of two thousand twenty six, we're in the ninety ninth anniversary month of the great flood of nineteen twenty seven and This project was in response to that event which affected Mississippi and Louisiana and so many other places. Uh, to your question, the present's budget includes thirty million dollars for this project. Uh, the technical assistance we provided to the committee indicates a capability of one hundred million dollars for this project in adi- in addition to that. I'm confident that the additional money included in that capability for mitigation I'm confident that all the money could be obligated in fiscal year twenty-seven. I'm confident that the additional money included in that amount for mitigation could be executed in fiscal year twenty seven uh the additional money is for design and i'm less confident that that could be executed all of that could be executed in f five twenty seven but certainly if additional funding is included we will put it to good use

general graham do you have any comments on that

um i absolutely agree with mister tell um the mitigation banking additional funding we can certainly put that to work uh in in the year of appropriations and we'll do our best to put the design money to work wisely

OK, and I still have a little time. The uh I was also very s- pleased to see that the robust funding for the Ark of Butler Lake and Dam, which supports fifty-seven thousand two hundred acre flood control reservoir in North Mississippi. And in twenty twenty-three, the structural issues, that's when they were detected in the dam, putting at risk for severe potential failure at that time and now. But the results of a breach in a dam that size would obviously be catastrophic catastrophic homes, rural towns and hundreds of thousands of acres downstream. So failure is not an option on that. Again, should Congress appropriate funding above the amount proposed the budget for Arkabutla Dam repairs, can you tell me how that would flow out and are you confident that this could be handled to actually correct the problem that we have.

Senator, you're correct. Arquibutla Dam, if we we rank, the engineers of the Corps of Engineers rank all of the dams in our inventory based on their safety level and our concerns. And Prado Dam, which I mentioned in my opening statement in Los Angeles uh area of California, and Arquibutla Dam are number one and two in terms of the dams we're looking at nationwide in terms of safety concerns. The President's budget reflects this. Uh, as you uh say say, an additional capability. uh has been reflected in technical assistance provided to the committee um the good news story here is I was briefed earlier this week about this project we had been looking and I know your office had brought to our attention the idea that this might take ten years or longer um as we are right now it looks like we've actually are gonna start construction in twenty twenty eight and construction will be complete within five years so that's uh we're moving in the right direction on our it's a critically important facility thank you for your advocacy for it

thank you and I'm out of time thank you Mr. Chairman

Thank you, Senator, Senator Merkley.

Uh, thank you very much, Mister Chairman. And uh, because of the the work you all do across the country, we all have projects in our various states we're we're concerned about, and this is a chance for us to follow up on them and ask for your help. And Assistant Secretary Travnik, back in twenty eighteen, uh, Congressman Walden and I set up the Climate Drought Response Agency. to assist the farmers in the Klamath Basin who had to idle their land for a season due to drought. And since then the Bureau of Reclamation has continued to support the agency in drought years. Uh this year, the basin unfortunately is in severe drought. And there is some funding that's left over from FY twenty-five and twenty-six available to help out, thankfully. But as we look to FY twenty-seven, the President's budget doesn't contain funding for the Klamath Drought Response Agency. If we face another drought year in - in the summer of twenty-seven, can I get you to commit to helping us get that DRA assistance to the Klamath farmers?

Uh, thank you, Senator Merkley, for - for the question. As - and as you mentioned, yes, we're seeing Uh drought situation up in the the climate basin is as well and and as you mentioned um so we were able to put some funding towards that drought response agency this year uh with the nineteen point one million dollars uh we were also able to so far give an initial allocation of two hundred twenty one thousand acre feet and uh working really closely with the the stakeholders uh within the area

I have a very small amount of time and I'm well aware of everything you just said this is kind of just what I just said to you the point is There's nothing in the budget for next year. Can I get your help to make sure they're not left high and dry if we face drought next summer?

So we'll - we'll continue to - to work with you on what that drought response might look like for this next year.

OK. Thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah, I I I'm perceiving good intentions to be helpful.

Very much so.

Thank you. Thank you. Um, uh, second uh Assistant Secretary Atel, um, thank you for meeting with me last week.

hey mate

and thank you for facilitating a meeting between the corps and springfield this is their forty second street levee project oh and i had mentioned that the city had been told that the project was paused and i had been told otherwise from the corps that it's not paused uh but i do have with me the emails in which the corps told the city that it was paused And they were very, very specific about saying the administration was choosing not to forward funds to these programs and that they're for its fund. But here's the thing. Uh, the, the city has done their copay. They've spent four hundred thousand dollars in checks to the Corps to get this study done. The Corps has taken the checks and now just says, well, the whole thing's paused. How do we How do we resolve this? I know you offered to help. Have you been able to facilitate some conversations, get this straightened out and get this uh, cuz without the study they can't proceed. And we are talking about a levee that is sixty years old, that protects twenty four thousand people, and they're very concerned that they've gotta complete the study and prepare to try to make sure this thing doesn't collapse.

Uh, Senator Markley, thank you for the question. I don't believe that that project has been paused. I I don't believe that information is accurate. I I know we responded to your office earlier this week. General Graham has personally looked into this for us. Um.

Senator, it it it's not paused. There was some hiccups in getting the current year money released, and that was just administrative work. I'm responsible for that. That got fixed yesterday. They are moving forward with a hundred and sixty thousand

There you go.

dollars that they've got in their current accounts to keep this vital cap one O five flood risk management project moving forward and we're happy to sit down with the city to make sure that there's no more miscommunication