Hearings to examine Water Resources Development Act of 2026

...that will determine whether the United States of America remains the greatest nation in the history of the world. Finally, we are instilling a culture of discipline by fundamentally overhauling our financial and operational practices to attack waste and inefficiency. We are committed to executing our mission with a higher standard of integrity, ensuring every dollar is spent with purpose to achieve clear measurable results for the American people. President Trump, Secretary Hegseth, and Secretary Driscoll want to deliver infrastructure now, and our partners in Congress are tired of decades-long delays and cost overruns. The time is right for this change, and we have a unique opportunity to transform the way the Corps of Engineers conducts its business to meet this moment in history. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you. Next, we will hear from Lieutenant General William H. Graham Jr., the 56th Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. General Graham assumed these duties after serving as the Corps' Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations. As Commanding General, he is responsible for over 30,000 civilian employees and 800 military personnel in more than 110 countries. General Graham, welcome, and we thank you for being here. Please proceed with your opening statement.

Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse, members of the committee, I'm honored to testify before you today in regard to the 2026 Water Resources Development Act. Through the Civil Works program, the Army Corps works with our partners to study, build, and operate water resource projects focusing on our three main mission areas of commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. Breaking these down, the navigation program, which consists of our coastal and Great Lakes channels as well as the inland rivers and intracoastal waterways, underpins much of the national economy, ensuring that commodities can move reliably and efficiently. Our flood and coastal storm damage reduction program maintains 746 dams, over 13,000 miles of federal levees, and 450 miles of shore protection that provide, on average, a staggering $200 billion per year in flood damages avoided. To continuously maintain and improve these mission areas, I want to thank this committee for supporting the Corps' Civil Works program. Your commitment since 2014 to pass biennial Water Resource Development Acts has provided us with the authorities necessary to address the changing needs of the nation's water resource infrastructure. We deeply value the authorities you've entrusted us and our pledges to put them to work to deliver for the American people. To that end, the Army Corps' objective each and every day is to safely and efficiently deliver quality studies and projects on schedule and within budget. Our current on-schedule rate across the Civil Works program is 86.2 percent, and that's an improvement from the 80 percent that I reported in September. So, by focusing on the basics of getting the engineering right, of getting the project management right, and of getting the project delivery team right, we're making our cost estimates more reliable and our project delivery more efficient. That said, there's more work to do, more improvements to make. To that end, we're very excited about the Building Infrastructure Not Paperwork initiative that Mr. Telle outlined. These improvements, delivered by district engineers who are empowered to manage risk, not avoid it, will allow the Corps of Engineers to make the necessary changes to best deliver our important infrastructure for the nation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and I look forward to addressing your questions.

Thank you, General. Okay, we'll start the question portion. I'm going to start myself, and I'm going to admit here a little bit, Secretary Telle, to some a little bit of confusion on my part. So, I'm going to start the implementation of WRDA laws and the lack of transparency of what is needed to implement these laws, including the extent of which any appropriations are needed, has frustrated this committee for years. That frustration culminated in 1102 of WRDA 2024. This section requires your office to develop and submit a plan to Congress on the implementation of WRDA 24 and prior WRDAs. I recognize that there can be a variety of factors that impact the rate at which your office can implement WRDA. However, a firm understanding of where we stand on implementation is critical to the committee's ability to develop WRDA 2026. What is the status of the plan that is required under 1102? And I know you talked a little bit about that in your opening statement.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question. And I would say to start off, when a law is signed, when the President signs a law and it becomes law, it is the law and we follow it. Of the 552 provisions included in the last three WRDAs, 21, as of the beginning of this week, 21 required implementation guidance. On Monday, I signed implementation guidance for two of them. Of the 19 remaining, five of those pieces of implementation guidance will be finalized in the coming weeks. Seven of the provisions require appropriations to be implemented, and an additional seven require a longer rulemaking process that will engage the public in a way that will take longer than the typical implementation guidance. The remainder of the WRDA provisions did not require implementation guidance and therefore are in effect. I believe there are 86 reporting requirements included in the last three WRDAs, and the responses to those 86 reporting requirements are currently under administration review.

Okay, just so I understand, I'm understanding from 1102 here that you are to put forward and submit a plan. You've just told me about the implementation guidance. Is the structure of the implementation guidance the same as a plan? Do you see what I'm saying? Are we talking about the same things here?

Yes, ma'am. I think that what we're trying to say here is we are happy to comply with 1102. I'll check the status on our compliance with that section itself. But of the 552 provisions enacted in the past three WRDAs, only 21 of them required a more lengthy process. The rest of them took effect immediately because they were simple and straightforward enough, and so they are implemented. Again, 86 of the provisions required information from us. That information has been collected, but the responses are currently under administration review.

Okay, so we would get your implementation guidance of the remainder of those. We can expect that through the rest of the year.

Two on Monday, I released two on Monday. There are five that should be coming in the coming weeks. Seven that require funding to implement, and seven that require a longer process. I'll also add there are ways that my team has been talking with your team and other members of Congress to inform both to get your advice on how we can shorten the process, but also for the future how we can make WRDA more implementable. There are ways that we can help you help us make the process much more...

Is this the reason that there's $15 billion still that have six years old that hasn't moved forward?

No, ma'am. Largely unrelated. That funding is largely projects that were appropriated as a result of supplemental appropriations where for some reason, whether it's a design, the project became too expensive and we don't have sufficient funding, the non-federal sponsor has not does not agree with the plan. There are a lot of reasons that funding has been stranded, but the fact remains it is stranded and we're putting pressure, I am putting pressure on the organization to find a way to make use of that funding.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. I mean, I know you've reprogrammed in the past. I don't know in this particular area. I know there's strings on that, but you know, we have so many projects. That's a lot of money, $15 billion just sitting there on projects that can't move forward.

It's a shame, Senator Capito. There are Americans in need.

So we need to work with you to try to figure out a way to do that. General Graham, I talked in my opening statement about the importance of our non-federal sponsors. And I'm interested to know how you keep that open line of communications with your district and division commanders to make sure that they're working with their non-federal sponsors and that they're aware of any changes that we might make in WRDA in terms of the flexibilities that they might have.

Chairman Capito, thank you for that question. In my opening statement, I said we don't do anything by ourselves. Everything we do goes hand in hand with one of our federal partners. We're working right now, the key member of that partnership is the project or program manager. And their skills at interfacing with our non-federal sponsors, their skills at interfacing with the public are absolutely key. We've instituted some initiatives recently to make sure that those key individuals have the training and experience to do that really, really difficult job, which is to make sure that they understand the problem, make sure that they understand what authorities this committee's given them, and as those authorities change, so that they can best inform our non-federal sponsors on what options are out there and how to put those options to work for their communities.

Okay, thank you. Senator Whitehouse.

Thanks very much, Chairman. Mr. Telle, I'd like to start with just trying to clear the information blockade. I've heard from members of the committee, constantly from my staff, from stakeholders struggling to obtain basic information from the Corps. And in particular, my staff has repeatedly requested information on the status of studies and projects affected by your review of the Corps' investigations portfolio and by the pause in funding to blue states announced by OMB last October. If you would be good enough, Assistant Secretary Telle, will you authorize General Graham, who's right here right now sitting next to you today, to provide my staff with the requested information without further delay?

Senator Whitehouse, thank you for the question. We met two weeks ago and discussed this issue. Your staff had requested information about the status of 39 separate projects or studies. I believe within a day or so of me visiting with you, my staff provided you with detailed information on the 39 projects or studies that you requested. We provided it to your staff. And if there's anything that we left off, please let us know.

Well, it would be helpful if I didn't have to wait until you and I had a personal meeting in order to get responses. So to the extent that we've asked for things beyond those 39 or that the responses aren't complete, will you clear General Graham to provide my staff with what they need and what they ask for?

Senator Whitehouse, we will continue to do what we've been doing and we'll do it even better than we've been doing, which is to visit with your team on at least a monthly basis and try to turn around very quickly the requests for information. There's no reason for me to clear General Graham. We are one team. We work together, and the information that you receive from General Graham will be the same as the information you receive from me.

Well, let's turn to core missions. Your prioritization initiative proposes to focus all the Corps' resources on core missions while terminating legacy efforts that the Corps believes no longer provide value. Is coastal storm risk management a core mission that will be prioritized in the Corps' annual budget review?

Senator Whitehouse, absolutely. Coastal storm risk management is a growing and critical part of our portfolio. We treat it with every bit of importance as inland storm risk management and navigation. As I spoke to you two weeks ago when we visited, I spend a disproportionate amount of my time and effort trying to come up with building infrastructure in our coastal areas to protect flood-prone areas on the coasts, disproportionate to the inland. And so when it comes to building infrastructure not paperwork, I can't think of anything that will benefit more than coastal storm risk management.

So let me back to core missions again. What happens when Congress has directed you in a WRDA bill to do a particular thing and you have decided that is not a core mission?

Senator Whitehouse, we follow the law. I'm not sure what specific action you're talking about, but we follow the law.

The question of non-structural flood risk management we have discussed a couple of times. You've made some I think logical points about dealing with the scope of the potential liability the Corps faces. To address that, I've developed a suite of legislative reforms that would provide the Corps with the authorities it needs to implement non-structural solutions more effectively and more efficiently. My staff requested technical assistance on that legislation in November and have yet to receive a response. Could you let me know when we can get that technical assistance?

Senator Whitehouse, we'll absolutely provide you with technical assistance. I will say that when it comes to the non-structural issue that you raised, I just want to make sure that the committee is tracking what we're talking about here. In August, on the basis of exorbitant costs per unit that we were seeing, it was costing $600,000 per home to elevate structures, and the Corps of Engineers does not have experience elevating homes at scale on a regional basis to the thousands of homes. It doesn't mean that elevation of structures shouldn't be part of our toolkit. It absolutely should. It's just that at this moment, that particular there were two projects affected that were in process and five or six more that were under the feasibility stage. We just came to you immediately in August and to the committee and said, hey, this is not right. We all have a responsibility here to ensure we're efficiently spending taxpayer dollars, and we want to get it right on non-structural. But quite often, that probably means that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may not be the best deliverer of that, and it doesn't mean it may not it would not help participate in the funding of non-structural solutions at scale on a regional basis. It simply means that the Corps of Engineers may not be the best executor. A non-federal sponsor may be.

Yeah. Well, I'll close out just with the observation that, you know, I appreciate some of the things you've said about coastal risk management, but particularly with Army Corps projects, getting stuff done and getting funding out are the two really powerful ways of expressing your priorities. And the continued 20 to one to 100 to one favoring of inland flooding over coastal flooding, I think remains a problem. And when the largest adjustment to the Corps' actions is one that disproportionately interferes with coast projects, that makes it even worse. And then you throw in that the blue states tend to be coastal ones and they were the ones that OMB held up for cuts. It doesn't look like it's a new day for coasts yet, but I appreciate everything that you've said about paying more attention there, and I hope we can work together to turn that into some real progress. So thank you.

Thank you, sir. Madam Chairman, if I may. Senator Whitehouse, when you and I met recently, I committed to get you some information about the distribution between coasts and inland on supplemental funding. And I'll provide that to you now as well as the entire committee. We analyzed all Corps of Engineers spending on flood risk mitigation since 2017, fiscal year 2017. Of the amount spent on flood risk mitigation in total, $24 billion, $9 billion was for coastal storm risk mitigation.

Okay. Senator Cramer.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And for Senator Whitehouse, I can't compare to what you're going through right now back in North Dakota. We have really good plows that can get us out of those situations. But I do feel your pain, believe me, in what you're going through.

Yeah, we usually have plows on pickup trucks. We need plows on dump trucks.

I understand. Yeah, I want one of those, by the way. That's in my next life. But thank you both for being here. And I was thinking, Madam Chair, when you were talking about the history of WRDA, I remember when you and I were in the House and Chairman Shuster promised we would have two-year WRDA, and we've been doing it ever since. It's really a nice cadence we're in, and that's a testament to the leadership of this committee on both sides for the last several years. Real quickly, Secretary Telle, I want to just share publicly what I share with you privately lately. Really appreciate your work on on the Dakota Access Pipeline EIS and it's so I won't go through the entire history of it. It's been a decade in the works and and I just want you to know that those of us that are living with with that situation are grateful both for your the urgency you've given it and as well as the thoughtfulness. Thoughtful urgency, urgent thoughtfulness, whatever you might call it. Complicated stuff, but really appreciate the work of you and your team. And we look forward to a decision of record here fairly soon, or record of decision fairly soon. I want to speak just a little bit to you, Mr. Secretary, about the rollout this week and just applaud. Thank you so much. Anything that you can do to make the agency more efficient and effective in the very important work of your mission, I applaud. And if there's anything we can we should be doing to help codify any of that, please be open with us on that. And I would really really want to be part of that, you know, that solution, if you will. And I think and this is a bipartisan issue. In fact, you know, we've had some very good hearings on already on permitting reform. And I think about the very specific role that your agency obviously plays that the Corps plays in infrastructure build-out. Even your discussion just listening for the last several minutes to your discussion with Senator Whitehouse, I think we are all we're all on the same page. Let's do stuff better, faster, more efficiently, with lower cost if we can, while not cutting corners. Just doing things in a better way. And so let us know how to be helpful on that. On the regulatory front, I do want to speak a little bit about the efficiency of jurisdictional determination as it relates to what is and what is not a waters of the United States. And as this new rule is in the making, and really grateful to the EPA for the hearing out in North Dakota that we had. I hope we populated the record in a helpful way there. I feel like we really did. But one of the areas that's always frustrated me about the evolution of WOTUS is that even when the court has been crystal clear about what's not a waters of the United States, which has always been fairly obvious to me, the idea that a jurisdictional determination is still required is one of my great frustrations. So as we get to finalizing a rule, maybe just help me better understand that piece of it. How can we help landowners know intuitively, intellectually, obviously, what is not a water of the United States? And is that an area of opportunity for us in efficiencies?

Senator Cramer, thank you for the question. And I think you're touching on something critically important that we're hard at work on and is part of our Building Infrastructure Not Paperwork initiative. On March 12 of last year, I'll say we're already we've already got a walking start because the Sackett decision that was rendered by the Supreme Court in 2023 was the law of the land. And on March 12 of last year, we issued interim guidance to our regulators throughout our enterprise about what it meant to follow the law as it stood, as it stands. We've also, as you mentioned, gotten busy on with our partners at the Environmental Protection Agency on making sure that our rules match the law as it stands today. We're intent on following the law. But a point that you're making that I believe is the point you're making, which is a critically important one, is even when we have a new law, a new rule, we still rely on the employees in General Graham's enterprise, whether it's at the Huntington District or the Portland District or the St. Paul District. We rely on our regulators who are wonderful people to interpret the law. And quite often I've heard frustration from members of Congress, from the public, about the inconsistency they see across the landscape. If it's the law, it ought to be interpreted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' employees consistently and it ought to be in keeping with the law. And so we began the process in the fall of a very rapid acquisition of the latest technology to make sure that we can use the tools available that we have, the never-before-seen in human history data that we have, to tie geographic features about what a water of the United States is back to the law, all the way back to the Clean Water Act of 1972 and through all the decisions that have come ever since. If we can provide this tool to our regulators, we can take subjectivity out of the equation. We can give our regulators a tool. The tool may not provide the final decision, that may still be our regulators, but if they have a tool, which we're very rapidly developing to coincide with the finalized rule, it will provide clarity and durability to the public in a way that we haven't seen since 1972.

That's a really great point because you're right, the diversity of ideas out there and philosophies even probably among the regulators is a bit of a problem. And that's what presents a lack of clarity to the developer, a landowner, an engineering firm in Bismarck, whatever the case may be. I might just add to that, though, how about the determination by the developer or the landowner themselves to see what's obviously not a wetland, to be able to say it's I always put it like this. We don't ask every driver on the interstate to call the highway patrol every few miles to ask permission to drive the speed limit. Now, the nice thing about the speed limit is it's not only on the sign at the side of the road, it's on your GPS in your car. So there is clarity there. And and so I it just seems to me we can even get that down to more, you know, local level.

Senator Cramer, you're right. I mean, the best version of what we're trying to do would enable the public to have transparency in real time about what is and what is not a water of the United States. These decisions should be made instantly with the technology that we have today. This is complicated by the legal wrangling that's happened over the decades, but I'm committed to looking at what the law says today and providing technology that provides clarity in real time to the public.

I love it. Thank you.

Senator Merkley.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all very much. The Corps does such important work in the northwest quadrant of the United States of America. We have a very close working relationship with the Corps that we've much appreciated. But I do feel like the flow of information has changed a bit over this last year, and I'm very concerned about that. I have seen situations where an administration has previously not answered the QFRs until right before the next hearing, but I've never seen a situation when they just absolutely don't answer them at all. And the QFRs that I submitted after our September gathering have never been answered. I just don't understand that. Why not answer them?

Senator Merkley, I agree with you. I agree with you. I think it's unacceptable that we haven't answered the questions for the record that were submitted prior to our previous hearing. This is something that I did not anticipate would take so long. Obviously, we had the longest government shutdown in history in the middle of that period, but it's still no excuse. We should have questions...

I really appreciate that. That you've answered my question that you want to get it done.

And I'll just say both for this committee and for the House T&I Committee, the QFRs are in the final stages of administrative review. We expect them very soon.

So in the Northwest, where we have put a lot of hydroelectric dams and flood control dams on the Columbia, on the Willamette, and on its tributaries, there's always been this partnership in which we've said, well, we know those dams will have a big impact. The fish ladders will not get the fish through, so we have mitigation strategies including the hatcheries. And those hatcheries have been just a, you know, kind of a sacred responsibility to maintaining the salmon and other species that travel through the river system. And it has appeared that the work that the Corps has been doing on the hatcheries has slowed down or stopped. And is there a strategy for the Corps to say they're not going to continue this partnership that has been so important to the economy and the culture of the Northwest?

I'm not aware of any particular strategy, Senator Merkley. I'll defer to General Graham on the latest on that project.

Senator Merkley, thank you for that question. Absolutely not. But where we have fallen behind is the capital reinvestment of those hatcheries. I took a look at what the Portland District's doing on the four hatcheries that it's got on the Willamette. We think that it's probably about $160 million to recapitalize those facilities. And that is where we need to go. We're thankful for the roughly $9.4 million that we received in the latest appropriations to work on Cole River, and we will put that money to good use to design how to replumb that facility. But there's an as I mentioned, there's $160 million of backlog that we haven't been investing in them, and it's time to capitally reinvest in those facilities.

Well, thank you very much, Lieutenant General. And when I asked in September, you shared that you had ranked after consultation the hatcheries as a C-minus or D at most locations and indicated a desire to establish a long-term plan to reinvest in those hatcheries. Is that plan currently under development? Because I thought that sounded like a very good idea when you suggested it in September.

Senator, that plan is first step on any of that plan is make sure that we truly understand the state of the facilities that we've got so that we can put a good cost estimate together. And talking with the Portland District, that's underway.

Well, if we need to formalize that in some way, I'll be happy to work with you because I think the hatcheries are suffering. And Cole River is such a critical one, but it's only one of many, many hatcheries that have been part of sustaining the fish on these multiple rivers. So I want to really highlight that and continue to work with you all on that. I want to turn to the WRDA 22 authorized study to examine dredging in different regions across the country. And dredging is particularly important to our many harbors on the West Coast, our many riverways. It's very important to our recreational fishing, to our commercial fishing, to commercial traffic up and down the Columbia. And that study, we don't have it. How do we get this study?

Senator Merkley, I will push to General Graham in just a moment to give you a response on the study, but I just want to reiterate something you've said here. Dredging is the lifeblood of the American economy. You might even I've been using an analogy lately with all the winter storms, which is particularly appropriate today with Senator Whitehouse stuck in Rhode Island, but our dredging capacity is really the, you know, it provides the same function to our economy that snowplows provide when we're trapped under inches of snow. We clear the roads, we can get back to work. It's the same thing with our economy at a much larger scale. It's how we it's the secret to our economy, it's how we project economic power across the globe, and it's critically important. I will let General Graham answer the specific question on the Columbia River.

Senator Merkley, thank you for that. Section 8205 of WRDA 2022 asked for that report. That report is still under administrative review. And as the Assistant Secretary spoke to, we'll work diligently to get that information over to you. We are looking to one point would be to look at dredging. We look at right now regionally, not so much as the Columbia system. Under building infrastructure not paperwork, we're going to look to harness the power of we're the largest purchaser of dredging services in the nation and we're looking to leverage that to get a better deal for the American people, to include the many industries on the Columbia River.

Thank you, General. My time is up, but in both the case of this dredging study and in the case of the report that was required for the impacts of deauthorizing hydropower in the Willamette Valley, I just had the utilities just came in the people's utilities came in yesterday and said, we really want to get that report because it appears that some of these smaller operations are get a little bit of hydropower but at a very, very elevated cost, way above other ways. But they don't know for sure, that's what this report was all about. Both of these reports in September, we were told, is under administrative review, the words you just used, which means it's stuck at OMB. It's just essential in a democratic republic that when the reports are done, I understand a short look at them and sometimes some corrections, but to just have them to die because somebody somewhere has never gotten to them or somebody somewhere doesn't like something that's in the report. We need to have the information flow, and if the information is inaccurate, it creates a conversation, we bring in other experts. But please commit both of you to getting those reports out of OMB and delivering them. It's not acceptable in a democracy to have these authorized and funded by law done, completed, the hard work that your team has done, General, that your team has done, Assistant Secretary. Get us the reports, please.

Senator Merkley, we'll be happy to press on those reports. It is important that we coordinate across the interagency. That doesn't mean it should be indefinitely delayed as you point out, but there is value to making sure we have a coordinated response and that's what these administrative reviews are often for. And I apologize for the delay and we'll get to get you a status update on both of those.

Thank you.

Senator Ricketts.

Thank you, Chairman Capito and Ranking Member Whitehouse for hosting today's hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for being here. Very much appreciate it. And I certainly, Assistant Secretary Telle, applaud the whole building infrastructure not paperwork, process improvement. You know from our conversations I'm a big believer in process improvement and it's a great step toward accelerating project delivery. And this is of course necessary as we look to infrastructure projects that will prevent future flood events. One of those flood events we discussed when we talked in September of last year can have devastating impacts. In 2019, we had the was widespread flooding in state history in Nebraska. During that flood, four people lost their lives and it cost Nebraska more than $3 billion. Our farmers and ranchers lost a billion dollars of that. And as we look to improve the Corps and its authorized programs, preventing loss of life should be the top priority. It's concerning that it is currently not being treated that way. In the 1979 Missouri River Master Manual, flood control was clearly prioritized over the Corps' other authorized purposes. In this document, the purposes were explicitly ranked. Following lawsuits filed by environmental groups relating to the Endangered Species Act, the Corps created the 2004 Master Manual to comply with the Minnesota court order. This amended the 1979 Master Manual to reverse the Corps' historical flood control water management practices and put all project purposes on the same level as flood control to comply with the Endangered Species Act. As a result, farmers and landowners saw disastrous flooding along the Missouri River and filed the Ideker Farms versus United States in 2014. This case claimed that the Corps' 2004 policy shift led to recurrent flooding on their land between 2007 and 2014. In 2018, the court found the Corps was responsible for recurrent flooding due to its 2004 decision to deprioritize flood control. Despite that ruling, the current Master Manual, last updated in 2018, is still governing the Corps' operations on the Missouri River and still leaves the authorized project purposes unranked. General Graham, does the Corps currently treat the eight identified authorized project purposes as equal priorities?

Senator Ricketts, no. Life health safety is number one.

So when I asked you last year, you gave that similar response. How do you prioritize flood control and life and property in your when your Master Manual has the authorized project purposes are all ranked equally the same?

Senator, project by project as those are formulated, life health safety is always our top priority.

So even though you don't have it written down in the manual, it's kind of an unwritten rule or it's an unwritten thing that your team knows that if it involves life and property, that gets ranked above the Endangered Species Act?

Life health safety is always our number one priority. Senator, I'll get back to you on what how we've codified that in our procedures, but life health safety is number one.

All right. So Assistant Secretary Telle, to protect life and property from flooding, would you say that Congress needs to act to make flood control supersede species protection?

Senator Ricketts, I'm not in a position to make that assertion today. It certainly seems that President Trump has prioritized protecting human life and human prosperity. I will say thank you, I would say on the building infrastructure not paperwork initiatives, I would say thank you because you were part of the inspiration for that given your run as Governor of Nebraska and everything that you did there. And I'll also say related to the topic you're asking about, I'm in the process of planning a trip along the entire Missouri River this spring. This is something that I want to take a close look at so that I can understand and help inform General Graham's process. But I absolutely think that protecting life is it's always our number one priority in everything that we do.

Well, I laid out the timeline of what I think the legal cases has happened here. And so I would certainly appreciate an opportunity and certainly when you're along the Missouri River, let me know if I can make it, I'd love to be there with you to talk about this because I think it really has created a problem based upon the legal history of what's happened here. And this is obviously where I think that Congress does need to step in. According to a congressional briefing with the Corps and U.S. Wildlife Service last year, the pallid sturgeon has demonstrated measurable recovery metrics. However, these updated metrics have not been made publicly available, limiting transparency and preventing meaningful review. Assistant Secretary Telle, can you work with me and make a commitment to work with Fish and Wildlife Service to make these metrics public and provide them so that we can have more transparency?

Senator Ricketts, absolutely. This is something we're already hard at work on. Tim Petty and with National Marine Fisheries Service as well as our friends at Fish and Wildlife Service, we've been raising these types of issues at what's called the Water Subcabinet. And I think we have we're in a position under this administration to have a very practical view of these types of issues and solve them globally at the Washington, D.C. headquarters level so that we can provide certainty across the country for issues like this one where we're trying to do our best to follow the laws as they relate to our environment while also allowing the type of activities that benefit humanity to continue.

I see my time has expired and with the Chairman's indulgence, I'm just going to hit upon a couple of points real quickly. One of the things that I started when I was Governor was the Perkins County Canal. This is a canal that would bring water from Colorado to Nebraska. It's under a compact that we have with Colorado dates back to 1926 and I look forward to working with the Corps as we push forward on this project, but it's a very important project to ensure that our folks in Nebraska, whether it's our water users, regular consumers or our farmers and ranchers have access to water. So I look forward to working with you on that. And then finally also, one of the big issues we have occasionally is ice jams. And one of the things I think we need to address and I'll follow up on this later is releasing water out of Gavins Point Dam to be able to address some of these ice flows. Sioux City, Iowa, for example, had its power generation curtailed in 2022 when we had a snowstorm there, Winter Storm Elliott. So again, I think the Ranking Member probably is feeling a little of that pain right now. But just I want to highlight that one of the alternatives that people always throw out there is, hey, well we can use explosives to try and break up the ice packs. Nobody wants use explosives on any of our river systems to break up the ice packs, so please help work with us on other solutions so that we don't have this ice jam problems. And with that, Chairman Capito, thank you.

Thank you. Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think before I get to my first question, I want to make a statement that's going to echo the theme and some concerns from a number of my colleagues on this committee. So let me start by being California specific and say that the Army Corps process for funding and implementing projects in California is fundamentally broken. And I can't support a WRDA bill without seeing some real changes. Let me review what's happened with California's highest priority Army Corps projects just within this last year. Sacramento has among the highest flood risk of any major city in America. The Army Corps gets it. 86 percent of its homes are at risk. Yet nevertheless, over $126 million was stripped out of the Corps' fiscal year 2025 work plan as part of the political transfer of over $250 million from states that have elected Democratic leadership to states with Republican leadership. That's right, a shift from blue states to red states. On October 17 of last year, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget announced that over $11 billion in Corps funding for projects in blue states, including California, had been paused. We understand the Corps' district commanders were told which projects were frozen, but were also directed not to inform the local project sponsors or the public. So there's great uncertainty over where California projects are being frozen and for how long. What we do know is that many critical projects in California are also facing arbitrary obstacles. For the San Francisco Waterfront project, we're hearing the Corps will no longer approve a Chief's Report that had been scheduled for this year. Work on the Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration project has stopped because the Corps is simply no longer processing the city's request for a project cost increase even though Lieutenant General Graham publicly committed that the requested cost increase would be administratively approved in time for this year's WRDA just a few months ago. And a recycled water pipeline in Los Angeles County has been stalled for over three months now by a new policy requiring the Assistant Secretary's office to review project cooperative agreements that have already been signed off on by the Corps district and the division. So Madam Chair, how can I possibly support a business as usual WRDA when so many critical California projects are either arbitrarily stopped, stalled, or facing fundamental uncertainty whether they'll still have funding going forward? To support a WRDA bill, I believe we need some certainty that when Congress has enacted and the President has signed into law specific funding amounts for specific projects, these projects cannot simply be indefinitely frozen or stalled. Now that being said, let me jump into my first question. General Graham, I want to ask you about the San Francisco Waterfront Coastal Flood Study, which is a critical project to protect downtown San Francisco from potentially severe coastal flooding. The study's on the verge of completion after substantial local expenditures per the Corps' long-standing schedule and has been executed in full accordance with existing Corps guidance. Yet in the late stages of a mature study, the new 35 percent design requirement, which you and I discussed at a recent hearing last September, it presents major challenges for the authorization and advancement of this important project. If the Port of San Francisco is willing to work with you to forecast and control costs through future cost-shared work, what can the Corps do to complete the Chief's Report on schedule this year?

Senator Padilla, thank you for that question. I've spent time walking the Embarcadero, if I said that correctly, meeting with the port over the years and you're correct, that is the path that we had gone down. We'd gone down this path of looking at these very complicated projects in many areas, Coastal Texas, the harbor in New York City, and what we have come up with are multi-multi-multi-billion dollar projects. And the update I got this week on where San Francisco Waterfront was is somewhere between $17 and $32 billion. And our construction budget every year is $2 to $3. So under building infrastructure not paperwork, we're trying to take these looks at these very long complicated projects and try to break them down into digestible pieces that we can actually get after and make San Francisco that amazing place that it is safer. So Senator, you have our absolute commitment that we're going to work diligently to break these projects down. But we've got to make sure that we get the engineering right and the cost estimates that we're giving you. We've been too long asking authorization from this committee when the engineering behind those cost estimates are only at 5 to 10 percent. So I asked in this case, where do we think the design maturity is in total for the San Francisco Waterfront project? It's about 10 percent. So I think the way forward is it's just such a big complicated problem. We've got great sponsors there. So Senator, our commitment to you is to keep working on ways to take a look at these broad problems and break them down into manageable pieces.

Look, and that's the beginning of what I want to hear, like what is the path forward? I know some of these projects represent a big budget, a big dollar amount. And so that's why this new 35 percent requirement is it's not part of a one size fits all because not one size does fit all. So what is the path forward? We've talked offline about the Everglades authorization precedent that was set. Not saying it has to be that exact model, but there's other models that I would just love to get a commitment from the Corps on that this is how we're going to tackle those unique challenges of these bigger ticket projects that are so critical. I know my colleagues have talked about life safety. This is life safety in San Francisco.

Senator Padilla, if I may respond. I would just point you to a new process that we've developed as part of building infrastructure not paperwork to get at the exact challenge that you're identifying. We've incentivized our non-federal sponsors to build these big complex projects and then we wind up studying them for decades. And it turns out that to get them to the fidelity of engineering that's required to provide the Congress with accurate information, we may have to study them for another decade after everything changes in a community like San Francisco that's a dynamic community. The rapid process allows us to take features within a project and lift them out and design them to 35 percent maturity so that we can submit them to you in with confidence that we know what we're talking about, we know what the cost is going to be, and then get that project authorized and funded, start delivering for the American public, for your constituents, and then move on to the other features within the project rather than seeking to boil the ocean right away.

So my time is up. I just two things. I'll ask some additional follow-up questions for the record after today. But do want to register in front of my colleagues that there's been significant investment from local partners on this and other projects in California for that matter to date. So as we may pivot to a different model of breaking this down and getting to completion in a different way, I want to make sure that those initial investments are credited and not overlooked. There's value there. So with that, thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Senator Boozman.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank both of you for being here and the great work that you're doing. I want to start off and really take just a second to thank you, Secretary Telle, for the support during the Dardanelle spillway failure that nearly forced Arkansas Nuclear One offline. The incident exposed real vulnerabilities not just for navigation but for our regional grid and the 1,800 megawatts of nuclear generation that rely on stable pool levels. So again, this really was a crisis and the Corps did an excellent job of stepping in and getting that done in a timely fashion. Secretary Telle, one of the things that concerns me and I know concerns both of you is that Congress and our project sponsors continue to encounter inconsistent explanations between districts, divisions, and headquarters when it comes to project readiness and work plan prioritization. These inconsistencies slow projects and create confusion for local partners. Can you tell us about reforms that you're in the process of implementing to create a more transparent, uniform, and predictable process so that Congress and sponsors can understand how decisions are made and what is required to move a project forward?

Absolutely, Senator Boozman, and thank you for raising this point. One of the features of building infrastructure not paperwork has to do with harmonizing and making consistent the work that we do from district to district. We are very blessed that the Corps of Engineers is out in the communities of America. I believe the stat that I quote is that only 2 percent of our workforce is here in Washington, D.C. The other 98 percent is out in our communities. That's a blessing and a wonderful strength that we have. But it also means that we have to work doubly hard to make sure that we have consistency. That when a state like yours that's divided among multiple districts and you have communities that border those districts and one part of the community may have to deal with one district and another part may have to deal with the other, they ought to get the same customer service and the same level of support, the same level of transparency that they get from each district, whether they're in the Little Rock district or the Memphis district, for instance. And so this is something that I've been working on since I took this job. General Graham has been a great help to ensuring that we can have a consistent and coherent program across the enterprise. But we can't I want to make very clear that this is not trying to centralize our work here in Washington. This is about empowering our commanders, taking some of the work off their plate that we can handle at the Washington, D.C. level so that they can get after the type of work that we've been describing here today.

Mr. Secretary, many permit applicants, including state and local governments and private developers, rely on the Corps for timely review of permits and consultations. Section 214 funding agreements have been successful in Arkansas, very successful, increasing capacity elsewhere in the Corps and expediting the permitting process for critical infrastructure projects. For example, the Arkansas Department of Transportation has been able to fund a liaison to the Corps, increasing coordination, advancing key infrastructure projects. Fish and Wildlife, same same story. How do these agreements fit into your transformation of the Corps? What can we do in Congress to expand and improve these agreements where needed? And then also is that are we undergoing is that part of the hiring freeze or a hiring freeze now that's going on? Is that impacted? Because programs like this to me actually, you know, seem the way they're working in Arkansas actually are able to to expand your workforce, you know, without without cost to you, which is

Senator Boozman, you are absolutely right and this is a key part of building infrastructure not paperwork. This committee has provided us with a myriad authorities. 214 is just one of them, 203, 204, 1043. These are authorities where this committee has given us the ability to do what you said. We have this huge demand for our work, whether it's in the infrastructure part of our work or in the permitting part of our work. We have this huge demand and our districts have been incentivized in the past to hold all that work for themselves to justify in some cases to justify their existence. We have capacity out there with our non-federal sponsors, with our state and local partners, with the private sector where we if a nation we want to get after building infrastructure not paperwork, we would be foolish to not take advantage of expertise and expand our capacity beyond just what we're able to deliver. And so building infrastructure not paperwork is all about leveraging our partners and 214 is an example of that.

Very good. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank both of you again for working so hard to get us moving in the right direction.

Madam Chairman, may I I just want to touch on something that Senator Boozman's raised early in his statement. We had a situation in Dardanelle, Arkansas last August where one of the gates on the dam there got stuck in the up position. And I raise this because we our folks there at the Little Rock district for for days couldn't get that gate back down. And water was rushing through the dam and the pool behind the dam was going down. This didn't get much media attention, but Arkansas Nuclear One, which powers much of the state of Arkansas, was within hours of having to shut down because it was the water behind that dam was getting to a low level. And I just it occurred to me when this happened and I heard about it that this really is a great illustrator of the cyber the vulnerability our critical infrastructure has from cyber. And because if an nefarious actor wanted to access our critical infrastructure, this is the type of effect they could have. And I'm really proud of our team in Branson, Missouri, which is looking after our critical infrastructure. I just wanted to point to the Dardanelle, Arkansas example as something that is a lesson for us all to learn as we think about our vulnerabilities.

All right. Thank you. Senator Alsobrooks.

Thank you so much, Chair Capito, for holding this important hearing and thank you especially to our Secretary, Secretary Telle. Thank you also to General Graham for for being here today. Maryland communities depend on the Army Corps to deliver critical flood protection, ecosystem restoration, and navigation projects that Congress has authorized and funded. And so Secretary Telle, I want to talk to you because Senator Van Hollen and I sent you a letter earlier this month that outlines several Maryland priorities which we hope the administration will include in the Corps' work plan for FY 2026. This included the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration project, dredging to maintain safe navigation channels for the Port of Baltimore, and C&O Canal rewatering in Cumberland, which is key to cultural, environmental, and flood mitigation in our state. Now the Mid-Bay Ecosystem Restoration project is critical for dredge material management as Poplar Island reaches capacity and I know you understand this because you visited it. Now would you explain how the Corps' plan to ensure that funding, contracts, and construction schedules are in place so that this transition does not cause delays to the Port of Baltimore's dredging operations?

Senator Alsobrooks, you're absolutely right. Ports like the Port of Baltimore in particular, it's not just about dredging the channel to ensure that commerce can continue. It's also about having a place to deposit the dredge material that comes out of a channel that's so important like the Port of Baltimore. And you've raised Poplar Island, that's where we've been depositing that material for many years. That is a place where we get beneficial use. We get to take that dredge material and restore ecosystem there in the Chesapeake Bay. As you said, it's running out of capacity. We have to expand that capacity not just for the Chesapeake but also to make sure that the Port of Baltimore can continue to be the important terminal that it is for the Eastern Seaboard and our nation. We are ready. I believe that all is in order as it relates to that expansion. It's something that's important to me and as we develop the FY 2026 work plan, we'll absolutely keep you've been a great advocate for this and we'll absolutely keep that in mind as we work through all that.

Okay, thank you. Now

Senator Alsobrooks, if I could just add. In March, we do plan to award with the $168 million that we do have on hand, award the site one prep contract. And then we'll wait for additional funding in the work plan to come after that potentially to keep that project moving forward. But right now, as the Secretary spoke to, we are on track.

Okay, great. Great to hear. Now dredging capacity in the Mid-Atlantic is limited by aging equipment and few available vessels. So what specific investments, procurement plans, or operational strategies is the Corps implementing to ensure that navigation channels serving Baltimore remain safe, reliable, and capable of handling increased vessel traffic?

Senator Alsobrooks, thank you so much for raising this question. You've hit on a very important thing here. Our nation depends on dredging capacity, but unfortunately the way that we are acquiring that dredging capacity and contracting with our private sector partners is inefficient. Building infrastructure not paperwork is going to tackle that in a number of ways. But one of the ones that I'll highlight that I think you're hitting on here, the way that we deal with the contracting for this is that we quite often have regional contracts that don't look at the national scope and make smart decisions about how we deploy the resources nationally. We also have environmental challenges related to dredging that we haven't updated in sometimes in decades. And the way that I equate it is you know, sometimes we have these windows that we have to get in environmentally to dredge that is a small part of the year. I equate it to your spouse asking you to run errands on a Saturday and you have to go to 10 different places and you and I both live in Prince George's County, Maryland, and you have to go all the way across the Washington, D.C. metro for errand number one, you got to go back across the Washington, D.C. area metro for errand number two. Any rational person would go to the stop that's closest to them first and then the stop that's closest to that next and the stop that's closest to that next and have an efficient Saturday of errand running. But right now the way that we acquire our dredging, we're sending our dredgers all over and they're spending quite often more time in transit between our ports than they are in the ports dredging. And building infrastructure not paperwork's going to get after this in a number of ways and give us more efficient dredging that's going to benefit the Port of Baltimore, it's going to benefit ports all up and down the East Coast, in the Gulf, and on the West Coast as well.

Thank you. Now on October 17, Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, posted on X that the Democrat shutdown, this is his quote, has drained the Army Corps of Engineers' ability to manage billions of dollars in projects. He further stated that over $11 billion in lower priority projects, including projects in New York, San Francisco, Boston, and Baltimore, would be paused or considered for cancellation. ...lation. In response, my colleagues and I on October 30th sent a letter to you, Secretary Telle, urging you to defend the Corps against politically biased decision-making, and that letter remains unanswered. Our staff continues to not receive information on the affected projects or studies, and I, along with members of the Maryland delegation, sent a letter following up, requesting Maryland-specific details as these threatened cancellations impact the safety, flood protection, and economic well-being of communities across our state. And I see our time is tolling, so I want to ask two quick questions: whether the failure to respond, because I know you said transparency was important to you, communication was important to you, and whether or not you regard that as a break in that commitment, and whether or not we can have that commitment from you that we will have the answers. It's been four months, we have no answer to it yet, and we need that commitment.

Senator Alsobrooks, we had the longest shutdown in our nation's history last fall. It was very unfortunate. It caused all kinds of problems for us in the delivery of what we do. It caused General Graham all kinds of problems. It was terribly unfortunate. What I will say about projects is that we are assessing and reviewing all of our portfolio all the time. We empower our project managers, we empower our districts, our divisions, General Graham, or me to, if we see something going wrong with a project, to stop and take a look and make sure we get it back on track. This is normal and everyday process within what we do to deliver good oversight and a quality project.

Mr. Secretary, I know that I'm going to get cut off for a second here. When can we expect a response to the inquiry?

Senator Alsobrooks, we're happy to get you a response.

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

All right. Senator Blunt Rochester.

Thank you, Chair Capito, and thank you so much to the witnesses for being here. Some of my questions will probably just pick right up on my colleague. And first, I want to also say thank you for highlighting the focus on the vulnerabilities that we have with our critical infrastructure. I think that is something that we as a Congress need to pay particular attention to, and those vulnerabilities can be cyber, those vulnerabilities can be the elements, but this is really, really important to all of us. I wanted to start off by saying that during WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024, I had the opportunity to work very closely with our former chairman, Tom Carper. Chair Capito actually came to Delaware for a field hearing as well. And part of the work with Senator Carper was to authorize individual environmental structure programs for each of Delaware's three counties. And as you know, the environmental infrastructure programs support local water, wastewater, and stormwater projects in partnership with non-federal sponsors. In conversations across my state, it's becoming clear that Delaware communities are having difficulty accessing funding for these programs. So, Secretary Telle, how are you working to implement the environmental infrastructure authorities previously outlined in WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024, and what specific steps are you taking to make these projects more accessible to communities?

Senator Blunt Rochester, thank you. When it comes to the environmental infrastructure authorities and funding that Congress has provided, we are going to follow the law. I will point out that while there have been a lot of good that has come from that program in terms of supplementing local communities' water capacity, this type of project is one that has not been included in presidents' budgets, whether the president's a Republican or a Democrat. This is not something that has been prioritized in presidents' budgets. And there's a reason for that. It's because the Corps of Engineers is the greatest civil engineering entity that humanity has ever devised. There are municipal needs that are critical, and we all want clean water and wastewater in every community in America. I think the question that confronts us and it confronts me is whether or not we're going to use USACE engineering excellence on these municipal functions. I see Senator Kelly is here, and I think about NASA, the greatest space agency humanity has ever devised. We wouldn't expect NASA to be in charge of every county science fair. And I think that's where I think administrations of both parties have seen environmental infrastructure. With that said, there are needs out there that the Corps of Engineers can address. Congress gives us authority to address them and the funding to address them, and we will follow the law. Quite often, that means contracting with the same providers that a municipality would contract with to deliver that service. We don't have that inherent expertise within the Corps of Engineers, but we are happy to continue to follow the law and execute the funding that's provided by the Congress.

So, just so I make sure I'm clear, WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024, this was a priority that we talked about. And so are you saying, and when you compare, you know, NASA and a science fair, are you comparing the Corps with communities? Is that the analogy there that you're saying that municipalities, communities don't meet the standard of... I'm just confused a little bit. I thought this was an easy question, and so I'm...

No, ma'am. I probably made it more complicated than I should have. But the bottom line here is that for a long time, as administrations of both parties have racked and stacked the priorities for funding for the Corps, this type of activity has not risen to the top. This dates back decades. With that said, this has been a priority for Congress, and because it's a priority for Congress and Congress includes laws that tell us to do that, we will do it.

Well, I will tell you, I meet with our League of Local Governments, I meet with our communities. We just did a beach tour, and we have communities in Lewes, Delaware, that need to elevate sanitary pumps or, you know, we've got... And so I want to make sure we're following the intention of what we as senators and congresspeople representing our constituents are following up on, which leads me to two other questions and follow-up to Senator Alsobrooks. In October, the Corps paused the $11 billion in projects, including two from Delaware. We've been having challenges getting updates on those programs, one being Oak Orchard. I'm sure that you probably can't tell me specifically right now, but I'd love a commitment to get by next week an update on the Oak Orchard project. And also, I wanted to also confirm with you, because I know there have been these pauses and you mentioned the shutdown, are the other paused projects, are they all from both Democratic and Republican states?

Ma'am, we don't...

I would hope you don't.

...classify states as Republican or Democratic. We look at...

Well, you understand what I'm saying. Right now, unfortunately, I would hate to have to even ask this question, but unfortunately, we've actually seen where whole lists of states have been included on projects and they're only from states that represent Democratic senators. And so I just want to confirm, because I would assume you are nonpartisan, and maybe that... I would ask that you also get back to me on that question as well.

Our concern is with the protection of the American public and enabling the American economy.

And so is ours. So, lastly, I'd also just say, again, we support the work of the Army Corps. I have... my sister is an industrial engineer, my brother-in-law is a nuclear engineer, my husband was a mechanical aerospace engineer, so we understand how important engineering is and how important it is. But we also have a job to do here too. And so we want to continue to work in partnership with you to make sure our communities and our states are also taken care of, especially in this very important time. Thank you, and I yield back.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Kelly.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you both for being here. Mr. Telle, the Rio de Flag project in Flagstaff, it's designed to protect the city from flooding. We've had bad wildfires in the region. We discussed this project during your nomination hearing. It's hit the 902 limit. So for folks in the room that don't understand what that is, that means construction's on hold until the LA District completes a cost validation study, and then that study has to be reauthorized in some sort of water bill to restart construction. You know this, Mr. Telle. The non-federal sponsor has been told by the LA District that this report will be completed and submitted to Congress by May of 2026, so in about three or four months, and in time to be included in this year's water bill. So let me just start with General Graham. Is that the timeline that you're tracking for completion of the validation study?

Senator Kelly, thank you for that question. Yes, it is. The director's report is scheduled to be on my desk May of this year.

So, Secretary Telle, will you then commit to making sure that this study is submitted in time for WRDA 2026?

Senator Kelly, I believe, and I would check with the chairman, that May 2026 will be sufficient time to have that included in WRDA 2026. I would also point out, I mean, this is a project that's affected by real estate issues related to railroads, as you well know. This is an initiative that's part of our building infrastructure, not paperwork initiatives about how do we solve some of these global real estate challenges. Railroads are a big one. I think we can work with the railroad industry nationwide to have a better working relationship that'll help projects just like this one.

Well, that's great. That's good news that it'll be in time for WRDA 2026. Similar issue, the Winslow Levee project. You know, right now, the entire city of Winslow is in a floodplain, and this project, this levee system, will fix that. So let me quickly just go through the timeline here. In 2020, Congress authorized the project. In 2022, I secured the full federal match for the project. In 2024, the Arizona legislature, they stepped up and provided the full local match for the project. But, you know, once again, like the other one, this hit the 902 limit, which means construction can't start. General Graham, when do you expect that the validation study for this one, the Winslow Levee project, will be completed, and will this be in time for WRDA 2026?

Senator Kelly, direct answer: no. I don't believe that we'll be able to get the documentation for a PACR up here in that time. Let me explain that. It was authorized, and this is the behavior that we're working under building infrastructure, not paperwork. This is the behavior we're trying to prevent. It got authorized at roughly five percent design. And so shockingly, when we start to actually put the real engineering behind what it's going to take to better protect Winslow, we realize that there's more, and that more is going to be more expensive and in a different place. Acknowledge absolutely that the other challenge here is that it's a ring levee basically around the town, and so we can't just come up with, let's just do a little piece, because eventually the water will surround it. So we have to do this, the whole thing. So that behavior of asking for authorization for projects when we don't have enough engineering to give you what a good cost estimate is, I own that. And we're working hand-in-hand with the Secretary's office to fix that. We'll see if we can beat... well, I... we're not going to make it WRDA 2026, and we will make a commitment to make WRDA 2028 with the information I have.

Is there anything that the local sponsor should have done differently here? Because this is, you know, frustrating because it feels like they did everything right, and now we're in this downward spiral of...

Senator Kelly, that's on us. We own that. We have to work in hand-in-hand with the local sponsors. We'll see if there's some options where they might be able to provide funds, but to try to get this over here by the end of May, I don't believe that we're going to make it. Understand that that is a challenge for this community, that they're vulnerable, and we will continue to work with a great sense of urgency to do everything we can to offer protection.

How many projects nationwide are currently under 902 reviews?

Senator, the number I've got in my head is 29.

And what do you think that is as a percentage of all projects?

We have thousands of projects, Senator, that go on.

So it doesn't feel like a high percentage.

Every one of those is a commitment we've made to this committee, and we're not delivering on. So those are unacceptable. As part of building infrastructure, not paperwork, we are going to take a look at every one of those 902 busts to see why we've had to come back. A lot of this is going to be we got it authorized with immature engineering, but some of it is we just don't have the right team on it. So we'll take a look at that, and if that's the case, we'll move it to a different team or a different district.

Yeah, but it seems like with this one especially, it's going to be a scenario where to get reauthorized, it's going to take more time, and in that period of time, cost is going to go up, and then it's going to hit a 902 limit again, and then it's going to get reauthorized again and new engineering and cost estimates, and you wind up, yeah, you just wind up spiraling and you never get the project done.

That's the spiral of doom that the Secretary and I are working with to get the Corps out of.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The chair thanks the member from Arizona. The acting chair recognizes herself next, and gentlemen, thank you so much for being here. I have a couple questions. I'm going to start with one about algae blooms. You know, in my state of Wyoming, we struggle with algae blooms in our reservoirs. These are working reservoirs, so they support irrigation, drinking water, fisheries, and recreation. And these harmful algae blooms that we have result in costly delays for communities and recreation. So through WRDA 2024 implementation, what have you learned about preventing and responding to harmful algae blooms, especially in western reservoirs? And the question is posed to both or either of you who wishes to respond.

Senator Lummis, thank you for that question. I wish that algal blooms were only confined to the western states, but we certainly have this throughout the country. It is our large challenge to all water resource agencies, to include the Corps. I am very thankful for this committee and for Congress to give us authority to do research and development on how to prevent these algal blooms. We break those down into a couple buckets. We want to figure out how to detect them at the earliest stages possible, see what we can then do to prevent them, and then efforts to manage them. And we're looking to find solutions that are scalable for the large reservoirs out in the western states. So we have some ongoing R&D efforts in the western states, and we have some potential research opportunities in the future, pending available funding.

Do you ever work with groups like the National Science Foundation or other research-oriented government agencies to kind of double your efforts on things like algae?

Senator Lummis, we absolutely do work as a federal family on that. Secretary Telle and I are, when we leave this hearing, we're going to fly down to Mississippi. We're going to go to our large research lab in Vicksburg, Mississippi, where they're doing a lot of the cutting-edge research on this. And those researchers there are incredibly well tied in to the rest of the federal family as well as the state level.

Well, thank you. I go with God on this one. It's an important issue to address in our nation, so thanks for your attention to that. Now I want to talk a little bit about snowpack, especially this year where we're in real trouble in the Colorado River Basin and elsewhere due to a historic lack of snowfall. So, and of course, Wyoming's water supply depends heavily on snowpack and runoff forecasting. So how does the Corps utilize soil moisture and snowpack monitoring authorities to improve long-term water supply forecasting and drought preparedness? We're into, I think here, like 20 or 21 in terms of non-historically low flows into the Colorado River Basin in particular.

Senator Lummis, this is a critically important point. One of the techniques that we use, we've been using for quite some time, is called forecast-informed reservoir operations. This is where we take an existing piece of infrastructure, we look at the weather, we look at what's headed our way, and we can make risk-informed decisions about how to operate a reservoir to squeeze the most water out of it for water supply purposes or hold the most water back for flood risk mitigation purposes. I was out in California recently, and some communities in California were talking to me about how actually snowpack monitoring can be even more critical to the operation of their dam than forecast-informed reservoir operations. And the technique that's done here is to fly LiDAR when there are no snow on the mountains and then fly LiDAR with the snow on the mountains, and we are able better than ever to understand the snow that's there or the lack thereof. And so this is critically important because our infrastructure operators need as much information as they can possibly have, especially when water supply is low or floods are imminent, to make decisions that don't waste water when we need it or that don't release water when there's too much of it. And this is a place where we have a lot of work to do in terms of the R&D. We're working on it right now at the facility that General Graham just referenced. It's a place we can do a lot more of this to make better use of the infrastructure that we have. General Graham, I don't know if you have anything.

Senator Lummis, I would just add we certainly are tracking the low to no snowpack out on the plains and the upper Missouri watershed and the upper Colorado watershed are of great concern to all of us. Our water managers are watching that really closely. But thank you for that question.

Thank you for your responses, and I look forward to working with you and other federal agencies who can provide guidance, expertise, scientific research, and answers for those of us who are struggling with these important issues. And thank you, gentlemen, for being here today and for your service. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to reiterate I think what has been said by some of my colleagues earlier. We want to arrive at another WRDA reauthorization bill. They have been typically very bipartisan. But when projects are cancelled on a partisan basis, a political basis, obviously it makes it very difficult to get to agreement on a new bill if we can't assume that what we appropriate money for is actually going to be spent and utilized. Along those lines, last year the Army Corps of Engineers cancelled several flood control projects, four in particular in California and others in Washington state. It looked like what we have seen in the cancellation of energy projects and other projects, like it was targeting blue states. So let me ask you, General, what was the rationale for cancelling four California flood control projects last year?

Senator, what I'm tracking on the... there was four projects on the Sacramento River that had an excess carryover of funds. They carried them in from last year into this year. And we, when we receive money, the Corps of Engineers, we're supposed to obligate, put that money to use that year. And we hadn't done that. So those four projects, we're using that carryover money and putting that to work now.

And General, is your testimony that it just happened to be in California and Washington state, two blue states, that you found carryover funding that you could cancel, that that was not the case in any other state in the Union?

Senator, I'll defer to the Assistant Secretary for a broader discussion, but those four projects, it was carryover funding that we weren't using, or there was... we hadn't put that money to use that last year. So asking for more money when we hadn't used last year, that amount of work we wouldn't get to in this current year.

And are you going to use that money this year?

The $332 million, yes.

So those four flood control projects will go forward?

Yes.

And I have your word on that?

Yes.

Let me ask you about something you gave your word on last year, and that is the flood control project and the LA River ecosystem restoration project. Last September, I think you testified in front of a House committee on transportation and infrastructure that the PACR report, the post-authorization change report for the LA River ecosystem project, would be completed in time for WRDA 2026. Although funding for this project is congressionally appropriated and expressly designated for this specific purpose, we're now hearing that the Corps has halted work and funding for the project. I understand from your testimony earlier that you've given as a justification for reneging on the commitment from last September that real estate costs have gone up in the region. Why isn't that merely incorporated in the report? Why is that a reason for not issuing a report?

Senator Schiff, thanks. And absolutely, I am not being... we are not able to deliver on the commitment I made to Congress just back in September. We aren't going to be able to get that PACR justification document in front of this committee for WRDA 2026. I've walked that project at least twice over the last five years, and this is one of those challenging projects. It's at USACE level, at the non-federal sponsor level, that we just can't seem to get it together. Everybody understands that nobody wants a giant concrete trapezoidal ditch in their backyard, and there's so much opportunity here in downtown Los Angeles to achieve the benefits that this project is intended to pursue. The real estate costs have ballooned to $3 billion.

So, General, they didn't balloon just since September, right? We're just talking about a few months ago. So why was it possible in September, why did you believe to the point of committing to get it done in September, and now you're telling us you're not going to meet that commitment?

Are you testifying here that real estate prices changed that much since September, that that is the sole reason this is happening? Senator, real estate, that is not the sole reason, but it is a huge reason. And part of it is a larger acknowledgment on the Corps' part for these large, challenged projects. We really have to come up with a viable plan. I'm struggling to come up with a viable way forward on LA River ecosystem. It's...

Well, I guess what I'm asking you, General, and I'll be very blunt about it: is this rationale about real estate costs since September in fact the reason why this PACR report is not going to be completed, or has there been a political decision made not to go forward with this project?

The gentleman's time has expired, but you may answer.

I'd ask the General to answer.

Sir, we're not political, as you well know. My struggle with this project is just putting the pieces together to move it forward.

So you haven't been given a political instruction to cancel the project?

Sir, no.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Sullivan.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, General, thanks for being here. Thanks for your responsiveness on a whole host of issues. Mr. Secretary, I know you remember this in your confirmation hearing, the President's executive order on unleashing Alaska's extraordinary resource potential, the only state in the country that's got its own EO, a lot of it to reverse the previous administration's lockdown of Alaska. And when I asked you a question about all the different directions you guys are getting, the Corps of Engineers, you had probably one of the best answers I've ever heard in a confirmation hearing in my career. You said, "Senator, I've already tattooed that section of the EO on my heart." It was pretty good. So is that still tattooed on your heart?

Senator, I read it last night, in fact. It's...

From your heart or on a piece of paper?

Yes. No, I don't even have to use paper anymore.

Okay. Well, look, let me first compliment you guys. When I was... and now you know I'm going to go to the Juneau issue, because it's a really, really, really big issue. And it's a... I'll admit it's a challenging issue. It's actually the kind of issue that the Corps of Engineers is perfectly designed for when you look at the Corps' history, because it's literally thousands of homes being flooded every summer, probably happen again this summer, this very unique glacier outburst that happens every summer. By the way, it's incredible that no one's been killed, because I've been out there the last two summers right after this has happened, talked to the homeowners. I talked to some just a couple days ago when I was in Juneau, and it's remarkable that, particularly two summers ago, middle of the night, giant flood, freezing water all over, and nobody was killed. It's just, thank God. But a lot of property is at risk and currently at risk. So I want to compliment you initially because you guys have been very responsive. You've been responsive, Mr. Secretary. General, you and your team, when I asked you guys to work on this last year around this time, you got the Hesco barriers up quick, which by the way saved the whole community. It's kind of amazing you saw how close the floods... those Hesco barriers worked, right? We want to keep that without jinxing it, because we're probably going to need them again this summer. And then you, when the flood happened, you guys surged a... your Brigadier General, I went out there, they were there for a week. It was really, really, really good. And then I was in Juneau just last week, met with the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Secretary, I read them the text that you sent me. So I appreciated the text too. And your text said, "Hey, we're working on this. We want to make sure that it's a quicker solution than some of the things we're looking at." Now, but just lately, I will tell you, this was an article from the Juneau Independent yesterday. Madam Chair, I'd like to submit this for the record.

Without objection, so ordered.

So, and it says, "U.S. Corps of Engineers rescinds promise to pursue Lake Tap as long-term flood solution, quote, disheartening." ...pivot leaves the Juneau leaders quote a bit speechless as assessment of worst case flood scenario rises significantly. So look, a lot of times things happen where the transparency isn't as good as it should be, but now there's real frustration in the community. In December, the lake tap became as the preferred option. People thought there was momentum building, and the concern is in Juneau, right, is the Corps has pulled back on quiet without clearly explaining the change in the direction to the community. So what I want to do here is I want to be able to put that issue to rest. I know people in Juneau are literally watching this hearing. It's that big of a deal. There is a real frustration in the community, and I think with transparency, and look, I trust you guys, right? You've been on it. In a clear path forward with tangible progress on a long-term solution, can you confirm to me the Corps is fully committed to delivering a durable long-term solution to Juneau as quickly as possible? And that we're also ready for the short term, right? Because again, we're going to probably have, there's estimates of record flooding again this summer. And then finally, we're working on the WRDA bill. And I guarantee my colleagues here, because I've explained this to them on both sides of the aisle, if you guys have big asks in the WRDA bill, hey Senator, we're going to need this special thing for Juneau. I've already talked to the chairman of the committee. I think both my Democrat and Republican colleagues would be flexible with me to get you authorities that you need to really attack this, including the money, which will be significant. But on the other hand, this is like I said, this is what the Corps of Engineers was designed for. We have people who are going to be flooded every summer, up to thousands of people in the Mendenhall Valley. So can you both talk about that? I look, a lot of times, I think my colleagues know, and Madam Chair, if you'll just work with me here, I know I'm going over my time limit, but this is a really important issue. You know, I'll come and I'll rip the hell out of witnesses, doesn't matter Democrat or Republican, when I think they're not keeping their word. I don't think that's the case with you guys. You know, I have a lot of faith in you, Mr. Secretary, General, both of you. I know you've been really committed to this, but there is, and I don't fully understand why because I was just in Juneau, there is this perception that things are going dark, people are nervous again, that the Corps is not engaged. And I just want you to, A, be able to clear that up and again, once again commit to me, hey, we're going to work this, this is a challenging issue, but we're going to work it with speed, time, urgency, short term, medium term, and long term, kind of like what your text said. And I did read the text. And by the way, I appreciated the text. You knew I was going to Juneau. I told you and your team, hey, I want to be able to clarify this. So and maybe it'll take a, you know, maybe another meeting, a Zoom meeting or something with leadership in the Juneau community, me, you guys, but I kind of want to put this to rest because I know you're committed, but the transparency, and look, people get nervous, right? If it were your home getting ready to be flooded for the third summer in a row, jeez Louise, I'd be nervous, right? And so a lot of people are stressed about this, and I have committed to them, and my team and I have been working on this very diligently. I think you have too, but it would be a really good opportunity right now for both of you to kind of clear this up. And again, if you need more, like it's kind of perfect timing, we're working on WRDA right now, this is the kind of thing we can get into that bill. So Mr. Secretary, can you address that first? I know you knew I was going to ask about it, but this, and this isn't like fake news, right? This came out in the paper yesterday. People who really want to work with you are very concerned that it's kind of going dark.

The gentleman's time has expired, but I do ask the witnesses to respond.

Madam Chair, if I can just, because there's no one else here and this is important to me and my constituents.

Absolutely.

Senator Sullivan and Madam Chairman, you'll have to indulge me because I have a lot to say.

Good.

Senator Sullivan, when you and I have talked about this in the past, in private and in public, every time I've told you that I'm committed to delivering a short, medium, long-term option.

And your text said that as well.

I've been very consistent. I testified before this committee and said that very thing the last time I was here in September. That continues to be true, and I'll say it again, and I'll make sure that our entire enterprise can hear me. I'll make sure that the Pacific Oceans Division can hear me and the Alaska District can hear me. We are committed to a short, medium, and long-term solution for the challenge that faces Juneau. This is a unique challenge that's caused by glacial outburst flooding, something that, as you said, is a technical challenge.

It is.

It is very difficult. I mean, in my office in the Pentagon, I've got maps of Juneau, Alaska spread out on my table. I know how Suicide Glacier intersects with Mendenhall Glacier, and I know the flood pool at the base of Mendenhall Glacier. I know the outlet that runs on the west side of Juneau. General Graham and I talk about this almost every day. We've got some work to do because we've got to make sure that our Pacific Oceans Division and our Alaska District understand the President's executive order which you referenced. But you know, I think part of building infrastructure, not paperwork, an initiative that we rolled out this week, is about freeing our commanders and our engineers from assumptions. Sometimes we ask the question of our engineers, hey, the only laws I want you to focus on right now are the laws of physics. Then we can talk about how we can work within the authorities and the laws that this committee provides to deliver for the public. And that's the case here. We have to think about the laws of physics first because this is going to require a solution that's going to be unique. And that's why long, medium, and short, short, medium, and long is critical in this situation because long is going to be too long.

Yeah. And by the way, your text, I appreciate your text. Your text said, hey, we're looking at this hard because some of the solutions, and you said this to me in your text, I think will take too long, and I don't want it to be that long. So I appreciated that sentiment.

Yes sir, and I'll just say, I mean, just to give you an example and to give some relief to the citizens of Juneau who are worried about this, I met with the city of Fargo, North Dakota yesterday, wonderful community. Perhaps as much as any community in America, they had a flood issue in Fargo, and they worked with us to figure out a public-private partnership that was unlike any solution that we've ever experienced. I asked the mayor of Fargo, I said, hey, Fargo and Juneau, you know, similar latitudes, similar size towns, critically important. Would you mind mentoring and providing with the St. Paul District, can we go up to Juneau, can we get on a Zoom? So I just want you to know I'm trying to use some of the most creative processes that we've ever employed to help the people of Juneau. We're and I think, Senator Sullivan, we plan to be out there in the next few weeks to focus on this issue. General Kelly and I were just talking about our plans to head out there and work with General Getz and our and Colonel Palazzini out there. We've got to get on the same page across the four layers of our organization and make sure that we're delivering a reliable answer to you and the citizens of Juneau. This is a top priority for us. General Graham, I know you have other things you'd like to add.

Good. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate that. And thank you, Madam Chair, for indulging me on these long questions and answers. They're just really important and it's a really, really, really, really big issue to my constituents, and I want to give them assurance. And look, I think a lot of this is miscommunication, both within the Fed department and some of the Alaskans, but also probably within the Corps of Engineers too, and I'm glad you mentioned not just you guys headquarters here, but the Pacific Division in Hawaii and the Alaska Division in Alaska.

Senator Sullivan, if I could just add.

Yeah, please, General.

Very briefly.

Yes ma'am. Thank you. So I think this is actually where we're at right now is that we were working collaboratively. Everybody was seeing our homework, but that homework isn't done.

Okay.

So that's my sense in this. The guidance I gave the district is it's too soon to take any options off the table because what we're wrestling with most here is time. As you heard the city engineer talk yesterday, the floods might get up to 22.5 feet, and that's well over where the Hescos can go.

I know, we've got to figure that one out. It's pretty scary. Yeah, okay. Well look, I appreciate both of your commitment, your focus. I will relay this to my constituents back home. It'll be good to get everybody together. And thank you, right? I think you have been responsive, and sometimes, you know, we get communication gaps and people are nervous, and I don't blame them for being nervous, but this is a good answer, good hearing. Madam Chair, I'm sorry I went so long, but super important issue for me, and we will continue to work with you guys. The need for speed, short, medium, long term, and again, on the WRDA side, let us know if you need any authorities or money to get this going. We're drafting up the bill right now, and I'm very confident I can get stuff relating to Juneau in the legislation. So thank you again. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The chair recognizes the ranking member, Senator Whitehouse, who I understand is joining us virtually today. He is snowed in in his home state, and if you are available to us virtually, Senator Whitehouse, you are now recognized.

Thank you, Chair Lummis, I appreciate it. I just wanted to close out with my gratitude to the EPW team for allowing me to participate remotely. I'm looking out my window right now, and guess what we're having? More snow. It couldn't get better. So we'll see when I get down there, but I really appreciate everyone's courtesy. Mr. Telle, I am grateful that you're focusing more on the coastal aspect, and I would just make the observation that the additional spending and the additional work and attention on coastal supplemental spending is probably a sign that the baseline isn't up to snuff at this point, that it takes an emergency to get that attention to the coasts, and I look forward to working with you to try to get that solved for once and for all. I think you also heard an array of communications problems, particularly down our side of the aisle, so every step that you can take to improve the Army Corps' communication with us would be appreciated. Thanks very much, Madam Chair, and thank you both to Mr. Telle and to the General.

Question for you, Senator Whitehouse. Can you tell us a little bit about what you've experienced in this blizzard and how it is affecting your state?

Well, it's the biggest snowfall in Rhode Island history. There was the legendary East Coast Blizzard of '78, we've blown through that. It's, as I mentioned at the beginning, the guy who usually plows my driveway got snowed in and couldn't get his plow out. And last night, a fairly good-sized pickup truck with a plow supported by a front-end loader were unable to get through the accumulated snow. They got about, I don't know, 50 feet, 60 feet into the driveway and then that all came to an end. So it is very unusual conditions, and it just requires in order to clear things much bigger equipment than most people have. You know, a lot of people in Rhode Island expect snow and they've got a pickup and they've got a snowplow and they go around and plow things, and this is overwhelming that cohort of response. So the big equipment is what's needed and there's a lot of demand for it, obviously. A lot of side streets still not plowed. So people are getting through it because we do, but it's a very unusual situation for Rhode Island to be in. I think the Providence measure was 37 inches of snow, and then of course it blows around, so a lot of places it's more than 37 inches.

Well, we wish you and your colleagues, Senator, a speedy recovery. Mother Nature is an awesome, awesome sister, and we again thank you for participating virtually. With no further questions, I would like to thank the witnesses and all my colleagues for your participation in today's hearing. Senators who wish to submit written requests for the record have until 5:00 PM on Wednesday, March 11th to do so. The witnesses' responses to those questions are due back to the committee no later than 5:00 PM on Wednesday, March 25th and will be submitted for the record. With that, and our thanks again to the witnesses, this hearing is adjourned.