Water Resources Development Act of 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment to direct the Corps of Engineers to focus on the tasks that it can do, and should do, when it comes to section 408 reviews.
The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, enacted in the final days of the 55th Congress, first established the process we know today as a section 408 review, which I have here in my hand. The provision was intended to protect engineered structures built by the Corps that serve particular functions, such as seawalls, dikes, levees, and piers, by requiring the Corps of Engineers to authorize any requests for substantial work on these and similar assets.
Over time, however, the Corps has expanded its regulatory authority far beyond the scope of that statute. Specifically, the Corps now requires a review of any proposal for a physical modification or structure that touches a Corps project, even if it has no bearing at all on navigation or flood control. This has resulted in an overlay of additional administrative procedures, delays, and unnecessary costs.
In my district, at the Port of Houston, the Corps of Engineers is currently requiring users to go through the section 408 process, in addition to regulatory and real estate protocols, for access to dredge material placement sites. In plain English, this means that, for a small business to fill up a dump truck full of muck excavated from the bottom of a ship channel and carry it off somewhere else, they have to fully comply with the same section 408 review that would affect the 10- mile-long Galveston Seawall.
These projects, which have no direct impact on the Corps' structures, are undertaken by private users, including many small businesses from the area who are investing in their facilities, expanding commerce and exports, and providing jobs and economic benefits to our State and the Nation.
The additional time and cost as a result of an unnecessary 408 process, which is borne entirely by private entities or non-Federal partners, delays and increases the cost of these critical projects.
My amendment reinforces the original intent of the Rivers and Harbors Act by focusing the Corps on actual navigation and flood control assets, allowing them to devote their full attention and resources to important safety evaluations and the expedited review and execution of project modification requests.
Mr. Chairman, since 1775, the Army Corps of Engineers has performed critical work, ensuring the safety and reliability of America's ports and harbors. My amendment supports their mission and the good work they do by focusing their resources and attention where it belongs.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to say, for a private business entity to get muck off the bottom of a slip or a channel's having to go through this, this is what this is all about.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, one of the great honors I have here in Congress is to represent four great ports--Orange, Beaumont, Cedar Bayou, and the biggest port in Texas and one of the largest in the world: the Port of Houston.
When America's astronauts who serve in space look out of their windows down at Houston, it is probably hard for them to make out their home away from home at Johnson Space Center; but what they can't miss is the scale and the strategic importance of the Port of Houston, which is right down the road from Johnson Space Center.
The Greater Houston area is the energy production and chemical manufacturing capital of the world, and the Port of Houston's ability to ship those goods is directly responsible for billions of dollars in economic activity and for hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs in our State and across the country; but like the city of Houston itself, not all of the port's important channels, tributaries, and other navigation assets that fall under the purview of the Corps of Engineers are within the footprint of what was originally authorized by Congress.
Instead, many of these channels have been assumed for maintenance by the Corps of Engineers over the years. Each one has met the requirements of being environmentally acceptable, economically justified, and constructed in accordance with Federal permits and appropriate engineering and design standards.
This, in itself, is not a bad thing. In many cases, the construction or modification of the channels by non-Federal users has reduced the overall Federal cost and has provided for national economic benefits well before a Federal project could be accomplished. The downside is that channels which have been assumed for maintenance are not considered authorized projects. Therefore, while those channels are just as important as a federally constructed project, a channel which has been assumed for maintenance is treated quite differently from an authorized project right next to it, which can disrupt the upkeep and the operations of both.
At this point, I will read from a letter that was sent to my office by the Port of Houston that describes how this issue came to its attention and why the passage of this amendment is so essential not only for our region, but for every port in this country.
``The Corps had long identified a navigation safety problem at the intersection of the Houston Ship Channel (HSC) and Bayport channel (the `Bayport Flare') caused by its design and construction of the HSC, and promised to properly correct the safety deficiency. However, the Corps discovered that while it could construct the part of the corrective work which lay within the boundaries of the Houston Ship Channel, it could not construct the second part of the solution within the Bayport ship channel because the Bayport channel was not considered `authorized' by Congress, but only assumed for maintenance after construction. . . . The Corps agreed that the Bayport assumption of maintenance was conducted in accordance with laws providing authority to the Secretary of the Army to accept qualifying work, and that PHA met all design, environmental, and economic requirements of a channel as if it were designed and constructed by the Corps. The Bayport Flare deficiency exposed a serious shortcoming, whereby the federal government was unable to make a necessary navigation safety correction resulting from a deficient federal design because it could only fix what it has physically constructed--and not within channels it had managed and operated for decades.''
I include in the Record the full content of this letter.
Port of Houston Authority,
Houston, Texas, September 23, 2016.
ATTN: Ben Couhig,
Subject: Recommended Provision in WRDA 2016
Congressman Brian Babin,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Couhig: As Congress prepares to address the nation's water resources requirements this year, the Port of Houston Authority informed Congressman Babin of the inability of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to consistently and adequately work to construct and manage federal navigation channels, in part because authorities to do so and supporting policies are limited. As a result, the Port Authority offered the following recommendation:
Authorization of Federally Maintained Tributary Channels as Part of a
Channel System
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following: ``Projects which have been assumed for maintenance by the Secretary of the Army under any authority granted by Congress shall be considered projects authorized by Congress, and shall be planned, operated, managed, or modified in a manner consistent with authorized projects.'' The need for this language became very clear to the Port Authority as we constructed modification of the Bayport Ship Channel. The Corps had long identified a navigation safety problem at the intersection of the Houston Ship channel (HSC) and Bayport channel (the ``Bayport Flare'') caused by its design and construction of the HSC, and promised to properly correct the safety deficiency. However, the Corps discovered that while it could construct the part of the corrective work which lay within the boundaries of the Houston Ship Channel, it could not construct the second part of the solution within the Bayport ship channel because the Bayport channel was not considered ``authorized'' by Congress, but only assumed for maintenance after construction by PHA. The Corps agreed that the Bayport assumption of maintenance was conducted in accordance with laws providing authority to the Secretary of the Army to accept qualifying work, and that PHA met all design, environmental, and economic requirements of a channel as if it were designed and constructed by the Corps. The Bayport Flare deficiency exposed a serious shortcoming, whereby the federal government was unable to make a necessary navigation safety correction resulting from a deficient federal design because it could only fix what it has physically constructed--and not within channels it had managed and operated for decades.
The Houston Ship Channel system includes four tributary channels: Bayport, Barbours Cut, Jacintoport, and Greens Bayou, all of which were constructed by or operated by the Port Authority prior to federal assumption of maintenance.
Should a navigation safety problem occur on any of these channels for any reason, the federal government would be unable to restore safe navigation without Congressional action--which might not be possible under current rules.
In summary, the Corps of Engineers needs the authority to provide for safe navigation for all of its channels; this recommended provision provides for that authority.
Sincerely,
Mark Vincent.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides a solution by putting channels which have been assumed for maintenance on equal footing with those that have been authorized, thus eliminating the distinction without a difference that currently exists to streamline the process and prevent these unnecessary, bureaucratic hang-ups from delaying critical safety and navigation work where it is needed the most.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source