What is the status and how has progress been made regarding the organization’s efforts to transform civil works? You’ve emphasized previously that civil works transformation “is among the most important endeavors in USACE history.” From budget transformation and planning modernization to smart infrastructure asset management and improving methods of delivery, it’s a very large effort. Where does it stand today?

This is one of the most important efforts that will happen in USACE for many years to come. It will have far-reaching impacts as we find success in key areas. We are making progress in modernizing the planning process, which we refer to as the 3x3x3 rule – finish work in three years, under $3 million, and work at all three levels, from district to division to the Corps Headquarters. We have some great examples of where we have saved the time and money.

One example is Jacksonville Harbor. By applying the 3x3x3 rule, we’ve been able to shorten planning by 14 months and significantly reduce study costs. We’re seeing successes throughout the country where the Corps and our partners understand what we’re trying to do and are working toward a common goal. We want to achieve that in all areas. We know there are a few cases in which we’ve had to grant waivers over the three years or $3 million stipulations, but we’ve defined the line in the sand. We’re forcing ourselves to live by that rule and make a corporate decision at all levels if we cannot.

On the budget side it’s a little more challenging. One area of focus in budget transformation is the watershed approach. We are actively working with the interagency, Congress, and OMB [Office of Management and Budget] to establish processes to fund by watershed. There has been a lot of talk about this over the years but now is the time for progress.

In one example of the potential for successful application of the watershed approach, the Corps had completed the first two phases of a small river system project but could not fund the third phase because it didn’t meet USACE metrics. While we couldn’t fund it, there were several complementary projects where the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] saw some benefits for projects that they were funding and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife [Service] saw some benefits for projects they were funding. The Department of Health and Human Services also saw some benefits. The combined efforts of the interagency were able to fully fund completion of the project.

When you’re in a small town and you think about the federal government, you think of it as the federal government, not a collection of agencies that independently fund parts of projects. But that’s really what we did there. If we can better harness the requirements of our interagency partners, we unify our efforts as the federal government and find ways to fund projects that have multiple benefits for multiple federal agencies, which will go a long way in maximizing our dollars.

I’ve always felt that in times of crisis good things happen. Crises are painful but there’s always a silver lining.

It’s hard to get all agencies to agree, but the Corps has already made progress by identifying opportunities for only one or two departments or agencies to join efforts. I saw a great example of that in the Folsom Dam Project in Sacramento, Calif., where the Bureau of Reclamation has vested interests in the dam and the water supply, just as the Corps does. We probably wouldn’t have sufficient funding if we were to approach the project independently, but working together with funding from both of our organizations we’re now able to deliver a wonderful project.

This is a perfect example of a large scale, successful watershed approach. We need more opportunities like Folsom Dam. As a government, we must work together to maximize the limited availability of funding for our critical infrastructure. We have good people in all federal organizations who want to do the right thing, we need to establish the processes to streamline the watershed approach.

Part of the challenge is that we all champion the interests of our organization and the guidance we receive from our military, political, or congressional leaders that direct our focus. Those focus areas may conflict given the nature of our responsibilities. In that case, folks aren’t being stubborn or bureaucratic. Their responsibilities and their frames of reference differ.

If you look at the environment, that’s a great area for cooperation. As a young major serving as the executive officer to the chief of engineers, I remember being on the Kissimmee River [in south-central Florida] with him. It was very interesting. The Corps had straightened the river because that’s what people had wanted. In the Corps, we don’t build anything we’re not told to build. We must have congressional authorization and appropriation. Congress and the American people had said they wanted the river straightened.

When I returned years later, we’re putting the bends back in the river, restoring it back to natural flow. There’s great benefit to that and the country now understands and appreciates the benefits of a healthy, natural environment. But sometimes that can conflict with the work or management others are doing. We must come together frequently as federal agencies to talk about these issues and ultimately resolve them.

It’s not helpful to anyone if we extend projects for years. Part of what 3x3x3 is doing is forcing us, the Corps, to be disciplined and to try to work with the interagency as much as we can. I am optimistic, but we will need help from other government agencies.

There is some infrastructure we can no longer maintain and we need to divest it from the portfolio by either dismantling it or returning it to the locals or the state. Therein lies a significant challenge. What we’re doing currently is unsustainable.

One of the other two key areas of civil works transformation is to address our aging infrastructure. We have a lot of infrastructure built by the Corps that is now beyond its design life. This includes structures built between the 1920s and 1980s. They’re old and need maintenance and more efficient methods of operation.

Unfortunately, we cannot maintain the entirety of the infrastructure we have, about $250 billion in replacement value, because we receive too little funding to meet the need. So we must complete a portfolio review. We’re doing that now and we’re identifying infrastructure that we must retain because it is still operating for the purpose for which it was authorized. We’re also identifying other infrastructure that needs to be repurposed. There is some infrastructure we can no longer maintain and we need to divest it from the portfolio by either dismantling it or returning it to the locals or the state. Therein lies a significant challenge. What we’re doing currently is unsustainable.

There is infrastructure that states or local agencies would love to assume from the Corps, but even the process of studying and turning over the property is hugely expensive. We had one project that cost us $20 million and over 20 years before we could finally turn it over. We’re working closely with Congress and OMB and Ms. [Hon. Jo-Ellen] Darcy [assistant secretary of the Army for civil works] to see if there’s a way we can make some accommodation to ensure that the things we agree we don’t need can be divested, perhaps even under ‘as is’ conditions. We have willing takers for some of this infrastructure and need to ensure we get on with the process.

 

As you say, it’s very apparent that planning cycles need to be shortened and budget priorities must be addressed. Are you optimistic?

I’ve always felt that in times of crisis good things happen. Crises are painful but there’s always a silver lining. We just went through an environmental crisis with Hurricane Sandy and good things are happening. We went through the same thing with Hurricane Katrina though it was painful, new and good initiatives emerged.

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s first question to me was why the Corps wasn’t doing the things it should be doing. And again, there are a lot of things we should be doing, but with $60 billion worth of authorizations and very little funding to pay for those authorizations there are naturally a lot of folks frustrated with how long it’s taking to finish projects in their local areas.

We’re in the midst of a fiscal challenge now. We’ve gone through this before and probably didn’t adjust as much as we should have. But I think everybody’s on board with this one. As I said earlier, what we’re doing now is unsustainable. We have $60 billion in authorized projects and $1.5 billion to work with for construction every year. There is not enough money to continue operating and maintaining everything we currently own as well as meeting new water resource needs. At my last congressional hearing, I was pleasantly surprised at the understanding by virtually everyone. That’s not to say that members are not fighting to represent the interests of their districts, but there’s an understanding at a very senior level of the strategic consequences if we do not do something differently. The fiscal challenge we’re in is driving some of that understanding.

I am optimistic that if we work with Congress, Ms. Darcy, and OMB we can find some areas we can change for the better and improve the outlook for the long term.