Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Senators say Howard Hanson Dam was ‘‘shovel-ready’’ but administration cut construction funding
Loading...
Summary
Senator Murray and subcommittee members pressed Corps officials about removal of construction funds for the Howard Hanson Dam project, which senators said had been fully authorized and funded to proceed in earlier bipartisan bills but was zeroed out in the administration's allocation plan.
Senator Murray and other members of the energy and water subcommittee told the Army Corps and administration witnesses that the Howard Hanson Dam project near Seattle is “shovel ready” and that recent allocations removed construction funding the project needs to proceed on schedule.
Murray said Congress had provided $500,000,000 in the FY2025 work plan and in both the House and Senate bills that would have allowed construction to continue as planned. “It’s clear that the Howard Hanson Dam project is shovel ready,” she said, and described the project as necessary to “ensure water reliability for over 1,000,000 people in the region.”
Lieutenant General William H. “Butch” Graham Jr. confirmed the Corps’ technical position on the project, telling the committee the work focuses on fish passage for juvenile salmon and also supports flood risk management and water supply protection in the southeastern Seattle area. When asked whether the $500,000,000 slated in FY2025 would have allowed construction to proceed on schedule, General Graham said, “Yes. That would have allowed us to keep on our current construction schedule.”
Murray raised a statutory question about Section 107 language that the committee has used to require that funding be allocated only to projects determined eligible by the Chief of Engineers; she said the administration’s spending plan appeared to have been finalized without the Corps’ required eligibility determination and charged that the Office of Management and Budget made final allocation decisions in violation of the law. The Corps’ witnesses said they provided technical input into the spending plan but did not assert that the Corps produced the final allocation.
What the hearing shows: senators emphasized that legally required eligibility determinations and the Corps’ technical recommendations should guide funding for construction projects. Agency witnesses said they provided technical recommendations and committed to working with the committee on eligibility and project timing.
No formal action was taken at the hearing; senators asked the Corps to provide documentation of recommendations and any eligibility determinations to the committee record.
