So summarize that. What does that mean to you?

Well, let me ask you, is there any way for the Administration to propose, award a bill, for the highest priority projects in the country based on protection of life and property?

WAP is still as relevant now as it was when it was formed in response to the energy crisis 30 years ago.

It's wrong. It's just plain wrong. I've been here for 20 years. I've never seen anything like it.

I do want to thank the President for including $13 million in the budget request for the dredging of the Portland Harbor.

In order to sustain the program, it is critical that the WAP maintain adequate funding.

I think we have to find a way, and right now, I'll tell you, I don't know what that is.

The damage is much, much greater. There is no ability to respond to it proportionately. That's just a fact.

Our harbors are decrepit.

You know, it's only so long that you can tolerate paying this money and not getting back adequate services.

Our ports are so far behind in infrastructure that it's scary.

Every $1 invested in flood control since 1928 has prevented more than $7 in damages when adjusted for inflation.

But if it is not safe and if we cannot do anything with the fuel other than store it next to a reactor, count me out.

I don't know how many people they employ. I heard it was a couple of thousand people.

If it can't operate, why fund it?

In your judgment, what would be the amount of acre-feet that these administrative changes could provide?

We are nowhere close to modern.

I think this is the number one levee need in California, and Sacramento is the capital city.