[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana, Chairman
CHET EDWARDS, Texas RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New
ED PASTOR, Arizona Jersey
MARION BERRY, Arkansas ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
STEVE ISRAEL, New York DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts KEN CALVERT, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Taunja Berquam, Joseph Levin, James Windle,
Tyler Kruzich, and Casey Pearce, Staff Assistants
________
PART 5
U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
S
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
PART 5--ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana, Chairman
CHET EDWARDS, Texas RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New
ED PASTOR, Arizona Jersey
MARION BERRY, Arkansas ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
STEVE ISRAEL, New York DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts KEN CALVERT, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Taunja Berquam, Joseph Levin, James Windle,
Tyler Kruzich, and Casey Pearce, Staff Assistants
________
PART 5
U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
S
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-742 WASHINGTON : 2010
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington JERRY LEWIS, California
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
NITA M. LOWEY, New York JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut Jersey
JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
ED PASTOR, Arizona TOM LATHAM, Iowa
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
CHET EDWARDS, Texas JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island KAY GRANGER, Texas
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
SAM FARR, California MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois
JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida
CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
ALLEN BOYD, Florida JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey KEN CALVERT, California
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia JO BONNER, Alabama
MARION BERRY, Arkansas STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BARBARA LEE, California TOM COLE, Oklahoma
ADAM SCHIFF, California
MICHAEL HONDA, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
TIM RYAN, Ohio
C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
Maryland
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania
Beverly Pheto, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2011
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, February 24, 2010.
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WITNESSES
JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS
LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT VAN ANTWERP, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM GRISOLI, DEPUTY COMMANDING GENERAL, CIVIL &
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
GARY A. LOEW, CHIEF, CIVIL WORKS PROGRAMS INTEGRATION DIVISION, U.S.
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Mr. Pastor. Good afternoon. We have before us today the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Jo-Ellen
Darcy. This is Ms. Darcy's first appearance before the
subcommittee and we welcome you. But you have already provided
us with much assistance and we look forward to continuing to
work with you. And today we have the Chief of the Engineers,
who is a Lieutenant General. You have been with us now, what,
at least a couple years.
General Van Antwerp. It is my third year.
Mr. Pastor. Third year. And good to see you Major General
William Grisoli. And Gary Loew. Where is Gary? Oh, there's
Gary. Good to see you, Gary. They are here today to present the
administration's budget request for the Corps of Engineers. I
would also like to introduce Marie Vanderpool. Where is Marie?
There is Marie. Marie has joined us this year from the Corps'
district office in Fort Worth. That ought to make you happy,
Chet.
Mr. Edwards. Absolutely.
Mr. Pastor. And we are very happy to have her. As you know,
every year we have someone as a liaison, and they do great work
for us every year as we prepare the budget. So we want to thank
you and we look forward to working with you, because we look to
her for guidance and recommendations.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Corps program
totals $4.9 billion, a reduction of $506 million from the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level. As with most budgets for the
Corps of Engineers, past budgets, this budget continues to
disappoint us. I understand that the administration has made
difficult choices in a constrained fiscal environment, but
providing adequate and efficient navigation channels and flood
control to the Nation are vital to our economy and also are a
factor in maintaining and adding jobs.
Ms. Darcy, I will be interested today in hearing your
defense of the choices made in the Corps' fiscal year 2011
budget request, fiscal year 2010 execution and the overall
Corps management. Ms. Darcy, I would ask your assistance in
ensuring that the hearing record, the questions for the record
and any supporting information requested by the subcommittee be
delivered in final form to the subcommittee no later than 4
weeks from the time you receive them, and that is so that we
can make informed decisions. Members who have additional
questions for the record will have until close of business
tomorrow to provide them to the subcommittee office.
With these opening comments, I would like to yield to the
committee's ranking member for any opening comments that he may
have.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure to be serving with you again and all members of the
committee and the great staff that makes us look good. We
appreciate it. I would like to add my welcome to Secretary
Darcy as she attends her first hearing before the subcommittee.
You know the Hill pretty well and I think you know that
traditionally and historically members of this committee love
the Army Corps and obviously will learn to hold you in
affection as well. And to General Van Antwerp and your
colleagues, thank you very much for being here.
I would also like to take this opportunity, I am sure I do
it on behalf of the whole committee, to thank the men and women
of the Corps for their hard work both here and overseas. They
serve, you serve, in some of the most difficult and dangerous
places in the world and I don't think you get enough
recognition. Recently in Haiti, providing relief and doing all
sorts of things to rebuild the harbor and providing some pretty
basic necessities, and your continued work in Afghanistan; a
lot of work has been going on recently in Iraq. I think a
figure is close to 10,000 civilians in the Army Corps, correct
me if I am wrong, have spent some time in Iraq and Afghanistan
over the last 7 or 8 years, and we are highly appreciative of
that service and that sacrifice. And that is done voluntarily.
While we have a volunteer military, not all those who work for
the Corps do have to volunteer, but 10,000 I think have and we
certainly congratulate them.
I just wanted to take a moment before we begin to pay
tribute to one of your own, Colonel John O'Dowd, who passed
away on January 21st, a son of New Jersey. Colonel O'Dowd was
the New York District Commander from 2001 to 2004 and had a
long and distinguished career serving our country at home and
abroad, and he did it at a time in the New York-New Jersey
region in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. I for one will
never forget the work of the Corps and a lot of other great
people and his leadership in that regard. We were sorry to hear
about his sudden death, and please know that our thoughts and
prayers go with his family and to the Corps family as well. He
will be surely missed.
Mr. Chairman, my constituents are united in one thing: We
have to stop spending so much of their money here in
Washington. With ballooning deficits and continued
unemployment, they want to keep more of their money at home.
But when Congress does spend their money, they assume that it
will be spent wisely and that whatever is spent can be
considered to be a sound long-term investment, and I think that
is what the Corps is all about. And that applies whether it is
regular appropriations or stimulus.
When I look over the administration's request for our
subcommittee's consideration, major cuts are proposed for water
programs. Your budget request is cut, as the chairman said,
over $500 million from last year, your work to keep our
waterways open and our defenses against flooding strong is
critically important. Past investments and projects have shown
their value many fold.
Strangely, among your major program lines only aquatic
restoration has increased. Navigation funding, however, is cut
by nearly 8 percent, flood protection by almost 17 percent. Is
the condition of our navigation system strong enough to justify
this? Are our cities and homes so safe from future flooding
that we can actually take away funding in order to fund other
environmental projects? I am sure we will explore some of these
issues this afternoon.
A month ago a lock gate failed at Greenup. I know Greenup
is in Kentucky, but that failure closed down the Ohio River,
correct me if I am wrong, that navigation system for 3 or 4
days. And that type of situation could happen across the
system, unless we provide significant new funding for our
navigation system, one estimate is that 80 percent of our locks
will be obsolete in another 10 years. I don't think that
cutting navigation funds by nearly 8 percent makes much sense.
Madam Secretary, General, the Office of Management and
Budget obviously controls your lives and to some extent ours.
OMB should be helping you solve some of these problems. While I
support smarter and smaller budgets overall, I have serious
concerns about some of the priorities expressed in the
documents before us. I hope we can have a constructive
discussion today about the real analytical work that went into
these documents.
I thank you, Mr. Pastor, for the time and happy to yield
back.
Mr. Pastor. Thank you very much, Rodney. We will take 5
minutes for questions, and we will keep time more or less
within the 5. And so before we ask questions we will have the
opening statement from Ms. Darcy. And as you know we have a
written statement, so we will submit that for the record, and
you may continue.
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
present the President's budget for the Civil Works Program of
the Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2011. With me today
are Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp, Chief of Engineers
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Major General Bill
Grisoli, who is the Deputy Commander for Civil and Emergency
Operations, and Gary Loew, who is the Chief of the Civil Works
Program's Integration Division. I will summarize my written
statement and ask that my full statement be included in the
record.
The fiscal year 2011 President's budget for the Civil Works
Program is $4,939,000,000. The budget supports four principal
objectives: Funding construction of the highest performing
water resources infrastructure investments that will provide
the best return from a national perspective; supporting the
Nation's navigation network by funding capital development
achievable within current revenues; advancing aquatic ecosystem
restoration efforts and continuing to meet the requirements of
the Endangered Species Act; and emphasizing critical
maintenance and operational reliability of the existing civil
works infrastructure.
The budget focuses funding primarily on three main Civil
Works Program areas: commercial navigation, flood and coastal
storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The
budget also supports hydropower, recreation, environmental
stewardship, and water supply services at existing resources
projects owned or operated by the Corps.
Finally, the budget provides for protection of the Nation's
regulated waters and wetlands, cleanup of sites contaminated as
a result of the Nation's early efforts to develop atomic
weapons, and emergency preparedness and training.
In keeping with President Obama's commitment to limit the
overall level of nonsecurity discretionary spending, the level
of funding and the 2011 civil works budget is a reduction from
both the 2010 budget and the 2010 appropriations. However, the
2011 funding level reflects a practical, effective, and a sound
use of the Nation's financial resources.
The Army continues to apply objective performance
guidelines to many competing civil works construction projects
in order to establish priorities among them and to guide the
allocation of funds to high performing ongoing projects and
high performing new construction starts. These guidelines
emphasize investments that provide the best return from a
national perspective and achieving economic, environmental, and
public safety objectives.
The budget includes two construction new starts and several
new initiatives. One of the construction new starts is the
Louisiana Coastal Area Program, which will provide funding for
the construction of projects coming out of the study by the
same name, after they have favorably completed the
Administration review. The other construction new start is a
nonstructural flood damage reduction program in Onion Creek,
Texas.
Within the Operation and Maintenance Program there is
funding for a new global change sustainability program to
assess the impacts of climate change on Civil Works projects.
Understanding those impacts will enable the Corps to identify
operational and other modifications to anticipate and to
respond to climate change.
Last year, the Administration proposed legislation for a
new user fee to increase revenue in the Inland Waterway Trust
Fund, and that proposal remains available for consideration by
Congress in support of the 2011 budget. The Army continues to
work in partnership with the inland waterway stakeholders to
identify priorities and an effective funding stream for inland
waterway construction and rehabilitation for the next 20 years,
which could be made possible by enactment of a new funding
mechanism.
The budget provides $180 million for the South Florida
Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Program, which includes
funding for continued construction of five significant
restoration projects: Picayune Strand, Site One Impoundment,
Indian River Lagoon South, Kissimmee River, and the C-111
project.
The budget also supports work on other major ecosystem
initiatives, in part through Federal interagency working groups
headed by the Council on Environmental Quality. The budget
includes a total of $52 million for one such effort, which is
the California Bay Delta restoration.
Within the ongoing Cultural Resources Program, $3 million
is included to continue the Veterans Curation Project, which
was initially funded through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act and recently received the Annual Chairman's
Award from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The
Veterans Curation Project supports small curation laboratories
in Augusta, Georgia; St. Louis, Missouri; and here in
Washington, D.C., three cities with high populations of
recently returning and wounded veterans. The veterans are hired
into temporary positions and receive on-the-job training in
curation of some of the backlog of archeological and historic
properties that have come into the Corps' possession over the
years. This is an innovative approach to supporting returning
and disabled veterans of all branches of military service with
jobs in training and a variety of technical skills with broad
applicability while benefiting the Civil Works Program. I spoke
at the opening of the lab in Augusta and I was moved by the
stories of how this program has given hope to our recovering
veterans.
In conclusion, this is a frugal budget that reflects the
priorities of a nation that is both at war and successfully
navigating its way out of economic upheaval. While this budget
does not fund all of the good things that the Corps of
Engineers is capable of doing, it will support very important
investments that will yield long-term returns for the Nation's
citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support the 2011 budget of the
Army Civil Works Program. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Darcy follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.006
Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Ms. Darcy. General.
General Van Antwerp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members of the subcommittee. It is a real honor
to be before you today. If you wouldn't mind, I would like to
make some introductions of this row that is right behind me
because we brought all of our division commanders today. If you
are wondering who is running the Corps we have got 36,000 great
commanders out there, so we are in good hands even though all
these folks are here. Some of this is their education. I will
start over here on your left, my right.
This is Duke DeLuca. He is with the North Atlantic Division
out of New York City. Next to him is Rock Donahue. Rock is out
of the South Pacific Division in San Francisco. This is General
Mike Walsh. He is out of the Mississippi Valley Division in
Vicksburg, Mississippi. Next to him is John McMahon from the
Northwest Division out in Portland, Oregon. And then of course
Steve Stockton, who needs no introduction by anybody.
I will start over here with Tony. Well, all the way over.
Gene Ban is representing the Pacific Ocean Division. His
commander is in Japan today, hosting a meeting. So Gene, nice
to have you with us. This is Tony Funkhouser. He is the
Commander of the Southwest Division out of Dallas. Next is Todd
Semonite, Commander of the South Atlantic Division out of
Atlanta, Georgia. And General John Peabody, Lakes and Rivers
Division. He is our Asian carp expert. It is great to be with
you here today.
This budget is a performance-based budget. It makes the
best use of available funds through a focus on projects and
activities that provide the highest returns, both economic and
environmental, and it makes the best investment we can and it
really addresses significant risk where human safety comes in.
The budget funds 99 construction projects, including four
in the Mississippi River and Tributaries Account. There are 10
dam safety assurance and seepage control and static instability
correction projects. You might ask if were there more that
could be done. These 10 all have the studies and the designs
done. That is as many dam safety projects as we had at this
point to be ready to move forward. There are 20 projects that
address significant risk to human safety, and then 69 other
projects.
This budget supports restoration of nationally and
regionally significant aquatic systems with emphasis on the
Florida Everglades, Louisiana coastal area, and Hamilton Air
Field in California, which is in the San Francisco Bay region.
Also the budget supports the Columbia River and Missouri River
fish projects to support the continued operation of the Corps
of Engineers' multi-purpose projects.
As soon as the Corps constructs a project our attention has
to turn to operation and maintenance. Generally with periodic
maintenance, we can operate our facilities for many years. I
might just give you one point of reference. Our 241 locks in
the Corps of Engineers have an average age of 58.3 years old.
So that is part of the challenge. Most of those had a design
life of around 50 years, but they can go a long time if we
properly maintain them. This budget supports our continued
stewardship in this area.
The Operation and Maintenance Program for fiscal year 2011
includes $2.36 billion and an additional $153 million in the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Account.
We support the President's commitment to continued sound
development and management of the Nation's water and related
land resources. The way in which we manage our water resources
can improve the quality of life for citizens. We found that
even in Haiti one of the most important things early on is to
get water back to the people and properly do that.
The Corps of Engineers personnel from across the Nation
continue to respond to calls for help both domestically and
internationally. As was mentioned, we have had almost 10,000
civilians deployed since we started Iraq and Afghanistan, and I
will add another piece, Katrina. In those three areas, 10,000
people deployed. We currently have almost 800 people deployed
into Afghanistan.
I especially want to recognize those many, I call them
expeditionary, they are both civilians and soldiers, that
really provide this engineering expertise all over the world.
Today we are in 34 countries around the world. The unsung
efforts of these patriotic men and women contribute greatly
toward this Nation's goals and restoring the economy, security,
and quality of life for everyone.
In closing, the Corps of Engineers is committed to staying
at the leading edge of service to the Nation. We are committed
to change that ensures an open, transparent and performance-
based Civil Works Program.
Sir, thank you for the opportunity comment and I look
forward to your questions.
[The statement of General Van Antwerp follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.011
Mr. Pastor. Thank you, General, for your testimony. And I,
as well as all my colleagues here, we also want to thank the
patriots, the men and women who serve the Corps of Engineers,
for the fine work they do regardless of where they are at,
those in Iraq or Afghanistan, Katrina and other parts of our
great country.
Madam Secretary, one of the concerns I have is if the
budget request, if enacted as requested, I asked the staff what
would be the preliminary result. And they have told me that it
would be either a suspension or a termination of more than 350
studies or projects that are ongoing currently with the Corps.
And that caused me to think of what would be the resulting jobs
that would be eliminated, terminated, and what it would do to
just the economic impact it would have in those communities
where these projects would have to be delayed or terminated.
And I ask that question and have that concern. Because as you
know probably if there is one mantra that unites Republicans
and Democrats, it's job creation and the unemployment rate that
we face. And so I would ask you how would you ask us to defend
this budget request, if enacted, when we know that that would
be one of the major consequences of this budget.
Ms. Darcy. Mr. Pastor, I think that as we described the
budget, it is a frugal budget. It is never as much as anyone
wants, but we are going to do the best that we can to work
within it to retain as many jobs as possible. We can get back
to you with the numbers, as to what the actual job impact would
be. We have not done that analysis about what the impact would
be of those 300 odd studies or projects that you said would not
be funded. I don't know that answer. But I do know that we are
going to do all that we can to make sure that these dollars are
spent wisely and efficiently and in the best way that we can to
retain the jobs that we have and to make those dollars go as
far as we can with job creation.
Mr. Pastor. Well, one thing I learned from law school was
that reasonable people will differ. And I don't know if I am
going to ask you to take the time and energy to determine the
total job loss, but it is a concern that at least I have, and I
imagine, as I heard from Rodney, it is a concern I guess a lot
of the members have. And so we feel that under the
circumstances, we understand and we are all going to do our
best; but in developing priorities it is all in the eye of the
beholder in terms of what is best for these times. Obviously
your people have looked at it and determined what you think.
But collectively I think we have a responsibility here as a
subcommittee to look at what your priorities are. And maybe if
we think that there are other ways that we can maintain the job
force that we have or if there is other ways to spend the
money, obviously I think that is at the discretion of this
group. But we will work with you, and hopefully together we
will meet the goals of the administration and also the concerns
that the members have of the subcommittee. But we look forward
to working with you. I just wanted you to highlight some of the
concerns we have, because obviously these are difficult times.
But by both of us working together with a group of members here
we can probably develop a bill that will be helpful to America,
at the same time create jobs or maintain jobs, employment and
assist the economic welfare of our country.
Rodney.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is awfully quiet in here, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity. Madam Secretary and
General Van Antwerp, both of you, if you care to respond. The
Corps received I think $4.6 billion under the Recovery Act, a/
k/a stimulus. As of January 22nd the Corps had only obligated,
I think, 62 percent of that amount. I realize that the Corps
didn't receive its final allocations from OMB until nearly May,
but I think we had all hoped for of all the agencies, the Army
Corps, the military model, the ``can do'' group, the shovel
ready team, could have perhaps maybe executed some of these
projects in a more expeditious way.
Can you give members of the committee some insight into the
schedule for obligating, where we're going relative to
expenditures? Maybe tell us how much money has actually been
spent, how much has been obligated and where we are going here.
We are counting on you. We support you.
Ms. Darcy. As you said, the Corps received $4.6 billion
under the stimulus program. To date we have obligated $3
billion of that $4.6 billion. We are on track. Our goal is to
obligate 80 percent by the end of March. We are on target to
meet that goal. We have 830 projects. We have already completed
71 of those projects with our ARRA funding.
As I say, we are on track. We have until September to
obligate all of it. We will obligate 80 percent by the end of
March. We have completed projects. We have over 3,000 contracts
under contract right now. Through our contracting authority, 74
percent of our contracts have gone to small businesses. 20
percent of those have gone to disadvantaged businesses. Another
15 percent have gone to minority-owned businesses. One thing at
the Corps, we have a lot of small projects. We don't have a
contract out there that is more than $50 million. Most of them
are much smaller than that. We have been able to generate a
great number of contracts and individual work packages
throughout the Corps, throughout all of our mission areas,
whether it be flood control or navigation for example. Across
all of the mission areas of the Corps we have been able to fund
projects with the stimulus money.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Your response is pretty comprehensive. I
want to compliment you. I don't mean in any way to be
solicitous. It is a good solid response. First of all, let me
commend you, I am sure all committee members do, for what you
are doing to make sure that when those who are veterans come
back, that they have jobs. When people come into my office with
their hat in their hand, I say what are you doing to hire
veterans before you ask me to do something on your behalf. Let
me commend you on the veterans project, and I think we ought to
promote whatever we can do for those that have served us.
The numbers, the employment numbers, as you are aware, on
the Recovery Act and stimulus are somewhat elusive. And I don't
mean this in any political way, but I think it is important for
people to sort of have some reassurance that there are actually
some private sector jobs being produced out there. You gave me
a great response. If there is some way to put maybe a little
more meat on the bones, I think it probably would be
beneficial.
Ms. Darcy. In the most recent quarter of reporting, sir,
our program generated 6,047 jobs.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. You didn't know I was going to ask that
question.
Ms. Darcy. Out of full disclosure, yesterday I was in front
of Congressman Oberstar's committee on the implementation of
ARRA.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Good. I think anybody who comes before
Appropriations, any committee these days, would like to have
some reassurance that we get as many private sector jobs out
there as possible, and you touch a lot of that.
Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pastor. Chet.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, it
is good to see you for the second time today. I saw her
previously wearing her hat overseeing Arlington Cemetery's
operations and maintenance. Thank you for your work on that.
Thank you all for your work in Civilian Works Projects with the
Corps.
Let me quickly touch on something that doesn't get
discussed a lot publicly here, because it is not in one of the
top four priorities of the Corps. Is it correct that more
Americans visit Army Corps parks and recreation facilities in a
given year than the entire National Park System, is that
correct?
Ms. Darcy. It is close to correct. We had 360 million
visitors last year, is that correct?
General Van Antwerp. Visitor days.
Ms. Darcy. Sorry, 360.
Mr. Edwards. I have heard that is more than the National
Park System, but we can check that out. 360 million days. And I
know these are tough budget times. And I don't know how you do
the cost-benefit analysis of parks, but I would just want to be
one person to emphasize at a time when our economy is
struggling, people have lost jobs, can't afford to get on a
plane and fly to Cancun for their family vacation I hope we
don't completely lose sight of the importance of our parks for
day-to-day families. They are the national parks for most, the
vast majority of American citizens.
In regard to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, is 100
percent of the dollars collected last year, this year, next
year in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, are those put back
into maintenance and operations of our harbors and, if not,
what percent is it?
Ms. Darcy. No, 100 percent is not put back in. In this
budget I believe $783 million is going to be used from the
receipts collected last year.
Mr. Edwards. What were the receipts? What percent is that?
Ms. Darcy. $1.5 billion is what was collected.
Mr. Edwards. So half, half the money is not being used. Why
is that? Let me put it this way. Isn't it correct that there
are a number of our ports in the United States that are not
being dredged at their authorized levels and therefore we are
creating economic inefficiencies, making it less competitive
for our country to compete with foreign countries and driving
up prices for consumers? Aren't there a number of ports that
aren't at authorized levels?
General Van Antwerp. We have about 926 ports and harbors;
299 of those are deep water.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. If you can put your microphone a little
closer.
General Van Antwerp. Of all those ports and harbors about
35 percent are dredged at any one time to the prescribed width
and depth, as was in the Chief's report or the report that
authorized the project.
Mr. Edwards. So 35 percent are at the authorized dredge
level.
General Van Antwerp. Right.
Mr. Edwards. So that means 65 percent are not.
General Van Antwerp. Right.
Mr. Edwards. And is the 50 percent figure, percentage use
of the revenues from the Harbor Trust Fund, is that
traditional, is that what it usually has been or is that a
trend going up or down?
General Van Antwerp. I think it is fairly standard for
every year. It is about 50 percent of what we take in. The
trust fund now has over $4 billion in it.
Mr. Edwards. And who makes the decision? Is this an OMB
decision to say we are only going to use 50 percent of the
funds that are collected? These are funds collected by the
companies and entities using the ports, is that correct?
General Van Antwerp. Correct. It is a tax.
Mr. Edwards. So we are just basically giving them $0.50
back for every dollar they are paying in a fee or tax, is that
correct?
Ms. Darcy. For the port maintenance?
Mr. Edwards. Is that an OMB decision?
Ms. Darcy. It is an Administration decision.
Mr. Edwards. I think I know what the answer is, but I don't
want to get anybody in trouble. Well, you know, Mr. Chairman, I
hope that maybe at some point we could take a look at what are
the economic costs to businesses in the United States for not
having our ports dredged at the authorized levels, and that
ought to be looked at.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Pastor. I would agree with you because one of the
things I have learned coming from the Southwest, my expectation
is the big one is going to come out in California and I will
have a port of Yuma. But in the meantime learning more about
the ports that we have in Houston and Brownsville and L.A. If
you go in the East Coast, it is just that we just need to do
more. And it is a problem that we need to solve collectively.
And then you look at the waterways, inland waterways, and that
is another that we need to look at. So I agree with you that
maybe for sometime in the future we need to come back and say
what are the possibilities and the probabilities that we can
address these issues.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pastor. And we have Governor.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Darcy, I read extensively your history and I
assume that one of the main reasons that President Obama
appointed you is because of your environmental expertise and
focus on doing things cleaner and more efficient. And I hope
you will be a warrior for our navigation systems in the Inland
Waterway System because of how much cleaner they are than the
other modes of transportation in our country. And it means you
have got to be willing to box OMB from time to time on behalf
of this entire system, which is clean but it is in real
trouble. And ironically you are now partnered with some of the
toughest guys in America who like big rocks and things. But it
is a good partnership, and I hope you will do some good work
while you are there.
For 14 years right here at this committee I have pled with
everyone to try to keep the Tennessee River open to navigation
and commerce because the Chickamauga Lock, which is now 70
years old, is one of the top priorities from the users, from
the Corps, the entire system now with a 6 to 1 cost-benefit
ratio, twice as high as Olmsted, twice as high as Kentucky
Lock, and we are going to be stalled out. We have a zero in
this budget request, zero, despite the fact that we are on the
funding profile a third of the way through construction, we
have a coffer dam complete now in the middle of the Tennessee
River waiting to be dried out and tested this spring. It is
like 10 football fields in the middle of the Tennessee River
going to be dry all the way to the bottom of the river ready to
pour footings, yet we don't have the go ahead to move forward.
We have $58 million worth of stimulus money that has bought the
gates and the steel ready to install them, and they are going
to move that to Muscle Shoals to store it until we can start
the project.
I understand the technicalities because of the insolvency
of the trust fund. But we now have an agreement from the users
that they will put up more money to make the trust fund more
solvent. There is a proposal before the Water Resources
Development Subcommittee so that the WRDA bill could
potentially fix this problem statutorily so we would have a
road map to go forward with, with new revenues into the trust
fund, reclassify Olmsted, which has been like Pac-Man gobbling
up all the money in the trust fund, way over budget, way past
due, but it needs to be moved into a different category. In
your budget request, $68 million out of $82 million from the
trust fund in your budget request all goes to Olmsted.
Everybody else has crumbs on the table, and we are going to be
stopped, stopped. And this is a high priority project. It is
called the Chickamauga Lock.
I have said it over and over and over again. Now I have got
a partner down there named Lincoln Davis on this subcommittee,
and when I am gone at the end of this year he is going to
continue to stay until we finish the project. But we started
it. It is a high priority project. I need your help. We need
everyone's help on this, and we need a WRDA bill that allows us
to go forward with this agreement that has been put forth by
the users to make the trust fund more solvent, reclassify some
of the projects and make these projects or allow these projects
to go forward.
How ironic that we have stimulus money buying the equipment
and you can't pour footings in the middle of the river. As a
matter of fact after they test the coffer dam they are going to
fill it back up with water and wait for the Congress, the
executive branch, OMB, the leadership of our country. Wait. And
it will be the largest lock closure in the history of our
country, the highest cargo passage to close. I hope we are not
all responsible for that outcome.
So tell me how we are going to get this fixed with your
support.
Ms. Darcy. Congressman, I am aware of the Inland Waterway
Users Board's work on coming up with a solution to the
dwindling revenues coming into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund,
and I look forward to receiving that. I am told that soon it
will be presented up to my office.
The Administration is committed to finding a mechanism for
us to move forward on getting that trust fund up and running to
meet the needs of the Inland Waterway Trust Fund and the inland
waterway navigation.
Mr. Wamp. For the good of our colleagues here because we
have seen many people come and go through the years, many of
us, we need the administration to support a Water Resources
Development Act, to push for it like they are pushing for
health care, whatever the other priorities are. We see no
prioritization of that. And the Congress needs to hear that
from the administration that we do want to fix these problems
in the Inland Waterway System. You have to have a WRDA bill to
do it statutorily, otherwise we are operating without the
authorization and it stops. And this committee has to follow
that authorization. I would cry out to the administration to
take a leadership position on this issue, which we are not
seeing.
Ms. Darcy. Well, I am hearing you, sir.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you. He has been there, the chairman here,
the former chairman has been there. Anyway, you should see it.
It is crumbling. It is crumbling. We may have to close the
lock. As a matter of fact the Corps of Engineers basically
already notified the Tennessee Valley Authority that there will
be a point at which they have to actually close the lock, and
that is because we are at this point. It is a critical thing
for the entire Inland Waterway System.
General, do you want to comment before my 5 minutes is up
or it is up?
Mr. Pastor. No, go ahead.
General Van Antwerp. I would say, yes, we have to schedule
maintenance and do it regardless, because it is going to take
time to build it obviously. But you are exactly right what you
have said. You were right that there is $82 million that is
coming out of the trust fund. About $153 million is the total
when we put the two parts together. We think that we could use
twice that because of the infrastructure we think. So if the
Inland Waterway User Board comes up with a solution that would
get us to the $350 million mark, that would be very
appropriate.
Mr. Wamp. Well, the solution is on the table. We need OMB
to say yes, we need the administration to take a lead, and we
need a call to the Congress to get a Waterway Resources
Development Act so we can make this statutory.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pastor. Thank you. Steve.
Mr. Israel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am going
to ask the subcommittee's indulgence because I have to raise a
very local issue in my district, and the reason I have to raise
it here is because I have been trying to facilitate a problem
with the Army Corps on Long Island for 18 months, and it has
been frustrating because I am caught in between the defiance of
a local power company and the seeming powerlessness of the Army
Corps to enforce its own permits. If I don't raise it here in
the presence of the senior leadership of the Army Corps, I
would be doing a disservice to my district. And secondly, if it
is happening in my district it is probably happening elsewhere.
So permit me to lay out the facts for you. I don't expect
you to have a specific response here, but I do expect you to
come back to me within a very short period of time and let me
know how we are going to solve this.
I represent a community called Asharoken on the north shore
of Long Island. There is a major power plant there. That power
plant has been displacing sand from the beaches of Asharoken.
The Army Corps directed the owner of that power plant, National
Grid, to place 15,000 cubic yards of sand a year to replenish
the beach and 25,000 cubic yards of sand immediately. National
Grid has defied the Army Corps of Engineers for the past 18
months. The Army Corps issued a permit. National Grid has
stalled. They have played games. The Army--I have to tell you,
you have a guy there who is just extraordinary, a guy named
Gene Brickman. I have the highest regard for him. He is a good
man. He is doing the best he can. But you have a local company
that is defying a Member of Congress, defying the Army Corps of
Engineers. And the question I have, when you issue a permit
directing someone to place sand on a beach and that company
defies your directives, how do you implement the conditions of
your permit?
You want $30 million for flood control and coastal
emergencies. Why should I support additional funding for flood
control and coastal emergencies when in my district the Army
Corps seems absolutely impotent to enforce the terms of its own
permits. That is the macro question. That is a policy question.
The specific question is how long will it take you, General, to
come back to me and say I have reviewed it and here is the
course of action, either we are going to litigate, or here are
the other courses of action available to the Army Corps to
enforce the conditions of its own permit?
General Van Antwerp. I will commit to you, Congressman, to
come back in 30 days. I am looking at Duke DeLuca over here.
Mr. Israel. Who is also a good man.
General Van Antwerp. Right. The New York District
Commander. I don't know if he is here in the room. But we will
come back to you in 30 days. There are enforcement options,
things to do. But I think the first thing we are going to see
is what does the permit say, what are they doing or not doing,
and then we will come back to you within 30 days.
Mr. Israel. 30 days is acceptable, thank you. And we have
the permit right here, and my assistant will give it to you,
Mr. DeLuca. And if we can work within that time frame, that
will be helpful. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pastor. Thank you.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome. And as
you probably know, I am sure, we have a very good working
relationship with the Corps in Montana and thank you so much.
My question of course you probably know all about, and that is
St. Mary's Water Project, because I am not sure that you didn't
suggest it to Senator Baucus in the first place.
Ms. Darcy. I worked for Senator Baucus.
Mr. Rehberg. I know you did. And while I appreciate Senator
Baucus being able to get the St. Mary's Water Project into the
WRDA bill, it also created a new problem, and that is it never
gets done. It probably would have been more appropriately
placed in the Bureau of Rec, but we couldn't get it
accomplished there and so it is a new start.
So I would like to start by suggesting or asking of the $2
billion in the stimulus package under construction or under the
$4.6 billion were there any new starts funded, constructed, or
reconstructed?
Ms. Darcy. No, sir.
Mr. Rehberg. No. I heard in your opening statement that
there are new starts in the President's budget, correct?
Ms. Darcy. Correct.
Mr. Rehberg. Do you have a list of the criteria that
allowed the opportunity for certain new starts to be put at the
top of the list and others that are authorized not to make that
new start list.
Ms. Darcy. I don't have a list in my hand, but I can
provide you with that list for the criteria that we used to
select the two new starts.
Mr. Rehberg. So I would be able to see where St. Mary's,
which was authorized in the 2007 WRDA bill, where it stands as
far as priority within the Corps of Engineers within the
President's budget, so that we can have some indication if we
are ever going to make the list, or if we are ever going to
make it to the top of the list.
Ms. Darcy. It is my understanding that the project purpose
is irrigation and water supply, and that is not something that
we usually budget for.
Mr. Rehberg. Not necessarily. Frankly, what is going to
happen, and if your background and love and passion is the
environment, if it fails, which we all anticipate it is going
to fail. It will be an international scandal, just not a
national environmental scandal because it occurs both on an
Indian reservation, it is the tributary to a lot of communities
within Montana, but it also flows into Canada and so it will be
an environmental problem more than--perhaps the construction
deals with irrigation, but it is also drinking water, and so it
is a little more complicated than just the irrigation acreage.
Real quickly. Do I still have some time, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Pastor. Sure.
Mr. Rehberg. Inspection of completed works, I don't
understand the concept or the appropriations within your
budget. You wouldn't think that Montana has a huge levee
problem, although we find ourselves in the same dilemma that
some of the other States do on the recertification of levees
and the whole mapping with FEMA. I have got a situation around
the Great Falls area. We are having some difficulty getting a
recertification. And we have been told it is a liability issue.
Could you tell me the Corps' perspective and how do we--I
am sure it is a bigger problem than just Montana--how do you
intend to deal with this, because we can't just ignore the
recertification of the levees because all of a sudden we are
going to find ourselves dumping the cost on cities, homeowners,
flood insurance, and you know the issue. I find myself in
Montana dealing with levees, and I frankly think that is more
Rodney's problem in Louisiana than mine, but it is now my
problem.
General Grisoli. Mr. Rehberg, you asked a great question
and a very challenging and complex one. And if I may, I would
like to take a few moments and frame a little bit of the
challenges that you just mentioned because it is of interest to
all of us, and then try to address some of those particular
issues.
First of all, when you take a look at our Nation's levees,
you have the levees that the Corps built and maintained, and
what I am going to mention is really four categories. The
second would be the levees that the Corps has built and they
are maintained by our sponsors. You have some levees in a
category that have been admitted to a Public Law 84-99 program.
That group right there is about 4,000 miles of levee. Then you
have about 100 miles of levees, when we start looking at the
national levee program, that we would like to be able to at
least put into a database and know what they are.
But let's go back to those first three categories. Those
first three categories, what the Corps is trying to do with the
dollars they receive from ARRA, and in this particular budget,
is to survey those and inspect those and get them online in a
database.
Mr. Rehberg. Is that the operation and maintenance budget
or some other budget?
General Grisoli. That would be an operations and
maintenance budget for that piece there. For those levees
there, we can use Inspection of Completed Works, if we budget
approximately $25 million, as we talked about today. The
challenge of O&M funds and where those funds go are a unique
challenge. We have a certification program. A certification
program is all about flood insurance. Flood insurance is
something that needs to be worked out with FEMA. Let's go
through those categories again. If it is a Corps built, Corps
maintained levee, the Corps would prepare the paperwork and
submit it to FEMA, they would accredit that particular levee.
If they are levees that are in the Corps built, sponsor
maintained [category], the sponsor would then be required to
request certification, and the certification would then either
get accredited or not by FEMA. The last category is pretty much
the same way.
When the Corps takes a look at all this we are ensuring
that, first of all, we get the information properly into the
database, and that database is available to all of the
constituents. We will make that available if they need to get
their levees accredited. But the Corps' main function is not
one of accrediting and working towards flood insurance;
therefore when we take a look at this overall, it is not a high
priority as far as accreditation. And we have pushed to ensure
that we have the data available, but we do not have the program
funds available to be able to accredit all the levees--does
that help?
Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point that
problem out because it is coming to a head and somebody is
going to have to deal with it because it is not going to go
away. It is a huge problem, not so much for me. It is a
thousand houses and that is important to me, but to some other
areas it is going to be an incredible expense. Especially if
FEMA gets done with their mapping or doesn't get done with
their mapping; and they just ignore the fact that the levee is
there. It is as if the levee does not exist. And then there is
no way other than flood insurance to protect the individual
landowner. So we are headed for a wreck here if we don't do
something.
Mr. Pastor. I appreciate the questions. We have been
informed that possibly anywhere between 3:00 and 3:15 we may
have a series of votes. And I don't know how many votes it will
be. And we have three members who have not had at least
questions in the first round. We will try to at least allow
those three members to have their 5 minutes, give or take a
little bit. And then we will see where we are at and then we
will make a decision from there.
So I think, Marion Berry.
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, and
General Van Antwerp, General Grisoli, Gary, welcome. I think we
all appreciate very much what the Corps of Engineers does and
the contribution that you make around the world to make
somebody's life better and easier to endure. And I have always
considered myself, as I have told you, Madam Secretary, I am
sure, the biggest fan of the Corps of Engineers. I live in a
place where we receive a minimum of 50 inches of rainfall a
year, and this year we went over 80 inches, and every square
inch of my district is considered a wetlands by somebody.
But what I want to address today is the same problem that
my colleague from Montana just brought up. The way this
certification is taking place defies hydrology. It is not a
logical process. These levees, they are Federal levees
maintained by Federal money under the supervision of the Corps
of Engineers, and there has never to my knowledge been a
failure of one of them anytime. And yet they are being
decertified and creating a situation where homeowners are
suddenly being required to add $1,200 to $1,500, depending on
the value of their home, to the cost of owning that home
immediately, and it is hitting people in the face like a bat.
Has there been any public input as these regulations have
been developed? I am not aware if there has. If there has, I
think we need to do it again. If there has not, I think we need
to have some hearings and some forums about this. Because I
think we are creating something here that is going to have an
economic consequence that cannot be carried. And I just plead
with you to let's go back and take a new look at the way this
is being done. And they are declaring people have to buy flood
insurance that the 1927 flood didn't even bother. And that does
not make sense to me.
So if you all can do that, I would really appreciate it.
And I would ask you to work with us.
We have here with us today from the St. Francis Levee
District, their Chief Engineer, Rob Rash, and he knows more
about that stuff than anybody I have ever known. And he will
bore you to death talking about it, but he is an expert that
needs to be heard.
Thank you.
Mr. Pastor. Mr. Alexander.
Mr. Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary,
and gentlemen, I too would like to thank you for the way you
have worked with our office. General Walsh and his Vicksburg
bunch have been great to work with. They have been very
responsive any time we have called upon them. And I want to
continue the dialogue that Congressman Rehberg and Congressman
Berry have talked about.
This is something that is going to affect everybody here.
And General, when you said that accreditation wasn't a top
priority, I can assure you that it is my top priority and I am
going to see if we can get as many colleagues as possible to
take that same stance. Because this is not just a problem for
Louisiana or Montana or Arkansas, this is a national problem.
881 counties or parishes in Louisiana we are told are protected
by the levee system. 35 percent of the land mass, but almost 60
percent of the population. And if we advance in the direction
that I see us going, and the Corps of Engineers and FEMA do get
to the point of not certifying those levees at some point in
the future; we are talking just a few months away, and FEMA
redraws those maps as if those levees don't exist; then we are
going to have some homeowners--and we are told about 60 percent
of homeowners out there--with mortgages today, those mortgages
are backed in some way by the Federal Government, they are
going to be exposed to insurance premiums that will be left
just up to the imagination. Insurance agents and FEMA can tell
us what those insurance premiums are today, but if they are
presented a flood map with no levees on them, then one can only
imagine what those premiums are going to be. This is going to
be a massive tax increase for those living out there behind
those levees.
Now, what makes it even more confusing to me is that I have
1,100 miles of navigable river in the district that I
represent, 350 miles of the Mississippi River. And I talked to
the Corps and they say, well, we are responsible for the levee
on this side of the river, but we are not on that side. If you
go a little bit down the river we are responsible for it on
both sides. Well, we have a bank cave-in down there; but we are
not authorized to fix that. We are authorized to fix the next
one, but we don't have any money to do it with.
Help us understand what we need to do to help you all. I
feel like you all want to solve the problem. But this is the
problem that is going to be bigger than anything that has
jumped up on those that we represent out there. There are some
people along the Gulf Coast today that are already paying
$5,000 a year for flood insurance, and it is unbelievable what
they might be subjected to.
Now I appreciate the work that you are doing in advancing
the cause of recovering the Gulf Coast, but we don't care
whether the Gulf Coast is there or not if we can't live in
Louisiana. If we have to move somewhere else what difference
does it make?
It is a serious, serious problem that is not going to go
away, and it is only going to get worse. We are having public
meetings in my district. I am encouraging other members to
start the same thing and let the public know what is about to
come down.
Thank you.
Mr. Pastor. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have two or three
questions, but a brief comment before I ask those questions.
A century ago our Nation started an ambitious program in
infrastructure. Anywhere you go today, you turn on the faucet,
a lot of it comes from Corps of Engineers or TEA, basically
Corps of Engineers lakes that were built. 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s,
60s, early 70s they were started. We had an ambitious program
for energy called nuclear energy as well as hydro energy, an
ambitious program to build an interstate system, space.
In the last 30 years we have done nothing except go in
debt. Borrow more money, spend more money, borrow more money,
spend money with no plans whatsoever. We have increased our
national debt by a thousand percent since 1980 and haven't done
a single thing in infrastructure. And what we are talking about
today is our fear as Members of Congress that that
infrastructure we built, 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago, the dams
near where I live are deteriorating and are about to collapse.
It seems the last 30 or 40 years we had no interest in building
infrastructure or even repairing infrastructure.
So my question to you is this: What is the Corps of
Engineers doing in these major developments that gave us an
unbelievable edge in economic opportunity? Interstate systems,
for instance, gave us just-in-time manufacturing other
countries in the world couldn't compete with us on.
What would you recommend or have a vision of how we obtain
the funding that we need to replace, repair, and build an
infrastructure that again puts us in position where we can
compete with the rest of the world, including the Chinas and
the larger populated countries?
I know we are talking about the trust fund. As we do that,
I want you to be aware that after you pass the confluence of
the Mississippi and Ohio, you've got pretty well free sailing
all the way down to the ocean. So you are not going to be
paying a tonnage there. If you look at tonnage as the way to
build a trust fund, then you are shutting down and putting the
costs so high for the burden of this in the small inland
waterways that are tributaries to the Mississippi River that
may prohibit what we need today, a good, clean, reliable source
of transportation.
So my hope is as you engage, and the two questions are:
which do you feel compelled to support, a tonnage or a fuel
tax?
The second one is what would you do, how quickly do you
think, and how much do you think it would take us to actually
rebuild the infrastructure that we must rebuild to keep this
country going?
Ms. Darcy. As Congressman Wamp has already discussed, the
Inland Waterway Users Board has developed as an alternative
mechanism to make this trust fund whole. The administration's
perspective, as I said earlier, is that we want to work with
the stakeholders to come up with a viable mechanism that can be
included and passed by the Congress.
So we need to have not only your support but the support of
the stakeholders in order to come up with a position to make
that mechanism workable. As to how much we are going to need in
the future, just in the waterways alone I think it is in the
billions of dollars, and I think anything that we do in looking
forward has to be, whether it is in the WRDA bill or other
legislative, we have to come up with some innovative ways to
recapitalize.
Mr. Davis. A very quick question, if there should come a
time that the Corps could not continue to maintain Chic Lock
which impacts both the Fourth and the Third Congressional
Districts, if that is not possible for you to continue to
maintain and keep that open, what happens then? Do you think
that you can actually maintain that adequately and keep it open
until the construction dollars flow until we can build the
necessary improvements at the lock to keep the 300 some odd
miles upstream open?
General Van Antwerp. We can, but you will find more
unscheduled outages and more scheduled outages because of what
it takes to maintain. That is what we find as we look at this
aging system. We track this very closely. What are the
unscheduled outages? If it is a scheduled outage, industry will
work with us. It is those unscheduled ones that are really
tough because they shut down unexpectedly. And we had a couple
of lock gates this year where we had those issues.
So I would say the answer is yes, we will continue to
maintain it, but we also expect that it will be out of service
more frequently than it is today, and that continues to go up
over time until we can build new locks.
Mr. Wamp. Will the gentleman yield? Just as in the
Nashville District, your colonel was here, they would say, yes,
you can, but with a very steep increase in O&M. A very steep
increase in O&M, and I am not talking about $2 million a year;
I am talking about 8, 10, 12 million a year to keep it open. We
are approaching that rapidly now. You have got these post
tension rods like bullet holes shot all the way down through
this gate over and over again. Literally dozens, 60 and 70 of
them. This thing is just patched together to keep it open. So
it gets really expensive from here on.
I just want to put that point in.
General Van Antwerp. I think our decision process of
whether to build new or do a total renovation gets to that
question and the recommendation has been made to build new at
Chic Lock.
Mr. Davis. You will find those on this committee who will
continue to have an interest in that to be sure, that part of
the Tennessee River especially, flows northward in Tennessee
and will continue the traffic that will be bringing commerce
and industry from the eastern part of the United States and
that area that will actually be put on a barge and be shipped
out across.
I yield back.
Mr. Pastor. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me thank you,
Madam Secretary, for the work that you are doing. And let me
thank you for all of the projects, in and around Philadelphia.
I know that there has been a lot of talk of exciting and
productive work that the Corps has done and continues to do,
and I want to thank you. You are a local team there, but I do
have a couple of questions.
In your total personnel, you mentioned the number who are
in Afghanistan, some 800-and-something. How are they carried
from a budgetary standpoint? Are they carried in the cost of
the Corps or are they carried over in the Defense budget?
General Van Antwerp. When you get down to a district level,
which is where most of these people are located in Afghanistan;
for instance, we have two districts, one in the south and one
in the north. Those 800 people are paid from project funds.
That is how it works in a District. In a Division and the Corps
Headquarters, we are paid by general funds. When you
appropriate for a project or if it is another country, like
Afghanistan, the funds allocated to that project pay for those
workers while they are over there.
Mr. Fattah. Give me the total number of your complement,
civilian and military, and your total number outside of the
country in Afghanistan and Iraq and Haiti.
General Van Antwerp. In general terms we have about 600
that wear the uniform--this is in the entire Corps of
Engineers--about 36,000 that wear a suit or a life jacket or a
hard hat.
Mr. Fattah. Let me ask you a question about the civilian
population. In terms of the critical skill shortages going
forward, you know we have a lot of people who are going to be
retiring and so on, are you preparing--I was looking through
your budget document--for the next, you know, I don't know what
percentage of your key personnel are going to be leaving and
retiring as part of the baby boom generation. But do you have a
game plan in terms of person power and skill needs going
forward?
General Van Antwerp. We absolutely do. I will just give you
the fiscal year 2009 figures and can tell you the 2010 will be
higher. In fiscal year 2009, we hired 8,213 people from outside
the Corps. We had 4,600 people leave the Corps, including
retirees. We expect it to be higher in fiscal year 2010 because
some of the people are----
Mr. Fattah. I would be very interested if the Corps could
share with the chairman and then I am sure the staff will make
sure I get it, information about your manpower game plan or
your person power game plan going forward.
General Van Antwerp. We definitely have a game plan to get
at it.
Mr. Fattah. Now we are all in agreement in this room. We
love the Corps and think you are doing important work. I need
to get some things on the record, Madam Secretary. There has
been a lot of debate outside this room about the role of
government. Is there anything about what the Corps is doing in
the levees, the dams, all of this work on America's
infrastructure that you perceive to be not properly the role of
the government or in any way socialistic or anything of this
notion?
Ms. Darcy. No, sir.
Mr. Fattah. When we heard this comment from my great
colleague from Louisiana about flood insurance, we have a lot
of debate now about insurance. As I would understand it, there
is no privately available flood insurance in the country for
the most part; is that correct? This is a government
subsidized--a public option flood insurance; right? Is it
private insurance?
General Van Antwerp. It is private insurance. Like if the
levee is not certified----
Mr. Fattah. We now finance through the agriculture flood
insurance dollars, right? What is that for?
General Van Antwerp. You go through your homeowner
insurance company and your mortgage company, probably you may
take it out with them. But largely it is private insurance.
Mr. Fattah. Why are we subsidizing it in the agriculture
budget? Maybe I could yield to my colleague.
Mr. Alexander. If the gentleman would yield, let me tell
you what I see down the road. If these levees are decertified
and FEMA draws a map saying the levee is being nonexistent,
then they are going to presented to the person that lives in a
mortgaged home that is backed by the taxpayers in some form--60
percent, about--they are going to say okay, you are going to
pay this amount in insurance premiums for flood insurance if
you continue living there. And you can buy the insurance from
us or you can buy it from X, Y, Z company over here that has a
deal with us. You can buy it from them, but we are going to
tell them what to charge you.
Now at the end of the year, if they have made money they
are going to give it to us and we are going to pay them for the
operation. If they lose money, we will reimburse you. Now, I
have sold a lot of things but I can't sell that to the public.
I have never called it socialism, but what I see about to
happen is ugly.
Mr. Fattah. I just want to make sure that we are all clear
what the Corps is doing. And the other thing I understand from
your testimony, that we have to find a way to finance this.
That means that we can't do it for free, that somebody has to
pay. And so whether we deal with the trust fund issue or the
user fee proposal that the administration has put forward,
right, as I just heard you answer my colleague, we are talking
about billions of dollars. When I am trying to make sure that
as we go forward the commitment on the spend-down of these
dollars--what you are dealing with you went through some
impressive numbers on small businesses and all of these
projects. When you are working through these contractors are
there prescriptions in the contract that require these
contractors when they are buying supplies and self contract
themselves to also use small business, veteran-owned
businesses, disadvantaged businesses to buy those supplies from
other domestically owned companies?
General Van Antwerp. When we award a contract----
Mr. Fattah. When you give me a contract for $10 billion.
General Van Antwerp. If you are a large business, we will
require you to have a certain percentage of small business
subcontractors. So that is one way that small business is in
there. And we follow the Buy American Act. We have restrictions
on where you can buy the supplies, and a lot of those supplies
are bought with small business vendors.
We have a target of 32 percent in the Corps of Engineers
for small business. Last year we awarded 36 percent to small
business. In the Recovery Act it has been a much greater
amount. It is 46 percent of the dollars and about 70 percent of
the projects.
Mr. Fattah. You said there are some 6,000 people that have
been employed through the Recovery Act dollars? Because I heard
someone in the upper chamber--he was new--saying that not one
job had been created through the Recovery Act. But you got at
least 6,000.
Ms. Darcy. Just in the last quarter.
General Van Antwerp. The contractors have to report that by
the way. They have to report jobs created.
Ms. Darcy. That is where we get our figures.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pastor. That is why we don't want them to lose those
jobs that we created. That is why we have to work on this
budget. Before I recognize Calvert, you had 30 seconds.
Mr. Wamp. Actually, just 10 seconds. I wanted you to hear,
Secretary Darcy and General Van Antwerp, one of the victims
that died under the rubble of Hotel Montana in Haiti was a
constituent from my district named Diane Cade. Their family and
all the families would like to honor Colonel Norberto Cintron
who oversaw that recovery work under the Hotel Montana through
the Corps of Engineers. And I just got to tell you he did such
remarkable work. When he would get engaged, the families were
confident that our country was doing what they could. And
without him, they were confused and terrified and it was bad
enough. But I just want to give him credit at this public
meeting today for an outstanding job in Haiti.
Mr. Pastor. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize I was
late. We have an Interior hearing going on the same time. I
apologize.
Madam Secretary, General, thank you for coming. Good to see
you again. My question is regarding some meetings I had last
week with some local officials back in California. And more
than one occasion, as a matter of fact on a number of
occasions, the issue of 404 permits came up on just simple
maintenance jobs. For instance, and I know, General, you are
very much aware of this project, the San Luis Rey Flood Control
Project has been in the permit process for 7 years just for
mowing, just for maintenance of that flood control project. And
thank goodness, we didn't have a major flood event during that
period. As you know, that would have created significant
problems.
Are these delays--I believe these delays are unnecessary.
It certainly increases the risk to public safety and economic
damage. And I know this is going on not just in southern
California, but throughout the United States.
So my question both to the Secretary and to the Corps, does
the administration have a position on potential congressional
efforts to exempt just routine maintenance from the 404
permitting process where we can just maintain these projects
without these costly and potentially disastrous delays?
Ms. Darcy. Congressman, I am not familiar with that
project. I am not sure if the Chief wants to address it
directly, but we currently do not have that. It is something
that we might need to consider.
General Van Antwerp. I am not familiar with the permit on
San Luis Rey, but we will definitely check into it. Sometimes
the permit has to do a lot more with environmental
considerations, endangered species for example. What seems like
routine maintenance and maybe even was routine maintenance in
the past, now has some environmental consequences. That is
where it really gets difficult.
Mr. Calvert. As you know, these delays go on and on and on,
and some people think it reverts back to wetlands and the rest,
and then you never do the routine maintenance and then you have
a potential problem on your hand.
And another question, I know that under the stimulus bill
you were appropriated about $4.6 billion, 2 billion for
construction and 2.7 billion for operation and maintenance. As
I understand, many of these projects are coming in 20, 30
percent under estimates because of the bid process out there in
the marketplace.
Is that a trend all around the country? All of these bids
coming in about that, 20, 30 percent under?
General Van Antwerp. This has been an exceptional year. I
wouldn't say all across the country, but we have gotten very
good bids on our projects and a lot of our projects have been
20, 30 percent under the usual amount.
Mr. Calvert. With that money that you have left over,
obviously there is going to be substantial dollars left over
apparently for reallocation or to pay down the debt or
whatever, what it is your intent to do with those additional
funds?
Ms. Darcy. Congressman, we are trying to develop what we
are calling our backup list to address just that, for either
projects that have come in under bid or if there are projects
that we thought were going to be able to go forward but for one
reason or the other are not going forward. We want to be able
to have a list so that we will be able to expend and obligate
those funds before September.
Mr. Calvert. How will you disclose and notify the public of
those reallocations? Do you need to go to the chairman and the
ranking member to ask for a sign-off on those reallocations?
Ms. Darcy. Not under the stimulus bill, sir.
Mr. Calvert. This is all done by the Corps?
Ms. Darcy. It is posted on our Web site, sir.
Mr. Pastor. OMB.
Mr. Calvert. That is what I am afraid of, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Darcy. It is posted on our Web site and also on the
Recovery.gov Web site for whatever gets reallocated to
different projects.
Mr. Calvert. So we will find out about it when we see it on
the Web site?
Ms. Darcy. We have been notifying Members when we have
reallocations.
Mr. Calvert. Do you have to run this through OMB first?
Ms. Darcy. This is an Administration program.
Mr. Calvert. The answer is yes? You have to run it by OMB
first?
Ms. Darcy. We have to comply with the Administration's
guidance.
Mr. Pastor. There is a high probability.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pastor. You are welcome. We have the votes that have
been called and we have 10 minutes. I want to take a few
minutes and ask you about the Asian carp, so give me the 3-
minute version. Talk about the money that you have and what you
are doing with the locks and the lawsuits.
But what I would like to have is a formal response back so
that we can share with members who have an interest in the
Asian carp, and then I will yield to my ranking member.
Ms. Darcy. I will take that one, Congressman. The Corps of
Engineers has been involved in trying to keep the Asian carp
out of the Great Lakes for a number of years now. We started
back earlier this decade, in 2000 actually, by constructing a
fish barrier, which was originally designed to keep the gobi
out of the lakes. Since then the carp have been migrating north
in the Mississippi and coming close to a lot of the
tributaries.
We have constructed fish barriers in the Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal. We have two barriers up and operating and we
are about to construct a third fish barrier. These are all
congressionally mandated fish barriers. In addition to that, we
are working with scientists in ways to determine whether there
are fish above the barrier. To date we have found no Asian carp
above our barriers; however, what we have found is what is
called eDNA evidence, which is evidence that says there is
possibility that there are carp there. So in addition to what
we have done already with our fish barriers, we have worked
with the Council on Environmental Quality, the EPA, the Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Illinois DNR, and the City of Chicago
to come up with a framework for all the Federal family as well
as the locals to come up with a strategy to keep the carp out
of the lakes.
In addition, we have authorization to complete an efficacy
study which is ongoing. The first interim report of that
efficacy study found that the Corps needed to be able to
prevent Asian carp coming into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal in a flood event from the Des Plaines River. You may not
be familiar with the hydrology out there, but the Des Plaines
River is almost parallel to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
and in a flood event the Des Plaines River could flood into the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and the carp could get in.
We will be awarding a contract I think within the month to
build a sort of Jersey barrier between the two and also a mesh
fence so that in a flood event if carp are there they will not
be able to get in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal because
that is the pathway to the lakes.
In addition, we are also looking at other ways that we can
help to prevent the carp. We are working really closely, and I
need to point this out, with the other Federal family because
in December one of our barriers had to come down for
maintenance and in order for us to do that we had to work with
the Illinois DNR and the Fish and Wildlife Service to apply
rotenone into a 6-mile stretch of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal in order to kill whatever fish might be there while we
took the barrier out for repair.
That was a very successful event. Again, there were no carp
found above the barrier. We don't want to assume that they are
not above the barrier. We are also looking through this
efficacy study at some other alternatives. The Chicago Lock on
the Chicago River as well as the O'Brien Lock, are locks that
we operate for navigation and for flood control, we are looking
at modifying the operations of those locks so that if we close
them to navigation for a certain period of time it will reduce
the numbers of openings that could help to keep the fish out of
the lake, which is our ultimate goal.
So we are looking at those modified lock operations as well
and when we do that we may be looking at some other kinds of
barriers there, what are called bubble barriers and acoustic
barriers, which keep the fish scared and they don't go
anywhere.
Mr. Pastor. Is it Alice Cooper?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Better than New Jersey barriers. Let's
eliminate that from your vocabulary. We have enough of those on
the damn highway. Let's not put those there.
Ms. Darcy. Those are some of our ongoing efforts. The Fish
and Wildlife Service in partnership with the Illinois DNR are
in the rivers now. What they are doing is going out to places
where we have seen a positive indication of eDNA evidence and
doing electro-fishing and netting in those areas to see if
these find any carp. As I say, to date we have not found any
carp. This is on the Web site too, we have what is called the
Asian Carp Control Strategy that we released about a week and a
half ago. We have got long-term plans, as well as short-term
plans.
Mr. Pastor. There are many members who have a great
interest in it. And if there are any additional comments, if
you would submit it to us we would appreciate it. And I want to
give some time to Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, a lot of
questions will be put on the record. I certainly would like,
and I think committee members, to understand how you are going
to spend that money for global change type stability. I don't
need to hear about it now.
I continue to have concerns about your budgeting for the
Federal dredgers, McFarland and Weaver. If you are looking for
cost economics there are pretty extravagant costs to keep those
things operating.
I have a lot of questions that relate to the Harbor
Maintenance Fund. Perhaps the largest question here and perhaps
this is not necessarily venting, an excellent article in The
New York Times the other day about China builds, India Frets:
Developing ports, Influence in South Asia. Where we are as a
Nation on the East Coast and West Coast and on other coasts of
the U.S., where we are in terms of our ability to keep our
ports open for business and competitive. We are going to be
opening up a widened Panama Canal. And I think that our
competition is stiff out there, and I hope in the overall
scheme of things, we keep an eye on that ball, because the
Chinese are underwriting across the world and sucking up just
about every asset and mineral known to man. And I just want to
make sure that we are not left out of the overall equation when
it comes to access to our Nation's ports.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
opportunity.
Mr. Pastor. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, thank you
very much.
Ms. Darcy. Thank you.
Mr. Pastor. We look forward to working with you and welcome
aboard. There are many problems but there are great
opportunities. And so as the future takes us into doing a bill,
we look for your guidance and your comments. And General, thank
you for your service. And again we want to thank all the men
and women who serve at the Corps of Engineers for their
service, and we look forward to working with you on the field
and also on this budget. And so this will conclude the hearing.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Darcy. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.260
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.261
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.262
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.263
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.264
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.272
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.273
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.274
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.275
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.276
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.277
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.278
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.279
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.280
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.281
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.282
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.283
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.284
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.285
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.286
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.287
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.288
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.289
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.290
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.291
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.292
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.293
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.294
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.295
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.296
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.297
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.298
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.299
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.300
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.301
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.302
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.303
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.304
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.305
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.306
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.307
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.308
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.309
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.310
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.311
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.312
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.313
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.314
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.315
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.316
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.317
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.318
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.319
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.320
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.321
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.322
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.323
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.324
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.325
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.326
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.327
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.328
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.329
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.330
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.331
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.332
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.333
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.334
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.335
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.336
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.337
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.338
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.339
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.340
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.341
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.342
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.343
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.344
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.345
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.346
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.347
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.348
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.349
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.350
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.351
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.352
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.353
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.354
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.355
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.356
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.357
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.358
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.359
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.360
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.361
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.362
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.363
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.364
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.365
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.366
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.367
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.368
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.369
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.370
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.371
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.372
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.373
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.374
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.375
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.376
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.377
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.378
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.379
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.380
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.381
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.382
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.383
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.384
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.385
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.386
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.387
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.388
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.389
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.390
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.391
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.392
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.393
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.394
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.395
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.396
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.397
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.398
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.399
Wednesday, April 14, 2010.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FY 2011 BUDGET
WITNESSES
MICHAEL L. CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
ANNE CASTLE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER AND SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
REED MURRAY, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACT
OFFICE
Mr. Pastor [presiding]. Hearing will come to order. Good
afternoon. Today the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development meets to hear testimony on the fiscal year 2011
budget request for the Department of Interior's water agencies
in the western states, including the Bureau of Reclamation and
the Central Utah Project Completion Act Office.
The Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for providing
agricultural, municipal and industrial water supply in the
West. Economies, ecosystems, and communities all rely on the
availability of clean water. At a time when demand is
increasing and many regions have been hit by extended drought
the Bureau is being asked more and more to provide solutions to
the West's water needs while being good stewards of our natural
resources and I hope to hear how the fiscal year 2011 budget
request reflects this expanded responsibility.
Every day we hear examples where state, local, and federal
agencies, as well as tribal governments, have to spread limited
water resources across competing demands, including use for
water supply, power generation, ecosystem restoration, and our
river and delta systems. These challenges have been
particularly difficult in California, where water is pulled
between an agricultural sector with high unemployment in some
areas, municipal and industrial water supply for growing
populations, and an overstressed delta ecosystem.
I look forward to hearing the Reclamation's strategy to
help all interests when water demand is increasing and supplies
continue to be scarce.
I also note the Bureau of Reclamation's roots in building
and maintaining dams and other water structures that protect
Americans. Much of this infrastructure was built nearly a
century ago; in fact, over half of the Bureau's dams are now
more than 60 years old. It is critical that Reclamation
maintain its aging infrastructure and I hope today to explore
how the budget request provides funding levels that meet the
Bureau's responsibility to keep Americans safe while
maintaining America's dams in proper working order.
The Bureau of Reclamation plays a vital role in delivering
water to tribes and rural communities that could not otherwise
access clean water. The Bureau's rural water budget request is
significantly below the fiscal year 2010 level and today I look
to our witnesses to shed light on how the administration's
proposal will address their water supply commitments to tribes
and meet the needs of rural communities.
We have before us the assistant secretary for water and
science, Anne Castle, to present the Department of Interior's
water strategy and how the strategy is reflected in the budget
request; Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Michael Connor, who
will address the Bureau of Reclamation fiscal year 2011 budget
request, including the budget's activities related to water
supply, water recycling and reuse, ecosystem restoration, rural
water delivery, dam safety, and other programs; finally,
Program Director Reed Murray, to give testimony on the
administration request for the Central Utah Project Completion
Act.
Welcome, to all of you. I ask each of you to ensure that
the hearing record--questions for the record, any supporting
information requested by the subcommittee are delivered in
final form to the subcommittee no later than 4 weeks from the
time your receive them. Members with additional questions for
the record will have until close of business tomorrow to
provide them to the subcommittee.
And with these opening comments, I would like to yield to
the ranking member for any opening comments that he would like
to make.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Secretary Castle, Commissioner Connor,
Director Murray. Welcome to the committee.
The administration's budget request for the Bureau of
Reclamation and related accounts is just over $1.1 billion, $22
million below the fiscal year 2010 level. I have made it clear
in all of our hearings this year how concerned my constituents
are about the growing deficit. Your programs were actually cut
from the fiscal year 2010 level, but I don't want to lose
sight, however, of the funding and extraordinary flexibility
which Congress provided you in the Stimulus Act. We would like
to hear how that $1 billion has been spent.
I do have some concerns about the priorities expressed in
the budget request. The heart of the Bureau is water and
power--is water and power management for the region, yet this
part of the budget is cut by nearly one-quarter. At the same
time, land and fish and wildlife conservation and development
are increased by over 28 percent. Now, I have been a longtime
supporter of our--of environmental conservation programs, but
with that said, I hope you will be able to explain why, with
rising tension and economic devastation in the West caused by
decreasing access to water--I think the chairman has focused on
that in his remarks, too--now is the time to cut funding for
these very important programs that should be helping us find
solutions.
The Bureau's reputation for water resources management is
strong, which is only fitting given how important your work is
to the population, economic development, and environmental
quality of our western states. But the future will require
more. You will need visionary and creative leadership to manage
competing stresses on the scarce water resources of the region.
I look forward--and I should say we look forward--to
hearing more of your plans for providing this leadership in
addition to the technical expertise, which has long been your
bureau's strength. Thank you for your appearance before the
committee and we welcome you here this afternoon.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Frelinghuysen,
members of the subcommittee. Thanks for giving me the
opportunity to be here today to represent the secretary----
Mr. Pastor [continuing]. Move that mike up to----
Ms. Castle. You bet.
Thanks for the opportunity to represent the secretary of
interior and to support the president's 2011 budget request for
the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Project
Completion Act Office. You recognized Commissioner Connor and
Director Murray. With us here at the table is Bob Wolf,
Reclamation's director of program and budget as well, answering
detail questions.
Interior's people and programs and our lands affect
virtually every American. We protect natural resources and
special places, like national parks and wildlife refuges; we
protect waterways and cultural heritage; we manage energy
development and provide earth science for the entire country;
and we have trust responsibility for Native American
communities. We really are the department of all America.
The 2011 budget request for the department focuses on six
priorities: first, implementing a new energy frontier; second,
climate change adaptation; third, tackling our water
challenges; fourth, protecting America's great outdoors; fifth,
engaging our youth in natural resources; and finally,
empowering tribal nations.
I am going to mention just a couple of those areas that I
think this subcommittee would be particularly interested in,
and the first is our new sustainable water strategy, called
WaterSMART. The WaterSMART program was launched at the end of
February. SMART stands for ``sustain and manage America's
resources for tomorrow.''
We need this program and we need to focus on water
sustainability because we have an imbalance in our water supply
and demand equation. Just as Mr. Frelinghuysen mentioned, we
have additional pressures on our water supplies and we need a
national commitment to balance--rebalance--that imbalance.
It is caused by a variety of factors. We have population
growth, climate change, we have new water needs for domestic
energy development, we have declining aquifer levels, and we
are now much more cognizant of the need for water to support
healthy ecosystems.
The WaterSMART program is designed to help bring that
imbalanced equation back into balance. We are going to, through
this program, coordinate the department's different water
conservation and sustainability efforts. We are going to focus
on the water-energy nexus, recognizing that different types of
energy development spells different water demands and those
demands need to be taken into account when we are making
decisions about energy development, and also recognizing that
saving water also conserves energy.
The program will have an Internet-based clearinghouse for
best practices and incentives and the most cost-effective
water-saving technologies. We will coordinate with our
department's climate change program, and finally, we are
developing our own water footprint reduction program so that we
will walk the walk in the Department of the Interior and help
achieve the president's goal of reducing water consumption
overall at federal agencies.
The 2011 budget includes $72.9 million for the various
components of the Water SMART program. That is an increase of
over $36 million over the 2010 enacted budget. $62 million of
that total is for the Bureau of Reclamation's programs,
including its basin studies and various cost-share grants for
water efficiency and recycling and reuse projects. Another
$10.9 million is for the U.S. Geological Survey's WaterSMART
availability and use assessment, what we have called in the
past ``water census,'' and that part of the program implements
provisions of the Secure Water Act, Public Law 111-11.
In the category of new energy development, I want to just
mention a new memorandum of understanding on hydroelectric
power development. It was signed just last month by Secretary
Salazar, and Energy Secretary Chu, and Assistant Secretary
Darcy, of the Department of the Army. And that MOU represents a
new approach to the development of hydroelectric power--one
that seeks to take advantage of all the opportunities that we
have to develop hydropower on existing federal facilities in a
sustainable way.
We can add to our country's renewable energy portfolio with
low-impact hydro projects that won't have the damaging
environmental effects that we have seen in the past from some
hydro developments. We are working right now to identify the
best places on existing federal facilities that we can add
hydroelectric power capability, and we will start working with
our local communities to make that happen.
The overall budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation is
$1.02 billion. Commissioner Connor can talk about the details
of that budget request, but I just want to emphasize that the
budget is intended to support reliable and sustainable water
supplies that are delivered in an economically and
environmentally sound manner.
The 2011 budget request for the Central Utah Project
Completion Act is $43 million; that is $1 million more than in
2010. And that funding provides for the continued design and
construction of the Utah Lake System, which is the last
component of the Central Utah Project.
This 2011 budget represents our best effort to work within
the tough economic times that we are all facing, to do our part
to reduce the spending deficit but to still carry out the core
mission and priorities of the Department of the Interior. So
thank you very much for this opportunity to be here today, and
I will be happy to answer any questions. [See Page 617]
Mr. Connor. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Frelinghuysen, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the Bureau of Reclamation's fiscal year 2011 budget.
With me today is Bob Wolf, our director of program and budget
at the Bureau of Reclamation.
The fiscal year 2011 discretionary request for Reclamation,
as stated by Secretary Castle, is $1.02 billion. Overall, the
budget reflects the set of wide-ranging activities and
initiatives that support Reclamation's mission.
According to a recent departmental economic analysis,
Reclamation's mission of supplying water, generating power, and
providing recreation opportunities to millions of Americans
supports over 260,000 jobs on an annual basis and $39.5 billion
in economic activity.
At its core, however, the goal of Reclamation's budget is
simply to promote certainty and sustainability in the use of
limited water resources, whether it be for agricultural,
municipal, industrial, environmental, or power generation
purposes. Certainty and sustainability requires Reclamation to
take action on many fronts, and our budget proposal was
developed with that principle in mind. Through these efforts we
believe we can continue to provide the economic benefits I just
described.
Secretary Castle identified six priorities that are a focal
point of Interior's fiscal year 2011 budget. Very briefly I
want to speak to Reclamation's involvement in each of those
areas.
First two are tackling the nation's water challenges and
new energy frontier. Addressing water challenges and energy
needs starts with operating, maintaining, and improving the
condition of our existing facilities.
Accordingly, the 2011 budget requests a total of $424
million for facility operations, maintenance, and
rehabilitation activities. This amount represents almost half--
46 percent--of the water and related resources account. The
remaining balance of that account is used for water, energy,
land, and fish and wildlife resource management activities,
which amount to $490 million in total. Included within this
latter amount, and critical to tackling the nation's water
challenges, is the WaterSMART program that was just described
by the assistant secretary. I would simply like to add two
points to that earlier discussion.
First, WaterSMART is an important program that can and has
expanded water supplies in the West. The WaterSMART grant
program has become immensely popular and we expect
significantly more requests than there is available funding. In
2009 Reclamation made available $40 million of its Recovery Act
funds for the grant program and received approximately $350
million in proposals. Water-users in the West are generating
creative solutions to water resources challenges and are
willing to put significant resources on the table to match
limited federal funds.
WaterSMART also includes a specific focus on the energy-
water nexus, as was mentioned. In addition to promoting energy
efficiency through conservation, Reclamation will be working
with our partners to facilitate new renewable energy generation
development in association with Reclamation facilities and
operations.
In the area of climate change, Reclamation will do its part
to assist the department in implementing an integrated strategy
to better understand and respond to climate change impacts on
water and associated resources. As identified in the budget
documents, the department will be establishing climate science
centers, landscape conservation cooperatives, and a Climate
Effects Network.
Reclamation's 2011 budget includes an increase of $3
million for Reclamation's basin study program to implement
West-wide risk assessments and to establish two LCCs.
Reclamation's science and technology program will also devote
$4 million in support of the science agenda being carried out
by the climate science centers. This funding represents a
critical investment that will help our stakeholders better
understand and plan for our future impacted by increasing
temperatures.
Treasured landscapes: Protecting the nation's treasured
landscapes is another departmental priority, and it is
imperative that the Reclamation do its share. Simply put,
maintaining our ability to deliver water and generate power
requires protecting and restoring the aquatic and riparian
environments affected by our operations.
Beyond that, restoring the health of our rivers will help
avoid future conflicts and provide more flexibility in
addressing the challenges presented by droughts, increasing
populations, increasing energy demands, environmentally
depleted aquifers, and a changing climate. Included within the
restoring rivers programs are our endangered species recovery
programs, which is an increasing portion of Reclamation's
budget.
The final priority I want to discuss is Reclamation's
support for tribal nations. The 2011 budget continues this
support through our ongoing efforts to implement Indian water
right settlements.
Included in the request is funding for the Animas-La Plata
Project and Shiprock Pipeline, which are features of the
Colorado Ute Settlement. The request also includes funding for
the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, the key element of the
Navajo Nation Water Rights Settlement in the San Juan River
Basin in New Mexico. There is also $4 million included to
complete the federal funding necessary to implement the Soboba
Water Rights Settlement in California.
Outside settlements, Reclamation is addressing tribal needs
through its rural water program. $62 million is requested for
continuing the construction of authorized rural water projects,
several of which benefit tribal nations in the Great Plains and
the upper Colorado River regions.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by simply expressing
my sincere appreciation for the continued support that this
subcommittee has provided the Bureau of Reclamation, and I will
answer questions at the appropriate time. [See Page 622]
Mr. Murray. Chairman, I will not be giving an oral
statement at this time, but will rely on my written testimony.
[See Page 629]
Mr. Pastor. I will start with the California Bay-Delta
water issues, since it is on everybody's mind. California, as
well as the Bureau of Reclamation, have been struggling to
supply water to the state's farmers, municipal and industrial
water users, while protecting the already stressed natural
habitat.
Last month the National Academies released a study of the
impact of water diversions from Sacramento and San Joaquin
Rivers in California on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. These
diversions, which supply water to agricultural, municipal, and
industrial customers, have impacted ecosystem restoration and
the protection of endangered species and highlight the
challenge in California of providing water for growing
populations and economic needs while preventing harm to the
region's natural treasures.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the study's results
that are relevant to the Bureau's operations and direction in
California. You recently took several actions to try to help
San Joaquin Valley farmers and other water users. What actions
has the Reclamation taken to ease water supply shortfalls in
the region? How does the National Academy study relate to the
Reclamation actions in that area? And how are you planning to
move forward in a way that will further improve the situation?
I guess either Madam Secretary or--and Commissioner--both
of you answer.
Ms. Castle. Mr. Chairman, why don't I give an overview of
the departmental response----
Mr. Pastor. Okay.
Ms. Castle [continuing]. On California water issues, and
then Commissioner Connor can talk more specifically about
Reclamation's involvement.
One thing that I think is the overriding message from the
Department of the Interior is that we have an all-hands-on-deck
approach to trying to be productive and helpful and solve
problems in the California Bay-Delta. The secretary himself is
deeply involved. I was in a meeting this morning with him.
He has personally taken a very significant interest in all
of the details of what is going on in California. He announced
yesterday a $20.7 million Recovery Act funding for the
intertie--the connection between the Delta-Mendota Canal and
the California Aqueduct that will help create more efficiency
and more capacity in the use of the California system.
He will be announcing, by the end of this week, the new
allocations of water in California based on the March 1
forecast. He announced the allocations that were based on the
February forecast last month. We have speeded up that process
to try to provide more certainty to California farmers and also
allow them to know earlier what they should be able to count
on.
Reclamation's budget for 2011 in the request--in the
President's request--is $172 million for the Central Valley
Project, and that is just Reclamation. I was looking at the
cross-cut budget for CALFED activities throughout the
administration, and it is $265 million. The bulk of that is
from Department of Interior agencies, but it also includes very
significant contributions from the Corps of Engineers and the
Department of Agriculture. So we really do have a concerted
effort to try to better the situation in California.
With respect to the National Academy of Science study, we
were very pleased that that study found that the decisions and
the conclusions that had been reached by the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the NOAA Fisheries Service were scientifically
justified. But that study gave us, also, some opportunities to
make things better and made some suggestions that are currently
being considered and acted upon within both the Department of
Commerce and the Department of the Interior. We are actively
and aggressively working to follow up on the NAS study
suggestions and hope to come out with a plan in the very near
future.
Mr. Pastor. Commissioner.
Mr. Connor. I would simply add that I would certainly agree
with the notion that California water is on everybody's minds.
It certainly is on my mind on a daily basis and has been a
focus of our efforts. I would simply add a couple of things to
what Secretary Castle has already mentioned.
I think the notion of--with respect to how we are following
up on the recommendations and the analysis done by the National
Academy of Science is to recognize the area of improvement that
the Academy noted, which is a fundamentally integrated approach
to science that needs to take--be taken into account by both
the Bureau of Reclamation as an action agency as well as the
Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries, as the agencies
reviewing the activity under the Endangered Species Act. It is
something that we are going to aggressively follow up on. I
think there is area for improvement in science, and that was
demonstrated this year with the operations that have occurred
so far in 2010.
During the latter part of last year, recognizing, with
respect to the delta smelt and its relationship to turbidity in
the Bay-Delta--recognizing that is one very strong indicator of
the location of the smelt. We, in association with our analysis
of a project known as 2-Gates, we installed a large number of
turbidity monitors in the Delta. The result of that information
was incorporated into the activities this year in reviewing, on
a week-to-week basis, how much we could pump from the Bay-
Delta.
Based on that information, the fisheries agencies, a group
known as the Smelt Working Group, takes a look at all the
indicators and determines whether or not there is a high
likelihood of taking some of the endangered smelt. That data
was very helpful in helping us to understand the location of
smelt and was incorporated and was a factor of why there is a
range within the smelt's biological opinion that you can pump.
That information helped us maintain a higher range of pumping
throughout this spring season, up until April 1 when other
aspects of the biological opinion took place.
So from that standpoint, more precipitation, better
management of our operations have helped to improve the water
supply situation. As mentioned earlier, we will be making yet
another announcement revising our allocations before the end of
the week--Central Valley Project. And that is the type of
activity that we are going to be looking at--science,
integrated science, coordinated operations as the intertie will
allow us to do. That is part of the whole suite of things that
we will be doing over the next year to short-term, mid-term,
and long-term address the California water issues.
Mr. Pastor. The only thing you have to worry about is
precipitation now.
Mr. Connor. Yes.
Mr. Pastor. Because that has been a major factor there, and
I guess it continues to be. I don't know how this winter was up
there in terms of precipitation.
Mr. Connor. It has actually--after the turn of the year,
from January on, it has been fairly good. It has been on the
average level, which is terrific.
The only problem and the ongoing, lingering effects of the
drought was, we were--the fall, through last December, was very
dry. Our reservoirs were low, and although we have gotten a lot
of great precipitation this year we are kind of in a deficit
situation.
But now our reservoirs are refilling. I think at least
three of the five are basically at average year-to-date at this
point in time, including Shasta, which is a very good sign. And
from that standpoint we are in a better situation than we were
last year, but still we have the lingering effects of the
drought plus the ongoing restrictions, which have limited water
supply.
Mr. Pastor. Well, thank God for El Nino last year.
Rodney.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Before yielding my time to Mr. Rehberg,
let me thank the chairman for raising this issue. I don't think
anything on the floor last year raised, should we say, the heat
level in this debate on diversion--water diversion. For those
of us from the East, we really got a full taste, should we say,
or a full measure of how controversial these issues are.
So I could just say on my own behalf, and I am sure other
members of the committee, we will be watching very carefully as
to what the hell is going on out there, and obviously we want
to be respectful of the views and knowledge of members of
Congress from California that represent the whole state and
that area, but boy, I think we learned firsthand, you know, up
close and personal how some of these decisions can affect the
way of life of many people up there. We are obviously
respectful of the environment and fish species, but it was a
lesson for some of us as to how things can sort of dissipate
unless we address it. Hopefully this National Academy study
will put us in the right direction.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield my time
to Mr. Rehberg.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.
Frelinghuysen. Okay.
Real quickly--obviously I don't want to be as aggressive in
my questioning. I think 4 or 5 years ago I got after
Commissioner Keyes and he quit the next day, so----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rehberg. I am going to be a little careful.
Montana produces or provides $50 million a year to the
Reclamation Fund, and the president has seen fit to allow us
back $3 million towards our two major projects that are both
anticipated to cost between $200 million to $250 million
apiece. At $2 million to $3 million per year you can't even
last that long as commissioner, nor could any of us.
I don't get it. Why? What is the idea behind having an
authorized project, signed by the president after the House and
Senate both passes it, and then to appropriate a grand total of
$3 million for two projects from a state that is adequately
providing at least $50 million to your budget? Where is the
money going?
Mr. Connor. Other projects.
Mr. Rehberg. No. You didn't get any of it.
Mr. Connor. I know. As mentioned in the----
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Connor [continuing]. Chairman's remarks, there are a
wide array of competing priorities with respect to----
Mr. Rehberg. With our money.
Mr. Connor. With the money that flows into the Reclamation
Fund----
Mr. Rehberg. From Montana.
Mr. Connor [continuing]. From--Montana being one of many
states that provides money to the Reclamation Fund.
Mr. Rehberg. We call them donor states. We are donating $50
million of energy production--mostly mineral leasing dollars--
for a return of $3 million to two projects that will cost $400
million.
Mr. Connor. Yes.
Mr. Rehberg. Okay. Are you financing or appropriating
dollars in this budget for any unauthorized projects or new
starts?
Mr. Connor. With respect to rural water projects, no. They
are all authorized projects. There are no new starts in our
budget this year.
Mr. Rehberg. Okay.
Mr. Connor. And I would simply note that we did allocate
$200 million of Recovery Act funding for the rural water
projects, including $60 million to those two projects in
Montana.
Mr. Rehberg. But I noticed, like the Garrison Diversion or
with the Lewis and Clark Project, you didn't stop, you kept
going forward. And part of the problem is you are not staying
ahead of inflation, and the projects like Garrison and Lewis
and Clark are eating up the budget because they are not staying
within budget, and it is this catch-22. You are never going to
get ahead of the game if we don't realistically appropriate
dollars to these projects.
Mr. Connor. The numbers don't lie, and I agree with you,
sir, that currently inflation is eating up more in the way of
resources than we are applying year-to-year, without a doubt.
We prioritize our rural water project funding towards O&M; that
has got to be the first priority, according to the
authorizations that we are working under. So we have got $62
million in the budget this year. Approximately $15 million, $16
million of that is being taken up by O&M. So the reality is, as
we complete it--and that is the second priority, trying to
complete projects--we are incurring more in the way of O&M
obligations. So in the balance of----
Mr. Rehberg. But it sounds--
Mr. Connor [continuing]. Competing interests----
Mr. Rehberg [continuing]. We don't see where any projects
are ever completed because of inflation. None of the projects
are ever completed.
Mr. Connor. We certainly, in 2006 we completed the Mid-
Dakota Rural Water Project. We anticipate being able to
complete the Perkins County Project in South Dakota in the near
future and we have several projects that are----
Mr. Rehberg. But based upon the $3 million that our two
projects, North Central and Dry Prairie, got, when do you
project them being completed?
Mr. Connor. I will have to get back to you, but those
projects are not near completion at this point in time. We do
have projections as to when they might be completed. Those
projections are based on phase-out completion of the projects
that are ongoing right now and then we can move.
Mr. Rehberg. One last question, Mr. Chairman, then.
Could we realistically assume the appropriations within
your request is the priority that--your internal priority
ranking? So Garrison is number one, Lewis and Clark is number
two, on down the list? Is that a fair assumption?
Mr. Connor. We do have--and I am happy to provide to the
subcommittee the priorities that we use for ranking, and they
are based on O&M first, then it is the ability to----
Mr. Rehberg. Yes. I am more interested in the construction
priorities as opposed to the O&M priorities.
Mr. Connor [continuing]. And then based on the ability and
the likelihood of being able to complete projects.
Mr. Rehberg. Yes. If we could, I would like to also have
you send that to my office.
Mr. Connor. Absolutely.
Mr. Rehberg. Great.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Salazar. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, to all of you here.
Mr. Connor, I want to thank you for all your help with the
Arkansas Valley Conduit and Hatua Reservoir and Jackson Gulch
Rehabilitation. I think that is where Mr. Rehberg's money
probably is going. [Laughter.]
But thank you, sir, for being such a great donor state.
I am just curious why the conduit request for the ARRA
funding has been declined. I know that one of the criteria is
shovel-ready projects, but I have noticed on your Web site
that--and don't misunderstand me, I am not critical of these
projects--but there are several projects that have been put on
that have funding for cost-share studies for planning and
preliminary engineering, such as the Bay-Delta Conservation
Plan and the Climate Agreement and principal and the San Carlos
Irrigation Project--and again, I am not criticizing the work of
these project, but we had requested some ARRA funding so that
we could actually begin the legal process and the planning
process for the Arkansas Valley Conduit and we were declined.
Could you tell us the difference, why these projects got--or
maybe my brother doesn't like me. I don't know. [Laughter.]
Mr. Connor. That one I will not touch, but I will note that
with respect to the Recovery Act Funding, we have made our
initial set of allocations back last April 2009. We have been
working through those projects that were identified at that
point in time and we are seeing, based on bids, et cetera, we
are having some funds being made available which we are now
reallocating to different projects.
With respect to the Arkansas Valley Conduit, my
understanding is, based on the $5 million write-in that you
were successful in securing in 2010, which we are making very
good use of towards the planning and environmental activity
that you mentioned, plus the $3 million that we have included
in the fiscal year 2011 budget for the Arkansas Valley Conduit,
that we are addressing the full measure of capabilities and
needs that we have right now for the planning activities. So I
think our perspective right now is that, based on 2010 and the
2011 request that we are doing--maximizing the use of resources
towards the planning and the environmental compliance
activities right now for Arkansas Valley Conduit.
Mr. Salazar. It is my understanding that they could utilize
the $11 million to complete the legal process by next October.
But also, can you provide us with the status of initiating the
legal process for the conduit?
Mr. Connor. I can provide that to you for the record.
Mr. Salazar. Okay. Because it was my understanding that it
was supposed to take place earlier this month and it hasn't.
Mr. Connor. Okay. I will follow up on that, Congressman.
Mr. Salazar. Okay. That is all the questions I have for you
now. Thank you very much.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously I am from
California, so I get to take a crack at this Bay-Delta problem
also.
I am certainly happy that we are moving, finally, toward
this intertie project, and I am also, along with the ranking
member, curious to find out what this National Academy study
will find. But from a pragmatic point of view, and living in
the state and being the past chairman of the authorizing
committee, being familiar with this problem and the authors of
the underlying legislation on the Bay-Delta, I am certainly
very concerned about the immediacy of this issue.
Now, I know you are going to come out with a new allocation
number here pretty soon and there is a lot of people that are
risking--are waiting for that number. Their very livelihood is
at question here. And I am certainly hopeful--what is the
snowpack right now in this year, I mean, relative to the
overall season so far?
Mr. Connor. That is one number I didn't check before I came
in today, but I think in most of our basins where we are, with
respect to reservoir levels--Shasta, Folsom--we are--and
Friant--we are at basically 100 percent average, year-to-date.
So the snowpack----
Mr. Calvert. I have heard that it is about approximately
120 percent. Would you say that is approximately correct?
Mr. Connor. It has been up to 120 percent, then we hit a
dry spell in March, and then we have hit a wet spot in the last
couple weeks so it is probably back up.
Mr. Calvert. Well, I would hope that we can get these
allocations back up to where they need to be in order to get
production up. As you know, there are a number of farms with
permanent crops that literally--if a proper allocation isn't
put on the table quickly they are gone. They have stressed that
crop so much they can't go another year. So I am hopeful that
that occurs.
If anyone suggests that the water crisis in California is
over, unfortunately it is not--we could have 120 percent
snowpack, and unless you increase the allocation and allow
these people to pump then, in fact, nothing is going to be
accomplished. As a matter of fact, I don't know if you keep a
statistic on how much water that would be otherwise delivered
to water-users that have been allowed to flow out to the
Pacific Ocean due to federal imposed restrictions.
If you could, I would like for the record to find out how
many acre-feet of water were lost last year due to pumping
restrictions. You probably don't know that off the top of your
head, but I would like to know that number. Do you think you
can find that and submit that for the record?
Mr. Connor. Yes, we can, and I will follow up more
specifically. But for last year's number--2009--the figures
that we have been public with, and it is coordinated between
our analysis--ours being the Bureau of Reclamation--and the
State Department of Water Resources, is that on average there
has been, over the last decade, 5.7 million acre-feet pumped
from the California Bay-Delta--combined pumping between the
state project and the Central Valley Project. In 2009 the
number was 3.6 million acre-feet, so the difference was 2.1
million acre-feet.
Mr. Calvert. Does that 2.1 million acre-feet have any
positive impact on the delta smelt?
Mr. Connor. Well, all I can tell you----
Mr. Calvert. Doesn't, in fact, the delta smelt population
continue to decline?
Mr. Connor. I wouldn't make a judgment as to their overall
health, but as you have been informed, the trawling figures
that estimate the populations were lower this past year. I
would just note that of that 2.1 million acre-foot reduction--
--
Mr. Calvert. I would hope in this study that is being
completed that they would recognize that the smelt population
continues to crash in spite of the delta restrictions--pumping
restrictions--that are in place, and that certainly,
anecdotally, it would be to most people's reaction that there
are other reasons, as Mr. Costa and others have pointed out,
why the smelt population continues to go down. And certainly
the interface between an urban population in San Francisco and
other factors have a negative impact on that population. And I
would hope that that study would point that out.
I participated in a meeting with David Hayes some time ago
about the 2-Gates Project, and I know you have gone through a
number of studies, and studies of whether--why the 2-Gates
Project won't work. I have never really heard precisely why it
won't work. Can you tell us, for the record, why you believe
the 2-Gates project will not work and you will not move forward
on that project?
Mr. Connor. Well, we have not made a conclusion that the 2-
Gates Project won't work. What we made a conclusion on at the
end of last year was that we were not going to be able to
complete the studies necessary to initiate construction in
2010.
That was based on, I would say, three factors, one factor
being the substantial increase in cost from the preliminary
estimates of $25 million to estimates that range from $60
million to $70 million, leaving the question of who was going
to fund the entirety of the project. Two, an independent
science panel--the CALFED independent science panel, made up
not just of federal biologists, state biologists, and other
academics, had concluded that there was not the--at this point
in time there had not been the scientific underpinnings have
been prove that 2-Gates would work. And then three, there was
significant local opposition to the project necessitating a
more thorough environmental review than an E.A.
I would say that in--we are ongoing with the analysis and
the studies necessary to look at the 2-Gates Project, and they
have been very fruitful, not that the 2-Gates Project wouldn't
work but the location of the gates initially and where they
were being specked out were probably not the optimum place to
put it, and there are----
Mr. Calvert. Well, I would also point out, if there isn't
some urgency to this, in fact, there won't be anything left to
protect, I mean, as far as the farmers--I am not talking about
the smelt, whether it protects them or not, but we need to get
on this right away. We have talked about this for well over a
year now. And, you know, you only have a short window in order
to build that, so we need to determine whether it is a feasible
project or not.
From my trips up there and talking to people, they believe
that it is, and I think regarding these numbers that we have
been bantering around, the contractors themselves told me that
they thought it was about $30 million. I don't know where
others came up with the $60 million number, unless it was for
environmental mitigation that was related to the 2-Gates
Project. Was that part of the problem?
Mr. Connor. I don't know the entirety of the problem, but
the significant--the most significant aspect of the increase
was due to trying to move the project forward so quickly----
Mr. Calvert. Well, I guess my biggest concern is that if we
can't move forward on these short-term projects how are we
going to get around to the long-term solution of the Bay-Delta,
including the diversion around the delta, if ever? I mean, we
can't seem to resolve these short-term issues, and I am just
very concerned about the future of the Central Valley and what
is going to happen.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Pastor. You know, the drought has been a factor for a
number of years. That 2.1 million acre-feet, what percentage
was due to the drought? Do you have any idea?
Mr. Connor. Of that 2.1 million acre-foot shortfall last
year, 75 percent was attributed to hydrology, or the drought,
25 percent was due to the regulatory restrictions.
Mr. Pastor. How much was----
Mr. Connor. Seventy-five percent, or 1.6 million acre-feet,
was due to the drought conditions in California, and 500,000
acre-feet, or 25 percent, was due to the regulatory
restrictions.
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Been dealing with water all my life. I am from Arkansas and
my family is in the rice business, and it is a big deal to us.
Last year we got 80 inches of rainfall. That is a 10-year
supply for California or places out there.
When I first went to work at the White House--Clinton White
House--in 1993 they explained to me that in the West whiskey is
for drinking and water is for fighting, and I am sure you have
heard that before. I then went to the Central Valley--I believe
we were in Vasai, I am not sure--it was a big packing shed out
there and it was about 110 degrees, and Secretary Babbitt had
been there the week before and declared that he would like for
the hallmark of this administration to be that he destroyed
Friant Dam. That didn't go very well either.
Bill Thomas--and I didn't even know who Bill Thomas was; I
did after that forever more--but I was there as a special
assistant to the president for agriculture and was trying to
explain that they really weren't going to blow up Friant Dam,
but Bill Thomas didn't let me off the hook and he took the hide
off of me like you wouldn't believe in front of 3,000 people
that enjoyed every minute of it.
Having said that, when--I was just kind of sitting back
thinking, ``I got 80 inches of rainfall last year and we got
water all over the place and I am not really worried about it,
and this is an issue for those west of me,'' and then we brang
up a project that I didn't even know existed called ``Arkansas
Valley Conduit.'' I don't know how far that is from me but I
don't want them taking water out of the Arkansas River if they
don't have to, and that makes me a little nervous, even though
I don't know anything about it----
Mr. Salazar. Will the gentleman yield?
The Arkansas River is in Colorado. It is a small----
Mr. Berry. I know, but it comes by me. [Laughter.]
And I want it to keep coming by me. We have recommended
that those states west of us drink as much beer as possible,
especially in dry conditions. [Laughter.]
All that having been said, I am very interested in the
answer to the question that Mr. Calvert from California raised.
And I actually, when I was in the White House, dealt with some
of those issues myself, as part of my job. And I know they are
complex and they are difficult, and you have got extremes on
both sides and all those things, but is it possible to tell
whether all these measures that have been done and tried and
continued to be speculated about, whether it is changing
anything or not?
Mr. Connor. Well, I think it is, and I think some of these
measures demonstrate progress very soon after they are
completed; some of them are a little bit more intangible. In
response to Congressman Calvert's, I guess, admonition that we
really latch on to some of these projects that can make a
difference short term, I think the intertie project that we
just announced funding for yesterday is one of those projects,
and I know you mentioned that as progress being made, and I
appreciate that.
That is one that we know, based on that increased
flexibility of that intertie between the state system and
federal system, I think there is a general consensus that we
are going to yield another 40,000 acre-feet of water to the
project once we complete that. That is an 18-month completion.
It is going to be in operation at the end of 2011, which is
great for us because that is when we--that is one time that we
can start pumping a lot of water. So that is indicative of
something that will have a very good effect immediately.
I would also note, as Congressman Calvert is well aware of,
the Title 16 program that has been strongly supported. This is
water reuse in Southern California, and its genesis in 1992 was
to reuse water to get some of the Southern California
municipalities to rely more on local supplies as opposed to the
imported supplies from the delta. That, up until this point in
time through the various implementation of the numerous
projects we have in Southern California, we estimate they have
saved or they have recycled and had as an additional supply
something to the tune of about 250,000 acre-feet.
I don't think Southern California would have ever survived
the restrictions from the Colorado River or the Bay-Delta
currently if they hadn't implemented those projects and had
increased local supplies. So I think that is another example of
where progress has been made, it has been meaningful, and it
has helped weather the storm. Certainly, though, we have a lot
more to do. We are in a new paradigm, given the state of the
ecosystem in the Bay-Delta, and we need to be rapidly
responding to that and developing--Secretary Castle mentioned--
an all-hands-on-deck approach--infrastructure, operations,
science--so that we can meet the challenges that we face now.
Ms. Castle. Mr. Berry, if I may add to that answer, on the
science component, one of the things that we are doing is
looking very hard at connecting jeopardy to the fish species
with actions on the ground. We are looking at how the smelt in
particular are associated with turbid conditions. And that was
one of the premises of the 2-Gates Project, that we are looking
to see if there are less expensive, less, sort of, major
structural alternatives that we can use to try to make a more
direct connection between the pumping restrictions and jeopardy
to the smelt--getting the smelt killed in the ponds.
So the U.S. Geological Survey is working on that together
with the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries. So we
are also looking forward to the phase two of the National
Academy of Science studies that will look at the other
stressors that you mentioned, Mr. Calvert, the water pollution
into the Bay-Delta, that is also having an effect on fish.
And I think finally, we need to recognize that the state of
California is also looking very hard at what it needs to do
with its state water project that is also part of the mix here,
and the California voters will be faced with that decision in
November. So, you know, I think that it is one of those
situations where no one agency can solve the problem. It is a
big problem. It has developed over 100 years. We have got an
ecosystem in collapse and we all need to work together in order
to try to make it better.
Mr. Pastor. In the report it finds that biological opinions
are scientifically justified, but it also asserts
implementation of actions identified by the opinions need to be
accompanied by careful monitoring, adopted management, and
additional analysis. So what you explained just a few minutes
ago, I am assuming that that is part of that whole plan as
required by the report.
Ms. Castle. Yes, sir. We are looking and working with NOAA
Fisheries to integrate the actions of the two agencies that are
charged with endangered species protections--Fish and Wildlife
Service and NOAA Fisheries. That was one of the significant
findings in the NAS report, that those two biological opinions
should be better integrated. So we are looking at both short-
term and long-term measures to work the bi-ops collectively and
also looking forward to the announcement of the Bay-Delta
Conservation Plan, which is expected later this year in
November, and that will give us the opportunity to work
together with NOAA Fisheries to come up with an integrated
biological opinion that will address the long-term plan that
California has proposed.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you might guess, I was going to ask something about the
Minidoka Spillway, and so I will. We have discussed this in the
past, as you know, the irrigation district went out and passed
bonds that would enable them to fund their portion of the
spillway project. Bureau didn't put any funding in for this
year so there is no match for them. That is why they are
concerned that they are going to go out and sell these bonds,
they are not going to have the money to start this.
Construction costs are going to be higher next year. Is
there anything we are going to be able to do to help them start
this year? If not, is it going to be part of the Bureau of
Reclamation's priorities next year?
Mr. Connor. Well, we are going to have a hard time getting
started this year. As you know, we will finish the MPA
compliance activity by the end of this fiscal year, so if there
was funding available we would be able to initiate construction
in fiscal year 2011.
It is not, as you mentioned, in our budget request. And so
absent some federal funds being available or the water-users
who, I do understand now, have approved their bonding issue,
put in additional money it looks like we are headed towards a
year's delay in those project costs, and we do have to
seriously look at that situation.
That is, as we have discussed, an item now that we have got
the local funding that we know is going to be made available.
We do have to look at that as a very high priority need where
there is a mechanism with the locals to get that done, so it is
going to be right up there in our considerations next year.
And I am happy to continue the dialogue that we have had
ongoing. I think it has been fairly productive. And we will
continue to negotiate a repayment contract under the new
authority that was provided in the Omnibus Public Lands bill on
the chance that there is funding made available.
Mr. Simpson. Appreciate that.
Over half of Reclamation's dams and dikes were built in the
first half of the 20th century. Reclamation has a continued
responsibility to ensure the safety of these facilities. The
budget request maintains that dam safety is one of
Reclamation's highest priorities but the budget request is
$95.2 million below the 2010 funding level.
How is this funding level consistent with the
administration's recognition that dam safety is one of the
highest priorities? And have there been any dams that have
failed over the last 5, 10, 20 years? And what is the
likelihood of that?
What are we doing about dam safety? It is a concern of
mine, having lived below the one dam that probably failed--last
major one--of Reclamation's since Teton Dam.
Mr. Connor. Yes. I think dam safety--I don't have the exact
years--has become a much more of a priority for Reclamation. We
are slightly below--$2 million below the 2010 enacted level,
but the reason we adjusted that number towards the end of the
budget process because we were able to put more Recovery Act
money in towards dam safety funding, specifically to Folsom. So
we took some of the planned activities for 2011 in Folsom Dam
and are accomplishing that this year using some additional
Recovery Act funds.
Mr. Simpson. So we put Recovery Act funds into dam safety?
Mr. Connor. Oh, we put a significant amount of--we always
had some level of Recovery Act funds into dam safety
specifically for----
Mr. Simpson [continuing]. Into projects?
Mr. Connor. Yes, Folsom Dam, the project that has been
ongoing for several years there. We had an opportunity to
complete another phase so we put in a little bit more money
into that particular effort. So it has been a priority; we have
ramped it up over the last, I think, 5 years--I am not sure
what the figures are, but we got it up to about a $95 million,
$100 million program and that is where we are trying to keep it
right now----
Mr. Simpson. Okay.
Mr. Connor [continuing]. Given that it is a priority.
Notwithstanding that, I think a--not a major failure, as
you indicated that Teton was but we did have an incident this
year with Red Willow Dam in Nebraska that has caused us to draw
down that facility to a safe operating level, which is going to
impact irrigation in Nebraska this year, and we are doing it
all-hands-on-deck to get a corrective action plan in place with
hopefully initiating some action, and we will be looking at our
budget to take care of that corrective action need in 2012 and
beyond.
Mr. Simpson. Well, dam safety is not only an issue with BOR
but also with the Army Corps. It is one of the primary concerns
I have with the Army Corps. Did you start any projects with
ARRA funding that will need additional funding in the future to
continue or will they be able to be completed with the ARRA
funding?
Mr. Connor. You are talking dam safety----
Mr. Simpson. I am talking--projects, because--well, there
was direction, as I understand it, that projects that were
started with ARRA funding were supposed to be completed with
ARRA funding and not impact the ongoing budget that you
currently have. So did we start any projects which got
partially funded and now we are going to have to find funding
for in the budget for ongoing years?
Mr. Connor. Let me answer that question for the record.
Mr. Simpson. Okay.
Mr. Connor. I think that would be a more complete and
thoughtful response.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. I appreciate that.
One last question: The quagga mussel research--we provided
funding for an R&D program to determine ways to deal with this
invasive species. We are very concerned about this in the West
and its impact on our waters. How much of that funding is
included in the Reclamation's budget to address the control of
the quagga mussels and what is the estimated cost that
Reclamation has to deal with quagga mussels in Reclamation
projects?
I mean, it is going to be a huge issue. Obviously it is in
the Great Lakes area, and, you know, we would just as soon
leave it there.
Mr. Connor. Right. And we are taking a, once again, kind of
across-the-board approach to quagga mussels. We allocated $4.5
million of Recovery Act money to investigations and trying to
do the surveys and monitoring, working very closely with the
states--and Idaho is certainly one of those states--to really
identify where we have some of these issues.
Other than that, we have got $1.5 million in our science
and technology program evaluating ways to deal with the mussels
once they are there and how to avoid them attaching to some of
our facilities and ramping up our maintenance costs. Then we
have money spread out across our regions for additional
educating the public on not spreading--potentially spreading--
quagga mussels, other protection activities. All told, I think
we have got in our upcoming request something along the lines
of $4 million that we are going to be applying towards quagga
mussel activity----
Mr. Simpson. Well, let's----
Mr. Connor [continuing]. On top of the $4.5 million----
Mr. Simpson. Let's get control of them and reduce them, and
not to the level where they become endangered, because then we
have got a problem. So find a way to contain them, because they
do add significantly to the cost----
Mr. Connor. Absolutely.
Mr. Simpson [continuing]. Of operations and can
significantly damage the infrastructure of all our projects. So
I appreciate it. Thank you for all you do. I appreciate you
being here.
Mr. Rehberg. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Simpson. Sure.
Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Chairman, could I ask also, then, when you
get back for the record the answer to Mr. Simpson's question,
using stimulus dollars for any of those projects that were
started, either not authorized or new starts? That would
complete the question that I asked about this current budget--
is any money in this current budget being appropriated or
requested for either non-authorized--it is not unauthorized, I
don't think is the right word--but unauthorized or new starts
and you said no. So the question then would be, were there any
non-authorized or new starts using stimulus dollars?
Mr. Connor. Yes. We will combine those questions and make
it a comprehensive answer.
Mr. Simpson. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rehberg. Yes, sir.
Mr. Simpson. While you are at it--and I am sure that the
chairman will agree--we would like to know where you have spent
all the stimulus money, how much has been obligated, you know--
--
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rehberg. Did I mention $50 million coming out of my
state, getting $3 paltry million back? Did I mention that?
Mr. Simpson. Didn't get any stimulus money at all?
Mr. Rehberg. We did get stimulus money.
Mr. Simpson. You did.
Mr. Rehberg. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. I thought it was $50 million.
Mr. Rehberg. What did I say? $30 million?
Mr. Simpson. $60 million. It went up $10 million.
Mr. Rehberg. It was $50 million. It was $50 million that
went to Reclamation funds; it was $3 million back.
Mr. Simpson. $60 million in Recovery Act----
Mr. Rehberg. Recovery Act, yes.
Mr. Simpson [continuing]. Projects in Montana.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Can I reclaim my time from you, Mr.
Simpson?
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We would like to know how much money has
been spent, how much has been obligated, anything related, and
certainly in terms of jobs. I think that is--that was sort of
why we put all that money out there. All of that money being
borrowed was to actually promote some, hopefully, private
sector jobs. Want to comment, or----
Mr. Connor. Yes, I----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. If that is all right, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Pastor. It is.
Mr. Connor. Just very briefly--we will provide a full
accounting as you request, but as of this date, $615 million
have been obligated of the $950 million that we have received,
and about $134 million has actually already been expended.
Ms. Castle. Can I also add that the Central Utah Project
Completion Act Office is the poster child for Recovery Act
money spending. They have obligated 99.6 percent of the $50
million that went to CUPCA and have expended about 60 percent--
--
Mr. Frelinghuysen. There are no poster children in Idaho?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Simpson. I better yield back my time, Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Pastor. I think you had better, yes.
And I felt sorry about Montana, you know, about the measly
$3 million, and now I have got--well, I better start
complaining about some of the Arizona projects while I am at
it.
Mr. Rehberg. If that money is free why don't you give us
the rest of it, the unobligated dollars? What is going to
happen to the unobligated dollars? That is one of the questions
that we always need to ask next.
Mr. Pastor. Well, I know we have to ask it, and I will--why
don't you respond for the record as you are going over these--
--
Mr. Rehberg. Because again, I talk about inflation and we
are not getting ahead of the game and it keeps costing more,
and why not take the unobligated and finish----
Mr. Connor. Well, the unobligated funds that we have, we
have a schedule and we can provide that, too, of where we
expect those to be expended--obligated over the next few
months. For example, the Red Bluff Diversion, the pumping plant
that we are doing in California, our largest Recovery Act
project--it is $110 million that we obligated towards that. We
have already, in a series of contracts, obligated approximately
half of that money, so it has been a series of buying
equipment, getting initial designs activities going. Now our
next contract is going to be the balance of the $100 million, I
think by the end of May, which will be something along the
lines of about a $70 million or $80 million contract to
actually initiate construction activities.
So that is kind of indicative of the phased-in approach on
that particular project. A large fish-screening, Contra Costa,
that we have is similar. And in fact, we have had three series
of obligations. The last one will be the balance of
construction and we will move forward. And that is----
Mr. Pastor. Why don't I make a request that you have all of
that back to the committee on the record and that way we have
it and everybody can see what it is and where it is at.
Mr. Connor. Yes, sir.
Mr. Simpson [continuing]. To know on that, if I could, Mr.
Chairman, is, are we obligating ourselves and this committee to
future spending because of these projects that should have been
completed with ARRA funds--as I understand it the requirement
was that the project be completed with those funds.
Mr. Pastor. Are you asking in maintenance and operation?
Mr. Rehberg. Not in maintenance and operation, but
finishing construction.
Mr. Simpson. And if any of those unobligated funds and
those projects don't get started that you have got on that list
of things, there is a Minidoka Spillway waiting.
Mr. Pastor. Let me ask a question. I will go to Rodney and
he can--he is yielding time anyway, so I will let him do that.
I am going to go back to the mussel question. In the last
year or so there has been great concern on Lake Powell, and
conversations with the two senators--Senator Kyl and Senator
McCain--and members of the delegation, there is a concern about
the contamination of Lake Powell with the mussel.
I don't know what species it is, but are you aware of it?
Because I have been told that the Bureau of Reclamation has had
some concern over it.
Ms. Castle. Oh, I think we are all very concerned that we
keep the quagga mussel problem from spreading. It is in Lake
Mead and----
Mr. Pastor. In Lake Mead, okay.
Ms. Castle. Yes. But there is great concern that it not
spread to Lake Powell, so they have got an aggressive
inspection--boat inspection--program to just try to make sure
that boats that have been in areas that are infested don't
bring the mussels with them to Lake Powell.
Mr. Pastor. Well, one concern was that we did not have
enough resources to do adequate policing of the boats coming in
and that that would--that was where the gap was that the monies
were not there. And we were talking about what would be
different methods of providing enough resources so that Lake
Powell would not get contaminated.
Ms. Castle. I am not familiar with----
Mr. Pastor. Okay. Maybe you can respond on the record.
Ms. Castle. Yes. We can respond on the record.
Mr. Pastor. Okay.
Rodney.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Commissioner Connor, tell me about the--
is there $10 million for a Bureau-wide urban canal project?
Mr. Connor. Yes. That is part of the money that we
allocated towards the aging infrastructure part of our Recovery
Act program. Approximately $135 million went for various
rehabilitation projects but we did have $10 million to get our
arms around this issue that is becoming more readily apparent--
the problem of urban canals and the possibility of failure of
those canals and the impact on the communities--adjacent
communities, the example being, and what has driven the issue,
has been the failure of the Truckee Canal, through Fernley,
Nevada, which resulted in a significant property loss in that
area. And so based on that and knowing that that----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So these are urban canals basically in
the western----
Mr. Connor. Yes. That is correct.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. In Reclamation's canals in the 17
western states Idaho has a number of these areas. I would be
happy to yield to the gentleman, Mr. Rehberg.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
And Mr. Simpson made a very important point. He said he
didn't necessarily need the operation and maintenance but you
had said before that operation and maintenance is your number
one priority and then the project construction. So it does
matter that if there are projects that were completed using
stimulus dollars and there is operation and maintenance on top
of it, that keeps my projects in Montana from being completed
sooner because you are going to go to operation and maintenance
as a result.
And so the question then once again becomes, were there
projects that were not authorized or new starts using stimulus
dollars? And I know you are going to need to get back, but that
becomes very important if construction is after operation and
maintenance in your list of priorities. So I would like to
maybe amend Mr. Simpson's request and say, yes, please provide
for the committee operations and maintenance as well for the
new projects, completed or not, under stimulus----
Mr. Connor. Any operation and maintenance obligations that
we are then incurring as a result of finishing construction
phases?
Mr. Rehberg. Yes.
Mr. Connor. Okay.
Mr. Rehberg. Using stimulus dollars.
Mr. Connor. Using stimulus dollars.
Mr. Rehberg. And once again, whether it was unauthorized or
new starts.
Mr. Connor. And just two points that I would make, just--
and I recognize we will be doing this--I don't--either I am not
understanding, but I don't believe we would be providing any
money for any unauthorized activities. They are authorized
activities. That was a fundamental premise of Recovery Act.
And two, I think--and this is where I want to be careful--
new starts versus--I know that we did start new authorized
projects in the Title 16 area. The obligation we have in the
Recovery Act was to be a--ensure that we complete phases, you
know, so that you were not--that we didn't allocate money to a
part of a project that would then carry over and we would have
to naturally fund that the next year, that we could complete a
phase, such as the rural water projects, a water treatment
facility--but we will clarify that when we get back.
Mr. Calvert. In your budget--this fiscal 2011 budget--you
request funding for specific Title 16 projects, which is
normal. However, you requested funding for a discretionary
program where you would award funds for Title 16 projects on a
competitive basis. Do you think it sends a confusing message to
Title 16 project sponsors that can receive funds either through
direct appropriations or through a competitive discretionary
grant program?
Mr. Connor. This year is a year of transition, so hopefully
any confusion will be resolved as we go on task. We have issued
now--as you know, we worked on the criteria for assessing
feasibility of projects. Now we have moved into developing
criteria for prioritizing our funding requests. That is in the
mix this year.
We just issued the draft criteria approximately 1 month
ago; we are taking public comment and input into that. And
based on that transition where previously we had only low
dollars for Title 16, approximately in the neighborhood of $7
million to $9 million, they were being used to fund completion
of just a few of the originally authorized projects.
Now we are ramping up the resources available to Title 16.
I think last year Title 16 received $13.5 million in 2010
enacted, and we have increased that in our budget request to
$29 million. So we are increasing the resources, and while we
have got this criteria development we decided to allocate this
to a pot of money that we would then apply that criteria.
We are still determining how to move forward. Next year we
may use that criteria and just fund projects or, depending on--
--
Mr. Calvert. Well, obviously you need to clear that up,
because there is some confusion out there.
In your budget you mention unauthorized Title 16 projects
that received nigh construction funding under a new
discretionary program. Do you envision the limits being both on
a per-project basis as well as an overall basis for
unauthorized project funding?
Mr. Connor. They will all be authorized projects and they
will all have to fit within the ceiling that is being made
available. And we will go through the process similar to the
process that we used in allocating the $135 million for
Recovery Act.
Mr. Calvert. Well if, in fact, you go back and you find,
based on Mr. Rehberg's question, that unauthorized projects
were funded using stimulus dollars, would a project be eligible
for non-construction funding?
Mr. Connor. No. The only projects that are going to be
eligible for that money are authorized projects--
congressionally authorized projects. That is the list of--I
think that is one of the first level of criteria in the
criteria that we just released for comment. So it is authorized
projects.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Murray. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
Thank you.
Mr. Pastor. That concludes the hearing.
Thank you very much, Madam Secretary, Commissioner. And
don't forget, send us the answers to the questions. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.400
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.401
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.402
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.403
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.404
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.405
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.406
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.407
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.408
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.409
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.410
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.411
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.412
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.413
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.414
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.415
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.416
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.417
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.418
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.419
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.420
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.421
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.422
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.423
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.424
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.425
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.426
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.427
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.428
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.429
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.430
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.431
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.432
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.433
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.434
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.435
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.436
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.437
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.438
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.439
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.440
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.441
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.442
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.443
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.444
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.445
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.446
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.447
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.448
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.449
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.450
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.451
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.452
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.453
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.454
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.455
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.456
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.457
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.458
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.459
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.460
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.461
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.462
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.463
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.464
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.465
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.466
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.467
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.468
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.469
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.470
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.471
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.472
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.473
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.474
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.475
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.476
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.477
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.478
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.479
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.480
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.481
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.482
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.483
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.484
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.485
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.486
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.487
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.488
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.489
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.490
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.491
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.492
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.493
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.494
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.495
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.496
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.497
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.498
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.499
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.500
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.501
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.502
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.503
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.504
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.505
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.506
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.507
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.508
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.509
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.510
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.511
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.512
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.513
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.514
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.515
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.516
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.517
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.518
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.519
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.520
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.521
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.522
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.523
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.524
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.525
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.526
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.527
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.528
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.529
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.530
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.531
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.532
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.533
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.534
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.535
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.536
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.537
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.538
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.539
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.540
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.541
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.542
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.543
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.544
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.545
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.546
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.547
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.548
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.549
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.550
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.551
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.552
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.553
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.554
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.555
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.556
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.557
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.558
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.559
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.560
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.561
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.562
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.563
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.564
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.565
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.566
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.567
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.568
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.569
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.570
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.571
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.572
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.573
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.574
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.575
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.576
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.577
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.578
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.579
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1742A.580
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Castle, Anne..................................................... 427
Connor, M. L..................................................... 427
Darcy, Jo-Ellen.................................................. 1
Grisoli, Major General WIlliam................................... 1
Loew, G. A....................................................... 1
Murray, Reed..................................................... 427
Van Antwerp, Lieutenant General Robert........................... 1