[Senate Hearing 106-123]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-123
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 11, 1999
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-822 cc WASHINGTON : 1999
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred sixth congress
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming HARRY REID, Nevada
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BARBARA BOXER, California
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah RON WYDEN, Oregon
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 11, 1999
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 2
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 1
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida......... 18
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 15
Moynihan, Hon. Patrick, U.S. Senator from the State of New York.. 31
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 3
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia....................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Westphal, Hon. Joseph W., Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works; accompanied by Michael Davis, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Policy and Legislation........................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 45
Senator Crapo............................................ 27
Senator Graham........................................... 49
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 44
(iii)
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT
OF 1999
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John H. Chafee
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Chafee, Warner, Baucus, Voinovich,
Lautenberg, Graham, and Crapo.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. Today we want to welcome Dr. Westphal,
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
Today we will be considering the Water Resources
Development Act for 1999 in regards to its fiscal year 2000
budget request for the Army Corps Civil Works program.
On March 2 of this year, just last week, Senator Warner,
joined by Senators Baucus, Voinovich, Lautenberg, Bennett,
Boxer, and myself introduced the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999, which is S. 507.
This bill, which authorizes an estimated $2 billion in
Federal funds for flood control, navigation, environment, and
shore protection projects and studies, is virtually identical
to legislation which we adopted last October in the Senate.
This is good legislation that is important to different
States and communities across the country. These non-Federal
sponsors have dutifully cost-shared all of the studies, the
design work, and other preparatory steps for the construction
phase of flood control, shoreline protection, environmental,
and navigation projects.
I see it as our duty to now move forward with the
authorization of worthwhile projects. This is what this bill
does, and I hope we can advance it swiftly, particularly since
it was approved, as I mentioned before, by the Senate late last
year on October 9, 1998.
Secretary Westphal was very helpful last year, and I look
forward to working closely with him again.
Secretary Westphal is also here this morning to present the
fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Army Corps. This budget
request of $3.9 billion is essentially level with that
appropriated by Congress for the current fiscal year. A large
portion of the 2000 request, however, includes assumed revenues
from this new Harbor Services Fund. Almost 25 percent of the
overall budget request is made up by the estimated $950 million
that has been set aside under this new fund.
Obviously, we need to take a close look at this. We need to
hold hearings with all of the stakeholders. Who are they? The
shippers, the vessel operators, ports, and others--to make sure
that there is equal burden-sharing and to examine the budget
implications.
We should continue with some kind of user fund system, but
I must say I don't know just which approach we should take, but
I'm eager to receive detailed proposals from the Administration
so we may begin the process of responding to last year's
Supreme Court ruling.
I see Senator Baucus is here. Senator, did you have a
statement?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join
you in welcoming Dr. Westphal this morning.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, today's hearing on S. 507, the
Water Resources Development Act, gives us an opportunity to
hear the Administration's proposal for policies and projects
for the Corps of Engineers. This year's WRDA bill is
essentially the same bill the Senate passed during the 105th
Congress. It was not enacted because there was no companion
bill in the House.
I hope that our swift action on the bill early this session
will spur House discussions on the flood control project for
Sacramento. If an agreement can be reached, we can get WRDA
1999 signed into law and look forward to WRDA 2000.
WRDA 1999 proposes a number of new initiatives:
establishment of the Challenge 21 program, which would
authorize non-structural flood control and river ecosystem
restoration projects; an aquatic restoration program for the
Missouri River; changing the cost share for shoreline
protection, making beach renourishment a 50/50 Federal/non-
Federal responsibility; and allocating additional recreational
fees collected at Corps facilities.
I applaud the Administration for recognizing recreation in
the Corps' mission and the need to keep our recreational
facilities in shape.
I also look forward to hearing the views of the
Administration on the future of the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund and the alternative that they are considering.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the ad valorem
fee on exporters is unconstitutional, we need to find an
equitable source of funding to ensure the continued viability
of our Nation's ports.
This committee wants to be very helpful, it wants to be
involved in developing that alternative, and we look forward
very much to hearing from you Honorable Westphal this morning.
Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Warner.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
support that you gave me last year as the subcommittee chairman
and the support I received from our distinguished ranking
member who, indeed, worked with me a great deal on this, and
for the courtesies accorded this Senator from our newest member
here, Senator Voinovich.
The important thing is that America looks upon this
legislation as being predictable. I have observed, as other
Members of the Senate, through the years, the care with which
the communities try to order their priorities, and in the end
put up such matching funds as are required.
Our waterways are our links and our lifelines. This is
America, a maritime nation. We must project across the oceans,
not only for our national security but our own economic
security, and therefore it is essential that the Congress, in a
timely and hopefully predictable manner, can work with the
communities and States across this Nation to develop those
facilities and to improve them.
I join in welcoming our distinguished guest.
Which title do you like best, Doctor or Secretary?
Dr. Westphal. I'd prefer Joe.
Senator Warner. It kind of muddles up the record, so you
have to make a choice between the two.
Thank you, Sir.
Senator Chafee. Senator Voinovich is the chairman of the
subcommittee that deals with this, and so his panel has
jurisdiction and we're delighted you're here, Senator.
OPENING STATEMENT OF OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to
be here today as the new subcommittee chairman on
Transportation and Infrastructure. I have worked with my
colleagues on the committee to seek swift passage of Senate
bill 507, and particularly I'd like to recognize the efforts of
Senator Warner, the sponsor of this year's bill, along with
Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus, who had worked diligently
for final passage of this bill in the 105th and didn't get
there, and I'm pleased to join them this year as an original
co-sponsor of Senate Bill 507.
As has already been mentioned, it is identical with the
legislation last year, and when I found out about that I asked
the chairman if he would bypass the subcommittee level so that
we could get on with it and get it passed, since it didn't get
passed last year.
I join my colleagues in the belief that it is important
that we continue to enact Water Resources Development Acts
every 2 years without lapse to ensure that our Nation's
infrastructure is maintained and constructed in a timely
manner. I think that is really important, more important today
than ever before, because in so many of these projects you're
looking for local sponsorship of them and partial payment of
them, and people get on to a schedule, and the most important
things they can rely upon that it's going to take place, so I
think it is real important that this be done every 2 years.
I think it is wonderful that this is a bipartisan effort
with Congress and the Administration, particularly the Army
Corps of Engineers and the Office of Assistant Secretary of
Army for Civil Works to ensure, as Senator Warner said, that
our large water resources program is effective and responsive
to future and current needs.
I am particularly pleased--and this is maybe a little bit
provincial--that the bill under section 224 provides for a
Great Lakes Basin program. This section directs the Corps to
develop a strategic plan for programs within the Great Lakes
basin, and further will provide the means for assessing the
ability of Corps' projects and programs to meet regional water
resource needs.
I am particularly interested in it because I was chairman
of the Council of Great Lakes Governors, and we were concerned
about the Great Lakes and the fact that we didn't have that
kind of a plan, and one of the projects that I undertook as
Governor of Ohio was to do a Lake Erie water quality index. We
had made great progress, but we had no baseline numbers to
determine whether or not we were really getting the job done.
And so we identified 10 indexes that were going to measure our
progress, and if we can get this plan done for the Great Lakes,
that then could be coordinated with this project and we could
really monitor how we are doing in terms of the Great Lakes.
I'd also like to note that I think Senator Glenn, was also
very interested in moving forward with that, so I am pleased
that we are moving forward with that.
Mr. Secretary, we look forward to your testimony this
morning.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg, do you have a statement?
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, I'll submit my statement
for the record.
Senator Chafee. Again, we welcome you, Dr. Westphal. Why
don't you proceed with your testimony?
Senator Warner. OK, Joe, give it to us.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH W. WESTPHAL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS; ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL DAVIS, DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND LEGISLATION
Dr. Westphal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to
come before your committee, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
ranking colleague, Senator Baucus. Also, I am here before three
of my chairmen--yourself, my chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, and my mentor, a person I've learned a lot from over
the years, and my new chairman of the subcommittee, Senator
Voinovich, so I'm delighted to be here and I look forward to
responding to all your questions as best as I can.
I'm accompanied before you today by my Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Policy and Legislation, Mr. Michael Davis.
Senator Chafee. We welcome you, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Dr. Westphal. Mr. Chairman, I am going to be very brief.
I'm going to just summarize some of my testimony, if you don't
mind, and just submit the full testimony for the record.
Let me begin first by noting that the large differences
between the Administration's budget proposal last year and what
you appropriated in the Congress in both fiscal year 1998 and
1999 are now, I think, reconciled in the fiscal year 2000
budget that I am about to discuss.
The President has consistently stressed two major themes
that I think are particularly important to the way we should
formulate and implement civil works policy.
The first, policy must be based on building strong
partnerships with our States and our local communities, as well
as our sister Federal agencies. That's the point that I think
Senator Warner just addressed very eloquently.
Second, we must strive to help our economy grow and prosper
by combining sound infrastructure management and development
with environmental protection and ecosystem restoration.
I believe our program excels in both of these mandates, and
that the budget I will present to you today reflects their
important priority.
I am pleased to say that funding in the President's fiscal
year 2000 budget supports a strong civil works program. It is
consistent with levels enacted by Congress in recent years, and
with the President's overall domestic priorities, his
commitment to a balanced budget, and his goal for protecting
Social Security.
The President's budget for the civil works program for
fiscal year 2000 includes $3.9 billion for the discretionary
program comparable to the amount appropriated in the program in
1999, and significantly above last year's budget.
With cost sharing contributions by our partners, the non-
Federal sponsors, plus other funding, the fiscal year 2000
program totals about $4.2 billion.
I look forward to working with both the houses of Congress
in meeting the challenges of these partnerships. I'd like to
point out that in the fiscal year 2000 budget, civil works
operations and maintenance general program is $1.84 billion.
This level of funding is very strong, demonstrating the
Administration's commitment to maintaining our existing
infrastructure, much of which is aging and requires greater
upkeep.
Funding for construction general program is $1.24 billion,
a significant increase over last year's request.
On new investments, the fiscal year 2000 budget for the
Army civil works program provides a strong program of new work,
including 1 new survey, 19 new construction projects, 5 new
operation and maintenance new starts, and 6 new plant
replacement and improvement program major acquisitions in the
Challenge 21 program.
And I also want to emphasize, like you, Mr. Chairman, and
other members of the committee, our commitment to water
resources development and biannual authorization of WRDA. A
strong water resources development program is a sound
investment in our Nation's economic future and environmental
stability. Communities across the country benefit from water
resources projects to reduce flood damages, compete more
effectively in world trade, provide needed water and power, and
protect and restore our rich aquatic resources.
In this regard, we will work with Congress to complete a
Water Resources Development Act in 1999, building on the
progress that you made and we made last fall in the proposed
WRDA 1998 bill.
As you know, the Army, on behalf of the Administration,
submitted to Congress a proposal in 1998. We believe this
proposal should serve as the basis for the WRDA 1999. The
Senate version of WRDA 1998 included important Administration
policy initiatives, such as our Challenge 21 program, changes
to shore protection policy, and much-needed improvements in our
recreation program.
We hope that, based on our bill and with the assistance of
the authorizing committees, we can come to closure on our WRDA
1999 bill early this year, and that it includes important
policy initiatives and vital projects, while recognizing the
continued budget constraints.
This would put us in a better position to address new
policy and project needs in a WRDA 2000 bill.
We appreciate your commitment to WRDA 1999. The
Administration, however, has concerns about the total cost of
S. 507 and the impacts of authorizing a sizable number of new
projects at this time, in view of existing backlog and
continued budget constraints. Therefore, we urge this committee
to limit the number of new projects authorizations in its
legislation, as we have done in our proposal, to reflect only
those additional costs that one might expect to be able to fund
within a reasonable timeframe.
We are particularly be concerned about the use of
contingent authorizations which bypass the existing project
planning and review process by preauthorizing projects
contingent upon the issuance of a report by the Chief of
Engineers.
Senator Chafee. Mr. Secretary, I know that you are moving
ahead on this. What page are you roughly on?
Dr. Westphal. I'm summarizing, so let me----
Senator Chafee. I appreciate that.
Dr. Westphal. You bet.
Senator Chafee. But sometimes it is helpful if we can kind
of follow along roughly where you are.
Dr. Westphal. We're on page 3, Sir.
Senator Chafee. You're on page 3? OK.
Dr. Westphal. Third paragraph of page 3.
Senator Chafee. All right. Why don't you keep going, then?
You did the, ``Each new project authorization adds to the
existing large backlog,'' at the top of page 3. You've done
that. Yes. OK.
Dr. Westphal. Yes. And concerned about the contingent
authorization projects.
We believe these provisions would weaken the study process
and review responsibilities of the Army Corps of Engineers and
my office and would undermine the biannual WRDA process that
has been the goal of Congress and every Administration since
1986.
The Administration appreciates the committee's support of
these projects that have completed the normal planning and
review process and the inclusion of some of our initiatives. We
are optimistic that we can work with your committee to resolve
our concerns in a manner that allows us to fully support S.
507.
On the Harbor Services Fund proposal, a key component of
the President's fiscal year 2000 budget for the civil works
program is the proposal for a new Harbor Services Fund and
harbor services user fee. This proposal would provide a
reliable source of funding for important navigation needs,
including construction, operations, and maintenance, and
results in a significantly greater funding for these port and
harbor activities.
The President's budget for fiscal year 2000 includes $951
million to be derived from the Harbor Services Fund, an overall
increase of $382 million over the President's fiscal year 1999
budget for harbor-related activities.
This level of funding will allow us to proceed at an
optimal rate on nearly all operations and maintenance and
construction activities related to ports and harbors using
funds contributed by the users.
As you know, in March 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
that the harbor maintenance tax was unconstitutional as applied
to exports. In that ruling, the court concluded that the harbor
maintenance tax, which imposed a large charge based on the
value of commercial cargo being shipped, constituted a tax on
goods in export transit and therefore violated the export
clause of the Constitution.
Because of this ruling, collections of the harbor
maintenance tax on export stopped on April 25, 1998. The new
harbor services user fee being proposed avoids the
constitutional infirmities of the harbor maintenance tax. This
assessment is a user fee, not a tax. It fairly approximates the
harbor benefits and services vessels in each category receive
through port use. It is not imposed based on the cargo of the
vessel.
The user fees will generate funds sufficient to pay for the
Department of the Army's annual cost of developing, operating,
and maintaining the Nation's ports. The legislative proposal
will make the total amount of the user fees collected pursuant
to this proposed legislation in 1 year available to the next
fiscal year for appropriations.
We are coming to completion on the details of the proposal
in light of discussions and comments with interest groups. We
plan to present the legislative proposal to Congress in the
very near future. Our plan is to pursue the Harbor Services
Fund legislative proposal separately from WRDA.
The Administration is committed to the traditional mission
areas of improving our navigation and transportation system,
protecting our local communities from flood damages and other
disasters, and maintaining and improving hydropower facilities
across the county.
In addition, the protection and restoration of the
environment is an important and integral part of the civil
works portfolio. The President has strongly advocated linking
economic growth and protection of the environment. To help meet
this objective, we will support projects that feature strong
economic benefits, as well as projects that incorporate
environmental restoration and enhancement. Of course,
individual environmental restoration projects are also an
important part of the civil works mission.
An example of a program that will integrate the
environmental concerns into more-traditional civil works
missions is our Challenge 21, the Riverine Ecosystem
Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation initiative. Like last
year, this year's budget includes $25 million to begin the
Challenge 21 program. It is designed to accomplish both flood
hazard mitigation and ecosystem restoration, and emphasizes
non-structural measures as a means to accomplish these
objectives.
The fiscal year 2000 budget for the civil works regulatory
program is $117 million, an increase of $11 million over the
enacted levels in fiscal year 1999. In this program, we are
proud that we not only protect our aquatic resources, but we
try to help people within the law to find environmentally
sustainable solutions to their problems.
In fiscal year 1998, the regulatory program authorized
90,000 activities in writing, the most in any year, and nearly
95 percent of all actions were authorized in less than 60 days.
This budget will ensure that we can continue to protect the
environment, and that the level of service is maintained and
improved, even with an increasing volume of work.
In summary, the President's fiscal year 2000 budget for the
Army civil works program is a good one. It demonstrates a
commitment to civil works missions, with strong support of all
programs, a plan to solve the Constitutional problem with the
existing harbor maintenance tax, an especially strong program
of new construction, a firm commitment to maintaining an
existing water resources management infrastructure, and
increased application of civil works program expertise to
environmental protection and restoration.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I end my statement and thank you
for the opportunity to testify to you before the committee
today.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Now, this user fee is a great big part of your expected
revenues. What makes you think everything is going to be all
right now as far as the Supreme Court goes and the commerce
clause?
Dr. Westphal. If I could take a second just to give you a
little background on the history of how this proposal was
developed, initially the development of it began before I came
on board as Assistant Secretary of the Army, and when we
received the initial proposal, we vetted it with a number of
stakeholders.
We felt that we had at that point satisfied the
requirements of the Court and could meet the constitutional
test, but we did not feel that we had completely addressed all
the issues addressed by the stakeholders, and that we still had
a lot of adjustments to make in the way we calculated the fee,
so we went back to the drawing board--I'm talking about August,
September of last year--and spent most of last year, the
remaining part of last year and early part of this year,
revising the proposal, addressing its impact on different
sectors in the economy, and making sure that we met the
constitutional test.
We have a proposal now. It is finished. It is being vetted
with all the other Federal agencies. It is in an inter-agency
review process, which I think is almost done.
We hope to be able to deliver that proposal to Congress
within the next few weeks, and I think it is a much better
proposal, it is much stronger, it meets the constitutional test
because it is a fee based on the equivalent of work that has to
be done to maintain----
Senator Chafee. I don't quite understand how it works.
First of all, in addition to the constitutional problems,
you've got the GATT problems, likewise.
Dr. Westphal. Right.
Senator Chafee. Now, I know that the last time you did this
it was based upon the value of the cargo. In other words, a
shipment of computers would be a lot more than a shipment of
wheat.
Dr. Westphal. That's correct.
Senator Chafee. But how is this new one going to work now?
Dr. Westphal. Well, this----
Senator Chafee. And that was tossed out by the Supreme
Court.
Dr. Westphal. Right. First of all, it is addressed to the
vessel, itself, the carrier, not to the shipper, and not to the
commodity on the ship. So it is proportional to the amount of
work that we have to do to maintain the channel, depending upon
the type of vessel and the size and its impact on the channel.
We are trying to collect only as much money from the fee as
we historically have had to put into the maintenance of our
ports.
Senator Chafee. Obviously, we're going to have to spend
some time on this. I must confess I don't understand it. If you
come into Baltimore, is there a different fee than you might
get coming into Norfolk?
Dr. Westphal. No. The fee is the same. It will vary among
the different types of vessels, not from what you're carrying--
wheat or cars or general cargo--because the ships are
different. Because of the size of the ship and the tonnage of
the ship.
I kept sending it back to the drawing board because we had
a lot of different scenarios and we wanted to make sure that we
understood clearly and addressed the issues of how it would
impact different sectors. You have your cultural sector, the--
--
Senator Chafee. Well, this is a long, complicated subject,
I think, and it is for another day.
Dr. Westphal. Let me just say my plan, hopefully, is that
when the proposal has been finally vetted by the other Federal
agencies, that we will have a chance to come before your
committee, not in a formal way, but informally with your staff
and present the proposal, brief the staff, brief you, and make
sure that before you get the final proposal in hand----
Senator Chafee. I suppose the Finance Committee, too, will
be deeply involved with this. But let's go on to the next one.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Chafee. Yes?
Senator Voinovich. I'm not that familiar with how much it
raises and----
Senator Chafee. Well, it raises 25 percent of their total
budget, as I understand.
Senator Voinovich. And when do you anticipate it coming in,
and how much of your 2000 budget is based on this new tax?
Dr. Westphal. Of the 2000 budget, about $300 million.
Senator Chafee. What's the percentage of that? The
percentage of that is what, 25 percent?
Dr. Westphal. Well, the amount that would be needed on the
2000 budget, it would be less than that. The fund assumes that
historically we have needed about $600 million on the O&M side
and another $300 million on the construction side.
Senator Chafee. I'll tell you what, let me--I just want to
get my questions in here and we'll go back and forth.
Senator Voinovich. OK.
Senator Chafee. As you know, last year we got tripped up on
the Sacramento problem. Is there any suggestion that that has
been straightened out or going to be?
Dr. Westphal. Well, it hasn't been straightened out yet. In
fact, yesterday I met with Representative Doolittle of
California. I have been speaking with Representative Matsui in
previous weeks, as well. They have been talking and negotiating
this, along with the other members of the California delegation
whose Districts are impacted. They are on the verge of an
agreement, but it is----
Senator Chafee. Well, we'll keep our fingers crossed.
Dr. Westphal. It is tentative.
Senator Chafee. All right. Drop the other shoe. What's the
``but''?
Dr. Westphal. Well, they're on the verge, but we have to
make sure that, first of all, the committees of Congress who
have to appropriate and authorize are going to get a proposal
that is reasonable, and so we are trying to----
Senator Chafee. That's the question. Is it going to devour
the other 49 States?
Dr. Westphal. Right. We are trying to help them to put
forth a proposal that we think will work with you and will work
with the appropriators, as well. At this point I have my staff
working with Mr. Doolittle's staff and Mr. Matsui's staff in
crafting that.
The committee staff has been very helpful in that regard,
but now I think they've asked me to weigh in on my side.
Senator Chafee. Well, my time is up. Senator Baucus.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Westphal, as you know, this committee has
jurisdiction over the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, as
authorized in WRDA in 1986, and I expect that your proposal
will be drafted in a way so this committee continues to have
jurisdiction; is that correct?
Dr. Westphal. Yes, Sir.
Senator Baucus. Yes?
Dr. Westphal. Yes.
Senator Baucus. Thank you. A couple of questions on the
fund, the trust fund proposal.
I take it the constitutional infirmity was essentially that
the collection of the fee, as it was intended to be at the
time, was used generally for the Corps and not applied
specifically to the work to be done in that specific harbor or
area; is that correct? Is that one of the infirmities that the
court found, that the revenue was used generally although the
collection was collected specifically?
Dr. Westphal. The infirmity was the fact that it was a tax
on exports.
Senator Baucus. We still have a fee on exports, but it----
Dr. Westphal. Well, we don't have a fee on exports any
more.
Senator Baucus. I understand.
Dr. Westphal. Under this new proposal----
Senator Baucus. What was the court's problem? That's the
basic question.
Dr. Westphal. Just that you were levying a tax on exports,
and they felt that violated----
Senator Baucus. Because----
Dr. Westphal. Because it was on the commodity.
Senator Baucus. Whether it is a fee or tax or whatever it
is called was on exports?
Dr. Westphal. It was on exports and it was on the
commodity. It was on what you were exporting. What we are doing
is replacing that with a fee on the service provided to the
vessels. No relationship to the commodity.
Senator Baucus. OK. Now, if the new fee is on ships,
depending upon the size of the ship or the amount of work that
the Corps must do to accommodate that ship--that is, draft
channels and so forth--in the back of my mind it sort of sounds
like the larger the ship the greater the fee; is that correct?
Dr. Westphal. Well, it is not just the size of the ship,
but it is also the use of the channel by ships. Some ships, for
example, make several trips, make continuous trips. Other ships
make less use of the channel.
Senator Baucus. Right. What I'm getting at is----
Dr. Westphal. It's based on that.
Senator Baucus [continuing]. Our economy is changing
dramatically, and commodities are low in value, and my guess
is, frankly, they are going to always be relatively lower than
manufactured products or services or financial industries and
so forth, oil.
Now, maybe the price of oil will go up. Maybe OPEC is going
to finally start ratcheting down production and the price is
going to go up. I don't know. But there is a glut of oil today.
The same with wheat. The same with a lot of agriculture
commodities. It has just been a continual trend the last
several years, decline in price.
These commodities are bulk commodities. They are in big
ships. And I just don't know if the right policy would be to
hit them again, in effect, compared with other commodities
which are higher-value commodities but lower in bulk and just
don't require the same amount of work by the Corps to keep the
channels open and the harbors operating and so forth.
Have you considered that?
Senator Warner. I'd like to associate myself with your
point there, because coal is a major export from my State, and
it seems to me, as you are saying, Senator, it is not a good
standard.
Senator Baucus. Right. So I wonder the degree to which
you've considered all of that in drafting your proposal.
Dr. Westphal. Well, we considered it after we started doing
the impact analysis, and we looked at what the impact would be
to, for example, bulkers who carry predominantly either the
coal or grain, and so I sent folks back to the drawing board. I
said:
We've got to make sure that we come up with something here
that addresses the differences between those types of
commodities and others.
Even though this is not a tax on commodities, we had to
make some adjustments in the way we came up with the fee to
compensate for those types of carriers, because, for example, a
bulk carrier will generally make a port-to-port visit in one
trip. It will go from one port to another, deliver its cargo,
and that's it, whereas general cargo vessels tend to make
multiple stops.
And so the way the fee was--it's too complicated probably
to get into how it was actually formulated in the formula,
itself, but I can tell you we adjusted the formula to make sure
that we weren't affecting those bulk carriers in an adverse
fashion.
We will be able to present to your staffs a more-detailed
analysis that gives you examples of shipments and what the
differences would be between the harbor services user fee and
what they'd have to pay under that and what they were paying
under the harbor maintenance tax.
In most cases, in almost every case, I believe, that's
going to----
Senator Baucus. Well, I appreciate that very much, and I
also very much appreciate your volunteering to consult with our
staff informally before it is made public so that we can work
out any kinks or problems in it in the meantime.
Dr. Westphal. Yes, we'll do that.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. I listened very carefully, Mr. Chairman,
and Mr. Baucus, and I'm not sure I understand how you protect
the bulk coal, grain, and so forth carrier, but you say you do
it?
Dr. Westphal. Well, we do it in a way that we calculate the
formula, because the formula is based----
Senator Warner. Is this all in the industry now and they
know what it is?
Dr. Westphal. No. The proposal is still being vetted
through the agencies, so----
Senator Warner. I'm going to put a place holder.
Dr. Westphal. OK.
Senator Warner. I accept your representation, but I'm going
to put a place holder for the future. All right?
Dr. Westphal. OK, sir.
Senator Warner. Fair enough.
This is a bit of a detailed question, but you're a detail
man. Mr. Secretary, as we've discussed before, I believe the
Federal Government has a fundamental responsibility to assist
and protect the coastal communities. I have strongly opposed
the Administration's policy that the protection of our Nation's
shorelines from hurricanes and severe storms is a local
responsibility. Congress also has rejected this policy and
continues to provide the Federal share of the cost of
construction for these projects.
Last year legislation enacted by the Senate made
modifications to the cost-sharing requirements for shore
protection projects. With a 50-year life of a project, the
local sponsor would be required to finance 50 percent of the
cost of all renourishment work. This is an increase from the
current requirement of 35 percent.
I fought this policy change because the Administration's
earlier statement said shifting greater cost to local
communities would encourage the Administration to begin
budgeting for these important projects.
Now, Mr. Secretary, have I correctly stated the situation?
Will the Administration return to budgeting for those projects
under the new financing arrangement provided in the Senate
bill?
Dr. Westphal. Yes, Sir, we will.
Senator Warner. That's a good answer. Stop right there.
Now, Mr. Secretary, the Harbor Services Fund. The
replacement of the harbor services fee will require a great
deal of examination by this committee. I am very concerned by
the early reports that the Administration has not worked
closely with the various port authorities and other user groups
in the development of this proposal. Mild criticism to a good
man there.
Can you tell me how this proposal will differ from the
Administration's draft proposal released last fall? What
efforts have you undertaken to respond to concerns that have
been raised to date?
Dr. Westphal. Well, Mr. Chairman, I held a series of
meetings with stakeholders, which included the ports, included
the shippers, included various commodity groups, as well.
We held those sessions and we got back a long list of
concerns. We tabulated those concerns, and then I sent staff to
work on each one of those concerns and do essentially, as best
as we could, an impact assessment.
One of the problems with doing this is that the data is
somewhat limited. For example, just in getting information
about what ports charge or what foreign ports charge--we make
some comparisons about how our trade posture would compare to
other foreign countries--it was very difficult and sometimes
totally impossible to get. They would not release it.
But we got as much data as we could, put it together, we
addressed these concerns, and then over and over I kept getting
briefed by the analysts who were doing this and I kept sending
them back to the work table to fix this, fix that, give me a
better answer on this to make this proposal one that we could
defend.
I also, having been one of your students, recognized that
the Congress is the best place eventually to make these
decisions. And, as you will hear from your constituents and you
will be able to work with your staff to fine-tune the proposal,
we believe now that we've got a proposal we can hand off to you
that we can explain to you, we can give you the necessary
impact assessments that we've done, and we can support your
efforts to make sure that whatever you do in the end is the
right decision on this particular issue, which I agree is
complex, has a serious impact on our economy and our country
and our trade.
Senator Warner. I thank the witness.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Secretary, I know the Corps is
conducting a navigation modernization study of the Ohio
system's dams and locks, which are getting pretty old, and the
Ohio River is pretty important to our economic well-being, and
there is a project called the ``green-up project.'' Are you
familiar with it?
Dr. Westphal. I'm sorry, Sir, I'm not.
Senator Voinovich. It is a project that Senator Byrd and
Senator McConnell and myself are interested in. It involves
West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio. It is down near Portsmouth,
OH.
There is a study, a modernization study, that is being
looked at, and I'd like to know what the status of that project
is, because, if we don't get moving on that, by the year 2010
we are going to have a real problem in terms of moving cargo
through that particular lock area. So if you could give me an
answer on that----
Dr. Westphal. I will certainly do that.
Senator Voinovich. I'd be grateful.
Dr. Westphal. I will get you an answer right away on that.
[The information follows:]
As part of the ongoing Ohio River Main Stem study, a draft
interim report on potential modifications for both Greenup
Locks and Dam and John T. Myers Locks and Dam is scheduled to
be sent out for public review in January 2000.
Senator Voinovich. In addition, as Governor I was working
on the Columbus flood wall. Are you familiar with that project?
Dr. Westphal. I know of it. I don't know the details of the
funding part of that.
Senator Voinovich. The question I have is that there is an
authorization in the budget of $8 million for that flood wall,
and what I'm interested in knowing is, from your best estimate,
will that meet the construction schedule that the Corps has
agreed to in moving forward with that?
We have been very lucky that we haven't had a major flood
in that area, because without this flood wall that area is very
vulnerable, and I have been through two floods in the last 2
years in Ohio, and they have been devastating.
Dr. Westphal. So you need to know the capability?
Senator Voinovich. I'd like to know whether the
authorization is going to keep this on track or not.
Dr. Westphal. Right. OK.
Senator Voinovich. And whether additional money may be
needed to stay on track.
Dr. Westphal. I can get you an answer on that right away,
too.
[The information follows:]
Our budget request for fiscal year 2000 contains $8,000,000
to continue levee/floodwall construction and further design for
remaining project features. If not constrained, we could use
$16,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 to continue ongoing
construction and engineering and design, contract award for
reliable power and Phase IIIA (I-70 to Greenlawn Avenue); and
contract award for Phase IIID (Rennick Run storm/sanitary pump
station); and complete ongoing Phase IIE (Dodge Park Sanitary
lift station) contract one year head of schedule.
Senator Voinovich. And the last one is one that perhaps has
larger implications, and that is: more and more we're finding
sites around this country that are abandoned Army depots that
pose real problems to communities. In Marion, OH, we have a
situation where somehow a brand new school--actually, not a
brand new one. It was built many years ago. But somehow they
built a school right on top of an abandoned dump, Army dump,
and it is highly contaminated. We've seen a dramatic increase
in cancer in that area, particularly leukemia.
I know that there is a study going on, and one of the
things that I'm interested in knowing is: will that study let
us know whether or not, in the Corps' opinion, the contaminants
around that site are linked to leukemia, the high incidence of
leukemia in the area?
I'm just saying that this is a little Marion, OH, problem;
it's a big problem in that community, and they're worried about
whether they've got to move the school. If you were a parent
having our Ohio EPA--and I compliment the Corps. They've been
very cooperative. But the folks there are getting more and more
antsy about this situation, and it is really important that it
get high priority by the Corps of Engineers, and it also is
taking on a national interest because of the book that is out
called, ``Civil Action.''
Dr. Westphal. I know about that project in two respects.
One is that my daughter is getting married this summer to my
future son-in-law, who is from Marion, OH, and his dad was
telling me all about the issues in the community, and so I got
very interested in that. And, in addition, General Ballard, the
Chief of Engineers, and I actually spoke about this issue just
a few weeks ago, maybe a week ago. I asked him to please get me
some more detail on the study so I can keep on top of it, and I
will speed that process up and get you some answers on what we
know about it at this point in time.
Senator Voinovich. I'd really appreciate it.
Dr. Westphal. I know he's very concerned about it and very
much involved with it.
Senator Voinovich. It would be great if you could get it up
on the priority list.
Dr. Westphal. We'll do that.
Senator Voinovich. I know I talked with General Van Winkle
about it, and he's aware of it. And I say you've been very
cooperative, but I think we need to speed it up a little bit
for the folks in Marion.
Senator Chafee. You set, Senator?
Senator Voinovich. Yes.
Senator Chafee. Senator Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you for holding this hearing today.
I am a cosponsor of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999, and I consider it one of the most important public works
programs before the Senate.
The legislation includes authorization for numerous water
resource projects critical to my State, and I would dare say to
other coastal States, and the projects that will protect
property, wildlife habitat, and contribute to New Jersey's
coastal economy are authorized to proceed, so we resolved in
this committee--and I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for it--a
dispute with the Administration on the funding for shore
projects by arriving at a compromise that is reasonably
acceptable.
The thing that I must tell you I don't understand--members
of this committee may be tired of hearing me talk about this--
but replenishment, sand replenishment is part of the
infrastructure of the seashore, one of the biggest tourist
attractions in this country, and we are sitting here, three of
us from coastal States--that doesn't leave out Ohio, but it
does focus on the coastal requirements that we have, and that
is: just like any other infrastructure problem, is a flood a
natural disaster and its consequences affecting the lives,
well-being, the economy of those areas, whether it is in Ohio
or along the Mississippi River, or wherever it is? Is that
different than the depletion of the sand that attracts people
to the shore communities upon which so many are dependent for
their livelihood?
So I see them very much as the same kind of problem, and I
think that we should respond to flood threats and I think we
should respond to the elimination of an economic opportunity in
the coastal communities.
So I sound that theme and will continue to do it as long as
I am here, and I hope that we will be able to feel more
comfortable about its continuation.
We have something in place if this bill passes. Change the
formulas a little bit, but I think we have arrived at a
compromise that is fair to the States--fair warning, certainly.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the
State of New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today. I
am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999, one of the most important public works measures before the
Senate.
I applaud you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this matter so quickly to
the committee for consideration.
This legislation includes authorizations for numerous water
resources projects critical to my state.
Three shoreline protection projects--which will protect property,
wildlife habitat, and contribute to New Jersey's coastal economy--are
authorized to proceed to construction in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that this committee has addressed a
serious policy disagreement with the Administration over funding for
shore protection projects.
For the past 5 years, the Administration has requested no funding
for new shore protection studies and has underfunded the construction
work of ongoing projects.
Last year, the Administration proposed modifying the cost-share for
shore protection projects to require the states and localities to
finance the majority--65 percent, of the costs of periodic
renourishment.
This activity is the most expensive portion of the project, since
these projects generally receive renourishments approximately once
every 3 to 5 years over their 50-year lifetime.
I disagreed with this approach because I believed that it was
unfair to those communities that had planned long and hard for these
projects, on the expectation of a true partnership with the Federal
Government.
During the consideration of this bill in committee last year, I
offered an amendment to allow us to phase in a more reasonable cost-
sharing formula for shore protection projects.
Those projects which have a feasibility study completed by the end
of 1998 (and now, 1999 in our new bill) or which are authorized to
proceed to construction in this bill, will continue to be covered by
the 65/35 cost-share formula through the life of the projects, just as
all flood control projects are cost-shared.
Those projects authorized subsequently will continue to receive the
65/35 cost-share formula for the initial construction. However, States
will be required to provide 50 percent for periodic renourishment.
While I was disappointed that we could not maintain the current
cost share for all projects, I believe that the committee's proposal is
fairer to the communities and States that have planned for these
projects.
We have authorized many shore protection projects that have only
moved forward because of the efforts of Congress. I sincerely hope that
our action today moves the Administration forward to begin planning and
budgeting for these projects.
The bill also provides necessary authorization adjustments for
projects critical to the movement of cargo through the Port of New York
and New Jersey as proposed by Senator Moynihan and me.
The port, which annually handles 1.4 million containers and 30
billion gallons of petroleum products, is the gateway to a thriving
economy for New Jersey, New York, and the entire country. By the Year
2010, experts predict that 90 percent of all liner freight will be
shipped in containers.
The bill's amendments are important to addressing the increasing
cost of dredged material disposal in light of the moratorium on ocean
disposal.
Mr. Chairman, the State of New Jersey, local governments and
regional authorities have been carefully planning and budgeting for the
critical projects that this bill authorizes.
Any further delays could have an adverse impact on the economies of
regions that are affected by these projects. I hope that we can move
quickly to report this bill out of committee.
I'm also looking forward to discussing the Corps' proposed budget
for Fiscal Year 2000 with Dr. Westphal. I believe that this budget has
a lot for New Jersey's ports and I'm pleased that both the Kill van
Kull project in the north, and the Delaware River project in the south,
are adequately funded.
Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. Dr. Westphal, it is good to see you
here.
We start out with the bipartisan agreement that I think the
Administration has gone halfway on an issue which we've
disagreed with you in the past, yet this year again we see no
funding proposed for new starts for shore protection projects.
Why would you say these projects were not included?
Dr. Westphal. Well, I think that the Administration's
proposal initially, in the bill last year, was to hopefully be
able to recoup some savings from the change in the cost share
on the beach nourishment projects and use that additional
resources to fund projects.
Since WRDA didn't pass, we didn't put those in the budget.
We didn't put projects like that in the budget. We hope that if
WRDA passes this year that we will be able to, in the 2001,
begin to budget for them, and we expect to do so.
Senator Lautenberg. What's your opinion on the compromise
that the committee reached last year on the water resources
bill?
Dr. Westphal. Well, I personally think that we need to
arrive at least at compromise. I personally believe that one of
the problems in funding these projects is really that they
require a lot of money, and when they compete with flood
protection and navigation and some of the other also important
areas that we're working, the resources required around the
Nation to do beach renourishment are simply not there.
And so by changing the formula we felt that we could use
those cost savings to budget more in this area than we ever
have in the past, or before the Administration's new policy.
So I'm hopeful that Congress will move forth on the shore
protection and move forth on the WRDA bill and we can get this
policy change.
Senator Lautenberg. So is it fair to say that you think
that this is a reasonable approach?
Dr. Westphal. I believe that it is reasonable. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. It would be good to have your help.
The budget for construction, $1.25 billion, contrasts
sharply with last year's request of less than $800 million, and
I'm pleased that you recognize the need for more funding in the
area. To what do we owe this surprise?
Dr. Westphal. Well, Senator, I think the Administration
took a long, hard look at our program this year, perhaps
focusing more on the need to not only maintain our
infrastructure but to take care of some of the backlog that we
had there, so on the O&M side we went way up. And on the
construction side, we felt it was really also time to move some
of the projects that have been studied and ready to go forth,
to move them at a more-aggressive pace.
We wanted to make sure that--you know, one of my goals and
the goal of the Administration and the folks at OMB and other
places was to come up with a budget that is reasonably close to
what you have appropriated in the Congress in the last 2 years.
The problem was that we were coming up with a budget much
smaller than that. And I think that was a goal that we wanted
to achieve, and we achieved it this year.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, you know, my time is up, but you
know, Dr. Westphal, that these are important programs for the
States, and there isn't a State in the country that doesn't
have some call for assistance in these natural disaster/natural
resource areas. Whether it is the deepening of the harbor to
keep us competitive, not just--we don't want to be competing
with one another and dig faster and deeper, but we do have to
recognize that therein lies enormous economic opportunity and
we have to do what we can to protect the infrastructure that
was built around these harbor and these port activities in the
past.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much.
Dr. Westphal. Senator, you are leaving a big void. I was
personally very saddened to know that you decided not to come
back to the Senate in the next cycle.
Senator Lautenberg. That's very kind.
Dr. Westphal. I wish you well, and I have enjoyed working
with you and will enjoy working with you the remainder of your
term here.
Senator Lautenberg. That makes you a crowd of one.
Dr. Westphal. I don't think so, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Senator Chafee. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be the second
in that crowd expressing those same feelings.
Senator Chafee. I'll join in that, too.
Senator Graham. Now we're up to three.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Make it four.
Senator Graham. Senator Lautenberg has been an effective
advocate for a wide range of issues important to the
environment and the continued development of America's
infrastructure, and he will be sorely missed. I hope that he'll
spend lots of time with his grandchildren, who happen to live
in Florida.
Mr. Chairman, I assume that if we have some additional
questions we can submit them in writing?
Senator Chafee. Sure. Actually, we've got some time here,
so why don't you just go ahead and I'll give you 5 minutes, and
then we'll have a chance for another round here if you'd like.
[The prepared statement of Senator Graham follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Graham, U.S. Senator from the State
of Florida
Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to make some
remarks regarding S. 507, the Water Resources Development Act
introduced by Senator Warner on Monday, March 1, 1999 and the
President's budget request for the Energy and Water Appropriations
bill.
Both of these pieces of legislation are of vital importance to
Florida. In particular, several provisions in each bill will support
the restoration of the Everglades, one of the Nation's most precious
ecosystems. This vast region, which is home to more than six million
Americans, seven of the ten fastest growing cities in the country, a
huge tourism industry, and a large agricultural economy, also
encompasses one of the world's unique environmental resources. Over the
past 100 years, man-made changes to the region's water flow have
provided important economic benefits to the region, but have also had
devastating effects on the environment. The Federal Government and the
State of Florida have begun a long-term partnership to restore this
ecosystem and preserve it for future generations. The actions we are
considering today will support this partnership.
In the Fiscal Year 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, the
President requested a total of $129 million in support of Everglades
restoration. Of particular interest to me are funds to support the
Kissimmee River restoration which will refurbish the headwaters of the
Everglades watershed. I initiated work on this project as Governor of
Florida in the 1980's and have been supporting its progress since that
time. Congress authorized this project in WRDA 1992, and since that
time the State of Florida has already expended approximately $95
million in land acquisition and restoration evaluation. The State has
met all of the schedule requirements. I am pleased to say that with the
support of Congress last year in the appropriations process, this
summer the Army Corps will begin initial construction on schedule. The
Fiscal Year 2000 funding request before us today from the Army Corps
funds will keep this project on schedule.
The WRDA 1999 bill includes several items related to Everglades
restoration. Before I highlight these projects, I would like to first
thank my colleague Senator Mack for his partnership in our efforts to
produce a WRDA bill that reflects the needs of our State. I would also
like to thank Senators Chafee, Baucus, and Warner for their leadership
last year on this critical piece of legislation. I am looking forward
to working with you, Senator Voinovich, on the 1999 version of the
Water Resources Development Act.
First, the WRDA 1999 bill includes an extension of the ``critical
projects'' authority provided to the Army Corps for Everglades
restoration in 1996. The critical projects authorized in WRDA 1996 have
demonstrated substantial success. The South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force, the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable
South Florida, local sponsors, and the Army Corps have completed a
review of over 100 potential projects, narrowed the list to 35 and
ranked them in order of priority for accelerating the restoration of
the South Florida ecosystem. The extension in WRDA 1999 will allow for
completion of already authorized projects.
In addition to this extension, the WRDA 1999 bill includes a $27
million authorization for the Hillsborough and Okeechobee Aquifer
Storage and Recovery Project. This technology is presently used to
create subsurface reservoirs for drinking water. The Army Corps is
considering the use of Aquifer Storage and Recovery as a water storage
technology for use in long-term Everglades restoration. Our action to
authorize work on this project will allow early evaluation of the
viability of this technology.
Finally, the WRDA 1999 bill includes clarifying language to make
expenditures by the State of Florida for land acquisitions in the
Caloosahatchee River basin eligible for Federal reimbursement if they
are identified as part of the Restudy when it is released in July 1999.
Our action assures Florida that acquired lands which become part of the
Restudy will be eligible for Federal reimbursement.
Those of you who have been following restoration of the Everglades
will notice that what is not included in WRDA 1999 is the ``Restudy''
which some of you may remember this committee authorized in 1996. On
July 1 of 1999, the Army Corps of Engineers will submit an Everglades
restoration plan to Congress, termed the ``Restudy'' by the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996. This plan reviews the original
Central and South Florida Flood Control project which was initiated in
the 1940's by the Army Corps and was the source of the ecosystem
manipulation that occurred in Florida since that time. The Restudy
outlines the basic elements of a plan to restore the Everglades as
closely to their natural State as possible. This is a difficult and
complex task since the original area of the Everglades was reduced by
50 percent with the development of both coasts with large metropolitan
areas.
This will be an expensive project whose costs will be shared on a
50-50 basis with the State of Florida. There has never been a
restoration project of this size in the history of the United States or
the world. This is an opportunity to preserve a national treasure that
was destroyed by our own actions in the past. This plan will restore an
adequate water supply for the State of Florida, which is vital given
that our population is expected to increase from just over 6 million
people today to 8 million people by 2010. Without this plan, the urban
residents in the State of Florida, the treasured environment of the
Everglades, and the agriculture industry in this portion of the State
will face extreme water supply conflicts.
The Army Corps of Engineers has done a superb job in meeting the
deadlines set forth by Congress in 1996 for this ambitious project. In
WRDA 2000, this committee will play the key role in the Senate in
determining the future of this important restoration program. I
encourage any of you to contact me should you have any questions
regarding the Restudy or the role of the Army Corps of Engineers in
this project which is so important to Florida and the Nation.
I am looking forward to our discussion today on both the Energy and
Water Appropriations request for Fiscal Year 2000 and WRDA 1999--two
pieces of legislation that are of vital importance to my State. Thank
you.
Senator Graham. I have some questions that are fairly
specific, and----
Senator Chafee. Fine. Well, you go to it. You've got your
time.
Senator Graham. I'd like to make some comments about the
issue that has already been discussed, and that is the coastal
protection issue. Your very succinct answer to Senator Warner's
question about the effect of Congress passing a 50/50
allocation for construction and long-term maintenance of these
coastal protection projects was very encouraging, and I think
will get a lot of impetus to getting the 50/50 cost share
enacted.
It has been my feeling that, in addition to the cost share,
that there were some other steps that needed to be taken in
terms of the Federal/State relationship for coastal protection,
and those involved issues of establishing prioritization of
need for coastal protection projects, the issue of an assured
non-Federal share for the financing of those projects, and an
ongoing responsibility of a credible non-Federal agency for the
management of the projects.
I'm not going to ask you at this point if you have any
specific thoughts in that direction, but I would say that I'd
look forward to working with you to see if, not necessarily in
this WRDA bill--in fact, definitely not in this WRDA bill, but
in the one that I anticipate will come in the year 2000, if we
might be able to work toward some of those structural issues in
the Federal/State relationship on coastal protection.
Dr. Westphal. That's a very good idea, and I look forward
to working with you on that.
Senator Graham. Good. Fine. Thank you.
I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I've had the opportunity
of working with Dr. Westphal in the past in several of his
previous lives, and this Administration chose very wisely in
asking him to take on this important responsibility with the
U.S. Army and the Corps of Engineers, and I'm certain that
we're going to find that the skills that he has demonstrated in
the past will be very valuable and very constructive in our
congressional relationship with the Corps.
Dr. Westphal. Thank you, Senator. That's very kind.
Senator Graham. Now we're going to get down to the tougher
questions, Doctor.
Dr. Westphal. OK.
Senator Graham. I was concerned last year on one of the
aspects of the Everglades project, which was the Kissimmee
River, that we started the year with a number, which was $27.3
million, as to what the next year's costs were going to be, and
we advocated strongly for that number, and then we found out,
in the middle of the process, that there were some funds that
weren't going to be expended, and so therefore the fiscal year
1999 cost was considerably less than $27 million.
I'm pleased that we were being frugal, but it affects
credibility when it appears as if you may be overstating your
case and then can fall back, in this case fall back by almost
$20 million. So my first request is: if there is going to be
adjustments in the numbers, let's try to do them as early in
the process as possible so that we are all allies in this
effort to save the Everglades and that we don't inadvertently
affect the ability of our allies to be part of the effort to be
successful.
Having made that editorial statement, how much of the funds
for the Kissimmee River restoration will be obligated by the
end of 1999? That is, of those funds which have been
appropriated in fiscal year 1999 and previous years, how much
will be expended by September 30, 1999?
Dr. Westphal. We are very certain that 100 percent of those
funds will be obligated this year.
Senator Graham. Last year the final figure that you
received was $8 million, which, in conjunction with some carry-
over funds, were represented as being sufficient to continue
the project on schedule. Is that going to be realized in 1999?
That is, will the project be continued as scheduled?
Dr. Westphal. Yes, Sir.
Senator I have with me also Michael Davis, who is my Deputy
Assistant Secretary, who has done not only a great job, but an
extremely difficult job of managing for us the entire project
down there, which, as you know, is a number of projects built
into one. And, as I usually have to say to folks from other
parts of the country who sometimes ask us about the Everglades
and why we are spending so much money there, when the Corps
first initiated these projects back in the 1940's--I can't
remember the exact populations. Maybe Michael will remember.
The population of Florida was about 500,000 people at the time.
Senator Graham. It's a little bit of an understatement. It
was approximately two million.
Dr. Westphal. I mean two million. I mean the Miami area, I
guess, was----
Senator Graham. Would have been probably 600,000 or
700,000.
Dr. Westphal. OK. That's the figure I was thinking about.
And today it is how many million today? About five or six
million today, and expected to grow to almost three times that
much.
So these projects are of extreme significance in terms of
every aspect, not just the environmental restoration that we're
doing, and it is so important to the Nation, as a whole, but
the other aspects of it, which include water supply and water
quality issues and so on.
So in some of your questions I may ask Michael to address
them, since he has been so intimately involved in this, to make
sure we give you the right answer.
Senator Graham. You are doing God's work, and I encourage
you to continue to go out and evangelize on that effort.
Secretary Babbitt recently announced his intention to
create a scientific review panel to comment on the development
and implementation of the Corps' restudy of the Everglades.
What role do you see the Corps playing in this process of
scientific review of your restudy?
Dr. Westphal. Well, we will be intimately involved with
that. In fact, I spoke with Secretary Babbitt yesterday about
this very issue. We are keeping in touch. We communicate
regularly on it. He is very supportive of us playing a major
role in this, so we plan to be intimately involved.
I don't know if you want to add anything to that, Michael.
Mr. Davis. Senator, the one thing that I would add is that
I think it is very important that we have had independent
scientific peer review anticipated and built into the restudy
process from the very beginning, so that has been part of it.
Dr. Westphal and I were involved with Secretary Babbitt in
formulating or expediting this scientific team that we're
trying to put together now, and we'll be a very integral part
of that as a member of the task force that will oversee the
team.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I will submit some questions in writing.
Senator Chafee. Fine.
I think we will have a chance, if you wish, if you are able
to stay--I've got some questions in the Everglades, too. I'm
deeply interested.
Senator Crapo.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions
at this time.
Senator Chafee. All right. Well, I'd like to pursue, if I
might, Mr. Secretary, the line of questioning began by Senator
Graham.
As I understand it, in your budget justification you State
that $129 million has been set aside for the Everglades
restoration, and I'm curious about that. How are you going to
spend the $129 million?
Dr. Westphal. OK. Well, we expect to spend about $21
million of what we proposed for what we call the ``critical
projects''--a lot of small projects, about $21 million there.
On the Kissimmee River it is about----
Senator Chafee. Just going back on that so-called
``critical projects,'' these are ones we authorized back in
1996?
Dr. Westphal. Yes.
Senator Chafee. So finally we are going to go ahead with
them?
Dr. Westphal. Well, they have been ongoing.
Senator Chafee. OK.
Dr. Westphal. And this is the 2000 year funding.
Senator Chafee. All right. Keep going then, if you would,
please.
Dr. Westphal. And then $39 million for the Kissimmee River
restoration project, and then $48 million, almost $49 million--
$48,813,000 for the restudy work this year. And so those are
the three major elements of that $129 million.
Senator Chafee. Now, I saw that ``New York Times''
editorial, which was a little bit on the sour side, of March 8,
which is just this week. Do you have any comments on it? As I
understood that editorial, the objection was that the focus was
on water supply for the urban and agricultural communities,
rather than water delivery and water quality, the water quality
improvements for the Everglades. What do you say about that?
Dr. Westphal. Well, it's not necessarily a fair
characterization.
Senator Chafee. I must say I agree with the conclusion of
the editorial where it says, ``This is a very, very difficult
job and a thankless job to try and solve this problem.''
Dr. Westphal. The primary aim is still the environmental
restoration piece, but we are, by law--I think it is by law--to
also look at the water supply part of this.
The article refers essentially to the first draft report
that was issued on this, which is a report that was vetted to
the public. We now have produced a final report, and that
report is ready to go forward, also to be vetted, and we're
working with the other Federal agencies and the State on that,
and we think we have a pretty good report going forward and
expect to release it in July.
I don't know if you want to add anything outstanding that,
Michael?
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, if I could just add a couple of
points----
Senator Chafee. Have you had a particularly close role to
the Everglades, Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis. Yes, Sir.
Senator Chafee. Yes.
Mr. Davis. I think it is very important to understand--and
the article didn't recognize this--that the overarching
principle has been ecosystem restoration, and the Corps and our
partners, that has been unequivocal in our commitment to do
that.
It's not the Corps' plan. The Corps has a leadership role,
but the plan was actually put together by scores of scientists
and engineers and hydrologists from all Federal agencies
involved, the State of Florida, the water management district,
and others, so it is really not the Corps' plan. It really is
an inter-agency, interdisciplinary team's plan that has been
subject to extensive peer review at this point.
We think we do have a very good plan, but it is also very
important to understand we have a very flexible plan, and, to
the extent that new information is brought out and we can make
adjustments to this plan, we designed it that way. So we're
very comfortable with what we have right now.
Senator Chafee. Well, it is a very difficult job. I suppose
involved with all this is the State of Florida, likewise, and
the Governor.
Mr. Davis. The State of Florida is an equal partner here.
They are cost-sharing this project at a 50/50 ratio.
Senator Chafee. Switching gears a little bit here----
Senator Graham. Mr. Chairman, if I could?
Senator Chafee. Yes.
Senator Graham. It is my understanding that the final
report of the restudy, which was authorized in the 1996 WRDA
bill, will be submitted this summer and will probably be
included in the 2000 WRDA bill for purposes of authorization.
I would hope that some time between the summer and when we
take up the next WRDA bill that we'll have an opportunity for a
full hearing on this restudy.
Senator Chafee. I think so. It is a subject of tremendous
interest--obviously deep interest to you. If that's what you
wish, sure, we'll be glad to do that, work it out.
Just a quick question going back to the user fees. Did I
understand that you tried to ascertain what took place in
foreign ports but just found it a maze that you couldn't fight
your way through? Is that about it?
Dr. Westphal. We got some data. We went mainly to European
ports. We looked at some ports in Asia, as well, to get
information not only on their fees, their port fees, but also
to understand what types of taxes and fees they use to maintain
their ports.
In some cases, we were able to get that information and we
will be able to provide it as part of our impact analysis. In
some places, we just couldn't get it. They wouldn't release it.
But, generally speaking, we were able to make some
comparisons between what some of the major European ports are
doing and what we are proposing in this fee.
Senator Chafee. My time is up.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. In terms of getting all of this work
done on the user fee, when do you anticipate it will be done?
Dr. Westphal. We think that the interagency review is
almost done. Once all that input comes in, probably a week or
so, maybe 2 weeks from today to sort of fix all of that,
incorporate any changes that are being proposed by the other
Federal agencies involved, like Treasury, for example, and then
be ready to bring it forth to hopefully initially committee
staff and yourselves and then the stakeholders, as well, and
release it.
The way it will come to you, I cannot--I have no idea
exactly how that will be packaged as it comes to the Congress.
It is a decision that is still sort of working in the White
House, and I don't have an answer for that. But we don't intend
it to be a part of WRDA.
Senator Voinovich. Do you have a vehicle where you sit down
with the users before you send that over here to kind of get
their feeling, so that if there are some concerns about it they
are worked out before it comes here?
Dr. Westphal. Well, we felt that--we did that initially
with the stakeholders. We had a very extensive set of meetings
with them. We continue to receive input. We asked for input in
writing, as well, and we incorporated that in our impact
analysis.
So I think we have addressed most of their concerns, but we
do want to let them have the proposal ahead of time, as well,
so that they have a chance to look at it and, should there be
any glaring issues that we can address quickly, we'll do that.
But I think the next step is in your house here for it to be
addressed here.
Senator Voinovich. And you need the money to begin flowing
for your fiscal year 2000?
Dr. Westphal. Yes. Now, the existing fund has a balance.
The existing fund has a balance, and we continue to collect
money on the import side under the harbor maintenance tax. Once
this fee is adopted, the harbor tax will be repealed and the
balance of the fund will be transferred over to the Harbor
Services Fund we are proposing here. So there is money in the
fund from which to appropriate for this purpose until we----
Senator Voinovich. So 1999 is OK?
Dr. Westphal. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. You've got a carry-over next year, and
then----
Dr. Westphal. Yes.
Senator Voinovich [continuing]. You anticipate you'd
collect about $200 million in fiscal year 2000?
Dr. Westphal. In fiscal year 2000 we would need to collect
about $200 to $300 million.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman, could I continue?
Senator Chafee. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. One of the things that I'm concerned
about as I look at the Federal bureaucracy is the incidence of
your sitting down with EPA and Interior and looking at your
respective responsibilities and looking at how they could be
better coordinated and how you can work together. Does that go
on?
Dr. Westphal. Yes. Extensively. And more so--and I've
worked in other Administrations, and it has worked more so
under this Administration than I've ever seen before. I
regularly speak with my counterparts at EPA, Interior. When I
talk to my district engineers and division commanders out in
the field, they are constantly in direct communications with
their counterparts at the regional level.
And I think the level of cooperation there between our
agencies is excellent. I asked one time, when I first came on
board, if they could do a little survey of all the district
engineers--we've got 38 districts around the country--which
other sister agencies of the Federal Government they were
having difficulty in communicating with or having a positive
relationship in terms of solving people's problems and
addressing them in a timely manner, and the answer I got back--
I think it was a pretty honest answer--was that yes, we've got
a problem here and there occasionally on some issue because we
simply don't agree, but, generally speaking, almost in every
corner of the country in all those 38 districts relationships
were very, very good with Fish and Wildlife, with EPA, and with
other Interior agencies that they tend to deal with.
Senator Voinovich. How about State agencies?
Dr. Westphal. The same thing. I mean, the States are
integral partners in this. They often cost-share, obviously,
our projects. And more and more we are relying on the States to
be equal partners in this.
We've got some areas where I have been particularly
insistent that we need to help the States where they don't have
the resources or the expertise or the capability, help them not
by directing them but by actually supplementing them, by giving
them the assistance that they need so that they can carry out
their proper role in government.
What I mean by that is that, for example, when you're
talking about, say, in our regulatory program, wetlands
program, that we are able to assist the States so that they can
best manage the development and the planning aspects of their
communities without us having to get into that role at all,
which is not an appropriate role for the Federal Government, to
help the State agencies to do this by being good partners with
them and giving them the assistance that they need, and I think
we're getting that in most places.
Senator Voinovich. One of the things that is kind of
disturbing to me is we have, on Lake Erie, an erosion
protection effort that, in order to dump any hard fill, to
protect property from being eroded you need a permit from the
Army Corps of Engineers. We have a new thing where you've got
to get a permit also from the State of Ohio. We're doing what
we can to make sure that people don't build in areas where
studies show that you're going to have erosion, and also to
make sure that when we dump hard fill that it is done properly.
At the same time we're doing that, in some of the dredging
efforts sand is being picked up and deposited out in the middle
of Lake Erie, whereas, if there was better coordination, some
of that could be used closer in to protect some of our beaches
from disappearing on us.
Dr. Westphal. I think that is an excellent example, and I
may actually use that when I talk to General Van Winkle about
what is going on on Lake Erie. But I think you're right. I
mean, I think the State has to play the critical role there. I
know you, in your former position, probably would agree with
that, but that's essential that we provide and assist the State
in being able to carry out its mission, without being an
impediment, without using regulations, but rather try to,
again, be of assistance.
We have limited dollars in that the Corps, unlike our other
sister agencies, is a project-funded organization. I mean, we
are funded on the basis of projects, and so money comes to the
Corps for specific projects and we don't have a pot of money
that we can move from one area to another and say this year we
want to emphasize ``A'' instead of ``B,'' and so we're just
going to shift monies from ``B'' to ``A.'' We can't do that.
Other agencies have that type of flexibility. We're not a
grants agency and so we have to work on the basis of those
projects that you have directed us to work on, and we try, as
much as we can in our Planning Assistance to States program, to
be that additional help. It's a small amount of money that we
have in the budget, but we hope to be able to use it in a
positive way.
But I agree with what you are saying.
Senator Chafee. All right.
Senator Crapo.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Westphal, I come from the Pacific Northwest, and I note
in the President's proposed budget for this year there is $100
million in construction funding for the Columbia River fish
mitigation program.
Could you give me a brief description of how those dollars
are intended to be used?
Dr. Westphal. Well, it is a variety. Probably I will have
to get the more-detailed information to you separately, because
I don't have it in front of me, but I know it to be a series of
projects that essentially are our efforts, as in meeting the
requirements of the biological opinion, to do what we can to
protect the movement of the species up and down the river.
Senator Crapo. But you don't have the details right now?
Dr. Westphal. I don't have them with me, but I would be
glad to provide it to you. I can give you a detailed assessment
of that.
Senator Crapo. I would appreciate that, because I'd like to
have an idea of where the Corps intends to head with these
resources because, as you know, this is a very significant
issue----
Dr. Westphal. It is.
Senator Chafee [continuing]. To put it mildly, out in the
Pacific Northwest.
[The information follows:]
Project Cost Breakdown
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Granite........................................... $3,160,000
Little Goose............................................ 5,980,000
Lower Monumental........................................ 460,000
Ice Harbor.............................................. 410,000
McNary.................................................. 9,570,000
John Day................................................ 10,030,000
The Dalles.............................................. 1,850,000
Bonneville.............................................. 9,090,000
Mitigation Analysis..................................... 59,450,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Crapo. Specifically, I also note that in the
legislation we are preparing we already have authorization in
place for fish-friendly turbine development, and that we are
looking at increasing the authorization for that because it
looks like additional resources will be needed. Are you
familiar with that authorization and with that project?
Dr. Westphal. I'm familiar with that idea. When I recently
took a trip out to the Northwest to look at the various
projects out there, I went with the Corps. I was in Idaho on
the Snake River and down the Columbia, and so I stopped at many
of the projects and talked to the folks there about that
particular issue and others, and so I'm a little bit familiar
with the concept behind it.
Senator Crapo. Do you have the ability to tell me now, or
would you like to get back, just with regard to how the
development of the fish friendly turbine is proceeding.
Dr. Westphal. No, I couldn't. I don't have the answer to
that, but I will be glad to get it for you.
Senator Crapo. All right. I would appreciate that.
[The information follows:]
An experimental minimum gap runner (MUIR) is currently being
installed in Unit 6 at Bonneville First Powerhouse as part ofthe
Bonneville Dam rehabilitation project. The Corps will be testing the
unit this fall/winter. The plan is to install the MGR units in all of
the Bonneville First Powerhouse turbines during the remainder of the
rehab. [A runner is the portion of the turbine that spins like a fan
and to which the blades are attached. A Minimum Gap Runner is a runner
design that almost eliminates gaps fish could enter when the turbine is
operating. This is done by making the corners of the blades longer than
those of traditional Kaplan blades, and milling out notches in the hub
for the longer corners to fit into when the blades are tilted at a
steep angle. The MGR also is a highly efficient blade design.]
Further research will continue within the Turbine Passage Survival
Program, which is examining the entire turbine environment.
A 16-member Turbine Technical Working Group is composed of
biologists and engineers from the National Marine Fisheries Service,
the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy, Bonneville Power
Administration, public utility districts, the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory and the Electric Power Research Institute. The
group was formed specifically to share information and develop a
coordinated approach to studying and solving turbine passage problems.
The Turbine Passage Survival Program was developed by the Corps in
coordination with the Technical Working Group. It is a three-year
program to investigate short-term and long-term improvements to
juvenile passage via the turbine route. The entire turbine environment
is being studied. The project study plan was developed in coordination
with related activities underway by other organizations (public utility
districts, Dept. of Energy, Electric Power Research Institute and
Bonneville Power Administration) to eliminate duplication, reduce cost
and enhance the effectiveness of the Corps' turbine program. fiscal
year 1999 funding for this study is $3.1 million and $2.5 million is
requested in fiscal year 2000.
Other activities related to protection of migrating fish
As noted in response to question 1, there is considerable activity
underway and projected for future years for improving juvenile and
adult fish survival at the eight mainstem Corps dams. In brief summary:
Extended submerged screens installed in the juvenile fish
bypass systems at Lower Granite, Little Goose, and McNary dams
Surface collector prototypes being tested at Lower
Granite and Bonneville dams
Gas abatement through:
flow deflectors installed at Ice Harbor and John Day,
fast-track effort for additional near gas abatement, and
long-term major configuration measures study 60 percent complete.
Numerous miscellaneous measures, e.g. adult passage
improvements, juvenile bypass system improvements underway.
Major studies ongoing:
Lower Snake River Feasibility Study (near completion)
John Day drawdown study Phase I begun
Turbine studies program (see above).
Senator Crapo. And then, last, another big issue related to
the entire salmon and steelhead recovery issues is the
relocation of the Caspian turns from the mouth of the Columbia
River. Are you familiar with that activity?
Dr. Westphal. Yes.
Senator Crapo. I note that we have $1 million authorized
for that activity, but could you just give me whatever
information you have and tell me how that is progressing and
what we can expect to see out of that activity in the coming
year?
Dr. Westphal. Yes. I can tell you that we are working with
EPA on that project, and what I don't have is an up-to-date
status report on where we are with it, but I will be glad to
include it in the three things I owe you already and get that
to you as soon as possible.
[The information follows:]
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), the agencies ultimately responsible for the
management of the predatory populations, have requested our assistance
in reducing bird predation in the Columbia River estuary. Accordingly,
we are providing funding and are cooperating in a 1999 pilot program to
relocate the Caspian Tern population located on Rice Island further
downstream away from the vulnerable juvenile salmon. Initial seeding
has been completed on Rice Island (to discourage nesting) and habitat
improvements on East Sand Island should be completed next week. Further
actions in fiscal year 2000 and beyond for the bird predators will be
dependent on the results of the pilot program and upon subsequent
management plans developed by NMFS and the USFWS.
Senator Crapo. One last area, Mr. Westphal, is it is my
understanding that there has been some cooperative effort
between the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy
with regard to some of the cleanup activities at particularly
the site that I'm interested in at the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Are you familiar with
some of that activity on the Corps' behalf that is being
undertaken there?
Dr. Westphal. No, Sir, I'm not. I'm sorry.
Senator Crapo. OK. I'll have to ask if you can get me some
information.
Dr. Westphal. I will do that. I apologize for that, but I
don't know the details of that.
Senator Crapo. All right. Thank you.
Dr. Westphal. But we will get you that. I will get you that
immediately, and within the next couple of days I will get you
all that information.
Senator Crapo. All right. I'd appreciate that. Thank you.
Dr. Westphal. Sure.
[The information follows:]
The Walla Walla District has completed 16 months of cost
engineering at the Department of Energy (DOE) Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), following up the
Project EM assessments conducted at INEEL and other DOE sites during
1996-1998. In the Project EM, the Corps reviewed the DOE multi-year
cost and schedule baselines for cleanup of 13 major contaminated sites
and identified $1.9 billion in overestimates, or potential cost
savings. In the follow-up work at INEEL, the Walla Walla District team
identified additional possible savings of $1.2 billion and assisted the
DOE staff to implement a major recommendation of the Project-EM to
convert their budget support documentation from level-of-effort
estimates to the more reliable activity-based cost (ABC) estimates.
Expressing satisfaction over the results of the Corps' work, the INEEL
management asked Walla Walla District for a proposal to revise the
remaining 250 sets of cost baselines through the rest of the fiscal
year. However, the original funding from DOE headquarters for this work
is nearly gone and no additional funds have been provided. INEEL has
indicated they will use their contractors to finish converting the sets
of cost estimates.
Senator Crapo. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. All right.
Mr. Westphal, before I go any further, I just wanted to say
that I, along, I'm sure, with every member of this committee,
share great admiration for the Corps of Engineers. We've seen
the Corps work not only in this country but overseas.
I'll never forget being in Saudi Arabia and hearing from
the Saudis the high respect that they had for the Corps, which
was doing some major construction work in some of those cities
over there. They always relied on the honesty and
professionalism--they did, to a great degree, rely on the
honesty and professionalism of our Corps of Engineers, and I
think that is a great tribute to the United States that they
dealt, obviously, with private contractors, but they had this
tremendous respect for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I
found it very flattering to the United States and a wonderful
tribute to the organization that you head up.
Dr. Westphal. Yes, Sir.
Senator Chafee. Now, apparently the Administration has
decided to end the practice of providing general revenues for
construction of the deep draft harbors, and, as I understand
it, the operation and maintenance of these facilities is going
to be through this fee business you've got, but construction,
as I understand it currently, is cost-shared on another system
based on the depth of the channel and so forth.
Now, in other words, are you now shifting the construction
costs, along with the operation and maintenance, over to the
user fees, likewise?
Dr. Westphal. Yes.
Senator Chafee. In other words, is it all going over to the
user fees?
Dr. Westphal. That's right. The Federal portion of it, the
Federal share of the construction, could be now funded under
the harbor services user fee proposal. We just simply believe
that these harbor projects are so important to the Nation's
trade posture that, by putting them in as part of this fund, we
are essentially protecting that area of spending somewhat. We
realize it is obviously up to the Appropriations Committees to
make that final judgment, but we believe that, by doing that,
we will have the resources necessary to maintain our harbors
competitive around the world.
Those projects will be able to be fully funded at an
optimal schedule, meaning they will be on schedule as they
proceed, so we believe that that's a better way of doing it
than relying simply on the General Fund on the construction
side.
Senator Chafee. Well, I must say you're putting a lot of
faith in these users fees, and we'll just have to see how that
shakes out, but that is all to come, and you're going to polish
that up and then come forward with your suggestions.
Dr. Westphal. Yes, Sir.
Senator Chafee. All right.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. And that proposal will come to this
committee? That's not just going to go to Appropriations, the
language that you would tuck into appropriations?
Dr. Westphal. No. It won't be--to my knowledge, no, I don't
think it will go to Appropriations, but how it will be packaged
I don't know.
Senator Voinovich. But it will come to this committee?
Dr. Westphal. I would assume that the committee will deal
with it. Yes, Sir.
Senator Voinovich. I think that I'd like to see it----
Dr. Westphal. I don't know, for example, on the tax part,
whether the Finance Committee would have to get involved
because it calls for the repeal of the tax, so I imagine there
will probably be some joint disposition of the proposal between
this committee and Finance.
The mechanism for triggering the funding is--in other
words, the triggering of the funding has to be done, obviously,
by the appropriators in consultation with this committee.
Senator Chafee. Senator, have you got some more?
Senator Voinovich. I have no other questions.
Senator Chafee. All right. Well, obviously this harbor
services fee is a great big item here, because, as we mentioned
before, it is a substantial portion of your budget and it is
going to go into the areas that so many of the members of this
committee are deeply interested in--namely, their ports. So
we'll see what you come up with and look forward to further
work with you, and when you get the thing ready we'll get you
back up here again.
Dr. Westphal. OK, Sir.
Senator Chafee. OK. Fine. Thanks a lot, Mr. Secretary.
Thanks, Mr. Davis.
Dr. Westphal. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Chafee. We appreciate your coming up.
Dr. Westphal. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:56 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, U.S. Senator from
the State of New York
My great thanks to Assistant Secretary Westphal for indulging us
again on the Water Resources Development Act of 1998, now 1999. With
the capable leadership of our Chairman Senator Chafee, Senator Warner,
Senator Baucus, and Senator Voinovich, we might well convince our
friends in the other body that this legislation must be passed. And not
a moment to soon.
Since the first Water Resources Development Act in 1986, when we
introduced rational economic criteria and equitable cost-sharing to the
Federal water planning process, we have witnessed nothing short of a
quiet revolution in the development of water resource projects. Much
credit for that success is due to the professionalism of the Army Corps
of Engineers. My friends on the committee who were here with me then
will agree that the free-booting days when the Subcommittee Chairman
got two dams, the Ranking Member got one, and everyone else on the
committee got a promise--are long over. For the past 13 years we have
reviewed and accepted authorizations for projects in a responsible
manner, and should be justifiably proud.
The greatest problems with the WRDA process come only when we fail
to reauthorize the legislation as we had in 1994 and then again last
year. Projects are stalled. Costs increase. Three years have passed
since we last passed WRDA legislation and it is time to move this bill.
If we should need address WRDA again next year also, so be it. Our
Nation's rivers, flood plains, and harbors can stand the attention.
I would close my remarks by urging the Administration to get that
Harbor Maintenance Tax proposal to us. While we all surely understand
the difficulty in devising a proper and fair user fee for the
maintenance of our harbors in light of the Supreme Court decision last
March, our chances of establishing a sound, equitable policy diminish
the longer the debate is forestalled.
______
Prepared Statement of Joseph W. Westphal, Assistant Secretary
of the Army
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the committee: It is an
honor and a pleasure to testify before the committee on the President's
Army Civil Works budget priorities for the year 2000, and on the 1999
Water Resources Development bill.
Accompanying me today is Mr. Michael Davis, my Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Policy and Legislation.
Let me begin by noting that the large differences between the
Administration's budget proposal last year and what was appropriated in
both fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 are now reconciled in the
fiscal year 2000 budget I am about to outline.
The President has consistently stressed two major themes that I
think are particularly important to the way we should formulate and
implement Civil Works policy. First, it must be based on building
strong partnerships with our states and local communities as well as
among our sister Federal agencies. Second, we must strive to help our
economy grow and prosper by combining sound infrastructure management
and development with environmental protection and ecosystem
restoration. I believe our program excels in both of these mandates and
that the budget I will present today reflects their importance and
priority.
I am pleased to say that funding in the President's fiscal year
2000 budget supports a strong Civil Works Program. It is consistent
with levels enacted by Congress in recent years, and with the
President's overall domestic priorities, his commitment to a balanced
budget, and his goal of protecting Social Security and meeting the
challenges of the 21st Century.
My statement covers the following subjects:
The fiscal year 2000 Civil Works Program Budget,
Water Resources Development Acts of 1999 and 2000,
Civil Works Program Performance,
The Harbor Services Fund Proposal,
The Economy and Environment,
New Investments, and
Highlights of the fiscal year 2000 Continuing Program.
fy 2000 civil works program budget
The President's budget for the Civil Works Program for fiscal year
2000 includes $3.9 billion for the discretionary program, comparable to
the amount appropriated for the program in fiscal year 1999, and
significantly above last year's budget request. Details are presented
in Table A.
The Administration appreciates the significant commitments made by
our partners, the non-Federal sponsors who cost-share studies and
projects of the Civil Works Program. These commitments demonstrate the
value of the program to the sponsors. With cost-sharing contributions
and other funding, total funding for the fiscal year 2000 program is
$4.2 billion. In fiscal year 2000, we will be asking non-Federal
sponsors to contribute over $251 million as their cost share of
projects throughout the Nation. They are our partners in this program
and we are committed to a very responsive and timely allocation of
resources to meet their efforts. I look forward to working with both
Houses of Congress to meeting the challenges of this partnership.
water resources development acts of 1999 and 2000
I also want to emphasize our commitment to water resources
development and the biennial authorization cycle. A strong water
resources development program is a sound investment in our Nation's
economic future and environmental stability. Communities across the
country benefit from water resource projects to reduce flood damages,
compete more efficiently in world trade, provide needed water and
power, and protect and restore our rich aquatic resources. In this
regard, we will work with the Congress to complete a Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) in 1999--building on the progress that we made
last fall on the proposed WRDA 1998.
As you know, the Army, on behalf of the Administration, submitted
to Congress a WRDA proposal in 1998. We believe this proposal should
serve as the basis for a WRDA 1999. The Senate version of WRDA 98
included important Administration policy initiatives such as our
Challenge 21 program, changes to shore protection policy, and
improvements to our recreation program. We hope that, based on our
bill, and then with the assistance of the authorizing committees, we
can come to closure on a responsible WRDA 1999 early this year that
includes important policy initiatives and vital projects, while
recognizing the continuing budget constraints. This would put us in a
better position to address new policy and project needs in a WRDA 2000
bill that will include such important initiatives as the restoration of
the Everglades.
We appreciate your commitment to a WRDA 1999. The Administration,
however, has concerns about the total cost of S. 507 and the impacts of
authorizing a sizable number of new projects at this time in view of
the existing backlog and continuing budget constraints. Each new
project authorization adds to the already large existing backlog of
Corps projects under or awaiting construction. Therefore, we urge this
committee to limit the number of new project authorizations in its
legislation, as we have done in our proposal, to reflect only those
additional costs that one might expect to be able to fund within a
reasonable timeframe.
We are particularly concerned about authorizations which bypass the
existing project planning and review process by authorizing and
preauthorizing projects upon the issuance of a report by the Chief of
Engineers. These provisions weaken the review responsibilities of the
Secretary of the Army and the Administration, and for those
authorizations which are ``contingent'' on a report of the Chief of
Engineers weaken the study and review responsibility of the Army Corps
of Engineers itself. Such authorizations would undermine the biennial
WRDA process that has been the goal of Congress and every
Administration since 1986. While there may be a compelling reason, on
rare occasion, to expedite the authorization of an individual project,
as the Administration proposed and the Congress accepted in the case of
Grand Forks, ND and East Forks, MN, we believe that projects generally
should await the completion of review by the Chief of Engineers, the
Army, and the Administration before authorization.
In addition, we are concerned about other provisions in S. 507,
including those that would provide special exemptions from cost-sharing
requirements, authorize projects based upon what may be outdated
studies, or authorize projects that either are not economically
justified or fall outside of the traditional missions of the Army
Corps.
The Administration appreciates this committee's support for those
projects that have completed the normal planning, review, and approval
process and the inclusion of some of our initiatives. We are optimistic
that we can work with your committee to resolve our concerns in a
manner that allows us to fully support S. 507.
civil works program performance
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires
that the Army Corps of Engineers show how improvements in its business
processes impact the quality and delivery of our products and services
to the Nation.
The Corps is improving its business processes by streamlining
decision document review procedures, eliminating duplication of
functions at different levels; intensively monitoring policy review to
reduce review times; extending the use of standardized project
cooperation agreements; continuing to strengthen partnerships with
local sponsors; and intensively managing program execution, for more
efficient and timely production and greater customer satisfaction. In
particular, the Chief of Engineers has developed a process to
streamline project planning and I look forward to working with him on
this.
The Corps is currently implementing the first annual performance
plan required by GPRA on its fiscal year 1999 program. The Corps is
testing an initial set of results-oriented program performance measures
to assess the benefits of process improvements made at the project
level. The Corps will evaluate the initial set of results-oriented
program performance measures during fiscal year 1999 program execution
and will extend successful applications of the measures into the fiscal
year 2000 program and continue to develop improved performance measures
in the future.
harbor services fund proposal
A key component of the President's fiscal year 2000 budget for the
Army Civil Works program is the proposal for a new Harbor Services Fund
and Harbor Services User Fee. This proposal will provide a reliable
source of funding for important navigation needs including
construction, operation, and maintenance. It results in significantly
greater funding for these port and harbor activities. The President's
budget for fiscal year 2000 includes $951 million to be derived from
the Harbor Services Fund, an overall increase of $382 million over the
President's fiscal year 1999 budget for harbor-related activities. This
level of funding will allow us to proceed at an optimal rate on nearly
all operation and maintenance and construction activities related to
ports and harbors, using funds contributed by the users.
In March 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Harbor
Maintenance Tax (HMT) was unconstitutional, as applied to exports. In
that ruling, the Court concluded that the HMT, which imposed a charge
based on the value of the commercial cargo being shipped, constituted a
tax on goods in export transit and therefore violated the Export Clause
of the Constitution. Because of this ruling, the HMT stopped being
collected on exports on April 25, 1998. The new Harbor Services User
Fee being proposed avoids the constitutional infirmities of the HMT.
The assessment is a user fee, not a tax: it fairly approximates the
harbor benefits and services vessels in each vessel category received
through port use. It is not imposed based on the cargo of a vessel.
The user fees will generate funds sufficient to pay the Department
of the Army's annual costs of developing, operating, and maintaining
the Nation's ports. The legislative proposal will make the total amount
of the user fees collected pursuant to this proposed legislation in 1
year available the next fiscal year for appropriation to fund the
projected total annual expenditures of the Department of the Army for
harbor development, operation, and maintenance.
Thus, this proposal will address all of the biggest problems
associated with the existing Harbor Maintenance Tax and Trust Fund
(HMTF). First, we will stop collections on imports, domestic shippers,
and passengers collected under the existing HMT, eliminating the
uncertainties involved with our foreign trading partners.
Second, we would institute a new fee mechanism based on vessel type
linking the fee with the level of service provided to certain types of
vessels, which will meet the Supreme Court's test for
constitutionality. Those fees would be placed in the new Harbor
Services Fund (HSF), along with remaining balances from the old HMTF. A
portion of those balances will be used to fund the program in the first
year, fiscal year 2000.
And third, the proposal will directly link the amount of fees
collected with the funds appropriated, thus avoiding buildup balances
in the HSF. For budget purposes, the user fees will be treated as
offsetting collections.
We are coming to completion on details of the proposal in light of
discussions and comments from interested groups. We plan to present a
legislative proposal to Congress in the near future. Our plan is to
pursue the HSF legislative proposal separately from WRDA 1999.
economy and the environment
The Administration is committed to the traditional mission areas of
improving our navigation and transportation system, protection of our
local communities from flood damages and other disasters, and
maintaining and improving hydropower facilities across the country. In
addition, the protection and restoration of the environment are an
important and integral part of the Civil Works mission portfolio. The
President has strongly advocated linking economic growth with
protection of the environment. To help meet this objective, we will
support projects that feature strong economic benefits, as well as
projects that incorporate environmental restoration and enhancement. Of
course, individual environmental restoration projects are also an
important part of the Civil Works mission. These environmental
objectives make the Army Corps an important participant in advancing
the goals of the President's Clean Water Action Plan.
An example of a program that will integrate environmental concerns
into more traditional Civil Works missions is our Challenge 21:
Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation Initiative.
Like last year, this year's budget includes $25 M to begin the
Challenge 21 program. It is designed to accomplish both flood hazard
mitigation and ecosystem restoration and emphasizes nonstructural
measures as a means to accomplish these objectives. Challenge 21 was
proposed for authorization last year, and came close to becoming a
reality in the proposed WRDA 1998. In fact, the Senate version of WRDA
1998 included a Challenge 21 program. We will continue to work with
Congress to pass this much-needed legislation. The key to this program
is that it will be implemented at the request of local communities and
not imposed as a solution by the Federal Government. To date, over 50
communities have expressed interest in participating in Challenge 21.
Environmental programs make up about 18 percent of the fiscal year
2000 Army Civil Works budget, and are integrated into all of the major
areas of work. Some environmental programs of note are in the following
areas. There is $100 million in construction funding for the Columbia
River Fish Mitigation program in the Pacific Northwest. There is $129
million in overall funding for the ongoing effort in south Florida to
restore, preserve and protect the Everglades. We have also budgeted $14
million to fund our ongoing environmental restoration continuing
authorities programs (Section 204, the Beneficial Uses of Dredged
Materials program, Section 206, the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
program, and Section 1135 Project Modifications for Improvements of the
Environment). This funding will allow us to implement projects to
create and restore aquatic habitats and to modify Civil Works projects
to improve the environment.
The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, FUSRAP, is an
environmental cleanup program that was transferred by Congress from the
Department of Energy (DOE) to the Army Civil Works program in the
fiscal year 1998 Appropriations Act. We are continuing the smooth
implementation of needed cleanup of contaminated sites, with no
slippage of the program during the transition from DOE to the Civil
Works program. In fact, we have exceeded the DOE schedules for the
Middlesex, Maywood, and Wayne sites in New Jersey, and surpassed DOE's
planned quantities of soil removed and disposed. This year's budget
includes $150 million for this program, an increase of $10 million over
the past 2 years. This will help improve the rate of cleanups of the
sites.
new investments
The fiscal year 2000 budget for the Army Civil Works program
provides a strong program of new work. Details are presented in Table
B.
Our program of new work includes one new survey and 19 new
construction projects, 5 new operation and maintenance new starts, and
6 new Plant Replacement and Improvement Program (PRIP) major
acquisitions, and the Challenge 21 program.
The budget includes $80 million in fiscal year 2000 for the new
investments in the construction account, including $55 million for new
construction starts, and $25 million for Challenge 21. Capital costs
for these new investments total $1.8 billion. Of that, $1.3 billion
will be provided by the Federal Government. The balance, covering costs
of lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations, will be financed
directly by non-Federal sponsors.
The 19 new construction projects include:
5 for commercial navigation,
3 for flood damage reduction,
2 for environmental restoration,
7 for major rehabilitation, and
2 for dam safety assurance.
highlights of the fiscal year 2000 continuing program
Operation and Maintenance, General
The fiscal year 2000 budget for the Civil Works Operation and
Maintenance, General (O&M) Program is $1.84 billion. This level of
funding is very strong, demonstrating the Administration's commitment
to maintaining our existing infrastructure, much of which is aging and
requires greater upkeep. Of the $1.84 billion, $693 million would be
for port and harbor activities, derived from the proposed HSF,
including $75 million to maintain small boat harbors, important to the
economies of local communities. In addition, operation and maintenance
of hydropower facilities in the Pacific Northwest will be financed by a
transfer of approximately $107 million from the Bonneville Power
Administration, pursuant to an agreement signed 2 years ago.
The budget also provides $226 million to continue the operation and
maintenance of recreation areas at Civil Works projects.
Construction, General
The fiscal year 2000 budget for the Civil Works Construction,
General Program is $1.24 billion, of which $1.16 billion is for the
continuing program. Of the total, $258 million would be for port and
harbor construction projects derived from the Harbor Services Fund,
allowing port related projects to proceed at optimal rates. This will
enhance the competitiveness of our Nation's ports and harbors.
Following are highlights of the Continuing Program.
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration.--The Everglades is an
ecosystem of international importance. It is also one that has
dramatically deteriorated since the turn of the century. It is very
important that we aggressively continue the work that we have underway
to start the process of restoring this treasure that is so important to
the Nation. Construction funding for these projects is $110 million for
restoration of the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem, a major
environmental activity to which we are strongly committed. This amount
includes $49 million for the Central and Southern Florida project to
continue construction work at West Palm Beach Canal, South Dade County,
and manatee pass-through gates, as well as planning, engineering and
design work on the Comprehensive Restoration Plan, also known as the
``Restudy''; $40 million to continue construction on the Kissimmee
River Restoration project; and $21 million for critical restoration
projects authorized under the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration program.
Pacific Northwest Salmon.-- The budget includes $100 million for
Army Corps construction activities associated with the Columbia River
Fish Mitigation project at 8 Corps dams on the Columbia and Snake
rivers and to continue the mitigation analysis which evaluates
additional measures to increase fish survival at those dams. This
includes $59 million for studies of surface bypass facilities, drawdown
of Lower Snake Reservoirs, John Day drawdown and hatchery mitigation,
turbine passage, gas abatement, adult passage, and Lower Columbia
configuration.
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam.-- The budget includes $20 million
for the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam project on the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System to continue construction of the lock
and dam. The project is programmed to be financed entirely from the
Construction account.
Kentucky Lock and Dam, Kentucky.-- The budget includes $7.75
million for the Kentucky Lock and Dam project on the Tennessee River to
continue detailed design of the new lock and to relocate the Tennessee
Valley Authority's power transmission towers at the project site. The
addition of a new lock will greatly reduce delays at the existing lock
which is too small to handle modern 15 barge tows without 2 lockages.
Olmsted Locks and Dam, Illinois and Kentucky.-- The budget includes
$28.6 million to continue construction of 2 new locks on the Ohio River
near Olmsted, Illinois, to replace Locks 52 and 53 which are over 60
years old. Virtually all waterway traffic moving between the Ohio and
Mississippi Rivers passes through the project area, and both of the
existing locks have temporary lock chambers that are inefficient.
Projected increases in waterway traffic demands in combination with the
limited capacity of the existing locks will result in increased lockage
delays without the new locks.
New York and New Jersey Harbors, New York and New Jersey.-- The
budget includes $60 million for the Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay, New
York and New Jersey, project to continue construction of the deepening
of 5 miles of Kill Van Kull channels and 3 miles of Newark Bay channels
from 40 to 45 feet. The deeper project will accommodate larger, fully
loaded, more modern containerships. The budget also includes $2 million
for the New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey Channel, New
Jersey, project. Deepening Port Jersey channel from 35 feet to 41 feet
will accommodate larger, deeper draft, cargo ships.
Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.-- The budget includes
$30 million for up grading the existing system, raising channel walls
and converting the trapezoidal channel to a rectangular channel, and
bridge modifications. These improvements would protect residential,
commercial, and industrial properties in Long Beach by accommodating
the increased runoff resulting from urbanization over the past 40
years.
Southeast Louisiana.--The budget includes $47 million to continue
construction activities for the Southeast Louisiana project including
Canal 3, Suburban Canal, Elmwood Canal, Railroad Canal, Whitney
Barataria Pumping Station in Jefferson Parish, and Napoleon Avenue
Canal, Dwyer Road Pumping Station, and Broad Street Pumping Station in
Orleans Parish.
Continuing Authorities Program.-- The budget includes $57 million
for a full program of continuing and new work under the 9 activities in
the Continuing Authorities Program. This amount includes $2.5 million
for beach erosion control projects (Section 103), $8.5 million for
emergency streambank and shoreline protection projects (Section 14),
$26.9 million for flood damage reduction projects (Section 205), $0.5
million for navigation mitigation projects (Section 111), $4.5 million
for navigation projects (Section 107), $0.1 million for snagging and
clearing projects (Section 208), $4.5 million for aquatic ecosystem
restoration (Section 206), $8.5 million for project modifications for
improvement of the environment (Section 1135), and $1 million for
beneficial uses of dredged material (Section 204).
general investigations
The budget for the Civil Works General Investigations (GI) Program
is $135 million. While this is a lower level than usual, it is a key
element of our plan to stabilize the Civil Works budget in the future.
The study program feeds the pipeline of construction work. There is a
large amount of construction work already waiting for funding--far more
than the funds we can reasonably expect in the future. This budget cuts
back on project study funding, in order to reduce the backlog of
potential construction projects that are beyond our capacity to budget
within a reasonable timeframe. Once the backlog of costly projects is
reduced, then we would be able to resume funding for studies at a
higher level.
We believe that cutting back on study funding on a temporary basis
is the right thing to do for our local sponsors, who expect timely
construction of projects, once studies are completed and the projects
are authorized.
regulatory program
The fiscal year 2000 budget for the Civil Works Regulatory Program
is $117 million, an increase of $11 million over the enacted level of
fiscal year 1999 funding. This will ensure that we continue to provide
for effective and equitable regulation of the Nation's waters,
including wetlands. Through the Regulatory Program the Corps is
committed to protecting the aquatic environment and serving the public
in a fair and reasonable manner. In fiscal year 1998, the Regulatory
Program authorized 90,000 activities in writing, the most in any year,
and nearly 95 percent of all actions were authorized in less than 60
days.
One of the goals of the Army Corps is to help people find solutions
to their problems. In this program, we are proud that we not only
protect our vital aquatic resources, but we try to help people, within
the law, to find environmentally sustainable solutions to their
problems. This budget will ensure that this level of service is
maintained and improved, even with an increasing volume of work. The
proposed increase would also enable the Corps to broaden its
partnerships with States and local communities through watershed
planning efforts.
We will also continue to pursue important initiatives as part of
the Regulatory Program. For example, under the Regulatory Program, we
are also active in the preparation of Special Area Management Plans
(SAMPs) to address development in environmentally sensitive areas. We
will build on existing relationships with Federal and State resource
agencies through our consultation responsibilities to minimize habitat
losses and mitigate unavoidable wetland losses. With the amount
included in the President's budget, we will establish a full
administrative appeals process that will allow the public to challenge
permit decisions and jurisdiction determinations without costly, time-
consuming litigation.
Again this year, we are proposing a reasonable increase in the
permit application fees for commercial applicants as a means to offset
a portion of the costs of the Regulatory Program. We are prepared to
work closely with this committee and the public to ensure that any
revisions that we may adopt are reasonable.
conclusion
In summary, the President's fiscal year 2000 budget for the Army
Civil Works Program is a good one. It demonstrates a commitment to
Civil Works missions, with strong support for all programs, a plan to
solve the constitutional problem with the existing Harbor Maintenance
Tax, an especially strong program of new construction, a firm
commitment to maintaining existing water resource management
infrastructure, and increased application of Civil Works Program
expertise to environmental protection and restoration.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee. This concludes
my statement.
______
Table A.--Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Civil Works, Fiscal Year 2000 Direct Program, President's Program
[Funding ($K)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Trust General Transfer Trust
Program ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit Coastal Bonneville River and Total
Harbor Permanent Application Rcrth User Wetlands Harbor Inland Ultimate4 Initial5 Power Harbor
Services1 Appropriations Fees2 Fees Restriction3 Maintenance Waterway Administration Contributions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined (discretionary and
mandatory) Defense:
Formerly Utilized Sites .......... .............. ........... .......... ............ ........... .......... 150,000 150,000 .............. ............. 150,000
Remedial Action Program.........
Domestic:
General Investigations......... .......... .............. ........... .......... ............ ........... .......... 135,000 135,000 .............. 39,827 174,827
Construction, General.......... 257,700 .............. ........... .......... ............ ........... 55,000 927,200 1,239,900 .............. 156,786 1,396,666
Operation and Maintenance, 692,900 .............. ........... 35,700 ............ ........... .......... 1,107,300 1,835,900 107,000 8,055 1,950,955
General.........................
Flood Control, Mississippi .......... .............. ........... .......... ............ ........... .......... 280,000 280,000 .............. 45,673 325,673
River and Tributaries Project...
Regulatory Program............. .......... .............. 7,000 .......... ............ ........... .......... 117,000 117,000 .............. ............. 117,000
General Expenses............... .......... .............. ........... .......... ............ ........... .......... 148,000 148,000 .............. ............. 148,000
Flood Control and Coastal .......... .............. ........... .......... ............ ........... .......... 0 0 .............. ............. 0
Emergencies.....................
Revolving Fund................. .......... .............. ........... .......... ............ ........... .......... 0 0 .............. ............. 0
Coastal Wetlands Restoration... .......... .............. ........... .......... 54,180 ........... .......... .......... .......... .............. 800 10,800
Permanent Appropriations....... .......... 18,576 ........... .......... ............ ........... .......... .......... .......... .............. ............. 18,576
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All.......................... 960,600 18,576 7,000 35,700 54,180 0 55,000 2,864,500 3,905,800 107,000 251,141 4,292,517
Discretionary.................... .......... .............. ........... .......... ............ ........... .......... 2,864,500 2,864,500 .............. ............. 2,864,500
Mandatory........................ 950,600 18,576 7,000 35,700 54,180 0 55,000 .......... 1,041,300 107,000 251,141 1,428,017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Proposed special fund to replace Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
2 Proposed fees for processing permit applications, to be paid to General Fund receipt account, not available to Corps.
3 Total for interagency task force; Corps' place of $10 million is reflected under ``Total.''
4 Net direct Congressional appropriation after reimbursement from mandatory ``Special'' and ``Trust'' funds, as applicable.
5 Direct Congressional appropriation. The total for all accounts comes from the General Fund, initially. Ultimately, it is reimbursed from mandatory accounts in the amount shown opposite
``Mandatory.''
______
Table B.--Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Civil Works Fiscal Year 2000 Direct Program, President's New Starts and Other New Work Program
[Funding ($K)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Cost Budget Year
Account/Category # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Federal
Total --------------------------------------- Nonfederal Total --------------------------------------- Nonfederal
GF HSF IWTF GF HSF NWTF
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Investigations:
Surveys:
Santa Inez River, CA............................... 1 100 100 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Surveys).................................... 1 100 100 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0
Construction, General:
Projects:
(Regular/Environmental):
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brute Sioux, ND.. 1 108,000 108,000 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 0
Willernette River Temperature Control, OR.......... 1 70,600 70,600 0 0 0 1,700 1,700 0 0 0
Flood Production:
Arecibo River, PR.................................. 1 23,100 12,500 0 0 10,600 8,742 2,500 0 0 6,242
Grand Forks, ND--East Grand Forks, MN.............. 1 350,250 175,900 0 0 174,350 30,600 10,000 0 0 20,600
Napa River, CA..................................... 1 182,000 91,000 0 0 91,000 42,528 4,500 0 0 38,028
Navigation:
Baltimore Harbor and Channels, MD., Brewerton 1 14,035 10,530 0 0 3,505 13,083 9,578 0 0 3,505
Channel...........................................
Kikiaola Small Boat Harbor, Kaual, HI.............. 1 5,653 4,997 0 0 656 185 75 0 0 110
Neches River and Tributaries Saltwater Barrier, TX. 1 55,880 41,895 0 0 13,965 5,661 2,000 0 0 3,661
Port Fourchon, LA.................................. 1 4,930 2,557 0 0 2,373 4,557 2,184 0 0 2,373
Santa Barbara Harbor, CA........................... 1 6,700 5,360 0 0 1,340 6,300 4,960 0 0 1,340
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Regular Projects)........................... 10 821,128 523,339 0 0 297,789 115,356 39,497 0 0 75,859
Major Rehabilitation:
Cape Cod Canal Railroad Bridge, MA................. 1 30,500 30,500 0 0 0 5,000 5,000 0 0 0
John H. Kerr Powerhouse, VA & NC................... 1 59,600 59,600 0 0 0 1,400 1,400 0 0 0
Lock and Dam 12, Mississippi River, IA............. 1 15,500 7,750 0 7,750 0 2,600 1,300 0 1,300 0
Lock and Dam 24, Part 2, Mississippi River, IL & MO 1 38,400 19,200 0 19,200 0 1,200 600 0 600 0
London Locks and Dam, Kanawha River, WV............ 1 20,300 10,150 0 10,150 0 600 0 0 600 0
Patoka Lake, IN.................................... 1 7,200 7,200 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 0
Walter F. George Powerhouse and Dam, AL & GA....... 1 37,000 37,000 0 0 0 750 750 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Major Rehabilitation Projects).............. 7 208,500 171,400 0 37,100 0 13,550 11,050 0 2,500 0
Dam Safety Assurance:
Bluestone Lake, WV................................. 1 107,300 107,300 0 0 0 750 750 0 0 0
Success Dam, CA.................................... 1 30,900 30,900 0 0 0 1,250 1,250 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Dam Safety Assurance Projects).............. 2 138,200 138,200 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Projects)................................... 19 1,167,828 832,939 0 37,100 297,789 130,906 52,547 0 2,500 75,859
Program:
Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard 1 654,000 425,000 0 0 229,000 35,000 25,000 0 0 10,000
Mitigation Program................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Projects and Program)....................... 20 1,821,828 1,257,939 0 37,100 526,789 165,906 77,547 0 2,500 85,859
Operation and Maintenance, General:
Dredge Wheeler Ready Reserve1........................ 1 0 0 0 0 0 12,450 12,450 0 0 0
Management Tools for Operation and Management........ 1 2,265 2,265 0 0 0 975 975 0 0 0
National Dam Security Program1....................... 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 0 0
Wetlands Functional Assessment Methodology........... 1 7,398 7,398 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 0 0 0
Zebra Mussel Research Program........................ 1 13,378 13,378 0 0 0 1,500 1,500 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Remaining Items).............................. 5 23,041 23,041 0 0 0 15,945 15,945 0 0 0
Revolving Fund:
Plant Replacement and Improvement Program (PRIP)
Major Acquisitions2 :
Towboat Raymond C. Peck Replacement................ 1 5,500 5,500 0 0 0 5,160 5,160 0 0 0
Fuel Oil Barge Replacement......................... 1 1,495 1,495 0 0 0 1,390 1,390 0 0 0
Survey Boat Granada Replacement.................... 1 1,533 1,533 0 0 0 1,285 1,285 0 0 0
Derrickboat No. 6 Replacement...................... 1 775 775 0 0 0 660 660 0 0 0
Panama City Crane Barge Replacement................ 1 6,400 6,400 0 0 0 125 125 0 0 0
Survey Boat Gatlin Replacement..................... 1 1,800 1,800 0 0 0 1,550 1,550 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (PRIP Major Acquisitions).................... 6 17,503 17,503 0 0 0 10,170 10,170 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All.............................................. 32 1,862,472 1,296,583 0 37,100 526,789 192,121 103,762 0 2,500 85,859
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Fiscal Year 2000 funding reflects annual requirement.
2 Funding is available from the Revolving Fund.
______
Table C.--Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works, Fiscal Year 2000 Total (Direct and Reimbursed) Program President's Environmental
Program
[Funding ($000)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation Budget
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 00
----------------------------------------------------------------
96 97 98 99 Account
----------------------------------------------------------------
All G1 C,G OAM,G Others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Program:
Discretionary Program Study and
Project Specific Activities:
Mitigation..................... 156,010 177,515 128,833 158,840 148,700 3,887 141,516 0 3,366
Restoration.................... 105,782 74,031 181,516 82,289 138,940 15,584 97,154 10,702 18,500
Protection..................... 79,450 90,594 126,875 81,852 86,319 459 3,909 74,044 7,907
Cleanup........................ 12,020 3,458 317 540 0 0 0 0 0
Compliance..................... 9,864 360 395 2,480 1,327 304 468 0 555
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Study and Project 383,098 345,958 438,036 324,001 376,355 20,234 243,047 84,746 27,328
Specific Activities)........
Programmatic Activities:
Aquatic Plant Control.......... 4,000 2,000 5,000 3,000 3,000 0 3,000 0 0
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration 0 0 6,000 11,200 4,500 0 4,500 0 0
(SEC 206).....................
Beneficial Uses of Dredged 2,500 1,500 2,000 350 1,000 0 1,000 0 0
Material (SEC 204)............
Dredging Operations and 0 1,500 4,000 5,000 8,000 0 0 8,000 0
Environmental Research (DOER).
Environmental Data Studies..... 0 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0
Environmental Infrastructure... 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
Environmental Review Guide for 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operations (ERGO).............
Formerly Utilized Sirtes 0 0 162,7181 140,000 150,000 0 0 0 150,000
Remedial Action Program
(FUSRAP)......................
Great Lakes Remedial Action 500 500 500 500 0 0 0 0 0
Program (SEC 401).............
Hazardous Waste Site 3,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Restoration Initiative........
National Recreation Management 0 0 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 0
Support (NRMS)................
Natural Resources Technical 0 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 0
Support (NRTS)................
Oil Spill Research Program..... 840 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pollution Prevention Program... 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Modification for 10,850 17,000 21,175 11,000 8,500 0 8,500 0 0
Improvement of the Environment
(SEC 1135)....................
Regulatory Program............. 101,000 106,000 108,000 106,000 117,000 0 0 0 117,000
Research and Development....... 8,331 10,399 17,450 19,450 18,000 4,500 3,000 10,500 0
Riverine Ecosystem Restoration 0 0 0 0 25,000 0 25,000 0 0
and Flood Hazard Mitigation...
Wetland and Aquatic Habitat 2,500 ........... ........... ........... 0 0 0 0 0
Creation......................
Wetlands Functional Assessment 0 0 0 0 01,000 0 0 1,500 0
Methodology...................
Zebra Mussel Research Program.. 0 0 0 1,500 1,500 0 0 1,500 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Programmatic Activities) 135,031 131,999 325,643 296,100 354,800 4,500 42,000 21,000 267,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Study and project 496,127 477,957 763,679 620,101 708,955 24,834 285,047 106,748 294,328
Specific and Programmatic
Activities).................
Mandatory Program:
Coastal Wetlands Planning, 35,000 43,000 44,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 10,000
Protection, and Restoration...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Discretionary and 533,127 520,957 807,679 630,101 719,955 24,834 285,047 106,748 304,328
Mandatory Programs).........
Reimbursed Program (Support for
Others):..........................
EPA Superfund.................... 250,000 250,000 300,000 250,000 250,000 0 0 0 250,000
Department of Energy............. 31,000 20,000 22,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 0
Other Governmental Agencies...... 65,000 45,000 35,000 11,000 8,000 0 0 0 8,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Reimbursed Program)....... 346,000 315,000 357,000 263,000 258,000 0 0 0 258,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Direct and Reimbursed 879,127 835,957 1,184,879 893,101 977,955 24,834 285,047 105,746 582,328
Program)......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Includes $22,718 in unpaid balance transferred from Department of Energy.
Responses by Assistant Secretary Joseph W. Westphal to Additional
Questions from Senator Lautenberg
Question 1. Harbor Maintenance Tax.--I am concerned that any new or
replacement fee on port users may ultimately serve to divert cargo from
U.S. ports to those of Canada or Mexico, especially if the fee is
assessed on the vessel. As you know, competition between ports in the
Northeast and the Pacific Northwest and their Canada counterparts is
very real. In New Jersey, for example, we are waiting to see if Halifax
will take Sea-Land and Maersk business from New York Harbor. What are
you doing to ensure that the Administration's draft proposal will not
have that unintended consequence?
Answer. The Administration is very sensitive to this issue and has
taken several steps to ensure that the potential for any such cargo
diversions is minimized. First, we believe that because the proposed
Harbor Services User Fee was structured as a user fee to be imposed on
vessels and not on cargo, the incentive for shippers to redirect cargo
away from U.S. ports is minimized. Second, the Administration decided
to impose the Harbor Services User Fee on a ``voyage'' basis, rather
than a ``port call'' basis, so that any incentive for vessel operators
to reduce the number of calls to the United States during a particular
voyage is eliminated. As an additional consideration, the imposition of
the fee on a ``voyage'' basis was structured to be independent of the
order of port calls between the United States and other North American
ports to further minimize the potential for any unintended diversions
of cargo.
With the fee structured as described above, vessel operators may be
motivated to more fully utilize their vessel cargo capacity by carrying
the maximum amount of goods on voyages to U.S. ports. A vessel could
completely avoid the fee only by not calling at any U.S. ports on a
particular voyage (presumably in favor of calling in Canada or Mexico).
This is considered highly unlikely for virtually all U.S. trade due to
the size and importance of the U.S. market and the overland
transportation costs from Canadian and Mexican ports to the United
States
Question 2. Kill van Kull Project.--Dr. Westphal, I was very
pleased that recently, Vice president Gore and you were able to join us
in Elizabeth for the signing of the agreement between the Corps of
Engineers and the Port Authority on the Kill van Kull to Newark Bay
deepening project. That project has been a long time coming and it is
important to both sides of the harbor. Please tell me the status of the
bidding process and how soon the digging will start.
Answer. Bid opening on the first contract for work on the project
occurred on March 11, 1999. The work is for removal of rock and non-
rock material in the Constable hook area. From bid opening through
award of contract to initiation of construction normally takes 60 to 90
days.
Question 3. FUSRAP/Thorium.--I note that the Administration
proposes a $10 million increase in the budget for the Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program--or ``FUSRAP.'' I was pleased to see this
increase as my state, New Jersey, has four sites contaminated with
thorium waste. I'm also pleased to tell you, Dr. Westphal, that I'm
very satisfied with the speed with which you are cleaning up these
sites in my state. Some of these are located right in residential
neighborhoods. To what do you owe the increased funding? And, with this
increase, do you expect to clean these sites up faster than would have
been done under the Department of Energy?
Answer. I believe that the increased funding is a result both of
the Corps success in executing FUSRAP in BY 1998 and of efforts made by
my office and the Corps to justify an increased allocation of funds for
this program. While $150 million is more than the Department of Energy
(DOE) ever had available for FUSRAP in a single year, DOE's draft
accelerated cleanup plan as well as their 10-year plan were predicated
on funding at the $182 million a year level. Some combination of
increased efficiency and additional funding will be necessary to
accelerate work.
Question 4. FUSRAP/Thorium.--Can you tell me what progress you plan
to make at sites in New Jersey this year-specifically at the Wayne and
Maywood sites?
Answer. At both of these sites we will continue remedial activities
initiated in fiscal year 1998. In addition, we will develop final
cleanup plans for both sites in accordance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act,
which will establish the cleanup criteria at each of the sites. The
Corps anticipates finalizing records of decisions for these sites early
in fiscal year 2000.
______
Responses by Assistant Secretary Joseph W. Westphal to Additional
Questions from Senator Boxer
Question 1. American River Watershed Flood Control Project.--The
Sacramento District has issued a preliminary American River Basin
Comparison of Flood Risks of the various alternatives for flood
control. Please provide the committee a realistic appraisal of this
document in terms of the different methodologies used for different
alternatives compared, what important costs, such as environmental
mitigation, that were not included and the different sources of cost
estimates. In other words, what advice and caution should we use in
evaluating this document?
Answer. The American River Basin Comparison of Flood Risk dated
March 11, 1999 was developed to display the results of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers most recent hydrological analysis of American River
flood frequency. For comparison purposes the data from the Corps
previous frequency curves as well as from the National Research Council
(NRC) conclusions are displayed in the attached table. Even though
detailed cost estimates were not available for all the alternatives
listed in the table, a preliminary estimate of the cost of each
alternative was presented to give a relative comparison of costs
between the alternatives. All 12 alternatives were evaluated for flood
risk based on the same flow-frequency curve and using the same risk and
uncertainty analysis. Therefore, the annual chance of exceedence and
the recurrence interval values shown in the table for each alternative
are comparable to the respective values for the other alternatives.
The components of the 12 alternatives are described in enclosure 1
to the table. The description of each alternative includes all
appropriate components or provides an explanation of what additional
features may be required. The preliminary costs presented in the table
reflect a varying degree of certainty. Enclosure 2 describes the basis
for and the uncertainty about the cost estimates. As noted in enclosure
2, the costs provided for some of the alternatives are based on much
more detailed designs and estimates than others. Detention Dam Plan (ID
5) has the most detailed design because it was the tentatively
recommended plan in the 1996 American River Watershed Project,
Supplemental Information Report (SIR). Stepped Release Plan (ID 4) and
Folsom Modification Plan (ID 6) were evaluated as candidate plans in
the SIR and thus have designs on which to base the costs, but in less
detail than the Detention Dam Plan. The Stepped Release Plan (ID 7) and
Folsom Modification Plan (ID 8), as proposed by SAFCA, are proposed
modifications of ID 4 and ID 6 and do not have the same design detail
as the original plans. Thus, the estimated costs for ID 7 and ID 8 are
not as certain as are those for ID 4 and ID 6. The Raise Folsom Plans
(ID 9, ID 10, and ID 11) were evaluated on a limited basis in the SIR
and as such have a lesser level of detail than the other alternatives.
The 180,000 acre-foot Cofferdam Plan (ID 12) was based on information
developed for the flood detention dams in the SIR, but no detailed
design was completed. The cost estimates for the three Raise Folsom
Plans and the Cofferdam Plan are comparable and of lesser certainty
than those for the other alternatives.
The Corps is in the process of developing additional information on
alternatives ID 7 through ID 12. This will allow development of more
detailed cost estimates for use in evaluating alternatives. Results of
these analyses will be presented in an information paper that is
scheduled for completion by the end of April 1999. In the interim, the
costs included in the table are suitable for comparing the relative
difference in cost between the alternatives.
American River Basin--Comparison of Flood Risk using Corps' Risk-Based Analysis Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency Curve
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COE 1986 COE 1997 NRC COE 1999 Preliminary
ID Flood Control Alternative ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cost [$
% chance Recurrence % chance Recurrence % chance Recurrence % chance Recurrence millions]
Exceedence Interval Exceedence Interval Exceedence Interval Exceedence Interval
in any year (years) in any year (years) in any year (years) in any year (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives Presented in Supplemental Information Report (SIR) Dated 1966
1..................................... Existing Conditions w/o 1.28 78 1.61 62 1.27 79 1.49 67 0
Folsom Reoperation.
2..................................... Folsom Dam Reoperation w/o 1.02 98 1.32 76 0.99 101 1.19 84 0
Common Features.
3..................................... Folsom Dam Reoperation w/ 0.95 105 1.25 80 0.92 109 1.11 90 67
Common Features.
4..................................... Stepped Release Plan-- 0.42 238 0.61 164 0.42 238 0.52 192 505-650
145,000/180,000 cfs.
5..................................... Detention Dam Plan-- 0.16 625 0.25 400 0.17 588 0.20 500 960-1000
115,000 cfs.
6..................................... Folsom Modification Plan-- 0.54 185 0.74 135 0.53 188 0.65 153 370-430
115,000 cfs.
Modified Sir Alternatives Proposed By SAFCA
7..................................... Stepped Release Plan-- 0.48 208 0.66 151 0.47 212 0.58 172 505-600
145,000/180,000 cfs.
8..................................... Folsom Modification Plan-- 0.65 154 0.85 117 0.62 161 0.77 130 150-170
115,000 cfs.
Folsom Raise Alternatives
9..................................... Raise 6.5 feet............ 0.55 181 0.76 131 0.54 185 0.66 151 300-350
10.................................... Raise 17 feet............. 0.42 238 0.60 166 0.42 238 0.52 192 600-700
11.................................... Raise 30 feet............. 0.32 313 0.46 217 0.32 313 0.39 256 800-1000
Coffer Dam
12.................................... 180,000 Acre-Ft Auburn 0.44 227 0.62 161 0.44 227 0.53 188 420-550
Coffer Dam.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1 See Enclosure 1 for Description of Frequency Curves and Alternatives.
2 The costs displayed are preliminary estimates based on available information. They are not based on a detailed Feasibility level study (except for ID 5, Detention Dam Plan which does have a
feasibility level detailed estimate). Enclosure 2 provides additional information on the basis of the costs displayed.
______
American River Basin: Comparison of Flood Risk Using Corps' Risk-Based
Analysis Procedure
description of frequency curves and alternatives
1. COE 1986 Frequency Curve represents statistical analyses
performed after the February 1986 Flood (Presented in SIR).
2. COE 1997 Frequency Curve represents statistical analyses
performed after the January 1997 Flood (June 1998).
3. NRC Frequency Curve represents the February 1999 statistical
analyses recommended by the NRC.
4. COE 1999 Frequency Curve reflects analyses based on Bulletin
17B, systematic record, no historic adjustment, and station skew.
5. (goes with ID 2 & 3) Flood control storage varies from 400,000
af to 670,000 af depending on space in upstream reservoirs.
6. (goes with ID 3) Common features includes slurry walls in lower
American River levees and modification to Sacramento River levees
adjacent to Natomas Basin.
7. (goes with ID 4) Lower the 5 primary spillway bays and enlarge
the 8 existing river outlets at Folsom Dam. Raise and modify levees on
lower American River and Yolo Bypass. Widen Sacramento Weir and Bypass.
Increase Folsom Dam's objective release from 115,000 to 145,000/
180,000 cfs.
8. (goes with ID 5) 894,000 af single purpose flood control
detention dam at the Auburn site. New high bridge to relocate Highway
49.
9. (goes with ID 6) Lower the 5 primary spillway bays, enlarge the
8 existing river outlets, modifications for increased surcharge
storage, increase flood storage to 475,000/720,000 af.
10. (goes with ID 7) Enlarge the 8 existing river outlets,
construct 5 new river outlets, modifications for increased surcharge
storage, flood storage of 400,000/600,000 af, raise and modify levees
the same as ID 4, increase objective release to 145,000/180,000 cfs.
11. (goes with ID 8) Enlarge the 8 existing river outlets,
construct 5 new river outlets, modifications for increased surcharge
storage, flood storage of 400,000/600,000 af.
12. (goes with ID 9) Raise dam and dikes 6.5 feet, replace spillway
gates, construct 5 new river outlets, enlarge the 8 existing river
outlets, construct new bridge downstream of dam. Objective release will
remain at the existing 115,000 cfs.
13. (goes with ID 10) Raise dam and dikes 17 feet, reconstruct
spillway and replace all spillway gates, construct 5 new river outlets,
enlarge the 8 existing river outlets, new bridge downstream of dam, and
acquire additional real estate. Objective release will remain at the
existing 115,000 cfs.
14. (goes with ID 11) Same as ID 11 but raise by 30 feet. Objective
release will remain at the existing 115,000 cfs.
15. (goes with ID 12) Construct concrete dam at or near previous
Auburn Dam cofferdam site, use existing diversion tunnel with some
modifications as main outlet, environmental mitigation, and land
acquisition.
______
American River Basin Comparison of Flood Risk Using Corps' Risk-Based
Analysis Procedure
explanation of preliminary costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Costs
ID [$ x Comments
millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................ 0 ........................
2................................ 0 For these purposes it is
assumed that the
existing reoperation is
a without project
condition and has no
incremental cost.
3................................ 67 The current estimated
cost of the authorized
project which is under
construction. For the
purpose of this table
this is a without
project condition and
other cost estimates do
not include these
costs.
4................................ 505-650 The $505 million is the
cost for the plan as
described in the 1996
Supplemental
Information Report
(SIR) updated to Oct 98
price level. In
developing the plan for
the SIR, it was
believed that Folsom
Dam's five primary
spillways could be
lowered without
significantly affecting
the large amount of
public traffic using
the road across the
dam. New information
became available
subsequent to
completing the SIR and
it is now believed that
there would be a
significant impact to
public traffic using
the dam road. The most
likely mitigation for
the traffic impacts
would be to construct a
new bridge just
downstream of the dam.
Various local agencies
have also questioned
whether the costs
included for hydraulic
mitigation in the Yolo
Bypass is adequate. The
$650 million includes
costs for both a new
bridge and additional
contingency for
hydraulic mitigation.
5................................ 960-1000 Reflects estimate cited
in the SIR updated by
price level to Oct 98
prices. Includes $88
million in sunk costs
that are not included
in any other estimate
in this table. The
range is to account for
uncertainty in the cost
estimate.
6................................ 370-430 The $370 million is
based on the plan
presented in the SIR
updated by price level
to Oct 98 prices. As
with alternative 4
(Stepped Release Plan)
it is likely a new
bridge downstream of
Folsom will be required
to mitigate for traffic
impacts. The $430
million estimate
includes the potential
cost of a new bridge.
7................................ 505-600 The $505 million is the
same cost as presented
in the SIR for the
stepped release plan.
For this estimate it is
assumed the costs are
the same for the 5 new
river outlets which are
included in this plan
in lieu of the spillway
lowering feature
included in the stepped
release plan described
in the SIR. The $600
million includes
additional costs
because of the
uncertainty in the cost
for hydraulic
mitigation in the Yolo
Bypass. The spillways
will not be lowered in
this plan therefore, a
new downstream bridge
is assumed not to be
needed.
8................................ 150-170 This plan is similar to
number 6 but includes
flood control storage
of 400,000/600,000 af
in lieu of the 475,000/
720,000 af, and
includes 5 new river
outlets in lieu of
lowering the 5 primary
spillway bays. It is
expected that the 5 new
river outlets will be
somewhat less costly
than lowering the
spillways. However, a
specific estimate of
the new river outlets
has not been made
therefore the cost
listed is the costs of
the Folsom
modifications in the
SIR updated by price
level to Oct 98 prices.
The range is for
uncertainty in the
overall estimate. The
spillway will not be
lowered in this plan,
therefore, a new
downstream bridge is
assumed not to be
needed.
9................................ 300-350 This is based on an
estimate made by the
Sacramento Area Flood
Control Agency. Range
is for uncertainty in
the overall estimate.
The Corps is in the
process of developing
an estimate.
10............................... 600-700 This was evaluated as a
preliminary measure in
the development of the
SIR. The cost range is
because there are
potentially significant
additional costs for
real estate, recreation
modifications, costs
for lost water during
construction, and
construction
uncertainties due to
seasonal conditions.
11............................... 800-1000 This was evaluated as a
preliminary measure in
the development of the
SIR The cost range is
because there are
potentially significant
additional costs for
real estate, recreation
modifications, costs
for lost water during
construction, and
construction
uncertainties due to
seasonal availability.
12............................... 420-550 The $420 million does
not include any costs
for potential
mitigation for impacts
to Highway 49 bridge.
If mitigation is
required, there are
various options to
mitigate impacts to
include a full bridge
replacement estimated
to cost about $110
million. (Note: This
plan includes
modifications to Folsom
outlet works (id 8) and
does not include any
sunk cost as were
included in ID 5.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. American River Watershed Flood Control Project.--What
is your estimate of the length of time it would take for the Corps to
produce a Chief of Engineers Report for the so-called ``Folsom Raise''
alternatives identified as nos. 9, 10 and 11 in this report?
Answer. It would take 18-24 months to complete a Chief of Engineers
report that focuses only on an alternative that raises Folsom Dam for
the sole purpose of flood control, it would take 18-24 months to
complete. This would include, among other items of work, determining
the optimum height of the raise of Folsom Dam and completion of a joint
Environmental Impact Statement-Environmental Impact Report, which would
specifically address this alternative and generally address all other
alternatives previously considered. Included in the 18-24 months of
effort would be a Feasibility-type report that would recommend a plan
based on the outcome of optimization and environmental analysis.
______
Responses by Assistant Secretary Joseph W. Westphal to Additional
Questions from Senator Graham
Question 1. Kissimmee River Restoration.--Of the funds provided to
the Army Corps for Kissimmee River restoration since the inception of
the project, how much will be obligated by the end of fiscal year 1999?
Answer. 100 percent of the funds received by the Corps of Engineers
for Kissimmee River restoration will be obligated by the end of fiscal
year 1999. A small amount of the obligated funds will not be expended
because the ongoing contracts will have some undelivered orders.
Question 2. Kissimmee River Restoration.--In fiscal year 1999, the
original request for the Kissimmee River project was $27.3 million. The
enacted amount was $8 million. What effect has this had on the Army
Corps schedule for the Kissimmee River project?
Answer. None. Modifications to contract 14, which was intended for
spoil removal in the Lower Kissimmee Basin resulted in a total cost
reduction of $12 million and fiscal year 1999 cost reduction of 48
million. Lower Basin contract 6, which focused on the Istokpoga levee
was delayed, resulting in a reduction of $2 million in fiscal year 1999
costs. We are in the process of notifying OMB and the Appropriations
Committees of our intent to reprogram $5 million. Therefore, the
reduction in fiscal year 1999 funds resulted in no change to the Corps
construction on the Kissimmee project.
Question 3. Kissimmee River Restoration.--Given the changes that
occurred in the fiscal year 1999 request, can we anticipate similar
changes in the fiscal year 2000 request?
Answer. No. The circumstances leading to the cost reductions for
fiscal year 1999 were a one-time event. The cost changes stemming from
contract 14 modifications were incorporated into last year's budget.
The delays in contract 6 are over and forward progress is anticipated
this fiscal year. In addition, as I indicated earlier, by the end of
fiscal year 1999, all funds received by the Corps will be obligated,
making full funding of the fiscal year 200 request a priority.
Question 4. Everglades Restoration.--Secretary Babbitt recently
announced his intent to create an independent panel of scientists to
review the development and implementation of the Corps of Engineers
Everglades restoration plans. What role will the Army Corps play in
selecting the panel of scientists?
Answer. First, let me emphasize that sound science has formed the
foundation of all of our efforts to develop a plan to restore the
Everglades. In fact the plan was developed by scores of scientists and
engineers from many different agencies. In regard to the independent
panel of scientists, we have always considered outside peer review to
be an important component of the implementation of the restoration
plan. We are working closely with the Department of the Interior and
other agencies to select and convene this group as soon as possible.
Question 5. Shore Protection Cost Sharing.--Included in the WRDA
1999 legislation is a proposal to modify the cost-share requirements
for shore protection projects to 50-50. This differs slightly from the
Administration's original proposal. If WRDA 1999 is enacted into law
with a 50-50 cost share provision for shore protection projects, will
the Army Corps begin requesting funds to support these projects in
fiscal year 2001?
Answer. Yes, if WRDA 1999 is enacted with cost sharing acceptable
to the Administration, we will pursue funding to the extent feasible
within budget constraints.
Question 6. Brevard County Issue No. 1.--Background. The Army Corps
initially agreed that as part of the settlement of this lawsuit, they
would conduct the shore protection project as laid out in the
feasibility study. In the summer of 1998, the Corps indicated that they
wanted the right to make modifications to the project. These changes
would be governed by regulations ER 1105-2-100.
The lawyers for Brevard County reviewed the regulations in December
1998 and took exception to 2-17b, which allows the Chief of Engineers
the discretionary authority to make changes that do not meet criteria.
Because the Corps took the position that such decisions were non-
reviewable, the Brevard County lawyers proposed that they add the
following language to the settlement agreement: ``No change may
arbitrarily or capriciously reduce the scope of the Shore Protection
Project''.
During mediation on February 18, 1999, I understand that the Corps
rejected the proposed sentence.
Can you explain why the Corps would disagree with a statement that
it would not arbitrarily or capriciously reduce the scope of the Shore
Protection Project that is part of the settlement agreement with
Brevard County?
Answer. My response is to both issues you raised concerning Brevard
County. The issues indicate that the Army Corps of Engineers has had
dealings with lawyers for Brevard County, Florida regarding a
settlement agreement and this implies that there is a lawsuit involving
Brevard County. This is incorrect. There is no lawsuit involving
Brevard County and there have been no such settlement discussions with
lawyers for Brevard County. Nonetheless, it is clear the questions
relate to ongoing settlement discussions between the U.S. Department of
Justice/Army Corps of Engineers and private lawyers representing
approximately 350 private beach front property owners located south of
the Corps' Canaveral Harbor Project (Applegate, et al. v. United
States, No. 92-832L, U.S. Ct. Fed. Cls.).
As such, the issues pertain to settlement discussions in a
presently pending lawsuit, in which the United States Army is
represented by the Department of Justice. You have asked me to explain
why the Corps took particular positions in connection with the
negotiations to attempt to develop an agreement under which this
lawsuit might be settled. It is my understanding that settlement
discussions are considered confidential, and that the Settlement Judge
in this matter has specifically confirmed that these ongoing settlement
discussions are considered confidential and are not to be divulged to
outside parties. Accordingly, I respectfully decline to provide answers
to the questions posed relative to this matter.
Question 7. Brevard County Issue No. 2.--Background. Since the
Feasibility study was completed in 1996, the Corps has refused to
submit a budget request for this project. During mediation in June
1998, the County's lawyers asked the Corps to take a favorable position
with respect to appropriation of the project and any increase in the
Federal cost share.
The Corps refused, citing the President's policy against such
projects. The Corps did agree to remain neutral at the mediation (and a
sentence to this effect was added to the agreement).
On February 18, 1999, during the last mediation session, the
County's lawyers requested that the Corps add two sentences to the
agreement which stated that the Corps would not be prohibited from
rendering answers or opinions in response to questions by the
President, but would not advocate against the appropriation of funds
for the Project. The Corps rejected this language.
The County's lawyers agreed to strike these two sentences and just
stick with the neutrality sentence as previously agreed to in June
1998. The Corps rejected the offer, and by doing so, reneged on an
agreement made in June 1998.
Can you explain why the Corps would reverse its position in the
middle of a settlement agreement on a deal that was negotiated in good
faith with Brevard County, Florida?
Answer. My response is to both issues you raised concerning Brevard
County. The issues indicate that the Army Corps of Engineers has had
dealings with lawyers for Brevard County, Florida regarding a
settlement agreement and this implies that there is a lawsuit involving
Brevard County. This is incorrect. There is no lawsuit involving
Brevard County and there have been no such settlement discussions with
lawyers for Brevard County. Nonetheless, it is clear the questions
relate to ongoing settlement discussions between the U.S. Department of
Justice/Army Corps of Engineers and private lawyers representing
approximately 350 private beach front property owners located south of
the Corps' Canaveral Harbor Project (Applegate, et al. v. United
States, No. 92-832L, U.S. Ct. Fed. Cls.).
As such, the issues pertain to settlement discussions in a
presently pending lawsuit, in which the United States Army is
represented by the Department of Justice. You have asked me to explain
why the Corps took particular positions in connection with the
negotiations to attempt to develop an agreement under which this
lawsuit might be settled. It is my understanding that settlement
discussions are considered confidential, and that the Settlement Judge
in this matter has specifically confirmed that these ongoing settlement
discussions are considered confidential and are not to be divulged to
outside parties. Accordingly, I respectfully decline to provide answers
to the questions posed relative to this matter.