[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST FOR ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
=======================================================================
(110-95)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 7, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-695 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GARY G. MILLER, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JULIA CARSON, Indiana JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine Virginia
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California TED POE, Texas
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CONNIE MACK, Florida
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio York
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania Louisiana
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
JOHN J. HALL, New York VACANCY
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
DORIS O. MATSUI, California VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York GARY G. MILLER, California
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado Carolina
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JOHN J. HALL, New York CONNIE MACK, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
JERRY MCNERNEY, California, Vice York
Chair CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Louisiana
Columbia JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts JOHN L. MICA, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California (Ex Officio)
MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York VACANCY
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Bodine, Hon. Susan Parker, Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 9
Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Water,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency........................... 9
Van Antwerp, Lieutenant General Robert, Chief of Engineers, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers........................................ 9
Woodley, Jr., Hon. John Paul, Assistant Secretary of the Army For
Civil Works, Department of the Army............................ 9
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 39
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 40
Duncan, Hon. John J., of Tennessee............................... 43
Salazar, Hon. John T., of Colorado............................... 50
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Bodine, Hon. Susan Parker........................................ 53
Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H........................................ 70
Van Antwerp, Lieutenant General Robert........................... 80
Woodley, Jr., Hon. John Paul..................................... 86
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Responses to questions from Rep. Mitchell...................... 59
Responses to questions from Rep. Oberstar...................... 62
Responses to questions from the Subcommittee................... 65
Woodley, Jr., Hon. John Paul, Assistant Secretary of the Army For
Civil Works, Department of the Army, responses to questions
from the Subcommittee.......................................... 104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.008
HEARING ON THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST FOR ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
----------
Thursday, February 7, 2008
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie
Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Ms. Johnson. The Committee will come to order.
I would like to welcome our witnesses from EPA and the
Corps. From the EPA, Assistant Administrator Benjamin Grumbles
and Susan Bodine will testify. I would like to welcome John
Paul Woodley, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
and Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp, Chief of Engineers
for the Corps of Engineers.
As is becoming more and more apparent, the Nation is in
economic distress, and yet the President's budget cuts programs
and projects that put Americans to work on projects that will
benefit Americans. Enhanced funding of EPA water infrastructure
and Corps projects provide direct benefits to the economy while
at the same time supporting the Nation's priorities of enhanced
human health and safety and environmental restoration and
protection.
Simply put, this budget is not adequate to meet the
Nation's needs. The Administration fails to recognize that
continued investment in water-related infrastructure is a key
element for stimulating and improving the U.S. economy, an
economy built on the investments of our predecessors.
States and local communities have warned that reduced
funding for wastewater infrastructure programs make it
difficult to respond to failing wastewater infrastructure and
can force the delay of essential upgrades to improve water
quality.
The President's budget for the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund program does nothing to reassure the public on this front.
Given the needs of communities, rich and poor, to deal with
toxic, hazardous waste sites, the Superfund budget does little
more to address their concerns. Since this Administration came
into office, the President's budget has almost halved the
annual number of Superfund cleanups achieved by the Clinton
Administration.
Unfortunately, the Army Corps of Engineers does not fare
any better in this proposed budget. It continues cuts that
affect the ability of the agency to carry out its mission.
The budget also fails to fund any of the important projects
that were authorized by the WRDA 2007 bill which passed with
overwhelmingly bipartisan support. For example, in my own
district, the President's budget fails to adequately fund the
recently authorized Dallas Floodway Extension Project.
This flood control project along the Trinity River provides
critical flood protection for downtown Dallas and the
neighborhoods of Oak Cliff and West Dallas, raising the level
of flood protection and protecting the lives and livelihood of
some 12,500 homes and businesses in Dallas. The city estimates
that this project will prevent an excess of $8 billion in flood
damages and provides additional recreational opportunities for
those visiting the Dallas metropolitan area.
I am certain that every Member of this Committee could
identify similar important projects that are targeted for
elimination or reduction in this budget.
I am also concerned about the impact of this budget on the
Corps' ability to vital operations and maintenance activities
for both navigation and flood control projects. The passage of
time has taken a toll and has created the real possibility of
catastrophic failure of essential transportation linkages or
flood protection projects. As the Nation learned in the
aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, poorly constructed or
maintain flood control structures can result in tremendous
economic and personal hardship and loss of life.
This budget forces the Corps to do more with less money. It
bets the continued reliability of our infrastructure on the
hope that it will hold together for just a few more years. We
cannot under-invest in the Nation's infrastructure or its
environment. We have an obligation to future generations to
provide a cleaner, safer and more secure world for them to
live.
I welcome our witnesses here, and I look forward to today's
testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I am filling in once again until a new Ranking Member is
named in place of Mr. Baker, and I certainly am familiar with
the importance of the Trinity River project to your district
because you had me down there when I chaired this Subcommittee.
Let me begin by saying that I support the President's
efforts to control Federal spending. However, the agency
programs that we are examining today are truly investments in
America. These are important programs that benefit our economy
and improve the quality of life for our citizens.
While I believe we must be diligent in our oversight of
these agencies to be sure that programs are run effectively and
efficiently, I do not support cutting programs that have a
proven record of providing economic benefits. In fact, as part
of the economic stimulus program, we should increase our
investment in programs such as those that both produce jobs,
American jobs, and deliver economic benefits.
The Administration's budget for fiscal year 2009 continues
a trend of under-investing in our water resources. As a result,
the general condition of our flood protection and navigation
infrastructure has declined. Investing in flood damage
reduction projects protects the people and businesses in cities
and towns all over the Nation. It makes good economic sense to
protect existing development rather than have to pay for the
losses and cleanup that come from hurricanes or floods.
In the global economy, the Nation's farmers and businesses
must compete with their counterparts overseas for customers all
over the world. The importance of modern waterways and ports
has never been more critical to the Nation's economic well
being as it is right now.
Yet, the Administration's budget cuts the Corps of
Engineers' construction budget by nearly $900 million compared
what it was enacted for fiscal year 2008. If we follow this
lead, projects will take longer to complete and cost more and
have the benefits delayed.
In addition, the budget cuts funds for feasibility studies
by 46 percent compared to what Congress appropriated this year.
These studies are necessary to produce the modern and
beneficial projects that we need in the future.
There is very little from previous budget requests for the
Corps' operations and maintenance account. After many years of
inadequate funding resulting in deferred maintenance, the
funding level is still too low.
The chronic problem of deferred maintenance is impacting
the navigability of many of our waterways and causing ships to
leave certain ports only partially loaded or, in some cases, to
divert to foreign ports. This has a huge impact on the
reliability of this important mode of transportation.
In the Environmental Protection Agency's budget, those of
us on this Committee are disappointed that the Administration
continues to inadequately fund the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund program. This is a highly effective and very important
program.
The Superfund and brownfields programs are budgeted at a
flat rate compared to previous funding levels. These are
important programs that make contaminated areas fit for
redevelopment. Many of the smaller and easier cleanup projects
have already been done, so the remaining work tends to be more
complex and more expensive to complete. We will have to invest
more in these programs if we want to release properties for
redevelopment at the same pace. Those are general comments.
Two or three things more specific that I am interested in:
It is my understanding the Corps is now conducting a study that
compares different projects and how they have been completed. I
am told that the study is called the Good, Bad and the Ugly,
and this sounds like a very worthwhile effort to me. I suspect
that my colleagues on this Committee, as well as other
Committees, will be very interested in the results of this
study, and I would like to hear the status of that.
In addition to that, the Olmsted Locks and Dams project on
the Ohio River was authorized by Congress in WRDA 1988 at an
estimated construction cost of $775 million. Its construction
began in 1991 and was supposed to have been completed years
ago.
Today, so far, we have spent $900 million on the project.
It is now estimated completion cost is just under $2 billion,
and its completion date is now sometime in 2015. I think the
Subcommittee should receive a report on that.
Finally, for more than 30 years, the Corps budget has
identified project specific amounts in the operations and
maintenance portion of the Corps budget.
This year in the fiscal year 2009 proposed budget for the
Corps' civil works program, for the first time, this program is
divided into O&M funding, into 54 river subsystems without
providing the project specific amount for the individual
projects within each subsystem. I think we need to know about
that as well.
With those comments, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Today, we are examining the President's budget request for
the EPA Superfund program, a program that has been very much on
the minds of my constituents of late. They, like me, are
concerned about the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site in
Scottsdale which last month experienced a terrible failure.
On January 16th, without warning, residents were confronted
with a three-day tap water ban. Worse, as water customers began
lining up for bottled water and our local businesses began
scrambling for ice, we learned that for as much as 16 to 24
hours prior to the implementation of the tap water ban,
residents had been exposed to water containing more than 4
times the permissible concentration of trichloroethylene or
TCE, a suspected cancer-causing chemical.
Investigations are ongoing, but it appears, at least
initially, that a mechanical failure at the Miller Road water
treatment facility is at least partially responsible. Alarming,
this is the same facility that was found to have emitted
impermissibly high levels of TCE for a period of eight days in
October.
When news of the October TCE incident became public, which
frankly is a whole disturbing story in itself, I asked the EPA
to find out what was going on at that facility. I was assured
and reassured, both by letter and by phone, that steps were
being taken to guard against TCE emissions at Miller Road.
However, when I turned on the local news a couple weeks later,
there was the same plant, only this time it was having a bigger
TCE emission problem.
And so, I come here today with a lot of questions for the
EPA, questions about why a plant that had already experienced
TCE emission problems wasn't fixed, about why a machine
responsible for protecting the public from TCE emissions was
left unattended and why no one discovered the machine had
failed for up to 16 hours, about why the reverse 911 system
activated by the water company to notify customers about the
tap water ban failed to reach so many of the company's
customers and why the system relied on an estimation of
customer contact information instead of the actual customer
contact information the company had on file.
I believe my constituents are entitled to some answers, and
I hope we can get at least some of them here today.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back the rest of my
time.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Ms. Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the panel for being here today. You are
doing very important work throughout the Country and especially
in my district of Sacramento. As you all know, Sacramento has
significant flood issues. I know the President recognizes the
flood concern in the capital of California as well.
Since coming to Congress, I have fought aggressively to
bring vital Federal funding to my district to ensure that my
constituents are protected. Unfortunately, while the President
has recognized the need for flood mitigation efforts, the
Administration has not provided the funds that we need to
ensure these efforts are realized.
As a result, States like California often front the funding
on flood projects. This is certainly the case in the Sacramento
region where State and local flood control organizations are
aggressively pursuing needed project improvements.
I feel that the Country needs to update the current funding
process to encourage States and locals to move quickly to
protect our constituents. They should not question whether the
Federal Government will support their efforts to move quickly
to build necessary and oftentimes vital projects. I hope the
Administration will be there to provide the necessary support
to our local and State Governments.
We have been working most recently in the Sacramento region
on the joint Federal project and funding for the watershed. I
know that the Administration has taken note of these projects,
and I look forward to talking about them with you today.
Another issue that I am sure you are aware of is in the
Natomas Region in Sacramento. Last week, the Army Corps of
Engineers and FEMA received a copy of the letter that Chairman
Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairwoman Norton and I sent. The letter
announced an upcoming hearing on the Corps' levee certification
and FEMA's flood zone designation processes.
We can all agree that with flood protection, the public
safety always comes first. With that in mind, I am supportive
of exploring additional ways to fast-track the locals' already
aggressively construction schedule for the Natomas Basin and
would expect that the Federal Government would provide the
necessary assistance.
Next week, I want to hear how the Corps and FEMA procedures
are changing and how they expect to implement these changes in
the future in my district and throughout the Country.
Once again, I thank you all for being here. I look forward
to discussing the Corps' budget priorities.
I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Dr. Boustany.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
After Hurricane Rita, I was able to get authorized and
appropriated monies for the first ever hurricane and flood
protection study in southwest Louisiana, and I have worked
closely with the New Orleans Corps Office to move forward on
this project. The reconnaissance study was completed, I believe
this past May, and the project has moved to feasibility. I was
able to secure additional money in the fiscal year 2008 budget
in the omnibus bill to make sure that the project doesn't
stall.
In addition, Congress directed the Corps to expedite
completion of the feasibility aspect of this in WRDA, and yet
the President's budget proposes no funding for the southwest
Louisiana ongoing study in fiscal year 2009. So I hope to hear
from you two gentlemen on this issue as we hear your testimony
and get into the questions.
Additionally, the Louisiana delegation has worked to secure
authorization for the Morganza to Gulf Hurricane Project in
WRDA. We have worked with the Corps to make sure that WRDA
contained adequate language to enable the Corps to move swiftly
forward on this project, and there is some concern now that
despite this hard-fought authorization there are additional
hurdles that will stall the project. And so, I hope again this
can be addressed.
Then, finally, in the operations and maintenance part of
the budget, I have a little concern about the dredging funds
for the Calcasieu ship channel which is very important as we
look at the import of liquified natural gas into this Country.
This ship channel is critically important. It is going to be
the point of inflow for liquified natural gas into the Country.
So I see that keeping this channel dredged is of strategic
importance, not just for Louisiana but for the Country, and so
I hope we can perhaps have some discussion on this as well.
I thank you all for being here and look forward to the
testimony.
I yield back.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you for
holding this hearing.
I also would like to thank today's panelists for appearing
before us, and I want to express my appreciation for their
efforts on behalf of their agencies. I particularly want to
express my appreciation to the Army Corps of Engineers for the
really inspired work that they do in my district and how
responsive they have been to many of the issues that we have
raised with the Corps.
However, let me say that once again I am distressed to see
that the President's budget proposals sacrifice the long term
health of our environment and the protection of our coastal
communities for short term and essentially insignificant
reductions in our deficit. The Administration's continuing
retreat from the protection of our environmental resources
under the pretense of expanding economic growth is very
distressing and essentially an eight-year pattern.
I think we can all agree that the economy is ailing, but as
someone who represents over 300 miles of coastline and numerous
communities that depend on tourism and a pristine local
environment, I find it difficult to see a correlation between
damaging our shoreline and growing the economy.
For 2009, the Administration's budget cuts EPA funding by
4.4 percent from the 2008 enacted levels. Much of this decrease
is attributed to large cuts on grants to States.
The budget cuts heavily the EPA Clean Water State Revolving
Fund, a 19.4 percent reduction from this year's enacted budget
and an astounding 58.8 percent reduction since President Bush
took office. These cuts directly affect my constituents on Long
Island and constituents all over the Country by preventing
much-needed improvements to wastewater infrastructure.
Sadly, it seems as if the President is determined to leave
as his legacy nearly a decade of misguided environmental
policies, and so I look forward to hearing from the panelists,
how we can best make sense of what has been proposed and how we
can hopefully effect it positively so that we can all truly
protect our environment and, in my case, preserve our
shoreline.
I thank the Chairwoman, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the panel for coming in and being part of
this process.
The Corps supports activities of critical importance to my
district including the Ports of Charleston and Georgetown, as
well as the Atlantic and the coastal waterway.
Additionally, since the First District is a coastal
district, almost every construction project brings with it some
concerns over wetlands. After the Corps, the EPA and the White
House issued long awaited wetlands guidance last summer, I am
glad to report that the Charleston district has been one of the
most aggressive in moving to process outstanding and new
wetlands permits. I thank you all for that.
I do, however, have concerns over the funding level
provided to the Corps' regulatory program in this budget and
look forward to discussing that with our witnesses.
Overall, I am disappointed and, unlike last year, I cannot
praise the Administration for making the Army Corps a priority
in this budget. Sadly, comparing requests year to year, the
Corps' budget is reduced this year.
While there is a lot of focus on the calculations made in
determining which construction projects are funded, there is
little attention paid to the maintenance needs of so many Corps
projects that go unaddressed year after year.
Unfortunately, under the current environment, Congress
ensuring that the Corps has funding to maintain a lock or
dredge in the harbor to keep ships coming in is painted in a
bad light while the maintenance needs continue to mount with
little or no attention from the press and public. Investments
in these facilities are not just economic stimulus. They are
economic security.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
this and many other issues facing our Nation's water
infrastructure.
I yield back the balance of my time and thank you, Madam
Chair.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.
Mr. Shuler.
Mr. Shuler. Thank you, Madam Chair.
As a former real estate developer, I am very familiar with
the infrastructure requirements for a new development.
I know firsthand how geosynthetics can support long-
lasting, newly constructed roads, waterways and improve in
erosion sediment control. The performance of roads built with
geosynthetics was always superior to those built without them.
Geosynthetics are also better for the environment by improving
drainage roadways.
My personal experience with geosynthetics is a big reason
why I am advocating for the expanse in use of geosynthetic
products and materials. They will help the government and
businesses to save money on projects of all sizes.
In the late 1980s, the Bureau of Reclamation concluded a
series of tests and investigations to evaluate the use of
geosynthetic systems lining canals throughout the western
United States. The report concluded that geosynthetics led to a
90 percent reduction in leakage and a 50-year increase in the
life span of canals.
In the early 1980s, the EPA mandated the uses of HDPE
liners as subsurface barrier layers in the Nation's landfills
and waste storage facilities. This resulted in the American
Society of Civil Engineers offering the highest grade given to
areas of solid waste management in their report card of
America's infrastructure.
The evidence suggests that requiring the lining of canals,
pipelines, reservoirs and dams for water conveyances with
geosynthetic materials will improve the life spans of these
infrastructure projects while reducing waste and saving
taxpayers' monies.
I hope that this Committee will strongly consider taking
steps to promote the use of geosynthetics in the Water Resource
Development Act of 2008.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
We will go now to our witnesses. We are pleased to have the
distinguished panel of witnesses this afternoon, and we have
Assistant Administrator Benjamin Grumbles from the
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water and the
Assistant Administrator Susan Bodine from the EPA's Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
Then Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the
Honorable John Paul Woodley will testify following them, and
our panel will conclude with testimony from Lieutenant General
Robert Van Antwerp from the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
We are pleased that all of you are here this afternoon.
Mr. Grumbles.
Your full statements can be placed in the record. So we
would ask if you could limit your testimony to five minutes and
proceed as one finishes.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;
THE HONORABLE SUSAN PARKER BODINE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY; THE HONORABLE JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR.,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF
THE ARMY; AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT VAN ANTWERP, CHIEF OF
ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the
Subcommittee. It is always an honor to appear before the
Subcommittee and have the opportunity to discuss the
President's fiscal year 2009 budget request as it relates to
water programs for the U.S. EPA.
The request constitutes $2.5 billion which is 35 percent of
the Agency's overall budget, and the request will allow us,
with our State, tribal and local partners, to continue to make
progress in ensuring America's waters are clean, safe and
secure and, above all, sustainable. The key that we are
focusing on and continuing to emphasize in our budget request
is sustainability, particularly with infrastructure but also on
holistic and integrated watershed approaches.
Infrastructure financing: Water infrastructure is a
lifeline for community health and prosperity. EPA is committed
to developing innovative, sustainable and market-based
approaches and solutions for managing and financing
infrastructure with public and private partners.
We will continue to build on our well established Four
Pillars of Sustainable Infrastructure, focused on improved
asset management and management of utilities, secondly, full
cost pricing, thirdly, water efficiency, and fourthly, an
integrated watershed approach.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund program provides funds
to capitalize state revolving loan funds. In this budget
request, EPA will be on track to meet its total capitalization
target of $6.8 billion for the periods from 2004 through 2011.
At this funding level, the Clean Water SRF will provide an
average of $3.4 billion in loans annually.
We believe that the seed money that goes into the state
revolving fund is a very important tool. It is not the only
tool, and we are committed to working with you on additional
tools and practices and revenue sources and mechanisms to
continue to meet the infrastructure needs.
The drinking water infrastructure funds, the SRF, the
Administration is requesting a slight increase above what was
enacted. It is $842 million.
A very important, an innovative part to meeting water
infrastructure needs is Water Enterprise Bonds. The
Administration continues to request that Congress move on a
Water Enterprise Bond proposal that would be to amend the tax
code to remove the artificial cap, the barrier. It is called
the Unified State Volume Cap on the use of public-private
partnerships for water and wastewater infrastructure. We think
that can lead to new money, new revenues of up to $5 billion a
year.
Another important component of sustainability for water is
the WaterSense program and advancing concepts of water
efficiency at every turn. More than 125 different models of
high efficiency toilets and 30 bathroom faucets have earned the
EPA label, and almost 600 manufacturers, retailers and
utilities have joined the program.
By promoting this easily recognizable, consistent national
brand, EPA believes WaterSense will make water efficient
products the clear and preferred choice among consumers, and
this is good news for the whole Country, particularly for areas
of the Country that are experiencing water restrictions and
drought.
Homeland security is a theme that continues to be a high
priority for the Administration, and it remains that in this
budget request. EPA is seeking over $35 million for
strengthening the Nation's water and wastewater infrastructure
systems. Primarily, that focuses on drinking water, but it also
involves partnerships with wastewater utilities.
For wetlands, one of the Nation's most critical natural
resources, a part of our natural heritage, we are seeking $39
million in this budget request. That is to carry out our
regulatory responsibilities and also advance the President's
vision of cooperative conservation through stewardship so that
we can meet the overall gain of wetlands goal that the
President has articulated.
Two key activities will be implementing the 2006 decision
of the Supreme Court in Rapanos and working with our Federal
agency partners to accelerate the completion of the digital
wetlands data layer in the National Spatial Data Inventory.
What this means is working with the Fish and Wildlife Service
and other agencies. We are all making progress to have better
maps, more accurate maps, more comprehensive maps for wetlands
across the Country.
Watershed protection is a theme and a priority that runs
throughout the budget and the U.S. EPA strategic plan. We
launched a green infrastructure strategy in January of this
year to reduce sewer overflows and stormwater runoff, and we
look forward to working with the Committee and others to
advance this strategy that emphasizes not just the gray
infrastructure but the green infrastructure to control
overflows and manage stormwater.
For the Great Lakes, a unique and extraordinary resource,
the agency is requesting $57 million. Thirty-five of that is
for the Great Lakes Legacy Act to clean up contaminated
sediments. It is a very important part of our budget and a
priority as the Interagency Taskforce.
For the Chesapeake Bay, we are requesting $29 million. We
are committed to accelerating restoration of the bay's aquatic
habitat and achieving the pollution reduction targets for 2010.
For the Gulf of Mexico, the agency is requesting $4.5
million. We will continue to support efforts with the States in
the Gulf Region to reduce nutrient loadings to watersheds and
reduce the size of the hypoxic zone by identifying the top 100
nutrient-contributing watersheds in the entire Mississippi
River Basin and using a computer mode to determine where the
major sources of nitrogen and phosphorus are located and where
to target reduction efforts.
Madam Chair, in conclusion, I would say that we appreciate
the opportunity to highlight key components of the budget
request.
Water is a public trust, and EPA's Office of Water takes
this responsibility very seriously. We are committed to working
with you on not only sustaining the core programs under the
Clean Water Act but also on developing innovative tools and
approaches to meet the needs of the 21st Century.
Thank you.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Ms. Bodine.
Ms. Bodine. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the
Subcommittee. I, too, would like to say that it is a pleasure
to be back here in 2167 Rayburn. I have spent a lot of hours
here.
I am very pleased to appear before the Subcommittee to talk
about the President's fiscal year 2009 request for the
brownfields and Superfund programs as well as other programs
that fall within this Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
The President's fiscal year 2009 budget request provides
the necessary funds for EPA to carry out our mission
efficiently and effectively, to protect human health and
safeguard the environment. This budget request continues strong
support for the brownfields program. It maintains funding for
further progress in cleaning up Superfund sites and continues
an emphasis on homeland security and emergency response
efforts.
The President's budget requests $165.7 million for the
brownfields program. Of that amount, $93.6 million is for
assessment, revolving loan fund and cleanup grants. It is
estimated that with the 2009 funding, that we will produce
1,000 brownfields property assessments, clean up 60 properties,
leverage 5,000 jobs and leverage $900 million in cleanup and
redevelopment funding.
EPA will continue its land revitalization efforts which cut
across all of our cleanup programs as well as working with
partners in all levels of government and the private sector and
nonprofit sectors. The goal of land revitalization is to
restore our Nation's contaminated land resources so that will
allow Americans' communities to safely return these properties
to productive use.
In addition, by incorporating green and sustainable
approaches into our brownfields redevelopment program, we can
further increase the environmental benefits from land
revitalization.
Now I know that in today's tight budget climate, EPA faces
challenges. Our Superfund program continues to address large,
complex sites, but I want to assure you we are managing that
challenge. The President's request of $1.264 billion for the
Superfund program maintains steady funding for cleanup.
We also have other sources of funding in addition to
current year appropriations. Through aggressive management of
our contracts, since 2001, we have been able to de-obligate
more than $840 million of excess funding that was in closed out
contracts.
Through our enforcement efforts, we have been able to
collect settlement dollars from responsible parties that is
used toward site cleanup. In fiscal year 2007, we received
commitments from responsible parties to provide over a billion
dollars worth of cleanup work and funding.
As you know, when we settle with responsible parties, we
can settle either for work or for cash, and when we settle for
cash we put that funding into special accounts. We currently
have more than one billion dollars in special accounts that are
dedicated toward cleanup of specific sites.
At the end of fiscal year 2007, cleanup construction had
been completed at 1,030 Superfund sites. That is 66 percent of
the National Priorities List. Building upon the 24 sites where
construction was completed in 2007, the 30 that we expect to
complete in 2008 and the 35 that are our goal for 2009, we are
on track to meet the target in our strategic plan.
Construction completion is one way of assessing Superfund
program progress. It was developed about a decade ago as a
measure of interim progress. But it is important for you to
understand that it is not a measure of long term protection.
To better address long term protection, in 2007, we adopted
a new measure called Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use, and
this is a measure of progress after construction is complete.
To be ready for anticipated use, all of the cleanup levels for
productive use of the land have to be met and all of the
institutional controls that ensure that the land is used safely
into the future have to be in place.
Last year, we had a goal of 30 sites. It was the first year
we had that measure in place. We achieved 64. The goal is still
30 for 2008 and 2009. In the future, though, as we make
progress in this, I expect that we will adjust that goal to
raise it higher. Obviously, it has been very successful.
But I want to stress the importance of this measure
because, without it, we didn't have a measure to ensure that
all the institutional controls are in place that are part of
the remedy, because they are a part of the remedy that get STET
implemented after construction is complete.
The President's budget request will also fund our removal
and emergency response programs. To date, EPA has completed
more than 9,700 removals at hazardous waste sites, and those
removals address immediate threats to human health and the
environment.
The budget request also includes $55.8 million for the
Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness and Response program.
Now that request is $12 million above the fiscal year 2008
request, and I want to explain that those additional resources
are going to strengthen EPA's ability to respond to multiple
incidents of national significance that might occur. We expect
that if something happens, if a terrorist act happens, it is
probably not going to be just one. It will probably be multiple
incidents.
So, we are seeking that funding to expand our laboratory
capacity, including additional mobile labs. We want to provide
for additional training and exercises and additional equipment
including a second airplane that we use for aerial monitoring
to detect releases.
In addition, our 2009 budget requests funds for our oil
spill program at $13.9 million. Now this program focuses on
preventing oil spills, reducing risk to people and the
environment, and responding to oil spills. Every year, EPA
evaluates thousands of spills to determine if Federal
assistance is required, and we manage actions to oversee
private party response at about 250 to 300 sites per year.
That concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer
any questions.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Assistant Secretary Woodley.
Mr. Woodley. Madam Chairwoman, distinguished Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today with General Van Antwerp, the 52nd Chief of Engineers, to
present the President's fiscal year 2009 budget for the Civil
Works Program in the Army Corps of Engineers.
The Civil Works budget provides funding for development and
restoration of the Nation's water and related resources
primarily within the three main program areas of commercial
navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction and
aquatic ecosystem restoration.
The budget also supports hydropower, recreation,
environmental stewardship and water supply storage at existing
Corps projects.
Finally, the Civil Works budget provides for protection of
waters and wetlands, cleanup of sites contaminated as a result
of the Nation's efforts to develop atomic weapons and emergency
preparedness.
The budget for the fiscal year 2009 annual Civil Works
program is $4.74 billion. In addition, the President's budget
requests $5.761 billion in fiscal year 2009 emergency
appropriations for the Federal share of the additional funds
needed to reduce the risk to the greater New Orleans, Louisiana
area from storm surge that have a 1 percent annual chance of
reoccurring.
The fiscal year 2009 budget includes $1 million in the
Investigations account for independent peer review requirements
of Section 2034 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.
The Investigations account also includes $2 million for a high
priority study, authorized by Section 2032(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007, of the vulnerability of the
U.S. to damage from flooding.
The budget again proposes performance criteria to allocate
funds among construction projects. These criteria give priority
for funding to the projects that yield the greatest returns to
the Nation based upon objective performance criteria.
The budget allocates funding among ongoing construction
projects based primarily on benefit to cost ratio. Priority is
also accorded to projects that reduce significant risk to human
safety and to dam safety assurance, seepage control and static
instability correction projects.
For operations and maintenance of Civil Works projects, the
fiscal year 2009 budget provides nearly $2.6 billion in the O&M
account and $163 million in the Mississippi River and
Tributaries account. The total is $16 million higher than the
fiscal year 2008 budget for comparable activities which, by the
way, in turn, provided a substantial increase itself over prior
years' O&M levels.
The budget provides $729 million to be appropriated from
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for operations and
maintenance of commercial navigation channels and harbors. The
growth of the trust fund balance and ways to address this
balance are being discussed within the Administration. We will
continue to work within the Administration to develop policies
to effectively use the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Like the budgets of the past two years, the fiscal year
2009 budget proposes to allocate operations and maintenance
funding on a regional basis. The budget proposes to allocate
operations and maintenance funding among 54 areas based on the
USGS subwatersheds. This approach will improve the overall
performance of Civil Works assets because managers in the field
will be better able to properly maintain key infrastructure,
adapt to uncertainties and address emergencies and other
changed conditions over the course of the fiscal year.
As anticipated at this time last year, the fiscal year 2009
budget is based on enactment of proposed legislation to
establish a lockage-based barge user fee and to phase out the
existing fuel tax. The proposed legislation will be transmitted
to Congress after the Executive Branch interagency review of
the proposal is completed.
Prompt enactment of such legislation is needed to address a
declining balance in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund which
otherwise will run out of funds around the end of the 2008
calendar year and to support ongoing and future inland waterway
projects.
The budget provides $185 million for the Corps of Engineers
share of the South Florida Everglades Ecosystem Restoration
program which is the most ever budgeted or appropriated for the
Corps in one year for these activities. This level of funding
for the Corps is an increase of $54 million or 41 percent
compared to the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
The budget also includes $20 million for the Louisiana
coastal restoration effort including $10 for its important
science program.
The budget provides $180 million for the Corps Regulatory
Program to protect wetlands and other waters of the United
States. This is the same amount as in the budget and
appropriations for fiscal year 2008 and represents a $55
million increase since 2001.
The fiscal year 2009 budget proposes to authorize the New
Orleans Area Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System
to be constructed with the State of Louisiana as the single
non-Federal cost-sharing partner and subsequently maintained
and operated by the State.
Pre-Katrina, risk reduction for the greater New Orleans
area was built as a collection of separately authorized
projects, designed with differing standards, subject to
differing requirements for non-Federal cost-sharing and managed
by different local entities.
Based on statutory language proposed in the budget, the
non-Federal sponsor would provide $1.5 billion for the non-
Federal share of this work. The New Orleans area system will be
not only higher but also stronger than the pre-Hurricane
Katrina system.
Upon passage of the Water Resources Development Act of
2007, Madam Chairman, the Chief of Engineers and I established
a joint team to oversee its implementation. I meet biweekly
with this joint WRDA implementation team to establish policy,
issue implementing guidance and assess progress.
Priority for implementation guidance is being given to
national policy provisions, most of which are in Title II, and
to those project and program provisions for which funds are
currently appropriated.
In summary, Madam Chairman, this budget does not include
funding for all the good things the Corps of Engineers Civil
Works program could do in fiscal year 2009. However, at $4.74
billion, it does provide the resources the Civil Works program
needs to pursue investments that will yield very good returns
for the Nation in the future.
This is the last time I will have the opportunity to appear
before the Subcommittee to present the Army Civil Works budget
on behalf of President Bush.
I would be remiss if I didn't especially thank the
Chairwoman and the Members for their many courtesies during my
tenure and especially for your courtesy in forgiving me last
year for not appearing because of my inability to get out of my
neighborhood because of the inclement weather. I am delighted
that my principal deputy, Mr. Dunlop, was able to appear in my
stead, but I would like to especially mention that as something
that I appreciate the Committee having done for me.
Perhaps this is the least of the many, many courtesies and
many opportunities I have had to learn from each of you, to
visit with many of you in your districts and in your offices
and to learn to appreciate the very significant water resource
needs of the Nation that you are responsible for authorizing.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you so very much. Don't celebrate yet.
We might criticize you before you leave.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Johnson. Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp.
General Van Antwerp. Thank you, Madam Chair.
It is my honor to appear before you and Members of the
Subcommittee. This is my first time before this Committee. I
was appointed in May of last year, and I look forward to
building and growing relationships with this Committee and
working with you over time.
I am committed to at least four years. So, while this might
be Mr. Woodley's last, this is my first, and I look forward to
a long association.
It was a real busy year in 2007. We have a military
program, and that isn't what this is about, but it is the
largest we have ever had since World War II. We are growing the
Army. We are restationing the Army. We are doing base
realignment and closure, and it is an awesome thing to see out
there at our installations, many of which are in your
districts.
As part of that business, Civil Works completed over 10
navigation projects last year that we are very proud of,
restored over 5,000 acres of wetlands ecosystem restoration,
dredged 175 channels in some of our Nation's biggest ports,
going to 50 feet to really enhance the economy of this Country.
We had 368 million visitor days out to our 4,490 parks and
recreation areas, a place where we really are able to touch the
American people.
We supported FEMA in response to 10 national emergencies,
and I am glad to report that none of those were hurricanes that
hit southeast Louisiana. We were thankful because that is the
one thing we don't need now as we are in the restoration
process.
We processed over 87,000 permits, a big load and a
challenge for us.
We instituted several initiatives to improve our cost
estimates, and one was covered in WRDA. It is in the 2009
budget. That is for independent review. We think it is very
important. We are doing both external and internal independent
review to make sure that we get our project recommendations
right.
This fiscal year 2009 budget is performance-based, focusing
on the highest economic and environmental returns. That is how
we stacked up 79 projects for construction, 11 dam safety, 16
life safety, 52 ongoing and completing 12 projects in 2009.
We have learned a lot of lessons from the Gulf that have
helped the whole Country, that have helped in levees and other
things in California and other places. I think this is
important to the Country. It would be a crime to have gone
through that and not have gotten better as a result. So that is
what we are committed to.
Life cycle management, inspections, the Good, Bad and the
Ugly that was discussed here is really our project review and
program assessment that we intend to report out this summer.
I want to just mention as you look behind me here, many
members in uniform, the Army Corps of Engineers is an
expeditionary force. What you can't see are members in civilian
clothes here that have also deployed, many of them behind me.
Today, we have 800 members of the Corps of Engineers, mostly
civilians, deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, 4 districts doing
4,300 projects and making our Nation proud and I would say
giving both those countries a start.
It is our commitment in the Corps for continuous
improvement, and we count on you and accept what you say and
work with you to make sure that happens. We want to deliver
quality. We are absolutely committed to teamwork with our cost-
sharing partners in your districts and good stewardship of
every dollar that is appropriated.
This concludes my statement. I look forward to your
questions. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, General.
We will now hear questions from the Subcommittee for the
panel.
Mr. Boustany, do you want to begin?
Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Before I yield to Mr. LoBiondo because he has a meeting to
attend to, I just want to say thank you all for begin here
today. I want to particularly thank Secretary Woodley for his
service. It has been a very challenging time on the Gulf Coast
for us all, and, General Van Antwerp, I am glad that you are up
to the challenge.
So with that, I will yield to Mr. LoBiondo and then follow
up later with questions.
Mr. LoBiondo. I thank my colleague very much and, Madam
Chair, thank you for holding this important hearing. I
appreciate our panel being here today.
General, let me tell you that in my involvement with the
Corps over the years, I can't find the right vocabulary to say
what a great job your folks are doing, continue to do with
energy, enthusiasm, focus, cost in mind. Everything that we
would want and expect, I have seen at least in my district,
above and beyond the call of duty, not just once but time and
time and time again. They deserve a great big thank you, and we
owe them a debt of gratitude for the outstanding job they were
doing.
But having said that, Secretary Woodley, I am just
absolutely astonished. It is just totally unbelievable to me,
and I am outraged that OMB continues to zero out these
projects.
It is my understanding that Federal law dictates the policy
of the United States to promote beach nourishment and periodic
beach replenishment, and these are projects that are fully
vetted by Congress. The project agreements have been signed
with the local sponsors to share the costs. All of the Ts were
crossed and Is were dotted. They are cost-effective, and yet we
continue to receive zero dollars.
I can't believe how shortsighted OMB can be in
understanding the math that if we have a hurricane or a
disaster along our coast, you are willing to come in with
Federal Government resources and hundreds of millions or
billions of dollars, but yet we are denied the ability to
secure life and property for basically a few million dollars in
each and every one of our communities. I just don't understand
this rationale. It is different than the way it was when I
first got here.
These communities are at risk tremendously. I know in my
district, the Second District of New Jersey, the estimates
differ on how overdue we are for a category three, four or
five. The law of averages at some point is going to catch up to
this. The communities are doing everything they can to make
sure the protections are there, first of all, for the safety of
the residents and, secondly, for the property.
I would just like you to help me understand how these
decisions are made and how we are all left out of the equation.
Mr. Woodley. Sir, thank you so much for sharing your views
on this. This is something that has been a matter of discussion
between the Committee and the Congress and the Administration,
not just this Administration, but I believe administrations in
the past.
But the policy we are advocating is that we will support
the project and do support numerous projects in the initial
construction phase and that in the renourishment phase, we are
advocating a policy under which, with certain fairly
substantial exceptions, the renourishment phase is a local or
State responsibility.
I understand that there are reasonable minds that differ on
the wisdom of that policy, but the Administration is suggesting
that in this way we leverage our scarce Federal resources and
that it would provide for, in the long run, a more balanced
approach to maintaining these beach types of storm protection.
Mr. LoBiondo. I understand. Mr. Secretary, you do
understand you are dooming these communities just as surely as
if the Federal formula had been flipped to 35 percent Federal
share. You are dooming most of the communities to not being
able to do this because they just don't have the resources.
They can partner to do the resources.
I think this is very shortsighted because if that disaster
hits, you are going to be there and you are going to be there
to the tune of a factor of hundreds of times more than it would
be right now.
Madam Chair, thank you very much.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank
you, Assistant Administrator Grumbles and Assistant
Administrator Bodine, for being here today.
I will try to get through as many questions as I can, but
since I know our time is limited I will be following up with
you after the hearing with some additional questions in
writing.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, the North Indian
Bend Wash Superfund site in Scottsdale, Arizona has had some
serious problems of late with which the most serious problem
has been with excess TCE emissions.
EPA is currently conducting a full investigation of these
problems. My question is do you know when we can expect the
final results of an EPA investigation?
Ms. Bodine. Congressman, let me take that question. I spoke
with the regional administrator, Wayne Nastri, about this
yesterday. I didn't ask your question, and I apologize that I
didn't and I will ask and get back to you immediately.
I do know, though, that his staff are working very
aggressively and diligently on that. In fact, what they are
working on is coming up not just with an investigation of what
happened but, even more importantly, what are we going to do to
take the steps that we know we have to take to restore
confidence in this system and to restore your confidence and
the confidence of your constituents. We also know that that is
a very high bar.
Mr. Mitchell. You don't know the time?
Ms. Bodine. I failed to ask that question. I will get back
to you on that immediately.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you.
The Miller Road water treatment facility which serves the
North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site in Scottsdale now has had
two TCE emission episodes in a period of three months. In your
experience, is this common for Superfund site water treatment
facilities?
Ms. Bodine. No, not at all.
Mr. Mitchell. Are you aware of any other facilities that
have had multiple episodes such as this in such a short period
of time?
Ms. Bodine. No, I am not aware of any other facilities.
Mr. Mitchell. This is the only one that you have?
Ms. Bodine. Yes. This situation is one that we haven't
encountered before and one that we have to be very aggressive
about addressing.
Mr. Mitchell. It appears that at least part of the problem
at the Miller Road treatment facility was due to a blower that
malfunctioned shortly after the operator left for the day at
approximately 2:30 p.m. The blower's malfunction was not
discovered until 6:30 a.m. the following day.
Does it seem reasonable to you that the blower which is
responsible for protecting the public drinking water from
dangerous levels of TCE was left unattended for 16 hours?
Ms. Bodine. As part of investigating what went wrong and,
more importantly, looking forward to how to fix it in the
future, we are going to be looking and the Region 9 staff are
going to be looking at what needs to be done in the future,
again to make sure this cannot happen again.
All alternatives are being looked at, including redundant
systems, including requirements for monitoring, including
requirements for operator attendance. They are looking at all
of that to put together a plan which I will ask them to share
with you, again, because we know we have to restore the
confidence of your constituents in this system. And so, we want
to make sure that our plan meets that standard.
Mr. Mitchell. I understand that the EPA issued a draft risk
assessment in 2001 entitled TCE Health Risk Assessment:
Synthesis and Characterizations. Did the EPA ever take any
subsequent action on that report?
Ms. Bodine. The TCE risk assessment was reviewed by the
National Academy of Sciences, and the NAS issued a report about
a year ago--I don't remember the exact date_that recommended
that the Agency use different studies to develop a TCE risk
number.
Our Office of Research and Development is looking at that
matter, and continues to look at that in responding to those
recommendations. If our Office of Research and Development used
the data, what the NAS committee was recommending, that would
result in allowable exposures to TCE that were 70 times higher.
As you can imagine, they are looking very seriously at that.
Mr. Mitchell. This report came out in 2001. It is now 2008.
Was there ever a final version of this report that you know of?
Ms. Bodine. No.
Mr. Mitchell. And no final recommendations at all?
Ms. Bodine. No. That's the issue. It had gone to the
National Academy, and the National Academy came out with a
report, and our Office of Research and Development is reviewing
that and determining how to proceed and how to go forward.
Mr. Mitchell. When do you expect that to come out?
Ms. Bodine. I would have to get back to you for the record
on that and inquire, again, because that work is being done in
a different office.
Mr. Mitchell. We are talking about the standards of TCE,
what is acceptable in water, right?
Ms. Bodine. No. Oh, no. I'm sorry.
Ben, do you want to respond?
Mr. Grumbles. The question about risk assessments and
ARARs, the research office in the agency has been working on
TCE. It is relevant to the water office. It is relevant to the
Superfund office. In the meantime, we have in place a current
standard for TCE.
Of course, we want to gather the information, the
scientific information continuously to look at existing
contaminant maximum concentration levels to see if they need to
be revised. So the research office is working on that through
the risk assessment, updating it.
Mr. Mitchell. But EPA had done a draft risk assessment, and
they have done nothing since then. Is that right?
Mr. Grumbles. Continue to review the issue. It has been
under review based on the input from the National Academy of
Sciences, and that work continues.
Ms. Johnson. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will, again, submit
some other questions
Ms. Johnson. Mr. Boustany.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I mentioned at the outset several concerns I had and one
being the southwest Louisiana study which we completed the
reconnaissance study, had some additional money for the
feasibility study, and then in WRDA we have it as expedited or
it is under the expedited area in WRDA to move forward, and yet
the fiscal year 2009 budget basically has nothing for this.
Secretary Woodley, General Van Antwerp, are we ignoring
this aspect of WRDA or when do you anticipate going forward on
southwest Louisiana?
Mr. Woodley. No, sir, we are certainly not ignoring any
aspect of WRDA.
The bill was enacted somewhat late in the calendar year, as
you recall. By that time, our budget is pretty well built, and
we were able to put a few things in from WRDA that I discussed,
that we were able to get in. But, generally speaking, we are
looking for, as we build the 2010 submission to look toward the
things that were put into WRDA to request funding in that
process.
I can ask, if I could, the Chief to respond to the level or
the current status of the planning efforts for all of south
Louisiana.
Mr. Boustany. I appreciate that because that would help us
in planning to secure the local cost-share funding that is
going to be necessary to proceed. I have meetings back home
with local officials and State officials on this, and so I just
want to make sure we keep the ball rolling on this and don't
lose the momentum.
Likewise with the Morganza to the Gulf project, again, if
you could make sure that we have good contact back and forth as
to what is going on because this is a massive undertaking,
recognizing it is going to be multiple years in the works. But
I want to make sure that we don't lose time needlessly because
of poor communication going forward. So if you will work with
my office on these two issues, I would be greatly appreciative.
On the operations and maintenance part of the budget, I saw
the $14 million for the Calcasieu Channel which is not quite
enough to take care of things. I know we have some issues with
beneficial use of the dredge material we need to work out, but
I am very concerned about this because we need to keep that
channel dredged at the fully authorized depth and width because
of the LNG activity that is anticipated with two new facilities
under construction and scheduled to go online fairly soon plus
the expansion of a third.
I think this is critical beyond just Louisiana, as I
mentioned earlier, and so again I want to urge that this should
be a priority to make sure that we have adequate dredging funds
available and also a plan for the use of that dredge material.
Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you.
We thank you for the $5.761 billion for the levees in New
Orleans. It is critically important for safety.
We are concerned about the $1.8 billion that the State is
going to have to put up in cost share. We are still trying to
recover from these hurricanes. Do you have any ideas? Short of
getting that cost-share level changed statutorily, are there
any other flexibilities that you are prepared to mention today
that I could bring back home to the State of Louisiana with
regard to that?
Mr. Woodley. We will be working very closely with the
State. I am committed. The law does provide the Secretary a
pretty wide latitude on exactly when to require payments and,
while I don't want to set bad precedents anywhere in the
Country, I will be looking to use those flexibilities and to
work closely with the State.
When the Federal Government_well, we feel that there is a
really strong partnership going on now with the Federal
Government and the State of Louisiana, and so that is something
that we are going to foster. You can tell them that to expect
us to work closely with them, to use our available authorities
to minimize what we understand is a very heavy burden.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate that
and let me again say thank you on behalf of the State of
Louisiana for the great work that the Corps is doing. It has
been a very good partnership as we face some significant
challenges. The Corps officials on the ground have done a
magnificent job with the resources they have been given, and we
are certainly appreciative.
Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
To the Lieutenant General, under the operations and
maintenance account, the fiscal year 2009 budget is a 2 percent
of $44 million decrease from fiscal year 2008, and the budget
provides no detail as to how this operations and maintenance
will be spent.
There is a list of systems and the O&M need for the system
but no detail within the system budget, and this impedes the
Congress' ability to provide adequate oversight of the budget
process. Why isn't there some detail as to how this budget will
be spent?
General Van Antwerp. Well, ma'am, thank you for the
question.
We did divide this into 54 subwatersheds to look at systems
and look at what would be required. There are efficiencies that
you gain. For instance, if you have a holding basin upstream,
you may not need levees downstream. If you have multiple locks
within that reach or that subwatershed, there could be
exchanges of parts and other things to keep the system
operating.
We do have working documents. We have been in conversation
with OMB, and the current time we have put this out in broad
categories of those 54 subwatershed systems.
Ms. Johnson. Can you provide with detail of that budget for
each of the systems? I don't mean at this moment.
Mr. Woodley. I think that as long as we are able to do so
in a way that is not misleading, we would be delighted to do so
at the appropriate time.
Ms. Johnson. Okay. The Committee request a complete and
detailed O&M budget for fiscal year 2009 including the
capability of each project. That gives us an idea as to how we
will proceed with requests as well. Thank you.
Administrator Bodine, a few weeks ago, the publication,
Inside EPA, ran an article suggesting that the U.S. Department
of Defense was again considering a push to limit their
environmental cleanup and management responsibilities under the
Superfund law and other environmental statutes.
As you know, in 2003, the then Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency testified before the Senate of
her concern with exempting the Department of Defense from
compliance with the Nation's environmental laws and her belief
that contrary to the opinion of the Department of Defense, she
was unaware that these laws had in any way affected military
readiness.
The Inside EPA article suggested that instead of statutory
changes, DOD was pursuing administrative relief from Superfund
and other environmental statutes. Are you aware of any effort
by DoD to administratively limit its responsibilities under
these laws?
Ms. Bodine. No, Congresswoman, I am not, and I didn't see
that Inside EPA article either. I certainly would have
inquired, and I will inquire now.
Ms. Johnson. What is the position of EPA with respect to
the DoD statutory responsibilities under the Superfund?
Ms. Bodine. DoD has extensive responsibilities under
Superfund. Section 120 of the statute spells those out. When a
site is on the NPL, we enter into a Federal facility agreement
with DoD that puts in enforceable requirements on DoD to ensure
that those responsibilities are carried out.
Ms. Johnson. Okay. I would request that you ensure that
this Committee is kept informed of any administrative or
legislative proposal of DoD to limit its statutory
responsibilities under the Nation's environmental laws in the
name of readiness.
Ms. Bodine. Okay.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
I have to go to the floor, and I am going to ask Ms. Matsui
if she will take the Chair.
Ms. Matsui. [Presiding] We will yield time now to Mr.
Boozman for questions.
Mr. Boozman. I will yield to Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Ms. Chair.
Mr. Woodley, in Charleston, we have the Port of Georgetown
and the Port of Charleston, and I noticed every year we have to
really negotiate the budget for Georgetown because there is
never enough appropriated and we have to go back to the
appropriators to get the money.
You know all the bad words we have now with earmarks which
is basically I am having to get earmarks, number one, to keep
the harbor open at Georgetown. Is there anything that we might
be able to do particularly in light of the new earmark
restrictions that we are going to be probably facing?
Mr. Woodley. Congressman, I will have to look into that and
get back to you. I certainly hope so because I have been an
advocate for navigation in South Carolina and along the entire
Atlantic seaboard and I would hate to see anything done that
would degrade our capability, given the fact that there is so
much commerce that is taking place and such an engine of
prosperity for that region and the Nation as a whole.
Mr. Brown. I appreciate you doing that because I know I
have just have the last year, but it has been kind of a
cumulative thing since I have been a Member of Congress, that
the Georgetown Harbor last year was actually allocated about $2
million, but it took $6 million to make it work. So we had to
go to the appropriators to get the additional $4 million.
I have a letter from the Corps, not from the Corps but from
the port, saying that they could focus, they could actually
send more cargo into the Georgetown Harbor if it was better set
up to make it work. And so, my question would be if we could be
a little bit more proactive rather than reactive.
I know that you have some guidance based on tonnage. I
believe it is what? Is it a million tons or something? What is
your cutoff?
Mr. Woodley. You are correct.
Mr. Brown. Yes, one million tons for budget navigation
projects. Who set that number?
Mr. Woodley. That is a number that is set within the
Administration. Obviously, it is rather arbitrary, but it is
intended to give us a dividing line on which we can make
decisions.
But I think that we have some ability to look beyond that,
and I would like to look into Georgetown which is one I have
not had an opportunity to really study and see what we can do.
Mr. Brown. Okay. Well, I appreciate that because I think if
we could focus more shipments into Georgetown, we probably
could take some transportation off the highways by using barges
and other mechanisms there.
Another problem we always deal with every year is the
deepening of the Intracoastal Waterway, the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway. I know last year about $800,000 was
appropriated through the budget, and we had to go to the
appropriators for another $1.3 million.
I know this year $724,000 is being asked. Just to get back
to where we were last year is going to require $1.4 million.
But you know and I know it is probably along the whole
Intracoastal Waterway. It is probably about $20 million
deferred maintenance on dredging that to keep it open.
To give you idea, back to the Georgetown Harbor, this
year's request is $690,000. You know $690,000 wouldn't hardly
do anything if there is a $6 million need. I believe it is an
additional 2.1 this year, but anyway if you could look at that
because it is a continuing problem.
Like I said, we are having to use earmarks chargeable to me
in order to keep that port open and certainly the commerce
there. We have the steel mill and the paper mill and some other
items that we need to continue to keep going. If we don't keep
that harbor open, those industries won't be able to continue.
So I appreciate your looking into that.
Mr. Woodley. I apologize. I have been to Georgetown Harbor.
I know what you are talking about. I am sorry. I just caught it
to mind. It has been a couple years now, but I will certainly
look into that. That is a very fine harbor and a very fine
operation they are running down there, and I would be very
concerned to learn that we were not able to maintain their
channels.
Mr. Brown. Okay, because like I said, in light of the new
earmark concerns, I am not so sure what kind of flexibility we
might have in this year's appropriations. Thank you very much.
Thank you all for being here. Ms. Bodine, good seeing you
again.
Ms. Matsui. Mr. Woodley, I thank you very much and, General
Van Antwerp and all of you, for being here. I want to thank
you, especially Secretary Woodley, for your kind attention to
Sacramento. We do have a lot of flood control problems.
I have a question regarding I am happy that the President's
budget requested funding for the Joint Federal Project, which
you know is a joint project between the Corps and the Bureau of
Reclamation, to capability in fiscal year 2009 of $9 million.
Now the bureau has already begun excavation, and I believe the
Corps will be ready for their part of the construction, fiscal
year 2010. However, this will require a greater commitment of
funds.
Now, does your budget reflect the necessary commitments to
funding for this project in fiscal year 2010 and beyond so
construction can proceed?
As you know, we have a target date of completion of about
2015 and every additional year would add somewhere around
thirty or forty million dollars to the project, and we would
like to get this done as quickly as possible.
Mr. Woodley. Ma'am, I will not be here next year.
Ms. Matsui. I realize that.
Mr. Woodley. As long as I am here, that project will have
the highest priority within the Civil Works of the Corps of
Engineers that I am capable of giving it.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
I am looking ahead, though, because I think this is
something that should be put out there that these projects are
multi-year. They need to have the capabilities every year.
I have a question probably for you, Secretary Woodley, and
maybe General Van Antwerp. I understand the Corps is supportive
of watershed approaches to flood protection, and I support this
approach as well. However, as you know, it has been very
difficult to justify projects within your current rules unless
there is a favorable benefit to cost ratio, which does not
adequately take into consideration the value of human life and
devastating consequences of major catastrophic flooding.
Oftentimes, nonstructural watershed approach projects don't
have a BCR because it is not a dam, a levee or a weir. It might
provide open space for high water events and ecosystem
restoration, wastewater management, et cetera.
I would like to see the Corps work on a method of providing
better tools for analyzing all categories of project benefits,
not just easily quantifiable ones, so that we can give OMB, you
and Congress what we need for these types of projects and
approaches. Are you currently actively working on that?
Mr. Woodley. I believe that concept is among those
requirements that are mandated and called for by WRDA 2007, and
we are indeed actively working on the new set of metrics and
new analytical tools that will allow us to address the WRDA
provisions. It will not be easy. It is not a short term effort,
but I believe we have seen what the Committee has put forth and
what the Congress has put forth, and we endorse it and are
going to seek to embrace it.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
As you know, in Sacramento, we have been on the leading
edge of levee work. Next to New Orleans, we are the most at-
risk river city. So, therefore, we have been dealing with
strengthening our levees, and we have been working on this for
quite a long time, feeling that we have met the standards.
After Katrina, we are reassessing, obviously. We are on the
leading edge, and we find out that our levees don't meet the
so-called standards.
Now we want, obviously, safety first. That is very
important to us. However, as we move forward, I think
nationwide we are going to be finding that this is going to be
happening across the board.
Now Congress authorized a new National Levee Safety program
in WRDA 2007 with annual funding of $20 million, and this
program is designed to continue the ongoing levee inventory but
also to create a committee that is to report back to Congress
within the 180 days with recommendations for a new National
Levee Safety program and a strategic plan for implementation.
This budget only provides $10 million for levee inventory.
Is this adequate to conduct the levee inventory and create the
committee?
The justification sheets seem to indicate that the
committee will be formed but does not indicate that the program
recommendations will be completed. So, if you would follow up
on that, is that accurate and why is the Corps not going to
complete this important policy component in a timely manner?
I realize this is all wrapped up in a compound question,
but it is something that we are all concerned about as we move
forward. We need to get a handle on how we deal with some of
these levee questions, knowing that there are regional
differences certainly in California and the Midwest. So, if you
could just answer, that would be great.
Mr. Woodley. Yes, ma'am. We were able to address only a
limited number of the WRDA initiatives in our 2009 submission,
and that is one of them. We have addressed that in the levee
inventory line item, and we have begun it at what I would have
to describe as a low initial level of funding sufficient to
establish the committee.
I think the 180-day deadline is probably not going to be
met.
Ms. Matsui. Just to follow up, it is just so important as
we move forward. I think everyone here who has levees is
worried about the situation, and this is going to be an ongoing
situation. So I encourage you to look at this and perhaps more
emphasis on this.
So, thank you.
Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Grumbles, as you know better than any of us, the
Nation's infrastructure as far as the wastewater, things like
that, is just wearing out. Many of our communities, I have
communities that literally it is the same pipes, the same
whatever that were there when the community started.
As you all get more aggressive, which you should, in an
effort to continue to protect the environment and things like
that, it is really very difficult for them to come up with the
resources to get things fixed. The Clean Water State Revolving
Funds, you are proposing that we actually not do what we have
done in the past even, much less than increase that.
So I think we are kind of putting these places in a catch-
22 situation. I mean we are getting aggressive. We are asking
them to do things that they need to do and yet are reluctant to
help with the funding. Yet, I understand that there is a
limited amount of funding.
But many of these, they have exhausted their ability as far
as municipal bonds. They are trying to do the right thing. They
go into the open market, and it is so much more expensive. So
there is a less amount that can be done if they can even do
that.
Can you comment on that and kind of give us some guidance
as far as the agency's thinking?
Mr. Grumbles. I certainly can, Congressman, and I can tell
you that one of the Administrator's highest priorities this
year is to focus in on water and wastewater infrastructure and
to use technology, innovation and partnerships to have a more
sustainable approach for the future because, as you point out,
the needs grow as the pipes get older, the plants age, the
water quality standards and requirements continue to increase,
which I think the American public supports and EPA certainly
does, and also as population pressures increase.
So the vision for us, that is also part of this budget
request is to continue to deliver on the commitment of the $6.8
billion through 2011 for Federal seed money for capitalization
of those SRFs which continue to grow, but it is also to work
with our State and local and tribal partners, particularly at
the utility level, on attributes of effective management.
What that means is working together using technologies and
improved, more cost-effective ways to monitor the health of the
infrastructure which is often out of sight and out of mind,
these buried assets that are community assets, to be able to
monitor their replacement and repair and rehab and find more
cost-effective ways of doing that. Our research office has been
working on that, and we are committed to it as well.
It is also coming up with innovative approaches which is
what the Water Enterprise Bonds are all about. We want to
increase local choice and opportunity so that if a community
wants to issue a bond that has substantial involvement by the
private sector, they are not confronted with a barrier under
the current U.S. Tax Code. We think that is one important,
innovative tool to add to the toolbox.
The other one, though, Congressman, is the more we increase
the awareness and the importance of water and wastewater
infrastructure and work with elected officials at the local
level the more we will continue to see a move towards full cost
pricing, water rates that reflect the true value of the
services and the need to invest over time.
Mr. Boozman. No, and I agree, and I think that is great as
you go forward with some of the technology and things. It is
difficult for the communities, the older communities in good
faith of trying to do things right, and it just costs an awful
lot of money.
I guess I am for aggressively doing our best to protect the
environment and clean things up, but unless we provide
additional funding with the additional requirements, then
basically we have an unfunded mandate, and so I would just
really encourage you all.
Also, I want to thank all of you. I have worked with all of
you very closely, and I do appreciate the hard work, and I know
where your hearts are at in this. Again, we are all struggling.
We wish that we could just snap our fingers and give you all
the money you needed, but I do appreciate you.
I wish you really would look at that and fight for all you
can get because each year there is a lot of this stuff if you
let stuff go. Right now there is a lot of stuff, and I see this
with so many things. You have the ability to fix it now, but if
you let it go a little longer, then it becomes irreparable and
then you have to rip it out and then it becomes much more
expensive.
So if we can help by giving that encouragement and giving,
not giving but working with our communities, which you are
trying to, like I say, it would be much appreciated.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have some questions I think for you, Mr. Woodley or for
the General. I just want to go over some numbers. I want to
make sure I have them right, and then I would ask you to help
me understand them.
In fiscal year 2007, the Corps budget for the Westhampton
beach nourishment project, which is a court ordered project,
was $3.4 million. Pardon me, in fiscal year 2008, that number
is. In fiscal year 2009, the request is $1.25 million.
For the west of Shinnecock project, a project designed to
prevent a breach in the event of a serious nor'easter or a
serious stuff, the fiscal year 2008 number is $2.5 million. The
fiscal year 2009 number is $400,000.
The Fire Island to Montauk Point reformulation study,
fiscal year 2008, we are budgeting a million dollars. Fiscal
year 2009, the President's budget requests $500,000.
So, A, my question is do I have these numbers right, and B,
if I do have them right, how do you suggest that that shoreline
be protected in the two areas that are the most vulnerable, the
Westhampton dune area and the west of Shinnecock area?
Mr. Woodley. Mr. Bishop, those numbers don't immediately
correlate to the numbers that I had previous been provided. So
I am going to have to take the matter you raise for the record
and get back to you on it to give you the exact numbers on it.
I thought the figures were somewhat higher.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. I would appreciate it if you would do
that.
Mr. Woodley. I hope they are.
Mr. Bishop. I hope your memory is correct also because
these are two very important projects and, as I said at the
outset, I think the Corps has done great work in our district
and I would hate to see us backslide because we are not
providing appropriate resources for the Corps to do its work.
Mr. Woodley. I am particularly interested in the one where
we are discharging obligations pursuant to the court.
Mr. Bishop. The West Hampton dunes beach nourishment
project, yes.
Mr. Woodley. I will take your matter for the record if I
may and get back to you as soon as possible.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
My second question is for Mr. Grumbles. The history of the
EPA budget over the course of the Bush Presidency has been an
unfortunate one. Each year, we lament the fact that the budget
is cut from the previous year. In my opening statement, I
cited, for example, the eight-year decline in the Clean Water
State Revolving Loan Fund.
I just heard your response to Mr. Boozman's question. It
continues to seem to me, and I heard you say the State Clean
Water Revolving Fund is a very high priority for the
Administrator, but I have a hard time squaring that with a one-
year reduction of almost 20 percent and an eight-year reduction
of almost 60 percent.
Also, the other problem that I have is I think we all have
an obligation to be fiscally responsible. I read in the New
York Times that Mr. Nussle, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, says that in sheer dollar terms the
deficit doesn't mean anything. We have had Vice President
Cheney say that deficits don't matter.
If those are assertions are correct, if deficits don't
matter, if the sheer dollar amount of the deficit means
nothing, why is it that we are not more vigilant about seeing
to it that the environment receives its fair share of the
Federal budget?
I mean the numbers that we are talking about in the context
of a $3.1 trillion budget are not daunting numbers.
I guess my question is why is there not the commitment, at
least in the area of water projects, that I think most
reasonable people would think that this Nation ought to be
putting forth, particularly given the fact that we have a
crumbling infrastructure and particularly given the fact that
our environment has such an intimate relationship with our
economic well being?
Mr. Grumbles. Congressman, our view is that $2.5 billion is
a substantial and reasonable investment in the context of the
Federal EPA budget. What we are focused on doing is building
more sustainable approaches, particularly in the water arena
that I am familiar with.
We know that earmarks and unrealistic authorizations are
not going to get the job done. We know that more needs to be
done, and it needs to be done through innovative approaches.
The investments in this budget for infrastructure and for the
watershed programs and for standards setting will keep us on
course for making progress, but we know that to accelerate the
progress, it require innovative approaches.
State programs continue to mature. They, in most cases, are
carrying out the Clean Water Act regulatory programs, and so we
have an oversight responsibility and ensuring that sound
science is part of that. So we believe that this budget will
continue to make progress, and we are also committed to using
new tools.
Congressman, you have a lot to be proud of in the Long
Island Sound area, the concept of innovative market-based
approaches for nutrients, nutrient loadings to the Sound.
For us, we view the wave of the future is through water
quality trading.
We can do more with less, with less Federal taxpayer
dollars, get more environmental results. The way to do that is
by working with States and with the private sector and with the
utilities. It includes using innovative approaches and clean
water reg permits. That doesn't translate necessarily into an
increase in our EPA budget, but we think it is going to
translate into improved environmental results.
Ms. Matsui. Mr. Bishop, could you submit the rest in
writing, the rest of the questions?
Mr. Bishop. I would be happy to.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much.
Mr. Boustany.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Grumbles, the EPA's gap analysis assumes that
municipalities can borrow below market rates. But if they have
to borrow at market rates to make up for the shortfall in
available capital in the State Revolving Funds, how much more
money is it going to take to finance the needed infrastructure
improvements at market rates?
Mr. Grumbles. Congressman, the gap analysis laid out
various assumptions and different approaches to this important
question. What we found was that over a 20-year period for
clean water capitalization needs, that if you made an
assumption of an increase in revenues of 3 percent above
inflation, that the capital infrastructure gap would be $21
billion over a 20-year period.
If you don't assume an increase in the revenues, then it
would be a higher number, $45 billion. I am sorry. It would be
a higher number. It would be approximately $270 billion.
[Subsequent to hearing, edited to read: approximately $122
billion.]
So what we recognize in the gap analysis is we need to have
these pillars of sustainability where we are finding and
helping find more cost-effective approaches to capitalization
as well as the maintenance of infrastructure systems.
We think the Water Enterprise Bonds, now is the time for
those because there is a willingness in the private sector to
invest in water and wastewater projects. These are community
assets. It is a community decision whether or not to have some
private sector involvement in it.
And so, what our proposal is to help accelerate the
progress on narrowing the gap between needs and revenue
sources. We want to remove the barriers in the tax code to
investment by the private sector through the use of private
activity bonds if and only if the community wants to go down
that road.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you.
Secretary Woodley, we are starting to see demand for water
outstripping supply, and now we are seeing disputes among the
States both in the eastern part of the Country and the western
part of the Country. What do you see the role of the Corps
being in helping to ensure an adequate water supply and working
through these disputes?
Mr. Woodley. Congressman, I see the role of the Corps as
the Federal Government's and, indeed, the Nation's engineer in
that context.
I think the Corps of Engineers should support the efforts
of States to resolve any disputes among themselves with expert
advice as to what the capabilities are of the currently
existing infrastructure, how that infrastructure itself and its
operations can be modified to support the goals of the States
and the needs of their communities, and what options may exist
for additional measures, which may run the whole gamut of
measures from conservation to new construction that can be done
in an environmentally sustainable way to meet the needs of the
future.
I do not, emphatically do not see the Corps of Engineers as
having a role as a referee among the States or as an arbiter
among the States or as a determiner of winners and losers in
water resource negotiations. I would reject any attempt to
place the Corps of Engineers in that role, but these issues
cannot be resolved in many cases without the participation of
the Corps of Engineers along with many other Federal agencies
in an effort to inform decision-makers of their options and to
inform them of consequences of various courses of action that
may be proposed.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you.
General Van Antwerp, in looking at the operations and
maintenance budget request, it is only slightly above what the
President requested for fiscal year 2008.
There is concern that expected maintenance may not be met
and there will be again more deferred maintenance. What do you
think the dollar amount is at this time for current maintenance
backlog and is this backlog growing?
General Van Antwerp. I would say that the backlog is
growing. I don't have a figure. We can try and pull that
together.
What we really looked at is we have emphasized performance
and we have emphasized criticality to safety and those other
things. So, for instance, let's take the dams. We are going
after those high priority dams and the levees, part of the
levee inventory is to get at those that are most important to
be done right now.
There is, I would say, a huge backlog without giving you a
number, but we are prioritizing that so that we are looking
definitely at the health and safety and welfare first. We use
what we call a risk-based approach, and that is how we
prioritize these projects.
Mr. Boustany. I think it would be useful for the Committee
to be able to track that backlog year in and year out and have
a number that the Corps provides, using some kind of consistent
methodology because it may give us some insights into how we
might change the way we are doing things, working with you
guys.
So, I thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Boustany.
Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all of our
witnesses. I am grateful for the Corps for many, many things
especially for your help in the 19th District of New York where
we have suffered from three 50-year floods in the last four
years.
I was in Los Angeles, two weekends ago and was told just
before I landed that there had been a tornado that touched down
in Hollywood. This past Tuesday morning, my wife and I were
awakened in Dover Plains, New York, in upstate northeastern New
York, by a February 5th thunderstorm. Little did we know that
later that same evening, storms would hit across several States
in the South that would kill 50 people at last count.
With this in mind and with climate change appearing to be
underway, I wanted to ask Administrator Grumbles about a
memorandum you issued last March 1st, stating, ``The National
Water Program and its partners should take prudent steps now to
assess emerging information, evaluate potential impacts of
climate change on water programs and identify appropriate
response actions,'' and laid out a schedule leading to the
finalization of that strategy in late 2007.
Could you tell us what is the current state of that
document? Where is it in the approval and vetting process and
when can we expect for it to be finalized and published?
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Congressman.
You are referring to a draft National Water Program Climate
Change Strategy. I have talked to Chairwoman Napolitano about
it as well and others.
It is going through internal review. We are also
coordinating with other agencies. We recognize that water is
such a critical component of successfully confronting climate
change. So, in terms of a timetable, the one that I laid out in
that memorandum was an aggressive and ambitious one, but I am
certainly committed to making progress on it.
I can tell you, Congressman, as folks are reviewing the
document, we are also thinking of real-time issues that are
arising. Utilities, wastewater, water utilities, State water
and drinking water agencies are also giving us their views on
climate change and the range of issues. I am very pleased with
the progress we have had so far on draft and getting comments
on it and look forward to finalizing it in the coming weeks.
Mr. Hall. Excuse me. I only have a short time. Can you give
us a guess as to the date when we may see this document?
Mr. Grumbles. My goal would be to put it out for public
comment in the coming weeks.
Mr. Hall. Okay, thank you.
According to EPA, the Superfund budget request for this
year is $1.264 billion which is just about flat from last
year's levels. EPA claims that this will allow them to complete
remedies at 35 sites even though last year only 24 sites were
completed in fiscal year 2007 with about the same funding
levels. How do we expect to do more remediation this year with
roughly the same resources?
Ms. Bodine, do you want to answer that?
Ms. Bodine. Yes. Yes, thank you very much.
The number of sites that we expect to clean up in 2008 and
then in 2009 under this budget is up. It is based on where
sites are in the cleanup process.
So we have 35 sites that have gone through the study phase
and the phase for selecting the remedy and designing the
remedy. So we expect that those sites then will proceed to the
completion of cleanup, using the resources in the 2009 budget.
Mr. Hall. Okay.
Ms. Bodine. So those numbers are based on where the sites
are.
Mr. Hall. There are different degrees of effort and scope
or scale?
Ms. Bodine. Cleaning up a site is not a one-year process.
It is a multiple year process. When the construction of a site
is completed, it is based on all the work that was done in the
years before, and we identify the number of sites that we
expect to be cleaned up in a year based on the ones that we see
coming and moving through the process.
Mr. Hall. Okay. If I could ask a couple of questions and if
we don't have time, maybe I could get the answers in writing.
Ms. Bodine. Sure.
Mr. Hall. One is does the budget including any funding to
update the human health standard for TCE? I have a TCE
Superfund site in my district as well as Mr. Mitchell does in
his.
Ms. Bodine. Right.
Mr. Hall. How does the ready for anticipated use differ
from construction complete, the tradition measure of a
Superfund cleanup?
If at the end of fiscal year 2009 you expect roughly 100
construction completes but only 64 ready for anticipated use
sites, what do we make of the protective measures of the
remaining 1,000 NPL sites?
That is a lot of questions in a row but if you could.
Ms. Bodine. On the amount of the Office of Research and
Development budget that is going towards the TCE risk number, I
would have to ask them to answer that for the record.
On the ready for anticipated use measure that we have that
is under the Superfund program, I would dispute that
construction completion should be considered the traditional
measure of Superfund progress. It is an interim measure. It
means that the construction of the remedy is complete, but it
doesn't mean that we have met all of the cleanup standards and
it doesn't meant that we have controls in place.
If you have cleaned up to one level, when it is
residential, then you don't need controls. But if you have a
commercial or industrial cleanup standard, you have to put
controls in place to make sure that the property is only used
for those purposes, and that is how you ensure long term
protectiveness.
So, the ready for reuse measure then goes beyond
construction complete and makes sure that the land is ready for
reuse and that the institutional controls are in place.
The low numbers that you were citing do not reflect this.
We are doing much. We are doing well with this. Because it was
a new measure, we had a target of 30. We are doing very well
with it.
The issue that this measure is intended to address is the
fact that we haven't done a good job in the past of getting our
institutional controls in place, and we are aggressively going
after that issue, and this measure is a way for us to put
management attention and management pressure on that issue.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. I will ask more questions in writing.
I yield back.
Ms. Bodine. Thank you.
Mr. Kagen. [Presiding.] Mr. Boustany, do you have any other
questions?
Mr. Boustany. No, I don't.
Mr. Kagen. In that case, having no questions, I will
recognize myself. Thank you for coming before us.
I think I am the next in order unless you would like to go
first, Mrs. Napolitano. You can start the clock now.
It is interesting that where I come from in the real world,
there is a lot of teamwork where we identify a common goal, a
common problem and we work together to try and solve that
problem, and I have to admire the EPA and the Corps for working
together as a team.
What I am astonished about as a newcomer to this place is
that the President of the United States would sign an executive
order, making certain that everyone understands he values and
treasures the quality of the water of the Great Lakes, and yet
he doesn't invest in his budget proposal in cleaning up those
Great Lakes. So allow me to ask you a question.
Are you aware that cleaning up the hot spots in the Great
Lakes will have a very beneficial effect on businesses and on
human health, Mr. Grumbles? It is a yes or no.
Mr. Grumbles. Congressman, there is a half a billion
dollars investment in the Great Lakes. I would just say that
there is a recognition that the Great Lakes are a treasure and
it is important for the Federal Government to invest. So there
is an investment in this budget as in previous budgets.
On the areas of concern----
Mr. Kagen. Let me interrupt because in the Great Lakes
Legacy Act, you wanted to spend $34 million or $35 million
dollars, and yet appropriated was an amount of $50 million. So
there is a disconnect between what you say you are for and what
you are willing to spend your money on.
Where I come from in Wisconsin, it is really a reflection
of your values as to how you spend your money. So maybe you can
explain to me why there is a difference of $35 million to $50
million or $54 million.
Mr. Grumbles. Congressman, we have consistently requested
more funding for the Great Lakes Legacy Act than has been
appropriated by Congress. The $50 million that you are
referring to is the authorized level.
We have, in the past, sought full funding. Right now, what
we are focused on is requesting $35 million.
We share your view that investing in the accelerated
cleanup of those hot spots brings environmental and economic
progress. So we are committed to working with the Congress on
that, and that is a priority, one of the priority areas for the
EPA when it comes to the Great Lakes.
Mr. Kagen. Mr. Grumbles, are you aware that the water
levels of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior appear to be
declining rather rapidly?
Mr. Grumbles. I have heard about that. I understand that
that is an area of concern, a growing concern.
Mr. Kagen. In your budget, how much money have you budgeted
for study that issue?
Mr. Grumbles. EPA takes very seriously our proper roles and
responsibilities under the law, whether it is WRDA or the Clean
Water Act. So we, as an agency, do not get in water quantity or
water allocation or water levels for the Great Lakes.
We do have in our budget request, $22 million for the Great
Lakes National Program Office who partners with other agencies
that are studying lake levels and effects, climate-related or
other effects.
Mr. Kagen. Let me direct that question to the Army Corps.
General Van Antwerp. Well, Congressman, as we look at the
budget from 2008 to 2009 and get into details--and this
concerns dredging primarily--it was $92 million in 2008, $89
million in 2009 but more dredging in 2009.
There are non-dredging items in there to include studies of
water quality and quantity and different ports and their
subsistence levels and all of that. So there is more dredging
in the 2009 budget than there was in the 2008 for the Great
Lakes.
Mr. Kagen. I appreciate that.
In April of this year, I believe on April 18th, we are
going to have a field hearing, a Congressional hearing in Green
Bay, and I look forward to hearing in greater detail and
greater length your testimony and findings as to what your
reasoning might be for the decline in water level in Lake
Michigan and Lake Superior. We will take a look at that.
Which of your agencies is primarily responsible for
eliminating the invasive species that now predominate the Great
Lakes, Mr. Grumbles?
Mr. Grumbles. One of the priority issues for the taskforce
that the President set up in the executive order in May of
2004, the interagency taskforce which EPA chairs, one of the
priority issues is invasive species. We have a role. Army Corps
of Engineers has a significant role in it, as Mr. Woodley can
testify to.
Mr. Kagen. Are you able to give me a dollar amount as to
what you have requested in funding to study and remediate the
invasive species issue?
Mr. Grumbles. I think the question should be posed also to
the Coast Guard and to NOAA and to USGS.
In terms of the EPA, we have as part of that $22 million. I
am just saying as part of that $22 million for the Great Lakes
National Program Office, we are working on invasive species,
the rapid response plans that we have developed. But we are not
the primary agency in terms of either regulatory or funding for
invasives, but it is a priority issue, Congressman.
Mr. Kagen. I look forward to covering that in some detail
on April 18th in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
I yield my time.
Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I didn't mean to cut
you off. I thought you were going to close the meeting, and I
still have many questions. I will submit them for the record.
But first, I want to tell my colleagues that EPA and the
Army Corps have been great supporters in the California area
that I represent. I have worked extensively on many projects,
and I really thank for the support that we have been getting
whether it is in my Subcommittee or in dealing with you.
I have questions that I am going to have for the record but
more importantly, as I was listening to the answer to Ms.
Matsui's question in regard to the Federal Government, the
Department of Defense limiting the environmental law under the
Superfund, I have a Superfund site in my area in the tank farm
that has JP4 and JP5 operated by the Air Force with
subcontracting to Kinder Morgan. It has been under cleanup for
many years.
Now, as I am finding, I think it is more than just us in
California. The Department of Defense is probably going to sell
off properties without finishing the cleanup.
That sets a lot of questions in my mind about whether or
not the developer that is going to be purchasing that property
will be able to do it to the extent that is required or find
additional contaminants that might then cause that project to
fold and then it goes back to the community as a generation of
funds for the general fund and, of course, the contaminations
in those areas.
So I am going to put a question in writing to both the EPA
and to the Army Corps, and we have talked extensively with EPA
on the water quality.
The other questions have to do with the Army Corps on the
Whittier Narrows Dam which is a high risk designation. There
are issues there again that it is owned and operated by the
Corps on the San Gabriel River. It is kind of a holding of
runoff so it doesn't go into the ocean.
Apparently, in the past, there had been a question as to
whether or not they could raise the amount of water because it
surrounded by communities all around it, raise the amount of
water it could hold. But because there were oil rigs in the
area, oil operations, they were concerned that it would flood
those wells.
Now they are gone. The wells are no longer operable, and so
we are asking the Corps to take a look at being able to
increase the captivity of that runoff to be able to provide
more water for the settling ponds to go into the aquifers. That
is another one.
Let's see. I would like to sit down and work and possibly
get a commitment on being able to work on that as soon as
possible since we are into the rainy season and being able to
capture as much of that rainwater for the benefit of that whole
area.
In my mind, I am hearing you talk about invasive species up
in the Great Lakes. We have invasive species in Texas in the
canals. We have invasive species in many other areas.
We need to ensure that whatever your findings are, that
those invasive species, that you find how to address them, how
to be able to go in, what is the research and development
coming up with because those are taking up a lot of the water.
We need to understand that if we don't take proactive steps, we
are going to be in a world of hurt. We need all the water we
can get.
Another question for Mr. Grumbles. In the U.S.-Mexico
border infrastructure, apparently, there are a lot of issues
with the U.S. and Mexico with treated drinking water. Both
sides are affected, especially with the wastewater. The
untreated sewage flows from Mexico into the U.S. basically, and
so the issues are health issues.
There is $209 million in unspent funds that have been
obligated to the water infrastructure projects remaining in
NADBank. The Administration is cutting significant funding from
its Mexico border water infrastructure assistance program due
to the program's slow rate of project development over the last
10 years.
What agency in the Federal Government has responsibility to
ensure that the border infrastructure funding of $209 million
is spent promptly, prudently and effectively and why has this
large amount of money not been allowed to be utilized or why
has it gone unspent?
Then what agency in the Federal Government has
responsibility to ensure that the project development does not
occur at a slow rate and, given the needs of both borders, why
has the project taken such a long time?
And there you have it, five minutes worth of questions.
Mr. Grumbles. I will go first.
On the invasive species front, you are absolutely right. It
is a growing national challenge, environmentally and
economically, and there is growing investment in the solutions.
Prevention and detection and rapid response are the keys.
Ballast water, we are working with the other agencies on cost-
effective treatment technologies and different types of
response regimes, and the Coast Guard is a key component of
that.
We know that it is various and different types of species.
In the Great Lakes, for instance, it is 160 new species that
are in the Great Lakes, non-native invasive species.
On the U.S.-Mexico border, the border environmental
infrastructure----
Mr. Kagen. Mr. Grumbles, let me interrupt. Could you please
answer her in writing for us in the interest of time?
Mr. Grumbles. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mrs. Napolitano. Don't worry. I'll be in touch. Thank you.
Mr. Kagen. I now recognize my good friend, Gene Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize for
the inconvenience to Mrs. Napolitano.
Mr. Woodley, how much money is in the President's budget
request for the mandatory buy-out of properties for people
whose homes were either destroyed or damaged during Hurricane
Katrina? The key word there is mandatory.
Mr. Woodley. I heard that word. I don't know of any money
in the President's budget for that purpose.
Mr. Taylor. Could I get that in writing from you?
Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Taylor. The reason I say that is I am glad this meeting
is now and not last fall because I have had about six weeks to
calm down.
When the word appeared in the local newspapers in south
Mississippi to folks who had lost their homes, been screwed by
their insurance companies, borrowed to the hilt to rebuild
their homes, that the Corps of Engineers was going to come take
their houses away, you can imagine the reaction. It came to the
Corps' words versus mine.
Again, so I am normally, 99 percent of the time, a huge fan
of the Corps, but I cannot begin to tell you how poorly your
agency handled that entire situation. Just as a word of advice
to other Corps employees, again folks who know they have a job
a year from now, don't ever make that mistake again.
I am sure that people went to the hospital over this. They
were so upset.
You normally do, your agency normally does better. They
handled that very poorly. I will say it as politely as I can.
Six weeks ago, I wouldn't have been so polite.
The second thing, recently, one of the counties affected by
Hurricane Katrina that had chosen to do its own debris removal
and, more specifically, take care of what were called hangers
and leaners. These are the trees that died as a result of the
storm. They were still hanging on and they were leaning over
rights of way for roads. They were a public safety menace and,
therefore, removed.
There was a problem with FEMA reimbursing those counties.
We had asked the Corps that had the responsibilities for some
coastal counties for that exact same problem, that they had
contractors to do the exact same thing, to release those
numbers. How much did they pay for this exact same procedure so
that this county could justify their expenditures to FEMA? The
Corps refused to release those numbers.
Now I am on the Armed Services Committee. I can get the
cost of a cruise missile. I can get the cost of a next
generation of aircraft carriers. Why on Earth should something
as simple as debris removal be considered proprietary
information?
That is silly, and it caused a great deal of heartburn to
the largest county in my Congressional district. Again, it is
just uncalled for, and you need to do better.
The third thing is a continual frustration with the Corps
on the desire of south Mississippi to do beneficial use with
our dredge material. We lost a heck of a lot of coastal marshes
during the storm. We lost large portions of our barrier
islands.
The Corps has several publicly maintained channels,
Federally maintained channels that have periodic dredging and
periodic need to dispose of that material, and yet it seems
like every time I am not looking. I will be driving around
south Mississippi. I will see a dredge. I will see a discharge,
and there is open water disposal when you have all these needs
that are going unmet.
Again, it shouldn't take the local Congressman hounding the
local Corps office. It if is the policy of this Nation, it
ought to be the policy of this Nation every time and not just
when I am looking.
Again, I would very much request in writing an answer to
the first. I would like to hear your answer for the second and
third because, again, I am a big fan of the Corps. I defend you
at my public meetings, but those three actions aren't
defendable.
So let's start with why did anyone in your agency think it
should be proprietary information to embargo the cost per cubic
yard of moving debris or removing dead trees?
Mr. Woodley. The answer, I don't know the answer to that
question.
Mr. Taylor. We contacted your agency. We gave your agency a
number of opportunities to answer that question.
The contractor, who did the work, gladly gave us the
information. The last guy we thought would give it to us gave
it to us.
The question is that is public money. That ought to be
publicly available. Again, it should have been a no-brainer.
The third one, okay, beneficial use of dredge material.
Mr. Woodley. We support the beneficial use of dredge
material. Unless there is some cost issue associated with where
the concept of beneficially using it is cost-prohibitive, then
I would say we should be using it in every case. There is a
cost issue involved, so we would have to look at each
individual situation.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Secretary, if I may, this goes back at
least six years where I have even been asking for the
designation of sites ahead of time, working with the State of
Mississippi which owns all the bottom lands. This will be our
site when we dredge this channel. This is going to be our site
when we dredge this channel.
Six years later, those negotiations haven't taken place. I
mean in the General's aid, I have great respect for the
General, but this is what the Army calls a slow roll. I think I
am going to outlive the folks who are slow-rolling me, but I
shouldn't have to.
Mr. Woodley. Let me just ask. Are these observations in the
portion of your district that is managed by the Mobile
District?
Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
Mr. Woodley. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. Okay. Again, the sooner you can get me the
letter about no mandatory buy-outs, today would not be too
soon. Thank you very much.
Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kagen. Very good.
I just had one more question for both agencies. If you
could please provide the Committee with the report on your
existing personnel and who is ready to retire and how you are
planning to replace those people, we would certainly appreciate
it, so we can understand your needs a little bit better.
Any other questions at all?
There being no other questions, I will ask for an
adjournment. How does that sound?
Thank you very much for being here.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0695.120