[Senate Hearing 110-1242]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1242
EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET FOR THE
CIVIL WORKS PROGRAMS OF THE U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THE
IMPLEMENTATION THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT (WRDA) OF 2007
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 11, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-524 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 11, 2008
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia..... 2
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho....... 4
Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota.... 5
Alaxander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee.. 6
Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana..... 7
Bond, Hon. Christopher, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri.. 8
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 9
Voinovich, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio...... 10
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 76
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma,
prepared statement............................................. 87
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph, U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut, prepared statement................................ 88
Warner, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia,
prepared statement............................................. 89
WITNESSES
Woodley, Hon. John Paul Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army..... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Response to an additional question from Senator Bond......... 26
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 26
Senator Inhofe........................................... 32
Senator Carper........................................... 33
Antwerp, Lieutenant General Robert Van, Chief of Engineers, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers........................................ 39
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Response to an additional question from Senator Warner....... 43
Responses to additional questions from Senator:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 43
Senator Voinovich........................................ 43
Senator Vitter........................................... 66
Senator Lieberman........................................ 69
EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET FOR THE
CIVIL WORKS PROGRAMS OF THE U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THE
IMPLEMENTATION THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT (WRDA) OF 2007
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the full committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Cardin, Klobuchar, Voinovich,
Isakson, Vitter, Craig, Alexander, Bond, Barrasso
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U. S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Good morning, everybody. We will call this
hearing to order.
I am going to put my full statement into the record and we
will give everybody 3 minutes for an opening statement.
Today the Committee meets to conduct oversight of the
Corps' implementation of WRDA 2007. We will also review the
2009 budget of the Civil Works program and we are examining
these issues together because it is the annual budget request
that truly demonstrates the priorities of the Administration.
And of course, in this case, the priorities of this Committee,
which in most part has been very bipartisan when it has come to
issues such as WRDA.
For me, I ask the question, are we committed to protecting
lives, to enhancing the environment? Are we committed to
growing the economy? As I look at this budget, it falls short,
for me.
Last year, I was pleased to join with Senator Inhofe, the
Ranking Member of the Committee, and all the members of this
Committee, to lead the floor fight to overturn the veto of WRDA
2007. By a vote of 79 to 14, the Senate overwhelmingly told the
President that there was more than one branch of Government in
the Nation and that shoring up America's water infrastructure
was long overdue and must be a priority.
Secretary Woodley and Chief Van Antwerp, welcome to both of
you, and thank you for appearing before the Committee today. I
work closely with both of you and I have great respect for both
of you. Your job is a tough one and very important one for the
Nation. Your agency provides communities with flood protection.
You restore ecosystems, such as the once vast wetlands of
America. You do help grow the economy through more efficient
navigation.
My home State of California has some of the Nation's most
critical needs. Indeed, my State's capital, Sacramento, as you
all well know, is four times as likely to see catastrophic
flooding as New Orleans was in 2005. I am very pleased to see
that the Sacramento area flood control was not ignored in this
budget. I also appreciate that the budget includes more than $5
billion to complete the repair of levees in New Orleans. These
emergency funds are an important step to rebuilding New Orleans
and the Gulf Coast, but they certainly can't be the last step.
I will never forget the visit we made to New Orleans, many
of us here on this Committee. I just think we must shore up our
Nation's water and flood control infrastructure before
catastrophe strikes, not after. And the President's budget
request for civil works program is $4.741 billion, this is a
decrease, a decrease of $851 million from the Fiscal Year 2008
enacted level of $5.592 billion. So it is shocking to me the
proposed 2009 budget includes a 36 percent cut in construction
for flood control projects authorized by Congress. I just don't
see how we could go this way.
So I will put the rest of my statement into the record,
because I have so many questions, I want to leave time for my
other colleagues and their questions as well. I will call on
Senator Isakson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. General Van
Antwerp, welcome today, Secretary Woodley, glad to have you.
Two points I would like to make. No. 1, I was very
disappointed that the Savannah River project money was not
included in the 2009 budget. I had significant conversations
both with Mr. Nussle at the White House as well as the Corps,
and had hoped that would make it.
As you know, the 1999 WRDA Act authorized the deepening of
the Savannah Channel, subject to environmental studies, from 42
to 48 feet. As you probably also are aware, the Port of
Savannah is now the second largest port on the eastern seaboard
of the United States in terms of tonnage. The State of Georgia
had pledged $50 million a year to match the $78 million that we
had asked for from the Feds.
Timing is of the essence in this. The Panama Canal
expansion and the new PanaMex ships will be coming through, I
believe in 2014 is the date I remember. It is going to be
essential to maintain our competition with those types of ships
coming through, that the Port of Savannah be able to have that
channel widening and deepening. So I would appreciate hearing
from you in your remarks about that particular subject.
Equally important to our State, obviously, has been what is
termed by many the water wars between Georgia, Tennessee and
Alabama. But in fact, it is not really a war as much as it is a
complex problem that must be dealt with. I am very appreciative
that Secretary General of the Corps made the announcement that
they would begin the work on the water control manuals for the
ACF and the ACT. We are operating one of the largest
metropolitan areas in the United States of America and the
waterway that serves it based on water control manuals that are
over 20 years old. It is impossible to be able to do that, so I
am very happy to hear that both the ACF and the ATC manuals are
in place. I am hoping you will be able to confirm for me that
the funding in this budget is sufficient for you to carry out
the completion of those two projects.
I know that Secretary of the Interior Kempthorne is very
supportive. As you know, he recently wrote to the Governors of
Georgia, Florida and Alabama that he is going to take over
implementing the operation of that watershed, since the
Governors were unable to reach a final agreement. In the end, I
hope the Governors will, but I commend Secretary Kempthorne for
what he is doing. I commend the Corps for its commitment of the
water control manuals, and I hope this hearing will get us a
confirmation that the money is in fact included to ensure that
will go forward without abatement and we will be able to
complete it hopefully within the next 2 years.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Isakson follows:]
Statement of Hon. Johnny Isakson, U.S. Senator from
The State of Georgia
Thank you Madam Chairman. These types of hearings are a
good opportunity for us to learn about the Army Corps'
priorities, and about what we can do as partners with the Corps
to ensure it meets its goals in a fiscally responsible manner.
We require the Corps to do a number of things in the best
interests of our Nation, and I have a number of issues I am
eager to hear from the Corps on. I am interested in hearing
whether they believe their fiscal year budget request, a
decrease from fiscal year levels, provides adequate funding for
civil works projects. To be candid, I do not believe it does. I
am also interested in hearing in what the Corps is doing to
reduce its backlog of projects, as well as to improve its
business practices.
On the local level, I am very disappointed that the Corps
failed to realize the strategic importance of the Savannah
Harbor Expansion Project (SHEP). This is a project that has
been under review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
in various stages for a decade, and was authorized in the Water
Resources and Development Act of 1999 (WRDA 1999) to deepen the
channel from 42 to as much as 48 feet, subject to completion of
environmental and cost benefit studies.
These studies are nearing completion, and I anticipate that
they will show an extraordinary combination of high benefits
versus costs. I also believe that they will reflect the most
transparent, rigorous, and accurate compilation of
environmental and economic analysis of any river and harbor
project in the Nation.
Since the initial authorization in WRDA, the Port of
Savannah has become the fastest growing container port in the
United States, and is now the second largest container port on
the East Coast. Cargo volume has more than doubled in the past
10 years, Savannah is now responsible for moving more than 16
percent of the East Coast's overseas container cargo, and both
the State of Georgia and private companies have invested
hundreds of millions of dollars in land-side facilities to
increase efficiency. However, the ability of the port to
continue to expand and accommodate the economic growth of
business activity throughout the East Coast and Midwest will be
dramatically weakened if the port cannot be expanded to
accommodate the larger ``Panamax'' vessels that will shortly
dominate ocean commerce.
It was vital for this effort that the President's budget
request for fiscal year included sufficient funds to begin the
first year of the estimated 4 years of construction required
for the project. Release of the funds would have been subject
to completion of the required environmental resource and
administrative approvals. Senior officials of the Corps, from
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works on down,
assured me this project would be included. I am looking for
answers from the witnesses as to their views of this project's
strategic importance, as well as why it was not included when
all indications were that it would be.
As many of you know, for 17 years now the States of
Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, have been negotiating over how
to share the resources of water in the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa
(ACT) and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) river basins.
Late last year, the Governors of the three states as well as
the Interior Secretary and the Army Corps of Engineers sat down
to continue their talks over how to resolve the 17-year-old
water dispute. The Governors emerged from the meeting saying
they were hopeful they will reach an agreement by March.
On March 2, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne and
Council on Environmental Quality Chairman Jim Connaughton sent
a letter to the Governors of Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
While acknowledging that more progress has been made over the
last few months than in the previous 18 years, Secretary
Kempthorne and Chairman Connaughton said the Governors have
been unable to cross the finish line with an agreement.
In the letter, Secretary Kempthorne and Chairman
Connaughton told the Governors that the Federal Government will
now begin a process to review interim operations that will
replace the current program before it expires on June 1, 2008.
Federal agencies may subsequently issue further revisions as
may be warranted by Federal law, changing hydrological
conditions and new information. Any future changes in interim
operations will be necessary only until the water control plans
and manuals are revised.
Secretary Kempthorne and Chairman Connaughton express
disappointment with the states' continued course of legal
action against one another. If the states refuse to work with
one another, Kempthorne and Connaughton State that the revised
operational decisions will integrate important information and
perspectives gained from the negotiations, but regrettably, it
will necessarily be a solution being directed to the States
instead of their much hoped for solution coming from the
States.
It is my hope that the three Governors will come back to
the table so the states can take advantage of the productive
talks and agree on a resolution. Key to any agreement between
the States is an update of the nearly 20-year-old water control
manuals for the ACT and ACF River Basins. Army Secretary Pete
Geren showed real leadership when he announced that the update
of these manuals would go forward. I am interested in hearing
from the witnesses whether the Corps had budgeted in this
budget the necessary funds to begin these updates.
With that Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator.
This is the order of arrival. It is Isakson, Craig,
Alexander, Vitter and Bond. So Senator Craig, you are next.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,
U. S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Craig. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And again, thank
you for your due diligence in having this hearing. It is
important for all of us.
Because I think what we will hear today, from us to you,
General, and to you, Mr. Secretary, are, while we may think in
broad terms, we become very parochial when the issue is water
and watersheds and flooding and ports. Most people don't
appreciate the fact that Idaho has one of the furthest inland
seaports of the Nation because of the slack waters of the
Columbia and Snake River system.
And so I am constantly on point as it relates to that
system and how it operates, that we maintain our dredging to
maintain our depths. And of course, as you know, completion of
the project from the Port of Portland out to the ocean improves
the whole system because of the size of the freighters that can
move into the Port of Portland, the locks at the John Day Dam,
they become critically important to all of us. I will be asking
you questions about that.
I think that the Chairman mentioned Sacramento and
flooding. And of course, the Sierras, especially the Northern
Sierras, have seen unprecedented snowfalls this winter. It is
also true in northern Idaho in several of our watersheds up
there as it relates to the Kootenai and the St. Joe Rivers. In
fact, at one point, we had a historic depth of snow on ground
in the valleys in the Coeur d'Alene area. And of course,
everybody watches closely, to date, our fingers crossed, have
allowed reasonable warmth and settling of that snow. But we all
know that certain events can trigger substantial flooding
beyond the capacity of those watersheds to handle it. It is
certainly true in the Sierras, it is also true in that region
of Idaho. So I will be looking forward to any comments there.
Again, thank you both for being here. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Senator Klobuchar.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding
this important hearing, and thank you for being here.
It is important to have these hearings, because the budget
is more than just numbers, it is also an expression of the
value of our Country. The Water Resources Development Act of
2007 authorized $23 million for projects around the Country,
projects that protect State environments, economies and basic
needs, such as drinking water. I am disappointed that the
President's budget provided almost no funding for these
projects.
Just to give you a few examples from my own State of
Minnesota, these projects would help communities like Roseau,
Minnesota, which suffered massive flooding just a few years
ago, build a flood mitigation system to prevent future
devastation, or help the city of Willmar build a wastewater
treatment plant, or fund navigational improvements in the Port
of Duluth, where lake levels are at record lows because of
climate change. These projects would provide for continued
economic growth, job creation and economic stability while
protecting human lives and ensuring reliable transportation of
goods.
I was proud to join 78 of my colleagues in casting my vote
to override the President's veto of WRDA last year. The
overwhelming bipartisan nature of that override speaks volumes
about the critical nature of these projects.
I firmly believe that we need to change priorities in this
Country. I am a believer in rolling back some of the Bush tax
cuts for the wealthiest, people making over $200,000 a year.
Maybe that's because a bridge fell down in the middle of our
State and we understand more poignantly than many the need to
invest in infrastructure proactively. Investing in our national
infrastructure is one of the most efficient means of creating
jobs and stimulating the economy. Each billion dollars invested
in infrastructure creates upwards of 47,000 new jobs and up to
$6 billion in additional revenues.
That is why I am very concerned that the Corps'
construction account and the Corps' investigation account were
dramatically reduced below what Congress appropriated in 2008.
These low funding levels continue to exacerbate problems in our
infrastructure while doing nothing to stimulate our economy.
So I look forward to working with my colleagues in the
coming months to start filling this serious investment gap in
our Nation's infrastructure, a gap whose filling will mean so
much more for our safety and for our economy.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Alexander.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
General Van Antwerp and Secretary Woodley, thank you for
being here. As you know, there is strong support in this
Committee on both sides of the aisle for roads and bridges and
airports and locks and infrastructure that helps our Country
grow new jobs. I appreciate the priority that the Corps has
tried to put, for example, on the Chickamauga Lock near
Chattanooga, which is badly in need of repair and which, when
it is finished, would take 100,000 big trucks off I-75 every
day, helping us with clean air, with climate change, with
transportation costs and dependence on foreign oil, all those
things. So there is an example of how investment in
infrastructure helps.
There is one other area I would like to call to your
attention, and that is the Center Hill Dam in Tennessee, which
I believe should be considered, repairs to the Center Hill Dam
should be considered necessary for dam safety. Like Wolf Creek
Dam in Kentucky, not far away, both Center Hill and Wolf sit on
a kind of limestone which erode over time and creates
instability. I assume dam safety is the reason why the Center
Hill Lake has been lowered, the water level has been lowered,
and repairs are underway. If that is the case, I think that it
should be designated as dam safety. That has a great effect on
ratepayers in Tennessee, and it has an effect on other
Tennesseans as well. If it is not designated for dam safety,
then the ratepayers have to fork over $300 million of extra
money on their electric bills to pay for the repair.
Second, the delay in dam safety, in repairing Center Hill,
means that water is not available downstream. Senator Isakson
talked about the water problems in Georgia. We had them in
Tennessee last year as well, lakes and streams dried up that
have not ever dried up before. And with the Center Hill Lake at
a lower level, the amount of water is not available downstream
during a drought which is still a problem.
Finally, if it is not designated for dam safety, it will
take longer to fix it, longer to repair it. And that means that
people in the middle Tennessee area will be paying about $100
million more a year for their electric bill. So I would
encourage you to consider Center Hill Dam's repair work as dam
safety repair work, because it is the same kind of problem that
Wolf Creek has, and Wolf Creek, repairs there are designated
as, the repairs are necessary for dam safety.
Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator Alexander.
Senator Vitter.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you for
holding this very important hearing. I would like to thank our
witnesses and the Corps of Engineers for all the important work
that you are doing, particularly in the hurricane-ravaged Gulf
Coast. Obviously your work is vital to our future.
In this hearing, I wanted to specifically focus on three
big issues to the recovery and three big concerns. One is, the
money and work for the completion of a new 100 year level of
protection. First of all, I want to thank you and the President
and the Administration for a major commitment of an additional
$5.8 billion in Federal funds to complete that 100 year level
of hurricane protection. Obviously that is a major commitment
that is vital to the entire future of our area.
I do have two very strong and very specific concerns with
that, however. One is the timing of that money coming to the
Corps on the ground. As you know, the Administration has
requested that in this Fiscal Year 2009 budget and has clearly
made a decision not to request it in the context of the next
supplemental spending bill, which will happen sooner. I believe
this ensures, not maybe, I believe this ensures to back up
completion of that crucial work and have us miss the 2011
deadline for completion of that work. And as you know, 2011 is
in itself 1 year pushed back from the original 2010 deadline.
Every additional hurricane season that passes with the present
vulnerability of the Gulf Coast is a very high level of risk.
The second concern I have with that is that the proposed
cost share for several of the programs involved specifically,
like Pontchartrain vicinity and SELA, is well below the
historic cost share. So I strongly disagree with that.
Second key issue is the outfall canals. The Corps has been
studying the correct solution to reinforcing strengthening the
outfall canals where the breaches happened which led to the
flooding of probably 70 percent of the city of New Orleans. I
want to know when that final recommendation is going to come to
us and if it is going to be the recommendation which embodies
the best alternative in terms of safety and engineering, not
merely the least expensive, because I have strong concerns
about that.
Also, I want to re-urge you to look at the pump to the
river option as part of that work, which would add great
reassurance and added protection to the people of the region.
Finally, the Morganza to the Gulf hurricane protection
project. As you know, this vital project has been in the works
for 15 years. It was 1992 when the Corps was first asked to
look at the Federal interest in that project. In 2000, the
project was actually authorized in the WRDA bill, contingent on
a final Corps chief's report. Unfortunately, the Corps missed
that deadline for the chief's report, so that entire
authorization went away.
Finally, in this last WRDA, WRDA 2007, we include full
authorization, 15 years after the start, for this vital
hurricane and flood protection project. Yet after all of that,
the Corps now takes the position that essentially, nothing
substantial should move forward as the entire project is re-
looked at with a brand new cost benefit analysis. I have grave
concerns that is foot-dragging of the highest order and true
bad faith, since this was announced a few weeks after we passed
the WRDA bill and the Corps never spoke before that point to
advise us that we should include a higher authorization figure.
I will look forward to addressing all of these concerns in
our discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bond.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER BOND,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Bond. Madam Chair, Secretary Woodley, General Van
Antwerp, we thank you very much for this hearing today and for
your testifying.
I am very disappointed, Madam Chair, that the
Administration continues to undermine our efforts to modernize
our water infrastructure. Despite overwhelming and bipartisan
support for the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, or
WRDA, the President's budget does not provide money to update
the depression-era locks and dams on the Illinois and the
Mississippi Rivers. Not only are we unable to update our locks
and dams, this proposal provides a sure path to kill the most
environmentally sound and cost-effective mode of transportation
we have.
The Administration has stated they will propose a tax
increase on our barges to replenish the Inland Waterway Trust
Fund, which pays for our water infrastructure. They already pay
a tax. This budget gimmick will do nothing to address our
decaying waterway infrastructure. The proposal will raise the
price of river transportation and thereby discourage river
traffic. If these materials can't be shipped on the river, they
will be on our roads and our railways.
Taking the materials from the most environmentally sound
and efficient method and putting them on crowded highways that
are already heavily over-used makes no sense. One barge tow
carries the same amount of cargo as 870 trucks. How would you
like the prospect of barge tows moving to highways with 870
trucks each time?
Now, my colleagues today have done a good job of pointing
out and criticizing the lack of funding for extremely critical
resources in their regions and their States. In the past, we
have been able to change the budgets to reflect the priorities
that come from the people we serve in our States, to whom we
listen, to whom we turn for their support and to whom we owe
our responsibilities. This has enabled us to overcome some bad
decisions of OMB in the past.
But I think we are all aware that there are major populist
efforts to end all congressional changes, enhancement or
additions to the President's budget. The populists say, well,
we are costing money. We are not costing money, we use our
power to determine better priorities. And we who serve the
States from which we are elected have a much better idea of
what those priorities are.
I would urge my colleagues to exercise great caution. There
is a move going on in the Hill right now, seems to be popular,
apparently all the Presidential candidates are getting behind
it, to end congressional ``interference'' with their budget. I
used to be an executive. I didn't like having Congress or
having my general assembly interfere. But that is what members
of a legislative body are supposed to do. We cannot turn over
all the direction of spending, which we are empowered under
Article 1 of the Constitution to authorize and to spend to a
group of un-elected accountants in OMB, OMB which recommended
vetoing of the WRDA bill.
Congress has its legislative priorities. They are focusing
on appropriations now. Anybody who has served on this Committee
knows how bad the budgets that we have gotten out of OMB in
Republican and Democratic years have been. I frankly think that
the Country would be far worse off if OMB, un-elected
bureaucrats, were to be the ones to make all the spending
decisions. If we are going to exercise our responsibility, we
have to be able to change the budget requests. The President
proposes, but we are the ones who dispose.
Madam Chair, this is serious, this and so many areas. I
thank my colleagues for their consideration.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator.
Now we will go to Senator Barrasso, and if no other
Democratic colleague shows up, we will go to Senator Voinovich,
and then we will start the questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I
appreciate your holding this hearing.
I have been raising some issues with the Army Corps
regarding TCE, trichloroethylene, which is a chemical that is
contaminating the water in the city of Cheyenne in the wells at
Belvar Ranch, which is west of Cheyenne, Wyoming. The Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality believes that this
contamination is directly linked to a former nuclear missile
site known as Atlas IV. The cleanup is being done, the city of
Cheyenne folks are paying for that now. Your department is
aware of this TCE leakage from the site.
But in a recent letter to me, you stated that your
information does not support the conclusion that the missile
site is the cause of the water contamination. It is baffling,
because the Army Corps believes that there is a 6.5 mile plume
of TCE emanating from the Atlas missile site, no debate about
that. The city of Cheyenne has tested their wells and found TCE
eight and a half miles from the Atlas missile site in one of
the city's wells. It only stands to reason that there is one
big plume of TCE. But the Army Corps is suggesting that there
are two plumes, one that is from the missile site and one that
is from an unknown source.
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, the city
of Cheyenne and any of us who have been to these sites cannot
fathom what other cause there can be for this TCE, given the
terrain and the rural setting of the site. Anyone who goes out
there to take a look, and I would be happy to go with you,
would say this has to be one, not some other site.
So I am glad that you are willing to work and continue to
study this, but this has been going on for a long time. It
seems that there may be some ignoring of the reality of this
situation. So I will look forward to asking specific questions
when it comes around to questions, Madam Chairman, of this
situation.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator Barrasso. I can
understand your concern.
Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I would just like to comment about Senator Bond's comments.
I think all of us on this Committee ought to understand, until
we do tax reform and entitlement reform, where we take in more
money, we are never going to be able to do the job. We keep
talking about extending the tax reductions. We need more money.
We ought to get it through tax reform and not helter-skelter
raising of dollars.
The sooner we wake up to the fact that we don't have enough
money, that we are not getting the job done, the sooner we will
be able to deal with some of the problems that these people
have. Because when they go to OMB, OMB says, here is your
number and come back with it. And you have to eat it, whether
you like it or not, you eat it. And our infrastructure problems
in this Country are overwhelming. They have been swept under
the rug for too long and it is about time we said something
about it.
The fact that we harass you and others that come before
this Committee is partly our fault. Partly our fault, because
we haven't faced up to it. This Country is in deep trouble
today, a budget that is out of control, national debt, dollar
that is going down and we just sit here like nothing is going
on. We have a crisis in this Country and I am hoping the
Presidential candidates have the guts to face up and tell the
American people the truth. It is about time we faced up to the
truth. Do you hear me? About time we faced up to the truth. We
have been playing games around here for too long and I am fed
up with it.
I am going to put my statement into the record and I would
like you to respond to it. I will take care of the questions
when they come up. Thank you, sir, thank you, Madam.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Statement of Hon. George Voinovich, U.S. Senator from
The State of Ohio
Mrs. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing on the
budget of the Environmental Protection Agency. I would like to
thank Administrator Johnson for being here.
As a former Governor and Mayor, I know firsthand the
enormous challenges that you have to address when crafting a
budget. This is a process that requires responsible
prioritizing and fiscal discipline to avoid breaking the bank.
And this leads me to a point I've made time and time again:
We must find a way to balance our nation's environmental,
energy and economic policies. It might make us feel good to set
lofty environmental goals, but those goals do little good when
they are unachievable due to practical or economic
considerations. They are even less good when they impose
economic hardship to those who can't comply.
The issue of unfunded mandates is a problem that is
pervasive throughout government, but nowhere more so than in
environmental regulation. At best, standards are set with
little consideration as to how they will be met. At worst,
standards are set without regard to the costs of compliance.
The national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the
Clean Water Act are prime examples of this disconnect between
our policy objectives and a case study in unintended
consequences.
Leaving a discussion of the standards setting process to
another day, I will simply say that if we set environmental
standards, we must be ready, as a government, to help
communities meet those standards.
In regard to this year's budget proposal, I am concerned
about funding for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA).
DERA was designed to help meet our nation's air quality
standards by reducing emissions from the nation's legacy fleet
of over 11 million diesel engines. DERA authorized $1 billion
over a 5-year period ($200 million annually). Properly funded,
and leveraging match requirements for State and local
governments at a ratio of $2 to $1, EPA estimated that DERA had
the potential to contribute to a 70,000 ton reduction in PM
emissions and generate $20 billion in economic and health
benefits.
You have requested $49.2 million for fiscal year in what
will be the third year of a 5-year program. I can't stress
enough the need for increasing DERA funding as we begin the
appropriations process. DERA is a well balanced policy to
reduce air emissions and it would be a shame to let the program
sunset before its benefits can be fully realized.
I am also disappointed to see that the administration's
proposed funding for the Great Lakes Legacy Act is $35 million
for fiscal year 9. This is a significant decrease from the
$49.6 million that the administration proposed 2 years ago.
This program shows results--hundreds of thousands of cubic
yards of contaminated sediments have been removed from the
Great Lakes--and I strongly encourage you to work to increase
funding for this program.
Administrator, working with the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration, you have worked to make the restoration and
protection of the lakes a priority at EPA. As co-chair of the
Senate Great Lakes Task Force, I am eager to find ways to
improve the Collaboration's efforts and ensure the Great Lakes
programs, like the Legacy Act, receive the funding they need to
be successful.
As a member of this Committee, I have sought to bring
attention to the nation's wastewater infrastructure needs. But
as with previous years, EPA's budget is woefully inadequate. In
fact, your request represents the lowest funding level in the
program's history!
Continued cuts to the SRF program--when EPA estimates the
nation's need for wastewater treatment and collection at $193.5
billion--makes no sense. This especially concerns me because my
State of Ohio has one of the largest needs in the Nation at
$11.7 billion.
Here are a number of examples from Ohio alone: The city of
Defiance, which has a population of 17,000 and recently lost
950 auto industry jobs, is required to spend $60 million over
20 years to fix the city's combined sewer overflow problems. In
response, the city is being forced to double its rates. The
city of Fostoria, population of 14,000, is facing a $35 million
project. This city has lost 10 percent of its jobs over the
past 2 years, in part due to their increasing water rates. They
are being forced to increase their rates by $100 per year over
the next 15 years. EPA is requiring the city of Fremont,
population of 26,000 people (49 percent are considered low-
income), to spend $63 million. Their rate increases will be 150
percent.
EPA is simply not stepping up to the plate to assist the
thousands of communities across the country facing substantial
costs to comply with EPA orders. I must tell you that from my
experience as a former mayor, county commissioner, and
Governor, I consider this to be an unfunded mandate.
Administrator, we are asking our communities to do the
impossible. If the Federal Government is going to impose these
costly mandates on struggling State and local governments, then
it should provide funding and flexibility for compliance with
those mandates.
Again, I would like to thank you for your attendance today,
and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these issues.
Thank you, Mrs. Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Senator Voinovich, don't hold back.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. I love it. I think it is good that you are
speaking from the heart.
I did want to say, before we call on our panel, I know
there are going to be disagreements from the Republican side
and maybe even on our side, on the budget. But the budget does
attempt to shake things up and change things, and does add back
$1.2 billion to your budget. It does go to $300 million over
last year, because our budget priorities are infrastructure,
jobs and boosting the economy. So again, there will be a lot of
debate on the floor over that, but I hope colleagues will
realize that we do our best in this budget to restore the
funding and give it even $300 million over where we were last
year.
Gentlemen, we are so happy you are here. Are you both going
to speak to us today, or just one of the two of you, with
prepared remarks?
Mr. Woodley. Chairman Boxer, I believe we are both prepared
to.
Senator Boxer. That is good.
Mr. Woodley. But if you would prefer----
Senator Boxer. No, we would like to hear from both of you,
actually. So 5 minutes each if you can.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY
Mr. Woodley. I will summarize the statement briefly and ask
that the complete statement be included in the record.
Senator Boxer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Woodley. 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 early 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 surges that have a 1 percent annual chance of
occurring.
I would first like to talk about the annual civil works
program. The 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, including assessment of
comparative risks faced by different regions of the Country.
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 on objective performance criteria. The Fiscal
Year 2009 construction performance criteria mirror those for
Fiscal Year 2008, except that priorities accorded to projects
that can be completed in Fiscal Year 2009. The budget allocates
funding among ongoing construction projects based primarily on
benefit to cost ratios. Priority is also accorded projects that
reduce significant risks to human safety and to dam safety
assurance, seepage control and static instability correction
projects.
For operation and maintenance of the civil works projects,
the Fiscal Year 2009 budget provides nearly $2.6 billion in the
operation and maintenance account, and $163 million in the
Mississippi River and Tributaries account, a total of $16
million higher than in the Fiscal Year 2008 budget for
comparable activities, which in turn provided a substantial
increase over prior O&M levels.
The budget also provides $729 million to be appropriated
from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for operation 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 for the last 2 years, the Fiscal Year 2009
budget proposes to allocate operation and maintenance funding
on a regional basis. The budget proposes to allocate operation
and maintenance funding among 54 areas based on USGS sub-
watersheds. This approach will improve the overall performance
of civil works assets. Managers in the field will be better
able to maintain key infrastructure, adapt to uncertainties and
address emergencies and other changed conditions over the
course of the fiscal year.
As anticipated 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 phase out the
existing fuel tax. The proposed legislation will be transmitted
to Congress very soon after an executive branch inter-agency
review of this proposal is completed. Prompt enactment of such
legislation is needed to address the declining balance of 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 1 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
Area Restoration Effort, including $10 million for its science
program.
The budget also provides $180 million for the Corps'
regulatory program to protect wetlands and other waters of the
United States. This is the same amount as both the budget and
appropriation for Fiscal Year 2008, and, Madam Chair,
represents a $55 million increase since 2001.
I'd like to turn to the proposed emergency appropriation,
$5.76 billion. The Fiscal Year 2009 budget proposes to
authorize the New Orleans Area Hurricane and Storm Damage and
Risk Reduction System to be constructed with the State of
Louisiana as the single non-Federal cost-sharing sponsor and
subsequently maintained and operated by the State.
The pre-Katrina system for the Greater New Orleans area was
built as a collection of separately authorized projects,
designed with differing standards, subject to different
requirements for non-Federal cost-sharing and managed by
different local entities. Based on the 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, the Chief of Engineers and I established a joint team to
oversee its implementation. I meet bi-weekly with the 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, at $4.74 billion, the Fiscal Year 2009 Army
Civil Works annual budget provides the resources for the civil
works program to pursue investments that will yield very good
returns for the Nation in the future. As in past years, this
budget does not fund all the important work the Corps could do
in Fiscal Year 2009. However, it represents wise use of funding
to advance worthy mission-based objectives.
Chairman Boxer and members of the Committee, this is my
last time to appear before you to present an Army Civil Works
budget on behalf of President Bush. I want you to know that it
has been a great pleasure and privilege to work with you,
Senator Inhofe and all the other members of the Committee from
time to time. I think it would be wrong of me not to mention
that I believe this Committee is served by one of the most
professional and knowledgeable staffs of any committee in any
legislature anywhere in the world.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Mr. Woodley. We have a very complex program and they
understand it and serve you very well, serve you and the people
of the Country very well.
I want to also say that many of the efforts, as you will
see in the coming year, represent a very, very substantial
effort to implement the provisions of WRDA 2008. Much of our
budget was developed and submitted in the early fall, well
before WRDA 2007 was enacted. We were able to do some things
late in the budget cycle to respond to the important
initiatives of WRDA 2007. I appreciate the committee's
disappointment that more was not done. But it really did come
at a very late stage in our process. We would like to have done
more and we will do more, I am confident we will do more in
Fiscal Year 2009.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Woodley follows:]
Statement of John Paul Woodley, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army
Madam Chair and distinguished members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee,
and to present the President's Budget for the Civil Works
program of the Army Corps of Engineers for Fiscal Year (FY)
2009.
overview
The fiscal year Budget for Army Civil Works provides
funding for development and restoration of the Nation's water
and related resources within the 3 main Civil Works program
areas, namely, commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm
damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The Budget
also supports hydropower, recreation, environmental
stewardship, and water supply services at existing water
resources projects owned or operated by the Corps. Finally, the
Budget provides for protection of the Nation's regulated waters
and wetlands; cleanup of sites contaminated as a result of the
Nation's early efforts to develop atomic weapons; and emergency
preparedness. The budget does not fund work that should be the
responsibility of non-Federal interests or other Federal
agencies, such as wastewater treatment and municipal and
industrial water treatment and distribution.
Total discretionary funding for the fiscal year annual
program is $4.741 billion. This is $130 million less than the
fiscal year budget and $846 million less than Energy and Water
Development appropriations for fiscal year 8. Within the total
Civil Works budget, $2.475 billion is for activities funded in
the operation and maintenance (O&M) account. This is slightly
higher than the funding level for operation and maintenance
proposed in the President's fiscal year budget, which in turn
was a substantial increase over prior budget or appropriation
levels for comparable O&M activities.
The Budget also provides $5.761 billion in an fiscal year
emergency appropriations request for the Federal share of the
additional funds needed to reduce the risk of storm surge
damage to the greater New Orleans, Louisiana area. Based on
statutory language proposed in the Budget, the non-Federal
sponsor would provide $1.527 billion for the non-Federal share
of this work. This proposal is discussed further below.
A budget Five Year Development Plan (FYDP) is under
development and will be provided to the relevant Committees of
Congress.
Enclosure 1 displays the current estimate for the
distribution of new discretionary funding among 8 appropriation
accounts; 8 program areas; supervision and general
administration of the Civil Works program; policy direction and
oversight by the Army Secretariat; and 5 funding sources,
including the general fund of the Treasury and trust funds.
Enclosure 2 is a crosscut between appropriation accounts and
program areas.
performance-based budgeting
The fiscal year Budget reflects a continuing maturation of
the Army's performance-based approach to budgeting. Competing
investment opportunities for studies, design, construction, and
operation and maintenance were evaluated using multiple
metrics. Objective performance criteria guided the allocation
of funds among construction projects (see below).
The Budget includes initiatives leading to the development
of a more systematic, performance-based budget and improved
asset management. For example, the Budget allocates operation
and maintenance funding among 54 geographic areas based on USGS
sub-watersheds. This approach will improve the overall
performance of Civil Works assets by enabling managers within
each of these regional areas to focus on their key facilities
and address emerging needs.
The focus on Civil Works program performance has a number
of foundations. First, the 2004-2009 Civil Works Strategic Plan
provided goals, objectives, and performance measures that are
specific to program areas as well as some that are
crosscutting. A new Civil Works Strategic Plan is under
development for 2009-2014. Second, each program area has been
assessed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).
Progress to improve the performance measures was made on
several programs during the past year. Summaries of all
completed civil works program assessments can be found on the
Administration's new website, www.ExpectMore.gov. The Civil
Works Strategic Plan and the PART-based program evaluations are
works in progress and will continue to be updated.
highlights--water resources development accounts
Studies and Design
The fiscal year Budget provides $91 million for the
Investigations account and $1 million for investigations in the
Mississippi River and Tributaries account. The Budget funds 65
studies and preconstruction engineering and design (PED)
activities. We selected these for funding based on their likely
performance. For instance, the projects funded for PED were
those with benefit-to-cost ratios (BCRs) of 3.0 to-1 or higher.
Within this $91 million, $10 million is for studies and PED
under the Louisiana Coastal Area ecosystem restoration program
and $10 million more is for the science program that supports,
and is an integral component of, this Corps effort to help
protect and rebuild the ecosystem. In addition, $21 million is
for other project-specific studies and design, $17 million is
for research and development, and $33 million is for other
coordination, data collection, and study activities.
The Administration urges the Congress to support the
President's Budget for the investigations program, which limits
the number of proposed projects funded at the study or design
stage. The Corps has a very large backlog of ongoing
construction work. Adding to the number of projects heading for
a construction start or to their funding will delay the
completion of ongoing projects and realization of their
benefits to the Nation. The enactment of WRDA 2007 has
heightened this concern.
The Civil Works budget includes $1 million to comply with
the independent peer review requirements of Section 2034 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA 2007). This
covers only the studies funded in the Budget. If the Congress
were to increase the number of studies or their funding, the
Corps would likely need more than $1 million to comply with
section 2034.
Independent review previously was funded through individual
study line items as study costs shared with the non-Federal
sponsor. Under WRDA 2007, the costs of independent review are
now fully Federal. In future Budgets, we expect to include
these costs under individual study line items after studies
requiring Section 2034 independent review are identified and
accounting codes are set up to distinguish the fully Federal
independent review costs from the other study costs, which the
non-Federal sponsor will share.
The fiscal year Budget includes 2 new studies: The
Investigations account includes $2 million for a high-priority
study of the vulnerability of the U.S. to damage from flooding,
including an assessment of the comparative risks faced by
different regions of the U.S. This study will provide
background for a subsequent effort by policy officials to
develop recommendations to improve existing Federal programs,
authorities, and roles. The other new study is the Atchafalaya
Basin Land Study in the Flood Control, Mississippi River and
Tributaries account, for which the Administration has
repeatedly requested funding. I urge you to fund this study. It
has a high priority because land acquisition is an important
component of the overall flood damage reduction plan for this
watershed. The fiscal year Budget also specifically identifies
$100,000 for Corps support to the efforts of the inter-agency
Committee on the Marine Transportation System, established by
the President in the 2004 Ocean Action Plan. Costs to support
the Committee previously were included in the Coordination with
Other Agencies allocation in the Investigations account.
Construction Program
The Budget provides $1.402 billion in the Construction
account and $76 million for construction projects in the
Mississippi River and Tributaries account.
Many more construction projects have been authorized,
initiated, and continued than can be constructed efficiently at
any one time. The funding of projects with low economic and
environmental returns and of projects that are not within Civil
Works main mission areas has led to the postponement of
benefits from the most worthy projects, and has significantly
reduced overall program performance.
To remedy this situation and to achieve greater value to
the Nation from the Civil Works construction program, the
Budget again proposes performance guidelines to allocate funds
among construction projects. The guidelines give priority for
funding to the projects that yield the greatest returns to the
Nation, based upon objective performance criteria. The fiscal
year guidelines mirror those for fiscal year 8, except that
priority also is accorded to projects that can be completed in
fiscal year 9.
Under the guidelines, the Budget allocates funds among
construction projects based primarily on these criteria: BCRs;
contribution to reducing significant risk to human safety or to
dam safety assurance, seepage control, or static instability
correction concerns; capability of high performing projects to
be completed in fiscal year in order to bring significant
benefits online; and the extent to which projects cost-
effectively contribute to the restoration of nationally or
regionally significant aquatic ecosystems that have become
degraded as a result of Civil Works projects, or to a
restoration effort for which the Corps is otherwise uniquely
well-suited. The construction guidelines are provided in
Enclosure 3.
The 79 construction projects funded in the Budget consist
of: 11 dam safety assurance, seepage control and static
instability correction rehabilitation projects; 16 projects
funded to address a significant risk to human safety (including
2 new deficiency correction projects); and 52 other projects
(including 5 in the Mississippi River and Tributaries program).
Operation and Maintenance Program
The fiscal year Budget proposes $2.475 billion for the
Operation and Maintenance account and $163 million for
maintenance activities in the Mississippi River and Tributaries
account. The total amount is $16 million higher than the fiscal
year Budget for comparable activities.
The Budget emphasizes performance of existing projects by
focusing on the maintenance of key commercial navigation, flood
and storm damage reduction, hydropower, and other facilities.
The proposed funding would enable the Army Corps of Engineers
to carry out priority maintenance, repairs, and
rehabilitations, and priority initiatives such as the
development of asset management systems.
As in the fiscal year and 2008 Budgets, the operation and
maintenance program includes 4 activities that are directly
related to the operation and maintenance of Corps projects, but
previously were funded in the Construction program--compliance
with the Endangered Species Act at operating projects;
rehabilitation of existing projects; replacement of sand due to
the operation and maintenance of Federal navigation projects;
and construction of facilities, projects, or features
(including islands and wetlands) to use materials dredged
during Federal navigation operation and maintenance activities.
The Budget transfers responsibility for these activities to
improve investment decisions on project operation and
maintenance and better provide accountability and oversight for
those decisions. For the inland navigation rehabilitation
projects budgeted in the Operation and Maintenance account,
one-half of the project funding would be derived from the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Construction, replacement, and
expansion of inland waterways projects continue to be budgeted
in the Construction account.
Like the Budgets for the past 2 years, the fiscal year
Budget proposes to allocate operation and maintenance funding
on a regional basis. Last year, the Budget proposed allocation
of funding by 21 watersheds identified by the U.S. Geological
Survey's watershed and sub-watershed identification system.
This year, in order to more clearly identify the systems among
which funding is allocated, the Budget proposes to allocate
funding among 54 systems. Within these 54 systems, the
justification materials allocate funding for illustrative
purposes to flood and coastal storm damage reduction,
commercial navigation, hydropower, stewardship, recreation, and
water supply program areas. Funding operation and maintenance
using this framework will increase efficiency in the operation
and maintenance of Civil Works projects. Managers in the field
will be better able to properly maintain key infrastructure,
adapt to uncertainties, and address emergencies, as well as
other changed conditions over the course of the fiscal year,
while complying with congressional direction for the
appropriations.
highlights--program areas
The Army Civil Works program includes 8 program areas;
commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage
reduction, environment, recreation, hydropower, water supply,
emergency management, and the regulatory program. The Budget
also funds the supervision and general administration of the
Civil Works program in the Corps headquarters and the eight
division offices; and the policy direction and oversight for
the program by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works). Budget proposals for all areas are
discussed below.
Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction, and Emergency Management
The fiscal year Budget provides $1.322 billion for flood
and coastal storm damage reduction and $58 million for
emergency management.
Among the 79 construction projects funded in the fiscal
year budget, 50 are for flood and coastal storm damage
reduction, including 11 dam safety and seepage control and
static instability correction rehabilitations, 2 deficiency
correction projects at St. Louis Flood Protection, Missouri and
Wood River Levee, Illinois; and 29 other projects that address
a significant risk to human safety or were selected based on
their benefit-to-cost ratios.
The Budget for the emergency management program includes
$40 million in the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
account to fund preparedness for flood and coastal emergencies
and other natural disasters. This funding is needed in fiscal
year to maintain and improve the Corps of Engineers ability to
respond to disasters. Specifically, this funding would cover
review and updating of emergency response plans, periodic
exercises to test and evaluate plans, training, procurement of
critical supplies and equipment, and pre-disaster coordination
with State and local governments and other Federal agencies.
The fiscal year Budget reflects the strong belief of the Army
in the importance of providing regular funding for emergency
preparedness, rather than relying on supplemental
appropriations to finance emergency preparedness. The emergency
management program also includes $6 million for the National
Emergency Preparedness Program and $12 million for facility
protection, both of which are funded in the Operation and
Maintenance account. We continue to fund facility protection as
a remaining item in the operation and maintenance account. In
the past, we allocated these costs among the 8 program areas.
This year, we included these costs instead under the emergency
management program area.
The Budget includes $14 million in multiple accounts for
Actions for Change--a set of actions identified by the Chief of
Engineers to aggressively incorporate the lessons learned from
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita into the way the Corps plans,
designs, constructs, and maintains its infrastructure. The
program is being executed by 4 national teams. All actions are
interrelated, but each of the 4 teams has one of the following
focus areas: comprehensive systems approaches; risk-informed
decisionmaking; risk communications; and professional and
technical expertise. A common theme throughout the program is
increased accountability for public safety. The Corps is
working toward the goal of making these changes self-
sustaining.
The fiscal year Operation and Maintenance account includes
$10 million for the National Levee Inventory/Inspection and
Levee Safety Program. These funds will be used to continue the
national levee inventory, assessment, and data base development
that were begun with emergency supplemental appropriations of
$30 million in fiscal year 6. Funds also will be used for
administrative and travel costs of the National Levee Safety
Committee established pursuant to Title IX of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007. Title IX broadened the
authority under which the Corps conducts the levee inventory
program and is being implemented under the ongoing levee
inventory and inspection program. The national levee inventory
is an interagency effort to improve management of the Nation's
flood and storm damage reduction infrastructure. The results of
the national project inventory and risk-based project
assessments will be linked to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's ongoing flood mapping program, as well as to the Corps
levee rehabilitation and inspection program.
The Budget provides funding for all work currently planned
to remedy the most serious (Action Class I and II) dam safety,
seepage, and static instability problems at Corps dams. The
planning, design, and construction of these projects are funded
at the maximum amount that the Corps estimates that it can use
efficiently and effectively.
The Budget continues to support Federal participation in
initial construction, but not in re-nourishment, at beach
nourishment projects that provide storm damage reduction or
ecosystem restoration outputs.
Commercial Navigation
The fiscal year Budget provides a total of $1.892 billion
for the commercial navigation program area.
The amount budgeted for inland waterway construction
projects (construction, replacements, and expansions in the
Construction Account, and rehabilitations in the Operation and
Maintenance account) is about $326 million, which includes
funding to continue 14 inland waterway projects; 3 seepage and
static instability correction rehabilitation projects;
completion of 5 projects; and continuation of construction on 5
other projects. Half of the funding for these inland waterways
investments, about $167 million, would be derived from the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund, reflecting both concurrent
financing of 50 percent of construction costs on most projects
and rebalancing of the proportion where prior expenditures from
the general fund of the Treasury exceeded 50 percent.
The fiscal year Budget is based on enactment of proposed
legislation to establish a lockage-based barge user fee and to
phase out the existing diesel fuel tax for the inland
waterways. The prompt enactment of such legislation is needed
to address the 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 waterways projects. The funding in the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund, which comes from the diesel fuel tax, will not be
sufficient after fiscal year to support needed levels of
investment in these waterways.
Enactment of the Administration's legislative proposal
would ensure that the commercial users of the Corps locks
continue to cover their share of project costs. The amount of
the user fee would be tied to the level of spending for inland
waterways construction, replacement, expansion and
rehabilitation work. The proposed legislation will be
transmitted to Congress shortly.
The Budget includes $170 million to construct channel and
harbor projects.
The Budget focuses navigation operation and maintenance
funding of $1.375 billion on those waterway segments and
commercial harbors that support high volumes of commercial
traffic, such as the heavily used Mississippi and Ohio Rivers
and the Illinois Waterway. The Budget also funds maintenance of
harbors that support significant commercial fishing,
subsistence, safety, harbor of refuge, national security, or
public transportation benefits.
The Corps continues development of techniques to identify
and compare the marginal impacts on the Nation's waterborne
commerce of varying maintenance levels for coastal channels and
harbors. The fiscal year Budget provides for $729 million to be
appropriated from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for
operation and maintenance. 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.
The Budget continues the policy of funding beach
replenishment, including periodic re-nourishment, where the
operation and maintenance of Federal navigation projects is the
reason for the sand loss on shorelines.
Environment
The fiscal year Budget provides $511 million for
environmental activities overall, including $286 million for
aquatic ecosystem restoration. The costs of compliance with
Biological Opinions at existing projects are not included in
the above figures. The Budget includes these costs as part of
the joint operation and maintenance costs of the affected
projects and allocates these costs among the program areas
served by the projects.
Within the $286 million for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
$185 million is 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 1 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 enacted level. The increase reflects the program's
priorities for 2009--which include more funding for the
Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park (Mod
Waters) project, a key element of this effort that both the
National Park Service and the Corps are funding (+$40 million);
and funding to restore a 90 square mile area west of the
Everglades known as Picayune Strand, which will provide habitat
suitable for the endangered Florida panther and other species
(+$24 million). The Budget for this program also emphasizes
continued construction of the Kissimmee River restoration
effort; and studies and design work under the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, or CERP. Finally, the Budget also
continues construction of the Everglades and South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration ``Critical Projects,'' and the South Dade
County (C-111) and West Palm Beach Canal (C-51 & STA 1-E)
Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) projects.
The Budget provides $20 million for the Upper Mississippi
River System Environmental Management Program and $20 million
for the Louisiana Coastal Area restoration effort, including
$10 million for its important Science Program, which will
assist the State and Federal managers of the LCA Ecosystem
Restoration Program by providing science support aimed at
improving implementation. The Science Program will inform and
guide the program by reducing uncertainties and insuring that
effective tools and processes are available for use by the
project delivery team.
The Budget includes $95 million for environmental
stewardship. The Corps administers lands and waters covering 11
million acres, an area equal in size to the States of Vermont
and New Hampshire. Funded activities include shoreline
management, protection of natural resources, support for
endangered species, continuation of mitigation activities, and
protection of cultural and historic resources.
The Budget provides $130 million for the Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) to clean up
contamination at sites resulting largely from the early atomic
weapons program. This funding will enable completion of
remedial action at one site (Linde Air Products Soil operable
unit) and support continued progress toward completion of
remedial actions at a number of other FUSRAP sites.
Regulatory Program
The fiscal year Budget provides $180 million for the Corps
Regulatory Program to protect wetlands and other waters of the
United States. This is the same as the amount in both the
Budget and appropriations for fiscal year 8, and represents a
$55 million increase since 2001. The funding will be used for
permit processing, enforcement and compliance actions, and
jurisdictional determinations, including the significant
additional field documentation, coordination and evaluation
work associated with the Supreme Court's Carabell and Rapanos
decisions.
Investing in the Regulatory Program has a win-win result,
since it protects valuable aquatic resources while enabling
over $225 billion in economic development to proceed annually.
The Corps will also use the requested funding to develop and
implement improvements such as electronic permit applications
and data sharing with other agencies and the public, consistent
with Sections 2017 and 2040 of WRDA 2007.
Recreation
The fiscal year Budget provides $270 million for recreation
operations and related maintenance. The Budget re-proposes the
Corps of Engineers recreation modernization initiative, which
first was developed as part of the fiscal year and fiscal year
budgets. This initiative, which requires legislation to
implement, would allow the Corps to upgrade and modernize its
recreation facilities through an expansion of the current fee
structure. It would also enable the Corps, working at the
national, state, and local levels, to pursue voluntary public/
private partnerships and other means to help finance the
recreation program.
Hydropower
Hydropower is a renewable source of energy. The Civil Works
program is the Nation's largest producer of hydroelectric
energy. The Corps provides one quarter of the Nation's
hydroelectric power generation capacity and satisfies 3 percent
of the Nation's total energy needs.
The fiscal year Budget provides $319 million for
hydropower. This investment will help to reduce the forced
outage rate, which remains well above the industry average. In
addition, the 4 ongoing replacement projects, once completed,
will produce enough power to electrify 37,000 homes and reduce
carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere by 190,000 metric
tons.
Water Supply
On average, Civil Works projects provide 4 billion gallons
of water per day to meet the needs of municipal and commercial
users across the country. The Budget includes $6 million for
this program under the operation and maintenance account. These
costs can be broken into 5 categories: costs to manage water
supply contracts and to operate and maintain specific water
supply facilities; ongoing water reallocation studies; the
National Portfolio assessment of water reallocation
possibilities; the allocated share of costs for compliance with
the Endangered Species Act; and the allocated share of other
project joint costs. The water supply program manages 307 water
supply agreements that cover 7.2 million acre-feet of storage
space in 136 of the Corps' multiple purpose reservoir projects.
This storage space has an assigned repayment value of $9.8
billion. These costs are repaid directly to the U.S. Treasury
by the water users. The opportunities that are being identified
through the National Portfolio assessment to reallocate storage
space in existing reservoirs can assist in addressing unmet
demand for municipal and industrial water supply without
building additional projects.
Management Expenses of the Army Corps of Engineers
The fiscal year budget provides $177 million for the
Expenses account to cover the costs of the Army Corps of
Engineers Headquarters, Major Subordinate Commands or
Divisions, and national support Corps offices such as the
Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, the Institute for
Water Resources, and the Finance Center.
Army Secretariat Policy Direction and Oversight
The fiscal year Budget includes $6 million for the Office
of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). The
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) has oversight
responsibility on behalf of the Secretary of the Army for all
aspects of the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of
Engineers; for the Army Cemeterial Expenses budget and program
for Arlington National Cemetery and the Soldiers' and Airmen's
Home National Cemetery; for reimbursable support by the Army
Corps of Engineers for other domestic agencies; and for all
international activities of the Army Corps of Engineers except
those directly in support of U.S. forces overseas. This account
finances the personnel and other direct costs of the Assistant
Secretary's office in the energy and water development
appropriation, consistent with recently enacted appropriations
for this office.
protection of the metropolitan new orleans area
In addition to fiscal year regular appropriations for the
Civil Works program, the fiscal year Budget recommends
enactment of fiscal year emergency appropriations of $5.761
billion for the remaining Federal share of the New Orleans Area
Hurricane and Storm Damage and Risk Reduction System (HSDRRS),
which is designed to reduce the risk to the greater New
Orleans, Louisiana, area from storm surges that have a 1
percent annual chance of occurring and to improve internal
drainage; to restore and complete construction of hurricane and
storm damage reduction features in surrounding areas to
previously authorized levels of protection; and to incorporate
certain non-Federal levees into the Federal system. The fiscal
year Budget also proposes to authorize the HSDRRS 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, the HSDRRS 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.
The new HSDRRS system will be not only higher, but also
stronger than the pre-Hurricane Katrina system. Armoring of
critical elements will improve resilience during storm events.
New pump stations, water control structures, and floodgates
will add perimeter protection to reduce the threat of storm
surges from outfall canals and navigation channels. Completing
the Southeast Louisiana urban drainage project within the
geographic perimeter of the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity and
West Bank and Vicinity projects will enhance the effectiveness
of interior drainage systems.
Based on the proposed statutory language included in the
President's Budget, local entities would be responsible for 35
percent of the cost of the Southeast Louisiana project located
within the geographic perimeter of the Lake Pontchartrain and
Vicinity and West Bank and Vicinity projects, and for 35
percent of the increment of levee raises and other enhancements
needed to the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity and West Bank and
Vicinity projects above currently authorized levels to reduce
the risk to the greater New Orleans area from storm surges that
have a 1 percent annual chance of occurring. Local entities
would also be responsible for 100 percent of the operation,
maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation cost.
other budget highlights
General Provisions
The Budget includes proposed statutory language to
authorize continuation of limits on reprogramming with certain
proposed changes; to replace the continuing contract authority
of the Corps with multi-year contracting authority patterned
after the authority available to other Federal agencies; and to
prohibit committing funds for ongoing and new contracts beyond
the appropriated amounts available, including reprogramming.
Improved Cost Estimating
With my full support, the Chief of Engineers is undertaking
several initiatives to strengthen the Corps performance in
project cost estimating. The Chief will discuss these
initiatives in detail in his statement.
water resources development act of 2007
Upon passage of WRDA 2007 on November 7, 2007, the Chief of
Engineers and I established a joint team to oversee the
implementation of this lengthy, complex, and costly Act. We
have designated a senior Corps policy analyst to lead our joint
efforts. I meet at least bi-weekly with the joint WRDA
implementation team to review and approve guidance for major
policy and project provisions of WRDA.
The purpose of implementation guidance is to ensure a
common understanding of the policies and procedures that will
be used to meet the requirements of the law. Provisions that
require development of implementation guidance are being
identified and prioritized, and the writing of the guidance is
underway. Implementation guidance for those provisions directly
affecting work within the Divisions and Districts is being
developed in consultation with the appropriate District,
Division, and Headquarters Regional Integration Team. Due to
the large number of provisions in the law, it will take time to
issue guidance on each of the provisions. Priority for
implementation guidance is being given to national policy
provisions (mostly in Title II) and to those project and
program provisions where funds are currently appropriated.
Following are some examples of WRDA provisions receiving
priority for implementation guidance:
Section 2003--Written Agreements for water resources
projects
Section 2027--Fiscal Transparency Report
Section 2031--Water Resources principles and guidelines
Section 2032--Water Resources priorities report
Section 2033--Planning
Section 2034-- Independent Peer Review
Section 2035-- Safety Assurance Review
Section 2036-- Mitigation for fish and wildlife and
wetlands losses
Title VI--Florida Everglades
Title VII--Louisiana Coastal Area
Title IX--National Levee Safety Program
Working through the joint implementation team, we are
making excellent progress in implementation strategies for the
significant policy provisions and numerous individual project
provisions.
president's management agenda
The Army Civil Works program is pursuing 5 government wide
management initiatives, as are other Federal agencies, plus a
6th initiative on real property asset management.
``Scorecards'' for the Army Corps of Engineers and other
Federal agencies can be found at the following website: http://
www.whitehouse.gov/results/agenda/scorecard.html.
For the first quarter of the 2008 fiscal year, the
scorecard rates the Corps status as red on one initiative,
yellow on 4, and green on one. I am pleased that the Corps is
rated green on progress on all 6 initiatives. The Corps has
worked diligently to achieve these ratings, and I am proud of
their efforts. The Army is hopeful that the Corps of Engineers
will receive an audit opinion in the very near future from the
Inspector General of the Department of Defense for its fiscal
year and 2007 Civil Works financial statements. This would be
the first time ever that a major component of the Defense
Department has received an audit opinion. The opinion is
expected to be qualified, and it is anticipated that the
auditors will recommend a number of areas that need
improvement. With a qualified opinion in hand and this guidance
from the DoD Inspector General, the Army has every expectation
that the Corps can achieve an unqualified audit opinion on its
fiscal year financial statements.
conclusion
In developing this Budget, the Administration made explicit
choices based on performance. The sustained level of O&M
funding, transfer of activities from construction to O&M,
emphasis on construction projects based on their returns, and
focus on preparedness for flood, hurricane, and other natural
disasters, for example, all reflect a performance-based
approach.
At $4.741 billion, the fiscal year Army Civil Works annual
budget provides the resources for the Civil Works program to
pursue investments that will yield good returns for the Nation
in the future. With the proposed $5.761 billion in fiscal year
emergency appropriations, the Corps can also complete the
Federal share of work necessary to significantly reduce the
risk of storm surge damage to the greater New Orleans area.
This Budget represents the wise use of funding to advance
worthy, mission-based objectives. I am proud to present it.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Committee, for
this opportunity to testify on the President's Fiscal Year 2009
Budget for the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of
Engineers. This is the last time I will appear before this
Committee to present the Civil Works budget on behalf of
President Bush. It has been my pleasure working with this
Committee.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ENCLOSURE 3
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL WORKS BUDGET
FY 2009 CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES
1. Project rankings. All ongoing specifically authorized
construction projects, including projects funded in the
Mississippi River and Tributaries account, will be assigned
based upon their primary purpose to one of the main mission
areas of the Corps (flood and storm damage reduction;
commercial navigation; aquatic ecosystem restoration) or to
hydropower. Flood and storm damage reduction, commercial
navigation, and hydropower projects will be ranked by their
total benefits divided by their total costs (BCR), calculated
at a 7 percent real discount rate. Aquatic ecosystem
restoration projects will be ranked by the extent to which they
cost-effectively contribute to the restoration of a nationally
or regionally significant aquatic ecosystem that has become
degraded as a result of a civil works project, or to a
restoration effort for which the Corps is otherwise uniquely
well-suited (e.g., because the solution requires complex
alterations to the hydrology and hydraulics of a river system).
2. Projects funded on the basis of their economic and
environmental returns. Ongoing flood and storm damage
reduction, commercial navigation, and hydropower construction
projects with a BCR of 1.5 or higher and ongoing aquatic
ecosystem restoration construction projects that are cost-
effective in contributing to the restoration of a nationally or
regionally significant aquatic ecosystem that has become
degraded as a result of a civil works project or to a
restoration effort for which the Corps is otherwise uniquely
well-suited will receive at least the amount needed to pay
estimated contractor earnings required under ongoing contracts
and related costs. In allocating funds among these projects,
priority will be given to those with the highest economic and
environmental returns and to projects where the Corps can
complete physical construction of the project and/or related
administrative activities in the budget year.
3. Projects funded to address significant risk to human
safety. Flood and storm damage reduction projects that are
funded to address significant risk to human safety will receive
sufficient funding to support an uninterrupted effort during
the budget year.
4. Projects with low economic and environmental returns.
Ongoing flood and storm damage reduction, commercial
navigation, and hydropower construction projects with a BCR
below 1.5 will be considered for deferral, except for flood and
storm damage reduction projects that are funded to address
significant risk to human safety. Likewise, ongoing aquatic
ecosystem restoration construction projects that do not cost-
effectively contribute to the restoration of a nationally or
regionally significant aquatic ecosystem that has become
degraded as a result of a civil works project, and do not cost-
effectively address a problem for which the Corps is otherwise
uniquely well-suited, will be considered for deferral.
5. New starts and resumptions. The budget could include
funds to startup new construction projects, or to resume work
on ongoing construction projects on which the Corps has not
performed any physical work under a construction contract
during the past 3 consecutive fiscal years, only if the project
would be ranked that year in the top 20 percent of the ongoing
construction projects in its mission area. The term ``physical
work under a construction contract'' does not include
activities related to project planning, engineering and design,
relocation, or the acquisition of lands, easements, or rights-
of-way. For non-structural flood damage reduction projects,
construction begins in the first fiscal year in which the Corps
acquires lands, easements, or rights-of-way primarily to
relocate structures, or performs physical work under a
construction contract for non-structural project-related
measures. For aquatic ecosystem restoration projects,
construction begins in the first fiscal year in which the Corps
acquires lands, easements, or rights-of-way primarily to
facilitate the restoration of degraded aquatic ecosystems
including wetlands, riparian areas, and adjacent floodplain, or
performs physical work under a construction contract to modify
existing project facilities primarily to restore the aquatic
ecosystem. For all other projects, construction begins in the
first fiscal year in which the Corps performs physical work
under a construction contract.
6. Other cases. Projects will receive the amount needed to
ensure that they comply with treaties and with biological
opinions pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, and meet
authorized mitigation requirements. Dam safety assurance,
seepage control, and static instability correction projects
that are funded in the construction program will receive the
maximum level of funding that the Corps can efficiently and
effectively spend in each year.
Responses by John Paul Woodley Jr. to Additional Questions
from Senator Bond
Question 1. In regards to the drainage deficiencies at the
L-385 levee at Riverside MO. There was a flood on the Missouri
River in May 2007; following this flood the levee district
inspected the gate wall pipes as part of their routine
maintenance. Problems were noted in several locations. The
Corps has planned to install seals where the joints have failed
and are due to be installed prior to April 1, 2008. The local
sponsor has objected that they should not be responsible for
the cost of the repair because they have already paid for the
design and construction. However, the Corps concluded that the
repair is subject to cost share even if it is determined to be
a design or construction deficiency. What time table has the
Corps set to determine the cause of the pipe failures? If it is
deemed a design deficiencYt why will the non-Federal investor
be penalized for a Corps mistake? I also request that the Corps
do a complete evaluation of the entire project to see if any
other features are not working properly prior to the local
sponsor taking over the operation and maintenance of this
important flood control project.
Response. Seals have been installed at all the failed
joints and the pipes are now fully functional. This effort was
completed March 19. In addition the Corps has initiated a
thorough investigation to determine the cause of these
failures. The investigation will be conducted by an Architect
Engineer (AE) firm and completed in September 2008. At that
point the Corps will be able to determine whether it is a
design construction or material deficiency and will take the
appropriate follow-on action. If further corrective action is
required the estimated cost for that action will also be
available at that time.
I understand the sponsor's concern about sharing the cost
of the repair. However this is a post-WRDA 86 cost shared
project subject to the applicable cost-sharing provisions of
the law. The Corps is required by law to follow the cost
sharing requirements set forth therein.
With regard to a complete evaluation of the entire project
the Corps and the sponsor have completed an inspection of all
structures. All levee features are fully functional and no
other deficiencies were found. Although the sponsor has not
officially taken over the project, the sponsor has been
operating and maintaining the project since 2005.
Responses by John Paul Woodley Jr. to Additional Questions
from Senator Boxer
Question 1. Since WRDA 2007 became law on November 8, 2007,
insufficient progress has been made on the programmatic changes
known collectively as Corps Reform. While the law was enacted
on November 8, the conference report was filed on August 31.
The Corps and the Secretary's office have had over 7 months to
know what the new requirements would look like. Two of the most
significant of the programmatic changes, independent review and
improvements in the mitigation program, became effective upon
enactment and certainly came as no surprise since similar
language was in both chambers' bills. How are you implementing
the requirements to include specific mitigation plans in
project study reports--requirements that include mitigation
success criteria, monitoring responsibilities, a description of
lands to be acquired, and contingency plans should initial
mitigation efforts fail?
Response. The Corps of Engineers is conducting a gap
analysis on Section 2036(a) of WRDA 2007 requirements; the new
Regulatory Mitigation Rule, which was published in the Federal
Register on April 10, 2008; and applicable Civil Works Planning
policies to identify those areas where the Civil Works program
may need modification to comply with the mitigation standards
and policies of the regulatory program. Detailed implementation
guidance to correct any deficiencies will be developed based on
the identified gaps. The gap analysis is scheduled to be
completed by May 23, 2008. The gap analysis will be used to
develop implementation guidance. Implementation guidance will
be developed based on the resulting recommendations and should
be completed by July 31. Any significant issues identified may
result in interim guidance until resolution.
Question 2. Has implementing guidance been issued? If not,
when will it be? If so, please provide a copy.
Response. The implementing guidance has not been issued.
Implementation guidance will be developed based on the
recommendations arising from the gap analysis and should be
completed by July 31, 20008. Any significant issues identified
may result in interim guidance until resolution. We will
provide you a copy of the implementing guidance when completed.
Question 3. How many projects studies have been modified to
reflect the new requirements? Specifically list each project
and how it has been modified. If projects have not been
modified, why not?
Response. The Corps of Engineers is currently gathering
data from district offices on ongoing project studies that
include or will include mitigation and whether or not the
project studies have been modified to reflect the new
requirements. Due to the effort required to respond, the
comprehensive list will be provided as soon as possible.
Question 4. Are there studies that include mitigation that
have been completed or noticed for public comment since WRDA
1907 was enacted? Please identify the studies. Have they
complied with the new law?
Response. The Corps of Engineers is currently gathering
data from district offices on ongoing project studies that
include or will include mitigation. Due to the effort required
to respond, the comprehensive list will be provided by the end
ofJune.
Question 5. Section 2036(b) ofWRDA 1907 requires that a
status report on mitigation be submitted concurrent with the
submission of the budget request. Has that status report been
submitted? When will it be?
Response. The Corps of Engineers is currently gathering
data on the major elements ofSection 2036(b) including the
status of mitigation for all projects under construction, all
projects that have requested funding, and all, projects that
have undergone construction or completed construction but not
completed mitigation. An interim status report based on this
data will be provided to you by the end of June 2008. In
addition, the Corps of Engineers is developing a data base and
protocols for data collection in order to submit a more
detailed status report with the next budget.
Question 6. Section 2034 of WRDA 1907 requires independent
review of projects meeting certain criteria, and it includes a
look back to studies initiated up to 2 years ago. For what
projects have you initiated independent reviews? What are your
plans to initiate independent reviews?
Response. USACE has had independent peer review guidance
for project feasibility studies formally in place since May,
2()05 (EC 1105-2-408), and a number of independent external
reviews have been completed since that time. The Corps is
currently in the process of consolidating and upgrading all of
its Civil Works product review guidance with new policy to
cover all work from feasibility studies through design,
construction and operations and maintenance programs. The new
review policy will comply with Section 2034 and Section 2035 of
WRDA 2007; Section 515 ofPublic Law 106-554 (referred to as the
``Data Quality Atoll); and the Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review by the Office ofManagement and Budget.
This will strengthen the quality and reliability ofCorps
studies, designs and projects by adjusting and supplementing
our current review processes. Section 2034 of WRDA 2007
identifies some potential exemptions from external review for
routine actions that may be expensive but routine (such as
replacing hydropower turbines in place, etc.). The Corps has
not exercised any exemptions to date.
Question 7. How many projects currently under study are
subject to the requirements of section 2034 for there to be
independent review? Provide the Committee a list of project
studies subject to the independent review provision.
Response. [continuing]. USACE currently has 63 General
Investigation studies slated for independent external peer
review. The attached list is comprised of efforts that have
been confirmed and approved by the respective Major Subordinate
Commands (Corps Division offices). This list is not all
inclusive since we are in a dynamic environment, but it
represents the firm list to date.
Question 8. Do you have the resources in the budget to
accomplish the independent reviews? Your request for
independent reviews in the Investigations account lists only $1
million.
Response. The amount budgeted for independent peer reviews
represents a careful consideration of all the competing
budgetary requirements and was deemed to sufficiently cover
those studies included in the Budget. Should additional funds
be required during fiscal year or fiscal year 9, funds will be
sought from within study allocations or possibly through
reprogramming, is excess funds available for this purpose can
be identified.
Question 9. In developing the independent review section,
the conferees worked very hard to ensure that any potential
delays in the study process were eliminated or minimized. Will
your delay in implementing WRDA 1907 cause delays in completing
studies, including independent reviews?
Response. Provisions for incorporating independent review
into the Corps study process and scheduling have been in place
since May 2005 (EC 1105-2-408). Strategies for review are part
of each study's Project Management Plan (PMP), and are designed
to avoid any added delays due to review. Inevitably studies'
schedules may change for a variety of reasons including review,
but there is no systematic effect of independent review
delaying study completion. Section 2034 of WRDA 2007 changed
the cost sharing for independent review to be fully Federal (up
to $500K) which may lead to a funding constraint until fiscal
year when this requirement will be incorporated into the normal
process. Should additional funds be required during fiscal year
or fiscal year 9, normal budgetary procedures requiring close
cooperation between the Congress and the Administration to fund
the newly enacted provisions will be used to seek funds where
independent external peer review funds have not been
appropriated.
Question 10. Section 2031 of WRDA 1907 requires a revision
of the planning principles and guidelines which the Corps uses
to develop project recommendations.
What is the status of the revisions? Will the revisions be
completed within the 2 years required by law?
Response. We have already initiated revision of the
Principles and the Standards (Chapter 1 of the current
GuideliJ;le). The Principles and Standards focus on the basic
water resources planning process including the national
objectives that drive choices among alternative plans. We
intend to finish revising the Principles and Standards by
November of this year. I have also directed the Corps to
initiate a survey of needs for revising the remaining segments
of the current Principles and Guidelines. This segment contains
the Procedures in Chapters II through IV of the current
Guidelines on how to evaluate the benefits of water resources
projects. Revising these Procedures is a matter of considerable
scope and detail; a greater effort will be required for
revising the Procedures than for revising the Principles and
the Standards. The Corps survey of Procedures will include a
schedule and cost estimate for completing revision of these
Procedures. We will make every effort to meet the 2 year
statutory requirement.
Question 11. Do you have the necessary resources dedicated
in the budget to accomplish the revisions in the time called
for?
Response. For the present effort of revising the Principles
and Standards, we have dedicated sufficient resources within
our available General Expense appropriation.
Question 12. What steps are you taking to ensure
consultation with other Federal agencies, as required, and what
steps are you taking to solicit and consider public and expert
comments?
Response. I have notified the agency heads specified in
Section 2031 seeking their suggestions for revising the P&S and
I have requested their assistance in establishing staff
designees to carry out the consultation requirements. On June
5th, prior to release of draft revisions of the Principles and
Standards, I will hold a meeting here in Washington with the
interested public to hear their ideas for revisions to the
Principles and Standards. We also will be taking written
suggestions from the public. The Federal Register clerk has our
notice for this meeting, and we are issuing a press release to
publicize the meeting through the Corps Public Affairs Office.
In addition we will be following prescribed procedures for
vetting of guidance. When the draft revision is complete we
will publish this draft on the Corps web site and place a
notice in the Federal Register inviting public comments. We
will receive comments for thirty days.
With regard to receiving expert review and comments, our
plan is to contract with a nationally recognized institution to
establish a consulting committee of experts, and we're moving
expeditiously to put that proposal in place through a contract.
Our vision is that the institution with which we contract will
hold a conference in early August where an in dependently
chosen panel of experts will review the draft revision of the
Principles and Standards. By that time the comments from the
public review of the draft revision also will be available to
the independent panel. Furthermore, this independent review
panel conference will be open to the public and will provide an
additional opportunity for water resources interests to
participate in the process. Therefore, I am confident that the
process we envision will solicit and fully consider expert
review that is fully integrated with public participation.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by John Paul Woodley Jr. to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. Secretary Woodley, last year's budget stated
that we need to increase revenues into the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund. This year's budget includes only the broad outlines
sofa proposal-namely, moving from the current diesel tax to
lockage fees yet your written testimony states that prompt
enactment is needed. When will we see the actual proposal?
Response. We expect to submit proposed legislative language
to the Congress in April 2008.
Question 2. Will the proposal be accompanied by any
analysis of the impacts on users of the inland waterways system
as a whole,'' as well as the impacts on users of different
portions of the system?
Response. The Corps has this information. We would be happy
to provide it to the Congress.
Question 3. The budget request includes funds for a
National Portfolio assessment of water reallocation
possibilities. One of the problems some of the communities in
Oklahoma have run into is that even when there is available
storage at, existing reservoirs, the Corps' policy on pricing
that water supply storage makes it prohibitively expensive. How
long has it been since this policy has been reevaluated?
Response. First, let me explain the two different pricing
methods under current policy. Both methods involve the
administrative reallocation of water storage, which is
authorized in and limited by the Water Supply Act of 1958, as
amended.
The first pricing method applies to existing storage that
was authorized for water supply, but which has never been under
contract. In these cases, the price is a proportional share of
the original project cost, plus interest after a 10-year
interest free period. This is intended to recover part of what
it actually costs the Federal Government to construct the
project, which was authorized to include storage for water
supply from the beginning.
The second pricing method applies to the reallocation of
storage from one user to another or there assignment of the use
of existing storage space from one use to another purpose, as
in a transfer from flood control or hydropower to water supply.
In these cases, the price is based on the highest of the
following: the value of benefits forgone; the revenues forgone;
the replacement cost; or the updated cost of construction.
The pricing policy for the first method goes back to the
Water Supply Act of 1958, which says the costs that the Federal
Government incurs to provide storage for municipal and
industrial water supply shall be paid by the beneficiaries of
that storage. The pricing policy for the second method has been
in effect since 1979. Also, a community may qualify for a
reduction in price under either method, as provided in Section
322 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990.
Question 4. Will you commit to working with me to see if we
can improve this policy so that communities can afford the
water supply storage opportunities the National Portfolio
assessment may present?
Response. We always are willing to reexamine policies to
ensUre that they are in the national interest.
Question 5. Sometimes on the other side of the issue,
hydropower interests have expressed frustration with the Corps'
policy of compensating them for lost generation due to
reallocations. Will you work with me to see if we can find a
compromise?
Response. We are sensitive to the impacts that
reallocations from hydropower storage may have on power
production and the corresponding effects on the rates that the
regional power administrations charge their customers. We also
are sensitive to the water supply needs of the public,
especially the needs of growing communities across the country.
We attempt to balance power production and water supply needs
to maximize the benefits that Corps projects provide. The
current policy is to charge a water supply user an amount
sufficient to compensate the regional power authorities for
their lost revenues. The hydropower interests prefer
compensation based on replacement costs, which is generally
higher. We are willing to work with the Congress to identify
other possible ways to address such competing uses of storage
space in Corps reservoirs.
Question 6. Secretary Woodley, as I have stated in previous
hearings and meetings, I am very supportive of the concept
mentioned in your testimony of allowing the Corps to use the
fees it collects to operate, maintain and improve recreation
opportunities. Unfortunately, we have consistently run into
budget scoring problems that have prevented us from enacting
such a proposal. Will you please commit to working with me to
see if we can come up with other ways to accomplish this goal
of improving recreation opportunities that don't have the same
scoring hurdles?
Response. Yes I will. However, the Administration's
legislative proposal does not involve allowing the Corps to use
the fees that it now collects. Generally, the Corps would spend
the additional revenues in the fiscal year after it collects
them. Therefore, our proposal would not have a significant net
scoring impact over a 10-year period.
Question 7. Could you please give more detail on
implementation of Title 9 of WRDA 2007, the National Levee
Safety Program? I am particularly interested in the estimated
timeframe for receiving the recommendations from the Committee
on Levee Safety.
Response. On November 8, 2007, the Water Resources
Development Act of 2007 (WRDA 2007) was enacted into law. Title
IX of this WRDA is the National Levee Safety Act of 2007 (the
Act). Section 9003 of this Title authorizes a Committee on
Levee Safety (Committee), which would develop recommendations
for a national levee safety program, including a strategic plan
for implementing this program.
The Committee would consist of 16 members. The Secretary of
the Army and the Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, or their representatives, are two of the
members. The Secretary of the Army would select the other 14
members as provided in section 9003. The members have not yet
been selected. However, we anticipate that it should take the
Committee about 180 days to develop recommendations, counting
from the date of its first meeting. Of course, the actual
schedule will depend on the views of the members and the nature
of their recommendations.
In addition, section 9004 of Title IX authorizes the
Secretary of the Army to inventory and inspect certain levees.
The Corps has already begun this work using the $30 million in
fiscal year supplemental appropriations that the Congress has
previously provided.
Responses by John Paul Woodley Jr. to Additional Questions
from Senator Carper
Question 1. As you know, chief among the WRDA 2007 reforms
is the new requirement for independent review of all Corps
projects that are controversial or valued at more than $45
million. I've been a strong supporter of this requirement,
which will improve the safety, quality, and environmental and
fiscal soundness of water resources projects. Where is the
Corps along the path to independent review compliance? Have any
independent reviews been conducted yet? Are certain projects
exempt from the independent review requirement? If so, which
kinds? Could you provide this Committee with a comprehensive
list of projects slated for independent review?
Response. The Corps has had independent peer review
guidance formally in place for project feasibility studies
since May, 2005 (EC 1105-2-408), and a number of independent
external peer reviews have been completed since that time. The
Corps is currently in the process of consolidating and
upgrading all of its Civil Works product review guidance with
new policy to cover all work from feasibility studies through
design, construction, and operation and maintenance. The new
review policy will comply with Section 2034 and Section 2035 of
WRDA 2007; Section 515 of Public Law 106-554 (referred to as
the ``Data Quality Act''); and the Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review by the Office of Management and
Budget. This will strengthen the quality and reliability of
Corps studies, designs and projects by adjusting and
supplementing our current review processes. Section 2034 of
WRDA 2007 identifies some potential exemptions from external
review for actions that may be expensive but are routine (such
as replacing hydropower turbines in place, etc.). The Corps has
not exercised any exemptions to date.
The Corps currently has 63 Investigation studies slated for
independent external peer review. The attached list is
comprised of efforts that have been confirmed and approved by
the respective Major Subordinate Commands (Corps Division
offices). This list is not all inclusive since we are in a
dynamic environment, but it represents the firm list to date.
Question 2. The costs of independent review are to be fully
covered by the Federal Government and capped at $500,000. I
want to know if the Corps was able to properly budget this
year, given the new review requirement. Does the Corps
understand they are to work the costs of independent review--
and fish and wildlife mitigation for that matter--into their
project costs?
Response. In these times of constrained budgets, the amount
requested for independent peer reviews represents, a careful
consideration of all the competing budgetary requirements. The
fiscal year budget for the Civil Works program includes $1
million for independent peer review of budgeted studies, which
we determined was sufficient to cover those budgeted studies
that would likely require peer review. In some cases, the
amount budgeted for a specific study already includes an
estimate for independent review. It is standard practice for
study cost estimates to include funding for mitigation
investigations, including funding for the Fish and Wildlife
Service to conduct its Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
review.
Question 3. I wish highlight the, growing concerns about
the Port of Wilmington's capacity to store dredge material. I
believe the situation at Wilmington reflects a nationwide
problem of maintaining and enhancing our existing
infrastructure to meet growing demand. The primary storage
site--Harbor North--is closed and the Corps is currently
looking for a new site. What does the Corps see as the long-
term plan for assuring adequate access to Port of Wilmington
given the increasing siltation rates at the mouth of the
Christina River?
Response. The long-term plan for assuring adequate access
to the Port of Wilmington requires the use of additional new
dredged material disposal sites in the vicinity of the Port.
Using funds added by Congress in .fiscal year 2008, the Corps
is conducting a Dredged Material Management Plan to identify
new disposal sites and establish a path forward to bring the
sites on line. The management plan will include geotechnical
analysis, designs, cost estimates, NEPA documentation, real
estate requirements, and coordination with local, State and
Federal agencies. The draft Management Plan is scheduled to be
completed by September 2008.
Question 4. While protecting the Gulf Coast is a clear
priority, there are also a number of venerable areas along the
East Coast that are threatened by catastrophic storms and sea
level change. Is the Corps approaching its projects and
priorities with due diligence paid to the increasing potential
for sea level rise? If so, how?
Response. Corps of Engineers current sea-level rise policy
(published in 2000, developed in 1988) is being updated. The
current policy directs that two specific rates of sea-level
rise (a historic rate and a future projection) be considered in
project planning and design. The future projection currently
specified is based on the 1987 National Research Council
report. This projection is generally considered to be extreme,
even today, and is much greater than more recent projections by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Additionally, while the current policy directs studies to
consider ``the risk associated with a substantial rise, it does
not provide any guidance on how to consider that risk. The
Corps currently is updating this guidance based on the findings
presented in the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. The
updated sea-level rise policy will include more recent efforts
to project future sea-level rise rates and will provide more
detailed guidance on how to estimate sea-level rise for
specific locations, how to properly incorporate these estimates
in an economic analysis, and how to assess coastal
vulnerability and risk from sea-level rise. This effort will
include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
The Corps is in the process of analyzing other risks
associated with climate change, which have varying levels of
scientific uncertainty and/or impact on Corps missions. The
Corps is collaborating with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
NOAA, USGS, and State and regional agencies to understand how
climate change affects water resources and to develop planning
processes to address the impacts. These efforts include studies
in the Western United States to evaluate the observed trend to
warmer temperatures and the associated changes in precipitation
(snow vs. rain) and earlier spring runoff on flood risk, water
supply, and ecosystems.
Question 5. Since 1986, the Corps has been required to
include a detailed mitigation plan for all civil works projects
that have more than minimal adverse impacts. These directives
have not been closely followed: A May 2002 GAO report found
that the Corps failed to mitigate at all for 69 percent of
projects constructed since 1986. WRDA 2007 fleshes out the
requirements of a mitigation plan, and imposes additional
requirements including monitoring and consultation. Could you
please provide me with an update on the Corps' efforts to
become compliant with the new mitigation requirements? Has the
Corps begun consulting with State and Federal agencies
regarding the progress of mitigation for each project?
Response. The Corps of Engineers is conducting a gap
analysis on Section 2036(a) requirements; the new Regulatory
Mitigation Rule, which was published in the Federal Register on
April 10, 2008; and applicable Civil Works Planning policies to
identify those areas where the civil works program may need
modification to comply with the mitigation standards and
policies of the regulatory program. Detailed implementation
guidance to correct any deficiencies will be developed based on
the identified gaps. The gap analysis is scheduled to be
completed by May 23, 2008. Implementation guidance will be
developed based on the resulting recommendations and should be
completed by July 31. Any significant issues identified may
result in interim guidance until resolution.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) is the
vehicle by which Federal agencies (USFWS, NMFS) and State
wildlife agencies use to comment on Corps projects. This also
includes mitigation plans. Many USFWS recommendations under the
FWCA concern mitigation needs and goals. Section 2036 requires
a formal consultation process and the Corps is developing
protocols for that process.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you, sir. I will be asking you about
that. We have enjoyed working with you all over there as well.
General.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT VAN ANTWERP, CHIEF OF
ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
General Van Antwerp. Thank you, Madam Chair and
distinguished members of the Committee. It is really an honor
for me to be here before you this morning and testify.
Fiscal year 2007 and the first quarter of 2008 have been
busy and challenging for the Corps. In addition to the subject
of this hearing, in our military programs, our program with
Base Realignment and Closure, Grow the Force and Restation the
Force has had such things as $2 billion, $3 billion at some of
our installations. I think we are seeing a re-facing of our
installations across the Army. So we are privileged to be a
part of that.
Now, in civil works, as we look back, just to take a
glimpse, we have completed 10 navigation projects in 2007. This
particular budget here completes 12 projects in 2009. We
restored over 5,000 acres under ecosystem restoration, dredged
175 channels, 368 million visitor days at our recreation sites,
supported FEMA in response to 10 national disasters and
processed over 87,000 permits.
So as we look forward to the Fiscal Year 2009 budget, it is
a performance-based budget. It reflects the focus on projects
and priorities that provide the highest net economic and
environmental returns and/or addresses significant risks to
human safety. It allocates funding for 79 projects for
construction. It includes 11 dam safety projects, 16 life
safety, and as I said, completes 12 projects in Fiscal Year
2009.
One of the emphases we will have in the Corps this year,
and as this budget in 2009 reflects, is in the cost-engineering
improvement area. We are really working hard to improve our
cost estimates and accuracy of those costs as we go through the
development process. We've stood up an independent review of
cost estimates by a center of expertise in the Walla Walla
District.
Finally, I'd like to say that the Corps is a very
expeditionary force. Today we have over 800 civilians deployed.
We have four districts, three in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.
We have many heroes out there that are doing wonderful things
for the Country.
Then finally, I want to State our commitment to continuous
improvement. We are moving on what we call good to great,
stealing from a great author who wrote the book, Good to Great.
But it is where we want to go as a Corps. That means we have to
deliver quality, we have to continuously improve and
incorporate lessons learned, be good stewards and team with our
cost-sharing partners.
That concludes my statement, and I look forward to taking
questions.
[The prepared statement of Lieutenant General Antwerp
follows:]
Statement of Lieutenant General, Robert Van Antwerp, Chief of
Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Madam Chair and distinguished members of the Committee, I
am honored to be testifying before your committee today, along
with the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the
Honorable John Paul Woodley, Jr., on the President's Fiscal
Year 2009 (FY09) Budget for the United States Army Corps of
Engineers' Civil Works Program.
My statement covers the following 4 topics:
Summary of fiscal year Program Budget,
Construction Program
Cost Engineering Improvements, and,
Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation's Economy,
and to the Nation's Defense
summary of fiscal year program budget
Introduction
The Fiscal Year 2009 Civil Works Budget is a performance-
based budget, which reflects a focus on the projects and
activities that provide the highest net economic and
environmental returns on the Nation's investment or address
significant risk to human safety. Direct Program funding totals
$5.242 billion, consisting of discretionary funding of $4.741
billion and mandatory funding of $501 million. The Reimbursed
Program funding is projected to involve an additional $2
billion to $3 billion. In addition, the Budget requests $5.761
billion of emergency funding for continuing efforts to improve
storm protection for the greater New Orleans area.
Direct Program
The Budget reflects the Administration's commitment to
continued sound development and management of the nation's
water and related land resources. It proposes to give the Corps
program managers more flexibility to properly maintain our key
facilities. The Budget incorporates objective performance-based
metrics for the construction program, funds the continued
operation of commercial navigation and other water resource
infrastructure, provides significant funding for the regulatory
program to protect the Nation's waters and wetlands, and
supports restoration of nationally and regionally significant
aquatic ecosystems, with emphasis on the Florida Everglades and
the Upper Mississippi River. It also would improve the quality
of recreation services through an expanded fee structure and
stronger partnerships, in support of modernization.
Additionally, it emphasizes the basic need to fund emergency
preparedness activities for the Corps as part of the regular
budget process.
Reimbursed Program
Through the Interagency and Intergovernmental Services
Program we help non-DOD Federal agencies, state, local, and
tribal governments, and other countries with timely, cost-
effective implementation of their programs. Rather than develop
their own internal workforce to oversee large design and
construction projects, these agencies rely on Corps of
Engineers capabilities. Such intergovernmental cooperation is
effective for agencies and the taxpayer by using the skills and
talents that we bring to our Civil Works and Military Program
missions. The work is principally technical oversight and
management of engineering, environmental, and construction
contracts performed by private sector firms, and is totally
financed by the Agencies we service.
Currently, we provide reimbursable support for about 70
other Federal agencies and several State and local governments.
Total reimbursement for such work in fiscal year is projected
to be $2.0 billion to $3.0 billion. The exact amount will
depend on assignments received from the Agencies.
construction program
The goal of the construction program is to produce as much
value as possible for the Nation from available funds. Our
Fiscal Year 2009 Budget of $1.478 billion (including $76
million under the Mississippi River and Tributaries program)
furthers this objective by giving priority to the continued
construction and completion of those water resources projects
that will provide the best net returns on the nation's
investment for each dollar invested (Federal plus non-Federal)
in the Corps primary mission areas. The Budget also gives
priority to projects that address a significant risk to human
safety, notwithstanding their economic performance. Under these
guidelines, the Corps allocated funding to 79 construction
projects, including 11 other dam safety assurance, seepage
control, and static instability correction projects, 16
projects that address a significant risk to human safety, and
52 other projects.
The Budget uses objective performance measures to establish
priorities among projects and, through a proposed statutory
change in Corps contracting practices, would also increase
control over future costs. The performance measures used
include the benefit-to-cost ratios for projects with economic
outputs; and, for aquatic ecosystem restoration projects, the
extent to which the project cost-effectively contributes to the
restoration of a nationally or regionally significant aquatic
ecosystem that has become degraded as a result of a Civil Works
project or to an aquatic ecosystem restoration effort for which
the Corps is otherwise uniquely well-suited. The selection
process also gives priority to dam safety assurance, seepage
control, static instability correction, and to projects that
address a significant risk to human safety. Under each of these
criterions, resources are allocated based on performance. This
approach significantly improves the realization of benefits to
the Nation from the Civil Works construction program and will
improve overall program performance by allowing the Nation to
realize the benefits of the projects with the best net returns
(per dollar invested) sooner.
Maintenance Program
The facilities owned and operated by, or on behalf of, the
Corps of Engineers are aging. As stewards of this
infrastructure, we are working to ensure that its key features
continue to provide an appropriate level of service to the
Nation. Sustaining such service poses a technical challenge in
some cases, and proper maintenance is becoming more expensive
as this infrastructure ages.
The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) program for the fiscal
year Budget includes $2.638 billion (including $163 million
under the Mississippi River and Tributaries program), with a
focus on the maintenance of key commercial navigation, flood
and storm damage reduction, hydropower, and other facilities.
Specifically, the operation and maintenance program supports
completed works owned or operated by the Corps of Engineers,
including administrative buildings and laboratories. This
program includes, for example, significant funding for our
efforts in the Columbia River Basin and Missouri River Basin to
support the continued operation of Corps of Engineers multi-
purpose projects by meeting the requirements of the Endangered
Species Act. Other work to be accomplished includes dredging,
repair, aquatic plant control, removal of sunken vessels,
monitoring of completed coastal projects, and operation of
structures and other facilities, as authorized in the various
River and Harbor, Flood Control, and Water Resources
Development Acts.
cost engineering improvements
The Corps has implemented some cost engineering
improvements in an effort to ensure the development of quality
project estimates in support of our Civil Works customers and
partners for the successful accomplishment of projects. Three
initiatives have been implemented that will provide more
reliable project recommendations at the feasibility phase of
the project by developing project cost contingencies using a
standard cost risk analysis program. Cost risk analysis is the
process of identifying and measuring the cost impact of project
uncertainties and risks on the estimated total project cost.
The first initiative mandates that the National Planning
Centers of Expertise coordinate with the Cost Engineering
Directory of Expertise at the Walla Walla District for
independent review of cost estimates, and include contingencies
in all decision documents requiring congressional
authorization. This approach will provide consistency in
business practices and in the use of cost engineering tools.
The second initiative, which went in effect on October 1,
2007, requires that Corps project delivery teams conduct a cost
risk analysis to develop contingencies for Civil Works total
project cost estimates of all decision documents requiring
congressional authorization for projects exceeding $40 million.
The third initiative requires that project managers and
their project delivery teams use project risk management
principles and methods in developing a project risk management
plan that includes a risk assessment and analysis and a risk
response plan to support the cost risk analysis. Together the
project risk management plan along with the cost risk analysis
will produce a defensible assessment of the Civil Works total
project cost estimate. This gives the management team an
effective tool to assist in managing the planning study and
will assist decisionmakers in making project recommendations.
The Corps will be incorporating lessons learned into its
cost estimating practices on an ongoing basis. Our goal is to
improve the accuracy of our cost estimates much earlier in the
development of a proposed project--at the project formulation
stage--in order to provide greater assurance in determining
whether the alternatives that we are exploring are highly cost-
effective.
value of the civil works program to the nation's
economy and defense
We are privileged to be part of an organization that
directly supports the President's priorities of winning the
global war on terror, securing the homeland and contributing to
the economy.
The National Welfare
The way in which we manage our water resources can improve
the quality of our citizens' lives. It has affected where and
how people live and influenced the development of this country.
The country today seeks economic development as well as the
protection of environmental values.
Domestically, Corps of Engineers personnel from across the
Nation continue to respond to the call to help re-construct and
improve the hurricane and storm damage reduction system for
southeast Louisiana. The critical work they are doing will
reduce the risk of damage from future storms to people and
communities.
The Budget also includes a 2009 Emergency Appropriation in
the amount of $5.761 billion for the Federal Share of
additional funds needed to provide risk reduction from
hurricane and storm surges for the greater New Orleans,
Louisiana, area. These funds will be used to restore and
complete construction of hurricane and storm damage risk
reduction features into the Federal System. The Budget also
proposes that the existing systems be authorized as a single,
integrated project, and that cost-shares of this re-authorized
project be made consistent with cost-shares that are applied
nationally.
Research and Development
Civil Works Program research and development provides the
Nation with innovative engineering products, some of which can
have applications in both civil and military infrastructure
spheres. By creating products that improve the efficiency and
competitiveness of the nation's engineering and construction
industry and providing more cost-effective ways to operate and
maintain infrastructure, Civil Works program research and
development contributes to the national economy.
The National Defense
Internationally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues
to support the mission to help Iraq and Afghanistan build
foundations for democracy, freedom and prosperity.
I also want to recognize the many Corps of Engineers
civilians--each of whom is a volunteer--and Soldiers who are
providing engineering expertise, quality construction
management, and program and project management in other
nations. The often unsung efforts of these patriotic men and
women contribute daily toward this nation's goals of restoring
the economy, security and quality of life for all Iraqis and
Afghans.
In Iraq, the Gulf Region Division has overseen the
initiation of more than 4,300 reconstruction projects valued in
excess of $6.5 billion. More than 500 projects valued at $2.6
billion are ongoing. These projects provide employment and hope
for the Iraqi people.
In Afghanistan, the Corps is spearheading a comprehensive
infrastructure program for the Afghan national army, and is
also aiding in important public infrastructure projects.
conclusion
The Corps of Engineers is committed to staying at the
leading edge of service to the Nation. We're committed to
change that ensures an open, transparent, and performance-based
Civil Works Program.
Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. This
concludes my statement.
Response by Robert Van Antwerp to an Additional Question
from Senator Warner
Question. For the Roanoke River Flood Control project, the
Corps had budgeted $5 million in FY' 05 and FY 06. Then $8.3
million in FY 07 and $10.16 million in FY 08. For FY 09, the
Corps only budgeted $1.075 million. Can you assure the
committee that the Roanoke River Flood Control project remains
a viable project for the Corps and does the Corps expect the
project to save property and lives?
Response. Yes, sir. The Roanoke River, Upper Basin,
Virginia project remains an economically viable and
environmentally sound flood damage reduction project that can
potentially save lives and reduce flood damage to properties.
The $1.075 million funding level was the capability level of
funding, or the most that the Corps could efficiently and
effectively spend during FY 09.
Responses by Robert Van Antwerp to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. General Van Antwerp, the Committee has noted
for the last several years that the balance in the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund continues to grow, even as many of our
nation's ports are not operating at authorized depths due to
lack of funding. The American Association of Port Authorities
has estimated that at least $1.3 billion is needed for fiscal
year 2009 for operation and maintenance activities that are
funded through the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Would you
agree with that estimate?
Response. Senator we agree that $1.3 billion is an estimate
of what could be budgeted for these activities, in Fiscal Year
2009 to maintain our coastal navigation projects. The 2009
Budget effectively balanced the Corps' diverse portfolio
ofCorps infrastructure projects, of which coastal navigation
channels are a part.
Question 2. What is the Corps' capability for fiscal year
09?
Response. The Corps' capability for maintenance of coastal
navigation projects in fiscal year could be as high as $1.3
billion, which includes additional dredging, dredged material
placement site construction and maintenance, and jetty,
breakwater and certain bridge maintenance. However, a number of
external factors could reduce this capability estimate
substantially, including natural events, the timing of
appropriations bill passage, etc.
Responses by Robert Van Antwerp to Additional Questions
from Senator Voinovich
Question 1. [Provide] a list of QM and CO backlog projects.
Response. NOTE: Similar question from Rep. Boustany,
Transportation and Infrastructure Hearing on deferred
maintenance and similar questions from Visclosky QFR #60 on O&M
backlog and similar answer.
The Construction and O&M Backlog Tables are attached;
however, this backlog listing of projects does not represent a
prioritization of work either within the O&M account or among
different accounts in the Corps. For instance, some of this
backlog is relatively high priority whereas other work may be a
lower priority relative to funding needs in other Corps areas.
Question 2. [What is] the total that the Corps has spent on
Katrina related projects. What would be the Corps objectives
for working to decrease this backlog of projects?
Response. Sir, the Corps has expended $2.7 billion on
Katrina related projects. With the fiscal year Budget of $5.761
billion in emergency appropriations the goal is to have100-year
protection by the end of 2011. Some features that dentate 100-
year protection are scheduled to complete after 2011, including
permanent pumps at the three outfall canals and features of the
Southeast Louisiana interior drainage project. The work in
Mississippi has been completed, other than administrative legal
processes which could take a number of years due to the appeals
process.
Question 3. How much money is in the Hub or Maintenance
Trust Fund?
Response. The balance in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
as of January 31, 2008 (latest report available from Treasury)
is $4.349 billion.
Question 4. How much money has the Corps allocated to the
Great Lakes in the fiscal year budget for dredging and what are
the Corps capabilities for these dredging projects?
Response. The table below lists the estimated Great Lakes
Dredging in the fiscal year President's Budget and our
capability by project. Please note that the amounts represent
an illustrative distribution of funding that may change and
should not be considered to be budget estimates. The total,
illustrative, estimated funding for Great Lakes dredging in the
Budget is $36,075,000, and the capability is $62,211,000 for
all channels and harbors, regardless of size or commercial
tonnage.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Robert Van Antwerp to Additional Questions
from Senator Vitter
Question 1. In 2007, the Corps of Engineers released a
technical report on the alternatives for the outfall canals and
pumping stations near Lake Pontchartrain. This technical report
was required by section 4303 of the P.L. 110-28. This report
discusses an option 280 to pump to the river, and provides
discharges directly to the Mississippi River in Jefferson
parish. Please further describe the advantages and operational
effectiveness of option 2a.
Response. It should be noted that the option to discharge
directly to the Mississippi River in Jefferson Parish was not
considered as a stand-alone solution because it does not
satisfy the purpose of the project, which is to provide
hurricane storm surge protection for the three outfall canals
(17th Street, Orleans Avenue, and London Avenue), while not
impeding evacuation of storm water. Therefore, the advantages
and disadvantages and operational effectiveness of the option
to discharge directly to the Mississippi River in Jefferson
Parish were considered in addition to those of Option 2. The
additional advantages and operational effectiveness for this
option are listed below.
Increases interior drainage capacity and reduces local
flooding. The area of Jefferson Parish served by this diversion
would have supplemental or redundant drainage capacity (local).
It would also allow that area of Jefferson Parish to be less
dependent on Orleans Parish drainage operations and from any
dependence upon conditions in the 17th Street Canal.
Reduces the required flow in 17th Street''Canal, which
reduces the required canal size for Option 2 and the size of
the pump station at Lake Pontchartrain for either Option 1 or
Option 2 if constructed prior to a new pump station at or near
the lakefront on 17th Street Canal.
Provides potential for better floodplain management
capability by subdividing the basin and providing operational
flexibility between sub-basins. If an interconnection link
between the 17th Street system and the new Jefferson Parish
system is provided it would provide operational flexibility for
both systems. Operational reliability and flexibility is
increased because this diversion would allow for cross-parish
pumping during emergencies in either Jefferson or Orleans
Parish.
Provides a mechanism for by-passing some of the;,lt7th
Street Canal flow during construction of the deeper canal
sections associated with Option 2. If this option were in place
prior to construction of Option 2, then there would be
additional flexibility to redirect flows during construction.
However discharging interior drainage from Jefferson
Parish to the Mississippi River is approximately three times as
expensive as discharging the same amount of volume of water
through the 17th Street Canal to Lake Pontchartrain.
Question 2. Would combining option 2a with one of the
technical options (in the report) provide the best technical
alternative that would provide the most comprehensive flood
control measures for Jefferson Parish compared to any of the
other technical options (in the report) being utilized by
itself?
Response. The studies associated with this project have not
considered ``the most comprehensive flood control measures for
Jefferson Parish'', Alternative analysis has been more closely
focused on the development of features for the Hurricane and
Storm Damage Risk Reduction System for protection of the three
outfall canals. The information generated and the conceptual
studies performed to date cannot be extrapolated to determine
the most comprehensive flood control measures for Jefferson
Parish.
Question 3. While the technical report evaluated option 2a
only with option 2t the report also noted that 2a could be
linked to option I as well since it may provide additional
operational flexibility to option I. Therefore which of the
technical options when combined with option 2a would provide
the best technical option when combined. Which combination of
option 2a with another technical option would be the best
technically advantageous and more operationally effective
option when combined?
Response. Option 2a when combined with any of Option It
Option 2, or Option 3t does not change the preliminary
evaluation described in the Report to Congress for P.L. 110-28,
Chapter 3, SEC 4303:
Options I and 2 appear more technically advantageous over
Option 3 because they are more effective in reducing risk of
flooding. Option 3 results in a much longer line of protection
against hurricane storm surge and therefore has more exposure
to hurricane storm surge and a higher risk of overtopping.
Option I could be more advantageous considering the
engineering challenges and construction complexity of Option 2.
Option 2 is generally more technically advantageous
overall and may be more operationally effective than Option 1
because it would have fewer pump stations that offers greater
reliability and further reduces risk of flooding.
Some of the reported advantages of Option 2A are associated
with a smaller deepened canal; however with the construction
issues associated with Option 2 those advantages would not be
applicable to other options that did not include a deepened
canal. Therefore advantages of reduced canal size associated
with Option 2a would only be realized in combination with
Option 2.
However it must be also acknowledged that there are also
disadvantages to Option 2. Namely that discharging interior
drainage from Jefferson Parish to the Mississippi River is
approximately two and one half times as expensive as
discharging the same amount of volume of water through the 17th
Street Canal to Lake Pontchartrain.
Question 4. I understand the Corps of Engineers is also
working on an economic analysis and an environmental analysis
of the alternatives for the outfall canals and pumping stations
near Lake Pontchartrain. When is the actual date of release of
the upcoming Corps report(s) on the economic analysis and
environmental analysis? Will the report also include the
technical aspects the Corps analyzed as well?
Response. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process, the Corps of Engineers is investigating the
effects of the proposed options on environmental and
socioeconomic resources and preparing an Individual
Environmental Report (IER 5). IER 5 is expected to be released
to the public for comment in Mayor June, 2008. As part of the
evaluation of alternatives, technical components of all
considered alternatives are described in the report. IER 5
references the Report to Congress cited above. A full economic
analysis of the alternatives is not currently being conducted
or planned.
Question 5. After over 15 years since studying had begun,
the Morganza to the Gulf project was finally authorized within
Sec. 1001 of WRDA 2007. When did the Corps of Engineers come to
the opinion that the cost for the Morganza to the Gulf project
would exceed 20 percent of the number supplied to Congress in
the context of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007
conference?
Response. It was in late 2007 that the Corps came to the
opinion that the cost of the Morganza to the Gulf project would
exceed 20 percent of the cost authorized in WRDA 2007. After
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, new hydraulic designs were
developed using the updated surge models. With our focus being
on determining new post Hurricane Katrina IOO-year elevations
for New Orleans and vicinity, this analysis for Morganza to the
Gulf region was not completed until late 2007. The analysis
showed that the elevation of the levees and structures would
need to increase by 8-12 feet to provide a IOO-year level of
protection. This represents an increase of approximately 70
percent over the elevations used to develop the cost estimates
included in the feasibility study. Significant revisions were
also made to the design criteria as a result of lessons learned
during Hurricane Katrina. Revisions to the design criteria were
not complete until late 2007.
Question 6. During the hearing, Assistant Secretary Woodley
said he did not believe the Corps of Engineers had a new cost
estimate for the Morganza project, yet the Corps of Engineers
has been holding up work moving forward on this project. How
could the Corps of Engineers determine the project costs could
exceed 20 percent of the authorized level without a revised
cost estimate? How can the Corps of Engineers hold up work on
the Morganza project when they did not have a new cost estimate
on the Morganza project?
Response. The Corps has not stopped working on the Morganza
to the Gulf project. We are continuing to develop detailed
designs for the Houma Lock and Floodgate Complex and will have
completed 50 percent of the plans and specifications by mid
summer 2008. A new project cost for the Morganza to the Gulf
could not be developed until the new hydraulic data was
available and the design criteria for 100-year protection had
been revised to reflect the updated surge models. A new cost
estimate is currently being developed for the Morganza to the
Gulf project and the scheduled completion date is July 2008. As
a result of the 70 percent increase in the required elevations
of the levees and structures and the changes to the design
criteria, we are confident that the total project cost
authorized in WRDA 2007 will increase by more than 20 percent.
Morganza to the Gulf was authorized in WRDA 2007 but a Record
of Decision (ROD) has not been signed. Given the significant
changes in project costs and benefits, we need to reaffirm that
tMe project remains economically justified before we would
proceed further with the project. Also, as a result of new
hydraulics and revised design criteria, the potential
environmental impacts associated with the project have changed
significantly. A revised programmatic EIS documenting the new
project footprint and revised environmental impacts will be
needed before the ROD can be signed. The increased project cost
will require congressional re-authorization but that would only
be needed prior to exceeding the authorized cost. A post
authorization change (PAC) report, scheduled for completion in
the summer of 2009, will be prepared to support re-
authorization. Assuming that the project remains justified and
with updated environmental information completed in the summer
of 2009, the Corps could sign the ROD.
Question 6. Instead of holding up the entire project, how
could the Corps of Engineers move forward with aspects of the
project which are ready to go, like the Houma Lock?
Response. Since the Houma Lock is not a separable element
of the Morganza to the Gulf project, the economics of the
project will have to be reaffirmed and a revised programmatic
EIS completed, including assessing site specific impacts of the
lock, before we could sign the ROD. Funds will have to be
appropriated for construction of the project before we could
move forward to construction.
Question 7. Why has the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) work been halted with regards to the Houma Lock? Please
supply citations for the law that backed such decisionmaking,
the names of those who made such a determination, dates and any
written communication (internal and external) that discussed
and/or instructed the EIS work to be stopped.
Response. We have not stopped working on the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the Houma Lock and Floodgate
Complex. As discussed above, a revised programmatic EIS will be
prepared to document changed conditions and we are
incorporating all constructible features into this document.
Completion of the revised programmatic EIS is currently
scheduled for the summer of 2009. Once the revised programmatic
EIS has been completed and the ROD has been signed, all
environmental clearances will in place to begin construction
oft? Houma Lock and Floodgate Complex.
Question 8. What solutions can the Corps of Engineers
suggest that would still allow flexibility for the Corps by
placing projects under one umbrella, but not increase the
historic nonFederal cost share for either of the Lake
Pontchartrain and Vicinity (LPV) project nor the Southeast
Louisiana (SELA), so that it does not place an undue financial
burden on Louisiana that is still struggling with hurricane
recovery efforts?
Response. A system authorization proposed by the
Administration for Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (LPV), West
Bank and Vicinity and Southeast Louisiana (SELA) would allow
greater flexibility to adjust to changes in conditions;
environmental factors; technical situations; the market; and
the movement of funds already appropriated by Congress to
project features or contracts that require additional funding.
While working within the overall appropriations provided, a
system authorization would facilitate programmatic management
and optimum use of resources to design and construct a
comprehensive, quality system and advance schedules to meet the
operational goal of completing the system in the June 2011
timeline. We will implement the project in accordance with cost
sharing policy.
Question 9. How many cubic yards of clay material will be
needed to complete projects in the Hurricane Protection System?
Do you anticipate finding and transporting enough clay material
of appropriate quality to complete projects within the 2011
time frame? If not, what?
Response. The Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction
System (HSDRRS) requires over 100 million cubic yards of borrow
material, approximately 20 Superdomes worth, to build 350 miles
of earthen levees throughout five parishes.
The Corps is pursuing three alternatives to acquire borrow
material: ``Government Furnished,'' which means the Corps
identifies the borrow source location, investigates and
approves the borrow material as suitable for use and acquires
real eState interests over the land through the non-Federal
sponsor; ``Contractor Furnished,'' which requires a
construction contractor to provide their own borrow material
from an approved site; and ``Supply Contracts'', under which
supply contractors bid for task orders for the supply of borrow
material for HSDRRS projects. A recently issued Sources Sought
Inquiry yielded approximately 60 responses and identified
potential suppliers with the capacity to deliver large
quantities of clay for construction of HSDRRS projects.
Applying this three pronged approach to the acquisition of
borrow, and working in collaboration with the non-Federal
sponsor, the Corps remains confident that the required
quantities and delivery schedules can be met.
Responses by Robert Van Antwerp to Additional Questions
from Senator Lieberman
Question 1. Clear, navigable waterways are vital to the
economic health of Connecticut and dredging projects are needed
to maintain access to our ports and New London submarine base.
I am concerned that the President's budget only requests $1
million in 2009 to develop the Long Island Sound Dredged
Materials Management Plan (DMMP). This plan is essential to
ensure that dredged materials are managed in an economically
sound and environmentally responsible manner. Without adequate
resources over the next few years, the DMMP will not be
finished in time to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's
deadline and the New London disposal site will be forced to
close.
The fiscal year President's budget requested $2.8 million
and Congress appropriated $3.5 million in fiscal year for this
work. What is the rational for the signification reduction in
funds in fiscal year 09? What impact will ibis reduction have
on the Army Corps' ability to complete the DMMP on time?
Response. The Project Management Plan for the Regional
Dredged Material Management Plan and Programmatic Environmental
Impact statement for Long Island Sound, October 2007,
identifies a funding need of $4.8 million through fiscal year
09. The fiscal year appropriated amount of $3.525 million plus
the fiscal year President's Budget amount of$1 million compares
favorably ($4.8 million vs. $4.525 million) with the needs of
the project through fiscal year 09. While the $4.525 is
slightly less than the estimated amount through fiscal year 09,
this is not expected to have an adverse impact on the schedule
for completing the DMMP. Given the high defamed and keen
competition for Operation & Maintenance funds, the preliminary.
cost estimate for the DMMP and the early stage of the DMMP
study at the time funds were budgeted for fiscal year 09, the
requested budget amount of $1 million in fiscal year 09 was
considered adequate.
Question 2. I understand that Army Corps is beginning to
look at entire ecosystems, rather than specific projects, when
making assessments. I am concerned however, that environmental
costs and benefits are not readily assessed in most
construction funding decisions. When construction projects were
prioritized in the fiscal year request, how much weighting was
applied to environmental costs or benefits? What was the
rationale for this weighting?
Response. There is no explicit weighting that occurs during
the budget prioritization process. Rather, environmental costs
and benefits are incorporated into the plan formulation and
evaluation process during the course of the feasibility study.
During the pre-construction study process, interactions with
other projects in the system and potential project effects on
the environment are considered when evaluating alternative
solutions to the various water resources problems. The Corps
also considers any ecosystem benefits that a project would
provide. The studies include consideration of the array of
information necessary for compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act and numerous other environmental
statutes. During design, the Corps continues to consider
changed conditions and revise its cost estimates to incorporate
current data. The costs of avoidance, minimization and
mitigation of potential negative affects on the project and the
costs of positive environmental features are included in the
total project cost. These costs are part of the benefit/cost
ratios which are one of several factors considered in making
recommendations for funding. For flood damage reduction and
navigation studies, another factor used in determining funding
priorities was whether the project also produced ecosystem
benefits and was a part of a more comprehensive watershed plan.
Question 3. The fiscal year request for Operations and
Maintenance was broken down into 21 watersheds. The fiscal year
request allocates O&M funding by 54 sub watershed systems. What
was the rationale or this change? What process was used to
break down the 21 watersheds into 54 sub-watershed systems? For
example, the U.S. Geological Survey identifies 10 specific
subregions in the New England watershed, but the Army Corps
budget is divided into a Northern New England subregion and a
Southern New England subregion.
Response. For Operation and Maintenance (O&M), the fiscal
year and 2008 budgets proposed allocations on a regional basis,
allocating funding by 21 watersheds identified by the U.S.
Geological Survey's watershed and sub-watershed identification
system.
The fiscal year Budget proposes to allocate O&M funding on
a more refined systems basis, still based on the USGS watershed
and sub-watershed identification system. In order to more
clearly identify the systems among which funding is allocated,
the Budget proposes to allocate funding among 54 systems. These
54 systems more closely align with how projects are managed in
the watersheds.
Funding operation and maintenance using this framework will
increase efficiency in the O&M ofCivil Works projects. Managers
in the field are encouraged to think systematically when
assessing risks and establishing maintenance priorities early
in the budget process. Also, they will be better able to adapt
to uncertainties and better able to address emergencies, as
well as other changed conditions over the course of the fiscal
year, while remaining consistent with congressional
appropriations decisions.
Question 4. The Army Corps has recently revised the
standards by which levees are considered safe, but has not
provided local governments with the resources needed to meet
these new requirements. This has presented a financial hardship
for the local communities responsible for maintaining the
levees and the homeowners needing flood insurance. For example
the East Hartford levee in Connecticut historically met all of
the requirements from the Army Corps but was deemed deficient
under the new criteria. The local community had to pass a bond
measure to finance work that was previously not required. Why
has the Army Corps not provided greater financial assistance to
local communities responding to these more stringent
requirements? What is the Army Corps doing to help local
communities bring their levees back into compliance?
Response. In light of the problems experienced during
Hurricane Katrina the Corps is more actively enforcing the
requirements of levee maintenance. These requirements are
consistent with the original Operation and Maintenance Manuals
provided communities at completion of Federal projects with the
exception of more stringent vegetation removal requirements.
Strict enforcement of levee maintenance requirements is
necessary to ensure projects provide the designed level of
protection and minimize the risk to public safety. The
operation and maintenance is a local responsibility under the
original project cooperation agreement. The Corps will continue
to inspect levee projects to identify maintenance deficiencies
and work with owners to correct these deficiencies in a timely
manner.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
I will start off, I think we will each take 5 minutes.
Let me say, I want to talk about Corps reform. And I
understood, Mr. Woodley, that you were sort of saying not
enough time, not enough time. Well, the law was enacted in
November. The conference report was filed in August. And the
Corps has now had over 7 months to know what the new
requirements would look like. And two of the most significant
of the programmatic changes, independent review and
improvements in the mitigation program, became effective upon
enactment and certainly were not surprise.
So has implementing guidance been issued?
Mr. Woodley. Senator, we already have a great deal of
guidance in place covering independent review.----
Senator Boxer. No, since the law, has new guidance been
issued since the law was passed?
Mr. Woodley. I don't believe we have yet issued our new
guidance for peer review. But I know that we are certainly
working very hard to do so.----
Senator Boxer. OK, how many project studies have been
modified to reflect the new requirements?
Mr. Woodley. However many are required to be modified.
Senator Boxer. Well, how many have already been modified?
Mr. Woodley. I don't know, but----
Senator Boxer. Do you have staff who could tell you how
many? Any staff there that knows that, or sir, do you know
that, Lieutenant General, how many project studies have been
modified to reflect the new requirements of Corps reform,
independent review and the mitigation program?
General Van Antwerp. We will get you the number, but we are
doing independent review on all our projects. We have
thresholds, because we have our internal review and we have
external review. But we are doing peer review on all of our
projects today. We can get you the number and those specific
projects. But we have incorporated that in.
Senator Boxer. I understand. But my understanding from my
staff, which Mr. Woodley praised and praised by both sides, is
that it is not in conformance with the new law. Section 2036(b)
of WRDA 2007 requires that a status report on mitigation be
submitted concurrent with the submission of the budget request.
Has that status report been submitted, sir? Sirs?
Mr. Woodley. I don't believe so.
Senator Boxer. OK. When will it be submitted? You are in
violation of a law here.
Mr. Woodley. I am sure we will get in compliance with it as
soon as we possibly can.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, let me just say to colleagues,
whether you like the law or you don't like the law, you have to
follow the law. Or we are just a lawless society here. Now,
Senator Feingold worked very hard on Corps reform. He wanted to
take it way further than a lot of us were willing to go.
Senator Inhofe and I worked very closely together to get to
some place where we could all live with it. And you are not
even doing that.
So Section 2034 of WRDA 2007 requires independent review of
projects meeting certain criteria, it includes a look-back to
studies initiated up to 2 years ago. As far as I know, you
haven't initiated any of these.
Mr. Woodley. Senator, we have initiated that in every case,
every single activity underway has been, is----
Senator Boxer. So every----
Mr. Woodley [continuing].--actively under review to
determine its----
Senator Boxer. But it is under your old guidance, not under
the new guidance in the new law, is my understanding.
Mr. Woodley. Well, it is being scrubbed, there is no new
guidance, but we are operating under the law.
Senator Boxer. Well, there is new guidance, it is called
the law.
Mr. Woodley. There is new guidance----
Senator Boxer. Did you, when you----
Mr. Woodley [continuing].--it is called the law. That is
exactly right.
Senator Boxer [continuing].--handed in your budget request,
did you or did you not follow the law, which says, a status
report on mitigation be submitted concurrent with the
submission of the budget request? And you didn't do that.
Mr. Woodley. I don't think we were able to get that done.
Senator Boxer. Right. That is my point. Do you have the
resources in the budget to accomplish the independent review
and everything else you have to do under the new law?
Mr. Woodley. Well, we certainly have included additional
funding in the investigations account to cover the independent
review for any project that didn't otherwise have it, and then
that is an additional million dollar allocation that we got in
the investigations account. As you know, that account has not
been increased in our budget request for many years.
Senator Boxer. Section 2031 of WRDA 2007 requires a
revision of the planning principles and guidelines which the
Corps uses to develop project recommendations. Where does that
stand in the process? Where are you in that process?
Mr. Woodley. I have created an interagency team to begin
that process. I am preparing the schedule on that, and we are
moving very aggressively to complete that.
Senator Boxer. OK, well, if I could just close here,
because my time is up and I will come back later, you are
working off of the old, as I understand it, pre-Katrina rules
in terms of independent review. And that is a problem. Because
after Katrina, we all moved in a different direction here. So I
am just a little bit befuddled by the lack of response, I am a
little concerned about it. So I hope we can meet with you
perhaps after this hearing is over, maybe you do need more
resources and maybe you can't tell us. Maybe Senator Voinovich
is right, that you just don't have enough to do the job you are
supposed to do.
But you didn't do what you were supposed to do in your
budget request and it is disturbing to me. I will withhold my
other questions until my second round.
Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Woodley, in my discussions and my staff's
discussions with the staff at the Corps, as we were working
toward this year, it was my understanding that staff
recommendations were to include the Savannah expansion project,
and it did not end up getting in the budget. Where was the
decision made to not do Savannah in Fiscal Year 2009?
Mr. Woodley. The decision was not a peculiar one to
Savannah. The decision was to establish the criteria on which
we would base our budgeting decisions, and Savannah did not
meet one or more of those criteria. I believe there is still
NEPA work underway that needs to be completed before we can
proceed with Savannah. But I would have to be brought up to
speed on that to be exactly sure what it is.
Senator Isakson. General Van Antwerp is nodding his head.
Is that correct?
General Van Antwerp. I think I can add. We have funded this
to the capability which is $700,000. It is to complete the
Record of Decision which is scheduled for June 2009, completion
of that Record of Decision.
Senator Isakson. So if you would, Secretary Woodley or
General Van Antwerp, whichever one is appropriate, if you could
send me a communication to my office to let me know what
criteria it is that Savannah needs to be able to be included in
the next budget, which will be Fiscal Year 2010, I would
greatly appreciate those points of criteria.
I understand the inclusion of the completion of the Oakland
Harbor in California. We in Georgia benefited from the Corps'
commitment to complete Brunswick years ago. So I understand
that. But I am equally very desirous of getting the Savannah
enhancement project started, so that when the Panama Canal
project is completed, we can remain the second largest port on
the Eastern Seaboard, and I don't think anybody else can really
take our place capacity-wise, anyway. So it is essentially in
the best interest of the United States to do that.
Secretary Woodley, with regard to the ACT and the ACF and
the water control manuals that the Corps has committed to
complete, is the money sufficient in this budget to do that
process?
Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
Senator Isakson. On both of them?
Mr. Woodley. I believe so, yes, sir.
Senator Isakson. OK. Check, because if I believe so means
maybe----
Mr. Woodley. No, no. No, sir, I am not in doubt. That
activity, we regard that as a very high priority activity
within the operation and maintenance of those facilities on
those two waterways or watersheds. Although I would have to
look at the schedule, I don't know that we are budgeting in
2009 to complete that process. However, we are budgeting fully
to continue all activities associated with that process. I
believe it is not able to be brought to full completion in
2009, but that we are certainly fully funding our activity,
because I agree with you and have long advocated the updating
of those manuals to allow us to appropriately manage the
Federal responsibilities on both of those watersheds.
Senator Isakson. My understanding, I think you are correct,
my understanding, and you all can correct me, is that this is
really a 2-year project. My question obviously is, is there
sufficient money to do this year's Fiscal Year 2009 in the,
what should be, I guess there is enough money in the current
2008 to begin the project and in 2009 to continue the project,
and if necessary in 2010, there would need to be money to
complete the project. So it is a 2-year project, 18 to 24
months. It is also my understanding the Corps has brought in a
person not previously affiliated with all this to oversee both
of these water control plants, is that correct?
Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
General Van Antwerp. That is correct.
Senator Isakson. So some time in the next 2 years, and we
do have the person on board who is going to lead the charge?
General Van Antwerp. Mr. Isakson, if I might just add,
there is a 1.8 in this budget, Fiscal Year 2009, and then that
leaves about 1.9 after 2009. But what is in the budget right
now will take us through so we can be engaged throughout that
time. But it is a two to 3 year process, largely because of the
environmental part.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you
again, gentlemen, for all of your leadership and work.
I want to go right to the three topics I enumerated in my
opening statement. First, the additional funds for the 100 year
level of protection. Again, thanks to the President, thanks to
the Administration for that commitment.
But I am concerned about timing. General, isn't it true
that the original timeframe for that work was to complete it by
2010, but that has now slipped to 2011?
General Van Antwerp. I believe that is true. I know that
the slippage, it is now, we are targeting the 2011 hurricane
season, so the June timeframe.
Senator Vitter. Now, Corps officials beneath you have said
they need this money appropriated by the start of the fiscal
year, October 1st, to stick to that timeframe, is that
accurate?
General Van Antwerp. That is accurate. We have looked at
when we need to award contracts and put those contracts out. We
need a good portion of this money right at the beginning of
Fiscal Year 2009, October-ish.
Senator Vitter. Great. General, do you know the last time
Congress has acted on the Corps appropriation bill in a timely
way by October 1st?
General Van Antwerp. Not in memory, sir.
Senator Vitter. In 1999. Do you know many times Congress
has done that in the last 10 years? Once in the last 10 years.
So given the obvious emergency nature and significance of
this work, why are we asking for it in that model, which
ensures, absolutely ensures, particularly in a Presidential
election year, further slippage?
Mr. Woodley. Perhaps I had better answer that, Senator. I
can tell you that when we submit a budget, we do it on the
assumption that it will be prepared and that there will be an
appropriation by the beginning of our Fiscal Year and we plan
our execution on that basis.
I agree that it is becoming more rare than it ought to be.
Senator Vitter. Mr. Secretary, let me suggest, this goes to
the future of the New Orleans region, the survival of the New
Orleans region. So why are we building assumptions in to our
work that are patently false?
Mr. Woodley. I do not have a good answer for that question,
and I would say that if Congress does not intent to complete
this process within the current Fiscal Year that alternate
provisions should be made in order to ensure that no delays are
experienced on the ground.
Senator Vitter. It is true, is it not, that this is being
requested as emergency spending not under the cap?
Mr. Woodley. That is correct.
Senator Vitter. So for all these reasons, I believe we
should clearly move this to the supplemental, which presumably
will happen sooner. And my second concern under this category
is the cost shares. As you know, components of this work are
being requested by the Administration at a higher cost share to
the State, at a more demanding cost share to the State than
ever before. SELA is normally 75/25 Federal/State. You are
asking 65/35. Lake Pontchartrain vicinity is normally 70/30
Federal/State. You are asking 65/35.
After we have gone through Katrina and Rita, why would you
make the cost share more demanding rather than at least stick
to the historical cost share or even offer some additional
help?
Mr. Woodley. You remember that the cost share applies only
to that portion of the work that is in excess of what had
previously been, prior to Katrina, had been authorized by
Congress. So the vast majority of the work being undertaken is
being undertaken at full Federal expense. I think that is
entirely appropriate and I agree with that.
The issue of cost share being more demanding is really
related to another issue, which is the absolute imperative that
I feel to operate, plan, authorize and manage the construction
and the ongoing operation and maintenance of this set of works
as a single system. The great lesson, if we have a lesson, of
Katrina is that is what was not done. So we had a series of
fragmented works that were done to different standards and that
sort of thing.
Senator Vitter. Mr. Secretary, you can do all that
integration and ask the State for a different number. That has
no impact on the level of integration you bring to the work,
correct? I mean, we are talking about what bill you hand the
State, what number you had the State, one number or a lower
number. That has nothing to do with the integration in terms of
the ongoing work you are talking about. Does it?
Mr. Woodley. It establishes, it seemed to me to establish
that principle on the most firm basis. And certainly you are
exactly right, we are perfectly capable of managing the
accounting in a different way if Congress should so propose.
Senator Vitter. Well, again, these two programs I am
talking about, SELA and Lake Pontchartrain, have been around a
long time. You are asking for a more demanding cost share for
that work than ever before, than the historical share, that
which was re-confirmed in WRDA, than that which was re-
confirmed in the supplemental over the last several years. And
that seems particularly odd, given the extra pressure and
demands that we have gone through because of the hurricanes.
Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
Senator Boxer. Senator Vitter, would you, your time is up,
I would like to engage you in a question, because I don't
understand it, either. It is baffling to me, this 65. Did that
just come out of the blue? We didn't legislate it.
Senator Vitter. Not the blue, OMB.
Senator Boxer. It came out of OMB. But we did not legislate
that change.
Senator Vitter. No, in fact, we legislated the opposite. We
have said several times, in WRDA and before that in the
supplemental, we re-confirmed the historical cost shares which
for one of these projects is 75/25, for another is 70/30. So we
have only not said that, we have said the opposite.
Senator Boxer. Well, OMB is once again wrong. OK.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate
it.
I wanted to get, if I could, back to some of the things I
mentioned in my opening statement, about Cheyenne, Wyoming,
concerns with the water supply there, and trichloroethylene,
which is a chemical that is used to clean engines, rocket and
motor parts, and there is a long history of the people in
Wyoming and their commitment to our military and the missile
systems which are there and in the ground. And the concern is
this plume that people agree is there and folks living there
think is one, related to the missile site and the Department is
saying no, maybe several causes.
Why does the Army Corps think that it is not all one plume?
And I don't know how specifically you are familiar with the
situation.
Mr. Woodley. Senator, I have no responsibility for the
program that is managing that. But fortunately, the Chief of
Engineers does. I believe he is prepared to respond to that.
But that is a formerly used Defense site program, which is
managed as a military program within the Defense Department
structure.
General Van Antwerp. First of all, I would say we are going
to do the right thing here. There is a remedial investigation
going on and there is some difference in the values that were
found in the data from the investigation that was done by the
city of cheyenne and done by the remedial application. We have
to come to grips with that.
We are doing a feasibility study, that is underway. We have
the money for that and we will come to grips with this. I agree
with you, what are the other contributing factors, if there are
contributing factors to it, apart from this plume that we know
came from this remediation site. So we will get to the truth on
that and get that to you.
Senator Barrasso. The concern is, and I appreciate your
comments that you are going to do the right thing, there does
seem to be needless delay in this. I know I wrote to you back
in December with concerns, because there was a letter written
by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality back in
2006, and several months later there was a meeting but not a
formal letter response. I got a letter back from the deputy
director of military programs, Joseph Tyler, dated February
8th. He talks about, he apologizes that there wasn't a response
back to the letter. That is where I think we have needless
delay.
Then he says that there is going to be a joint agency
meeting March 11, 2008, which coincidentally is today. I know
this hearing was initially set for a month ago, and I was going
to at that time ask you, can you assure me that by the hearing,
March 11th, today, that we really do get answers to this. So
this probably will be held after our discussion.
But we are very serious in Wyoming about saying, we are not
used to needless delays. In Wyoming, we like to get things done
right away.
General Van Antwerp . We owe you an answer. I believe that
is being held today. We will get you the results of that. So I
owe you an answer to that.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
[Presiding] Senator Cardin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First let me welcome our witnesses, and I am sorry I
couldn't be here to listen to your entire testimony.
Secretary Woodley, I appreciate your call yesterday in
regard to Chesapeake City. I am glad to see that is moving
forward. I want to just concentrate on the Mid-Bay report that
is due in regards to the next chapter of restoration and
dredging for the Chesapeake Bay. The last time we had a chance
to talk, I was under the impression that it is on schedule. I
just really want to make sure that we can anticipate the report
being delivered on time. We anticipate acting in this Committee
on the next round of authorizations. It is important that we
have that report in a timely manner for our Committee to act.
I just want to take this opportunity, General, or Mr.
Secretary, if you could comment on that and give us assurances
that the report will be timely filed, I will feel a little bit
better.
General Van Antwerp. Sir, we just checked on this last
night, as everyone was engaged here. It is another good thing,
a lot of things happened before the hearing. That is good. But
we are on schedule, it will go before the Civil Works Review
Board in July 2008. And I am expecting the Chief's report by
the end of September, beginning of October.
Senator Cardin. That is even a little bit earlier than I
think you told me the last time.
General Van Antwerp. We are trying to deliver on this.
Senator Cardin. And I thank you, and I thank you for your
cooperation. We have had a good working relationship in trying
to make sure we stay on schedule. I thank you for that.
Madam Chairman, I am going to ask that my full opening
statement be made part of the record.
[Presiding] Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Cardin. It is basically very complimentary of the
work that you all do and the importance to our State from the
western part, on flight control, to the eastern part, on
serious erosion issues and weather problems. The Army Corps has
been extremely helpful in maintaining and help us make sure
that our channels are open for recreation and business use.
Our challenge, quite frankly, is not with the two of you
but with the budgets that have been submitted, as I am sure the
Chairman has pointed out. We are going to do everything we can
to help in that regard. It is a little disappointing to see all
the work that we do, particularly on the Water Resources
Reauthorization Act and on the programs that you all have done
so much work to get ready and then find that the appropriated
dollar amounts make it difficult for you to do the right
investigations or the right construction or maintenance. I can
assure you that we will do everything we can to make sure that
the dollars are available for the good work that you all do.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator from
the State of Maryland
Madame Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today.
Maryland has a geography and topography which makes the
Chesapeake Bay particularly susceptible to the adverse effects
of erosion. This erosion contributes to five millions of cubic
yards of sediment deposited annually into the bay, adversely
affecting water quality, destroying valuable wetlands and
habitat, and clogging navigation channels.
Along our Atlantic coast, powerful winter storms and
tropical cyclones can cause considerable beach erosion--
threatening the economic vitality of our premier Atlantic coast
resort city, Ocean City.
In the mountains of the western part of the State, runoff
from heavy rains contributes to the potential of flooding in
western communities.
Maryland relies heavily upon the Army Corps of Engineers'
civil works programs which are of high value to the health of
our Chesapeake Bay, the configuration of our Atlantic and Bay
coastlines, and to overall health our State's economy. The
Corps of Engineers has projects and provides assistance to
virtually every jurisdiction in the State of Maryland.
The Chesapeake Bay is the nation's largest estuary. The
Corps' oyster and habitat restoration, shoreline protection,
and sediment management programs are integral to our efforts to
restore the Bay. The oysters represent more that just a source
of income for the oysterman who harvest them, they are also
natural biological filters--continually cleaning up the Bay.
The Port of Baltimore is one of the largest ports on the
east coast and a vital engine of economic activity,
contributing $2 billion to the State's economy and employing
18,000 Marylander's directly and tens of thousands more
indirectly.
There are 126 miles of shipping channels leading to the
Port of Baltimore. Maryland also has more than 70 small
navigation projects supported by the Corps around the
Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean. These navigation projects
are critical to commercial and recreational fisherman, to local
and regional commerce and to local economies.
Along Maryland's 31 miles of Atlantic Ocean coastline,
there are two critical Corps projects--a hurricane protection
project at Ocean City, and a mitigation of shoreline erosion
project at Assateague Island National Seashore.
We rely heavily on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
flood protection in communities in Western Maryland and for
water supply.
As you can see, the civil works programs of the Corps have
widespread beneficial impact throughout our state. Indeed
similar impacts can be seen all across the Country. States need
these resources to protect their communities from potential
natural disasters and to improve the overall quality of their
environments.
Unfortunately, the President's proposed budget underfunds
the Corps at a time when there is a significant backlog of
projects to be completed. The budget places an unrealistically
large burden on States to fund these projects (like beach
renourishment). Furthermore, the budget does not even begin to
implement many of the priorities of WRDA passed just last year.
The hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on beach
restoration today may mean saving many times over those amounts
to clean up that beach and provide assistance to property
owner's following a significant storm.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the
priorities of the President with respect to the Corps'
activities.
The Corps' work is critical. We need a level of commitment
that is commensurate with its importance.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. First of all, I want to say thank you,
Mr. Woodley, for your service to our Country, and General,
thank you very much for your service. I am sure that sometimes
you think that ours is not to reason why, ours is just to do or
die. We are asking a lot of things from you and quite frankly,
the money is not there.
I would like to just talk about a couple of things that are
on my mind in terms of Ohio. We have the Cleveland Port
Authority. It is very, very important to the economy of
northeastern Ohio. The President's budget has provided
$6,710,000 for dredging. We need $16,810,000 for the dredging.
This is a very important project, and I am expecting that
somebody is going to figure out how we are going to get that
money to do it, or we will have to close the port.
What bothers me is that there is $4.5 billion in the fund,
the dredging fund that has been set aside. And for some reason,
that is not being used. Well, the reason it is not being used
is that the Administration is using that to balance the budget.
They are borrowing trust funds, like they are Social Security,
to hide the real costs of this budget. In other words, they
just show a deficit of X number of dollars but the fact of the
matter is, they only show the public debt, they don't show the
Government debt. That to me is being, it is unacceptable.
Second of all, we have a little project down in Finley,
Ohio, where they have had the worst flooding that they have
ever had in the city's history. It is a continuing authority
and we need the money to just do the feasibility study for that
project. It is not a whole lot of money. I would like to know
when are we going to be able to get that money so that can be
taken care of for that community, so they get some idea of what
it is they can do to help themselves and to eliminate the
situation they have. We have the public-private partnership
there, we have the businesses that are interested, they may
even come up with some money to fund the most important project
that might make a difference for their community. But we can't
get it done unless we have the feasibility study done and I am
hoping that we are going to figure out how to do that.
I appreciate the fact that you have money in for the
Everglades, that was my legislation, for the CERP,
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. That is moving
along. And I am not from Florida, but the fact is, that is a
very important ecological project, I think one of the most
important in the Country. That gets me back to the Great Lakes.
The President issued an executive order creating the Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration and the Great Lakes Interagency
Task Force. The Corps is a participant in both of those.
The question I have is, can you tell me what actions, if
any, the Corps has taken in response to the release of that
strategy report? So there are three things. Strategy,
feasibility and what are you doing about the Great Lakes?
Mr. Woodley. Let me talk about first of all Finley. I think
we are on track for that. We have money in the 2008, it is a
continuing authorities project, so it is not one that we
individually budget for. We budget for the program. But I
believe that is on track with 2008 funding, and we understand
and agree with you that it is an important priority within that
program.
The Great Lakes, we have participated of course with the
interagency teams on that, we have some very interesting
studies ongoing that are aimed at facilitating the restoration,
including one that is creating a comprehensive tool for people
who are interested in restoration to be able to access on a web
basis, through the Internet, to understand what the options are
and what various programs they can bring to bear on local
issues for restoration within the basin.
The other thing that I think is very interesting and that
is underway in that regard in Ohio is the Ashtabula project
that is, I believe we are going to be able to complete during
this fiscal year. That will return that very important port
facility in Ashtabula to service and deal with the
contamination, the historical contamination of that watershed.
I think that is a remarkable, very substantial achievement that
we have in partnership with our colleagues at EPA.
Senator Voinovich. Although the budget that EPA is asking
for to do that kind of contamination removal is putrid. I
started that dredging and contamination project when I was
Governor of Ohio back in 1995 and earmarked $6 million of State
money. Finally we are getting it done, amen and hallelujah.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Nice to see you smile, sir.
Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. I am sure I will make you smile again.
Mr. Woodley, in your written testimony you mentioned that
the budget for the emergency management program includes $40
million in the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account to
fund preparing for flood and coastal emergencies. Specifically
you mentioned that this funding would cover review and updating
of emergency response plans.
Back in Minnesota, several counties were devastated this
summer. I was there the day afterward, cows floating by, in
last summer's flooding, and still these counties are still
preparing their emergency response plans, they are very
complicated for these small counties to handle. Until some of
these communities, such as the ones in Fulmer County, get their
emergency response plan approved, they cannot receive certain
small business rebuilding loans from FEMA.
Does the Corps intend to prioritize any funds in the Flood
Control and Emergencies account for helping communities who
have not fully prepared emergency response plans?
Mr. Woodley. Senator, I am not aware of how those funds are
used in conjunction with the localities. So I will have to
research that and get back to you.
Senator Klobuchar. OK, if you could. It has just been very
difficult for them, they are trying to cross all the T's and
dot all the I's. But what has been happening is they can't
receive these small business loans. I have been at these stores
and these places along their main street and they literally
have been, every business was devastated. So they are trying to
get help with that, so we can work with your office on that
later. I appreciate it.
The other thing I am just following up on, what Senator
Voinovich asked about with the Great Lakes, could you just tell
me what work the Corps is doing with these lake levels? We are
very concerned with Lake Superior. It is at its lowest level in
80 years. It has been affecting our barge traffic. We believe
it is climate change because the ice has been melting and the
water evaporating. Nevertheless, it is a problem. Could you
illuminate what the Corps is doing in that regard?
Mr. Woodley. I can tell you that our work on that is done
in conjunction with the International Joint Commission on the
Great Lakes. So we deal with the IGC on regulating lake levels
where they are to be regulated.
The other significant action that is underway in that
regard is the St. Clair River study that we are trying to
determine whether the dredging that has been undertaken in the
St. Clair River area is having a hydrological effect that was
unintended there. It is not clear whether it is. So we have
work underway with the IGC to determine that.
But we recognize that the lake levels are down and it is
having an effect on operations across the basin.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
I talked in my opening comments about how I believe the
Administration's budget is far below the Corps' capability for
investment in navigation, flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration programs. I mentioned some of the work that needs
to be done in Minnesota. Assistant Secretary Woodley, what
amount do you believe the Corps could effectively invest in
Fiscal Year 2009?
Mr. Woodley. I don't know that I have a particular figure,
Senator, but it is well in excess, in the construction account,
of the amount that we were able to devote to that in the
President's budget.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Senator.
We are going to start second rounds, 5 minutes each, and
then you will be done. This question is for the General,
actually both these questions, because these are longer term
questions. I talked in my opening statement about Sacramento,
and I am very grateful that you really have been dedicated to
it. I guess what I want to do, since I have you here on the
record, is to just make sure that this dedication is not just
for the budget year, but until the project is done. If you
could expand on that a little.
General Van Antwerp. Absolutely, ma'am, it is long-term.
There are some short-term aspects having to do with looking at
all the levees right now, making sure what the standards are,
getting them up to standard. But it is also a longer term, as
we look at climate change, other things that will be affecting
that. So we are with you for the long term.
Senator Boxer. That is good, because again, just for the
record, this flood plain is home to half a million people, it
contains 165,000 homes, 1,300 government facilities, including
our State capital of the largest State in the Union, and
businesses providing 200,000 jobs. So this is, I mean, I could
argue cost benefit ratios about a lot of places but this is
open and shut, as far as it goes. Then to think that the
predictions were worse for that area than for Louisiana, I
mean, it really gets me going, gets me concerned.
I will be working very closely with you throughout. I am
going to go back up there and take a look-see myself. But I
just would hope that we would have some transparency here if
there are any problems, if you see problems on the horizon,
because we know it is going to be very expensive. But the cost
of doing nothing, in terms of lives and property damage and the
rest of it, is just really almost untold.
Then the other question I had revolves around the Napa
River flood control project. I understand the budget has $7.39
million in it. But my understanding is the capability, meaning
the project, could take up to $22.8 million. So I want to
confirm that is accurate.
General Van Antwerp. Ma'am, I am actually showing
capability of $24.6 million. And you are correct on the 2009
budget.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, I hope we can work together. If we
are fortunate enough and Congress does move and does restore
funding, and I think Congress will, this budget may pass by, I
don't know if it will or won't. We have Presidential, we have
some illnesses, et cetera. But if this budget does pass, we
will have a big restoration of dollars in the budget itself,
and then of course in appropriations we will work as well.
So would you be open to looking at that project, since it
is capable of $24.6 million, if you do have more resources, can
we talk about that?
General Van Antwerp. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Boxer. OK. Those were my two issues, and I would
ask Senator Vitter if he would like a second round.
Senator Vitter. Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Morganza to the Gulf, as I said in the opening statement,
it is an enormous frustration to me and everybody who cares
about this project in Louisiana. It appears that the Corps is
determined not to do this project, no matter what Congress
does. Why do I say that? It is because the Corps first started
looking at this, was directed to in 1992. The project was
authorized in WRDA 2000, pending a chief's report by a certain
date, and the Corps missed the deadline. The project is
authorized again fully in WRDA 2007. And a month after WRDA
2007 passes, the Corps says, no, nothing doing, because we
think project costs will exceed 20 percent of the authorized
level, everything is on hold.
That appears to us as complete bad faith and complete
determination to not do this work, no matter what Congress
says. What is the status of Morganza to the Gulf right now, Mr.
Secretary?
Mr. Woodley. Right now the project is authorized, based on
a feasibility study that is several years old. I think it is
entirely prudent that we predetermine, because of the dramatic
events that have taken place, and the dramatic changes that
have taken place in the cost of construction in that part of
the world, that go, that we move aggressively and quickly to
determine an up to date cost estimate for the project and
advise you of that cost estimate at the earliest possible date.
Senator Vitter. When was it determined by the Corps that
you think project costs will exceed 20 percent of authorized
level?
Mr. Woodley. I don't know exactly when that particular
determination was made. I do know that it has been apparent for
some time that the feasibility study completed in 2002 had been
overtaken by events.
Senator Vitter. Why isn't the Corps doing what happens all
the time in big projects when there are new, open questions,
that you move forward with certain work and you continue to
refine and answer those open questions? That is done all the
time in big projects, but not here. We are just calling a halt
to any progress here.
Mr. Woodley. I believe that the rules under which we
operate call for us, when a project has, when it is apparent
that a project is going to go very substantially over its
authorized level, that we return to the authorizing committee
for further instructions.
Senator Vitter. Well, let me go back to that time line.
Because we passed WRDA in November 2007. Then on December 13th,
1 month later, the chief of engineers' office informs the local
sponsor that they expect the costs to go over 20 percent of
authorized levels. Why didn't you say boo to us when we are
putting the number in WRDA, rather than wait a couple weeks
after WRDA passes and say essentially, gotcha? You think you
have an authorization? You don't. Why isn't that clear evidence
of basically bad faith, a determination to not do this project
on your part?
Mr. Woodley. We have made no, by no means have we made a
determination not to do the project.
Senator Vitter. You made a determination not to do any work
in the foreseeable future, even though we just passed the
authorization.
Mr. Woodley. We made a determination, I believe, to update
the cost estimate and to advise the Congress of the fact that
the authorized cost estimate is probably inadequate to complete
the project.
Senator Vitter. Do you have a new cost estimate?
Mr. Woodley. As of today, I don't believe that we do.
Senator Vitter. So you don't know that it is over 20
percent of the authorized level?
Mr. Woodley. It would astonish me if it were not.
Senator Vitter. OK, but you don't have a new cost estimate?
Mr. Woodley. I don't believe we do.
Senator Vitter. So why can't we move forward with aspects
of the project which are ready to go, like the Houma Locks?
Mr. Woodley. I would say that, if that lock is a separable
element that can be separately justified, that we can proceed
with preliminary work like the preconstruction engineering and
design with respect to that.
Senator Vitter. Let me move quickly to another big topic
that I mentioned, which is the outfall canals. When will the
final report be given to Congress regarding the preferred
solution to the outfall canal issue?
Mr. Woodley. Let me ask the Chief if he could address the
operational aspects on that.
General Van Antwerp. We are looking at all alternatives for
that, sir. One of the things that we are looking at very
closely is, should we remove the existing stations, as you have
seen, and we have all seen down there. We are proceeding with,
we want to go design-build for this. And I think that, I don't
know, Don, would you have a date when we might be complete with
the report?
Speaker. No, sir, the design-build contractor will give
us----
Senator Vitter. I believe there has been a technical
report, we have that.
General Van Antwerp. Right, that is correct.
Senator Vitter. I believe there is a cost economic report
due, and I thought it was very soon. Is there not a tentative
date for that report?
General Van Antwerp. We don't have a date for that report.
Let me get that to you. But what we are going to do with the
design-build, then we will get, as that designer and builder
comes on, we are going to get accurate cost data.
Senator Vitter. Madam Chair, can I just follow up on this
one topic?
Senator Boxer. One more minute.
Senator Vitter. Will that cost economic report include a
specific recommendation in terms of one of the four options, 1,
2, 2(a) or 3?
General Van Antwerp. Yes, sir.
Senator Vitter. That decision has not been made yet?
General Van Antwerp. No, it has not, to my knowledge.
Senator Vitter. OK. If that decision has not been made, why
is the cost of one particular option build into the budget
submission? That is the fact. You have submitted a budget. That
budget assumes a cost for this work. That is the cost of one of
those four options, not all of them, one of them. So it seems
to us that everything has been pre-judged. Why am I wrong in
coming to that conclusion?
General Van Antwerp. I will have to dig deeper into that. I
can't answer that question.
Senator Vitter. Finally, Mr. Secretary and General, I would
just point out that the technical report, I think, gives clear
evidence that option 2, including the possibility of 2(a), is
superior in terms of the top goal, flood protection. It says,
option 2 is generally more technically advantageous and may be
more effective operationally over option 1, because it would
have greater reliability and further reduces risk of flooding.
I think it is very clear that option 2 is more robust and
reduces the risk of flooding much more than option 1. The
problem is, even though you say a decision has not been made,
the funding level is the funding level of option 1. That
obviously causes us great concern that things are being pre-
judged by folks like OMB, being driven by cost over
engineering.
Senator Boxer. Senator, I think you have made your point
here. I think it would be very important for the Corps to
explain themselves, because if you are saying a decision has
been made, yet you have put a certain amount in, have they put
in, Senator Vitter, the largest amount?
Senator Vitter. No, they put in a smaller amount for option
1.
Senator Boxer. That is why that doesn't seem to make any
sense, you are right. If they put in the larger amount to be
conservative and say, well, if we have to go there, it makes
sense. I think Senator Vitter has made some important points. I
hope you will get back to him on this, because it does sound
odd to me.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. I would like a letter from you,
Secretary, on the backlog of your OM projects. What is the
backlog of your OM projects. I would also like to have a letter
on the backlog of construction projects. We added a lot more
with the last WRDA bill. But I would like to have that list of
how much we----
Mr. Woodley. Which backlog do you want, Senator?
Senator Voinovich. The whole darned backlog, the backlog of
the projects that you have that have been, all the engineering
work has been done and a local share is in place. I want to
know what it is.
I would also like to know, and all due respect to Senator
Vitter, I would like to know how much money has the Corps spent
on Katrina since this has all been started. I want to know how
much money we spent there. Yes, sir, go ahead.
Mr. Woodley. With respect to construction on flood damage
and storm surge reduction works, is that what you had in mind?
Senator Voinovich. I have the construction projects that
you got for the Army Corps of Engineers, including Army Corps
projects and the environmental restoration, which we continue
to lay on top of the Corps of Engineers. If there is a question
about what it is, I want whoever is going to draft the letter
to come to my office and we will sit down and talk about it. We
will look at the options, so that we are comparing apples to
apples and oranges to oranges.
Mr. Woodley. Absolutely. That is what I am concerned about.
Senator Voinovich. Let's get that scheduled. I want to get
that done with a week's time with you, OK?
Mr. Woodley. Absolutely. We are available for that.
Senator Voinovich. All right, we will see what that is.
The other thing is, I want to know how much money is in
that, is it $4.5 billion in the dredging fund?
Mr. Woodley. I don't think it is quite that much, but it is
a lot of money.
Senator Voinovich. It is a lot of money. And it is just
sitting there?
Mr. Woodley. It is just sitting there.
Senator Voinovich. Yes, sir. And I have already talked
about the fact that Cleveland Port Authority is not going to
have the money to do the dredging. I would like to have the
number that you have allocated for dredging in the Great Lakes
and what the actual cost is of doing the dredging in the Great
Lakes, so we have that number in place.
Last but not least, the Chairman of the Committee has
raised the issue about prioritizing. I notice in this written
testimony it says that ``Many more construction projects have
been authorized, initiated and continued than can be
constructed efficiently at any one time. The funding of
projects with low economic and environmental returns and of
projects that are not within Civil Works' main mission areas
has led to the postponement of benefits from the most worthy
projects and has significantly reduced overall program
performance. To remedy the situation and to achieve greater
value to the Nation from the Civil Works construction, the
budget again proposes performance guidelines to allocate funds
among construction projects.''
I think the Chairman was talking about, we try to come up
with a new prioritization of how you go about doing these
projects. I think, Madam Chairman, you said that they haven't
done it yet.
Senator Boxer. That is right.
Senator Voinovich. I think that is one of the things that
we ought to be doing. We ought to be looking at prioritization.
I know when I was Governor, I came in and they had $26 billion
of highway projects. So we spent 3 years coming up with an
objective as to determining which ones are priority one,
priority two and priority three, so we had some semblance of
just where we should be going with this.
And I would at least like the Corps to do what we asked
them to do in the last WRDA bill, and the Chairman of the
Committee, Madam Chairman has talked about starting another
WRDA bill. Maybe as a parting shot or contribution to America,
Mr. Woodley, maybe you ought to write us a letter and say, if
you really wanted to get this done in terms of prioritization
and get things, kind of a semblance of what is No. 1, No. 2,
No. 3 priorities, understanding that you get lobbied from all
of us for our own pet projects, I would like to know some
objective, your ideas on how we could be more objective in
getting at this backlog and in conveying to the American people
just what it is.
That is our problem. They don't get it. They don't get it.
They just think that money is coming out of--something. They
don't understand that we are $9 trillion in debt. They don't
understand that our dollar is worth very little today. They
don't understand that our debt now is being purchased by the
Arab nations and the Chinese and others. They don't get it.
So we need to get those facts in front of us. I know
Senator Clinton and I and others have an infrastructure
commission that we would like to get done. It is sitting over
in the House. We need to do that, as a national priority, Madam
Chairman, we need to have a comprehensive, we did it with
highways, for this Country, so that we all understand just
exactly what the challenge is. Because we have been sticking
our head in the sand too long. We are going to wake up and we
are not going to have the infrastructure that we need to be
competitive in this global marketplace.
Senator Boxer. Senator Voinovich, I so much appreciate your
comments. I will work with you on this.
Do you have any further comments?
Senator Voinovich. That is it.
Senator Boxer. OK. Let me just say, rather than ask any
further questions, I will be sending a letter, just because,
General, I was very pleased that you mentioned global warming.
Because in all of your plans, I am assuming you are now really
looking hard at that. Am I correct?
General Van Antwerp. Ma'am, we are looking hard at climate
change. I will use those words. Because we know that the
climate has actually been very schizophrenic, even here in the
United States, some places in the southwest were just
inundated, and of course, we have drought in other places. So
it definitely is part of it. Sea level rise is another thing
that has to be accounted for in projects.
Senator Boxer. What I am going to do is send you a letter,
because right now, in California, the reason we are at such
risk due to global warming is because with rising temperatures,
and as we know, that has nothing to do with what the
temperature is today or tomorrow, it is temperature over time,
as the scientists have told us, and they have given us their
crystal ball, and they are 90 percent certain that they are
right.
So we have this crystal ball the scientists have given us,
they say look at it, and with rising temperatures, we are going
to see the rate of the melting snow pack will cause increased
runoff, increasing the flood elevation, making flooding more
devastating. We are already seeing that snow pack melt sooner.
It means you have to be very mindful of releases from different
reservoirs and so on and so forth.
So I am going to send you a letter. I am going to ask you
how you are incorporating the impacts of the snow pack due to
global warming into the Corps' plan and into your operating
procedures for existing reservoirs. Because I will tell you, if
you don't look at it, and we make a plan for one set of
circumstances, it turns out to be inadequate because we didn't
build this in, it is a real problem.
And as you probably know, there are some insurers who have
stopped insuring properties that are along the coastlines now.
This is serious stuff. The United States of America, we are big
business. And you are part of it. Without your work, as Senator
Voinovich says, we can't have the kind of economy that we have
to have. We need that infrastructure. So it has to fit the
times.
Now, I am going to work hard with others to try and avert
the worst damaging impacts. I would recommend to you a book
called Six Degrees. If you haven't read it, you ought to read
it. This is a national--and I hope maybe Senator Voinovich will
read this book. What this individual does, he writes for
National Geographic. He shows what would happen for every
degree of warming over time. It just puts it into some very
stark terms. Those of us who are working hard know we can't
avert it all, but we can avert the worst if we move forward. I
hope you are taking it into account.
I think you have seen a lot of strong feelings today in
front of you. I hope you realize that we care about the work
you do. We want to give you the tools to do the best that you
can. We want your honesty. Let OMB put on their eye shades, and
let them tell us what their priorities are. Guess what? They
are not elected and they don't have the jobs you have. We are
going to restore the money for the Corps. We don't care what
they say. We are going to restore it. We did it last time, we
are going to do it again. Why? Because we have to be able to
address the infrastructure needs of our people.
So we are going to do that. So get ready to plan that. That
gets to Senator Voinovich's last point about prioritization. I
asked you about a couple of projects that I know well. And it
is important for you to be thinking, if we do get that funding
restored, and when you have Senator Inhofe and everybody work
together to restore it, it will be restored. We hope you will
move quickly to tell us what projects you think are worthy of
moving forward.
And that gets again to Senator Voinovich's point, which
ones are ready with the local share, the reports are done, the
environmental impact assessments are done. We need to be ready,
because my view is you will get additional funding. Because we
are not going to be cutting the Army Corps' budget. It is just
not going to happen. It can't happen for a great Country like
this.
So we thank you very much. If we were tough on you,
understand it is out of deep commitment to the work that you do
that we are kind of tough.
Thank you very much. We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from
the State of Oklahoma
Thank you Chairman Boxer for holding this hearing, and
thank you Secretary Woodley and General Van Antwerp for
testifying before us today.
Today's hearing is to look at the President's fiscal year
2009 budget request for the Corps of Engineers as well as the
implementation of WRDA 2007. Let me first say a few words about
WRDA 2007 before I speak to the budget request. Many of us on
this committee worked very hard for several years to enact what
should have been WRDA 2002. Instead, we had 5 extra years in
which project cost estimates increased significantly and many
local communities had to hope that the delay wouldn't prove
disastrous. We owe these local communities and Federal
taxpayers nationwide better than that.
In order to avoid these circumstances going forward,
Senator Boxer and I have both previously indicated how
important we feel it is to get back on a 2-year cycle by
working on a WRDA 2008. Today I want to reaffirm my commitment
to doing so.
We should not underestimate how important the many project
authorizations and policy improvements in WRDA 2007 are to the
country's economy, public safety and environment. I look
forward to hearing from the Assistant Secretary and the Chief
what their plans are for speedy implementation of these many
important provisions.
As far as the President's budget request for fiscal year 9,
I have to say that I was extremely disappointed to see that
this request was not only a significant decrease from fiscal
year enacted levels, but that it was even a decrease from the
fiscal year budget request. Unfortunately, it's not uncommon
for a Presidential budget request to come in under the previous
year's enacted levels. It doesn't seem to matter which party is
in the White House or which party controls Congress, Congress
typically does more to acknowledge and address our water
resources needs than does the executive branch. To see a
reduction from last year's budget request, however, is truly
disheartening.
As a fiscal conservative, I strongly support the overall
goal of reigning in government spending, but I firmly believe
that the two things the Federal Government should spend money
on are defense and infrastructure. It may not be as exciting or
headline-grabbing as some other areas of government spending,
but a robust and well-maintained national infrastructure system
is what allows our economy to remain strong and continue to
grow.
I was pleased to see the Administration acknowledge the
need for continued investment in our inland waterways system.
Just from a parochial perspective, I know that the McKlellan-
Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System in Oklahoma and Arkansas
could function much more efficiently and productively if we
proceed with deepening it to 12 feet from its current 9 foot
depth. I am not fundamentally opposed to user fees where
appropriate, but I plan to wait for more details before
deciding whether to support or oppose this proposal.
Finally, let me convey my appreciation for the Corps' work
in subsidence reporting, cleanup and resident assistance at the
Tar Creek Superfund site. The Corps has consistently responded
quickly and helpfully to the variety of issues that have arisen
during our efforts at this site.
I look forward to hearing the witness testimony and to
discussing these issues in more depth during the question and
answer period.
Statement of Hon. Joseph Lieberman, U.S. Senator from
the State of Connecticut
Thank you Madam Chairman for convening this important
hearing to discuss the Fiscal Year 2009 President's Budget
request for the Army Corps of Engineers. In my home State of
Connecticut, we rely heavily on the work of the Army Corps to
keep our harbors open, our rivers navigable, and our cities
dry. I am greatly aware of the important work this agency does
and believe it is essential that they are provided with
sufficient resources to complete their work in the most
efficient and environmentally responsible manner. With those
resources comes the responsibility for improved management and
increased transparency into the decisionmaking process. I hope
that the witnesses here today will elaborate on specific
actions that are being taken in this regard to meet the
requirements in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.
While the Army Corps is beginning to place greater emphasis
on performance-based budgeting when making construction
prioritization decisions, I believe more must be done to
increase the use of environmental metrics in their benefit to
cost analysis of projects. WRDA recognizes the importance of
responsible environmental management, and yet I fear that the
Army Corps failed to consider environmental factors as part of
its benefit to cost ratio when setting construction priorities
for 2009. Given the diverse environmental implications of the
work that the Army Corps undertakes on this Nation's behalf,
not including the environment as part of the benefit to cost
ratio is unacceptable.
While environmental considerations may not have played a
large role when setting construction priorities, I want to
applaud the Army Corps for beginning to look beyond individual
projects toward the broader watershed implications of their
work and solutions to problems in the area of operations and
maintenance. A more holistic view is essential to preserving
the environment and I am pleased to see that the Army Corps is
beginning to use the US Geological Survey's sub-watersheds as a
way to allocate funding among 54 geographic areas.
Unfortunately, details on how specific sub-watersheds were
identified and the actual implementation of this sub-watershed
allocation of operations and maintenance funding are not very
clear. I hope the witnesses today will provide specific details
on how this management approach will be used and how it differs
from the watershed allocations from the Fiscal Year 2008
budget.
I am also interested in hearing from these witnesses on the
progress the Army Corps is making in implementing a number of
the reforms called for in WRDA. I am a strong advocate for
greater transparency in the decisionmaking process the Army
Corps uses to select and fund projects. For example, the use of
peer review can be an effective tool to ensure that projects
are appropriately assessed and a wide range of impacts fully
considered before significant funds are allocated for a project
that may have been improperly scoped. I am interested to know
what progress the Army Corps is making on identifying projects
that meet the peer review criteria established in WRDA and how
the peer review process will be implemented in the future.
The Army Corps faces a number of challenges as it
undertakes ambitious management reforms. I thank the witnesses
for being here today to help us navigate the contents of the
Fiscal Year 2009 request for the Army Corps of Engineers,
including the steps that are being taken to comply with the
requirements of WRDA, and welcome them to this hearing.
Statement of Hon. John Warner, U.S. Senator from
the State of Virginia
Good Morning Madame Chairwoman and colleagues on the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee. I thank you for holding
this hearing today to discuss the President's proposed budget
for the civil works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and also to discuss the implementation of last year's Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) bill.
As my colleagues are aware, the President's fiscal year
2009 budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers is $4.741
billion, an amount that represents a decrease of $851 million
from the fiscal year 8-enacted level of $5.592 billion. I am
concerned about this decrease in light of the passage of WRDA
2007 and the growing infrastructure needs of our Nation. This
hearing is a good first step, as we open dialog to budgetary
concerns and the needs of our nation's civil works program
provided by the Army Corps of Engineers.
I was glad to see the passage of WRDA in 2007, legislation
that was long overdue. Today, I look forward to an engaging
discussion about the progress made by the WRDA reforms and the
progress that remains to be seen. As we look back on the
efforts we have made, I am confident that we can create a
successful WRDA for 2008.
Last, I'd like to note the good work that the Corps has
been doing and is doing in my state, Virginia. Divided amongst
five Army Corps districts (Baltimore, Huntington, Nashville,
Wilmington, and Norfolk), Virginia has been lucky to have
extremely competent and talent leaders at each outpost. Their
professionalism and dedication have furthered projects across
the state--from flood control projects in the city of Roanoke
and Town of Grundy, to the development of Craney Island in
Norfolk, to oyster restoration efforts in the Chesapeake. I
have been pleased to work with all of these districts and
praise their good work.
Madame Chairwoman, I thank you for the opportunity to speak
this morning, and for holding this important hearing.
[all]