[Senate Hearing 105-789]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-789
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 4060/S. 2138
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Nondepartmental witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46-096 cc WASHINGTON : 1999
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
ISBN 0-16-057924-4
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CONRAD BURNS, Montana TOM HARKIN, Iowa
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HARRY REID, Nevada
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado PATTY MURRAY, Washington
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi HARRY REID, Nevada
SLADE GORTON, Washington ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
CONRAD BURNS, Montana HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
TED STEVENS, Alaska (ex officio)
Staff
Alex W. Flint
W. David Gwaltney
Lashawnda Leftwich
Greg Daines (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, March 3, 1998
Page
Department of Energy: Atomic Energy Defense Activities........... 1
Tuesday, March 10, 1998
Department of Energy: Office of Energy Research.................. 63
Tuesday, March 26, 1998
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 145
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 291
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
California flood control and other water resource development
projects....................................................... 327
California navigation projects................................... 425
Pacific Northwest water resource projects........................ 440
Ohio River navigation system and other inland waterway projects.. 454
Southwest U.S. water resource development projects............... 461
Upper Midwest water resource development projects................ 476
Midwest water resource project................................... 486
Southeast U.S. water resource development projects............... 507
Lower Mississippi River Valley flood control projects............ 524
New Jersey and New York water resource development projects...... 558
Department of Energy research and development programs........... 561
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:39 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Gorton, Stevens, and Reid.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
STATEMENT OF DR. VICTOR H. REIS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS
OPENING STATEMENT OF PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. Good morning, everyone. The hearing will
come to order. I am hopeful, Dr. Reis, that the hearing will
not run too long. We have seen your statement and we have a
number of questions. I understand Senator Reid has a statement
and a number of questions as well. I may ask that you answer
some of the questions in writing.
We meet this morning in open session to review the
Department of Energy's fiscal year 1999 budget request for the
Atomic Energy Defense Activities, especially that part of the
DOE requests related to Stockpile Stewardship and Management
Program.
We are pleased to welcome as our primary witness Dr. Vic
Reis, Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense Programs, and
others from the Department of Energy who have accompanied him
this morning.
Today, we want you to provide an overview of the
justification for the President's $4.5 billion budget request
for Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program for 1999. I
hope we can focus on the key elements of stockpile stewardship
and management, the accelerated strategic computing initiative
[ASCI], subcritical experiments, tritium production, among
other things. We would like for you to explain the importance
of these programs to the national security activities that are
planned for the remainder of 1998 and 1999.
Now, if Senator Reid has any comments, I would ask him to
make them and then we will turn it over to you, Dr. Reis.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR REID
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much your
holding this hearing. This is an extremely important, principal
activity of the Department of Energy, the Defense Programs, and
to the stewardship of our nuclear weapons stockpile. I have
appreciated your leadership in this regard during the time that
I have been able to serve on this subcommittee as ranking
member.
I am concerned that stockpile stewardship be efficient and
well coordinated, requiring a long-term strategy as well as
resources to fill its mission. The Department's understanding
of the implications of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the
safety and reliability of our nuclear arsenal is also critical.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman, I would like my full statement to be made
part of the record so that we can get down to the real reason
that we are here.
Senator Domenici. Senator Reid, your statement will be made
a part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Harry Reid
Mr. Chairman, I am glad that we are holding this hearing to examine
how past appropriations are used within Defense Programs in the
Department of Energy, as well as current requests.
Of course, the principal activity of Defense Programs is the
Stewardship of our nuclear weapon stockpile, of which I have been an
unequivocal supporter.
That is why I am particularly concerned that stockpile stewardship
be efficient and well-coordinated requiring a long-term strategy, as
well as resources, to fulfill its mission.
The Department's understanding of the ramifications of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the safety and reliability of our
nuclear arsenal is also critical.
In the near future I think it would be appropriate to have further
hearings by this committee regarding the relationship between the
stockpile stewardship and the treaty's ratification.
Recent discussions with our sole witness on the panel today, Dr.
Reis, recently have given me some assurance in the Department's ability
to maintain a stockpile that is safe and reliable.
Additionally, the Chairman and I recently toured the Nevada Test
Site and the Kansas City Plant, which also reflected well-managed state
of the art activity and increased my confidence in the Defense Program
infrastructure.
Essential to the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Activity is
the support of the facilities, construction, computer modeling and
necessary experimental measures.
Senator Domenici. Let me state for the record it was a
pleasure being in the State of Nevada to visit the Nevada test
site facilities. Unless you have a chance to go down there and
see them, it is pretty difficult to understand the significance
of that facility and the potential for underground testing.
Even in an era of no underground nuclear testing there is a
great deal of significance in terms of the kinds of subcritical
tests and others that we have to make that will help us with
the trustworthiness of our stockpile and I was very pleased to
see them. I thank the Department for its extraordinary efforts
to help us understand them.
And Senator Reid, thank you for accompanying me there in
your State.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, Mother Nature did not treat us
very well, though. We had one of the very rare opportunities
when we had rain and even snow there, and so because of that,
as you know, Dr. Reis, the dry lake there was not dry. There
was a lot of water in it, so the chairman, even though I
appreciate very much his being there, he was not able to see
some of the things that he could normally see on a day that you
can literally see forever.
And also, I acknowledge, Mr. Chairman, that I now am
obligated to come to New Mexico to see Los Alamos, and the
other great laboratory there.
I have been to Livermore, and each time that I go, as we
did to Kansas City, the American public is so well-served by
the work done in this very critical area that receives no
acclaim, no notoriety, as I guess, it should not, but I was so
impressed with the work in Kansas City at that plant that was
so important to the security of this country. They did a great
job.
Statement of Victor H. Reis
Senator Domenici. Dr. Reis.
Dr. Reis. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to testify before you today on the Defense
Program's Fiscal Year 1999 budget, a request of $4.5 billion,
of which $4.3 billion is directly devoted to stockpile
stewardship.
With your permission, I will just summarize my testimony.
Senator Domenici. We will make the whole statement a part
of the record, Dr. Reis.
Dr. Reis. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of stockpile stewardship is to
maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapon
deterrent under a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [CTBT]. While
the program is hardly without risk, I believe we have a high
probability of success. Why do I feel as I do?
First, let me reiterate that we start from a solid base.
The current stockpile is well-tested and well-understood. The
designers and engineers who built them are available and are
active. Indeed, they are the ones who are creating the
stockpile stewardship program. They are the ones who are
working on the stockpile now and are helping to train their
successors.
Second, you have laid out a plan for a Stockpile
Stewardship Program, weapon by weapon, part by part, that
projects the tasks required to maintain the stockpile over the
next 10 years and beyond. We have concurrence on this program
from the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs, and the
administration has committed to fund this program in all of its
parts.
Third, the President requires us to annually certify, to
him directly, the safety, reliability, and performance of each
weapon type. Just last February 12, he transmitted that
certification to the Congress.
Fourth, we have a backup. Under Safeguard C, the President
requires us to maintain the Nevada test site in a state of
readiness, and the subcritical and other experiments conducted
there help keep the people sharp and ready. The successful
experiments bear evidence that the Nevada test site remains a
``can-do'' operation.
Fifth, under Safeguard B the President requires us to
maintain the vitality of the nuclear weapons laboratories, Los
Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia National Laboratories.
Mr. Chairman, those labs are among the best in the world.
In my opinion, they are the best in the world, and they are
better now than they were 4 years ago because of the enthusiasm
and vigor with which they are attacking the stockpile
stewardship effort.
History tells us that great labs need great missions, and
stewardship, like the Manhattan and Apollo projects, is just
such a mission. Our DOE labs will get even better, because they
are attracting the kinds of people who are drawn to solve tough
problems of national importance.
Sixth, and this is most important, we are doing stewardship
now, and doing it successfully. It has been 5 years since our
last underground nuclear test, and the last weapon was produced
in 1989. We have completed our second annual certification and
are working on the third. We have modified the B-61 bomb and
see it enter the stockpile to replace the aged B-53 bomb. We
have begun construction of new experimental tools, national
ignition facility [NIF], dual axis radiographic hydrotest
facility [DARHT], Atlas, and our computation program has
developed the world's fastest supercomputer, by a factor of
three. We have solved problems that in the past would have
required nuclear testing by using stewardship tools. We have
done literally hundreds of experiments on existing facilities.
The Omega and Nova Lasers, Pegasus and Z-Pulse Power devices,
PHERMEX, and FXR hydrotest facilities, the Los Alamos Neutron
Science Center [LANSCE] accelerator, that increases our
understanding of nuclear weapons.
subcritical tests
The subcritical tests have brought new insights to old
problems and are preparing the way for the resumption of
plutonium pit production. Throughout, we are using the new
computational tools to predict and analyze experiments and
connect with archival underground test data.
We have safely dismantled over 9,000 nuclear weapons since
the end of the cold war. We have developed new production
processes that are much more efficient and environmentally
sensitive and have produced numerous parts, on time, while
continuing to downsize the complex.
This is a system that works, and not just at the labs, but
also at the plants, Oak Ridge Y-12, Pantex, Kansas City, and
Savannah River, as well as the Nevada test site.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman, when President Clinton visited the Los Alamos
National Laboratory last month, he stated, ``I don't think we
can get the treaty ratified unless we can convince the Senate
that the stewardship program works.'' I believe the stockpile
stewardship program, if supported appropriately, can meet its
goal of a safe and reliable stockpile indefinitely without
nuclear testing.
Your committee has shown the leadership in the Congress in
providing that support, and I enthusiastically look forward to
working with you. I know of no national security issue that is
more important.
Thank you, and I will be glad to answer any of your
questions now.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Victor H. Reis
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before you
on Defense Programs' fiscal year 1999 budget request of $4.5 billion of
which $4.3 billion is directly devoted to the Stockpile Stewardship
Program (SSP). Before I get into the details of the program, I'd like
to review with you a sense of the size and complexity of our task and
budget needs.
Stockpile stewardship is the means by which the Nation will
maintain the safety and reliability of its nuclear weapon strategic
deterrent under a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The President
established specific safeguards that define the conditions under which
the United States will enter into a CTBT. Four of them relate to
Stockpile Stewardship. These conditions are:
(A) The conduct of a Science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program to
insure a high level of confidence in the safety and reliability of
nuclear weapons in the active stockpile, including the conduct of a
broad range of effective and continuing experimental programs;
(B) The maintenance of modern nuclear laboratory facilities and
programs in theoretical and exploratory nuclear technology which will
attract, retain, and ensure the continued application of our human
scientific resources to those programs on which continued progress in
nuclear technology depends;
(C) The maintenance of a basic capability to resume nuclear test
activities prohibited by the CTBT should the United States cease to be
bound to adhere to this treaty; and (F) The understanding that if the
President is informed by the Secretaries of Defense and Energy as
advised by the Nuclear Weapons Council, the Directors of the nuclear
weapons laboratories, and the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command that
a high level of confidence in the safety and reliability of a nuclear
weapon type which the two secretaries consider critical to our nuclear
deterrent could no longer be certified, the President, in consultation
with the Congress, would be prepared to withdraw from the CTBT under
the supreme national interest clause in order to conduct whatever
testing might be required.
Maintaining the nuclear weapon stockpile without testing, while
simultaneously remaining prepared to return to testing and retaining
the capability to return to production, and at the same time
dismantling excess weapons and downsizing and modernizing the
production complex, are difficult challenges, to say the least, but one
which we are meeting now and are preparing to meet in the future.
The stockpile stewardship concept is simple. Each year
representative samples of each type of weapon are returned from the
active forces to the plants and labs, disassembled, examined, tested,
and analyzed for defects, much as you would go for an annual physical
or take your car into your local automobile mechanic. If any defects
are found, their effect on performance, safety, and reliability is
assessed, and if that effect is deemed significant, the defective part
is remanufactured and replaced. Like the battery or spark plugs in your
car, some parts--neutron generators and gas reservoirs will require
replacement, and these are replaced at regular intervals.
While a modern nuclear weapon has about as many parts as a modern
automobile, it is much more complicated. Many of the parts of a nuclear
weapon are made from very special materials--plutonium, enriched
uranium, tritium--which radioactively decay, changing both their own
properties and the properties of other materials within the weapon.
Nuclear weapons are designed and manufactured to extraordinarily
rigid standards, both to enable huge amounts of explosive energy to be
packaged in relatively small containers, and to maintain phenomenal
safety standards. A nuclear weapon, less than the size of a small desk,
will have enough explosive power to completely destroy a modern city,
and yet it must be able to survive the worst kind of accident you can
think of with less than a one-in-a-million chance of exploding. This
level of performance and safety must be maintained throughout the
weapon's lifetime, even as it ages and changes.
While we can expect that aging will cause the defect rate to rise--
just like it does in both humans and cars--we can't go out and buy a
new warhead model--there is no new warhead production, and some of the
old factories are out of business. Moreover, the weapons designers who
have had experience with nuclear explosive testing are also aging. In
about ten years most of them will have retired. This means that about
the same time all of the weapons reach the end of their original design
life, we will no longer have anyone on the job with direct test
experience. It is this time urgency that makes the Stockpile
Stewardship program distinctive.
Despite these challenges, people from the weapons laboratories, the
production plants, and the federal establishment involved in Stockpile
Stewardship have testified, and will so testify, that we can do the
Stockpile Stewardship job. We are confident that with continued support
we can maintain the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons in
the stockpile indefinitely without underground testing and keep the
risks to manageable levels.
In large measure this confidence is based upon the fact that
stewardship has been working, is working now, and we have detailed
plans on how it will work in the future. The last time a new nuclear
weapon was produced was 1989. The last underground nuclear test was in
September of 1992; yet we have successfully gone through two annual
certifications, the latest of which was just submitted to the Congress
by the President on February 12th.
What I'd like to do is describe to you some of the highlights of
what we accomplished last year, and what we plan to accomplish in
fiscal year 1999.
We examine about 100 weapons in detail through our surveillance
program each year. The Enhanced Surveillance Program provides the
predictive models and age focused diagnostics required to anticipate
weapons refurbishment. Conducted at DOE's four production plants and
three weapons laboratories, this program has identified an aging
mechanism in high explosives, concluding the material is extremely
stable. We have embarked on a novel strategy to rapidly age plutonium,
which is expected to determine the lifetime of components made from
this material. We have also identified how corrosion can limit the
lifetimes of canned subassemblies. While not complete, these
investigations indicate that the weapons are aging gracefully. We have
developed new diagnostic tools including high resolution x-ray
tomography, neutron imaging, and precision ultrasonics capable of non-
destructively examining weapons components. We have also created
precision instruments to gather more data from flight tests. All of
these tools are being incorporated into the annual certification
process.
We know we will have to remanufacture and replace aging parts.
Savannah River, Pantex, Kansas City, and Oak Ridge provide critical
components to this part of the mission. In fiscal year 1997 we
completed the B-61 mod 11 upgrade. In addition, the plants manufactured
3,300 limited life components (LLC's) to support the needs of the
stockpile. In fiscal year 1998 the plants plan to produce 3,900 LLC's
and over 4,000 LLC's in fiscal year 1999. The Kansas City Plant has now
been qualified for the production of tritium gas reservoirs for the W76
and W80 warheads, and will produce 576 in fiscal year 1999. Sandia
National Labs has a new production facility for neutron generators and
will produce some 400 in fiscal year 1999. Sandia is also developing
new, extended life neutron generators, using many of the new tools and
techniques of stockpile stewardship.
In addition to limited life components, DOE expects to take
significant steps in establishing key manufacturing processes needed to
support the stockpile. For example, Los Alamos National Laboratory
(LANL) will demonstrate a pit production capability in fiscal year
1998, a capability the DOE has not had since the closure of the Rocky
Flats Plant in 1989. By 2007 LANL will have the capability to
manufacture approximately 20 pits per year. DOE also plans to resume Y-
12 uranium processing operations, which were shut down in 1994 due to
violations of administrative safety controls. Y-12 has already
restarted operations in four out of five major mission areas. DOE is
now preparing to conduct an operational readiness review for Enriched
Uranium Operations (EUO). Casting, Rolling and Forming, and Machining
operations are scheduled to resume next month.
To create the new parts we need a new and improved production
complex, one that is appropriately sized for the task at hand. The
Stockpile Management Restructuring Initiative (SMRI) is right sizing
the production complex for the 21st century. The SMRI program will
downsize the following operations: (1) the weapons assembly/disassembly
and high explosives missions at Pantex; (2) nonnuclear components
production at Kansas City; (3) weapons secondary and case fabrication
at Oak Ridge Y-12; and (4) tritium operations at Savannah River. The
process is already paying dividends today. As mentioned above, the
Kansas City plant is now manufacturing tritium reservoirs, in a new
state of the art production facility with improved processes. By the
end of fiscal year 1998 we expect the Kansas City Plant to be producing
seven different reservoir types.
The new production complex must also take advantage of modern
manufacturing techniques. Our Advanced Manufacturing Design and
Production Technologies Initiative (ADAPT) is intended to provide the
manufacturing complex with advanced capabilities for: designing,
developing, and certifying components and systems; and producing,
assembling, and delivering the components and systems products. ADAPT
is radically changing how DOE supports the nuclear weapons stockpile by
infusing new product and process technologies, and adopting state-of-
the-art business and engineering practices. As an example, a secure
communications and data network was established among the production
plants and laboratories which is facilitating the rapid interchange of
design and manufacturing information related to the W87 life extension
program and will serve in the future as the backbone of a modern
simulation product realization environment. The network is reducing the
time needed to produce classified parts, in some instances up to 90
percent. The network will be expanded to all DP sites around the
country in fiscal year 1998.
While we do not need additional supplies of enriched uranium and
plutonium, there is one material which we know we must produce:
tritium--a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that is required for every
modern nuclear weapon.
Tritium decays fairly rapidly; approximately 5 percent is
transformed to helium every year. Tritium was last produced in the U.S.
in 1988. With the end of the Cold War and the reduction in the size of
the stockpile, we have had large amounts of excess tritium. This excess
has been used to make up for the decayed tritium in the current
stockpile, but eventually this will run out. Current policy requires
DOE to plan for a new tritium production source by 2005 to support a
START I nuclear stockpile, the associated five-year reserve, and to
maintain the ability to ``hedge'' to a START I level even when the
START II Treaty enters into force. DOE is in the final year of
analyzing a dual track strategy--using an existing commercial light
water reactor or using a newly developed accelerator. A primary source
for tritium production will be selected in 1998.
We foresee no technical difficulties associated with the production
of tritium in a light water reactor. A key test was begun in October of
1997, at the TVA's Watts Bar 1 Nuclear Plant. The test involves the
irradiation of 32 specially designed twelve-foot ``target'' rods in the
plant's reactor core. These targets are designed to replace a standard
component of reactor fuel assemblies. During the plant's normal 18-
month operating cycle, the rods will produce and retain small amounts
of tritium. The Watts Bar test completes, on a small scale, the
demonstration of the entire commercial reactor tritium production
cycle, from fabrication of components through completion of regulatory
approvals.
On June 3, 1997, the Department issued a Request for Proposals
(RFP) for the purchase of one or more commercial light water reactors
or irradiation services. Proposals from TVA were received on September
15, 1997. The DOE expects to make a preliminary selection from the
proposals later this spring.
The accelerator alternative made impressive gains in 1997. LANL has
completed the construction of the first test items for the accelerator
and others are being manufactured. The first of the accelerator
components, an injector, is being tested and is exceeding performance
specifications. Thousands of samples of materials, welds, and
structures have been irradiated to confirm choices and projections of
performance for materials for the ``target-blanket,'' the part of the
plant in which the tritium would actually be made. First results of
these tests are currently being analyzed.
The fiscal year 1999 request includes $157 million to pursue the
option to be selected in 1998. If the purchase of irradiation services
from commercial light water reactors is selected, the budget request
will be sufficient to meet current requirements. If the Department
selects accelerator production of tritium as the primary option, the
Department will need to delay the current target date for initiating
new tritium production or request additional funding.
This leaves the assessment and certification process. How can we
have confidence that the stockpile remains safe and reliable and meets
its military requirements without underground testing?
First of all, we start from a solid position. The current stockpile
has been well tested, is in very good shape and is well understood. We
have an extensive data base on each of these weapons, and we have a
cadre of experienced designers, engineers, scientists, and technicians
that can, with confidence, certify the safety and reliability of the
current stockpile.
Now, since we cannot do a complete test of a nuclear explosion, we
conceptually divide the explosion sequence into each of its parts and
test and analyze each of these separately, much as you would test the
ignition system, the cooling system, and the brakes on your car. We
then put all the data together into a computer calculation--a
simulation--to see if the resulting performance is within its
specification. Each part of the simulation must predict the results of
each of the separate tests, and where they exist, be consistent with
data from previous underground nuclear tests.
Some processes are relatively straight-forward to simulate. The
first part of the nuclear explosion sequence is to send the right
electrical signal to the right place at the right time. We can test
this exactly by flight testing actual weapons with inert mockups of the
nuclear components. In fiscal year 1997 we had 43 flight tests, in
fiscal year 1998 we will have 46 flight tests and in fiscal year 1999
we plan to have some 39 flight tests.
We can do a good job of testing the first part of the nuclear
explosion, the implosion of the plutonium pit, and we can measure a
number of important features by taking x-ray pictures during critical
parts of the experiment. We can then compare these pictures with
calculations and with previous data from the more than 1,000
underground nuclear tests and 14,000 surveillance tests. During fiscal
year 1997 we conducted some 38 hydrotests at the PHERMEX and FXR
facilities at LANL and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL).
We will do 60 hydrotests in fiscal year 1998 and plan to do some 50
hydrotests in fiscal year 1999. But current radiographic systems are
not able to measure the effects of potential defects in an aged pit, so
we are building a new X-ray machine--the Dual Axis Radiographic
Hydrotest Facility (DARHT)--which will look at the shape and size of an
imploding pit model from two different directions with greatly improved
resolution.
After some initial delays, we are making satisfactory progress in
completing the DARHT facility. The first radiographic machine will be
installed in March 1998 and the first arm is expected to be completed
by September. Experiments are tentatively scheduled to begin in the
summer of 1999. Construction of the second arm is scheduled for
completion by fiscal year 2002. We are also doing research in advanced
hydrotest techniques facility that, if successful, could provide for
detailed, high resolution, three dimensional ``motion pictures'' of the
implosion process. Such technology could be used in an advanced
hydrotest facility should existing tools prove insufficient to meet the
mission of Stockpile Stewardship.
Beyond obtaining X-ray pictures of imploding pit models, we are
conducting experiments to obtain an in depth understanding of
conditions that occur during an explosion. For example, we are
performing subcritical experiments at the Nevada Test Site. Last year
we successfully conducted two such experiments. These experiments are
helping us to: fill in gaps in empirical data on the high pressure
behavior of plutonium; realistically benchmark data on the dynamic,
nonnuclear behavior of components in today's stockpile; analyze the
effects of remanufacturing techniques; understand the effects of aging
materials; and address other technical issues. Three subcritical
experiments are planned for this fiscal year and a fourth is planned in
October. The fiscal year 1999 budget supports three to four additional
subcritical experiments. Information from these tests are key to being
able to certify the new pit production facility at LANL. I would add
that these experiments contribute significantly to the maintenance of
the critical infrastructure and skilled personnel at the Nevada Test
Site. This is necessary if we are ever required to resume underground
testing, consistent with Safeguard C of the CTBT.
Finally, the ability to study the behavior of matter and the
transfer of energy and radiation under weapons conditions is essential
to an improved understanding of the basic physics of nuclear weapons
and more accurate predictions of their performance without underground
nuclear testing. We expect to be able to generate conditions of
temperature and pressure of nuclear explosions with lasers at the
National Ignition Facility (NIF) at the LLNL. Experiments at the NIF
will provide data essential to test the validity of computer based
predictions and demonstrate how aged or changed materials in weapons
could behave under these unique conditions. The NIF project, now under
construction, is expected to be completed by the third quarter of
fiscal year 2003. The first experiments on the NIF are scheduled to be
conducted in fiscal year 2001 using the first eight lasers.
While NIF is under construction, the Department is continuing to
carry out an aggressive inertial confinement fusion research program to
support the stockpile. With the Omega laser at the University of
Rochester and Nova laser at LLNL we plan to carry out almost 2000 shots
at these two facilities in fiscal year 1998. In fiscal year 1999, we
plan to shutdown the Nova and transfer the resources to the NIF
project.
In 1997 the Z-pulse power facility at Sandia, demonstrated an
extraordinary increase in performance which provides a greatly enhanced
source of X-rays. In fiscal year 1998, the Z machine will perform about
200 shots in support of the stewardship program. The Z-pulse will
provide valuable information to support stewardship, which we do not
expect to obtain from a current pulsed power facility. A pulsed power
facility at LANL--Pegasus--maintains an experimental schedule of about
20 shots per year.
These, and other experimental facilities that are on line or under
construction are expected to give us a set of tools sufficient to
investigate and understand anticipated problems in the stockpile. We
are investigating the feasibility of using a larger facility based on
the Z-pinch concept should existing facilities prove insufficient to
meet the mission of stockpile stewardship.
As mentioned previously experimental information is tied to the
assessment process through computation, more precisely, numerical
simulation. But we know that the level of computation needed to
effectively simulate effects of aging or a remanufactured part is much,
much greater than that currently available, so we have begun a
computation development program--the Accelerated Strategic Computing
Initiative (ASCI)--in parallel with the experimental program. ASCI is
providing the software, computer platforms, weapons codes, and user
environments to allow the national laboratories to run simulations for
making critical decisions about the safety and reliability of the
nuclear deterrent without nuclear testing. Even at this early stage of
the program there has been a extraordinary increase in the speed of the
ASCI computers, but more importantly the actual number of calculations
on weapons issues has increased. For example, in 1992, the last year of
underground testing the estimated number of weapons related
calculations was 5 gigaops- years, or about 5 CRAY-YMP supercomputers
running for a full year. In fiscal year 1997 due to ASCI that number
was 500 gigaops-years, it will rise to 2,400 in fiscal year 1998, and
in fiscal year 1999 we plan on executing 7,000 gigaops-years of weapons
related code.
Our goal is to a have a system capable of operating at the 100
TeraOps level by 2004, and we are on schedule to meet that goal. In
1996 we began operation of the Intel 1.6 TeraOps machine at SNL. By
fiscal year 1999 we will have two major supercomputers which will
achieve 3.2 TeraOps, one at LANL and the other at the LLNL. We have
begun work with IBM to build a ten TeraOps machine which is scheduled
to be completed by the year 2000. The next two steps, the 30 TeraOps
and the 100 TeraOps machines, will build on the experience of these
latest machines and will be designed and developed after competitive
bid contracts are awarded.
This unprecedented computational power is also being made available
to the university community through ASCI's Academic Strategic Alliances
Program (ASAP). The Department of Energy announced on July 31, 1997,
initial awards to five major U.S. universities--Stanford University,
California Institute of Technology, the University of Chicago, the
University of Utah and the University of Illinois. These universities
are each focusing on a national-scale application for which the
coupling and integration of computer-based simulations from multiple
disciplines offer unprecedented opportunities for major advances and
discoveries in basic and applied science areas important to ASCI, the
broader DOE Science Based Stockpile Stewardship program, and to the
chosen application areas. These applications will be unclassified and
highly relevant to nationally significant scientific, economic and/or
social national priorities.
Thus computer simulations, experiments, and previous nuclear test
data provide the complete tool box for the assessment process. Building
this assessment ``tool box'' in time to train the new cadre of
scientists and engineers is critical to the Stockpile Stewardship
program.
One such application of the stewardship tool box is the dual
revalidation program. It has been designed to both challenge the skills
of the next generation of scientists and engineers and to provide
baseline data for the current stockpile weapons program. The
revalidations conducted by teams from the two design laboratories will
be performed on each system in the stockpile. We are now half way
through the revalidation of the W76, and a number of specific
milestones have been completed. Three of six hydro tests were conducted
and six of fifteen Arming, Fuzing and Firing systems were tested to the
original production specifications. The major system tests for the W76
are scheduled in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999. Advanced
planning for the next dual revalidation weapon will begin in fiscal
year 1999.
During fiscal year 1997, 498 weapons were safely dismantled. The W-
69 dismantlement program was successfully started on July 21, 1997, but
was suspended in September after completing 42 weapons due to a safety
concern over the detonator removal process. The remaining shortfall
from the original performance goal of 556 is from enduring weapon
programs that were scheduled for disassembly in support of stockpile
management activities. We expect to dismantle approximately 1,000
nuclear weapons in fiscal year 1998 and 500 weapons in fiscal year
1999.
Defense Programs funds the DOE's nuclear emergency response program
which consists primarily of engineers, scientists, and other technical
personnel from the three weapons laboratories, production facilities,
and other DOE management and operating contractors who support the
nuclear weapons complex. This program ensures a viable technical
response is in place for any type of radiological or nuclear accident
or incident including radiological releases, U.S. nuclear weapons
accidents, or a malevolent event involving an improvised nuclear device
or radiological dispersal device. A robust exercise schedule is planned
to provide challenging scenarios for all radiological emergency
response assets in order to verify the departmental readiness to meet
our mandated responsibilities. These scenarios include overseas nuclear
weapons accidents, field training exercises, multi-agency resolution of
nuclear terrorism crises, response to transportation accidents and
commercial nuclear reactor accidents.
Defense Programs has restructured its technology partnership
program to focus on cost-shared collaborative R&D partnerships with
industry which directly support Stockpile Stewardship program
objectives in applied computing, advanced manufacturing, and
information technology. Examples of partnerships developed in fiscal
year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 include work with: a leading
manufacturer of machining stations to eliminate operator exposure to
highly toxic beryllium; software vendors to maximize the efficiency of
the weapons manufacturing cycle including casting, machining,
inspection, and final assembly; and an industrial leader in laser
ultrasonics to improve wall thickness measurements for critical weapon
components. We will continue similar efforts in fiscal year 1999 in
support of Stockpile Stewardship.
Mr. Chairman, these are but a selection of the activities that are
going on and are planned for the stockpile stewardship program. While
the program is hardly without risk, I believe we have a high
probability of success. Why do I feel as I do?
First, let me reiterate that we start from a solid base. The
current stockpile is well tested and well understood. The designers and
engineers who built them are available and are active. Indeed they are
the ones who are creating the stockpile stewardship program. They are
the ones who are working on the stockpile now, and are helping to train
their successors.
Second, we have laid out a plan for the stockpile stewardship
program--weapon by weapon, part by part, that projects the tasks
required to maintain the stockpile over the next ten years, and beyond.
We have concurrence on this program from the Department of Defense, and
the Joint Chiefs, and the Administration has committed to fund this
program and all its parts.
Third, the President requires us to annually certify, to him
directly, the safety, reliability and performance of each weapon type.
Fourth, we have a back up. Under Safeguard C, the President
requires us to maintain the Nevada Test Site in a state of readiness,
and the subcritical and other experiments conducted there help keep the
people sharp and ready. The successful experiments bear evidence that
the Nevada Test Site remains a ``can do'' operation.
Fifth, under Safeguard B the President requires us to maintain the
vitality of the nuclear weapons laboratories--Los Alamos, Lawrence
Livermore and Sandia National Laboratories. Mr. Chairman, those labs
are among the best in the world--in my opinion hey are the best in the
world--and they are better now than they were four years ago because of
the enthusiasm and vigor with which they are attacking the stockpile
stewardship effort. History tells us that great labs need great
missions, and stewardship, like the Manhattan and Apollo projects, is
just such a mission. Our DOE labs will get even better because they are
attracting the kinds of people who are drawn to solve tough problems of
national importance.
Sixth, and this is most important, we are doing stewardship now,
and doing it successfully. It has been five years since the last
underground nuclear test. We have completed our second annual
certification and are working on the third. We have modified the B61
bomb and seen it enter the stockpile to replace the aged B53 bomb. We
have begun construction of new experimental tools--NIF, DARHT, Atlas--
and our computation program has developed the world's fastest
supercomputer--by a factor of three. And we have solved some problems
that in the past would have likely required nuclear testing by using
stewardship tools. We have done literally hundreds of experiments on
existing facilities--Omega, Nova, and Z-pulse power that increase our
understanding of nuclear weapons. We have safely dismantled over nine
thousand nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War, have produced
numerous parts, on time, while continuing to downsize the complex. This
is a system that works, and not just at the labs but also at the
plants: Oak Ridge Y-12, Pantex, Kansas City, Savannah River, and the
Nevada Test Site.
Mr. Chairman, when President Clinton visited the Los Alamos
National Laboratory, he stated `` I don't think we can get the treaty
ratified unless we can convince the Senate that the Stewardship Program
works''. I believe the Stockpile Stewardship program, if supported
appropriately, can meet its goal of a safe and reliable stockpile,
indefinitely, without nuclear testing. Your committee has shown the
leadership in the Congress in providing that support and I
enthusiastically look forward to working with you. I know of no
national security issue that is more important.
______
Biographical Sketch of Dr. Victor H. Reis
Dr. Victor H. Reis has served as the Assistant Secretary for
Defense Programs in the U.S. Department of Energy since August 1993. In
this position, Dr. Reis directs all aspects of the Department of
Energy's Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program. These
responsibilities include maintaining U.S. nuclear weapons in a safe,
secure, reliable, and environmentally sound manner in the absence of
nuclear testing; providing an assured supply of tritium gas for the
nuclear stockpile; dismantling retired nuclear weapons to meet
international arms control obligations; reducing the size of the
nuclear weapons complex to one that is smaller and more cost efficient;
and ensuring the continued science and technology base of the Nation's
nuclear weapons program. Dr. Reis was nominated for his position by
President Clinton in May 1993 and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on
August 6, 1993.
Prior to accepting his present position, Dr. Reis was the Director
of Defense Research and Engineering at the Pentagon, a position he held
since late 1991. As Director, Dr. Reis was the principal advisor in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense for scientific and technical
matters, basic and applied research, laboratories, and early
development of defense weapons systems. While serving at the Department
of Defense, Dr. Reis was also Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council
and the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program--a
joint project of the Departments of Defense and Energy and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Prior to assuming the directorship of Defense Research and
Engineering, Dr. Reis served as the Deputy Director and then Director
of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency beginning in December
1989. Dr. Reis also has served as Special Assistant to the Director,
Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Senior Vice
President for Strategic Planning, Science Applications International
Corporation; Assistant Director for National Security and Space, Office
of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President;
and other positions in industry, academia, and Government.
Dr. Reis earned a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering from
the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; a Master's Degree in Mechanical
Engineering from Yale University; and a Master's and Ph.D from
Princeton University. He is the recipient of numerous awards, including
the Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Medal.
Dr. Reis was born in New York City on February 11, 1935; is married
with four children; and resides with his wife, Marilyn, in Washington,
DC.
fiscal year 1999 budget request
Senator Domenici. I note the presence of the chairman of
the full committee, Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens, I appreciate your attending today and
frankly I want to make sure that it is understood that when we
needed an extra allocation for this program from the Defense
Department in order to get on with stockpile stewardship, the
chairman of the full committee was our leader and the one that
has helped us. Without him we could not have achieved much of
this important work. So there is a lot that goes into meeting
these very difficult responsibilities, and I want to publicly
thank him for his effort and help.
Senator Stevens, do you have any questions this morning?
Senator Stevens. Thank you for your comments, Senator.
Dr. Reis, the $4.5 billion, will that be an annual amount
now for the stewardship program?
Dr. Reis. Our plan is yes; that would be an annual amount.
Senator Stevens. For 10 years, we will put $4.5 billion
into the stewardship program.
Dr. Reis. Of course, we have only put a 5-year budget
together, but our projection would be for 10 years, yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. That is a substantial increase over the
last 10 years in the nuclear program, is it not?
Dr. Reis. It is an increase. Of course, if you go back 10
years, back to 1987, it was considerably more back in those
days when we were still producing weapons and still testing
underground. If my memory serves me correctly, it was about $5
or $6 billion a year, at those times. Of course, it has dropped
off considerably since we stopped testing in 1992. It dropped
down to about something just under $4 billion.
defense programs work force
Senator Stevens. Have you given us the detail of the work
force that is required for the stewardship program?
Dr. Reis. Yes; we have.
In December of 1996, we produced what is called a
programmatic environmental impact statement for stockpile
stewardship and management, where as part of that analysis we
looked at the work force requirements.
Senator Stevens. My last question. From your statement it
appears we are going to maintain the full force that is
necessary to resume testing, and at the same time we are going
to have a new force that is dealing with the stewardship
program, is that right?
Dr. Reis. That is correct.
Senator Stevens. So the manpower really is substantially
increased.
Dr. Reis. The manpower actually drops down over what we
had. While we do not expect to have to resume testing, we are
keeping the facilities available, and we are keeping the core
capability available. If we had to go back and test, I am sure
we would have to augment, to some degree, the work force there.
The same is true with the production complex, Senator.
weapons production complex
Senator Stevens. Are you going to keep all the sites open
that you mentioned?
Dr. Reis. All of the sites currently would be kept open.
They would be downsized and modernized, but we would anticipate
keeping every one of those sites open, yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
defense programs work force
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, might I mention that for
instance, the Nevada test site, pursuant to the understanding
between the Joint Chiefs and the President, when the Joint
Chiefs agreed to the stewardship program, in lieu of testing,
part of that was that the Nevada test site be maintained in a
state of readiness. But I would state for the record, there are
several thousand fewer employees at the Nevada test site today
under the current readiness plan than when we were actively
engaged in underground testing. I believe the number is around
9,000 fewer personnel.
Senator Stevens. It appears that there is an increase in
the stewardship program almost commensurate with that.
Senator Domenici. The stewardship program's increases are
not much related to personnel as they are to new facilities and
equipment, diagnostic equipment that is necessary to diagnose
the aging of our weapons without testing.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, could I say one thing before
Senator Stevens leaves?
Senator Domenici. Sure.
bipartisan support for stewardship
Senator Reid. You complimented him for making sure that we
got a budget allocation that was appropriate. I think one of
the untold stories of this Congress and the last 10 years has
been partnership of Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye. I think
the work that they have done for the security of this country
has been bipartisan and has been some of the finest work that I
have seen and it has received no notoriety. Also, I think it
has just been remarkable, the work those two men have done.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
historic funding for stewardship
Senator Domenici. Let me just also state for the record to
see if I am correct, in 1997 the stewardship program, which was
just getting started, was essentially $4 billion, $3.918
billion.
In 1998, it went to $4.1 billion, so essentially we are
saying that without the add-ons to make the stewardship program
work, the 10-year projection would have been $40 billion. But
the current agreement totals $45 billion.
Dr. Reis. That is correct.
Senator Domenici. Is that a fair assessment?
Dr. Reis. That is a fair assessment.
Senator Domenici. OK. Because $45 billion sounds--you know,
when you take it without a basis, startup, start basis, it
sounds like a lot more than $5 billion, $45 billion sounds like
a lot more.
assessment of the labs
Dr. Reis, could you quickly do an assessment of the ability
of the three weapons laboratories to manage the critical
centerpiece programs and activities of stockpile stewardship
initiatives such as the advanced strategic computer initiative,
subcritical experiments, DAHRT, et cetera? Do you have any
concerns with the labs' ability to execute the elements of the
stockpile stewardship program?
Dr. Reis. I think the labs are frankly in among the best
shape they have been in many years Senator. I think it is
important to recognize that the labs really are responsive to
challenges, and when you give them difficult challenges they
get better, and your ability to solve those challenges get
better.
I think if you have been to the laboratories recently you
will compare it to say, several years ago, you will recognize
the whole spirit of what is happening. The level of successful
experiments that they have done over the past 2 years really
gives me the confidence that those laboratories, if we maintain
the course we are on, will clearly be able to do the job.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I have got to go vote to get
the ISTEA bill out. I will be back in 5 minutes.
Senator Domenici. If I am finished, I will leave it open.
Senator Reid. Yes; because I have a few questions.
accelerated strategic computing initiative [asci]
Senator Domenici. Sure. We are going to submit some other
questions in writing, but let us talk a little bit about the
accelerated strategic computing initiative [ASCI] program.
Dr. Reis. ASCI program.
Senator Domenici. That exists to some extent in each of the
three major laboratories.
Dr. Reis. That is correct.
Senator Domenici. Could you tell us, are you experiencing
any problems, delays in maintaining the schedules, and if there
are some, what are you doing to correct this?
Dr. Reis. For the most part I think we are on schedule in
each of the laboratories. I must point out, as you are aware,
it is a very aggressive schedule for the ASCI program and all
the parts that go with it. It is a very complex program. It
involves not just the laboratories themselves, but the
contractors, the computer companies that we are in partnership
with, and overall we are on that curve.
We have had some concerns at the Los Alamos Laboratory with
Silicon Graphics/Cray. We expect to be able to put them back on
the curve shortly.
Senator Domenici. So you think that one, which is not quite
up to the scheduling properly as the others, will be brought
back?
Dr. Reis. Oh, we have a plan for getting back onto the
curve.
Senator Domenici. I might state for the record that it is a
little-known fact outside of the community of scientists that
relate to the laboratories that the supercomputer that America
went way out front of the world on was developed because the
demand, the market demand for it was the nuclear weapons
industry, Los Alamos in particular. Livermore needed much more
computing, and they placed their requirements before the
industry, and the industry responded to the demand to produce
supercomputers.
I gather now, we are going through a subsequent phase,
which is even more pronounced than that one, wherein ASCI is
going to be the market driver for stronger and more powerful
supercomputers, is that correct?
operating requirements
Dr. Reis. That is correct. If I could just take a second
and explain how we did that. We started off the ASCI program by
projecting in about the year 2004, which is when we would
anticipate that many of the designers would be reaching their
retirement age, and said, what are the specifications, the type
of calculations that you will need for stockpile stewardship?
And they came up with a number which we seemed quite
remarkable at the time of something like 100 trillion
operations per second (TeraOps), which was about, perhaps as
much as 100,000 greater than people were actually working
calculations at the time. But that is what we needed to do. The
approach that we chose was not to go there in one step, and it
was also clear that we could not wait for industry to provide
that.
So, what we were able to do was put together a partnership
with industry, with competitive procurements, that allowed us,
step by step to move up in that direction. The first major step
was the option red machine at Sandia National Laboratories,
which as you pointed out was about three times faster than any
other supercomputer, and we are moving along that curve pretty
much the way we had to find it.
What makes that, I think, interesting is that the
components, all of the components, essentially, are being built
out of commercial commodity components so that the computer
companies, as they move along this train, will still be able to
use those same supercomputers for other applications. I am sure
many more uses than just, obviously, nuclear weapons, so this
is really causing a significant boost to the U.S. computer
industry as well.
asci funding
Senator Domenici. Could you tell me, as I understand it,
the ASCI program, including stockpile computing, has
experienced funding increases of nearly $70 million for 1997
and 1998, and the request for 1999 is $517.8 million. What is
the total cost of the effort expected to be, what is the basis
for that estimate, and when do you expect the funding
requirements to peak?
Dr. Reis. I would have to check on those numbers. The peak
is coming up in a few years. That would be about $600 or $700
million a year for the total computing. That is not just the
ASCI part but, of course, as you are aware we do a significant
amount of computation, if you will, production computation.
I think the key to the ASCI is, of course, I may be moving
ahead of your next question. I have not seen it.
Senator Domenici. I do not have one.
Dr. Reis. Then I certainly have not seen it--is, of course,
that we not wait until the year 2004 and the 100 TeraOps. We
are using it now, and will continue to use it.
As we move up that curve, we are learning a lot about the
whole simulation area. We are learning about how to interpret
and predict the experiments that we are doing right now. The
concept of integrating a simulation with the experiments that
we are doing, looking at the previous tests, we are learning
things about the underground tests that we have not known
before, is, I think quite extraordinary.
[The information follows:]
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative
Current planning indicates that the cost of the Accelerated
Strategic Computing Initiative, including Stockpile Computing
activities, from fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2004 is projected
to be about $4-$4.2 billion. This estimate is based on current
projections of the cost of computer platforms being developed with
industry partners, the cost of ongoing activities with the laboratories
and academic partners on code development, modeling, tools and
techniques, as well as creation of ``supercorridors'' and other
facilities for high performance interfaces to the weapon designers. The
peak funding is projected to be approximately $750 million in fiscal
year 2003. However, we must acknowledge the possibility of
unanticipated issues concerning the stockpile for which additional
computational efforts that offer greater and more advanced
technological responses would provide better value in terms of cost and
effort.
asci chips
Senator Domenici. Let me tell you what my flow charts here
indicate. The 1999 funding will be $517 million, and by 2003 it
will be $753 million.
Dr. Reis. Yes.
Senator Domenici. I assume that shortly after that----
Dr. Reis. I think it would stay at that level. Now, what
would happen as one projects further beyond that, of course, is
that you will start to drop off, because we would not
anticipate beyond that level of building new machines.
The key to the way these machines would work is as the
chips themselves get better, those improved chips go into the
machines. They are the same types of chips that you would have
on your PC, but as you know, they keep getting better. Those
are the same chips that go into these machines. We sort of get
the first crack at them, but nonetheless they are still
advertised.
So, I would anticipate that the ASCI computers over time
would continue to improve as the chips themselves continue to
improve. Once we reach that level, then I would see those
dollars dropping considerably, because we would no longer be in
the computer development arena. We would just be using the
computers.
massive parallel construction
Senator Domenici. Now, so we understand, this next market
demand pool that will be placed on the industry through this
program will be fulfilled principally by massive parallel
computers, as compared with reinventing a total new mainframe
computer.
Dr. Reis. That is right. Each of the computers will be
built up by putting together, the type of commercial computers
that companies will then go out and sell as part of servers or
as part of simulation engines, for other applications.
asci role in the stockpile stewardship mission
Senator Domenici. Now, could you tell us in layman's terms
on what this enhanced computing capacity will do in the
stockpile stewardship program that is so important to its
maintenance as a trustworthy and safe nuclear deterrent?
Dr. Reis. I think the basic problem that one faces in
stockpile stewardship is the aging of the nuclear weapons
stockpile just like we are. I mean, you may be designed in two
dimensions. You sort of age in three dimensions, little bumps
and cracks and changes.
Senator Domenici. Just like us.
Dr. Reis. Just like us, wrinkles--you know, some of us lose
our hair. I do not see anybody in this--looking at you, you all
seem to be fully----
Senator Domenici. A little obesity here and there.
Dr. Reis. That is probably as far as we want to go on this
discussion, Senator. [Laughter.]
Senator Domenici. We will have a closed session.
Dr. Reis. That is right. [Laughter.]
But what happens, of course, is that in a device like a
nuclear weapon, in which so much energy is in such a small
package, those little effects we understand now from looking at
past tests, and so forth, can make a big difference. We have to
be able to calculate what those effects are.
They are in three dimensions, and we need to be able to put
all the calculations on a machine, that is, the effect as one
goes through the implosion process, the radiative transfer
process, and the energy leaving the nuclear weapon.
Senator Reid. Would the chairman yield just briefly?
Senator Domenici. I would be pleased to yield.
Senator Reid. Dr. Reis, the thing I was so impressed with
at the test site this last time is their explanations that the
reason these supercomputers are so important is that the test
results must be obtained in a millisecond. I do not know if I
pronounced that right, but a lot less than a second.
Dr. Reis. Well, the events that occur during a nuclear
explosion, which we are trying to simulate, all occur in a
very, very short period of time.
Senator Reid. Less than a second.
Dr. Reis. Much less than a second, and some effects are
milliseconds, some effects are microseconds, and you have to be
able to understand that. You also have to be able to show that
to the designer, and then let the designer make changes. So it
is not sufficient just to say, I can run this calculation for a
very long period of time. He has got to be able to see what
that effect is, basically try different things, and this
requires a very, very significant increase in our ability to
compute.
ability to build supercomputers
Senator Reid. We know we can build the supercomputer.
Dr. Reis. We feel comfortable that we can do that. Again,
we have put ourselves on a very aggressive curve.
I think the reason that we feel comfortable with that is we
have very good support from the computing companies we are
working with. We have also just completed a competition (path
forward) for some of the switching components and so forth, for
moving up to the 30 TeraOps regime.
We got very good responses from four of the major
supercomputing companies--IBM, Silicon Graphics/Cray, DEC, and
Sun Microsystems--all gave us very, very good proposals.
They are now feeling comfortable with that, and I would
suggest that perhaps you bring in those people from the
supercomputing companies. Ask them very directly what their
views are. Either have a hearing or just maybe discuss with
your staff--I am sure they would be delighted to come in and
just discuss with you what their views are, because they are
not just looking to us in doing this.
I mean, we have gotten on, if you will, we are pushing
their curve from where they expect to be able to sell these
devices. These are not special devices for us, they are made up
of devices that they expect to sell as part of their normal
business.
We are pushing them a little faster, but they will tell you
that they expect to be building these things later. It is this
problem of time urgency that we are dealing with, which is to
get the system working before these designers retire, which has
caused us to move at such an accelerated pace. That is why we
call it accelerated--an accelerated past where the normal
computing business would take us.
stockpile stewardship
Senator Domenici. Now, just to summarize one more time,
what we are saying and what the Joint Chiefs said when they
agreed to this idea of no underground testing, was that we used
to determine safety and reliability to a significant degree by
having actual nuclear weapon tests. At one point they were
above ground. We moved away from that and tested for a long
time underground--we were doing underground testing for the
same purpose.
Now, what was done when we decided to do no more
underground testing, we came up with a science-based
stewardship program that would attempt to make the weapons
systems as safe and as reliable as we knew they were when we
did actual underground nuclear testing, is that correct?
Dr. Reis. That is correct.
stockpile stewardship and the comprehensive test ban treaty
Senator Domenici. And the big question which will be
forthcoming on the floor of the Senate when the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty is debated will be, are we as safe and as sure
with no testing and this stockpile as we were before?
And if the answer is yes, then the question is, if the
whole world is in that mode, can we be assured that there is no
cheating going on in terms of testing?
That is going to be the framework of the issue on the CTBT
treaty that the President has sent us. Is that essentially----
Dr. Reis. I think that is it. That says it very well.
Senator Domenici. Now, the question, then, for the Congress
and for our subcommittee is, is that effort worth $500 million
a year, more than we were spending before we had this science-
based stockpile stewardship program in full effect, and that is
essentially the difference between about a $4 billion budget
that existed and a $4.5 billion, which it increased to, and
maintain the nuclear weapon stockpile in a manner you and other
experts have deemed the responsible way.
Dr. Reis. That is correct.
Senator Domenici. Now, let me ask, it is not just advanced
computing that will be needed to determine the reliability and
safety in a stockpile which is not going to have any new
weapons added. There are other new diagnostic instruments, and
I use that word, because I do not know what else to call them.
These tools and facilities will diagnose the parts and the
reliability of various components in an aging stockpile.
We are going to also add some equipment, one called the
dual axis radiographic hydrotest facility [DARHT]. Could you
tell us what it will do?
DARHT FACILITY
Dr. Reis. What DARHT does, it is an advanced hydro testing
device, and I should say DARHT is an advanced one. We have been
doing this whole hydro testing business for many, many years.
In fact, some of the early work at even the Manhattan project
used this.
What we try to do is simulate the behavior of the actual
primary explosive device. We do not use plutonium, but we use a
simulant metal and we light off the high explosive, we see how
the pit forms, and then we take an x ray, literally the same
way you would do when you went to the doctor to look at your
lungs except it is done in a very, very short period of time.
We see the cavity that this imploding pit has formed and we
can watch--by various diagnostics, the time history of the way
that implosion occurs.
But the key is, to let us look inside it, actually see what
it looks like, and that is what the DARHT facility does for us.
We will be able to look in more than one direction when we put
in the second arm. It will have much improved resolution so we
will be able to look at that x-ray picture much better, and we
will also be looking from another direction as well. So we will
be able to get a much better sort of stereoscopic look, the
same way when you go to the doctor you take an x ray from
different directions, and then the expert, if you will, looks
and says is that working all right.
We have, as you are aware, a number of tests both from what
we simulated in the past, and real underground tests so we have
a good idea of what the imploding pit looks like at various
critical times of its implosion.
What we will do with DARHT, then, is compare with these
aged systems what changes, again exactly the way you would if
you were going to the doctor. Let me look at a new x ray,
compare that with the old x ray, and then we have to assess.
That is where the simulation comes in. That is where the
experts come in. Is that going to make any difference or not?
Because we do not want to have to make any changes if we do not
need to.
Senator Domenici. So for the record, DARHT means dual axis
radiographic hydrodynamic test facility, which we will never
repeat again. We will just call it DARHT.
Now, isn't it true that some of the information--the date
that will be forthcoming from DARHT--these series of DARHT
experiments, will use the computer capabilities of ASCI to
simulate what is actually occurring. And this will aid in
reference our understanding to safety?
stockpile stewardship
Dr. Reis. The key, of course, is the computing, obviously
it does not do it all by itself. You cannot validate the
computer codes. We do the best we can, but indeed what we try
to do is make sure we are putting the right numbers into the
computer; that the numbers that come out make sense. So what we
try to do with DARHT and the various other parts of the system
is to be able to predict what those experiments might look
like. That tells us whether our predictions are good.
We also, when we find something coming out the other end,
we want to ensure ourselves that we have noticed a change,
perhaps. Is that change important? We want to make sure that
the theory that goes behind that is a valid one, because every
year we have to go back to the President, based on all the
tests, and say, OK, is this stockpile sufficient to do the job
or not? Is it still safe? Is it still reliable?
We know there are going to be changes. The issue is, are
those changes enough to change your specifications?
Our safety standards we have for these nuclear weapons are
certainly among the most rigid and extraordinary in the world,
and we have not, nor would we anticipate changing those
standards in any way, even though we are not testing in the
future.
advanced experimental facilities
Senator Domenici. Now, would you state for the record the
other key facilities, like Livermore's national ignition
facility [NIF], and state for us what capability they provide,
what the schedule is for each one, and whether you foresee any
significant changes that might alter the project costs and
schedules.
And I am not trying to hold anybody to exact cost, but we
have to be careful that we do not come up with estimates that
are so far off the mark that in 3 or 4 years we are sitting
around here trying to justify the money and somebody says the
program is not worth it because it is too expensive, so will
you do that for us?
Dr. Reis. Yes.
Senator Domenici. And I also have some written prepared
questions that are more precise on that on these subjects.
Dr. Reis. I will be glad to do that. Those are very
important issues, Senator.
[The information follows:]
Advanced Experimental Facilities
A suite of enhanced capabilities that are needed to fill in the
knowledge gaps and provide data relevant to various stockpile concerns
has been identified. The enhanced capabilities include ASCI and
computations and subcritical experiments, as well as advanced
experimental facilities to provide high resolution data on the stages
of the nuclear explosion. The facilities are: Atlas, the Dual-Axis
Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility (DARHT) and the National
Ignition Facility (NIF), all of which are currently under construction
or in detailed design; the Short Pulse Spallation Source enhancement to
the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE), which is an upgrade to
an existing facility; and, an advanced hydrotest facility (AHF) and an
advanced pulsed power facility (APPF), both of which are being assessed
for the future. Wherever possible, the goal is to obtain data
experimentally by more than one method. The following table identifies
the stage of the nuclear explosion that each facility would address:
EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES NEEDED TO ENSURE HIGH CONFIDENCE IN WARHEAD SAFETY AND RELIABILITY
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas DARHT AHF NIF APPF LANSCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved physical models............................ X X X X X X
Early implosion..................................... ........ X X ........... ...... X
Preboost............................................ X X X X X X
Boost............................................... ........ ......... ...... X ...... ........
Primary-secondary coupling.......................... ........ ......... ...... X X ........
Secondary implosion................................. X ......... ...... X X ........
Total Cost.......................................... $48,500 $269,800 TBD $1,198,900 TBD $16,700
Scheduled completion................................ TBD FY 2002 TBD FY 2003 TBD FY 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current schedule for Atlas completion is the third quarter of
fiscal year 1999. However, design revisions are currently under
consideration by the Department to allow the design of a test
capability which will meet programmatic requirements within the
existing estimated cost. The original design was too costly. The
completion date is being delayed by an estimated 14 months to allow
time for the necessary redesign.
The first axis of DARHT will become operational during fiscal year
1999 and experiments are scheduled to begin in June of 1999. The cost
reflected includes the full estimate for the four pulse technology
selected for the second axis. We are very confident of this estimate
and do not anticipate further increases.
The cost estimate for NIF was established in December 1996, at the
end of Title 1 design, and to date, the project is on schedule and
within cost.
The fiscal year 1999 budget includes $7.7 million to complete
funding for the Short Pulse Spallation Source enhancement to the Los
Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE). These upgrades will allow
Stockpile Stewardship Program researchers to obtain dynamic and
surveillance measurements more quickly and accurately. It will also
improve facility reliability and maintainability and reduce worker
radiation exposure.
The fiscal year 1999 budget also includes $49 million for research
and development leading to a decision within a five year period whether
to construct an advanced hydrotest facility and/or an advanced pulsed
power facility.
experimental activities
Senator Domenici. The staff reminds me now that you know,
we are already, certainly Senator Reid and I on this
subcommittee, are going to feel a lot of pressure as to whether
we need the $4.5 billion each and every year, and we are surely
not going to get significantly more than that.
We are counting on the accuracy of your cost estimates and
schedules. We really need you to be sure your people are doing
the best work possible in that regard, because I do not
perceive that we are going to add 10 percent or 15 percent over
the $4.5 billion cap in order to accommodate costs which are
significantly beyond the estimates when we commit to a
particular project.
Senator Reid.
Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Of the many experiments and tests that are planned, it is
your unqualified opinion that we are doing this for the
national interest, security interest of this country?
Dr. Reis. Yes, sir.
Senator Reid. And these are experimental activities
separate and apart from testing activities, is that true?
Dr. Reis. That is correct.
Senator Reid. And the chairman has gone over in some detail
the fact that while we are increasing the budget, but only by a
little bit over a 5-year period. Do you feel that you are going
to have sufficient resources to focus on the safety and
reliability of the stockpile?
Dr. Reis. Yes; I do, Senator.
subcritical experiments
Senator Reid. Regarding the subcriticals at the Nevada test
site, have you yet been able to gauge the value of these
experiments from the few that have been done?
Dr. Reis. Senator, I must tell you that I was looking
forward to those tests because I thought they would be very
interesting and very useful. I must tell you that I have been
more than pleasantly surprised about just how useful they are,
and you, of course, have visited and seen that.
It is a major success story, I believe, for stewardship,
because it is working now. We have been able to answer some
very significant problems, again in combination with our
understanding flowing with previous experiments, using the ASCI
computers to be able to predict and to interpret what those
results are.
Just with the two experiments so far, Rebound and Holog,
from the two laboratories, working together with the people at
the test site, we have more information on some very difficult
problems that in the past we simply did not understand by just
looking at data from underground testing.
So it has been, I believe, a major success story.
laboratory moral
Senator Reid. Dr. Reis, one of the things that I
recognized, and I think I can speak for Senator Domenici, is
the enthusiasm----
Dr. Reis. Yes.
Senator Reid [continuing]. Of the scientific community out
there.
When I say out there, this includes bringing some people
from the laboratories when they do these experiments.
It is as if they have a chance of winning the World Series.
They are really in their finest--they are dealing with pure
science, and I just found an esprit-de-corps there that is hard
to express.
subcritical experiments
Dr. Reis. I am glad you mentioned that. I visited with
General Habiger. We went down to visit before the experiment
started, when they were in the process of being set up. It is a
very unusual experience to put on mining gear and all the
safety equipment, go down almost 1,000 feet, get down to the
bottom, and then you put on lab coats and lab gear on top of
that.
Senator Reid. Because it is so clean.
Dr. Reis. Because it is so clean down there. As you point
out, the enthusiasm of the people working is good. What is very
interesting is the level of diagnostics. In terms of the amount
of diagnostics we have on those subcritical experiments it is
greater in many respects than we had during an actual test.
That is because you are able to get closer, but also, you
get much finer detail. Of course, that is the fine detail we
need, as I expressed to Senator Dominici because that is where
the problems are.
archival test data
Senator Reid. And Dr. Reis, you compare what you do there
with the archival information that has been gathered with these
hundreds and hundreds of tests--you do have something to
compare it with, is that true?
Dr. Reis. Well, that is key. I hope I get that point
across, that those archival tests are very, very important for
us, because that gives us the baseline. We are always looking
for changes.
We do not anticipate going back into weapon production. So
how do you know whether current systems are going to work or
not? Well, you have to determine: what are the changes that are
taking place; and then are those changes significant. That
requires a lot more detailed scientific understanding of what
happens in nuclear explosions.
subcritical experiments
Senator Reid. We are planning for four subcriticals per
year. Only three are scheduled this year. Could you explain
why?
Dr. Reis. The fourth is actually within about 2-3 weeks
after the end of the fiscal year, so much of the planning of
the funding for that is actually in 1998.
As you are aware, those are not easy experiments. There are
a lot of diagnostics. There is a lot of thought that goes into
them, and we are trying not to press the schedule faster than
makes sense, but we are aggressively pushing the subcriticals,
because they are on the critical path to the resumption of the
pit production at Los Alamos.
So there are a number of experiments we have to do. We have
to understand what is happening to both new plutonium and aged
plutonium. We have to understand the difference between cast
and wrought plutonium. The detailed experimental information
that will be gained from those subcritical tests in relation to
the previous tests that we had done underground are tying it
together using the simulation techniques that we are developing
at the same time.
aging work force
Senator Reid. One of the things, Dr. Reis, that has been
difficult is with the passage of time some of the scientists
that we had that were working on these programs decades past
are leaving because of death, retirement. Aren't we losing the
knowledge of a generation of scientists, physicists, and
engineers who build and test these nuclear devices?
Dr. Reis. Indeed, that gets back to why $4.5 billion and
not $4 billion, or some other number. It has to do with the
rate of the program, because we are moving very rapidly on many
fronts, on the experimental front, on the computational front,
throughout the whole program.
It is based on our feeling comfortable that we have the
stewardship program in place, working, before those people
retire, because those are the people that raise their hands and
tell you yes, this is a program that we feel, with our test
experience, will be sufficient.
While we do numbers, we do calculations, we do experiments,
Senator, it really comes down to the level of expertise of
those people. We need the same level of expertise, perhaps even
more, when we are not testing in the future than we have in the
past. The people who judge that are the people who have had
that experience.
challenge of stewardship
Senator Reid. Dr. Reis, also we have made this very
difficult for ourselves, have we not, by playing with a set of
rules that, for example, does not generate any nuclear yield of
any kind. It makes work for the scientific community, those
that have been involved in it in the past, and those we want
involved in the future, it makes their job extremely difficult,
and that is why we are talking about super-supercomputers, and
we are talking about all of these national ignition facilities
and all these other methods of experiments that have no nuclear
yields.
Dr. Reis. That is certainly true, and that is the challenge
that we have to face, that these are tough, very, very
difficult jobs.
I think it is a more difficult job we have to do now than,
in fact, building a weapon from scratch if you had the ability
to go test it.
Senator Reid. Dr. Reis, there have been articles written--I
read one yesterday, in, I think it was the National Journal,
where I am not sure you were quoted, but there were other
scientists who were quoted as saying that the program about
which we are engaged is as difficult as the Manhattan project
or sending someone to the Moon.
Dr. Reis. Yes; I think it is of that magnitude, and I am
not at all surprised. When you are dealing with a program of
that magnitude, the $45 billion over 10 years sounds like a lot
of money, but certainly not way out of whack for the job we are
trying to do in terms of its scientific and engineering
difficulty, and also the rate at which we have to do it.
What is interesting about comparing it to Apollo and the
Manhattan project is that they were time-driven. You had to
have the job done by a certain time.
And that is what drives the importance of why we need
experimental facilities like DARHT and Atlas and some of the
pulse power work. That is what drives the rate at which we have
to do subcriticals. That is certainly what drives the ASCI
program, and why we simply cannot wait for the computing
companies to sell us the next big computer that they find, that
they are selling to everybody else.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I would ask your permission to
submit some questions in writing. I have to go up to the ISTEA
markup, we are reporting that out, and I need to be there, so I
am going to have to leave.
tritium supply
Senator Domenici. Senator, I am going to close the meeting
down now. Your questions will be incorporated into the record.
Dr. Reis, just one last question. With reference to tritium
sources----
Dr. Reis. Yes.
Senator Domenici [continuing]. We have a situation where by
2000--what, 4 or 5?
Dr. Reis. 2005 is our current need date for new tritium.
Senator Domenici. We will need a new source given the
current stockpile requirements.
Dr. Reis. We have to start producing a new source by 2005.
Senator Domenici. Now, is it not correct that if we go the
accelerator technology route it will cost between $4 and $4.5
billion over time, and if it is possible to go with a
commercial light water reactor--and I am not suggesting we have
all the problems ironed out on that--that it would be in the
neighborhood of $1 billion?
Dr. Reis. Those numbers are roughly correct.
Senator Domenici. And the fiscal year 1999 budget request
makes no choice between the options, but includes $157 million
to get started, is that correct?
Dr. Reis. To continue one of those, yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Can you have your answers to our
questions back by the end of March?
Dr. Reis. Certainly.
Senator Domenici. We are going to mark up as early as we
can.
Dr. Reis. We will try to get them back to you as early as
we can.
prepared statement of senator craig
Senator Domenici. Senator Craig has a statement that will
be inserted in the record, and Senator Cochran has a series of
questions which will be submitted for answer within the
established rules of getting them to us by the end of March.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Larry E. Craig
department of energy: defense programs
As the subcommittee convenes to consider the important national
security functions carried out by the Department of Energy, I would
like to take this opportunity to highlight one particular program.
There has been a well coordinated effort between the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, in my state, and Los Alamos
National Laboratory in the Chairman's state of New Mexico on a program
called Defense Programs Environmental Surety. This program uses basic
research results from Los Alamos and then applies Idaho's engineering
skills in designing industrial systems to meet various environmental
needs at Los Alamos.
The Office of Defense Programs within the Department of Energy has
done a good job of integrating INEEL into the Enterprise Integration
program, and deserves recognition for a job well done. In turn, the
INEEL provides high-quality services to the weapons complex, while
helping maintaining the security and robustness of our nuclear weapons
program.
The defense programs within DOE have demonstrated leadership in
recognizing the core strengths of each laboratory and encouraging this
teaming effort. I commend DOE for that, and for placing the
Environmental Surety program in the President's budget request for
fiscal year 1999. I am sure that INEEL's skill base in applied
engineering can continue to meet this and other needs for the DOE
weapons complex.
Dr. Reis. All right. We will try to do that.
Senator Domenici. Do you have anything else you would like
to discuss with the committee?
Dr. Reis. I think that should do it, other than to thank
you again for more than interest in this. This is a very
important project.
I cannot think of any more important one that we are doing,
and again, this committee has shown, both yourself, Senator
Reid, other members, and the staffs that you've assembled to
work on this. They ask tough questions continually, and we are
doing our best to answer those, but this has got to be a strong
bipartisan effort, and Senator, we are in your debt for what
you have done so far.
Senator Domenici. Well, I want to close the record by
saying you have understated the significance, as you usually
do. It is tremendously important to the nuclear stockpile. For
those who do not think we ought to have a stockpile at all, and
there are some, obviously this sounds like something we are
wasting money on. But for those who know the significance of
maintaining a solid, reliable, and safe stockpile, it seems to
me that we have a job of educating a lot more Senators from
both parties.
This is not just any run-of-the-mill program. The Chief of
Staff and all of those who serve with him are expecting the
stockpile stewardship program to work--to keep our weapons
stockpile reliable and safe. You have got the President, who
has said no underground testing, expecting this to work, and I
assume, although many Senators were against stopping
underground testing, we have done it as a Nation and a treaty
is pending.
So, we can put off a lot of things, but this one is a
pretty dangerous one for the kind of world we live in. Knowing
what the stockpile looked like in countries like Russia for the
foreseeable future, we have to do something like this, and we
will do our best, and you have done a great job explaining to
the scientific community.
Additional committee questions
Many of them think it is a very exciting science-based
research program from which much science will evolve, and that
it is one of the major research programs going on now by way of
Government-directed programs, and from it will come many
computer capabilities and ideas, and many other items of
scientific significance are going to evolve.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Domenici
general questions
Question. Dr. Reis, is the nuclear weapons stockpile safe and
reliable, and does DOE have the capability to meet the requirements of
the Defense Department for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Yes, the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile is safe and
reliable. The Secretaries of Energy and Defense have completed two
annual certifications to the President that the nuclear weapons
stockpile is safe and reliable and that no nuclear testing is required.
At this time, the Department of Energy has the capability to meet the
nuclear weapon requirements of the Department of Defense as approved
and delineated by Presidential guidance.
Question. Dr. Reis, how long will we have to wait until it can be
determined that the science-based Stockpile Stewardship program works
and can be fully relied upon in the absence of underground weapons
testing?
Answer. Stockpile Stewardship is working now. While it has been
more than five years since the last nuclear test we have successfully
addressed several stockpile issues by using the experimental and
testing tools available today. This provides confidence that the even
more powerful computing and testing tools being developed will allow us
to solve future stockpile problems without nuclear testing. By annually
certifying the safety and reliability of the stockpile, the DOE will
confirm that Stockpile Stewardship can be relied on now and in the
future. We have successfully completed the process twice, and the third
annual certification process is well underway. A copy of the second
certification was provided to the Congress by the President on February
12, 1998.
Question. Dr. Reis, how would you assess the ability of the three
weapons labs to manage the critical, center-piece programs and
activities of the Stockpile Stewardship initiative, such efforts as the
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative, Subcritical Experiments,
DARHT, etc.?
Answer. The Department's three weapons labs have done an excellent
job of defining the stockpile stewardship program initiatives and in
most key areas are moving aggressively and effectively in carrying
these programs out. The labs successfully implemented the development
of the world's fastest computer at Sandia National Laboratories, the
conduct of three subcritical experiments, and the start of construction
of the National Ignition Facility. These successes confirm their
ability to manage the critical programs of Stockpile Stewardship. With
respect to DARHT, unanticipated changes in technical requirements
impacted the schedule and cost of the project, which in turn will
require significant changes in both the DOE and LANL management. We
also have concerns with some of the technical issues regarding the Blue
Mountain computer at LANL, and we are shoring up our management process
here as well.
Question. Do you have any concerns with the Labs ability to execute
the elements of the Stockpile Stewardship program?
Answer. If long term, adequate stable funding is provided, I
believe we will be able to execute all elements of the program.
Question. Are you confident that the management and leadership of
the national weapons laboratories is aware of the need to effectively
manage costs and schedules?
Answer. Yes, the directors of the weapons laboratories are fully
aware of the importance of delivering the key elements of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program on time and within budget. They have stated that
Stockpile Stewardship is their top priority program, and are acting
accordingly.
Question. Specifically, what are you doing to ensure that
appropriate structures and personnel are in place to carry out these
high priority activities?
Answer. I, and each of my Deputies and their DOE staff, conduct
frequent program reviews, workshops and independent analyses. We
participate fully and encourage independent reviews and analyses by the
United States Strategic Command, other DOD elements, other parts of the
U.S. government such as OMB, NSC, and OSTP and outside groups such as
the JASONS and the National Academy of Sciences.
Question. Dr. Reis, please explain the interrelationship of each of
the major elements of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management program
and how they complement each other.
Answer. The Stockpile Stewardship Program is an integrated program,
and all of its parts must work together if it is to be successful. As a
start, we conduct surveillance to determine the condition of the
current stockpile, find any defects, assess what effect these defects
have on the safety and reliability of the weapons, and replace
defective parts with remanufactured parts and certify that the weapons
will perform to their safety and reliability specifications. Because
the stockpile must remain safe and reliable indefinitely, we must
project this cycle of surveillance, assessment, remanufacture and
certification into the future, and much of the stockpile stewardship
program involves investing in the tools, facilities and people for the
future. This investment schedule is driven by the fact that the people
who designed, built, and tested the current stockpile are retiring and
will no longer be available.
Question. How will the work being accomplished in the science and
computing area benefit the production complex?
Answer. The science and computational simulation efforts will
enable the modeling of complex fabrication and manufacturing processes
to a degree that has heretofore not been possible. These include, for
example, rapid prototyping of newly developed parts using tools
developed in the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative. This
modeling will enable us to predict the sensitivity of manufacturing
processes on product performance and to predict the life of the new
product, and as a result reduce production cost and cycle time.
accelerated strategic computing initiative (asci)
Question. Explain the importance of the ASCI program to the
Stockpile Stewardship initiative and how this advanced computing
capability will be integrated with other critical Stewardship
activities?
Answer. ASCI is a time-critical, essential element of the
Department of Energy's Stockpile Stewardship initiative. ASCI enables
DOE to make the required shift from the past stockpile management
approach that was based on new weapon development and nuclear testing
to a science-based approach based on maintenance of the existing
stockpile through simulation and fundamental experiments. Specifically,
ASCI will create and provide to all stewardship activities the leading-
edge weapon simulation capabilities that are essential for maintaining
the safety, reliability, and performance of the nation's nuclear
stockpile under the current nuclear test moratorium and will meet the
challenge set forth by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Under the Stockpile Stewardship Program, computational modeling and
numerical simulation provide the integration of theory, past nuclear
test data, and existing and new experimental results into results that
can be verified and validated for stockpile assessment and
certification. Advanced computational capabilities (application codes,
computing platforms, supercorridors, and various tools and techniques)
are currently being developed and incorporated into ongoing stockpile
computational activities. The weapons scientists and engineers will
rely on numerical simulations and experiments to a greater extent than
in the past. The goal is to combine past nuclear test data,
computational modeling and new data to fill in knowledge gaps and
extend the fundamental understanding in all areas related to nuclear
weapons assessment.
The ASCI computational modeling and numerical simulation
capabilities support the assessment and certification actions defined
by the Stockpile Life Extension Program (SLEP) activities. Similarly,
they are vital to the success of the Enhanced Surveillance Program
plans to predict weapons component aging and lifetimes and the Advanced
Design and Production Technologies (ADaPT) plans to establish weapons
component remanufacturing processes and techniques. Further, the ASCI
capabilities will accelerate the traditional symbiotic and iterative
improvements back and forth between the designer's theories, models,
and simulation and the experimentalist's tests at current and future
experimental facilities, such as the Dual Axis Radiographic
Hydrodynamic Test (DARHT) facility and the National Ignition Facility
(NIF).
Question. Discuss briefly how the ASCI programs at each of the
three weapons labs is progressing.
Answer. The three national weapons laboratories are progressing on
schedule in reaching the ASCI Program Plan objectives. They are
providing the application codes and related science needed to address
weapon safety, reliability, and performance without nuclear testing.
They are developing improved tools, methodologies, and infrastructure
to utilize this unprecedented volume of data. The labs are running
simulations on the new ASCI platforms with the existing codes faster,
and performing calculations and simulations with new codes with
physical and engineering details and physics models that were
impossible to contemplate before. The laboratories are providing
weapons designers and analysts with computer center operations, model
development, and code maintenance services necessary to support the
current Stockpile Stewardship Program activities. They support the
assessment and certification of the existing nuclear weapons stockpile
by providing incremental upgrades to existing codes and computing
platforms.
Question. Are you experiencing any problems or delays in meeting
expected schedules, and if so, why and what is being done to correct
those weaknesses?
Answer. We are concerned with the some of the technical issues
surrounding the ASCI Blue Mountain system. DOE and the Los Alamos
National Laboratory management are working closely with SGI/Cray to
resolve the technical issues they face in developing the Blue Mountain
system. SGI/Cray canceled planned production of the microprocessor chip
used in the computer system in the 3 TeraOps Blue Mountain system
scheduled for initiation of assembly in December 1998. DOE, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, and SGI/Cray are currently developing a revised
plan for Blue Mountain system development. A new plan is expected in
June 1998. We remain on the overall curve to demonstrate a three
TeraOps capability in 1999 with the IBM Blue Pacific System at the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
The Secretary of Energy announced on February 12, 1998, that DOE
has awarded a contract with IBM Corporation for delivery of the 10
TeraOps system that will be sited at the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory by 2000. In 1998, we awarded contracts to four major U.S.
computer companies for the Pathforward Program to develop interconnect
and scaling technologies for 30 TeraOps systems. These technologies are
intended to reduce the technical risk in developing a 30 TeraOps
computer system.
Question. Why was the 2004 date for development of the a 100 Tera
Flop predictive simulation capability established?
Answer. The year 2004 was chosen because by that date a significant
number of test-experienced weapons designers will be retiring. These
test-experienced designers must be provided with the appropriate
simulation tools in time for them to validate the simulation codes
based on their intimate knowledge and experience with the nuclear
weapons.
Question. What would be the impact of stretching out the 2004 date
by several years?
Answer. Stretching out the 2004 date by several years would
increase the risk to a successful stockpile stewardship program. The
success of a science based stockpile stewardship program, depends upon
staying as close as possible to our scheduled milestones.
Question. Provide an annual funding profile for both ASCI and
Stockpile Computing for the next 5 years.
Answer. The current five year estimates for ASCI and Stockpile
Computing included in the fiscal year 1999 Congressional Budget Request
follow. Program funding requirements for fiscal year 2000 through
fiscal year 2003 will be refined each year, guided by policy, planning,
and program workload information at that time.
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal Year
2000.............................................................. 629.1
2001.............................................................. 681.0
2002.............................................................. 734.7
2003.............................................................. 753.8
Question. What are the key activities to be completed in fiscal
year 1998 and how does progress on those items compare to the schedule
required to meet the 2004 date for development of a 100 Tera Flop
capability?
Answer. Within ASCI and Stockpile Computing, there are a number of
key activities that will be completed in 1998 which include upgrading
the ASCI Blue Mountain system to about 400 GigaOps (billion operations
per second) and the ASCI Blue Pacific to 980 GigaOps; validating a new
3D hydrodynamics code with 2D legacy code results; awarding the
contract for the 10 TeraOps system; developing the technical
requirements for a 30 TeraOps system; prototyping high speed network
switches and classified network operations; and bench marking of 3D
models to hydrodynamic test data. Continued simulation and modeling
with new and legacy codes will support the certification of the B61 Mod
11, W76 Revalidation, W88 pit rebuild assessment, and the W87 life
extension certification. A more complete listing of detailed activities
are available in the implementation plans for the ASCI program.
Question. What are the key activities proposed to be undertaken in
fiscal year 1999 and what is the schedule for completing each?
Answer. The key activities proposed to be undertaken in fiscal year
1999 are the three new programs of Numeric Environment for Weapons
Simulation (NEWS), Distance and Distributed Computing (DisCom2), and
the Verification and Validation (V&V). These three new programs provide
the weapons designers and analysts at three national laboratories the
capability to work on application and weapons codes from a distance, to
install supercorridors to the large-scale computers for high
performance interfaces for designers, and validate simulation on
archival nuclear data and above ground experiments. In addition to
these new programs, we plan to begin in fiscal year 1999 the
contractual process to acquire the 30 trillion operations per second
computer system, the next major step in ASCI to reaching the 100
TeraOps level by 2004. Other fiscal year 1999 key activities include:
an initially validated 3D burn code for primaries; linking all three
nuclear weapons laboratories at an extremely high bandwidth for
classified computing; implementing dedicated high-performance graphic
engines to enable real-time, 3D visualization; and achieving the 3
TeraOps milestones for Option Blue.
Question. What is the current status of reaching the 3 Tera Flop
computing level?
Answer. Our planning process is to reach a 3 Tera Flop computing
level in 1999, and we see no difficulty in demonstrating this
capability in the target time frame.
Question. What is the schedule for development of a 3, 10-30, and
100 Tera Flop computing capability?
Answer. The planned schedule for the ASCI computing capability of a
3, 10, 30, and 100 TeraOps is on target. As you see from the attached
chart, the 3 TeraOps is planned for demonstration in 1999; the 10
TeraOps for which the contract to develop the 10 TeraOps was recently
announced by the Secretary of Energy is planned for demonstration in
2000; the 30 TeraOps has a target date of mid 2001; and the 100 TeraOps
has a target date range of late 2003 or early 2004.
Question. Provide a chart for the record which shows the key
elements of reaching each computing level and the major milestones for
completing each element.
Answer. The attached chart referenced in the previous question
shows the key elements of reaching each computing level and the major
milestones.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TNERGY.010
Question. Funding is being requested to begin the ``Distributed
Computing At A Distance'' effort. Describe this activity and why it is
important to begin this effort in fiscal year 1999.
Answer. The ``Distributed Computing at Distance'' effort, more
commonly known as the Distance Computing and Distributed Computing
(DisCom2) Program, will deliver key computing and communications
technologies that complement the ASCI vision. DisCom2 will accelerate
the ability of the DOE national laboratories and plants to apply vital
high-end and distributed computing resources (from desktops to TeraOps)
across thousands of miles to meet the urgent and expansive design,
analysis, and engineering needs of stockpile stewardship. Specifically,
DisCom2 includes two key strategies that will assist in the development
of an integrated information, simulation, and modeling capability. The
first strategy, distance computing, will develop the technologies and
infrastructure necessary to enable the efficient use of high-end
computing platforms by remote sites. The second strategy, distributed
computing, will focus on the delivery of mid-range computing and
communications technologies that can be flexibly configured to provide
both capacity and capability computing that will support DOE's science,
engineering, and remanufacturing requirements for stockpile
stewardship.
It is essential to begin this effort in fiscal year 1999 in order
for this program to keep pace with the developing ASCI related
structure that requires each of the Defense Programs laboratories to
use resources, particularly the large-scale computers, that are not
geographically co-located with their design and analysis experts.
Question. How much is being requested in fiscal year 1999 and
future years for this effort?
Answer. In the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request, the
amount planned for the ``Distributed Computing At a Distance'' effort
is $28.4 million. In fiscal year 2000, the estimated amount is $48.2
million, and for fiscal year 2001-2003, remains constant at $47.7
million. In fiscal year 2000, DisCom2 will extend the distance
computing and distributed computing environment to include all the
laboratories and plants, resulting in a substantial increase in both
the number of end users and the scale of infrastructure required. This
will enable the application of high-end computing resources to a wider
set of problems that address the urgent and expansive design, analysis,
and remanufacturing requirements of stockpile stewardship.
Question. The budget justification for fiscal year 1999 indicates
that a ``Numeric Environment for Weapon Simulation'' initiative will be
started. Describe this program and its relationship to the ASCI
program.
Answer. The Numeric Environment for Weapons Simulation (NEWS)
initiative will deploy unprecedented capabilities for visualizing,
storing, transporting and managing massive data sets resulting from the
ASCI simulations, above ground experiments and previous underground
tests data. NEWS will create localized Data Exploration Super Corridors
to support large-scale data analysis and assimilation tasks for
individual researchers and for multi-member weapons assessment teams.
Future weapon assessments will rely on the judgments of technical
personnel increasingly removed in time and experience from nuclear
testing. Consequently, they will rely on high-fidelity simulations,
coupled with above ground experiments and historical data, to build
their experience base. However, the high-fidelity simulations required
to train tomorrow's designers will produce data sets that will vastly
exceed today's computing capability in both quantity and complexity.
These data sets expected to be 1,000's to 10,000's times larger than
the simulation data sets created today. New and innovative approaches
to information and data management and data analysis and assimilation
will be required. NEWS will focus on overcoming these technological
obstacles to unleash the full potential of ASCI-scale systems for
designers and analysts residing at the nuclear weapons laboratories.
Question. What is the total cost of this activity expected to be?
Answer. The total cost of the ``Numeric Environment for Weapon
Simulation'' initiative is planned to grow to about $77 million by
fiscal year 2001 and remain at that level through full validation of
the ASCI simulation codes. Some savings might occur in the future if
research in scalable visualization and presentation systems proves
successful in the future. It is essential for this initiative to be
funded in order to support the weapons designers and analysts as they
work with huge amounts of data needed to create accurate weapons
simulations to certify that our nation's stockpile is safe and
reliable.
Question. How much funding is included in the fiscal year 1999
budget and what are the annual funding requirements expected to be over
the next 5 years?
Answer. The requested amount in fiscal year 1999 for the Numeric
Environment for Weapons Simulation (NEWS) initiative is $31 million.
The estimated annual requirements over the next five years are expected
to be approximately $68.7 million in fiscal year 2000; $77.6 million in
fiscal year 2001; $77.6 million in fiscal year 2002; $78 million in
fiscal year 2002; and $77 million in fiscal year 2003. This funding
will implement a variety of key activities in the areas of Input/
Output, Validation and Archival systems storage, weapons designer
networks, pre- and post-processor systems and designer visualization
environments.
subcritical experiments
Question. What are subcritical experiments and how important are
they to the Stockpile Stewardship effort?
Answer. The subcritical experiments at the Nevada Test Site are
scientific experiments to obtain technical information needed for the
success of Stockpile Stewardship and are very important to that effort.
Subcritical experiments involve high explosives and nuclear weapon
materials, particularly plutonium. In an experiment, the high explosive
is detonated to create high pressures relevant to those achieved in a
nuclear weapon; however, the configuration and quantities of materials
are such that nuclear criticality cannot be reached. This means that
there can be no self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction.
The experiments will provide data needed for assessing nuclear
weapons performance and safety via advanced computer simulation. The
experiments will provide data on the high pressure behavior of weapons
material (including equation of state, strength, and ejecta), benchmark
data on the hydrodynamics of weapon materials, the effects of aging on
materials, the effects of remanufacturing techniques and other valuable
technical data. In addition to these data, these experiments will help
provide mechanisms to maintain a national nuclear test readiness
capability by productively utilizing resources and operational skills
needed for an underground nuclear test.
Question. Does the science-based Stockpile Stewardship plan
approved by the President specifically include subcritical experiments?
Answer. The President directed that the Department conduct a
program of science-based Stockpile Stewardship. The program to
implement this directive is described by the Department in the
Stockpile Stewardship Plan (SSP), which includes subcritical
experiments as an important element.
Question. I believe sufficient funding was provided for fiscal year
1998 for DOE to conduct four subcritical experiments. Will DOE be able
to execute four experiments as planned? If not, explain why.
Answer. Currently, the Department is planning to conduct three
subcritical experiments in fiscal year 1998 and a fourth following
shortly in the month of October. Most of the preparatory work for the
fourth test will be completed in fiscal year 1998. This scheduling is
dictated by technical and operational factors related to the
experiments. Of course, as with any experimental program, technical and
operational issues may require further changes in these plans; however,
funding is not an issue at the present time.
Question. What is DOE doing to ensure that delays are held to a
minimum in order that these critical experiments are completed on time?
Answer. The Department has established what we believe is an
efficient system to conduct these experiments in a manner that is safe,
cost-effective and scientifically productive. The process includes
scientific and policy reviews and necessary safety and criticality
evaluations. Once the first experiment was conducted in July 1997, the
second followed a little over two months later. The next experiment is
expected to be conducted in March of this year and three more are
planned by the end of the calendar year.
Question. How much funding was appropriated for subcritical
experiments in fiscal year 1997?
Answer. Funding for subcritical experiments is appropriated as part
of the core Stockpile Stewardship Operation and Maintenance Account,
not specifically for the experiments. Thus, there is no single
accounting category to collect costs associated with the experiments.
However, an estimate of the fiscal year 1997 funding that can be
associated with this program effort is $40 million.
Question. How many experiments were planned to be undertaken?
Answer. In April 1997, Secretary Pena announced the schedule for
the commencement of subcritical experiments. Two experiments were
planned: one in June 1997 and the second in the fall of 1997.
Question. How many were actually completed?
Answer. The two experiments announced in April 1997 were completed.
The first in July 1997 and the second in September 1997.
Question. How much funding is included in the fiscal year 1999
budget for subcritical experiments and how many experiments are
expected to be executed?
Answer. In the fiscal year 1999 funding request, $82,065,000 is
associated with these experiments as well as supporting our Test
Readiness posture. It is expected that three to four experiments will
be conducted in this time period. However, the actual number conducted
may vary due to the scientific needs of the program (which bears
strongly on the complexity and difficulty of each experiment), the
results of prior subcritical and/or preparatory experiments, and the
effect of unforseen operational issues that may arise.
Question. Provide a chart for the record which shows the schedule
for each subcritical experiment planned for fiscal year 1999 along with
key milestones for each experiment.
Answer. While the general technical objectives and estimated target
times for the fiscal year 1999 experiments have been identified, no
detailed time lines have been finalized. Preliminary target times for
execution of these experiments are as follows:
Clarinet............................... October 1998.\1\
Trotter................................ June 1999.
Oboe................................... July 1999.
Buckskin............................... September 1999.
\1\ With most preparatory work performed in fiscal year 1998.
national ignition facility (nif)
Question. Briefly, what is the importance of the NIF to Stockpile
Stewardship?
Answer. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is essential for the
success of the science-based Stockpile Stewardship program. It permits
us to do the relevant weapon physics experiments and measurements
important for primaries and secondaries at temperatures and densities
close to those occurring in nuclear weapons detonation. The NIF will
examine the effects of specific age-related changes and other nuclear
component modifications on weapon performance. Experiments at the NIF
will provide data on how materials behave under extreme conditions
similar to those found in a nuclear weapon test. The fusion ignition
mission will provide a rigorous test of simulation codes developed
under the Advanced Strategic Computing Initiative.
The NIF will be the world's premier laser facility attracting the
highest quality scientists for work in high energy density science
important for weapons physics. It will provide an excellent tool for
recruiting and training the next generation of scientists for the
Stockpile Stewardship Program. Two JASON panels have stated that the
NIF is the most scientifically valuable of the programs proposed for
science-based stockpile stewardship. The NIF's value to the stockpile
stewardship is recognized internationally with similar high powered
laser facilities being planned in France and Great Britain by their
respective weapons programs.
Question. What is the status of the major critical path items
scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The critical path items for fiscal year 1998 are the
foundations for the Laser Building and the Target Building which are
currently four weeks behind schedule. These activities were delayed in
November due to the impact of early El Nino rains which have now been
mitigated by implementing wet weather construction features at the
site. We expect that the critical path schedule can be completely
recovered by the end of the year.
Question. Provide a chart for the record which shows the schedule
for each major critical path item planned for fiscal year 1999.
Answer. The are several major critical path items for the NIF that
will be accomplished in fiscal year 1999. These items and their
schedule for completion are :
Critical path item Date
Optical Assembly Building Ready for Equipment 10/98
Installation.
Start Special Equipment Installation................ 11/98
Laser Bay #2 Ready for Beam Transport Installation.. 3/99
Target Bay Ready for Target Chamber Installation.... 3/99
Laser Bay #1 Ready for Beam Transport Installation.. 4/99
Switchyard # 2 Ready for Space Frame Installation... 4/99
Core Area Ready for Equipment Installation.......... 6/99
Capacitor Bay Ready for Power Conditioning 7/99
Installation.
Optical Assembly Building Complete (Certified Clean) 8/99
Question. Manufacture and supply of high quality optical glass
remains a large component of the project cost and is critical to the
success of the project. What critical optical glass activities are
planned for fiscal year 1998 and are they on schedule?
Answer. The NIF critical path optics, including laser glass
manufacture, optics fabrication, and crystal growth facilitization, are
on schedule in fiscal year 1998 and going well. Critical activities for
NIF optics in fiscal year 1998 are the placement and execution of
facilitization contracts to establish the manufacturing capacity at the
vendors for the project. The major facilitization contracts, including
those for laser glass, optics fabrication, and crystals, have all been
awarded on schedule. The earliest awards were for a full-scale laser
glass melter and for the laser glass finishing (that is, polishing)
facilities. The glass melter was completed on schedule in fiscal year
1997, and used for a development run to provide initial data on the
viability of continuous melting of full size laser glass slabs for NIF.
This glass met critical specifications for platinum inclusions (the
impurity of greatest concern), and other specifications. Remaining
technical specifications are expected to be met during the pilot runs
in fiscal year 1999. Work is on schedule for the next use of the
melter, and complete facilitization of the other processing activities.
The laser glass finishing facility building has been completed on
schedule, and the installation of the first of three polishers is also
complete, on schedule. The rapid crystal growth program has produced
NIF-size and -quality potassium dihydrogen phosphate crystals. The
crystals are used to convert the laser's red light into ultraviolet
light. Plates have been fabricated from these crystals, and will be
tested on the Beamlet laser at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
during the third quarter of fiscal year 1998. Other significant optics
facilitization activities include the award of mirror and polarizer
facilitization contracts, which are on schedule, and the mirror and
polarizer substrate orders, which have been delayed to later in fiscal
year 1998 to take maximum advantage of shorter delivery lead times than
anticipated previously.
Question. What work is proposed for fiscal year 1999 and what is
the completion schedule for each major element?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, the facilitization contracts will be
completed at all the vendors, and pilot production will begin on all
the required optical components. The results of the pilot production
contracts will be used to confirm vendor capabilities to meet the NIF
schedule and specifications during optics production. These results
also provide the basis for competitive awards for the production
contracts in finalizing the split between the vendors. Pilot production
will be complete, or nearly complete in laser glass, optics
fabrication, and crystal growth, which are the critical path optics for
NIF. Pilot production will begin in mid- to late-fiscal year 1999 in
the areas of mirror and polarizer coatings and crystal finishing. Pilot
production in these areas will be complete in mid-fiscal year 2000.
Question. What assurances can you give that the laser glass can be
supplied on schedule and within the cost estimate?
Answer. The results of the pilot production will establish the
viability of continuous melting to meet the technical specifications,
and yields from the pilot will provide the basis for establishing the
cost of laser glass during production. Nevertheless, considering that
the development results to date have been good, and that development
and facilitization has maintained the critical path schedule, our
confidence remains high that the laser glass will be available as
planned. We are working with two vendors each capable of producing 100
percent of the laser glass; these are two of the best glass
manufacturers in the world. The furnace technology has established a
new state-of-the-art for continuous glass melting. By working with two
vendors, we are minimizing both technical and schedule risk to the
project, and establishing competition for production to obtain the
lowest possible cost. Results to date have strengthened our confidence
in meeting cost and schedule for the glass. With completion of pilot
production at the end of fiscal year 1999, we expect confirmation of
our estimates.
Question. What impact has the El Nino rain had on the project?
Answer. The El Nino rains occurring on November 15th and 26th
damaged the soil sub-base under the target building wall footings, and
the grades and soil compaction site-wide. On November 25th, the project
contracted with Earth Tech wet weather consultants from the Northwest.
By December 5th, essential elements of a wet weather construction plan
were in place to protect the site from further rain damage. Before
Christmas, the site had been repaired and protected for wet weather
construction. Since this time, construction has proceeded with no
additional impacts due to El Nino rains.
Question. Do you expect significant delays or major cost increases?
Answer. No, all aspects of the project are making steady and
satisfactory progress. The major adjustment in the project was made at
the end of the Title I design phase in late 1996 and submitted in the
fiscal year 1998 budget. Since then the project has made significant
progress and overcome the challenge of the El Nino rains. As previously
noted, a critical issue is manufacture of laser glass which is
proceeding well. The NIF project is following a prudent development
plan for the laser glass which takes into account the risk involved.
dual-axis radiographic hydrodynamic test facility (darht)
Question. Explain the changes which have taken place in the DARHT
project and why those changes were necessary.
Answer. The DARHT project has changed significantly over the past
ten years due to many factors including the increased scientific
demands placed upon hydrodynamic testing following the cessation of
underground nuclear testing, the emergence of new radiographic
technology, and an increased sensitivity to environmental impacts.
A significant part of the Total Estimated Cost (TEC) increases in
this project have been the result of directed changes in project scope.
The DARHT project has been able to adjust to changing DOE needs driven
by dramatic changes on the world scene. The moratorium on underground
nuclear testing at the end of 1992 created tremendous pressure to
increase hydrotesting capabilities. The evolving Science-Based
Stockpile Stewardship (SBSS) plan also leads to evolving hydrotesting
needs, including multiple axes with multiple pulses. The increasing
need for comprehensive regulatory compliance and the need to address
public concerns over emissions lead to solutions such as the DARHT
phased containment effort. The DARHT, because of its modular design,
has been able to accommodate these changing needs. The result of adding
much greater scientific test capability, while at the same time
reducing environmental impact, has resulted in a higher cost facility.
A complete history of the project follows.
The DARHT was originally proposed as a 1988 project with an
estimated cost of $53.4M. This design was however a complete rescoping
of an earlier $30M project that included significantly lower power
pulsed diode machines without an enclosed structure and with only a
small instrument building. The 1988 project, which is considered to be
the actual DARHT baseline project, included two 16 MeV linear induction
accelerators and large enclosing structures for the machines, data
recording instrumentation, component assembly and test space.
In 1990, the project was suspended until additional testing could
be performed to demonstrate conclusively that all technical
uncertainties with the design were resolved. The baseline design for
DARHT was a modified and improved adaptation of a Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (LLNL) design. However, these improvements caused
problems that were not anticipated in 1988. As a result, project
funding was suspended in fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year 1993, making
way for an extensive testing during this period. Design modifications
were determined to be necessary, and the delay in procurement
activities and other directed changes to the original design
contributed to the new $81.4M price tag for a single axis machine.
Based upon recommendations from two external review panels the decision
was made by the Department to postpone the technology decision on the
second axis machine.
Work was resumed on the construction of the first axis of DARHT in
March 1993 and the project was proceeding satisfactorily until a
Federal Court injunction was issued in January 1995. This injunction
was issued as the result of failure to prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) for the DARHT project.
All work associated with the project stopped for one year and four
months; the total delay, including the time to re-start the project,
was one year and eight months. During that time an EIS was prepared and
it was decided that containment of hydro tests, phased-in over time,
should be added to the design in order to reduce environmental impacts.
Although the phased containment concept added additional cost and delay
to the project, it was a correct decision in terms of environmental
protection and the long term viability of the facility. Additional
information gathered during the directed suspension of the project
indicated that the 16 MeV electron beam machine planned for the first
axis should be increased to 20 MeV to assure penetration of dense
weapons systems. These changes in beam strength and the addition of
phased containment increased the cost of the project from $81.4 to
$105.7M. This increase was approved in April 1996 shortly after the
lifting of the injunction. We expect to complete Phase 1 at this cost.
In October 1996, the Department requested Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL) to determine the best technology for the second x-ray
machine. The Record of Decision (ROD) stated that DOE might incorporate
modified or improved technology for the second axis. The fiscal year
1998 budget included a preliminary estimate for the cost of the second
axis which increased the TEC for the project by $81M, from $105.7M to
$186.7M. It was clearly stated in the Construction Project Data Sheet
(CPDS) that the TEC for Phase 2 was based upon planning estimates that
were derived from the EIS and the ROD and based on a simple
reproduction of the first x-ray machine. The ROD further indicated that
a more accurate estimate of Phase 2 cost would be done upon completion
of a technology option study, prior to the fiscal year 1999 budget
request.
Following completion of the study to determine the best option for
the second axis machine and significant design efforts to define the
containment/confinement requirements, the Department approved a multi-
pulse x-ray machine and completion of the phased containment
requirements. This decision brought the total estimated cost of the
project to the current level of $259.7M.
The DARHT project greatly increases the Department's confidence in
our near term ability to provide the scientific data necessary to
support a SBSS program. DARHT will incorporate the most current
radiographic technology available for conducting hydrodynamic tests.
The lessons learned in development, component testing and construction
on the DARHT project will significantly advance hydrodynamic test
technology.
Question. Why should further construction work be undertaken until
a firm total cost baseline for the entire project, including Phase III,
is established?
Answer. The halting of underground nuclear testing and the
subsequent development of the SBSS plan have led to the generation of a
well-defined list of important capabilities for radiographic
hydrotesting in the future: (1) high-resolution radiographs; (2) multi-
axis views; and (3) multi-time views. The DARHT (with its second axis
as now proposed) is the only radiographic hydrotesting facility that
will be able to address in the near term all of these issues when it is
complete. It will represent the nation's initial capability for multi-
axis views and multi-time views. The DOE may elect to move forward from
DARHT, but such a new capability, an advanced hydro test facility will
be built only if DARHT and other existing facilities prove to be
inadequate for the needs of SBSS. As the stockpile continues to age
beyond its design lifetime, a new generation of weapons designers and
stewards will replace those who have underground nuclear testing
experience, and the new Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative
(ASCI) super-computers will come on-line, requiring high-fidelity data
to benchmark their predictions. In short, DARHT is the only facility
capable of addressing new requirements for radiography without
underground testing in the near and mid term. It will set the stage for
further advances. No other construction project, or research project,
can generate as much needed high-quality data in the time frame
projected for the DARHT project.
The baseline Total Project Cost (TPC) for the complete DARHT
project is $269.8M which includes all capital and operating costs for
both Phase 1 and Phase 2. The Hydro test Firing Site construction will
be completed in fiscal year 1998. The Phase I x-ray machine will be
operational in CY 1999. The only significant construction remaining
will be the Vessel Preparation Facility as part of Phase 2 to complete
the containment commitments made in the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) Record of Decision (ROD). Phase 3 of DARHT was discussed within
the DARHT EIS as a possibility that might be added to the project at
the completion of Phase 2 in order to produce a large containment
vessel capable of containing very large charges of high explosives. The
Construction Project Data Sheet (CPDS) submitted for DARHT states that
no additional funding would be required for Phase 3 unless a decision
to develop this large vessel is made.
The Department considers it unlikely that the large vessel will be
required and projects that Phase 3 will not be implemented, therefore
additional funding beyond Phase 2 is not required at this time. The
scope of Phases 1 and 2 include sufficient containment vessels and
infrastructure to fully meet the emissions reduction requirements
committed to in the ROD. Phase 1 and 2 provided the equipment, the
techniques, and the experience to achieve a 75 percent reduction in
emissions compared to the DARHT baseline case analyzed in the DARHT
EIS. No further action will be required to achieve the required 75
percent reduction.
Question. What activities are planned to be undertaken with the $36
million being requested for fiscal year 1999, and what are the major
milestones to be met during the remainder of fiscal year 1998 and in
fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The $36M request for fiscal year 1999 will be used for
Phase 2 activities including: Special Facility Equipment design,
prototype testing and procurement, and civil construction design for
the Vessel Preparation Facility. This facility will support the routine
use of containment vessels at DARHT that will reduce the environmental
emissions from hydrodynamics testing as required in the DARHT Final
EIS/ROD.
In the Special Facility Equipment area, design of the electron beam
accelerator injector will be completed and high-voltage testing of the
assembly begun after all injector procurement is complete. Design of
the accelerator hardware will also be completed and the initial
procurement and testing of the first DARHT Phase 2 accelerator cells
completed. Accelerator pulsed power design will be completed and DARHT
production prototypes tested. All of this work will be completed by the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in Berkeley, California.
The LLNL is also collaborating in the second phase of DARHT and
work there during fiscal year 1999 will consist of design of the kicker
and transport system that generates multiple electron beam pulses (from
which the multiple x-ray pulses are made) from the single, long-pulse
of electrons generated in the accelerator. Work at LLNL will also
include design of the final electron beam focus, including prototype
testing on their accelerator.
At LANL, work during fiscal year 1999 will include design of the
Phase 2 accelerator control system, including controls of the prototype
equipment being fielded by both LBNL and LLNL. In addition, the overall
physics modeling of the entire system will continue at LANL as well as
diagnostic development and technology transfer processes from LBNL and
LLNL to LANL. Prototype work on the multi-pulse x-ray detector will be
well advanced with the design of a prototype fast-framing recording
chip being completed and the first growth of Lutetium Ortho-oxysilicate
scintillator (LSO) being completed. The LANL design of the Phase 2
extension of the hydro test firing site control center will be
completed and the purchase of additional optical diagnostics begun.
Design of the dual-axis confinement vessel system will be nearing
completion by the end of fiscal year 1999 and procurement of supporting
vessel component hardware testing will be completed. During fiscal year
1999, design work on the Vessel Preparation Facility will progress.
Finally, although no further funding during fiscal year 1999 is
requested for Phase 1, it should be noted that the first DARHT x-ray
machine will become operational during the fiscal year and single-axis,
high-resolution radiographic hydrodynamics testing will commence.
The major project milestones for the remainder of fiscal year 1998
and fiscal year 1999 include the following:
Expected performance
Milestone date
Begin installation of Phase 1 accelerator systems
into the Phase 1 portion of the DARHT Hydro test
Firing Site (HFS) building...................... March 1998.
Begin installation of Phase 1 control and data July 1998.
acquisition systems.
Complete first DARHT Phase 2 prototype
accelerator cell and pulsed power module........ Sept. 1998.
Complete all construction of the DARHT HFS....... Oct. 1998.
Begin Phase 1 accelerator operations............. March 1999.
Begin Phase 1 hydrodynamics testing operations... June 1999.
Begin Phase 2 injector assembly system testing... July 1999.
Question. What is the current status of Phase 1 of the DARHT
facility, and how does the current estimated cost compare to the
original baseline cost?
Answer. The first phase of DARHT is proceeding well at this time.
Construction of the DARHT facility building (the ``Hydro test Firing
Site,'' or HFS) is about 75 percent complete and LANL has begun moving
into the first-axis part of the building. All of the major accelerator
components of the first axis have been pre-assembled and all of the
accelerator's pulsed power equipment has been assembled and tested. The
accelerator control and data acquisition system has been tested on the
DARHT Integrated Test Stand (ITS). The ITS has generated about 40,000
electron beam pulses, giving us high confidence in the design of the
accelerator and associated sub-systems. Installation of the Special
Facility Equipment has begun with all pulsed power support structures
and electronic racks installed. Accelerator installation of the
equipment has begun. The LANL expects to complete installation by early
next year and begin facility commissioning by March 1999. Initial
radiographic explosives testing is planned by the end of June 1999.
Although the original fiscal year 1988 Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
baseline for DARHT was $53.4M for a dual-axis facility, the current
Phase 1 TEC baseline was set during the EIS process in August 1995 at
$105.7M. The cost change described in detail previously includes
increased power to meet program needs and the impact and scope changes
from the EIS process. Since August 1995 when the latest scope was
established, there have been no cost increases and we expect to
complete Phase 1 in June 1999 within cost.
Question. Does the project cost baseline of $270 million reflect
the entire cost for Phase I through Phase III? If not, please explain
why, and what does the Department expect the cost of Phase III to be.
Answer. The baseline Total Project Cost (TPC) for the complete
DARHT project is $269.8M which includes all capital and operating costs
for both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 3 of DARHT was discussed within the
DARHT EIS as a possibility that might be added to the project at the
completion of Phase 2 in order to produce a large containment vessel
capable of containing very large charges of high explosives. The CPDS
submitted for DARHT states that no additional funding would be required
for Phase 3 unless a decision to develop this large vessel is made.
Question. Under what conditions would Phase III construction, which
would implement measures to reduce testing emissions by 75 percent, be
required?
Answer. Phase 3 would be needed only if a significant change in the
regulatory environment occurs. The Department considers it unlikely
that the large vessel will be required and projects that Phase 3 will
not be implemented and that additional funding beyond Phase 2 will not
be required at this time. The scope of Phases 1 and 2 include
sufficient containment vessels and infrastructure to fully meet the
emissions reduction requirements committed to in the ROD. Phase 1 and 2
provided the equipment, the techniques, and the experience to achieve a
75 percent reduction in emissions compared to the DARHT Baseline case
analyzed in the DARHT EIS. No further action will be required to
achieve the required 75 percent reduction. The CPDS states that Phase 1
and 2 will allow techniques to be implemented that will result in at
least 75 percent reduction in emissions.
Mention is made in the CPDS of Phase 3 because of its inclusion in
the EIS, but no funding is sought at this time because implementation
of Phase 3 does not appear to be required.
Question. What are the Department's plans regarding initiating
construction of Phase III?
Answer. At this time, the Department considers the scope of Phase 1
and 2 to be sufficient to meet all emissions requirements as defined in
the DARHT EIS. The Department has no plans or requirements for Phase 3
and it is intended that the DARHT construction project be completed at
the end of Phase 2. However, because the DARHT EIS mentions a possible
Phase 3, and such action could be required if regulatory requirements
change, the CPDS also lists the possibility of Phase 3. The Department
intends to complete Phases 1 and 2 and, if no further requirements are
identified during that period, complete the project at the end of Phase
2. Phase 3 would be needed only if a significant change in the
regulatory environment or EIS requirements occurs.
pulsed power program
Question. How would you assess the progress of the pulsed power
program over the past year?
Answer. Over the past year, the pulsed power program made
substantial progress in increasing x-ray output energy, power, and
temperature on Z. Sandia National Laboratories, in collaboration with
Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories and other
participants, have markedly increased the x-ray energy output to over
two megajoules and power to over 290 terawatts from z-pinch implosions.
A particularly significant achievement for Stockpile Stewardship is
attaining a radiation temperature of 140 electron volts because it
approaches physics regimes that are of greater relevance to weapons.
Question. When does the Department expect to have a science based
technical contract completed?
Answer. In consultation with the Department and other national
laboratories, Sandia recently completed a draft Z-Pinch Science and
Technology Research and Development Plan that establishes a science-
based technical contract for the program. A revised Plan incorporating
outside comment and review will be available in final form within the
next few months.
Question. Explain why you believe such a contract is warranted?
Answer. A technical contract outlining a series of experiments
relevant to weapons physics, inertial confinement fusion, and weapon
effects, to be conducted on Z, is needed to help guide the pulsed power
program in its work for stockpile stewardship. The use of a ``technical
contract'' follows the successful model previously demonstrated on the
Nova and Omega lasers.
Question. How could this technology contribute to the Stockpile
Stewardship program down the road if development is successful?
Answer. A successful pulsed power development program would provide
added capability to execute a variety of experiments requiring high x-
ray energy, long x-ray pulses, or large target size (this simplifies
some complex measurements). High yield fusion experiments would also be
useful for the stewardship program, but the credibility of ignition and
yield on an advanced pulsed power facility is yet to be established.
This is one of the goals for a technical contract.
Lasers and pulsed power are partly complementary. However, pulsed
power devices cannot reach as high a temperature, which restricts some
weapons physics, and are also less flexible than lasers with regard to
pulse shaping and repetition rate. DOE and the laboratories are working
towards a unified program that uses both of these capabilities in the
most efficient way to carry out the experiments required by the
stewardship program.
Question. What can you tell us regarding the plans for an advanced
pulsed power facility?
Answer. DOE is currently conducting internal studies and
anticipates an external review of the entire pulsed power program in
the near future. A goal of this effort will be to determine an
appropriate pace for the program, including the potential need for any
new facility. Key questions will include the emphasis to be placed on
experiments with a significantly upgraded Z accelerator and the mission
and capability of an advanced pulsed power facility, such as the X-1
machine proposed by Sandia.
Question. What are the major hurdles that must be overcome before
the decision can be made regarding such a facility?
Answer. The following criteria must be satisfied before a decision
can be made on whether to proceed with an advanced pulsed power
facility:
(1) The mission need must be clearly demonstrated. This involves
comparing the planned capabilities (output, shot rate) of an advanced
pulsed power facility with other current and planned stewardship
facilities and demonstrating that such a facility would be needed to
address a deficiency in the currently planned stockpile stewardship
program.
(2) There must be satisfactory progress on a pulsed power
``technical contract.'' This ``contract'' outlines a series of
experiments whose purpose is to validate the capability of an advanced
pulsed power facility in meeting physics goals. It should be noted that
the contract covers both high yield fusion and ``non high yield''
applications.
(3) The pulsed power technology development program must
demonstrate the technology required for an advanced pulsed power
facility to achieve its design parameters.
(4) The required funding for construction of such a facility must
fit within the expected outyear funding profile for DP and therefore be
consistent with DP overall funding priorities.
(5) The completion of an appropriate National Environmental Policy
Act review.
Question. How does your fiscal year 1999 budget request support
this effort?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget includes nearly seven million
dollars of funding for technology development for an advanced pulsed
power facility.
Question. How long will it take for the program to mature to the
point that an advanced pulsed power facility can proceed?
Answer. In the next year DP will be conducting a series of internal
studies and external reviews to determine the appropriate pace for the
pulsed power program and the potential for an advanced pulsed power
facility. A workshop planned for this spring on this subject will form
part of this analysis effort. The DOE decision on whether to build an
advanced pulsed power facility will be based on satisfying the criteria
listed above.
Question. What major activities and milestones are planned or
established for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The major fiscal year 1999 pulsed power activities and
milestones for the pulsed power program are:
(1) Conduct an aggressive experimental program on Z, which includes
275 experimental shots in the areas of Z performance and
characterization, weapons physics, inertial confinement fusion, and
weapons effects.
(2) Initiate modernization of the Z facility. The Z facility will
be modernized in several phases to maintain and improve the
experimental infrastructure (accelerator and diagnostics) in order to
meet the requirements (i.e., shot rate, diagnostic breadth and
capability, and data quality) of the experimental program. The first
phase will be conducted in fiscal year 1999; this includes replacing
aging facility components and commencing addition of a laser back
lighter capability.
(3) Pursue pulsed power technology development relevant to an
advanced pulsed power facility.
tritium supply and production
Question. If DOE is required to maintain an active stockpile at
START II levels, with the capability to return to a START I level, how
many separate weapons systems is DOE required to support?
Answer. Under the START I stockpile scenario, the DOE is required
to support ten active stockpile systems.
Question. Under this strategy, when will DOE require a new tritium
source?
Answer. Currently, the new tritium source need date to support a
START I stockpile is fiscal year 2005, including a five year reserve.
Question. If you assume a stockpile at START II levels, how many
weapon systems would DOE be required to maintain, and when would a new
tritium source be needed?
Answer. At START II levels, the DOE is required to support nine
active stockpile systems and the tritium inventory is sufficient to
support START II requirements until about fiscal year 2011, assuming no
hedge requirement to return to START I levels. However, if the current
hedge policy remains, there would be no change from the fiscal year
2005 date.
Question. What is the difference in cost between the current
strategy and a strategy of supporting START II level only?
Answer. The principal savings of a START II strategy, assuming no
hedge requirement to START I levels, is associated with the acquisition
of a tritium source. However, current policy assumes a hedge
requirement under a START II force structure. The Department will
provide firm cost estimates associated with tritium after the
Department has developed cost figures for the commercial light water
reactor option based on completion of negotiations with the Tennessee
Valley Authority.
new tritium source need date for various active stockpile scenarios
Question. What impact would Russian ratification of the START II
treaty or moving directly to a START III treaty have on the
Department's strategy for tritium supply?
Answer. If the Russian Duma ratifies the START II Treaty, there
will be no significant impact on our requirement for tritium supply
unless the current requirement to be able to return to START I levels
is revised or eliminated. The details of a START III treaty would have
to be studied before any specific impact of the need date for tritium
could be established.
Question. When does the Department plan to make its tritium supply
decision?
Answer. Consistent with Congressional direction, the Department
will make the decision no later than December 1998.
Question. Do you expect the decision to be made mid-1998 or late in
the year?
Answer. The Department is working to resolve all the outstanding
issues and conducting the required analyses, so that a decision can be
made in 1998.
Question. Do you foresee any obstacles which could prevent the
Department from making a decision in 1998?
Answer. The Department does not foresee any obstacles that would
preclude us from making a decision in 1998.
Question. Congress appropriated $68 million for fiscal year 1998
for detailed engineering and design of an accelerator production of
tritium facility. The budget request of fiscal year 1999 requests $157
million to pursue the option that is selected. How are the funds
appropriated for the current fiscal year being utilized?
Answer. The $200 million funds appropriated for the current fiscal
year for the APT includes $68 million (capital) to support the first
year of the four-year Preliminary and Final Design program, and $132
million (operating) to support the third year of the five-year
Engineering Development and Demonstration (ED&D) program. The operating
funds also include environmental and safety licensing and permitting
activities.
The $62 million funds appropriated for the current fiscal year for
the CLWR option includes $10 million in capital funding to support
engineering design of the new Tritium Extraction Facility. The
remaining $52 million operating funds will support confirmatory
demonstration in the Watts Bar Reactor and in laboratories, to prepare
analyses to be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to
complete environmental impact statements, and to further the transition
of component manufacturing to the private sector.
Question. What is the Department's strategy for proceeding and how
will the funds requested for fiscal year 1999 be used based on each
option?
Answer. The Department's strategy for fiscal year 1999 will depend
upon the tritium production technology selected and the tritium
production requirements at the time of the selection decision. The
Secretary of Energy is required to make a selection, as stipulated in
the National Defense Authorization Act, by December 1998. We believe
that the $157 million is adequate if the purchase of irradiation
services from a CLWR is selected as the primary option. If the
Secretary selects the APT as the primary option, we will need to seek
relief from the current target date for initiating new tritium
production or request additional funding. It would be premature to
anticipate the results of the ongoing process at this time. We are
committed to providing the Congress with a full justification for the
ultimate fiscal year 1999 funding requirement once the final decision
on the tritium source is reached.
Question. What does the Department plan to do with the accelerator
program if that technology is not selected?
Answer. This issue will be addressed, if applicable, as part of the
Department's selection of a primary tritium technology in 1998.
Question. What would be the schedule and costs associated with
developing the accelerator technology as a backup source of tritium?
Answer. The Department will address these issues should the CLWR be
selected as the primary tritium technology in 1998.
Question. Review briefly the costs, benefits and problems
associated with commercial light water reactor and the accelerator
options.
Answer. The information requested is shown in the section below
which I would like to insert for the record. The information follows:
accelerator production of tritium
Cost
The Department will provide cost estimates associated with the APT
at the same time the Department provides firm cost estimates for the
CLWR option based on completion of negotiations with the Tennessee
Valley Authority.
Benefits
Use of a dedicated defense facility avoids non-proliferation or
Atomic Energy Act issues, and preserves the long standing policy of
separating military and civilian uses of atomic energy.
The System is fully capable of meeting current tritium production
requirements with flexibility to meet anticipated changes in production
requirements.
APT has no major technical issues remaining.
APT will be a new facility, dedicated to the tritium mission, with
40+ year expected lifetime.
No formal overall regulatory action, license, or license amendment
is required for APT.
The system is designed to have minimal environmental impact and
minimal waste generation.
APT incorporates a management approach reflecting commercial best
practices and current government initiatives. The project has exemplary
cooperation between the lab, site, and contractor.
APT is an investment in technology for the future that establishes
production-plant capability of high-power accelerators. APT develops
capability for important alternative uses: waste transmutation,
advanced nuclear power, production of medical isotopes, and as a
diagnostic tool for aging weapons under the science-based stockpile
stewardship program.
APT costs are known and coming down, with potential to reduce near-
term investment.
APT has strong regional public support.
Problems
APT requires a significant financial investment in fiscal year 1999
and out-years.
APT has some development and demonstration work to be completed.
commercial light water reactor
Cost
The Commercial Light Water Reactor (CLWR) option is expected to be
significantly less expensive than other options. Because negotiations
between the Department and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) are
still ongoing, an accurate estimate for annual operating costs
associated with irradiation services cannot be provided at this time.
Detailed cost comparisons will be made available after irradiation
services contract(s) are finalized.
Benefits
No technical risks.--The CLWR uses proven technology and is
technically straightforward. Tritium is currently being produced in
TVA's Watts Bar reactor as part of the confirmatory demonstration.
Apparent lowest life cycle cost.--The Department believes that the
CLWR option will be significantly less expensive than other options.
However, cost data cannot be provided at this time without revealing
procurement sensitive information.
Fastest path to a domestic tritium supply.--The CLWR project is on
schedule to meet or beat its required fiscal year 2005 deadline.
High reliability.--The CLWR option will use a mature industrial and
regulatory infrastructure. The regulatory process is well established
and has been exercised successfully to obtain Nuclear Regulatory
Commission approval for Watts Bar confirmatory demonstration. The
Department is seeking access to two or more commercial reactors.
Inherent flexibility.--Irradiation services options contract(s)
need not be exercised until tritium is needed. The CLWR system can
remain in standby indefinitely at a very low cost. Conversely, the
production rate of the CLWR system can be increased on relatively short
notice.
Status.--The CLWR project is progressing on schedule and within its
budget.
Problems
Nonproliferation concerns must be addressed.
Question. What are the important activities planned for fiscal year
1999 for both options if you assume that option is selected?
Answer. Assuming the APT option is adopted without a schedule
delay, fiscal year 1999 activities would include:
Operating Funds: Engineering Development and Demonstration and ES&H
Activities
Complete site specific Environmental Impact Statement and issue
Record of Decision on location, plant configuration, etc.
Complete low-energy accelerator system demonstration through first
three accelerating sections.
Characterize irradiated material properties to optimizing Target/
Blanket material selection.
Confirm industrial manufacturability of high-energy accelerator
structure prototype.
Complete performance and operability demonstrations of high-energy
beam transport and diagnostics.
Capital Funds: Design and Construction
Complete preliminary design of much of the rest of the Target/
Blanket.
Complete detailed design of both the Target/Blanket Building and
Accelerator Tunnels.
Procure the Target/Blanket internals.
Begin initial site construction work. This involves completing the
site infrastructure required to support more extensive construction in
fiscal year 2000.
If the Commercial Light Water Reactor (CLWR) option is selected as
the primary or backup tritium supply, the following activities are
planned for fiscal year 1999:
Operating Funds
Lead test assemblies of tritium-producing rods will complete a full
cycle of irradiation in TVA's Watts Bar reactor. The rods will be
removed from the reactor and transported to the Department's Argonne
National Laboratory-West in Idaho where laboratory examinations will
begin.
Analyses will be finalized and submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission requesting the amendment of operating licenses for all
reactors selected for actual or potential tritium production roles.
Destructive examinations will be completed of tritium-producing
rods previously irradiated in the Department's Advanced Test Reactor.
Contracts will be executed with tritium-producing rod manufacturers
and long-lead materials will be ordered.
Complete site specific Environmental Impact Statements and issue
Records of Decision
Capital Funds
Detailed design and site preparation of the new Tritium Extraction
Facility will begin at the Savannah River Site.
Question. Provide for the record a chart which shows the major
milestones for each option through completion.
Answer. The milestones in the following table are from the current
Defense Programs Stockpile Stewardship Management Plan. The current
focus of the table is fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999. Additional
milestones will be added year-by-year as the project approaches
outyears.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APT Project Milestones Status Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Select APT Site................... Completed........... 1Q/FY 1996
Approval of Mission Need.......... Completed........... 1Q/FY 1996
Commence Conceptual Design........ Completed........... 2Q/FY 1996
Superconducting Radio Frequency Completed........... 2Q/FY 1997
Linear Accelerator Decision.
Issue Final Conceptual Design Completed........... 3Q/FY 1997
Report.
Complete High Power Density Completed........... 4Q/FY 1997
Irradiation of Target/blanket
Materials.
Critical Decision--2a, Approve Completed........... 4Q/FY 1997
Start of Engineering Design.
Begin Engineering Design of the Completed........... 1Q/FY 1998
APT Plant.
Complete Modular Design Study of .................... 2Q/FY 1998
the APT Plant.
Complete Site Specific
Environmental Impact Statement
and Issue Record of Decision..... .................... 4Q/FY 1998
Submit Readiness Report to Support .................... 4Q/FY 1998
Primary Path Decision.
Demonstrate Radio Frequency .................... 4Q/FY 1998
Quadruple Operation.
Technology Down-Select............ .................... 4Q/FY 1998
Critical Decision--3, Approve .................... 1Q/FY 1999
Start of Construction.
Begin Plant Construction.......... .................... 1Q/FY 1999
Complete Preliminary Safety .................... 2Q/FY 1999
Analysis Report.
Complete Target/Blanket Tritium .................... 4Q/FY 1999
Production Demonstration.
Tritium Requirement Reduction .................... 1Q/FY 2002
Option.
Begin Plant Startup and .................... 3Q/FY 2004
Commissioning Activities.
Begin Tritium Production .................... 2Q/FY 2007
Certification.
Critical Decision--4, Approve .................... 3Q/FY 2007
Plant Acceptance/Certification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completion of the milestones identified in this table assumes
sufficient funding to support planned activities. The project is
completing modular design and is doing what is necessary to rebaseline
the project in accordance with the modular design. These milestones
will be revised when the APT Modular Design is completed in April 1998.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Light Water Reactor
Project Milestones Status Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submit Lead Test Assembly Topical Completed........... 1Q/FY 1997
Report to NRC.
Issue draft request for proposals Completed........... 2Q/FY 1997
to nuclear utilities.
Insert lead test assemblies in an Completed........... 4Q/FY 1997
operating reactor.
Critical Decision-2, Approve
baseline and begin design of
Tritium Extraction Facility...... Completed........... 4Q/FY 1997
Award options contracts to .................... 2Q/FY 1998
purchase reactor(s) or
irradiation services.
Prepare Tritium-Producing Burnable .................... 4Q/FY 1998
Absorber Rod Topical Report.
Submit report on the CLWR option Completed........... 4Q/FY 1998
to support the primary path
decision.
Critical Decision-3, begin .................... 1Q/FY 1999
construction of Tritium
Extraction Facility.
Submit documents to initiate NRC .................... 2Q/FY 1999
license amendment process.
Document laboratory examinations
of absorber rods irradiated in
the Advanced Test Reactor........ .................... 4Q/FY 1999
Irradiated lead test assemblies .................... 2Q/FY 2000
delivered to examination facility.
Begin assembly of production .................... 1Q/FY 2002
absorber rod components.
NRC issues safety evaluation of .................... 1Q/FY 2002
absorber rod design.
NRC license amended............... .................... 1Q/FY 2003
Begin irradiation of production
Tritium-Producing Burnable
Absorber Rods................... .................... 1Q/FY 2004
Critical Decision-4, begin .................... 1Q/FY 2005
operation of the Tritium
Extraction Facility.
Extraction of the first increment .................... 3Q/FY 2005
of tritium gas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. The budget justification indicates that future budget
targets do not support the construction of an accelerator production
facility. If that option is selected, what are the Department's plans
regarding obtaining sufficient budget resources to ensure the project
proceeds in a timely manner?
Answer. If APT is selected, the project must receive relief from
current requirements or obtain sufficient additional funding to proceed
in a timely manner. APT funding requirements were identified in the
answer to a previous question. The Department is addressing potential
requirements changes with DOD and has identified additional funding
requirements. Funding for the capital requirements for APT is not
included in the DP budget request. Funding for CLWR will require
reprogramming to provide capital funding within current budget request.
pit production capacity
Question. Update the committee on DOE's strategy, and status
regarding reestablishing pit production capacity for the weapons
program.
Answer. DOE's strategy is a phased approach to achieving both the
capability to produce war reserve pits and establishing a limited
manufacturing capacity. At the base of the phased approach is the need
to assure the facilities involved in the production of the pits and
those which support the production are maintained and can perform their
operations in a safe manner; and equipment necessary to sustain
production is obtained.
The maintenance and safety of facilities involved in production and
production support; and capital equipment purchases necessary for
production are being accomplished through several maintenance and
construction projects. These are the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Upgrade Project (to maintain nuclear qualified space for all analytical
chemistry support), the Capability Maintenance and Improvement Project
(to provide plutonium facility improvements; non-nuclear component
facility improvements; and capital equipment replacement), Transition
Maintenance and Safety Equipment projects (to perform urgent
maintenance within the plutonium facility and long lead procurement of
equipment to support production), Nuclear Materials Storage Facility
Renovation Project (to provide storage space to store plutonium
material), and the Nuclear Materials Safeguards and Security Upgrade
Project (to provide continued protection for nuclear materials).
Assuring the capability to produce war reserve pits is being
achieved through the Pit Rebuild Program. It is key to capturing the
manufacturing technologies and corporate memory which support the
production of pits. This program centers on the production of three
different technology development pits (W88 Trident II Warhead; W87
Peacekeeper Warhead; and B61-7 bomb). These pits span the technology
found within the current stockpile (except one specific pit); and
successful completion of these builds will reflect that the capability
to remanufacture pits found in the stockpile has been retained. The Pit
Rebuild Program also requires the establishment of an infrastructure to
support the quality requirements defined in quality control directives
and the establishment of a production control methodology to ensure
that war reserve product certification is maintained and that a
schedule to deliver product could be supported. This program also
requires the review, revision, and issuance of specifications for
materials and processes as they relate to Los Alamos National
Laboratory operations. This requires that all design agency
specifications be reviewed and revised and that all process control
procedures be rewritten to meet Los Alamos National Laboratory
requirements.
Establishing a limited manufacturing capacity is being conducted in
a phased manner through production of the W88 pit. The phased approach
has been instituted to maintain pit production while also performing
necessary maintenance and upgrades to the facilities involved in
production. Production of a ``lot'' of pits for qualification and
certification will begin in the latter part of fiscal year 1999 at the
rate of approximately 10 pits per year. Qualification and certification
is scheduled to be completed by the third quarter of fiscal year 2001,
at which time a war reserve pit would be available for entry into the
stockpile. Production would continue on this ``lot'' until fiscal year
2007. From fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2007, Phase I of the
Capability Maintenance and Improvement Project would make upgrades to
the facilities involved in production. By fiscal year 2007, it is
expected those construction and improvement efforts would be complete
and an interim production capacity of 20 pits per year would have been
established through both facility improvements and production
efficiencies. This production capacity is limited by the necessity to
share equipment and personnel involved in multiple programs, such as;
surveillance and research and development activities.
A final capacity is being discussed between the Department of
Defense and Department of Energy. Once this is agreed upon, Phase II of
the Capability Maintenance and Improvement Project would proceed to
make the additional facility modifications or new facility construction
necessary to establish a dedicated production line. Currently, the
Department of Energy's objective is to establish a dedicated production
line with a capacity of 50 pits per year with single shift operation. A
surge capacity of 80 pits per year could be achieved through use of
multiple shifts. Both Phase I and II of the Capability Maintenance and
Improvement Project would be complementary in nature and could be
conducted concurrently or sequentially. A major element in project
execution would be that production of pits would need to continue while
construction is ongoing to meet programmatic requirements in support of
the stockpile.
The status in establishing the capacity is that we are still on
schedule to complete the Pit Rebuild Program, as well as, provide war
reserve pits by the end of fiscal year 2001. The first early
development unit in preparation for producing war reserve pits was
completed February 6, 1998.
Question. How much will it cost to reestablish pit production
capability at Los Alamos, and how much has been spent to date on this
program?
Answer. The total costs for reestablishing a pit production
capability at the Los Alamos National Laboratory will be about $400
million. This includes costs for Pit Rebuild; process development costs
for manufacturing; non nuclear component production costs; urgent
repair of equipment and long lead procurement of equipment supporting
manufacturing in the Transition Maintenance and Safety Equipment
projects; and the manufacturing element in the Phase I Capability
Maintenance and Improvement Project to put in place a 20 pits/year
capacity. Through fiscal year 1997, $39.2 million has been spent.
Question. What is the current schedule for reestablishing pit
production capability and how does this date compare to the original
dates set for this program?
Answer. The current schedule for reestablishing pit production
capability is completion of the Pit Rebuild Program and completion of
qualification and certification of the ``lot'' of W88 pits for
replacement of units being pulled from the stockpile for surveillance.
These efforts are scheduled to be completed by the end of fiscal year
2001. This end date has not changed from the original dates set for
this program. An enduring capability associated with an interim
capacity of 20 pits per year will be achieved by fiscal year 2007
through implementation of Phase I of the Capability Maintenance and
Improvement Project.
The final capacity date has changed. Originally this was to be
fiscal year 2005, based on a concerted construction effort that
required production to be halted around fiscal year 2002 until
construction on several facilities had been completed and several
missions moved out of the plutonium facility. In order to maintain a
production capability once established, as well as complete production
of the number of W88's necessary to support the surveillance program,
it was necessary to change the execution of the plutonium strategy and
phase the construction effort. This has resulted in an interim capacity
of 20 pits/year being established in fiscal year 2007. The final
limited capacity, now planned to be 50 pits/year (single shift) and 80
pits/year (multiple shift), will be determined through mutual agreement
with the Department of Defense. Should an agreement be reached within
the next year, initial design on the construction effort could begin by
fiscal year 2002.
Question. What delays have been encountered and what is being done
by DOE to ensure that the current schedule will be met?
Answer. Currently no delays to major milestones have been
encountered in establishing pit production capacity other than the need
to modify the execution of the strategy to a phased approach in order
to meet programmatic requirements and maintain the operation of pit
production once it is established. In order to manage the execution of
the current strategy and assure the current schedule is met, an
Integrated Plan is being developed by the Los Alamos National
Laboratory establishing schedule, milestones, critical path, and
management processes. In addition, DOE is closely coordinating with the
Department of Defense to insure not only that DOD's programmatic
requirements are met, but also that the processes and activities
necessary to achieve qualification and certification of a war reserve
pit can be completed.
Question. What key activities are planned for the remainder of
fiscal year 1998 and what is the schedule for completing that work?
Answer. Key activities are the completion of the manufacture of
early development pits, completion of the installation of most
equipment necessary to begin production of regular development pits
followed by war reserve pits, and completion of engineering test plan
development. These activities are being accomplished within the
historical capability to produce pits at LANL. DOE also plans to issue
a site-wide environmental impact statement which will analyze those
activities necessary to increase the capability to produce pits to
those levels discussed in the answers to earlier questions.
Question. How much is being requested to continue this program in
fiscal year 1999 and how will those funds be used?
Answer. $66.6 million has been requested in fiscal year 1999. The
funding would be spent on pit rebuild; manufacturing development;
process development; non-nuclear components; design development of work
packages, long lead procurement of equipment, and initial maintenance
under the Transition Maintenance and Safety Equipment Program; and
conceptual design report development for the Capabilities Maintenance
and Improvement Project Phase I construction project in preparation for
fiscal year 2001 new start.
Question. What are the important activities to be completed in
fiscal year 1999 and when are they scheduled to be completed?
Answer. The important activities to be completed in fiscal year
1999 are completion of the development unit build by mid-fiscal year
1999 and then subsequent initiation of the manufacture of the W88
``lot'' to be qualified and certified as war reserve; and then by the
end of fiscal year 1999 to have initiated the processes of non-nuclear
component production required for the continuation of manufacturing and
completion of two physics tests for certification.
Question. How will the $22.4 million requested to support facility
maintenance and equipment procurement in TA-55 at Los Alamos National
Laboratory be utilized?
Answer. The funding will be used for design of maintenance
packages; initiation of construction activities on such items as a
overhead trolley system to move parts and material between work
stations, and maintenance on the facility uninterruptable power system;
procurement of long lead items, such as machining lathes and
radiography equipment; and completion of the conceptual design report
of Phase I of the Capability Maintenance and Improvement Project for
validation into the fiscal year 2001 budget.
Question. How important is this work to overall success of
reestablishing pit production capability?
Answer. In general, nonaccomplishment of work planned in fiscal
year 1999, using the $22.4 million requested, would: (1) place
continued operation of the plutonium facility at a higher risk because
of increasingly more frequent equipment outages; (2) place future
manufacture at risk as equipment normally used for research and
development break down under manufacture usage; (3) reduce the
efficiency of operation by having to move materials and conduct
radiography testing in other facilities and maintaining inefficiencies
in movement of material and parts between work stations; and (4) place
in jeopardy the ability to initiate Phase 1 of the Capability
Maintenance and Improvement Project necessary to make facility upgrades
and improvements in support of pit manufacturing and replace equipment
being worn out by manufacturing usage.
pit production--environmental impact statement
Question. A recent article in The Energy Daily indicated the
environmental groups have filed new demands calling for DOE to conduct
supplemental environmental impact analysis on this program. Is this
true and what are the issues of concern?
Answer. It is correct that NRDC and thirty-nine other environmental
organizations have amended their original complaint in the ongoing
lawsuit, NRDC et al. v. Pena (Civ. No. 97-936-SS). In the amended
complaint plaintiffs drop many of their original allegations regarding
the alleged inadequacy of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SSM PEIS). The plaintiffs
amended complaint requests that, based on new information, the
Department be required to prepare a Supplemental PEIS on limited issues
related to the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and plutonium pit
production activities at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The
issues of concern regarding pit production at LANL, as alleged by
plaintiffs and broadly stated, relate to whether the SSM PEIS
adequately considered and analyzed the impacts associated with the pit
production mission at LANL.
Question. How does the Department plan to address these new
demands?
Answer. The plaintiffs demands are being addressed by the
Department within the context of the ongoing litigation. Under the
current schedule set by the court, the Department filed an answer to
plaintiffs amended complaint on March 9, 1998. In addition, on March
13, 1998, the Department filed a Supplement Analysis regarding pit
production at LANL which concluded that the analysis in the PEIS was
adequate and that there is no new information to warrant a supplemental
EIS for this activity.
Question. Will there be any impact on the Department's ability to
proceed with work in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999?
Answer. No. Plaintiffs are not seeking to enjoin DOE activities
related to the establishment of a plutonium pit production capacity at
LANL or construction of the NIF.
weapons dismantlement
Question. Why were you unable to meet your performance goal of
dismantling 556 weapons in fiscal year 1997?
Answer. Last year the Department of Energy set a dismantlement goal
of 944, which was later revised to 556, but only completed 498 nuclear
weapon dismantlements. The Department completed the majority of its
weapon dismantlement goals, in terms of weapons types, including
completing the W55 (antisubmarine missile warhead) dismantlement line
ahead of schedule, completing the B61-2 (gravity bomb) line on
schedule, and starting and completing the B61-5 (gravity bomb) line on
time. The primary reason the Department fell short of its dismantlement
objective was because the W69 (Short-Range Attack Missile warhead), a
high rate disassembly program, was not started as scheduled in March
1997. This program startup was delayed while additional safety analysis
was conducted to confirm that newly identified, potential facility
accident scenarios would not affect safe W69 weapon disassembly
operations. Because this program has monthly full capacity disassembly
rates of over 100, the six-month delay had a significant impact on the
quantity of weapons completed last fiscal year.
The exact date on which we start up dismantlement lines cannot be
precisely forecast because we delay all weapon operations until all
possible concerns raised by internal and external safety reviewers have
been considered. The dismantlement rate attained after startup of a
line may be impacted because we stop all operations to study any
unexpected conditions found in the weapons being dismantled. These
factors have introduced delays of one month to a year and can cause the
dismantlements performed to differ from the planned quantities by more
than 50 percent. Safety in operations is our highest priority, and we
did slow some operations and conduct additional safety studies to
satisfy ourselves that we are performing operations safely.
Question. Do you consider this to be a problem?
Answer. We take our goal to dismantle nuclear weapons very
seriously, and we strive to meet our commitments. However, our first
priority is safety and safety concerns resulted in the short fall as
discussed above.
Question. What is being done to correct existing problems?
Answer. We have no existing problems, but we continually assess the
safety of operations at Pantex and all our facilities and factor safe
operations into our dismantlement projections. Dismantlement of the W69
began in July 1997 and approximately 15 units are being dismantled
weekly. Monthly dismantlement rates will increase from the current 55-
65 per month to 100 in April 1998.
Question. How many weapons are scheduled to be dismantled in fiscal
year 1998, and are you on schedule to meet this goal? If not, why?
Answer. DOE planning guidance calls for 1,000 weapons to be
dismantled in 1998, and we are on schedule to meet this goal.
Question. How many weapons are scheduled for dismantlement in
fiscal year 1999 and why is the budget request for this program being
reduced from $22 million in fiscal year 1998 to $8.4 million in fiscal
year 1999?
Answer. DOE planning guidance calls for 500 weapons to be
dismantled in 1999, compared to the goal of 1,000 in fiscal year 1998.
The budget request for direct support of dismantlements is being
reduced as we change focus on some specific dismantlement programs at
Pantex. In fiscal year 1999, the W56 (Minuteman II ICBM warhead) and
the W79 (Artillery-Fired Atomic Projectile) dismantlement lines should
be under way, so the large effort associated with their startups, such
as safety studies and component characterization, will be completed.
The funding cited in the question relates to startup and disassembly
work only--this reduction is consistent with the reduced quantity of
weapons to be disassembled in fiscal year 1999 and the fact the start-
up efforts for most of the systems will already be complete.
doe weapon alteration, modification, and surveillance
Question. Explain the reasons for not meeting established schedules
and what is being done to correct problems you may be experiencing?
Specifically, how does the Department plan to address and correct
operational issues related to nuclear and non-nuclear systems
laboratory testing at Pantex?
Answer. Starting in December 1996, safety issues were raised
dealing with the Linear Accelerator Facility, Dynamic Balancer
Facility, and Separation Facility at Pantex. These issues precluded
Pantex from performing disassemblies and inspections, which then
translated into delays in having components available for both non-
nuclear system level laboratory tests and laboratory tests of nuclear
components, such as pits and secondaries at Los Alamos and Y-12,
respectively. The Department has reviewed the situation at Pantex over
the past year. The above issues have been resolved, and we have
attempted to anticipate the type of facility issues that might occur in
the future.
enhanced surveillance
Question. Why is there a 62 percent increase in funding proposed in
the fiscal year 1999 budget request?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget request supports the milestones
and deliverables set forth in the Enhanced Surveillance Program Plan.
It will support tests for precision performance, standards and
divergence in high explosives, advanced surveillance hydrodynamic
tests, new radiography, gas analysis, and endoscopy diagnostics;
advanced flight test hardware, plutonium and uranium stability and
performance tests, materials surveillance test and models, and systems
surveillance tools and models. Outyear funding for this program will
continue at this level in order to conclude the program in fiscal year
2002.
Question. A little over $27 million, an increase of $10 million
over the current years level, is requested to deliver predictive
capabilities for nuclear and non-nuclear components. Please describe
these deliverables and the schedule and milestones planned for the
remainder of fiscal year 1998 and for fiscal year 1999.
Answer. The Enhanced Surveillance Program Plan includes detailed
milestones and deliverables for the delivery of predictive
capabilities. These capabilities include models and simulations for use
by designers to include component lifetimes. The work also includes
experimentation necessary to validate the results of those predictions.
Work supporting nuclear components addresses pits, high explosives/
initiation and organics, and canned subassemblies. Work supporting non-
nuclear components includes materials aging models, component aging
models, and system aging models. Attached are Figures 1.7 and 1.8 from
the fiscal year 1998 (Revision 2) ESP program plan which summarize the
delivery of predictive capabilities in each of the categories. All
fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 milestones and deliverables are
complete. All fiscal year 1998 milestones and deliverables are
currently on schedule.
Question. The budget also includes $39.7 million for the delivery
of diagnostic tools for surveillance of nuclear and non-nuclear
components. What deliveries are scheduled for fiscal year 1998 and are
those deliveries on schedule? If not, why? What deliveries are planned
for fiscal year 1999 and when are those items scheduled to be
delivered?
Answer. The Enhanced Surveillance Program Plan includes detailed
milestones and deliverables for new surveillance tools. Work conducted
in support of nuclear components fall into the categories of high
explosives/initiation and organics, hydrodynamic tests, diagnostics,
and systems. Work supporting non-nuclear component surveillance are
grouped in materials surveillance, component surveillance, and system
surveillance. Attached are Figures 1.5 and 1.6 from the fiscal year
1998 ESP program plan which summarize the delivery of predictive
capabilities in each of the categories. All fiscal year 1996 and fiscal
year 1997 milestones and deliverables are complete. All fiscal year
1998 milestones and deliverables are currently on schedule.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TNERGY.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TNERGY.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TNERGY.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TNERGY.005
stockpile management restructuring initiative (smri)
Question. Has the Department developed a SMRI plan for each site
that lays out each project which is to be undertaken along with
established baseline costs and schedules?
Answer. Yes. Each site has prepared an implementation plan and a
conceptual design report for each respective SMRI Project. The
Conceptual Design Report (CDR) establishes the preliminary cost,
schedule, and technical baselines until completion of Title I design.
Completion of Title I design will establish the projects baselines for
the physical construction portion of the projects.
Question. While DOE is undertaking Title I and Title II at a number
of sites, how will the baseline costs and schedules be determined?
Answer. The initial preliminary baselines are established from the
CDR. The results of the Title I Design establishes the Title I
Baselines that are used for the remainder of the project.
Question. Will they be based on a Conceptual Design Report or on
Title I engineering?
Answer. The pre-Title I baselines come from the CDR.
Question. Why has this restructuring work been by site, with
multiple subprojects and business units?
Answer. Although the SMRI program has a single goal, the
restructuring of the production complex to meet current infrastructure
requirements, in terms of project management each SMRI project is
essentially independent of the others. Thus, individual line items by
site also allows each site to more effectively manage that site's
project requirements. An example that you have already seen is that the
projects were started as they were ready to begin, Y-12 and Savannah
River in fiscal year 1998, Kansas City and Pantex in fiscal year 1999.
And again, the individual site projects will be able to individually
take the appropriate actions based on the completion of title I and II
design. And finally, each site project will be closed as each site
project is completed. These benefits would have been significantly
reduced if we had requested a single line item for the SMRI program.
Question. Why haven't larger subprojects been broken out and
displayed separately for greater control and visibility?
Answer. There is always a trade-off between centrally controlling
projects on the one hand, and allowing the project manager greater
flexibility on the other. In the case of the SMRI projects it was
decided that the appropriate balance was to manage the projects as a
series of subprojects, show those subprojects in the construction data
sheets so that Congress could easily see what we were doing, but to
request funding at the total project level. In order to improve the
cost control of larger subprojects, however, we will provide separate
displays for all subprojects with a total estimated cost of greater
than $10 million in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
Question. What would be the impact of requiring subprojects, over a
certain total estimated cost, to be displayed and requested separately?
Answer. The purpose of each SMRI project is to restructure the site
in total, not to restructure individual bits and pieces of each site.
Therefore, the individual subprojects can change, in scope, schedule
and cost, as we further refine the best, most efficient and effective
manner to achieve the restructuring of the site. If we receive funding
at the total project level, as requested, we will keep Congress
informed of these changes, but will not need to request reprogramming
to implement the changes and can proceed in a timely and efficient
manner. On the other hand, if we receive funding by subproject, each
time we decide to change how we are going to achieve the desired end
point of the project, we will have to request a reprogramming from
Congress, thereby imposing delays, uncertainty, and possible cost
increases, into the projects. In order to improve the cost control of
larger subprojects, however, we will provide separate displays for all
subprojects with a total estimated cost of greater than $10 million in
the fiscal year 2000 budget.
Question. What assurance can you give the committee that the total
scope and costs under SMRI at each site is well defined and that the
cost of each subproject can be controlled?
Answer. Each of the projects has a completed conceptual design
report and each will complete Title I and II design before proceeding
to physical construction. Based on these design and engineering
efforts, we are confident that our estimates for the projects are
robust and will not change significantly over the course of the
projects.
chemical and metallurgy research facility (cmr) lanl
Question. What problems has the Department experienced with the CMR
facility at Los Alamos?
Answer. The shortcomings in the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Upgrades Project are the result of weaknesses in project management and
construction engineering practices. Preliminary assessments by the
Department and the Laboratory found that the tools and systems required
to effectively execute project management in many cases were not
adequate. Corrective actions under development will address both
project-specific and institutional issues. Primary findings of both
assessments include:
--Both Laboratory project management and Departmental oversight were
inadequate in maintaining control of this project.
--Laboratory engineering and project management deficiencies resulted
in subtask cost increases and schedule delays. Engineering
designs were poorly specified and were accepted and implemented
without evaluations of constructability. The failure to perform
condition assessments prior to either conceptual development of
the project or design resulted in numerous design changes late
in the project, with significant cost impacts.
--Inaccurate Laboratory reporting prevented timely issue
identification and resolution of issues and the reporting did
not portray actual status. Management reserve, a contingency
account, was consumed without communication to, or knowledge or
approval of the Department.
--The project contingency was mismanaged. Contingency funds were
allocated on a first-come, first-served basis as cost increases
occurred, rather than allocation by risk factors to each
subproject.
--The Laboratory's organization contributed to the systemic nature of
the shortcomings. This project should have been constrained by
finite resources and a finite scope defined in the Construction
Project Data Sheets. The Laboratory construction management
structure contributed to a lack of accountability and
ineffective processes.
There are many details associated with the above findings, but
these summaries capture the vital issues that will be addressed in a
Corrective Action Plan. The Department and the Laboratory will work
closely to correct both project specific and institutional weaknesses.
Question. What has the Department done to correct project
management deficiencies and other weaknesses that have caused these
problems?
Answer. The Department has already taken steps to strengthen
oversight of Laboratory projects through personnel changes, addition of
personnel, and reorganization of some offices to focus resources and
management attention to Laboratory programs and projects. These steps
have been specifically targeted for those field elements closest to the
day-to-day activities.
The Department will control contingency funds for all Stockpile
Management projects at the Laboratory, and will evaluate the
Laboratory's corrective actions for implementation and effectiveness.
Both the Department and the Laboratory have designated responsible
management officials with the authority to execute the Stockpile
Management Construction Program at the Laboratory.
Question. When will the corrective action plan, which addresses
cost overruns and construction management problems, be completed and
approved by the Department?
Answer. A LANL corrective action plan addressing Laboratory
construction management issues, specifically CMR, was presented to the
Department in September 1997. The Department approved the plan and has
been overseeing the laboratory's implementation of the plan including
the emplacement of stronger management oversight procedures, improved
performance and budget accountability, and the incorporation of
``lessons learned'' into all further construction activities.
Question. What other actions need to be completed before
construction can resume and when will they be finalized?
Answer. The Department will authorize restart on a limited basis,
using a step-by-step approach, measuring improvement and achievement of
specific milestones by the Laboratory before proceeding to the next
step. Condition assessments, detailed definition of project completion
criteria, and effective integrated project and program planning with
the rigor and discipline expected for work in nuclear facilities will
be measures that the Department will use to evaluate Laboratory
responsiveness to the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Upgrades
project. Only after completion of the above activities will the
Department authorize the restart of actual construction.
Question. The budget request for fiscal year 1999 includes $16
million to resume design and construction of the project. How much of
the request is to continue design and how much is for construction?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 request for $16 million will be used
to begin or continue design of necessary Phase 2 subprojects and
complement Phase 1 construction requirements as necessary. The exact
split of those costs will not be determined until all facility
assessments and engineering reports have been completed. Funds
appropriated in fiscal year 1998 and unspent prior year funding will be
used to complete the facility assessments and restart Phase 1
construction work.
Question. How confident is the Department that this project can be
resumed in fiscal year 1999, and completed on schedule and within
costs?
Answer. There will be impacts to the project from the changes to
project management and other corrective actions that must be taken to
ensure the project is ready to proceed. However, it is our intent to
complete the project within the current estimated cost of $174.1
million. We will, of course, keep Congress informed of our progress on
this project.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
safety features on nuclear weapons
Question. In response to a question of mine last October during
your testimony before my Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on
International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, you said
that you believed that we have safety measures that are advanced to the
point they should be ``at this time.'' Are the most advanced safety
measures present in every weapon in the stockpile right now?
Answer. All weapons in the stockpile, with the exception of the W62
warhead in the Minuteman III Strategic Missile, have modern enhanced
nuclear detonation safety (ENDS). All weapons, however, do not have
insensitive high explosive (IHE) or fire-resistant pits (FRP). Should
the W62 remain in the enduring stockpile, I strongly support upgrading
its detonation system to meet modern safety design criteria. The W62
warhead is not scheduled to remain in the stockpile under START II.
Question. Would adding safety features like insensitive high
explosives and fire retardant pits to weapons in our stockpile that
don't already have these features make them safer?
Answer. Yes, incorporating features like insensitive high explosive
and fire retardant pits into stockpiled warheads would inherently make
them safer. However, all stockpile warheads meet both DOD and DOE
safety requirements.
Question. Can you add all of these safety features right now, using
the Stockpile Stewardship Program technologies already developed,
without conducting explosive testing?
Answer. No; however, the DOD/DOE have confirmed the safety and
reliability through the annual certification process, and no
modifications to safety features are currently required.
tritium requirements
Question. You also stated at our hearing that the price of a
tritium generation facility is not included in the $4.5 billion per
year estimate for SSP's cost. Has DOE settled yet on a method by which
to produce tritium? If so, what will be its total and annual cost?
Answer. The Department has not decided which technology,
accelerator or reactor, will be used to produce tritium. DOE plans to
select one of the two tracks as the primary option in 1998. Based on
the results of the technology decision, total and annual cost for the
selected technology will be provided.
Question. If not, what is the price range, both total and annual,
for the options being considered?
Answer. The funding included in the budget for tritium is:
Fiscal year Millions
1999.............................................................. $157
2000.............................................................. 145
2001.............................................................. 71
2002.............................................................. 67
2003.............................................................. 69
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 509
If the purchase of irradiation services from commercial light water
reactors is selected as the primary option, the budget request will be
sufficient to meet current requirements. If the Department selects
accelerator production of tritium as the primary option, it will need
to seek relief from the current target date for initiating new tritium
production or request additional funding.
The Department will provide firm cost estimates associated with
tritium after the Department has developed cost figures for the
commercial light water reactor option based on completion of
negotiations with the Tennessee Valley Authority.
stockpile stewardship and aging of nuclear weapons
Question. You testified at our hearing that, because the United
States is no longer producing nuclear weapons, we would be encountering
problems due to the effects of aging that we've not had to deal with in
the past. Are you certain SSP will both identify all of these problems
and be sufficient to certify their remediation?
Answer. It is not possible to declare with total certainty that the
stockpile stewardship program will identify all aging problems.
However, we are highly confident this strategy will be successful. We
are currently enhancing our weapon surveillance process to maximize the
likelihood of early discovery of the most serious of these aging
problems, and we are modernizing our historical surveillance process to
ensure that weapon aging defects, when present, will be detected and
corrected in a timely way. Early detection is fundamental to
remediation.
As the Stockpile ages, there will inevitably be changes in the
weapons, some of which will require a ``fix'' that in the past would
have been validated by a nuclear test. We expect the SSP will provide
the confidence necessary to certify the safety and reliability of
weapons with these changes. Specifically, the computer simulation,
experimental capabilities, and expert judgement resulting from the SSP
should allow the basis for the formal determination of stockpile
confidence made through the Annual Certification Process.
adequacy of outyear budgets
Question. Is inflation included in your $4.5 billion per year SSP
pricetag?
Answer. We anticipate changes and efficiency improvements that will
allow the impact of inflation in the outyears to be accommodated within
the $4.5 billion annual budget level.
Question. If not, how much more will the program cost to add
inflation in over the course of the FYDP?
Answer. Because of changes and efficiency improvements, we do not
anticipate any increase in cost due to inflation.
Question. If DOE were refused permission to add the cost of
inflation to the program's budget, what would you cut to stay at $4.5
billion per year?
Answer. Our strategy for countering the effects of inflation calls
for aggressive pursuit of productivity cost savings both in terms of
the cost of doing business and the cost of operating our facilities.
The Stockpile Management Restructuring Initiative is an example of
efforts to reduce the physical footprint of the weapons complex and
thus reducing facility costs and outyear budget pressures. We fully
expect these efforts to be successful.
nuclear weapon problems and testing
Question. Are you aware of any nuclear weapons problems that have
been identified in the past as a result of a nuclear test?
Answer. In the past, some nuclear weapon stockpile problems have
been identified solely by nuclear testing. In general, nuclear testing
has been used to confirm the existence of problems that were identified
by nonnuclear experiments, computer simulation, and expert judgment for
both stockpiled weapons and during weapon development. For the
existing, enduring stockpile I am not aware of any nuclear weapon
problems that have been identified solely by nuclear testing.
Question. Are you aware of any fixes to any nuclear weapons
problems that were found to be inadequate through testing?
Answer. The only cases where nuclear testing has found inadequate
fixes occurred with certain weapons that were designed or modified in
the early years during the 1959-1961 Test Moratorium.
Question. The administration's current nuclear weapons policy, as
set out in the Nuclear Policy Review and described by then-Deputy
Secretary of Defense John Deutch in testimony before the SASC in the
last Congress, says that the Department of Energy is required to
``Maintain [the] capability to design, fabricate, and certify new
warheads.'' Does stockpile stewardship maintain DOE's capability to
design new warheads? To fabricate new warheads? To certify new
warheads?
Answer. Yes, the Department of Energy's Stockpile Stewardship
Program will maintain the capability to design, fabricate, and certify
new warheads; however, there are no requirements for new warheads, at
this time.
nuclear weapon certification without nuclear testing
Question. Can a new warhead be certified without a nuclear test?
Answer. It is unlikely that an entirely new modern, high
performance warhead, developed without the benefit of nuclear testing,
would be certifiable by today's standards.
Question. If not, is there not a fundamental disagreement between
the Clinton Administration's nuclear weapons policy and a comprehensive
test ban?
Answer. We do not see a fundamental disagreement. The Stockpile
Stewardship Program is allowed by and consistent with the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The Laboratories are required by the Nuclear
Posture Review and the subsequent Presidential Decision Directive to
maintain the capability to design and certify new warheads. Programs
are in place at the Laboratories to do this. The Nevada Test Site is
maintained in a state of readiness to resume testing if so ordered by
the President and approved by Congress. The skills necessary for the
continuing safety and reliability assessment of current weapons and for
evaluating authorized stockpile modifications are the same as those
needed for designing ``new'' weapons.
stockpile stewardship
Question. How will you know if Stockpile Stewardship is working?
Have you established specific milestones short of completion of entire
parts of the program that will tell you if you are succeeding or not?
Answer. We believe that Stockpile Stewardship is working now. While
it has been more than five years since the last nuclear test, we have
successfully addressed several problems with existing warheads by using
a combination of computer analysis, archived test and manufacturing
data, and most importantly the collective judgement of the two weapon
design laboratories. This success, using the experimental and testing
tools available today, provides confidence that the even more powerful
computing and testing tools being developed will allow us to solve
future stockpile problems without nuclear testing. Additionally, we
have replaced the B53 with the B61-11, achieved a world record in
computing speed through the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative
(ASCI), conducted several subcritical experiments at the Nevada Test
Site, produced a development warhead pit at Los Alamos National
Laboratory, and have conducted safety reviews to resume enriched
uranium operations at Oak Ridge Y-12. By annually certifying the safety
and reliability of the stockpile, the DOE will confirm that Stockpile
Stewardship can be relied on now and in the future. We have
successfully completed the process twice, and the third annual
certification process is well underway. A copy of the second
certification was provided to the Congress by the President on February
11, 1998.
national ignition facility/nova
Question. One of the key elements of Stockpile Stewardship is the
National Ignition Facility, or ``NIF.'' Its predecessor, ``NOVA,'' took
several years to build and it wasn't until NOVA was completely built
and, essentially, the switch was thrown for the first time that you
found NOVA wasn't working. It then took and additional two years to get
NOVA to work. With experiences like NOVA in mind, how, and when, will
you know if Stockpile Stewardship is failing?
Answer. The issue of how progress on the stewardship program is
assessed is clearly important. While key metrics such as the annual
certification process are in place, the Department in conjunction with
the laboratories and plants continues to evaluate this issue on an
ongoing basis. Three important factors should be considered in
evaluating the success of the stewardship program. First, the
Department has outlined a series of specific milestones in its
Stockpile Stewardship Plan (SSP), and progress towards these will be
monitored. Secondly, we will examine how the tools developed as part of
the SSP are working in addressing the full range of specific stockpile
issues. A particular example relevant to the stated question would be
to assess the progress of laser based experiments towards addressing
high energy density science issues relevant to the stockpile such as
was already done in a specific stockpile system. Finally, the judgment
of the scientists and engineers engaged in the SSP will be assessed.
Assessment of the progress of the program using these three factors
will rely on a combination of internal laboratory and external peer
reviews, as well as the annual certification and dual revalidation
processes. In general the peer review process will play an increasingly
important role in establishing confidence in the stockpile.
Regarding the operation of large laser facilities such as Nova and
NIF, most large science facilities require some operating experience
and measurement development (especially the latter) to realize their
potential. As one example, while Nova worked from the beginning,
realizing the full capability of the facility required that the laser
glass be upgraded. The NIF first bundle, operational at the end of
fiscal year 2001, will provide early experience with NIF operations and
help prepare for the best use of the full NIF when it is available in
fiscal year 2004.
low yield testing
Question. What yield of testing would be the lowest possible to
accomplish new designs as well as ensure the safety and reliability of
our stockpile?
Answer. If the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) leads to a solid
fundamental understanding of nuclear weapons physics as we plan, we
should not need any nuclear testing to maintain the safety and
reliability of existing weapons. If we were to resume testing, the
lowest useful test yield for safety issues would be a few pounds, and
for a reliability test around a kiloton.
As for a new, modern design, the test yield would depend upon how
far the design was from an existing, well tested design. A design
relatively close to current weapons might be certifiable with
relatively low yield, whereas other new weapons might require something
close to full yield.
nuclear design staff
Question. One of the major aspects of the Stockpile Stewardship
Program is to keep a well-trained team of scientists and engineers
working at the labs. When my staff visited the Los Alamos National Lab
in August, we were informed that some position announcements have been
closed for lack of qualified applicants or, in some instances,
applicants for positions are being hired who are of lower quality than
was the case in the past. Should we be concerned that the labs won't be
able to recruit and retain the best people, which has always been our
standard?
Answer. Finding highly qualified applicants for our scientific and
engineering positions remains a challenge. However, we continue to draw
very high quality individuals to the laboratories. We have gone through
dramatic changes in staffing requirements in the past decade and have a
changed external environment in which we compete. While the
laboratories have hired small numbers in recent years, the current
requirements call for significant hires from an academic environment
that is much more heavily populated by foreign national students who
are ineligible for the positions we have available. Additionally, in
some areas, such as computer science, it is difficult to match the
industrial compensation packages offered to most highly sought after
graduates. These challenges are partially compensated for by the
desirability of working at a National Laboratory and by the focused
technical challenges we provide and the world-leading tools we have
available, as well as the clear commitment of the President and
Congress regarding the importance of this work. The Laboratory Directed
Research and Development Program, which supports scientists for
innovative basic research in support of SSP, is an example of the
opportunities that can be offered a young scientist. While recruiting
will continue to be a challenge for us, we believe that we will compete
favorably when the candidates consider their career options.
Question. How many nuclear weapons designers now routinely evaluate
the performance of U.S. nuclear weapons by doing explosion
calculations?
Answer. Approximately 85 primary and secondary designers at
Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories are actively
and routinely engaged in evaluating the performance of nuclear weapons
with simulation codes.
Question. How many have been lead designers on a nuclear test?
Answer. Of that number, 35 designers have been lead designers on a
nuclear test.
Question. Are there enough qualified designers to do the jobs that
need to be done today?
Answer. Yes. There are enough designers to do the job as currently
defined.
Question. How confident are you that the Stockpile Stewardship Plan
will maintain weapons designers' expertise?
Answer. A central objective of the Stockpile Stewardship Plan is
the development and maintenance of a cadre of personnel who can
effectively use the new experimental and modeling capabilities to
address warhead issues as they arise. Since most of these personnel
will be continually working on weapons topics, we can expect their
continued commitment to address future issues that might arise. Today,
we depend heavily on the experience base of veteran nuclear weapon
designers and their familiarity with a wealth of past nuclear test
data. These designers are working with--and, in the process, training--
their younger colleagues on real stockpile issues to develop and
validate the sophisticated tools that will be needed for stewardship in
the longer run. These activities include dual revalidation, annual
certification, and other weapons baselining activities. We are
developing additional techniques to capture the information both from
the nuclear test database and from the personal experience of veteran
designers, and to make it readily available for future work through our
Archiving Program. The most important issue is to make the transition
from reliance on the nuclear test experience to validated experimental
and computational tools in a carefully thought- out manner, as quickly
and reasonably as possible. That goal is built into the design of the
Stockpile Stewardship Plan, and given appropriate support, I am
confident in the success of our efforts.
stockpile safety without testing
Question. President Bush informed the Congress on January 19, 1993
that the Departments of Energy and Defense had tried to find a
technically responsible nuclear testing program consistent with the
provisions of what is known as the Hatfield, Exon, Mitchell amendment
to the 1993 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. His report
states ``We have concluded that it is not possible to do so.'' Later it
says, ``The requirement to maintain and improve the safety of our
nuclear stockpile and to evaluate and maintain the reliability of U.S.
forces necessitates continued nuclear testing for those purpose * *
*.'' Did the Department of Energy participate in the effort described
by the President and did the Department support the President's
conclusions?
Answer. The Department of Energy participated in the January
19,1993 report referred to in these questions and the conclusions were
accurate at the time.
Question. Are you aware of any technical factors that have changed
since this report was sent to the Congress that would change its
conclusion? This same report includes reference to an ongoing `` * * *
major effort to increase predictive capability, and thus reduce our
reliance on nuclear testing for force safety and reliability.'' It goes
on to say that the conditions of Hatfield, Exon, Mitchell `` * * *
would permit us only marginally to increase our predictive capability,
and would certainly not bring us to the point that we could maintain
the safety and reliability of the U.S., deterrent without underground
nuclear tests.'' Since President Clinton decided to not even attempt
the minimal number of tests permitted by Hatfield, Exon, Mitchell it
would seem that the situation today must be even worse than portrayed
by President Bush. Can you explain how in 1993 nuclear testing was
needed to play a critical role in validating predictive capability
while today you are optimistic that SSP, today's predictive capability
program, does not need nuclear testing to validate it?
Answer. There have been several significant technical advances that
alter the conclusions of the 1993 report to Congress. The Department's
stockpile stewardship program has been an engine of enormous technical
advance and the stockpile stewardship tools have allowed the DOE and
DOD to twice certify to the President that the nuclear weapons
stockpile remains safe and reliable and that there was no need to
return to underground testing. These tools have also allowed us to
solve several stockpile issues that previously would have required
underground testing. This also gives us confidence that the new
stockpile tools under construction such as NIF, DARHT and Atlas and
more advanced computers will allow us to certify the stockpile into the
future. In the unlikely event we should ever have to return to testing
we are maintaining the Nevada Test Site, consistent with presidential
direction.
major defense programs projects at the national laboratories
Question. General Accounting Office Energy Issues Director Victor
Rezendes recently informed the Congress that of 80 Department of Energy
projects which spent in excess of $100 million dollars, and some of
which spent billions, between 1980 and 1996, only 15 were ever
completed. These statistics do not present a very promising view of the
likelihood of the many SSMP capabilities coming to reality, or coming
to reality on the time scale currently predicted for them. What is the
record of LLNL, LANL, and Sandia over this period?
Answer. Generally, considering the fact that Defense Programs'
large construction projects at the laboratories are usually unique,
state of the art, or even cutting edge technology research projects,
Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories have
done an acceptable job bringing these projects to conclusion. Only two
of the canceled projects were Defense Programs funded projects at these
laboratories.
A current example of our laboratories' ability to carry out these
large projects is the National Ignition Facility, which at $1.2 billion
is by far our largest scientific project currently under construction.
It is on schedule and within budget, even with the recent weather
problems in northern California. That being said, we have had some
recent problems regarding management of large projects, particularly at
Los Alamos, but we are working to resolve those issues.
Question. How many projects of this size were begun and never
completed?
Answer. Of the 65 incomplete projects on Director Rezendes' list,
only two were Defense Programs laboratory projects. The Special Nuclear
Materials Research and Development Laboratory Replacement (88-D-105)
was canceled in the design phase when it was determined that renovation
of the existing Chemistry and Metallurgy Research facility was a more
cost effective means of responding to our changing program
requirements. The Special Isotope Separation Project (86-D-148) was
canceled when changing stockpile requirements meant that the materials
to be supplied by the facility were no longer needed.
Question. How many projects of this size succeeded on their
originally predicted timetable, with their originally predicted
capabilities.
Answer. The High Energy Laser Facility (78-4-a), probably more
familiar to you as ``Nova'', was the only major laboratory construction
project completed during the 1980 to 1996 time period. The bulk of the
construction activity during this time period at the laboratories was
over a half billion dollars of smaller infrastructure improvements. Los
Alamos and Sandia also successfully met the infrastructure requirements
of accepting non-nuclear production responsibilities from Rocky Flats,
Mound and Pinellas during this period.
Question. Is there some reason to believe the laboratories will be
any more successful in the next 16 years?
Answer. The laboratories have been generally successful in the past
on these projects and are, with some caveats, proceeding nicely with
the current set of projects important for implementing the stockpile
stewardship program. Where we have had problems, we have moved
aggressively to identify the issues and causes of those problems and
then moved just as aggressively to insure the appropriate corrective
actions are taken. So, yes, I do believe we will be successful in
providing the facilities necessary for conducting our program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Gorton
fast flux test facility
Question. Given the high cost of the two primary tritium production
options under consideration--use of a commercial light water reactor
and constructing a large accelerator--doesn't it make sense to keep
restart of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) as a near-term
``insurance'' policy?
Answer. In announcing the Department's January 1997 decision to
keep the Fast Flux Test Facility in standby, former Secretary O'Leary
stated that keeping the reactor in standby is a low cost option that
allows the Department maximum flexibility to ensure the tritium needs
for the strategic nuclear stockpile are met.
The Fast Flux Test Facility will be maintained in a safe and
environmentally compliant standby condition until a decision is made on
the Department's overall tritium production strategy. The Department is
working to ensure that this decision will be made by December 1998.
Question. Doesn't the FFTF option hedge DOE's bets, especially
given the uncertainties associated with future tritium requirements?
Answer. The Department is required to meet tritium production
requirements as stated in the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum
signed by the President. While the Fast Flux Test Facility is capable
of producing a significant quantity of tritium on an annual basis, it
cannot by itself supply the entire current requirement. The Fast Flux
Test Facility is being retained in a defueled standby condition pending
a decision on whether the facility can provide a cost effective
capability as part of the Department's tritium production strategy.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Reid
defense programs
Question. Isn't there a point at which our confidence in the
stockpile is going to be diminished beyond repair because we simply
will not be able to replace old parts of nuclear devices?
Answer. There is no expectation that our confidence in the
stockpile is going to be diminished because we will not be able to
replace old parts. Replacement may require that the laboratories
develop new components because of sunset technology issues; however,
because of programs that exist to maintain capability at both the
laboratories and plants, we should be able to design and produce any
parts that would be required in a reasonable amount of time. The one
current exception is the production of pits. Although we currently have
no reason to believe this will be an issue in the foreseeable future,
we are presently establishing that capability at Los Alamos.
Question. With the death of those who designed the current weapons,
aren't we losing the knowledge of a generation of physicists and
engineers who built and tested the nuclear devices?
Answer. We still have in our ranks a sizable number of physicists
and engineers that built and tested nuclear weapons, and we have an
active program of archiving past data, documenting past methods and
understanding, interviewing experienced workers and data capture, and
mentoring young scientists and engineers. In this context, dual
revalidation, annual certification, and other weapon baselining
activities are key to transferring and improving upon this knowledge to
the next generation of weapon stewards. By working in teams--younger
staff and senior designers and engineers--we are developing and
applying the methods of science-based stewardship to current and
projected stockpile issues. This is serving as a true test to gauge our
ability to train the next generation of weapons designers and stewards,
and I believe we will successfully make this generational transition.
Question. Without testing the devices, we are relying upon science
that has not been done before; given that this is an uncharted
science--on what do you base your confidence in the program?
Answer. Our confidence in the Stockpile Stewardship Plan is based
on several key elements: (1) the extensive nuclear test database, (2)
our experienced personnel still available to train a new generation of
weapon scientists and to provide archival information, (3) our program
of nonnuclear experiments, and 4) advanced computational capability
that will improve the scientific understanding necessary to evaluate
stockpile problems and possible modifications. All of these elements
are absolutely essential. Our confidence is enhanced by successes so
far in the program, including the institution and successful execution
of the Annual Certification and Dual Revalidation programs, the
progress of the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative in meeting
its timelines for improved simulation and modeling capability, early
promising results from the Enhanced Surveillance Program, and our
progress on several stockpile modifications, including the B61-11 and
the W87 Life Extension Program.
Question. Is the uncharted territory of a science based stockpile
stewardship program leaving too much to chance by relying on computer
simulations, subcritical experiments, and experiments on fusion
ignition?
Answer. As I previously stated, the ``uncharted territory'' could
indeed be very problematic without all the key elements of the plan. At
this point our assessment is that a fully implemented Stockpile
Stewardship Plan will be sufficient for maintaining the reliability and
safety of the stockpile.
Question. Additionally, is this uncharted territory too ambitious
for the current generation of scientists? I read recently where Bruce
Tarter of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory observed, ``Even with
these new facilities, the question remains whether we can keep from
fooling ourselves about how good we are.'' If Dr. Tarter is incorrect,
could you explain?
Answer. Dr. Tarter properly states the challenge. Our mission is a
challenging one, and we are sensitive to the need for continuing
critical evaluation. A critical yearly measure of the success of the
SSP will be our ability to provide formal statements of stockpile
confidence through the Annual Certification process. Should we not be
able to certify the safety or reliability of a weapon system in the
enduring stockpile, the SSP will not have been totally successful.
Three supportive factors should be considered in assessing program
success.
First, we can test progress on SSP compared to the specific
milestones set forth in the DOE Stockpile Stewardship Plan. This
comprehensive plan includes the detail needed to judge progress in
providing the necessary experimental, computational and manufacturing
capability, and in executing required stockpile actions. Timely
execution of required modifications such as the B61-11 and W87 LEP,
including certification performed to the satisfaction of a well-
informed technical community, will be an important measure. So will
completion of the planned facilities and meeting of the simulation and
modeling milestones.
Second, we can examine specifically how well the tools being
developed as part of the SSP are working by testing them against two
sets of data. One is the past nuclear test database, for which we
should be able to ``predict'' past nuclear test data (failures as well
as successes). The second set is new laboratory test results, including
large integral experiments such as 3-D hydros with high resolution, and
future ignition capsule performance on NIF. Our computational
simulations must consistently match a broad range of data with a
significantly reduced need for empirical ``fudge'' factors and
phenomenological models.
Third, there are ways we can assess the judgment of the scientists
and engineers engaged in SSP. It is absolutely crucial that we maintain
expert judgment about nuclear weapon issues by developing the skills
and capabilities of the next generation of stockpile stewards. Our
ability to retain and attract new top-notch scientists and engineers to
the program will be another key index of the program's success.
The judgment of the stockpile stewards will be exercised through
the Annual Certification and Dual Revalidation processes, which entail
formal peer review activities involving the two weapon design
laboratories (LANL and LLNL). Each of the laboratories, with its own
unique capabilities, will be put to the test before the other
laboratory and experts from Sandia, DOE Defense Programs, and our
customer, the DOD. Peer-review activities must include independent
evaluations, dual revalidation and reviews specifically aimed at
finding the weak spots in the technical story. Such peer review will
play an increasingly important--and very visible--role in establishing
confidence in the stockpile.
Question. It seems to me that we are painting ourselves into a
corner with our nuclear stockpile. We cannot build new weapons and we
are to have confidence in an aging stockpile, the safety and
reliability of which we are trusting to scientific experiments. There
are many questions about the future that you cannot answer and that is
exactly what is bothering me. How are we assured that the greater
strategic questions are addressed, even though there are not yet
answers?
Answer. We can only answer strategic questions by continuing to
question and evaluate whether the stockpile stewardship program
effectively balances current and future needs and whether the system of
labs, plants and Federal management are meeting their objectives
effectively. This process must be done every year and with a vigor
commensurate with the responsibility of the ``supreme national
interest.''
Question. Metering our progress toward the program goals will
certainly measure success of the plan, but will it measure mission
success?
Answer. Mission success is reflected in our ability to annually
certify to the President that the nuclear weapon stockpile is safe and
reliable. We have completed two annual certifications and we will
continue to measure how well we are meeting our programmatic goals. The
combination of annual certification and meeting program goals will help
ensure that the Stockpile Stewardship Program is successful.
Question. Will it measure the reliability and safety of the
stockpile?
Answer. The annual certification has one main purpose--to ensure
that the U.S. nuclear weapon stockpile is safe and reliable.
Question. I am concerned that success with the plan allows us to
say only that, so far, we have found no ``cause for alarm.'' Is there
another measurement that could more accurately reflect the status of
the stockpile?
Answer. The status of the stockpile is reported, in detail, through
several classified reports currently provided to the Congress including
the President's transmittal of the annual certification report.
Question. Science Based Stockpile Stewardship at least offers us
some hope that we can maintain the stockpile without testing. But, is
it enough? Have we overlooked something that might materially add to
our confidence?
Answer. Science Based Stockpile Stewardship, now referred to as the
Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), offers the best opportunity to
meet the goal of maintaining the aging nuclear stockpile without
nuclear testing. The DOE and the DOE weapon laboratories believe that
if the SSP is fully funded, then it is the right program based on over
fifty years of nuclear weapons experience. We believe that we can
manage the risk of no nuclear testing and that we have not overlooked
anything that would materially contribute to our confidence.
subcommittee recess
Senator Domenici. So it is, indeed, an exciting thing, and
with that, the committee stands in recess until the call of the
chair.
Dr. Reis. Thank you, sir.
[Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., Tuesday, March 3, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:40 p.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Cochran, Gorton, Reid, Kohl,
and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Research
STATEMENTS OF:
DR. MARTHA A. KREBS, DIRECTOR
DAN W. REICHER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
RENEWABLE ENERGY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. Well, first I apologize for being a
little bit late. We will not keep anyone too long, I do not
think. Thank you for coming.
Today, we are going to consider the Department of Energy's
1999 budget request for science, magnetic fusion, and renewable
energy. We will hear from Dr. Martha Krebs, Director of the
Office of Energy Research. The administration has requested an
11-percent increase in science programs for fiscal year 1999.
To pay for these increases, the administration has proposed to
reduce funding for water projects by $1.3 billion below the
level required to continue ongoing projects.
Simply put, with the $9.4 billion the President has
proposed spending on nondefense programs within this
subcommittee's jurisdiction, the subcommittee will have to find
on the order of $1.3 billion for ongoing water projects if we
are to avoid higher cost to the Government and delayed benefits
to local interests. That means we almost certainly cannot
provide for these proposed increases and will probably have to
reduce some programs below their current level.
With that said, you should know that I am a strong
supporter of the Department's science programs and will do
everything I can to mitigate any changes that we have to make
to the President's budget.
From the standpoint of your programs, I am willing to
listen. You have some very interesting and innovative thoughts
on the subject, and I commend you for the new position you have
and the Department for having someone of your high
qualifications in that position. We have not always agreed on a
lot of things in your prior life. Maybe we can agree on a few
more now. It might be better for you if we do. I should not
have said that, should I? [Laughter.]
Having said that, do you understand the dilemma we are in
on the water projects issue?
Senator Cochran. I do.
Senator Domenici. I think the appropriators are now fully
cognizant at the level above us, the full committee chairman
level, of the very dramatic decrease in water projects. What
has to be done, in our opinion, is probably to get us some
additional resources for these water projects. We are very
hopeful they will be concerned enough to consider that with us.
I do plan in the budget, Senator Reid, so you will know, to
make room to make some adjustments where some of that water
money will be made available in the various functions that we
have to take care of that in the budget resolution.
Senator, do you have any opening remarks?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR REID
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I have an opening statement I
would like to be made part of the record in its entirety.
Senator Domenici. It will be done.
Senator Reid. I would only say that, even though we do not
spend a lot of time on some of these programs that we are going
to be talking about today with these two witnesses they are
important. I think it is one of the areas where the American
public should be very happy that we are doing something. It has
a lot of scientific potential. I am very glad that we are
involved in this, and they will get my full attention. I think
the energy research programs are extremely important for the
future of this country.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Harry Reid
This hearing today deals with some very important issues. How we
deal with them will affect in fundamental ways our general quality of
life. Long term economic health and vitality depend critically on
secure access to abundant and affordable energy.
Today's testimony addresses investments that will help determine
what the new energy resources will be. New energy resources, and how we
use them will be enormously important to the air we breathe and the
water we drink. The past two decades have taught us that even our
weather will be affected by our choice of primary energy.
The so-called ``greenhouse'' gases from fossil fuel combustion and
other processes can change global weather patterns in ways we cannot
predict. Continuing ``business as usual'' guarantees that we will
continue to add to the growing inventory of atmospheric greenhouse
gases with consequences of unknown magnitude. Global power generation
must turn to new fuels and to new conversion processes.
Eighty percent of today's energy in the United States comes from
finite and diminishing stores of natural gas, oil, and coal. Only 10
percent of our current energy production comes from renewable resources
that will never run out--and the majority of this renewable energy
today is hydroelectric power, a mature resource that we are unlikely to
develop further. So, not only must we stop adding to the greenhouse gas
inventory, we must develop renewable resources to ensure supplies for
the indefinite future.
Presently, 70 percent of U.S. petroleum consumption powers our
transportation systems, and more than 50 percent of that fuel is
imported. By early in the next century, more than 70 percent of the
world's oil will be supplied by countries in the Persian gulf. Such a
monopoly on the supply side has historically led to abuses, as we
experienced in the 1970's and early 1980's.
In response to those abuses, we increased domestic production and
implemented new efficiencies so that competition was restored by
reduced import demand. Energy efficiency continues to be highly
relevant, but by itself only delays the inevitable depletion of non-
renewable resources and only slows the accumulation of atmospheric
greenhouse gases. So the development of more renewable resources that
do not damage the environment is an essential part of preparing for the
future.
The Chairman and I represent great western states with enormous
potential for renewable solar energy production. Solar power is
technically feasible, but not yet economically competitive--a
deficiency that I hope to hear today is being dealt with.
I don't know about New Mexico, but Nevada has developed significant
geothermal generation capability, and Nevada's distribution of
mountains and valleys makes it ideal for wind power development. I do
know that Sandia Laboratories in the Chairman's great state of New
Mexico has made significant technical advances in both solar and wind
power generation. I am looking forward to the time when I can visit the
New Mexico Labs and see some of these things first hand.
I welcome our witnesses today from the Department of Energy. I
fully expect to hear wonderful things about science and technology from
the Department that many refer to as the ``Department of Science''
instead of the Department of Energy. But I hope to hear also about how
this wonderful science and technology is being harnessed and directed
for the national benefit. What the Department does is important; how it
is done is just interesting.
Right this moment, we are in the middle of a technical revolution;
one that many say is as important to the future as the industrial
revolution has been to the present. This is an information revolution.
It affects the ways we receive, deliver, and act on information.
Our citizens today observe our wars when they are happening, up
close and personal. They have international news updates on events as
they happen, at all times of the day and night. They carry cellular
phones, satellite-serviced pagers, lap-top computers, and the shirt-
pocket computer with a built-in modem is just around the corner.
More than 50 percent of American homes have a personal computer,
and most of these have an on-line service provider that allows instant
access through the world wide web to Internet sites in all the
countries of the world. There are some amusing moments with automated
translators, but just the same, the world of nations is becoming a very
large village. Electronic gossip, or ``Internet chats'' is being
supplanted by electronic barter and electronic commerce is just
beginning.
The United States leads the world in developing innovations in
communications and computations technologies. In many respects, the
Department of Energy stimulated that leadership by requiring advanced
computational technology for its nuclear weapons program. DOE's
programs stimulated the computer revolution by requiring continually
increasing computation speed and memory in digital computers. But the
real revolution has been pretty much independent of the government.
Business and individual citizens have driven the real revolution of
universal connectivity provided by small personal computers and the
Internet.
The Federal government is investing significant effort and
resources to accelerate this revolution through the Next Generation
Internet Initiative. This is only one of several information technology
initiatives in the Department of Energy.
The business community is rapidly developing innovations that
expand internet access through product cost reductions and through
network assets sharing with high bandwidth carriers, like cable
television fiber optic lines. I am concerned that the Next Generation
Internet Initiative might be diverging from the path being defined by
industry. If this should happen, then this would be one of those
projects of great interest, but little importance.
I hope that testimony today will clarify the relationships of these
information technology initiatives and that compelling arguments can be
presented for their continuation.
In another matter, the President's Committee of Advisers on Science
and Technology has recommended research investments in the key
obstacles to nuclear power. The President's budget request reflects
this advice in the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.
The United States is the world leader in nuclear technology and in
nuclear power production. Yet, in spite of that leadership, nuclear
power is widely held to be a dying industry in the United States.
Apart from public fear of nuclear power, there are two overwhelming
obstacles preventing a healthy nuclear power industry: the cost of
nuclear power and the waste it generates.
This industry generates exceptionally dangerous wastes that
presently must be carefully sequestered for more than 10,000 years.
Industry claims and Federal investments notwithstanding, there is still
no acceptable means of managing this waste. The present program of
geologic disposal is universally opposed by a majority of U.S.
citizens. If the disposal site happens to be in one's own state, that
opposition becomes virtually unanimous among those so affected.
It does not matter what the industry says; it does not matter what
the engineers say; and, believe it or not, it will not matter what the
politicians say. If our United States citizens find the waste disposal
proposition unacceptable, it will not succeed.
Now, managing the waste of this industry is important. It is
important if the industry is to continue, and it is just as important
if the industry is to terminate. This feature distinguishes nuclear
waste from all other issues surrounding nuclear energy.
All the other obstacles to nuclear power vitality are only
important to the continuation of the industry. They are important, but
not as important as finding an acceptable way to manage the waste.
I will be enormously disappointed if the Department has not
recognized the central and overwhelming priority of acceptable
resolution of the nuclear waste dilemma in its planning of the Nuclear
Energy Research Initiative.
I know that the Chairman is aware of technically feasible options
for making this waste problem more manageable. One of those comes from
his great lab in Los Alamos, New Mexico. This idea promises a reduction
in the amount of waste to be sequestered by a factor of 20--instead of
70,000 tons of radioactive material, only 3,500 tons would need to be
managed. It would reduce the period of sequestration from more than
10,000 years to about 300 years. The concept appears to do all this for
not more than 20 percent of the cost of the geologic disposal program.
Indeed, it is not at all obvious that geologic disposal would make
sense under these new terms of waste management.
So if the Department of Energy wants to pursue the Nuclear Energy
Research Initiative, it needs to focus its investments on the highest
priority problems surrounding nuclear power--and that would be finding
an acceptable waste management path.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR KOHL
Senator Domenici. Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be
here today. I do not have an opening statement. I have a
specific question I would like to ask at the appropriate time.
Senator Domenici. Did you just have one?
Senator Kohl. One single question.
Senator Domenici. Would you like to go ahead?
Senator Kohl. Oh, I would love to.
Senator Domenici. And you have some other business?
Senator Kohl. Yes.
Senator Domenici. Then you may proceed.
Senator Kohl. I do appreciate that. Thank you so much.
federal energy bank legislation
We appreciate your willingness to testify before us today
regarding the Department of Energy's energy and renewable
energy programs. I would like to take this opportunity to bring
to your attention a bill that I have introduced, the Federal
Energy Bank Act, S. 1375. This bill creates a bank to fund the
purchase of energy efficiency projects by Federal agencies and
in the long run will greatly reduce the overall amount of money
spent on energy consumption by the Federal Government.
According to the recent Federal energy efficiency and water
conservation study drafted by the DOE, an investment of $5.7
billion is required through 2005 to achieve the Federal
Government's goal of a 30-percent reduction in the Federal
Government's energy consumption by the year 2005 as compared to
the year 1985. The best estimate of total funding available for
this project is $2 billion less than what we need to meet our
goal.
My legislation addresses this shortfall by creating a
revolving fund that Federal agencies can use to purchase energy
efficiency systems. The agencies would contribute 5 percent of
their previous year's utility costs into this fund. The
agencies would then take out loans from the bank to pay for
energy conservation systems and pay them back as their use of
efficient technology leads to increased energy savings.
So, in your opinion, do you believe a revolving fund of
this kind, designed to generate revenue to purchase energy
conservation systems, such as the energy bank bill could help
solve this shortfall in funding, and does the Department have a
position on my legislation, S. 1375?
Mr. Reicher. Senator Kohl, the Department does not
currently have a position. We are reviewing the bill. I have
only, to be honest with you, become aware of it in the last
several days, and we are developing a position. We are working
on a position with OMB.
Let me say as a general matter, we completely agree with
the challenge that you pose in Federal energy. The Federal
Government spends $8 billion a year on 500,000 buildings to
provide the energy for those buildings and to fuel our
transportation fleet, and there is great opportunity to make
substantial energy savings and there are a variety of ways to
do it.
We are in the midst of a program where we are going to
provide contracting authority up to $5 billion through an
energy savings company concept to make investments in energy
retrofits in Federal buildings. That is one approach we can
take.
Your approach, which is not necessarily in conflict with
that approach, may well be one that would serve an additional
useful purpose in meeting this big challenge, which is to
reduce Federal energy use. We will be taking a careful look at
the bill. We will work with your staff on it and we will get
you a position from the administration on it very quickly.
Senator Kohl. I do appreciate that interest on your part. I
appreciate your willingness to work on it quickly, as you said.
We think that the bill has great merit and offers the potential
for great savings. Thirty percent on $8 billion is $2.5 billion
a year. So I am looking forward to working with you.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Senator, would you like the answers in
the record?
Senator Kohl. Yes; I would appreciate it.
Senator Domenici. Would you do that as soon as you can, and
we will put them in this record.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Federal Energy Bank Bill
The proposed Federal Energy Bank Bill offers a critically needed
means of providing funding for Federal energy management. In past
years, the Federal sector has invested approximately $1.8 billion to
improve energy efficiency in Federal buildings and has achieved
cumulative costs savings to taxpayers of $5.1 billion. Typically,
projects that are awaiting funding have the potential to return $4 in
savings for every $1 invested. The Federal Energy Bank Bill can help
provide funds to make those investments.
However, the current version of the bill has a provision that
capitalizes the Bank by taxing agencies 5 percent of their energy
expenses in the first three years. While this would result in a net
benefit over a long period of time, it would leave the agencies short
of money to pay their energy expenses in those first three years.
Agencies have expressed unwillingness to support the bill in its
current form without some relief from the 5 percent tax.
One excellent suggestion for overcoming this problem would be to
allow the Federal Energy Bank to use the services of the Federal
Financing Bank to raise the initial capital. This would be consistent
with the Financing Bank's role of supporting other agencies' minor
borrowing needs. The Federal Energy Bank would then make loans to
agencies for specific energy saving projects. The borrowing agency
would pay back the loan out of future year energy savings. Because
Federal energy savings projects offer such high rates of savings ($4
saved for every $1 invested), after projects are implemented and
savings result, agencies would have access to more than enough in
savings to repay the loans.
A portion of the excess cost savings from each project could be
used to establish a permanent capital fund within the Federal Energy
Bank. This would minimize the need for further borrowing after a few
years of Federal Energy Bank operation.
This approach has several advantages. First, it would allow the
Federal Energy Bank to capitalize itself only at a level consistent
with the demand for funds from the agencies each year. Second, it would
not require appropriations. Third, the amount funded by the Federal
Energy Bank would not need to be held to the current limit of 5 percent
of agencies' energy bills and would allow agencies to borrow greater
amounts for the earlier completion of more energy saving projects.
If the Federal Financing Bank approach is not adopted and the
agencies are taxed 5 percent each year, the agencies will be unable to
pay their annual energy expenses. In such a case, they will have two
options: to seek additional funds from Congress or to take funds from
programs critical to their mission. The agencies would face uncertain
funding and would be unlikely to support the Federal Energy Bank
despite its long-term promise.
For these reasons, the Department of Energy recommends using the
Federal Financing Bank as a funding mechanism for the initial
capitalization of the Federal Energy Bank.
STATEMENT OF MARTHA KREBS
Senator Domenici. Now, Dr. Krebs, you may proceed.
Dr. Krebs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members
of the subcommittee: It is a pleasure to be here, and I will
submit my written remarks for the record.
Over the holidays as I was waiting for the administration's
budget process to close and anticipating your return to the
Hill, I went through a reading marathon to prepare myself. I
happened upon a book by a man named Max DuPrie, who writes on
leadership, and he gave me a number of ideas and quotes. The
one I want to refer to, that particularly struck me as
appropriate for this discussion on science and leading science
today, goes like this:
It's much easier to extrapolate from the past than to
imagine what's possible in the future. Yet, the more complex
the job, the more important it is to deal with the future, and
the more complex the job is, the more talented the people, the
higher you want to go on that scale of working on the future.
The Department of Energy in all of its missions has some
very complex jobs, critically dependent on advances in complex
science and technology endeavors and the talents of our
scientists and engineers. The budget for Energy Research [ER]
in fiscal year 1999 builds on our past, but proposes new
investments for the possibilities of the future.
I am going to limit myself to only the major elements of
the fiscal year 1999 ER request, and that means I will leave a
lot unsaid. ER has a history of great science and effective
management of scientific facility construction and operation.
It continues and we, all of us in the administration, in the
Department, and in the Congress, can be proud of that.
The fiscal year 1999 budget request for Energy Research is
about $2.7 billion, $246 million above the fiscal year 1998
appropriation or, from my point of view, a 10-percent increase,
but I would take 11 percent. What this means is that it is good
news for science if we can make this happen. It builds on and
sustains our investments and our history of large-scale
scientific user facilities. It establishes and enhances
research agendas that enhance science and the economy.
spallation neutron source
The first topic that I want to discuss and the major
element in that increase is the spallation neutron source at
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. We propose to initiate
construction of that $1.3 billion facility with a request of
$157 million in fiscal year 1999. It is important to note that
in fiscal year 1999 and in the out-years the President has
identified the increases required for the profile of that
facility, has added them on top of our targets in fiscal year
1999 and in the out-years.
This facility has been on the scientific community's agenda
explicitly since 1984 and implicitly for nearly 20 years. The
role of neutron science and its connection with the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory from the very discovery of neutron
diffraction has made critical contributions to the Department's
energy and science mission; from advanced fibers and plastics
to catalysts, magnetic materials for efficient electric
generators, magnetic recording tapes, and computer hard drives.
In addition to the need and opportunity for this facility,
we believe we are ready to start construction in the fall. The
cost has been validated through two independent review
processes. We have a management structure in place. Key hires
are being recruited and other hires have been made, and the
systems for managing the facility are being put in place.
climate change technology initiative
The other major element, or a major element, of our
initiative is related to the President's climate change
technology initiative. That is related to work that Mr. Reicher
will describe as well.
In Energy Research we have $27 million added to our budget,
$16 million in the Basic Energy Sciences Program, that relates
to advanced materials and chemical processes associated with
both efficiency and renewable applications. In the Biological
and Environmental Research Program, we also have $11 million
that is focused on natural cycles, carbon sequestration through
natural cycles, as well as in oceans, and an increase in
microbial genome work that has had such attention in the recent
past.
scientific user facilities
Within the budget, not quite so obvious, is our continuing
commitment to our other unique scientific facilities. We have
increased the budget for these facilities from $915 million to
$1 billion. This includes facilities like Fermi and the
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. It includes our work at the
Los Alamos Neutron Scattering Facility. It will provide for the
computing capability at Fermi, Brookhaven, and Stanford in
order to prepare those facilities for when the B-factory and
the main injector come on board.
next generation internet
Another element is the Next Generation Internet at $22
million.
It builds on our base activity and will allow us to
interact with the high-speed networks, the very high-speed
networks, being invested in by DARPA. It will also make our
applications available to the advances that are being invested
in now by other agencies.
science education
Finally, in terms of new funding provided within this
effort is our request for $15 million to reestablish the
science education programs that will build on our lab assets
and provide collaborations between the National Science
Foundation and the Department of Education.
I think at this point I will complete my initial comments.
I would be happy to deal with questions on the large hadron
collider and the fusion program, but also I understand you are
interested in progress on the human genome.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Martha A. Krebs
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be
here today to present the fiscal year 1999 budget request for the
programs supported by the Office of Energy Research (ER). In his State
of the Union address, President Clinton spoke about how we must use
science and technology to give the next generation the tools they will
need for the 21st century. The Department of Energy (DOE) budget for
fiscal year 1999 reflects that commitment by providing a $246.0 million
increase above fiscal year 1998 for the programs in the Office of
Energy Research. The increase will permit initiation of the Spallation
Neutron Source (SNS), the first world class neutron source built by the
United States in more than 30 years. In addition, ER will build on its
existing programs to undertake increased efforts in areas of basic
science that support efficient, clean, new technologies for the
production and use of energy as well as the sequestration of carbon, in
coordination with the DOE technology programs. The increase will
sustain the availability and productivity of the Department of Energy's
(DOE) unique scientific user facilities that serve the DOE missions as
well as other national research needs. The University and Science
Education program will enable DOE to utilize more effectively the human
and scientific assets of its National Laboratories to inspire and
educate young scientists and engineers from elementary through
undergraduate education.
ER's fiscal year 1999 budget request, detailed in Table 1, supports
national laboratory, university, and industry based research in six key
areas: High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Biological and Environmental
Research, Basic Energy Sciences, Computational and Technology Research,
and Fusion Energy Sciences. This support entails thousands of
individual projects at hundreds of research facilities across the
United States. In addition to this diverse research portfolio, ER plays
a unique role in providing researchers, professors and students
nationwide access to the large-scale, state-of-the-art research
equipment and scientific user facilities that are critical to their
scientific work. As a result, the programs help to expand the Nation's
human and intellectual resources, continuously replenishing the
Nation's capabilities for scientific and technological innovation.
It is this base program that has and continues to produce the
achievements and contributions of Office of Energy Research programs.
The detailed budget request outlines the proposed research agenda for
fiscal year 1999 that would continue your investment in the base
program. Today, I would like to provide you with some of the recent
results of that investment and share with you our vision for the
research program and the fiscal year 1999 initiatives and priorities
that support that vision.
In keeping with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),
ER's fiscal year 1999 budget request includes program specific goals,
strategies, and measures that focus our research activities and ensure
continuity with Departmental plans and national goals. These measures
and mechanisms will continue to be refined with use and as we benchmark
our activities against the other federal science agencies and the best
of the private sector.
energy research--serving today
Research sponsored by the Office of Energy Research is producing
benefits today. ER's current investments are extending the frontiers of
knowledge and contributing to many of the Nation's most pressing
concerns and priorities. Each year, ER research and investigators have
been recognized by national and international scientific societies,
magazines, and prizes.
Nobel Prize.--The 1997 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was shared by an
ER-supported researcher, Professor Paul Boyer, for his ``elucidation of
the enzymatic mechanism underlying the synthesis of adenosine
triphosphate (ATP)''. The energy cycle of all biological organisms
involves the central molecule, ATP. The energy captured from
photosynthesis or released from respiration is converted into ATP where
it is used for maintenance of cells, synthesis of cellular components
and other energy-requiring processes such as movement. ATP is
frequently referred to as the ``energy currency'' of the cell. Dr.
Boyer's work examined the detailed chemical reactions involved in this
synthesis and the roles specific parts of the ATP synthase molecule
played in the overall synthesis. Dr. Boyer's work on the synthesis of
ATP was supported in part by the Energy Research Basic Energy Sciences
and Biological and Environmental Research Programs and their
predecessor organizations. This basic research into energy capture and
use in plants and bacteria continues to advance our understanding of
how these processes work and how they might contribute to future energy
production and use.
Top Scientific Breakthroughs in 1997.--Each year ``Science''
Magazine lists the top ten significant developments in scientific
research. The 1997 list included three topics strongly supported by ER
programs--synchrotrons, fullerenes and genomes. Richard Smalley's Nobel
Prize winning discovery of fullerenes continues to generate exciting
science at the nano- (one billionth of a meter) scale. Dr. Smalley's
work was supported by Basic Energy Sciences and the structure of
buckyballs and many of its derivatives were determined at ER's National
Synchrotron Light Source and neutron scattering facilities. Today, ER
supported research such as Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's
characterization of the properties of nanotubes are a continuation of
this research agenda. Microbial genome research, that builds on our
capabilities and contributes to our mission, has contributed to the
accomplishment of ``what once seemed a pie-in-the-sky goal--analyzing
whole genomes''. Third generation synchrotron radiation sources, the
Advanced Photon Source and the Advanced Light Source were called out
for enabling breakthroughs in the structure of materials.
The Advanced Photon Source (APS) completed its first year of
operation in 1997. The floor of the APS was filled with experiments,
many of which could not have been conducted anywhere else. Results are
beginning to flow out of those experiments in many fields including:
materials science and condensed matter physics, biological sciences,
plant and environmental sciences, and geosciences. For example, a new
structural determination and biochemical analysis of the human fragile
histidine triad (FHIT) protein was performed at the APS during its
first year of operation. This protein derives from a fragile site of
human chromosome 3 that is commonly disrupted in association with
cancer development. The unique capabilities of the APS are advancing
our understanding of this tumor suppressor protein and a great many
other scientific mysteries.
In the News.--ER's advanced materials research is also contributing
to human health. A new sensor has been invented, by researchers at
DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, that makes it possible to
instantly and inexpensively detect a wide range of biological toxins
and common disease-causing organisms. The sensors detected cholera and
botulism toxins, similar to those recently discovered in fruit and fast
food hamburgers. These toxins are responsible for hundreds of American
deaths each year. Existing tests require a 24 hour culture, but with
development, the new sensors could, with development, be placed on
packaging for instant and simple identification of contaminated foods
and materials. Other sensors are being developed to detect viruses such
as the influenza virus.
The William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory
(EMSL), a unique scientific user facility for molecular-level research
in environmental and life sciences, became fully operational on October
1, 1997, at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. In addition to its
potential for breakthrough research in environmental sciences and
remediation technologies, EMSL has advanced the concept of ``virtual
and remote'' laboratory research.
The Large Hadron Collider.--DOE and NSF completed negotiations with
the European Physics Lab, CERN, regarding contributions to the Large
Hadron Collider (LHC) accelerator and detectors as part of the U.S.
participation in the LHC program. The enabling agreements were signed
in December 1997. Participation will provide U.S. scientists with
continued access to the forefront high energy physics facilities in the
next decade.
Partnerships.--For over 50 years, ER and its predecessor
organizations, have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the
pursuit of cutting-edge scientific research. More recently, ER has
committed to forging more effective partnerships that leverage our
research investments and connect us more closely with other federal
science programs and the direct beneficiaries of our research. ER is
fostering new kinds of partnerships among its national laboratory,
university and industry based researchers to maximize the effectiveness
and impact of research activities. In partnership with the Department's
applied programs, ER is also working to bridge the gap between basic
research and application to ensure the continued relevance of our
research portfolio and maximize the return on the taxpayers'
investment. These partnerships include: joint planning of long-term
research; joint solicitations and funding of targeted research efforts;
and annual integration workshops that bring together program managers
and researchers from across DOE. ER strives to be the premier basic
research organization in the basic energy and natural sciences in order
to contribute to a more secure energy future with a clean environment,
a healthy citizenry, and a strong economy including the ability to meet
future challenges and providing a range of energy and policy options
necessary for future prosperity.
fiscal year 1999 priorities--exploring the future today
The highest program priorities in fiscal year 1999 are to move the
U.S. toward International Leadership in Neutron Science, provide the
scientific basis for a DOE Climate Change Technology Initiative,
maintain Scientific User Facilities Utilization, develop DOE
applications and technologies for the Next Generation Internet, and
renew our commitment to Science Education to tap the human resources of
the National Laboratories to ensure an adequate supply of scientists
and engineers for the future.
The Spallation Neutron Source.--Since the late 1940's, DOE and its
predecessor agencies have been the major supporter of neutron science
in the United States. DOE support extends from the earliest work at the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Graphite Reactor in the 1940's to the
Nobel Prize in physics in 1994 for work on neutron scattering. The
Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) is included as a line-item construction
project in the fiscal year 1999 President's budget at a level of $157.0
million. The purpose of the SNS project is to provide a next-generation
short-pulse spallation neutron source for neutron scattering and
related research in broad areas of the physical, chemical, materials,
biological, and medical sciences. The SNS will be a national user
facility open to scientists from universities, industries, and federal
laboratories. It is anticipated that the facility will support the work
of between 1,000 to 2,000 scientists and engineers each year and that
it will meet the national need for neutron science capabilities well
into the next century.
The U.S. currently lags behind both Europe and Japan in neutron
research capability and planned foreign neutron sources threaten to
further increase their lead. The unique information that neutrons
provide about the hundreds of materials that we use every day affects
us all. For example, information from neutron scattering is used by
chemical companies to make better fibers, plastics, and catalysts, and
by drug companies to design drugs with higher potency and fewer side
effects. Magnetism research with neutrons has led to more efficient
electric generators and motors and to improved materials for magnetic
recording tapes and computer hard drives. The importance of neutron
science for fundamental discoveries and technological development has
been enumerated in all of the major materials science studies since the
1970's. These include the 1984 National Research Council study ``Major
Facilities for Materials Research and Related Disciplines'' (the Seitz-
Eastman Report); the 1993 DOE Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee
(BESAC) report ``Neutron Sources for America's Future'' (the Kohn Panel
Report); and the 1996 BESAC Report (Russell Panel Report).
The Conceptual Design Report was prepared by a team involving
several DOE laboratories. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is
responsible for the ion source; Los Alamos National Laboratory for the
linear accelerators; Brookhaven National Laboratory for the compressor
ring; and Argonne National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory
for the target and instrumentation. Oak Ridge National Laboratory has
overall responsibility for the project. In preparing the Conceptual
Design Report, the SNS project used internal technical reviews,
international collaborations, and workshops involving technical experts
and the user community. Technical reviews were held for the accelerator
systems, the target station, and the conventional facilities. Four
workshops were held on various aspects of the design and technology
challenges. Based on the recommendations of the scientific community,
particularly the 1996 Russell Panel Report, the SNS Conceptual Design
was completed in June of 1997. At an initial operating power of 1
megawatt, the design will create the most powerful spallation source in
the world.
We developed the conceptual design focusing on the technical
specifics of the project and the needs of the scientific community,
decoupled from the site preference. Cost differences associated with
different sites will be minimal and will be associated with site
preparation and, perhaps, minor differences in labor rates. The final
decision on the location of the Spallation Neutron Source has not been
made and will come in the first quarter of the calendar year 1999,
after alternative sites are evaluated in the Environmental Impact
Statement.
The SNS Total Project Cost (over 7 year schedule) is $1,332.8
million. In August of 1997, ER's Division of Construction Management
reviewed the Design with a team of 60 experts and concluded that the
design was credible and the costs reasonable. The DOE Independent Cost
Estimate done by Burns and Roe, validated the cost to within less than
1 percent. On December 23, 1997, Secretary Pena reviewed and approved
the SNS Baseline. The fiscal year 1999 request will allow the start of
Title I design activities, initiation of subcontracts and long-lead
procurements, and continuation of critical research and development
work necessary to reduce technical and schedule risks in this project.
One of the major technology decisions--a full-energy linac with an
accumulator ring versus a rapid cycling synchrotron--was considered in
great detail and was the subject of numerous discussions and review.
This was perhaps the most vigorously discussed aspect of the entire
project. The DOE Review of the CDR summarized the findings of the
community on this issue as follows:
``To address the needs expressed by the neutron community, the NSNS
team examined the relative merits of several technology options,
including a full-energy linac plus accumulator ring versus a lower-
energy linac plus rapid cycling synchrotron. While it was realized that
the synchrotron option might be less expensive, the reduced technical
risks and the flexibility for future upgrades of the full-energy linac
and accumulator made this option a superior choice for keeping pace
with evolving needs.''
Oak Ridge National Laboratory was chosen as the preferred site
because of its long standing role in developing neutron science and its
role in applying advances in basic materials science to DOE's missions.
The Oak Ridge Graphite Reactor was the world's first production reactor
and first continuous neutron source. The Graphite Reactor produced an
array of radioisotopes for defense, medicine, industry and research.
Two Oak Ridge researchers, Clifford Shull and E.O. Wollan realized that
the reactor's neutrons could be just as useful for probing matter as
for transmuting it. In a series of pioneering experiments, Shull and
Wollan used neutron diffraction, or scattering, to reveal structural
details and magnetic properties never before seen. The science of
neutron scattering was thus born at Oak Ridge in the late 1940's--an
event recognized in 1994 by the award of a Nobel Prize in Physics to
Clifford Shull. To demonstrate the State of Tennessee's backing for the
SNS project, Governor Don Sundquist has pledged $8.0 million for a user
support facility, which will include office space, general computing
capabilities, and dormitory space for students.
As neutron scattering flourished, Oak Ridge physicists developed
and harnessed these and other powerful research tools, such as
accelerators, in the study and manipulation of materials. The Oak Ridge
National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor is one of the world's
most productive research reactors, capable of creating radioisotopes,
exposing alloys to brutal radiation intensities and revealing the
molecular architecture of plastics and magnetic materials. Oak Ridge's
high-strength, high-temperature alloys lead to tougher power plants and
trucks while reinforced ceramics form the world's fastest, most durable
machining tools; and Oak Ridge radioisotopes enabled millions of home
smoke detectors and an estimated 100 million medical diagnostic
procedures each year. Surface-treated plastics, recently developed at
Oak Ridge, may soon find their way into both fighter jets and credit
cards while fundamental contributions to semiconductor science are
already etched into every computer chip made today.
We are organizing our management at the labs, the field offices,
and headquarters to be ready for prompt initiation of the project in
fiscal year 1999. Key lab management positions such as the Associate
Laboratory Director for the SNS, the Deputy Project Director, the
Engineering Manager, and the Science Director have been filled. Senior
Team Leaders have been appointed at all of the participating
laboratories. The Cost and Schedule Control System is being developed
and will be in place before construction begins.
In addition to project management, a Steering Committee has been
formed, consisting of distinguished members of the neutron science
community to provide input on instrumentation and user needs to the
laboratory. The Megascience Forum of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development has formed a Working Group on Neutron
Sources that includes in its scope of activities cooperation in
research and development for new neutron sources. Agreements are
already in place with England's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and the
European Spallation Source project to allow joint research and
development.
Climate Change Technology Initiative.--Energy drives our economy
but also challenges environmental stewardship locally, regionally and
globally. About 85 percent of human generated greenhouse gas emissions
are associated with energy production and use. To control or reduce
these emissions we must rethink our use of carbon-based fuels. New
technologies for efficient fossil fuel use, carbon sequestration, or
use of renewable fuels will be key. The foundation for both technology
and policy innovation is new knowledge. Building on existing programs
and capabilities, DOE is proposing to contribute to the President's
Climate Change Technology Initiative by expanding its energy science
and technology programs. The fiscal year 1999 budget request provides
$27.0 million for Energy Research programs.
Within the Climate Change Technology Initiative, Energy Research
will provide the science base for new technologies that will lead to
reduced greenhouse gas emissions. For example: fundamental materials
science will enable low-friction, lightweight, and nano-scale materials
that improve energy efficiency; biomimetic (biological-mimicking)
chemistry such as artificial photosynthetic system, biochemistry, and
molecular genetic analysis will promote low- and no-carbon emitting
energy sources such as hydrogen; catalysis research will result in
advanced, energy efficient chemical processes, for example, improving
the catalytic converters in automobiles; and the natural carbon
sequestration processes of ecological systems, such as forests and
oceans, will be explored for possible enhancements. These topics and
their integration into our existing programs arise from the
recommendations of a draft report from a set of 1997 Energy Research
workshops entitled ``Carbon Management: Fundamental Research Needs
Assessment,'' as well as the President's Committee of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) report on Energy R&D entitled ``Federal
Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty-First
Century.''
The expanded Energy Research efforts in carbon management will be
closely coordinated with DOE's technology programs. Many activities
will impact the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by
providing technology options for increasing efficiency and reducing
energy consumption. The basic research program will also provide the
knowledge base needed to increase the use of renewable resources and
alternate energy sources. Other aspects of the research program impact
the Office of Fossil Energy by providing a foundation for effective and
safe underground sequestration, enhanced natural sequestration on land
and in the oceans, new materials, a better understanding of combustion,
and improved catalysts. In support of this initiative the Biological
and Environmental Research program will be increased by $11.0 million.
This increase supports research on the determination of which
biochemical mechanisms and natural systems of plants, interacting with
the components of their native environments, can be induced to increase
their net utilization of atmospheric carbon dioxide, thus reducing
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Ocean sequestration of carbon will be
studied to identify and enhance key pathways by which marine
microorganisms sequester carbon in the oceans. The microbial genome
program will sequence the genomes of methane-producing and hydrogen-
producing microbes. The microbial sequences will enable the
identification of the key genetic components of the organisms that
regulate these gases. Once we identify and understand more fully how
the enzymes and organisms operate, we will be able to evaluate their
potential use in producing methane or hydrogen from either fossil fuels
or other carbon sources, including biomass and perhaps some waste
products. For instance, recently discovered ``extremophile'' organisms
could be used to engineer biological entities that could ingest a
feedstock like methane, split off carbon dioxide for sequestration, and
give off hydrogen. This activity capitalizes on the significant
accomplishments of our genome investments that have increased
sequencing rates and capabilities and on our unique work in microbial
genome sequencing.
The Basic Energy Science program will be increased by $16.0 million
in materials sciences, chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy
biosciences. Investments in materials sciences will enable the
derivation of new and improved materials for: more efficient
combustion; improved performance and corrosion resistance in high
temperature applications; reduced energy loss from magnetic materials;
and improved efficiency in the conversion of light to electricity.
Basic research in chemical sciences for carbon management includes
multidisciplinary efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through
catalytic and photochemical reduction of carbon dioxide to specialty
chemicals or hydrocarbons and improved fundamental understanding of the
chemistries of combustion to improve combustion and reduce emissions.
Geoscience will support basic research in areas of geophysics and
geochemistry, that impact carbon dioxide sequestration in subsurface
geologic formations. In energy biosciences, there are a number of
unexplored opportunities in photosynthesis that complement the current
work in the biophysics and biochemistry of energy capture. Studies in
this area are central to understanding global carbon cycling.
Scientific Facilities Utilization.--Each year, over 15,000
university, industry, and government sponsored scientists conduct
cutting edge experiments at these large and small user facilities that
include particle accelerators, neutron sources, synchrotron light
sources, and smaller facilities. To meet the demand for operating time
and to improve research capabilities at existing facilities, the
Science Facilities Utilization Initiative began in fiscal year 1996. In
fiscal year 1999 we maintain the Science Facilities Utilization
Initiative with a renewed commitment to operate our facilities and
sustain adequate operating levels. An increase of $84.8 million in
fiscal year 1999 will raise total ER support for facilities to $1.0
billion. The increase will enable ER to sustain or expand utilization
of scientific user facilities nationwide throughout the Basic Energy
Sciences, High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, Biological and
Environmental Research, and Computational and Technology Research
programs.
In Basic Energy Sciences, the fiscal year 1999 request includes
$317.0 million to maintain support of the scientific user facilities,
an increase of $46.3 million. This funding includes increases for the
synchrotron radiation light sources and for the neutron scattering
facilities to adjust for increased cost-of-living expenses. In
addition, in accord with the highest recommendations of the Basic
Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC) Panel on Synchrotron
Radiation Sources and Science (the Birgeneau Panel), additional funds
are provided to the National Synchrotron Light Source for increased
support for users and to the light source community for instrumentation
and beamline construction at the light sources; the latter funds will
be allocated via peer review. Research and development in support of
Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) construction is increased and is
included in the Science Facilities Utilization Initiative increase.
Finally, increased research activities are planned for the Combustion
Research Facility, which will complete construction of Phase II in
fiscal year 1999. These increases were made possible because, in fiscal
year 1999, all funds associated with the SNS were added as an increment
above the base program. Research communities that have benefitted from
the BES supported Science Facilities Utilization Initiative include
materials sciences, chemical sciences, earth and geosciences,
environmental sciences, structural biology, superconductor technology,
medical research, and industrial technology development.
For High Energy and Nuclear Physics (HENP), the Scientific
Facilities Utilization Initiative has meant a focus on providing
funding for a high level of operation of the accelerator facilities.
For optimum scientific progress in HENP, a balanced strategy is
essential. Operation of facilities, support for the (mostly university
based) researchers using the facilities, and support for R&D and
fabrication of facility upgrades for enhanced future capabilities must
be carefully balanced. An increase of $36.6 million in HENP in fiscal
year 1999, will ensure aggressive and successful commissioning and
improve the computing capability at the Stanford Linear Accelerator
Center's (SLAC) B-factory, the Fermilab Main Injector, and the
Brookhaven National Laboratory Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC)
in order to increase the productivity of users when these facilities go
on-line. Some of the increase will go to university groups to improve
their productivity on site. In addition, this funding will provide for
about 26 weeks of operation of the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron
(AGS) at Brookhaven for High Energy Physics research. The transfer of
the AGS to the Nuclear Physics program for use as the injector for RHIC
will occur during the 3rd Quarter and RHIC operations will begin in the
4th Quarter of fiscal year 1999.
Scientists supported under the President's Climate Change
Technology Initiative will have the opportunity to take advantage of
the unique research capabilities provided by Energy Research. For
example, research results from the Climate Change Technology Initiative
on methane and hydrogen producing microorganisms and on marine
microorganisms will develop, in part, through structural biology
studies conducted at the DOE light sources. They will also extend the
use, and develop new applications and techniques, of the range of
spectroscopies available at both the synchrotron sources and the
William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, to be
able to identify and quantify species critical to carbon fixation in
model and natural systems, as well as within plant roots, soil
particles, bacteria, and other components of the ecological system
involved in the carbon fixation processes. In addition, Climate Change
Technology Initiative researchers will make use of Energy Research's
Free Air Carbon Dioxide Enhancement Experiment and the AmeriFlux carbon
network.
The user community is extremely pleased with the results of the
Scientific Facilities Utilization Initiative as seen in many letters
and customer surveys. However, the full impact of the Initiative has
not yet been realized since new beamlines and instrumentation are not
yet fully operational. Many of the funding commitments for
instrumentation are spread over multiple years and continued support in
fiscal year 1999 is important to the success of this Initiative.
The Next Generation Internet.--Key to the solution of large complex
multidisciplinary problems is the ability to maintain strong
communications and collaborations among researchers in remote
locations. As the complexity of problems and the importance of
international collaboration grows, it increases the need to communicate
and transmit massive amounts of data. DOE currently utilizes advanced
networks to provide thousands of remote users nationwide with access to
its large, unique computer facilities. In addition, DOE uses the
internet to link researchers in universities, laboratories, and
industry who are working to solve the multidisciplinary problems that
underpin the DOE mission. These problems include computing the effects
of greenhouse gases on global warming, designing the next generation of
clean diesel engines, and guaranteeing the safety of the nuclear
stockpile. As a result, DOE's projected data transmission requirements
of about a thousand-trillion bytes per year (peta bytes/year) will
critically stress existing internet capabilities.
The Next Generation Internet (NGI) is important to DOE because we
support thousands of teams of researchers spread across the world. The
NGI network capabilities and services are necessary to advance mission-
critical applications in our science and technology programs that are
carried out through collaborations between remote institutions. Without
the NGI, DOE will not make the kind of progress on its mission-critical
programs that NGI funding will enable. Accessing and visualizing large
scientific data sets are critical to the future of high energy and
nuclear physics, genome research, and other DOE programs. Prompt
development and integration of NGI technologies and infrastructure is
absolutely essential for making DOE's unique online facilities,
supercomputers, and data sets securely and efficiently available to
remote researchers.
In addition, DOE participation is important to NGI because adapting
our scientific applications to the advanced NGI technologies and
networks will provide the important tests for stressing the new network
technologies. If DOE researchers are not on the NGI networks then these
tests cannot occur. DOE's ESnet is one of the most advanced research
networks supported by the federal government. A critical issue for the
NGI will be testing the interconnection of high speed and advanced
capability networks of different kinds. If ESnet is not involved, that
goal of the NGI program will be seriously hampered. DOE applications
require advanced production network services, as well as the ability to
``live in the future'' through the early use of experimental
technologies. In order to concurrently satisfy these competing goals
and remain fiscally responsible, DOE will have to support both types of
traffic on as much of the same network infrastructure as possible.
Other agencies and the university community face the same problem, and
therefore will directly benefit from DOE's work in this area. DOE's NGI
research and development of intelligent middleware for DOE applications
will also benefit other ``application agencies,'' such as NASA, NIH,
and NSF, as well as university applications.
The fiscal year 1999 request includes $22.0 million for the DOE NGI
program. This program has three major components: core network
research, enhancements through intelligent software and ``middleware''
[software between the computer operating system and the network
application to allow the two to work together properly], and a new DOE-
University partnership that enhances the collaborative application
environment through joint DOE-University NGI technology development and
deployment. All of these components cut across and make contributions
to the three NGI goals of technology development, advanced testbed
infrastructure, and revolutionary applications. The Core Network
Research component focuses on developing new technologies and
capabilities to be integrated into the network infrastructure. The
middleware component focuses on providing easy-to-use interfaces and
software to DOE's applications so that they can ascertain the status of
the network and then intelligently and dynamically make the best use of
that infrastructure to support their application. DOE will enhance DOE-
University collaborative research on DOE mission critical applications
by defining a new NGI-based partnership. This partnership will focus on
jointly developing NGI technologies, accelerating the establishment of
end-to-end DOE Laboratory to Campus network and testbed
infrastructures, and adapting DOE application codes at both the labs
and universities to support DOE programs.
Science Education.--The ER programs support university faculty,
graduate students and post-docs in specific areas as part of their
ongoing research efforts. ER also operates its unique research
facilities for the peer reviewed use of university scientists. However,
the scientific and technical challenges of the DOE missions demand the
availability of an adequate and diverse supply of excellent scientists,
engineers, and technicians for the future. Therefore, the Department
also uses the resources of its national laboratories to provide hands-
on research opportunities to undergraduate students and faculty, and to
K-12 teachers to contribute to the national effort to improve math and
science education.
In line with this educational philosophy, ER's fiscal year 1999
budget includes a modest request to support University and Science
Education (USE) programs aimed at maintaining a diversity of students
in the science pipeline from small colleges and universities and
minority serving institutions across the country. The Department has
requested $15.0 million to reestablish this effort and provide a focus
for DOE corporate investments in the next generation of scientists and
engineers in support of DOE missions. The proposed USE program will
support activities that utilize DOE resources in partnership with other
agencies thereby ensuring against duplication of efforts. For example,
DOE is working with the National Science Foundation and the Department
of Education to leverage our substantial investments in science and
technology facilities and personnel in support of national goals in
science education. By opening the National Laboratories to students and
teachers, providing them with hands-on research opportunities and other
technical tools, DOE fills an important gap in math and science
education across the nation. The internet provides an excellent
opportunity for DOE to utilize its scientific infrastructure to advance
science education with minimal capital and opportunity costs. The
proposed USE program will make extensive use of internet tools both for
outreach and coordination.
The DOE fiscal year 1999 education initiative is extremely
important and vital to help improve our nation's understanding of
science. In particular our kids and teachers. The Secretary has set an
agenda, in partnership with the National Science Foundation that will
help train thousands of teachers in science and technology and also
develop a mechanism to distribute this knowledge via the internet.
The Large Hadron Collider.--On December 8, 1997, the Secretary of
Energy and the Director of the National Science Foundation took on a
historic, national responsibility when they, and the President of the
CERN Council and the Director General of CERN, signed the
``International Co-operation Agreement Concerning Scientific and
Technical Co-operation on Large Hadron Collider Activities''. The LHC
Agreement represents the largest commitment ever made by DOE and NSF to
an international project overseas. We realize that this unique project
poses new management challenges, and have, in partnership with NSF,
taken steps to ensure effective coordination and strong leadership of
the U.S. part of the LHC project.
DOE, NSF and CERN have established a management structure that
looks at the U.S. contributions from the various perspectives entailed
in an international research program. The Agreement with CERN
established a Co-operation Committee to monitor and facilitate
activities with annual meetings beginning this spring. DOE and NSF are
now official Observers at the CERN Council, the governing body of CERN.
As Observers, DOE and NSF receive the same information and reports as
Member State delegates on the LHC Project, and can influence the
deliberations of the Council on the LHC. By being part of the Committee
of Council, a closed session of the CERN Council which meets quarterly,
DOE and NSF now have the capability (and the forum) to discuss
privately LHC concerns with CERN management. DOE and NSF also have full
membership in the Resource Review Boards that monitor and oversee
resource matters related to LHC experiments.
DOE and NSF are forming a Joint Oversight Group, the decision-
making body that will be responsible for the joint co-ordination,
oversight and programmatic direction of DOE and NSF activities
regarding the U.S. LHC effort. Its purpose is to ensure that the
commitments made to CERN (and the U.S. Congress) under the Cooperation
Agreement and Protocols are met in a timely and effective manner, and
that DOE and NSF are reliable, predictable, and credible international
partners with CERN and with the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) detector
and ATLAS (A Torroidol LHC ApparatuS) detector collaborations. A U.S.
LHC Program Manager located at DOE Headquarters and a U.S. LHC Project
Manager located at Fermilab, both federal employees, will support the
work of the Joint Oversight Group. Reporting to the U.S. LHC Program
and Project Managers are the individuals with the technical expertise
and experience to design, build and operate the in-kind contributions
that are part of the U.S. LHC effort.
Under the LHC Agreement, DOE is to contribute $200.0 million worth
of goods and services for the LHC accelerator over ten years. The U.S.
LHC Accelerator Project Manager, an employee of Fermilab, is
responsible for the programmatic coordination and management of the
$110.0 million worth of high-tech hardware for the technically
challenging LHC Interaction Regions to be built by Brookhaven National
Laboratory, Fermilab and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and
for advising DOE on the $90.0 million worth of procurements from U.S.
industry.
The ATLAS and CMS detectors are being built by international
Collaborations in close coordination with CERN. DOE and NSF will
provide $250.0 million and $81.0 million respectively for goods and
services for the ATLAS and CMS detectors, with most of those funds
provided to U.S. universities. DOE and NSF communicate and interact
with these Collaborations primarily through the ATLAS and CMS Resources
Review Boards convened by CERN and through the U.S. ATLAS and U.S. CMS
Project Managers, non-federal employees situated, respectively, at
Brookhaven and Fermilab. Currently, they are completing Project
Management Plans which delineate the organization and distribution of
management responsibilities within the U.S. ATLAS and U.S. CMS efforts.
In December 1997, LHC management informed the CERN Council that the
project is advancing according to schedule and within budget. DOE and
NSF are active members of the collaboration with a management structure
in place to assure responsible stewardship for the resources devoted to
this effort.
ITER and the Fusion Transition.--In fiscal year 1999, the fusion
energy sciences program will continue the restructuring recommended in
1996 by the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee to a program that
emphasizes science, with a long-term energy goal. In fulfilling our
mandate to restructure the program, we have shut down the Tokamak
Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) after obtaining significant scientific
results and setting a world record for the production of fusion energy.
The money saved by shutting down TFTR is being used for an initiative
in plasma science that introduces young scientists with fresh ideas
into the program. In addition, a reinvigorated program of research on
alternative fusion concepts and better use of our remaining tokamak
facilities has been put in place.
International cooperation is, and will continue to be, a vital part
of our fusion program. It is essential to our ability to participate in
large scale experiments and to advance the energy goal of the fusion
program. We plan to expand our collaborative activities with our
partners as long as such collaborations are beneficial to the
restructured program.
The largest of our international fusion activities, the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, has
proven to be a valuable focusing element for our program both in terms
of the technical product, which is excellent, and the process by which
we work together. In July 1998, the ITER Agreement between the United
States, the European Union, Japan and the Russian Federation for
conducting the Engineering Design Activities (EDA) is scheduled to
expire. The four ITER Parties are working toward an extension of the
Agreement for three years to continue international collaborations in
fusion, including the additional activities that may be required to be
ready for construction decisions in the 2000-2001 time frame in case
there is the interest to proceed.
The four ITER Parties are coming to the view that we should plan
now to evaluate possibilities for reducing the cost of ITER, in the
event that the parties are financially unable to proceed with
construction of the current design. Therefore, for fiscal year 1999,
the U.S. will refocus its ITER contribution toward the evaluation of a
variety of lower-cost design options while reducing our participation
in ITER baseline design activities.
The restructuring of our participation in ITER will allow further
reallocation of funds to high priority science and technology
activities in the fiscal year 1999 budget. Enhanced science activities
include increased research operations and modifications to the Alcator
C-MOD and DIII-D experiments, additional alternate concept experiments,
and increases in theory efforts, collaborations on existing experiments
overseas, and plasma science initiatives. With the restructuring of our
participation in ITER, we are refocusing most of our technology efforts
on the needs of existing and planned domestic and international
experiments. Much of these efforts will likely be beneficial to ITER as
well. The remainder of our technology effort will focus on providing
the knowledge base needed in the longer term for an attractive fusion
energy source.
In particular, we have started a coordinated national effort on a
facility that will be located at the Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory (PPPL). This facility, the National Spherical Torus
Experiment (NSTX), is a proof-of-principle scale, innovative fusion
concept experiment with exciting scientific potential. During the past
year, PPPL and its collaborators, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Columbia University, and the University of Washington, have made rapid
progress on completing the design and initiating component fabrication
for the NSTX. Their work is on schedule and within budget; we expect to
begin operations in mid-fiscal year 1999. Work has also begun to form
an NSTX national research team through an open solicitation process
whereby scientists across the country have been invited to participate
in various topical areas of research. In addition, scientific
collaborations are continuing to develop between NSTX and similar
efforts on spherical torus research in England and Russia, where
complementary experiments will begin operations at about the same time.
conclusions
The significant increase in the fiscal year 1999 budget for the
Office of Energy Research recognizes the critical role that fundamental
knowledge plays in achieving the mission of the Department as well as
for the general advancement of the Nation's economy and the welfare of
its citizens. The SNS, the Scientific Facilities Utilization, and Next
Generation Internet initiatives will build upon and sustain the
Department's role in the development and operation of large, unique
scientific instruments and facilities. The Energy Research part of the
President's Climate Change Technology Initiative will provide
fundamental knowledge for a long term portfolio of clean, efficient
energy technologies. On behalf of the Administration and the
Department, I am pleased to present this budget for Energy Research
programs and welcome the challenge to deliver the required results.
______
Attachment
the programs of the office of energy research
Fiscal year 1998 appropriation--$2,474.7 million; fiscal year 1999
request--$2,720.5 million
The Energy Research budget request of $2,720.5 million for fiscal
year 1999 is shown in Table 1. Energy Research is seeking $836.1
million for its Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program, $392.6 million for
its Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program, $691.0 million
for its High Energy Physics (HEP) program, $332.6 million for the
Nuclear Physics (NP) program, $228.2 million for the Fusion Energy
Sciences (FES) program, and $160.6 million for Computational and
Technology Research (CTR). The request also includes $15.0 million for
the University and Science Education program, $21.3 million for the
Multiprogram Energy Laboratories Facilities support program, $39.9
million for Energy Research Program Direction, and $1.0 million for
Energy Research Analyses, and $9.8 million for the Technical
Information Program. Prior year Superconducting Super Collider funds in
the amount of $7.6 million not needed for termination activities are
used to offset the fiscal year 1999 appropriation request.
basic energy sciences
Fiscal year 1998 appropriation--$667.3 million; fiscal year 1999
request--$836.1 million (Figure 1)
The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program fosters and supports
fundamental research in the natural sciences and engineering leading to
new and improved energy technologies and to understanding and
mitigating the environmental impacts of energy technologies. The BES
program obtains fundamental knowledge by supporting innovative, peer-
reviewed basic research in areas important to the Department of Energy
mission (see Figure 1).
Figure 1.--Basic Energy Sciences
[In millions of dollars]
Construction...................................................... 132.4
Engineering and Geosciences....................................... 44.4
Materials Sciences................................................ 417.2
Chemical Sciences................................................. 209.6
Energy Biosciences................................................ 32.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 836.1
The BES program is a principal sponsor of fundamental research in
the U.S. and funds more than 2,400 researchers at 200 institutions
nationwide. In fiscal year 1997, principal investigators funded by BES
won 70 major prizes and awards sponsored by 34 professional societies,
and 57 BES-supported researchers were newly elected Fellows of 24
professional societies. In addition, ten principal investigators became
members of the National Academy of Sciences in 1997, and five were
inducted to the National Academy of Engineering. Paramount among the
honors for BES in fiscal year 1997 were Nobel Prizes. The 1997 Nobel
Prize in Chemistry, shared by BES researcher Paul D. Boyer, was the
fourth Nobel Prize awarded to BES principal investigators in the four
years.
The BES program supports the missions of the Department of Energy
(DOE) by promoting the transfer of the results of basic research to
contribute to DOE missions in areas of energy efficiency, renewable
energy resources, improved use of fossil fuels, reduced environmental
impacts of energy production and use, science-based stockpile
stewardship, and future fusion energy sources by using established
management practices to link BES staff and BES-supported principal
investigators with their counterparts in the energy technology offices
and in industry. For example, such practices include co-funding and
collocating basic research programs supported by BES with applied
research programs supported by the technology offices at DOE
laboratories. In addition, the Partnerships for Academic-Industrial
Research (PAIR) Program, to be initiated in fiscal year 1999, will link
basic researchers in academia with those in industry.
To fulfill its mission, the BES program plans, constructs, and
operates premier national scientific user facilities to serve
researchers at universities, national laboratories, and industrial
laboratories, thus enabling the acquisition of new scientific
knowledge. These facilities include synchrotron radiation light
sources, high-flux neutron sources, electron-beam microcharacterization
centers, and specialized facilities such as the Combustion Research
Facility. BES encourages use of these facilities in areas important to
BES and also in areas that extend beyond the scope of BES activities,
such as structural biology, environmental science, medical imaging,
rational drug design, micromachining, and industrial technologies. Open
to all qualified researchers, BES facilities have more than 5,000
users, including scientists from about 100 U.S. companies.
The BES program ensures stable research communities in critical
areas to maintain our domestic ability to respond quickly and
appropriately to national needs and scientific opportunities. For
example, BES serves as the nation's primary or sole supporter of such
important subdisciplines as heavy element chemistry, natural and
artificial solar energy conversion, catalysis, organometallic
chemistry, combustion related science, separations science, neutron
science, radiation chemistry, and radiation effects in materials.
A BES initiative in Complex and Collective Phenomena will be
expanding the frontiers of basic research in fiscal year 1999. Research
under this initiative is intended to be revolutionary rather than
evolutionary, and it is expected to involve multidisciplinary and/or
interdisciplinary efforts. Further the Complex and Collective Phenomena
initiative is expected to bridge the gap between an atomic level
understanding and a continuum mechanics understanding of complex and
collective phenomena. For example, understanding materials that involve
collective phenomena--such as superconductivity--will help to develop
revolutionary new materials that are needed for the next generation of
energy technologies.
Materials Sciences.--The Materials Sciences subprogram supports
basic research in condensed matter physics, metals and ceramics
sciences, and materials chemistry. This basic research seeks to
understand the atomistic basis of materials properties and behavior and
how to make materials perform better at acceptable cost through new
methods of synthesis and processing. Basic research is supported in
corrosion, metals, ceramics, alloys, semiconductors, superconductors,
polymers, metallic glasses, ceramic matrix composites, non-destructive
evaluation, magnetic materials, surface science, neutron and x-ray
scattering, chemical and physical properties, and new instrumentation.
Ultimately such research leads to the development of materials that
improve the efficiency, economy, environmental impact, and safety in
energy generation, conversion, transmission, and use.
In fiscal year 1999, the Materials Sciences subprogram will support
research routes to improved carbon management in support of the Climate
Change Technology Initiative which include: reducing fuel consumption
(and consequently emissions) via higher temperature operation through
the use of improved heat and corrosion resistant alloys; reducing
energy losses in motors via improved magnetic materials; and displacing
fossil fuels with higher-efficiency photovoltaic cells. Materials
Sciences research under the Complex and Collective Phenomena initiative
in fiscal year 1999 will focus on new classes of magnetic materials and
their behavior in thin films and layered arrangements; new classes of
alloys; and an increased understanding of mechanical behavior between
the atomic scale and the macroscopic continuum model.
Chemical Sciences.--The Chemical Sciences subprogram has two major
components. One major component is comprised of atomic, molecular and
optical physics; chemical physics; photochemistry; and radiation
chemistry. This research enables the production of more efficient
combustion systems with reduced emissions of pollutants, and it also
broadens our knowledge of solar photoconversion processes resulting in
new, improved systems and production methods. The other major component
of the research program is comprised of inorganic chemistry, organic
chemistry, analytical chemistry, separations science, heavy element
chemistry, and aspects of chemical engineering sciences. This research
has resulted in improvements to known catalytic systems for the
production of fuels and chemicals; better analytical methods for
applications in energy processes and environmental sciences; and new
knowledge of actinide elements and separations important for
environmental remediation and waste management.
In fiscal year 1999, as part of the Climate Change Technology
Initiative, chemical physics and photochemistry will provide knowledge
that enables more efficient combustion, a new understanding of the
photochemical conversion of CO2 and the direct conversion of
solar radiation to electricity. Separations science, physical chemistry
and inorganic chemistry enable new catalysts for converting fuels to
carbon dioxide and hydrogen; carbon dioxide conversion to chemicals,
separation of the conversion components; and new electrochemical energy
production and storage systems. Chemical Sciences research in fiscal
year 1999 under the Complex and Collective Phenomena initiative would
fall in the areas of atomic, molecular and optical physics with a focus
on scaling in space and time, functional synthesis, and improved
photochemical processes.
Engineering and Geosciences.--In Engineering Research, the goals
are to extend the body of knowledge underlying current engineering
practice to create new options for improving energy efficiency and to
broaden the technical and conceptual knowledge base for solving the
engineering problems of energy technologies. In Geosciences Research,
the goal is for fundamental knowledge of the processes that transport,
concentrate, emplace, and modify energy and mineral resources and the
byproducts of energy production. The research supports existing energy
technologies and strengthens the foundation for the development of
future energy technologies to improve efficiency, reduce pollution, and
increase energy supplies, while improving the effectiveness of
environmental remediation.
In fiscal year 1999, the Geosciences Research program will
contribute to the Climate Change Technology Initiative by providing the
science for improved characterization of subsurface formations and
their host potential for carbon dioxide sequestration. Geomechanical
studies and research on rock-fluid interactions will support carbon
dioxide injection technologies, reservoir storage capacities, and long-
term storage stability. Research concerning the physics of multiphase
flow in fractured rock systems will provide the basis not only for
advancing the predictability of terrestrial carbon dioxide
sequestration, but also for providing the basis for improved efficiency
of fossil energy and geothermal energy production. Research on Complex
and Collective Phenomena in fiscal year 1997 will address: the coupling
between geochemical, hydrodynamic, mechanical, and thermal processes in
shallow crustal conditions; the effects of heterogeneity and scale on
geological structures, transport processes, and properties; and non-
linear controls in processing.
Energy Biosciences.--The Energy Biosciences subprogram supports
research to provide a basic understanding of the biological phenomena
associated with the capture, transformation, storage and utilization of
energy. Research on plants and non-medical microorganisms focuses on a
range of biological processes including photosynthesis, bioenergetics,
primary and secondary metabolism, the synthesis and degradation of
biopolymers such as lignin and cellulose, anaerobic fermentations,
genetic regulation of growth and development, thermophily, e.g.,
bacterial growth under high temperature, and other phenomena with the
potential to impact biological energy production and conversion.
In fiscal year 1999, the Climate Change Technology Initiative will
be focused on plant science and fermentative microbiology. Biological
systems, particularly plants, algae, and microbes, play a major role in
the capture and release of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The biological
processes of carbon dioxide fixation offer numerous possibilities for
reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels such as recycling the carbon
or providing fixed carbon for longer term sequestration. Research in
Complex and Collective Phenomena in fiscal year 1999 will examine the
fundamental nature of interactions between the biological
macromolecules responsible for self-assembly and the effects of their
intercommunication.
biological and environmental research
Fiscal year 1998 appropriation--$405.9 million; fiscal year 1999
request--$392.6 million (Figure 2)
The Biological and Environmental Research (BER) Program provides
fundamental science to support the Department of Energy missions.
Through its support of peer reviewed research at national laboratories,
universities, and private institutions, the program develops the
knowledge needed to identify, understand, and anticipate the long-term
health and environmental consequences of energy production,
development, and use. The goal of the BER program is to develop the
information, scientific ``know-how,'' and fundamental science that
underpins new technologies used in the pursuit of detailed
understanding of the consequences to health and the environment of
energy production, development and use.
Figure 2.--Biolgoical and Environmental Research
[In millions of dollars]
Medical Applications.............................................. 43.9
Environmental Remediation......................................... 67.5
Environmental Processes........................................... 119.2
Life Sciences..................................................... 162.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 392.6
The integrated, cross-disciplinary nature of the BER program is
reflected in its division into four subprograms: Life Sciences,
Environmental Processes, Environmental Restoration, and Medical
Applications and Measurement Science.
Life Sciences.--During fiscal year 1999, the Department's Human
Genome Program (HGP) will continue its major emphasis on enhancing
automated high-throughput DNA sequencing. Fiscal year 1999 will be the
first year of full operation for the DNA sequencing factory in Walnut
Creek, California that will begin operation in August 1998. We are
excited by a new partnership between leading genome scientists at our
nation's universities and Department of Energy laboratories that will
provide additional technology, expertise and resources to the
Department's Joint Genome Institute and its DNA sequencing factory. Our
sequencing goal for fiscal year 1999 of 40 million bases of DNA is
double our fiscal year 1998 goal, indicating our serious commitment to
sequence our share of the total human DNA as part of the U.S. and
international genome programs.
As more of the human genome is sequenced there will be an
increasing need for tools that lead to a rapid understanding of the
organization, regulation, and function of the human genome. The fiscal
year 1999 request provides for the development of some of these tools
by taking advantage of rapid progress that has been made in discovering
and understanding the function of new genes in experimental organisms
such as yeast, the fruit fly, and the mouse.
Fiscal year 1999 will be another year for rapid and exciting
progress in our Microbial Genome Program. This past December,
``Science'' magazine identified microbial genomics as one of this past
year's top 10 fields of discovery. In addition, three of last year's
``Hottest 11 Papers in Biology'', based on the number of times the
papers were cited in the scientific literature, described the complete
genomic sequencing of microbes, two of which were funded by BER. The
DOE program has supported the sequencing of six of the 13 bacteria
whose DNA have been completely sequenced. We plan to complete the
sequencing of up to seven additional microbes this year and will be
well underway to completely sequencing eight more microbes in fiscal
year 1999. These sequencing projects include bacteria important in the
remediation of organic pollutants and toxic metals and that process
carbon monoxide and produce hydrogen or methane.
As the complete genomic sequences of microbes are determined, the
DNA sequences are also analyzed, or annotated, to identify all the
potential genes encoded in their DNA and to get clues about their
potential functions. This annotation of the microbial genomes is a
critical and fascinating part of the Microbial Genome Project. More
than half of the genes identified in these newly sequenced microbes are
unrelated to any genes that have previously been discovered. These new
genes represent exciting opportunities for future basic research and
potential sources of biological resources to be ``mined'' for future
use.
Fiscal year 1999 will also see a linkage with the Microbial Genome
Program as we focus on the genetic characterization of methane and
hydrogen producing microbes that can be exploited in the development of
useful and efficient non-fossil fuel sources and on microbes that can
be induced to increase their natural carbon sequestration capabilities.
The fiscal year 1999 request provides for structural biology
research to continue developing and supporting DOE national user
facilities for scientists to learn the molecular structure of important
biological molecules, such as enzymes, antibodies, or other proteins.
These facilities, used by scientists from universities, industry, and
national laboratories, are critical tools in applications ranging from
energy production to environmental remediation. They also provide a
means for better understanding the mechanism of action of current drugs
and for the design of new drugs to control or treat a variety of
diseases.
The fiscal year 1999 request provides for the development of new
molecular-based tools for health surveillance, biological dosimetry,
and individual susceptibility determination to understand and
characterize the risks to human health from exposures to low levels of
radiation and chemicals both at home and at work. An emphasis is placed
on research that utilizes the unique resources and tools developed in
the Department's human genome, structural biology, and cellular and
molecular biology programs.
Environmental Processes.--The Environmental Processes program
conducts research on a range of issues related to the mission of the
U.S. Global Change Research Program. Thus, activities are focused on
understanding and predicting the potential consequences on climate and
ecological health of energy-related emissions, especially carbon
dioxide, from fossil fuel combustion.
As the major federal agency supporting research into climate
predictions on the decade-to-century time scale, the DOE has an
integrated observational and modeling program focused on predicting
climate variability and climate change 10 to 100 years in advance. New
generation coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models have
been developed and will be used to perform simulations of possible
climate response to increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gases. The fiscal year 1999 request provides for continued development
of more accurate and computationally efficient models and improvements
in the observational data bases and methods necessary to test and
verify the capacity of climate models to predict decade to multi-
century climate variability.
The fiscal year 1999 request also provides for continued
investigation, under the ARM Program, of what has been called the most
important barrier to improving these general circulation models--the
effect of clouds and water vapor on the Earth's energy balance. This
research has already demonstrated that existing climate models may
underestimate how much radiation from the sun is absorbed in the
atmosphere, a result that may not only affect our ability to improve
climate and weather predictions, but that may also lead to improved
technologies for accurate positioning of satellites.
The fiscal year 1999 request enables the second atmospheric
radiation and cloud station (ARCS) in the Western Tropical Pacific, in
Nauru to begin yielding data and for operation to begin at the first
polar ARCS in Barrow, Alaska. This will result in a rapid increase in
the data being generated from the ARM program. Operation of the
Southern Great Plains site in Oklahoma and Kansas, that has been in
operation for five years, will continue with at least five intensive
observational periods. Data from these sites continue to be openly
provided to the interested scientific community. The fiscal year 1999
request will also support a combined unmanned aerospace vehicle (UAV)
and manned aircraft mission over the Southern Great Plains Site that
will provide essential data on the radiation budget in the cloudy
atmosphere to be correlated with measurements of cloud characteristics.
The Atmospheric Sciences Program complements these studies with
research into ultraviolet-B radiation, aerosols, and mid-latitude
stratospheric and tropospheric ozone. Analysis of data measured during
the prototype megacity (Mexico City, Mexico) air quality study will be
completed.
In addition to these studies on the key physical processes that
affect the Earth's atmosphere and climate, the fiscal year 1999 request
supports research on the fundamental mechanisms by which terrestrial
ecosystems respond to environmental changes such as increased
atmospheric carbon dioxide or altered temperature and precipitation.
Key to such studies is an understanding of the atmosphere-land-ocean
carbon cycle and the impact of energy usage on that cycle. The research
provides a scientific basis for assessing the effects of human
activities on the Earth's climate and for assessing the need for action
to mitigate any adverse change. Beyond their mutual scientific support,
the environmental processes programs are coordinated with other
agencies through the National Science and Technology Council's
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources.
The fiscal year 1999 request provides for research, that is part of
the Climate Change Technology Initiative, focusing on the underpinning
science that will enable mitigation of climate change while maintaining
a robust national economy. Research will determine which systems of
terrestrial plants, interacting with the components of their native
environment can be induced to increase the net sequestration of
atmospheric carbon dioxide to enhance understanding of the potential to
enhance natural carbon sinks on land that could help stabilize or
reduce the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Similarly,
research activities on carbon sequestration in oceans will include
identification of key pathways by which marine microorganisms enhance
carbon flow from the atmosphere to the oceans, ways these pathways
might be enhanced, and the mechanisms and role of these microorganisms
in sequestering carbon and its transfer from the ocean surface to the
deep ocean.
Environmental Remediation.--The fiscal year 1999 request supports
research focused on understanding the fundamental physical, chemical,
geological, and biological processes that must be marshaled for the
development and advancement of new, effective, and efficient processes
for the remediation and restoration of the nation's nuclear weapons
production sites. The two highest priorities of this subprogram are
bioremediation and the operation of the William R. Wiley Environmental
Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) which will have completed its
first full year of operation at the beginning of fiscal year 1999.
Facility operation supports the operation of the EMSL as a national
user facility for basic research that will underpin the development of
safe and cost-effective environmental remediation methods and
technologies and other environmental research priorities. Another key
activity is the continuation of joint scientific endeavors with the
Office of Environmental Management, including the transition of basic
research into potential field applications.
The fiscal year 1999 request provides for increased research to
help resolve many of the questions that today prevent bioremediation
from being a major weapon in the arsenal of tools for environmental
remediation. The fiscal year 1999 request will provide for the
establishment of the first field research center for the Natural and
Accelerated Bioremediation Research (NABIR) program, that will be sited
after completion of the NEPA process. This site will help correlate the
complexities of the natural field environment with the discoveries in
more simplified and controlled laboratory settings. Research will
include identifying key microbial communities, biotransformation
pathways, and biogeochemical processes to enhance the utility of
bioremediation, and will begin to develop strategies to represent these
processes in predictive models. The fiscal year 1999 request will also
further development of the program on bioremediation and its societal
implications and concerns, an effort parallel to the ethical, legal,
and social implications program within the human genome program. The
NABIR program will continue to build on other components of the BER
program, most notably activities in structural biology and the
microbial genome program. In short, the combination of this research
with the research performed at the EMSL will make the BER program an
international leader in fundamental molecular and biological sciences
that underpin strategies to cleanup the environmental legacy of the
Cold War.
Medical Applications and Measurement Science.--The Medical
Applications program fosters research to develop beneficial
applications of nuclear and other energy-related technologies for
medical diagnosis and treatment of patient's problems. The
infrastructure promotes a fertile partnership among the major
biomedical disciplines of science and technology, biology, and medicine
in support of three major research areas which include nuclear
medicine, boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT), and instrumentation.
The fiscal year 1999 request provides for research with broad
impacts for the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of disease.
These impacts include radiopharmaceutical chemistry and radionuclide
imaging instrumentation, the investigations of a broad range of
diagnostic and therapeutic applications, the scientific and
technological foundation for the major medical specialty of nuclear
medicine, and the expansion of a vital industry for radiopharmaceutical
development and radionuclide imaging instrumentation. Early phase I/II
clinical trials of BNCT at reactor sources of neutrons will be
completed for at least 50 patients and a feasibility study of
accelerator-based BNCT will be underway.
The technology developed under this program provides for the non-
invasive detection and localization of small lesions in the body, the
quantitative measurement of dynamic organ function, and the selective
treatment of cancer with internal molecular radiation therapy. Nuclear
medicine research supported by the Department continues to make
contributions that improve the diagnostic accuracy and use of
radiopharmaceuticals for the study and treatment of coronary artery
disease; the effects of smoking, alcoholism and substance abuse;
neurodegenerative diseases including Parkinson and Alzheimer diseases;
and for mitigation of bone-pain from generalized skeletal cancer
metastases. Medical Applications research, in partnership with the
Department's human genome and molecular and cellular biology research,
is forging new alliances in molecular nuclear medicine for imaging the
biochemistry and gene expression of cells and tissues in the body to
find not only where some disease processes take place, but to locate
and study the action of genes involved in still mysterious normal
functions such as learning and memory.
Our measurement science program supports basic research that will
lead to the development of new instruments and measurement technologies
for direct application to environmental and life sciences research. The
scientific knowledge developed under this program is also relevant to
the need for new analytical instrumentation in the Department's Office
of Environmental Management. The fiscal year 1999 request will enable
us to maintain the core capability for developing advanced measurement
technologies for environmental and biomedical research at the
Department's National Laboratories.
fusion energy sciences
Fiscal year 1998 appropriation--$229.7 million; fiscal year 1999
request--$228.2 million (Figure 3)
The Fusion Energy Sciences program is a broad-based, fundamental
research effort, producing valuable scientific knowledge and practical
benefits in the near term and, in cooperation with our international
partners, making substantial progress toward an economically and
environmentally attractive energy option in the long term. The mission
of the Fusion Energy Sciences program is to: ``Acquire the knowledge
base needed for an economically and environmentally attractive fusion
energy source.''
This is a time of important progress and discovery in fusion
research. The Fusion Energy Sciences program is making great progress
in understanding turbulent losses of particles and energy across the
magnetic field lines that are used to confine fusion fuels. In
addition, the program is identifying and exploring innovative
approaches to fusion power that may lead to less costly development
paths.
Figure 3.--Fusion Energy Sciences
[In millions of dollars]
Technology........................................................ 50.0
Facilities Operations............................................. 61.0
Other............................................................. 6.7
Science........................................................... 110.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 228.2
Cross-cutting goals of the Fusion Energy Sciences program as
developed through stakeholder meetings and endorsed by the Fusion
Energy Sciences Advisory Committee are summarized below.
Understand the physics of plasmas, the fourth state of matter.--
Plasmas comprise most of the visible universe, both stellar and
interstellar, and have many practical applications. Progress in plasma
physics has been the prime engine driving progress in fusion research,
and conversely, fusion energy has been the dominant motivation for
plasma physics research.
Identify and explore innovative and cost-effective development
paths to fusion energy.--There is a continuous spectrum of approaches
to fusion, from the tokamak, which is the leading reactor candidate, to
other magnetic configurations to inertial confinement using particle
beams or lasers. The current fusion program is encouraging both
research on tokamak improvements and research on other innovative
concepts.
Explore the science and technology of energy producing plasmas, the
next frontier in fusion research, as a partner in the international
effort.--One of the strongest factors that favors fusion power is the
potential for self-sustaining operation. Energy from the fusion
reaction of deuterium and tritium is released in two components: (1)
most of the energy released is in a form that can be extracted and used
for commercial purposes; and (2) the remaining energy released is used
to replace the energy losses of the confined plasma and to heat the
deuterium and tritium sufficiently to sustain the fuel temperature and
maintain the reaction process. When this replacement energy exceeds the
energy losses, the fusion plasma is said to be ``ignited.''
Understanding the physics of ignited, or self-heated plasmas and
developing the technologies essential for fusion energy are linked
goals that are achievable through the cooperative efforts of the world
community. The long-term benefits to the United States of being a
credible partner in this cooperative effort include ensuring our own
scientific and technological integration in the world fusion program
and contributing to a major step in the development of fusion as an
energy source for a growing world population.
Restructuring Our Participation in ITER.--The largest of our
international fusion activities, the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, has proven to be a valuable
focusing element for our program both in terms of the product, which is
technically excellent, and the process by which we work together. In
July 1998, the ITER Agreement among the United States, the European
Union, Japan and the Russian Federation for conducting the Engineering
Design Activities (EDA) is scheduled to expire. The four ITER Parties
are working toward an extension of the Agreement for three years to
cover the additional activities necessary to be ready for possible
construction decisions in the 2000-2001 time frame.
The four ITER Parties are coming to the view that we should plan
now to evaluate possibilities for reducing the cost of ITER, in case we
are financially unable to proceed to the construction of the current
design. Thus, for fiscal year 1999, the U.S. will refocus its ITER
contribution on an evaluation of a variety of lower-cost design options
while reducing our participation in ITER baseline design activities.
Reallocation of ITER funds to high priority science and technology
activities.--The restructuring of our participation in ITER will allow
us to enhance science activities and better use of our remaining
tokamak facilities. These enhancements will include increased research
operations and modifications to the Alcator C-MOD and DIII-D
experiments, additional alternate concept experiments, and increases in
the theory efforts, collaborations on existing experiments overseas,
and plasma science initiatives.
During our involvement in the six year ITER EDA, most of our fusion
technology development activities were focused on the needs of the
project. With the restructuring of our participation in ITER, we are
refocusing most of our technology efforts on the needs of existing and
planned domestic and international experiments. The remainder of our
technology effort will focus on providing the knowledge base needed in
the longer term for an attractive fusion energy source. It is expected
that much of the results obtained from fiscal year 1999 technology
development efforts will be applicable to ITER, and we expect to share
these results with the other Parties as part of our participation in
the ITER project.
Continued Leveraging of Program Resources through International
Collaborations.--International cooperation is, and will continue to be,
a vital part of our fusion program. It is essential to our ability to
participate in large scale experiments and to advance the energy goal
of the fusion program. We plan to expand our collaborative activities
with our partners as long as such collaborations promise to meet our
needs.
Completion of National Spherical Torus Experiment Construction
Activities.--We have started a coordinated national effort on a
facility that will be located at the Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory (PPPL). This facility, the National Spherical Torus
Experiment (NSTX), is a proof-of-principle scale, innovative fusion
concept experiment with exciting scientific potential. During the past
year, PPPL and its collaborators, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Columbia University, and the University of Washington, have made rapid
progress on completing the design and initiating component fabrication
for the NSTX. Their work is on schedule and within budget; we expect to
begin operations in mid-fiscal year 1999.
Creating National Teams that will Use New and Existing
Facilities.--Work has begun to form a NSTX national research team
through an open solicitation process whereby scientists across the
country have been invited to participate in various topical areas of
research. In addition, scientific collaborations are continuing to
develop between NSTX and similar efforts on spherical torus research in
England and Russia, where complementary experiments will begin
operations at about the same time.
With the restructuring of the U.S. fusion program and the shutdown
of TFTR, the two remaining major U.S. fusion facilities have evolved
into national collaborative research programs. Over half of the
scientists working on DIII-D at General Atomics in San Diego and a
quarter of the scientists working on Alcator C-MOD at MIT are from
other major fusion laboratories and universities in the U.S. and
abroad. The broad collaborative nature of these experiments is leading
to new ways of doing business. For example, remote data analysis is now
routine at both facilities, and ``brain storming sessions'' for the
planning of experiments are open to all members of the fusion community
through live broadcasts on the internet. The NSTX, has been planned
from the outset as a national collaborative research effort, and has
already begun to reach out to future users both in the U.S. and abroad.
computational and technology research
Fiscal year 1998 appropriation--$150.6 million; fiscal year 1999
request--$160.6 million (Figure 4)
The Computational and Technology Research Program (CTR) addresses
complex problems important to Department of Energy missions and
national goals, through an integrated program in applied mathematical
sciences, high performance computing and communications, information
infrastructure, advanced energy projects, and technology research. The
forefront of scientific research is increasingly multidisciplinary and
fast-paced, requiring new research technologies and approaches that
keep pace with scientific advance. The CTR program emphasizes
multidisciplinary research that builds on the existing capabilities and
skills of universities, national laboratories, and industrial research
institutions.
Figure 4.--Computational and Technology Research
[In millions of dollars]
Laboratory Technology Research.................................... 16.3
Advanced Energy Projects.......................................... 3.0
Mathematical, Information and Computation Sciences................ 141.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 160.6
The CTR program funds research that extends from fundamental
investigations to technology development including: High Performance
Computing and Communications; the National Information Infrastructure;
inter-agency development of the Next Generation Internet; and the joint
initiative between Energy Research and Defense Programs--DOE 2000. The
CTR program also explores the scientific feasibility of advanced energy
concepts and other technology research activities that include multi-
year collaborations and technical assistance to small business. The CTR
program works closely with Energy Research, Department of Energy, and
other agency programs in establishing its research portfolio.
Mathematical, Information, and Computational Sciences.--The
Mathematical, Information, and Computational Sciences (MICS) program
supports fundamental research, technology development and demonstration
in applied mathematical sciences, high performance computing,
communications and information infrastructure. These diverse activities
are integrated toward: National Collaboratories (NC) that develop tools
and capabilities to permit scientists and engineers working at
different facilities to collaborate on research as easily as if they
were in the same building; and the Advanced Computational Testing and
Simulation (ACTS) that develops an integrated set of algorithms,
software tools and infrastructure that enable computer simulation to
better complement experiment and theory or to be used in place of
experiments when real experiments are too dangerous, expensive, or
inaccessible. These two strategic thrusts support the mathematics,
computational science, and information technology needs of all of the
Department of Energy mission areas and are closely coordinated with
related activities supported by Defense Programs.
The fiscal year 1999 request includes funding for the DOE 2000
initiative. Support for the Advanced Computational Testing and
Simulation piece of this initiative will foster advanced computational
testing and simulation tools to attack complex technical problems and
accelerate applications critical to Department of Energy missions.
Support for the National Collaboratory piece of the DOE 2000 initiative
will develop and test a common technology base that will permit
scientists and engineers at various remote sites to simultaneously
participate in research at large science facilities. The DOE 2000
initiative is coordinated with parallel research in other agencies
through the Committee on Computing, Information, and Communication of
the National Science and Technology Council, in partnership with other
Department of Energy programs.
The MICS subprogram provides supercomputer access and advanced
communication capabilities, through the National Energy Research
Scientific Computing (NERSC) Center and the Energy Sciences Network
(ESnet), to scientific researchers.
The fiscal year 1999 request also includes funding for the
Department's participation in the President's NGI Initiative. This
initiative, which involves a number of federal agencies, has three
goals: (1) promote experimentation with the next generation of
networking technologies; (2) develop a next generation network testbed
to connect universities and federal research institutions at rates that
demonstrate new networking technologies and support future research;
and (3) demonstrate new applications that meet important national goals
and missions. This initiative will leverage previous MICS investments
in ESnet and other advanced networking technologies. At this level of
funding, DOE's goal one activities will focus on developing and
deploying technologies that provide DOE applications greater control
and management of the network infrastructure, and provide enhanced
network interconnection capabilities to support agency and university
collaborations. DOE's participation in goal two is focused on
connections to six National Laboratories at 100 times today's Internet
and two connections to National Laboratories at 1,000 times today's
Internet, as well as enhanced support for some strategic university
access to DOE facilities and collaborations. DOE's focus in goal three
is the enabling of DOE's applications to utilize goal one technologies
immediately in DOE's goal two infrastructure, specifically those
applications that require University and Laboratory access to DOE's
unique facilities. The National Collaboratory Pilot Projects initiated
in fiscal year 1997 would continue as NGI applications.
Laboratory Technology Research.--The Laboratory Technology Research
(LTR) subprogram supports high risk, energy related research that
advances science and technology toward innovative applications that
could significantly impact the Nation's energy economy. Laboratory
Technology Research is a scientific research program that fosters the
production of research results motivated by a practical energy payoff,
through formal cost-shared collaborations between the Energy Research
(ER) multiprogram laboratories and industry.
Laboratories under the stewardship of the Office of Energy Research
conduct breakthrough research in a variety of scientific and technical
fields and operate unique scientific facilities for visiting
scientists. Viewed as a system, these five laboratories, Argonne
National Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, offer a comprehensive resource for
research collaborations. The major component of the LTR research
portfolio consists of investments at these laboratories to conduct
research that benefits all major stakeholders--the DOE, the industrial
collaborators, and the nation. These investments are further leveraged
by the participation of an industry partner, using Cooperative Research
and Development Agreements (CRADA's). Research proposals are chosen for
award using external peer review to ascertain scientific and technical
merit. The program focuses on key initiatives and other high leverage
areas including advanced materials, intelligent processes and controls,
and sustainable environments. Another important component of the LTR
program provides rapid access by small business to the research
capabilities at the ER multi-program laboratories, using several
flexible mechanisms including personnel exchanges and technical
consultations with small businesses.
The fiscal year 1999 request will maintain support for technology
research in areas that advance science and technology toward innovative
energy applications through cost-shared partnerships between the Office
of Energy Research multiprogram laboratories and industry.
Advanced Energy Projects.--The Advanced Energy Projects (AEP)
subprogram funds research to establish the feasibility of novel,
energy-related concepts that span the Department's energy mission and
goals. Funded projects are based on innovative ideas that span multiple
scientific and technical disciplines and do not fit into any other DOE
program area. A common theme for each project is the initial linkage of
new research results to an energy application with a potentially
significant payoff. Typically, AEP supports projects up to a level of
about $250,000 per year for a period of about 3 years. Projects are
selected from proposals submitted by universities and national
laboratories. Funding criteria emphasize scientific merit as judged by
external peer review.
The fiscal year 1999 request supports high-risk research at
universities and national laboratories to establish the feasibility of
novel energy related concepts that are at an early stage of scientific
definition. No new novel, energy related concepts will be initiated in
fiscal year 1999.
high energy physics
Fiscal year 1998 appropriation--$679.7 million; fiscal year 1999
request--$691.0 million (Figure 5)
The Department of Energy provides over 90 percent of the federal
support for the nation's high energy physics (also called elementary
particle physics) research. High energy physics research seeks to
understand the nature of matter and energy at the most fundamental
level, as well as the basic forces which govern all processes in
nature. High energy physics research requires accelerators and
detectors utilizing state-of-the-art technologies in many areas,
including fast electronics, high speed computing, superconducting
magnets, and high power radio-frequency devices.
Figure 5.--High Energy Physics
[In millions of dollars]
Facility Operations............................................... 456.6
Construction...................................................... 21.0
Research and Technology........................................... 213.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 691.0
In these areas, high energy physics research has led to many
developments with practical applications in the civilian marketplace.
High energy physics technology research continues to make major
contributions to accelerator technology and develops technical
expertise which supports widespread accelerator utilization in other
scientific disciplines and industrial processes such as synchrotron
light sources and medical diagnostics and treatment.
This program provides the basis for an excellent educational
experience for the brightest young scientific minds, so necessary for
the program to continue research at the intellectual frontier.
Experimental and theoretical researchers from more than 100
universities conduct about three-fourths of the research, with the
remainder conducted by staff at the national laboratories. This
combination of highly skilled scientists and engineers from
universities and our national laboratories contribute significantly to
the transfer of technology to other fields.
Progress in high energy physics research depends on the
availability of forefront experimental capabilities, effective use of
specialized facilities, and new and upgraded facilities designed to
take advantage of new technologies and research opportunities. The
Department of Energy supports three major high energy accelerator
research centers. Each brings unique capabilities to the program and is
operated as a national facility available to qualified experimenters
around the nation and abroad on the basis of scientific merit of their
research proposals. Approximately 2,000 U.S. scientists and 200-300
foreign scientists work at these facilities at any given time.
At the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab), the
Tevatron, the world's highest energy particle accelerator, provides
both fixed target and colliding beam research programs. The colliding
beam research program benefits from having two major detector
facilities, the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) and the D-Zero
Detector, which complement each other in their differing technical
capabilities. Following on their earlier discovery of the long sought
top quark, the CDF and D-Zero collaborations have now measured its mass
and production properties. In fiscal year 1999, the Fermilab
accelerator complex will operate for about 14 weeks to complete
commissioning of the new Main Injector. This will be followed by about
26 weeks of operation in the fixed target mode.
Construction of the Fermilab Main Injector project is on schedule
for completion and initial commissioning in fiscal year 1999, and
continues within budget. By providing a fivefold increase in collider
luminosity, and a doubling of intensity for the fixed target program,
this project will greatly enhance the physics capabilities of the
Tevatron accelerator and its detector facilities by the end of the
decade, and greatly increase the likelihood of major new scientific
discoveries early in the next century. The Main Injector will also
allow for simultaneous operation of the fixed target and colliding beam
research programs, currently not possible.
At the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), the Stanford
Linear Collider (SLC) is the world's only operating high energy linear
collider. The SLC continues to collect data using its beam of polarized
electrons, a capability unique to the SLC which gives physicists an
added degree of control over the experimental conditions. In fiscal
year 1999, the SLC will be replaced by the B-factory as the principal
facility at SLAC, and the SLC will be shut down.
In these SLC experiments, a high energy beam of polarized electrons
collides with an unpolarized beam of positrons (the electron's
antimatter counterpart) to produce what are referred to as Z particles,
the heaviest known elementary particle. More than 200,000 Z particles
were observed and recorded by the SLAC Large Detector (SLD) in the
latest data run. The SLC data has provided high precision results on
the details of electron-positron interactions at high energies.
The SLAC B-factory project is on schedule for completion and
commissioning in 1998. The B-factory will provide a high luminosity,
asymmetric electron-positron colliding beam facility to study the
reasons for the preponderance of matter over antimatter in our
universe, a fundamental concept necessary for our very existence. This
project will also provide opportunities to pursue a rich program of
experiments in a large number of other areas of intense interest in
high energy physics. The project was designed and is being built by
SLAC in collaboration with Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratories. An international collaboration, about half of
which is from the U.S. and half from abroad, is building the BaBar
detector, the principal experiment at the B-factory. In fiscal year
1999, the B-factory is expected to operate for about 36 weeks in its
inaugural data run.
The Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS) at Brookhaven National
Laboratory (BNL) will transition, during fiscal year 1999, from
primarily being a proton accelerator for the high energy physics
program to primarily being the injector for the Relativistic Heavy Ion
Collider (RHIC) project in the Nuclear Physics program. During the
fiscal year 1998 run, the experiment to search for rare decays of
particles called kaons reported preliminary positive results, and the
experiment to measure the magnetic properties of the muon successfully
completed its initial test run. During fiscal year 1999, the AGS will
operate for about 26 weeks in the final major run in the high energy
physics program.
The European Laboratory for Particle Physics (CERN) in Geneva,
Switzerland, has begun construction of a proton collider, called the
Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Formal negotiations for U.S. participation
in the LHC began in January 1996, and culminated in December 1997 with
the signing of the formal agreement between the U.S. and CERN. While
there is a long history of international collaboration in high energy
physics experiments, this is the first time the U.S. will contribute
significantly to the construction of an accelerator outside the U.S.
The agreement is also the first between CERN and the U.S. government.
Participation in the LHC is extremely important to the goals of the
U.S. high energy physics program, and over 500 U.S. scientists are
involved in the two major LHC detector collaborations and in the
magnet/accelerator research and development collaborations. U.S.
participation will primarily take the form of the design and
fabrication of components and subsystems for the LHC accelerator and
the two LHC detectors and will allow CERN to finish the project at full
operating capability in the year 2005 instead of 2008. The fiscal year
1999 budget requests $65.0 million for fabrication of components and
subsystems for the LHC accelerator and detectors as specified in the
agreement with CERN.
The extraordinary benefits to the U.S. include continued access to
the energy frontier at what will then be the highest energy accelerator
in the world. It will ensure continued world class excellence of our
university and national laboratory scientists and will provide training
to many students in leading edge science and technology. In addition,
most of the U.S. money will be spent on detector and accelerator
components manufactured largely by U.S. industries. This will improve
the capabilities and expertise of U.S. scientists and industries and
will ensure their access to the high-level technologies being
developed. The LHC is a significant next step in the
internationalization of large scientific construction projects, since
in the future, nations will have to work together to build these
necessary but expensive research facilities.
nuclear physics
Fiscal year 1998 appropriation--$320.7 million; fiscal year 1999
request--$332.6 million (Figure 6)
The primary goal of nuclear physics research is to understand the
structure and properties of atomic nuclei and the fundamental forces
between the constituents that form the nucleus of the atom. Nuclear
processes determine essential physical characteristics of our universe
and the composition of the matter that forms it.
Figure 6.--Nuclear Physics
[In millions of dollars]
Heavy Ion Nuclear Physics......................................... 150.3
Low Energy Nuclear Physics........................................ 33.2
Nuclear Theory.................................................... 15.6
Construction...................................................... 16.6
Medium Energy Nuclear Physics..................................... 116.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 332.6
Beyond helping to maintain world leadership in basic research, the
Nuclear Physics program develops and transfers knowledge to enhance the
nation's technological and economic competitiveness in such fields as
nuclear medicine. The Nuclear Physics program continues to be a vital
source of trained people for fundamental research and for these applied
technology areas. The program supports the graduate training of
approximately 450 students per year, and typically 100 Doctorates in
nuclear physics are awarded each year at DOE-supported nuclear physics
programs. A majority of these highly trained researchers will take
positions in high-technology private industry.
Many future nuclear physics investigations will study questions
related to the quark presence in composite nuclei. Until the last few
years, the fundamental understanding of nuclear properties has been
based on the idea of a nucleus composed of protons and neutrons that
interact through a combination of weak, strong, and electromagnetic
forces. It became clear that achieving a deeper knowledge of many
nuclear properties depends on understanding nuclear structure based on
quarks and other particles called gluons that bind the quarks together.
Quarks and gluons are the building blocks of protons and neutrons
(nucleons). The Long Range Plan for the U.S. Nuclear Physics Program,
prepared by the nuclear physics community in 1996, has emphasized the
importance of addressing the role of quarks in nuclear matter as well
as other pressing questions in nuclear science.
Studies of nuclear structure require ultrahigh resolution
``microscopes,'' accelerators that produce particle beams of very high
and well-defined energy. These particle beams are the ``probes'' which
have the ability to react to the detailed structure hidden within an
atomic nucleus. The Operating Expenses request is designed to provide
the maximum operating hours for these facilities, optimized by funding
from the Scientific Facilities Initiative, so that researchers may take
maximum advantage of their unique capabilities.
Research at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
(TJNAF) is now studying the effects due to the presence of quarks in
nucleons in the nucleus. Two principal focuses of these studies are to
continue to develop an understanding of how the ``spin'' of a nucleus
originates in the quarks, and how to extract the role of different
kinds (flavors) of quarks in the makeup of the proton and neutron.
However, no one has ever observed a single free quark; they always
travel in closely knit groups within nucleons. In fiscal year 1999,
TJNAF will operate for 4,500 hours which will allow the completion,
continuation, and commencement of several high priority experiments at
this new laboratory.
In fiscal year 1999, the Bates Linear Electron Accelerator at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology will operate on a limited
schedule of 1,000 hours to concentrate on the construction of a new
Bates Large Acceptance Spectrometer (BLAST), a major particle detector
which will be used in conjunction with the South Hall Pulse Stretcher
Ring. The South Hall Ring and BLAST will enable a unique program using
the very high beam currents in the ring and very thin gas targets to
pursue a program of research on few-body nuclei. This new program will
complement, both in energy range and in experimental capability, the
new program at TJNAF, and will be the primary activity at Bates in the
future.
A ``quark-gluon plasma'' will be produced with a second major
facility for the study of new ``quark-based'' nuclear physics, the
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at the Brookhaven National
Laboratory. In fiscal year 1999, RHIC will complete construction and
begin operation in the last quarter of the fiscal year. It is predicted
that if a collection of nucleons are compressed and heated to a very
high temperature by collisions of high energy heavy nuclei, there will
be a phase transition to a new state of nuclear matter in which the
quarks are ``freed'' from their nucleon boundaries to form a so-called
``quark-gluon plasma'', creating conditions in the laboratory that are
similar to those of the expanding universe just a few millionths of a
second after the Big Bang. RHIC will be a unique, world-class facility
with colliding beams that provide collision energies of 100 billion
electron volts (GeV) per nucleon, for heavy ions as massive as gold
nuclei.
Some of the most critical nuclear reactions in stellar burning
processes involve nuclei which, because of their short lifetimes, have
not been available for laboratory studies. Another new generation
facility, the Radioactive Ion Beam (RIB) Facility at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory is now producing some of these previously unavailable nuclei
so that these important stellar processes can be studied in the
laboratory. A variety of unique radioactive beams for experiments will
be increasingly available in fiscal year 1999 and it is already
possible, for the first time, to study many processes which are crucial
to our understanding of how nuclei were synthesized in the Big Bang.
The RIB will be operated for 2,400 hours for studies of nuclear
measurements of astrophysical significance and for studies of very far
from stable proton rich nuclei.
The solar neutrino problem remains one of the great challenges in
astrophysics. The predicted rate of neutrino production by the sun is
significantly higher than the observed rate. There are two possible
explanations for the discrepancy. Either our understanding of solar
burning is very wrong, or the neutrino has a small mass, in
contradiction to the long-held belief that it is massless. The third
major new facility which will be operational in fiscal year 1999 is the
Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada. SNO's new detector, which
is being filled with heavy water as we speak, is located 6,000 feet
below the earth's surface in a nickel mine in Sudbury Ontario.
Calibration and testing will be underway during much of the remainder
of fiscal year 1998. Slated to begin data collection in early fiscal
year 1999, SNO is designed to sort out this longstanding problem. The
project involves an international collaboration among the U.S., United
Kingdom, and Canada.
multiprogram energy laboratories--facilities support
Fiscal year 1998 appropriation--$21.2 million; fiscal year 1999
request--$21.3 million (Figure 7)
The Multiprogram Energy Laboratories-Facilities Support (MEL-FS)
program addresses the larger general purpose infrastructure needs at
the five multiprogram ER laboratories. The five multiprogram energy
laboratories are: Argonne National Laboratory-East, Brookhaven National
Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. These
laboratories have over 1,100 buildings with a total of 14.3 million
gross square feet of space. The estimated replacement value of all
buildings and other structures is over $10.0 billion. The average age
of the buildings at these laboratories is over 33 years. All facilities
at these laboratories are government-owned and contractor-operated.
Total operating funding for these laboratories is over $3.0 billion a
year.
Figure 7.--Multiprogram Energy Laboratories--Facilities Support
[In millions of dollars]
Construction...................................................... 20.1
Infrastruction Support............................................ 1.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 21.3
Fulfilling the science and technology goals and objectives
identified in the DOE Strategic Plan depends heavily on the existence
and operating efficiency of these multiprogram laboratories. However, a
significant portion of the infrastructure of these laboratories is old,
deteriorating, obsolete or inadequate for current use and function, and
needs improvement to comply fully with the environment, safety and
health requirements and to meet operational needs.
The MEL-FS program is designed to help preserve the government's
investment in these laboratories by supporting line item construction
for the refurbishment and replacement of inadequate general purpose
facilities and infrastructure. The fiscal year 1999 budget supports the
initiation of four projects including Electrical Systems Modifications
at BNL, Rehabilitation of Building 77 at LBNL, the Central Supply
Facility at ANL-E, and the Sanitary Systems Modifications, Phase III at
BNL.
In fiscal year 1999, the program will also begin funding Payments
in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) ($1,160,000) as authorized by the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, for communities surrounding Brookhaven
National Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory. These
discretionary payments are made to state or local governments where the
Department or its predecessor agencies has acquired property previously
subject to state or local taxation.
university and science education
Fiscal year 1998 appropriation--$0; fiscal year 1999 request--$15.0
million (Figure 8)
The University and Science Education (USE) program ensures that the
Department effectively utilizes and leverages the resources of the
laboratory system to support DOE's university and science education
mission. USE provides leadership and program support necessary to use
and leverage the resources of the Department's laboratories to help
replenish the overall pool of well trained, diverse scientists and
engineers of the future, and to achieve significant, long-term
improvements in their scientific and technological skills.
Figure 8.--University and Science Education
[In millions of dollars]
Community Outreach................................................ 2.0
Minority Institution Development.................................. 2.0
Educational Technology............................................ 5.0
Research Participation............................................ 6.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 15.0
In fiscal year 1999, USE plans to support: undergraduate students
participation in the National Undergraduate Laboratory Fellowship
program; development of Internet based education technologies for
elementary through college students and faculty; coordination with
other DOE programs and improved integration of science education
activities; high priority Administration and Congressional science
education and diversity programs; a developmental award program for
faculty and students from primarily undergraduate institutions and
minority institutions that stimulates collaboration with DOE scientists
and enhances faculty grant competitiveness; and partnering with
National Science Foundation in support of its Minority Institutions of
Excellence program to enhance coordination and effectiveness of support
for undergraduate programs at HBCU's and coordination with other
federal, state, and local agencies.
energy research analyses
Fiscal year 1998 appropriation--$1.5 million; fiscal year 1999
request--$1.0 million
The Energy Research Analyses (ERA) program provides DOE program
managers and senior managers with objective assessments of research
projects and programs in order to evaluate the quality and impact of
these efforts, to identify undesirable duplications and gaps, and to
provide analysis of key technical issues in support of long range
energy research planning, science and technology planning, and
technical and performance evaluation of departmental strategic plans,
and objectives.
Over 100 independent peer reviews were completed in fiscal year
1997. However, these levels will be scaled down in coming years to
accommodate reduced funding. The program continues to refine the
recently developed process for appraisal of Energy Research
Laboratories and a new DOE-wide system for simplified technical reviews
of National Laboratories has been developed and the pilot process
completed at three National Laboratories.
technical information management
Fiscal year 1998 appropriation--$10.1 million; fiscal year 1999
request--$9.8 million
The Technical Information Management (TIM) program, under the
leadership and guidance of the Office of Scientific and Technical
Information (OSTI), is responsible for the collection, preservation,
and dissemination of scientific and technical information resulting
from DOE's research, development, and environmental programs. Emphasis
is on forging a National Library of Energy Science and Technology, and
bringing energy science to the user's desktop electronically through
the effective application of innovative information-age technologies.
In fiscal year 1999, TIM will provide mechanisms and procedures for
accessing electronic journals at the desktop, develop and implement
tools to facilitate access to DOE's scientific and technical
information via electronic means, increase public access to DOE
scientific and technical information, establish mechanisms to provide
web-based access to energy-related scientific and technical information
obtained by DOE via multilateral international partnerships, and
establish customer feedback mechanisms to assess effectiveness of DOE's
information program and related products and services.
energy research--program direction
Fiscal year 1998 appropriation--$37.6 million; fiscal year 1999
request--$39.9 million
Program Direction provides the federal staffing resources and
associated costs required to plan, direct, and manage a viable, high
quality national program of basic research and advisory
responsibilities for the Office of Energy Research. Energy Research
Program Direction supports staff in the Basic Energy Sciences, Fusion
Energy Sciences, Biological and Environmental Research, High Energy and
Nuclear Physics, Computational and Technology Research, University and
Science Education, Multiprogram Energy Laboratories-Facilities Support
and Energy Research Analysis programs, including management and
technical support staff. In addition, Energy Research Program Direction
provides funds through the Working Capital Fund to cover the costs of
centrally provided goods and services such as supplies, office space,
utilities, etc., which previously were budgeted in Departmental
Administration.
This program also supports staff at the Chicago, Oakland and Oak
Ridge Operations Offices directly involved in program execution. Staff
includes scientific and technical personnel and program management
support in the areas of budget and finance, general administration,
grants and contracts, information resource management, policy review
and coordination, infrastructure management and construction
management.
magnetic fusion energy research
Senator Domenici. Please review the current status of the
fusion program.
Dr. Krebs. Fusion. Within the fusion program, the budget
request is basically constant. We are requesting $228 million,
down $1 million from fiscal year 1998. Within that budget, we
propose to significantly reduce our participation in ITER. We
believe that the agreement that has enabled the ITER
engineering design activity, which will be completed this
summer, is a very effective mechanism for us to work with our
partners around the world. We are proposing it be continued. In
particular, the partners wish to have a transition period where
they make a determination amongst themselves as to whether or
not they will offer specific sites in their countries.
We would propose to have $12 million associated with
continuing the joint baseline design. The remaining $39
million, which was allocated to the ITER program in fiscal year
1998, would be redirected for increases in current facility
operations, the DIII-D at General Atomics in San Diego, the
Alcator C-Mod at MIT, and it also would enable us to include
the National Spherical Torus Experiment in Princeton.
We would also put more money into plasma and fusion
technology that would be carried out in part in collaborations
at JET in Europe and the JT-60 in Japan.
I think that is the summary of what I would say relative to
fusion.
Senator Domenici. Your entire statement will be made a part
of the record.
Senator Gorton, did you want to make some remarks?
Senator Gorton. I do not. I have one question for Mr.
Reicher, so I will wait my turn and make whatever statement I
have then.
Senator Domenici. Is that all you have for the day, is the
one question?
Senator Gorton. That is all I am going to have for the day,
yes.
statement of senator dorgan
Senator Domenici. Do you have more than one question?
Senator Dorgan. I have three questions, but let me ask
consent to have an opening statement be made part of the
record, and I will wait my turn.
Senator Domenici. Sure.
I tell you, if you only had one I would let you go now and
then you could leave.
Senator Dorgan. I have one-half a question with three
parts. [Laughter.]
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Byron Dorgan
Mr. Chairman, Senator Reid, thank you for convening this hearing.
The topics discussed today are of great concern to North Dakota--
particularly to the Energy and Environmental Research Center at the
University of North Dakota which has so much to offer to this country
in the way of excellence in energy and energy-related research. The
Department of Energy has a long relationship with the EERC, and I would
like to see that relationship strengthened through the President's
Global Climate Change initiative.
I also want to take this opportunity to restate my support for
fossil fuel energy research and, particularly, for clean coal
technology. Lignite is the only rank of coal in North Dakota, and there
is a 1,000-year supply in my state based on the existing recoverable
resource of 35 billion tons. Many developing countries use low-rank
coals. Coal will remain the workhorse in our nation's energy future. So
research in clean coal technology is absolutely essential and should be
a priority for ours and other nations.
While I recognize the continued importance of coal, and its role in
our future, I am supportive of the need to develop renewable energy
sources. I am glad to see an increase in this budget for those
purposes.
I commend the Department for reversing its past course to shift
funding away from coal research. I do want to work with the
Administration to make sure that adequate priority is given for clean
coal research and clean coal technologies--especially in light of its
commitment to emissions reductions.
Buildings account for about 35 percent of U.S. greenhouse gases
when electric usage is included. I support the budget request for a
significant increase for building technologies (up $118 million). I
would ask today's witnesses to consider carefully the importance of
focusing efforts on building technologies in cold weather climates.
This is where a disproportionate share of energy is used per capita.
I am in total agreement with the President on the need to push for
new advances in science and technology and I support the proposed
increase of $246 million for the Office of Energy Research.
Fuel efficiency standards for automobiles
Senator Domenici. Senator Gorton.
Senator Gorton. Well, first I would like to welcome Dr.
Krebs. I would like to thank her for her mention of EMSL, the
laboratory that I think is doing very, very good work, as she
does.
My question, however, is for Mr. Reicher. I have gone
through all of your testimony on energy efficiency and
statements with respect to energy independence for the United
States. I fail to see anything this year and I failed to see
anything in the previous 4 years in the Clinton Administration
about fuel efficiency standards for automobiles.
For a dozen years now, every year the Congress ends up
enjoining, prohibiting the administration from doing anything
to further our fuel efficiency. You have here programs that
cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. You have got one
available to you, it seems to me, that lessens our dependence
on foreign oil, cuts down on air pollution, cuts down on our
use of fossil energy resources. And yet, year after year, you
stay absolutely silent on that.
Can you tell me why the administration does not make it a
high priority to go ahead with what back in the 1970's was
probably the single most successful energy initiative in the
history of the country?
Mr. Reicher. Senator, let me first say that we have a very
active program focused on the fuel efficiency of automobiles.
It is funded in the Interior account, which is the other two-
thirds of the budget for the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. It is a very substantial program, primarily
carried out with the big three in Detroit, that is looking to
develop a fuel-efficient vehicle by 2004 that will get 80 miles
per gallon in a 5- to 6-passenger car, with all the safety and
features that people are looking for at an affordable price.
So that is the sort of technological emphasis of the
Department of Energy and indeed the administration through the
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles.
Your question is regarding the CAFE standards, as I
understand it, and I think, in that regard, the administration
early on considered the issue of CAFE. I think, in discussions
within the administration and in discussions with Congress, a
decision has been made not to pursue additional increases in
the CAFE standards, but instead to focus on the most
cooperative and most effective way we can to develop a
technology that will ultimately give us the fuel-efficient
automobiles that we need.
Senator Gorton. Well, the research program of which you
speak is funded by a subcommittee of which I am chairman, as
Senator Domenici pointed out. And I have, within the
constraints of our budget, always been enthusiastically in
support of that proposition. It has never seemed to me,
however, that you were involved in an either-or situation. We
were not 10, 20 years ago.
But I take it that you have expressed the policy that will
continue to be the policy, that this administration regards
CAFE standards as a dead-end street and is going to do nothing
with respect to them?
Mr. Reicher. Let me just say that I think the
administration finds that there are probably more--there are
greater opportunities to advance the fuel efficiency of
vehicles on the technology side today than there would be in
potentially reopening the CAFE issue.
Senator Gorton. Well, it is at least a straightforward
answer, Mr. Chairman, not necessarily the one I wanted. But I
appreciate being able to ask it, and that is all I have.
Senator Domenici. I let you go first, even before any of
us, not because I wanted to get rid of you----
Senator Gorton. You have succeeded in doing so. [Laughter.]
Senator Domenici. But if that is the result, it is out of
an act of generosity, knowing how busy you are.
We are going to now hear from you, Mr. Reicher.
Incidentally, those name signs that you bring when you
testify are very nice.
Senator Reid. You bring your own name plates?
Senator Domenici. They bring their own signs. It says on
there ``United States Department of Energy.'' Do we make them
or do they?
Mr. Reicher. Mr. Chairman, these were prepared by Federal
employees, not contractors. [Laughter.]
Senator Domenici. It is nice.
statement of dan reicher
Mr. Reicher. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss
the fiscal year 1999 budget for the Department's Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Our budget request
calls for increases to support cost-shared resource development
and precommercial deployment of clean, efficient, and cost-
effective energy technologies.
solar and renewable energy
Mr. Chairman, there is often a tendency to view energy
efficiency and renewable energy as somehow different from our
traditional energy investments, as some green alternative to
the real business of energy. Given that over 90 percent of the
energy we consume today comes from fossil and nuclear fuel, we
must use these sources as efficiently as possible. The
investments we make in energy efficiency do not simply save
energy, they represent one of the best public investments we
can make to ensure the productivity and competitiveness of our
economy and one of the cheapest, least intrusive ways of
accomplishing our environmental objectives.
Renewable technologies are also far more than just a green
alternative. They are, in fact, essential elements of our
energy mix today, tomorrow, and in the coming decades. Today
hydropower, just one renewable, provides approximately 10
percent of the total U.S. electrical generating capacity. In
fiscal year 1999, we propose to begin engineering design of a
fish-friendly turbine that will better protect fish while
allowing existing hydropower facilities to function at
capacity. Without these and other technological improvements,
the Nation risks losing a large portion of this existing clean
energy source.
In terms of tomorrow's energy market, wind is well
positioned to become another major renewable energy source. In
fiscal year 1999, we propose to continue our work with the wind
industry to design and test the next generation of wind
turbines, which will reduce energy costs to as low as 2.5 cents
per kilowatt-hour by 2002. By building turbines that can
operate in moderate wind speeds, we can open up the Nation's
tremendous wind resources from Washington, Idaho, and Montana,
to New Mexico, North Dakota, and West Virginia, and establish
these areas as the ``Saudi Arabia of wind.''
Senator Reid. If you had mentioned Nevada it would have
been a big help to you. [Laughter.]
Mr. Reicher. I will in one moment. [Laughter.]
Senator Reid. You just overlooked it, right?
Mr. Reicher. Absolutely. I will amend the record, but I am
going to get to it in 1 second.
We will also establish a U.S.-based, internationally
recognized organization to expedite certification of wind
turbine systems and allow U.S. manufacturers to compete more
effectively in the rapidly growing world market.
I would also like to mention our rapidly expanding efforts
to burn energy crops and agricultural wastes in combination
with coal in existing power plants. There is strong industry
interest in this cofiring technology because it could provide a
cost-effective option to meet more stringent environmental
regulations.
Looking to the future, our R&D investments are stimulating
the development of entirely new technologies that will
fundamentally change the energy landscape. Superconductivity,
which allows electricity to move through wires without
resistance, has the potential to reduce the Nation's electrical
system losses by 50 percent, equivalent to the output of 60
conventional power plants. In our fiscal year 1999 budget, we
propose to transfer breakthrough technologies to industry so
that we can eventually manufacture miles, rather than only
meters, of super-efficient wires.
As part of our hydrogen R&D in fiscal year 1999, we propose
to develop a facility in Nevada that would use a path-breaking
fuel cell to produce hydrogen and supply power to the
Department's Nevada Operations Office and a fleet of 20 to 30
vans and buses. I guess that is two mentions of Nevada.
Our R&D programs not only build the foundation for our
energy future, but also open markets for U.S. manufacturers of
advanced energy technologies. The World Bank has estimated that
over the next four decades developing countries alone will
require five million megawatts of new electricity capacity,
compared to the world's total current installed capacity of
three million megawatts. In order to meet this explosive energy
demand and reap the resulting technology sales and jobs, we
must invest in the research, development, and, yes, in
appropriate circumstances, the deployment of energy
technologies.
With Federal support, the U.S. photovoltaics industry has
grown more than 20 percent annually over the last 7 years and
now holds 40 percent of the world market. We expect even
greater market penetration with the million solar roofs
initiative.
As part of our focus on the most promising technologies, we
are increasing the level of competition in selecting
contractors and we are proposing a $10 million R&D solicitation
to stimulate the best proposals for crosscutting renewable
technologies to address economic competitiveness, air quality,
and climate change.
We are also better coordinating our research with State
energy R&D programs. Just last week we signed an agreement with
the California Energy Commission to increase R&D cofunding and
decrease duplication. We are also expanding our collaboration
with other DOE programs, including fossil energy, energy
research, and nuclear energy.
Mr. Chairman, just as we are committed to a wise R&D
strategy, we are also dedicated to managing taxpayer dollars
responsibly. I recognize that we must put our financial house
in better order. I have already mentioned our expanded emphasis
on competition. We are also looking carefully at our
noncompetitive grants and contracts. We are focusing closely on
program evaluation and terminating projects that have reached
their goals or do not measure up.
In fiscal year 1999, for example, we will finish testing
and conclude our work on the Solar II power tower. We are also
developing a clearer budget and a more open budgeting process.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, for the opportunity to discuss our fiscal year
1999 budget, and I look forward to working with you and your
staff over the coming year.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan W. Reicher
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Energy and
Water Development portion of the fiscal year 1999 budget request for
the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE).
As the 21st century approaches, our nation faces tremendous energy,
economic, and environmental challenges. Over the next few years, we
will encounter growing demand for energy in an increasingly volatile
global energy market; we will witness the complete restructuring of
U.S. electricity markets; we will implement sweeping new federal and
state clean air requirements; we will respond to concerns about global
climate change; and we will confront increasingly stiff competition
from other nations in global commerce. In the face of these challenges,
we must invest in key new energy supply technologies and use energy
efficiency technologies to make better use of conventional energy
sources.
Research and development (R&D) is a key driver of long-term
economic development. In fact, the ability to innovate, develop and
deploy new technologies in a wide range of fields has been a key reason
for the stunning success of the U.S. economy in the last fifty years
and will likely continue to drive our economic development over the
next fifty years. Sustained commitment to R&D in both private industry
and the federal government has produced these results. However,
corporate downsizing, increased competition, financial pressures and
other factors have drastically cut the level of private investment in
basic and applied R&D in many industries--especially in the energy
sector. In the face of the energy and environmental challenges of the
next century and these declines in private sector R&D, the role of the
federal government is critical. Without a substantial federal energy
technology R&D effort--conducted in collaboration with industry--many
advanced technologies will likely not be developed and our nation will
suffer the resulting economic losses.
In its 1997 review of the national energy R&D portfolio, the
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)
recommended expansion of a number of national energy R&D programs and
targeted renewable energy programs for large increases in funding,
second only to energy efficiency R&D. Crediting DOE with remarkable
gains in technology performance and cost reductions, PCAST noted that
renewable energy technologies offer a number of benefits, including,
cleaner air, economic development, and reduced dependence on oil
imports.
The fiscal year 1999 budget request for EERE programs calls for
increases to support cost-shared research, development, and pre-
commercial deployment of clean, efficient, and cost-effective energy
technologies. These programs target federal resources in key areas that
provide critical national benefits, stimulate complementary private
investments and leverage market forces. Our budget request responds to
five significant drivers: economic competitiveness; energy security;
environmental quality; electric utility restructuring; and global
climate change.
Economic Competitiveness
Carried out in partnership with industry, national laboratories,
and universities, EERE's research and development programs help to
maintain America's technological expertise and competitive advantage
here at home and in the rapidly growing global market for clean energy
technologies. EERE's investments not only build the foundation for a
sustainable energy future but also open markets for U.S. manufacturers
of these advanced technologies. EERE sponsors international programs to
promote U.S. renewable electric and related power sector technologies
in international markets. EERE's work on renewable energy reduces the
U.S. trade deficit by creating technologies for export, reducing costly
energy imports, and thereby stimulating economic development and job
creation.
The World Bank has estimated that over the next four decades
developing countries alone will require five million megawatts of new
electrical capacity to meet the needs of their citizens and their
expanding economies (the world's total installed capacity today is
three million megawatts). Meeting this demand will require world-wide
investments of several trillion dollars and thus represents a
tremendous opportunity for U.S. clean energy technology sales and job
creation. EERE programs help ensure that advanced American-made clean
energy technologies are developed that can meet this demand and ensure
the technological competitiveness of U.S. companies. We cannot afford
to cede the development of these innovative technologies to other
nations or to develop them and allow other countries to realize the
resulting economic benefits.
Energy Security
During the past 23 years, three major disruptions in the world oil
market have shaken the global economy. Further disruptions in the
future are quite possible. In 1996, U.S. net oil imports accounted for
46 percent of domestic petroleum consumption. By 2020, U.S. net oil
imports are expected to grow to 63 percent of domestic petroleum
consumption--with an annual oil bill of $130 billion. By that time,
Persian Gulf nations will likely account for over two-thirds of the
world's oil exports. And as the current Iraq situation illustrates, the
Persian Gulf continues to be one of the most volatile regions of the
world.
To ensure a secure energy future, we must not only reduce our
dependence on imported oil, but diversify our energy resources. We must
develop a diverse portfolio of energy options, including renewable
energy sources, to meet our expanding energy needs. Such a portfolio
will lessen the impact on the U.S. of volatility in global energy
markets while reducing the U.S. trade deficit by cutting energy
imports.
Environmental Quality
Air pollution, particularly in urban centers, ranks high among the
nation's most pressing environmental concerns. Renewable technologies
offer a clean, environmentally responsible option for generating power.
By developing technologies that use alternative energy sources and
advanced technologies, EERE programs are concurrently finding ways to
reduce energy-related air pollutants as well as the cost of
environmental compliance. The emphasis is on pollution prevention
rather than traditional end-of-process pollution control technologies.
Renewable energy technologies offer states and cities attractive
options in the development of State Implementation Plans to meet Clean
Air Act requirements.
Electric Utility Restructuring
EERE is working with utilities, industry, states, and consumers to
ensure that restructuring of the electric industry results in a
competitive, cost-effective and consumer-responsive electricity
generation industry. Utility restructuring presents an opportunity to
reduce energy costs, advance the use of energy efficient and renewable
energy technologies, and provide affordable services with reduced
environmental impacts.
Restructuring also presents a significant challenge. Where
restructuring has occurred, private industry investment in energy
technology R&D has virtually disappeared. For example, in the United
Kingdom, restructuring of energy industries has resulted in private
industry energy R&D declining to essentially zero as companies can no
longer assume such financial risks. The same phenomenon has occurred in
California. Several large utilities maintained substantial investments
in technology R&D, but with the onset of restructuring these
investments have dropped to zero. Thus it is imperative that
restructuring be done in a way that encourages industry investment in
R&D. Further, under a restructured environment, federal government
investments in energy technology are critical.
Climate Change
The President's fiscal year 1999 budget request for EERE programs
is a major element of his proposal to invest $6.3 billion over five
years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels by 2008-
2012 through enhanced energy research and development and tax
incentives. In 1997, a major study conducted by five DOE national
laboratories documented the critical role that development and
deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies can
play in reducing greenhouse gases. Increased investments in R&D for
these technologies and implementation of policies to accelerate their
use can substantially cut the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
while producing cleaner air and other benefits that exceed the cost of
the emissions reductions. It is important to realize that development
and deployment of these technologies offer economic benefits now while
positioning our nation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the future
if and when that is required by international treaty. Quite simply,
these technologies are of critical importance in meeting the broad
array of energy and environmental challenges of the next century.
solar and renewable energy technologies
Our fiscal year 1999 program request for Solar and Renewable Energy
Technologies is $389.3 million--an increase of $92.6 million over
fiscal year 1998. This request has three central objectives. First, we
will maintain U.S. technological superiority by funding, in cooperation
with industry and other partners, a balanced portfolio of research and
development in renewable energy and supporting electric technologies.
Second, we will improve environmental quality through increased use of
non-polluting renewable energy technologies and advanced electric power
systems. Third, we will expedite the transfer of technology and
manufacturing process improvements to U.S. renewable energy and
supporting technology industries which will enable them to increase the
deployment of their energy systems in the United States and to better
compete for expanding export markets for such systems in other
countries.
The bulk of the EERE Energy and Water Development Appropriation
supports the work of the Office of Utility Technologies. This office
works with electric service providers and related industries to advance
clean, reliable and affordable power. We develop renewable energy
technologies that use solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal and biomass
energy resources and conduct R&D that will enable a hydrogen energy
infrastructure in the future. Our program also develops advanced
technologies--including high temperature superconducting materials and
energy storage--that will improve the energy efficiency and cost-
effectiveness of the nation's electric systems. Finally, the program
facilitates the export of renewable energy power generation
internationally.
The Energy and Water Development Appropriation also funds two other
EERE programs: The Office of Transportation Technologies supports R&D
on production of biomass-based transportation fuels, and the Office of
Industrial Technologies supports the development of advanced turbine
technology for cogeneration applications using biomass fuels.
Table I on the following page provides a summary of our fiscal year
1999 budget request, together with the appropriations for fiscal year
1998 and fiscal year 1997. In the following sections, I describe the
details of the request. For each major line of the budget, I identify
changes relative to fiscal year 1998 appropriations and describe
program specifics and reasons for the requested funding change.
SOLAR AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM FUNDING
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------------
1999 1998-1999
1997 1998 request change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solar Building Technology
Research.................... 2.3 2.7 5.0 +2.3
Photovoltaic Energy Systems.. 59.2 65.5 78.8 +13.3
Solar Thermal Energy Systems. 21.9 16.5 22.5 +6.0
Biopower Energy Systems...... 27.2 28.2 42.9 +14.7
Wind Energy Systems.......... 28.6 32.5 43.5 +11.0
Renewable Energy Production
Incentive................... 2.0 3.0 4.0 +1.0
Solar Program Support........ ........ ........ 14.0 +14.0
International Solar Energy
Program \1\................. 0.6 1.4 8.8 +7.4
Geothermal Energy Systems.... 29.6 29.0 33.0 +4.0
Hydrogen Research and
Development................. 14.8 16.0 24.0 +8.0
Hydropower Development....... 1.0 0.7 4.0 +3.3
Renewable Indian Energy
Resources................... 4.0 3.9 ........ -3.9
Electric Energy Systems and
Storage..................... 31.4 43.8 38.5 -4.3
Federal Buildings Remote
Power Initiative............ ........ 4.9 ........ -4.9
------------------------------------------
Total Utility
Technologies.......... 222.6 247.0 319.0 +72.0
==========================================
Transportation Technologies:
Biofuels Energy Systems..... 27.2 30.7 46.9 +16.2
==========================================
Solar Technology Transfer.... ........ ........ 1.4 +1.4
National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.................. 3.3 3.2 5.0 +1.8
Program Direction............ 13.1 15.7 17.0 +1.3
------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Solar and
Renewable Energy...... 266.2 296.7 389.3 +92.6
==========================================
Use of Prior Year Balances... -22.4 -24.4 -17.0 +7.4
==========================================
Total, Solar and
Renewable Energy...... 243.8 272.2 372.3 +100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes funding for international energy efficiency programs under
Energy Conservation.
solar building technology research
The request for Solar Building Technology Research is $5.0 million,
an increase of $2.3 million from current levels to help provide
economically competitive sources of solar hot water heating in
residential, commercial, and industrial buildings. The funding increase
will enable the Department to implement a new strategic partnership
with builders, developers and utilities based on customer
identification of emerging solar water heating requirements. The
program is divided into three areas: Technology Development ($3.5
million), Field Validation ($1.0 million), and Quality Assurance and
Customer Information ($0.5 million).
Within Technology Development (up $2.1 million), customer concerns
regarding solar water heating systems will be addressed by improved
manufacturing process and component R&D. These will lower costs by an
estimated 20 percent and provide products that are more visually
attractive. New concepts will be solicited that have the potential for
reducing costs by 50 percent or that can adapt existing technologies to
new markets.
In Field Validation (down $0.1 million), the program will enter
into partnerships with builders and utilities in several regions to
deploy solar systems. The objective is to demonstrate the capability of
solar hot water systems to meet homeowner needs in the new construction
market. Evaluation of the operation of these systems, and widespread
dissemination of the results, will provide valuable feedback to the
research and development of these systems.
Quality Assurance and Customer Information (up $0.3 million)
funding will be used to address reliability, a major customer concern.
This will be addressed through the establishment of a national rating
and certification process in collaboration with industry. Information
materials will also be developed to improve customer confidence in
solar water heating systems. Overall program goals include reducing the
levelized energy costs of heating water from 8 cents/kWh electricity
equivalent to 6 cents/kWh, and extending system life 15 to 20 years.
The Solar Building Program is also a key element of the Million
Solar Roofs Initiative discussed below, which has a goal to install one
million solar energy systems on U.S. roofs by 2010. It is anticipated
that up to half of these systems will be solar hot water systems. The
program's efforts, carried out in conjunction with U.S. industry and
other initiative partners, will help ensure that the initiative's goal
is met.
photovoltaic energy systems
The request for Photovoltaic Energy Systems is $78.8 million, an
increase of $13.3 million from fiscal year 1998. Industry provides
significant resources for cost-shared technology R&D. Based on a multi-
year technology plan that has been developed in close partnership with
industry, this balanced program focuses on three key activities that
industry and other stakeholders have cited as the most critical to
maintaining and advancing our lead in PV technology and products:
Fundamental Research ($11.0 million), Advanced Materials and Devices
($27.0 million), and Collector Research and Systems Development ($40.8
million).
Today, the U.S. stands as the world leader in photovoltaic
technology, with our industry garnering 42 percent of total sales in
1997. This has not always been the case, however. Leadership in
photovoltaic technology was lost to Japan in the mid 1980's because of
strong government support for PV development. As a result of expanded
support for advanced technology research and other DOE-industry
partnership programs, the U.S. was able to recapture the lead in global
market share for photovoltaic modules in 1993.
Despite its current leadership position, however, the U.S.
photovoltaic industry faces intense competition for the rapidly growing
world-wide photovoltaics market from Japan and Europe, which are
aggressively researching and marketing their PV technology. Although
worldwide PV sales grew by 43 percent in 1997, current sales are still
only 127 MW per year, a tiny fraction of PV's full potential. To
maintain U.S. leadership, and to penetrate new, larger markets in
utilities and building applications, the cost of PV systems must be
more competitive with other sources of electricity. Critical
improvements in conversion efficiency, manufacturing, reliability and
system life are essential. The increased funding request will enable
the PV program, in cooperation with U.S. industry partners, to continue
the research needed to resolve these technical problems.
Funding for Fundamental Research (no change) will continue world-
class research at national laboratories and universities on advanced
concepts for improved technology in the post-2000 time frame.
Activities will include continued research on several photovoltaic
semiconductor materials to resolve issues that limit current
technology. This work will advance the understanding of new and
improved materials, cell structures, deposition processes,
semiconductor theory and material characterization methods.
Advanced Materials and Devices (up $3.0 million) will continue
collaborative research with industry to improve device efficiency and
stability, particularly for large-area, thin-film deposition systems.
The budget increase will enhance efforts (four to five new contracts)
within the thin-film partnership program to achieve cost-effective
thin-film technologies. Photovoltaic devices employing thin-film
technology significantly reduce the amount of semiconductor material
required for power generation. Also, because such devices are amenable
to mass production, they offer significant potential for cost
reduction--which would make possible widespread use of such
technologies as PV shingles. Module reliability research will continue
to support testing of modules to improve operational lifetime in the
field.
Collector Research and Systems Development increases (up $10.3
million) will improve manufacturing processes for thin-film
technologies emerging from successful laboratory R&D activities and
assist U.S. industry to develop advanced manufacturing technology for
higher-performance and lower-cost commercial thin-film modules (fifteen
to eighteen new three year contracts). Key to maintaining U.S.
competitiveness over the next five to ten years, manufacturing process
research and development under the Photovoltaic Manufacturing
Technology (PVMaT) partnership will continue cost-shared research with
industry to reduce module manufacturing costs, improve module
performance, and stimulate investment in new manufacturing production
lines. As a result of cost-shared R&D with industry, average
manufacturing costs for DOE partners have declined by 50 percent and
are expected to decline by another 75 percent by 2000. In addition,
funding will be provided to continue collaboration with industry to
increase module and balance-of-systems manufacturing efficiency. The
objective of this research is to reduce costs by about 35 percent for
installed systems in the year 2000 and increase system performance and
reliability through improved manufacturing process technology,
efficiency, and quality control. In cooperation with the Utility
Photovoltaic Group (UPVG), efforts will continue to complete cost-
shared utility projects designed to provide utilities with hands-on
experience with PV systems, and validate technical and economic
performance in specific high-value applications. A portion of the
increase will also be used to fully fund 5 to 10 Phase III building
integrated contracts under the PV:BONUS program, which supports cost-
shared efforts with utilities and others to develop PV products that
can be integrated into commercial and residential buildings.
In addition, a part of the increase in Collector Research and
Systems Development (up $1.4 million) will be targeted at specific
activities that support the President's Million Solar Roofs Initiative.
An important goal of this initiative is to help develop a significant
domestic market for U.S.-manufactured solar energy systems, to provide
a firm base for U.S. industry expansion and market competitiveness.
Without such a base, as is being actively pursued in other countries
such as Germany and Japan, it is likely that PV systems will be another
example of technology developed here but exploited abroad.
In fiscal year 1999, the Million Solar Roofs Initiative will work
with at least 25 partners--utilities, builders, solar equipment
manufacturers, federal and state agencies, cities, and financial
institutions across the nation--to develop action plans to install one
million PV and solar water heating systems on the roofs of buildings
and homes across the United States by the year 2010. Many of these
entities are eager to invest in these technologies for a variety of
reasons, including energy supply diversification, restructuring of the
electricity industry, development of local clean energy industries and
environmental quality. To ensure that the program is responsive to
business, customers and to local needs, the DOE regional support
offices will help leverage private financing, provide technical
assistance and coordinate federal support. As the largest single user
of energy in the U.S., the federal government is committed to
installing 15,000 to 20,000 rooftop systems on its own facilities by
2010. Additionally. the initiative will also work to ensure that
photovoltaic and solar hot water systems meet the requirements of
builders and state and local codes and standards.
solar thermal energy systems
The fiscal year 1999 budget request for Solar Thermal Energy
Systems is $22.5 million, an increase of $6.0 million. The funding is
divided between Thermal Systems Research ($5.5 million) and Power
Applications Research ($17.0 million). The program is working to
develop economically competitive solar thermal technologies which
convert sunlight into heat and then into electricity. Solar thermal
technologies will improve our nation's diversity of energy supply,
reduce the environmental impacts of energy production, and create
business opportunities for U.S. industry both here and abroad. In
concert with U.S. industry, the program is working to provide solar
thermal power options that industry can use to serve dispatchable,
distributed and remote power needs.
The requested funding for Thermal Systems Research ($0.6 million
decrease from fiscal year 1998) will be used to support materials
research, including the final year of the five-year outdoor testing
program for optical materials, solar concentrator research, dish/engine
receiver development, and identification and evaluation of advanced
thermal power concepts.
The Power Applications Research funding (up $6.6 million) will
support full-power testing and operations at the Solar Two power tower,
proving the capability of molten-salt thermal storage and establishing
the technical and operational feasibility of power tower systems. It
will reduce the cost of drive mechanisms for dishes and heliostats
under the Solar Manufacturing Technologies (SolMaT) Initiative. In
addition, the request will continue to work with U.S. industry to
reduce system O&M costs, and support several cost-shared field
validation efforts to improve the reliability of dish/engine systems.
The dish/engine industry-led efforts include the Utility-Scale Joint
Venture Project, which will demonstrate dish/Stirling systems in
various operating environments and configurations; the Dish/Engine
Critical Components Initiative, which is investigating alternative
dish/engine designs; and the Dish Engine Field Verification Initiative,
which will establish long-term system reliability, quantify O&M issues
and costs, and develop the manufacturing capability and production
capacity necessary to build future systems that will compete
economically in the distributed power market.
Full-power testing of Solar Two, the world's leading-edge
demonstration of molten-salt thermal storage and power tower
technology, is the critical step needed to ensure commercial interest
in these technologies. With the ability to dispatch power for many
hours after the sun goes down and thus provide power throughout periods
of high demand, power tower technology could play an important role in
future clean electricity supply at competitive costs. Strong and
continued private sector interest and cost-sharing support this
conclusion. Full power testing of this research facility will conclude
in fiscal year 1999, at which time the facility will be sold or
retired.
wind energy systems
The fiscal year 1999 funding request for the Wind Energy Systems
program is $43.5 million, an increase of $11.0 million over the fiscal
year 1998 appropriation. The Wind Energy Systems program supports R&D
activities that help U.S. industry develop wind technology as an
economically viable energy supply option and gain a technological edge
over international competition. While costs of wind-generated
electricity have declined significantly, wind energy is still not
widely accepted as a commercial power generation technology in the
U.S., and initial domestic sales have occurred only in certain markets.
The U.S. wind industry also faces intense competition from foreign
companies that offer their manufacturers tied aid and other market
support not generally available to U.S. firms. The key to positioning
wind as an important U.S. clean energy option is the development of
innovative, cost-competitive technology that is being carried out under
the Wind Energy program. These efforts are targeted for the post-2000
marketplace, and should help U.S. industry leapfrog its foreign
competition.
In fiscal year 1999, the wind program will focus on Applied
Research ($10.7 million), Turbine Research ($24.8 million), and
Cooperative Research and Testing ($8.0 million).
Applied Research (down $0.8 million) addresses fundamental
engineering and technology issues with a broad range of applications
and is carried out at national laboratories and numerous universities.
The decrease in requested funding reflects completion of the 1.5 MW
dynamometer facility for testing turbine drive train performance in a
laboratory environment.
Turbine Research (up $11.8 million) is a coordinated effort with
industry and utilities to perform cost-shared R&D for the next
generation of U.S. manufactured wind turbines. The requested increase
for Turbine Research will support both new and continuing partnerships
that help U.S. industry design and test state-of-the-art wind turbines.
Two next generation turbines are being designed, in a joint effort with
industry, that will reduce energy costs from wind systems to as low as
2.5 cents/kWh at 15 mph wind sites by 2002. In fiscal year 1999,
fabrication of the first prototype of this next generation wind turbine
(up to 1 MW size) will be completed and field testing will begin. We
will also seek 2-3 partners for utility-scale projects (up to 25 MW in
size) tailored to meet the requirements of electric service providers
competing in restructured electric power markets. In addition, the
program will complete fabrication and begin field testing of small wind
turbine prototypes (8-40 kW) ideal for distributed or remote
applications.
Cooperative Research and Testing (no change) focuses on near-term
R&D and testing at the world-class National Wind Technology Center in
Colorado, which features a new user facility that allows U.S.
industries to expand testing of new wind energy technologies. Level
funding for Cooperative Research and Testing will support industry
testing at the National Wind Technology Center and establishment of a
U.S.-based commercial firm as an internationally-recognized
certification agent for wind turbine systems. At present, certification
is problematic for U.S. companies because they must submit their data
to foreign-based certification agents. DOE and the U.S. wind industry
agree that a U.S.-based certification organization is essential to the
long-term success of the industry, and an aggressive effort is underway
to put such an organization in place. Key international standards are
being developed with U.S. participation. We are taking steps to achieve
International Standards Organization accreditation of tests performed
at the National Wind Technology Center, and the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory and Underwriters Laboratory are working together to
develop U.S. wind turbine certification capability. Our time line
indicates that initial certification of wind turbines by a U.S.-based
certification organization could take place in early fiscal year 1999.
biopower/biofuels
We are requesting $89.8 million for Biopower/Biofuels programs in
fiscal year 1999, an increase of $30.9 million. The Department's
program is an integrated effort spread among three sectors within the
Office of Energy and Renewable Energy in partnership with the private
sector. The program supports biomass energy projects aimed at three
principal markets: electric power; transportation fuels; and biomass
cogeneration in industry.
The budget request for the Biopower Energy Systems program within
the Office of Utility Technologies is $42.9 million in fiscal year
1999--an increase of $14.7 million over fiscal year 1998. The program
focuses on research, development and proof-of-concept activities for
thermochemical conversion technologies to produce cost-competitive
baseload electricity from biomass. The request includes $2.7 million
for Thermochemical Conversion, $37.3 million for Systems Development
and $2.9 million for industrial biomass cogeneration.
The increase in Thermochemical Conversion (up $1.2 million) will
support basic thermochemical research that will facilitate the
continued development of cost-competitive biogasification technologies.
Within the Systems Development activity (up $15.9 million), $20
million is requested for the DOE/USDA Biomass Power for Rural
Development Initiative (an increase of $2.2 million), $9.3 million is
requested for a new co-firing with coal initiative, and $8.0 million is
requested for a significantly expanded modular biopower systems
initiative.
The Rural Development Initiative in fiscal year 1999 would support
three projects: full power testing of the 35 MW switchgrass co-firing
project in Chariton Valley, Iowa, that is scheduled for completion in
2001 ($2.5 million); full power testing for the 30-40 MW willow co-
firing project in New York State that is also scheduled for completion
in 2001 ($2.5 million), and support for construction of the 75 MW
Minnesota Valley Alfalfa Producers integrated gasification combined
cycle power plant, which is scheduled to begin delivering power to
Northern States Power by the end of 2001 ($15.0 million).
The Co-Firing with Coal Initiative will complete five commercial-
scale demonstrations using at least five percent biomass at
conventional power plants, provide technical information to interested
parties and develop tools to identify low-cost feedstocks. Modular
systems development focuses on designing smaller gasification units (5
kW to 5 MW) that are easy to manufacture, install and operate. These
flexible systems, which will be usable with a broad range of biomass
feedstocks, will have great potential for both distributed and remote
applications, will have minimal environmental impact, and represent a
potentially important export market for U.S. industry.
The increases in the Systems Development budget will be partially
offset by reduced funding (down $2.2 million) for two gasifier
projects. No fiscal year 1999 activity is anticipated for the Hawaii
bagasse direct gasifier project due to permitting and cost-sharing
difficulties. The Vermont wood gasification project will utilize prior
year funds and cost-sharing to complete installation of a gas turbine
to test the gasifier/gas turbine configuration.
The Industrial Biomass for Cogeneration program within the Office
of Industrial Technologies (up $0.3 million), seeks to enable the
Advanced Turbine System technology to combust biomass derived fuels.
Cogeneration system efficiencies can reach as high as 90 percent,
significantly higher than when steam and electricity are produced
separately. Use of biomass fuels for cogeneration can significantly
lower operating costs and cut emissions--especially for industries that
produce biomass waste. The budget request will support continued
analysis of the gasification and combustion products of low/medium Btu
fuels in highly efficient gas turbines.
The Transportation Biofuels Energy Systems program within the
Office of Transportation Technologies has a budget request of $46.9
million in fiscal year 1999--an increase of $16.2 million over fiscal
year 1998. This program supports research, development and
demonstration activities related to feedstock production systems to
develop bioenergy crops and biochemical conversion systems for the
production of ethanol for use as transportation fuel. The request will
support research, development and demonstration of technologies for the
production of liquid transportation biofuels, to provide 0.7 quads of
energy by the year 2010 and 1.0 quads by the year 2020. Biofuels
produce almost no net carbon on a life cycle basis. Their use in
replacing traditional fossil fuels will reduce oil dependence and
greenhouse gas emissions. The $46.9 million request includes $36.4
million for Ethanol Production R&D, $1.0 million for Biodeisel
Production R&D, $6.0 million for feedstock production and $3.5 million
for the Regional Biomass Energy Program.
The major focus of the Biofuels Program is Ethanol Production (up
$11.0 million). Today, ethanol can be blended with gasoline in 10
percent ethanol/90 percent gasoline mixtures. It is also used in some
flexible-fueled vehicles (up to 85 percent ethanol blend). It is
estimated that 500,000 of these vehicles will be produced over the next
several years. Ethanol is also being considered for use in fuel cells.
We are also working to demonstrate commercial production of ethanol
from ``cellulosic'' biomass in different regional settings with
different feedstocks. We are currently working with three partners who
believe that technology risks have been minimized to the point where
they are seeking private sector financing to build ``first-of-a-kind''
commercial demonstration plants using agricultural wastes. Our request
of $36.4 million for ethanol production also enables us to pursue
opportunities, such as utilizing forest underbrush to produce ethanol
to also reduce the risk of catastrophic forest fires in the West. In
addition, we are working with the existing starch-based corn-to-ethanol
industry to demonstrate cellulose-to-ethanol technology using the corn
fiber (kernel) and corn stover (stalks). This will provide a potential
market for enzyme companies to develop systems that are critical to the
large-scale deployment of cellulosic ethanol.
Core ethanol technology research will continue at National
Laboratories to address key cost factors and integrated process
efficiencies to reach our ethanol production cost goal of $0.67 per
gallon by the year 2010 and achieve at least 3-4 percent displacement
of gasoline in the transportation sector.
The biodiesel program (up $0.3 million) will continue research and
development of technologies to lower the cost of biodiesel production
in order to bring about a cost-competitive bio-based alternative to
diesel fuel.
The request for feedstock production R&D (up $3.5 million) and the
Regional Biomass Energy Program (up $1.5 million) reflects a
consolidation of these programs into the Office of Transportation
Technologies. The actual net increase for these programs is $2.3
million over fiscal year 1998. These programs will expand the research
and development of low cost biomass feedstocks in the form of dedicated
energy crops and continue the regional biomass energy partnerships with
state and local governments to develop the capability to produce and
use biomass resources.
renewable energy production incentive program
The request for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive Program
is $4.0 million, a $1.0 million increase over fiscal year 1998 funding
levels. Annual appropriations provide financial production incentives
to stimulate the construction and operation of new, qualified renewable
energy facilities owned by state entities, municipal utilities, and
electric cooperatives that produce and sell electricity. Although
higher than the request for fiscal year 1998, the request for fiscal
year 1999 is still considerably below the amount that would be needed
for full funding of all electricity generated by qualified facilities.
We estimate that fiscal year 1999 payments to qualified Tier I
facilities--which use solar, wind, geothermal or dedicated (closed-
loop) biomass resources--will require $0.2-0.3 million to pay for
electricity generated and sold. For qualified Tier II facilities, which
include non-dedicated (open-loop) biomass resources (a much greater
number of facilities), $11-13 million would be required to make full
payments. In addition, Tier II facilities have approximately $6.7
million in previous electricity production from prior year generation
that will be eligible for incentive payments in fiscal year 1999. Thus,
full payment in fiscal year 1999 to all eligible facilities would
require as much as $20 million. Since full payments are not possible
with limited appropriations, partial payments are provided on a pro-
rata basis.
national renewable energy laboratory
The fiscal year 1999 request of $5.0 million for the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a net increase of $1.8 million, is
to provide for facility operations, including general purpose equipment
purchases, and for maintaining and upgrading NREL facilities to assure
appropriate technological, computational and scientific support for
Solar and Renewable Energy R&D activities. The majority of the request
will fund upgrading of the data system infrastructure--including
cables, telecommunications equipment, servers, other hardware and
software--that supports data transmission among all NREL research
facilities and sites. The expansion of the Field Test Laboratory
Building will be completed in fiscal year 1998 and will therefore
require no funding in fiscal year 1999.
geothermal energy
The Geothermal Energy request for fiscal year 1999 is $33.0
million, an increase of $4.0 million over fiscal year 1998 levels. The
Office of Geothermal Technologies works with U.S. industries and
electric utilities to create cost-competitive, environmentally
attractive geothermal options. These joint efforts sponsor research and
development that leads to advanced technologies to improve reliability,
reduce environmental impacts, and lower costs of geothermal energy
systems. The budget request is divided between Geothermal Electric R&D
and Deployment ($29.5 million) and Geothermal Heat Pump Deployment
($3.5 million).
Within the Geothermal Electric R&D and Deployment (up $6.8
million), cost-shared funding will initiate development of a technology
that can map the characteristics of fractures in subsurface geothermal
rock formations and complete development of computer techniques to
derive critical geothermal reservoir parameters from relatively
inexpensive seismic data. The program will continue to work with
industry to field test synthetic diamond bits that can drill
effectively in hot, hard rock formations. We will also continue
development of fiber optic technology capable of transmitting
information at high rates from the bottom of geothermal wells.
In fiscal year 1999, we plan to evaluate the performance of a
rotary separator-turbine in a cost-shared demonstration of the economic
benefits of improved electric generation technology in geothermal
applications. The program will also cost-share with industry new field
studies to test techniques for recovering geothermal heat at the
margins of geothermal fields in the absence of natural fluids. In
addition, we will co-fund construction of a bioprocessing unit that can
recover commercially-valuable byproducts from geothermal power plant
operation, including silica, sulfur, and mineral-rich solid waste.
In fiscal year 1999, the final year of funding for the Geothermal
Heat Pump Deployment (down $2.9 million), we will continue to work with
the industry consortium to accelerate widespread consumer acceptance of
geothermal heat pump technology. This will include continued co-funding
of efforts to increase public awareness of geothermal heat pump
technologies and benefits and develop advanced design capability to
increase market share. Co-funding will also support research on
drilling and grouting techniques to improve the efficiency of ground
loop heat exchangers and to increase geothermal heat pump reliability.
hydrogen
The fiscal year 1999 request for Hydrogen research and development
is $24.0 million, an increase of $8.0 million compared to fiscal year
1998. The mission of the Hydrogen Research Program is to support the
development of cost-competitive hydrogen systems that will reduce the
environmental impacts of energy use and support the increased market
penetration of renewable energy systems and hydrogen-powered vehicles.
To carry out its mission, the program employs four strategies. First,
we work with industrial suppliers of hydrogen to improve the
efficiency, lower the emissions, and lower the cost of technologies
that produce hydrogen from natural gas or use renewable energy. Second,
we work with fuel cell manufacturers to develop storage and reversible
fuel cell systems that will facilitate the introduction and penetration
of distributed, renewable-based power generation systems. Third, we
coordinate with the Department of Defense and DOE's Office of
Transportation Technologies to demonstrate safe and cost-effective
fueling systems for hydrogen vehicles in non-attainment urban areas.
Finally, we work with national laboratories and universities to lower
the cost of technologies that produce hydrogen directly from sunlight
and water without electrolysis.
The three program components are Core Research and Development
($10.1 million), Technology Validation Program ($11.4 million) and
Analysis and Outreach ($2.5 million).
Core Research and Development (up $3.1 million) supports R&D on
hydrogen production, storage and utilization. Production research and
development is focused on steam and plasma reforming and partial
oxidation of natural gas, production of hydrogen from biomass, and
photobiological and photoelectro-chemical processes for hydrogen
production. In fiscal year 1999, a scaled-up experimental unit
demonstrating the integration of a sorbent-enhanced reformer will be
operated to verify a 4 percent anticipated increase in process
efficiency while eliminating CO2 emissions. A biomass
pyrolytic process development unit for hydrogen production will also be
assembled and tested to demonstrate catalysis lifetimes.
Storage research and development is focused on developing materials
and systems that exceed 5.5 percent hydrogen by weight for utility and
transportation applications. Metal hydrides carbon-based storage, glass
microspheres, and polyhydride materials are being explored as possible
future storage systems. A proof-of-concept, light weight magnesium-
aluminum-copper alloy metal hydride system approaching five percent
hydrogen storage will be assembled and demonstrated at an operating
temperature below 150 deg. C.
Utilization technology development is focused on developing and
demonstrating end-use power systems that are safe, and have near-zero
or zero emissions with an overall generation efficiency greater than 45
percent. A low-cost fiber optic hydrogen gas leak detector, developed
jointly with industry, will be fully transferred to industry for
commercial application. Additionally, an advanced proton exchange
membrane fuel cell manufacturing process will be assembled and scaled
up using metal plates rather than more expensive graphite plates.
Technology Validation (up $5.1 million) supports cost-shared
ventures with industry on hydrogen vehicle fueling stations, vehicle-
mounted storage systems reversible fuel cells (i.e., fuel cells that
can operate as power sources or electrolyzers), biomass gasifiers for
hydrogen production, and small hydrogen fuel cell systems. These
efforts include: (1) development of hydrogen reversible fuel cells and
electrolysis systems for use with wind, hydra, biomass, solar and other
renewable electric power systems for the production of hydrogen and
peak or intermediate power, and for remote applications; (2) a
solicitation for the demonstration of a 50 kW fuel cell electric
generation station that co-produces hydrogen for a fueling station for
hydrogen vehicles as part of a ``Clean Corridor'' activity being
supported by the Office of Transportation Technology; and (3) Phase II
design and construction of cost-shared ventures with industry for
small-scale (3-10 kW) fuel cells for remote applications.
Analysis and Outreach (down $0.2 million) conducts portfolio and
technology analyses and works with industry and university partners to
determine what steps are required to transition to a hydrogen energy
economy. In fiscal year 1999, this activity will support the
development of technology roadmaps for hydrogen technology and corridor
development.
electric energy systems and storage
$38.5 million is requested for the Electric Energy Systems and
Storage program in fiscal year 1999, a decrease of $4.3 million from
fiscal year 1998. The program is working with partners to develop
advanced power systems that will make the delivery of electric power
more efficient and cost effective, reduce power sector emissions,
facilitate market penetration of renewables, and enhance U.S.
industrial competitiveness. The program includes efforts on High
Temperature Superconductivity ($32.0 million), Energy Storage ($6.0
million), Electric and Magnetic Fields (no funds requested) and Climate
Challenge ($0.5 million).
The High Temperature Superconductivity program (no change) will
enable the Department to continue to lead the national effort to
capture the energy savings potential of superconductivity--the ability
of certain materials to carry electricity without resistance losses.
Pre-commercial prototypes of electric transmission cables,
transformers, motors and current limiters will be built and tested
during the next three years, and commercial versions will become
available over the next 15 years--a period when much of the existing
power delivery infrastructure will need replacement and new stresses
will be placed on the national electrical system due to deregulation
and increased competition.
Within the program, funding of $14.0 million will continue support
for the innovative and highly successful Superconductivity Partnership
Initiative; $8.0 million will be directed to the Second Generation Wire
Initiative to transfer breakthroughs in wire technology discovered at
Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories to industry to develop
manufacturing processes for continuous wire lengths and manufacture the
world's first high field magnet which operates at liquid nitrogen
temperature; and $10.0 million will be used to continue the world class
basic research on high temperature superconductivity that is being
carried out at our National Labs. This strategic research is critical
to ensure long-term U.S. leadership in an increasingly competitive and
growing world market. The Fifth International Superconductivity
Industry Summit has estimated that the market for all superconductivity
sales in 2020 could be as much as $244 billion. The Japanese government
is currently spending at least $99 million in research and development
on superconductivity according to a National Science Foundation study
entitled ``Power Applications of Superconductivity, in Japan and
Germany.''
The $6.0 million request for the Energy Storage Systems program (up
$2.0 million) will fund the Storage 2000 Initiative which will develop
systems to enhance power quality and service reliability, increase the
value of renewable resources, and enhance technology choices in a
competitive utility environment.
Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) R&D (down $6.9 million) will
complete experiments to identify the biophysical basis for replicable
EMF biological effects and relevant EMF exposure parameters in fiscal
year 1998. In addition, research begun in fiscal year 1996 to replicate
key findings, using advanced EMF exposure at four government
laboratories, and risk evaluation of potential human health effects
from exposure to EMF, will be completed. The EMF program will complete
its work in fiscal year 1998 and transfer the data and analyses
prepared to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for
that agency to complete its comprehensive risk assessment. Thus, no
funds are requested by the Department for this program in fiscal year
1999.
We are also requesting $0.5 million to support the electric utility
industry effort on Climate Challenge. This successful effort encourages
electric utilities to voluntarily reduce, avoid, or sequester
greenhouse gas emissions using currently available, cost-effective
means. More than 600 utilities are currently participating in this
voluntary program representing 70 percent of U.S. electricity
production. The fiscal year 1999 request would support ongoing
activities and engage utilities in a dialogue to design a post-2000
voluntary program.
solar program support
The fiscal year 1999 budget request for Solar Program Support is
$14.0 million, the first request under this budget line since fiscal
year 1995. It will fund efforts on Utility Restructuring and a
Competitive Solicitation to encourage innovative applications and
deployment of renewable electric technologies.
Included in the request is $4.0 million for a Utility Restructuring
program, with $2.0 million to be spent on research and technical
analysis and $2.0 million to be spent on outreach activities. The
purpose of these activities is to develop a comprehensive understanding
of emerging utility restructuring policies across the nation at both
the state and federal levels, and to provide technical assistance to
state and federal decision makers. We will conduct research and
analysis, and develop and disseminate technical results and
information. Outreach activities will communicate research results to
state and regional electricity policy officials and other interested
parties. Technical analyses and research activities will assist
federal, regional, and state decision makers in evaluating electricity
policy and market alternatives. Further, this effort will provide tools
and information for policy makers to develop legislative and regulatory
policies that lead to competitive, reliable electricity markets with a
range of energy options including renewable energy technologies.
The fiscal year 1999 request for Solar Program Support also
includes $10.0 million for a Competitive Solicitation to speed early
deployment of renewable technologies. Technology proposals will be
solicited on the best ways to use renewable technologies either singly
or in combination with other renewable technologies, or in hybrid
configurations with natural gas or energy storage systems.
This effort will be a five-year, cost-shared, highly-leveraged
partnership ($10.0 million per year federal investment) for
verification of renewable project performance. The Department will
offer technical and financial support for new renewable energy projects
with 70 percent private sector cost share aimed at project structures
appropriate for a restructured electric power industry. These projects
would enable new technologies to be demonstrated in the field while
their performance is monitored and verified so that the private sector
partners can increase their experience with these prototypes and the
R&D programs can benefit from field data in a variety of settings. This
new competitive solicitation reflects the intent of the Federal
Buildings Remote Power Initiative initially funded by the Congress in
fiscal year 1998, but is not limited to the federal sector. Of the
$10.0 million proposed for fiscal year 1999, up to $3.0 million of the
solicitation will be dedicated to projects benefiting Americans.
This program is designed to overcome specific impediments to the
use of renewable electricity technologies. Currently, renewable energy
projects are hampered by the uncertainties of electric utility
restructuring, the current low price and perceived availability of
natural gas, and improvements in gas turbine technology. The
increasingly competitive restructured electric environment also favors
technologies with low first costs over those with higher first costs,
but lower life cycle costs. Rather than high project technical or
financial risk, the major hurdle often facing renewable energy projects
is identification of project structures in the new marketplace that
would allow acquisition of long term power purchase contracts and
project financing. Such new structures include renewable energy power
marketers, hybrid projects with renewables and natural gas, investments
in distributed renewable electricity generation, and customer choice.
hydropower
For fiscal year 1999, the Department is requesting $4.0 million for
Hydropower Development, an increase of $3.3 million over fiscal year
1998 funding. With this funding, the program will begin the engineering
design of a ``fish-friendly'' turbine that can replace turbines at
existing facilities where environmental concerns may cause a reduction
in their capacity allowance when applying for relicensing. Hydropower
provides approximately 11 percent of the total U.S. generating capacity
today; diminished power production from this clean baseload power
resource would have serious environmental and economic impacts on our
nation. This cost-shared program with industry would maximize power
generation from hydropower facilities and help develop an important
export market for U.S. companies.
solar technology transfer
The funding request for the Solar Technology Transfer Program is
$1.4 million. The program did not receive appropriated funds in fiscal
year 1998. The Solar Technology Transfer Program will disseminate
information and assistance to a variety of organizations to increase
knowledge of and experience with renewable energy technologies. The
funding will be directed to the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Clearinghouse (EREC) that serves as a one stop shop for public and
partner inquiries on renewable energy technologies. In performing such
a function, EREC lowers the overall cost of staff resources to provide
such information. This service, which is partially funded under the
Interior and Related Agencies appropriation to provide information on
energy efficiency technologies, responded to about 60,000 requests for
information in fiscal year 1997.
international solar energy program
The fiscal year 1999 budget request for the International Solar
Energy Program is $8.8 million, an increase of $7.4 million over fiscal
year 1998 funding. The program comprises three elements: CORECT, the
Committee on Renewable Energy Commerce and Trade ($2.0 million).
America's 21st Century Program ($3.4 million) and the U.S. Initiative
on Joint Implementation ($3.4 million).
With electricity demand in developing countries projected to grow
sharply over the next four decades and local environmental quality
becoming an increasingly severe problem in many of these nations, a
significant fraction of this demand could be for clean energy
technologies. If even a small fraction of this growth is met by
American renewable energy technologies, this would translate into sales
of several hundred billion dollars and creation of many high quality
jobs. Our International Solar programs are designed to help ensure that
U.S. companies are major players in this huge emerging market.
CORECT, the Committee on Renewable Energy Commerce and Trade (up
$2.0 million), is the multi-agency coordinating arm of the federal
government working with U.S. industry to help counter intense
international competition for the rapidly growing global market for
renewable technologies. Funding will ensure increased technical
collaboration with U.S. companies, multilateral financial institutions,
U.S. trade missions and U.S. consulates to deploy U.S. manufactured
renewable technologies worldwide. America's 21st Century Program (up
$3.4 million) will expand technical assistance to Asian/Pacific
countries, Russia, in addition to Latin America for the deployment of
renewable energy technology projects through joint ventures with both
the public and the private sectors. The U.S. Initiative on Joint
Implementation (up $2.0 million) facilitates public/private cooperation
on clean technology projects that reduce the emission of greenhouse
gases. These projects are critical to bringing developing nations into
full participation in international climate agreements because they
help these nations understand how clean energy technologies can be used
to cut their emissions without reducing economic growth.
solar program direction
In fiscal year 1999 we are requesting $17.0 million for program
direction, an increase of $1.3 million. This increase is primarily for
corporate planning and analysis activities such as implementation of
the Government Performance and Results Act. Program Direction provides
the staffing resources and associated funding to support the management
and oversight of the Solar and Renewable Energy Programs. It also
provides funding for support service activities, as directed in
Congressional Appropriations language.
improved management
Just as we are committed to undertaking critically important R&D,
we are also dedicated to managing these programs effectively and using
taxpayer dollars responsibly. To that end, I am implementing a number
of management initiatives. We are increasing the level of competition
in selecting contractors. We are developing technology roadmaps in
collaboration with partners for a greater number of our programs. We
are developing both a clearer budget and a more open budgeting process.
Finally, we are focusing on program evaluation and terminating programs
that don't measure up. To cite a few examples, we are concluding our
work with the petroleum refining industry as well as our research on
vehicle applications for Stirling engines, flywheels, ultracapacitors,
and gas turbines.
conclusion
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee for
the opportunity to discuss our fiscal year 1999 budget request. I hope
you agree that the investments we propose for our programs, coupled
with private-sector investments, will enable the nation to respond to
the important energy and environmental challenges of the coming
century.
nuclear waste disposal
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Senator Reid.
Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Krebs, your detailed statement identifies clearly the
priorities of the Office of Energy Research, but does not
include any new methods that I was aware of disposing of
nuclear waste. Is there anything in there?
Dr. Krebs. Senator Reid, we do not invest specifically in
applications associated with nuclear waste. However, we do make
investments in our chemical science programs and in our
geological sciences program that are relevant to issues that
are involved in nuclear waste. We make investments in
laboratories, for example at Berkeley, Los Alamos, and
Livermore that are involved in the nuclear waste repository
program. So they had the benefit--the colocation, the
coinvestment, of our research with their activities associated
with nuclear waste. We believe it pays off on behalf of that
program.
Senator Reid. The reason I mention that, there are some who
are addressing the future of nuclear power, and I think that we
have to also recognize that cost and social acceptability are
the two principal obstacles to nuclear power, and I think the
Government should be involved in some form or fashion.
hydrogen research
In last year's appropriations bill, our bill, the
Department of Energy--I am sorry. In last year's appropriation
bill for the Department of Energy, $3 million was put within
the Office of Energy for hydrogen research. What happened to
that money? What was accomplished as a result of that money
being set aside?
Dr. Krebs. I am aware of $3 million that we have identified
within the Office of Energy Research associated with hydrogen
funding. This is the basic science that was funded within the
Biological and Environmental Research Program, and also in the
Basic Energy Sciences Program. We were requested by the House
to identify activities that were related to renewables, and for
us that included the hydrogen effort.
A lot of this research is associated with plant science and
the investigation of methane-producing plants or methane-
metabolyzing plants, and also the use of light to induce the
production of hydrogen in chemical processes.
This research was not focused solely on hydrogen, although
we identified it as associated with hydrogen, it also has a
broader impact on multidisciplinary areas of science than just
those associated with hydrogen issues.
Senator Reid. I understand.
Dr. Krebs. I would be happy to provide you with that
information for the record.
[The information follows:]
Hydrogen
There is confusion regarding the $3 million identified in the
fiscal year 1998 Energy Research budget for hydrogen research. To
clarify the main point, at the request of the House Appropriations
Committee, the Office of Energy Research (ER) was asked to identify ER
funded research in fiscal year 1998 that supported the activities of
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's (EE) programs in
solar and renewable energy. Within the $44 million of ongoing ER
activities that were identified, $3 million supported the hydrogen
program in EE. I would be pleased to provide a listing of current
projects supported in fiscal year 1998. It is again noted that these
are ongoing activities within the base program of the Department's
request and do not represent any added funds by the Congress.
Dr. Mary F. Roberts, Boston College, ``Osmoregulation in
Methanogens''
Dr. Laurens Mets, University of Chicago, ``Molecular genetic
analysis of biophotolytic hydrogen production in green algae''
Dr. Michael W.W. Adams, University of Georgia, ``The Metabolism of
Hydrogen by Extremely Thermophilic Bacteria''
Dr. William B. Whitman, University of Georgia, ``Biochemistry and
Genetics of Autotrophy in Methanococcus''
Dr. Ralph S. Wolfe, University of Illinois, ``Studies on the
Microbial Formation of Methane''
Dr. Robert J. Maier, Johns Hopkins University, ``Bacterial Nickel
Metabolism for Hydrogenase Synthesis''
Dr. Judy Wall, University of Missouri, ``Genetics and Molecular
Biology of Hydrogen Metabolism in Sulfate Reducing Bacteria''
Dr. John N. Reeve, Ohio State University, ``Structure and
Regulation of Methanogen Genes''
Dr. Michael J. McInerney, University of Oklahoma, ``Energetics and
kinetics of syntrophic aromatic degradation''
Dr. Daniel J. Arp, Oregon State University, ``Characterization of
the Genes Involved in Nitrification''
Dr. Louis Sherman, Purdue University, ``A Genetic Analysis of the
Lumenal Proteins of the Photosystem II 02-evolving Complex in
Cyanobacteria''
R. Eisenberg, University of Rochester, ``Photochemistry of Platinum
Group Elements: Applications to Energy Conversion and Bond Activation''
E. Greenbaum, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ``Kinetics of Enzyme-
Catalyzed Processes''
J.K. Hurst, Washington State University, ``Membrane-Organized
Chemical Photoredox Systems''
T.E. Mallouk, Pennsylvania State University, ``Electron Transfer
Reactions in Microporous Solids''
N. Sutin, C. Creutz, Brookhaven National Laboratory, ``Thermal,
Photo-, and Radiation-Induced Reactions in Condensed Media'', ``Solar
Hydrogen-Related Projects in the Division of Chemical Sciences''
renewable energy contribution to electricity production
Senator Reid. That would be fine.
We have heard testimony here today about 90 percent of the
energy of this country comes from fossil fuels; is that right?
Mr. Reicher. Fossil and nuclear together.
Senator Reid. And about 80 percent then is fossil fuels, is
that not right?
Mr. Reicher. About 80. Well, total energy----
Senator Reid. Anyway, a big number, all right?
Mr. Reicher. Electricity is 20 percent nuclear, but with
total energy then that ramps down.
Senator Reid. My question is this. You talked about solar
and you've talked about wind energy, but realistically what can
we hope to gain from production of electricity by those means
in the next 10 years? It all sounds good and, you know, I have
driven through California and watched those windmills whipping
around, but, in fact, it does not produce much electricity,
does it?
Mr. Reicher. The installed base in the United States today
for wind is relatively small.
Senator Reid. Less than 1 percent.
Mr. Reicher. Correct.
Let me answer that in terms of the potential that both of
those technologies hold. Looking at wind, what we are
endeavoring to do through research and development and testing,
and, in fact, what other nations are also trying to do as well,
is to develop turbines that will bring the cost down for wind
so that they can be used in areas of the country with moderate
wind speeds, as opposed to simply in the higher wind speed
areas.
We are closing in very quickly in the next couple of years
to a point where there will be a turbine available that can
operate in those moderate wind speeds. This, as I said in my
testimony, could open up large expanses of the country,
particularly in the upper Midwest, to wind power development.
Senator Reid. So would this triple the wind power or double
it? What are we talking about?
Mr. Reicher. I think you could see, in terms of new
installed capacity, several hundred megawatts of wind being
installed this year. You could begin to ramp up into points
where you are seeing thousands of megawatts installed per year.
Senator Reid. Oh, really.
Mr. Reicher. We are trying to get these costs down from
where they are today, which is on the order of 4 to 6 cents,
which is almost competitive with other technologies, down into
the 2 to 4 cent range. As I said earlier, in broad expanses of
the upper Midwest and in other parts of the country there is a
very, very large wind resource where you could develop these
technologies.
So that is my brief answer on wind.
solar energy potential
Senator Reid. Now, solar, we know that the potential for
solar, especially in the western part of the United States, is
significant. What is the drawback to producing large quantities
of electricity through solar?
Mr. Reicher. The challenge with solar today, within the
United States, is primarily cost. The technology has gotten to
a point with both of the major branches of solar technology,
which are solar hot water systems to produce hot water for
buildings and solar electric systems to produce electricity,
have progressed to a point where it is quite a reliable way to
produce energy. But solar is still on-the-grid, in many
situations, not as cost competitive as it needs to be, and that
is, in fact, the primary thrust of our energy R&D work.
I would point out, though, Senator, that off-the-grid, in
the United States, solar is quite a competitive technology. And
for the 2.5 billion people across the globe who are off-the-
grid, it is quite a competitive technology. That is, in fact,
one of the reasons why we are seeing this explosive growth--
five new plants opened in just the past year in photovoltaic
production in the United States. It is fueling this
international growth.
We believe that, with the continued, relatively rapid drop
in cost and a major deployment push through the million solar
roofs initiative and by other means, we can continue to drive
down the price of solar and it will be in even greater use over
the next several years.
basic energy sciences
Senator Reid. One last question. I know the chairman is
wanting to move this along.
If the Global Climate Change Treaty is not ratified this
year, which I think the odds are quite good that that will
certainly be the case, I see that there is under Basic Energy
Sciences a 25-percent increase, raising that allocation to
about $836 million. Will that still be necessary?
Dr. Krebs. The increase in that program is driven by the
request for the new spallation neutron source. That is a long-
term investment in basic research for a balanced energy R&D
portfolio, and it is not driven by the Kyoto meetings.
Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Senator Reid, I am just wondering from
the standpoint of further inquiries, would you want to stay
after? I have to leave for a Republican conference at 3:30. You
could stay and ask whatever questions you have.
Senator Reid. The only thing that would be better than that
is I will attend the Republican conference. [Laughter.]
Senator Domenici. The only problem is that they want me to
tell them how we are going to do the budget and I am not sure
you could do it for Republicans. You might do it just for
Democrats.
Senator Reid. I will stay however long you need me, sir.
Senator Domenici. Do you have a question?
Senator, we are glad to let you do that.
lignite coal
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask about
lignite coal that is produced in North Dakota, Louisiana,
Montana, and Texas, and represents about 9 percent of the coal
production of the country. What programs does the Department of
Energy sponsor to ensure that lignite remains an important part
of our Nation's energy resource base?
Mr. Reicher. The bulk of the work on coal, Senator, is
focused in our Fossil Energy Program. Unfortunately, neither of
us today could address the details of that. We would be happy
to get that information for you rapidly. There are small
amounts of work in the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy that look at the way one can burn coal along
with agricultural crops and agricultural wastes to improve
emissions from coal-fired power plants.
[The information follows:]
Lignite Research and Development Projects
Fossil Energy is conducting a comprehensive coal program to develop
advanced power systems and clean fuels technology that are designed to
use a wide variety of coals from lignite to anthracite that will help
ensure the full use of the nations coal resource base. Projects more
specifically involving lignite include: a detailed kinetic analysis at
Sandia investigating the burning behavior of ten strategic U.S. coals
ranging in rank from lignite to low-volatile bituminous; a lignite is
being evaluated as part of an effort to develop a model that describes
toxic metal transformation throughout a utility boiler; under a Jointly
Sponsored Research Program Cooperative Agreement, a large number of
research tasks utilizing lignite were carried out at the University of
North Dakota Energy and Environmental Research Center; the University
of Utah is investigating the impact of fuel and combustion changes on
ignition stability and flame characteristics to support the development
of low-emission, high efficiency pulverized coal power systems; Rust
College is investigating the mechanisms involved in the reduction of
NOX during reburning with lignite; and previously Fossil
Energy conducted an air toxics emissions characterization program,
where one of the plants was a lignite unit located in North Dakota,
from which the data was forwarded to EPA for inclusion in its Utility
Air Toxics Report to Congress.
In addition to the foregoing R&D projects, there are three Clean
Coal Technology Demonstration projects that utilize low rank coals
(lignite is considered a low rank coal) as their fuels. These include:
the ENCOAL mild coal gasification project that will demonstrate the
integrated operation of a number of novel processing steps to produce
higher value fuel forms from mild gasification of low rank coal; a
Clean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project which uses a coal slurry
produced from Alaskan low rank coal; and the Healy Clean Coal Project a
50 MWe facility consisting of two pulverized-coal-fired combustors that
burn Alaskan low rank coal.
Senator Dorgan. What I will do is, with the permission of
the chairman, I will submit a couple of questions on lignite
coal and ask that you respond and ask that they be included as
part of the record.
cold weather climate building efficiency programs
One question then on another part of your agenda. What part
of the EE program for building efficiency is targeted toward
cold weather climates that require the use of disproportionate
amounts of energy per capita?
Mr. Reicher. There are a variety of pieces of the energy
efficiency budget that address cold climates, and let me give
you some examples. First is the weatherization program, which
as you know funds weatherization of homes for poor people, and
that is on the order of a $150 million a year and is part of
the Interior budget.
Second, is in the building technologies area where we are
looking at a whole host of ways to tighten up buildings,
including insulation and building materials and construction
techniques and roofing, that will make homes more comfortable,
warmer, and more energy efficient in cold climates.
We also have a remote power initiative that looks at the
use of various energy sources in rural areas, including in cold
regions, and how to improve energy technologies in those types
of places.
So there is a variety of things that we are doing to
address colder regions.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I will submit some questions and ask that the
responses be part of the record.
Let me just make one other observation. I do not quite
understand why we have a substantial part of the energy issue
in the Interior appropriations bill. I will look into that, I
guess. It is curious to me how some of these things get
fragmented in tradition over time, and tradition does not seem
to be----
Dr. Krebs. I can give you a very quick answer.
Senator Reid. Senator Byrd is the biggest answer.
Dr. Krebs. The Department of Energy was created from a
variety of agencies.
Senator Dorgan. I understand now. I was just told.
Dr. Krebs. You were just really informed by the expert.
Senator Dorgan. I will share that with the chairman, who
already knew it.
Senator Domenici. Well, I do not look for any ordinary
rationale for any of these allocations of different functions
of Government to a subcommittee. I never have understood why
water projects should be part of energy. But we have those
issues to contend with.
They already understand the President whacked the water
program and, frankly, that may end up impacting what we are
able to accomplish in these energy programs. Everyone knows the
House is not going to cut water, so where are they going to
cut? They are probably going to cut energy. That is kind of
shameful. But we may have to do the same thing, you know,
although we are going to try very hard not to. We will try to
be balanced.
I thought I had 2 hours for this hearing and I end up only
having an hour because the leadership has set a meeting with
all the Senators from my party at one time at 3:30 p.m.
solar and renewable energy budget
I have a lot of questions and I am going to submit them in
writing. I note, with reference to the solar and renewable
energy programs, that we might not be able to provide a 37-
percent increase. So what I would ask you to do is to provide
me with recommendations of the allocations of funding at a
couple of different levels, if you would. Do it at current
level, do it at a 10-percent increase, a 20-percent increase,
where would you put the money. I think that would be helpful to
us.
Mr. Reicher. We would be pleased to do that, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
Budget Priorities
Increased investments in renewable energy technology R&D are of
critical importance to the nation. These technologies will improve
local environmental quality, improve the diversity and security of our
energy supply, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve our long-
term competitiveness. They are of critical importance to meeting the
energy and environmental challenges of our times and of the next
century. However, we do recognize the existence of budget constraints
and will work with the committee staff to establish priorities at the
current level and at a 10 percent and 20 percent increase.
electricity restructuring and renewable energy
Senator Domenici. We also are going to ask you a question
about electricity restructuring, because that may very well
start moving next year. Sometimes it is called deregulation. I
am wondering if the administration has any proposals that they
want included in that electric restructuring to encourage the
use of renewable energy sources. I think that is very
interesting. I think you can almost bid adieu to any successes
that you have had for many years if there is not something
built into the restructuring, because the purpose is to drive
the cost down, which will happen, and you have already restated
for the record that the most significant impediment to the use
of renewables is that the cost of the alternatives is too cheap
or, conversely, the cost of the renewables is too expensive.
[The information follows:]
Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan: Provisions Affecting
Renewable Energy
The Administration's Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan
will result in lower prices, a cleaner environment, increased
innovation and government savings. The Department of Energy estimates
that retail competition will save consumers $20 billion a year on their
electricity bills. This translates into direct savings to the typical
family of four of $104 per year and indirect savings, from the lower
costs of other goods and services, of $128 per year. Thus, total
savings for a typical family are estimated to be $232 a year.
Competition will also produce significant environmental benefits
through both market mechanisms and policies that promote investment in
energy efficiency and renewable energy. We expect the Electricity
Competition Plan to produce significant environmental benefits through
these policies. Provisions of the plan that will facilitate the use of
renewable energy include:
--A Public Benefits Fund that will provide matching funds to States
of up to 1.0 mill/kWh, ($3 billion a year) to finance energy
efficiency, renewable energy and other public benefit programs;
--``Green labeling'' provisions to help consumers identify and choose
power from environmentally friendly generators including
renewable energy;
--A Renewable Portfolio Standard, to require that at least 5.5
percent of electricity sales be generated from non-
hydroelectric renewable sources, subject to a cost cap; and
--Trading authority for NOX emissions, to facilitate cost-
effective, market-driven NOX reductions--which will
encourage investment in low- and zero-emissions technologies
such as renewable energy.
high flux beam reactor
Senator Domenici. Dr. Krebs, I have some really serious
problems with the High Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven and I
ask you some questions about it. I frankly would like to have,
as part of this question, a list for the record of all ongoing
environmental problems at Brookhaven. I think we have taken
some giant steps recently, but there remains some real fear in
that area, that some of that pollution might already have
migrated further and deeper than any of us thought.
[The information follows:]
Environmental Problems at BNL
The major environmental challenges at Brookhaven National
Laboratory are environmental restoration of contaminated groundwater
and soils, and stabilizing the Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor for
decontamination and decommissioning.
Brookhaven National Laboratory is a designated Superfund site. A
tri-party Interagency Agreement was executed in 1992 among the
Department of Energy, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that
integrates cleanup requirements under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act, and State regulations. The Interagency Agreement
contains a list of 29 Areas of Concern which require assessment and
possible remediation, including the tritium plume from the spent fuel
pool at the High Flux Beam Reactor. BNL is located above a sole source
aquifer and one of the major environmental issues is groundwater
contamination with volatile organic compounds and radionuclides
(tritium and strontium-90). Other environmental concerns include
radiologically contaminated soils and contaminated sediments in the
Peconic River.
The final decisions on the cleanups for these problems are expected
to be made over the next year with input from the U.S. EPA, the State,
and the general public.
Accelerated actions completed to date include the connection of
approximately 1,500 residents to public water as a precautionary
measure because of off-site volatile organic compound groundwater
contamination from BNL, the capping of three landfills, the excavation
of fifty-five buried waste pits, the construction and operation of four
groundwater treatment systems, and the removal of numerous tanks and
cesspools. A fifth groundwater treatment system is scheduled to be
built off-site this year.
The Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor was the first reactor
built for the sole purpose of providing neutrons for research, and
operated from 1950 to 1968. During a recent facility review,
radioactively contaminated water was found in the cooling systems
channels. BNL is stabilizing the facility prior to decontamination and
decommissioning.
Both the Superfund cleanup and the decontamination and
decommissioning of the Graphite Research Reactor are scheduled to be
completed in 2006 under DOE's draft Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to
Closure Plan.
Attached is a detailed list of environmental concerns associated
with BNL.
brookhaven national laboratory
environmental restoration--list of areas of concern
1. Hazardous Waste Management Area
1b. Groundwater
2a-e. Chemical/Animal/Glass Holes
2f. Ash Pit
3. Current Landfill
4. Sewage Treatment Plant
5. Central Steam Facility
6. Building 650 and Sump Outfall Area
7. Paint Shop
8. Experimental Agricultural Fields
9. Brookhaven Graphite Reactor
10. Waste Concentration Facility
11. Building 830 Pipe Leak
12. Building 830 Underground Storage Tanks
13. Cesspools
14. Bubble Chamber Spill Area
15a. Potable/Supply Wells
15b. Monitoring Well 130-02
16. Aerial RadSurvey Results
17. Area Adjacent to Former Low-Mass Criticality Facility
18. AGS Scrapyard
19. Building T-111 TCE Spill Area
20. Particle Beam Dump, North End of Linear Accelerator
21. Leaking Sewer Pipes
22. Old Firehouse
23. Offsite Tritium Plumes
24a. Process Supply Wells 104, 105
24b. Recharge Basin HP
24c. Recharge Basin HN
24d. Recharge Basin HO
24e. Recharge Basin HS
24f. New Stormwater Runoff Recharge Basin
25. Building 479
26. Building 208
27. Building 464
28. EDB Groundwater Contamination
29. HFBR Spent Fuel Pool and Tritium Groundwater Plume
nuclear energy program
Senator Domenici. I also, of late, have taken up a strong
position in favor of us moving ahead with nuclear power, which
may cause some people to shudder. But when you have the problem
with greenhouse gases with our friends in Europe so eagerly
embracing the Kyoto Accord and ask them why, and two out of
three countries can do it so easily, because they have huge
nuclear power percentages, take France as an example. France
was running around during the treaty deliberations saying
America surely does not want to do very much. Well, France does
not have to do anything with 87 percent of their power coming
from nuclear.
They do not have the problem of waste disposal like we
have. They reprocess. Nobody is frightened of it. You walk into
a couple of big buildings and you are standing right on top of
all their nuclear wastes from all their power plants. And here
we are, fussing with Nevada for nigh on 20 years about a tunnel
in the ground, and in New Mexico 14 years on WIPP regarding low
level radiation.
So one of the things that I have learned is radiation
standards are very important in the United States. The
protection from radiation is a field that is in desperate need
of somebody looking at it and making some reasonable standards.
And I ask you some questions about that.
human genome program
The human genome program. I guess what I need to know from
you all, the split is no longer one-third to two-thirds, as it
was when we started this program. NIH gets much, much more.
Dr. Krebs. Right.
Senator Domenici. I frankly would like to know whether you
are provided the money or not, and know what, if anything, the
Department of Energy thinks they should be doing that they are
not getting money for in the genome field. If you could go back
and look at that, I would be very, very willing to look and see
if there are some things that we would be able to provide
something for that. That is the greatest research program we
have got in America in terms of wellness. I do not think
anybody doubts that. It is humankind's wellness program for the
future, and we have a few hangups in terms of technology for
the final round of sequencing, but the program is going along
handsomely, is it not?
Dr. Krebs. We think so. We worry more about the challenges,
but the accomplishments have been significant.
Senator Domenici. Yes; when you meet with those NIH people
you can smile and say that, if it weren't for the Department of
Energy you never would have got off the dime and started that
program. That is what happened.
Dr. Krebs. That is right.
Senator Domenici. Do you know Charlie Delisi?
Dr. Krebs. Yes.
Senator Domenici. He is the one that left them and came to
you, came to me.
Dr. Krebs. And started, I think, in New Mexico.
Senator Domenici. Yes; he came to me and said, we ought to
be doing this. So let us do it all in the Department of Energy.
And that brought NIH in. It is a great program, doing
wonderfully.
[The information follows:]
Human Genome Program Funding
The U.S. Human Genome Program has now emerged from its earlier
emphasis on chromosome mapping, core resource development, and early
technology innovation to its current high throughput DNA sequencing
phase. To meet the core goal of generating a reference sequence of the
human genome in the year 2005, DOE has had to commit a substantial
fraction of its fiscal year 1998 genome program resources to initiate
factory scale DNA sequencing. This was at the painful cost of reduced
investment in important areas still critically needed to bring the
human genome program to a timely and increasingly economical fruition.
This commitment has resulted in a reduced investment in three areas
of critical need: (1) ``hardening'' or validating of prototype systems
for the production DNA sequencing, (2) prototyping of the next
generation of DNA sequencing technology, and (3) implementing
``biologist friendly'' computer tools and biological resources needed
to process and understand the rich information resource of the human
genome. Technological research is what DOE does best, but the current
genome budget is inadequate to do these tasks properly. Full funding
would have a dramatic impact on the ability of DOE to solve the
existing technological obstacles to widespread use of genomic tools in
medicine and biotechnology. It would also enable the U.S.A. to maintain
its technological lead in the face of substantial investments in
research into genome technologies in Europe and Asia.
The recently published JASON report on the Human Genome Project
made four technology-related recommendations: (1) technology
development should be emphasized as a DOE strength; (2) continue work
to improve present technologies; (3) enhance long-term technology
research; and (4) retain technology flexibility in production
sequencing facilities.
There are several new and developing DNA sequencing technologies
that cannot yet be used in a DNA sequencing factory. These include
systems for handling very small volumes of expensive reagents, genetic
engineering to improve critical biochemical reagents, and novel
massively parallel capillary electrophoresis systems. These new
technologies need to mature and be ``hardened'' or validated before
they can be reliably introduced into production DNA sequencing systems.
Their introduction will increase the likelihood that the complete DNA
sequence of the first human genome will be determined by 2005. Industry
experts have estimated that ``hardening'' of new technologies for use
in a production facility require an investment equal to 10 percent of
the overall investment in a given program.
The need for DNA sequencing will not end with the first phase of
the human genome project. Knowing the complete DNA sequence of a
reference human genome and the identity of all human genes will make
DNA sequencing the basis of an increasing number of medical diagnoses
in the future. DNA sequencing will also be one tool in the development
of therapeutic strategies for a variety of diseases making a broader
array of drugs available to many more people than today. However, to be
most useful, DNA sequencing in the future will have to be much faster
and cheaper than it is today. Therefore, research is needed today to
develop the next generation of DNA sequencing technology that will
bring genomics into widespread use in the nation's universities and
industrial laboratories. This investment will also ensure that
scientists and physicians can maximize use the human DNA sequence
information determined in the first phase of the human genome project.
The real value of the human genome project still lies buried in the
genetic code that is currently being deciphered. Tools and resources
are needed for understanding and using the information encoded in the
human DNA sequence. This broad area of research is often referred to as
``functional genomics.'' Biologists and medical researchers are
accustomed to revealing the functional details of single genes or small
numbers of genes in their individual laboratories with a few graduate
students and postdocs. Having access to all of the approximately
100,000 genes in the human genome presents biologists with an entirely
new challenge.
The challenge of functional genomics at the genomic level requires
resources and tools not commonly available in today's single
investigator laboratory. It requires a new scale of interaction between
human genome biologists, medical scientists, and biologists with
expertise in so-called model organisms, such as mouse, fruit fly, round
worm, yeast, and others. The genetic similarity between the identity
and organization of genes in these model organisms and in humans is
remarkable and a feature that can be exploited to rapidly learn about
the nature or function of many human genes. The experimental
flexibility available to biologists working with model organisms
enables key studies to be rapidly done in these other species that
address key questions in human biology. National functional genomics
resources providing specialized tools, resources, or services will be
needed to ensure that tomorrow's biologists and physicians are able to
effectively exploit the research and discovery opportunities that exist
in the human genome.
The DOE Human Genome Program is well positioned to take advantage
of these additional resources. The DOE Joint Genome Institute's
Production Sequencing Facility is being built in a modular fashion so
that it can serve as a ``plug-and-play'' type test bed for hardening
today's new sequencing technologies. In addition to capabilities at the
Joint Genome Institute, the DOE national laboratories can leverage
their capabilities in spectroscopy, single molecule detection,
engineering, and computation to contribute to the development of
tomorrow's sequencing technologies. Finally, DOE laboratories are the
best place in the U.S. to transition yesterday's capabilities in high
throughput mouse genetics, used to determine the genetic effects of
radiation and chemicals, into tomorrow's functional genomics facilities
with a wide range of user facility capabilities including the
production of mice containing or missing specific pieces of DNA. The
long term impacts of these new investments in the DOE Human Genome
Program will reach far beyond the basic biological community to include
a broad range of medical applications including impacts in molecular
nuclear medicine.
With input from our advisory committee, the Biological and
Environmental Research Advisory Committee (BERAC), we have determined
that the following additional resources would greatly enhance the DOE
genome program in the following categories:
[In millions of dollars]
Hardening of prototype production sequencing technologies......... 10
Long-term research in new sequencing approaches................... 15
Functional genomics............................................... 15
fusion energy research
Senator Domenici. I ask you some specific questions
regarding fusion energy; generally, which of these technologies
are we going to have to get rid of, what are we going to end up
with, and where are we really going? We used to all run around
thinking this was the energy source for the future, which would
be clean and cheap and everybody would have it. Maybe an
expectation statement on your part from the standpoint of the
science community as to where it is would be very interesting.
We are spending much less than we ever planned 10 years
ago, but nonetheless it is, what, $200 million-plus a year?
Dr. Krebs. Correct.
[The information follows:]
Fusion Energy Sciences
Since fusion is not expected to enter the commercial energy
marketplace until the middle to latter part of the next century,
projections for the economics of fusion energy are subject to
considerable uncertainty. The general conclusion of studies conducted
on this subject has been that fusion energy has the potential to be
economically competitive with other long-range energy sources for
generating electricity. Given this conclusion, and fusion's potential
as a virtually unlimited source of environmentally acceptable energy,
we continue to support a vigorous science and technology oriented
program to enable us to be in a position to realize this potential in
the future.
forest waste conversion to ethanol
Senator Reid. I just have a couple questions and I will
quit.
Senator Domenici. Sure.
Senator Reid. What is the DOE doing to support forest waste
conversion to ethanol for fire suppression in the western
United States? How much money is in the President's budget to
support this effort?
Mr. Reicher. We have an active program that looks at forest
and agricultural wastes; generally, looking at making both
ethanol and gasifying those wastes to use in power plants.
Senator Reid, I do not know the exact expenditures on the
program you are talking about. I know there are discussions out
West looking at clearing forests and using the resulting forest
wastes to produce energy sources.
Senator Reid. Could you amplify your answer when you return
to the office?
Mr. Reicher. I would be pleased to.
[The information follows:]
Forest Waste Conversion to Ethanol for Fire Suppression
In fiscal year 1998, the Department is supporting the Western
Biomass Consortium, which is made up of 13 western states, including
Nevada. The Consortium focuses primarily on forest health and the
potential use of biomass for ethanol production and power. Activities
relevant to the forest waste conversion to ethanol effort include: (1)
the Northeastern California Manufacturing Feasibility Study, completed
in cooperation with the Quincy Library Group, the California Energy
Commission, the California Institute of Food and Agriculture Research,
Plumas Corporation, TSS Consultants, and the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL); (2) a pre-feasibility study, also completed by NREL
for southeastern Alaska; and (3) support of the Colorado Forest Health
Front Range Partnership.
In fiscal year 1999, the reduction of risk from catastrophic forest
fires in the West, through the use of forest thinnings (primarily
softwoods), is one of the major partnership opportunities that will be
sought under the Ethanol Production budget request. Resources at NREL,
including the Alternative Fuels User Facility, will be used to conduct
integrated bench-scale studies of softwood thinnings from private and
public lands (national forests), in cooperation with industrial
partners. Part of the $12 million requested for cellulose-to-ethanol
production facilities may be used to support potential opportunities
for organizations, such as the Quincy Library Group, that are trying to
co-generate ethanol and electricity from softwood thinnings in
California.
Most of the longer term core research program, about $12 million in
the fiscal year 1999 budget request, will lead to lower costs for
producing ethanol from softwoods. This research includes the
development of advanced fermentative organisms, advanced cellulases,
and pretreatment methods which will lower, and possibly eliminate, the
need for cellulase enzymes.
Additional committee questions
Senator Reid. We all have some questions to submit in
writing and if you would just make that part of your work I
would appreciate it.
Senator Domenici. Might I say to both of you, in the event
in the next couple of weeks that something comes to mind that
seems important for us to know, if you would just let our staff
know. We will either arrange to informally communicate with you
or we will set up a quick hearing and finish out the rough
edges of this.
I am leaving you about 15 questions, and about 6 or 8 for
you, if you will answer them at your earliest convenience. We
do not have any deadline yet--a month, that is plenty of time.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Domenici
high flux beam reactor at brookhaven
Question. I understand the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee
has recommended that the High Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven be
upgraded and restarted. When will the EIS on the reactor be completed?
Answer. On October 8-9, 1997, the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory
Committee (BESAC) met to review the scientific case for the HFBR. In
its report, the Committee recommended that the HFBR be restarted `` * *
* at 30 MW and move up to 60 MW in a timely manner * * *.'' However, ``
* * * if the start-up were to be at 30 MW with no clear plan to move to
60 MW, it should not be done * * *.'' The reason BESAC recommended the
60 MW operation is that 30 MW operation `` * * * will not provide a
facility that warrants the expenditure of the funds that will be
required for the restart.'' BESAC did not recommend that the HFBR be
upgraded at this time; rather, the recommendation was for restart with
a clear path to 60 MW operation.
At its meeting in October, 1997, BESAC also recommended a full
Environmental Impact Statement before restarting HFBR. The EIS process
started with the issuance of the Notice of Intent on November 24, 1997.
The Department conducted three scoping meetings, the last of which was
held on January 15, 1998. The EIS is scheduled to be completed and the
record of decision issued in December 1998.
Question. If the Department decides to pursue an upgrade, how much
would that cost?
Answer. A non-preferred alternative is included in the EIS that
analyzes upgrading the reactor vessel, beam tubes and beam lines and
scientific instruments. The estimated cost of that upgrade is about
$150 million.
Question. Have you determined how much tritium has leaked from the
spent fuel storage pool and if that tritium will reach a drinking water
aquifer?
Answer. The total amount of tritium leaked is not precisely known;
DOE has focused its resources on correcting the problem by removing the
water from the spent-fuel pool and cleaning up the plume.
All of the water from the spent-fuel pool was pumped out as of
December 30, 1997. The project to remove the water was completed ahead
of schedule and under budget. All of the tritium released is on the BNL
site, and has not reached any off-site drinking water.
In May 1997, BNL started pumping the contaminated groundwater to
prevent the tritium from leaving the site boundary in concentrations
above the state and federal drinking water standards. Monitoring wells
directly south of the recharge basin and of the tritium plume will be
sampled routinely to make sure that the groundwater leaving the BNL
site meets EPA drinking water standards.
Question. Last week a geologist that used to work at Brookhaven
claimed that radioactive material may have leaked into the groundwater
at Brookhaven as early as 1959. Could you provide for the record a list
of all ongoing environmental problems at Brookhaven?
Answer. The major environmental challenges at Brookhaven National
Laboratory are cleanup of contaminated groundwater and soils and
stabilizing the Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor for
decontamination and decommissioning.
Brookhaven National Laboratory is a designated Federal and State
Superfund site. A tri-party Interagency Agreement was executed in 1992
among the Department of Energy, the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency that integrates cleanup requirements under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act. The Interagency Agreement
contains a list of 29 Areas of Concern which require assessment and
possible remediation, including the Building 650 Sump Outfall area and
the tritium plume from the spent fuel pool at the High Flux Beam
Reactor. BNL is located above a sole source aquifer and one of the
major environmental issues is groundwater contamination with volatile
organic compounds and radionuclides (tritium and strontium-90). The
final decisions on the cleanups for these problems are expected to be
made over the next year pursuant to this Interagency Agreement.
Accelerated actions completed to date include the connection of
approximately 1,500 residents to public water as a precautionary
measure because of off-site volatile organic compound groundwater
contamination from BNL, the capping of three landfills, the excavation
of fifty five buried waste pits, the construction and operation of four
groundwater treatment systems, and the removal of numerous tanks and
cesspools. A fifth groundwater treatment system is scheduled to be
built off-site this year.
The Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor was the first reactor
built for the sole purpose of providing neutrons for research. It
operated from 1950 to 1968. During a recent facility review,
radioactively contaminated water was found in the cooling systems
channels. BNL is stabilizing the facility prior to decontamination and
decommissioning.
Both the Superfund cleanup and the decontamination and
decommissioning of the Graphite Research Reactor would be completed in
2006 under the draft planning document, ``Accelerating Cleanup: Paths
to Closure.''
I would be pleased to provide a list of ongoing environmental
problems at Brookhaven for the record.
brookhaven national laboratory
environmental restoration--list of areas of concern
1. Hazardous Waste Management Area.
1b. Groundwater.
2a-e. Chemical/Animal/Glass Holes.
2f. Ash Pit.
3. Current Landfill.
4. Sewage Treatment Plant.
5. Central Steam Facility.
6. Building 650 and Sump Outfall Area.
7. Paint Shop.
8. Experimental Agricultural Fields.
9. Brookhaven Graphite Reactor.
10. Waste Concentration Facility.
11. Building 830 Pipe Leak.
12. Building 830 Underground Storage Tanks.
13. Cesspools.
14. Bubble Chamber Spill Area.
15a. Potable/Supply Wells.
15b. Monitoring Well 130-02.
16. Aerial RadSurvey Results.
17. Area Adjacent to Former Low-Mass Criticality Facility.
18. AGS Scrapyard.
19. Building T-111 TCE Spill Area.
20. Particle Beam Dump, North End of Linear Accelerator.
21. Leaking Sewer Pipes.
22. Old Firehouse.
23. Offsite Tritium Plumes.
24a. Process Supply Wells 104, 105.
24b. Recharge Basin HP.
24c. Recharge Basin HN.
24d. Recharge Basin HO.
24e. Recharge Basin HS.
24f. New Stormwater Runoff Recharge Basin.
25. Building 479.
26. Building 208.
27. Building 464.
28. EDB Groundwater Contamination.
29. HFBR Spent Fuel Pool and Tritium Groundwater Plume.
radiation protection standards
Question. I am frustrated that we spend billions of dollars each
year cleaning up DOE sites and regulating commercial reactor sites to
within 5 percent of background radiation. I am interested in the
possibility that our current radiation protection standards, which
assume a linear relationship between radiation exposure and cancer,
with no minimum level below which radiation might not be harmful, might
be wrong. Last year's Act required the Department to develop a multi-
year program, including budgets for the next 10 years, to understand
the effects of low levels of radiation. Have you completed the plan?
Answer. A general description of the multi-year low dose research
program has been included in Dr. Krebs' prepared statement for the
record of March 10, 1998, to the Senate Appropriations Committee. That
description includes the outline and most of the details of a program
plan. An excerpt of this material is being provided to you. A specific
program plan will be available by April 15, 1998. (The information
follows:)
Low Dose Radiation Exposure Program
In response to guidance in the Conference Report for the fiscal
year 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriation, BER is initiating
and carrying out ``a rigorous, peer-reviewed research program that will
apply the molecular level knowledge gained from the Department's human
genome and structural biology research to ascertain the effects on
levels ranging from cells to whole organisms that arise from low-dose-
rate exposures to energy and defense-related insults (such as radiation
and chemicals).''
The BER Health Effects Research Program is currently being
restructured. One aspect of this restructured program will be research
on the mechanisms of cellular responses to low dose, low dose rate
exposures to radiation and chemicals. Solicitations for new research
have been made. Preproposals from National Laboratories were received
January 16 and preapplications are due from Universities on March 26.
Formal proposals and applications will be reviewed in May and June and
new research will be funded in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999.
Additional peer reviews will be conducted and new research funded in
fiscal year 2000.
The new Low Dose Radiation Exposure Program will include research
on: (1) the identification/characterization of genes/gene products that
determine/affect cellular responses to low level exposures; (2)
individual differences in susceptibility to low level exposures; and
(3) methods to relate molecular level information on cellular responses
to low level exposures to health risk. Funding for this program will be
$3 million in fiscal year 1998, $5 million in fiscal year 1999, and $10
million per year in fiscal year 2000-2007.
The program will leverage the results of previous DOE research on
DNA repair, cell cycle regulation, radiation-induced gene expression,
tissue effects on regulating cell responses and phenotypes, and
susceptibility genes. The program will use resources, information, and
technologies developed in the human genome program and information on
the structure of critical molecules involved in cellular responses to
low level exposures developed in the structural biology program. The
program will maintain links with related efforts outside of DOE. These
include an international effort to pool cancer risk data from indoor
radon exposures, ongoing activities of the National Research Council
and the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate risks from low level
radiation exposures, and a new low dose radiation risk consortium
coordinated by Canadian scientists.
A lead scientist will be selected for this program from applicants
who receive funding from the current solicitations for new research.
The lead scientist will be an expert on mechanisms of cell responses to
low dose exposures, will facilitate collaborations and information
exchange among scientists, and will be a critical resource of
information on this new program and the broader scientific and
regulatory issues associated with low level exposures. Workshops with
funded investigators, other experts, regulators, policy makers, and
other agencies will be held every 18 months to maximize information
exchange and program progress. The first workshop for new program
investigators will be held in the fall or early winter of 1998.
As requested in the Conference Report for the fiscal year 1998
Energy and Water Development Appropriation, a ten year program plan,
including budgets, will be available by April 15, 1998.
Question. Does your budget include optimum level funding for that
program?
Answer. The current program plan calls for $3 million in fiscal
year 1998, $5 million in fiscal year 1999, and $10 million for each of
the subsequent eight years. This is intended to be, ``a rigorous, peer-
reviewed research program that will apply the molecular level knowledge
gained from the Department's human genome and structural biology
research to ascertain the effects on levels ranging from cells to whole
organisms that arise from low- dose-rate exposures to energy and
defense-related insults.'' Two factors will determine the scientific
success of this program: (1) the quality and progress of the research
and (2) the amount of research that can be supported. Scientific
progress takes time. In the near term, by redirections in existing
budgets, we will fund this program as best we can. This will require
making difficult choices to terminate ongoing excellent scientific
work. It is difficult to determine optimum levels under such
circumstances. We believe, that a $10 million annual investment over
the life of this program is sufficient to address the program goals.
Additional funds would allow us to expand the range of research topics
and issues addressed by the program.
Question. When will we be able to determine the effects of low-
level ionizing radiation?
Answer. The program is a basic science program involving
``rigorous, peer-reviewed research.'' It is our intent that this
program will determine the effects from low-dose-rate exposures to
energy and defense-related insults, including radiation, within the
designated time frame of the program. However, the pace of scientific
progress cannot be predicted with precision. The first set of projects
funded by this program may provide the critical answers being sought.
Equally likely, these same projects may only identify the critical
experiments that need to be done. Our strategy for managing this
research program is designed to maximize rapid progress through ongoing
program reviews and workshops that include principal investigators,
other scientists, regulators, policy makers, and other agencies.
human genome program
Question. For fiscal year 1999, the Department has requested $85.3
million for the Human Genome program, the NIH has requested $350
million, and I understand industry may spend that much again on its own
sequencing. Would you describe the relationship between those three
efforts?
Answer. The U.S. Human Genome Project has been jointly coordinated
by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) since 1988. High throughput DNA sequencing is currently the major
focus of both the DOE and NIH genome programs. All sequence information
supported by DOE and NIH is rapidly submitted to public databases.
Sequencing laboratories supported by both agencies participate in an
international effort to coordinate human DNA sequencing to minimize
overlapping sequencing efforts. The DOE and NIH participate in the peer
review of research conducted by both agencies. DOE is an active
participant in the sequencing quality tests coordinated by NIH. Both
agencies are currently planning a workshop to discuss and plan the
current and future needs in data management and analysis for the genome
program. DOE and NIH are working together on the next five year plan
for the U.S. Human Genome Project for fiscal year 1999-2003. Industry
is making a considerable investment in human DNA sequencing; however,
for the most part, this sequence data is not submitted to public
databases but is used for internal research and development. In
addition, the DOE and NIH efforts are focused on determining the
complete sequence of long stretches of human DNA; much of industrial
sequencing is focused on sequencing short sequences of DNA useful as
gene markers that are important in drug development or diagnostics.
Question. Last year was the final year of construction for the
Joint Genome Institute at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. How much of
the DOE's requested Human Genome budget goes to the operation of that
facility?
Answer. DOE funded the construction of the Human Genome Laboratory
at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. This new facility is not the
Joint Genome Institute (JGI). The JGI is a collaboration or ``virtual
laboratory'' whose work is currently conducted at Lawrence Berkeley,
Lawrence Livermore, and Los Alamos National Laboratories. Genome
scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory conduct their share
of JGI activities at the Human Genome Laboratory. Direct funds are
provided for research conducted in the Lawrence Berkeley Human Genome
Laboratory but not for the operation of the building itself.
In August 1998, the JGI will open a production sequencing facility
in Walnut Creek, California. This laboratory will be used as a state-
of-the-art robotics factory for the sequencing of DNA and will be the
only building or laboratory specifically designated as a JGI facility.
Question. The JASON's committee issued a review of the Human Genome
program in January. The Committee concluded that present sequencing
technology leaves much to be desired and must be replaced by a new
technology if the full potential of the genome is going to be used. Do
you concur with that assessment, and, if so, how much is the Department
spending in non-EP technology development?
Answer. The present sequencing technology, based upon
electrophoresis (EP) technology is considered adequate for the
immediate needs of the genome program. However, it is likely to be
inadequate to meet the requirements of the program for high throughput
sequencing as we approach the year 2005, when the first complete
sequence of the human genome is to be completed. The need for DNA
sequencing in the research laboratory or the medical laboratory will
not end with the completion of the initial sequencing phase of the
human genome program. It is generally agreed that the EP technology
cannot meet the needs for determining sequence information for the wide
range of applications of genomics beyond the goal for the year 2005.
The Department is spending $1,980,000 in fiscal year 1998 for research
into technologies that are not based upon electrophoresis (non-EP)
technologies. The Department will redirect the genome instrumentation
research subprogram during fiscal year 1999. The redirected subprogram
will address the points raised in the report by the JASON's committee
and will likely contain an increase in the level of funding for
research into non-EP technologies for sequencing.
fusion energy sciences
Question. I would like to commend the Fusion Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee for recognizing that the emperor had no clothes by
declaring what those of us who do the budgets have known for some time;
the international community will not spend $12 billion on the next
fusion machine.
The fusion community is now developing low cost alternatives to the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor.
Has the Department provided any guidance as to what the United
States might contribute to a less expensive international machine?
Answer. I am delighted that we and our ITER partners are now
agreeing to focus our efforts on lower-cost options for this major step
in fusion research. Within the proposed three-year ITER extension
period, we expect to provide decision-makers in the four Parties with a
broad range of options that will enhance the probability of moving to
joint construction of an attractive, affordable next step. We have not
yet stated what the U.S. might contribute to a lower-cost ITER. First
we want to see the outcome of the joint efforts to prepare lower-cost
designs and assess the level and nature of our fusion budget support
from the Congress in the next few years.
Question. This Subcommittee funds two totally separate fusion
programs; one in defense and one in non-defense, and at least six
different technologies all with the goal of achieving controlled
ignition; glass lasers, KrF lasers, heavy ion drivers, light ion
drivers, magnetic confinement, and pulsed power.
We are not going to fund all these technologies indefinitely. When
are we going to be able to make a down selection?
Answer. The Department does have two separate fusion programs, and,
although they are interrelated, they serve quite different missions.
The mission of Energy Research's Fusion Energy Sciences program is
to acquire the knowledge base needed for an economically and
environmentally attractive fusion energy source. The understanding of
ignition, or burning plasma physics, is a key element of that knowledge
base. We are depending on international collaboration, in particular
through ITER, for experimental exploration of burning plasma physics.
While the Fusion Energy Sciences program is predominantly focussed on
magnetic fusion research, it also contains a small component focussed
on the energy aspects of inertial confinement, especially the physics
of heavy ion accelerators. We are depending on the work of the
Department's Defense Programs to provide the most important element of
inertial fusion energy, namely the target physics.
The mission of Defense Programs' Inertial Confinement Fusion
program is to support stockpile stewardship, and the National Ignition
Facility is a major element of that program. An intermediate goal of
the National Ignition Facility is an ignited target driven by glass
laser technology. Within the Inertial Confinement Fusion program, other
drivers are supported for near-term research and for possible future
applications in the Stockpile Stewardship program. The light ion
driver, however, has been dropped and will not be supported after this
year. The pulsed power program and the KrF laser program are being
funded to provide scientific results now for Stockpile Stewardship and
to understand their potential for future capability needed by the
Stewardship program.
The restructuring of the Fusion Energy Sciences program, mandated
by Congress in 1995, eliminated milestones for the development of
fusion energy and resulted in a science driven program with an emphasis
on innovation, including increased efforts in plasma science and on
alternate concepts. A major issue for the magnetic fusion community had
been that we had ``down selected'' too soon in magnetic fusion. The
time to ``down select'' will be when the science is further developed
so that when the country is ready to proceed with the development of
fusion energy, a fully informed down select decision can be made.
thomas jefferson national accelerator facility
Question. Last year's Appropriations Act recommended that the
Department provide an additional $3 million for the operation of the
accelerator at the Jefferson Lab so the facility could operate for an
additional 8 weeks.
Consistently, the conferees provided a $5 million increase for the
program and no other direction or earmarks.
Instead of increasing its budget as recommended, you provided the
laboratory with $2.3 million less than you said you would in your
fiscal year 1998 request.
Why did you reduce the budget, and how did you spend that money on
something else without submitting a reprogramming request?
Answer. As described in the fiscal year 1998 columns of the
Congressional Budget requests for both fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
1999, the Nuclear Physics program provided Thomas Jefferson National
Accelerator Facility (TJNAF) in fiscal year 1998 $1.25 million more
than the budgets requested. Following recommendations by TJNAF, the
distribution of these funds between facility operations and research
support was optimized for support of the user program. Allocation of
undistributed general reductions at the ``Science'' appropriation total
for prior year balances, training for contractor principal
investigators, and other departmental and programmatic priorities
reduced the total funding available for research and operations
objectives. The Nuclear Physics program office is presently reviewing
options for distribution of its remaining fiscal year 1998 funds to
optimize scientific output for fiscal year 1998.
The following table compares the fiscal year 1998 budget request
with the current estimate.
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
[Whole Dollars]
Congressional request................................... $67,350,000
Current estimate........................................ $68,600,000
kyoto accord
Question. Mr. Reicher, I am uncertain about any correlation between
greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change. I am also worried
that the restraints the United States will have to impose on its energy
choices in order to meet the Kyoto Agreement targets will also restrain
our economy. But, if one assumes a causal relationship between
greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, isn't it true that capping
emissions at 1990 levels still results in a continuing increase in
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
Answer. The relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and
atmospheric concentrations of those gases is complex and is explored
below. The simple answer is that capping emissions at 1990 levels--with
no further actions--would still result in increased greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere. The Kyoto agreement by itself will not decrease
concentrations of these gases but rather cut the rate of increase.
Reductions in concentrations within a time frame that significantly
reduces the threat of increased global warming will require more
substantial and widespread emissions reductions than those negotiated
at Kyoto. However, the Kyoto agreement is a vital first step for two
reasons. First, in order to enable more substantial and widespread
emissions reductions in the future, policies must be put in place that
accelerate the use of advanced, low-emission technologies available
today and new technologies must be developed that can reduce emissions
at relatively low cost. The agreement reached in Kyoto is already
motivating such actions and investments in several nations. The Climate
Change Technology Initiative proposed in the fiscal year 1999 budget
request is in fact the Administration plan to develop and accelerate
the use of key technologies in the buildings, industry, transportation
and power sectors that will play key roles in reducing emissions while
simultaneously providing environmental benefits and cost savings in the
nearer term. Second, the longer the world remains on the present path
of emissions growth, the more difficult it ultimately may be to reduce
concentrations to acceptable levels. Even cutting the rate of emissions
growth in the near term will make reaching long term targets less
difficult.
The atmospheric concentrations of important greenhouse gases have
grown significantly from pre-industrial levels to the present day. For
example, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-
industrial level of 275 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 360 ppmv
in 1992, while methane has increased from 700 parts per billion (ppbv)
to 1720 ppbv. Most scientists now agree that these increases are
responsible for a human-induced, discernable effect on the Earth's
climate system. These increases in atmospheric concentrations of these
greenhouse gases directly result from increased emissions of these
gases from human-related activities. However, concentrations rise much
more slowly than emissions and the gases persist in the atmosphere long
after they are emitted. Carbon dioxide has an atmospheric lifetime of
50 to 200 years, methane about 12 years, and nitrous oxide about 120
years. This means that there is a significant time lag between the
moment that these gases are released into the atmosphere and the time
when the gases are cleansed out of the atmosphere through natural
processes. Thus, as noted above, taking an initial step is extremely
important and increased investments in energy efficient and clean
energy technologies are of vital importance to reducing emissions in
the future.
Question. If our objective is to stabilize the levels of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere, maybe at two times the pre-industrial level,
and support a growing world population with developed economies, don't
we need a whole different set of technologies like fission and fusion
to meet base-load energy requirements?
Answer. The challenge that global climate change poses requires a
comprehensive, multi-year technology approach. There is no single
technology--or even a small set of technologies--that is likely to be
able to meet this challenge. Rather, a diverse portfolio of
technologies that meets our needs in the near to long term is required.
It is critical that our nation begin to invest in this portfolio of
technologies that can lower the mid- to long-term costs of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions--especially since other nations are racing to
develop these technologies. Such a portfolio--including energy
efficiency, low-carbon energy production and carbon sequestration
technologies--will require many years to develop, so it is critical
that we begin this work now to minimize costs. In addition, development
and widespread use of this technology portfolio will likely provide
many other benefits--including reduced energy costs, increased energy
security, improved urban air quality, and greater U.S. competitiveness.
This portfolio will include a wide range of technologies that will
provide opportunities in the near to mid term, long term and very long
term. Several recent studies have examined the potential role
technology can play in reducing greenhouse gases. The study ``Scenarios
of U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy Technologies by
2010 and Beyond,'' by five leading national laboratories, concluded
that accelerated use of energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies
and development of new technologies could substantially cut the cost of
reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The report of the President's
Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, ``Federal Energy
Research and Development for the Challenges of the 21st Century,''
recommended expansion of a number of national energy R&D programs and
targeted energy efficiency and renewable energy programs for the
greatest increases in funding. In the development of the Climate Change
Technology Initiative, the Administration weighed the potential of
various opportunities across technologies and time periods. The budget
proposal supports a portfolio that balances nearer term opportunities
with longer term investments.
Between the present and 2010, the largest opportunities for
emissions reductions are in making more efficient use of fossil and
nuclear fuels. These energy sources account for over 90 percent of
current energy use and will continue to dominate energy markets for
some time. Energy efficiency technologies produce equivalent energy
services from less primary energy--thus lowering emissions for those
energy services. Technologies such as advanced automobiles and trucks,
high efficiency motors, industrial combined heat and power systems, and
high efficiency lighting and building equipment can substantially cut
the rate of growth in greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these
technologies are available today--the opportunity in the near term is
to accelerate the use of those available today while developing even
more efficient technologies for the future. While some clean energy
technologies--including renewable energy and higher capacity factors at
current nuclear plants--will also play a role in this time frame, most
of the low-cost emission reductions are likely to be due to investments
in energy efficiency.
By 2010, a portfolio of clean energy technologies--including an
array of low-cost renewable energy, fuel cells, high-efficiency coal
power, and improved nuclear power technologies will play an
increasingly important role. The restructured electricity environment
will also likely favor highly efficient generation technologies,
environmentally-friendly energy sources and distributed power. These
technologies will enable further emissions reductions that are not
economically viable today. After 2020, a new generation of energy
technologies--brought about by R&D investments we begin today--will
enable even greater emission reductions. These technologies include
widespread use of a variety of carbon sequestration methods; advanced
nuclear fission; very low cost advanced renewable energy; energy plexes
that produce power, clean fuel and chemical products; advanced
industrial processes; fusion power; and others that we cannot foresee.
These advanced technologies will be extremely important, but the many
components of the overall technology portfolio--both today's
technologies and those in the future--will have important roles in
meeting the challenge of global warming.
Question. This week's Science magazine includes an article co-
written by a Sandia scientist that claims China's demand for oil and
coal over the next two decades will offset any gains from the Kyoto
Accord. How big a percentage reduction in annual global greenhouse gas
emissions will occur because of the Kyoto Accord?
Answer. The goal set at Kyoto is to reduce global greenhouse gas
emissions from the Annex I nations 6-8 percent below their emissions in
1990 in the period of 2008 to 2012. From this, one can estimate the
percentage reduction in annual global greenhouse gas emissions that
will occur because of the Kyoto Accord.
Global emissions of greenhouse gases in 1990 were 6,000 million
metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE). Of this, about 5,830 MMTCE
were from the use of fossil fuels. Annex I nations emitted about 3,775
MMTCE greenhouse gases in 1990. If all Annex I nations comply with the
Kyoto agreement, at the levels prescribed in the treaty, these nations
would emit about 3,560 MMTCE per year in the year 2010. This reduction
amounts to about 215 MMTCE below their 1990 levels of emission and
considerably lower than emissions forecast in the absence of an
agreement. This reduction of 215 MMTCE is a 3.6 percent reduction in
total annual global greenhouse gas emissions from Annex I and non-Annex
I nations relative to the total 1990 level.
renewable energy
Question. The Energy Information Administration reports that, of
total energy consumption in the United States, non-hydroelectric
renewable energy was: 3.6 percent in 1991, 3.8 percent in 1992, and 3.7
percent in 1993, 1994, and 1995--the last year for which the
Administration has compiled data.
With all the money we have put into this program, why can't
renewable energy expand its market share?
Answer. More recent data presented by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) in its 1998 Annual Energy Outlook (Table A17) for
non-hydro electric generation (in billion kilowatt-hours) is as
follows:
1994.............................................................. 48.4
1995.............................................................. 44.5
1996.............................................................. 45.8
2000.............................................................. 53.6
2010.............................................................. 63.6
2020.............................................................. 74.7
This data shows a reduction in non-hydro renewable generation in
the U.S. from 1994 to 1996, due to decreases in geothermal and biomass
electric generation associated with the expiration of older, higher-
priced power purchase contracts. More generally, the combined impacts
of uncertainty from electricity restructuring, lower competing fossil
fuel prices, and continued increases in competing gas turbine
generation efficiencies have slowed the renewable energy generation in
the U.S. last several years.
In other parts of the developed world, where electricity prices are
higher, and public policy attention has been placed on non-technical
barriers to renewables deployment, market expansion has been
considerably greater (e.g., in Japan, where photovoltaic systems are
being widely deployed, and in Germany, where the number of wind and
photovoltaic systems is growing rapidly). In less developed parts of
the world, where many people lack access to grid- supplied electricity,
renewable electricity systems are making significant inroads, often
being the lowest-cost option for bringing electrification to rural
areas. As a result, global sales of photovoltaic systems have grown at
more than 20 percent annually over the past seven years, and U.S.
market share has climbed to more than 40 percent. This trend should
continue in the future as renewable energy costs are further reduced by
the Department's joint R&D programs with industry, and public policy
concerns increase market demand for clean energy sources. While utility
industry restructuring may have temporarily slowed renewable energy in-
roads, restructuring will also provide opportunities. The growth in
consumer choice over electricity providers will result in significant
expansion of ``green'' supply programs. The number of States that
establish renewable energy portfolio standards in concert with
restructuring legislation will grow.
renewable energy
Question. According to the Energy Information Administration, solar
technologies now produce 8-one hundredths of a percent of total energy
consumption, and wind energy produces 3-one hundredths of a percent of
total U.S. energy consumption.
What percentage do you predict they will produce by 2010?
Answer. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a semi-
independent element of the Department of Energy that collects and
analyzes energy data and provides status summaries and outyear
forecasts. Their objectivity and avoidance of bias are unquestioned
within the Department and, we believe, by many outside as well.
However, EIA acknowledges that models used to forecast energy trends
and future fuel demand do not account for technology improvements,
policy changes, new legislation, or institutional metamorphoses such as
utility restructuring. For these reasons, EIA projections of adoption
rates for renewable energy systems--a group of energy technologies
subject to continuing technical advancements and policy treatment--are
traditionally low.
Over the next 10-12 years, the emergence of portfolio standards,
``green'' programs, new Federal or State legislation on utility
restructuring and increasingly stringent clear air standards will
influence the penetration rate of renewable systems. The steady stream
of technology improvements over the same period will result in more
competitive products and systems. The net effect of these changes will
be greater renewable energy penetration than the modest in-roads
projected by EIA on business-as-usual assumptions.
We believe that wind will contribute approximately 9,600 MW to the
nation's new electric capacity needs by 2010. We expect that the solar
technologies (photovoltaics, solar thermal electric, wood and non-
cogeneration biomass under EIA's definition) will add an additional
7,800 MW during the same time period. The 17,400 total megawatts
represents approximately 8 percent of the 200,000+ MW new capacity EIA
projects as needed by 2010--a substantial contribution for these two
classes of renewables.
renewable energy
Question. The Energy Information Administration also forecasts
that, between now and 2020, coal prices will drop 28 percent while
natural gas prices will slightly increase. Do you estimate the United
States will burn more or less coal in 2020 than it does today?
Answer. The Reference Case of the Energy Information
Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 1998 projects that coal
consumption will rise from 20.9 quads in 1996 to 25.6 quads in 2020. By
2020, an estimated 90 percent of this coal will be used to generate
electricity at base load power plants. However, this projection is a
``business as usual'' forecast that explicitly assumes that there are
no changes in policy or major changes in technology. In other words, it
assumes that the U.S. does little or nothing to change its energy or
environmental emissions trajectory. According to several recent
studies, changes in policies and technologies could reduce future coal
consumption.
The report ``Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts
of Energy Technologies by 2010 and Beyond'', quantifies the potential
for energy efficient and low-carbon technologies to reduce carbon
emissions in the U.S. In this study's ``high-efficiency, low-carbon
scenario'', coal use for electricity generation decreases 24 percent by
2010--resulting in a drop in annual coal consumption of about 5 quads
by that year. This translates into essentially no growth or a slight
decrease in future coal consumption. This scenario assumes increased
end-use efficiency in buildings and industry (decreasing electricity
demand), increased use of natural gas for electricity generation and a
domestic carbon emissions permit trading system with permits priced at
$50 per ton of carbon. Bringing about such a scenario will require
aggressive development of advanced technologies and concurrent policies
to accelerate their use.
While the potential exists to significantly reduce coal
consumption, it is likely that coal consumption will rise at least
somewhat over the next 20 years. Under any plausible scenario, coal
will continue to be an important part of the U.S. energy mix far into
the future. It is therefore vitally important to develop technologies
that enable coal to be used with minimal environmental impact. The
Department is therefore proposing to expand R&D on high-efficiency coal
power generation technologies and carbon sequestration. The new power
technologies--such as integrated gasification combined cycle and fuel
cells--will produce more power and fewer emissions from a given amount
of coal. Sequestration technologies will enable the removal of carbon
from fuels, emission streams or the atmosphere directly and the
permanent storage of this carbon through a variety of means. The
combination of high efficiency power generation and carbon
sequestration technologies will enable both our industrialized nations
and coal-dependent developing nations such as China to continue to use
coal even in a greenhouse gas-constrained future.
funding shortfall
Question. I do not think the Subcommittee will be able to provide a
37 percent increase in Solar and Renewable Energy programs. Would you
provide the Committee your recommendations of the allocation of funding
at the current level?
Answer. Increased investments in renewable energy technology R&D
are of critical importance to the nation. These technologies will
improve local environmental quality, improve the diversity and security
of our energy supply, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve our
long-term competitiveness. These technologies are of critical
importance to meeting the energy and environmental challenges of our
times and of the next century. However, we also recognize the existence
of budget constraints and will work closely with the committee to
identify priorities.
electricity restructuring
Question. The Energy Information Administration predicts in its
December Annual Energy Outlook that renewable energy technologies are
expected to penetrate markets at a slower pace than previously forecast
due to electricity restructuring and increased competition with fossil
fuel technologies. Do you agree with the Energy Information
Administration assessment?
Answer. While their assessment may be likely in the very short
term, I do not agree with the Energy Information Administration's
forecast for renewable energy technologies for the medium and long
term. It is important to understand that the Annual Energy Outlook
(AEO) reference case forecast is a projection of current policies into
the future. It is a continuation of ``business as usual'' into the
future. The penetration of renewable energy technologies in the current
AEO is lower than in the previous edition primarily because of
projected lower generation costs and electricity prices. All else
equal, these factors will tend to decrease renewable energy electricity
generation. However, there are several factors in restructuring not
considered in that forecast that will likely increase the use of
renewable energy. These factors include: (1) the ability of retail
consumers to choose electricity suppliers and the demonstrated consumer
preference for ``green power''; (2) the creation of renewable energy
portfolio standards that require a minimum percentage of renewable
electric power in some states; (3) the creation of state funds to
accelerate the development and deployment of renewable energy
technologies; (4) the likely increase in distributed power
applications; and (5) more stringent environmental requirements.
Retail competition will enable consumers to select their power
supplier based on price and other characteristics. Many utility and
consumer surveys have suggested that an important selection criterion
will be lower levels of emissions from a particular company. Many
utilities have established green power programs in which consumers can
voluntarily purchase electricity from renewable energy sources such as
wind or photovoltaics for a modest price premium. Not only have these
programs proved popular, but in some cases the utility offering the
program cannot keep up with the consumer demand for this product.
Retail competition will likely stimulate similar green power programs
across the country--potentially increasing the market share of
renewable energy.
Several states have established renewable energy portfolio
standards or funds to accelerate the development and deployment of
renewable energy as part of their restructuring legislation. These
actions have been taken for many reasons, including diversifying the
state electricity supply, facilitating the development of the clean
energy industry, and increasing a state's options for compliance with
environmental regulations. Like consumer choice, these actions are
likely to increase the use of renewable energy for electricity
generation.
Restructuring is very likely to increase the use of smaller,
distributed power generation. Such generation will be close to the
consumer and be modular in nature. An example is a combined heat and
power system in an industrial plant that will economically produce both
electricity and steam--with excess electricity sold to a power company.
Other distributed systems likely to be of increased interest include
small turbines, fuel cells, biomass combustion, wind and photovoltaics.
Currently, major barriers exist that discourage such systems, but many
of these barriers will disappear under restructuring.
Finally, the more stringent national air emissions standards for
NOx, ozone and particulates could make renewable energy
technology options more attractive in many situations across the
country. Since these technologies emit few or no emissions, their
attractiveness relative to conventional fossil energy electricity
generation could increase. This change, especially when coupled with
the likely increase in distributed generation, could tend to increase
the use of renewable energy.
The Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan just released by the
Administration includes several features that will stimulate renewable
energy market penetration as described above. These features include:
retail competition in electricity markets; consumer information
required from all electricity companies on generation sources and
emissions; a federal renewable portfolio standard; a $3 billion per
year public benefit fund to provide matching funds to States for
activities such as development and demonstration of emerging
technologies, particularly renewables; net metering for small
independently-owned renewable electricity projects to enable
electricity sales from those projects; and interstate trading of
NOx credits. Each of these factors, if enacted, will tend to
increase the use of renewable energy technologies.
One additional factor not considered in the EIA forecast of
renewable penetration is that rapid growth in international sales by
U.S. renewable energy manufacturers. While the total production level
in, for example, the photovoltaics industry is still modest, the rate
of growth is 20-40 percent per year. This is allowing manufacturers to
increase production volume and decrease unit costs. Higher production
levels, albeit driven to export sales, will drop the domestic costs of
these technologies. All else equal, this will also tend to increase the
market penetration of renewable energy technologies.
In sum, while the projected lower electricity prices under
restructuring will tend to decrease the use of renewable energy
technologies, a variety of other factors will tend to increase their
use. With so many uncertainties in the future evolution of electricity
markets it is difficult to make a prediction, but it is anything but
certain that the use of renewable electricity will decline. In fact,
renewable energy penetration may increase as electricity markets
evolve.
electricity restructuring
Question. What provisions will the Administration propose be
included in an electricity restructuring bill to encourage the use of
renewable energy sources?
Answer. The attached provisions affecting renewable energy are
excerpted from The Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan. The
Administration's Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan will result
in lower prices, a cleaner environment, increased innovation and
government savings. The Department of Energy estimates that retail
competition will save consumers $20 billion a year on their electricity
bills. This translates into direct savings to the typical family of
four of $104 per year and indirect savings, from the lower costs of
other goods and services, of $128 per year. Thus, total savings for a
typical family are estimated to be $232 a year.
Competition will also produce significant environmental benefits
through both market mechanisms and policies that promote investment in
energy efficiency and renewable energy. We expect the Electricity
Competition Plan to produce significant environmental benefits through
these policies. Provisions of the plan that will facilitate the use of
renewable energy include:
--A Public Benefits Fund that will provide matching funds to States
of up to 1.0 mill/kWh, ($3 billion a year) to finance energy
efficiency, renewable energy and other public benefit programs;
--``Green labeling'' provisions to help consumers identify and choose
power from environmentally friendly generators including
renewable energy;
--A Renewable Portfolio Standard, to require that at least 5.5
percent of electricity sales be generated from non-
hydroelectric renewable sources, subject to a cost cap; and
--Trading authority for NOx emissions, to facilitate cost-
effective, market-driven NOx reductions--which will
encourage investment in low- and zero-emissions technologies
such as renewable energy.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Reid
nuclear energy
Question. Dr. Krebs, your submitted statement identifies clearly
the priorities of the Office of Energy Research but does not include an
effort to find new methods of disposing of nuclear waste. Would any of
the $332.6 million requested for Nuclear Physics or $392.6 million
requested for Biological and Environmental Research be applied to
finding ways to store nuclear waste?
I would note that Senator Domenici has been addressing the question
of the future of nuclear power and as I see it, the cost and social
acceptability are two principal obstacles to nuclear power. Your
office, which studies the nature of the nucleus, ought to be examining
the disposal question.
Answer. The mission of the Office of Energy Research programs is to
develop and provide the knowledge base for the Department of Energy;
disposal of nuclear waste is the responsibility of other programs
within the Department.
There are, however, a number of activities within the Office of
Energy Research that provide fundamental science in support of the
disposal of nuclear waste.
In this context, Nuclear Physics (NP) manages the U.S. Nuclear Data
Network, which evaluates and makes available the latest data on-line;
the Nuclear Physics program also maintains the Oak Ridge Electron
Linear Accelerator, which is available to other programs within DOE for
the purpose of obtaining specialized nuclear data.
Similarly, Biological and Environmental Research (BER) does not
fund research on processing or storage of nuclear waste, but it does
support research that might be applicable to storage of civilian
nuclear waste, for example research into new instrumentation for
characterization and monitoring of radioactive materials in the
environment. Such research could result in new instrumentation that
would also be useful for monitoring stored nuclear wastes.
Perhaps the largest activity within the Office of Energy Research
that focuses directly on nuclear waste disposal is associated with the
Environmental Management Science Program. This program is jointly
managed by the Office of Energy Research and the Office of
Environmental Management (EM) and is funded from EM's appropriation.
This program focuses on the cleanup of the former weapons development
sites within the DOE complex and includes research associated with the
disposal of both high level and mixed radioactive waste. Current
support for these areas is about $10.2 million per year.
Within the Basic Energy Sciences program, we support about $10.5
million in broad based fundamental studies of separations, chemistry
and spectroscopy of the actinides and their daughter products. These
studies provide the fundamental understanding that is necessary in
order to ensure their ultimate safe disposal by whatever technology is
deployed. In addition, the Basic Energy Sciences program has, within
the past three years, sponsored two well publicized workshops that
identified fundamental scientific research needs and opportunities with
respect to radiation effects in glasses and crystalline ceramics for
the immobilization of high-level nuclear waste and the disposal of
plutonium. The scientific publication of the findings from these
workshops in open scientific literature makes it likely that the Basic
Energy Sciences program will be receiving some high scientific quality
research proposals that fall within the priority needs that were
identified. The Basic Energy Sciences program is currently funding two
projects that are concerned with understanding and developing reliable
predictive models for the degradation of primary radioactive waste
hosts.
We are also working with the Office of Nuclear Energy Science and
Technology to establish a new directed science program, the Nuclear
Energy Research Initiative (NERI). Planning activities for this program
include a workshop to be held April 23-24, 1998, that will include
researchers from the physics, chemistry and materials communities
supported by the Office of Energy Research and the nuclear engineering
community supported by the Office of Nuclear Energy. The workshop will
focus on research needs and opportunities that can build on the more
fundamental activities within the Office of Energy Research.
hydrogen
Question. In last year's appropriation for the Department of
Energy, $3 million was put within the Office of Energy Research for
hydrogen research. Could you explain what efforts were made with this
funding?
Answer. There is confusion regarding the $3 million identified in
the fiscal year 1998 Energy Research budget for hydrogen research. To
clarify the main point, at the request of the House Appropriations
Committee, the Office of Energy Research was asked to identify ER
funded research in fiscal year 1998 that supported the activities of
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's (EE) programs in
solar and renewable energy. Within the $44 million of ongoing ER
activities that were identified, $3 million supported the hydrogen
program in EE. I would be pleased to provide a listing of current
projects supported in fiscal year 1998. It is again noted that these
are ongoing activities within the base program of the Department's
request and do not represent any added funds by the Congress.
Dr. Mary F. Roberts, Boston College, ``Osmoregulation in
Methanogens.''
Dr. Laurens Mets, University of Chicago, ``Molecular genetic
analysis of biophotolytic hydrogen production in green algae.''
Dr. Michael W.W. Adams, University of Georgia, ``The Metabolism of
Hydrogen by Extremely Thermophilic Bacteria.''
Dr. William B. Whitman, University of Georgia, ``Biochemistry and
Genetics of Autotrophy in Methanococcus.''
Dr. Ralph S. Wolfe, University of Illinois, ``Studies on the
Microbial Formation of Methane.''
Dr. Robert J. Maier, Johns Hopkins University, ``Bacterial Nickel
Metabolism for Hydrogenase Synthesis.''
Dr. Judy Wall, University of Missouri, ``Genetics and Molecular
Biology of Hydrogen Metabolism in Sulfate Reducing Bacteria.''
Dr. John N. Reeve, Ohio State University, ``Structure and
Regulation of Methanogen Genes.''
Dr. Michael J. McInerney, University of Oklahoma, ``Energetics and
kinetics of syntrophic aromatic degradation.''
Dr. Daniel J. Arp, Oregon State University, ``Characterization of
the Genes Involved in Nitrification.''
Dr. Louis Sherman, Purdue University, ``A Genetic Analysis of the
Lumenal Proteins of the Photosystem II 02-evolving Complex in
Cyanobacteria.''
R. Eisenberg, University of Rochester, ``Photochemistry of Platinum
Group Elements: Applications to Energy Conversion and Bond
Activation.''
E. Greenbaum, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ``Kinetics of Enzyme-
Catalyzed Processes.''
J.K. Hurst, Washington State University, ``Membrane-Organized
Chemical Photoredox Systems.''
T.E. Mallouk, Pennsylvania State University, ``Electron Transfer
Reactions in Microporous Solids.''
N. Sutin, C. Creutz, Brookhaven National Laboratory, ``Thermal,
Photo-, and Radiation-Induced Reactions in Condensed Media'', ``Solar
Hydrogen-Related Projects in the Division of Chemical Sciences.''
Question. Assuming general science research still needs to be done
with hydrogen, wouldn't funds be used effectively if there is
coordination with hydrogen applications and technologies within Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy office under Assistant Secretary Dan
Reicher?
Answer. Coordination through effective communication between basic
and applied research programs benefit both offices. Effective
communication provides a mechanism to funnel new fundamental
discoveries to a focused program in technology research and development
while problems that come up in applied programs are often a source of
good fundamental questions. The Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EE) and the Office of Energy Research (ER) have
acknowledged the need for improved communication. On November 12, 1997,
the staff from both offices met to discuss numerous activities
currently underway and what future activities were being considered.
The development of new mechanisms for encouraging fuller exchanges
between the two offices will be a continuing activity. Within the
hydrogen area, two technical staff from ER will participate in the
annual program review of EE's hydrogen program in April 1998.
Discussions have been initiated on establishing a more formal
coordination mechanism within the Department similar to the Hydrogen
Energy Coordinating Committee.
lopsided budget request
Question. In a budget request that is lopsided in its increases and
decreases, ``Basic Energy Sciences'' receives a 25 percent increase
raising the allocation to $836.1 million. This program would be the
link, as I see it, of the sciences to the Climate Change Initiatives of
the Administration. Would it be correct to say that if there were no
Global Climate Change Treaty this year that you would not need the
entire $836 million?
Answer. The Basic Energy Sciences budget request shows an increase
of $168.8 million. Three main activities account for this increase, the
largest of which is the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), a project that
is independent of our activities related to the Climate Change
Technology Initiative (CCTI). The three activities that constitute the
main components of the increase to the BES budget are: (1) initiation
of Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) construction; (2) Scientific
Facilities Utilization; and (3) carbon management science.
Initiation of Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) Construction. Fiscal
year 1999 funding of $157.0 million is requested for the SNS Project to
begin Title I design activities, initiate subcontracts and long-lead
procurements, and continue critical research and development work
necessary to reduce technical and schedule risks. The $128.4 million in
construction and $28.6 million in research funding in fiscal year 1999
is an increase of $134.0 million over the $23.0 million for SNS
research in fiscal year 1998.
Scientific Facilities Utilization. Fiscal year 1999 funding of $317
million is requested to maintain support of the scientific user
facilities, an increase of $46.0 million over fiscal year 1998.
Research funding for the SNS accounts for $28.6 million of this
increase. The remainder, $17.4 million, includes increases for the
synchrotron radiation light sources and for the neutron scattering
facilities to adjust for increased cost-of-living expenses. In
addition, funds are provided to the National Synchrotron Light Source
for increased support for users; to the light source community for
instrumentation and beamline construction at the light sources; and for
increased research activities at the Combustion Research Facility,
which will complete construction of Phase II in fiscal year 1999.
Carbon Management Science. A fiscal year 1999 funding increase of
$16.0 million is requested for carbon management science. This research
will build on the strengths of current Energy Research programs and
promises maximum impact in the area of carbon management. Focus areas
include: science for efficient technologies; fundamental science
underpinning advances in all low/no carbon energy sources; and
sequestration science. The research activities will be important in
maintaining fossil fuel production and use in an environment more and
more attuned to greenhouse gas emissions.
The remaining $1.4 million increase is the result of several
offsetting increases and decreases throughout the program.
Question. In the ``Computational and Technology Research,'' which
has a $10 million increase, you have written that this Program ``builds
on the existing capabilities and skills of universities, national
laboratories, and industrial research institutions.'' Would you explain
why some of the work done in the ``Mathematical, Information and
Computational Sciences'' Activities is not duplicative of the work done
at private firms, and educational institutions?
Answer. The work in Mathematical, Information and Computational
Sciences is carefully managed to avoid duplication of efforts.
First, the work funded by this office is focused on providing
advanced tools and research in mathematics needed to accomplish the
Department of Energy's missions.
Second, the work is also focused at the leading edge of technology
to support the Department of Energy's requirements. In this area there
is either no significant industrial investment or we form partnerships
with industrial researchers to ensure that there is no duplication. In
fact, many of the technologies and tools developed in the Mathematical,
Information and Computational Sciences program, such as the High
Performance Parallel Interface (HiPPI), are adopted as industry
standards after our research has provided the scientific and technical
basis.
Third, a significant fraction of this research (about 35 percent)
is conducted at educational institutions. There are two reasons for
this: to make the best use of research funding by taking advantage of
the intellectual resources at U.S. universities; and to encourage the
education of graduate students in mathematical and computational
sciences to fill future national and DOE personnel requirements.
Finally, through meetings of the working groups formed by the
Computing, Information, and Communications Research and Development
Committee of the National Science and Technology Council there are
ongoing discussions with program managers at other Federal agencies to
coordinate our research efforts in these areas and avoid duplication.
Question. Dr. Krebs, there is in total a significant increase in
your budget, focusing on many activities, like the fragile histidine
triad and the Spallation Neutron Source, that few up here in the
Congress fully grasp. Yet, you want us to take it on your word, which
we often do, that these activities are essential to our national
interest. At some point I will venture that our faith will weaken; but
will you be able to provide greater evidence that these activities are
essential?
Answer. The two activities mentioned in this question--the
determination of the structure of the fragile histidine triad and the
construction of the Spallation Neutron Source--are very different
activities, yet both represent years of strong and enduring support and
recommendations from the broad scientific communities. The
determination of the structure of the fragile histidine triad
represents early results from the Advanced Photon Source. The
initiation of construction of the Spallation Neutron Source represents
our commitment to fulfill the recommendations of the scientific
community put forth since 1984 to construct major scientific user
facilities for photon and neutron science studies. Indeed, the Advanced
Photon Source was one of the four facilities recommended at that time.
The Advanced Photon Source (APS)--our newest and largest
synchrotron radiation light source--was commissioned in May, 1996, and
promises significant advances in fields ranging from materials science
to biology. The highlight in my budget testimony on the structural
determination and biochemical analysis of the human fragile histidine
triad (FHIT) protein is one of the recent results from work at the APS.
The FHIT protein is a member of the histidine triad family of proteins
and derives from a fragile site on human chromosome 3. It is commonly
disrupted in association with human cancers, although definitive
evidence supporting its role as a tumor suppresser has yet to be
elucidated. The new crystal structure shows that FHIT is similar to
another histidine triad (HIT) family member that was also solved at
APS, which is highly conserved throughout mammalian evolution. The data
also show that, contrary to previous studies, FHIT catalysis is not
metal dependent. Structural and biochemical analyses of these different
HIT proteins using DOE facilities such as APS will better focus the
search for their functions in living systems.
The Spallation Neutron Source is a major scientific user facility
for neutron scattering that will be used by 1,000-2,000 scientists from
academia, industry, and national laboratories annually. We have been
working for two decades with the scientific community to envision this
next-generation neutron scattering facility for basic and applied
research and for technology development in the fields of condensed
matter physics, materials sciences, magnetic materials, polymers and
complex fluids, chemistry, and biology. The need for the SNS dates to
the 1970's and the 1980's when the scientific community became
increasingly concerned about the state of neutron sources in the U.S.
In 1984, the broad-based National Research Council study ``Major
Facilities for Materials Research and Related Disciplines'' chaired by
Frederick Seitz and Dean Eastman recommended the following four
facilities: (1) a 6 GeV synchrotron radiation light source, which
became the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory; (2)
an advanced, high-flux, steady-state neutron source, which became the
Advanced Neutron Source, terminated in 1995; (3) a 1-2 GeV synchrotron
radiation light source, which became the Advanced Light Source at
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; and (4) a high-intensity pulsed
neutron facility, which is the Spallation Neutron Source. The Secretary
of Energy's Energy Research Advisory Board reviewed the National
Research Council's report and recommended to the Secretary in June 1985
that ``the prerequisites and scientific priorities set down in the
Major Materials Facilities Report are consistent with the needs of the
Department and are in the best interest of the Nation.'' Since that
time, many committees impaneled by the National Research Council and
the Department of Energy have reaffirmed the recommendations of the
Seitz-Eastman report. We anticipate that within a short time after the
commissioning of the SNS, we will be reporting results of similar
impact to those noted above for the Advanced Photon Source.
Question. Or in the alternative, can you prioritize the activities
in which you are engaged?
Answer. As stated in my testimony before you, the highest program
priorities in fiscal year 1999 are to move the U.S. toward
international leadership in neutron science, provide leading-edge
science related to climate change, maintain scientific user facilities
utilization, develop DOE applications and technologies for the Next
Generation Internet, and renew our commitment to science education to
tap the human resources of the National Laboratories to ensure an
adequate supply of scientists and engineers for the future.
economic competitiveness
Question. Your submitted statement points out that partnerships
assist America's technological expertise and competitive advantage in
the development of clean energy technologies. When we address the
marketplace for technologies, some critics suggest that the
department's involvement in the marketplace is a crutch for otherwise
failing business and pushing technologies that society doesn't want,
what's your response to that criticism?
Answer. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy forges
partnerships with private and public sector organizations for several
reasons. First, these partnerships ensure that our technology R&D is
highly relevant to the marketplace. Second, they provide opportunities
for cost-sharing. Third, they provide opportunities to field test the
resulting technologies in order to provide useful feedback to the R&D
effort. Finally, they provide opportunities for pre-commercial
deployment that bring down initially high production costs. Technology
R&D partnerships are typically established through a competitive
solicitation process and only pursued substantial interest is
demonstrated in the marketplace. This avoids the problem of ``pushing
technologies that society doesn't want''. In addition, we only pursue
R&D for technologies that have clear public benefits--such as emissions
reductions, decreased oil use or other broad public benefits.
Technologies that would only benefit the manufacturers or a narrow
segment of society are not supported.
The competitive process of selecting partners also ensures against
providing a ``crutch for otherwise failing businesses''. Partnerships
are generally formed with broad industry representation or a collection
of organizations--less often with individual firms. However, when
individual firms are chosen, the selection criteria ensure that our
partners are strong and will be able to perform the necessary work over
the life of the relationship. Further, such partnerships with
individual firms require the broader transfer of the particular
technology once the R&D effort is completed so that a broad cross-
section of industry benefits from the R&D work.
solar and renewable energy
Question. Could you walk us through the measurable accomplishments
of, and the need for a $72 million increase in, the Utility
Technologies program?
Answer. Progress in renewable energy development in the 1990's has
opened significant opportunities for these systems to make near term,
competitive contributions to the Nation's growing electricity demand--a
demand that is outstripping forecasts due to the extended economic
growth currently underway. Incremental technical advances coupled with
field verification of performance and reliability are the critical
steps needed for industry to invest heavily in renewable electricity.
The nation benefits to the extent that renewable systems displace new
fossil plants and avoid increasing our overall level of emissions while
retaining price stability in the electric sector.
The Office of Utility Technologies (OUT) has increased its efforts
at tracking accomplishments and program progress for the past several
years, as the Office prepares for the mandated fiscal year 1999
reporting requirements under the Government Performance and Results
Act. For fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, our accomplishments
include:
Photovoltaics.--Advances have occurred in the underlying technology
base, in the applications served, and in the cost of delivered energy;
the following examples are representative.
Thin film PV cells are lower cost and more easily manufactured in
larger sizes than traditional single crystal cells but are less
efficient (usually single digits); the program recently achieved 12
percent sunlight-to-electricity efficiency on thin film amorphous
silicon laboratory cells, a world record for this type of silicon.
Transition from small laboratory PV cells to large area PV modules
usually causes efficiency loss of 3 or 4 percentage points due to wire
contacts and framing, often resulting in thin film modules in the 5-7
percent efficiency range; a DOE contractor has commercialized a
cadmium-indium-selenide think film module that achieves 9.5 percent
efficiency.
DOE developments have led to commercialization of a photovoltaic
roofing shingle which won awards for best new product of the year from
both Popular Science and Discover magazines.
Delivered energy costs from NASA's PV arrays were in the $5.00/kWh
range at the start of DOE's R&D program; today's output energy is under
$0.20/kWh and $0.12/kWh or lower appears to be only a year or two away.
Wind Energy Systems.--For certain applications in selected
locations, wind turbines offer a competitive alternative to
conventional systems. This results from DOE supported technical and
economic advancements.
A new airfoil optimized by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) for the wind turbine environment has increased energy capture by
20-30 percent over the helicopter blade or aircraft wing airfoils
previously used; this is achieved at no increase in rotor cost and
testing indicates that rotor life is longer.
Current delivered energy costs are less than $0.05/kWh at good wind
sites, compared to over $0.30/kWh in the early 1980's.
Solar Thermal Energy Systems.--Both power tower and dish/engine
designs continue to make significant gains.
In November 1997, the Solar Two Power Tower Project located in
Barstow, CA, plant achieved a peak power output of 11 MW (the tower's
nominal full power output is 10 MW). Solar Two demonstrated its unique
ability to collect, deliver, and store solar energy during the day and
to continue to generate power for several hours after sundown.
Successful completion of the Solar Two Project will position power
tower technology, with its ability to provide ``solar energy on
demand,'' as a leading candidate for providing dispatchable renewable
energy both here and abroad. Solar Two recently received the ``Best of
What's New'' award from Popular Science and the Technology Innovation
award from Discover Magazine, and was featured in United Airlines'
Hemispheres magazine in February 1998.
On December 17, 1996, Arizona Public Service Company (APS) joined
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and Stirling
Thermal Motors (STM) in the development of dish/engine systems as part
of the Utility-Scale Joint Venture Project (USJVP). The addition of a
utility to the team opens the door for ``real world'' testing.
Biopower Energy Systems.--In the Biomass Power for Rural
Development (BPRD) initiative, construction of over 150 MW of renewable
biomass power is beginning this year. The Minnesota Valley Alfalfa
Producers (MnVAP) project, which at 75 MW is the largest of the BPRD
projects, will leverage a $188M (75 percent) private-sector investment.
This venture will stimulate rural economic development by creating a
new market for up to 180,000 acres of alfalfa crops and by generating
new employment opportunities in the transportation and processing of
alfalfa as well as in the generation of electric power and other
valuable co-products. MnVAP has secured a long-term energy sales
contract from Northern States Power Company.
Hydropower.--The hydropower program has completed conceptual
designs of advanced environmentally-friendly turbines in partnership
with industry. This work by Alden Research Laboratory and Voith Hydro,
Inc. includes features that are expected to substantially reduce fish
injury and mortality, without extracting an efficiency penalty. This
turbine development activity is complemented by a state-by-state
hydropower resource assessment that is scheduled for completion in
fiscal year 1998.
Energy Storage.--Progress continues in both bulk storage and power
quality applications.
In August 1997, Senator Ted Stevens dedicated a 1.4 MWh battery
energy storage system at the remote Metlakatla island in southeastern
Alaska. This state-of-the art system is charged by hydropower and is
expected to pay for itself within three years. The hybrid system
eliminates the use of a noisy, polluting 3 MW diesel engine and handles
large load spikes caused by the lumber mill that is also the main
employer on the Indian reservation. Prior to installation of the new
system, power ``brownouts'' were a frequent occurrence. The Energy
Storage program provided technical assistance throughout the project
and is supplying a data acquisition system to monitor battery operation
(the entire system was built with private funding). This type of
installation is a direct outgrowth of the technology base developed by
the storage program and is expected to lead to similar facilities in
other remote Alaskan communities.
In August 1997, the Energy Storage program, along with the AC
Battery Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric, received the
prestigious R&D 100 Award for the PQ2000 power quality system. PQ2000,
developed under a cooperative agreement, is a 2 MW/10 second factory-
assembled battery storage system expected to meet a large market demand
for devices that protect against power quality disturbances in
industrial and utility applications. The first commercial PQ2000 was
installed in late 1996 in Homerville, GA to meet the power quality
needs of a lithography plant. During the first six months of operation,
the PQ2000 corrected over 90 percent of all power quality events (e.g.,
voltage spikes which disrupt or halt plant operations). This project is
the first U.S. installation of a complete integrated power quality
protection system with master control by the electric utility and is a
commercial manifestation of early 1990's program developments.
High Temperature Superconductivity.--As a result of OUT's
superconductivity research, a whole new class of technological
opportunities is becoming available to the electric power industry.
``Superefficient'' electric transmission cables, transformers, motors
and current limiters are being developed that will be half the size of
conventional alternatives and have only half or fewer energy losses.
Because of their high rate of energy savings, the higher initial cost
of these systems, relative to conventional systems, can be recovered in
2-4 years. These technologies are expected to be introduced
commercially in the next 2-4 years and become widely available over the
next 15 years--a period when much of the existing power infrastructure
will need replacement and new demands from deregulation and increased
competition will be placed on the nation's electrical system. The
Superconductivity Program's success has been recognized with many
patents, several R&D 100 awards, and internal DOE and national
laboratory awards.
Hydrogen.--In 1998, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. developed
materials that selectively adsorb carbon dioxide in a hydrothermal
environment. Analysis of a Sorbent Enhanced Reformer process using
these materials indicates a reduction of 20 to 30 percent in the costs
to produce hydrogen, in addition to the benefit of separating the
carbon dioxide and hydrogen. This opens the door to near-term uses of
hydrogen in transportation experiments and in utility dispersed fuel
cell applications.
Electric and Magnetic Fields.--Fiscal year 1998 is the final year
for the EMF program. The program has completed a portfolio of health
effects research, exposure assessments and analyses that will enable
the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to
complete a comprehensive risk assessment of health effects.
Geothermal.--Progress continues with both power generation and heat
pump technologies.
The Geothermal Technology Program has developed a new high-
performance cement for use in geothermal and oil wells and for soil
remediation. The formula for the cement includes fly ash, calcium
aluminate, sodium polyphosphate and water. Since these materials are
abundant and inexpensive and no technical training is required to make
the compound, the cement is economical compared to conventional
alternatives. This new cement resists chemical degradation and will
result in greatly enhanced geothermal well life times. In July 1997,
large-scale field testing began in a geothermal well at Unocal's
project in Indonesia. Based on the initial successes with this
material, Unocal plans to use it and similar versions in all of its
remaining wells on this project.
At Fort Polk, Louisiana, 4,003 Geothermal Heat Pumps installed in
U.S. Army housing are saving over 26 million kWh annually (32.5
percent) and shaving summer peak load by 7.5 MW (43.5 percent) based on
statistically-valid data collected by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. In
1997, the Fort Polk project received Vice President Al Gore's Hammer
award for ``hammering away at building a better government''--in this
case, one that works better and costs less.
The $72 million increase proposed for fiscal year 1999 represents
an additional level of effort that is founded on accomplishments such
as were just described. This enhanced effort will allow us to
capitalize on program progress and provide critical technical advances
and field verification that leads to the larger (than R&D cost sharing)
industry investment in product commercialization. It also allows more
prototype testing in actual application environments.
Such increases are generally in concert with recommendations made
by the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. The
renewable systems rely entirely on domestic energy sources and their
increased use contributes toward an enhanced national energy security.
Renewable systems are domestically manufactured for the most part and
growth in the level of installed capacity translates into growth in
U.S. economic activity and jobs. Availability of economic renewable
energy systems is an important component of a restructured utility
environment since renewables offer choices for consumers wishing to
reduce dependence on fossil fuels or seeking ``green'' options.
Increased renewable energy use clearly qualifies as one of the
``prudent actions independently justified'' often cited as the first
steps for the nation to take in response to global climate change
concerns.
The budget request contains numerous details regarding fiscal year
1999 activities. In summary, the proposed program increases will
support the following:
Photovoltaics and Solar Buildings.--Fiscal year 1999 activities
will result in the private sector installation of at least 15,000
photovoltaic and/or solar thermal roof top systems roofs in 1999.
Through the President's Million Solar Roofs Initiative, increased
outreach activities will establish 25 partnerships with energy
companies, builders, Federal, State, and local agencies, corporations,
and financial institutions across the nation. We will increase training
for builders and solar equipment installers and increase efforts to
develop the technology to ensure that PV systems meet requirements of
builders and codes and standards.
We will fund 15-18 new three-year Phase 5 PVMaT contracts (Phase 4
involved 12 contracts) which will accelerate industry investment in
process improvements and capacity additions to achieve manufacturing
cost reductions of 50 percent from 1996 levels.
Wind Energy Systems.--Our efforts will help assure that 12 percent
of the 1999 international wind energy market is secured by U.S.
industry. We will provide testing, design review, analysis, and
management for 11 industry subcontract projects and begin evaluation of
distributed wind generation projects initiated in fiscal year 1997
under the cost shared Turbine Verification Program (TVP). In fiscal
year 1999, we will also select two to three partners under a new TVP
solicitation for projects up to 25 MW in size that are tailored to the
requirements of the restructured electric power market of the state or
region the project serves. The projects would be based on the TVP model
and selected through a competitive solicitation with a targeted 90
percent industry cost share. These projects become regional ``door
openers'' for increased commercial activity by wind manufacturers.
Solar Thermal Energy Systems.--In fiscal year 1999, we will
complete Solar 2 testing and will make significant progress toward
demonstrating the technological viability of 25-kW dish/engine solar
thermal systems for distributed generation. We will accomplish this
objective by installing up to 20 manufacturing prototypes and four
advanced prototypes at utility/field sites through the Utility Scale
Joint Venture Program. These programs are expected to result in
achievement of the interim goal of 2000 hours mean time between failure
(MBTF) for a 5 dish/engine system in unattended operation. Achievement
of 2000 hours MBTF is expected to lead to the first commercial sale of
dish/engine technology.
Biopower Energy Systems.--Fiscal year 1999 activities under the
Biomass Power for Rural Development Initiative will involve three
projects, totaling 157 MW, in Minnesota, New York, and Iowa.
Ultimately, these heavily cost shared efforts will demonstrate full
operation, full capacity testing and technology verification of these
rural economic development ventures. The alfalfa project in Minnesota
is expected to generate a new market for up to 180,000 acres of crop.
Fiscal year 1999 efforts in co-firing (minimum 5 percent biomass)
with coal will lead to 5 major power plant evaluations to help
establish this technology nationwide as a means of reducing carbon and
other power plant emissions (regional factors are important).
Operational data will be provided to the stakeholder community to
assist in their assessment of this attractive--and readily
implemented--technology option.
Hydropower.--The fiscal year 1999 increase provides for the design
of instrumentation for real-time visualization and accurate simulation
of fish passage through turbines. This capability provides needed
reassurance to industry investors that the emerging hydroturbine
technology can achieve design goals. The new ``fish-friendly'' turbine
under development will help reverse the decline in hydropower
generation (over 9 percent of total U.S. generation) due to
environmental barriers and regulatory limitations.
Energy Storage.--The Energy Storage program's fiscal year 1999
activities will support a Storage 2000 joint DOE/industry initiative to
conduct field evaluations of renewable/storage systems, distributed
storage, transmission support, customer service projects and control
systems. Improved energy storage technology will enhance utility system
asset utilization and system stability, and help address concerns about
the maintenance of power quality and system reliability associated with
a deregulated utility industry. Storage can have a major role in
forestalling network problems expected to accompany increased wheeling
and other operational changes under deregulation.
High Temperature Superconductivity.--Superconductive materials can
reduce by half the huge amount of energy (up to 10 percent of the
electricity generated) that is now lost through transmission,
distribution, consumer applications, and other factors. The fiscal year
1999 program will take the next step in helping industry realize the
potential of this technology through continued support for the
Superconductivity Partnership Initiative and the Second Generation Wire
Initiative. These activities will help move major superconductivity
breakthroughs recently achieved in the laboratory into the nation's
electric system years sooner than would otherwise occur.
Hydrogen.--Hydrogen produced using renewable energy can be stored
and transported to U.S. energy end-use markets (utility,
transportation, industrial) and converted cleanly and efficiently to
electricity in fuel cells, or can be combusted to provide for thermal
energy. The fiscal year 1999 program continues the implementation of
the Department's Hydrogen Multiyear Plan. The proposed activities
support fuel cell development and evaluation and tests of vehicle use
of hydrogen in city driving.
Electric and Magnetic Fields.--The program activities in this area
will be terminated in fiscal year 1999, as continuing responsibilities
will be assumed by the National Institute for Environmental and Health
Sciences.
Geothermal.--The fiscal year 1999 program will be targeted toward
increasing the amount of economically recoverable geothermal reserves.
This will be accomplished through advanced drilling and reservoir
engineering technology development. The program will initiate field
tests of revolutionary drilling technology that will reduce costs by an
additional 20 percent over previous work. This will be focused on
imaging of fractured reservoirs using new 3D-seismic techniques, and
development of interpretation methods to characterize hot, fluid-filled
fractures using borehole electromagnetics. In addition, the program
will conduct industry-recommended research into methods of enhanced
heat recovery from ``hot dry rock.'' Cost of energy reductions achieved
through this work can result in 15,000 MW of new U.S.-installed
capacity worldwide in the next decade.
Concerted efforts will continue in fiscal year 1999 to encourage
greater consideration of geothermal heat pumps by builders, utilities,
municipalities, and others who influence building sector policies and
investment. This program will be terminated after fiscal year 1999
commitments are satisfied.
solar energy program
Question. I have some concern about the International Solar Energy
Program, which in your description sounds a lot like the function of
the commerce and state departments. Are other federal agencies and
departments working with foreign nations to sustain clean energy
technologies, engaging in joint ventures to develop renewable energy
projects and supporting international agreements?
Answer. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's
Solar International programs are specifically designed not to duplicate
efforts ongoing elsewhere with the Federal Government. These programs
closely coordinate with other relevant agencies and, in fact, often
lead key multi-agency programs and/or activities. Solar International
Energy Programs include the Committee on Renewable Energy Commerce and
Trade (CORECT), the Americas' 21st Century Program (A21), and the U.S.
International Joint Implementation Program (USIJI). CORECT and A21 are
designed and function to coordinate and facilitate export assistance to
U.S. companies. USIJI helps identify joint project opportunities with
other countries that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and offer
opportunities for sale of U.S. equipment.
CORECT, established in 1984, is an interagency working group
comprised of fourteen Federal agencies that coordinates Federal
activities relating to the export of renewable technologies. Both the
State and the Commerce Departments are active members of CORECT. CORECT
is the only Federal program that facilities the sharing of information
regarding ongoing renewable energy export activities within each
agency. CORECT is instrumental in assuring that Federal agency efforts
are complementary to each other and not duplicative. CORECT has also
been selected by the Commerce Department's Trade Promotion Coordinating
Committee as the designated reporting entity for renewable energy
export activities.
A21 implements the export strategies developed by CORECT for Latin
America, Asia and Africa. In past years, A21 has worked closely with
the U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. AID) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on developing cost-shared joint
ventures in these developing regions. These deployment efforts have
resulted in significant replication by local governments, particularly
with regard to rural electrification efforts in Brazil using U.S.
manufactured photovoltaic systems.
USIJI, established in 1992 following the U.N. global climate change
conference in Rio de Janerio, coordinates closely with the State
Department and EPA in implementing projects and activities to promote
the voluntary reduction of greenhouse gas emission in accordance with
international agreements. USIJI is the program designated within the
Federal Government to lead these efforts.
increased budget request
Question. While I support your office, generally, I do have some
concern, specifically, that given some of the larger increases sought
by the Administration, whether the funds will be efficiently managed as
the activities multiply. What assurances can you give this subcommittee
regarding the use of funds in actual production of alternative and
renewable energy?
Answer. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is
proposing a number of expanded activities for fiscal year 1999. The
management resources needed for each of these were carefully considered
prior to the request. We routinely consult with our industry partners
and other stakeholders to ensure that our proposed projects are
carefully targeted toward activities that will provide maximum benefits
while remaining within the bounds of program capabilities. Some of the
increases proposed are to implement follow-on or expansion activities
for projects already underway. Others are for new initiatives that are
expected to speed the rate at which the technologies become proven,
viable options for the 21st century.
Examples of increased activity levels for existing programs include
expanding the photovoltaic manufacturing technology program (PVMaT) to
further reduce costs and increase module performance and reliability,
expanding the modular system development activity in the biopower
program to increase possibilities for export of U.S. manufactured
equipment, increasing advanced reservoir drilling and mapping
activities in geothermal to expand the resource base for power
generation, expanded wind turbine verification programs with utilities,
and demonstrating remote uses of hydrogen-powered fuel cell generators
and advanced hydrogen storage systems. As part of continuing efforts,
each of these activities will be managed from within the existing staff
structure using improved procurement and management procedures
implemented over the past several years. Continued emphasis will also
be placed on cost-shared efforts with the private sector to leverage
public funds.
Among the more innovative initiatives are the Million Solar Roofs
Initiative (MSRI) and a technology-neutral competitive solicitation,
both designed to speed deployment of renewable energy systems. MSRI is
aimed at developing expanded domestic markets for photovoltaic and
solar hot water heating systems, to enable U.S. manufacturers of such
systems to expand their plant capacities and remain competitive in
domestic and international markets. Recognizing that to be successful
MSRI must have strong grass roots support, $6.4 million has been
requested in fiscal year 1999 to support partnerships with builders,
financial institutions, other Federal agencies, and a broad range of
local organizations. We have also requested $10 million for a
competitive solicitation to identify and support innovative ways to
deploy renewable energy technologies, whether singly, in combination
with other renewables, or in hybrid configurations with storage and
natural gas systems. It is designed to be highly leveraged (up to 70
percent non-DOE cost sharing) and is expected to result in $30 million
of private sector investment.
Increased attention is also being paid to improved management
procedures for all Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
programs through several new initiatives aimed at managing EERE
programs more effectively and using taxpayer dollars more responsibly.
First, EERE is developing both a clearer, more easily understood budget
and a more open budgeting process. Second, EERE is increasing the level
of competition in selecting contractors. Third, the Office is putting
increased emphasis on developing technology roadmaps in collaboration
with partners for a greater number of our programs. These roadmaps will
specify with clarity long-term goals and related program activities.
Finally, EERE is increasing the use of regional support offices to
implement programs closer to our customers.
To complement the foregoing program related activities, EERE is
increasing attention to, and limiting the overall dependence on,
crosscutting activities. Where such activities are considered
necessary, participation by individual program staff will be increased
to ensure program benefits are realized. EERE will share more
information about these activities with committee staff. The objective
is to maximize the direct return for each program's appropriation.
increased budget
Question. You state that you are ``focusing on program evaluation
and terminating programs that don't measure up.'' Could you share that
criteria with us and any projects, activities, or programs that have
not measured up?
Answer. I would be happy to discuss program termination criteria
and share some illustrative example projects with you. First, however,
since programs and projects can end for both ``good'' and ``bad''
reasons, I would like to offer a few definitions used within the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to ensure clarity.
Termination.--The ending of a program due to failure to achieve
objectives, a shift in marketplace/industry conditions necessitating a
refocussing of efforts, or insufficient funding available to meet all
priorities.
Closeout.--The ending of a program whose DOE mission and/or planned
objectives have been successfully completed.
As I am sure you know, programs and projects may successfully
conclude or they may be ended prior to completion. Each project or
program has its own unique set of characteristics or factors that must
be considered both in establishing the effort and with regard to its
potential termination. With terminations, however, there are some
general criteria which we do apply. These include:
--Failure of a program/project to meet its goals, objectives, and
performance measures (even given reasonable adjustments and
flexibility on changes of approach, time frames, etc.);
--New information or early results that would indicate the
impracticality or unfeasibility of a program or project even
prior to full completion of all originally planned efforts;
--Emergence of new, more promising technology developments or
opportunities that replace an ongoing program (either due to
priorities and funding limitations or because of the potential
for the new technology to better address the goals and
objectives than the program/project it replaces); and
--Reduced program funding or the emergence of higher priorities.
Sometimes hard choices are required, with lower priority
efforts being delayed, postponed indefinitely, or terminated.
Mitigating factors that have bearing upon any decision for
termination include:
--Will termination of this program/project create undue harm to other
ongoing or planned efforts dependent upon its results?
--Will termination cause undue harm to the partners involved--States,
other Federal Agencies, industry, etc.?
--Impacts upon communities, non-governmental organizations, and other
stakeholders.
Additionally, sometimes we may fold two or more programs/projects
into more cost-effective or broader-impact efforts. For example, in the
fiscal year 1999 Budget Request we have recommended folding the
Renewable Indian Energy Resources line item and the Federal Buildings/
Remote Power Initiative into a single Renewable Energy Competitive
Solicitation. The intent of this proposed programmatic vehicle is to
solicit innovative proposals to demonstrate the efficacy of renewables
for providing power, either alone or in hybridized format, that would
be appropriate for operation within a restructured electric power
market. Proposals would not be restricted to specific applications or
geographic regions, and high levels of cost-sharing (up to 70 percent)
would substantially leverage the Federal investment. This new approach
would still meet the primary objectives of the former programs (i.e.,
clean, reliable power at a reasonable price).
Below are several examples of programs that have been terminated
and the rationale for ending the efforts:
Magma R&D Program.--The Magma Program was terminated to allow the
geothermal program to concentrate on nearer-term, less costly R&D. The
commercial exploitation of the magma resource is believed to be the
most expensive option for generating geothermal power (assuming the use
of existing technology).
Geopressured-Geothermal Program.--The Geopressured-Geothermal
Program was terminated following extensive flow testing of the
resource. It was determined that, although the resource itself was
quite large, the ability to further reduce technology costs to where
this resource would be economically viable was not possible in the
foreseeable future. The program was terminated to allow refocussing of
efforts on higher-potential geothermal R&D.
7-kW Dish/Engine Program.--Market conditions, and thus industry
partner interest and priorities, have shifted to larger-scale dish/
engine systems having greater marketplace utility (less costly power
production). Dish/engine R&D efforts have been refocussed on larger-
scale (up to 25MW) systems.
subcommittee recess
Senator Domenici. We will stand in recess until the call of
the chair. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., Tuesday, March 10, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:40 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Cochran, Gorton, Bennett,
Burns, Craig, Reid, Byrd, and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
STATEMENTS OF DR. JOHN ZIRSCHKY, ACTING ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS
ACCOMPANIED BY:
LT. GEN. JOE N. BALLARD, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
MAJ. GEN. RUSSELL L. FUHRMAN, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS
THOMAS F. CAVER, JR., CHIEF, PROGRAMS MANAGEMENT DIVISION,
DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL WORKS
OPENING STATEMENT
Senator Domenici. Thank you everyone for coming.
Fellow Senators, I am apologetic for being 10 minutes late.
I had an emergency in New Mexico.
I do think the witnesses know that this is going to be a
very, very serious meeting, because something is wrong with the
President's budget, something that cannot be allowed to stand.
But it will not be so easy to fix, because there isn't enough
money given the dramatic cut of the Corps of Engineers' budget.
Clearly, we have to put some of that money back.
So, this morning the subcommittee will first hear the
testimony on the fiscal year 1999 budget request of the Corps
of Engineers. We will hear from Dr. John Zirschky, the Acting
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; along with
Lieutenant General Ballard, Chief of the Engineers; and Maj.
Gen. Russell Fuhrman, Director of Civil Works.
It is nice to have you all here.
Following testimony on the Corps' budget, we will hear from
Patricia Beneke, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science,
Department of Interior, and Eluid Martinez, Commissioner of the
Bureau of Reclamation.
fiscal year 1999 budget request
I wish I could say that it was a pleasure to have you here
today. You come before this committee to support a budget
request which is totally unrealistic and unacceptable. The
President has presented a budget for water resource
infrastructure for this Nation which is, arguably, $800 million
to $1.3 billion short of the amount necessary to carry out the
programs intended by Congress in the 1998 Energy and Water
Appropriations Act.
One can only speculate on the reasons for the President's
and OMB's action in devastating the Corps' budget the way they
have. But this is just another example of the shell games the
administration's budget put forth for consideration here.
Cutting the Corps' water resource development program in order
to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to undertake
measures in support of the Kyoto Agreement and Global Warming
is one possibility.
But in my view--and I must say it is also the view of a
number of my Senate colleagues--this budget proposal for the
Corps is counter productive to the interests of this country.
First, if approved in its present form, this request will
add hundreds of millions of dollars in increased costs to these
projects--costs that will be borne by the American taxpayers.
That is, by waiting, and waiting, and waiting, the costs of
delaying these projects becomes greater and greater.
Second, this budget proposal will significantly delay local
communities realizing billions of dollars in economic benefits.
I am going to depart a bit from my usual assessment of
water projects and talk 1 minute here about the nature of the
benefits these kinds of projects provide to the local areas and
the Nation.
water resource project benefits
For flood control projects, the 1997 value of damages
prevented is $45.5 billion--that is damages prevented by these
kinds of projects in 1997. The value of the damages prevented
was $45.5 billion.
To highlight the impact of the administration's budget and
what it will have on the highest priority flood protection
projects in the country, let me just tick off a few.
The Santa Ana project in California: the President's
funding request is $20 million to continue this project which
has been under construction for nearly 10 years. The budget
request represents a 2 1/2-year delay and results in an
estimated $40 million increase in the project costs and $30
million in increased flood protection insurance premiums for
those living and working in flood plains. It also is estimated
that if a major flood were to happen along the Santa Ana River,
it would result in $2.7 billion in damages.
We would be on the floor with an emergency request that
would be for more money than we are arguing over here in the
President's budget versus a realistic level of 1999
appropriations.
Similarly, in the Los Angeles County drainage area, flood
protection in this area is budgeted as $11 million, and it
needs $60 million to remain on schedule. The budget proposal
represents a 5-year delay, $200 million in lost flood control
benefits and $130 million in increased flood insurance to the
citizens in the surrounding area.
In the area of navigation, in which some of the Senators
here are interested. U.S. ports and harbors annually handle
$600 billion in international cargo, generating over $150
billion in tax revenues, nearly $520 billion in personal
income, contributing $783 billion to the Nation's gross
domestic product.
Now what happens to these navigation projects in the
President's budget for fiscal year 1999? For the Port of Los
Angeles, one of the Nation's biggest and busiest, the budget
provides $12 million, which represents a 13-month delay in the
completion schedule. The committee understands that the Corps
could use $64 million to do its work on that biggest and most
important of American seaports.
When completed, this project will generate $1 billion in
customs revenues annually, $1.5 billion in Federal taxes, and
250,000 jobs nationally.
So this budget, as simply as I can put it, is not logical,
especially since the President found other programs to fund
with the savings from this that do not come close to standing
the test of benefits that I have just described that would be
forthcoming to the American people and people around these
areas.
It ignores the economic benefits that are going to happen
and accrue to our Nation, and it ignores the fact that many of
these projects are the underpinning, the economic underpinning
which supports and generates resources which fund the rest of
the Federal budget.
Having said that, I realize that you are in a difficult
position having to defend this budget which was thrust upon you
by the OMB. You are merely messengers for the administration.
But I hope that you will deliver the message back to those who
have formulated this proposal that it is, from what I can tell,
totally unacceptable.
I do not believe Congress will concur with the budget as
presented. But we have a hard time ahead of us, because if we
are to limit the impact that this budget represents--and there
is pretty good evidence of the magnitude--we will have to
squeeze other programs in this subcommittee.
It is a danger to our people from potential flood
possibilities and lost economic benefits to many, many
Americans.
Now I am sorry to have to deliver that message. Frankly, I
don't know that I have delivered one as harsh as this since I
have been a Senator. But I truly believe we have been fooled.
Now we are going to proceed unless the Senators have
something to say.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. I will yield first to my ranking member.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR REID
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I also want to say that I
consider myself a good Democrat. I know you are a good
Republican. But I want everyone within the sound of my voice to
understand that I agree wholeheartedly with the chairman on
this issue. This subcommittee does not act on a partisan basis.
Senator Domenici and I are going arm and arm to come out with a
good budget, a good mark on this appropriations bill.
We are very proud of being able to work with this
subcommittee, that we think is the most important of all the
subcommittees in the appropriations process.
This reminds me of when I worked in the Military
Construction Subcommittee. There, every year the administration
would give us a budget that had nothing in the budget for Guard
and Reserve. We always had to do something to take care of the
Guard and Reserve, because they are such an integral part of
the security of this country. We were left to do it because the
administration never gave us any money for the Guard and
Reserve.
This is kind of what I see here today. Everyone knows we
have to take care of these very essential water programs. They
are going to be taken care of in the House. But House members
do not represent States, except in rare occasions where there
are single member districts. But these water projects in these
House districts are essential. If they cannot take care of the
water projects that are so important to their congressional
district, they, in effect, have failed. They are not going to
fail. They are going to have to make sure that these water
projects are forthcoming.
importance of flood control projects
I know there are people who are going to say well, I know
that all you guys are trying to do is protect the pork. I would
like for someone to come and see the devastation that took
place in southern Nevada with a flood a few years ago. It
washed cars away. People died in those floods.
Flood control is extremely important to the rapidly growing
southern Nevada area. The Corps of Engineers is where we look
for help. We have no place else to look. That is the way it is.
We can hold back some of the money on some of these major
flood control projects. But it winds up costing my
constituents, the taxpayers all over this country, more money.
That is why it is important that we go forward on some logical
basis.
We fully understand that the witnesses are loyal soldiers.
You did not come up with this mark that we have in this
appropriations bill. We understand that. So I express my
appreciation to the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army, Dr.
Zirschky--and any name that begins with ``Z'' is always hard to
get out and pronounce--to Lieutenant General Ballard and Major
General Fuhrman for their testimony here today.
Your contributions, expertise and judgment are vital to the
business of this committee. You need to work with us. We have
told you what we want to do. You have to help us get where we
need to go.
The work of the Corps of Engineers, as we have all said, is
very vital to the Nation's water resources, flood damage
reduction and regulation of wetlands. It is exactly because of
this critical role of the Corps that this causes me such
concern, as I have already outlined.
Those of us in western States understand that water
management is essential for sustainable growth and development.
And, of course, Nevada is the fastest growing State in the
country. We depend on the work of the Corps to insure not only
an adequate water supply in many instances, but also to protect
and control water resources, flood hazards, and flood
mitigation which provide security and peace of mind for
residents throughout the State of Nevada.
We have projects currently under development to provide for
flood control, as I have already said, in Las Vegas and water
quality improvement at Lake Tahoe. This is something that is
also of concern to me.
The President, Vice President, and five Cabinet officers
came to Lake Tahoe saying they were going to do everything they
can to help Lake Tahoe. Well, we have to focus a little more
attention on Lake Tahoe with the Corps of Engineers, which is
an integral part of saving that lake, which belongs to the
States of California and Nevada.
There is also work in there for restoration of the Truckee
River and flood warning enhancement in Reno, among others.
So, we have to maintain these programs and the others that
Senator Domenici has talked about.
Mr. Chairman, I have a bill, an amendment, that is pending
and I have to leave to speak at 10:00. I am going to get back
just as quickly as I can.
I am not going to take the time of the committee in that I
am not going to be here for the direct testimony. So I will
submit my questions to the Corps in writing and will hopefully
get back in time so that I can ask questions to Secretary
Beneke.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator.
Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your remarks, especially
those that have to do with your confidence in the chairman. You
and I have great confidence and faith in one another.
It might be noted, for those wondering about parochialism,
that I did not mention a single project when I gave you the
benefits and the risks, a single one in my State. Those that I
mentioned were not in my State. They were in the States of
other Senators.
Senator Reid. But if we were to look closely, we would find
a project or two in there.
Senator Domenici. Oh, we will get to those in the
questioning. We don't have very many. [Laughter.]
Senator Byrd. You don't have to apologize for that, Mr.
Chairman. Mention those projects in your State. That is why you
are sent here. You don't owe anyone an apology for that.
Senator Domenici. Senator, nobody is going to accuse me of
shirking my responsibility to get these projects. [Laughter.]
I just have a different idea this morning about how we are
going to handle this.
Senator, did you want to comment now? You are welcome to do
so, Senator Cochran.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I come to the hearing this morning as we
begin the hearing to make a couple of observations about the
Corps' budget request. I am unable, because of commitments to
other appropriations subcommittees to remain to ask questions
during the question and answer period.
To emphasize the practical results of your observations
about having to delay and postpone completion of important
flood control projects that have long since been authorized and
construction has begun, just to cite three projects in the
Yazoo Basin, which is a major tributary of the Mississippi
River in my State, to complete those projects now with the kind
of incremental funding request that we see presented to our
committee by the administration will take about 10 years
longer, 10 years of delay. The practical consequences in terms
of the budget are that the cost will be $54 million greater to
complete just those three projects that are under construction
and underway now.
This is an example of what is happening and what this
administration is putting before the taxpayers. It is a shame;
it is a disgrace.
Flood control is not politically appealing right now. There
is a lot of controversy about some of these projects--not the
ones in my State, but others. [Laughter.]
The fact is these projects are going to save lives. They
are going to save the opportunity to earn a livelihood for
people who have lived in this region all of their lives, or for
generations. Their whole family over a period of time has
invested everything they have in their homes, their businesses,
and their farms. Now, because of a political decision that you
are not going to be rewarded by the taxpayers throughout the
country if you propose to spend what you ought to be spending
to complete these projects as promised and authorized and as
planned, but you would rather assume new responsibilities for
the Federal Government that traditionally have not been Federal
responsibilities and put a lot of money in those programs--they
are new, they are exciting, they are daring.
These are projects that only the Federal Government can
complete. State and local governments do not have the
resources. They do not have the expertise. The private sector
cannot come in and make money building these projects.
There is no other alternative but for the Federal
Government to keep its commitment. It is shirking its
responsibilities, turning its back on the people--the people
who live along these tributaries, in these basins, where flood
control projects are needed desperately and have been promised.
Cost sharing has been allocated in many cases and new tax
burdens assumed by local sponsors. And the Federal Government
says well, not yet. Let's wait a while before we do what we
ought to do this year on that.
We are going to cut this budget, for example, in this one
Yazoo Basin area by 36 percent from last year's fiscal year
funding level. That is outrageous.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that with your leadership we will
reverse these decisions and make allowances for the needs and
provide funding for the projects.
regulatory permits
I want to make one other comment. The Corps has undertaken
to assume zoning responsibilities in league with other agencies
of the Federal Government on the Mississippi gulf coast.
There is a letter that I just read yesterday saying that
permits for coastal casino development will be withheld until
there can be an advanced planning process put in place.
We have a commission authorized by the Congress that has
been appointed to review casinos, whether they are good or bad,
everything about them. We are going to find out what these
commissioners think about casinos.
In the meantime, because of the permit authority and the
responsibility the Corps has, somebody has decided that this
commercial activity is going to be subjected to some long-range
planning process in concert with other Federal agencies and, it
says, the State. There is nothing in there about local
governments.
In our State, the law is that local governments are the
zoning authorities. I mean, are you going to decide whether a
shopping center should be built in one place or another, or
that there ought to be a long-range planning process for
shopping centers, or housing, or ship building, or other
commercial activities?
Singling out casino development--is this the hotels, or the
hotels that don't have casinos? Are they exempted? If you are
going to build a hotel that does not have a casino, you are not
a part of the planning process. But if you are going to build a
hotel that has a casino in it, or a parking garage that maybe
is used by a casino, then are you going to be involved or not?
I have a letter from a fellow who, when he found out about
this memorandum--it is a memorandum for the Director of Civil
Works, entitled Mississippi Coastal Area Casino Permit
Applications, dated March 4, 1998--one counsel to one of the
largest resort enterprises on the Mississippi gulf coast that
has been there the longest in continuing operation, I think, of
any indicates they are considering an expansion of golf
courses, marinas, all of the other things that are attendant to
this large resort complex.
When they see this, they are talking about a 300-plus acre
renovation project. Where does this leave them? They are
beginning to get commitments for financing. They are beginning
to make plans, having designs done, and now they are going to
wait until the Corps of Engineers, the EPA, and whoever else in
Washington or Atlanta decides what kind of long-range planning
there ought to be for projects that involve casinos on the
Mississippi gulf coast.
Are there going to be any in Atlantic City undertaken, or
in the State of Nevada that involve gaming operations? What
about other States and other kinds of commercial activity? Are
they all now going to be suspended in terms of their zoning
processes until the people in Washington decide what kind of
commercial enterprises are appropriate in these areas and which
ones are not?
This is outrageous. This is absolutely unbelievable.
So I hope that you will go back, take another look at what
you are undertaking and whether you have the legal authority to
do that which has been given to you by the Congress, or for the
people of the country to decide that we do need zoning
authorities in Washington like this. Think about what you are
doing and develop some kind of new approach.
I suggest this ought to be done immediately, because you
have put in jeopardy the economy and the prerogatives that are
vested now in State and local governments, local governments
particularly, that already have planning commissions, that
already have zoning requirements, that already are subject to
the most careful scrutiny of all.
You have a 401 permit process and you have other specific
duties. I am not saying you should not undertake to carry those
out as carefully and as thoughtfully as you can. But your
authority is limited under the law. It is not broad and
sweeping and encompassing every whim or notion that might be
developed by somebody who thinks that they know best, that
Washington knows best.
I hope you will take a look at that. I apologize to the
committee for taking longer than I intended. I appreciate your
recognizing me, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Senator, I welcome your remarks, as long
as they take. I am very pleased that so many Senators showed
up. We have a lot of subcommittee hearings where we don't have
this many Senators, including the largest budget of all, that
for Health and Human Services. That is run by just a couple of
people and nobody even shows up.
So, it is great that so many subcommittee members are here.
You said under my leadership let's get this done. But let me
add that I will need all of your help. What this amounts to is
how much do we get allocated for Corps projects when our
wonderful friend, Ted Stevens, does the subcommittee
allocations.
Senator Byrd.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRD
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I fully support what you have
said and I support what has been said by others.
Their thinking is in accordance with mine in this matter.
As one who has been appropriating money for water resources
projects for 46 years, I am somewhat surprised at this budget.
I shall support the efforts, Mr. Chairman, to put it right.
It might be well for the administration to go back and look
and see what happened when President Carter sought to make cuts
in the water resources budget. It might look at Mr. Reagan's
problems when he sought to go against the tidal wave of the
people's elected representatives here in Congress.
It seems to me that the administration would prefer that it
be the only voice in deciding which projects to fund. Many of
the projects supported by Congress have received funding well
below the identified needs, while some of the administration
initiatives are increased significantly.
For example, the Columbia River fish mitigation project
increases by $22 million, 23 percent; central and southern
Florida increases $13.4 million, 49 percent; Everglades South
Florida Ecosystem increases by $10 million, 50 percent; and the
Kissimmee River, Florida, increases by $24.3 million, 810
percent. Meanwhile, other projects--and I will be a little
provincial now--God forgive me--[Laughter.]
Other projects such as Marmet Lock and Dam could use
additional funds. You see, I am not bashful about being
parochial. I know who sent me here and I have been living in
West Virginia. I have seen the floods come and I have seen the
destruction that follows in the wake of those terrible floods.
I have seen those coal miners go back into their homes and
shovel out the black muck after a flood. I have seen their
furniture sitting all over the lot which has been pulled out of
the mud. Their furniture is ruined. And there they stand,
hosing out the muck. Mud, muck, and misery, that is the story.
So why should I be backward or bashful about standing up
for some projects that might benefit my people?
I am sorry that you have to take this guff, gentlemen. You
did not devise this budget. We know who your bosses are, but
they are not ours. That is no disrespect toward you. It is no
disrespect toward them. They just have the wrong idea.
They like to say where it will be spent. They like to
disregard, apparently, what the elected representatives of the
people are saying with respect to the people who send us here.
We are directly elected by the people. Nobody downtown is
directly elected by the people. They are indirectly elected.
They are elected by the electors who, in turn, are elected by
the people.
So Marmet Lock and Dam could use additional funds, $7.5
million more--just a drop in the bucket. It is chicken feed.
Others also need much more. Charleston Harbor in South Carolina
needs $27 million; Los Angeles Harbor, California, $57 million;
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, Arkansas, $41 million; and we
could go on.
So I am looking forward to the return of the President. I
don't know what programs he will come back recommending for
Africa after his trip. I expect he will recommend some programs
that will cost right much. I don't know. But I have a pretty
good idea. I will be pleasantly surprised if he does not.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take this moment not to ask any
questions, though I do have some questions. But I want to thank
the witnesses who are here.
I do not envy you your positions. You are just trying to do
your jobs and I commend you for that.
That is all I have at the moment.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator Byrd.
It just dawned on me that, through an oversight, as I was
giving my opening remarks I welcomed the two generals and did
not verbally welcome you, Dr. Zirschky. I should have welcomed
you. This is belated, but I do welcome you, Dr. Zirschky as
well.
Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CRAIG
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think the
gentlemen on the panel this morning can see that there is great
concern about the budget we have before us.
I must tell you that Idaho is very fortunate this year. We
have not caught the wrath of El Nino like California and other
States have.
But last year, it was an entirely different story, as you
know. Many of our rivers flooded, causing thousands of
Idahoans' property to be destroyed, and now we are trying to
straighten up our rivers. Many of our rivers lost 20, 30, to 40
percent capacity because of the movement of gravel and the
shifting of aggregates within those river beds. Today we are
having a phenomenally difficult time trying to resolve that in
a timely way. Thank goodness we did not get the high water this
year that we got last year or the damages would have been much
worse.
Now, John, you and the Corps have worked with us very
closely and we do appreciate that. However, the kind of
restrictions the administration is placing on working rivers to
somehow return them to a pre-European-man existence simply
cannot be tolerated. These waterways are working rivers, and we
all understand what that means. And yet, the administration
appears determined to ignore this fact.
There is only one thing I will accept about the Army Corps
being green and that is your uniforms. The rest of you and your
programs ought to be balanced and right down the middle of the
road. And yet, this administration attempts to green-you-up
more than I have ever seen. This effort is not constructive in
the long term for the whole of our country and for the whole of
our people.
You are in the business of managing certain things and you
ought to manage them in ways that are fair and balanced. We are
going to hold you to that, and many of the new projects we have
talked about have a very clear and decided slant that we don't
think serves the public in general very well. When the rivers'
gravels are not removed or rearranged and communities lose
their economic wellbeing, it does not make a lot of sense. And
yet, that is the game that seems to be played today.
Consider Dworshak Dam, a major facility in north Idaho. The
Corps is 19 positions short of fully staffed. It is a dam that
was going to be a key recreational center for that community.
The citizens of that community can no longer cut trees in one
of the most productive forests in the country, because this
administration has put a stop to cutting trees. So, we want to
recreate and fulfill the promises that the original Congress
that authorized the construction of that project.
And yet we are 19 positions short. It is becoming less a
recreational facility and more a mechanism for environmental
measures, as you know,. The project is now caught up in the
business of flush, and other downstream uses of water. By late
summer, it no longer serves the recreational needs of the
public.
A lot of frustration exists in the communities surrounding
the project. I could go on and express that, Mr. Chairman. I
will submit my questions for the record as I have to leave
also.
The one thing that I found most fascinating last year in my
State of Idaho was a palpable media slant against existing
dams. We appear to be developing a generation of citizens who
wonder why all those dams are there. Some of those citizens
have expressed their views that we ought to remove dams to save
fish and promote more natural flows in the rivers. Then along
came the 100-year and 200-year floods. Communities were saved
and hundreds of millions of dollars of property were saved
because our forefathers had the wisdom to put those dams in
place.
I hate to say this but, tragically enough, every so often a
good flood reminds a generation of why we did what we did after
the last flood.
So, I would hope that we can resolve this budget and that
the Army Corps of Engineers will play the role that it has
historically played as a neutral agent, serving the needs of
the country at the direction of Congress, the appropriators,
and the authorizing committees that provide the kind of
direction that I think has been tremendously beneficial for
public health and safety as well as providing enormous economic
benefits for this country over the years.
Our citizens sustain a wellbeing not in spite of Mother
Nature, but because we have been able to help shape Mother
Nature's unpredictable events. You have been those public
agents who have been allowed to help in that regard.
I would hope we would continue to do so.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous consent that
my full statement be made a part of the record as well as some
questions that I ask be included in the record for response.
I would say, gentlemen, that we have had a marvelous
working relationship, and I look forward to continuing that.
Thank you.
Senator Domenici. We will do both of those for you,
Senator.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Larry E. Craig
Thank you Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity this morning
to comment on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' proposed Budget.
At the outset, I will state for the record my concern about the
pressure being applied to the Corps to remove dams in the northwest
region of our country. Last year's floods should have been a sharp
reminder to dam removal advocates why this country invested the time,
man-power, and funds to construct those dams--to save lives and protect
the economic well-being of Pacific Northwest citizens. Without those
dams, the floods would have claimed many more lives and inflicted much
more economic misery on the people living and earning their livelihood
in the northwest.
Another concern I have is with the reduction of services at Corps'
projects throughout the northwest and, in particular, Idaho. For
example, at the Corps' Dworshak Project in Idaho, nineteen positions
have been lost in that project's resource department. Moreover, the
resource manager position at that project has been vacant for some time
and I understand the position will be filled only temporarily.
Several Idaho communities depend on the operations at the Dworshak
Project for their economic survival and when services at this facility
change, the citizens of these communities get anxious. The City of
Orofino in Clearwater County, Idaho, is terribly concerned about the
reductions in force at Dworshak, and about any future change in
operations that could interrupt electric power, adversely impact
recreation, and result in excessive inflow that would cause the
reservoir to overfill. I have several questions that I will send to the
Corps that cover these concerns.
The last point I will make today concerns the progress of the
Corps' Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study.
Over twenty million dollars will be spent by the American taxpayer
for the Corps to complete the Lower Snake Feasibility Study. I have
grave concerns about the way this large expenditure of taxpayer money
is being used by the Corps, as well as concerns about the usefulness of
the final product.
First, I want to underscore the concern I expressed last week to
members of the Corps' North Pacific District, about a recreation survey
that was mailed to 150 citizens in the northwest. I have a good deal of
experience with surveys and polls and believe the recreation survey
mailed to these 150 citizens to be terribly flawed. Indeed, the very
title of this survey--``Removing Dams from the Lower Snake River to
Increase Salmon''--exhibits bias inasmuch as science does not suggest
that dam removal increases salmon. There are many other similar
problems with this survey which I and my staff have communicated to
employees at the Corps' North Pacific Division. I was relieved to hear
from my staff that further thought is being given by the Corps to the
manner in which this survey ``objectively'' pursues the facts, and I
hope that swift action will be taken to correct the problems with the
current recreation survey.
My other concern about the Feasibility Study is with its usefulness
when it is timely delivered by the Corps in mid-1999.
In Section 1.2.1 of the Corps' ``Interim Status Report'' of the
Feasibility Study, the Corps states that the study will accomplish
several listed goals. By far, the most important one from my
perspective is the goal listed as number (3)--``to provide a sound and
documented basis with which both federal and regional decision makers
can judge the recommended solutions.''
I am very interested in whether the Corps still stands behind this
promise, and whether the Corps will deliver the final product on time.
It is essential that important scientific questions be answered as
definitively as possible and included in the Corps' final report. Two
of these important scientific questions that must be answered are: (1)
how many wild, natural spawners will each salmon recovery alternative
produce? and (2) how will each of the recovery alternatives impact
salmon survival? When the answers to these questions are definitively
stated, then policymakers can begin to weigh the tradeoffs by matching
the cost (capital construction, power impacts, economic mitigation)
with the number of wild, adult fish produced by each recommended
alternative.
I realize fully that getting the answers to the trenchant
scientific questions presented is, primarily, the responsibility of the
group of Northwest fisheries scientists know as ``PATH''--Plan for
Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses. Mr. Chairman, PATH receives about
$1.7 million annually in BPA funds, and has been operating for nearly
two years. The scientists in this group receive direction from the
National Marine and Fisheries Service's ``Implementation Team,'' which
is responsible for implementing the 1995 Biological Opinion. PATH's
mission Mr. Chairman, is to inform policymakers about what is already
known regarding salmon survival in the mainstem and where research
should be focused.
Mr. Chairman, what concerns me today in March, 1998, a little over
a year away from the Corps' expected delivery date of the Feasibility
Study, are reports that PATH may not be able to deliver on the science.
Scientists in the PATH group are, reportedly, unable to resolve their
differences with respect to the proper weight to be given evidence
supporting alternatives.
Without clear information on what are the best alternatives to
pursue, the Corps' study will be almost useless. No matter how good the
economic and engineering analysis is, without sound biological
analysis, decision makers will be unable to make the necessary
political, social, and scientific determinations that will effect
salmon survival in the northwest.
Mr. Chairman, if the Corps fails to deliver on this most important
goal, legitimate criticism will abound. Once again, a large amount of
money will have been spent on salmon recovery with little to show for
the taxpayers expense. That, Mr. Chairman, is unacceptable.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the Corps' responses
to the questions that I will submit for the record.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DORGAN
Senator Domenici. Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I would ask that a statement of mine be put in the record.
fiscal year 1999 budget request
Before I came to the Congress, I used to testify from time
to time before committees of Congress. I remember that after
the testimony I used to think that Congress seemed to me to be
permanently indignant about things. Then I came to Congress and
I realized there was plenty of reasons to be indignant.
So this morning, when I hear what is being said, I must
tell you that I share almost all of what I have heard about
priorities. I am very concerned that we are shortchanging the
Corps of Engineers and shortchanging our investments in these
areas.
In my judgment, we ought to have pride in making the right
investments. These are, in fact, important and good investments
for the country. We ought to be ashamed if we don't make these
investments.
Having said that, I also want to say to the Corps of
Engineers that you are, I think, some of the best flood
fighters in the world. Many parts of this country owe you an
enormous debt of gratitude.
We had nearly 10 percent of the population of North Dakota
evacuated in a major flood last year. Ninety-five percent of
one of our largest cities was evacuated. The Corps waged a
flood fight the likes of which I have never seen.
They won parts of that fight and lost parts when the dikes
broke. But we could call at midnight or at 3 o'clock in the
morning and we would find the Corps in the middle of that flood
fight.
I just want to say at the start that I have enormous
respect for what the Corps does. But it makes it even more
important that we make the right investments and that we allow
you to make the right investments.
devils lake, ND
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about a wide range of issues
and support the general tone of your comments. We have an
enormous problem with Devils Lake, which all of you know. I
have some charts which I will not go through at the moment.
Devils Lake has risen again. We are in the middle of a huge
flood problem. I have a picture of a man's house burning down,
a quadriplegic. Just like all the rest of the houses engulfed
by this lake, in a basin that has no inlet and no outlet, you
could not do anything but burn the house and leave.
Here is a picture of the house that was burned. That is a
fire that is set on purpose because the lake envelops not just
that house but hundreds of others. And the lake continues to
rise.
We must make the investment to try to do something about
it. That investment is a relatively small outlet to try to
reduce the pressure on that lake.
So that is one of the issues. There are some funds
requested in this budget. Members of this subcommittee have
been very helpful in this area.
The second area is the Garrison Diversion Project. This has
been ongoing for a third of a century. We did not come asking
for anything. The Federal Government came to us and said if
you'll take a flood that comes and stays the size of the State
of Rhode Island in your State, if you accept a permanent flood
the size of Rhode Island, if you do that, North Dakotans, we
will give you the benefit of moving the water around the State.
That was a third of a century ago. We got the flood, so we
got all of the costs. We have yet to collect on all of the
benefits.
The members of this subcommittee have been very helpful in
trying to move us down the road to finish that project.
prepared statement
So, Mr. Chairman, those are a couple of the specific items
that I will be asking questions about. Thank you for your
patience and I thank the subcommittee for its help.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Byron Dorgan
devil's lake flooding
Much of the work of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers deals with
flood protection and prevention. I want to focus today on one crucial
aspect of this work. What I want to talk about is an emergency. It is
not the kind of emergency that strikes without warning. It is not the
kind of emergency that can be swiftly dealt with by mobilizing disaster
forces. It is an emergency that a large group of North Dakota's
citizens have lived with for the past 5 years and will continue to live
with for the foreseeable future. The emergency is chronic flooding in
the Devil's Lake Basin in my state.
Since 1993, Devils Lake has risen over 20 feet, doubling its size
and tripling its volume. The lake's incredible growth is a direct
result of its unique geological status as a closed basin, with no
natural outlet under normal conditions, and a continuing trend towards
wet weather in the Upper Midwest. The expanding lake has inexorably
consumed homes and businesses, submerged roads, and inundated farm and
pasture land. During the last five years, this flood has caused
hundreds of millions of dollars in economic damages and triggered over
$200 million in federal disaster assistance. None of this has happened
overnight. This is not an acute emergency, it is a chronic one.
In response to this emergency, an Interagency Task Force
recommended a comprehensive flood-fighting strategy which includes
relocation of structures, upper basin water storage, raising the levee
protecting the City of Devil's Lake, raising essential roads, and
constructing an emergency outlet from the lake. No single one of these
approaches will be sufficient to address the problem.
Although federal, state, and local governments are aggressively
implementing this strategy, a critical part of the plan, construction
of an emergency outlet, remains undone. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has designed a 13-mile emergency outlet from Devils Lake to
the Sheyenne River. This outlet has the potential to reduce the lake
level by one foot a year, preventing millions of dollars in damages to
the City of Devils Lake, the Spirit Lake Nation reservation, farms, and
pasture lands.
Congress provided $5 million in the fiscal year 97 Disaster
Supplemental Appropriation Bill for project planning and design, and
another $5 million in fiscal year 1998 for additional design and
initial construction. For fiscal year 1999, the Administration has
requested $16 million for construction.
That's the technical side of this emergency, now let me share some
of its human face. Like a chronic disease, Devils Lake has slowly but
inexorably taken its toll on those who live around it.
Dwayne Howard is typical of hundreds of farmers and ranchers who
live near Devils Lake. Dwayne, a proud former rodeo champion, has
watched helplessly as the lake swallows his farm. The flood waters are
now just feet from his home. Like so many others, he has been forced to
abandon his farm, with no hope of compensation from any government
authority. Mark Kreklau, an agricultural financial consultant predicts
that ``Between now and May 1 we will lose more farmers in the area than
in recent memory. It's the worst I've ever seen.'' Kreklau expects to
see a 60 percent increase in farm bankruptcy rates this year.
On the Spirit Lake Nation Reservation many of the reservation's
4,000 enrolled members are affected. Tribal Elder Pauline Graywater
recently told of her plight at a public meeting. Her home is threatened
by the rising waters and she fears she may have to move as early as
this summer. The Spirit Lake Nation casino, a major tribal business,
now stands isolated on an island. With revenues slashed by 60 percent,
more than half of the casino's 325 employees have been laid-off.
Joe Belford, County Commissioner, described it best when he said
that, at Devils Lake ``Our house is burning.'' I'll leave you with the
image of the burning house of quadriplegic Lakewood resident Randy
Myers. Unable to have his house moved as floodwaters advanced, Joe was
forced to have his house burned.
In the absence of an emergency outlet to Devils Lake, the chronic
emergency takes its relentless toll. To confront the advance of this
vast body of water, we must implement all aspects of the total flood-
fighting strategy. With the water rising right now, it is time to
proceed with an emergency outlet.
garrison diversion project
My principal concern in the Bureau of Reclamation budget is funding
for the Garrison Diversion Project. This is the key to water
development in North Dakota, just as water development in general is
the key to economic development in our state.
I am requesting $31 million for the Garrison Diversion Project
pursuant to the currently authorized project. This amount is $7 million
over the President's request. Two million dollars of that amount would
be made available for the needs of North Dakota's Indian tribes which
have already reached their funding ceilings under existing authority.
This amount is just a small fraction of the over $200 million in
critical unmet Indian needs identified by the Bureau of Reclamation.
The remaining $5 million would fund water systems in the southeast,
northwest, and west central regions of the state as well as the
continued operation of the Oakes Test Area. Funding will allow the
continuation of numerous projects under way in these regions. Providing
adequate funding for these projects is a federal responsibility under
the Garrison Reformulation Act. That Act promises North Dakota
compensation in the form of water development for the inundation of
500,000 acres of prime farm land and two Indian reservations in North
Dakota.
However, the project is being recast to emphasize the most pressing
water needs in North Dakota--safe, abundant water for municipal, rural
and industrial use. As a result, on November 10, 1997, the North Dakota
delegation introduced S. 1515, the Dakota Water Resources Act, a major
reformulation of the project. I expect this bill, which is critical to
the development of North Dakota, to be the subject of hearings soon
before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Meanwhile, semi-arid North Dakota has several unmet water
development needs. We get just 15 to 17 inches of water in a typical
year. Lack of clean and abundant water for drinking, industry and
agriculture limits our economic development and imposes undue hardship
on our citizens. Clean, abundant water is also required for
agriculture, recreation and environmental quality.
Not only is water scarce in North Dakota, but it is also often of
poor quality. I'm sure not many of my colleagues would want their
constituents to drink the dark brown water that is often all that is
available in northwestern North Dakota.
While lack of good quality water harms our economy, clean water can
make all the difference. For example, the Antelope Creek Bison Ranch
connected up to the Garrison project's Southwest Pipeline in the fall
of 1995. This small business now receives clean, dependable supplies of
water for its bison herd. Clean water enables the ranch to remain in
business. In fact, the business is so successful that it was named 1997
Producer of the Year by the Dakota Territory Buffalo Association.
The Taylor Nursery is another Southwest Pipeline success story.
Once the company connected to the pipeline, its owners estimated that
their business increased by 15-20 percent.
Other Garrison benefits have enabled North Dakota companies to cut
down on maintenance costs and improve quality control in a variety of
industrial processes and to stretch out our limited aquifer supplies.
Mr. Chairman, the people of North Dakota are patient. They have to
be since they have been waiting for over 40 years to receive the full
benefits of the promised Garrison project. These are benefits that they
were promised when they sacrificed half a million acres of farmland to
benefit down stream states. We were told that if we accepted a
permanent flood on these lands, in return we would receive water for
irrigation, drinking and industrial uses. North Dakotans thought this
was a good deal. But we are still waiting for the federal government to
fulfill its side of the bargain.
While the pipeline projects I have mentioned are real rays of hope
for North Dakota, they are not enough. We need to finish the job, repay
the debt to my state and complete a reformulated Garrison project with
adequate annual appropriations.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT
Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There seems to be
a discernible pattern about the opening statements here. I will
continue the pattern.
bureau of reclamation programs
But I will break the pattern a little bit in that I am not
talking about the Army Corps of Engineers. I am talking about
the Bureau of Reclamation.
I want to commend Assistant Secretary Patty Beneke who is
here and from whom you will hear on the second panel for the
work she is doing to help us with the Central Utah Project.
My concerns are about the unfair treatment and
micromanagement of these projects by OMB. I think OMB should
let the Department of Interior do its job.
I have contacted Erskine Bowles about this. I have sent a
letter to the White House. I want Secretary Beneke to know that
I will do everything I can to assist her, and trust that she
will help assist me in getting a response from the White House
about our concerns.
central utah project
It is very similar to what we have heard here already.
There is an historic compromise agreement passed by the
Congress in 1992 called the Central Utah Project Completion
Act. It created a very delicate balance between the people who
wanted to build the dams and preserve the water and the
environmental concerns about mitigation of the environmental
impact of these dams. It was put together carefully by Congress
after literally decades of negotiation.
The fiscal year 1999 budget request does not keep the
agreement. It acts as if there were no commitment made in the
previous agreement and moves to cut both the requests from the
district relating to the Central Utah Project and,
interestingly enough, the administration has cut the
Environmental Mitigation Commission as well.
It troubles me that OMB has cut the district moneys by a
significantly greater percentage than that of the commission.
This is a fundamental break with the spirit of the 1992
Competition Act Agreement.
I sincerely hope the actions of OMB do not signal a change
in the policy of this administration to follow the intent of
that act. It is important that the funding proceed on schedule
and not suffer delays while adequately funding the fish and
wildlife activities of the commission.
This committee has been very supportive in the past for the
Central Utah Project. I am grateful to the chairman for his
personal attention. I hope we can quickly get to the bottom of
this.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I will submit some written questions for
the record, addressing such Utah issues as the Tooele
Wastewater Project.
I also have some questions for the Army Corps regarding
some other projects. But let me join in thanking the Corps for
their tremendous assistance in the past on a number of Utah
projects and warning them that I will be coming back to them
often for activities relating to the 2002 Winter Olympics.
Salt Lake City technically won the bid for the Olympics,
but we are fast recognizing that the Olympics cannot be held
and sponsored by a single city or a single State. These are
America's games every bit as much as they are Utah's games or
Salt Lake City's games. A good portion of them will take place
on public lands.
prepared statement
I am grateful for the preliminary cooperation we have had
from the Corps as we have had discussions about this issue. I
want to join with Senator Dorgan--we have not had a disaster in
Utah, but we will have a different kind of disaster if we don't
have the cooperation. We have every reason to expect that based
on your past performance and I want the record to show that we
recognize that and are grateful for it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Robert F. Bennett
Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank and commend
Assistant Secretary Patty Beneke for the work she is doing on the
Central Utah Project. We have met privately to discuss my concerns
about some unfair treatment and micro management of this project by
OMB. They should let the Department of the Interior do their job. I
have sent a letter to the White House about these concerns several
weeks ago and have received no response. I want to ask Secretary Beneke
if she will assist me in getting a response from the White House about
my concerns.
The historic compromise agreement known as the Central Utah Project
Completion Act Congress enacted in 1992 provides a delicate balance
between the activities of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District
in constructing the project and the implementing environmental programs
of the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission. I want
to express concern that the fiscal year 1999 Budget Request has not
dealt fairly with the Central Utah Project. In assembling the budget,
OMB cut the original requests from the District and the Commission.
Mr. Chairman, while I would prefer that the funding was a little
higher for CUP, what really troubles me is that OMB cut the District's
money by a significantly greater percentage than that of the
Commission. This is a fundamental break in the spirit of the 1992
agreement.
I sincerely hope the actions of OMB do not signal a change in the
policy of this Administration to follow the intent of the delegation
from Utah when it passed the CUP Completion Act. It is important for
the funding of the project to proceed on schedule and not suffer from
delays while adequately funding the fish and wildlife activities of the
Commission.
I appreciate the Committee's past support for the Central Utah
Project as well as the Chairman's personal attention that he has given
this project. I hope that we can quickly get to the bottom of this
issue.
Mr. Chairman, I will submit a few questions for the Record that I
would like the Bureau to address regarding a few Utah issues such as
the Tooele Wastewater Project, the Privatization of Dutch John and, of
course, the proposal to drain Lake Powell. I also have some questions
for the Army Corps regarding some other projects. Let me briefly thank
the Corp for their tremendous assistance in the past on a number of
Utah projects and I look forward to working closely with them in the
coming months as we prepare for the 2002 Winter Olympics.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BURNS
Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement
that I will put into the record. I know that you want to get to
the witnesses. So, I will put my statement in the record.
Senator Domenici. It will be incorporated for the record.
Senator Burns. I just want to say one little thing. I have
been looking at the map here. We are at the headwaters of the
greatest river system is in this country. The area that we
cover--I don't know if you thought you were collecting combat
pay here this morning, didn't you?
Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
Senator Burns. Well, you can forget about that.
The area that in our district it covers is an area that
lengthwise runs from the Utah-Colorado border to Norfolk, VA,
and even the North-South runs from Chicago to Washington, DC.
That is how big an area it is that you have out there.
We only get 4 percent of the funds. Maybe we are lucky. I
don't know. But we have some problems out there and we will
submit those questions to you.
prepared statement
I want to direct them mostly to the Bureau of Reclamation.
I thank the chairman for this opportunity.
Senator Domenici. You are welcome.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you calling this hearing this
morning. As I have looked over the budget justifications for the
agencies funded by this committee one glaring point has been clear.
There is not enough money available in the Administration's budget for
the projects overseen by the people we have here today. A point which
has been made clear to me in the past couple of days, by people in my
state of Montana.
I appreciate the work that the agencies, appearing before the
committee are tasked to do for the good of the nation. But I am also
concerned by the course that they appear to be taking when addressing
the issues on the ground in the states. They appear to be headed down
the same road that many agencies have, into the regulatory role.
Instead they should be continuing in the area of providing assistance
to the many people out there that really need and desire their
technical expertise.
In recent days it has come to my attention that the Bureau of
Reclamation has some very real problems developing in the area of
public confidence. This it appears has also affected the manner in
which they deal with the public and the numerous irrigation districts
and their governing bodies across this nation. The people in these
irrigation districts pay their income taxes, and in addition pay fees
to be provided water for their crops. However, the Bureau of
Reclamation finds them either unworthy or unable to work within order
to develop budgets and management plans for the same districts.
I find this all very troublesome, for it leads to the premise that
this government does not care to listen or work with the people. In
this year alone we have seen more of this than we need to, and in the
past six years more than many people can tolerate. Gentlemen, there's
problems arising out there on the ground, and if you looked closely you
would find that you are a major portion of the problem itself. Instead,
you and the Bureau should be the solution.
In these times, when the Administration is seeking to develop a
clean water initiative and strategy, spending millions of dollars to
provide clean water to the nation to the country. They are spending
less and less on the construction of clean drinking water systems in
many of our states. As the Chairman mentioned last year there are just
more projects than there is money to go around. This creates a dilemma
of its own making, but piled on top of this is the money that the
President and Vice President are seeking for their clean water
initiative.
I am sorry to inform the administration that the people in rural
America do not drink water from the streams and rivers in the country,
they get their water supply the same way you and I do, Mr. Chairman,
out of a local water supply system. Unfortunately the Administration is
more concerned about making the water clean in streams than it does
about the water that this minority group of American rural residents
use for drinking, cooking and cleaning.
A couple of weeks ago in an Agriculture Appropriations hearing the
Department of Agriculture provided the committee with numerous projects
they would like to undertake to clean up watersheds and streams. A few
of the plans had no real parameters for implementation or development.
This is a problem that scares me, when I have to fight tooth and
nail to get funding to provide a safe and secure water system both for
Indian tribes and rural Montana's. Due to the numbers presented I will
once again have to fight to get the funding necessary to get the
construction started on projects that will provide safe and clean
drinking water for an area of high growth potential. This project, that
will provide a safe and reliable water supply, is adjacent to one of
the largest man made reservoirs in the world. Yet these people have to
truck in clean and safe drinking water.
I will also have to fight the Administration to get funding for a
regional water supply system for a group of communities in north
central Montana. Even though they have been working with a local tribe
who is in the process of finishing a water compact with the state of
Montana and the Department of the Interior. To complicate matters even
further in this case the Environmental Protection Agency is threatening
these communities with noncompliance of safe drinking water
requirements. All the while the Vice President is running around the
country promoting an initiative he has developed to make sure we have
clean water in our rivers and streams across the nation.
This just puzzles me to no end, as does the lack of concern for Joe
citizen in relation to his drinking water this Administration has
displayed. We need funding and we need some solid leadership for
guidance for the local water district communities. The people will
develop the plans and work to build a coalition to address all the
concerns. But you need to work with them and not against them as this
group in power seems to want to provide.
Another issue of great concern I have recently learned about is the
plans and contracts that the Department of the Interior and the Bureau
of Reclamation are preparing which have water districts in Texas and
your state of New Mexico, Mr. Chairman, signing agreements that will
allow them to supply water to smaller communities. The concern here is
that they want these districts and the states to sign away and
acknowledge the federal government as owners of the water rights. From
the beginnings of this country the federal government has stated that
the states have primacy in the area of water rights ownership and
adjudication. But our friends in the Department of the Interior are
seeking any way they can to gain control over the states, especially in
the west. Where as I have stated ``Whiskey is for drinkin', water is
for fightin' ''.
I am aware that the Governor of Texas, and the Governor of Montana
will not agree with you and will fight to continue to preserve their
primacy in water rights ownership. This is not going to play out well
at all in states like Montana, New Mexico, Texas, Idaho and Washington,
as well as Nevada.
Now as for the Army Corps of Engineers, I wonder where exactly you
are today. In the past several months I have heard numerous complaints
about the Corps and the work, or maybe a better term would be lack of
work, they are suppose to be providing. In Montana, Mr. Chairman, I can
tell you that the reputation of the Corps is gaining on that of three
highly ridiculed land management agencies are in the west. The Bureau
of Land Management, the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The three agencies I have just mentioned have
probably the lowest combined trust factor in the United States, and
especially in my state of Montana.
In recent years we have seen the Corps change from a practice and a
mission which is to provide for navigation on our nations waterways and
for the construction of water storage on our rivers. Recent direction
from up above appears to be moving the Corps away from their mission
and instead we are finding a group which seeks to regulate people on
the ground.
Earlier this year on the Yellowstone River in Montana we had a
situation develop where people, who had for years done all the work
required to provide for stream bank wash outs and flood prevention were
caught in a position of being unable to do any work at all. Fortunately
in recent days the Corps has made moves to correct this problem, but a
few days on this side of the decision time would have been too short
and would have created a real problem. Spring runoffs would have made
it next to impossible to make any repairs or provided any maintenance
to provide for safety and soil erosion on the river banks.
We see this continue to happen and develop up and down the entire
length of the Yellowstone River. Crisis like this are avoidable if the
federal government works with the general public, and more importantly
places themselves in the position of being able to work with other
federal agencies on the ground.
When it comes to wetlands the Corps now has a position of being a
regulatory authority instead of working with and providing technical
assistance for the public. The 404 permits and the process involved has
become a nightmare for the public and they are sick of this growth of
work. If I remember right, was it not this President and Vice President
who told us they were seeking to streamline government making it more
responsive to the needs of the public. Smoke N mirrors is all I am
seeing.
Mr. Chairman, you'll notice I have yet to even mention the funding
that the Administration the Office of Management of Budget have
provided for the Corps in the fiscal year 1999 budget. I wonder what
and how the Administration arrived at the number they did, but it is
clearly unacceptable to this Senator. Again in this case it makes me
wonder what the real role and mission of the Army Corps of Engineers
really is in this world.
I just can't imagine there is a way that this Administration thinks
they can have an agency with the requirements that the Army Corps has,
perform a meaningful and realistic job. I am very interested in hearing
exactly what it will be and what the function and future of the Army
Corps will be.
I could continue on here, and we would accomplish nothing and I am
very interested in what the panel has to present us to accept their
numbers. I offer my commitment to the Chairman and the Ranking member
to work to find a way to provide for the public. I will therefore close
and wait to hear the testimony of the panel. I will have several
questions later in the hearing.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. We are going to proceed quickly to our
witnesses. I will ask them to be as brief as they can so that
we can ask questions.
national water resource development effort
But I wanted to make one further observation. You know,
about 15 years ago I was vilified as the opponent of the inland
waterways of this country because I proposed, and won, my first
legislative victory in making the commercial barges pay a user
fee on their diesel fuel for system improvements.
I can remember what prompted me to take on this issue. It
was a hearing like this when a group of inland waterway
interests contested whether a Senator from New Mexico ought to
have any interest in the inland waterways of the United States.
I succeeded in assuring them that I indeed had an interest. But
I think some who heard me then might not have believed my
statements here today.
Essentially, I have come to the realization that in
budgeting in the United States, there is one giant thing wrong
and I don't know how to fix it. My staff is not big enough.
Senator Byrd and fellow Senators, we are so busy creating
new programs that we think our Government ought to be in and
pay for, partially or otherwise, that we do not know the extent
of our responsibility to do things that only the Federal
Government's can manage that we have already committed to.
Highways is one example.
This massive infrastructure investment is not going to get
done without Federal support. State and local governments alone
are not able to do it.
I would like to find out just how many billions of dollars
of infrastructure investment we are responsible for in those
items which are clearly a Federal responsibility. Then there is
this whole discussion about whether you should cut the
investment in water resources development, our port and
harbors, to find room for $100 billion in new programs and
initiatives that are being requested in the President's fiscal
year 1999 budget. I think this brings into focus just what I am
talking about.
I know it is not your fault that these new programs and
initiatives have been chosen over these needed water resource
investments. But I'll tell you that we are confronted with that
every year in the budget of the United States and it is a very,
very serious problem.
Having said that, how do you wish to proceed? Mr.
Secretary, do you want to proceed first?
statement of john zirschky
Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir, and I will be very brief.
First, I would like to thank the committee for their kind
remarks and their understanding of the predicament that the
four of us face.
It was not too many years ago that we would not have had so
many Senators show up and say such kind things about us. After
the Midwest floods of 1993, we were blamed for all kinds of
things we had absolutely nothing to do with. I am very pleased
with the support of the members here for our program.
I am going to submit my statement for the record so that we
have plenty of time for questions. I believe that our budget
request is adequate in every program but Construction General.
Not all of the programs are great. We don't have all the money
we need, but we can work within those amounts.
The primary problem that we face is in the Construction
General Program. The uncertainty associated with where we lie
in the future is causing a great deal of difficulty for our
commanders to address. It is tough to plan for next year's
program with such a wide difference between views. It has put a
great deal of pressure on General Ballard and his staff and all
of us to try to keep working together to get through this
problem.
There are some who do not seem to want us to work through
this problem. But I am very proud of the support that I have
gotten from the Chief of Engineers and his staff in this
process.
With that said, I would like to make one last comment. If
you would, please pass this on to Senator Cochran.
prepared statement
I am responsible for that memo to which he referred. Two
weeks ago, I met with General Fuhrman and his staff, and we are
reconsidering and trying to come up with a new means of
addressing the situation in Mississippi. So we are addressing
that problem.
Thank you, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John H. Zirschky
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on the President's fiscal year 1999 budget
for the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers.
Accompanying me are Lieutenant General Joe N. Ballard, the Chief of
Engineers; Major General Russell L. Fuhrman, the Director of Civil
Works; and Mr. Thomas F. (Fred) Caver, the Chief of the Civil Works
Programs Management Division.
On February 2nd, the President transmitted to Congress his budget
for fiscal year 1999, along with planning targets for the out-years.
This budget is part of the President's plan to balance the budget as
early as possible.
My statement will cover the following subjects:
--The Civil Works strategic plan and annual performance plan under
the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), along with a
summary of the Corps' recent performance,
--The President's recent Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
request for Civil Works,
--An overview of the fiscal year 1999 Army Civil Works budget, and
--The fiscal year 1999 Civil Works program highlights by business
program.
government performance and results act
The Civil Works Strategic Plan, being prepared in response to the
Government Performance and Results Act, is currently under discussion
within the Administration. Our plan will describe how the Corps of
Engineers will continue to fulfill its Civil Works missions within
available resources.
The Corps is preparing program performance goals and performance
measures for each of its eight business programs: flood and coastal
storm damage reduction, navigation, environment, hydropower generation,
recreation activities, regulatory, emergency preparedness and disaster
response, and support for others. We will consult with this
Subcommittee and others on the Strategic Plan and the fiscal year 1999
performance plan as soon as we have completed our consultations within
the Administration.
I would like to discuss briefly our ongoing efforts to improve the
performance of the Civil Works program. It is important that we
effectively execute the programs and projects for which you provide the
funds. Let me also stress that we are committed to working with this
Subcommittee in improving our performance.
Improving Performance in the Civil Works Program
At the end of fiscal year 1994, the Corps had an unexpended funding
balance of $1.4 billion, more than 25 percent of the funding available
for that year. Partly because of that performance, the Army has been
pursuing reforms in the Civil Works program which would allow the Corps
to reduce the cost and time required to implement projects and to meet
agreed upon implementation schedules. By the end of fiscal year 1996,
the Corps had reduced its unexpended balance to $0.5 billion, 12
percent of its available funding, and expended 98 percent of the
scheduled program. In fiscal year 1997, the Corps expended 99 percent
of the funds it scheduled; however, the unexpended balance grew to $0.8
billion, about 17 percent of its available funding. This increase was
due in part to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, which
provided an additional $585 million late in the year.
Figure 1 shows the performance of the program across its entire
spectrum. The left side of the figure represents outputs of the program
and the right side shows appropriation accounts.
Reconnaissance Studies.--In fiscal year 1997, we initiated the
Expedited Reconnaissance Study process. In that year, we completed 36
expedited reports with a median completion time of 6 months. During the
same year, we also completed 45 regular reconnaissance reports started
the prior year, with a median completion time of 12 months. As you can
see our performance in this area has been improving.
Feasibility Studies.--In fiscal year 1997, we completed 16 of 18
studies scheduled to be completed. In addition, since fiscal year 1993
we have reduced completion times from a median of 5.6 years to 3.5
years.
Design Completions for Construction Contracts.--Completion of
designs is a major element in maintaining Construction schedules. In
fiscal year 1997, we completed only 126 of 154 designs, 81 percent of
the scheduled number.
Award of Construction Contracts.--This is another measure important
to maintaining project schedules. In fiscal year 1997, we completed
only 101 of 144 scheduled awards, 70 percent of the scheduled number.
Continuing Authority Construction Contracts.--This measures the
number of construction contracts awarded on projects not specifically
authorized by Congress (Section 14, 103, 107, 111, 205, and 208). In
fiscal year 1997, we completed only 75 percent of the number scheduled,
35 out of 47.
General Investigations.--In this account we expended only 80
percent of the available funds. We were scheduled to expend 94 percent.
Construction General.--In fiscal year 1997, we expended 95 percent
of the scheduled funds; however, that was only 77 percent of the
available funding.
Flood Control, MR&T.--In fiscal year 1997, we expended 98 percent
of the scheduled and available funds.
Operation and Maintenance, General.--In fiscal year 1997, we
expended 92 percent of the available funding.
In summary, we accomplished 99 percent of the scheduled
expenditures for the year; but, as the Total Program bar shows, we
expended only 83 percent of the funds available in fiscal year 1997.
The significant difference is largely the result of the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act which was passed late in the year and
provided little time for us to expend the funds.
Performance Goals for Fiscal Year 1998
Although the current schedules for fiscal year 1998 would provide
for the Corps to increase expenditures to almost $4 billion, a ten
percent increase over previous years, the Corps is still expected to
carry over about 16 percent of its available funds. Through the first
quarter, expenditures are slightly ahead of schedule. However, because
of the significant increases in expenditures which will be required in
the remainder of the fiscal year, significant management effort will be
required to meet the current schedules.
emergency supplemental appropriations request
The President's Request for Civil Works
The President has proposed a fiscal year 1998 contingent emergency
supplemental appropriation of $30 million for the Operation and
Maintenance, General, appropriation account. This funding is contingent
upon a more detailed assessment of requirements, which we are currently
developing. These emergency supplemental funds are needed to address
recent and continuing damage to Civil Works projects from ongoing
severe and unusual weather patterns. These significant damages to
Federal navigation channels and harbors, reservoir facilities and flood
control channels are caused by the continuous El Nino related flooding
and wave action in California, the Pacific Northwest and Florida. These
funds would allow for the additional work necessary to restore project
services, including dredging, snagging, drift and debris removal, scour
protection, and access road repairs. As discussed above, a large
emergency supplemental appropriation for the Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies account was received late in fiscal year 1997, much of
which remains uncommitted for past emergencies. The Administration's
proposal is to transfer a small portion of this uncommitted balance to
the Operation and Maintenance, General, appropriation account, where it
would fund the repairs to projects other than commercial navigation
channels and harbors. Funding to address damages to commercial
navigation channels and harbors would be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund.
Annual Flood Damage Report to Congress
A few days ago I transmitted to this Subcommittee a copy of the
Annual Flood Damage Report for Fiscal Year 1997. In the past year, the
Corps' estimate of the value of the flood damages prevented within the
United States by water projects controlled by the Corps and emergency
activities totaled $45.5 billion. This set a new annual record and is
well above the ten-year average. These record damages prevented
resulted from major storms hitting eight major river basins that
together cover more than half of the Nation. Flood damages actually
suffered amounted to approximately $8.9 billion in value, also well
above the ten-year average.
the army civil works budget
Multi-year Funding Levels for Civil Works
In November 1997, the President exercised his line-item veto
authority by removing funding for several projects in the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998. At the time,
the White House press release announced that the Administration wished
to work with Congress to agree on an appropriate, predictable level of
annual funding for the Civil Works program. Such an agreement would
enable the Corps to more efficiently manage its program and maintain
commitments to project sponsors. Attached to this statement is a copy
of the chart used at the White House press conference to demonstrate
the disparity between the budgeted and appropriated funding levels
(Figure 2). This continuing disparity prevents the Corps from
establishing and maintaining project schedules, contributes to
inefficiency, defers realization of project benefits and, ultimately,
increases project costs to both the sponsor and the Government. The
attached graph displaying the level of Civil Works appropriations, in
constant dollars, over time puts this discussion in an historical
funding context (Figure 3).
Fiscal Year 1999 Civil Works Budget
The President's fiscal year 1999 budget includes $3.215 billion in
new discretionary Energy and Water Development appropriations for the
Army Civil Works program. This is about 95 percent of the funding level
budgeted by the President for the Civil Works program for fiscal year
1998 and is about 80 percent of the fiscal year 1998 level of
appropriations for Civil Works, including funding for the Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) transferred from the
Department of Energy to the Army. This level of funding is the maximum
that could be accommodated by the Administration within the overall
outlay target for domestic discretionary programs. Because of the
importance of staying within the outlay target and the large amount of
carryover from fiscal year 1998 that will be spent during fiscal year
1999, the budgeted level of new funding for fiscal year 1999 was
reduced accordingly.
In addition to the discretionary appropriations, the fiscal year
1999 program reflects $14.7 million in mandatory permanent
appropriations; $144 million in non-Federal cash contributions from
project cost sharing sponsors, through the Rivers and Harbors
Contributed Funds account; and the transfer of $48.3 million from the
Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund. Moreover, for the first time,
the costs of operating and maintaining Pacific Northwest hydropower
facilities will be financed directly by Bonneville Power
Administration, whose fiscal year 1999 program includes approximately
$98 million for this purpose. Over 24 percent of the overall fiscal
year 1999 Civil Works program would be derived from user fees or non-
Federal contributions.
The new appropriations request is distributed among accounts as
follows: $150 million for General Investigations; $784 million for
Construction, General; $1.603 billion for Operation and Maintenance,
General; $110 million for the Regulatory Program; $280 million for
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries; and $288 million for
other accounts. Figure 4 presents a geographical distribution of the
budget by region.
Advance Appropriations for New Investments and Near-term Completions
Like the President's amended budget for fiscal year 1998, this
budget proposes appropriation during fiscal year 1999 of amounts
required in each year from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2003 to
advance fund the Federal share of completing 60 continuing projects
scheduled for completion during that time frame. These advance
appropriations would become available for obligation in the year
specified, which would provide the Corps and sponsors of these projects
greater predictability in managing the schedules and costs to complete
them and bring their benefits on-line.
Continuing projects with completion dates of 2004 or beyond,
including 95 projects in the Construction, General, account and all
projects in the Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries
(MR&T), account continue to be budgeted incrementally, based on
estimated annual requirements to complete the projects. For these
projects in the Construction, General, account, the remaining Federal
cost of construction after fiscal year 1999 is $14 billion. For
similarly funded projects in the MR&T account, the remaining Federal
cost of construction after fiscal year 1999 is $4.155 billion.
Environmental Resources Fund for America
As part of the President's overall plan to support increases for
many of the Nation's key environmental programs, the Administration has
proposed the Environmental Resources Fund for America. The Fund, which
includes two components under the purview of the Army, is a deficit
neutral plan for financing and carrying out environmental initiatives.
Challenge 21--Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard
Mitigation.--The fiscal year 1999 request includes funds in the amount
of $25 million for the Challenge 21 initiative, the Corps' Flood Hazard
Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem Restoration Program. As proposed for
inclusion in this year's Water Resources Development Act, this
initiative expands the use of non-structural flood hazard mitigation
options to achieve the dual purposes of flood damage reduction and
restoration of the functions and values of riverine ecosystems.
Projects might include the relocations of threatened homes or
businesses, conservation or restoration of wetlands and natural
floodwater storage areas and planning for responses and solutions to
potential future floods. Although focused on non-structural
alternatives to flood protection, a Challenge 21 project could, where
appropriate, include structural pieces. Challenge 21 builds on existing
programs and initiatives, uses a watershed approach and initiates and
expands partnerships with other Federal agencies (particularly FEMA,
NRCS and USFWS) and non-Federal public entities. Candidate projects
might be areas where frequent or severe flooding has occurred,
emergency assistance has been necessary, flood hazards have increased
due to changes in hydrologic and hydraulic regimes, development is
encroaching on and altering flood plains and important floodplain
functions and values need maintenance or restoration. Cost sharing will
be 50 percent Federal and 50 percent non-Federal for studies and 65
percent Federal and 35 percent non-Federal for design and
implementation.
Special Area Management Plans.--The Environmental Resources Fund
for America also provides $5 million in the Regulatory Program account
to enable the Corps to carry out Special Area Management Plans (SAMP's)
to address comprehensive watershed development issues in selected
sensitive ecosystems. These SAMP's are valuable tools that can be used
by state and local agencies to decide development in environmentally
sensitive areas, while helping to ensure consistency among Corps
regulatory, planning and operations actions and facilitating
coordination with other Federal and State agencies.
Budget Allocations for New Investments
The Administration supports a regular program of new investments in
the Civil Works program. This would enable the Corps to maintain and
improve its technical capabilities and to continue its historical role
as a problem solver for the Nation. This year, the budget includes an
affordable program of nine new starts, most of which are oriented
toward prudent stewardship of existing Federal resources.
In the fiscal year 1999 budget, the Administration has addressed
the need to construct projects on an efficient schedule by providing
full funding, through advanced appropriations, under the
Administration's Fixed Assets Initiative, and by making reasonable
trade-offs, in the near term, among priorities for the ongoing program.
We are hopeful that the Administration and Congress will engage in
discussions on the future priorities and funding levels that are
appropriate for the Civil Works program, in the context of the current
budgetary constraints.
The continuing disparity between the level of funding budgeted for
the Civil Works program and the level appropriated has real impacts on
real people across the country. The Los Angeles County Drainage Area
Project (LACDA), which cannot be completed until 2006, is an example of
how unpredictable future funding levels and the need to delay
completion dates in order to accommodate unprogrammed work in the short
run are affecting one of the Nation's major metropolitan areas.
The LACDA project will restore 100-year flood protection for an
urbanized area with a population of over 9 million. This area currently
is partially protected by an urban flood control system which includes
a combination of Federal, state and local structures consisting of 5
major reservoirs, 22 debris basins, and 470 miles of channel
improvements. As urbanization of the basin has occurred over the past
40 years, the ability of the existing systems to provide design levels
of protection to the Nation's second largest metropolitan area has
diminished.
Because of multi-year funding constraints necessary to balance the
budget, the funding available for LACDA has necessarily been well below
that which could have been used by the Corps in fiscal year 1998 and
fiscal year 1999. Meanwhile our sister agency, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, has deferred changes in flood insurance requirements
as long as possible and, beginning in July 1998, the low and moderate
income residents within the project area will be required to begin
paying mandatory flood insurance premiums in the amount of $130 million
annually. These out-of-pocket costs associated with delaying the
completion of LACDA are in addition to an increased risk of flooding.
Although, every effort will be made to maintain as many of the
original project schedules as possible, there are certainly other areas
that will suffer similar impacts due to unavoidable project delays. It
is imperative that Congress and the Administration reach an
accommodation on a justified predictable funding level for the program.
Acceptance of Non-Federal Funds
We recognize there is a growing problem regarding the funding
implications associated with several authorities under which non-
Federal sponsors can plan and construct water resource projects, or
advance funds to the Corps of Engineers for such efforts, with
subsequent reimbursement of the Federal share. Our current analysis
indicates there is a potential demand for reimbursement agreements that
total almost $900 million. Under the current constrained budget
ceilings for the Corps of Engineers construction program,
implementation of these authorities can create expectations of large
future payments that cannot be fulfilled. We also share the
Subcommittee's concerns about entering into reimbursement agreements
expressed in the conference report that accompanied the fiscal year
1998 appropriation act. Therefore, we plan to enter into future
reimbursement agreements only for those projects we believe will be
budgeted within available future funds to provide timely reimbursement.
summary of the fiscal year 1999 civil works program
new civil works investments
New Starts and Other New Work
The budget provides for initiation of specifically authorized new
Civil Works investments with a total cost of $531.4 and a Federal
construction cost of $410 million. Of this amount, $21 million will be
repaid by power users and $121 million will be paid by non-Federal
sponsors. The fiscal year 1999 budget includes $28.5 million to
initiate nine new surveys; three regular construction new starts; four
major rehabilitation new starts; one deficiency correction; and one dam
safety assurance new start. In addition, the budget includes $47
million for ongoing and new activities under the Continuing Authorities
Program. Attached to this statement is a table listing the new
construction work funded in the fiscal year 1999 budget (see Table A).
Seamless Funding for Preconstruction Engineering and Design Activities
Under the ``seamless funding'' practice followed in recent years,
the budget also includes funding to proceed into the PED phase on 18
projects for which cost-shared feasibility studies currently are
underway. To reduce the budgetary impact of PED efforts and to better
assure sponsor commitments, the Administration proposed to jointly
finance new PED's in fiscal year 1997. For equity reasons, the fiscal
year 1998 budget proposed to extend this joint-financing policy to
include all new PED-like activities which might be added by Congress in
other accounts, such as Construction, General or Operation and
Maintenance, as well. We have now developed draft model Design
Agreements to cover such situations and will continue to apply this
policy to all applicable projects in fiscal year 1999 and beyond.
O&M Cost Reduction Initiative
Prudent management of the Nation's investment in water resources
projects is an important part of our program. Half of the Army's $3.22
billion Civil Works budget--$1.6 billion in the Operation and
Maintenance, General, appropriation account--finances the stewardship
of the existing infrastructure. This budget request will help ensure
that the Army Corps of Engineers can continue to deliver justified
levels of service at the least cost to the taxpayer.
We are exploring various cost saving measures in the O&M program.
Aligning operation and maintenance levels at projects with the demand
for services is one avenue. For example, where utilization of locks is
relatively low, perhaps the same service could be provided for our
customers at something less than 24 hours a day. Another example would
be to align the length of the recreation season with visitation rates
at Corps lakes. Support activities, such as condition and operation
studies, master planning, water control management and real estate
management are potential cost saving areas. Prudent stewardship
requires that we will need to examine all our facilities critically to
ensure that available resources are devoted to the highest priority
maintenance requirements.
The above examples are conceptual and will be analyzed further,
coordinated with our customers and refined as necessary in an informed
and open forum to achieve the cost savings. Also, the individual
project amounts included in the fiscal year 1999 budget represent our
best estimates of what will be required next year. Undoubtedly,
intervening events will change these requirements. The Corps will
closely monitor project conditions and will apply the flexibility the
Subcommittee has afforded the Civil Works program to make adjustments
among projects to ensure that the most urgent O&M requirements are met.
civil works business programs
In keeping with the government-wide focus on managing to achieve
program results and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of service
delivery to customers, the balance of my statement will discuss the
fiscal year 1999 Civil Works program by business program, since it is
through these results oriented business programs that the Army serves
its Civil Works customers. Discussing the President's budget for the
Civil Works program in this light also puts into perspective the
important economic and environmental benefits derived from investments
in this program. Table B, attached to this statement, shows the
relationship between Civil Works appropriation accounts and business
programs. The funding for General Expenses, which provides executive
direction and management for the Civil Works program at the Corps
Headquarters and division offices, is distributed proportionately
across business purposes in Table B.
Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction.--The total funding in the
fiscal year 1999 Civil Works budget to reduce damages caused by floods
and coastal storms across the country is $874 million. This includes
$583.9 million to invest in new and continuing surveys and
investigations, design project solutions, research and development, and
construct projects devoted to reducing flood damages. We also are
requesting $365 million to operate and maintain completed projects.
About $119 million of that budget request is for operating and
maintaining completed flood protection features along the Mississippi
River and its tributaries. The remaining balance will operate and
maintain Federal projects which were authorized and constructed prior
to the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Prior to 1986, flood
protection projects were often retained in Federal ownership for Corps
operation and maintenance.
Navigation.--The budget provides $1,255 million for navigation
activities. This includes $252 million to plan, design and construct
improvements to our Nation's system of coastal harbors and inland
waterways. Within this total, $47 million is included to maintain
shallow draft harbors, including both inland waterway ports and coastal
harbors, where the economies of the communities are dependent on
commercial fishing and related purposes. A total of $957 million is
requested to operate and maintain our extensive system of coastal ports
and inland waterways that provide for safe and efficient movement of
waterborne commerce.
Environment.--The environmental activities--including both
environment related costs of projects pursued for other purposes as
well as projects fully dedicated to the environment--make up $439
million of the Corps fiscal year 1999 Civil Works budget. Within this
amount, we are requesting $225 million for new investments in
environmental mitigation, restoration, and protection activities. The
total also includes $140 million to continue the Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) transferred to the Corps last
year by Congress. In addition to the above budgeted amounts, $48
million will be transferred to the Army from receipts to the Department
of the Interior for the continuing Coastal Wetlands Restoration Fund.
Within the environmental programs, the fiscal year 1999 budget
continues several major investments to which the Army is committed.
Principal among these are $98 million in new investments, within the
total funding for associated projects, for ongoing South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration for the purpose of restoring, preserving, and
protecting the Everglades and the surrounding ecosystem. This amount
includes $27 million to continue the Kissimmee River Restoration
project. The enactment of WRDA 1996 was an important milestone in the
restoration of the Everglades and South Florida ecosystem. That
legislation specifies responsibilities, time frames and cost sharing
for the Corps and for the non-Federal sponsor for the restoration,
preservation and protection of the ecosystem in the vicinity of the
Central and Southern Florida project. The Act also codifies in Federal
law the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, which has been
so effective in bringing Federal and State agencies and private
interests together in the development of a restoration plan.
The fiscal year 1999 budget includes $144 million for the Columbia
River Salmon Program. These funds will pay for mitigation, restoration,
and protection of salmon species indigenous to the Columbia River
Basin, including operation and maintenance of fish passage facilities
in place. The amount requested is consistent with the Memorandum of
Agreement executed in September 1996 among the Departments of the Army,
Commerce, Energy and the Interior, concerning the financial commitment
of the Bonneville Power Administration for Columbia River Basin fish
and wildlife costs. The largest item in this program is the Columbia
River Fish Mitigation project, for which $117 million is budgeted to
continue the construction of fish bypass improvements at eight Corps
dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers and to continue the mitigation
analysis, which evaluates additional measures to increase fish survival
at those dams. This includes more than $41 million for Bonneville Dam
surface bypass and outfall monitoring facilities, $15 million for
extended length screens at John Day Dam, and more than $5 million for
surface bypass facilities at Lower Granite Dam.
The Army recognized that there will be further decisions during
1999 on Lower Granite and other Lower Snake River dams. In the interim,
the budget supports making the operation of these projects as
compatible as possible with improved fish survival. This project is and
has been responsive to the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS)
March 1995 Biological Opinion for operation of the Federal Columbia
River Power System. An Independent Scientific Review Board is, at the
request of the Northwest Power Planning Council, continuing to review
the effectiveness and risk associated with alternative management
measures, including some of the components of this program. The Army
will work closely with NMFS in responding to any changes in that
Biological Opinion.
Other investments dedicated solely to the environmental program are
$7.5 million for the Section 204, 206, and 1135 environmental
restoration continuing authority programs. In addition, the budget
provides $67.4 million within the total for operation and maintenance
of Civil Works facilities and management of associated lands for
continued management in an environmentally responsible manner, fully in
compliance with applicable environmental statutes and regulations.
The Army has given priority to ensuring that the transition of
program administration and execution responsibilities for the FUSRAP
program would not result in slippages at any site. Once a site by site
assessment of the program is completed, the Corps will validate
schedules and funding requirements in order to maximize savings and
accelerate project completion. The Army's budgeted amount in fiscal
year 1999 for FUSRAP continues the cleanup at the same funding level
that Congress provided in fiscal year 1998.
Hydropower.--The significant role played by the Corps in meeting
the Nation's electric power generation needs is reflected in the
budgeted amount of $177 million for this purpose. This includes $47
million for continuing and new investments in major rehabilitation and
improvement of existing facilities and $123 million for the operation
and maintenance of generating capabilities for the production of
reliable and cost effective electricity from a renewable source of
power. As discussed above, in addition to these funds, operation and
maintenance of hydropower facilities in the Pacific Northwest would be
directly financed by a transfer of approximately $98 million from
Bonneville Power Administration revenues.
Recreation.--The Corps is one of the Federal government's largest
providers of outdoor recreation opportunities. The budget includes $219
million to provide this service at multipurpose reservoirs, of which an
estimated $34 million would be derived from recreation user fees
collected at Civil Works projects.
Regulatory.--The President's 1999 budget includes $117 million for
the Corps Regulatory Program account to maintain fair and effective
regulation of the Nation's wetlands and other aquatic resources. This
is an increase of $4 million over the amount appropriated for fiscal
year 1998. The increase is necessary to implement important initiatives
that make the regulatory program more responsive, more equitable, and
more efficient.
Five million dollars of the Regulatory Program total is for the
Clean Water Action Plan in the President's Environmental Resources Fund
for America. This $5 million is to be used to develop Special Area
Management Plans, which are tools to help guide local entities in the
development of environmentally sensitive areas.
The Administration is again proposing legislation to establish a
more rational system of permit application fees for the Corps
regulatory program. In the current system, most permit fees do not
cover the cost of collection, let alone the cost of administering the
program. Under this proposal, the fees for individual landowners would
be eliminated, and fees for commercial applicants would be increased to
cover the costs of evaluating and processing the permits, using a
sliding scale based on the complexity of the application. These fees,
estimated to produce receipts of $7 million in fiscal year 1999, would
offset an equal amount in new appropriations for this program.
Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Response.--The Corps prepares
for and responds to natural and national emergencies in peacetime and
war in support of the Army and the Nation. The President's budget does
not request any new appropriations for emergency preparedness
activities in fiscal year 1999 because carryover funds from the 1997
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act and other legislation,
estimated at this time to be about $330 million at the start of fiscal
year 1999, are expected to be sufficient to meet operational
requirements.
Support for Others.--In fiscal year 1999, the Corps will provide
reimbursable technical support to other Federal agencies, state and
local governments, other countries and international organizations.
This support covers the complete range of planning, engineering, design
and construction management, environmental services and technical
assistance related to water, natural resources and infrastructure.
Assistance can vary from providing technical advice to complete project
management services. The Support for Others program enhances the Corps'
ability to maintain and improve technical competence, while allowing
other agencies to focus their in-house resources, particularly
personnel, on their own primary areas of expertise. The estimated
dollar value of the Corps efforts on behalf of other agencies in fiscal
year 1999 is $814 million.
conclusion
The President's fiscal year 1999 Civil Works budget is consistent
with the need to balance the Federal budget and the President's overall
domestic priorities. The funds available for the Civil Works program
have been applied to give balance among numerous Civil Works
priorities: responsible stewardship of existing infrastructure, meeting
commitments for ongoing construction to the extent possible, and
reducing future emergency requirements through investments that achieve
both ecosystem restoration and flood hazard mitigation.
In conclusion, I would emphasize the Administration's commitment to
work with this Subcommittee, others in Congress and the non-Federal
partners of Civil Works projects to ensure that the policies and
priorities for the Army Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers
continue to serve the vital interests of the Nation by providing
efficient priority investments in public infrastructure while
protecting and restoring the Nation's environment. Moreover, this must
be achieved in a way that supports and contributes to the President's
commitment to balance the Federal budget. I ask for your support as we
move forward to meet these challenges.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. This concludes
my statement.
Figure 1
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TNERGY.006
Figure 2
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TNERGY.007
Figure 3
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TNERGY.008
Figure 4
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TNERGY.009
TABLE A.--DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--ClVlL WORKS--FISCAL YEAR 1999 NEW CONSTRUCTION
[Funding]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost
Fiscal year -----------------------------------------
Category/project 1999 budget Total
project Federal Non-Federal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Construction Starts:
Big Sioux Falls, SD.................................. $2,200,000 $37,100,000 $27,800,000 $9,300,000
Assateague Island, MD................................ 4,000,000 17,200,000 \1\ 17,200,0
00 ............
Grand Prairie, AR.................................... 11,500,000 342,000,000 229,800,000 112,200,000
Major Rehabilitation:
Walter F. George Powerhouse and Dam, AL and GA....... 1,000,000 37,000,000 37,000,000 ............
Lock and Dam 24 Part 2, Mississippi River, IL and MO. 2,400,000 38,370,000 \2\ 38,370,0
00 ............
Patoka Lake, IN...................................... 3,600,000 7,200,000 7,200,000 ............
London Locks and Dam, Kanawha River, WV.............. 1,700,000 20,200,000 \3\ 20,200,0
00 ............
Dam Safety Assurance: Skiatook Lake, OK.................. 500,000 9,500,000 9,500,000 ............
Deficiency Correction: Chain of Rocks, Canal, Mississippi
River, IL............................................... 700,000 22,270,000 22,270,000 ............
------------------------------------------------------
All................................................ 27,600,000 530,840,000 409,340,000 121,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $300,000 will be provided by UPS.
\2\ $19,185,000 will be derived from the IWTF.
\3\ $10,100,000 will be derived from the IWTF.
TABLE B.--DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL WORKS--FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET BY BUSINESS PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flood and
storm Emergency Water Support for
Account Navigation damage Hydropower Regulatory Environment management Recreation supply others All
prevention
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Investigations..................................... 62,000 64,000 1,000 ........... 42,000 .......... 1,000 ........ ............ 160,000
Construction General....................................... 200,073 367,387 46,320 ........... 173,210 .......... 7,010 ........ ............ 784,000
Operation and Maintenance, General......................... 956,993 246,544 122,769 ........... 67,422 6,000 203,273 ........ ............ 1,603,000
FC, Mississippi River and Tributaries...................... .............. 280,000 ........... ........... ........... .......... ........... ........ ............ 280,000
Regulatory Program..................................... .............. ........... ........... 117,000 ........... .......... ........... ........ ............ 117,000
General Expenses........................................... 46,000 36,700 6,600 4,400 16,300 300 8,000 ........ 30,800 148,000
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies...................... .............. ........... ........... ........... ........... .......... ........... ........ ............ ..............
FUSRAP..................................................... .............. ........... ........... ........... 140,000 .......... ........... ........ ............ 140,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Direct Appropriations.......................... 1,266,066 973,631 176,689 121,400 438,932 6,300 219,283 ........ 30,800 3,222,000
====================================================================================================================================
Other Civil Works (Coastal Wetlands Restoration)........... .............. ........... ........... ........... 48,300 .......... ........... ........ ............ 48,300
Support for Others......................................... .............. ........... ........... ........... ........... .......... ........... ........ 814,000 814,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 1,266,066 973,631 176,689 121,400 487,232 6,300 219,283 ........ 844,800 4,084,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
statement of joe ballard
Senator Domenici. Thank you. We are going to move on with
our witnesses before we move to questions.
General Ballard.
General Ballard. Yes, sir; I am also pleased to be
testifying before this committee. I am honored to be appearing
before you again for the second time as Chief of Engineers.
I want to thank the members of the subcommittee, and you
personally, for the very kind remarks that you have made about
the Corps. I would say, thanks to your efforts, the Civil Works
Program has been in the past very strong. It has been a
balanced program and has been highly productive.
I look forward to our continuing partnership in this
essential program that is so beneficial to our Nation, as has
been pointed out several times this morning.
prepared statement
Sir, with your permission I will submit my statement for
the record and we are prepared to take your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joe N. Ballard
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee: I am pleased to be
testifying on the President's fiscal year 1999 Budget for the Civil
Works Program, and am honored to be appearing before you again as Chief
of Engineers.
Today, the Civil Works Program is strong, balanced, and highly
productive. I look forward to your continued partnership in this fine
program, so broadly beneficial to our Nation.
My statement covers seven topics: Restructuring, Headquarters
Relocation Planning, Fiscal year 1999 Civil Works Program Budget,
Improvement of Business Processes, Corps of Engineers Financial
Management System, Civil Works Program Execution and Outlook, and Corps
Vision and Strategic Plan.
restructuring
I would like to take a moment to review the progress of division
restructuring.
Beginning in April 1997, the Corps began to implement the
restructuring, which reduced the number of division headquarters from
11 to 8. I approved most of the division commanders' implementation
plans in May 1997, and since that time, the new organizations have been
up and running.
I am convinced that the division restructuring provides a more
efficient organizational structure that will result in greater
efficiencies in the future. We expect that the staffing level for the
eight divisions will be about 8 percent less in fiscal year 1999 than
division usage in fiscal year 1997, and about 18 percent less by fiscal
year 2002.
I have also targeted the Corps Civil Works Headquarters activities
for achievement of comparable manpower savings.
headquarters relocation planning
The Corps proposes to relocate its headquarters, in August 2000, to
underutilized space in the headquarters building of the General
Accounting Office (GAO) at 441 G St. NW, Washington, D.C. By relocating
from the Pulaski Building, the Corps will leave commercially leased
space to make more efficient use of government owned space. The close
proximity of the GAO headquarters to the Pulaski Building will minimize
the impact of the relocation on Corps employees. Additionally, our
headquarters will not be disrupted by reconfiguration/modernization of
space which would be required if the Corps were to remain in the
Pulaski building.
fiscal year 1999 civil works program budget
introduction
New fiscal year 1999 funding for the Civil Works Program, including
the Direct and Reimbursed programs, is expected to approach $4.29
billion.
The Direct Program is formulated by the federal government and
funded through appropriations of discretionary and mandatory amounts
directly to the Corps. Funding for this program totals $3.48 billion.
Discretionary amounts include defense and domestic program components
of $140 million and $3.08 billion, respectively. The defense component
is for the newly assigned Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program (FUSRAP), transferred from the Department of Energy to the
Corps by Congress in the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, 1998.
The Reimbursed Program is formulated, under provisions of law, by
the Corps in collaboration with other federal agencies, State and local
governments, and other nations. It is funded in either of two ways:
from discretionary amounts of the Direct Program, initially, and,
ultimately, through reimbursement by the ordering agencies,
governments, and nations; or by advance payments by the agencies,
governments, and nations. Funding for this program totals $814 million.
direct program
Overview
The proposed fiscal year 1999 Civil Works Direct Program budget
provides for continued funding of nearly all studies and projects
underway, including many started in fiscal year 1998. It also provides
for funding of new starts under the General Investigations (GI),
Construction, General, (CG), and Flood Control, Mississippi River and
Tributaries (FC,MR&T) programs.
Funding includes ``traditional'' and ``advance'' incremental
funding. Under traditional funding, appropriations are made for the
budget year of amounts needed during that year, based on estimates in
the justification statements for that year. All programs, except the CG
Program, are funded in the traditional way. Under advance funding,
appropriation is made ``upfront,'' in the budget year, of amounts
needed for each outyear until completion of the projects, based on
estimates made in the budget year for all years until completion. Each
advance funding amount becomes available in the year of need and,
therefore, is ``scored'' in that year. This promotes full consideration
of all costs and benefits of projects during resource decision making,
and allows the Corps and local sponsor to proceed with construction.
The CG Program is funded both ways. Ongoing projects not completing
in outyears of the 5-year program, fiscal year 2000-03, are
traditionally funded, whereas projects completing in the outyears,
including new starts, are advance funded in amounts needed during each
year until completion, based on outyear estimates in the budget year
justification statements. Four of the fiscal year 1999 new start
projects are advance funded in outyears for completion.
The new start program includes 9 new reconnaissance studies and 18
preconstruction engineering and design studies, following cost-shared
feasibility studies, being funded for the first time. The new start
program also includes new construction projects, including 9
specifically authorized by Congress, and an undetermined number
generally authorized under the CAP. The specifically authorized
projects include 3 regular construction projects, 4 major
rehabilitation projects, 1 dam safety assurance project, and 1
deficiency correction project.
New Funding
As shown in the table at the end of this statement, the fiscal year
1999 budget provides for $3.48 billion in new direct funding. This
includes $3.22 billion in discretionary funding being requested through
the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,
and $266 million in mandatory funding to be made available under
existing law.
Mandatory funding includes $15 million from three permanent
appropriations--one for maintenance of mine debris reservoirs used for
other purposes in California; one for construction, operation and
maintenance of federal water management facilities nationwide; and one
for payments to states to compensate for loss of tax base owing to
federal projects nationwide. Mandatory funding also includes $10
million from the Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund (CWRTF) for
the Corps' part in interagency protection and restoration of wetlands
in Louisiana. Additionally, it includes $144 million in nonfederal
contributions from the Rivers and Harbors Contributions Trust Fund
(R&HCTF), representing costsharing paid under five programs (the GI;
CG; Operation and Maintenance, General (O&M); and Coastal Wetlands
Restoration programs) and one project (the FC,MR&T Project). Mandatory
funding also includes $98 million to be transferred from the Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA) for operation of the Corps' hydropower
generation facilities in the Pacific Northwest.
Additionally, the budget provides for $22 million in mandatory
borrowing authority for capital improvements for the Washington
Aqueduct. However, unlike other mandatory authority, this is authority
to obligate against and make payment from money borrowed from the
Treasury.
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1998 Funding
As shown in the table, new funding for the fiscal year 1999 budget,
including discretionary and mandatory funding, is $923 million less
than the total of appropriations for fiscal year 1998. The
discretionary part is $836 million less than last year's total, largely
reflecting a $685 million reduction in the CG Program. Of the $784
million in discretionary appropriations for the CG Program, $16
million, or 2.0 percent, is provided to fund new construction starts.
Outlays of discretionary funding for fiscal year 1999 are expected
to be about $828 million less than for fiscal year 1998, commensurate
with the reduction in funding.
Net New Funding
Of the $3.48 billion in total new direct funding, $820 million, or
24 percent, would come from nine sources other than Treasury's General
Fund, yielding net new funding not specifically collected for the
program of $2.66 billion. These sources--eight existing and one
proposed--include five Special and four Trust Funds. The largest
amounts would come from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) ($462
million, including $2 million for the CG and $460 million for the O&M
programs), R&HCTF ($144 million), Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF)
($50 million), Special Recreation User Fees (SRUF) Fund ($34 million),
and CWRTF ($10 million). As discussed later, under Program Execution
and Outlook, the one proposed source would be a special fund for the
Regulatory Program, with collections estimated to amount to $7 million
in fiscal year 1999 and increase to $14 million, annually, thereafter.
Significance of Budget for Corps
Owing principally to appropriation of $411 million for 359 studies
and projects not included in the President's Program for fiscal year
1998, we project a large funding carryover from fiscal year 1998 into
fiscal year 1999, most of which--$490 million--would occur for the CG
Program. However, since much of the carryover is earmarked for specific
work, it is unavailable for reprogramming to cover shortages in other
work.
The budget provides for annual funding in outyears of the 5-year
program averaging roughly $210 million more than in fiscal year 1999.
Coupled with this follow-on funding, fiscal year 1999 funding is
expected to provide adequate amounts for planning and design missions,
enabling continuing, with few exceptions, ongoing efforts. However,
schedules for many ongoing construction projects will be stretched out,
resulting in later completion dates than presented in the fiscal year
1998 Budget.
Ever-increasing needs and constrained resources challenge us to
become even more efficient and innovative in producing for our
customers. As discussed later, we have been working hard at this, and
have met with many successes already. However, much more is needed. The
Corps' strategy, discussed under the Corps Vision and Strategic Plan,
commits us to achieve ``dramatic improvement in performance and
customer satisfaction.'' Our goal is to ``revolutionize'' our
effectiveness in problem-solving--continually maximizing the actual and
potential values of our organization to Civil Works Program customers
and the Army, and, thereby, the Nation. This budget promotes
implementation of this strategy, not only confirming its necessity, but
also providing adequate funding to facilitate its diligent pursuit.
Advance funding for acquisition of fixed assets will allow us to
coordinate far more intensively, quickly, and effectively with local
sponsors in determining optimum work and funding schedules based on
capabilities and constraints of both parties. Both parties should
benefit significantly--the Corps, because of more efficient work
schedules; and the customer, because of greater certainty of financial
obligation and faster delivery of needed facilities and expected
benefits.
reimbursed program
Through the Interagency and Intergovernmental Support Program we
help other agencies and governments with timely, cost-effective
implementation of their programs, while maintaining and enhancing
capabilities for execution of our Civil Works Direct Program and
Military Program missions. Other agencies look to us for help with
engineering and construction management because of our vast experience
and capabilities, enabling us to do the work better, faster, and
cheaper.
We provide reimbursable support for about 60 other federal agencies
and several State and local governments through help with
environmental, engineering, and construction management work. Total
reimbursement for such work in fiscal year 1999 is projected to be
close to $814 million. About half of this is for environmental work.
The largest share--nearly $300 million--is expected from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for cleanup of wastes at numerous
sites under its Superfund program. 98 percent of our Reimbursed Program
funding is provided by federal agencies.
staffing
Total staffing for the Civil Works Program for fiscal year 1999 is
25,520 FTE's. This reflects a reduction of 448 FTE's from the fiscal
year 1998 total. Of the total, 24,416 FTE's are for the Direct Program
and 1,204 FTE's are for the Reimbursed Program. Total staffing is
allocated 90 percent to districts, 4.5 percent to laboratories and
other separate field operating agencies, 3.5 percent to division
offices, and less than 2.0 percent to headquarters. Under
restructuring, the headquarters share will remain essentially
unchanged, while district and separate field operating agency shares
will grow from reallocation of division office savings.
improvement in business processes
introduction
This part of my testimony summarizes efforts to improve business
processes of the Civil Works Program over the past few years, with
emphasis on accomplishments in fiscal year 1997, and efforts underway
in fiscal year 1998.
decision document review/approval
As I reported last year, we have put in place a process that now
restricts Headquarters review of decision documents to ``policy
review,'' ensuring compliance with law and Administration policy, with
divisions providing quality assurance, and districts accomplishing
technical reviews, thereby controlling the technical adequacy of the
planning and engineering in these documents at the local level. I am
happy to report that we have made significant progress in achieving
corporate efficiency and effectiveness through elimination of
fragmented review at multiple layers.
headquarters responsiveness to field offices
In addition to restricting its review to policy review, our ``one-
stop'' Washington-level review office continues to improve its review
process in an effort to provide more timely decisions to districts.
In fiscal year 1997, this office received 425 decision document
policy review actions from our field offices, including actions for
review of reconnaissance, feasibility, design, and major rehabilitation
reports. We completed over 380 of these review actions in fiscal year
1997, for a review efficiency of 90 percent. Through the 1st quarter of
fiscal year 1998, we completed review of 113 decision documents. We are
on track to complete well over 400 in fiscal year 1998.
Additionally, in fiscal year 1997, this office reviewed and
approved 34 Project Cooperation Agreements (PCA's)--contracts spelling
out roles and responsibilities of the federal government and nonfederal
sponsor--for specifically authorized projects. Average processing time
for these documents continues to be less than 60 days, enabling project
construction to begin expeditiously. Through the 1st quarter of fiscal
year 1998, we have had over 30 PCA reviews underway, and executed 8
PCA's. A total of 70 PCA reviews are scheduled for execution in fiscal
year 1998.
Finally, in the interest of further expediting project development,
Army established an expedited reconnaissance study and report process.
The expedited process focuses on determining Federal interest and
developing a detailed plan of study for subsequent feasibility work.
This process has been successful in completing the reconnaissance
studies more quickly and moving viable locally supported studies
forward toward solutions. Although the process is still new, it has
been well received.
project cooperation agreements
We have continued efforts to make negotiation and processing of
PCA's more predictable and efficient in three ways.
First, in consultation with nonfederal project sponsors, Army
continues to develop new PCA models reflecting principles of
partnering, and addressing recurring concerns of sponsors. These models
cover specific program authorities, and expedite the agreement process.
Two of the models, for specifically authorized flood control projects
and commercial navigation projects, cover most of the Corps' program.
Other models cover continuing authorities and environmental
infrastructure projects. Additionally, one covers preconstruction,
engineering and design (PED) agreements for cost-sharing of the PED
phase. Latest versions of all models are easily accessible to our field
offices and project sponsors on the world-wide web.
Second, headquarters has delegated authority to division and
district commanders to execute PCA's and PED agreements, conforming to
the models, without Washington-level review.
Finally, we have posted all current guidance for preparation of
PCA's and other agreements on our homepage, easily accessible to
nonfederal sponsors, as well as Corps personnel and the public.
Homepage publication enables almost instantaneous notification of
changes in guidance to the benefit of all involved.
These improvements have fostered partnership and expedited
negotiations.
partnering
The Corps has long supported dispute prevention and resolution in
its corporate policy and workplace practice. The Alternate Dispute
Resolution (ADR)/Partnering Program continues to lay the foundation for
better working relations among Corps personnel, partners, and
customers. It focuses on the development of cooperative project
management teams through collective definition of goals, improved
communication, and the fostering of problem-solving attitudes among
parties involved. The ADR Program has become a model for programs of
other federal agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management's
program for executive management, and for programs of several law
schools and universities. The program provides for training,
publications, and field support.
Partnering philosophy is the key to more successful and effective
project execution, resulting in improvements in quality, schedule and
cost. It is aimed at improving our business process by making our
customers and partners an integral part of the team. While the concept
was originally applied only to construction contracts, it is now being
used to improve business relationships across the broad spectrum of
Corps activities. Partnering has dramatically reduced the number of
construction-related claims and appeals.
In fiscal year 1997 we pursued recommendations, made at the
partnering workshop of the previous year, for improvement of service to
local sponsors. We have taken actions to increase our efficiency and
enhance sponsor involvement in project development and execution. These
have included improvement of the existing and development of new models
for project cost-sharing agreements, improvements in the real estate
review and acquisition process, and acceleration of review and approval
of the decision documents and reports.
Our major initiative in fiscal year 1997 was development of the
Partnering Guide for Civil Missions. The guide is one in a series of
publications describing techniques and applications of Partnering in
Corps programs. When completed, it will serve as a tool for successful
execution of our missions. A partnering workshop was conducted with our
division and district personnel in December 1997 to finalize the guide
and explore further opportunities for Partnering in Civil Works
missions.
In fiscal year 1998 we undertook a major initiative in the customer
satisfaction arena to develop service standards and implement a pilot
test in Mississippi Valley Division. Our objective is to develop tools
to measure satisfaction and, then, to use the feedback to change Corps
business processes to improve services and products within available
resources. The pilot test will result in tools for evaluation of
customer satisfaction Corps-wide.
government performance and results
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires
that we show how improvements in our business processes, and efforts to
balance scarce budgetary resources between operation and maintenance
and new investments, ultimately impact delivery of our products and
services to the Nation.
The improvements in our business processes, discussed elsewhere in
this statement, include: streamlined decision document review
processes, eliminating duplication of functions at different levels;
intensively monitored policy review, significantly reducing average
review times; standardized PCA models, simplifying and expediting
development, review, and approval of PCA's; broader application of
partnering techniques to strengthen partnerships with sponsors,
expediting construction and minimizing costs; and intensively managed
program execution, for more efficient and timely production and greater
customer satisfaction.
Until recently, we could demonstrate benefits of these process
improvements only at the project level; we did not have means to
display them at the program level. Likewise, we could demonstrate the
impacts of varying funding levels on levels of program services and the
timing of program results at the project level; however, again, we did
not have means to measure such impacts at the program level.
Currently, we are testing an initial set of results-oriented
performance measures for demonstrating the contributions of internal
process improvements and impacts of different levels of funding for
programs. Our goal is to comply with GPRA in development of a
comprehensive set of results-oriented program performance measures. We
are discussing these measures with OMB, and continuing the consultation
process with Congress.
corps of engineers financial management system
We are continuing deployment of the Corps of Engineers Financial
Management System (CEFMS). As of 30 September 1997, we had completed
deployment at forty-four Corps locations. To date, in fiscal year 1998,
we have completed deployment at our Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory, Northwestern Division, Alaska District, and
Transatlantic Engineering Center, Europe, and initiated deployment at
the South Pacific Division. We anticipate completing the process for
all locations this month, with deployment at the North Atlantic
Division.
I am pleased to report on success achieved by our first Division to
have completed a full year of operations using CEFMS. The U.S. Army
Audit Agency and Corps teamed together at our Southwest Division in
fiscal year 1997 to verify that CEFMS will produce consolidated
financial statements consistent with requirements of the Chief
Financial Officers Act. The Army Auditors have advised me that the
fiscal year 1997 Southwest Division consolidated financial statements
will receive an unqualified audit opinion. This is a big step forward
for the Corps, Army, and Department of Defense (DOD) in demonstrating
the capability of our automated financial management information system
to document the financial integrity of our stewardship of funds
entrusted to us.
CEFMS is now being adopted for wider use throughout DOD because of
its demonstrated capabilities.
program execution and outlook
introduction
Program Execution continues to be very important throughout the
Corps. In fiscal year 1997, our divisions and districts generally
succeeded in improving their execution, as measured in terms of
expenditures. Division commanders have described execution results of
their divisions for that year, by program, in their status reports. As
usual, these will be made available to the Subcommittee, following this
hearing. We are continuing to emphasize the importance of meeting
obligation and expenditure schedules in fiscal year 1998.
In following discussions, the term ``expenditure'' is substituted
for ``accrued expenditure.''
general investigations
Scheduled expenditure for the GI Program in fiscal year 1997 was
$161 million. We spent $151 million, or 94 percent of this, and 80
percent of funding available. This execution, based upon funding
available, was unsurpassed in the preceding five years.
Scheduled report production for the program in fiscal year 1997
included 90 reconnaissance and 20 feasibility reports. The performance
goal for reconnaissance reports was completion of 81 of the 90, or 90
percent, within the 12-18-month legislative time-frame for regular
reconnaissance reports, and 6-9-month time-frame for expedited reports.
We completed 84 of the 90 for a performance result of 93 percent. The
performance goal for feasibility reports was completion of 16 of the
20, or 80 percent. We completed 16, meeting this goal.
Scheduled expenditure for the GI Program in fiscal year 1998 is
$157 million. Our goal is to expend 95 percent of this amount. Based on
first quarter results, we will exceed that goal.
In addition to the GI improvements of last year, in anticipation of
implementing further efficiencies, we have contracted with the National
Research Council to provide an independent assessment of the Civil
Works decision making process, taking into consideration the magnitude
of investments, the state of analytic arts, governing laws, and
executive branch guidance. We expect a report in January 1999.
The President's Budget provides for $150 million in new funding for
the GI Program. The outlook for program workload is healthy. We are
striving continually to enhance our performance during these times of
limited resources.
construction, general
In fiscal year 1997, scheduled expenditures totaled $1.10 billion,
we expended $1.05 billion, and carried an unexpended balance of $313
million over into fiscal year 1998. This unexpended carryover was
significantly less than our historical average. Moreover, it included
$149 million earmarked in law for specific activities or projects which
could not be accomplished that year.
In fiscal year 1998, $1.79 billion was available for expenditure in
the CG account at the beginning of the year. Expenditures scheduled for
this year total $1.30 billion, leaving $490 million to be carried over
into fiscal year 1999. At the end of the first quarter, expenditures
were on schedule at $190 million.
The President's Budget provides for $784 million in new funding for
the CG Program in fiscal year 1999. It also provides for advance new
obligation authority of $531 million for the four-year fiscal year
2000-03 period for completion of 60 specifically authorized projects
scheduled for completion during that period. Of the fiscal year 1999
amount, $16 million is for initiation of 8 new start projects. The
balance of $768 million, reflecting a reduction for savings and
slippage in the total program, is for specifically authorized
continuing projects and remaining items, including projects under CAP.
About $659 million of this amount is for specifically authorized
projects.
The budget request includes $25 million for the Challenge 21--
Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation Initiative
as part of the President's Environmental Resources Fund for America.
This new program will examine entire watersheds to expand the use of
non-structural alternatives to reduce flood hazards and flood disaster
recovery costs while helping to restore natural functions and values to
riverine ecosystems.
operation and maintenance, general
In fiscal year 1997, we expended 92 percent of the funds available
to operate and maintain the existing federal water resources
infrastructure, including 12,000 miles of inland waterways, 237 locks,
926 harbors, 383 dams and reservoirs and recreation facilities for 375
million visits over the year. This infrastructure provides beneficial
outputs for navigation, flood damage reduction, hydropower generation,
recreation, and environmental stewardship that are important to the
economic and environmental well-being of the Nation. Our workload was
financed with the $1.697 billion regular appropriation plus two
emergency supplemental appropriations--$19 million to repair damages
caused by Hurricane Fran along the Atlantic Coast and $150 million to
repair Civil Works projects impacted by natural disasters that occurred
throughout the Nation, including California, the Pacific Northwest,
Gulf Coast, Ohio River Basin, and Upper Midwest. This performance, with
an emphasis on justified results, reflects outstanding management by
our headquarters and field staff who had to make substantial regional
adjustments to deal with these major flooding events pending enactment
of supplemental appropriations.
We expect even better performance in fiscal year 1998 with the
appropriation of $1.733 billion which was 36 million, or 2.1 percent,
greater than the initial fiscal year 1997 amount. This year's storms
have caused damages to some of our projects. We will have to work hard
to address these additional requirements while keeping the
infrastructure in good working order.
Our fiscal year 1999 estimated O&M program is $1.709 billion,
including a $1.603 billion appropriation request, an estimated $98
million in funding from the Bonneville Power Administration to operate
and maintain hydropower facilities in the Pacific Northwest, and $8
million in cost-sharing contributions. I am confident that this amount
will be adequate to operate and maintain our projects at justified
levels of service.
For the period fiscal year 1997-99, the O&M program is essentially
stable at the $1.7 billion level. As projects continue to age and
federal funding constraints continue, it is clear that we need to find
innovative ways to accomplish required O&M work nationwide. In order to
continue providing services to project customers at this level of
funding, we are proceeding with the O&M Cost Saving Initiative that I
mentioned in last year's testimony. A report comparing project costs
and outputs has been provided to various Congressional committees and
customers. Although the O&M Cost Savings report is not intended to
identify categories of projects for reduced funding, Corps field
offices have been using it as a starting point to engage our customers
and Congressional delegations to further analyze their respective
projects and seek cost saving opportunities.
flood control, mississippi river and tributaries
In fiscal year 1997, we expended 98 percent of funds scheduled for
expenditure on the MR&T Project. Of the $34.5 million unexpended, $8.7
million was unobligated and $25.8 million was obligated but unexpended.
The unobligated carryover was about 3 percent of new budget authority
for fiscal year 1997.
We anticipate excellent financial performance on the MR&T Project
in fiscal year 1998.
The President's Budget request for $280 million in new funding for
the MR&T Project includes funding for one new start reconnaissance
study and one construction new start.
regulatory program
The President's budget requests $117 million for the Regulatory
Program, with $7 million to be derived from offsetting receipts under
proposed legislation to restructure permit application fees, for a net
of $110 million. Total funding is $11 million more than the fiscal year
1998 appropriation. The increase supports national water resources
initiatives, including continued work under the President's Wetlands
Plan of August 1993.
The requested funds will provide for the implementation of a full
administrative appeals process by which the public can challenge
regulatory decisions without resorting to litigation. This includes
appeals of denials of permits and appeals of jurisdiction
determinations. We will begin implementation for appeals of permit
denials near the end of fiscal year 1998.
In addition, we are increasing efforts to initiate and sustain
partnerships with State and local governments in the protection of the
aquatic environment. With the proposed fiscal year 1999 funding, we
will develop watershed management plans and other permitting mechanisms
that allow state and local authorities to take on more permitting
responsibilities, thus reducing Corps workload.
We are again proposing changes in fees for the regulatory program,
including increasing fees for commercial applications to cover review
costs, and dropping fees for applications of individuals. This proposal
is expected to generate $14 million in the first full year of
operation.
flood control and coastal emergencies
The President's Budget does not request new funding for the Flood
Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) Program. The expected carryover
of funds appropriated in the 1997 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act is adequate for administration of the Disaster Preparedness and
Emergency Response programs in fiscal year 1999. The need for
additional funding will be determined by future events requiring
extraordinary flood-fighting or subsequent repair of damaged water
management facilities and the balance of funds in the FCCE account.
Under this program, we provide leadership and expertise in
preparation for and response to disasters throughout the Nation. Since
receiving our emergency mission in 1941, we have developed and
sustained an engineering organization capable of responding to both
natural and technological disasters, such as hurricanes, floods,
earthquakes, and oil spills. This mission also entails supporting
deployed U.S. Forces and accomplishing reimbursable work for other
agencies, particularly, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Last year, we responded to several natural disasters, including the
Western Floods of January 1997, flooding in the Ohio River and
Mississippi River Basins in March 1997, and the Upper Midwest Floods of
April. We have completed the repair and rehabilitation of critical
levees in California and other States as we continue to restore flood
protection to distressed communities throughout the Nation.
This year, we were part of the Federal relief efforts led by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency in New England as the result of
January's severe ice storm. In February, we responded to the flooding
in California and Florida, and we remain a key player in the Federal
recovery and relief efforts in these states. Also, as part of its
overall emergency response mission, the Corps of Engineers continues to
provide support to U.S. forces in Bosnia.
general expenses
The President's Budget provides for $148 million in new funding for
GE, the same as for fiscal year 1998. These funds support the
headquarters, the new eight division office structure and four field
support activities. Expenses are allocated approximately 71 percent
labor, 22 percent fixed costs such as rent, utilities, communications,
and contractual services, and 7 percent for discretionary costs, such
as travel, training, supplies and materials. It reflects initial
savings from reducing the number of division offices phased over
several years and other streamlining initiatives. It also includes
absorbing the 1.5 percent increase for agency contributions for
retirement benefits effective in fiscal year 1998, and the increase
from 9 percent to 15 percent for payments to the Federal retirement
account for employees taking Voluntary Early Retirement Authority
(VERA) and Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (VSIP).
The budget requested supports projected staffing of 1,180 FTE's for
all headquarters activities, and will continue to decline through
fiscal year 2002 to about 1,050 FTE's. The fiscal year 1999 staffing
for these executive direction and management functions comprises only
4.6 percent of the total civil workforce, and is projected to continue
this decline to about 4.1 percent by fiscal year 2002. The headquarters
staff of 453 FTE's represents less than 2 percent of the total civil
program workforce.
formerly utilized sites remedial action program
Since transfer of execution responsibilities for FUSRAP from the
Department of Energy (DOE), the Corps has ensured that the transition
would not cause a slippage at any site, conducted a site-by-site
assessment of the program, and is now developing schedules and funding
requirements to maximize savings and accelerate project completion
schedules. In its assessment of DOE's accelerated cleanup plan, the
Corps found that program completion by 2002 was possible only by
reducing the scope of the program.
The Corps' fiscal year 1999 FUSRAP request of $140,000,000 is based
on a balanced approach to remediation which takes into account health
and safety factors, regulatory requirements, community interests,
future use of the property, and estimated cleanup costs. The requested
funding will permit the Corps to complete three projects and continue
work underway at the remaining 18 projects.
corps vision and strategic plan
Finally Mr. Chairman, last year I briefed you on the new Corps
Vision and Strategic Management Plan. I should clarify that this Plan
is not the Strategic Pan required by GPRA, rather, it is my separate
plan for challenging the Corps to improve and adapt to the many changes
occurring in our Nation at every level. For this, we need to have an
end state in sight and a road map to get there. Here is our Vision for
the Corps.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is:
--the world's premier engineering organization, trained and ready to
provide support any time, any place.
--a full-spectrum engineer force of high quality, dedicated soldiers
and civilians:
--a vital part of the Army;
--the engineer team of choice--responding to our Nation's needs in
peace and war; and
--a values-based organization--respected, responsive, and reliable
--changing today to meet tomorrow's challenges!
As you can see, the Vision touches on many different areas. All of
these are important, but several are critical. The first of these is to
focus on our customers, as embodied in ``The Engineer Team of choice.''
The second is to build on the successes in responding to our Nation's
needs in peace, with the Civil Works Program being the cornerstone. The
third is to become more relevant to the Army, where our roots are.
This Vision and Plan have matured a lot in the past year. The team
that helped develop them is also helping to guide implementation; it
consists of employees and commanders at every level, customers from
both the civil works and Army side and other stakeholders in our
success. We have developed a series of linked and tiered management
plans that ``govern'' our management initiatives and move us toward
that Vision. You can expect a continuing series of changes over the
years, that will keep what is good, significantly improve some weak
areas, and posture us for the next century.
conclusion
The President's Budget for the Corps of Engineers provides stable
funding with a balance among competing priorities. However, we must
continue to find ways to reduce our costs and shift more of those
remaining to direct beneficiaries of our services. Meanwhile, we will
do our very best to execute the Civil Works Program for maximum benefit
to the Nation.
We have a long history of improving production of the Civil Works
Program and achieving greater customer satisfaction, while conserving
resources. A recently passed milestone in this history was formalized
Corps-wide institution of project management, given impetus by
nonfederal cost sharing requirements of WRDA86. This led to marked
improvement in program execution and greatly improved partnerships with
state and local governments.
Lately, we have been improving business processes, including the
decision document review and approval process, project cooperation
agreement execution process, and partnering process. Improvements
adopted have eliminated duplication of effort; empowered districts to
accomplish work formerly done at higher levels; expedited policy and
nondepartmental reviews, yielding more timely answers for districts;
and preset compatible goals for stakeholders in projects, enabling win-
win outcomes with less rework, claims, and lawsuits. These improvements
have further improved our production and customer satisfaction, while,
simultaneously, enabling us to participate significantly in ongoing
efforts to downsize government.
And now, our Strategic Management Plan commits us to dramatic
improvement in performance and customer satisfaction within available
resources, with a goal of revolutionizing our effectiveness in problem
solving--continually maximizing actual and potential values of our
organization to the Civil Works Program and the Army, and, thereby, the
Nation. This, in conjunction with our ongoing implementation of GPRA,
promise even greater improvements in future business operations.
Finally, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1998,
challenges us to accomplish a large workload in the current year. I am
confident in our ability to meet that challenge, in continuing to
benefit our great Nation.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. This concludes
my statement.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL WORKS--FISCAL YEAR 1999 DIRECT PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------------------
Source/account Actual/assumed
1997 Assumed 1998 Request 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation:
Discretionary:
Defense: Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program .............. 140,000 140,000
Domestic: General Investigations........................ 152,972 156,804 150,000
Construction, General:
General Fund........................................ 997,027 1,391,073 732,000
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund....................... .............. .............. 2,000
Inland Waterway Trust Fund.......................... 85,815 78,000 50,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 1,082,842 1,469,073 784,000
Operation and Maintenance, General:
General Fund........................................ 1,295,940 1,201,393 1,108,561
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund....................... 535,986 497,844 460,439
Special Recreation User Fees Fund................... 34,089 33,988 34,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 1,866,015 1,733,225 1,603,000
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries........ 330,374 294,312 280,000
Regulatory Program:
General Fund........................................ 101,000 106,000 117,000
Proposed Permit Fees................................ .............. .............. -7,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 101,000 106,000 110,000
General Expenses........................................ 149,000 148,000 148,000
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies................... 425,000 4,000 ..............
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.......................... .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 4,107,203 3,911,414 3,075,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 4,107,203 4,051,414 3,215,000
===============================================
Mandatory:
Permanent Appropriations................................ 13,243 14,627 14,674
Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund:
Corps............................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000
Others (excluded)................................... 34,134 39,000 38,300
-----------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 44,134 49,000 48,300
Rivers and Harbors Contributions........................ 190,051 233,217 143,741
Bonneville Power Administration......................... 92,000 95,000 98,000
Washington Aqueduct (borrowing authority, excluded)..... 29,000 24,000 22,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 305,294 352,844 266,415
-----------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 4,412,497 4,404,258 3,481,415
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
prepared statement of Russell L. Fuhrman
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, General Ballard.
Are we going to have a third statement? Are you going to
testify, General Fuhrman?
General Fuhrman. I would like to submit my statement for
the record. I have no oral statement, Mr. Chairman.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Russell L. Fuhrman
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to
testify before you as Director of Civil Works.
I would like to note some highlights of the fiscal year 1999 budget
request for Remaining Items, which include the Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) nationwide programs and activities. These include the General
Expenses appropriation, which provides for executive direction and
management of the Civil Works program at the Corps Headquarters and the
Division Offices.
remaining items overview
The total for Remaining Items in the budget request is $624.549
million of which $78.4 million is for General Investigations; $102.019
million for Construction, General; $39.13 million for Operation and
Maintenance, General; $117 million for Regulatory Program; $140 million
for Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program; and $148 million
for General Expenses.
activities under the general investigations appropriation
coordination with other federal agencies, states, and non-federal
interests
The request for Coordination with Other Federal Agencies, States,
and Non-Federal Interests is $13.7 million, an increase of $6.765
million from the fiscal year 1998 allocation of $6.935 million for
these activities. Following is a comparison of the fiscal year 1998
allocation and the fiscal year 1999 request for activities under this
program:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------
Activity 1998 1999
allocation request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning Assistance to States................. $2,897,000 $5,300,000
Special Investigations........................ 1,687,000 3,742,000
Gulf of Mexico Program........................ 127,000 200,000
Chesapeake Bay Program........................ 348,000 250,000
Pacific Northwest Forest Case Study........... 326,000 300,000
Interagency Water Resources Development....... 753,000 1,300,000
Interagency and International Support......... 144,000 300,000
Inventory of Dams............................. 197,000 500,000
National Estuary Program...................... 69,000 100,000
North American Waterfowl Management Plan...... 69,000 100,000
Risk Based Analysis........................... 116,000 108,000
Coordination with Other Water Resources....... 202,000 500,000
CALFED........................................ ........... 1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The request includes one new budgeted item for fiscal year 1999.
The Corps participation in the CALFED Bay Delta process was initiated
in fiscal year 1997. The Corps level of effort necessary for this
program warrants the designation of CALFED as a separate line item.
CALFED.--The request of $1,000,000 allows the Corps to continue to
play a key role in the CALFED Bay-Delta process in fiscal year 1999.
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a three-phased solution process for the
development of a long-term comprehensive plan that will restore
ecological health and improve water management for beneficial uses of
the Bay-Delta system. This program is a joint effort between local land
management agencies and the state and Federal government. In addition
the Corps is requesting $89.1 million for studies and projects in Bay
Delta.
Planning Assistance to States.--The request of $5.3 million is a
major portion of the Coordination with Other Federal Agencies, States,
and Non-Federal Interests program. The fiscal year 1999 request would
enable the Corps to provide much needed planning and technical
assistance for a variety of water resource efforts to states,
territories, and Federally recognized Indian Tribes. The assistance is
in the form of 50 percent Federal, 50 percent non-Federal cost-shared
reconnaissance level studies which provide information and guidance to
help the non-Federal sponsors become more active and effective working
partners with the Federal government in resolving water resource
problems. The studies may address a wide variety of water resource
issues including environmental conservation/restoration, wetlands
evaluation, water supply and demand, water quality, flood damage
reduction, coastal zone management, and dam safety. Since fiscal year
1991, we have executed over 440 cost-sharing agreements with 48 states
and 22 Indian Tribes. Significant flood events over the last several
years have raised public awareness and increased the demand for
assistance in resolving water resource problems. As a result, interest
in this highly efficient and effective program continues to grow.
Special Investigations.--Another major portion of the fiscal year
1999 request is $3.742 million for Special Investigations. The
activities of this program include: special investigations and reports
of nominal scope prepared pursuant to Congressional and other requests
from outside the Corps of Engineers for information relative to
projects or activities which have no funds; review of reports and
environmental impact statements of other agencies; and review of
applications referred to us by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
for permits or licenses for non-Federal hydropower developments at, or
affecting, Corps water resource projects.
Interagency Water Resources Development.--The request is $1.3
million to conduct district activities, not otherwise funded, that
require coordination effort with non-Federal interests. These
activities include items such as meeting with City, County, and State
officials to help solve water resources problems or to determine
whether Corps programs are available and may be used to address the
problems.
Gulf of Mexico Program.--The request of $200,000 allows the Corps
to continue involvement in this U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)-initiated, partnership driven, program of blending of programs
and resources of Federal, state, and local governments, with the
resources and commitments of business, industry, citizens groups and
academia. The Gulf of Mexico Program is formulating and implementing
creative solutions to economic and environmental issues with Gulf-wide
and national implications. Hypoxia/nutrient enrichment and
nonindigenous species are focus areas, which are linked to authorized
Corps missions in the five-state program area.
Chesapeake Bay Program.--The request of $250,000 enables the Corps
to continue participation in the EPA-initiated interagency program for
the protection and restoration of the bay's natural resources. These
natural resources have tremendous environmental and economic
significance to the northeast region and to the nation.
Pacific Northwest Forest Case Study.--The request of $300,000 is
for the Corps to continue participation in the interagency program
initiated by the White House's Council of Environmental Quality for
ecosystem management of the public lands in the Pacific Northwest
within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl.
Risk Based Analysis.--The request of $108,000 provides for the
completion of a study of the use of risk-based analysis by the Corps of
Engineers in the evaluation of flood damage reduction studies. In
accordance with Section 202(h) of Public Law 104-303, the funds would
be used to fulfill contractual requirements with the National Academy
of Sciences.
Interagency and International Support.--The $300,000 request allows
the Corps of Engineers to participate with other Federal agencies and
international organizations to address problems of national
significance to the United States. In fiscal year 1998, program funding
includes support to the State Department on international water and
environmental issues related to U.S. national security, to support the
Administration initiatives on Africa, and to participate in and support
U.S. interests on the World Water Council.
Inventory of Dams.--The $500,000 request is for the continued
maintenance and publication of the National Dam Inventory. This ongoing
maintenance effort is a coordinated effort involving data for the
Federal and non-Federal Dam Safety community in coordination with the
Interagency Committee of Dam Safety. This inventory is now required for
use by the Director of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and
the National Dam Safety Review Board in the allocation of dam safety
program assistance funds to the various States in proportion to the
number of dams in the state.
The request is $500,000 for Coordination with Other Water Resource
Agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service Department of Interior, and Regional Planning Commissions and
Committees and $100,000 each to continue cooperation with Federal and
state agencies in the EPA's National Estuary program and with Federal
and state agencies, and non-Federal interests in support of the North
America Waterfowl Management Plan administered by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
collection and study of basic data
The fiscal year 1999 request of $17.350 million for Collection and
Study of Basic Data is an increase of $5.078 million from the fiscal
year 1998 allocation of $12.272 million for these activities. Following
is a comparison of the fiscal year 1998 allocation and the fiscal year
1999 request for activities under this program:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------
1998 1999
allocation request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flood Plain Management Services............... $7,344,000 $9,400,000
Stream Gaging (U.S. Geological Survey)........ 653,000 900,000
Precipitation Studies (National Weather
Service)..................................... 326,000 450,000
International Water Studies................... 277,000 1,900,000
Hydrologic Studies............................ 408,000 600,000
Scientific and Technical Information Centers.. 106,000 100,000
Coastal Field Data Collection................. 1,224,00 1,500,000
Transportation Systems........................ 653,000 850,000
Environmental Data Studies.................... 82,000 100,000
Remote Sensing/Geographic Information System
Support...................................... 343,000 400,000
Automated Information System Support--Tri
Service CADD/GIS Technology Center........... 530,000 650,000
Flood Damage Data............................. 326,000 500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Flood Plain Management Services, International Water Studies,
and Coastal Field Data Collection programs respectively are the three
largest programs of Collection and Study of Basic Data and are
highlighted individually.
Flood Plain Management Services.--The largest portion of the
Collection and Study of Basic Data program request is $9.4 million, for
the Flood Plain Management Services program, an increase of $2.056
million from the fiscal year 1998 allocation. This program continues to
be one of the most important non-project services that the Corps
provides for Federally recognized Indian Tribes, states, and local
governments. By working together with state, local, and tribal land use
decision makers, we are able to alert them to various flood hazards,
promote prudent use of the flood plains, and help mitigate future
losses to life and property. The active involvement of land use
decision makers is the key to sound flood plain management in the
United States. Significant flood events over the past several years
have raised public awareness and increased the demand for information
and assistance for mitigating flood losses. The increased funding will
provide flood plain management services to a greater number of state,
regional, local governments, Indian Tribes, and other non-Federal
public agencies who, in turn, invest their own funds to avoid flood
hazards and make good use of the flood plains. This not only mitigates
future losses to life and property but also reduces the need for costly
Federal flood control works as well as the demand for other Federal,
state, and local services such as providing major disaster assistance
before, during, and after floods. Under this program, we also
participate with the FEMA, the National Weather Service, and local
governments in conducting critical pre-disaster hurricane evacuation
and preparedness studies for mobilizing local community responsiveness
to natural disasters in high hazard coastal areas of states and
counties along the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.
International Water Studies.--The request of $1.9 million for the
International Water Studies program is an increase of $1.623 million
from the fiscal year 1998 allocation of $277,000. The request will fund
Corps of Engineers participation in assisting the U.S. Government meet
its obligations under provisions of boundary water treaties and other
international agreements between the United States and Canada. A
significant portion, $1.4 million, of the fiscal year 1999 request will
be used to complete the U.S./Canada cost-shared International Joint
Commission study of the Red River Basin. The catastrophic losses and
problems caused by the 1997 spring flood in the Red River of the North
have increased the need for an international comprehensive water
management plan for the Red River Basin. President Clinton specifically
discussed the situation with the Canadian Prime Minister on 3 May 1997
and both agreed to take a joint international approach to find long
term solutions to the Red River Basin flooding problem.
Coastal Field Data Collection.--The fiscal year 1999 request for
this activity is $1.5 million to systematically measure and assemble
information required to accomplish the Corps mission in coastal
navigation, storm damage reduction, and evaluation of harbor entrance
impacts on adjacent shores. Cost-effective mission accomplishment
requires long-term data that encompasses winds, waves, currents, water
levels, and bottom configuration, sediment characteristics, and
geomorphologic data. With 800 navigation projects to maintain and
repair (25 percent are more than 50-years old), cost attributable to
having no data or poor data could be significant. These data are either
unavailable in existing archives, are of uncertain or poor quality, or
are too sparsely distributed temporally and/or spatially to have
statistical value. The required data are regional in nature and not
properly chargeable to authorized projects. Sufficient time is not
available prior to or during project preauthorization planning studies
to accumulate the years of base-line data necessary for adequate
assessment of technical, economic, and environmental feasibility.
Acquisition of the information will be accomplished through the
concurrent accumulation of complementary items each of which is unique
and contributes certain critically needed data. The value of program
data and project-related data is maximized through the use of Corps-
wide standards, routine updating of available data, utilization of a
centralized data library on the world wide web and dissemination over
the Internet.
Scientific and Technical Information Centers.--Public Law 99-802,
Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 requires technology transfer
from Federal agencies to the private sector. The fiscal year 1999
request will be utilized to acquire, examine, evaluate, summarize, and
disseminate newly published scientific and technical information
generated within the Corps and other activities within the U.S. and
abroad.
Environmental Data Studies.--The fiscal year 1999 request will be
utilized for the general, national or regional environmental data
collection and statistical data summaries to include activities related
to floods, droughts or climate change and variability and the
development of information on the overall environmental program
performance of the Corps.
Flood Damage Data Collection.--The fiscal year 1999 budget request
includes $500,000 to continue a program to improve the technical
accuracy and quality of flood damage data including the relationship of
flood characteristics to property damage. This program will facilitate
the timely collection of data when a damaging event occurs and the
development of a national flood damage database to support local, state
and Federal studies and research. Additionally, the program is
currently developing generic flood damage and property valuation
relationships which could be used Corps-wide. This will result in
shorter, less-costly flood damage reduction studies.
Automated Information System Support--Tri-Service CADD/GIS
Technology Center.--The fiscal year 1999 request of $650,000 for the
Tri-Service CADD/GIS Technology Center represents the Civil Works share
of the total $3.05 million required to operate and maintain this
important center of expertise. The remainder of the total requirement
is provided by the Navy, the Air Force, and from Army military
appropriations, in accordance with a 1992 agreement, establishing a
Tri-Service center in order to minimize duplication of effort of the
three services. All phases of Corps work, including planning, real
estate, design, construction, operations, maintenance and readiness
benefit from CADD/GIS technologies.
research and development
The fiscal year 1999 request for Research and Development (R&D)
under General Investigations is $30 million. The Corps must pursue an
aggressive R&D effort to take advantage of rapidly developing
technologies and techniques that offer the possibility of significant
monetary savings and greater reliability, safety, and increased
efficiency. The added complexities of downsizing, environmental and
social considerations, energy conservation, and the mounting concern
with urban problems necessitate, more than ever, increased emphasis on
new approaches and methods. The Civil Works R&D program is formulated
to directly support the established business programs and strategic
directions of the Civil Works Program including Flood and Coastal Storm
Damage Prevention, Inland and Coastal Navigation, Environment, Water
Supply, Hydropower, Emergency Management, Recreation, and Regulatory.
The Civil Works R&D requirements are primarily user driven and the
effort is essentially a problem solving process by which the Corps
systematically examines new ideas, approaches, and techniques, with a
view toward improving the efficiency of Civil Works planning, design,
construction, operations and maintenance activities.
Base Research and Development.--A major focus area of the fiscal
year 1999 Civil Works Research and Development Program continues to be
the Innovative Design and Construction Techniques for Navigation
Projects Research Program. This multi-disciplinary research will
include studies to develop new filling and emptying systems for locks
and the use of alternative construction methods such as float-in, lift-
in, and underwater construction techniques for navigation projects. The
results of these studies will provide the needed guidance for the
implementation of innovative concepts that will result in rapid
construction and modernization of navigation projects at a much reduced
cost and with little or no impact to navigation during construction.
This five-year research program will have the potential savings between
$1.4 and $1.8 billion for the eleven navigation projects requiring
major rehabilitation and modernization in the next 15 to 20 years on
the Upper Mississippi River, Ohio River Main Stem, and Illinois
Waterway systems. Development of cost-reducing design and construction
techniques will permit the construction and rehabilitation of more
navigation projects with limited funds in the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund and will reduce the potential for major disruptions in inland
navigation and decrease operating costs to the Nation's inland
navigation industry. Another area of research focus is to develop new
or enhanced technologies to extend the life and reduce future
operational costs of Corps' Civil Works facilities. These technologies
will be produced by developing high-performance materials and systems
with major emphasis on reducing rehabilitation and maintenance costs.
The results of this research will furnish the Corps with improved
materials and technologies to ensure a continued high level of safety
and reliability of Civil Works facilities and more economically design
and construct required remedial and rehabilitation improvements.
Potential partnership with industry and other Federal and state
agencies is being actively pursued to leverage limited R&D resources.
The recent Return-on-Investment Study indicated that the benefits of
this type of high-performance materials research are generally six
times greater than the research investment. A third major research
focus area is on sediment management. Improved sediment management at
Civil Works navigation and flood damage prevention projects offers
tremendous potential for cost-reductions. Research in this area will
focus on reduced sedimentation, optimizing channel depths and
dimensions, reduced dredged material management costs and increased
navigation system reliability. The Research Program will also focus on
developing watershed/ecosystem level management and assessment
technologies. This is a high priority field research need in a number
of areas, including water management, emergency management, ecosystem
restoration and regulatory functions such as cumulative impact
assessments.
The Civil Works R&D Program continues to provide practical end
products and a high return on investment for the Corps and the
taxpayer. The following are some examples of benefits derived from this
program in fiscal year 1998:
New computer-aided analysis tools were developed to support bearing
pile analysis, automated method for design of steel in tainter gates,
and for the layout of concrete arch dams. The field offices have
identified annual savings of over $5 million through the reduction of
man hours by using this suite of practical computer tools for each of
the past 9 years.
Guidance was provided for the design of earth embankments using
reinforcement such as geosynthetics. While earth embankments are
generally cost-competitive with sheet-pile walls, reinforced earth
embankments are less expensive because the side slopes can be steeper;
reducing the amount of right of way that must be acquired for
construction. This benefit has not been previously realized because
design and analysis procedures were inadequate. The improved design
tools led to savings of $500,000 on the Sargent Beach Erosion
Protection Project in the Galveston District.
Developed shallow-draft coastal port design guidance for entrance
channels subjected to waves for small commercial vessels. Experiments
with two vessels, an Alaskan fishing boat and a New England lobster
boat, were completed and guidance based on these experiments was
developed to aid in the design of shallow-draft ports.
New methods and associated three computer programs that greatly
improve the efficiency and accuracy of planning, design, and operation
of flood damage reduction projects and support field office flood
damage reduction studies and reservoir operations were released.
Developed criteria to improve channel depth and width design
guidance to optimize deep-draft navigation entrance channel dimensions,
taking into account hydrodynamic forces, ship motions, and the
projected future international shipping fleet.
Completed field guidance for design habitat corridors and buffer
strips to reduce the effects of increasing impacts from commercial and
private development on Corps projects.
Completed field guidance for application of the U.S. Coast Guard
Radio beacon System on Corps projects to improve navigation safety.
Earthquake Engineering Research.--The fiscal year 1999 funding
request for $2.65 million will be used to continue the Earthquake
Engineering Research Program. This is a significant Federal R&D program
focused on eliminating inadequacies in present seismic safety
evaluation knowledge for dams and their appurtenant structures. The
Corps may be required to expend more than $10 billion to assure
adequate seismic performance of its 580 dams unless advancements
continue to be made in earthquake dam safety analysis. Most Corps dams
were built before seismic hazards were well understood. More than 200
high hazard dams and 73 intake towers have been identified as subject
to severe earthquake shaking; most of which would expose downstream
populations to mortal hazard in the event of failure. Expensive
remediation actions are being considered for many Corps dams. For
example, Arkabutla, Enid, Wappapello, Success, and Tuttle Creek have
been identified and the number is rising due to an increased seismic
threat in the western U.S. Virtually all 73 intake towers at these
projects would be judged inadequate with today's analysis techniques,
which translates into about $7 billion in repair costs. Expensive
remediation can be avoided or minimized in many cases by reevaluating
the structure using improved methods of engineering analysis.
This program offers the potential for vast cost savings in seismic
remediation efforts by performing focused research to ensure that safe
dams are not remediated and that dams that are unsafe are remediated as
quickly, efficiently, and cost effectively as possible. For example,
using the tools developed in this research program, the nation will
realize: $100 million remediation costs avoidance for each intake tower
found to be safe with new methods; a $200 million cost avoidance for
each concrete dam and $50 million for each embankment dam found to be
safe with more advanced analytical methods. There will also be reduced
uncertainty in seismic damage to dams and increased safety for all
Corps dams.
Significant accomplishments in fiscal year 1998 included: published
guidance on selecting three-dimensional design earthquake ground
motions for design of new and remediation of existing water resource
facilities; conducted in-flight cone penetration measurements before
and after liquefaction in centrifuge soil models (a historical first);
conducted preliminary centrifuge experiments to investigate the extent
of damage to an embankment dam founded on liquefiable materials;
developed simplified analysis procedures for intake towers and outlet
works using results of physical experiments conducted in fiscal year
1996 and fiscal year 1997 which revealed new failure mechanisms that
had not been included in traditional analysis methods and quantified
(another historical first) ductility available in these lightly
reinforced concrete structures essential to reservoir control;
conducted cooperative full-scale shaking experiment of a concrete dam
in China to contribute to field quantification of subbottom absorption
and its effect on hydrodynamic pressures and dam-foundation-reservoir
response to dynamic loads; and developed material constitutive model to
predict the nonlinear structural response caused by cracking and large
displacements in concrete materials. These research accomplishments
were presented at workshops, conferences, seminars, Corps classes, on
the Internet and in technical publications.
Zebra Mussel Control Research Program (ZMRP).--Funds are being
requested in the amount of $1.5 million for fiscal year 1999 to
continue this extremely high-priority program. The ZMRP is the only
Federally authorized program which addresses control of zebra mussels
and their effects on public facilities. The development of strategies
to apply control methods involve engineering design, operations, and
maintenance of facilities and structures. Control strategies are being
developed for navigation structures, hydropower and other utilities,
vessels and dredges, and water treatment, irrigation and other control
structures. The zebra mussel has spread throughout the eastern half of
the U.S. and threatens the rivers and water supply systems of the
western States. Over $100 million is spent annually to prevent
catastrophic shutdown of public facilities. This cost will increase to
over one billion dollars annually, as numbers of zebra mussel increase
in the Lower Mississippi River and spread to southeastern and western
states. Methods of prevention and more effective, inexpensive methods
of control must be developed. Existing research areas include the
development of antifoulant coatings, filter systems, the use of
electrical fields, the development of environmentally compatible
biocides, and biological control using microorganisms. The program is
transferring this technology through the development of a computer
based information system and engineering handbooks for facility
managers and operators of locks and dams, water supply and treatment
facilities, power plants, and vessels which will identify the
vulnerability of their facility and provide control options. Fiscal
year 1998 accomplishments included development of specifications for a
non-toxic, foul-release coating; new criteria documents for use of
thermal spray and paint coatings to control zebra mussels; and joint
studies with Russian scientists using thermal spray shock applied
underwater to control infestations. The resulting technology will be
directly applicable as control measures for a wide variety of impacted
facilities and will preclude the costly necessity of plant shutdowns,
dewatering and dry docking associated with current control
technologies.
Characterization and Restoration of Wetlands Research Program.--
Funding in the amount of $1.85 million is requested for this critical
program in fiscal year 1999. The Corps has been designated as the lead
Federal agency to develop and implement the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM)
approach to wetlands functional evaluation. In response to this
directive, the research program is focused on the development of both
national and regional models to assess the functions and values of our
nation's wetlands. This information will be used directly by Corps
Civil Works projects in NEPA compliance, in Section 404 regulated
activities involving wetlands and in the successful restoration and
creation of wetlands. Major research focus areas include regional
wetlands functional assessments and delineations; innovative
construction techniques, structures and equipment for wetland- and/or
region-specific applications; and development of contract-ready design
criteria for wetlands restoration. Major accomplishments for fiscal
year 1998 included completion of three national and 13 regional
wetlands HGM models which will be useful in defining technically
appropriate mitigation requirements for wetland actions under 404
permits; publication of the HGM National Action Plan, prioritizing
wetlands types for study, distribution of products and training of
government users; and completion of contract-ready design criteria for
wetlands restoration in selected freshwater and coastal wetlands
systems.
Engineering and Environmental Innovations of National
Significance.--Section 212 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (WRDA 96) authorizes the Secretary of the Army to undertake
investigations of such innovative technologies that may lead to work
new under existing authorities or to recommendations for additional
authorities. Fiscal year 1999 funding of $600,000 is requested to
continue this important provision. The following work initiated in
fiscal year 1998 will be completed in fiscal year 1999: cost-effective
technologies and protocols for contaminated bottom sediments
remediation associated with existing Corps navigation projects, as
authorized by Section 205 of the WRDA 96; development and demonstration
of a state-of-the-art Watershed Management Support System comprised of
integrated technology capabilities representing advanced data
acquisition and management systems, geo-ecophysical models and decision
support technologies; and development of technologies and guidance to
support EPA Brownfields economic revitalization initiatives associated
with Corps Civil Works projects. During fiscal year 1999, work will
also be initiated to develop field guidance on regional sediment
management strategies, protocols, and technologies for application to
both coastal and Great Lakes environments.
Total Civil Works Research and Development Funding.--The conference
report, House Report number 102-177, accompanying the fiscal year 1992
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act stated the conferees
concern with the trend of spreading research related programs
throughout several appropriation accounts in the Civil Works budget
request, and directed the Corps to work with the committees to address
this issue. In response to this interest by the committees the
following table has been developed to provide a consolidated display of
all Civil Works research and development activities for which there is
a request for funding in the fiscal year 1999 budget:
Account and Activity Dollar amount
General investigations:
Base Research & Development......................... $23,400,000
Earthquake Engineering.............................. 2,650,000
Zebra Mussel Control Research Program............... 1,500,000
Characterization & Restoration of Wetlands.......... 1,850,000
Engineering & Environmental Innovations (WRDA 96)... 600,000
Construction, general: Aquatic Plant Control............ 2,600,000
Operation and maintenance, general:
Coastal Inlet Research.............................. 4,000,000
Dredging Operations & Environmental Research........ 8,000,000
Civil Works Management Tools........................ 600,000
General expenses: Coastal Engineering Research Board.... 324,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Grand total....................................... 45,524,000
activities under the construction, general appropriation
continuing authorities
The fiscal year 1999 request for the six Continuing Authorities
funded under Construction, General is $47 million. This is a decrease
of $16.4 million from the fiscal year 1998 allocation. The request
covers funding of planning, design, and construction to provide
solutions to flood control and emergency streambank erosion problems
under the Section 205 and Section 14 programs, navigation problems
under the Section 107 program, shoreline damage problems under the
Section 103 and Section 111 programs, and clearing and snagging
problems under the Section 208 program. Under our Continuing
Authorities Program, projects are accomplished expeditiously and result
in a high level of customer satisfaction. Continuing Authorities
projects continue to be an important segment of our total water
resources infrastructure investment program.
inland waterways users board
Funds are requested for fiscal year 1999 in the amount of $230,000
for the Inland Waterways Users Board activity. Section 302 of the WRDA
86, created this eleven-member advisory board of inland waterway users
and shippers to make recommendations to the Secretary of the Army and
the Congress regarding construction and rehabilitation priorities and
spending levels for commercial waterway improvements. The Board members
were initially appointed in late Spring of 1987. The Board has held
thirty-one meetings since it was created. The Board's recommendations
are a valuable addition to our program and budget development process.
We appreciate the contribution of the Board's chairman and its members
to the efficient management and modernization of our inland waterways.
We believe the Board provides an important advisory function to both
the Secretary of the Army and the Congress.
project modifications for improvement of the environment
Funds are requested for fiscal year 1999 in the amount of $5.3
million for Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment
authorized by Section 1135 of the WRDA 86, as amended. This is a
decrease of $14.6 million from the fiscal year 1998 allocation. These
funds will be used to determine the need for structural or operational
modifications of Corps projects for the purpose of improving the
quality of the environment. Section 1135 projects contribute to
achievement of national and regional program goals for ecosystem
restoration.
beneficial uses of dredged material
The fiscal year 1999 request includes funds in the amount of
$200,000 for Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material authorized by Section
204 of WRDA 92. This is a decrease of $1.7 million from the fiscal year
1998 allocation. These funds will be used to carry out projects for the
protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically
related habitats and wetlands in connection with dredging projects. The
program provides an attractive alternative solution for the frequently
difficult problem of determining where to place dredged material.
aquatic ecosystem restoration
Funds in the amount of $2 million are requested for fiscal year
1999 for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration authorized by Section 206 of
WRDA 96. This is a decrease of $3.6 million from the fiscal year 1998
allocation. These funds will be used to carry out projects for aquatic
ecosystem restoration and protection to improve the quality of the
environment.
aquatic plant control program
The fiscal year 1999 request includes funds in the amount of $2
million for the Aquatic Plant Control Program authorized by Section 104
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1958, as amended. This is a decrease
of $2.7 million from the fiscal year 1998 allocation. These funds will
be used to continue research efforts for aquatic plant control
technologies to support operation and maintenance of Corps Water
Resources projects. Primary research efforts are focused on the non-
indigenous submersed species, hydrilla and Eurasian watermilfoil, with
emphasis on development of biological control agents.
dredged material disposal facilities program
Funds in the amount of $2 million are requested for fiscal year
1999 to initiate the Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program.
Section 101 of WRDA 86, as amended by Section 201 of WRDA 96,
established consistent cost sharing for construction of dredged
material disposal facilities associated with Federal navigation
projects, including disposal facilities for Federal project
maintenance. Funds requested for fiscal year 1999 will be used for the
Federal share of construction of applicable dredged material disposal
facilities required for maintenance of existing projects, reimbursement
of non-Federal sponsors for dredged material disposal facilities
constructed by them in advance of Federal appropriations for such
purpose, or fee payments to private entities for the use of privately
owned dredged material disposal facilities if such a facility is the
least cost alternative to dispose of dredged material. All costs for
dredged material disposal facilities associated with project
maintenance will be reimbursed from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
flood hazard mitigation and riverine ecosystem restoration
The fiscal year 1999 request includes funds in the amount of $25
million for the Challenge 21 initiative, the Corps' Flood hazard
Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem Restoration Program. As proposed for
inclusion in this year's Water Resources Development Act, this
initiative expands the use of non-structural flood hazards mitigation
options to achieve the dual purposes of flood damage reduction and
restoration of the functions and values of riverine ecosystems.
Projects might include the relocation of threatened homes or
businesses, conservation or restoration of wetlands and natural
floodwater storage areas and planning for responses and solutions to
potential future floods. Although focused on non-structural
alternatives to flood protection, a Challenge 21 project could, where
appropriate, include structural pieces. Challenge 21 builds on existing
programs and initiatives, uses a watershed approach and initiates and
expands partnerships with other Federal agencies (particularly FEMA,
NRCS and USFWS) and non-Federal public entities. Candidate projects
might be areas where frequent or severe flooding has occurred,
emergency assistance has been necessary, flood hazards have increased
due to changes in hydrologic and hydraulic regimes, development is
encroaching on and altering flood plains and important floodplain
functions and values need maintenance or restoration. Cost sharing will
be 50 percent Federal and 50 percent non-Federal for studies and 65
percent Federal and 35 percent non-Federal for design and
implementation.
employees' compensation
The fiscal year 1999 request includes $18.3 million for transfer to
the Department of Labor to repay the Employees' Compensation Fund for
costs charged during the period July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997 and
for investigation of fraudulent claims for workers compensation
benefits. This is an increase of $241,000 over the fiscal year 1998
allocation. The transfer to the Department of Labor is for payment of
benefits and claims due to injury or death of persons under the
jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers civil functions.
activities under the operation and maintenance, general appropriation
coastal inlets research program
The fiscal year 1999 budget includes $4 million to fund the Coastal
Inlet Research Program, a short-term focused program to increase Corps
capabilities to cost-effectively design and maintain the over 100 inlet
projects which comprise the bulk of coastal operations and maintenance
(O&M) expenditures. Because of their complex nature, the behavior of
inlets is poorly understood. So little is known about inlet behavior
and response that it is possible that the Corps is spending much more
of its O&M budget than necessary to maintain inlet projects. The
Coastal Inlets Research Program is evaluating functional aspects of
inlets such as their short- and long-term behavior and their response
to waves, tides, currents, and man-made changes, given their geologic
make-up. As inlet behavior becomes better understood, sophisticated
tools for management of inlets for navigation projects, such as models
and empirical relationships, will become available from the research
program.
With our fiscal year 1998 allocations we plan to: (a) complete
development of empirical relationships to predict scour depths and
related structural stability due to outgoing tides around coastal
structures; (b) develop a preliminary sediment budget methodology, an
essential tool for effective sand management at and adjacent to inlets;
(c) complete study of inner bank erosion mechanisms which will assist
in revised designs to increase project stability and reduce
sedimentation into the navigation channels from adjacent banklines; and
(d) complete study of shoal removal methodologies aimed at minimizing
impacts on downstream shorelines and navigation channels.
dredging operations and environmental research program (doer)
An allocation of $8 million is requested in fiscal year 1999 to
continue this eight-year program. The objective of DOER is to balance
environmental and operational requirements while economically
maintaining a viable navigation system. Research is required to address
operations and environmental demands in six major areas: contaminated
sediment characterization and management; instrumentation for
monitoring and site management; near-shore placement of dredged
materials at coasts, estuaries and rivers; environmental windows for
dredging operations; innovative equipment and technologies
demonstrations; and, environmental risk management for dredging and
disposal activities. Benefits will include application of environmental
windows, cost-effective identification and management of contaminated
sediments, greater flexibility for dredging in sensitive ecological
areas, and expanded options for beneficial uses of dredged materials.
By the end of fiscal year 1998, we will have (a) produced cost-
effective rapid screening methods for high profile toxic substances
(e.g., dioxin) for wide application to Corps projects, (b) developed a
risk characterization document for application to dredging and dredged
material disposal impact assessment, (c) formulated the technical and
managerial requirements for an automated dredging and dredged-material
disposal performance system for pipeline and hopper dredges, and (d)
began a cooperative assessment of seasonal dredging restrictions, a
major issue for many Corps districts, with the evaluation of the
effects of turbidity and entrainment effects at dredging and disposal
sites on marine organisms. In addition, DOER identified existing
confined dredged-material disposal facilities containing marginally
contaminated sediments and applied an assessment framework for removal
for beneficial use and increased capacity purposes.
dredging operations technical support (dots) program
DOTS is a continuing program with a fiscal year 1999 budget request
of $2 million to provide technical assistance and technology transfer
of general use at all dredging projects. The on-going DOTS program,
formed in 1978, supplies direct environmental and engineering technical
support to all Corps elements in support of maintenance dredging
projects; training of Corps staff on the latest environmental and
engineering techniques associated with dredging and dredged material
management; short-term work efforts to address generic Corps-wide
technical dredging and dredged material disposal problems; and
technology transfer of new and emerging techniques in assessment and
management of dredged material for determining compliance with
environmental protection statutes.
The expertise obtained through the DOTS program is not available
through any other source. As technical personnel at the district level
continue to be lost to private industry, the DOTS program is called
upon more frequently to accomplish technical support for maintenance
dredging and disposal projects. The state-of-the-science for testing
and evaluating dredged material is advancing more quickly than our
ability to interpret the data for decision-making. The DOTS program
supports scientists in a centralized location for mobilization at Corps
projects. Highly contaminated sediments continue to be found at Corps
projects such as dioxin at the Port of New York/New Jersey. The Corps
must maintain the technical capability through the DOTS program to
respond to such issues.
Ongoing dredged material management tasks include assistance in
using implementation manuals for the Clean Water Act and the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. Guidance is being developed
for the application of techniques and methodologies for the management
of contaminated dredged material to include risk management, equipment
selection, confined disposal facility management, and quality
assurance/quality control guidance. As computer information sciences
advance, the DOTS program is keeping pace by integrating all dredging
information, research results, dredging related databases, and other
dredging information computer systems into a central repository
accessible through the Internet.
monitoring of coastal navigation projects
The fiscal year 1999 request of $2 million for Monitoring of
Navigation Projects will provide for the continuing program of
monitoring critical engineering parameters of selected coastal and
inland navigation projects to determine and analyze project-induced
changes in topography, currents, tidal stages, and other physical
processes phenomena. The data collected and analyzed are used to
evaluate project performance in relation to design, operation, and
maintenance expectations. These evaluations are then used to develop
improved designs for navigation projects or desirable modifications in
their operation or maintenance modes. Studies are performed at the
local level to evaluate project performance and physical processes
response in relation to the particular needs of each project.
Additionally, the information is collected and analyzed from a Corps-
wide perspective to document successes and the sometimes costly lessons
learned and to transfer the information into guidance for field and
management staff. The information developed by this program is made
available to other federal, state, and local agencies concerned with
planning and regulating the conservation, development, and use of
coastal and inland waterway resources.
cultural resources (nagpra/curation)
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990
addresses the recovery, treatment, and repatriation of Native American
and Native Hawaiian cultural items by Federal agencies and museums.
Cultural items are defined as human remains and associated and
unassociated items having to do with funerals and/or burials, sacred
objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. The Department of the
Interior has developed regulations for compliance with the provisions
of this Act and the Corps is requesting funds because of the immediate
impacts and reporting requirements the regulations impose. In fiscal
year 1998, Corps field offices are continuing an inventory of those
cultural items which were started in prior years. Information will be
made available to interested individuals and groups through notices in
the Federal Register. Corps field offices will engage in formal
consultation with recognized tribes to repatriate cultural objects for
which there are claims consistent with the provisions of the Act and
implementing regulations. In addition, the Corps has established the
St. Louis District as a center of expertise (MCX) for curation because
of the large volume of cultural resource materials collected from Corps
flood control projects. The MCX is also continuing a partnership effort
with the Department of Defense to identify suitable facilities to house
Corps and DOD collections according to the standards established by the
Department of the Interior. The fiscal year 1999 budget request
includes $2 million to continue this program.
national dam safety program
The National Dam Safety Program Act (Public Law 92-367 as amended)
designates FEMA as lead agency in all efforts to enhance national dam
safety. The National Dam Safety Program is coordinated through the
Interagency Committee of Dam Safety (ICODS). The Chief, Engineering
Division, Directorate of Civil Works, represents the Department of
Defense as a member of ICODS. The Corps and FEMA signed a Memorandum of
Understanding for the purpose of establishing responsibilities for
management and administration assistance in the implementation of the
National Dam Safety Program. FEMA acting through ICODS will provide
support in development of Federal guidelines for dam safety, promotion
of public awareness programs, publications, training materials, the
National Performance of Dams Program, and workshops. The fiscal year
1999 budget request includes $40,000 to continue this participation.
national recreation management support (nrms)--(formerly natural
resources technical support (nrts))
Changed from ``Natural Resources Technical Support (NRTS)'' to
reflect more clearly the scope of conducted activities, NRMS is a
continuing program to provide technical assistance and support to the
Corps recreation business function which generates about $34 million
dollars in Special Recreation Use Fees, annually. Visitors spend over
$12 billion annually to engage in recreation at Corps projects. Over
600,000 full and part time jobs are associated with this spending. Our
fiscal year 1999 allocation request for this program is $1.85 million.
NRMS supports the conduct of focused management studies and reports
on recreation related issues. It provides assistance in the transfer
and application of technology to solve immediate technical problems of
national scope, including the establishment of an Internet Website in
fiscal year 1999 to facilitate technology transfer for recreation
issues. We have contracted for the National Recreation Reservation
Service, in coordination with the USDA Forest Service and the
Department of Interior, to provide toll-free telephone and Internet
reservation services for our public recreation facilities and programs
nationwide. We expect this service to be operational in early fiscal
year 1999.
water operations technical support (wots) program
The fiscal year 1999 budget request includes $850,000 for the WOTS
Program. This will provide effective environmental and water quality
engineering technology to address a wide range of water resource
management problems that can be applied throughout the Corps system of
over 540 reservoirs, hundreds of miles of ancillary waterway projects
and thousands of miles of rivers impacted by the operation of Corps
projects. Technology is provided to address problems occurring from the
presence of non-indigenous species, tailwater fisheries at pump-back
hydropower projects, water quality impacts of shoreline erosion and
reservoir sedimentation, and dozens of other project operations related
environmental and water quality issues.
protection of navigation
The fiscal year 1999 budget request for Protection of Navigation
totals $6.6 million and includes funding for the following five
continuing programs under this category:
(1) $1,075,000 for the Dredging Data and Lock Performance
Monitoring System which provides data for efficient management of
navigation projects consistent with federal laws regarding execution of
our dredging program. The program also includes a continuing evaluation
of local conditions and performance measures throughout the navigation
system to facilitate traffic control and critical management decisions.
(2) $50,000 for work pursuant to the authority provided in Section
3 of the 1945 River and Harbor Act to protect, clear and straighten
channels in navigable waters for small projects not specifically
authorized by Congress.
(3) $500,000 for removal of sunken vessels and other obstructions.
(4) $4,400,000 for the collection of waterborne commerce statistics
pertaining to rivers, harbors, and waterways, and publication of such
data.
(5) $575,000 for collection of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Fees.
national emergency preparedness program (nepp)
Preparedness for response to national emergencies, including
catastrophic disasters, is a fundamental Governmental obligation. From
support to national mobilization during World War II through response
to events such as Hurricane Andrew, the Northridge Earthquake and the
1993 Midwest Floods, the importance of the Corps role associated with
this responsibility has been amply demonstrated.
The NEPP is the civil component of the Corps National Security
Emergency Program and a vital element of Corps readiness. The program
provides the capability to rapidly and effectively respond to a broad
spectrum of catastrophic technological and natural disasters, having
national implications, as well as the capability to satisfy Corps
requirements associated with anti-terrorism initiatives. The Flood
Control and Coastal Emergencies (FC&CE) (another Civil Works
appropriation account) and NEPP programs are complementary. However,
the NEPP supports planning and preparation for scenario specific
catastrophic disasters (natural and technological) of national
proportions. Additionally, NEPP planning goes beyond disaster response
to include planning for the Continuity of Operations/Government,
Emergency Water Program, anti-terrorism programs directed at Corps
projects and other national disaster preparedness and recovery
activities. The high level and broad spectrum of preparation associated
with the NEPP provides synergistic benefits to FC&CE funded efforts.
A substantial portion of the NEPP funding pays for the salaries of
the emergency planners who lead the catastrophic and anti-terrorism
planning and functional personnel (e.g. engineering, contracting, etc.)
who provide supporting data and plans. The planners also coordinate and
conduct exercises with Federal, state and local governments and, during
emergencies, serve as part of the emergency response teams which
coordinate the Corps response. These personnel and their activities
have enabled the Corps to respond effectively to disasters such as
Hurricane Andrew and the Northridge Earthquake. Absent the readiness
funding that supports these activities, the Corps response to these and
other similar events would not have been as capable nor as timely. The
$6 million requested in fiscal year 1999 for the NEPP will enable us to
maintain our current, minimal, levels of preparedness while continuing
to develop catastrophic disaster preparedness and anti-terrorism
related activities.
earthquake hazards reduction program for buildings and lifelines
Public Law 101-614 requires the Corps, among other Federal
Agencies, to establish and initiate for buildings and lifelines a
systematic approach to reducing loss of life, injuries, and economic
costs resulting from earthquakes in the United States. Lifelines are
defined as public works and utility systems. The Corps main lifeline
functions include waterways transportation, hydroelectric power, and
water supply. The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program for Buildings
And Lifelines provides for the single source management of funds for:
(a) preparation of guidance and training for district personnel to
conduct seismic evaluations, (b) performance of seismic evaluations and
development of mitigation cost estimates, (c) development of the
required inventory data for Corps owned or leased buildings, (d)
assistance to the districts participating in the program, and (e)
assuring uniformity in the results.
Executive Order 12941, Seismic Safety of Existing Federal Buildings
directs all federal departments and agencies to develop by December 1,
1998, an inventory of their owned and leased buildings and an estimate
of the cost of mitigating unacceptable seismic risks in their
buildings. The completion of the inventory data and the mitigation cost
estimates are scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 1999. To support
the follow-up seismic mitigation program for buildings and lifelines,
this program has been extended to fiscal year 2002 at minimal funding.
The fiscal year 1999 budget request for this program is $2 million.
management tools for civil works research program
Federal deficit reduction measures mandating budgetary constraints
are likely to continue well into the future. Because the funding
requests for operating and maintaining Corps projects significantly
outstrip the reasonably anticipated resources, an objective and
consistent prioritization procedure is essential. This prioritization
requirement is complicated by the diversity and size of the O&M
projects. The performance-based budget requirement is also an impetus
for this research program. This research will develop a performance-
based return-on-investment (ROI) model and procedure for prioritization
and ranking of the maintenance activities of the annual Civil Works O&M
budget. The need for a performance-based procedure has been validated
by several recent initiatives including: the Government Performance and
Results Act (1993), Corps Performance Measurement Guidebook (1995),
Corps full service Civil Works vision and focus, and the Corps
Operation and Maintenance Cost Savings Initiative (1997). The product
of this research will provide an objective and consistent procedure for
both O&M budget prioritization and other issues including the impact of
O&M funding shortfalls on project effectiveness and the impact of
deferred maintenance on operation expenditures. Funding in the amount
of $600,000 is requested to initiate this critically needed research.
mississippi river basin mainstem model development (mrm)
The Great Flood of 1993 demonstrated the need for the Corps to
develop an integrated model to operate and manage flood control
projects under a wide spread storm system covering a geographic region
as large as the Upper Mississippi and Lower Missouri River basins. Such
a model will enable the Corps to compute the real-time flow and stage
data along various river reaches during flood events, assess the extent
of impacts due to levee failures, and to facilitate communications
between Corps offices, other agencies and with Corps customers.
Sub-models for the individual river reaches in St. Paul, Rock
Island, St. Louis, Omaha, and Kansas City Districts and lower
Mississippi River from Cairo to the Gulf outlet have now been
developed. In fiscal year 1999 we will (a) incorporate the digital
terrain elevation data (DEM) acquired in 1998 in the MRM, (b) update
model cross-sectional data, recalibrate and validate MRM, facilitate
interface of MRM output with DEM in generating innundation mapping, and
(d) provide coordination.
Fiscal year 1999 is the final year for the MRM program as we
complete the integrated systemic model, thoroughly test in real-time
mode, and recalibrate and validate with up to date terrain data. The
fiscal year 1999 budget request to complete this program is $2 million.
performance based budgeting support program (pbbsp)
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires that
agencies implement performance based budgeting for their programs such
as the Civil Works Operation and Maintenance, General program. The
PBBSP addresses this requirement by seeking new methods for linking
performance to annual budget requests and for analyzing the potential
economic impact of budget requests on customers who use Corps projects.
The fiscal year 1999 request to fund this work is $515,000.
reliability models program for major rehabilitation
The budget request also includes $675,000 for the Waterways
Experiment Station to support districts with a Reliability Models
Program for Major Rehabilitation. These models are used by the
districts to prepare reports for projects submitted under the Major
Rehabilitation Program. The Reliability Models Program is varied yearly
to respond directly to field needs for the fiscal year and to assist in
the preparation of reliability analyses for projects as requested by
the districts. Some examples include reliability models needed for
determining sliding stability parameters for difficult foundation
conditions, conducting stress analyses of hydropower turbine blades and
shafts, and evaluation of structural integrity based on recent flood
data. Virtually every major rehabilitation report submitted since
fiscal year 1993 has utilized this program to prepare the reliability
analyses required for the report. This is a continuing program with an
estimated average annual cost of $675,000.
activities under the regulatory program appropriation
The fiscal year 1999 Regulatory Program budget request is $117
million. This is an $11 million increase over the fiscal year 1998
appropriated amount.
This Spring, we will publish, for public comment, our new
nationwide permits under the Regulatory Program. These are replacement
permits for nationwide permit 26 which expires at the end of this year.
In December 1996, the Corps revised nationwide permit 26 to reduce the
limits of filling in isolated waters and above headwaters from 10 acres
to 3 acres. Our experience with the 10-acre limit warranted the
reduction to 3 acres to lessen impacts on the aquatic environment. The
replacement permits will authorize specific fill activities.
We are committed to insuring that the Corps' nationwide permits
support the President's Wetlands Plan by assuring environmental
protection while maintaining or enhancing our responsiveness to the
regulated public.
In fiscal year 1997, the Corps processed more than 85,000
documented permit actions, an increase of 34,000 from five years
earlier. Of these 85,000 actions, 94 percent were approved under
nationwide or regional general permits in less than sixty days. This
was the same percentage as in fiscal year 1996 and the first time this
decade that we did not improve from the year before. We are beginning
to experience a leveling off in performance although the fiscal year
1998 appropriation of $106 million, after three years at $101 million,
is helping to restore some of the personnel vacancies in the district
offices. Our fiscal year 1999 budget request includes $3 million to
cover personnel cost increases associated with this labor-intensive
program. As permit numbers increase each year, we are finding it
difficult to maintain the performance standards we believe the public
expects and deserves.
We again propose the establishment of a full administrative appeals
program. We will implement a program for review of permit denials by
the end of this fiscal year. This will allow applicants to challenge
denials without the need for time-consuming and costly litigation. In
fiscal year 1999, with the requested funding, we would expand the
program to include review of appeals of Corps jurisdiction
determinations. We estimate there will be about 100 denial appeals and
5,000 jurisdiction appeals per year. The total cost for the full
administrative appeals program is about $5 million per year.
The budget request includes about $3 million to develop watershed
management plans and other cooperative efforts with state and local
governments. Wherever state and local authorities can increase their
regulatory role for aquatic resources, Corps workload can be reduced.
We have been particularly successful with programmatic general permits
which transfer to the states permitting responsibilities in certain
areas.
We plan to implement the Wetlands Delineator Certification Program
in fiscal year 1999. This program will create a nationwide pool of
certified non-Federal wetlands delineation experts. With start-up costs
of about $500,000, the program will yield future cost savings because
of reduced delineation workload for the Corps.
Our regulations on excavation activities are currently the subject
of judicial review. In January 1997, the Federal District Court held
that the Corps ``Tulloch Rule'' was invalid and ordered the Corps to
not apply the rule where regulation was solely based on incidental
fallback of excavated material. The Corps continues to regulate most
excavation activities after a stay of the order was granted by the
Federal Circuit Court last June. The issue is on appeal and we expect a
final decision this Spring. In the 1980's, there was an increase in
actions to fill or clear wetlands by methods that were not clearly
regulated by our existing regulations. Since issuing the Tulloch Rule
in 1993, the Corps has been consistently regulating these activities
nationwide. These activities include all ditching, mining in waters of
the U.S., and most land clearing.
Corps jurisdiction over isolated waters has been challenged by the
Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals decision on the Interstate
General Corporation, or ``Wilson,'' case. On December 23, 1997, the
Court ruled that the Corps exceeded its authority when it extended its
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act to isolated waters, including
isolated wetlands, without documenting a connection to interstate
commerce (e.g., actual use by migratory birds). The Corps and the
Justice Department are reviewing the Government's options regarding
this decision.
We have proposed language for inclusion in this year's Water
Resources Development Act which would raise permit fees for commercial
projects. This would help recover some of the costs associated with the
review of more complex projects. Under the revised fee system, which
would be based on the complexity of a project, we expect about $14
million to be collected during the first full year of operation.
activities under the flood control and coastal emergencies
appropriation
The Corps continues to provide leadership in response to natural
disasters and, therefore, must maintain a preparedness program that
meets the needs of the Nation. Although no new funds are requested for
fiscal year 1999, carryover of fiscal year 1997 Supplemental funds,
contingent on the number of disasters to be funded in fiscal year 1998,
will provide for the basic requirements of the preparedness program.
The Corps responsibility for emergency response requires that its
engineering, construction, and emergency operations capabilities are
maintained. Therefore, the level of funding must be sufficient to
support an organization capable of responding to both natural and man-
made disasters: hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and other disasters,
such as contaminated public water supplies and terrorist acts. The
anticipated carryover of fiscal year 1997 Supplemental funds for use in
fiscal year 1999 will support baseline preparedness and operations in
response to life threatening situations and protection and restoration
of critical infrastructure necessary for public health and safety. This
basic level of funding for fiscal year 1999 may require supplementation
in the event of a major disaster.
Activities in this program include: the review and updating of
response plans to maintain readiness; training to ensure our capability
to respond under adverse circumstances; procurement and pre-positioning
of critical equipment and supplies such as sandbags and pumps, which
are not likely to be available during initial stages of a response;
periodic exercises to test and evaluate plans, personnel and adequacy
of training; inspection of non-federal flood control projects to ensure
their viability to provide flood protection; laboratory support for
field operations; and the overall management of the response program to
ensure workable, coordinated efforts are undertaken in a timely manner.
In addition, work continues on comprehensive interagency response
planning activities. These activities support the FEMA's Federal
Response Plan for providing engineering and construction support
following major disasters, such as recurring floods in the Midwest and
Western states, major hurricanes, such as Andrew and Fran, and the
Northridge Earthquake. In support of FEMA's disaster response and
recovery activities, our mission assignments have included: emergency
debris removal; temporary housing; emergency water; restoration of
infrastructure; temporary power; construction management; and other
support which uses Corps engineering, contracting, and construction
expertise.
activities under the formerly utilized sites remedial action program
(fusrap)
Since receiving responsibility for FUSRAP administration and
execution with enactment of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 1998, last October, the Corps has moved rapidly,
first, to insure that no slippage would occur at any site as result of
the transition from Department of Energy, and second to develop
schedules and funding requirements by site to maximize potential
savings and accelerate completion schedules. The Corps has concluded
that the 2002 target completion date established in the Department of
Energy's (DOE's) accelerated clean-up plan was not realistic. It did
not clean-up the Niagara Falls Storage Site; it greatly underestimated
the quantity of hazardous wastes at the Lucky site; and it did not
recognize the potential for ground water contamination.
The Corps fiscal year 1999 FUSRAP request will permit the Corps to
complete three projects and possibly a fourth one. It also fully funds
the requirements at those projects which are at the site
characterization/site investigation stage prior to the development of a
cleanup plan and provides sufficient funding to continue the
remediation efforts at all other sites.
activities under the general expenses appropriation
The General Expenses (GE) appropriation provides for the executive
direction and management of the overall Civil Works program through the
Office of the Chief of Engineers and the regional Major Subordinate
Commands. The primary purpose of the GE account is to provide
definitive policy guidance, program management, regional and national
interface, and quality assurance and oversight for all Corps activities
toward execution of a comprehensive Civil Works program. The fiscal
year 1999 budget request for the GE account is $148 million, consistent
with the fiscal year 1998 funded level. Within this amount the Corps
will be absorbing inflation and increases in personnel compensation and
agency benefits contributions.
The GE account also funds activities providing support to the
Headquarters to include the Coastal Engineering Research Board, which
reviews and recommends coastal engineering research and development
project priorities; the Humphreys Engineering Center Support Activity,
which provides administrative support to the Corps Headquarters as well
as other Corps tenants at the Humphreys Engineer Center at Fort
Belvoir; the Water Resources Support Center, also at Fort Belvoir,
which provides a variety of water management functions such as
conducting and managing national studies, special studies in support of
the Civil Works mission, data collection and distribution, and
technical support to other Corps offices on water resource management
matters; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center which was
established in 1996 in Memphis, TN, to begin the Corps-wide
centralization of finance and accounting activities. These activities
represent 139 FTE of the total GE staffing of 1,180 FTE.
The fiscal year 1999 General Expenses budget of $148 million
consists of approximately 71 percent labor, 22 percent fixed costs,
such as rent, utilities, communications, information management, and
other contractual services, and 7 percent discretionary costs, for
travel, training, supplies and materials, furniture, and equipment. The
budget reflects absorption of inflation of 2.6 percent in nonlabor
costs of about $1.1 million, and 4.8 percent in personnel costs from
pay increases and agency contributions to retirement funds, for another
$4.9 million. These costs will be offset through downsizing and
restructuring efficiencies. In addition, in the fiscal year 1998 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act, responsibility for FUSRAP was
transferred from the DOE to the Corps. The costs associated with
executive direction and management of this program, estimated at about
$900,000, will also be absorbed within the fiscal year 1999 budget
request.
The Corps has continued its efforts to streamline executive
direction and management functions in compliance with the
Administration's National Performance Review and Reinventing Government
Initiatives. In January 1997, the Chief of Engineers and the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) submitted a Division Office
Restructuring Plan, in compliance with Congressional direction (Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1997), to reduce the number
of division offices from eleven to eight, with each division
responsible for no fewer than four districts. The Secretary of the Army
approved the plan in February 1997, and implementation began on 1 April
1997 as scheduled.
The fiscal year 1999 budget supports the new 8 division office
structure at a reduced staffing level of 588 FTE, down 54 FTE, or -8.4
percent, from the staffing level at implementation in fiscal year 1997.
The Division Office Restructuring Plan put into place a typical
division office structure with a base staffing level of 73 FTE,
adjusted for significant variances in volume and mix of workload and
geographical dispersion. The exception is the Pacific Ocean Division
(POD), previously an operating division, which under this plan would
become a full-fledged division consistent with the roles and missions
of the remaining 7 continental United States (CONUS) divisions.
However, POD has a predominantly military mission workload and a
comparatively small civil workload, creating the reverse staffing
relationship as the CONUS divisions. The CONUS divisions, under this
restructuring plan, are on a downward staffing slope to achieve the
average of 73 FTE per division by fiscal year 2002, for a total of 506
FTE, plus 16 for POD.
Consistent with streamlining initiatives across the Corps, the
Headquarters and its support activities have also been under intensive
review to find opportunities for consolidations and efficiency savings.
One step toward achieving these savings was the Chief of Engineer's
decision to disestablish the Engineer Strategic Studies Center at Fort
Belvoir, Virginia, in late 1997 and merge that staff's strategic
planning expertise into the Headquarters to eliminate duplication of
effort and realize efficiencies. A similar review is being made of the
Water Resources Support Center as well as other support activities.
The five-year staffing plan for the Headquarters and support
activities also reflects a downward slope equivalent to the divisions
in support of the Administration's deficit reduction initiatives and
federal downsizing goals. The Headquarters and supporting field
activities staffing level by the year 2002 is projected at 525, down
from 672 FTE in fiscal year 1996. Across all GE-funded activities, this
represents a 41 percent reduction in staffing (from 1,760 to 1,050 FTE)
since 1989, when various streamlining initiatives began, and 23 percent
from the fiscal year 1996 base year prior to reducing the number of
division offices and downsizing Headquarters activities. These
percentages far exceed the Administration's Federal Workforce
Reductions Act 12 percent goal.
Meeting the Headquarters' fiscal year 2002 downsizing goals without
impacting products and services presents a real challenge, but one the
Chief of Engineers is committed to achieve. At these projected staffing
levels, the total General Expenses ``headquarters activities'' will be
performed by 4 percent of the total Civil Works FTE and approximately 4
percent of the total Civil Works budget. This staffing level is the
minimum required to provide oversight of the execution the Civil Works
program throughout the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution
phases.
Through these restructuring, collocation, and downsizing
initiatives, we have been able to absorb cost increases of inflation
and increased pay and benefits costs, as well as assume responsibility
for managing the FUSRAP program. Pre-restructuring budget estimates
with staffing reductions constrained to that required by FWRA only
would have required $161 million to support 1,322 FTE in lieu of the
1,219 FTE budgeted, or $13 million more than the budget request of $148
million. Fiscal year 1999 budget requirements would have been $163
million after FWRA reductions, reflecting a cost avoidance of $15
million. Savings estimates, or cost avoidance, through completion of
the five-year plan in fiscal year 2002 reflect cumulative reductions of
$113 million, and an annual cost avoidance in excess of $30 million per
year thereafter.
activities under the revolving fund
The fiscal year 1999 Plant Replacement and Improvement Program
(PRIP) obligations under the Revolving fund for items designed to
improve productivity, increase efficiency, modernize, and improve the
Corps equipment and operational capabilities, and increase safety are
estimated at $100 million. This figure includes estimated fiscal year
1999 expenditures of $53.2 million for 12 new major items: $15 million
to repower the Dredge POTTER for the St. Louis District; $3.5 million
for dredge ladder extensions for the HURLEY and JADWIN in the Memphis
and Vicksburg Districts, respectively; $3.9 million to replace a fuel
oil barge, a tender and the service base trestle in the St. Louis
District; $3.4 million to replace a tugboat and rehabilitate the Ft.
Mifflin pier in the Philadelphia District; $2.4 million to replace a
surveyboat in the New York District; $5 million for a dock front
rehabilitation for the Pittsburgh District; $3 million to replace the
hydropower communications system in the Mobile District; $100,000 for a
hyperflume research facility at the Waterways Experiment Station; and
$16.9 million for costs associated with relocating Corps headquarters
to the General Accounting Office (GAO) headquarters facility. Also
included are expenditure estimates of $28.3 million for the acquisition
of continuing major items and $18.5 million for the design,
rehabilitation, construction, acquisition, additions and improvements
of miscellaneous items of plant and equipment with unit costs less than
$700,000.
Included above are two items which were not included in the
justification sheets for the Revolving Fund submitted in support of the
President's budget on 2 February 1998, specifically, the dredge ladder
extensions for the HURLEY and JADWIN in the Memphis and Vicksburg
Districts, respectively. Through an administrative oversight these
items were omitted and two items which were not part of the President's
approved new start program included instead, specifically, the single
point mooring system for the Philadelphia District and the replacement
crane barge for the Mobile District. The dredge ladder extensions are
needed to maintain the recently deepened 45 foot navigation channel on
the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans at the
authorized channel width. The single point mooring system and the
replacement crane barge will be considered for possible funding in
future years. Also, in light of our Headquarters relocation planning I
have increased our estimated expenditures in the Plant Replacement and
Improvement Program by $10 million, from the amount in the
justification sheets, to $100 million.
automation
The Corps has again included an estimate of automation costs. Costs
are displayed under three categories, hardware acquisition, software or
automated systems, and automation personnel. Total hardware acquisition
costs for fiscal year 1999 are estimated at $66.7 million. $14.3
million of these costs are included in the fiscal year 1999 Revolving
Fund PRIP request. The remainder will be paid for using the General
Expenses appropriation funds, district or laboratory overhead accounts,
or funds provided for specific Civil Works studies, projects or
programs. Total automated information systems costs for fiscal year
1999 are estimated at $25.8 million. Total estimated automation
personnel costs for fiscal year 1999 are $31.2 million. The Corps
continues to improve the tools it uses to develop these estimates and
to measure actual expenditures. This will increase the accuracy of the
data in future submissions and facilitate Corps management of
automation resources.
headquarters relocation planning
Corps proposes relocating its Headquarters to the 3rd floor of the
GAO Headquarters building at 441 G St. NW, four blocks to the northwest
of the Pulaski Building.
By doing so, the Corps would leave commercially leased space to
make more efficient use of government owned space. The only alternative
to relocating is a further extension on the Pulaski lease or a new long
term one, since the present lease was intended only to fill the gap
until the General Services Administration could relocate the Corps to a
new facility at the Southeast Federal Center (SEFC). In addition to the
advantages to the government of the Corps being in government owned
space, the Corps will be saving lease costs due to the favorable terms
which the GAO has offered to the Corps. Also the close proximity of the
GAO headquarters to the Pulaski Building will minimize impact of the
relocation on Corps employees and our headquarters will not be
disrupted by reconfiguration/modernization of space which would be
required if the Corps were to remain in the Pulaski. The GAO has
requested that the Corps utilize Revolving Fund resources to pay
advance rent in order to support renovation of the 6th floor for their
use. This advance rent would be credited against rent owed by the Corps
during the first three to five years of the Corps lease and would
enable GAO to move remaining employees in renovated space sooner. The
Corps has initiated a relocation planning process intended to result in
a physical relocation to the new headquarters in August 2000, and is
working with the GAO to finalize the terms of the lease agreement.
support for others
In fiscal year 1999, the Corps will provide reimbursable
engineering, environmental remediation, construction management,
emergency response and other technical support to over 60 various
Federal Agencies. The estimated dollar value of the Corps efforts is
$800 million. The actual program size depends on various factors:
requesting agency's appropriation (which often is not known until the
first quarter of the fiscal year), requesting agency's final decisions
on how their projects will be executed, and the nature and magnitude of
national emergencies.
conclusion
This concludes the detailed statement of Major General Russell L.
Fuhrman on Remaining Items of the fiscal year 1999 Civil Works Budget.
impact of budget request on construction program
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Let me say that I am free to stay here for as long as it
takes this morning, so I would yield to Senators who have
questions.
Senator Byrd, do you have any questions?
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Corps' request to OMB for construction funding was
$1,894,000,000. OMB reduced this by $1,110,000,000. So the
request is now $784 million. Thus, OMB reduced the amount
recommended by the Department of the Army by some 58 percent.
What is your assessment as to the Corps' ability to execute
a program of the magnitude proposed to OMB?
Dr. Zirschky. Sir, we did indeed submit that request. Part
of our difficulty is with the uncertainty. It would depend on
how we got the $1.8 billion we requested. Had we gotten it in
January and known it was going to be in the President's budget,
we would have 9 months to prepare, get our designs done and be
ready to award those contracts.
If we don't find out until September that we are going to
get $1.8 billion, it is going to be much more difficult. But I
believe that the Corps, if we could get some predictability,
can, indeed, utilize the funds.
Senator Byrd. I ask that same question of General Ballard.
General Ballard. Sir, the $1.8 billion request that the
Corps submitted was the amount of money we thought was
necessary to continue those projects that we already had in the
pipeline prior to the 1998 budget. That $1.8 billion would
allow us to continue to work on all of those programs that we
have had and the new programs that were identified without
delay.
So this budget of $784 million would cause some delay and
disruption in that workload.
Senator Byrd. Dr. Zirschky, if you had any such doubts
about the Corps' ability, doubts that I hear being expressed by
General Ballard, surely you must have known about those. I am
positive that you inquired of General Ballard as to what his
viewpoint was. If that is the case, with such doubts about the
Corps' ability to execute a large program in fiscal year 1999,
then why was the Corps allowed to submit a $1.9 billion
proposed construction program to OMB?
Dr. Zirschky. Sir, I believe that, had we gotten that
request, we could have executed it. One of our biggest
obstacles is uncertainty.
We are asking now for $784 million in construction, which
means that our folks out in the field, until you all act to
change that, have to plan for that level of funding.
That means that things get more constrained.
I think the uncertainty of not knowing how much money we
are going to have in the future is an inhibitor to the amount
of work we can do.
We have great people. But what we need is predictability in
our funding schedule.
Director Raines, I believe, has written to the Senate and
offered to meet with the committee and other Senators to see if
we can arrive at a mutually satisfactory number for the
construction program that will give us the kind of
predictability that we can execute everything effectively.
Senator Byrd. If there were concerns about the Corps'
ability to carry out a program more in line with what Congress
approved for fiscal year 1998, then I should think it would be
doubtful that such a huge request would have been forwarded to
OMB.
I'm sure those concerns existed. And yet, the huge request
went forward. Now there is reason to wonder what happened.
What happened between the time the request went forward and
now?
Dr. Zirschky. Sir, it was a couple of things.
For one, there have been some restrictions on how we can
use the money, what kinds of contracting that we can do. But
the primary factor that I believe makes the Corps' job
difficult is the time that will elapse. If we knew today that
we were going to get $1.8 billion, we could begin planning for
that, making sure that we have the people in the right places
now so that at the start of the fiscal year, we would be 100
percent ready to respond.
I will assume the bill will not be signed until September.
We will get our allocation from OMB probably at the end of
October. We will have already missed a good part of the
construction season in many areas. So now we are looking at
trying to spend that money beginning in March or April in many
parts of the country.
It is an issue of timing. If I know today how much money I
am going to have, I have every confidence that the Corps can
execute the program.
Senator Byrd. Dr. Zirschky, with all due respect to you,
you are jumping around on the head of a pin. You have not
answered my question.
increased project costs and lost benefits
Let me ask you this question. What are the consequences of
further delays in the construction program? What will happen to
the total project costs? Will they rise? If so, do you have any
estimate of the additional out-year costs that will result from
this proposal?
Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir; there are two components. First, by
delaying the projects, the country will not get the benefits. A
rough estimate is that we will lose about $2.8 billion in
potential benefits.
Senator Byrd. That's $2.8 billion in benefits?
Dr. Zirschky. Lost benefits.
Then we also have the increased costs to build the projects
to get to those benefits. I don't have an exact number.
Do you have that, General Ballard?
General Ballard. For the delay?
Dr. Zirschky. Not the lost benefits, but the increased
costs.
General Ballard. Increased costs, sir, would be roughly
$400 million.
Senator Byrd. So there would be an increase in the cost of
$400 million, which seems to me to be pretty low. But you are
the engineer, I am not.
General Ballard. We calculated that, sir, on the basis of 5
years. If you stretch it out longer than 5 years, the costs
would go up incrementally.
So that is about a delay of, we are looking at a 5-year
delay on the average project, and that cost would be about $400
million. Longer delays would mean increased costs.
Senator Byrd. What effect would the proposed fiscal year
1999 budget have on the major contracts already in place for so
many ongoing projects?
Do you expect significant contract termination or
cancellation costs?
Dr. Zirschky. Sir, we expect that most of the projects will
be delayed. I am hoping that we will have enough flexibility to
not have to terminate projects. But I believe costs will
increase substantially.
Senator Byrd. Yet in spite of what you say, the
administration has managed to find significant funding for a
few favored projects, such as those projects which I enumerated
at the beginning. But it is neglecting so many other projects
as it elects to go forward with such projects as the Everglades
and South Florida projects.
marmet lock and dam
What are the estimated delay and cost growth consequences
of this proposed budget on the Marmet Locks and Dams
replacement project--to bring it right down to Earth, where
Earth really is, Marmet, Kanawha County, southern West
Virginia, down in that area where the hills sharply decline and
create hollows which are subject to sudden floods because of
summer torrential storms. Just bring it down to Earth and tell
me what would happen.
What is the estimated delay in cost growth consequences?
General Fuhrman. For that one, Senator, the foregone
benefits would be approximately $48 million and delay costs
would be an additional $8 million.
Senator Byrd. How much?
General Fuhrman. An additional $8 million in increased
costs.
Senator Byrd. $8 million. All right.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take too much longer. I
know others want to ask some questions.
implication of continued budget constraints
Let me just say this, however. I am concerned about the
long-term implications of the administration's proposed funding
level for the Corps of Engineers. Dr. Zirschky's statements
suggest that this budget is necessary to comply with the
overall spending constraints.
However, those concerns about spending constraints do not
appear to be evident when one looks at other parts of the
budget. There are spending increases for any number of
administration initiatives, whether for the environment,
education, global climate change, or basic research.
I think we have a fundamental disagreement with the
administration regarding the need for further investment in the
basic infrastructure. It serves no purpose for the
administration to send up a budget for the Corps of Engineers
that is as totally unrealistic as is this one.
It sets the stage for problems in resolving the
appropriations bills this summer and fall if the administration
expects to receive the funding increases that it has proposed
in other program areas. Those increases are predicated on
Congress accepting reductions such as those proposed for the
Corps of Engineers.
I hope that my colleagues are not prepared to accept such
draconian actions. I am very disappointed that the fiscal year
1999 budget does not include the funding necessary to keep the
Marmet project on schedule.
This is a project that has been identified as one of the
top priorities for the inland navigation system. Marmet has a
strong benefit/cost ratio because of the value of the coal, the
chemical, and the other products that are shipped along the
Kanawha River to the Ohio River navigation system.
The people whose lives are affected by this project have
already been subjected to unnecessary delays and uncertainties.
However, now that the project is ready to proceed, it is a
shame that the Corps has been unable to take care of such basic
responsibilities, such as the Marmet project, but has provided
enhanced funding for other initiatives.
So, I will be working with the chairman to ensure that the
fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water appropriations bill provides
adequate funding to keep this project on track and to minimize
any opportunities for further delay.
I thank you. I hope I will be able to ask another question
later.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator Byrd.
I think I will ask just a few questions now. I would like
to give another example, Senator Byrd, of where you spoke of
programs and projects within our subcommittee for which the
President has asked for a lot more funding. While it is not for
the Corps, the Bureau of Reclamation received fiscal year 1998
funding of $85 million for California Bay-Delta Restoration
Program. Since that is more desirable than some in your State,
you should know that the request this year is $143 million--
more than a $60 million increase.
Last year it was a brand new program.
We have programs that have been 8 or 10 years in
development or construction that have not been treated so well.
I would like to be more specific since there are members of
the media here. I don't want to misstate anything.
I have just checked and the President found room for $125
billion in new programs in his fiscal year 1999 budget.
Senator Byrd. Would you state that figure again?
Senator Domenici. That's $125 billion.
Senator Byrd. I thought you had said ``million.'' Thank
you.
Senator Domenici. It's billion.
To be fair, I have to say that $62.5 billion of it was
estimated to come from the cigarette tax settlement, which may
not occur. But that was also spent on programs that are in
competition with the normal budget with something like the
Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, and other things.
benefits foregone
Having said that, I wonder if we should make sure that we
have the right number with reference to benefits foregone.
Senator Byrd asked about benefits foregone and I have a
chart, General Ballard, which shows a different number than the
Assistant Secretary. I have the figure for benefits foregone as
$3.6 billion. Is that correct?
General Ballard. That is the number I have, sir.
Senator Domenici. All right.
So, Senator Byrd, the number was not $2 billion but $3.6
billion, according to the General.
Just by itself, it is a rather incredible number when you
consider the number of dollars that we are trying to get back
that would provide these benefits over a period of time.
I have a lot of questions, but there are other Senators
here. So I just want to go through a few that establish what I
am concerned about.
development of fiscal year 1999 budget
General Ballard has indicated that the Corps recommended
funding request for Construction General was $1.8 billion. Is
that correct?
General Ballard. That's correct, Senator.
Senator Domenici. Was OMB's final funding level appealed?
General Ballard. Yes, sir; it was.
Senator Domenici. Was the appeal made in the executive
branch all the way to the President?
General Ballard. It was made, sir; twice to OMB. I am
assuming that that information was transmitted to the
President. I am not aware of that, though.
Senator Domenici. So, you don't know for sure?
General Ballard. I don't know for sure, sir.
Senator Domenici. Assistant Secretary, do you know?
Dr. Zirschky. We did not make the list of people who were
able to present an appeal to the President, sir. So, I do not
know if he actually had the information.
fully funded contracting policy
Senator Domenici. Dr. Zirschky, on January 23, 1998,
Majority Leader Lott and a bipartisan group of more than 40
Senators wrote to Director Raines of OMB regarding OMB's
instructions to the Corps to enter into only lump sum contracts
for unrequested new construction projects.
Mr. Secretary, has OMB responded to Senator Lott's letter?
If so, could you tell the committee how OMB responded?
Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir; I believe OMB has responded and
their response was to add the administration's requested new
starts from fiscal year 1998 to that list.
Senator Domenici. So, there was no reconsideration?
Dr. Zirschky. The reconsideration, sir--their decision was
to add more projects to the list rather than to get rid of the
list.
construction general program
Senator Domenici. General Ballard and General Fuhrman, is
the $784 million funding request for construction sufficient to
carry out the fiscal year 1998 program approved by Congress and
signed into law by the President without major disruptions and
without subsequent increased costs?
General Ballard. No, sir; there will be delays in
undertaking and completing many of those projects.
Senator Domenici. Now, frankly, at some point in time we
may not get the resources to fully fund what you requested,
General.
General Ballard. Yes, sir.
minimum funding level need for fiscal year 1999
Senator Domenici. I think at some point we need to know
what the minimal levels of funding would be to allow the Corps
to manage the current programs in an efficient way without
these major disruptions.
What other actions or guidance can you give the committee
that would help us in making sure that the Corps' ability to
effectively manage these programs is maintained?
General Ballard. Well, sir, any additional funding would be
generally all that is necessary to execute the program.
Senator Domenici. Right.
General Ballard. However, we are prepared to submit for the
record the minimum funding that we think is necessary to
complete those.
Senator Domenici. You don't know that number now?
General Ballard. General Fuhrman.
General Fuhrman. It really would be too hard to determine
right now, because the $1.8 billion is what is required to
carry out what is provided in the President's programs plus
those added by Congress. Until we know, in 1999, what gets
added by Congress, it would be hard for us to determine what
the delta is below $1.8 billion.
Senator Domenici. I would think, and as chairman I am
interested in knowing what this number is before our
appropriations chairman has to make the subcommittee budget
allocations. I think we ought to go tell him in our
communications what you say, Generals. We also ought to say if
this is the amount that we can get that is less than that, how
it will minimize the damage that is going to occur to these
projects and minimize the costs.
Will you do that for us?
General Ballard. Sir, I will be happy to do that. This is
an important number and I would have to take a guess at it. I
would be more than happy to submit that for the record.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Minimum Funding Level for the Construction, General Program
Determination of a minimum fiscal year 1999 funding level for the
Construction, General program is based on the premise that all facets
of the program would be treated equitably. This includes new and
continuing projects and programs presented in the President's fiscal
year 1999 budget, as well as fiscal year 1998 Congressionally added new
start construction projects and other continuing unbudgeted projects.
It also assumes that no unbudgeted new start construction projects
would be undertaken in fiscal year 1999. The minimum funding level
would provide less than optimum funding, and thus would not allow
projects to be completed on the most efficient schedules possible to
minimize project cost increases and achieve benefits at the earliest
time; however, it would allow reasonably efficient scheduling. Based on
these assumptions, the minimum fiscal year 1999 funding level for the
Construction, General program is $1,600,000. This would result in
delays ranging up to 12 months from optimum project schedules in fiscal
year 1999 for ongoing projects.
acequias irrigation system, NM
Senator Domenici. I have a request today with reference to
a small historic program in my State that you all know about,
although most of you don't say the name right. So, I will tell
you how to say it again. We have some historic ditches in New
Mexico that take water from streams and move it around. They
are 400 years old and they are called acequias. That's
acequias. It means water carriers in Spanish.
Now this program has been funded with little, small amounts
every year for you to supervise the maintenance of some of
these.
I would like the two Generals to try to help me understand
what is causing the delays in these projects. Can the Corps
give us, at the earliest convenience, a written statement about
how we resolve some of the problems of delays and what we could
do to make that a more efficient process?
It seems to me that all kinds of rumors are coming that you
don't want to do the program and that you would rather someone
else do it. I would like a statement about that. If it is too
burdensome for some reason, then clearly we would have to make
some adjustments.
[The information follows:]
Acequias Program
The Corps of Engineers is committed to providing the irrigators in
New Mexico reliable, permanent facilities requiring minimal
maintenance. We have successfully designed and constructed over 35
projects dating back to 1987, and we look forward to continuing the
program and building on strong relationships forged over the last
decade between us and our local sponsor. That is not to say, however,
that our processes cannot be improved. Indeed, they can.
Recent delays have been caused by an inability to execute local
loan agreements. As you are aware, we cannot proceed past the
reconnaissance phase until our partner is financially committed to the
project. There are currently seven projects that the State of New
Mexico, the local sponsor, is reviewing and coordinating with the local
Acequias associations for approval. These seven projects have been
under financial and technical review by the State for over two years.
The Corps will continue to work with the New Mexico Acequias
Commission, the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, and the
individual community acequias associations to insure expectations of
water delivery, project longevity and cost effectiveness are achieved.
We are also meeting with all stakeholders to refine the process and
proceed in an efficient and effective manner. For example, we are
reviewing processes for accelerating environmental documentation and
preliminary design. We also plan to produce programmatic environmental
impact statements for major acequias and river basin areas. With these
improvements, we can proceed with preliminary design and required
environmental documentation while our sponsor and sub-sponsors finalize
local cost sharing arrangements. We are also exploring other
opportunities to expedite our processes to assure prompt delivery of
quality products within budget.
The Corps has a proud history of meeting the country's engineering
needs. We remain committed to executing the acequias program and
satisfying the requirements of our local sponsor, the State of New
Mexico. We fully expect our process improvements will expedite the
program, and look forward to leading Federal participation in the rich
history of the acequias tradition.
Senator Domenici. My last observation and question combined
is this. There is a commission that works on preservation of
these historic ditches. Will you work with that commission in
the next few months to see if, between the two, you can come up
with some reasonable suggestions about expediting and
efficiency?
General Ballard. Yes, sir; we will.
General Fuhrman. Yes, sir.
las cruces, nm, project
Senator Domenici. I have a project in Las Cruces, NM, and I
would just want to know how will the $150,000 included in the
President's budget be used.
General Ballard. Sir, I would defer here to General Fuhrman
for that information.
Senator Domenici. You need more than that to keep it on
schedule, don't you? My understanding is you need $3.5 million
to keep it on schedule.
Would that take too much time for you right now, sir?
General Fuhrman. Let me provide that for the record,
Senator.
General Ballard. The exact amount.
Senator Domenici. I've got it here. I will put it in the
record. If you think it is not right, then you can correct it.
It is easier for me to find it than it is you. I know what it
means.
It says $3.5 million is needed to keep it going. So if that
is not correct, will you correct the record?
General Fuhrman. We will correct it.
General Ballard. I most certainly will, Senator.
[The information follows:]
Las Cruces, NM
The $150,000 included in the President's budget will be used to
continue real estate coordination and to ready the project for
construction. If $3.5 million were provided, we could award the
construction contract in December 1998 and complete construction as
originally scheduled in August 2000 rather than August 2001 as
reflected in the budget justification materials.
Senator Domenici. Which Senator would like to proceed next.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I have indicated that I am
going to submit my questions in writing.
Senator Domenici. Then Senator Dorgan.
devils lake, nd
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I also would like to submit a
series of questions in writing with your permission to both the
Corps and the Bureau in the event I am not here later.
Let me now just ask this. Secretary Zirschky, on the Devils
Lake project, can you give me a status report of the Corps work
on that project?
Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir; we are in the process of raising
the levees around the city of Devils Lake. The water level is
still rising in the basin.
We recently conducted an exercise with the help of the
Energy and Environment Research Center in Grand Forks to study
various options on how to respond to the ever-increasing flood.
That was completed earlier this month. We hope to have a report
back on that. It was a very useful exercise, identifying the
various options to help fight that flood.
Senator Dorgan. The Corps remains supportive of the outlet?
Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir; we are still evaluating it. But the
virtual flood indicated that there were scenarios where it
could be a very useful tool for fighting the flood.
Senator Dorgan. I would like to show my colleagues a chart
that deals with a summary of damages in the Devils Lake area,
because this relates to the point I made earlier that some of
these investments that we make here are very important.
The estimate of damages here with the rise of Devils Lake
shows we have already spent just over $200 million to try to
mitigate damages, raising roads, moving buildings, and a range
of other issues. If this continues to rise, this closed basin,
if the water level continues to rise, we are headed toward over
$400 million.
Rather small investments can save very large amounts here.
The reason I asked about the outlet is this. You are building
the levee. The water is projected to increase nearly 2 feet
again by midsummer, which is going to get you to the limit of
the levee that is already under construction.
Is that correct?
Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. We are trying to get an outlet that would
measure some release of that water in quantities that would not
hurt any other rivers or any other citizens but that would take
some pressure off this lake which, potentially, could save a
couple of hundred million dollars over time.
Dr. Zirschky. Yes.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, these issues are always very
difficult, but necessary. As I said, there are only two closed
basins of this type in the country. One is the Great Salt Lake
and the other is Devils Lake. These have no inlet and no
outlet, and when the water continues to rise, we face enormous
problems.
If I might have the chart about the water levels over time,
I could just show my colleagues what we are facing.
We have a chart that shows over a long period of history
what is happening in Devils Lake. The 1,445.5 foot level is
expected to be reached midsummer this summer. That basin has in
the past 5 years tripled in volume, doubled in size, risen more
than 20 feet.
This picture shows a woman standing in the Devils Lake area
near a telephone pole. If you will take a look at the woman
down at the bottom of the pole and then take a look way up
there on top to where the pole has been extended, that is where
the lake is today. That tells you what is happening in this
closed basin.
It is simply gobbling up land, homes, and property.
There is a fellow who my colleague, Conrad Burns, will
know. His name is Dwayne Howard. He was one of the great bull
riders in America for many years, one of the great rodeo
cowboys. He won all over America.
He had a ranch in this area but he does not have a ranch
there anymore. He is gone. He had to move out. He could not get
to his house. All of his ranch was under water.
Senator Burns. He went from riding bulls to fishing.
[Laughter.]
Senator Dorgan. That's right. But he is not fishing
anymore, because he cannot be there anymore. It has broken his
heart. Here is a guy who has lost everything.
In human terms, this has an enormous consequence.
Senator Reid. On the Indian side is it water?
Senator Dorgan. The lake continues to rise.
Senator Reid. Where is the water coming from?
Senator Dorgan. No one knows. The upper basin, obviously we
have had wet years, and the water comes from down the basin.
There is some theory that there is an aquifer feeding and no
one quite understands this. We don't even quite understand the
full history because we only have 150 years or so of history of
this closed basin.
The point is that it is an awful problem for these people
and this subcommittee has been very helpful. Secretary Zirschky
and the Corps has been very helpful. We are struggling very
hard on several fronts--a levee, an outlet.
Secretary Zirschky, again, just to reiterate, the
preconstruction money was allocated by this committee for the
outlet's design, planning, and preconstruction. That is
underway. The first $5 million of construction money has
already been appropriated.
The President is requesting--what--$14 million?
General Fuhrman. $16 million.
Senator Dorgan. Excuse me--$16 million in this set of
recommendations, and the Corps continues to support that and
continues to see the value and the merit of these approaches.
General Fuhrman. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I know that others would like to ask
questions. I would like to be able to submit additional
questions to both the Corps and the Bureau.
Senator Domenici. We will submit those to the witnesses in
your behalf. Thank you.
Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an
amendment coming up on the floor and I appreciate the courtesy.
I have just one comment to make.
By the way, Senator, we found your answer. There are some
pumps down on the Great Salt Lake that have never been used. If
you could get trucks down there, we might be able to get you
some pumps. Will that help you out any?
Senator Dorgan. You know, you seem to have an answer every
time I ask you a question. But the water keeps going up.
[Laughter.]
Senator Burns. That's all right. These pumps are going to
take care of that.
Dr. Zirschky, we have a little situation. I would like some
time with you if I could come to your office or you could come
to mine. We have a situation up at Fort Peck having to do with
fossils. I thought he was referring to me. But that is not
true.
We need to visit about that because it is just an isolated
thing and we need to take some action. We have some people who
are getting conflicting stories and I think we can work that
out in nothing flat.
Dr. Zirschky. I would be delighted to come to your office.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Gorton.
Senator Gorton. Mr. Chairman, like the other members of the
committee, I have a long series of questions to submit to the
Corps that I will do in writing.
corps of engineers public opinion survey
But I do want to share with you and the other members what
I think to be an almost unbelievable set of priorities or
campaigns in which the Corps of Engineers has engaged in
Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.
Last week, one of my constituents sent me a survey the
Corps of Engineers is sponsoring. When the recipient opened up
the survey, a $2 bill dropped out. The Corps of Engineers was
paying him $2 to pick up his mail.
Then the Corps said that if he would fill out the survey,
they would pay him another $10.
Senator Reid. Are you joking?
Senator Gorton. No; I'm telling the truth. I have the
letter right here. They would pay him another $10, because they
wanted to find out what his views were on removing all of the
dams on the Snake River for the salmon.
By contrast, one of my friends, when I was talking about it
the other night, said that he had gotten a survey like this
from Lexus, a luxury automobile, for which he got $1. He filled
it out. In this case, you get $12 if you fill it out.
I made a speech on the floor of the Senate last week. It is
the only lottery in the State of Washington of which everyone
was a winner.
Senator Reid. But you get $2 if you do nothing?
Senator Gorton. You get $2 just for opening up the
envelope. The $2 bill fell out simply by doing that.
Senator Dorgan. If I might inquire, has the Corps
acknowledged that this is something they have done?
Senator Gorton. Oh, yes; it is a Corps deal.
Then they are going to do 10,000 or 12,000 more of these
surveys after they perfect this one. They tell us, when I make
the speech they say oh, no, the second time around you are only
going to get the $2. Maybe so, maybe not.
But in addition to the fact that they were willing to pay
people $12 of our taxpayers' money to fill out the survey, you
ought to see the survey. You know, we here are partisans and
you know how the Democratic National Committee will send out a
poll that says ``Do you want to allow Republicans to destroy
Social Security and throw old people out on the street?''
Senator Dorgan. Oh, no, never. [Laughter.]
Senator Gorton. And how Republicans may send out a poll
that will say ``Do you want to allow Democrats to triple your
tax burden and take all of your money away from you for
wasteful Federal spending in other States?'' [Laughter.]
Well, the Corps of Engineers survey is sort of like that.
They go through all of these facts about how many fish can be
saved and a few little mentions of maybe it will cost a little
bit of money, and all of these wonderful recreational
opportunities that will be given if this crazy idea of
destroying dams, which were put up for power, for irrigation,
and for transportation is effected and the dams are taken down.
So not only are we having all this money being spent, given
away for people to fill out the form, they are trying to fix
the answers to the survey the way we sometimes do politically.
I really want General Ballard to justify who in the world
came up not only with the crazy idea of paying people this
amount of money to fill out a survey but with the totally
biased nature of the questions that are included in it.
General Ballard. I can't wait to answer that question.
First of all, let me say that it did not come from
headquarters. The Corps is like one of those organizations
where if we were a musical instrument, we would be a drum
because there is an opportunity for a lot of folks to beat us.
I was not aware of this survey until I heard your speech on
the floor and it was immediately brought to my attention. Let
me tell you what I have done.
I have launched an investigation to find out who authorized
it, where did the money come from, what was the purpose of the
survey, and I am expecting an answer next week. As soon as I
get that answer, I would be more than willing to either come
see you or submit it for the record, sir.
Senator Gorton. That is a responsive response. I appreciate
it. I will be happy to see you on it and I will defer my next
speech on the floor until you have had an opportunity to
explain it.
General Ballard. I would appreciate that, sir.
Senator Domenici. We all would be interested.
General Ballard. I will submit it for the record.
Senator Domenici. Yes; submit it for the record, and go and
see the Senator also.
General Ballard. I will do that, sir.
[The information follows:]
Letter From Joe N. Ballard
April 1, 1998.
Hon. Slade Gorton,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Gorton: I am taking this opportunity to respond to
questions raised at the March 26, 1998, subcommittee hearings regarding
a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recreation survey. This survey is one
tool being used by the Corps to collect information for its Lower Snake
River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study. The study is
investigating potential long-term configurations of the Snake River
hydroelectric system to aid in the recovery of listed salmon
populations. Funding for the study and the associated recreation survey
is appropriated through the Columbia River Fish Mitigation Project.
Study recommendations and follow-on decisions could have major
economic and natural resource implications for the region. Accordingly,
the best possible information is being sought for the study. As you are
aware, some of the information for the recreation analysis is being
obtained through a public survey. Our Walla Walla District office has
contracted with Normandeau Associates to conduct the survey.
Survey needs, protocol and questions are being developed by the
contractor in collaboration with a broad group of regional economists
who are assisting the Corps in fully evaluating social and economic
effects of each study alternative. This group has developed a number of
different versions of the survey to improve the validity of the
information.
A test mailing of the ``dam removal'' draft survey was made this
past February and March. The test survey, which was sent to 150 people
selected at random, included $2 as a participation incentive. The use
of such incentive payments is not an unusual practice in the survey
industry to ensure a higher response rate. An additional $10 was
provided to those 43 who responded to the survey and completed a 45
minute telephone follow-up interview.
The final survey form and questions will be completed after
internal and peer reviews of the draft survey. The final survey will
adhere to Office of Management and Budget guidelines. At this time, we
do not plan to use a cash incentive in the distribution of the final
survey. The enclosed information paper provides additional details on
scope, nature and basis of the recreation survey.
I appreciate your interest and concern in this matter. If I can
assist you further, please contact me. I will ensure that copies of
this letter are provided to the other members of the subcommittee.
Sincerely,
Joe N. Ballard,
Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Commanding.
______
Information Paper
lower snake river juvenile salmon migration feasibility study
recreation survey and analysis
Background
The Walla Walla District of the Corps of Engineers is conducting a
feasibility study in response to the March 1995 Biological Opinion for
Federal Columbia River Power System operation, issued by National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Walla Walla District will prepare a
Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement. The draft report/EIS
will be distributed by April 1999. The report will make a
recommendation, fully coordinated with regional interests and the
public, to either implement the permanent natural river drawdown on the
lower Snake River or a non-drawdown alternative to provide survival
benefits to salmon and aid in the recovery of endangered salmon stocks.
As a component of the feasibility study, the Drawdown Regional Economic
Analysis Workgroup (DREW) was established to develop a comprehensive
social and economic analysis (which includes recreation). DREW includes
economists from many Federal agencies (Corps of Engineers, NMFS,
Bonneville Power Administration, and the Bureau of Reclamation),
Northwest Power Planning Council, states, tribes, contractors, and
environmental conservation groups. The recreation survey and analysis
is a product of the DREW.
Funding for this study, including the recreation survey and
analysis, is included in the appropriated funds for the Columbia River
Fish Mitigation project in the Corps of Engineers Construction General
appropriation account.
Recreation Survey Objective
Recreation on the four lower Snake River reservoirs is a project
purpose. As indicated by DREW, recreation is considered to be
potentially a significant economic impact, particularly with the
drawdown alternative. Therefore, the need exists to develop
quantitative and qualitative information related to the potential
effects. There are four primary objectives for the survey:
--Estimate the recreation use and benefits associated with the
existing system.
--Estimate recreation use and benefits from returning the lower Snake
River to a more natural state.
--Estimate non-use values for a more natural river and for salmon.
--Estimate non-use values for salmon recovery associated with project
improvements and additional transportation of juvenile salmon.
Survey Facts
The surveys are still in draft form. The draft survey was developed
by the consultant in collaboration with the DREW. All activities
associated with the draft survey were authorized by the Walla Walla
District. We are still working with the consultant in the development
of the final versions. The work related to this recreation analysis is
being conducted by Normandeau Associates, a consulting firm located in
Bedford, New Hampshire. Normandeau has enlisted the following
subcontractors to assist in this effort: Agricultural Enterprises Inc.
of Masonville, Colorado, Colorado State University at Fort Collins, and
University of Idaho. The cost for this contract is $300,000, which
includes preparing the survey, distribution, compiling survey results,
and preparing a report including an analysis of the recreation effects.
There is a range of different survey versions being developed and
considered. These versions focus on different potential benefits for
salmon. One survey, for example, will assume juvenile fish
transportation as the only way to meet recovery needs. The others
represent drawdown as the most effective way to meet recovery standards
and incorporate different anticipated biological outputs. This approach
was recommended by the consultant as the best way to portray potential
biological effectiveness since specific information is not available at
this time.
Many of the questions in the draft surveys assume a definite
conclusion, which may not be factual. This approach was deemed
necessary to assure a high confidence in the accuracy of the responses.
Research has shown that questions which appear to be hypothetical or
use words such as ``if'' and ``may'' lead to less accurate answers by
survey respondents. That is, hypothetical questions give rise to
hypothetical answers and the objective is to achieve greater certainty
in the survey results. This response pattern is the basis for stating a
hypothetical condition in the survey as more of an assumed fact.
The present strategy, which is still under review, is for the final
survey to be distributed to a total of 15,000 people. No incentive will
be used in the distribution of the final survey. The surveys are
scheduled to be sent out in April 1998 and completed in July 1998. They
will be distributed by the University of Idaho. There is no reference
in the survey to the Corps or the Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon
Feasibility Study.
Survey Development--Preliminary Test Survey
A preliminary test mailing of five of the ``dam removal'' versions
of the draft survey was made during February-March 1998. The survey was
reviewed by the Corps for consistency with pre-approved OMB survey
questions and was approved in February 1998. The test surveys were sent
to 150 people selected at random with a $2 bill included as a
participation incentive. Specific approval from OMB for the monetary
incentive was not sought. A further $10 payment was provided to those
43 individuals who responded to the survey and completed a 45 minute
telephone follow-up interview. Three or four ``transport'' versions of
the survey are being developed as are one or two more ``dam removal''
versions for inclusion in the final survey.
Internal and peer reviews of the draft surveys are scheduled in the
next several weeks. Those reviews will determine the final questions
and protocol. The final survey will adhere to all OMB guidelines and
criteria for surveys.
Senator Dorgan. May I just ask on this? I did not hear your
speech. I assume it was an eloquent speech and that you sat and
fumed and wondered what went on. So I assume you got on the
phone immediately to find out who in the hell did this.
General Ballard. I did.
Senator Dorgan. So, what did you find out?
General Ballard. Well, what we have found out so far is
there is a group that is working in support of the Corps as we
look at a number of issues that the local commander asked to
take a look, to do a survey. What has been told to me so far
over the telephone is that about $800 total was sent out to the
folks who were--what is the word, Russ?
General Fuhrman. To develop a survey, to get public input
on a study that we are doing out there, what the public input
was with regard to some of the proposals.
General Ballard. This method, I am told, is rather common
procedure. I don't know. But let me just say this. Any survey
that is done in support of a policy of the Corps or the
administration has to be eventually submitted to OMB for
approval.
I am not justifying the survey. I don't know enough about
it to tell this committee in a reasonable manner what occurred.
So I will defer any conclusions until I do the investigation
and find out exactly the rationale behind it.
Senator Gorton. For me, at least at this point, that is an
adequate response. We will hear from them on how they came up
with it, who did it, and why it was justified. But I have never
heard of anyone getting $2 to open an envelope and another $10
to fill out a true/false questionnaire.
Senator Byrd. Will the Senator yield?
Senator Gorton. Yes; of course.
Senator Byrd. I hope that the response that the General is
going to give you will come to each of us.
General Ballard. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. I hope it will be in writing, because few of
us ever go back to these printed hearings. We will forget about
this in a day or two, because there will be something else that
commands our attention. We may never, many of us, know what the
response is in this record.
But I think this is something that we all would be
interested in knowing what the answer is or what the answers
are.
So I would like, Mr. Chairman, for the General or for
someone, Dr. Zirschky or someone, to send each of us an
explanation of this in writing, if that is agreeable with the
Senator.
Senator Gorton. Oh, it is more than agreeable. This is the
responsibility of this subcommittee.
Senator Domenici. Would you please do that?
General Ballard. I will do that, sir.
Senator Gorton. With that, I have a number of other
questions that are not quite so colorful with this one. I will
not take your time with them but will submit the questions to
them in writing.
General Ballard. Yes, sir.
Senator Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. We have two more witnesses that we want
to hear from with reference to Bureau of Reclamation programs
for 1999. I want to accommodate Senators also.
Do we have any further questions? We have a vote at 11:45
a.m.
Senator Byrd. Did the chairman ask if we had more
questions?
Senator Domenici. I was wondering if we could take the
other two witnesses at the earliest possible time. But if there
are some urgent questions of this panel, then I obviously do
not want to go to the next panel.
Senator Byrd. I don't have any questions of the other
witnesses. I have one or two that I would like to propound
here.
Senator Domenici. Then why don't we do that now, Senator.
Senator Byrd. All right. I thank the chairman.
greenbrier river basin, wv
Recently, the Corps completed an updated evaluation report
to provide a more accurate assessment of flood control options
for the Greenbrier River Basin. In that report, the Corps did
not endorse a particular option but, rather, identifies the
various benefits, costs, and procedural requirements associated
with each of the alternatives.
Will the Corps take any further actions to pursue a
particular option or is a cost-sharing partner necessary before
proceeding to the next step?
Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir; we are going to complete our
studies. In fact, I will probably be going to that project site
in West Virginia.
So far, our studies show that a dry dam may be economically
justified. We still have some planning, engineering, and design
to do. As for cost sharing, certainly the administration would
prefer cost sharing on all of our projects.
Senator Byrd. What would be the cost sharing in this
instance?
Dr. Zirschky. I believe sir, depending on the authority
under which we did this, we could do it at 75 Federal/25 local.
Senator Byrd. Is it less than that in certain instances? If
so, what would be the circumstances required?
Dr. Zirschky. In most flood control projects, it is 65/35.
I believe, and I could be mistaken, that this project has an
older authority that might allow it to be grandfathered. That
is something we will have to evaluate further, sir.
Senator Byrd. If local consensus develops around one of the
options that involves a dam--and you made reference to a dry
dam--and a cost sharing partner steps forward, would the
administration be likely to support authorization to allow such
an option to proceed?
Dr. Zirschky. Sir, if the project is economically justified
and environmentally acceptable, the Army will support the
project. I cannot speak for the administration, because they
have not had an opportunity to review it. But the Army would
support such a project.
Senator Byrd. In your opinion, is it likely that the
administration would be willing to support construction of a
dry dam?
Dr. Zirschky. We have one going on, sir, at Seven Oaks in
California. But, quite frankly, we would, I believe, have to do
a considerable amount of work to gain their support.
Senator Byrd. You are treading lightly, aren't you?
[Laughter.]
If a nondam alternative is supported locally and a cost-
sharing partner comes forward, what further steps would be
necessary for the project to proceed?
Dr. Zirschky. I believe we would need to finish some more
planning, engineering, and design and then get the construction
funding and authorization and build it.
Senator Byrd. Would you say that again.
Dr. Zirschky. General Fuhrman, do you want to explain?
Senator Byrd. Pull the microphone up there in front of you,
will you please?
General Fuhrman. Basically, with a local cost-sharing
sponsor, we could move forward with planning and engineering.
So only the appropriations part, the money, would be required.
Senator Byrd. Are more studies necessary or is the Corps
ready to proceed to detailed planning and design so that the
project implementation could begin?
General Fuhrman. If the locals determine that that is the
solution, we are ready to proceed.
Senator Byrd. If the local protection plans and
nonstructural enhancements are the chosen alternative, what
funding is necessary in fiscal year 1999 to enable continued
progress to be made?
General Fuhrman. We would require $1 million, Senator.
Senator Byrd. And this is in the case of a nondam
alternative?
General Fuhrman. Yes; it is.
Senator Byrd. What is the Corps' view with respect to the
various options if there be various options?
What is the position of the Corps as to a dam?
Dr. Zirschky. Sir, I don't believe at this time we have a
position. I hope to learn more about the project when I go to
the area and once we get the reports. But the headquarters does
not have an official position on that project yet.
Senator Byrd. Can anyone speak to that question?
General Ballard, can you?
General Ballard. Russ, can you?
General Fuhrman. From a headquarters perspective, we have
not, the district and the Division have not forwarded the
proposal. So, we don't know. We know that from an economic
perspective, a dry dam looks like it is economically justified,
cost/benefit ratio. But with regard to the environmental
issues, yet there is no decision.
Senator Byrd. There has been a recent report, I believe,
concerning this project, has there not been?
General Fuhrman. It is not at the headquarters, Senator.
Senator Byrd. Is there one down the road?
General Fuhrman. There is one in the district, Senator, but
it has not reached the Division and been forwarded to
headquarters as yet.
Senator Byrd. So you are not prepared to comment on that
report?
General Fuhrman. That is correct, Senator, we are not.
Senator Byrd. I would encourage the Corps to continue their
efforts to work with the citizens in the affected areas of the
Greenbrier River Basin to address ongoing concerns about
adequate flood control protection for their communities. These
local areas must decide which option best suits their needs and
can be supported financially with local cost-sharing
arrangements.
I want to do whatever I can to assist the communities. I
hope that the Corps will be forthcoming and direct in
responding to requests for information and providing technical
assistance regarding the different options.
I am interested in doing what I can to help the residents
to obtain flood protection as quickly as possible if options
can be found that are economically feasible and if cost-sharing
partners can be designated. But I hope the engineers will be
very frank as to their opinions regarding the various options.
There are some people in the area who want a dam while
others want this and others want that. They need the expertise
of the engineers. I need that as do my colleagues on the
delegation.
While a local cost-sharing partner will need to be
identified, I hope that the Corps will do everything it can to
move this project along and be realistic on its cost and
schedules, and complete the necessary planning and studies
promptly so that implementation can begin.
What is your reaction? Can you do that? Will you do it?
Dr. Zirschky. We would agree with that.
Senator Byrd. And you will do that?
Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
General Fuhrman. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. I thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Senator Reid, are you finished with this panel?
Senator Reid. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Secretary, did you want to say
something?
Dr. Zirschky. If I might, sir.
program execution
Thank you very much for working with us on this issue. I
just would like, in closing, to ask you for two favors. One, we
need to come to some agreement with OMB on the size of the
program to give us the predictability that we need to do our
best possible job. It is very tough on us right now with this
uncertainty. It even causes debates about how much we can
execute.
I am more worried about that because we get penalized for
carryover, and a lot of the money we are not able to actually
use. OMB counts it against us when they put together the budget
request--through no fault of our own for much of the money, but
it still works against us.
So with your help, Mr. Chairman, over the next few weeks
and months, we will probably be submitting many reprogramming
requests to try to keep what we have going and to get things
going as fast as we can.
Some of the money I may have to come to ask you for is
money that previous administrations have reprogrammed away from
projects for which they did not have follow-on funding. We have
tried not to reprogram money away from projects which the
President did not include in his 1999 budget because we don't
have a way to pay it back. But we are about to run out of
complete flexibility because we will submit requests for all
the money we can easily touch.
Now I am going to have to get to the hard stuff which is I
may have to come to you and ask you to help us reprogram money
that I cannot promise to pay back just to keep things going. It
is not something we want to do, but it is something we may need
to do. If that happens, I would like to be able to work with
the committee to keep what we have going.
resolution of budget differences
Senator Domenici. Let me just make an observation and then
try to see if we can reach a consensus here on what we want to
do.
Frankly, I recall, my staff has reminded me of the veto
message that the President sent up last year. In it, on water
projects, the President said he was willing to meet with the
Congress and try to come up with a workable plan.
Now, I have inquired everywhere I can, but it does not seem
like the administration has asked anybody to meet any time
about anything.
Then comes this budget and that was the commitment about
where this budget ought to be based on the President's concerns
about what we did for 1998. That is water under the bridge.
Now, it is obvious to me that we are in a critical
situation. You know, contractors must be in a state of turmoil
and many of them must be about to close up their operations and
get out, because they don't have a contract or are uncertain
the Corps will have sufficient funds to cover their earnings.
There are a lot of them like that.
The only acknowledgement we have of the willingness to meet
is in the response letter that I alluded to where Senator Lott
and 40 Senators sent a letter to the executive branch. In that,
the OMB Director said, ``I welcome the opportunity to meet with
you and other interested Senators to discuss issues involved in
the Corps' near-term and long-term funding. To this end, I
would appreciate it if a meeting could be convened'' and that
they will be ready and willing to meet on that.
This letter is only dated March 20, so not much time has
passed. But I would think, since our leader made the request in
this letter, perhaps we ought to consider convening a meeting
with Mr. Raines with members of this subcommittee, the leader,
and whomever else and ask Mr. Raines to settle this issue of
how we are going to keep you all operating.
I think we would have to have more information, wouldn't
you, Senator, before we go in there?
Senator Byrd. Absolutely.
Senator Domenici. We don't want to go in there cold. We
need some information.
Senator Byrd. Yes.
Dr. Zirschky. I would be delighted, sir, to make anybody in
the Corps available to provide you whatever information you
need.
Senator Domenici. Yes; you know, we start with this point.
OMB wants about $1 billion for construction. Congress and the
Corps think they need $1.8 billion. So, we start with that.
Then you have to help us with information regarding what is
going to happen if we don't get some relief from OMB with
reference to the problems you are going to list for us. Could
we have those presented so that they are agreeable to the
General and you, sir? Give us that information and then we will
see about seeking that meeting as soon as we can.
Does that make sense to you, Senator Byrd?
Senator Byrd. Yes.
Senator Domenici. We will proceed on that score, then. I
personally think it is appropriate for you to ask this
committee for--well, you called it a favor. I think it is just
a forthright statement that you have a terrible problem, and we
are going to be jumping on everybody for the results that are
going to happen if we don't get you some relief. We are going
to be very upset, because a program we thought was going
forward is not going on and you have the potential to lose
contractors, cancel contracts, and let people go home instead
of working out on these sites.
If you would get us that information as soon as possible,
we would appreciate it.
Thank you, all four of you. It was a pleasure to have you
all here.
Dr. Zirschky. Thank you.
Additional committee questions
Senator Domenici. All of the questions submitted by various
members for the Corps of Engineers will be incorporated in the
record at this point for your response.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Domenici
budget request and impacts
Question. Gentlemen, we have had a chance to look at the budget
request for the Corps of Engineers and I have heard from many Senators
regarding the potential impact the budget request poses on many
individual projects nationwide if the President's funding levels are
adopted.
Most projects would be funded at 50 percent or less than what is
needed to maintain more efficient construction schedules. This results
in most projects having completion schedules extended 2-3 years, but
some have delays of 15 years or more.
Could you provide some insight into why the President is proposing
such a dramatic reduction in funding levels?
Answer. As part of the Administration's efforts to balance the
budget, the Administration believes that outlays for the Corps of
Engineers Construction, General program should be stabilized at about
$1 billion each fiscal year. The fiscal year 1999 budget decisions for
the Corps were made very difficult for the Administration by fiscal
year 1998 Congressional actions. The large unrequested fiscal year 1998
funding increase of $391 million in the Construction, General account
from a budget request of $1.078 billion to an appropriation of $1.469
billion resulted in nearly $200 million of additional outlays in fiscal
year 1999 that must be absorbed within the fiscal year 1999 funding
level.
Question. What are the impacts of this budget request in terms of
increased project cost?
Answer. The Corps estimates that increased costs due to inflation
under the completion schedules proposed in the fiscal year 1999 budget
on projects that are currently in the construction pipeline compared to
schedules under an unconstrained funding schedule are about $400
million. The impacts were computed by multiplying the months of delay
between the two completion dates for each project by a prorated share
of inflation costs. For projects not included in the fiscal year 1999
budget, a uniform delay of 12 months was assumed.
Question. What are the impacts of this budget request in terms of
lost benefits--that is benefits foregone by extended completion
schedules?
Answer. The Corps estimates that total benefits foregone under the
completion schedules proposed in the fiscal year 1999 budget on
projects that are currently in the construction pipeline is about $3.6
billion. These impacts were calculated in the same manner as increased
project costs.
future funding levels for water resource development
Question. Now, the President in vetoing certain water resources
development projects in the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water
Appropriations bill indicated his desire to work with the Congress to
solve the growing problem of future liabilities and extended delays.
How does this budget request fulfill the President's stated
intention to work with the congress to find an acceptable program level
for the water resource development program?
Answer. The budget request presented by the President sets forth
his view of the program amount that is affordable for water resources
development in the context of all the other programs competing for the
funds that are available for domestic discretionary spending. The
Administration recognizes that the Congress has differing views on the
priority of water resources in relationship to other domestic programs.
Therefore, a dialogue is desirable to come to an agreement on a program
level for water resources that allows for the President's priorities
and those of the Congress. The Army cannot effectively manage this
program with such levels of uncertainty regarding funding levels.
Question. Mr. Gauthier, associate Director at OMB, indicated in his
November 13, 1997 letter to you Dr. Zirschky, that the Administration
``intends to meet with appropriate Members of Congress to follow up on
the President's commitment to work toward a solution.'' Can you inform
the Committee of what meeting or negotiations have taken place to this
point? Can you check with officials at OMB and provide, for the record,
a list of meetings which have taken place to date to negotiate a
solution to this problem?
Answer. The Administration has officially requested a meeting, but
none has yet taken place.
lump sum contracting policy
Question. On January 23, 1998, Majority Leader Lott and a
bipartisan group of more than 40 Senators wrote to Director Raines of
OMB regarding OMB instructions to the Corps to enter into only lump sum
contracts for unrequested new construction projects funded by Congress
in fiscal year 1998.
Dr. Zirschky, has OMB responded to Senator Lott's letter, and if
so, can you tell the committee how OMB responded?
Answer. OMB's initial directive was to only enter into fully funded
lump sum contracts with the funds added by Congress for new start
construction projects and elements that were not included in the
President's fiscal year 1998 budget OMB has now extended its directive
to all fiscal year 1998 new start projects and elements for which funds
were appropriated in fiscal year 1998, including those proposed in the
budget. This directive now includes the twelve new start construction
projects that were in the President's fiscal year 1998 budget and
funded by Congress. In addition, the Director of OMB wrote to Senator
Trent Lott on March 20, 1998, and offered to meet to resolve
differences on the level of funding for the Civil Works program.
Question. General Ballard, what impact will this prohibition have
on continuing contracts have on the progress of the affected projects?
Answer. Fifteen of the 50 unbudgeted new start construction
projects or elements for which Congress added funds in fiscal year 1998
were scheduled for award of continuing contracts in fiscal year 1998.
The remainder were scheduled for engineering and design and land
acquisition activities or for award of only fully funded lump sum
contracts as a normal course of action because of the limited project
scope. Seven of the budgeted new start projects were scheduled to
include award of continuing contracts in fiscal year 1998. One project
was scheduled for award of a fully funded lump sum contract, one
project was scheduled for land acquisition and engineering and design
activities, and three projects were scheduled only for engineering and
design activities. The projects for which continuing contracts were
scheduled to be awarded must now include award of only fully funded
lump sum contracts in fiscal year 1998. Awarding lump sum contracts for
portions of projects that would ordinarily be awarded as part of multi-
year continuing contracts is more costly in the long run primarily due
to increased mobilization and demobilization costs. These costs
generally account for 5 to 10 percent of total contract costs. About
$88 million was appropriated in fiscal year 1998 for the 50
Construction, General, unbudgeted new start projects and elements.
Increased mobilization and demobilization costs for these projects
could range from $4 to $8 million, but will very likely be less than $4
million because many of the added projects or elements are not yet
ready to begin construction, the added funds are not sufficient to
award substantial amounts of work, or the non-Federal sponsors may be
unwilling to only undertake portions of the projects or elements since
no funds were included in the fiscal year 1999 budget.
Question. General Ballard, what impact would Congressional action
directing the Corps to award continuing contracts on new project
contract awards have on the ability to manage the construction program?
Answer. Congressional action directing the Corps to award
continuing contracts on new project contract awards could have both
advantages and disadvantages. Continuing contracts are generally used
if work will be completed over several fiscal years, and they are
incrementally funded each year as funds are appropriated for the
applicable project. On the plus side, such Congressional direction
would assure that all new start construction projects are undertaken in
the same manner as most ongoing Corps construction projects included in
the President's budget each fiscal year. On the minus side, such action
would require award of continuing contracts for projects that are not
included in the President's budget and would require significant
Congressional adds each fiscal year to preclude terminating contracts
due to lack of funds.
unfunded obligations
Question. Dr. Zirschky, I wrote you earlier this year regarding
requests to approve local interests advancing funds to the Corps to
allow work to proceed earlier than Corps budgets could accommodate or
to allow non-Federal interests to undertake work and receive a credit
at a later time.
Can you give the committee an estimate of the future unfunded
liability of work the Corps of Engineers is currently considering?
Answer. The Corps indicates we have 21 existing agreements which
total about $274 million in credits and reimbursements. There is a
potential demand for 27 additional agreements which total about $604
million. About $36 million of this potential demand is for
contributions made by non-Federal interests where the Corps has not
agreed to make reimbursements.
Question. Do you believe it prudent to approve such requests?
Answer. It is only prudent to enter into future agreements for
those projects we believe will be budgeted within available future
funds to provide timely credit or reimbursement. That is why I move
such requests only very slowly and with great hesitation. I would
greatly appreciate your thoughts.
Question. A condition for the committee considering future requests
of this nature is a repayment plan agreed to by the Administration and
the non-Federal partner. When could non-federal sponsors expect to
receive reimbursement within the funding targets envisioned by the
President's proposed budget?
Answer. The Corps has compiled information related to potential
credits and reimbursements for the period fiscal year 1997 through
fiscal year 2002 based on non-Federal sponsor expectations and fiscal
year 1999 through fiscal year 2002 budget ceilings. Most of the credits
and reimbursements would occur later than sponsor expectations as the
result of constrained budget ceilings and so far out in the future as
to not really constitute a commitment. (The information follows:)
The Administration would only enter into reimbursement agreements
for which funds are expected to be available. The timing for
reimbursements would be worked out on a project specific basis.
formerly utilized sites remedial action program (fusrap)
Question. Congressional action on the fiscal year 1998 Energy and
Water Appropriations bill transferred the FUSRAP program from the
Department of Energy to the Army Corps of Engineers in order to use the
expertise and experience of the Corps in remediating contaminated
sites. Aware of potential problems in DOE, Congressman McDade and I
wrote to the Secretaries of Energy and Defense setting forth the
committee's expectations.
Among these expectations was that a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the two departments defining respective roles and
responsibilities would be executed.
General Ballard, would you please tell us what has transpired with
the transition of this program?
Answer. The Corps established as its top priority for FUSRAP in
fiscal year 1998 ensuring that no slippages would occur as a result of
the transfer from the Department of Energy (DOE). We have achieved that
goal. Our second highest priority was to complete an assessment of the
program which was transferred to us and the report you requested. In
ensuring a seamless transition and in our program assessment we have
received the support and cooperation from the DOE at Oak Ridge, without
which neither would have been possible. Our third highest priority was
to transfer program and project management responsibilities from the
management contractor used by DOE to our district and division offices.
This is now being done. The Corps geographic districts recently
negotiated their own delivery orders with the management contractor.
The final stage in the transfer will occur before the end of the
calendar year, as the geographic districts begin utilizing their own
contract vehicles.
Question. Has an MOU been developed or executed in accordance with
congressional intent? Is this having any adverse impact on the Corps'
ability to execute the FUSRAP program?
Answer. We have not executed an MOU in accordance with
congressional intent. We have met with DOE officials to discuss issues
related to the transfer of the program. The Corps has begun drafting a
proposed MOU identifying roles and expect this effort will be
intensified over the next couple of months. The lack of an MOU,
however, has not had an impact on the execution of the work scheduled
for fiscal year 1998. I believe that having an MOU will improve the
exchange of information between the Corps and DOE and is needed to
resolve issues concerning the respective roles of the two agencies.
Question. The Committee is informed that DOE has indicated that
there was a significant gap in the transfer of this program, and the
gap was related to regulatory issues. Could you explain the nature of
this gap?
Answer. The Corps has the necessary Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) authorities
and responsibilities to complete cleanup of the remaining 22 FUSRAP
sites. While certain questions remain (e.g., regarding management of
the federally owned disposal sites, such as the Niagara Falls Storage
Site).
Question. There are concerns that the Corps is unilaterally
reclassifying the FUSRAP nuclear waste material and disposing of it in
a manner that is not in compliance with regulators in order to reduce
costs thereby making the Corps execution of this program look better.
General Ballard, how do you respond to this?
Answer. The Corps has the responsibility to characterize all waste
which must be disposed as a result of the cleanup at the FUSRAP sites.
There are a number of federal and state laws which impose limitations
on the disposal of waste materials at facilities which are permitted to
receive particular kinds of solid, hazardous or radioactive waste.
USACE will ensure that all waste which is disposed from FUSRAP sites is
managed in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws and
regulations, and will continue to work with environmental regulatory
agencies to ensure such compliance.
Question. The Congress requested a report on the Corps assessment
of the program and steps that could be taken to complete the FUSRAP
clean up program faster and at reduced cost. General Ballard, has the
report been completed, and if so, in your judgement could DOE have
completed the cleanup effort by 2002?
Answer. Based on the information available to me, I do not believe
that DOE was on track to complete the cleanup of FUSRAP sites by 2002.
The draft accelerated cleanup plan which DOE prepared in June 1997
limited the scope of the program principally by proposing that
hazardous wastes at the Niagara Falls Storage Site remain on site and
by proposing to clean up the St. Louis sites to a restricted use
industrial standard rather than industrial use. In addition, the draft
accelerated cleanup plan was based on an early estimate of the scope of
the required work at the Luckey site which, it has since been
established, greatly underestimated the quantities requiring
remediation. Further, DOE's completion date of 2002 for the draft
accelerated cleanup plan was premised on an annual funding level of
$182 million per year over the next several years which, at this time,
doesn't seem likely.
Question. What is the Corps assessment of when the cleanup of all
the remaining sites can be completed? What are the reasons for the
differences between DOE's plan and the Corps assessment?
Answer. In our assessment the Corps could complete 16 sites by
2002, following the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) close out process. Four additional
sites could be completed by 2004. The two remaining sites, Niagara
Falls Storage Site, NY and Luckey, OH could not be completed until
2006. These last two sites are in the early stages of characterization
and pose a major technical challenge for site cleanup. The Corps
assessment includes removal of hazardous wastes at the Niagara Falls
Storage Site and recognizes the increased quantities at the Luckey, OH,
site. Our ability to actually accomplish cleanup by these dates will
depend on the level of funding provided and the specific cleanup
criteria established for inidividual sites in accordance with CERCLA.
Question. What annual funding level would be necessary to complete
the cleanup program by 2006? Does the fiscal year 1999 budget request
support the 2006 date?
Answer. In order to complete in 2006, funding for fiscal years
1999-2002 would have to be $281.1 million, $322.1 million, $314.3
million and $230.5 million, respectively. Requirements for fiscal year
2003-2006 would be substantially less, $62.5 million, $103.5 million,
$96.9 million, and $7.4 million respectively. These estimates are based
on assumptions regarding cleanup criteria. Actual cleanup criteria,
which will be established on a site by site basis in accordance with
the CERCLA process, will impact both schedule and costs. Funding at the
$140 million level will not permit completion of the program until
fiscal year 2011.
Question. General Ballard, the Corps has been managing this program
only 6 months. Has DOE been completely cooperative and helpful,
particularly here in Washington, to bring about a smooth transition?
What areas or issues remain unresolved between DOE and the Corps and
have DOE and the Corps agreed on a plan to resolve them? Provide for
the record a list of the remaining issues and the dates when you expect
them to be resolved. What are the most notable achievements of your
first months of FUSRAP management?
Answer. We have achieved a smooth transition from DOE without
slippage at any of the FUSRAP sites in large part because of the
support we have received from DOE and its contractors at their Oak
Ridge facilities. However, we have not reached agreement with the DOE
regarding the extent to which FUSRAP responsibilities which were
transferred by the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
Chief among the unresolved issues are ownership and maintenance
responsibilities for sites completed by DOE prior to 13 October 1998,
responsibility for the designation of new sites into FUSRAP, and
responsibility for site closeout and long term monitoring and
maintenance at the 22 sites which the Corps was asked to complete. In
order to resolve these issues, the Corps is drafting a proposed
Memorandum of Understanding to clarify the respective roles and
responsibilities of DOE and the Corps regarding FUSRAP. I would like to
complete negotiations with DOE and execute a MOU so we move into fiscal
year 1999 execution with the transition behind us.
Our biggest achievement was ensuring that there would be no
slippages as a result of the transfer. We not only have been able to
maintain schedules, but it appears we have postured ourselves to
accelerate efforts at Middlesex, NJ, and at several sites which had
been put on the back burner, including Bliss and Laughlin Steel,
Buffalo, NY; Madison, IL; W.R. Grace Site, Curtis Bay, MD; and Dupont
and Co., Deepwater, NJ. In addition, we anticipate closing out the
Shpack Landfill, Norton, MA site. We have negotiated a new disposal
contract at one of our sites which will reduce disposal costs for mixed
wastes by approximately a third for that site. We have undertaken
several value engineering studies which have the potential to produce
substantial savings.
tennessee valley authority non-power functions
Question. You are aware that TVA performs non-power functions such
as flood control and navigation on the Tennessee River and its
tributaries. Which of these non-power functions are similar to
activities the Corps performs in other parts of the country?
Answer. The water resources development and management functions
performed by TVA are virtually identical to what the Corps does
nationwide. The Corps constructs dams and reservoirs, such as are found
on the Tennessee River and tributaries, and controls the impounded
water for multiple purposes, including navigation, flood control,
hydropower, water supply, and recreation. We also operate or license
the lands at those reservoirs for recreation, resource management, and
environmental stewardship. In addition, the Corps designs, constructs,
rehabilitates, and operates the system of locks and dams on the Inland
Waterway System, and in fact we operate the locks at the TVA dams,
maintain the Tennessee River for navigation, are constructing Kentucky
Lock on the Tennessee River, and have performed an independent review
of the condition of TVA's Chicamauga Lock.
Other functions are less similar. The Land Between the Lakes
National Recreation Area would pose a challenge because there are
several unique activities at Land Between the Lakes that the Corps does
not perform as part of its traditional recreation management mission at
lake projects. Regional economic development assistance is beyond our
authority.
Question. Does the Corps have the technical capability to take over
those TVA functions?
Answer. Yes, the Corps has the technical capability to take over
the dams and reservoirs, operate them as a system, and perform repair
and rehabilitation activities to ensure that they are efficient,
reliable and safe.
The Corps does not have the manpower, funds, or authority to assume
these responsibilities, and the steps to transfer the physical assets
and associated responsibilities would take additional time and money.
TVA maintains its power and non-power programs are integrated in
such a way that separating them could cause inefficiencies and loss of
money and power. Any transfer would have to deal with this issue.
Question. Could you provide the Committee at the earliest possible
time an analysis as to what functions would be appropriate to possibly
transfer to the Corps including an estimate of the funding and
personnel resources that would be necessary for the Corps to carry out
those functions. Also provide any legislative language that would be
helpful in making an orderly transition.
Answer. I will work through the Administration to provide the
information you have requested. I would note that the Office of
management and Budget is preparing a report to Congress, in response to
a request in the Conference Report to the Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act, that will address the issue of
whether some other entities should be responsible for the execution of
TVA non-power activities.
new mexico projects
las cruces flood control project, new mexico
Question. The Congress provided $1,500,000 to initiate the Las
Cruces flood control project in New Mexico. This project was included
in the President's fiscal year 1998 budget as a new construction start.
We have information that the Corps plans to use only about $400,000 of
the $1,500,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1998. Is this correct, and
if so why?
Answer. Sir, $400,000 will be used in fiscal year 1998 to complete
the plans and specifications, execute the Project Cost Sharing
Agreement, and continue coordination with the City of Las Cruces. The
additional funds could not be used to accelerate the project due to the
remaining time required by the local sponsor to complete real estate
acquisition. The local sponsors have indeed moved out quickly. However,
they do not have all the land, perhaps 90 percent but not all. Even
once the remaining 10 percent is acquired, there are still
certifications of compliance and etc. required to wrap everything up.
Question. How will the $150,000 included in the President's fiscal
year 1999 budget request be used?
Answer. Sir, those funds will be used to continue real estate
coordination and to ready the project for construction.
Question. What impact does the budget request have on the project
completion schedule?
Answer. The construction contract award for the Las Cruces project
was delayed one year due to a constrained budget ceiling, and is now
scheduled for December 1999. Project completion will be delayed from
August 2000 to August 2001.
Question. How much is the cost of the project expected to increase?
Answer. Sir, the project costs are anticipated to increase by
$200,000.
Question. Who is responsible for paying those costs?
Answer. Sir, this increase in cost will be shared on a 75-25
percent basis by the Federal government and the City of Las Cruces.
Question. The City of Las Cruces has acquired necessary property
and passed a $2,000,000 bond issue to cover the local cost sharing
requirement. They are ready to go. How much funding is needed in fiscal
year 1999 to get this project under construction and on an efficient
schedule?
Answer. Sir, funding in fiscal year 1999 in the amount of
$3,470,000 would enable us to award the construction contract in
December 1998 and complete construction as originally scheduled in
August 2000. Although project and study capabilities reflect the
readiness of the work for accomplishment, they are in competition for
available funds and manpower army-wide. In this context, the fiscal
year 1999 capability amount for $3,470,000 considers the Las Cruces
Flood Control project by itself without reference to the rest of the
program. However, it is emphasized that the total amount proposed for
the Army's Civil works program in the President's budget for fiscal
year 1999 is the appropriate amount consistent with the
Administration's assessment of national priorities for Federal
investments and the objective of achieving and maintaining a balanced
budget. Therefore, while we could use $3,470,000 on the Las Cruces
Flood Control project, offsetting reductions would be required in order
to maintain our overall budgetary objectives.
acequias irrigation system, new mexico
Question. My office continues to hear from interests in New Mexico
that the Corps is not proceeding in an efficient and effective manner
on the Acequias Irrigation System rehabilitation work. However,
information provided to the Subcommittee by the Corps indicates that
the Corps cannot proceed with work until the Interstate Streams
Commission gives approval to individual cost-sharing agreements with
the acequias organizations. General Furhman/General Ballard can you
help me understand what is causing the delays on this project?
Answer. Sir, the information previously provided by the Corps is
correct. There are currently seven projects that the State of New
Mexico, the local sponsor, is reviewing and coordinating with the local
Acequias associations for approval. These seven projects have been
under financial and technical review by the State for over two years.
Question. What can the Corps do to resolve these problems?
Answer. Sir, the Corps will continue to work with the New Mexico
Acequias Commission, the State of New Mexico, and the individual
Community Ditch Associations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
completed a Programmatic Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report for
the acequia program. We will no longer have to prepare individual Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act Reports for each project. We also plan to
produce Programmatic Environmental Assessments for acequias in major
river basins. This would eliminate the requirement to prepare an
Environmental Assessment and conduct public review for each individual
acequia project. Remaining environmental coordination will continue to
include Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act compliance and
Endangered Species Act compliance. We are also exploring other
opportunities to expedite our processes to assure prompt delivery of
quality products with budget.
Question. What assurances can you give me that the problem is not
with the Corps of Engineers?
Answer. Sir, the Corps is committed to providing the irrigators in
New Mexico reliable, permanent facilities requiring minimal
maintenance. We will continue to work with all Federal, State and local
entities to refine the process and proceed in an efficient and
effective manner.
Question. How much funding was available to be spent in fiscal year
1998 and how much does the Corps expect will actually be used?
Answer. Sir, in fiscal year 1998 the Corps had $1,980,000 available
for expenditure. We have scheduled $587,000 for expenditure.
Question. Will the Corps work cooperatively with the New Mexico
Acequias Commission and other interested parties in evaluating the
efforts and effectiveness of the Corps in executing the Acequias
Rehabilitation project?
Answer. Yes, Sir. The Corps is committed to this effort.
Question. Do you expect to be able to spend more than the $150,000
budget request for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Yes, Sir.
Question. If so, how much additional funding is needed and how will
the funds be used?
Answer. Sir, our approved capability is $600,000. Although project
and study capabilities reflect the readiness of the work for
accomplishment, they are in competition for available funds and
manpower army-wide. In this context, the fiscal year 1999 capability
amount for $600,000 considers the Acequias Irrigation System project by
itself without reference to the rest of the program. However, it is
emphasized that the total amount proposed for the Army's Civil works
program in the President's budget for fiscal year 1999 is the
appropriate amount consistent with the Administration's assessment of
national priorities for Federal investments and the objective of
achieving and maintaining a balanced budget. Therefore, while we could
use $600,000 on the Acequias Irrigation System project, offsetting
reductions would be required in order to maintain our overall budgetary
objectives. Pending approval of the cost sharing agreements by the
State of New Mexico, the Corps could continue to design and ready the
acequias projects for construction.
upper rio grande water operations model
Question. The committee has strongly supported the Corps efforts
related to scheduling reservoir operations and the joint program with
other Federal agencies related to the need for an Upper Rio Grande
water operations model to help managers in flood operations, water
accounting, and evaluation of water operations. Is this a worthwhile
activity that is providing benefit to the Corps?
Answer. Yes, Sir. The Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model is a
tool to more efficiently manage water, a critical resource for the
future of the Rio Grande Basin. The water operations model will replace
our current processes that impede making timely water management
decisions. It will provide immediate information for daily reservoir
water operations, and more accurate and timely projections of Federal
water operations in the basin.It will be used extensively to evaluate
the interrelated effects of water operation alternatives and individual
water management decisions on the river basin as a whole with all of
the Basin's contemporary complexities.
Question. Have the other Federal agencies budgeted their funding
for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Yes, Sir. The Bureau of Reclamation has budgeted $229,000
within its Middle Rio Grande Project for fiscal year 1999 and have
expressed a need for an additional $350,000 for their participation in
this joint effort in fiscal year 1999. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Indian Affairs and
International Boundary and Water Commission have not previously had a
separate budget item included for this effort but have supported it
through their other ongoing activities in the Rio Grande Basin.
Question. How much is included in the Corps budget to continue
participation in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Sir, $60,000 was included in the Corps' fiscal year 1999
Operations and Maintenance budget for the Upper Rio Grande Water
Operations Model Study.
Question. What does the Corps need in fiscal year 1999 to continue
their involvement in this joint effort?
Answer. Sir, the Corps needs $850,000 in fiscal year 1999 to
continue the joint program with other Federal agencies for development
of the water operations model and to evaluate existing Federal basin
water operations in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation.
Although project and study capabilities reflect the readiness of the
work for accomplishment, they are in competition for available funds
and manpower army-wide. In this context, the fiscal year 1999
capability amount for $850,000 considers the Upper Rio Grande Water
Operations Model by itself without reference to the rest of the
program. However, it is emphasized that the total amount proposed for
the Army's Civil works program in the President's budget for fiscal
year 1999 is the appropriate amount consistent with the
Administration's assessment of national priorities for Federal
investments and the objective of achieving and maintaining a balanced
budget. Therefore, while we could use $600,000 on the Upper Rio Grande
Water Operations Model, offsetting reductions would be required in
order to maintain our overall budgetary objectives.
loyal sock creek, pa
Question. The Dushore project was funded in fiscal year 1998 under
Section 14 and Section 205. What is the status of the Corps of
Engineers review of this project and why shouldn't it be funded
entirely in Section 205?
Answer. Initiation of both the Section 14 and Section 205
investigations was formally requested by the Borough of Dushore on
March 27, 1998. An initial coordination meeting and site visit with the
sponsor will be conducted in April. After this site visit, a decision
will be made on whether it is appropriate to incorporate the Section 14
project into the Section 205 project.
Question. What is the Corps capability to continue this project in
fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The amount appropriated in fiscal year 1998 is sufficient
to continue this project in fiscal year 1999.
Question. When do you expect to complete the reconnaissance level
study and begin a feasibility study?
Answer. The feasibility study will be initiated in April 1998.
Question. Assuming a favorable reconnaissance report, when could a
feasibility study be completed and actual construction begin?
Answer. If the Section 14 project is incorporated into the Section
205 project, the feasibility study could be completed in fiscal year
2000 and construction could be initiated in fiscal year 2001.
Question. Could this be started in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Yes. The feasibility study will be initiated in April 1998.
Question. Will you provide for the record a list of all the new
start programs and projects included in the fiscal year 1999 budget?
Answer. Yes sir, the following table reflects the proposed new
start studies, projects and programs for fiscal year 1999.
general investigations
Kern River Valley (Isabella Lake), CA
Long Island, Marsh & Johns Creeks, GA
Ala Wai Canal, Oahu, HI
Coastal Massachusetts Ecosystem Restoration, MA
Bayou Pierre, MS
Cimarron River and Tributaries, NM, OK, CO, & KS
Columbus Metropolitan Area, OH
Lower Columbia River, OR & WA
flood control, mississippi river and tributaries
Mississippi River, Alexander Co., IL & Scott Co., MO
construction, general
Walter F. George Powerhouse and Dam, AL & GA (Major Rehab)
Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam, Lake Seminole, FL, AL & GA
Chain of Rocks Canal, Mississippi River, IL (Def Corr)
Lock and Dam 24 Part 2, Mississippi River, IL & MO (Major Rehab)
Patoka Lake, IN (Major Rehab)
Assateague Island, MD
Big Sioux River, Sioux Falls, SD
London Locks and Dam, Kanawha River, WV (Major Rehab)
flood control, mississippi river and tributaries
Grand Prairie, AR
construction, general
Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation
Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program
operation and maintenance, general
Management Tools for Civil Works Research Program
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Gorton
Question. As you know, the Corps of Engineers has recently begun
distributing surveys to Northwest residents in an attempt to assess the
impacts on recreation of breaching Snake River dams. Included in these
surveys is a two-dollar bill and, in many surveys, the promise that if
one responds, an additional ten dollars will be paid to the respondent.
Please explain the process through which the Administration,
specifically the Corps of Engineers, approved of the content and
structure of the surveys. This response should include a detailed
explanation of both the study and pre-study process, as well as
justification for the use of substantially different texts during
individual rounds of surveys and what results are expected as a result
of their use.
Answer. The content and structure of the final surveys have not
been approved at this time. The recreation surveys are in draft form,
and are currently undergoing technical reviews within the Corps of
Engineers, as well as a peer review. These reviews follow extensive
reviews conducted by members of the Drawdown Regional Economic Analysis
Workgroup (DREW). The surveys are being developed by a consultant who
is a nationally recognized expert in this area. A variety of Federal
agencies, tribes, private economic consultants, and other experts in
conducting contingent value surveys have contributed in the development
and review process. The intent of this extensive review process is to
ensure the technical creditability of the surveys before they are
finalized and approved.
Draft surveys were reviewed and approved by the Corps to allow for
limited survey testing. Such testing, where the draft surveys were sent
to 150 people selected at random, formed the basis for making further
survey modifications to enhance the creditability of the responses when
the official survey is conducted. Several different draft survey
versions were developed. These versions differ primarily in the area of
the potential biological benefits of the alternatives under
consideration. Such versions were deemed necessary in the absence of
specific biological information relating to the alternatives. In
addition, many of the questions in the draft surveys assume a definite
conclusion, which may not be factual. Such statements were deemed
necessary in the absence of specific biological data to ensure a higher
degree of accuracy in the responses. Research has shown that questions
which appear to be hypothetical in nature, lead to less accurate
answers by survey respondents. That is, questions presented in a
hypothetical manner lead to hypothetical answers, and the object of the
survey is to achieve greater certainty in the survey results.
The final survey forms and questions will be completed after
extensive quality control/quality assurance reviews as discussed above.
The final survey will be submitted to OMB for review and approval. We
will not use a cash incentive in the distribution of the final survey.
The final survey will be mailed to 15,000 people from the states of
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and northern California. Responses
of the final survey will assist in providing: (1) estimates of
recreation use and benefits associated with the existing system; (2)
estimates of recreation use and benefits from returning the Lower Snake
River to a more natural state; (3) estimates of non-use values for
salmon and a more natural river condition; and, (4) estimates of non-
use values for salmon recovery associated with project improvements and
additional barge transportation of juvenile salmon.
Question. How does the Corps of Engineers justify the inclusion of
two-dollar bills and the incentive of an additional ten dollar to
respondents? In addition, please explain the approval process the
inclusion of such incentives was subject to, including the
participation of the Office of Management and Budget or any other
Federal agency in the development and approval of this plan.
Answer. The use of small monetary incentives in mail surveys is a
commonly used practice to ensure higher response rates. A higher
response rate will improve the reliability of survey findings, and will
tend to reduce the level of risk and uncertainty in the conclusions
derived from the survey results. Reliability in the conclusions drawn
from the survey is critical, especially when such information may be
used as part of the decision making process for long-term configuration
of the four Lower Snake River projects. Such a decision will have
significant regional and national implications.
These incentive payments were provided as part of the test mailing
of five ``dam removal'' versions of the draft survey during February-
March 1998. The test survey was sent to 150 people selected at random,
each of whom received a $2 participation incentive. An additional $10
was provided to 43 of those who responded to the survey and completed a
45 minute telephone follow-up interview. The total incentive payment
for the test was less than $750. The information obtained from the test
of the draft survey and subsequent telephone interview will greatly
assist in making refinements to the questionnaire and will further
enhance the technical credibility of the final survey.
The surveys are being developed by a consultant who is a nationally
recognized expert in this area. Federal agencies, tribes, private
economic consultants, and other experts in conducting contingent value
surveys have contributed in the development and review process. Draft
surveys were reviewed and approved by the Corps in February 1998 to
allow for limited survey testing. The Corps review was conducted to
ensure consistency with pre-approved OMB survey questions. Specific
approval from OMB for the small monetary incentive for the survey tests
was not sought. The Corps has no plans to use monetary incentives in
the distribution of the full survey.
Question. Please provide a detailed outline of the survey strategy.
This outline should include numbers of surveys being mailed, content of
surveys, including notification if more than one text will be used in
any specific surveying rounds, and any other relevant information on
the strategy of gathering public opinion on the drawdown or breach of
Snake River Dams.
Answer. The present strategy, which is still under review, is for
the final survey to be distributed to a total of 15,000 people residing
in the states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and northern
California. No incentive will be used in the distribution of the final
survey. The surveys are scheduled to be sent out after OMB approval.
They will be distributed by the University of Idaho. The Corps will
provide Congressional notification of survey action prior to sending
out any final survey documents to potential respondents. There is no
reference in the survey to the Corps or the Lower Snake River Salmon
Feasibility Study.
There is a range of different survey versions being developed.
These versions project different potential benefits for salmon
associated with the alternatives under consideration, including
existing conditions, dam removal, and increased barge transportation.
The use of a range of survey versions is necessitated by the absence of
specific biological performance data for these alternatives at this
time.
Question. The Corps of Engineers has recently awarded a contract to
cover the site where the Kennewick Man remains were discovered.
Included in the Senate version of the Supplemental Appropriations bill
is an amendment prohibiting the Corps from taking any actions to cover
or alter the site without specific approval by the Court with
jurisdiction over a civil action between a group of prominent
anthropologists and archaeologists and the Federal Government. As this
is a matter of extreme urgency, I request responses to the following
requests by April 3, 1998.
Answer. Yes, we understand.
Question. Please provide a justification for the Corps' actions.
Included should be all relevant data supporting the claim that the site
is at serious risk of erosion due to heaving rain flows in coming
months.
Answer. In December 1997 the Corps determined that there was a
potential for high flows, similar to previous years, which could
inundate the park and further erode the site due to saturation and high
flow velocities. We now expect spring flows will be lower than the
December projections. However, a serious risk of erosion still exists
due to wind-driven or boat generated wave action.
Question. Please provide a history of the administrative process
through which the Corps determined the risk at the site, developed the
plan for site protection, and approved of the plan.
Answer. The site of discovery of the subject human remains consists
of a narrow beach bounded on one side by the Columbia River and on the
landward side by a rapidly eroding bluff line and upland terrace. The
subject human remains were discovered scattered along the beach and in
the river surf-line. It has been postulated that a series of high-water
events over a period of several years eroded the bluff line
sufficiently to expose the subject human remains and it is this erosion
that caused the bones to spill downward onto the beach and into the
surf-line.
In the Fall of 1997, the Corps, the Departments of the Interior and
Justice, and representatives from the President's Office of Science and
Technology became sufficiently concerned about the on-going erosion and
potential for additional erosion in the Spring and Summer of 1998 to
begin the formulation of plans to physically protect the eroding bluff
line. The interagency concern focused on the need to ensure the
preservation of undisturbed cultural resources in the terrace behind
the eroding bluff line.
In December 1997, the Corps led an integrated team of government
scientists and investigators from the Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) and Washington State University
(WSU) in a thorough examination of the beach and bluff line at and near
the site of the discovery. The Corps notified the U.S. District Court
of the scientific investigation and of the plan to protect the area.
The Corps also complied with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act by completing consultation with the Washington State
Historic Preservation Office and the President's Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation. Through the section 106 process, the Corps has
confirmed that site protection measures will have no adverse effect on
any significant cultural resources.
The Corps' Walla Walla District conducted an intensive evaluation
of the discovery site characteristics and studied a number of
engineering (structural and non-structural) solutions. The most
effective and efficient remedy to the on-going erosion includes the
placement of rockfill materials along the eroding bluff line, covering
the rockfill with topsoil, and covering the topsoil with vegetation and
plant species to stabilize and anchor the soil. Construction materials
will be air lifted to a ground crew to avoid overland hauling that
could adversely affect significant natural and cultural resources. The
contract for this effort was awarded on 24 March 1998 and the
contractor began work on that date. All in-water work is scheduled to
be completed by 15 April 1998 and all construction activities will be
completed by 30 April 1998.
Question. Please provide an account of what monies will be used for
this purpose. Specifically, please include a list of the account or
accounts to be drawn upon for funding for this project.
Answer. The monies that will be used for this will be from McNary
Lock and Dam under the Operations and Maintenance, General,
Appropriation.
Question. Please provide an explanation of the Corps'
interpretation of the amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations bill
and how it might affect the project to cover the site. Please
specifically address any impacts on the project should the project
start and the Supplemental Appropriations bill become law before its
completion.
Answer. Work was started on 24 March and most of it must be
completed by 15 April to avoid harm to endangered and threatened salmon
and steelhead species which will be migrating through that stretch of
the Columbia River on, and after, this date.
Question. How will any reductions in the Columbia River Fish
Mitigation budget affect the Corps' ability to manage federal multiple-
use projects on the Columbia and Snake Rivers? Additionally, how, if at
all, will any reductions in this budget affect the Corps' relationship
with the Bonneville Power Administration, in light of the recent direct
funding agreement?
Answer. Sir, in the near term there would be little or no effect
from any reduction in the Columbia River Fish Mitigation budget on our
ability to manage our multiple use projects because this work is
carried out with Operations and Maintenance funding rather than
Construction, General, funding used for the Columbia River Fish
Mitigation Project. However, reduced funding for this project over the
next several years could impact management of the multipurpose projects
in the long run. This is because the Columbia River Fish Mitigation
Project is carrying out measures in the Reasonable and Prudent
Alternative in the 1995 salmon Biological Opinion regarding hydropower
operations and system configuration. If we are unable to implement
measures in the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative as presently
written, it is conceivable that other measures could be formulated,
such as increased spills and flow augmentation, which would impact
other multiple uses. The recent agreement we signed with Bonneville
Power Administration is for direct funding of annual Operation and
Maintenance power costs to include hydropower specific costs, the power
portion of joint use costs and power small capital items. At the
present time we do not foresee that reduced funding in the Columbia
River Fish Mitigation Project will affect our relationship with
Bonneville Power Administration under the agreement.
Question. Representatives of the Corps of Engineers have recently
stated that the Corps of Engineers could, under the correct
circumstances, begin work to drawdown or breach Columbia River dams by
early in the next century. Please provide a detailed account of any
scenario in which drawdown or breach of a Columbia or Snake River dam
could occur before 2008 and a list of assumptions that Corps
representatives have used to develop such a scenario.
Answer. The Corps is currently only looking at drawdown or dam
breaching of the four dams on the lower Snake River. We have not
started planning studies for any projects on the lower Columbia River
at this time, and are awaiting a decision and funding from Congress to
conduct the first phase of planning study on John Day reservoir
drawdown.
For the lower Snake River dams we are developing an implementation
(design and construction) plan that would be used if a decision is made
to breach the dams. Based on preliminary information it may be possible
to actually breach the lower Snake River dams on or before 2008. A
number of assumptions are inherent in this optimistic scenario,
including the following:
The draft EIS and Feasibility Report would be distributed in April
1999. The final EIS and Feasibility Report would be completed in
December 1999. It assumes that the recommended plan of action in the
EIS has regional consensus.
It is assumed that there would not be lengthy litigation. This may
be an optimistic assumption but there is no reasonable way to account
for litigation in an implementation schedule.
It assumes Congressional authorization to implement drawdown or dam
breaching would occur in 2000, presumably as part of a WRDA. This is
possible assuming there are no delays in the review process and
submission of the Chief of Engineers report to Congress.
It assumes appropriations, along with authorization, would occur in
the fall of 2000 and that the Corps would receive the required funding
in all future years (related to drawdown) so as to preclude any future
resource limitations.
Preconstruction, Engineering and Design phase would be initiated
following both appropriations and authorization.
In-water work period extensions or exemptions would be provided by
the fishery management entities. The normal in-water work window for
the Snake River is November to March, which is a period of low salmon
and steelhead migration. During the breaching process, in-water work
would need to start in August, when fish are migrating.
Question. Please provide justification for the representative's
position that Planning, Engineering and Design on deconstruction of the
projects can begin prior to any congressional authorization to breach,
drawdown or remove dams.
Answer. Usually, the Corps initiates its Preconstruction,
Engineering and Design (PED) work after the Feasibility Report is
forwarded to Headquarters for processing and the Division Engineer
issues the ``Notice of Report.'' This is part of the Corps seamless
funding process to assure the swift implementation of water resource
projects. It is recognized that this is not a typical project.
Therefore, it has been assumed for the implementation of drawdown that
the Corps would need project authorization and appropriations prior to
initiating PED.
Question. The hydro-electric production of Columbia and Snake River
dams is an essential component of the economies of the states in the
Pacific Northwest. Any slowdown in rehabilitation and modernization
plans underway at Northwest projects has a direct effect on these
economies. Please provide a detailed justification of the Corps of
Engineers' plans to decrease funding in fiscal year 1999 for the
rehabilitation and upgrade projects at Bonneville and The Dalles dams
and any other affected projects.
Answer. The needs at these on-going projects had to be reduced by
about 70 percent to fit within the budgetary ceiling. Funding needs for
on-going contracts were given due consideration but, when possible, the
schedules were stretched out. Unstarted work and future contract awards
were delayed or the specific yearly amounts reduced with the work being
stretched out.
Question. Please provide a schedule for completion of the
rehabilitation and modernization of these projects, including any
changes that must be made due to the Administration's lower funding
request for fiscal year 1999.
Answer. The project completion dates for Northwestern Division's
three Major Rehabilitation projects are September 2005 for Bonneville
Powerhouse Phase II Major Rehabilitation project, September 2007 for
the Garrison Dam and Powerhouse Major Rehabilitation project, and
September 2007 for The Dalles Powerhouse Major Rehabilitation project.
As a result of the reduced fiscal year 1999 funding request, The Dalles
exciter replacements and the start of additional rewinds for eight more
generators will be delayed one year. Work at Garrison Dam will be
delayed one year which includes some engineering work, gantry and
bridge crane repairs, governor repair, replacement of two draft tube
bulkheads, and other general powerplant work. At Bonneville, generator
windings and turbine replacements will be slowed down, causing a one
year project completion delay.
Question. What consequences does the Corps see any slowdown might
have on the Bonneville Power Administration and its rates to Northwest
customers?
Answer. Schedule delays will increase the total cost for the
rehabilitation of the powerhouses. The increases in costs will have to
be paid by the appropriate Federal marketing agency, such as Bonneville
Power Administration, through increases in electricity rates and
repayment to the U.S. Treasury. Delays will also increase the
possibility of unit failure, thus potentially reducing revenues due to
units being out of service. As a result of delays, reliability of the
powerhouses will continue to deteriorate resulting in major breakdowns;
forced outages; and decreases in turbine efficiencies, operational
flexibility, peaking capability, and juvenile fish survival. Powerhouse
unreliability is a direct cause of large increases in O&M costs and
total system power generation costs.
Question. In the Columbia River Fish Mitigation program, a number
of alternative strategies for salmon recovery and fish passage are
being pursued. Does this reflect a pursuit of strategies that will, in
time, become incompatible? If so, at what point will that occur and at
what point should decisions ultimately be made regarding the
continuation of individual strategies?
Answer. Sir, all of the efforts in the Columbia River Fish
Mitigation project are directed to improving survival of juvenile and
adult salmon passing the eight Corps mainstem dams. The National Marine
Fisheries Service 1995 Biological Opinion called for immediate and
near-term improvements to the existing fish passage systems. Some of
these improvements could become obsolete under certain long-term
reconfiguration alternatives being evaluated under the Biological
Opinion.
For the Lower Snake River dams, we are currently evaluating the
feasibility of long-term actions such as breaching the dams,
implementing major improvements such as surface bypass systems, or
retaining the existing systems. The Biological Opinion calls for a 1999
decision on these long-term alternatives for the lower Snake River. If
the dams were to be breached, the existing juvenile and adult bypass
systems would no longer be functional, as the river would flow through
a channel past the dams. If the decision is to implement surface
bypass, existing juvenile bypass facilities may continue to be used in
conjunction with surface bypass. Regional and federal review of a draft
Environmental Impact Statement/Feasibility Study in 1999 will begin the
decision process.
In the Lower Columbia River we are also evaluating and implementing
passage improvements. These efforts are not necessarily mutually
exclusive or incompatible at three of the four projects. For example,
at Bonneville second powerhouse, we have begun construction of juvenile
bypass system and outfall improvements. These will provide passage
benefits regardless of the long-term plan at Bonneville, assuming
breaching, or drawdown is not considered in the future. At John Day, we
have deferred substantial investment in surface bypass development
pending decisions by the Appropriations Committees on whether funding
will be provided for drawdown studies. The 1995 Biological Opinion
identifies specific decision and implementation dates for individual
passage improvement measures at the Lower Columbia River projects but
does not specify an overall decision timeline as for the Lower Snake
River.
The Northwest Power Planning Council is engaged in reviewing the
major construction activities in the Columbia River Fish Mitigation
Project in response to the Conference Report for fiscal year 1998
Energy and Water Development Appropriations.
Question. In its fiscal year 1999 budget request, the Walla Walla
District of the Corps of Engineers requested $100,000 for a
reconnaissance study of fish habitat restoration along the Columbia
River in the Tri-Cities area of Washington state. Please provide an
explanation for this project's exclusion from the Corps' fiscal year
1999 budget request.
Answer. Due to the many recommended studies that competed for
limited new start funding nationwide and the constrained number that
could be included, the Tri-Cities Levees Restoration study was not
selected for the fiscal year 1999 budget request.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Craig
dworshak project
Question. The resource manager position at the Dworshak project has
been vacant for some time, and according to a Corps employee, the
position will be filled only temporarily. Why can't this position be
filled permanently?
Answer. The Walla Walla District Commander made the decision to
permanently fill this position on 16 March 1998.
Question. Please submit for the record proof whether the money
specifically requested by the Corps and appropriated by Congress for
the Dworshak Project during each fiscal year beginning in 1994 through
1998, was actually used for operations at the Dworshak Project.
Answer.
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's O&M Actual O&M
budget request expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Routine O&M........................... ($6,556,000) ($6,742,864)
Nonroutine O&M........................ (552,000) \1\ (434,000)
---------------------------------
Fiscal year 1994................ 7,108,000 7,176,864
=================================
Routine O&M........................... (6,861,000) (7,571,626)
Nonroutine O&M........................ (1,371,000) \2\ (687,000)
---------------------------------
Fiscal year 1995................ 8,232,000 8,258,626
=================================
Routine O&M........................... (7,581,000) (8,180,390)
Nonroutine O&M........................ (1,563,000) \3\ (928,000)
---------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996................ 9,144,000 9,108,390
=================================
Routine O&M........................... (6,500,000) (8,347,351)
Nonroutine O&M........................ (1,439,000) \4\ (2,662,000)
---------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997................ 7,939,000 11,009,351
=================================
Routine O&M........................... (7,613,000) \5\ (7,974,700)
Nonroutine O&M........................ (253,000) \5\ \6\
(3,418,000)
---------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998................ 7,866,000 \5\ 11,392,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Boat ramp extension and damage repair; infrastructure repair.
\2\ Boat ramp extension; boat anchor repair; water supply; payment for
damage claim.
\3\ Foundation grouting; water supply; boat ramp extension; purchase
tailrace crane.
\4\ Foundation grouting; balance of purchase of tailrace crane.
\5\ Estimated.
\6\ Foundation grouting; hatchery water and temperature control work.
Question. Will any current or future operational plans for the
Dworshak Project interrupt electric power, adversely impact
recreational opportunities, or result in excessive inflow that would
cause the Reservoir to overfill and harm the citizens of the City of
Orofino, in Clearwater County, Idaho, or others down river?
Answer. Current and future plans for Dworshak Project include
adequate resourcing to assure sound operation and maintenance practices
of both the powerhouse and natural resource features. I do not
anticipate significant changes to our overall management philosophy,
and budget reductions are being applied with the principles of good
stewardship in mind. Power demands will be met, as in the past. Smaller
staffing, i.e., fewer rangers and tour guides, may reduce contact
opportunities for the public. Maintenance expenditures in recreation
areas have been reduced, but no sites have been closed. Operational
practices will continue to assure that the safety of the citizens
living below the Project will be not be compromised.
lower snake feasibility study
Question. Describe the process by which the Corps will develop
qualitative information related to the potential effects on recreation
of alternatives being considered in the Feasibility Study. Include in
this discussion a detailed explanation of how the Drawdown Regional
Economic Analysis Workgroup (DREW) influences or directly impacts the
Corps' process.
Answer. As a component of the feasibility study, the Drawdown
Regional Economic Analysis Workgroup (DREW) was established to conduct
a comprehensive analysis of the social and economic effects of
alternative plans intended to assist in the recovery of listed salmon
species on the Lower Snake River. Participants in the DREW represent
numerous Federal agencies (Corps of Engineers, NMFS, BPA, Bureau of
Reclamation, USFWS), the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC), the
NPPC Independent Economic Advisory Board, states, tribes, environmental
conservation groups, inland navigation interests, contractors, and
others. The DREW is part of the Corps process to complete a feasibility
study by late 1999.
The recreation analysis, and surveys in question, is a component of
the overall economic analysis being conducted by the DREW. Recreation
on the four Lower Snake River reservoirs is a project purpose, and
these activities would be significantly altered with implementation of
the drawdown alternative. A study plan was developed by the DREW to
effectively evaluate the impacts to recreation. The analysis was also
being designed to estimate how recreation uses would change in the
event of drawdown. Recreation surveys are currently under development,
and are designed to obtain necessary qualitative and quantitative
information on the effects on recreation. Specifically, the four
primary objectives of the surveys include:
--Estimate the recreation use and benefits associated with the
existing system.
--Estimate recreation use and benefits from returning the Lower Snake
River to a more natural state.
--Estimate non-use values for salmon and a more natural river.
--Estimate non-use values for salmon recovery associated with project
improvements and additional transportation of juvenile salmon.
Question. Please provide an update on what is being done to improve
the objectivity of the survey that will be used to determine: (1) the
recreation use and benefits associated with the existing system; (2)
the recreation use and benefits derived from any action returning the
lower Snake River to a more natural state; and (3) estimate the non-use
values for a more natural river and for salmon.
Answer. The surveys are being developed by a consultant who is a
nationally recognized expert in this area. Federal agencies, tribes,
private economic consultants, and other experts in conducting
contingent value surveys have been involved in the development and
review process. The surveys in question are undergoing rigorous quality
control/quality assurance reviews by experts at the Corps' Institute
for Water Resources and at the Corps' Headquarters office. In addition,
a peer review is concurrently being performed to further enhance the
technical credibility of the surveys. This overall process is being
managed by the Walla Walla District office. Following these reviews,
the Walla Walla District will submit the surveys to the Northwestern
Division office, where they will be further evaluated to ensure
compliance with OMB guidelines. The surveys will not be approved nor
will a formal survey be conducted until these various quality control/
quality assurance processes have been successfully completed.
lower snake feasibility study
Question. Is the current ``PATH'' (Plan for Analyzing and Testing
Hypotheses) process capable of resolving the ambiguities or
uncertainties surrounding the scientific data on salmon survival?
Answer. The uncertainties associated with salmon survival will not
be completely resolved based on available information. Given enough
time, we believe PATH could reduce the critical uncertainties
associated with salmon survival and overall recovery estimates.
However, based on preliminary results for spring/summer chinook
analysis, one of the PATH conclusions is that the ``key uncertainties
are unlikely to be resolved with existing data.''
Question. Will the data allow definite conclusions to be reached on
salmon survival from the various recommended alternatives?
Answer. The PATH process will reduce the degree of uncertainty, but
it will not result in any definitive conclusions. Current scientific
information and analyses are not likely to point to a single
alternative as the only means of satisfying survival and recovery goals
for Columbia River listed stocks. Preliminary PATH spring/summer
analysis completed to date is consistent with this observation.
However, the assessments of spring/summer chinook are incomplete and
the analyses for other species have only recently been initiated. PATH
is not scheduled to complete the analysis of fall chinook and steelhead
until this coming fall. A critical element of the spring/summer chinook
assessment, the weighting of alternative assumptions, will be carried
out over the summer. The degree to which the final analysis will be
able to eliminate or highlight specific actions depends upon the
outcome of those steps.
Question. Please provide suggestions as to how the Corps can ensure
that its Feasibility Study will contain the necessary scientific
information that will meet its goal of providing ``a sound and
documented basis with which both federal and regional decisionmakers
can judge the recommended solutions.''
Answer. Biological information for the feasibility study is being
compiled and analyzed through the PATH process. The approach,
assumptions and products from this interagency effort are periodically
reviewed by a panel of nationally recognized experts. We recognize that
the PATH activities are behind schedule. We are working with the PATH
and with others in the regional forum to explore options for expediting
the PATH analyses so that adequate biological information will be
available for use in making the 1999 long-term system configuration
decisions.
A regional economic workgroup (DREW) is analyzing the economic and
social effects of the alternatives. The DREW is looking at direct
effects of dam removal on power, navigation, irrigation and other
project uses. They will also examine the secondary economic and social
effects on the community and regional industries. The economic
information will be available for the 1999 decision if PATH meets its
target schedules.
The Corps is examining the engineering and technical aspects for
each of the alternatives. This information will be fully available for
the 1999 decision.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Reid
Question. Dr. Zirschky, you represent the Administration in
advocating the budget that was presented to Congress. Therefore, I know
we are on opposite sides of the issue when I say I was extremely
disappointed in the deep cuts that the President sent to us. As I am
sure you gathered, earlier this week the administration is advocating a
budget that is considered not only unpopular but unworkable.
Don't you see the dilemma that has been created by the budget cuts
after the Congress expressly provided such strong support for the Corps
program and projects?
Answer. Yes, I see the dilemma, and it is a cause of much anxiety.
The President has requested the amount for water resources that he
believes is affordable within the ceiling for domestic discretionary
spending.
Question. What is your rationale for allowing the projects to be
further drawn out and thus costing the local cost-share partners more
in the long run?
Answer. The amount that the President believes can be made
available for water resources cannot fulfill the needs of all ongoing
projects. This left me with a very difficult choice. I could either
have selected some projects to fund at the optimal rate and not funded
others, or funded them all at a reduced rate. I did not want to pick
winners and losers. Indeed, I directed the Corps to do away with an
existing Army list of high priority projects. There were some
Administration-wide projects that did get consideration. Thus, my
rationale was that within the funds available I had to work with, I was
going to try to be as fair as possible and keep projects going as best
I could.
division office salaries
Question. I understand that a percentage of the amount that is
appropriated for a specific project goes to the salaries of officers
and personnel at the Division offices for their activities that are
completely unrelated to the projects themselves. Nevada, along with
other states that do not have a division office, as well as any project
manager, should be extremely concerned. If this is an accurate
portrayal of the situation, I intend to propose that those salaries
should be drawn from the General Administration account for the Corps.
Your comments?
Answer. The costs of operating the division offices, including
salaries for civil program team members, are paid from the General
Expenses appropriation account, which is the ``general administration''
account for the civil works program. If a division also has a military
program mission, payment of operating costs is shared with the
Operation and Maintenance, Army, appropriation account. Title I of the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law 105-
62, prohibits the use of project funds for the activities of the
Headquarters and the division offices.
lake tahoe basin
Question. Given all the restoration work needed immediately at Lake
Tahoe and the many nonfederal agencies involved in the lake
restoration, could you explain the reprogramming request of $750,000
that was appropriated for the Lake Tahoe Basin in fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The only funds that have been reprogrammed this fiscal year
from the Tahoe Basin GI study have been $100,000 to fund our efforts in
the Tahoe Basin Federal Partnership which has the objective to operate
and protect the extraordinary natural, recreational and ecological
resources within the Lake Tahoe Region and the economies that depend on
them. This effort is compatible with the on-going reconnaissance study
for which funds were appropriated. Moreover, not all of the
appropriated funds will be expended this fiscal year in the Tahoe Basin
study due to extended effort to define an appropriate feasibility study
plan and identify a willing cost sharing partner. We completed an
initial reconnaissance report in July 1997 but were unable to find a
sponsor able to cost share continued feasibility studies. We are
currently expanding the scope of the reconnaissance study and expect to
sign a feasibility cost sharing agreement in September 1998 dependent
on identification of a cost sharing sponsor. We are continuing to work
with the local communities on other Tahoe Basin studies under the
Section 206, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration program, and under the
Section 208, Clearing and Snagging program for flood control.
Question. I understand that a deputy project manager has been
appointed to be stationed in Las Vegas. I appreciate the Corps'
recognition that the Tropicana and Flamingo flood control project is of
vital importance to the Las Vegas valley.
Answer. In response to the unprecedented growth of Las Vegas during
the design of this project, and the attendant dynamics of coordinating
the expanding infrastructure of roads, water, power and other
utilities, combined with the pressures of private development, we felt
it was appropriate to appoint a deputy project manager to ensure the
efficient implementation of this important flood control project.
Question. What is your best estimate for completion of the
feasibility study in the South Coast Restoration Project?
Answer. The Rhode Island South Coast Habitat Restoration and Storm
Damage Reduction feasibility study is scheduled to be completed in June
2000.
Question. What steps is the Corps taking to minimize the time
between the completion of the feasibility study and the implementation
of an action plan to address beach erosion in Rhode Island?
Answer. The feasibility study is evaluating the optimum schedules
to conduct the preconstruction engineering and design effort for the
implementation of beach erosion measures in Rhode Island. This would
include identification of any separable measures for which construction
could be expedited. Nevertheless, any measures recommended for further
effort must comply with the Administration's shore protection policy in
effect when the feasibility study is completed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byrd
impact of the proposed fiscal year 1999 funding level
Question. The fiscal year 1999 budget request for Corps
construction is $784 million, a decrease of some $685 million, or 47
percent, below the fiscal year 1997 level. Dr. Zirschky's statement
suggests that such a reduction is appropriate due to the accumulation
of unexpended balances. I would note, however, that funds provided to
the Corps in the fiscal year 1997 supplemental, and in the fiscal year
1998 regular appropriations bill, are for specific projects and
purposes. It is incumbent upon the Corps to execute the program which
is enacted by Congress. If Congress were to approve the proposed budget
for fiscal year 1999, in all likelihood, the Corps would need to
undertake massive reprogrammings. I do not believe that is an effective
way to manage a program, and hope that this Subcommittee will provide
sufficient resources to avoid significant disruptions in fiscal year
1999.
What effect will this constrained funding level proposed for fiscal
year 1999 have on project schedules--will they have to be stretched
out? By how much?
Answer. There are 139 projects with established completion dates in
the President's fiscal year 1999 budget. These projects have slipped an
average of 14 months from the completion dates in the President's
fiscal year 1998 budget request. Differences range from a stretch out
of 120 months to one project completing 24 months sooner than scheduled
last year, and 43 projects have no change in their completion dates.
Question. The budget reduction presumes that the necessary funding
to address project requirements in the out years will be forthcoming
once the Corps reduces its unobligated balances. Do the outyear
planning assumptions for the Corps of Engineers assume an increase? If
not, how will the corps be able to address the future costs associated
with the projects in process?
Answer. The current outyear planning assumptions for the Corps of
Engineers Construction, General program includes stable construction
funding about $1 billion per fiscal year. The funding and completion
schedules for projects included in the President's fiscal year 1999
budget have been developed in accordance with these funding
assumptions.
Question. Will there be further delays and subsequent additional
cost increases if the necessary funds are not forthcoming in the out
years?
Answer. No, the projected delays include the assumed outyear
funding levels of about $1 billion per year.
marmet lock and dam
Question. Last year, Congress provided $1.8 million for initial
pre-construction activities associated with a major lock replacement
program at Marmet Lock and Dam along the Kanawha River. This project
has been supported by the Corps, and was authorized in the 1996 Water
Resources Development Act.
Funds made available in fiscal year 1998, and proposed for fiscal
year 1999, will allow the Corps to continue the necessary real estate
acquisition. However, the fiscal year 1999 budget does not include the
funds necessary to proceed with detailed engineering and design. What
activities does the Corps anticipate completing in fiscal year 1998?
How many homes will be acquired?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, advanced engineering and design will
continue, with completion of the design memorandum for sewer
relocations, the geology and foundation draft design memorandum, and
the draft lock design memorandum.
Preliminary deed research on all tracts have been completed and
legal descriptions have been prepared for twenty-seven tracts. Ten
homes are scheduled for acquisition in fiscal year 1998, and for
seventeen tracts titles and appraisals are being completed and
hazardous waste investigations are being updated.
Question. How many homes are expected to be acquired in total? How
long have these people been waiting? Are there willing sellers, or is
condemnation contemplated?
Answer. There are approximately 200 tracts of land containing 176
single family residences, 53 residential mobile homes, five apartment
buildings containing 13 apartments, and 10 businesses. This totals 252
displacements as the result of the Marmet project. Since a public
meeting in 1989, local residents have been aware of the Corps' plan to
modernize the locks at Marmet and of the fact that their properties
could be required for the project, depending upon the selected plan.
The selected project was presented to local residents at a public
meeting in 1993.
Based on discussions with landowners at the public meetings, the
Corps expects a typical percentage of condemnations, which historically
is about 10 percent of tracts. A better estimate will be available once
negotiations have been initiated.
Question. So, if there are some 250 properties to be acquired,
would you agree that the fiscal year 1998 funding is just the
beginning--that there is still significant progress that must be made
in the acquisition program before the project will be able to proceed
with construction?
Answer. Yes, I agree that the fiscal year 1998 effort is just the
beginning. The Corps is scheduled to acquire five percent of the tracts
in this fiscal year.
Question. The budget request for fiscal year 1999 is just $1.5
million. What funding level has been identified as capability for
fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Subject to the qualifying language, the fiscal year 1999
capability for the project is $9,000,000 to continue real estate
acquisition and engineering and design activities.
Question. On previous occasions, the Corps had estimated it would
take four years to complete the necessary land acquisition. What annual
funding level did this presume? At the level proposed in the budget,
what will be the time necessary to complete the land acquisition?
Answer. The four year schedule assumed a funding level of
approximately $6,500,000 per year for real estate acquisition. At a
funding level of $1.5 million per year, acquisition would take
approximately 18 years to complete.
Question. What funding levels for Marmet for fiscal year 1999 were
proposed by the District? What funding levels were included in the
Corps' request to OMB for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 funding level proposed by the
Huntington District was $8,960,000. The Corps request to OMB was for
$10,960,000 for real estate acquisition and continuation of engineering
and design.
Question. If funds are not provided in fiscal year 1999 for
engineering and design for Marmet, what will this do to the project
schedule?
Answer. The current project completion schedule of 2009 reflects no
funds being available in fiscal year 1999 for engineering and design.
If the fiscal year 1999 project capability amount of $9,000,000 is
provided for real estate and engineering and design, the project
completion schedule could be advanced one year.
Question. What will happen to the people who are working on this
project in the Huntington District? Would work be stopped?
Answer. Approximately 8 to 10 people currently are working on
engineering and design. They would be assigned to work on other
projects, and engineering and design tasks for the Marmet project would
be terminated in a manner that minimizes disruption of the work.
greenbrier river
Question. Recently, the Corps completed an updated evaluation
report to provide a more accurate assessment of flood control options
for the Greenbrier River basin. In that report, the Corps does not
endorse a particular option, but rather, identified the various
benefits, costs, and procedural requirements associated with each of
the alternatives. If a non-dam alternative is supported locally, and a
cost-sharing partner comes forward, what further steps would be
necessary for the project to proceed? Are more studies necessary, or is
the Corps ready to proceed to detailed planning and design so that
project implementation can begin?
Answer. At each location in the Greenbrier River Basin where a cost
sharing partner comes forward, we would prepare a Project Management
Plan and execute an agreement to share design costs. As the first part
of design we would prepare a Detailed Project Report to support a
project cooperation agreement. The level of effort to prepare the
Detailed Project Report at each location would depend on the extent of
the work already accomplished. Additional detailed design, including
plans and specifications, would be needed after completion of each
Detailed Project Report.
tug fork projects
Question. Last year, Congress provided $12.1 million for ongoing
activities in the West Virginia areas that are part of the Levisa/Tug
Fork flood protection program. No funds are included for ongoing flood
protection actions underway in Hatfield Bottom and Upper and Lower
Mingo and Wayne Counties, nor to initiate flood proofing and
acquisition in approved areas in McDowell County. Why are no funds
included in the budget for the Hatfield Bottom and Lower and Upper
Mingo County components of the Tug Fork project?
Answer. No funds are included in the Administration's budget
request for the Hatfield Bottom and Lower and Upper Mingo County
elements because these elements are not economically justified.
Question. Have Upper and Lower Mingo County identified the
necessary cost-sharing to comply with their particular authorizing
requirement?
Answer. Yes, both the Lower Mingo County project and the Upper
Mingo County project involve cost sharing. The County Commission of
Mingo County has signed cost-sharing project cooperation agreements for
these projects.
Question. What funding is necessary in fiscal year 1999 to keep
these projects on schedule?
Answer. Subject to the qualifying language, fiscal year 1999
funding capabilities to continue work on these projects are $1.6
million for Upper Mingo County, $3.6 million for Lower Mingo County,
and $300,000 for Hatfield Bottom.
Question. What funding is necessary to initiate flood proofing and
acquisition in McDowell County and to continue the effort in Wayne
County?
Answer. Sir, again subject to the qualifying language the fiscal
year 1999 capability to initiate efforts in McDowell County is
$5,000,000 and the capability to continue efforts in Wayne County is
$1,800,000.
Question. Last year, Congress provided $400,000 for an early flood
warning system for the Tug Fork valley. What is the status of this
effort? Has a cost-sharing partner been identified?
Answer. System design is currently under way. The Corps is
discussing project sponsorship with both the State of West Virginia and
the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Implementation of the system is scheduled
for completion in fiscal year 1999 subject to identification of a cost
sharing sponsor.
statewide flood control plan
Question. In fiscal year 1998, Congress provided $400,000 for the
Corps to work with the State of West Virginia in the development of a
statewide assessment of flood control activities and needs. By
involving Federal, State, and local authorities involved with flood
protection and response, this assessment will help to ensure that the
highest priority needs receive attention and that efforts among the
different players are coordinated. What is the current expectation for
how long it will take to complete this assessment?
Answer. The Corps is currently negotiating a cost sharing agreement
for this assessment with the State of West Virginia. The agreement is
scheduled to be executed in April 1998. If funds were available, it
would take approximately twenty-six months to complete the assessment
after execution of the agreement.
Question. Are additional funds necessary in fiscal year 1999 to
complete this undertaking? If so, how much is required?
Answer. Yes, additional funds of $624,000 are necessary to complete
the defined work tasks.
moorefield, wv and petersburg, wv
Question. In 1990, Congress authorized construction of flood
control protection projects in Moorefield and Petersburg, West
Virginia. These areas suffered considerable damage as a result of
flooding in November, 1985, and the communities have been working to
improve their flood protection ever since. Both projects are now
completed, and I will be participating in the dedication of the
Moorefield project at the end of April. Both projects have been faced
with final costs higher than originally expected due to high land
acquisition costs, as well as damages stemming from flooding during the
construction phase. Dr. Zirschky, do you have any flexibility to extend
the repayment period for these projects?
Answer. No, sir. The Corps does not have any flexibility to extend
the repayment period for the Moorefield, West Virginia, and Petersburg,
West Virginia projects.
Question. Are you able to do this administratively, or is
legislation required?
Answer. In order to extend the repayment period for the non-Federal
share of the costs of these projects, legislation is required.
Question. If the extension period were to be provided, and Congress
were to direct that this be done interest-free, would there be any
further cost increases for either of these projects?
Answer. There could be, sir. Until all construction is completed
and all final project costs, including settlement of construction
claims, and non-Federal credits are determined, both the Federal and
non-Federal costs could change.
Question. Are there any instances in recent years where the Corps
has been directed to waive any additional amounts owed to be repaid
after a project has been completed?
Answer. No, sir. There are no instances in recent years where the
Corps has been directed to waive any additional amounts owed or to be
repaid after a project has been completed.
bluestone dam drift and debris
Question. Section 357 of the 1996 Water Resources Development Act
included a provision for the Corps to address drift and debris
accumulation above the Bluestone Dam. In last year's Energy and Water
appropriations bill, Congress provided $475,000 to begin design of the
debris removal elements. What is the status of this effort? Are
additional funds necessary in fiscal year 1999 to complete the planning
and design?
Answer. The debris removal effort has four components. The first is
limited removal of impounded material. The second is a public awareness
program to address disposal of manmade trash into the waterways
upstream of the dam. A third component, removal of debris downstream of
the dam, is performed by the Park Service and the West Virginia
Division of Environmental Protection, and the Corps is not authorized
to participate in this effort. For the fourth component, the multi-
level intake structure, development of a hydraulic model currently is
under way and project design will begin later this fiscal year. Subject
to the qualifying language, an additional amount of $420,000 could be
used to complete the planning and design of that feature.
Question. Previously, the cost estimate to complete the debris
removal component of this project was $7.5 million. Is this still an
accurate cost estimate? When will the Corps be ready to begin
construction on this project?
Answer. Yes, apart from $1.6 million used for early testing and
analysis of alternatives, $7,500,000 is an accurate estimate to
complete the debris removal effort. Construction of the multi-level
intake structure would cost on the order of $5 million, and design and
construction management for the structure and implementation of the
other components together would cost on the order of $2.5 million. If
$420,000 were provided, the Corps could finish design before the end of
fiscal year 1999 and be ready to advertise and award a construction
contract.
Question. On a different matter at Bluestone Dam, there are
interests in West Virginia that have proposed the construction of
hydropower generating capacity at this location. Their proposal is an
interesting one, in that they propose non-Federal financing for the
project elements, to be done in conjunction with the Corps' standards
and requirements. It is unclear yet whether the Corps has authority to
pursue this project, or whether special authorization will be
necessary.
Dr. Zirschky, you will be meeting with these interests to discuss
this proposal in April. I look forward to hearing from you after you
have had a chance to review the project proposal and evaluate the
various options which may or may not be available. I am interested in
ensuring that my constituents have an accurate and complete picture of
the Corps' authorities in this regard.
Answer. Yes sir.
robert c. byrd lock and dam
Question. Last year, Congress appropriated $5.4 million for dam
rehabilitation and construction of mitigation responsibilities
associated with this project. Additional funding is anticipated as
being needed in fiscal year 1999 to keep this project going. What
funding is included in the budget for this project? Is this amount
sufficient to keep pace with anticipated progress on the mitigation
work at RCB lock and dam?
Answer. The President's Budget requests $7,000,000 to continue with
efforts at the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam project. This amount is not
sufficient to provide for uninterrupted efforts on the ongoing
mitigation contract but is sufficient to enable the exercise of
contract options in time to avoid delay costs.
Question. What funding would be considered to be the ``approved
capability'' to allow work on this project to proceed without
disruption?
Answer. Subject to the qualifying language, the fiscal year 1999
capability for the project is $10,600,000.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Murray
minimum dredge fleet
Question. On August 12, 1997 I wrote to Dr. John Zirschky, along
with five other Northwest Senators, asking the Corps to address several
issues when it issues its recommendation to Congress on the future of
the Minimum Dredge Fleet. We restated this request on November 7, 1997
in the combined Northwest Delegation comments on the Minimum Dredge
Fleet study. Quoting from the November 7 letter, ``we asked that the
study include certain analysis to allow Congress to evaluate Corps
recommendations regarding the future of the fleet. We asked that the
analysis include an examination of responsiveness to routine and
emergency dredging requirements, industry competitiveness, a comparison
of dredging costs and industry capacity.''
How does the Corps plan to comply with this repeated request? If
the Corps does not plan to comply with this request, why not?
Answer. I appreciate the high level of interest and support that
you and other members of the Northwest Delegation have given to the
Corps Minimum Dredge Fleet. The Corps is currently working on a draft
final report that will recommend the appropriate configuration of Corps
hopper dredges. The issues of responsiveness to routine and emergency
dredging requirements, industry competitiveness, dredging costs and
industry capacity will be addressed in this document.
dredging cost, capacity and responsiveness
Question. The presentation of the eight options in the recent
Minimum Dredge Fleet study did not include the kind of analysis
described in question # 2. There are indications that the Corps will
release proposals for changes to Minimum Dredge Fleet policy this
summer. What data and analysis is the Corps using to develop these
proposals? How will cost, capacity and responsiveness be examined?
Answer. The data that is being used for the analysis of proposals
includes hopper dredging contract data from fiscal years 1994-1997,
Corps hopper dredging data, and dredging data from the dredging
industry for non-Corps hopper dredging work. These data are being used
to analyze each option by assessing risk to navigation, risk to the
industry, and estimated annual cost. The goal is to optimize the
configuration of the Corps hopper dredges and identify other management
initiatives that will ensure a viable, competitive private hopper
dredge industry while sustaining our nation's capability to respond to
peak workloads, and emergency and national defense needs. The options
analysis will seek to balance risks to navigation and risks to industry
with cost considerations and improved competition. In seeking this
balance, there will be opportunities to implement innovative
contracting methods, improved scheduling procedures, and new management
initiatives that will improve responsiveness and protect the interests
and needs of ports and maritime users.
dredging objectives
Question. Included in the November 7, 1997, Northwest Delegation
comments on the Minimum Dredge Fleet Study were a list of questions. To
my knowledge, the Corps has not yet responded to these and other
questions raised in comments made by stakeholders. I will restate them
here, with some additional questions.
First, is the Corps primary objective to keep navigation channels
maintained at authorized depths at all times? It appears that the
guiding principal of the study considers maintenance of channels and
maintenance of the dredge industry as equal goals. Is that correct, and
if so, why?
Answer. The primary objective of the minimum dredge fleet study is
to evaluate various options and recommend the future disposition of the
four hopper dredges in the Corps minimum dredge fleet. These options
focus on risk to navigation and risk to industry. The options seek to
balance the risks with cost considerations and improved competition,
long-term viability of the private hopper dredges, and the ability to
be responsive to peak workloads and emergency and national defense
needs. In seeking this balance, there will be opportunities to
implement innovative contracting methods, improved scheduling
procedures, and new management initiatives that will improve the
ability to protect the interests and needs of ports and maritime users
and ensure a competitive bidding environment.
options
Question. Second, has the Corps completed a detailed analysis of
the range of possible impacts of the eight study options and any new
options on navigation in the Northwest and the rest of the nation?
Please explain how the four Corps hopper dredges would be impacted
under each scenario, including any new options developed after the
original eight. Also, does the Corps plan to propose a major overhaul
of the McFARLAND under any scenario?
Answer. The Corps is in the process of refining existing options
and developing additional options, and these are not completed at this
time. When the draft report is completed, the impacts to the Corps
hopper dredges under each scenario will be addressed. The Corps is
currently seeking authority to perform a major overhaul of the
McFARLAND.
Question. Third, exactly how does placing dredges on standby status
provide low risk to navigation?
Answer. Currently Corps hopper dredges schedule work in navigation
projects at the beginning of the fiscal year, and this dredging must be
accomplished to ensure the viability of the ports involved. Once these
schedules are developed, these four dredges are literally booked for
the year, and are only available for unforeseen work at the expense of
another scheduled project. Experience has shown that with the current
method of scheduling work, peak workload requirements place demands
upon the dredging resources available and dredging reassignments must
be made. Often the reassignments include termination of ongoing
dredging operations, or delay of completion and/or initiation of
scheduled work. These assignment changes can result in annual dredging
work being postponed until the next year because of environmental
dredging windows closing before the dredge can return.
Question. Fourth, has the Corps developed specific predictions for
the cost of maintaining dredges in standby? If so, please describe
these predictions. If not, why not? Similarly, has the Corps developed
contractual and procedural frameworks and vessel operations frameworks
for dredges in standby? If so, please describe these frameworks. If
not, why not? Please describe how these predictions and frameworks
support the low risk conclusion.
Answer. We have predicted that the standby costs for each hopper
dredge will be approximately 25 percent less than current annual costs.
The procedural framework for each dredge will be slightly different, as
each dredge operates differently in each coastal region. However, the
basic concept is predicated upon the premise that the crew size on each
dredge can be reduced to a level that reflects a crew capable of
operating for a two or three week time-frame, and be ready to mobilize
within a 72-hour response time. We have established a scheduling and
communication process that has greatly improved our ability to
anticipate hopper dredge shortfalls and peak workload periods well in
advance of experiencing these impacts. This process has demonstrated
its applicability with the current dredging requirement challenges. The
Corps districts and industry have been able to use this process to
better plan and schedule work, and anticipate potential problems. The
ability to call out the WHEELER when shortfalls in capability have
occurred this year clearly demonstrates the process reducing risk to
navigation impacts. When a need arises, a Corps dredge can be called
out, one that is standing by ready to respond, and no other project is
impacted. The ability to manage the inherent variability associated
with dredging requirements, with a Corps hopper dredge in a standby
mode, will reduce the risk to navigation and improve the reliability of
our ports.
future support for maintaining dredges in standby
Question. Fifth, does the Corps believe that Congress and future
administrations will support maintaining dredges in standby? If so,
please describe the key rational and cost projections for maintaining
Corps dredges in standby while using industry hopper dredges for work
now performed by Corps hopper dredges. Would such a scenario increase
the cost of the Corps dredging program? Please explain.
Answer. Yes, we believe that Congress and the Administration will
continue to support maintaining dredges in standby. While the concept
of managing the navigation program with hopper dredges in standby,
rather than scheduling them for work, is a culture change, the concept
of funding equipment to be ready to respond to unforeseen conditions is
an integral part of Government, e.g. fire engines, oil spill
contingency vessels, Coast Guard search and rescue vessels, to name a
few. We believe that experience will show that these hopper dredges
will be needed periodically to support peak workload dredging
requirements and emergency and national defense needs. In fact the
WHEELER, which is in a ready reserve status, has demonstrated this
reality for both scenarios, peak workload requirements in the
Mississippi River and emergency dredging support in the Military Ocean
Terminal at Sunny Point, North Carolina. To properly evaluate the cost
to the navigation program of the standby concept, requires looking
beyond the net change from status quo. There are several facts that
must be considered in evaluating the cost to the navigation program.
First, some of the work normally performed by the Corps hopper
dredges can be performed by industry at less cost. From the long-term
perspective, industry has not had a sufficient reliable workload that
can be offered as security to lending institutions for the purpose of
financial investment in vessel replacement or vessel expansion.
It is clear from previous peak workload experiences that, if there
were less industry hopper dredges, there would be additional projects
that would not be dredged during the peak workload periods and ports
would be impacted. Moreover, when Corps dredges have scheduled their
annual workload, and the remaining hopper dredging workload is minimal,
industry dredges either shut down or seek work outside the United
States. This has resulted in diminished capability when unforeseen
requirements occur. The ports have suffered from this condition,
ongoing dredging operations have been disrupted, and unforeseen
dredging is performed at an increased cost. If industry can rely on a
steady workload, even when the dredging requirement is diminished,
industry utilization will tend to become more constant, income security
will stimulate investment, and capability will be ensured.
In addition, because there is a Corps hopper dredge capability
sustained to respond to peak workloads and emergencies, industry does
not have to expand their fleet to accommodate the unforeseen, and the
increased cost of underutilized excess vessels is not burdened upon the
industry. The net result will be a cost effective standby fleet, ready
to respond and ensure reliable navigation channels.
audits and investigations of dredging contracts
Question. On October 13, 1997, the Washington Post reported on a
Army Audit Agency audit of industry bids. I am told that the Department
of Justice also is examining the issue. Please report on these and
other federal processes underway related to the Army Audit Agency and
Department of Justice audits and investigations. Are you concerned
about the questions raised, including identical line item bids, limited
competition, complimentary bids, bid rotation, and winning low bidder
subcontracting projects to higher bidders? Please describe the Corps
concerns related to each of these questions.
Answer. As a result of the Army Audit Agency report dated September
12, 1995, reported in the Washington Post, the Department of Justice
was asked to investigate the issues raised concerning the standard
collusion indicators listed in your question. As a result of the
findings in the AAA report on industry bidding practices, the Corps has
improved the reporting of subcontracting information through the
Dredging Information System and has developed a methodology for
increased oversight of bidding practices by the dredging industry. The
methodology will seek clarification from industry bidders who submit
identical line item bids or bids which appear to be excessively high. A
report will be published each year documenting the procurements with
identical line item bids, bids that were determined to be potential
complimentary bids, and the distribution of work by each company
performing work under a Corps dredging contract. Industry will be
constantly reminded of our concerns for competition, and regional
dredge scheduling meetings will consistently have reports of previous
bidding practices. Industry will be asked to submit their suggestions
for improvement of competition, including innovative procurement
practices, and improved workload packaging.
We are aware of the potential for collusion with dredging contracts
and will seek to improve monitoring and oversight of this issue.
process and methodology of the minimum dredge fleet study
Question. Some concerns have been raised about the process and
methodology of the Corps Minimum Dredge Fleet study. Did the study meet
other established Corps Policies and Practices as a matter of course
for developing policy changes? If not, why not?
Answer. Yes, this study was undertaken in a manner consistent with
other Corps policy development processes.
comments minimum dredge fleet study
Question. Please provide a copy of each comment on the Minimum
Dredge Fleet study to the Committee for the hearing record or the
committee files. This will help Congress evaluate future proposed
changes to the Minimum Dredge Fleet.
Answer. A copy of each of the 48 letters commenting on the Minimum
Dredge Fleet study follows:
Dunes City,
Westlake, OR, October 22, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
Attention CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ``Draft Minimum
Dredge Fleet Study''.
Maintenance of the navigation channel and harbor in the Port of
Siuslaw is extremely important to the economic health of our community.
It is with the perspective of maintaining this important activity that
we reviewed the Corps' draft study.
We know our community and the Northwest best. We believe that
maintaining both federal dredges in active, operating status is
critical to keeping our channels and harbors open. Six of the eight
options call for retiring at least one of the federal dredges based in
the Northwest, yet there is no analysis that demonstrates that we will
continue to have our dredging needs met in a timely, cost-effective
manner under those options.
We want to keep costs down, make sure there is adequate capacity to
meet our routine needs, and ensure that dredges will be responsive
enough to meet our emergency dredging requirements. The study does not
provide any basis for us to believe those needs will be met under any
of the options that retire federal dredges or place federal dredges on
standby.
Therefore, we must reject all options that decrease the active role
of the federal dredge fleet.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Ward, Jr.,
Mayor.
______
Port of Benton,
Richland, WA, October 21, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ``Draft Minimum
Dredge Fleet Study.''
Maintenance of the navigation channel supports trade and other
forms of commerce, which is extremely important to the economic well-
being of the Tri-Cities. The Port of Benton is a very important link to
the dismantling of decommissioned nuclear submarines. The spent
reactors are barged from Bremerton along the West Coast of Washington
and through the mouth of the Columbia River to the Port of Benton's
barge slip, where they are off-loaded for burial on the Hanford
Reservation. This year alone, nine shipments have been or are scheduled
to be made. It is with the perspective of maintaining this important
activity that we reviewed the Corps' draft study.
We know our community and the Northwest best. We believe that
maintaining both federal dredges in active, operating status is
critical to keeping our channels and harbors open. Six of the eight
options call for retiring at least one of the federal dredges based in
the Northwest, yet there is no analysis that demonstrates that we will
continue to have our dredging needs met in a timely, cost-effective
manner under those options.
We want to keep costs down, make sure there is adequate capacity to
meet our routine needs and ensure that dredges will be responsive
enough to meet our emergency dredging requirements. The study does not
provide any basis for us to believe these needs will be met under any
of the options that retire federal dredges or place federal dredges on
standby.
Therefore, we must reject all options which decrease the active
role of the federal hopper dredge fleet.
Sincerely,
Ben Bennett,
Executive Director.
______
Port of Lewiston, ID,
October 24, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ``Draft Minimum
Dredge Fleet Study.''
Maintenance of the navigation channel and harbor in our port is
extremely important to the economic health of our region. It is with
the perspective of maintaining this important activity that we reviewed
the Corps' draft study.
We know our community and the Northwest best. We believe that
maintaining both federal dredges in active, operating status is
critical to keeping our channels and harbors open. Six of the eight
options call for retiring at least one of the federal dredges based in
the Northwest, yet there is no analysis that demonstrates that we will
continue to have our dredging needs met in a timely, cost-effective
manner under those options.
We do not agree with making a decision on these options without
analysis. The study provides no analysis of the viability of the
standby concept. The study simply defined standby status. It did not
analyze whether the dredges can actually be maintained to that standard
over the long run. It did not address whether Congress is likely to
fund the additional costs over the long term. It did not discuss
whether contracting procedures allow dredges to be called out of
standby in 72 hours if a private contractor does not perform.
We encourage the Corps to conduct the kind of analysis that will
appropriately answer the key questions. We expect that all options
other than the status quo will require Congressional approval. Until we
see an acceptable analysis that addresses the above concerns, we will
be recommending that our Congressional delegation reject any proposed
changes to the operating status of the Corps dredges.
We want to keep costs down, make sure there is adequate capacity to
meet our routine needs, and ensure that dredges will be responsive
enough to meet our emergency dredging requirements. The study does not
provide any basis for us to believe those needs will be met under any
of the options that retire federal dredges or place federal dredges on
standby.
Therefore, we must reject all options which decrease the active
role of the federal hopper dredge fleet.
Sincerely,
David R. Doeringsfeld,
Manager.
______
Port of Clarkston, WA,
October 24, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ``Draft Minimum
Dredge Fleet Study''.
Maintaining the navigation channel in the Snake River is vital to
the health of our port and our community. Family farmers would suffer
greatly without the cost-effective transportation afforded by the river
system. Grain from our Palouse and Camas Prairie regions is barged to
Portland for shipment overseas. In 1996 more than 28 MILLION tons of
products were exported through the Columbia River ports.
It is essential to keep both federal dredges the Yaquina and the
Essayons in active operating status to keep our channels and harbors
open. Many times in the past, these dredges have been needed for
emergency dredging in addition their active maintenance
responsibilities.
Keep the federal hopper dredge fleet in operation.
Sincerely,
Mack Lavik Funk.
______
State of Louisiana,
Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry,
St. Rose, LA, October 30, 1997.
Maj. Gen. Russell L. Fuhrman,
Director and Asst. Commander of Civil Works,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
Dear General Fuhrman: Following our recent meeting in Washington
with you and our subsequent meeting with Barry Holliday, we have
compiled the following list of information we require. Our list is
comprised of input from the Pacific Northwest, the East Coast, and the
U.S. Gulf Coast which were represented in our recent meeting.
(1) The revised Minimum Dredge Fleet Study of 1994 (Step 2);
(2) The Army Audit Agency Report to Dr. Zirschky on the Minimum
Dredge Fleet Study of 1994 (Step 2);
(3) The USACE New Orleans District Study on the cost to the
maritime industry on loss of draft on the Mississippi River and the
Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet. Comparable studies or data related to
channels and harbors in the East Coast, the Pacific Northwest, and the
U.S. Gulf for fiscal year 1994-fiscal year1996;
(4) Detailed schedule of work, repair and idle time on all the
private sector hopper dredges for fiscal year 1993-fiscal year1997;
(5) Accurate data as to the daily production of the USACE hopper
fleet in cubic yards per day or per hour for fiscal year 1990-fiscal
year1996;
(6) Accurate data as to the daily production of all the private
sector hopper dredges in cubic yards per day or per hour for fiscal
year 1990-fiscal year1997;
(7) Data used to compile options 1 through 8 of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Minimum Dredge Fleet presentation;
(8) Copies of the Army Audit Agency Report in 1995 on bid rigging
and their investigation into the private dredging sector.
(9) An analysis of the 1996 and 1997 dredging emergencies in the
East Coast, the Pacific Northwest and the U.S. Gulf. This should
include the loss of project dimension, the bid advertisements, the
responses, and the total number of dredges that responded in the
hopper, cutterhead and ladder type dredges.
Since the new extension date for our reply and comments is November
7th, we would appreciate an indication as to when we can expect to
receive this data. Hopefully, this information can be sent to us in a
timely fashion which would allow us time to review the data and then
properly respond. Anticipating that this data will take a period to
prepare, what we would like to propose is that if we receive the data
by November 15th, thence we will be able to respond to you by December
1st. We think that a two (2) week interval with the Thanksgiving
holiday in that period would be sufficient. We hope this is workable,
as it is important for us to review and evaluate the data in order to
properly respond to you on the Minimum Dredge Fleet.
Rather than have copies mailed to all of our participants, what I
would request is that two (2) copies be mailed to Mr. Dan James, PNWA
for the Pacific Northwest area, a copy to Mr. Dennis Rochford,
Philadelphia Maritime Exchange for the East Coast, and a copy to
myself. We will distribute the data to the balance of our members. We
are hopeful that this information is available to us, and if not,
please let us know what information is going to be able to be
distributed and what information is not for whatever reasons.
If there is any clarification needed, please have one of your staff
contact me, or if you want, we can just deal directly with Harry
Holliday on this information flow.
Yours very truly,
George E. Duffy,
Chairman.
______
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt,
Portland, OR, November 3, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
clarification of viewgraph presentation of draft mdf study
As a participant in a large conference call on October 8, during
which the Corps presented its 27-page outline-viewgraph, I first thank
the Corps for extending its comment period. Second, I understood from
that teleconference, and from comments from participants in an October
22 meeting at Corps HQ, that the outline-viewgraph approach is one the
Corps will use as it examines and evaluates its options, and then later
explains its decision.
Part One of my comments, submitted herein, addresses points that I
believe will strengthen the Corps presentation. In some cases, people
newer to this issue may rely only on this slide presentation, so it
should be as complete as is practical for a set of slides. I plan to
submit other comments addressing such issues as the issues of lack of
data, weaknesses of the risk assessment, comments on the various
options, etc. In other words, these comments do not argue for or
against any option. Instead, they suggest steps to clarify the Corps
presentation of its options and later explanations of why it chose a
particular solution for the Corps dredges.
Before turning to the slides in order, I will address a fundamental
shortcoming in the Corps presentation, as evidenced in Slide # 9: ``The
Challenge.'' The Corps lists in bold print what the dredging industry
``wants''--but implores the ``wants'' of other stakeholders. Someone
reading this slide might think that the Corps cared only about
addressing the ``wants'' of private industry, rather than the interests
of all impacted parties.
Slide # 9: ``The Challenge'': The Corps should add bullet sentences
setting out the ``wants'' of: ports; domestic and international
shippers; state and local governments; and maritime unions.
Returning to the slides in order, I suggest the following changes
or additions:
Slide # 4: ``Interested Parties'': Add as separate parties:
Domestic and International Shippers; Fishing Industry; and Local
Governments.
Slide # 5: ``Dredging requirement'': Add a statistic that describes
the Corps hopper work as a percentage of the total O&M dredging
requirement.
Slide # 6: ``Hopper Dredge `Requirement' '': Add a footnote here
that explains factors limiting attempts to even out the monthly hopper
dredge work: the months when environmental dredging windows limit
dredging; the months of the recent Mississippi River floods; etc.
Slide # 7: ``Hopper Dredge Requirement by Region'': Add two items
here. The first would show the hopper dredge requirement as a
percentage of the total dredging requirements per region. The second
would show the percentage of total hopper dredge work performed by
Corps hopper dredges per region.
Slide # 8: ``19 Hopper Dredges'': Add the year each Corps and
private dredge entered service, plus the years of any major overhaul or
upgrade. Also, I am told that the private dredge Long Island is not
sufficiently maneuverable to perform harbor entrance or channel work.
If this is so, and it is used only for beach nourishment, that fact
should be noted on this slide. Include, for example, how much (if any)
harbor and channel work the Long Island has performed in the past three
years.
Slide # 9: ``The Challenge'': Covered earlier.
Slide # 10: ``Hopper Dredge Quantities: Atlantic and Gulf
Regions'': Add a footnote reminding viewers that this total is 80
percent of the total hopper dredge requirement.
Slide # 11: ``Guiding Principle'': This slide should include the
American shipper, more than the American taxpayer. Shippers pay the
costs of dredging through the HMTF. The American taxpayer, as
represented by each Member of Congress, created both the rivers and
harbors system, and the current method to find their O&M that did not
tax the general population. Second, I ask that you include the
underlined phrases in the second part of the principle: `` * * * while
sustaining our nation's capability to respond to peak workloads, [and]
to emergency and national defense needs, and to a lack of
competition.''
Slide # 12: ``Risk to Navigation'': In the ``HIGH RISK'' section,
add after the phrase `` * * * no capability to perform unforeseen,
time-sensitive work'' the following sentence: ``A fully utilized
private industry dredge fleet has less interest in performing small
jobs when contracted to larger jobs.'' At the end of the HIGH RISK
section, add the sentence ``Increasing environmental restrictions on
timing of dredging.''
Slide # 13: ``Risk to Industry'': How is the term ``minimal''
utilization defined? What level constitutes minimal use? How does the
percentage the Corps adopted as constituting ``minimal utilization''
compare to that used in other capital-intensive industries? The Corps
should explain how it arrived at its ``minimal utilization''
percentage, and provide comparisons used elsewhere in the USG and
private industry for similar capital-intensive industries. A critic of
the private dredge fleet also might add in the ``LOW RISK'' section the
sentence that ``Without Corps dredges as measuring stick to help
estimate O&M dredging costs, Corps O&M estimates may rise over time.''
A critic also might add another sentence to the ``LOW RISK'' summary:
``No competition from Corps dredges for certain work.''
Slide # 14: ``Current Limitations on Corps Hopper Dredges'':
Clarify that the ``Ready Reserve'' status of the Wheeler (per
Congressional direction) differs from the proposed ``hot standby''
status now proposed by the Corps.
Slide # 16: ``Standby Status'': Explain the meaning of ``ready to
respond in 72 hours.'' Does it mean ``respond first and talk later'' ?
How will appeals by private dredgers be handled after a Corps decision
to activate a Corps dredge? How will current procedures be changed to
reflect an ``act first, talk later'' approach? Can a District Engineer
make the final decision to utilize a Corps dredge, or must it be
processed and blessed by Corps HQ?
Slide # 17: ``Option One: Fully use Corps hoppers'': Provide some
detail to clarify the first and third ``Implication,'' adding to the
phrases ``expanding on Government costs increase slightly due to * * *
'' and to the phrase ``annual program costs are lowest because * * * ''
Slide # 20: ``Option 4: Wheeler and Yaquina retired'': Explain
whether or not the Wheeler and Yaquina will be sold, and, if so, to
U.S. dredging companies. What will the criteria be for such a sale, for
a sale would prevent restoration of the status quo if this experiment
fails. Also, explain whether or not the Corps plans to rehabilitate the
McFarland to expand its capabilities under this option.
Slides # 23 and # 24: ``Options 7 and 8'': The term ``low
navigation risk'' is used, with no explanation of factors leading to
this conclusion. Without any explanation, the statement represents only
a Corps conclusion. Use of a graph is misleading, as it conveys a
quantifiable determination, where none was used, as I understand.
Without any quantifiable statistics to mark such graphs, they should be
dropped from all slides.
Slide # 25: ``Risk Analysis'': A new descriptive slide should
precede this Slide # 27, on which the Corps would describe what factors
were used in its risk analysis. Without such explanation, a viewer has
only a Corps conclusion (low, medium, high), with no explanation of how
such a conclusion was reached. Without a quantifiable set of numbers to
justify use of graphs, they should be omitted from all slides.
Slide # 26: ``Summary and Conclusions'': Add as another guiding
principle: ``Protect taxpayers and their investments in ports and
channels by maximizing real competition for hopper dredge O&M work.''
Separately, does the term ``competitive private fleet,'' as used in
this slide, mean competitive in global markets, or competing among
various private dredge companies for available hopper dredge work.
Reference to ``competitive private fleet'' should be explained in an
earlier slide, if the Corps means that more private competitors will
compete for available Corps work. The Corps should explain how changes
in the status of the MDF will promote more competition, or justify why
removing a competitive element provides better protection (e.g., ``the
best deal possible'') for the American taxpayer. As competition is
important, this opaque reference should be amplified in earlier slides.
Otherwise, it should be dropped from the conclusion slide, as no
explanation of how competition is maintained or expanded was offered in
any earlier slides.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on how to make the
presentation of the material regarding your MDF options clearer and
more complete. As noted above, I will comment later regarding other
aspects of the draft study.
Sincerely,
Walter H. Evans III.
______
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt,
Portland, OR, October 31, 1997.
Maj. Gen. Russell L. Fuhrman,
Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC.
Dear General Fuhrman: During the past decade or so, I represented a
number of Pacific Northwest ports. In advocating their interests, I was
involved with issues concerning the Corps' Minimum Dredge Fleet (MDF).
Over this long period, I sat through many meetings with local port
managers; State of Oregon officials, Corps District officials, Corps
headquarters staff, and the DCA and its representatives working to
resolve MDF issues.
As a result, I have heard various points raised and questions asked
about the Yaquina and its strengths and its shortcomings. I have
several informational questions about the Yaquina (and the Essayons, in
some cases), and request factual information. As you know, outside
parties interested in the MDF have until November 7 to comment on the
options laid out by Corps HQ concerning the Future of the MDF. I hope
the Corps can provide me with most answers ASAP. In advance, I thank
you for your prompt attention to these questions.
1. Efficiencies.--Has the Portland District taken steps to increase
the efficiency of the Yaquina? If so, how was this accomplished? What
has been the impact on her operating costs? Have any increased
efficiencies been in place long enough to be reflected in the most
recent statistics gathered and relied upon by Corps HQ? Are other steps
now underway or contemplated to increase further the Yaquina's
operating efficiencies? What is the anticipated impact of any such
proposed further changes?
2. Plant Increment Costs.--In several meetings in past years, the
issue of plant increment costs has been discussed among the various
parties. Can you explain its precise purpose and operation? How does it
impact daily rates for the Corps dredges? What is the size of this fund
today? Where and how is the money segregated? How is continuation of
this account justified if the Corps has no plans to replace its
dredges? Does the Corps have the flexibility to cease imposing this
cost? If not, what specific statute or Corps regulation prevents it? If
so, has serious consideration been given to waiving this cost? Do you
know if Corps HQ included termination of this fund as it developed its
options, and factored into its equations the impact from so doing? What
would be the separate impact on the Yaquina if the Corps removed the
plant increment costs from its daily rate calculation?
3. Seaworthiness.--My next question is more subjective, at least to
a nonprofessional. I believe that the Yaguina and the Essayons both are
classified as self-propelled vessels, with ship's hulls. I believe that
the two private Manson dredges, the Newport and the Westport, are
barges rather than vessels. Am I correct? Are they self-propelled or
are they moved by a tug? How does this impact their transit time to an
emergency job? How does their shape as a barge affect their
seaworthiness in rough seas? Can you say that, in operating in rough
seas, these two private dredges, when compared to the two West Coast
Corps Dredges, are more seaworthy, equally seaworthy, or less
seaworthy? If they are less seaworthy, could this impact their
emergency responsiveness, or their ability to complete a job in a
short, environmentally driven dredging window? Are these private
dredges less able than their Corps' counterparts to work in rough seas
that typify the Northwest coastal sea conditions during much of the
year? I also am interested in whether the Northerly Island is a barge
or a ship, and how its seaworthiness and usefulness in rough seas
compare to the Yaquina.
4. Repair.--Can you provide the repair experience of the Westport,
the Newport and the Northerly Island when traveling to or working on
Corps projects in West Coast ports in recent years? What was the
District's experience when private dredges performed O&M work at the
smaller West Coast ports? Any concrete examples will assist me in
responding to the Corps HQ initiative. Can you give me the ages of
these smaller private dredges, and their expected productive life?
5. Emergency Response.--Does the Corps keep track of ``emergency''
responses over the past several years, where the availability of Corps
dredges provided quick relief to the impacted port or river? If so, can
you please provide examples. How has the Corps dredges' prompt response
saved money for the served port or river? Put another way, were certain
damages avoided because of the quick Corps dredge responses? Do we know
what those savings or avoided costs are? I am told that either the New
Orleans District or the private sector in New Orleans calculated the
costs of a loss of draft when shoaling occurs in the Mississippi
channel. I have heard a statistic that each foot of lost draft due to
shoaling costs an average of x dollars per vessel per voyage. ``Light-
loading'' a vessel by a sufficient amount to clear the shoal costs each
vessel an amount of ``lost'' cargo the vessel could not load, due to
the impaired clearance. If calculations have been done on the impact on
a typical Columbia River vessel due to loss of authorized depth from
shoaling, I would like to know the impact. I also would welcome such
data as it pertains to Coos Bay or other West Coast ports where
significant dredging requirements exist.
6. Bidding Competition.--Can the Corps provide data covering the
past several years showing the number of private bidders that sought
work when the Portland District made it available? Please also provide
data from other West Coast Districts for such contracts. Please provide
data comparing those bids with the Corps estimate of each job. How do
you interpret the impact of a limited number of private bidders on the
job costs?
7. Environmental Benefits.--Over the years, one environmental
argument favoring retention and use of the Corps dredge fleet stresses
their usefulness as environmental ``platforms'' for research into
improved dredging techniques or other environmental research.
Supporters say the Corps can provide more such environmental
enhancements than can private dredges, and so forth. Can you please
cite examples of how Corps dredges have provided such environmental
enhancement or research in carrying out their tasks. The number and
nature of environmental restrictions should increase in the years
ahead. In view of that, are the private dredges that might replace the
Yaguina as able to respond to unique environmental requirements as is
the Yaquina? How will such environmental research and testing be
replicated by private dredges? Have cost estimates calculated whether
private dredges will be willing to perform such research at the same
cost as that of Corps dredges? Does a Corps dredge provide more
flexibility for such tests and experiments than does a private dredge?
8. Emergency Assistance.--In an emergency, I am told that the
Yaguina can dredge as deep as 55 feet. Can you describe how this
provides back-up capability for the Columbia River (or San Francisco
harbor or elsewhere) to help in an emergency. Do either of the smaller
private industry dredges have the capacity to dredge as deep as 55 feet
for the length of a normal dredging job? Has this extra capability of
the Yaquina helped control dredging costs and/or assisted in meeting
the requirements of limited dredging windows?
9. Remaining Debt.--Has the cost of the Yaquina been repaid to the
government? If not, please describe the repayment schedule to pay for
the Yaquina. If the Yaquina is mothballed, how will the remaining costs
be calculated and repaid? Did the Corps include close costs in its cost
calculations developed in the MDF study? Has the cost of the Essayons
been repaid? If not, how will the remaining debt be paid if the vessel
is on standby?
10. New Construction Starts.--Were new West Coast port or channel
projects approved by Congress in WRDA 96, or are any West Coast
projects expected in the proposed WRDA 98? If so, how will this impact
on the availability of private dredges to do O&M work on the West
Coast? Are other military dredging, or beach replenishment projects for
the West Coast now in the contract pipeline or final review that could
impact on the availability of private dredges to do routine O&M work?
11. Mobilization and Transportation Costs.--Corps officials speak
of increased competition from private dredges that should result from
removing the Yaquina from service. How are costs calculated to
transport a private dredge to compete for small port O&M work? What
would be the anticipated impact on the bid of a private dredge that
must be moved to the West Coast to compete for small port O&M work? Is
it realistic to expect that more private competitors will seek the West
Coast small port O&M work when such transportation costs are factored
into their bids? Will lack of new competition leave most West Coast
work for smaller ports with one private company as the only likely
bidder? How can the Corps encourage more competition from other private
dredging companies for smaller jobs in West Coast ports without raising
the costs to these ports?
12. Transfer of the Essayons.--With the Wheeler on ready reserve,
are the chances increased that the Essayons will be transferred to the
Gulf periodically to perform work? What would the impact be on
maintaining the Columbia River channel from a lengthy transfer of the
Essayons to the Gulf? What policies have been adopted by Corps
headquarters to govern such a transfer? Are procedures in place to
protect the Columbia River's critical dredging needs from such a
transfer? How can the Corps prevent the dredging needs of the
Mississippi from competing directly with dredging needs of the
Columbia--when both are significant, and both need the Essayons? In
other words, when both systems need more dredging capacity and there
are too few dredges available, how does the Corps decide whether
Mississippi or Columbia system shippers suffer?
13. Unique Yaquina Strengths.--Is the Yaquina the most heavily
built of the four Corps dredges? How has this benefited its operation?
I was told once that the Yaquina can touch bottom on a shoal, move
side-to-side to create a trench, and then begin dredging. At the time,
this was cited to me as a strength. Is it a strength? Are there
circumstances where this helps her perform her duties? Can either of
the small private hopper dredges that have done work in the Northwest
also do this? How important is it? How does the maximum daily dredging
volume of the Yaquina (in a realistic operation) compare with the other
``small'' private hopper dredges? Can the Yaquina dredge as much as any
of the private medium-sized hopper dredges? If so, which ones?
Several of my specific questions stem past discussions some years
ago and my recollection may not be precise. Nevertheless, I hope they
allow you to respond with specifics.
In view of the short time in which I have to respond to Corps
headquarters, I will appreciate your prompt attention to these
questions.
Thank you for your assistance and for the information provided by
your staff.
Sincerely,
Walter H. Evans III.
______
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt,
Portland, OR, November 6, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
does draft mdf study meet other corps policies and standards?
Interested parties welcome the opportunity to comment on the
proposed draft minimum dredge fleet (MDF) study announced by the Corps
on October 8, 1997. In my opinion, however, the short ``viewgraph
slide'' format, devoid of supporting analysis or data, falls short of
meeting the standards adopted in a recent Corps initiative addressing
various aspects of Corps service, including improving customer
friendliness and developing greater customer partnering. In my opinion,
the draft study also failed to meet descriptions used by ASA Lancaster
and General Ballard in describing it.
Providing a report in draft form for comment is an element of
openness and customer friendliness. Nevertheless, failure to supply the
analysis that formed the basis for the conclusions, or even to supply
data used in the analysis, damages this improved relationship with
impacted parties: ports, shippers, state and local governments,
maritime unions, and the private dredge industry. Stating conclusions
without supporting materials erodes confidence in the processes used to
reach these conclusions. Using graphs to illustrate risk when
(apparently) the graphs do not display numerical or quantifiable
factors or elements can mislead a casual reader into thinking that such
graphs resulted from ``number crunching.''
To illustrate how this ``slide show viewgraph'' rendition of the
study falls short of commendable Corps goals, I analyzed two recent
Corps documents. The ``Corps Vision Statement'' was one. The recent
Corps statement extending the comment period on the MDF study was the
other, one where General Ballard's statements about the study are not
matched by the product itself, in my opinion. Lastly, I looked at ASA
Lancaster's response to Senator Murray's questions at an appropriations
committee hearing about the MDF study to see how the draft study
matched up with his comments.
These documents are only illustrative Corps documents I chose to
make a point. When the Corps sets out laudable goals and procedures,
and its leaders make clear statements, the Corps raises the bar. As a
customer, I want to encourage the Corps to meet these goals and
visions.
notice of extension of time for mdf study comments
On October 16, the Corps issued a two-page statement extending the
comment period on the draft MDF report to November 8, 1997. In it, the
Corps stated:
``The options were developed by the Corps of Engineers based on
comments and concerns expressed by the ports, maritime users and the
dredging industry.''
Does this statement refer to comments made over the years
informally to Corps officials? I am unaware of any formal request for,
or systematic collection of, comments, observations, concerns, ideas,
etc. regarding the MDF. This opportunity to comment on your draft study
is the first opportunity with which I am familiar. How complete is the
record of collected ``comments and concerns'' the Corps used for its
analysis? Does data developed by the Corps for the MDF study reflect
the ``comments and concerns'' of the three groups cited in that
statement: ports, maritime users and the dredging industry? Did
``maritime users'' include comments solicited by the Corps from
shippers and other stakeholders? Are these ``comments and concerns''
from all stakeholders available for review by the public? If not, they
should be, for many impacted stakeholders want the opportunity to
review this material. Without it, the Corps conclusions will be suspect
in the eyes of many stakeholders.
In describing the MDF study in the statement extending the comment
period, General Ballard is quoted as stating:
``We have attempted to focus the options on the varying degrees of
risk to the viability of the navigation projects and the investment and
income risk to the dredging industry, and to balance those risks with
costs considerations and improved competition, the long term viability
of the industry, and the ability to respond to time sensitive and
emergency dredging needs. * * * (i)n seeking this balance, there will
be a compromise. But some of the new, innovative contracting methods
and improved scheduling techniques being implemented will offer an
improved competitive bidding environment and a higher level of
responsiveness to protect the interest of the nation's ports and the
Corps' maritime partners.''
Does ``varying degrees of risk'' to the navigation projects mean
that these were quantifiable risks? Were they, instead, only Corps'
conclusions? What does the term ``viability of the navigation project''
include in its elements? Did it, for example, include impact on
shippers and on the local community, or only on the specific project
use?
Next, what is the IRR for the private dredging companies that the
Corps used to calculate the ``investment and income risk to the
dredging industry?'' What elements entered the Corps calculation of
``long term viability of the industry?'' All the investment and income
data regarding the private dredging industry and relied on by the Corps
should be available for review by all interested parties.
Two phrases in General Ballard's statement address critical
concerns of the Corps dredge beneficiaries. First, what elements were
evaluated and analyzed in balancing ``costs considerations and improved
competition?'' Second, what elements were used to calculate and analyze
``time sensitive and emergency dredging needs?'' Corps partners are
eager to learn how the drain report meets these standards set out by
General Ballard, but they saw no supporting information.
In the statement, General Ballard also refers to ``innovative
contracting methods and improved scheduling techniques.'' The draft
provided interested Corps partners with no operational details about
these changes, nor how these changes will protect ports. Without these
explanations for evaluation, ports are reluctant to endorse several of
the eight Corps options. Many ports and their customers wish to review
the analyses used by the Corps to develop these new ``innovative
contracting techniques and improved scheduling techniques'' before
commenting. Ports will welcome your description of how these changes
will benefit ports and maritime users.
Lastly, General Ballard noted that these changes referenced in the
paragraph above will ``improve competitive bidding and a higher level
of responsiveness.'' Along with capacity and emergency response, these
are elements critically important to Corps partners benefiting from
Corps dredging services. The comments by General Ballard raise these
critical elements, yet no data in the draft report explain their
operation under any of the eight options. Viewgraph # 11 ``Guiding
Principles'' uses the term ``best deal possible for the American
taxpayer.'' These same taxpayers want real competition from the private
sector for dredging contracts. Taxpayers want to prevent conditions
that limit competition, and these same taxpayers know that the
existence of the Corps fleet can help avoid non-competitive conditions.
corps vision statement
In the introduction to the Corps of Engineers ``Strategic Vision''
statement, General Ballard makes a strong and clear comment: ``Visions
don't mean anything without a burning commitment from the entire Corps
organization to make it happen.''
How does the draft MDF study mesh with this Vision Statement?
Perhaps a new slide should be added to the Corps dredge new study
options. This slide could be called ``Integrating MDF Future with Corps
Strategic Vision.'' In it, the Corps would explain how development of
this study and the results of the options mesh with elements of the
Corps vision. A review of one sub-strategy raises questions whether or
not it meets the standards set out in the vision statement.
Under the Strategic Vision Sub-Strategy ``Satisfy the Customer,''
who is the Corps customer? In the civil works division, are Corps
customers the project beneficiaries, the projects themselves, and the
general population? In this context, is the Corps customer also the
shippers whose fees fund the HMTF?
Is the private dredge industry a Corps customer? Is not the private
dredge industry a supplier of services to the Corps? Could an argument
be made that, as a supplier of services with whom the Corps contracts,
the private dredge industry should be treated the same as suppliers to
the Corps of other outside services: copying services, computer
services, construction services, accounting services--other services
where the Corps contracts with outside entities, (Here, I realize that
a statute drives the outside dredge contracting.) Does the Corps
consider all its service providers and suppliers to be its customers?
Under the Corps Vision Statement, Sub-Strategy ``Satisfy the
Customer,'' Item # 2 talks about ``customer based performance measures
that allow us (Corps) to institutionalize customer feedback.'' The
draft MDF report, however, overlooks this goal. On an ad hoc basis,
parties to this debate always have been able to express their views to
Corps officials at the District and HQ level. To help implement the
Corps vision, any new Corps MDF plan should include ways to measure
customer based performance measures, regardless of what option is
adopted.
In addition, the Corps should explain how each Corps dredge, if
retired from service because the Corps selects a certain option, later
can return to active service if experiences over several years provide
evidence that the chosen option has not worked, for whatever reasons.
The Corps should make clear to stakeholders which options preclude any
return to the status quo, with Corps dredges available for active
service. The Corps draft study omitted a description, for example, of
alternatives available to impacted ports if MDF Option # 8 were chosen,
but then failed miserably. Where the Corps envisions no return to
service ever by a retired Corps dredge, that option should provide an
analysis of alternatives to the port if the selected option fails.
Item # 8 in this sub-strategy calls for appointing advocates for
customers and developing other partnerships to ``better understand the
customer's interests and concerns.'' The draft study omits this
element. Inasmuch as the Corps already meets on a regular basis with
the private dredge industry, any new MDF plan should create a forum to
hear on a regular basis from port customer partners on issues relating
to cost and competition, emergency response, capacity, and other
concerns. Such a forum would help the Corps address both items # 2 and
# 8.
Item # 9 in this sub-category calls for developing ``innovative
procedures to tighten the partnership between customers and the
Corps.'' First, as noted, the Corps HQ doors always are open to all
voices in the debate over the MDF's future. Also, the ability to
comment on a draft report is a step toward greater involvement that all
parties welcome. Yet, in evaluating alternative options for the future
of the MDF fleet, the Corps should consider how best to ``tighten this
partnership between customers and the Corps.'' As presented to its
customers with scant analysis and supporting material, this study moves
in the other direction. Benefits to the Corps and its customers from
such partnering should not be jeopardized for example, by presenting
conclusions relating to risk without the data and analysis used to
calculate risk.
asa lancaster's response to senator murray re mdf study
During Senate Appropriations Committee hearings, Senator Murray
asked ASA Martin Lancaster:
``When will the Corps release its Minimum Dredge Fleet Study? Will
it include an analysis of current and recent peak dredging seasons?
What process does the Corps plan to carry out to provide Congress and
interested stakeholders the opportunity to comment on a draft report
before it is final?''
ASA Lancaster responded:
``The Minimum Dredge Fleet study will be completed in July 1997.
The study will include an analysis of dredging requirements including
peak hopper dredge seasonal demands. The draft study will be
coordinated with the Dredging Contractors of America, ports and other
stakeholders, as well as interested committees and members of
Congress.''
It appears that the Secretary's assurance that the study would
include an ``analysis'' is addressed only by three pie charts and two
bar graphs. The illustrations, on pages 5, 6 and 7 of the viewgraphs,
all use the term ``requirement, but contain little ``analysis.'' One
page contains a pie chart with the breakdown of dredging requirements
between hopper dredges and all other'' and the division between
industry and hopper work. On the next page, a bar graph illustrates the
monthly workload for hopper work over a three year period. The third
page has a simple pie chart showing percentages of hopper dredge work
in the four regions. Beyond this, page 10 of the study contains bar
graphs illustrating the three-year monthly averages for hopper work on
the East and Gulf coasts.
These pie charts and bar graphs do not meet many stakeholders'
understanding of ``analysis,'' as used by ASA Lancaster. Failure to
include more than these cursory charts damages the Corps' case for
making changes in the MDF. Charts and graphs can be an effective
communications tool when making an oral presentation. While they can
summarize data in an understandable format, they do not substitute for
analysis. The pie chart on page 7 showing only hopper dredge work by
region focused attention on a box that stated that when two of the four
regions' percentages are combined, they equal 80 percent of the work.
Such ``analysis'' falls short of usual Corps standards.
conclusion
These comments do not examine or catalogue all past Corps
initiatives regarding customer partnering and customer interaction to
see how the draft MDF measures up to the standards and policies set out
in each. Those initiatives have been welcome, and indicate how the
Corps is changing the way it does business; Across the board, these
initiatives benefit all parties, including the Corps. Here, the Corps
provided a draft document for comment by impacted parties, a welcome
procedure. Yet the draft report, without more material available to the
public fell short of the standards the Corps set for itself in recent
policy statements, in my opinion.
I hope that the Corps will correct such deficiencies as these by
providing the analyses used to reach its conclusions. Where available,
all supporting data also should be made available to interested
parties.
Lastly, the Corps should extend the comment period so all parties
have the benefit of the analysis used by the Corps.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this aspect of the
proposed MDF study.
Sincerely,
Walter H. Evans III.
______
Convention & Visitors Association,
Lane County, OR, November 4, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Minimum Fleet
Study. The active role of the federal dredge fleet is very important. I
am particularly concerned that an active dredge remain available for
the Port of Siuslaw in Florence, Oregon. Maintenance of the navigation
channel and harbor is critical to the economic health of Florence.
Timely, cost-effective access to dredging must be maintained. The
Study does not ensure this access under the scenarios calling for
retirement or standby status for federal dredges. Please reject all
options that decrease the active role of the federal dredge fleet in
the Pacific Northwest.
Sincerely,
Kari Westlund,
President/CEO.
______
Port of Portland, OR,
November 6, 1997.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
The Port of Portland is pleased to provide the following comments
on the ``Draft Minimum Dredge Fleet Study'' released recently by the
Corps of Engineers. I also want to emphasize the Port's willingness to
work on a solution on dredging policy that truly addresses the problems
of the navigation system. Ocean shippers pay 100 percent of navigation
maintenance costs through their harbor Maintenance fees and they
deserve a system that meets their requirements at all times.
As a general perspective, I am disappointed at what appears to be a
lack of analysis behind the recommendations listed in the study. For
example, we see little to help examine private sector dredging
capacity, hopper dredge use during the year or overall dredge
capability during peak demand periods. Because of our concerns for
quick response to dredging emergencies, this type of information is
critical.
Thus, I cannot support any of the options outlined in the report. I
understand there will be an opportunity to review further details about
the Corps analysis of the Minimum Dredge Fleet and management
alternatives, so I file these preliminary comments and will plan to
comment later when more details are available from the Corps.
Recommendation.--The Guiding Principle in the study lists important
goals of savings for the taxpayers and ensuring a competitive private
hopper dredge industry. These goals, in our judgment, must rank behind
the Corps primary navigation role of assuring that navigation channels
are maintained at authorized depths at all times.
To meet the needs or the nation's manufacturers, producers and
shippers, assuring adequate channels for trade is the clear priority
for the Corps dredging mission. Without this priority ranking,
navigation safety and the effectiveness of our national transportation
system is degraded.
Recommendation.--The list of four interested parties in this
discussion is incomplete. Prominent by omission are shippers and
shipping lines.
Recommendation.--The study reveals little analysis of the
capabilities of the private sector to meet dredging needs. We had
expected to see research into the supply and demand of private dredges,
the number of bids for Corps contracts, a comparison of successful bids
versus Corps estimates and an overall assessment of industry
competitiveness. Lack of this information underscores our ongoing
concern over what we view as the lack of industry capacity in our
region.
Recommendation.--The study results rely heavily on the concept of
``standby'' status for Corps dredges. Missing in this analysis are
several key points, including particularly the willingness of Congress
to finance such a program. In today's climate of shrinking federal
budgets, we believe the task of generating federal dollars will prove
to be formidable. The challenge the Corps will face is how to justify
what appears to be minimal use of expensive and labor-intensive capital
equipment.
A second related question is how to assure sustained, regular
maintenance and operational reliability of dredges in a standby mode.
We know from our own dredging operations that maintaining an idle
dredge is an expensive and time-consuming operation, but without this
maintenance the standby mode will not work.
Recommendation.--While the description of standby status calls for
the capability to respond in 72 hours, what is missing is a complete
definition of what constitutes an emergency for call out from standby
and how this response time will be accomplished. How will current Corps
procedures be changed to assure the short call out time for government
dredges can be met under this option. We would seek assurances of a
practical system to provide certainty for this rapid call for Corps
dredges. How will navigation emergencies be defined to assure that
response can be triggered promptly? Who in the Corps will have this
responsibility: a district engineer or Corps headquarters? How will the
Corps respond to appeals by private dredge operators to block such
activation? We will look to the Corps for further clarification that
quick response time can assure safe navigation.
In light of these concerns, we strongly encourage the Corps to re-
examine its reliance on standby options.
The Port of Portland appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
study and its preliminary recommendations. As I mentioned above, we
also look forward to seeing further details of the Corps analysis. We
plan to comment again in detail after we have had an opportunity to
review this additional data.
Very truly,
Mike Thorne,
Executive Director.
______
Oregon Economic Development Department,
Salem, OR, November 6, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
As Manager of the Ports Division of the Oregon Economic Development
Department, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Corps
Minimum Dredge Fleet Study. I conveyed in a recent meeting with Major
General Furhman, that we remain very willing to work with the Corps of
Engineers and other dredging interests to achieve a position that
assures safe, reliable navigation on our nations federally authorized
waterways.
The State of Oregon's position on this issue has been consistent.
Stated simply, we care that dredging gets done on time, at reasonable
cost, and assures safe, efficient navigation. Towards this end, we
continue to urge Congress to appropriate the funds necessary for a
dredging program that allows us to maintain full channel depths at all
times. While we believe that the Corps hopper dredge fleet is needed to
achieve that end, we remain open to analysis, supported by data, which
shows that the private sector can achieve these results.
Over the last several years we have asked the Corps to provide us
with analysis that would show the ability of the private sector to meet
the hopper dredging requirements. We were hopeful that this study would
shed some light on the subject, unfortunately it has not. Without that
analysis, we have no basis to abandon our belief that the Corps fleet
is a necessary component of navigation and should be utilized at least
at current (pre-1996 Water Resources Development Act) operational
levels.
We recommend that each scenario set forth in the Study be analyzed
as to its impact on dredging costs, ability to respond, and overall
hopper dredge capacity to meet demand. A risk analysis applied to any
scenario should at a minimum reflect these three elements.
There also seems to be a disconnect between the Corps stated
mission on page 4 ``to provide safe, reliable, and efficient waterborne
transportation systems (channels, harbors and waterways) for movement
of commerce, national security needs, and recreation,'' and the
``Guiding Principle'' as stated on page 12. That principal eludes to
``getting the best deal for the American taxpayer and seek ways to
ensure a viable private hopper dredge industry * * *.'' This is a
difficult principal to understand because it appears as if the Corps
has shifted its mission to add a policy of bolstering private industry
while decreasing the focus on maintaining channels at authorized depths
at all times.
At the end of the day, we need to know whether the private hopper
dredging industry can handle the hopper dredge work if all or some of
the Corps fleet were removed from service. The answer to that question
should reflect well reasoned and thoughtful analysis based on complete
data, which can support clear public policy decision making. We, and
hopefully Congress, still await such data and analysis.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond, we stand ready to
continue to work on future alternatives.
Sincerely,
Keith A. Leavitt,
Manager.
______
Florence Area Chamber of Commerce,
Florence, OR, November 6, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ``Draft Minimum
Dredge Fleet Study.''
The Florence Area Chamber of Commerce feels that the maintenance of
the navigation channel and harbor for the Port of Siuslaw is extremely
important to the tourism economy of our community. Since the mid-1980's
the timber industry has seen a down-sizing effect, and commercial
fishing has also been on the decline. However, recreational fishing has
been on the upswing and serves as an important adjunct to our tourism
based business. It is with the perspective of this important activity
that our Chamber reviewed the Corps Draft Study.
We know our community of Florence and its surrounding area along
the Siuslaw River best. Therefore, we believe strongly that maintaining
both federal dredges in active operating status is critical to keeping
our channels and harbor open. Six of the eight options call for
retiring at least one of the federal dredges based in the Northwest
region, yet there is no analysis demonstrating that we will continue to
have our dredging needs met in a timely, cost effective manner under
these options.
We are interested in cost containment, but not at the expense of
sacrificing adequate capacity to meet our routine needs for the Siuslaw
system, and certainly not at the expense of losing our emergency
dredging requirements. This study does not provide any basis for the
Chamber to believe that these needs will be met.
Therefore, the Chamber of Commerce rejects all options that
decrease the active role of the Federal Dredging Fleet.
Sincerely,
David A. Capen,
President.
______
District No. 1-PCD, MEBA,
Jersey City, NJ, November 7, 1997.
Army Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
District No. 1--MEBA is the exclusive collective bargaining
representative for the Marine Engineers on all of the Army Corps of
Engineers vessels, and I'd like to express our concerns as to the
future of the minimum dredge fleet.
The Army Corps of Engineers draft Minimum Dredge Fleet study dated
October 8, 1997 only contains the options management is considering in
order to develop a plan for the Minimum Dredge Fleet; it contains no
data upon which an informative decision can be reached.
As you are aware, Public Law 95-269 requires the Corps to ``carry
out such work in the manner most economical and advantageous to the
United States.'' Therefore, only the first option makes any sense,
since this option gives the American taxpayer value for money already
spent in building the Minimum Fleet Dredges and, by using the Corps
dredges to their maximum capacity, the U.S. Government gets the best
value for the dollar.
In view of the fact that the private industry has yet to
demonstrate that they have the capability to perform the work in a
timely manner and at reasonable prices, as stated in Public Law 95-269,
and as can be seen by the various emergencies on the Gulf Coast this
past year, as well as numerous other crises over the past ten years, it
is apparent that to reduce the Minimum Dredge Fleet below its current
level would jeopardize one or more sectors of the national water
transportation infrastructure, which would result in the deviation of
ships and cargos to our neighbors to the north/south resulting in
additional job losses.
Additionally, Public Law 95-269 states that the Secretary shall
retain a minimum federally owned fleet which is capable of performing
emergency and national defense work and may exempt such amount of work
as necessary to keep the federal fleet fully operational.
It should be noted that this study does not address the U.S. Army
Audit Agency's report on industry bidding practices dated September 12,
1995, and had this report been available when the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 was being discussed, Section 237, Hopper
Dredges (c) program to increase use of private Hopper Dredges might not
have been included in this Act.
Further, if these allegations are true, then why would there be any
consideration of eliminating one of the few checks remaining on the
private industries' ability to inflate bids which could raise the cost
of all of the alternatives, especially if one or more of the Corps'
dredges were operating at less than status quo.
In closing, I feel that, by using option one, the Corps' would
fulfill its obligations under Public Law 95-269 and thereby prevent the
loss of not only the Minimum Dredge Fleet but, also, the loss of the
highly skilled professional crew members manning these vessels.
District No. 1--MEBA strongly urges that this option be adopted.
Sincerely,
John Haarmann,
Government Fleet Operations.
______
State of Louisiana,
Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry,
November 7, 1997.
Major General Russell L. Fuhrman,
Director & Asst. Commander of Civil Works,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
Dear Major General Fuhrman: This is our response to the Minimum
Dredge Fleet presentation. We hope you can appreciate that we are
unable to make any other type of presentation. We include a copy of my
letter dated October 30th requesting the information that will allow us
to properly respond.
history
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released the original Minimum
Dredge Fleet Study in July of 1991. The Maritime industry determined,
after a detailed review, that the study contained false conclusions
which were based on incomplete and inaccurate data. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers decided to revise the study and it took over three (3)
years to complete the revision of the 1994 (Step 2) study.
During Dr. Zirschky's first appointment, he reviewed the study and
requested the Army Audit Agency to evaluate the study. The Army Audit
Agency reached the same conclusion, the study was flawed. They reported
this to Dr. Zirschky. The 1994 revised study was never publicly
released. A new Minimum Dredge Fleet Study was ordered by Dr. Zirschky
in October 1994 and was to be completed by October 1996. A decision was
made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to delay the study to include
fiscal year 1996 dredging data. The study was to be completed by April
1997, but this again was delayed.
The Maritime industry has been waiting since 1991 for the release
of a study providing detailed corrected data to properly evaluate the
Minimum Dredge Fleet requirements. History has shown that the private
dredging industry doesn't have sufficient capacity to respond to peak
or emergency situations. Maritime interest has suffered lost revenues
due to loss of draft due to lack of dredging capacity and capability to
timely maintain ports at these project dimensions.
The slide presentation referred to as the 97 Minimum Dredge Fleet
Report is a serious disappointment to the Maritime industry. This
presentation as the previous studies were completed without the
valuable input of the Maritime industry. This, again, is a serious
shortcoming on behalf of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It also
displays the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' total disregard for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers ``Partnering Concept'' Program. Over the past
seven (7) years, the Maritime Industry has had numerous meetings with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the District Division and HQ levels
to discuss this issue and obtain the required data to go to Congress in
support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hopper fleet. It is our
opinion that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has failed in their
mission to properly evaluate the dredging issue thru full study and
presentation of the facts for comment and review.
comments
The 97 Minimum Dredge Fleet release does not address the capacity
or capability issues so vital to maintaining our ports and harbors. Why
has the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers rejected the dredging history
since 1990? This release does not, in anyway, address the dollar cost
to industry when a channel is lost due to insufficient capacity and
lack of timely response to maintain project dimensions. The New Orleans
District completed a study on this, and it should be completed and
added to this data set. The lack of sufficient capacity has been
clearly demonstrated on the Mississippi River in 1996 and 1997, as well
as on the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet which was the result of
tropical storm Josephine. These facts have not been presented in this
presentation.
It also includes a number of dredges which are very restricted in
operation due to design or limited capacity. In particular, the
Mississippi River qualified dredges should be analyzed on a separate
data sheet. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not address the need
for an increased number and cost of dredges due to small daily
capacity, i.e. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ``Wheeler'' equals to
Island Class (NATCO) dredges.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fails to detail the daily work
schedule, repair, lay up or idle status of the private hopper dredge
fleet. We were able to obtain this information from our local district
thru fiscal year 1995. They acquired this information from the private
dredges as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not maintain this
vital information. Why doesn't the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
maintain this vital information, which is required to properly
determine private availability and capabilities? Over a two (2) year
period, three (3) large Mississippi River qualified private dredges
operated between 85 to 95 percent of daily dredging operations. They
were employed at times on other projects which prevented them from
responding to our dredging emergency. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
scheduling has been a problem, and we support your addressing this
issue.
Lack of this type of data, as well as other incomplete data and
lack of details, caused a serious doubt as to the accuracy of this
presentation. In particular, the high dredging requirements of the
Atlantic and Gulf Coast areas should be presented as a total separate
analysis. We also question the decision of not considering all data
from fiscal year 1988 to fiscal year 1994.
The increased dredging cost by the private sector is not fully
reviewed in the cost estimates. The total job cost is not considered.
The lack of competitive bids by private sector has increased our
dredging cost, especially in the Mississippi River and Mississippi
River-Gulf Outlet. The number of options of operating the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers dredges yields the greatest savings as per the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers chart. We realize this is not practical, and in
the real world is not an option.
The recent newspaper article on the private dredging and the Army
Audit Agency investigation in fiscal year 1993 and fiscal year 1994 are
a great concern to the Maritime industry. Since the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers had knowledge of this, was any consideration given to these
issues in preparing this presentation? What is the time frame of the
Army Audit Agency's investigation into fiscal year 1995, fiscal year
1996 and fiscal year 1997 contracts?
conclusion
Based on the above comments, we must reject this presentation as
being lacking in the above comment area. There is insufficient data to
properly evaluate and/or make choices on the options presented. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should provide a copy of the previous Army
Audit Agency's evaluation of the revised Minimum Dredge Fleet Study
(1994 Step 2). In addition, we feel a more complete study should be
undertaken immediately to have a full evaluation of this important
issue. We would like to work with you to help prepare a report we can
use to bring to Congress to show them the need to:
--(1) Improve and update the ``McFarland'';
--(2) Maintain the ``Wheeler'' in full operational service;
--(3) Maintain the ``Essayons'' and ``Yaquina'' operational; and
--(4) Ensure private dredging companies obtain their fair share of
work, provide for reinvestment into the fleet, and a proper
return on their investment.
Since this study is incomplete and lacks sufficient data, we most
decline to respond to the options presented.
Yours very truly,
George E. Duffy,
Chairman.
______
State of Louisiana,
Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry,
October 30, 1997.
Maj. Gen. Russell L. Fuhrman,
Director & Asst. Commander of Civil Works,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
Dear General Fuhrman: Following our recent meeting in Washington
with you and our subsequent meeting with Barry Holliday, we have
compiled the following list of information we require. Our list is
comprised of input from the Pacific Northwest, the East Coast, and the
U.S. Gulf Coast which were represented in our recent meeting.
(1) The revised Minimum Dredge Fleet Study of 1994 (Step 2);
(2) The Army Audit Agency Report to Dr. Zirschky on the Minimum
Dredge Fleet Study of 1994 (Step 2);
(3) The USACE New Orleans District Study on the cost to the
maritime industry on loss of draft on the Mississippi River and the
Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet. Comparable studies or data related to
channels and harbors in the East Coast, the Pacific Northwest, and the
U.S. Gulf for fiscal year 1994-fiscal year 1996;
(4) Detailed schedule of work, repair and idle time on all the
private sector hopper dredges for fiscal year 1993-fiscal year 1997;
(5) Accurate data as to the daily production of the USACE hopper
fleet in cubic yards per day or per hour for fiscal year 1990-96;
(6) Accurate data as to the daily production of all the private
sector hopper dredges in cubic yards per day or per hour for fiscal
year 1990-97;
(7) Data used to compile options 1 through 8 of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Minimum Dredge Fleet presentation;
(8) Copies of the Army Audit Agency Report in 1995 on bid rigging
and their investigation into the private dredging sector.
(9) An analysis of the 1996 and 1997 dredging emergencies in the
East Coast, the Pacific Northwest and the U.S. Gulf. This should
include the loss of project dimension, the bid advertisements, the
responses, and the total number of dredges that responded in the
hopper, cutterhead and ladder type dredges.
Since the new extension date for our reply and comments is November
7th, we would appreciate an indication as to when we can expect to
receive this data. Hopefully, this information can be sent to us in a
timely fashion which would allow us time to review the data and then
properly respond. Anticipating that this data will take a period to
prepare, what we would like to propose is that if we receive the data
by November 15th, thence we will be able to respond to you by December
1st. We think that a two (2) week interval with the Thanksgiving
holiday in that period would be sufficient. We hope this is workable,
as it is important for us to review and evaluate the data in order to
properly respond to you on the Minimum Dredge Fleet.
Rather than have copies mailed to all of our participants, what I
would request is that two (2) copies be mailed to Mr. Dan James, PNWA
for the Pacific Northwest area, a copy to Mr. Dennis Rochford,
Philadelphia Maritime Exchange for the East Coast, and a copy to
myself. We will distribute the data to the balance of our members. We
are hopeful that this information is available to us, and if not,
please let us know what information is going to be able to be
distributed and what information is not for whatever reasons.
If there is any clarification needed, please have one of your staff
contact me, or if you want, we can just deal directly with Barry
Holliday on this information flow.
Yours very truly,
George E. Duffy,
Chairman.
______
Alabama State Docks Department,
Mobile, AL, November 7, 1997.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
The Alabama State Docks, on behalf of the Port of Mobile, the
deepwater port of Alabama and the terminus of a 1,500 mile inland
navigation system encompassing the Tennessee, Tennessee-Tombigbee,
Black Warrier-Tombigbee and Coosa-Alabama waterway systems, has
anxiously anticipated the release of and opportunity to comment on the
Minimum Dredge Fleet Study.
Unfortunately, once again the process has not responded to the
third and fourth partners' (the port and navigation industries) desire
and need to have full understanding of the analyses behind the
alternatives presented. To request that the ports choose (or rank
order) alternatives based on the information provided to date is
unacceptable.
In the way of background, shortly after I joined the port industry
in 1991, I was introduced to the Minimum Fleet Study as a working
member of the American Association of Port Authorities', Harbors,
Navigation and Environment Committee. Despite numerous attempts to
obtain full and direct involvement in the process, our successes were
few and with minimal impact. Over time, through regional and national
Corps/port partnership forums and verbal and written communication with
Corps leadership, to include the ASA, our frustrations have been
thoroughly articulated. Yet, to date, our desire to be a full
participating partner continues to be stymied.
Our goal for the total (hopper) dredge fleet is simple. The total
fleet must have the capability of providing navigation channels that
are maintained at authorized depths at all times to ensure that
navigation safety and the effectiveness of our national transportation
system is not degraded. Over the last four years, the combined Corps
and private fleet has been unable to achieve this goal satisfactorily.
In two of those four years, the Port of Mobile and its users have been
the victim of the fleet shortfall.
In the third year, we only narrowly avoided being tasked once again
to operate in a degraded state while an ongoing dredge project using
non-Corps assets was interrupted to divert the assets to a ``higher
priority'' system. Even though this port does not use the Corps
(hopper) fleet assets, it is ludicrous to think that reduction of the
Corps fleet will not have further negative impact on the maintenance of
the port's Federal Project. Even the concept of ``standby'' status is
fraught with numerous risks which are unacceptable to any port tasked
with providing full capability to the shipping interest it serves.
With these thoughts foremost in mind, we do appreciate the
opportunity to provide comment on the ``Study'' material presented. We
also look forward to the opportunity to comment on the full Corps
analyses in the future.
Sincerely,
John P. Carey,
Chief Administrative Officer.
______
Steamship Association of Louisiana,
New Orleans, LA, November 7, 1997.
Major General Russell L. Fuhrman,
Director and Assistant Commander for Civil Works,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
Dear General Fuhrman: Please find attached our Association's
comments on the 1997 Dredge Report recently provided to us by the Corps
of Engineers. If you have any questions or comments about the attached,
please contact me.
Very truly yours,
Channing F. Hayden, Jr.,
President.
steamship association of louisiana's comments on the 1997 dredging
report november 7, 1997
background
In November of 1991, the steamship industry commented on the
Minimum Dredge Fleet Study (the 1991 Study) completed in July of that
year. Noting several fatal flaws, the steamship industry (the users of
federal dredging) urged that the 1991 Study be redone. After the Army
Audit Agency agreed with industry's position, then Acting Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Dr. John Zirschky, advised that
a new Minimum Dredge Fleet Study would be undertaken, one which would
not contain the defects of the 1991 Study. The new study was expected
about two years from Dr. Zirschky's October 1994 decision.
Six years after the 1991 Study, and a year past the expected
deadline for a new study, the steamship industry finds itself reviewing
a document presented by the Corps of Engineers that does not meet the
minimal requirements for a Minimum Dredge Fleet Study. Public Law 95-
269 requires the minimum fleet analysis be based on:
--Capability, which includes suitability of the private dredges
available and the dredging capacity of the combined Corps/
private fleet;
--Reasonable price; and
--Timely response.
comments
General.--The recent document presented by the Corps (referred to
here as the 1997 Dredge Report) took an inordinate amount of time to
complete. Secretary Zirschky announced in October 1994 that the 1991
Study would be redone. Noting that there was about a year between the
completion of the last fiscal year included in the 1997 Dredging Report
and its release, if the 1991 Study had been redone in a timely fashion,
it would have been completed in late 1995 and based on data from fiscal
year 1988 through fiscal year 1994.
Despite the amount of time it took to finish, the 1997 Dredging
Report, like the 1991 Study, was undertaken and completed without
meaningful steamship industry input. While industry representatives
have met with the Corps on several occasions, our input and dredging
needs were not solicited during the preparation of the report.
Capability.--The 1997 Dredge Report touches briefly on dredge
capacity but fails to consider the suitability of the hopper dredges in
the private fleet--ignoring their age and the fact that several small
dredges included in the Study are unsuitable for use on the Mississippi
River. The data set on which dredging requirements are determined is
incomplete. Without complete data on dredging requirements no credence
can be given to the 1997 Dredging Report's comparison of dredging
capacity to dredging requirements.
It seems inconceivable that the Corps does not have all the data
from its dredging contracts, yet the data set supporting the 1997
Dredging Report has gaping holes in it. In some cases, the amount of
material dredged is not known. The incompleteness of the data casts
doubt on the validity of the Corps' estimates of the nation's dredging
requirements and the capacity of the combined Corps/private hopper
fleet to meet those needs.
The 1991 Study was based on data from fiscal year 1988 and 1989.
The 1997 Dredging Report is based on data from fiscal year 1994 through
fiscal year 1996. Why did the 1997 Dredging Report not include data
from fiscal year 1988 through 1996? Data selectivity implies an attempt
to bias the conclusion.
Why is the methodology of the 1997 Dredging Report different from
that of the 1991 Study? Though the steamship industry was critical of
the 1991 Study, it was much more thorough.
If nearly 80 percent of all hopper dredging is on the Atlantic Gulf
coasts, a capacity-versus-requirements analysis should have been done
for that area.
The dredging capability used in the 1997 Dredging Report is not
completely valid. The capability data for the private fleet is based on
fiscal year 1991 information, and the dredging requirements are based
on fiscal year 1994, 1995 and 1996. During part of those three years,
the PADRE ISLAND and SUGAR ISLAND were out of the country, and the
MANHATTAN ISLAND was in the shipyard for an extended period as the
result of a collision. In addition, the WESTPORT, ATCHAFALAYA and
MERMENTAU are too small for use on the Mississippi River. These three
small dredges must be removed for the capability equation and would
have been if the analysis of Atlantic and Gulf dredging capacity-
versus-requirements (suggested above) had been performed. Thus, the
chart on page 10 of the 1997 Dredging Report must be reconstructed to
show the reduced private dredging capability by adjusting for the six
private dredges mentioned here.
Finally, as noted below, the increase of single bidder contracts on
the Mississippi River shows that there is not sufficient private hopper
capacity to address the hopper dredge needs on the River.
Pricing.--The 1997 Dredge Report gives scant notice to the price of
dredge work. Other than to state (without any empirical analysis given)
that certain of the Report's options cost more or less than the status
quo, pricing is ignored. Thus, the Study's authors failed to consider
the effects of single bidder dredge contracts on the cost of dredging.
If the authors had reviewed this aspect of pricing, they would have
found the following (based on information Senator Murray requested and
received from General Ballard):
[In percentages]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple bid Single bid
Fiscal year contracts \1\ contracts \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992...................................... -11.62 +15.00
1993...................................... -8.79 +23.97
1994...................................... -8.90 +15.97
1995...................................... -1.82 +16.04
1996...................................... -11.98 +0.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Average difference between winning bid and Government estimate.
\2\ Average difference between winning bid and Government estimate.
In addition, had the authors focused on pricing as required by law,
they would have noticed a strong correlation between single bidder
contracts and cost over-runs in the Mississippi River and Mississippi
River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO) projects as set out below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of
single
bidder Cost over-
Fiscal year contracts run on
on Miss. Miss. River
River & MR- & MR-GO
GO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992.......................................... 2 $240,936
1993.......................................... 5 1,251,577
1994.......................................... 8 2,635,921
1995.......................................... 4 3,361.254
1996.......................................... ........... ( \1\ )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No cost over-runs.
And finally, had the authors of the 1997 Dredge Report considered
pricing, they would have considered the implications of the
uncompetitive activity recently alleged by an internal Corps' study.
In fact, the only pricing information in the 1997 Dredging Report
shows that the least costly method of keeping the nation's navigation
channels open, compared to the current situation in which the WHEELER
is on ready reserve status, is to employ the Corps' hopper fleet 250
days per year. However, there is no empirical analysis of the cost
associated with the eight options. Thus, readers cannot evaluate the
conclusions drawn. In addition, the cost data presented for the various
options raises the following question: Would additional savings be
achieved if Corps' dredges worked more than 250 days? What would the
savings be if, for example, the Corps' hopper fleet worked 300 or 325
days per year?
A risk analysis is not a requirement of a minimum dredge fleet
study. However, if one is to be done, it should not be subjective, as
is the case in the 1997 Dredging Report.
The risk analysis in the 1997 Dredging Report is incomplete. It
does not consider the expected value of the outcomes. For example, if
an undesirable outcome for the shipping industry has a low probability
of occurring (say 5 percent), but a high cost if it does occur (say
$20,000,000), its expected value is $1,000,000. If the countervailing
risk to the dredging industry has a high probability of occurring (say
80 percent), but a low cost (say $1,000,000), its expected value is
$800,000. In such a case, the low risk steamship industry alternative
should be avoided because of the higher expected costs associated with
it. Should the Corps wish to undertake a risk analysis, it must be done
based on the losses to the ports and nation that are incurred when
navigation channels are maintained at less than project dimensions.
Finally, no discussion of the price of dredging would be complete
without noting, again, that U.S. taxpayers do not pay for dredging.
That cost is borne by the shipping industry (the Corps' dredging
customer) through the Harbor Maintenance Tax.
Timeliness.--The 1997 Dredging Report fails to consider, as
required by law, timeliness as a criteria in the analysis of the
nation's dredging needs. Timeliness is critical to any dredging
evaluation. Regardless of the dredging capacity available, if dredges
do not arrive on station in time to address rapid shoaling, the
capacity has no practical value. This result occurs when private
dredges arrive on station unable to work at full capacity, when
dredging contracts are let and no private dredges bid, or when the low
bidder for a contract is more than 125 percent above the government
estimate.
For example, at the November 5, 1997 monthly Dredging Forum meeting
in New Orleans, the Corps reported on four recent bids for which there
were no bidders, or the bid was too high above the government estimate
to be awarded. Needed dredging on the Calcasieu Ship Channel and the
MR-GO has been delayed as a result. This is but one example of how not
considering timeliness causes the 1997 Dredging Report to be fatally
flawed.
conclusion
For the reasons given above, our Association rejects the 1997
Dredging Report as a valid Minimum Dredge Fleet study, which the
industry has been expecting since Secretary Zirschky's 1994 commitment
to redo the 1991 Minimum Dredge Fleet Study. We respectfully request
that the Corps of Engineers undertake, with all deliberate speed, a
proper Minimum Dredge Fleet Study that addresses the concerns noted
above, as well as our comments on the 1991 Minimum Dredge Fleet Study,
and commits to having the new study completed and disseminated to the
interested parties by the end of March, 1998. It is further
respectfully requested that the Corps comply with the shipping
industry's request to make available to us, in a timely fashion, the
Army Audit Agency's (AAA) critique of the 1991 Minimum Dredge Fleet
Study, the AAA report on uncompetitive pricing practices in the
dredging industry, and the complete data set on which the 1997 Dredging
Report is based.
______
Board of Commissioners,
Roseburg, OR, November 6, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
We request your consideration of retaining the Corps hopper dredges
(Yaquina and Essayons) in active service on the west coast.
We are particularly concerned with the possibility of losing the
Yaquina which works in the Oregon coastal ports, including the Umpqua
River located here in Douglas County. The maintenance dredging in the
port and river has a significant economic impact on the coastal area of
Douglas County.
Thank you for your consideration of this and other comments you
have received in support of retaining the Yaquina and Essayons.
Sincerely,
Doug Robertson,
Chairman.
______
Port of Walla Walla,
Walla Walla, WA, November 7, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
The Port of Walla Walla appreciates the opportunity to comment on
proposed option regarding prospective changes in the Corps Minimum
Dredge Fleet, as set out in the Draft Report made available by the
Corps on October 8, 1997.
As the Corps is aware, the Port of Walla Walla is on the Columbia-
Snake River system. Last year our port loaded 114 barges of grain of
which 90 percent goes to export markets.
As a Columbia-Snake River system upriver port, we benefit from
shallow draft dredging. Our port also depends on O&M work on the lower
Columbia River. Much of that vital work is performed by the Corps
dredge Essayons. As an active member of Pacific Northwest Waterways
Association, we also know the benefits from, and we support, the
critical role played by the Corps dredge Yaquina in dredging smaller
coastal ports.
Any government initiative aimed at lower dredging costs and a
greater private sector role has obvious appeal to our port. In this
case, however, we are concerned that adoption of any of several of the
eight different Corps options will result in higher dredging costs,
less ability to respond to emergencies, and a greater lack of peak
dredging capacity. Any of these results could damage our port and our
region. As a result, we oppose any changes in the stateus quo for the
reasons detailed below.
lack of analysis
The Port of Walla Walla was looking forward to evaluating the
various Corps options in your draft report to assess their potential
impact on our port and on others on the Columbia-Snake system. The
draft report, however, does not provide sufficient information for us
to offer educated comment. Instead, the 27 ``viewgraphs'' that form the
draft report contain generalities and conclusions without supporting
analysis. As a result, we are compelled by this lack of supporting
information to reject all options except maintaining the status quo. In
summary, our port lacks sufficient material from the Corps to examine
the potential impact of many of the options developed by the Corps.
Our port looks to services provided by the Corps dredges to see how
they meet the standards critical to us. Those standards are:
1. Cost and competition.--How does any proposed change impact the
potential costs of providing dredging services, particularly on the
Lower Columbia River? How much real competition exists today among the
private dredge companies? We are told of single private bids from time
to time, including bids issued from the Portland District. What will
the impact be from lessening competition by removing some of the
balance now offered by the four Corps dredges? Importantly, how did the
Corps reach the conclusions that the risk is ``low'' to Columbia River
ports if private dredge operators are allowed to perform all the
Columbia River Dredging? How often do private dredge companies exceed
125 percent of the Corps estimate--a ceiling above which that now
allows Corps dredges to perform the work? If Corps dredges are removed
from service, and only one private dredge company bids on a Corps
dredging job, what happens if the bid is excessive, but no Corps dredge
is in service to perform the work? What if a private dredge breaks down
while dredging in the Columbia River, and neither a Corps dredge
(retired) nor another private dredge of equal capacity is available to
replace it?
In summary, we see no evidence or analysis that shows how cost
increases for dredging will be addressed under several of the Corps
options. Without the back-up availability of Corps dredges to step in
to do the work, we predict that dredging costs will rise. The Corps MDF
study provided no analysis that this prediction is erroneous. Removing
Corps hopper dredges from service further depletes an already limited
number of hopper dredges, thus creating even less competition.
2. Emergency Response.--Our region still recalls the impact of the
Mt. St. Helens eruption, when the Columbia River channel was closed
from debris and sediment that flowed into the channel from the
eruption. Shoaling in the lower Columbia that lowers the channel depth
could create serious problems, without prompt emergency dredging to
remove the shoaling.
Shippers of grain and other products using Columbia River upriver
ports want reliability in their transportation services to export
markets. When water transportation is involved, channels must remain
open, so fully loaded vessels can depart with U.S. exports. Our port
cannot endorse any changes to the Corps dredge fleet that could reduce
emergency assistance to reopen the Columbia River channel after
shoaling that reduced the channel depth. We believe that removing Corps
will meet these needs.
We do not have enough information from the Corps to make informed
comments on this critical element. For example, we understand the Corps
is considering changing in contract procedures to compel private
dredges to move quickly from an existing dredging job to sites
requiring emergency assistance. Where are these details of such
changes? We cannot endorse this concept without supporting explanation
providing more information. For example, how can the Corps prevent
court challenges to such actions, either by the private dredge
companies or by the beneficiary being served at the time by the dredge
in question the Corps wants to move to an emergency?
What if a private dredge is working at a military channel or
facility in California when a Columbia River emergency occurs. Will the
dredge stay in California, under pressure from the military seeking
completion of its work? The U.S. military may make a compelling case
that its immediate dredging needs are for national security, while
claiming that the Columbia River ports have only commercial cargoes at
risk. If so, vital shipping down the Columbia River could be damaged.
Shipping delays caused by channel shoaling damage our system in two
ways. First, shipments actually delayed at the time can be lost forever
if overseas grain requirements, for example, can be met elsewhere.
Second, and of equal importance, damage to the image of reliability of
the Columbia River as an avenue to export markets can create a long
term disaster for our river system. Any reputation of unreliability in
meeting shipping needs of products that can get to market via other
channels can devastate a port or a river system. Our shippers now using
Columbia River ports might shift to Canadian ports if they experience
delays or light loading requirements brought about by shoaling in the
lower Columbia--when a Corps dredge now could respond immediately to
solve the problem.
In summary, several Corps options remove Corps dredges from
service, thus damaging emergency response capability. Under some
options, the Corps dredges would be unavailable for emergency
responses. Already, the private hopper dredge fleet is limited in
number. We lack information about how the standby options would operate
to provide emergency response. We oppose any options that could create
channel depth problems in the lower Columbia, both for the immediate
damage to shippers, but also for the damage to our reputation as a
reliable conduit for shippers into global markets.
3. Capacity.--We are aware that insufficient hopper dredging
capacity now occurs at certain times of the year. This lack of peak
capacity is not only a Mississippi River issue, as it could have a
serious impact on the Columbia System. If the Corps dredge Wheeler is
retried, and Mississippi flooding occurs, there may not be enough
capacity to meet their emergency dredging needs. The Essayons might be
transferred to the Mississippi for emergency response, thus leaving the
Columbia River system vulnerable to shoaling. Because of the lack of
peak capacity now, when four Corps dredges are available, we question
removing from service any of the four Corps dredges.
conclusion
The Port of Walla Walla welcomes the spirit of openness
characterized by providing a draft report for comment. We support this
process, and believe it benefits both the Corps and its port partners.
Our port regrets, therefore, that the draft MDF report was not more
complete than the viewgraphs, for it erodes this cooperative spirit.
In conclusion, the Port of Walla Walla must oppose changes in the
existing operation of the Corps dredges until more data is available
for our review. The key elements must be met for us to support any
changes in the current operation of the dredges. A short set of slides
fails to give Corps stakeholders enough information to make informed
judgments. Slides that set out Corps conclusions without backup
analysis are inadequate. Use of graphs showing conclusions of risk
(``low, medium, high'') presume that the graphs represent quantifiable
amounts displayed in graph form for easy comparison. We see no
information that identifies how the Corps selected low, medium or high
risk. Lastly, we were disappointed that one viewgraph (``The
challenge''--viewgraph # 9) included only the ``wants'' of the private
dredge industry, and omitted the ``wants'' of Corps customers such as
ports and shippers.
We suggest that no further action be taken until more information
is provided to your impacted customers, such as our port. Only then can
we provide informed analysis and recommendations.
Thank you for your consideration of our port's views.
Sincerely,
James M. Kuntz,
Executive Director.
______
Port of Vancouver, WA,
November 7, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
The Port of Vancouver appreciates the opportunity to provide
comments on the draft minimum dredge fleet (MDF) study released by the
Corps on October 8, 1997. We welcome the cooperative relationship
evidenced by providing stakeholders the chance to address strengths and
weaknesses of a study before the Corps makes its final decisions.
The draft MDF study, unfortunately, falls short of the analysis
required to make reasoned judgments about the impact of the eight
options. We had anticipated a fully documented study that reflected
thorough analysis of the critical issues. We expected sufficient
material upon which we could base our analysis and comments. We see in
slide # 3, for example, a statement repeating the Corps navigation
mission. The study omitted an analysis of how the proposed changes in
the MDF affect this critical Corps mission. The Corps navigation
mission must not be compromised in an effort to meet the ``wants'' of
the private dredge operators appearing on slide # 9. That slide,
labeled, ``The Challenge,'' misrepresents the challenge. We believe the
challenge for the study is to determine whether the key Corps
navigation mission can include a greater role for a few dredging
contractors without compromising the mission.
Our port urges the Corps to reopen the comment period after making
public for review by all parties the Corps' analysis used to reach your
conclusions. Without this process, the Corps faces a difficult
challenge in securing support from your customers--ports and shippers--
for changes in the MDF.
Only with sufficient information can smart choices be made. We
should be your partners in this effort, not your adversaries. Although
the 27 pages of slides make a useful summary for outsiders new to the
issue, they do not provide sufficient information or detail to be
acceptable to your port partners.
In sum, the information is too general and vague to form the basis
for such an important change in the operation of the Corps MDF. We urge
that the Corps use this draft as a starting point, but now provide
stakeholders with a fully documented study with analysis supporting
these conclusions. We also see in the draft report nothing that
examines the specific impact on American shippers, whose fees fund O&M
dredging. Without such material, our port cannot accept any alternative
to the status quo, for too many questions remain unanswered.
Our key issue is the level of service provided by the Corps,
including effectiveness of emergency response and availability of
adequate capacity. These are critical elements.
Naturally, a proposal that suggests ways to save on dredging costs
and increase private sector work has an appeal to our port. With a
sufficient level of detail, ports that now resist changes due to a lack
of information might well have their concerns met and their confidence
raised. For that to occur, however, we need more detail that
demonstrates how the Corps reached its conclusions and recommendations.
Our port also will offer comments on a few areas where we see
shortcomings in your draft study.
Emergency Response.--As did other Columbia River ports, our port
suffered after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, when debris and mud from
the eruption swept into the Columbia River channel, blocking it to ship
traffic. Corps dredges were at work promptly clearing the channel.
Although private dredges also helped in the longer term, restoration of
Columbia River shipping would have been delayed significantly without
the Corps dredges. Columbia River ports and our shippers would have
been damaged even more without the quick emergency response from the
Corps dredges, or if we had to wait for the regular mobilization
procedures for private dredges.
Emergency response is critical for two reasons. First, cargo is at
risk whenever channel depth is lost. Vessels that must depart ``light
loaded'' because of shoaling see their per ton costs increase
significantly. Obviously, this translates directly into dollar losses.
Second, any port or river system that acquires a reputation for not
clearing shoals immediately faces a bleak fixture, as shippers and
vessels may choose other pathways for export cargo. No shipper or
vessel owner will continue to ship through a river system or port where
authorized channel depth is not maintained at all times.
We also saw nothing in the slides implicating that the Corps
considered and reviewed the needs of American shippers, who pay for
dredging costs through fees deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund. Shippers' needs should be part of any final MDF report.
A comparison also should be made between the total value of
American goods exported through the Columbia River, the Mississippi
River and the Delaware River systems and the cost of operating the four
remaining Corps dredges. We think that the MDF provides minimal cost
insurance for this country's exporters whose products compete in global
markers.
Standby Option.--The conditions are not defined in the draft study
under which any Corps dredge on standby would be activated under the
72-hour rule to provide emergency assistance. In the past, there have
been instances where the private dredge owners protested use of a Corps
dredge for emergency response, saying their private dredges were
available. Under any new MDF plan, will the private dredgers be allowed
an appeal of a decision to activate a Corps dredge?
Serving the Military.--The Corps also failed to explain under what
circumstances Corps dredges would be activated from standby to provide
emergency dredging for the U.S. military. Would the same standards for
activation apply? Once working for the military, a claim of ``national
security'' could be made by the military to protect against
reassignment of a dredge to clear a commercial channel elsewhere. We
worry that the Corps would be in the middle of a fight if it tried to
free a Corps dredge from performing a military project to return to
help clear shoaling on the Columbia system or elsewhere in the U.S.
Portland District Cooperation re Columbia River Conditions.--
Currently, our port and the Port of Portland meet on a regular basis
with District O&M staff and the bar and river pilots. We evaluate
problem areas in the Columbia River channel, so that the Corps dredges
can be directed to respond immediately to serious shoaling or other
problems. Without the two Corps dredges available to provide this
service, these sessions would be useless. A restrictive definition of
``emergency'' limiting quick responses would nullify the effectiveness
of any standby option. Strict and rigid terms limiting Corps dredge
activation might tie the hands of a D.E., even if a Corps dredge on
standby is available.
Activation Decision.--Our port believes strongly that a decision to
activate a Corps dredge should be made by the District Engineer. That
decision should not be delayed by headquarters review. The 72-hour
activation period would be less effective if it did not begin until
after Corps headquarters approved activation. The 72-hour period should
begin with approval by the D.E., although Corps HQ would retain
authority to intervene if competing needs for the dredge was an issue.
We do see a role for Corps HQ, however, in evaluating which
competing area deserves emergency servicing by dredges if a conflict
arises. If the Wheeler is retired, and emergency shoaling threatens
both the Mississippi and the Columbia channels, the Corps may have to
choose where to provide the emergency capacity of the Essayons, or
where to assign a large-capacity private dredge. Keeping the Wheeler on
standby, at a minimum, will minimize this concern.
Adequate capacity.--From what we understand, all parties, including
the private dredgers, have agreed that there has been inadequate peak
capacity to meet dredging needs at certain times of the year.
Environmental windows limiting dredging at certain times probably will
grow, thus increasing the potential for problems from a lack of
capacity. Dredging requirements cannot be managed over an entire year
to a level of maximum efficiency. When environmental windows combine
with the unpredictable nature of floods and freshets, they strengthen
the arguments not to remove any of the current remaining Corps dredges.
The Corps dredges can provide peak capacity relief, even where
conditions do not create ``emergency'' conditions.
Competition.--We see no evidence that the options in the Corps
draft study will increase competition within the private sector for
Corps dredging work. Maintaining the existing level of competition is
too low a standard to use when it is accompanied by such an increased
level of risk to the ports and our shippers.
Competition only develops if dredge capacity and type are available
from both Federal and private resources. In spite of the role of Corps
dredges, competition today already is limited. In fiscal year 1997, for
example, the Corps had ten potential contracts where only one private
bid was received for hopper work--up from only two contracts with
single private bidders in fiscal year 1992. At the same time, the
number of hopper dredge bids with three bidders fell from 16 in fiscal
year 1992 to 4 in fiscal year 1997. When all Corps dredging is
examined, single bids rose from 13 in fiscal year 1992 to 33 in fiscal
year 1997. That does not appear to indicate a healthy level of
competition for Corps contracts from within the private dredge
industry.
Even when faced with such limited competition, several Corps
options call for retiring some of the remaining four Corps dredges.
Without increasing private sector capacity, this will lead to less
competition, not more, and to non-availability of critical dredging
resources. The study also should examine the remaining useful life of
the private hopper dredges, as the cost of repairs, etc., could result
in companies removing some hopper dredges from service within a few
years. This would reduce competition (and capacity) even more, unless
more private dredges are added.
Costs.--With less competition among the private dredging companies,
our port fears that O&M costs will rise. Overall, the Corps faces a
future with declining O&M funds, from all that we hear. As a result,
any actions that remove Corps dredges from service threaten to drive up
the cost of O&M dredging at the very time when the Corps predicts
declining O&M funding.
Increased dredging costs can result from several factors. Our port
looked at the statistics provided to our Senator Murray by ASA/CW
Martin Lancaster in response to the Senator's questions at an
appropriations subcommittee hearing. One response provided summaries of
all hopper dredge contracts from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year
1996. ASA Lancaster responded with data showing that, during this
period, there were 22 contract bid amounts where only one bid was
received. Of these 22 cases, only one bid was received for less than
the Corps estimate of the costs. (That bid, for work at the Norfolk
harbor in the 45 and 50 foot area, was 27 percent below the Corps
estimate.) The other 21 bids with only one bidder all were more than
the Corps estimate--ranging as high as 55 percent and 46 percent above
the Corps estimate. (Most were within 10-30 percent above the Corps
estimates.)
Corps Response to Excessive Bids.--Currently, if private bids
exceed 125 percent of the Corps estimate of the cost, a Corps dredge
may perform the work. Under Corps options that retire Corps dredges or
put them on standby, the Corps offers no conditions under which Corps
dredges would be used. No slides indicated that a Corps dredge on
standby would do the work if private bids exceeded the 125 percent
ceiling. The Corps does not address how the Corps would respond if the
Yaquina is retired and a single bid is received for small coastal port
work--and the bid exceeds 125 percent. Without the Yaquina. the Corps
options appear more limited.
If the Corps adopts an option that retires the Wheeler, the chances
increase that the Essayons will move the Gulf in certain emergencies.
As long as that does not create any problems, we support limited use of
the Esseyons in this way. Without the Wheeler, and with the Essayons in
the Gulf, if the Corps then puts out a bid for Columbia River work, and
a single bid is received that exceeds 125 percent of the cost, it
appears that the Corps is in a box--and the Columbia system might
suffer.
Costs and Corps Bid Estimates.--Currently, actual hopper dredging
experiences of the Corps MDF assist other Corps professionals in
preparing its bid estimates. We are concerned that, if the Corps
dredges are not used regularly for project work, the Corps hopper
dredge estimates may creep upward, as the Corps will lack the ``hands
on'' recent experience to counter the private industry claim that the
Corps under-estimates the costs for various jobs. Without the reference
provided by regular project work by the MDF, we could see bid estimates
rise, thus eroding any cost savings for the program envisioned by these
policy changes.
Improving the Partnership.--We offer two suggestions to improve the
O&M dredging sector partnership between the Corps and its port and
maritime partners. First, we see benefits from a one-time workshop that
would bring together ports and maritime interests, O&M staff from the
three districts that are home to the Corps dredges, and civilian
dredging officials from Corps HQ. As a model, under AAPA sponsorship,
our Columbia River Channel Deepening group met with representatives of
other navigation projects in various stages of review and construction.
Corps officials were important players in making this workshop a
success. We saw benefits to all participants. We believe similar
benefits could result from an O&M dredging workshop.
Second, we recommend creating a regular forum for sharing
information about such issues as dredging needs, possible emergencies,
dredge deployment plans, Corps and private dredge utilization and the
like. This forum would assist the Corps, as do your regular meetings
now held with the private dredging companies that look at common issues
from their viewpoint. As noted, we already meet at the Portland
District level, as do Mississippi maritime interests and the New
Orleans District. These meetings benefit all participants, and we
believe a national O&M dredging forum would provide similar benefits to
the Corps and your partners.
In conclusion, we repeat that we believe that the options presented
by the Corps represent only conclusions without useful supporting
analysis. More importantly, the draft study fails to meet our port's
concerns of emergency response, adequate capacity, costs and
competition. Our review of the 27 slides shows that many options in the
Corps draft MDF study actually damage the Corps' ability to meet these
standards.
We believe that, if adopted, most options would lead to poorer
emergency response, reduced peak capacity, higher O&M costs, and less
competition. As such, we urge the Corps to pause in this process and
provide more material for review. This report already was postponed for
two years so more current data could be collected. A further delay will
enable the stakeholders to provide useful analysis. The Corps also may
find that good, useful information and analysis from the Corps will
answer ports' concerns, so all interested stakeholders can move ahead
as partners dedicated to meeting the navigation mission of the Corps.
We thank you for the chance to present our views to the Corps.
Sincerely,
Bernie Bills,
Director of Management Services for the Port of Vancouver.
______
Pacific Northwest Waterways Association,
Vancouver, WA, November 8, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
We were disappointed in the ``Draft Minimum Dredge Fleet Study''
released on October 8. We have been waiting for years for the Corps'
study, expecting it to provide data and analysis that could be used to
determine the requirements for the federal fleet. Our criteria for
maintaining the federal fleet has been cost, capacity and
responsiveness. Capacity and responsiveness were not analyzed in the
study. The future of the dredge fleet is an important decision that
will affect international trade and the economic well being of our
region and the nation. It should be made with sound analysis.
--The study was not a study. It provides neither the data nor the
analysis necessary for making a decision. Until we get more
information, we have no other alternative but to reject all
proposals to put federal dredges on standby or to retire
federal dredges.
--We do not agree with the guiding principle. The guiding principle
should be to ensure that the nation's navigation channels are
maintained to authorized depths at all times.
We do not agree with the risk criteria. The definition of risk
criteria drives the conclusions of the study. Essentially, the study
defines low navigation risk as having dredges on standby. With that
definition, the logical conclusion is that having dredges on standby
provides low risk. That is not analysis. We believe low navigation risk
should be defined as the assurance that all channels are properly
maintained to authorized depths at all times. The study provides no
analysis that demonstrates that this criterion is met for any of the
options.
--The study provides no analysis of the viability of the standby
concept. The study simply defined standby status. It did not
analyze whether the dredges can actually be maintained to that
standard over the long run. It did not address whether Congress
is likely to fund the additional costs over the long term. It
did not discuss whether contracting procedures allow dredges to
be called out of standby in 72 hours if a private contractor
does not perform.
--The study offers six options that would retire the YAQUINA, but it
provides no analysis of private industry's ability to meet the
dredging requirements the YAQUINA currently fills. It doesn't
analyze whether there will be sufficient West Coast competition
in the private sector to keep costs down. It doesn't describe
how dredging will occur without the YAQUINA if private bids are
not competitive. The same comments apply to options in which
the WHEELER or the McFARLAND are retired or placed on standby.
We encourage the Corps to conduct the kind of analysis that will
appropriately answer the key questions about cost, capacity and
responsiveness. We expect that all options other than the status quo
will require Congressional approval. We have requested additional
information to help us evaluate current and future Minimum Dredge Fleet
proposals. Until we see an acceptable analysis that addresses these and
other concerns, we will be recommending that our Congressional
delegation reject any proposed changes to the operating status of the
Corps dredges.
Sincerely,
Glenn Vanselow,
Executive Director.
______
Coos Bay Pilots Association,
Coos Bay, OR, November 6, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
Dear Corps of Engineers: I am writing on behalf of the Coos Bay/
Yaquina Bay Pilots to express our concern about the possible retirement
of the dredge YAQUINA. The YAQUINA has been a critical asset to the
ports at Coos Bay, Oregon and at Yaquina Bay in Newport, Oregon. The
navigation channels at both locations are subject to frequent shoaling
and the YAQUINA has been very responsive to the need for prompt
maintenance when shoaling appears.
As state-licensed pilots for both locations, we are responsible for
the safety of deep-draft vessels entering and leaving Coos Bay and
Yaquina Bay. In many cases we move vessels with very little underkeel
clearance. Shoaling that is not removed immediately will result in
either a grounding or a constraint on navigation with serious, adverse
economic consequences to vessels, shippers and ports.
We object to consideration of any option for future operations that
does not include continuing availability of the YAQUINA as part of the
federal hopper dredge fleet.
Very truly yours,
Captain Steve Sweet,
President.
______
Oregon International,
Port of Coos Bay, OR, November 3, 1997.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Minimum Dredge Fleet Study,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft ``Minimum
Dredge Fleet Study.'' The Oregon International Port of Coos Bay
supports your efforts to provide for the nation's dredging needs in the
most cost-effective manner possible, but we cannot agree with the
analysis in the Corps' recent study.
Six of the eight options call for retiring at least one of the
federal dredges based in the Northwest, yet there is no analysis that
demonstrates that we will continue to have our dredging needs met in a
timely, cost-effective manner under those options.
Maintenance of the navigation channels in Coos Bay is extremely
important to the economic health of our community. Attached to this
letter is a copy of the Port of Coos Bay 1996 Annual Waterborne Report,
which depicts the number of vessels that call this harbor.
Additionally, the Port's Charleston Marina Complex, with its 520-plus
vessel slips, is home to one of the largest commercial fishing fleets
on the South Coast, as well as being heavily used by recreational
vessels.
We are writing to express our strong support for the Corps of
Engineers' maintenance dredging program, and to urge you to maintain
the minimum dredge fleet. We must reject all options which decrease the
active role of the federal hopper dredge fleet.
Sincerely,
Allan E. Rumbaugh,
General Manager.
______
PORT OF COOS BAY 1996 ANNUAL WATERBORNE REPORT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board feet Short tons Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outbound:
Lumber:
Australia............................................... 64,484,919 112,849 $52,394,000
Domestic................................................ 18,929,830 33,127 8,992,000
Japan................................................... 90,453,929 158,294 62,187,000
Mediterranean........................................... 8,471,000 14,824 16,942,000
N. Africa............................................... .............. .............. ..............
S. Seas................................................. 14,717,039 25,755 8,094,000
Other................................................... .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 197,056,717 344,849 148,609,000
===============================================
Logs:
Japan................................................... 77,116,622 385,583 67,863,000
Korea................................................... .............. .............. ..............
Other................................................... .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 77,116,622 385,583 67,863,000
===============================================
Plywood:
Australia............................................... .............. 385 ..............
Domestic................................................ .............. 7,985 ..............
Japan................................................... .............. 57 ..............
Mediterranean........................................... .............. 50 ..............
N. Africa............................................... .............. .............. ..............
S. Seas................................................. .............. 2,106 ..............
Other................................................... .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total................................................. .............. 10,583 2,117,000
===============================================
Linerboard:
Australia............................................... .............. 1,250 ..............
Domestic................................................ .............. .............. ..............
Japan................................................... .............. 19,257 ..............
Mediterranean........................................... .............. .............. ..............
China................................................... .............. 7,457 ..............
N. Europe............................................... .............. .............. ..............
S. Seas................................................. .............. 9,208 ..............
S. America.............................................. .............. .............. ..............
Other................................................... .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total................................................. .............. 37,172 18,586,000
===============================================
Woodchips:
Japan................................................... .............. 2,063,098 134,555,000
(Hardwood).......................................... .............. 274,441 18,160,000
Korea................................................... .............. .............. ..............
Other................................................... .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total................................................. .............. 2,337,539 152,715,000
===============================================
Miscellaneous
Copper Ore.............................................. .............. .............. ..............
Pulp.................................................... .............. 5,549 2,775,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total................................................. .............. 5,549 52,775,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total Outbound........................................ .............. 3,121,275 392,665,000
===============================================
Inbound:
Lumber...................................................... 8,267,411 14,468
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 8,267,411 14,468 6,201,000
===============================================
Logs........................................................ 28,998,024 144,990 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 28,998,024 144,990 11,352,000
===============================================
Miscellaneous............................................... .............. .............. ..............
Petroleum................................................... \1\ 36,035,936 118,919 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 36,035,936 118,919 23,991,000
===============================================
Nickel Ore.................................................. .............. 941,332
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... .............. 941,332 35,086,000
===============================================
Total Inbound............................................. .............. 1,219,708 76,630,000
===============================================
Total Tonnage............................................. .............. 4,340,984 469,295,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gallons.
Deep-draft calls.................................................. 236
Barges (loaded)................................................... 139
Barges (light).................................................... 113
______
Columbia River Pilots
Portland, OR, November 6, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
Dear Corps of Engineers: I am writing to express the concerns of
the Columbia River Pilots regarding the possible reduction in size of
the federal hopper dredge fleet. In particular, we are disturbed that
six of the eight options addressed in your recent study would retire
the dredge YAQUINA. The YAQUINA is essential to maintaining the
navigability of the Columbia River, one of our nation's key navigable
waterways.
Enclosed, to remind you of the level of commerce on the Columbia
River, is a copy of the Great Waterway, an annual publication with
shipping and cargo statistics and port information. Billions of dollars
worth of cargo is transported on deep draft vessels each year on the
Columbia River. The lower hundred miles of the River is wide and
relatively slow flowing, and it is joined by many side streams and
smaller rivers. The tremendous sediment loads, fluctuating river levels
and currents, and influences of side streams and rivers cause the
Columbia River to be constantly subject to rapid shoaling and
development of sand waves and ridges. Because we frequently move
vessels at drafts that are at the limits of the project depth of 40
feet, the appearance of shoaling at any location creates a hazard to
navigation that must be dealt with immediately.
Our experience with the YAQUINA has been excellent. The YAQUINA was
at work in the Columbia River 27 days in 1996 and 47 days so far in
1997. It has responded quickly and effectively to emerging problems and
with it and the current federal fleet we are confident that any problem
that arises will soon be dealt with. We have no such confidence in what
amounts essentially to a privatization scheme for a basic governmental
function.
Your recent study does nothing to demonstrate that the public
interest would be protected under any of the options that retire
federal dredges or place federal dredges on standby. We are operating
vessels on thinner safety margins than most people realize, and cannot
sanction the further erosion of those margins by turning maintenance
dredging operations over to private, unproven contractors of
questionable reliability.
Very truly yours,
Captain Steve Brown,
President.
______
November 8, 1997.
MG Russell Fuhrman,
Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC.
Dear General Fuhrman: The Dredging Contractors of America (DCA)
welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Corps of Engineers' (Corps)
``options paper'' for the future use of the four federal hopper
dredges. While we remain committed to the successful implementation of
Section 227 of WRDA 96 and seek no changes until the two-year trial
period has run its course, we appreciate the Corps' effort under your
leadership to spawn a dialogue between and among the interested
parties. We are always open to new ideas and approaches to this public
policy issue of great concern to our industry. We are also willing to
discuss potentially non-controversial technical corrections to last
year's legislation. While the industry appreciates the work that went
into this report, ``option two,'' the status quo remains our preferred
course of action through the congressionally mandated reporting period.
For several years, DCA has pursued a ``use industry first'' policy
for the overall management of the public/private hopper dredge fleet.
If such a policy were applied universally, government dredges would
serve as a ``navigation insurance policy'' and industry's investment
potential would be enhanced while risk to the dredging industry and the
ports reduced. Last year's congressional action and first step in this
direction has already led to a commitment to build the first private
hopper dredge in over a decade and the first large class hopper dredge
since 1984. If the federal dredges are managed in a readiness status,
``using industry first'' will produce the maximum number of hopper
dredges to maintain the nation's entrance channels.
Based on several of the options in the ``options paper,'' DCA is
pleased that the Corps apparently is supportive of a ``use industry
first'' concept. The Corps' commitment to maintaining active reserve
dredges and personnel should help provide confidence to those concerned
with a long term funding commitment. DCA is also committed to working
with both the ports and the Corps to make sure Congress and the Office
of Management and Budget understand the importance of maintaining
needed federal reserve capacity. Finally, permanent changes to the
government fleet should be considered after adjusting to the new
system. With enough time ``using industry first,'' it should become
crystal clear to all which federal dredges must be kept at a high
readiness status.
With these thoughts in mind, Corps options seven and eight would
eventually yield the best results. However, as stated above, DCA does
not support the retirement of any dredge before the ``use industry
first'' operating policy has been successfully implemented in the
context of WRDA 96. Since all vessels have a finite economically useful
life, ``using industry first'' will extend the life of every federal
dredge, clearly a benefit to proponents of ``maximum capacity'' and to
lowering the risk to navigation. It should also provide the Corps good
data upon which to make future decisions.
The first option to increase the operations of the Corps dredges
would unduly harm industry and increase government cost over the long
term. DCA strongly disagrees that the risk to navigation would be low
under this scenario. Rather, the risk to navigation increases under
option one as industry would likely disinfest in the hopper dredge
segment. The lowest risk to navigation is the scenario diet stimulates
the most investment.
DCA looks forward to working with all concerned to develop and
refine a policy that's good for America's ports, taxpayers as well as
the dredging industry.
Sincerely,
Mark D. Sickles.
______
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, November 7, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Holliday: We are writing to you regarding the Corps'
Minimum Dredge Fleet Study. Dredging is an important part of the
navigation infrastructure in the Northwest. Our region and the nation
are heavily dependent upon a safe, reliable navigation system for
domestic and international trade and commercial and recreational
fishing. The Corps' hopper dredges support these activities by
contributing to responsive, cost effective dredging with capacity to
provide competition and to respond to peak dredging needs.
When we wrote to Acting Assistant Secretary John Zirschky on this
issue in August, we asked that the study include certain analysis to
allow Congress to evaluate Corps recommendations regarding the future
of the fleet. We asked that the analysis include an examination of
responsiveness to routine and emergency dredging requirements, industry
competitiveness, a comparison of dredging costs and industry capacity.
The presentation of the eight options in the study did not include such
an analysis.
Upon review of the study, we have several additional questions.
First, is the Corps' primary objective to keep navigation channels
maintained at authorized depths at all times? It appears that the Corps
considers other issues to be of greater importance. Second, has the
Corps completed a detailed analysis of the range of possible impacts of
the eight study options on navigation in the Northwest and the rest of
the nation? Third, exactly how does placing dredges on standby status
provide low risk to navigation? Fourth, has the Corps developed
specific predictions for the cost of maintaining dredges in standby?
Similarly, has the Corps developed contractual and procedural
frameworks and vessel operations frameworks for dredges in standby? Do
these predictions and frameworks support the low risk conclusion?
Fifth, does the Corps believe that Congress and future administrations
will support maintaining dredges in standby?
We encourage the Corps to conduct the kind of analysis that will
appropriately answer the key questions about cost, capacity and
responsiveness. We must reject all proposals to put federal dredges on
standby or to retire federal dredges until we review the Corps analysis
of these issues and our related questions. We expect that all options
other than the status quo will require Congressional approval. Until we
see an acceptable analysis that addresses the above issues and
questions, we will oppose reductions in the current operating status of
the Minimum Dredge Fleet.
Sincerely,
Gordon Smith,
Ron Wyden,
Slade Gorton,
Patty Murray,
Larry Craig,
Kirk Kempthorne,
U.S. Senate.
Peter DeFazio,
Darlene Hooley,
Elizabeth Furse,
Earl Blumenauer,
Michael Crapo,
Helen Chenoweth,
George Nethercutt,
Norm Dicks,
Jack Metcalf,
Jim McDermott,
Adam Smith,
Doc Hastings,
Linda Smith,
Bob Smith,
Jennifer Dunn,
Members of Congress.
______
State of Louisiana,
Department of Transportation and Development,
November 7, 1997.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
Dear Sir: This is in response to your request for comments on the
Minimum Dredge Fleet Study.
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development has the
responsibility to administer the planning and coordination of
navigation activities in the State of Louisiana. The Department also
administers a statewide program for the construction and development of
port infrastructure. We are, therefore, very interested in the
conclusions of your study.
We are concerned about private industry's reliability to respond to
dredging needs on the lower Mississippi River. With 60 percent of the
hopper dredge requirement being attributed to the Gulf region, it seems
prudent that hopper dredge capability be given a high priority.
To that end we support Option 1, maximum work to Corps of
Engineers' dredges. It was noted in your ``Guiding Principle'' that the
best deal for the American taxpayer would be ensured. Option 1 is the
lowest cost of the eight options.
Option 1 has a low risk to navigation. We, in Louisiana, cannot
afford to risk our maritime industry. Four of our ports are ranked in
the top seven ports nationwide in tonnage handled. The 1995 Waterborne
commerce statistics reveal that approximately 438,000,000 tons were
shipped through the Port of South Louisiana, the Greater Baton Rouge
Port, the Port of New Orleans, and the Plaquemines Parish Port, Harbor,
and Terminal District. The St. Bernard Port, Harbor, and Terminal
District is currently implementing a construction program to enable
Louisiana shippers to use this port's services as well. Keeping the
lower Mississippi River dredged is also a key in the effectiveness of
the Red River ports (Caddo-Bossier, Natchitoches Parish, Alexandria
Regional, and Red River Parish) as the Red River Waterway navigation
project is complete.
A recent study indicates the total impact of Louisiana ports is
$21.9 billion. The ports and related activities generate directly $4.8
billion in income for Louisiana residents and support, in part or
whole, 178,600 jobs throughout the State.
Louisiana's maritime industry is of vital importance to the state
and the nation. We simply have too much at stake to afford any risk.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Frank M. Denton,
Secretary.
______
Port of Hood River, Or,
November 10, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
The Port of Hood River welcomes the opportunity to comment on the
October 8, 1997 draft study of the Corps Minimum Dredge Fleet (MDF).
All stakeholders appreciate the interest of the Corps in considering
our views about this important issue when the study still is in draft
form.
The Port of Hood River is a part of the Columbia-Snake River
system, a vital gateway for many different American exports.
Personally, as a former Manager of the Port Division of the Oregon
Economic Development Department, I have been involved with issues
surrounding the future of the Corps MDF for over a decade.
After the buildup to the issuance of this report, and the two-year
delay for compilation of additional data, we were disappointed that
short set of ``viewgraphs'' represents a significant portion of the
entire study. A slide show can be effective in demonstrating highlights
to an audience of people new to this issue, but ports whose future is
tied to dredging need a more complete explanation. Specifically, no
analysis was given to us to show how the Corps reached its conclusions.
Because of this, we encourage the Corps to extend the comment period
until sufficient background analysis can be provided to stakeholders
for review.
When the Corps states that they have a plan to lower costs and
increase the private sector role, all ports and all taxpayers pay
attention. However, at this point the study does not document how these
benefits will flow to shippers, ports and taxpayers, or how port
concerns will be addressed.
The four Corps dredges are all that remain from what once was a
much larger Corps fleet. The private fleet already performs all the new
construction dredging. In total, the Corps dredges only performed 8.3
percent of all dredging work in fiscal year 1996. In fiscal year 1994,
the total of all dredging work done by Corps dredges was only 6
percent. Yet these dredges perform a vital service to the ports and
shippers of this country.
Cost and competition, emergency responsiveness and adequate
capacity form the core of our concerns for dredging in our region. The
draft report needs to provide measurements for these issues. Factors to
be addressed include:
1. Cost and competition.--Real competition for Corps contracts
offered to the private contractors is limited. Single bidders sometimes
are awarded jobs. The Corps dredges currently serve as a brake against
excessive bids. If a private company bids over 125 percent of the Corps
estimate, the Corps dredge can perform the work. No plausible
explanation in the draft report shows how our region can be protected
if an option is implemented that retires additional Corps dredges.
2. Emergency Response.--The current Corps dredge fleet provides
emergency response capacity to all three coasts. If shoaling limits the
channel depth, vessels must depart ``light loaded.'' Corps dredges that
are active in each region can respond quickly to prevent economic
impact to shipping. We are told that the Corps is considering new
contracting procedures that will help speed private dredges to service
such emergencies. Ports want to see details before accepting the
concept. What administrative or court challenges by the private dredge
companies will be permitted? Will the private dredgers push for such
high fees to respond that the Corps will be reluctant to utilize them
under a declared emergency--thus creating a damaging adverse economic
impact for a port or river whose exports are limited by channel
shoaling?
3. Adequate Capacity.--All parties admit that there is inadequate
dredging capacity at times of peak demands. Although this issue
traditionally has been thought of as a Mississippi River concern, it
impacts the Columbia system. If the Corps dredge Wheeler is retired,
chances rise that the Essayons will be transferred to the Mississippi
to help after a flood. If the Essayons is in the Gulf and shoaling
occurs in the Columbia, how will our needs be met? The rate of repair
for private and Corps dredges is an important consideration in this
decision process. Any port or river system that acquires a reputation
for a slow response to shoaling that causes light loading faces a
serious risk of a loss of business. For example, if the Essayons is in
the Gulf, and shoaling in the Columbia threatens grain shipments from
Eastern Oregon and Washington, disgruntled shippers could decide to
export some future cargoes through Canadian ports.
Due to the lack of detailed analysis, our port wishes to wait for
adequate material before commenting further. We cannot accept any
change in the status quo of the existing Corps dredge fleet until we
have sufficient data so we can make informed judgments.
In closing, we also urge the Corps to have a port stakeholder
forum. Senior Corps officials now meet regularly with the private
dredge industry to discuss dredging schedules, compare notes, etc. That
is fine. We would welcome creation of a regular forum with ports and
shippers and senior Corps officials, so the Corps would hear our
concerns on a regular basis. Ports have enjoyed an open door policy at
Corps headquarters, so this is not a criticism of past policies. A
regular meeting with ports and shippers should include regular
information from the Corps on competition, bid costs and trends,
predictions of dredging needs (snowpack, El Nino, etc.) and so forth.
If one of the Corps options is not working, ports must not be forced to
rely on ad hoc communications for resolution.
Thank you for your consideration of our port's view on this
subject.
Sincerely,
Greg E. Baker,
Executive Director.
______
Siuslaw School District 97J,
Florence, OR, November 20, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments.
CEW-OD,
Washington, DC.
By unanimous consent, the Siuslaw School District Board of
Directors directed me to express their concerns about the proposal to
decrease the federal dredge fleet and its impact on the Port of
Siuslaw.
As directors of a public agency, the Board strongly supports
government efficiency and efforts to reduce costs. When considering
reductions, however, long term consequences should be balanced with
short term benefits before making a decision. In this case, the Port's
viability and its impact on the community must be weighed against the
savings made from reducing the dredging fleet. In the Board's opinion,
the scale tips in favor of keeping the fleet and continuing the
dredging.
Board members, all of whom are long-time residents of the area,
believe that the proposed reduction will affect the community's
economic health and quality of life. The Board believes that
maintaining the dredges is critical to keeping the Port's harbor and
navigation channel open for commercial and recreational activities. By
staying open, the Port remains dynamic and a vital contributor to the
area's economy and environment. It also gives the community an avenue
for strengthening its commercial, recreational, and environmental
assets. Based on their history in the area, board members conclude that
two things will happen if dredging is reduced or eliminated. First,
commercial and recreational opportunities will decrease creating an
economic downturn that will disturb the community's stability. Second,
the Siuslaw River Basin and its ecosystems will be harmed or damaged by
unforeseen or unanticipated consequences.
Subsequently, the Siuslaw School Board recommends that you keep the
dredging fleet active and maintain the regular maintenance of the
Port's harbor and navigation channel.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Steve Waddell,
Superintendent.
______
West Gulf Maritime Association,
Houston, TX, November 26, 1997.
Mr. Barry Holliday, Chief,
Dredging & Navigation Branch,
U.S. Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Holliday: We have received a copy of your communication to
George Duffy dated November 18, 1997 which was in response to his
request for certain additional information. Similar requests have been
made by several of the concerned parties participating in the dredge
fleet discussions as we felt they were needed and essential in order to
make informed comments on the presentation that was given to us.
As has been pointed out to you some of the specifically requested
information would hopefully enable us to evaluate the facts as you
presented them.
It is hard to believe that the Army Corps of Engineers does not
have specs on the hopper dredges capabilities so that you can evaluate
the capacity any one dredge or a combination of dredges produces. We
know loss of project dimensions occurred the last year or two in the
Gulf due to insufficient equipment being available to do the work when
needed. The only option that the maritime industry can accept from the
analysis distributed by Major General Fuhrman on 8 October 1997 is
Option one (1) which would keep the four Corps hopper dredges available
and in active status at least 250 days a year.
The specific details we were seeking have been clearly outlined to
you from many different sources and for you to state that this
information is not available and/or not utilized by the Army Corps of
Engineers is almost unbelievable.
We understand Major General Fuhrman has forwarded a copy of the
Army Audit Agency report we discussed to Mr. Duffy, and we are looking
forward to receiving a copy from him and to review the contents.
Very truly yours,
Ted Thorjussen,
President.
______
Port of St. Helens, OR,
November 5, 1997.
Corps of Engineers Minimum Fleet Comments,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
The Port of St. Helens appreciates the opportunity to comment on
the proposed changes in the Corps Minimum Dredge Fleet (MDF) as set out
in the draft study of October 8, 1997. As a beneficiary of dredging
sentences provided primarily by the Corps dredge Essayons and also the
Yaquina we know first-hand the importance of the dredging services
performed by these two dredges.
In summary, our port believes that the status quo should continue,
even though current restrictions imposed by Congress limiting use of
the Corps dredges drive up the costs of Corps dredges by allocating
expenses to a limited number of days. As to the other options, our Port
is unable to evaluate the impact of various options in the Corps'
``viewgraphs'' of October 8. We find in it little analyses or
supporting data from which our port can make reasonable judgements
about whether or not the various eight options meet the standards
critical to us: costs and competition, emergency response and adequate
capacity.
When the issue of the MDF has been discussed in the past, these
three elements served as our guidelines. When we examine the Corps
options set out in the 27-page viewgraphs, we find little analyses
showing how these standards will be met by most of the eight options.
Specifically, we do not know enough to evaluate how the ``hot
standby'' options involving the Essayons will impact vital Columbia
River dredging. Without such data, we question the basis by which the
Corps reached its conclusions. We cannot accept conclusions without the
analysis documenting how the Corps' conclusions will not compromise the
standards set out above that are critical to us. As a result, we cannot
agree now to any option that alters the status quo.
If sufficient back-up material is available to allow our port to
evaluate how options involving ``hot standby'' can be implemented
without compromising these important factors, we certainly will examine
it. We know that the Corps believes that benefits to it will flow from
adopting a less-costly alternative than the status quo. Ports also
benefit from less costly dredging. Ports need convincing that, in fact,
costs will decrease. Our port will look seriously at the impact from
all the options when we have supporting materials and analyses to help
us. Today, however, the options in the Corps draft study involving
standby status, from what we have seen and when measured by our
standards, do not meet the test.
We support efforts of the Corps to evaluate its approach to its
various programs. Looking for ways to save money while expanding the
role of the private sector has obvious appeal. Yet, the current Corps
hopper dredge program appears to work well: the private dredges already
do about two-thirds of the hopper dredge O&M work. Private dredges also
perform all new constructions dredging. Corps dredges play a limited,
but critical role in hopper dredge O&M. Overall, Corps dredges
performed only 8.3 percent of all dredging of Corps projects in fiscal
year 1995. In the years fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1996,
Corps dredges amounts ranged from a high of 9.1 percent in fiscal year
to a low of 6.0 percent in fiscal year 1994.
As one example of the shortcomings we see in the Corps draft study,
use of graphs to illustrate risk presumes that statistical analysis was
done to develop a numerical basis for the conclusion of low, medium or
high risk to navigation projects illustrated on each ``options'' page
in the study. Each graph was blacked in, as if it had a numerical
basis. Perhaps the Corps had a numerical basis that prompted its use of
graphs for ease of illustration. Without that numerical quantitative
data, however, we believe use of graphs on the ``options'' pages of the
study is misleading. They imply that quantitative ``number crunching''
produced the level of risk shown on the bar graphs. Without such data,
the graphs should be dropped on each options page of the viewgraphs.
The Corps' 27-page set of slides had other shortcomings that, in
some cases, presented conclusions as if they were analyses, or
introduced new elements as conclusions without first explaining how
they were developed.
More than many other ports, the Port of St. Helens can cite the Mt.
St. Helens eruption as a vivid example of the importance of the Corps
dredges. The vital Columbia River channel was closed to all large
vessel traffic by enormous mud deposits carried into the channel from
the eruption. This blockage occurred not far from our port, and we
witnessed the impact first-hand. Several vessels were trapped upriver
and could not exit the river with their cargoes. Other vessels could
not pass the blockage to reach ports upriver on the Columbia-Snake
system. Corps dredges were at work to clear the Columbia River channel
shortly after the eruption, and these dredges led efforts to reopen the
blocked channel. (We note that private dredges also played an important
role in reaping the channel, but Corps dredges were the critical
element.)
One purpose of Corps dredges is as an insurance policy, and prompts
the question of how often a disaster event must occur to merit
retention of that ``insurance.'' Recent Mississippi River floods also
remind the nation of the importance of this emergency role played by
Corps dredges. At such times, there is insufficient peak capacity.
Retiring any Corps dredges will worsen this lack of peak capacity.
Mississippi River shippers can cite the dollar loss if vessels must
be light-loaded to clear shoals that occur and are not removed. The
availability of the Wheeler meant that a Corps dredge could respond to
sudden shoaling and could limit the risk to river commerce. On the
Columbia River system, Corps dredges have responded when emergency
shoaling threatened the draft or creating a navigation hazard.
If the Wheeler is removed from service, and a Mississippi River
flooding recurs, as can be expected, the Essayons may well be moved to
the Gulf to help with emergency channel maintenance. As long as it was
for reasonable time and did not present problems for regular Columbia
River O&M, we would have no objection. When the Essayons was in the
Gulf however, and if shoaling the Columbia reduced our allowable draft
and curtailed full vessel loading at Columbia River ports, then our
region would suffer greatly. Any shipper or vessel owner is upset when
suddenly forced to ``light load'' to clear a channel shoal, and this
will hurt a port's ability to keep current clients and attract new
customers. As a result, our region has a direct interest in the issue
of capacity. The Corps recalls examples in the past when the existing
fleet--Corps and private--was inadequate to meet the needs of this
country's ports and harbors at certain times. International trade can
suffer as a result, and the cost of the four Corps dredges is small
when measured against an adverse impact on U.S. exports.
In addition, the Corps asks smaller ports along the Oregon coast to
accept on trust that their needs can be met by the greatest change:
retiring the Yaquina. Without the Yaquina as a back-up if a private
dredge company bids over 125 percent of the Corps estimate, coastal
ports may well see their dredging costs rise. If the Yaquina is
retired, we saw in the study no explanation of how the Corps will
respond to issues of no competition or excessive bids.
Currently, Corps dredges act as a brake on excessive bids. If
private bids exceed 125 percent of the Corps estimate, a Corps dredge
can perform the work. We believe that the existence of this alternative
results in low bids from private dredges. Without it, and with true
competition, private dredge bids for coastal O&M work may well climb.
Without the Corps dredges to perform the work, such as the Yaquina
performs along the Oregon coast, Corps options appear to be limited if
it finds no private dredge company competition or if a bid is too high
If the Yaquina is removed from service, how does the Corps respond when
an Oregon coastal port O&M bid is well above the 125 percent ceiling?
In the end, we fear coastal dredging costs will rise if the Yaquina is
retired.
We also believe that the Corps fleet also helps as guideposts to
assist the Corps in preparing O&M bids estimates. Without the Corps
dredges, these estimates may drift upward. If the private fleet
challenges Corps job estimates as being consistently too low, without a
Corps dredge by which to help measure such costs, Corps estimators may
accept the private dredge fleet complaints, for the Corps could be
unable to check them in the same way they can today.
In order to increase the operating efficiencies of its four
dredges, we encourage the Corps to implement cost-savings on all its
dredges. We understand that some changes have been made already to
increase such efficiencies, and we encourage more such actions.
In conclusion, we welcome the openness represented by the
opportunity to comment on a draft report. Because of serious
shortcomings in the study itself, however, we cannot support any of the
eight options except continuing the status quo. Given the length of the
study by the Corps, our port hoped for a more complete analysis by the
Corps by which ports could evaluate all eight options.
We thank the Corps for the opportunity to present our views.
Sincerely,
Peter K Williamson,
General Manager.
______
Port of Pascagoula, MS,
January 6, 1998.
Maj. Gen. Russell L. Fuhrman,
U.S. Army, Director of Civil Works,
CECW-OD, Washington, DC.
Maj. Gen. Fuhrman: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
Army Corps' ``Minimum Dredge Fleet Study.'' We realize that the
deadline for official comment has expired; however, we felt strongly
enough about this issue to provide you with our comments. Although the
Port supports the Army Corps' guiding principles of ensuring the ``best
deal'' possible to the American taxpayer, we were disappointed that the
guiding principles did not emphasize one of the Corps most important
roles; maintaining navigation channels to authorized project dimensions
at all times. We cannot overestimate the importance of a fully
maintained federal channel to the economic health of our community.
The Army Corps should be commended for taking initiative and
seeking ways to ensure a viable, competitive private hopper dredge
industry, while sustaining the capability to respond to national and
international emergencies. Although hopper dredges are responsible for
only 20 percent of the national dredging requirement, our region's
hopper dredge requirement makes up approximately 60 percent of this
national requirement. Our dredging requirements for the Port of
Pascagoula are usually completed by dredges other than hoppers (i.e.,
bucket, pipeline). However, we have recently used or considered using
hoppers for certain sections of our channel. An example of this was
during Phase I of our Harbor Improvement Project where a hopper dredge
was used to widen and deepen the entrance channel.
The Port's concern is that the Minimum Dredge Fleet Study did not
analyze the effects of a reduced hopper dredge fleet on other types of
dredge fleets (i.e., bucket, pipeline). Specifically, we are concerned
that the hopper dredge fleet could be depleted to a point where other
type dredges (i.e., bucket, pipeline) have to be used in areas
traditionally dredged by a hopper. This would be a less than desirable
situation, as our experience with bucket and pipeline type dredges has
shown that they are already operating at or near capacity. For example,
our last maintenance dredging contract had to be rebid since no bids
were received in the first advertisement. We received two bids the
second time, however, only one bid was within the Corps' budget
allotment. In an environment where only one or two bids are received,
the ability to receive a full range of competitive bids is reduced and
industry could, therefore, dictate dredging costs.
As the Corps of Engineers develops its plan for a Minimum Dredge
Fleet, their assessment should consider the implications of a depleted
hopper fleet on other types of dredging and their fleets. The Corps'
Study did not provide this type analysis, and a final assessment should
demonstrate that dredging requirements would continue to be completed
in a cost-effective, timely manner. A competitive private fleet in
addition to a sufficient Corps' fleet, which considers impacts on all
dredging fleets, would ensure the best deal for the American taxpayer.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Corps'
Minimum Dredge Fleet Study. If you have any questions or comments, feel
free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Melody K. Bradley,
Port Director.
______
Pacific Rim Trade Association,
Portland, OR, December 18, 1997.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Minimum Dredge Fleet Study,
CECW-OD,
Washington, DC.
As an organization many of whose members are dependent on water
transportation for their commercial activities, we are concerned about
an expected effort to place the Corps of Engineers hopper dredge fleet
on stand-by status.
We believe such an action would result in a lower level of service
to those Oregon and Washington ports that have relied on the Corps
fleet for many years. Moreover, tax funds would be used for the cost of
mothballing the fleet, while still paying private contractors to do the
work. In short, taxpayers would pay twice.
Our members, especially those representing Oregon ports, are in
strong support of the Corps' maintenance dredging program, and we urge
you to maintain the public hopper dredge fleet.
We understand that Representative Peter DeFazio has called for a
congressional hearing on the matter, and we fully support him in this
request.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Rolf Glerum,
Executive Director.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dorgan
ramsey county sewer system, nd
Question. What actions are being taken by the Corps to modify the
Ramsey County Sewer system?
Answer. An evaluation of the Ramsey County Rural Sewer system,
including the development of designs and plans and specifications to
keep the system operational for levels of Devils Lake up to elevation
1450, was conducted. Two construction contracts have been awarded to
modify the system through raising, modifying, and protecting lift
stations, relocation of sewer lines, and modifications to sewer
connections. Two remaining components will be accomplished by
exercising options to the last contract.
Question. Is the $250,000 being requested in the Supplemental
Appropriation sufficient to complete the work?
Answer. Yes, sir. Bids have been received on the second of two
construction contracts and based on the low bid for this contract, the
$250,000 will be sufficient to complete the work.
Question. Please explain possible liability for an $80,000 claim.
Answer. During the construction of one segment of the first
construction contract, a sewer line that was being reinforced was found
to be collapsed. This was a significant change in conditions which
required additional work beyond that covered in the original contract.
A claim for the additional work has been submitted by the contractor.
The additional funds ($250,000) requested in the Supplemental will be
sufficient to settle this claim.
Question. As the lake continues to rise, are there any technical,
scope, or authority issues that may arise?
Answer. The modifications to the Ramsey County Rural Sewer System
are being designed to keep the system functional for lake levels up to
elevation 1450. The lake is presently at elevation 1443. If the lake
level rises more than another seven feet and goes above elevation 1450,
additional modifications to the rural sewer system will be required
which are beyond the scope of the funding provided for the present
work. For lake levels higher than elevation 1450, another evaluation
will be required to determine the requirements to keep the rural sewer
system functional.
devils lake basin, nd, levee raise
Question. What is the status of the current levee raise project
(TOL 1450 feet) regarding the levee and pump stations?
Answer. The current levee raise project for the city of Devils Lake
to get the levee to a top of levee elevation of 1450 (TOL 1450) is well
underway. The levee embankment sections and the riprap erosion
protection are essentially complete and are providing assured
protection for a lake level up to elevation 1445. The permanent pumping
stations required to address the runoff from the areas within the levee
system will not be completed until the spring of 1999. Five pumping
stations are required. Two are presently operational and the other
three will not be completed until 1999. Temporary pumping will be used
at those three locations until the permanent stations are completed.
Question. When will the contract to raise the levee to TOL 1452
feet be let?
Answer. There will be two contracts to raise the city's levee to a
top elevation of 1452 (TOL 1452), one on the west side and the other on
the east side of the city of Devils Lake. The contract for the east
side was advertised in March, and the contract for the west side is
scheduled for advertising in April 1998. Execution of an amendment to
the existing project cooperation agreement between the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and the city of Devils Lake is
required prior to contract award. The contracts necessary to raise to a
TOL 1452 are scheduled for award in May 1998 with completion scheduled
for December 1998.
Question. What is the cost and cost sharing?
Answer. The additional cost to raise the city of Devils Lake levees
from the TOL 1450 condition to the TOL 1452 condition is estimated to
be $12 million. This would bring the total cost of the levee raise work
being accomplished since 1996, when the raise of the original levee
system was started, to an estimated $38 million. This cost is being
shared on a 75 percent Federal/25 percent non-Federal basis.
Question. As we expect a 2 to 2.5 foot rise this summer, are there
any special construction considerations needed to protect the citizens
of Devils Lake?
Answer. No special construction considerations are required to
accommodate the predicted 2 to 2.5 foot rise in lake level this summer.
If, however, the lake level is expected to increase by more than 2.5
feet, special construction requirements will be considered for
implementation. The requirements considered would include prioritizing
selected segments of the levee for additional raises in the embankment
height, placement of additional riprap, and requiring the construction
contractor to accelerate the completion date for the work.
Question. Will it include options to raise it to TOL 1457 feet and
would it be prudent to do so?
Answer. Yes, the option to raise the levee to a top of levee
elevation of 1457 (TOL 1457) will be considered. Our goal is to ensure
a five to seven foot freeboard on the levee.
Question. What would be the cost and cost sharing for levee raises
to TOL 1452 feet and TOL 1457 feet?
Answer. The additional cost to raise the levee from a top-of-levee
condition of 1450 (TOL 1450) to a TOL 1452 condition is estimated to be
$12 million, and the cost to raise it from a TOL 1452 to a TOL 1457
condition is estimated to be an additional $12 million. This would be
cost-shared on a 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal basis,
similar to the rest of the levee raise project.
devils lake basin, nd, emergency outlet
Question. What is the status of the Corps' work on the planning,
engineering, and design of an emergency outlet?
Answer. An all-pipeline option from the west end of Devils Lake to
the Sheyenne River along the Peterson Coulee route has been identified
as the recommended plan and has been endorsed by the North Dakota State
Water Commission. The detailed design of this plan is now. Plans and
specifications on the first major components would be completed in the
spring of 1999 for the ordering of pumps and pipe.
Question. Is the outlet part of a comprehensive plan? Specifically:
What role does an outlet play in an overall flood-fighting strategy?
Answer. The proposed outlet is considered an element of a three
pronged comprehensive plan to reduce flood damages caused by the rising
levels of Devils Lake. The plan includes upper basin storage to reduce
the amount of water entering the lake, the outlet to help remove excess
water, and infrastructure protection (levees, road raises, relocations,
etc.) to reduce damages if the lake continues to rise in spite of the
effects of the other two measures.
Question. Why not just try to store more water in the upper basin
instead of constructing an emergency outlet?
Answer. Upper basin storage is also one of the components of the
comprehensive approach of flood damage reduction for the Devils Lake
basin. Additional upper basin storage is being pursued by the North
Dakota State Water Commission; however, a very large percentage of the
upper basin is suffering from flooding due to high water levels in
existing wetlands, ponds and lakes. Significant additional storage of
water that would reduce the water reaching Devils Lake would adversely
affect the economic viability of many farmers and as a result there is
very little support in the agricultural community for this concept.
Also, the actual effectiveness of the upper basin storage cannot be
reliably estimated as it is a hydrologically very complex situation.
Past geologic analysis indicates that Devils Lake has naturally
overflowed into the Sheyenne River several times prior to settlement by
man and development of the land for agriculture. Restoration of the
upper basin to its natural condition by increasing the storage may not
prevent future overflows to the Sheyenne River.
Question. Without an emergency outlet, what might happen downstream
if the lake continues to rise?
Answer. If the level of Devils Lake continues to rise to the
natural overflow elevation of 1459 water from Devils Lake will start
flowing into the Sheyenne River via the Stump Lakes and Tolna Coulee.
Although the flow rate of the overflow would be relatively small
initially, the salinity of the natural overflow would be high. Several
parameters of the water quality standards in the Sheyenne River and
possibly the Red River of the North would be exceeded as a result of
the natural overflows. With a natural overflow, flooding problems along
the Sheyenne River would be worsened.
Question. What is the status of the Corps report to Congress
relative to initial construction of an emergency outlet (pursuant to
Public Law 105-62)?
Answer. The report to Congress required by Public Law 105-62 is in
preparation with a draft scheduled for the summer of 1998. However,
many of the studies underway as part of the environmental impact
statement will not be available for incorporation into the report based
on the present schedule for submission.
Question. Each foot rise in the level of the lake causes $10-15
million in damages. What role would an outlet play in preventing such
damage?
Answer. The proposed outlet would try to remove from 50,000-100,000
acre-feet per year from Devils Lake which would translate into a one-
half to one foot reduction at the present lake level. If the lake goes
higher, the same volume of water removed would result in a smaller
stage (level) reduction. The cumulative effects of operation of the
outlet over a period of years could result in lowering the lake level
by several feet and could prevent very significant amounts of damages.
However, due to the complexities and unknowns of forecasting whether,
when, and at what rate, the lake level could rise, the outlet alone
cannot provide an effective means of preventing flood damages. The
outlet must be considered as only one part of an overall plan which
includes upper basin storage and infrastructure protection.
Question. What is the status of the $5 million appropriated in the
1997 Supplemental for PED and NEPA work?
Answer. The funding appropriated in the 1997 Supplemental is being
used for the preconstruction engineering and design, the environmental
studies and the environmental impact statement. As of the end of March
1998, $2.6 million has been provided to the St. Paul District. Of that
amount, $1.3 million has been obligated and $1.1 million has been
expended. Additional amounts from the balance of the $5 million of
appropriated funds will be requested as required to accomplish the
necessary design and environmental studies.
Question. Given that we expect the lake to rise about 2 feet this
spring, what are your funding requirements for constructing an outlet
under these circumstances?
Answer. Based on the information presently available, the $5
million already appropriated will be adequate for the completion of
design and economic and environmental studies for the outlet. The
actual date of initiation of construction, however, is dependent upon
the completion of the design and the completion of the environmental
impact statement which are not related to funding. If these worsening
conditions lead us to a decision to proceed with the outlet immediately
and if a waiver from the normal NEPA compliance process under the
emergency provisions of NEPA is granted, and if the report to Congress
required by Public Law 105-62 is favorable, and if the Secretary of
State assures that the provisions of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty
have been met, and if agreement with the state of North Dakota for
acquisition of real estate, cost sharing and operation and maintenance
is reached, and if the pumps and the pipe are ordered in the fall of
1998 and construction started in the spring of 1999, Federal
construction funds of $21 million may be required in fiscal year 1999.
The $5 million appropriated for the initiation of construction in
Public Law 105-62 will be sufficient for the initial ordering of the
pumps and pipe, but additional construction funds in fiscal year 1999
of $16 million would be required to actually start the physical
construction of the project.
Question. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget includes $16
million in additional funding for construction of emergency outlet.
What assurances can you provide that the Corps is treating the flooding
as an emergency and is prepared to take any necessary steps to prevent
a catastrophe at Devils Lake?
Answer. The design of the proposed outlet is proceeding on an
expedited schedule and is being readied for construction at the
earliest possible time. The schedule for completion of the
environmental impact statement has been intensively reviewed and is
also being conducted as fast as possible using the normal NEPA
compliance procedures. If necessary and warranted, use of the emergency
procedures of NEPA will be considered to initiate construction of the
outlet project at the earliest possible schedule.
Question. Even though the Devils Lake Basin is within the Hudson's
Bay drainage, Canadian officials view an outlet as a potential threat
to Canadian fisheries. Is it correct that a joint team of Canadian and
American technical experts have completed a report that shows that any
Canadian concerns relative to biota transfer can be addressed?
Answer. A report was prepared by the Garrison Joint Technical
Committee Working Group that addressed potential issues with an outlet
from Devils Lake, including biota transfer. The report indicates that
there are minimal risks at the border due to any potential concerns
with biology related issues associated with introducing Devils Lake
water into the Sheyenne and Red River of the North.
Question. What is the status of formal consideration of this
report?
Answer. This report has been approved by the Garrison Joint
Technical Committee which includes both U.S. and Canadian
representatives and has been provided to the U.S./Canadian Consultative
Group for consideration. No action has yet been taken by the
Consultative Group.
Question. What is the status of consultations involving our State
Department and the International Joint Commission to ensure that
construction of an emergency outlet would comply with the Boundary
Waters Treaty Act?
Answer. On 10 March 1998 the Department of State was requested by
the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to initiate
consultations with the International Joint Commission (IJC) as required
in Public Law 105-62. A specific schedule and the requirements for the
consultation with the IJC have not yet been developed.
Question. Will the Boundary Waters Treaty be complied with under
all circumstances?
Answer. The operating plan for the outlet is being designed to
assure compliance with the Boundary Waters Treaty. Changes in flow and
water quality at the border are anticipated to be very minor and
compliance with the Boundary Waters Treaty is expected. However, since
under existing conditions the water in the Red River of the North at
times exceeds the water quality goals at the border, detailed
hydrologic, hydraulic and water quality modeling is being undertaken to
assess the potential effects at the border during these critical
periods.
Question. How are these consultations being coordinated with NEPA?
Answer. Coordination with representatives of agencies in Manitoba
and at the Canadian federal level is being conducted as a part of the
environmental impact statement preparation process. These agency
representatives are invited to participate in discussions concerning
the studies being undertaken.
Question. What is the status of public NEPA scoping meetings and
what steps are being taken to ensure widespread input from local
citizens, tribal members of the Spirit Lake Nation, and downstream
interests in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Canada?
Answer. A notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for the outlet was published in the Federal Register on 21
October 1997. Initial scoping meetings were held with agencies in
January 1998 and initial pubic scoping meetings were held 23-27 March
1998. Coordination meetings with agencies and the public will continue
throughout the development of an Environmental Impact Statement.
Question. How are these concerns being addressed?
Answer. Coordination and scoping meetings with agency
representatives and the public are being held to determine their
concerns and to identify the studies required to address the concerns.
Hydrologic, hydraulic, water quality, cultural resources, and other
environmental studies are underway or planned. The results of these
studies will be shared with interested parties. A liaison with the
Spirit Lake Nation is being established to improve the lines of
communication. Newsletters are being published to distribute
information throughout the Devils Lake basin, to downstream areas, and
to interested agencies and organizations. Information on the Devils
Lake outlet is also available on the St. Paul District web page.
Question. Will NEPA be complied with under all circumstances?
Please specify how.
Answer. Yes, NEPA will be complied with under all circumstances.
The necessary environmental studies and analyses are underway. Under
the normal NEPA procedures, construction of a project would not start
until after the record of decision is issued with the environmental
impact statement. However, NEPA allows for variation from the normal
procedures in emergency situations. If the construction of the outlet
is deemed necessary at an earlier schedule than allowable using normal
NEPA procedures, construction could start before completion of the EIS
by using the guidance for emergency situations. The necessary
environmental studies and analyses would still all be conducted,
however, they would be conducted concurrently with or after completion
of construction.
Question. What is the management plan for the outlet?
Answer. The management plan for the outlet is to pump water from
the west end of Devils Lake through a 13 mile pipeline into the
Sheyenne River at appropriate rates to avoid or minimize any adverse
effects on the downstream areas along the Sheyenne River and Red River
of the North. Release rates from the outlet would be based on an
assessment of the flows in the Sheyenne and Red Rivers, water quality
in the Sheyenne and Red Rivers, the water quality in Devils Lake, and
on the level of Devils Lake. The release rates would be adjusted so
that flows on the Sheyenne River stay within the non-damaging channel
capacity and so that the water quality standards are complied with.
Question. Who would operate the outlet?
Answer. The non-Federal sponsor would operate and maintain the
outlet project. The operation of the project would be monitored by the
Corps of Engineers to assure compliance with the operating constraints
developed for the project. Although the flow rates and the water
quality on the upper Sheyenne River will be the principal
considerations in the operation of the outlet, many other factors will
be considered for project operation, including the effects on the
downstream water users and downstream biota.
Question. What criteria would be used to avoid adverse impacts?
Answer. Adverse impacts would be avoided or minimized to the extent
possible in the design of the project and in the development of the
operational plans. Where adverse impacts cannot be avoided, mitigation
measures will be evaluated and implemented where feasible and
justified. The technical feasibility and soundness, the social
compatibility and the economics will all be considered in the
development of mitigation measures.
Question. Are downstream interests involved in the management of
the outlet?
Answer. Yes. The North Dakota legislature has directed
establishment of a Devils Lake Outlet Management Advisory Committee
that would provide guidance and recommendations to the North Dakota
State Water Commission on the operation and management of the outlet.
This committee has been established and has several representatives of
downstream interests. In addition, the development of the operation
plan for the outlet is considering downstream effects and is being
formulated to comply with downstream water quality standards and to not
worsen flooding conditions in the downstream areas.
Question. Give examples of how the outlet could be effective in
reducing flood damages.
Answer. The outlet could be effective for potential future
scenarios that would project lake levels to continue to rise based on
the average runoff volumes experienced over the past 10 to 15 years.
Runoff patterns over the past fifty years show a period of several
years with higher than normal runoff alternating with several years of
below normal runoff. A continuation of this pattern would allow the
lake to be drawn down in anticipation of the next higher than normal
runoff period.
Question. During operation of the emergency outlet, would water
quality and quantity in the Sheyenne River and the Red River of the
North differ from normal conditions?
Answer. The changes in the quality and quantity of the Sheyenne and
Red Rivers due to the operation of the outlet from Devils Lake to the
Sheyenne River would vary depending on the reach of river being
considered. The largest changes would be on the upper Sheyenne River
upstream of Lake Ashtabula, with the changes becoming less further
downstream, with the smallest changes occurring on the Red River in
Canada. The water quality changes would primarily be increases in
salinity represented by Total Dissolved Solids, including specific
parameters such as sulfates. Although the salinity levels would
increase, water quality in the Sheyenne and Red River would be within
existing water quality standards. The increases at the Red River
crossing into Canada would be very small but within the objectives of
the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. The water quantity changes upstream
of Lake Ashtabula would result in river level increases of generally
less than three feet and these changes would still keep the river
within its natural riverbanks. Along the Sheyenne River between Lake
Ashtabula and the Red River, the river level increase would be less
than one foot. Along the Red River of the North, the river level
increase would be less than two inches. These changes would be at lower
flow levels along the Sheyenne and Red Rivers.
Question. What is the status of activities to develop a PCA and to
obtain the real estate necessary for an emergency outlet?
Answer. The North Dakota State Water Commission (NDSWC) has been
identified as the non-Federal sponsor. The NDSWC has been informed of
the requirements of project sponsorship, including providing 35 percent
of the first cost of the project and operating and maintaining the
project at full non-Federal cost. The NDSWC is preparing to issue bonds
for the non-Federal share of the first cost and is working with the
Devils Lake Joint Water Resource District to develop arrangements for
the operation and maintenance. The NDSWC is also working with the
Spirit Lake Nation and individual property owners along the outlet
alignment to secure the necessary rights-of-entry to accomplish the
necessary surveys for the design of the project. The NDSWC will also be
responsible for acquiring the necessary lands and easements for the
construction of the project.
The Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) will need to be executed
prior to the ordering of pumps and pipe, acquisition of real estate,
and initiation of construction.
Question. What is the status of the ``Virtual Flood'' exercises and
what did it show?
Answer. The Virtual Flood workshop was held in Grand Forks on March
11, 1998 for Federal, State, and local agencies and members of the
public. The workshop used computer simulations of synthetic future
floods to demonstrate the potential effectiveness of outlet operation
and upper basin storage on lowering the level of Devils Lake. The
effects of varying the flood timing and severity, outlet implementation
schedule, water quality standards, river channel capacity, amount of
upper basin storage, and outlet and storage trigger elevations were
also displayed. The Virtual Flood model is a tool for graphically
demonstrating, exploring, presenting, and explaining the complex
interrelationships between the above factors. However, the current
Virtual Flood model does not address cost effectiveness and downstream
water quantity and water quality issues. The model will be enhanced
when ongoing and planned studies of those factors are completed.
Question. How have you included information from EERC and RWIC and
what was the value of their input?
Answer. Information from Energy and Environmental Research Center
(EERC) and the Regional Weather Information Center (RWIC) was used in
the development of the Virtual Flood model. The RWIC provided weather
outlooks for the next several years which were incorporated into the
hydrologic information data base. The EERC provided information on the
salinity relationships in the Stump Lakes. These inputs were
incorporated into the model. The major effort in model development was
conducted by the Institute for Water Resources (IWR). IWR worked with
EERC and RWIC on the model development, arrangements for the Virtual
Flood workshop, and integration of the EERC and RWIC input into the
model. The participation of EERC and RWIC was valuable to the Virtual
Flood workshop.
Question. What additional actions related to Devils Lake flooding
are being taken by city, state, and other federal agencies?
Answer. Other actions being undertaken in the Devils Lake basin to
address the flooding problem include raising and relocating roads and
highways, relocating homes imminently threatened by flooding,
constructing and raising levees, modifying and relocating utilities,
acquiring rights to store additional water in the upper basin, and
development of mapping and flood risk information.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Hutchinson
montgomery point lock and dam
Question. I understand that the contractor for Montgomery Point
Lock and Dam has suspended contract operations in early January this
year. I believe this project is very important not only to my state of
Arkansas, but to the Southwest United States, as well. Will you please
inform me of your progress on identifying reprogramming funding so
construction can resume this year?
Answer. Sir, Headquarters is currently identifying projects
throughout the nation where funds are excess to current year needs and
available for reprogramming into the Montgomery Point project. I
anticipate that funds will be reprogrammed into the Montgomery Point
project by early April 1998 to continue construction.
Question. Few will disagree with me that the president's fiscal
year 1999 budget request for the Corps of Engineers is woefully
inadequate. I will join my colleagues in their effort to ensure more
realistic funding is provided in fiscal year 1999. Indeed, only $19
million is provided for Montgomery Point Lock and Dam. What is the
Corps' capability range for the project in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Sir, subject to the normal language regarding capabilities,
$60,000,000 is the approved fiscal year 1999 capability for this
project. This is $41,000,000 above the budget amount requested.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bumpers
montgomery point lock and dam, arkansas
Question. The Montgomery Point Lock and Dam project is vital to the
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. It is my understanding
that construction on Montgomery Point Lock and Dam has been halted due
to a lack of funds. What is the status of Montgomery Point Lock and Dam
with regards to the reprogramming of funds to continue construction
during fiscal year 1998?
Answer. Sir, we are currently evaluating other Construction,
General, projects throughout the Corps which may have funds excess to
fiscal year 1998 needs. Once projects are identified, we will reprogram
within our authority to this project. Any remaining funds required to
be reprogrammed will be coordinated with the Committees for approval.
Question. It is my understanding that the original intent of the
Corps was to complete construction of Montgomery Point Lock and Dam
within five years. What is the current timetable for completion of
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam.
Answer. Sir, assuming capability funding through construction, the
timetable for completion of this project is March 2003. However, the
funding stream anticipated in the President's budget will result in a
completion in March 2007.
grand prairie region and bayou meto basin, arkansas
Question. Water resources are vital to Arkansas' economy. Water for
municipalities, industry, and agriculture is key to the long term
viability of my state. The Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation
Commission recently declared the ground water to be at critical levels
in several areas in eastern Arkansas. Due to this dire situation, the
President has included the Grand Prairie/Bayou Meto project in the
budget for fiscal year 1999.
Is there any reason to be concerned that delays in construction
will be encountered if funds are made available for construction in
fiscal year 1999?
Answer. We are concurrently revising the project to provide
substantial multipurpose benefits and are proceeding toward new start
construction in fiscal year 1999 for the irrigation components of the
project. However, there are several policy concerns that must be
resolved that affect the irrigation components of the project. We must
also assure that there is a non-Federal sponsor prepared to share in
the cost of the project and to fulfill the items of local cooperation.
We expect to have these policy concerns resolved within three months
and will then work with sponsors to define and obtain commitments for
the items of local cooperation. When the General Reevaluation Report is
approved, we will initiate negotiations with the non-Federal sponsor
for a Project Cooperation Agreement and process the draft Environmental
Impact Statement. With so much work remaining to be done, it may not be
possible to complete all of the steps required by law, especially the
National Environmental Policy Act, before the end of fiscal year 1999.
Concurrently, we are preparing a decision document presenting revisions
of the project to provide substantial amounts of groundwater
protection, wetland restoration, and water fowl habitat to enable the
Secretary of Army to determine whether, as stated in Section 363(a) of
the Water Resource Development Act of 1996 `` * * * the change in scope
of the project is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and
economic, as applicable.'' Nonetheless, assuming funding is provided as
requested, we will do all that we can do to achieve the actual start of
construction as soon as possible.
Question. Language was provided in the fiscal year 1998 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act directing the Corps to reevaluate
the Grand Prairie and Bayou Meto Projects. Will the Corps provide my
office with the results of the evaluation regarding the status of these
irrigation projects?
Answer. Yes, The General Reevaluation Report on the Grand Prairie
element of the Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin Project was
submitted to Corps Headquarters in October 1997. Policy issues are
currently being resolved. The fiscal year 1998 Appropriations Act urged
the Corps to continue design on the Grand Prairie and initiate a
reevaluation of the Bayou Meto Basin. Funds were reprogrammed into the
Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin Project and design of the
first item of construction, the pumping station, for the Grand Prairie
has been initiated. Preparation of a plan of study for reevaluation of
the Bayou Meto Basin to include substantial amounts of groundwater
protection, wetland restoration, and water fowl habitat has also been
initiated. Your office will be kept informed of the status of the
resolution of policy issues for the Grand Prairie and of the
reevaluation of the Bayou Meto Basin.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
STATEMENTS OF:
PATRICIA J. BENEKE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER AND SCIENCE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ELUID L. MARTINEZ, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
opening remarks
Senator Domenici. Now could we have Patty Beneke, Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science, Department of the Interior,
and Eluid Martinez, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation
come to the witness table.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, as they are coming up here, we
have been working the last couple of days on the Superfund bill
and the final committee vote on that is going to be at 11:30
a.m. So I am going to have to again recognize and excuse
myself. I'll return shortly.
Senator Domenici. Is that in committee?
Senator Reid. Yes; we are going to report a bill out. So I
am going to have to do that before our vote.
Senator Domenici. Secretary Beneke, Commissioner Martinez,
we welcome you. We look forward to your testimony. We have
reviewed it.
If you could be as brief as possible, we would greatly
appreciate it.
Please proceed.
statement of patricia j. beneke
Ms. Beneke. Yes; good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure to be here again this year as Assistant Secretary for
Water and Science to testify regarding the President's fiscal
year 1999 budget request for both the Bureau of Reclamation and
the Central Utah Project Completion Act.
I will be very brief this morning. My written statement
highlights several key items in Reclamation's budget request.
Among these, providing adequate funding for facilities
operation and maintenance and for dam safety continues to be a
high priority for both the Commissioner and me.
The budget request for the CALFED program has already come
up this morning. I would like to make a few comments on that.
california bay-delta ecosystem restoration
We appreciate the Congress' efforts in passing legislation
in 1996 to authorize the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem
Restoration Program [CALFED] and in providing funding in the
amount of $85 million for the program this fiscal year.
CALFED, which is a consortium of Federal and State agencies
working on the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration
Program, has developed a careful, consultative process to
select the highest priority restoration actions for funding.
We are doing everything possible to invest these funds
effectively and wisely.
For fiscal year 1999, the President's budget requests
funding consistent with the congressional authorization. In
addition, I would like to emphasize that we are working very
closely with the State of California, and they are
participating as full cost-share partners with us.
This initiative is important for California and for the
Nation for resolving the long-term issues of the Bay-Delta,
where we are confronted with serious problems regarding not
only habitat degradation but also water supply, water quality,
and flood control.
Finally, consistent with the Central Utah Project
Completion Act, the Secretary has delegated to my office
responsibility for completion of the Central Utah Project. For
the record, I would like to assure Senator Bennett that both
OMB and I are working diligently to provide an expeditious
response to his request.
prepared statement
This concludes my statement and, again, it is both a
pleasure and an honor to be here this morning.
Senator Domenici. Did you have a longer statement?
Ms. Beneke. Yes; I have a longer statement that I would
like to submit for the record.
Senator Domenici. That will be made part of the record.
Ms. Beneke. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patricia J. Beneke
I am pleased to appear before this Subcommittee again as Assistant
Secretary for Water & Science to testify in support of the President's
fiscal year 1999 budget for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central
Utah Project.
Reclamation's fiscal year 1999 request reflects its focus on water
resources management. Providing adequate funding for the operation,
maintenance and rehabilitation of its facilities continues to be one of
Reclamation's highest priorities, and its staff works closely with
water users and other stakeholders to ensure that available funds are
used effectively. The fiscal year 1999 request will allow the timely
and effective delivery of project benefits; ensure the reliability and
operational readiness of Reclamation's dams, reservoirs, power plants,
and distribution systems; and identify, plan, and implement dam safety
corrective actions and site security improvements.
The budget request for the Department of the Interior reflects the
Department's and the Administration's continued commitment to address
natural resource issues by working in geographically-based partnerships
that cross not only the jurisdictional boundaries within the Federal
government but also involve the States, Tribes, local communities and
affected stakeholders.
This approach is reflected in several major initiatives in the
Department's fiscal year 1999 budget, including actions implementing
the President's Forest Plan in the Pacific Northwest, implementing the
Vice President's Clean Water Action Plan, making the Endangered Species
Act work better through partnerships with private landowners, and
restoring California's Bay-Delta ecosystem. In South Florida, several
Federal agencies are working closely with the State, Tribes, local
communities and affected stakeholders to restore the Everglades. And,
finally, because funding for another such vital effort, the multi-
agency Bay-Delta Restoration Program, is included in the Bureau of
Reclamation's budget request, I will discuss it in more detail this
morning.
Eluid Martinez, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation is
appearing with me today. His testimony will address details of the
fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation. This
morning I would like to highlight only one or two key elements in
Reclamation's budget and also discuss the request for the Central Utah
Project, for which my office is responsible. Ron Johnston, Program
Director for the Central Utah Project (CUP) Completion Act Office is
also with me today.
california bay-delta ecosystem restoration
The President's fiscal year 1999 budget request includes second
year funding of $143.3 million, the full amount authorized by the 1996
Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement and Security Act. The historic 1994
Bay-Delta Accord recognized that a comprehensive set of actions is
required to balance competing water uses, restoring and protecting the
Bay-Delta ecosystem while providing the reliable water supply on which
the State's long-term economic health depends. Under the Accord,
CALFED--a consortium of the Federal and State agencies with management
and regulatory responsibilities in the Bay-Delta--is developing a
balanced solution to the four main problems in the Bay-Delta: uncertain
water supplies, aging levees, declining fish and wildlife habitat, and
threatened water quality. Working with stakeholder groups, CALFED has
defined and analyzed options which can result in a comprehensive, long-
term program for water quality, water supply, levee stability, and
ecosystem restoration. Ecosystem restoration is an essential component
in achieving the goals of the program.
During 1997, CALFED developed a careful consultative process to
select the highest priority ecosystem restoration actions for funding.
It includes two methods of identifying proposals: Public Project
Solicitations and CALFED Directed Programs. Under both methods,
proposals are reviewed by technical experts and the CALFED program
staff before going to the Ecosystem Roundtable and the Bay Delta
Advisory Council for review and advice. A final list of recommended
proposals is then forwarded by the CALFED Policy Team to the Secretary
of the Interior, or in the case of State funds, the California
Resources Secretary for approval.
The first Public Project Solicitation was published by CALFED in
June 1997, and resulted in 332 proposals for a total of $471 million.
In December, 50 of these proposals were selected and recommended for
approval: 44 costing a total of $37.3 million to be funded using the
State's Proposition 204 money, and six costing a total of $21 million
to be funded using Federal funds appropriated for this program in
fiscal year 1998. In February of this year the Secretary approved these
six projects and four others recommended by the CALFED Policy Team.
These projects will be described in our first quarterly report to
Congress.
In early March, following the process described above, the CALFED
Policy Team recommended approval of a package of projects and programs
that would use the balance of the funds appropriated for this program
in fiscal year 1998. A letter seeking final approval of this package is
now in the review process within the Department.
bureau of reclamation
Aside from the request for the Bay-Delta Restoration initiative,
the budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation totals $775.8 million,
a decrease of $8 million. The request includes adequate funding for
operations, maintenance and rehabilitation, which continues to be a
high priority for both the Commissioner and me. The request also
includes $68 million for the dam safety program, $50 million for the
Central Arizona Project; $25 million for the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control; $24 million for the Garrison Diversion Unit; $37
million for Water Reclamation/Reuse projects; $131 million for the
Central Valley Project; $49 million for the Central Valley Project
Restoration Fund; $13 million for Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery
and $15 million for Endangered Species Recovery, including the Platte
River.
Reclamation's water management mission places a greater emphasis on
water conservation, recycling and reuse; developing partnerships with
its customers, States and Tribes; finding ways to bring various
interests together to address their water needs; good stewardship of
Reclamation's facilities; and transferring title and operation of some
facilities to local beneficiaries. All these changes have one goal--to
meet the increasing water demands of the West while protecting the
environment and the public's investment.
The Reclamation budget request also includes the first Annual
Performance Plan required under the Government Performance and Results
Act. This plan identifies the annual goals for fiscal year 1999 that
support Reclamation's Strategic Plan that was submitted to Congress
last September.
central utah project completion act
The Central Utah Project Completion Act became law in October 1992
after several years of debate on how to complete the CUP and resolve
related claims of the Ute Indian Tribe. The Act provides for completion
of the Central Utah Project (CUP) by the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District. The Act also authorizes funding for fish, wildlife, and
recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes the Utah
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to coordinate
mitigation and conservation activities; and provides for the Ute Indian
Rights Settlement.
The Central Utah Project Completion Act prohibits the Secretary
from delegating his responsibilities under the Act to the Bureau of
Reclamation, and therefore, responsibility for overseeing
implementation of the Act has been delegated to the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science. We have established a
program coordination office in Provo, Utah, with a Program Director to
provide oversight, review, and liaison with the District, the
Commission, and the Ute Indian Tribe, and to assist in administering
the responsibilities of the Secretary under the Act.
We are pleased with progress to date in implementing the Act.
Accomplishments through fiscal year 1997 include: initiation of
construction on the Wasatch County Water Efficiency Project;
implementation of 14 other water conservation measures that conserve a
total of 12,000 acre-feet of water annually (enough water to serve
60,000 urban dwellers annually); initiation of a major conjunctive use
project in Salt Lake County; completion of construction of the Lower
Diamond Fork Pipeline; substantial progress on planning the remaining
segments of the Diamond Fork System, the Spanish Fork Canyon/Nephi
Irrigation System, and the Uinta Basin replacement facilities; and
initiation of a variety of activities by the Mitigation Commission,
including land acquisitions for the Provo River Restoration Project,
and around Great Salt Lake, the Jordan River, and Utah Lake to protect
wetlands.
The fiscal year 1999 request for the Central Utah Project
Completion Account provides $40.9 million for use by the District, the
Mitigation Commission, and the Department, a decrease of $0.2 million
from the fiscal year 1998 enacted level. This includes $20.4 million
for the District to continue construction and implementation of the
Wasatch County Water Efficiency Project and other water conservation
projects; to continue work on the Diamond Fork System and the Spanish
Fork Canyon/Nephi Irrigation System; and to continue implementation of
the Uinta Basin Replacement Project and the groundwater recharge and
conjunctive use programs. In addition, the fiscal year 1999 request
includes $1.4 million to continue work on additional replacement
facilities for the Uintah and Upalco Units that would serve Indian and
non-Indian users in the Uinta Basin.
The request also provides $12.4 million that would be transferred
to the Mitigation Commission for mitigation and conservation projects
authorized in Title III of the Act, and for completion of other
mitigation measures identified in Reclamation planning documents.
Finally, the request includes funds for the Federal contribution to the
principal of the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account
($5.0 million); for mitigation and conservation projects outside the
State of Utah ($0.3 million); and for activities administered by the
program office ($1.4 million).
In addition to this request, the Bureau of Reclamation's budget
includes $0.1 million to complete certain features of the CUP; $30.0
million is included in the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget for the Ute
Indian Rights Settlement authorized in Title V of the Act; and $5.0
million is included in the request for the Western Area Power
Administration for its contribution to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation
and Conservation Account.
This completes my statement today. Again, thank you for providing
me the opportunity to discuss with this subcommittee our fiscal year
1999 requests. The Commissioner and I will be pleased to respond to
your questions.
statement of eluid l. martinez
Senator Domenici. Commissioner.
Commissioner Martinez. Mr. Chairman, my written statement
will be submitted for the record, and I will try to be brief.
Generally, Reclamation's budget contains a request for
approximately $776 million for our traditional programs. That
reflects a decrease of $8 million from our fiscal year 1998
level.
Approximately 50 percent of our 600 dams out West were
constructed between 1900 and 1950. The continued safe
performance of those structures as they age is of great
concern. Our budget reflects the need to continue to address
this high priority item.
budget summary
With respect to our facility operation and maintenance
budget line item, we are requesting $8.2 million above our
fiscal year 1998 level and believe it is sufficient to
adequately maintain and operate those structures.
Let me draw your attention to one Bureau of Reclamation
program which has drawn quite a bit of interest. It is the
Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.
As you know, in 1992, Congress authorized four projects in
southern California, and in 1996, 18 additional projects were
authorized. Our budget request this year includes $37 million
to continue funding the four projects initiated in 1992, plus
minor amounts for the Arsenic Wellhead project in New Mexico,
one demonstration project in South Dakota, and a reuse study in
California.
Our budget request this year includes $7.8 million of new
money to be used as follows: $1.1 million for assisting project
sponsors with feasibility studies and to review and prioritize
projects for possible funding in the future; $1 million for
research and development activities; $1 million for
preconstruction work on the Orange County Regional Water
Reclamation project; and the balance of $4.7 million is to move
forward three projects out of those 18 projects that were
authorized, and to continue one additional project that already
has ongoing funding. We propose to spend $800,000 for the
continuation of the Tooele project in Utah; $1.3 million for
the North San Diego County project; $1.3 million for the Long
Beach project; and $1.3 for the Calleguas project. The last
three are in California.
We in Reclamation went through an extensive process for
soliciting information from the project sponsors to determine
which of the authorized projects were ready to go to
construction. We then did a ranking using a criteria process to
come up with these four new projects.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman, that is my summary, and, other than the
issues that you will find in our budget, these are the issues
of interest.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eluid L. Martinez
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee this morning to discuss
the Bureau of Reclamation's fiscal year 1999 budget request.
The Bureau of Reclamation has been in existence for 96 years,
developing and managing water and related resources in the Western
United States. Having constructed more than 600 dams and reservoirs,
including such significant structures as Hoover and Grand Coulee Dams,
Reclamation today is the largest water wholesaler in the country,
bringing water resources to more than 31 million people and irrigating
approximately 10 million acres of land. Reclamation is also the second
largest producer of hydroelectric power in the nation and the fifth
largest electric utility in the West. Reclamation's 58 powerplants
annually provide more than 40 billion kilowatt-hours, generate nearly a
billion dollars in power revenues, and produce enough electricity to
serve six million homes.
Today, the main focus of the Bureau of Reclamation is to provide
improved water resources management. Reclamation programs include a
broad range of water uses, such as domestic water supply, irrigation,
Indian self-sufficiency, fish and wildlife protection, endangered
species recovery, environmental restoration, and recreation. Since
water is a scarce resource in the West, the budget proposes innovative
strategies for addressing water resource issues, including water
reclamation and reuse.
For fiscal year 1999, the Bureau of Reclamation is requesting
$919.1 million, of which $893.3 million is new budget authority and
$25.8 million is a transfer of unobligated balances from its Working
Capital Fund. This request includes $775.8 million for Reclamation's
traditional programs, a decrease of $8.0 million from the fiscal year
1998 level; and $143.3 million for California Bay-Delta Ecosystem
Restoration account, which is administered by Reclamation but funds
activities in several Federal agencies, an increase of $58.3 million
over fiscal year 1998.
Before moving into the more specific financial data, I'd like to
discuss several programs and issues of interest.
annual performance plan
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 requires
annual performance plans beginning with fiscal year 1999 and annual
performance reports beginning in March of 2000. Reclamation has made
significant progress in the implementation of GPRA. Based on
Reclamation's Strategic Plan, the fiscal year 1999 Annual Performance
Plan has been developed to address the direction of key programmatic
activities. This plan reflects the linkage between strategies and goals
of the Strategic Plan, the annual performance goals and indicators, and
the programmatic budget. Each performance goal is linked to program and
financing activities and accounts as indicated in the tables provided
with the Annual Performance Plan.
dam safety
Ensuring the safety and reliability of Reclamation dams is one of
the agency's highest priorities. This program is critical to
effectively manage risks to the downstream public safety, property, and
natural resources. Funding of $10.0 million is being requested for
ongoing modifications on four dams--Cachuma Project, Bradbury Dam in
California; Salt River Project, Horse Mesa Dam in Arizona; Weber Basin
Project, Lost Creek Dam in Utah; and San Angelo Project, Twin Buttes
Dam in Texas.
In addition, $56.6 million is requested for the Safety of Dams
Evaluation and Modification Program that provides for risk management
activities throughout Reclamation's inventory of 378 high and
significant hazard dams, as well as preconstruction and construction
activities for up to 32 dams in the Safety of Dams program. Another
$1.5 million is requested for the Department of the Interior Dam Safety
Program.
Approximately 50 percent of Reclamation's dams were built between
1900 and 1950, and approximately 90 percent of the dams were built
before current state-of-the-art foundation treatment and filter
techniques were incorporated in embankment dams to better control
seepage. Continued safe performance becomes a greater concern with
aging of the dams and places a greater emphasis on the risk management
activities provided by the program.
el nino
The current El Nino is producing heavy precipitation in California
and in the Southeastern U.S. While these areas are the most seriously
affected to date, the unusually mild and humid air mass over much of
the nation presents the potential for additional weather anomalies as
Spring arrives. Long-lead forecasting of specific amounts of
precipitation and runoff is impossible for particular river basins.
Water managers must watch the short-range forecasts closely--to best
manage reservoir operations. This requires close cooperation with the
National Weather Service, Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological
Survey, National Resources Conservation Service and state water
management agencies.
Reclamation has taken an aggressive role in preparing for El Nino
impacts: reservoirs were drawn down; and water operations managers took
other proactive positions regarding water supply forecasts. They are
fully aware of El Nino's historic impacts in their river basins, and
Reclamation has taken special precautions in planning operations. The
Denver Office has established a real-time, continually updated El Nino
Website and its hydrometeorological team is closely collaborating with
National Weather Service forecasters. The Central Valley Operations
Office in Sacramento has developed a special flood runoff and reservoir
operations model above Folsom Reservoir in collaboration with the
National Weather Service to assist in operations. Water managers will
take appropriate actions when there is clear evidence of any developing
problems. Thus far, we have identified $2.3 million of emergency needs
and included them in the Administration's request for supplemental
funding in fiscal year 1998.
Now, I would like to focus on Reclamation's fiscal year 1999 Budget
request by appropriation.
Water and Related Resources.--The amount requested for the Water
and Related Resources appropriation for fiscal year 1999, $665.9
million, is a decrease of $27.1 million from the fiscal year 1998
enacted level of $693.0 million. This appropriation funds five program
activities. These are Water and Energy Management and Development, Fish
and Wildlife Management and Development, Land Management and
Development, Facility Operations, and Facility Maintenance and
Rehabilitation.
The fiscal year 1999 Budget proposes $273.4 million for Facility
Operations and Facility Maintenance and Rehabilitation, an increase of
$8.2 million from the fiscal year 1998 enacted level. Reclamation
places high priority on these activities, which ensure delivery of
project benefits and protect the Federal investment and the public
through the dam safety program, discussed above, and other measures.
The request includes $49.9 million for the Central Arizona Project;
$131.4 million for the Central Valley Project in California; $31.3
million for the Mni Wiconi Project and $10 million for the Mid-Dakota
Project in South Dakota; $24.1 million for the Garrison Project in
North Dakota; $37 million for water reclamation and reuse projects; and
$3 million for the Animas-LaPlata Project in Colorado and New Mexico.
The fiscal year 1999 request of $37 million for water recycling
includes funding for four projects that were authorized by the 102nd
Congress in 1992, plus minor amounts for Arsenic Wellhead in New
Mexico, the Rapid City Wastewater Reuse Study in South Dakota, and the
Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study.
Additional projects were authorized in 1996 through Title XVI
amendments. The Bureau has included $1 million for the Orange County
Regional Water Reclamation Project in California and $6.8 million for
research and feasibility studies, and to initiate construction cost
sharing on additional projects. As this testimony is being prepared, we
are completing a careful selection process and will inform the
subcommittee of the results.
Reclamation's fiscal year 1999 request includes a proposal which
fully funds the acquisition of capital assets for four water resource
projects. This is part of an overall effort to improve the way the
Federal Government manages the planning, budgeting, and acquisition of
capital assets.
Reclamation's fiscal year 1999 request proposes to fully fund four
projects through advance appropriations. The four projects are:
Colorado River Front Work & Levee System (CA, AZ); Salt River Project,
Horse Mesa Dam, Safety of Dams (AZ); Minidoka Northside Drainwater
Management Project (ID); and Weber Basin Rehabilitation and Betterment
Project (UT).
The total amount requested for fiscal year 1999 for these projects
is $7 million. In addition, appropriation language is included in the
fiscal year 1999 budget to provide advance appropriations totaling
$22.6 million in fiscal year 2000 and beyond (including cost indexing),
which should be sufficient to complete these projects.
The request also includes $10.2 million for our Science and
Technology Program. This funding is requested for development of new
information and technologies that respond to and anticipate mission-
related needs, and that provide for innovative management, development,
and protection of water and related resources and associated values
through cost-shared research and technology transfer.
Loan Program.--Funding of $12 million is requested to continue work
on six loans--Chino Basin Desalination, Castroville Irrigation, Salinas
Valley Water Reclamation, San Sevaine Creek, and Temescal Valley, in
California, and Milltown Hill, in Oregon. In addition, $425,000 is
requested for program administration.
Policy and Administration.--The $48 million requested supports
Reclamation's centralized management functions. These functions include
overall program and personnel policy management; equal employment
opportunity management; safety and health management; budgetary policy
formulation and execution; information resources management, property,
and general services policy; public affairs activities; and
organizational and management analysis.
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.--The Restoration Fund
request is the full $49.4 million allowed for fiscal year 1999. These
funds are focused on three primary emphases: water acquisition for
instream flows and refuges; refuge conveyance and refuge water
wheeling; and land retirement. Efforts to provide for the doubling of
the anadromous fish population are expected to be enhanced through
increased emphasis on partnerships with local, state, and stakeholder
involvement.
California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration.--The fiscal year 1999
budget includes a request for $143.3 million to continue Federal cost
sharing in ecosystem restoration efforts in California's Bay-Delta, the
full amount authorized by the California Bay-Delta Environmental
Enhancement Act. Although requested in a single account under
Reclamation, the funds will be distributed among participating Federal
agencies based upon the program recommended by CALFED, a consortium of
Federal and State agencies with management and regulatory
responsibilities in the Bay-Delta, and approved by the Secretary of the
Interior.
The fiscal year 1999 budget request provides details on how we
intend to use the funds, including a summary of how the project
selection process works. Participating agencies and the CALFED staff
have developed a fiscal year 1998 program that covers habitat
acquisition and restoration, improvements to fish screens and passage,
and exotic species management. In early February the Secretary approved
a proposal for the allocation of the first $23 million of fiscal year
1998 Federal funding. A second package approving the remaining $62
million of the $85 million appropriated in fiscal year 1998 is expected
to be approved by the Secretary very soon.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared remarks. I would be happy to respond to any questions Members
may have concerning the Reclamation program and our fiscal year 1999
Budget request.
dam safety program
Senator Domenici. Commissioner, let me ask this. You stated
that many of our reclamation dams were built between 1900 all
the way through 1950. Is there a process where these dams are
evaluated regularly for dam safety?
Commissioner Martinez. Yes; we have in our budget request a
line-item request for money to repair dam deficiencies and
money for continuing inspection and operation of these
facilities.
We inspect our high and significant hazard dams on a
routine basis and our low-hazard dams on a routine, but less
frequent, basis. But we do inspect every single dam.
Senator Domenici. So we should not wake up in the morning
suspecting there has been a dam failure unless there was
something unusual happening upstream from the dam?
Commissioner Martinez. I would dread the day that I have to
wake up to that scenario. I would hope not.
Senator Domenici. That is why the dam safety program is in
effect.
Commissioner Martinez. Correct.
Our dam safety request this year, Mr. Chairman, reflects a
lesser amount than it did last year. The reason it does that is
because we need less construction money this year since we have
completed work on some dams. However, I am advised that in the
future years, that request will go up as we identify
construction needs at particular dams.
animas-La Plata project
Senator Domenici. Regarding the Animas-La Plata project,
the Bureau has begun what you call a reconnaissance level
appraisal of both the opponents' downsize project and the
proponents' proposal to provide the tribes money to purchase
water rights. The committee has been clear, and specifically
referred to a modified project, not a method of paying the
tribes money for them to buy water rights. What is the status
of the appraisal study?
Has the study been completed and do you have it with you
today?
Ms. Beneke. I will take a crack at that, Senator.
As you know, Governor Romer and Lt. Gov. Gail Schoettler of
Colorado convened the Romer-Schoettler process a year or one-
half years ago to try to work through these issues. As a result
of that process, two main alternatives came out for the Animas-
La Plata Project. One is the so-called Animas Lite, which is a
downsized structural alternative. The other one is a
nonstructural alternative that involves both additional storage
in existing facilities and some acquisition of water for the
tribes.
When those alternatives were forwarded to us, the
Commissioner and I discussed it. We decided that the best
course would be to evaluate the alternatives and to do an
appraisal-level study, anticipating possible authorizing
legislation in this Congress and anticipating questions about
both of the alternatives.
The Bureau is in the midst of doing this study. Again, it
is just at the appraisal level. At the time we decided to
undertake the study, we said that we would do everything
possible to have it done in 3 to 6 months. We are still within
that timeframe.
We are making good progress on the analysis. It is going to
have to be cleared by the administration, and we do not control
that timeframe. But, other than that, I think we will be within
our 3 to 6 month estimate.
Senator Domenici. Yes; Commissioner?
Commissioner Martinez. Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the
controversy of this particular project. There were two
proposals that really came out of this Romer-Schoettler
process. I thought it was in the best interest to be prepared
to answer specific questions on both proposals. That is why I
undertook this study.
I have reviewed a draft document, and I would expect that
it would be released by Reclamation in the next few weeks for
clearance by the administration. I would hope I would be
prepared to respond to specific questions at a future hearing.
Senator Domenici. When do you think that might be? In a
month?
Commissioner Martinez. The clearing of the report?
Senator Domenici. When you think you would be in a position
to tell us more.
Commissioner Martinez. I will be in a position to move the
document through the Bureau of Reclamation, hopefully in the
next few weeks. As to when it will come out of the
administration, I cannot say.
Senator Domenici. What about your thoughts on whether this
is going to cause undue delay? Is somebody really serious about
this new scheme to pay them money to buy water rights?
Obviously, the Indians want to store water rights. They don't
want money. They want to be able to store them so they can use
them for a very diverse set of potential uses.
I understand the administration regularly says we are for
Animas-La Plata and they send us up $3 million, $4 million, or
$5 million in their budget. But then it seems like there is no
end to the delays.
Ms. Beneke. Well, it certainly was not our intention, in
taking a look at these two proposals, to delay anything any
further. We just want to be in a position to be as responsive
as we can be to the inquiries regarding both.
Senator Domenici. Where do these kind of proposals go after
they leave you? From your shop, the Secretary level, do they go
through some environmental review section within the
administration beyond OMB? Where would it go?
Ms. Beneke. The study--is that what you mean?
Senator Domenici. Whatever. You are coming up with a final
decision. To get there, after you all have looked at the
modified plan, the so-called Animas-La Plata Lite, and the
other study that you are looking at for payment in dollars to
acquire water rights, when you have reached a conclusion as you
have put that together, where does it go in the administration?
Ms. Beneke. The Animas-La Plata Lite proposal would require
legislation. Senator Campbell has introduced a bill that
basically embodies the Animas-La Plata Lite proposal.
The report that we are doing, because we are planning to
provide it to the Congress, will need to be cleared through
OMB. We are also doing our best to coordinate with EPA and with
CEQ. EPA has voiced concerns in the past regarding our
environmental documentation. We think it is good Government to
try to coordinate with them as well.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, would you yield just for a
brief second?
Senator Domenici. Of course.
Senator Reid. I would like to submit my questions and ask
the Secretary and Commissioner Martinez if you would answer
those not only for the record but send a copy to my office. I
have to go up and vote on Superfund now, which is going to be
reported out of committee.
Senator Domenici. Do you have any to ask before you go?
Senator Reid. No; this will be fine. I have had a meeting
with the Secretary and I have some additional questions here.
If you get back to me as soon as you can, that would be
adequate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for helping
today.
animas-la plata project
I guess what I am wondering about, Madam Secretary, is
this. How long is it going to take for the administration to
say what it is going to say in an official way about the
Animas-La Plata Lite?
Ms. Beneke. It is difficult for me to give you a specific
timeframe. At the Interior Department, we are working as
expeditiously as possible to complete this review. It would
certainly be my hope that the review would make it possible for
the administration to take a position on the pending
legislation.
Senator Domenici. I'll tell you, every year it is the same
story. You send up a little bit of money and request further
studies and further reviews. I personally would think, and as
chairman of the subcommittee I think it would just be better to
reach a point where we are just going to forthrightly say what
do you recommend and go from there.
I will communicate that further to whomever I must. But we
are going to be called upon to appropriate a small amount of
money. It could end up being a lot of money. I don't want to be
just misled every year into putting something in with the
administration pulling the plug in 18 months or 2 years when
they finally give an opinion. I don't see why it should take
more than a few months for the administration, with all its
stopover points, to give Congress an answer.
My hunch is there are many within the administration who
don't want this project. Now that may be a normal process.
That's fine. But we keep hearing from the Interior Department
that the project is getting a go-ahead sign, that you all have
been requesting money and it has been put in. I just think
sooner or later we have to end this process. Either we are
totally on our own up here or we have the administration
suggesting some changes on which they would predicate they
support a recommendation.
You understand. You have been up here on this side with us.
One reason we think you are doing so well is because you
understand us. We do have some prerogatives. It is not all OMB.
As Senator Byrd so aptly describes, that is what the
Constitution says. You don't get any money without us. That is
one interesting thing.
So whatever you can do to convey that to the right people,
we will convey it to OMB.
Thank you very much.
rio grande low-flow conveyance channel study
Commissioner, the Rio Grande Low-Flow Conveyance Channel
Study, the funding for the Rio Grande Conveyance Channel Study
is requested at $25,000, compared to $265,000 in 1998. What
does that mean?
Commissioner Martinez. I cannot respond directly to you on
that. I will look into it for the record.
But my knowledge is that there is a holdup on the
construction because of some consultation on endangered species
issues. I will have to get back to you on that.
Senator Domenici. OK. I need to know specifically, when you
get back to us, if the $25,000 is sufficient to keep the study
on schedule and to meet the commitments that are made in fiscal
year 1999. Would you do that?
Commissioner Martinez. This is not the model study for the
assessment for the Rio Grande, but there is a Rio Grande
Assessment Assistance model.
Senator Domenici. We will work with you on being more
specific. Please get that information to us.
[The information follows:]
Rio Grande Low-Flow Conveyance Channel Study
The fiscal year 1998 enacted budget for the Rio Grande Low-Flow
Conveyance Channel Study was $170,000, which, coupled with $95,000 from
non-federal contributions equals the amount needed for fiscal year 1998
of $265,000. Originally, the study was scheduled for completion in
fiscal year 1998; however, completion of the study has been pushed into
fiscal year 1999. The $25,000 requested for fiscal year 1999 is
sufficient to complete the draft and final environmental impact
statement and complete the study.
el paso-las cruces regional sustainable water project
Senator Domenici. There is an El Paso-Las Cruces Regional
Sustainable Water project. Are you familiar with that,
Commissioner?
Commissioner Martinez. That's a study for the pipeline down
in that part of the country. Yes.
I believe our budget contains some money. They have an
ability to spend another million dollars, and they have that
capability. If the money is available, I think they would need
it. They could use it.
Senator Domenici. Maybe you can look at that more
specifically. Our understanding is that the 1999 budget does
not contain any follow-on funding for the project.
california bay-delta ecosystem restoration
I have one last question for you on the California Bay-
Delta Ecosystem Restoration, CALFED project. We provided $85
million for the first year appropriation for that program. It
is expected over time to cost quite a few billions of dollars.
How much of the appropriation has been allocated to specific
projects that have definite completion dates?
Ms. Beneke. To the best of my knowledge, Senator, $23
million was approved in February to specific projects. The
program did a public solicitation for projects last summer. We
had $470 million worth of projects proposed.
There has been an extensive project selection process. It
is outlined in my written statement. As a result of that
process, $23 million worth of projects have been approved.
Another package is pending approval at the Department. It is a
package for both programs and specific projects which will
allocate the balance of the $85 million. We expect that
imminently.
Senator Domenici. I have about five questions on CALFED and
would ask you to respond to them.
southern new mexico study
Commissioner Martinez. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Domenici. Yes.
Commissioner Martinez. With respect to the southern New
Mexico study, our fiscal year 1999 budget does not contain any
money. The fiscal year 1998 request was a $400,000 write-in. I
believe the participants would be seeking a $400,000 write-in.
Senator Domenici. I did not hear you. Tell me that again.
Commissioner Martinez. The fiscal year 1999 budget does not
contain a request for the southern New Mexico study. There was
a write-in of $400,000 in 1998, and the project sponsors would
appreciate $400,000 for 1999. They could use it.
Senator Domenici. OK. But you don't have it in your budget.
Commissioner Martinez. No.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Additional committee questions
We have a number of other questions regarding operation and
maintenance costs and a series of other questions. We will
submit them to you in the interest of time.
You have been very patient, waiting around while the other
witnesses were testifying. Maybe next time we will sequence you
and tell you when you are coming on. One year we will put you
on first. Maybe next year, whoever is second, we will tell them
that the people don't have to be here for an hour or one-half
hour after our starting time.
Thank you so much.
Ms. Beneke. Thank you.
Commissioner Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Domenici
animas-la plata
Question. The Bureau of Reclamation has begun what they call a
``reconnaissance level appraisal'' of both the proponent's downsized
project and the opponent's proposal to provide the Tribes money to
purchase water rights citing the direction of this Committee as the
basis of undertaking this work. The Committee was very clear and
specifically referred to a modified ``project'', not a scheme to pay
the Tribes Federal dollars to buy water from their non-Indian
neighbors. An important component to the Tribes is to have the ability
to store their rightful water supplies.
What is the status of the appraisal study? Has the study been
completed and--do you have it with you today?
Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation is in the process of completing
the appraisal level study of two major alternatives that resulted from
the process led by Governor Romer and Lieutenant Governor Schoettler
and estimates that it will have its work completed within the three to
six month time-frame as originally estimated. The study will also need
Administration clearance prior to its release. No final conclusions
have been reached at this time.
Question. In light of the fact that legislation has now been
introduced to move a modified project forward, one that the Tribes will
accept as full settlement of their claims, what is the Administration's
position on this modified project, and how do you intend to use the
fiscal year 1999 budget request? Will the $3,000,000 be used for
anything other than more studies?
Answer. At this time it would be premature for the Administration
to take a position regarding either alternative. However, under either
alternative, fiscal year 1999 funds would be used for additional
compliance activities and to address cost- share and repayment issues.
el paso-las cruces regional sustainable water project
Question. Last year $400,000 was provided for the Rio Grande
Conveyance Canal Pipeline project. The name has been changed to the El
Paso-Las Cruces Regional Sustainable Water project to better reflect
the regional nature of the project. However, the Bureau's budget
request for fiscal year 1999 does not contain any follow on funding for
the project.
Is there any reason, other than budget constraints, that shaped
your decision not to request funding for the El Paso-Las Cruces project
in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Yes. Funding this type of project would not be a high
priority by the Administration who would oppose efforts to fund
construction of a single-purpose, municipal and industrial water supply
project of this kind through the Reclamation program.
Question. What is the capability of the Bureau of Reclamation to
continue this project in fiscal year 1999 and how will the funds be
used?
Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation has the capability to expend
approximately $400,000. Funds would be used for scoping and agency
coordination, natural and cultural resource surveys to include
assessment of Endangered Species Act and cultural resource compliance;
development and analysis of alternatives; and an Environmental Impact
Statement.
Question. As a general matter, setting aside budgetary issues, does
the Administration support pursuing this type of project through the
Bureau of Reclamation?
Answer. If Congress again adds funds, we are prepared to continue
to use our expertise to assist the local communities at this stage of
the planning process. The Bureau has an interest in the project at this
stage of the planning process because the water resources that are
being studied are administered by the Bureau and the project would
require substantial coordination and review by the Bureau and other
Federal agencies. However, typically the Administration would oppose
efforts to fund construction of a single-purpose, municipal and
industrial water supply project of this kind through the Reclamation
program.
operation and maintenance costs
Question. Both the House and Senate Energy and Water Subcommittees
address the issue of providing stakeholders an opportunity to
participate in the review and development of operation and maintenance
budgets for their respective projects. What steps has the Bureau of
Reclamation taken to implement such a process?
Answer. In the recent past, Reclamation has involved the various
water and power contractors in varying degrees of user participation to
discuss prospective budgets and costs, including major maintenance
items such as capital replacements that impact these users. Feedback
obtained from users at a recent Family Farm Alliance meeting in early
March identified a detailed process that Reclamation is currently
evaluating.
Question. The Bureau has had six months to develop this process.
Why is it taking so long to interact with stakeholders on the O&M
program?
Answer. Stakeholder participation in the development of our fiscal
year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 budgets has taken place both formally
and informally throughout Reclamation, but perhaps not to the degree
and depth as requested by some users. Reclamation is currently
exploring additional opportunities to allow stakeholder involvement in
developing the fiscal year 2001 budget.
Question. Do you plan any conversations with project beneficiaries
concerning the fiscal year 1999 budget or development of the fiscal
year 2000 budget request?
Answer. Conversations with many project beneficiaries took place
during formulation of the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000
budgets. Reclamation is exploring additional opportunities to allow
more involvement by project beneficiaries in developing the fiscal year
2001 budget.
Question. Given that construction activity is winding down and that
Reclamation soon will no longer be a construction agency, will not the
direct collection of operation and maintenance costs for most of the
contracting and contract management activities currently conducted by
the Bureau of Reclamation essentially remove Reclamation from the
budget process?
Answer. No. Reclamation still operates and maintains multipurpose
projects that affect the national interest. In addition, on many
projects there are nonreimbursable activities such as flood control,
fish and wildlife, recreation activities, land management, and water
quality that continue to be funded by Reclamation. The transfer of O&M
responsibility to our users/contractors, or transfer of title to some
facilities where feasible, has allowed Reclamation to meet its
maintenance funding requirements without having to seek significant
increases in appropriated funds.
Question. Since most of these projects, if not all of them that
will remain and not be handed over to project beneficiaries have
associated hydropower generation as part of their benefits and
repayment scheme, wouldn't contract administration be just as
efficiently managed if moved to the relevant power marketing
administration?
Answer. If power production were the primary purpose of
Reclamation's multi-purpose projects, then this approach might work.
Since the primary purpose of these projects is typically the use of
water for multiple purposes, it would not be appropriate to transfer
project administration to the power marketing administrations.
california bay-delta ecosystem restoration
Question. Congress provided a first year appropriation of
$85,000,000, for the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration
(CALFED) program which is expected to cost several billion of dollars
over many years.
Of the $85,000,000 appropriated for the current year, how much has
actually been or will be spent by the end of fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The full $85 million will be allocated to specific projects
or programs by the end of April 1998. Because much of this funding will
be used for projects of more than 12 months duration, Reclamation
estimates that $50 million or more will be obligated by the end of
fiscal year 1998 of which approximately $25 million will actually be
expended by September 30, 1998. This represents a first year ``spend
out rate'' of about 30 percent, or slightly less than the 35 percent
assumed in the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
Question. How much of the appropriation has been allocated to a
specific project that have initiation and completion dates? What is the
average cost and duration of the projects which have been committed to?
Answer. On February 13, 1998, the first package of Bay-Delta
Ecosystem Restoration projects totaling $23 million was approved by the
Department. A second package totaling $62 million is working its way
through the Department for approval. Roughly $35 million of this amount
are programs. With approval of the second package, the total $85
million will have been allocated to projects or programs. Of the $85
million allocation to projects and programs, approximately $32 million
will be allocated for 21 specific projects that have initiation and
completion dates. The range of project costs runs from $15,000 for a
small fish screen for the Boeger Family Farm to $10.6 million for land
acquisition and riparian restoration in the San Joaquin Floodplain.
With respect to the $35 million allocated to programs, CALFED plans
another solicitation for specific projects by program categories which
identify additional high priority specific projects. The duration of
these projects varies from 6 months to 3 years.
Question. How much of the $85,000,000 will remain uncommitted to
individual, specific projects at the end of fiscal year 1998. Is it
realistic to believe that the entire appropriation for CALFED be
identified by specific project? Please explain.
Answer. As mentioned in response to the question above, the full
$85,000,000 will be allocated or committed to specific projects or
programs shortly. It is neither realistic nor possible to identify
specific projects for fiscal year 1999 in advance of the time that
Congress appropriates the funds. It is also likely that some portion of
the funds allocated to one or more programs may not have been
identified with specific projects by the end of fiscal year 1998.
Question. What is the current status of the draft programmatic
environmental impact statement which, I believe, was to be published in
draft form in February or March?
Answer. The release date for the draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report was March 16, 1998. The public
comment period ends June 1, 1998.
Question. What is the importance of the programmatic EIS to
proceeding with additional requests for proposals for additional work
under CALFED?
Answer. The Environmental Impact Statement will not affect work
proposed for fiscal year 1999 under the Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration
Appropriation. Restoration work performed prior to the selection of the
preferred alternative is not dependent upon the outcome of the EIS.
Because ecosystem restoration is a common element in all of the
alternatives in the draft EIS, the activities being undertaken are
early implementation activities that comport with the regulation of the
Council on Environmental Quality.
Question. What is the schedule for completing and releasing the
final programmatic EIS?
Answer. The final programmatic EIS/EIR is scheduled to be released
to the public in December 1998, assuming the comment period for the
draft is not extended beyond the June 1 deadline.
Question. How much of the $143,000,000 in new appropriation
requested for fiscal year 1999 is identified by specific project? When
will the Department be able to tell the Committee how additional
appropriations will be allocated by project?
Answer. Due to the open and public process CALFED is committed to
providing, funding for specific projects will not be identified until
an October 1998 through February 1999 time frame. CALFED expects to
issue a public solicitation for proposal projects which would be funded
with fiscal year 1999 monies. The budget justification document sets
forth the categories of projects that will be funded with the fiscal
year 1999 appropriation request.
Question. What major milestones or critical dates are scheduled for
the remainder of fiscal year 1998 and in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The following time line is provided for the record:
restoration coordination program
April 1998--Approval of allocation of remaining $62 million to
projects and programs for fiscal year 1998.
May 1998--Public proposal solicitation for programs identified by
the CALFED process for funding in fiscal year 1998. (Roughly $35
million of the $62 million proposed in the second funding package to
the Secretary in March 1998 are programs that will require a public
solicitation process.)
Spring 1998--Revise and update ecosystem priorities for fiscal year
1999 funding.
Summer 1998--Technical workshops for fiscal year 1999 actions.
September 1998--Final selection of projects for fiscal year 1998
funding.
Late Summer through December 1998--Select actions for fiscal year
1999 funding.
programmatic eis/eir
June 1, 1998--Comment period closes.
December 1, 1998--Final EIS/EIR released to the public.
December 31, 1998--Record of Decision.
(Last two dates assume the comment period is not extended).
Question. Congress required a quarterly report on how the funds
appropriated under the CALFED program are being utilized. What is the
status of this quarterly report? Why has it taken so long to get the
first report to the Congress?
Answer. The first quarterly report was delivered on March 24, 1998.
Since it was the first report for the Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration
Appropriation, we wanted to make sure that we included all the
appropriate information. Now that we have a product we feel accurately
describes quarterly results, future reports should be more timely.
Question. Congress has also required the Department to develop
performance measures or indicators to determine whether the restoration
measures are achieving their purpose over time. What progress is being
made in developing these measures? When will this effort be completed?
Answer. Performance assessment for the ecosystem restoration
program consists of two major parts: overall assessment of ecosystem
response--or landscape-level assessment--and project level assessment.
CALFED requires project-specific performance standards for
monitoring and assessing the biological benefits of the individual
projects as part of standard contract conditions. These project-
specific performance standards will be adopted as each contract is
finalized. Information from project-specific monitoring will be used in
the adaptive management process to evaluate the benefits of certain
actions. Project-specific standards will be required for all of the
major ecosystem restoration investment categories.
The overall, landscape-level assessment is, by its nature, a long-
term commitment to monitoring and to evaluating trends and broad
conditions. We do not have well defined performance measures relative
to landscape level assessment at this time, but CALFED agencies working
through the Interagency Ecological Program and stakeholder groups are
developing a comprehensive monitoring and assessment program that will
include long-term performance measures.
Question. What measures or procedures have been put in place to
ensure that funding is spent primarily for on ground activities? What
assurances can you give the Committee that other agencies
administrative costs are not being provided through CALFED
appropriations?
Answer. All requests for funding are reviewed closely through the
CALFED process of technical panels, the Ecosystem Roundtable and then
referred to the CALFED Policy Team for final recommendation. Funding
must be requested and approved through this process and must meet the
priorities identified by the technical panels. The only administrative
costs associated with individual proposals are those required to
perform the work, such as project management.
central valley project restoration fund
Question. The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was
established to provide funding for habitat restoration, improvement,
and acquisition and other fish and wildlife restoration in the Central
Valley Project area in California. Many of the activities proposed for
funding through the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund are the
same as projects to be accomplished through CALFED and visa versa.
How do you differentiate between activities to be conducted under
the Restoration Fund and those to be conducted under CALFED?
Answer. First, Public Law 104-333, Section 1101(b) states that
``funds authorized to be appropriated in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program
shall be in addition to the baseline funding levels established for
currently authorized projects and programs under the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act.'' As required by Section 1101(e), a baseline
funding report was submitted last year to the Committees on
Appropriations, which shows funding provided previously or requested
under pre-existing authorities, including CVPIA.
Secondly, the projects and programs to be implemented under Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) encompass the entire Central
Valley, and, with exceptions, are related to CVP facilities and
operations. For example, section 3406(b)(4) provides authorization to
develop and implement a program to mitigate for fishery impacts
associated with operations of the Tracy Pumping Plant, and section
3406(b)(5) to develop and implement a program to mitigate for fishery
impacts resulting from operations of the Contra Costa Canal Pumping
Plant. The Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program, on the other hand,
focuses on environmental protections and improvements in the San
Francisco Bay-Delta estuary and other portions of the ``solution
area.'' For coordination purposes, CVPIA workplans are provided to the
CALFED Integration Panel in order to insure a comprehensive
perspective.
Question. The fiscal year 1999 budget proposes an appropriation of
$49,447,000 out of the Fund compared to a $32,775,000 program for
fiscal year 1998. What are the sources of receipts into the Fund
annually?
Answer. The majority of the receipts projected to be collected in
fiscal year 1999, $40,981,000, consists of discretionary payments
authorized by Section 3407(d) commonly known as ``Additional Mitigation
and Restoration Payments.'' These receipts are expected to be collected
from Central Valley Project water and power users through water and
power rates. The remaining estimated collections consist of revenues
received from Friant Surcharges, ($7,026,000); water transfer charges,
($140,000); tiered water charges, ($300,000); and Municipal and
Industrial water surcharges, ($1,000,000).
Question. Mitigation Restoration Payments are expected to increase
from $25,649,000 in fiscal year 1998 to $40,981,000 in fiscal year
1999. Where do these payments come from and how realistic is it that
the $40,981,000 will be available?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, Additional Mitigation and Restoration
Payments were reduced in accordance with the fiscal year 1998 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act. The impact of the reduction
in payments was a reduction in collections from the power customers,
with no impact to water users. The fiscal year 1999 budget requests the
full amount available under the authority in the CVPIA. Scheduled
collections are expected to be as follows: $24,586,000 from irrigation
and municipal and industrial water users; and, $16,395,000 from power
customers. It is realistic that these payments can be collected within
fiscal year 1999.
Question. There is some controversy regarding Congressional action
in fiscal year 1998 reducing the appropriation from the Fund. What
would be the best approach if Congress wanted to limit or reduce the
program again in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. We would urge the Congress to accept the Administration's
proposal to collect the full amount allowed under the CVPIA. The
premise of establishment of the CVP Restoration Fund was to provide
funding from water and power project beneficiaries to accomplish CVPIA
objectives. If Congress chooses to reduce or limit the CVP Restoration
Fund collections in fiscal year 1999, it would be appropriate to
indicate that the reduction is limited to that specific year, and not
intended to affect future year collections through the action of the
three-year rolling average computation required by the CVPIA.
Question. Provide for the record a detailed breakout of all Central
Valley restoration, improvement enhancement work for 1997, 1998 and
that proposed for fiscal year 1999 by the Bureau of Reclamation. Show
the source of the funding whether from Water and Related Resources, the
Restoration or CALFED, etc.
Answer. The table provided lists all Central Valley restoration
work for fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 1999 in terms of thirteen
categories. Bay/Delta funds were initially appropriated in fiscal year
1998. The fiscal year 1998 CVP Restoration Fund Program includes $7.5
million of carryover funds from fiscal year 1997.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT ACT AND BAY-DELTA ACT CENTRAL VALLEY HABITAT MITIGATION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND ENHANCEMENTS
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual fiscal year 1997 Planned fiscal year 1998 Proposed fiscal year 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Water and Water and Water and
related Restoration Bay-Delta related Restoration Bay-Delta related Restoration Bay-Delta
resources fund funds resources fund funds resources fund funds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish Screen Improvements............... 6.021 6.859 .......... 8.750 2.000 2.539 9.400 7.850 19.000
Fish Passage Improvements.............. 2.817 0.719 .......... 3.260 0.090 8.325 2.216 ........... 3.000
Habitat Restoration in Floodplains &
Marshes............................... .......... 13.963 .......... .......... 6.237 27.342 .......... 7.133 27.000
River Channel Changes.................. .......... 0.778 .......... .......... 0.050 9.624 .......... ........... 58.00
Improved Instream Flows................ 2.739 12.098 .......... 4.055 6.016 20.000 2.800 14.564 20.000
Water Quality and Temp Improvements.... 0.365 7.041 .......... 2.750 0.070 5.003 0.200 ........... 2.000
Introduced and Undesirable Species
Control............................... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... 1.250 .......... ........... 3.000
Watershed Management................... .......... 1.673 .......... .......... 0.790 2.253 .......... 1.200 3.000
Improved Fish Management & Hatchery Ops .......... 2.069 .......... 2.150 3.623 0.625 1.500 1.000 3.000
Refuge Water Acquisition & Wheeling.... 1.127 10.764 .......... 5.853 8.479 ........... 5.400 10.000
Land Retirement........................ 1.383 1.824 .......... 1.000 10.000 ........... 4.000 4.000 ...........
Monitoring, Permit Coordination & other
Support............................... 0.002 4.300 .......... .......... 3.295 3.570 .......... 3.700 5.000
Program Dev, Coordination, &
Miscellaneous......................... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... 4.469 .......... ........... 0.300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................ 14.454 62.088 .......... 27.818 40.650 85.0002 25.516 49.447 143.300
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How much additional funding is provided for these types
of activities through other Federal, State or other agencies or groups?
Provide a table for the record which shows the funding level for 1997
and the work proposed for 1998 and 1999.
Answer. The following table displays additional funding for
activities that are direct-funded by other agencies or groups under
CVPIA and Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Act.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ACTIVITIES DIRECTLY PROGRAMMED UNDER CVPIA AND
BAY-DELTA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION ACTS--FISCAL YEAR 1997-1999
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------
1997 1998 1999
actual estimated estimated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reclamation:
Water and related resources........ 14.454 27.818 25.516
Restoration fund................... 62.088 40.650 49.447
Bay-Delta.......................... ......... 85.000 143.300
--------------------------------
Reclamation total................ 76.542 153.468 218.263
================================
Other:
EPA Bay-Delta watershed............ 1.000 1.000
Prop 204--Cat III.................. ......... 60.000 .........
Prop 204--Ecosystem restoration.... ......... ......... ( \1\ )
Prop 204--CVPIA.................... ......... 31.161 25.000
California urban water agencies.... 10.000 10.000 .........
Misc.--Including local and water
districts......................... 13.312 50.793 40.309
--------------------------------
Other total...................... 14.312 152.954 65.309
================================
Total of all funds............... 100.854 306.422 ( \1\ )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On December 1, 1998, the Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report is scheduled to be released. At that time,
an additional $390 million will be available for implementation of
ecosystem restoration projects. Therefore, we cannot estimate total
funds for fiscal year 1999.
deschutes ecosystem restoration project
Question. Describe the Deschutes Ecosystem Restoration project
which is a new project proposed to be initiated in the fiscal year 1999
budget request.
Answer. This project was authorized by Public Law 104-333, Omnibus
Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, Title X, Subtitle C,
Section 1025, Deschutes Basin Ecosystem Restoration Projects, and
Public Law 104-208, Title III, Deschutes Basin Act of 1996. The purpose
is to restore and protect the natural and biological resources of the
Deschutes and Crooked River basins and to avoid future resource
conflicts. The program will focus initially on water quality and
quantity through conservation. The Deschutes Basin Resources
Conservancy, formerly known as the Working Group, which is a not-for-
profit corporation in the State of Oregon, has been established to
propose projects and obtain non-Federal cost-share funds. The
Conservancy will include federally appointed members from the
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture as well as members from the
private sector (representing agriculture, environmentalists, as well as
others), tribes, and state and local governments. The private sector
members represent the agriculture, environmental, hydroelectric,
grazing, timber, land development and recreation/tourism interests. The
Restoration Project resulted from a locally-driven initiative that was
not undertaken to recover an ecosystem, but rather to restore (where
needed) and to protect an ecosystem that, while facing threats from
rapid growth, was still in fairly good health.
Fiscal year 1999 funds will support actual restoration projects.
The Conservancy's Board of Directors has directed that funds go to on-
the-ground actions. The overhead limits of five percent in the Federal
authorization reflect this desire. We expect the cost-share will be a
maximum rate of 50 percent Federal funding.
The Conservancy has identified potential projects totaling $5.6
million through its initial solicitation. The Conservancy is working to
have projects approved and ready for fiscal year 1999 Federal funding
by the end of September 1998. It has already approved, pending
appropriation of funds, a riparian fencing project that will require
about $76,000 of Federal funds. Other potential projects include the
purchase of water rights on a willing seller basis, fish passage and
protection at irrigation diversions and hydroelectric facilities,
irrigation water conservation, riparian restoration, and a conservation
easement program.
Question. What is this restoration effort expected to cost, when is
it expected to be completed and what are the major milestones?
Answer. The authorizing legislation for this project specifies that
Congress may appropriate up to $5 million for Federal cost-share at the
rate of $1 million per year for five years beginning in fiscal year
1997. Because the project was not authorized until fiscal year 1997 and
the fiscal year 1998 budget request had already been formulated, fiscal
year 1999 was the first year Reclamation could request appropriations
through its normal budgeting process. Conclusion of Federal funding
assistance in fiscal year 2001 pursuant to the existing authorization
will limit Federal funding to not more than $3 million. The Conservancy
expects watershed restoration actions to continue well beyond 2001
using private, state, and other funds. Reclamation will, however,
continue to be involved in the Working Group process beyond fiscal year
2001 even though directly appropriated Federal funding will no longer
be provided for selected restoration projects.
Reclamation intends to review project proposals carefully to ensure
that proposed restoration projects have technical merit and fulfill the
intent of the law. The first group of projects will be approved in
September of 1998 for funding in fiscal year 1999. Thereafter, a
solicitation for additional project activities will be issued annually
for approval and funding to be provided in the next fiscal year.
Question. How will the costs be shared between the Federal
government, and State and local interests?
Answer. The authorizing legislation requires at least 50 percent
non-Federal funds. Cost-share funds will be contributed by the State of
Oregon, irrigation districts, not-for-profit organizations, local
governments, and private businesses. Cost-share will be provided by the
project sponsor, through other funds raised by the Conservancy, by
interested state or local governments, or through a combination of
sources. The authorizing law allows for recognition of in-kind services
for cost-share, and Reclamation is developing a procedure with the
Conservancy for valuing cost-share either on a project-by-project basis
or on a programmatic basis.
pacific northwest endangered species recovery implementation project
Question. Why is this program increasing from $935,000 in fiscal
year 1998 to $1,830,000 in fiscal year 1999? What new activities are
planned for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The program increase of $895,000 is largely to fund the
construction of the Phoenix Canal Diversion fish ladder and to complete
construction of Oak Street Diversion fish ladder and Phoenix Canal
Diversion fish screen, which are in the Rogue River basin. In addition,
contracts for construction of fish screens on the Baker and Deschutes
Projects will be awarded and additional preliminary design and
investigation work on additional sites on other Central Oregon projects
will continue. These activities are needed to protect and conserve
endangered and threatened species. Funding also has been requested to
allow Area Offices to participate in strategic partnerships and
cooperative efforts to proactively monitor and evaluate the status of
certain candidate species that may be impacted by Reclamation's
projects. These funds will provide for general coordination and
consultation with other Federal, state, tribal, and local governments
and agencies and to develop basinwide recovery plans. Currently there
are more than 30 species listed in the Pacific Northwest. To the extent
that Reclamation and others can work to protect candidate species and
their habitats, the potential for formal Endangered Species Act
listings will be diminished.
Question. What portion of the $1,830,000 request is for promotion
of watershed and ecosystem recovery measures?
Answer. Approximately $300,000 has been included to allow
Reclamation to participate in partnerships and cooperative efforts with
other agencies. In addition, this funding will allow further monitoring
and studies on candidate species to help preclude listings that could
further impact Reclamation's projects.
state water management and technical assistance programs
Question. Many of the individual state water management and
technical assistance programs have significant increases in the fiscal
year 1999 request compared to the fiscal year 1998 level. Generally,
what accounts for this increase over the fiscal year 1998 level?
Answer. Fiscal year 1998 studies and activities devoted to general
investigation-type work totaled $15.6 million which includes
feasibility studies. In fiscal year 1999, the 23 Geographically Defined
Programs, which do not include feasibility studies, and the separate
line item General Planning Activities total $14.6 million. The fiscal
year 1998 continuing program and some new planning activities and
studies for fiscal year 1999 have been included in a geographic area.
These boundaries of the Geographically Defined Program are based on
states, counties, Native American reservations, tribes, ecosystems or
river basins. The intent is that most areas within the 17 Western
States are included in a Geographically Defined Program area.
At first glance this combination of all investigation related work,
within a geographical area rather than by line item, may give the
appearance of explosive growth. But in actuality, looking at the
program as a whole, this is not the case.
Question. For example, the California program increases from
$594,000 in fiscal year 1998 to $1,863,000 in fiscal year 1999, and the
Oregon program goes from $603,000 to $910,000 in fiscal year 1999. What
specifically accounts for these increases?
Answer. The increase for the California Water Management and
Technical Assistance Program reflects the initiation of several data
gathering efforts and studies essential to addressing California water
and related resource problems. These include Nutrient Management Study
of the Lower Stanislaus River $100,000, San Joaquin River Basin Salt
Management Study $85,000, Land Subsidence Appraisal Study $125,000,
Selenium Drainage Management Appraisal Study $143,000, North Coast
Salmon Water Management and Reuse Study $100,000, Noyo Harbor
Comprehensive Water Management Study $100,000, Conjunctive Use Program
$100,000, and the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Management Study
$100,000. Most of these studies are cost-shared with the California
Department of Water Resources.
The Oregon Water Management and Technical Assistance Program will
fund Reclamation's participation in a proactive effort among all State
and Federal agencies in Oregon's Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative
designed to focus and coordinate activities for the purpose of
threatened and endangered coastal salmon species. In addition, the
increase will provide funds to the State for watershed council
coordinators and provide technical assistance to watershed councils.
Assistance will include design, watershed assessments, water
conservation, monitoring, and modeling. Needs will be determined by the
watershed councils, in consultation with Reclamation, to ensure the
requested technical assistance supports Reclamation's priorities.
cvp--folsom dam temperature control device
Question. What are the problems driving the need to construct a
temperature control device at Folsom Dam in California?
Answer. Folsom Dam regulates the flows of the American River for
flood control, water supply, power generation, and fish and wildlife
benefits. Normal releases are through three penstocks and an 84-inch
municipal and industrial water supply intake. The three penstock
intakes are equipped with temperature control shutters to conserve cold
water in the reservoir. This cold water is later released to enhance
the temperature conditions for the anadromous fish, such as salmon and
steelhead, downstream of the dam. Steelhead in the American River were
listed as threatened pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act on
March 13, 1998. However, the M&I intake is located deep within the
reservoir's cold water pool, has no temperature control device, and
diverts significant amounts of cold water throughout the year.
Diversion of this cold water without a temperature control device could
adversely affect the threatened steelhead by reducing the amount of
cold water available to enhance the downstream temperatures.
Question. What is the total estimated cost for this work and what
is the basis of the estimate?
Answer. The total estimated cost for this work is $4.4 million
based on a design that is 95 percent complete. This is an increase of
$623,000 over the total cost shown in the Bureau's fiscal year 1999
Budget Justifications due to refined estimates reflecting the nearly-
completed design.
Question. When is the work scheduled to start and be completed, and
what are the major milestones for the project?
Answer. The design and specifications for the temperature control
device are scheduled to be completed in June 1998 and a construction
contract could be awarded by early fiscal year 1999, pending
Congressional authorization. The major milestones are: Contract Award--
January 31, 1999; Complete Construction--December 31, 1999.
Question. Now, a similar project to construct a temperature control
device at Shasta Dam experienced significant cost increases and
extended delays due to changes in approach and scope. How certain is
the Bureau of Reclamation in the costs and schedules supporting the
funding request for Folsom Dam for fiscal year 1999, and that there
will not be increases in costs and schedule delays similar to Shasta
Dam?
Answer. The temperature control device on Shasta Dam was a much
larger, more complex, and more expensive structure than the one for the
water supply intake at Folsom Dam. By comparison, the fabrication and
installation of the Folsom Dam temperature control device is fairly
straightforward, and even if there were some delays, they should be in
terms of days or weeks rather than months, and the cost overruns would
be proportionally smaller, as well.
california central valley project cvp--delta division
Question. Why does the request for the Suisun Marsh increase by
more than three times from $500,000 in fiscal year 1998 to $1,909,000
in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. In the fiscal year 1998 Budget Justifications, the Delta
Division carried a line item for Suisun Marsh Preservation which
included what was the ``historical construction'' type of activities.
Also in fiscal year 1998, the Miscellaneous Project Programs carried a
separate line item for Suisun Marsh Preservation which included what
was the ``historical operation and maintenance'' type of activities.
The total fiscal year 1998 request for the two Suisun Marsh
Preservation line items was $1,557,000. The Bureau decided that this
activity should be presented in its entirety within one project.
Therefore, fiscal year 1999 is the first year of displaying this
activity as one line item within the Delta Division.
In order to meet water quality standards, an increase of funds is
required for the next five years, beginning in fiscal year 1999, for
management actions. As a result there is an increase of $352,000 in
fiscal year 1999.
Question. Also explain the increase in the Administration and
Compliance request for fiscal year 1999.
Answer. The increase in Administration and Compliance for the CVP,
Delta Division was $1,048,000, up from $801,000 in the fiscal year 1998
Budget Justifications to $1,849,000 in fiscal year 1999. This is
primarily due to a few new line items for water contracting and Delta-
Mendota subsidence and groundwater monitoring; increases in water
service contract renewals, water conservation, water quality marketing,
and Delta water quality monitoring; but partially offset by decreases
in the administration of water marketing and resource management.
Question. Reclamation plans to initiate implementation of the
Conservation Plan in fiscal year 1999. Explain the scope and costs
associated with this Plan.
Answer. The primary goal of the Conservation Program, developed and
managed by Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service, is to meet
the needs, including habitat, of special-status species in the area
affected by the Central Valley Project. The Delta Division addresses
only that portion of the Program which resides within the Delta
Division boundaries. The special-status species' needs which will be
addressed by the Conservation Program which consists of primarily
Federally-listed species. In addition, the program will benefit species
that are candidates or are proposed species for Federal listing, as
well as other species of concern that have high-priority biological
needs. Proposed funding for the Program, for all of the Central Valley
Project, is approximately $2.4 million per year for the first half of
the projected 10-year period and decreasing amounts for the last five
years, after the species' initial needs have been met.
Question. How long will it take to implement this Plan?
Answer. Implementation of this Plan is projected for a 10-year
period.
Question. Why isn't this effort funded through the California Bay-
Delta program?
Answer. The primary focus for this Program is upland terrestrial
species and habitats, which are not being addressed by the CALFED
Program. Additionally, the Program is targeting federally-listed and
other special-status species throughout the area affected by the
Central Valley Project, which is not the goal of CALFED. There may be
some species and habitats of common interest to the Conservation
Program and CALFED. Currently, there is close coordination and
cooperation between the two Programs to prevent duplication of effort.
cvp--miscellaneous project programs
Question. The budget request for fiscal year 1999 includes
$3,500,000 under Miscellaneous Project Programs to ``continue
construction of refuge water supply conveyance systems'', yet fiscal
year 1998 justification material does not reflect a similar item.
Explain this apparent discrepancy.
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 justification material contained a
request of $8,553,000 for the Refuge Water Supply program. Because this
amount included $4 million from the Central Valley Project Restoration
Fund, the narrative for this work was included in the section for the
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. The remaining $4,553,000 was
part of the $7,553,000 total shown on page 93 of the fiscal year 1998
Budget Justifications. In fiscal year 1999, no Central Valley Project
Restoration Funds are allocated to the Refuge Water Supply program and
the narrative is, therefore, included only in Water and Related
Resources.
Question. How was this work started and where did the funds to
start the work come from?
Answer. The Refuge Water Supply program was authorized by the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Section 3406(d), Central Valley
Refuges and Wildlife Habitat Areas. Work began in fiscal year 1994 with
funding from the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.
Question. What is the total estimated cost of the work?
Answer. The total estimated cost is $48,221,000.
Question. Why is it not appropriate to fund this activity in the
CALFED program or through the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund?
Answer. The Refuge Water Supply program is specifically mandated by
the CVPIA, and is funded through the Central Valley Project Restoration
Fund and the Water and Related Resources appropriations. The focus of
this program is on refuges in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys
and is directed at construction of conveyance facilities to meet refuge
water supply requirements of the CVPIA. CALFED activity is authorized
to receive Federal funding only for restoring the ecosystem in the
Delta, and has no mandate to improve or enhance State and Federal
refuges located elsewhere within California.
Question. What accounts for the Administrative and Compliance item
increasing from $1,992,000 in fiscal year 1998 to $5,872,000 in fiscal
year 1999?
Answer. The primary changes in the Administrative and Compliance
items reflect changes in what work functions were included in fiscal
year 1998 versus fiscal year 1999. Fiscal year 1998 was Reclamation's
first year of presenting the Budget Justifications under the new
Programmatic Budget Structure, and in fiscal year 1999 some items are
being presented differently as we refine the definitions for
consistency. The programmatic activity Water and Energy Development for
fiscal year 1998 totaled $5,280,000, which compares favorably to the
fiscal year 1999 request of $5,872,000.
The difference in the Administrative and Compliance subtotals
reflects the exclusion in the fiscal year 1998 Budget Justifications of
Water Conservation ($2,250,000), Modeling ($500,000), Monitoring
($338,000) and the California Water Augmentation Program ($200,000),
which if included as they were in fiscal year 1999, would bring the
total Compliance and Administration to $5,280,000.
cvp--sacramento river division
Question. Explain why the budget justification for fiscal year 1999
shows an allocation of $9,690,241 for Fish and Wildlife Management and
Development for fiscal year 1998, which the fiscal year 1998 budget
justification only requested $6,860,000. Explain the reason for this
change and where the additional funding came from.
Answer. The increase above the fiscal year 1998 request for
Sacramento River Division's Fish and Wildlife Management and
Development activity is the result of including $1,830,241 in fiscal
year 1997 carryover and $1,000,000 in funding added by Congress. On
page 113 of the fiscal year 1999 Budget Justifications, the carryover
is subtracted from the this total, before calculating the ``Total
Reclamation Allotment.'' The funding added by Congress included
$750,000 for the Colusa Basin Drainage District's Integrated Watershed
Management Plan, and $250,000 for the Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Captive
Broodstock Program.
Question. Describe the fish passage problems at Butte Creek and
what work is proposed to correct the problem.
Answer. The principal fish passage problems on Butte Creek are
marginal to inadequate ladders, unscreened diversions, and inadequate
flows. The relative importance of these problems varies among stream
segments. Improvements have been completed at Durham Mutual and
Parrott-Phelan dams and Western Canal siphon. Other work proposed
includes the removal of two dams immediately downstream of the siphon
and the installation of new ladders on the stream immediately upstream
of the siphon; the Adams Dam fish screen and ladder; and the Gorrill
Dam fish screen and ladder. In addition, programs are also underway to
identify problems and restoration opportunities in the lower reach of
Butte Creek and to explore the potential for establishing fish passage
into uppermost Butte Creek.
Question. What is the estimated cost of the work and when will it
be completed?
Answer. The total cost of improvements for Butte Creek as a whole
is yet to be determined and is therefore speculative. The original
estimate of $14.5 million is still plausible and may be funded by
several private, state and Federal sources. Funding is contingent upon
determination of eligibility under the CALFED processes. A completion
date depends upon funding as determined in the CALFED process, but once
funded, should be complete within 2-3 years.
Question. Why is the work being accomplished through Reclamation's
Sacramento River Division and not through the CALFED program?
Answer. In the future, work on Butte Creek may indeed be eligible
to compete for funding through the CALFED process. Funds requested for
fiscal year 1999 would be used to facilitate the early development of
plans for such work, regardless of how the implementation of these
plans ultimately will be funded.
cvp--san joaquin river division
Question. Explain why Water Acquisition and Land Retirement funding
is requested both through the general Reclamation request and through
the Central Valley Restoration Fund.
Answer. The overall intent of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act is to protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and
associated habitats in the Central Valley and Trinity River basins of
California. CVPIA is implemented through the use of Water and Related
Resources appropriations, State of California contributions and/or in-
kind services, and Restoration Fund receipts from the water and power
users of the Central Valley Project. All CVPIA activities, including
water acquisition and land retirement, compete for the limited Water
and Related Resource funds with all other Reclamation activities each
fiscal year. Similarly, the CVPIA activities compete among themselves
for Restoration Funds. This dual competition assures that the
activities funded under both the comprehensive Regional program and the
CVPIA restoration and mitigation program are of high priority. Water
Acquisition and Land Retirement are significant activities within the
Region and have been funded accordingly, using both Water and Related
Resources as well as Restoration funds.
Question. Why does Reclamation's request for Land Retirement
increase from $1,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 to $4,000,000 in fiscal
year 1999?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, the budget for the Land Retirement
Program was $4 million, including $1 million from Water and Related
Resources and $3 million in Restoration Funds. In fiscal year 1999, the
request for the Land Retirement Program is $8 million, comprised of $4
million of Water and Related Resources appropriations and $4 million in
Restoration Funds. The increase in funding for land retirement is in
response to the current availability of willing sellers recently
identified through a Request for Proposal process.
Question. Why isn't all work related to Water Acquisition and Land
Retirement funded from the Central Valley Restoration Fund?
Answer. These are activities that we believe require more funding
than is available solely through the CVPIA Restoration Fund. The water
acquisition funding would be used to make water available for refuges
and to meet other CVPIA objectives. Land retirement also is a high
priority in the region.
klamath project
Question. How much of the $2,287,000 requested for Klamath Project
fish and wildlife activities is for the Wood River Ranch/Tulana Farms
restoration project?
Answer. Of the $2,287,000 requested for Klamath Project fish and
wildlife activities, $75,000 is for the Wood River Ranch/Tulana Farms
restoration project.
Question. What is the total cost of this work expected to be and
when will it be completed?
Answer. Reclamation has spent about $2.6 million to date and our
remaining cost should be roughly $200,000. Our involvement is scheduled
for completion in fiscal year 2001. There are a number of other Federal
and non-Federal interests involved in this work. The total estimate for
Wood River Ranch is about $5 million, and about $8.8 million for Tulana
Farms restoration. We do not have a firm estimate as to when other
parties will complete their work, but it will probably continue for
over ten years.
Question. Is the work authorized?
Answer. Yes, the work is authorized under the authority of the
Reclamation Act of 1902 and by the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, the North American Waterfowl Conservation
Act, and Executive Order 11910, Section 1(a).
san diego area water reclamation project
Question. Congress has provided nearly $30,000,000 for the San
Diego Area Water Reclamation project through fiscal year 1998. The
justification material for fiscal year 1998 indicated a $120,000,000
program between Federal appropriation and non-Federal funds. Now, the
fiscal year 1999 justification material shows the total program for
fiscal year 1998 to be $80,000,000 and sizable delays on most of the
elements of the overall project.
Please explain the reasons for these changes and delays?
Answer. The construction schedules for the San Diego Area Water
Reclamation Project, upon which Reclamation's budget request is based,
are provided by the project sponsors. The information shown in the
fiscal year 1998 Budget Justifications material was based on optimistic
schedules for several components. The information on fiscal year 1998
that is shown in the fiscal year 1999 Budget Justifications document is
thought to be more realistic. Most of the $40 million difference is due
to slippages of five component projects. The San Diego Water
Repurification Project was delayed 1 year due to additional studies
that are being required by regulators and health officials, who are
being very conservative with this project that will convert wastewater
to potable water. Three components of the San Diego Area Water
Reclamation Project (North City Water Reclamation Plant
Demineralization, Sweetwater Authority, and Tijuana River Basin) were
delayed due to lack of permits and/or delays in designs. Another
component of the San Diego Area Water Reclamation Project (Southern
Distribution System) was delayed because the schedule in the fiscal
year 1998 Budget Justifications document was not realistic.
Although the fiscal year 1999 Budget Justifications document
indicates that three of the four components have had their completion
dates delayed by 1 or 2 years, Reclamation does not consider the delays
to be ``sizeable.'' The completion date for the Escondido component was
delayed 2 years because the City of San Diego decided to completely
reformulate the San Pasqual portion of this project. The Padre Dam
Municipal Water District Reclamation Project was delayed one year due
to the District's decision to revise its schedule for Phase II. Phase I
will be complete in fiscal year 1998.
Even with all of the above changes and delays, the fiscal year 1998
appropriation and the fiscal year 1999 budget request for the San Diego
Area Water Reclamation Project will not be sufficient to keep up with
the Federal cost-sharing of up to 25 percent.
Question. What level of funding was available for use in fiscal
year 1997 and how was it actually spent on the project during that
year?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, Federal funds available for
expenditure totaled $10,956,229 and actual expenditures were
$10,813,523. Major expenditures were $5.8 million for the City of San
Diego's North/Central Distribution System, $3.6 million for the Padre
Dam Municipal Water District, $0.7 million for the City of Escondido,
$0.3 million for the City of San Diego's Water Repurification Project,
$0.2 million for the Sweetwater Authority, and $0.1 million for the
Tijuana Valley County Water District.
Question. How much was available for fiscal year 1998, how will it
be spent, and how much is expected to be carried over into fiscal year
1999?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, Federal funds available total
$12,622,706. Major expenditures include $5.1 million for the City of
San Diego's North/Central Distribution System, $1.7 million for the
Padre Dam Municipal Water District, $1.4 million for the Sweetwater
Authority, $1.2 million for the City of Escondido, $1.1 million for the
City of San Diego's North City Water Reclamation Plant Demineralization
Facility, $0.8 million for the City of San Diego's Water Repurification
Project, $0.7 million for the Otay Water District, $0.2 million for the
City of San Diego's San Pasqual Project, and $0.1 million for the
Tijuana Valley County Water District, for a total of $12.3 million.
Approximately $0.1 million is for administrative costs. Carryover into
fiscal year 1999 is expected to be minimal, similar to the previous
years.
Question. Has any project or element of a project been canceled or
deferred in fiscal year 1997, or expected to be canceled or deferred in
fiscal year 1998? If so, explain why and the impact this will have on
Reclamation's use of available funding.
Answer. No projects or elements of projects have been canceled or
deferred in fiscal year 1997, nor are any expected to be canceled or
deferred in fiscal year 1998.
Question. Is there any reason, at this point, why the fiscal year
1999 request will not be spent as planned on any project or element of
a project?
Answer. At this time we know of no reason why the fiscal year 1999
request would not be spent as planned.
san gabriel basin project
Question. What accounts for the 3 year delay on the San Gabriel
Basin Demonstration project? Explain, specifically what is meant by
``as a result of negotiations with the potential responsible parties'',
which is given as the reason of the delay.
Answer. The San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project, authorized by
Section 1614 of Public Law 102-575, is a conjunctive-use project that
will improve the quality of the groundwater in the San Gabriel Basin.
The Basin has been included on the Environmental Protection Agency's
list of Superfund sites, and the entities that are believed responsible
for the contamination have been identified as potentially responsible
parties. Reclamation is authorized to provide up to 25 percent of the
costs of this project, and the potentially responsible parties are
responsible for the remainder of the costs. The San Gabriel Basin Water
Quality Authority has been facilitating the overall project
coordination, with the goal of completing the project without any
litigation. This requires several concurrent, complex negotiations
involving the potentially responsible parties, Environmental Protection
Agency, numerous local water agencies, and state and local regulators.
These negotiations have taken much more time than had been originally
projected by the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority. Reclamation
is not a party to these negotiations and thus has little control over
the process.
Question. Is there anything associated with these delays which has
impacted or will impact the use of the funding provided for fiscal year
1998 or requested for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The delays have impacted the use of funding provided for
fiscal year 1998. In addition, the recent discovery of perchlorates in
the groundwater will result in further delays due to the lack of an
existing process for perchlorate removal. However, it is anticipated
that these problems will be resolved so that most of the funds
available in fiscal year 1998 will be obligated. All funds available
and requested for fiscal year 1999 should be expended by the end of
fiscal year 1999.
platte river recovery implementation program
Question. Explain why the non-Federal cost sharing for the Platte
River Recovery Implementation Program has still not been determined.
Answer. The non-Federal share for the proposed Platte River
Recovery Implementation Program was framed in the Cooperative Agreement
signed by the Secretary of the Interior and the Governors of Wyoming,
Nebraska and Colorado on July 1, 1997. The total costs including the
first increment of the proposed program (10-12 years) is $75 million.
Through this first increment, the states contribution will be as
follows: Wyoming, $7.5 million; Nebraska, $15 million; and Colorado,
$15 million. The Cooperative Agreement will be in place for three
years, during which time a final consensus-based program will be
developed.
Question. When will the cost sharing agreement be finalized and
non-Federal funds contributed to the recovery program?
Answer. As mentioned previously, the proposed Platte River Recovery
Implementation Program is a key part of the cooperative Agreement that
was signed on July 1, 1997. During the three years of the Cooperative
Agreement, the three states have committed to providing a total of $7.5
million in cash and cash equivalents; Nebraska--$6,000,000, Colorado--
$900,000, and Wyoming--$600,000, in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000
to fund implementation of the Agreement. Each state legislature is in
the process now of authorizing state funds for the next one or two
fiscal years. In fiscal year 1998, the states will be providing the
entire funding for the first year of a three-year, $900,000 study for
water conservation and supply augmentation opportunities. The states
will also be providing $100,000 this year to support the hiring of an
Executive Director for the Governance Committee. In addition, as part
of its cost-share, Nebraska has set aside land owned by the Nebraska
Public Power District valued at $5,300,000 for use as endangered
species habitat. This amount is included in Nebraska's $6,000,000
contribution.
Question. Why should the Federal government, which will have
allocated $10,000,000 by the end of fiscal year 1999, continue to
provide funding in advance of the State or other non-Federal interest
providing their portion or project costs?
Answer. The Federal government will have appropriated $7,500,000 by
the end of fiscal year 1999. The cost-sharing agreed to by the states
for the three-year period of the Cooperative Agreement, the funding
being provided by the states in this first year, and the cost-share
formula developed for the proposed program are evidence of the states'
commitment to share the financial cost of the proposed Platte River
Recovery Implementation Program.
rocky boys indian water rights settlement
Question. Is use of the $1,000,000 budget request for fiscal year
1999 contingent upon enactment of authorizing legislation?
Answer. The entire amount requested for fiscal year 1999 could be
used for pre-feasibility studies of water resources in North Central
Montana, under authority in the Reclamation Act of 1902. If authorizing
legislation is enacted as anticipated, Reclamation would provide
$500,000 of the amount requested in fiscal year 1999 to the Chippewa-
Cree Tribe for a feasibility study of an additional MR&I water supply
for the Rocky Boys Reservation, as provided in S. 1899.
Question. What is the total cost of the settlement agreement
expected to be?
Answer. The total cost is expected to be about $50 million, of
which $29 million would be funded through Reclamation and $21 million
through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Of the $29 million funded through
Reclamation, $24 million would be for specified on-reservation
construction projects to enhance water storage and enable full use of
on-reservation water supplies, and $5 million will be for feasibility
studies and project administration. Of the $21 million funded through
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, $15 million would be the Federal
contribution towards future construction of an imported drinking water
supply, $3 million for an economic development fund, and $3 million to
pay for compact administration.
Question. What specifically will be Reclamation's responsibilities
under the settlement and what are the associated costs for
Reclamation's work?
Answer. Under S. 1899, Reclamation would be responsible for:
(1) Contracting with the tribe for the Rocky Boys municipal, rural,
and industrial feasibility study; $500,000 in fiscal year 1999 and
$500,000 in fiscal year 2000;
(2) Contracting with the Tribe for the planning, design, and
construction of four identified on-reservation water resource
development projects; $13 million in fiscal year 2000, $8 million in
fiscal year 2001, and $3 million in fiscal year 2002;
(3) Providing engineering and construction oversight for items 1
and 2; $1 million in fiscal year 2000; and
(4) Completing a Regional Feasibility Study to evaluate water and
related resources in north-central Montana; $500,000 in fiscal year
1999 and $2.5 million in fiscal year 2000.
Question. What is the 5-year funding profile for Reclamation's
work, including the initial studies which are beginning in fiscal year
1999?
Answer. This would be the total funding through Reclamation:
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal year
1999.............................................................. 1
2000.............................................................. 17
2001.............................................................. 8
2002.............................................................. 3
2003....................................................................
environmental program administration
Question. The budget request includes nearly $2,000,000 for
Environmental Program Administration.
Why isn't this work, which is described as ``assessment,
evaluation, study, * * * to ensure compliance with environmental law,
policy, and initiatives'' conducted either under individual projects or
under Policy and Administration?
Answer. In all cases of Bureauwide programs, such as the
Environmental Program Administration, we review the site specific work
plans and determine whether or not the work is within an individual
project's boundaries. We routinely budget such work under those
projects where Reclamation is currently operating or maintaining the
project. The work funded by this program is either related to projects
that are not operated by Reclamation, or to issues such as land
withdrawn for Reclamation purposes and not assigned to a specific
project. The Policy and Administration appropriation was not meant to
provide the funding for specific, day-to-day activities, such as site
assessments for environmental compliance.
Question. The Description/Justification does not indicate
activities of an operational nature, yet a portion of the $964,000
request for fiscal year 1999 for Land Management and Development is for
operational work. Please explain this and why the work is not
accomplished under individual projects.
Answer. All of this work is for cultural resource activities
necessary to identify and protect sites on Reclamation withdrawn land.
None of this land is associated with projects currently operated or
maintained by Reclamation. The National Historic Preservation Act and
the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, among others, require
Reclamation to protect these resources when they are present on
Reclamation-controlled land not associated with a project. It should
also be noted that none of these costs would be reimbursable by project
users.
native american affairs program
Question. The total program for the Native American Affairs Program
increases from $10,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 to $13,900,000 in fiscal
year 1999. What accounts for this increase?
Answer. The Turtle Mountain Tribe has obtained a USDA Rural
Development Administration loan in the amount of $3,000,000 which is
shown on our budget reports as an ``Other Federal'' contribution. This
amount is not a Reclamation request for additional funds. A planned
expenditure of $150,000 for fiscal year 1999 for the Turtle Mountain
Reservation MR&I needs assessment will be made from the Native American
Affairs program. This is the only amount included in the fiscal year
1999 budget request. This MR&I needs assessment is only a portion of a
larger reservation wide water system project planned on the
reservation. Both the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs are cooperating and providing data to this study. The Tribe
will provide in-kind services through staff time and facilities. The
remaining $900,000 increase is due to the following:
The $423,000 increase in the Great Plains Region will be used for
water needs assessment studies and other water resources related
projects.
An additional $210,000 is requested for water needs assessments and
other water resources related projects on Indian reservations in other
regions.
The $267,000 increase in the Commissioner's Office Technical
Assistance Program will be used in support of special needs not funded
in the Regional Technical Assistance portion of the program, such as
emergency technical assistance to tribes, additional work in support of
Indian colleges, and other training programs to be used throughout
Reclamation, such as protocol policy, cultural awareness, and Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended, Public Law
93-638.
Question. The total program costs are to be offset by nearly
$5,000,000 of other funds in fiscal year 1999. This offset was only
$1,700,000 in fiscal year 1998. What is the basis of the estimate of
other funding and how certain is Reclamation that these funds will be
provided? What would be the impact if these funds are not available as
planned?
Answer. The non-Federal and other Federal funding is identified by
the tribes when the work proposals for technical assistance projects
are developed and submitted to the Regional Native American Affairs
Program Managers. In the past, the estimated non-Federal and other
Federal funding have been reasonably accurate.
The MR&I work proposed by Reclamation in fiscal year 1999 on Turtle
Mountain Indian Reservation is planned to be accomplished regardless of
whether or not the $3,000,000 in other Federal dollars are provided.
Question. Why does the technical assistance program increase from
$5,900,000 in fiscal year 1998 to $10,200,000 in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. As stated above, most of this increase is due to an
anticipated loan in the amount of $3,000,000 to the Turtle Mountain
Tribe from the Rural Development Administration. The estimated fiscal
year 1999 cost of the Reclamation needs assessment is $150,000. The
remaining $1,300,000 increase is due to the following:
Additional funds in the Regional Technical Assistance Program will
be used for water needs assessments and other water resources related
projects.
Additional funds in the Commissioner's Office Technical Assistance
Program will be used in support of special needs not funded in the
Regional Technical Assistance portion of the program, such as emergency
technical assistance to tribes and additional work in support of Indian
colleges and other training programs to be used throughout Reclamation,
such as protocol policy, cultural awareness, and Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended, Public Law 93-
638.
Question. Explain why the funding level for the Commissioner's
Office increases from $869,000 to $1,136,000; and the Great Plains
request increases from $1,354,000 to $4,777,000 in fiscal year 1999.
Answer. The increase of $3,423,000 in the Great Plains Region is
due to a $3,000,000 loan from the Rural Development Administration to
the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation. The other $423,000 is due to
increased water needs assessment studies and other water resources
related projects on Indian reservations.
The Commissioner's Office technical assistance program for fiscal
year 1999 was increased to provide funding at about the level that was
available in fiscal year 1998 taking into account the appropriated
funds and the unobligated carryover funds from fiscal year 1997. The
current funding level for fiscal year 1998 is $1,284,000. The fiscal
year 1997 carryover funds enabled projects to be added in fiscal year
1998, such as special projects for the Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation
and the Hoopa Tribe and work with Indian colleges in support of
Executive Order 13021.
site security
Question. The budget request for fiscal year 1998 included
$5,000,000 for the Site Security Program and that full amount was
appropriated by the Congress. However, an additional $2,834,000 of
prior year funding was applied for a total program of $7,834,000. Why
was the program changed from that presented to Congress in the fiscal
year 1998 budget request, how was the additional funding used, and
where did those funds come from?
Answer. This program was not changed from that presented to
Congress in the fiscal year 1998 budget request. There was $5,100,000
appropriated for Site Security in fiscal year 1997 to do facility
assessments, security training programs and enhance security measures
at our facilities. Some of these activities did not get underway until
late in the year and were not completed by the end of the fiscal year,
which extended the activities into fiscal year 1998. The remaining
$2,834,000 of the $5,100,000 was carried over into fiscal year 1998 for
the completion of facility assessments and other security-related
activities. The $5,000,000 requested in fiscal year 1999 will be used
for the implementation of the recommendations from the security
assessments.
unscheduled maintenance
Question. The budget request includes $1,500,000 for unspecified,
unscheduled maintenance needs.
Explain the need for this type of an appropriation and why it is
unrealistic for the Bureau to reprioritize within existing resources
when unscheduled maintenance needs arise.
Answer. As Reclamation's infrastructure continues to age, it
becomes more difficult to predict all maintenance needs with certainty
at the time the budget is developed. The ``Unscheduled Maintenance''
addresses the need to respond to these unforeseen critical budget needs
without major impacts to other programs.
Question. Can you give the Committee an example of how not having
this type of funding has impacted your operations and why Reclamation
was unable to reorder priorities to free up resources to accomplish the
work?
Answer. No. However, we believe that the availability of these
funds will better assist us in meeting the demands created by an aging
infrastructure and improve our ability to respond quickly to the
situation. Reclamation wants to make sure that funding is available to
address these demands so as to minimize any impacts to the public,
personnel safety and health, and disruption in the delivery of service.
central arizona project
Question. What is the current status of litigation between the
United States and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
regarding repayment obligations for the Central Arizona Project?
Answer. The discovery phase of the litigation has been completed
and the United States District Court has ordered a trial phasing plan
to be jointly presented by the parties to the court by April 20, 1998.
No trial date has been set. Settlement discussions between the United
States and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District have been
ongoing and a preliminary framework for settlement of the financial
issues has been developed. State and water user interests have
expressed concern to the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
Board of Directors regarding this framework.
Question. What are the potential budgetary impacts if the
government loses this litigation?
Answer. There are several aspects of the litigation related to the
repayment obligation of the Central Arizona Project. If a court were to
rule against the United States in the litigation, the size of the
repayment obligation owed to the United States could be impacted.
Because of the complexity and number of the issues involved, it is not
possible to speculate on the potential impact that court rulings might
have on the repayment obligation.
In addition, it is possible that the United States would have to
appropriate money to cover its litigation costs, which are currently
funded from project revenues, as well as the litigation costs of the
Central Arizona Water Conservation District.
western water policy review commission
Question. What is the current status of the Western Water Policy
Review Commission and the final report of the Commission?
Answer. The Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission
completed its final draft report in October 1997. The Commission chose
to extend its schedule to allow for two months of public review and
comment on the report, and to make revisions to the report based upon
the comments received. The report was revised and adopted at the
Commission's final meeting in February 1998. At present, final editing
and preparation for publication are underway. The report is currently
scheduled to be published for public distribution by June 1, 1998.
Question. What activities are planned for the remainder of fiscal
year 1998 and fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Except for the final publication of the report, no
additional Commission activities are anticipated.
title xvi water reclamation and recycling projects
Question. How many projects are currently under construction and
what is the total cost of those projects?
Answer. There are four projects authorized in 1992 under Title XVI
of Public Law 102-575 that are currently under construction. The total
estimated cost to construct these four projects is $1,603,559,000, of
which the Federal cost-share is limited to not more than $390,609,000.
In addition, four projects authorized in Public Law 104-266, which
amended Title XVI, and a desalination demonstration project are
currently under construction or are expected to be under construction
in the very near future. Based on the limited project information
available at this time, the total estimated cost to construct these new
projects is $115,413,000, of which the Federal cost-share is limited to
not more than $37,222,300.
Question. The budget request identifies $4,700,000 in funding for
initiating new Title XVI projects in fiscal year 1999, in addition to
the $1,000,000 budgeted for initiation of the Orange County, California
water recycling project. How does the Bureau of Reclamation plan to
allocate the $4,700,000 by individual project?
Answer. Reclamation proposes to allocate the $4.7 million as
follows:
North San Diego County Area Water Recycling Project..... $1,300,000
Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling Project.... 1,300,000
Long Beach/Los Angeles County Water Recycling Project... 1,300,000
Tooele Wastewater Treatment and Reuse Project........... 800,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 4,700,000
Of the $4.7 million in construction funds proposed for the four
projects, Reclamation intends to complete certain Title XVI
requirements, such as complete and/or assess feasibility studies,
determine financial capability of project sponsors, prepare and process
environmental compliance documents under the National Environmental
Policy Act, and prepare construction cost-sharing agreements for the
North San Diego County Area, Calleguas Municipal Water District, and
Long Beach/Los Angeles County water recycling projects in southern
California. Reclamation will also continue funding and administration
of the Tooele Wastewater Treatment and Reuse Project in Utah.
Question. What is the estimated total costs of these projects and
what would be the total Federal commitment?
Answer. The total estimated cost of these five projects, including
Orange County, is $609,483,100. The estimated maximum Federal cost-
share is $76,733,300.
Question. Have there been any delays on any of the Title XVI
projects funded for the current fiscal year which have resulted in a
reduced ability to fully utilize the funding provided for fiscal year
1998. If there have been delays, provide a description of the delay and
how much of funding will not be used in fiscal year 1998 and carried
over into fiscal year 1999.
Answer. To the best of our knowledge, while there have been some
delays, these should not reduce our ability to obligate the funds
provided for these projects in fiscal year 1998.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Bennett
tooele wastewater treatment and reuse project
Question. Commissioner Martinez, Congress last year appropriated
$500,000 for the construction of the Tooele Wastewater Treatment and
Reuse Project pursuant to the Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI
program. I recently wrote to you regarding the delay the City of Tooele
has experienced in receiving these funds from the Bureau and I
appreciated your prompt response to that letter which answered several
of the questions that have troubled me. However, I am particularly
concerned by one aspect of your response and would like to explore
further with you now if I might.
Your letter indicates that the Bureau has unilaterally decided to
withhold appropriated funds from projects or portions of projects that
are required to meet water quality discharge standards under the Clean
Water Act. I am not aware of any limitation in TITLE XVI generally or
in the specific authorization for the Tooele project which would
authorize the Bureau to withhold appropriated funds on that basis. I am
very concerned that your position discriminates against water reuse
projects being developed in states like Utah, which allow for direct
use of secondary effluent. It seems to me that Congress and this
Committee have the ultimate say over which of these projects receive
appropriated funds. For the Bureau to withhold any of those
appropriated funds for reasons not clearly established by statute is,
it seems to me, inappropriate and possibly illegal.
I would appreciate it if you would explain to the Committee your
position on this matter and what the statutory basis for that position
might be. Thank you.
Answer. In reviewing the Bureau of Reclamation's program authority,
we believe that Congress has not spoken to the issue of providing Title
XVI funds for conventional wastewater treatment facilities. On the
other hand, Congress has specifically spoken to the issue of funding
construction projects to meet effluent discharge requirements in the
Clean Water Act. Title 33 of the United States Code, Section 1381
provides that ``the Administrator [of the Environmental Protection
Agency] shall make capitalization grants * * * for providing assistance
for the construction of treatment works.'' Thus, in light of this
direct Congressional directive to the Environmental Protection Agency,
we feel that allocating Title XVI funds for portions of projects other
than those that are designed to meet Clean Water Act standards is a
reasonable interpretation of our Title XVI authority.
We believe this approach is appropriate because in situations such
as this, where Congress has authorized a program without addressing
specific operational aspects, the administering agency is authorized to
develop and implement policies on matters Congress has not addressed.
This understanding of agency discretion has been recognized by the
United States Supreme Court in Natural Resources Defense Council v.
Chevron, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) and Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974).
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
elephant butte project, new mexico-texas
Question. It is my understanding that states still own the water in
their states, yet I recently heard that your agency has decided to
change that.
The Bureau of Reclamation recently filed a quiet title suit in
Federal court related to the Elephant Butte project in New Mexico and
Texas. In that suit, the Bureau asserts that they not only own the
water rights associated with this project, they also assert that they
are sovereign owner of waters flowing in the Rio Grande in both Texas
and New Mexico. Is this correct?
Answer. No, that is not correct. The United States filed a civil
action to quiet title in its water rights for the Rio Grande
Reclamation Project in June 1997. The project was authorized in 1905
and covers the headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico to
Fort Quitman in Texas. In operating the project for the purposes
authorized by Congress, the United States relies upon the water stored
in Rio Grande Project facilities, return flows, and inflows to the Rio
Grande in both New Mexico and Texas. When water stored in Elephant
Butte Reservoir is released, it is intermingled with project return
flows and with inflows to the Rio Grande. These intermingled sources of
water are then diverted for use in New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico. These
sources together enable the United States to meet its Rio Grande
Project delivery requirements of approximately 931,841 acre-feet per
annum under normal conditions, including the United States' treaty
obligation to Mexico. In January 1906, the United States filed notice
with the New Mexico Territorial Irrigation Engineer notice of its
appropriation of water for the Rio Grande Project, in accordance with
Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902. Thus, the United States'
claim to ownership was acquired through appropriation, filed in
conformity with the laws of the then Territory of New Mexico, and with
the exception of the water for Mexico, not as a consequence of the
sovereignty of the United States. The operation of the Rio Grande
Project is further subject to the requirements of the Rio Grande
Compact of 1939 between the United States, Colorado, New Mexico, and
Texas.
Reclamation's position in the lawsuit is that the United States is
the legal title holder of the water rights appropriated for the Rio
Grande Project, subject to the rights of the Water District and the
beneficial owners. The rights to the use of the water subject to such
appropriation are appurtenant to the project. The users of such water
own a beneficial property interest, provided that they use it
consistent with the terms of their contracts and applicable law.
cvpia
Question. The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA)
requires the Department of the Interior to submit an annual report to
Congress describing actions and costs associated with implementing the
law as well as progress made toward achieving the Act's purpose. The
CVPIA was passed in 1992. To date, it appears that the Department has
submitted only ONE annual report. Yet, you are once again requesting
substantial sums to carry out the CVPIA. Why has the Department failed
to fulfill its legal responsibility to report to Congress on how these
funds are being spent?
Answer. Section 3407(f) of the CVPIA requires the Secretary to
submit annually a Restoration Fund Financial Report describing all
receipts to and use of Restoration Funds and the Restoration Account
during the prior fiscal year. The report must also include projections
for the upcoming fiscal year as to expected receipts and uses. The
first three Restoration Fund Financial Reports have been submitted to
Congress.
Section 3408(f) requires the Secretary to submit annually a report
describing all significant actions taken by the Secretary to implement
the provisions of the CVPIA. The first and second Annual Reports on
CVPIA implementation have been submitted to Congress. The third Annual
Report is finalized and expected to be submitted to Congress shortly.
The fourth and fifth Annual Reports are in the review process and will
be sent to Congress once they are finalized.
Question. Last year, the Committee directed the Bureau to undertake
certain actions regarding operations and maintenance (O&M) budgeting
for its projects. The Committee was acting in response to allegations
about excessive overhead, poor accounting practices and lack of
involvement on the part of project users. Please tell us what you have
done to carry out these directives?
Answer. In regard to overhead costs, Reclamation is in the process
of finalizing the report requested by Congress in the committee reports
last year. With respect to involvement of users in the development of
our budget requests, Reclamation is evaluating opportunities for
increased stakeholder involvement in the development of our fiscal year
2001 budget. Reclamation does not believe that poor accounting
practices were an issue.
Question. Has the Bureau identified specific problems with its O&M
budgeting and management? If so, what are they and how do you plan to
remedy them?
Answer. No. Reclamation is unaware of any specific problems related
to O&M budgeting and management. However, we are working to identify
additional opportunities for stakeholder involvement in our budget
formulation process.
Question. Will the survey of O&M costs result in lower overhead
charges? If so, to what extent can this reduction be attributed to
reclassification of charges as something other than overhead?
Answer. In developing a methodology to prepare the report,
Reclamation sought expert advice on the definition of overhead and
learned that there is no widely agreed upon definition and that
overhead legitimately can be defined in a number of different ways. The
report will show as overhead the same sources of costs which
Reclamation has long treated as overhead. Reclamation believes that
total cost is ultimately the area of greatest interest to the
stakeholders. However labeled, we are always interested in working with
others in finding ways to reduce costs for stakeholders and taxpayers
as long as appropriate levels of operation and maintenance are achieved
and public health and safety are not compromised.
Question. Has the Bureau identified opportunities for genuine
savings in its O&M management? If so, please explain how you plan to
realize those savings.
Answer. Reclamation has streamlined all of its administrative
support activities and reduced the number of managers. Genuine cost-
saving opportunities are always of interest to Reclamation. While we
have not identified additional opportunities specific to ``O&M
management'' at this time, we welcome any cost-savings suggestions from
our contractors or other stakeholders.
Question. The Committee directed the Bureau to reexamine its policy
of attributing payments for Central Valley Project O&M deficits to the
lowest interest bearing debts first. This policy seems to be intended
to generate increased benefits or services to the contractors. Has the
Bureau's reexamination of this policy considered the issue of fairness?
If not, why?
Answer. Reclamation is analyzing the current policy, including the
issue of fairness.
Question. The Bureau's fiscal year 2000 budget cycle is about to
get underway. What specific steps have you taken to include water and
power users in the formation of the fiscal year 2000 O&M budget
submissions?
Answer. Reclamation's preparation of its fiscal year 2000 budget
proposal is, in fact, nearing completion. Each region has involved
water and power users in the development of the fiscal year 2000 budget
submission, but not to the degree and depth as requested by some users.
We intend to provide additional opportunities for stakeholder
involvement in the preparation of our fiscal year 2001 budget as the
next budget cycle gets underway.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Reid
role of bureau of reclamation
Question. There has been some speculation about the distinction
between the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. Could you
discuss the role that you see for the Bureau of Reclamation in the
future and reconcile that role with the decreased budget that was
proposed by the Administration?
Answer. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage,
develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally
and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.
In 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt indicated that a key element
to initiate Western growth and development was the reclamation of the
arid West by constructing a system of irrigation works for the storage,
diversion, and development of water. Since then, the Federal
Reclamation program has expanded to include a variety of non-irrigation
project purposes such as authorization to provide water for towns, for
hydropower, to construct multipurpose projects, and to participate in
municipal and industrial water supply projects.
As Reclamation's authorities have expanded, so have Congressional
environmental mandates such as the National Environmental Policy Act in
1969 and the Endangered Species Act in 1973. In 1992, the Reclamation
Project Authorization and Adjustment Act (Public Law 102-575)
authorized Reclamation to undertake a number of new initiatives that
reflected the view that further water resources development must
address environmental concerns and be economically justified, such as
Water Reclamation and Reuse. Changing societal values, greater
environmental knowledge and awareness, increased competition for a
scarce and finite resource, and Federal budgetary constraints have
dictated the improved management and protection of existing facilities
and our natural resources. Subsequent actions by Congress have been
consistent with this view of Reclamation's program priorities.
Furthermore, Reclamation supports this Administration's commitment
to meet Indian Tribe's needs for water and related resources. Even as
we approach the 21st Century, many Indian reservations have not
benefited from the water infrastructure that has been developed in the
West; therefore, there remains a substantial need on Indian
reservations to be addressed. Reclamation is uniquely and properly
situated to assist in meeting that need.
As Reclamation shifts its focus toward the broader issues
associated with water resources management, there is a decline in new
construction projects. Furthermore, ongoing construction programs and
contracts have either been completed or are nearing full performance.
Specific examples of such projects include the Umatilla Basin Project
in Oregon, the Dolores Project in Colorado, Belle Fourche Unit of the
Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Project in South Dakota, the Brantley Project
in New Mexico, and two Water Reclamation and Reuse projects--Port
Hueneme Brackish Water in California and Northwest El Paso Wastewater
in Texas. In addition, several studies and investigations have been
completed. As in every budget year, overall budgetary constraints
impact the Bureau of Reclamation's as well as other agencies' requests.
effects of el nino
Question. Commissioner Martinez, in your statement you focused on
the effects of El Nino. Doesn't a decrease of $27 million in Water and
Related Resources from the fiscal year 1998 level of $693 million
impair the Bureau's ability to respond to the needs of the western
states hit hardest by the harsh weather patterns?
Answer. When the fiscal year 1999 budget documents were prepared,
the effects of the El Nino-related damage were not fully known. Since
the submission of the budget, an assessment has been made of the
current effects upon the Reclamation program. To assist in repairing
the damage to Reclamation projects, a request for additional funds was
made by the President for supplemental appropriations for fiscal year
1998. The reduction in the request for fiscal year 1999 is primarily
due to a one year drop in the safety of dams work, as several large
safety of dams repair projects are nearing completion.
california bay-delta ecosystem restoration
Question. It has come to my attention that other federal agencies
with whom you coordinate projects are complaining that they are not
getting their fair share of the funds appropriated to the CALFED Bay
Delta project within the Bureau. Could you explain the process by which
those funds are allocated?
Answer. CALFED has developed a comprehensive process for ecosystem
restoration project selection. The process is the same for every
applicant whether or not the applicant is a Federal agency. In the
project selection process, CALFED agencies, with assistance from
stakeholder groups--the Bay-Delta Advisory Council and its subgroup
called the Ecosystem Roundtable--first identify priorities for what are
called stressors and the various species concerns. The dialogue begins
with the Ecosystem Roundtable which provides the forum for open debate
by all interested parties in determining the priorities for the
available funding.
Two funding processes are utilized by CALFED for project or program
selection. One is the public solicitation process and the second is the
directed programs process. Under the public solicitation process,
CALFED agencies will identify specific stressors that they would like
to address and request proposals from the general public. Proposals
would be accepted from Federal, state, and local governments, water
users, agricultural concerns, environmental concerns, and non-profit
organizations such as universities. Anyone who has a good idea that
would specifically meet the goals described in the solicitation package
will compete with all other applicants. Under the directed programs
approach, CALFED participants--CALFED agencies, CALFED program staff,
or even the stakeholder community--might suggest a specific project be
funded. This approach would be utilized to address ``gaps'' that have
occurred in the public solicitation process--areas of concern that
require action, but perhaps the public solicitation applicants did not
provide projects that address these concerns.
In either case, proposals are referred to the Ecosystem Roundtable
for their evaluation and suggestions. The Ecosystem Roundtable created
a Technical Review Panel to review proposals to determine that goals
identified in the public solicitation are met and to rank the proposals
based on the selection criteria established at the time of the
solicitation. The Technical Review Panel forwards their suggestions to
the Ecosystem Roundtable for their consideration.
The Ecosystem Roundtable includes representatives of 20 to 24
stakeholder groups. Membership is not closed. Stakeholder involvement
is a necessary ingredient in the success of the CALFED program.
Therefore, as stakeholders become engaged, they are welcome to join the
group. Representation on the Ecosystem Roundtable is primarily made up
of interest groups--water users, environmental groups, urban
representatives, and several Federal agencies.
The Ecosystem Roundtable refers a list of proposals to an
Integration Panel. The Integration Panel consists of technical experts
in various disciplines such as fishery biologists, wildlife biologists,
chemists for water quality issues, and such. Membership includes
Federal and state agency personnel, but it is not limited to government
representation. Experts from the private sector are also included. The
Integration Panel reviews proposals to determine if, overall, the
projects selected fit together to meet CALFED goals. They also look at
compatibility with existing programs to make sure that all our programs
complement each other in order to maximize benefits. The Integration
Panel provides recommendations to the Ecosystem Roundtable for final
review and discussion.
The list of recommended proposals, along with the advice from the
Ecosystem Roundtable is forwarded to Bay-Delta Advisory Council for its
advice. After review and recommendation by the Bay-Delta Advisory
Council, recommended proposals are filtered through another review
process--the CALFED Management Team. The Management Team is represented
by Federal and state agency directors or managers and other more
technical agency staff. The Management Team provides recommendations to
the CALFED Policy Team.
The CALFED Policy Team includes representatives of the Secretary of
the Interior and the state's Secretary for Resources and policy level
representatives from both state and Federal participating CALFED
agencies. After the CALFED Policy Team prepares the final list of
recommended actions, they forward the list of programs and specific
projects to the Secretary of the Interior for final approval of
proposed expenditures from the Federal Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration
Appropriation or the California Resources Secretary for final approval
of proposed expenditures from Proposition 204 funds.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dorgan
garrison diversion unit
Question. The Garrison Diversion Project is the key to water
development in North Dakota and water development is the key to
economic development in our semi-arid state. Can you tell the Committee
how this year's budget request will help North Dakota advance water
development? I hope the Bureau would support adding additional
resources for this critical project since the budget request is about
$5 million less than last year's appropriation level. Funding in the
range of $31 million would more closely reflect our priority needs for
water development.
Answer. The Garrison Diversion Unit's fiscal year 1999 budget
request will be used to advance project water development in the
following major areas (Water and Energy Management and Development):
[In millions of dollars]
Development of irrigation facilities on the Standing Rock
Reservation................................................... 2.9
Federal cost-sharing for municipal, rural, and industrial projects
around the State of North Dakota.............................. 8.6
Continued maintenance of completed facilities..................... 2.5
Continued construction of mitigation and enhancement features at
Audubon and Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuges, including
maintenance on completed wildlife lands....................... 5.6
Deferred construction on McClusky Canal........................... 0.8
Question. One of the funding priorities in the 1986 Garrison
Reformulation Act was meeting the Municipal, Residential and Industrial
water needs of Indian tribes in North Dakota. The tribes have now
reached the funding ceiling in the Reformulation Act which prompted the
Congress to add about $1.4 million to last year's appropriation.
Can you assure the Committee that the Bureau is prepared to work
with us in identifying additional resources--in the range of $2
million--to meet critical MR&I needs on the reservation? Tribes in
North Dakota have some of the poorest quality water in the nation and
the Bureau has validated over $200 million in Indian MR&I needs so I
encourage your cooperation.
Answer. Reclamation is prepared to assist in identifying projects
and activities on the reservations that would help meet the water
supply needs of the tribes. Construction of service line connections,
community fill stations, and replacement of aged components are
examples of such activities.
Question. All but 11 of North Dakota's counties are losing
population as farm communities face unparalleled problems from low
prices, Canadian grain imports, and severe weather disasters, among
other factors. The MR&I program has helped breathe new economic life
into communities across the state.
Can you comment on the benefits of such projects as the Southwest
Pipeline in bringing clean, dependable water supplies to towns in our
state? Several North Dakota communities have been using tobacco-colored
water or been in violation of Clean Water standards--through no fault
of their own. Now several are enjoying what most of us take for
granted: clean, clear water.
Moreover, several businesses have started or expanded because they
have access to dependable supplies of usable water. I might mention
Antelope Creek Bison Ranch and Taylor Nursery as beneficiaries of the
Southwest Pipeline. In eastern North Dakota, the Melroe Company in
Gwinner and ADM Corn Processing, which draws upon the North Valley
Water project, have also been able to tap the kind of high quality
water their businesses require.
Answer. The municipal, rural, and industrial program, resulting
from the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986, has
resulted in significant investment and benefits in municipal and rural
water supplies across the State of North Dakota. Over 100,000 people
are now receiving a sufficient quantity of excellent quality water. The
benefits go beyond just municipal and rural households as livestock,
agricultural processing, and other industries are benefitting as well.
Question. As you know, the Bureau of Reclamation is currently
studying the water development and management needs of the Red River
Valley. Can you apprise the Committee of the status of these studies?
The information provided in these studies will assist the Congress in
making decisions about the future shape and funding needs of the
Garrison Diversion project so I urge the Bureau to make these studies a
top priority.
Answer. Reclamation recently received comments from interested
entities, which included the North Dakota delegation and the Governor,
on the Draft Phase IA Red River Valley Municipal, Rural, and Industrial
Needs Assessment Report. We are in the process of finalizing that
report which will be sent to state and local interests as well as the
North Dakota congressional delegation. Work is underway on the Phase IB
report, which will address instream flow needs. The Phase II study,
which will identify alternatives to meet current and future needs in
the Red River Valley, is in progress and is expected to be available
for review later this year.
Question. I am concerned that the Bureau's budget request of $24
million does not provide funds for operation of the Oakes Test Area nor
for orderly contracting for MR&I projects.
Will you please provide for the record the Bureau's plans to
operate the Oakes Test Area in fiscal year 1999 and to ensure that
contracts for MR&I projects can be let and managed in an efficient
matter.
Answer. Research on the Oakes Test Area concluded in fiscal year
1996. Reclamation is working with the project sponsors in an effort to
transfer title of the Oakes Test Area to local interests. Negotiations
are taking longer than anticipated; therefore, the transfer process has
been delayed. If a transfer cannot be worked out, Reclamation has
recommended that the area be abandoned, since the limited water supply
does not allow for enough acres to be irrigated, resulting in the
inability to pay annual operation, maintenance and replacement costs.
The Administration has not requested funding in its fiscal year
1999 budget for the Oakes Test Area. This is consistent with the 1990
Task Group Report which continues to be the basis of Administration
policy.
The fiscal year 1999 request includes $8.6 million for the
municipal, rural, and industrial water program. This level of funding
would allow the state to continue to let contracts and manage them in
an efficient manner, although at a reduced level compared to fiscal
year 1998.
conclusion of hearings
Senator Domenici. We are in recess, subject to the call of
the Chair.
Thanks, everybody.
[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., Thursday, March 26, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--At the direction of the subcommittee
chairman, the following statements received by the subcommittee
are made part of the hearing record on the Fiscal Year 1999
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.]
CALIFORNIA FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of Daniel F. Kriege, Chairman, California Water
Commission
The California Water Commission is an official agency of the State
of California. It is composed of nine representative citizens from
throughout the State. The Commission is charged by statute with
representing State of California and local interests before your
Committee. The Commission is coordinating the filing of the statements
of a number of State and local agencies. On behalf of the California
Water Commission, I would like to express our sincere appreciation for
the support this Committee has given California water, fishery and
flood control appropriations over the years. I am privileged to submit
to you the official recommendations of the State of California for
fiscal year 1999 appropriations.
The Commission would like you to know that it supports projects as
shown on the attached document entitled, California Water Commission--
Final Recommendations for Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Appropriations for
California Water, Fishery and Flood Control Projects, March 6, 1998.
That document contains recommendations adopted by the Commission at its
March 6, 1998 meeting in Sacramento, California, where individuals from
throughout the State testified on individual projects.
This year the recommended add-ons to the President's budget for the
Corps of Engineers is the largest the Commission has ever requested.
The reason is that the Corps' budget has been cut drastically in a
cloak to balance the budget. These proposed cuts in ongoing flood
control construction projects could be devastating. Stopping and
starting construction projects can significantly increase the cost, as
well as putting the respective project areas in jeopardy of severe
damage from flooding of a partially build facility.
The Commission is also concerned with the Corps' new program on
infrastructure seismic reliability. The funding requests for this
program are growing exponentially. The Corps of Engineers has the
expertise to prepare plans and give technical assistance to the cities;
however, the funds are in competition for the dollars needed for
ongoing construction projects that are proposed for major cuts in the
President's Budget. The Commission has a similar concern with the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation's budget for water recycling projects. The
California Water Commission has long recognized water recycling as an
important element in the management of California's water resources.
Nevertheless, the Commission encourages the Bureau to require local
sponsors to demonstrate that long-term beneficial use can be made of
the water produced (other than from research/demonstration projects)
and that adequate long-term funding will be available for operation and
maintenance of completed facilities.
The Commission is concerned about the engineering, economic,
environmental and political feasibility of establishing a common set of
criteria for evaluating and comparing the merits of one or more water
recycling programs with other types of ongoing USBR projects and
programs, such as dam safety, Arroyo Pasajero flooding of the San Luis
Canal, a workable long-term program for Red Bluff Diversion Dam, other
fisheries enhancement programs and Federal participation with the State
of California in funding the anticipated recommendations to come out of
the Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration (CALFED) process for long-term
water supply and environmental benefits.
It is the Commission's view that both water recycling programs and
the other ongoing USBR programs are highly important and that they
should be supported in concert, within the limitations of available
Federal funds, giving due consideration to other potential sources of
funds that could be available to effect their implementation.
Special recommendations for funds.--The Commission recommends that
special consideration be given for appropriation of funds for projects
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation as
shown in the following table. The Commission believes that these
projects merit special consideration for the reasons set forth in the
information shown on the tables on the following page.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWC Final
Presidents recommendation
CWC No. Project and county budget fiscal fiscal year
year 1999 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
110 Sacramento and San Joaquin $3,500,000 $3,500,000
Rivers Comprehensive Study
201 American River Watershed 50,000 5,000,000
235 Arroyo Pasajero (Also CWC 135 .............. 1,000,000
and 660-USBR)
304B Marysville/Yuba City Levee 746,000 12,000,000
Reconstruction
305 American River Watershed 1,000,000 26,000,000
(Levee Improvements on
American and Sacramento
Rivers)
309 West Sacramento Project 2,500,000 13,000,000
353 Guadalupe River (Santa Clara) 4,000,000 8,000,000
381 Los Angeles County Drainage 11,000,000 60,000,000
Area Project
382 Santa Ana River Mainstem 20,035,000 76,000,000
387 Norco Bluffs Bank .............. 4,400,000
Stabilization, Santa Ana
River
400 WRDA, 1996, Section 205, .............. ( \1\ )
Flood Damage Prevention
Continuing Authorities
Program Nationwide
410 WRDA, 1996, Section 206, .............. ( \1\ )
Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration
420 WRDA, 1996, Section 503, .............. ( \1\ )
Watershed Management,
Restoration and Development
($15 million allocated for
length of program)
430 WRDA, 1986, Section 1135, .............. ( \1\ )
Project Modifications for
Improvement of the
Environment
U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
500 CALFED San Francisco Bay- 143,000,000 143,000,000
Delta Program
612 Coleman National Fish 2,500,000 2,500,000
Hatchery
621 Winter-Run Chinook Salmon .............. 400,000
Captive Broodstock Program
622 Hamilton City Pumping Plant 7,900,000 10,000,000
Fish Facility (Glenn)
660A-D Arroyo Pasajero Studies 1,050,000 5,960,000
701&A Central Valley Project 68,537,000 68,537,000
Operations and Maintenance /
San Luis Unit
900--100 Water Recycling Projects-- ( \2\ ) ( \1\ )
0 Public Law 102-575, Title
XVI/Public Law 104-266) (Mid-
Pacific and Lower Colorado
Regions)
1108 Salton Sea Area Study 400,000 400,000
1304B Colorado River Salinity 12,300,000 17,500,000
Control Program, Title I
Div. (Basinwide)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Support
\2\ Various
u.s. army corp of engineers
CWC 110--Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study.--As
a result of the floods of 1997, the studies were combined in order to
conduct a comprehensive assessment of the entire flood control system.
Local, State and Federal water resources agencies support a coordinated
multi-objective investigation to balance flood damage prevention,
environmental restoration, and other water resource purposes along the
river. The study will provide a long range management program for the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers with the objective of improving the
flood carrying capacity of the system while restoring and protecting
environmental features including wetlands and fish and wildlife
habitat. The study will also identify those areas that are generally
unsuitable for development. The study will include preparation of a
comprehensive post-flood assessment, development of a hydrologic/
hydraulic model, and formulation of a comprehensive plan for flood
damage reduction and environmental restoration. Once completed, this
study will provide a framework for a management plan that can be
effectively implemented and supported by local, State and Federal
agencies. The State of California, the local sponsor, expressed support
for the study in May 1997, understands the two-phase planning process,
and is willing to participate in 50-50 cost sharing of feasibility
phase studies. The Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement was executed in
January 1998.
CWC 201--American River Watershed.--Folsom Lake and levees along
the lower American River, Sacramento River, and tributary streams and
channels provide flood protection to the highly urbanized Sacramento
area. Potentially flooded areas during rare flood events could have an
impact on approximately 410,000 people, and an estimated $37 billion in
property value. Recent evaluations indicate that the level of flood
protection along much of the American River area is less than the 100-
year level. The February 1986 storms filled Folsom Lake and
necessitated record releases in excess of design flows downstream. Due
to the 1986 storms, an extensive flood fighting effort was made by the
Corps at a cost of $3 million and an additional $10 million was
required for post flood repair work. The storms of January 1997 again
filled Folsom Lake and releases reached design flows. Portions of the
project have been authorized for construction in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 and are included in the budget for initiation
of construction in fiscal year 1998.
Fiscal year 1998 funds will be used to complete the reimbursement
agreement and plans and specifications for recreation features and
continue discussions with the local sponsor on a comprehensive flood
protection plan for the Sacramento area. Preconstruction engineering
and design is scheduled for completion in September 1998.
Both SAFCA and the Reclamation Board are considering seeking
Congressional authorization of additional improvements on the American
River system as part of the 1998 Water Resources Development Act. If
Congress acts on any of the alternatives being considered, the Corps
will need significantly more funds to proceed with any meaningful
design in 1999 and not lose a year in the schedule to implement these
improvements.
CWC 135 and 235 (Corps) and CWC 660A-D (USBR)--Arroyo Pasajero
Flood and Silt Deposition.--In the 1960's, in cooperation with the
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR) designed and constructed a 100-mile reach of the
California Aqueduct called the San Luis Canal to convey municipal and
agricultural water to San Joaquin Valley and southern California water
users. The San Luis Canal is part of the ``joint-use facilities'' along
the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, which are operated and
maintained by DWR. Design, construction, operation and maintenance
costs for this project are shared (DWR 55 percent and USBR 45 percent).
Following completion of an Arroyo Pasajero feasibility report to
identify solutions to the flooding, sediment and asbestos problems in
1990, DWR requested the U.S. Corps of Engineers to conduct a
reconnaissance study of these problems. The reconnaissance study
demonstrated a Federal interest, and the Corps and DWR, with the DWR as
local sponsor, began a feasibility study in 1994. The USBR supports the
study through the San Luis Unit ``joint-use facilities'' agreement.
At present, DWR and the Corps are only a few months away from
completion of the Feasibility Study which will identify a long-term
flood protection plan for the Arroyo. The Corps, DWR and USBR are all
participating in the cost of the study. If a feasible project and a
Federal interest are identified by the feasibility study, the Corps
will proceed with P.E. & D. for the selected project.
Severe flooding was experienced at the Arroyo during the winters of
1994-95 and 1997-98. On March 10, 1995 a section of Interstate 5
upstream of the canal collapsed when floodflows raced down the Arroyo.
Seven people lost their lives and there was substantial property
damage. Flood damage claims filed by private landowners adjacent to the
canal against USBR and DWR have exceeded $12 million from this one
flood alone. Damage to canal embankment from the flooding was repaired
under an emergency construction contract, and turbidity in the canal
water resulting from the Arroyo inflow caused significant damages to
downstream water customers for up to 4 months after the flood. Arroyo
flooding also closed Highway 269, isolating the community of Huron for
several days in 1995 and again in 1998. DWR is taking the lead in a
multi-agency group formed as a result of this most recent flooding to
develop broad-based support for implementation of flood control
measures on the Arroyo Pasajero and neighboring streams, and to keep
the Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as the affected
communities, apprised of the joint feasibility study.
CWC 304B--Marysville/Yuba City Levee Reconstruction.--The project
is located within the boundaries of the Sacramento River Flood Control
System in Butte, Sutter and Yuba Counties in north-central California.
The area includes the Feather and Yuba Rivers and their tributaries,
Sutter Bypass and the cities of Marysville and Yuba City and the
communities of Linda and Olivehurst.
High flow conditions during the February 1986 storm event resulted
in a levee break on the Yuba River, the evacuation of about 24,000
people and about $95 million in flood damages. Additional flood damages
of about $2 million were incurred on the Feather and Bear Rivers and
about $1 million in post-flood levee repair work was required. Flooding
also occurred in 1997. Flooding was caused by a levee break along the
Feather River below Marysville/Yuba City in the Linda/Olivehurst area,
where one is confirmed dead and two are missing.
The California State Reclamation Board is the local sponsor for
reconstruction work. The non-Federal sponsor is capable and willing to
contribute non-Federal share.
CWC 305--American River Watershed (Levee Improvements on the
American and Sacramento Rivers).--Recent evaluations indicate that the
level of flood protection along much of the American River is less than
the 100-year level. The project consists of a slurry wall to strengthen
the lower American River levees, levee and berm raising along the
Sacramento River, telemetered gages above Folsom Dam, and improving the
flood warning system for the lower American River.
In June 1996, the Chief of Engineers deferred a decision on a
comprehensive flood control plan, but recommended that features common
to all three plans be authorized as the first component of a
comprehensive plan. These common features include modification of and
telemetering three streamflow gages upstream of Folsom Lake; installing
a new downstream flood warning system; constructing a slurry wall in
levees on the Lower American River; and strengthening and raising
levees on the east side of the Sacramento River.
The American River Common Elements Project has $1 million in
construction funds included in the President's Budget for fiscal year
1999. The Corps' proposed budget included with the Project Cooperation
Agreement shows $26 million in Federal funds are needed in 1999 to keep
this project on schedule. Both SAFCA and the State Reclamation Board
are in a position to support funding at the higher Federal share.
CWC 309--West Sacramento.--The project is located in West
Sacramento, Yolo County in north-central California. The project
consists of raising 4.9 miles of levees up to 5.0 feet along the
Sacramento and Yolo Bypasses; constructing concrete wing walls, a
concrete sill and a manually operated gate at the Southern Pacific
Railroad; constructing a concrete wing wall and flow cut-off wall on
each side of Interstate 80; and developing approximately 40 acres of
mitigation lands for riparian and upland habitat loss.
Construction of this project will provide protection to lands,
improvements, and over 30,000 people in West Sacramento. Estimated
damageable property in the floodplain is $1.2 billion. Flooding in
February 1986, January 1997 and February 1998, in conjunction with
subsequent updated hydrologic analyses, have shown that the existing
level of flood protection is significantly less than previously thought
and does not provide FEMA 100-year level of protection. Levee failure
along the Yolo Bypass would release floodwater from the Sacramento
River into the West Sacramento urban area, inundating industrial areas,
two major highways, thousands of homes and thousands of acres of
farmland.
The California State Reclamation Board will act as the non-Federal
sponsor for the project.
CWC 353 Guadalupe River.--The project is located in San Jose, Santa
Clara County, California. The authorized plan consists of channel
improvements on the Guadalupe River between Interstate Highways 880 and
280, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles with provisions for fish and
wildlife mitigation as necessary. The project under construction is the
Locally Preferred Plan (LPP). The non-Federal sponsor is responsible to
pay 100 percent of the difference in cost between the LPP and the NED
plan.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District is the local sponsor for both
the flood control portion and the recreation portion of this project.
The Local Cooperation Agreements (LCA's) were executed 30 March 1992.
Potential damage from a 1-percent flood in the project reach
exceeds $526 million. Based on past flood events, the average annual
flood damage estimate for the project is $24 million. Guadalupe River
Park, an integral part of the successful revitalization for downtown
San Jose, is an important element of the project. Benefit-to-cost ratio
is approximately 2 to 1.
Two of three contracts are complete. Contract 3 is expected to be
completed in 2000 pending sufficient Federal funding, and resolution of
mitigation issues. Environmental issues regarding fish habitat and
thermal impacts are being resolved through a multi-agency collaborative
process. Total project cost is $182.8 million. Local community has
expended more than $70.5 million on planning, design, land acquisition,
and construction.
CWC 381--Los Angeles County Drainage Area (LACDA) Project.-- The
Los Angeles County Drainage Area, current population of over 9 million,
is partially protected by an urban flood control system which includes
Corps flood control structures consisting of 5 major reservoirs, 22
debris basins, and 470 miles of channel improvements. The existing
system, protecting the second largest urban metropolitan area in the
United States, has prevented over $3.7 billion in damages since
construction. However, the flood of 1969 in Los Angeles County caused
widespread damages of over $12 million, $56.5 million at 1996 prices.
As urbanization of the basin has grown over the past 40 years, the
ability of the existing systems to provide design levels of protection
has diminished. Portions of the existing system cannot contain a 50-
year flood event. Average annual benefits, at October 1991 price
levels, are $58,616,000, all flood control.
The LACDA Project involves raising of 21 miles of existing levees
which were originally built 40-50 years ago and modifying 21 bridge
crossings. The Project was authorized by Congress in 1992 and is
estimated to cost $240 million with the Federal Government paying about
$180 million and the local sponsor (Los Angeles County) paying the
rest.
Construction began in February 1996. Three construction contracts
which included 4.5 miles of levee raising and modifications to three
bridges have been completed. The current fiscal year budget includes
$20.7 million for completion of two additional contracts which are
scheduled to be awarded this February and March.
The low level of funding included in the President's Budget for
fiscal year 1999 ($11 million) will significantly delay completion of
the project. This will prolong the risk of flooding and continue
jeopardizing the safety of those living in the 75 square mile overflow
area. Such a condition is unacceptable.
CWC 382--Santa Ana River Mainstem.--The project is located along a
75-mile reach of the Santa Ana River in Orange, Riverside, and San
Bernardino Counties southeast of and adjacent to metropolitan Los
Angeles, California.
The plan of improvement provides for construction of the Seven Oaks
Dam about 35 miles upstream of the existing Prado Dam, with a gross
reservoir storage of 145,600 acre feet; flood plain management of the
flood overflow area on the Santa Ana River between Seven Oaks Dam and
the existing Prado Reservoir; enlargement of Prado Dam to increase the
reservoir storage capacity from 217,000 acre-feet to 362,000 acre-feet;
construction of 3.3 miles of channel modifications along Oak Street
Drain in Corona; enlargement of the existing 2.4 miles of Mill Creek
levee; construction of a detention basin and 2.0 miles of channel
modifications along the Santiago Creek; and various means of flood
control, including flood plain management, levees, and vertical walled
concrete channels along the 30.5 miles of the Santa Ana River from
Prado Dam to the Pacific Ocean.
Construction of this project will primarily provide protection to
lands and improvements within Orange County downstream of Prado
Reservoir. A severe flood threat exists in this area, which could cause
damages in excess of $15 billion and could endanger and disrupt the
lives of over three million people living or working in the floodplain.
Damages upstream of Prado Reservoir could exceed $450 million. The
overflow area comprises 160 square miles of primarily urban development
in 15 cities including San Bernardino, Riverside, Anaheim, Orange,
Santa Ana, Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, Huntington, and Newport Beach.
The greatest potential damage area is the Orange County floodplain
below Prado Dam.
The $76 million request includes $53 million dollars to continue
construction on Seven Oaks Dam and the Lower Santa Ana River plus $23
million to begin construction (a new start appropriation is required)
at Prado Dam. Commencement of construction on improvements to Prado Dam
is very important. This feature of the SAR Project is the key link in
providing the level of flood protection envisioned by Congress when it
authorized the SAR Project in 1986.
CWC 387--Norco Bluffs, Santa Ana River.--The study area is located
approximately 40 miles southeast of Los Angeles in the City of Norco
along the south bank of the Santa Ana River. Flood induced migration of
the main channel of the Santa Ana River to base of the bluffs has
resulted in undercutting and subsequent bank destabilization which
threatens residential development along the edge of the bluffs.
The purpose of this project is to protect a susceptible 65 foot
high bluff in Norco from further retreat into the residential
neighborhood. Severe bank sloughing results when floodflows within the
Santa Ana River attack the toe of the bluffs. WRDA 96 Section 101b(4),
provided for the authorization of the project based on a Chief's Report
dated December 23, 1996 that recommended the project for construction.
Design of the project by the Corps is underway and is fully funded.
They are now seeking funding in the amount of $4.4 million in fiscal
year 1999 for completion of construction of the Norco Bluffs Bank
Stabilization Project.
CWC 400--WRDA, 1996, Section 205, Flood Damage Prevention.--The
California Water Commission heard testimony at its March 6, 1998
meeting requesting support on individual projects. Each of these
projects have merit and are needed to prevent recurring flood damages
in the local areas. The Commission supports these projects for funding
from this Continuing Authority for small projects.
CWC 410--WRDA, 1996, Section 206, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration and
Protection.--The California Water Commission heard testimony at its
March 6, 1998 meeting requesting support on individual projects. The
Commission supports these projects to improve the quality of the
environment. Section 206 directs the Secretary of the Army to carry out
such project if the Secretary determines that the project will improve
the quality of the environment and is in the public interest; and is
cost-effective. The cost-sharing provisions state that the non-Federal
interests shall provide 35 percent of the cost of the construction of
any project carried out under this section, including provision of all
lands, easements, rights-of-way, and necessary relocation.
CWC 420--WRDA, 1996, Section 503, Watershed Management, Restoration
and Development.--The California Water Commission heard testimony at
its March 6, 1998 meeting requesting support on individual projects.
The Commission supports fiscal year 1998 appropriations for the
projects. This provision gives the Secretary of the Army the authority
to have the Corps provide technical, planning and design assistance to
non-Federal interests for carrying out watershed management,
restoration and development projects at locations listed in Section
503, WRDA 1996.
CWC 430--WRDA, 1986, Section 1135, Project Modifications.--The
California Water Commission heard testimony at its March 6, 1998
meeting requesting support on individual projects. The Commission
supports fiscal year 1998 appropriations for each of these projects.
Section 1135 of WRDA of 1986 directs the Secretary of the Army to
review the operation of water resources projects constructed before the
date of the Act to determine the need for modifications in the
structures and operations of such projects for the purpose of improving
the quality of the environment in the public interest.
u.s. bureau of reclamation
500--CALFED S.F. Bay-Delta Program.--The CALFED Bay-Delta Program
is a cooperative effort among State and Federal agencies and the
general public to ensure a healthy ecosystem, reliable water supplies,
good water quality, and stable levees in California's Bay-Delta. The
President's fiscal year 1999 Budget, contains $143 million to be spent
specifically in pursuit of CALFED objectives. This money is
appropriated to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to hold for the
participating CALFED agencies as spending decisions are made.
California voters approved the $995 million Proposition 204 on the
November 1996 ballot. This general obligation bond measure provides
$390 million for the Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program.
During Phase I, from June 1995 through August 1996, the Program
identified these problems, developed a mission statement and several
guiding principles, and designed three alternative solutions. In Phase
II, from June 1996 to September 1998, the Program will conduct a broad-
based environmental review of the three alternative solutions will
identify the one preferred alternative. During Phase III, starting in
late 1998 or early 1999 and lasting for many years, the preferred
alternative will be implemented in stages.
The California Water Commission strongly supports a fiscal year
1999 Federal appropriation of $143,300,000, which is in the President's
fiscal year 1999 budget.
CWC 612--Coleman National Fish Hatchery Modification.--The Coleman
National Fish Hatchery was built by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
(USBR) on Battle Creek in 1942 to mitigate damages to salmon spawning
areas in the Sacramento River system caused by the construction of
Shasta and Keswick Dams. Federal custody and operation were transferred
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1948. Title 34 of
Public Law 102-575 (Central Valley Project Improvement Act) specifies
that USBR provide funding for completion of the rehabilitation of the
Coleman National Fish Hatchery: 50 percent will be reimbursable from
water and power users and 50 percent non-reimbursable.
Facilities remaining to be completed are additional ozone water
treatment facilities, a pump station in the Coleman Canal to pump water
to the sand filters and ozonation plant, two new sand filters, 54-inch
pipeline from the ozone plant to the 15 x 150 foot raceways and an air
compressor.
The California Water Commission supports the funding in the
President's fiscal year 1999 Budget for completion of the items listed
above.
CWC 621--Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Captive Broodstock Program.--The
captive broodstock program arose from shared concerns for the fate of
the Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon. Active participants
have included representatives of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Bodega
Marine Laboratory of the University of California, Steinhart Aquarium
of the California Academy of Sciences, California Department of Fish
and Game, California Department of Water Resources, Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Tyee Club and California Water
Commission. In late 1991, the parties formed the Winter-Run Chinook
Captive Broodstock Committee to investigate the feasibility of rearing
winter-run fry to maturity in captivity, so that broodstock would be
available should the natural run disappear. By early 1992, the
committee, through public meetings and consensus decisions, formulated
and began the captive broodstock program.
The program has promoted the genetic conservation of winter-run
chinook salmon. Analyses of the effective size of the winter-run stock
showed that a properly managed artificial propagation program to which
the captive broodstock program contributes gametes is not likely to
have a negative effect and may, instead, be helping to maintain or
slightly increase slightly the genetic diversity of the stock.
Development of microsatellite DNA markers from complementary
programs at the Bodega Marine Laboratory, which are needed to determine
parentage and run identity in the captive breeding effort, represents a
substantial technical contribution of and for the program. In addition,
under one of these complementary programs, these markers are being
further developed and used for a mixed-stock analysis of juvenile
chinook salmon in the Central Valley and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta of California, where chinook salmon are taken by the State,
Federal, and agricultural water diversions. Similar markers are also
being used by salmon biologists in Alaska, Idaho, Washington,
Louisiana, British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Denmark, and New
Zealand. Thus, these DNA markers will have uses in salmon biology far
beyond their uses in the captive broodstock program.
The captive broodstock program was initiated as a rapid response to
the endangerment of the Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon. To
date, the program has realized many of its objectives. Gametes from
captively reared broodstock have contributed to artificial propagation
of the winter-run population; however, gamete quality must be improved
to ensure successful production of offspring. Despite these problems,
in each year since its inception, the program has provided
progressively better spawners, gamete production, fertilization and
production of juvenile fish. The artificial propagation program is
actively pursuing improvements to rearing facilities and genetics and
mating protocols to eliminate hybridization concerns. The recently
completed Livingston Stone NFH below Shasta Dam is expected to
successfully imprint the young fry on Sacramento River water. Most
important, the scientific and technical advances by the program will
provide an important legacy to salmon biology.
The California Water Commission strongly recommends continuation of
the program, which has been broadly supported by Federal, State and
local funds.
CWC 622 Hamilton City Pumping Plant Fish Facility.--The project is
located between Sacramento River Mile 202 and 206 near the Glenn-Tehama
county line. It is about 100 miles north of Sacramento, California.
Finding a solution to the fish passage problem at the Hamilton City
Pump Station has been identified as an important element to Central
Valley fish restoration in both the Department of the Interior's draft
Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan and in the California Department of
Fish and Game's Restoring Central Valley Streams: A Plan of Action.
Developing a state-of-the-art project has been a cooperative effort
involving the District, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of
Engineers, the Department of Fish and Game, the Department of Water
Resources, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Reclamation Board. A final EIR/EIS is
currently undergoing a 30-day review. The lead agencies expect to sign
a record of decision and notice of decision by March.
The preferred alternative incorporates two important elements. One
element is the fish screening facility. After extensive physical
modeling, it was determined that an extension of the existing flat-
plate screen offered the most viable method of providing protection to
California's fisheries.
The second critical element to the long-term solution is the
gradient restoration work being done on the Sacramento River. Hydraulic
modeling and field investigations have demonstrated that the gradient
facility is essential to the long-term viability of the fish screen
structure.
An appropriation of $2 million is recommended for the Corps of
Engineers to complete the physical modeling necessary for final design
and to award construction contracts, with construction scheduled to
begin in late 1999. This level of funding is important to maintain the
coordinated schedule for construction of the comprehensive long-term
solution.
CWC 660A--Arroyo Pasajero (See CWC 235).
CWC 701 and 701A--Central Valley Project Operations and Maintenance
(includes CVPIA).--The Nation's public works infrastructure is aging.
We must ensure that adequate levels of funding are provided to protect
the public's investment in facilities which we rely upon daily to
provide water supply, flood protection, public safety, and other
benefits. California's population of 32 million people depends upon a
network of local, State, and Federal infrastructure developed over the
past decades. Today, governments at all levels are finding it
increasingly difficult to find funds to properly maintain existing
facilities. The competition for funding raises important public policy
questions about the relationship of funding for new projects and
programs as opposed to funding to maintain and rehabilitate existing
infrastructure.
Too often, the temporary solution used by all levels of government
to meet budgetary constraints is to defer maintenance funding. However,
deferred maintenance does not come without a price.
Given the increasing competition for Federal dollars, we must be
prepared to make the difficult choice of deferring studies and new
projects until we are assured that existing Federal facilities are
receiving appropriate levels of safety review and maintenance.
CWC 900 and 1000--Recycled Water Projects.--The California Water
Commission has long recognized water recycling as an important element
in the management of California's water resources, both for cleanup of
municipal, industrial and agricultural discharges and to improve the
quantity and quality of water supplies. Following extensive hearings
throughout the State on the Department of Water Resources' Bulletin
160-98, California Water Plan Update, which includes a provision that
over 1 million acre-feet of recycled water be added to California's
annual water supply by the year 2020.
It is the Commission's view that both water recycling programs and
the other ongoing USBR programs are highly important and that they
should be supported in concert, within the limitations of available
Federal funds, giving due consideration to other potential sources of
funds that could be available to effect their implementation.
CWC 1108--Salton Sea Study.--The Salton Sea is the largest lake in
California and is a regionally important feature from both
environmental and economic standpoints. It is located in the
southeastern corner of the State within the geologic feature known as
the Salton Basin, a natural basin located approximately 278 feet below
mean Sea level (-278 feet msl). The Salton Sea receives drainage from
approximately 8,000 square miles of Riverside, Imperial, and San Diego
Counties and the Republic of Mexico. It is a closed basin thus water
only leaves the Sea via evaporation. Inflow to the Sea consists of
agricultural drainage, storm water and wastewater, and is generally in
hydrologic balance with evaporative losses. The closed nature of the
system has resulted in changes in the salinity and water surface
elevation of the Sea over time.
In 1993, the Counties of Riverside and Imperial, Imperial
Irrigation District (IID), and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
entered into a Joint Powers Agreement, creating a public agency known
as the Salton Sea Authority. The Authority and the California Water
Commission conducted a symposium on January 12, 1998 to help focus
attention on this major issue. The Commission strongly supports the
proposed authorized bill that is being discussed by Congress.
CWC 1304B--Colorado River Basin Salinity Control (Basinwide).--The
Colorado River is a large component of the regional water supply, and
its relatively high salinity causes significant economic impacts on the
16 million water customers in the Metropolitan Water District's service
area, as well as throughout the Lower Colorado River Basin. For this
reason, MWD and the Bureau of Reclamation are currently conducting a
Salinity Management Study in Southern California. The first phase of
the study (completed in February 1997) concluded that the high salinity
from the Colorado River causes significant impacts to residential,
industrial, and agricultural water users.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the
interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin States'
salinity control efforts, issued its ``1996 Review, Water Quality
Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System'' (1996 Review) in June
1996. The 1996 Review found that additional salinity control was
necessary beginning in 1994 to meet the numeric criteria in the water
quality standards adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin States and
adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with normal water
supply conditions.
The President's proposed fiscal year 1999 budget contains funding
of $12.3 million for implementation of the basinwide program. MWD
requests that Congress appropriate $17.5 million for implementation of
the basinwide program, an increase of $5.2 million from that proposed
by the President. This level of funding is necessary to meet the
salinity control activities schedule in order to maintain the State
adopted and federally approved water quality standards.
The California Water Commission supports an increase of $5.2
million for this program.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TCORPS.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TCORPS.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TCORPS.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TCORPS.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TCORPS.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TCORPS.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TCORPS.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TCORPS.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TCORPS.009
______
Prepared Statement of Frank Dal Gallo, President, Peter D. Rabbon,
General Manager, the Reclamation Board, the Resources Agency, State of
California
THE RECLAMATION BOARD, FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL
PROJECTS--1999 SUMMARY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Board
budget recommends
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps of Engineers' Projects:
General investigations--Surveys:
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers
Comprehensive Basin Study............... 3,500 3,500
Northern California Streams:
Middle Creek......................... 200 200
Lower Strong Ranch and Chicken Ranch
Sloughs............................. ......... 100
Preconstruction engineering and design:
Kaweah River............................. 1,165 1,165
American River Watershed (Long Term
Planning)............................... 500 4,000
Yuba River Basin......................... 100 775
Merced County Streams.................... 500 900
Construction--General
Sacramento River Bank Protection......... 7,080 10,080
Marysville/Yuba City Levee Reconstruction 746 12,000
West Sacramento.......................... 2,500 13,000
American River Watershed (Common
Elements)............................... 1,000 26,000
American River Watershed (Long Term)..... ......... 1,000
Mid-Valley Levee Reconstruction.......... 1,700 1,700
Kaweah River............................. ......... 500
Lower Sacramento Levee Reconstruction.... 952 952
Upper Sacramento Levee Reconstruction.... 400 400
American River Watershed (Natomas)....... ......... 14,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
the reclamation board's recommendations
The Reclamation Board, as the State agency which furnishes required
local assurances for a majority of the Federal flood control projects
in California's Central Valley, respectfully submits this statement of
support for Corp of Engineer's flood control projects.
The Board in general supports the Presidents budget for Federal
flood control projects in the California Central Valley. The projects
described below are of particular importance to the health, safety, and
well-being of Central Valley residents and are especially important to
The Reclamation Board that they are started and/or kept on schedule.
General Investigations--Surveys
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Basin Study.--The
study area includes the entire Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin
River Basin in Northern and Central California respectively. Local,
State and Federal water resources agencies support a coordinated multi-
objective investigation to balance flood damage prevention,
environmental restoration, and other water resources purposed along the
river. The Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement was executed in February
1998.
The Board recommends funding to continue this study.
Northern California Streams.--This survey, authorized in 1962, is a
study of the Sacramento River and its tributaries in regard to flood
control measures. The following are interim study proposals for funding
in fiscal year 1997.
middle creek
A reconnaissance study, which evaluated several alternatives near
Middle Creek's confluence with Clear Lake on lake county, was completed
in 1997. Existing levees which do not provide adequate flood protection
need to be repaired and upgraded.
The Board supports funding to continue the feasibility study.
lower strong ranch and chicken ranch sloughs
In January 1997 areas along lower Strong Ranch Slough and lower
Chicken Ranch Slough in Sacramento County were flooded twice by those
streams. This area was also flooded in February 1986.
The Board recommends funding for a reconnaissance study.
Preconstruction Engineering and Design
Kaweah River.--Terminus Dam above the city of Visalia was completed
in 1962 to provide flood control and irrigation water supply. However,
significant flood damages to communities and highly developed
agricultural lands along the Kaweah River have continued to occur.
The Board recommends funding to continue preconstruction
engineering and design and to initiate construction.
American River Watershed (Long Term Planning).--The Sacramento
Urban Area has only a 70-year level of protection from flooding by the
American River. Although incremental actions have occurred, a long term
plan for high levels of protection must be developed and implemented.
The Board recommends funding to continue: long term planning;
preconstruction engineering and design; and to initiate construction.
Yuba River Basin.--The Marysville and Yuba City area has
experienced seven major floods. A feasibility study is scheduled for
completion in April 1998.
The Board recommends funding to continue preconstruction
engineering and design.
Merced County Streams Group (Bear Creek Unit).--Merced narrowly
avoided major urban flooding in January and February 1998.
The Board recommends funding to continue preconstruction,
engineering, and design.
Construction--General
Sacramento River Bank Protection.--The project, authorized in 1960,
is a long-range Federal-State effort to preserve the existing project
levee system along 192 miles of the Sacramento River. The Sacramento
River Bank Protection Project work consists of providing some form of
bank stabilization at those points which are identified each year as
the most critical.
The Board recommends funding for continued construction.
Marysville/Yuba City Levee Reconstruction.--This program will
reconstruct 44 miles of the 134 miles of federally authorized levees
which protect the Marysville/Yuba City area. The first of three
construction contracts was awarded in July 1995. Flooding in 1997
demonstrated the need to extend the work sites, modify the design, and
investigate new sites in the project area.
The Board recommends funding for continued construction.
West Sacramento.--The Board is the non-Federal sponsor for the West
Sacramento flood control project which was authorized for construction
by WRDA 1992.
The Board supports funding to continue construction.
American River Watershed (Common Elements).--The Common Elements
Project was authorized in WRDA 1996. This project consists of features
that would be common to any long term project selected for the American
River.
The Board supports Federal funding for the continued construction
of this project.
American River Watershed (Long Term).--Discussed previously under
preconstruction engineering and design.
Mid-Valley Area Levee Reconstruction.--An evaluation of about 240
miles of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project levees in the
Sacramento Mid-Valley area identified about 20 miles of levees that are
structurally deficient and require reconstruction.
The Board recommends funding to initiate construction.
Kaweah River.--Discussed previously under preconstruction
engineering and design.
Lower Sacramento Levee Reconstruction.--An evaluation of about 295
miles of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project levees in the Lower
Sacramento Valley area identified about 47 miles of levees that are
structurally deficient. The project includes reconstructing about 2
miles of these levees.
The Board recommends funding for construction activities.
Upper Sacramento Levee Reconstruction.--Federally authorized flood
control levees in the Upper Sacramento Area were evaluated and 12 miles
were determined to be deficient and requiring reconstruction.
The Board recommends funding for construction.
American River Watershed (Natomas).--The project was authorized but
not funded in 1992. The local flood control agency proceeded with the
work.
______
Prepared Statement of Floyd R. Summers, PE, President, California
Society of Professional Engineers, Sacramento, CA
The Federal Appropriations for fiscal year 1999 presented to you by
the California Water Commission are endorsed by the California Society
of Professional Engineers.
The Commission's process of understanding and screening each
project, each year, is extensive, exhaustive and thorough. The
Commission works with many Federal and State agencies, districts,
cities, organizations and individuals throughout the year to understand
the projects and their effects on a growing society. This includes
deliberative balancing of competing interests. A project does not make
the list unless it is well understood and makes sense.
Increases for some of the Bureau of Reclamation and Corps of
Engineers projects which are in the feasibility study phase are because
of situations encountered during study work that require investigation
and were not anticipated when original budgets were developed 2 or 3
years in advance. Without the increases, work in progress on the
studies will be seriously adversely impacted, often with detrimental
impacts on resource management and people's well being.
The California Society of Professional Engineers is a voluntary
organization of 2,500 registered professional engineers of all
disciplines (civil, electrical, mechanical, structural, fire
protection, chemical, control, etc.) and areas of practice
(construction, education, government, industry, and private practice).
______
Prepared Statement of Stephen K. Hall, Executive Director, Association
of California Water Agencies
On behalf of the members of the Association of California Water
Agencies (ACWA), I am writing to request support for Federal funding in
fiscal year 1999 to continue ongoing efforts through the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program to restore the San Francisco Bay/San Joaquin River Delta
ecosystem in California.
The 104th Congress in 1996 passed the California Bay-Delta
Environmental Enhancement and Water Security Act, which authorized $430
million over 3 years for this purpose. President Clinton, as he did in
his fiscal year 1998 budget, has requested $143 million of these funds
as part of his fiscal year 1999 budget. In October 1997, President
Clinton signed an energy and water development and appropriations bill
containing $85 million for the Bay-Delta system.
Our members strongly support making this fiscal year 1999 request a
high priority within the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
bill.
The key to the appropriation of these funds was the work of a
unique coalition, which brought together environmental, urban and
agricultural interest to advocate for the Federal ecosystem funds. The
coalition continues to work to secure this second-year appropriation.
The San Francisco Bay/San Joaquin River Delta system is the largest
estuary on the West Coast. Millions of birds and 53 species of fish
migrate through and live in the Bay-Delta estuary, including many
listed as threatened or endangered. The estuary is also crucial to the
nation's economy, providing drinking water for 22 million people and
irrigation water for over 4 million acres of farmland, including 45
percent of the nation's produce.
One of the unique aspects of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is that a
strategy for funding a long-term solution is being developed as an
integral part of the overall program. Costs of the program will be
shared by many entities, including Federal appropriations, private-
public partnerships, and general obligation bonds. Passage of State
Proposition 204 in 1996 has provided more than $430 million for the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program's environmental enhancement efforts. Water
users also provided seed money to jump-start implementation of
ecosystem projects in 1995-97. This funding for early implementation of
the Programs' environmental actions reflects the fundamental need to
restore the ecosystem as an essential component of a long-term
comprehensive solution to Bay-Delta system problems. Funds provided in
fiscal year 1999 can be leveraged against other funding sources,
including the Central Valley Project Improvement Act Restoration Fund
to finance further ecosystem restoration activities.
Again, on behalf of the California water supply community, thank
you for your attention to this request to fully fund the President's
fiscal year 1999 budget request of $143 million for the CALFED Program.
______
Prepared Statement of Nathaniel S. Bingham, Habitat Director, Pacific
Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association
winter-run chinook salmon captive broodstock program
The Captive broodstock program, which we are requesting
continuation funding for, arose from the shared concern about the
possible extinction of the winter-run of a wide range of stakeholders
and agencies. In 1991 the concerned parties formed the Winter-Run
Captive Broodstock Committee which formulated and began the program.
Utilizing funding provided by Congress the committee began the program
in 1992. Total annual program costs have averaged $1,250,000. Rearing
facilities at Bodega Marine Laboratory of the University of California
and Steinhart Aquarium of the California Academy of Sciences were
constructed around juvenile salmon provided from Coleman National Fish
Hatchery. Presently the combined facilities of both institutions are
holding four year classes of salmon in captivity. Offspring from the
captive adult salmon have been successfully released in the Sacramento
River. This years production will be 40,000 juvenile winter-run chinook
salmon. The captive broodstock program has required and has provided
substantial scientific and technical advances in the husbandry,
pathology, and genetics of chinook salmon. In order to conserve the
unique genetics of the winter-run, the program has developed a new
microsatellite DNA marker technology to determine the parentage and run
identity of the captive salmon. These markers are now being further
developed and are being used to identify the stock origin of salmon
entrained by the State water export pumps in the Sacramento San Joaquin
Delta. Thus these markers will have uses in salmon biology far beyond
their application to the brood stock program.
For fiscal year 1999 we are requesting $350,000 from the committee
in the Bureau of Reclamation funds. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has committed $150,000 from the Central Valley Improvement Act
Restoration Fund.
community based salmon habitat restoration projects
Coho Salmon have recently been listed as threatened in Central
California under the Federal Endangered Species Act. In addition the
National Marine Fisheries Service has also listed Coho in the
``Transboundary Evolutionarily Significant Unit'' in Northern
California and Southern Oregon. This listing is anticipated to impact
many users of timber and water resources in California and Oregon. We
are requesting that the committee provide $1 million in California, for
community based watershed restoration projects to be funded through the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
______
Prepared Statement of Emery Poundstone, President, Reclamation District
No. 108
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Emery
Poundstone. I am a rice farmer, and I am President of the Board of
Directors of Reclamation District No. 108.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you this morning
regarding the Federal funding priorities for RD 108.
I also want to thank the Committee Members, particularly
Congressman Vic Fazio, who represents our region, for their past
efforts to address our concerns. In particular, the District is very
appreciative of the Committee's strong support for our efforts to
construct a state-of-the-art fish screen at our District's main
diversion on the Sacramento River.
Reclamation District No. 108 has two funding requests for fiscal
year 1999. First, RD 108 requests that the Subcommittee provide an
additional $3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers, under the Sacramento
River Bank Protection Program, to complete levee protection work that
was begun in fiscal year 1998. The funds will allow the Corps of
Engineers to complete reinforcement and protection work on a five mile
section of the District's so-called Back Levee, the left bank of the
Colusa Basin Drain. In fiscal year 1998, the Committee provided
$750,000 to initiate work on this levee protection work.
The fiscal year 1999 funds are needed to permanently protect the
District's Back Levee and avoid the need for future repairs under the
Public Law 84-99 program.
During the early fall of 1997, the Corps of Engineers repaired 3.4
miles of this levee section, under Public Law 84-99. The levee section
was severely damaged during the 1995 flood event and the Corps of
Engineers worked to restore the levee to its original condition.
However, just months after this work was finished, in February of this
year, another flood occurred and caused severe damage to not only the
original 3.4 mile section of levee reconstructed by the Corps but also
to approximately 1.5 miles of additional levee. Clearly, a permanent
remedy to prevent recurring flood damage is required.
The project the Corps of Engineers is currently designing, and that
will be completed with the $3,000,000 the District seeks, will
permanently protect this important levee. The California Water
Commission has endorsed the project, and the State Reclamation Board
has indicated its desire and intent to cost-share the project.
Again, the District respectfully requests that the Committee add
$3,000,000 to the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project and direct
the Corps of Engineers to use these funds to reconstruct and protect
the so-called Back Levee of Reclamation District No. 108 from future
damage and potential failure.
Second, on behalf of the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, I
respectfully request the Committee provide an additional $1,000,000 for
studies that must be undertaken to complete the Sacramento River Basin-
Wide Water Management Plan and to update and extend the 1956
Cooperative Study (WMP). The WMP is required by the Memorandum of
Understanding between eight Settlement Contractors and the Bureau of
Reclamation in January 1997 and must be completed prior to the
negotiation of the renewal of the Central Valley Project Sacramento
River Settlement Contracts.
The Bureau of Reclamation has allocated $650,000 to these studies
in fiscal year 1998. The Bureau has additional $1,000,000, of which
$600,000 is for continuation of these studies, in the fiscal year 1999
budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation, under Central Valley
Project, Sacramento River Division, Sacramento River Contract
Litigation Settlement. While the District and the other Sacramento
River Settlement Contractors are pleased with the Bureau's commitment
to completion of the WMP, we believe that financial resources, in
addition to those provided by the Settlement Contractors on a cost-
share basis, will be needed in fiscal year 1999 in order to ensure that
these studies are carried out in a timely and complete process. RD 108
and the other seven Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, therefore,
request that the Committee provide an additional $1,000,000, over and
beyond the funds included in the budget request, for the Sacramento
River Division, specifically to support water user directed studies
associated with the preparation of the final WMP. Failure to complete
the work that will be carried out with the additional resources, could
jeopardize the capability of all Settlement Contractors to complete
negotiations with the Bureau of Reclamation on renewal of Sacramento
River Settlement Contracts.
Here, again, the California Water Commission has endorsed this
request.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
______
Prepared Statement of Gaye Lopez, Manager, Colusa Basin Drainage
District
USBR Fiscal Year 1998 Request: $3,500,000
Mr. Chairman and Members: The Colusa Basin Drainage District
appreciates your past support for our Integrated Resources Management
Plan for water management that addresses flooding and will provide
opportunities for future conjunctive use of water resources to meet the
diverse needs of agricultural, urban and wildlife interests in the
Colusa Basin.
The 650,000 acre Colusa Basin Drainage District, located on the
west side of the Sacramento River, serves a large watershed exceeding
one million acres. It covers three counties, Glenn, Colusa and northern
Yolo Counties. It not only is a rich agricultural area, but a rich
wildlife area as well, including three national wildlife refuges.
Over the decades, devastating floods have repeatedly struck the
Colusa Basin resulting in costly damages to public and private property
and loss of life. In 1995 and again in 1998 these three counties
suffered an estimated 100 million dollars in losses and 1 death due to
storms. In November 1995, a majority of landowners voted to implement
the District's Integrated Management Plan to address flood damage while
obtaining other benefits of increasing groundwater supplies, surface
water storage, and improve environmental and wildlife uses in the
watershed.
Through a stakeholder/local, State and Federal agency collaborative
process, four projects have been initially selected to be developed to
serve as a demonstration for integrated resources management: Two small
reservoirs, a groundwater recharge detention basin, and management of
the 75 mile Drain itself. During 1996, preliminary design for the
conjunctive use demonstration projects was completed. Both basin-wide
programmatic as well as project specific environmental documentation
commenced during 1997 and is scheduled for completion in fiscal year
1998.
The District requests a $3,500,000 appropriation in fiscal year
1999 for final design and construction of one of the District's
priority projects. We believe our Integrated Resource approach to
solving a number of problems across a large area with the same dollar,
is a wise expenditure of public funds.
Thank you for your continued support.
______
Prepared Statement of Dick Akin, Sutter County Supervisor, District 5
We are requesting reconnaissance studies within Sutter County
because:
--flooding of January 1997, including in our Meridian area, exposed
problems along our 200 miles of levees that we were not aware
of prior to this;
--the Corps of Engineers has developed new levee stability
information subsequent to that flooding;
--as part of a review of alternatives to provide flood control, we
hired engineers, in the Fall of 1997, to do some scoping work
and identified numerous areas of concern we have placed a one-
half cent sales tax for flood control on the June ballot and
would like to begin the process of seeking Federal assistance
as soon as possible.
While we requested four separate studies, we are willing to work
with you and the Corps of Engineers to determine the correct approach.
It is possible that there should be some combination of these studies,
based on discussions with your staff, and we will gladly accept your
advice on that issue.
We just want to get the process started.
Thank you for your time and attention and for the opportunity to
speak.
______
Prepared Statement of Tib Belza, Chairman, Yuba County Water Agency
request
Please appropriate $775,000 for fiscal year 1999 for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) for preconstruction engineering and design
for the Yuba River Basin, California, levee flood protection
improvements.
issue
The USACE has recently completed the Draft Feasibility Report, Yuba
River Basin Investigation, California, January 1998. The report
identifies Federal interest in approximately $28 million of
improvements to existing levees. To keep the effort to provide
critically needed higher levels of flood protection for the area moving
forward, the USACE has identified that they need $775,000 of Federal
funding in fiscal year 1999. The California State Reclamation Board is
on record as supporting this levee improvement work, and the Yuba
County Water Agency (YCWA) Board has committed money that is in hand
for the local share of this critically needed flood protection work.
identified levee improvements that are needed
The USACE recommended plan involves constructing or deepening 6.7
miles of slurry walls, deepening 9 miles of interior toe drains and
constructing or modifying 9.5 miles of berms along section of the Yuba
and Feather Rivers and constructing about 5 miles of slurry walls and
berms along the ring levee around the City of Marysville. The proposed
work has an overall benefit-cost ratio of 2.6.
flood protection need
The City of Marysville is located at the confluence of two major
California Rivers, the Feather and the Yuba. Historically the area on
the average has been subject to major floods about every 8.5 years.
During the past 50 years, the area has had five major river floods,
resulting in a total of 43 deaths and an estimated total damage cost of
$818 million when brought to 1997 dollars. None of these floods have
been from levee overtopping, all have been the result of levee
failures. The most recent major Yuba County flood in January 1997, took
3 lives, destroyed in excess of 800 homes, flooded 16,000 acres and
resulted in the largest evacuation in California history. An estimated
100,000 people were evacuated as a result of this flood. The
environmental damage was enormous, including vast destruction of
designated habitat for endangered species.
Yuba County has probably done more to provide flood protection for
itself than any County in California. Unfortunately Yuba County is
consistently in the bottom three counties for per capita income in
California. Substantial efforts are continuously being undertaken to
bring economic development to the area, but each time progress is being
made, another flood occurs, scaring away potential investors.
congressional support leading to where we are
In 1988 Congress appropriated $500,000 for a USACE Yuba River Basin
Flood Control Reconnaissance Study. The Reconnaissance Study identified
Federal interest in levee improvements and recommended a Feasibility
Study. In 1991 the USACE undertook a $2.1 million Feasibility Study
that ultimately cost $2.6 million. Half the cost of the Feasibility
Study was non-Federal. The Feasibility Study has identified Federal
interest in approximately $28 million in levee improvements. The
$775,000 being requested is part of the Federal share of levee
improvement work identified in the recently completed Feasibility Study
that has been underway since 1991. Since 1988, $1.8 million in Federal
funds and a total of $3.1 million have been spent identifying the
problem. It is now time to move forward with some fixes on the ground.
On behalf of the flood devastated people of Yuba County, I urge
that you find a way to provide the USACE with the $775,000 they have
identified is needed to keep urgently needed flood protection
improvements for our County moving forward. We are grateful for the
financial assistance Congress has provided in the past. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Walter Kickewirth, Chairman, Board of Directors,
Place County Water Agency
The Bureau of Reclamation is now engaged in a project to construct
a permanent pump station located out of harm's way in order to meet its
contractual requirements and eliminate the waste of annually installing
and removing a major facility.
Last year, Congress supported this project and appropriated $4
million. With this, we hope to issue an initial construction contract
late this summer. We anticipate construction activity will span at
least three construction seasons and additional funds will be required
to complete the project.
The Bureau of Reclamation has requested $13,400,000 through the
President's budget, and the Placer County Water Agency is in full
support of the Bureau and respectfully asks for your consideration.
In lieu of a large appendix of background material tied to the
Auburn Dam saga, I am enclosing only two items: (1) a photo of the
Placer County Water Agency pump station, circa 1967, which was removed
by the Federal Government to make way for the Auburn Dam, and (2) a
copy of the contract between the Water Agency and the Bureau of
Reclamation guaranteeing access to our water whenever needed.
If you have questions or need any additional information, feel free
to contact, at Placer County Water Agency, General Manager Dave
Breninger at (530) 823-4860, or our Special Projects Administrator,
Jack Warren, at (530) 823-4986; or at Reclamation, Regional Director
Roger Patterson at (916) 979-2207, or Area Manager Tom Aiken at (916)
988-1707.
Thank you for the opportunity to bring this matter to your
attention for funding.
supplemental agreement to land purchase contract
THIS AGREEMENT, made this ______ day of ____ 19____, in pursuance
of the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and acts amendatory thereof
or supplementary thereto, between THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
hereinafter styled the United States, acting through such officer as is
authorized therefor by the Secretary, of the Interior, and PLACER
COUNTY WATER AGENCY, a public agency created by Act of the Legislature
of the State of California, hereinafter styled Vendor.
2. WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on July 25, 1972, Vendor and the United States entered
into Land Purchase Contract No. 14-06-859-308, which contract was
recorded on August 7, 1972, in Volume 1435 at Page 226, Official
Records, County of Placer, State of California; and
WHEREAS, under the terms and provisions of Article 3 of said
contract Vendor agreed to convey to the United States those certain
lands identified as ``Unit AD-32, Rev. 5-11-72, Corrected,'' and ``Unit
AD-49-1, 5-29-68,'' as described in Exhibit ``A'' of said contract,
excepting, therefrom the tunnel intake structure, tunnel, valve house
and appurtenant facilities, and reserving to Vendor the perpetual
right, power, privilege, and easement to operate and maintain the
Auburn Ravine Tunnel and appurtenant parts and structures, including
the valve house, in, on, over, and through the lands so described in
Schedule ``A'' of said contract as Unit AD-49-1 and Tract No. 2 of AD-
32; and
WHEREAS, Articles 11 and 12 of said contract provide that in the
event Vendor demonstrates a need for water, the United States will
provide a substitute pumping facility to deliver water into said
existing tunnel intake structure at the intake portal of the Auburn
Ravine Tunnel, or at its option, the United States could provide water
from an alternate source provided delivery was made to a point suitable
for its intended use; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated February 9, 1977, Vendor informed the
United States of a need for additional water due to an increase in
service demands from customers within Vendor's water service area and
also that Vendor was faced with a water shortage due to the current
drought conditions; and
WHEREAS, the United States has determined that additional water for
Vendor' use cannot be obtained economically from an alternate source
and that construction of a substitute pumping facility is the most
desirable method of providing Vendor with the means for obtaining said
additional water from the American River for delivery to said intake
portal of the Auburn Ravine Tunnel; and
WHEREAS, in order to expedite construction of a substitute pumping
facility by the United States, Vendor proposes to provide the original
pumps and motors which were salvaged and removed by Vendor in
accordance with Article 4 of said contract; and
WHEREAS, Vendor's proposal to furnish pumps and motors would
relieve the United States of the obligation to purchase new pumps and
motors and would result in a more timely construction of a substitute
pumping facility; and
WHEREAS, it is to the mutual benefit and desire of the parties that
said Land Purchase Contract be supplemented and amended to provide that
Vendor will furnish the pumps and motors for a substitute pumping
facility and that the United States, in lieu of furnishing new pumps
and motors, will furnish and install the necessary electric power
facilities and repair and install the electrical equipment previously
purchased by the Vendor as necessary to make the substitute pumping
plant operative.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do agree that said contract
shall be supplemented by the addition of Articles 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
and 24 as follows:
19. The United States shall construct a substitute pumping facility
on the upstream side of the existing cofferdam at the Auburn Dam site
on the American River. In lieu of providing new pumps and motors for a
substitute facility, the United States will utilize the original pumps
and motors which shall be provided by the Vendor. Vendor agrees that
said pumps, motors and appurtenant equipment shall be available for
United States use in the substitute facility until such time it is
determined, by mutual agreement of the parties hereto, that said
substitute facility is no longer required. In exchange for the use of
Vendor's pumps and motors, the United States shall provide the
necessary transmission line, repair and install the Vendor's electrical
equipment, and allow Vendor to use United States substation as a source
of electric power to make the substitute facility operative. It shall
be Vendor's responsibility to arrange with Pacific Gas and Electric
Company for installation of the necessary metering equipment at the
substation and for billing to Vendor for the power used by the
substitute pumping facility.
20. In the event Vendor's need for additional water extends beyond
calendar year 1978, it shall be Vendor's responsibility to arrange for
an alternate source of power for continued operation of the substitute
pumping facility. The United States shall, at that time, as part of the
exchange referred to herein, arrange for relocation of the transmission
line within the construction area so as not to interfere with the
construction of Auburn Dam.
21. Installation of said substitute pumping facility upstream from
the existing cofferdam will subject the facility to flooding when river
flows exceed 80,000 c.f.s. during the winter months. It shall be the
responsibility of the United States to arrange for the removal, storage
and reinstallation of the pumps, motors, electrical equipment and such
other of the facilities that could be damaged by high water. All other
operation and maintenance of said substitute facility shall remain the
responsibility of the Vendor as provided for in Article 12 of said
contract. The United States shall provide Vendor with a suitable means
of temporary ingress and egress through the construction site to their
valve house structure and to the substitute pumping facility for
operation and maintenance purposes. Said route of temporary ingress and
egress may vary from time to time so as to interfere as little as
possible with the contractor's activities during construction of
Auburn, Dam.
22. Vendor agrees to inform the United States annually of the need
for continued use of the substitute pumping facility. Vendor shall give
the United States at least sixty days written notice when requesting
the United States to reinstall the pumps, motors, and electrical
equipment as necessary, to make the substitute pumping facility
operational.
23. It is mutually understood and agreed upon by the parties
hereto, that all equipment pertaining to the said substitute pumping
facility, with the exception of the two 24-inch diameter steel
discharge pipelines extending from the ends of the pump manifolds to
the Auburn Ravine Tunnel intake structure, is considered to be the
property of the Vendor. Said steel discharge pipelines shall remain the
property of the United States.
24. In the event Vendor determines that the equipment in use at the
substitute facility could be utilized elsewhere by Vendor more
effectively, or, that said substitute facility is no longer required to
provide Vendor with additional water, the United States shall, upon
written notification by Vendor, deliver the pumps, motors and
appurtenant equipment to a Project storage site selected by the United
States. Vendor shall be responsible for removal of said equipment from
said Project storage site to a site selected by Vendor for either
permanent storage or installation elsewhere. Vendor shall also be
responsible for the removal of any electric transmission line installed
by Vendor to provide power to operate the substitute facility.
As to all other provisions in said Land Purchase Contract, the same
shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
instrument this ________day of19____.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
By______________________________
Regional Real Estate Officer
PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY, Vendor
By______________________________
Chairman, Board of Directors
On this ________ day of ____, 19____, before me a Notary Public in
and for the County and State aforesaid, personally appeared and
__________, known to me to be the and __________ of the Corporation
that executed the within instrument, and to be the persons who executed
the within instrument on behalf of the corporation therein named, and
acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument
pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its Board of Directors.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
official seal this day and year in this certificate above written.
______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:____________
______
Prepared Statement on behalf of the County of San Joaquin and the San
Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, CA
San Joaquin County, located in the heart of California's central
valley, has both a vibrant agricultural economic base and burgeoning
metropolitan growth. Both of these vital elements are vulnerable to the
forces of nature. The 1997 flood inundated thousands of acres and
threatened our major urban areas. The actual economic loss to the
County in 1997 is a staggering ($100+ million) and the potential loss
due to flooding is enormous. The heart of Stockton faces a flood threat
from the Calaveras River, Bear Creek and Mosher Slough. The San Joaquin
Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) has been formed and construction is
nearly complete (a $70 million investment) to restore the Stockton area
100-year level of flood protection. We have aggressively moved ahead
with this work to protect our people in anticipation that a credit for
our work would be forthcoming against a Corps developed project.
At the other extreme of the weather spectrum, San Joaquin is very
vulnerable to drought induced water shortages. Due to the export of our
water by East Bay Municipal Utility District to the Oakland area and by
the Bureau of Reclamation to the CVP, San Joaquin County is deficient
of an adequate water supply in quantity and quality. Our ground water
levels dramatically drop during a less than average water year. During
these drops, the threat of salt water intrusion in our ground water
basin from the Delta is a major concern. Our local water district
(Stockton-East Water District) has invested $65 million to allow
transfer of Stanislaus River flows to supplement our water supplies,
but this project is dependent on the coordinated operation of New
Melones Reservoir and local storage capability during wet years.
As you can see, we are willing to invest in our future and we will
continue to do so. The timely funding of these important studies is
crucial to the economic well being of San Joaquin County. These
projects represent studies that need to be conducted in order to
resolve problems on flood control, water supply, water quality,
groundwater and the environment in San Joaquin County. We need Federal
help in several of these projects and we request Federal appropriations
during fiscal year 1998-99 for the following Corps of Engineers and
Bureau of Reclamation projects:
Fiscal year 1999
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
General Investigations--Surveys:
(110) Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive
Study...............................................$3,500,000
(125) San Joaquin River Basin Cosumnes and Mokelumne
Rivers.............................................. 18,000
(134A) San Joaquin River Basin Stockton Metropolitan
Area................................................ 400,000
(134B) San Joaquin River Basin Stockton Metropolitan
Area Farmington Dam................................. 500,000
Bureau of Reclamation:
(647) South Delta Barriers................................ 200,000
detailed comments
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(110) Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive
Study, fiscal year 1999--$3,500,000
The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study is a $9
million study of the water resources needs of the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers. Flood control and environmental needs will receive
equal consideration. We expect setback levees and re-operation of
existing reservoirs will receive a careful review in this Study. The
President has proposed $3.5 million for both the San Joaquin and
Sacramento Rivers Watershed Studies. At this time, we do not know the
allocation, although 50-50 seems likely. The State is the cost-sharing
partner in these studies.
(125) San Joaquin River Basin Cosumnes and Mokelumne
Rivers, fiscal year 1999--$18,000
The project is a Reconnaissance Study of flood problems on the
Mokelumne and Cosumnes Rivers. The fiscal year 1998 Budget includes
funding for $100,000 and the President's fiscal year 1999 Budget
includes funding for $18,000.
(134A) San Joaquin River Basin Stockton Metropolitan Area,
fiscal year 1999--$400,000
This project was analyzed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 1997
Reconnaissance Report, which concluded that there was a Federal
interest in a flood project for the Stockton area. During this same
period, a levee project was authorized under Section 211 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 for the San Joaquin Area Flood
Control Agency (SJAFCA) levee project. Before Federal dollars can be
appropriated to reimburse SJAFCA (up to 75 percent reimbursement), a
Section 211 Report must be approved by the Secretary of the Army. The
requirements of this Report, since the project is essentially complete,
and the funding of the report (potentially 100 percent local with
reimbursement upon completion), are currently under negotiation.
The President's Budget of $400,000 is adequate to complete the
required study if it is determined that the study can be cost shared.
The local view is that the Reconnaissance Report by the Corps of
Engineers found the project to be highly beneficial and that additional
expenditures on studies of nearly constructed projects are unwarranted.
The Corps of Engineers proposes $1 million of additional studies to
secure approval of the existing project and to analyze the rural areas
for a feasible project. The funding in the President's Budget is
adequate to allow completion of the studies required. The San Joaquin
Area Flood Control Agency will provide local funding for this study.
(134B) San Joaquin River Basin Stockton Metropolitan Area
Farmington Dam, fiscal year 1999--$500,000
The study costs for this investigation will determine if a Federal
interest may exist for converting the Farmington Dam into a multiple
purpose reservoir. In addition to the flood control, the Corps study
will determine the viability of using the existing Farmington Dam for a
water supply reservoir. The dam currently detains water for flood
protection but does not store water for water supply. By making
Farmington Dam a multiple purpose project, San Joaquin County's water
shortage could be addressed with minimal impact. The fiscal year 1998
Budget includes $225,000. The President has included $500,000 in his
fiscal year 1999 Budget. Since this is a feasibility study, all Federal
funds must be matched by local funds. The sponsor for this study is the
Stockton East Water District.
Bureau of Reclamation
(647) South Delta Barriers, fiscal year 1999--$200,000
The project provides temporary barriers in the south Delta to
improve water quality. The fiscal year 1998 Budget includes funding for
$200,000 and the President's fiscal year 1999 Budget includes funding
for $16,000. In order to maintain the program, $200,000 is needed and
the California Water Commission will be requested to recommend an
increase in funding.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Stockton, CA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The City of Stockton
supports the following Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation
water, flood control and fishery projects:
1. Stockton Metropolitan Area--$400,000
2. Farmington Dam--$500,000
3. San Joaquin Watershed--$9,000,000
4. Consumnes and Mokelumne River--$18,000
5. Water Resources Development Act, 1996, Section 206, Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration, Stockton Waterfront--$1,000,000
6. South Delta Barriers--$16,000
u.s. corps of engineers
Stockton Metropolitan Area--$400,000
This project was analyzed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
(Corps) 1997 Reconnaissance Report, which concluded that there was a
Federal interest in a flood project for the Stockton area. During this
same period, a levee project was authorized under Section 211 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 for the San Joaquin Area Flood
Control Agency (SJAFCA) levee project. Before Federal dollars can be
appropriated to reimburse SJAFCA (up to 75 percent reimbursement), a
Section 211 Report must be approved by the Secretary of the Army. The
requirements of this Report, since the project is essentially complete,
and the funding of the report (potentially 100 percent local with
reimbursement upon completion), are currently under negotiation. The
President's budget of $400,000 is adequate to complete the required
study if it is determined that the study can be cost shared. The local
view is that the Reconnaissance Report by the Corps found the project
to be highly beneficial and that additional expenditures on studies of
nearly constructed projects are unwarranted. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers proposes $1 million of additional studies to secure approval
of the existing project and to analyze the rural areas for a feasible
project. The funding in the President's budget is adequate to allow
completion of the studies required. The San Joaquin Area Flood Control
Agency will provide local funding for this study.
Farmington Dam--$500,000
The study costs for this investigation will determine if a Federal
interest may exist for converting Farmington Dam into a multiple
purpose reservoir. The fiscal year 1998 budget includes $225,000. The
President has included $500,000 in his fiscal year 1999 budget. Since
this is a feasibility study, all Federal funds must be matched by local
funds. The sponsor for this study is the Stockton East Water District.
San Joaquin River watershed--$9,000,000
The San Joaquin River Watershed Management Study is a $9 million
study of the water resource's needs of the San Joaquin River. Flood
control and environmental needs will receive equal consideration. We
expect setback levees and reoperation of existing reservoirs will
receive a careful review in this study. The President has proposed $3.5
million for both the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers Watershed
Studies. At this time, we do not know the allocation, although 50-50
seems likely. The State is the cost-sharing partner in these studies.
Consumnes and Mokelumne Rivers--$18,000
This project is a Reconnaissance Study of flood problems on the
Mokelumne and Consumnes Rivers. The fiscal year 1998 budget includes
funding for $100,000 and the President's fiscal year 1999 budget
includes funding for $18,000.
Water Resources Development Act, 1996, section 206, aquatic ecosystem
restoration--Stockton waterfront--$1,000,000
The City of Stockton, CalTrans and the Port of Stockton have
combined to initiate a study to restore the aquatic ecosystem of the
Stockton waterfront. The assistance of the Corps of Engineers to study,
plan and eventually construct improvements will expedite this
restoration project. An essential element of the study will be the
development of a model of the channel to determine the appropriate
level of oxygen required to restore aquatic life and improve water
quality conditions in the channel. The channel is currently a deadend
slough, contaminated by urban storm runoff and boating discharges.
Potential solutions include the installation of pumps to create flow
and/or aeration devices to oxygenate the water. This project will not
only improve water quality but significantly complement economic
development in downtown Stockton. Additionally, restoring this segment
of the lower San Joaquin River is consistent with the objectives of
American Heritage Rivers Program, a designation recently given by the
President to the lower San Joaquin River.
bureau of reclamation
South Delta barriers--$16,000
The project provides temporary barriers in the south Delta to
improve water quality. The fiscal year 1998 budget includes funding for
$200,000 and the President's fiscal year 1999 budget includes funding
for $16,000. In order to maintain the program, $200,000 is needed and
the California Water Commission will be requested to recommend an
increase in funding.
The City of Stockton opposes the following projects:
bureau of reclamation
Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration--$143,000,000
Current year funding is for $85,000,000 and the President's fiscal
year 1999 budget has included $143,000,000. Funds for this program have
been used primarily for acquisition of lands and development of the
habitat. We are concerned with the loss of agricultural lands and the
lack of accountability with the funds. No documentation of benefits
will be derived from expenditure of funds. This program does not help
with water supply. There are no water quality improvement objectives
and the program does not recognize area of origin protections.
NOTE: Recommendation is for opposition unless the California Water
Commission supports the following conditions:
1. No expenditure for any project within the boundary of any local
agency unless the project is approved by the governing board or boards
of such local agency or agencies.
2. At least 30 percent of such expenditures shall be for the
purpose of developing new surface or subsurface water storage
facilities which increase the total firm water supply yield. At least
50 percent of such 30 percent of such expenditures shall be used for
the purpose of developing new surface or subsurface water storage
facilities to meet the needs within the watershed in which the water
originates or in areas immediately adjacent thereto which can be
conveniently served thereby.
3. Funding of $11,900,000 for the Woodbridge Dam fish passage
facilities and fish screening portions of the Lower Mokelumne River
Restoration Plan (A197).
4. Funding of $10,000,000 to supplement the State contributions to
the Delta Levee Maintenance Subvention Program. (California Water Code
sections 12980 et seq.).
5. Funding of $10,000,000 to initiate the development of additional
water supply to correct the overdraft in the East San Joaquin County
groundwater basin.
6. No expenditure for any export of water which is needed by users
within the watershed in which the water originates or in the areas
immediately adjacent thereto which can be conveniently served thereby.
7. Funding of $1,000,000 for SSJID and OID salmon radio tracking
project.
Bay-Delta (CALFED) oversight--$1,200,000
Current year funding is for $4,100,000 and the President's fiscal
year 1999 budget has included $1,200,000. Funds pay Federal salaries to
participate in the CALFED process. The primary focus of these studies
is the export of water from the region. Unless area of origin water
rights are acknowledged and protection of the Delta is primary, the
process is not beneficial to San Joaquin County.
Water acquisition--$2,000,000
This program obtains upstream water rights to meet fisheries'
objectives in the San Joaquin River. The program increases April-May
and October flows, but could reduce summer flows. Unless the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation agrees to meet Vernalis flows throughout the
year, this program should be opposed. Current year funding is for
$8,502,000 and the President's fiscal year 1999 budget has included
funding for $2,000,000.
______
Prepared Statement of David Okita, General Manager, Solano County Water
Agency
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is David Okita.
I am the General Manger of the Solano County Water Agency, California.
The Solano County Water Agency is a countywide special district, which
is responsible for flood control and water supply. The Agency is
seeking assistance from Congress to fund four Corps of Engineers
projects in the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill.
Under General Investigations-Surveys we support Northern California
Streams Vacaville, Dixon and Vicinity and Northern California Streams,
Fairfield Streams, and Cordelia Marsh (includes Suisun Marsh) projects,
both of which are included in the President's fiscal year 1999 budget
at $300,000 each.
These surveys are a continuation of the reconnaissance studies
completed by the Corps of Engineers in these two flood prone areas of
Solano County. The Solano County Water Agency and other local agencies
have submitted Letters Of Intent to fund the local share of the
continued general investigations for both these projects.
The Vacaville, Dixon and Vicinity project would provide flood
protections for the cities of Vacaville and Dixon. Both of these cities
have flooding problems that need to be addressed on a regional basis
since they are located in the middle of large watersheds. Flooding in
the watershed has also caused the closure of Interstate 80, resulting
in a disruption of this vital transportation corridor.
The Fairfield Streams and Cordelia (Suisun) Marsh project is on a
parallel tract with the Vacaville, Dixon and Vicinity investigation.
The reconnaissance studies were done at the same time. The main problem
in this watershed is flood-induced siltation in the Suisun Marsh. The
Suisun Marsh is the largest tidal wetland in California and is
considered a natural resource of international importance. The Suisun
Marsh includes managed wetlands, which are a critical part of the
Pacific Flyway. Siltation, transported by storm waters, from upstream
areas has severely damaged an estimated 200 acres of valuable wetlands.
Additionally, homes and businesses have been damaged due to flooding
within the watershed. A coordinated plan addressing both siltation and
flooding is necessary. The general investigations for this watershed
will be coordinated with the two other projects described below.
The Agency supports a new Section 205 (Flood Damage Prevention,
Continuing Authorities Program) appropriation for Ledgewood Creek in
Solano County. This project is upstream of the completed Fairfield
Streams Project improvements done by the Corps of Engineers. On
February 3, 1998, flooding occurred in this area that closed Interstate
80 for five hours. During the design of the Fairfield Streams Project
the Corps of Engineers predicted that Ledgewood Creek would flood in
this manner. Downstream areas were put in the 100-year FEMA flood plain
and were required to purchase flood insurance. Extension of the
Ledgewood Creek component of the Fairfield Streams project would solve
the flooding problems in this area, including the danger of flooding of
Interstate 80. We ask Congress for $700,000 for this important project.
Under Section 206 (Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration) we seek funding
for the Northern California Streams-Fairfield Streams, Suisun Marsh,
Cache Creek project. This project would fund a watershed demonstration
project for the design and construction of sediment containment ponds
upstream of the Suisun Marsh. Specifically, one proposal calls for the
construction of a sediment containment pond on Hennessey Creek, which
has been identified as a major source of siltation into the Suisun
Marsh. As mentioned previously, the Suisun Marsh is the largest tidal
wetland in California and is considered a natural resource of
international importance since it is a critical part of the Pacific
Flyway. There is clearly a strong interest in protecting this
environmental resource. We support funding of $500,000 to continue this
project. If the demonstration project is successful, it could act as a
model for other tributaries in the Suisun Marsh watershed.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony on behalf of
the Solano County Water Agency, and I urge your support for these four
projects in our community.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hon. George Pettygrove, Mayor, City of
Fairfield, CA
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is George
Pettygrove. I am the Mayor of the city of Fairfield, CA. The city of
Fairfield is seeking the assistance of the Committee in funding three
projects in the fiscal year 1999 energy and water appropriations bill.
First, I request the support of the Committee for the Ledgewood
Creek Flood Control Improvements within Solano County, CA. The budget
request includes $700,000 for this important project. The funding will
complete the feasibility study and design for the proposed
improvements.
When the Corp of Engineers studied Ledgewood Creek in preparation
for the design of the Fairfield Vicinity Streams project improvements,
the Corp predicted that Ledgewood Creek, within the unincorporated area
of Solano County, could bifurcate and flood Interstate Highway 80 (I-
80). On Tuesday, February 3, 1998, the prediction came true. Runoff
from the Ledgewood Creek drainage basin could not be contained within
the unimproved creek channel and the creek overflowed. At 7:44 a.m. all
four westbound lanes of I-80 and three of the four eastbound lanes were
closed. Within an hour after the closure, the freeway became a giant
parking lot, spanning nearly 15 miles east to Interstate 505. At its
worst, 18 inches of water covered four westbound lanes for roughly 600
feet. Caltrans reopened the freeway at 12:38 p.m., the result of
naturally receding water, lighter showers, and Caltrans' crews pumping
water back into the creek. The 5 hour closure of I-80 caused some
commuters to be 3 hours late to work, not to mention the trucking delay
in delivery of goods.
Due to a combination of the construction of the Fairfield Vicinity
Streams project and the construction of developer improvements,
Ledgewood Creek has been improved to carry a 100-year storm water event
from the Fairfield City limits to the Suisun Marsh. The solution to the
flooding problem on I-80 is to extend the 100-year improvements from
the Fairfield City limits to Abernathy Lane. If the Abernathy Lane
crossing and the downstream channel of Ledgewood Creek are improved,
bifurcation will be eliminated and so will the flooding of I-80. Also,
the Corp of Engineers could submit their design with calculations to
FEMA and obtain a letter of map revision to remove all of the
properties below I-80 that are within the AO flood zone. The benefit to
the community is not only the prevention of the I-80 flooding, but the
removal of approximately 300 acres of residential, commercial, and
industrial property from the FEMA flood zone, thereby eliminating the
need to buy flood insurance.
Second, I request the Committee's support for additional funding in
the amount of $500,000, under the Corp of Engineers, Section 206
program, for the Fairfield Streams and Suisun Marsh watershed
demonstration project. The project received fiscal year 1998 funding
for the Corp of Engineers to begin to develop a solution to the problem
of siltation in Suisun Marsh.
The Suisun Marsh is the largest tidal wetland in the State of
California and is considered a natural resource of national importance.
The marsh includes more than 2,500 acres of managed wetlands and
uplands that support habitat for migratory waterfowl. It is a critical
part of the Pacific Flyway. Yet, an estimated 200 acres of valuable
wetlands in Suisun Marsh have been ruined by the inflow of silt from
surrounding streams.
The project will provide for the design and construction of
sediment containment ponds upstream of Suisun Marsh. Specifically, one
proposal calls for the construction of a sediment containment pond on
Hennessey Creek. Hennessey Creek is a tributary to Green Valley Creek,
which flows directly into the northern portion of Suisun Marsh. The
city of Fairfield has been monitoring water quality in Hennessey Creek
during rainfall events. On December 12, 1995, for example, the total
suspended solids (TSS) in Hennessey Creek were measured at 12,344
milligrams per liter of water. On January 16, 1996, the TSS were 19,700
milligrams per liter of water. On March 4, 1996, the TSS were 15,620
milligrams per liter of water. On February 19, 1998, the TSS were
13,210 milligrams per liter of water. As a comparison, the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board has stated that the TSS should not
exceed 100 milligrams per liter.
Clearly, construction of a sediment pond on Hennessey Creek would
significantly reduce one major source of sedimentation in Suisun Marsh.
And, it is critical that we construct this and other such ponds as soon
as possible. Continuing to lose 200 acres of valuable wetlands every
few years is not acceptable. That is why we are seeking to accelerate
the construction of some portion of the solution.
A demonstration project like the one I have described clearly
qualifies for funding under the Section 206 authority. The project is
environmentally beneficial, economically justified, and in the public
interest, the three criteria for funding under Section 206. For all of
the above reasons, we ask that the Committee provide an additional
$500,000 in fiscal year 1999 for this important project.
Finally, I request your continuing support for the ongoing
feasibility study for Northern California Streams, Fairfield Streams,
and Cordelia Marsh for fiscal year 1999 funding of $300,000. This
project is complementary and compatible with the above two projects.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
city of Fairfield, and I urge your support for these three priority
projects for our region.
______
Prepared Statement of Joseph L. Campbell, President, Contra Costa Water
District
contra costa canal (rock slough) fish screen
The Contra Costa Water District (District) appreciates the funding
appropriated to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in the
last three budgets for the Contra Costa Canal (Rock Slough) Fish
Screen. As a result of that support, the project is on schedule to
begin construction this coming summer (1998).
The District requests that Congress appropriate sufficient federal
funds in fiscal year 1999 for this project to remain on schedule.
According to Reclamation, the Contra Costa Canal (Rock Slough) Fish
Screen will require approximately $4 million in federal funds in fiscal
year 1999 to proceed with construction and to keep it on the current
schedule. The District encourages the Appropriations Committee to
recognize the excellent progress being made on the Fish Screen and to
appropriate at least $4,000,000 in fiscal year 1999.
The Fish Screen is critical to the needs of 400,000 people who rely
on the District. The Secretary of Interior is required to screen Contra
Costa Canal intake under Public Law 102-575 (Sec. 3406(b)(5). The
intake is the largest municipal and industrial intake in the Central
Valley project. The urgency of its completion was underscored by the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) in a 1993 biological opinion that
requires the Secretary to complete the screen by October 1, 1998;
failure to complete it could jeopardize the District's continued
pumping into the Contra Costa Canal. Obviously that completion date
will not be met, but the FWS has advised that it will extend the
deadline through the completion date if there is progress being made on
the project. Failure to fund the project at a sufficient level in
fiscal year 1999 could be viewed as lack of progress on this project.
In 1992 Congress passed Public Law 102-575, requiring the Secretary
to screen the canal intake. After three years of no action, the
District stepped in. The District budgeted nearly $200,000 over the
next 3 years to get the process moving. The District obtained priority
for the project in Proposition 204, a State of California water bond
act passed in 1996, enabling the State to provide its 25 percent
mandated match for the Fish Screen.
At the District's request, Congress appropriated $80,000 in fiscal
year 1996; $500,000 in fiscal year 1997; and $1,500,000 in fiscal year
1998.
Once the Fish Screen is completed, the District will be responsible
for operation of the screen, and the costs thereof, under its 1972
agreement which makes the District responsible for all O&M of the
Contra Costa Canal system.
What is the ``Bottom Line?'' Completion of federally-mandated fish
screen on schedule is critical to assure that there will be no adverse
impact on the District's water deliveries. An appropriation of
$4,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 will keep the project on schedule.
The District appreciates the past support provided by the
Appropriations Committee, and asks its continued support at the level
of $4,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 to keep this project on schedule.
______
Prepared Statement of Ross Rogers, General Manager, Merced Irrigation
District
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Ross Rogers,
General Manager of the Merced Irrigation District. I am respectfully
submitting this statement on behalf of the County of Merced, the city
of Merced, and the Merced Irrigation District, which jointly form an
informal coalition commonly known as the Merced County Streams Group
for the purpose of performing maintenance functions along portions of
the Merced County Streams project. The county of Merced, together with
the State of California, is the sponsor of the Merced County Streams
project. The El Nido Irrigation District and the Le Grand Athlone Water
District are also concerned in this matter.
Federal authorization for the project construction was granted as
part of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1985. Authorized
facilities include constructing dry dams on Canal (Castle Dam) and
Black Rascal Creeks (Haystack Mountain Dam), enlargement of the
existing Bear Creek Dam, and modifications of levees and channels along
more than 25 miles of Fahrens, Black Rascal, Cottonwood, and Bear
Creeks. The completed project will provide flood protection worth more
than $10,000,000 per year to 263,000 acres of urban and agricultural
lands. Total project cost is currently estimated to be $139,000,000 of
which $40,000,000 or roughly 31 percent will be paid during
construction by the local beneficiaries.
When completed, more than 240,000 residents occupying 55,000
housing units within the greater metropolitan Merced area will live
with assurance of 125-year flood protection, while the lower rural area
will receive 25-year protection.
The first component of the project, Castle Dam, was completed in
1992. This component was constructed under budget, ahead of schedule,
and without a lost-time accident. Without Castle Dam during the intense
storms of January, February, March 1995, January 1997, and January/
February 1998, the city of Merced would have been partially inundated.
As a result of a request by the county of Merced, the Corps of
Engineers has reevaluated project components and will extend the
boundaries of the levee and channel portion of the project to better
match growth that has taken place in the city of Merced. This
willingness to remain flexible throughout the lengthy planning and
design process is also a credit to the Corps and its staff.
The Merced County Streams project is a modification and expansion
of an earlier flood project constructed between 1948 and 1957. It has
undergone considerable review and modification since first authorized
as part of the Flood Control Act of 1970. Approximately $15,000,000 has
been spent to date on the Merced County Streams project. This has been
matched with local contributions of approximately $3,000,000. As
partners in the construction of this project, the local agency sponsors
have worked closely with the Corps to establish an economic balance
between costs and benefits. As a result of this combined effort,
nonessential project components were first scaled back and eventually
eliminated. This scaling to fit the economic reality resulted in
substantial Federal and local savings.
During the New Year's 1997 flood event experienced throughout
California, Bear Creek came perilously close to overtopping its banks
within the city limits of Merced. If not for the newly constructed
Castle Dam and protection it provided the city of Merced, Bear Creek
would have surely overtopped and flooded a large area of the city.
Mariposa and Miles Creeks did overtop their banks during the event,
flooding valuable agricultural lands and damaging Merced Irrigation
District facilities. Those project creeks that did not overtop,
experienced significant damage to embankment slopes due to prolonged
high flows. A total of 130 individual damage sites along project creeks
were identified, at a total estimated repair cost of $420,000. Total
damage to Merced Irrigation District canals adjacent to project creeks
was estimated at $53,000.
On January 15, and again on February 3, 1998, Bear Creek did
overtop its banks in several locations within Merced during several
severe El Nino-driven storms, flooding 33 homes at an estimated damage
cost of $500,000. The January 15 event was caused primarily by what the
National Weather Service called a flash flood event in the headwaters
of Black Rascal Creek, tributary to Bear Creek, upstream of the site of
the project's Haystack Mountain Dam and Reservoir. According to the
Corps of Engineer's preliminary estimates, flows in the project's Black
Rascal Creek bypass reached in excess of 4,300 cubic feet per second,
1,300 cubic feet per second above the rated capacity of the facility.
The Corps estimated that the Black Rascal Creek headwater storm event
was a 1-in-100 year event. Additional creek bank overtopping was
experienced approximately 1 mile and 4 miles southwest of Merced,
causing significant damage to agricultural lands and Merced Irrigation
District facilities. Total estimated repair costs to District
facilities reached $160,000. Project creek bank damage is still being
assessed by the Merced County Streams group. Had Haystack Mountain Dam
and Reservoir been in place no flooding would have occurred during the
January 15, 1998, event.
The project has the support of State and local authorities and
funding of the non-Federal portion has been addressed.
We request the Committee's support for the inclusion of $900,000 in
the 1998-99 budget, as recommended by the California Water Commission
and the Corps of Engineers, for the orderly progress of the Merced
County Streams project, which is so vital to the community, State, and
the Nation.
______
Prepared Statement of Bruce George, Manager, Kaweah Delta Water
Conservation District
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Bruce
George, and I am the Manager of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation
District in the eastern San Joaquin Valley of California. Thank you for
the opportunity to present testimony regarding the fiscal year 1999
budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The President's fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Corps of
Engineers includes $1.165 million for the continuation of pre-
construction engineering and design (PED) of a project to increase the
water storage capacities of Terminus Dam at Lake Kaweah in California's
San Joaquin Valley. The project would add approximately 43,000 acre-
feet of flood control and conservation storage space to Lake Kaweah by
raising the Terminus Dam spillway by 21 feet. The estimated total first
cost of the project is $33 million.
The President's budget also provides $1.57 million for operation
and maintenance of Terminus Dam in fiscal year 1999. The Kaweah Delta
Water Conservation District and its project cosponsors support these
PED and operation and maintenance requests.
In addition to the amounts proposed in the President's budget, we
respectfully request a General Construction appropriation of $500,000
to initiate construction of the Terminus spillway project in fiscal
year 1999.
The Corps of Engineers has been actively studying and planning this
modest project for 10 years. During that time, the Kaweah Delta Water
Conservation District and other local authorities have invested $1.8
million of their owns funds in the planning and development process.
The State of California this year committed to be the lead non-Federal
sponsor of the project. Other local sponsors are the counties of Kings
and Tulare, the city of Visalia and the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage
District.
Under the Corps' current schedule, pre-construction engineering and
design will be completed before the end of fiscal year 1999. With an
additional appropriation of $500,000, the Corps could begin
construction work late in the fiscal year. A commitment of construction
funding for fiscal year 1999 would save time and money for all parties
by allowing formal cost-sharing agreements to be signed sooner,
clearing the way for the expenditure of State funds and the timely
acquisition of mitigation lands that may not be available later.
The California Water Commission supports a $500,000 General
Construction appropriation for the Terminus project in addition to the
amounts requested in the President's fiscal year 1999 budget for pre-
construction and operation and maintenance.
background
The Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District was formed in 1927 to
conserve and protect the surface and groundwater of the Kaweah delta.
The District serves 337,000 acres, which include the cities of Visalia
and Tulare and several other incorporated and unincorporated areas in
Kings and Tulare Counties. Those two counties consistently rank among
the most productive agriculture counties in the Nation.
The District's service area encompasses portions of the
Congressional Districts of Representatives Bill Thomas, Cal Dooley, and
George Radanovich.
Terminus Dam and Lake Kaweah, located on the Kaweah River three and
one-half miles east of the District, was completed in 1962 by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The purpose of the project is to provide
storage space for flood protection and irrigation on the Kaweah River.
The Conservation District manages the irrigation and flood control
releases for Lake Kaweah, as well as assisting in the conjunctive use
of the surface and groundwater of the Kaweah delta.
Rapid growth, inadequate flood protection and a long-term
groundwater overdraft in the region have created a need for greater
reservoir storage space for flood control and irrigation storage. With
a maximum capacity of 143,000 acre-feet, Lake Kaweah currently provides
a less than 50-year level of flood protection for communities
downstream. Raising the spillway at Terminus Dam would significantly
increase the level of flood protection.
California's growing population will place ever-increasing demands
on its water supply. Improving existing facilities such as Terminus Dam
is one of the most economical and environmentally sensitive ways to
meet those new demands. It is important for Congress to encourage such
projects.
We are grateful for the Committee's continued support of the
Terminus project.
______
Prepared Statement of R.L. Schafer, Secreatery/Watermaster, Tule River
Association
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, the Tule River
Association requests your consideration of an appropriation in the
fiscal year 1999 Federal budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
in addition to the $103,000 in the President's Budget for General
Investigation, $500,000 for Preconstruction Engineering and Design for
the Tule River, Success Reservoir Enlargement project, and an
additional $500,000 for the preparation of a Design Memorandum under
the Dam Safety Assurance Program (DSAP) for coverage of remediation
techniques in the ongoing seismic studies of Success Dam.
The Draft Success Reservoir Enlargement Feasibility Study and EIS/
EIR are scheduled to be completed in June 1998, after 10 years in the
preparation, and an expenditure by the Federal Government and local
sponsor of over 2.2 million dollars. The preferred alternative (NED
Plan) is a simple project of raising and lengthening the spillway 10
feet and 100 feet respectively, creating an additional 28,000 acre-feet
of flood control storage space in Success Reservoir. The increased
storage space improves the flood protection for the city of Porterville
and downstream highly developed farmlands from a 1 in 55 year event to
a 1 in 100 year event, almost double.
The feasibility study under preparation by the Corps has a
projected benefit to cost ratio of 1.4:1 and will be submitted to the
USACE this summer. We anticipate, should the Congress process a Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) in 1998, authorization for
construction in WRDA 98, perhaps conditionally due to the timing and
completion of the feasibility study.
With completion of the feasibility study in June 1998, and with
final review by the USACE in late 1998, the Corps of Engineers will
need $500,000 in the fiscal year 1998 budget for Preconstruction
Engineering and Design for an orderly continuation of the Success
Reservoir enlargement project.
During the past 6 years, the Corps of Engineers expended over $3.0
million of Federal funds under the DSAP in the preparation of seismic
studies of Success Dam. A draft Evaluation Report was issued in
December 1996 with a summary statement of: ``Remediation of the
susceptible portion of the dam foundation is the recommended course of
action. Further definition of remedial requirements would occur in the
Design Memorandum studies.''
Consequently, we would also appreciate your consideration of
funding an additional $500,000 in the fiscal year 1999 budget for the
Corps' preparation of a Design Memorandum covering remedial techniques
for the continuation of the Success Dam Seismic Studies.
In summary, the Tule River Association requests that the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water provide funding of $500,000 for
Preconstruction Engineering and Design of the Success Reservoir
Enlargement Project in addition to the President's Budget of $103,000
for the General Investigation, and in addition allocate under the DSAP
$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers preparation of a Design Memorandum
covering remediation techniques for Success Dam.
______
Prepared Statement of Mark Dellinger, Resources Manager, Lake County
Sanitation District
Thank you for this opportunity to submit the following testimony in
support of the Lake County, CA, request for funding in the fiscal year
1999 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. I am Mark Dellinger,
Resources Manager for the Lake County Sanitation District.
Lake County is requesting, through the Corps of Engineers, $500,000
in Section 503 funds and $2 million in Section 206 funds for two
components of the Clear Lake Basin 2000 initiative. Our fiscal year
1999 request is a continuation of assistance initiated by the Corps
during fiscal year 1998.
The Clear Lake Basin 2000 initiative is a cost-shared
intergovernmental partnership aimed at restoring the watershed of Clear
Lake, the largest freshwater lake completely within California's
border. Specifically, the initiative will establish a 25-mile corridor
of wetlands supplied with recycled wastewater effluent. Since the turn
of the century, the watershed has lost over 80 percent of its wetlands
and suffered corresponding declines in wildlife habitat, flood control,
and lake water quality. The Basin 2000 initiative will begin to reverse
these trends, while also supporting the increasingly important
recreation and tourism sectors of our regional economy.
The initiative's $29 million cost is being shared by a partnership
of local, State, and Federal agencies that have a significant stake in
the watershed's ecological health. The requested Corps of Engineers
funding, including out years, is approximately 18 percent of total
project costs. Corps funds will be used in two of the initiative's
projects: Section 503 funds will help design a pipeline that delivers
effluent to the wetlands; and Section 206 funds will help design and
construct wetlands and a related effluent flow control facility.
We appreciate the support and assistance already provided by the
Corps, and look forward to initiating construction in 1999 with the
help of the funds requested herein. Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Vince Ferriole, Chairman, Board of Supervisors,
Napa County
napa river flood control project
background
The Napa River is the main waterway into which all tributaries of
the Napa Valley flow. The river reaches its highest flow and the main
point of concentration of stormwater in the heart of the downtown city
of Napa. The original town of Napa was established at the head of the
navigable Napa River channel in 1848 as its only port for
transportation and commerce until the railroad extended from Benicia to
Napa in 1902.
The project is located in the city and county of Napa, CA. The
population in the city of Napa, approximately 67,000 in 1994, is
expected to exceed 77,000 by the year 2000. Excluding public
facilities, the present value of damageable property within the project
floodplain is well over $500 million. The Napa River Basin, comprising
426 square miles, ranging from tidal marshes to mountainous terrain, is
subject to severe winter storms and frequent flooding. In the lower
reaches of the river, flood conditions are aggravated by high tides and
local runoff. Floods in the Napa area have occurred in 1955, 1958,
1963, 1965, 1986 (flood of record), 1995, 1997 and in February of this
year.
Over the years, the community has expressed a strong desire for
increased flood management. Since 1862, 27 major floods have struck the
Valley region, exacting a heavy toll in loss of life and property. The
flood of 1986, for example, killed three people and caused more than
$100 million in damage. The city of Napa is particularly vulnerable to
floods: during a typical 100-year flood, more than 325,000 gallons flow
through downtown per second, with the potential of inundating 2 million
square feet of businesses and offices and nearly 3,000 homes.
Flood damage in downtown Napa has recurred in January 1993, March
1995, January 1997, and February 1998, resulting in disaster
declarations and substantial Federal assistance and economic losses,
reaffirming the urgent need to implement the cost-effective project. In
March 1995, January 1997, and February 1998, additional flood disasters
occurred and FEMA is reviewing the damage claims.
Damages throughout Napa County totaled about $85 million from the
January and March 1995 floods. The floods resulted in 227 businesses
and 843 residences damaged countywide. Almost all of the damages from
the 1986 and 1995 floods within the project area would have been
prevented by the project, as would several million dollars of damage
from flooding in early 1998. This was just the latest in a long history
of flooding disasters. During the past 36 years of flooding, Napa
County residents have suffered devastating loss of lives and
livelihoods, and over $542 million in property damage alone. According
to the most up-to-date models, uncontrolled flooding over the next 100
years will likely cause $1.6 billion worth of property damage.
Locally developed flood measures currently in place provide minimal
protection and include levees, floodwalls, pump stations, upstream
reservoirs, restrictive flood plain management ordinances, and
designated flood evacuation zones. Vast areas of flood plain are
restricted to agricultural and open space uses, precluding development
which would be damaged by flooding. These local measures still leave
most of the city of Napa vulnerable to frequent damaging floods. Flood
control projects have been authorized by Congress since 1944 but due to
their expense, lack of public consensus on the design, and concern
about environmental impacts, a project has never been realized. The
most recent Corps of Engineers project plan consisted of a deepening
and channelization project. In mid-1995, Federal and State resource
agencies reviewed the plan and gave notice to the Corps that this plan
had significant regulatory hurdles to face.
revised plan--project overview
In an effort to identify a meaningful and successful plan, a new
approach emerged which looked at flood control from a broader, more
comprehensive perspective. Citizens for Napa River Flood Management was
formed, bringing together a diverse group of local engineers,
architects, aquatic ecologists, business and agricultural leaders,
environmentalists, government officials, homeowners and renters, and
numerous community organizations.
Through a series of public meetings and intensive debate over every
aspect of Napa's flooding problems, the Citizens for Napa River Flood
Management crafted a flood management plan offering a range of benefits
for the entire Napa region. The Corps of Engineers served as a partner
and a resource for the group, helping to evaluate their approach to
flood management. The final plan produced by the Citizens for Napa
River Flood Management was successfully evaluated through the research,
experience, and state-of-the-art simulation tools developed by the
Corps and numerous international experts in the field of hydrology and
other related disciplines. The success of this collaboration serves as
a model for the Nation.
Acknowledging the river's natural state, the project utilizes a set
of living river strategies that minimize the disruption and alteration
of the river habitat, and maximizes the opportunities for environmental
restoration and enhancement throughout the watershed. This strategy
replaces the former project and now entails floodplain acquisition and
restoration, restoration of a geomorphically stable river channel,
replacement of bridges and environmentally sensitive stream bank
treatment in the urban reaches of the city of Napa.
The revised plan which provides 100-year protection, has been
developed by the Corps with the assistance of the community and its
consultants into the draft Supplemental General Design Memorandum
(SGDM) and its accompanying draft Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/EIR). These reports were released for
public comment in December 1997 and are now under review by Corps
Headquarters. Land acquisition is planned beginning in 1999 with a goal
of a new construction start in spring of 1999.
The coalition plan now memorialized in the Corps draft SGDM
includes the following engineered components: lowering of old dikes,
marsh plain and floodplain terraces, oxbow dry bypass, Napa Creek
floodplain terrace, upstream and downstream dry culverts along Napa
Creek, new dikes, levees and floodwalls, bank stabilization, pump
stations and detention facilities, and bridge replacements. The
benefits the plan will provide include reducing or eliminating loss of
life, property damage, cleanup costs, community disruption due to
unemployment and lost business revenue, and the need for flood
insurance. The plan will protect access to business, public services,
and create opportunities for recreation and downtown development,
boosting year-round tourism. As a key feature, the plan will improve
water quality, create urban wetlands and enhance wildlife habitats.
The plan would protect over 5,000 people from the 100-year flood
event on the Napa River and its main tributary, the Napa Creek, and the
project has a positive benefit-to-cost ratio under the Corps
calculation. The Napa County Flood Control District is prepared to meet
its local cost-sharing responsibilities for the project. A countywide
sales tax, along with a number of other funding options, has just been
approved by a majority of the county's voters for the local share.
project synopsis
Fiscal year 1998 funding
The 1998 budget included $1,600,000 to revise the key draft SGDM
and SEIS/EIR documents.
Necessary fiscal year 1999 funding
Funding for the Napa River project during 1999 in the amount of
$1,000,000 (in addition to the budgeted $744,000 for PED) is needed to
finalize the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) and begin construction
of the project in fiscal year 1999.
Recommendation
Based on continuing high flood risk and severe damage from the Napa
River, we request that the Committee support $1,000,000 (in addition to
the budgeted $744,000 for PED) to complete preconstruction activities
and to initiate construction of the Napa River project.
project elements
The current plan, which is the result of the Coalition effort in
concert with the Corps of Engineers, includes land acquisition for
river widening, levee and flood wall construction, recreational
facilities, open space and an oxbow dry bypass, among other items. The
Corps has now incorporated the refined design into its key
preconstruction documents. After the design documents are approved and
the construction drawings prepared, the PCA will be negotiated and
signed by the local sponsors and the Corps. Once real estate is
acquired and construction funds are appropriated, construction will
begin. The county is working to ensure that construction of the project
will start in fiscal year 1999.
redesigned project components
The following redesigned project components were developed by the
Community Coalition, incorporated by the Corps and are listed here with
a brief description. These components are included in the Corps' draft
SGDM.
Marsh Plain and Floodplain Terraces
Providing room for rising flood waters, terraces are natural
attributes of all river systems. Two types of terraces are included in
the project, beginning near Kennedy Park and extending to the southern
end of the oxbow. Marsh plain terraces are submerged during the twice
daily high tide cycles, creating a diverse wetland habitat. Elevated
slightly from the marsh plain terraces, floodplain terraces are
inundated by floods every several years, providing room for large
floods.
New and Restored Wetlands
Through concerted planting efforts and the removal and lowering of
levees, the project will create 108 acres of new wetland habitat,
including emergent marsh, riparian and seasonal wetlands.
bank stabilization and protection
Bank stabilization techniques combined with native vegetative cover
in both marsh and floodplains; maintenance of existing trees; planting
of new trees; the addition of rock bank toe protection, and a grade
control structure all are included in this component.
napa creek conveyance
Napa Creek conveyance will be increased by the construction of a
flood terrace on the north bank of the creek, removal of a number of
bridges and the construction of culvert dry bypasses.
Napa River Dry Bypass
A dedicated dry bypass allows the safe flow of excess water and
serves as recreational and open space during normal flows, when the
river returns to the meandering oxbow.
Napa Creek Bypass Culverts
Two concrete dry bypass culverts will be constructed, each designed
to convey 100-year flood flows.
Roadway Bridge Reconstruction
Overall, a total of seven bridges will be removed and replaced to
allow the safe passage of water and debris during a 100-year flood.
Pump Stations and Detention Facilities
During large events, the new floodwalls and levees will trap local
stormwater. The project includes the construction of three pump
stations to safely return this water through the floodwalls into the
Napa River.
Floodwalls
Located at the tops of the river banks, floodwalls offer
substantial protection from large floods.
______
Prepared Statement of Roderick J. Wood, City Manager, City of Novato,
CA
proposed city of novato urban flood control project--section 205 of
water resources development act of 1986 for small flood control
projects
The completion of this project would resolve chronic flood control
problems in two areas of the city. Construction of a channel carrying
flood overflows from the Baccaglio Flood Control Basin to Scottsdale
Marsh, and then to the floodplain downstream from Highway 101 in
Novato, will remove the flood threat to homes and businesses in the
Hill Road/Yukon Way neighborhoods during major storm events. The
project also includes additional improvements needed to protect both
residential and commercial properties in the low-lying downtown areas
of the city of Novato.
In the recent February storms, a new community teen and gymnastics
center was flooded in the downtown area--damage that would be prevented
in the future with these proposed flood control improvements. The
city's total damage to date in the 1997-98 water year is estimated to
be $650,000.
The expected cost for this Section 205 small flood control project
in fiscal year 1999 is $600,000 (for both study and construction). The
total project cost is $1.8 million. The city of Novato is prepared to
cost share this project at the required 35 percent.
In 1985, an election approved benefit assessment funds to locally
finance flood control improvements for the city of Novato. These funds
are completely expended with a portion of the work left uncompleted.
The January 4, 1982, flood devastated the city of Novato downtown
and residential areas located near the downtown area. The community
sustained $1.5 million of damage (1982 dollars). The community pays
more than $100,000 annually in flood insurance premiums. Two thousand
nine hundred and fifty-eight parcels are located within the special
flood hazard area based on the flood insurance rate maps prepared by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Subsequent to the January 4, 1982, flood, the community approved a
$9 million property assessment process to pay for local creek
improvements. No Federal funds were utilized for those channel
improvements. Federal funds needed at this time are to complete the
flood control works started with the assessment monies. Additional
channel improvements, bypass culverts, and perhaps a pumping station
will be required to protect the remaining flood-prone areas in the
downtown area.
The attached letter from the Marin County Department of Public
Works supports the proposed project.
The city of Novato sincerely requests approval of an appropriation
to complete the study and construction of the subject project.
______
Letter From Richard A. Carlsen
Marin County Department of Public Works,
San Rafael, CA, March 2, 1998.
Roderick J. Wood,
City Manager,
City of Novato, Novato, CA.
Dear Mr. Wood: I have been notified of your request for Federal
funding for two projects to reduce flooding in the city of Novato.
It is noteworthy that the residents of Novato have been very
proactive in taking tremendous steps to reduce or eliminate a historic
flooding problem in the city. As you know, in 1985 Novato area
residents approved a substantial self-assessment to construct major
flood improvements. That project is virtually complete. Two areas not
included in the 1985 election, which are certainly worthy of funding
and construction, are the downtown flood control improvements and
construction of a connection between Baccaglio Pond and Scottsdale
Marsh. Both projects are timely, logical, and necessary extensions of
the 1985 flood control project.
Therefore, on behalf of the Flood Control District, I offer this
letter as an indication of support by the District, and applaud your
efforts to acquire critical funding.
Very truly yours,
s/Richard A. Carlsen,
Assistant Director.
______
Prepared Statement of Carl W. Mosher, Director, Environmental Services
Department, City of San Jose, CA
My name is Carl Mosher, and I am Director of Environmental Services
for the City of San Jose, California. I am testifying on behalf of the
San Jose Water Reclamation and Reuse Program, now known as South Bay
Water Recycling. We are requesting your assistance in increasing the
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) funding for South Bay Water Recycling from
the $3.0 million in the President's budget to $10.0 million.
San Jose is the lead agency for a joint powers authority which owns
and operates the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, a
regional wastewater treatment facility serving more than 1.25 million
residents, businesses and industries in California's Silicon Valley.
During the past 4 years, with BOR's assistance, we have designed
and built the largest nonpotable water recycling project in Northern
California, with three pumping stations, a four-million gallon
reservoir and nearly 60 miles of pipe. South Bay Water Recycling was
constructed to protect endangered species by reducing wastewater
discharge to San Francisco Bay in compliance with a mandate from the
EPA and the California Water Resources Control Board.
The first phase of South Bay Water Recycling will be completed this
year at a construction cost of $140 million. In 1992, Congress
authorized BOR to participate in the program by funding up to 25
percent of eligible costs, or $35 million. However, appropriations to
date have totaled $9 million--only 6 percent of project costs--leaving
a funding gap of $26 million between authorization and appropriation.
To help close that gap, and to allow our community to continue to
develop its program of sustainable urban water use, we request an
appropriation of $10 million in the 1999 fiscal year.
The environmental mandate from the San Francisco Regional Water
Quality Control Board clearly requires the regional wastewater
treatment facility to reduce discharges to less than 120 million
gallons per day (mgd) without delay. Current discharges exceed 135 mgd,
despite intensive water conservation efforts throughout the area.
Without this project, the protected salt marsh environment may continue
to degrade, and endangered species may become extinct. With no place to
discharge their treated wastewater, San Jose, Santa Clara, and other
Silicon Valley cities would be unable to provide basic services or
manage their development consistent with their publicly adopted general
plans. A moratorium on sewer connections, if necessary, would stop the
growth of new business and force many industries to relocate overseas.
In response to the urgent need to preserve the environmental and
economic health of the region, South Bay Water Recycling was
constructed in record time. It was commissioned with the connection of
the northern portion of the pipeline in October 1997, only 30 months
after inception. When the system is fully operational this summer it
will initially deliver approximately 15 mgd of high quality recycled
water for landscape irrigation and industrial use, supplementing
supplies of potable water in this semi-arid region.
The benefits of South Bay Water Recycling, however, are not limited
to San Jose, Silicon Valley, or even the San Francisco Bay area. Since
California's watersheds are all linked together through a massive
system of dams, pipes and canals, recycled water from this project can
help relieve the State's chronic water shortage. This shortage is now
projected to exceed 6 million acre feet per year in 2020. The city of
San Jose is energetically investigating opportunities to link our
program with other water reuse projects in our region. We have taken a
lead role in developing a regional master plan, in cooperation with the
Bureau and other local agencies, including the Santa Clara Valley Water
District.
Furthermore, the technical and institutional lessons learned in
implementing South Bay Water Recycling can be applied to projects
throughout the country. To that end, we have actively pursued
opportunities to share information about our project in professional
conferences, seminars, and publications. We are also proposing to
perform pilot work under BOR's ``Desalination Research and Development
Program.''
With the continued assistance of BOR, and the support of this
Congressional committee, we will be able to proceed with our efforts to
create an innovative, sustainable water reuse system on a scale
required to meet regional needs. The $10 million requested in fiscal
year 1999 is well within the current authorization, and is on a par
with appropriations for projects of similar size in other communities
supported by the Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program.
Thank you for your past support, and for your continued help in
making South Bay Water Recycling a reality in our community.
______
Prepared Statement of Robert W. Gross, Ph.D., Chair/Board of Directors,
Santa Clara Valley Water District
guadalupe river project
Background
The Guadalupe River is one of the major waterways that flow through
the highly developed area of San Jose, CA. Historically, the river has
flooded the downtown areas of San Jose and Alviso beyond local
prevention capabilities. For example, estimated damages from a 1-
percent flood that would inundate the urban center of San Jose is over
$526 million. The Guadalupe River started to overflow its banks in
April 1982 and January 1983 before the storms receded and avoided major
damage. The Guadalupe River overbanked in February 1986, January 9,
1995, and March 10, 1995, causing damage to residences and businesses
in the St. John and Pleasant Street areas of the downtown.
Project synopsis
In 1971, the community requested the Corps reactivate its earlier
study. Stage 1 started with the Plan of Study and was completed in
1973. The initial problem definition and alternative screening were
completed in 1974. More detailed problem definition and alternative
studies for the Guadalupe River were completed in 1978. The Stage 2
report was completed in 1980 for the combined Guadalupe River, Coyote
Creek and Baylands, establishing the economic feasibility and Federal
interest in the Guadalupe River.
The Guadalupe River project received authorization for construction
under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986; the final General
Design Memorandum was completed in 1992; the local cooperative
agreement was executed in March 1992; construction of the first phase
of the project was completed in August 1994; construction of the second
phase of the project was completed in August 1996.
In an effort to accelerate completion of this project, the local
community through the Santa Clara Valley Water District has been
providing a substantial technical and financial assistance since 1972.
The local community has completed local projects within the Corps'
project reach and reaches downstream of the Corps limits. More than $64
million in local funds has been spent on the planning, design, land
purchases for, and construction of such improvements.
Fiscal year 1998 funding
Funding for the Guadalupe River project during 1998 was authorized
in the amount of $17.2 million to continue construction.
Fiscal year 1999 funding
Funding for the Guadalupe River project during 1999 in the amount
of $8 million is necessary to continue project construction and provide
critically needed flood protection in the city of San Jose from
downtown north to the community of Alviso.
Recommendation
Based upon the present high flood risk and potential damage from
the Guadalupe River, it is requested that the Committee support an
additional appropriation of $4 million to the $4 million included in
the Administration's budget, for a total of $8 million to continue
construction of the Guadalupe River project in 1999.
upper guadalupe river project
Background
The Guadalupe River is one of the two major waterways flowing
through the highly urbanized area of Santa Clara County, CA.
Historically, the river has flooded the central district of San Jose
and areas south beyond local prevention capabilities. Damages in the
Upper Guadalupe River's densely populated residential floodplain south
of Interstate 280 would exceed $200 million. The probability of a large
flood occurring before implementation of flood prevention measures is
quite high. The Upper Guadalupe River overbanked in March 1982, January
1983, February 1986, January 9, 1995, and March 10, 1995 causing damage
to several residences and businesses in the Alma Street and Willow
Street areas. The flooding of January and March 1995 floods each closed
Highway 87, a major commuter thoroughfare.
Project synopsis
In 1971, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) requested
the Corps to reactivate its earlier study. From 1971 to 1980, the Corps
established the economic feasibility and Federal interest in the
Guadalupe River only between Interstate 880 and Interstate 280. In
light of flooding in 1982 and 1983, the District requested that the
Corps reopen its study of the Upper Guadalupe River (upstream of
Interstate 280). The Corps completed a reconnaissance study in November
1989 which established an economically justifiable solution for flood
prevention in this reach. The report recommended proceeding to the
feasibility study phase which began in 1990. The Milestone F4
conference resulted in a reformulation of the project alternatives with
a new Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement signed in July 1995 and
scheduled for completion by 1997. In January 1997, the Corps determined
that the National Economic Development plan would be sized to only
provide a 2-percent or 50-year level of flood protection rather than
the 1 percent or 100 year level. The District strongly emphasized
overriding and compelling reasons to select a higher level of
protection (1 percent or 100 year) as the proposed project plan. The
Corps will be requesting a waiver in the Feasibility Report to select
the 1 percent or 100 year plan as the basis for cost sharing.
Fiscal year 1998 funding
Funding for the Upper Guadalupe River project during 1998 was
authorized in the amount of $750,000 to proceed with the feasibility
study that will lead to providing critical flood protection.
Recommendation
Based upon the present high flood risk and potential damage from
the Upper Guadalupe River, it is requested that the Committee support
the amount of $575,000 as included in the Administration's budget.
coyote/berryessa creek projects
Background
The Coyote and Berryessa Creeks investigation was authorized by
Congress in 1941 under the Guadalupe River and Adjacent Streams
authority. Coyote Creek is one of two major waterways that flow through
the highly urbanized areas of San Jose and Milpitas within Santa Clara
County, CA. Berryessa Creek flows through a small portion of San Jose
and the growing community of Milpitas. Historically, Coyote Creek
flooded the north San Jose community of Alviso beyond local prevention
capabilities. A 1-percent flood in the Berryessa area would result in
damages of $52 million to the homes and industries of Milpitas and San
Jose. The probability of a large flood occurring before implementation
of flood prevention measures was quite high. A 2-percent flood has an
18-percent chance of occurring during a 10-year period, and a 1-percent
flood has about a 10-percent chance of occurring during this same
period. Based on the percent flood estimates, there is a strong
potential that a damaging flood will occur in the near future.
In January 1983, floodwaters escaped from Berryessa Creek and
caused damage to several homes and businesses. Coyote Creek overbanked
in April 1982 and again in March 1983 causing damages amounting to
several million dollars. Hundreds of people were forced to evacuate
their homes where floodwaters stood for many days. Flood damages were
avoided in January, March 1995, and again in January 1997 due to the
protection offered by project improvements made on the Coyote Creek.
Project synopsis
In 1971, the community requested the Corps to reactivate its
earlier Guadalupe River and Adjacent Streams Study which included
Coyote Creek. The Plan of Study was completed in 1973. The first phase
of work included initial problem definition and alternative screening
and was completed in 1974. The second phase of work included more
detailed problem definition and alternative studies and was completed
in 1978. The third phase, study of freshwater flooding in the Baylands,
(which included the lower reaches on Coyote Creek) was completed in
1979. The Stage 2 report could not establish the economic feasibility
and Federal interest in Coyote Creek. In light of flooding in 1982 and
1983, the Corps refocused its study on Coyote Creek to address the
inadequate level of protection provided by unstable levees. Berryessa
Creek originally was a Section 205 study but was combined with Coyote
Creek when the project cost exceeded the limits of that program.
In an effort to accelerate the completion of this overall program,
the local community through the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(District) has provided a substantial amount of technical and financial
assistance since 1972. Special planning studies have been completed by
the District for inclusion into the Corps' studies. The Coyote/
Berryessa Creek project received authorization for preconstruction,
engineering and design under the Water Resources Development Act of
1986. The project was authorized for construction under the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990. The Project Cooperation Agreement
for Coyote Creek was executed in August 1994.
The severe flood problem and the ominous threat of future damages
forced the local community to initiate a local project on Coyote Creek
in anticipation of future Federal participation. Over $30 million has
been spent on the planning, design and construction of improvements on
Coyote Creek to date, which are planned for augmentation of and
incorporation into the Federal project. The Chief of Engineer's
February 1989 report contained $8.63 million Section 104 credit for
flood control measures undertaken by the District from San Francisco
Bay to Milpitas Sewage Treatment Plant. Congress authorized, in the
Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-676), $3
million in reimbursement to the District for construction of flood
control measures upstream of the Milpitas Sewage Treatment Plant. The
District has completed this work. A Section 215 agreement was executed
with the Corps in December 1993 which provided an additional $3 million
for the sponsor to design and construct approximately 7,000 feet of
offset levees and overflow channel excavation along of Coyote Creek
upstream of Highway 237 in the cities of San Jose and Milpitas. The
flood control improvements were completed in July 1996. The remaining
project work consists of establishing over 20 acres of riparian
mitigation plantings.
The Corps completed the Draft General Design Memorandum in November
1993 for Berryessa Creek which indicated an economically infeasible
plan with a benefit/cost ratio of less than one. The District commented
that a more environmentally protective project design is necessary to
garner support of the local community; the District identified
insufficient channel capacity existing downstream of the General Design
Memorandum project limit at Calaveras Boulevard. Based on the Corps'
and District's assessment, the Berryessa Creek downstream reach between
Calaveras Boulevard and Lower Penitencia Creek does not have 1 percent
capacity. Improvement of this downstream reach must be made prior to
the upstream reaches identified in the General Design Memorandum to
avoid induced flooding. Therefore, extension of the original General
Design Memorandum project scope may be needed to include the downstream
reach, which requires the preparation of a General Reevaluation Report.
Fiscal year 1998 funding
Construction funding for the Coyote/Berryessa Creek projects during
1998 in the amount of $1.0 million was authorized to complete
mitigation planting construction of the Coyote Creek project.
Recommendation
Based on the need to ensure the success of mitigation revegetation,
it is requested that the Committee support the amount of $100,000 as
included in the Administration's budget.
upper penitencia creek project
Background
The Upper Penitencia Creek watershed is located in the northeast
part of Santa Clara County, CA, near the southern end of San Francisco
Bay. Since 1978, the creek has flooded in 1980, 1982, 1983, 1986, and
1995. The January 9, 1995, event caused damage to a commercial nursery
and deposited mud in a condominium complex and a business park.
The proposed project on Upper Penitencia Creek, from Coyote Creek
confluence to Dorel Drive, will protect portions of the cities of San
Jose and Milpitas. The watershed is completely urbanized; undeveloped
land is limited to a few scattered parcels still used for agriculture
and the corridor along Upper Penitencia Creek. Based on the 1995
Reconnaissance Report, 4,300 buildings are located in the floodprone
area, 1,900 of which will have water entering the first floor. The
estimated damages from a 1-percent or 100 year flood is $121 million.
Study synopsis
The National Resource Conservation Service under the authority of
the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 83-566,
completed a study of the economic feasibility of constructing flood
damage reduction facilities on Upper Penitencia Creek. However, the
National Resource Conservation Service watershed plan has been stalled
since 1990 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture because the benefits
to agriculture are less than 20 percent of the total benefits of the
project.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District requested that the Corps
proceed with a reconnaissance study in April 1994 while the National
Resource Conservation Service plan was on hold. Funds were appropriated
by Congress for fiscal year 1995 and the Corps started the
reconnaissance study in October 1994. The Reconnaissance Report was
completed in July 1995, with the recommendation to proceed with the
Feasibility Study Phase. The Feasibility Study is scheduled to be
completed in September 1999.
Fiscal year 1999 funding
Funding for the Upper Penitencia Creek project during fiscal year
1999 in the amount of $475,000 to continue the Feasibility Study is
essential to provide needed flood protection to citizens in the cities
of San Jose and Milpitas.
Recommendation
Based upon the present high flood risk and potential damage from
Upper Penitencia Creek, it is requested that the Committee support an
additional appropriation of $225,000 to the $250,000 included in the
Administration's budget for a total of $475,000 to conduct the
feasibility study of the Upper Penitencia Creek Project.
llagas creek project
Background
The Llagas Creek watershed is located in the southern part of Santa
Clara County, CA, serving the communities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and
San Martin. The creek has flooded in 1937, 1955, 1958, 1962, 1963,
1969, 1982, 1986, 1996, and 1997. The January 1997 flooding caused
damage to a recreational vehicle park and many businesses and house in
the Morgan Hill and San Martin areas where protection is proposed.
The proposed project will provide flood protection for
approximately 1,100 residential buildings, 500 commercial buildings,
and 1,300 acres of agricultural land. The project was started in 1954,
and is not scheduled for completion until 2012, unless funding is
accelerated.
Project synopsis
The National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) under the
authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public
Law 83-566, completed a study of the economic feasibility of
constructing flood damage reduction facilities Llagas Creek. The NRCS
completed construction of the last segment of the channel for the Lower
Llagas Creek in 1994, which provides protection to the Gilroy portion
of the project area. The NRCS is currently updating the 1982
environmental assessment work and applying for a Corps 404 permit for
the Upper Llagas Creek, serving the Morgan Hill and San Martin areas of
the project.
Until recently, the project was funded through the traditional
Federal project funding agreement (Public Law 566) in which NRCS pays
for the cost of channel improvements and the District is responsible
for local costs that include relocation, bridge construction and right
of way acquisition. Due to the Federal deficit and goals for achieving
a balanced budget, funding for the Public Law 566 program has been
reduced since 1985. Between 1982 and 1990, NRCS has allocated between
$1 and $2 million annually for the Llagas Creek construction project.
In fiscal year 1995, Congress did not make any appropriations for the
program.
Fiscal year 1999 funding
Funding for the Llagas Creek project during fiscal year 1999 in the
amount of $4 million to continue construction is essential to provide
needed flood protection to citizens in the cities of Morgan Hill and
San Martin.
Recommendation
Based upon the present high flood risk and potential damage from
Llagas Creek, it is requested that the Committee support the addition
of $4 million in the Administration's budget to continue construction
of the Llagas Creek Project.
san francisco bay shoreline project
Background
After much effort by local agencies and legislators, Congress
authorized the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Project tidal flooding study
in its passage of Public Law 94-587, the Water Resources Development
Act of 1976. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) is one of
the project sponsors. Santa Clara County was originally included in the
first phase of the study, which proposed facilities in Santa Clara
County to protect portions of the cities of Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, and
San Jose. In 1990, the Corps concluded levee integrity was sufficient
and the project has been suspended until adequate economic benefits are
proven under Federal criteria. Tidal flooding potential in Santa Clara
County has been aggravated by significant land subsidence, as much as 6
feet near Alviso. During periods of high tide and coincident high storm
water runoff in the local streams, levee overtopping occurs.
Project synopsis
In 1984, the Corps study identified $15 million to $20 million in
needed flood control construction in three areas (Palo Alto, Sunnyvale,
and Alviso). The Corps determined the most likely mode of tidal
flooding was overtopping and not erosion or levee failure. The Corps
attributed significantly fewer potential benefits in making levee
improvements because existing non-Federal and nonengineered levees have
historically withstood overtopping without stability or erosion
failures. The position of the District is that the lack of incidence of
levee failure has been because of luck and diligent private and public
maintenance programs. The District is concerned existing maintenance
programs may not continue under the present regulatory environment. The
trend toward tougher regulatory controls restricts levee maintenance,
potentially making it economically unfeasible to continue historic
levels of maintenance activities.
The project has been temporarily suspended and will not be
continued by the Corps until there is evidence of adequate economic
benefits under Federal criteria. Corps staff in Washington D.C., has
attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the differences in their standards
for freeboard and stability of levees with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. The experiences in California's Central Valley in
the winter of 1997 with levee failures and flooding increased the
District's concern about protection provided by existing bayland
levees. In April 1997, the District sent a letter to the San Francisco
District Corps of Engineers requesting they review their 1990
conclusions in light of recent experiences of catastrophic failure. The
Corps proposed a new schedule for development fiscal year 1999.
Fiscal year 1999 funding
Funding for the San Francisco Bay Shoreline project during fiscal
year 1999 in the amount of $300,000 is essential to review their 1990
report conclusions.
Recommendation
Based upon the present high flood risk and potential damage from
levee failure, it is requested that the Committee support the addition
of $300,000 in the Administration's budget to begin the review of the
1990 Corps report conclusions.
san jose area water reclamation and reuse program
Background
The San Jose Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Program, also known
as the South Bay Water Recycling Program, will allow the city of San
Jose and its tributary agencies of the San Jose/Santa Clara Water
Pollution Control Plant to protect endangered species habitats, meet
receiving water quality standards, supplement Santa Clara County water
supplies, and comply with a mandate from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the California Water Resources Control Board to
reduce wastewater discharge to San Francisco Bay.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) is participating
with the city of San Jose in the development of the reclamation and
reuse program. Towards that end, the District is assisting the city of
San Jose in providing financial support and technical assistance for
program planning, liaison with water retailers, design, construction,
inspection, and other services for the Program. Design, construction,
construction administration, and inspection for the Program's
Transmission Pipeline and Milpitas 1A Pipeline are being performed by
the District under contract to the city of San Jose. The city of San
Jose is the program sponsor for Phase 1, now under construction, which
involves construction of nearly 60 miles of transmission and
distribution pipelines, pump stations and reservoirs, and has an
estimated capital cost of $140 million. It is anticipated that Phase 1
will begin operation in March 1998, and will deliver an estimated 15
million gallons per day of nonpotable recycled water for landscape
irrigation and industrial use, providing a drought-proof supplemental
water supply for this semi-arid region..
In 1992, Public Law 102-575 authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to
participate with the city of San Jose and the District in the planning,
design, and construction of demonstration and permanent facilities to
reclaim and reuse water in the San Jose metropolitan service area.
Although authorized to participate in this program by funding up to $35
million (15 percent of the Phase 1 costs), appropriations by the Bureau
to date have only been $6 million.
Fiscal year 1998 funding.
The Administration's fiscal year 1998 Budget included $3 million to
continue construction of the San Jose Area Water Reclamation and Reuse
Program.
Fiscal year 1999 funding
The Administration's proposed budget of $3 million for fiscal year
1999 leaves a ``funding gap'' of $23 million between authorization and
appropriation. By comparison, the Bureau has budgeted more than $20
million per year for similar projects in southern California for each
of the past three years.
Recommendation
Based on the San Jose Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Program's
water supply and environmental benefits to the area, it is requested
that the committee support the $10 million recommended by the city of
San Jose. Receipt of fewer funds than required will curtail the
program.
san francisco area water reclamation study
Background
The purpose of the San Francisco Area Water Reclamation Study, also
known as the Central California Regional Water Recycling Project, is to
develop a Regional Water Recycling Master Plan for maximizing local
reuse of recycled water and identify regions in California outside the
Bay Area that could use high-quality recycled water for such purposes
as agricultural irrigation or salinity control. The master plan will
identify sources of freshwater and what potential exchange could result
to benefit environmental, urban, or industrial needs. This plan will
also include preparation of a technical memorandum to CALFED to
summarize recycled water projects for implementation into their
Environmental Impact Report.
The feasibility study was completed in 1996. The master plan is
expected to be completed in 3 years. The Santa Clara Valley Water
District is participating in the master plan and is providing
financial, technical, and project management support along with other
local water and wastewater agencies.
Fiscal year 1998 funding
Funding in the amount of $375,000 was included in the
Administration's fiscal year 1998 Budget for the San Francisco Area
Water Reclamation Study to develop the water recycling master plan.
Recommendation
Based on the important water supply and wastewater discharge
benefits to the region, it is requested that the committee support the
$500,000 recommended by the California Water Commission as an addition
to the Administration's budget for 1999.
central valley project operations and maintenance of san luis unit
joint use facilities
Background
The San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project is located near Los
Banos on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in Fresno, Kings, and
Merced Counties. The San Luis Unit is an integral part of the Central
Valley Project, delivering water and power supplies developed in the
American River, Shasta, and Trinity River Divisions to users located in
the service area.
Certain facilities of the San Luis Unit are owned, operated, and
maintained jointly with the State of California. These Joint Use
facilities consist of O'Neill Dam and Forebay, San Luis Dam and
Reservoir, San Luis Pumping-Generating Plant, Dos Amigos Pumping Plant,
Los Banos and Little Panoche Reservoirs, and the San Luis Canal. These
facilities are essential to the State Water Project's ability to serve
numerous agricultural and municipal and industrial water users in the
San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. Costs of the Joint Use
facilities are funded 55 percent State and 45 percent Federal, under
provisions of Federal-State Contract No. 14-06-200-9755, December 31,
1961.
Within the Central Valley Project, the Joint Use Facilities of the
San Luis Unit are an important link to the San Felipe Division, which
serves as the largest source of water imported into the Santa Clara
Valley Water District (District) and the San Benito County Water
District. All of the Central Valley Project water delivered through the
San Felipe Division must be pumped through O'Neill Dam and Forebay and
San Luis Dam and Reservoir.
Fiscal year 1997 funding
In fiscal year 1997, approximately $6 million was appropriated for
San Luis Joint Use facility operation and maintenance costs.
Fiscal year 1998 funding
The Administration provided sufficient funding to cover its portion
of the annual operation and maintenance costs.
Recommendation
It is requested that the Committee support the amount of $3.5
million as included in the Administration's budget to continue
operation and maintenance of the San Luis Unit Joint Use facilities.
calfed san francisco bay-delta program
Background
In an average year, half of Santa Clara County's water supply is
imported from the Bay-Delta watersheds through three water projects:
the State Water Project, the Federal Central Valley Project, and San
Francisco's Hetch Hetchy project. In conjunction with locally-developed
water, this water supply supports the 1.6 million residents of the
county and the capitol of the high-tech industry. In average to wet
years, there are enough water supplies to meet the county's long-term
needs. In dry years, however, the county could face a water supply
shortage of as much as 100,000 acre-feet per year, or roughly 20
percent of the expected demand. In addition to shortages due to
hydrologic variations, the county's imported supplies have been reduced
due to regulatory restrictions placed on the operation of the State and
Federal water projects.
There are also water quality problems associated with using Bay-
Delta water as a source of drinking water supply. Organic materials and
pollutants discharged into the Delta, together with salt water coming
in from San Francisco Bay, have the potential to create disinfection-
by-products that are carcinogenic. Santa Clara County's imported
supplies are also vulnerable to extended outages due to catastrophic
failures such as major earthquakes and flooding. As demonstrated by the
recent flooding in Central Valley, the levee systems can fail and the
water quality at the water project intakes at the Delta can be degraded
to such an extent that the projects cannot pump from the Delta.
Project synopsis
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is an unprecedented cooperative effort
among Federal, State and local agencies to restore the Bay-Delta. With
input from urban, agricultural, environmental, fishing, and business
interests, and the general public, CALFED is developing a
comprehensive, long-term plan that will address ecosystem and water
management problems in the Bay-Delta.
Restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem is important not only because of
its significance as an environmental resource, but also because failing
to do so will stall efforts to improve water supply reliability for
millions of Californians and the State's $700 billion economy and job
base.
Although the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a long-range planning
process, ecosystem restoration is an immediate priority because of the
substantial lead time needed to produce ecological benefits. Species in
the Bay-Delta continue to be proposed for listing under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). Recovery efforts cannot begin until adequate funding
becomes available to implement the array of critical ecosystem
restoration and water quality projects.
Recommendation
It is requested that the Committee support $143 million in the
Administration's fiscal year 1999 Budget for ecosystem restoration.
santa clara basin watershed management initiative
Background
The Watershed Management Initiative (Initiative) is a stakeholder-
driven effort, led by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control
Board, that commenced in April 1996. The goal of this effort is to
establish an on-going process of managing activities and natural
processes in the Santa Clara Basin Watershed by maximizing the benefits
and minimizing the adverse impacts on the environment for the benefit
of the community and recognizing the quality of life and diversity. The
Santa Clara Basin Watershed includes the northern Santa Clara county
areas which drain to San Francisco Bay, and also includes portions of
Alameda and San Mateo Counties.
The Initiative will address integration of activities within the
watershed with a focus on water quality protection. Specific activities
being addressed include land use and development, water supply, flood
management, environmental restoration, and regulatory processes, to
name a few.
The District is one of many stakeholders who continue to
demonstrate commitment to this multi-year process by providing funds
and actively participating on the Initiative's Core and working group.
The Core Group provides direction for the Initiative and includes
representatives of the business community, local governments,
environmental groups, agriculture, resource and regulatory agencies, as
well as other interests.
The Initiation Phase was completed in December 1996, and the 4-year
Planning Phase has commenced. The schedule for deliverables during the
Planning Phase is as follows:
1. Inventory Document--December 1998.--Utilizes available data to
document the existing physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of the watershed.
2. Assessment Report--June 1999.--Provides a preliminary assessment
of the condition of the watershed based on available data.
3. State of the Watershed Report--December 2000.--Describes
alternatives to managing the watershed which address the problems
identified in the Assessment Report.
4. Watershed Management Plan--December 2001.--This documents the
final action plan to manage the watershed, including a program to
measure progress and allow for flexible responses to changing community
needs.
The final product of the Planning Phase will be a comprehensive
watershed plan that incorporates stakeholder input and extensive public
outreach, which will guide watershed management activities into the
next century as the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative
moves into its Implementation Phase.
Section 503 of the 1996 Water Resources Development Act, authorizes
the Army Corps of Engineers to provide technical and planning
assistance in the development of a watershed plan for the Santa Clara
Valley. The Initiative has progressed to the point where Corps
assistance is needed to participate in the watershed assessment and
addressing pressing regulatory issues.
Initiative funding
Approximately $400,000 has been spent on the Initiative project
since the project commenced in April 1996. Some of the funding agencies
for this effort include the Santa Clara Valley Water District, city of
Sunnyvale, and city of San Jose. Costs estimates for the Initiative
project are estimated between $4,500,000 and $5,000,000 over the next 4
years.
District funding
The District approved funds totaling $286,562 in fiscal year 1997-
98, with an additional $870,000 commitment approved by the Board in
September 1997 to support the District's expanded role in the project
over the next 2 years. The District's cost to participate in the
Initiative process for fiscal year 1998-99 is approximately 1 million
dollars, including labor, materials and supplies. This amount has been
requested in the District's fiscal year 1998-99 budget process.
Recommendation
In order to continue the progress made to date with the Initiative,
the District requests that the Congressional Committee support
additional Federal appropriations in the amount of $500,000 in fiscal
year 1998-99 to cost-share the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management
Initiative.
______
Prepared Statement of Jim Venables, Chairman, Board of Supervisors,
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
resolution no. f98-3 supporting federal appropriations for flood
control projects for fiscal year 1999
WHEREAS, the United States House of Representatives Committee on
Appropriations, Sub-Committee on Energy and Water Development, and the
United States Senate Committee on Appropriations, Sub-Committee on
Energy and Water Development are holding hearings to consider
appropriations for Flood Control and Reclamation Projects for fiscal
year 1999 and have requested written testimony to be submitted to the
committees prior to March 31, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District supports the continuation of construction of the Santa Ana
River Mainstem project, the completion of design and construction for
the project to reduce flooding and bank destruction along the Santa Ana
River at Norco Bluffs, California, the initiation of land acquisition
and construction for the Section 1135 environmental enhancement project
at Gunnerson Pond, Lake Elsinore, California, the initiation of a flood
control reconnaissance study for the San Jacinto River, and the
completion of a feasibility study for a flood control project on
Murrieta Creek, a sub basin of the Santa Margarita River watershed in
Riverside and San Diego Counties, California; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District in regular session
assembled on March 3, 1998, that they support appropriations by
Congress for fiscal year 1999 for the following projects:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS:
Construction--General Santa Ana River Mainstem...... $76,000,000
Construction--General Santa Ana River at Norco
Bluffs............................................ 4,400,000
Feasibility Study--Flood Control Murrieta Creek Sub-
basin, Santa Margarita River Basin................ 800,000
Section 1135, Environmental Enhancement Projects
Lake Elsinore, Gunnerson Pond..................... 1,500,000
Reconnaissance Study--Flood Control and Other
Purposes San Jacinto River........................ 100,000
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager-Chief Engineer is
directed to distribute certified copies of this resolution to the
Secretary of the Army, Members of the House of Representatives
Committee on Appropriations and Sub-Committee on Energy and Water
Development, the Senate Committee on Appropriations and Sub-Committee
on Energy and Water Development, and the District's Congressional
Delegation--Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Congressmen
Ron Packard and Ken Calvert, and the office of the late Congressman
Sonny Bono.
santa ana river--mainstem
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662)
authorized the Santa Ana River--All River project which includes
improvements and various mitigation features as set forth in the Chief
of Engineers' Report to the Secretary of the Army. The Boards of
Supervisors of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties continue
to support this critical project as stated in past resolutions to
Congress.
The Local Cooperation Agreement (LCA) was signed in December 1989
by the three local sponsors and the Army. The first of five
construction contracts started on the Seven Oaks Dam feature in the
Spring of 1990. Significant construction has been completed on the
lower Santa Ana River Channel and on the San Timoteo Creek Channel.
Construction activities on Oak Street Drain and the Mill Creek Levee
have been completed. The Seven Oaks Dam construction effort is
approximately 70 percent complete, and proceeding ahead of schedule. We
currently anticipate construction on Seven Oaks Dam to be completed in
the summer of 1999. Design efforts on Prado Dam are sufficiently
complete that construction of improvements to the outlet works and dam
embankment can be initiated promptly upon receipt of a fiscal year 1999
appropriation.
An appropriation of $35 million is necessary to complete
construction activities on the Seven Oaks Dam, while $18 million is
needed to initiate and complete construction of ``Reach 8'', the last
remaining segment of the lower Santa Ana River Channel. A total of $23
million is being sought to fund a new construction start on the
essential Prado Dam project. We, therefore, respectfully request that
the Committee support an overall $76 million appropriation of Federal
funding for fiscal year 1999 for the Santa Ana River Mainstem project.
santa ana river at norco bluffs
The Santa Ana River passes along the northerly border of the city
of Norco. The southerly bank of the river is a bluff varying in height
from 46 to 96 feet above the streambed, atop which is a residential
neighborhood. The floods of January and February 1969 caused flow
impingement on the riverbank, which undermined the toe of the slope,
causing severe bank sloughing. Although 50 to 60 feet of the bluff
retreated to the south, and no improvements were lost, the threat to
improvements from future river actions became apparent. The floods of
1978 and 1980 impinged further, causing another 30 to 40 feet of bluff
retreat, and the loss of a single family residence.
Section 101(b)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
provided for the authorization of the project, dependent upon the
project receiving a favorable Chief's Report. On December 23, 1996 the
Corps' Chief of Engineers issued a Chief's Report recommending the
Norco Bluffs project for construction.
We are requesting Congress, through the Committee, appropriate
$4,400,000 to provide sufficient Federal funding to complete
construction in fiscal year 1999 on the Santa Ana River at Norco Bluffs
project. The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District is fully prepared to meet its cost-sharing obligation.
santa margarita watershed--murrieta creek feasibility study
The Santa Margarita Watershed lies in the south and northwesterly
areas of Riverside and San Diego Counties, respectively. Murrieta Creek
passes through the cities of Murrieta and Temecula in Riverside County,
then confluences with Temecula Creek to form the Santa Margarita River
which flows into San Diego County, through the Camp Pendleton Marine
Base, and into the Pacific Ocean.
Murrieta and Temecula experienced severe flood damage in January
1993, estimated in excess of $10 million dollars, from Murrieta Creek
overflow. Camp Pendleton also suffered extensive flood damage,
estimated at $88 million, to facilities and aircraft due to overflow of
the Santa Margarita River. For the past several years, a coalition of
local citizens, community leaders, environmentalists, and developers
have worked closely with the District to identify solutions to the
flooding problems within the Murrieta Valley.
A Feasibility Study addressing flood control, environmental
enhancement, and recreation for Murrieta Creek was initiated in fiscal
year 1998. We request that the Committee approve $800,000 in fiscal
year 1999 appropriations to complete the Feasibility Study for a flood
control project on Murrieta Creek within the Santa Margarita Watershed.
gunnerson pond
In 1995, the Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, began an
investigation under Section 1135 to evaluate the possibility of a
wetlands restoration project at Gunnerson Pond. The site is in the
northerly portion of the city of Lake Elsinore, adjacent to and
downstream of the Corps-built Lake Elsinore Outlet Channel, a Section
205 project.
The proposed modification of the outlet channel would allow
floodwater from Lake Elsinore and discharge from a nearby wastewater
treatment plant to flow into Gunnerson Pond, creating a permanent
wetland in that area. The purpose of this modification would be to
enhance and develop waterfowl habitat, endangered species habitat,
emergent wetlands vegetation, and riparian vegetation. The proposed
project would significantly expand and enhance existing wetland and
riparian areas along the Temescal Creek flood plain.
The Corps Headquarters approved the Preliminary Restoration Plan in
August 1996. The Project Modification Report which will provide final
definition of the project is complete, and currently awaiting approval
at Corps Division level.
We request that the Committee approve $1,500,000 in fiscal year
1999 appropriations to provide for construction of the project to
restore a critical wetland and riparian area for the Gunnerson Pond
project under the authority of Section 1135.
san jacinto river
The San Jacinto River watershed encompasses approximately 730
square miles that drains into Lake Elsinore in western Riverside
County. The San Jacinto River originates in the San Jacinto Mountains
and passes through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, Canyon Lake and
Lake Elsinore. The only major flood control structures on the river are
levees in the city of San Jacinto built by the Corps of Engineers in
the early 1960's. In the 30-mile reach of the river between Lake
Elsinore and the city of San Jacinto, only minor channelization exists
as the river is characterized by expansive overflow areas, including
the Mystic Lake area. The San Jacinto River has caused major flooding
damage to agricultural areas and rendered Interstate 215 and several
local arterial transportation routes impassable. However, the river is
an important resource that provides water supply, wildlife habitat,
drainage, and recreation values to the region.
The District and its co-sponsor Eastern Municipal Water District
are requesting that the Corps of Engineers conduct a reconnaissance
study of the San Jacinto River between the city of San Jacinto and the
city of Lake Elsinore to investigate whether there is a Federal
interest in flood control, environmental enhancement, water
conservation and supply, recreation and related purposes.
We wish to request that the Committee approve $100,000 in fiscal
year 1999 appropriations to undertake a Reconnaissance Study on the San
Jacinto River.
______
Prepared Statement of Jerry Eaves, Chairman, Supervisor, Fifth
District, County of San Bernardino
The Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County, State of
California, appreciates the opportunity to bring the following flood
control and water conservation projects to your attention for
consideration in the fiscal year 1998-1999 Federal Budget.
Corps of Engineers
Santa Ana River Mainstem.--Construction on this extremely important
flood control project for San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange
counties began in 1990. Construction of several project features has
been completed while others are underway. The funding proposed in the
President's budget, $20,035,000, is $56,000,000 short of funding
necessary to keep three key project elements, Seven Oaks Dam, Lower
Santa Ana River Reaches 8 and 9, and Prado Dam from moving ahead with
construction on schedule and in accordance with the Corps of Engineer
capabilities. At Seven Oaks Dam alone, the proposed funding is
$15,000,000 short of the amount needed to keep the contractor working
for a full year. Failure to provide adequate funding for this feature,
in its final year of construction, will undoubtedly result in a
premature shut down of construction and considerable costs to de-
mobilize, re-mobilize, and probable expensive contractor claims for
both the Federal Government and the local project sponsors. We ask for
your support of Santa Ana River Mainstem project funding in the amount
of $76,000,000 for fiscal year 1998-99.
Bureau of Reclamation
San Sevaine Creek Water Project (Public Law 84-934 Small Watershed
Project Loan Program).--Upon completion, the project will provide
environmental enhancements, flood protection, and water conservation in
the western portion of the San Bernardino Valley. The funding proposed
in the President's budget is $1,177,000. We ask for your support of the
President's proposed budget.
The Board once again wishes to express its deep appreciation for
your past and present support of these priority programs in San
Bernardino County.
santa ana river mainstem project
Project Description
The Santa Ana River Project includes seven interdependent features:
Mill Creek Levee, Oak Street Drain, San Timoteo Creek, Lower Santa Ana
River, Seven Oaks Dam, Prado Dam and Santiago Creek. Mill Creek Levee,
Oak Street Drain, San Timoteo Creek Reach 1, and Reaches 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7 and 10 of the Lower Santa Ana River are complete. Completion of
all of the features will provide (a) the necessary flood protection
within Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties; (b) enhancement
and preservation of marshlands and wetlands for endangered waterfowl,
fish and wildlife species; (c) recreation amenities; and (d) flood
plain management of the 30 miles of Santa Ana River between Seven Oaks
Dam and Prado Dam.
San Bernardino County Features Status
Seven Oaks Dam.--Intake structure excavation, abutment stripping
and outlet works/diversion tunnel contract is complete. Embankment and
spillway construction contract was awarded in March 1994. Construction
is progressing satisfactorily and is 77 percent complete as of February
1998. Construction can be completed in fiscal year 1999 if $35,000,000
in Federal funding is provided.
San Timoteo Creek.--San Timoteo Creek/Reach 1 construction was
completed in September 1996. Construction has been proceeding on
Reaches 2 & 3A and is scheduled for completion by March 1998. Overall,
construction is approximately 50 percent complete as of February 1998.
Funding Required
To continue construction of the Mainstem Project on schedule in
fiscal year 1998-99, Federal funding in the amount of $76,000,000 would
be required as follows: Seven Oaks Dam--$35,000,000; Lower Santa Ana
River--$18,000,000; Prado Dam--$23,000,000. The funding amount required
exceeds the President's proposed budget by $56,000,000. The funding
required for the Seven Oaks Dam feature alone exceeds the proposed
budget by $15,000,000. This feature can be completed in fiscal year
1998-99 with adequate funding. Failure to provide full funding for this
feature will probably result in a cessation of construction and
substantial cost (in $millions) to demobilize and re-mobilize at a
future time.
Project authorized: Public Law 94-587, Section 109, Approved
October 22, 1976, Public Law 99-662, Water Resources Development Act of
1986
Total project cost: $1.4 billion--Includes $473 million local
share.
President's budget Fiscal Year 1998-99: $20,000,000
Funding shortfall Fiscal Year 1998-99: $56,000,000
Required funding: Fiscal Year 1998-99: $76,000,000
Requested action: Approval of $76,000,000 for Santa Ana River
Mainstem, fiscal year 1998-99.
san timoteo creek
Project Description
The San Timoteo Creek is a major tributary to the Santa Ana River
in the east San Bernardino Valley. A large watershed of approximately
126 square miles drains into the creek which flows through the cities
of Redlands, Loma Linda, and San Bernardino before discharging into the
Santa Ana River. The existing creek in all three cities has an earthen
bottom and partially improved embankments reinforced with rail and wire
revetments.
Major storm flows along the creek in 1938, 1961, 1965, 1969, and
1978 caused considerable damage to the creek itself as well as over-
topping the banks and causing loss of life and severe property damage.
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1988 authorized
improvement of San Timoteo Creek as part of the Santa Ana River
Mainstem Project. The improvements include the construction of
approximately 5.5 miles of concrete lined channel from the Santa Ana
River upstream through the cities of San Bernardino, Loma Linda, and
Redlands plus the construction of debris retention facilities at the
upstream end of the project in the form of in-channel sediment storage
basins.
Project Status
Overall project construction is 50 percent complete. An alternative
is being investigated that would re-configure the sediment storage
basins, currently located in the final Reach 3B, by decreasing their
overall length. Plans for the final phase will be developed during the
remaining 1998 fiscal year with completion anticipated during the early
1999 fiscal year.
Completed Phases:
Reach 1:
0.7 Mile of Channel............ September 1996
Waterman Avenue Bridge......... September 1996
Reach 2:
1.9 Miles of Channel........... December 1997
Redlands Boulevard Bridge...... March 1998
Reach 3A: 0.8 Mile of Channel...... April 1998
Remaining Construction and Schedule:
Reach 3B: 3.0 to 3.6 Miles of Channel and/or Sediment Basins,
depending on the option chosen.
Plans and Specifications..... June 1998-February 1999
Right-of-Way Acquisition..... August 1998-September 1999
Construction Start........... April 2000
Construction Completion...... September 2001
Estimated Project Cost
The total estimated project cost is $58,000,000 with the Federal
participating cost at 75 percent or $43,500,000 and the local
participating cost at 25 percent or $14,500,000. The cost of the
remainder of the project is estimated to be $29,000,000, with the
Federal share at $21,750,000 and the local share at $7,250,000
Requested action: Approval of continued funding for the San Timoteo
Creek Project.
san antonio creek channel feasibility study
Project History.--The San Antonio Creek Channel was constructed by
the Corps of Engineers in the 1950's. Its watershed encompasses an area
of approximately 89 sq. miles at the western border of San Bernardino
County. Most of this channel is concrete lined or improved with rock
slope protection. Approximately one-third of the primarily undeveloped
watershed is tributary to the San Antonio Dam, which is located about
11 miles downstream from the headwaters of the watershed.
Current Status.--The feasibility study found that the existing
channel will be sufficient to convey 100-year flows if a re-operation
plan of the existing San Antonio Dam is developed and implemented. The
County of San Bernardino Flood Control District thanks you for your
past support of this project. The information gleaned during this study
will be of great use in our maintenance of the floodway for the San
Antonio Creek System.
Requested action: No further funding required
san sevaine creek water project
Project Description
The San Sevaine Creek Water Project, will provide environmental
enhancements, water conservation and flood control facilities in the
western portion of the San Bernardino Valley. A 132-acre area is being
set aside to protect a sensitive plant community, wetlands and wildlife
enhancement. In addition, several water conservation basins will
percolate an estimated 25,000 acre-feet of storm water runoff per year
into the Chino Groundwater Basin benefiting agricultural, municipal and
industrial water users in the Valley. This increased water conservation
will occur as the result of an additional 5,400 acre-feet of water
storage which will reduce the need to purchase imported water.
Project Status
The loan application was signed by Commissioner Eluid Martinez on
April 11, 1996, and approved by the Secretary of Interior, Bruce
Babbitt, on May 9, 1996, starting the 60-day congressional approval
process. As of July 25, 1996, the San Sevaine project completed the 60-
day calendar for review by Congress as required under the Small
Reclamation Loan Act. On December 17, 1996, the project Repayment
Agreement was approved by the Board of Supervisors San Bernardino
County and approved on January 8, 1997, by Robert Johnson, Regional
Director of the Bureau of Reclamation. The 1998 fiscal year Federal
Budget included $1,333,000 for a project new start, and the Bureau has
indicated an 8-year construction schedule with project completion by
the year 2006. Although considerable levee, channel and interim basin
work has already been completed at various locations on this major
water project, continued Federal assistance in the form of a Small
Project Loan is urgently needed to allow for the construction of major
improvements that will provide a fully integrated and functional
project. Without these funds, it will be decades before local interests
can accrue sufficient funds to construct this vital project. The
California Water Commission has consistently since the late 1980's
supported the construction of this project.
Federal authority: Public Law 84-984, as amended 1956.
Bureau of Reclamation grant contribution: Approximately $27.4
million.
Bureau of Reclamation loan contribution: Approximately $19.2
million.
Total B of R project (not additive): Approximately $52.9 million.
Total local contribution: $33.7 million
1997-98 Fiscal year Federal budget: $1.3 million.
President's budget fiscal year 1998-99: $1.177 million.
The County coordinated with the Bureau of Reclamation and the
National Water Resources Agency (NWRA) in a cooperative effort to
obtain a project new start in the amount of $1,333,000 end fiscal year
1998. Due to the size and complexity of the project, the Bureau has
estimated an 8-year construction funding schedule with project
completion by year 2006. We appreciate the continuing support provided
by the Bureau of Reclamation for this project.
Requested action: Support President's proposed fiscal year 1998-99
budget in the amount of $1.177 million.
______
Prepared Statement of John E. Hoagland, General Manager, Elsinore
Valley Municipal Water District
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is John
Hoagland, and I'm the General Manager of the Elsinore Valley Municipal
Water District (EVMWD). The District serves the city of Lake Elsinore
and the surrounding communities in western Riverside County in southern
California.
I respectfully request the Committee's continued support for the
Bureau of Reclamation's Temescal Valley Project and for two modest new
efforts under the Corps of Engineers to enhance both the environment
and the reliability of the region's domestic water supplies. These
requests have the full support of the California Water Commission.
Mr. Chairman, first, I request the Committee's continued support
for the Temescal Valley Project under the Bureau of Reclamation's Loan
Program Account. Specifically, for this important project, which will
dramatically improve the EVMWD's ability to service the water supply
needs of the Temescal Valley, I request the Committee's approval of
$2,770,000, the same as the budget request.
Second, I request $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers, under
General Investigations, for a special study to improve the seismic
reliability of the EVMWD water system. Much of the water system
infrastructure is in a seismically active area. The Corps of Engineers
assistance under Public Law 101-640 and Public Law 104-303 will help
the District to develop the means to minimize the likelihood that water
supply interruptions will occur during an earthquake event in our area.
Third, and finally, Mr. Chairman, I request your support for
$100,000 under the Corps of Engineers, Construction General, Section
206, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration program. These funds will be used to
initiate work on a small, but important environmental restoration
project on the San Jacinto River. The project involves clearing
invasive plant growth and replanting native growth along approximately
4,000 linear feet of the San Jacinto River. The work will be cost-
shared by the District, and the entire project can be completed for an
estimated $300,000.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee's favorable consideration of these
requests would be greatly appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of Carl L. Blum, Deputy Director, Department of
Public Works, Los Angeles County, CA
Summary of recommendations by Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works concerning budget allocations to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
We strongly support the California Water Commission's
recommendation to the Committee for $60 million to fund the continuing
construction phase of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area (LACDA)
project.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We appreciate your
Committee's continued support of critical flood control and water
conservation projects in Los Angeles County, CA.
background
Floods are a part of the history of the Los Angeles area.
Widespread floods have periodically devastated vast areas of the region
and were responsible for taking lives, damaging property and
interrupting commerce and trade.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and county of Los Angeles, acting
on behalf of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, have built
one of the most extensive flood control systems in the world.
Construction of the major elements of the system began in the 1920's
and consisted of 20 major dams, 470 miles of open channels, and many
other appurtenant facilities. Fifteen of these major dams are owned
and/or operated by the county while the remaining five dams (Hansen,
Lopez, Santa Fe, Sepulveda and Whittier-Narrows), are owned and
operated by the Corps. Since the major segments were completed, it is
estimated that the system has prevented $3.6 billion in potential flood
damage.
Development which occurred after World War II exceeded the
projections the Corps used in the 1930's and has increased runoff to
the point where, even in a moderate storm, the runoff could exceed the
design capacity of portions of the system. For example, the lower Los
Angeles River in the city of Long Beach can only provide protection
from a 25-year flood and came close to overtopping in 1980. A storm of
greater magnitude would have a tremendous impact, both personal and
economic, on Los Angeles County, the nation's second largest
metropolitan area.
At the request of the county of Los Angeles, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers analyzed the adequacy of the existing major flood control
facilities serving the Los Angeles basin in the LACDA Review study. In
1990, a project to upsize a portion of the LACDA system received
Congressional approval subject to a favorable report by the Chief of
Engineers (received in 1995), and signature of the Record of Decision
by the Secretary of the Army, which was obtained in July 1995.
The final report by the Corps identified 100-year flood damages
totaling $2.25 billion covering an 82-square-mile area which houses
over 500,000 people. These damages would occur in the heavily-urbanized
Los Angeles basin, where adequate protection from a 100-year flood was
previously provided.
The LACDA project is a critical modification to existing
facilities. Obtaining funds to do the modification is critical for two
reasons: first, because of the threat of flooding to over one-half
million people; and second, because FEMA's final Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM's) for the area that would be affected by overflows from the
lower Los Angeles River and Rio Hondo Channel will be in affect
starting July 6, 1998. The financial impact on the affected property
owners could reach as high as $131 million annually for flood insurance
premiums. Any delay in construction causes a great financial hardship
on thousands of people, who thought the existing river provided
adequate protection and will now need to buy flood insurance until such
a project is completed. An economic impact study done by the University
of Southern California also indicated that failure to construct the
needed flood control measures will result in the loss of as many as
120,000 jobs. Economic losses in the region of over $30 billion over a
10-year period could also be realized due to stringent building
restrictions.
This project, currently estimated to cost approximately $240
million, is scheduled, pending adequate funding, to be completed within
the next 4 years. The 1994-95 budget included $500,000 to initiate the
first construction contract awarded in September 1995. The 1995-96
budget included $11.3 million to continue the first contract. The 1996-
97 budget included $14.4 million to complete the first contract and two
other contracts awarded in August and September of 1996. The current
1997-98 budget includes $20.7 million to complete two new construction
contracts. Additional construction contracts will be ready for
advertising later this fiscal year and design of the entire project
should be completed by the end of 1998. In order to complete the
project within an appropriate schedule in light of the serious flood
threat and the devastating financial impacts of the mandatory flood
insurance premiums, it is critical to move the level of construction
activity to $60 million a year. As a result, we strongly support the
California Water Commission's recommendation for $60 million of Federal
funds to continue construction of the LACDA Project.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ventura County and Ventura County Flood
Control District
Project: Santa Paula Creek flood control project, Ventura County,
CA.
Action requested: Inclusion of sufficient funds in the Federal
Budget for completion of the Santa Paula Creek Project
The Santa Paula Creek project in Ventura County is unusual in the
annals of the Corps of Engineers. It was authorized by Congress in 1948
and construction of the first phase was completed in 1974. However,
after bids for the second phase had been received and a contract
awarded in 1974, a preliminary injunction was issued which prevented
this contract from proceeding. Subsequently, construction of the
project was permanently enjoined for failure to comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act.
In the ensuing years the first phase facility, which was dependent
on upstream debris retention that was not constructed, had been
severely damaged and deteriorated to the point where it constituted a
hazard and could have caused damages to adjacent property including the
Route 126 freeway which passes over it. Although the first phase
facility was within right-of-way owned by the Ventura County Flood
Control District (VCFCD), it had not been accepted for maintenance and
remained the responsibility of the Corps.
As provided in the original project cooperation agreement, the
Flood Control District acquired more than 2.7 miles of right-of-way but
the Corps had not fulfilled its obligations under the agreement, since
the project remained to be completed. During the declared disaster of
1995, it was necessary for VCFCD to spend more than $300,000 for
emergency measures within this right-of-way beyond the limits of the
original first phase facility.
During the almost 25 years since the project was enjoined, the
Corps attempted to develop an environmentally sensitive project, and
prepared a General Reevaluation Report which, along with a new EIS, was
completed in the spring of 1996.
Because of the dismal condition of the first phase facility, it was
essential that construction of the project be reinitiated at the
earliest possible date, and the Corps commenced replacement of the
deteriorated first phase facility with a new facility consistent with
the project recommended in the General Reevaluation Report. That
project, also referred to as Phase 1, is currently underway. However,
as a result of the severe storms of February, 1998, the Phase 1
construction was seriously damaged, and the channel was substantially
filled with debris. The Corps was required to spend approximately
$300,000 for emergency repairs and to excavate a pilot channel through
the debris. The balance of the debris will have to be removed before
Phase 1 can be deemed complete. We also believe the Corps will discover
other damage beneath this debris.
During the recent storms, the existing streambed just upstream of
Phase 1 threatened to overtop its banks on February 23, 1998. Because
of this threat, the city of Santa Paula ordered evacuation of 2000
residents in harm's way.
The VCFCD subsequently spent approximately $40,000 to buttress the
reach where overtopping was threatened. (This amount does not include
costs for emergency response on February 23, 1998, borne by the VCFCD
and the city of Santa Paula.)
The Corps also authorized expenditure of approximately $110,000 for
emergency activities in the area upstream of the work performed by
VCFCD, under its Public Law 84-99 authority, and is considering
additional expenditures.
Unless the project is completed at the earliest possible date,
VCFCD, the city of Santa Paula, and the Corps will continue to bear
substantial expense for emergency actions, and the citizens of Santa
Paula remain at grave risk.
As another indicator of the importance of completing this project
the city of Santa Paula, the following figures are pertinent. About
4,000 homes are located, and about 13,000 people live, in the flood
plain mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This flood
plain also includes the entire downtown area, the city's historic
neighborhoods, and five of seven schools in the elementary school
district.
The problem is that only $2.7 million is proposed for appropriation
in the President's budget for fiscal year 1999, and $2.1 million from
funds previously appropriated has been reprogrammed to other projects.
The result is that sufficient funds are not available to enable the
Corps to complete the project, which is imperative for the reasons
stated above. We are, therefore, requesting that sufficient funds to
ensure completion be included in the budget and would sincerely
appreciate the subcommittee's consideration in this regard.
______
Prepared Statement of Dick Lyon, Mayor, City of Oceanside, CA
The City of Oceanside requests that the Subcommittee support an
appropriation of $1.5 million in the fiscal year 1999 Federal budget
for 25 percent of the Mission Basin Groundwater Desalting Research and
Development Project.
The city of Oceanside currently owns and operates the Mission Basin
Groundwater Desalting Facility. It is the only project of its kind in
San Diego County. The current operation produces about 2 million
gallons per day (MGD) of potable water by treating brackish groundwater
through a reverse osmosis process. Based on the successful operation of
the existing plant over the past 4 years, the city plans to expand
production capacity of the groundwater desalting program to 6.3 MGD, or
22 percent of the city's average daily demand. The cost for the
expansion is estimated to be $6 million. The additional water supply is
expected to be available by early 2000.
The city of Oceanside is fortunate that the Mission Basin aquifer
holds about 30 billion gallons or 92,000 acre feet of water. Water
rights to this dependable aquifer were established over 100 years ago.
Eventually, the city would like to utilize its reclaimed water to
recharge the Mission Basin and maintain an environmentally safe water
level in the aquifer. Oceanside anticipates that at least 50 percent of
its future water supply can ultimately be derived from this source.
Expansion of the Mission Basin Desalting Facility has several
important benefits:
--It provides the city of Oceanside with an independent water source
that will serve the community in the event of a natural
disaster, such as an earthquake.
--It reduces the city's reliance on imported water, thereby reducing
the region's demand for imported water from the Colorado River
and the environmentally sensitive Sacramento/San Joaquin River
Delta.
--It produces a water of significantly better quality than that of
the city's imported source (400-500 total dissolved solids
[TDS] versus 600-700 TDS for imported water).
--It creates a new, highly reliable water supply which is critical to
the San Diego region's long-term economic health and its
ability to attract and retain businesses.
--It provides an emergency water supply for Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton, which receives no imported water. The city recently
signed an agreement to provide Camp Pendleton with up to two
MGD of emergency water.
The local water supply produced through the Mission Basin Desalting
Facility saves the city of Oceanside $150,000 per year today and will
save at least $500,000 per year when it is expanded to its 6.3 MGD
capacity. These cost savings are amplified by the environmental
benefits of utilizing an existing resource that can be sustained
through reclamation.
The city of Oceanside respectfully requests your support for this
vital project.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of San Diego, CA
The city of San Diego provides water service as well as wastewater
collection, treatment and disposal service to a growing metropolitan
area of two million people. The city receives 90 percent of its water
supply from the Colorado River and northern California sources,
hundreds of miles distant from the city. Located at the tail end of
this extensive aqueduct supply system, San Diego is most vulnerable to
outages or reductions in supplies from these sources. In conjunction
with its wholesale water supplier, the San Diego County Water
Authority, the city is engaged in a long-term effort to reduce regional
reliance on imported water supplies. The San Diego Water Reclamation
Program is critical to the success of this effort.
The city will have invested over $350 million in water reclamation
facilities through this fiscal year, and has programmed another $70
million in fiscal year 1999 to continue these efforts. Upon completion
of the water reclamation and recycling projects in the next 20 years,
the city will have an estimated $1 billion of capital investment in
this program. The city's projects include 4 new water reclamation
plants with a combined capacity of 57 million gallons per day
(construction of the 30 mgd North City Water Reclamation Plant was
completed last year) and over 100 miles of reclaimed water distribution
system pipelines; an innovative water repurification project to treat
reclaimed water to a quality suitable for potable reuse; and a
groundwater project providing for conjunctive use of reclaimed water
and other sources of supply.
Section 1612 of Public Law 102-575, the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act, authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Interior
to provide financial support for water reclamation projects in the San
Diego area. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is authorized to participate
in the planning, design and construction of water reclamation projects
serving the San Diego area at a Federal cost-share of up to 25 percent.
Based on the criteria established by the Bureau of Reclamation
regarding funding eligibility, approximately $110 million through this
fiscal year, and $157 million of the projected expenditures through
fiscal year 1999 are eligible for Federal funding. Nearly half of the
$1 billion of projected expenditures over the next 20 years would be
eligible for the 25 percent Federal funding.
These costs represent a heavy financial burden for the city to bear
alone. Federal participation will help make this innovative water
supply program a reality. Therefore, the city of San Diego respectfully
requests the Committee to recommend appropriating funds in the amount
of at least $13 million in fiscal year 1999 for the San Diego region
through the Bureau of Reclamation program.
san diego area water reclamation program
The San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program is an ambitious, long-
term program designed to decrease regional reliance on imported water
supplies. The Program is a cooperative effort by the cities of San
Diego, Escondido, and Poway; the Otay Water District; the Padre Dam
Municipal Water District; the Sweetwater Authority; the Tia Juana
Valley County Water District; and San Diego County Water Authority.
Together, these agencies have developed a system of interconnected
water reclamation projects that will make the best use of existing and
planned water reclamation facilities and result in a cost effective and
efficient use of local water resources.
When completed, the San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program will
serve an area of more than 700 square miles, from the agricultural
valleys near the city of Escondido in the north to the expanding
business centers along the international border with Mexico in the
south. Ultimately, almost 20 billion gallons (61,550 acre-feet) will be
added annually to the region's scarce local water supply, more than
doubling the current average local water supply. Facilities to be
constructed include up to ten new or expanded water reclamation plants,
a state-of-the-art water repurification facility, and hundreds of miles
of reclaimed water delivery pipeline.
Implementation of the San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program will
produce both economic and environmental benefits. The development of
local reclaimed water supplies will provide opportunities for
environmental enhancement projects within San Diego County and reduce
the demand for imported water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River
Delta, an environmentally sensitive water body of national
significance. The availability of a reliable local water supply is also
critical to the region's long-term economic health and its ability to
attract and retain employers. In the near-term, construction of the
reclamation facilities will stimulate the local economy by creating
jobs in construction-related industries. After the facilities are
completed, many high-wage, high-skill jobs will be created in the
operation and maintenance fields.
Construction is already under way for a number of these reclamation
facilities. The city of San Diego has completed the construction of its
flagship reclamation facility, the North City Water Reclamation Plant.
While still in the planning stages, the proposed Water Repurification
Program could have far-reaching consequences for both the San Diego
region and the State of California. This innovative water supply
project will treat reclaimed water to a quality standard equal to that
of untreated water supplies. The repurified water would be stored in a
local reservoir for subsequent potable uses. If implemented on a wide
scale, water repurification technology could help to solve California's
long-term water supply problem.
With an annual cost in the range of $900-$1,200 per acre-foot, the
San Diego Area Reclamation Program is competitive with the development
of new imported or other local water supplies. However, the level of
capital investment makes it a heavy financial burden for the local
agencies. The vast majority of the capital costs would have to be
funded by local ratepayers. The financial feasibility of this ambitious
water supply development project, if funded solely with local
resources, is questionable. Federal participation would provide the
means to ensure the project is constructed and the benefits realized.
city of san diego regional water reclamation project
The city of San Diego is undertaking a regional water reclamation
program which will ultimately provide over 9.5 billion gallons (29,200
acre-feet) of reclaimed water annually to users within the city of San
Diego and surrounding communities. The proposed regional reclamation
system will include four new water reclamation plants: one in northern
San Diego, one in central San Diego, and two in southern San Diego near
the international border with Mexico. These water reclamation
facilities will serve commercial, industrial and residential customers
through a network of over 125 miles of distribution pipeline.
Northern/Central Regional Water Reclamation System
The city of San Diego completed construction of its flagship
reclamation facility, the 30-million-gallon-per-day (mgd) North City
Water Reclamation Plant (North City WRP), in April 1997. The North City
WRP could ultimately provide over 2.8 billion gallons (8,700 acre-feet)
of reclaimed water annually to meet commercial, industrial and
landscape irrigation demands in northern and central San Diego and the
southern portions of the neighboring city of Poway. Reclaimed water
will be delivered to over 750 user sites via an extensive network of
pump stations and pipelines. The city of Poway has completed a portion
of its southern reclaimed water distribution system and will complete
the remaining portions of the system in time to take deliveries from
the North City WRP. Initial users will include the internationally
known Torrey Pines Golf Course, Miramar Naval Air Station, and
CalTrans, as well as numerous schools, parks, nurseries and residential
homeowner associations.
Construction of the North City WRP created badly needed jobs in San
Diego's construction-related industries. The city estimates that this
project alone generated 4,400 job-years of work for the local
community. Construction of the northern/central distribution system is
expected to generate an additional 4,200 job-years of work. Now that
the plant is completed, many high-wage, high-skill jobs have also been
created in the operation and maintenance fields. The development of a
reliable local water supply will improve the long-term health of the
San Diego economy by enhancing the region's ability to attract and
retain employers.
A future reclamation plant is planned for the commercial center of
San Diego to supplement reclaimed water from the North City WRP. The
proposed 8-mgd Mission Valley Water Reclamation Plant (Mission Valley
WRP) could provide 1.3 billion gallons (4,000 acre-feet) of reclaimed
water annually for the irrigation of schools, parks, commercial and
tourist facilities, cemeteries, nurseries, golf courses, freeway
embankments and street medians. This supplemental source of reclaimed
water would allow the North City WRP to serve new customers in the
developing communities in northern San Diego.
South Bay Regional Water Reclamation System
Construction of the North City WRP will be followed by the
construction of the 7-mgd South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (South Bay
WRP) near the international border with Mexico. The South Bay WRP will
provide almost one billion gallons (3,000 acre-feet) of reclaimed water
annually to approximately 50 commercial, industrial, and agricultural
users in Southern San Diego County. The South Bay WRP and southern
distribution system, currently scheduled for completion by 2001, will
complement reclamation projects proposed by Otay Water District, the
Sweetwater Authority, and the Tia Juana Valley County Water District.
The estimated costs (in 1998 dollars) for the city of San Diego
Water Reclamation Program are as follows:
Northern/Central Regional Water Reclamation System:
North City WRP...................................... $48,108,000
Mission Valley WRP.................................. 17,040,000
Optimized Northern San Diego Distribution System.... 94,213,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 159,361,000
South Bay Regional Water Reclamation System:
South Bay WRP....................................... 22,049,000
Southern San Diego Distribution System.............. 25,768,000
Otay Valley WRP..................................... 14,880,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 62,697,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 222,058,000
san diego water repurification program
The city of San Diego, with assistance from the San Diego County
Water Authority (SDCWA), is planning to use cutting-edge technology to
purify almost 4.9 billion gallons (15,000 acre-feet) of reclaimed water
annually to a level equivalent to that of existing imported water
supplies. The Water Repurification Project is the natural outgrowth of
a multi-year health effects study conducted by the city of San Diego.
The health effects study showed that the quality of repurified water is
comparable to the quality of imported raw water supplies and has no
health effects.
The city of San Diego proposes to construct a water repurification
facility with a capacity of 18-million-gallons-per-day (mgd) to treat
reclaimed water from the North City Water Reclamation Plant. The
repurified water would be transported over 20 miles to the San Vicente
Reservoir for blending with imported raw water supplies. The blended
water would eventually be conveyed via the existing El Monte Pipeline
to the Alvarado Filtration Plant. There the water would undergo
additional filtration and disinfection before being introduced into the
city's potable water delivery system.
The city of San Diego and the SDCWA conducted a detailed
feasibility study which indicated the proposed project is both
technically and economically feasible. The State of California
Department of Health Services reviewed the feasibility study and
conceptually approved the proposed project. A citizens advisory
committee convened by the city and the SDCWA concluded that there is
sufficient information available to establish the suitability of water
repurification as a supplement to the San Diego region's water supply.
The city of San Diego has begun design and environmental review of the
project.
The Water Repurification Program is expected to replace the less
cost-effective elements of the city of San Diego's proposed non-potable
distribution system. Implementation of the Water Repurification Program
in combination with selected elements of the non-potable distribution
system would allow the city to achieve the most efficient use of water
from its North City WRP. Should the Water Repurification Program prove
feasible, it could begin operation in late 2001.
The proposed Water Repurification Program has potentially far-
reaching consequences for both the San Diego region and the State of
California. California has a wastewater stream of some 2.5 to 3 million
acre-feet per year, the vast majority of which is going unused. By
providing for the near total recovery of this non-traditional resource,
the Water Repurification Program could help to solve California's
chronic water supply problem.
The estimated cost of the Water Repurification Program in 1998
dollars is $169,349,000. Cumulative expenditures through fiscal year
1999 are projected to total $46,098,000.
san pasqual groundwater project
The city of San Diego recently completed a comprehensive Water
Resource Management Plan for the San Pasqual Valley. The San Pasqual
Valley (Valley) is an agricultural preserve located within the
incorporated limits of the city of San Diego. The majority of the land
is owned by the city of San Diego and is located between the city of
Escondido to the north and the community of Rancho Bernardo and city of
Poway to the south. Based on recommendations resulting from the
Management Plan, San Diego plans to upgrade the existing 1 mgd San
Pasqual Reclamation Plant to 5 mgd. The reclaimed water from the
treatment facility would provide a reliable and noninterruptible water
supply for agricultural irrigation purposes within the Valley and
residential and commercial markets within the surrounding community of
Rancho Bernardo and the northern region of the city of Poway. The
reclaimed water would also be recharged into the 50,000 acre-foot
alluvial groundwater basin within the Valley. Groundwater would then be
extracted and used as peaking water for the reclaimed system in the
summer months, as well as for domestic potable water supply.
The San Pasqual Reclamation Plant would include advanced water
treatment in addition to tertiary treatment. Injection of the high
quality water from the plant would reduce the salinity of the
groundwater within the basin. This will enhance sensitive environmental
habitats as well as help farmers reliant on groundwater supplies remain
economically viable and maintain the San Pasqual Valley's agricultural
identity. This reuse/groundwater regional project will add
approximately 2.6 billion gallons (8,000 acre-feet) to local water
supplies. Design of the project is expected to start in 1998.
The estimated cost of the city of San Diego San Pasqual Groundwater
Project in 1998 dollars is $66,547,000.
______
Prepared Statement of Jerry C. Harmon, Council Member and Former Mayor,
City of Escondido, CA, and Keith E. Beier, Council Member, City of
Escondido, CA
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as representatives of
the city of Escondido, we are pleased to submit this testimony in
support of funding for the San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program,
including the Escondido portion. We are delighted again to be able to
thank you for your efforts last year to continue funding for this
important and critical project. Last year you provided $13 million for
the full project which has allowed all segments to go forward in
accordance with our agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation. We hope
you will be able to provide at least the same level of funding this
year, $13 million, as is contained in the President's fiscal year 1999
budget request.
For the last 4 years, you have demonstrated a commitment to our
project to benefit the people of San Diego County and its surrounding
environment. Despite recent El Nino-related storms and flooding in
California and even in the San Diego area, the fact remains that much
of our area is still a desert with very limited access to usable water.
The Escondido Water Reclamation Program continues our proactive effort
to make the most of our very limited water resources by reclaiming and
using much of it again and again instead of pumping it into the Pacific
Ocean.
the escondido water reclamation program
San Diego County, especially the north county where Escondido is
located, continues to experience a tremendous population influx that
has gone on since the early 1960's. With the population growth that
Escondido continues to experience, has come dramatic new economic
development, both in the number of new businesses and our existing,
historical agriculture industry. All place new demands on our
infrastructure and our water supply--both potable and nonpotable.
Through local planning and leadership, Escondido continues to attempt
to meet the challenge of maintaining a high quality of life for its
people, and, with this subcommittee's continued support, can make it a
reality.
While our specific program is important to the citizens of
Escondido, we remain a key part of the overall water planning effort of
San Diego County. As part of the San Diego Area Water Reclamation
Program, we are pleased with the increased amount of water that will be
made available to the county as a result of this program.
As you may know, we have had to change the nature of the project to
reflect the fact that we have lost one of our major projected
customers, the city of San Diego. The city of San Diego conducted
studies that lead them to the decision to withdraw from the Escondido
Regional Water Reclamation Program. San Diego has chosen to conduct the
San Pasqual Valley water repurification project without using tertiary
effluent from the city of Escondido. Instead San Diego will construct
treatment facilities in the San Pasqual Valley. As a result, Escondido
has been required to reduce the capacity of both the advanced treatment
processes at our Hale Avenue Resource Recover Facility (HARRF) and
reclaimed water transmission pipelines from those planned for the
Escondido Regional Water Reclamation Program and discussed in past
years.
The Escondido Regional Water Reclamation Program of reduced size
will now serve the city of Escondido and the Ricon del Diablo Municipal
Water District. Advanced treatment processes at the HARRF will be
downsized from 18 million gallons per day to 9 million gallons per day.
The pipelines carrying reclaimed water in a southerly direction, toward
the San Pasqual Valley will be downsized considerably. Detailed
engineering and financial studies of the downsized project indicate
that it remains a financially viable project, and, of course, it
remains a necessary project for our area.
cost and funding data
Through fiscal year 1997, Escondido has spent more than $10 million
on design, preliminary studies, environmental documents, right of way
purchases and construction of reclaimed water pipelines. With your
approval, since fiscal year 1994, the Bureau of Reclamation has
provided $2.5 million of the total monies spent. We have reduced the
total cost of our project to $61.6 million, with the Bureau's share
reduced to $15.4 million.
schedule
Phase I of the project is scheduled to advertise for construction
bids in March 1998. This portion will provide new aeration facilities
necessary to insure water quality for the advanced treatment processes
to be constructed in Phase II. Phase I will be completed in March 1999,
and at that time Phase II will advertise for construction bids. Phase
II will complete the Escondido Regional Water Reclamation Program, and
will take 2 years to construct. Reclaimed water deliveries are
anticipated in early 2001.
The Bureau of Reclamation's fiscal year 1999 budget request
includes $3.195 million for the Escondido Water Reclamation Program, as
part of a larger appropriation for the San Diego Area Water Reclamation
Program. That funding will support the major construction under Phase
II of the project.
We are pleased that the California Water Commission again has
supported our program as a recommended program, and continue to be
thankful for the support of our sister agencies that comprise the San
Diego Area Water Reclamation Program. This program has been favorably
reviewed by this subcommittee and your counterpart in the other body,
the Bureau of Reclamation, the California Water Commission, and
regional officials back home in San Diego County.
We respectfully request your continued support.
______
Prepared Statement of Mark Holmes, Executive Director, Partnership for
San Pablo Baylands
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Mark Holmes.
I am the Executive Director of the Partnership for San Pablo Baylands.
The Partnership for San Pablo Baylands works to preserve, restore and
enhance wildlife habitats and agriculture in the San Pablo Baylands
Region.
The Partnership believes that it is critical to preserve
agriculture in the region not only because it provides significant
extensive economic benefits, but also because it enhances habitat
values and preserves the area's open space and scenic beauty.
To help meet our program mission and goals, the Partnership is
seeking the assistance of the Committee on two funding requests for
fiscal year 1999.
First, the Partnership is seeking $500,000 in fiscal year 1999 from
the Corps of Engineers under Section 503 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996. Section 503 authorized the Corps to join with
the Partnership to develop a watershed restoration-protection project
in the San Pablo Bay watershed. Last year, $100,000 was appropriated to
initiate this work. In fiscal year 1999, the Corps will continue to
assist the Partnership in examining opportunities for wetlands and
riparian restoration activities on public and private land, develop a
regular maintenance program for management of public lands and water
resources, and the need to stabilize and/or change the existing levee
system for the benefit of wildlife habitat and continued agricultural
uses.
Your favorable consideration of this appropriation would be
appreciated.
Our second request for the San Pablo Baylands Partnership is for
$500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation, under Water and Energy
Management Development (Mid-Pacific Region), to prepare a study of
water reclamation and reuse opportunities in Sonoma County. The San
Pablo Baylands area, like so many areas in the State, is water short.
While recycled water may provide a new source of supply, there are a
number of implementation issues that must be addressed to determine the
practicality of increasing development and use of recycled water. These
include the proximity of the supply to the potential users, the cost of
delivered recycled water, water quality and the flexibility and
reliability of the supply.
The funds requested in fiscal year 1999 are needed to enable the
Bureau of Reclamation to assist the Partnership and its partners,
Sonoma County Water Agency, to address these technical issues that must
be addressed before the use of recycled water in the region can be
expanded.
Again, the Partnership would appreciate the Committee's favorable
consideration of these requests, and I appreciate the opportunity to
submit this testimony on behalf of the Partnership.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Seal Beach, CA
surfside colony shoreline protection reconnaissance study
The city of Seal Beach appreciates this opportunity to ask for your
support and assistance in conjunction with its infrastructure
reliability program. We request the subcommittee appropriate $100,000
in fiscal year 1999 for a Special Reconnaissance Study which will focus
on the prevention of coastal flooding/storm wave damage and related
emergency response infrastructure in the city of Seal Beach.
During WWII, the U.S. Navy built two rubblemound arrowhead jetties
at the entrance of Anaheim Bay to provide port facilities for the Naval
Weapons Station. The Surfside Colony beach has experienced major
erosion problems since the construction of the jetties. The erosion is
caused by increased wave energy directed at Surfside Beach from the
combination of reflected waves with incident waves as a result of the
installation of the East Anaheim Bay Jetty. A great amount of beach
nourishment has been required to replenish the beach. Since 1947,
approximately 15,850,000 cubic yards of beach sand has been deposited
on the Surfside-Sunset beach to mitigate the erosion caused by these
jetties. The present value of this work totals over 80 million dollars.
Under current Congressional authorization, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has conducted replenishment projects every 4 to 6 years
ranging in size from 1 to 1.5 million cubic yards each project.
Much of the early replenishment work during 1947 through 1964 was
the result of harbor construction and channel deepening. Recent work
includes maintenance dredging and offshore borrow. The majority of the
large replenishment projects since 1979 have utilized offshore
borrowing. The sand quality of the offshore material, in terms of grain
size, seems to be steadily declining. The grain size of the sand is
directly related to the littoral transport of the beach sand along the
coast through wave action. Sand with smaller grain size will be
transported down the coast faster than larger grain size. The quality
of the sand from the most recent project (1996) was significantly lower
than previous projects. Also of concern is the need to go offshore
approximately three miles to find acceptable sources of sand. The
quality of sand as it relates to its longevity on the beach and the
overall cost effectiveness of these projects should be reviewed.
Although the replenishment project seems to be meeting the overall
goal of nourishing the coastal beaches from Surfside-Sunset to Newport
Beach, isolated erosion immediately adjacent to the jetty poses a
hazard for the Surfside Colony. After only one winter storm season
(since the recent replenishment project in 1996), the present condition
of the beach is severely eroded. It is highly likely that Surfside
Colony will experience coastal flooding and high surf problems before
the next scheduled beach replenishment project by the Corps of
Engineers. The city of Seal Beach is extremely concerned about the
potential shoreline hazards to the Surfside Colony. Potential private
and public infrastructure damage could total into millions of dollars.
Reconnaissance Study Overview
This special shoreline protection reconnaissance study would
conduct a research and assessment of conditions and parameters
affecting the shoreline within the city of Seal Beach at Surfside
Colony and the causation of and remedies for shoreline erosion due to
the adjacent Federal project, Anaheim Bay/U.S. Naval Weapons Stations
harbor entrance jetties. The specific limits of this study will include
the portion of the San Pedro littoral cell immediately southeasterly of
the Anaheim Bay/U.S. Naval Weapons Station harbor entrance jetty.
Conceptual Scope of the Reconnaissance Study
The primary objectives of this study would include:
Analysis of Existing Conditions and Historical Records.--Research
and assessment of existing potential shoreline erosion hazards and
historical damage costs.
Data Collection.--Various data would be collected to establish the
effects of shoreline erosion elements including historical ocean swell
data, wave energy, wave runup, wave direction, sand transport, and
beach sand grain size.
Existing Facilities Assessment.--Assessment and evaluation of the
existing Anaheim Bay/U.S. Naval Weapons Station harbor entrance jetty
(originally constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1945-47)
and its effect on adjacent beaches.
Deficiency Analysis.--Define specific deficiencies in shoreline
protection including primary causation factors.
Alternatives Analysis.--Develop and prioritize potential strategies
to mitigate shoreline erosion.
Economic Base Study.--Conduct an economic study to ascertain the
benefit versus cost of the various alternative mitigation strategies on
an avoided cost basis, due to potential damage to private and public
infrastructure as a result of a major winter storm event.
Action Plan.--Research and evaluate potential comprehensive action
plans to implement mitigation strategies.
Technical assistance, in the form of this Special Reconnaissance
Study, from the Corps of Engineers will enable the city of Seal Beach
to embark on a program which will significantly improve public safety
and reduce damage costs in the event of a major coastal winter storm
event. The Federal Government has paid billions of dollars for
emergency response and restoration costs after major winter storm
events in coastal areas. Similar events in our region could cause
similar levels of damage and potential loss of life. The funding and
implementation of programs such as this can prevent loss of life and
costly damage and recovery efforts.
Thank you for your consideration of this funding appropriation
request. We are looking forward to your continued support of these and
other programs that prevent loss of life and expend taxpayer dollars in
a cost-effective manner.
east beach shoreline protection reconnaissance study
The city of Seal Beach appreciates this opportunity to ask for your
support and assistance in conjunction with its infrastructure
reliability program. We request the subcommittee appropriate $100,000
in fiscal year 1999 for a Special Reconnaissance Study which will focus
on the prevention of coastal flooding/storm wave damage and related
emergency response infrastructure in the city of Seal Beach.
During WWII, the U.S. Navy built two rubblemound arrowhead jetties
at the entrance of Anaheim Bay to provide port facilities for the Naval
Weapons Station. The East Beach in the city of Seal Beach has
experienced continuous erosion problems since the construction of the
jetties. The erosion is caused by increased wave energy directed at
East Beach from the combination of reflected waves with incident waves
as a result of the installation of the West Anaheim Bay Jetty. In 1959,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed a concrete sheet pile
groin to mitigate the erosion caused by the West Anaheim Bay Jetty.
Although the groin does slow the migration of sand, East Beach still
sustains a net loss of about 8,000 cubic yards of beach sand annually.
This causes the beach to recede at approximately 1.75 to 3.25 feet per
year. The city of Seal Beach has facilitated protection of adjacent
private and public infrastructure from winter storms by constructing a
sand dike on the beach each year. This practice has generally been
successful but reduced beach widths lessen the effectiveness of the
dike. Severe storm waves have often overtopped the dike and flooded
adjacent residences and public facilities causing extensive damage in
the past.
Recent inspections of the existing groin have revealed that the
groin is deteriorating and is in danger of failing. Existing gaps allow
the transmission of sand to the West Beach which further reduces
available sand on East Beach. The city of Seal Beach is extremely
concerned about the potential shoreline hazards to the failure of the
groin and the continuing shoreline erosion problems. Potential private
and public infrastructure damage from severe winter storm waves could
total into millions of dollars.
Reconnaissance Study Overview
This special shoreline protection reconnaissance study would
conduct a research and assessment of conditions and parameters
affecting the shoreline within the city of Seal Beach and the causation
of and remedies for shoreline erosion due to the adjacent Federal
project, Anaheim Bay/U.S. Naval Weapons Stations harbor entrance
jetties. The specific limits of this study will include the portion of
the San Pedro littoral cell between Anaheim Bay and the San Gabriel
River.
The primary objectives of this study would include:
Analysis of Existing Conditions and Historical Records.--Research
and assessment of existing potential shoreline erosion hazards and
historical damage costs.
Data Collection.--Various data would be collected to establish the
effects of shoreline erosion elements including historical ocean swell
data, wave energy, wave runup, wave direction, sand transport, and
beach sand grain size..
Existing Facilities Assessment.--Assessment and evaluation of the
existing Anaheim Bay/U.S. Naval Weapons Station harbor entrance jetty
(originally constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1945-47)
and the existing shoreline protection groin at the Seal Beach Pier
(originally constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1959)
and their effect on adjacent beaches.
Deficiency Analysis.--Define specific deficiencies in shoreline
protection including primary causation factors.
Alternatives Analysis.--Develop and prioritize potential strategies
to mitigate shoreline erosion.
Economic Base Study.--Conduct an economic study to ascertain the
benefit versus cost of the various alternative mitigation strategies on
an avoided cost basis, due to potential damage to private and public
infrastructure as a result of a major winter storm event.
Action Plan.--Research and evaluate potential comprehensive action
plans to implement mitigation strategies.
Technical assistance, in the form of this Special Reconnaissance
Study, from the Corps of Engineers will enable the city of Seal Beach
to embark on a program which will significantly improve public safety
and reduce damage costs in the event of a major coastal winter storm
event. The Federal Government has paid billions of dollars for
emergency response and restoration costs after major winter storm
events in coastal areas. Similar events in our region could cause
similar levels of damage and potential loss of life. The funding and
implementation of programs such as this can prevent loss of life and
costly damage and recovery efforts.
Thank you for your consideration of this funding appropriation
request. We are looking forward to your continued support of these and
other programs that prevent loss of life and expend taxpayer dollars in
a cost-effective manner.
infrastructure reliability study
The city of Seal Beach appreciates this opportunity to ask for your
support and assistance in conjunction with its infrastructure
reliability program. We request the subcommittee appropriate $600,000
in fiscal year 1999 for a special study which will focus on the water,
sewer, and drainage systems and related emergency response
infrastructure in the city of Seal Beach.
Present Authorization under Public Law 101-60, enacted by Congress
on November 28, 1990, and reauthorized in 1996 exists for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) to conduct in consultation with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) special studies in southern
California. These studies are related to protecting infrastructure
assets including water, sewer and drainage systems as well as the
restoration of these systems to full service following major seismic
events.
It is our understanding that the House of Representatives is
currently considering the subject supplemental appropriations Bill,
which could allow for the addition of language for a comprehensive
Infrastructure Reliability Study in the Seal Beach area of Orange
County, California. This special study will provide for a conceptual
feasibility level review of conditions and parameters affecting the
city's water, sewer and drainage systems as well as the Emergency
Response Infrastructure related to each element. Funding of the water,
sewer and drainage system study of these elements of the city's
infrastructure is the subject of this request to Congress.
Study Overview
The special study will focus upon water, sewer and drainage systems
and related emergency response infrastructure in the city of Seal Beach
that will potentially be affected by major seismic activity on the
Newport/Inglewood Fault which is in near proximity to the community.
Primary elements of the study effort would include: groundwater basin
optimization and effects of fault systems thereon, seismic reliability
of water storage facilities and water systems, seismic reliability of
sewerage system elements including collection and trunk facilities and
pumping stations, seismic reliability of closed and open channel storm
drain systems and pumping stations, and development of alternative
recycled and imported water backup supplies for the area.
Conceptual Scope of Study
A more detailed breakdown of the potential range and scope of the
Special Study would include:
Seismic Reliability of Water System.--Analysis and assessment of
seismic upgrading of water system facilities in the area including:
reservoirs, transmission and distribution pipelines, bridge crossings,
pump stations, wells, control centers and imported supply facilities.
Groundwater Supply Reliability.--Evaluation of the potential
effects upon groundwater supply reliability in the Seal Beach area due
to faulting and major seismic events.
Hydraulic System Model.--Prepare a complete hydraulic system model
of the city's domestic water system in order to ascertain its ability
to provide fire suppression flows to the city's residential, commercial
and industrial developments in the event of a Design Base Earthquake
(DBE) event. The model platform shall be computer based, tied to a
Geographic Information System (GIS) base map.
Backup Emergency Water Supplies.--Assessment of the potential to
provide backup level fire protection in high value areas of the city
through the backup source of recycled water through the Green Acres
Regional system of the Orange County Water District or other nonpotable
sources.
Regional Water Supply Augmentation.--Analyze the feasibility of
expanded use of regional imported and groundwater supplies through the
West Orange County Water Board facilities or private water companies as
additional firm backup supply to the area.
Seismic Reliability of Sewer System.--Completion of the analysis
and assessment of seismic upgrading of sewer system facilities in the
area including: collection and trunk pipelines, siphons and channel
crossings, pump stations and control systems.
Seismic Reliability of Drainage System.--Analysis and assessment of
seismic upgrading of drainage system facilities in the area including:
lateral and main pipeline systems, open channels, pump stations and
control systems.
Temporary and Standby Power Assessment.--Evaluate and ascertain
temporary and standby power requirements for all water, sewer and
drainage pumping system and emergency response infrastructure load
demands.
Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan.--Develop a comprehensive
Emergency Preparedness Plan in conjunction with the city's Fire and
Police Departments to ensure that fully coordinated efforts of staff,
materials, equipment and communications systems are brought to the fore
in the event of a major seismic occurrence. An evaluation of the
physical infrastructure reliability of the city's Emergency Operations
Center and related physical plant elements such as Corporation Yard
Facilities, Fire and Police Facilities will be conducted.
Capital Outlay Requirements.--Develop a complete Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) based upon the results of the analyses and
study elements noted above to bring seismic protection reliability to
the areas water, sewer and drainage systems and emergency response
infrastructure. The CIP would have a planning horizon of no less than
20 years for full program implementation. Funding strategies for
Federal, State and Regional assistance to finance infrastructure system
improvements would be developed, including new legislative strategies
where deemed appropriate.
Economic Base Study.--Conduct a survey level economic base study to
ascertain the benefit versus cost of planned improvements on an avoided
cost basis, due to potential damage to water, sewer and drainage system
elements and EOC facilities from a major seismic event.
Technical assistance, in the form of this special study, from the
Corps of Engineers will enable the city of Seal Beach to embark on a
program which will significantly improve public safety and reduce
damage costs in the event of a major seismic event. The Federal
Government has paid billions of dollars for emergency response and
restoration costs after major seismic events such as the 1994
Northridge Quake. Similar events in our region and the proximity of
Seal Beach to the Newport-Inglewood fault could cause similar levels of
damage and loss of life. The funding and implementation of programs
such as this can prevent loss of life and costly damage and recovery
efforts.
Thank you for your consideration of this funding appropriation
request. We are looking forward to your continued support of these and
other programs that prevent loss of life and expend taxpayer dollars in
a cost-effective manner.
______
Prepared Statement of Pat Malloy, Maintenance Services Director,
Maintenance Service Department, City of Arcadia, CA
The cities of Arcadia and Sierra Madre, CA, appreciate continuing
Congressional support of the Water System Seismic Reliability Project.
This project began in 1996 with the reappropriation of the Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) (Public Law 104-303), and is now
entering its third year. To this point, Federal, State and local
government have invested $1,125,000 in the technical research and
analysis of this critical project through the Arcadia/Sierra Madre
Water Reliability Study (ASMWSRS) . For fiscal year 1999 the cities of
Arcadia and Sierra Madre are requesting funding in the amount of
$1,000,000 for the subsequent design and development phase of this
project (Stage 4 Technical Assistance for Phase 2 Project Development).
background
The preliminary stages of this project consisted of the Arcadia/
Sierra Madre Water System Reliability Study which was conducted jointly
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State, local, and regional
water agencies. This study evaluated the performance of the water
systems that serve our communities, and specifically the vulnerability
of our systems to disruption after a major earthquake. It evaluated the
ability of the water systems to function properly following a seismic
event. Following the evaluation stage of the study necessary system
improvements were identified to increase reliability and reduce
property damage and economic losses resulting from a major seismic
event in, or near, the cities of Arcadia and Sierra Madre. Some of the
structural deficiencies and system inadequacies identified in the
report included; emergency power supply sources, inadequate storage
facilities and system breaks that would prevent adequate local fire
suppression capabilities.
Stage 3 Technical Assistance for Phase 1 project development was
approved by Congress in fiscal year 1998. Arcadia and Sierra Madre are
requesting that necessary funding be appropriated for Stage 4 Technical
Assistance for Phase 2 project development in fiscal year 1999.
phase 2--project overview
As mentioned earlier, several system deficiencies and inadequacies
were identified in the special study. The study determined that the
problem areas would be exacerbated in the event of a major earthquake.
Storage capacity in Sierra Madre is insufficient; conveyance pipes are
undersized, antiquated and composed of brittle materials.
Interconnections between purveyors are inadequate and there is
insufficient standby power to maintain pump operation when electrical
service is disrupted. In addition, individual components of both
systems, i.e. Arcadia and Sierra Madre, are susceptible to failures
such as; regional power grid, pipeline leaks and breakage, and valve
shearing at key storage facilities. The combined effect of these
deficiencies and inadequacies would likely result in reliability
problems ranging from limited water flow at reduced pressure to total
system failure. These type of failures could in turn result in the
inability to provide potable water to local residents and to provide
emergency fire suppression capabilities.
To mitigate the deficiencies found in the special study, a
comprehensive project of system improvements has been identified. The
primary elements of the improvement project include the construction of
high capacity water supply wells in the Main San Gabriel Basin within
the city of Arcadia sufficient to provide emergency water supply to
neighboring Sierra Madre in the event of a partial or complete collapse
of the domestic water system following an earthquake. Creating adequate
capacity in the well supply system also allows for full back-up supply
of Arcadia's key area wells. A transmission main facility to deliver
water back and forth between Arcadia and Sierra Madre is included with
metering structures and associated control equipment. A loop
transmission main within Sierra Madre is also included to deliver
emergency back-up water supply to the city's main plant facility. The
proposed project continues the development of policies and programs to
improve emergency response including standby and temporary power
sources and design of seismic protection components needed to maximize
water system function following a major earthquake.
It must be reemphasized that available and adequate water supply in
the time immediately following a seismic emergency is critical not only
to general public health and safety but is also directly linked to
local fire suppression efforts. The consistent availability of water
during these emergencies, particularly for the purposes of fire
suppression can assist in the localities in preventing of hundreds of
millions of dollars in economic losses and property damage to the two
communities. During the last major area earthquake economic losses were
estimated at $330,000,000. An investment of $30,000,000 in design and
construction of adequate facilities will reduce the potential for
localized economic losses to an estimated $42,000,000 which results in
a potential savings of nearly $260,000,000. The continuing support of
the U.S. Congress in funding the Water System Seismic Reliability
Project is imperative to the safety, welfare and economic well being of
the southern California communities of Arcadia and Sierra Madre in the
event of future major seismic event.
Again, we greatly appreciate past Congressional support of this
project and we are prepared to match the requested funding amount of
$1,000,000 in Federal technical assistance with $330,000 of non-Federal
funding sources.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Sierra Madre, CA
The cities of Sierra Madre and Arcadia, CA, appreciate your
continuing support for the Water System Seismic Reliability Study and
request that the Subcommittee appropriate $1,000,000 in fiscal year
1999.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-303)
authorizes the Corps of Engineers to provide technical assistance for
public infrastructure seismic reliability projects. These funds will be
used to design improvements identified in the seismic reliability study
which the Corps completed last year.
Improvements recommended by the special study include high capacity
water supply wells, reconstruction of reservoirs, and a transmission
main facility along with metering structures and associated control
equipment. A loop transmission main is recommended to deliver emergency
backup water supplies. Also provided for is the rehabilitation of the
two area replenishment basins and the development of policies and
programs for enhancing emergency response. Such emergency response
includes standby and temporary power and the design of the seismic
protection components needed to maximize the ability of these water
systems to function properly following a major seismic event.
The study and the next stage of technical assistance provided by
the Corps of Engineers will significantly improve public safety and
reduce damage costs in the event of an earthquake. Damage resulting
from the 1994 Northridge earthquake, which measured 6.7 on the Richter
Scale, totaled more than $20 billion. The Federal Government paid
billions of dollars for emergency response and restoration costs. Large
quakes predicted for our region could cost thousands of lives and as
much as $70 billion in property damage. Lives can be saved and damages
reduced if steps are taken to improve public infrastructure and prepare
for emergency response.
Again, we appreciate your past support. We understand that the
$1,000,000 in Federal funds are to be matched by $333,000 in non-
Federal funds. We are exploring the various options available to the
city of Sierra Madre to provide our share of the matching funds. We
look forward to your continued support.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Beverly Hills, CA
The city of Beverly Hills appreciates your support of water system
seismic reliability programs in the Los Angeles basin. We request that
the subcommittee appropriate $600,000 in fiscal year 1999 for our Phase
1 ``Water Infrastructure Reliability Study'' project.
The city of Beverly Hills owns and operates an aging water
distribution system that supplies water to the city's of Beverly Hills
and West Hollywood. This system has many deficiencies with regard to
its ability to withstand a major seismic event. Our Engineering staff
has determined that a study to assess/suggest seismic upgrades to the
system would improve the city's ability to provide water for both fire
protection and public use following a seismic event.
The city of Beverly Hills water supply relies primarily upon
imported sources through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWDSC) system. The major facilities of the water system
include two connections to the MWDSC's Santa Monica Feeder, 11 booster
stations, 11 storage reservoirs, 9 pressure reducing stations and a
network of distribution and transmission lines. This system feeds 11
pressure zones in Beverly Hills and two pressure zones in West
Hollywood.
Five of the reservoirs are above-grade steel tanks that may require
seismic retrofitting along with the appurtenant valve and piping
structures. These tanks were constructed in the 1950's. Two partially
exposed concrete reservoirs, 7 million and 2 million gallons,
respectively, may also require upgrading. In addition to the reservoir
facilities, the distribution system may require installation of one new
pumping station and eight new pressure-reducing stations to allow for
critical water redistribution in the event of a failure in any one of
the 13 pressure zones. This is especially critical to provide fire
protection in the city's previously identified high fire severity
zones; hillside areas that are located above the major storage
facilities.
Study Scope.--To review the existing facilities in the water supply
system to determine the susceptibility to structural damage and to
optimize water supply capabilities during a significant seismic event.
Specifically, the study will evaluate the individual reservoirs and the
water supply distribution system and recommend improvements that will
ensure better system reliability. In addition, the city is currently in
the final stages of developing a program to utilize the city's
groundwater supplies. The study will analyze and recommend an
operational plan for the proposed water treatment plant and the system
improvements to maximize that facility for optimal water delivery.
The study will include emergency operational procedures for city
staff in the event of disruption of import supply from the Metropolitan
Water District and the emergency connections to the city of Los
Angeles, Department of Water and Power. The procedures will include
augmenting imported water with local groundwater following a seismic
event. This will improve the city's ability to provide water to any of
the 13 pressure zones if the connections to primary water sources are
severed.
The city of Beverly Hills water system storage lies near the
Hollywood, Santa Monica and Newport-Inglewood faults. In addition, most
of the city's reservoirs are located in the hillside portion of the
city; some of them are adjacent to steep inclines and located above
residential properties. Experts predict these faults are capable of a
maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 7.0. During a seismic event of
this size, the city will most likely experience ground accelerations
similar to those of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, which was a
magnitude 6.7 earthquake and resulted in over $20 billion worth of
damages in the region.
The city intends to conduct structural evaluations of the city's
existing reservoirs and perform additional geotechnical studies as
well. Ultimately, the study should supply recommendations for future
Capital improvement programs and an emergency operation plan.
The city is prepared to partner with the Federal Government to
provide a $200,000 match from non-Federal sources. We are looking
forward to your support of this program and thank you for your
consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Huntington Beach, CA
beach shore protection study
The city of Huntington Beach requests $300,000 and the enclosed
language be included in the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill for the Corps of Engineers to initiate
a cost-shared Feasibility Study for Federal assistance in a project to
protect the Huntington Cliffs coastline, in Huntington Beach, CA.
The Corps of Engineers completed a reconnaissance study in 1995 on
the Federal interest in improvements to reduce the potential for
coastal erosion and storm damage to city facilities and Pacific Coast
Highway. This study indicated that there is potential for substantial
erosion and storm damage to public properties and uses of the bluff
area, and that plans to reduce damage potential appear to be justified.
However, the Corps did not recommend proceeding to the feasibility
study phase because the most cost-effective plan identified at that
time was relocation of public facilities, which they claimed is a local
responsibility. They also claimed that most of the benefits that would
result from the shore protection improvements were associated with
reducing the loss of public access and use of the bluff for recreation,
which they claimed is a low priority for the Administration.
Since completion for the Corps of Engineers reconnaissance report,
the cliffs have experienced further significant erosion during coastal
storms. This erosion created eight new embayments, resulting in the
undermining of pedestrian, and bike trails, and damaging other public
facilities. This was required the city to close public access to these
popular coastal areas, which were being used by about a million people
a year. We are concerned that additional storms will continue to damage
these facilities, as well as adjacent parking areas, utilities, and
perhaps in the not so distant future, threaten Pacific Coast Highway.
The significant erosion that occurred during recent events also
demonstrated that relocation of the facilities, which was considered in
the Corps of Engineers study, is no longer a reasonable alternative.
Accordingly, the city would like the Corps to proceed with a modified
Reconnaissance Study.
City of Huntington Beach Shore Protection Study, California.--
$300,000 is appropriated for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a
reconnaissance study for Federal participation in a project to reduce
erosion and storm damages along the Huntington Beach coastline. The
corps shall consider the reduction damages to the existing public
facilities and the associated loss of public access and use of these
facilities as benefits in determining economic justification of a
project.
infrastructure seismic reliability/restoration study
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the city of
Huntington Beach appreciates your past support for the Infrastructure
Seismic Reliability/Restoration Study which was initiated in fiscal
year 1996. The city requests $700,000 to complete the study in fiscal
year 1999.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-640)
and amendments in 1996 (Public Law 104-303) authorized the Corps of
Engineers to address the seismic reliability and restoration of
Southern California's public works infrastructure to ensure full
service levels in the event of a major seismic event. The Huntington
Beach study includes an assessment of conditions and parameters
affecting the city's water, sewer, and drainage systems, as well as the
emergency response infrastructure related to each of these systems.
Conducting this study now and constructing the necessary improvements
will significantly improve public safety and reduce damage repair costs
after a major earthquake.
Two faults run through the city of Huntington Beach, leaving the
city vulnerable to significant earthquake damage. Application of
generic principles to the unique nature of seismic activity in southern
California is not a cure. Obviously, this information is helpful, but
real cost benefit will be derived only through an evaluation of
Huntington Beach's needs and studying that mitigation which will
guarantee the delivery of essential water related services to our
citizens.
The third phase of the study to be conducted with fiscal year 1999
funds will focus on the following six elements:
--Seismic upgrading of water system facilities, including reservoirs,
transmission and distribution pipelines, bridge crossings, pump
stations, wells, control centers and imported supply
facilities.
--Backup emergency water supplies, including regional water supply
augmentation.
--Seismic reliability of sewer and drainage systems.
--Temporary and standby power requirements for all water, sewer, and
drainage pumping systems and emergency response.
--Capital outlay requirements.
--Economic base study to ascertain the benefit versus cost of planned
improvements on an avoided cost basis due to potential damage
to public infrastructure.
Natural disasters cost the economy and local, regional, State, and
Federal Governments billions of dollars in damage, emergency response,
and reconstruction of public infrastructure. The 1994 Northridge
earthquake in our region was the most costly natural disaster in U.S.
history. A larger quake on the San Andreas fault or the Newport-
Inglewood fault near Huntington Beach could cost thousands of lives and
approximately $70 billion in property damage. This type of disaster
would be significantly exacerbated if water systems did not survive the
quake, or were not restored quickly afterwards.
The Huntington Beach study will result in more reliable water
systems for hundreds of thousands of residents in southern California.
We urge the Subcommittee to provide funds for this critical work.
______
Prepared Statement of Thomas Cole Edwards, Mayor, City of Newport
Beach, CA
water and wastewater system seismic reliability study
The city of Newport Beach requests your support for the Water and
Wastewater Seismic Infrastructure Reliability Study and the
Subcommittee's appropriation of $600,000 in fiscal year 1999.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-303)
authorized studies and design assistance to safeguard water, wastewater
and other public infrastructure systems in southern California from
earthquake damage. The Act also authorized the Corps of Engineers to
provide technical assistance for these projects.
The city of Newport Beach's water supply relies upon both imported
sources from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(MWDSC) and groundwater supplies pumped from the Orange County
Groundwater Basin, managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD).
The water system consists of the following major components: terminal
reservoir, treatment facilities, wells, booster pump stations, storage
reservoirs, transmission and distribution systems and meter facilities.
All of these systems are served by emergency operations facilities
situated in the city's Utilities Corporation Yard. The city's
wastewater system is comprised of local and collector wastewater system
elements and wastewater pump station facilities serving this coastal
community connecting to trunkline wastewater facilities operated by the
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) of which the city
is a member agency. All of these water and wastewater system components
could be vulnerable in varying degrees to potential seismic activity
and its resultant ground movement. The Newport-Inglewood fault crosses
through the western portion of the city. A major seismic event along
this fault or other nearby fault could cause significant disruption in
the city's infrastructure providing domestic water and fire protection
to the community. In addition, the potential exists for significant
property damage from fires, breaching of reservoir facilities, water
main breaks, and sewage spills to the adjacent ocean, bays and
estuaries abutting the city.
The study begins with a research and assessment phase that involves
collection and review of all known existing data and information about
the city's water and wastewater infrastructure systems. The study
concludes with the technical and economic phase that develops an
improvement plan to enhance infrastructure reliability to minimize
losses, protect public health and safety, and to avoid environmental
damage in the event of an earthquake.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. The city looks
forward to partnering with the Corps of Engineers in the development
and implementation of this program.
______
Prepared Statement of Eleanor L. Zimmerman, Mayor, Norwalk, CA
water system seismic reliability improvements
The city of Norwalk appreciates your continued support and
assistance for technical assistance in conjunction with its water
system seismic reliability program. We request that the subcommittee
appropriate $1,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 for our Phase 2 project
under the program.
The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1990 (Public Law 101-
640), authorized a study in southern California to address the
restoration of this region's public works infrastructure to full
service following major earthquakes. WRDA 1996 (Public Law 104-303)
authorized the Corps of Engineers to provide technical assistance to
public infrastructure seismic reliability projects. Federal funds are
matched by a factor of 25 percent by the local sponsor. These funds
will be utilized to design improvements identified in the seismic
reliability study conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
in 1996 entitled, the ``Southeast Los Angeles County Water Conservation
and Supply Study''--Special Study (SELAWS). This special study
evaluated the performance of water systems that serve communities in
southeast Los Angeles County, and the vulnerability of these systems to
disruption following a major earthquake. The Special Study focused on
the six water systems that serve the city of Norwalk and assessed the
ability of these systems to function adequately following a major
earthquake. The special study identified improvements to these systems
to increase their reliability and reduce damage losses. In addition, a
companion document to the Special Study report, entitled ``Capital
Improvement Program for Water System Seismic-Reliability Improvements''
was also prepared estimating the preliminary costs and proposed
schedule of implementation for the improvements. Stage 2 Technical
Assistance for Phase 1 project development was approved by Congress in
fiscal year 1998. Preparation of design related documents for Phase 1
is underway in fiscal year 1998 and will complete in fiscal year 1999.
Based on the Special Study, the Corps of Engineers concluded that
there is a need and opportunity for the seismic upgrading of the water
supply facilities for the city of Norwalk. The study concluded that
there are inadequacies and structural deficiencies in the water system
which would increase in severity after a major earthquake. Storage
capacity is inadequate; conveyance pipes are undersized, old, and
composed of brittle materials; interconnections between purveyors are
inadequate; and there is insufficient standby power to keep pumps
operating when electrical service is disrupted. Furthermore, the
evaluation indicates that the flow of water throughout the city will be
disrupted following a major earthquake because individual components of
each system are susceptible to failure, including pipeline leaks and
breakage, and valve shearing at storage facilities.
The resulting disruption will likely range from a total loss of
water to limited flow at reduced pressure. This lack of water could
lead to widespread property damage by fire.
Adequate water for fire suppression is the most important factor in
minimizing direct economic damage caused by an earthquake-induced water
system failure. The principal damage resulting from inadequate water
for fire suppression is the loss of property and the loss of business
and residential service. Other costs include repair of the damaged
water system, loss of revenue from lack of water consumption, and loss
of business revenue due to lack of adequate water. This cost is
estimated at $219 million.
To reduce the damage associated with a major earthquake, three
alternatives have been developed to enhance the ability of the water
system. The improvements in the three alternatives range in cost from
an estimated $23 million to $105 million. The $219 million in repair
costs could be reduced by an estimated $74 million to $101 million, if
these improvements are made. The proposed Phase 2 project follows upon
the current Phase 1 project and also includes the continued development
of policies and programs for enhancing emergency response, and the
design of the components needed to maximize the ability of these water
systems to function properly following a major earthquake as
recommended in the special study.
Technical assistance from the Corps of Engineers, for the Phase 2
project, will significantly improve public safety in the area and
reduce damage costs in the event of a major seismic event. Damages from
the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, which was 6.7 on the Richter Scale,
totaled over $20 billion. The Federal Government then paid billions of
dollars for emergency response and restoration costs in that area.
Similar large quakes in our region and in the proximity of Norwalk
could cause similar levels of damage and loss of life. Lives can be
saved and damages reduced through the funding and implementation of
programs such as this.
Thank you for your past support of our program. The city is
prepared to partner with the Federal Government to provide a $333,333
match from non-Federal sources. We are looking forward to your
continued support of this program.
______
Prepared Statement of Craig Perkins, Director, Environmental and Public
Works Management Department, Santa Monica, CA
The city of Santa Monica appreciates your continued support for
technical design assistance in conjunction with the water system
seismic reliability program. We request that the subcommittee
appropriate $1,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 for our stage 3 project
under the program.
The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1990 (Public Law 101-
640), authorized a study in southern California to address the
restoration of this region's public works infrastructure to full
service following major earthquakes. WRDA 1996 (Public Law 104-303)
authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to provide
technical assistance to public infrastructure seismic reliability
projects. Federal funds are matched by a factor of 25 percent by the
local sponsor. These funds will be utilized to design improvements
identified in the seismic reliability study conducted by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers in 1997 entitled, ``City of Santa Monica Water
Infrastructure Restoration Special Study, Los Angeles County,
(Reconnaissance Phase),'' and the Stage 2 work of the study currently
being conducted by the Corps. The study evaluates the performance of
the city of Santa Monica's water system and the vulnerability of the
system to disruption following a major earthquake. The special study
identifies necessary improvements to the system to increase water
reliability and reduce damage losses.
The special study concluded that there is a clear need for the
seismic upgrading of the city of Santa Monica water supply facilities.
The study points out that there are inadequacies and structural
deficiencies in the water system which would increase in severity after
a major earthquake. The deficiencies which were identified include
insufficient and unreliable local and imported water resources,
insufficient water storage capacity, old and undersized sections of the
conveyance system, inadequate interconnections with adjacent local
retailers and insufficient standby power. The vulnerability of the
city's water system was demonstrated during the Northridge earthquake
when the Metropolitan Water District supply system was disrupted and
the city had to rely entirely on groundwater pumping. Due to the recent
contamination of groundwater by MtBE (a chemical in reformulated
gasoline), the groundwater supply is now severely limited and the city
must rely upon imported water sources for over 80 percent of the water
demand. In addition, the flow of water throughout the city may be
disrupted following a major earthquake because individual components of
the system are susceptible to failure, including transmission pipe
breaks, valve shearing and failures at storage facilities.
Adequate fire suppression is the most important factor in
minimizing direct economic damage caused by an earthquake-induced water
system failure. The principal damage resulting from inadequate water
for fire suppression is the loss of property. Other potential damage
costs include repair of the damaged water system and loss of business
revenue due to lack of water service for commercial and manufacturing
activities.
In order to reduce potential damages from a Design Base Earthquake
(DBE) event, a project has been conceptually identified as a result of
the Corps of Engineers study. The projects' primary elements include
the construction of new high-capacity groundwater supply wells in the
Santa Monica Groundwater Basin to provide sufficient capacity for a
backup emergency water supply in the event of a partial or full loss of
the existing water supply sources. A parallel transmission main
facility to deliver water from the city's most important water wells in
the Charnock Sub-Basin would be included along with associated
metering, pumping and control equipment. Transmission main improvements
within the city are identified as well in order to deliver emergency
water to the city's treatment plant from the proposed new backup
groundwater supply wells.
Also provided for in the proposed project is the rehabilitation of
the city's Arcadia Water Treatment Complex in order to guarantee the
city's ability to treat and deliver a safe and dependable water supply
following a seismic emergency. The construction of groundwater
injection wells to allow replenishment of the city's groundwater
resources is also included in the plan. These facilities would utilize
off-peak water supplies delivered from the Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California. Utilization of these injection facilities would
assist in replenishment of the groundwater basins and increase the
available emergency supply from the city's wells. The proposed project
also includes the development of policies and programs for enhancing
emergency response including installation of standby emergency power
supplies and the design of the seismic protection components needed to
maximize the survivability of the water system following a major
earthquake.
Santa Monica greatly appreciates your past support of our efforts.
The city is prepared to partner with the Federal Government to provide
a $250,000 match from non-Federal sources for the requested technical
design assistance. We are looking forward to your continued support of
this critically important program.
______
Prepared Statement of Philip C. Cisneros, President, Twentynine Palms
Water District
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the Twentynine Palms
Water District is requesting $700,000 for the continued development of
the Water Infrastructure Restoration Study--Feasibility Report (Stage
2) to be conducted by the Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District--
Planning Division. The Feasibility Study Phase shall be based upon the
results of the Financial Special Study Report (Reconnaissance--Stage 1)
currently underway.
Critical information pertaining to the continued provision of water
to the inhabitants of the District in the event of a seismic event will
be supplied through this study phase. The information gained will
enable the District, the sole provider of water in a somewhat isolated
high desert area, to prepare its infrastructure for maximum service
capabilities.
The feasibility stage of the Special Study effort shall provide for
the following elements:
Groundwater Supply Reliability Analysis
A definitive groundwater supply reliability analysis shall be
conducted which shall include the development of a groundwater model
capable of emulating both groundwater flow and quality regimes for the
Twentynine Palms Groundwater Basin. Areas of the groundwater basin
subject to high mineral content of VOC contamination shall be
identified and cataloged in terms of treatment requirements under the
Safe Drinking Water Act and related Federal and State drinking water
standards. An investigation shall be made into the potential to
optimize the reliability of groundwater supplies to the District. An
assessment shall also be made in terms of alternative groundwater
supply options to augment the District's existing supplies. A draft AB
3030 Groundwater Management Plan document shall be prepared in
accordance with State of California law.
Treatment Facility Reliability Analysis
Reliability issues related to the District's new water treatment
plant, and potentially well head treatment facilities which may be
required, shall be identified. Conceptual level designs to upgrade,
expand or construct such facilities shall be prepared. The consultant
shall coordinate its efforts during this phase of the work with the
District's Engineer and consultants working on the design and
construction of the new defluoridation plant.
System Hydraulic Model Development
A hydraulic network model, utilizing an H20 Net or equivalent
software platform, shall be prepared for the District's domestic water
system. The model shall be based upon current land use conditions as
identified in the city of Twentynine Palms or the county of San
Bernardino's General Plan and any Specific Plans related to development
or redevelopment in the District's service area over a 20-year planning
horizon. The model shall be based upon existing production and
distribution conditions as a baseline level to allow the determination
of effects upon the system due to the occurrence of the Design Basis
Earthquake (DBE) event utilized in the study.
Seismic Hazard Study of Water System Facilities
A seismic hazard study shall be conducted based upon the
development of a DBE event occurring in the proximity of the District.
Both deterministic and probabilistic methodologies shall be employed to
ascertain maximum horizontal and vertical ground acceleration
parameters for use in the analysis. An assessment of the effects upon
the District's water system components shall be made in order to
establish baseline level damage conditions for use in the study.
Temporary Power Analysis
An evaluation of the District's existing stationary and portable
power generation facilities shall be conducted to determine if
sufficient generation capacity is available to provide for full backup
power capability, in the case of a broad scale grid power outage of
primary electrical power, to the District. The consultant shall take
into consideration the potential that portable generation equipment may
not be able to cross the District' service area in the event of ground
rupture conditions associated with the DBE event.
Water System Deficiency Analysis
The water system shall be analyzed to determine its potential
deficiencies related to seismic reliability following the DBE event.
Potential damages shall be identified and cataloged in a site specific
manner, based upon an assessment of ground acceleration in the
horizontal and vertical direction. The analysis shall also include a
determination of deficiencies related to power system reliability of
Southern California Edison's electrical system grids providing power to
the District's water production and treatment facilities. The hydraulic
model shall be utilized to assess the ability of the existing water
system to suppress fire events occurring on a widespread basis
following the DBE event. Specific consideration shall be given to the
potential to hydraulically isolate separate zones of the systems to
assure individual integrity in each zone.
Water System Improvement Programs
Program level conceptual designs and estimates shall be prepared to
construct retrofits and betterments to the District's water system
infrastructure to mitigate operational and structural deficiencies
identified in the water system deficiency analysis. These proposed
improvements shall be cataloged in a System Improvement Program (SIP)
utilizing a minimum of a 20-year planning horizon for planning,
designing and constructing said improvements. The location of the
proposed system improvements shall be incorporated into a Geographical
Information System template compatible with the District's GIS database
platform. The SIP shall be available in an electronic format utilizing
Microsoft Office platform elements for word processing, spreadsheets,
database and presentation formats.
Institutional and Regulatory Strategy Development
An assessment of institutional and regulatory constraints which may
present themselves at the Federal, State and regional level shall be
conducted as related to program development and implementation.
Comprehensive Emergency Response Plan
A focused and comprehensive Emergency Response Plan (ERP) shall be
prepared to optimize its effectiveness in cooperation with local,
regional, State and Federal agency support to the District. This work
shall be conducted in concert with the District's SERS (State Emergency
Response System) program.
Economic Base Study
An economic base study, employing methodologies utilized in
previous Corps Special Study efforts conducted for the cities of
Norwalk, Arcadia and Sierra Madre California shall be performed to
ascertain the benefits of the planned improvements through an avoided
cost basis economic analysis.
______
Prepared Statement of the West Chino Water District
background
The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1990 (Public Law 101-
640), authorized studies in southern California to address the
restoration of this region's public works infrastructure to assure
full-service levels following major earthquakes. This special study
would conduct a research and assessment of conditions and parameters
affecting the water system infrastructure and local water supplies
providing baseline and supplemental resources to the water systems in
West San Bernardino County and Los Angeles County, including water and
wastewater service areas of the cities of Chino, Chino Hills,
Claremont, Montclair, Upland, and the Monte Vista Water District. The
effort will also include the preparation of a special study defining
the primary elements of a Water Infrastructure Reliability program
which would complete the study efforts in fiscal year 1999.
program overview
The primary study objectives for the State 1 efforts include the
following:
Program Research and Assessment
Work under this task would involve the conduct of a Research and
Assessment phase of the Chino Basin Water Infrastructure Reliability
Study (WCB-WIRS). Research efforts would focus on the following areas:
--Identification of the Design Base Earthquake (DBE) event which will
serve as the basis for assessing seismic damage risk in the
study area.
--Data Collection for Water Infrastructure Elements to be analyzed,
including mapping, as-builts, reports, and operational data
relevant to the water and wastewater systems in the area.
--Collection of Extant Literature and Studies relative to local
groundwater conditions as they relate to faulting features and
groundwater supply conditions in the area.
--Assembling Relevant Report, Regulatory, and Study Materials from
Regional, State, and Federal agencies relevant to planned
programs affecting District water supplies.
--Developing a Compendium of Information relative to existing
emergency preparedness programs of the District and other
responsible public entities.
--Ascertaining the Nature of the Regional Power Grid serving the
study area and determining the Nidre and extent of portable and
standby power equipment serving the water infrastructure
elements under consideration.
--Conducting a Field Review and Defining System Deficiencies from the
perspective of the District's and participating agencies
Administrative, Operational, and Engineering staff.
--Researching and Evaluating the Water Master Plans and Capital
Improvement Programs relative to the study elements and
establishing a baseline for future augmentation of the CIP's
through later studies which will identify new programs and
projects.
The results of the Research and Assessment phase of the work will
be summarized in a Summary Technical Memorandum compiled with
appropriate appendices of hard copy and electronic data and information
assembled.
Preparation of Special Study
Following the completion of the Research and Assessment phase of
these efforts, a Special Study shall be prepared which define and
assess the major study elements to be considered in the establishing
the WIRS Program. The primary focus areas in the Special Study should
include but not be limited to the following:
Summary of research and assessment phase findings.
Definition of the study area setting: General characteristics;
Primary study issues; Water system infrastructure components; Water
system baseline parameters; Groundwater conditions/water supply;
Emergency response conditions; and Federal authority and
responsibility.
Assessment of without project conditions: Establishment of seismic
criteria--hazard assessment; Water system infrastructure system
evaluation criteria; and Water system assessment.
Economic analysis: Damage repair costs; Revenue impacts; Business
losses; Property loss--residential, commercial, institutional; and
Summary of Economic Damage from Design Base Earthquake.
Plan formulation: Statement of problem; Federal interest
determination; Program opportunities and constraints; Alternatives
determination; and Evaluation of alternatives.
Program conclusions and recommendations; System improvement plan;
and Emergency Response Program.
The results of the special study will be presented along with a
comprehensive appendix in a format which clearly identifies the scope
and extent of future technical assistance leading to project design.
Requested Funding
The requested funding for fiscal year 1999 for the development of
the special study for the West Chino Basin Water Infrastructure
Reliability Study is $800,000.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hi-Desert Water District
Authority.--Public Law 101-640, Public Law 104-303. Fiscal Year
1999 Funds Request $150,000. Southern California Infrastructure Study.
Project.--This study will conduct research and assessment of
conditions and parameters affecting the water system infrastructure and
local water supplies providing baseline and supplemental resources for
the area served by Hi-Desert Water District, i.e. Town of Yucca Valley
and surrounding area.
project primary objectives
1. Identify Design Base Earthquake. Geologist will identify what
level of movement will occur on specific portions of the delivery
system and storage facilities.
2. Data Collection of Water Infrastructure Elements. This will
provide a physical inventory and identify all elements of the system
and location of each element.
3. Develop Compendium of Existing Emergency Response Information.
The inventory will assist in developing a timely emergency response
procedure.
4. Ascertain the Nature of Regional Power Grid Serving Water
Infrastructure Elements. It is important to the continued service
during a seismic event that there be an inventory of where power is
located to serve the system.
5. Define System Deficiencies from the Perspective of
Administrative, Operations and Engineering Staff to Optimize
Administration and Continued Operation.
6. Research and Evaluate Water Master Plan and Capital Improvement
Program. The review of existing master plan will assist in developing
an emergency plan to assure continued service.
Background.--Hi-Desert Water District (HDWD) serves an area of 50
square miles. In June 1992, the area experienced a 7.5 earthquake with
the epic center only 6 miles from the center of the HDWD service area.
Forty percent of the delivery system was destroyed and one major
storage tank moved during the quake.
Tens of thousands of aftershocks have been experienced over the
past five and one-half years. Each has taken its toll on the system
costing the residence hundreds of thousands of capital dollars.
HDWD serves a population of nearly 25,000. Thirty-six percent of
the population are senior citizens living on a fixed income. About the
same percentage of the population are living within the Federal poverty
level.
With all the ongoing seismic activity and continued improvements
needed to protect the system from future destruction should another
major event is experienced, a plan needs to be developed to identify
the weak links in the system.
Results of the Study.--The study will identify the problem areas,
assist in the planning of the infrastructure improvements and will be a
useful tool to assist in responding to emergencies based on the end
result model that will be developed from the data gathered during the
study.
______
Prepared Statement of the Karuk Tribe of California
The Karuk Tribe of California (Karuk Tribe) is requesting that
$500,000 be added to appropriations for the Karuk Tribe as part of the
Bureau of Reclamation's budget for Klamath Basin Area Office
operations. The funds requested will enable the Karuk Tribe to continue
to government-to-government agreement signed with the Bureau of
Reclamation and other Interior agencies in November 1995. Increased
costs are due to the Karuk Tribe's dependence on water deliveries from
Bureau of Reclamation facilities (average 80 percent in summer months),
and the growing need for Tribal participation in development of an
Environmental Impact Statement beginning this up-coming fiscal year.
The Memorandum of Agreement provides for the implementation of
government-to-government responsibilities that will lead to the
operation of Reclamation facilities involving:
--Identification of Tribal Water and Fishing Rights affected by
Project Operations.
--Assessment of the impacts of Project operations on Tribal trust
resources and species of concern under the Endangered Species
Act.
--Direct and effective communications with the Tribal governments and
their authorized representatives in developing and completing
Project operations plans.
--Conducting scientific research and data collection regarding stream
flows, lake levels, water quality, fish populations, water
needs and supply forecasts, and evaluating and assessing
overall river and lake operations.
--Management decisions and actions implementing the Project
Operations Plan, including the technical evaluation of the data
used, collected and analyzed, and technical conclusions drawn
form such data.
Funds Requested:
Tribal and Project Operations Planning (Items 1, 2, and 3) $250,000
Scientific Research and Project Implementation (Items 4 &
5)...................................................... 250,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 500,000
memorandum of agreement for the government-to-government relationship
in the development of the klamath project operations plan
This Memorandum of Agreement (Agreement) provides a guide for the
implementation of the government-to-government relationship between the
United States, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation),
in coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine
Fisheries Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (these four will
hereinafter be referred to, separately and together, as the United
States), and the Klamath, Yurok, Hoopa, and Karuk Tribes (Klamath Basin
Tribes or Tribes), with respect to the development of the long-term
operations plan, the Klamath Project Operations Plan (KPOP), for
Reclamation's Klamath Project. Several meetings have been conducted
between the Tribes and the United States with regard to the KPOP. These
meetings have served to clarify the proposed structure of the
government-to-government relationship.
The United States Government has a unique legal relationship with
Native American tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution of
the United States, treaties, statutes, and court decisions. The
elements of this unique relationship include: (a) recognition of the
rights of tribes as sovereign entities; (b) recognition of the right of
tribes to delegate representation; (c) consultation with tribal
governments prior to taking actions that affect tribal governments,
rights, or trust resources; and (d) participation by tribes in planning
and managing the trust resource base. Recent expressions of the
relationship between the United States Government and Native American
tribal governments are found in President Clinton's Memorandum of April
29, 1994, and order No. 3175 of the Secretary of the Interior, issued
November 8, 1993. These documents are attached as Exhibits A and B,
respectively.
(A) Tribes as Sovereigns
The President's Memorandum and the Secretarial Order recognize the
sovereign nature of tribal governments and are intended to ensure that
the rights of sovereign tribal governments are fully respected.
A memorandum prepared by the Regional Solicitor, Pacific Southwest
Region, of the Department of the interior dated July 25, 1995, provides
the legal framework developed by the Regional Solicitor for the
guidance of the United States regarding the Tribal water rights, among
others, that may be affected by development of the KPOP and Project
operations. The Regional solicitor's memorandum describes certain
rights of the Tribes, including water and fishing rights recognized by
treaty, statute, executive order and case law, and sets out the
relative priority of the Tribes' water rights. The Regional Solicitor's
memorandum is attached as Exhibit C.
With respect to the development of the KPOP, the government-to-
government relationship involves the following:
--Identification of Tribal water rights and hunting, fishing and
rights that may be affected by Project operations.
--Assessment, in consultation with the Tribes, of the impacts of the
KPOP on Tribal trust resources and species of concern under the
Endangered Species Act, and assurance that Tribal governments'
rights and concerns are considered during the development of
the KPOP.
--Direct and effective communications with the Tribal governments and
their authorized representatives in developing and completing
the KPOP.
(B) Tribal Delegation of Authority
The Tribes have delegated certain responsibilities to the Klamath
River Inter-Tribal Fish and Water Commission (the ``KRITFWC''), which
is an inter-tribal resources management entity comprised of
representatives of each of the Tribes. The United States will
communicate and coordinate with the KRITFWC and the Tribes.
Communications will be directed to those listed on Attachment D.
(C) Consultation
Consistent with the responsibilities of Federal agencies to respect
the government-to-government relationship with tribal governments, in
developing the KPOP, the United States will consult with the Klamath
Basin Tribes prior to taking actions that affect these Tribal
governments, and will consider the comments and concerns of the Tribes
in a timely and meaningful way, before decisions are made.
A consultant has been hired to conduct the bulk of the technical
work related to developing the KPOP. The consultant will communicate
with the Tribes and their representatives, seek data and other
information from the Tribes, and include the comments and program of
the Tribes in its analysis related to the KPOP. The United States will
consider the data and information submitted by the Tribes and will
either incorporate the data and information, or provide reasons for not
doing so.
Consultation with respect to the development of the KPOP will take
the following form:
--The United States, together with the consultant, will meet with the
Tribes and provide copies of working documents for tribal
review and comment to further the government-to-government
relationship.
--The United States will communicate on a monthly or more frequent
basis with the designated representatives of each Tribe.
Written communications and reports shall be sent to the
representatives of the Tribes and the United States, as
identified in Attachment D.
(D) Tribal Management and Participation in the KPOP Process
Water resources management involves extensive decision making.
Building Tribal participation into agency planning and decision making
is a necessary, foundational component of the government-to-government
relationship and future decision making, as it is essential to
incorporate the perspective that only the Tribes can provide regarding
the impact of management decisions on Tribes and their resources.
The KPOP is being developed and will be adopted by Reclamation as a
means of managing water resources within its authority related to the
Klamath Project. The Tribes have responsibility for the management of
trust resources within their authority. Tribal involvement in the
development of the KPOP is an important component of the government-to-
government relationship. This involvement of the Tribes is a major
means of assuring that the development of the KPOP reflects the United
states' trust obligation and Tribal rights.
With respect to the KPOP, Tribal involvement will include the
following:
--Reclamation and the Tribes will, to the maximum extent practicable,
coordinate their resource management activities as they affect
on another.
--Tribal involvement will include but not be limited to conducting
scientific research and data collection regarding stream flows,
like levels, water quality, fish populations, water needs and
supply forecasts, and evaluating the assessing overall river
and lake operations.
--The Tribes will provide data and input to Reclamation in a timely
fashion for development of the KPOP.
--The Tribes will be involved in the technical evaluation of the data
used, collected and analyzed, and technical conclusions drawn
from such data.
--The Tribes will participate with the United States regarding
management decisions and actions implementing the KPOP that
affect Tribal trust resources.
--The United States will seek Tribal involvement at the earliest time
to assure an opportunity for the Tribes to provide input
regarding data collection, analysis and management decisions.
In developing and implementing the KPOP, Reclamation, consistent
with its trust responsibility, will protect Tribal rights, including
the Tribes' water rights and rights to other trust resources.
(E) Effect of Agreement
This agreement is to provide for the effective implementation of
the government-to-government relationship between the parties, and is
in furtherance of the responsibility of the United States to protect
Tribal trust resources. It does not by itself create, change, or alter
any rights of any of the parties to the Agreement, nor by itself does
it create an independent right subject to Judicial review. Nothing in
this Agreement is intended to or shall have the effect of constraining
or limiting the United States in carrying out its obligations under
law, including its trust obligations. All communications under this
Agreement are in furtherance of federal responsibilities.
Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or shall apply to the
relations of the parties in connection with the Klamath Basin Water
Rights Adjudication pending before the State of Oregon.
This Agreement may be modified or amended upon the mutual consent
of the parties.
This agreement may be executed in counterparts.
______
Prepared Statement of David Johnson, Director of Public Works, City of
Santa Barbara, Ca
As your distinguished Subcommittee writes the fiscal year 1999
Energy and Water Resources Appropriations bill, I would like to bring
the Santa Barbara County Streams, Mission Creek flood control project
to your attention.
The Santa Barbara County Streams, Mission Creek flood control
project, which runs through downtown Santa Barbara, would construct a
natural bottom channel with vegetated stabilized sides. The City of
Santa Barbara paid for an extensive Alternatives Analysis that defined
the project. It has been approved by the Santa Barbara City Council,
the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and local environmental
and business representatives.
The Mission Creek project will improve protection for 94
residential and 45 commercial properties in the 100-year flood plain.
Funding in the amount of $129,000 was recommended for the feasibility
study in the President's fiscal year 1999 Budget Request. I
respectfully request that your distinguished Subcommittee maintain that
amount in the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill.
______
Prepared Statement of David Skidmore, Project Manager for the Santa
Cruz Joint Venture
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the members of the
subcommittee for inviting me to submit testimony on behalf of the Santa
Cruz Joint Venture (SCJV) regarding the In Situ Technology Development
program managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.
I would also like to commend the committee for its support in
providing funds, $1,300,000, for fiscal year 1998 to conduct the final
phase of research and complete the field test.
As you know, President Clinton exercised his line-item veto
authority and rejected the appropriation of $1.3 million. That funding
would have provided $300,000 for Bureau oversight, $1,000,000 for the
field test, and would have required an additional cost-sharing
contribution by the SCJV of 25 percent. The reason provided by the
President was that enough research had been accomplished and that the
funding wasn't justified.
However, it had been the judgement of the SCJV, and others closely
associated with the management of the project, that an additional year
of research related to the circulation of mining fluids and a
determination of the economic viability of the technology was necessary
to meet the original goals of the research program. There was certainly
no intent to simply extend the project. It has always been in our
interest to complete the program as soon as possible and, if feasible,
commence a separate commercial-scale in situ mining operation.
The in situ project has been, from the beginning, an agency-
initiated program with agency oversight and separate agency research.
Its purpose was to introduce, test and validate technology that could
produce copper metal, specifically from copper oxide minerals--with
minimum environmental impacts--without open-pits, underground mines, or
smelting! The congress first provided funding in fiscal year 1986 to
the Bureau of Mines to examine the concept. In fiscal year 1987,
funding was provided to develop the ``design manual'' which outlined
the goals and objectives of a research program. It was at this point
that the agency sought out the SCJV to participate in the research
program. It was understood from the beginning that this was a federal
project. None of the research data was to be the exclusive property of
the SCJV. All information would be shared publicly.
Congress concluded in 1987 that the objectives of the program were
in the national interest and the field test was funded for fiscal year
1988. The appropriations committee determined that the program would be
cost-shared at 75 percent federal and 25 percent non-federal--using a
private mineral deposit for the research program. We then accepted
those terms, despite our concerns about a lack of multi-year commitment
on the part of the federal government.
In each successive year, the Congress has taken the initiative to
continue the project.
The recent veto report from the President stated that funds were
included in the fiscal year 1996 appropriation bill to ``close out''
the project. That is inaccurate. As the congress was closing out the
Bureau of Mines in fiscal year 1996, funds were included in the bill to
continue the in situ project `` * * * through a logical completion
point to ensure that the federal investment is not lost.'' Additional
funds were subsequently added by the congress in fiscal year 1997 and
fiscal year 1998 to reach that logical completion point.
The veto report also noted, accurately, that the project
expenditures are under original budget estimates. This is because both
partners have been very conscious of costs and have guided a research
program on new technology carefully through a very lengthy and
uncertain permitting requirement with the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, including input from EPA. We were also faced
with comprehensive testing in the Environmental Assessment (EA) to
verify environmental protection. As a result, the research effort has
taken longer than expected, but costs are still well under original
estimates.
After the veto by the President, several news reports suggested
that the project was halted because of environmental concerns. There
were even quotes from some groups insinuating that causal relationship
and claiming credit. The fact is that the SCJV sponsored one of the
most comprehensive and elaborate public information efforts ever
associated with a federally funded project. Additionally, the Arizona
DEQ had an extensive public comment strategy as part of the permitting
process and the Bureau of Mines had two well-publicized public
meetings--and an extensive mailing for comments--as part of the formal
Environmental Assessment. Not one negative comment, or ``concern,'' was
expressed by anyone. Not one!
As a result of the President's veto, the research program is being
terminated. Comments in the ``veto report'' to the effect that the
private sector partner might continue the program independently reveal
a thorough misunderstanding of the program and the partnership
relationship. Additionally, the prospect of a Supreme Court action
overturning the veto is months away and speculative. As a consequence,
the final piece of the puzzle--data as to conclusive economic
feasibility--will remain elusive.
However, we are pleased to report that virtually all of the
technical goals of the project were met. We encountered numerous
technical problems related to adapting oil well technology to the in
situ mining of a deep undisturbed ore body. The unanticipated obstacles
were studied and resolved, adding significantly not only to the
knowledge of the technology, but also to the efficiencies of research
instruments and methods employed. Ultimately, thirty-five thousand
pounds of copper were recovered during the test phase, demonstrating
unequivocally that copper can be mined using this technology.
Of equal, if not greater, importance is the assurance of
environmental protection demonstrated in the tests. This was evaluated
in the formal NEPA process conducted by the agency. And, after nearly
two years of injection of the acid solution, no undesirable or
unanticipated effects have been detected in the monitor well system.
The project was also valuable in establishing a permitting pathway
for in situ mining with the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality. It was a lengthy and complex procedure with a new department,
but it answered questions and established procedures, protocols and
parameters that are becoming standards in the industry. Development of
a closure plan for in situ mining will also be a first for the
industry.
One of the unstated benefits of the research is the ``spinoff''
applications to other water-related disciplines. The technology can be
utilized in environmental clean-up in the containment and remediation
of deep groundwater contaminants, or in other efforts to manipulate
sub-surface flows. The committee has included Report language in the
past to encourage the Bureau of Reclamation to explore the
opportunities to utilize the technology in applicable programs. We
would strongly recommend that the committee continue to encourage the
Bureau, and other government agencies, to apply the valuable knowledge
accumulated over this ten year effort.
Mr. Chairman, the federal and non-federal managers have available
funds from previous appropriations to meet expected project close-out
obligations. We believe sufficient funds are on hand. However,
negotiations with the Arizona DEQ have not yet begun, so long-term
closure and monitoring requirements, and costs, are not yet fully
determined.
We are in the process of completing a closure plan which we will
submit to the Arizona DEQ by the end of April. The plan will include
measures to ensure protection of the overlying aquifer by continued use
of the monitor well system. We will then begin negotiations on the
plan. Anticipating that our proposed plan is generally acceptable to
DEQ, the closure operations could last 4 to 6 years. In keeping with
project agreements, the close-out costs are apportioned 75 percent
federal, and 25 percent non-federal.
Post-injection pumping of the well field to reduce the copper
bearing leach solutions was completed. The SXEW plant and other surface
facilities are being ``mothballed,'' and on-site personnel and
operations are all but terminated. Only monitoring and closure
activities will continue until the final closure is approved by Arizona
DEQ.
The Bureau has the further responsibility of technology transfer.
The final reports will be written and disseminated during this calendar
year.
Mr. Chairman, if the Supreme Court should overturn the President's
line-item veto authority, it should be clear that the in situ project
is being closed-out and terminated. The $1 million which was
appropriated for the project for fiscal year 1998 would obviously not
be reinstated for the field test. And, although it was the original
intent that the funds be cost-shared by the non-federal partner, that
would no longer be applicable. The SCJV would not be, in any way, the
recipient or beneficiary of those funds. However, the funds should
remain available within the Bureau's research program to cover longer
term close-out costs and liability.
Those funds could also be utilized within the Bureau's research
effort to look at applications of the in situ technology to the cleanup
and protection of groundwater. In this way, the very significant
federal investment could be more fully recaptured.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on the nature of a
federal/non-federal cost-sharing partnership in a program of this kind.
In news articles about the veto, the project was sometimes
characterized as ``corporate welfare'' or ``pork.'' These misplaced
comments come from individuals who demonstrate ignorance of the history
of the in situ project. They also undermine the potential of generating
interest in the private sector to participate in research programs with
the federal government in the future.
This research program was underway for two years--and was advanced
and funded by congress--before there was any decision to even conduct a
field test. After the ``Design Manual'' was funded and completed by the
Bureau of Mines, the agency approached the SCJV because we had
ownership of ore bodies that fit the characteristics required by the
research.
We were very wary of any participation with the federal government
under any terms. Although we would be expected to make a commitment to
see the program through, the government exempted itself from any
commitment to future appropriations. The government could simply decide
to terminate the program at any point, regardless of the investment of
public funds or the expenditure of private funds.
In fact, that is exactly what happened! Our fears were indeed
realized. After ten years and a total of $15,508,000 million for the
field test by the Bureau, and an SCJV expenditure of $5,169,201, the
President simply said, ``enough.'' The private sector ``partner'' was
never consulted. The important, low cost and final increment was vetoed
and the critical information about the viability of the technology was
simply lost. And, ironically, a very promising mining technology that
provided the level of environmental protection that is publicly
championed by this administration might also be lost.
Mr. Chairman, in joining a federally funded program, a company
gives up whatever privacy or proprietary rights it might otherwise
have. Inevitably, it provides international and domestic competitors
with an uncomfortable amount of information about its holdings and
operations. We participated in a joint effort that was often described
as a ``model,'' but it may ultimately be perceived negatively
throughout the private sector.
We sincerely commend the congress for its annual support and
willingness to judge the program on its merits. The support by members
of the Arizona congressional delegation has been bi-partisan and very
strong. Former Senator Dennis DeConcini, former Congressman Morris
Udall, Rep. Jim Kolbe, Rep. Ed Pastor, and Rep. J.D. Hayworth have been
particularly active in taking the lead for the project.
We would also commend the professionals in the Bureau of Mines and
the Bureau of Reclamation, particularly Steve Swan, the project
manager, for close cooperation with me and other non-federal managers
and for striving always to serve the public interest.
Again, Mr. Chairman, our thanks to you, the members of the
committee, and your professional staff for all of their time and
interest.
______
Prepared Statement of Steve Miklos, Mayor, City of Folsom, CA
Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the committee, my name
is Steve Miklos and I am Mayor of the City of Folsom, California. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak today regarding the City of
Folsom's Water Quality and Storm Drainage Improvement Project. This
project is vitally important to our city and to water quality in our
region, and it is my hope that the committee will view favorably our
request. Specifically, we request that the Congress provide $500,000
under the Corps of Engineers, General Investigations, in fiscal year
1999 for technical assistance to the City of Folsom for water quality-
related improvements to the City's storm drainage system. The authority
for this action can be found in Section 503 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996.
The City of Folsom has committed over $2 million in local funds to
storm drainage improvements throughout the community. While this work
has greatly improved storm drainage in certain areas, additional work
is still needed to provide further protection against flooding,
property damage and the degradation of water quality in the Sacramento
River watershed. Recent hydrology studies suggest that the existing
storm drainage systems should be upgraded to handle heavier and
sustained water runoff. Left unresolved, these storm drainage problems
will continue to pose a threat to water quality in the American River
and the Sacramento River watershed.
While our drainage infrastructure in many parts of Folsom has
remained relatively unchanged for many years, our city has changed
dramatically in the last decade. Folsom was once a small town at the
edge of the Sierra Nevada foothills. Our population has approximately
tripled and our city is one of the fastest growing in the state in
terms of both population and corporate and industry presence. Our
city's infrastructure has not kept pace with needs, creating a
potentially hazardous situation with respect to the American River
which runs through the heart of Folsom. As the committee is well aware,
the American River is a critical part of the Sacramento River
watershed, with water flowing through the Delta and ultimately into the
San Francisco Bay. The importance of maintaining and improving American
River water quality cannot be underestimated, and we believe this
project is an important part of overall efforts to ensure the
protection of the watershed.
The City of Folsom has identified $1 million in design and
inspection work that needs to be accomplished during fiscal year 1999
in four separate areas of the City. Work will be carried out in the
City's historic district, which dates back to the gold rush days of the
mid-1800's, and several other areas immediately adjacent to the
American River.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the City of Folsom, I thank you for the
opportunity to testify regarding the City of Folsom's Water Quality and
Storm Drainage Improvement Project. We sincerely hope you and your
committee will provide funding as I previously outlined, and we thank
you for your assistance.
______
Prepared Statement of Dennis M. Diemer, General Manager, East Bay
Municipal Utility District, Oakland, CA
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the East Bay Municipal Utility District
(EBMUD), I request that this statement be included as part of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development's fiscal year 1999
appropriations hearing record on the U.S. Corps of Engineers budget.
EBMUD is requesting that the Subcommittee approve an appropriation
of $4 million to permit the U.S. Corps of Engineers to continue
participating in a 50-percent cost-shared cleanup and environmental
restoration of the abandoned Penn Mine site in Calaveras County,
California. This is supported by the State of California, the
California Water Commission, and other stakeholders who consider this
project an important step in the effort to correct environmental
threats created over several decades for which no responsible party
exists. The request is made pursuant to Section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996, which authorizes the Corps of
Engineers to provide up to a 65-percent cost share to conduct aquatic
ecosystem restoration projects.
This project will serve as a national model to respond to other
similar sites that are scattered throughout the country and which are
concentrated throughout the West. Polluted runoff from abandoned
hardrock mines poses serious ecological threats to water quality,
aquatic habitat, and other environmental resources. The history of the
Penn Mine site vividly illustrates the importance of developing a model
that will allow a cost-effective solution to be implemented at the
numerous abandoned mine sites that threaten our aquatic ecosystems.
Under Section 206, federal funding is authorized only for those
projects that will improve the quality of the environment, are in the
public interest, and are cost effective. Last year, Congress approved
funding for the abandoned Penn Mine site based on the anticipated
benefits to the aquatic ecosystem and the ability to implement the
restoration plan of action in a timely manner. To date, we have begun
the process of implementing a cleanup and environmental restoration
plan. Working with the Corps of Engineers, EBMUD and the State of
California have completed the Proposed Remediation Plan and have
already initiated preliminary cleanup plan implementation. The key
activities we have initiated include: preliminary cleanup and
restoration design; obtaining the necessary federal and state permits;
development of water quality monitoring plans; development of
mitigation plans; and completion of temporary road access construction.
Funding for fiscal year 1999 is vital to the success and timely
completion of this project. The request for $4 million in federal
assistance represents the final phase of federal assistance. This
assistance will ensure that the site cleanup can be completed within
our projected deadline of December 1999. Among the planned activities
for fiscal year 1999 are: removal of approximately 408,000 cubic yards
of waste material; construction of a landfill in which to dispose the
excavated waste material; soil application over areas disturbed by
waste excavation; and revegetation of the site with native grasses.
EBMUD and the State of California have taken the necessary steps
that are required under Section 206 by entering into binding agreements
to meet the obligations to provide the non-federal share of the
project's construction costs as well as site rehabilitation and runoff
monitoring costs associated with the project.
EBMUD is a public agency responsible for providing water supply and
wastewater treatment services to more than 1.2 million people of the
East Bay in California, including residents of Oakland and Berkeley,
stretching south to Castro Valley and north to Crockett. EBMUD's
principal source of water is supplied by the Mokelumne River, which is
located in Calaveras County, California. As part of its watershed
buffer zone to protect this water supply, EBMUD property includes an
area that is contiguous to an abandoned hard rock mine known as Penn
Mine. This abandoned copper and zinc mine sits along the upper reaches
of EBMUD's Camanche Reservoir.
The mine was opened in 1861, and its periods of major activity
occurred between 1899 and 1919 at the direction of the federal
government. It was also operated during World War II to support the
nation's demand for strategic metals. When the mine ceased operations
after World War II, it was left in a state of disrepair and abandoned
as uneconomic. Based on known records, beginning in the 1930's heavy
metals, such as copper and zinc, were discharged from the mine site
into the river, killing all aquatic life for 40 miles downstream.
Despite the end of active mining in the late 1940's, environmental
damage continued because of more than 250,000 cubic yards of mine waste
consisting of unprocessed ore and mill tailings, covering 15 acres.
Although EBMUD was never involved in the mining activities, nor has
it benefitted in any way from the mining activities, EBMUD's Good
Samaritan efforts have created an untenable and inequitable situation
whereby EBMUD and the State of California are being asked to pay for
the site's cleanup. Specifically, with the history of the site and
federal involvement, as well as the importance of having a proven
cleanup plan that could be used elsewhere, it is only reasonable that a
cost sharing arrangement be made available to ensure that EBMUD is not
asked to shoulder the entire cleanup burden for something for which it
had no responsibility.
Responding to the State of California's request, EBMUD began a
cooperative program in 1978 to minimize the adverse effects of the mine
site. Several reconstructed channels and holding ponds were created on
the Penn Mine site. EBMUD, acting as a Good Samaritan, constructed Mine
Run Dam Reservoir on its property that was experiencing acid mine
drainage runoff which was then entering the Mokelumne River. Mine Run
Dam Reservoir effectively served as a final defensive line to ensure
that mine drainage would be controlled and treated to avoid
uncontrolled fish kills and other ecosystem degradation. These actions
contained about 90 percent of the drainage and, most importantly,
prevented acidic runoff from entering the river between 1987 and 1992.
There were no reported fish kills with the operation of the EBMUD
facility.
In 1993, EBMUD took several steps to meet water quality concerns of
federal regulators, including developing a plan to divert and treat
potential overflows from the site. In addition, EBMUD installed a batch
treatment system to neutralize the toxic mine drainage and implemented
a pumping operation to ensure that mine drainage would not overflow and
react with mine wastes, thereby creating serious environmental threats.
As a result of these actions, more than 15 million gallons of polluted
runoff have been treated, resulting in greater than 98 percent removal
of metals from water released from the site. Based on monitoring data,
this temporary action has reduced Penn Mine metals loading to
background levels.
EBMUD, in cooperation with federal, state, environmental and other
stakeholders, has developed a plan of action to remediate the site and
return it to its original landscape condition. After much study and
review, a cost-effective cleanup plan embodying environmental
restoration and protection components was accepted. The U.S. EPA, the
Committee to Save the Mokelumne River, the California Sportfishing
Protection Alliance, the State Water Resources Control Board, the
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, and EBMUD signed
an agreement to accept the preferred alternative cleanup plan. The
Environmental Impact Report identifying the final cleanup plan was
certified by the State of California and EBMUD in February 1997.
The fiscal year 1998 appropriations for the Corps of Engineers
included $1 million toward the Penn Mine site cleanup and environmental
restoration effort. EBMUD, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality
Control Board, and the Corps of Engineers have all agreed that Corps of
Engineers' experience would greatly support the restoration work for
the project. To this end, an aggressive action plan has been developed
identifying specific tasks for the Corps of Engineers' involvement in
the project in fiscal year 1998: environmental documentation;
preliminary restoration plan design; implementation of a demonstration
restoration project; and purchase and storage of soil amendments. All
parties involved in the cleanup and restoration activities are
anticipating the Corps of Engineers' work elements to be underway by
April 1998.
Because the site was created to support national objectives, and in
some instances activities were directly related to federal contracts,
it is only reasonable that federal assistance be provided to support
cleanup plan implementation. It is important to reiterate that despite
the fact that EBMUD never created the situation or benefitted from the
mining activities, it has expended a considerable amount of time and
resources. The continued cleanup and environmental restoration
activities will support ongoing efforts to develop a model that will
demonstrate successful abandoned mine cleanups can be undertaken
through consensus-based, cooperative processes in a cost-effective and
environmentally sensitive manner.
We therefore strongly request that the Subcommittee provide $4
million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fiscal year 1999 budget
that will represent the final federal share of this 50 percent cost-
shared cleanup program at the abandoned Penn Mine.
______
Prepared Statement of Melissa Paulson, Mayor, Town of Corte Madera, CA
The Town of Corte Madera, California requests that the Subcommittee
support the current budget request in fiscal year 1999 to complete the
Feasibility Report for the San Clemente Creek Tidal Storm Damage
Reduction Study. The project is listed under Marin County Shoreline--
San Clemente Creek
The Town of Corte Madera is located on San Francisco Bay just north
of the Golden Gate Bridge. The Town's location on San Francisco Bay has
placed it at the mercy of serious flooding from high tides. This
flooding occurs in the area adjacent to San Clemente Creek and is
caused by a combination of ground subsidence, high tides and storm
water runoff. Tidal flooding can even occur in dry weather and is
predicted to increase with the passage of time because the area is
settling, as the bay mud which lies underground continues to
consolidate. Recently, the flooding has been especially bad, even
closing U.S. Highway 101, due to ``El Nino'' storms.
The Town of Corte Madera is committed to maintaining the
community's safety and quality of life. To that end, the Town and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers negotiated a Cost Sharing Agreement to
conduct a Feasibility Study to define the flooding problem and to
develop a plan for Congressional action.
The Town Council has approved the Cost Sharing Agreement and has
paid its full share of all local costs.
With the assistance of the Subcommittee in the past, the Town has
secured funding to initiate the Feasibility Study. This year, $50,000
is included in the President's fiscal year 1999 Budget to complete the
Feasibility Report.
I respectfully request that you support a fiscal year 1999 budget
allocation that is included in the current budget request for the Marin
County Shoreline--San Clemente Creek Study.
Thank you very much for your continuing support for this important
project.
______
Prepared Statement of Barbara J. Ferraro, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, CA
As your distinguished Subcommittee writes the fiscal year 1999
Energy and Water Resources Appropriations bill, I would like to bring a
very important environmental restoration project to your attention.
The Corps of Engineers and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes have
been working on a cost-sharing feasibility study to investigate Federal
improvements to restore pristine environmental areas along the Pacific
coastline since 1995. The President's fiscal year 1999 Budget Request
does not contain any money to continue the feasibility study. Funding
is necessary so that the feasibility study can be completed next year.
If this item remains unfunded, the Federal monies and local matching
funds that have been spent to date would be wasted, since the project
could not be completed without this support.
I would like to take this opportunity to request that your
distinguished Subcommittee include $300,000 in the fiscal year 1999
Budget Request for the completion of the feasibility study. The City of
Rancho Palos Verdes is prepared to commit their portion of the cost-
share to complete the study next year.
The area along the Rancho Palos Verdes coastline that is being
studied has been severely degraded as a result of landslide movement of
material and coastal erosion causing sediment and continuous turbidity
that has buried sensitive habitat. The study involves investigations to
define landslide and erosion relationships, impacts on the environment
and potential restoration benefits. This project should be considered
as essential mitigation for large local port projects.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this request.
______
Prepared Statement of Merv George, Jr., Chairman, Hoopa Valley Tribe
On behalf of the Hoopa Valley Tribe of California, I express our
appreciation for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the
fiscal year 1999 Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) budget. A summary of our
fiscal year 1999 funding request follows:
--Support Administration's position that existing laws provide
authority to support Trinity River Division fish and wildlife
management and restoration activities.
--Request that $13,000,000 be provided for Trinity River fishery
management requirements within the Trinity River Division of
the Central Valley Project for continuing fish and wildlife
management programs of tribal, state, Federal, and local
entities and for the Comprehensive Co-Management Agreement
between Hoopa Valley Tribe and BOR.
--Support proposed funding increase for the Klamath Project and
request an additional $900,000 for the Karuk and Klamath
Tribes.
--Request $175,000 from the General Activities Planning budget for a
feasibility study for upgrading the Lewiston generator, and for
Trinity River green sturgeon and Pacific Lamprey population
studies.
--Support the Native American Affairs proposed budget and request an
increase of $1,000,000 for additional assistance to Indian
tribes.
background
The Trinity River in northern California is the largest tributary
to the Klamath River, the second largest river system in California.
Since time immemorial, the Klamath Basin provided sustenance to Native
Americans of the region. The Klamath River Basin is the aboriginal
territory of Hoopa Valley, Karuk, Klamath, and Yurok Tribes. Further,
the Klamath River was fundamental to the economic health of northern
California providing viable recreational and commercial salmon
fisheries.
In 1963, BOR completed construction of the Trinity River Division
of the Central Valley Project (CVP). The Trinity River Division
provides an estimated fourteen percent of the total water yielded by
the CVP.
Shortly after completion of the Trinity Dam, and subsequent
diversion of up to 90 percent of the stream flows at the diversion
point (near Lewiston, California) from the Trinity River, the fishery
began to seriously decline. Through the 1980's, corresponding declines
of up to 80 percent of the salmon and steelhead populations occurred.
In response to dramatic declines in Trinity fish stocks, the Secretary
of Interior approved development of a flow evaluation study in 1981 to
determine stream flow needs for fish restoration. Further, Congress
recognized the seriousness of the problem, and enacted the Trinity
River Restoration Act (Public Law 98-541, 1984) which, with subsequent
amendments, authorized approximately $70,000,000 in an attempt to
reverse the decline of the fishery resources within the Trinity River
Basin. Moreover, the downward trend in Trinity fish populations is best
reflected by recent listing of coho salmon under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) and proposed listings of steelhead and chinook fish stocks of
the Klamath/Trinity Rivers.
While much work has been accomplished to date, it is recognized
that continual monitoring will be necessary to provide insight on
status of resources, evaluation of restorative measures, and
recommendations for further restoration. Primary among the scientific
achievements to date has been the development of in-stream flow
criteria which quantify the benefits to salmonids of retained flows in
the Trinity Basin. These criteria, developed over the entire course of
the Restoration Program, provide a basis for the Secretary's flow
decision, due in fiscal year 1999. These criteria are not static,
continual monitoring shall be necessary to evaluate the
interrelationship between flow volume and timing and the influence on
fishery habitat.
In spite of many years of research into Trinity River ecosystem
processes, considerable uncertainty persists in regard to downstream
impacts of water releases from Lewiston Dam. These uncertainties are to
be addressed via an Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) under the direction
of the Interior Secretary. Long-term monitoring and research are
essential to the AMP, and would measure how well river ecosystem health
objectives identified in the Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study are
met.
narrative justification and funding requests
1. The Tribe is in agreement with the Administration's legal
conclusions contained in the fiscal year 1999 Budget Justification and
Annual Performance Plan--Trinity River Division--that existing
authorities provide ample justification for expenditures on fish and
wildlife restoration within the Trinity River. The 1955 Act creating
the Trinity River Division, Trinity River Fish and Wildlife Restoration
Act as amended, and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA)
mandate that the Department of the Interior restore and maintain fish
and wildlife populations with CVP funds. Furthermore, Congress
acknowledged the reserved fishing rights of the Hoopa Valley Tribe in
the CVPIA.
Therefore, the Tribe supports the legal conclusions contained in
the fiscal year 1999 Budget Justification and Annual Performance Plan
for the Bureau of Reclamation.
2. Funding Request for Fish and Wildlife Management. While the
fiscal year 1999 Bureau of Reclamation Budget Justification and Annual
Performance Plan provides supportive language for the Trinity River
Division, it proposes to reduce the fiscal year 1999 Trinity Division
Fish and Wildlife Management and Development by 53 percent compared to
fiscal year 1998 funding ($6.383 million), the largest reduction of any
Division in the CVP. If implemented, the proposed budget will result in
significant reduction or elimination of critical programs in which the
Trinity River Restoration Program's $70,000,000 were invested over the
past decade. Furthermore, the proposed budget would eliminate most of
the benefits expected from the Secretary's upcoming Trinity River flow
decision and implementation of the AMP.
In January 1998, agencies responsible for managing the Trinity
River fishery resources determined that $13,000,000 was needed annually
to fund a comprehensive management approach within the Trinity River
Basin in order to restore the fishery resources to pre-dam levels. The
Hoopa Tribe participated in the development of this effort and
recommends that it be fully funded in fiscal year 1999.
Therefore, the Tribe requests that the Committee provide
$13,000,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and Development within the
Trinity River Division budget.
Further, the Tribe requests that the Committee continue support for
the Co-Management Agreement between the Tribe and BOR at a level of
$2,500,000 for implementation in fiscal year 1997. The requested
funding would enable Hoopa to continue its involvement in water project
operations planning, environmental impact analysis, hatchery
investigations, fisheries management, and facilitate inter-governmental
forums to accelerate resource restoration through unified management
actions.
In its sixth year, the Co-Management Agreement between Hoopa and
BOR has contributed not only to the fulfillment of the Federal trust
responsibility to Native Americans, but has also served to bring
Federal, State, Tribal, and local management agencies together into a
constructive and cooperative forum for managing fishery and water
resources within the Trinity River Basin.
3. Support proposed funding increase for the Klamath Project and
request an additional $900,000 for the Karuk and Klamath Tribes. Both
Tribes are involved with the restoration and protection of Trust
resources in the Klamath River including active technical and policy
involvement in water quality and quantity studies designed to improved
the ecosystem health of the upper Klamath Basin. Endemic suckers are
listed under the ESA in upper Klamath Lake as well as the depressed
status of salmon and steelhead would benefit from increased Tribal
involvement.
4. Request $175,000 from the General Activities Planning budget for
a feasibility study for upgrading the Lewiston Hydro-power generator,
green sturgeon and Pacific Lamprey studies. Of the flow recommendations
for future management of the Trinity River Division, it is expected
that the decision of the Secretary of the Interior will result in
reduced diversions of Trinity River flows into the CVP. While being
greatly beneficial for the Trinity River fishery resources and
upholding the Federal trust obligations to Indian tribes, the decision
will likely result in reducing the amount of electricity presently
being generated by diversion of Trinity River flows. To compensate for
this situation, the Tribe requests that $100,000 be provided from
Reclamation's General Activities Planning budget for determining the
feasibility of increasing the capacity of the Lewiston generators in
anticipation of the increased flows in the Trinity River. Another
expected benefit of increased generation of electricity from the
Lewiston generator is the possibility of using its revenues to pay for
future fish and wildlife restoration activities within the Trinity
River Basin, thereby reducing the long-term costs to the Federal
Government.
In addition, the Tribe requests that $75,000 be provided for
conducting population and survival studies for Trinity River green
sturgeon and Pacific Lamprey, both of which are important species to
the Klamath and Trinity River Indian tribes and have been negatively
impacted by the construction and management of the Trinity River
Division.
5. Support the Native American Affairs proposed budget request and
an increase of $1,000,000 for additional assistance to Indian tribes.
The Reclamation Native American Affairs program has proven to be a very
beneficial program for both the Federal Government and Indian tribes
while trying to resolve tribal and Federal water and fishery management
issues. Without a doubt, the Native American Affairs Program has been
instrumental in reducing the possibility of costly litigation and
disputes between Reclamation and Indian tribes.
The Tribe fully supports the continuation of the Native American
Affairs Program and requests that the budget be increased by $1,000,000
in order to provide further assistance to Indian tribes and Reclamation
offices.
results anticipated
Trinity Restoration Program.--Effective protection of fisheries,
critical to the Hoopa Valley and Yurok tribes and the economic
stability of the fishery dependent communities of northern California
and southern Oregon, is promoted through collective forums and habitat
improvement actions of the Trinity Restoration Program. Identification
and implementation of specific remedies and monitoring of fishery
trends are expected results of Restoration Program.
While many on-the-ground achievements have already been realized,
many critical elements have yet to be completed. Among the expected
outcomes of the Program for 1998 is the completion of the Environmental
Impact Statement to assist the Secretary with implementation of in-
river flows required for full restoration of salmonid populations in
the Trinity River as mandated under Public Law 102-575. This decision,
originally mandated for fiscal year 1998, was delayed due to incomplete
environmental impact analysis. It is now anticipated that completed
environmental documentation shall be available to support the
Secretary's Decision expected in fiscal year 1999.
Tribal/Reclamation Co-Management Agreements and Native American
Affairs Program.--The Co-Management Agreements will continue to assist
in the coordination of Federal, State, Tribal and local activities
(management and research) impacting salmon fisheries and salmon habitat
of the Klamath and Trinity rivers. By illustration, accomplishments
under this agreement in fiscal year 1997, included maintenance of data
collection and analysis programs critical to the integrated management
of the Klamath and Trinity fishery resources. Both Reclamation and the
Tribe agree that a wise investment has been made to develop a
comprehensive foundation for fishery restoration. This foundation
includes on-the-ground restoration work, assembly of scientific data on
fisheries and habitat, and the integration of multiple jurisdictions
affecting salmon survival. It is now important to insure that this
investment provides the desired results of a fully restored Trinity
River Basin.
The General Activities Planning budget request will assist the
Tribes, agencies and private interests to develop opportunities for
compensating for the loss of electricity caused by increased Trinity
River flows. The Green Sturgeon and Pacific Lamprey population and
survival studies will provide some of the first information for
development long-term management programs for the species. While green
sturgeon and Pacific Lamprey are important species to Indian tribes,
and their maintenance is part of the Federal Government's trust
obligations, limited funding has prevented the development of
management programs for the stocks.
conclusion
Although Hoopa's relationship with BOR has improved significantly
in recent years, it is clear that the fishery management problems
associated with the Central Valley Project and Klamath Project
operations persist. Resolution of these issues may only be assured
through the continued commitment by the Tribe and BOR to ongoing co-
management of these important resources.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony regarding
BOR's fiscal year 1998 budget. I am available to discuss these matters
with you in more detail at your convenience.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to this
Subcommittee, and extend our sincere appreciation for your past support
of this community's efforts to protect the citizens and properties in
the capital city of California. In our continuing efforts to protect
the Sacramento metropolitan area, Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
(SAFCA), and its member agencies, supports the following Federal
appropriations:
American River (Common Elements).--$26.0 million for funding of the
American River Common Elements construction, following funding for last
year's new start, to maintain an efficient construction schedule.
American River (Comprehensive Plan).--$4.0 million for continued
Preconstruction, Engineering, and Design and $1.0 million Construction
funds in anticipation of Congressional authorization in the 1998 WRDA
for the next element in the comprehensive plan to reduce the
significant flood risk on the American River.
American River (Natomas).--$10.6 million for Construction
reimbursement to SAFCA for the Federal cost share of flood control
improvements, constructed locally, protecting portions of Sacramento;
and supporting the City of Sacramento's Construction funding request
for the Corps to build the recreational components of the project in
the Ueda Parkway, all consistent with the federally authorized project.
Sacramento River bank protection.--$10.1 million for Construction
of bank protection sites along Sacramento and American Rivers
throughout Northern California protecting the adjacent levees (includes
$7.1 million for American River sites through Sacramento).
South Sacramento streams group.--$900,000 to continue Pre-
construction, Engineering, and Design efforts on the project protecting
over 100,000 residents in South Sacramento.
Magpie Creek.--Funding under Section 205 Continuing Authorities to
initiate Construction of improvements along Magpie Creek Diversion
Channel which convey flood flows from McClellan Air Force Base safely
downstream through North Sacramento.
Strong Ranch and Chicken Ranch Sloughs.--$100,00 for a
Reconnaissance study of the flood risk and alternatives along the lower
reaches of these creeks which feed into the American River.
Sacramento sits at the confluence of two major rivers with over
400,000 residents, 150,000 homes, 5,000 businesses, the State Capitol,
and 1,300 government facilities at risk in a major flood. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) has characterized Sacramento as the urban
area with the worst flood risk in the nation and addressing this
problem is our region's most critical infrastructure issue. A major
flood on the American River which exceeds the capacity of the existing
flood control system would cause a minimum of $7 billion in damages and
could reach as high as $16 billion depending on the size of the flood.
The five largest recorded floods of the century on this watershed have
all occurred after 1950, including the two largest floods within the
last eleven years (1986 and 1997). It is unclear if this signals a
shift in our meteorologic climate, but it is clear the flood risk today
is much greater than was thought 50 years ago when the original flood
control system was built. In fact, our existing infrastructure (Folsom
Dam and the downstream levees), which was designed to protect
Sacramento from a 250-300 year flood, provides only 77-year flood
protection. This means there is a 33 percent chance of having a $7 to
$16 billion disaster over the next 30 years which would be the worst
flood disaster in this nation's history.
We as a community have not been sitting idly by since our near
disaster in 1986. Over $75 million in local funds have gone into
engineering studies and flood control improvements in our region.
Accomplishments include strengthening levees along the Sacramento
River; raising and constructing new levees in North Sacramento and
Natomas; negotiating an agreement for more flood space at Folsom; and
restoring bank erosion sites along the Lower American River before they
impact the adjacent levees. These improvements played an important role
in avoiding the devastating flood damages experienced by our neighbors
to the north and south during the last two years. In addition, we have
systematically re-evaluated the flood control system protecting this
region and identified the projects necessary to avoid the catastrophic
impact of a major flood. SAFCA hereby supports the following Federal
appropriations for fiscal year 1999 to advance these critical flood
control projects in the metropolitan Sacramento area:
American River Project
When Folsom Dam was completed along the American River in 1955,
Sacramento was thought to have a very high level of flood protection
(250 to 300 year) consistent with other urban areas in the nation.
However, as described above, the five largest floods of this century on
the American River have all occurred in the last 50 years which has led
to a reduction in our credited flood protection provided by Folsom and
the downstream levees to only a 77-year level; significantly less than
the authorized project in the 1950's and substantially less than other
similarly situated major urban areas around the nation including St.
Louis, Kansas City, Dallas, Omaha, Minneapolis, and Pittsburgh.
Following exhaustive feasibility studies by the Corps looking at
all the flood control alternatives, Sacramento unsuccessfully sought
Congressional authorization of a comprehensive flood control project on
the American River in 1992 and again in 1996. We will return to
Congress this year requesting authorization for additional measures to
improve our flood protection on the American River as part of the 1998
Water Resources Development Act. Therefore, we are requesting $4.0
million in Pre-Construction Engineering and Design so the Corps may
expeditiously advance implementation of this element. In addition we
are seeking $1.0 million in Construction funds to begin construction
next year on appropriate elements of the project, based on anticipated
Congressional authorization of the additional flood control measures.
Any delays in design due to funding constraints will mean another
year's delay in providing improved flood protection and exposure to a
multi-billion dollar flood disaster.
Common elements.--As part of the 1996 WRDA, Congress did authorize
additional levee improvements around Sacramento, including 26 miles of
levee stabilization along the lower American River, raising and
strengthening 12 miles of the east levee of the Sacramento River south
from the Natomas Cross Canal, three new telemetered gauges and other
early flood warning improvements along the American River. As the 1997
floods in Northern California have demonstrated, we must continue to
stabilize and rehabilitate our existing system of levees to carry even
their intended design flows. The levee modifications authorized under
this project complement work done by the Corps in the early 1990's
along the Sacramento River and will complete the job of stabilizing the
existing levees protecting this community. Notwithstanding a $9.4
million budget and appropriation in fiscal year 1998, the Clinton
Administration has included only $1.0 million in construction funds for
fiscal year 1999 which is substantially less than the $26.0 million
needed to allow completion of the project on an efficient construction
schedule. We are requesting this Committee's support for the full $26.0
million to keep this critical project on schedule.
North area (Natomas) Levee improvements.--In 1992, when Congress
opted not to authorize the full locally preferred comprehensive project
for the American River, it did authorize the levee elements in and
around the Natomas basin and North Sacramento. The authorizing language
included Federal authorization for reimbursement for locally
constructed levee improvements consistent with the Federal project. By
borrowing heavily and assessing affected communities SAFCA proceeded
with construction of the authorized improvements and has rapidly
completed $60 million in flood control improvements which helped to
prevent flooding in 1997 and again in February of 1998. This borrowing,
coupled with additional future flood control obligations, has severely
strained SAFCA's financing capability to the point we must now seek
Federal reimbursement for this project as provided for under Federal
legislation. The Assistant Secretary of the Army has directed the Corps
to negotiate and execute a crediting/reimbursement agreement with
SAFCA. This agreement, which will be ready for execution later this
year which will provide the basis for reimbursement of not less than
$20 million agreed to by the Corps, and ultimately allow SAFCA to
obtain up to approximately $39 million in Federal reimbursement.
Congress included $10 million in fiscal year 1998 ($9.4 million net of
savings and slippage) and we are seeking an additional $10.6 in fiscal
year 1999 to complete the Federal share of the improvements described
in the Chief's Report. These funds can be used to stabilize SAFCA's
financing capability so that additional flood control improvements
could be planned and constructed.
In addition, SAFCA supports the City of Sacramento's efforts to
obtain $3.9 million in construction funds for implementation of the
recreational improvements along the City's Ueda Parkway which were
included as part of the federally authorized project described above.
The recreational components are an integral part of making this
floodway a comprehensive multi-use parkway for the citizens in North
Sacramento and Natomas.
Sacramento bank protection project (American River Levees)
SAFCA, the State of California and the Corps have found that bank
protection improvements are needed to stop erosion which threatens
urban levees along the lower American River. Over the last three years,
SAFCA has led a collaborative process through which flood control,
environmental, and neighborhood interests have reached agreement on how
to complete this work in a manner which protects the sensitive
environmental and aesthetic values of the American River. As a result,
a bank protection program for the next several years has been
established which will address the serious erosion problem before it
impacts the levee system. Construction on this project commenced in
1996. The President's proposed budget includes $7.1 million in
construction funds which includes funding for the American River sites
in fiscal year 1999. The State has identified additional bank
protection sites outside the Sacramento area which increases the
construction funds needed in fiscal year 1999 to $10.1 million. SAFCA
supports this funding which provides for an efficient construction
schedule on the lower American River sites.
South Sacramento streams project
In 1995, over 300 homes in the South Sacramento area were flooded
as rain swollen creeks could not accommodate the local runoff from
nearby subdivisions. The water in the adjacent creeks reached to within
a foot, and in some areas less, of overtopping the levees and channels
and flooding adjacent residential subdivisions. The recently completed
Feasibility Study by the Corps shows much of the urban area of South
Sacramento has less than 50-year flood protection from these urban
streams. There are over 100,000 people and 41,000 structures in the
floodplain of Morrison, Unionhouse, Florin and Elder Creeks which make
up the study area. Because of the significant flood risk, SAFCA
constructed a portion of the levee improvements using local funds in
1996 under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 104 crediting
provisions. SAFCA, as the local sponsor, has selected a project which
provides the entire area with a consistent 500-year level of flood
protection. We are seeking authorization of this project as part of the
1998 WRDA and are urging your Committee's support for the President's
budget request of $900,000 for continued Pre-construction, Engineering
and Design in fiscal year 1999.
Magpie Creek (Section 205 Continuing Authorities Program)
The City of Sacramento and American River Flood Control District,
both member agencies of SAFCA, have been the local sponsors of a
Section 205 study on Magpie Creek in northeastern Sacramento. The
Magpie Creek Diversion Project, constructed by the Corps in the 1950's
as an extension of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, is
inadequate for even the 100-year flood event using new hydrologic data.
The resulting floodplain impacts residential and commercial
developments downstream as well as impacts Interstate 80, the major
east-west transportation route through Sacramento. These improvements
have a benefit to cost ratio of 2.5 to 1 and not only protect existing
urban development but are essential to provide capacity for future on-
base improvements to allow for orderly redevelopment activities as part
of the base conversion process. Congress earmarked funds in last year's
Energy and Water Appropriations bill to initiate work on this project,
but construction has been delayed. SAFCA supports the Administration's
proposed fiscal year 1999 budget for the Section 205 Program and
requests the Corps be directed to initiate construction of the Magpie
Creek Diversion Project within these available funds.
Lower Strong and Chicken Ranch Sloughs
SAFCA, in cooperation with Sacramento County, request this
Committee's support for inclusion of $100,000 in the fiscal year 1999
Federal budget for a Reconnaissance Study of the Lower Strong and
Chicken Ranch Sloughs. Floodwaters from these urban streams are
collected at the base of the American River levees and pumped into the
river. In 1986 and again in 1997, the limited channel and pumping
capacity led to significant flood damages to a number of residential
and commercial structures. Most of the flooding occurs when the
American River is at a high stage due to releases from Folsom Dam. The
original pump station was built by the Corps as part of the American
River and Folsom project in the 1950's but has proven inadequate with
the revised hydrologies. The County has done some limited studies;
however, the scope of the potential solutions and the direct relation
to the Federal project have led to the conclusion the Corps is the most
appropriate agency to conduct the study.
______
Prepared Statement of Beverly O'Neill, Mayor, City of Long Beach, CA
Chairman Domenici, thank you for the opportunity to submit written
testimony regarding the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water
Appropriation's requests for the City of Long Beach. Long Beach is a
City of 440,000 people, the second largest City in Los Angeles County
and home to the nation's busiest Port.
The City's number one priority is an appropriation of $60 million
for the Los Angeles County Drainage Area (LACDA) flood control project.
The LACDA flood control project, under which the United States Army
Corps of Engineers is the Federal sponsor and the County of Los Angeles
is the local sponsor, is the largest flood control project in the
nation.
The LACDA project has been endorsed by the County of Los Angeles,
the City of Long Beach and the Los Angeles County Drainage Area (LACDA)
Alliance--an organization made up of the seven floodplain cities
(Bellflower, Carson, Downey, Lakewood, Paramount, Pico Rivera, and
South Gate). This project is the result of more than ten years of
study, during which time more than 20 alternative plans were evaluated.
The LACDA project will provide the necessary flood protection from a
133-year storm event. Without the level of flood protection that this
cost-effective project will provide, our region remains vulnerable to
as much as 82 square miles of flooding in the event of a 100-year
storm--affecting more than half a million people in 11 cities. The
damage could total more than $2.3 billion.
Unfortunately, the fiscal year 1996, 1997 and 1998 Budget
recommendations greatly under-funded the LACDA project, with only $11
million recommended in fiscal year 1998. It was only after Congress
added to the appropriations bill last year that the total Federal
commitment for LACDA reached $21 million. Due to a consistently
inadequate level of funding, the original four-year construction
schedule has been extended to at least six years. The $60 million
request for fiscal year 1999 will put the project back on a schedule
that is closer to the original completion date. The Corps has assured
City officials that they are capable of conducting $60 million of work
in fiscal year 1999.
Recent action by another Federal agency has made it even more
imperative that completion of the LACDA project remain on schedule. At
the end of October, 1997, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) promulgated new rules that will require property owners within
the Los Angeles floodplain to purchase flood insurance and impose
severe building restrictions slowing the region's economic recovery.
Timely construction of the LACDA project will lessen the amount of
economic dislocation caused by the FEMA-imposed rules and ultimately
will eliminate the need for the insurance and building restrictions. As
it exists now, property owners in the region will be required to pay up
to $130 million annually for flood insurance, while there exists no
Federal commitment to fully fund the project to a timely completion.
Mr. Chairman, the President's fiscal year 1999 Budget
recommendations greatly under-funded the project at $11 million. On
behalf of the citizens of Long Beach and the region, it is respectfully
requested that you add $49 million for construction in the fiscal year
1999 Energy and Water Appropriations bill for a total of $60 million
for this vital flood control project. This will help to minimize the
economic hardship to our citizens and to prevent potential flooding.
The City of Long Beach also requests $6 million for the dredging of
one million cubic yards of sediment from the channel of the Los Angeles
River estuary. Due to the annual storm season and the El Nino
condition, the channel has been impacted by an unusually high level of
sediment accumulation at the Los Angeles River estuary. This
accumulation is now threatening the navigation channel that provides
water transportation for vital goods and services to Catalina Island.
The threatened situation of the Los Angeles River could not come at
a worse time for the City of Long Beach. On June 20, 1998, the City
will open the Queensway Bay Project to the public. The Queensway Bay
Project is a 300-acre oceanfront development that will include a major
retail area, Rainbow Harbor, and the Long Beach Aquarium of the
Pacific. This project is the focus of the City's economic recovery
program as we seek to overcome the loss of over 500,000 jobs due to the
Navy Station and Shipyard closure and the cutback in aerospace. The
closure of the navigation channel and the loss of the Catalina Island
ferry service would deal a serious blow to the City's tourism and
convention business.
Another important component of the City's economic recovery plan is
a request for $10.5 million for the completion of the Queens Gate
Navigation Project at the Port of Long Beach. This project is of
national economic significance and is critical to the Port and the
Federal Civil Works mission. Construction will consist of deepening the
channel to 76 feet to accommodate larger ships and allow them access to
the already deepened channels inside the breakwater. By deepening the
channel, significant economies will be achieved and thus, allow the
Port of Long Beach to remain the largest customs revenue contributor to
the U.S. Treasury of any other port in the nation. We respectfully urge
your assistance in providing the $10.5 million needed to complete
construction of the approach channel.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my written testimony. The City of Long
Beach greatly appreciates the subcommittee's attention to these three
vital funding requests.
______
Prepared Statement of Gloria Exline, Mayor, City of Vallejo, CA
On behalf of the citizens of Vallejo, please accept the enclosed
written testimony for consideration in the establishment of the fiscal
year 1999 Corps of Engineers Maintenance Dredging Budget. As indicated
in the enclosed testimony, the funding of this project is critical to
the continued recovery of the City of Vallejo and the surrounding
communities of the San Francisco Bay Area from the effects of the 1993
Base Closure and Realignment Process.
Thank you for your consideration of this project and I look forward
to your approval in the near future.
federal maintenance dredging project
As you are aware, under the 1993 BRAC the Mare Island Naval
Shipyard was closed in April 1996. This closure resulted in the loss of
over 7,000 jobs and had a detrimental economical impact on our
community with the ensuing loss of numerous businesses. The economic
impact to Vallejo and neighboring communities was nearly one-half a
billion dollars annually. In anticipation of the closure of Mare Island
Naval Shipyard, the City initiated an aggressive program plan for the
reuse of this facility. The City has been a leader in the development
of a conversion plan with the Final Reuse Plan approved by the Vallejo
City Council on July 6, 1996, and its environmental certification to be
scheduled to be completed by the U.S. Navy by July 1998.
In response to the need to provide for the reuse of Federal
military bases that were closed, Congress approved the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996. Section 509 of this Act specifically
designates Mare Island as one of eleven waterways that the Corps of
Engineers assumed dredging responsibilities. The Corps included the
dredging of the main channel of Mare Island Strait in their yearly
dredging maintenance program. This dredging project, however, does not
include the dredging of critical public and private facilities on the
eastern shore of Mare Island Strait. The City of Vallejo is seeking
support for the inclusion of $100,000 in the fiscal year 1999 Corps of
Engineers budget for the preparation of a Reconnaissance Study that
will provide the economic justification for the dredging of five
critical areas on the eastern shore of Mare Island Strait as part of
the Federal Maintenance Dredging Project for the Strait.
The proposed expansion for the Mare Island Federal Maintenance
Dredging Project would expand the existing project to include dredging
access from the existing Federal Channel to the City Marina, City Ferry
Dock, adjacent commercial areas, small boat launch area, and two
important private commercial industrial properties along the waterway.
The dredging of these areas is critical to the commercial development
of both shorelines of the Mare Island Strait and will generate jobs
throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. As indicated in the 1997
California Marine Affairs and Navigation Conference Study, for each
dollar of investment in California's ports and harbors, $812 is added
to the Gross Domestic Product of the nation. Additionally, for each
$4,056 spent on dredging, one permanent job is developed.
The benefits of this proposed project to Vallejo's waterfront and
downtown area cannot be overstated. Some specific benefits are:
--Provide for continued vessel access to public facilities and
commercial/industrial properties along the Strait.
--Ensure the continued and safe operation of the City's ferry system
which provides a critical transportation link for the citizens
of Vallejo and surrounding cities throughout the San Francisco
Bay Area.
--Promote the economic development of commercial and industrial
properties along the eastern side of the Mare Island Strait.
--Mitigate any potential adverse impact of the existing Federal
Maintenance Dredging Project will have on the eastern portion
of the Mare Island Strait.
--Help preserve water quality in San Francisco Bay by providing
access to sewer pump facilities at the Vallejo Marina and Ferry
Terminal.
--Enhance the conversion of Mare Island from military to civilian
use, as well as the Vallejo waterfront and adjacent downtown
area by generating new jobs that would replace those lost by
the closure of the Mare Island Naval Shipyard in April 1996.
In closing I would like to thank Chairman Domenici and members of
the Subcommittee on Energy and Development for their support and the
opportunity to provide the above information for consideration. If you
have questions or require additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact the Alvaro P. da Silva, Director of Community
Development, City of Vallejo, at (707) 648-4579.
______
Prepared Statement of Donald Bransford, President, Glenn-Colusa
Irrigation District
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Don
Bransford. I am a rice farmer from Colusa County, California, and I am
President of the Board of Directors of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation
District (GCID).
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you this morning
regarding the federal funding priorities for GCID. I also appreciate
the Subcommittee's past efforts to address our concerns.
GCID is the largest and one of the oldest diverters of water from
the Sacramento River with water rights that date back to 1883. The
District delivers water to more than 1,200 families who have about
141,000 acres of valuable, productive agricultural land in Glenn and
Colusa Counties. More than $270,000,000 in agricultural commodities are
produced annually on GCID farms, helping to sustain an estimated 12,000
jobs in the region.
The District also wheels surface water to three wildlife refuges--
the Sacramento, Delevan and Colusa National Wildlife Refuges--that
cover some 20,000 acres in the heart of the Sacramento Valley. Winter
water supplied by the District to thousands of acres of rice land also
provides a rich oasis for migrating waterfowl.
The District is firmly committed to obtaining lasting protection of
the winter-run salmon and other fishery resources at the Hamilton City
Pumping Plant. Over the last several years, the District has invested
over $3,500,000 in the construction of an interim flat-plate fish
screen and other improvements to provide immediate protection to the
endangered winter-run chinook salmon and other fish species. Since the
installation of the flat-plate fish screen, there have been no fish
taken into the GCID pumping plant. We are operating under a zero take
limit for the winter-run chinook salmon, and constant monitoring has
revealed no evidence of take having occurred at the plant.
While the new flat-plate screen, installed in late 1993, has been
very effective, it is only an interim solution. Permanent protection is
needed. Without a new permanent fish screen, the District will continue
to face pumping restrictions that will hold water deliveries by the
District to just 65 percent of the District's full water entitlement.
On behalf of GCID, the fishery and all of those whose economic fate
is tied to the recovery of the winter-run salmon, I respectfully
request that you provide $10,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation in
fiscal year 1999 to advance work on a permanent new fish screen at the
Hamilton City Pumping Plant. This is $2.1 million above the budget
request of $7.9 million, and it is critical to the timely completion of
this essential fish protection project.
Without such a commitment of funds, construction will be delayed.
That will mean less water for the farmers, a less speedy recovery of
the fishery and less revenue for the federal Treasury, all because of
reduced water deliveries. Failure to provide the funds necessary to
advance the project represents a lose-lose-lose proposition. It is bad
for the taxpayers, it is bad for the farmers and it is bad for the
fishery resource. Again, I urge you to provide an allocation of
$10,000,000 to keep the project moving forward on an optimum schedule.
For the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, GCID requests the Committee's
support of an appropriation of $2,000,000, under Corps of Engineers,
Construction, for the Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation
District, gradient restoration project. This request, which is $1.3
million above the amount provided in the budget request, is needed to
keep this important component of the GCID fish protection program on
schedule. In addition, the gradient facility is critical to ensuring
the long-term viability of the new fish screen structure under changing
river conditions.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, GCID requests that the Subcommittee provide
$8,000,000, under the Bureau of Reclamation, CVP, Miscellaneous Project
Programs, Refuge Water Supply, an increase of $3,500,000 above the
budget request, to expedite work on the facilities needed to convey a
continuous, year-round water supply to three National Wildlife Refuges
in the Sacramento Valley (the Sacramento, Delevan and Colusa National
Wildlife Refuges). These funds will enable year-round deliveries of
water to the refuges to start in calendar year 1999, and, at the same
time, allow water to be made available for the creation of additional
waterfowl habitat. The project will also have fishery benefits. And, it
will allow local groups to work with the federal agencies to pursue the
creation of fish spawning habitat in Stoney Creek. This project is the
most efficient and least costly way to provide expanded water service
to the Sacramento Refuge complex, as required by the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of GCID, I
would like to express my appreciation for your past support of our
efforts to address the GCID-related fish and wildlife protection
projects, and I respectfully request your support once again in the
fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Michael D. Armstrong, General Manager, Monterey
County Water Resources Agency
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony
for inclusion in the hearing record of the fiscal year 1999 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations bill. The people of the Salinas Valley
in California's 17th Congressional District appreciate your willingness
to accept our statements in support of the Castroville Seawater
Intrusion Project. I would further like to express our deep
appreciation for this Subcommittees' efforts on past Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bills. I am pleased to report that the
project is complete and operational.
As with the past four years the Monterey County Water Resources
Agency has worked diligently to present the Subcommittee with a fiscal
year 1999 funding request that is supported by the Administration as
well as all the other Small Reclamation Loan Program participants.
Through close consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation and other
Program participants, we have developed the funding plans that were
included in the President's fiscal year 1999 budget for the Public Law
84-984 Small Reclamation Loan Program. I, therefore, respectively
request that the Subcommittee provide the full Administration request
for the project of $2.6 million.
This is the fifth year of an eight year fiscal strategy designed to
meet the requirements of all the projects in the Program while
recognizing the fiscal constraints facing all levels of government.
Originally, the Program was to provide all appropriations ($16,500,000)
over a three year period. During the past four years this Subcommittee
provided $6.664 million for our project. The current appropriation
amount of $2.6 million, when combined with other federal funding which
is available from the U.S. Treasury in the amount of $2.94 million
pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, should yield a total
loan amount of $5.54 million for fiscal year 1999 that will allow the
project to proceed on schedule.
The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) is a local
government entity formed under the Monterey County Water Resources
Agency Act. It is an agency with limited jurisdiction involving matters
related primarily to flood control and water resources conservation,
management, and development. The Salinas Valley is a productive
agricultural area that depends primarily on ground water as a water
supply. The combination of the Valley's rich soils, mild climate, and
high quality ground water makes this Valley unique among California's
most fertile agricultural lands and has earned the Valley the
distinction as the ``Nation's Salad Bowl''. As agricultural activity
and urban development have increased in the past forty years, ground
water levels have dropped allowing seawater to intrude the coastal
ground water aquifers. Seawater intrusion is extensive adjacent to the
coast near the town of Castroville. The Castroville Seawater Intrusion
Project will provide 19,500 acre-feet of recycled water annually for
agricultural irrigation to over 12,000 acres and help solve the
seawater intrusion problem by greatly reducing groundwater pumping in
the project area. The Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project is an
essential component in the MCWRA's plan to deal with basin-wide ground
water overdraft and seawater intrusion.
The amount requested in fiscal year 1999, when combined with the
additional Treasury portion, is intended to fulfill the Bureau's fifth
year loan commitment for assistance to construct the project. As stated
above, the funding request that we anticipate is the result of a
lengthy and complex financial agreement worked out with the other Loan
Program participants and the Bureau. The agreement recognized the tight
federal budgetary constraints and represents the absolute minimal
annual amount necessary to proceed with the project. The MCWRA has been
extremely accommodating of the Bureau's budgetary constraints and has
agreed to expend considerable local funds to bridge the federal
government's budgetary shortfall. Any additional cuts in federal
funding will jeopardize the complex financing plan for the project.
In August 1992, the original loan request was submitted to the
Bureau. Subsequent approval was received from the Secretary of the
Interior in May 1994. Through extensive discussion and negotiations
between the MCWRA and the Bureau, a project financing plan was created.
The Bureau made it quite clear that the original provisions in the loan
application of full disbursement during the three years of construction
could not be met due to federal budget shortfalls. As defined in the
repayment contract, the Bureau will disburse funds to the MCWRA over an
eight-year period. This means that the MCWRA will receive these funds
for five years after the project is operational. The fiscal year 1998
funding provided monies for the first year after completion of the
project. The MCWRA had to acquire ``bridge financing'' to meet the
needs of the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project construction costs.
Even though the additional private debt service has increased the
project costs, the critical problem of seawater intrusion demanded that
the project proceed. The Bureau loan is a crucial link in project
funding, and it is imperative that the annual appropriations, even at
the planned reduced rate over eight years, continue. Federal
appropriations have been received in fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, and
1998 as shown in the table below and must continue in subsequent years
in accordance with the negotiated agreement in order for the projects
to be successful. The federal funds requested under the Public Law 84-
984 program will be repaid by landowners in the Salinas Valley with
assessments that are currently in place. The MCWRA has spent
approximately $36.0 million of its own funds getting to this point.
FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS \1\
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received Requested
-----------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSIP............................................................ 1.064 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.6 9.264
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include Treasury portion.
Mr. Chairman, we urge you and the members of the Subcommittee to
give your continued support to the Small Reclamation Program and we
urge the inclusion of funds for the Castroville Seawater Intrusion
Project. Without your continued support, we will not be able to realize
the benefit of the work completed over the past several years and the
Salinas ground water basin will continue to deteriorate, creating a
significant threat to the local and state economies as well as to the
health and welfare of our citizens.
Again, thank you for your support and continued assistance.
______
Prepared Statement of Keith Israel, General Manager, Monterey Regional
Water Pollution Control Agency
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity today to provide this
testimony for inclusion in the hearing record on the fiscal year 1999
Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. But most importantly,
let me express my sincere appreciation for your continued support for
the Small Reclamation Projects Loan Program, and specifically, the
funding for the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project. During the past
four years, this subcommittee provided $4.8 million for our project. I
am pleased to report that the funds appropriated thus far have been
well spent on our project, which began construction in August 1995. The
new facility was dedicated in October 1997 with full operation planned
for April 1998.
The project will ultimately provide 19,500 acre-feet of recycled
water to land south and west of Castroville where abandonment of wells
threatens agricultural production and the loss of a portion of rural
America. It will also reduce discharge of secondary treated wastewater
to the recently-created Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. In
addition, the California State Water Resources Control Board
specifically indicated its strong support for the Salinas Valley
Reclamation Project in a prior letter to the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation.
The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA), a
joint-powers entity formed under the laws of the State of California,
was created in 1971 to implement a plan that called for consolidation
of the Monterey Peninsula and northern Salinas Valley wastewater flows
through a regional treatment plant and an outfall to central Monterey
Bay. The plan also required studies to determine the technical
feasibility of using recycled water for irrigation of fresh vegetable
food crops (artichokes, celery, broccoli, lettuce, and cauliflower) in
the Castroville area. These studies were initiated in 1976 and included
a five-year full-scale demonstration of using recycled wastewater for
food crop irrigation. California and Monterey County health departments
concluded in 1988 that the water was safe for food crops that would be
consumed without cooking. Subsequently, the Salinas Valley Seawater
Intrusion Committee voted to include recycled water in their plan to
slow seawater intrusion in the Castroville area.
In addition, a supplemental water testing program (October 1997
through March 1998) was initiated to confirm the new plant's removal of
what are termed ``emerging pathogens.'' These organisms, which include
Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Cyclospora, and E. Coli, were not evaluated
in the original study. The preliminary results of the follow-up testing
program again verify that the water is safe for irrigation of food
crops.
As in the past, we have been in close consultation with the Bureau
of Reclamation and the other Small Reclamation Projects Loan Program
participants in an attempt to provide the Committee with a consensus
budget request that has the support of the Administration and the Loan
Program participants. Based on these discussions, the Administration
requested, with our support and endorsement, sufficient funding for the
Salinas Valley Reclamation Project as part of the Bureau of
Reclamation's Public Law 84-984 Small Reclamation Projects Loan Program
for continuation of loan obligations. This appropriation amount, $1.7
million, when combined with other federal funding which is available
from the U.S. Treasury pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform Act of
1990, will yield a total loan amount that we believe will meet the
federal government's commitment for fiscal year 1999. The amount
requested, when combined with the additional Treasury portion, is
intended to fulfill the Bureau's fifth-year loan commitment for
assistance to construct the project.
As I indicated, the funding request is the result of a lengthy and
complex financial agreement worked out with the other Loan Program
participants and the Bureau. The agreement represents the absolute
minimum annual amount necessary to continue with the project. The
MRWPCA worked under the premise of accommodating the Bureau of
Reclamation's budgetary constraints and is expending considerable local
funds to bridge the federal government's budgetary shortfall. Any
additional cuts in federal funding will jeopardize the complex
financing plan for the project.
The MRWPCA has received Federal Grant and Loan Funds in Federal
fiscal year 1995, fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997, and fiscal year
1998 through February 23, 1998, as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVRP.............................................. $900,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,300,000 \1\ $1,700,0
00
SVRP Treasury..................................... 570,000 880,000 1,561,000 1,300,000 ............
FEMA.............................................. .......... 16,805 1,492 35,554 ............
EPA............................................... .......... 30,144 .......... .......... ............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Requested.
Even though the additional private debt service and bridge
financing will increase the project costs, the critical problem of
seawater intrusion demands that the project be continued. The Bureau of
Reclamation loan is a crucial link in project funding, and it is
imperative that annual appropriations, even at the planned reduced rate
over eight years, continue. The federal funds requested under the
Public Law 84-984 program will be repaid by landowners in the Salinas
Valley with assessments that are currently in place. Local funds
totaling $24.2 million have already been spent getting to this point.
Mr. Chairman, we urge you and the members of the subcommittee to
give your continued support to the Small Reclamation Projects Loan
Program, and specifically, funding for the Salinas Valley Reclamation
Project. Your support and continued assistance for this critical
project is greatly appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of Joe Serna, Jr., Mayor, City of Sacramento, CA
On behalf of the City of Sacramento, I would like to thank you for
the opportunity to provide testimony to the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development in support of fiscal year
1999 funding for vital flood control protection projects in Sacramento.
First, I would like to express my appreciation to the Subcommittee for
all of your efforts in past years to fund flood protection measures for
the City. As you know, the City is located in the most dangerous flood
plain in the United States. Despite the efforts of Federal, State, and
local flood control agencies to counter this threat, the floods of 1995
and 1997, and this year's heavy El Nino rains have continued the
concern about the efficacy of present flood control measures.
Congress in 1996 recognized the potential for immense flood losses
and damages in Sacramento by including authorization in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (WRDA 96) for the ``Common Elements
Project.'' This project includes 24 miles of levee improvements to the
American River and an additional 12 miles of improvements along the
Sacramento River levees which protect the City of Sacramento, flood
gauges upstream of Folsom Dam and Reservoir, and improvements to the
Flood Warning System along the lower American River. Finally, the
legislation mandated that Folsom Dam should continue to be operated in
a manner that increases flood protection for the City, and established
a federal-local cost share arrangement for replacing any lost power
and/or water resources.
Final plans for many of the authorized common elements are
proceeding on schedule and construction on the major elements (i.e.,
levee strengthening) will begin this summer.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed budget for fiscal year
1999 recently submitted to Congress provides only $1 million for
continuation of construction of the Common Elements Project. This level
of funding is clearly inadequate to keep the project moving forward. In
fact, the Corps of Engineers' budget accompanying the Project
Completion Agreement shows that $26 million in Federal funds are needed
in 1999 to keep this project on schedule. The Common Elements Project
is a vital first step in our flood control efforts and full funding to
keep this project on track is essential. Therefore, the City strongly
recommends and supports approval of $26 million for the Common Elements
Project so that this vital construction can continue without delay.
The City of Sacramento has been working in cooperation with the
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) on the construction of
bank protection improvements which are vital to correct harmful erosion
along the banks of the American River which threatens the integrity of
our existing levees. Additional improvements will be needed over the
next several years to prevent erosion at three other American River
sites. This work is already authorized under the Sacramento River Bank
Protection Project which is used to fund erosion control projects
throughout the Sacramento River System. The President's budget proposes
$7.08 million for the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project, which
we fully support and urge the Subcommittee to support.
Due to the significant flood risk along creeks in the South
Sacramento area, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, SAFCA, and the City
have been studying ways to reduce potential flooding in this highly
urbanized area. Reconnaissance and feasibility studies have been
completed and the President has proposed $900,000 to initiate
preconstruction engineering and design for the South Sacramento Streams
project. We urge the Subcommittee to include these funds in the fiscal
year 1999 Corps of Engineers' budget.
Under the Corps' Section 205 program, a feasibility study and
environmental documentation have been completed for a project that
would provide a high degree of flood protection on Magpie Creek.
Congress funded this project at $1.44 million last year. This year the
President has requested $26.5 million for all Section 205 flood control
projects. We urge the Subcommittee to support Section 205 funding in
the fiscal year 1999 budget and recommend that the Corps of Engineers
be directed to provide sufficient funds for completion of the Magpie
Creek project in its distribution of Section 205 funds.
For the American River Watershed (Natomas) improvements which were
authorized by Congress in 1992, we are seeking continued construction
appropriations for reimbursement to SAFCA for the Federal share of the
flood control improvements, as well as construction appropriations to
complete the recreation elements of the project. The Federal share for
this project which was completed using local funds, is considerably
higher than the $10 million included in the fiscal year 1998 budget.
Therefore, we urge the Subcommittee to fund an additional $10.6 million
in fiscal year 1999 for reimbursement to SAFCA for the flood control
improvements which have been constructed and $3.9 million for
completing the recreational improvements which are part of the Ueda
Parkway.
The President's Budget for fiscal year 1999 provides for $50,000 in
Preconstruction, Engineering and Design (PED) funds for the American
River Watershed comprehensive plan. The City, SAFCA, and the
Reclamation Board will seek Congressional authorization of additional
improvements on the American River system as part of the 1998 Water
Resources Development Act. Once authorized, the Corps of Engineers will
need significantly more funds to proceed with any meaningful design in
1999 and not lose a year in the schedule to implement these
improvements. Therefore, we urge the Subcommittee to support $5 million
in PED funds for the American River Watershed comprehensive plan.
In summary, the specific request from the City of Sacramento for
fiscal year 1999 appropriations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
flood control programs are as follows:
American River Common Elements Project.................. $26,000,000
Sacramento River Bank Protection Project................ 7,080,000
South Sacramento Streams Group PED...................... 900,000
Magpie Creek Project.................................... ( \1\ )
North Area Reimbursement (Natomas)...................... 10,600,000
North Area Project (Ueda Parkway)....................... 3,900,000
American River Watershed Investigation (PED)............ 5,000,000
\1\ Continued necessary funding.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement and for your
consideration of the funding that the City of Sacramento needs to
protect its citizens. Adequate flood protection is essential in this
most flood-prone of American cities. We thank you again for your
commitment in previous years to providing this vital protection, and we
ask for your renewed support in assuring its continuation.
______
CALIFORNIA NAVIGATION PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of Alexander Krygsman, Director, Port of Stockton,
CA
Mr. Chairman: I am Alexander Krygsman, Port Director of the Port of
Stockton in Stockton, California.
The San Francisco Bay to Stockton Ship Channels Project is an
authorized project.
The Port of Stockton is primarily a bulk port that serves industry
and agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley in California, and the bulk
imports and exports of the Western States, including the coal areas of
these States.
The Port of Stockton recognized as far back as 1952 that deeper
channels would be needed for the movements of bulk cargoes and
requested the Corps of Engineers to deepen the channel in 1952. Coal,
grain, fertilizers and many other bulk materials require deeper
channels to serve the larger bulk carriers.
The Nation needs ports that can handle larger, more economical and
more fuel-efficient vessels close to the production areas, both
agricultural and industrial.
The Port of Stockton is such a port.
The dredging of the Stockton Channel portion of the project to 35
feet was completed in 1987. A copy of the Port of Stockton's most
recent annual report is attached. Cargo volume has increased since the
dredging of the Stockton Channel was completed; and the project is
certainly paying off.
Therefore, we requested the Corps of Engineers for a new navigation
study (reconnaissance study) to deepen the Channel further, to 40 feet
or more, if economically feasible. The funding for this study was
appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
For the 1999 fiscal year, we are requesting $300,000 for the
feasibility study. Because this study has to be coordinated for proper
timing with the U.S. Navy's project to deepen the Channels to the
Concord Weapons Station, this study needs to be done now. The
feasibility study is 50 percent cost shared.
The President's proposed budget only contains $30,000 to complete
the reconnaissance study, but the feasibility study and the eventual
construction, needs to be closely tied to the deepening of the Channel
through San Pablo Bay, and this project needs to be timed appropriately
with that construction. Deferring $300,000 now could cost millions in
extra cost later.
We urge you to appropriate $300,000 for the Stockton Deep Water
Channel Feasibility Study. We also strongly urge that $3,004,000 be
appropriated to maintain the Channels so that the present benefits also
may continue to accrue.
stockton deepwater ship channel information
Channel Depth
35 feet--At mean lower, low water
37 feet--At average low tide
40 feet--At average high tide
Channel Capacity
Up to Panamax-size vessels fully loaded sailing at high tide.
The waterway has no width restriction, and will handle 45,000 to
55,000 ton class ships fully loaded. Up to 80,000 ton class vessels can
transit the channel partially loaded.
Navigation Aids
Usual channel markers and lights.
Pilotage
$827.00 each way, subject to 14 percent surcharge on vessels over
600 feet but less than 625 feet in length. Thereafter an additional 4
percent is charged for each increment of 25 feet.
Tugs
Three: One--1,350 H.P., One--1,000 H.P., and One--650 H.P.
Bridges
There is a fixed span high level toll bridge across Carquinez
Strait, with a minimum clearance of 134 feet above mean high water. The
Southern Pacific Railroad lift span bridge crosses Suisun Bay 6.5 miles
upstream from the Carquinez Bridge, with a minimum clearance above mean
high water of 70 feet when closed and 135 feet when open. The
horizontal clearance on the lift span is 291 feet. A third bridge, 22
miles above the Southern Pacific bridge, is near Antioch. It is a fixed
span bridge with a minimum clearance above mean high water of 135 feet.
Located on the Stockton Deepwater Ship Channel, 75 nautical miles
due east of the Golden Gate Bridge, the Port of Stockton, California,
owns and operates a diversified and major transportation center that
encompasses a 600-acre operating area.
The Port has berthing space for 10 vessels, 500,000 square feet of
dockside transit sheds and shipside rail trackage, 2.7 million square
feet of warehousing for both dry bulk and general cargoes, including
steel. Each warehouse is also served by rail.
Stockton's deepwater channel has an average depth of 37 feet at
average low tide (35 feet MLLW), and an average depth at high tide of
40 feet--PANAMAX.
Vessels in the 45,000 to 55,000 ton class, and maximum 60,000 ton
class (for certain wide-beam vessels) can use the channel fully loaded.
Up to 80,000 ton class vessels can transit the channel partially
loaded. There is no width restriction of vessels, and ships up to 900
feet in length can navigate the Stockton Ship Channel.
The Port is one mile from Interstate 5, and all interconnecting
major highway systems. Rail service is provided by three
transcontinental railroads, Union Pacific/Missouri Pacific, Southern
Pacific and the Santa Fe.
The Port of Stockton maintains flexibility in planning,
construction and modification of its facilities and equipment.
Continuously seeking better and more productive ways to handle a
diversified aggregation of cargoes, the Port has installed three
traveling, multi-purpose, 30-ton Bridge Cranes--one on Dock No. 3/4 and
two on Dock No. 10/11. All three cranes handle dry bulk cargoes as well
as containers and steel products and are equipped with 15-cubic yard
grabs and container frames. Both facilities can handle cargo from
vessels direct to truck, rail (one of two loop railroad tracks serves
Dock 10/11), dockside storage and by conveyor.
As a fully operating Port, a fleet of 30,000 to 60,000 lb. fork
lift trucks, slings, spreader bars, coil rams, front-end loaders,
hoppers and conveyor belts and other equipment are maintained for
handling and storing steel products, other general cargoes and bulk
materials. The Port also offers stevedoring services to customers.
The Port is well-suited and situated to handle heavy steel and
project cargo with its excellent overland transportation connections.
Five acres of paved surface on Dock No. 10/11 allows easy assembly and
pre-staging of this type of cargo. In addition to the three bridge-type
cranes and two gantry cranes, floating cranes and mobile truck cranes
are available to handle these cargoes. The bridge and gantry cranes can
also unload any kind of import bulk material, and two bulk loading
towers are used to load all types of export bulk material such as coal,
petroleum coke, ores, clay and sulfur.
Recounting the Port of Stockton's assets, it has first class
warehouse storage and handling facilities for both dry and liquid bulk
materials, facilities and equipment to handle break-bulk and
containerized cargoes by land or by sea. Immediate access to three
transcontinental railroads is complemented by two loop railroads, one
on-dock, for accommodating unit trains for export of coal, petroleum
coke, and ores, plus consolidation of rail shipments of inbound and
outbound steel coils. All of these components place the Port in an
ideal position for domestic as well as national and international
distribution.
Relative to industrial development, the Port is especially
attractive to, and interested in, attracting projects that require
waterborne transportation for delivery of raw or finished goods.
All of the Port's services are directed by experienced people
through one administrative complex. This provides a unique advantage
for flexibility as well as efficiency. The Port of Stockton publishes
tariffs, stevedores cargoes, assigns berths, supervises cargo activity,
provides shipping documentation, accounting and rate quotations. It is
a broad hands-on effort that includes marketing, traffic, property
management, warehousing, distribution, data processing and police
protection services to its customers.
Director Alexander Krygsman and his staff welcome your interest and
invite your inquiries concerning the Port's services and facilities.
______
Prepared Statement of David L. Malcolm, Chairman, Board of Port
Commissioners, Port of San Diego, CA
The following testimony is provided by the San Diego Unified Port
District, which represents the California cities of Chula Vista,
Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City and San Diego, to obtain
support from the Senate Energy and Water Development Subcommittee to
include in the fiscal year 1998-99 Water and Energy Development
Appropriations Bill $260,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the
Feasibility Study of Deepening the San Diego Harbor, and $300,000 for
the Corps of Engineers to initiate a Feasibility Study for San Diego
Harbor, National City.
The Port District has previously entered into a 50/50 Cost Sharing
Agreement with the Corps for the San Diego Harbor Deepening project and
is willing and able to enter into a similar Cost Sharing Agreement for
the San Diego Harbor, National City project.
The San Diego Unified Port District operates and maintains two
marine terminals and engages in other maritime related business and
economic activities. These economic activities result in regionally
significant fiscal impacts including: economic output, high value
employment and associated payroll taxes, and federal revenue in the
form of income taxes, as well as various duties and trust fund
contributions.
A timely and unique opportunity has presented itself to the Port
District. The U.S. Navy has initiated a major channel deepening project
to accommodate its nuclear aircraft carriers. The Navy's dredging
project deepens the existing channel to about -50 feet all the way from
the ocean to the carrier turning basin, approximately seven miles. It
is only an additional two miles to the Port District's 10th Avenue
Marine Terminal and an additional six miles to the National City Marine
Terminal. The Port District perceives this as a ``partnering''
opportunity between the Navy, Corps of Engineers, Port District and
private sector interests to lower maritime shipping costs at the Port
of San Diego.
The Port District is committed to working with the Corps of
Engineers and the maritime industry to maintain and enhance our ability
to contribute to the region's economic stability by providing the
physical infrastructure needed to provide competitively priced maritime
shipping opportunities. To that end, the Port District has commenced
several strategic initiatives including: $16,000,000 to repair berths
at the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal (completed in 1997); $30,000,000
land-side and railroad improvements at the National City Marine
Terminal in partnership with the BNSF Railroad (completed in 1997);
$27,000,000 to extend and expand the wharf at the National City Marine
Terminal (preliminary design completed in 1998); and the commitment to
cost share with the Corps of Engineers the cost of deepening the
federal navigation channel to the 10th Avenue and National City Marine
Terminals.
San Diego is geographically positioned to competitively serve new
and existing maritime shipping needs between the Pacific Rim and the
southwestern United States. However, current channel depth limitations
preclude many ships from entering the federal shipping channel fully
loaded. In order to provide cost efficient shipping rates to the San
Diego market, a deeper federal channel is needed.
In conclusion, the San Diego Unified Port District requests your
support and appropriation of $260,000 to continue the Feasibility Study
for the San Diego Harbor Deepening, and $300,000 for the initiation of
a Feasibility Study for the San Diego Harbor, National City. The Port
District and its maritime partners have made, and will continue to
make, significant financial investments in the land-side
infrastructure. We request only that the Corps of Engineers be provided
the financial resources to modify the federal navigation channel so
that potential shipping cost reductions can be realized. With almost
half the distance of the federal channel being deepened by the Navy, it
only makes economic sense to extend the deepening to the marine
terminals so that nonmilitary benefits can also be realized.
______
Prepared Statement of Richard W. Parsons, Dredging Program Manager,
Ventura Port District
The Ventura Port District respectfully requests that the Congress:
1. Include $2,705,000 in the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill as requested by the Administration for
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintenance dredging of the Ventura
Harbor Federal channel and sand traps.
2. Include $250,000 in the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill as requested by the Administration to
initiate a cost shared Feasibility Study to determine the advisability
of modifying the existing Federal navigation project at Ventura Harbor
to include a sand bypass system.
3. Include $2,500,000 in the Supplemental Fiscal Year 1998
Appropriations Bill for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's repair of
extensive El Nino related storm damage to the north head of the Federal
breakwater and to the South Beach Groin.
background
Ventura Harbor, homeport to 1,500 vessels, is located along the
Southern California coastline in the City of San Buenaventura,
approximately 60 miles northwest of the City of Los Angeles. The harbor
opened in 1963. Annual dredging of the harbor entrance area is usually
necessary in order to assure a navigationally adequate channel. In
1968, the 90th Congress made the harbor a Federal project and committed
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide for the maintenance of the
entrance structures and the dredging of the entrance channel and sand
traps.
The harbor presently generates more than $40 million in gross
receipts annually. That, of course, translates into thousands of both
direct and indirect jobs. A significant portion of those jobs are
associated with the commercial fishing industry (over 30 million pounds
of fish products were landed in 1996), and with vessels serving the
offshore oil industry. Additionally, the headquarters for the Channel
Islands National Park is located within the harbor, and the only
commercial vessels transporting the nearly 100,000 visitors per year to
and from the Park islands offshore, operate out of the harbor. All of
the operations of the harbor, particularly those related to commercial
fishing, the support boats for the oil industry, and the visitor
transport vessels for the Channel Islands National Park are highly
dependent upon a navigationally adequate entrance to the harbor.
operations and maintenance needs
Dredging
The Corps of Engineers has determined that $2,705,000 will be
required to perform routine maintenance dredging of the harbor's
entrance channel and sand traps during fiscal year 1999. This dredging
work is absolutely essential to the continued operation of the harbor
given the large volume of material that was deposited in the harbor's
entrance area by the severe El Nino storms of 1998.
Rock Structure Repairs
It is estimated that $2,500,000 will be required in the
Supplemental Fiscal Year 1998 Appropriations Bill for the Corps of
Engineers to repair extensive El Nino related storm damage to the north
head of the Federal breakwater and to the South Beach Groin. These
structures are important components of the harbor's entrance system and
their repair must be accomplished expeditiously in order to assure the
maintenance of a navigationally adequate entrance channel.
Additionally, it should be noted that the failure to repair these
structures will result in increased maintenance dredging costs in
subsequent years.
study needs
The Corps of Engineers has determined that $250,000 will be
required during fiscal year 1999 to initiate a cost shared Feasibility
Study to determine the advisability of modifying the existing Federal
navigation project at Ventura Harbor to include a sand bypass system.
Given the continuing need for maintenance dreading, it is appropriate
to determine if a sand bypass system or other measures can accomplish
the maintenance of the harbor in a manner that is more efficient and
cost effective than the current contract dredging approach.
______
Prepared Statement of Leland Wong, Commission President, Los Angeles
Board of Harbor Commissioners for the Port of Los Angeles
Chairman Domenici and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Leland
Wong, President of the City of Los Angeles Board of Harbor
Commissioners which oversees the activities of the Port of Los Angeles.
My testimony, for the City of Los Angeles and its Board of Harbor
Commissioners, speaks in support of continuation of the federal role in
the implementation of the major navigation improvements underway at the
San Pedro Bay, California. Specifically, I am speaking of the Pier 400
Dredging and Landfill Navigation Project and our request for an
appropriation of $69 million for fiscal year 1999.
pier 400 implementation under the 2020 development plan
The San Pedro Bay ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, years ago acknowledged the dramatic increase
in Pacific Rim trade volumes forecast to take place over the next
decades. To meet the resulting international trade needs of the region
and the Nation, the Port of Los Angeles engaged in a long-term,
cooperative planning effort known as the 2020 Development Plan. The
2020 Plan accurately predicted the phenomenal growth of trade through
the San Pedro Bay ports and is a blueprint for the ports'
infrastructure development that would accommodate the projected growth
well into the 21st century. Divided into phases, Stage II of the 2020
Plan is a federal deep-draft navigation project--known as the Pier 400
Dredging and Landfill Navigation Project--which is currently under
construction. The Commissioners, management and staff of the Port of
Los Angeles have been working since 1985 with the Corps of Engineers
toward the implementation of the 2020 Plan which was authorized in the
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986 (Public Law 99-662), and
was further sanctioned in WRDA 1988 (Public Law 100-371) and WRDA 1990
(Public Law 101-640).
The contracts for Stage II construction were completed by the Port
of Los Angeles in 1997. Stage I includes advance constructing the
dredging of new federal navigation channels that abut existing land at
Pier 300 and the reclamation of 265 acres of new land at Pier 400.
Stage II includes the dredging of new and deeper channels to Pier 300
and Pier 400, and the creation of an additional 315 acres of new land
at Pier 400.
stage ii construction
I am pleased to inform the Subcommittee that on July 14, 1997 the
Corps of Engineers issued the Notice to Proceed for construction of
Stage II. Construction is on schedule with completion expected in
January 2000.
We are also pleased to inform you that the Port of Los Angeles
completed restoration of the Bataquitos Lagoon Wetlands and the Bolsa
Chica Wetlands. These environmental restoration projects were completed
by the Port of Los Angeles at a cost of nearly $100 million and gave
the Port sufficient environmental mitigation credits to construct Stage
II.
Mr. Chairman, the Port of Los Angeles appreciates the appropriation
of $26.1 million by Congress for fiscal year 1998, which was $10
million over the budget request. However, there remains a shortfall of
approximately $50 million in construction funds which threatens to
delay Stage II construction for as long as two years. According to
Corps of Engineers' estimates such a delay could cost as much as $30
million. The additional cost would be borne by the Port of Los Angeles
and would provide no value to the project. You should know, Mr.
Chairman, that the contractor has been working apace and has fully
utilized the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1998, including a
small amount which the Corps recently reprogrammed. Therefore, to keep
the project on schedule and to avoid the additional costs of delays,
the Port has advanced most of the shortfall amount. However, this
advance has significantly affected the Port's finances and may
jeopardize its ability to make further advances that may be required to
maintain schedule.
Consequently, Mr. Chairman, the Port of Los Angeles requests your
Subcommittee to appropriate $69 million for the Pier 400 Project for
fiscal year 1999. This appropriation would make it possible for the
Corps of Engineers' Los Angeles District to maintain schedule on Stage
II construction next year and ensure completion of the Pier 400 Project
no later than fiscal year 2000. Just as importantly, our request is
based on a construction schedule that is directly linked to proposed
agreements with prospective new tenants for the early use of Pier 400
facilities early in the year 2000.
The Port of Los Angeles' funding request for Stage II construction
is consistent with the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) executed
between the Port of Los Angeles and the Corps of Engineers on March 19,
1997. The PCA establishes the federal government's financial interest
in the Pier 400 Project pursuant to WRDA 1986 and existing Corps
policy, and confirms the federal share to be $116 million out of an
estimated total project cost of $625 million. The federal share of
Stage I construction was $63.8 million. Construction was completed last
year and the Port advance-funded the full federal share of Stage I
through debt financing. The federal share of Stage II construction was
established by the PCA as the first $97 million so that the Port could
receive credit toward Stage II from the funds previously advanced the
federal government during construction of Stage I. The Port's request
for an appropriation of $69 million for fiscal year 1999, therefore, is
consistent with the provisions of the Project Cooperation Agreement and
would make the federal government current on its financial obligations
to the Pier 400 Project.
economic impact of the pier 400 project
As the Port of Los Angeles has testified in previous years, cargo
throughput for the San Pedro Bay is expected to more than triple in the
decades between 1990 and the year 2020. Actual growth rates in cargo
handling, from 1990 through 1997, have already exceeded the forecast
growth. The ability of the Port to meet the demands of this phenomenal
growth is dependent upon deep water channels (such as those being
constructed under the Pier 400 Project) that can accommodate the
largest state-of-the-art deep-draft vessels now on line in the world
fleet. These new vessels provide greater efficiency in cargo
transportation and offer consumers lower prices on imported goods and
more competitive exports. In fact, approximately 15 percent of all
consumer goods enter the United States through the Port of Los Angeles
before being transported into the stream of American commerce by rail
and by truck.
The Pier 400 Project is clearly a project of national significance,
conferring economic benefits in many ways:
--Over $74 billion annually in trade that supports meaningful
permanent employment for over one million Americans across the
country;
--The generation of $84.8 billion in industry sales;
--$24.3 billion in wages and salaries;
--$12 billion in annual tax revenues;
--The generation of $1.8 billion annually in U.S. Customs revenues.
The return on the federal investment is real and quantifiable, and
is expected to exceed the cost-benefit ration as determined by the
Corps of Engineers in the project feasibility study. The federal
investment in the Pier 400 Project will ensure that one of the Nation's
most important ports remains competitive into the 21st century.
ongoing maintenance of existing federal channels and harbor breakwater
Related to the efficient operation of the completed Pier 400
Project is the required ongoing maintenance of the existing federal
navigation channels at the Port of Los Angeles. The Port requests your
Subcommittee to include an appropriation of $350,000 to enable the
Corps to conduct a condition survey of the federal channels, evaluate
the Port's rehabilitation of the breakwater, and perform engineering
design for maintenance dredging of the West Basin. This work is
necessary to determine the future maintenance needs of the channels and
any rehabilitation that may be required for the breakwater. Ongoing
maintenance will ensure that the channels remain at depths at which
fully loaded container and tanker ships could safely navigate, and
guarantee the stability of the breakwater during severe storms. I might
add, Mr. Chairman, that a very small amount of Operation and
Maintenance dollars are required each year at the Port of Los Angeles,
in contrast to the $70 million in Harbor Maintenance Tax revenues
collected annually at the Port.
vicksburg model funding
The Port of Los Angeles further requests your Subcommittee to
provide an appropriation of $165,000 for ongoing maintenance of the
Port's harbor model at the Corps of Engineers' Waterways Experiment
Station (WES) at Vicksburg, Mississippi. In addition, $335,000 is
required for continued wave data collection. This information is
necessary to validate the numerical and physical models used for
project design. During the state-of-the-art design phase for the Pier
300 channel and the Pier 400 land reclamation, eight separate, but
related models, were used by the engineers and maintained by the
scientists and engineers of WES and were, likewise, used by the
engineers at the Port of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles District
Corps. Maintenance of the hydraulic and physical models at Vicksburg,
and their prototype data acquisition facilities remain an essential
resource for the Corps' Los Angeles District and for the Port of Los
Angeles.
in summary
Mr. Chairman, the Port of Los Angeles respectfully urges your
Subcommittee to include in the Corps of Engineers' fiscal year 1999
appropriation:
--$69 million for the Pier 400 Dredging and Landfill Navigation
Project;
--$350,000 to conduct surveys of the federal channels and the
rehabilitation of the breakwater in the San Pedro Bay;
--$165,000 for ongoing maintenance of the Vicksburg Harbor Models;
and
--$335,000 for continued wave data collection.
The Port of Los Angeles has long valued your Subcommittee's
demonstrated understanding the importance of the port industry to the
economic vitality of the United States. This understanding has been
evidenced by the appropriation of scarce federal dollars for harbor and
navigation projects such as the Pier 400 Project.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to submit this
testimony in support of continued funding for the federal navigation
activities at the Port of Los Angeles.
______
Prepared Statement of Cathy Novak, Mayor, City of Morro Bay, CA
Morro Bay Harbor is the only all-weather harbor of refuge between
Santa Barbara and Monterey on the West Coast. Our Harbor directly
supports almost 250 home-ported fishing vessels and marine dependent
businesses. We provide irreplaceable maritime facilities for both
recreational and commercial interests. Businesses that depend on the
harbor generate $53,500,000 and employ over 700 people. The United
States Coast Guard (USCG) maintains a 15 person search and rescue
station at Morro Bay Harbor to provide the Coast Guard services for the
entire Central California Coast.
During World War II the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) designed and
constructed a new harbor entrance at Morro Bay with two rock
breakwaters. Since the initial construction the Federal government has
maintained the harbor entrance, breakwaters and navigational channels,
and in fiscal year 1995 the ACOE completed the Morro Bay Harbor
entrance improvement project to improve safety for commercial fishing
and navigation. The City of Morro Bay was the local sponsor and
contributed over $900,000 in cash and in-kind services.
Morro Bay is a small city of 10,000 with very limited resources but
has made this project one of its highest priorities for almost 10 years
because of the regional importance of the harbor. Without continued
Federal maintenance, all of the past local and federal investment will
be lost.
Last year, the President's budget failed to recommend funding to
maintain our harbor. We deeply appreciate the funding your
distinguished Subcommittee added for this purpose. Maintenance dredging
funded in fiscal year 1998 began in January and will be completed this
spring.
Exposure to the open ocean and its brute force over the years has
caused the rocks on the south breakwater to dislodge and slough into
the water. This situation has probably been exacerbated by the fact
that the breakwater has not been repaired in over 30 years. It is an
essential component of a safe harbor and $2,000,000 is needed in fiscal
year 1999 to conduct badly needed repairs. The President's budget did
not recommend funding for this purpose. We have enclosed a photograph
from this winter's storms showing the USCG personnel transiting the
harbor entrance during breaking wave conditions.
Finally, in 1995 part of Morro Bay was designated a national
estuary by EPA. Reduced tidal circulation due to sedimentation of the
bay threatens not only the harbor but many sensitive habitat areas in
this very unique environment. In fiscal year 1998 Congress also added
$100,000 for an ACOE reconnaissance study of potential projects that
could reduce navigational channel dredging costs and restore sensitive
habitat through improving tidal circulation. Our thanks again for your
actions.
This habitat restoration reconnaissance study is underway and we
are encouraged. This project may benefit both our marine dependent
economy and the environment. Therefore, I support the fiscal year 1999
Presidential request of $100,000 to continue the study.
I am grateful for the opportunity to present these requests to your
Subcommittee on behalf of the citizens of the City of Morro Bay.
______
Prepared Statement of John Bridley, Waterfront Director, City of Santa
Barbara, CA
As your distinguished Subcommittee writes the fiscal year 1999
Energy and Water Resources Appropriations bill, I would like to bring a
very important Corps of Engineers project to your attention.
About 400,000 cubic yards of sand piles up every winter at Santa
Barbara Harbor, and in years of severe storms, the accumulated sand can
close the channel bringing local fishing and other businesses in the
Harbor to a standstill.
There is an important Federal interest in maintaining dredging at
the Harbor. It provides slips and moorings for over 1,000 commercial,
emergency and recreational boats. It is also an important part of Coast
Guard operations on California's central coast.
The President's fiscal year 1999 budget request includes $1,541,000
for operations and maintenance for Santa Barbara Harbor. I respectfully
request that the U.S. Senate, through your Subcommittee, maintain that
level of funding.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement.
______
Prepared Statement of Dick Lyon, Mayor, City of Oceanside, CA
The City of Oceanside and the Oceanside Harbor District request
your support of $839,000 as an addition to the fiscal year 1999 budget
for the Oceanside Harbor Maintenance and Operation Dredging Program.
The Administration's budget includes $622,000 for dredging Oceanside
Harbor. Due to a miscalculation in the dredge quantity performed by the
Corps of Engineers, the Administration's level of funding falls well
short of the required $1,461,000 to correctly perform the necessary
dredging.
In 1960, Congress authorized full federal funding for maintenance
of the Oceanside Harbor entrance (House Document 456, 86th Congress,
2nd Session, Public law 85-500) in recognition of the fact that the
Harbor entrance was constructed as an emergency wartime measure in
1942. To this day, the Oceanside Harbor entrance continues to serve the
vital military installation of Camp Pendleton Harbor. In 1992, the
Harbor District partnered with the federal government in a local cost
share agreement to modify the harbor entrance and the authorized
channel depth to reduce storm damage, provide surge protection to the
harbor's infrastructure and provide significant reduction of
navigational hazards that have produced 11 deaths, 49 serious injuries,
134 boating accidents and $1,500,000 in damage to vessels in the harbor
entrance.
It is imperative that the federal government uphold the long-
standing legislative commitment that it made. It was because of this
commitment that the Harbor District agreed to fund the local cost share
($1,600,000) of the harbor modification project.
Historically, the Harbor experiences sand infilling after the
winter season. This infilling problem will be drastically compounded by
the ``El Nino'' condition currently present on the existing shoaling
problem.
Oceanside Harbor will experience severe negative impacts should the
dredging project not be appropriately funded. Such action would
restrict access to the Pacific Ocean to the United States Navy and
Marine Corps as joint users of the entrance channel, as well as the
U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Point Hobart, which is also based in Oceanside.
The economic impact upon the local fishing fleet, the commercial
sportfishing fleet and the 1,000 recreational vessels berthed here, as
well as the businesses supported by the harbor, would be significant.
The maintenance program is essential for the safe navigation into
Oceanside Harbor and the U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton Harbor.
The program also provides the associated commerce and recreational
benefits to our community.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and for
your consideration of the request.
______
Prepared Statement of Roberta Goulart, Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors, Contra Costa County, CA
san francisco to stockton (baldwin) ship channel phase iii
Background
As the primary navigation channel for most of the oil tanker
traffic in San Francisco Bay, JFB provides a vital part of the economic
infrastructure in the San Francisco Bay Area. The channel extends from
the West Richmond channel through San Pablo Bay and Carquinez Strait
and into Suisun Bay. At a current depth of -35 feet, the channel
provides only minimum navigable depth for a world tanker fleet which
boasts drafts up to 70 feet in its largest ships. With the San
Francisco Bar Channel, the entrance to San Francisco Bay, at a depth of
-55 feet, tanker traffic entering the Bay is already limited to a
maximum of -50 feet because of underkeel clearance requirements. The
tankers entering the Bay are anchored south of the Bay Bridge and
partially off-loaded (lightered) into smaller ships until favorable
tides or reduced draft allow them to proceed to the shallower channel
and upstream berths. This in-bay transfer process is costly and is an
increased environmental risk when compared to entering the Bay and
proceeding directly to a berth for off loading as in the proposed
project.
There are three alternatives being considered to reduce
environmental risk and increase economic benefit to the process of
moving petroleum in the Bay. The first alternative is deepening the
existing -35 foot channel to -45 feet from the central bay up into
Suisun Bay. The second (and preferred), RMPLS alternative involves
deepening of a short channel section to -45 feet and the construction
of a pipeline terminal near Point Molate north of the Richmond/San
Rafael bridge. The pipeline terminal connects to an existing common
carrier utility pipeline that is linked to the refineries. The third
alternative is a combination of the first two, involving construction
of the pipeline terminal and dredging the deep draft channel to a depth
of -40 feet.
There is no request for funding at this time
The Local Sponsor, Contra Costa County, thanks you for years of
support for this project. We expect to commence construction of the
second alternative (the RMPLS described above), this fiscal year with
existing funding. We respectfully request your continuing support (non-
monetary at this time) in our continuing efforts to construct and
maintain the channel associated with this alternative. If, however, the
second (RMPLS) alternative cannot be implemented, and another
alternative is chosen, there may be a need for future project funding.
san francisco bay bar channel and southampton shoal channel and
extension feasibility study
The San Francisco Bay Bar Channel and the Southampton Shoal Channel
form the entrance into the San Francisco Bay and Delta, providing
foreign and domestic deep draft merchant, military, commercial fishing
and other vessel access to ports within the region. Changing deep draft
vessel operations and design requires deepening the -55 foot Bar
Channel and -45 foot Southampton Shoal channel. Deepening the Bar and
Southampton Shoal Channel will provide safer and more efficient
navigation of oil tankers entering the bay by allowing vessels to be
loaded more fully, which will require fewer vessel trips to deliver the
same amount of cargo. In addition, deepening of the Southampton Shoal
Channel and Extension to -50 feet will allow heavily laden vessels to
proceed directly to off loading facilities, rather than lightering (off
loading) onto smaller ships at open water anchorages in south San
Francisco Bay. The priority is for deepening of the Southampton Shoal
Channel and Extension first, as the greatest benefit occurs as a result
of this deepening. Language incorporating the Southampton Shoal and
Extension with the San Francisco Bar study area was introduced into the
1997 House Report by Congressman Fazio and subsequently approved with
the concurrence of Chairman Myers.
Funding request
Funding of $460,000 is currently contained in the President's
fiscal year 1999 budget. Contra Costa County, the Project's Local
Sponsor, has recently been working with contractors on bids for
portions of the feasibility study, and has found recent estimates are
higher than those contained in the Project Study Plan completed for the
project last year. Therefore, the County, as Local Sponsor is
requesting a fiscal year 1999 budget allocation of $600,000 to complete
the feasibility study.
Purpose of fiscal year 1999 funding
The purpose of fiscal year 1999 funding would be to continue the
Feasibility Study. Feasibility Study activities include sediment
environmental testing, navigation simulation, cultural resources
analysis, study and project management, environmental and economic
studies, geotechnical analysis of the channel, real estate, plan
formulation activities, surveying and mapping, and design and cost
estimates. In fiscal year 1998, a $600,000 allocation was made to
initiate the Feasibility Study. We are requesting a fiscal year 1999
allocation of $600,000 due to study activities necessary to comply with
new environmental and regulatory requirements.
______
Prepared Statement of E.D. Allen, Chief Harbor Engineer, Port of Long
Beach, CA
I am E.D. Allen, Chief Harbor Engineer for the Port of Long Beach,
California. I have been authorized by the Board of Harbor Commissioners
of the City of Long Beach to represent the Port of Long Beach in regard
to appropriations for the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Model
Study; Planning, Engineering, and Design for our on-going 2020 Plan;
Los Angeles River maintenance dredging; and Reconnaissance and
Feasibility Studies for beach erosion.
In addition to the following specific project appropriation
requests, I am recommending the committee recognize the need for
standby Corps dredging capability to supplement private contractors in
the event of emergencies coinciding with available environmental
windows for normal dredging. I specifically recommend a standby/
training capability be funded without a minimum dredge quantity per
year quota. This will allow (1) private contractors to benefit from
receiving previous corps annual dredging quantities and (2) Corps of
Engineers equipment to be able to be used without a project funding
appropriation. As a result, minor maintenance dredging could be
undertaken at the Corps' discretion for training purposes which would
provide a tremendous benefit to the smaller ports and harbors. Many of
the needs of the smaller ports have not been met due to the lack of a
program such as this.
My more specific requests follows for listed projects.
Harbors Model Maintenance (Civil Works Budget Category--O&M)
The Water Resources Development Act of 1976, Section 123,
authorized the Chief of Engineers to operate and maintain the Los
Angeles-Long Beach Harbor Hydraulic Model at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi as
part of the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Model Study. This model
encompasses both port complexes in San Pedro Bay, which, as you are
aware, are ports of national significance. The hydraulic model, along
with several numeric models, provide state-of-the-art methodology that
can be used on the San Pedro Bay ports and on many other harbor
complexes. In addition, the Port, as the local agency, is assisting in
the Corps effort to provide continuous wave-gauge data by providing
necessary support personnel and equipment for the maintenance of
portions of the systems located at the Port.
In fiscal year 1998, $165,000 was appropriated for maintenance of
the physical model of San Pedro Bay. During this time, the Port also
used the model to analyze necessary navigation-related modifications to
the recently completed portion of our expansion plan, as well as our
upcoming expansion within the Navy Basin. This effort is being funded
by the Port and is currently on-going. It is necessary that the model
remain ready for service such as this. Funding in fiscal year 1999, in
the amount of $165,000, would continue annual maintenance on the model.
Additionally, we are requesting $400,000 of continued funding for the
wave gage (prototype) data acquisition and analysis program. This
program began in 1987 to develop data for the design of the 2020 Plan
port expansion and navigation improvements. This program has now
evolved to construction monitoring and model verification which needs
to continue in order to confirm expected levels of impacts of the
expansion plans. Therefore, Congress is respectfully requested to
appropriate $565,000 for fiscal year 1999 to perform this work.
Port of Long Beach Deepening, Queens Gate (Civil Works Budget
Category--Construction)
The Port of Long Beach developed a long-range master plan, referred
to as the 2020 Plan, which demonstrates the need for new navigation
channels (Queens Gate Deepening) and additional landfill development
through the year 2020.
Section 201(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
authorized construction of the 2020 Plan upon recommendations of a
feasibility report and completion of a favorable Chief of Engineers
Report. The Chief's Report was issued July 26, 1996 and the Office of
Management of Budget has approved the Report. The first phase of the
Plan was begun with the construction of the Pier J expansion project,
which includes dredging the Long Beach Main Channel to at least a depth
of 76 feet. This project is known as the Port of Long Beach Deepening.
Together with the approach channel deepening outside the Federal
breakwater, the dredging was evaluated for Federal interest in the
feasibility study because it permits deeper draft crude petroleum
vessels to call at the Port of Long Beach.
This project provides environmental benefits in addition to the
economic benefit of transportation savings. Environmental benefits of
the deepening project include a projected improvement in air quality. A
deeper channel will mean that crude oil can be transported in larger,
and therefore fewer, vessels. Fewer vessels, in turn, mean an estimated
25 percent reduction in air emissions compared to no project, which is
a net environmental benefit. A portion of the Federal share funds were
appropriated in fiscal year 1998, however an additional amount is
required to complete the project. We have proceeded with our work and
now are requesting the remaining Federal share to be appropriated.
Completion of Pre-construction, Engineering, and Design (PED) and
construction of the first dredging increment (to a depth of 69 feet) is
scheduled for fiscal year 1998 with total appropriation of $5,635,000.
It is urged that the Committee approve an appropriation of $10,500,000
to fund the final increment of the Long Beach Deepening Project, which
will make good on the Federal cost share and complete this project.
This will allow continuous construction and dredging to the full
project depth. This is the Port's highest priority project.
The landfill development of the 2020 Plan as a whole provides other
environmental benefits as well. Restoration of the Bolsa Chica wetlands
in nearby Orange County is a prime example. As mitigation for the
creation of future port landfills, the Port of Long Beach provided over
$40 million to the Federal and state agencies that are restoring the
wetlands. Nearly 1,000 acres of degraded lowlands currently in oil
production will be cleaned up and reintroduced to tidal influence. The
restored wetlands will be one of the largest in southern California,
providing valuable fish and migratory bird habitat in the midst of the
heavily urbanized greater Los Angeles area.
Los Angeles River Maintenance Dredging (Civil Works Budget Category--
O&M)
The Port of Long Beach also concurs with and supports the
recommendation of C-MANC and the City of Long Beach with respect to
Federal funding for remedial maintenance dredging to remove accumulated
flood-deposited silt in the mouth of the Los Angeles River. During the
storms of 1995, flood-deposited silt closed the mouth of the Los
Angeles River to navigation. This restricted regularly scheduled water
route transportation between the cities of Long Beach and Avalon,
creating an economic emergency. Reacting to this, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers removed 300,000 cubic yards from the channel which allowed
for minimal resumption of navigation.
However, substantial quantities of silt remain in the channel,
especially since the recent storms we have experienced. These silt
deposits create the likelihood of future serious restrictions and
safety hazards to commercial and recreational boating activity in, and
adjacent to, the Long Beach Harbor District and the associated
businesses in Long Beach. Such restrictions and hazards have resulted
in accidents and litigation.
The Port supports the City in recommending that these silt deposits
be removed on an annual basis as a scheduled work item. In the draft of
``Project Plan for Los Angeles River Estuary Maintenance Dredging, Long
Beach, CA, October 1994'' (Draft Project Plan-1994), the Corps of
Engineers estimated an average annual deposit of silt in the estuary of
485,000 cubic yards. The rate of such deposits is influenced by
operational decisions at the Corps of Engineers' dams located at the
headwaters of the river. It is imperative for our current operations,
that a long range remedy be found for the Los Angeles River mouth, if
navigational utility and effective flood control capability is to be
maintained.
It is estimated by the Corps of Engineers, that maintenance
dredging of the channel to a minimum usable width requires removal of
approximately 185,000 cubic yards at an annual cost of over $2,000,000.
Clearing a minimum usable width does not, however, remove all shoaling
that hinders navigation. An expenditure of $6,000,000 is necessary to
clear silt deposits and prevent an immediate re-accumulation of
material to a critical level. Congress is requested, therefore, to
appropriate $6,000,000 for accomplishment of this vital removal of
sediment. This work is included in the line item known as Los Angeles
Long Beach Harbors in the Civil Works Budget. Please note, if there was
a standby/training budget for Corps dredges that I earlier proposed, it
is possible that this type of work could be more easily scheduled at
Corps' discretion rather than via emergency provisions.
Reconnaissance/Feasibility Study Beach Erosion (Civil Works Budget
Category--Surveys)
The Port of Long Beach also supports C-MANC and the City of Long
Beach on their request for Federal funding to complete a Corps of
Engineers reconnaissance study on beach erosion. In southeastern Long
Beach, east of the Port's land and channels, and directly opposite the
Federal breakwater, a beach and seawall protects approximately
$200,000,000 worth of homes. Steady erosion had reduced the beach from
an optimum of 175 feet to 30 feet prior to City's efforts in late 1994
to rebuild the beach. Winter storms continue to reduce the beach width.
The City has also experienced erosion in the west beach area.
Although homes are not endangered, public improvements, including
lifeguard stations, public restrooms, a bicycle and pedestrian trail,
and a parking lot, are at risk. The cause of the new problem is
unclear, indicating the need for a thorough study of the beach erosion
problem inside the Federal breakwater.
The primary method of protecting the homes has been annual
rebuilding, with the building of sand berms during high tides or
expected storms. The City has invested over $5,300,000 in capital
improvement projects, annual beach rebuilding, and storm protection to
control the beach erosion over the past 16 years. Despite this effort,
in 1989 and 1993, storm waves eroded the beach and breached the
protective seawall, causing damage to homes. The City is also defending
itself against a lawsuit by one of the homeowners who is claiming that
the City failed to halt erosion that narrowed the beaches in front of
his home to less than the desired width adopted in the 1980 Local
Coastal Plan.
In fiscal year 1997, $252,000 was appropriated to complete the
reconnaissance study of the beach erosion problem within the City of
Long Beach. It is now requested that Congress appropriate $500,000 in
fiscal year 1999 to initiate the feasibility study.
This beach erosion problem is directly related to the focusing
affect the Federal breakwater has on our large commercial harbor
complex and surrounding beaches.
Attached hereto is a Resolution to be adopted by the Board of
Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach on March 23, 1998, which
contains data relating to the background of the Los Angeles and Long
Beach Harbors Model Study, the 2020 Plan implementation, the Los
Angeles River dredging, the beach erosion problem in Long Beach, and
other related navigation and economic matters. The resolution stresses
the need for Federal assistance in developing economic, technical and
environmental background information essential to the design and
permitting of Port facilities vital to regional and national interests.
The Port of Long Beach is the largest container port in the United
States and is the economic engine bringing $3.7 billion in customs
receipts from both Los Angeles and Long Beach ports and jobs for
500,000 people. We are truly a port and harbor of national
significance.
We kindly ask that Congress continue its support of these projects
in fiscal year 1999 by appropriating the requested funds.
Thank you for permitting me the privilege of this presentation.
______
Prepared Statement of Don Knabe, Supervisor Fourth District, Board of
Supervisors, County of Los Angeles
fiscal year 1999 funding for marina del rey dredging and navigation
study
Los Angeles County respectfully requests that the Congress of the
United States include funds in the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water
appropriations bill for the following projects, which are urgently
required to preserve public safety in Marina del Rey.
Marina del Rey Entrance Channel Dredging ($6,000,000)
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for maintenance
dredging of the Marina del Rey's entrances and main channel, pursuant
to a perpetual right of way and easement agreement with the County. The
last design-depth dredging of Marina del Rey occurred in 1981, with
217,000 cubic yards of material removed. Since then, contaminants in
some of the Marina's sediments have prevented thorough dredging.
Emergency dredging projects were conducted in 1987, 1994, and 1996,
removing just enough sediment to make the entrances navigable.
This winter's severe storms have caused another emergency
situation, with the south entrance being 85 percent closed and the
north entrance being 75 percent closed. To reopen the north entrance,
the Corps plans to remove 143,000 cubic yards of clean sediments in
March and April, 1998. If the most recent shoaling in the south
entrance is found suitable for open ocean disposal, that entrance may
be reopened to 50 percent of its width.
The Corps is currently engaged in a feasibility study (see below)
that will establish short and long-term solutions to the Marina's
dredging problem. An integral part of that study is a dredged material
management plan which involves removing approximately 600,000 cubic
yards of sediment in 1999, returning the Marina's entrances and main
channel to their design depth. The contaminated sediments will be used
in a demonstration project intended to establish an environmentally
safe and economically feasible solution to the Los Angeles region's
contaminated sediment problem. The clean sediments will be used for
beach renourishment.
The President's fiscal year 1999 budget does not include any funds
to perform maintenance dredging at Marina del Rey. We are, therefore,
requesting your support for an appropriation of $6.0 million to remove
the 600,000 cubic yards of sediment. Without a thorough dredging in
1999, the Marina's entrances will continue to close, which could
threaten the ability of the U.S. Coast Guard, the County Sheriff's
Harbor Patrol, the County Lifeguards and the City and County Fire
Departments to respond to emergencies. As these agencies are the
critical core of the LAX Air-Sea Disaster Response Team, it is
imperative that the Marina's entrances remain open and safely
navigable.
Marina del Rey and Ballona Creek Feasibility Study ($520,000)
Some of the sediments creating navigational hazards in Marina del
Rey's entrances contain contaminants that make dredging and disposal
difficult and costly. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a
reconnaissance study in 1996, which established that there is a Federal
interest in solving this problem. The feasibility phase of the study is
now underway with the County providing 50 percent of the necessary
funding.
The study is focused on an economical and environmentally safe
disposal option for the contaminated sediments, as well as on actions
that can be taken in the Ballona Creek watershed that will eliminate or
reduce the flow of contaminated sediments into Marina del Rey's
entrance. Dedicated staff from the County, the Corps, the City of Los
Angeles, the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, Heal the Bay, and
other environmental and regulatory agencies have worked to limit the
scope, time, and cost of this study. Based on the approved plan, the
study will require three years to complete, at a cost of $2.7 million.
As the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has agreed to pay 50
percent of the study's costs, we are pleased that there are funds in
the President's fiscal year 1999 budget for this study. We, therefore,
ask your support of the President's budget request of $520,000, for the
Federal share of the cost in fiscal year 1999.
Regional Contaminated Sediment Task Force ($100,000)
A task force has been established to solve the Los Angeles region's
contaminated sediment problem. To ``authorize'' the Corps' essential
participation in the task force, a reconnaissance study, or other line
item, must be approved in the fiscal year 1999 budget. Following
current policy, the reconnaissance study should be funded for $100,000.
As the work of this task force is critical to Marina del Rey, Los
Angeles County requests your support for this item.
______
Prepared Statement of Brian E. Foss, Port Director, Santa Cruz Port
In 1986, the United States Congress and the Santa Cruz Port
District signed a Memorandum of Agreement ``M.O.A.'' (joint-venture
L.C.A.) on the acquisition of a sand bypass system for Santa Cruz Small
Craft Harbor. This $2.7 million agreement, authorized under the Water
Resources Development Act of 1984, provided that, once in place, the
system would be operated and maintained by the Port District.
The bypass project has been extraordinarily successful. The harbor,
once the scene of long closures and countless accidents because of
shoals and breaking surf, is now 100 percent open to navigation all
year round. The federal government no longer has to appropriate yearly
O&M funds as it did from 1964 to 1986. The savings over the past ten
years is estimated at $9+ million. The savings over the life of the
project (2014) is estimated to be well in excess of $28 million in 1986
dollars.
The Port District is quite satisfied with the operational project
and will carry out its responsibilities through 2014. However, an
inequity exists in the original cost-share formula, which the Port
District asks Congress to give redress.
The original legislative act of 1958, H.D. 357, provided for a 64.9
percent federal share and a 35.1 percent local share of the Santa Cruz
Harbor jetty and basin construction, as well as a sand bypass system to
be built subsequently. It also provided for a yearly contribution by
the federal government of $35,000 for operation of the bypass system.
The 1986 M.O.A. was formulated using the present value of the
$35,000 yearly operating contribution through 2014. That amount was
given to the Port District in a lump sum ($389,000). That amount is the
subject of our request. It should have been adjusted for inflation over
the period from 1958-2014.
The 1997 Congressional Energy and Water Appropriation Bill (O&M
General) directed the Corps of Engineers to study this issue and report
back to Congress. The Corps' San Francisco District completed that
study and determined that no adjustment could be made within existing
enabling language. This finding was made without prejudice, as the
equities involved may indeed validate the Port District's request.
Procedurally, the Port District seeks correcting language in the
anticipated 1998 Water Resources Development Act.
The estimated value of the Port District's request is $1,071,000.
This value excludes credit for operating funds already received
($389,000).
In exchange for correcting this financial inequity the Port
District would agree to extend its operational responsibility to year
2024. The estimated O&M savings to the federal government over the
period from 1986 to 2024 is estimated to exceed $38 million in 1986
dollars.
The Port District requests that $1,071,000 be appropriated
contingent upon appropriate, enabling language in the 1998 Water
Resources Development Act.
______
Prepared Statement of the Crescent City Harbor District
Chairman Domenici and Members of the Subcommittee: The Crescent
City Harbor District would like to take this opportunity to thank our
local Congressman, the Honorable Frank Riggs, and you, Mr. Chairman, as
well as other members of the subcommittee and staff for their continued
efforts to maintain funding for our much needed project.
For those unfamiliar with the our area, Crescent City Harbor is the
most northerly port in California and one of California's strongest
fishing harbors. Crescent City was ranked nationally as 31st in tonnage
of fish landed and 43rd in the value of its catch last year by the
national marine fisheries service. We were ranked higher than either
Eureka/Humboldt Bay, to our south, or Brookings, Oregon, to our north.
The commercial fishermen of our area have been experiencing tidal
delays in leaving the harbor because of the shallow areas in the
channel between the existing federal inner harbor channel and the small
boat basin where they moor. These delays also make safely accommodating
larger vessels and efficient use of the harbor difficult. A
reconnaissance study to determine federal interest in this project was
completed in March of 1995 and has been certified by the Corps of
Engineers. The general re-evaluation report has been drafted and should
be submitted to South Pacific Division for approval on April 21, 1998.
It calls for a 14 ft. MLLW depth. Construction is now scheduled to
begin in October of 1998 as long as funding is available.
Del Norte County's economy has been seriously impacted by the
decline in the timber industry and the recent federal cuts to fishing.
Our unemployment rate is already at 11.9 percent. We need this funding
to maintain our place among the nation's fishing ports and support our
declining economy.
The Board of Commissioners of the Crescent City Harbor District
asks that your subcommittee add $370,000 to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers budget for completion of the project at Crescent City.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee for this
opportunity to submit testimony.
Attachment No. 1
[From the Times Standard, Aug. 6, 1997]
Crescent City, Eureka Ranked
(By David Anderson)
Two North Coast fishing ports are among the top 60 in the nation,
according to figures released this week by the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Crescent City ranked 31st in tonnage of fish landed and 43rd in the
value of its catch. Eureka was 47th in tonnage and 54th in value.
No California port except Los Angeles' ranked in the top 10.
Alaskan and Gulf Coast ports took most of the top spots.
Crescent City landed 26.3 million pounds of fish valued at $16.4
million in fish valued at $16.4 million in 1996, up from 21.8 million
pounds worth $11.5 million in 1995--but down from the 28.4 million
pounds and $18.4 million it reported in 1994.
Eureka landed 18 million pounds valued at $12.3 million in 1996. In
1995 it landed 15.1 million pounds worth $10.3 million, and in 1994 it
landed 18.4 million pounds valued at $13 million.
Fort Bragg and Trinidad did not make the top 60 list, but
Brookings, OR, just barely did, ranking 56th in weight and 60th in
value with 13 million pounds of fish worth $11 million.
Since the decline of the salmon fishery, most of the North Coast
lands have been groundfish such as Dover sole, sablefish, ling cod and
rockfish. Crescent City also has a shrimp fishery.
The tiny, isolated Aleutian island port of Dutch harbor, was tops
in the nation, as it has for many years. With a permanent population of
less than 2,000, Dutch Harbor registered landings of 699.6 million
pounds in 1996, valued at $224 million.
Runner-up was almost equally small Empire, LA, which registered
431.7 million pounds--but worth only $60 million.
Gordon Helm, spokesman for the fisheries service, said Dutch Harbor
landings are high because it is the port of registry for all Bering Sea
and Aleution islands fishing boats. Pollock is the major fish landed,
he said, and most of it is processed by factory ships, but in the small
community.
The large Gulf Coast fishery is mostly shrimp and Menhaden, Helm
said.
In descending order, the top fishing ports are Dutch Harbor;
Empire; Cameron, LA; Seattle; Kodiak, AK; Intercoastal City, LA;
Berwick, LA; Los Angeles; Pascagoula, MS; and Ketchikan, AK.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TCORPS.010
______
PACIFIC NORTHWEST WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland,
OR
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is John
Etchart, and I am chairman of the Northwest Power Planning Council. I
appreciate the opportunity to submit written testimony in support of
the Clinton Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget request for
several programs under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee. The Council was established by Congress in
1980, and created as an interstate compact by the states of Idaho,
Montana, Oregon and Washington. Its purpose is to develop a 20-year
regional electric power plan to ensure for the Pacific Northwest an
adequate supply of power at the lowest possible cost. The plan is
designed to ensure that the region only acquires resources it needs and
that it acquires the lowest-cost resources first. The Council also was
directed to develop a major program to rebuild fish and wildlife
resources that have been harmed by hydroelectric development in the
Columbia River Basin. The Council carries out its responsibilities
under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation
Act of 1980 (Northwest Power Act), Public Law 96-501.
In 1996, Congress amended the Northwest Power Act in section 512 of
the fiscal year 1997 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
That new provision of law, section 4(h)(10)(D) of the Northwest Power
Act, extended the Council's responsibilities by requiring that it make
recommendations to the Bonneville Power Administration for annual fish
and wildlife expenditures in the Columbia River Basin. The Council is
directed to base its recommendations to Bonneville on the findings of
an 11-member independent scientific review panel that was established
pursuant to section 4(h)(10)(D). Currently the amount of funding
available from Bonneville for these direct fish and wildlife
expenditures averages about $127 million per year.
Congress recognized in the Northwest Power Act that the resources
of the Columbia River Basin are important to the region and the nation.
Both the Council's power plan and its fish and wildlife program were
developed under the mandates of the Act, in which Congress provided
direction and the framework for the Council as a policy and planning
body. Three Federal agencies under the jurisdiction of the
Subcommittee, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of
Reclamation, and the Bonneville Power Administration, all administer
programs that are critical to the Columbia River Basin. The Council
works closely with all three agencies in fulfilling its statutory
responsibilities to develop its regional power plan and implement its
Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The relationship among
the Council and the agencies is unique and reflects Congress' desire to
provide an effective management structure for the resources in the
basin. Through this arrangement, the Federal agencies and the four
Northwest states share funding, implementation and regulatory
responsibilities in the management of the basin's power and fish and
wildlife resources.
Because of these shared and sometimes overlapping responsibilities,
the Council has a continuing interest in the budgets of the three
Federal agencies. The Council's fish and wildlife program is funded by
a combination of revenues from electricity sales and Federal
appropriations. While a significant portion of the fish and wildlife
program is funded by Bonneville, the other Federal agencies also are
requesting to commit approximately $150 million in appropriated funds
in the basin in fiscal year 1999. A large portion of these funds,
especially those appropriated to the Corps and Bureau of Reclamation
for construction, operations and maintenance, will be repaid by the
region's electric ratepayers through Bonneville.
Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
The Council's fish and wildlife program is designed to protect,
mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife, and related spawning and
rearing grounds of the Columbia River Basin that have been adversely
affected by the construction and operation of hydropower facilities.
Unlike the National Marine Fisheries Service, which has specific
statutory authority to recover Endangered Species Act--listed salmon
runs in the Snake River, the Council's focus is much broader. The
Council's mandate under the Northwest Power Act is to protect, mitigate
and enhance all populations of fish and wildlife that are affected by
the operation of hydroelectric facilities in the Columbia River Basin.
The Council last amended the program in December 1994. As required
by the Northwest Power Act, measures in our program are based on the
best available scientific knowledge and were developed with broad
public involvement.
Currently, the Council is considering amending its fish and
wildlife program. One primary impetus for this is a draft scientific
report on the program that was released in September of 1996. In March
1995, the Council asked the Independent Scientific Group (later
reconfigured and renamed the Independent Scientific Advisory Board) to
review the science underlying the Columbia River Basin Fish and
Wildlife Program and to propose a conceptual foundation for that
program. The scientists spent more than a year and analyzed more than
4,000 pieces of literature before drawing the conclusions contained in
the prepublication report that was issued last September. The report
describes an approach to fish recovery that would emphasize the
ecosystem inhabited by the fish at every stage in their life cycles.
This approach, deemed ``the normative ecosystem,'' would shift recovery
efforts toward restoring the kind of conditions that nurture salmon and
steelhead and other fish and wildlife in less-developed habitat. At the
same time, the report acknowledges that development has occurred and
will continue, and fish and wildlife recovery measures will require
policy calls on the trade-offs among ecological needs and the cultural
and economic needs of society. The report stresses the importance of a
continuum of habitats from freshwater streams, through the estuary and
out into the ocean. It also suggests that core populations of salmon in
particularly healthy habitat, such as the Hanford Reach in Washington
State, can be used to recolonize adjacent habitat areas where salmon
are in decline. The report was released for public comment, and
currently is being finalized by its authors. The final report is
expected to be available sometime this summer.
At the present time, the Council is in the initial stages of
developing a scientific foundation for future amendments to the
Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The scientific
foundation is a set of principles that helps translate goals into
ecological objectives and strategies. The Council intends to develop a
foundation that will underlie and help connect the goals, ecological
objectives and strategies in an amended Program. Through the scientific
foundation, goals shape ecological objectives, which shape strategies.
Finalizing the Independent Scientific Advisory Board's report and
developing a scientific foundation will help prepare the way for the
formal amendment process, which may begin later in the year.
The Northwest Power Act imposed responsibilities on Federal river,
land and power agencies to act in a manner consistent with the
Council's power plan and fish and wildlife program or to consider the
plan and program in their decision-making ``to the fullest extent
practicable.'' The ability of Federal agencies to meet their objectives
under the Act is tied directly to their funding levels and budget
priorities.
u.s. army corps of engineers
The Council continues to support the Corps' Columbia River Fish
Mitigation Program. The primary focus of the program is to reduce the
mortality of juvenile salmon and steelhead as they migrate down the
Snake and Columbia rivers to the ocean from their spawning grounds.
While significant sums of money have been appropriated for the program
over the past decade, and many improvements have been made, much work
still remains. The Corps' fiscal year 1999 budget proposal for the
program is $117 million, and includes funding for several critical
studies and activities that are crucial to recovering, rebuilding and
maintaining the anadromous fish runs in the Columbia River Basin. The
budget includes adequate funding for continued testing and installation
of new or improved juvenile bypass and related transportation
facilities at the mainstem dams: Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower
Monumental and Ice Harbor dams on the Snake River, and McNary, John
Day, The Dalles and Bonneville dams on the Columbia. The Council
supports the Corps' full budget request of $117 million.
Juvenile Fish Passage Improvements
In 1987, the Council helped develop a consensus among private and
public utility interests, Indian tribes, fish and wildlife interests
and the Bonneville Power Administration on the need for expedited
completion of new and improved fish bypass facilities at all the
mainstem dams. This regional consensus resulted in an original schedule
for completing these facilities by 1994. Unfortunately, several
unforeseen factors have made the original schedule impossible to keep.
Escalating costs and unexpected, dramatic declines in the population of
several of the basin's anadromous fish runs have contributed to a
longer implementation schedule for the program. This has led to new
demands on the Corps to develop, test and install facilities not
envisioned initially, such as extended-length bypass screens, surface
bypass facilities, structural improvements in the projects to reduce
dissolved gas levels when water is spilled at the projects to assist
the migrating fish, and installation of passive integrated transponder
(PIT) tag detectors (electronic devices being installed at some
hydroelectric projects that can identify tiny electronic transmitters
implanted in the bodies of some of the passing salmon).
The Corps is requesting a total of $62.707 million in fiscal year
1999 for juvenile fish passage improvements. This includes $15 million
for the construction and installation of extended length screens at
John Day Dam, and $31.95 million for the construction of juvenile
monitoring and outfall facilities at powerhouses 1 and 2 at Bonneville
Dam. The request also includes $23.2 million relating to surface bypass
facilities. Of that amount, $5 million is for continued evaluation of
the prototype surface bypass at Lower Granite Dam, and $9.7 million
would go for the design and construction of test facilities at
Bonneville Dam. In addition, the Corps' request includes $11.77 million
for dissolved gas abatement activities, $8.57 million for adult fish
passage improvements, $4.028 million for Snake River drawdown
feasibility studies, and $3.730 million for John Day drawdown studies.
The Council believes that making the Federal projects safer for
juvenile and adult migrating continues to be of the highest priority,
and encourages the Subcommittee to continue funding the program at the
highest possible level to ensure the planned facilities are in place at
the earliest possible date.
Surface Bypass Facilities
The Council supports continued testing, and if beneficial, the
development and installation of surface bypass facilities at the
mainstem hydroelectric dams. These new systems direct juvenile fish
over spillways and may help salmon pass the dams more quickly and avoid
the pressure changes that occur when the salmon go through conventional
bypass systems. The Corps has included $23.2 million in the fiscal year
1999 budget to design, test and develop surface collection and bypass
systems at Lower Granite, John Day, The Dalles and Bonneville dams. The
Council supports moving forward at these projects, as proposed by the
Corps, and believes that surface collection facilities may offer a more
efficient solution to passage difficulties at the dams.
John Day, McNary and Lower Snake River Drawdown Studies
For fiscal year 1999, the Corps is requesting $4.028 million and
$3.73 million, respectively, for reservoir drawdown studies on the
Lower Snake River and at John Day Dam. The funds requested for the
Lower Snake River will be used to gather additional biological
information and to continue detailed engineering and economic studies
on drawdown alternatives, with a final decision by the Federal
government expected in late 1999 or early 2000.
The activities associated with the John Day study are identified in
the Corps' ``John Day Drawdown Phase I Scope of Study'' document that
was released last December. Actual Phase I studies, if funded by
Congress, will include biological, social and economic studies, as well
as cost estimates of the two proposed alternatives, spillway crest and
natural river, and will identify the potential physical impacts of
drawdown. Provided Congress approves funding during fiscal year 1998,
the Corps hopes to commence its Phase I study this spring, and expects
to have it completed by the spring of 1999. The total cost of the Phase
I study is expected to be $3.3 million. Phase II, the feasibility study
phase, would be conducted following Phase I. The Council is aware of a
considerable amount of controversy surrounding these proposed
activities. The Council believes, however, that it is in the public's
best interest to proceed with the studies so that valuable scientific
and economic information regarding the regional effects on fish and
wildlife, agriculture, local commerce, community stability, navigation,
and system reliability can be compiled. This will provide a sounder
basis for future decisions on whether to proceed with reservoir
drawdowns.
The Council also recommends that a portion of the money requested
by the Corps for John Day drawdown studies be used to investigate the
feasibility of modestly lowering the reservoir behind McNary Dam.
Insufficient information exists to determine whether the benefits for
salmon from a minimal pool lowering at McNary Dam, which could increase
spawning habitat upriver in the Hanford Reach, would be more or less
than from a deeper drawdown at John Day. Accordingly, the Council
believes that both should be examined by the Corps.
Council Review of the Corps' Capital Program
In the Subcommittee's fiscal year 1998 Conference Report, a
provision in the joint explanatory statement was included directing the
Council to conduct a review of the Corps' major fish mitigation capital
construction activities proposed for implementation at the Federal dams
in the Columbia River Basin. The language directed the Council to seek
the assistance of the Independent Scientific Review Board in its
effort, and to complete a report for Congress by June 30, 1998. We are
pleased to report that we have initiated the review and are working
with the Independent Scientific Advisory Board. The scientists have
informed the Council, however, that they will be unable to complete
their portion of the review by June 30. Due to their current heavy
workload, they will complete their work in three separate installments
between now and next January. The scientists are scheduled to provide
the Council the first installment on May 20, 1998, and their report
will include their views on the role of mainstem bypass measures in an
ecosystem approach, the installation of extended length screens at John
Day Dam and a review of the juvenile outfall placement and bypass
system at Bonneville Dam. The second installment is scheduled for
August 1998 and will include a review of surface bypass systems,
especially the prototype at Lower Granite Dam, and a report on
dissolved gas abatement projects. The scientists' final report is
scheduled to be submitted in January 1999, and will include discussions
of adult fish passage improvement projects and an integration of the
major fish mitigation capital construction strategies in the context of
the overall Corps program.
Although this schedule does not comply with Congress' original
direction, it should still be helpful to the Subcommittee as you
prepare your fiscal year 1999 bill. The two most controversial projects
under review are the extended length screens at John Day Dam and the
juvenile outfall project at Bonneville Dam. The Independent Scientific
Advisory Board expects to complete a review of both of these projects
by May 20th, and we intend to provide a report to you on these elements
of the program soon thereafter. If this schedule and arrangement is not
workable for the Subcommittee, please inform us of this at the earliest
possible date.
Willamette River Temperature Control, Oregon
The Willamette River Basin is located in northwestern Oregon.
During the last 40 years, 13 Corps of Engineers reservoirs have been
constructed in the Basin to control floods, generate electricity and
provide water for navigation, irrigation, improved water quality,
recreation, and fish and wildlife. State and Federal agencies,
including the Council, have been seeking modification of water
temperatures downstream from Blue River and Cougar Lakes reservoirs to
achieve more beneficial temperatures for wild spring chinook salmon,
bull trout and rainbow trout. The Corps' feasibility study for the
project was completed in 1995. The current estimated cost to install
multi-level intake towers at the two projects is $45.2 million, which
is 100 percent federally funded.
The Corps' current focus is on the Cougar Lake reservoir intake
tower. The estimated cost of preconstruction, engineering and design
for Cougar Lake is $4.433 million. Approximately $3 million of that has
been appropriated already. Unfortunately, the Corps is requesting only
$29,000 for preconstruction work in fiscal year 1999, which is far
below its actual performance capability. The Council understands that
the Corps has the capability to use as much as $1.7 million in fiscal
year 1999. Of that amount, about $1.2 million would be used for
preconstruction activities and about $500,000 to initiate construction.
If the project is not allocated more than $29,000 in the next fiscal
year, the Council fears that it may become sidetracked permanently.
Accordingly, the Council supports a funding level of $1.7 million for
this critical project during fiscal year 1999.
bureau of reclamation
The Bureau is proposing to spend $8.98 million in fiscal year 1999
on the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project. The Council also
supports this project, which will employ structural and non-structural
water conservation measures to increase the reliability of the
irrigation supply and enhance streamflows in the Yakima River. In
addition, tribal water supply facilities will be improved and tribal
economic development, fish and wildlife, and cultural programs will be
enhanced.
The Council also supports the Columbia and Snake River Salmon
Recovery Project, which the Bureau is proposing to fund at $13.116
million for fiscal year 1999. The majority of the funds will be used
for water conservation and water acquisition (in accordance with state
water law) projects in the Snake River Basin.
bonneville power administration
The Bonneville Power Administration provides electric power (about
half of the power consumed in the Pacific Northwest), transmission
(about 80 percent of the region's high voltage capacity), and energy
services throughout the Pacific Northwest, a 300,000 square mile
service area. Bonneville markets the power produced at 30 Federal
hydroelectric dams in the region, which are operated by the Army Corps
of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, and acquires non-Federal
power and electric energy conservation resources to meet the needs of
its customer utilities. Bonneville receives no annual appropriations
from Congress, funding the expense portions of its budget and repaying
the Federal investment in the Federal Columbia River Power System with
revenues from electricity sales. During fiscal year 1999, Bonneville
plans to pay the Treasury its total annual scheduled payment, which is
estimated to be $614 million.
Bonneville is the primary implementor of the Council's fish and
wildlife program. The budget proposed by Bonneville for fiscal year
1999, which includes operating and capital expenses, totals $2.313
billion. This is consistent with Bonneville's revised estimate of its
fiscal year 1998 budget, and is consistent with its 1996 Final Rate
Proposal.
Fish and Wildlife
In the fall of 1995, the Administration and Congress agreed on a
fixed budget for Bonneville's fish and wildlife recovery efforts in the
Columbia River Basin. Under the terms of that agreement, which was
further defined and formalized last September in a memorandum of
agreement signed by the secretaries of the Army, the Interior, Commerce
and Energy, Bonneville will incur costs, on average, of $435 million
per year for five years on fish and wildlife activities. These funds
fall under a number of different categories, including direct
expenditures on fish and wildlife projects, power purchases,
reimbursements of appropriated funds to the Corps of Engineers and the
Bureau of Reclamation, capital repayment and foregone revenues. For
fiscal year 1999, Bonneville estimates that its total fish and wildlife
budget will be $408.9 million.
Under the agreement, the portion of the budget related to direct
expenditures, reimbursements and repayments is set at $252 million per
year. The hydropower portion, however, will vary from year to year
depending on winter precipitation. Based on historic water records, the
value of lost hydropower in an average year was calculated at the time
of the agreement to be about $183 million, bringing the total to $435
million. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, Bonneville has estimated its
total fish and wildlife program costs to be $300.8 million and $401.3
million, respectively, a significant reduction from the expected
average of $435 million. This is largely due to the fact that costs
attributed to lost hydropower (foregone revenues and power purchases)
were much lower than expected due to a higher than average snowpack in
the basin.
As mentioned earlier, in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997, the Committee added a new
section, (4)(h)(10)(D), to the Northwest Power Act, which requires the
Council to appoint an 11-member Independent Scientific Review Panel to
review fish and wildlife projects proposed to be funded through
Bonneville's direct program. For fiscal year 1999, Bonneville expects
to spend $110 million on this part of its program.
Relying on recommendations from the National Research Council, the
Power Planning Council appointed 11 scientists to its Independent
Scientific Review Panel last year. Also in accordance with the Act, the
Council is in the process of establishing scientific peer review groups
that will assist the Panel in its review process. The peer review
groups and the scientific panel will review proposed projects and make
recommendations to the Council no later than June 15 of each year.
Recommendations are to be based on a determination that projects are
based on sound scientific principles, benefit fish and wildlife, and
have clearly defined objectives and outcomes with provisions for
monitoring and evaluation of results. The Council must make the
scientific panel's recommendations available to the public for review
and comment, and also must consider the impact of ocean conditions and
determine whether the projects employ cost-effective measures, before
making its final recommendations to Bonneville for project funding. The
Council is aiming to adopt its final recommendations for Bonneville in
late August.
The Council takes seriously the Committee's concern that fish and
wildlife funds be spent judiciously. Consequently, we are continuing to
work with Bonneville and the region's fish and wildlife managers to
implement the requirements of section (4)(h)(10)(D), which will help
ensure that Bonneville's ratepayers' funds are spent on projects that
have the greatest value in recovering and providing mitigation for the
Columbia River Basin's fish and wildlife populations.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to share our views
with you. We sincerely appreciate the thorough consideration that this
subcommittee has given to the needs of the Pacific Northwest over the
years.
______
Prepared Statement of Mike Thorne, Executive Director, Port of
Portland, OR
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water
Development Appropriation. On behalf of the Port of Portland, I want to
thank subcommittee members for their recognition of water resource
needs.
columbia river channel improvement project
First, I want to underscore the strong support from our region for
two budget requests for the Columbia River deep-draft channel project.
Included in the budget under consideration by your subcommittee are two
items: $335,000 for the feasibility study in fiscal year 1999 and
$300,000 for Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED). The Port of
Portland encourages the subcommittee to include full funding for both
amounts. As you know, the local sponsor ports provide an equal amount
for a 50-50 match for the feasibility study.
To give you a measure of the importance of the Columbia/Snake River
system, here are some statistics:
--Largest wheat export gateway in the U.S.
--Second largest grain export system in the world
--Handles containers from manufacturers in more than 40 states
--Unique inland container-on-barge system that makes Lewiston, Idaho
a port critical in increasing the quantities of agriculture
products reaching overseas markets.
If all the wheat, barley and corn exported from the Pacific
Northwest in a typical year were delivered to our docks in Portland by
rail, it would require a train consisting of nearly 300,000 hopper car
units stretching from Portland, Oregon to Portland, Maine. Because our
region relies on a balanced rail and waterway system, I am glad to
report that we have the capacity to handle these volumes easily.
But a key is an extensive waterway system, featuring deep-draft
ports and an inland system reaching all the way to Idaho, to move these
volumes. In fact, 41 percent of this grain tonnage moves by barge. We
must have both rail and waterway to get the job done efficiently and
cost-effectively.
The stakes in improving and maintaining the deep-draft outlet for
this waterway system are high. All of our shipping customers will
require substantial waterway expansion and efficiency improvements in
order to keep pace with growing demand and increasing competition from
foreign producers. This is nowhere more apparent than in the bulk and
gain shipping business, where low margins mean price differentials can
move the market from our domestic producers to foreign competitors.
national agriculture picture
The importance of our nation's inland and deep-draft waterways
clearly is not just an issue in the Pacific Northwest. There are plenty
of examples, but I will concentrate on agriculture for this statement.
As you know, the 1996 Farm Bill is phasing out the nation's
agriculture program by 2002. The result is that exports, already a key
to farmers, will now be even more critical for agricultural vitality in
the future. Today, one-third of all farm production goes into the
export market. That percentage is likely to climb.
Ports will move aggressively to meet demands of shippers. A recent
study by the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Feed Grain Council
documents the transportation advantages of the waterway system in the
Pacific Northwest, further underlining the national benefits of an
improved Columbia River Channel. The review also makes the point that
ports will need to make investments to handle the growth in grain
movements in the future. Implicit in this analysis is the same point
for the Corps of Engineers: Ports can do their part to invest, but
those investments are wasted if the nation's basic system, as
maintained by the Corps, falls into disrepair.
To remain competitive, our low-cost waterway transportation system
is essential. Competition from Australia and Latin America is keen and
likely to get sharper. As one example, Argentina is making large
investments in its waterways to improve the competitive position of its
agriculture community.
Today, we have the best commercial waterway system in the world.
But we take that system for granted at our peril.
administration budget cuts
Strong growth in U.S. foreign trade in recent years, coupled with
innovations by the shipping lines, has produced an even more
competitive environment in the maritime industry. U.S. ports operate in
a complex legal framework that has placed considerable financial
pressure on port expansion. That same restraint is not felt to the same
degree by our overseas competitors. My point is not to argue that we
undo the proliferation of environmental rules and regulations facing
U.S. ports. Instead, I emphasize that Congress needs to pay even more
attention to the Corps of Engineers O&M budget in the years ahead.
All of these competing pressures bring me to discuss the Corps of
Engineers budget submitted by the White House. The numbers, to me, are
appalling. To find a number like $700 million for new construction, you
have to go back to a budget in the early 1970's. And that was in 1970
dollars.
Administration funding for all Civil Works programs will not allow
the Corps to efficiently complete ongoing flood control, navigation
construction, shoreline protection and mitigation programs around the
country. Where the number is $3.2 billion for Civil Works, we should
see an amount closer to $4.5 billion
By extending the time required to complete water resource projects,
the Administration is simply expanding the eventual costs of all of
these projects. Do we really think we can ultimately save money by
neglecting capital assets and maintenance or by extending the time it
takes to complete a project?
Before you conclude I am arguing the case for a deep-draft port
alone, let me point out that my own reading of the budget this year
does not create real problems for Oregon's deep-draft system. The pain
this year is felt elsewhere in locks and dams, flood control and
shoreline protection. But you can be sure that the farther we get
behind in these needs each year, the more pressure there will be in all
elements of the water resource system in future years.
I worry that, as a nation, we are complacent about our economic
well-being. A deteriorating waterway system will be a broadside hit to
our livability in all regions. I hope we don't have to sustain that
kind of pain to get the administration to wake up. The Corps of
Engineers should be serving as the trustee of the navigation system.
Unfortunately, the Corps has had too few budgetary tools to be an
effective trustee of harbors and channels.
corps of engineers hopper dredges
Another issue that has come before your subcommittee in the past is
the operation of the Corps of Engineers Hopper dredge fleet. The Port
of Portland continues to feel having the four Corps hopper dredges
operating at full capacity is essential for navigation safety and the
most efficient use of the nation's authorized channels. We will
continue to work with the Corps and other interested parties, as well
as your committee, to assure cost effective and timely dredging with
the nation's hopper fleet.
Late last year, port personnel reviewed a draft report on hopper
dredges by the Corps. As a general perspective, we were disappointed at
what appears to be a lack of analysis in this preliminary study. For
example, we saw little examination of private sector dredging capacity,
overall hopper dredge use during the year or dredging capability during
peak demand periods. Because of our concerns for quick response to
dredging emergencies, this type of information is critical. We would
hope to see this information in any follow-up Corps review.
To meet the needs of the nation's manufacturers, producers and
shippers, assuring adequate channels for trade is the clear priority
for the Corps dredging mission. If the Corps fleet is not maintained in
an active, operations status, navigation safety and the effectiveness
of our national transportation system will be at risk.
conclusion
Thank you for your attention to the views of the Port of Portland.
We appreciate the opportunity to discuss the importance of the Columbia
River deep-draft channel, the Corps budget and the hopper dredge fleet.
______
Prepared Statement of Ken O'Hollaren, Executive Director, Port of
Longview, WA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: From the earliest
days of the nation, ports have had the primary responsibility for
developing, operating and financing marine facilities and docks. Today,
this marine infrastructure is central to our national and local
economies and the linchpin for efficient transportation of goods.
Ports, whether large or small, are the economic engines that
generate and support local economic development by providing
transportation services, stimulating business activity and promoting
investment and job creation. Ports also must generate revenue in order
to be self-sufficient, a responsibility that has become increasingly
challenging in recent years.
While local ports attend to the business of port terminal and
industry development, we rely on the Corps of Engineers for maintenance
of the navigation system and necessary expansion.
columbia river channel deepening project
We appreciate this committee's support to date for the Corps of
Engineers study of improvements to the Columbia River deep-draft
channel. This project is our region's highest marine priority and we
are requesting full funding from the committee for the feasibility
study in fiscal year 1999, the $335,000 requested in the President's
budget. As you know, the local sponsor port provide an equal amount for
a 50-50 match. In addition, we encourage the subcommittee to provide
the $300,000 requested for the start-up of Preconstruction Engineering
and Design (PED). This step is a key to keeping the construction
schedule on time.
Greater effort to increase the capacity of this waterway is
warranted in light of the preliminary economic analysis completed by
the Corps to date. As another indicator of the economic and
transportation vitality of our system, we have only to look at the size
and volume of shipping traffic in the channel.
In fact, the marketplace demands that we act to increase the
capacity of the Columbia River system. We are seeing the evidence in
many ways:
Deeper Draft Vessels, Grain and Container--Increasing Vessel
Size.--Since 1981, we have witnessed a 400 percent increase in the
number of vessels requiring drafts deeper than the current 40 foot
authorized channel. And more larger ships are being designed and built
each year.
National export gateway.--The Columbia River system is the nation's
largest wheat exporting gateway and the second largest grain port
system in the world. We are also home to an innovative container-on-
barge system that brings cargo downstream from Lewiston, Idaho. We
handle bulk commodities from around the nation. On the container side,
manufacturers from more than 40 states see their cargo depart from
Columbia River terminals. Improving the Columbia River system means we
can continue to provide these efficient trade outlets for these
shippers.
Bulk import volumes and vessels grow.--Deep-draft vessels also
carry import bulk commodities vital to the nation's manufacturing
sectors. Channel improvement will also increase the import capacity of
the Columbia River system.
Cost-effective, timely transportation.--Our customers and the
marketplace demand a totally integrated, transportation logistics
system. Today, ports in our region provide that competitive advantage
to a number of U.S. export firms. Expansion of the Columbia River
channel is a key to assuring that same level of service in the future.
Integrated system.--On the Columbia/Snake river system, we connect
barge, rail and trucking with the deep-draft system. Connecting these
modes creates a transportation network that works efficiently and
effectively for manufacturers and producers throughout our region and
around the country. Our balanced system provides essential capacity,
giving shippers a valuable option when congestion is an issue at other
trade gateways.
minimum dredge fleet
On a related issue, let me express our strong support for the
operation of the Corps of Engineers hopper dredge fleet. The Minimum
Dredge Fleet hopper dredges are of great importance to ports around the
country and our customers include shippers, commercial and recreational
fishermen. This interest is particularly keen in the Northwest, where
we have a relatively small private hopper dredge sector.
The Corps' hopper dredges play a substantial role in support of
those trade volumes by helping to assure safe navigation. These dredges
provide responsiveness, flexible service and help assure competitive
bidding to conserve federal dollars.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to share the views of the Port of Longview on this
critically important water resource project. Our nation needs a world-
class transportation system and we pledge our assistance in moving
ahead to keep it that way.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Glenn Vanselow, Executive Director, Pacific
Northwest Waterways Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: My name is Glenn
Vanselow. I am Executive Director of the Pacific Northwest Waterways
Association. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on
appropriations issues to the Committee. The PNWA membership includes
nearly 130 organizations and individuals in Oregon, Washington, and
Idaho. PNWA represents public port authorities on the Pacific Coast,
Puget Sound, and Columbia/Snake River System; public utility districts,
investor-owned utilities, electric cooperatives and direct service
industries; irrigation districts, grain growers and upriver and export
elevator companies; major manufacturers in the Pacific Northwest;
forest products industry manufacturers and shippers; and tug and barge
operators, steamship operators, consulting engineers, and others
involved in economic development throughout the Pacific Northwest.
PNWA has a long history of working with the Committee and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on projects of regional and national
importance, sharing the challenge to maintain and develop our
transportation infrastructure. Our members wish to thank the Committee
for its support of Pacific Northwest transportation, hydropower and
salmon enhancement programs and projects.
appropriations request
Fiscal year 1999 Civil Works Budget.--We strongly oppose the
overall level of the President's fiscal year 1999 Budget request for
civil works because it provides inadequate funding for other crucial
Corps waterways programs nationwide. We believe that a level of funding
closer to $4.5 billion is needed to maintain the integrity of the civil
works program.
Regional Navigation Operations and Maintenance.--We would like to
thank the Committee for its previous support of navigation O&M
(operations and maintenance) in the region's shallow, deep draft and
inland navigation system. We support the Administration's funding
requests for operations and maintenance (O&M) of the federally
authorized navigation channels in the Columbia and Snake Rivers, Puget
Sound and the Oregon and Washington Coasts. However, we encourage the
Committee to increase funding for Yaquina Bay and Harbor at Newport,
Oregon by $2.5 million over the $2.891 million requested.
Navigation is the least cost, most fuel efficient and least
polluting mode of transportation. Navigation is the critical link that
keeps the Northwest and the nation competitive in domestic and
international trade and supports the commercial and recreational
fishing industry. It provides significant numbers of jobs and other
economic benefits both within the region and nationally. We support
maintaining a strong federal role in planning, construction, operation,
maintenance and funding of navigation on the inland waterways, deep
draft ports and shallow draft ports. We ask the Committee for full
funding for ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) of the federally
authorized navigation channels in the Columbia/Snake river system, the
Oregon and Washington coastal ports and Puget Sound. Maximizing O&M is
a cost-efficient means of fully utilizing the federal government's
investment in channel operations.
We urge the Committee to resist those proposals that would
drastically reduce Corps funding for basic services, including the
maintenance of shallow and deep draft ports and inland waterways. Some
20 percent of the employment in the Northwest states is directly
related to international trade. These navigation projects are among the
few federal programs that are analyzed to ensure that economic benefits
exceed the costs. Eliminating these programs would not be cost-
effective.
Navigation Feasibility Studies and Construction.--We wish to thank
the Committee for appropriating funds last year for feasibility studies
on the Columbia River and in Puget Sound. We are opposed to the ``full-
project funding'' proposal for new construction and the downward trend
in funding included in the President's fiscal year 1999 Budget request
for the Corps' civil works program.
The Columbia River deep draft channel is the lifeblood of the
Columbia/Snake River System, which serves shippers from 40 states. To
protect future growth and development of the River System, we ask the
Committee to fund the requested $335,000 for the federal share of the
feasibility study and $300,000 for preconstruction engineering and
design for the lower Columbia River Navigation Channel Deepening. This
funding would pay for the federal government's share of work necessary
to investigate improving the existing 40-foot navigation channel by
increasing the channel depth to 43 feet. We support a $3 million dollar
increase in funding for preconstruction engineering and design and
construction for the Blair Waterway Channel Deepening at Tacoma. We
also support increased funding and statutory language directing the
Corps to reimburse the project sponsor for eligible costs related to
the East Waterway Channel Deepening at Seattle, which is proposed to be
carried out during O&M dredging.
Minimum Dredge Fleet.--We encourage the Committee to maintain all
four federal hopper dredges operated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers by rejecting plans to place the dredge WHEELER on stand-by
status, and by eliminating the set-aside for private dredges. We oppose
legislation that places artificial limits on the federal hopper dredges
by directing increasing amounts of maintenance dredging to private
dredges. Federal hopper dredge costs are artificially higher than
necessary because of that set aside. We believe that Congress should
reduce or eliminate the set aside to increase the efficiency of the
Corps hopper dredges. We also encourage the Committee to find ways to
make the Corps dredges less expensive to operate by examining recent
increases in depreciation and plant increment payments.
We were disappointed in the ``Draft Minimum Dredge Fleet Study''
released by the Corps on October 8. We have been waiting for years for
the Corps' study, expecting it to provide data and analysis that could
be used to determine the requirements for the federal fleet. Our
criteria for maintaining the federal fleet has been cost, capacity and
responsiveness. Capacity and responsiveness were not analyzed in the
study, and it appears that the Corps considers maintaining navigation
channels and industry dredging companies to be of equal importance. The
future of the dredge fleet is an important decision that will affect
international trade and the economic well being of our region and the
nation. It should be made with sound analysis. We encourage the
Committee to direct the Corps to provide it with data and analysis to
support the various options it described in the October 8 study.
We believe that the presence of the federal dredges keeps bids for
dredging work competitive and lower in cost. We are concerned that the
low number of private industry bids for work in our region could force
dredging costs higher were it not for the availability of the federal
dredges.
There are other ways to cut costs and increase the efficiency of
the Corps' hopper dredges. Prior to fiscal year 1995, the Corps did not
collect plant increment for its hopper dredges. The addition of this
fee added over $4 million to the cost of performing O&M dredging of
projects with the Corps' hopper dredges. Prior to fiscal year 1993, the
Corps calculated depreciation of its hopper dredges over 40 years. In
fiscal year 1994 the Corps changed the calculation to 50 years,
reasoning that with lessened use, driven by directives to contract more
work with private industry, the federal hopper dredges would last
longer. However, beginning in 1995, the Corps changed its depreciation
calculations again. Prior to 1995, federal hopper dredge charges to
navigation projects were reduced, or ``discounted,'' in the amount
proportionate to the cost of the military features added during
construction. In 1995 the Corps reduced this discount. Navigation
projects are paying for depreciation on defense-related equipment,
although their current defense role is not clear. This adds nearly $2
million annually to the cost of using the Corps' hopper dredges.
We believe that nearly $6 million could have been saved if the
Corps had not imposed plant increment and increased depreciation
charges on its hopper dredges.
Operations and Maintenance of the Region's Hydropower System and
the John Day Drawdown study.--We are concerned that the President's
fiscal year 1999 Budget request for construction on the Bonneville Dam
powerhouse phase II and The Dalles powerhouse is insufficient. We
encourage the Committee to increase funding to approximately $14
million. We also encourage the Committee to increase funding for The
Dalles powerhouse construction to approximately $8 million. We support
the President's requests for Operations and Maintenance at these and
other regional projects. We encourage the Committee to direct the Corps
to provide clear, compelling biological evidence supporting drawdown
prior to release of funds for the study. We also encourage the
Committee to direct the Corps to focus the John Day drawdown study on
the economic, social and environmental impacts of drawdown.
We have testified in previous years that we do not believe there is
biological justification for drawdowns. It is also clear that drawdown
would have serious economic impacts on the region and the nation.
Drawdown would eliminate important authorized purposes on the system,
including navigation, hydropower production and irrigated agricultural
production. The committee also should be aware that we believe that
drawdown would reduce the Bonneville Power Administration's revenue
generating capacity and jeopardize BPA's ability to repay its debt to
the U.S. treasury after the next subscription process expires. The four
lower Snake dams and John Day provide 20 to 25 percent of BPA's total
energy production.
Salmon Recovery Decision Authority and Funding.--First, we support
efforts to establish priorities for funding and implementation of fish
and wildlife recovery projects in the Columbia River Basin Fish and
Wildlife Program. Second, we support selected salmon recovery actions
such as improved and enhanced smolt transportation, surface collection
and other smolt by-pass facilities and habitat restoration and
protection.
We support the Senator Slade Gorton's 1996 amendment to the
Northwest Power Act, approved during consideration of the fiscal year
1997 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which establishes a panel of
scientists to establish priorities for funding and implementation of
fish and wildlife recovery projects in the Columbia River Basin Fish
and Wildlife Program. We hope that this, with the Independent Economic
Analysis Board, will result in programs that will provide maximum
biological benefits to listed salmon stocks and are more cost-
effective.
Regional Governance.--The discussion about regional cooperation in
developing salmon recovery objectives and programs has been expanded
significantly. Some have proposed a three-sovereigns forum in which the
federal, state and tribal governments would reach consensus on ``issues
of regional concern wherever they arise'' within the Columbia Basin
ecosystem. PNWA believes that improved coordination of federal, state
and tribal fish programs may be beneficial. However, a recent draft
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) demonstrates that the three sovereigns
are reaching far beyond fish to create a new layer of regional
government. They intend to be the forum for decisions on land
management planning, the management and use of water in the Basin, the
implementation of water quality standards under the Clean Water Act,
FERC hydro relicensing, and any other issues of regional concern they
choose, be they fish related or not. They are creating the MOA without
consulting affected stakeholders and they do not intend to include
stakeholders in the consensus process. PNWA urges Congress to support
collaboration within the existing authorities of the federal agencies,
states and tribes, and, in the strongest terms possible, we urge
Congress to retain exclusive authority over the authorized purposes of
the federal projects within the Columbia Basin.
Hanford Cleanup.--We ask the Committee to continue to adequately
fund the Department of Energy cleanup of 45 years of accumulated
defense waste currently stored at the Hanford site. We recognize that
defense waste cleanup is a long-term project that will be most cost
effective and most rigorously pursued if Hanford is a viable, operating
site. Therefore, we strongly urge the Committee to support a complete,
ongoing Hanford scientifically and technologically based research and
operations program in order to ensure long-term funding for waste
cleanup. PNWA also supports a complete and ongoing scientifically and
technologically based research and operations program, including the
restart of the Fast Flux Test Facility for the joint missions of
national defense and medical research and isotope production to meet
the demands for more effective cancer treatments.
Conclusion.--On behalf of nearly 130 members from throughout the
Pacific Northwest, we thank the Committee for giving us this
opportunity to review a number of issues important to the environmental
and economic prosperity of our region.
______
Prepared Statement of Ron Nelson, Chairman, Deschutes Basin Working
Group of Central Oregon
Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members: Thank you very much for the
opportunity to submit testimony regarding the Bureau of Reclamation's
Budget for fiscal year 1999. I am writing today to request that
$1,000,000 be included in the Senate version of the fiscal year 1999
Energy and Water Appropriations Bill for the Deschutes Basin Working
Group in Central Oregon. This amount has been included in the
President's Budget request for fiscal year 1999, and we sincerely hope
it will be included in your subcommittee's version of the Energy and
Water Bill.
The Deschutes River is one of Oregon's most treasured resources. It
drains Oregon's high desert along the eastern front of the Cascade
Mountains, running from high mountain lakes into deep and dramatic
canyons before joining the Columbia River. The Deschutes is one of
Oregon's most important rivers. It is the state's most intensively used
recreational river. It serves as the principal water sources for
extensive irrigation projects in Central Oregon. And it supplies the
municipal demand for one of Oregon's fastest growing cities, the City
of Bend. In addition, the Deschutes embraces hundreds of thousands of
acres of productive forest and range lands, serves the treaty fishing
and water rights of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, and
harbors Oregon's largest non-Federal hydroelectric project.
Until now, the Deschutes River has shouldered all of these uses and
still remained a clean and vibrant stream. If steps are not taken
today, however, the entire Deschutes River Basin will almost certainly
suffer beneath these increasing pressures. In fact, the signs of stress
on the Deschutes River system are already showing. The National Marine
Fisheries Service recently proposed listing the Deschutes River
steelhead as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
Fortunately, we have a forum and an outlet in Central Oregon that
can contribute significantly toward the resolution of these problems
and the sustainability of the basin's ecological health, the Deschutes
Basin Working Group. The working group was originally formed as an ad-
hoc group in 1993 by a wide cross-section of basin interests. The
purpose of the group was to discuss looming threats to the basin's
resources and ways of addressing them based on consensus, voluntary
actions and market-based incentives.
The working group had some initial successes but lacked the power
of a Congressional authorization to bring governmental and non-
governmental interests to the table in the spirit of cooperation. Then
in 1996, then-Senator Mark Hatfield took the ad-hoc group's concept and
sponsored legislation to formally authorize it and its locally driven
model as a five-year pilot project.
Legislation authorizing the Deschutes Basin Working Group was
enacted in November of 1996 through provisions contained in the Omnibus
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997 (Public Law 104-208, Division
B, Title III) and the Omnibus Parks Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333).
The group was established as a five-year pilot project designed to
build local consensus around on-the-ground projects that improve
ecosystem health in the Deschutes River Basin in Central Oregon. The
legislation authorized $1,000,000 per year for on-the-ground projects,
which must be matched at least 50/50 with non-Federal funding sources.
All projects must be concurred with by the Secretary of the Interior.
The President's Budget request for fiscal year 1999 includes
$1,000,000 for this group through the Bureau of Reclamation, the
group's lead Federal agency. The group, which includes irrigators, the
Warm Springs Indian Tribe, environmentalists, Portland General Electric
Company, local businessmen, local elected officials and Federal and
State agency representatives, has already developed project selection
criteria and identified a number of water quality, water quantity, fish
passage and habitat improvement projects that could be funded with the
$1,000,000 appropriation.
Without this funding, however, the group's main purpose of securing
on-the-ground ecological restoration projects will not become a
reality. Therefore, we strongly and respectfully urge you to include
$1,000,000 for the working group in the Senate Energy and Water
Subcommittee mark for fiscal year 1999. With your support, the local,
consensus-based approach being used in the Deschutes River Basin can
achieve success and possibly serve as a model throughout the West for
resolving contentious environmental issues before they reach the crisis
stage.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any
further questions or concerns.
______
Prepared Statement of Joe Moses, Chairman, Warm Springs Tribal Council
On the behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation of Oregon, I, Joe Moses, Chairman of the Warm Springs
Tribal Council, hereby submit this testimony regarding the fiscal year
1999 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Budget Request to the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Energy and Water Development and
request that it be made a part of the Subcommittee's formal fiscal year
1999 hearing record.
The address of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs is P.O. Box
C, Warm Springs, Oregon, 97761. Our telephone number is 541-553-1161.
summary
The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs request that fiscal year
1999 Corps of Engineers construction funding for Columbia River Treaty
Fishing Access Sites in Oregon and Washington be increased by $4.6
million to provide the continued development of the fishing access
sites. Without the increased funds, development of the sites will come
to a halt during fiscal year 1999.
background
The construction of Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River in the
1930's caused the inundation of approximately forty traditional Indian
fishing sites. The right of the Warm Springs Tribes to fish on the
river is secured in our 1855 Treaty with the United States. In 1939,
the U.S. Government pledged to the Warm Springs and other Columbia
River treaty tribes to provide 400 acres of new sites on the Bonneville
Pool in lieu of those inundated. However, only five ``in-lieu'' sites
totalling forty acres were provided. In 1973, the U.S. again pledged to
honor its in-lieu site promise with more and improved sites. But that
pledge was also not kept, and by the 1980's, the five existing sites
were even more inadequate, having become seriously overcrowded and run
down. In 1988, to fulfill the U.S.'s long-standing promises and to
address the conditions at the five existing sites, legislation was
enacted (Public Law 100-581, Title IV) directing the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to improve the five existing sites, to acquire and develop up
to six new in-lieu sites on the Bonneville Pool, and to develop another
twenty three new access sites up the river.
site development through fiscal year 1999
After lengthy planning and evaluation by the Corps, the number of
appropriate new access sites was modified to twenty. Most of these
sites are comparatively small, being perhaps two or four acres in size.
In any event, Public Law 100-581 restricts the total acreage of all
sites to no more than 400 acres.
The Corps finally received its initial construction appropriation
and started on-the-ground work in fiscal year 1994. Since that time,
three of the existing sites have been refurbished and one new site has
been completed. Three new sites are expected to be completed in fiscal
year 1998, and in fiscal year 1999 the two remaining existing sites and
three Bonneville Pool new sites will be completed. Then, without
additional funding, construction halts. With no funding requested to
initiate development of additional sites, the project will essentially
stop, once again without the U.S. fulfilling its obligation.
The development of these sites, from design to completion, usually
spans several years, and it is our understanding that the $1.7 million
requested by the Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 1999 only provides
for completion of the two remaining existing sites and three Bonneville
Pool sites. Beyond that, the $1.7 million does not provide for the
initiation of any further site development.
request for an additional $4.6 million
We urge the Subcommittee to increase the fiscal year 1999 Corps
construction budget for Columbia River treaty fishing access site
development by $4.6 million, which we understand will enable the Corps
to carry the project forward by initiating construction on five
additional sites. With hundreds and hundreds of tribal fishermen
regularly coming to the Columbia to exercise their treaty rights to
engage in ceremonial, subsistence and commercial fishing, the sites
rapidly fill up. Most fishermen and their families stay at least
several days, and many effectively reside at the sites for extended
periods, often spanning months. Space is needed for boats, cars, boat
and house trailers, tents, drying nets and cleaning fish. Even with the
five refurbished existing sites and the seven new sites expected to be
completed by the end of fiscal year 1999, the space is sharply
inadequate. In fact, the pressure for additional space is such that
tribal fishermen often start using new sites before their development
is complete.
Mr. Chairman, fishing on the Columbia River has been a mainstay of
our culture since time immemorial. When the U.S. placed our people on
reservations many miles removed from the Columbia, we expressly
preserved the right in our treaties to fish on that river. The U.S.
Courts have repeatedly affirmed that right, including a determination
that the right to fish carries with it a right of access to the
Columbia. Now that the U.S. has spent billions to erect a long series
of great dams on the Columbia, and in the process moved entire towns to
accommodate their lakes, we ask that the U.S. appropriate the funds to
accommodate our far older need for fishing sites, living up to the laws
and promises it has made to our people.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Dave Whitener, Chairman, Squaxin Island Tribe
On behalf of the Squaxin Island Tribe of Washington State, I
express our appreciation for the opportunity to submit testimony
regarding the fiscal year 1999 Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) budget.
Listed below is our
Summary of Request.--$4,000,000 for the Fish Barrier Removal and
Stream Channel Restoration on Goldsborough Creek
Narrative Justification for the Request: Fish Barrier Removal and
Stream Channel Restoration on Goldsborough Creek.--We seek support
funding for Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
Section 206 authorizes funding for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
Projects which are in the public interest and improve the quality of
the environment. Based on our discussions with the Army Corps of
Engineers at the National and District level, we believe the
Goldsborough Dam removal and restoration project is eligible for this
funding source.
This project entails the demolition of the Goldsborough Dam and
restoration of natural river processes throughout the impacted reach.
Goldsborough Creek drains a watershed of over 60 square miles (38,407
acres) and empties into southern Puget Sound at Shelton, located on
Oakland Bay, in Mason County, Washington. The dam is located just above
river mile 2 resulting in a partial or complete blockage of over 90
percent of the accessible stream miles. In addition to the approximate
14 foot height of the dam, the structure has resulted in the scouring
and the degradation of the stream bed immediately below the dam of
another 16 to 18 feet. This imposing physical barrier sits today where
previously existed a rapids which was passable by anadromous fish.
The dam is in a state of disrepair, and requires extensive annual
maintenance. It could require a complete reconstruction or removal in
the next few years. Bedload has built up behind the dam, completely
filling the pool. This could result in a catastrophic release of
sediment if the dam failed, damaging fish life and imperiling human
life and property downstream. Simpson Timber Company, the owner of the
dam, has conducted an engineering feasibility study and determined that
dam removal is possible and only marginally more expensive than the
cost of stabilizing the existing dam and providing adequate fish
passage.
The solution calls for a three step plan to include removal, repair
and restoration. This would include complete emergency removal of the
structurally weakened Goldsborough Dam, construction of a series of
weirs to form steps in the river to reestablish a more gradual gradient
in the stream bed, and riparian restoration to improve ecosystem
functioning along with restoration of natural watershed processes and
bedload transport.
The project has the potential to contribute to the recovery of
endangered fish species by restoration of unimpeded migration access
for anadromous fish to the entire watershed. In addition, Simpson
Timber Company, the largest landowner in the watershed, is developing a
Habitat Conservation Plan for salmon consistent with the Endangered
Species Act. Thus, any 206 project would contribute to other Federal
recovery efforts already under way.
The ACOE is proceeding with development of a Preliminary
Restoration Plan (PRP), an initial evaluation of the project. On behalf
of an extended network of project partners, including Mason County, the
City of Shelton, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington
Department of Ecology, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Trout Unlimited, the South Puget Sound Salmon
Enhancement Group, Simpson Timber Company, and others, the Tribe is
seeking to assure that funding will be available to complete this
project. We request that language be added to Section 206
appropriations authorization which directs the ACOE to make every
effort to give special consideration to this project.
In conclusion, the Squaxin Island Tribe appreciates the Committee's
consideration of our request and we are hopeful that this cooperative
effort will be funded to initiate such a worthwhile project.
Thank you.
______
OHIO RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM AND OTHER INLAND WATERWAY PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of Joseph E. Lema, Vice President, Manufacturers and
Services Division, National Mining Association
The National Mining Association represents companies which produce
coal, metallic minerals, and other nonmetallic minerals, and which are
engaged in manufacturing and supplying mining and minerals processing
equipment, machinery, materials, and services.
environmental restoration program
The NMA is proud of its leadership in initiatives to restore
ecosystems degraded by mines abandoned prior to the passage of the
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. With respect to hardrock mining,
NMA recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Western
Governors Association for the Abandoned Mine Lands Initiative, which
provides an effective framework for partnership for environmental
restoration between the industry and the states. NMA is pleased that
the Corps of Engineers is partnering with the Office of Surface Mining,
other Federal agencies, state agencies, and universities to restore
streams that have been impacted by acid drainage from abandoned mines.
The Corps has responded enthusiastically to this mission with the broad
authority for aquatic ecosystem restoration granted by Section 206 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 and other project specific
authorities. Corps partnerships are already working in the Appalachian
region and new partnerships are forming with state governments for
restoration of streams in several western states. We urge your
continued support of these Corps programs. In addition, we request
funding for the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI) in the
amount of $2 million in fiscal year 1999 to develop the next generation
of technologies to control acid mine drainage. We believe this research
is vital to the Corps' work to restore valuable aquatic ecosystems
throughout the Nation.
navigation program
The NMA requests that fiscal year 1999 appropriations be approved
for the construction of inland waterways projects, and the completion
of an important, multi-year feasibility study of projects on the
mainstem of the Ohio River identified below:
Ohio River:
Olmsted Locks and Dam................... Construction of locks and dam incorporating twin, 1,200-foot by
110-foot lock chambers to replace Locks and Dams 52 and 53.
McAlpine Locks and Dam.................. Construction of a 1,200-foot by 110-foot lock chamber in addition
to a similar chamber now in place.
Ohio River Mainstem Study, Pittsburgh to Completion of an ongoing multi-year feasibility study being
Cairo, Illinois. performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Kanawha River:
Marmet Locks and Dam.................... Construction of an 800-foot by 110-foot lock chamber matching a
similar lock at Winfield downstream, which opened to navigation
in 1997.
London Locks and Dam.................... Rehabilitation of obsolete structure.
Monongahela River: Locks and Dams 2, 3 and Construction of replacements for Locks and Dams 2 and 4 and
4. removal of Lock and Dam 3.
Tennessee River: Kentucky Lock and Dam...... Construction of an additional 1,200-foot by 110-foot lock chamber.
the ohio river and connecting segments of the kanawha, monongahela, and
tennessee rivers are vital barge freight routes for distributing coal
and other freight commodities
The Ohio River is a principal corridor for distributing coal and
mineral commodities carried on intermodal truck-barge and rail-barge
routes in eastern and midwestern states. It provides a corridor
especially expansive by virtue of its connections with other commercial
freight-carrying rivers in the Ohio River Basin, in particular the
Monongahela, Kanawha, Big Sandy, Green, Cumberland, and Tennessee
Rivers, together with its important linkage with the Mississippi River
furnishing continuity of barge traffic to the southern states and the
Gulf of Mexico. Table 1 below shows how barge freight has been growing
on selected rivers in the Ohio River Basin from 1987 to 1996.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barge Freight Traffic \1\ (million tons)
-----------------------------------------------
River 1987 Coal All Commodities
-----------------------------------------------
1996 1987 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio River Mainstem \1\................................. 115 134 197 237
Kanawha River........................................... 12 16 19 25
Monongahela River....................................... 29 33 33 37
Tennessee River......................................... 20 18 42 46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: Estimated Waterborne Commerce Statistics for Calendar Year 1996, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
October 1997.
\2\ Includes traffic utilizing all, or part, of the Ohio River. Much Ohio River barge freight traffic originates
or terminates on other rivers in the Ohio River Basin, including those shown.
It is likely that power generation will increase at an annual rate
of 1.5 percent to 3.0 percent in the near term, and coal is the low
cost fuel of choice for generating 56 percent of the electricity
consumed in the U.S. Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) will be
divided among CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Corporation
during 1998. Shippers in the service area formerly served by Conrail
will likely place new emphasis on seeking intermodal rail-barge
alternatives to all-rail movements as they search for competition in
regard to transportation service.
full utilization of the inland waterways system, in particular, the
ohio river and its tributaries and connecting rivers, serves the nation
in many ways
The inland waterways, in particular, the Ohio River and its Ohio
River Basin tributaries and its waterways connections to points outside
of the Basin, contribute to many key objectives. They:
--provide that ``shippers and consumers realize over $2.2 billion
annually in savings as a result of using the waterways of the
Ohio River System over more costly modes of transportation''
Commerce on the Ohio River and Its Tributaries, Ohio River
Navigation System Report, 1996, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
--are responsive to energy and environmental goal, e.g., ``as a
consequence of being less energy intensive than other modes, on
a ton-mile basis water transport also produces less air
pollution--and is usually quieter.'' ``The less energy used,
the less air pollution produced.'' Environmental Advantages of
Inland Barge Transportation, August 1994, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Maritime Administration; and,
--enhance our Nation's status in relation to international commerce,
i.e., ``our ability to compete in the global economy is
contingent upon our ability to efficiently transport raw and
finished products and commodities.'' ``We have the best, most
efficient waterways system in the world.'' Inland Waterways
Users Board Eleventh Annual Report to the Secretary of the Army
and the United States Congress, August 1997.
Those views underscore the high benefits of a sound inland
waterways freight transportation network. It is critical for under-
capacity, obsolete locks and dams, which are the control points for
safe and efficient use of the waterways system to be upgraded or
replaced in a timely manner to assure that the benefits of a sound
waterways system are not lost, and importantly are possible under
increasing demand for freight transportation service in the years
ahead.
barge freight on the ohio river needs higher lock capacity
Barge freight operations on the Ohio River from its mouth at the
confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers at Cairo, Illinois to its
headwaters at the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers at
Pittsburgh have demonstrated a need for additional lock capacity. The
river barge freight tonnage has increase substantially since the mid-
1980's, resulting in costly delays at many of the 21 lock and dam
projects, which now control navigation by commercial barge tows
carrying commodities in six states--Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, West
Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio--in which the river is located, and in
the expansive Ohio River Basin where the Ohio River is joined by other
commercial waterways establishing an extensive freight distribution
network.
The replacement of Locks and Dams 52 and 53 with a single, new twin
1,200 foot by 110 foot lock and dam project located between the Ohio
River junctions with the Mississippi River and the Tennessee River will
reduce the number of controlling lock and dam projects to 20. This will
furnish a significant improvement for barge traffic in the river
segment just above the mouth of the Ohio River. The river represents a
lengthy route serving heavy freight movements across eastern and
midwestern states, and barge tows utilized for moving Ohio River
commerce perform most efficiently when they consist of 15 barges lashed
together with three-barge widths and five-barge lengths in tows pushed
by towboats. Lock chambers 1,200 feet long by 110 feet wide are
required in order to accommodate barge tows uniformly, enabling single
passes by the barge tows through each of the projects controlling their
movements, necessitating a systems approach to the development of
warranted lock and dam improvements.
Table 2 shows trends in Ohio River barge freight tonnage from 1986
to 1996 on four segments of the river from its headwaters to its mouth.
In 1996, the tonnage passing through eight lock and dam projects
between Huntington, West Virginia and Paducah, Kentucky was extremely
high and significantly higher than the tonnage in 1986. Of those eight
projects, Smithland now has twin lock chambers which are 1,200 feet by
110 feet and McAlpine is scheduled for similar locks to be built under
previous project authorization. It is now timely to schedule
construction projects at the remaining six points in that stretch of
the lower Ohio River, specifically at the present J.T. Myers, Newburgh,
Cannelton, Markland, Meldahl, and Greenup projects, which each have
1,200-foot main chambers and 600-foot auxiliary chambers.
TABLE 2.--1986-1996 OHIO RIVER TRAFFIC AND LENGTH OF NAVIGATION LOCK CHAMBERS AT SELECTED SEGMENTS BETWEEN
PITTSBURGH & CAIRO, IL
[M = Main and A = Auxiliary lock]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Freight in Ohio River
Locks \1\ barges (1,000 tons)
Lock and Dam Project on segments of the Ohio River (Length of -------------------------------
lock) 1986 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confluence of Allegheny and Monongahela River into Ohio River at Pittsburgh
Emsworth to Montgomery.......................................... 600 ft. (M)
360 ft. (A) 17,649 23,424
New Cumberland.................................................. 1,200 ft. (M)
600 ft. (A) 24,217 36,584
Junction of Kanawha and Ohio Rivers at Gallipolis
Robert C. Byrd to Greenup....................................... 1,200 ft. (M)
600 ft. (A) 36,763 59,406
Junction of Big Sandy and Ohio Rivers at Huntington
Greenup to J.T. Myers........................................... 1,200 ft. (M)
600 ft. (A) 44,471 67,262
Smithland....................................................... 1,200 ft. (M)
1,200 ft. (A) 75,671 85,077
Junction of Tennessee and Ohio Rivers at Paducah
Olmsted \1\..................................................... 1,200 ft. (M)
1,200 ft. (A) 84,355 94,052
Confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers at Cairo, Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All lock chambers are 110 feet wide except Emsworth, Dashields and Montgomery below Pittsburgh and above New
Cumberland are 56 feet wide.
\2\ Olmsted is under construction now and will replace Locks and Dams 52 and 53 with twin 1,200 foot by 110 foot
lock chambers at the new site.
______
Prepared Statement of R. Barry Palmer, Executive Director, Association
for the Development of Inland Navigation in America's Ohio Valley
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Barry Palmer,
Executive Director of DINAMO, the Association for the Development of
Inland Navigation in America's Ohio Valley. DINAMO is a multi-state,
membership based association of business and industry, labor, and state
government leaders from throughout the Ohio Valley, whose singular
purpose is to expedite the modernization of the lock and dam
infrastructure on the Ohio River Navigation System. Largely through the
leadership of this subcommittee and the professional efforts of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, we in the Ohio Valley are beginning to
see the results of 17 years of continuously hard work in improving our
river infrastructure.
Lock and dam modernization at Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam, Grays
Landing Lock and Dam, Point Marion Locks, and Winfield Locks are
largely complete. These projects were authorized for construction in
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Last November we stood at
the site of the Winfield Locks and Dam to dedicate a new, larger lock
facility. These four projects are fully operational, although some
final stages of construction are still underway. The Olmsted Locks and
Dam project, Ohio River, IL/KY, is also fully under construction.
Construction to build twin 110 foot by 1,200 foot locks is in full
gear, thanks to the appropriations last year for fiscal year 1998.
Substantial problems remain, however, for adequate funding of
improvements at Lower Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3 and 4, PA;
McAlpine Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IN/KY; Marmet Lock, Kanawha River,
WV; and for the Kentucky Lock, Tennessee River, KY. The construction
schedules for all of these projects have been severely constrained.
Completion dates for the Lower Mon project have been delayed 6 years
from 2004 to 2010. For McAlpine Lock the completion date has been
delayed five years from 2002 to 2007. The current completion date for
the Marmet Lock project is 2009, but this project with adequate funding
could be completed two years ahead of current schedule and fully
operational in 2006. For the Kentucky Lock addition, we have seen three
different construction schedules. Two completion date schedules would
complete this project in 2012 or in 2017. In fact, if the Kentucky Lock
project were on an ``efficient,'' or ``optimum'' schedule, the project
could be completed by 2008.
All of these construction projects, in addition to the Olmsted
Locks and Dam, could be completed by 2008 or earlier. Also, monies from
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund could finance 50 percent of the costs
of these projects while keeping the Trust Fund in the black. The real
challenge then is to complete these lock and dam construction projects
by 2008 or earlier by putting them on an ``efficient'' construction
schedule.
Delaying the construction of these vitally needed infrastructure
investments is a terribly inefficient practice. Inefficient
construction schedules cost people a lot of money. A recent study by
the Institute for Water Resources concluded that $1.02 billion of
cumulative benefits (transportation savings) for the aforementioned
five lock and dam modernization projects on the Ohio River Navigation
System and the Inner Harbor project in New Orleans harbor on the Lower
Mississippi River have been lost forever. The benefits foregone
represent the cumulative annual loss of transportation cost savings
associated with postponing the completion of these projects from their
``optimum,'' or ``efficient'' schedule. In addition, this study
concludes that $682 million of future benefits that will be foregone
based on fiscal year 1999 schedules could be recovered if funding is
provided to accelerate design and construction activities in accordance
with ``efficient'' schedules.
In addition the construction cost of these six projects has
increased by $246 million when compared to the 1995 construction
schedule. Of this amount, the Corps estimates that $157 million of the
cost increase associated with three projects (Marmet, Kentucky, Inner
Harbor) could be avoided if funding is provided to allow their design
and construction activities to resume under an ``efficient'' schedule.
Attached to this statement are two charts relating to monies needed
for construction of Ohio River Navigation System projects on an
``efficient'' schedule--Chart A and Chart B. Chart B points out two
construction schedules provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
navigation projects on the Ohio River Navigation System. One schedule
uses the fiscal year 1999 budget submission as the basis for future
improvements. The other is an ``Efficient'' or ``Optimum'' schedule,
whereby each lock and dam modernization project in the region could be
constructed by 2008 or earlier with adequate funding.
We ask this distinguished subcommittee to fund lock and dam
modernization objectives in the Ohio Valley in accordance with the
``Efficient Construction Schedules'' of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. For fiscal year 1999 DINAMO is requesting funding for each
project as follows:
Recommendations for fiscal year 1999
1. For the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam modification project,
formerly the Gallipolis Locks and Dam on the Ohio River, OH/WV, about
$10,600,000 for continued construction.
2. For the Winfield Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV,
$4,500,000, for continued construction of the lock and relocations
related to environmental mitigation.
3. For the Olmsted Locks and Dam, replacing Locks and Dams 52 and
53 on the Lower Ohio River, IL/KY, $59,000,000, for continued
construction of the twin 110 foot by 1,200 foot locks and design of the
new gated dam.
4. For improvements to Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2,3 and 4,
PA, $30,00,000, for continued construction of the Dam 2 left abutment
and river wall, leading to construction of new Dam 2.
5. For the McAlpine Lock Project on the Ohio River, IN/KY,
$6,000,000 to continue design of the new 110 foot by 1,200 foot lock
addition and for construction of wharf improvements.
6. For the Marmet Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV,
$9,000,000 for real estate acquisition and for continuing Plans and
Specifications on the main construction contracts.
7. For the Kentucky Lock Addition on the Tennessee River, KY,
$11,500,000 to continue design on the new highway and bridge work and
for relocation and construction of the TVA tower.
8. For the Ohio River Mainstem Study, including studies related to
modifications of John T. Myers, Newburgh, and Cannelton Locks and Dams,
$10,150,000. This level of funding is needed to complete the
feasibility studies leading to an authorization report enabling
construction of additional capacity for the John T. Myers, Newburgh,
and Cannelton Locks and Dams, Ohio River, IN/KY. Also the Corps of
Engineers needs to initiate studies to determine where additional
improvements may be needed in future years along the Ohio River
Navigation System.
DINAMO has been a participant in presenting testimony annually to
this subcommittee for more than fifteen years. We started with requests
to construct new locks at the Gallipolis Locks and Dam on the Ohio
River, OH/WV and to initiate funding of feasibility studies for other
locks and dams on the Ohio River Navigation System. Since 1981 we have
made considerable headway. Gallipolis is now complete and it has been
renamed the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam because of our great champion.
Some projects have undergone major rehabilitation, others are complete,
and still others need to be completed. We have participated fully in
the process. But at no time has the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers been
more in peril of losing its major responsibility of providing
innovative engineering services on tough problems for this nation
because of an unwillingness of an Administration to provide funds to
deliver essential government services.
Expenditures for lock and dam modernization are an investment in
the fundamental infrastructure of this nation. The Corps of Engineers
construction budget for fiscal year 1999 is about $840 million less
than the $1.47 billion Congress provided for fiscal year 1998. Mr.
Chairman, we have great confidence in the Corps of Engineers and urge
your support at a funding level more in line with the real water
resources development needs of the nation. Last year Congress provided
nearly $4.1 billion for the Corps of Engineers program and 50 new
construction starts for water resources development projects that
represent an additional investment of $2.7 billion. It is clear that
funding for the Corps program should probably be increased to levels
closer to $4.6 billion.
We thank you for the opportunity to present this request and our
thoughts on these matters.
FISCAL YEAR 1999 FUNDING OF OHIO VALLEY LOCK AND DAM MODERNIZATION PROJECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
1999 Energy Administration Funding at
and Water fiscal year efficient
Development 1999 budget level of
Appropriations request construction
Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction:
Robert C. Byrd locks and dam, Ohio River, OH/WV............ $5,356,000 $7,000,000 $10,600,000
Grays Landing locks and dam, Monongahela River, PA.......... 2,900,000 .............. ..............
Winfield lock, Kanawha River, WV............................ 8,500,000 4,500,000 4,500,000
Olmsted locks and dam, Ohio River, IL/KY.................... 98,440,000 54,500,000 59,000,000
Locks and dams 2,3, and 4, Monongahela River, PA \2\........ \1\ 18,200,000 4,500,000 30,000,000
McAlpine lock, Ohio River, IN/KY \2\........................ 6,720,000 1,000,000 6,000,000
Marmet lock, Kanawha River, WV \2\.......................... 1,830,000 1,500,000 9,000,000
Kentucky lock addition, Tennessee River, KY \2\............. 4,000,000 .............. 11,468,000
London lock, Kanawha River, WV.............................. 1,000,000 1,700,000 1,700,000
Surveys: Ohio River Main Stem Study (John T. Myers/Newburgh/
Cannelton)..................................................... 8,800,000 10,150,000 10,150,000
-----------------------------------------------
Totals.................................................... 155,746,000 84,850,000 142,418,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes carry over of funds of $5.5 million.
\2\ Targeted priorities by DINAMO.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TCORPS.011
______
SOUTHWEST U.S. WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of Ben H. Nelson, President, Coastal Oyster
Leaseholders Association
I am Ben H. Nelson, President of the Coastal Oyster Leaseholders
Association, a group of oyster producers who own, lease and operate
private oyster leases in the Galveston Bay Complex of Texas (Galveston,
East Galveston and Trinity Bays). The Galveston Bay Complex is the only
bay system in Texas where there are private oyster leases.
By operating a private oyster lease, we are able to provide fresh
oysters in the shell to the market year round, and can, therefore,
assure a steady supply of shellstock (oysters in the shell) to the
consuming public throughout the nation.
Adequate navigation channels are most essential to our operations,
as well as to the oyster harvester-gatherers who operate in the bays
only during the permissible open seasons, as if we cannot get from out
docks to the oyster leases or reefs and return with our catch, we won't
be in business long.
The oyster processors located at Smith Point employ over 200
employees and harvest, process and ship about 25 percent of the total
Texas oyster harvest. My wife and I employ 125 of these employees.
There are several navigation channel improvements that are of prime
concern to us upon which I would like to offer my comments:
trinity river channel to liberty-vicinity smith point
This is an old, authorized channel that runs from the Houston Ship
Channel, easterly to the east shore of Trinity Bay and along that
shoreline to Anahuac, passing through the tip of Smith Point en route.
The oyster luggers working out of the Pix Bayou Docks at Smith Point
have to traverse a section of this channel on the way to their leases
and the public oyster reefs. Just across from the Chambers County
Robbins Park, this channel has shoaled up to the point where it is nigh
on impossible to get a loaded oyster lugger through it, except at high
tide, and then the channel is a meandering, weaving, snaky, small ditch
that causes a lot of boat captains to run aground and when one boat
gets stuck, then all boats behind them are prevented from going in the
channel.
We are working closely with our Congressman, Nick Lampson, to find
some emergency funding for the immediate clearance of the absolutely
essential segment, depth and width of this channel, just to get us by
for the near future. We hope and pray that we can find these funds in
the very near future, otherwise our operations will be shut down.
On the longer term, we hope to see the maintenance dredging of this
channel from out in the bay through Smith Point (the first in 25 years)
be authorized and funded in the regular course of congressional process
in time to ``do this job right'', get this important segment of this
channel on a regular maintenance dredging routine.
At this point, we would deeply appreciate (a) any assistance you or
the committee members could give to Cong. Nick Lampson in his search
for emergency funding, and (b) early approval of the funds necessary
for the regular maintenance dredging of the required segment of this
channel.
wallisville salt water barrier project
Although we have mixed emotions about the Wallisville Salt Water
Barrier Project, we support congressional funding of it's completion.
We do understand its importance to the raw water supply for the Houston
metropolitan area, as well as to the agricultural, industrial and
municipal consumers of our own area.
cedar bayou project(s)
At present, there is an authorized navigation channel from the
Houston Ship Channel to Mile 3 or 4 of Cedar Bayou, where the Chambers-
Liberty Counties Navigation District is the local sponsor. This channel
is in pretty good shape, and we are supporters of that project. In
addition, there is a new navigation district (Chambers County-Cedar
Bayou Navigation District) has just been created to carry this channel
from Mile 3 or 4 up to Mile 11 at the State Highway 146 bridge over
Cedar Bayou.
This District is in the preliminary phases of investigation and
planning, and probably will be coming before you during the next
Session of Congress.
We support their efforts, as the improvements to Cedar Bayou will
provide water transportation to a growing industrial base on its East
bank (in Chambers County) and contribute mightily to our county's
overall ad valorem tax base, employ hundreds of Chambers Countians, and
have a significant positive impact on our local economy.
summary
Immediate emergency funding of the severely impacted segment of the
TRINITY RIVER CHANNEL TO LIBERTY is extremely vital to our economic
existence in Smith Point and any help you and your Committee can give
Congressman Lampson in his search for these elusive funds will be
appreciated.
We are looking forward to funding for the maintenance dredging of
the TRINITY RIVER CHANNEL TO LIBERTY in the regular course of business;
but would be overjoyed with funding this year, as ``our ox is in the
ditch''.
We support the completion of the WALLISVILLE SALT WATER BARRIER.
We support the, yet to be requested, authorization and funding of a
navigation project for the upper stretch of CEDAR BAYOU.
We appreciate the opportunity to present our Statement to you.
______
Prepared Statement of George Willcox, General Manager, Chambers-Liberty
Counties Navigation District
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is George
Willcox, and I am General Manager of the Chambers-Liberty Counties
Navigation District.
Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation District supports the level of
capability expressed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for projects
located in the Trinity River Basin and the Trinity-Galveston Bay
Complex.
wallisville saltwater barrier project
The purpose of the project is to prevent saltwater intrusion from
the Trinity and Galveston Bay Complex into the freshwater supply from
the Trinity River. It is vital to the protection of the freshwater
supplies of the City of Houston as well as several rural canal systems
including C.L.C.N.D. The C.L.C.N.D. system supplies water for
agricultural irrigation, to the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge for
wildlife enhancement and to the City of Anahuac and the Trinity Bay
Conservation District for treatment for municipal use.
The barrier is located on the Trinity River near the Trinity-
Galveston Bay Complex. It is down stream of Lake Livingston, which is a
joint project of the City of Houston and the Trinity River Authority.
Currently, during periods of low flow in the river, releases of
freshwater must be made from Lake Livingston in order to maintain
freshwater for the intake of the C.L.C.N.D. canal system. This intake
is located upstream of the barrier and it will be protected upon
completion of the barrier project. During last year's drought, releases
of 1,500 cubic feet per second were required from Lake Livingston in
order to maintain freshwater at the C.L.C.N.D. intake point. This
equates to approximately 970 million gallons per day during that period
or an annualized rate of some 260 million gallons per day. Completion
of the barrier will eliminate the necessity of these kinds of releases.
Although the project has been long and controversial, the major
issues of concern from the environmental community have been addressed.
The downsized project is no longer a storage reservoir, however, its
importance for the protection of saltwater intrusion has not
diminished. In addition, it will be providing recreational and tourism
facilities that will be utilized by local families as well as state,
national and foreign visitors.
Construction on this project is proceeding ahead of schedule and
adequate funding is now essential for completion. We will greatly
appreciate your consideration in appropriating the funds as requested
by the Galveston District Corps of Engineers.
trinity river channel to liberty
The Trinity River Channel is an authorized channel located in
Chambers and Liberty Counties. It commences at the Houston Ship Channel
in lower Chambers County, ending at the Port of Liberty in Liberty
County. Maintenance is currently needed near the community of Smith
Point in lower Chambers County in order to allow oyster tuggers and
shrimp boats to safely navigate from Galveston Bay into their docking
facilities at Smith Point. The shell fish industry located there is one
of the top three employers in Chambers County.
The Channel to Liberty is also in need of maintenance in order to
allow navigation of barges into the Port of Liberty. The fertilizer
industry that is located there is currently barging materials to Cedar
Bayou, then trucking them to Liberty as the barges are unable to
navigate to Liberty. The problems with the rail industry has increased
the need for barge deliveries.
cedar bayou navigation district
The Cedar Bayou Navigation District was recently formed by the
Texas Legislature to promote dredging and navigation on Cedar Bayou in
Chambers County. The industries located there are vital to the economy
of Chambers County, providing employment for many Chambers and East
Harris County residents. Funding is needed to make planning and
feasibility studies for this project.
conclusion
The Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation District thanks this
committee for the opportunity to provide this testimony. We also thank
Congress for the funds that have been provided to the Galveston
District as they have produced great benefits to the public,
representing a sound investment of federal funds.
______
Prepared Statement of William Hodges, President, Trinity River
Authority of Texas
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: My name is William
Hodges, and I serve as President of the Trinity River Authority of
Texas Board of Directors.
TRA supports the level of capability expressed by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for projects located in the Trinity River Basin.
wallisville saltwater barrier project
After 14 years of bitter litigation with environmental opponents to
Wallisville, it was reshaped and reborn as an environmentally neutral
project. Construction on this most important federal project was
resumed in 1991. Progress on Wallisville has been acceptable since that
time.
When completed, Wallisville and Lake Livingston, a 90,000 surface
acre water supply project completed in 1970 with 100 percent local
funds, will operate as a system extending the City of Houston's water
supplies through the year 2035. By eliminating the need to wastefully
release large amounts of fresh water to hydraulically flush saltwater
from the intake structures of a series of rice irrigation systems and
the coastal water authority during low river flow conditions, this
system operation will make more water available for beneficial use in
the greater Houston metropolitan area and in the lower Trinity River
Valley. Until the Federal Government completes Wallisville as specified
in the 1967 local sponsors' cost-sharing agreement and approved by
Congress in 1983, the system benefits of these two projects cannot be
realized.
The Galveston District of the Corps of Engineers has indicated that
with adequate funding, the project will be ready to operate later this
year.
upper trinity river basin
Flooding and flood control have re-emerged as major issues in the
Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area which dominates the upper Trinity
River Basin. Through nine cities, two counties and two special purpose
districts, the North Texas Council of Governments serves as local
sponsor for this much needed flood study. TRA supports the $1 million
budgeted project in addition to the $600,000 for Johnson Creek in
Arlington, and the $490,000 for the Fort Worth Sumps 14 and 15.
dallas floodway extension
This federal project would extend the levees that protect Dallas
southward to protect a section on the metropolitan area that has been
historically challenged from an economic standpoint. TRA supports the
$1.33 million contained in the President's budget to begin
preconstruction and design.
operations and maintenance funds
TRA supports appropriations for fiscal year 1999 operations and
maintenance funds necessary to maintain operations for federal water
projects for which the Authority serves as local sponsor within the
Trinity River Basin. These projects include Bardwell Lake, Joe Pool
Lake, Navarro Mills Lake and the Wallisville Saltwater Barrier Project.
conclusion
The Trinity River Authority thanks this committee for the
opportunity to testify. We also thank Congress for the many
improvements that the Federal Government has funded in the Trinity
River Basin over the years. They have produced great benefits for the
public and represent a very sound investment of federal funds.
______
Prepared Statement of Gerald R. Zimmerman, Executive Director, Colorado
River Board of California, Glendale, CA
Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate fiscal
year 1999 funding for the Department of the Interior with respect to
the federal/state Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. This
program is carried out through the Bureau of Reclamation pursuant to
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act and the Clean Water Act.
California's Colorado River water users are presently suffering
economic damages estimated at about $800 million per year due to the
river's salinity, and those damages are expected to increase
significantly by the turn of the century without salinity control.
The Colorado River Board of California, the state agency charged
with protecting California's interests and rights in the water and
power resources of the Colorado River System, supports the 1999 federal
funding of $17,500,000 proposed by the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Forum for the Department of the Interior's Colorado River Basin
salinity control activities.
The seven Colorado River Basin states, which cost-share with the
federal government up to 30 percent of the construction costs of
Interior's salinity control measures, have carefully evaluated the
federal funding needs of the program and have concluded that an
adequate budget is needed for the plan of implementation to maintain
the river salinity standards adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin
states and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, pursuant to
the two federal authorizing Acts.
In addition, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum and
the Colorado River Board of California recognize that the federal
government has made significant commitments to the Republic of Mexico
and to the seven Colorado River Basin states with regard to the
delivery of quality water to Mexico. In order for those commitments to
be honored, it is essential that in fiscal year 1999 and in future
fiscal years, the Congress provide funds to the Bureau of Reclamation
for the operation and maintenance of the Yuma Desalting Plant.
The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
water resource for California. Preservation of its quality through an
effective salinity control program will avoid the additional economic
damages to river users in California that are expected by the turn of
the century without such salinity control.
The Board greatly appreciates your support of the federal/state
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program and again asks for your
assistance and leadership in securing adequate funding for this
program.
______
Prepared Statement of Jack A. Barnett, Executive Director, Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum, Bountiful, UT
This testimony is in support of funding for the Colorado River
Basin salinity control program. Congress has designated the Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), to be the lead
agency for salinity control in the Colorado River Basin. This role and
the authorized program was refined and confirmed by the Congress when
Public Law 104-20 was enacted into law. A total of $17,500,000 is
requested this year to implement the needed and authorized program.
Failure to appropriate these funds will result in significant economic
damage and threaten compliance with adopted basin-wide water quality
standards in the future. The Forum recognizes that the President's
request of $12.3 million is an increase of $0.4 million above last
year's request and the Forum appreciates and supports this increase.
Nonetheless, studies have shown that implementation of the program has
fallen behind the needed pace to prevent salinity concentration levels
from exceeding numeric criteria adopted in connection with water
quality standards for the River Basin while the Basin states continue
to develop their Compact apportioned waters of the Colorado River.
Concentrations of salts in the water above the criteria would cause
hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in the United States and
endangers the treaty obligation of the United States to Mexico. For
every 30 mg/l increase in salinity concentrations, there is $100
million in additional damages in the United States. The Forum,
therefore, believes a rate of implementation beyond the President's
request is necessary.
The program authorized by the Congress in 1995 has proven to be
very successful and very cost effective. Proposals from the private
sector to implement salinity control strategies have far exceeded the
available funding. Hence, Reclamation has a backlog of proposals and is
able to select the best and most cost-effective proposals. Funds are
available for the Colorado River Basin states' cost sharing at the
level requested by the Forum. Water quality improvements accomplished
under Title II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act also
benefits the quality of water delivered to Mexico. Although the United
States has always met its treaty commitments to Mexico with respect to
water quality, the State Department is currently addressing Mexican
requests for better water quality. All of the above argues for a higher
level of funding than requested by the President.
overview
The Colorado River Basin salinity control program was authorized by
Congress in 1974. Title I of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Act responded to commitments that the United States had made pursuant
to Minute 242 of the treaty with Mexico with respect to the quality of
water being delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam. Title II of the Act
established a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado
River water users in the United States and to comply with the mandates
of the then newly legislated Clean Water Act. Initially, the Secretary
of the Interior and Reclamation were given the lead Federal role by the
Congress. This testimony is in support of funding for the Title II
program.
After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the
Basin states concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be
amended. Congress revised the Act in 1984. That revision, while keeping
the Secretary of the Interior as lead coordinator for Colorado River
Basin salinity control efforts, also gave salinity control
responsibilities to the Department of Agriculture, and to a sister
agency of Reclamation--the Bureau of Land Management. Congress has
charged the Administration with implementing the most cost-effective
program practicable (measured as dollars per ton of salt removed). The
Basin states are strongly supportive of that concept, as the Basin
states cost share 30 percent of federal expenditures for the salinity
control program. In addition, under authorities provided in Public Law
105-27, the states are proceeding to implement their own salinity
control efforts in the Colorado River system.
Since the initial Congressional salinity control mandates of nearly
two decades ago, much has been learned about the impact of salts in the
Colorado River system. Reclamation has recently completed studies on
the economic impact of these salts. Reclamation recognizes that the
damages to United States' water users alone may soon be approaching $1
billion per year.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
of members appointed by the governors of the states of Arizona,
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum
functions as a seven-state coordinating body for interfacing with
federal agencies and Congress to support the implementation of a
program necessary to control the salinity of the river system. In close
cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and under
requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Forum prepares a formal report
every three years analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River,
anticipated future salinity, and the program necessary to keep the
salinities at or below the levels measured in the river system in 1972
(which are the established water quality standards numeric criteria).
In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
the salinity levels measured at Imperial, and below Parker and Hoover
Dams in 1972 have been adopted as the numeric criteria. The plan
necessary for controlling salinity has been captioned the ``plan of
implementation.'' The 1996 Review of water quality standards includes
an updated plan of implementation. The level of appropriation requested
in this testimony is consistent with the agreed to program
implementation rate determined necessary in the plan. If adequate funds
are not appropriated, state and federal agencies involved are in
agreement that the numeric criteria will be exceeded and damage from
the high salt levels in the water will be widespread and very
significant.
justification
The $17,500,000 requested by the Forum on behalf of the seven
Colorado River Basin states is the level of funding necessary to
proceed with Reclamation's portion of the plan of implementation. This
funding level is appropriate if salinity in the Colorado River is to be
controlled so as not to exceed the established numeric criteria and
threaten the associated water quality standards. In July of 1995,
Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. The
amended Act gives Reclamation new latitude and flexibility in seeking
the most cost-effective salinity control opportunities, and it provides
for proposals and more involvement from the private sector. Early
results are indicating that salt loading is being prevented at costs
often less than half the cost under the previous program. Congress's
recent review of the program and the amendments it authorized have made
the program effective in removing salt from the Colorado River in a
most cost-effective manner.
The Basin states have agreed to cost sharing annually, which adds
43 percent in monies to the federal appropriation. The Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Forum, working with EPA, has agreed upon a plan
of implementation for salinity control, and that plan justifies the
level of funding herein supported by the Forum to maintain the water
quality standards for salinity adopted by the Basin states. The
federally chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory
Council, created by the Congress in the Salinity Control Act, has met
and formally supports the requested level of funding. The Basin states
urge the Subcommittee to support the funding as set forth in this
testimony.
additional support of funding
In addition to the dollars identified above for the implementation
of the newly authorized program, the Salinity Control Forum urges the
Congress to appropriate necessary funds, as identified in the
President's budget, to continue to maintain and operate salinity
control facilities as they are completed and placed into long-term
operation. Reclamation has completed the Paradox Valley unit which
involves the collection of brines in the Paradox Valley of Colorado and
the injection of those brines into deep aquifers through an injection
well. The continued operation of the project and other completed
projects will be funded through Operation and Maintenance funds.
In addition, the Forum supports necessary funding, as identified in
the President's budget, to allow for continued general investigation of
the salinity control program. It is important that Reclamation have
planning staff in place, properly funded, so that the progress of the
program can be analyzed, coordination between various federal and state
agencies can be accomplished, and future projects and opportunities to
control salinity can be properly planned to maintain the water quality
standards for salinity so that the Basin states can continue to develop
Compact apportioned waters of the Colorado River.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Ute Mountain
Ute Indian Tribe, the San Juan Water Commission, the Animas-La Plata
Water Conservancy District, and the Southwestern Water Conservation
District
The Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe,
the San Juan Water Commission, the Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy
District and the Southwestern Water Conservation District (referred to
collectively as ``the project beneficiaries'') support the
Administration's request for $3 million for the Animas-La Plata Project
(``ALP'') in southwest Colorado and northwest New Mexico. The project
beneficiaries are concerned, however, that the Bureau of Reclamation
will use the funding for additional studies that have as their purpose
to delay the construction of the project rather than advance the
implementation of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act
of 1988, 102 Stat. 2973, which has as its foundation the construction
of Phase I of the ALP to provide a new supply of water in southwest
Colorado and northwest New Mexico. Indeed, the Bureau has balked at
providing the project beneficiaries with any assistance with regard to
the proposal to amend the 1988 Settlement Act to address the
environmental and fiscal issues that have been raised about ALP.
Instead, the Bureau has consistently and repeatedly hidden behind its
fantasized need for yet more studies and yet more discussions. We do
not want funds dedicated to ALP to be used for such misguided
activities.
Over the last year, the project beneficiaries have addressed the
issues that have been raised about the project and developed a proposal
to modify the 1988 Settlement Act through legislation. The Bureau has
refused to assist in these efforts. Under the proposal, the outstanding
water rights on the Animas and La Plata Rivers of the Ute Mountain Ute
and Southern Ute Indian Tribes would be resolved by the construction of
the three facilities, the Durango Pumping Plant, the inlet conduit, and
Ridges Basin Reservoir that were approved by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S. C. Sec. 1531
et seq. The Tribes would receive 33,050 acre feet of the 57,100 acre
feet of depletion approved by the FWS for use from the three
facilities. It would also provide much needed water for dry year
supplies for the New Mexico cities of Farmington, Aztec and Bloomfield.
The proposal would eliminate the concern over water quality because the
settlement would no longer require the construction of all of Phase I
of the Project which includes the facilities to deliver water to the La
Plata basin for irrigation purposes. It would also ensure that the
settlement could be achieved consistent with the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act. Finally, the required federal funding would be
reduced to less than $260 million with approximately $29 million of
local and state cost sharing. The proposal has been endorsed by the
governors of Colorado and New Mexico.
The proposal was developed in discussions between project
supporters and opponents initiated by the State of Colorado and
Secretary Babbitt. Both groups were asked to develop an alternative
that they believed met the purposes of the ALP. Last summer, both sides
came forward with proposals. The two Ute tribes have formally rejected
the project opponents' proposal to provide the tribes with funds (at
least $115 million) to purchase land and water in the vicinity of their
reservations. The State and local water users have also strongly
opposed that concept. The tribal leadership rejected the concept of
buying existing state water rights because of the uncertainty and
inflexibility of the resulting water supply as well as the difficulties
that would arise over the management and taxation of the purchased
resources. It has always been the tribal objective to obtain a firm
supply of water to meet their present and future needs without
displacing the uses of their non-Indian neighbors. As Congress
recognized in 1988, only a storage project can accomplish that goal.
Rather than assist the Tribes and the other parties in implementing
the modifications to the settlement, the Bureau of Reclamation has
spent the last four months ostensibly studying the two alternatives--
despite the fact that the Tribes have rejected the opponents' proposal
and despite the clear guidance from this Committee last year that the
Department was to look at alternatives to the project that would
provide a new supply of water and which was consistent with the
original settlement.
In short, the Bureau has continued its reluctance to implement the
1988 Settlement Act and has refused to abide by the Committee's prior
directive to construct the three facilities approved for construction
by the FWS ``without delay.'' Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 1996, Public Law No. 104-46, 109 Stat. 402 (Nov.
13, 1995). In these circumstances, we respectfully request the
Committee to direct the Bureau of Reclamation to use the $3 million to
assist in the implementation of the modifications to the project
required by the proposed amendments to the 1988 Act and to avoid the
needless study of so-called alternatives which have been rejected by
the parties to the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Final Settlement
Agreement (Dec. 10, 1986).
______
Prepared Statement of Richard Fulstone, Chairman, Walker River Water
Users Association
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Richard
Fulstone and I am the Chairman of the Walker River Water Users
Association.
On behalf of the Walker River Water Users, I would like to request
$400,000 for the Corps of Engineers, under the General Investigations
Program, to continue the feasibility phase study on this important
project. This request represents a $250,000 increase above the amount
in the budget request for fiscal year 1999.
The Walker River Basin experienced serious flooding in January
1997. The town of Yerrington temporarily closed schools and businesses.
Over 300 people were evacuated and damages were sustained to
agricultural resources and urban and rural structures. Additionally,
Walker Lake is becoming increasingly saline caused largely by lower
levels of freshwater inflow from Walker River into the Lake. This study
will focus on the overall basin to identify potential solutions to the
flood risk and other water resources problems
Second, I request that the Subcommittee approve $300,000 for Walker
River Basin, Nevada for the Bureau of Reclamation, to continue support
of a water conservation demonstration program. This is the same level
of funding approved by the Subcommittee in fiscal year 1998 for this
important program. The program is being managed by the Walker River
Water Users Association and is promoting a voluntary approach to water
conservation. Federal support is needed to identify the universe of
effective conservation practices in the Walker River Basin and better
quantify the contribution that conservation can make to solving the
water resource problems in the Walker Lake and the basin as a whole.
The demonstration program is being coordinated with the State of
Nevada, the Mason and Smith Valley Soil Conservation Districts and the
United States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation
Service.
Thank you, for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Phoenix, AZ
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
City Council and the 1.2 million citizens of Phoenix and 2.5 million
residents of our metropolitan area, I am pleased to present this
testimony which urges funding for three federal/non-federal partnership
projects in the Phoenix area. We recognize the need to balance the
federal budget and what that means with respect to funding the many
worthy water resources development projects across the nation. We
understand that severe cuts were made in the President's fiscal year
1999 budget for water projects. We are prepared to absorb some of those
cuts and have focused our request on only the most critical priorities
in our region.
There are three initiatives in the President's budget which are of
critical importance to the people of Arizona and which meet
Congressional and Administrative objectives. As important as these
matters are in our state, they have equal or even greater importance to
the people of the nation because they each carry forward concepts of
federal/non-federal government partnerships to gain leverage in
achieving highly desirable mutually agreed upon public policy
objectives. They also focus federal resources on the environment in the
Sonoran desert where water is a scarce resource. The Southwest also
represents the fastest growing part of the United States where riparian
habitat is disappearing at an alarming rate.
rio salado
One initiative involves the implementation of an ecosystem
restoration project in the Salt River (Rio Salado) in the cities of
Phoenix and Tempe. Federal dam projects since the turn of the century
have literally dried up Rio Salado. The river once contained thriving
wetland habitat and was a key ingredient in a diverse desert ecosystem.
Since the starvation of the river from its source of water, that
valuable habitat has been lost and dry river bed has become a blight
which cuts through the cities of Phoenix and Tempe. These two cities
have joined in partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers to plan and
design habitat restoration for significant portions of the lost
wetlands and to reintroduce at least some of the former free flowing
portion of the river.
The Corps Feasibility Study is complete and a Chief of Engineers
Report is expected to be available for transmittal to Congress in June
1998. We believe that the Rio Salado project is the single most
necessary ingredient in our cities' goal of revitalizing the river
corridor in an economically and environmentally beneficial way. The
Corps has budgeted $938,000 for planning, engineering and design (PED)
which will be matched by the two cities. This amount is significantly
lower than the amount needed by the Corps to keep the project on
schedule. We request $2.1 million in order to match the Corps capacity
to implement the project and to keep the project on schedule.
tres rios
The second initiative is the continuation of our Tres Rios River
Management Project that we are developing with the cities of Glendale,
Mesa, Tempe, and Scottsdale. This project is quite creative and has
significant implications for how we as a nation handle our waste water
treatment needs, especially in areas of very low natural water supply.
As we learn more about the effects of wastewater treatment discharges
on the environment, discharge criteria are necessarily becoming more
stringent. There are huge costs involved in meeting these higher levels
of treatment criteria and we must seek more economical and more
environmentally beneficial ways to achieve treatment goals. The Bureau
of Reclamation, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Fish and Wildlife Service along with
Glendale, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, and Mesa, Arizona are working
together on developing the Tres Rios Project under authorities of the
Bureau and the Corps of Engineers. It is truly rare that so many
agencies and jurisdictions have come together with common purpose, a
purpose which can increase the quality of treated water, restore
valuable ecosystems, and reduce costs of doing both.
The Bureau has constructed a demonstration wetland at the regional
wastewater treatment facility serving our communities which has far
surpassed expectations of wastewater treatment performance and
ecosystem value. The demonstration project has created twelve acres of
extremely vital wetlands that contain ecological communities and
provide the necessary final degree of treatment needed for the
wastewater.
The Corps has budgeted $610,000 to continue a Feasibility Study and
the Bureau has budgeted $400,000 to continue the engineering and
environmental analyses of the demonstration project. While the Corps
capacity to continue with the project is $900,000, we are prepared to
work within the existing budget. This illustrates our understanding of
current budgetary shortfalls and emphasizes our commitment to ask
Congress for an increase in the budget only where it is essential to
keep critical projects on schedule as in the case of Rio Salado.
Similarly, the Bureau of Reclamation funding for Tres Rios, is far
below the amount needed to maintain the wetlands and to continue the
research which is vital to restoration along the entire Salt River. The
City requests a budget of $1.5 million to continue the Bureau's work at
Tres Rios. Funding for fiscal year 1999 will be specifically programmed
for re-vegetation and vector control study.
gila river, north scottsdale
The third initiative is a unique proposal for study of flood
control needs on currently undeveloped alluvial fan areas in the
Phoenix metropolitan area. Alluvial fans are those broad, gently
sloping areas at the base of mountain systems where storm water run-off
forms many small, ever-changing rivulets. When these areas are
developed to accommodate population and commercial growth, the water
drainage patterns change, larger rivulets form, deeper channels occur,
and eventually a flood threat develops. In this case, the Corps of
Engineers and Phoenix is planning ahead, using Corps expertise, to
ensure that development occurs in a manner that does not result in
increasing flood threats in the future. The Corps and Phoenix are also
working with the Environmental Protection Agency to incorporate modern
concepts of watershed based resource management in developing the
necessary flood control measures. This is the classic win-win situation
for everyone. Development can be planned and proceed without creating a
flood threat. When the environmental values so important to the
ecosystem are fully protected, the federal government avoids the need
to marshal disaster relief efforts in the future because of the flood
plain management efforts being taken.
Last year, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
heard from many witnesses who called for significant improvements in
the way we look at national flood control needs. This project goes a
long way in looking at innovative ways to improve on our historic
approach of dealing with a flooding situation only after a disaster has
occurred. The Corps has $272,000 to continue this study.
summary
All three projects have at their heart the most desirable
combination of improving environmental quality, enhancing
intergovernmental cooperation, and achieving governmental costs
reduction objectives. In summary, the City is requesting that you
include $2.1 million for Rio Salado, the Salt River ecosystem
restoration project (as opposed to the budgeted $938,000), and retain
$610,000 in the Corps budget for feasibility studies at the Tres Rios
wetlands project and capability funding for the Gila River, North
Scottsdale project. Additionally, it is critical to maintain the
federal commitment at the Tres Rios Wetlands Demonstration project and
add $1.1 million to the Bureau's budget for fiscal year 1999.
We sincerely appreciate your courtesy in considering this request.
We would be pleased to provide any additional information you may need.
______
Prepared Statement of Jim Dunlap, New Mexico Rural Water Association
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me, as a Board Member for the
New Mexico Rural Water Association and representative for the over 800
small communities with water systems in New Mexico, to appear before
this Committee today. I am also here on behalf of all the other State
Rural Water Associations and rural water folks all over this country to
thank you for your personal support for small and rural water systems
over the past twenty years.
Today, I would like to discuss the importance of the Bureau of
Reclamation and its water projects to rural communities in the west and
the need to initiate a new relationship between the Bureau and the
small and rural water systems in each state. These water projects are
of growing significance to many small and rural communities in their
effort to improve the public health and strengthen local economic
opportunity. I am here today to request the support of you and the
Committee for providing funding for a Rural Water Technical Assistance
Demonstration Initiative in three western states.
Specifically, we are requesting $400,000 for a demonstration
grassroots on-site technical assistance programs to fund a full time
person working within each of three state rural water associations.
This person would assist small systems and rural communities to
coordinate their short and long range water needs with the broader
federal and state water supply and conservation programs. This could
include creation of regional water systems, centralized water
treatment, tradeoffs for water rights from irrigation supplies, or
increased use of surface supplies to save groundwater. Also this person
would be available to work with water system officials on Indian and
tribal lands.
background
Over the past ten years, rural communities have found themselves to
be part of a much larger problem involving the securing and
distribution of increasingly scarce western water supplies. In
addition, the enforcement of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking
Water Act has placed pressure on small systems to improve water quality
through consolidation or obtaining new water sources.
As a result, the future of rural water is now tied to emerging
state and federal water plans in the western states. Depletion of
aquifers, changing water rights, and construction of distribution
systems over wide geographic areas are going to be the major issues
facing rural water systems in the immediate future.
What is needed is a new focus on integrating the needs of rural
water systems into the larger strategies of state and federal
governments for water supply, water conservation and water distribution
systems. The access and delivery of water will determine the quality of
drinking water to rural communities.
There is a need for a full time person working within each state
rural water association to assist small systems and rural communities
to coordinate their long range water needs with the broader water
supply and conservation programs. This could include creation of
regional water systems, centralized water treatment, tradeoffs for
water rights from irrigation supplies, or increased use of surface
supplies to save groundwater.
The primary objective of the program is to define an approach for
more effectively integrating the grassroots on-site technical
assistance of state rural water associations with the major water
resources responsibility of the Department of the Interior as a
demonstration project in three western states. Both the Environmental
Protection Agency and the USDA Rural Utility Service use the state
rural water associations to improve compliance with the Safe Drinking
Water Act and to assist high risk small communities in obtaining funds
for new systems. The Bureau of Reclamation needs to do the same.
Our initiative is an alternative to increased federal regulations.
We believe that technical assistance operated by local governments
provides more environmental benefits than increasing the size of the
regulatory bureaucracy. We also feel that we are able to work in a
special environment because we are not the regulators. This ``good
neighbor'' element allows acceptance in Indian Lands and with local
elected officials where environmental regulators may have more
difficulty.
proposal
The Bureau of Reclamation--Rural Water Association Partnership
would add an important new dimension to the Bureau's efforts to improve
water management and water use in the more arid western states. The
program would provide a full-time person in three western states to
demonstrate the effectiveness of mobilizing the state Rural Water
Associations resources to:
--Provide on-site assistance to communities that have access to or
are seeking access to BOR water resources. This includes the
use of consolidations, new construction and changed operating
procedures to improve local water quality.
--Where appropriate and in some states, provide on-site assistance at
the request of and in support of Indian Tribal Reservations and
the Indian Health Service in their efforts to improve the
delivery of quality drinking water throughout the reservation.
This circuit rider would strengthen the capability of the local
operation and allow tribes to improve water system management
similar to the improvements achieved by small community water
systems through similar circuit rider programs funded by the
Department of Agriculture.
--Work with BOR, state government and local communities to develop a
simple strategy for improving the use of Bureau of Reclamation
water resources for rural domestic consumption. This strategy
would tie BOR priorities into the funds spent through the USDA
Rural Utilities Service and the EPA drinking water state
revolving loan funds.
--Other primary services provided to water utilities will include
water conservation programs for water utilities and irrigation
districts, water audits, leak detections, water meter
installations/repairs, drought preparedness, regional water
supply development, water rates structure, and wastewater
system improvements.
proposed appropriation for project
Provide $400,000 for three state rural water association grassroots
circuit rider technical assistance programs. Each state rural water
association would receive one full time program and the National Rural
Water Association would be responsible for managing, evaluating, and
reporting on the effectiveness of the overall project.
examples of work
The impact of the Bureau of Reclamation on the improvement of
community water systems in the west is best illustrated by the role
that the Bureau of Reclamation sponsored multi county rural water
systems such as Webb, Tricounty and others have played in South Dakota.
Without these Bureau of Reclamation projects there would be inadequate
safe drinking water supplies in much of rural South Dakota. The South
Dakota Bureau projects have increasingly relied on the rural water
association circuit riders to assist in resolving small system
relationships with major water supply efforts. It is this growing need
that establishes the reason for requesting BOR funding for a circuit
rider in each state with the primary responsibility for coordinating
small community needs with the BOR water resources available in rural
areas.
On a corresponding note, in most states the assistance provided to
Indian Reservations by these same circuit riders provides the missing
interface between local governments, water projects, and reservations
that is so frequently requested. Our experience is that on-site
discussions solve the vast majority of water supply problems and set
the groundwork for long range solutions. This is needed if the federal
government, state and local governments and tribes are going to
conserve scarce water supplies in the west. The following are examples
of the type of tribal assistance that would be addressed by this
demonstration program.
North Dakota, Trenton.--The city of Trenton is located in Williams
County and serves 150 connections. The city of Trenton is primarily an
Indian community and is located on the very western edge of North
Dakota. Recently they started to purchase their water from the city of
Williston. Since the city has started purchasing their water, the
system has been losing money in its water account. After going over the
system's expenses and water rates, a new rate structure was
recommended. Previous to this, the system still had a declining water
rate--as in, the more water used, the cheaper the cost per thousand.
Now that the system is purchasing water, the rate would remain
constant. The long-term benefits to the water system in assisting them
change their water rates will be that they will be able to more easily
cover all their cost and start building a much needed reserve fund for
future needs. This shows them that closer attention must be contributed
to water rates and other charges. Every gallon of water purchased and
lost is money lost to the system.
Arizona, Eden.--The Eden Water Company is located in Graham County
and serves 100 connections. Verna Rae Colvin from the Eden Water
Company requested assistance from the Arizona Small Utilities
Association Circuit Rider. The system had been experiencing a water
loss problem. The system is losing more water than is being sold to
customers for the last two months. Long transmission lines
(approximately 8 miles) are carrying water to the distribution systems
with some customers on transmission lines. The main line and crossing
valves are buried, and some have never been found in the last 10 to 15
years. The Circuit Rider assisted with valve location and leak
detection and customers meter testing throughout the water system.
Daily meter readings at the source of supply are now being taken. As a
result of this contact, accounting for water loss and correcting the
problem will save the Eden Water Company approximately $7,000 per year
in purchased water. Locating main line water valves will limit
customers who would be out of water during the water main and service
line breaks. By conducting a valve exercise program, water line valves
will be operational when needed. The operator is more aware of the
system due to valve, meter and service crossing locations.
Idaho, Harrison, DW.--The City of Harrison is located in Kootenia
County. The city water source is from metered ground water. There are
approximately 150 metered connections and the system does not have
full-time disinfection. The operator, Rhonda Wilcox, is full-time, but
not certified. The Idaho Rural Water Association Circuit Rider was
requested to assist the operator. The system was losing approximately
100,000 gallons of water per day. The Circuit Rider delivered the Idaho
Rural Water Association's leak detector to the City of Harrison. The
operator was instructed on the use of the detector and instructions on
how to survey the distribution system. The Circuit Rider and operator
began checking every meter on the system. The operator was comfortable
with using the equipment to proceed with attempting to locate the water
leak. The following day, the operator located the leak. A one-inch
water meter had frozen and broken. The repairs were made and the water
loss eliminated. The operator was trained on the proper use of the leak
detector and how to survey the water system. In the future, the
operator will be able to use the training provided to locate water loss
in the water system.
Idaho, Shoshone County.--Avery water system is located in Shoshone
County and serves 29 unmetered connections. The system is supplied by a
well which is chlorinated and unmetered. The operator is part-time and
is not certified. Their pump was running almost continually. The Idaho
Rural Water Association's Circuit Rider reviewed the system and began
isolating parts of the system. Two leaks were located with the IRWA
leak detection equipment. A shut-off valve was also located with the
IRWA locator. The Circuit Rider reviewed their well and made some
recommendations for improving their system. The recommendations were to
install a run light, and a meter at the well head. Due to the leaks
found and repaired, the system will save in excess of $60 per month in
power savings. The operator will be able to use the leak detector loan
equipment offered by IRWA. By installing a well head meter and run
light, the operator will be able to monitor the well production and run
time. Use of this information will help the operator to recognize the
next time a leak occurs.
Montana, Deer Lodge.--The city of Deer Lodge is located in Powell
County, Montana, and serves nonchlorinated water to 1,230 non-metered
connections. The system is supplied by a groundwater source consisting
of two metered wells. The full-time operator, Don Roberts, is
certified. The operator contacted the Circuit Rider early one Sunday
morning and requested immediate assistance with locating a water leak.
The city's 2\1/2\ million water tank had only one foot of water in it.
The Circuit Rider and the operator began a systematic check of the
system in an attempt to locate the problem. The Circuit Rider
determined that the ``leak'' was due to high usage because of hot
weather and connections that were not metered. At their second well, a
pilot control valve had been installed, and the pump had not been put
back into operation. The Circuit Rider immediately checked the
installation and found everything to be in order. He instructed the
operator on the operation of the new control valve and the pump was
started. By 7:00 am the next morning, the tank was three-quarters full.
The Circuit Rider met with the mayor and recommended installing water
meters which would save the system approximately $1,000 per month.
Nevada, Pioche.--Leak detection training was provided for Pioche
Public Utility. Three leaks were located in a 2-inch distribution line
which serviced three houses. The repair of leaks will stabilize line
pressure above the minimum pressure required by the Safe Drinking Water
Act, plus save utility district money.
Nevada, Steamboat Springs.--Steamboat Springs System is located in
Washoe County, Nevada and serves unchlorinated water to 290 connections
that are not metered. The system is supplied by a groundwater source
which is metered. Tom Reese is the new full-time operator; he is not
certified. The water system requested the Circuit Rider's help in
locating some valves. The Circuit Rider was also asked to explain fire
hydrant operation and maintenance. The operator received assistance in
the location of the valves. He now has knowledge of the proper
operation and maintenance of fire hydrants, including the importance of
a regular exercise program for valves and fire hydrants.
North Carolina, Woodfin.--Woodfin Sanitary District is in Buncombe
County and serves 2,100 connections. The water system was experiencing
water pressure problems in upper areas and water loss. The State
Regulatory people were pushing for some results. The problem area was
located and later pinpointed by process of elimination due to
interference in attempting to use leak detection equipment. The leak
was located under a railroad track where an 8 foot water line was in 16
feet casing. The leak was midway of the encasement and flowed to the
end drainage directly into a damaged sewer line. This explained some of
the difficulty in locating the leak. It had become an 11,000,000 gpd
leak and, when fixed, pressure from the other water system was
eliminated. The staff is now much better prepared to deal with this
type of problem due to the on-site assistance and training using leak
detection equipment and pressure recording equipment, as well as simple
field tools, and, most importantly, the process of elimination approach
when necessary.
South Dakota, Butte-Meade, DW.--The Circuit Rider was requested to
join the cooperative efforts of the Butte County Extension Office, FmHA
District Office, and Butte-Meade Sanitary District during a public
hearing to discuss the water system projected expansion project. The
Circuit Rider was the main speaker, discussing the benefits, process,
and potential addition of area ranchers, residents and communities, and
the funding process needed. This system needed guidance and information
to present to the attendees who are very concerned and in dire need of
quality water. The water in this area is difficult to find, and it
would be very costly to drill a new well. The benefits of the users
hooking up to this system are many; most of all they would receive good
quality water. At the present time, many ranchers in the proposed area
have to haul the water for livestock and household use. Many people who
live on acreage or just a household are also faced with poor quality
water and must also haul water. The end result from this meeting was
the information provided to the attendees of the possibility of a water
system's capability to serve them a sufficient supply of quality water.
Colorado, General, DW.--Spread Eagle Water System is located
approximately sixteen miles northwest of Westcliffe, CO. This system
serves fifteen year-round connections and uses a ground water source to
supply the system. Joe Defries, system operator, contacted CO Rural
Water for assistance. The Circuit Rider conducted leak detection on
three different sections of water line. Four leaks were found. The
amount of water being lost was approximately 3.3 gallons per minute. As
a result of this contact, the system saved approximately $500 in leak
detection costs and water loss.
Idaho, Lapwai.--The Circuit Rider worked with the Nez Perce Indian
tribe on five separate housing developments, investigating meter
installation and some type of utility billing system. Possible
connection to the city of Lapwai water system for one of the
developments was also discussed.
Case Study
Idaho--The following local water issues represent candidates for
assistance Lapwai.--The possibility of the City of Lapwai taking over
the operation and maintenance of the Nez Perce tribe drinking water and
wastewater systems that are in close proximity to the city.
Worley.--Currently discussing the possibility of the Coeur D'Alene
tribe assisting with the construction of a new well and storage tank.
In return the city would operate the system which is on the reservation
and includes the city of Worley.
Kamiah.--Discussions in first stages for the city to take over the
operation and maintenance of the Indian drinking water system in close
proximity to the city.
Fort Hall.--Major contamination problem with the water supply.
Contamination may be related to chemicals that were used on Indian
ground that may be used by some farmers in the area. The system has put
in a charcoal filter but the problem still is being discussed.
______
Prepared Statement of Grady Gammage, Jr., President, Board of
Directors, Central Arizona Water Conservation District
The Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) is pleased
to offer the following testimony regarding the fiscal year 1999 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Bill for the Central Arizona
Project.
The Central Arizona Project or ``CAP'' was authorized by the 90th
Congress of the United States under the Colorado River Basin Project
Act of 1968. We thank the Committee for its continuing support of the
CAP. The CAP is a multi-purpose water resource development project
consisting of a series of canals, tunnels, dams, and pumping plants
which lift water nearly 3,000 vertical feet over a distance of 336
miles from Lake Havasu on the Colorado River to the Tucson area. The
project was designed to deliver the remainder of Arizona's entitlement
of Colorado River water into the central and southern portions of the
state for municipal and industrial, agricultural, and Indian uses. The
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) initiated project construction in
1973, and the first water was delivered into the Phoenix metropolitan
area in 1985. CAWCD delivered over 1.3 million acre-feet of water to
project water users in 1997 and anticipates delivering 1.4 million
acre-feet in 1998.
CAWCD was created by the Arizona legislature in 1971 for the
specific purpose of contracting with the United States to repay the
reimbursable construction costs of the CAP that are properly allocable
to CAWCD. In 1983, CAWCD was also given authority to operate and
maintain completed project features. Its service area is comprised of
Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties. CAWCD is a tax-levying public
improvement district, a political subdivision, and a municipal
corporation, and represents roughly 80 percent of the water users and
property taxpayers of the state of Arizona. CAWCD is governed by a 15
member Board of Directors elected on a population basis from each of
the three counties it serves. CAWCD's Board members are public officers
who serve without pay.
Reclamation declared the CAP water supply system substantially
complete in 1993, and declared the regulatory storage stage, or Plan 6,
complete in 1996. Project repayment is provided for through a 1988
Master Repayment Contract between CAWCD and the United States. Project
repayment began in 1994 and, in 1997, CAWCD's first payment for the
regulatory storage stage (other than monies advanced by CAWCD during
construction) was made. To date, CAWCD has contributed or repaid over
$420 million toward project construction costs.
CAWCD and Reclamation disagree about the amount of CAWCD's
repayment obligation for CAP construction costs. This dispute is the
subject of ongoing litigation in United States District Court in
Arizona.
In CAWCD's view, CAWCD's repayment obligation cannot exceed $1.781
billion under the repayment ceiling of the Master Repayment Contract.
Reclamation takes the position that the contract repayment ceiling is
$2.0 billion. However, Reclamation estimates that it will actually
incur $2.33 billion in reimbursable construction costs for completed
CAP features. Reclamation insists that CAWCD must agree to repay this
larger amount, despite the repayment ceiling of the Master Repayment
Contract. Otherwise, Reclamation claims that it may deny CAWCD the use
of project facilities to deliver CAP water supplies to its customers.
For this reason, CAWCD has scrutinized Reclamation's budget requests
very carefully over the last two fiscal years and has objected to
requests for funding of activities that seem unnecessary or which could
be delayed without harm to the project.
Reclamation is requesting $49,908,000 for the CAP in fiscal year
1999 (fiscal year 1999). Of this amount, $25,014,000 is requested for
the construction of Indian distribution systems, and $8,133,000 is
requested for completion of construction of sulfur dioxide scrubbers at
the Navajo Generating Station (NGS). The balance, $16,761,000 is sought
for other CAP activities.
All features of the project that are subject to repayment by CAWCD
and are likely to be constructed (other than reliability features for
the Tucson area which have been deferred) are now complete, are in
repayment status, and are being operated and maintained by CAWCD.
Significant work remains to be done to complete Indian distribution
systems and some work remains to be done to install sulfur dioxide
scrubbers at NGS; however, much of this work is being accomplished by
entities other than Reclamation. For example, the NGS scrubber project
is being completed by the Salt River Project and, according to
Reclamation, all CAP Indian distribution systems will be constructed
under contracts authorized by the Indian Education and Self
Determination Act (Public Law 93-638). While Reclamation's activities
and role will likely vary with each Tribe, a significant amount of this
effort will be performed by the Tribes themselves. CAWCD fully supports
appropriations necessary to ensure early completion of all Indian
distribution systems and the NGS scrubbers.
Of the remaining funds ($16,761,000) that are not related to NGS or
to Indian distribution systems, over 20 percent is requested to support
Reclamation's non-contract costs. These non-contract costs total about
$3,548,000. Non-contract costs typically represent Reclamation's labor
and associated overhead costs, such as utilities, rent and travel,
which are incurred for the administration of Reclamation's construction
program. CAWCD recognizes that some funds are needed to support
Reclamation's non-contract costs, and that Reclamation's fiscal year
1999 budget request for such funds is about $1.8 million lower than
last year. CAWCD congratulates the Bureau of Reclamation for its
efforts to reduce the size of its workforce and to close out completed
construction contracts over the past year. However, we believe that
further reductions in non-contract costs are warranted. Finally, other
than a very modest amount to enable Reclamation to defend ongoing
litigation over the validity of a biological opinion regarding delivery
of CAP water to the Gila River Basin, no funds should be appropriated
for native fish protection until that litigation is resolved.
CAWCD urges the Committee to consider the following areas of
concern in determining fiscal year 1999 appropriations for CAP:
1. New Waddell Dam: $4,302,000
New Waddell Dam is the central feature of the CAP regulatory
storage stage. The reservoir formed by New Waddell Dam was first filled
in early 1994, and the dam was declared substantially complete in
October 1996. Of the requested $4,302,000, $700,000 is being requested
to cover non-contract costs to support remaining activities at New
Waddell. Reclamation has indicated to CAWCD that its remaining
activities include replacing campgrounds, picnic areas, and access
roads ($3,450,000), conducting fish limnology studies ($150,000), fish
and wildlife mitigation activities, and contract close-out work.
Reclamation has indicated to CAWCD that 11 contracts were closed during
1997 and that 11 others remain open, of which 3 will be closed in
fiscal year 1998 and the remainder in fiscal year 1999. Reclamation has
also informed CAWCD that much of the remaining recreation development
is being accomplished by Reclamation's local recreation manager
(Maricopa County). CAWCD supports Reclamation's requests for funds to
complete recreation development at Lake Pleasant, fish and wildlife
mitigation activities and contract close out work. However, more work
needs to be done to reduce non-contract costs. CAWCD supports
appropriations necessary to cover Reclamation's reasonable non-contract
costs with the expectation that remaining reimbursable activities at
New Waddell be concluded as soon as possible. In addition, CAWCD
objects to an appropriation of funds to conduct fish limnology studies
($150,000) in fiscal year 1999. In light of ongoing litigation
regarding the protection of endangered native fish in the Gila River
Basin from predation by non-native fish, Reclamation should cease
activities associated with supporting the sport fishery at Lake
Pleasant.
2. Modified Roosevelt Dam, Non-contract Costs: $7,120,000
Like New Waddell Dam, Modified Roosevelt Dam was declared
substantially complete in 1996. Reclamation is requesting $7,120,000 in
fiscal year 1999 to fund activities associated with protection of the
endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, completion of public
recreation facilities at Roosevelt Lake by the U.S. Forest Service,
completion of remaining fish and wildlife mitigation activities, and to
cover non-contract costs. CAWCD supports appropriations necessary to
protect endangered species, to complete remaining recreation
facilities, to complete fish and wildlife mitigation activities, and to
support a reasonable level of non-contract costs.
Out of a total request of $7,120,000, about $5.8 million is for
work to be done by others, with Reclamation identifying $1.171 million
of the remaining amount for non-contract activities. Reclamation has
informed CAWCD that there are currently 14 active contracts or
agreements for Modified Roosevelt Dam, and its schedule for closing out
these contracts will stretch from 1999 to 2007, and that one contract
associated with maintaining the San Pedro Preserve for the Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher may be perpetual. CAWCD believes that more work needs
to be done to reduce non-contract spending; however, CAWCD supports
appropriations necessary to cover Reclamation's reasonable non-contract
costs with the expectation that remaining reimbursable activities at
Modified Roosevelt Dam be concluded as soon as possible.
3. Tucson Reliability Division: $560,000
Reclamation is requesting $560,000 in fiscal year 1999 to fund
continuing activities associated with assisting the City of Tucson to
design a system including adequate reliability to efficiently utilize
project water. CAWCD questions the need for this level of funding, but
supports a reasonable level of appropriations which will allow planning
work to continue. Reclamation has estimated that its expenditures
associated with the Tucson Reliability Division in fiscal year 1998
will total about $200,000. CAWCD would support a fiscal year 1999
appropriation at that same level.
4. Other Project Costs, Water Allocations, Non-contract Costs: $224,000
Reclamation has indicated to CAWCD that these funds are needed to
support administrative staff activities associated with the overall
project including cost allocation reports and analysis, water quality
data collection, responses to various inquiries, archiving historical
records, budget request support and financial management. First, CAWCD
questions Reclamation's use of the term ``water allocations'' to
represent this budget category since no water allocation work is being
done. CAWCD is not aware of any need to prepare cost allocation reports
or conduct such an analysis, especially in light of the current status
of the litigation regarding project repayment. Water quality data
collection is related to the Gila River, and is not necessary since
construction of those CAP features has been deferred. Responses to
various inquiries, archival of records, budget support and financial
management may be necessary Reclamation activities; however, they
should not continue to be funded from CAP construction funds.
Consideration should be given to funding these activities from one of
Reclamation's administrative appropriations, such as General
Administrative Expenses.
5. Other Project Costs, Native Fish Protection: $3,558,000
Of the total $3,558,000 requested, $3,058,000 is earmarked to fund
activities associated with implementation of a 1994 biological opinion
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pertaining to delivery of
CAP water to the Gila River Basin. These funds are requested for
construction of fish barriers ($1,943,000), payments to FWS for non-
native fish eradication and native fish conservation ($500,000), and
Reclamation's non-contract costs ($290,000). A local environmental
organization has sued both Reclamation and FWS on the basis that the
reasonable and prudent alternatives of the biological opinion are not
stringent enough, and it is likely that this matter will be at issue
for some time. Since the litigation may produce a result which is very
different from that currently provided for in the biological opinion,
CAWCD continues to believe that Reclamation should cease spending in
this area until the pertinent issues are resolved. CAWCD supports a
reasonable level of non-contract funding for Reclamation's litigation
activities and to continue Endangered Species Act consultation
activities on the Santa Cruz River.
conclusion
CAWCD welcomes this opportunity to share its views with the
Committee, and would be pleased to respond to any questions or
observations occasioned by this written testimony.
______
UPPER MIDWEST WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of Kurt Pfeifle, General Manager, Mid-Dakota Rural
Water System, Inc.
fiscal year 1999 funding request
First let me thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
in support of the fiscal year 1999 appropriations for the Mid-Dakota
Project and for the Subcommittee's support.
The Mid-Dakota Project is requesting $32,150,379 in federal
appropriations for fiscal year 1999. As with our past submissions to
this subcommittee, Mid-Dakota's fiscal year 1999 request is based on a
detailed analysis of our ability to proceed with construction during
the fiscal year. In all previous years, Mid-Dakota has fully obligated
its appropriated funds, including federal, state, and local, and could
have obligated significantly more were they available.
In February the President's Budget recommendations to Congress were
released. Mid-Dakota Rural Water was included in the proposed budget at
a level of $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1999. This is the same funding
level recommended for the project in fiscal year 1998 by the
Administration. Fortunately Congress in fiscal year 1998 ``disagreed''
with the President's budget recommendation for this important project
and increased the appropriation to $13,000,000.
The funding provided by the Subcommittee in fiscal year 1998
provided Mid-Dakota with the opportunity to achieve the most
significant and exciting accomplishment for fiscal year 1998. The
beginning of water deliveries to those who need it most. Mid-Dakota has
begun deliveries to five community water systems; Highmore, Blunt,
Onida, Gettysburg and the Oahe Plains Rural Water System and a
significant number of rural household connections. Upon the completion
of contract 4-1A/B (schedules 1-5) an additional 450 rural households
will be connected to the system as well as an additional community
system.
This year (fiscal year 1999) the project is seeking additional
funds above the President's budget recommendation in the amount of
$22,150,000. Mid-Dakota understands and appreciates pressures on
Congress to pass and maintain a balanced and ostensibly an austere
budget and in that respect we understand the difficulties before
Congressional Appropriators to ``find'' additional funds to supplement
the President's budget request. However, we request and strongly urge
Congress to closely examine the priorities of the President's budget
proposal and strive to ``rearrange'' the President's budget
recommendations in as favorable a manner to Mid-Dakota as is possible.
As in the past, Mid-Dakota is in ``catch-up'' mode, due to lower
than expected appropriations in prior years. The $32.15 million request
for fiscal year 1999 would bring the project close to our prior
construction schedule. If the additional funds are provided this would
also make significant strides towards fulfilling a goal outlined in the
Bureau of Reclamation's own strategic planning document that calls for
the completion of ALL on-going construction projects within the next
five years.
The Project facilities proposed for construction are representative
of Project design that is currently, or will be far enough along to
proceed with construction in the fiscal year. Mid-Dakota has a track
record of high credibility when it comes to our ability to do those
things we say we are capable of doing. The emergency pipeline to the
City of Gettysburg, South Dakota is a prime example of this project's
willingness and ability to GET THINGS DONE. Mid-Dakota invites a close
examination of this important project from any and all angles and in
the final analysis we believe that everyone will agree--Mid-Dakota is a
project of high credibility and ability and is deserving of strong
endorsement.
history of project funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Award level
Federal fiscal year Project's President's Enacted levels (underfinancing)
request budget applied
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994......................................... $7,991,000 .............. $2,000,000 $1,500,000
1995......................................... 22,367,000 .............. 4,000,000 3,600,000
1996......................................... 23,394,000 $2,000,000 11,500,000 10,902,000
1996......................................... n/a .............. ( \1\ ) 2,323,000
1997......................................... 29,686,000 2,500,000 10,000,000 9,400,000
1997......................................... n/a .............. ( \2\ ) 2,950,000
1998......................................... 29,836,379 10,000,000 13,000,000 12,221,300
1999......................................... 32,150,000 10,000,000 ( \3\ ) (32,150,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals................................. 145,424,379 24,500,000 40,500,000 42,896,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Additional funding.
\2\ Additional funding and adjustment.
\3\ Fiscal year 1999 requested.
Note: Additionally, the State of South Dakota has contributed $8,370,000 in grants to the Mid-Dakota Project, in
previous years. It is likely that the Project will receive $1,300,000 in grant this Legislative Session. This
will complete the State of South Dakota's financial commitment to the Mid-Dakota Project.
The Project was authorized by Congress and signed into law by
President George W. Bush in October 1992. The federal authorization for
the project totaled $100 million in a combination of federal grant and
loan funds (grant funds may not exceed 85 percent of federal
contribution). The State authorization was for $8.4 million. As of
October 1996, the total authorized indexed cost of the project was
$141,535,000. All federal funding considered, the Government is now 33
percent into its commitment to providing construction funding for the
Project. South Dakota Legislation has overwhelmingly passed the South
Dakota House and Senate and contains a grant of $1.3 million, which
will likely be made available to the Project in March, 1998. This
latest appropriation by the State Legislature completes the State's
authorized commitment to Mid-Dakota. When you look at the federal and
state combined awards, you find that the project is approximately 36
percent complete. With this progress into total development, we are
pleased to see that Congress, in particular the Appropriations, Energy
and Water Development Subcommittees, intend to see the Mid-Dakota
project through to its completion.
Mid-Dakota wishes to thank this committee for its support over the
past five years. Within the limited monetary parameters of current
federal awards and funds appropriated by the State of South Dakota, we
have been able to make phenomenal progress on project construction.
impacts of award
The most obvious impact of any significant reduction from Mid-
Dakota's request will be the delay of construction of one or more
Project components. The $32.15 million dollar request will allow the
Project to proceed with construction of multiple contracts summarized
later in this testimony. An award of less than our request will result
in the deletion or reconfiguration of one or more of these contracts
from the fiscal year 1999 construction schedule. Further, reduced
appropriations have the effect of adding more cost to the amount needed
for completion of the Project.
An impact not readily apparent, but certainly one that exists, is
the impact funding has on other States. Many believe that Mid-Dakota is
a Project that ONLY benefits people who live in South Dakota. Nothing
could be further from the truth. The Great State of South Dakota is
blessed with many things, however, industrial resources are not among
them. Mid-Dakota has made what we consider a conservative estimate,
stating that more than 70 percent of the total cost of the Mid-Dakota
Project will be spent outside of our State. By way of example, millions
of dollars have already been spent in pipe purchases in Alabama and
Colorado. Similarly, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been
expended by way of contractor payments to Companies in North Dakota,
Wyoming, Minnesota, Indiana and Texas. Thousands and hundreds of
thousands of dollars has been expended in many other States.
Potentially, States such as Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Washington, Oregon
and Kentucky will also benefit. Mid-Dakota is truly a ``federal''
Project, being constructed and providing benefits to people throughout
the Nation, from California to Pennsylvania, from Texas to Montana.
Mid-Dakota has consistently informed members of Congress and the
various federal agencies, about the detrimental effects insufficient
funding has on the Project and ultimately the people who will receive
the water. Always in character with the tough and individualistic
portrayal of people living in the Great Plains, Mid-Dakota and the
people we will serve have accepted the hardships imposed on the Project
with a quiet resolve. However, failure to provide full funding has had
profound consequences.
construction in progress
Mid-Dakota began construction in September of 1994, with the
construction of its Water Intake and Pump Station. Since that eventful
day of first construction start, we have bid, awarded, and completed
six project components and are into construction on two other major
Project components. The following bulleted list provides a synopsis of
each major construction contract:
--Contract 1-1 (Oahe Water Intake and Pump Station), Contract was
awarded to Industrial Builders, Inc., of Fargo, ND, in August
of 1994. The Intake structure is of a vertical caisson design
and is complete. Cost of the Intake is approximately $3.95
million.
--Contract 2-1 (Oahe Water Treatment Plant), Contract was awarded to
John T. Jones Construction Co., of Fargo, ND, in October of
1994. The Water Treatment Plant is a ``Direct Filtration''
design, capable of producing 9.0 million gallons of treated
water per day. The Treatment Plant is complete. Cost of the
Treatment Plant is approximately $10.3 million.
--Contract 3-1A (Raw Water Pipeline), Contract was awarded to Larry's
Construction, Co., of Gillette, WY, in June of 1995. The
contract consists of nearly four miles of large diameter (30
inch) ``Ductile Iron Pipe.'' The Raw Water Pipeline is
complete. Cost of the Raw Water Pipeline is approximately $1.7
million.
--Contract 3-1B (Main Transmission Pipeline--to Blunt, SD), Contract
was awarded to Kenko Inc., of Minneapolis, MN, in April of
1996. The contract consists of nearly 24 miles of large
diameter (30 and 24 inch) ``Steel Pipe.'' The contract is
complete. Cost of the contract was $6.9 million.
--Contract 3-1C (Main Transmission Pipeline--to Highmore Water
Storage Tank), Contract was awarded to S.J. Louis Inc., of St.
Cloud, MN, in April of 1996. The contract consists of nearly 18
miles of large diameter (30 and 24 inch) ``Ductile Iron Pipe.''
The contract is complete. Cost of the contract was $4.8
million.
--Contract 5-1 (Highmore Water Storage Tank), Contract was awarded to
Landmark Structures Inc., of Keller, TX, in April of 1996. The
contract provides for the erection of a 1.5 million-gallon
water storage tank (composite design) near the Town of
Highmore, South Dakota. The contract is complete. Cost of the
contract was $1.4 million.
--Contract 4-1A/B schedules 1-5 (Rural distribution and service),
Contract was awarded to Eatherly Contractors Inc., of Garden
City Kansas. Contact provides for the emplacement of nearly 500
miles of rural distribution pipeline and connection to
approximately six community water systems and 500 rural homes.
Contract is approximately 25 percent complete. Cost of the
contract is currently $10.2 million.
--Contract 5-1A (Onida Water Storage Tank), Contract was awarded to
Phoenix Fabricators, of Indianapolis, Indiana in October of
1997. The contract provides for the erection of a .250 million
gallon water storage tank (multi-column design) near the Town
of Onida, South Dakota. The contract is approximately 6 percent
complete. Cost of the contract is currently $.4 million.
Funding for the preceding contracts was reserved from previously
appropriated and reprogrammed funds.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TCORPS.012
use of funds requested
The following numbered items represent the Project's proposed use
of the $32.15 Million request in fiscal year 1999. Reduction of award
from our request will cause the Project to delete or modify (depending
upon size of any reduction) one or more of the delineated Project
Components:
Fiscal Year 1999 proposed construction
[In millions of dollars]
1. Basic Services (Admin., Eng., Legal, BOR etc.--)............... 1.13
2. Canning Distribution System, N. CFB............................ 0.40
3. Agar Distribution System....................................... 1.88
4. Okobojo Distribution System.................................... 1.96
5. Gettysburg Distribution System................................. 6.94
6. Main Pipeline to St. Lawrence, SD.............................. 8.13
7. Highmore Central Distribution System........................... 4.80
8. Mac's Corner Distribution System............................... 3.44
9. Collin's Slough Distribution System and WST.................... 2.55
10. Rezac Lake Distribution System and WST........................ 2.15
11. Orient Distribution System and WST............................ 1.51
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total fiscal year 1999 Program Requirements..............\1\ 32.15
\1\ Excludes approximately $2.75 Million in current year funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
beginning to deliver
Funding levels provided the Mid-Dakota Project from this point
forward will have profound consequences on our ability to deliver the
intended benefits of this project in a timely manner. A very high
percentage of any appropriation provided by the federal government has
a direct and proportional effect on the project's ability to connect
even more users to the water system.
Mid-Dakota concludes its testimony to the Energy and Water
Subcommittee with the following excerpts from a letter to Mid-Dakota
from Mayor William R. Davis, City of Gettysburg, SD:
``Our municipal water supply was in serious jeopardy as the main
line was continually breaking apart due to sloughing of the hillside.
The cost of constantly repairing these breaks depleted our maintenance
reserves and left the City struggling to find a solution to the
problem. Without a reliable source of water, the residents and
businesses were concerned about [the] future of Gettysburg.''
``If outside funds had not been made available to help complete the
connection to Mid-Dakota Rural Water System, Gettysburg would be
without water this winter.''
``I am sure there are other communities that are facing the same
reality as Gettysburg and will need speedy connection to Mid-Dakota.
Providing a source of funding to aid in the construction of this rural
water system is very important to finish this project for everyone.''
The comments and observations provided by Mayor Davis speaks
volumes for the need of this important project--and provides a fitting
end to our testimony.
Again, we thank the Subcommittee for your strong support in the
past.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes
fiscal year 1999 appropriations request
The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes respectfully request
funds to continue planning of the Fort Peck Reservation RWS, Montana,
in the amount of $360,000. The Tribes are joined in fiscal year 1999 by
the Counties' Water System, a part of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and
Sioux Rural Water System, that is planning water service to all or
parts of Roosevelt, Sheridan, Daniels and Valley counties outside the
Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The request for funds is for continued
pre-authorization work on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation ($200,000)
and within the Counties' Water System ($160,000).
The Tribes are highly appreciative of the work by this Subcommittee
on the project previously. In fiscal year 1993 and fiscal year 1994,
$350,000 were appropriated, and in fiscal year 1997, $210,000 were
appropriated. Last year the Subcommittee appropriated $240,000. The
funds were line items in the Bureau of Reclamation ``General
Investigations'' budget.
accomplishments with prior appropriations and proposed activities
The work products completed to date by the Bureau of Reclamation
include a ``Needs Assessment and Feasibility Report'' within the
boundaries of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The Fort Peck Sioux and
Assiniboine Tribes have continued to work with the Bureau of
Reclamation and Tribes' engineer to improve upon and update the cost
estimates for a regional project. The ``Final Engineering Report'' is
in progress and will be completed in fiscal year 1998, incorporating
the cost of expanding facilities on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation to
serve the Counties Water System outside the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation. The State of Montana, by action of its legislature,
appropriated $62,000 in fiscal year 1997 to provide for a ``Needs
Assessment'' and cost estimate of facilities outside the Reservation.
The needs and facility costs determined for the Counties' Water System
are being incorporated into the ``Final Engineering Report.''
Based on the considerable pre-authorization work that has been
completed, fiscal year 1999 funding will provide for conclusion of
investigations needed prior to authorization. In the event the project
is authorized in fiscal year 1998, the fiscal year 1999 appropriations
will be used, in part, to upgrade the environmental and engineering
work on the project to meet NEPA compliance requirements and to begin
design level investigations, respectively.
Through the efforts of this Subcommittee, planning for the project
has been adequately advanced and can be concluded with fiscal year 1999
funds. Specific technical objectives with the fiscal year 1999 funds
include continued public involvement and coordination with off-
Reservation interests in the Counties' Water System by the Fort Peck
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, continued work with the Bureau of
Reclamation on the Level I cultural and historic data gathering,
continued work with the Bureau of Reclamation on the Environmental
Baseline Report and continued attention to alternatives for project
improvements that reduce costs of the project and deliver the full
water requirements. The Counties' Water System funds will be used
specifically for first time cultural and historic data gathering
efforts, wetlands analysis, environmental baseline report and revision
of cost estimates based in increasing refinement of interest by the
communities of the region and individual farms and ranches. The funding
request of the Counties' Water Systems ($160,000) is in keeping with
the cost share provisions of the proposed legislation, in which 25
percent of the funds would be derived from a non-federal source. The
State of Montana has previously provided $62,000 or 27 percent of the
total $222,000 (including $160,000 in fiscal year 1999 and $62,000 from
Montana) of funding for off-Reservation activities.
progress of the fort peck assiniboine and sioux tribes
The Tribes are extremely pleased with progress on the project to
date. Fiscal year 1997 and 1998 focused on public involvement within
the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and outside it. The Tribes held
numerous public meetings to acquaint residents within the boundaries of
this regional project with capital costs, operation and maintenance
costs, planning for the establishment of an operation and maintenance
entity and the potential impact on environmental resources. The Tribes
have planned the use of water from the Missouri River on the basis of
their Compact with the State of Montana which assures a dependable
supply of project water without shortage. The efforts of the Tribes
have involved members of the Tribal Council, Water Resources staff, the
Tribes' Water Commission, members of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and
Sioux Tribes and other residents of the Fort Peck Indian Reservations.
Detailed cost estimates have been refined and expanded off the
Reservation by the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and Counties'
Water System to assist water users and communities in an evaluation of
the costs of participating in the project and improving drinking
quality.
The total project cost within the Reservation, sized to carry off-
Reservation water demands, is $103 million. The cost of enlarging the
facilities to carry water to meet off-Reservation municipal, rural and
industrial demands is $26 million (included in the $103 million). The
cost of facilities outside the reservation is $76 million. Therefore,
total project costs are $179 million. Assuming a cost share of 75
percent federal and 25 percent local, consistent with the Safe Drinking
Water Act, as amended, and comparable projects funded by the
Subcommittee, the local cost share would be $25.5 million. The Tribes
recognize that the cost share details necessarily require Congressional
concurrence and authorization.
The cost of annual operation and maintenance of Fort Peck and
Counties' facilities is estimated at $2.57 per thousand gallons. Off-
Reservation users will have additional costs to operate and maintain
off-Reservation transmission and distribution facilities. These costs
compare favorable with Mid-Dakota costs of $2.50 per thousand gallons.
counties' water system activities
Part of the effort of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes
during fiscal year 1997 and the first two quarters of fiscal year 1998
was to work with off-Reservation interests in the project to assist
them with organization and an improved understanding of the project.
This has resulted in the formation of a Steering Committee for the
Counties' Water System. The Steering Committee has elected officers and
meets on a monthly basis. The Counties' Water System is engaged in
refining the needs of the project outside the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation, and considerable progress has been made.
water quality of existing drinking water supplies and needs
The geologic setting of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the
counties outside the Reservation is comparable to the rest of eastern
Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. With the exception of the
Missouri River, which is a high quality water source, the groundwater
supplies of the region are of poor quality, derived from shales
deposited in ancient seas. Some of the worst water on the North
American Continent lies below the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in the
Madison Formation. This water is not used for human or livestock
consumption. It is a brine several times more concentrated than sea
water. Above this unsuitable aquifer are lesser aquifers that have been
subjected to oil and gas development and have been contaminated, in
part, by those activities. Other near-surface aquifers are subject to
growing nitrogen contamination from agricultural activities within the
area.
The Poplar River, which flows through the central portions of the
Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the region is the subject of an
Apportionment Agreement between Canada and the United States. Half of
the water supply is available for Canada as measured at the
International Boundary, and the balance is available for use in the
United States. Depletion of this resource by agricultural and coal-
fired power generation on the Canadian side increases the
concentrations of chemicals and contaminants in the supply for the
United States. The Poplar River and its principle tributaries are
neither dependable supplies of water nor are they of suitable quality
for this project. Thus, the Fort Peck Tribes and the Counties' Water
System are seeking a regional water project, comparable to Garrison,
WEB, Mni Wiconi and Mid-Dakota that rely on the high quality waters of
the Mainstem Missouri River.
The feature of this project that makes it more cost effective than
similar projects is its proximity to the Missouri River. The southern
boundary of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is formed by the Missouri
River for a distance of more than 60 miles. Many of the towns in this
regional project are located two to three miles from the river,
including Nashua, Frazer, Oswego, Wolf Point, Poplar, Brockton,
Culbertson, and Bainville. As shown on the enclosed project map, a
looping transmission system outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation
will deliver water 30 to 40 miles north of the Missouri River.
Therefore, the distances from the Missouri River to all points in the
main transmission system are shorter than in other projects of this
nature in the Northern Great Plains.
For comparison of water quality of this project with other regional
projects, please refer to Table 1.
TABLE 1.--WATER QUALITY INDICATORS OF COMPARABLE PROJECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfate
Dissolved solids project (mg/l) Community (mg/l) Project Community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis and Clark--2,730............ Upper Limit.......... 1,500 Fort Peck............ Fort Kipp.
Mni Wiconi--2,600................. Reliance............. 1,139 Lewis and Clark...... Upper Limit.
Fort Peck--2,332.................. Fort Kipp............ 1,120 Mni Wiconi........... Red Shirt.
Mni Wiconi--2,056................. Red Shirt............ 1,080 Mni Wiconi........... Reliance.
Mni Wiconi--1,761................. Murdo................ 1,042 Mni Wiconi........... Murdo.
Mni Wiconi--1,740................. Kennebec............. 984 Mni Wiconi........... Kennebec.
Mni Wiconi--1,398................. Presho............... 644 Mni Wiconi........... Presho.
Lewis and Clark--1,380............ Lower Limit.......... 538 Fort Peck............ Poplar.
Fort Peck--1,180.................. Frazer............... 498 Fort Peck............ Frazer.
Mni Wiconi--1,179................. Horse Creek.......... 410 Lewis and Clark...... Lower Limit.
Mni Wiconi--1,125................. Wakpamni Lake........ 398 Mni Wiconi........... Wakpamni Lake.
Fort Peck--869.................... Brockton............. 212 Mni Wiconi........... Horse Creek.
Fort Peck--748.................... Poplar............... 103 Fort Peck............ Brockton.
Mni Wiconi--416................... Pine Ridge Village... 70 Mni Wiconi........... Pine Ridge Village.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
project authorization sought in fiscal year 1998
In the first session of the 105th Congress, the Montana delegation
introduced S. 841 and H. 2306, comparable bills in both houses of
Congress for authorization of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Rural
Water Project. A hearing was held on the proposed legislation by the
Senate Water and Power Subcommittee in fall 1997. A hearing before the
House Water and Power Subcommittee is anticipated in spring 1998.
The Montana delegation is working with the Tribes and the Counties'
Water System. This project is building good relationships throughout
the region as we determine the interests of those outside the
Reservation in participating in this most important project. The
community-building aspects of the project have been considerable over a
short period of time.
We are working with the Bureau of Reclamation to address some of
the concerns expressed by its Commissioner in testimony delivered in
the Senate Hearing of November 1997. These concerns have or will be
addressed.
We are hopeful authorizing legislation will be accomplished by Fall
1998.
______
Prepared Statement of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe
introduction
The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe is working with the Bureau of
Reclamation on the development of the Crow Creek Sioux Rural Water
Supply System. The Tribe has completed the Crow Creek Sioux Rural Water
Supply System, Needs Assessment Report, and is currently developing a
feasibility study for this project.
In fiscal year 1999, the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe shall need $180,000
for the completion of the feasibility study, including environmental
and cultural resources compliance, and the acquisition of GIS software
for predesign and easement planning. In addition, the Bureau of
Reclamation has informed the Tribe that it requires funds for the
review and approval of the feasibility study, and $30,000 is requested
for this purpose. The Tribe requests an appropriation of $210,000 in
fiscal year 1999 for the Crow Creek Sioux Rural Water Supply System.
needs assessment and feasibility study
The Crow Creek Rural Water Supply System has completed a Needs
Assessment Report, in which alternatives for the development of a
Reservation-wide rural water system were evaluated. Three alternatives
were assessed: (1) upgrading of existing facilities; (2) linkage with
the nearby Mid-Dakota Rural Water System; and (3) development of a new
Reservation-wide municipal, rural and industrial (MR & I) water supply
system.
The Crow Creek Indian Reservation is located along the Missouri
River in central South Dakota. Most of the Reservation population of
3,100 (1997 Tribal Census) is located in the community of Fort
Thompson. The Fort Thompson public water system, has as its source the
Missouri River. This system lacks adequate capacity for Fort Thompson.
During periods of peak demand, water pressure is very low, and there
are frequent interruptions in service to various users on the system.
Three other Reservation communities utilize groundwater as their
source. The water is of poor quantity and quality. There are periodic
exceedances of the maximum contaminant levels for bacteriological
contaminants, and volatile organic chemicals including sodium,
fluoride, manganese, endothall, benzoapyrne and other minerals and
contaminants.
Of the various alternatives investigated in the Needs Assessment,
it has been determined that merely upgrading the existing water systems
will not substantially improve drinking water supplies, because the
Fort Thompson system lacks capacity and the other systems have
inadequate source water. It has been determined that the nearby Mid-
Dakota water system lacks capacity to serve Fort Thompson, where most
Tribal members live. Moreover, there are operational and water service
impediments to this alternative. The optimal approach is the
development of a Reservation-wide MR & I water system for the
Reservation.
The Tribe is currently completing a feasibility study for the Crow
Creek Sioux Rural Water Supply System. It has been determined that the
cost of this system shall be approximately $24.7 million. This shall
provide for improvements and increased capacity at the existing water
treatment plant at Fort Thompson, and construction of a distribution
system for Fort Thompson, the neighboring community of Bad Nation, and
the rural communities of Stephan, Big Bend and Crow Creek. The project
shall require 274 miles of pipeline.
Rural homesites shall receive service, and pasture taps are planned
for livestock on Indian allotments on the Reservation. This shall
improve the livestock grazing economy on the Reservation, which
constitutes the predominant economic activity on the Reservation.
The water system as planned shall meet the future water needs of
the Reservation, for the population estimated in 2020 and beyond. The
project will meet immediate, serious drinking water needs on the
Reservation, and will supply safe and adequate drinking water for the
projected population, the development of commercial and business
activities and the support of all livestock on the Reservation.
fiscal year 1999 activities
In the next year, the Tribe shall finalize the feasibility study
and work with the Bureau of Reclamation for approval. The Tribe shall
commence predesign activities, including establishing the Crow Creek
Rural Water Supply System Office with adequate computer hardware and
software to plan for the acquisition of easements and for environmental
and cultural resources compilations and analyses.
The Tribe shall establish the Crow Creek Rural Supply System
Office. Geographic Information System (GIS) computer hardware is
required to complete the feasibility and for predesign activities. This
shall require $75,000. An additional $70,000 is needed for a technician
(one full time equivalent employee) and a project coordinator (one full
time equivalent employee). The Crow Creek Rural Supply System shall
require an additional $35,000 to ensure compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act, namely, to evaluate the environmental impacts
of the alternatives that were evaluated in the Needs Assessment Study,
and to perform a Class I cultural resources survey.
The information acquired through these activities shall be uploaded
in the GIS. The feasibility study shall be completed, and the Tribe
shall work with the Bureau of Reclamation for final approval of the
feasibility study. The Bureau of Reclamation shall need an estimated
$30,000 in administrative costs.
conclusion
The Crow Creek Rural Water Supply System shall need an
appropriation of $210,000 in fiscal year 1999, to finalize the
feasibility study and for predesign activities. The Crow Creek Rural
Water System shall complete an Environmental Assessment and Class I
cultural resources survey, and shall acquire a Geographic Information
System for the environmental and cultural resources information that is
obtained and analyzed. The feasibility study shall be completed and the
Tribe shall work with the Bureau of Reclamation for final approval of
the planning documents.
This will provide all of the information that is needed for
authorization of an MR & I water system for the Crow Creek Sioux Indian
Reservation. Unemployment on the Reservation is estimated at 60
percent. The 1994 Bureau of Indian Affairs Labor Force Report
determined that Buffalo County, in which most of the Reservation is
located, is the fifth poorest county in America. Drinking water
supplies are documented by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Indian
Health Service to be woefully inadequate. The construction of an MR & I
water system for the Reservation shall meet immediate and dramatic
public health and economic development needs on the Crow Creek Indian
Reservation.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Geringer, Governor, State of Wyoming
This testimony is submitted in support of a fiscal year 1999
appropriation of $17,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado
River Salinity Control Programs. This Subcommittee recently received
testimony from the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum).
The Forum's Executive Director, Jack Barnett, submitted that testimony
on behalf of the Forum's seven member states. The State of Wyoming
concurs in the fiscal year 1999 funding requests and justification
statements set forth in the Forum's testimony. While the President's
recommended budget line-item for the basin-wide Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program is $12,300,000, the State of Wyoming and the
Forum believe that the Congress should increase appropriation for this
Program by $5,200,000 to appropriately recognize the need to
expeditiously implement this important basin-wide program.
The State of Wyoming is one of the seven member states represented
on the Forum and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory
Council (Council). The Council was created by Section 204 of the 1974
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, Public Law 93-320, and like
the Forum, is composed of gubernatorial representatives of the seven
Colorado River Basin states. Both the Council and Forum serve important
liaison roles among the seven states, the Secretaries of the Interior
and Agriculture and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The Council is directed by statute to advise these
federal officials on the progress of the federal/state cost-shared,
basin-wide salinity control programs, and annually recommends to the
Federal agencies what level of funding it believes is required to allow
the Program to meet its objective of assuring continuing compliance
with the basin-wide water quality standards.
The Council last met in October 1997 and developed funding
recommendations for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 based on the progress
the salinity control programs being implemented by Reclamation, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management are
making in managing and reducing the salt loading into the Colorado
River System. The Council's funding recommendations further considered
analyses made by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Forum. Each three
years the Forum updates the plan of implementation for maintaining the
Colorado River water quality standards for salinity, in accordance with
Section 303 of the Clean Water Act. The 1996 triennial review of the
standards identified the need for the Bureau of Reclamation to expend
$17,500,000 per year in order to carry out its portion of the plan of
implementation. The plan is intended to assure that the salinity
concentrations of Colorado River water do not exceed the numeric
criteria set forth in the standards. Based on its own review of the
facts, the Council recommended that a minimum of $17,500,000 needs to
be expended by the Bureau of Reclamation during fiscal year 1999 to
accomplish salinity control activities.
If the necessary levels of funding are not provided for the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Programs, there is an increased
probability that the numeric criteria established in the water quality
standards for salinity in the Colorado River may be exceeded. Delaying
or deferring adequate funding for the Program at this time will create
the need for a much more expensive salinity control effort in the
future to assure that the Colorado River Basin states are able to meet
the water quality standards for salinity in the Colorado River.
``Catch-up'' funding in future fiscal years will require the
expenditure of greater sums of money, increase the likelihood that the
numeric criteria for Colorado River water quality are exceeded, and
create undue burdens and difficulties for one of the most successful
Federal/State cooperative non-point source pollution control programs
in the United States.
We urge this Subcommittee to increase the funding level for the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program line-item in
Reclamation's budget, beyond the funds requested by the President's
budget, to $17,500,000. In addition to the funding needs identified for
the basin-wide Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, the State
of Wyoming supports the appropriation of Operation and Maintenance
funds to allow the Bureau of Reclamation to continue to operate
completed salinity control projects, including the Paradox Valley Unit.
The State of Wyoming understands that a portion of the General
Investigation Funds included in the President's budget are intended for
salinity control activities. Wyoming supports the appropriation of
funds to accomplish these necessary planning and investigation
activities.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. I request,
in addition to your consideration of its contents, that you make it a
part of the formal hearing record concerning fiscal year 1999
appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation.
______
Letter From Gov. Jim Geringer
State of Wyoming,
Cheyenne, WY, March 3, 1998.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Senate
Appropriations Committee U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Domenici: I am writing on behalf of the State of
Wyoming to request your support for an appropriation in fiscal year
1999 of $8,687,000 included in the Administration's proposed fiscal
year 1999 budget for the Bureau of Reclamation under an item labeled
``Upper Colorado Region--Endangered Species Recovery Programs and
Activities.'' The bulk of that amount, a sum of $7,628,000, is
designated in the President's Budget for expenditure on construction
activities associated with the Recovery Implementation Program for
Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin (Recovery
Program).
The State of Wyoming, along with the States of Colorado and Utah,
environmental organizations, power users, water development interests,
the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
Western Area Power Administration have been actively conducting and
jointly managing the Recovery Program since its initiation in 1988. Now
in its tenth year, the Program has as its objectives recovering
(accomplishing de-listing from the ESA's endangered species listing)
four endangered fish species native to the waters of the Upper Colorado
River Basin while water use and development continues in full
compliance with the Endangered Species Act. The Recovery Program is a
cooperative partnership that provides, we believe, the best opportunity
to recover the endangered fish species and is providing regulatory
certainty for water use and continuing development in the Upper
Colorado River Basin portion of the three participating States.
Beginning in fiscal year 1994, the Recovery Program initiated
specific studies and actions in preparation for the construction
projects and programs necessary to recover the endangered fish. These
activities included restoration of fish passage to historical habitat,
providing instream flow and habitat flow maintenance and protection (in
full compliance with the involved States' water laws) and changing
reservoir release patterns or other modification of existing projects.
Other efforts include fish habitat restoration projects, (flooded
bottomlands and wetlands in Utah and Colorado that provide habitat for
young fish) and development of facilities for propagation and genetics
management. The fiscal year 1999 USBR budget line item that this letter
is supporting will enable these vital activities to continue and to be
successfully completed in subsequent fiscal years.
The State of Wyoming greatly appreciates the Subcommittee's support
of the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in
the Upper Colorado River Basin in past years. We respectfully request
your continuing funding support for this vitally important multi-state,
multi-agency program. With the funding support of all participating
states and the Federal Government, this Program is succeeding in
meeting the most challenging tasks of accomplishing conservation and
recovery of the four endangered fish species while allowing water use
and development to occur in the Upper Colorado River Basin in full
compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Thank you for your
consideration of this funding request and for including this letter in
the hearing record.
Best regards,
Jim Geringer,
Governor.
______
MIDWEST WATER RESOURCE PROJECT
Prepared Statement of J.M. Peterson, President, and Darrel G. Curry,
Vice President, Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Sub-Committee: The Missouri River
Bank Stabilization Association, its members, and officers thank you for
the opportunity to present this statement and request relating to the
budget for the fiscal year 1999.
This statement refers to the Missouri National Recreational River
project authorized by the Congress in 1978 per Section 707 of Public
Law 95-625. The Association's request for fiscal year 1999 is $350,000,
an amount to be used for these purposes:
--operation and maintenance and, in some instances, replacement of
structures built prior to 1978 pursuant to Section 32 of the
Streambank Erosion Control and Demonstration Act;
--providing some additional access to the river;
--acquiring shoreline easements to increase wildlife habitat and
preserve the scenic attributes of the river;
--provide streambank protection where needed;
--meet such other needs as may be required to achieve the completion
of this project.
This project seeks to preserve and protect the fifty-nine mile
reach of the Missouri River from near Yankton, South Dakota, to the
Ponca, Nebraska State Park. This reach of river is the only portion of
the Missouri lying below the ``main-stem'' dams, which is still in a
relatively natural state. The river here is neither channelized nor are
its banks protected by other than isolated areas of bank stabilization.
The result is continuous and inexorable erosion. Such is a natural
process. Lacking, however, is yearly flooding which is prevented by the
``main-stem'' dams. Thus the endless erosion is not offset by the
accretion which normally accompanied the traditional annual flooding--
the ``June Rise''.
This decades--old problem was underscored dramatically by the
record discharges of water from the ``main-stem'' dams through most of
1997. The run-off resulting from the melting of the massive snowpack
created by the unbelievably severe winter of 1996-1997 threatened to
exceed the reservoir capacity available and record discharges of water
from the impoundments was required. These caused a veritable man-made
flood inflicting damage along the Missouri National Recreational River.
The nature of that damage ranged from the loss of or damage to cabins
and homes to extensive losses of fertile farmland--losses all too often
measured in yards rather than feet. Beyond that, 1997's massive flows
damaged, and in some instances, destroyed structures previously
installed in an attempt to prevent the erosion problems.
Of the $21,000,000 authorized expenditure for this project, less
than $4,000,000 has been spent. The review by the National Park Service
of the existing management plan is nearing an end. Among matters
considered by the management plan review team are these for which the
Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association seeks funding.
Germane to this request, too, is the soon-to-arrive bicentennial
celebration of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Interest in the
expedition is increasing at a significant pace. Such interest is
evident by increased visitations to this reach of the Missouri, a
marked increase in inquiries related to the trail, filming of ``wild
Missouri'' sites, and a variety of other expedition-related activities.
Preservation and protection of this natural treasure is surely a
worthwhile endeavor!
The Association is most appreciative of the support the Congress
has previously readily provided and we surely thank you for the concern
and consideration for the farmers, outdoorsmen, environmentalist and
the many others who love, respect and wish to preserve this unique
segment of the historic Missouri.
______
Prepared Statement of Don D. Hurlbert, Sr., P.E., Executive Director,
MO-ARK, Kansas City, MO
Following is the list of projects with the money requested for the
1999 budget. We ask you to give serious consideration to them in the
development of fiscal year 1999 Budget. The president's budget
submittal simply does not get the job done, and breaks faith with the
Community, particularly with the Blue Valley businesses employing over
10,000 people.
requested fiscal year 1999 appropriation
1. Blue River Channel, Kansas City, Missouri--$24,700,000. Continue
construction Stage 3. Complete all construction by 2003. The project is
now 12 years late. This appropriation will expedite completion.
2. Missouri River Levee System:
--Restudy KC levees--$553,000. For 100/500 year protection.
--Unit L-385--$400,000. Revise plans. (Quindaro Bend). Local sponsor
funding plan is approved. ROW is being acquired by sponsor, and
has CMA approval.
--Unit L-142--$450,000. (Jeff City) Begin PED. 500 year levee of
reduced scope appears feasible since Cedar City buyout.
3. Turkey Creek, Kansas City, Kansas and Missouri--$400,000.
Complete Design for a 1999 Construction start. Turkey Creek overflows
onto Southwest Boulevard almost every three years. This project has
been studied for over thirty years.
4. Upper Blue River, Kansas and Missouri--$457,000. Complete Pre-
construction Engineering and Design.
5. Swope Park Industrial Area, Kansas City, Missouri--
$196,000.Continue feasibility study
Total--$27,156,000.
The list has been prepared in order of priority, supported by our
Board, and other supporters will send separate statements for these
appropriations. This request means jobs and better life safety. Thank
you for the opportunity to place this request on the record.
______
Prepared Statement of Terrence J. O'Brien, President, Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
On behalf of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago (District), I want to thank the Subcommittee for this
opportunity to present our priorities for fiscal year 1999 and, at the
same time, express our appreciation for your support of the District's
projects in the years past. The District is the local sponsor for three
Corps of Engineers priority projects of the Chicagoland Underflow Plan:
the O'Hare, McCook and Thornton Reservoirs. We are requesting the
Subcommittee's full support for these vital projects. Specifically, we
are asking that $1,000,000 in construction funding be made available
for the O'Hare Reservoir in the Subcommittee's Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999. Further, we
request the Subcommittee to include $3,100,000 in construction funding
for the McCook and Thornton Reservoir projects (beyond the $900,000 in
fiscal year 1999 budgeted funds) in the bill. The following text
outlines these projects and the need for the requested funding. Also,
attached is a booklet indicating the municipalities in our area which
benefit from these projects and the need for the requested funding. The
booklet reviews the history of the issues involved, including newspaper
articles and pertinent data from the Corps of Engineers and the
Illinois State Water Survey.
the chicagoland underflow plan
The Chicagoland Underflow Plan (CUP) consists of three reservoirs:
the O'Hare, McCook, and Thornton Reservoirs. The O'Hare Reservoir
Project was fully authorized for construction in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662). The authorization provides
for the construction of a 1,050 acre-foot floodwater storage reservoir
which will be connected to the existing O'Hare segment of the
District's Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). Adopted in 1972, TARP was
the result of a multi-agency effort which included officials of the
State of Illinois, County of Cook, City of Chicago, and the District.
TARP was designed to address the overwhelming water pollution and
flooding problems of the Chicagoland combined sewer areas. These
problems stem from the fact that the capacity of the area's waterways
has been overburdened over the years and has become woefully inadequate
in both hydraulic and assimilative capacities. These waterways are no
longer able to carry away the combined sewer overflow discharges nor
are they able to assimilate the pollution associated with these
discharges. Severe basement flooding and polluted waterways (including
Lake Michigan which is the source of drinking water for millions of
people) is the inevitable result. We point with pride to the fact that
TARP was found to be the most cost-effective and socially and
environmentally acceptable way for reducing these flooding and water
pollution problems. Experience to date has reinforced such findings
with respect to economics and efficiency.
The TARP plan calls for the construction of new ``underground
rivers'' beneath the area's waterways. The ``underground rivers'' would
be tunnels up to 35 feet in diameter and 350 feet below the surface. To
provide an outlet for these tunnels, reservoirs will be constructed at
the end of the tunnel system. Approximately 93.4 miles of tunnels have
been constructed or are under construction at a total cost of $2.1
billion and are operational. These tunnels capture the majority of the
pollution load by capturing all of the small storms and the first flush
of the large storms. Another 15.8 miles of tunnels costing $331 million
need to be completed. The tunnels currently have no place to discharge
when they fill up during large rainstorms because the O'Hare, Thornton,
and McCook Reservoirs have not been built yet. Without these outlets,
the local drainage has nowhere to go when large storms hit the area.
Therefore, the combined stormwater and sewage backs up into over
470,000 homes. This is a reduction from the 550,000 homes impacted
before the tunnels were put on line.
the o'hare reservoir--chicagoland underflow plan
The O'Hare Reservoir project is the first component of CUP, the
Corps' reservoir plan. Understanding the severe flood threat to the
densely populated north central Cook County area, Congress authorized
the project in 1986. The project's 1,050 acre-feet of storage is the
optimum cost-effective storage capacity for flood control purposes. In
the fiscal year 1990 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,
Congress provided $1.5 million in first-year construction funds for the
O'Hare Reservoir and specified that the reservoir be built to at least
1,050 acre-feet in size as authorized, and in full accordance with the
cost-sharing percentages specified in Section 103(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986. The Fiscal Year 1992 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act provided $4.0 million in third-
year construction funds to continue construction on the O'Hare
Reservoir project and contained language directing the Corps of
Engineers to award continuing contracts until construction is
completed. Total Federal funding contributed since 1990 is $23.5
million for this project.
As we have stated to this Committee over the years, the District is
the local sponsor for this project and is fully committed to it. The
District purchased the necessary land at a cost of $4.4 million and has
spent $3.0 million for utility relocations and $2.1 million for
modifications and betterments. The District will continue to meet its
remaining cost-sharing obligations under the law, and will contribute
$2.0 million in cash for this project.
Based on the present high flood risk and potential damage due to
inadequate channel capacity, we, along with our supportive
congressional delegation, are requesting that the Subcommittee make
$1,000,000 in construction funds available to complete critical
construction work on the O'Hare Reservoir project in the fiscal year
1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. With this funding
the Corps of Engineers will be completing the first reservoir of the
overall TARP system.
Based on two successive Presidentially-declared flood disasters in
our area in 1986 and again in 1987 and dramatic flooding in the last
several years, we believe the probability of this type of flood
emergency occurring before implementation of the critical flood
prevention measure is quite high. As the public agency for the greater
Chicagoland area responsible for water pollution control, and as the
regional sponsor for flood control, we have an obligation to protect
the health and safety of our citizens. We are asking your support in
helping us achieve this necessary and important goal of construction
completion.
the mccook and thornton reservoirs--chicagoland underflow plan
The McCook and Thornton Reservoirs of the Chicagoland Underflow
Plan (CUP) were fully authorized for construction in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-676). CUP, as
previously discussed, is a flood protection plan that is designed to
reduce basement and street flooding due to combined sewer back-ups and
inadequate hydraulic capacity of the urban waterways. These projects
are the second and third components of CUP, they consist of reservoirs
to be constructed in west suburban Chicago and Thornton in south
suburban Chicago.
These reservoirs will provide a storage capacity of 15.3 billion
gallons and will produce annual benefits of $104 million. The total
potential annual benefits of these projects are approximately twice as
much as their total annual cost. The District, as the local sponsor, is
actively pursuing land acquisition for these projects, and is prepared
to meet its cost sharing obligations under Public Law 99-662.
These projects are a very sound investment with a high rate of
return. They will enhance the quality of life and the safety and the
peace of mind of the residents of this region. The State of Illinois
has endorsed these projects and has urged their implementation. In
professional circles, these projects are hailed for their
farsightedness, innovation, and benefits.
We have been very pleased that over the years, the Subcommittee has
seen fit to include critical levels of funds for these important
projects. We were delighted to see the $4,900,000 in unobligated
construction funds included in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. However, it is important that
we receive $3,100,000 in construction funds in fiscal year 1999 to
maintain the commitment and accelerate these projects. This funding is
critical to accelerate the detailed design and plans and specifications
for key project components. The community has waited long enough for
protection and we need these funds now to move the project forward. We
respectfully request your consideration of our request.
summary
Our most significant flooding of the last year occurred on February
20, 1997, when almost four inches of rain fell on the greater
Chicagoland area. Due to the frozen ground, almost all of the rainfall
entered our combined sewers, causing sewage back-ups throughout the
area. When the existing TARP tunnels filled with approximately 1.2
billion gallons of sewage and runoff, the only remaining outlets for
the sewers were our waterways. Between 9:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. the
Chicago and Calumet Rivers rose six feet. For the first time since 1981
we had to open the locks at all three of the waterway control points;
these include Wilmette, downtown Chicago, and Calumet. Approximately
4.2 billion gallons of combined sewage and stormwater had to be
released directly into Lake Michigan.
A second major storm occurred on August 16 and 17, 1997.
Approximately 10,000 homes in the City of Chicago received damages and
once again combined sewage was released into Lake Michigan. The damages
from this storm were so extensive that a study was conducted by the
Local Government Committee of the Illinois State Senate.
Given our large regional jurisdiction and the severity of flooding
in our area, the Corps was compelled to develop a plan that would
compliment the uniqueness of TARP and be large enough to accommodate
the area we serve. With a combined sewer area of 375 square miles,
consisting of the City of Chicago and 51 contiguous suburbs, there are
550,000 homes within our jurisdiction which are subject to flooding at
any time. The annual damages sustained exceed $150 million. If these
projects were in place, these damages could be eliminated. We must
consider the safety and peace of mind of the two million people who are
affected as well as the disaster relief funds that will be saved when
these projects are in place. As the public agency in the greater
Chicagoland area responsible for water pollution control, and as the
regional sponsor for flood control, we have an obligation to protect
the health and safety of our citizens. We are asking your support in
helping us achieve this necessary and important goal. It is absolutely
critical that the Corps' work, which has been proceeding for a number
of years, be continued on schedule.
Therefore, we urgently request that $1,000,000 in construction
funds be made available in the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act to complete construction of the O'Hare
Reservoir and we request that $3.1 million in construction funding for
the McCook and Thornton Reservoirs (beyond the budgeted $900,000) be
made available in the appropriations bill.
Again, we thank the Subcommittee for its support of our projects
over the years and we thank you in advance for your consideration of
our request this year.
______
Prepared Statement of the Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas
fiscal year 1999 appropriations request
The Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas seeks funds to plan the Pikitanoi
Rural Water System, Kansas. The amount requested is $250,000, lower
than last year's request for the reason that the Kickapoo Tribe has
expended its own funds for preparation of a needs assessment.
The Administration has not included a line item in its budget for
the Pikitanoi Rural Water System. Planning of the project began in 1996
and has proceeded to the point that federal funds are needed for
continued planning. The Kickapoo Tribe seeks appropriations of $250,000
for feasibility study of the Pikitanoi Rural Water System and requests
inclusion in the Corps of Engineers or Bureau of Reclamation budgets
for water development.
need for funds
The need for funds for feasibility investigation is long standing.
The Corps of Engineers studied needs of the area as early as 1993 in
``Partners for Environmental Progress, Type I Feasibility Study,
Northeast Kansas Water Supply.'' Costs of alternative projects in the
1993 report ranged from $38.0 to $128.4 million, depending on demand
assumptions.
The funds requested for fiscal year 1998 will be used to continue
investigations by the Kickapoos, rural water districts and communities
in the northeast corner of Kansas. The work will be conducted by non-
federal entities with oversight by the appropriate federal agency. The
project boundaries are the Missouri River on the east, the Kansas River
on the south, the Blue River on the west and the Kansas/Nebraska state
line on the north. The Kickapoo Indian Reservation is contained within
the study boundaries. Doniphan, Brown, Nemaha, Jefferson, Pottawatomie,
Jackson and Atchison counties are also within the boundaries.
The Kickapoo Tribe has completed a needs assessment of the present
and future population and their water requirements within the
boundaries of the Kickapoo Indian Reservation. The needs assessment
also includes submissions from 10 rural water districts and 11
communities within the study area. Other systems have expressed
interest in the project and are supplying information on future needs
and points of interconnection to the Pikitanoi Rural Water System. The
Kickapoo Tribe and other entities are coordinating with the State of
Kansas and the Kansas Rural Water Association. A revised map of the
proposed project is enclosed for reference as well as Table 1 on basic
statistics.
The Kickapoo Tribe has developed a plan for a wholesale water
supply system to serve the area, including the Reservation. The
preliminary cost estimate, based on the system shown in Figure 1 for a
wholesale system diverting from the Missouri River near Atchison, is
$127 million. The project would include 304 miles of pipeline from 4
feet to 24 feet in diameter and 15 pumping stations of 1,300 horsepower
or less. At the current level of interest, the treatment plant and
transmission lines would be sized for a demand of 11.6 MGD or 9,669
gallons per minute. The system configuration and the cost estimate are
expected to change as more of the rural water districts join in the
feasibility analysis.
The need for drinking water in northeast Kansas is acute. Local
groundwater sources are highly developed. When a request of the
Kickapoo Tribe for additional water from its current supplier, the City
of Horton, was made, it became clear that the City was without options
to increase deliveries to the reservation. The Tribe now relies on the
flows of the Delaware River at a diversion point constructed by the
Corps of Engineers. The flows of the stream at our point of diversion
are not dependable and will fall to zero (no flow) during times of
drought. The lack of adequate water supply to meet the needs of the
counties included in the service area (total population of 89,462) is
common throughout northeastern Kansas, as evidenced by the considerable
interest of rural water districts and communities in this project.
alternatives for water supply are subject of feasibility study
Project participants are examining a number of alternatives for
water source, transmission and distribution. The State of Kansas has
developed Perry Lake and Tuttle Creek Lake within the boundaries of the
project. The Kickapoo Tribe has received congressional authorization
for construction of a reservoir on the Delaware River within the
Reservation. The Missouri River forms the eastern boundary of the
project area and constitutes an unlimited high-quality supply of water.
Each of these alternatives will be investigated for the development of
a regional rural water project with funds appropriated by the committee
in the amount of $250,000.
summary
A steering committee of project participants has been formed. A
scope of work for technical investigations has also been developed.
Funds appropriated by the committee will be used to assess the needs of
the region, lay out a transmission and distribution system, consider
alternatives for intake location and regional treatment plant location
and determine costs of construction, operation, maintenance and
replacement. As initially conceived, part of the project facilities
would be placed in trust on behalf of the Kickapoo Tribes, and other
parts of the distribution system would be held by off-reservation
community water systems and rural water districts. Non-reimbursable
funds will be sought for the cost of the facilities held in trust by
the United States, and federal and state cost shares will be sought for
the remaining facilities.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TCORPS.013
Figure 1
TABLE 1.--STATISTICAL SUMMARY--PIKITANOI REGIONAL WATER PROJECT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistic 1990 Census 2020 Projected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kickapoo R. Population.................. 477 1,490
Counties Population..................... 90,198 89,462
Median Age:
Kickapoo............................ 25.5 ..............
Kansas.............................. 36.7 ..............
===============================
Kickapoo School Enrollment:
Pre-Primary......................... 23 ..............
Elementary or High.................. 80 ..............
College............................. 15 ..............
-------------------------------
Total............................. 118 ..............
===============================
Housing:
Housing Units....................... 139 527
Persons per House................... 3.44 2.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistic Kickapoo Kansas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Household Income................... $14,464 $27,291
1990 Family Income...................... $16,250 $32,966
1990 Per Capita Income.................. $4,831 $13,300
Percent Families Below Poverty L........ 31.3 8.3
1990 Labor Force........................ 126 765,003
Unemployed.............................. 18 13,419
Percent in Labor Force.................. 34.2 48.7
Percent Unemployed...................... 14.3 3.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value
Average Annual Water Availability, af:
Missouri River Streamflows, Rulo, af/year........... 29,701,000
Big Blue River Near Mahattan, af/year, Tuttle....... 1,664,232
Delaware River Valley Falls, ay/year, Perry......... 280,785
Groundwater......................................... ( \1\ )
========================================================
____________________________________________________
2020 Design Needs, gallons per capita per average day:
In-Residence........................................ 81.0
Water Conservation.................................. -12.0
Lawns and Gardens................................... 66.0
School Enrollment................................... 3.0
Labor Force......................................... 3.0
Commercial and Industrial........................... 8.0
System Losses....................................... 22.0
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 171.0
========================================================
____________________________________________________
2020 Design Needs, Kickapoo and Region:
Average Day, gallons................................ 4,479,755
Maximum Day, gallons................................ 11,602,565
Maximum Day, gpm.................................... 9,669
Annual, af.......................................... 5,086
\1\ Good to Poor.
[In 1998 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri--Alt
Construction costs A Perry--Alt C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intake.................................. 4,000,000 4,000,000
Treatment Plant......................... 13,978,000 13,978,000
Pipelines............................... 49,394,000 49,519,000
Pumping Stations........................ 8,203,000 10,090,000
Meters.................................. 686,000 686,000
Reservoirs.............................. 3,875,000 3,875,000
SCADA................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000
O and M Building........................ 1,500,000 1,500,000
O and M Equipment....................... 1,500,000 1,500,000
Easements............................... 321,000 315,000
Mitigation.............................. 500,000 500,000
Non-Contract............................ 35,123,000 35,933,000
Cost Indexing to fiscal year 1996 to
1998................................... 5,471,000 5,598,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 127,551,000 130,494,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 1-1.--STATISTICAL SUMMARY--PIKITANOI REGIONAL WATER PROJECT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipelines, feet:
24 inch diameter.................... 34,975 236,167
20 inch diameter.................... 294,228 93,203
18 inch diameter.................... 47,234 ..............
16 inch diameter.................... 52,619 52,618
14 inch diameter.................... .............. 15,615
12 inch diameter.................... 489,510 493,887
10 inch diameter.................... 147,369 150,407
8 inch diameter..................... 172,773 283,661
6 inch diameter..................... 66,607 17,120
4 inch diameter..................... 229,042 195,196
2 inch diameter..................... 71,520 37,267
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,605,877 1,575,141
Miles............................. 304.1 298.3
Pumping Stations:
Number.............................. 15 16
Maximum Horsepower.................. 1,300 1,350
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of Stanley J. Harris, P.E., City Engineer, Public
Works Department, Kansas City, MO
The City of Kansas City, Missouri welcomes the opportunity to
provide written testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development regarding appropriations for fiscal year 1999. Herein we
discuss our concerns with the President's recommended fiscal year 1999
budget as it relates to flood mitigation projects in the Kansas City
area supported by federal funding. All of these projects are essential
to the sustainment and revitalization of prominent and long standing
commercial, business, and industrial communities in this region, and
when complete will provide substantially increased levels of flood
protection.
We presently have five major flood mitigation projects underway in
cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These include the
Blue River Channel, Blue River Basin, (also known as Dodson Industrial
District), and Swope Park Industrial Area, Kansas City, Missouri, all
located along the Blue River; the Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas and
Missouri; and the Kansas City (7 Levees), Missouri and Kansas. We are
providing below the necessary fiscal year 1999 appropriation, along
with a justification for that request, for each project requiring more
funding than is recommended in the President's budget.
blue river channel, kansas city, missouri--$24.7 million--construction
Our largest project, 12 miles of channel modification along the
Blue River, has been under construction since 1983. Construction was
originally scheduled to be finished this year. However, due to year
after year of severe cuts in federal funding, the project is now just
barely 50 percent complete. This is the most important of our projects
and represents our most urgent need, as we are determined to gain back
as much of the lost schedule as possible. This project includes
environmental clean-up along the river and will also assist in
reclamation of a Brownfield area into a once again thriving business
district.
The seventh construction contract for the Blue River Channel,
awarded earlier this year, can be completed over two years, provided
adequate federal funding is available. The President's budget includes
a recommendation of $9.6 million for the Blue River Channel project in
fiscal year 1999. At best, this would allow the contractor to work from
the beginning of the fiscal year in October of 1998 through May of
1999. At that point, or before, the $9.6 million will have been
exhausted and the contractor will be forced to shut down operations.
Having missed the peak construction season, the contractor will be
required to remobilize in the fall when the fiscal year 2000
appropriation becomes available. This is an unworkable situation for a
number of reasons; the most obvious are the increase in cost due to the
contractor having to mobilize a second time, the further extension of
the overall project schedule, and the continued threat of flooding
resulting in potential loss of life and livelihood in the Blue Valley.
Additionally, there is coordination required between contractors
working along the river; 3 bridge projects are currently underway in
this channel reach and other projects are expected to be forthcoming.
The requested funding in the amount of $24.7 million in fiscal year
1999 will enable the contractor to work through the entire fiscal year
and will allow for a two calendar year construction project.
kansas city, missouri and kansas (7 levees)--$553,000--surveys
(reconnaissance study)
Another important effort to address flooding in our area is the
reconnaissance study of seven existing levee units at the juncture of
the Kansas and Missouri Rivers, in Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas.
These levees, namely, Fairfax, Armourdale and Argentine, all in Kansas;
CID in Missouri and Kansas; and North Kansas City, East Bottoms, and
Birmingham, all in Missouri; provide the primary flood protection for
the most densely developed business regions in the Kansas City area.
Evaluation of how these seven levee units function as an interdependent
system is needed to determine inadequacies and inconsistencies in the
current level of protection. There exists a critical need for this
study as evidenced by the great flood of 1993 when several of the
levees were nearly overtopped.
These seven major levee units cross both geographical and
jurisdictional boundaries: two states and two major rivers, Missouri
and Kansas, and have five separate local sponsors. The immense scope of
this study and the complexities presented by the involvement of so many
entities justifies the concern that the funding heretofore appropriated
will be insufficient to develop a Project Study Plan adequate to move
forward into the Feasibility Study phase. Another consideration is the
current requirement that reconnaissance studies be completed within a
one-year period. Due to the complexities surrounding this project, it
is necessary that the study completion date be extended until September
30, 1999, and that $553,000 be appropriated in fiscal year 1999 to
enable the Corps to perform the preliminary investigations required to
develop an effective Project Study Plan and to identify the potential
involvement of the five local sponsors during the Feasibility Study
phase. This time extension and the $553,000 requested in fiscal year
1999, added to the $277,000 in the Corps' fiscal year 1998 budget, will
provide the $830,000 requested last year to be appropriated over a two-
year period for completion of this reconnaissance study.
The three remaining major flood control projects in the Kansas
City, Missouri area which are mentioned above: Turkey Creek Basin,
Kansas and Missouri; Blue River Basin, Kansas City, Missouri; and Swope
Park Industrial Area, Kansas City, Missouri, were all also cut
substantially in the President's fiscal year 1999 recommended budget.
Although we consider these projects to be very important to the Kansas
City region we recognize that there is a limited amount of funding
availability and have respectfully refrained from asking that these
appropriations be restored to the levels requested last October. The
funding requested for the Blue River Channel and the 7 Levees projects
requested above, however, is so critical to our region that we ask that
these projects be given due consideration for restoration of requested
funding during the deliberations by the Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee.
The City would also like to take this opportunity to express our
strong support of several other key programs which provide assistance
for flood mitigation. Among these: Small Flood Control Authority,
Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act as Amended; Flood Plain
Management Services, Section 206 of the 1960 Flood Control Act;
Planning Assistance to States, Public Law 93-251; and Emergency Bank
Stabilization, Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act as Amended. We
appreciate the availability of these programs and will continue to seek
beneficial uses for them within Kansas City, Missouri. Finally, we are
pleased that the Corps has undertaken the Flow Frequency Study, Upper
Mississippi, Illinois and Lower Missouri Rivers. This study is
essential in determining updated quantity of flow data and flood stage
characteristics for the Missouri River and its tributaries in Kansas
City and our surrounding areas.
In closing, Kansas City, Missouri, appreciates the past assistance
we have received with these very important flood mitigation projects
and is prepared to provide its share of funding in the future. We
respectfully request that federal funding to keep the Blue River
Channel construction moving toward the soonest possible completion, and
to make the Kansas City 7 Levees study a worthwhile effort, be
appropriated in the upcoming fiscal year. Thank you for your time,
attention and consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Wallace Gieringer, Chairman, Arkansas River Basin
Interstate Committee
Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished Committee, my name
is Wallace Gieringer. I have recently retired as Executive Director of
the Pine Bluff-Jefferson County (Arkansas) Port Authority. It is my
honor to serve as Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate
Committee, members of which were appointed by the governors of the
great states of Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. As
Chairman, I present this summary testimony as a compilation of the most
important projects from each of the member states. Each of the states
unanimously supports these projects without reservation. I also
respectfully request that the copies of each state's individual
statement be made a part of the record, along with this testimony.
Mr. Chairman, the members of the Interstate Committee have again
agreed to focus on a project which has been our number one priority for
the past several years. A project that is vital to the five-state area
and beyond--the urgently needed Montgomery Point Lock and Dam at the
confluence of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System and
the Mississippi River.
Continuing problems caused by sediment and lowering of the
Mississippi River plague McClellan-Kerr entrance channel users.
Construction of Montgomery Point must continue as rapidly as possible
before limited dredge disposal areas become inadequate. During times of
low water on the Mississippi River the entrance channel is drained of
navigable water depth. As the Mississippi River bottom continues to
lower, the McClellan-Kerr moves toward total shutdown.
Thus, the entire Arkansas River Navigation System is at risk, and
its long-term viability is threatened without Montgomery Point. Some $5
billion in federal and private investments, thousands of jobs, growing
exports and future economic development are endangered.
The good news is that you, your associates, the Congress and the
Administration have all recognized the urgency of constructing
Montgomery Point!
Last year Congress appropriated $20 million to begin construction
of the lock and dam proper; the Corps of Engineers awarded a $186
million construction contract in July, and work progressed at a rapid
pace. The bad news is that the contractor has used all the funds
available from the Corps and, now, has stopped work.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, continuing Congressional
support is essential at this crucial time in the history of the
project. We respectfully urge this committee to work with the Corps to
do what is necessary to get this project back on track. An
appropriation of $44 million is needed for fiscal year 1999 to insure
that Montgomery Point is in operation as soon as possible at the lowest
possible cost.
The Interstate Committee also respectfully urges:
For the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, that the
Corps be directed to complete installation of tow haulage equipment on
the locks and between Little Rock and Fort Smith, AR. This efficiency
feature will reduce lockage time by as much as 50 percent while
permitting tonnage to double in each tow.
Needed funding for repairs to the Pueblo Reservoir in Colorado's
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. The Pueblo Reservoir, a 349,000 acre-foot
storage facility serving southeastern Colorado, has recently undergone
investigations as a part of the Bureau of Reclamation's Safety of Dams
Program. These investigations resulted in the identification of
concerns with foundations of seven of the dam's buttresses. At the
present time, the Reservoir is operating under restricted status which
means temporary loss of 38,000 acre-feet of important M&I and
irrigation storage space. Congressional support is needed for the
Bureau's request to access Safety of Dams funds to repair the dam and
restore Pueblo Reservoir to normal operations. Local water users
through the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District will pay a
portion of these repair costs.
Bureau of Reclamation funding for the Equus Beds Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Project in Kansas. This is a jointly sponsored
groundwater recharge project of the City of Wichita, Groundwater
Management District No. 2 and the State of Kansas. The Equus Beds
provides water for one-half million irrigation, municipal and
industrial users. The demonstration project is confirming the viability
of protecting existing resources from saltwater intrusion and
increasing supplies for use to the mid 21st century. Continued Bureau
of Reclamation funding for this critical demonstration project is
requested in the amount of $600,000.
The Interstate Committee also requests your support of the Planning
Assistance to States Program (Section 22 or the 1974 Water Resources
Development Act) which authorized the Corps of Engineers to use its
technical expertise in water and related land resource management to
help States and Indian Tribes solve their water resource problems. The
program is used by many states to support their State Water Plans. As
natural resources diminish, the need to manage those resources becomes
more urgent. We urge your continued support of this program as it
supports States and Native American Tribes in developing resource
management plans which will benefit citizens for years to come. The
program is very valuable and effective, matching Federal and non-
Federal funds to provide cost effective engineering expertise and
support to assist communities, states and tribes in the development of
plans for the management, optimization and preservation of basin
watershed and ecosystem resources. The Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 increased the annual program limit from $6 million to $10
million, however, the fiscal year 1998 appropriation was limited to $3
million. The committee requests the annual appropriation for this
valuable program be increased to the full $10 million.
Mr. Chairman, Members of this Committee, we respectfully request
that you and members of your staff review and respond in a positive way
to the attached individual statements from each of our states which set
forth specific requests pertaining to those states.
We sincerely appreciate your consideration and assistance. Thank
you very much for foresight, wisdom and resourcefulness you and your
colleagues demonstrate each and every year in providing solutions to
our nation's water resource problems.
______
Prepared Statement of Wallace A. Gieringer, Chairman, Arkansas River
Basin Interstate Committee
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony to this most important committee. I
recently retired as Executive Director of the Pine Bluff-Jefferson
County Port Authority and serve as Arkansas Chairman for the Interstate
Committee. Other committee members representing Arkansas, in whose
behalf this statement is made, are Messrs. Wayne Bennett, soybean and
rice farmer from Lonoke; Colonel Charles D. Maynard, U.S. Army,
retired, from Little Rock; Barry McKuin, a Director of the Morrilton
Port Authority at Morrilton; and N.M. ``Buck'' Shell, transportation
specialist of Fort Smith and Van Buren.
1997 was a memorable year in the history of the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System--and you helped make it so! Last year
Congress continued to recognize the urgent need for Montgomery Point
Lock and Dam by appropriating $20 million. This much needed facility is
under construction near the confluence of the McClellan-Kerr System and
the Mississippi River. To each of you, your staff and the Congress--our
most heartfelt thanks!
The Corps of Engineers awarded a $186 million contract for
construction of the lock and dam proper on July 19, 1997 and work
progressed at a rapid pace. However, the contractor has used all the
funds available from the Corps and, now, has stopped work. We urge this
committee to work with the Corps to do what is necessary to get this
project back on schedule. Completion was scheduled for 2003 assuming
adequate funding.
When completed, Montgomery Point will protect over $5 billion in
public and private investments, thousands of jobs and world trade
created as a result of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
System. Without Montgomery Point Lock and Dam the future of our
wonderful McClellan-Kerr navigation system remains threatened. Time is
of the essence.
The absence of Montgomery Point Lock and Dam continues to deter
economic growth along the entire McClellan-Kerr and the project is
certainly time sensitive! As the Mississippi River bottom continues to
lower, the McClellan-Kerr moves toward total shutdown. Existing dredge
disposal acres are virtually full. Ongoing dredging and disposal of
material can mean environmental damage. Construction must continue as
rapidly as possible if the project is to be in place before disposal
areas become inadequate.
During construction, and use of a temporary by-pass channel,
navigation hazards will increase making it imperative that work on the
lock and dam be completed as quickly and as safely as possible.
We are very grateful that you, your associates, the Congress, and
the Administration have all recognized the urgency of constructing
Montgomery Point. Appropriations of $45.6 million have been made to
date for engineering, site acquisition and construction for this
project which should be completed in 2003 according to the Corps'
optimum construction funding schedule.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, continuing Congressional
support is essential at this crucial time in the history of the
project. We respectfully request and urge the Congress to appropriate
$44 million for use in fiscal year 1999 to continue construction.
Adequate funding will insure that the urgently needed facility is in
operation as soon as possible at the lowest possible cost.
Other projects are vital to the environment, social and economic
well-being of our region and our nation. We recognize the importance of
continued construction of needed features to the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System and strongly recommend that you
favorably consider the following in your deliberations:
--Support continued funding for the construction, operation and
maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
System.
--Continue construction authority for the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas
River Navigation Project until remaining channel stabilization
problems identified by the Little Rock District Corps of
Engineers have been resolved.
--Provide funding and direct the Corps to complete installation of
tow haulage equipment on the locks and dams between Little Rock
and Fort Smith. This efficiency feature will reduce lockage
time by as much as 50 percent while permitting tonnage to
double in each tow with only a minor increase in operating
cost.
--Provide funds and direct the Corps of Engineers to begin
construction of the Arkansas River Levees Project as authorized
by Section 110 of the Water Resource Development Act of 1990.
Continuing engineering and design is needed for these levees
which have been previously studied in the cost-shared Arkansas
River Arkansas and Oklahoma Feasibility Study.
--$1.5 million needs to be specifically provided and the Corps
directed to begin rehabilitation construction on the Plum Bayou
Levee.
--Fund continued repair and rehabilitation of the power units at the
Dardanelle Lock and Dam which first went into operation in
1965. After this work is completed, power output will be
increased by 13 percent and thus increase income to the Federal
Treasury.
We also urge the Congress to encourage the Military Traffic
Management Command to continue to identify opportunities to accelerate
use of the nation's navigable waterways to move military cargoes
thereby helping contain the nation's defense costs.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, please help prevent a crisis for the
Arkansas River Navigation System and the multi-state region it serves
by appropriating $44 million for use in fiscal year 1999 for Montgomery
Point Lock and Dam.
The entire Arkansas River Navigation System is at risk, and its
long-term viability is threatened. The system remains at risk until
Montgomery Point is constructed. Some $5 billion in federal and private
investments and thousands of jobs and growing exports are endangered.
We fully endorse the statement presented to you today by the
Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We
appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to your most important
subcommittee and urge you to favorably consider our request for needed
infrastructure investments in the natural and transportation resources
of our nation.
______
Prepared Statement of Steve Arverchoug, General Manager, Southeastern
Colorado Water Conservancy District
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Appropriation Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development, thank you for the opportunity to present
these comments and requests on behalf of Colorado as a participant in
the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee.
voice my support for the Interstate Committee's priority funding
requests for the 1999 budget--the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam project
and the other priority projects as listed by the Arkansas River Basin
Interstate Committee member states.
Allow me to update the Subcommittee members on one of the most
pressing needs in Colorado's Arkansas River Basin.
pueblo reservoir safety of dams investigations
Background.--The Bureau of Reclamation built the Fryingpan-Arkansas
Project as authorized by Congress beginning in 1964. The Project was
completed in the early 1980's as the Bureau put the finishing touches
on Pueblo Reservoir, the centerpiece of the Fry-Ark Project. Water from
the Project's west slope collection system began benefiting towns and
farms in southeastern Colorado in 1972, and since that time the Project
has delivered over one million acre-feet of valuable water.
The Southeastern District, as the local sponsor of the Fry-Ark
Project, assumed the major financial responsibility for the
reimbursable construction costs ($150 million) and the appropriate
share of the Project's annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs
($900,000). The District pays the Bureau of Reclamation approximately
$4 million each year toward the construction costs repayment obligation
and the O&M expenses. Revenue to make these annual payments comes from
a property tax assessment on all property within the Southeastern
District's nine-county service area (Bent, Chaffee, Crowley, Fremont,
El Paso, Kiowa, Otero, Prowers, and Pueblo), and from direct charges on
agricultural and municipal water-user entities.
Part of the Bureau of Reclamation's responsibility for the Fry-Ark
Project includes the safe and efficient operation of the Project's five
reservoirs and dams. Each Project dam is subject to periodic Safety of
Dams investigations. Pueblo Reservoir Dam underwent such an
investigation in 1997, and based on the Bureau's current set of
standards, Pueblo Dam was deemed to be below Bureau standards under
normal operating configurations.
Bureau of Reclamation Decisions to Date.--June 1997, following the
Safety of Dams investigation at Pueblo Dam, the Bureau of Reclamation
issued a Decision Memorandum which initiated a Corrective Action Study
and placed a storage restriction on Pueblo Reservoir. The storage
restriction reduced the effective capacity of the reservoir from
349,000 acre-feet to 294,000 (the historic maximum storage level), a
loss of 55,000 acre-feet of conservation pool storage space. After
discussions with the Corps of Engineer (the Corps has flood control
responsibility at Pueblo Reservoir), and with the help of members of
Colorado's Congressional delegation, the Bureau modified the operation
of the Reservoir so that the storage restriction would reduce
conservation storage space by just 20,000 acre-feet, instead of the
full 55,000 acre-feet.
The restriction was imposed because the Bureau's Safety of Dams
engineers believe that several of the dam's buttresses, which where
founded on thin shale seams during the construction of the dam, have
the potential to slip and cause a dam failure. Even though monitoring
of the buttresses has indicated no slippage, the Bureau's current risk
tolerance standards mandate a storage restriction and some form of
remedial action. The Bureau is in the process of completing the
required Safety of Dams Corrective Action Study to determine the most
cost effective remedial action necessary to return the Reservoir to
normal operations.
At the January 1998 Board meeting of the Southeastern District, the
Bureau announced that an additional storage restriction on Pueblo
Reservoir was awaiting final action by the Regional Director, and would
further reduce the operational capacity of the Reservoir. This
additional restriction would cut another 18,000 acre-feet of storage
capacity from the Reservoir's conservation pool. The Bureau is now
operating the Reservoir under this additional restriction. The District
expects the official decision documents from the Bureau shortly.
Total storage space lost to restriction: 38,000 acre-feet (with
modified flood control operations).
Safety of Dams Response.--The Bureau is in the final stages of
preparing the Corrective Actions Study which is to detail the remedial
action necessary to repair the dam's foundation and bring the structure
back within the Bureau's acceptable risk tolerances. To date the Bureau
is proposing a repair alternative which would fill the dam's plunge
pool with roller-compacted concrete (RCC) and adhere that RCC to the
existing surface with a series of bolts and tow blocks. The Bureau's
analysis and design for this alternative has undergone review by a
panel of outside engineers. These outside engineers (Consultant Review
Board) have met with the Bureau's engineers three times, and they now
appear to be in general agreement with the proposed fix.
The District has hired engineer's from the firm of Black & Veatch
to review the final design for the proposed fix. Based upon the
Bureau's preliminary design and engineering reports, our engineers
believe the RCC alternative to be a cost effective approach to address
the stability concern.
Cost Estimate/Cost Sharing.--The proposed cost estimate for the RCC
alternative is $23 million to $38 million. That estimate as currently
presented by the Bureau includes $14 million for the actual
construction (filed costs), and the remainder for Bureau engineering
and administration. The Safety of Dams Act requires the Bureau to also
investigate a non-construction alternative, which in the case of Pueblo
Dam, would mean the Bureau would simply leave the current storage
restriction in place indefinitely. That would mean the permanent loss
of 55,000 acre-feet of storage capacity (with flood control operations
fully restored).
Costs for the Safety of Dams repairs at Pueblo Reservoir are to be
shared between the Bureau and local project beneficiaries. The federal
Safety of Dams Act requires that the Bureau request funding from
Congress for 85 percent of the costs and then secure repayment from
power, irrigation, and municipal and industrial users for the remaining
15 percent of total project costs. This cost-share arrangement means
that the Southeastern District, representing irrigation and municipal
and industrial users would pay about $3 million to $5 million of the
total costs.
Impacts on Municipal and Agricultural Water Users.--The most
immediate impact to the constituents of the Southeastern District from
the Bureau's decisions to date has been the loss of 38,000 acre-feet of
conservation pool storage space. That space is used to store Project
Water for supplemental irrigation and municipal uses, Winter Water
available for irrigation, and If & When storage accounts for municipal
users. All of these valuable storage components have been impacted, but
the Winter Water Storage Program has been hardest hit.
This year is the first year in many that Arkansas Valley irrigators
decided not to store their Winter Water in Pueblo Reservoir because of
the limited space and the likelihood of a spill. For some irrigators
Pueblo Reservoir is their only storage option under the Winter Water
Storage Program, which means they will not have Winter Water available
for late-season deliveries (annual average Winter Water storage in
Pueblo Reservoir--40,000 acre-feet).
Over the long term the storage restrictions will reduce the yield
of the Project, hurt the operation of important exchanges for municipal
supplies, limit the Winter Water Storage Program, and diminish the
ability of the District to meet our repayment obligations.
Next Steps.--Both the Bureau of Reclamation and the Southeastern
District have many decisions to make before construction can begin to
fix Pueblo Dam--proposed to begin November 1998. Some of the key
decision areas are listed below:
Bureau of Reclamation:
1. Finalize Preferred Alternative (RCC) design/cost estimate and
meet with Consultant Review Board.
2. Complete NEPA compliance requirements.
3. Finalize Corrective Action Study (including the preferred
alternative) for presentation to Congress/OMB.
4. Execute a Repayment Contract with the Southeastern District for
cost sharing of project costs.
5. Secure funding support for preferred alternative.
Southeastern District:
1. Complete in-house engineering review of Bureau's Preferred
Alternative Final Design.
2. Develop a financing plan for repayment of cost-share of Project
costs--user fees and District reserve funds.
3. Execute a repayment contract with Bureau for cost-share of
Project costs.
District's Outstanding Issues/Congressional Assistance.--As the
District works to execute a repayment contract for the Safety of Dams
work at Pueblo Reservoir, we have a set of outstanding issues which we
believe are important for our members of Congress to consider. First,
the District supports the Bureau in their effort to bring Pueblo Dam in
line with current Bureau standards. Our goal is to fully cooperate in
the Safety of Dams work so that the Reservoir can be restored to normal
operations, without further restrictions.
With that goal in mind, the District has the following outstanding
issues:
1. The Bureau's total-project cost range is too broad--$23 million
to $38 million--the Bureau has done extensive study of the preferred
alternative and should be able to narrow this estimate before the
District signs a repayment contract;
2. Non-construction costs (engineering, administration and
overhead), as a part of the total-project costs, are too high--40
percent to 60 percent of total costs (based on current Bureau
estimates)--the District's constituents want to fix Pueblo Dam, but
don't want to send over 50 percent of their cost-share funds to pay for
Bureau overhead;
3. The District has asked the Bureau to consider a fixed-price
repayment contract so that we can know exactly what our financial
responsibilities are before we sign a contract. At present, the best
the Bureau will offer is an ``estimate'' of costs;
4. The District's water users need some level of assurance that the
Bureau's proposed fix, when complete, will indeed allow the current
storage restrictions to be lifted; and,
5. The Bureau should be held accountable to hold down the proposed
repair costs and to perform the repairs within a reasonable period of
time.
Again, the District supports the Bureau's work to repair Pueblo
Dam, we're simply asking through this briefing document and our list of
outstanding issues, that the financial impacts to our constituents be
given proper consideration. Positive resolution of this Safety of Dams
repair obligation at Pueblo Dam will benefit both the Bureau and the
constituents of the District. Such a resolution will serve to maintain
the intended benefits of the Fry-Ark Project, a valuable project for
all the citizens of southeastern Colorado.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman and Members, your time and interest in these matters
is greatly appreciated. As I present these issues and requests to you,
I recognize the difficulty you have in meeting these needs along with
the many others you have been presented. Of course, like the others,
the requests of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee are
important to us and our constituents. Your fair consideration of the
needs of the member states of the Interstate Committee is all that I
can ask.
Thank you for your commitment to the water resource needs of our
citizens.
______
Prepared Statement of the Kansas Arkansas River Basin Interstate
Committee
The water resource projects in the Kansas portion of the Arkansas
River Basin are summarized below. Many of the projects are safety,
environmental and conservation oriented. In addition, we state our
unanimous support for the fiscal year 1999 request of $44 million for
continued construction of the authorized Montgomery Point Lock and Dam
Project to maintain viable commerce of navigation on the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System.
We request your continued support for these important Bureau of
Reclamation projects:
Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project.--A City of
Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and State of Kansas
project to demonstrate the feasibility of recharging a major
groundwater resource supplying water to nearly 500,000 municipal,
industrial and irrigation users and will also reduce potential
degradation of the existing groundwater quality by minimizing migration
of saline water. Continued funding in fiscal year 1999 is requested in
the amount of $600,000.
Cheney Reservoir.--On the North Fork of the Ninnescah River
providing natural treatment of inflows in the upper reaches of Cheney
Reservoir to control poor water quality due to agricultural runoff.
Previous funding is appreciated. Bureau funding of $265,000 is
requested.
Arkansas River Mineral Intrusion Study.--Between Nickerson and
Hutchinson to mitigate saltwater intrusion into freshwater supplies.
Funding in the amount of $135,000 is requested.
We request your continued support for these equally important
projects of the Corps of Engineers:
Arkansas City, Kansas Flood Protection.--To protect homes and
businesses from catastrophic damages resulting from either Walnut River
or Arkansas River flooding. Previous funding is appreciated and
continued funding is needed to complete the project, as authorized.
Winfield, Kansas Flood Protection.--This project will raise and
extend an existing levee to provide badly needed flood control for the
city. Previous funding is appreciated and continued funding is
requested to complete the project.
John Redmond Reservoir Reallocation Study.--To ascertain the
equitable distribution of sediment storage between conservation and
flood control storage and evaluate the environmental impact of the
reallocation. Funding requested in the amount of $525,000.
Continuing Authorities Program.--Several smaller Kansas communities
are on the waiting list for funding from the Small Flood Control
Projects Program and the Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program.
Funding requested to the full programmatic limits.
Grand/Neosho River Basin.--Corps study nearing completion to
evaluate the adequacy of federal flood control easements around Grand
Lake. Solutions to up stream flooding impact both Kansas and Oklahoma.
Follow-on studies are needed to fully identify/evaluate solutions.
Arkansas River Reconnaissance Study from Colorado Border to Dodge
City.--$100,000 study to evaluate high flow carrying capacity in
western Kansas as has been done in eastern Colorado.
Kanapolis Lake Water Quality Storage Reallocation.--To reallocate
existing water quality storage for public supply availability and to
give the Corps authority to sell existing storage at original
construction cost and interest rates for a specified time.
Operation and Maintenance Budgets.--We request increased funding
specifically for Water Control to eliminate the conflict between
staffing and gaging support. Reduced funding in Kansas is evident.
We urge your continued support of the Department of Interior
project:
Quivira National Wildlife Refuge.--A study to identify the options
available for producing the most efficient use of resources for the
refuge and irrigation needed to support the area agricultural economy.
Research is 50 percent completed. Future support to implement solutions
will be appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of Gerald H. Holman, Chairman, Kansas Interstate
Committee
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Gerald H. Holman,
Senior Vice President of the Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce, Wichita,
Kansas and Chairman of the Kansas Interstate Committee for the Arkansas
Basin Development Association. This statement is submitted on behalf of
the entire Kansas Delegation.
We are honored to join with our colleagues from the states of
Arkansas, Colorado, Missouri and Oklahoma, to form the five state
Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We are unified as a region
and fully endorse the statement of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate
Committee.
In addition to the important projects listed below, we state our
unanimous support for the continued construction of the authorized
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam Project to maintain viable navigation for
commerce on the McClellan-Kerr Navigation System. This inland waterway
is vital to the economic health of the five state area and your support
is needed to maintain its future viability. Construction has begun and
continued funding authorization is needed. We hereby state our
unanimous support for the $44 million needed by the Corps of Engineers
to maintain the most economical and cost efficient construction
schedule.
The water resources projects in the Kansas portion of the Arkansas
River Basin have been carefully reviewed by the Kansas delegation and
reflect accurately the need. Many of the projects are safety,
environmental and conservation oriented. We are grateful for your past
commitment and respectfully request your continued commitment.
We ask for your continued support for these important Bureau of
Reclamation projects on behalf of the Wichita/South Central Kansas
area:
Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project.--This is the
continuation of a Bureau of Reclamation project jointly endorsed by the
City of Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and the State of
Kansas. The project is demonstrating the feasibility of recharging a
major groundwater resource supplying water to nearly one-half million
irrigation, municipal and industrial users. This model technology has
application to other areas throughout the nation. The full scale
project, when implemented, will capture flood flows from the Little
Arkansas River providing water for use during times of low rainfall or
dry conditions and will also reduce on-going degradation of the
existing groundwater quality by minimizing migration of saline water.
The pilot project is operational with the guidance from the Bureau of
Reclamation. Early data positively supports predictions that the full
scale project can be successful and is capable of meeting the
increasing water resource needs of the area to the mid 21st century.
Additional data is needed to confirm early findings.
The Equus Beds provides approximately half of the Wichita area
regional municipal water supply. This recharge project is vital to the
future of the metropolitan Wichita area and surrounding farming
communities. We are grateful for the $1 million funding in fiscal year
1995 and fiscal year 1996, the $875,000 in fiscal year 1997 and the
$667,000 authorized in fiscal year 1998. Fiscal year 1999 funding in
the amount of $600,000 is requested. Cost share funds are provided by
the City of Wichita for this on-going federally supported project.
Governor Graves supports this much needed project as a benefit to 20
percent of the state's population.
For fiscal year 1998, the Conference Committee also approved the
following report language: ``The conferees direct the Bureau of
Reclamation to notify the Committees on Appropriations of the House and
the Senate before reprogramming any funds from the Equus Beds
Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project in Kansas.'' We request this
or similar language remain for fiscal year 1999.
Cheney Reservoir.--The reservoir provides approximately 50 percent
of Wichita's regional water supply. Two environmental problems threaten
the water quality and longevity of the reservoir. One is sedimentation
from soil erosion and the other is non-point source pollution,
particularly the amount of phosphates entering the reservoir resulting
in offensive taste and odor problems. Potential pollution sites in the
watershed above the reservoir have been identified along with Best
Management Practices that can help reduce the pollution from those
sites. The City of Wichita has committed $1.2 million to this project
for implementing soil conservation practices consistent with the
Management Plan. The Bureau of Reclamation constructed the reservoir
and has remained involved in on-going support. Bureau funding in fiscal
year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 in the amounts of $235,000 and $131,000
respectively was approved as cost share support for the local funding
provided by the City of Wichita. However, of the $131,000 the Bureau
withheld $30,000 as ``overhead'' expense on the project. Funding, fully
allocated to the project, in the amount of $265,000 is requested for
fiscal year 1999.
Arkansas River Mineral Intrusion Study.--Aggressive and innovative
treatment techniques must be identified and implemented to protect our
valuable water resources from increasing environmental problems.
Authorization of on-going Bureau of Reclamation research is critical to
protecting existing resources.
A critically important research project for Kansas is the Mineral
Intrusion Study in the Equus Beds Aquifer along the Arkansas River
between the cities of Nickerson and Hutchinson. Ground water pumping in
the aquifer is inducing saltwater from the river into the freshwater
supplies of the Equus Beds. The State of Kansas has supported this
project with cost share monies in the State Water Plan over the last
four years with the expectation that the Bureau of Reclamation would
provide the necessary financial support to conduct the modeling of the
region and ascertain problem areas and management solutions to be
adopted by Groundwater Management District No. 2. Funding in the amount
of $135,000 is requested.
This Committee has given its previous support to local protection
and other important Kansas projects. A number of projects are now
completed and we are most grateful for your construction authorization.
Many of our agricultural communities have historically experienced
major flood disasters, some of which have resulted in multi-state
hardships involving portions of the state of Oklahoma. Because of this,
we are most interested in rapidly moving other needed projects to
completion. However, our small communities do not have the necessary
funds nor engineering expertise. Projects in addition to local
protection are also important and listed below. We request your
continued support.
Arkansas City, Kansas Flood Protection.--This project is in
response to a critical need to protect the environment, homes and
businesses from catastrophic damages that would result from either
Walnut River or Arkansas River flooding which could include flood borne
petroleum products from the Arkansas City refinery. The Corps has
extensively coordinated with the city and various state agencies in the
development of this project, which when completed, will eliminate
damage in a multi-county area and also result in benefits to the state
of Oklahoma just a few miles south of the project. We appreciate the
previous funding in the amounts of $700,000 in fiscal year 1996, $1
million in fiscal year 1997 and $2 million in fiscal year 1998. Also,
in fiscal year 1997, the Secretary of the Army was authorized to
construct the project. We request your continued support for the timely
construction as authorized in fiscal year 1997 at the funding level
needed by the Corps of Engineers.
Winfield, Kansas Flood Protection.--This project will raise and
extend an existing levee to provide badly needed flood control for the
city. Your authorized funding in the amounts of $670,000 in fiscal year
1996, $1 million in fiscal year 1997 and $2 million in fiscal year 1998
is appreciated. All design studies are completed. We urge your
continued support for project construction at the level needed by the
Corps of Engineers to insure the safety of Winfield's citizens.
John Redmond Reservoir Reallocation Study.--John Redmond Reservoir
remains a primary source of water supply for small communities between
Burlington Kansas and Grand Lake. It is suffering loss of capacity
ahead of its design rate because of excessive deposits within the
conservation pool. The flood pool remains above its design capacity. A
study would ascertain the equitable distribution of sediment storage
between conservation and flood control storages and also evaluate the
environmental impact of the appropriate reallocation. Funding
requirements are $525,000 and the Corps of Engineers could accomplish
the study under its General Investigation authority. We request your
support for this important project.
Continuing Authorities Program.--We support funding for this
program including the Small Flood Control Projects Program (Section 205
of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as amended) as well as the Emergency
Streambank Stabilization Program (Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control
Act, as amended). Smaller communities in Kansas (Iola, Liberal,
Medicine Lodge, Altoona, Emporia and Parsons) and Oklahoma have
requested assistance from the Corps of Engineers and are currently on
the waiting list. We urge you to support these programs to the $40
million programmatic limit for the Small Flood Control Projects Program
and $15 million for the Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program.
Grand (Neosho) River Basin.--The Grand-Neosho River Committee was
formed at the request of the Kansas and Oklahoma congressional
delegations to evaluate water resource problems affecting both Kansas
and Oklahoma. A study, authorized by the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996, is nearing completion and will evaluate whether the Corps
of Engineers has adequate flood control easements in the upper reaches
of Grand Lake. We support continued studies to fully evaluate and
identify solutions to upstream flooding problems in Kansas which are
associated with flood control operations of Grand Lake. Changes in
operations of the Lake or other upstream changes could have a
significant impact on flood control, hydropower, and navigation
operations in the overall Grand-Neosho River system. We urge continued
funding in fiscal year 1999 for follow-on studies for this important
project.
Arkansas River Reconnaissance Study from Colorado Border to Dodge
City.--Environmental problems are increasing the importance of
continued research to protect our valuable water resources. Aggressive
and innovative treatment techniques must be identified and implemented.
Authorization of on-going Corps of Engineers research is essential, and
as appropriate, demonstration project funding.
A reconnaissance study of the high flow carrying capacity of the
Arkansas River from the Colorado State Line to Dodge City is important
to western Kansas. This study would compliment the research
accomplished on the Colorado portion of the river below John Martin
Dam. Lack of flows over the past two decades has allowed vegetation to
encroach into the river channel thereby restricting its ability to
convey flood flows during runoff periods. Additionally, the delineation
of the Ordinary High Water Mark separating the river channel property
between the public trust and private lands has become muddled because
of the lack of definition of a permanent channel in the Western Kansas
reach. We request this project be funded in the amount of $100,000 to
complete the necessary research.
Kanapolis Lake Water Quality Storage Reallocation.--Agricultural
communities in central Kansas are in need of additional public water
supplies. A cost-effective solution is reallocating existing water
quality storage in Kanapolis Lake for public supply availability. The
Kansas Water Office has made a request of the Corps of Engineers to
authorize the reallocation which is a most expeditious solution for
central Kansas. We urge you to support our request of the Corps of
Engineers. We also request that language be added to the Water Resource
Development Act of 1998 which will give authority to the Corps on
numerous projects to sell existing conservation storage at original
costs and interest rates for a specific limited time.
Operation and Maintenance Budgets.--To effectively manage water
resources in the state, continued funding from the Corps of Engineers
for operation and maintenance is needed, specifically for Water
Control. The Corps has experienced reduced funding and increased
restrictions on use of in-house funds which is forcing the Tulsa
District to allocate between staffing needs and stream gaging support.
A withdrawal of Corps support in Kansas is now evident and a
corresponding diminished ability to effectively monitor extreme events
such as flooding is likely. Increased funding, specifically for Water
Control, is requested along with reduced restrictions on its use.
Your continued support of a most important U.S. Department of
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service project is very much appreciated:
Quivira National Wildlife Refuge.--This is a joint project
involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--Region 6, the State of
Kansas, the local groundwater management district and the Water
Protection Association of Central Kansas. Quivira provides a resting
area for waterfowl and endangered species during their annual
migrations in the Central Flyway. The Refuge is comprised of a series
of shallow pools totaling about 6,500 surface acre-feet and is part of
the Rattlesnake Creek basin. The Rattlesnake Creek basin has
experienced significant groundwater and streamflow declines in recent
years due to climatic conditions as well as expansion of irrigated
agriculture. An engineering feasibility study is underway to identify
the watershed-based options available for producing the most efficient
and effective use of the water resources in the Rattlesnake Creek basin
to protect the Wildlife Refuge as well as the agriculture economy of
the area. Fiscal year 1996 funding in the amount of $760,000 and
$1,400,000 in fiscal year 1997 is very much appreciated which along
with cost share funds from the State of Kansas and area businesses/
organizations, is sufficient for the study which is now approximately
50 percent complete. Design work could begin later this year. No
funding was requested for fiscal year 1998 and none is being requested
for fiscal year 1999. However, future funding requests may be made.
Finally, we are most concerned with any proposal to limit
participation of both the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation
in development and protection of water resources infrastructure. It is
essential to have the integrity and continuity these agencies provide
on major public projects. Your continued support of these vital
agencies, including funding, will be greatly appreciated. Our
infrastructure must be maintained and where needed, enhanced for the
future.
Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, we thank you for the
dedicated manner in which you and your colleagues have dealt with the
Water Resources Programs and for allowing us to present our views and
recommendations. We look forward with great expectations and hope for
the future of water resource development in Kansas and the entire
Arkansas River Basin.
______
Prepared Statement of James M. Hewgley, Jr., Oklahoma Chairman,
Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee
The water resource needs for the State of Oklahoma have been
carefully reviewed and the following accurately represents the needs of
the citizens of our region.
We hold as our number one priority the construction of the
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam in Arkansas. The completion of this
project is critical to the continued use of the navigation system and
the continued growth of the entire region. We request an appropriation
of $44 million for fiscal year 1999.
We also request your continued support of the Planning Assistance
to States Program which authorizes the Corps of Engineers to use its
technical expertise in water and related land resource management to
help States and Indian Tribes solve their water resource problems. This
committee requests the annual appropriation for this valuable program
be increased to the $10 million authorization. This is a very important
program to the states.
We are pleased that the President's budget includes money for flood
control projects in Oklahoma. Two of those projects are the Skiatook
Lake, Dam Safety Assurance project and the Mingo Creek project in
Tulsa. We also support funding of $5 million for the Tenkiller Lake Dam
Safety Assurance project.
We support the ongoing effort to evaluate water resource problems
in the Grand/Neosho River Basin in Kansas and Oklahoma. We support the
continued funding of studies to determine the adequacy of existing real
estate easements necessary for flood control operations of Grand Lake,
Oklahoma.
We also support funding for the Continuing Authorities Program,
including the Small Flood Control Projects Program, and the Emergency
Streambank Stabilization Program.
We request your continued support of the Flood Plain Management
Services Program which authorized the Corps of Engineers to use its
technical expertise to provide guidance in flood plain management
matters to all private, local state and Federal entities.
We have grave concerns about the Administration's proposed, radical
cuts in the Corps of Engineers budget. We support a funding level equal
to that of fiscal year 1998.
On a related matter, we have deep concerns about the attempt to
reauthorize the Endangered Species Act without significant beneficial
reforms. We urge further reforms or defeat of S. 1180.
Finally, the committee supports funding for the Environmental
Restoration Program.
______
Prepared Statement of James M. Hewgley, Jr., Oklahoma Chairman,
Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am James M. Hewgley,
Jr., Oklahoma Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate
Committee, from Tulsa, Oklhaoma.
It is my privilege to present this statement on behalf of the
Oklahoma Members of our committee in support of adequate funding for
water resource development projects in our area of the Arkansas River
Basin. Other members of the Committee are: Mr. Ted Coombes, Tulsa; Mr.
Lew Meibergen, Enid; Mr. Edwin L. Gage, Muskogee; and Mr. Terry
McDonald, Tulsa.
Together with representatives of the other Arkansas River Basin
states, we fully endorse the statement presented to you by the Chairman
of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We appreciate the
opportunity to present our views of the special needs of our State
concerning several studies and projects.
As we have testified in the past, serious problems exist at the
waterway entrance to the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
System. Extensive testing has proven that construction of Montgomery
Point Lock and Dam is the only acceptable means to correct the problem.
The project has been started and adequate funding must follow to keep
the project on its construction schedule.
Your recognition, as well as that of the Administration, of the
importance of constructing Montgomery Point Lock and Dam is very
gratifying. To date, you and your colleagues have appropriated $45.6
million for engineering, site acquisition and construction. This action
is very much appreciated.
We are grateful that the Congress, in Public Law 102-580, directed
that ``The Secretary shall proceed expeditiously with design, land
acquisition and construction of the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam on
the White River, Arkansas, authorized as part of the McClellan-Kerr
Waterway by section 1 of the River and Harbor Act of July 24, 1946 (60
State. 635-636).''
We respectfully request that Congress appropriate $44 million in
the fiscal year 1999 budget cycle to continue construction of the
authorized project. This is the amount the contractor has indicated
they can effectively use during fiscal year 1999. This will help insure
that the project is completed and in operation as soon as possible at
the lowest possible cost.
Mr. Chairman, members of this distinguished Committee, we
respectfully remind each of you this navigation system has brought low-
cost water transportation to Oklahoma, Arkansas and surrounding states.
There has been in excess of $5 billion invested in the construction and
development of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System by
the Federal Government and the public and private sectors. There have
been more than 50,000 jobs created as a result of this partnered
investment.
We also request your support of the Planning Assistance to States
Program (Section 22 of the 1974 Water Resources Development Act) which
authorizes the Corps of Engineers to use its technical expertise in
water and related land resource management to help States and Indian
Tribes solve their water resource problems. The program is used by many
states to support their State Water Plans. As natural resources
diminish, the need to manage those resources becomes more urgent. We
urge your continued support of this program as it supports States and
Native American Tribes in developing resource management plans which
will benefit citizens for years to come. The program is very valuable
and effective, matching Federal and non-Federal funds to provide cost-
effective engineering expertise and support to assist communities,
states and tribes in the development of plans for the management,
optimization and preservation of basin watershed, and ecosystem
resources. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 increased the
annual program limit from $6 million to $10 million, however, the
fiscal year 1998 appropriation was limited to $3 million. The committee
requests the annual appropriation for this valuable program be
increased to the full $10 million.
We are particularly pleased that the President's budget includes
funds to advance work for flood control in Oklahoma. Of special
interest to our committee is funding for the Skiatook Lake, Dam Safety
Assurance Project, and the Mingo Creek, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Fry
Creeks, Bixby, Oklahoma, projects. We also support funding for the
Tenkiller Lake Dam Safety Assurance project which will insure that
Tenkiller Dam will be able to continue to operate under maximum
upstream rainfall conditions and will be able to continue to provide
the important water resource benefits to the region. We are grateful
the Administration's budget request has included funds for this
project. however, an appropriation of $5 million will be needed to
allow the initiation of this important effort. We are also pleased that
the President's budget includes funding for the Cimarron River Basin
Reconnaissance study and we support funding to study watershed
development needs in the Illinois River basin.
Studies conducted by the Tulsa District in the 1970's identified
the potential for flood damage reduction measures in the Cimarron River
Basin. Several potential multiple purpose reservoirs were considered
for development in response to needs for flood control, water supply,
fish and wildlife, and recreation. Development and operation of these
projects in conjunction with the existing system of reservoirs in the
Arkansas River Basin would provide for flood damage reduction along the
Cimarron River downstream, as well as along the Arkansas River from
Keystone Dam, near Tulsa, to Fort Smith, Arkansas. These projects would
also offer the potential for development of hydropower and navigation
benefits along the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.
Additional water resource development, including restoration of habitat
lost as a result of Federal construction and rehabilitation of
federally constructed watershed projects require further evaluation
within the basin. Considerable local interest has developed in these
projects, particularly the potential of Crescent Lake which would be
located about 15 miles north of Oklahoma City. The Tulsa District has
received letters of support for initiation of reconnaissance studies
from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board and the mayors of Guthrie,
Crescent, and Oklahoma City.
The Illinois River watershed is experiencing continued water
resource development needs and is the focus of ongoing Corps and other
agency investigations. There is a significant need to establish minimum
streamflow levels downstream of the Lake Tenkiller Dam and there are
increasing watershed influences upstream of Lake Tenkiller which impact
on the quality of water available for fish and wildlife, municipal and
industrial water supply users, and recreation users of the Lake
Tenkiller and Illinois River waters. The committee requests funding to
initiate reconnaissance studies for the Illinois River Watershed in
fiscal year 1999.
We also support the ongoing effort to evaluate water resource
problems in the Grand-Neosho River basin in Kansas and Oklahoma. We
support the continued funding of studies to evaluate solutions to
upstream flooding problems associated with the adequacy of existing
real estate easements necessary for flood control operations of Grand
Lake, Oklahoma. A study, authorized by the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996, is scheduled to be completed in March of 1998 and will
evaluate whether the Corps of Engineers has adequate flood control
easements in the upper reaches of Grand Lake. If that evaluation
indicates inadequate real estate interest is held for flood control
operations, additional study will be required to determine the most
cost-effective solution to the real estate inadequacies. Changes in the
operations of the project or other upstream changes could have a
significant impact on flood control, hydropower, and navigation
operations in the Grand (Neosho) River system and on the Arkansas River
basin system, as well. We urge you to fund follow-on studies for this
important project in fiscal year 1999.
We also support funding for the Continuing Authorities Program,
including the Small Flood Control Projects Program (Section 205 of the
1948 Flood Control Act, as amended) and the Emergency Streambank
Stabilization Program (Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as
Amended). We want to express our appreciation for your continued
support of those programs.
Although the Small Flood Control Projects Program addresses flood
problems which generally impact smaller communities and rural areas and
would appear to benefit only those communities, the impact of those
projects on economic development crosses county, regional and sometimes
state boundaries. The communities served by the program frequently do
not have the funds or engineering expertise necessary to provide
adequate flood damage reduction measures for their citizens. Continued
flooding can have a devastating impact on community development and
regional economic stability. The program is extremely beneficial and
has been recognized nation-wide as a vital part of community
development, so much so, in fact, that there is currently a backlog of
requests from communities who have requested assistance under this
program. Oklahoma communities that have requested assistance from the
Corps of Engineers under the Section 205 authority and are currently on
a waiting list include Bartlesville, Clinton, Dewey, Lawton, McAlester
and Sayre. Additionally, the Pawnee Indian Tribe has requested the
Corps' assistance with flooding problems. Kansas communities on the
waiting list include Iola, Liberal, and Medicine Lodge. We further
support continued efforts under this program which will ensure that
Lake Carl Blackwell near Stillwater, Oklahoma, is rehabilitated and
modified to provide effective downstream flood protection. We urge this
program be fully funded to the programmatic limit of $40 million.
Likewise, the Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program provides
quick response engineering design and construction to protect important
local utilities, roads and other public facilities in smaller urban and
rural settings from damage due to streambank erosion. The protection
afforded by this program helps insure that important roads, bridges,
utilities and other public structures remain safe and useful. By
providing small, affordable and relatively quickly constructed
projects, these two programs enhance the lives of many by providing
safe and stable living environments. There is also a backlog of
requests under this program. Counties in Oklahoma that have requested
assistance under the Section 14 authority and are on a waiting list
include: Blain, Caddo, Canadian, Choctaw, Cleveland, Garvin, Grady,
Payne and Woods. Other Oklahoma communities needing assistance include
Bartlesville and Shawnee. We urge this program be fully funded to the
programmatic limit of $15 million, as is reflected in the President's
budget.
We also request your continued support of and funding for the
Environmental Restoration Program (Section 1135 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986). The Environmental Restoration Program is a
relatively new program which offers the Corps of Engineers a unique
opportunity to work to restore valuable habitat, wetlands and other
important environmental features which previously could not be
considered. Local interest has been expressed for potential
environmental restoration projects located at Great Salt Plains
Reservoir, Lake Arcadia, Lake Eufaula, Lower Illinois River, Mountain
Fork River, Meadow Lake, North Canadian River and the Sequoyah National
Wildlife Refuge. This program is providing significant benefit to the
states of Kansas and Oklahoma. We urge this program be fully funded to
the programmatic limit of $25 million.
We also request your continued support of the Flood Plain
Management Services Program (Section 206 of the 1960 Flood Control Act)
which authorizes the Corps of Engineers to use its technical expertise
to provide guidance in flood plain management matters to all private,
local, state and Federal entities. The objective of the program is to
support comprehensive flood plain management planning. The program is
one of the most beneficial programs available for reducing flood losses
and provides assistance to officials from cities, counties, states and
Indian Tribes to ensure that new facilities are not built in areas
prone to floods. Assistance includes flood warning, flood proofing and
other flood damage reduction measures. Critical flood plain information
is provided on a cost reimbursable basis to home owners, mortgage
companies, realtors and others for use in flood plain awareness and
flood insurance requirements.
On a related matter, we would share with you that we are greatly
concerned that the Administration has not requested sufficient funds to
meet the increasing infrastructure needs of our nation. The
Administration's request for $3.2 billion for the Civil Works budget is
down $839 million (21 percent) from the fiscal year 1998 appropriation.
Most troubling was the proposed cut in general construction funds, from
$1.47 billion to $784 million (47 percent).
At the Administration's proposed level of spending, the Corps of
Engineers cannot efficiently complete ongoing flood control and
navigation construction projects throughout the nation because there
will be enormous shortfalls in funding. This will reduce the economic
benefits to be generated from construction projects with significant
economic impact such as rehabilitating antiquated locks and dams on our
inland waterways and deepening ports and harbors.
We urge you to work with the Leadership to ensure that sufficient
resources are included in the fiscal year 1999 Budget Resolution to
allocate funds for the Corps of Engineers at a level more in line with
the real water resources development needs of the nation.
Also concerning another related matter, we have deep concerns about
the attempt to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act without
significant beneficial reforms. If the bill is passed through as it has
been reported out of the Senate Committee, it will be devastating to
industry and the country as a whole. We urge you to take a hard look at
S. 1180 and do the right thing in amending this bill to include
reasonable reforms.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to present our views
on these subjects.
______
SOUTHEAST U.S. WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of the City of Miami Beach, FL
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee: The City of Miami
Beach would first like to thank the members of the subcommittee for all
their efforts in the past to provide support for the State of Florida's
beaches and in particular, those of Miami Beach. Now, as you begin the
difficult process of crafting the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water
Appropriations Bill, the city would like to bring to your attention an
ongoing erosion problem for which a solution is desperately needed.
Beaches are Florida's number one tourist ``attraction.'' Last year,
beach tourism generated more than $16 billion dollars for Florida's
economy and more tourists visited Miami Beach than visited the three
largest national parks combined.
In addition to their vital economic importance, beaches are the
front line defense for multi-billion dollar coastal infrastructure
during hurricanes and storms. When beaches are allowed to erode away,
the likelihood that the Federal government will be stuck with
astronomical storm recovery costs is significantly increased. The Army
Corps of Engineers estimated that more than 70 percent of the damage
caused to upland properties in Panama City Beach by Hurricane Opal
could have been prevented if their pending beach renourishment project
had been completed before the storm.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection estimates that
at least 276 miles (35 percent) of Florida's 787 miles of sandy beaches
are currently at a critical state of erosion. This includes the entire
six miles of Miami Beach. As a result of the continuing erosion process
and more dramatically, recent intense storms which have caused
tremendous damage to almost all of the dry beach and sand dune
throughout the middle segment of Miami Beach. Two years ago, most of
the Middle Beach dune cross-overs were declared safety hazards and
closed, as the footings of the boardwalk itself were in immediate
jeopardy of being undercut by the encroaching tides. If emergency
measures, costing approximately $400,000 had not been taken by the
City, there would have been considerable risk of coastal flooding west
of the dune line in residential sections of Miami Beach. As you can
see, this example points to the commitment we as a beach community have
to our beaches, but Federal assistance remains crucial. While we are
thankful of the substantial commitment made by the subcommittee in the
fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Conference Report, there is still
much work to be done. Our beaches must be maintained not only to ensure
that our residents and coastal properties are afforded the best storm
protection possible, but also to ensure that beach tourism, our number
one industry, is protected and nurtured.
In 1987, the Army Corps of Engineers and Metropolitan Dade County
entered into a fifty year agreement to jointly manage restore and
maintain Dade County's sandy beaches. Since then, Metropolitan Dade
County has been responsible for coordinating and funding the local
share of the cost for the periodic renourishment of our beaches.
In order to ensure that adequate funding will continue to be
available, the City of Miami Beach supports and endorses the
legislative priorities and appropriation requests of Metropolitan Dade
County, as they relate to the restoration and maintenance of Dade
County's sandy beaches. Specifically, the City respectfully adds their
strong support for the efforts of Miami-Dade County and wholeheartedly
supports their fiscal year 1999 request for beach renourishment funds.
______
Prepared Statement of Volusia County, FL
On behalf of our citizens and fishermen, Volusia County, Florida,
is requesting that the Subcommittee appropriate $4,034,000 from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Operations and Maintenance account
to fund an 800-foot landward extension of the North Jetty of the Ponce
DeLeon Inlet. This funding is essential to protect the existing North
Jetty and the Inlet. A more detailed case history and description of
the situation follows below.
The Ponce DeLeon Inlet is located on the east coast of Florida,
about 10 miles south of the City of Daytona Beach in Volusia County.
The Inlet is a natural harbor connecting the Atlantic Ocean with the
Halifax River and the Indian River North. The Ponce DeLeon Inlet
provides the sole ocean access to all of Volusia County. Fishing
parties and shrimp and commercial fisherman bound for New Smyrna Beach
or Daytona Beach use the Inlet, as well as others entering for
anchorage. Nearby fisheries enhanced by the County's artificial reef
program attract both commercial and sport fisherman. Head boat
operators also provide trips to view marine life and space shuttle
launches from Cape Canaveral. In addition, there is a U.S. Coast Guard
Lifeboat Station on the east shore of the Indian River less than a mile
south of the Inlet.
Unfortunately, the Inlet is highly unstable and, despite numerous
navigation projects, continues to threaten safe passage for the charter
boat operators and commercial fisherman who rely on the access it
provides for their livelihood. Recreational boaters and Coast Guard
operations are also at risk passing through this unstable inlet. The
shoaling of the channels in the Inlet so restricts dependable
navigation that the Coast Guard no longer marks the north channel in
order to discourage its use. The Coast Guard continues to move the
south and entrance channel markers and provides warnings that local
knowledge and extreme caution must be used in navigating the inlet.
More seriously, the Coast Guard search and rescue data for fiscal years
1981-1995 show that 20 deaths have resulted from vessels capsizing in
the Inlet, the direct result of the Inlet's instability, 147 vessels
capsized and 496 vessels ran aground in the Inlet during the same
period.
The Federal interest in navigation through the Ponce DeLeon Inlet
dates back to 1884 and continues to the present. The existing
navigation project was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1965. The construction authorized by that Act, including ocean jetties
on the north and south sides of the Inlet, was completed in July 1972.
It became evident soon after completion of the authorized project that
the project did not bring stability to the Inlet. A strong northeaster
in February 1973 created a breach between the western end of the North
Jetty and the sand spit the Jetty was connected to inside the Inlet.
The breach allowed schoaling to occur that was serious enough to close
boat yards and require almost $2 million worth of repairs, including
extending the western end of the North Jetty.
Under the existing maintenance agreement entered into upon
completion of the construction, the COE periodically performs
maintenance on the Inlet. Maintenance projects have included several
dredging efforts, adding stone sections to the south side of the north
jetty, extending the westward end of the North Jetty for the second
time, and closing the North Jetty weir. The COE's last maintenance was
dredging, completed on the entrance channel in January, 1990. In fiscal
year 1998, the COE received a $3,500,000 appropriation for emergency
maintenance on the North Jetty. Migration of the entrance channel
undermined the North Jetty, seriously threatening its structural
integrity. The fiscal year 1998 funds will be used to construct a
granite rock scour apron for the 500 to 600 feet of where the Jetty is
undermined.
Current conditions in the Inlet require that the North Jetty
undergo additional maintenance work as soon as possible. This
maintenance project, as described below, is estimated to cost
$4,034,000 to be funded from Operations and Maintenance.
The COE in the Jacksonville District Office had originally
determined that the North Jetty must be extended 800 feet landward and
it must be completed by 2002. However, recent examination has concluded
that the work must be completed as soon as possible. If the 800-foot
landward extension is not completed as soon as possible, the COE
estimates that the erosion it is designed to prevent will cause
outflanking of the North Jetty. Continued outflanking of the west end
of the North Jetty could create a new inlet for the Halifax and Indian
Rivers resulting in major changes to the Ponce DeLeon Inlet. The
resultant shoaling of both the north and south channels, as well as
changes to the entrance channel, would make passage through the inlet
extremely dangerous and unpredictable.
The Ponce DeLeon Inlet presents a serious engineering challenge;
the success of which is measured in terms of human life and vessel
damage. The existing project has failed to stabilize the Inlet.
Extending the North Jetty is the first step toward correcting the
failure and meeting the challenge. Funding the 800-foot landward
extension of the North Jetty in fiscal year 1999 is critical to the
safe passage of the commercial and recreational boaters in Volusia
County. In addition, providing these funds at this time is likely to
prevent the need to a much more substantial maintenance project in the
near future.
For purposes of providing a clear picture of the extent of the
problem in the Inlet, it is important to note that the COE is
completing a feasibility study regarding the restabilization of the
Ponce DeLeon Inlet. The COE is likely to seek a contingent
authorization of a new project in the Inlet in the next Water Resources
Development Act. The new project is designed to extend the South Jetty
oceanward 1,000 feet. The COE anticipates that the construction of the
jetty extensions will help stabilize the Inlet and reduce future
maintenance costs.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of Ralph O. Clemens, Jr., President, Coosa-Alabama
River Improvement Association
summary
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Committee members: his statement
includes the following:
(A) A plea to exercise caution and due deliberation before reducing
funds for our Nation's transportation infrastructure;
(B) A request for support in the following areas:
--O&M funding in the Corps of Engineers' budget for the Coosa-Alabama
River Basins as well as Mobile Harbor;
--Funding for an investigation of alternatives to improve the
reliability of the navigation channel below Claiborne Dam on
the Alabama River;
--Reopening the Coosa River Navigation Project;
--Resisting increases in fuel tax on the Inland River navigation
industry;
--Amending the Endangered Species Act of 1973 with reasonable and
effective measures to protect our citizens as well as the
environment;
--Supporting the Sturgeon Conservation Plan in the Mobile River Basin
as developed by the Alabama-Tombigbee River Coalition and the
Fish and Wildlife Service.
expanded statement
The Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association represents a large
and diverse group of private citizens and political and industrial
organizations spread from Rome, Georgia to Mobile, Alabama. Our
objective is to develop the Coosa-Alabama Waterway as an economic
benefit for our region as well as the Nation. Our members consist of
shippers, towboat operators, businessmen, bankers, and a variety of
other private individuals who have an interest in the development of
our region. Some are elected officials and their constituents from the
twenty-three municipalities and nineteen counties along our waterway.
These members work diligently to develop our waterway into a productive
part of the river infrastructure of our State and Nation.
We are alarmed by the Administration proposal to slash the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works funding for fiscal year 1999 by 20
percent, literally undermining the waterway transportation
infrastructure of this Nation. America's navigable waterways, ports,
flood protection, water supply, environmental restoration,
hydroelectric, and other water resources programs are indispensable to
our economic development, national security, and general well-being.
These programs return far more in public benefits than they cost. A
top-notch navigation system serves both domestic and international
commerce and is a driving force behind the national economy, accounting
for more than two billion tons of the nation's internal and foreign
commerce every year. In Alabama alone, over 60,000 jobs depend on
industries that use the inland waterways. We cannot allow this valuable
infrastructure to deteriorate. We must maintain and improve the
waterways so our economy can continue to grow.
On the Coosa-Alabama system, the Corps of Engineers manages many
projects that support navigation, hydropower, and recreational
activities so critical to our region's economy. The first priority is
to maintain those projects by providing sufficient funding in
accordance with the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Association's
Project budget budget request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama-Coosa River, AL (Includes
Claiborne L&D)......................... $4,900,000 \1\ $4,900,000
Miller's Ferry L&D...................... 5,835,000 5,835,000
Robert F. Henry L&D..................... 3,858,000 3,858,000
Lake Allatoona, GA...................... 4,900,000 4,900,000
Carters Lake, GA........................ 4,600,000 4,600,000
Lower Alabama River Study............... .............. \2\ 500,000
-------------------------------
Total Coosa-Alabama............... 22,300,000 22,800,000
Mobile Harbor........................... 21,000,000 21,000,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 43,300,000 43,800,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes dredging from the mouth of the Alabama River through
Claiborne L&D to Miller's Ferry. Coosa River not included.
\2\ First year funding of a three-year $1.4 million feasibility study.
We must revitalize the economically depressed Alabama River Basin.
Even in today's relatively good economic climate, the counties on the
River between Montgomery and the mouth 40 miles above Mobile are
experiencing unemployment between 8 and 12 percent. We must create
jobs. One of the ways is to make the Alabama River more attractive to
prospective industries by increasing the navigation reliability below
Claiborne Dam. It can be done. A Corps study of May 1997 cited a
benefits-to-cost ratio of over 2 to 1 if the training works below
Claiborne are improved. Another Corps study, a draft Navigation report
in support of the Comprehensive Basin Management Study, stated that one
of the reasons river-related industries are not locating in the Alabama
River Basin is the perception the river is unreliable, i.e., the
authorized depth of nine feet is available on the average only 65-70
percent of the year. Failure to make every effort to create an
environment in which river-related industries would want to bring in
new jobs to this area is unconscionable. Therefore, we ask Congress to
approve $500,000 for the first year of a feasibility study to improve
the navigation reliability on the Lower Alabama River.
A major objective of our Association is the completion of a
navigable waterway from Mobile to Rome, Georgia. The history of the
Coosa River Project is well known to this committee, but the proposal
is well in line with investment in infrastructure and the creation of
jobs and economic opportunity throughout our region. The Pre-design
Engineering Surveys are complete, so one of the most time-consuming
requirements of the project is already on the shelf. We are well aware
of the restrictive funding for such an undertaking, but ask the
Committee to recognize that completion of such a project is one of the
largest and most rapid generators of jobs currently available. We owe
it to the people of the Coosa-Alabama River Basin, the states of
Alabama and Georgia, and the entire region to maintain the vision of
completing the waterway.
Another mechanism to make the river system attractive to potential
users is to keep the cost of shipping via waterways down. The
President's Budget for fiscal year 1999 does not currently include a
proposal to increase fuel tax, but we are well aware some in the
Administration think such a tax is a good idea. We have in the past
listed some of the negative aspects of such a proposal, so suffice it
to say here that an increase in user fuel tax will have detrimental
effects in the short run on consumer prices and the trade balance, and
in the long run on the federal-private partnership and maintenance of
the waterways system. As one of the most efficient modes of
transportation this country possesses, the waterways system needs more
incentive for investment, not obstacles and disincentives.
One of the national issues that affect the inland waterways system
is environmental regulation. We cannot support the current proposal to
revise the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Senate Bill 1180, sponsored by
Sen Kempthorne. The bill has very little to offer business, industry,
and private landowners. Two provisions in particular are of great
concern: protection of ESA given to candidate species and the
elimination of a requirement to designate a critical habitat
concurrently with the listing process. Both have the potential of
shutting down navigable waterways without due regard to the economic
impact such decisions would bring. These and several other provisions
in S. 1180, e.g., the peer review process and unfunded mandates to
federal agencies, will not serve business and private property owners.
We strongly urge the Committee members to oppose S. 1180 until a full
hearing on all of the issues associated with this proposal are heard
and substantive changes are made to address the concerns of business
and private property owners.
We ask the Committee to continue funding the Sturgeon Conservation
Plan in the Department of Interior budget as the best and most
expeditious way to save sturgeon in the Mobile River Basin. The Plan,
as developed by the Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, is an excellent example of the compromise
and cooperation required in the economic-environment debate.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to present our views and to
thank you for your strong support of the Nation's waterways.
______
Prepared Statement of R. Max Peterson, Executive Vice President,
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies was
founded in 1902 as a quasi-governmental organization of public agencies
charged with the protection and management of North America's fish and
wildlife resources. The Association's governmental members include the
fish and wildlife agencies of the states, provinces, and Federal
government of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. All 50 states are members.
The Association has been a key organization in promoting sound resource
management and strengthening Federal, state, and private cooperation in
protecting and managing fish and wildlife and their habitats in the
public interest.
bureau of reclamation (bor)
Over its 96-year history, the BOR has played a vital role in
harnessing and managing water resources for a young and growing Western
United States. The fulfillment of those high national priorities has
not always been accomplished with a long-term vision for the health of
fish and wildlife resources within BOR project design, construction and
operational practices. Thus, the development of high priority public
services has sometimes proven highly detrimental to other public
values, including certain fish and wildlife resources. The agency's
publicly stated policy is to sustain the health and integrity of
ecosystems and protect the environment as it goes about the important
work of providing dependable sources of water. The agency has embarked
upon a refreshing new mission that better balances these sometimes
competing uses of limited natural resources. It is, therefore,
eminently satisfying to the Association to witness and strongly support
BOR's efforts to refocus considerable financial resources on
ameliorating historical water development-related damages to fish and
wildlife and their habitats.
California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration.--The BOR seeks $143.3
million to continue this work. This program, which responds to
Congressional direction through the California Bay-Delta Environmental
Enhancement and Water Security Act, provides vital Federal cost-sharing
dollars for ecosystem restoration in California's Bay-Delta. This
effort is based on collaborative efforts among several Federal agencies
and the State of California. Restorative efforts such as fish
screening, flood plain habitat restoration, instream flow provisions
and watershed management, typify the work being accomplished. The
Association fully supports BOR's request for $143.3 million for this
work for fiscal year 1999.
Central Valley Project.--Created by Congress in the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act, the CVP Restoration Fund is expected to
collect just over $49 million from rate payers for fish and wildlife
management and development work in the Central Valley Project area of
California. The BOR is seeking a Congressional appropriation of $49.4
million from the Fund to undertake important anadromous fisheries
habitat work, water acquisition, fish screening and other works that
are necessary to continue efforts to restore the fish and wildlife-
related damages created by this Federal project. The Association
encourages the Congress to fully fund this work at the requested level
of $49.4 million.
Endangered Species Recovery Implementation.--The BOR is requesting
a total of $15 million for endangered species recovery work spread
among four BOR Regions. This is six percent above the 1998
appropriation. This represents a modest increase, particularly when
viewed in the context of the geographical areas affected by prior BOR
activities and the complex of imperiled fish, wildlife and essential
habitats that need attention as a consequence of these earlier actions.
A significant proportion of the BOR's request for work in the Upper
Colorado Region and Lower Colorado River Region is directed at
endangered species recovery. As just one example of the important
projects planned for fiscal year 1999, in this instance in the Upper
Colorado, is the work on the Platte River. This multi-agency
cooperative program is essential to restore endangered and threatened
species and the requested $2.5 million would allow implementation
activities such as water conservation and critical habitat restoration.
The request for $15 million for endangered species recovery projects
proposed by the BOR for fiscal year 1999, is deemed essential by the
Association and is strongly supported.
Pacific Northwest.--As reported by the BOR, ``perhaps the region's
largest and most visible challenge is the restoration of the anadromous
fishery.'' The Association concurs with this assessment. The fish and
wildlife related request of $16.6 million, including $13.1 million for
Pacific salmon recovery, is supported by the Association.
Water Reclamation and Reuse.--As the population of the West
continues to grow at remarkable rates, competition will continue to
intensify among the many important uses of water. Renewable natural
resources, including fish and wildlife, are directly dependent upon the
availability of water. To meet citizens' demands for water and water-
related public services, including healthy natural resources, will
require intelligent use, conservation and reuse of the limited water
supplies. The Association is pleased to support efforts designed to
conserve and reuse water and supports the BOR's fiscal year 1999
request for $37 million for these purposes.
Wetlands Development.--An important component of habitat
restoration within BOR's management area, as elsewhere, is associated
with wetland habitat. The Association is pleased to note, and to
support, the increase requested by the BOR of $7.3 million for wetlands
conservation work.
tennessee valley authority (tva)
TVA requests $76.8 million in appropriations for its nonpower
programs for fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 1999 proposal includes
$70 million for continuing programs, the same amount as the
appropriation for fiscal year 1998, plus $6.8 million for
preconstruction activities on a project to replace the lock at
Chickamauga Dam in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Association strongly
supports this request.
TVA has established itself as a global leader in tailwater
restoration and technology and has established the national standard
for such activity. The Association commends TVA for these efforts.
The Association recommends that TVA actively support and
participate in the States' Clean Stream Initiative with the Office of
Surface Mining (OSM) to complete projects in the TVA service area.
These state-Federal-private cooperative projects are engaged in
restoring fish, aquatic life, recreational and economic opportunity in
watersheds damaged by acid mine drainage from past coal mining
activities.
The Association recognizes the importance of boating, fishing,
camping, hunting, wildlife observation, and other conservation-oriented
activities at Land Between the Lakes (LBL) and supports funding of $6.9
million for these activities, the same amount as fiscal year 1998. Four
million dollars in proceeds is expected from user and other sources for
a total of $10.9 million.
We are encouraged that TVA has undertaken a serious review of
public lands along TVA reservoirs and rivers to insure these properties
are not utilized in such a manner as to exclude reasonable public use.
Further, we support current and future planning efforts that insure
conservation and protection of riparian habitat.
The Association notes that discussions continue regarding TVA
programs. TVA has utilized appropriated dollars to improve the
environmental quality of life in the Tennessee Valley. We urge careful
study of the impacts of funding reductions should they be proposed in
upcoming years.
u.s. army corps of engineers
The fiscal year 1999 budget proposal for Civil Works Appropriations
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is $3.4 billion, of which $3.2
billion is requested in appropriated funds and $0.2 billion would be
financed through non-Federal funds and trust fund receipts up from
$3.78 billion in fiscal year 1998. The budget proposal reflects
continued commitment to proper management of our natural resources,
through dedication of $671 million to environmental programs (a $79
million increase over fiscal year 1999) and through $454 million in
contributions to intergovernmental environmental programs. This
represents a significant increase from the $520 million funding level
of 1998. The Association applauds the fact that many of our
recommendations for recent fiscal years have been incorporated by the
Corps in their succeeding year's budget request.
The Association is excited by the potential for significant
environmental accomplishments in restoration, conservation, and
sustainable management of water, fish, and wildlife resources through
the Administration's new Clean Water Initiative. The Association
remains intrigued with the proposal and eagerly awaits further details
concerning implementation of such a broad scale, multi-agency approach;
early reviews of the Action Plan appear encouraging. The Association is
especially pleased with Federal plans to partner with local, state and
tribal agencies and with the watershed management emphasis. The States
are interested in forging a true partnership through sharing ideas,
plans, design, implementation structure and enforcement in establishing
a unified, cooperative approach to improving water quality.
As an example of an earlier recommendation, we had encouraged the
Corps to expedite design and grant administration associated with
Section 1135 projects as provided for within the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986. We are pleased the Corps has taken steps to
expedite the approval process for those projects through delegation to
Division Commanders. We note the fiscal year 1999 budget contains a
request for $5.3 million is far less than the $21.175 million
appropriated in fiscal year 1998. We question whether this decrease, as
well as decreases throughout the budget, especially in the construction
account, provide adequate funding to meet the Corps environmental and
other responsibilities while retargeting that funding to other new
programs. As of December 31, 1997, 19 projects were completed, 31 were
under construction, planning or design and 47 were in the study phase.
The Association has previously expressed a concern that some projects
remain in the feasibility phase too long. We believe the Corps provided
a sincere attempt to address this problem in 1997. However, only 16.5
percent of these projects have reached completion, and the Association
fears the rate of project completions seen in previous years will slow
or stop due to budgetary constraints posed by the fiscal year 1999
request. The Association questions the overall effectiveness of the
Section 1135 projects if funding is restricted to the fiscal year 1999
level of $5.3 million.
The Association encourages the Corps to cooperate, coordinate, and
develop civil works and restoration activities with State fish and
wildlife agencies. The State fish and wildlife agencies are generally
aware of where Corps projects could most effectively enhance the status
of fish and wildlife resources through improvements to habitat. An
example of this partnership is the successful Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration program authorized by the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (proposed funding level: $2 million) which is supported by the
Association.
Our Association particularly appreciates the leadership of Congress
in providing funding for mitigation projects. We are especially pleased
that the Corps is requesting, and the Association supports, $127
million for Columbia River Fish Mitigation in Washington, $3.4 million
to complete mitigation of losses associated with the Tennessee-
Tombigbee Waterway in Alabama, $3.9 million for Missouri River fish and
wildlife mitigation in Iowa, and $363,000 to mitigate fish and wildlife
issues in the Yazoo Basin in Mississippi. The Association also strongly
encourages Congress to appropriate necessary funding within the Corps
budget to facilitate the mitigation feature of the West Tennessee
Tributaries Project, which is needed to satisfy legal constraints to
enable initiation of river restoration work within this significant
watershed. We recommend that the Congress explore the need for generic
legislative direction to the Corps to ensure that the older projects
include the authority for fish, wildlife, water quality, and sustained
minimum flow mitigation and enhancement, and if legislation is
necessary, to act on that need. Further, the Association recommends
that mitigation funding for ongoing projects be listed as a separate
line item within the Civil Works Appropriations. This action would
separate the funds from routine operations and maintenance and better
facilitate the separate states' ability to identify the funds and seek
support for the projects.
The Association is also generally supportive of the funding
requested for some of the large river restoration projects. The
Association supports the fiscal year 1999 request of $27.3 million for
restoration of meanders and wildlife habitat on the Kissimee River and
$75 million to restore water flows through the Everglades and other
areas in Florida. It is in the best interest of the country to restore
the habitat and hydrologic components of these rivers that have been
significantly altered under previous Corps projects.
With regard to the Corps' regulatory authority under the Clean
Water Act of 1972, we strongly support the request of $117 million for
implementation of a streamlined program to process, review, issue
permits and provide an appeals procedure for the permitting of
activities in waters of the United States, including wetlands
associated permits and jurisdictional determination. Furthermore, the
Association believes a strong partnership program with state agencies
affords the best opportunity for balanced conservation of aquatic
resources.
We support activities designed to enhance our environment. The use
of dredge material to restore habitat in the Chesapeake Bay in an
excellent example. We support continued funding for this project.
The Corps' request of $20 million to develop aquatic plant and
animal (zebra mussel) control methods and strategies, evaluate
ecological factors affecting control, and coordinate technology
transfer is strongly supported. The Corps is the only Federal Agency
directed to conduct research and development for the control of zebra
mussels and their effects on public facilities. These mussels are
having significant adverse effects on native shellfish and natural
habitats.
The Association recommends that the Corps continue in partnership
with State fish and wildlife agencies to initiate applicable
restoration, mitigation and conservation projects. For example, we
request the Corps continue to participate with State agencies and non-
Federal interests in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
through wetlands conservation, wetlands identification, and wetlands
acquisition. Additionally, we support ongoing coordination of
activities conducted under the Coastal America initiatives.
The Association recommends that the Corps continue to work closely
with and attempt improvement of the relationships between the Corps and
the State fish and wildlife agencies as well as the state water
resources agencies to identify priority restoration, mitigation and
remediation projects needing the Corps' attention. In particular, we
encourage the Corps to participate in funding projects to meet the
objectives of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Further, we
recommend that the Corps become a partner in the Appalachian Clean
Stream Initiative to restore streams damaged by acid mine drainage.
federal energy regulatory commission (ferc)
The Association recommends Congressional appropriation of $5
million to allow FERC to reimburse state fish and wildlife agencies for
studies and reviews associated with hydropower relicensing activities.
Section 1701 of the Federal Power Act was amended in 1992 specifically
to authorize reimbursement to states for this work. FERC has never
sought appropriated funds for this purpose. If appropriated funds
cannot be provided, FERC should be instructed to require reimbursement
for this work by the licensee. Otherwise, projects will be proposed for
relicensing without adequate studies of appropriate fish and wildlife
licensing requirements. This invites conflict and possibly more
stringent requirements, including water releases, than would be needed
if more adequate studies were made.
______
Prepared Statement of Jan Jones, Executive Director, Tennessee River
Valley Association
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me
the opportunity to present testimony for your consideration. I am Jan
Jones, Executive Director of the Tennessee River Valley Association
(TRVA), a regional, non-profit, non-partisan, economic development
association serving the seven states which comprise the Tennessee
Valley. I respectfully submit this testimony on behalf of the
approximate 350 broad-based membership of TRVA. In addition, some of
our members have written personal letters to this distinguished
Committee and copies are attached to this statement.
TRVA members appreciate the wisdom historically of this Committee
in funding projects that have served to improve the Nation's economy,
sustain and improve our Nation's waterway infrastructure and enhance
the quality of life for its people. As taxpayers, we appreciate the
problems of dwindling budgets, limited resources and the need to make
every dollar count. For that reason, TRVA members have asked me to
submit this statement to express our concerns and visions regarding two
critical issues under consideration by this Committee.
Historically, the Tennessee River Valley Association has been a
supporter, constructive critic, partner and friend of the Tennessee
Valley Authority. We recognize the tremendous economic impact that TVA
has made on the Valley, on navigation, business and industry,
recreation and power production. In the past we have recommended
various changes in direction for TVA. An agency such as TVA must be
responsive to the people it serves, and the TRVA has traditionally
brought the people's concerns to TVA. This has been a productive
partnership. Today we recognize that major change is inevitable for TVA
and this change could have significant impact on Valley citizens.
Therefore, TRVA respectfully submits the following positive ideas for
consideration by this Committee as it endeavors to formulate plans
regarding the future of TVA and its non-power program.
issue one: the future of tva and its non-power program
Since its creation by the Congress in 1933, TVA has championed the
wise use of the natural resources of the Tennessee Valley. It harnessed
a raging, non-navigable river with a series of locks and dams which
improved navigation, prevented devastating floods and offered hope of
employment to thousands of destitute people. Today, TVA's integrated
water control system of dams and reservoirs has transformed the
Tennessee River and its tributaries into a useful, unified river
system. Hydropower generation was made possible because of the series
of dams and lake impoundment areas.
Funds have been provided to TVA by Congress to operate and maintain
the Tennessee River system, provide for navigation, water and land
resource development, flood control, etc. Congressional funding is also
provided to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide similar
services for the other river systems throughout the Nation. The Corps
and TVA have worked in an excellent cooperative partnership on the
Tennessee River. The Corps provides the resources and personnel to
operate the locks. Through a joint effort, TVA provides the primary
funding for maintenance and repair of the locks, dredge work, mooring
cells, etc.
In recent months it has been suggested that TVA's non-power
programs should be transferred to the Corps. This idea immediately
raises the question, ``Where would the savings be for the taxpayer?''
The Corps would require additional monies in its operation budget to
assume the responsibilities currently under the auspices of TVA. In
fact, questions have been raised regarding the amount of money that
would be necessary should such a change be effected.
Therefore, the Tennessee River Valley Association supports
continued funding for TVA's non-power programs. But, I realize that the
long-term future is not promising. It is important, even critical, for
this region and the Nation that the current level of activity relative
to the Tennessee River be continued, and we are confident that this
distinguished Committee concurs. However, the real question we must all
struggle with is how will these programs continue to be funded.
In the event that TVA's non-power program is not funded by
Congressional appropriation, we earnestly encourage this Committee to
consider and address the following points:
--Which programs would continue to be funded and at what level?
--Who will decide which programs survive and how will this decision
be made?
--What other agency or organization should or could continue these
programs?
--If TVA is required to fund these programs from existing or power
funds, what oversight mechanism will be provided to ensure that
the level of activity of these programs are carried out in the
public interest?
--Is TEA's current structure adequate or prepared to handle such
dramatic program change?
--If TVA is required to fund these programs from existing or power
funds, and if in the future TVA were no longer a federal agency
or was privatized, what then would happen to the non-power
programs?
The potential withdrawal of Congressional funding for TVA's non-
power programs, coupled with the financial pressures of electric
utility restructuring, has raised serious questions about TVA's role as
the manager of the Tennessee River. As the recipient of Congressional
funding for these non-power activities, TVA historically was not forced
to choose between the competing interests of power rates and the public
interest programs associated with the Nation's fifth largest river
system, the Tennessee River. Federally appropriated funds to TVA
annually ensured a clear separation of ratepayer dollars and taxpayer
dollars. A lack of appropriated funds will require TVA ratepayers to
fund programs which are funded by federal dollars in other portions of
the Nation. Under the current TVA management structure, the ratepayers
would have no mechanism for input into decisions regarding the level of
activity for the current non-power programs. The interest of the power
program, with its inherent focus on ``rates'', coupled with new
pressures of power utility restructuring, will be pitted against the
interest of flood control, navigation, recreation, water quality,
public land stewardship, etc.
There is a need to isolate and make transparent revenues from the
public waters of the Tennessee River. The Tennessee River and its
watershed should and could be allowed to fund the essential programs of
the current non-power programs. The essential nature of an integrated
system at TVA need not be destroyed but the interest of the non-power
programs must be protected against the pressures of a much larger and
more costly power program. Therefore, I propose that the Congress move
forward with a bold, new approach to funding the non-power programs of
TVA.
I propose that Congress direct that TVA's hydropower generation
revenues be recommitted to address the original charter of TVA, to
provide for flood control, navigation, water and land resource
development/management, recreation, water quality, lake impoundment
management, etc. Hydropower revenues could finance all of the non-power
programs, as well as provide for capital outlay projects such as lock
improvement/replacement for the lock at Chickamauga Dam.
To assure that the hydropower revenues are allocated at a
sufficient level to maintain the integrity of the aforementioned
programs, I recommend that Congress establish an independent Board or
Council to formulate recommendations to TVA and the Congress on how the
revenues are to be allocated. This Board or Council would be similar in
nature to the Inland Waterways Users Board which serves in conjunction
with the Inland Waterways Users Trust Fund. Such a Board/Council would
balance the need for providing low-cost hydropower for economical rates
with the economic and public interest of other river related
activities. The Board/Council would also allow for the continued
integrated nature of TVA's power program but protect the public
interest from being eclipsed by the economic pressures of the power
program.
This proposal is timely. It would build on past successes and do so
at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer. This proposal is in concert with the
historical vision of multipurpose development of rivers * * * the idea
of wrapping a system of dams into one project to address navigation,
flood control, river basin management, recreation and economic
development. It is time to forge a stronger bond between hydropower
generation and resource development. In other words, let the river pay
for itself!
Mr. Chairman, Members of this Committee, the Tennessee Valley
Authority is very complicated in structure and programs, both power and
non-power. These programs have tremendous impact on the lives of
millions of people. I sincerely urge you to consider all ramifications
associated with any change in TVA's funding structure before making a
final decision. It is time to create a permanent fix for the funding of
TVA's non-power programs and at the same time provide true savings for
the taxpayer. We have a major opportunity today to make this innovative
move to assure that critical programs continue to provide the region
and the Nation with innovative ways to manage and conserve the
resources of a major river system.
issue two: kentucky lock addition--corps funding
We sincerely request that this Committee include additional monies
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 1999 in the amount
of $11.5M for the Kentucky Lock Addition Project. The Kentucky Lock
Feasibility report was completed in 1992. The project was authorized
for construction in WRDA 96. The funding provided for fiscal year 1998
of $4M will be used to continue WES model studies, lock DM, P&L
railroad relocation DM, update the project cost estimate and subsurface
exploration. TVA transmission tower relocations will be the
construction start this year. Actual construction of the project could
be complete as early as the year 2007, but funding constraints will
push this date further into the future and would also tend to increase
the overall costs associated with the project. Congressional guidance
and funding of $11.5M for fiscal year 1999 is necessary to continue
this much needed project.
Without a new lock in place, delays at the existing lock are
expected to average 8.5 hours per tow by the year 2010 resulting in an
increased transportation cost in excess of $24 million per year.
Average annual benefits attributed to the new lock are $55.1M with a
benefit/cost ratio of 2.5. With increased forecasted traffic levels,
the average annual benefits and benefit/cost ratio should increase. An
additional benefit of the construction project would be the addition of
approximately 500 construction jobs.
We earnestly encourage this Committee to support funding to the
Corps in the amount of $11.5M for the Kentucky Lock Addition Project
for fiscal year 1999.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I thank you for the
opportunity to present this testimony for your information and
consideration. I would welcome any questions or request for additional
information that you might have.
______
Letter From Donnie Hall
Hunter Marine Transport, Inc.,
Nashville, TN, March 2, 1998.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: This letter serves as endorsement of the
Tennessee River Valley Association. As an operator on inland rivers and
in the Tennessee River valley, we strongly believe the work conducted
by the Association is vitally important to our continued success. Not
only does the organization serve the needs of our company and other
waterways operators like us, but (in an indirect manner) it also serves
the economic interests of our entire region. Through its lobby for
continued improvement in safety and navigation issues, we can be
assured that the voice of the valley's commercial interest will be
heard.
As the 1999 budget and appropriations battles unfold in our nations
capitol, the efforts of the TRVA are needed now more than ever. Under
the ever-present threat of dam closures and decreased channel
maintenance, the Tennessee River Valley Association serves as the voice
of prudence and common sense. We at Hunter Marine Transport, Inc.
wholeheartedly endorse their efforts to maintain funding for the
Tennessee Valley Authority and Army Corps of Engineers projects, such
as Chickamauga and Kentucky Lock Projects.
Through the efforts of the TRVA, America's inland waterways remain
the safest and most productive in the world.
Respectfully,
Donnie Hall,
Director of Safety and Personnel.
______
Letter From K.A. Wheeler
Midland Enterprises, Inc.,
Cincinnati, OH, February 26, 1998.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, U. S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: I am writing with regard to congressional
support for two water development projects which are critical to the
Tennessee River:
First, support for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fiscal year
1999 funding of $11.5 million for the Kentucky Lock addition. This
project, which was authorized in fiscal year 1998, nevertheless is
completely absent from the Administrations fiscal year 1999 Budget
Request. Construction of the addition to Kentucky Lock is vital to
continued growth of commerce on the Tennessee River. My company, which
is a major operator of towboats and barges on the Tennessee River, has
seen a significant growth in business related to low cost river
transportation over the past several years. These industries will be
deprived of this national asset if the construction of Kentucky Lock
addition is delayed, since the long waiting times to transit this lock
offset the savings from shippers from low cost river transportation.
Secondly, the construction of a new Chickamauga Lock to replace the
present obsolete single barge lock which is now scheduled to close in
the year 2005, due to structural failure. If this navigation lock is
allowed to close, the entire upper reach of the Tennessee River above
Chattanooga, Tennessee will no longer have access to commercial water
transportation. Several large facilities which currently have major
industrial sites along the Tennessee River in this area will be forced
to close or shift to higher cost and less environmentally friendly
modes of transportation. This is the only major reach of river in the
entire inland waterway transportation system that is currently
threatened with complete extinction by virtue of a lock closure.
The United States currently enjoys a distinct economic advantage
over other countries by virtue of its magnificent inland waterway
transportation system which permits the movement of bulk material at
the lowest possible costs. Both of these projects are vital to
maintaining this competitive advantage that we now enjoy. I can assure
you that other countries with similar river systems are rapidly
offsetting this competitive advantage; unless we invest in the
infrastructure necessary to maintain our river system the best in the
world we will soon find ourselves unable to compete in world markets.
Thank you for your consideration in supporting both of these
projects.
Yours truly,
K.A. Wheeler,
Vice-President.
______
Letter From Tim C. Jones
Burkhart Enterprises, Inc.,
Knoxville, TN, March 2, 1998.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Domenici: I am writing to express our continued support
for funding of the Chickamauga Lock project and operation and
maintenance of the Tennessee River as part of TVA's non-power programs.
Also, I support the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers fiscal year 1999
funding and the additional funding for the Kentucky Lock Project. Any
change in the integrity of our Inland River System would drastically
effect our whole economy.
Sincerely,
Tim C. Jones,
General Manager.
______
Letter From Leamon B. Lane
R&W Marine, Inc.,
Paducah, KY, February 24, 1998.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: R&W Marine is a major carrier on the inland
river system and as a member of the Tennessee River Valley Association,
we are proud to participate in maintaining and developing the Tennessee
and Cumberland River systems for commercial navigation. We believe that
these two river systems are a vital link in transporting goods to
national and international markets via our inland waterway system.
We believe it is vital to continue TVA's river management system
and it must remain integrated. Transfer or privatization would have a
drastic negative impact. Also, the Corp's budget is being severely cut
and there are no other provisions for maintaining the Tennessee and
Cumberland rivers. We fully support the Corps of Engineer's Nashville
District funding request for fiscal year 1999 of $55.167 million plus
additional $11.5 million, for the Kentucky Lock project.
We also support the TVA's request of $76.8 million, which includes
$57.8 million for land and water management and $6.8 million for
Chickamauga Lock.
This region of our country greatly needs your representation and
support. We respectfully hope we can count on you.
Sincerely,
Leamon B. Lane,
Manager.
______
Letter From William H. Dyer
Tennessee Valley Towing, Inc.,
Paducah, KY, February 18, 1998.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: We wish to enlist your support of Tennessee River
Valley Association's objectives. They are as follows:
--Support TVA's budget request for sufficient funds to continue their
land and water management functions plus the $6.8 million for
Chickamauga Lock.
--Support the Corps of Engineers Nashville District fiscal year 1999
funding of $55.167M and the $11\1/2\ million to keep Kentucky
Lock construction on schedule.
The maintenance and upgrading of our river infrastructure is of
utmost importance to our Nation. It enables our producers to compete in
the world market due to cheap freight rates. In addition to enabling
cheap freight rates, waterborne traffic is much cleaner and safer, by
all comparisons, to alternative modes. Additionally, you must consider
all the other major benefits of waterways management and improvement;
hydropower, recreation, flood and erosion control, tourism, wildlife
habitat, water quality, wetlands management and drought management.
The Tennessee and Cumberland River Valley's are growing, dynamic
and a prime example of how investment in and maintenance of
infrastructure pays high dividends.
Sincerely,
William H. Dyer.
______
Letter From John B. Herbert, President, and Thomas C. Herbert, Sr.,
Vice President
SanGravl Co.,
New Johnsonville, TN, February 18, 1998.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Sir: We Support the Corps and TVA fiscal year 1999 budget
request.
We support funding requests for Kentucky Lock Project (Corps) and
Chickamauga Lock Project (TVA).
We support continuation of navigation, flood control, water and
land resource development on the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers at no
less than the current level no matter which agency has the
responsibility.
We support inland waterway navigation as an environmentally sound
and cost efficient transportation mode in our region, helping to reduce
freight rates and thus promoting trade and development.
We support the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers as a vital natural
resource (and, therefore, its maintenance) in our region as it pertains
to our industry, municipality or interest in any number of the
following ways: navigation, hydropower generation, recreation, flood
and erosion control, agricultural irrigation, recreation and tourism,
fish and wildlife habitat, drinking water, ground and surface water
management, water quality, water supply, wetlands, drought management,
reservoirs management.
We support sound economic development efforts to improve the
Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers as a vital transportation link for the
Tennessee and Cumberland River Valleys to export goods to other
national and international markets via our inland waterway system.
Sincerely
John B. (Jack) Herbert,
President.
Thomas C. Herbert, Sr.,
Vice President.
______
Letter From William H. Hess
Parkert Towing Company, Inc.,
Tuscaloosa, AL, February 16, 1998.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: Parker Towing Company is a major regional
barge transportation company operating towboats, barges, and port
facilities mainly on the rivers and waterways of the Southeast and Gulf
Coast. As a member of the Tennessee River Valley Association, we are
proud to be a part of a collective effort to maintain and develop the
Tennessee and Cumberland River Systems for commercial navigation. We
believe that these waterways are vital transportation links for the
Tennessee and Cumberland River Valleys for exporting goods to national
and international markets via our inland waterway system.
We believe it is vital to continue navigation, flood control, water
and land resource development on the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers at
no less than the current level--no matter which agency has the
responsibility. We fully support the Corps of Engineers' funding
request for fiscal year 1999 of $55.167M plus an additional $11.5 for
the Kentucky Lock Project. We also support the TVA's request of $76.8
million, which includes $57.6 million for Land and Water Management and
$6.8 Million for Chickamauga Lock. We hope that we can count on your
Sincerely yours,
William H. Hess,
Sales Manager.
______
Letter From Charles J. Sanders, III
Ingram Materials Company,
Nashville, TN, February 26, 1998.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Sir: I am asking for your support in favor of TVA's fiscal
year 1999 budget request of $76.8 million, which includes $57.6 million
for land and water management and $6.8 million for Chickamauga Lock on
the upper Tennessee River. I further ask that you support an additional
$11.5 million for Kentucky Lock on the lower Tennessee River in the
fiscal year 1999 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers budget.
While there are numerous issues surrounding continued funding for
TVA, the fact is that both TVA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
work together to manage the critical infrastructure necessary to
support river transportation in my area, the south central region of
the United States.
As an alternative mode of transportation, barging on the river
provides the consumer with the most cost effective and energy efficient
means for moving millions of tons of bulk freight both within the
eastern half of the country and for export.
There is no doubt that dollars invested now in infrastructure
maintenance and expansion create jobs, economic growth, and will
continue to support the balanced budget goals and objectives.
Sincerely,
Charles J. Sanders, III,
President.
______
Letter From Jaycee Rawlings
Humphreys County, TN,
February 26, 1998.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Mr. Domenici: As County Executive of Humphreys County, Tennessee I
strongly support Tennessee River Valley Association's funding request
for TVA and the Corps for fiscal year 1999. Our County lies in the
center of the TVA region. The fiscal year 1999 funding of $55.16M for
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Nashville District and the
$11.5M for the Kentucky Lock would continue to be a great benefit to
our citizens.
It is important that TVA's river management system remain
integrated. Transfer or privatization would have drastic negative
impact. The Corps budget is being drastically cut and there are no
other provisions for taking care of the Tennessee River.
Humphreys County is a rural but yet heavy industrialized county
with several industries located on the banks of the Tennessee River. It
is a vital resource to us. The Tennessee River provides jobs, and
allows our residents and those of adjoining counties, to enjoy camping,
boating, skiing, and fishing. The federal funding for the maintenance,
operation, capital outlay projects, and flood control is imperative for
the protection of the nation's inland waterway system.
I sincerely hope that you will join with me and support TVA's
fiscal year 1999 funding requests of $76.8M. If you need further
information please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Jaycee Rawlings,
County Executive.
______
Letter From David C. Cole
Itawamba Community College,
Fulton, MS, February 23, 1998.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: On behalf of Itawamba Community College and
the citizens of Northeast Mississippi, I am writing to request your
support of adequate funding for TVA and the CORPS for fiscal year 1999.
Having lived my entire life in the region served by the Tennessee River
Valley Association, I can attest to the vast improvements these
organizations have made in the quality of life of those who live in
this region. I sincerely believe we would be neglecting our
responsibilities if we fail to adequately fund organizations that have
clearly demonstrated their effectiveness.
Specifically, I also strongly feel that TVA's river management
system should continue an integrated approach toward accomplishing its
mission. Transfer or privatization leaves too many important questions
to be answered. Budget reductions will certainly result in a negative
impact. Adequate federal funding for maintenance, operation, capital
outlay projects, flood control and protection of the nation's inland
waterway system and infrastructure must be continued now and well into
the future. I urge you not to take chances on a region and a people
who, for the first time in generations, are reaping the benefits of a
better quality of life for themselves and their children.
In conclusion, I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support the
Tennessee River Valley Association's funding request for TVA and the
CORPS for fiscal year 1999.
Sincerely,
David C. Cole,
President.
______
Letter From James R. ``Kenny'' Gillum
Kentucky-Cumberland Coal Company,
LaFollette, TN, February 20, 1998.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Domenici: I am in full support for TVA's fiscal year
1999 Budget request for $76.8 million of which includes land and water
management of $57.6 million and the Chickamauga Lock $6.8 million.
I feel that it is an absolute that TVA's river management system
remain integrated. Privatization or any other reorganization would have
a very negative result. The budget for corps is currently being cut and
there isn't any provisions for assisting the Tennessee River.
Chairman, we need your full support for U.S. Corps of Engineers
(Nashville District) fiscal year 1999 for funding of $55.167 million,
plus support for the additional request of $11.5 million for the
Kentucky Locks.
Also, my request is that you support federal funding for
maintenance, operation, capital overlay projects, flood control, and
for the protection of our nation's inland waterway system and
infrastructure, now and for all future generations. We definitely need
your support of TRVA's funding request for TVA and the corps for fiscal
year 1999.
I also request that you support the Tennessee and Cumberland
Waterway as a vital natural resource land, therefore, it's maintenance
in our region as it pertains to all industry/municipality/interest in
any number of the following ways; navigation, hydropower generation,
recreation and tourism, fish and wildlife habitat, drinking water,
ground, and surface water management, water quality, water supply, wet
lands, drought management, and reservoir management.
Please understand the importance of my request and we are depending
upon your support totally.
Sincerely,
James R. ``Kenny'' Gillum,
Executive Vice President.
______
Letter From Frank McKee
Hermitage, TN,
February 23, 1998.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: The Tennessee River and the Cumberland River
are vital natural resources for this region of our nation. They provide
for navigation, hydro-power, municipal water supplies, recreation, fish
and wildlife habitat, irrigation, and other important services that
cross local and state boundaries.
It is most respectfully requested that favorable consideration be
given for:
1. TVA's fiscal year 1999 budget request of $76.8 million, which
includes $57.6 million for Land and Water Management and $6.8 million
for the Chickamauga Lock.
2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Nashville District) fiscal year
1999 funding of $55.2 million with the addition of $11.5 million for
the Kentucky Lock.
It is essential that federal funding continue to be provided for
the operation, maintenance and improvement of the nation's inland
waterway system to serve present and future generations.
You can be assured that the people of this region want the TVA
river management system to remain as it now exists. It is an excellent
operation with dedicated employees providing an exemplary service.
Sincerely,
Frank McKee.
______
Letter From Robert M. Brewer
Crounse Corporation,
Paducah, KY, February 25, 1998.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: As a member of the Tennessee River Valley
Association, Crounse Corporation strongly asks for your support and
influence on the following very important issues:
1. Support TVA's fiscal year 1999 budget request of $76.8 million,
which includes $57.6 million for Land and Water Management and $6.8
million for Chickamauga Lock. The closing of Chickamauga Lock would
devastate the upper Tennessee River system.
2. Support the fact that TVA's river management system must remain
integrated. Transfer or privatization would have a drastic negative
impact, and the Corps' budget is being drastically cut and there are
not other provisions for taking care of the Tennessee River.
3. Support the Corps of Engineers (Nashville District) fiscal year
1999 funding of $55.167 million, and the $11.5 million for the Kentucky
Lock Project.
4. Support federal funding for the maintenance, operation, capital
outlay projects, flood control and protection of our nation's inland
waterways system and infrastructure, now and for our future
generations.
5. Support the Tennessee and Cumberland Waterway as a vital natural
resource (that must be maintained) for our region's interests in any
number of the following ways; recreation and tourism, fish and wildlife
habitat, drinking water, water supply and quality, wetlands, flood and
erosion control, agriculture, energy needs and demands, etc.
The Tennessee and Cumberland River System provides low-cost rates
to domestic and world markets, and by comparison, river transportation
is much safer and cleaner than other modes of transportation. This
region of our country greatly needs your representation and support. We
respectfully hope we can count on you.
Very truly yours,
Robert Brewer,
Port Captain.
______
Letter From J. Richard Hommrich
Volunteer Barge & Transport, Inc.,
Nashville, TN, February 27, 1998.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: We are members of the Tennessee River Valley
Association and are a regional barge transportation company serving the
needs of shippers on the Tennessee, Cumberland, Tenn.-Tom. and other
inland waterways.
Numerous of our shippers are directly located on water and many
others use the system to move products with intermodal connections to
states not on these waters--i.e. Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia,
etc. Our rivers and waterways are a vital natural resource and are
required for our markets worldwide and sources of supply to our
agriculture and our industry.
Besides navigation, all other natural benefits of these waterways
are highly beneficial and crucial to our people. Some of these benefits
are hydropower, recreation, flood control, agriculture, recreation and
tourism, fish and wildlife habitats, drinking water, and water for
industry.
We support TVA's fiscal year 1999 budget request of $76.8 million,
which includes $57.6 million for land and water management and $6.8
million for Chickamauga lock. TVA's river management system should
remain in place and transfer or privatization would have drastic
negative impact. The Tennessee River should not be treated as a poor
step child because of recent differences because of TVA actions and
proposals. These issues can and should be resolved.
The history of our country shows early and consistently strong
support of federal funding for development and maintenance of all of
our valuable waterways. The needs are so much greater now than ever due
to the large volume of traffic transported which keeps these tonnages
off our roads and highways.
We also support the U.S. Army Corps budget and urge that all of its
maintenance and operation budgets be restored to adequate levels. The
Kentucky Lock addition should be funded for $11.5 million as it is
crucial to all of the Southeast including the Tenn.-Tom. Many other
nations are recognizing the waterways as a valuable tool for survival
in world competition and for development of their nations. We cannot
afford to let our advantage escape us because of our failure to do
likewise.
Sincerely,
J. Richard Hommrich,
President.
______
Letter From Barry E. Parks, Jr.
Philip Services, Corp.,
Nashville, TN, February 24, 1998.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am a member of the Tennessee River Valley
Association (TRVA). I am writing to convey a sincere concern in the
upcoming budget requests for fiscal year 1999 regarding our inland
waterways. Their management and maintenance is crucial to the economic
growth and development of our country, more specific to the eastern
half of the United States.
There are many projects that require funding on our inland waterway
system. Of those projects, the Chickamauga Lock and the Kentucky Lock
are of great importance to our recycling, sales, and shipping of
ferrous metals. Without the use of these locks, much of the materials
shipped by barge would then be transported by truck to market. You must
agree, that the increase in truck traffic on our nations highways is
already at a critical level. There is a labor shortage of drivers
already and more would be needed to operate these trucks, and the
drivers that are on the road have only a few short years of experience.
This combination of a labor shortage and lack of experience adds up to
only one thing, traffic accidents and/or fatalities. Who knows, it may
be my wife and children or yours in the vehicle involved in that
accident.
There are other modes of transportation available for use such as
truck and rail, but none are as economical as by barge. I am sure you
would agree that maintaining the lowest transportation cost on shipping
our raw materials into the consumer market is most important to remain
competitive as a country and to keep the American people and economy at
a prosperous level. Without the use of our inland waterways, our most
precious resource, we open ourselves for competition in foreign trade
which usually results in poor quality raw materials and finished
products.
It is vital that you support the projects that are being presented
to you by the TRVA, Corps of Engineers, and the TVA. These projects not
only serve to keep an economic balance of our country, they serve to
protect our inland waterways for things such as recreation,
agriculture, tourism, flood control, hydropower generation, drought and
reservoir management, and the list goes on. The monies needed to
facilitate the restoration and completion of these projects are minimal
compared to the economic impact our country could see, and the
increased loss of human lives on our nations highways, if help does not
arrive soon.
I would be most appreciative of an opportunity to discuss this
matter with you or individuals of your choice. Thank you for your time
and assistance in this matter.
Respectfully,
Barry E. Parks, Jr.,
Transportation Manager.
______
Letter From Gary G. Brown
Vulcan Materials Company,
Grand Rivers, KY, February 18, 1998.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Sir: We at the Vulcan/Reed Quarry in Kentucky wish to express
our support of TVA's budget request for fiscal year 1999 which includes
funds for Land and Water Management and for the Chickamauga Lock.
We further ask that you support the budget requests for the
rehabilitation of 50 year old Kentucky Lock for fiscal year 1999. Our
company has utilized our nations inland waterway system since the mid
years of this century. We have also functioned as a partner in our
business relationships with TVA, the Corps of Engineers, and various
other Federal and State agencies in the maintenance, preservation,
supply, and construction on the rivers of our nations inland waterway
system. We have the opportunity to utilize and witness the success of
this great water system as it impacts all the lives of our citizens. We
can also attest to the serious deficiency and irrevocable failures that
can result from the lack of continued maintenance and upgrading of
existing infrastructures.
We at Vulcan perform as one of the many stewards who work to
preserve our valuable inland waterway system of transportation, water
quality, navigation, and the maintenance of its infrastructure through
our supply of construction materials and transportation relationships
with the various State and Federal agencies. Our nations industry and
world market participation depends on the well being this great
national resource.
We ask that you support TVA's budget request for fiscal year 1999
and that in view of the large Corps of Engineer budget cuts for fiscal
year 1999 that it is imperative we have a Federal Agency that can
continue to maintain the Tennessee River and its infrastructure.
We ask that you support the integration of TVA's non-power river
management of the Tennessee River through continued funding and support
of the TVA program.
We at Vulcan Materials will always support your committee's efforts
and will always be mindful of the struggle to fund all our nation's
needs.
Sincerely,
Gary G. Brown,
Mid River Division.
______
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of Donald T. Bollinger, Chairman, Louisiana
Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry
ports on the lower mississippi river and red river waterway
Mississippi River ship channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA.
(construction general).--Recommend Corps be funded to full capability
in fiscal year 1999 to perform required work on the saltwater intrusion
mitigation plan and complete design studies for potential phase III 55-
foot channel.
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, maintenance dredging
and GI funds for navigation study.--Recommend approval of President's
fiscal year 1999 Budget of $46,220,000 under O&M General and $415,000
in GI funds.
Mississippi River-Gulf outlet (MR-GO), LA., maintenance dredging.--
President's fiscal year 1999 Budget is $11,580,000 under O&M General.
Recommend that Corps be funded increased capability for bank
stabilization and maintenance dredging.
Inner harbor navigation canal (IHNC) lock, LA.--President's fiscal
year 1999 Budget only includes $2,000,000 in construction funds for the
IH-NC New Ship Lock. Recommend that Corps be funded to full capability
to initiate lock construction and fully fund the community impact
mitigation plan.
Mississippi River outlets at Venice, LA.--President's fiscal year
1999 Budget is $1,095,000 under O&M General. Recommend that Corps be
funded increased capability for repair of jetty-breakwaters (Baptiste
Collette Bayou and Grand and Tiger Passes).
Intracoastal waterway locks, LA.--Urge approval of GI funds for
fiscal year 1999 to continue the feasibility study to address need for
and timing of replacement of Bayou Sorrel Lock on the GIWW, Morgan
City-to-Port Allen alternate route.
Gulf intracoastal waterway, LA, and TX.--President's fiscal year
1999 Budget is $19,561,000 under O&M General. Recommend that Corps be
funded increased capability for dewatering and maintaining Leland
Bowman Lock; new cranes at IHNC Lock; dredging Forked Island Wiggles
(Bendway easing); and dredging Franklin Canal.
Red River waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, LA.--
President's fiscal year 1999 Budget is $5,392,000 in Construction
General and $8,337,000 for Operations and Maintenance. Recommend that
Corps be funded to full capability to complete work already underway.
statement
As Chairman of the Louisiana Governor's Task Force on Maritime
Industry, I hereby submit testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development on behalf of the ports on the lower
Mississippi River and the maritime interests related thereto of the
State of Louisiana relative to Congressional appropriations for fiscal
year 1999 for ports on the lower Mississippi River and the Red River
Waterway.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports that in 1996 a total of
421 million tons of foreign and domestic waterborne commerce moved
through the consolidated deepwater ports of Louisiana situated on the
lower Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and the Gulf of Mexico. The
deepening of this 232-mile stretch of the River to 45 feet has been a
major factor in tonnage growth at these ports. Thanks to the efforts of
Congress and the New Orleans District of the Corps, Louisiana's ports
and the domestic markets they serve can compete more effectively in an
increasingly global marketplace. Ninety-one percent of America's
foreign merchandise trade by volume (two-thirds by value) moves in
ships, and more than 19 percent of the nation's foreign waterborne
commerce passes through Louisiana's ports. Given the role foreign trade
plays in sustaining our nation's growth, maintaining the competitive
posture of Louisiana's ports is essential to our economic well-being.
In terms of transportation services and global access, Louisiana
ports enjoy a distinct competitive advantage. Hundreds of barge lines
accommodate America's waterborne commerce on the lower Mississippi
River. The high level of barge traffic on the river is indicated by the
passage of more than 246,000 barges through the Port of New Orleans
annually. In 1996, 2,441 ocean-going vessels operated by more than 75
steamship lines serving U.S. trade with more than 150 countries called
at the Port of New Orleans. The Port's trading partners include: Latin
America (32.1 percent); Asia (31.2 percent); Europe (23.8 percent);
Africa (11.3 percent) and North America (1.6 percent). During the same
year, more than 6,200 vessels called at Louisiana's lower Mississippi
River deepwater ports.
While the foreign markets of Louisiana's lower Mississippi River
ports are worldwide, their domestic market consists primarily of mid-
America. This heartland region currently produces 60 percent of the
nation's agricultural products, one half of all of its manufactured
goods and 90 percent of its machinery and transportation equipment.
The considerable transportation assets of Louisiana's lower
Mississippi River ports enable them to play a vital role in the
international commerce of this nation. In 1996, the region's ports and
port facilities handled 187 million tons of foreign waterborne
commerce. Valued at $37.9 billion, this cargo accounted for 16.6
percent of the nation's international waterborne trade and 24.9 percent
of all U.S. exports. Bulk cargo, primarily consisting of tremendous
grain and animal feed exports and petroleum imports, made up
approximately 86 percent of this volume. More than 51.4 million tons of
grain from 17 states, representing 53.1 percent of all U.S. grain
exports, accessed the world market via the 10 grain elevators and
midstream transfer capabilities on the lower Mississippi River. This
same port complex received 49.4 million short tons of petroleum and
petroleum products, approximately 10.88 percent of the U.S. waterborne
imports of petroleum products.
In 1996, public and private facilities located within the
jurisdiction of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans,
the fourth largest port in the United States, handled a total of 70
million tons of international cargo worth $18.4 billion (included in
lower Mississippi River statistics). General cargo totaled 10 million
tons. Although statistically dwarfed by bulk cargo volumes, the
movement of general cargo is of special significance to the local
economy because it produces greater benefits. On a per ton basis,
general cargo generates spending within the community more than three
times higher than bulk cargo. Major general cargo commodities handled
at the Port include: iron and steel products; coffee; forest products;
copper; aluminum products; and natural rubber.
Fostering the continued growth of lower Mississippi River ports is
essential to assure the competitiveness of our nation's exports in the
global marketplace and, consequently, the health of our national
economy. Assuring deep water access to ports has been a priority of our
trading partners around the world. Moreover, an evolving maritime
industry seeking greater economies of scale continues to support
construction of larger vessels with increased draft requirements.
Because it has facilitated the provision of deepwater port access,
passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, has played a
most significant role in assuring the competitiveness of ports on the
lower Mississippi river and throughout the U.S.
By December, 1994, the Corps completed dredging of the 45-foot
channel from the Gulf of Mexico to Baton Rouge, LA (Mile 233 AHP).
Unfortunately, mitigation features associated with the first phase of
the channel deepening project, completed in 1988, have yet to be
accomplished. It is very disappointing that funding for this vitally
important project was not included in the President's fiscal year 1999
Budget. We urge the inclusion of funding and support for this effort in
the budget, which will include part of approximately $15 million in
payments to the State of Louisiana for construction of a pipeline and
pumping stations to deliver potable fresh water to communities affected
by saltwater intrusion. We further urge that the Corps be provided
funding to proceed with design studies for Phase III which will allow
deepening of the river to the 55-foot authorized depth.
The Port of South Louisiana, the nation's largest port with 189.8
million tons of foreign and domestic cargo in 1996, and the Port of
Baton Rouge, the nation's fifth largest port with 81 million tons of
foreign and domestic cargo in 1996, and other lower Mississippi River
ports are dependent upon timely and adequate dredging of Southwest Pass
to provide deep draft access to the Gulf of Mexico. Based on past
experience--spring thaws bringing higher river stages and higher
siltation rates--we strongly urge full funding of the President's
fiscal year 1999 Budget amount of $46,220,000 under O&M General for
maintenance of the 45-foot project channel. Funding includes monies for
both dredging and repairs to foreshore dikes; repairs to lateral dikes;
and jetty repairs. Revetment construction has reduced the number and
size of deep draft anchorages. To mitigate this loss, we recommend that
the Corps be authorized under the O&M General appropriation to
construct new anchorages and maintain new and existing anchorages to
accommodate increased ship traffic.
Approval is also recommended for the President's fiscal year 1999
Budget amount of $415,000 for the Corps to continue the reconnaissance
study of the long-term navigational needs of the Mississippi River and
its outlets, to include anchorage areas, between Baton Rouge, LA, and
the Gulf of Mexico.
Maintenance of adequate depths and channel widths in the
Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Channel (MR-GO) is also of great concern.
This channel provides deep draft access to the Port of New Orleans'
principal container terminals and generates an annual economic impact
of nearly $800 million. In 1996, 518 general cargo vessels calling on
the MR-GO Tidewater facilities accounted for 30.8 percent of the
general cargo tonnage handled over public facilities at the Port of New
Orleans and 88.5 percent of Louisiana's containerized cargo.
Because of the MR-GO's demonstrated vulnerability to coastal storm
activity, annual channel maintenance dredging and bank stabilization
are essential to assure unimpeded vessel operations. In 1996, heavy
shoaling related to Tropical Storm Josephine resulted in the imposition
of a draft restriction from the project depth of 36 feet to 30 feet.
The President's fiscal year 1999 Budget Amount is $11,580,000 under O&M
General. We, however, strongly recommend that the Corps be funded
increased capability to carry out annual maintenance dredging and north
and south bank stabilization projects.
The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock is a critical link in
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) and provides a connection between
the Port of New Orleans' Mississippi River and IHNC terminals. In 1998,
the Corps approved a plan for replacement of this obsolete facility.
The Corps estimates that the lock replacement project will have a cost-
benefit ratio of 1.7 to 1 and will provide $110 million annually in
transportation cost savings. In addition to minimizing adverse impacts
to adjacent neighborhoods, a Community Impact Mitigation Program
totaling $33 million is included. The President's fiscal year 1999
Budget amount of $2,000,000 for the IHNC New Ship Lock will pay for
continued engineering and design work, but will not cover early
construction activities such as clearing land or mitigation program
initiation. We, therefore, recommend that the Corps be funded to full
capability to enable the timely start of construction and mitigation
program implementation. We particularly recommend that the mitigation
program be fully funded at the start of project construction.
The operation and maintenance of the Mississippi River Outlets at
Venice, LA are essential to providing safe offshore support access to
energy-related industries. In 1996, these channels accommodated cargo
movements exceeding 3.8 million tons. In addition to routine traffic,
Baptiste Collette Bayou is used by shallow draft vessels as an
alternate route between the MR-GO, GIWW and the Mississippi River.
Because of a scheduled 60-day closure of the IHNC lock for dewatering
and repair in June and July, 1998 (depending on River stages),
maintaining Baptiste Collette Bayou's channel is especially critical.
The President's fiscal year 1999 Budget amount is $1,095,000 under O&M
General. We recommend that the Corps be funded increased capability for
the repair of jetty breakwaters (Baptiste Collette Bayou and Grand and
Tiger Passes).
More than 100 million tons of cargo transverse the GIWW in the New
Orleans District annually. To assure the efficient flow of commerce on
this key waterway, approval is urged for fiscal year 1999 GI funds to
continue the feasibility study of the need for and the timing of
replacement of Bayou Sorrel Lock on the GIWW, Morgan City-to-Port Allen
alternate route. In addition, we recommend that the New Orleans
District be funded an increased capability for continued maintenance of
the Louisiana and Texas sections of the GIWW.
One additional project warrants consideration. The Red River
Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, LA Project provides 236
miles of navigation improvements, 225 miles of channel stabilization
works and various recreational facilities. Project completion will
stimulate economic growth along the Red River Basin and increase cargo
flows through the Port of New Orleans. The President's fiscal year 1999
Budget is $5,392,000 in Construction General for substantial project
completion and $8,337,000 for Operations and Maintenance. Work already
underway on this project should be completed. We, therefore, recommend
that the Corps be funded to full capability for this project.
The need and impetus to reduce the Federal budget is certainly
acknowledged; however, reduced funding on any of the above projects
will result in decreased maintenance levels which will escalate
deterioration and, ultimately, prevent them from functioning at their
full authorized purpose. Reduction in the serviceability of these
projects will cause severe economic impacts not only to this region,
but to the nation as a whole that will far outweigh savings from
reduced maintenance expenditures. Therefore, we reiterate our strong
recommendation that the above projects be funded to their full
capability.
Supporting statements from Mr. J. Ron Brinson, President and CEO of
the Port of New Orleans; Mr. Channing Hayden, President of the
Steamship Association of Louisiana; Capt. John Levine, President of the
Associated Bar Pilots and Capt. Mark Delesdernier, President of the
Crescent River Port Pilots Association and others are attached. Please
make these statements along with my statement part of the record.
Supplemental graphics relating to my statement have been furnished
separately for staff background use. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment to the subcommittee on these vital projects.
Congressional Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999 for Ports on the Lower
Mississippi River and the Red River Waterway
Project Fiscal year 1999 budget \1\
Mississippi River Ship Channel Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA.
(Construction General)..............................................
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, Maintenance
Dredging, and Stabilization (O&M General)........... $46,220,000
Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO), LA. (O&M General) 11,580,000
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock LA., (Construction
General)............................................ 2,000,000
Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA. (O&M General).. 1,095,000
Intracoastal Waterway Locks, (GI Funds)................. 550,000
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway LA, and TX (O&M General)..... 19,561,000
Red River Waterway:
Construction General................................ 5,392,000
O&M General......................................... 8,337,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Red River Waterway.......................... 13,729,000
Grand total....................................... 94,735,000
\1\ Amount in President's fiscal year 1999 budget.
Prepared Statement of Channing F. Hayden, Jr., President, Steamship
Association of Louisiana
Summary of testimony of Channing F. Hayden, Jr., President of the
Steamship Association of Louisiana (formerly known as the New Orleans
Steamship Association), for the record of the Senate Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee on Appropriations in reference to projects of
public interest that affect Louisiana's deep-water ports.
Mississippi River ship channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, Louisiana
(construction general).--We recommend continuation of the work on the
saltwater intrusion mitigation plan and the design studies for Phase
III of the 55-foot channel. Funding to full capability in fiscal year
1999 is necessary for this required work.
Maintenance dredging of the Mississippi River from Baton Rouge to
the Gulf of Mexico, plus GI funding for navigation improvement study.--
We urge approval of the $46,220,000 in the President's fiscal year 1999
budget under O&M General, with GI funds of $415,000 in fiscal year 1999
for a reconnaissance study to improve navigation needs and to include
ways to reduce long-term maintenance costs and the authorization to
construct and maintain anchorages.
Mississippi River-Gulf outlet maintenance dredging and bank
erosion.--In addition to the $11,580,000 in the President's fiscal year
1999 budget under O&M General, we urge that the Corps be funded an
increased capability in fiscal year 1999 to maintain this channel,
which should include bank stabilization on both banks and jetty
maintenance.
New inner harbor navigation canal ship lock.--Recognizing that only
$2,000,000 is included in the President's fiscal year 1999 budget for
construction funds, we urge that the Corps be funded to full capability
in fiscal year 1999 for this project, which is essential to begin
construction and the community impact mitigation plan.
Red River waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana.--
Recognizing that $5,392,000 is in the President's fiscal year 1999
budget to substantially complete this vital project and $8,337,000 for
O&M in fiscal year 1999, we urge that the Corps be funded to full
capability for fiscal year 1999. This project will result in
stimulating economic growth along the Red River Basin and increase
cargo movements through Louisiana ports. Funding is essential to
complete the work already underway.
To provide access to the harbor maintenance fund to address
dredging emergencies.--To address dredging emergencies, Congress should
provide the Corps limited access to the funds in the Harbor Maintenance
Fund. Proper safeguards should be built in to restrict access to
emergencies caused by floods, storms, and other natural disasters.
Calcasieu River and pass, Louisiana.--We urge approval of the
$6,980,000 in President's fiscal year 1999 budget under O&M General and
recommend that the Corps be funded an increased capability in fiscal
year 1999 to maintain rock protection at Dugas Landing Embankment.
National waterways alliance initiative.--We support the National
Waterways Alliance's initiative to realistically fund the Corps at
$4,540,000,000.
statement
Testimony of Channing F. Hayden, Jr., President of the Steamship
Association of Louisiana (formerly known as the New Orleans Steamship
Association), for the record of the Senate Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee on Appropriations in reference to projects of public
interest affecting Louisiana's deep-water ports.
Mr. Chairman: I am President of the Steamship Association of
Louisiana. Our Association represents ship owners, operators, agents,
and stevedores that represent the majority of the 7,000+ deep-draft
vessels in foreign commerce that call Louisiana's deep-water ports each
year. We are dedicated to the safe and efficient movement of maritime
commerce through the state's deep-water ports. We endorse the testimony
of Mr. Donald T. Bollinger, Chairman of the Governor's Task Force on
Maritime Industry and the statements of the other organizations
attached to his testimony.
Channel stabilization and maintenance dredging in Southwest Pass
are critical to keep project draft. Project draft ensures the
Mississippi River's deep-water ports will handle the country's foreign
waterborne commerce in the most cost-effective way possible.
For years we have urged this Committee to provide funds to maintain
project draft at Southwest Pass. You have responded, and your wisdom
has benefitted the entire American heartland served by the Mississippi
River system. Southwest Pass was greatly restricted throughout the
1970's. From 1970 to 1975, the channel was at less than project draft
46 percent of the time. In 1973 and 1974, the channel was below the 40-
foot project draft 70 percent of the time. During some periods, drafts
were limited to 31 feet. Fortunately, those conditions have not
recurred because of a combination of factors: Your help, and the
constant vigilance of the Pilots, the Corps, and the maritime
community. The years 1990 through 1997 show a tremendous improvement in
channel stability. We have only been below project draft 3 percent of
the time for vessels under 100,000 deadweight tons and 8 percent of the
time for vessels 100,000 deadweight tons or greater. The funding you
provided was money well spent. The repairs to the jetties and dikes and
the Corps' ability to rapidly respond to shoaling have been
instrumental in maintaining project dimensions.
To enhance the safe and efficient movement of ships and cargo, we
recommend mining sediment from the Pilottown Anchorage to create and
enhance wetlands. Each 800,000 cubic yards of dredged material creates
115 acres of wetlands and enhances 256 more. In the process, much-
needed Pilottown Anchorage at fog-prone Head of Passes would be dredged
to accommodate the increasing number of deeply-ladened ships attracted
by the 45-foot channel. Dredging Pilottown Anchorage would also
mitigate anchorage space lost in this area to the proposed West Bay
Diversion Project.
The Pilots have taken advantage of tidal flows and other factors to
recommend the maximum draft possible consistent with safe navigation.
This stability represents additional sales and increased
competitiveness for U.S. products on the world market. Industry's
partnership with you has kept Mississippi River ports competitive.
Stability is reflected in draft footage. Twelve inches to a large
vessel with a loading capacity of 250 tons per inch is an additional
3,000 tons of cargo. As of this writing, freight rates for grain moving
from the Mississippi River to the Far East and Europe are ranging from
$22 per ton to $13 a ton. Using the average, $17.50, each foot of draft
represents an additional $52,500 in vessel revenue, or $262,000 for
additional feet over the old 40-foot project draft.
The funds we request for maintenance dredging and other works are
essential for the Corps to maintain a reliable channel and respond
rapidly to potential problems. This builds the confidence of the bulk
trade in a reliable Mississippi River draft, which is critically
important. Much of Louisiana's bulk trade is export agricultural
products and coal. These commodities are neither captive to Louisiana
nor the United States if they can be shipped from competing countries
at a consistently lower cost.
The deeper the channel, the more important channel stabilization
is. Adequate channel stabilization work minimizes the maintenance cost
of the deeper channel--a cost-effective investment. The faster the
project is stabilized, the faster and greater the benefits of reduced
O&M costs will be realized. Also, we recommend that the Corps conduct
research on prototype dredging techniques. Experimental dredging would
not replace routine dredging but would permit, for example, testing
dustpan dredges in Southwest Pass and Water Injection Dredge at the
crossings above New Orleans.
Funds are also needed for dustpan dredges to work the crossings
above New Orleans. These crossings control the draft to eight of our
ten major grain elevators, plus many mid-stream loading facilities.
This area caters to the bulk trade and must have a stable channel depth
consistent with the depth at Southwest Pass. Only two dredges in the
world are available to maintain the deep-draft crossings between New
Orleans and Baton Rouge. There are times when a high river is followed
by a rapid drop in the river's stage. In such cases, the dustpan
dredges may not be available, or both dredges may not be capable of
restoring the 12 crossings within a reasonable time. When this happens,
hopper dredges are used to assist in the work.
The Corps is studying the makeup of their ``minimum fleet''--the
number of dredges the Corps owns and operates. Corps-owned dredges
working the lower Mississippi River are the hopper dredges WHEELER,
MACFARLAND, and ESSAYONS, and the dustpan dredge JADWIN. The WHEELER
and MACFARLAND, and from time to time the ESSAYONS, provide much-needed
capacity and immediate response to keep Southwest Pass opened,
especially when the river is abnormally high. The action by Congress to
reduce the government hopper fleet will drastically diminish the Corps'
ability to maintain reliable project dimensions and adversely affect
our country's standing in world bulk markets. We urge Congress to
reconsider its decision to place the WHEELER on stand-by status. Even
when the WHEELER is available, the combined Corps/private fleet does
not have enough Mississippi River-qualified hopper dredges to meet peak
dredging requirements. The Corps' Minimum Dredge Fleet studies, we
feel, neither justify a reduction in the fleet nor the lay-up/stand-by
status of the WHEELER or any other Corps-owned dredge. The Army Corps
of Engineers' records will show that for the 1997 high-water season
there was a shortage of hopper dredges. Besides the Mississippi River
ports, this shortage of dredges also impacts many of our nation's deep-
draft ports and is particularly disruptive to the Port of Lake Charles,
Louisiana, where dredging suffers practically every year.
For all of the above reasons, we request full funding for the
mitigation features of the O&M General, 45-foot Mississippi River
project.
In December 1994, the Corps completed the 45-foot deep channel to
Baton Rouge. Proper maintenance now provides uniform drafts for all the
ports on the lower Mississippi River. This makes U.S. exports through
Louisiana more competitive, and adequate federal maintenance funds to
keep the channel open must be available. In addition, the Corps needs
authorization to construct and maintain anchorages to improve safety.
Over the years, revetment work and changes in the river itself have
caused serious negative impacts on our anchorages. Therefore, we
encourage full funding capability in fiscal year 1999 to complete the
reconnaissance study of navigation needs on the Mississippi River and
its outlets between Baton Rouge and the Gulf.
We also support Phase III of the Mississippi River channel
deepening project and urge that the Corps be funded to proceed with
design studies for the 55-foot channel, Baton Rouge to the Gulf of
Mexico.
The growth of the Port of New Orleans depends, in large measure, on
the Port's container and other facilities on the Mississippi River-Gulf
Outlet (MR-GO). The funds you provided in past fiscal years have
allowed the Corps to improve the channel considerably. However, the
channel width has remained limited primarily because of erosion. This
seaway has a project depth of 36 feet. For safety reasons in this
narrow channel, restrictions apply to vessels with a draft of 30 feet
or more, causing delays to the tightly scheduled container traffic
using the MR-GO. These specialty vessels serving the Port's facilities
are becoming larger. This channel, with less than stable full project
dimensions, causes problems for larger vessels, reducing our ability to
grow with the trade. The highest wages under the International
Longshoreman's Association's contract ($23 per straight-time hour) is
paid for work at the MR-GO container facilities. Anything that
threatens the MR-GO jeopardizes these high-paying jobs, which are held
mostly by minority workers.
To improve safety on the MR-GO and protect Louisiana's container
trade (and the well-paying, minority employment it produces), we
request that the Corps be funded to an increased capability for the MR-
GO in fiscal year 1999. This will allow annual maintenance dredging,
north and south bank stabilization, and jetty maintenance.
With facilities located on both the MR-GO and the Mississippi
River, an adequate route between the two is essential for efficient
transit between these facilities. The shortest route is the inadequate,
antiquated Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock built in the
1920's with a width of 75 feet and limited depth of 30 feet. Its
maximum capacity has long been exceeded. The average waiting time for
passage through the Lock has increased from 8\1/2\ hours in 1985 to
about 12 hours at present; however, we understand that waiting time can
be more than a day in some instances. A much larger ship lock is
necessary to accommodate today's traffic.
The replacement project for the IHNC Lock is important to the ports
on the lower Mississippi River and to the nation's commerce since it is
on the corridor for east/west barge traffic. The President's fiscal
year 1999 budget of $2,000,000 only covers continued engineering and
design work. Without full funding, the project will be delayed and
increase the overall cost of the project. We urge Congress to provide
the Corps' full fiscal year 1999 capability for this important project
to insure its completion. Delays are unthinkable since the new lock is
long overdue.
The Red River Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana,
Project is directly related to our deep-water ports. The continuation
and completion of this work will stimulate the economy all along the
Red River Basin with jobs and additional international trade. This
stimulated trade will service the Port of Shreveport and the ports on
the lower Mississippi River, providing needed growth and benefitting
the states of Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, which are
served through the Shreveport distribution center. Therefore, we
strongly recommend that the Corps be funded to full capability for
fiscal year 1999.
The Port of Lake Charles, Louisiana, is served by the Calcasieu
River, which is often below project depth and width. This is another of
Louisiana's major deep-water ports that benefits the economy of the
state and the nation. According to the Port's figures, 33.139 million
tons of import cargo and 16.674 million tons of export cargo were
handled in 1997. The Port and private facilities along this waterway
provide thousands of jobs for the Lake Charles area. In 1997 there were
945 ships and 6,834 barges that used this waterway. The Port area's
growth and continued success depends on a reliable and safe channel
that should be at full project. This channel, because of its project
deficiencies, requires one-way traffic for many ships, causing delays
that disrupt cargo operations. This is costly and inefficient for
industry. We request funding to the full capability of the Corps to
maintain the channel.
We urge Congress to provide for emergency navigation dredging
needs. An appropriate solution would be for Congress to take action
that would provide the mechanics for the immediate release of Harbor
Maintenance Funds to the Corps of Engineers. Such funding would be
specifically for emergencies to prevent hazards to navigation and avoid
impeding the flow of our nation's commerce.
In addition, we are concerned that the President's overall fiscal
year 1999 budget for the Corps' Civil Works Program does not adequately
fund the nation's waterways needs. The $3.2 billion for the Corps'
civil works program is $800 million less than fiscal year 1998. The
drop in Construction, General and O&M funding will result in added
costs in later years. Slow downs in construction projects that are
already underway, such as the IHNC Lock replacement in Louisiana, will
incur cost increases because of the delay caused by the lack of
funding. Further, any delay of maintenance work will impact the safe
and efficient movement of our nation's waterborne commerce. For the
above reasons, we support the National Waterways Alliance's initiative
to fund the Corps' Civil Works Program at $4,540,000,000.
Thank you for allowing the Association to submit testimony on the
Corps' funding needs.
______
Prepared Statement of J. Ron Brinson, President and CEO, Port of New
Orleans, New Orleans, LA
The Port of New Orleans enjoys a location at the terminus of the
14,500 mile inland waterway system of the United States, the most
extensively developed waterway system in the world. The Port, via the
Mississippi River and the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, serves as the
gateway between America's heartland and the global marketplace.
We fully support the March 13, 1998 testimony of the Louisiana
Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry on behalf of the ports on
the lower Mississippi River and Louisiana's related maritime interests.
We greatly appreciate the outstanding support and cooperation
received over many years from you and your Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of Clyde A. Giordano, Parish President, Plaquemines
Parish Government, Belle Chasse, LA
In my official capacity as Parish President of Plaquemines Parish
Louisiana, I am herein requesting the following appropriations be made
for fiscal year 1999:
Mississippi River ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, Louisiana
(construction general).--We recommend that the Corps be funded to full
capacity in fiscal year 1999 to perform required work on the saltwater
intrusion mitigation plan.
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, maintenance dredging
and GI funds for navigation study.--We recommend that approval of the
fiscal year 1999 Budget of $46,220,000 under O&M General and $415,000
in GI funds.
Mississippi River outlets at Venice, Louisiana.--The President's
fiscal year 1999 Budget is $1,095,000 under O&M General. Recommend that
Corps be funded increased capably for repair of jetty-breakwater
(Baptiste Collette and Grand and Tiger Pass).
We would certainly appreciate your consideration and the assistance
you can give us in these projects.
______
Prepared Statement of John Levine, Jr., President, Associated Branch
Pilots
The Associated Branch Pilots is an Association of Pilots that have
been guiding oceangoing vessels into the entrances the Mississippi
River system for over 125 years. We are called Bar Pilots because we
guide the ships past constantly shifting and shoaling sand bars in the
area.
Southwest Pass of the Mississippi River is the main entrance for
deep draft oceangoing vessels entering the Lower Mississippi River
System. It is the shallowest stretch of the Lower Mississippi River
System and the area that requires the greatest effort by the Corps of
Engineers to maintain project depth.
In 1997, the Associated Branch Pilots made 11,893 transits on
oceangoing vessels through Southwest Pass. Of these ships, 3,493 were
of 50,000 deadweight tons or greater and 557 had a draft in excess of
40 feet.
This number of heavily laden vessels calling on the Lower
Mississippi River System is a direct result of the completion by the
Corps of Engineers of the deepening of the channel from 40 feet to 45
feet.
This first phase has proven to be extremely well designed and well
maintained by the fact that the maximum draft recommended by my
Association for vessels using Southwest Pass has been 45 feet or
greater, except for periods of extremely high water that caused
shoaling that overwhelmed the dredging efforts. This is in stark
contrast to the late 1970's and early 80's when we often had to
recommend drafts less than the project depth due to shoaling.
To the world shipping community, this means that calling at ports
on the Mississippi River system will be more profitable because larger
ships can enter and carry greater amounts cargo.
This is beneficial to the entire United States because it makes the
large quantities of petroleum, Agricultural, and manufactured products
shipped from the Mississippi Valley more desirable due to increased
profitability.
I would also like to comment briefly on the East-West navigation
channels near Venice, Louisiana. Tiger Pass and Baptiste Collette
provide a shorter, more direct route to Breton Sound and the Gulf of
Mexico for offshore supply boats and small tugs and barges. These
channels not only represent a savings in time and money for these
vessels, but reduce the traffic in the main shipping channel, the
Mississippi River and its passes, which is one of the most congested
waterways in the country.
The dredging and maintaining of South Pass would contribute to the
safety of the overall waterway and, in my opinion, be of greater value
than the much discussed Vessel Traffic System planned for the area.
The Associated Branch Pilots also pilot vessels in the Mississippi
River Gulf Outlet, a man-made tidewater channel 75 miles long,
stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to an intersection of the
Intercoastal Waterway in New Orleans.
This channel leads to the Main Container Terminals for the Port of
New Orleans, the Roll On, Roll Off Terminal, the Port of New Orleans
Bulk Handling Plant, and additional General Cargo Docks. For the Port
of New Orleans to remain competitive in the ever growing container
trade, the continued maintenance of this channel is crucial. In 1997,
628 ships called on the part using the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.
Much is being said pro and con concerning the Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet. There is, admittedly, an erosion problem in the
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, but any curtailment of shipping traffic
in the channel without regard to the long term effect upon the Port of
New Orleans would be disastrous. I strongly support approval of funding
for both the maintenance dredging/jetty repair project and the erosion/
rip rap study for the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.
I would also like to make a brief statement on behalf of the
Mississippi Valley Coal Export Council. Over 62 million tons of coal
have been exported using the Mississippi River System during the past
five years. Coal miners, tugboat captains, barge owners, shippers and
many other coal related workers have benefited by using the consistent
and efficient Mississippi River System. This also represents a
significant contribution towards the trade balance between the United
States and other industrialized nations.
Funding of the Corps of Engineers' projects in the Lower
Mississippi River System has proven to be money well spent. It has
increased exports and imports that have benefited the entire United
States. I urge your support of the funding requested to enable the
Corps to continue to maintain and improved the most efficient and
productive waterway system in the country.
______
Prepared Statement of Capt. Mark Delesdernier, President, Crescent
River Port Pilots Association
I have served as President of the largest pilot association in the
United States for the past sixteen years. The Crescent River Port
Pilots furnish pilots for ships destined to the Port of Baton Rouge,
Port of South Louisiana, Port of New Orleans, Port of St. Bernard, and
the Port of Plaquemines.
The Crescent River Port Pilots piloted and shifted over 17,000
ships during 1997. We pilot deep draft vessels on more than 100 miles
on the lower Mississippi River and 35 miles on the Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet.
The lower end of our route on the Mississippi River has a shoaling
problem starting with the high water season each year. The shoaling
requires daily attention by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
to maintain project depth.
Heavy laden vessels call on the lower Mississippi River system as a
direct result of the completion by the Corps of Engineers of the
deepening of the channel from 40 to 45 feet.
For several years now, we have had extraordinary success in keeping
the river dredges to project depth. This success is a direct result of
an experienced and vigilant Corps of Engineers that, through
experience, is able to timely bid in dredges to avoid extra dredging
cost by waiting too long to start maintenance dredging.
Channel stability sends a positive message to the world's shipping
community that schedule cargo for deep draft vessels months in advance
is reliable. This makes the port call on the Mississippi River very
profitable since the ships can lift greater tonnage.
Keeping project depth is beneficial to twenty-seven states that are
directly tied to the Mississippi River Port Complex.
Additionally I would like to comment on the east and west
navigation channels near Venice, Louisiana. Baptiste Collette and Tiger
Pass provide a shorter and more direct route to Breton Sound and West
Delta in the Gulf of Mexico for oil field support vessels.
The Crescent River Port Pilots also pilot ships in the Mississippi
River Gulf Outlet. A man-made channel approximately 75 miles long
starting in Breton Sound in the Gulf of Mexico and ending in New
Orleans where it intersects with the Intercoastal Waterway.
The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet feeds the main container
terminals in the Port of New Orleans. Additional docks such as Bulk
Terminal and general cargo facilities depend on this channel which
handled approximately 700 ship calls last year.
The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet has been a controversial channel
since its inception, but being an integral part of the Port of New
Orleans, it would be disaster if it is not kept at project width and
depth. The Crescent River Pilots strongly support approval of fueling
for both the maintenance dredging, jetty repair projects.
Funding of the United States Army Corps of Engineers projects in
the lower Mississippi River system which includes the Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet, Tiger Pass, Baptiste Collette and Southwest Pass has
proven to be money well spent.
I urge your support of the funding requested to allow the Corps of
Engineers to continue to maintain and improve the most productive
waterway system in the world.
Mr. Chairman, thanks for allowing me the opportunity to submit my
comments to your subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of Gary K. Pruitt, Executive Director, Greater Baton
Rouge Port Commission
The Port of Greater Baton Rouge respectfully requests that your
committee give favorable consideration to the following projects.
Mississippi River Ship Channel--Gulf to Baton Rough, Louisiana.--We
support full funding in fiscal year 1998-99 to the Corps of Engineers
General Construction Budget. This will allow for the completion of the
saltwater intrusion mitigation plan and the design studies for the
fifty-five foot channel.
Mississippi River--Baton Rouge to the Gulf--Maintenance Dredging
and GI funds for navigation study.--We support maximum funding for
maintenance dredging on this stretch of the river and for the
navigation improvement study to reduce long-term maintenance cost.
As stated in previous correspondence, these two projects are vital
not only to the Port of Greater Baton Rouge, but to the entire nation,
The great Mississippi River is the premier national waterway, providing
accessibility to and from foreign countries for the transportation of
goods and services used by countless numbers of U.S. companies and
individual citizens. The channel must be properly designed and
maintained for the benefit of all.
We also earnestly request your support for funding of the other
projects included in testimony prepared and submitted by Mr. Lawrence
T. Bollinger. There projects are also extremely important to the
overall viability of the Mississippi River system and its tributaries.
We must properly maintain our waterway infrastructure if we are to
increase trade and have the confidence of our trading partners around
the world.
Your cooperation in these matters is greatly appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of Gary P. LaGrange, Executive Director, Port of
South Louisiana, LaPlace, LA
The South Louisiana Port Commission very much appreciates being
given the opportunity to submit this statement and supportive material
to signify its endorsement of the statement of Mr. Donald T. Bollinger,
Chairman of the Louisiana Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry.
The Port of South Louisiana is comprised of nearly 54 miles of
Mississippi River north of New Orleans and south of Baton Rouge, with
more than fifty private and public docks and wharves. The Port of South
Louisiana is the largest tonnage port in the United States and fourth
largest in the world, handling more than 220 million short tons of
cargo during 1997. Of this total tonnage, more than 100 million tons
are shipped in international trade by deep water vessel and 120 million
tons are shipped in domestic trade by vessels and barges. Each year
more than 100,000 barges transport cargo at the Port of South Louisiana
and more than 4,000 ships call at the public and private wharves of our
Port.
A recent study by Dr. Tim Ryan of the University of New Orleans
indicates that nearly 20 per cent of the domestic gross product of the
State of Louisiana is dependent upon the maritime industry and one of
twelve jobs is created frown the economic activity of the maritime
industry. Attached you will find statistics which have been developed
from the records of the South Louisiana Port Commission.
The Port of South Louisiana strongly urges the Congress to fund all
of the following projects.
--Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA
(Construction General)
--Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, Maintenance Dredging
and GI Funds For Navigation Study
--Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO), I-A., Maintenance Dredging
--Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock, LA
--Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA
--Intracoastal Waterway Locks, LA
--Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA and TX
--Red River Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, LA
The Port of South Louisiana strongly believes that the funding and
completion of the above maritime projects will enhance the ability of
the ports in the region to be competitive in the global economy and
will enhance the ability of domestic industry and agriculture to
compete in the export of its products.
If we can provide any further information, please feel free to call
upon me.
Exhibit A
Summary of Trade--Year Ending December 31, 1997
[Short tons]
Exports................................................. 63,427,557
Imports................................................. 34,881,460
Domestic receipts....................................... 89,435,110
Domestic shipments...................................... 32,350,670
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 220,094,797
World Port Tonnage Comparison
[Year ending December 31, 1997]
Port of Singapore....................................... 327,500,000
Port of Rotterdam....................................... 307,300,000
Port of Kaohsiung....................................... ( \1\ )
Port of South Louisiana................................. 220,094,797
Port of Houston......................................... ( \1\ )
\1\ Unavailable at printing.
Source: Finance Division, Business Development Division, Port of South
Louisiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit B
Exports--Year Ending December 31, 1997
[Short tons]
Commodity Shipped
Animal feed............................................. 9,488,615
Barley.................................................. 19,953
Chemicals or fertilizer................................. 2,067,700
Crude oil............................................... 36,687
Edible oils............................................. 1,340,941
Maize................................................... 24,721,960
Milo.................................................... 1,969,310
Ores.................................................... 16,000
Petroleum Products...................................... 2,559,924
Rice.................................................... 581,779
Soybeans................................................ 15,554,336
Wheat................................................... 4,424,749
Wood/wood chips......................................... 645,603
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total exports..................................... 63,427,557
Source: Finance Division, Business Development Division, Port of South
Louisiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit C
Imports--Year Ending December 31, 1997
[Short tons]
Commodity Received
Chemicals or fertilizer................................. 1,695,269
Coal, lignite, coke..................................... 6,569
Crude oil............................................... 14,783,704
Edible oils............................................. 579,898
Grain................................................... 22,826
Ores.................................................... 3,399,154
Petroleum Products...................................... 10,661,594
Rice.................................................... 22,000
Steel, iron, metals..................................... 1,605,599
Sugar, molasses, honey.................................. 101,639
Stone, earth, or concrete............................... 2,003,208
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total imports..................................... 34,881,460
Source: Finance Division, Business Development Division, Port of South
Louisiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit D
DOMESTIC TRADE--YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1997
[Short tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Received Shipped
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal feed............................. 4,485,887 405,079
Barley.................................. 18,068 ..............
Chemicals or fertilizer................. 2,672,382 5,921,968
Coal, lignite, coke..................... 15,000 ..............
Crude oil............................... 4,610,323 2,729,885
Edible oils............................. 559,004 215,235
Maize................................... 24,375,854 ..............
Milo.................................... 649,240 ..............
Ores.................................... 4,307,258 1,015,382
Petroleum products...................... 23,303,370 21,567,298
Rice.................................... 530,057 27,795
Soybeans................................ 18,978,475 1,100
Steel, iron, or metals.................. 513,032 266,116
Stone or concrete....................... 125,095 65,618
Sugar, molasses, honey.................. 95,786 2,959
Wheat................................... 3,586,062 9,241
Wood/wood chips......................... 610,217 122,994
-------------------------------
Total domestic trade.............. 89,435,110 32,350,670
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Finance Division, Business Development Division, Port of South
Louisiana.
______
Prepared Statement of Gov. Murphy J. ``Mike'' Foster on behalf of the
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Public Works
and Flood Control Directorate
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Public
Works and Flood Control Directorate, is the agency designated to
represent the State of Louisiana in the planning and orderly
development of its water resources. This statement is presented on
behalf of the State of Louisiana and contains recommendations for
fiscal year 1999 appropriations for work in Louisiana under the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
Louisiana contains the terminus of the Mississippi River, which has
the third largest drainage basin in the world, exceeded only by the
watersheds of the Amazon and Congo Rivers. The Mississippi River drains
41 percent, or 1\1/4\ million square miles, of the contiguous United
States and parts of two Canadian provinces. All of the runoff from
major river basins, such as the Missouri and Upper Mississippi, the
Ohio including the Tennessee and others, and the Arkansas and White,
flow into the Lower Mississippi, which empties into the Gulf of Mexico
through Louisiana.
The jurisdiction of levee boards in Louisiana includes one-third of
the State's total area. However, the importance of this one-third of
the State can be seen by the fact that it contains nearly 75 percent of
the State's population and about 97 percent of the State's disposable
personal income. Traditionally, the levee district areas are water rich
and have fallen heir to industrial development that ranks high in the
nation. It has been estimated that about 60 percent of the State's
agricultural products come from levee district areas. So you can see
why Louisiana and its twenty levee districts are so interested in
seeing the completion of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
In making the following recommendations regarding construction,
studies, and some selected operation and maintenance items, the State
of Louisiana understands the Administration's need to reduce the
Federal deficit, but would hope that Congress and the Administration
will honor their prior commitments to infrastructure development and
fund our requests.
The following Louisiana projects are those for which we are
requesting an increase to the President's budget request. For those
Louisiana projects not listed we agree with the President's budget
request. See the attached ``Summary of Recommended Appropriations'' for
a complete listing.
Operation and maintenance
Request
Atchafalaya Basin....................................... $16,246,000
Old River............................................... 12,485,000
Bonnet Carre............................................ 2,357,000
The operation and maintenance of completed works are essential to
achieving the full benefits of the projects. In times of budget
constraints it is essential that operation and maintenance not be
delayed which would hamper the effectiveness of the projects and cause
more expensive maintenance at a later date. The above listed projects
have reached a point where delayed maintenance is now essential and we
urge you to fund these projects in the amounts requested.
Bayou rapides drainage structure and pumping plant
Request
Lower Red River, South Bank Levees...................... $2,773,000
The Bayou Rapides Drainage Structure and Pumping Plant Project is
authorized under the Lower Red River, South Bank Levees of the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. An additional $1 million is
requested to complete plans and specifications and to begin
construction. These additional funds will maintain the scheduled 18
months allowed for major maintenance projects. We urge your support for
funding and request that specific language be included in the
appropriations bill to direct the Secretary of the Army to construct
this project.
Mississippi River levees (LA only)--Request: $15,200,000
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project above Louisiana is
about 90 percent complete, but in Louisiana to a much lesser extent.
Because of the improvements upstream, increased flows are a major
problem in Louisiana where the project is lagging behind the
construction in the upper valley. We request funds for levee
enlargement work within the Fifth Louisiana Levee District where there
is a deficiency of 4 to 7 feet on mainline Mississippi River levees. It
is also requested that Federal funds be provided to purchase rights-of-
way for this critical work as the Levee District is in an economically
depressed area and does not have a tax base capably of producing the
funds necessary for both maintenance and rights-of-way.
Louisiana State Penitentiary levee--Request: $10,000,000
The Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee is the only section of
Mississippi River levee in Louisiana that is not currently constructed
to Federal standards. It was authorized under the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project in 1986 and re-authorized in 1990. We urge your
support in funding this project and request that specific language be
included in the appropriations bill to direct the Secretary of the Army
to construct this project before an emergency situation arises during a
major river flood and also to authorize credit for work accomplished by
non-Federal interests.
Atchafalaya basin--Request: $24,600,000
This project is a main stem component of the flood control plan for
the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. The Mississippi River
can safely carry only one-half of the project flood, or 1,500,000 cubic
feet per second, below Old River; the other 1,500,000 cubic feet per
second must be discharged through the Atchafalaya Basin. The levees
which must confine this flow to the basin are now deficient because
they have settled below original design grade due to consolidation of
the underlying soils, and the design has been revised upward. This
places the lives and welfare of approximately 650,000 people and their
property and improvements in 13 parishes in the immediate vicinity of
the Atchafalaya Floodway in jeopardy each flood year. The tax
assessment records indicate the value of potential flood losses to be
approximately $8 billion, not including public improvements. Over the
past half century, we have supported the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project and have agreed that construction of flood
protection works should start upstream and progress downstream. As a
result, the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project is now more than
90 percent complete in sites upstream from Louisiana, while the levees
in the Atchafalaya Basin can contain approximately only 90 percent of
the project flood. Work on this project has been underway since 1928
and isn't scheduled for completion until the year 2031--a date that
continually keeps moving further into the future. With the reduced
budgets being enacted, Louisiana could possibly never realize the full
benefits of this project before the dreaded project flood occurs. We
urge your support for funding this effort to the full capability of the
Corps. In addition, authorization is needed to provide Federal funds
toward the construction of a replacement facility for the Bayou Yokely
Pump Station in St. Mary Parish.
Channel improvement (LA only)--Request: $16,120,000
Channel improvements and stabilization provide protection of the
levees and the development behind them, as well as preventing
unsatisfactory alignment where the river's bank is unstable. We are
requesting an additional $3,620,000 ($2 million New Orleans District
and $1.62 million for the Vicksburg District) for fiscal year 1999 to
keep the program moving forward. The funds we are requesting will
provide for the dredging and revetment work necessary to accommodate
increased flows caused by upstream improvements.
Tensas basin, Red River backwater area (Sicily Island Area Levee
Project)--Request: $11,400,000
The funds for fiscal year 1999 are to be used to continue
construction of levee Items 1E and 2A, the HaHa Pumping Plant and to
complete relocations for levee Item 2A and construction of levee Item
3B. An additional $1.3 million is requested to advance the award of
Item 2B.
Morganza, LA to the Gulf of Mexico--Request: $755,000
This study area of approximately 4,000 square miles lies in the
corridor between the Mississippi and the East Atchafalaya Basin Levees
and is part of the alluvial floodplain of the Mississippi River. These
levees intercepted the drainage which now must flow approximately 125
miles to the Gulf of Mexico. The area is affected by backwater flooding
from the Atchafalaya Basin and is also affected by tides. This is a
very important project to the State and we urge your continued support.
Atchafalaya basin floodway system--Request: $10,000,000
The project consists of acquiring real estate interests, excluding
minerals, in the lower floodway for flood control, environmental
protection, and public access purposes. The timing of the acquisition
of land necessitates the increased funding request.
Donaldsonville to the Gulf of Mexico--Request: $1,000,000
This is a new reconnaissance study for the area between Bayou
Lafourche and the Mississippi River to determine solutions to the
flooding and environmental degradation caused in part by the leveeing
of the Mississippi River. Flooding caused by hurricane storm surge
would also be investigated. The size of the area that the study will
encompass and the complexity of the flooding problems therein will
require a greater effort by the Corps in the reconnaissance phase. We,
therefore, request your support to direct the Secretary of the Army to
conduct a 24-month reconnaissance study at a $1,000,000 appropriation
in lieu of the Corps' normal 6-month $100,000 limitation.
Mississippi delta region project, Davis Pond--Request: $16,000,000
Davis Pond Freshwater Diversion Project is necessary to aid in the
fight against coastal erosion and land loss. The State of Louisiana's
commitment to this project is demonstrated by our agreement to provide
25 percent of the cost of construction, operation and maintenance of
the Davis Pond structure despite Congressional project authorization at
100 percent Federal cost.
Local contributions for flood control improvements
Historically, Louisiana has always done its part in cooperation
with the Federal agencies concerned with flood control. The Louisiana
State Board of Engineers, the forerunner of the Department of
Transportation and Development, Public Works and Flood Control
Directorate, was created in 1879, the same year as the Mississippi
River Commission, to coordinate the planning and construction of the
required flood control facilities to protect the State. Since that
time, local expenditures for flood control have exceeded $730,000,000.
This amount adjusted to 1979 dollars represents expenditures in excess
of $5.3 billion. Nearly one-half of the potential flooded area of the
Lower Mississippi River Valley lies in Louisiana. Local expenditures
for flood control have increased with the growth of the valley. This
record not only meets, but exceeds any National Water Policy local
participation requirement ever put into practice.
conclusion
The President's budget for civil works projects again proposes a
transition from annual incremental funding of all project construction
requirements to full funding of those requirements. Once again we feel
this is fool hardy. Federal dollars would be tied up for future work
instead of constructing much needed projects which have already been
committed to by the Federal government and the local sponsor. In many
cases the local sponsor has sold bonds to come up with their share of
the funds. These advance appropriations are being requested for only a
few selected projects. The unlucky remainder will have to wait, having
their projects dragged out indefinitely, or stopped altogether because
there is no money to continue them. This budget also does not allow for
any new contracts to be let in fiscal year 1999, not ``new construction
starts,'' but contracts to continue projects already under
construction. This is truly not fiscally responsible.
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project has been underway
since 1928 and isn't scheduled for completion until the year 2031--a
date that continually keeps moving further into the future. We
understand the need for budget constraints, but the President's budget
request of $280,000,000 for the total MR&T Project is not adequate. We
endorse the recommendation of the Lower Mississippi Valley Flood
Control Association in their request for a minimum of $325,000,000 MR&T
budget for funding to the full capability of the Corps.
The State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and
Development, Public Works and Flood Control Directorate, in particular,
wishes to commend the Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water
Development, and express our appreciation for the foresight and
understanding exhibited for water resources projects which are vital to
the national interest. We solicit your further consideration of the
recommendations presented herein.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana
Louisiana projects Budget request request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and Maintenance:
Mississippi River Levees (total
MR&T).............................. $6,271,000 $6,271,000
Atchafalaya Basin................... 9,425,000 16,246,000
Channel Improvement (total MR&T).... 53,329,000 53,329,000
Old River Control Structure......... 4,100,000 12,485,000
Lower Red River--South Bank Levees,
Bayou Rapides Drainage Structure
and Pumping Plant.................. 1,773,000 2,773,000
Tensas Basin:
Boeuf and Tensas Rivers, AR, LA. 2,374,000 2,374,000
Red River Backwater Area........ 2,820,000 2,820,000
Bonnet Carre Spillway............... 975,000 2,357,000
Atchafalaya Basin, Floodway System,
LA................................. 613,000 613,000
Baton Rouge Harbor--Devil Swamp, LA. 146,000 146,000
Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries...... 90,000 90,000
Mississippi Delta Region,
Caernarvon, LA..................... 402,000 402,000
Construction:
Mississippi River Levees (LA only).. 8,600,000 15,200,000
Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee.. 400,000 10,000,000
Atchafalaya Basin................... 21,023,000 24,600,000
Channel Improvements (LA only)...... 12,500,000 16,120,000
Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater
Area............................... 10,100,000 11,400,000
Atchafalaya Basin, Floodway System.. 7,500,000 10,000,000
Mississippi Delta Region, Davis Pond 14,000,000 16,000,000
Mississippi and Louisiana Estuarine
Area (Bonnet Carre)................ 250,000 250,000
General Investigations:
Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico...... 755,000 755,000
Alexandria to the Gulf of Mexico.... 500,000 500,000
Donaldsonville to the Gulf of Mexico .............. 1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The projects listed above are only those in Louisiana and directly
affecting the State. We realize that there are other projects in these
areas. We endorse the recommendations of the Lower Mississippi Valley
Flood Control Association.
______
Prepared Statement of James E. Wanamaker, Chief Engineer, Board of
Mississippi Levee Commissioners
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I am James E. Wanamaker,
Chief Engineer for the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners,
Greenville, Mississippi, and I have the privilege of presenting this
statement on behalf of this Board and the citizens of the Levee
District. This District consists of the counties of Bolivar, Issaquena,
Sharkey, Washington, and parts of Humphreys and Warren in the Lower
Yazoo Basin in Mississippi.
As in past years, we remind you that the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project is one of if not the most cost-effective projects
ever under taken by the U.S. The foresight used by the Congress in
their authorization of the many features of this project is exemplary.
Annual funding for this project needs to be $350,000,000 for
construction to stay on schedule. We are all aware of the desire of the
Congress to balance the Federal budget and we appreciate the effort
made by the Congress to provide the maximum funding available for this
work. The Lower Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association will be
submitting a general statement in support of the appropriation of
$325,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 for the construction, surveys,
advanced engineering and the operation and maintenance of the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. As many areas of our Nation
are experiencing the devastation of floods from the El Nino weather
system, we are reminded that without the comprehensive Mississippi
River and Tributaries Project, our areas could be experiencing the same
devastation. The Lower Mississippi River receives flood water from 41
percent of the continental United States, with the Lower Mississippi
River having experienced water levels above flood stage for the past 5
years.
Last year the Congress rejected the concept of full funding of
flood control projects, yet again the administration's budget includes
advanced appropriation of $530,992,000 for a number of projects
scheduled for completion by the year 2003. This policy, if adopted will
hold back money needed for the construction of many flood control,
navigation, and environmental restoration projects that are under
funded in this year's Budget. The current policy of continuing
authority has worked for decades to assure that the country's economic
and environmental status remains the envy of the World.
The President's Budget request falls far short of the needs and
capabilities of the Corps of Engineers for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project that includes work on the Mainline Mississippi
River Levees and the Yazoo Basin Projects. The following table outlines
what the Congress appropriated last year, the President's Budget
request and our request for your consideration while deliberating the
appropriation for this year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Fiscal year 1999 1999 levee
Project 1998 President's board (local
appropriations budget request sponsor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction:
Yazoo Backwater............................................. $520,000 .............. $500,000
Upper Steele Bayou.......................................... 3,862,000 $3,450,000 6,000,000
Demonstration Erosion Control............................... 15,000,000 3,900,000 18,000,000
Tributaries................................................. 200,000 200,000 200,000
Upper Yazoo Project......................................... 11,000,000 9,250,000 12,500,000
Maintenance:
Big Sunflower............................................... 2,237,000 .............. 4,500,000
Arkabutla................................................... 3,514,000 3,193,000 4,600,000
Enid........................................................ 3,556,000 3,272,000 4,500,000
Grenada..................................................... 4,662,000 4,330,000 6,200,000
Sardis...................................................... 6,666,000 4,320,000 8,100,000
Tributaries................................................. 1,343,000 1,238,000 1,300,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total \1\................................................. 52,560,000 33,153,000 66,400,000
===============================================
Mississippi River levees:
Construction:
Vicksburg District \1\.................................. 13,100,000 7,850,000 19,000,000
Lower MS River Valley Division \2\...................... 28,143,000 23,750,000 40,900,000
Maintenance:
Vicksburg District \1\.................................. 2,136,000 2,200,000 2,600,000
Lower MS River Valley Division \2\...................... 6,818,000 6,271,000 6,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vicksburg District includes portions of the states of Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
\2\ Lower MS Valley Division includes portions of the states of Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee,
Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
It is imperative that the work on the Mainline Mississippi River
Levee Enlargement Project move forward as fast as funding will allow.
We are requesting an appropriation for this item of $40.9 Million,
which will allow the continuation of ongoing construction contracts,
and is critical for the award of the contract on our most deficient
section of levee in Mississippi. We are also requesting additional
funding for maintenance on the Mainline Mississippi River Levees. An
additional $598,000 is required for maintenance gravel on the levee
roadways in the Vicksburg District to allow access for inspection and
flood fighting during high water. Several reaches of our levee are
becoming difficult to travel during wet weather conditions.
The Reformulation of all remaining work in the Yazoo Basin has
delayed construction for as much as 5 years on the Upper Steele Bayou
and Upper Yazoo Projects. Our request includes $6.0 Million for the
Upper Steele Bayou Project needed to insure that the contracts leading
into the City of Greenville continue on schedule. An appropriation of
$12.5 Million for the Upper Yazoo Project is needed to allow this work
to proceed upstream toward Greenwood. Our request also is made in
support of Yazoo Backwater Project, Demonstration Erosion Control and
Tributaries features of the Yazoo Basin Appropriation as outlined in
the preceding table.
With the funding that you have so generously provided over the last
several years, we find that the President's Budget did not include any
funding for the continuation of contracts to be awarded this year on
the Big Sunflower River-Bogue Phalia Operation and Maintenance Project.
The need for this maintenance was identified in 1989, and the residents
of south Washington County continue year after year to wait for the
restoration of the protection provided in the 1960's when construction
was completed on the work authorized by the Congress. We ask that $4.5
Million be include in this year's appropriation for the Big Sunflower
River Maintenance Project to allow the Corps of Engineers to fulfill
the Federal responsibility for this work. Additional funds outlined in
the above table are also needed over those included in the President's
Budget for the Reservoirs that hold back flood water from ravaging
Greenwood, Marks, Lambert and many other Mississippi Cities.
We are grateful for the consideration given to us each year by the
Committee and appreciate the opportunity to present our requests to you
at this time.
______
Prepared Statement of M.V. Williams, President, West Tennessee
Tributaries Association
My name is M.V. Williams and my home is in Friendship, Tennessee
between the Middle and South Forks of the Forked Deer River. I am the
President of the West Tennessee Tributaries Association. It is also my
pleasure to serve as Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Lower
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association with headquarters in
Memphis, Tennessee. This statement on behalf of the Association
presents their views on fiscal year 1999 Budget for the Mississippi
River and Tributaries Project. I will present several items of general
interest to all our Membership. Other Members of the Association will
present statements that will concern specific items of interest.
I will briefly discuss the Lower Mississippi Valley Flood Control
Association which is an Agency composed almost entirely of public
bodies having local responsibility for flood control, drainage, bank
stabilization and navigation improvements in parts of Illinois,
Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri and Louisiana. Our
members are public officials who for the most part are elected by the
people. The Association represents practically all of the levee and
drainage districts, municipalities, port and harbor commissions and
other state agencies in the Lower Mississippi Valley, extending from
Cape Girardeau, Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico. These organizations and
agencies are political subdivisions of the various states in which they
are organized and function. We provide an agency through which the
people of the Lower Mississippi Valley may speak and act jointly on all
flood control, navigation, bank stabilization and major drainage
problems. We have appeared before the Sub-Committee and served the
people in the Lower Mississippi Valley for well over sixty years.
The value of flood control and economic reality of the need for
navigation is well known by the Congress therefore I shall not go into
details but for the sake of confirming what is already known let me
tell you that for every federal dollar invested in the Mississippi
River and Tributaries project twenty-four dollars have been returned in
damages prevented. In addition river navigation has produced annual
benefits of almost nine hundred million dollars. What a wonderful
investment of tax-payer's dollars.
Fortunately for us and the other citizens of this great Nation, the
Congress in it's wisdom has always recognized the value of such an
investment and has consequently, with only very, very rare exceptions,
appropriated more dollars for the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project that has been requested by the Executive Department.
The Office of Management and Budget has for many years been our
greatest problem and concern. Each year they reduce, cut and manipulate
the Corps of Engineers' Budget that only serves to slow or stop
construction and/or delay vitally needed maintenance work. This forces
the extension of the completion date further into the future and
endangers the integrity of the in-place flood control structures and
the navigation channel. This is very expensive and reflects poor
management of the assets of this Nation plus it endangers the life and
property of the citizens of this Nation, especially the eight and a
half million living in the Lower Mississippi Valley.
This year the President's Budget request is no different. Without
an increase of funds by the Congress, there is a very strong
probability that on-going contracts will have to be stopped and
required maintenance work will be postponed.
As we have done for over 60 years, this Association has carefully
reviewed the budget submission and find not only inadequate funds but
we also note that the Executive Department has again this year
attempted to initiate the concept of ``Full Funding'' even though the
Congress strongly rejected that ill-advised and un-wise policy last
year. We urge you to take similar actions this year.
For several years this Association has been steadfast in it's
position that a minimum annual Appropriation of Four Hundred Million
Dollars for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project is required
in order that the Project may be completed in the most economically and
engineeringly feasible manner. Since the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Appropriation includes funding for maintenance, these funds
would permit orderly repairs and improvements required to insure the
integrity of our levee system and the assurance of the authorized
navigation channel on the Lower Mississippi River as well as the
protection and enhancement of the environment.
We note that the Corps of Engineers capabilities for the
Mississippi River Tributaries Project in fiscal year 1999 exceeds the
Four Hundred Million Dollars.
We are all involved in the Country's business in some manner and we
are fully aware of the limitation of funds and the need to balance the
federal budget, but investing in capital improvements has made this
Country great and if we allow those capital investments to lag we will
surely pay a dear price in the future. In order merely to keep the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project on schedule and protect our
past investments will require a minimum commitment from the Congress of
Three Hundred Fifty Million Dollars.
It appears that our request for funding continues to decrease so
let me put the bottom line on the absolute minimum Appropriations for
the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project for fiscal year 1999.
In order to merely preserve the integrity of our flood control and
navigation systems, protect the natural environment of the Lower
Mississippi River and to continue the work that is underway, the
minimum Appropriation we will request is Three Hundred Twenty-Five
Million Dollars.
What price are we willing to pay? Do we ignore our infrastructure
that we have invested so much time and money in? Do we have a balanced
budget but no real wealth? Do we have a zero deficit but no good
highways and bridges, no dependable navigation systems, no safe flood
control projects, no real wealth? Do we continue to reduce the
Appropriations for capital improvements to the point that the barge
loaded with heating oil cannot get to Chicago so that our citizens can
be warm in wintertime or the barge loaded with grain cannot get to New
Orleans so that our farmers can be competitive in the world market or
our citizens must live in fear of floods that will destroy their
property or worse yet take their lives?
Only Congress can answer these questions.
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project more than paid for
itself in reduced monetary losses in only one flood, but this is not
the complete story. The real benefits of this project are the reduction
in human suffering, the improved health and the well being of the
citizens. All of the approved methods known to us for making economic
and environmental project analysis fall far short of fully evaluating
these human needs. Since the productivity of the millions of acres of
low lying lands adjacent to the main stem of the Lower Mississippi
River are totally dependent upon the integrity of the flood control
works, any major slow down in the completion of this project will
represent economic strangulation to this productive portion of our
nation. We are aware of the ever increasing demand on the federal
dollar and the many complex problems that the Congress is confronted
with, but we believe that this project is economically sound,
environmentally necessary, and we urge its completion with all
deliberate haste.
The ultimate goal to be accomplished with the passage of the Act of
1928 was that the lower valley would never again be destroyed by a
flood such as that of the fateful year of 1927. When completed, our
project will afford adequate protection to the people and lands of the
alluvial valley against a ``project flood'' that is, the maximum flood
which meteorologists estimate may occur. The project would also insure
the permanency of location for harbor facilities and industrial sites
and to obtain deeper and more reliable navigation channels. With the
help of the Congress we have made progress in the Lower Mississippi
Valley but the job has not been completed. The people of the valley
will not feel or be safe until the job is completed.
______
Prepared Statement of Lynn Lowe, President, Red River Valley
Association
introduction
The Red River Valley Association is a voluntary group of citizens
banded together to advance the economic development and future well-
being of the citizens of the four state Red River Basin area in
Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.
For the past 73 years, the Association has done notable work in the
support and advancement of programs to develop the land and water
resources of the Valley to the beneficial use of all the people. To
this end, the Red River Valley Association offers its full support and
assistance to the various Port Authorities, Chambers of Commerce,
Economic Development Districts and other local governmental entities in
developing the area along the Red River.
The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association
during its 73rd Annual Meeting in Shreveport, Louisiana on February 19,
1998, and represent the combined concerns of the citizens of the Red
River Basin area as they pertain to the goals of the Association,
specifically: Economic and Community Development; Flood Control; Bank
Stabilization; A Clean Water Supply for Residential, Commercial,
Industrial and Agriculture Uses; Solar and Hydroelectric Power
Generation; Recreation; Navigation; and Environment.
The Red River Valley Association is aware of the constraints on the
federal budget, and has kept those restraints in mind as these
Resolutions were adopted. Therefore, and because of the far-reaching
regional and national benefits addressed by the various projects
covered in these Resolutions, we urge the members of Congress to review
the materials contained herein and give serious consideration to
funding the projects at the levels requested.
rrva statement
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Lynn Lowe, and I am
pleased to represent the Red River Valley Association as its President.
Our organization was founded in 1925 with the express purpose of
uniting the citizens of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas to
develop the land and water resources of the Red River Basin.
The civil works budget has been drastically cut by the
Administration for fiscal year 1999. The overall reduction is 21
percent; however, most disturbing is the 47 percent cut in general
construction. Civil works projects are the backbone to our nation's
infrastructure for waterways, flood control and water supply. We remind
you that these projects are a true `jobs program' in that 100 percent
of the construction is contracted to the private sector as is much of
the architect and engineer work. Not only do these funds provide jobs,
but provide economic development opportunities for our communities to
grow and provide permanent jobs.
The civil works program is a catalyst that is responsible for the
great economy we now experience. It would be irresponsible to allow our
nation's infrastructure to deteriorate, or worse, stop its growth in a
time when America must be the leader in the world market. Our inland
waterways is the key to our dominance in world trade. This is a pivotal
budget year where critical decisions must be made which will determine
our future economic strength.
The Administration has clearly made the wrong decision. We ask you
to correct this and to fund the Corps of Engineers at a realistic level
as you did in fiscal year 1998. We also request you place in your
budget language that recognizes the importance of our nation's
waterways and the positive economic impact civil work activities have
to our citizens.
I would like to comment on our requests for the future economic
well-being of the citizens residing in the four state Red River Basin
area.
Navigation.--The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is living up to the
expectations of the benefits projected. The average tonnage moved in
1995 and 1996 was 3,279,000 tons and the projected tonnage to justify
the project was 3,327,000 tons. We are extremely proud of our public
ports, municipalities and state agencies who have created this success.
An international ship building company has moved into the Shreveport-
Bossier City Port hiring a work force of 400 with an annual salary base
of $25 million. This is just an example of one of the many companies
now operating on the Waterway. You are reminded that the Waterway is
not complete. In order to keep the waterway safe and reliable we must
continue at a funding level higher than the President's Budget. We can
not sacrifice what has been accomplished by inadequate funding levels.
In fiscal year 1999 you provided funds to initiate the feasibility
study to extend navigation from Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana into
the State of Arkansas. It is imperative that you continue funding this
important study. Many areas continue to suffer major unemployment, and
the navigation project, although not the total solution, will help
revitalize the economy in this region. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Planning Aid Report indicated minimal impact and most probably
an enhancement to environmental value. Last summer colonies of least
terns (an endangered species) were found on stabilized sandbars in the
completed waterway as well as increased migratory birds due to the
newly formed pools. I want to stress that the local sponsor, the Red
River Commission of Arkansas, has available their 50 percent cost share
for the complete feasibility study. Few local sponsors have funds `in
the bank' and are also willing to fund additional studies to insure a
complete analysis is made.
Bank Stabilization.--One of the most important continuing programs
on the Red River is bank stabilization. We must stop the loss of
valuable farmland that erodes down stream and interferes with the
navigation channel. In addition to the loss of farmland is the threat
to public utilities such as roads, electric power lines and bridges; as
well as increased dredging cost in the navigation part of the river.
These revetment projects are compatible with subsequent navigation
and we urge that they be continued in those locations designated by the
Corps of Engineers to be the areas of the worst erosion.
It is essential to protect the banks from caving and erosion along
the Red River below Denison Dam to Index, Arkansas. The Federal
Government constantly encourages its farmers to protect their lands
against all forms of erosion, so it only makes sense to be consistent.
An authorized project exists; `Red River Waterway, Index, AR to Denison
Dam, TX, Bank Stabilization', so the issue lies with the benefit/cost
ratio. We believe that the authorized, on going `Sediment Transport
Study' will identify benefits due to reduced dredging cost to the
Navigation Waterway in Louisiana.
There is a new technique for bank stabilization which could be
tested as a demonstration project under this authorization. This new
technique, underwater bendway weirs, has proven to be less expensive
than conventional methods and more efficient in controlling the energy
of the river as well as providing environmental benefits. Much prime
farmland in Oklahoma and Texas is lost each year to river erosion and
we must investigate all avenues to correct this problem.
Flood Control.--You will recall that in 1990 major areas of
northeast Texas, Southwest Arkansas and the entire length of the Red
River in Louisiana were ravaged by the worst flooding to hit the region
since 1945 and 1957. More than 700,000 acres were flooded with total
damages estimated at $20.4 million. However, it could have been much
worse. The Corps of Engineers estimates that without the flood control
measure authorized by Congress over the past several decades an
additional 1.3 million acres would have been flooded with an estimated
$330 million in additional flood damage to agricultural and urban
developments. We continue to consider flood control a major objective
and request you continue funding the levee rehabilitation projects
ongoing in Arkansas and Texas.
Clean Water.--Nearly 3,500 tons of natural salts, primarily sodium
chloride, enter the upper reaches of the Red River each day, rendering
downstream waters unusable for most purposes. The Truscott Brine Lake
project, which is located on the South Fork of the Wichita River in
King and Knox Counties, Texas became operational in 1987. An
independent panel of experts found that the project not only continues
to perform beyond design expectations in providing cleaner water, but
has an exceptionally favorable cost benefit ratio. Sixteen million
dollars was appropriated in fiscal year 1995, by the Administration, to
accelerate engineering design, real estate acquisition and initiate
construction of the Crowell Brine Dam, Area VII and Area IX. Due to a
conflict over environmental issues, raised by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, completion of the SFEIS was delayed pending further
study to determine the extent of possible impacts to fish and wildlife,
their habitats and biological communities along the Red River and Lake
Texoma. In an effort to resolve these issues and insure that no harmful
impact to the environment or ecosystems would result, a comprehensive
environmental and ecological monitoring program was implemented. It
evaluates the actual impacts of reducing chloride concentrations within
the Red River watershed. This base line date is crucial to
understanding the ecosystem of the Red River basin west of Lake Texoma
and funding for this must continue.
The Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement was
completed in August 1996; however, has yet to be released. The
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) directed that a
Supplemental Assessment Report (SAR) be conducted and completed by
February 1997. In November 1997 the ASA(CW) agreed to support the
continuation of the Wichita River Basin features of the project to
reclaim Lake Kemp. This would provide a great water source for a large
region in need of usable water.
The Association urges Congress to continue supporting the Chloride
Control Project in order to assure a clean water supply for
residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural uses. This
requires a Federal project; as the benefits affect all four states in
the Red River basin.
Operation and Maintenance.--We appreciate the support of your
subcommittee to support the completion of navigation to Shreveport/
Bossier City which is now providing an increase to our industrial base,
creating jobs and providing economic growth. We request that O&M
funding levels remain at full Corps capability to maintain a safe,
reliable and efficient transportation system.
Full O&M funding levels is not only important for the Waterway
Project but for all our Corps projects and flood control lakes.
We are sincerely grateful to you for the past support you have
given our various projects. We hope that we can count on you again to
fund our needs and complete the projects started that will help us
diversify our economy and create the jobs so badly needed by our
citizens.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and project
details of the Red River Valley Association on behalf of the
industries, organizations and citizens we represent throughout the four
state Red River Valley region. We believe that any federal monies spent
on civil work projects are truly investments in our future and will
return several times the original investment in benefits that will
accrue back to the federal government.
I am always available to provide you and your staff additional
information or clarification on any issue presented.
grant disclosure
The Red River Valley Association has not received any federal
grant, subgrant or contract during the current fiscal year or either of
the two previous fiscal years.
summary of fiscal year 1999 requests
NOTE: Projects are not in any order of priority. Project number
correspond to the backup information in Section IV.
A. Studies (General Investigations)
1. Navigation on the Red River in Southwest Arkansas: WRDA 96
authorized a feasibility study for this project. Funding was
reprogrammed in fiscal year 1998 to initiate the study. The Project
Study Plan (PSP) will be completed and the Feasibility Cost Sharing
Agreement (FCSA) will be signed in fiscal year 1998. The study will
commence with full participation from the communities in the project
area which includes counties and parishes of Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas
and Oklahoma. It is imperative that this study continue to be funded.
NOTE: The local sponsor is prepared to cost share the study, 50
percent and has funds available.
Total Funds Required.................................... $1,400,000
Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Share.......................... 700,000
Local Sponsor Share..................................... 700,000
2. Cypress Valley Watershed Ecosystem Restoration, TX: Request a
feasibility study be initiated. A local sponsor has been identified and
willing to participate.
This study will demonstrate the benefits in flood damage reduction,
environmental restoration, recreation and water supply to the Cypress
Valley Watershed system. The total feasibility cost is estimated to be
$2.2 million; cost shared 50/50 with the local sponsor.
Total Funds Required.................................... $600,000
Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Share (President's Budget...... 300,000
Local Sponsor Share..................................... 300,000
3. Grassy Lake, AR: Project Modifications for Improvement of the
Environment (Section 1135). The Secretary of the Army acting through
the Chief of Engineers is requested to expend, within the funds
provided for the Section 1135 Program; $200,000 for planning and design
of modifications to restore the environmental quality of Grassy Lake,
Hempstead County, Arkansas, degraded by the construction of Millwood
Lake, Arkansas.
Fiscal Year 1999 Funds Required......................... $200,000
4. Southwest Arkansas, Arkansas: Provided further, that the
Secretary of the Army is directed to initiate a reconnaissance study in
Southwest Arkansas utilizing $300,000 appropriated herein to develop an
ecosystem restoration plan that integrates flood control, water supply,
releases for navigation and wildlife habitat. The study will
investigate adverse results caused by construction of Millwood,
DeQueen, Dierks, and Gilham Lakes. Navigation has been extended to
Shreveport/Bossier City, Louisiana, on the Red River, flooding remains
a problem and the lakes' water supply is not being used.
Fiscal Year 1999 Funds Required......................... $300,000
5. Wallace Lake Flood Plain Study: Support the flood plain study,
for Wallace Lake, Caddo Parish, Louisiana as included in the
President's Budget.
B. Construction
6. Red River Waterway Project, LA:
a. We support the $5,392,000 included in the President's budget and
items of work proposed by the Corps.
b. In addition, we request additional funding, to insure the
integrity and safety of the Red River navigation channel is maintained
for reliable barge transportation as well as continuing with recreation
features. Complete construction on Ben Routh/Dupree and Saline
Reinforcement ($3,600,000), Cotton Reinforcement ($1,200,000), Ille Au
Vaches Dikes ($700,000), Lower Campti Dikes ($1,600,000), Cognac ACS
($500,000), Poisson ACS ($800,000) and Eagle Bend Capout PH II
($1,000,000). Construction management cost are $600,000.
Fiscal Year 1999 Funds Required......................... $10,000,000
c. Design Federal Recreation Sites at Locks and Dams 3, 4 & 5 are
required for additional access for safety. Local sponsor funds are
available to cost share.
Total Funds Required.................................... $300,000
Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Share.......................... 150,000
Local Sponsor Share..................................... 150,000
d. Mitigation: We support all efforts to meet this obligation of
the project. Existing funds must be carried forth to continue land
purchase actions.
e. Request the Corps cost share in the design and construction of
boat launch facilities in Pool 3; one at Natchitoches, LA and one at
Colfax, LA. There is limited access to the Red River in Pool 3 and as
commercial traffic increases it is imperative that there be access for
safety. These sites will be cost shared 50/50 with the Red River
Waterway Commission who is prepared to design and construct these
sites.
Total Funds Required.................................... $1,700,000
Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Share.......................... 850,000
Local Sponsor Share..................................... 850,000
f. Following is the total requirement for the Red River Waterway
Project (a thru e above):
President's Budget...................................... $5,392,000
Navigation Construction Adds............................ 10,000,000
Federal Recreation Sites................................ 150,000
Public Recreation Sites................................. 850,000
Mitigation..............................................................
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Required for Fiscal Year 1999............... 16,392,000
7. Red River Chloride Control Project:
a. In November 1997 the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) agreed to support a thorough re-evaluation of the Wichita River
Basin features. Three out of four options have a positive benefit to
cost ratio.
b. Most of the features in the Wichita River basin have been
completed and completion of this system would reclaim Lake Kemp which
would become a major water source for the region.
c. It is extremely important that the ongoing water quality and
environmental monitoring continue. This is critical to establishing a
baseline in which to evaluate the effects of the project.
Fiscal Year 1999 Funds Required......................... $2,000,000
8. Red River Below Denison Dam, Red River; Arkansas Levees:
Continue funding levels for fully funded construction and restoration
of Levee Item # 5 (Miller County Levee District) and design Levee Item
# 6 (Garland Levee District).
Fiscal Year 1999 Funds Required......................... $3,000,000
9. Red River Emergency; Bank Protection; AR and LA: Fully Fund
Construction of Finn Phase II ($3.9 mil) revetment. Complete design and
fully fund construction on Black Lake ($3.5 mil). Canale Revetment
($650,000) and Hurricane Revetment ($2,500,000) have been constructed;
however, adjustments are required to eliminate unanticipated bank
erosion problems.
Fiscal Year 1999 Funds Required......................... $10,550,000
10. Red River Emergency; Bank Stabilization between Denison Dam and
Index, AR: We request the following two items:
a. Investigate incorporating an environmental restoration corridor
in conjunction with bank stabilization.
b. To design and initiate construction for a `demonstration
project' at two sites to analyze the effectiveness of a new technique,
bendway weirs.
Fiscal Year 1999 Funds Required for a and b............. $1,600,000
11. Aloha-Rigolette Project, LA: Construction is underway and the
funding should continue at full Corps capability to complete the
project in fiscal year 1999.
President's Budget...................................... $320,000
To Complete the Project................................. 1,010,000
Total Required for Fiscal Year 1999..................... 1,330,000
12. McKinney Bayou, AR: The reconnaissance study was completed and
determined to be economically feasible. This project will go directly
into PED and cost shared with the local sponsor (Federal 75 percent;
local sponsor 25 percent) over a three year period. There are adequate
carry over funds for fiscal year 1999.
13. Bowie County Levee, TX: The plans and specifications have been
completed. We request construction funding for the `locally preferred'
option under the Flood Control Act of 1946 with assurances of support
and maintenance from the local sponsor.
Fiscal Year 1999 Funds Required......................... $900,000
14. McGrath Creek, TX: Continue construction funding at the level
of full Corps capability. This is supported by the Administration.
15. Ogden Levee, Little River County, AR: This levee was authorized
to be incorporated into the Federal Levee System by the Flood Control
Act of 1946. The levee is in need of rehabilitation and has yet to be
incorporated into the Federal Levee System. The Secretary of the Army
acting through the Chief of Engineers is directed to design and
initiate construction of the Ogden Levee along the Red River. Request
that the Corps conduct PED at a cost share of 75 percent Federal and 25
percent local sponsor. A sponsor has been identified and is prepared
with its share. The Ogden Levee is to be designed to the same
specifications as the opposite bank levees in Bowie and Miller
Counties.
Total Funds Required.................................... $253,000
Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Share.......................... 190,000
Local Sponsor Share..................................... 63,000
16. Bossier Levee System, LA: Have the Corps clear and grub the
channel of Loggy Bayou from its confluence of the Red River for 7.8
miles. This channel has a serious impact on flooding in the upstream
reaches.
Funds Requested......................................... $500,000
C. Operation and Maintenance
17. Red River Waterway, O&M:
a. The President's budget included $8.337 million for the O&M of
this project which falls short of capability and needs. As a new
waterway it is important to allow commerce to move to encourage
industry to develop and maintaining existing navigation structures is
crucial to the safety of the system.
b. WRDA 96 authorized the Corps to insure the oxbows remain
accessible to the Red River for environmental purposes. The oxbow study
report is completed and approved. Work should commence immediately. The
O&M funding level must be adequate to address this issue.
c. $2.5 million is required for revetment repairs to maintain the
integrity and safety of the channel. Again, this new waterway must be
given the full opportunity to develop.
Fiscal Year 1999 President's Budget..................... $8,337,000
Revetment Repair........................................ 2,500,000
Total Fiscal Year 1999 O&M Funds Requested.............. 10,837,000
18. Operations and Maintenance at Corps Projects: Request that all
O&M funded projects remain at the level of Full Corps Capability.
backup information for requests
Following is backup information and a historical perspective on
each project request. They are numbered to correspond to each numbered
project in the Summary of Request, Section III.
1. Navigation on the Red River in Southwest Arkansas.--Twenty-one
years ago the Arkansas General Assembly created the Red River
Commission upon the recommendation of Governor Dale Bumpers, now the
Senior United States Senator for the State of Arkansas. The Commission
was vested with the authority to furnish the local cooperation
necessary for the construction and study of projects and to coordinate
with the Corps of Engineers and the Congress to develop the water
resources of the Red River in Arkansas. With navigation now a reality
to Shreveport, Louisiana, we are prepared to extend water
transportation into Arkansas. Southwest Arkansas and East Texas are
economic depressed regions. This project would provide multi-purpose
opportunities for industries and increased employment. A regional
impact study would clearly demonstrate the great benefits not realized
to date. The local sponsor, Red River Commission of Arkansas, has
initiated and will fully fund a Regional Economic Impact Study.
There is no doubt that this project is feasible and only a full
feasibility study will prove that. Most importantly, the local cost
share, 50 percent, is available now for this study. The feasibility
study was funded to start in fiscal year 1998 and has been initiated.
It is imperative to continue that funding.
2. No additional information.
3. No additional information.
4. No additional information.
5. No additional information.
6. Red River waterway project navigation to Shreveport-Bossier
City.--The Red River Valley Association and Louisiana delegation are
appreciative for the completion of Locks and Dams 4 and 5. Navigation
to Shreveport-Bossier City has significantly boosted the economy
throughout the river basin.
There is still work ahead of us to maintain and develop the
navigation channel. It is also imperative that funds be appropriated to
continue construction on navigation structures for this waterway to
insure reliable, safe commercial navigation.
The Red River Valley Association encourages and supports the
continuation of the Loggy Bayou mitigation project and the mitigation
commitment for the whole project. These are important environmental
projects for the overall system of the Red River.
Recognizing that recreation is an integral component of the Red
River Waterway Project, the Red River Valley Association supports the
development of recreational facilities as a part of the overall project
construction. The Master Plan for Recreation has been submitted to the
Mississippi Valley Division for final review and approval. We support
approval of this re-evaluation and funding to construct the recommended
sites.
7. Red River basin chloride control project.--Natural mineral
pollutants in the upper reaches of the Red River Basin are rendering
downstream waters unusable for most purposes. The primary pollutants
are chlorides and sulfates.
The U.S. Public Health Service initiated a study in 1957 to locate
the natural pollution areas and determine the contribution of
pollutants from the individual areas to the Red River. It was
determined that 10 natural salt source areas located in the basin
contribute a daily average of about 3,600 tons of salt (as NaC1) to the
Red River. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, entered
the study in 1959 to recommend measures to control the natural
pollution. Structural measures were recommended for 8 of the 10 salt
source areas.
An experimental project at Area V near Estelline, Texas was
authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1962. The project consists of a
9-foot-high by 340 foot diameter earthen dike encompassing a brine
spring and a 4-foot-wide concrete outlet flume with stoplogs to control
flow. With the project in operation since January 1964, surface flow
from the spring has been suppressed, thus preventing over 240 tons of
chlorides per day from entering Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River.
Structural measures for chloride control at Areas VII, VIII, and X
in the Wichita River Basin above Lake Kemp were authorized by the Flood
Control Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-789), and structural measures for
Areas VI, IX, XIII, and XIV were authorized by the Flood Control Act of
1970 (Public Law 91-611). Actual construction, however, was not to be
initiated until approved by the Secretary of the Army and the
President. The Flood Control Act of 1970 was amended by the Water
Resources Development Act of 1976 to eliminate the required approval of
the President to initiate construction.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-251),
specifically authorized construction of chloride control measures at
Area VIII, located on the South Fork of the Wichita River in King and
Knox Counties, Texas. The project includes a low-flow dam with a
deflatable weir to collect brine flows emitting from the area, Truscott
Brine Reservoir, located near Truscott, Texas, for brine storage, and a
pump station and pipeline to deliver the brine to the impoundment.
Construction began in the fall of 1976 and the project was placed in
operation in May 1987. Area VIII continues to exceed design
specifications and currently controls over 168 tons of chlorides daily.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662)
required that a special panel evaluate the improvement in water quality
downstream of Area VIII to determine its consistency with the water
quality assumed in the development of project benefits. A favorable
report was submitted to the Assistance Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate
and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of
Representatives in August of 1988. Public Law 99-662 authorizes 100
percent federal funding and construction of the remaining control
features contingent upon the favorable evaluation of the panel.
Congress appropriated $5 million in fiscal year 1991, $3 million in
fiscal year 1992, $6 million in fiscal year 1993, $4 million in fiscal
year 1994 and $16 million in fiscal year 1995 which was in the
President's Budget for the first time ever. These funds were to
continue design and construction of Areas VI, VII, IX and X and the
Crowell Brine Reservoir. Construction of part of the brine collection
facilities (pump station and low flow dam) at Area X was initiated in
September 1991 and is complete. Accelerated design of the remaining
chloride control features was approved in fiscal year 1994 to permit
construction as additional funds become available.
Real estate acquisition for Area VI, VII, IX, and the Crowell Brine
Reservoir was scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1993, but was postponed
pending the outcome of the economic re-evaluation report ordered by the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works which was subsequently
approved in November 1993 and further instructed the Corps of Engineers
to complete all remaining areas of the project.
As part of the process to complete a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (SEIS) USFWS objected to the project in August 1994.
This was unexpected by the Corps of Engineers since they had been
coordinating with USFWS since 1991 and there was no indication they
would deliver a negative opinion. This has stopped all construction
work and effectively delayed the project.
The SFEIS was completed in August 1996; however, the ASA(CW)
directed that a Supplement Assessment Report (SAR) be completed by
February 1997. The ASA(CW) in November 1997, directed the Corps to
proceed with the Wichita River Basin features of the project. The SFEIS
will be modified and approved in fiscal year 1998. Continued funding is
needed to maintain the environmental monitoring program in place and to
initiate work on the Wichita River.
8. Red River below Denison Dam.--Red River Levees and Bank
Stabilization Below Denison Dam is the authorization for constructing
levees, flood control structures and bank stabilization below Denison
Dam. The facilities constructed under this authorization are the first
lines of flood protection for the Red River Valley and its citizens.
Accelerated and new caving of the river banks of the Red River continue
to endanger existing flood control structures and levees as well as
valuable agricultural lands, highways, railroads, utilities, home and
other valuable resources and improvements within the Red River Valley.
A systematic program of bank stabilization and other flood control
measures can prevent these disastrous losses that are presently
occurring.
Because of the construction of the Red River Waterway Project, a
dangerous tendency has developed to de-emphasize construction of flood
control and bank stabilization works under the Red River Levees and
Bank Stabilization program. This tendency should be halted and reversed
least the impression be created that the program is no longer needed or
has been completed. Following the disastrous flood of May 1990, there
can be no doubt of the importance of properly maintained levees and of
bank stabilization. All areas not protected by properly maintained
levees were flooded and the only protection from enormous bank caving
was where revetment projects have been constructed by the Corps.
The Red River Levees and Bank Stabilization Below Denison Dam
Project is the only comprehensive flood control program on the Red
River containing authorization for construction of a variety of flood
control measures, levees and other flood control works. Some of the
projects planned in the original authorization project have not been
completed and these must be constructed in order for the citizens of
the Red River to derive necessary flood protection.
Only minimal funds have been appropriated by Congress for the Red
River Levees and Stabilization Below Denison Dam in recent years. Bank
caving on Red River has progressed in several locations to a critical
state. Railroads, major public highways, levees and other flood control
works are threatened, and unless action is taken in the near future,
these facilities will be destroyed, endangering lives and property of
the citizens of the Red River Valley.
Another example of flood control work needed is levee reshaping
along the main stem of Red River in the state of Arkansas. Many of
these levee sections were severely tested by the May 1990 flood, and it
is apparent that reshaping is needed to increase their integrity,
substantially reduce maintenance costs, and provide additional
structural strength at appropriate elevations needed to protect
citizens, agricultural land and transportation systems. The Corps has
completed an engineering study of the Levees on the Red River from
Index, AR to the Louisiana State Line to establish and prioritize levee
locations that have deficient grades, slopes and crown. This report
included the recommendations with construction costs for all identified
area. Any funds not expended for the engineering study should be
applied to the highest priority area to develop contracts and
construction plans and drawings. The first phase of construction at the
Miller County Levee System was completed in 1995 and a follow on phase
will be completed in fiscal year 1998. In summary, it is imperative
that Red River Levees and Bank Stabilization Below Denison Dam continue
as authorized by Congress and that adequate funding be appropriated to
accomplish the construction of this needed protection.
9. Emergency bank protection.--Although Federal projects have been
authorized for flood control and navigation, many active caving banks
cannot be stabilized because they are not yet sufficiently advanced or
not included in earlier authorizations. The result is continuing,
rampant destruction of valuable lands, threatening vital flood control
facilities and endangering high-cost improvements such as bridges,
pipelines, highways, railroads, utilities, cities and towns.
It is urgent that adequate funding of the item ``Emergency Bank
Protection'' be continued to construct bank stabilization work as early
as possible in the most critical locations instead of waiting several
more years and experiencing the loss of millions of dollars due to
damages. Further, continued neglect of these caving banks will
substantially worsen alignment of the River, making future navigation
realignment and stabilization much more costly and difficult. Many
presently caving banks have an existing alignment that is usable for
the navigation channel and should be preserved now.
10. Bank stabilization--Index, Arkansas to Denison Dam.--Widely
fluctuating stages and high flows during the past several years have
caused sharp increases in bank caving along the Red River from Index,
AR to Denison Dam. This accelerated bank caving has caused the loss of
valuable, vital improvements and non-replaceable prime agricultural
lands. Flood control structures and levees which protect the Valley
from disastrous floods are also endangered. These disastrous losses can
be stopped by a systematic program of bank stabilization. Progressive
construction of such a program is absolutely essential to the safety
growth and well-being of the Red River Valley. To further delay this
vitally needed protection would be short-sighted.
In view of the fact that construction of bank stabilization is so
important to the citizens along the Red River boundary of Oklahoma and
Texas we strongly recommend allowing the Corps of Engineers to proceed
with a ``demonstration project.'' There are new techniques which we
believe are less expensive with better results than the traditional
methods. One new technique is the underwater bendway weir. This
demonstration project will be evaluated along with the ongoing
`sediment transport' study to determine the potential for a large scale
bank stabilization project.
11. Aloha-Rigolette project.--This project, initially authorized in
1941 and constructed during the 1948-54 period, provides for the
protection during high stages of the Red River of some 58,000 acres of
alluvial land. Drainage from 340,000 acres that must flow through
protected areas during lower river stages is disposed of by gravity
flow through two 10 foot by 10 foot gated concrete drainage structures
in the levee at the lower end of the project. This protected area has
continued to develop agriculturally since construction of the project
and now additional gates are needed to allow adequate gravity drainage
during low river stages. As a result, local interests requested that
additional studies be made of the project, paying particular attention
to the adequacy of the flood gate which has now been determined to be
significantly inadequate for current conditions.
A feasibility study was completed by the New Orleans District,
Corps of Engineers in June 1989. The Red River Valley Association urges
that Congress appropriate the full capability of the Corps fiscal year
1999 budget to complete construction activities for the project on the
Bayou Darrow flood gate, clearing and snagging of channels, the low
flow structure and mitigation.
12. McKinney Bayou project, AR.--The Corps of Engineers completed a
reconnaissance study of drainage in Miller County, Arkansas. The
project is known as the McKinney Bayou Project as it is the principal
drainage ditch in the County. Due to the thousand of acres of land
cleared in Miller County during the past 25 years, the ditch is grossly
inadequate to handle the drainage after heavy rains. The Reconnaissance
study had a high B/C ratio and therefore was recommended to go directly
to Planning, engineering and design (PED). A local sponsor has been
identified to cost share PED; Federal 75 percent/local sponsor 25
percent.
13. Bowie County levee, TX.--Major flooding along the Red River in
May 1990 severely tested the integrity of the Bowie County Levee
located along the right bank of the Red River north of Texarkana,
Texas. Had it not been for emergency measures taken by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and local interests, the levee would have been
destroyed during the flood. It is the opinion of the Corps that the
levee would fail if subjected to another flood of the magnitude
encountered in May 1990. Replacement or restoration of the levee is
necessary to protect approximately 7,000 acres of prime agricultural
land as well as residential and farm structures.
Additionally, this levee system protects the land side of the
Miller County levees in Arkansas. The Arkansas levees are being
rehabilitated at full federal expense; therefore, a case has been made
that the Bowie County levee should be funded the same as these levees.
Again, the Arkansas levees would not be of any value should the Bowie
County levee fail. In fiscal year 1997 Congress directed the Corps to
complete designs and specifications for two options; federally
preferred and locally preferred options. It is our intention to have a
fully funded federal project for the locally preferred option.
14. McGrath Creek project.--McGrath Creek is a tributary stream to
Holliday Creek, and has a highly urbanized 5.6 square mile drainage
area located in the heart of the City of Wichita Falls. On May 12 and
13 of 1982, a flood occurred which resulted in flood damage in the
amount of 21.5 million dollars. Floods have reoccurred on the average
of twice per year with annualized damage of approximately 1.6 million
dollars each and every year. In 1986, floods in the Wichita Falls
region resulted in two fatalities, one being at the juncture of
Holliday Creek and McGrath Creek.
The City of Wichita Falls supports the construction of the
$12,100,000 McGrath Creek Flood Control facility, and entered into a
cost-sharing agreement with the federal government for the local match
of 25 percent. Final plans and specifications have been completed by
the Corps of Engineers. Construction has commenced and is a project
supported by the Administration.
15. Little River County, Ogden levee, AR.--The Congress
appropriated $150,000 in fiscal year 1992 and $237,000 and $400,000 in
the ensuring fiscal years to conduct in Little River County a
feasibility study. The feasibility study is to explore the modification
of existing levees and the construction of new levees to avoid a
possible repeat of the devastating flood in May of 1990. The PED cost
will be 100 percent federally funded. We request funding and direction
for the Corps to initiate and complete plans, engineering and design
(PED).
16. Bossier levee district, Bossier Parish, LA.--There is a
drainage channel issue which should be the responsibility of the Corps
of Engineers to maintain. This is Loggy Bayou with its confluence on
the Red River, river mile 194.1, with the channel in question extending
approximately 8 miles upstream into Loggy Bayou.
Loggy Bayou is the final and only channel that drains a vast area
of Northwest Louisiana and part of Arkansas water into the Red River.
The headwaters start in Columbia County, Arkansas and the drainage area
includes large parts of Webster, Beinville and Bossier Parishes in
Louisiana. There are no other diversions for these waters to the Red
River except through Loggy Bayou. In 1943 the Bossier Levee District
agreed to maintain the last 7.8 miles of Loggy Bayou before it enters
the Red River. Conditions have changed drastically since 1943, to
include: the diversion of Coushatta Bayou into the Loggy Bayou; the
channel is now approximately 20 feet deeper due to increased drainage
flows and the Red River Waterway Project has pooled the water into this
section of Loggy Bayou permanently raising the water level. The Bossier
Levee District does not have the equipment, expertise or funding to
keep the channel maintained so there is now a real threat for increased
flooding upstream. Since there have been considerable changes to the
Loggy Bayou Watershed, beyond the control of the Bossier Levee
District, and the waters drained are multi-state it is requested that
the Corps of Engineers be directed to maintain the channel in Loggy
Bayou, under the `Red River Waterway Project', Operations and
Maintenance, from its confluence with the Red River upstream for
approximately 8 miles.
17. No additional information.
18. No additional information.
support resolution: shreveport chamber of commerce
transportation-water--port of shreveport-bossier
Issue.--Development of the Port of Shreveport-Bossier complex to
access usage of the $1.8 billion Red River Waterway Project and to take
advantage of the $68,000,000 annual transportation savings projected by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Public investment is now at
$70,000,000 and private investment continues to grow. Operational
status on a regular basis was achieved in 1997 as some 148 barges
carried 208,684 tons of cargo handled at the Port's two terminals.
Why important.--
--Create 5,000 direct jobs, coupled with up to 15,000 indirect jobs
in our communities over a 20 year period.
--To complete in a global economy.
--Lower transportation costs (annual savings $68,831,000).
--Private investment potential. The first companies to locate at the
Port are successfully operating and showcasing that potential.
The most recent addition, Shreveport Fabricators, is an
expansion of Edison Chouest Offshore's shipbuilding companies
based in South Louisiana. They began operation at the Port in
February, 1998. Red River Terminals, a joint project of
Pennzoil Products Company and Hollywood Marine, began
successful operation at the Port in April, 1997.
--A multi-transportation network is now in place with I-49, I-20,
proposed I-69, Shreveport Regional Airport, two railroads and
barge transportation.
Our position.--Support the continuation of adequate funding for Red
River Waterway maintenance in order to insure navigation to the Port of
Shreveport-Bossier.
transportation-water--red river waterway project
Issue.--The Red River Waterway Project has been completed from the
Mississippi River to Shreveport/Bossier City, Louisiana. Over the next
few years the navigation structures (Dykes and Revetments) need to be
adjusted and some may be added. In addition, it will take approximately
$11 million per year to operate and maintain the system.
Why important.--For economic development to be fully realized we
must operate the Red River in a reliable manner for industry to use it
as a major transportation system. The navigation channel must be
maintained at a 9-foot draft for safe use. If the channel is not
properly maintained, industry will be reluctant to use the Red River.
The project Recreational Master Plan has been completed and it is
important to execute the plan as soon as possible. There is limited
access to the Red River and these sites are necessary for safety as
well as the economic benefits of recreation.
Our position.--We thank you for the funds which completed the Red
River Waterway Project and we request funding for continuing on
projects for navigation and recreation.
It is imperative that $11 million be appropriated for Operation and
Maintenance functions for a safe, reliable waterway. This is $2,500,000
above the President's budget.
We support the recreation development of the waterway and request a
commitment of $1,200,000 for federal recreation sites at Locks and Dams
3, 4 and 5.
To continue with completion of the channel improvement structures
we support an additional $11,200,000 to the President's budget for
``Construction General'' projects.
transportation-water--red river basin chloride control project
Issue.--The first comprehensive study of the water quality of the
Red River basin was initiated in 1957 by the U.S. Public Health Service
under the authorization of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. It
was determined that ten natural salt source areas contribute a daily
average of 3,600 tons of salt per day to the river. This renders
downstream waters unusable for most purposes. Structural measures to
help control the chloride pollution at 8 of the 10 sites were developed
by the Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers. These plans led to
Congressional authorization in the Flood Control Acts of 1962, 1966 and
1970. The first structure was completed in January 1964 and the second
in May 1987. The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 authorized the
construction of the remaining sites.
Approximately one-third of the project cost has been expended. The
total project is expected to cost $303 million.
The Tulsa District Corps of Engineers has completed the Supplement
to the Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). The Assistant Secretary
of the Army (CW) directed the District to submit a Supplemental
Assessment Report on alternatives by January 31, 1997.
Why important.--Natural mineral pollutants (primarily chlorides and
sulfates) in the upper reaches of the Red River Basin are rendering
downstream waters unusable for most purposes; therefore, the Red River
Chloride Project is imperative in order to realize full utilization of
the surface water supplies in Louisiana (as well as Texas, Oklahoma and
Arkansas). More than 1,000 miles of streams in the river system are
severely contaminated by naturally occurring brine and is not suitable
for municipal, industrial or agricultural purposes.
The benefits of the Red River Basin Chloride Control Project will
be improvements in water quality that will allow use for municipal,
industrial, agricultural and recreational purposes. The added benefit
will be the jobs created resulting from the implementation of the
Chloride project.
Our position.--We support this project in its present form and
request the release of the SEIS for public review and comment. We
support and encourage funding at the levels necessary to complete the
remaining costs of the project by the year 2003. Construction must
resume in 1999. It is imperative the Wichita River position be
completed to reclaim Lake Kemp as a fresh water lake.
transportation--water--inland waterway fuel tax
Issue.--The inland waterways of this country move vast quantities
of commodities at low rates. For almost two centuries, the federal
government improved navigation channels at public expense to expedite
the exchange of commerce at the lowest possible cost, relying
competition to guarantee that producers and consumers would share in
the benefits of the channel improvements. In 1980 a fuel tax on inland
waterway commerce was established and it has been raised many times
since. Efforts to dramatically escalate this tax in recent years have
been made, but so far Congress has rejected them.
Why important.--Proposals to greatly increase the tax would be
self-defeating, not only for the Port of Shreveport-Bossier and the
entire waterway transportation system, but for the economies of these
interior regions. The availability of low-cost water transportation
helps to maintain these economies. The impact on American industry and
agriculture must be carefully studied, for economic growth and
prosperity has always been the impetus for water development programs
through the years. With world markets now within reach by these
regions, we can not afford to severely disadvantage our ability to
compete.
Our position.--The Inland Waterway Fuel Tax should remain status
quo.
support resolution: shreveport/bossier port
On behalf of the citizens of Northwest Louisiana, the Caddo-Bossier
Parishes Port Commission strongly urges the Congress of the United
States to allocate the necessary monies for the Red River Waterway
Project for fiscal year 1999 so the Red River can be operated in a
reliable manner for industry to use it and in order to ensure the
viability of the $1.8 billion investment made over the last twenty
years by the taxpayers of this country.
The Port of Shreveport-Bossier began regular operations at the Port
complex site in 1997. It stands today as a longtime dream with a
potential proving to exceed even the most optimistic projections. With
local taxpayer investment guaranteed by a 1993 property tax in the two
parishes of Bossier and Caddo, the Port's infrastructure is growing to
meet the demands of a rapidly expanding customer base. Public
investment in the Port complex today stands at more than $65,000,000.
Businesses located at the complex are Olin Chemical, Re-Claim
Environmental, Red River Terminals and Shreveport Fabricators.
Progress toward our goal of becoming a premier multi-modal
transportation system is excellent. Attached for your information is
Port background information, highlights of 1997 accomplishments and the
Board of Commissioner's 1998 program of work.
Results of these efforts should provide a sense of pride to all
members of Congress who believed in the Red River Navigation Project.
You recognized the possible benefits, the job-generating capabilities,
the advantageous cost benefit ratios. And these are now becoming
reality at The Port of Shreveport-Bossier.
mission
The mission of the Caddo-Bossier Parishes Port Commission is to
provide water transportation and economic development for the region
through the Port of Shreveport-Bossier.
location/size of the port
The Port of Shreveport-Bossier owns (1) 2,000 acres located just
south of Shreveport's city limits, bordered on the east side by the Red
River and on the west side by Louisiana Highway 1 and the Union Pacific
main line, and (2) a 10-acre site in southwest Shreveport, the Ark-La-
Tex Intermodal Center.
river port site characteristics and facilities
Shallow draft navigation channel 9 feet deep by 200 feet wide.
Union Pacific main line rail, connection with KCS.
19,500 linear feet rail spur Pack and on-dock rail.
Rapid access to I-20 and I-49.
Two 24 feet wide access roads off of LA Highway 1, both of which
exceed state highway load limits.
General cargo wharf assigned to Logistic Services, Inc./SSA.
30 ton overhead cantilevered bridge crane with magnet and
clamshell.
2.5 acre concrete open storage.
Coal pile/open storage.
Truck/rail certified weigh scales.
300 feet water frontage liquids wharf, services 2 standard river
barges simultaneously; manifolds, pumps and pipe customer owned/
operated.
Two additional liquids wharfs.
Stevedoring, fleeting and rail switching services.
Full utilities, economical rates.
Security on site.
Land available for lease; suitable for industrial development.
Businesses in operation at the Port: Olin Chemical Corporation, Re-
Claim.
Environmental Louisiana, Red River Terminals and Shreveport
Fabricators.
Thank you for your interest in the Port of Shreveport-Bossier. If
you have any questions about Your Port, please call or write.
board of commissioners 1998 plan of action
The Caddo-Bossier Parishes Port Commission was established and
exists to provide water transportation and economic development for the
region through the Port of Shreveport-Bossier.
--The Port will provide cost effective and efficient facilities for
its users.
--The Port shall operate in a fiscally-responsible manner.
--The Port will maximize utilization of the public assets entrusted
to it for the economic benefit of the citizens of Caddo and
Bossier parishes and partners of interest.
1. Continue to develop necessary infrastructure and facilities,
noting customers needs and financial situation.
(a) Close out rail extension south, transit warehouse, Quaker State
dock.
(b) Facilitate development of customer-driven infrastructure
demands.
(c) Consider environmental enhancements.
(d) Develop sufficient infrastructure to support minimal initial
physical security.
(e) Negotiate 200+ acre land purchase.
(f) Continue to maximize use of grant program funding to support
infrastructure.
2. Attract users for Port multimodal transportation services and
business/industries for Port complex location.
(a) Continue to work closely with local and Ark-La-Tex Port users
and potential Port users.
(b) Forge an alliance with one or two logistics firms.
(c) Evaluate a Port Development Program.
(d) Investigate establishing the port complex as a rail reload
center.
(e) Update promotional materials, printed and video.
(f) Continue to work with other economic development agencies.
(g) Participate in regional/national business promotions of
Shreveport-Bossier.
(h) Facilitate foreign investment/international industrial
recruitment.
3. Monitor Port operations, emphasizing the transfer from
construction activities to full operation.
(a) Fill operating equipment needs; specifically fleet boat,
locomotives, safety boat, tractor/bushhog, POL spill equipment and fire
station rolling stock.
(b) Make appropriate staffing arrangements.
(c) Confirm operating procedures/parameters/tariffs in concert with
Port Safety Council/Logistic Services.
(d) Monitor FTZ # 145, FTZ # 145 subzone, and oversight and
interaction of U.S. Customs Port of Entry.
4. Maximize available financial resources, continuing to leverage
local tax dollars to maximize taxpayer investment.
5. Communicate activities to all citizens of Caddo and Bossier
Parishes; (1) continuing minutes and ``Port Report'' mail-outs, tours,
speaking engagements, and Internet information; and (2) initiate grade
school Port tours for school year 1998-1999.
6. Continue interaction with city, parish, state, and federal
authorities/agencies on legislative issues of importance.
7. Continue participation in industry seminars, programs and
events.
1997 accomplishments
1. Operational status on a regular basis achieved as cargo began
moving in April. Unusually heavy spring rains/high river conditions
prohibited barge traffic before April. Some 148 barges carried 208,684
tons of cargo handled at the Port's two terminals. Commodities included
liquid petroleum products, aggregate, scrap steel and pressure vessels
manufactured at Shreveport's Beaird Industries.
2. Lease signed with Edison Chouest Offshore (ECO), a Louisiana
company involved in marine vessel operations. Expansion of ECO's
shipbuilding operations to the Port announced by U.S. Senator John
Breaux and Congressman Jim McCrery at a press conference December 15.
This lease will mean up to 400 skilled jobs with an annual payroll of
$24 million; annual economic impact to our area will be more than $85
million. The Red River Waterway Commission agreed to assist with $2.25
million in funding of improvements to the transit shed/dock areas.
3. Progress on Port complex infrastructure and facilities
continued.
A. Construction essentially completed in 1997: (1) 7,500 If rail
track extension south; (2) 30,000 sf general cargo transit warehouse;
(3) 2.5 acres open storage; (4) fire booster station on south side.
B. Under construction: (1) liquid dock (for Quaker State and other
users); (2) road (3,000 If) and rail (3,000 If) north extension.
C. In design: (1) road (3,200 If) and rail (7,800 If) extension
further north; (2) fleeting dolphins; (3) tank farm/unload facility;
(4) 4 acre hard stand; (5) road (1,850 If) and rail (4,142 If)
extension further south.
4. Horseshoe Casino's ``King of the Red'' riverboat arrived April
26 at the Port. During the six months the boat was under construction,
more than 200 employees worked 16-24 hours per day in order to move the
completed boat upriver on November 2.
5. City of Shreveport Fire Station # 20, which will serve the Port
Complex and southeast Shreveport, began operation in temporary
facilities at Flournoy Lucas Road and Highway 1, site of the permanent
station, on October 1. Fire Station # 20 is truly an example of
government cooperation at its finest. In an unprecedented cooperative
endeavor agreement, the City and Port will share 50-50 operational
funding. The Red River Waterway Commission will pay for station
construction, a fire truck and medic unit--at a cost of $1.6 million.
6. Received fiscal year 1997-98 Capital Outlay approval for
$500,000/$500,000 local match for land acquisition and $6.3 million for
a tank and storage facility. Fiscal year 1997-98 Port Priority Program
funding approval was received for $2,845,000 for further northern road
and rail extensions ($4,080,000 total project) and $594,000 for
fleeting dolphins ($725,000 total project).
7. Applications turned in for 1998-99 Port Priority consideration:
south road and rail extension and concrete hardstand addition. Pre-
application to U.S. Department of Commerce E.D.A. submitted for $1
million for a vessel launch pad.
8. The Strategic Master Planning process continued throughout the
year. In January the BYL consultant team was selected by the Board to
write a new Strategic Master Plan. The three team members immediately
began work on Phase I; it was presented in March. Phase II, the actual
master plan document, was presented to the Board of Commissioners in
September. Master Plan recommendation implementation was considered by
the Board during the fall's annual goal-setting and budget meetings.
9. The U.S. Department of Commerce E.D.A. granted The Port $25,000
for Strategic Master Plan funding assistance.
support resolution: red river waterway commission
On behalf of the citizens of the Red River Waterway District of
Louisiana, the Red River Waterway Commission strongly urges the
Congress of the United States to allocate the funds necessary for
fiscal year 1999 for Red River Waterway Project to continue
construction toward actual completion and also allow totally reliable
operation for continued industrial and recreational development. The
infrastructure investment of $1.8 billion can only be justified if
industry and recreation interests can rely on an efficient, functional
and user friendly river system.
Construction on Red River is approximately 89 percent complete,
however, it is vitally important that we understand the importance of
steady progress toward project completion with full knowledge of the
financial constraints this country, the President and the Congress are
wrestling with during the budget process.
areas of concern with the red river waterway project
Recreation Development.--Design and Construction in Pools 3, 4 and
5 needs to begin immediately, resolution of the Project Cooperation
Agreement is first step.
Aids to Navigation.--Coast Guard needs increased presence and
resources to adequately maintain the buoy system on the Red River.
Construction/Maintenance Program.--The Corps of Engineers needs
resources available to react quickly to landowner bank caving
complaints that are a result of the project and are fully justified.
Channel maintenance on the Red River.--Corps of Engineers needs
sufficient resources to adequately maintain a 200 ft. by 9 ft.
navigation channel to provide dependable and reliable transportation
for industries locating on Red River.
Mitigation and Bendway Dredging.--Continue with land acquisition
and developmental cost analysis associated with the mitigation portion
of the project and as soon as practical begin the bendway dredging
operations to reestablish the connection to the channel of Red River.
______
Prepared Statement of Aubrey J. LaPlace, President, Board of
Commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee District
mississippi river and tributaries flood control project
fiscal year 1999 recommendations for appropriations
These three items are of indispensable importance to the State of
Louisiana. There are serious project deficiencies in the Pontchartrain
Levee District. Federal appropriations must continue at adequate levels
to move forward.
$41,518,000 for Mississippi River levees (Budget contains $23,750,000)
In the Pontchartrain Levee District several reaches of main line
levee must be enlarged and slope paved to advance from the current
status of partial flood protection. During the 1997 high water an
emergency levee cap was constructed at Marchand to prevent overtopping
and a possible crevasse. Currently the reach Marchand to Darrow is
being constructed to finish emergency work of last year, and two other
reaches are also under construction, Romeville to Remy and Remy to
Garyville. The fiscal year 1999 schedule calls for Carville to Marchand
to be contracted.
Future levee enlargements and slope paving are required in the
Levee District. The Board of Commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, urges the Subcommittees to appropriate $41,518,000 in fiscal
year 1999 for Mississippi River levees.
$49,299,000 for channel improvement (Budget contain $44,599,000)
Main line levees must be protected from caving banks throughout
this lower river reach where extremely narrow battures are the last
line of defense against levee crevasses and failures. If caving banks
are not controlled the only answer is ``setback''. Simply stated there
is no room remaining for levee setbacks in the Pontchartrain Levee
District. Revetment construction must be annually funded to prevent
levee failures, land losses and relocations. This item also benefits
the 55-foot depth navigation channel. The Pontchartrain Levee District
recommends at least $49,299,000 be appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
$10,000,000 for Louisiana State Penitentiary (Budget contains $400,000)
Angola, Louisiana's State Penitentiary, has been under River attack
for more than ten years, lost its front line levee and hundreds of
acres agricultural areas to caving banks. The Setback levee is
extremely unstable, likely to fail under stress of the next high water.
Warden Burl Cain describes the situation as an acute emergency. Inside
the prison the City of Angola does exist, has its own Post Office, a
population of 627 tax paying citizens, and 138 residences. With a levee
failure potential damages amount to $500,000,000. Currently, the only
alternative is to move 5,000 maximum security inmates into tents on
higher ground. It is urgently recommended that $10,000,000 be
appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
the levee district
The Pontchartrain Levee District extends downstream from the City
of Baton Rouge to the New Orleans area, a distance of 115 river miles,
includes the east (left descending) bank of the Mississippi River, and
is comprised of portions of East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Ascension, St.
James, St. John the Baptist and St. Charles Parishes. The Mississippi
River east bank levee is continuous throughout the Levee District,
including the Bonnet Carre Floodway. We serve as the local sponsor for
the St. Charles Parish Hurricane Protection Levee, now in the fifth
year of construction, designed to protect the Parish, a portion of New
Orleans and its International Airport from hurricane tides.
Extensive development of major industries has taken place in the
Pontchartrain Levee District and is continuing. Along with industrial
growth, our Levee District is experiencing dramatic increase in
residential and urban expansions. Substantial portions of the Levee
District area are used for agriculture. Three nationally ranked deep-
water ports are companions to the Pontchartrain Levee District--the
Baton Rouge Port, South Louisiana Port, and New Orleans Port. The New
Orleans International Airport is also located within the district.
All these features and many other improvements along with more than
one million residents are protected by the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Flood Control Project in this Levee District. Only through
continuous, effective flood control improvements and maintenance can
this area and the Lower River Valley meet requirements to serve
national needs for its economy and continued growth.
comments
The Pontchartrain Levee District has full realization of the
necessity of keeping this Subcommittee advised of current and future
needs for federal monetary support on vital items of the MR&T Flood
Control Project. In 1995, 1996 and 1997 the Subcommittees refused to
give audience to the Lower Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association
seven state delegation. This year we have been advised that no oral
testimony will be heard. Again, this is a great travesty of justice.
Such actions seriously erode the partnership that has been built
between the Corps of Engineers and local sponsors. We trust that this
pattern will revert back to the sixty-three year practice of hearing
our delegation. Three representatives from the Pontchartrain Levee
District are present today desiring to present views to the
Subcommittees--they are Commissioner Joseph Gautreau, Vice President;
Commissioner Michael Reames; and Gerald Dyson, Executive Assistant.
near future is uncertain--its up to congress
In the search for new ways to accomplish required flood control and
other water resources projects, Congress must remain mindful not to
jerk the rug out from under its own feet and our own. Without
protection there will be few jobs, farms, industries, businesses,
voters and related activities. Congress should know that we in the
Lower Mississippi Valley do not have the option to say ``No''. Also it
stands that Congress should not have the option to reduce, remove or
stop federal responsibility for controlling national water, whether in
flood or drought. With respect to Louisiana most of its runoff is
generated outside the State area for all its main carrier rivers,
including Mississippi, Red, Ouachita, Black, Atchafalaya Floodway,
Pearl and Sabine Rivers. In Louisiana we have a comprehensive flood
control plan sponsored, operated and maintained by some 23 Levee
Districts to handle and provide for safe passage of almost one half the
nation's waters. This invokes federal involvement, don't mess up the
system.
conclusion
The Board of Commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee District,
compliments the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for its
keen understanding of real needs for the MR&T Flood Control Project and
efficient, alert actions taken to appropriate funds for its many
complex requirements. We endorse recommendations presented by the
Association of Levee Boards of Louisiana, Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development, Lower Mississippi Valley Flood Control
Association and Red River Valley Association.
______
NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of Vernon A. Noble, chairman, Green Brook Flood
Control Commission
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Vernon A.
Noble, and I am the Chairman of the Green Brook Flood Control
Commission. I submit this testimony in support of the Raritan River
Basin--Green Brook Sub-Basin project, which we request be budgeted in
fiscal year 1999 for $12,000,000 in construction general funds.
The Commission was established in 1971, pursuant to an Act of the
New Jersey Legislature, following disastrous flooding which took place
in the Green Brook Basin in the late Summer of 1971. That flood caused
$304,000,000 in damages (April 1996 price level) and disrupted the
lives of thousands of persons.
In the late Summer of 1973, another very severe storm struck the
area, and once again thousands of persons were displaced from their
homes. $482,000,000 damage was done (April 1996 price level) and six
persons lost their lives.
Thanks to the efforts of New Jersey's Representatives and Senators
in Congress, the Corps of Engineers was authorized by Congress in 1986
to design a solution to this problem of flooding. The floods of 1971
and 1973 were only the most recent in a long series of severe floods.
Flooding in this Sub-Basin dates back to the late 1800's when they were
first recorded, and has become more damaging as the population of the
area has grown.
The Green Brook Flood Control Commission is made up of appointed
representatives from Middlesex, Somerset and Union Counties in New
Jersey, and from the 13 municipalities within the Basin. This
represents a combined population of almost one-quarter of a million
(248,084) people.
The Members of the Commission are all volunteers, and for 27 years
have served, without pay, to advance the cause of flood protection for
the Basin. Throughout this time, the Corps of Engineers, New York
District, has kept us informed of the progress of the project, and a
representative from the Corps has been a regular part of our monthly
public meetings.
Thanks to the vigorous support of New Jersey's Congressional
Delegation, the Congress in 1986 authorized a comprehensive flood
control project for the protection of the entire Green Brook Basin at a
then established estimated cost, in 1985 dollars, of $203,000,000.
In the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 1988, Congress
included a provision making it clear to the Corps of Engineers that
protection is to be designed for the entire Green Brook Basin, rather
than only the lower portion of the Basin, as had at one time been
studied by the Corps of Engineers. During 1997, the Congress, with the
agreement of the President, appropriated $3,100,000 to initiate
construction of the project. Final preparations are now underway, and
it is expected that actual construction will begin in Bound Brook
Borough and in western Middlesex Borough this year.
We believe that it is essential that the Green Brook Flood Control
Project be carried forward, and pursued vigorously to achieve
protection at the earliest possible date. This project is needed to
prevent loss of life and property, as well as the trauma caused every
time there is a heavy storm. The General Reevaluation Report of the
Corps of Engineers dated 1997 points out some sobering facts. It shows
that the damages which would occur in a repetition of the flood
experienced here in 1973, measured in today's dollars, would be
$582,700,000.
New Jersey has programed budget money for its share of the project
for fiscal year 1999.
Actual construction will begin this year. We believe that your
decision of last year to authorize the initiation of construction was a
wise and prudent decision. It is essential that construction be
continued in fiscal year 1999.
We urgently request an appropriation for the project in fiscal year
1999 of $12,000,000.
The more quickly the construction of this project is completed, the
less will be the total cost, and the sooner the project will provide
protection.
Economics and costs are of course important, but personal human
tragedy, and the loss of life, is more important.
As you may know, an independent Task Force has been formed,
consisting of representatives of the affected municipalities and
counties, to examine the options for providing flood protection in the
upper portion of the Basin. We are optimistic that this Task Force will
reach conclusions which will enable the Corps of Engineers to modify
its plans for protection in the upper portion of the Basin in ways it
will be found acceptable to the preponderant majority of the elected
leaders of the area, as well as Federal and State environmental
regulators, and public interest groups.
Actual construction work in the upper-most portion of the Basin
does not need to begin for a number of years, and accordingly we are
confident that acceptable and workable project plans can be developed
in ample time to meet the approximate ten year construction schedule.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, for your
vitally important past support for the Green Brook Flood Control
Project; and we thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony
to you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TCORPS.014
______
Prepared Statement of Glenn A. Grant, Esq., Business Administrator,
City of Newark, NJ
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving
me the opportunity to submit testimony about a project under your
jurisdiction which is very important to the people of Newark, New
Jersey and the surrounding region. The Passaic River Streambank
Restoration Project, known as the Joseph G. Minish Passaic River
Waterfront Park and Historic Area, is an important part of the overall
economic and transportation development plan of the City of Newark.
The project was authorized at a level of $75 million in the 1996
Water Resource Development Act, and has been fully planned by the Army
Corps of Engineers. The streambank restoration and bulkhead
replacement, which is the first phase of the overall project, is set to
begin within two months utilizing last year's appropriation of
$3,000,000. A supplemental appropriation of $15 million is requested so
that this integral element in Newark's revitalization can move from
partial construction to the beginning of full project build-out.
This investment in Newark's future will help us to improve the
economic status of our nation's third oldest major city. The
development of the riverfront now is a critical element in the overall
plan for Newark's downtown revitalization. This linear park will serve
as a visual and physical linkage among several key and exciting
development projects. It is adjacent to one of the oldest highways in
the nation, Route 21, which is undergoing a multi-million dollar
realignment. The planned Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link, which will connect
Newark's two train stations, and ultimately, Newark International
Airport and the neighboring City of Elizabeth, will provide users with
access to mass transportation. The riverfront development will
complement and provide a visual and physical connection with the new,
$170 million New Jersey Performing Arts Center, which opened in the
Fall of 1997 and has been incredibly successful. Further north along
the riverfront, the City of Newark and Essex County are moving ahead
with plans to construct a minor league baseball facility along Route
21, at Riverbank Park, along with an enhanced replacement playground
facility, also accessible from the riverfront walkway.
The riverfront will be the nexus of these activities, creating a
vibrant downtown center that will provide economic development
opportunities for the citizens of Newark and our region. Visitors from
throughout the nation are expected to come to visit our revitalized
city, and participate in the exciting growth and development taking
place. There is tremendous potential for Newark's riverfront to mirror
the success of other riverfront developments throughout the country,
and Newark stands ready to accept the challenges such developments
present.
We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to coordinate several
major development activities into a virtually seamless development
plan. The appropriation of $10 million which I am requesting will serve
to incorporate the Army Corps of Engineers' construction into our
overall economic development plan to reinvigorate Newark. I urge you to
support this appropriation request.
In closing, I would like to extend my thanks to the entire New
Jersey delegation for its ongoing support. The time and attention of
this subcommittee are deeply appreciated.
______
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Prepared Statement of Robert L. McCrory, Professor and Director,
Laboratory for Laser Energetics, University of Rochester
summary and requested action
The inertial confinement fusion (ICF) program is a key element in
the Department of Energy's (DOE) Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) to
ensure the reliability and credibility of the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile. The ICF program provides access to high-energy-density
physics data important in nuclear weapon design and understanding. The
program is focused on the use of available unique laboratory
facilities: Nova at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Z at
Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), OMEGA at the University of
Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE), and the Nike laser
at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). Experiments on these facilities
support the demonstration of thermonuclear ignition and gain on the
National Ignition Facility (NIF) now under construction. They also
provide data in support of the nuclear weapons science-based
stewardship activities of the Nation.
LLE has been a participant in ICF research since the 1970's. It is
the only ICF program that has been jointly supported by the Federal
government, State government, industry, utilities, and a university. At
relatively small comparative cost, LLE makes fundamental scientific
contributions to the National program and the Laboratory transfers
technology to the public and private sectors through the training of
graduate students and interactions with industry and other Federal
laboratories. The Laboratory serves as a National laser users' facility
benefiting scientists throughout the country. The OMEGA laser, the
highest power ultraviolet fusion laser in the world, will be the
principal laser facility for SSP activities when Nova operations are
terminated in 1999.
The Laboratory's primary ICF mission is to validate the direct-
drive option for ICF. There is a close collaboration among LLE, LLNL,
LANL, and NRL to support the demonstration of ignition and gain in the
laboratory, the objective of the NIF program. OMEGA with its 60 beams
has also been used for indirect-drive experiments in collaboration with
the National laboratories. During fiscal year 1998, OMEGA is being used
for SSP experiments in preparation for the transition from Nova to
OMEGA in fiscal year 1999. Some of the experiments to be conducted by
LLNL and LANL on OMEGA during the current year will be classified
experiments.
OMEGA is the only facility that can demonstrate the scientific
potential of direct drive to provide a modest- to high-gain energy
option for the Nation. ICFAC \1\ emphasized the priority of conducting
cryogenic experiments on OMEGA beginning in fiscal year 1999. Further,
OMEGA will be the principal ICF facility in the National program for
ICF-based stockpile stewardship experiments until the NIF is completed
at the end of 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee Report to
Assistant Secretary Reis (February 21, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To provide the operations support for program deliverables and
operation of OMEGA (for both cryogenic experiments and SSP
experiments), and maintain the training programs at Rochester, a total
authorization and appropriation of $29,000,000 is requested for the
University of Rochester for fiscal year 1999, as contained in the
Administration's budget request for DOE.
background
Thermonuclear fusion is the process by which nuclei of low atomic
weights, such as hydrogen, combine to form higher atomic weight nuclei
such as helium. In this process some of the mass of the original nuclei
is lost and transformed to energy in the form of high-energy particles.
Energy from fusion reactions is the most basic form of energy in the
universe; our sun and all other stars produce energy by thermonuclear
fusion reactions occurring in their interior. Fusion is also the
process that provides the vast destructive power of thermonuclear
weapons.
To initiate fusion reactions, the fuel must be heated to tens of
millions of degrees. In stellar bodies, containment is possible because
of the large gravitational force. On earth, ICF involves the heating
and compression of fusion fuel by the action of intense laser or
particle beam drivers. There are two approaches to ICF, direct and
indirect drive: indirect drive involves the conversion of beam energy
to x rays to compress a fuel capsule in an enclosure called a hohlraum;
direct drive involves the direct irradiation of a spherical fuel
capsule by energy from a laser and may be more efficient energetically
than indirect drive. For either approach, if very extreme density and
temperature conditions are produced, it is possible to produce many
times more energy in these fusion reactions than the energy provided by
the drivers.
inertial confinement fusion program focus
Numerous reviews of the ICF program have identified the glass laser
program as the best path to demonstrate ignition (initiation of a
thermonuclear reaction that can be self-sustaining) and propagating
thermonuclear burn. A recent independent review completed by the JASONS
\2\ stated ``The inertial fusion program represents the closest
approach we know of to a number of critical parameters in the weapon
environment * * *. Naturally we expect continued progress in further
evaluating ignition prospects from experiments on Nova and on OMEGA
Upgrade, a direct-drive laser facility at the University of Rochester *
* *.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Science Based Stockpile Stewardship'', JASON Report JSR-94-
345 (The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va, November 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has accepted the recommendations of the reviews and
construction of the NIF is in progress. The purpose of the NIF, in its
SSP mission, includes the demonstration of ignition, propagating burn,
and modest gain in the laboratory. The NIF project completion is
projected to be 2003. While NIF is under construction, OMEGA will be
the principal ICF facility that will be used for nuclear weapons
stewardship experiments by LLNL and LANL, and for direct- and indirect-
drive ICF experiments when NOVA ceases operation in fiscal year 1999.
Furthermore, under the DOE bilateral agreement with the French Atomic
Energy Commission, OMEGA will be used to support experiments under the
agreement as approved by DOE.
LLE is the primary focus in the U.S. for the direct-drive approach
to ICF. Direct drive may ultimately prove to be the best approach to
ICF and provide the most efficient path to a laboratory-scale
thermonuclear capability for both energy research and defense
technology needs. OMEGA is the only facility that can demonstrate the
scientific potential of direct drive to provide modest- to high-gain on
the NIF.
An extensive collaborative program between LLNL, LANL, and LLE has
provided data on basic physics, beam smoothing, and unstable
hydrodynamics using available lasers. This collaboration on OMEGA
includes both nuclear weapons physics experiments (including classified
experiments to prepare for the transition from Nova to OMEGA in fiscal
year 1999 that are being conducted by LLNL and LANL during fiscal year
1998) and ICF experiments. Physics issues for both ICF and weapons
issues for the SSP fall into five broad categories: irradiation
uniformity, laser energy coupling and transport, laser-plasma
interaction physics, hydrodynamic stability, and hot-spot and main-
fuel-layer physics. The OMEGA and NIF programs are complementary.
Figure 1 illustrates the schedule for the glass laser facilities to be
used in the National program plan for inertial fusion, and shows the
phased availability plan for the NIF.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TCORPS.015
The figure illustrates how the National program has been structured
to provide a full complement of mature experimental facilities from the
present to the future. With a shut down of the Nova laser in fiscal
year 1999, OMEGA is the Nation's principal facility to continue
experimental work during NIF construction. Although the LLE program is
focused on direct drive, OMEGA is capable of indirect-drive (hohlraum)
experiments that were first conducted by LANL and LLNL in fiscal year
1996. Both LANL and LLNL will continue to use OMEGA for indirect-drive
experiments for ICF and SSP experiments for the foreseeable future. It
is because of termination of Nova operations and the high interest in
the use of the OMEGA facility by the weapons laboratories, that DOE's
budget request includes funds for extended operations on OMEGA for SSP
experiments. Because the per-shot cost of OMEGA is considerably less
than the cost of a shot on NIF, OMEGA will be a very important
supporting facility for proof-of-principal experiments and further
diagnostic development for the NIF after it is complete in 2003 (see
Fig. 1).
the lle direct-drive program for fiscal year 1999
The goal of the glass laser direct-drive target physics program is
to evaluate the performance of fuel capsules near ignition conditions.
In addition to providing data for the NIF, these experiments can
validate the direct-drive configuration on the NIF that could result in
two to three times higher fusion gains (gain > 50) than those available
with the baseline (indirect drive) NIF design.
An important element of the direct-drive program on OMEGA is to
demonstrate beam smoothing techniques that ultimately will produce on-
target irradiation nonuniformity of 1 percent to 2 percent. The
achievement of this goal is a principal objective for fiscal year 1999.
OMEGA will also be used to develop advanced diagnostics for NIF. The
implementation of cryogenic fueling will begin in fiscal year 1999.
This capability is necessary for hydrodynamically equivalent target
experiments to be conducted on OMEGA to demonstrate the likelihood of
success of the direct-drive option of NIF. In collaboration with LANL
and General Atomics, a cryogenic capability will be completed in fiscal
year 1999 for OMEGA. The first fully cryogenic capsule experiments are
planned for OMEGA in fiscal year 2000. The ICFAC \1\ recommended in
their final report: ``The committee believes that experiments are
essential to assessing real target performance and benchmarking code
calculations. The first opportunity to do such experiments on cryogenic
targets approaching NIF size will be on OMEGA * * *. It is very
important that this effort be kept on track with proper priority and
not delayed further \1\.'' Cryogenic capability, advanced diagnostics
development, and beam smoothing are all required for the NIF. LLE will
be the principal National facility to develop these technologies for
the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee Report to
Assistant Secretary Reis (February 21, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LLE attaches a high priority to providing education and training in
the field of ICF and related area, thereby providing a source of
personnel and expertise in areas of critical National needs. These
include theoretical and experimental plasma physics, laser-matter
interaction physics, high-energy-density physics, x-ray and atomic
physics, ultrafast optoelectronics, high-power laser development and
applications, nonlinear optics, optical materials, and optical
fabrication technology. A total of 44 graduate students and 14 faculty
members of the University of Rochester are currently involved in the
unique research environment provided at LLE and represent many
departments within the University, including Mechanical Engineering,
the Institute of Optics, Physics and Astronomy, Electrical Engineering,
and Chemical Engineering. Beyond this, more than 50 undergraduate
students receive research experience annually at LLE. Additionally, a
high-school summer science program exposes ten talented students each
year to the research environment and encourages them to consider
careers in science and engineering. Many LLE graduates have made
important scientific contributions in National laboratories,
universities, and industrial research centers.
______
Prepared Statement of Father William L. George, S.J. and Father T.
Byron Collins, S.J., Special Assistants to the President of Georgetown
University
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We are Father William L.
George, S.J. and Father T. Byron Collins, S.J., Special Assistants to
the President of Georgetown University, the Father Leo J. O'Donovan,
S.J. We appreciate this opportunity to testify before your
Subcommittee.
Currently, the Senate has passed Bill S. 965 which amends Section
202 of the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-271) as follows:
Section 202 of the Hydrogen Future Act of 996 (public Law 104-271) is
amended by striking ``1997 and 1998, to remain available until
September 30, 1999'' and inserting ``1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, to
remain available until September 30, 2002''.
We believe that this Bill will be similarly passed by the House in
appropriate time. Through this authorization extension, we will now be
requesting the necessary appropriations.
We are requesting funds to be appropriated for a cost-shared fuel
cell demonstration program entitled the National Exemplar Renewable
Energy System (NERES). The funds appear to be available for this
program as stated on page 360 of the President's Budget Report Appendix
Fiscal Year 1999, which describes Site/project completion and Post 2006
completion. These program activities are allocated $1,047M and $2,674M,
respectively.
Likewise, the Budget of the United States Government provides
$1,060M in fiscal year 1999, an increase of $331M from the $729M
provided in fiscal year 1998, for: ``the deployment of new technologies
in the industrial sector to capture waste heat and convert it into
electricity; and R&D spending and incentives for renewable energy
sources like biomass, wind, photovoltaics, and fuel cells (See Tables
6-2 and 6-3), [Budget of the United States Government, fiscal year
1999] [Page 93-103] [DOCID: f:1999--bud.bud06.wais] [From the Budget of
the U.S., fiscal year 1999 Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
as noted in Section 6, Promoting Research, within Energy & Water
Development''.
The attached letter to Congress explains in detail the
participation of the consortium sites within NERES. We are requesting
$40M out of $50M in fiscal year 1999 in order to get the various
programs substantially underway. We will be requesting the final funds
in subsequent appropriations. The allocation will be divided as
follows: the central site will receive $28M, and each of the other
participating sites at Albuquerque, NM, Billings, MT, and the
University of Fairbanks, Alaska would each receive $4M.
The Department of Energy organizational chart has designated that
NERES should be under the jurisdiction of the Director of the Federal
Energy Technology Center, located in Morgantown, WV. The consortium
would place an application under the requirements of S. 965 in
accordance with its extension of time.
Title II of Public Law 104-271 authorizes a project that processes
solid waste through existing devices to create hydrogen as a fuel cell
energy source. Fuel cells, in turn, will produce heat and electricity.
This solid waste reduction process results in the production of
hydrogen and water. The national benefit is the development of the fuel
cell industry to where the cost per kW is competitive in the power
industry. Moreover, this project leads to the commercialization of U.S.
advanced technology.
In accordance with Public Law 104-271, which states that ``the
Secretary shall give preference, in making an award under this section,
to proposals that are submitted jointly from consortia including
academic institutions, industry, State or local governments and Federal
laboratories,'' a consortium of four sites is ready to develop this
project. The central, exemplar site will be at Georgetown University.
$35 million of the proposed $50 million appropriation will be allocated
to the central site.
One participating site will be at the City of Albuquerque, New
Mexico. The city of Albuquerque's planners are considering numerous
projects. Albuquerque has a vast solid waste, sewage and water
treatment system that could be used to produce electricity and water.
This process would be an exemplar for other cities where the water
table is shrinking. In addition to its ecological benefits, the project
could bring new manufacturing business entities into the Albuquerque
area that will create jobs and utilize local raw materials. The project
proposes to use $5 million in federal funds for planning. Non-federal
funds will purchase a large number of fuel cells.
Another site is at the Institute of Northern Engineering at the
University of Alaska, Fairbanks. It is also the only institute able to
provide the research and demonstration necessary for smaller
applications of the system for villages in Alaska. $5 million of
federal funds is also proposed for this section of the program.
The final site is at the Montana Tradeport Authority in Billings,
Montana. Billings is an essential site since it is the sole site in the
U.S. that has an ample source of platinum, palladium, copper and carbon
block to produce fuel cells at a manufacturing plant economically
without federal funds. The governor's office is planning a major
site(s) using the solid waste-to-total energy solar regeneration power
system. Once again, $5 million in federal funds will be used for
planning only. Non-federal funds will be used to purchase two to four
hundred fuel cells at the Billings site.
The project at Billings plans to develop this regeneration power
system along with a Science and Technology Park. This technology
mitigates and utilizes carbon dioxide in such a way that alleviates
global warming caused by such emissions. The project could also address
commercial, industrial, and municipal wastes.
As far as we know, our project is the sole program ready to be
launched into operation. The program was validated as final proof-of-
concept on August 14, 1996 at Edwards Air Force Base in California
under the sponsorship of various institutions including JPL and NASA.
Unfortunately, the Energy Appropriations Subcommittee was not able
to provide any funding for the project in fiscal year 1997. However, S.
965 recently passed in the Senate. This bill extends the authorization
of funds to this project until September 2002. Currently, we are
seeking the support of Congressman Calvert's committee to ensure its
passage in the House.
We also believe that there was a misunderstanding on behalf of the
Deputy Secretary of Energy, Allan Hoffman. Secretary Hoffman thought
that the $50 million would have to be taken from the Hydrogen Research
Account. However, we did not seek the funds from the Hydrogen Research
Account, but proposed instead to have the funds taken from the Waste
Management Account, thereby leaving the account for other hydrogen
research programs intact. It is our contention that the Waste
Management Account is the more appropriate source for funds since our
program converts waste to energy.
We are prayerfully grateful for your time and consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal
and other state and locally owned utilities throughout the United
States. Collectively, public power utilities deliver electric energy to
one of every seven U.S. electric consumers (about 35 million people),
serving some of the nation's largest cities. The majority of APPA's
member systems are located in small and medium-sized communities in
every state except Hawaii.
APPA looks forward to working with you during the second session of
the 105th Congress. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this
testimony outlining our fiscal year 1999 appropriations priorities
within your Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
renewable energy programs
APPA believes it is important to continue development and
commercialization of clean, renewable energy resources as we face the
prospect of increased competition in the electricity marketplace. Two
of the most significant barriers to greater renewable energy use are
cost and lack of demonstrated experience. Because of the requirement to
supply electricity to customers on demand, with high reliability at a
reasonable cost, electric utilities often are conservative when
evaluating new technologies. Evolving deregulation, coupled with stable
fuel prices, now adds a further challenge to greater adoption of
relatively unproved renewable technologies.
We applaud the Administration's emphasis on DOE energy efficiency
and renewable programs and ask that this Subcommittee work to ensure
that renewable energy remains part of the full range of resource
options available to our nation's electric utilities. APPA supports a
minimum of $372.3 million for renewable energy technologies in fiscal
year 1999. This funding level will go a long way in furthering the call
for significant expansion of renewable energy R&D programs in order to
meet the energy challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.
renewable energy production incentive program (repi)
APPA urges this subcommittee's continued support for REPI,
authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, in Section 1212, at $8
million. Although twice the level requested by the Administration for
fiscal year 1999, it is considerably less than the $20 million level
DOE identifies as needed for full funding in fiscal year 1999 of all
electricity generated by qualified facilities. REPI permits DOE to make
direct payments to publicly and cooperatively owned electric utilities
at the rate of up to 1.5 cents/kWh of electricity generated from solar,
wind, certain geothermal and biomass electric projects. Because
projects of this nature often require a long lead time for planning and
construction it is imperative that stable and predictable funding be
provided.
REPI was established to ensure equity between investor-owned
utilities that utilize renewable energy tax credit and production
payments and publicly and cooperatively owned electric utilities that
are unable to do so. Several electric utility restructuring bills
introduced in the 105th Congress as well as in the state legislatures
mandate use of renewable energy sources. REPI payments provide the
singular financial incentive for publicly and cooperatively owned
utilities to meet these increasing demands. In addition, production
payments to utilities are an excellent market-based method to spur
greater interest in renewables. They fit well with DOE's emphasis on
market-led commercialization.
storage for high-level nuclear waste
We support the Administration's budget request of $380 million for
DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. These funds will
enable DOE to continue preparations to accept used fuel as well as to
continue scientific studies at Yucca Mountain leading to a viability
assessment in late 1998.
advanced hydropower turbine program
The Advanced Hydropower Turbine Program is a joint industry/
government cost-share effort to develop a new, improved hydroelectric
turbine superior in its ability to protect fish and aquatic habitat and
operate efficiently over a wide range of flow levels. We support
funding this program at $4 million in fiscal year 1999.
During the next decade over 100 hydroelectric projects will seek
new licenses from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Many
of these projects were originally licensed over 50 years ago. Newly
imposed licensing conditions can cost hydro projects 10 to 15 percent
of power generation. A new, improved turbine could help assure any
environmental conditions imposed at relicensing in the form of new
conditioning, fish passages or reduced flows are not accomplished at
the expense of energy production. This is particularly important due to
the increasingly competitive electric market in which utilities operate
today. Flow levels will affect the economics of each of these projects
and many will be unable to compete if the current trend toward flow
reductions continues.
The Advanced Hydropower Turbine Program is planned in three phases:
(1) design development; (2) model design and testing, and (3)
development of the final prototype. It is important that the prototype
be in place in order to accommodate the many hydroelectric projects
that will be up for relicensing after the year 2000.
federal power marketing administrations (pma's)
We appreciate this subcommittee's continued support of the federal
power program.
APPA favors increased efficiency in PMA operations. However, we
believe Congress also must recognize that federal power sales cover all
PMA operating expenses plus all Corps of Engineers and Bureau of
Reclamation operations, maintenance, replacement and rehabilitation
expenses for hydropower and repayment of the federal investment in the
construction of the projects. Power sales also support many nonpower-
related expenses associated with these projects. Budget ``scoring''
rules aside, because the PMA's charge cost-based rates, reducing
discretionary appropriations to PMA's actually saves the government
nothing. As appropriations are lowered, power rates fall accordingly
thus reducing mandatory receipts on the other side of the ledger. APPA
supports the Department of Energy's request of $234 million in fiscal
year 1999 for the PMA's; this funding excludes BPA because it does not
require appropriations to finance its day to day operations. Of this,
the Western Area Power Administration would get $223 million;
Southwestern Power, $26 million; and Southeastern, $10 million.
BPA, the biggest of the PMA's and the leading power producer in the
Pacific Northwest, operates on a self-financed revolving fund basis.
BPA uses borrowing authority for its capital investment activities.
BPA's fiscal year 1999 budget request includes $258 million in
borrowing authority for capital investment. Nearly half of the
investment is for transmission services ($136 million); the proposed
funding for fish and wildlife activities is $27 million and for
conservation programs the request is $9 million. APPA urges the
Subcommittee to support BPA's funding request.
corps of engineers and bureau of reclamation
More than 500 public power systems purchase power generated at U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation dams and marketed by
the five PMA's. APPA asks this subcommittee's support in assuring
adequate appropriations are provided to the Corps and Bureau for
operation, maintenance, major rehabilitation, upgrading and replacement
of the equipment needed at the powerhouses. The Administration has
requested reductions in several of these accounts for fiscal year 1999.
Unfortunately, budget realities in the past often have required the
Corps and Bureau to defer upgrades and maintenance resulting in
efficiency losses affecting hydropower production.
Discussions are continuing in various project areas between
customers and the operating agencies seeking alternatives to relieve
the stress caused by the spiraling effects of deferred maintenance. We
will keep this subcommittee apprised of our progress in this regard and
look forward to working with you and the authorizing committees in
seeking remedies to increase efficiencies and deal with ongoing
maintenance problems.
federal energy regulatory commission (ferc)
APPA supports the Administration's budget request of $168.9 million
in fiscal year 1999 for FERC, an increase of four percent over last
year. Adequate funding for the agency is particularly necessary at this
time in order to provide the resources needed to continue
implementation of electric utility industry restructuring and to
address major issues such as open-access and stranded costs.
______
Prepared Statement of Joe L. Mauderly, Senior Scientist and Director of
External Affairs, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
It is proposed that the U.S. Department of Energy participate in
the National Environmental Respiratory Center. It is also proposed that
the Department support development of a novel plasma-based hazardous
waste treatment technology and other research activities at the
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute important to the mission of the
Department.
participation in the national environmental respiratory center
Purpose and Status of the Center
The National Environmental Respiratory Center was established
through the fiscal year 1998 EPA appropriation. The mission of the
Center is to catalyze, facilitate, and participate in a long-range
national initiative to understand respiratory health risks from
combinations of inhaled airborne environmental pollutants and
occupational air contaminants. The Center's goal is to place the
respiratory health risks from combined exposures to multiple pollutants
in their appropriate context as a basis for regulatory and
technological decision making. The Center is operated by the Lovelace
Respiratory Research Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and is
located in the DOE-owned, now privatized, Inhalation Toxicology
Research Institute (ITRI) facility, which is leased by Lovelace.
The establishment of the Center is well underway at the midpoint of
its first year. The infrastructure of the Center has been developed,
and the information resources are under development. Agencies, health
advocacy organizations, industry stakeholders and their trade
associations are being briefed on the Center and their support is being
enlisted to fulfill the Center's intent as an interagency, government-
industry initiative. Selection of the initial series of specific
research projects is underway, and research will be initiated in this
fiscal year. The goals of the Center and its research resources are
being communicated to the scientific community, and collaborative
projects are under development. A budget and plan of work has been
prepared for the second year, the core funding for which is being
requested in the EPA appropriation. The level of funding requested will
maintain the core infrastructure of the Center, but will support very
little research. It is expected that research funding will largely be
obtained from other agencies and non-federal stakeholders.
The Department has Important Health Concerns that the Center is Ideally
Suited to Addressing
Inhalation exposures occur as combined exposures to multiple
agents. Concerns for the health effects of exposure to hazardous agents
should be viewed as concerns for combined exposures to multiple
hazardous agents. Over the years, some workers in the DOE complex have
been inadvertently exposed by inhalation to hazardous radionuclides,
metals, and chemicals in development, production, waste handling, and
cleanup activities. Most exposures occur as combined exposures to
multiple agents, rather than to single hazardous species. Further, many
of these individuals received exposures to multiple hazardous agents at
different times. Finally, many of these individuals have lifestyle risk
factors for disease, such as tobacco and alcohol use. There is also
concern for public inhalation exposures to hazardous agents as a result
of DOE activities. It may be presumed that to the extent that such
exposures have occurred, they have also occurred as exposures to
mixtures, exposures in sequence with contact with other hazardous
agents, and exposures of individual with other risk factors. The DOE
workplace, for example, has involved potential for inhalation exposures
to radionuclides of several types, solvents and other chemicals, smoke
(during accidents involving pyrolysis or combustion), beryllium,
machining fluid aerosols, and other gases, vapors, dusts, and fibers.
We know that combined exposures are an important health issue. We
know that multiple agents can cause common effects, such as
inflammation or cancer. We often assume that these common effects are
additive, but we know that this is not necessarily the case. We know
that some agents amplify the effects of others, but have little ability
to predict the magnitude of amplification or to understand the
amplification processes. We can presume that exposure to a mixture of
hazardous agents, each within its acceptable limit, can present an
unacceptable aggregate health risk, but do not know how to predict or
control the aggregate risk. We continually face the possibility that an
agent encountered in combination with others might be wrongly assigned
sole responsibility for an adverse health effect that, in fact,
resulted from the mixture or an unrecognized co-pollutant or cofactor
that varied in concert with the accused agent.
Combined exposures present difficulties in estimating risk and
assigning causality. Although it is broadly recognized that most
exposures to hazardous agents in the workplace, general environment,
and home occur as mixtures or in sequences, there has been very little
research or standard-setting based on the influence of combinations of
exposures on health risks. The design, conduct, and interpretation of
studies of the health outcomes of combined exposures are potentially as
complex as the possible range of combinations of agents and
individuals. Most research involves stretching investigative
technologies to their limit of interpretation for even single agents;
thus, there are few attempts to extend efforts to mixed exposures.
Because of the limitations of the scientific and medical information,
environmental and occupational pollutant concentration limits and
exposure limits deal almost exclusively with single agents and are
based on known or presumed health risks from the intake of each agent
alone. Radiation exposure limits are one of the few notable exceptions
in which the proximal agent, radiation energy, is addressed rather than
the physical-chemical source of the radiation. However, exposures to
radiation also occur most often in the presence of other exposures or
risk factors.
The Department has poor ability to assess risk, set limits, or
assign causality in cases of combined exposures. This creates two key
problems: (1) protective standards may not be adequate in the face of
combined exposures; and (2) agencies and the courts have little ability
apportion causality of health effects among exposures occurring within
and outside of the workplace, from different sources, or including
exposures of personal choice. A readily-recognized example of his
dilemma is the fact that health effects of occupational inhalation
exposures, such as cancer from asbestos or radon, most often occur in
smokers; so much so, in fact, that the existence and magnitude of
significant risk in the absence of smoking is often uncertain.
Following this example as a further illustration, we can predict that,
of the more than 1 million ``radiation workers'' in DOE operations over
the years, 25 percent (250 thousand) will die from cancer regardless of
their workplace exposure, lung cancer will be the most prevalent type,
and a significant number of cases will result in claims which will be
paid, negotiated, or litigated.
The Department Should Support the Work of the Center
Lovelace has demonstrated its ability to address DOE combined
exposure issues. The Institute began researching DOE combined exposures
issues in 1986, funded by the Office of Defense Programs through the
Albuquerque Operations Office, and has produced a number of important
findings. This program focused on lung cancer risk from combined
exposures to pairs of agents significant in the DOE workplace. Five
studies have addressed the combination of a single simulated accidental
inhalation exposure to plutonium dioxide particles and: (1) repeated
external irradiation (X ray); (2) long-term cigarette smoking; (3)
repeated intake of a chemical carcinogen by a non-inhalation route; (4)
single inhalation of beryllium; and (5) repeated inhalation of carbon
tetrachloride (chemical solvent). A study of repeated external
radiation and long-term cigarette smoking is underway.
Several key findings have already been produced. Findings which
have direct bearing on the estimation of risks from combined exposures
and apportionment of causality include: (1) cigarette smoking markedly
increases the lung cancer risk from inhaled plutonium; (2) external
irradiation does not increase the lung cancer risk from inhaled
plutonium; (3) a common class of chemical carcinogen (nitrosamine)
taken up by a non-inhalation route does not increase the lung cancer
risk from inhaled plutonium; (4) exposure to inhaled beryllium metal
particles is highly carcinogenic in the rat, and increases the lung
cancer risk from inhaled plutonium; and (5) liver damage from inhaled
carbon tetrachloride can alter the radiation dose to liver and bone
from translocation of inhaled plutonium particles, but has no
interactive effect at the current exposure standard.
Through the new Center, which was intended as an interagency
initiative, research to resolve the Department's combined exposure
concerns can continue. The DOE combined exposures program at Lovelace
served to demonstrate that such issues could be addressed successfully
in the laboratory, thereby setting the stage for the formation of the
National Environmental Respiratory Center. The Center was intended as
an interagency effort, acknowledging that multiple agencies share
concerns and responsibilities for combined exposure issues. The
Department continues to have unresolved combined exposures issues, and
can thus benefit by the success of the Center. It is proposed that the
Department support the Center through: (1) funding combined exposures
research specific to its needs; (2) contributing to the core support of
the Center; (3) enlisting the Center's personnel and information
resources in meeting its interagency working group obligations; and (4)
waiving ITRI facility use fees for Center operations funded by other
federal agencies.
innovative plasma technology for waste destruction
Environmental Remediation and Waste Disposal are Important DOE Issues
The Department's Strategic Plan give high priority to environmental
remediation and reduction of hazardous wastes. In addition to
radioactive wastes, DOE sites contain volatile and heavy organic
compounds, chlorinated hydrocarbons, contaminated materials, and mixed
wastes. The Department is committed to supporting research to
``validate performance of thermal and nonthermal technologies in fiscal
year 2000 for the treatment of more than 90 percent of the DOE mixed
waste inventory''. Reviews by the Department reveal that all current
technologies have flaws and limitations which must be overcome by
refinements and identification of alternate technologies.
Plasma Technology is Recognized as Having High Potential for
Advancement, but Past Approaches Have Not Resolved Key Problems
Of all the thermal treatment strategies, high-temperature plasma
technology has been recognized as potentially the most promising for
waste destruction. Plasma arc devices have been used for generating
super-high temperatures that degrade toxic wastes into atoms and ions,
thus completely destroying the composition of the agent without
generating toxic intermediate molecules. If this process is complete,
only harmless materials remain as residues. If the waste contains
radionuclides, the radioactivity is not destroyed, but the volume of
the material is reduced markedly, requiring transport or storage of
only a fraction of the original volume of waste.
Existing plasma technologies have some key shortcomings that have
not yet been overcome. Temperatures are often unstable because the high
electrical power necessary to sustain the arc is sensitive to voltage
drops. The arc electrodes require considerable maintenance. Chemicals
precipitate and collect on the electrodes, and the double chambers used
to correct this increase the contamination factor. Finally, the
electrodes are prone to burning out.
Lovelace and its Collaborators Propose that DOE Support Development of
a New Plasma Technology Which Will Resolve the Present
Shortcomings
Through its interests in technology transfer and the reduction of
respiratory health risks from airborne pollutants resulting from waste
combustion, Lovelace has joined with a small start-up technology
company proposing an approach to plasma destruction of waste which
resolves existing roadblocks. This technology employs plasma formation
and control by radio frequency/laser coupling. Three years of research
and simulation on a Cray computer have confirmed the theory for a new
confined high-temperature plasma technology, and preliminary laboratory
experiments have supported the practicality of developing a bench-scale
trial of the device. Compared to previous approaches, higher
temperatures can be developed with greater power efficiency, without
high pressures, and in a volume capable of containing an entire 55
gallon drum and its contents. A new plasma confinement design will
eliminate the need for a second chamber, and no toxic substances (other
than residual radioactivity) will be precipitated in the device or
released to the atmosphere.
Lovelace and its collaborators seek funding from DOE to design and
develop the bench-scale device necessary to prove and refine the
technology, which theory and preliminary work indicate will be
successful. The testing of this approach is entirely consistent with
the Department's mission and Strategic Plan.
national defense research: improved chemical and biological defenses
Technology development and transfer activities supported by the
Department at the Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute, operated by
Lovelace, and at Sandia National Laboratories have resulted in
opportunities to make significant gains in the ability to defend
against chemical and biological threats. The Department a stakeholder
in this issue because of threats to DOE laboratory, production, and
holding and waste facilities, threats to nuclear power, and nuclear
defense facilities, and the Department's national security and
technology development and transfer roles.
A key problem in the development of new technology to deal with
chemical and biological threats is the basic multi disciplinary nature
of the required research. Detection, mitigation, and countermeasures
inevitably require new microelectronic devices, laser technology,
software, analytical chemistry, aerosol science, microbiological
expertise, respiratory physiology, inhaled drug delivery, and
infectious disease management. No single institution is expert in all
of these fields.
Recognizing the importance of the chemical/biological threat, not
only on distant battlefields, but also for internal national security,
three New Mexico research organizations have proposed to pool their
laboratory resources, technical experience, and intellectual
capabilities to develop new measures to deal with these threats. LRRI,
Sandia National Laboratories, and the University of New Mexico Health
Sciences Center have pooled their remarkable and complementary
resources to partner successfully on other issues, and are confident
that their synergy can help the Department meet its security mission in
the chemical/biological defense arena. All have previous experience in
addressing issues key to this field.
The functions of this collaborative research team would be to
evaluate threats, develop new technologies, and improve existing
technologies to identify and mitigate chemical/biological threats. Key
themes would be remote detection of specific agents, personnel
protection, threat elimination, and treatment of affected individuals.
Although not yet formalized, a consortium of these research
organizations would offer significant resources to the Department.
It is proposed that the Department support the formation and
activities of this unique research team.
______
Prepared Statement of David K. Wehe, Professor, University of Michigan
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has provided support to the DOE
University Research Program in Robotics during the period fiscal year
1987-98 to pursue long range research leading to the: ``development and
deployment of advanced robotic systems capable of reducing human
exposure to hazardous environments, and of performing a broad spectrum
of tasks more efficiently and effectively than utilizing humans.''
The DOE University Research Program in Robotics (URPR) has proven
highly effective in technology innovation, education, and DOE mission
support. The URPR incorporates mission-oriented university research
into DOE EM's Office of Science and Technology (OST) and, through close
collaboration with the DOE national laboratories, provides an avenue
for applying novel solutions to problems of vital importance to DOE.
The URPR would like to thank the Committee members for their
historically strong support of this successful program and are pleased
that the URPR is included in the DOE Budget Request for fiscal year
1999. To ensure the continuation of this support, we respectfully
request the Committee to explicitly include language endorsing the DOE
request.
Request for the Committee
We request the Committee endorse DOE's request for $4 million of
ER&WM (EM-50) research funds to continue the University Research
Program in Robotics (URPR) progress in developing safer, less
expensive, and more efficient robotic technology for environmental
restoration and waste management.
developing advanced robotics for doe and the nation
Develop robotic solutions for work in hazardous environments and
facilitate cleanup operations
The goal of this program is to advance and utilize state-of-the-art
robotic technology in order to remove humans from potentially hazardous
environments and expedite remediation efforts now considered essential.
Established by DOE in fiscal year 1987 to support advanced nuclear
reactor concepts, the project was moved to EM to support the higher
priority needs in environmental restoration. The project has produced
an impressive array of technological innovations which have been
incorporated into robotic solutions being employed across federal and
commercial sectors. This successful program demonstrates efficient
technology innovation while educating tomorrow's technologists,
inventing our country's intelligent machine systems technology of the
next century, and meeting today's technology needs for DOE.
Robotics: Cited as strategic national technology
R&D funding is the most effective use of federal funds to promote
the nation's well-being according to a 1997 published poll of respected
academic economists. And, as documented in previous testimonies, key
national studies (by the Council on Competitiveness, DOD, and former
OTA technology assessment reports) consistently list robotics and
advanced manufacturing among the five most vital strategic technologies
for government support. The national need for an investment in the
development of intelligent machines which can interact with their
environment has been universally recognized.
Intelligent Machines: Grand Challenge for the Next Millennium
Significant advances in computing power, sensor development and
platform architectures (including unmanned airborne vehicles) have
opened new opportunities in intelligent machine technology. The long-
range implications of intelligent mobile machines which can assist
humans to perform life tasks are clearly significant and represent one
of technology's Grand Challenges for the next millennium. We can expect
to see intelligent prosthetic devices, smart transport vehicles, and
mobile devices capable of assisting or replacing the human, not only in
potentially hazardous situations, but in daily life.
urpr: innovation, education, and doe mission support
URPR Paradigm: NSB Recommendations to OSTP
In a response to a request from White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) director Jack Gibbons, the National Science
Board (NSB) released on 3/6/98 a policy paper entitled, ``The Federal
Role in Science and Engineering Graduate and Postdoctoral Education.''
The paper reaffirms the basic principle of a government-university
partnership in graduate and postdoctoral education, but voices concern
that the government ``tends to emphasize short-term research `products'
and to de-emphasize benefits to graduate education.'' The Board
recommends better integration of research and education, which has been
the paradigm of the URPR for providing DOE mission support. A detailed
summary is available on the National Science Foundation's World Wide
Web site at: http://www.nsf.gov/od/pa/news/press/pr9814.htm.
URPR: Refining the Right Paradigm
The URPR instantiates the paradigm that NSB recommends for Federal
investment in national S&T. The URPR's strategic mission is to make
significant advances in our nation's robotic and manufacturing
technology base while emphasizing: education, technology innovation
through basic R&D, and DOE mission support. While accomplishments in
each of these areas for DOE are detailed below, a new organizational
structure being embraced by DOE EM-50 will give the URPR greater
freedom to make more substantial contributions to technology areas of
importance to DOE and the nation. Over the past few years, the URPR had
been used largely as a collection of universities providing short-term
deliverables to augment national laboratory RTDP projects. Under the
new vision, the Consortium of Universities (Universities of Florida,
Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, and New Mexico) are united as a powerful
technology team, governed by a national Board of Directors, advised by
a Technical Advisory Committee, and managed by a DOE HQ officer.
The URPR has demonstrated in earlier years that the advantages of
operating as a consortium are significant: The institutions of the URPR
partitioned the technical development into manageable sections which
allows each to concentrate within their area of expertise (efficiently
maintaining world-class levels of excellence) while relying on their
partners to supply supporting concentrations. With full cooperation of
the host universities, this effort naturally generated the in-depth
human and equipment capital required by the EM community. Practically,
the long-term distributed interaction and planning among these
universities in concert with the DOE labs and associated industry
allows for effective technology development (with software and
equipment compatibility and portability), for a vigorous and full
response to application requirements (component technologies, system
technologies, deployment issues, etc.), and for the supported
application of the technology.
DOE's reorganization of the URPR to its previous structure as an
operating consortium will enable more substantial contributions than
have been possible under its recent operating structure. Considering
the remarkable achievements of URPR over its history and the
enlightened commitment of EM-50 to this technology development, the
URPR will be in a position to enhance its role in education, technology
innovation, and DOE mission support.
Educating 21st Century Technologists
The URPR has already educated about 400 advanced degree students in
the critical engineering fields, including many with earned doctoral
degrees. These students have entered the work force, and help lead the
industrial resurgence based on intelligent machines, advanced
manufacturing technology, and related fields. Graduates from this
project have built successful startup companies and made industrial
technology transfers in computer vision and robotic technology (MI, TN)
and medical imaging (MI), video databases (CA), and intelligent
manufacturing (MI, FL, TX). We have seen a consistently strong demand
for graduates educated through this project, even during past lean
times.
DOE Mission Contribution--Environmental Cleanup
Since its inception, EM has recognized robotics as an essential
technology to accomplish its mission. The motives for undertaking a
comprehensive R&D effort in the application of advanced robotics to EM
tasks in hazardous environments reflect both economic considerations,
efficiency, and health and safety concerns. The RTDP is a national
laboratory program which primarily applies existing technology (often
commercially available) to current problems. In contrast, the URPR
supports needs-driven applied research to develop innovative and
synergistic technologies in support of EM thrust areas.
URPR progress is routinely evaluated by a thorough review of
technical accomplishments, and the anticipated DOE technology needs are
used to set the program's directions. The URPR has consistently
received high rankings for providing both outstanding technical
contributions and value. Future success of this program is expected to
continue based upon the Consortium's productive history.
Over the past few years, the URPR projects successfully supported
the:
1. Deployment and testing of SWAMI, an autonomous inspection robot
for Fernald stored waste drums,
2. Design, construction and testing of a robot to precisely map
large DOE facilities, such as K-25 and K-27 in Oak Ridge, in
preparation for decontamination and decommissioning (D&D),
3. Delivery of a robotic handling system for an automated chemical
and radiological analysis system to Los Alamos, and
4. Remote radiation mapping of the MSRE facility at ORNL prior to
D&D.
During fiscal year 1998, the URPR achievements have included:
--a system (RADDS) for remote cleanup and remediation of hazardous
waste sites to reduce the time between a site-defined need and
a site-delivered implementation of the robotic and/or
automation hardware. The system uses simulation of robots,
grippers, sensors, controllers, conveyors and other components
to meet the requirements of the application, followed by direct
conversion to actual controllers,
--a portable radiation imager with high efficiency and wide energy
range for EM cleanup applications,
--sensors and navigation algorithms invented, built, and delivered to
ORNL's D&D mapping robot to permit autonomous operation,
--a program for design, fabrication, and testing of intelligent
actuators for environmental robot systems.
As shown above, these efforts are directly linked to cleanup
operations in the DOE complex. During fiscal year 1999, the URPR plans
to continue its focussed efforts on DOE field cleanup applications,
while maintaining our commitment to research and education.
Innovation--the seed of future technology
The URPR has produced prodigious levels of innovation in research
and development. While recent demonstrations reveal next-generation
technologies, even more advanced capabilities are emerging from the
laboratories. These include new types of locomotion, navigation
techniques, sensing modalities (radiation cameras and laser imaging
devices), environmentally hardened components, and dextrous open
architecture manipulators. These new machines will have an unparalleled
man-machine interface and inherent intelligence, with the capability of
being able to integrate many diverse sensors simultaneously. These
devices will evolve and inspire the intelligent machines of the future,
including smart automobiles, obstacle avoidance aids for the disabled,
and advanced manufacturing cells assembled on demand.
This level of innovation can also be seen in the following
statistics:
--Approximately 15 patents awarded or pending.
--Over 650 technical papers published in technical journals and
conferences.
--The standard technical books for vision, radiation detection and
imaging, and mobile robots are authored by researchers who have
worked with this project. Faculty and senior scientists
dedicated to this project are internationally renowned
technologists of their fields.
--A suite of world-class robots (including CARMEL, winner of the AAAI
Mobile Robot Competition) serve as the research testbeds for
this project. (Cousins of CARMEL have performed autonomous
radioactive surveys at Savannah River and Idaho National
Engineering Laboratories). Our newest innovation, OmniMate, was
commercialized by HelpMate, Inc. and supplied to DOE for
autonomous mapping applications in the DOE complex.
program request
During fiscal year 1998, the URPR provided vital contributions to
education and research while meeting DOE technology needs. The
motivation for this project remains steadfast--removing humans from
hazardous environments while enhancing safety, reducing costs, and
increasing cleanup task productivity. EM-50 has recognized the URPR's
role and mission and have included full funding for the URPR for fiscal
year 1999. However, strong Congressional support is requested to ensure
this highly successful program and its base funding remains intact and
unperturbed.
Request for the Committee
To continue this vital program, we request that the Committee
include the following language into the fiscal year 1999 Energy and
Water Appropriations Bill:
--The committee supports the DOE Budget Request for $4 million of
ER&WM (EM-50) funds to continue the University Research Program
in Robotics (URPR) progress in safer, less expensive, and more
efficient robotic technology for environmental restoration and
waste management.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
department of energy
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single
life science organization in the world, comprised of more than 42,000
members, appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony on
the fiscal year 1999 budget for the Department of Energy's (DOE)
research programs.
The ASM represents scientists who work throughout academic,
governmental and industrial institutions worldwide. Microbiologists are
involved in research to improve human health and the environment. The
ASM's mission is to enhance the science of microbiology, to gain a
better understanding of basic life processes, and to promote the
application of this knowledge for improved health, and for economic and
environmental well being.
The ASM strongly supports the inclusion of basic science programs
within the DOE. While relatively small in terms of the overall DOE
appropriation, these programs provide important fundamental discoveries
that establish the foundation for subsequent developments in
biotechnology related to energy and the environment. It is imperative
for the United States to maintain a strong science budget that supports
basic research.
Along with enhanced appropriations to fund specific program areas,
it is important that the DOE receive increases in administrative
budgets to properly staff and manage fundamental science programs.
Investments in well-managed basic and applied science programs can
produce long term benefits. Over the past decade, scientific research
has become more interdisciplinary. It is essential that DOE have the
resources necessary to adapt to these changes in science and to hire
the necessary experts to manage programs effectively. This will allow
the Agency to make educated program and funding decisions based on
cross-disciplinary scientific expertise.
Many DOE scientific research programs share the common goal of
producing and conserving energy in environmentally responsible ways.
Areas of research include basic research projects in microbiology, as
well as, extensive development of biotechnological systems to produce
alternative fuels and chemicals, to recover fossil fuels, to improve
the refinement process of fossil fuels, to remediate environmental
problems, and to reduce wastes and pollution.
Last year, the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol and
committed to reduce the nation's carbon dioxide emissions to eight
percent below 1990 levels. The Administration has proposed a
government-wide Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) to
implement this commitment and help to find solutions to problems
associated with greenhouse gasses. The President's budget proposes $331
million to the DOE for this initiative. These funds will be allocated
throughout the Agency's programs including the Office of Energy
Research (OER). Biological research is slated to receive a significant
boost from this initiative. As part of the CCTI, DOE will support
microbiological research on carbon sequestration including
microorganisms that consume carbon, and other microbes that assist in
the development of carbon free energy sources. This research will be
supported throughout the program offices of the OER. Combating global
warming is critical and these programs will make significant
contributions to the long-term battle to maintain the quality of our
atmosphere.
The ASM is encouraged by the President's request for DOE's science
programs. The Administration's proposed budget for fiscal year 1999
requests $18 billion for the DOE overall. Included in that request is
$2.7 billion for programs supported by the OER. The following comments
will highlight research supported by the Office of Health and
Environmental Research (OHER), and the Division of Energy Biosciences
in the Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES). The following statement
makes recommendations related to genomics, bioremediation, ocean
science, and basic energy science. Federal investment in these programs
today will help to ensure fundamental research to find solutions to
future environmental and energy problems while maintaining U.S.
scientific leadership worldwide.
genomics
DOE supports the Microbial Genome Program (MGP) within the Office
of Biological and Environmental Research (BER). The program, developed
in 1994 as a compliment to the Human Genome Program, already provides
complete sequence information on important microorganisms. The
Administration has proposed $13 million for fiscal year 1999, about $7
million more than last year. About $5 million of this increase are new
funds associated with the CCTI. Last year the ASM urged Congress to
double the microbial genome budget in an effort to increase research in
this critical area of science.
The ASM recommends that Congress provide $15 million, for the MGP.
A base funding level of $10 million to sequence critical organisms
within the scope of DOE's mission should be provided to the MGP.
Funding from the CCTI should serve as an add-on to the program for
specialized sequences of organisms related to the mission of the CCTI.
Researchers supported by the MGP have already sequenced several
complete microbial genomes, including ones from methanogens living in
deep-sea thermal vent regions. Shortly, the genome of ``Deinococcus
radiodurans'', a bacterium that is extremely resistant to radiation,
will be completely sequenced. This sequence information provides clues
into how we can design biotechnological processes that will function in
extreme conditions, including ones that will generate fuels and help
clean up the environment. With each new genome that is sequenced we
gain a greater understanding of microbial evolution and diversity.
Also, each sequenced genome has revealed how much more science needs to
learn. Thirty percent of each genome has no known function. This
presents a great challenge for scientists to unravel the genomes
significance for understanding microbial evolution and the potential
for biotechnological developments.
The MGP contributes to the overall health and environmental quality
of the nation by researching solutions to some of the nation's most
complex environmental problems such as toxic waste cleanup and
processing, future alternative energy production and efficiency, and
the reduction of carbon gasses from our atmosphere. This program
provides essential research in biotechnology, and a better
understanding of the energy process, and bioremediation. The MGP is at
the cutting edge of microbiological research. As part of the CCTI the
MGP will support more research into methane and hydrogen production and
reduction. As scientists learn more about the diversity of
microorganisms, especially those that live in extreme conditions, they
learn more about how to develop newer, cleaner forms of energy,
technologies to clean up the waste associated with energy production
and consumption, and protective technologies from radiation.
The DOE has established the necessary peer review and advisory
program to the MGP to ensure that the microorganisms selected for
sequencing will yield the greatest scientific informational benefits
and that the research is of the highest quality. Important new
knowledge has been gained from each and every genome sequenced. The ASM
believes that even greater benefits would be achieved if the program
were funded at the requested level of $13 million and strongly urges
this Subcommittee to consider adding these funds to the Microbial
Genome Program for support of competitive research.
The DOE has expanded its research into microbial diversity, and
will begin sequencing the genomes of bioremediative microorganisms. Due
to a scientific approach called sequence leveraging, a practice of
using previously sequenced microbes to build the sequences of similar
non-sequenced microbes, the results of these initiatives will be more
readily available to other scientists, through the use of databases.
All genome sequences supported by the MGP are available to the public
and as such contribute to further scientific exploration. The public
disclosure of genomic data will aid scientists in their research into
new biotechnologies such as bioremediation, a technology that is
proving to be a practical and a cost-effective way of eliminating
pollutants.
bioremediation
The MGP's research into bioremediative microoganisms compliments
the research supported by the DOE's Natural and Accelerated
Bioremediation Program (NABIR) and other DOE bioremediation research
initiatives. The Administration's request for DOE bioremediation
research is $28.0 million for fiscal year 1999. This program is level
funded from fiscal year 1998. For fiscal year 1999, included in this
request is nearly $22 million for the NABIR program, and $1.5 million
for the Microbial Genome Program. The ASM supports the Administration's
request for bioremediation research. However, the ASM believes that
greater benefits will be achieved if the NABIR program is increased to
$30 million, providing about $41 million for bioremediation overall.
Bioremediation scientists are searching for cost-effective
technologies to improve current remediation methods to clean up DOE's
contaminated sites. This research will lead to new discoveries into
reliable methods of bioremediation of metals and radionuclides as well
as organic pollutants in soils and groundwater. The fiscal year 1998
appropriation included funds for one field research site. The ASM's
recommendation of $30 million for NABIR will provide the funds
necessary to sustain two field research sites. The NABIR program
supports real world field research that works to determine the
practical applications of bioremediation for cost-effective cleanup of
pollutants at DOE sites. Field research is a critical phase of this
program. The ASM strongly recommends that additional funding be
allocated to this effort with the aim of ensuring that two field
research sites be established that span the breadth of pollution
problems faced by the sites managed by the DOE and others.
ocean science
Other exciting new microbiological research supported by BER is in
the Ocean Sciences Program. The Administration's budget request
includes $2.1 million for this program in fiscal year 1999.
Microbiological research supported by the Ocean Sciences Program
investigates the effects global change has on marine microbes. The
findings from this program will be crucial to understanding the
responses of marine biological systems to changes in their
environments. The ASM fully supports the Administration's request for
this program.
basic energy sciences
The Administration's requested funding level for the Office of
Basic Energy Sciences is $836.1 million for fiscal year 1999. This
funding level is an $168.8 million increase over last year. BES funds
important microbiological basic research programs through the Energy
Biosciences Division. In fact, about one-fifth of all BES funds go
directly to support research at academic institutions across the
nation.
For fiscal year 1999, the budget proposal has funded the Energy
Biosciences Division within the BES at about $32 million, an increase
of $5.1 million over last year. This program focuses on research in
both microbiological and plant sciences. The exciting research
supported by DOE's Energy Biosciences will lead to new discoveries in
producing energy without risk to the environment and finding effective
methods of cleaning up existing contamination. This year Energy
Biosciences will focus on research into the reduction of carbon
emissions as part of the CCTI. One area related to microbiology will be
research into carbon consuming microorganisms.
Other microbiological research supported by this program includes
biotechnology related to energy, mechanisms occurring in
microorganisms, biofuel production, and technologies to aid in the
restoration of contaminated environmental sites. More basic research on
hydrogen, methane, and ethanol production is needed if we are to meet
future energy needs and to have fuels that will minimize environmental
pollution. The ASM supports the proposed funding level for this program
and urges Congress to allocate these funds for the Energy Biosciences.
conclusion
DOE's research programs help to keep the United States at the
forefront of scientific discovery and competitive in the world
marketplace. The ASM encourages Congress to maintain its commitment to
the Department of Energy research programs to maintain the United
States' leadership in these vital industries and continue our
commitment to a strong basic science program.
The debate over the effect of greenhouse gasses on the environment
is complex. While some may disagree about the severity of the
greenhouse problem, most will agree that the reduction of industrial
gasses into the atmosphere will provide more long-term environmental
benefits than continuing to increase the rate these gasses enter our
atmosphere. In Kyoto, the United States committed to significantly
reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. DOE's basic
research programs support research that investigates solutions to
existing and future environmental and energy problems. Through the
leadership of DOE's basic research science in clean fuels, and
environmental processes, new technologies will be developed to enable
the U.S. to be better prepared to meet environmental problems and the
economic challenges associated with them.
In summary, the ASM makes the following recommendations:
The ASM believes that it is imperative for the United States to
maintain a strong science budget that supports basic research.
It is essential that the DOE receive sufficient increases in
administrative budgets to properly staff and manage biological science
programs.
The ASM recommends that Congress provide $15 million, $9 million
more than fiscal year 1998 funding, for the Microbial Genome Program.
The MGP should have a base funding level of $10 million to sequence
critical organisms within the scope of DOE's mission. Funding from the
Climate Change Technology Initiative should serve as an add-on to the
program for specialized sequences of organisms related to the mission
of the CCTI.
The ASM's recommends $30 million be appropriated for the NABIR
program to provide the funds necessary to sustain two field research
sites and an increase in bioremediation research. This recommendation
would bring DOE's overall bioremediation budget to $41 million for
fiscal year 1999.
The ASM fully supports the Administration's request for $2.1 for
the Ocean Sciences Program.
The ASM recommends the Energy Biosciences Division within the BES
receive $32 million for fiscal year 1999, an increase of $5.1 million
over last year's funding.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of
the DOE basic life sciences programs. The ASM hopes that its
recommendations will be useful to the Subcommittee. We would be pleased
to respond to any questions.
______
Prepared Statement of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy
introduction
The Council is pleased to offer testimony to the Energy and Water
Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee on the proper role
for government in promoting energy research and development, as it
relates to renewable energy programs at the Department of Energy (DOE).
The Council was created in 1992 and is comprised of businesses and
industry trade associations which share a commitment to pursue an
energy path designed to realize our nation's economic and national
security goals through the rapid deployment of efficient, non- and low-
polluting energy technologies. Council members include a diverse range
of manufacturers, energy producers, suppliers of energy resources and
energy service companies. Our member companies range in size from
Fortune 500 enterprises such as Enron, Honeywell, Maytag and Southern
California Edison, to small entrepreneurial businesses, to industry
trade associations representing the natural gas, wind, solar and
insulation industries.
federal programs to promote renewable energy resources
The Council recognizes that it is the suppliers and users of
energy--not the federal government--that ultimately will decide which
energy sources will meet our future energy needs. However, the federal
government does play an important role in helping the private sector
share the risk of investing in deployment of clean technologies that,
while at or near economical viability, face financial, informational or
institutional obstacles to their wide market availability.
wind
World markets for wind energy are growing at an unprecedented rate.
Figures for 1997 indicate that total worldwide installed wind capacity
stands at 7,758 megawatts (MW), up 25 percent from a year earlier. This
figure includes approximately 1,524 MW installed in 1997. The Council
supports DOE's total request of $43.5 million for wind energy research
and development in the fiscal year 1999 to fund projects in turbine
research ($24.8 million), cooperative research ($8.0 million
recommended) and applied research ($10.7 million). This level of
funding is particularly important to continue development of next
generation wind turbine technologies needed to keep the U.S. industry
competitive in restructured domestic markets and in the fast growing,
highly competitive international markets.
Although wind is making headway in the electric power generation
market, U.S. markets for wind energy have plateaued, with only 11 MW
installed in 1997, 10 MW in 1996 and 41 MW in 1995. Clearly, there are
opportunities to reverse this recent decline in wind energy production
and resume growth in the world markets as wind power costs continue to
fall. The goal of cost-shared DOE/Wind Industry efforts is to develop
the next generation aimed at delivering electricity in the range of 2.5
cents/kWh.
The Council supports DOE's programs focusing on small wind turbines
up to 50 kW, including the cost-shared Advanced Small Wind turbine
project. Small wind turbines are used for smaller on-grid and off-grid
applications where the value of the energy is high. Presently, U.S.
small wind turbine manufacturers are the world's leading suppliers but
they must rely on exports for approximately three-quarters of their
business. The absence of domestic markets makes this industry
vulnerable to foreign competition, particularly from countries with
more developed markets. For this reason, the Council is encouraging DOE
to expand its small wind turbine market development programs by
creating initiatives similar to PV-COMPACT, PV-BONUS and the Million
Solar Roofs program. Such initiatives would lower the costs of small
wind turbines, create thousands of new jobs and give more opportunities
for the marketplace to choose the most competitive small-scale
renewable energy technologies.
The DOE has also been effective in helping U.S. small wind turbine
companies overcome barriers to important international markets. While
the DOE expenditures in this area have been very modest, support work
by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the areas of wind
resource studies, economic analyses and pilot projects has created
substantial new markets in South America, Asia and Russia. Throughout
the world, rural villages are being electrified or provided with clean
water by small wind turbines exported from the U.S., at costs that are
lower than the conventional alternatives of extending the grid or
running diesel generators.
Funding for Cooperative Research and Testing will provide support
for industry testing at the National Wind Technology Center (NWTC) in
Rocky Flats, CO. This will allow for continued development of a U.S.-
based certification capability for wind energy technologies.
Ultimately, streamlined certification criteria will make it easier for
U.S. businesses to market and sell American-made wind turbine
technologies in international markets.
The main focus of the applied research program is development of
models to better understand aerodynamics (through wind tunnel tests),
fatigue damage prediction and structural reliability capabilities.
Modeling and code design work is underway at both the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (located in Golden, CO) and the Sandia
National Laboratory (New Mexico).
More and more electric utilities are becoming interested in
generating power from large-scale wind power plants. The global market
for wind power is expected to further grow over the next few years. New
wind power markets are driven by the fact that at least one-third of
the world's population--over 2 billion people--do not have access to
reliable energy. Maintaining a U.S. presence in this growing industry
is a valuable investment of federal resources--one that will pay off
many times in the next several decades.
The global wind energy market has been growing at a remarkable rate
over the last several years and is the world's fastest growing energy
technology. The growth of the market offers significant export
opportunities for U.S. wind turbine and component manufacturers. The
World Energy Council has estimated that new wind capacity worldwide
will amount to $150 to $400 billion worth of new business over the next
twenty years. Experts estimate that as many as 157,000 new jobs could
be created if U.S. wind energy equipment manufacturers are able to
capture just 25 percent of the global wind equipment over the next ten
years.
solar energy
The United States currently leads the world in the diverse
portfolio of solar technologies: photovoltaics (PV) for manufacturing,
thin films and energy services, solar thermal power in advanced
concentrations (solar power towers, parabolic troughs, and dish-
engines) and solar buildings in integrated systems and energy services
delivery. However, our international competitors are positioning
themselves to take market share from the U.S. in vast, multi-billion
dollar world markets, as a result of strong support provided by their
respective governments--especially in Japan and Germany--through a
variety of aggressive development and deployment programs. Maintaining
our lead will require strong and focused U.S. government action, not
only to support international activities but also to secure a position
in growing domestic markets.
Solar technologies available today include PV, solar water and pool
heating, solar process heating and solar thermal power technologies.
Faster integration of solar energy systems in both supply-and demand-
side applications in our domestic economy, combined with support for
increased exports of U.S. solar technologies, will have the parallel
benefits of creating thousands of new high-technology manufacturing
jobs while improving our environment. The Council supports the trend
toward market-driven, industry cost-shared programs designed to
leverage federal dollars with private-sector participation to enhance
private-sector understanding and use of these technologies.
Improving conversion efficiency of solar panels and reducing
manufacturing costs will play a key role in sustaining U.S. dominance
in the area of PV. The Council supports the DOE's photovoltaic system
program. PV programs are among the best leveraged (the PV-COMPACT
program, for example, leverages $4 and $5 for every federal dollar
expended) in DOE. Our two most formidable competitors, Japan and
Germany, are outspending DOE's investment in PV research and
development and PV commercialization programs. While U.S. industry is
exporting a significant amount of its products to these countries, most
expect this surge in demand to rapidly diminish as in-country
manufacturing capabilities are increased. As an example, the Japanese
Ministry of International Trade and Industry has set a domestic
deployment goal of 400 megawatts of PV by the year 2000 and its
manufacturers are responding to the challenge.
Japanese manufacturers are expected to expand their annual
production capacity four-fold to 80 megawatts over the next three
years. Not only will this expansion allow the Japanese industry to meet
its domestic demand for PV, it will enable Japan to overtake the U.S.
in terms of global market share. The Council also supports the
Administration's Million Solar Roofs Initiative (MSR).
The Council supports DOE cost-shared initiatives in R&D (thin films
and other advanced materials, manufacturing and other solar initiatives
which address these issues. Equally important is the concept of
building integrated PV programs where PV manufacturers, systems
integrators and utilities are working together to reduce the cost of PV
generated electricity. The Council also supports the Department's PV-
COMPACT program. PV-COMPACT is a collaborative effort involving more
than 80 electric utilities, representing over half the electricity
produced in the U.S., and other interested organizations to garner the
economic, commercial and environmental benefits of PV technologies.
PV's and other solar technologies offer the U.S. environmentally
benign and cost-effective energy supply options in a variety of market
applications. The market viability of these technologies is
demonstrated in growing private sector interest in developing new
manufacturing facilities related to solar industries. In the area of PV
production alone, the last three years have witnessed six U.S.
companies--including Council members United Solar Systems Corporation
and Amoco/Enron Solar--announce plans to construct new photovoltaic
plants. This activity is a unique example of DOE funding encouraging
significant private-sector investment that creates new jobs. The
Council strongly urges Congress to continue its support of public/
private partnerships that help ensure that U.S. companies can compete
effectively in rapidly emerging world renewable energy markets.
The Council supports DOE's Solar Thermal Buildings program, a
research and development program focusing on materials and components
for solar water and space heating technologies for building
applications. Based at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the
Florida Solar Energy Center, the program also has a strong technology
standard and certification component. Activities in fiscal year 1999
should include ongoing cost-shared technology validation projects,
laboratory R&D and customer-oriented applied R&D of solar building
technologies with universities and industries.
The Council supports the Solar Thermal Electric and Process Heat
programs, an R&D program on materials and components with a heavily
cost-shared technology validation component. Over the past five years,
the primary program focus has been collaboration with industry to
develop advanced solar thermal electric technologies to the point of
commercial readiness.
renewable energy production incentive
As part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Sec. 1212), the Congress
passed the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) to encourage
the development of renewable energy projects in tax-exempt municipal
utilities. This program has been successful in helping municipal
utilities such as Sacramento Municipal Utility District develop wind
and solar generating facilities. We strongly support the
Administration's request of $4.0 million as a modest, cost-effective
step toward renewable energy project development.
international activities
Finally, the Council would like to offer its support of federal
programs designed to help open important international markets for
renewable energy technologies. The Council is extremely supportive of
the fiscal year 1999 increases in funding for international energy
programs such as the International Solar Energy Program.
The developing world--Eastern and Central Europe, the former Soviet
Union, Asia, Africa and Latin America--presents tremendous
opportunities for the deployment of renewable energy technologies.
Renewables offer great flexibility to developing countries looking for
economically viable, reliable and clean energy supply options that can
be used to serve growing metropolitan areas and remote rural regions
where power is otherwise unavailable. Renewables can also help support
the development of commercial activities such as agriculture and
telecommunications through remote power source applications.
Competition in rapidly growing developing country markets is intense;
U.S. renewables manufacturers face the dual obstacles of competition
from conventional energy sources and foreign renewables manufacturers
buoyed by government assistance.
In this regard, it is important to note that major U.S. competitors
are now making aggressive moves into the renewables market. When
measured against the relative size of their economies, Japan, Germany
and Sweden are each now making larger government R&D investments in
renewables than is the U.S. In fact, the U.S. taxpayer spends a lower
portion of its R&D budget on energy than any other taxpayer in an
industrialized, market-based economy.
U.S. government assistance in identifying market opportunities,
providing education and training for energy decision-makers in the
developing world and supporting demonstrations of renewable
technologies in overseas applications promises to help ensure that U.S.
renewables manufacturers will be successful in capturing market-share
throughout the expanding global market for clean energy technologies
and services.
conclusion
Promoting research, development and validation of emerging
renewable energy technologies will result in the near-term creation of
thousands of new jobs, a stronger economy, enhanced export
opportunities for domestic manufacturers and a cleaner environment.
DOE's budget request continues federal emphasis on developing low- and
non-polluting energy technologies and services as a means of achieving
these goals. It utilizes cost-shared collaboratives with industry to
leverage limited federal funds in recognition that cooperation with
industry is vital for addressing market imperfections impeding the
widespread use of renewables. The Council strongly supports this
approach and urges Congress to continue its support of federal
research, development and validation programs for renewable energy
technologies.
______
Prepared Statement of W. Ron Allen, President, National Congress of
American Indians
introduction
Good morning Chairman Domenici, Vice-Chairman Reid and
distinguished members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony
regarding the President's budget request for fiscal year 1999 Indian
programs and services. My name is W. Ron Allen. I am President of the
National Congress of American Indians (``NCAI''), the oldest, largest
and most representative Indian advocacy organization in the nation, and
Chairman of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe located in Washington State.
The National Congress of American Indians was organized in 1944 in
response to termination and assimilation policies and legislation
promulgated by the federal government which proved to be devastating to
Indian Nations and Indian people throughout the country. NCAI remains
dedicated to advocating aggressively on behalf of the interests of our
230 member tribes on a myriad of issues including the critical issue of
adequate funding for Indian programs.
the president's fiscal year 1999 budget request
Department of Energy
The Department of Energy (DOE) manages programs to mitigate and
remediate ceded and former Indian lands contaminated by the Cold War
legacy. However, funding for these programs are inadequate for
activities such as: tribal involvement in decision- making processes;
shipping of high and low level radioactive waste through Indian country
whose jurisdictions do not have adequate emergency response programs in
place to protect people, lands and resources; and, siting of a
permanent repository for spent nuclear on former traditional lands
under an arbitrary policy which does not involve local tribes but
supports non-Indian state and county governments for oversight
activities.
The DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) is
performing scientific and technical studies at Yucca Mountain on the
Nevada Test Site for a proposed high-level spent nuclear fuel and
radioactive waste permanent repository. The Nevada Test Site is within
the traditional homelands of the Shoshone and Paiute peoples whose
culture, environment, and health already has been impacted by federal
government-sponsored atomic testing and other activities. However, DOE-
OCRWM did not request fiscal year 1999 funding for oversight activities
for the tribes indigenous to this area. The fiscal year 1999 budget
request of the DOE-OCRWM program is $380 million from which $16 million
is for the state of Nevada, nine Nevada counties, and one California
county (designated local units of government under the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1987, as amended [Public Law 100-203]) for oversight
activities at Yucca Mountain. (Under the current fiscal year 1998
budget, the ten counties are receiving $5 million and the area tribes
are not included in this allocation). We ask that this Committee ensure
that funds are made available for tribal involvement and examine DOE's
arbitrary policy of ignoring the tribes who remain in their homelands
but are left out of the oversight process at Yucca Mountain.
The NCAI Nuclear Waste Program, funded through a DOE-OCRWM
cooperative agreement, is a national information dissemination effort
to provide tribal governments with updates on the implementation of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-425). The long-range
issues and impacts to Indian country are significant and national in
scope, but tribes do not have adequate staff or resources to track this
program. This year, the NCAI Nuclear Waste Program operated under funds
from a renewed five-year cooperative agreement. The Program budget is
almost at its lowest funding level since its inception in 1982 and is
slated to stay at the fiscal year 1999 requested funding level of
$148,000 in the out years. Considering inflation, cost of living and
other factors, continued level funding results in further reductions
annually. In order to sustain a viable program and provide tribal
leaders with relevant and current information and assist in the
interactive DOE process, NCAI requests increased DOE-OCRWM annual
funding to the NCAI cooperative agreement as part of its trust
responsibility to keep tribes informed on programmatic impacts and
maintain an open dialogue with impacted tribal communities.
The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology has requested
$10 million in fiscal year 1999 for research and development
collaboration to refurbish and upgrade those nuclear utilities whose
licenses will soon expire and will have to apply to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for relicensing. This request reflects a 44
percent increase for nuclear energy research and development. We
request the DOE direct a portion of this funding to be shared with
tribes within the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone and the 50-mile
Ingestion Pathway Zone around commercial nuclear reactors.
Under the Office of Environmental Management Office of Public
Accountability (EM-22), nine tribes have cooperative agreements to
participate in site cleanup and waste management oversight activities.
The current fiscal year 1998 tribal allocation of $4.2 million is $1
million less from the fiscal year 1997 authorization. The fiscal year
1999 EM-22 budget has been reduced by 20 percent and it is not clear
whether tribal budgets will stay at level funding. Adequate tribal
program funding has always been a problem despite the fact that many
federal sites slated for cleanup are former tribal lands or ceded
territory and contain significant cultural sites. DOE-EM officials have
suggested they are working to avoid negative impact on tribal budgets.
We request an increase in tribal funding and ask this Committee to
ensure that the DOE-EM not undermine these small tribal allocations.
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Solar
and Renewable Resources Technology budget supports research and
development programs in energy efficiency and renewable technologies in
utility, building transportation, and industry sectors. Part of the
EERE Solar Program Support budget request is for $10 million for a 5-
year Open Solicitation for Renewable Energy Technologies. The program
provides up to $3 million for tribes in the open competition for
deployment of renewable energy. The fiscal year 1999 request includes
$4 million to develop a fish-friendly turbine. We support this effort
and ask this committee's support on this budget category.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, we urge the Congress to fulfill its fiduciary duty to
American Indians and Alaska Native people and to uphold the trust
responsibility as well as preserve the Government-to-Government
relationship, which includes the fulfillment of health, education and
welfare needs of all Indian tribes in the United States. This
responsibility should never be compromised or diminished because of any
Congressional agenda or party platform promises. Tribes throughout the
nation relinquished their lands as well as their rights to liberty and
property in exchange for these on-going services as well as this trust
responsibility. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget is a positive
step towards acknowledging the fiduciary duty owed to tribes.
We ask that the Congress consider the funding levels in the
President's budget as the minimum funding levels required by Congress
to maintain these services and the federal trust responsibility. The
consensus of Indian country is that the federal government's budgetary
process has failed to provide for effective services and minimum to
raise the living standards of Indian communities consistent with non-
Indian communities. In order for federal government to reasonably
expect tribal government to truly achieve the self-determination, self-
governance and self-sufficiency goals mutually identified by the
federal government and the tribal governments will not be achieved
unless meaningful increases are provided for Indian programs and
services.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for allowing
me to present for the record, on behalf of our member tribes, the
National Congress of American Indians' initial comments regarding the
President's fiscal year 1999 budget.
______
Prepared Statement of Jeff Seemann, Project Director, Nevada National
Science Foundation EPSCoR Project
Mr. Chairman: I am Jeff Seemann, Project Director of the Nevada
National Science Foundation EPSCoR Project, and Chair of the Department
of Biochemistry at the University of Nevada, Reno. I am submitting this
statement on behalf of the eighteen states \1\, plus the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, that are eligible to participate in the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto
Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and
Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coalition of EPSCoR States supports the Energy Department's
budget request for EPSCoR, but we respectfully urge the Subcommittee to
consider appropriating an additional $3 million for this productive
program. The Department request for $6.815 million is included in the
Basic Energy Sciences budget.
The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)
is a research and development program established by the National
Science Foundation. Through a merit review process, EPSCoR is improving
our Nation's science and technology capability by funding research
activities of talented researchers at universities and non-profit
organizations in states that historically have not received significant
Federal R&D funding. EPSCoR helps researchers, institutions, and states
improve their research capabilities and quality in order to compete
more effectively for non-EPSCoR research funds. EPSCoR is a catalyst
for change and is widely viewed as a ``model'' Federal-state
partnership.
In 1992 Congress authorized the Energy Department to conduct an
EPSCoR program in Section 2203 of the Energy Policy Act (Public Law
102-486). The Department designed its EPSCoR program based upon the
National Science Foundation's model developed with the overriding
purpose of enhancing the capabilities of the eligible states to conduct
nationally competitive energy-related research and to develop science
and engineering manpower to meet current and future needs in energy-
related areas.
Building a world class scientific research base in Nevada has been
one of the major goals of our EPSCoR Program. The foundation for
building this research enterprise will always be the hard work of our
talented science and engineering faculty in the University and
Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN). One of the major objectives
in growing the research competitiveness of our faculty is to build a
solid base of infrastructure that supports their research activities.
EPSCoR has been and will continue to be a major catalyst in building
the research infrastructure in Nevada. It operates on several
principles:
--to stimulate high quality research;
--to promote cooperation across traditional disciplinary lines and
across institutional lines;
--to build permanent, systematic improvements in the research
environment; and
--to obtain funding from non-EPSCoR sources to sustain research
initiated through the EPSCoR program.
Nevada's DOE EPSCoR project was established in October 1994. It was
one of nine states selected to receive grants following merit-based
competition. The other states that currently hold DOE awards are
Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Puerto Rico, South
Carolina and Wyoming. Each state must match its DOE grant with state,
university or other non-federal funds.
The current DOE EPSCoR grant to Nevada is for $3,920,000 over four-
year period. This grant is matched with funds from participating units
of the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN). The
purpose of our DOE EPSCoR program is to improve capabilities and
production of high quality research in order to help serve the needs of
DOE, the nation, and the state. The Nevada DOE EPSCoR program
encompasses the following components, all of which have been
established and are now operating smoothly and productively.
There are two primary focuses of our project. One is the Chemical
Physics Research Cluster that encompasses the activities of 9 faculty,
3 postdocs, 7 graduate students and 9 undergraduates at the University
of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) and University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
working on three related research projects. This cluster is studying
chemical physics processes with applications ranging from understanding
hot, dense plasmas to developing short-wavelength lasers. Researchers
in this cluster have developed unique opportunities to work with four
of the Department's National Laboratories, Sandia National Laboratory,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
I should note that one of our young faculty members, Dr. Bruno
Bauer, a Presidential Young Investigator award winner, has garnered a
$2 million ``High Density Z-Pinch'' fusion energy device that has been
transferred to UNR from Los Alamos National Laboratory. It will be used
to investigate fundamental questions in plasma and atomic physics, to
advance techniques of radiography, and to develop practical
applications in medical, materials and environmental sciences.
The second research cluster focuses on Responses of Desert
Vegetation to Elevated Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. It supports the work
of twelve faculty, 5 postdocs, 7 graduate students and 10
undergraduates at UNR, UNLV, and the Desert Research Institute (DRI). A
substantial portion of the DOE EPSCoR funding for this cluster has been
utilized to establish a dedicated state-of-the-art facility on the
Nevada Test Site to study the effect of 21st century atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentrations on desert ecosystems. This is the Nevada Desert
Free Air CO2 Enrichment Facility or FACE, an excellent
example of the kind of scientific infrastructure building that EPSCoR
is designed to stimulate. It is the only one of its kind in a desert
environment.
The research conducted by this cluster is particularly important to
Nevada. It is well-established that the levels of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere have been increasing steadily, primarily as a result of
consumption of fossil fuels. The percentage has increased by 30 percent
since the pre-industrial era, and will double by the end of the 21st
century. The research is aimed at determining what effect these
increasing carbon dioxide levels will have on desert ecosystems. In a
desert, plants are already under a great deal of stress from heat and
from limited water. It is of great interest to Nevada to determine the
response of desert ecosystems to increased carbon dioxide levels. The
FACE facility came about as a result of coordination between the Energy
Department, the National Science Foundation, Nevada EPSCoR, and
Brookhaven National Laboratory. It has been critical to the support of
increasing the knowledge base of this research.
There also is a human resource development component of our DOE
EPSCoR project. Operating primarily at UNR and UNLV, it also has major
outreach activities involving DOE-NV Education Outreach and Office of
External Affairs, and Nevada K-12 and Community College institutions.
The Energy Department conducted a formal review of our research
efforts in 1997 and determined to extend support for our clusters with
$1.5 million for another two years.
In May, the Department, in conjunction with representatives of the
Federal agencies who sponsor EPSCoR programs, hosted workshops and a
round table meeting at Argonne National Laboratory. The program
included a series of workshops to promote the formation of
collaborations between the faculty from the EPSCoR states and the
scientific and engineering staff at the national laboratories and
facilities. The Coalition found this to be a successful first session
and encourages the Department to continue to host such events.
Recently the Office of Energy Research, acting through the DOE
EPSCoR office, initiated another new program to support collaborative
partnerships between academic or industrial researchers from eligible
states and DOE's National Laboratories, facilities, and centers.
Undergraduate and graduate students who are active members of the
research teams were encouraged to apply to spend a summer or academic
year at a national laboratory or DOE facility. This initiative will
further efforts to enhance the capability of EPSCoR states to conduct
nationally competitive energy-related research and to develop science
and engineering manpower in energy-related areas to meet current and
future needs. In addition, it helps DOE to recruit young scientists and
engineers.
These are the types of activities the Coalition believes the
Department should strengthen and expand. This is why we believe
additional funds should be made available for fiscal year 1999.
Increased funding would also permit DOE to select for implementation
grants more than the two or three states contemplated in the budget.
Given the success of the EPSCoR programs in Nevada, it is not
surprising that we are very interested in and enthusiastic about the
future of the DOE EPSCoR program. It has been our experience that the
EPSCoR programs yield a return far beyond the original investment.
EPSCoR allows the states to accomplish more than is possible through
the regular research programs. It has helped Nevada attract and retain
young researchers, such as Bruno Bauer, who are able to demonstrate
through EPSCoR support of their research, that they have bright future
in the fields of plasma and atomic physics. It has enabled Nevada to
develop a unique, state-of-the-art research facility at the Nevada Test
Site. This is what EPSCoR is intended to do.
At its core, DOE EPSCoR supports quality peer-reviewed research,
but also builds the research infrastructure that improves our overall
competitiveness. It stimulates collaboration, strategic thinking and
broad scale planning, and development of a shared research vision by
the state. Nevada is making good use of EPSCoR in concert with and
complementary to the other agency research initiatives.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR States, I urge
this Subcommittee to continue to support the DOE EPSCoR program.
Recognizing the very tight fiscal constrains this Subcommittee faces in
the new era of a balanced federal budget, we request that the
Subcommittee provide $10 million to the Energy Department for its
EPSCoR program in fiscal year 1999 as part of the Basic Energy Sciences
budget. The additional funds should be used to support new research
implementation awards, support collaborations with the national
laboratories, and co-fund meritorious applications submitted to DOE's
regular grant programs by researchers in EPSCoR states.
The Energy Department's Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research is a wise and worthwhile investment of scarce
public resources. It will continue to contribute significantly to
efforts to build the scientific and engineering research efforts of
eligible states and the Nation.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of Kerry L. Sublette, Sarkeys Professor of
Environmental Engineering, University of Tulsa
It is proposed that the U.S. Department of Energy support a
focused, university-based program, the Integrated Public/Private Energy
& Environmental Consortium (IPEC), with the goal of increasing the
competitiveness of the domestic energy industry through a reduction in
the cost of compliance with U.S. environmental regulations. Federal
support is specifically requested as part of the fiscal year 1999
appropriation for the Department of Energy through the Biological and
Environmental Research account or other source the Subcommittee may
determine to be appropriate.
Last year the Congress provided $1.5 million in funding for the
Integrated Public/Private Energy & Environmental Consortium (IPEC)
(formerly the Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium) in the
fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill for the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Specially this funding was provided for the development
of cost-effective environmental technology, improved business
practices, and technology transfer for the domestic energy industry.
With initial funding under the Science and Technology account of EPA,
IPEC will implement a comprehensive mechanism (Center) to advance the
consortium's research expertise in environmental technology. The
consortium includes the University of Tulsa, the University of
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, and the University of Arkansas.
IPEC's operating practices and linkages to the independent sector
will ensure that real problems in the domestic energy industry are
addressed with real, workable solutions. Indeed this Subcommittee
highlighted and supported these efforts by including strong support
language in the committee report. We thank you for your support and
would also like to express our appreciation to those members and their
staff who provided valuable advice and guidance during the last session
of Congress. As envisioned and proposed by the consortium, State-level
matching funds have been pledged to support IPEC, creating a true
Federal-State partnership in this critical area. In fiscal year 1998,
IPEC has secured a pledge of $375,000 in matching funds from the
Chancellor of Higher Education of the State of Oklahoma.
IPEC officers have met with the Director of the Environmental
Engineering Research Division of the EPA National Center for
Environmental Research and Quality Assurance. The Consortium is working
with EPA to ensure that we meet the agency's requirements for funding
as a research center and the successful funding of IPEC.
IPEC is proceeding in its solicitation and review process so that
we will be in a position to fund projects as soon as possible. The IPEC
Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) has been formed and met for the first
time on January 20, 1998. This twenty-member Board is composed of
environmental professionals from the domestic energy industry and is
dominated by representatives of independent producers. We are pleased
to report that IPEC's Industrial Advisory Board has approved five
programs for funding and more are expected in the coming months. These
five projects include the following:
(1) Intrinsic bioremediation of whole gasoline.--This project seeks
to develop a scientific basis for a risked-based approach to management
of sites contaminated with gasoline. The project will investigate the
mechanism and rate of the natural attenuation of gasoline via
biodegradation by microorganisms which occur naturally in soil (termed
intrinsic bioremediation). If all of the regulated components of
gasoline can be naturally biodegraded, then contaminated sites which
pose no immediate threat to human health or environmental receptors can
be given a low priority for active intervention freeing precious
resources to be allocated to sites where the threat is more acute.
(2) Microflora involved in phytoremediation of polyaromatic
hydrocarbons.--Phytoremediation is the term applied to the use of
plants and microorganisms that thrive in the plant's root zone to
biodegrade soil pollutants such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's).
PAH's are a major class of recalcitrant pollutants and are a
significant byproduct of petroleum processing and refining. PAH's are
concentrated in food chains, are toxic, and some are recognized
mutagens and carcinogens. This project will determine the feasibility
of using plants to degrade these PAH's in contaminated soil by creating
a ``living cap'' of plants and associated microorganisms over
contaminated sites. The costs of such waste treatment are far below
those required for conventional treatment such as excavation and
incineration of contaminated soil.
(3) Passive sampling devices (PSD's) for bioavailability screening
of soils containing petrochemicals.--The concept of a risk-based
corrective action applied to the management of contaminated soil or
groundwater requires that a regulator assess human risk. Soil
contaminants can be detected by chemical analysis, but this provides
little information on the actual hazard presented to ecological and
human receptors. In some cases, contaminant levels above current soil
quality guideline levels exists, but not toxicity. In other cases,
chemical levels are below soil quality guidelines, yet toxicity
persists. This project seeks to develop a rapid, cost-effective
screening tool or passive sampling device (PSD) to determine the actual
toxicity of contaminants in soil and their bioremediation potential.
Use of such a device to determine the actual risks to human health
presented by a site and its amenability to bioremediation would allow
regulators to better prioritize contaminated sites needing immediate
remedial action.
(4) Using plants to remediate petroleum-contaminated soil.--This
project also proposes to use plants and associated microorganisms in
the plants root zone to effect the remediation of soil contaminants.
This project specifically seeks to conduct field studies to develop
protocols suitable for phytoremediation of petroleum-contaminated
secondary containment berms. These earthen berms are designed to
contain fluids in the event of a major spill or leak in a tank. Many of
these berms become contaminated with oil through leaks, spills, and
normal transfer operations. This project envisions the continuous
cultivation of suitable plants on these berms to keep oil contamination
under control.
(5) Probabilistic risk assessment of petroleum contamination using
detailed physical models.--Like all human endeavors the exploration and
production (E&P) of oil and gas has associated with it some risk of
damage to human or environmental health. Response to this risk can be
reactive or proactive. The latter is of course preferred since
proactive management prevents environmental damage and injury and is
less costly. This project will develop a proactive risk management
program for E&P operations to minimize the potential for environmental
damage. This risk-based approach makes resource allocation more
effective based on the probability that a scenario will occur and the
potential severity of the associated damage. Proactive risk management
in the domestic petroleum industry has the potential for both
significant cost savings and enhanced environmental protection.
The use of the Industrial Advisory Board to measure the relevancy
of research within the Consortium is truly unique and ensures that the
Consortium is meeting the needs of the domestic energy industry. IPEC
has secured significant matching funds from industry for these first
five programs. The combined funding request for these five projects is
$492,000; however, the investigators have secured another $502,000 in
matching funds from industry for these projects from individual
companies and industry organizations such as the Gas Research
Institute, the American Petroleum Institute and the Petroleum
Environmental Research Forum. IPEC is well on its way to becoming a
true public/private partnership.
As we have previously testified, the ability of small and medium
sized producers to compete in a global market is complicated by two
factors: the cost of regulatory compliance and the declining cost of
crude oil. With your help IPEC is developing cost-effective solutions
for the environmental problems that represent the greatest challenge to
the competitiveness of the domestic energy industry. However, the
fiscal year 1998 appropriation is only a beginning. For example, the
IPEC Industrial Advisory Board has identified 26 critical research
needs. With the current funding we can begin to address only a fraction
of these needs. There is much work to be done and we respectfully
request that the Subcommittee provide $2 million in funding for IPEC in
fiscal year 1999.
the continuing crises in the domestic energy industry
The crisis in the domestic energy industry that we described in
testimony in the last session of Congress has only gotten worse as the
price of crude oil continues to fall to below $13 per barrel. The
independent producers are producing from mature fields left behind by
the majors. Although there is a significant resource base in the fields
this is the most difficult and the most costly oil to produce. The
independent producer has only one source of revenue--the sale of oil
and gas. There is no vertical depth to his business. With the price of
oil this low the independent producer is extremely vulnerable to the
costs of environmental compliance. This latest drop in oil prices will
no doubt result in another wave of business closures, plugged and
abandoned wells, and reduced new well completions. The problem is so
acute that the Governor of Oklahoma has recently formed an emergency
task force to determine what the state can do to help Oklahoma
producers survive the current plunge in prices. A similar price crash
in the 1980's triggered a prolonged statewide recession. Clearly this
trend is not in the best interest of the U.S. in terms of energy self-
sufficiency or national security. We are turning over control of our
cost of production in terms of energy costs to foreign interests. If
domestic exploration and production and refining are to continue to
play a strategic role in meeting U.S. energy needs, the domestic
petroleum producer will continue to require access to cost-effective
technology for pollution prevention, waste treatment and remediation in
exploration and production (E&P) and refining.
ipec's response to critical research needs
IPEC will continue to work with the domestic energy industry to
provide solutions to those environmental problems that represent the
greatest challenge to the competitiveness of the industry. Specifically
in fiscal year 1999 IPEC will continue to work with our Industrial
Advisory Board to address the remaining critical research needs they
have identified as well as address new needs that develop. These
research needs include the following:
(1) Bioremediation and other remediation technologies.--Reducing
toxicity of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils; development of rapid, on-
site remediation technologies; control of salt migration in the
subsurface; developing methodologies for phytoremediation.
(2) Risk Assessment.--Development of cost-effective ecological risk
assessment methods for petroleum impacted sites; development of cost-
effective and relevant terrestrial (animal/plant) bioassays for use in
ecological risk/impact assessment; development of field methods for
ecological risk assessment; development of methods to evaluate actual
and future environmental risk of petroleum impacted soils; determining
the correlation between ecological risk assessment and human health
risk assessment; determining the impact of intrinsic bioremediation on
risk-based closures; development of risk-based guidelines for handling,
disposal and storage of NORM-contaminated solids, pipe, and equipment.
(3) Measurement Technology.--Development of cost-effective methods
(direct and indirect) for measuring the amount and extent of petroleum
hydrocarbon sources in unsaturated and saturated soils; development of
useful and easy to implement field and analytical methods and protocols
for demonstrating intrinsic bioremediation; validating current models
for predicting flash emissions of hydrocarbons in E&P operations.
(4) Process Technologies.--Control or treatment of flash gas
emissions from stock tanks; use, treatment or disposal of oil tank
bottoms; development of cost-effective methods for capture, recycling/
destruction of volatile organic compound emissions from hydrocarbon
processing and storage tanks; development of improved water treatment
methods--particularly those methods; development of methods to for
treatment of hydrogen sulfide in the reservoir.
(5) Management and Decision Tools.--Development of methods to
predict plume migration of salt water from pits; development of methods
to calculate the full life cycle cost of material and waste handling in
the petroleum industry; development of proper pit closure methods using
a clay or compacted soil cap; development of improved methods for
disposal of drilling wastes; development of methods to distinguish
between historical oil field pollution and recent, current and/or
ongoing pollution.
In addition to working with our Industrial Advisory Board, IPEC
will continue in fiscal year 1999 to build linkages with organizations
which provide services to the domestic energy industry. As IPEC begins
to fund technology development projects the Directors will work with
the leadership of these organizations to develop a synergy between
their efforts and those of IPEC. These organizations form the IPEC
Affiliates Group and include the National Petroleum Technology Office
(NPTO) of the U.S. Department of Energy, the Interstate Oil and Gas
Compact Commission (IOGCC), the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum
(PERF) the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board (OERB), the Oklahoma
Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA), the Gas Research Institute
(GRI), the Office of the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy, the Osage Agency
of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Oil Producers of Arkansas
(OPA). Recently, Governor Frank Keating of Oklahoma named the IPEC
Director to the Environmental and Safety Committee of the IOGCC.
how ipec's objectives are consistent with the mission of the biological
and environmental research program
Although IPEC's close ties to the independent sector of the
domestic energy industry have resulted in a strong working relationship
with the National Petroleum Technology Office in the Office of Fossil
Energy, IPEC continues to have broad applicability across the
Department of Energy. Biological treatment of waste materials and
bioremediation of contaminated media such as water, air and soil are
widely recognized as potentially the most cost-effective treatment
methodologies available for many types of wastes. Petroleum
hydrocarbons are both the most widely distributed class of
environmental pollutants and the most amenable to biological treatment.
These facts have certainly been recognized by the IPEC Industrial
Advisory Board in that of the five research projects approved thus far
by the IAB as relevant to IPEC's mission, four concern the use of
plants and microbes to treat contaminated soils. Further, of the
critical research needs identified by IPEC's Industrial Advisory Board
fully half concern bioremediation, phytoremediation, ecological risk
assessment, and toxicity issues. These topics are clearly within the
mission of the DOE BER Program.
The mission of the Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
Program under Environment, Safety and Health is to ``develop the
knowledge needed to mitigate or correct the consequences of energy use
while contributing to the education and training of the scientific work
force''. This is identically the mission of IPEC when applied to the
domestic energy industry. IPEC will use academic scientists and
engineers in partnership with industry to develop new, cost-effective
technology to solve environmental problems which are having a major
economic impact on the domestic energy industry. These academic
investigators will utilize undergraduate and graduate students in the
sciences and engineering in these projects resulting in the training of
new environmental professionals.
An example of an innovative petroleum environmental technology
which fulfills the mission of the BER Program is intrinsic
bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons. Intrinsic bioremediation is
the application of indigenous microorganism to the attenuation of
hydrocarbons which contaminate soil and groundwater. It has recently
been shown that many petroleum hydrocarbons will be biologically
degraded in soil and groundwater even in the absence of oxygen and
without active intervention. These observations suggest that if no
environmental receptor (drinking water aquifer, stream or lake) is
immediately threatened, no intervention may be necessary to remediate
certain spills. This conserves financial resources for application to
other problems where the actual risks to public health are significant.
However, intrinsic bioremediation is not sufficiently well understood
at present to safely make these types of judgments. A better
understanding of the rate and extent of natural attenuation of
petroleum hydrocarbons in the subsurface will require a multi-
disciplinary approach analogous to the BER subsurface science program.
The response of ``biological systems to local disturbances resulting
from energy-related activities'' is a key element of both the BER
Program and IPEC's investigations of intrinsic bioremediation.
IPEC is in the second year of a major three-year effort to address
an important problem in the exploration and production of petroleum and
natural gas: the remediation of hydrocarbon-impacted soil and
groundwater. The project is funded by the Biological and Environmental
Research (BER) Program of DOE ($973,000) with cost share from Amoco
Production Co. Specifically this research is investigating the
mechanisms of the natural biodegradation or intrinsic bioremediation of
hydrocarbons in the subsurface with the goal of providing a sound
scientific basis to support risk-based regulatory decisions at
hydrocarbon-contaminated sites.
funding of ipec
IPEC is seeking appropriations of $2 million for fiscal year 1999
and the succeeding fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 through the
Department of Energy. The consortium will be responsible for at least a
50 percent match of federal appropriations with private sector and
state support over a four year period. The Consortium will be subject
to annual review to ensure the effective production of data, regulatory
assessments, and technology development meeting the stated goals of the
Consortium.
______
Prepared Statement of the New York University
a center for cognition, learning, emotion and memory (clem)
New York University respectfully seeks the Subcommittee's support
for a project of scientific research which is not only an important
priority for the University, but which we believe will advance national
interests through enhanced scientific understanding of normal brain
development as well as the many disabilities, disorders and diseases
that erode our ability to think and learn.
The University proposes to establish a Center for Cognition,
Learning, Emotion and Memory. This Center will draw on the University's
strengths in the fields of neural science, biology, chemistry,
psychology, computer science, and linguistics to push the frontiers of
our understanding of how the brain develops, function malfunctions,
matures, and ages. In addition, as a major training institute, the
Center will help prepare the next generation of interdisciplinary brain
scientists.
Our project addresses the research and programmatic priorities of
this subcommittee and the Congress. For example, we strongly support
the goals presented in the Conference Report accompanying the fiscal
year 1998 Appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education, in which the Congress encouraged the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to support,
and I quote, ``research in the area of brain development, mechanisms
that underlie learning and memory, the acquisition and storage of
information in the nervous system, and the neural processes; underlying
emotional memories as they relate to intellectual development and
cognitive growth.'' We thank the Congress for taking the time to
consider and give its support to the important research being conducted
in this area. We at New York University firmly believe that in the
coming decades, a federal investment in mind and brain studies will
repay itself many times over.
To establish this Center, New York University is seeking $10.5
million over five years to support and expand the research programs of
existing faculty, attract additional faculty and graduate and
postgraduate trainees, and provide the technical resources and
personnel support that will allow us to create a premier, world class
scientific enterprise. Individual researchers in the science programs
at NYU compete for investigational support through traditional routes,
quite effectively. However, these traditional funding sources do not
address the specific need for establishment of a new cross-disciplinary
area of scientific study, particularly one that transcends biomedicine,
psychology, education, computer science, cognitive science, and
linguistics. Nor do they provide the extensive funding necessary for
faculty and student support and personnel and technical resources.
Exploration into the fundamental neurobiological mechanisms of the
nervous system can help educators, scientists, health care providers,
policy makers, work force managers, and the general public by enhancing
our understanding of normal brain development and function in both
children and adults, thereby helping us to detect and correct
impediments that affect our ability to learn, to think, and remember,
and to mature as productive members of family and society. Research in
this area will ultimately contribute to a better understanding of how
children learn at different stages; how childhood and adult learning is
shaped by different cognitive styles; how aging affects memory; and how
diseases alter memory.
New York University is well poised to make important contributions
in this area. Founded in 1831, the University today is the largest
private university in the United States, with over 49,000 students
representing a broad range of backgrounds and coming from every state
and over 120 foreign countries. NYU comprises thirteen schools,
colleges, and divisions and is known for the excellence of its schools
of law, medicine, film, and business; the Institute of Fine Arts; the
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences; and departments in the
Faculty of Arts and Science, notably neural science, chemistry,
biology, psychology, French, English, philosophy, anthropology and
economics. Located in the heart of the world's most cosmopolitan and
diverse city, New York University is a leading national--and in many
fields, international--center of scholarship, teaching and research. It
is one of twenty-nine private institutions constituting the
distinguished Association of American Universities, and is consistently
among the top U.S. universities in funds received from federal sources
and from private foundations.
The Center for Cognition, Learning, Emotion, and Memory will be an
interschool, interdisciplinary unit linking faculty, students, programs
and resources from several schools of New York University. These are
the Faculty of Arts and Science, Courant Institute of Mathematical
Sciences, School of Medicine, School of Education, and Center for
Digital Multimedia. CLEM, to be housed at the University's Washington
Square campus within the Faculty of Arts and Science, will be the locus
for laboratory research and training in fundamental neurobiological,
psychological and computational studies of the nervous system. In
addition, CLEM will be a point of convergence for faculty and students
seeking to incorporate these research perspectives into their own work
in education, medicine, and technology, and seeking as well to enrich
laboratory research with interdisciplinary collaboration and conceptual
bridges.
The new Center will be administratively housed within the NYU
Department of Neural Science. This department includes affiliated
investigators from biology, chemistry, psychology, physics, computer
science, medicine, and mathematics. It is a national center of research
and teaching, encompassing a pre-eminent faculty, and generating
substantial external funding from federal and state agencies as well as
the private sector. The department holds world-class stature in the
study of the nervous system as a sensory communications system, as a
controller of motor activity and as a neural network that generates the
emotional foundation of voluntary behavior. The neural sciences at NYU
have attracted millions of dollars in generous support from, for
example, the NIH, NSF, and EPA, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute,
the W.M. Keck Foundation, and the Alfred M. Sloan Foundation. Its
faculty have won prestigious awards, being named National Institutes of
Health (NIH) Merit Awardee, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Investigator, National Science Foundation (NSF) Presidential Faculty
Fellow, McKnight Foundation Scholar in Neuroscience, and MacArthur
``Genius'' Fellow. The department cultivates productive linkages with
investigators from other disciplines, educational institutions, and
research sectors. Thus, linkages between neural scientists, and
educators in the NYU School of Education, clinicians in the NYU School
of Medicine, and software designers, computer scientists, and graphic
artists in the NYU Center for Digital Multimedia facilitate the
application of scientific discoveries in the classroom, in the clinic,
and in new technologies.
The new Center for Cognition, Learning, Emotion, and Memory Studies
will bring the University's many strengths in these areas more fully to
bear on the challenges and opportunities that multi-disciplinary
studies present. The Center will provide an organizational identity,
core resources, and common focus for the university's efforts. For
students, it will provide an educational forum to apply knowledge
gained in one discipline to problems in other disciplines. For
researchers, the Center's synergistic linkages between basic science
departments, biomedical departments, and mathematical and computational
units will encourage intellectual cross fertilization and will permit
the consolidation of individual efforts in multi-disciplinary but in
conceptually coordinated efforts. For colleagues in the fields of
education, medicine, and technology, the Center will facilitate
connections with laboratory scientists and enhance the translation of
research knowledge into health care, educational, and commercial
applications. The enhanced research and training that will be possible
at the Center will attract public and private funding above and beyond
the substantial funds, honors and recognition already awarded to the
University's researchers, and will support the Center's continued
growth and development.
The Case for the New Center at New York University
New York University has the resources necessary for the successful
creation and operation of a major multi-disciplinary research and
training center. There is top-level administrative leadership, a
commitment to science, intellectual and administrative resources,
established frameworks for interdisciplinary and interschool
collaboration, strengths in neuro-biological, psychological and
computational sciences, and standing in the international scientific
community. The Faculty of Arts and Science, which encompasses the
College and the Graduate School, has a preeminent faculty of 560, an
annual operating budget of $197 million, a student population of
approximately 9,200, and over 450,000 square feet of dedicated space
apart from shared University facilities, making it a vital center of
teaching and research. The science enterprise is especially vigorous,
the result of a decade-long multi-million dollar development plan to
renovate research and teaching laboratories and recruit distinguished
junior and senior faculty, a pioneering science curriculum for
undergraduate non-science majors, extensive research experiences for
undergraduate science students, and an enhanced graduate student
training program of supervised research and teaching assistantships.
New York University has, as part of its multi-year science
development plan, created a world-class and widely recognized
neuroscience program. Neural science at NYU is particularly well known
for research in visual processing and perception, theoretical
neurobiology, molecular and developmental neurobiology, and cognitive
neuroscience. It has outstanding researchers and well-established
strengths in visual neuroscience, auditory neuroscience, cognitive
science, neuromagnetism, neurochemistry, neurobiology, behavioral
neuroscience, mathematical modeling, and computer simulation. Recently,
these faculty have begun to unravel the biological mechanisms
underlying cognition, learning and memory. As an example, NYU
scientists have made important contributions to visual processing,
deriving the most successful methods available for studying nonlinear
interactions in neuronal information processing; emotion, giving the
first real glimpse into the neuroanatomy of fear; neural development,
with landmark work on the vision system; and the neural bases for
auditory function, including neural sensitivity to auditory motion
stimuli.
With these strengths, New York University is strategically placed
to create a new and distinctive center that will produce a new
understanding of the brain, and new ways of using that knowledge for
improving human health and welfare. The Center for Cognition, Learning,
Emotion, and Memory will capitalize on our expertise in physiology,
neuroanatomy, and behavioral studies, and will build on active studies
that range from the molecular foundations of development and learning
to the mental coding and representations of memory. The Center will
encompass diverse research approaches, including mathematical and
computational modeling, human subject psychological testing, use of
experimental models, and electrophysiological, histological, and
neuroanatomical techniques. Examples of the kinds of research that will
be conducted are taken from our current research efforts, which are now
dispersed in the departments of biology, chemistry, neural science,
psychology, and computer science: Neural scientists are investigating
the anatomical and physiological pathways by which memory can be
enhanced; the conditions that facilitate long-term and short-term
memory; and the brain sites where all these memories are processed and
stored.
Neural scientists, working with computational scientists, are using
digital imaging to characterize normal and pathological mental
processes in humans. Developmental biologists are studying the
molecular basis of development and learning. Vision scientists are
studying form, color and depth perception; visual identification; the
varieties of visual memory; and the relationship of vision and
perception to decision and action. Neural scientists are studying the
neuroanatomy and physiology of emotion. Physicists are taking magnetic
measurements of brain function that trace the decay of memories.
Behavioral scientists are studying learning and motivation, acquisition
of language, memory and aging. Neurobiologist and psychiatrists are
conducting clinical studies of patients with nervous system disorders,
especially memory disorders. These existing researchers are well
recognized by their peers and have a solid track record of sustained
research funding from federal agencies and private foundations.
As we move through the last years of the ``Decade of the Brain,''
NYU, through this new Center, is strategically positioned to lead and
contribute to accomplishment of the goals of this important initiative.
Establishment of this Center requires support to bring together
investigators in the different disciplines that address cognition,
learning, and memory. Centralized core resources are required to
facilitate collaboration and add efficiency to the research and
training functions. New faculty who specifically bridge the disparate
areas of knowledge and expertise need to be hired and ``set up.''
Support must be provided to attract students to this new area and to
promote work in this area, especially for those from groups
traditionally under represented in the sciences.
While other academic institution are also conducting research into
brain studies, New York University has special strengths in important
emerging research directions that are central to this Subcommittee's
priority areas. To elaborate, vision studies at NYU follow an
integrated systems approach that has been shown to be the only
successful approach to unraveling this complex system, and that has
established NYU as an internationally known center for neuroscience
studies in vision. The interest in vision, a key input to learning, is
associated with focused studies on the learning process, particularly,
the interaction with memory and behavior. These researchers are
exploring hard and exciting questions: How does vision develop in
infancy and childhood? How does the brain encode and analyze visual
scenes? What are the neural mechanisms that lead to the visual
perception of objects and patterns? How do we recognize letters and
numbers? How do we perceive spaces, depth, and color? How does the
brain move from vision and perception to planning and action? How does
the brain process what we see?
Advances in Biomedical and Behavioral Research.--Research conducted
in our Center will by its nature address the loss of memory through
aging or disease (including Alzheimer's), as well as disorders of
emotional systems that commonly characterize psychiatric disorders.
Many of the most common psychiatric disorders that afflict humans are
emotional disorders--malfunctions in the way emotional systems learn
and remember--and many of these are related to the brain's fear system.
Neurobiological studies of emotion and emotional memory in the brain
will generate important information about the brain systems that
malfunction in, for example, anxiety, phobias, panic attacks, and post-
traumatic stress disorders. Research into the brain mechanisms of fear
will help us understand where our emotions come from, why these
emotional conditions are so hard to control, and what goes wrong in
emotional disorders. Ultimately, the research will generate clues for
prevention and treatment of emotional disorders, focusing perhaps on
the ways in which unconscious neural circuitry can in effect, be
altered or inhibited.
Accordingly, we believe that the work of this Center is an
appropriate focus for the Department of Energy, given the Department's
long-term involvement and investment in computer science technology
through its Basic Energy Sciences program. The focus of the Center for
Cognition, Learning, Emotion, and Memory is entirely consistent with
the Department's commitment both to the Basic Energy Sciences,
including computer science, and to its commitment to Biological and
Environmental Research. We believe the Center will help enhance the
Department's commitment to education, and especially science. Thank you
for the opportunity to submit this testimony for the hearing record.
______
Prepared Statement of Cyrus M. Jollivette, Vice President for
Government Relations, University of Miami
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the
opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the University of Miami.
We are most appreciative of your support in the past for our various
programs, and hope that the Committee will look favorably on funding
the following programs in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations cycle.
The University is seeking your support for a joint program with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which is addressing some of the urgent
problems of South Florida's declining environment, and for an
innovative project to treat infectious hospital waste.
We respectfully request that you allocate $5 million for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in
support of the Environmental Modeling, Simulation, and Assessment
Center (EMSAC). The purpose of these funds is twofold: (1) to provide
core support of $2.5 million to EMSAC, including $500,000 to involve
minority academic institutions, their faculty, and students in research
activities of the center; and (2) to provide $2.5 million to establish
a cooperative agreement with a major research institution involved in
complementary interdisciplinary scientific research relevant to
ecosystem management and ecological risk assessment. From these latter
funds, the academic partner would also commit an additional $500,000 to
involve minority academic institutions, their faculty, and students in
academic research activities.
An academic partnership with a major research institution will
enable EMSAC to draw on a broader spectrum of intellectual and
scientific resources for environmental modeling and problem solving,
ecological risk assessment, and scientific support to the environmental
decision-making process. Minority partnerships initiated from EMSAC and
its academic partner will promote broader involvement of traditionally
under-represented groups in the environmental sciences and management.
We are convinced that only through consistently funded, long-term
partnerships of government and academic scientists developing the
scientific bases for improved environmental decision-making can this
nation make the next major advance in improving the health of the
environment and protection of our unique natural resources while
enjoying economic prosperity.
The mission of EMSAC is to advance the development of environmental
modeling, simulation, and assessment tools for the study of large
regional ecosystem management problems. EMSAC's activities are focused
around the methodologies of ecosystem management and ecological risk
assessment and include assessment and forecasting of the effects of
human uses and impacts on the environment; assessment and forecasting
of ecological conditions under pre- and post-restoration scenarios;
habitat restoration; and the development of computer systems to support
management and restoration activities. EMSAC also implements the USACE
Land Management Systems (LMS) Program, which is an important R&D
activity of the Corps. In particular, LMS is a key vehicle for the
development and implementation of the ecosystem management framework.
EMSAC is a broadly interdisciplinary research unit within the USACE
framework of personnel resources, computer infrastructure, and
experimental facilities. Core support will strengthen EMSAC's ability
to collaborate in solving environmental problems within the USACE and
the Department of Defense, as well as with other Federal, state, and
international partners.
This cooperative research activity will build upon the unique
strengths of USACE WES and its academic partners to develop the next
generation of assessment and management tools for support of
environmental decision-making. These new approaches to ecological risk
assessment and management are especially promising for solving regional
environmental problems in which the quality of life of the human
population must be advanced and sustained while mutually improving the
health of the associated ecosystems and achieving long-term ecological
sustainability. Examples of initial applications of an ecosystem
management approach include the restoration and sustenance of critical
environments in the South Florida regional ecosystem and in the Upper
Mississippi River System with attention to multiple demands on these
nationally important resources.
continuation funding for innovative electron beam medical waste
treatment system
Appropriations from the Department of Energy over the past three
years of approximately $1.5 million have been utilized for the
development and commercialization of a high energy electron beam
treatment system to treat infectious medical waste. These monies from
DOE were matched by approximately $750,000 from Florida Power & Light
Company, the principal electric utility in South Florida. The
combination of these funds were used to research the efficacy of
electron beams for disinfecting medical waste after proving the
validity of the concept. The world's first full scale electron beam
treatment facility was constructed at the Jackson Memorial Hospital/
University of Miami Medical Complex in Miami, Florida. The facility
includes an eight million volt electron accelerator, coupled with a
conveyor and medical waste shredding system. This prototype system was
inaugurated in 1997 and is currently ready for full scale testing. The
electron beam medical waste treatment system has recently received a
license for operation from the State of Florida. This is the first
licensed medical waste treatment facility utilizing electron beam
technology in the world. Results from over two years of testing prior
to building the full scale system, generated data that was utilized in
the license approval process.
It is requested that $1.5 million be allocated in fiscal year 1999
to the medical waste treatment project in Miami, Florida. These
continuation funds will finish verification of the process and allow
for commercial exploitation of this new and exciting technology.
Specifically, analyses to determine dosimetry, that is the efficiency
of treatment, need to be undertaken in 1998. These dosimetry
experiments must be performed on actual medical waste, which can be
obtained in the Jackson Memorial Medical Hospital Complex. These
analyses and full scale operation of the facility are crucial for
commercial and therefore, public acceptance of this technology.
Federal regulations tightening emission standards on medical waste
incinerators issued in 1997 have forced all hospitals to re-evaluate
their medical waste disposal treatment techniques. Currently, there is
a huge need for alternative technologies to incineration and
autoclaving. Both of these processes produce either unwanted
environmental emissions, or are not easily operated in a hospital
environment. Work over the past three years utilizing DOE and FPL
funding has shown that the electron beam process has the potential to
be an efficient, energy-saving and emissionless waste treatment system,
which can render infectious medical waste harmless and allow it to be
disposed of in a manner similar to normal solid waste. After the
disinfection step, the waste can be easily processed by commercial
shredders to reduce the volume by up to 80 per cent if landfill space
is at a premium.
Without additional funding at a level of approximately $1.5
million, required testing of the full scale system cannot be
accomplished. Thus, critical demonstration of efficiencies of the
treatment system cannot be made and thus, commercial exploitation will
not be possible. It is therefore crucial that these extra funds be
allocated to this project, so that the final step in development of
this new and exciting technology can be made, allowing for its
commercialization and subsequent utilization by society.
Thank you again for your consideration of these exciting research
projects.
______
Prepared Statement of David E. Baldwin, Senior Vice President, Fusion
Group, General Atomics; Charles C. Baker, Adjunct Professor, University
of California, San Diego, US ITER Home Team Leader; Robert J. Goldston,
Professor and Director, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory; Michael E.
Mauel, Professor, Columbia University, President, University Fusion
Association; Miklos Porkolab, Professor and Director, Plasma Science
and Fusion Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Michael J.
Saltmarsh, Director, Fusion Energy Division, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory; Keith I. Thomassen, Deputy Associate Director, Energy
Programs, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Chairman Domenici, Senator Reid, and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to present testimony to the
Subcommittee on fiscal year 1999 funding for the Department of Energy's
(DOE) Fusion Energy Sciences Program. We offer a unified view as
leaders of five of the nation's largest plasma science and technology
laboratories, the president of the University Fusion Association, and
the leader of the US Home Team for the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER) project--all funded by the DOE Office of
Fusion Energy Sciences, representing over sixty research groups,
comprising over one thousand scientists, engineers and technicians. We
believe that we can provide substantive insight into the DOE Fusion
Energy Sciences program and its needs for the coming fiscal year.
In short, we recommend that the fiscal year 1999 budget for Fusion
Energy Sciences be increased to at least $250 million. This figure is
based on two specific requirements: (1) to accelerate restructuring of
the domestic fusion effort around the goals of science and innovation,
and (2) to develop rapidly more cost-effective approaches to the
international pursuit of fusion energy science and technology. Our
recommendation is consistent with the September 1997 report of the
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and
with recent reviews by the Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee
(FESAC).
Fusion has long been recognized as one of mankind's most exciting
scientific grand challenges, seeking to harness the power of the stars
on earth. This research has been conducted as a highly collaborative
international scientific effort with participation by most of the
developed nations of the world. It has been widely recognized that if
fusion energy can be successfully developed, it will have an enormous
beneficial impact on the world. Furthermore, the scientific and
technological spin-offs from fusion research have had a strong,
ongoing, beneficial impact on the nation.
The current success of our economy is, in part, due to our ability
to obtain cheap petroleum on demand. However these resources are finite
and, as recent events in the Middle East have shown, the concentration
of these energy resources in a politically unstable region of the globe
has undesirable strategic implications. As oil and natural gas reserves
are consumed in the next century, the economic and strategic importance
of energy resources will only grow. In addition, as the world
population increases and a larger fraction of countries develop more
energy intensive, industrialized economies, the world will need new,
environmentally acceptable energy sources. The nation or nations that
are prepared to provide the necessary technologies will be at a
substantial economic advantage. Increased federal investment in R&D for
fusion and other emission-free energy technologies, as recommended by
PCAST, is clearly prudent.
Plasma science is an important element of the nation's science and
technology portfolio. As pointed out by the National Research Council
(NRC) in its 1995 report, the rewards from the field of plasma science
to our national science and technology base have been, and will
continue to be, very strong. The Fusion Energy Sciences Program has
stewardship of the nation's plasma science effort, and it is the
advance of fusion research that has driven that field forward. The
science developed for fusion research is key to our understanding of
solar physics and of the space environment, including the ``space
weather'' which affects our satellites and astronauts. Commercial
applications derived from plasma science and technology, or developed
by experts trained in the fusion program, include: plasma spray
coatings and ion implantation in metals used for machine tools, ball
bearings, and medical implants; application of polymer films to
recording media; manufacture of computer chips and integrated circuits,
where 40 percent of the steps involve plasma processing; semiconductor
and textile defect detection using laser imaging techniques developed
for plasmas; plasma flat panel television displays; plasma switches for
electricity transmission, part of a new industry using plasma
electronics; environmental remediation of chemical and radioactive
waste; high-efficiency lighting; applications of superconducting magnet
development to magnetic resonance imaging systems; and applications of
plasma diagnostics to other complex imaging problems. There is no doubt
that the investment the federal government has made in plasma science
and fusion is paying increasingly rich technological dividends today
while making strong progress in the development of a practical fusion
power source for tomorrow.
the fusion program is focused on science and innovation
The U.S. Fusion Energy Sciences Program is being restructured to
focus on science and innovation within the domestic program, while the
pursuit of energy-producing plasmas and fusion technology is undertaken
through international collaboration. We appreciate the Committee's
recognition in last year's Report of the fusion community's efforts to
become more efficient and to develop a new strategy for the future.
This new strategy for the Fusion Energy Sciences Program comprises
three parallel elements:
--Stewardship of basic plasma science
--Innovative approaches to plasma confinement
--Energy-producing plasmas, pursued internationally
Important scientific progress was made in each of these three areas
last year. For example:
--Basic Plasma Science.--Observations of colliding rings of plasma
made in laboratory experiments have shed new light on the
processes by which massive amounts of solar material can be
torn from the magnetized surface of the sun and hurled toward
the earth.
--Plasma Confinement.--A first-principles theoretical understanding
of how sheared plasma flows stabilize turbulence in tokamak
plasmas has emerged. A small spherical torus experiment in
Europe has demonstrated a 3-fold increase in plasma pressure,
relative to the confining magnetic pressure, as compared with
the tokamak record.
--Energy-producing Plasmas.--Experiments on the Joint European Torus
(JET) with DT plasmas have moved the world closer to fusion
energy break-even, and the ITER Final Design Report has been
issued and reviewed favorably, both attesting to the
feasibility of creating energy-producing plasmas on earth.
implementing the restructuring of the fusion energy sciences program
The Administration's proposed Fusion Energy Sciences budget
attempts to move forward the fusion program restructuring around the
twin themes of science and innovation, and moving forward the
international process for the design and construction of a next-step
burning plasma experiment towards a lower cost approach. We support
both of these goals.
Unfortunately, the proposed fiscal year 1999 budget fails to
provide the funding necessary to achieve its goals. The reality is that
under the Administration's budget proposal virtually every aspect of
the fusion program will remain severely constrained in fiscal year
1999. Despite reallocation of ITER funds, progress towards
restructuring in both the domestic and international areas will be
severely limited. In particular:
--The program supported by the proposed fiscal year 1999 budget
includes only modest increases for Basic Plasma Science. This
is an area of great importance for the nation's science and
technology base and contributes directly to the application of
fusion energy science to other disciplines. Although the
stewardship of basic plasma science is in the hands of the
Office of Fusion Energy Sciences, only $5.9M appears in the
fiscal year 1999 budget request. Last year, only 35 of over 240
research proposals for basic plasma science received funding.
--In the Innovative Confinement Concepts area the fiscal year 1999
budget does not provide adequate funding for concept
exploration experiments. Last year, only 4 of the 40 innovative
proposals submitted received funding, and many excellent
proposals given very positive reviews remain unfunded. Many
currently operating concept exploration experiments are also
underfunded. These crucial areas of innovation are severely
constrained.
--Increases are supplied for fusion's Major Experimental Facilities,
but funds for the C-MOD and DIII-D tokamaks are inadequate to
provide both the necessary operating time for the national
teams of scientists and engineers who use these devices and the
long-planned upgrades to allow exploration of new regimes of
advanced tokamak physics. These experiments will operate a
maximum of 14 out of a possible 24-26 weeks in fiscal year
1999. There was an increase for the NSTX spherical torus to
complete construction, but its operation is similarly
underfunded as a collaborative national facility.
--Funding for the development of Low-Activation Materials, critical
for the environmental attractiveness of fusion, continues at
the low level of $6M/year.
--The ITER activities have been unbundled into more fundamental and
broad-based Technology Research and Advanced Design Studies.
Technology funding is not adequate to permit the initiation of
significant new initiatives in support of the Innovative
Confinement Concepts, and the funding to Advanced Design leaves
the U.S. in a weak position to affect the evolution of the
international effort towards a more cost-effective
implementation.
--Finally, the opportunity to increase our present, very limited
collaborations on the world's largest Foreign Fusion Research
Devices, JET in Europe and JT-60U in Japan, in order to
demonstrate advanced physics regimes in these more powerful
devices, in support of the reduced-cost ITER, is almost
completely missed in this budget. Increased scientific
collaborations in these large international experiments are
critically important for the demonstration of the advanced
physics regimes that underpin lower-cost approaches to burning
plasma experiments.
The proposed fiscal year 1999 fusion budget is inconsistent with
the August 1997 recommendations of the FESAC subpanel, chaired by Dr.
Hermann Grunder, Director of the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator
Facility, a facility supported by the High Energy and Nuclear Physics
program of DOE. The Grunder FESAC panel recommended a Fusion Energy
Sciences budget of at least $250M in fiscal year 1999. Consistent with
a series of earlier FESAC and FEAC recommendations, it called for a
budget of at least $200M in support of basic plasma science and
confinement innovation. It also provided specific recommendations for
redirection of the approximately $50M of funds which previously went to
support the ITER Engineering Design Activities. Neither the recommended
funding for science and innovation, nor the recommended funding for the
restructuring of ITER is provided in the fiscal year 1999 proposed
budget.
In addition, PCAST recently reviewed the challenges and
opportunities for federal energy research and development. After
careful balancing of priorities by a diverse and distinguished
Committee with a wide perspective on energy technologies, PCAST
recommended increased funding in four R&D areas, including fusion. In
fact, the Committee's recommendation for fusion funding in fiscal year
1999 was $250M, completely consistent with the Grunder/FESAC
recommendation.
We strongly advocate increasing the Fusion Energy Sciences budget
to at least $250M. This level of support will allow the growth of new
research focused on science and innovation, and will permit the rapid
investigation of more cost-effective means to the international pursuit
of fusion energy science and technology. It will signal to students and
researchers alike that the United States is serious about pursuing
science and innovation in fusion.
Our requested increase of $22M above the levels provided in the
Administration's request does not address many of these needs, but we
believe the most urgent are the following:
Science and Innovation in the Domestic Program--+$15 million
(a) Increase emphasis on basic plasma science and technology for
non-fusion applications, taking advantage of scientific and
technological advances provided by the balance of the program: Fusion
science and technology provide a highly stimulating research
environment for the training of undergraduate and graduate students. An
increase in this area would allow growth of plasma science research and
technology development both at Universities and at national research
centers, and continue to address the recommendations of the 1995 NRC
report, ``Plasma Science: From Fundamental Research to Technological
Applications.''
(b) Increase exploration of a variety of approaches to fusion, its
technologies and materials, including inertial fusion energy. Concept
innovation is the central area of focus of the domestic Fusion Energy
Sciences program. Excellent new ideas for plasma confinement innovation
have been proposed for testing at the small and intermediate scales,
but limited funding has severely retarded progress in this area.
(c) Increase utilization of major U.S. experimental facilities,
focused on innovation and basic understanding. Recent exciting results
open up new opportunities in toroidal confinement. Plans for technology
upgrades and increased utilization of the DIII-D and C-MOD tokamak
facilities and plans for the operation of the NSTX spherical torus are
highly constrained by limited funds. The benefit of incremental dollars
spent in these areas is very high.
A More Cost-Effective Approach to the International Pursuit of Fusion
Energy Science and Technology-- +$7 million
(a) Increase efforts to develop more cost-effective approaches to
addressing the goals of ITER. Funding for intensive examination of a
broad range of lower-cost options for the international pursuit of
fusion energy science and technology is greatly constrained in the
Administration's budget at a crucial time when the U.S. and the
international team will be seeking innovative approaches to reducing
costs.
(b) Increase experimental collaboration on the major experimental
facilities abroad, JET and JT-60U, with the goal of demonstrating in
these large facilities advanced operating modes for a next-step burning
plasma experiment, which will permit substantial cost reductions.
Successful demonstration of advanced operating modes on these largest
devices in the world program is a clear prerequisite for the adoption
of such modes as a basis for lower-cost approaches to addressing the
goals of ITER. In the Administration's budget, funding levels for
collaboration on JET and JT-60U are far below what would be required to
allow U.S. researchers to play a significant role on these powerful
foreign devices.
The intent of these recommendations is to enable the U.S. fusion
program to accelerate the restructuring initiated two years ago by
expanding the breadth of its research while focusing on the twin goals
of science and innovation, and also to address the issue of finding
less expensive means to pursue fusion energy science and technology as
an international partner. We believe that these are very important
goals, consonant with the expressed wishes of Congress, and necessary
for the effort to provide the knowledge base for an attractive non-
carbon energy source to safeguard our nation's environmental health and
long-term energy security.
Again, we thank you for affording us the opportunity to present our
views. We hope they will be helpful as you consider funding for our
nation's science and energy programs for fiscal year 1999.
______
Prepared Statement of Scott Sklar, Executive Director, Solar Unity
Network
introduction
The Solar Unity Network (SUN), the policy organization representing
virtually every U.S. solar thermal and solar-electric manufacturer,
component supplier, distributor and installer, submits this written
testimony, in lieu of oral testimony, on the fiscal year 1999 U.S.
Department of Energy RD&D budget. SUN receives no federal funds and
serves explicitly as the policy entity for the U.S. solar energy
industries.
The solar industry requests the following funding levels (in
millions):
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal year 1999
year -------------------------
1998
actual Administration SUN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Photovoltaics....................... 65.52 78.80 105.00
Solar Buildings.................... 2.66 5.00 5.00
Solar Thermal....................... 16.57 22.50 32.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 1999 photovoltaics rd&d program
The solar industry is requesting a $105 million appropriation in
light of inequitable cuts during the last two appropriation cycles and
the fact that our two major competitor nations, Germany and Japan, are
spending $95 million and $182 million respectively. Two-thirds of the
German and Japanese budgets are tied to domestic commercialization of
new photovoltaic technologies which do not require their companies to
cost-share with government.
The U.S. solar industry strongly supports the basic premise of the
U.S. Photovoltaic RD&D program established in the Bush Administration
and continued in the Clinton Administration. An effective RD&D program
must be comprised of a combination of pure and applied research which,
includes development, and technology validation. The U.S. solar
industry has committed itself to cost-share the applied research and
technology validation aspect of the RD&D program which leads all DOE
civilian RD&D programs in this regard.
In the Photovoltaics RD&D program, two key pure and applied R&D
activities stand out and deserve enhanced funding: (1) the thin film
partnership, which is a cost-shared program to drive the next
generation of photovoltaic materials with a proclivity to automated
manufacturing (essential to become cost-competitive in the traditional
marketplace); and (2) PV BONUS, which is a cost-shared program to
develop new kinds of photovoltaic building materials (siding, roofing,
window-tinting) for the building sector, likely to become a premier
application when electric utility deregulation is fully implemented.
The most highly leveraged applied and technology validation
programs must be enhanced and continued within the photovoltaic RD&D
program: (1) the PV Manufacturing Initiative, which is a cost-shared
program to overcome technological hurdles to automate manufacturing of
new PV materials; and (2) PV COMPACT, which validates a variety of
photovoltaics systems in end-use applications to validate their market
readiness in a highly cost-shared program with the electric utility
sector (91 utilities comprising more than half of the U.S. electricity
generation have organized to support this program).
The Photovoltaic Manufacturing Initiative is NOT a program
supporting incremental improvements in manufacturing. The program
specifically supports highly innovative approaches to drive cost
reductions for NEW materials in manufacturing. The program has
demonstrated its success in 1996 with the ribbon-cutting of three new
U.S. automated manufacturing plants. In 1997, four more new automated
manufacturing plants were unveiled. In 1998, four new automated
manufacturing plants are likely to be ribbon-cut. Virtually all of the
success in this program is from driving new manufacturing processes
with new materials.
The PV COMPACT program is NOT a subsidy program of market-ready
technology but a technology validation program cost-shared by the
electric utility sector at an order of magnitude of seven-to-one.
Advanced PV systems need monitoring and performance data in order to be
utilized on a wide scale basis by the electric utility industry. SUN
supported fiscal year 1997 appropriations report language which
directed that competitive awards be made toward projects which drive
down costs. However, the basis of the projects were to validate
performance first with an eye toward future replication.
The solar industry believes the photovoltaics RD&D program as
administered by the U.S. Department of Energy is one of the most well-
managed and best-leveraged of any program within the DOE RD&D
portfolio.
The President's request to establish a Million Solar Roofs program
is essential to ensure that a vibrant, growing domestic market
maintains the U.S. photovoltaic industries' 50 percent global market
share. A minimum $10 million program for cost-sharing technology
deployment through state governments is an essential requirement of the
program.
fiscal year 1999 solar buildings program
The solar buildings program is primarily a basic RD&D program on
materials and components with a technology standards and certification
program based at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and
the Florida Solar Energy Center.
SUN recommends a fiscal year 1999 funding level of $5.00 million
for the Solar Buildings program administered by the U.S. Department of
Energy with no less than $2 million for ongoing cost-shared technology
validation projects, $2 million for laboratory R&D, and $1.0 million
for applied R&D of solar building technologies by industry, customers
and universities.
The Solar Buildings program, which requires a minimum of $5 million
per year over three years, will allow the DOE program to provide
technical assistance to the states, utilities, energy service
companies, and local building code officials to develop programs that
will lead to reduced technology costs and increased deployment.
SUN believes that the Solar Buildings RD&D program should support
the Million Solar Roofs program by providing technical assistance to
federal procurement and federal lending technical officials.
The solar buildings program is just beginning to cost-share RD&D
with industry. In fact, the program primarily funds technical entities
on systems performance, materials testing and systems certification.
The remainder of the program is directed to system performance modeling
and cash-flow analysis geared toward the acceptance of utility and
energy service company utilization of these technologies. The solar
buildings program is a true R&D program, but SUN believes the
development activity must be cost-shared with industry as economies-of-
scale in manufacturing occur that will in turn reduce costs and
increase deployment.
fiscal year 1999 solar thermal program
The solar thermal electric program is primarily a basic RD&D
program on materials and components with a technology validation
segment that is cost-shared with industry. The program, based at the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), conducts basic research on
concentrator materials. The program at Sandia National Laboratories
focuses on energy storage materials and systems testing.
SUN recommends a fiscal year 1999 funding level of $32 million for
the Solar Thermal program administered by the U.S. Department of Energy
with no less than $12 million for ongoing cost-shared technology
validation projects, $9 million for lab R&D, $2 million for
international validation of solar thermal technologies cost-shared by
multilateral RD&D institutions, $2 million for domestic initiatives,
and $2 million for solar industrial RD&D.
The Solar Enterprise Zone initiative, which will require $5 million
per year over three years, will allow the DOE program to provide
technical assistance to the states and others to drive the next
iteration of first-of-a-kind, large scale power tower, solar dish
engine, and parabolic trough projects and help establish their
performance and reliability. This cost-shared effort with five
Southwestern states (Arizona, California, Colorado, and New Mexico, and
Nevada) will be part of an expanded Solar Enterprise Zone concept to
create more solar power development, manufacturing opportunities and
more American jobs. The initiative must be leveraged at more than 50
percent by the states and other entities. The non-profit CSTRR should
also be supported to drive solar development of the Nevada Test Site.
The solar industrial process heat R&D program accounts for five
percent of the overall program and focuses on materials science and
performance analysis.
The Solar Thermal program continues to meet its performance
objectives:
--Solar Two, the power tower prototype, which utilizes mirrors which
focus sunlight onto a receiver to store thermal energy to
produce electricity day-or-night, rain-or-shine, was ribbon cut
in June 1996. It is now in a 3-year operating and testing
phase. The industry and utility consortium that successfully
completed Solar Two has already embarked on an ambitious plan
for commercial plants in the southwest U.S. (as part of the
Solar Enterprise Zone), and is negotiating export projects in
India, Brazil, and Egypt.
--Industry teams have been developing solar-dish engine systems as an
alternative to diesel engines. Dish/engine deployment has been
quite successful with test units delivered to NREL and Sandia
in 1997.
--The eight existing solar parabolic trough plants continue to
reliably generate 354 megawatts of power in California. Lowered
operating costs and new plant designs achieved with DOE
technical assistance have sparked renewed interest in this
technology. Commercial plants are under development in Mexico,
India, Morocco, and Egypt, and U.S. firms are well-positioned
to capture a strong share of these export opportunities.
These 50-50 cost-shared, multi-year solar thermal projects between
industry and DOE to validate advanced technology have leveraged over
$160 million in private sector commitments and have been a strong
success. Advanced technology prototypes will be fully demonstrated over
the next few years and ready for early commercial market introduction
just as market demand for solar electric projects is growing rapidly.
fiscal year 1999 renewable cross-cutting programs
Some cross-cutting and especially essential RD&D programs must be
maintained. The programs that are most significant (in millions):
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal year 1999
year -------------------------
Program 1998
actual Administration SUN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource Analysis................... ........ .............. 5.0
Renewable Energy Production
Incentive.......................... 2.0 4.0 4.0
Solar International................. 1.3 8.8 7.0
Hydrogen............................ 15.0 15.0 17.0
Storage............................. 3.0 4.0 5.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource analysis.--Carried out predominantly by NREL, this program
uses satellite and other anecdotally-collected data to develop resource
maps for all renewable energy technologies. This is an essential R&D
function that no one in the private sector will perform. Quantifying
the resource is an essential tool for the financial, marketing, and
utility regulatory decision-making communities. This program is in a
closedown mode unless we turn it around.
Renewable energy production initiative (REPI).--Created in the
National Energy Policy Act of 1992 in response to renewable investment
tax credits and renewable energy production tax credits which could not
be accessed by municipal utilities, it created a more balanced program
to improve the experience level of applied R&D validation for
cooperative, power authority and municipal utilities--a sector which is
essential to the strong growth of renewables. They are often the first
to experience and appreciate the environmental and employment benefits
of using these emerging technologies.
Solar international.--$2 million only is required to continue the
federal interagency activity, the Committee on Renewable Energy
Commerce and Trade (CORECT), to insure that all facets of the federal
government work together. This successful program signed into law by
President Reagan, has been partly responsible for the more than 70-
percent of U.S.-manufactured solar equipment now exported overseas; $3
million for Americas 21st Century initiated by the Bush Administration
to make good on Latin American commitments and by Clinton on the
Western Hemisphere Summit; and $2 million for Joint Implementation for
renewables and efficiency overseas projects.
Storage.--Solar and other renewables cannot be viable without the
ability to store the energy. This program has been key to developing
matched technologies to create new kinds of electronics, controls,
capacities and batteries to meter, store, and utilize electricity most
efficiently from intermittent resource technologies. The U.S. is still
a leader in this area, and the U.S. storage industry cost-shares this
program which is primarily administered by Sandia National
Laboratories. Storage is the key for sustainable solar and wind market
growth.
Hydrogen.--Represents the ultimate storage medium for solar and
other renewables, and it is a conversion fuel for biomass and fuel
cells, and ultimately, the best transportation fuel. The DOE program
primarily focuses on natural gas which must be broadened to renewable-
based hydrogen focusing on pure RD&D at NREL and University Centers of
Excellence at the University of Miami, the University of Central
Florida (Florida Solar Energy Center), the University of Hawaii (Hawaii
Natural Energy Institute) and the University & Community College System
of Nevada (Desert Research Institute). SUN recommends applied RD&D
validation via renewable hydrogen projects at the Solar Enterprise Zone
and at PVUSA.
conclusion
The solar energy programs at the U.S. Department of Energy are
well-managed, have solid cost-share agreements and they continue to
demonstrate measurable results. The solar programs have performed
beyond expectations, and we hope the Subcommittee recognizes these
achievements and embraces a robust and strategic program.
______
Prepared Statement of Gilbert A. Emmert, Professor and Chair of the
Department of Engineering Physics at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison
This testimony is submitted on behalf of the Nuclear Engineering
Department Heads Organization (NEDHO) by Gilbert A. Emmert, Professor
and Chair of the Department of Engineering Physics at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, acting in the capacity of Chair of NEDHO. This
testimony is also endorsed by the Education and Training Division of
the American Nuclear Society (ANS), the National Organization of Test,
Research, and Training Reactors (TRTR), and the Nuclear and
Radiological Engineering Division of the American Society for
Engineering Education (ASEE). NEDHO represents 32 nuclear engineering
programs in 25 states, the ETD division of ANS has a membership of
about 1,000, TRTR represents 30 university research reactor facilities,
and the ASEE NRE division has a membership of 100 university
professors. This written testimony provides our recommendations for the
Department of Energy budget for University Nuclear Science and Reactor
Support and nuclear energy research for fiscal year 1999.
summary of recommendations
The Department of Energy's (DOE) fiscal year 1999 budget request
includes $10.0 million for University Nuclear Science and Reactor
Support. This funding is to be used for supporting the nuclear
engineering educational infrastructure (scholarships and fellowships,
research grants, etc.) and for assisting university research reactors
(fuel, instrumentation upgrades, reactor sharing). The $10.0 million
request by DOE is a significant improvement over current funding, but
considerably short of current needs. In order to provide for critical
infrastructure and university reactor needs, this amount should be
increased to $14.0 million. The educational infrastructure that
produces trained nuclear engineers for government and industry is being
rapidly eroded due to lack of funding; an increase in this budget
request is necessary to better ensure the availability of the
engineering expertise needed to realize the promise of nuclear energy
and the application of radiation science to engineering and technology.
The Department of Energy is proposing a Nuclear Energy Research
Initiative (NERI). This is to be a peer-reviewed nuclear energy
research program bringing together the best minds in universities,
national laboratories, and industry to address the critical research
questions concerning nuclear energy. We strongly support this program
and look forward to working with DOE to formulate the program so that
it best utilizes intellectual talent in universities as well as that in
national laboratories and industry.
Nuclear power faces critical issues that have broader implications
than the needs of a particular industry. It is appropriate that
research on these issues be funded by a government--industry
partnership, such as the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO)
program proposed by DOE. We support research to extend the life of
currently operating nuclear plants, to establish a process for license
renewal, and to improve the efficiency and capacity of existing plants.
Such research is essential if our nation is to meet the Kyoto goals for
greenhouse gas emission reduction and to improve the quality of our
nation's air.
background
As of 1998, there are some 32 academic departments and programs in
universities, with their principal discipline being nuclear
engineering/radiation science and technology (NE/RST), which involves
the design and operation of nuclear reactors and the application of
radiation and nuclear techniques to science and engineering. Most of
the departments are broad-based, including disciplines such as health
and medical physics, radiation detection and measurement, thermal
hydraulics and materials science related to nuclear processes, nuclear
fusion and plasma physics, and the design and performance of fission
reactors for the production of electricity. We educate engineers for
the nuclear power industry and government (e.g. naval propulsion,
weapons and non-proliferation activities, including treaty
verification), health physicists (radiation specialists) who protect
the health and safety of workers and the general public, medical
physicists involved in cancer diagnosis and treatment, plasma
scientists who develop new plasma processing techniques, and materials
scientists who develop and test new materials for industry and research
using radiation-based techniques.
University research reactors (URR's) in the United States form a
fundamental and vital component in our national research and education
infrastructure critical to many national priorities such as health
care, education, environment and technology transfer. Currently, there
are 30 operating university research reactors on 28 campuses in 25
states. In addition to their educational role for nuclear engineering
and radiation science, university reactors are the source of neutrons
for research in such diverse areas as medical isotopes, human health,
life sciences, environmental protection, advanced materials, energy
conversion and food science. They are also centers of multi-
disciplinary research efforts in the fields of chemistry, biology,
medicine, epidemiology, archaeology, environmental sciences, material
sciences, fluid mechanics, geology, energy production and many other
areas. Many of the reactors serve as centers for pre-college education
programs offered for high school students and teachers who come to the
reactor for instructional programs and research. URR's also contribute
to the educational base of future scientists and engineers in the above
mentioned broad range of disciplines that use reactor based techniques
to solve unique problems.
Both NE/RST academic programs and university research reactors are
crucial to the maintenance of technical expertise in nuclear
engineering and radiation science and technology in the U.S. Evidence
is growing that the prolonged absence of federal support of this
discipline is resulting in a growing imbalance between the supply
(shrinking) and demand (growing) for these engineers. Attached to this
testimony is a letter from Dr. William Naughton of ComEd (the largest
nuclear electric utility in the U.S.) expressing the industry's concern
for future needs for nuclear engineers and for maintaining the
educational infrastructure for nuclear engineering and radiation
science to supply those engineers. Continuation of the present
situation will likely result in irreversible damage to the academic
infrastructure, and hence, the nation's leadership in this increasingly
important scientific arena.
university nuclear science and reactor support
The federal government has generally looked to the DOE to provide
the guidance and funding needed for the educational and research
activities in nuclear engineering and radiation science and technology
at the nation's universities. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has
traditionally deferred funding for these academic programs to the DOE.
For example, faculty members in other engineering or science
disciplines can submit proposals to the NSF for funding of research and
educational programs, but nuclear engineering faculty have been
discouraged from doing this, with DOE being cited as the appropriate
federal agency to funding such research requests. Prior to fiscal year
1996, the DOE had never embraced this concept and had not provided
within its budget, sufficient resources to fund these programs at an
adequate level. Congress recognized the need for such programs and
provided funding at a level of $10 million each year from fiscal year
1990 through fiscal year 1993. This funding was reduced to $3.7 million
in fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995. In fiscal year 1996 DOE
incorporated some parts of the program into a larger budget request of
$6.1 million, but Congress approved only $3.5 million. In fiscal year
1997, Congress approved $4 million of a $6.95 million budget request
(which included $1.2 million for unrelated programs) and in fiscal year
1998, Congress approved $7 million, which was an increase of $1 million
above the budget request. While funding is increasing, it is occurring
at a slow pace and remains far below the level needed to sustain a
strong academic infrastructure. The following are the specific needs of
the NE/RST and URR communities.
nuclear engineering/radiation science and technology education
The Congressionally-mandated programs provide financial support for
a number of activities in nuclear engineering/radiation science and
technology (NE/RST) education, specifically: (1) research grants, (2)
fellowships for promising U.S.-citizen M.S. and Ph.D. students, and (3)
matching nuclear electric industry contributions to improve the
educational infrastructure for NE/RST.
Research Grants.--The peer-reviewed Nuclear Engineering Education
Research (NEER) grant program is the first component of the nuclear
engineering education program. This program is extremely important
because it provides opportunities for faculty and students to explore
long-term, innovative ideas that could have great impact in applied
nuclear science and technology. In the six years fiscal year 1988-93,
over 800 proposals were submitted and DOE review panels recommended
that 250 of these be funded because of their relevance to national
needs, or their promise of possible major new technological
development. Due to limited resources, only 80 of these recommended
grants were actually funded, representing a three-fold shortfall in
funds to support the proposals that could significantly enhance the
nation's future competitive position in the world markets. All grants
were canceled and the students were left without support when the
program was abruptly terminated in fiscal year 1994. The loss of this
program is having serious consequences for the human resource needs of
government and industry for nuclear engineering graduates. The fiscal
year 1998 budget included a reinstatement of this program at $2.2
million, which drew 99 research proposals; the budget is sufficient to
fund only about 15 of them. We recommend funding of this research grant
program at a level of $5 million.
Graduate Fellowships.--A second component of the nuclear
engineering education program relates to graduate fellowships. These
four year student stipends attract exceptionally high quality U.S.
citizens to pursue Ph.D. programs. The demand for such graduates
exceeds the current supply because of the diversity of areas in which
they perform research, from studies of materials and radiation damage
to advanced controls and artificial intelligence, to improved
understanding of thermal-hydraulic behavior, to the design of radiation
detection methods for the protection of personnel. Without the long
term financial support provided by fellowships, many of the most
capable B.S. graduates will bypass graduate school for high paying
industry positions, and their participation in the long-term research
and technology developments needed to maintain U.S. competitiveness
will be lost. About 40 graduate fellowships are required to meet the
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to encourage
talented U.S. students to enter this field. A funding level of $1
million is necessary to maintain the supply of highly trained PhD's for
government, universities, and industry.
Industry Matching Grants.--The third element of the nuclear
engineering education program is the Matching Grants initiative. This
program provides up to $50,000 per year from industry, matched by DOE,
to a university to support nuclear engineering research and education.
This innovative program was initiated by nuclear electric utilities who
were concerned that academic departments in nuclear engineering would
not be able to maintain adequate academic programs to provide the
necessary manpower to keep nuclear power as a viable option for
providing electricity into the next century. The program has had its
greatest success in supporting the infrastructure of the departments by
providing funds that can be channeled to needed areas on a year-by-year
basis. The program originally included industry grants to 16
departments, totaling about $0.8 million each from the utilities and
the DOE. This does not include all NE/RST departments who wish to
participate. We recommend funding at a level of $1.0 million in the
fiscal year 1999 budget to include additional NE/RST departments and to
allow increases to offset inflation.
university research reactors
DOE funding provides support for the URR community in the form of
1) reactor fuel, 2) reactor sharing, and 3) reactor instrumentation
upgrades.
Reactor fuel.--Since the Atoms for Peace program when the federal
government encouraged universities to join in developing new knowledge
and applications of radiation science, the fuel cycle costs for
university reactors were provided by the federal government. Included
is the loan of uranium, fuel fabrication, shipping of new and
irradiated fuel, and acceptance of the spent fuel elements. Programs
are in progress to improve fuel cycle economics by designing extended
life fuel elements. There is also interest in removing from service
fuel with over two decades of operation. In addition, Congress has
mandated that the use of highly enriched uranium fuel at URR's should
be terminated; conversion from high- to low-enrichment fuel has been
progressing on a systematic basis. The cost of all these URR fuel-
related issues total $3.8 million per year.
Reactor sharing.--The reactor sharing program must rate among the
most cost-effective and successful expenditures of federal funds,
making geographically distributed URR's available to many users as
unique regional resources. This program allows faculty and students
from other universities, community colleges, high schools, and junior
high schools to utilize university reactors. This has led to research
projects and lines of inquiry which might have never occurred had there
not been a mechanism to access these facilities. The recommended level
of funding is $0.6 million per year at a minimum.
Reactor instrumentation upgrades.--The cost to maintain university
reactors and associated laboratories as state of the art teaching and
research facilities is substantial. These facilities, initially
constructed with major federal support, have aged without significant
investment beyond the basic operating needs. Upgrading existing
facilities is much more cost effective than replacing them. A
relatively small investment in new equipment has proven to be very
cost-effective. An annual pool of $1.0 million per year from fiscal
year 1990-1993 had a dramatic impact on the health of URR's. It is
recommended that the instrumentation program be maintained at a minimum
of $1.0 million per year.
In order to maintain the educational infrastructure for nuclear
engineering and radiation science and to provide an adequate level of
funding for the university research reactors, the total level of
funding needed is $12.4 million at a bare minimum. Since the University
Nuclear Science and Reactor Support line in the budget request contains
items unrelated to nuclear engineering and radiation science needs,
this amount should be increased from the $10.0 million in the
President's budget to $14.0 million to fully fund the NE/RST education
($7.0 million) and URR support ($5.4 million) programs.
nuclear energy research initiative
The Department of Energy is proposing a Nuclear Energy Research
Initiative (NERI). This is to be a peer-reviewed nuclear energy
research program bringing together the best minds at universities,
national laboratories, and in industry to address the critical research
questions that need to be answered concerning nuclear energy. This
program is modeled after the report of the Energy Research and
Development Panel of the President's Committee on Advisors on Science
and Technology (PCAST). We advocate that the peer-review process to be
adopted for NERI be modeled after NSF review processes and support the
DOE budget request of $24 million, although we believe that the higher
funding level of $50 million recommended by PCAST is fully justified.
NERI is, in some ways, similar to NEER, but differs in a very
fundamental and important way. NERI has the mission of supporting
nuclear energy research; NEER provides research support for the
academic discipline of nuclear engineering and radiation science.
Nuclear Engineering as an academic discipline has its origins in
nuclear energy, but has broadened to consider all applications of
nuclear and radiation processes to science and engineering. Hence, it
is concerned not only with nuclear fission-based power plants, but also
with health and medical physics, radiation detection and measurement,
materials science, waste management, environmental effects and
monitoring, production of radiation and isotopes for a multitude of
applications, and other aspects of radiological engineering. The NEER
program provides research support to this broader range of areas,
especially those not adequately funded elsewhere, while the NERI
program focuses on only nuclear energy. NEER is analogous to the
support for most scientific disciplines (except, historically, nuclear
engineering) provided by the NSF without concern for a specific
mission. While there are mission-focused research programs funded by
other agencies that draw on disciplines supported by the NSF and
provide funding for university research, it is clear to the broader
scientific community that both broad-based fundamental support of the
disciplines and mission-focused support is essential. The health of the
NE/RST academic discipline requires the fundamental, broad-based
support provided by NEER. We support both the continuation of NEER and
the initiation of the NERI program.
nuclear energy plant optimization program
Nuclear power faces critical issues that have broader implications
than the needs of a particular industry. It is appropriate that
research on these issues be funded by a government--industry
partnership, such as the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO)
program proposed by DOE. NEPO will focus on extending the life of
currently operating nuclear plants, establishing a process for license
renewal, and improving the efficiency and capacity of existing plants.
Such research is essential if our nation is to maintain the nuclear
option, meet the Kyoto goals for greenhouse gas emission reduction, and
improve the quality of our nation's air. We support the DOE budget
request of $10 million for NEPO.
budget recommendations
Our recommendations for support of nuclear engineering/radiation
science are (in millions of dollars):
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
Fiscal year
year 1999 DOE Goal
1998
actual proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NE/RST:
NEER (research grants)............... 2.2 3.0 5.0
Graduate Fellowships.................. 0.6 0.8 1.0
Industry Matching..................... 0.8 0.9 1.0
URR:
Reactor fuel and LEU conversions...... 2.1 2.3 3.8
Reactor sharing....................... 0.5 0.7 0.6
Instrumentation....................... 0.3 1.0 1.0
Unrelated;
HBCU/HSI scholarships................. 0.5 0.6 ........
Pre-college education................. ........ 0.2 ........
Radiochemistry........................ ........ 0.5 ........
-----------------------------
Totals.............................. 7.0 10.0 12.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment
Letter From William F. Naughton
ComEd,
February 4, 1998.
Dean Stephen Director,
College of Engineering, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI.
Dear Dean Director: On behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI), ComEd requests an opportunity to meet with the Big Ten
Engineering Deans. The purpose of the meeting would be to emphasize the
importance of academic programs in nuclear engineering in meeting the
world-wide growing demands for highly qualified nuclear engineers both
today and well into the 21st century. A strong outlook will require a
strong academic infrastructure to meet that demand. Why should nuclear
be singled out? Historically, due to its size as compared to Mechanical
or Electrical Engineering programs, Nuclear tends to be overlooked
despite a strong need and market.
To aid you in attending to this request, let me provide a little
background information on NEI, ComEd, and the long-term employment
outlook for nuclear engineers. NEI is the nuclear industry's
representative in Washington D.C. NEI has nearly 300 members worldwide
in all facets of the nuclear industry. ComEd, a Chicago based utility,
is the largest investor owned nuclear utility in the U.S. with ten
operating nuclear reactors. As Dr. Was has probably told you. ComEd
inaugurated the DOE/Industry Nuclear Engineering Department Matching
Grant Program in 1992 with five universities, four in the Big Ten.
ComEd initiated the program in response to a National Academy of
Sciences report that among other issues expressed concerns over the
educational infrastructure and program quality of nuclear engineering
education in the U.S. That program has recently been renewed for an
additional five years, largely due to the efforts of the Big Ten
schools affiliated with ComEd--Universities of Michigan, Illinois,
Wisconsin, and Purdue.
Clearly, there is a continuing need for a solid educational and
research infrastructure at U.S. colleges and universities in nuclear
engineering. The nuclear industry is convinced that the 21st century
will bring renewed expansion of nuclear energy, both in the United
States and abroad. Nuclear energy is the most effective way to meet the
world's growing electricity needs without producing emissions that
damage our air quality or that are thought to contribute to global
climate changes.
Although electricity demand in the United States continues to grow
slowly, and no new large generating plants of any kind are expected to
be built until 2005-2010 time frame, demand in developing countries is
expected to soar in the next century. According to the World Energy
Council, the International Energy Agency and the U.S. Department of
Energy, energy demand worldwide will rise by 34 to 44 percent by 2010,
and by 54 to 90 percent by 2020. At the same time, there is growing
concern that increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases from the burning of fossil fuels will cause disruptions in the
world's climate. Nuclear energy is the only fully developed, emission-
free electricity generating option with the potential for large-scale
expansion.
In January 1998, President Clinton cleared the way for U.S. nuclear
suppliers to compete in China's growing nuclear energy program. China's
nuclear market is expected to include an average of two nuclear plant
contracts a year between now and 2014, worth an estimated $50 to $60
billion between now and 2020.
Additionally, renewing the operating licenses for our nuclear power
plants could help the nation reduce carbon emissions in 2010 to 1990
levels, according to a report issued by the five Department of Energy
national laboratories last fall. The authors noted that the connection
between research and development and nuclear plant license extension.
Many of the nation's utilities that operate nuclear power plants are in
the planning stage for applying to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
renew their operating licenses.
While the emphasis here has been focused on the needs of the
nuclear power industry, the wider segment of the nuclear science and
technology industry has similar long-term employment requirements
especially in biology, medicine, environmental sciences, isotopes,
radiation applications, etc. Thus, our university programs in nuclear
engineering certainly both today and in the future will play a key role
not only in the worldwide expansion of nuclear energy but also in the
many beneficial science and technology services that it provides
society.
Both NEI and ComEd look forward to meeting with you and the other
Big Ten Deans to further discuss the current market and the long range
forecast that signals a strong need for highly qualified nuclear
engineers in all segments of nuclear science and technology. This
strong outlook will require a strong academic infrastructure to meet
that demand. Please contact me if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
William F. Naughton,
Program Manager, Fuels.
______
Prepared Statement of Tom Sanford, Deputy Mayor, City of Gridley, CA
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Tom Sanford,
and I am the Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Gridley, California. I also
serve as Gridley's commissioner on the governing board of the Northern
California Power Agency, a joint power agency that includes 15 public
power providers.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee
regarding the federal funding priorities for the City of Gridley's
ethanol project.I also want to thank the Subcommittee Members, and
Congressman Vic Fazio, who represents our region, for the
Subcommittee's past efforts, and we appreciate your continued support.
The City of Gridley is uniquely located in the heart of
California's rice growing area, with an economy heavily dependent upon
rice production and markets. In addition, Gridley operates a municipal
utility, with responsibility for delivering electrical power to the
Gridley community. The community, including local rice growers, have
sponsored the Gridley Ethanol Project to solve a major rice straw
disposal problem. This project will use rice straw and forest wood
wastes to produce ethanol for the transportation fuel markets.
Mr. Chairman, in order to initiate construction of the biomass
ethanol plant, the City of Gridley and its non-Federal cost-share
partners request $5,000,000 in fiscal year 1999. The request represents
what is needed in order for the City of Gridley to construct the
optimum sized biomass ethanol plant. It is critical that we secure this
funding in order to enable the project to go to construction next year.
The project will be ready to go to construction in the summer of 1999
and failure to secure the funds will jeopardize our capacity to
initiate construction on this important project. The project has a
significant non-Federal cost share. After fiscal year 1999, assuming
approval of the full $5,000,000 requested, the project will need one
final contribution from the Federal Government of $5,000,000 in fiscal
year 2000. The total planned Federal contribution to the project of
approximately $12,000,000 will leverage a non-Federal investment of
over $48,000,000 in the $60,000,000 plant.
Currently, biomass to ethanol production is primarily conducted in
the mid-west using corn husks and waste as the principal feedstock.
Ethanol is the sole product of this current process, which makes the
economic viability of the technology completely dependent upon the
current state of the ethanol market.
The technologies that will be used in the Gridley project more
fully utilize the feed stock to produce a number of useful products
while at the same time minimizing the byproducts requiring disposal.
This will significantly improve the sustainability of the project and
the technology.
Again, thank you for your past support and for this opportunity to
testify.
______
Prepared Statement of Joe F. Colvin, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Joe
Colvin. I am president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear
Energy Institute. The Nuclear Energy Institute is the policy-setting
organization for the U.S. nuclear energy industry. The Institute
represents more than 275 members worldwide, including every U.S.
electric utility that operates a nuclear power plant, as well as
suppliers, nuclear fuel cycle companies, engineering and consulting
firms, radiopharmaceutical laboratories, universities, labor unions and
law firms.
Before I begin, I would like to express my gratitude to Chairman
Domenici, Ranking Member Reid and the rest of the subcommittee members
for considering the merits of nuclear energy in fiscal year 1999
budgets for the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
introduction
It is impossible to enter into a discussion about commercial
nuclear energy without first examining its role in the broader context
of environmental and energy policy issues. Nuclear energy--by virtue of
its large-scale, carbon-free electricity generation--must be a major
part of any national strategy to achieve clean air standards and
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
Many policymakers have attested to nuclear energy's intrinsic value
in meeting atmospheric emissions targets while providing nearly 20
percent of the nation's electricity. Energy Secretary Federico Pena
recently recognized nuclear energy's critical role in energy policy:
``Given growing concerns over global climate change and other
environmental issues, the United States must maintain the option to
both operate many of its current nuclear power plants and build new
plants based on designs that emerged from our Advanced Light Water
Reactor Program.'' Secretary Pena's message has been echoed by other
representatives of the Executive Branch, the President's Committee of
Advisers on Science and Technology, the Department of Energy's research
laboratories and the New York Public Service Commission, to name a few.
While this growing awareness is reassuring, nuclear energy's
environmental benefits cannot be fully realized unless Congress
actively supports federal programs that will resolve the few remaining
challenges confronting the nuclear energy industry.
federal storage and disposal of used nuclear fuel
An overwhelming majority of Congress supports a legislative
solution to federal management and disposal of used nuclear fuel. The
Senate and the House of Representatives last year passed S. 104 and
H.R. 1270, respectively, requiring the Department of Energy to uphold
its immediate obligation to manage used nuclear fuel at a central
storage facility while the agency continues scientific analysis of the
proposed Yucca Mountain repository site. The bills currently are the
subject of a negotiation to forge common legislation for final
consideration by the House and the Senate.
The need for congressional intervention was reinforced by the
Department of Energy's Jan. 31 default of a court-affirmed deadline to
begin taking used nuclear fuel--a deadline Congress set in 1982.
Although the agency claims its delay is unavoidable, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on Nov. 14, 1997,
that DOE has an ``unconditional obligation to dispose of utilities'
spent nuclear fuel'' (Northern States Power Co. et al. v. U.S.
Department of Energy and the United States of America).
The Court of Appeals also ruled that the Standard Contract process
provides a ``potentially adequate'' remedy for damages. The Department
of Energy has stated its intention to apply the Standard Contract to
pay utilities for damages out of the Nuclear Waste Fund, and simply
offset such reductions by increasing future charges to utilities to the
waste fund. The consumer-financed Nuclear Waste Fund should not be a
source for those damages.
As the subcommittee weighs the Department of Energy's fiscal year
1999 request, it must consider the agency's fuel acceptance default and
the need for DOE to meet its obligation as part of any compensation or
damages. The industry encourages the subcommittee to instruct the
Department of Energy to furnish a detailed account of how and when it
will meet its obligation to accept used nuclear fuel.
Moreover, the improper use of the waste fund to pay damages would
force an increase in utility customer payments to replenish the trust
fund. In effect, the Department of Energy intends to make utilities pay
themselves for DOE's failure to meet its statutory deadline. For these
reasons, the Department of Energy should not be permitted to divert
money from the Nuclear Waste Fund to compensate utilities for DOE's
failure to honor its fuel acceptance obligation.
Despite the Department of Energy's default, the scientific and
technical efforts must continue to determine if the permanent
repository site is suitable. The Department of Energy's $380 million
fiscal year 1999 request for OCRWM is necessary to ensure the office
continues to meet deadlines for data collection and study at the
proposed Yucca Mountain, Nev., repository; to improve the
infrastructure of that laboratory; and to support analysis of
scientific and technical data for use in a DOE viability assessment due
to Congress this fall. All of these projects further DOE's effort to
prepare a draft environmental impact statement and license application
for the repository. From our perspective, the fiscal year 1999 request
assures timely scientific study and analysis, and a realistic schedule
to complete a viability assessment for Congress by December 1998.
The nuclear energy industry continues to support strong oversight
of the federal used nuclear fuel management program, particularly in
monitoring the state of Nevada's use of federal grants made from the
fund. Two reports from the U.S. General Accounting Office, one in 1990
and another in 1996, concluded that Nevada--which opposes the
repository project--improperly spent more than $1 million of grant
moneys. Through the Appropriations Committee's vigilance, recent
appropriations acts have precluded Nevada from using grant funds for
lobbying, litigation and certain multistate activities. Yet the GAO, in
its 1996 report, found that Nevada's weak documentation of grant
expenditures has made it difficult to determine whether the state is
spending federal funds appropriately.
Until the subcommittee is satisfied that DOE-administered funds
provided to the state are properly spent, any further funds should be
withheld from grant recipients shown to have misspent past federal
grant money. In the meantime, the nuclear energy industry believes that
other Nevada-based programs, such as the state university system and
county oversight efforts have been spending government money wisely and
have provided useful contributions to the repository project.
nuclear regulatory commission
Safety is the nuclear energy industry's top priority and we
recognize the unique responsibility that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has to assure adequate protection of public health and
safety. However, the industry is concerned that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has created a regulatory environment in which the agency's
interest in compliance has blurred its primary mission. Licensees are
being penalized based on regulation to the lowest common denominator at
a time when overall plant performance, capacity factors and safety
ratings are high.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example, in 1997, the median value for unplanned automatic
shutdowns at nuclear power plants was 0 per 7,000 critical hours, down
from 7.3 in 1980; 1997 World Association of Nuclear Operators
Performance Indicators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a 1997 audit the NRC's Office of Inspector General recognized a
conflict between the commission's goal of focusing on issues of
greatest safety significance and its actual resources devoted to
verifying license compliance with regulations of limited safety
benefit.\2\ The report, which focused on NRC events surrounding
refueling practices at Northeast Utilities' Millstone Unit 1 plant,
concluded that the commission should adopt a risk-informed,
performance-based regulatory system. The Nuclear Energy Institute
agrees that a focus on plant safety would enhance the commission's
effectiveness and ensure that regulation focuses on those areas
directly related to safety. The NRC's $488.6 million funding request
should be devoted to implementing regulations that have a direct
bearing on safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ OIG/97A-01, NRC needs Comprehensive Plan to Resolve Regulatory
Issues, Aug. 21, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost all of the funding requested by the NRC--$466.9 million--
would come from the collection of user fees from licensees, primarily
nuclear power plant licensees--an increase of $12.1 million from fiscal
year 1998. The nuclear energy industry continues to question the equity
of a 100 percent user fee, which charges electric utilities for the
cost of programs that are not directly related to the regulation of
specific licensees, but rather, have national applications. Included in
the NRC's budget is a request to extend its authority to collect a 100
percent user fee from nuclear power plant licensees through 2003.
Extending the commission's collection authority and any future
budgetary increases that impact the user fee would be unfair to
licensees who confront a changing regulatory environment amid electric
utility restructuring.
The 100 percent user fee could create a disadvantage for nuclear
power plants among competing electricity sources, especially as the
commission requests increases to its fiscal year budget throughout the
authorized collection period.
The nuclear energy industry believes that, rather than increase the
NRC budget--and thereby user fees--that if the commission focuses its
programs and regulations on safety-based performance standards, it
could fulfill its responsibility more efficiently. For example, such an
emphasis on performance standards would free NRC resources for license
renewal of nuclear power plants without increasing the agency's overall
budget. The NRC's role in extending the operating licenses of nuclear
facilities should stress timely and efficient review of issues related
to continued plant operation and maintaining high safety standards.
The nuclear energy industry fully supports approval of the moneys
requested by NRC from the Nuclear Waste Fund. These funds will allow
the NRC to continue its oversight of the Yucca Mountain project as the
Department of Energy prepares its license application for the
repository. These activities are a crucial step toward implementation
of the integrated used fuel management program.
In the area of safe cleanup at decommissioned nuclear facilities,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be commended for its continued
efforts to establish reasonable residual radiation standards. The
commission's standards are consistent with radiation standards set by
U.S. and international scientific organizations, such as the National
Council on Radiation Protection and the International Commission on
Radiological Protection. Yet the Environmental Protection Agency is
challenging the commission's policy by issuing guidance on residual
radiation that would prompt an excessive duplication of existing
standards and indefinitely delay site cleanups. The industry encourages
the subcommittee to clearly instruct the EPA to continue its long-
standing policy of deferring regulation of NRC-licensed site cleanup to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under the authority of the Atomic
Energy Act.
nuclear energy research and development
The Department of Energy's fiscal 1999 program for nuclear energy
research and development represents a considerable improvement over its
fiscal 1998 proposal, which fell short of congressional expectations
and ultimately was rejected. One notable improvement in DOE's proposal
is its inclusion of the nuclear energy industry in a cost-shared, joint
research venture with the Department of Energy to optimize nuclear
power plants. The nuclear energy industry firmly supports this
initiative as a way to maintain energy diversity, and therefore,
national security, an economic edge, and U.S. leadership in nuclear
technology abroad.
Nuclear energy's significant role in helping the United States
achieve clean air compliance and curb greenhouse gas emissions recently
was recognized by the President's Committee of Advisers on Science and
Technology. The committee recommended a funding profile that would
boost incrementally the Department of Energy's nuclear energy R&D
budget to $119 million by 2003--with $50 million recommended in fiscal
year 1999 ($16 million more than DOE's request).
The Department of Energy proposes to enhance nuclear energy's
national contribution to cleaner air through two new programs as well
as a continuing education initiative:
A new $24 million Nuclear Energy Research Initiative would ensure
that research conducted by universities, laboratories and the nuclear
energy industry contributes to the national interest. The research
initiative recognizes the value of nuclear energy's role in reducing
the emissions of carbon dioxide and other restricted gases and
particulates. Nuclear energy accounts for 90 percent of carbon
reductions by the U.S. electric utility industry since 1973, and 30
percent of voluntary carbon dioxide reductions since 1993 under the
Department of Energy's Climate Challenge program.
The Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization program would allocate $10
million to research and development projects that enhance the continued
operation of our 105 nuclear plants. Similar to programs in other areas
of energy production, the nuclear plant optimization program would
provide technical and regulatory improvements for continued plant
operation and increase productivity at existing plants. Both the
industry and Department of Energy recognize the production costs of
nuclear energy will be even more competitive once the capital costs
have been fully depreciated after 40 years.
Finally, the University Support program would earmark $10 million
for universities and colleges to enhance research and education in
nuclear sciences by helping to sustain university reactor and
engineering programs. However, the nuclear energy industry believes an
additional $4 million is needed to expand the Nuclear Energy Education
Research initiative, which Congress authorized in fiscal year 1998.
Many of the nation's nuclear medicine treatments, such as radiation
therapy, were developed and enhanced by a work force educated in the
nuclear sciences. It is crucial that the United States maintain its
leadership role in nuclear technology so that it is a credible presence
in the global nuclear community. Internationally, U.S. competitors are
turning to nuclear energy to satisfy growing environmental constraints.
Countries like France and Japan already have strong nuclear energy
programs that respond to energy demand and environmental sensitivities.
The Department of Energy's research and development proposal is
thoughtful, well conceived and relevant to the nation's energy and
environmental goals. For the reasons stated above, the nuclear energy
industry urges the subcommittee to support DOE's nuclear energy
research and development programs, but adopt PCAST's recommended
funding level of $50 million for fiscal year 1999.
The nuclear energy industry supports the funding as noted in these
areas:
Uranium Decontamination and Decommissioning.--DOE's fiscal year
1999 request for appropriations from the fund includes $242 million for
numerous activities at the government-owned plants and $35 million for
uranium/thorium tailings cleanup reimbursements, as authorized by the
Energy Policy Act. The nuclear energy industry urges the subcommittee
to ensure that congressionally appropriated funds are used for
decontamination and decommissioning activities as envisioned by the
Energy Policy Act, and not for activities related to current operations
of the gaseous diffusion plants.
Surplus Weapons Material Disposition.--The nuclear energy industry
supports the Department of Energy's $168.9 million request for the
disposal of surplus weapons fissile materials, an increase of $65
million from fiscal year 1998. The U.S. and Russian programs must move
from a study phase to actual material disposition. The nuclear energy
industry and federal agencies also must continue efforts to use mixed
oxide fuel at U.S. reactors.
International Nuclear Safety Program and Nuclear Energy Agency.--
The subcommittee should provide funding for the Department of Energy's
International Nuclear Safety Program. Improving the operational safety
at Soviet-designed nuclear power plants is imperative. Potential
weaknesses in reactor safety abroad not only pose threats to public
health and the environment, but also erode public confidence in the
entire nuclear energy industry.
The Nuclear Energy Institute supports the funding of continued U.S.
membership in the OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency.
Medical Isotopes.--The nuclear energy industry supports the
Department of Energy's radioisotope program and encourages the enhanced
and continued supply of isotopes for the purpose of medical research.
Such isotopes are not readily available in the commercial sector and
the Department of Energy has a history of supporting medical isotopes.
DOE Radiation Standards.--The nuclear energy industry is aware of
the Department of Energy's development of radiation standards for safe
cleanup and restoration of its decommissioned facilities. We urge the
subcommittee to support the Department of Energy in finalizing these
standards in order to enhance a safe, economic and timely conclusion to
the agency's extensive environmental restoration program. Close
involvement between the Department of Energy and the NRC ensures the
early identification and resolution of potential concerns that
otherwise would require more costly long-term review.
conclusion
I would like to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to share
the industry's perspective on issues crucial to the nuclear energy
industry. Although the Department of Energy has failed to meet
statutory and court-affirmed deadlines for the storage and disposal of
used nuclear fuel, Congress should support the agency's continued
scientific and technical work at the proposed Yucca Mountain repository
to avoid further delays. Even as Congress considers separate
legislation to reform the federal nuclear waste management program, the
subcommittee must ensure that activities within the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management progress to support the repository
project.
The nuclear energy industry urges the subcommittee to consider the
fairness and equity of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's user fee.
Commission licensees should not be assessed 100 percent user fees for
commission activities that do not pertain to regulating those
licensees, but that have broader, national application.
Finally, by funding the Department of Energy's two new nuclear
energy research and development initiatives, the subcommittee would
reaffirm nuclear energy's valuable contribution toward achieving clean
air compliance and mitigating greenhouse gases and continue the
research necessary to further improve performance and safety of U.S.
nuclear power plants. As the nation's second largest electricity
source, nuclear energy is well-positioned to meet future energy demand
in a manner consistent with national environmental policy.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Akin, Dick, Sutter County supervisor, District 5, prepared
statement...................................................... 349
Allen, E.D., chief harbor engineer, Port of Long Beach, CA,
prepared statement............................................. 433
Allen, W. Ron, president, National Congress of American Indians,
prepared statement............................................. 579
American Public Power Association, prepared statement............ 564
American Society for Microbiology, prepared statement............ 572
Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District, prepared statement... 465
Armstrong, Michael D., general manager, Monterey County Water
Resources Agency, prepared statement........................... 420
Arverchoug, Steve, general manager, Southeastern Colorado Water
Conservancy District, prepared statement....................... 496
Baker, Charles C., adjunct professor, University of California,
San Diego, US ITER Home Team Leader, prepared statement........ 592
Baldwin, David E., senior vice president, fusion group, General
Atomics, prepared statement.................................... 592
Ballard, Lt. Gen. Joe N., Chief of Engineers, Corps of
Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department of
Defense--Civil................................................. 145
Letter from.................................................. 216
Prepared statement........................................... 177
Barnett, Jack A., executive director, Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum, Bountiful, UT, prepared statement...... 463
Beier, Keith E., council member, city of Escondido, CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 387
Belza, Tib, chairman, Yuba County Water Agency, prepared
statement...................................................... 350
Beneke, Patricia J., Assistant Secretary for Water and Science,
Department of the Interior..................................... 291
Prepared statement........................................... 292
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah:
Prepared statement........................................... 161
Questions submitted by....................................... 321
Bingham, Nathaniel S., habitat director, Pacific Coast Federation
of Fishermen's Association, prepared statement................. 347
Blum, Carl L., deputy director, Department of Public Works, Los
Angeles County, CA, prepared statement......................... 381
Bollinger, Donald T., chairman, Louisiana Governor's Task Force
on Maritime Industry, prepared statement....................... 523
Bransford, Donald, president, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District,
prepared statement............................................. 419
Brewer, Robert M., Crounse Corp., Paducah, KY, letter from....... 521
Bridley, John, waterfront director, city of Santa Barbara, CA,
prepared statement............................................. 431
Brinson, J. Ron, president and CEO, Port of New Orleans, New
Orleans, LA, prepared statement................................ 530
Brown, Gary G., Vulcan Materials Co., Grand Rivers, KY, letter
from........................................................... 523
Bumpers, Hon. Dale, U.S. Senator from Arkansas, questions
submitted by................................................... 289
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
Prepared statement........................................... 162
Questions submitted by....................................... 321
Business Council for Sustainable Energy, prepared statement...... 576
Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia, questions
submitted by................................................... 240
Campbell, Joseph L., president, Contra Costa Water District,
prepared statement............................................. 359
Carlsen, Richard A., Marin County Department of Public Works, San
Rafael, CA, letter from........................................ 366
Caver, Thomas F., Jr., Chief, Programs Management Division,
Directorate of Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil,
Department of the Army, Department of Defense--Civil........... 145
Cisneros, Philip C., president, Twentynine Palms Water District,
prepared statement............................................. 399
City of Beverly Hills, CA, prepared statement.................... 394
City of Huntington Beach, CA, prepared statement................. 395
City of Miami Beach, FL, prepared statement...................... 506
City of Phoenix, AZ, prepared statement.......................... 467
City of San Diego, CA, prepared statement........................ 384
City of Seal Beach, CA, prepared statement....................... 389
City of Sierra Madre, CA, prepared statement..................... 394
City of Stockton, CA, prepared statement......................... 354
Clemens, Ralph O., Jr., president, Coosa-Alabama River
Improvement Association, prepared statement.................... 508
Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, questions
submitted by................................................... 55
Cole, David C., Itawamba Community College, Fulton, MS, letter
from........................................................... 520
Collins, Father T. Byron, S.J., special assistant to the
president of Georgetown University, prepared statement......... 563
Colvin, Joe F., president and chief executive officer, Nuclear
Energy Institute, prepared statement........................... 604
County of San Joaquin and the San Joaquin County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, CA, on behalf of, prepared
statement...................................................... 353
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho:
Prepared statements
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau533
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau424
LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureauiege, Daniel F., chairman,
California Water Commission, prepared statement
327____________________________________________________________________
Krygsman, Alexander, director, Port of Stockton, CA, prepared statement
424____________________________________________________________________
LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureaurt of South Louisiana,
LaPlace, LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau533
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau533
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau Questions submitted
by....................................... 237Crescent City Harbor District,
prepared statement................ 437Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, prepared
statement....................... 481Curry, Darrel G., vice president,
Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association, prepared
statement.................. 485Dal Gallo, Frank, president, the Reclamation
Board, the Resources Agency, State of California, prepared
statement................ 344Delesdernier, Capt. Mark, president, Crescent
River Port Pilots Association, prepared
statement................................ 532Dellinger, Mark, resources
manager, Lake County Sanitation District, prepared
statement................................... 362Diemer, Dennis M., general
manager, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland, CA, prepared
statement...................... 408Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator
from New Mexico, questions submitted by siana, LaPlace, LA,
prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau/
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau424
LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureauiege, Daniel F., chairman,
California Water Commission, prepared statement
327____________________________________________________________________
Krygsman, Alexander, director, Port of Stockton, CA, prepared statement
424____________________________________________________________________
LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureaurt of South Louisiana,
LaPlace, LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureausiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, BureauLA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau424
LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureauiege, Daniel F., chairman,
California Water Commission, prepared statement
327____________________________________________________________________
Krygsman, Alexander, director, Port of Stockton, CA, prepared statement
424____________________________________________________________________
LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureausiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureausiana, LaPlace, LA,
prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureautement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau424
LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureauiege, Daniel F., chairman,
California Water Commission, prepared statement
327____________________________________________________________________
Krygsman, Alexander, director, Port of Stockton, CA, prepared statement
424____________________________________________________________________
LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, BureauLA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureauive director,
Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace, LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, BureauLA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, BureauDorgan, Hon. Byron, U.S.
Senator from North Dakota: Prepared statements ducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureautement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau424
LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureauiege, Daniel F., chairman,
California Water Commission, prepared statement
327____________________________________________________________________
Krygsman, Alexander, director, Port of Stockton, CA, prepared statement
424____________________________________________________________________
LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureaurt of South Louisiana,
LaPlace, LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau533
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, BureauMarine, Inc., Paducah,
KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau Questions submitted by
siana, LaPlace, LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, BureauMarine, Inc., Paducah,
KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureautement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau424
LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureauiege, Daniel F., chairman,
California Water Commission, prepared statement
327____________________________________________________________________
Krygsman, Alexander, director, Port of Stockton, CA, prepared statement
424____________________________________________________________________
LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, BureauLA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureausiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau533
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, BureauDunlap, Jim, New Mexico
Rural Water Association, prepared
statement...................................................... 468Dyer,
William H., Tennessee Valley Towing, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter
from.................................................... 517Eaves, Jerry,
chairman, supervisor, fifth district, county of San Bernardino, prepared
statement................................. 377Edwards, Thomas Cole, mayor,
city of Newport Beach, CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 396Emmert,
Gilbert A., professor and chair of the Department of Engineering Physics,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, prepared
statement...................................................... 598Exline,
Gloria, mayor, city of Vallejo, CA, prepared statement... 418Ferraro,
Barbara J., mayor, city of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, prepared
statement............................................. 411Ferriole, Vince,
chairman, board of supervisors, Napa County, prepared
statement............................................. 363Fort Peck
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, prepared statement....... 479Foss, Brian E.,
port director, Santa Cruz Port, prepared
statement...................................................... 436Foster,
Gov. Murphy J., ``Mike'', on behalf of the Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development, Public Works and Flood Control Directorate,
prepared statement.................. 535Fuhrman, Maj. Gen. Russell L.,
Director of Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--
Civil................................................. 145 Prepared
statement........................................... 187Fulstone, Richard,
chairman, Walker River Water Users Association, prepared
statement................................ 466Gammage, Grady, Jr.,
president, board of directors, Central Arizona Water Conservation District,
prepared statement........ 472Geordano, Clyde A., parish president,
Plaquemines Parish Government, Belle Chasse, LA, prepared
statement............... 530George, Bruce, manager, Kaweah Delta Water
Conservation District, prepared
statement............................................. 360George, Father
William, S.J., special assistant to the president of Georgetown University,
prepared statement................... 563George, Merv Jr., chairman, Hoopa
Valley Tribe, prepared
statement......................................................
411Geringer, Hon. Jim, Governor, State of Wyoming: Letter
from.................................................. 484 Prepared
statement........................................... 483Gieringer, Wallace,
chairman, Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, prepared statements
tement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureauducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, BureauLA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau424
LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureauiege, Daniel F., chairman,
California Water Commission, prepared statement
327____________________________________________________________________
Krygsman, Alexander, director, Port of Stockton, CA, prepared statement
424____________________________________________________________________
LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureautement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureauducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau533
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, BureauGillum, James R.,
``Kenny'', Kentucky-Cumberland Coal Co., LaFollette, TN, letter
from.................................... 520Giordano, Clyde A., parish
president, Plaquemines Parish Government, Belle Chasse, LA, prepared
statement............... 530Goldston, Robert J., professor and director,
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, prepared
statement......................... 592Gorton, Hon. Slade, U.S. Senator from
Washington, questions submitted by /
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureauive director,
Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace, LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau424
LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureauiege, Daniel F., chairman,
California Water Commission, prepared statement
327____________________________________________________________________
Krygsman, Alexander, director, Port of Stockton, CA, prepared statement
424____________________________________________________________________
LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureausiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, BureauLA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureausiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, BureauGoulart, Roberta, Contra
Costa County Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County, CA, prepared
statement.................... 432Grant, Glenn A., Esq., business
administrator, city of Newark, NJ, prepared
statement......................................... 559Gross, Robert W.,
Ph.D., chair/board of directors, Santa Clara Valley Water
District.......................................... 367Hall, Donnie, Hunter
Marine Transport, Inc., Nashville, TN, letter
from.................................................... 516Hall, Stephen
K., executive director, Association of California Water Agencies, prepared
statement............................. 347Harmon, Jerry C., council member
and former mayor, city of Escondido, CA, prepared
statement.............................. 387Harris, Stanley J., P.E., city
engineer, Public Works Department, Kansas City, MO, prepared
statement............................ 492Hayden, Channing F., Jr.,
president, Steamship Association of Louisiana, prepared
statement.................................. 527Herbert, John B., president,
and Thomas C. Herbert, Sr., vice president, SanGravl Co., New Johnsonville,
TN, letter from..... 518Hess, William H., Parkert Towing Company, Inc.,
Tuscaloosa, AL, letter
from.................................................... 518Hewgley, James
M., Jr., Oklahoma chairman, Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee,
prepared statement....................... 503Hi-Desert Water District,
prepared statement..................... 402Hoagland, John E., general
manager, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, prepared
statement............................. 380Hodges, William, president,
Trinity River Authority of Texas, prepared
statement............................................. 462Holman, Gerald
H., chairman, Kansas Interstate Committee, prepared
statement............................................. 500Holmes, Mark,
executive director, Partnership for San Pablo Baylands, prepared
statement................................... 388Hommrich, J. Richard,
Volunteer Barge & Transport, Inc., Nashville, TN, letter
from..................................... 522Hurlbert, Don D., Sr., P.E.,
executive director, MO-ARK, Kansas City, MO, prepared
statement................................... 485Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey,
U.S. Senator from Texas, questions submitted
by................................................... 289Israel, Keith,
general manager, Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, prepared
statement............................. 421Johnson, David, director of
public works, city of Santa Barbara, CA, prepared
statement......................................... 405Jollivette, Cyrus M.,
vice president for government relations, University of Miami, prepared
statement........................ 590Jones, Jan, executive director,
Tennessee River Valley Association, prepared
statement................................ 513Jones, Tim C., Burkhart
Enterprises, Inc., Knoxville, TN, letter
from........................................................... 517Kansas
Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, prepared
statement...................................................... 499Karuk
Tribe of California, prepared statement.................... 402Kickapoo
Tribe of Kansas, prepared statement..................... 488Kickewirth,
Walter, chairman, board of directors, Place County Water Agency, prepared
statement............................... 351Knabe, Don, supervisor fourth
district, board of supervisors, county of Los Angeles, prepared
statement...................... 435Krebs, Dr. Martha A., Director, Office
of Energy Research, Department of
Energy........................................... 63 Prepared
statement........................................... 70Kriege, Daniel F.,
chairman, California Water Commission, prepared
statement............................................. 327Krygsman,
Alexander, director, Port of Stockton, CA, prepared
statement......................................................
424LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement................................ 533Lane, Leamon B.,
R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from...... 517LaPlace, Aubrey J.,
president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee District, prepared
statement............... 555Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers
and services division, National Mining Association, prepared
statement...... 453Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots,
prepared statement......................................................
531Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared
statement...................................................... 349Lowe,
Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared
statement...................................................... 542Lyon,
Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements LA, prepared
statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, BureauMarine, Inc., Paducah,
KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, BureauLA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau424
LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureauiege, Daniel F., chairman,
California Water Commission, prepared statement
327____________________________________________________________________
Krygsman, Alexander, director, Port of Stockton, CA, prepared statement
424____________________________________________________________________
LaGrange, Gary P., executive director, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace,
LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureautement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, BureauLA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureaurt of South Louisiana,
LaPlace, LA, prepared statement
533____________________________________________________________________
Lane, Leamon B., R&W Marine, Inc., Paducah, KY, letter from
517____________________________________________________________________
LaPlace, Aubrey J., president, board of commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, prepared statement
555____________________________________________________________________
Lema, Joseph E., vice president, manufacturers and services division,
National Mining Association, prepared statement
453____________________________________________________________________
Levine, John, Jr., president, Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement
531____________________________________________________________________
Lopez, Gaye, manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement
349____________________________________________________________________
Lowe, Lynn, president, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement
542____________________________________________________________________
Lyon, Dick, mayor, city of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements
383, 431_______________________________________________________________
Malcolm, David L., chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San
Diego, CA, prepared statement
426____________________________________________________________________
Malloy, Pat, maintenance services director, maintenance service department,
city of Arcadio, CA, prepared statement
392____________________________________________________________________
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, BureauMalcolm, David L.,
chairman, board of port commissioners, Port of San Diego, CA, prepared
statement.............................. 426Malloy, Pat, maintenance
services director, maintenance service department, city of Arcadio, CA,
prepared statement............ 392Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau
of Reclamation, Department of the
Interior..................................... 291 Prepared
statement........................................... 295Mauderly, Joe L.,
senior scientist and director of external affairs, Lovelace Respiratory
Research Institute, prepared
statement...................................................... 566Mauel,
Michael E., professor, Columbia University, president, University Fusion
Association, prepared statement.............. 592McCrory, Robert L.,
professor and director, Laboratory for Laser Energetics, University of
Rochester, prepared statement........ 560McKee, Frank, Hermitage, TN,
letter from......................... 521Miklos, Steve, mayor, city of
Folsom, CA, prepared statement..... 407Moses, Joe, chairman, Warm Springs
Tribal Council, prepared
statement...................................................... 451Mosher,
Carl W., director, Environmental Services Department, city of San Jose, CA,
prepared statement....................... 366Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S.
Senator from Washington, questions submitted
by................................................... 244Nelson, Ben H.,
president, Coastal Oyster Leaseholders Association, prepared
statement................................ 460Nelson, Ron, chairman,
Deschutes Basin Working Group of Central Oregon, prepared
statement..................................... 450New York University,
prepared statement.......................... 587Noble, Vernon A., chairman,
Green Brook FLood Control Commission, prepared
statement............................................. 557Northwest Power
Planning Council, Portland, OR, prepared
statement...................................................... 439Novak,
Cathy, mayor, city of Morro Bay, CA, prepared statement... 430O'Brien,
Terrence J., president, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago, prepared statement................ 486O'Hollaren, Ken, executive
director, port of Longview, WA, prepared
statement............................................. 446O'Neill, Beverly,
mayor, city of Long Beach, CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 417Okita,
David, general manager, Solano County Water Agency, prepared
statement............................................. 356Palmer, R. Barry,
executive director, Association of the Development of Inland Navigation in
America's Ohio Valley, prepared
statement............................................. 456Parks, Barry E.,
Jr., Philip Services, Corp., Nashville, TN, letter
from.................................................... 522Parsons,
Richard W., dredging program manager, Ventura Port District, prepared
statement................................... 427Paulson, Melissa, mayor,
town of Corte Madera, CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 410Perkins,
Craig, director, environmental and public works management department,
Santa Monica, CA, prepared statement.... 398Peterson, J.M., president,
Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association, prepared
statement................................ 485Peterson, R. Max, executive
vice president, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
prepared statement.. 510Pettygrove, Hon. George, mayor, city of Fairfield,
CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 357Pfeifle,
Kurt, general manger, Mid-Dakota Rural Water System, Inc., prepared
statement....................................... 475Porkolab, Miklos,
professor and director, Plasma Science and Fusion Center, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, prepared
statement......................................................
592Poundstone, Emery, president, Reclamation District No. 108, prepared
statement............................................. 348Pruitt, Gary K.,
executive director, Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission, prepared
statement................................. 533Rabbin, Peter D., general
manager, the Reclamation Board, the Resources Agency, State of California,
prepared statement...... 344Rawlings, Jaycee, Humphreys County, TN, letter
from.............. 519Reicher, Dan W., Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Energy Research, Department of
Energy......................................................... 63 Prepared
statement........................................... 98Reid, Hon. Harry,
U.S. Senator from Nevada: Prepared statements do River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement
463____________________________________________________________________
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,
Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department of Defense--
Civil
145____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
165____________________________________________________________________
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued d statement.......................... 397
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued /428...........................................
Wood, Roderick J., city manager, city of Novato, CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 365
Zimmerman, Eleanor L., mayor, Norwalk, CA, prepared statement.... 397
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued DBO/...................................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued endale, CA, prepared statement............ 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued Questions submitted by DBO/.............. 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued d R., executive director, Colorado
River Board of California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement.... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued d statement.......................... 397
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued /428...........................................
Wood, Roderick J., city manager, city of Novato, CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 365
Zimmerman, Eleanor L., mayor, Norwalk, CA, prepared statement.... 397
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued f California, Glendale, CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued f California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement. 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued d statement.......................... 397
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued /428...........................................
Wood, Roderick J., city manager, city of Novato, CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 365
Zimmerman, Eleanor L., mayor, Norwalk, CA, prepared statement.... 397
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued do River Board of California,
Glendale, CA, prepared statement............................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued f California, Glendale, CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued John, Acting Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department
of the Army, Department of Defense--Civil...................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued d statement.......................... 397
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued /428...........................................
Wood, Roderick J., city manager, city of Novato, CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 365
Zimmerman, Eleanor L., mayor, Norwalk, CA, prepared statement.... 397
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued f California, Glendale, CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued do River Board of California,
Glendale, CA, prepared statement............................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued f California, Glendale, CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued Reis, Dr. Victor H., Assistant Secretary for
Defense Programs, Atomic Energy Defense Activities, Department
of Energy......... 1 Biographical
sketch.......................................... 11 Prepared
statement........................................... 5Rogers,
Ross, general manager, Merced Irrigation District, prepared
statement.............................................
359Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, prepared
statement......... 414Saltmarsh, Michael J., director, fusion
energy division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, prepared
statement.................. 592San Juan Water Commission,
prepared statement.................... 465Sanders, Charles J.,
III, Ingram Materials Co., Nashville, TN, letter
from....................................................
519Sanford, Tom, deputy mayor, city of Gridley, CA, prepared
statement......................................................
603Schafer, R.L., secretary/watermaster, Tule River
Association, prepared
statement.............................................
361Seemann, Jeff, project director, Nevada National Science
Foundation EPSCoR Project, prepared statement..................
581Serna, Joe, Jr., mayor, city of Sacramento, CA, prepared
statement......................................................
423Skidmore, David, project manager for the Santa Cruz Joint
Venture, prepared statement....................................
405Sklar, Scott, executive director, Solar Unity Network,
prepared
statement......................................................
595Southern Ute Indian Tribe, prepared
statement.................... 465Southwestern Water
Conservation District, prepared statement..... 465Sublette,
Kerry L., Sarkeys professor of environmental engineering,
University of Tulsa, prepared statement........... 583Summers,
Floyd R., PE, president, California Society of Professional
Engineers, Sacramento, CA, prepared statement.....
346Thomassen, Keith I., deputy associate director, energy
programs, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, prepared
statement..... 592Thorne, Mike, executive director, Port of
Portland, OR, prepared
statement......................................................
444Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe, prepared
statement................ 465Vanselow, Glenn, executive
director, Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, prepared
statement................................ 447Venables, Jim,
chairman, board of supervisors, Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, prepared
statement......................................................
375Ventura County and Ventura County Flood Control District,
prepared statement.............................................
382Volusia County, FL, prepared
statement........................... 507Wanamaker, James E.,
chief engineer, Board of Mississippi Levee Commission, prepared
statement................................. 539Wehe, David K.,
professor, University of Michigan, prepared
statement......................................................
569West Chino Water District, prepared
statement.................... 400Wheeler, K.A., Midland
Enterprises, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, letter
from...........................................................
516Whitener, Dave, chairman, Squaxin Island Tribe, prepared
statement......................................................
452Willcox, George, general manager, Chambers-Liberty Counties
Navigation District, prepared statement........................
461Williams, M.V., president, West Tennessee Tributaries
Association, prepared statement................................
540Wong, Leland, commission president, Los Angeles Board of
Harbor Commissioners for the Port of Los Angeles, prepared
statement.. 428Wood, Roderick J., city manager, city of Novato,
CA, prepared
statement......................................................
365Zimmerman, Eleanor L., mayor, Norwalk, CA, prepared
statement.... 397Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director,
Colorado River Board of California, Glendale, CA, prepared
statement................... 463Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Corps of
Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department of
Defense--Civil................................... 145 Prepared
statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX ---------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers--Civil PageAcequias
irrigation system, NM...................................
211Benefits
foregone................................................
209Budget: Differences, resolution
of................................... 222 Request: On
construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999 director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued endale, CA, prepared statement............ 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued DBO/...................................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued d statement.......................... 397
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued /428...........................................
Wood, Roderick J., city manager, city of Novato, CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 365
Zimmerman, Eleanor L., mayor, Norwalk, CA, prepared statement.... 397
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued ared statement....................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued DBO/...................................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued Bureau of Reclamation
programs................................... 159Central Utah
project.............................................
160Construction general
program..................................... 210Continued
budget constraints, implication of.....................
207Contracting policy, fully
funded................................. 209Corps of Engineers
public opinion survey......................... 215Devils Lake,
ND director, Colorado River Board of California,
Glendale, CA, prepared statement............................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued ared statement....................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued 3.........................................
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued d statement.......................... 397
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued /428...........................................
Wood, Roderick J., city manager, city of Novato, CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 365
Zimmerman, Eleanor L., mayor, Norwalk, CA, prepared statement.... 397
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued do River Board of California,
Glendale, CA, prepared statement............................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued do River Board of California,
Glendale, CA, prepared statement............................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued Fiscal year 1999: Minimum funding level need
for............................... 210 Budget, development
of....................................... 209Flood control
projects, importance of............................
148Greenbrier River Basin,
WV....................................... 219Increased project
costs and lost benefits........................ 206Las Cruces,
NM, project.......................................... 212Marmet
Lock and Dam..............................................
207National water resource development
effort....................... 164Program
execution................................................
222Regulatory
permits............................................... 150Water
resource project benefits.................................. 146
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Atomic Energy Defense
ActivitiesAccelerated strategic computing initiative
[ASCI]................ 14
Chips........................................................
16
Funding......................................................
15Advanced experimental
facilities................................. 20Aging work
force.................................................
23Archival test
data............................................... 22Budget
request, fiscal year 1999.................................
11DARHT
facility...................................................
18Defense programs work
force...................................... 12Experimental
activities..........................................
21Laboratory
moral................................................. 22Labs,
assessment of..............................................
13Operating
requirements...........................................
14Parallel construction,
massive................................... 16Stewardship:
Bipartisan support for.......................................
13 Challenge
of................................................. 23 Historic
funding for.........................................
13Stockpile stewardship director, Colorado River
Board of California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement.......... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued NM/Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--
Civil, Department of the Army, Department of Defense--Civil.... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued d statement.......................... 397
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued /428...........................................
Wood, Roderick J., city manager, city of Novato, CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 365
Zimmerman, Eleanor L., mayor, Norwalk, CA, prepared statement.... 397
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued John, Acting Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department
of the Army, Department of Defense--Civil...................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued And the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty........................ 18 Mission, ASCI role
in........................................ 16Subcritical:
Experiments do River Board of California, Glendale,
CA, prepared statement......................................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued d statement.......................... 397
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued /428...........................................
Wood, Roderick J., city manager, city of Novato, CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 365
Zimmerman, Eleanor L., mayor, Norwalk, CA, prepared statement.... 397
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued do River Board of California,
Glendale, CA, prepared statement............................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued do River Board of California, Glendale, CA,
prepared statement............................................. 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued d statement.......................... 397
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued /428...........................................
Wood, Roderick J., city manager, city of Novato, CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 365
Zimmerman, Eleanor L., mayor, Norwalk, CA, prepared statement.... 397
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, Glendale, CA, prepared statement................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued do River Board of California,
Glendale, CA, prepared statement............................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued f California, Glendale, CA, prepared
statement...................................................... 463
Zirschky, Dr. John, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 165
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system, NM................................... 211
Benefits foregone................................................ 209
Budget:
Differences, resolution of................................... 222
Request:
On construction program, impact of....................... 205
Fiscal year 1999.......................................146, 156
Bureau of Reclamation programs................................... 159
Central Utah project............................................. 160
Construction general program..................................... 210
Continued