[Senate Hearing 106-381]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-381
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2605/S. 1186
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, 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
54-212 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
ISBN 0-16-060265-3
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 FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JON KYL, Arizona
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)
Professional Staff
Alex W. Flint
W. David Gwaltney
Greg Daines (Minority)
Administrative Support
Lashawnda Leftwich
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, March 9, 1999
Page
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 1
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 63
Thursday, March 11, 1999
Department of Energy: Atomic Energy Defense and Nonproliferation
Programs....................................................... 193
Thursday, March 18, 1999
Department of Energy: Environmental Management and Civilian Waste
Management Program............................................. 269
Tuesday, April 13, 1999
Department of Energy:
Office of Science............................................ 383
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology............. 383
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy............. 383
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
California water resource development projects................... 525
Nationwide water resource organization........................... 599
New York and New Jersey water resource projects.................. 612
Southeastern U.S. water resource development projects............ 620
Ohio River Valley inland navigation projects..................... 651
Mississippi and Louisiana water resource projects................ 656
Midwest U.S. water resource development projects................. 699
Upper Midwest water projects..................................... 729
Southwest U.S. water resource development projects............... 748
Pacific Northwest water resource projects........................ 770
Department of Energy programs and activities..................... 790
California navigation and related projects....................... 850
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Cochran, Gorton, Bennett,
Burns, Craig, Stevens, Reid, Kohl, and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
STATEMENTS OF:
PATRICIA BENEKE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, WATER AND
SCIENCE
ELUID MARTINEZ, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
opening statement
Senator Domenici. The committee will please come to order.
Patty, it's good to see you again.
Today, we begin our hearings on the fiscal year 2000 budget
for agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of the Energy
and Water Development Subcommittee. This morning we have
representatives from the Department of the Interior to review
the funding requests of the Bureau of Reclamation. Following
their testimony, we will hear from the Corps of Engineers. This
continues our tradition of alternating the order of the Corps'
and the Bureau's testimony each year in an effort to be fair to
agencies and members who may be interested in one over the
other.
First, it is a pleasure to welcome Patty Beneke, Assistant
Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science; and Eluid
Martinez, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation and a
resident of the State of New Mexico. Eluid, it is nice to have
you here.
Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Both of our witnesses appeared last year
before the committee and are well known to both the staff and
the committee members.
budget request
The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Bureau of
Reclamation totals $856,600,000, compared to the appropriation
of $780.5 million, an increase of $76 million over the current
year. This includes an increase of $30 million over the 1999
water and related resources; a $20 million increase for the
CALFED restoration program, which totals $95 million for the
year 2000; and a $14 million increase in the Central Valley
Project Restoration Fund in California, for a total of $47.3
million; and some smaller increases in other programs and
activities.
Our initial review indicates that there are no major
changes or proposals put forth in the budget request of the
administration for the Bureau of Reclamation for the year 2000.
Now, having said that, since we have much to do this
morning, I will say nothing further and yield to Senator Reid,
our ranking member, for any comments that he may have.
So, again, I welcome both of you. I welcome those in the
audience, and clearly the Corps of Engineers will follow these
witnesses.
statement of senator harry reid
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much your
involvement, of course, as chair. I will follow your example
and ask unanimous consent that my full statement be made part
of the record.
I would just comment that I am also a member of the
authorizing committee, the Environment and Public Works
Committee, and we are this morning having a hearing on
something that we will have to fund at a later time. We are
having the Corps of Engineers on the Water Resources
Development Act. So, I am going to have to be excused at a
later time to whip over there and make an appearance.
The Bureau of Reclamation has had a significant history in
the State of Nevada. The first ever Bureau of Reclamation
project in the country was in Nevada, the Newlands Project,
which for 70 years was fairly noncontroversial, but the last 20
years has been very controversial. But the Bureau has always
had a prominent place in that project.
Also, of course, with the construction of Boulder, later to
become the Hoover Dam, the Bureau of Reclamation was and has
been heavily involved in that little city in the southern part
of the State.
Flood control projects which are becoming so important in
the two metropolitan areas of Reno and Las Vegas, the Corps of
Engineers is vitally involved. Hundreds of millions of dollars
are being spent in those two areas to stop the loss of life and
property.
prepared statement
So, I look forward to this hearing and to working with
these two agencies during the coming year.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Harry Reid
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this hearing on the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. Both the Corps and Bureau have
played a vital role in the development of American water management
infrastructure that is all too often overlooked. And unfortunately,
given the numbers that I see in the Budget Request, the future role of
the Bureau and Corps are now minimized in the perception of some in the
administration.
The need for water projects is not diminishing, indeed some may
argue that the need is increasing, and yet some at Office of Management
and Budget and elsewhere would like to dictate the course of the
program by tightening the budget for surveys, studies and new
construction. I think it is a perilous path to trod when we
underestimate the economic, societal, and hydrological impacts of these
water programs. This is why the communities at home so distinctly
recognize these projects. And while it is derisively called a
congressional pork program, we need not make any apologies for that
because of the many benefits of these projects as water is managed
throughout the nation.
The Army Corps of Engineers has a history that dates back to the
origins of the nation and I appreciate the vast function that the Corps
has in the management of the nation's navigational waters. For example,
this last week, I learned that half of New Orleans lives under sea
level and without the maintenance of its levees and canals that city,
indeed, most of the state of Louisiana would be under water. Around the
nation, there are communities that rely on these flood control
projects, from Reno to Las Cruces, New Mexico.
There's no doubt that the work on the harbors and ports of the
nation is essential to our trade and commerce. For instance, the ports
of the nation move over 13.5 million tons of breakbulk cargo annually;
which is an estimated $600 billion in international cargo generating
over $150 billion in tax revenue. There are critical issues that we
need to pursue further, and about which I will have specific questions,
including the administration's continuing concern about the endless
need of beach or shoreline erosion. Since Nevada is not on the
shoreline, I do not have a parochial interest but a concern that
commitment made to these states and communities cannot be washed away,
pun intended.
Additionally, the cooperative agreements that are being negotiated
with non-federal sponsors are creating a mechanism that could create a
very precarious financial condition for the Corps. The Chairman and I
are working through that issue. I have discussed that issue with both
the Assistant Secretary and General Fuhrman and I appreciate your
perspectives.
There are a number of projects that are now rectifying the mistakes
of management of water resources and engineering approaches in such
places as the Kissimmee River that feeds into the Florida Everglades
and the Truckee River in Nevada. I think we need to assess the future
commitment that rectifying these mistakes will require of us.
The Bureau of Reclamation has recently celebrated its 150th
anniversary. I congratulate the Bureau on its many achievements and
stellar record. Many of the communities throughout the western United
States were developed as a consequence of the Bureau of Reclamation's
water management.
As you are aware, there is some criticism that the bureau has been
expanding its mission and activities. I am interested in your vision,
Assistant Secretary and Commissioner, of the future of the Bureau and
not just this fiscal year.
I note that the Budget Request has $95 million for California Bay
Delta Restoration which is bringing that request into line with the
appropriations level, generally. That still is a significant amount of
money that could be funding many multiple projects. I hope you will
discuss the progress and measurable benchmarks of CALFED effort.
Additionally, I would appreciate a discussion of the environmental
restoration mission and its relationship to the reclamation management
of water.
statement of patricia beneke
Senator Domenici. Senator Bennett, would you like to
comment?
Senator Bennett. No.
Senator Domenici. Thank you for coming to the hearing this
morning.
Patty, you are first. Patty Beneke.
Ms. Beneke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of
the subcommittee. I am pleased to discuss the President's
fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation.
Eluid Martinez, the Commissioner of the Bureau, is here today
as well, and he will provide further detail with respect to the
budget.
I am going to be very brief this morning and summarize my
testimony.
As you stated, Mr. Chairman, the request for the Bureau of
Reclamation totals $856.6 million. Of this amount, over $278
million is requested for facility operations, maintenance, and
rehabilitation. This is an increase of over $15 million from
last fiscal year and reflects the fact that the Commissioner
and I place a high priority on these projects.
I also note that the budget request for the Department
reflects the Administration's continued commitment to address
natural resource issues by working in geographically based
partnerships. These partnerships cross not only jurisdictional
boundaries within the Federal Government, but also involve the
States, tribes, local communities, and affected stakeholders.
An example of one such partnership is the California Bay-Delta
Program, and I would like to take just a few minutes to talk a
little bit about that very important program.
california bay-delta program
This is a tremendously important effort under which CALFED,
comprised of 10 Federal agencies and 4 State agencies, is
working with all interested stakeholders to develop a long-term
solution to the many water resource issues presented in the San
Francisco Bay-Delta region in California. This solution will
address water supply reliability issues, levy stabilization
which is key to flood protection, water quality, and restoring
the health of the Bay-Delta region. The Bay-Delta itself
provides drinking water to over two-thirds of the State of
California and irrigation water to three-quarters of the
Nation's fruit and vegetable crop. It is also a national
resource in that it is the largest wetland estuary in the West.
From our perspective at Interior, a key goal of the program
is to provide greater certainty and reliability of supply to
our many Central Valley Project contractors, as well as to
resolve issues relating to the ecological health of the Bay-
Delta region.
The President's fiscal year 2000 budget for the Bureau of
Reclamation requests $95 million for Federal cost sharing for
the program. Of this amount, $75 million would be used pursuant
to the California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement Act
passed by Congress a couple of years ago. These funds would
build upon the restoration begun in fiscal year 1998 and
continued in 1999 by monitoring prior projects and initiating
and implementing new projects approved by CALFED and the
Secretary. The remaining $20 million is requested for non-
ecosystem restoration activities, such as groundwater storage,
water use efficiency, water quality, and watershed management.
This request signals that the Administration has a
commitment to funding all elements of the California Bay-Delta
Program. We believe it is important to get this work underway.
central utah project
Finally, this morning I would like to note that
responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the Central
Utah Project Completion Act rests with my office, and I would
be pleased to answer any questions you might have on this
topic, as well as any others.
prepared statement
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. It is an
honor and privilege to be here. With your permission, I would
like to pass the baton on to Commissioner of Reclamation, Eluid
Martinez, who will provide further details on the budget
request.
[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 2000 budget for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central
Utah Project.
Eluid Martinez, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation is
also appearing today. His testimony will address details of the fiscal
year 2000 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.
Reclamation's fiscal year 2000 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. 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 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. Solving natural resource problems is vital to
the successful operation of Reclamation Projects.
This approach is reflected in several initiatives in the
Department's fiscal year 2000 budget. In South Florida, several Federal
agencies are working closely with the State, Tribes, local communities
and affected stakeholders to restore the Everglades. 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.
california bay-delta ecosystem restoration
The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes funding of $75 million for
ecosystem restoration efforts that will build on the fiscal year 1998
and fiscal year 1999 programs by monitoring prior projects and
initiating and implementing new projects approved by CALFED and the
Secretary. In addition, $20 million is requested for non-ecosystem
restoration activities authorized under various current authorities,
such as water use efficiency, water quality, groundwater storage,
levees, conveyance, and watershed management that would be common to
any version of the overall Bay-Delta Long-term Plan that is ultimately
selected.
Ecosystem Restoration funds are requested in an account within the
Bureau of Reclamation and provided to participating agencies based upon
the program recommended by CALFED and approved by the Secretary of the
Interior in consultation with participating agencies. Participating
agencies will work directly with and administer contracts with non-
Federal entities. Federal funds would be available in a manner
consistent with the terms of the existing cost-sharing agreement and
environmental review requirements. Also, CALFED is developing a
comprehensive framework to provide a more reliable water supply for all
uses, stabilize levees, and improve water quality. Restoring the health
of the Bay-Delta ecosystem is central to meeting these objectives.
Fiscal year 1998 was the first year that Federal agencies had funds
for the Bay-Delta Program. During the year, Federal agencies made
considerable progress in developing a project selection/approval
process to assure that funds are being used for the highest priority
ecosystem restoration projects and that all proposed and selected
projects comply with Federal contract provisions. The process assures
extensive public participation. By the end of the year, CALFED had
recommended and the Secretary of the Interior had approved programs and
projects to use all of the $85 million appropriated in fiscal year
1998. Reclamation had contracts or agreements with other agencies
obligating $73 million.
CALFED is using the fiscal year 1999 funds expeditiously and on
high priority activities. The Secretary has approved ecosystem
restoration projects that would use $65 million of the $75 million
appropriated in fiscal year 1999. CALFED currently has a request for
proposals out to the public to solicit other ecosystem restoration
projects that will be funded in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000.
The Administration is submitting authorization language that would
extend current spending authorization through 2003 to enable the
ecosystem restoration program to be fully funded at the $430 million
authorized by the California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement Act.
bureau of reclamation
Aside from the request for the Bay-Delta Restoration initiative,
the budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation totals $761.6 million,
an increase of $30.2 million from the fiscal year 1999 level. 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 includes $71 million for the dam
safety program, $27 million for the Central Arizona Project; $28.7
million for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program; $27
million for the Garrison Diversion Unit; $31.5 million for Water
Reclamation/Reuse projects; $125 million for the Central Valley
Project; $47.3 million for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund;
$13 million for Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery and $15 million
for Endangered Species Recovery in other river basins.
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 Annual Performance
Plan required under the Government Performance and Results Act. This
plan identifies the annual goals for fiscal year 2000 that support
Reclamation's Strategic Plan.
central utah project completion act
The Central Utah Project Completion 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 Secretary is prohibited from delegating his responsibilities
under the Act to the Bureau of Reclamation. As a result, responsibility
for overseeing implementation of the Act rests with the Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science. The Department has 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.
The fiscal year 2000 request for the Central Utah Project
Completion Account provides $39.4 million for use by the District, the
Commission, and the Department to implement Titles II-IV of the Act, a
decrease of $3.1 million from the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The
request includes $18.6 million for the District to initiate
construction on the remaining segments of the Diamond Fork System; to
complete construction of the Wasatch County Water Efficiency Project;
to implement approved water conservation and water management
improvement projects; to implement the groundwater recharge and
conjunctive use program; to initiate construction of the Duchesne/
Strawberry diversion structures; and to continue development of
planning and NEPA documents on facilities to deliver water in the Utah
Lake drainage basin. No new funds are requested for the Uinta Basin
facilities.
The request also provides $12.0 million for use by the Commission
for mitigation and conservation projects authorized in Title III of the
Act, including fish hatchery improvements, construction of the Daniels
Creek Pipeline, and for acquisition of habitat, access, and water
rights along the Provo River and other key watersheds; and for
completing other mitigation measures identified in Reclamation planning
documents under Title II of the Act.
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 ($0.4 million); for modifications to Syar
Tunnel that are necessary to meet the minimum instream flow
requirements ($2.0 million); and for program administration ($1.3
million).
In addition to the request described above, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs' budget includes $27.5 million for the Ute Indian Rights
Settlement; 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
2000 requests. The Commissioner and I will be pleased to respond to
your questions.
STATEMENT OF ELUID L. MARTINEZ
Senator Domenici. Commissioner, we are glad to have you.
Mr. Martinez. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the
President's fiscal year 2000 budget with the subcommittee.
I am sure all of you are aware of the history of the Bureau
of Reclamation, and my written statement goes into that. I will
summarize my statement and get to the issues as I view them.
Our budget request is for $856.6 million, of which
approximately $762 million is for ongoing Reclamation programs.
Also included is $95 million for the California Bay-Delta
Restoration account: $75 million for ecosystem restoration, and
$20 million for our other activities.
The $652.8 million requested in the Water and Related
Resources account basically deals with our water resource and
energy management programs, our wildlife and fish management
programs, our land management programs, and our facility
operation and maintenance. Also included in our request is
$47.3 million for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund,
and $12.4 million for our loan program to continue five small
loan projects, two of which will be completed this year. The
balance is reflected in $49 million in our request for policy
administration, which is a $2 million increase over the fiscal
year enacted level.
safety of dams program
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, our Safety of
Dams program basically addresses the continuing safety and
analysis of our structures. We place high priority on the
safety of our dams. It funds adequately, I believe, the
operation and maintenance of our facilities out West. It
continues to move along some of our construction projects
specifically dealing with waste water reuse and rural water
distribution systems, probably not at the level that the
project sponsors would wish, and includes some monies for some
Indian water systems, including initiation of construction of
the Gila portion of the Central Arizona Project.
prepared statement
Generally, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my summary remarks.
I will be glad to answer any specific questions you might have.
Senator Domenici. Your statement will be made a part of the
record, and yours, Ms. Beneke, will also be made a part of the
record. I did not say that Senator Reid's was, but it will be.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. 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 2000 budget request.
The Bureau of Reclamation has been in existence for 97 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 2000, the Bureau of Reclamation is requesting
$856.6 million in new budget authority. This request includes $761.6
million for Reclamation's traditional programs, an increase of $30.2
million from the fiscal year 1999 level; and $95.0 million for the
California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration account, which is
administered by Reclamation but funds activities in several Federal
agencies, an increase of $20.0 million.
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 implementing GPRA. Reclamation has begun
submitting quarterly reports to the Department showing progress made in
accomplishing the goals and indicators in the fiscal year 1999
Performance Plan. Based on Reclamation's Strategic Plan, the fiscal
year 2000 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
Reclamation's Dam Safety Program is critical to the management of
risks associated with events, such as earthquakes, floods, etc., that
could threaten the safety of Reclamation dams, and the downstream
public, property, and natural resources near those structures. Ensuring
the safety and reliability of Reclamation dams continues to be one of
Reclamation's highest priorities. Approximately 50 percent of
Reclamation's dams were built between the years 1900 and 1950 and
approximately 90 percent of the dams were built before current state-
of-the-art design and construction practices. Aging dams, which lack
state-of-the-art structural reliability features, place a greater
reliance on ongoing risk management activities such as monitoring,
examinations and, engineering analyses to assure safe performance of
any dam. A strong Dam Safety Program must be maintained to identify
quickly any adverse performance within Reclamation's inventory of aging
dams and to carry out necessary corrective actions when unreasonable
public risks are identified.
Reclamation's fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $60.9
million for the Safety of Dams Evaluation and Modification Program that
provides for a variety of risk management activities pertaining to
Reclamation's 362 high and significant hazard dams. Included in that
amount are preconstruction and construction activities on up to 26 dams
which may require modifications for safety reasons. Most notable are
the activities at Yakima Project, Washington, and Casitas Dam, Ventura
River Project, California, which have critical Safety of Dams issues
that require modifications of significant cost and scope.
In addition, $8.8 million is being requested to complete
modifications on Bradbury Dam in California, Reservoir A Dam in Idaho,
Pueblo Dam in Colorado, and for ongoing modifications at Horse Mesa Dam
in Arizona. Modifications on Lost Creek Dam in Utah and Twin Buttes Dam
in Texas are scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 1999 with no
additional funding anticipated for fiscal year 2000. An additional $1.6
million is included in the request for the Department of the Interior
Dam Safety Program.
It should be noted that Reclamation's fiscal year 1999 Dam Safety
Program request was reduced by $8,787,000. As a result, Reclamation had
to re-prioritize its Safety of Dams risk reduction activities in fiscal
year 1999, and shift some activities and costs into fiscal year 2000.
The reduction impaired Reclamation's ability to pursue more
aggressively the necessary risk reduction actions at its dams. Current
enacted funding and future requests will be managed to focus funding to
the most critical Safety of Dams issues presently known to Reclamation.
Funding the full fiscal year 2000 Dam Safety Program request is
necessary to avoid any delays in eliminating risk reduction efforts
needed for public safety.
Now, I would like to focus on Reclamation's fiscal year 2000 Budget
request by appropriation.
water and related resources
The amount requested for the Water and Related Resources
appropriation for fiscal year 2000, $652.8 million, is an increase of
$10 million from the fiscal year 1999 enacted level of $642.8 million.
This appropriation funds five program activities: 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 2000 Budget proposes $278.6 million for Facility
Operations and Facility Maintenance and Rehabilitation, an increase of
$15.6 million from the fiscal year 1999 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 $27.3 million for the Central Arizona Project;
$125.0 million for the Central Valley Project in California; $29.4
million for the Mni Wiconi Project and $5 million for the Mid-Dakota
Project in South Dakota; $27 million for the Garrison Project in North
Dakota; and $3 million for the Animas-La Plata Project in Colorado and
New Mexico.
The fiscal year 2000 request of $31.5 million for water recycling
includes funding for four projects that were authorized by the 104th
Congress in 1996, plus continued funding for ongoing projects. The
request includes $6.0 million for the four new starts: Calleguas
Municipal Water District Recycling, Long Beach Area Water Reclamation
and Reuse, North San Diego County Water Reclamation and Reuse, and
Orange County Regional Water Reclamation Project. In addition, funds in
the amount of $23.2 million will be used for ongoing California
projects in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Gabriel and San Jose. The
fiscal year 2000 request also includes $2.2 million for feasibility
studies and research.
The request also includes $7.3 million for Reclamation's 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 $12.4 million is requested to complete work on 2 loan
projects: Chino Basin Desalination and Temescal Valley. Work will
continue on three loan projects: Castroville Irrigation, Salinas Valley
Water Reclamation, and San Sevaine Creek, all of which are located in
California. In addition, $425,000 is requested for program
administration.
policy and administration
The $49 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 for fiscal year 2000 is $47.3 million.
These funds are focused on four primary emphases: water acquisition for
instream flows and refuges; refuge conveyance and refuge water
wheeling; land retirement; and the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program.
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.
The budget request includes a provision for the conversion of the
CVP Restoration Fund to a permanent appropriation. This action would
ensure that collections from project beneficiaries are available for
their intended purpose and would improve project planning by both
beneficiaries and managers.
california bay-delta ecosystem restoration
The fiscal year 2000 budget includes a request for $95 million to
continue Federal cost-sharing in ecosystem restoration efforts in
California's Bay-Delta. 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 2000 budget request provides details on how
Reclamation intends to use the funds, including a summary of how the
project selection process works. Participating agencies and the CALFED
staff developed in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 a program that
covers habitat acquisition and restoration, improvements to fish
screens and passage, and exotic species management. The fiscal year
2000 budget proposes $75 million to build upon the efforts begun in
1998 and continued in 1999 by monitoring prior projects, initiating,
and implementing new projects approved by CALFED and the Secretary. In
addition, $20 million is requested for non-ecosystem restoration
activities that are in accord with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, such
as water use efficiency, water quality, groundwater storage, and
watershed management.
The Administration will submit authorization language that would
extend current spending authorization through 2003 to enable the
ecosystem restoration program to be fully funded at the $430 million
authorized by the California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement Act.
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 2000
Budget request.
Truckee River Operating Agreement
Senator Domenici. I am going to let you go first, Senator
Reid, and then you, Senator Bennett.
Senator Reid. I appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Beneke, as you know the Truckee River Operating
Agreement still has a few things that need to be done, and one
item is the final environmental impact statement. I have worked
with Bill Bettenberg for a number of years, who has been
tremendously helpful in his work on this project.
Because the environmental impact statement will be funded
through the Bureau of Reclamation, I am wondering if you can
assure this subcommittee that it will be given priority in
regards to staff and funding so that we can get this done.
Ms. Beneke. Senator, you certainly do have my assurances in
this regard. We consider this to be a very important
undertaking. We very much appreciate your leadership in helping
us wend our way through the difficult issues and the important
issues presented in that River basin.
Senator Reid. I would hope also that rather than--I will
not say waste, but rather than utilize the time and money for
reeducating staff at your regional office in Denver, I would
encourage you to use as much of the local resources as you can.
I think it would add some continuity and I think in the long
run save money. If you would take a look at that, that would be
good.
Ms. Beneke. I would be happy to, Senator.
desalinization
Senator Reid. In regards to desalinization, the Bureau of
Reclamation has had some responsibility for desalinization in
the past. As you know, Senator Simon has even written a book on
the problems of water in the world. It is called ``Tapping
Out'', a very fine book that Senator Simon has recently
published.
While the Desalinization Act of 1996 has authorized up to
$5 million a year for research and studies, or $20 million, the
Bureau of Reclamation has requested less than $4 million since
1997. Why is this?
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, Senator, basically it is an
economic issue. Given the priorities and the limited resources
that we have in our budget, we have come up with a request for
these amounts of money. I fully realize that Congress has added
funding which has increased those amounts over the last 2
years, but we continue to try to put as much money as we
possibly can into that project.
Senator Reid. As indicated in Secretary Beneke's statement,
the direction of the Bureau of Reclamation has changed over the
years. There was a time when there was a construction of, I
think, some 600 dams that the Bureau of Reclamation has been
involved in, and now the concern is more with water resource
management.
That being the case, I believe the Bureau should look very
strongly at the Desalinization Act because it seems to me that
that is the wave of the future. We have to look at new places
for water, and I think one of the places that has some promise
is brackish and salty water that we have around the country.
Would you agree with that?
Mr. Martinez. I would agree with that. I think the Bureau
has a long history of working in this area. We have a desalting
plant down in Yuma.
Senator Reid. I understand that, Mr. Martinez. The problem
with that is we are doing nothing new. The technology there is
technology that was available 40 years ago.
reclamation role in desalinization
What I would like you to do--and I will not take any more
time of the subcommittee--I would like you to present to me and
to the subcommittee your view as to what the future of the
Bureau should be if you had the money that you needed in regard
to desalinization.
Mr. Martinez. I will be glad to do that.
Senator Reid. Keep in mind the words that I used.
Mr. Martinez. Correct.
Senator Reid. I have a number of other questions, Mr.
Chairman. I will submit those in writing.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator.
[The information follows:]
Desalination--Reclamation's Future Focus
introduction
Reclamation has a long tradition of commitment to desalination, and
particularly a tradition of being a leader in its development and
application. Reclamation recognized early in the 1960's and 1970's the
potential value of desalination to play a significant role in
developing and managing the water resources in the western United
States. Reclamation played a key role in testing the new desalination
technologies as they were developed in the 1960's by the DOI Office of
Saline Water, followed by the very early application on a large scale
of membrane desalination at the Yuma Desalting Plant. These early
commitments to the development and application of the desalination
technologies has continued through our support of reimbursed
involvement in desalination R&D in the Middle East, and more recently,
our commitment through Title XVI legislation to
demonstration of new membrane technologies in water recycling
applications.
It is clear that future water resource management in the western
United States will be more heavily dependent on innovative sources of
water. Although the population continues to grow, fresh water sources
remain constant. Therefore, to continue to meet the future water
demands, Reclamation must be pro-active. Water conservation, water
recycling, and desalination should all play roles in meeting future
water demands, in addition to our existing conventional water resource
capabilities.
In consideration of meeting these future water demands, in 1989
Reclamation began investigating the desalination research needs to
reduce the costs of the technologies.\1\ This effort was accomplished
through sponsorship of various workshops, seminars, and studies.\2\ \3\
\4\ \5\ \6\ \7\ \8\ In 1992, Reclamation initiated a small desalination
R&D program, using cost- sharing and human resources from the private
sector to leverage the program. Reclamation also constructed a high-
tech desalination laboratory, entitled the Water Quality Improvement
Laboratory, on the grounds of the Yuma Desalting Plant. The purpose of
this facility is to provide a testing ground for new desalination
improvements as they develop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Emerging Desalting and Water Treatment Technologies for Water
Resources Management, Bureau of Reclamation Summary Report, October 17-
19, Arizona, 1989.
\2\ Research Needs for Upgrading Sub-Standard Water Supplies,
Bureau of Reclamation Seminar Summary Report with National Water Supply
Improvement Association, International Desalination Association
Conference, Washington, D.C., 1991.
\3\ Issues Associated with Large Scale Desalination Plants, Bureau
of Reclamation Seminar Summary Report, National Water Supply
Improvement Association Biennial Conference, Newport Beach, California,
1992.
\4\ Bessler, M.B., National Desalting and Water Treatment Needs
Survey, Bureau of Reclamation, Desalination Research and Development
Program Report #2, 1993.
\5\ Buros, O.K., Desalting as an Environmentally Friendly Water
Treatment Process, Bureau of Reclamation and American Desalting
Association Workshop, Desalination Research and Development Program
Report #13, 1994.
\6\ Herbranson, L., S.H. Suemoto, Desalination Research--Current
Needs and Approaches--A U.S. Perspective, Desalination, vol. 96, no. 1-
3, p 239-248, 1996.
\7\ Martella, S., Water Reuse Research Needs Assessment Workshop,
Desalination Research and Development Program Report #19, 1996.
\8\ Buros, O.K., Research Opportunities at the Yuma Water Quality
Improvement Center, sponsored with the American Desalting Association,
Desalination Research and Development Program Report #25, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Water Desalination and Research Act of 1996 (Act) was
enacted, Reclamation developed an overall plan to meet the requisites
of the Act based upon input from the desalination community. This plan
is presently being implemented, albeit on a reduced scale as a result
of existing budgetary demands within the agency and our need to stay
within our budget allocations.
Initially, the most significant role for desalination will be
providing water resources along coastal areas, where populations are
growing most rapidly and disposal of concentrate is most
environmentally-friendly. Costs for desalinating water are continuing
to drop significantly--the most recent contract for delivery of
desalinated seawater to the City of Tampa, Florida, is $1.71/1000
gallons ($557/acre ft)--which is within the abilities for many large
communities to afford. For example, development of new water resources
in the San Diego area from conventional means is estimated to cost
$600-$700/acre ft. Using more desalinated resources along coastal areas
will also provide less pressure on existing inland water resources.
As outlined in the 1996 Act, R&D will play a significant role in
continuing to lower the cost and acceptance of desalinated water in
many communities. Our future efforts, if funding were available, would
be largely based on the Research Program Plan developed for purposes of
meeting the requisites of the Act. The following narrative outlines the
specifics of our future direction and focus.
overall program goals
--develop more cost-effective, technologically efficient, and
implementable means to desalinate water,
--increase supplies of water for environmental restoration, and other
competing needs for the limited and often overextended
supplies,
--provide additional cost effective alternatives for water managers,
regulators, and decision makers,
--increase the ability of Native American, rural communities, and
others to economically treat their only source of water to
potable standards,
--increase the ability of the United States desalting industry to
compete throughout the world, by fostering partnerships with
them to develop new and innovative technologies (patent rights
belong to the non-Federal partners for all non-Federal
applications),
--develop methods to make desalting more efficient through promotion
of dual-use facilities, in which waste energy could be applied
to desalting water,
--develop methods to ensure desalting technologies are
environmentally-friendly and when possible sustainable,
--ensure regulations are appropriate for the application by working
with regulators to fully evaluate effects of concentrate
streams, capitalizing on the recovery of by-product streams,
and
--maximize technology transfer to ensure full transfer of knowledge
and commercialization of technology.
To meet these goals, Reclamation has outlined 10 technical/emphasis
areas which comprehensively should be addressed, in order to make
desalination a more affordable tool for water resource development and
management in the future.
technical/emphasis areas
The areas to be explored are listed and described below.
A. Membrane Process Research and Development Studies
Research focuses on development of improvements in membrane
processes for brackish and seawater desalting, and/or removal of
specific contaminants. The research topics include: development of
membranes with improved properties, development of membranes with
increased resistance to chlorine, studies on adhesion of foulant
materials to membrane surfaces, studies on membrane cleaning, including
frequency and effectiveness, increase of rates of mass transfer at
membrane surfaces, studies on pretreatment, and development of improved
membrane-containing elements or stacks.
B. Thermal Process Research and Development Studies
Research focuses on development of improvements in thermally driven
desalting processes. Thermal processes are generally applied to
seawater desalting due to the high energy investment. The research
topics include: improvements and/or cost reductions in multi-stage
flash distillation, multiple effect distillation, and vapor compression
distillation; evaluation and development of methods to improve the heat
economy of thermally driven desalting processes; investigation of
methods to resolve pre- or post-treatment issues; and investigation of
methods to reduce the formation of scale and corrosion.
C. Non-Traditional, and Alternative Desalination Process Research and
Studies
Research focuses on investigation of innovative, non-traditional,
or alternative desalination techniques, including the evaluation of the
economics and thermodynamic efficiency of these processes. The ultimate
goal being the development of technologies that are much more cost
effective than conventional desalination processes. For specific remote
sites, research of alternative technologies will be considered that
significantly reduce the capital costs, and operations and maintenance
of conventional technologies. The research topics include investigation
of unique solar energy methods and applications, and development of
new, innovative alternative desalination processes.
D. Water Recycling and Reuse
Research and development studies support activities directed at
innovative methods to treat municipal, industrial, or agricultural
wastewaters. Projects also include solving specific problems related to
specific reuse facilities, in order to improve the economics of overall
operation and maintenance of existing or future facilities. Reclamation
is presently co-funding the evaluation and construction of a number of
water recycling projects through authorization under Public Law 102-
575, Title XVI. Research efforts in support of these projects will be
of particular interest. The research topics include: investigate
innovative methods to recycle and reuse municipal, agricultural, or
industrial process water or waste waters; research studies to remove
toxic substances from waste water streams, i.e., pesticides, heavy
metals, radioactive elements, etc.; enhanced membrane characteristics
for waste water treatment applications; development of low-cost
treatment methods for high nitrate well waters from farm fertilization
or livestock operations; development of tools to reduce the public's
psychological stigmas associated with the reuse of water; developing
on-line methods for detecting leakage of viruses in reuse facilities;
and developing ``leak-proof'' recycling treatment technologies.
E. Ancillary and Economic Improvements (Dual-Use Facilities, By-
Products Recovery, Cost Evaluations)
This research task area is three-fold in its direction. First, the
evaluation of opportunities to promote desalination development in
combination with new or existing power facilities, in order to create a
dual-purpose facility. Second, the evaluation of the economic and
environmental benefits of recovering the byproducts of desalting
processes. Third, the evaluation of cost to determine which desalting
process is the most economically feasible for communities under
different restrictions and localities, as well as economic sensitivity
analyses of thermal and membrane systems. The research topics include:
development of more efficient pumps, and energy recovery systems;
studies on instrumentation and control of desalination systems;
development of a method to recover commercially marketable minerals
from a desalination process concentrate stream; and evaluation of the
effect of feedwater quality and volume on a desalting plant design and
concentrate disposal cost.
F. Concentrate Issues
Research focuses on the various problems related to concentrate
disposal, and develops innovative techniques to reduce concentrate
disposal costs and impacts on the environment. The research topics
include: concentrate disposal systems development; methods to recover
by-products; salinity modeling and toxicity analysis of concentrate
discharges to the environment; and wetlands and other non-conventional
disposal methods. Additional efforts are also directed towards the
collection of concentrate disposal information that may assist in the
future development of regulations.
G. Testing of Laboratory Scale and Pilot Systems
The work involves the design, construction, and testing of pilot-
scale systems. Testing of laboratory and pilot systems is generally
done as a result of previous successful research studies conducted in
Areas A through F, above.
H. Partnerships
This work involves collaborative research efforts between
Reclamation's program and that of other water research organizations
outside the government. This provides access to new funding partners,
to organized groups that need desalination technologies, to highly
qualified research advisory boards, to the most recent research
findings, and to new networks of highly qualified researchers. Past
work has included partnerships with the American Water Works Research
Foundation, the National Water Research Institute, and two of the
National Science Foundation Engineering Research Centers.
I. Technology Transfer
Technology transfer is key to making the program a success.
Reclamation has a very ambitious technology transfer effort which
exploits electronic access of information, as well as more traditional
means of providing access to all information gained in the research
program. The Program continues to seek new innovative opportunities to
provide technology transfer to assist other researchers, private
industry, academia, municipalities, and small and Native American
communities. The technology transfer effort includes: an Internet
website, electronic access to Requests for Proposals, newsletters,
informational brochures and leaflets, free hard-copy publications of
all final research reports, videos, technical manuals, presentations at
technical conferences, yearly workshops, peer reviews, and electronic
databases.
J. Design, Construction, and Testing of Plants and Modules
(Demonstration and Development Projects)
This technical area has not been funded in the past. The Act
envisioned funding for demonstration and development to begin the third
year following the first appropriations for research and studies. The
Authorization Act requires a report to Congress in fiscal year 1999,
with recommendations on which projects to further evaluate and
implement based upon the most successful research findings from the
Program's research and studies, successful pilot plant research carried
out by others, and significant input from users and purveyors of
desalination technology. The type of work involved could include:
preliminary design studies, detailed design, construction and testing,
demonstration of by-products recovery, and economic surveys. For future
years, this area will require significant resources in order to meet
the intent of the Act.
statement of senator robert f. bennett
Senator Domenici. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to take a minute to thank both the Assistant
Secretary and the Commissioner for their assistance to our
State in the last year. Water is the most precious commodity in
the West. We used to have a saying, ``It's better to be head of
the ditch than head of the Church.'' [Laughter.]
Given the reputation we have for the power of the Church in
Utah, that is a pretty strong statement.
We have had a lot of cooperation from the Bureau of
Reclamation, and we recognize this and we want to thank you for
it. We have good people in Utah from the Bureau. My only
message to you is leave them there. Do not keep transferring
them in and out. We have had a good experience.
red butte dam
We have had to call on the Bureau for some input and
assistance, and you have always been very helpful. Most
specifically, we had to have an appraisal of the old Army dam
above Fort Douglas called Red Butte Dam. The Army insisted it
was not worth very much, and they were a little surprised when
they found out how much you thought it was worth, or more
importantly, how much you thought it would take to bring it up
to the level whereby the Army could have safely disposed of it.
We are having that fight with the Army in another subcommittee
as to where we get that money. But these are over and above
your normal activities and we are very grateful to you for your
assistance.
I am glad we were able to help OMB find religion on the
issue of Dutch John and work that out.
central utah project
Now, I want to quickly reinforce--this will come as no
surprise to anyone--what some of my priorities are. I was glad
to hear you, Ms. Beneke, talk about the Central Utah Project.
The legislative effort for that began some 40 plus years ago
with my father. I hope the project will be completed before one
of my grandchildren is elected to the Senate. [Laughter.]
salinity control program
If we can get that one moving along.
I want to put the Bureau on notice that I recognize that we
will eventually have to raise the funding level on the salinity
control program. When that time comes, I will introduce
legislation to do so, and I hope that the chairman and other
members of this committee will join me.
title xvi water reuse program
I remain committed to the title 16 water reuse program. I
will work with the committee to ensure that it is properly and
adequately funded this year. I know we had a little
disagreement last year over the interpretations of the formula
with respect to the Tooele Project. I am glad we were able to
work that out.
Now, I also look forward to providing some additional
funding to a very interesting project that is ongoing near St.
George where the Bureau, the USGS, and the Water Conservancy
District are conducting a study on water recharge in the Navajo
sandstone.
So, those are all of my parochial items, and I have to get
them on the record.
lake powell draining
Now, I do want to make one other comment which affects not
only my State but those from neighboring States. I am sure
Senator Reid of Nevada has a number of constituents who are
involved with Lake Powell. Senator Craig has indicated that he
has vacationed at Lake Powell.
And I hope the administration will hold firm in its
position that the Sierra Club's idea of draining Lake Powell is
absurd. I almost hesitated to raise it today lest I give the
proposal validity. But I understand that the Sierra Club and
others in the environmental community have now pegged this as
their number one fund raising activity. They have raised
millions of dollars trying to tell us how to handle Utah
wilderness, and now they want to raise millions more telling us
to get rid of the dam at Lake Powell.
I will just share with you this experience that I had over
the weekend. I found myself in an airport, not an unusual
situation for Senators, and my flight was delayed, which is
also not an unusual situation for Senators. I picked up one of
the free newspapers that was sitting there called the Earth
Times in order to have something to read while I waited for the
equipment to show up.
There was a lead editorial that caught my eye, and it was
attacking the Green Party in Germany. I thought this is a
little unusual for the Earth Times to be attacking the Green
Party. The burden of the editorial was that the Green Party
was, in fact, going to add to pollution and to upset the Kyoto
Accords because they were demanding the dismantling of all of
the nuclear plants in Europe. And the editorial said that may
be well and good because we all hate nuclear plants, but if you
dismantle all the nuclear plants, you are going to have to
replace the power somewhere and it will be coal-fired plants
that will upset the Kyoto Accords. Therefore, we ought to
swallow hard and leave the available source of power in place.
You know, that applies to Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell,
because it currently supplies recreation to 3 million visitors
and power to half a million homes. I remember during the debate
when the dam was being built, the Sierra Club came in and
opposed it. Ultimately they made a deal to accept it, which
they now say is one of their biggest mistakes. But their
argument was that that power was not needed. They said, we have
got plenty of energy in this country. The time will never, ever
come when we have an energy shortage, and to build a dam to
provide excess energy at a time when we have too much is really
foolish. But if the time should ever come, if in fact we should
ever need that energy, clearly we do not need to build the dam
because there at Kaparowitz there is plenty of coal and we
could burn all the coal in Kaparowitz to provide the power and
not have to worry about the dam. Now, everybody who knows
anything about environmental issues in Utah knows how
enthusiastic the Sierra Club now is about burning coal at
Kaparowitz.
So, taking a cue from the lead editorial in the Earth
Times, I tell you leave the dam in place, provide the power,
and let the 3 million visitors continue to enjoy their
experience in southern Utah.
I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator Bennett.
Senator Craig?
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I had the privilege of visiting with these folks last week
before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and it was
at that time, Mr. Chairman, that we discussed issues pertinent
to their budget and to my State of Idaho. So, with that, what I
had said last week I will just simply underline this week as
being important to our State, especially the Fremont-Madison
Irrigation District exchange that is coming on board now as an
opportunity, certainly along with what we are doing and what
the Bureau of Reclamation is doing in cooperation with all the
other agencies in the Snake-Columbia system to find additional
waters for the purposes of fish mitigation in the Snake and
Columbia system.
All I can say is proceed with caution. Do not dewater the
State of Idaho. We spent the last 100 years cooperating with
the Bureau of Reclamation and others to build water facilities
in our State to make it bloom. We are not about to start
dewatering the State and return it to a desert environment.
And, yes, I enjoy Lake Powell. [Laughter.]
Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Domenici. Are you finished?
Senator Craig. I am.
Senator Domenici. Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I also had an opportunity last week to visit briefly with
the Commissioner and the Secretary on a number of issues.
Let me just ask a couple of brief questions, if I might.
I regret I was delayed. I had a group in my office that I
could not escape from. I have read your testimony and
appreciate all that you do.
dakota resources act
As you know, one of the issues that we will deal with this
year is the change in the authorization of Dakota Water
Resources Act. You have included an amount of money in this
year's budget, I believe $27 million for the Garrison project,
under the Dakota Water Resources Act. We face the problem that
many States out in our region face, of water development needs
that are quite critical.
Let me just show you a couple of samples of water that I
thought you would find interesting. This is from Keith and Ann
Anderson's house in Scranton, North Dakota. This looks like the
coffee that Senator Domenici drinks in the morning. Maybe yours
is stronger than this.
Senator Domenici. Yes.
Senator Dorgan. And this is Leonard Jacobs' farm water.
This is from Reeder, North Dakota, just south of where I grew
up.
Senator Reid. A lot of iron in that water.
Senator Dorgan. Well, there is a lot of something in that
water.
Senator Domenici. That is potable water?
Senator Dorgan. That is the water they used to have on
their farm.
Now, that has changed, and here is what Leonard Jacobs has
now, and it comes, as the Secretary and Commissioner know,
because the Southwest Pipeline, which came through the
appropriation of these water projects, has transferred this
kind of water to these farmsteads in southwestern North Dakota.
Senator Reid. You could not drink that, could you?
Senator Dorgan. Well, I could not.
Senator Bennett. Maybe with a blindfold.
Senator Dorgan. But the fact is we have a lot of
communities with very unhealthy water, and that is one of the
advantages of being able to move water from the Missouri River
behind the dam through the State into areas that have terrible
water quality, refreshing that opportunity with good quality
water.
I just wanted to show you the results of what we are doing
together and to ask you your assessment of our ability to work
together on this reauthorization this year because that is the
key to future funding. Can you just give me a comment on that?
Ms. Beneke. Well, Senator, as we have discussed in the
past, we are committed to working with you on this important
project. I have a real appreciation for what it means to your
home State. I actually hail from the central part of the
country myself and am familiar with rural communities. I also
got to drink my share of well water when growing up. So, I do
have an appreciation for what it means. And we very much want
to work with you this year.
mr&i needs of indian tribes
Senator Dorgan. One of the other issues that is a problem
for us is the funding priorities that were outlined in the 1986
Reformulation Act was meeting the MR&I needs of the Indian
tribes. The tribes have reached their funding ceilings which
has been a problem, and we are trying to identify additional
resources for them. I mentioned some of these farmsteads and
the critical water needs, but you are well aware, I know, of
the needs on the Indian reservations. And I hope that we could
work with you, Madam Secretary, and also the Commissioner on
those issues.
red river vally water needs studies
One final question. The Bureau of Reclamation has been
studying the water development and management needs of the Red
River Valley now for the past year. Can you give us the status
of those studies, tell us where you are, and what we might
expect?
Mr. Martinez. I do not have that information in front of
me, but I understand two of the studies are complete. The third
study is ongoing. One was a needs assessment study, and the
other one is on the particular projects that might deliver the
water that is needed. I will get that answer for the record.
Senator Dorgan. I appreciate that, and I hope you can
continue to make that a top priority, because the results of
those studies will help us on this reformulation prospect and
the timing is very important.
Mr. Martinez. Yes, Mr. Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Let me again, Mr. Chairman, thank the
Secretary and the Commissioner. You work in a tough area with
unlimited wants and limited resources, and I appreciate the
work you do. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
Red River Valley Water Need Studies
The Phase IA Needs Assessment has been completed and the Phase IB
Instream Flow report will be finalized by the end of March 1999.
Reclamation has been working closely with State and local interests to
obtain their views and recommendations.
Reclamation's work is coordinated with a steering committee, which
is comprised of representatives of the North Dakota State Water
Commission, North Dakota State Health Department, the Garrison
Diversion Conservancy District, Fargo, Grand Forks, Moorehead, rural
water systems, and the environmental community.
Initial alternatives to meet the municipal, rural, and industrial
water needs of the Red River Valley have been formulated. A working
draft of the Phase 2 (Alternatives Analysis) report was forwarded to
the Steering Committee prior to our March 30 meeting. It is expected
that more meetings may be needed to assure that the views and interests
of the State and local interests are fully considered prior to
distribution of the public review draft.
safety of dams
Senator Domenici. Let me ask a couple general questions
first. Commissioner, you indicated that one of your big
responsibilities is to see to it that the structures that you
manage and supervise are safe.
Mr. Martinez. That is correct.
Senator Domenici. Now, if I were to say to you, give us
proof that they are safe, what would you give us?
Mr. Martinez. When I became Commissioner of Reclamation, I
was concerned about our Dam Safety Program and the safety of
our structures, and I empaneled five experts from outside the
Bureau of Reclamation to review our program and our facilities.
The report was quite favorable. I have implemented quite a few
of their recommendations.
Senator Domenici. So, since we would like very much never
to be shocked by having a dam failure--and we have you up here
every year to talk with us--what could you give us for the
record indicating that? Could you put some things in the record
here within the next couple of weeks indicating why the
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation says it has
safe structures and is doing what they ought to do?
Mr. Martinez. Well, yes, I can, but I will not sit up here
and say that I do not guarantee that----
Senator Domenici. Oh, no, no.
Mr. Martinez [continuing]. We might not lose a structure
some day because of an earthquake and so forth. But I think
that we have a very effective program and will continue to put
our resources in that program with your assistance. And I will
provide that information to you.
Senator Domenici. Would you, please? I just mean that I
think we have a responsibility as an oversight entity to get
this information in the record so that we are going along with
you in that regard.
[The information follows:]
Dam Safety Program
Reclamation cannot guarantee that there will be no dam failures.
However, Reclamation diligently strives to have a strong Dam Safety
Program to manage the risks associated with dams in order to keep that
chance of dam failure as low as reasonably possible.
In 1997, the Commissioner tasked an independent team of dam safety
professionals to review Reclamation's dam safety practices to identify
best practices already in place and to make recommendations for
improvements. The peer review concluded that Reclamation has a strong
dam safety program and made recommendations for further improvements.
Thirty-three peer review findings have already been addressed. The
twelve remaining findings are under review and scheduled to be
addressed during 1999.
Program improvements that have been implemented as a result of the
peer review findings and Reclamation's own internal initiatives that
received peer review endorsement include:
1. The appointment of a Dam Safety Officer to provide independent
advisory and guidance for achieving program vigilance.
2. The procurement of a standing review board of independent dam
safety consultants to review program practices that have occurred on
individual dams.
3. Annual dam safety meetings to review dam safety issues and
actions on each dam with Reclamation management.
4. The updating of Emergency Action Plans for each dam and
exercising the plans with downstream communities.
5. Enhancements to the facility review, performance monitoring, and
engineering analysis activities in order to more reliably identify and
manage dam safety issues.
The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes these program
improvements intended to continue a strong Dam Safety Program. The
fiscal year 2000 budget request also includes funding for modifications
to reduce the risk of dam failure on dams having identified critical
dam safety issues; such as Keechelus Dam, Yakima Project, Washington;
and Casitas Dam, Ventura River Project, California which require
modifications of significant cost and scope.
In order to continue to fund Safety of Dams modifications in the
future, additional legislation will be needed to increase the
authorization ceiling provided under the 1984 Safety of Dams Act
Amendment. Current estimates indicate that sufficient ceiling remains
to fund necessary modifications and associated ongoing commitments
represented by the fiscal year 2000 request. However, projections
indicate that the total cost for new modifications identified for
fiscal year 2001 could begin to exhaust the remaining ceiling.
drought assistance
Senator Domenici. Now, let me change to a situation that is
evolving in the Southwest, but is almost upon us in New Mexico.
The dread word of ``drought'' is just--all you have to do is
fly into New Mexico and you think you are approaching the
desert, although we are not a desert State. Drought is the kind
of disaster that is very difficult for the people, because it
does not occur overnight. It sort of creeps upon you, and it is
creeping upon our State. I do not know if it is on others too.
What are you doing with reference to the drought, for
drought for a State like ours which has very little water?
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, if you recall in 1996, through
your assistance, we had some funding to work under our drought
assistance program. Since then we have been working with the
southwestern States to help in their water planning process. As
a matter of fact, we have given the State of New Mexico two
grants. They have put in place a planning process on how to
respond to drought. So, we have been working in that area.
You are correct that we expect droughts in the American
Southwest this summer. Our budget will reflect a request for
drought money. This budget was put together before conditions
that came up this year. We have, I believe, about $100,000 left
in our budget from prior appropriations. I understand I have
some reprogramming authority, but the requests that are being
made today are probably going to exceed our ability to respond
if we do have a drought situation in the American Southwest
this year.
Senator Domenici. Before we mark up our bill, I wonder if
it would be possible for you to gather up the resources through
your information and some statements to us with reference to
what kind of authority you might need and what kind of changes
that might occur. Could you do that for us?
Mr. Martinez. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think the authority is
in place. What we would need would be the financial resources.
Senator Domenici. All right, and can you give us some idea
later what that might be?
Mr. Martinez. I will provide that for the record.
Senator Domenici. I appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
Drought Funding
Reclamation is currently experiencing drought conditions in several
of its Southwestern states mostly due to below normal rainfall. While
some areas are less severe than others, there is a real need to provide
emergency assistance and relief. In the past, up to $30 million has
been appropriated to the Bureau for drought emergency assistance. In
fiscal year 1999 carryover funds of $673,754 will be insufficient to
provide the necessary drought relief to the Southwest. The fiscal year
2000 President's budget includes $500,000 for the Drought Emergency
Assistance program. However, we would like to work with the Committees
to discuss funding levels that would be needed to address the drought
emergency situations that now exist and those that are developing.
desalinization
Senator Domenici. With reference to desalinization, I am
fully aware that Senator Simon got an authorization bill
through and a little bit of money, but I think what has
happened to desalinization is that it is spread all over, even
though it is a very small program. I am just wondering if it is
not exclusively the Department of the Interior's mission. Is
there some way to focus the money, and if the Bureau of
Reclamation is the right place to do that. Would you have any
thoughts on that, Patty?
Ms. Beneke. Senator, I think that we should take a look at
the program. We, of course, want to make sure that we are
getting the maximum benefit for every research dollar we put
into it. Reclamation does have a lot of expertise in this area,
and I guess my off-the-cuff reaction would be that it is an
appropriate place for the program to be lodged. But we would be
happy to work with the subcommittee and incorporate any ideas
you might have regarding how we can----
Senator Reid. Would the chairman yield? Also, I have asked
Commissioner Martinez to submit to us his view as to what
should happen to the program. Also, if you would, give us an
idea of what is happening with desalinization any place else in
Government. I think it is something we need to take a look at.
On a mini-level, it is kind of like global warming. We have a
lot of people doing a little bit of nothing, and we need to
gather them all together, and maybe one organization can do
more than spread out the way it has been.
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to that. I
think the research in this particular area is very crucial,
especially in New Mexico. We have large groundwater aquifers
that have impaired water quality. The issue is the economic
cost of treating that water, and I think that in the future
that has great promise.
I would agree that there are probably programs across the
Federal Government that could be consolidated and made more
efficient.
Senator Reid. You will let us know.
Mr. Martinez. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. So, now we understand, based on Senator
Reid's inquiry, Madam Secretary, you are going to go through
the Government and break out for us where any desalinization
research money is. Is that correct?
Ms. Beneke. Yes. We will do our best to make a review of
that.
Senator Domenici. And if you need our help, we would be
glad to ask the Director of OMB to do that with you if you
want. You can do it on your own. If you need our help, we will
ask him.
Ms. Beneke. Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici. I concur that with water shortages in the
Southwest, it is rather dismal that the research has still not
made a major breakthrough for our country. We have not funded
it well enough, and if we put some our talented people on it,
we are going to find some way to fix this, I am sure.
[The information follows:]
Desalination Funding in the Federal Government
introduction
The Bureau of Reclamation has a major role among the federal
agencies in desalination research, development, and demonstration.
Other agencies use and adapt the technologies to meet their missions.
Many years ago it was recognized that a potential existed within the
federal government for duplication of this effort. As a result, the
Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research,
Development, and Engineering Center created the Interagency Consortium
for Desalination and Membrane Separation Research in 1992.\1\ Since
that time, the Consortium has met yearly to discuss individual projects
being carried out by the agencies and the future directions of their
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bagwell, T.H., M.K. Price, The Interagency Consortium for
Desalination and Membrane Separation Research, Desalination, vol.99,
no.2-3, p 195-199, 1994.
Price, M.K., The Various Programs in Membrane Water Treatment
Research Provide and Insight to Areas Where Further Innovation is
Needed, The 1996 Fourteenth Annual Membrane Technology/Separations
Planning Conference, Business Communications Co., Inc., Newton, MA,
1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Consortium members work together to establish a communications
network that has the following benefits:
--Prevent federal duplication of efforts,
--Pool limited federal research funding and other resources to obtain
common goals,
--Identify future research needs, and
--Allow for discussion of new technologies with other experts in the
field.
Within the past year, the Army has worked with Reclamation and the
Navy in its' procurement of new technologies. Reclamation has assisted
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the selection
of proposals for their Advanced Technology Program. NIST also designed
their membrane research program not to overlap with Reclamation and
specifically excluded water treatment applications. The other agencies
have provided advice and information to Reclamation to assist in the
formulation and management of the Desalination Research and Development
Program.
desalination funding in federal government agencies
The table below indicates the level of funding for desalination
technologies within the federal government. The information in the
table is based on a recent telephone survey of agency program offices.
Several themes became evident as this information was collected. First,
the military is spending the most money. Second, the work being done in
the other agencies is very mission specific. For instance, the Army's
mission is to provide safe drinking water for troops in the field. This
is done by using commercial desalting technologies and making them
deployable, light weight, mobile, self-powered, rugged, and able to
treat all waters. The Navy is responsible for providing shipboard water
and wastewater treatment starting with commercially available
technologies. The EPA develops regulations and they generally test and
demonstrate technologies related to the enforcement of the regulations.
This also involves testing commercial products. Currently, they are
doing no desalination work. The Department of Energy's laboratories are
looking at environmental remediation and waste management technologies.
Their work is related but not directly supportive of desalination
technologies. The one agency that could have a large impact on the
sustainability of advanced water treatment, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, has no funding to combine desalination with renewable
energy at this time. A third theme came from several of the agencies.
They look to Reclamation's program for development of desalination
innovations, since the other agencies' work consists of engineering
modifications to commercially available desalination products. Fourth,
the cost of developing new desalination technologies does not come
cheaply. For instance, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is
funding three projects to develop a handheld desalination device. Each
of these contracts cost $500,000.
summary
While many federal agencies outside the Defense Department apply
desalting technologies in carrying out their missions, they are
dependent upon what is available commercially. Reclamation's
desalination research and development program is the only federal
program devoted to reducing the costs of desalination through research,
studies, development, and demonstration. Reclamation's program benefits
not only the federal agencies in carrying out their mission, but also
the public who need additional supplies of clean water.
DESALINATION FUNDING BY FEDERAL AGENCY IN FISCAL YEAR 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Agency 1999 desal Example projects
funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense:
Army \2\..................... $370,000 SIBR contract for
handheld desal
device.
1,100,000 Lightweight tactical
water purification
system development
125 gallon per hour.
120,000 Parts/support for
older desal systems.
1,800,000 Complete development
of 1,200 gallon per
hour tactical water
purification system.
900,000 Cost reduction
studies of existing
desal systems.
1,500,000 Work with Navy on new
desal and wastewater
treatment and reuse
systems.
Corps of Engineers \3\....... .............. .....................
Defense Advanced Research 1,500,000 Three contracts for
Projects Agency \2\. handheld desal
devices under
mesoscopic
equipment.
Navy--Marine Corps \4\....... .............. Do support work for
Army.
Navy--ships \5\.............. \6\ 1,000,000 Application of
current technologies
to shipboard use.
Commerce:
Advanced Technology Program .............. Specifically excludes
\7\. water research.
U.S./Israel Science and ( \6\ ) Past work has
Technology Commission \8\. included $3,000,000
for Enhanced
Seawater Desal,
project complete.
EPA \9\.......................... .............. .....................
Energy:
Argonne \10\................. .............. .....................
Livermore \11\............... .............. Past work has
included capacitive
deionization desal
research.
Nat Renewable Energy Lab \12\ .............. .....................
Interior:
USGS \13\.................... .............. Use commercially
available products.
National Park Service \14\... .............. Use commercially
available products.
BOR.............................. 2,360,000 .....................
CDC and NIH \15\................. .............. Use commercially
available products.
NASA \16\........................ .............. .....................
----------------
TOTAL...................... 10,650,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Personal communication with Jay Dusenbury, TARDEC, Army, Michigan.
\3\ Personal communication with Steve Maloney, Corps of Engineers,
Illinois.
\4\ Personal communication with Mark Silbernagel, Naval Facilities
Engineering Service Center, California.
\5\ Personal communication with Ivan Caplan, Naval Surface Warfare
Center.
\6\ Estimate.
\7\ Personal communication with John Pellegrino, NIST, Colorado.
\8\ Personal communication with Duane Lee, Parsons Engineering, working
under contract to Commerce.
\9\ Personal communication with Steve Clark, EPA Washington; Jeff Adams
EPA Drinking Water Research, Ohio; Tom Sorg, Marc Parrotta, and Bob
Bartian.
\10\ Personal communication with James Frank, Argonne National
Laboratory.
\11\ Personal communication with Jeff Richardson, Livermore National
Laboratory.
\12\ Personal communication with John Anderson, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory.
\13\ Personal communication with Yousif Kharaka, USGS, California.
\14\ Personal communication with Craig Patterson, NPS, Colorado.
\15\ Personal communication with Anita Highsmith, consultant, previously
with NIH, Georgia.
\16\ Waiting for response from NASA.
san juan river project
Senator Domenici. I'm going to go through five or six New
Mexico projects quickly. The San Juan River-Gallup, Mount
Taylor pipelines which are trying to bring water to Navajo
country and to the City of Gallup. We have been funding the
proposed San Juan River project for quite some time,
Commissioner.
Mr. Martinez. That is correct.
Senator Domenici. They are back before us--the Navajo
Nation is and the City of Gallup--asking for some additional
funding. I guess they have a new idea. The new approach is
different than the one we funded 10 years ago and we did not
get anywhere. I am very concerned. I am wondering what your
thoughts would be about us having the Navajo Nation and the
City of Gallup and the Bureau of Reclamation enter into an
agreement that would say what we are doing and what the parties
will do in the event it becomes feasible. I am kind of
concerned that people change this plan so much. It seems like
all we are doing is funding planning, and now we have yet
another plan. So, could you comment on that?
Mr. Martinez. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My briefing also indicates
that this has been being planned since the 1970's.
Senator Domenici. You got it.
Mr. Martinez. I commit to you to personally get involved in
this issue and put together a proposal for you that will make
some sense as to where we head in the future.
Senator Domenici. Well, I want you to know that I intend to
write a letter--and I will send a copy of it to you--to both
the entities in New Mexico suggesting that I do not think we
ought to fund it anymore, unless we have an agreement up front
as to what we are trying to do.
Mr. Martinez. That is correct.
Senator Domenici. And they would then agree to be bound by
it. I just cannot see some more money unless that is going to
happen.
indian water settlements
Let me talk a minute generally about Indian water
settlements. This is one of the potential jobs you have in the
future that could get very big to be an integral part of the
Indian water settlements, if they occur. Is that correct?
Mr. Martinez. Yes. We are engaged in providing technical
support to the Federal negotiating committees, as well as
building some projects as a result of water rights settlement
acts enacted by Congress. And I see a role for the Bureau of
Reclamation in this area.
Senator Domenici. We have a Taos Indian settlement brewing.
Could you just give us a brief update on that?
Mr. Martinez. Yes. We are involved. We had a $2 million
appropriation in this year's budget under the Upper Rio Grande
project for the Bureau of Reclamation that will be used for
drilling some wells. I am advised that the project sponsors
might be looking for some additional resources to do some
modeling studies that result from the information gained from
drilling these wells.
bay-delta ecosystem funding
Senator Domenici. It has been hinted that the role of the
Bureau of Reclamation is changing rather dramatically. I think
that is the understatement of the world. If the Bureau of
Reclamation was doing what it has always done, its budget would
be a much smaller this year. But you have been assigned some
new responsibilities. As a consequence, I believe we have some
pretty serious oversight responsibilities with reference to
that new role. You are now doing very large environmental
projects and wetlands projects, which I have no objection to at
all, but I want to go through a few of these very quickly, if I
could.
What is the total level of funding being requested by the
Bureau for the ecosystem related activities in the Bay-Delta
region? How much is being requested for other agencies within
the Department of the Interior and Government-wide for these
type of activities? And could you provide us with a crosswalk
for the record which shows the 2000 funding requests for
ecosystem related work in the Bay-Delta by agency?
Ms. Beneke. We can certainly provide the crosswalk for you,
Mr. Chairman. The total request for the ecosystem restoration
program in the Bay-Delta is $75 million, which is the same
amount as was actually appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
Senator Domenici. And you will tell us how much is
elsewhere in Government, if you can.
Ms. Beneke. Yes. I can do that. The California Bay-Delta
Environmental Enhancement Act that was passed by Congress--I
think it was late 1996--authorized the Secretary of the
Interior to select projects for this purpose. So, the program
is lodged within the Interior Department at this time and the
Bureau of Reclamation.
[The information follows:]
Bay-Delta Funding by Agency
Fiscal year 2000 funding for ecosystem related work in the Bay-
Delta by agency has not been determined by CALFED at this time. Funding
provided to the Bureau of Reclamation for activities in support of the
CALFED/Bay-Delta program include three accounts as follows:
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.............................. $117,192,000
California Bay-Delta Ecosystem...................... 75,000,000
Water and Related Resources......................... 16,317,000
CVP Restoration Fund................................ 32,246,000
The CALFED Bay-Delta programs builds on numerous Federal and State
programs addressing water management, conservation and water quality,
as well as aquatic species and habitat conservation. Other Department
of the Interior agencies supporting the CALFED effort are the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. In addition to
their routine operation of refuges and habitat management, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service requested $2.1 million in fiscal year 2000 to
provide technical assistance for activities supporting the conservation
and recovery of migratory birds, sensitive, threatened and endangered
species, and other trust species in the Bay-Delta watershed. They also
participate in the CALFED program for habitat restoration in areas such
as planning, assistance, review, and permitting and implementation. The
U.S. Geological Survey request includes an estimated $3.5 million for a
variety of studies covering water resources, wetlands, contaminants and
salinity, and biological research that will contribute to solutions to
the problems in the Bay-Delta.
Agencies outside of the Department of the Interior provide CALFED/
Bay-Delta support as follows: The Environmental Protection Agency
anticipates that significant funding in Clean Water Act and Safe
Drinking Water Act program grants provided to California could be used
for the water quality portion of this program. They are currently
involved in the development of wetlands and drainage management
projects throughout the Delta and its tributaries. The Natural
Resources Conservation Service plans to provide funds to Resource
Conservation Districts for riparian, watershed, agriculture water run-
off, and other ecosystem restoration activities in the Delta. The
National Marine Fisheries Service requested $1.4 million in their
appropriation to support a number of relatively small ecosystem related
studies in the Delta. And the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers anticipates
funding approximately $12.4 million in fiscal year 2000 for ecosystem
restoration projects along the Sacramento River that include levee
rehabilitation, flood control projects, and restoration of seasonal and
permanent wetlands.
calfed appropriations and expenditures
Senator Domenici. Now, let us move on to CALFED for a
moment. Now, of the $160 million appropriated to date for
CALFED, how much has been obligated and expended?
Ms. Beneke. Well, in fiscal year 1998, there was $85
million appropriated. Of the $85 million, all of it has been
allocated to either programs or projects. $73 million has been
obligated.
Senator Domenici. How much?
Ms. Beneke. $73 million.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Ms. Beneke. By that I mean that it is either under contract
with a third party or under an agreement with another agency to
implement a program or projects.
For fiscal year 1999, $75 million was appropriated. $64
million of this has been allocated to projects or programs. We
go through a fairly extensive project selection process, a
public process. There is stakeholder participation. There is an
integration panel that reviews these projects to make certain
that they are consistent and coordinated with our other
authorities and spending. There are technical screens that are
undertaken, and then the Secretary approves the projects.
At any rate, $75 million was appropriated, and $64 million
has been allocated to projects or programs. None of this has
yet been obligated, but we are working on our interagency
agreements and on our contracts as we speak, and we feel fully
confident that it will be obligated by the end of the fiscal
year.
The expenditure rate is much lower, but I would encourage
the subcommittee to focus on our obligation rate.
There are some reasons that our expenditures are lower, Mr.
Chairman. For one thing, most of these projects are done on a
3- to 5-year contract basis and we do not prepay the contracts.
So, we do not expend the money as quickly as we otherwise
might.
In addition, CALFED typically has the funding for the
entire project in place before the project starts. We have all
the money up front before we engage in our 3- to 5-year time
horizon for these projects.
At any rate, the current amount that has actually been
expended to date is $6.4 million of our 1998 appropriations.
But again, I would hope that the subcommittee would be looking
more closely at our obligation rate.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, if I could just interrupt, and
I apologize. I would like to apologize to Dr. Westphal and
Lieutenant General Ballard for not being able to be present
during their testimony. I indicated to you earlier that I would
like to submit my questions in writing on the Corps of
Engineers, and with your permission, I will do that.
Senator Domenici. It will be done.
calfed expenditures
I am sorry to keep going, but some of these have to be
asked.
Would you state the amount of expenditures out of this $160
million appropriated again please?
Ms. Beneke. To date it is $6.4 million, sir.
Senator Domenici. $6.4 million.
And you suggest that we should not be concerned about that
low level of expenditure?
Ms. Beneke. Well, I am suggesting that there are some good
reasons for it. The first fiscal year that we received
appropriated funds for this project was 1998, and there was
some start-up time associated with getting our project
selection process in place. As a manager I think that taking
some time to get this process in place and do it right was the
prudent thing to do. We are talking about large sums of money.
We want to be very responsible about how we administer them.
So, again, we do not prepay our contracts. There was start-
up time associated with getting this program underway. We have
it up and running now. We think it is running smoothly. Again,
I would encourage the subcommittee to focus more on our rate of
obligation rather than the actual dollars that have gone out
the door.
Senator Domenici. Well, I just want to give you my version.
Frankly, we have a very tight budget in every area. The
chairman of the Appropriations Committee has been greatly
concerned--he is sitting here--whether we have enough money to
allocate among the subcommittees to get our job done this year.
When you have $160 million obligated to a program that was
declared to be somewhat of an emergency, a very high priority
and you have spent $6.4 million, it seems to me we have picked
out a program in government to advance fund in a very different
way than we do many other things: just put $160 million out
there and say whenever you get ready to use it, you use it. I
would almost think that sooner or later we are going to ask you
to give us a schedule of what is it you are going to use this
for. If we are just out there fishing around for projects, then
we have just opened a door to projects that nobody else gets in
this country. Other projects do not get that opportunity.
Ms. Beneke. Well, I appreciate the concern that you are
raising, sir, but I do want to assure you that the projects
have been selected. We have 171 projects that have been funded
either through these funds or in cooperation with the State or
other non-Federal partners. There are specific projects
selected, specific projects that are underway, specific
projects that have been contracted for, and we think that they
are very important to the overall progress that we can make in
this program.
Senator Domenici. Does the new Governor of California
support the ecosystem restoration activities as currently
structured and the non-ecosystem components proposed for the
2000 budget, including water supply, storage, and conveyance?
Ms. Beneke. We have been working very closely with Governor
Gray Davis and his new team. Last year, Secretary Babbitt made
a personal commitment to making progress on this program. We
had partnered very closely with Governor Wilson. We feel fully
confident that Gray Davis and his team are supportive of this
request, and we will continue our good partnership with the
State of California.
Senator Domenici. The answer, however, is they do not yet
do that. They are not yet supporting it.
Ms. Beneke. Oh, no. I am confident that they do support it,
sir.
bureauwide operation and maintenance costs
Senator Domenici. I just have three more. The conference
report on the 1998 energy and water appropriations bill asked
the Bureau to prepare a report on the operation and maintenance
costs of its projects. The committee requested the report
because of expressed concerns related to how the O&M costs were
being allocated by these projects, the declining level of
operation and maintenance funding for traditional water supply
and distribution related work, concerns that Reclamation's
overhead expenses may be excessive, and the lack of opportunity
of stakeholders to have input into the formulation of the
budget recommendations. The report was completed and provided
to the Committee last September, for which we are grateful.
stakeholders' input into budget priorities
What has the Bureau done to afford the stakeholders an
opportunity to have input into the budget needs and priorities
since you gave us that report? Can the Bureau benefit from this
increased openness? Do you expect to learn new ways and
approaches that could improve efficiency and thereby reduce O&M
costs?
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, I have put out a memorandum, a
letter, a directive to our regional directors and area managers
to engage our customers in the budget formulation process and
how we do our O&M. We have been doing some of that across the
West, but not in all places. I would expect that we would
improve both in how we do our work and how much it takes to do
our work.
staffing levels for o&m activities
Senator Domenici. Well, let me just have one last word in
that regard and give you an example. The O&M cost report
indicates that the Bureau of Reclamation is continuing efforts
to control costs by reducing staffing. However, the Family Farm
Alliance has provided information indicating that the San Luis
and Delta-Mendoto Water Authority was able to accomplish
operation and maintenance work with 85 regular full-time
employees compared to 120 Reclamation employees.
Does Reclamation have procedures to periodically review and
assess manpower being used to accomplish O&M activities, and
have you reviewed situations like this one that I have just
talked about?
Mr. Martinez. I have not personally reviewed any of those,
but given the constraints on our budget, we review our needs
and our resources. There are some places we could probably
improve. In particular, I draw to your attention the concerns
raised by the irrigation district where we met with them on a
one-to-one basis and reduced costs.
I think there is room for improvement. We operate, I
believe, 89 major projects across the West. Some of them are
probably doing a good job. Some places, I think, we could stand
some improvement, and we are moving in that direction.
Senator Domenici. That is all the questions I had.
The two Senators who arrived, do you want to question the
Bureau or were you here for the Corps? Go ahead, Senator Burns.
statement of senator burns
Senator Burns. Thank you very much.
How are the kids? Are the kids all right?
Ms. Beneke. Fine, thank you, sir.
Senator Burns. I have to ask her that every time I see her.
I thank you for coming today and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
just have a couple of questions and I have a statement, if I
may be allowed to put it in the record.
Senator Domenici. The questions will be made part of the
record.
Senator Burns. I am concerned about the $161 million and
you have only allocated about $6.4 million. Yet, I understand
we are experiencing some cost overruns in some of my State. You
have shifted those costs to the water users, the farmers and
ranchers in those areas, and I am concerned about that.
yellowstone river flooding conditions
This past weekend I was up in Yellowstone Park, and we were
up in the mountains. We have got a lot of snow this year. Now,
that only means one thing: It has all got to come down and it
is very fluid. Of course, the lower Yellowstone River is my
concern again. We went through this process before at
Yellowtail Dam, and I would just like to hear your comments on
steps that should be taken now on the inventory. I know it
could all come at once or it could come all summer. We cannot
control the weather end of this thing, but I am just wondering,
are there any plans being made right now to deal with the
snowpack?
It is a wonderful problem. New Mexico is in a drought. I
wish I could ship some water to Senator Domenici.
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, Senator, we have starkly varied
conditions across the West. On the Pecos River in New Mexico,
we have 18 percent of normal water flow projected for this
year, while in the Pacific Northwest and other places we have
over 250 percent.
However, our flood operations are in full gear in those
areas where we expect a runoff to make sure that we do
everything to minimize a flooding potential. So, we have
learned from past experiences and hopefully we will do a better
job as we move along.
Senator Burns. I am really concerned about this, because I
will tell you we went through that flood a few years ago, and
it was just the result of water management out of Yellowtail
Dam. At the high time when it was coming down to Yellowstone,
you made a big release out of Yellowtail on the Big Horn River.
That flows into the Yellowstone River. I will tell you right
now if it looks like that we have not really managed that water
and we have similar flooding this year, there is going to be a
bounty on you because it will be a sorry situation.
reclamation grazing permits
Now, another question. I am getting a little confused about
the Bureau's main purpose here. I see you are dealing with
grazing permits now?
Mr. Martinez. Well, we have lands that were withdrawn from
Bureau of Reclamation projects across the West. On some of
those lands, we do have grazing leases and manage our lands.
Senator Burns. Does that not traditionally fall into BLM? I
do not think you folks are range managers.
Mr. Martinez. And I would agree with you.
Senator Burns. Well, then do something about it. Give it
back to the BLM or something.
Mr. Martinez. I will look into that.
Senator Burns. Yes, just do that.
glendive, montana
Mr. Commissioner, we have some projects in Montana that are
paid off and they have requested transfer. One of them in
particular is the Intake Division Dam near Glendive, Montana.
What is the problem there? How come we are not making that
transfer?
Mr. Martinez. Well, I am not aware of that particular
request. Basically, what we do is when a project sponsor
requests transfer, we engage and hopefully move toward
completion. But let me tell you, in the last 3 years we have
not had too much success, and hopefully we will have some
success with some of these issues.
Senator Burns. What is the main problem?
Mr. Martinez. Well, among the problems is occasional
opposition from even the local folks as to whether or not a
project should be transferred valuation, and NEPA studies that
have to be completed. It is just not as easy as saying we can
transfer overnight. Then, of course, we have to bring each
transfer before Congress because ultimately you have to make
that decision. Those are Federal properties and Congress has to
act on them, but we will move forward, engage the project
sponsors, and see if we can bring that proposal before
Congress.
Senator Burns. You do not own the land. You just own the
water. Now they want to take control of their own project. It
is already paid out, so why are we not making the transfer?
Mr. Martinez. Because by Federal law, the Federal
Government owns those facilities even though they have paid out
their percentage of the costs. So, in order for those transfers
to occur, it has to be through an act of Congress.
Senator Burns. Well, Congress will act.
Do you have to do a NEPA before you make that transfer?
Mr. Martinez. Yes.
Senator Burns. Well, that is all I have. Thank you very
much.
But now, on the CALFED expenditures, I am clearly concerned
about the obligation of $161 million and expenditure of just $6
million.
Senator Domenici. $6 million.
Senator Burns. Expended $6 million. Then we go around and
we look for little projects to do, and run into cost over-runs
and won't transfer ownership of these projects when they should
be transferred. You can understand my concern.
I would like to remind you, now is the time to start
planning for that lower yellowstone, though, because we got a
lot of water.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Did you have any further comments, either of you? Yes,
Madam Secretary.
status of spending on calfed program
Ms. Beneke. I am hoping that the record is clear on the
exact status of the spending on the Bay-Delta ecosystem
program. We have $149 million of the $160 million allocated to
specific projects or programs. We have $73 million obligated of
the $85 million fiscal year 1998 funds. I would also like to
note that we are a year and a half into this program. We have
the mechanism in place to go ahead and expend these funds, and
I am anticipating that our obligation rate and expenditure rate
will pick up considerably for the next several months.
Senator Burns. Would you supply the committee with a list
of those projects?
Ms. Beneke. Yes. I would be glad to do that.
Senator Domenici. I think we have them, but let us check
and see. I think we do.
[The information follows:]
BAY-DELTA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION APPROPRIATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Funding
Allocated in Allocated in
Funding Category/Projects Agency fiscal year fiscal year
1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woodbridge Fish Screen........................ USBR............................ 1,575
Richter Brothers Screen....................... USBR............................ 49 ..............
Boeger Brothers Screen........................ USBR............................ 15 ..............
Small Diversion Fish Screens Program \1\...... NRCS............................ 900 ..............
Fish Screen Improvements................ ................................ $2,539 ..............
Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District (ACID) USBR............................ 325 ..............
Screen.
Fish Passage Program.......................... USBR............................ 8,000 ..............
ACID Fish Passage & Fish Screen ................................ 860 ..............
Improvement Project, Phase II.
Anadromous Fish Passage at Clough Dam on ................................ 1,280 ..............
Mill Creek.
Fish Passage Improvement Project at the ................................ 341 ..............
Red Bluff Diversion Dam.
Steelhead & Chinook Salmon Fish Passage ................................ 178 ..............
Barrier Remediation at Guadalupe River...
Cosumnes River Salmonid Barrier Program... ................................ 188 ..............
Boeger Family Farms Fish Screen, Phase III ................................ 140 ..............
(Construction).
Hastings Tract Fish Screen, Phase II ................................ 271 ..............
(Construction).
City of Sacramento Fish Screen Replacement ................................ 655 ..............
Project, Phase II.
American Basin Fish Screen & Habitat ................................ 200 ..............
Improvement Project.
Stanislaus River Channel Restoration...... ................................ 1,038 ..............
Tuolumne River Setback Levees............. ................................ 655 ..............
Battle Creek.............................. ................................ 395 ..............
Fish Passage Program Remaining Balance \1\ ................................ 1,799 ..............
ACID Fish Passage Improvement Project, Phase USBR............................ .............. 5,253
III.
Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration USBR............................ .............. 28,000
Project.
Lower Butte Creek Project, Phase II........... USBR............................ .............. 775
Fish Passage Improvements............... ................................ 8,325 34,028
San Joaquin Floodplain Acquisition and USFWS........................... 10,647
Riparian Restoration.
Bear Creek Floodplain Restoration USFWS........................... 334 ..............
Demonstration Project.
Napa River Wetlands Acquisition............... USBR............................ 1,000 ..............
Cache Slough Habitat Enhancement.............. USBR............................ 85 ..............
Regional Wetlands Goals Project............... USEPA........................... 76 ..............
Cosumnes River Floodplain Acquisition......... USBR............................ 3,500 ..............
Prospect Island............................... USCOE........................... 2,000 ..............
McCormack-Williamson Tract Acquisition........ USFWS........................... .............. 5,250
McCormack-Williamson Tract's Wildlife-friendly USFWS........................... .............. 860
Levee Management Project.....................
Habitat Restoration/Flood Control Bypasses USCOE........................... 1,200 ..............
Program \1\.
Floodplain Restoration/Habitat Restoration on USFWS........................... 14,000 2,700
Existing Conservation Lands Program..........
Butte Creek Acquisition................... ................................ 125 ..............
Lower Mill Creek Riparian Restoration..... ................................ 30 ..............
Grayson River Ranch Perpetual Easement and ................................ 732 ..............
Restoration.
Hill Slough West Habitat Demonstration ................................ 200 ..............
Project.
Rhode Island Floodplain Management and ................................ 25 ..............
Habitat Restoration.
Nelson Slough Wildlife Area Restoration ................................ 256 ..............
Demonstration Project.
Merced River Salmon Habitat Enhancement, ................................ 2,433 ..............
Phase III.
Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Land ................................ 1,900 ..............
Acquisitions.
Petaluma Marsh Expansion Project--Marin ................................ 352 ..............
County.
South Napa River Wetlands Acquisition and ................................ 431 ..............
Restoration.
Lower Clear Creek Floodway Restoration.... ................................ 3,560 ..............
Fern-Headreach Tidal Perennial Aquatic and ................................ 425 ..............
Shaded River Aquatic Conservation........
Benicia Waterfront Marsh Restoration...... ................................ 59 ..............
Floodplain Acquisition, Management, and ................................ 1,000 ..............
Monitoring on the Sacramento River.......
Cosumnes River Acquisition Restoration, ................................ 750 ..............
Planning and Demonstration...............
Deer and Mill Creeks Acquisition and ................................ 1,000 ..............
Enhancement.
Lower San Joaquin River Floodplain ................................ 722 396
Protection and Restoration Project.......
Biological Restoration and Monitoring in ................................ .............. 773
the Suisun Marsh/North San Francisco Bay
Ecological Zone..........................
South Napa River Tidal Slough and ................................ .............. 1,455
Floodplain Restoration Project.
Butte Creek Riparian Restoration ................................ .............. 76
Demonstration.
Habitat Restoration In Floodplains and ................................ 32,842 8,810
Marshes.
Liberty Island Acquisition.................... USFWS........................... 8,577 ..............
Sedimentation Movement, and Availability and USGS............................ 1,047 ..............
Monitoring in the Delta.
Tuolumne River Mining Reach Restoration USFWS........................... .............. 3,332
Project No. 2--MJ Ruddy Segment..............
Merced River Salmon Habitat Enhancement, Phase USBR............................ .............. 1,633
I: Robinson/Gallo Project, Ratzlaff Reach
Site.........................................
Tuolumne River Special Run Pool (SRP) 10 USBR............................ .............. 165
Restoration.
Preliminary Design and Engineering--Lower USBR............................ .............. 130
Western Stone Restoration Site, Merced River.
River Channel Changes................... ................................ 9,624 5,260
Environmental Water Acquisition Program \2\... USBR............................ 14,500 ..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Instream Flows................. ................................ 14,500 ..............
Assessment of Organic Matter in the Habitat USGS............................ 1,400 ..............
and Its Relationship to the Food Chain.......
Evaluation of Selenium Sources, Levels, and USGS............................ 1,589 ..............
Consequences in the Delta...................
Bacterial Treatment of Selenium in the Panoche USBR............................ 1,149 ..............
Drainage.
Sand and Salt Creek Watershed Project......... USBR............................ 599 ..............
Integrated Pest Management in Suisun Bay USBR............................ 266 ..............
Program.
Assessment of Ecological and Human Health USBR............................ .............. 3,800
Impacts of Mercury in the Bay-Delta Watershed
Water Quality and Temperature ................................ 5,003 3,800
Improvement.
Exotic Species Control Program................ USFWS........................... 1,250 ..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Introduced and Undesirable Species ................................ 1,250 ..............
Control.
Evaluation of Tagging Data.................... USBR............................ 625 ..............
Improved Fish Management and Hatchery ................................ 625 ..............
Operations.
Watershed Improvement/Sediment Stabilization USFS............................ 371 ..............
on Deer, Mill and Antelope Creeks............
Watershed Restoration Planning Program........ USEPA........................... 1,550 1,310
Petaluma River Watershed Restoration...... ................................ 220 ..............
Cottonwood Creek Watershed Group Formation ................................ 161 ..............
Battle Creek Watershed Stewardship........ ................................ 145 ..............
Local Watershed Stewardship Steelhead ................................ 48 ..............
Trout Plan.
Cold Water Fisheries and Water Quality ................................ 200 ..............
Element.
Merced River Corridor Restoration Plan.... ................................ 300 ..............
South Yuba River Coordinated Watershed ................................ 264 ..............
Management Plan.
Watershed Restoration Strategy for the ................................ 212 32
Yolo Bypass.
Proposal to Develop Local Watershed ................................ .............. 159
Stewardship Plan for the Lower Mokelumne
River....................................
Union School Slough Watershed Improvement. ................................ .............. 636
American River Integrated Watershed ................................ .............. 221
Stewardship Strategy.
Sulphur Creek Coordinated Resource ................................ .............. 24
Management Planning Group.
Lower Putah Creek Watershed Stewardship... ................................ .............. 100
Alhambra Creek Watershed CRMP............. ................................ .............. 138
Butte Creek Watershed Road Survey............. USFWS........................... 294 ..............
Inventory of Forest Road Systems--Cat Creek USFS............................ 38 ..............
Watershed.
Floodplain Easement--Lower Tuolumne and San NRCS............................ .............. 1,545
Joaquin Rivers.
Watershed Management.................... ................................ 2,253 2,855
EPA Contribution.................... ................................ .............. 910
Bay-Delta Account................... ................................ 2,253 1,945
Integrated Phasing Strategy (CALFED Program USBR............................ 1,647 3,200
Staff).
Coordinated Permitting (CALFED Program Staff). USBR............................ 282 ..............
Development of a Watershed Management Program USBR............................ 184 ..............
(CALFED Program Staff).......................
Comprehensive and Coordinated Monitoring USBR............................ 1,157 ..............
Assessment and Research Program (CCMARP).....
Bay-Delta Education Program................... USBR............................ 300 120
San Joaquin Valley's ``Salmonids in the ................................ 3 ..............
Classroom'' Program Enhancement..........
Traveling Film Festival/Heron Booth/Video ................................ 54 ..............
Archive.
Environmental Agriculture Conferences and ................................ 28 ..............
Field Tours.
Sacramento River Headwaters to the Ocean, ................................ 50 ..............
Public Information and Education.........
Discover the Flyway....................... ................................ 49 ..............
The Butte Creek Watershed Educational ................................ 33 ..............
Workshops and Field Tours Series.........
Bay-Delta Environmental Restoration ................................ 40 ..............
Education Program.
The Virtual Science Center and Hands-on ................................ 42 ..............
Learning Programs.
Water Hyacinth Education Program.......... ................................ 1 10
Water Challenge 2010...................... ................................ .............. 65
Tuolumne River Natural Resources Program.. ................................ .............. 45
Special Support Programs (CALFED Program USBR............................ .............. 1,751
Staff).
Prospect Island Monitoring Project............ USCOE........................... .............. 915
Monitoring, Permit Coordination, and ................................ 3,570 5,986
Other Special Support.
Restoration Reserve........................... USBR............................ 3,319 3,750
Technical Review and Quality Control Program.. USBR............................ 850 750
Administrative Support Program................ USBR............................ 850 750
Miscellaneous Expenses/Administration... ................................ 4,469 5,000
Pending April 16, 1999 due date of the Public ................................ .............. 10,171
Solicitation Process.
Less EPA Contribution (Watershed Management ................................ .............. -910
Category).
GRAND TOTAL ALLOCATED (Bay-Delta ................................ 85,000 75,000
Account).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Program is included in the Public Solicitation Process issued on February 16, 1999 with a project submittal
due date of April 16, 1999. Project selection is expected to be complete by June 30, 1999.
\2\ CALFED is currently working the Stakeholder community to develop this program.
Ms. Beneke. It is a very important program in California.
Senator Domenici. When I raised the issue, I just wonder if
we started too fast. That is all I am wondering about.
Ms. Beneke. Sir, I would also say that Congress authorized
$143.3 million in annual appropriations for this program. We
have come in with a request this year of $75 million, which we
think is well tailored to what we can expend and what the need
is. We are going to be sending up a request to extend the
authorization for this program, and we will be working with the
authorizing committees on that as well.
new mexico drought conditions
Senator Domenici. I would like to make one last observation
directed to the Department and, in particular, the
Commissioner. I am pleased that I have six Senators here.
My State is on the verge of a drought. The Commissioner has
just expressed a concern about one river in our State. It is
not as drastic, but every river is having enormous problems in
terms of the source of water that normally flows down the
rivers.
We have a budding problem with reference to the endangered
species law that is very, very serious. It has to do with a
minnow on our biggest river system. It has been declared an
endangered species, and it is entirely possible that we cannot
maintain the flow in the river for the minnow, which is a
latecomer to the water needs of that river basin, having just
been adjudicated, whereas we have had all kinds of other users
lined up who are entitled to water, including large cities like
Albuquerque who bought much of the water that is coming down
the river.
We may very well be asked here in Congress to do something
to alleviate this situation unless the managers of the river
system can accommodate the traditional users who already have
claims, the cities who own the water, and a minnow that has
just recently, as I indicated, made claim to our waters.
We have a similar one in the second largest water system,
another minnow, the same claim, in a drought era in a desert
State. I just leave that with you.
Senator Burns. Do you want some grizzly bears?
Additional committee questions
Senator Domenici. Well, what we need is we need some common
sense, but that is the problem.
Thank you both very, very much.
[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
san juan river-gallup, mount taylor pipeline
The Committee has been funding the San Juan-Gallup, Mount Taylor
Pipeline study effort for the past two years. Last year, the Bureau of
Reclamation entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to undertake a
feasibility study of a water supply pipeline from Mount Taylor mine for
additional water supplies in the area. The Committee understood that
the Bureau had sufficient funding available in fiscal year 1999 to
complete the study, but provided additional funding to insure there
were no delays or funding constraints.
Question. What is the status of this study which will confirm the
quantity and quality of water that might be available from the Mount
Taylor mine?
Answer. We have completed an appraisal study of the requirements
for treatment and delivery of water through a pipeline from Mt. Taylor
to Gallup, Acoma Pueblo, and Laguna Pueblo. A separate preliminary
study has been done by John Shomaker & Associates for the City of
Gallup on the quantity of water available. Shomaker's preliminary
estimate is that 4,000 acre feet of water could be produced from the
Mt. Taylor Mine for about 40 years. We estimate the pipeline and
treatment plant would cost $35-$40 million to build and a preliminary
estimate of $2-$2.5 million annually for operation and maintenance. No
special environmental or cultural resource issues have been identified.
However, disposal of selenium at the water treatment plant is a concern
and a high cost for documentation and mitigation of archaeological
sites should be anticipated due to high density of known sites in the
area.
Question. Will the study be completed in fiscal year 1999 as
planned? If not, why? Has the Bureau established a firm schedule to
complete the determination of quantity and quality?
Answer. No, at this point Reclamation has not initiated feasibility
studies. None of the local sponsors are able to provide cost-sharing
contributions to take the studies to the feasibility stage. Reclamation
has proposed entering into a Memorandum of Agreement with the city of
Gallup, and the Acoma and Laguna Pueblos, under which Reclamation would
contract with the Pueblos under the authority of the Indian Self-
Determination Act of Public Law 93-638 to accomplish some of the needed
studies. These contracts would not require cost sharing. We have
proposed two major studies to be completed under these contracts. The
first are detailed hydrologic studies including groundwater modeling to
provide a firmer estimate of the quantity of water available and to
identify and quantify potential impacts on other parts of the
hydrologic system such as springs, streams, and other aquifers. The
second is the development of a legal framework for cooperation of the
sponsors to plan, implement, and operate the project. Substantial
questions related to water rights and allocation of project water need
to be addressed before the project could be built. To date, the
proposed agreement has not been accepted and signed by all the
sponsors.
san juan gallup-navajo water supply study
The San Juan Gallup-Navajo Water Supply feasibility study has been
on-going for several years. The Committee provided $150,000 for the
current year for the Bureau of Reclamation to complete the feasibility
study and initiate NEPA compliance activities.
Question. What is the status of this study?
Answer. Reclamation and the study partners will complete a planning
status report and environmental analysis during fiscal year 1999. The
report will present the preferred plan and alternatives considered by
the study partners and identify significant environmental issues that
would be addressed during the National Environmental Policy Act
process. Consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
will be initiated with respect to the endangered fish in the San Juan
River by the Bureau of Indian Affairs during fiscal year 1999.
Question. How much funding is included in the fiscal year 2000
budget request to continue the study effort?
Answer. No funding has been requested for fiscal year 2000.
Question. Is this level of funding sufficient to keep the study on
schedule?
Answer. No. Additional funding of $300,000 would be needed in
fiscal year 2000 to keep this project moving forward. These funds would
allow the NEPA process to move forward and allow data to be collected
to refine the project plan. The additional capability shown was not
included in the President's budget. The Department does not support the
addition of funds for any project that would result in the reduction of
funding for programs or projects included in the budget request.
Question. Has the Bureau established a firm schedule to complete
the San Juan Gallup-Navajo Water Supply study effort?
Answer. No. Due to the uncertainty of funding a firm schedule has
not been completed. The planning status report and environmental
assessment will be completed during fiscal year 1999. If funding is
available, necessary data could be collected and a Feasibility Report/
Environmental Statement could be completed by the end of 2001. In order
for the project to move to implementation, additional construction
authorization and funding would also be required.
taos indian water rights settlement
The Committee provided $2 million in the current fiscal year for
the Bureau of Reclamation to initiate and complete a confirmatory well
drilling program of the deep aquifer which was a critical element of
the Taos Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement.
Question. What is the current status of your efforts to undertake
this important work?
Answer. An environmental assessment, which typically takes 3-5
months, is in progress and is scheduled to be completed late in April
of this year. Depending upon the results of the assessment, drilling
could commence after the environmental assessment is done.
Question. Will the proposed work be completed in fiscal year 1999
as directed, if not, why? Is additional funding needed in fiscal year
2000? If so, what is the Bureau's funding capability?
Answer. No, the work cannot be completed in fiscal year 1999
because of the size and depth of the seven wells. It will take about
two months to complete each well even with some 24-hour per day
drilling. Completion of the drilling is anticipated in late spring or
summer of 2000.
The current funding capability estimate for fiscal year 2000 is
$700,000. This includes all required NEPA activities, contact
administration, modeling reports, and consultant fees. This estimate is
based on the assumption that the drilling has been completed, and a
recommendation to proceed has been made.
ute reservoir pipeline project, curry and roosevelt counties, nm
The Conference Agreement for fiscal year 1999 included $200,000 for
the Bureau of Reclamation to begin feasibility studies of the Curry and
Roosevelt counties portion of the Ute Reservoir Pipeline project.
Question. How does the Bureau of Reclamation plan to proceed with
this work in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The Ute Water Commission is working on a plan of study for
this work which will include feasibility planning and environmental
compliance for the Curry and Roosevelt Counties phased portions of the
Ute Pipeline project. Reclamation plans on modifying the existing
Cooperative Agreement to include this work once we receive and agree on
the scope of work.
Question. How much funding is requested in your fiscal year 2000
budget to continue this work?
Answer. No funding was requested for this work in fiscal year 2000.
Question. Now, $300,000 was provided in fiscal year 1998 for the
Quay County portion of the project. What is the status of the Quay
County studies?
Answer. On June 24, 1998, Reclamation entered into a Cooperative
Agreement with the Eastern Plains Council of Governments (COG). This
obligated funds in the amount of $285,000 to the COG, which includes
$15,000 to administer the contract. The additional $15,000 was set
aside to pay Reclamation administrative costs.
In September of 1998, a contract was entered into between the COG
and Smith Engineering to prepare a Special Report (to be completed in
June 1999) which would provide enough information for the local
sponsors to solicit financing for final design and construction either
from private or public entities. This effort differs from past efforts
as it provided for project phasing, which allows the Quay County
portion to be built first, and subsequent phasing would provide for
final project completion.
upper rio grande basin water management
The Upper Rio Grande Basin water operation model has been under
development for several years with funding that has been appropriated
by this Committee.
Question. Am I correct that the development of the model is about
to be completed? Is there any additional model development which will
not be completed in fiscal year 1999 for which funding will be required
in fiscal year 2000? If so, does the Bureau have sufficient funding
requested in fiscal year 2000 to carry out any additional development
work that may be needed? How much funding over and above the budget
request is needed to complete the development work?
Answer. The first fully linked upper-basin model, operating from
Colorado to Fort Quitman, Texas is scheduled to be completed in fiscal
year 2000. However, this ``backbone water operations model'' will lack
necessary refinements required to satisfy planning and NEPA
applications in some reaches of the river. These necessary refinements
are expected to continue into fiscal year 2004 as various water
management and operational issues surface in the basin requiring the
detail of a planning model. Several water issues in the basin are
currently showing a need for accelerated application of the planning
model. Acceleration of the model refinement would require enhanced
funding from various partnership sources. Currently, the model is being
developed using funding from several sources and partners. Reclamation
has requested $345,000 for model development in fiscal year 2000 but
could apply an additional $250,000 toward accelerated model refinement.
The additional capability shown was not included in the President's
budget. The Department does not support the addition of funds for any
project that would result in the reduction of funding for programs or
projects included in the budget request.
Question. How do you envision using this operational model as a
management tool?
Answer. The model can be thought of in terms of three modular
components: First, a real-time hydrologic daily decision support system
linked to a real time monitoring network. Second, a water accounting
and water operations model used for analysis and documentation of daily
flood control and project water delivery operations; and, third, a
basin-wide hydrological planning model used for evaluating impacts of
long range water management and water development scenarios. There is
already a well defined need for all three model components.
Question. Now, funding is included in the budget to begin work with
the Regional Water Planning Assembly to undertake ``grass-roots water
planning efforts for the Middle Rio Grande Valley''. Can you explain
what the Bureau has in mind, what the total cost of the effort is
expected to be, and how long you expect to fund this effort? What is
the make-up to the Regional Water Planning Assembly?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, $50,000 is requested for coordination
with the Regional Water Planning Assembly and minor technical support.
An additional $78,000 is estimated to be needed for work through fiscal
year 2002. The Regional Planning Assembly is a grass roots organization
which came into existence at the request of the New Mexico Governor and
State Engineer to address basin-wide water resource issues. The mission
of this group is to formulate a regional water plan funded by the New
Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. The group includes representatives
from every water interest sector in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. This
includes farming, municipal, environmental, rural organizations as well
as water management agencies at the local, state, and federal level.
reclamation recreation management program--title xxviii
Congress provided $2 million for the current fiscal year for the
Bureau of Reclamation to more fully participate in a cost-shared
program with the State of New Mexico for recreation facility
improvements under Title XXVIII of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustments Act. The funding was provided because the
Committee understood that the State of New Mexico had been financing
recreation improvements unilaterally and that an imbalance existed in
the allocation of funding through this program.
Question. Do you expect any problems in carrying out this program
as authorized and intended by the Committee? Specifically, how is the
Bureau using the $2 million provided for improvements at recreation
facilities in New Mexico?
Answer. We will have no problem in carrying out this program. Most
of the funding will be used to rehabilitate recreation facilities at
Elephant Butte and Navajo State Parks. Funds will also be used for
facilities at Caballo, Heron, El Vado, Sumner, Percha and Leasburg
State Parks.
animas-la plata
Congress has appropriated $3 million or more annually for the past
several years for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue data
collection, analysis and other activities related to the Animas-La
Plata project. The fiscal year 2000 budget again includes $3 million
for similar activities.
Question. What has been the total level of funding appropriated for
this project over the past 5 years, and how much has actually been
spent on the project?
Answer. The total amount appropriated for Animas-La Plata for the
period fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 1999 was $34.8 million.
Reclamation applied a total of $4.8 million of underfinancing to this
project during the period. Therefore, the net allotments for the past 5
years totaled $30 million. The total amount spent on the Project from
fiscal year 1995 through February 1999 was about $20.2 million.
Question. How much funding is available for expenditure in fiscal
year 1999 from prior year balances? How much of the total funding
available does the Bureau expect to spend in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. At the beginning of fiscal year 1999, $9.5 million was
available to expend from prior year balances. If the fiscal year 1999
allotment of $0.5 million is added, then $10.0 million is available to
expend in fiscal year 1999. The initial fiscal year 1999 estimate for
expenditures was approximately $3.0 million. With the anticipated new
environmental evaluations discussed below, additional expenditures are
expected. The magnitude of those expenditures is currently being
evaluated.
Question. Now the budget justification seems to indicate that the
Department has selected a Proposal for Animas-La Plata. The
justification uses terms such as ``the Department of the Interior's
Proposal'', the ``Administration Proposal'', and ``refining the
Proposal''. Please explain what is meant by ``Proposal''. Has the
Department of the Interior selected a ``project'' alternative as
directed by Congress? Specifically, how will the funding requested for
fiscal year 2000 be used?
Answer. On August 11, 1998, the Secretary of the Interior presented
an Administration Proposal to build a down-sized version of Animas-La
Plata to implement the Colorado Ute water rights settlement, which
would also include a nonstructural element as part of the settlement
implementation. Then on January 4, 1999, a Notice of Intent (NOI) was
published in the Federal Register announcing the intent to prepare a
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Animas-La
Plata Project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969, as amended. The Draft Statement would evaluate the
environmental impacts of the Administration Proposal and several other
alternatives. Pending public input, Reclamation intends that the
Administration Proposal and each of the alternatives described in the
NOI undergo an environmental impact analysis beginning with a threshold
assessment of the alternative's capability to accomplish the project's
purpose fiscal year 2000 funding would be used to conduct a major
portion of the NEPA process identified in the NOI. Current plans are to
use contracts under the Indian Self-Determination Act authority of
Public Law 93-638 with both Colorado Ute Indian Tribes to conduct this
work.
Question. Last year, you testified that the analysis of
alternatives would be completed in 3-6 months. Has the analysis of
alternatives been completed as you testified? If not, why?
Answer. Reclamation conducted an appraisal-level analysis on the
two alternatives resulting from the Romer/Schoettler Process. Prior to
its finalization, the Secretary of the Interior announced an
Administration Proposal incorporating portions of those two
alternatives. All information and data developed as part of the Romer/
Schoettler Process, as well as previously completed environmental
studies, are being utilized and incorporated into the present Draft
Supplemental EIS effort.
Question. Why should the Congress appropriate any further funding
for this project for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Administration is committed to implementing a water
rights settlement for the Colorado Ute Tribes. We anticipate increased
costs to accelerate NEPA compliance work and will seek authority to
immediately initiate activities to implement the selected alternatives.
salton sea, california research project
For the past several years, funding has been provided for the
Salton Sea research project in California to investigate increasing
salinity, other water quality issues, and rising surface levels which
are flooding developed areas and wildlife habitat. The Bureau of
Reclamation, and other Federal and State agencies are engaged in an
effort to identify and evaluate possibilities for improving the
conditions of the sea, a program of additional planning, research, and
environmental impact analysis.
Question. First, tell the Committee why the Bureau of Reclamation
is involved in this effort?
Answer. The Salton Sea as we know it today was created in 1905-07,
when the flooding Colorado River broke through a temporary diversion
works and flowed into the Salton Sink for nearly 15 months before it
was diverted back to the river channel. Soon after, the Sea began to
decrease as the flow of new water was discontinued prior to the
creation of irrigated agriculture. In 1942, the All-American Canal
began carrying Colorado River water to the Imperial and Coachella
Valleys which flank the Salton Sea and thus the Sea began to receive an
annual inflow of water created from the agricultural drainage.
Reclamation was the Federal partner in the development of this
diversion system.
The Bureau of Reclamation studies directed towards managing the
salinity of the Salton Sea date back to the 1960's, when Reclamation
and the California Department of Water Resources performed a joint
appraisal evaluation of possible alternatives. Title XI of Public Law
102-575, the Salton Sea Research Project Act, directed the Secretary of
the Interior, acting through Reclamation, to conduct a research
project. Most recently, Congress in 1998 passed the Salton Sea
Reclamation Project Act, Public Law 105-372, which directed the
Secretary of the Interior, acting through Reclamation, to conduct an
Environmental Impact Statement/California Environmental Impact Report
feasibility study to reclaim the Sea, and specifically named the Bureau
of Reclamation as lead agency on these efforts.
Question. Setting aside the action of the Secretary of the Interior
designating the Bureau of Reclamation as the lead agency in the
Department, is there a direct connection to your traditional missions
and responsibilities?
Answer. There is a direct connection to Reclamation's traditional
mission and responsibilities in this project. The two irrigation
districts that contribute agricultural drainage to the Salton Sea are
both Reclamation projects built through a partnership with the Federal
government. As with most of our projects, if the operation of the
project adversely affects the local environment then Reclamation can be
involved in developing solutions to the problems.
Question. How much funding has been provided for this effort across
all Federal government agencies in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
1999, and how much is requested for fiscal year 2000? How much funding
are State and other non-Federal agencies providing for fiscal year 1999
and 2000?
Answer. The following table presents the Federal funding being used
to perform the various activities associated with the Salton Sea.
Bureau of Reclamation
Fiscal year 1998--$2,000,000 (Includes $400,000 enacted and
$1,600,000 fund transfer and reprogramming).
Fiscal year 1999--$400,000 (Enacted).
Fiscal year 2000--$1,000,000 (Requested).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal year 1998--$5,875,000 (Enacted).
Fiscal year 1999--$13,400,000 (Enacted).
Fiscal year 2000--(None Requested).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fiscal year 1998--$1,000,000 (Enacted).
Fiscal year 1999--$1,000,000 (Enacted).
Fiscal year 2000--$1,000,000 (Requested).
U.S. Geological Survey
Provides limited scientific expertise and personnel support.
The State and other local non-Federal agencies have made or will
make available a total of $3,784,100 for work in fiscal year 1999 and
fiscal year 2000.
Question. What is the total estimated cost of the effort to
complete the feasibility design, and the technical and biological
impact analysis work necessary for the preparation of feasibility
report and environmental compliance documents?
Answer. The current estimated cost of the feasibility study is
$4.85 million. Reclamation is providing 50 percent of the total costs
of the study which is being matched by a non-Federal cost sharing
partner. The non-Federal cost sharing partner is the Salton Sea
Authority, a Joint Power Authority established under the laws of the
State of California.
Question. Has a firm schedule, which establishes critical
milestones, been established for this work? If so, could you provide it
for the record?
Answer. The Department of the Interior and Reclamation understand
that January 1, 2000, is a firm date for a report to Congress. The
following schedule is being followed to prepare the report and
documents for this project.
November 12, 1998--Salton Sea Alternatives Final Pre-appraisal
Report--Engineering information on Salinity and Water Surface
Elevation.
February 15, 1999--Scoping Report on Public Meetings Held in July
and October 1998.
March 15, 1999--Draft Report, Screening Analysis of Initial
Restoration Alternatives.
April 30, 1999--Draft Appraisal Report on Proposed Alternatives.
May-June 1999--Initial Reports from Baseline Science work being
performed with submittal to the Science Subcommittee, Salton Sea
Authority, and Reclamation.
September 1, 1999--Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Planning
Report, California Environmental Impact Report.
January 1, 2000--Final Environmental Impact Statement/Planning
Report, California Environmental Impact Report to Congress.
Question. Is it realistic to believe that the Bureau of Reclamation
can complete the feasibility report and associated National
Environmental Protection Act documentation by January 1, 2000 when this
work is only 9 percent complete?
Answer. A report will be made available with proposed action
alternatives for consideration by Congress by January 1, 2000.
Reclamation will be able to provide an analysis of the alternatives for
feasibility economics and costs on phase one, but not a complete
feasibility-level engineering design for all phases. It is envisioned
that the preferred project may be proposed using a phased approach to
addressing the ecological issues of the Sea. The final Environmental
Impact Statement/Planning Report will then include at least
feasibility-level designs and cost estimates of phase one and
appraisal-level designs and cost estimates for the other features.
Question. The fiscal year 2000 justification material indicates
that a portion of the $2 million budget request is to ``initiate
specific design work on the preferred alternative course of action
coming out of the feasibility report and supporting environmental
compliance documents''. How much of the budget request is for specific
design work on the preferred alternative, and why is this work being
proposed prior to completion of the feasibility report and project
authorization?
Answer. Of the $2,000,000 total program in fiscal year 2000,
$1,000,000 is non-Federal cost-sharing. When the fiscal year 2000
Budget Justification was prepared, the funding proposed was based on an
aggressive schedule that assumed that authorization by Congress would
occur quickly and initiation of designs could occur shortly after
Congressional decision within the same fiscal year. However, since then
it is envisioned that the preferred project may be proposed using a
phased approach to addressing the ecological issues of the Sea. The
final Environmental Impact Statement/Planning Report will then include
at least feasibility-level designs and cost estimates of phase one and
appraisal-level designs and cost estimates for the other features. The
funds originally identified in fiscal year 2000 to collect initial
design data are now expected to be needed to complete feasibility
designs for other phases of the preferred plan.
california bay-delta ecosystem restoration (calfed)
The budget request for fiscal year 2000 is $95 million, the last
year appropriations are authorized. However, the Administration has
proposed legislative language to extend the current spending
authorization through 2003 in order that the full $430 million
authorized currently will be funded. In addition to the funding
provided under the CALFED program, funding is provided for similar
restoration work in the Bay-Delta area through the Bureau of
Reclamation's Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, the Bureau's
Water and Related Resources funding account; and other Federal
agencies.
The programmatic environmental impact statement and a report
describing the preferred alternative to address the issues related to
the restoration program, including the possibility of new water supply
options, is long overdue. Yet, the budget for fiscal year 2000 proposes
expanding current activities by beginning the planning and
implementation additional activities without reaching agreement on
critical issues such as additional water supply, storage and
conveyance, which are important to other water users principally those
in the agricultural and development communities.
Question. When Secretary Babbitt released the revised CALFED Phase
II Report he indicated that additional issues remained to be worked
out. What are these additional issues that need to be resolved? When
will a final revised Phase II Report be issued, and a preferred
alternative selected?
Answer. The major issue referred to by the Secretary involved the
water supply reliability element of the CALFED program, more
specifically, the treatment of new storage facilities. CALFED agencies
are continuing to refine the CALFED program, including the water
management strategy and how to finance the program. CALFED has received
the largest number of public comments on the use of water conservation
as a tool to reduce demand versus the support for construction of new
facilities, particularly surface storage. The schedule calls for CALFED
to issue a supplemental draft environmental impact statement containing
a preferred alternative and a Phase II Report in June 1999, and the
final EIS/EIR in the spring of 2000.
Question. Some have suggested that reoperation of existing non-
Federal power facilities could provide significant additional water
supplies needed to solve environmental and other water supply issues.
What can you tell us about this idea? Is it a creditable suggestion,
and would the Department of the Interior support such an approach?
Answer. The reoperation of existing non-Federal power facilities
could provide additional water for water users and the environment at
high priority times and places. CALFED has proposed taking a
comprehensive analysis of existing non-Federal hydropower projects in
California as part of the proposed Integrated Storage Investigation.
Interior, other Federal agencies, and the State generally support
undertaking the Integrated Storage Investigation analysis and are
currently refining the scope of work.
Question. Under the CALFED agreement, the State of California is to
share the costs of activities undertaken. Describe the cost-sharing
arrangement with the State of California. If you consider Reclamation's
appropriation of $160 million, what is the corresponding required level
of State and non-Federal cost-sharing, and how much has actually been
provided?
Answer. The cost-share agreement between the Federal and State
governments calls for equal sharing of ecosystem restoration costs over
the period of ecosystem restoration activities. With the passage of
Proposition 204, California voters provided $60 million in 1997 and
another $390 million will become available when the State certifies the
Final Programmatic Environmental Statement/EIS/EIR (similar to the
Federal Record of Decision). Based on Proposition 204 and the $430
million authorized by the Bay-Delta Environmental and Water Security
Act, the Federal and State governments have made approximately equal
commitments to Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration. As of September 30,
1998 CALFED reports that the State had provided $55 million in
Proposition 204 and other funds for approved Bay-Delta ecosystem
restoration projects. Funding the $75 million ecosystem restoration
request and extending the Bay-Delta Act is important to maintaining the
Federal commitment.
Question. Now the budget request for fiscal year 2000 proposed $20
million to begin work on Phase II, non-ecosystem components. Is Phase
II work specifically authorized? What is the justification for
undertaking Phase II work in the absence of a final Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement and Preferred Alternative? Is there wide
spread agreement and support for proceeding with this work? Is the
State ready to cost-share in this work? What is the position of the new
governor on proceeding with this work?
Answer. The non-ecosystem work under Phase II that is contemplated
for the $20 million is authorized by a wide range of existing
authorities applicable to the Federal CALFED agencies. For example,
those authorities include the Flood Control Act of 1950, Section 205;
Reclamation Reform Act, Sections 210(1) and (c); Clean Water Act of
1948, and additional authorities contained in Public Law 102-575,
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA).
Undertaking work on non-ecosystem Phase II projects prior to
completion of the programmatic environmental statement is appropriate
because these are certain actions that will be needed for any
alternative selected, and those actions can be taken consistent with
the restrictions in the proposed fiscal year 2000 Bay-Delta
appropriations language. CALFED anticipates completing its EIS/EIR
during fiscal year 2000. We are requesting fiscal year 2000 funds to be
ready to start these projects in a timely manner. Significant support
exists for resolution of issues in the Bay-Delta. State agencies and
California stakeholders endorse the activities that will be undertaken.
Governor Gray Davis indicated strong support for the CALFED/Bay-Delta
Program in his inaugural address. The draft EIS/EIR will describe the
cost-share obligations of Federal and State government, as well as
others, to finance implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
managing competing water demands
Because of concerns of the Senate authorizing committee, language
was included in last years report directing the Bureau of Reclamation
not to use funds to complete evaluations of current practices in each
of the Area Offices to find ways to more effectively manage competing
demands for water.
Question. Have you complied with this directive? If not, explain
why?
Answer. Yes. Reclamation has complied with this directive.
Reclamation also removed two performance goals referring to this
activity from the fiscal year 1999 Annual Performance Plan.
operation and maintenance costs
The Conference Report on the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water
Appropriations Bill asked the Bureau of Reclamation to prepare a report
on the operation and maintenance costs of it's projects. The Committees
requested the report because of expressed concerns related to how O&M
costs were being allocated by project purpose, the declining level of
operation and maintenance funding for traditional water supply and
distribution related work, concerns that Reclamation's overhead
expenses may be excessive, and the lack of opportunity of stakeholders
to have input into the formulation of the Bureau's budget
recommendations. The report was completed and provided to the Committee
last September.
Question. What has the Bureau done to afford stakeholders an
opportunity to have input into the budget needs and priorities?
Answer. Reclamation has been working for several years with many of
our water and power customers in the formulation of the operation and
maintenance (O&M) program, for our multipurpose projects. As an
expansion of current efforts, and in response to language contained in
the statement of the Managers accompanying the Conference Report for
the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, the
Commissioner issued a memorandum in September 1998 which directed the
Regional Directors and Area Mangers to redouble their efforts to insure
customers who are interested are given the opportunity to provide input
into the formulation of project O&M programs. For Reclamation, this
will continue to be an ongoing activity.
Question. Can the Bureau benefit from this increased openness?
Answer. Reclamation, our customers, and the general public have
benefited and learned from the increased openness. We encourage
customer feedback and believe the increased openness gives the
customers the opportunity to realize how serious and committed
Reclamation is to Project O&M.
Question. Do you expect to learn new ways and approaches that could
improve efficiencies and, thereby reduce O&M costs?
Answer. Our efforts to benchmark the power program has been a
worthwhile activity in that it has already identified areas where we
compared very favorably with the hydroelectric industry. Reclamation
will use benchmarking in the future to identify new ways and approaches
to improve efficiency and ultimately reduce costs.
Question. Now there is continuing concern that the Bureau of
Reclamation is placing increasing emphasis and funding on non-
traditional activities such as wetland creation and wildlife habitat
enhancement, to name a few, at the expense of traditional operation and
maintenance activities necessary to meet contractual water supply
obligations. If you look just at the traditional O&M activities related
to contractual water supply and distribution requirements, how does the
fiscal year 2000 budget request of the Bureau compare to the fiscal
year 1999 budget request?
Answer. Reclamation undertakes environmental mitigation and
enhancement activities only to the extent, and in the manner,
authorized by Congress. These efforts are done in cooperation with the
Fish and Wildlife Service, state game and fish agencies our water users
and the public. Furthermore, nearly all of the environmental work which
we undertake is necessitated by the regulatory requirements of such
laws as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, which
requirements must be met if we are to continue to deliver the water and
power benefits for which Reclamation projects have been authorized. We
do not fund environmental work at the expense of project operation and
maintenance. To the contrary, we fund such work so that we can continue
to meet our contractual obligations to deliver water and power to our
customers.
Our environmental activities, including compliance with regulatory
laws, are generally funded under different fund activities than are
traditional project operation and maintenance activities. Reclamation's
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 budgets in the Facility Operation
and Facility Maintenance and Rehabilitation, show increases in funding
for both activities of $8.0 million and $7.5 million respectively. We
believe that the increase reflects Reclamation's commitment to continue
to meet its traditional contractual obligations for water and power
supply in an effective and efficient manner.
Question. The O&M Cost Report indicates that the Bureau of
Reclamation is continuing efforts to control costs by reducing
staffing. However, the Family Farm Alliance has provided information
indicating that the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority was able
to accomplish certain operation and maintenance work with 85 regular
full time employees compared to 120 Reclamation employees.
Answer. The Family Farm Alliance number of 120 is incorrect.
According to Reclamation records, 72 federal employees performed
subject operation and maintenance work.
Question. Does Reclamation have procedures in place to periodically
review and assess the manpower being used to accomplish O&M activities?
Answer. Reclamation reviews and assesses staffing needs for O&M
activities on a regular basis and we consider this activity an
important one.
Question. Have you reviewed situations like this with the objective
of applying new approaches and methods instituted by non-Federal
entities at other Reclamation projects?
Answer. Reclamation always seeks ways to learn new approaches at
one project and apply it to other projects Reclamation-wide as
appropriate. We would also welcome the opportunity to benchmark our
water program with others having similar facilities as we have in our
power program.
Question. Turning to indirect costs related to O&M projects, your
Report indicates that 62 of 89 projects experienced overhead costs in
excess of 20 percent in 1-2 years over 5 fiscal years of the analysis.
How does this 20 percent level compare to other Federal agencies and
non-Federal entities operation and maintenance overhead costs?
Answer. As noted in the report at page 31, three of Reclamation's
89 projects had overhead rates in excess of 20 percent in one or more
of the five fiscal years in question based upon the definition of
``overhead costs'' used in the report. As was further noted on page 32,
if Project General Expense costs were added to overhead costs, the
total of which is referred to in the report as ``indirect costs,'' then
62 projects would have had ``indirect cost rates'' in excess of 20
percent in at least one of the five years in question.
In our opinion, it is not possible to compare the overhead rates
shown in our report to the ``overhead rates'' of other Federal agencies
or non-Federal entities. This is due to the fact, as the report notes
at page 5, that: (1) the term ``overhead'' is not used in budget
documents submitted to Congress nor is it defined in the official
Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards, and (2) the
private sector does not use a uniform, commonly accepted approach as to
what is included in overhead. As a result, practices vary widely across
federal agencies as well as the private sector as to what costs are
accounted for and labeled as overhead costs and as to how overhead
rates are computed. Furthermore, what some federal agencies call
``overhead rates'' are actually just estimated service charges that may
bear little direct relationship to actual costs incurred. Consequently,
one cannot compare stated overhead rates between federal agencies, or
between federal agencies and private firms, without first ensuring that
each entity involved has classified exactly the same types of costs as
overhead costs.
Question. In your judgement, what is an acceptable level of
indirect costs for a project?
Answer. The level of administrative services and support functions,
the costs of which are ``indirect costs,'' required to support the
operation and maintenance of a project will vary from project to
project because each project is authorized in a different manner.
Depending on contractual arrangements we have with the individual
authorized projects, these costs may vary, and do. Thus, what is
acceptable for one project may not be acceptable at another.
Reclamation does its best to be equitable in assessing indirect costs
in a cost conscious, business-like manner.
Question. What is Reclamation doing to identify those programs and
activities that have indirect costs in excess of what would be
expected?
Answer. As addressed in the O&M Cost Report (see Chapter 6),
Reclamation has taken a number of steps over the past few years to
reduce the costs of its centralized administrative services and of its
regional administrative services. For example, in the Management
Services Office (MSO) in Denver, which provides the majority of
Reclamation's centralized administrative services, the administrative
staff has been reduced from 434 to 286 from fiscal year 1994 to 1997, a
reduction of approximately 35 percent. This was also accompanied by a
reduction in office space, telephones, and utilities. As a result, the
MSO has reduced its own internal indirect costs by 35 percent.
Under the Chief Financial Officer, a council of Reclamation
managers reviews all indirect budgets for both consistency and
reductions. Programs are discussed and line managers make decisions on
those indirect costs needed for effective operations.
Reclamation has also instituted standard processes for reviewing
Reclamation-wide business processes and systems. This process has
resulted in cost savings through common business practices, careful
scrutiny of what administrative computer systems are essential for
efficient operations, and bulk buying of software. For example,
Reclamation was able to save $5.3 million over three years by
purchasing one bureau-wide Oracle license instead of site licenses.
In another case, we were able to replace multiple timekeeping
systems with one. The report recites other cost reduction measures in
the regional offices which have been taken.
Reclamation also continues to review overhead costs charged to a
project on a project-by-project basis to ensure that these costs are
properly accounted and charged, and make corrections, as necessary. We
are also taking a look at reimbursable O&M costs and assessments that
impact the project.
Question. I believe that in the past, the Bureau of Reclamation has
indicated that there was around $75 million of deferred maintenance
work. What is your current estimate of deferred maintenance work?
Answer. In our Financial Statement for fiscal year 1998 we reported
about $12 million in deferred maintenance on our ``reserved works'' in
accordance with the requirements of the Statement of Federal Financial
Accounting Standards No. 6. The reported number reflects the
redefinition of deferred maintenance under the new standard and is
consistent with the reporting for reserved works, which is O&M'd by
Reclamation. ``Reserved works'' are project facilities which
Reclamation operates and maintains with its own personnel, as opposed
to ``transferred works'' which are project facilities operated and
maintained by Reclamation's water and power customers at their own
expense pursuant to contracts with Reclamation.
Question. How much of the work is important to efficient and
effective operation of essential operational facilities and structures?
Answer. Reclamation does not defer any ``critical'' maintenance
which is needed to protect public safety and to ensure the delivery of
water and power to its contractors. Furthermore, none of this deferred
maintenance will have adverse impacts to the efficient and effective
operation of our facilities and structures at this time. However, if
these maintenance items are not eventually funded, this could result in
less than optimally efficient operations over time.
Question. How does the Bureau of Reclamation plan to address the
backlog of deferred maintenance in future years?
Answer. Reclamation continues to prioritize its maintenance
activities to ensure that the highest priority work is completed in a
timely manner. Should any deferred maintenance item become, for some
reason, critical maintenance, it will be given priority and
accomplished immediately. We also continue to look for direct funding
arrangements with our contractors so that there will be sufficient
funding, when coupled with appropriated dollars, to ensure that
Reclamation does not accumulate a ``backlog'' of ever growing deferred
maintenance.
Question. Do future budget planning targets accommodate increased
funding for reducing the backlog?
Answer. Reclamation believes it has adequate funding to prevent
deferred maintenance from significantly increasing in the future.
dam safety program
initiate safety of dams corrective actions
The fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, while
reducing Reclamation's budget request for the Dam Safety Program,
provided a sizable increase over the 1998 appropriation. The funding
request for fiscal year 2000 again reflects a significant increase over
the previous year appropriation.
Question. Have you experienced or do you anticipate any major
problems in carrying out the program with the funding provided for the
current fiscal year, particularly in Initiate Safety of Dams Corrective
Actions activities?
Answer. Congress reduced the fiscal year 1999 Dam Safety Program
request by $8,787,000. As a result, Reclamation rescheduled Safety of
Dams activities and costs into fiscal year 2000. At this time, we
anticipate being able to carry out the restructured fiscal year 1999
program with the funding provided.
However, shifting activities from fiscal year 1999 into fiscal year
2000 impacts the flexibility to aggressively pursue risk reduction
actions at Reclamation dams in fiscal year 2000. Keechelus Dam, Yakima
Project, Washington, and Casitas Dam, Ventura River Project, California
have critical Safety of Dams issues that require modifications of
significant cost and scope. Current enacted funding and requests will
be managed to focus funding to these dams and critical Safety of Dams
issues at other dams. Funding at the President's Request level for the
fiscal year 2000 Dam Safety Program is needed to avoid delaying
critical public risk reduction efforts.
safety evaluation of existing dams
Question. What accounts for the increase from $14.2 million in
fiscal year 1999 to $17 million requested in fiscal year 2000 for the
Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams activities?
Answer. Ensuring the safety and reliability of Reclamation dams is
one of the agency's highest priorities. In 1997, the Commissioner
tasked an independent team of dam safety professionals to review
Reclamation's dam safety practices to identify best practices already
in place and make recommendations for improvements. As a result of
recommendations from the peer review team and Reclamation's own
internal initiatives endorsed by the peer review team, more focus and
vigilance has been directed at key activities such as examinations of
dams, dam performance monitoring, and engineering analyses of dams to
reliably define and manage risks across Reclamation's inventory of 362
dams. These activities are conducted under the Safety Evaluation of
Existing Dams and are primarily responsible for the requested increase
from $14.2 million in fiscal year 1999 to $17 million in fiscal year
2000.
initiate safety of dams
Question. Now the funding request for fiscal year 2000 for the
Initiate Safety of Dams Corrective Actions program is $42.7 million, an
increase of $10.4 million over the amount provided for the current
fiscal year. What accounts for this large increase?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 request of $42.7 million does not
represent a large increase when compared to the original fiscal year
1999 request. Reclamation's request for fiscal year 1999 was $41.25
million, which Congress reduced by $8,787,000. One of the reasons for a
comparable request in fiscal year 2000, is that modifications of
significant cost and scope are required at Keechelus Dam, Yakima
Project, Washington, and Casitas Dam, Ventura River Project,
California, which have critical Safety of Dams issues. In addition,
modifications activities are planned to reduce risks for identified
safety issues at six other dams.
Initiate Safety of Dams Corrective Actions is a portfolio request
for the planned Safety of Dams modifications not currently underway.
After these Safety of Dams projects are formulated and submitted to
Congress through the modification report process required by the Safety
of Dams Act, funds and future requests are transferred from ISCA to a
specific project line item. As these transfers occur, ISCA is lowered a
corresponding amount which often creates the appearance that prior year
ISCA funding is lower than current requests.
As a result, a true comparison of Safety of Dams funding levels
between fiscal years is only achieved by combining the funding for ISCA
with the funding for Safety of Dams modifications currently underway.
Modifications are currently underway at Bradbury, Horse Mesa, Lost
Creek, Twin Buttes, Pueblo, and Reservoir A Dams which total $10
million enacted in fiscal year 1999 and $8.8 million requested in
fiscal year 2000. When these ongoing projects are combined with ISCA,
enacted fiscal year 1999 Reclamation Safety of Dams funding totals
$42.46 million. Prior to the Congressional reduction the fiscal year
1999 total was $51.25 million. The total Safety of Dams request for
fiscal year 2000 is $51.56 million which consist of the $42.7 million
in ISCA and the $8.8 million for the ongoing modifications.
The level of funding necessary to carry out an effective dam safety
program to reduce risk to the public varies from year to year, and
depends on the specific dams for which deficiencies have been
identified as needing modification. The fiscal year 2000 request is
substantially below the $87.8 million funding level provided in fiscal
year 1996. Large scale modifications were ongoing at Theodore Roosevelt
Dam and Bartlett Dam in Arizona and the initiation of the modification
work at Twin Buttes Dam in Texas began that year. While most projects
are not of this magnitude, this represents the wide variation in
funding that may be needed from year to year.
pueblo dam
Question. The Committee has received information from the Family
Farm Alliance which indicates that the Bureau of Reclamation's
administration and non-construction costs for the Pueblo Dam, Safety of
Dams repair project (design, engineering, oversight, construction
management, etc.) adds around 50 percent to the cost of this
construction project. By comparison, the private sector standards use
15-20 percent as a reasonable factor to administer a construction
project of this type. Does a 50 percent factor to administer a Bureau
construction project seem reasonable to you?
Answer. We believe that a 50 percent non-contract costs for a dam
safety project may be reasonable. We do not believe that it is
appropriate for Reclamation's performance on critical public safety
issues to be measured on the basis of non-contract to contract costs.
Reclamation's primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of the
public downstream of the dam, and we believe that the public and the
water users are best served by obtaining the lowest total project cost
which also provides the necessary public risk reduction and the
assurance of continued long term, verifiable performance of the
structure.
Reclamation's experience has shown that total project costs can
generally be reduced through rigorous project investigations, planning,
and design, or ``non-contract'' costs. The Pueblo Dam Safety of Dams
modification project provides an excellent example of this effort.
Through extensive design effort, Reclamation reduced the cost of the
proposed repairs by $8 million or 36 percent. Since the cost of the
contract for construction was appreciably reduced, the ratio of
administration and non-construction costs to construction contractor
costs has correspondingly increased. During project formulation and
design, Reclamation consulted extensively with an Independent
Consulting Panel of dam design experts. The Panel originally
recommended a totally ``active resistance'' solution which had an
estimated construction cost of $22 million. Through significant study
and design efforts, Reclamation formulated a more cost-effective
alternative at $14 million that both met design requirements and was
acceptable to the Panel. Also, during final design, a hydraulic model
study was completed on the design of the modified spillway. This study
resulted in changes to the design of the spillway energy dissipation
structure and resulted in contract savings estimated at $2 million. The
cost of the model study was less than $100,000.
These are two examples of reasonable non-contract expenditures
resulting in significant cost savings. Although both efforts resulted
in increased non-contract costs and increased the calculated percentage
of non-contract costs to contract costs, they also resulted in far
greater reductions in the total project costs. Public trust, safety
issues, and Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety require significant
quality control and designer oversight throughout the duration of the
project, which cannot be compromised.
Question. Is it unreasonable to think that the Bureau of
Reclamation should be able to conform to the same 15-20 percent
standard of the private sector?
Answer. Reclamation is not aware of any study or private sector
standard that establishes a 15 to 20 percent range for activities
similar to the administration and non-construction activities for the
modification work at Pueblo Dam. Neither is Reclamation aware of any
private sector entity that performs all of the functions included in
the calculated 50 percent factor. Reclamation's 50 percent non-contract
figure cited in the Family Farm Alliance information includes all
project costs from early investigations through the completion of
construction and refilling the modified facility, not simply the
construction administration costs. The non-contract costs--which are
costs not directly paid to the construction contractor--for Safety of
Dams modifications include all costs for project activities related to
Reclamation's roles as owner, operator, and regulatory agency for
Pueblo Dam. These activities include planning and project formulation,
field investigations and data collection, environmental compliance,
securing Executive Branch and Congressional approval and funding for
the project, extensive coordination of project activities with the
water users associated with the facility, including an independent
review of specifications by the water user's consultant, negotiation of
appropriate repayment contracts, final design, development of drawings
and specifications, procurement, construction management, quality
control, construction contract administration, design and construction
documentation, and monitoring of the modified facility during first
filling as well as independent consultant review of all project
activities. We believe that Reclamation's activities and associated
costs are appropriate in addressing the critical public safety issues
at Pueblo Dam.
Reclamation believes that the average private sector project
management fee percentage cited in the Family Farm Alliance information
does not include costs for project management activities such as field
investigations, planning level studies; securing approval and funding
for the project, the development of repayment studies for project
repayment, which are required by the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act;
quality control during construction; dam safety regulatory agency costs
and fees; dam owner contract administration, oversight and review
activities; verification of adequate performance during first filling
of the modified dam; and the independent consultant panel's review of
project activities.
Question. What factors would cause the Bureau's construction
management costs to be so much above the private sector?
Answer. Reclamation believes that a comprehensive cost comparison
that includes costs for all activities on a similar project would
indicate that private sector costs would be comparable to Reclamation's
for similar activities. Reclamation attempts to construct the most cost
effective and reliable modification considering total project costs.
One factor that could make it ``appear'' that Reclamation's
construction management costs are high, based on percentages, compared
to the private sector, is our decision to construct the least cost
technically acceptable alternative to modify a dam. The decision at
Pueblo Dam was to use a ``state of the art'' construction material
referred to as Roller Compacted Concrete in a technically challenging
manner. This decision resulted in the lowest ``total'' project costs.
The use of RCC resulted in extremely low construction costs. However,
it required extraordinary construction management activities to ensure
flaws were not introduced during construction of the modifications.
Failure of Pueblo Dam would endanger more than 14,000 lives.
Reclamation views it as critical that we ensure the design intent is
met by the modifications that are constructed.
Question. Is this common in other Safety of Dams work or other
construction projects Reclamation wide?
Answer. Reclamation has estimated the total non-contract costs for
the activities outlined above to be approximately $8.8 million or about
34 percent of the total project cost and 52 percent of the contract
cost. This is in line with the range of non-contract costs for other
Reclamation dam safety modifications as identified through a 1995 audit
by the Office of the Inspector General. The audit found that
Reclamation's non-contract costs ranged from 41 percent to 60 percent
of contract costs for five projects of similar size to Pueblo Dam under
construction at the time of the audit.
Question. Does the Bureau of Reclamation have procedures in place
to ensure these types of indirect costs are held to a minimum, and that
activities which exceed a set standard are highlighted for management
attention at the Area, Regional or Headquarters level?
Answer. Reclamation utilizes a Project Management Team to
administer and oversee all activities related to the planning, design,
and construction of dam safety modifications. This includes development
and monitoring of project schedules and costs. All significant issues
related to the project are communicated to the Area Manager, Regional
Director and the Chief of the Dam Safety Office for decision and
appropriate action. Reclamation believes that the Project Management
Team provides a cost-effective means of ensuring an appropriate level
of project oversight and organizational review when addressing critical
public safety issues under the Safety of Dams program.
year 2000 compliance
In testimony last year and in the budget justification for fiscal
year 2000, you indicate an on-going effort to address the issue of
embedded microchips in equipment throughout the Bureau of Reclamation.
Question. What was the outcome of the inventory of embedded
microchips, which I believe was to be completed last summer? What types
of equipment were found deficient and were any of those mission
sensitive? What is your schedule to have all mission critical systems
and devices with embedded microchips compliant?
Answer. We have conducted and essentially completed an inventory of
all embedded microchip, or EMC, systems and devices, about half of
which are considered mission critical. Our most important systems are
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition, or SCADA, controls which
control automatic operations of power generation and water delivery.
SCADA systems include software, EMC devices, and telecommunications
equipment.
Reclamation is confirming completion and accuracy of the inventory
of telecommunication components, EMC devices, computer applications,
computer hardware and peripherals, commercial off-the-shelf software,
and other types of computer applications. This inventory is estimated
to be 98 percent complete. Mission critical equipment and systems are
being tested according to a standard checklist that involves removing
equipment from service, ensuring backup systems are in place, setting
dates, observing the equipment as the date rolls over, restoring the
present date and time, ensuring proper operation, and returning the
equipment to service. Testing has shown that most equipment and systems
are Y2K compliant. Over 80 percent of mission critical EMC's are
compliant. Non-compliant mission critical equipment is being
remediated. Most tests have been performed by Reclamation personnel and
a few contractors. Independent verification has been performed by
Reclamation personnel who were not involved in original testing, often
from other facilities. Contractors have been used in the Pacific
Northwest and Great Plains Regions. No Y2K problems were experienced
during the changeover from 1998 to 1999, and no problems are expected
on other dates. However, Y2K testing and planning efforts will address
the following critical dates: April 9, 1999 (99th day of 99); September
9, 1999 (9/9/99); December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000; and February 28
to February 29, 2000 (Leap Year). Although, we may find additional EMC
devices that require testing, our plan is to have all currently
identified EMC devices tested and remediated where necessary by June
30, 1999.
Question. Does the Bureau of Reclamation have a plan in place to
correct the problem? What is the estimated cost to correct the problem?
Is sufficient funding being requested in fiscal year 2000 to take care
of the important work?
Answer. Beginning in March 1997, Reclamation undertook an
aggressive effort to identify and correct potential Y2K related system
deficiencies. Many of these systems directly support Reclamation's
ability to generate power and regulate water.
Electrical Power Systems.--Reclamation is working closely with the
Power Marketing Administrations (PMA's) and the North American Electric
Reliability Council (NERC) to assure that potential failure of certain
computer systems on January 1, 2000, does not result in the collapse of
the electric grid. Reclamation is currently verifying its inventory of
embedded microchips in its power control and operating systems and is
taking steps to renovate any noncompliant devices, conduct independent
validation and verification testing, certify all embedded chips as Y2K
compliant, and prepare contingency plans to counter any unforseen
circumstances. In addition, Reclamation is working with the PMA's,
NERC, and the regional Western Systems Coordinating Council (WSCC) in
the Y2K system-wide exercises scheduled for April and September. These
exercises are to verify the integrity and the operational preparedness
of the interconnected power system.
Utilities.--Letters have been sent and meetings held with partners,
utilities, and electric reliability councils, such as the Western Area
Power Administration, the Bonneville Power Administration, and the
Western Systems Coordinating Council to address Y2K power system
vulnerability.
Coordination with External Partners and Clients.--Reclamation has
contacted its water and power partners and customers, i.e., water
companies, irrigation districts, water districts, and Native American
tribes. Several entities have stated that they have been aggressively
working to ensure their equipment and systems function properly for the
upcoming critical dates. In many cases, we have received inventory
information and in others we were requested to assist in assessing and
completing Y2K readiness activities.
Contingency Planning.--Reclamation contingency planning includes
equipment-specific plans; facility-level plans; and power operation,
water, and dam safety contingency plans. The plans reference continuity
of operations, emergency action plans, standing operation procedures,
and use of additional staff. The plans also address critical disruption
periods, and we are continuing to prepare for logistical support.
Estimated Cost Summary.--The total estimated cost (not including
labor) for Y2K related activities for fiscal year 1997 through
completion is $10.4 million. We believe that all major work will be
completed with fiscal year 1999 funding.
Question. Now the Bureau of Reclamation had identified 63 computer
systems which were not Year 2000 compliant. How many of those systems
are mission critical and what is the status of bringing them into
compliance?
Answer. Reclamation identified 16 mission-critical applications
from the original 63 applications inventoried. All 16 are complete and
implemented. All but three of the remaining 47 non-mission critical
systems are complete, and they are scheduled for completion by March
31, 1999. This includes testing and implementation. Newly acquired/
developed systems/applications are being tested prior to
implementation.
Question. Are you on schedule to have all computers identified as
non-Y2K compliant corrected prior to the year 2000?
Answer. Yes, Reclamation's computer system infrastructure will be
Y2K ready. It consists of the following:
Mainframe Systems.--The only BOR mainframe is at the Denver
Administrative Service Center (DASC). The mainframe and its associated
applications/systems are specific to the administration (payroll,
personnel, and financial areas of business) of DOI's bureaus and other
DASC clients, and have no impact on power and energy production. The
systems have been tested and are Y2K compliant. (It should be noted
that the DASC will be transferred to the Department of the Interior's
National Business Center in April 1999).
Office Systems.--Normal replacement procedures will ensure that all
essential personal computers will be upgraded or replaced. All local
area networks have been tested; required upgrades to software and
hardware will be completed by March 31, 1999. Reclamation's Hewlett-
Packard minicomputers have been successfully tested and certified
compliant. The wide area network has been tested and is Y2K compliant.
cvp, american river division
nimbus fish hatchery interpretive facility
Question. The budget request for Facility Operations includes funds
to begin efforts in support of the Nimbus Fish Hatchery Interpretative
Facility. Why does the Bureau consider this to be priority work which
must be undertaken in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for salmon and
steelhead mitigation on the American River. The fish hatchery is
located on the American River directly downstream from Lake Natoma and
Nimbus Dam, approximately 15 miles from Sacramento. As part of the
mitigation at the fish hatchery, which is operated by the California
Department of Fish and Game, Reclamation is supporting a visitor
facility to educate the public on the life cycle of the fish and the
uses and benefits of the Central Valley Project. It is important for
the public to understand the link between CVP project operations and
measures to improve the anadromous fish health. Currently the facility
is being staffed with volunteers, however, the public is coming to the
hatchery in greater numbers every year and the workload has become too
great to be adequately handled by volunteers.
Question. How much of the $10.1 million requested for Facility
Operations is for this work, and how, specifically, will the funds be
used?
Answer. Approximately $65,000 of the $10.1 million requested is for
this work. The funds will be used by the California Department of Fish
and Game to hire dedicated staff for the visitor facility. This project
will consist of displays and interpretative specialists telling the
story of the fish and the Central Valley Project. Information given out
will consist of educational material on the salmon and steelhead,
exhibits of their life cycle, enhanced viewing facilities, and guided
tours of the hatchery.
central arizona project
Question. The budget request includes $2.8 million to construct
remaining recreational enhancement activities at Lake Pleasant Regional
Park in Arizona. Have the Bureau of Reclamation and all interested
parties agreed to the scope of the recreational development to be
undertaken and to a cost sharing agreement as appropriate?
Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation and Maricopa County agreed to the
scope of recreational development under the Lake Pleasant Regional Park
Master Plan, approved by Reclamation on March 10, 1995. Cost sharing
with Maricopa County was committed to under the Recreational Management
Agreement dated June 29, 1990. The Recreational Management Agreement
delineates replacement and enhancement obligations of Reclamation, as
well as long-term management roles for Reclamation and Maricopa County.
The major replacement items will be completed in fiscal year 1999. The
agreement contains an $8 million Federal enhancement ceiling which is
subject to indexing, of which $2.8 million remains. The enhancement
obligation includes a 50 percent cost share obligation with Maricopa
County. The remaining recreational development as identified in the
Lake Pleasant Regional Park Master Plan includes group and family
campground areas, picnic sites, boat launching facilities, improved
public access, environmental education support, and public safety.
yuma desalting plant
Question. The budget request includes $3 million to begin a long-
term program to replace deteriorated membrane elements or look at a
water banking program with the Basin states to offset the need to
recover drainage water. Why is the Bureau exploring such options? Was a
detailed analysis of a broad range of options undertaken? Why were
these two approaches selected for possible funding in fiscal year 2000?
What is the total estimated cost of the two budgeted options and over
what period of time?
Answer. Under Title I of the 1974 Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act, during what is called the ``interim period,'' which is
defined as that period of time when all of California's water contracts
for Colorado River water can be met, savings from lining of the
Coachella Canal of 132,000 acre-feet per year are used to offset pumped
drainage return flows from Wellton-Mohawk that are diverted around
Morelos Dam via the Bypass Drain and thus are not delivered to Mexico
as part of their annual Colorado River water entitlement. Also, any
time flood control releases are made from Hoover Dam, any accrued
obligation to replace drainage water from Wellton-Mohawk that has been
bypassed around Morelos Dam is automatically terminated.
Once the interim period ends, which will occur when sufficient
Colorado River system water is not available to meet all of
California's needs for Colorado River water, California begins to get
credit for the savings that resulted from lining the Coachella Canal
and the United States must provide an alternative source for replacing
the drainage return flows from Wellton-Mohawk. The United States has
two ways in which it could meet this obligation: one is to operate the
Yuma Desalting Plant to improve the quality of drainage water from
Wellton-Mohawk so it can be delivered to Mexico as part of its annual
Colorado River water entitlement; and another is to find a replacement
source to offset the drainage water being bypassed around Morelos Dam.
Reclamation has been actively looking at alternatives to operating
the Yuma Desalting Plant for a number of years. We have considered a
range of alternatives and after considering such factors as costs, ease
of implementation and institutional constraints, we have concluded that
water banking is an approach warranting serious consideration at this
time. Under this approach, we would divert surplus Colorado River
water, since reservoirs are completely full and likely to spill, store
the water in underground aquifers in Arizona or California, and recover
the water in future years when it is needed to meet our obligation
under the Salinity Control Act. This would be done in close
consultation with the Colorado River Basin States and Tribes.
As a minimum, Reclamation would like to bank enough water to offset
drainage return flows from Wellton-Mohawk for a period of at least 2
years, or to offset the reject stream from the Yuma Desalting Plant for
several years should the plant be operated.
We are reasonably certain that a water banking program can be
implemented and are planning to utilize all of the $3 million requested
in fiscal year 2000 for this program. However, if surplus water is not
available, or we cannot successfully negotiate a banking agreement, we
could alternatively use this funding for membrane replacement.
We currently have enough membranes to operate the Yuma Desalting
Plant at full capacity for 1 year. After each year of operation we
would have to replace approximately 20 percent of the membranes to
maintain full plant capacity. As long as we have at least 2 years
advance notice that the Yuma Desalting Plant will have to be operated,
we can award a contract to allow manufacture for replacement of 20
percent of the membranes each year to maintain the plant's ability to
operate at full capacity.
The total cost of replacement membranes for the entire plant is
estimated to be $15 million, which if spread out over a 5-year period,
because 20 percent of the membranes need replacement each year, the
annual cost of membrane replacement would amount to $3 million per year
to keep the plant operating at full capacity.
Question. What does it cost annually to keep the Yuma Desalting
Plant in a standby status?
Answer. The total Title 1 budget submitted for fiscal year 2000 is
$13,092,000. Within this budget, the annual cost to keep the Yuma
Desalting Plant in ready-reserve standby status (meaning the plant
could be put into full operation with 1 year's notice) is estimated to
be approximately $1.5 million. The additional Title 1 funding is
required for other activities such as operation and maintenance of the
242 wellfield; operation and maintenance of the Bypass Drain; water
banking; research; and other Title 1 activities.
Question. Is shut down of the facility an option? If not, why?
Answer. Reclamation does not believe that shut down of the facility
is a currently viable option. First, a long-term replacement source for
the Wellton-Mohawk drainage water has not been found to date, so the
facility may have to be operated to meet our obligation to replace
Wellton-Mohawk drainage water. The facility may also be needed for
salinity control for water delivered to Mexico at the Northerly
International Boundary at some time in the future. The facility is
being considered as part of several options for a long-term solution to
reducing the salinity of flows delivered to Mexico at the Southerly
International Boundary with Mexico. Studies to improve the salinity of
flows at the southern boundary are ongoing in response to a complaint
from the Mexican government about the quality of water being delivered.
Also, Reclamation is actively searching for potential non-Federal
paying customers interested in product water from the facility.
long beach water reclamation and reuse
Question. The Long Beach Area Water Reclamation Project is a
proposed Title XVI new start for fiscal year 2000. It consists of two
elements: the Alamitos Barrier Reclaimed Water project and the City of
Long Beach Recycled Water System Expansion project. The first element
is a tertiary treatment and reinjection system, and the second is
expansion of an existing distribution system. Are these two projects
separable?
Answer. The expansion of the City of Long Beach Water Department
Recycled Water Program will increase the use of reclaimed water for
greenbelt irrigation and industrial purposes from the current 5,200
acre-feet per year to 12,000 acre-feet per year. The Alamitos Barrier
Project will further increase the use of reclaimed water to 22,000
acre-feet per year.
As we understand it, these project components are closely related
and probably cannot be separated. In order for reclaimed water to be
used for the sea water intrusion barrier, the City of Long Beach must
first complete the expansion of the distribution system. These new
pipelines must be sized to meet the needs of both the City's irrigation
system and the sea water intrusion barrier injection system. This will
require close and continuous cooperation of both operating entities. In
addition, since both components are treated as a single project, the
Federal share of total funding cannot exceed $20.0 million.
Question. What is the importance in the Federal government
participating in construction of a local distribution system?
Answer. The Long Beach area is heavily dependent on imported water,
either from the Colorado River or the San Francisco Bay/Delta in
northern California. Both water sources have significant Federal and
Reclamation investment in numerous water supply facilities. For every
acre-foot of water reclaimed by the Long Beach project, a like amount
will not have to be imported, thus helping California live within its
4.4 million acre-foot allocation of Colorado River water and also
reducing the water demand on the environmentally sensitive San
Francisco-Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay/Delta.
Congress recognized the importance in the Federal government
participation in the construction of a local distribution system in
Long Beach when it passed the Reclamation Recycling and Water
Conservation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-266), which amended Title XVI
of Public Law 102-575, the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study
and Facilities Act of 1992. This legislation authorized the Secretary
of the Interior to provide up to 25 percent of the total cost of the
Long Beach Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Project. This project has
numerous environmental enhancement, water supply, and economic benefits
that are of National importance. In providing the authority to make
financial assistance available to the local project sponsors, Congress
recognized that, without such Federal participation, this Title XVI
project would likely not be implemented due to its relatively high cost
and the current availability of cheaper imported water supplies.
Each project component will be reclaiming and reusing wastewater
that is currently being discharged to the San Gabriel River just a few
miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. Reductions in wastewater
discharges to the ocean have a positive impact on the environment. In
addition, in keeping with the intent of Title XVI as amended, these
project components will:
(1)reduce, postpone, or eliminate development of new or expanded
water supplies,
(2) reduce or eliminate the use of existing diversions from natural
watercourses or withdrawals from aquifers, and
(3) reduce the demand on existing Federal water supply facilities.
Because of the dependence on imported water, the project area is
subject to water shortages due to the occurrence of drought, both
locally and in far distant river basins. In addition, water shortages
could occur following a major earthquake which could severely damage
the two main aqueducts that convey water to the project area. These
project components will help to assure a local water supply that will
be reliable during droughts and earthquakes, thus helping to sustain a
growing economic base that is of local, regional and National
importance.
yuma area projects
Question. The budget justification indicated that $22.1 million, an
increase of $4.2 million over the amount appropriated for the current
fiscal year will be allocated for work. What has necessitated the
allocation of these additional funds, and where will this funding come
from?
Answer. As a result of the 1993 Gila River flood, 10,000,000 cubic
yards of sediment was deposited in a 15-mile reach of the lower
Colorado River, near Yuma, Arizona. The sediment created both domestic
and international problems; the domestic problem being the high
probability of flooding in and around the city of Yuma, and the
international problem being extreme sediment transportation into
Mexico's canal system. The $22.1 million in the fiscal year 1999 Yuma
Area Projects, Facility Maintenance activity includes $4.2 million in
carryover funding that was for sediment removal work originally
scheduled in the fiscal year 1998 Yuma Area Projects Facility
Maintenance activity, but was delayed because sites to deposit the
dredged sediment could not be found.
Question. What accounts for the sizable reduction in program level
from $26.9 million in fiscal year 1999 to a level of $15.6 million for
fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The $26.9 million total fiscal year 1999 Yuma Area Projects
program includes $4.6 million in fiscal year 1998 carryover funds, and
an additional $7.1 million in the Facility Maintenance activity to
finish the sediment removal in the riverbed. The $15.6 million total
fiscal year 2000 request reflects the return to a normal ongoing Yuma
Area Projects program, resulting in the sizable reduction in program
level.
Question. What is the backlog of essential maintenance and
rehabilitation for the Yuma Area Projects?
Answer. None of the Yuma Area Projects list of maintenance and
rehabilitation work items is so essential that adverse effects to the
efficient and effective operation of critical facilities and structures
would occur in fiscal year 2000. The Yuma Area Projects list is
prioritized so that under normal river conditions, adverse effects will
not occur over the short term. The Yuma Area Projects list includes the
replacement of heavy equipment, and repair of the Main Outlet Drain and
the Main Outlet Drain Extension channels that are connected to, and
convey Wellton-Mohawk drainage system return flows to the Gulf of
California. Both the Main Outlet Drain and Main Outlet Drain Extension
channels were damaged as a result of the 1993 Gila River flood.
emergency planning and disaster response program
Question. The budget for fiscal year 2000 proposed a new item
called the Emergency Planning and Disaster Response program and
includes a funding request of $360,000. Why has a separate program been
created for these activities?
Answer. While it is a new budget line item, it is not a new
program. The title ``Emergency Planning and Disaster Response Program''
covers three distinct ongoing program activities for Disaster Response
and for Continuity of Operations. These ongoing activities were
previously funded under the Dam Safety Program. Because of increased
emphasis on emergency preparedness, a separate Facilities Operation
line item has been identified in the request for fiscal year 2000.
Question. How have these activities been funded in the past?
Answer. To date, all three of these activities have been funded
through the Dam Safety Program.
Question. What does the Bureau expect the average annual funding
requirement to be in future years?
Answer. Since the funds requested for all three of these activities
are for program management, the expectation is that the funding level
should remain about the same.
Question. Please provide for the record the legislative language
which authorized appropriations for this program.
Answer. Public Law 93-288, ``Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act'', as amended, Section 101.(b) states that:
``It is the intent of Congress, by this Act, to provide an
orderly and continuing means of assistance by the Federal
government to State and local governments in carrying out their
responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and damage which
result from such [see Section 101.(a)] disasters by--(1)
revising and broadening the scope of existing disaster relief
programs; (3) achieving greater coordination and responsiveness
of disaster preparedness and relief programs; (6) providing
Federal assistance programs for both public and private losses
sustained in disasters.''
Section 201.(a) states that:
``The President is authorized to establish a program of
disaster preparedness that utilizes services of all appropriate
agencies and includes--(1) preparation of disaster preparedness
plans for mitigation, warning, emergency operations,
rehabilitation, and recovery;''
Section 303 states that:
``The President shall form emergency support teams of Federal
personnel to be deployed in an area affected by a major
disaster or emergency. Such emergency support teams shall
assist the Federal coordinating officer in carrying out his
responsibilities pursuant to this Act. Upon request of the
President, the head of any Federal agency is directed to detail
to temporary duty with the emergency support teams on either a
reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis, as is determined
necessary by the President, such personnel within the
administrative jurisdiction of the head of the Federal agency
as the President may need or believe to be useful for carrying
out the functions of the emergency support teams, each such
detail to be without loss of seniority, pay, or other employee
status''.
See also Section 402, Public Law 84-99, Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies, which directs the Army Corps of Engineers in how it will
conduct its response to flood emergencies.
For Continuity of Operations, the authorization is found in the
National Security Act of 1947, Public Law 93-288, ``Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act'', as amended. Title VI of
the Law is titled ``Emergency Preparedness'' and its purpose is,
``to provide a system of emergency preparedness for the
protection of life and property in the United States from
hazards and to vest responsibility for emergency preparedness
jointly in the Federal government and the States and their
political subdivisions. The Federal government shall provide
necessary direction, coordination, and guidance, and shall
provide necessary assistance, as authorized in this title so
that a comprehensive emergency preparedness system exists for
all hazards.''
In October of last year President Clinton signed a major policy
directive (PDD 67) requiring all Federal departments and agencies to
have ``viable continuity of operations capability'' by October 21,
1999. Presidential Decision Directive 67 states that:
``in the face of current and future dangers, it remains the
policy of the United States to have in place a comprehensive
and effective program to ensure survival of our constitutional
form of government and continuity of essential Federal
functions under all circumstances.''
It also states that,
``As a baseline of preparedness and a foundation for the
Continuity of Government, all Federal departments and agencies,
including the Executive Office of the President, shall have in
place viable Continuity of Operations capability.''
Question. What is the rationale for including the request under
Bureauwide programs and not under Policy and Administration?
Answer. All three activities that make up the Emergency Planning
and Disaster Response Program are Bureau- wide in scope and impact.
They are not particularly policy-oriented or administrative in nature.
They are directly associated with continued operation of our
facilities. The activities are critical for Reclamation operations
during emergencies and incidents. As a result, the most appropriate
request is considered to be a separate line item identified to the
Congress under the Facilities Operation program activities.
title xvi water reclamation and reuse program
Question. The budget justification for the $2.2 million requested
for the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program includes language
which indicates that the requested funds ``may also fund initiation of
construction for specific water reclamation and reuse projects that
have been determined to be both feasible and of high priority of
Federal investment.'' Is the intent of this language to allow the
Bureau to begin construction of a project when specific funding for
initiation has not been approved by the Congress?
Answer. The statement `` * * * may also fund initiation of
construction for specific water reclamation and reuse projects that
have been determined to be both feasible and of high priority of (for)
Federal investment'' is a general statement about the overall program
that would only apply if funds were specifically requested for
construction and included in the section of the budget justification
for the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program entitled ``Work
Proposed for fiscal year 2000''. No funds under this line item will be
used for construction activities in fiscal year 2000. Funding requests
for construction of water recycling projects in fiscal year 2000 are
described on a project-by-project basis elsewhere in the budget
justification document.
Question. What is the rationale and authorization for such a
provision?
Answer. There is no intent to expend funds for construction
activities on projects for which Congress has not provided funding. The
President's request for $2.214 million is intended to be used to
conduct feasibility studies on authorized projects and research on
treatment technologies applicable to municipal, industrial and domestic
wastewater and impaired ground and surface water as specified in the
Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of
1992.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
montana safety of dams projects
Question. Based upon your testimony to the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources on March 3, you stated that ensuring dam
safety and reliability of Reclamation dams continues to be a top
priority. In your testimony you further explain that half of
Reclamation dams were built during the first half of this century with
outdated practices. I am concerned about this situation given the
number of Reclamation dams in Montana and their deteriorating
conditions. What are your plans to address this growing problem in
Montana?
Answer. The age of a dam does not necessarily mean the dam is
unsafe or deteriorating. Continued safe performance is and remains a
priority of the agency regardless of the age of the dam. Reclamation
relies on a strong dam safety program to provide ongoing monitoring,
inspections, and evaluations to readily identify issues and risks.
Inspections range from at-least-monthly examinations by operating
personnel, annual inspections performed by Area Office personnel, and
periodic inspections performed by Regional Office engineering staff; to
comprehensive examinations of all features of the dam and engineering
evaluation of the design and performance of the dam in comparison to
state-of-the-art criteria at least once every six years. When issues or
conditions are identified that represent unreasonable public safety
risks, the Safety of Dams program strives to implement cost-effective
corrective actions in an expeditious manner.
Question. How much funding is needed in fiscal year 2000 to restore
the deteriorating dams in Montana?
Answer. Reclamation's inspection program provides for timely
maintenance and repair of dams to ensure that they are safe. The fiscal
year 2000 Dam Safety Program request includes funding for ongoing
activities for 15 Reclamation facilities in the State of Montana.
However, there is only dam in Montana proposed for repair in fiscal
year 2000. That is under the Initiate Safety of Dams Corrective Actions
Program, where $1,500,000 is requested to start planned modifications
to Willow Creek Dam, Sun River Project. A modification report will be
transmitted to Congress for this project this year. Modifications will
address issues related to internal erosion due to seepage and
structural stability during earthquakes.
In addition to the work being conducted in fiscal year 2000, let me
note that modifications have been completed on the following dams in
Montana: Como Dam, Bitterroot Project; Pishkun Dikes, Sun River
Project; Clark Canyon Dam, East Bench Unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin
Program; Lake Sherburne Dam, Milk River Project; Gibson Dam, Sun River
Project; Tiber Dam, Lower Marias Unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin
Program; Helena Valley Dam, Helena Valley Unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri
Basin Program; and Phase I modifications to Willow Creek Dam to repair
a large void discovered in the dam in 1996. Additional issues are
currently being evaluated at Gibson Dam and Como Dam.
lower yellowstone title transfer--intake diversionary dam
Question. As I mentioned in this hearing, I have some concerns
about the Bureau's progress to transfer completed water projects to
local water districts, specifically the transfer of the Intake
Diversionary Dam. I understand this transfer is not complete even
though it has been completed for a number of years. Why is it taking so
long to accomplish this transfer?
Answer. On February 2, 1999, Commissioner Eluid Martinez of the
Bureau of Reclamation testified to the House of Representatives
Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power. He stated it
is important to understand the legal requirements involved with title
transfer. Title does not automatically transfer when the district
repays its construction obligation. Operation and maintenance
responsibilities can be transferred to water users of Reclamation
projects under Reclamation law, but this does not give them title to
the facilities. Section 6 of the Reclamation Act 1902 provides that
title to the facilities ``shall remain in the Government until
otherwise provided by Congress,'' under 32 Stat. 389; 43 U.S.C. section
491. Also, Commissioner Martinez testified that the process needs to be
open and inclusive of all stakeholders. There must also be compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act. The processes that are
required under this Act ensure that the public has ample opportunity to
participate in the process and have their concerns identified and
addressed. Reclamation has been working with the Lower Yellowstone
Board of Control to address specific items in accordance with
Reclamation's Title Transfer Framework. Work to date includes a
cultural resource survey of the entire Lower Yellowstone Project, a
realty report for all Reclamation lands, and several seasons of
fisheries data collection. Reclamation, in conjunction with the Montana
Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the U.S. Geological Survey, has been studying fish passage
and entrainment issues associated with the Intake Diversion Dam and
Lower Yellowstone Main Canal. Reclamation has provided funding for
baseline data collection. The fourth and final year of fisheries data
collection will be completed by October 1999. Although this work has
taken several years to complete, the information is needed to fulfill
policies in Reclamation's Title Transfer Framework and NEPA
requirements, and will be used to support future progress.
Question. What is left to be done to complete the transfer?
Answer. Under the Reclamation Title Transfer Framework document, an
agreement between Lower Yellowstone Board of Control and Reclamation
needs to be developed that outlines what is required to complete
transfer. Examples of the items that would be included under the
agreement are the costs associated with completion of the realty work
items, NEPA, and National Historic Preservation Act. The agreement
would include discussion of schedule and assignment of roles and
responsibilities to accomplish the work items. After execution of the
agreement, the Title Transfer Framework document and NEPA require
public scoping meetings to be held in the project area to gain input
from local stake holders and provide feedback on issues.
Question. What are your plans to complete this transfer?
Answer. As previously stated, Reclamation is working with the LYBOC
to develop an agreement outlining specific tasks, a schedule, cost
estimates, and assignment of responsibilities. Reclamation and the
LYBOC have developed a good working relationship and both parties are
working toward completing the tasks necessary under the Title Transfer
Framework.
Question. What, if any, Congressional actions are needed to
complete this transfer?
Answer. The enacting legislation for this project did not include a
provision for title transfer upon payout of the capital expenditures,
therefore an act of Congress would be required to transfer title. We
would be happy to assist in congressional efforts, if requested.
cost overruns
Question. I understand the Bureau is experiencing cost overruns and
that these added costs are adversely impacting farmers and rangers \1\
since you have shifted these costs onto them. Why is this happening and
what measures are you doing to minimize cost overruns in these
projects?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Question was received with reference to farmers and rangers. We
assume the reference should be farmers and ranchers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. Reclamation projects in Montana were constructed during the
period of about 1905 to 1970. In some cases, the costs to operate and
maintain the facilities have increased due to extraordinary maintenance
work (maintenance work which is of relatively high cost and of a
specific duration and does not reoccur from year to year) that we have
had to perform in recent years to insure integrity of the facilities.
The extraordinary maintenance work is required to ensure that the
facilities continue to provide authorized project benefits. In some
cases, the estimates we provided to the irrigation districts (who are
responsible for paying a percentage of the multipurpose operation and
maintenance costs) varied from the actual cost to perform the work.
Previously, as additional work items were identified, we did not always
update the estimates at appropriate intervals and provide this
information to the districts in sufficient time to allow them to budget
for their share of the costs. The additional work performed was
necessary to provide an adequate level of maintenance. In the past
year, we have taken steps to improve the accuracy of these estimates
and have a process in place to exchange information with the Irrigation
Districts on an ongoing basis and to inform them of any anticipated
increases in costs as soon as they are identified. Along this line,
Reclamation is doing its best to provide more realistic cost estimates,
find cheaper ways to do the work, and anticipate all of the work that
would be reimbursed by the users.
In conformance with the Commissioner's memorandum dated September
18, 1998, we are committed to involving the irrigation districts in
program formulation. We are and will continue to provide cost estimates
and priorities for those parts of projects where our customers share in
the responsibility or pay a portion of the costs. For Montana, these
include the irrigation districts on the Milk River and irrigation
districts benefiting from Pick-Sloan Canyon Ferry Unit. We meet
annually with irrigation districts on the Milk River project to receive
input on budget formulation. We have begun annual meetings with
irrigation districts on the Pick-Sloan Canyon Ferry Unit to receive
their input regarding budget formulation. In addition, we have
committed to providing semiannual reports on the status of our costs.
Question. Also, what alternatives have you considered to minimize
adverse financial impacts on local irrigators?
Answer. We have reviewed the costs associated with operation and
maintenance program activities that we perform on an ongoing basis,
which we refer to as our base O&M program. We are working toward cost
containment for the base O&M program and attempting to limit increases
for these activities to what would normally be expected to adjust for
inflation. We have developed long-range O&M program plans that forecast
major cost items for extraordinary maintenance. This information is
provided to irrigation districts on an annual basis to provide as much
lead time as possible for them to make financial adjustments and create
reserve funds to pay their share of the costs before the work is
performed and the costs incurred. We have also provided the irrigation
districts with information on how to obtain State grants as a source of
funding for their share of the reimbursable costs associated with the
operation and maintenance of Reclamation projects.
Memorandum From the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, Washington, D.C.
In Reply Refer To: EC-100, SEP 24, 1998
To: Regional Director, PN, MP, LO, UC, GP, Attention: PN-1000, MP-100,
LC-1000, UC-100, GP-1000
Director, Program Analysis Attention: D-5000
All Area Managers and Program Managers
From: Eluid L. Martinez, Commissioner
Subject: Directive for Customer Involvement in Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) Program Formulation
The House Report 105-190 on the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill, 1998 states, in part
``The Committee strongly encourages the Bureau of Reclamation
to create new opportunities for water and power contractors to
participate in the review and development of O&M budget
priorities for their respective Bureau of Reclamation
projects.''
The Statement of the Managers accompanying the Fiscal Year 1998
Conference Report for the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Bill reiterated the support of the Conference Committee for this
provision.
Customer involvement assists in our effort to deliver quality
services in the most efficient and economic manner. We have been
working closely with many of our customers and customer organizations
(i.e. water and power contractors) for several years in the formulation
of the O&M program. We need to continue with activities that are
responsive and helpful.
In response to the Committees' encouragement and as an expansion of
current efforts, I am establishing this customer involvement directive
for use by Regional Directors and their managers with program
responsibilities. This directive is to be used in working with
customers who are interested in the development and implementation of
the O&M program.
Managers will:
1. Contact customers to determine their level of interest and
desired participation in program formulation.
2. Provide interested customers with O&M programs, cost estimates
and priorities for those parts of projects in which the customers share
in responsibility or pay a portion of the cost. The focus will be on
the budget being formulated in the Region (Budget Year +2). However,
additional information may also be provided to serve as a bridge to
Budget Year +2. The total package of information may cover four years
including the prior year actual expenditures, current year program, the
President's budget for the next fiscal year (Budget Year), and the
Budget Year +2 projections. This information should be provided to the
customers during the August to September time frame. Using fiscal year
1998 as an example, the information would cover fiscal year 1997 actual
expenditures, fiscal year 1998 program, fiscal year 1999 President's
budget, and program projections for the fiscal year 2001 budget year.
The fiscal year 2000 budget would be in embargo status, therefore
unavailable (see table below as further reference). As part of the
process, managers should be prepared to explain shifts from projected
expenditures to actual expenditures for the prior year.
REFERENCE FOR AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1998 TIME FRAME
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
Fiscal year Time period nomenclature and
status reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997............................ 10-1-96/9-30-97... Prior Year--
Completed
(Actuals).
1998............................ 10-1-97/9-3-98.... Current Year--
Program being
carried out.
1999............................ 10-1-98/9-30-99... Budget Year--
Pending in
Congress.
2000............................ 10-1-99/9-30-00... Budget Year +1--
Under review
within Department
and OMB
(embargoed).
2001............................ 10-1-00/9-30-01... Budget Year +2--
Under development
within Region.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Provide interested customers the opportunity within a reasonable
time frame (a minimum of 15 working days) to review and comment on work
plans and cost estimates. Managers will provide responses either
written or oral, as appropriate, to customers that address their
comments.
4. Notify interested customers of any changes in the work plans or
cost estimates after the Regional budget deliberations (For example:
the Regional deliberations on the fiscal year 2001 budget normally take
place between October 1998 and January 1999) and before the Budget
Review Committee (BRC) Regional meetings (2001 BRC Regional meetings
normally occur in March 1999).
5. Honor executive branch guidelines on non-disclosure of budget
materials after the Regional budget deliberations and until the
Presidents Budget goes to the Congress (for the fiscal year 2001 budget
this will be in February of 2000).
6. Review budget information with the customers, as requested,
after the Congress receives the President's budget so that there is an
understanding of Reclamation's proposed budget.
The Director of Program Analysis is directed to incorporate this
memorandum into the Reclamation Manual. In order to determine whether
this directive is overly burdensome for Reclamation managers and also
to determine whether it is meeting our customer's needs it will be
reviewed after a full cycle of implementation, presumably in the Spring
of 2002. In the interim there may be a need to adapt schedules
contained herein to meet local circumstances. Although requiring an
additional commitment of time for some managers, I believe this will
provide our customers with a meaningful opportunity to comment on O&M
activities that affect them.
yellowtail dam & bighorn lake operations
As I mentioned at the hearing, the snowpack around Yellowtail Dam
area is high this winter. People downstream of Yellowtail experienced
massive flooding two years ago. They believe it was created by the
Bureau's release of water from Yellowtail Dam.
Question. What are the Bureau's plans to avoid flooding this year
due to releases from Yellowtail Dam?
Answer. As is the case with other Reclamation reservoirs with an
authorized flood control purpose, the Army Corps of Engineers has the
ultimate responsibility for all flood control operations of Bighorn
Lake Yellowtail Dam. The amount of storage provided within the lake and
the flood control afforded are determined by the Corps of Engineers'
flood operating criteria for that particular reservoir. All flood
control operations are closely and jointly coordinated between the
Corps of Engineers and Reclamation.
Yellowtail Dam and Bighorn Lake, in conjunction with Boysen and
Buffalo Bill Reservoirs, played a major role in providing flood control
along the Bighorn, Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers during the 1997
runoff. Storage within and releases from these reservoirs were
coordinated closely with instructions issued by the Corps of Engineers'
in accordance with operating criteria for Bighorn Lake. Without the
control provided by these reservoirs, the flooding along the
Yellowstone River downstream of the mouth of the Bighorn River would
have been much more severe. The Bighorn River Basin comprises about one
half of the Yellowstone River drainage basin above the mouth of the
Bighorn River. River flow of the Yellowstone River above the mouth of
the Bighorn River is unregulated. Therefore, Reclamation is unable to
provide flood protection against this unregulated flow. During 1997,
flows in the Bighorn River were maintained within safe river channel
capacity at all times.
The Bureau of Reclamation is closely monitoring snowpack and is
continually revising and updating monthly operating plans for Bighorn
Lake. Snowpack in the Bighorn Basin is currently 113 percent of normal
on March 15, nearly 20 percent lower than experienced in record water
year 1997. Currently storage in Bighorn Lake has been evacuated about
28.5 feet below the top of the joint-use pool. Plans are to continue
evacuating storage to about 32.0 feet below the top of the joint-use
pool by the end of March. As projected in the March plan and based on
normal spring precipitation, this will provide adequate storage to
store the snowmelt runoff without making large releases that may cause
downstream flooding. Reclamation will continue to work with the Corps
of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and State and local
constituents to provide information on operations plans for Yellowtail
Dam.
Question. What does the Bureau plan to do this spring to inform
folks downstream from the mouth of the Bighorn River about water
releases from Yellowtail Dam?
Answer. Reclamation is responsible for monitoring the conditions of
Yellowtail Dam and Bighorn Reservoir, as well as monitoring weather
conditions upstream of the dam, that could result in the need to make
large releases from the Dam. Reclamation is also responsible for
providing notification of all significant incidents occurring at
Yellowtail Dam to various Federal, State, and local authorities
downstream of the Dam. This includes all affected downstream County
Disaster & Emergency Services and law enforcement dispatch centers,
Montana DES, and the National Weather Service, which is Federally
mandated to issue flood watches and warnings. Additionally, Reclamation
is responsible for providing notification to the National Park Service,
Crow Tribe, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, as each of these agencies are
also integrally involved with the operations of the Dam. Local
authorities are responsible for notifying the public at risk, advising
the public on safe evacuation routes, and where to go for safe shelter.
It is not within Reclamation's authority or responsibility to directly
carry out warning and evacuation of the impacted public from large
operational releases.
The Bureau of Reclamation continues to closely monitor snowpack and
continually revise and update monthly operating plans for Bighorn Lake.
These operating plans include projected operations of Yellowtail Dam
and Bighorn Lake and are distributed to key members of the Yellowstone
River Task Force. The Task Force is encouraged to contact Reclamation
about any concerns or questions they may have regarding these operating
plans.
Daily information about the water levels in Bighorn Lake and
streamflows in the Yellowstone and Bighorn River Basins is also
available on the Bureau of Reclamation's Great Plains WEB site at
address /www.gp.usbr.gov/.
Question. What sort of early warning system have been or will be
set up?
Answer. All Reclamation dams are required to conform to agency
policy established for emergency management. This policy and its
implementation provides for the safety of the public during potential
emergency incidents, including high releases, at these dams. Each dam
has an Emergency Action Plan that describes what actions, including
notification of local disaster and emergency management personnel, will
take place during periods of emergency. These plans are exercised on a
regular basis. Local, state, and other Federal organizations who might
be involved in potential emergencies are encouraged to participate in
the exercises and drills.
Reclamation's Emergency Management Policy requires that Emergency
Action Plans be developed and implemented at all significant and high
hazard dams, including Yellowtail Dam. The EAP must contain initiating
conditions for hydrologic (flooding) as well as nonhydrologic events,
which trigger specific Reclamation response procedures and
notifications to effected downstream agencies. Initiating conditions
are typically established at levels that provide as much advance
notification of significant incidents to local officials as
practicable. EAPs must also contain descriptions of available
communication capabilities, descriptions of potentially affected areas
in the flood plain, flood inundation maps where appropriate, and tables
showing floodwave travel times and other pertinent information that may
be needed by local emergency management officials.
On March 11, Reclamation met with County and State Disaster and
Emergency Service officials, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Crow Tribe,
National Weather Service and the National Park Service to plan an
exercise to test the Emergency Action Plans for Yellowtail Dam and
Yellowtail Afterbay Dam. The exercise is scheduled to be conducted on
May 20, 1999. The DES staff is responsible for immediately contacting
residents along the Bighorn and Yellowstone Rivers of any potential
dangers that may result from downstream flooding. Yellowtail Dam is
monitored 24 hours a day by the Casper Control Center to ensure
downstream officials get advance notification, should a problem occur.
Reclamation will continue to monitor daily snowpack and snowmelt
runoff in the Bighorn River Basin and maintain close contact with the
National Weather Service. The NWS will provide Reclamation with daily
river forecasts based upon current hydrologic and forecasted climatic
conditions. In addition to monitoring the mountain snowpack conditions,
Reclamation will continue to utilize existing satellite telemetered
gaging stations to monitor river conditions upstream and downstream of
Yellowtail Dam and Bighorn Lake. As hydrologic and climatic conditions
change, sudden changes may be required in reservoir and river
operations. Reclamation will issue press releases to inform citizens
living along the Yellowstone River of these operational changes.
Question. Why hasn't the Bureau considered a stream flow monitoring
device to ensure the safety of the downstream citizens and private
property?
Answer. On March 25, 1998, personnel from the Bureau of Reclamation
attended a meeting with several citizens who live along the Yellowstone
River near Hysham, Montana. Many people who attended the meeting
believed installing another stream gaging station equipped with
satellite telemetry along the Yellowstone River near Custer, Montana
would improve the operations and management of Yellowtail Dam and
Bighorn Lake.
Reclamation currently utilizes data collected at 8 existing
satellite telemetered river gaging stations located along the
Yellowstone River from Corwin Springs, Montana to Sidney, Montana.
Reclamation currently believes the data collected at these sites are
adequate for monitoring river flows under most conditions and
installing an additional station near Custer, upstream of the mouth of
the Bighorn River, is not required to support the operations at
Yellowtail Dam and Bighorn Lake. However, after the record water year
of 1997, Reclamation provided funds for installing satellite telemetry
at the stream gaging station located near Forsyth. Reclamation
investigated the costs to install another satellite telemetered gaging
station near Custer. It was determined costs to renovate and reactivate
this site would cost $24,000. In addition to this cost, annual
maintenance costs were estimated to vary from $6,000 for a seasonal
station or $9,850 for an annual station.
Reclamation has informed the Task Force that we are willing to
provide funds in the amount of $7,500 for the installation of the
satellite telemetry equipment. However no other resources have been
identified to fund the remaining costs.
land management and fish & wildlife activities
Question. I am getting concerned about the Bureau's growing
activities into land management and fish and wildlife activities such
as issuing grazing permits and conducting fish restoration projects.
Have you considered shifting these responsibilities to more established
Federal agencies who are more experienced and staffed to work on these
activities such as the Bureau of Land Management and Fish & Wildlife
Service. Wouldn't such a reinvention of governmental responsibilities
allow you to refocus your limited resource toward the more well-
established missions of the Bureau--to develop, manage, and protect
water resources for power generation and recreation.
Answer. The development of water projects by Reclamation required
inclusion of lands necessary for operation of the projects. These lands
were either withdrawn from settlement, sale, location of minerals, or
entry under the general land laws or acquired for project purposes by
purchase, condemnation, or donation by private landowners. Although
these lands were withdrawn or acquired for Reclamation project
purposes, the Secretary of the Interior was granted broad authority to
allow use of the lands for incidental purposes, including grazing.
Therefore, grazing is not a new activity; Reclamation has had these
land management responsibilities since its inception and has a great
deal of experience in implementing and managing these lease agreements.
Where it is more efficient and appropriate to do so, we enter into
agreements with other Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land
Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, or Forest Service to manage
lands under our jurisdiction. Withdrawn lands that are no longer needed
for project purposes are recommended for relinquishment and revocation
to Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service jurisdiction.
Reclamation's fish restoration activities have been undertaken in
response to specific Reclamation project authorizations as well as
congressional legislation such as the Endangered Species and the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Acts. We coordinate these activities with the
Fish and Wildlife Service, state wildlife agencies and our water and
power users. We must meet the requirements of such legislation in order
to meet our contractual obligations to deliver the water and power
benefits to authorized Reclamation We agree that our resources are
limited, but solving fishery problems is vital for Reclamation's
continuing mission to manage, develop, and protect water and related
resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Craig
snake river plain aquifer
Question. The Snake River Plain Aquifer is the lifeblood of
Southern Idaho. Its health is important to everyone that lives there,
from the farmer who irrigates the food we eat to the mother who gives a
glass of water to her child. It is also vital to Idaho's thriving
aquaculture industry, which produces the vast majority of the nation's
trout. Concerns have been raised about diminishing spring discharges.
What is the Bureau of Reclamation's position on using excess flows in
the Snake River to recharge the aquifer?
Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation is participating in a
demonstration project that will quantify and document the benefits and
impacts of recharge projects in the Snake River Plain Aquifer. This
project is a cooperative venture with the State of Idaho to investigate
the feasibility of using managed aquifer recharge as an effective tool
for conjunctive (ground water/surface water) water resource management
in the Snake River Plain. Reclamation's contribution to the effort is
to allow use of a canal for delivery of the water to the recharge site.
This project should provide answers to many questions about the
feasibility of using managed recharge as a tool for slowing, or
stabilizing, the decline of the aquifer, thus providing more consistent
flows downstream near the Thousand Springs area. This is especially
critical during periods of drought.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dorgan
garrison diversion unit
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.
Question. Can you tell the Committee how this year's budget request
will generally help North Dakota advance water development?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 request will be used to continue
development of Indian irrigation facilities on the Standing Rock
Reservation; to provide grant funds to continue State municipal, rural,
and industrial (MR&I) water supply system development; to provide
minimum maintenance to assure reliability of completed facilities still
in construction status and operate the supply system for freshening
flows; to continue mitigation activities associated with meeting refuge
compatibility; to continue planning activities associated with a water
supply to the Red River Valley; to provide flood control at Jamestown
Dam and continue to operate, maintain, and replace facilities; and for
construction and planning activities associated with recreation
facilities. Reclamation will continue working with three Indian
reservations in Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) to operate, maintain, and
replace existing MR&I water treatment and distribution facilities, and
provide technical assistance and oversight for planning activities to
meet reservation-wide needs.
Question. Would you agree that completing work on the Southwest
Pipeline, doing further work on the Northwest Area Waters Supply, and
moving to Phase 2 on Indian MR&I mean that thousands of North Dakotans
without reliable supplies of clean water will finally have access to
the kind of water most of us take for granted?
Answer. These types of projects have been successful in providing
reliable, safe drinking water to thousands of people throughout the
state whose previous supplies have been unreliable or have not met safe
drinking water standards.
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 again have
reached their funding ceilings which prompted the Congress to add
funding to the last two appropriations bills. Can you assure the
Subcommittee that the Bureau is prepared to work with us in raising the
ceilings and identifying additional resources--in the range of $3
million--to meet critical MR&I needs on the reservation?
Answer. Reclamation has allocated funding to continue Indian MR&I
planning and construction activities in each of the past two years in
which the appropriation ceiling has been raised, fiscal year 1998 and
fiscal year 1999. If the ceiling is raised again in fiscal year 2000,
we anticipate that additional funds would be allocated to continue
these ongoing activities.
Question. Do you concur that 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?
Answer. Studies have documented that the Indian reservations in
North Dakota have significant domestic water supply problems. Studies
commissioned for the Standing Rock, Fort Berthold, and Spirit Lake
Indian Reservations have estimated that an additional $220,000,000
could be required to complete facilities to meet all the reservation-
wide needs. In addition, it is estimated that another $20,000,000 may
be required to meet the domestic water supply needs on the Turtle
Mountain Chippewa Indian Reservation. Reclamation is initiating a needs
assessment study in fiscal year 1999 through the Native American
Affairs Program to refine the needs of the Turtle Mountain Chippewa
Tribe.
Question. All but 11 of North Dakota's counties are losing
population as farm communities face unparalleled problems from low
prices, Canadian grain imports, 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 specific social
and economic benefits of such projects as the Southwest Pipeline in
bringing clean, dependable water supplies to towns in our state?
Answer. The benefits associated with improved water quality can
include better tasting water, water that does not corrode pipes and
appliances, improved health, or some other improvement in lifestyle.
Therefore, an improved water supply can help a rural area remain
economically viable.
Question. Several North Dakota communities have had been using
tobacco-colored water or been in violation of Clean Water standards--
through no fault of their own. Can you confirm how many ND communities
have been able to comply with Clean Drinking Water standards as a
result of Garrison projects?
Answer. In preparing our response to this question, we consulted
with the North Dakota State Water Commission (SWC) who administers the
GDU MR&I State Grant Program. The SWC provided Reclamation with a
spreadsheet, dated November 17, 1998, that summarizes the status of all
projects that have submitted applications under this program. The SWC
and the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District prioritize each of the
projects that submit applications. One of the most important
prioritization criteria is water quality, particularly documentation
that existing water supplies are violating Safe Drinking Water
standards. Based on SWC information, since the program began in 1986,
the State has received 132 applications for water supply funding
assistance, and 32 highest priority projects have been completed.
Another 43 projects are in various stages of planning, design, and
construction.
Question. As you know, the Bureau of Reclamation has been studying
the water development and management needs of the Red River Valley for
the past year. Can you apprise the Committee of the status of these
studies?
Answer. The Phase IA Needs Assessment has been completed. Initial
alternatives to meet the municipal, rural, and industrial water needs
of the Red River Valley have been formulated. A working draft of the
Phase 2 (alternatives Analysis) report will be forwarded to the
Steering committee prior to our March 30th meeting. Phase IB Instream
Flow report will be finalized by the end of March 1999, and the results
will be incorporated into the Alternatives Analysis.
Question. Has the Bureau worked closely with the ND State Water
Commission, local communities and other interested parties to obtain
their views and recommendations?
Answer. The Bureau has been working closely with State and local
interests to obtain their views and recommendations. It is expected
that more meetings may be needed to assure that the views and interests
of the State and local interests are fully considered prior to
distribution of the public review draft. The Bureau's work is
coordinated with a steering committee which is comprised of
representatives of the ND State Water Commission, ND State Health
Department, the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, Fargo, Grand
Forks, Moorehead, rural water systems, and the environmental community.
Question. Can you please assure the Subcommittee that the Bureau
will make these studies a top priority and work closely with ND
agencies and groups?
Answer. Completion of this study is a priority.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH W. WESTPHAL, 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
Senator Domenici. Would the Corps of Engineers witnesses,
General Ballard, Dr. Westphal, and any supporting witnesses
come forward please?
Thank you very much. Can we have order in the back of the
room? If you would like to carry on conversations, could you do
it in the hall please? Thank you very much.
Dr. Westphal, it is good to see you. General Ballard,
General Fuhrman its always a pleasure. And on the end----
General Fuhrman. That is Fred Caver, sir. He is our budget
and programs person.
Senator Domenici. All right. Nice to have you with us. Yes,
he is the budget man?
General Fuhrman. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Dr. Westphal, we extend an especially
warm welcome to you since this is your first appearance before
the committee.
The environment is certainly better this year than it was
last year when we faced a very difficult budget from the
administration where water projects were underfunded. Then we
were expected to meet the demands of water projects in the
country, and through the goodness of the chairman of the full
committee, they gave us money from some other subcommittee for
the water projects that the President did not fund.
The Administration have gotten the message this year and
the budget looks much better with reference to what you must do
to complete your projects and maintain schedules for ongoing
work. We hope to be able to meet those responsibilities within
the President's budget.
We have many Senators who want to be heard, so that is the
extent of my statement. Unless somebody has an urgent, urgent
statement, I would like to proceed to have the witnesses----
statement of senator stevens
Senator Stevens. Could I just make one statement and ask a
question? I want to go to another hearing.
Senator Domenici. Absolutely.
Senator Stevens. Good morning, General Ballard and Dr.
Westphal.
Dr. Westphal. Good morning, sir.
General Ballard. Good morning, sir.
Senator Stevens. I am here to state to you that we do
appreciate the work that you do in Alaska. You are really
involved in a number of important military projects. I
discussed that with Colonel John yesterday.
Our problem now is that we have, as you know, half the
coastline of the United States, 55,000 miles of coastline, and
our future development really is dependent upon our being able
to get modern facilities there for the village areas in
particular.
project cost sharing problems
As we face this period of higher and higher costs of
construction, one of the great problems that I face is how to
deal with the local cost sharing formula that is involved with
the Corps. These are areas that have no tax base at all, are
primarily dependent upon the Federal Government, and are not
very well represented in the State government because of the
one man/one vote concept. We have an area the size of Texas
that has one State representative.
Now, when you look at it in terms of trying to get cost
sharing for those areas, for the facilities they need to
develop--I hate to use that word--the modern infrastructure for
the next century, we just cannot deal with this cost sharing
formula that has been worked out. I would like to know if you
would be willing to sit down with us and see if we can find
some way to justify--I take it it would take an Act of Congress
to change your current formula. Is your current formula not
based in law rather than regulation?
Dr. Westphal. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Well, I have got to find some way to
relieve some of these places of the burden of cost sharing
where there is no tax base.
Dr. Westphal. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we need to work
with you on developing some ability to pay mechanisms that
might help these communities. The Chief and I are committed
to--in fact, we have been talking about doing something about
this issue nationwide, because there are communities all over
the country that really in some cases absolutely cannot make
the local match, yet they are in danger of flooding or they
desperately need some infrastructure help. So, we are committed
to finding ways in which we can help those communities either
by adapting ability to pay provisions or simply coming to
Congress and looking at some other vehicles for doing that for
those particular communities in need. We will certainly be
willing to work with you and members of your staff.
Senator Stevens. Well, we worked it out once. The City of
Buckland--I do not know if you are familiar with that little
city. It has a sewage lagoon. That lagoon just happens to be in
the center of the village. Over the years the waste water has
gone directly into the lagoon in the middle of the village.
Thanks to you, we now have an infrastructure demonstration
project. You have a lot of flexibility on those demonstration
projects.
I am thinking of looking to this committee or to some
committee to help us redefine what we can do in these areas
where there is no potential for a local match. Most of us here
had something to do with State government. I know I did in the
State legislature. They have very little chance of getting a
bill through the State legislature to give them an increased
percentage of their local matched funds for projects that will
enable them to compete with another area of the State.
So, it is something that I would hope we would get some
attention to, and I would look forward to working with you if
you will do that for me.
Dr. Westphal. We will, yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Thank you. Senator Stevens, we are aware
of your problem and of some rural counties in the continental
United States that actually have similar problems. We will try
to work on that with your staff.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Would you please proceed, Dr. Westphal.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH W. WESTPHAL
Dr. Westphal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be
here to testify before this esteemed subcommittee, Mr.
Chairman, and to testify and present to you the President's
civil works budget for the 21st century. I think it is a good
budget, Mr. Chairman.
Accompanying me, as you mentioned earlier, is Lieutenant
General Joe Ballard, who is the Chief of Engineers; and Major
General Russ Fuhrman, who is the Director of Civil Works; and
Mr. Fred Caver, who is the Chief, Programs Management Division
for the Directorate of Civil Works.
For just a second, Mr. Chairman, on a personal note, I just
want to say how delighted I am to be here, the first time
testifying before you. I began my professional career in
Washington working for the House Budget Committee the year that
you became chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. Of course,
I am delighted to be here with my former boss and mentor,
Senator Thad Cochran. It is a great opportunity to defend and
to support a very strong program for civil works this year.
Let me begin by noting that large differences between the
administration's budget proposal last year and what you
appropriated in both fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 are
now reconciled in the fiscal year 2000 budget I am about to
discuss.
Mr. Chairman, I am just going to summarize a few points
here in the interest of time and ask that my full testimony be
made part of the record.
budget themes
The President has consistently stressed two major themes
that I think are particularly important to the way we should
formulate and implement a civil works policy. First, policy
must be based on building strong partnerships with our States
and local communities, as well as with other sister Federal
agencies. And second, we must strive to help our economy grow
and prosper by combining sound infrastructure management and
development with environmental protection and ecosystem
restoration. I believe our program excels in both of these
mandates and that the budget we present today reflects their
importance and priority.
I am pleased to say that funding in the President's fiscal
year 2000 budget supports a strong civil works program. It is
consistent with levels enacted by Congress in recent years and
with the President's overall domestic priorities, his
commitment to a balanced budget, and his goal of protecting
Social Security and meeting the challenges of the 21st century.
budget overview
The President's budget for the civil works program for the
year 2000 includes $3.9 billion for the discretionary program,
comparable to the amount appropriated for the program in fiscal
year 1999 and significantly above last year's budget. With
cost-sharing contributions by our partners, the non-Federal
sponsors, plus other funding, the fiscal year 2000 program will
total about $4.2 billion. In fiscal year 2000, we will be
asking non-Federal sponsors to contribute over $251 million as
their cost share of projects throughout the Nation. They are
our partners in this program and we are committed to a very
responsive and timely allocation of resources to meet their
efforts. I look forward to working with both houses of Congress
to meet the challenges of this partnership.
I would like to point out that the fiscal year 2000 budget
for the civil works operation and maintenance general program
is $1.84 billion. This level of funding is very strong,
demonstrating the administration's commitment to maintaining
our existing infrastructure, much of which is aging and
requires greater upkeep.
Funding for the construction general program is $1.24
billion, a significant increase from last year's request.
On new investments, the fiscal year 2000 budget for the
Army civil works program provides a strong program of new work,
including 1 new survey, 19 new construction projects, 5
operation and maintenance new starts, and 6 new plant
replacement and improvement program major acquisitions, and the
Challenge 21 program.
water resource development process
I also want to emphasize our commitment to water resources
development and the biennial authorization cycle. A strong
water resources development program is a sound investment in
our Nation's economic future and environmental stability.
Communities across the country benefit from water resources
projects to reduce flood damages, compete more efficiently in
world trade, provide needed water and power, provide
recreational opportunities, and protect and restore our rich
aquatic resources.
In this regard, we will work with Congress to complete a
water resources development act in 1999, building on the
progress that we made last fall on the proposed 1998 bill.
Further, it would put us in a better position to address new
policy and project needs in a WRDA 2000 bill that will include
such important initiatives as the restoration of the
Everglades.
harbor services fund
A key component of the President's 2000 budget for the Army
civil works program is the proposal for a new harbor services
user fee. This proposal will provide a reliable source of
funding for important navigation needs, including construction,
operation, and maintenance. It results in significantly greater
funding for these port and harbor activities. The President's
budget for fiscal year 2000 includes $951 million to be derived
from the Harbor Services Fund, an overall increase of $382
million over the President's fiscal year 1999 budget for harbor
related activities. This level of funding will allow us to
proceed at an optimal rate on nearly all operation and
maintenance and construction activities related to ports and
harbors, using funds contributed by the users.
The user fees will generate funds sufficient to pay the
Department of the Army's annual cost of developing, operating,
and maintaining the Nation's ports. The legislative proposal
will make the total amount of user fees collected pursuant to
this proposed legislation in one year, available the next
fiscal year for appropriations.
We are coming to completion on the details of this proposal
and discussions with stakeholders and comments from interested
groups. A final proposal will come to you in the next few
weeks, Mr. Chairman.
The administration is also committed to the traditional
mission areas of improving our navigation and transportation
system, protecting our local communities from flood damages and
other disasters and maintaining and improving hydropower
facilities across the country.
environmental programs
In addition, the protection and the restoration of the
environment is an important and integral part of the civil
works mission portfolio. The President has strongly advocated
linking economic growth and protection of the environment. To
help meet this objective, we will support projects that feature
strong economic benefits, as well as incorporate environmental
restoration and enhancement. Of course, individual
environmental restoration projects are also an important part
of the civil works mission.
An example of a program that will integrate the
environmental concerns into more traditional civil works
missions is our Challenge 21 program, the riverine ecosystem
restoration and flood hazard mitigation initiative. Like last
year, this year's budget includes $25 million to begin the
Challenge 21 program. It is designed to accomplish both flood
hazard mitigation and ecosystem restoration and emphasizes
nonstructural measures as a means of accomplishing these
objectives.
regulatory program
The fiscal year 2000 budget for the civil works regulatory
program is $117 million, an increase of $11 million over the
enacted level in fiscal year 1999 funding. In this program we
are proud that we not only protect our vital aquatic resources,
but we try to help people within the law to find
environmentally sustainable solutions to their problems. In
fiscal year 1998, the regulatory program authorized 90,000
activities in writing, the most of any year, and nearly 95
percent of all actions were authorized in less than 60 days.
This budget will ensure that this level of service is
maintained and improved, even with an increasing volume of
work.
In summary, the President's fiscal year 2000 budget for the
civil works program is a good one. It demonstrates a commitment
to civil works missions with strong support for all programs, a
plan to solve the constitutional problem with the existing
harbor maintenance tax, an especially strong program of new
construction, a firm commitment to maintaining existing water
resources management infrastructure and increased application
of civil works program expertise to environmental protection
and restoration.
Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be here with the Chief of
Engineers. We have had an excellent working relationship since
I took over this job. We are true partners in this process,
along with the Director of Civil Works, in making sure that we
address the interests of your constituents and the feasibility
of moving this program forward at a very good pace in the
future.
prepared statement
With that, Mr. Chairman, I end my remarks and I thank the
committee for the opportunity to testify today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Joseph W. Westphal
introduction
It is an honor and a pleasure to testify before this esteemed
subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee and to present to you,
President Clinton's first Civil Works budget for the 21st Century. It
is a good budget.
Accompanying me are Lieutenant General Joe N. Ballard, Chief of
Engineers; Major General Russell L. Fuhrman, Director of Civil Works;
and Mr. Thomas F. Caver, Jr., Chief Programs Management Division,
Directorate of Civil Works.
Let me begin by noting that the large differences between the
Administration's budget proposal last year and what you appropriated in
both fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 are now reconciled in the
fiscal year 2000 budget I am about to outline.
The President has consistently stressed two major themes that I
think are particularly important to the way we should formulate and
implement Civil Works policy. First, it must be based on building
strong partnerships with our states and local communities as well as
among our sister federal agencies. Second, we must strive to help our
economy grow and prosper by combining sound infrastructure management
and development with environmental protection and ecosystem
restoration. I believe our program excels in both of these mandates and
that the budget I will present today reflects their importance and
priority.
I am pleased to say that funding in the President's fiscal year
2000 Budget supports a strong Civil Works Program. It is consistent
with levels enacted by Congress in recent years, and with the
President's overall domestic priorities, his commitment to a balanced
budget, and his goal of protecting Social Security and meeting the
challenges of the 21 Century.
My statement covers the following subjects:
--the fiscal year 2000 Civil Works Program Budget,
--Water Resources Development Acts of 1999 and 2000,
--GPRA and Civil Works Program Performance,
--the Harbor Services Fund Proposal,
--the Economy and Environment,
--New Investments, and
--Highlights of the fiscal year 2000 Continuing Program.
fiscal year 2000 civil works program budget
The President's budget for the Civil Works Program for fiscal year
2000 includes $3.9 billion for the discretionary program, comparable to
the amount appropriated for the program in fiscal year 1999, and
significantly above last year's budget request. Details are presented
in Table A.
The Administration appreciates the significant commitments made by
our partners, the non-federal sponsors who cost-share studies and
projects of the Civil Works Program. These commitments demonstrate the
value of the program to the sponsors. With cost- sharing contributions
and other funding, total funding for the fiscal year 2000 program is
$4.2 billion. In fiscal year 2000, we will be asking non-Federal
sponsors to contribute over $251 million as their cost share of
projects throughout the nation. They are our partners in this program
and we are committed to a very responsive and timely allocation of
resources to meet their efforts. I look forward to working with both
Houses of Congress to meeting the challenges of this partnership.
water resources development acts of 1999 and 2000
I also want to emphasize our commitment to water resources
development and the biennial authorization cycle. A strong water
resources development program is a sound investment in our Nation's
economic future and environmental stability. Communities across the
country benefit from water resource projects to reduce flood damages,
compete more efficiently in world trade, provide needed water and
power, and protect and restore our rich aquatic resources. In this
regard, we will work with the 3 Congress to complete a Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) in 1999--building on the progress that we made
last fall on the proposed WRDA 98.
As you know, the Army, on behalf of the Administration, submitted
to Congress a WRDA proposal in 1998. This formed the basis for the
Senate version of WRDA 98 that included important Administration policy
initiatives such as our Challenge 21 program. We hope that, based on
our bill, and the work of the authorizing Committees, we can come to
closure on a responsible WRDA 99 early this year that includes
important policy initiatives and vital projects, while recognizing the
continuing budget constraints. Further, it would put us in a better
position to address new policy and project needs in a WRDA 2000 bill
that will include such important initiatives as the restoration of the
Everglades.
civil works program performance
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires
that the Army Corps of Engineers show how improvements in its business
processes impact the quality and delivery of our products and services
to the Nation.
The Corps is improving its business processes by streamlining
decision document review procedures, eliminating duplication of
functions at different levels; intensively monitoring policy review to
reduce review times; extending the use of standardized project
cooperation agreements; continuing to strengthen partnerships with
local sponsors; and intensively managing program execution, for more
efficient and timely production and greater customer satisfaction. In
particular, the Chief of Engineers has developed a process to
streamline project planning and I look forward to working with him on
this.
The Corps is currently implementing the first annual performance
plan required by GPRA on its fiscal year 1999 program. The Corps is
testing an initial set of results-oriented program performance measures
to assess the benefits of process improvements made at the project
level. The Corps will evaluate the initial set of results-oriented
program performance measures during fiscal year 1999 program execution
and will extend successful applications of the measures into the fiscal
year 2000 program and continue to develop improved performance measures
in the future.
harbor services fund proposal
A key component of the President's fiscal year 2000 Budget for the
Army Civil Works program is the proposal for a new Harbor Services Fund
and Harbor Services User Fee. This proposal will provide a reliable
source of funding for important navigation needs 4 including
construction, operation, and maintenance. It results in significantly
greater funding for these port and harbor activities. The President's
Budget for fiscal year 2000 includes $951 million to be derived from
the Harbor Services Fund, an overall increase of $382 million over the
President's fiscal year 1999 Budget for harbor related activities. This
level of funding will allow us to proceed at an optimal rate on nearly
all operation and maintenance and construction activities related to
ports and harbors, using funds contributed by the users.
In March 1998, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the Harbor
Maintenance Tax (HMT) was unconstitutional, as applied to exports. In
that ruling, the Court concluded that the HMT, which imposed a charge
based on the value of the commercial cargo being shipped, constituted a
tax on goods in export transit and therefore violated the Export Clause
of the Constitution. Because of this ruling, the HMT stopped being
collected on exports on April 25, 1998. The new Harbor Services User
Fee being proposed avoids the constitutional infirmities of the HMT.
The assessment is a user fee, not a tax: it fairly approximates the
harbor benefits and services vessels in each vessel category receive
through port use. It is not imposed based on the cargo of a vessel.
The user fees will generate funds sufficient to pay the Department
of the Army's annual costs of developing, operating, and maintaining
the Nation's ports. The legislative proposal will make the total amount
of the user fees collected pursuant to this proposed legislation in one
year available the next fiscal year for appropriation to fund the
projected total annual expenditures of the Department of the Army for
harbor development, operation, and maintenance.
Thus, this proposal will address all of the biggest problems
associated with the existing Harbor Maintenance Tax and Trust Fund
(HMTF). First, we will stop collections on imports, domestic shippers,
and passengers collected under the existing Harbor Maintenance Tax,
eliminating the uncertainties involved with our foreign trading
partners.
Second, we would institute a new fee mechanism based on vessel type
linking the fee with the level of service provided to certain types of
vessels, which will meet the Supreme Court's test for
constitutionality. Those fees would be placed in the new Harbor
Services Fund, along with remaining balances from the old HMTF. A
portion of those balances will be used to fund the program in the first
year, fiscal year 2000.
And third, the proposal will directly link the amount of fees
collected with the funds appropriated, thus avoiding a build up
balances in the Harbor Services Fund. For budget purposes, the user
fees will be treated as offsetting collections.
We are coming to completion on details of the proposal in light of
discussions and comments from interested groups. We plan to present a
legislative proposal to 5 Congress in the near future. Our plan is to
pursue the HSF legislative proposal separately from WRDA 99.
economy and the environment
The Administration is committed to the traditional mission areas of
improving our navigation and transportation system, protection of our
local communities from flood damages and other disasters, and
maintaining and improving hydropower facilities across the country. In
addition, the protection and restoration of the environment is an
important and integral part of the Civil Works mission portfolio. The
President has strongly advocated linking economic growth with
protection of the environment. To help meet this objective, we will
support projects that feature strong economic benefits, as well as
projects that incorporate environmental restoration and enhancement. Of
course, individual environmental restoration projects are also an
important part of the Civil Works mission.
An example of a program that will integrate environmental concerns
into more traditional Civil Works missions is our Challenge 21:
Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation Initiative.
Like last year, this year's budget includes $25 M to begin the
Challenge 21 program. It is designed to accomplish both flood hazard
mitigation and ecosystem restoration and emphasizes nonstructural
measures as a means to accomplish these objectives. Challenge 21 was
proposed for authorization last year, and came close to becoming a
reality in the proposed Water Resources Development Act of 1998. In
fact, the Senate version of WRDA 1998 included a Challenge 21 program.
We will continue to work with Congress to pass this much-needed
legislation. The key to this program is that it will be implemented at
the request of local communities and not imposed as a solution by the
Federal government. To date, over 50 communities have expressed
interest in participating in Challenge 21.
Environmental programs make up about 18 percent of the fiscal year
2000 Army Civil Works budget, and are integrated into all of the major
areas of work. Some environmental programs of note are in the following
areas. There is $100 million in construction funding for the Columbia
River Fish Mitigation program in the Pacific Northwest. There is $129
million in overall funding for the ongoing effort in south Florida to
restore, preserve and protect the Everglades. We have also budgeted $14
million to fund our ongoing environmental restoration continuing
authorities programs (Section 204, the Beneficial Uses of Dredged
Materials program, Section 206, the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
program, and Section 1135 Project Modifications for Improvements of the
Environment). This funding will allow us to implement projects to
create and restore aquatic habitats and to modify Civil Works projects
to improve the environment.
The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, FUSRAP, is an
environmental 6 cleanup program that was transferred by Congress from
the Department of Energy to the Army Civil Works program in the fiscal
year 1998 Appropriations Act. We are continuing the smooth
implementation of needed clean-up of contaminated sites, with no
slippage of the program during the transition from DOE to the Civil
Works program. In fact, we have exceeded the DOE schedules for the
Middlesex, Maywood, and Wayne sites in New Jersey, and surpassed DOE's
planned quantities of soil removed and disposed. This year's budget
includes $150 million for this program, an increase of $10 million over
the past two years. This will help improve the rate of cleanup for the
sites.
new investments
The fiscal year 2000 Budget for the Army Civil Works program
provides a strong program of new work. Details are presented in Table
B.
Our program of new work includes one new survey and 19 new
construction projects, 5 new operation and maintenance new starts, and
6 new Plant Replacement and Improvement Program (PRIP) major
acquisitions, and the Challenge 21 program.
The Budget includes $80 million in fiscal year 2000 for the new
investments in the construction account, including $55 million for new
construction starts and $25 million for Challenge 21. Capital costs for
these new investments total $1.8 billion. Of that, $1.3 billion will be
provided by the federal government. The balance, covering costs of
lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations, will be financed
directly by non-federal sponsors.
The 19 new construction projects include:
--5 for commercial navigation,
--3 for flood damage reduction,
--2 for environmental restoration,
--7 for major rehabilitation, and
--2 for dam safety assurance.
highlights of the fiscal year 2000 continuing program
operation and maintenance, general
The fiscal year 2000 Budget for the Civil Works Operation and
Maintenance, General (O&M) Program is $1.84 billion. This level of
funding is very strong, demonstrating the Administration's commitment
to maintaining our existing infrastructure, much of which is aging and
requires greater upkeep. Of the $1.84 billion, $693 million would be
for port 7 and harbor activities, derived from the proposed HSF,
including $75 million to maintain small boat harbors, important to the
economies of local communities. In addition, operation and maintenance
of hydropower facilities in the Pacific Northwest will be financed by a
transfer of approximately $107 million from the Bonneville Power
Administration, pursuant to an agreement signed two years ago.
The budget also provides $226 million to continue the operation and
maintenance of recreation areas at Civil Works projects.
construction, general
The fiscal year 2000 Budget for the Civil Works Construction,
General Program is $1.24 billion, of which $1.16 billion is for the
continuing program. Of the total, $258 million would be for port and
harbor construction projects derived from the Harbor Services Fund,
allowing port related projects to proceed at optimal rates. This will
enhance the competitiveness of our Nation's ports and harbors.
Following are highlights of the Continuing Program.
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration.--The Everglades is an
ecosystem of international importance. It is also one that has
dramatically deteriorated since the turn of the century. It is very
important that we aggressively continue the work that we have underway
to start the process of restoring this treasure that is so important to
the Nation. Construction funding for these projects is $110 million for
restoration of the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem, a major
environmental activity to which we are strongly committed. This amount
includes $49 million for the Central and Southern Florida project to
continue construction work at West Palm Beach Canal, South Dade County,
and manatee pass-through gates, as well as planning, engineering and
design work on the Comprehensive Restoration Plan, also known as the
``Restudy''; $40 million to continue construction on the Kissimmee
River Restoration project; and $21 million for critical restoration
projects authorized under the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration program.
Pacific Northwest Salmon.--The budget includes $100 million for
Corps construction activities associated with the Columbia River Fish
Mitigation project at 8 Corps dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers and
to continue the mitigation analysis which evaluates additional measures
to increase fish survival at those dams. This includes $59 million for
studies of surface bypass facilities, drawdown of Lower Snake
Reservoirs, John Day drawdown and hatchery mitigation, turbine passage,
gas abatement, adult passage, and Lower Columbia configuration.
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam.--The budget includes $20 million for
the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam project on the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System to continue construction of the lock
and dam. The project is programmed to be financed entirely from the
Construction account.
Kentucky Lock and Dam, Kentucky.--The budget includes $7.75 million
for the Kentucky Lock and Dam project on the Tennessee River to
continue detailed design of the new lock and to relocate the Tennessee
Valley Authority's power transmission towers at the project site. The
addition of a new lock will greatly reduce delays at the existing lock
which is too small to handle modern 15 barge tows without 2 lockages.
Olmsted Locks and Dam, Illinois and Kentucky.--The budget includes
$28.6 million to continue construction of 2 new locks on the Ohio River
near Olmsted, Illinois , to replace Locks 52 and 53 which are over 60
years old. Virtually all waterway traffic moving between the Ohio and
Mississippi Rivers passes through the project area, and both of the
existing locks have temporary lock chambers that are inefficient.
Projected increases in waterway traffic demands in combination with the
limited capacity of the existing locks will result in increased lockage
delays without the new locks.
New York and New Jersey Harbors, New York and New Jersey.--The
budget includes $60 million for the Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay, New
York and New Jersey, project to continue construction of the deepening
of 5 miles of Kill Van Kull channels and 3 miles of Newark Bay channels
from 40 to 45 feet. The deeper project will accommodate larger, fully
loaded, more modern containerships. The budget also includes $2 million
for the New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey Channel, New
Jersey, project. Deepening Port Jersey channel from 35 feet to 41 feet
will accommodate larger, deeper draft, cargo ships.
Los Angles County Drainage Area, California.--The budget includes
$30 million for up grading the existing system, raising channel walls
and converting the trapezoidal channel to a rectangular channel, and
bridge modifications. These improvements would protect residential,
commercial, and industrial properties in Long Beach by accommodating
the increased runoff resulting from urbanization over the past 40
years.
Southeast Louisiana.--The budget includes $47 million to continue
construction activities for the Southeast Louisiana project including
Canal 3, Suburban Canal, Elmwood Canal, Railroad Canal, Whitney
Barataria Pumping Station in Jefferson Parish, and Napoleon Avenue
Canal, Dwyer Road Pumping Station, and Broad Street Pumping Station in
Orleans Parish.
Continuing Authorities Program.--The budget includes $57 million
for a full program of continuing and new work under the 9 activities in
the Continuing Authorities Program. This amount includes $2.5 million
for beach erosion control projects (Section 103), $8.5 million for
emergency streambank and shoreline protection projects (Section 14),
$26.9 million for flood damage reduction projects (Section 205), $0.5
million for navigation mitigation projects (Section 111), $4.5 million
for navigation projects (Section 107), $0.1 million for snagging and
clearing projects (Section 208), $4.5 million for aquatic ecosystem
restoration (Section 206), $8.5 million for project modifications for
improvement of the environment (Section 1135), and $1 million for
beneficial uses of dredged material (Section 204).
general investigations
The Budget for the Civil Works General Investigations (GI) Program
is $135 million. While this is a lower level than usual, it is a key
element of our plan to stabilize the Civil Works budget in the future.
The study program feeds the pipeline of construction work. There is a
large amount of construction work already waiting for funding--far more
than the funds we can reasonably expect in the future. This budget cuts
back on project study funding, in order to reduce the backlog of
potential construction projects that are beyond our capacity to budget
within a reasonable time frame. Once the backlog of costly projects is
reduced, then we would be able to resume funding for studies at a
higher level.
We believe that cutting back on study funding on a temporary basis
is the right thing to do for our local sponsors, who expect timely
construction of projects, once studies are completed and the projects
are authorized.
regulatory program
The fiscal year 2000 Budget for the Civil Works Regulatory Program
is $117 million, an increase of $11 million over the enacted level of
fiscal year 1999 funding. This will ensure that we continue to provide
for effective and equitable regulation of the Nation's waters,
including wetlands. Through the Regulatory Program the Corps is
committed to serving the public in a fair and reasonable manner while
protecting the aquatic environment, as required by laws and
regulations. In fiscal year 1998, the Regulatory Program authorized
90,000 activities in writing, the most in any year, and nearly 95
percent of all actions were authorized in less than 60 days.
One of the goals of the Corps is to help people find solutions to
their problems. In this program, we are proud that we not only protect
our vital aquatic resources, but we try to 10 help people, within the
law, to find environmentally sustainable solutions to their problems.
This budget will ensure that this level of service is maintained and
improved, even with an increasing volume of work. The proposed increase
would also enable the Corps to broaden its partnerships with States and
local communities through watershed planning efforts.
We will also continue to pursue important initiatives as part of
the Regulatory Program. For example, under the Regulatory Program, we
are also active in the preparation of Special Area Management Plans
(SAMPs) to address development in environmentally sensitive areas. With
the amount included in the President's Budget, we will establish a full
administrative appeals process that will allow the public to challenge
permit decisions and jurisdiction determinations without costly, time-
consuming litigation.
Again this year, we are proposing a reasonable increase in the
permit application fees for commercial applicants as a means to offset
a portion of the costs of the Regulatory Program. We are prepared to
work closely with this Committee and the public to ensure that any
revisions that we may adopt are reasonable.
conclusion
In summary, the President's fiscal year 2000 budget for the Army
Civil Works Program is a good one. It demonstrates a commitment to
Civil Works missions, with strong support for all programs, a plan to
solve the constitutional problem with the existing Harbor Maintenance
Tax, an especially strong program of new construction, a firm
commitment to maintaining existing water resource management
infrastructure, and increased application of Civil Works Program
expertise to environmental protection and restoration.
Thank you Mr. Chairman; Members of the Subcommittee. This concludes
my statement.
TABLE A--DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY--CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS--FISCAL YEAR 2000 DIRECT PROGRAM--PRESIDENT'S PROGRAM FUNDING
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Trust General
Program ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trust--
Permit Coastal Transfer--Bnnvll Rivers and Total
Harbor Permanent applctn. Rcrtn. wetlands Harbor Inland Ultimate \4\ Initial \5\ Power Admnstrtn harbors
services \1\ apprprtns. fees \2\ user fees rstrtn \3\ mntnnc waterway cntrbtns
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMBINED (discretionary and mandatory):
DEFENSE: Formerly Utilized Sites ............ .......... ........ .......... .......... .......... ........ 150,000 150,000 ................ .......... 150,000
Remedial Action Program.............
DOMESTIC:
General Investigations........... ............ .......... ........ .......... .......... .......... ........ 135,000 135,000 ................ 39,827 174,827
Construction, General............ 257,700 .......... ........ .......... .......... .......... 55,000 927,200 1,239,900 ................ 156,786 1,396,686
Operation and Maintenance, 692,900 .......... ........ 35,700 .......... .......... ........ 1,107,300 1,835,900 107,000 8,055 1,950,955
General.........................
Flood Control, Mississippi River ............ .......... ........ .......... .......... .......... ........ 280,000 280,000 ................ 45,673 325,673
and Tributaries Pro- ject......
Regulatory Program............... ............ .......... 7,000 .......... .......... .......... ........ 117,000 117,000 ................ .......... 117,000
General Expenses................. ............ .......... ........ .......... .......... .......... ........ 148,000 148,000 ................ .......... 148,000
Flood Control and Coastal ............ .......... ........ .......... .......... .......... ........ ............ ........... ................ .......... ..........
Emergencies.....................
Revolving Fund................... ............ .......... ........ .......... .......... .......... ........ ............ ........... ................ .......... ..........
Coastal Wetlands Restoration..... ............ .......... ........ .......... 54,180 .......... ........ ............ ........... ................ 800 10,800
Permanent Appropriations......... 18,576 .......... ........ .......... .......... .......... ........ ............ ........... ................ .......... 18,576
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL.................................. 950,600 18,576 7,000 35,700 54,180 .......... 55,000 2,864,500 3,905,800 107,000 251,141 4,292,517
DISCRETIONARY............................ ............ .......... ........ .......... .......... .......... ........ 2,864,500 2,864,500 ................ .......... 2,864,500
MANDATORY................................ 950,600 18,576 7,000 35,700 54,180 .......... 55,000 ............ 1,041,300 107,000 251,141 1,428,017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Proposed special fund to replace Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
\2\ Proposed fees for processing permit applications, to be paid to General Fund receipt account, not available to Corps.
\3\ Total for interagency task force; Corps' piece of $10 million is reflected under Total.
\4\ Net direct Congressional appropriation after reimbursement from mandatory Special and Trust funds, as applicable.
\5\ Direct Congressional appropriation. The total for all accounts comes from the General Fund, initially. Ultimately, it is reimbursed from mandatory accounts in the amount shown opposite
Mandatory.
TABLE B--DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY--CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS--FISCAL YEAR 2000 DIRECT PROGRAM--PRESIDENT'S NEW STARTS AND OTHER NEW WORK PROGRAM
FUNDING
[Dollars in thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUNDING
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First cost Budget year
ACCOUNT/CATEGORY Number ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federa; Federa;
Total ----------------------------- Nonfederal Total ----------------------------- Nonfederal
GF HSF IWTF GF HSF IWTF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
Surveys: Santa Inez River, CA........ 1 $100 $100 ... .......... .......... $100 $100 ... .......... ..........
CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
Projects:
Regular:
Environmental:
Cheyenne River Sioux 1 108,000 108,000 ... .......... .......... 2,000 2,000 ... .......... ..........
Tribe, Lower Brule
Sioux, ND...............
Willamette River 1 70,600 70,600 ... .......... .......... 1,700 1,700 ... .......... ..........
Temperature Control, OR.
Flood Protection:
Arecibo River, PR........ 1 23,100 12,500 ... .......... $10,600 8,742 2,500 ... .......... $6,242
Grand Forks, ND--East 1 350,250 175,900 ... .......... 174,350 30,600 10,000 ... .......... 20,600
Grand Forks, MN.........
Napa River, CA........... 1 182,000 91,000 ... .......... 91,000 42,528 4,500 ... .......... 38,028
Navigation:
Baltimore Harbor and 1 14,035 10,530 ... .......... 3,505 13,083 9,578 ... .......... 3,505
Channels, MD, Brewerton
Channel.................
Kikiaola Small Boat 1 5,653 4,997 ... .......... 656 185 75 ... .......... 110
Harbor, Kauai, HI.......
Neches River and 1 55,860 41,895 ... .......... 13,965 5,661 2,000 ... .......... 3,661
Tributaries Saltwater
Barrier, TX.............
Port Fourchon, LA........ 1 4,930 2,557 ... .......... 2,373 4,557 2,184 ... .......... 2,373
Santa Barbara Harbor, CA. 1 6,700 5,360 ... .......... 1,340 6,300 4,960 ... .......... 1,340
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Regular Projects). 10 821,128 523,339 ... .......... 297,789 115,356 39,497 ... .......... 75,859
Major Rehabilitation:
Cape Cod Canal Railroad 1 30,500 30,500 ... .......... .......... 5,000 5,000 ... .......... ..........
Bridge, MA..................
John H. Kerr Powerhouse, VA & 1 59,600 59,600 ... .......... .......... 1,400 1,400 ... .......... ..........
NC..........................
Lock and Dam 12, Mississippi 1 15,500 7,750 ... $7,750 .......... 2,600 1,300 ... $1,300 ..........
River, IA...................
Lock and Dam 24, Part 2, 1 38,400 19,200 ... 19,200 .......... 1,200 600 ... 600 ..........
Mississippi River, IL & MO..
London Locks and Dam, Kanawha 1 20,300 10,150 ... 10,150 .......... 600 .......... ... 600 ..........
River, WV...................
Patoka Lake, IN.............. 1 7,200 7,200 ... .......... .......... 2,000 2,000 ... .......... ..........
Walter F. George Powerhouse 1 37,000 37,000 ... .......... .......... 750 750 ... .......... ..........
and Dam, AL & GA............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Major Rehabilitation 7 208,500 171,400 ... 37,100 .......... 13,550 11,050 ... 2,500 ..........
Projects).................
Dam Safety Assurance:
Bluestone Lake, WV........... 1 107,300 107,300 ... .......... .......... 750 750 ... .......... ..........
Success Dam, CA.............. 1 30,900 30,900 ... .......... .......... 1,250 1,250 ... .......... ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Dam Safety Assurance 2 138,200 138,200 ... .......... .......... 2,000 2,000 ... .......... ..........
Projects).................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Projects)............. 19 1,167,828 832,939 ... 37,100 297,789 130,906 52,547 ... 2,500 75,859
Program: Riverine Ecosystem 1 654,000 425,000 ... .......... 229,000 35,000 25,000 ... .......... 10,000
Restoration and Flood Hazard
Mitigation Program..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Projects and Program)..... 20 1,821,828 1,257,939 ... 37,100 526,789 165,906 77,547 ... 2,500 85,859
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL
Dredge Wheeler Ready Reserve \1\..... 1 .......... .......... ... .......... .......... 12,450 12,450 ... .......... ..........
Management Tools for Operation and 1 2,265 2,265 ... .......... .......... 975 975 ... .......... ..........
Management..........................
National Dam Security Program \1\.... 1 .......... .......... ... .......... .......... 20 20 ... .......... ..........
Wetlands Functional Assessment 1 7,398 7,398 ... .......... .......... 1,000 1,000 ... .......... ..........
Methodology.........................
Zebra Mussel Research Program........ 1 13,378 13,378 ... .......... .......... 1,500 1,500 ... .......... ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (Remaining Items).......... 5 23,041 23,041 ... .......... .......... 15,945 15,945 ... .......... ..........
REVOLVING FUND
Plant Replacement and Improvement
Program (PRIP) Major Acquisitions
\2\
Towboat RAYMOND C. PECK 1 5,500 5,500 ... .......... .......... 5,160 5,160 ... .......... ..........
Replacement.....................
Fuel Oil Barge Replacement....... 1 1,495 1,495 ... .......... .......... 1,390 1,390 ... .......... ..........
Survey Boat GRANADA Replacement.. 1 1,533 1,533 ... .......... .......... 1,285 1,285 ... .......... ..........
Derrickboat NO. 6 Replacement.... 1 775 775 ... .......... .......... 660 660 ... .......... ..........
PANAMA CITY Crane Barge 1 6,400 6,400 ... .......... .......... 125 125 ... .......... ..........
Replacement.....................
Survey Boat GATLIN Replacement... 1 1,800 1,800 ... .......... .......... 1,550 1,550 ... .......... ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (PRIP Major Acquisitions).. 6 17,503 17,503 ... .......... .......... 10,170 10,170 ... .......... ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL............................ 32 1,862,472 1,298,583 ... 37,100 526,789 192,121 103,762 ... 2,500 85,859
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2000 funding reflects annual requirement.
\2\ Funding is available from the Revolving Fund.
TABLE C--DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY--CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS--FISCAL YEAR 2000 TOTAL (DIRECT AND REIMBURSED) PROGRAM--PRESIDENT'S ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAM FUNDING
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Appropriation Budget 2000 account
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999 All GI C,G O&M,G Others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECT PROGRAM:
DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM:
STUDY AND PROJECT SPECIFIC
ACTIVITIES:
MITIGATION..................... 156,010 177,515 128,933 156,840 148,769 3,887 141,516 .......... 3,366
RESTORATION.................... 105,752 74,031 181,516 82,289 138,940 15,584 97,154 10,702 15,500
PROTECTION..................... 79,450 90,594 126,875 81,852 86,319 459 3,909 74,044 7,907
CLEANUP........................ 12,020 3,458 317 540 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
COMPLIANCE..................... 9,864 360 395 2,480 1,327 304 468 .......... 555
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL (Study and Project 363,096 345,958 438,036 324,001 375,355 20,234 243,047 84,746 27,328
Specific Activities)........
PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES:
1AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL......... 4,000 2,000 5,000 3,000 3,000 .......... 3,000 .......... ..........
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION .......... .......... 6,000 11,200 4,500 .......... 4,500 .......... ..........
(SEC 206).....................
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED 2,500 1,500 2,000 350 1,000 .......... 1,000 .......... ..........
MATERIAL (SEC 204)............
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND .......... 1,500 4,000 5,000 8,000 .......... .......... 8,000 ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER).
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES..... .......... 100 100 100 100 100 .......... .......... ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE... .......... .......... 5,000 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDE FOR .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
OPERATIONS (ERGO).............
FORMERLY UTILIZED SIRTES .......... .......... \1\ 162,718 140,000 150,000 .......... .......... .......... 150,000
REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM
(FUSRAP)......................
GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION 500 500 500 500 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
PROGRAM (SEC 401).............
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE 3,500 .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
RESTORATION INITIATIVE........
NATIONAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT .......... .......... ........... 1,000 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
SUPPORT (NRMS)................
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL .......... .......... 700 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
SUPPORT (NRTS)................
OIL SPILL RESEARCH PROGRAM..... 850 .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM... 5,000 .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
PROJECT MODIFICATION FOR 10,850 17,000 21,175 11,000 8,500 .......... 8,500 .......... ..........
IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
(SEC 1135)....................
REGULATORY PROGRAM............. 101,000 101,000 106,000 106,000 117,000 .......... .......... .......... 117,000
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT....... 8,331 10,399 17,450 19,450 18,000 4,500 3,000 10,500 ..........
RIVERINE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION .......... .......... ........... .......... 25,000 .......... 25,000 .......... ..........
AND FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION...
WETLAND AND AQUATIC HABITAT 2,500 .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
CREATION......................
WETLANDS FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT .......... .......... ........... .......... 1,000 .......... .......... 1,000 ..........
METHODOLOGY...................
ZEBRA MUSSEL RESEARCH PROGRAM.. .......... .......... ........... 1,500 1,500 .......... .......... 1,500 ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL (Programmatic Activities) 135,031 131,999 325,643 296,100 334,600 4,600 42,000 21,000 267,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL (Study and Project 498,127 477,957 763,679 620,101 709,955 24,834 285,047 105,746 294,328
Specific and Programmatic
Activities).................
MANDATORY PROGRAM: COASTAL WETLANDS 35,000 43,000 44,000 10,000 10,000 .......... .......... .......... 10,000
PLANNING, PROTECTION, AND RESTORATION.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL (Discretionary and Mandatory 533,127 520,957 807,679 630,101 719,955 24,834 285,047 105,746 304,328
Programs)...........................
REIMBURSED PROGRAM (SUPPORT FOR OTHERS):
EPA SUPERFUND.......................... 250,000 250,000 300,000 250,000 250,000 .......... .......... .......... 250,000
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY................... 31,000 20,000 22,000 2,000 .......... .......... .......... ..........
OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES............ 65,000 45,000 35,000 11,000 8,000 .......... .......... .......... 8,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL (Reimbursed Program)............. 346,000 315,000 357,000 263,000 258,000 .......... .......... .......... 258,000
ALL (Direct and Reimbursed Programs). 879,127 835,957 1,164,679 893,101 977,955 24,834 285,047 105,746 562,328
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $22,718 in unpaid balance transferred from Department of Energy.
statement of joe n. ballard
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
With the committee's indulgence, we will have General
Ballard testify, and then we will inquire. General Ballard, it
is nice to have you here.
General Ballard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be testifying on
the President's fiscal year 2000 budget for the civil works
program. I am again honored to be appearing before you again as
Chief of Engineers.
Today the Corps' civil works program is strong and highly
productive, and I thank you for your great support for this
critical program that is really an investment in our Nation's
future. This budget request is, I believe, more constructive
than the one presented a year ago, setting the stage for an
effective dialogue with the Congress on appropriate funding
levels.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will now summarize my
complete statement and submit that statement for the record. My
summary covers four topics: transformation of the Corps, the
civil works program execution, the FUSRAP program, and some
selected civil works issues.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin with a short discussion
of what is happening inside of the Corps. We are very proud of
what we have accomplished, and there is still much more to
come. Several years ago, we developed a vision and a strategic
management process. Our intent was to transform the Corps into
an organization ready to take on the challenges of the 21st
century.
In the last 2 years, we have----
Senator Domenici. General, could you excuse me just one
moment?
General Ballard. Yes.
Senator Domenici. Would one of you take my place while I go
to the Commerce, Justice appropriations? Senator Bennett, would
you chair? I will be back shortly.
Senator Bennett. Yes.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Thank you, General.
General Ballard. Yes, sir.
efficiency and responsive measures
I will continue, sir. In the last 2 years, we have worked
diligently to become more client focused, dramatically changing
our internal processes to become more responsive and cost
efficient, and to take advantage of changes in technology. Now,
a lot of time and energy was invested up front, and we are now
beginning to see the payoff. Time does not permit me to get
into very much depth, but I would like to give you a few
snapshots of our progress.
project management
In the area of project management, we have fully
implemented the project management concept providing our
clients one point of contact and responsibility for Corps
projects and programs. This has greatly enhanced our
relationship with our clients, and at the same time, it
integrated the resources of the organization to focus on
quality projects delivered on time and within budget.
In the past, we forced our customers to understand our
internal organization and navigate the different stovepipes,
doing their own coordination. Now our customers will go to
their supporting districts who have the responsibility to
deliver whatever is needed, accomplishing all coordination and
integration seamlessly and transparently.
We are relooking our entire planning process from the time
a project is identified until the project cost-sharing
agreement is signed. This area has been particularly
frustrating for our clients and for us. The process simply
takes too long. It is too bureaucratic and too costly. We have
approved for implementation the recommendation of a process
action team to streamline the process, to minimize the burden
on local sponsors, and delegate most of the approval and
execution authority to divisions and districts, thus expediting
agreements. We have also made significant changes to our
continuing authorities program to simplify, expedite, and make
it more user friendly. And these efforts are only the
beginning.
We are reevaluating our organization at every level. Over
the past few years, our General Expense staffing has declined
from 1,368 in fiscal year 1996 to 1,181 in fiscal year 1999.
Now, that is a 14-percent reduction at the same time we have
had an increase in workload. As you know, we have reduced the
number of divisions from 11 to 8 and continue our downsizing of
division staffs. We are also reducing headquarters staffing. By
Washington standards, we were already a lean headquarters
before we started this process, at less than 2 percent of the
total work force.
I could go on about changes inside of the Corps. I hope
that this will give you some insight into a much larger process
that will continue to accelerate over the next few years.
Now, let me turn now to some ongoing execution of our civil
works program.
program execution
Efficient and responsive execution continue to be a very
important priority of the Secretary and mine. In fiscal year
1998, we increased our expenditure execution by $400 million
over what has been a flat execution of about $3.7 billion for
each of the preceding 3 years. In fiscal year 1999, we have
scheduled an additional $500 million in expenditures, meaning
that we will have increased the Corps' capacity by $900 million
in just 2 years, while maintaining the quality and the
professional standards that have marked our work for many
years.
But in spite of that record, I am not yet satisfied with
our execution rate. We will continue to examine and evaluate
ways to expedite our projects from start to finish.
fusrap program
I would like to report on our progress in the FUSRAP
program. We have accomplished our first two priorities in the
FUSRAP program, following transfer of execution from the
Department of Energy. We have maintained the anticipated
schedule during the transition period and have put a number of
cost saving measures in place.
In fiscal year 1999, we expect to complete remedial action
at 2 sites and to accomplish work on schedule for 19 other
sites.
The highest priority actions are those to remove potential
risks to the health of the environment. Budget funding will
enable completion of remedial action at 3 sites and continued
work at 16 others. At the current rate of funding, we should
complete all of our sites by the year 2010. This program is a
real success story. I am very proud of our contribution to the
Nation and our track record on this program.
As in any large and complex program, there are a few areas
that need some attention, so let me highlight a few that may be
of some interest.
regulatory program
In the regulatory funding and appeals, this is an area that
we are really struggling with. Our funding level to date has
only been enough to provide the most basic level of permit
review and response to the public. Trying to meet your intent,
we are implementing a limited appeals process this year. The
proposed funding level for next year will permit us to
implement the complete regulatory appeals process.
operation and maintenance program
In the area of operation and maintenance, the O&M level of
funding proposed for this year is for the first time adequate
to meet our current O&M needs. However, we have a large backlog
of maintenance and repair for our infrastructure. During this
year, O&M will be an area of significant focus for us. We will
look at every single area for ways to reduce our operating
costs, accomplish needed maintenance and repair and improve our
services.
general expense account
On the subject of GE funding, earlier in my statement I
extolled our progress in reducing division and headquarters
staff. We have made great progress in this area, but I do not
believe we can go any lower. Since 1991, we have reduced GE
staffing levels by almost 33 percent. I am convinced that we
must hold at the current staffing level to provide for program
direction and oversight, for which you and the public rely on
us.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the President's budget for the
Corps of Engineers is a good one. Using our strategic
management process, we will continue to find ways to reduce our
costs and improve our level of responsiveness to the public and
our clients. Meanwhile, we will do our very best to execute the
civil works program for maximum benefit to the Nation.
prepared statement
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. This
concludes our statement, and we are now ready to take your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joe N. Ballard
introduction
I am pleased to be testifying on the President's fiscal year 2000
(fiscal year 2000) 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:
--Fiscal year 2000 Civil Works Program Budget,
--Program Execution and Outlook,
--Restructuring,
--Improvement of Business Operations,
--Corps of Engineers Financial Management System,
--Corps Vision, and
--Headquarters Relocation Planning.
fiscal year 2000 civil works program budget
introduction
This is a good budget. New fiscal year 2000 funding for the Civil
Works Program, including the Direct and Reimbursed programs, is
expected to approach $5.10 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 $4.29 billion.
Discretionary amounts total $3.91 billion, including defense and
domestic program components of $150 million and $3.76 billion,
respectively. The defense component is for the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), transferred from the Department of
Energy to the Corps by Congress in the Energy and Water Development
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 is projected to be
$800 million.
Direct Program
overview
The proposed fiscal year 2000 Civil Works Direct Program budget
reflects the Administration's commitment to continued sound development
and management of the Nation's water resources, to which the Corps has
been dedicated for over 200 years. It provides for continued efficient
operation of the Nation's navigation, flood protection, and other water
resource management infrastructure, fair regulation of the Nation's
wetlands, and restoration of the Nation's important environmental
resources, such as the Florida Everglades. It provides for initiation
of a new program to restore riverine ecosystems while mitigating flood
hazards for communities. Additionally, it is supported by a proposal to
establish a Harbor Services User Fee (HSUF) and Harbor Services Fund
(HSF) to fund the federal share of construction cost, as well as
operation and maintenance of our harbors and ports. Lastly, it is
consistent with the President's overall domestic priorities and
continued commitment to a balanced budget. The budget provides for
continued funding of nearly all studies and projects underway,
including many started in fiscal year 1999. It also provides for
funding of new starts under the General Investigations (GI),
Construction, General, (CG), and Operation and Maintenance, General
(O&M) programs, and the Plant Replacement and Improvement Program
(PRIP) of the Revolving Fund.
The new start program includes 1 new reconnaissance study.
Additionally, 27 preconstruction engineering and design studies,
following cost-shared feasibility studies, are being funded for the
first time.
The new start program also includes new construction projects and
one new program. The projects include 19 specifically authorized by
Congress and an undetermined number generally authorized under the
Continuing Authorities Program (CAP). The specifically authorized
projects include 10 regular construction projects, 7 major
rehabilitation projects, and 2 dam safety assurance projects. The
regular construction projects include 5 for navigation, 3 for flood
control, and 2 for environmental improvement. The new program is the
Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation Program,
also known as ``Challenge 21.''
Additionally, the new start program includes 5 new operation and
maintenance items and 6 new PRIP major acquisitions construction
projects.
new funding
As shown in the table at the end of this statement, the fiscal year
2000 budget includes $3.91 billion in ``Discretionary and Related
Mandatory'' funding being requested through the fiscal year 2000 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act. All amounts shown under this
heading are appropriated from the General Fund; however, amounts shown
under the CG and O&M accounts opposite the names of other funds are
ultimately reimbursed from those other funds. Accordingly, $1.04
billion, or 27 percent, of the amount requested would be offset with
dedicated funding from the HSF ($951 million), Inland Waterway Trust
Fund (IWTF) ($55 million), and Special Recreation User Fees (SRUF) Fund
($36 million). Funding for the GI, CG, and Flood Control, Mississippi
River and Tributaries (FC, MR&T) Programs, in which new study and
construction starts are common, totals $1.65 billion. Of this, $80
million, or 5.0 percent, is provided to fund the new study and
construction starts mentioned above, including Challenge 21.
In addition, as shown in the table, the budget includes $387
million in ``Mandatory, Only,'' funding to be made available under
existing law. This includes $251 million from the Rivers and Harbors
Contributions Trust Fund (R&HCTF), representing nonfederal costsharing
contributions paid under 5 programs (the GI; CG; O&M; FC,MR&T Project;
4 and CWPPR Project programs). It also includes $107 million to be
transferred from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) for
operation and maintenance of the Corps' hydropower generation
facilities in the Pacific Northwest.
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1999 Funding
As shown in the table, new direct funding for the fiscal year 2000
budget is $83 million less than initial appropriations for fiscal year
1999.
Discretionary and related mandatory funding is $54 million less
than, or 99 percent of, last year's initial appropriations. It was
increased for three accounts, unchanged for two, and decreased for
three others. Accounts increased include FUSRAP (107 percent), O&M (111
percent), and the Regulatory Program (110 percent); unchanged include
GE and FC&CE; and decreased include GI (83 percent), CG (87 percent),
and FC,MR&T (87 percent).
New mandatory, only, funding is $28 million less than, or 93
percent of, last year's appropriations, largely because of decreased
R&HCTF costsharing contributions.
Outlays of discretionary funding for fiscal year 2000 are expected
to be about $218 million less than for fiscal year 1999, commensurate
with the reduction in funding.
Net New Funding
Of the $4.29 billion in total new direct funding, $1.43 billion, or
33 percent, would come from 9 sources other than Treasury's General
Fund, yielding net new funding not specifically collected for the
program of $2.96 billion. These sources--8 existing and 1 proposed--
include 5 special and 3 trust funds, and 1 transfer. The largest
amounts would come from the proposed HSF ($951 million, including $258
million for the CG and $693 million for the O&M programs). Sizeable
amounts would also come from the IWTF ($55 million) and SRUF Fund ($36
million). The balance of $387 million would come from the 6 mandatory,
only, sources.
We are also proposing changes to the fees collected under the
Regulatory Program. These fees would be transferred to a General Fund
receipt account and would be unavailable to the Corps. The collections
are now projected to be $7 million in fiscal year 2000 and, annually,
thereafter. We have scaled back this initiative considerably, and
anticipate collecting only about half as much as we had proposed
previously. Although unavailable to the Corps for its use, the
collections would reduce net federal costs.
Highlights
The budget provides for essentially ``flat'' annual funding for the
5-year program at the fiscal year 2000 level, which is 99 percent of
fiscal year 1999 initial appropriations. Moreover, it provides
essentially flat annual funding by individual program for the 5-year
program. Generally, work completion schedules will be shortened
somewhat from those presented last year. A notable exception is that
schedules of the GI Program will be lengthened somewhat.
Proposed funding for the GI Program is 90 percent of fiscal year
1999 budgeted funding. The rationale for this is that studies lead to
construction projects of which there is already a large backlog due to
competing funding priorities. Given outyear funding ceilings based on
these priorities, reduction of this large backlog will be possible only
over several years. In light of this, limiting the number of new start
studies and setting priorities among ongoing ones appears advisable,
for the time being. However, in that programmatic activities such as
floodplain management, planning assistance, and international water
studies provide important grass-roots support to local communities in
solving their water resource problems, they were funded at
approximately fiscal year 1999 appropriation levels.
The proposed HSF will replace the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
(HMTF). The HMTF was funded with an ad valorem tax on freight shipped
through the Nation's harbors and ports. This tax was determined to be
unconstitutional, as applied to exports, by the U. S. Supreme Court.
The HSF will be funded with fees collected from commercial users of the
harbors and ports, the rationale being that beneficiaries should be
responsible for costs. The fees will be based on the values of benefits
that users receive from services provided, and will be sufficient to
cover federal costs of harbor and port construction, operation, and
maintenance. The rates of the fees will vary based on types and
carrying capacities of vessels involved. The proposal will enable
nearly all construction, operation, and maintenance of harbors and
ports to proceed on optimal schedules.
Proposed fiscal year 2000 funding for the CG Program is 154 percent
of fiscal year 1999 budgeted funding. Much of the increase is due to
dedicated funding from the proposed new HSF. This dedicated funding
covers 100 percent of costs of harbor and port construction. Because of
this, completion schedules for 28 harbor and port development projects
have been optimized. This will enable accomplishing more work sooner,
thereby producing navigation benefits and resultant cost savings
sooner. In addition, completion schedules for 9 high priority projects
for mitigation, ecosystem restoration, and other purposes have been
optimized. On the other hand, completion schedules for flood damage
reduction, inland waterway, and shore protection projects are somewhat
constrained.
Proposed fiscal year 2000 funding for the O&M Program is 115
percent of fiscal year 1999 budgeted funding. All 6 of this increase is
due to dedicated funding from the HSF which will cover 100 percent of
costs of harbor and port operation and maintenance. The increase in
funding will help improve current services.
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 2000 is projected to be $800
million. The largest share--nearly $250 million--is expected from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for cleanup of wastes at numerous
sites under its Superfund program. 98 percent of Reimbursed Program
funding is provided by federal agencies.
staffing
Total staffing for the Civil Works Program for fiscal year 2000 is
24,734 FTEs. This reflects a reduction of 462 FTEs from the fiscal year
1999 total. Of the total, 23,584 FTEs are for the Direct Program and
1,150 FTEs are for the Reimbursed Program. Total staffing is allocated
90.6 percent to districts, 4.9 percent to laboratories and other
separate field operating agencies, 2.7 percent to division offices, and
1.8 percent to headquarters.
program execution and outlook
introduction
Efficient and responsive execution of the program that Congress
made appropriations for continues to be a very important priority of
mine as Chief of Engineers. In fiscal year 1998, we increased our
expenditure execution by $400 million over what had been a flat
execution of about $3.7 billion for each of the preceding three years.
In fiscal year 1999, we have 7 scheduled an additional $500 million in
expenditures, meaning we will have increased the Corps' capacity by
$900 million in two years concurrent with maintaining the quality and
professional standards that have marked our work for years.
formerly utilized sites remedial action program
As I testified last year, we accomplished our first two priorities
in executing FUSRAP following transfer of execution responsibilities
from the Department of Energy. We kept the anticipated schedule during
the transition period, and implemented numerous cost saving measures.
We also completed our assessment of the program and provided a report
of our finding to you.
We are working to finalize a Memorandum of Understanding with DOE
defining our respective roles and responsibilities, as directed by
Congress.
During fiscal year 1999, we expect to complete remedial action at 2
sites and to accomplish work on schedule for 19 others.
The President's Budget includes $150 million in new funding for
FUSRAP, reflecting current priorities for remedial action. We are
giving highest priority to proceeding in a way that will reduce
potential risks to health and the environment. To improve the overall
efficiency of the program, we also have assigned a priority to
activities and sites that can be completed in the short-term--within
the next fiscal year or two. Budget funding will enable completion of
remedial action at 3 sites and continuing work at 16 others.
I am very proud of our contribution to the Nation as a result of
our effort on this program.
general investigations
Scheduled report production for the program in fiscal year 1998
included 83 reconnaissance and 26 feasibility reports. We completed 78
and 28, respectively.
The National Research Council recently completed an independent
assessment of our Civil Works project development process. While
concluding that the overall length and cost of the planning process are
reasonable in light of the many considerations involved, the
preliminary report includes some recommendations in the interest of
shortening it. These recommendations include that we seek conditional
authorizations 8 and reduce gaps between work phases. Additional
recommendations include our using a watershed or estuarial region as
the basic planning unit, studying a sample of flood control projects to
evaluate whether non-structural alternatives have been adequately
considered, and revising the Principles and Guidelines to incorporate
contemporary analytical techniques and public values. Presently, we are
evaluating these recommendations.
The President's Budget includes $135 million in new funding for the
GI Program, including $100 thousand for one new start reconnaissance
study. 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 1998, we scheduled CG Program expenditures totaling
$1.3 billion, and actually expended $1.24 billion.
In fiscal year 1999, $1.54 billion is scheduled for expenditure.
Our districts and divisions are aggressively seeking opportunities to
accomplish work on funded projects. At the end of January, expenditures
were on schedule at $342 million. Typically, once Spring arrives and
construction operations come up to speed nationwide, the rate of
expenditure will begin a steady climb that continues through the end of
the fiscal year.
The President's Budget includes $1.24 billion in new funding for
the CG Program. Included in this amount is $80 million for initiation
of 19 new start projects and one new program initiative for Riverine
Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation. The balance of $1.16
billion includes $1.04 billion for specifically authorized continuing
projects and $125 million for remaining items, including projects under
several continuing authorities programs.
Over 25 percent of the budget request will be offset by $313
million in dedicated funding from the proposed HSF ($258 million) and
the IWTF ($55 million).
operation and maintenance, general:
The O&M Program covers operation and maintenance of the Corps'
water resource management infrastructure. More specifically, the
program provides for operation, 9 including monitoring and study, and
maintenance, including dredging and repair, as applicable, of 25,000
miles of waterways, 238 navigation locks, 926 harbors, 383 dams and
reservoir projects, 75 hydroelectric power projects, and recreation
facilities for 380 million visits per year. This infrastructure,
benefitting navigation, flood damage reduction, hydropower generation,
recreation and the environment, contributes significantly to the
economic and environmental health of the Nation.
Fiscal year 1998 funding for the program included $1.74 billion in
initial appropriation, plus $105 million in an emergency supplemental
appropriation for repair of Corps projects impacted by storms primarily
in California and along the Gulf Coast. In fiscal year 1998, we
completed consolidation of O&M fiscal management activities into our
Programs Management Division to simplify and streamline fiscal
operations.
The initial fiscal year 1999 O&M appropriation was $1.65 billion.
Also, in fiscal year 1999, for the first time, BPA began funding
operation and maintenance of hydropower facilities in the Pacific
Northwest directly, thereby eliminating need for Corps appropriations
for this work. BPA will transfer $106 million to the Corps for the work
in fiscal year 1999. Total funding for the O&M Program from these two
sources is $1.76 billion, or 1 percent more than the initial fiscal
year 1998 amount. In addition, the program received a $100 million
emergency supplemental appropriation for repair of storm damage to
navigation facilities in the Southeast and, again, along the Gulf
Coast, particularly from Hurricane Georges.
The President's Budget includes $1.84 billion in new funding for
the O&M Program. In addition, BPA will provide $107 million.
Accordingly, total initial funding is $1.94 billion, or 11 percent more
than in fiscal year 1999. This increase will be used to maintain and
repair our aging infrastructure. For years, because of budget
constraints, we have deferred work not critical to project operation
during the budget year, thereby building our backlog of desired
maintenance work. Eventually, after repeated deferrals, facilities
become deteriorated to the extent that repair must be done to avoid
serious failure. We continue to search for and implement more cost-
effective ways to accomplish our stewardship with limited resources. We
are determined keep this infrastructure in condition to provide the
products and services so essential to sustaining our national
prosperity.
Nearly 40 percent of the budget request will be offset by $729
million in dedicated funding from the proposed HSF ($693 million) and
the SRUF Fund ($36 million).
general expenses
The General Expenses (GE) Program provides for executive direction
and management of the Civil Works program by the headquarters and 8
division offices. It also provides for support of executive direction
and management by 4 field operating activities. Funding for the program
is allocated approximately 70 percent for labor; 24 percent for fixed
costs such as rent, utilities, communications, and contractual
services; and 6 percent for discretionary costs, such as travel,
training, supplies and materials.
Together, headquarters and division offices provide executive
direction and management for the Civil Works program. They are funded
from appropriations for the GE Program, for which the President's
Budget includes $148 million in new funding. This supports staffing of
1,142 FTEs, reduced from 1,177 FTEs in fiscal year 1999. This staffing
represents only 4.6 percent of the total Civil Works Program workforce.
Headquarters staffing of 437 FTEs represents less than 2 percent of the
total workforce.
During the past 10 years, GE Program staffing has been reduced by
one-third. It will continue to decline through fiscal year 2002 to
about 1,050 FTEs. Despite inflation and cost increases in personnel
compensation and benefits, we continue to look at ways to streamline
and economize, although we may have few opportunities left. Personnel
reductions, reorganizations, and other efficiency measures allow our
request to remain at $148 million for the third consecutive year.
I am keenly aware of expectations of the Committee and the American
public that the Corps get the job done right at least cost. Executive
direction and management under this program plays a key role in
developing ways to meet these expectations. We appreciate your strong
support for this program, so important to continued high performance of
the Civil Works Program.
restructuring
introduction
We continue to restructure our organization with a view to
achieving greater efficiency and effectiveness in the resourcing,
planning, design, and execution of our Civil Works and Military
Programs. I would like to update you on continued progress in the
restructuring of our organization through consolidation, streamlining,
and downsizing of 11 our headquarters, divisions, and the emergency
operations organization.
headquarters
Resource Management Consolidation
Last year I achieved my goal of establishing a full-service Deputy
Chief of Staff, Resource Management, at Corps headquarters. Before
consolidation, resource management functions were fragmented throughout
the headquarters. This was inefficient and diminished our ability to
plan, program, budget and manage use of our total resources. Now, our
financial data collection and maintenance and oversight of corporate
resources are consolidated into the Resource Management Directorate.
All financial and staffing data are now generated in this Directorate.
This enables me to get integrated information on all resource matters
of the Command.
Staffing
We have been reducing staffing of Corps headquarters as well as of
the 4 field support activities. We expect that headquarters staffing
will be about 90 percent of the fiscal year 1997 level in fiscal year
2000, and only 81.5 percent of the fiscal year 1997 level by fiscal
year 2002. Staffing of the 4 support activities has already been
reduced to 83 percent of the fiscal year 1997 level, and is projected
to be further reduced to 78.5 percent of the fiscal year 1997 level by
fiscal year 2002.
divisions
Regional Business Centers
In February 1998, I approved establishment of each division office
as a Regional Business Center (RBC) with a view to getting divisions
and their districts to operate as single business entities in the
interest of efficiency and effectiveness. Implementation of this plan
required dramatic changes in business style and organizational
cultures. Our efforts at this have been very productive. This year the
division Regional Management Boards (RMBs) have all reviewed the same
budgeting and accounting 12 practices for the purpose of achieving
Corps-wide consistency and standardization. The RMBs also significantly
improved vertical and horizontal communications within their regions
and established a Corps-wide forum for sharing lessons learned and
enhancing the RBC concept. This year, I expect that the RMBs will
identify optimal business practices for the region, most efficient
organizations for each district, and initiatives to maximize the use of
regional resources.
Resource Management Consolidation
Management of corporate resources within one office at all levels
is critical to efficient, effective, full-service operations.
Accordingly, in November 1998, I directed divisions to consolidate all
facets of operations regarding resources within their Resource
Management Offices, much as we have done at headquarters. Consolidation
is now complete.
Staffing
As reported last year we have completed restructuring our
divisions, from 11 to 8, to provide a more efficient and effective
organization. We expect that staffing for the 8 divisions will be about
84 percent of the fiscal year 1997 level in fiscal year 2000, and about
77 percent of the fiscal year 1997 level by fiscal year 2002.
emergency operations organization
In July 1997, we began implementation of our ``Readiness 2000
Initiative'' to transform our readiness group into a corporate team
sharing planning responsibilities and response capabilities, and to
organize and manage emergency operations resources through a national
strategy. The goal is to provide for rapid set-up of effective response
organizations and immediate initiation of emergency contracting and
other critical services for impacted communities. The program provides
for establishing and training teams in each of our 37 districts for 46
specific emergency response missions, and supporting these teams with a
``deployable tactical operations system'' (DTOS), including 24
vehicles, 2 transportable systems, and 37 ``fly away'' equipment
packages.
To date, we have established all 46 teams and formally trained 24
of them. We have 13 also purchased roughly 50 percent of the DTOS.
Although not fully implemented, the program has already significantly
improved our overall readiness and response capability. This was
evident following Hurricane Bonnie and Georges last Fall. We spent
substantially less time setting up for and commencing effective
emergency operations in the disaster areas of these storms.
We plan to train another 18 teams in fiscal year 1999, and retrain
the 24 already trained based on lessons learned. The balance of the
DTOS is scheduled for delivery by June, in time for the upcoming
hurricane season. Once the program is fully implemented, we will be
able dispatch our nation-wide resource of highly-trained personnel and
state-of-the-art DTOS to any area where our presence is required in
support of emergency activities of federal, State and local agencies.
improvement in business operations
introduction
We continue to improve our business operations through
implementation of better regulations, systems, processes, and practices
in the interest of more efficient and effective execution of our Civil
Works and Military Programs. I would like to update you on continued
progress at this in strategic planning, project management, and our
small business program.
strategic planning
For the Corps to continue to fulfill its role in serving the Army
and the Nation we must continually look out beyond current initiatives
and anticipate what changes will be needed next. Working from our
Corps-wide Vision we are developing the strategic management processes
that will guide the Corps of the future.
Our first initiatives were aimed at quickly identifying things we
needed to improve right away. Headquarters and Division Campaign Plans,
and District Operations Plans were the result of these initiatives.
Next, we started the more deliberate work of identifying where the
Corps needs to focus efforts for additional change. We have now merged
the quick-start initiatives and the deliberate analysis into an
integrated ongoing strategic management process led by the senior
officers and civilians in my Headquarters who compose our newly
established Strategic Management Board.
project management
New Regulation
A year ago, I issued a new Programs and Project Management
Regulation which revolutionizes the way we conduct our work. This
regulation established a Project Management Business Process for
accomplishing our activities. This change is making the Corps far more
customer focused than in the past, with an orientation toward project
rather than process. Through a number of initiatives, I am continuing
this revolution by removing Corps headquarters from the business of
managing projects on a day-to-day basis, and delegating more execution
responsibility and accountability to the field.
Planning Process
We are relooking our entire planning process from the time a
project is identified until the PCA is signed. I have approved, for
implementation, the recommendations of a Process Action Team to
streamline the process, minimize burdens on local sponsors, and
delegate much of the approval and execution authority to divisions and
districts, thus expediting agreements. We are undertaking immediate,
near-term, and long-term measures to address the recommendations. These
steps should simplify and expedite project negotiations, strengthening
our partnership with nonfederal sponsors in execution of our Civil
Works Program, to the benefit of the Nation.
Continuing Authorities Program
Late last year, on recognizing that our Continuing Authorities
Program (CAP) was not performing at full potential, we established a
Process Action Team to review the process and make recommendations for
change to improve execution. Presently, we are working to implement the
team's recommendation that we effect a uniform and streamlined process
for all 9 CAP authorities. The recommendation envisions changes in
current regulations and guidance to: vest approval authority for all
CAP matters in 15 divisions; allocate most of appropriated funding for
CAP to divisions, vesting authority for financial management in
divisions; and develop and provide model PCAs especially for the CAP.
These steps should breath new life into the CAP, promoting maximum
performance of this very important part of our Civil Works Program, to
the considerable benefit of the Nation. We are also recommended
statutory changes to standardize costsharing and project cost limits.
small business program
I am committed to ensuring that small businesses have the
opportunity to participate in our procurements and that we provide the
training and counseling to help them succeed. I have put this program
on the front burner for two reasons. First, it's the policy of our
government to assist qualified small businesses in obtaining and
executing procurement contracts. But, beyond policy, it makes strategic
business sense to promote competition and develop businesses to insure
a broad base of capable suppliers. I consider the Small Business
Program mission vital to the Nation's economic prosperity.
The Corps of Engineers exceeded all expectations in the Small
Business Program for fiscal year 1998. We led all other Army Commands
in prime contract awards to small businesses, small disadvantaged
businesses, and woman-owned small businesses. The Corps of Engineers
accounted for one third of Army's prime contract awards to small
businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, and woman-owned small
businesses.
We maintain a strong outreach program to promote participation of
small disadvantaged business in our procurements, and counsel them on
how to do business with us. We have made contracting with women and
minorities a priority. This past December we hosted our second Annual
Small Business Conference. The conference focused on engineering,
construction, environmental, and research and development activities of
the Army Corps of Engineers. It provided a forum for direct exchange of
information and ideas between our commanders and small business
leaders.
An example of our success in partnering with small businesses is
the recent recovery effort in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Georges.
Our commanders were committed to promoting small business participation
in the recovery, and, in turn, the small business involved gave
outstanding support. I commend them both.
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 already effected and proposed improvements in our business
processes and practices, discussed elsewhere in this statement, have
already resulted and in, and will continue to result in, more efficient
and timely production of our Civil Works Program products, less burden
on local sponsors who participate in the production through financial
support and otherwise, greater capability to be responsive to the water
resource management needs of the Nation, and greater customer
satisfaction.
Until recently, benefits of these process improvements could be
shown only at the project level, and not the program level. Likewise,
we could show the impacts of alternative funding on program services
levels, and the timing of program results at the project level; but not
the program level. Now, 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.
corps of engineers financial management system
In March 1998 we completed the process of deploying the Corps of
Engineers Financial Management System (CEFMS) to all 61 locations (63
databases). Project and program managers can now benefit from accurate/
timely financial information.
We have begun to modernize CEFMS by moving it into a Graphical User
Interface (GUI) environment. This will take advantage of Internet
browser technology to enable modern application processing, improve
usability of the system, and reduce future operations and support
costs. Deployment of the CEFMS GUI version is scheduled for fiscal year
2000.
In December 1998 CEFMS was certified in Army's Y2K (year 2000)
database as compliant with requirements for operating in Y2K. The US
Army Audit Agency has completed an independent review of our test
results and, based on a draft report, will 17 confirm that CEFMS is Y2K
compliant.
The rest of our systems will be Y2K compliant by the end of this
month. As a result, our business operations will continue into the new
century without a hitch. I am proud of this accomplishment.
corps vision
Finally, Mr. Chairman, each year I brief you on the status of the
Corps Vision. It remains as I showed you last year:
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!
This Vision is the foundation of all of our strategic planning,
restructuring, and process improvements already accomplished, or to be
accomplished near- and long-term. Improvements discussed elsewhere in
this statement are a direct result of this Vision. As mentioned, we now
have an integrated ongoing strategic management process overseen by the
newly formed Strategic Management Board, led by the senior officers and
civilians in headquarters. Through this process and this board our
Vision will endure to the continued significant benefit to the Corps,
Army, and Nation.
conclusion
The President's Budget for the Corps of Engineers is a good one.
However, we must continue to find ways to reduce our costs and shift
more of those remaining to direct 18 beneficiaries of our services.
Meanwhile, we will do our very best to execute the Civil Works Program
for maximum benefit to the Nation.
Our Vision commits us to dramatic improvement in performance and
customer satisfaction within available resources, with a goal of making
revolutionary, not evolutionary, improvements in our processes and
products--continually maximizing actual and potential values of our
organization to the Civil Works Program, the Army, and the 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 2000
DIRECT PROGRAM
[New obligation authority in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------
Source/program/account Initial appropriation Budget
--------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATION:
Discretionary and Related
Mandatory:
Defense: Formerly 140,000 140,000 150,000
Utilized Sites Remedial
Action Program (FUSRAP).
Domestic: General 156,804 161,747 135,000
Investigations..........
Construction, General:
General Fund......... 1,394,167 1,353,372 927,200
Harbor Maintenance ........... 3,255 ...........
Trust Fund..........
Harbor Services Fund. ........... ........... 257,700
Inland Waterway Trust 79,206 73,258 55,000
Fund................
--------------------------------------
Total.............. 1,473,373 1,429,885 1,239,900
Operation and
Maintenance, General:
General Fund......... 1,209,137 1,617,551 1,107,300
Harbor Maintenance 496,900 ........... ...........
Trust Fund..........
Harbor Services Fund. ........... ........... 692,900
Special Recreation 33,988 35,701 35,700
User Fees Fund......
--------------------------------------
Total.............. 1,740,025 1,653,252 1,835,900
Flood Control, 296,212 321,149 280,000
Mississippi River and
Tributaries.............
Regulatory Program....... 106,000 106,000 117,000
General Expenses......... 148,000 148,000 148,000
Flood Control and Coastal 4,000 ........... ...........
Emergencies.............
--------------------------------------
Total (Domestic)....... 3,924,414 3,820,033 3,755,800
--------------------------------------
Total (Defense and 4,064,414 3,960,033 3,905,800
Domestic).............
======================================
Mandatory, Only:
Permanent Appropriations. 14,627 18,098 18,576
Coastal Wetlands
Restoration Trust Fund:
Corps................ 10,000 10,000 10,000
Others (excluded).... 37,541 38,300 44,180
--------------------------------------
Total.............. 47,541 48,300 54,180
Rivers and Harbors 262,274 280,896 251,141
Contributions...........
Bonneville Power ........... 106,000 107,000
Administration..........
Washington Aqueduct 24,000 22,000 ...........
(borrowing authority, ex-
cluded)...............
--------------------------------------
Total................ 286,901 414,994 386,717
--------------------------------------
TOTAL (Discretionary 4,351,315 4,375,027 4,292,517
and Mandatory)......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
statement of senator bennett
Senator Bennett [presiding]. Thank you very much. We
appreciate your being here.
There are some who think you should get hazard pay for the
times you appear before this committee. You have an unthankful
task in some of the responsibilities you assume, but we agree
that your work is of the utmost importance in protecting the
water resources.
I would like to make the same comment to you gentlemen that
I made to the previous panel with respect to the Army Corps
personnel in Utah. They are very capable and very thorough in
their duties and take their responsibilities very seriously. We
have had differences of opinion with them from time to time,
but we have enjoyed working with them and recognize the
seriousness with which they approach their tasks.
Now, I want to reiterate my support for a few minor
projects we have worked on together, again as was the case with
the last panel, to get this in and on the record so that you
understand how seriously I take them.
upper jordan river restoration, section 206, project
The progress on the restoration of the upper Jordan River
is going well. The environmental restoration project has been
completed. Plans and specifications for the project have been
initiated, and we think we will be ready to proceed with
construction in 2001.
Salt Lake County has worked closely with EPA and the Corps
and the Interior Department to properly manage water resources
on a watershed basis. Pollution from non-point sources is
still, of course, a matter of concern, and channel restoration
of the upper Jordan River is a critical factor in reducing non-
point source pollution. We need about $1 million to complete
the plans and specifications, as well as an exemption from the
800 cfs flow requirement required for Federal participation in
urban flood control. We hope to discuss those things with you.
Now, the Belco dispute. Again, this is a parochial issue.
It is matter that concerns me. It is an ongoing contract
dispute between a contractor in Utah and the Corps office in
Jackson, Wyoming. I know that my staff has communicated with
you on this issue. It has resulted in a suit against the Corps
being filed in Federal court over an alleged breach of
contract.
I am not taking a position one way or the other. That would
not be appropriate for a Senator with respect to something
where there is a legal action pending. I want to ensure,
however, as every Senator does, that my constituents are
treated fairly, and based on a limited review, I have the
feeling that that has not been the case here. I would hope we
could avoid litigation.
I have found in some other situations that sitting down in
my office in the next couple of weeks with the contractor and
your staff to see if something cannot be worked out might be a
worthwhile activity. I am willing to do that. If nothing comes
out of it, then the lawsuit goes forward, but we will at least
have tried.
General, would you be open to such a suggestion, or has the
matter gone so far that you are not willing to talk about it in
that kind of a setting?
General Ballard. Well, I am very much aware of this
particular lawsuit, Senator, and share your concern about doing
what is fair both for your constituent and the Federal
Government. At the current time, as you know, we are reviewing
the status of that case in the office of my General Counsel.
What I would like to do--and I have not had a chance to discuss
this case in detail with him. So, prior to agreeing to come and
meet with you, I would like some time to review the case and
then provide you an answer to your question about our
willingness to meet.
I think it is important that we do whatever it takes to
make sure that we seek a fair solution, and if the case has not
gone so far that it would not be inappropriate to meet, I would
be willing to do that.
Senator Bennett. Unlike a super majority of the Senate, I
am not a lawyer.
General Ballard. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett. So, I would try to act as the honest
arbiter here to see if the two sides can get together. I am not
anxious to see the legal bills go up either for the Federal
Government or for the contractor. So, I am available to perform
that function if you think it would be useful. If not, I
understand that you must protect your rights and I respect you
for that.
General Ballard. Well, I share your concerns, sir, and I
promise we will get back to you in the next day or so.
Senator Bennett. Okay.
regulatory program
Now, I have some real concerns regarding the administrative
appeals process related to your regulatory functions. Putting
it directly, I am concerned that the Corps has not implemented
the administrative appeals program despite the instruction of
both the President and the Congress. I will not go into it
here, but I have a rather strong statement that I will submit
for the record, as well as several questions that I will submit
to you in the expectation that the Corps will answer in detail.
Senator Bennett. I will be working with my colleagues to
raise awareness of the need for a workable appeals process that
is fair to the landowners. We provided the Corps with resources
and instructions in the past which unfortunately in my view
have been ignored, and I will be more than willing to provide
the Corps with some more explicit legislative direction as to
how to implement this. I would hope that Chairman Domenici
would back me in this effort, but all of that will become clear
when I file my statement and give you my questions.
Those are the only issues that I was ready to raise.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Generals, Dr. Westphal, thank you for being with us today.
Let me echo what the Senator from Utah has said about the
quality of staff and the working relationships we have. They
are good and we appreciate them in Idaho. That is always
valuable dialogue for both me and my staff with all of you
folks as we work on some of these important issues.
snake river dam removal
I have before me a press release from the Walla Walla
district office of the Army Corps on March 5 denouncing a
release coming out of the Sierra Club on March 4. The Sierra
Club release tried to depict preliminary findings in what is
known as the DREW study as supporting the notion that removing
the four lower Snake dams would be advantageous to the economy
of the Pacific Northwest region.
Thank you for quickly correcting this inaccurate
information. It is critically important that we have accurate
facts. We are watching with an eagle eye the EIS you are all
involved in to make sure that it is science and not politics.
Let me very clearly admonish you, though I do not think it is
necessary. Please do not get involved in the politics of this
issue or you will destroy your credibility. Stay with the
science and stay with the engineering facts that you deal with
so well.
You can see the loaded nature of this issue by the
silliness of the Sierra Club release. Headlines: DREW Finds
Huge Economic Benefits from Partial Removal of Four Lower Snake
Dams. Wishful thinking on their part to stymie and destroy the
growth in the economy of the region. No question about it. And
yet, the science is not even in to suggest that breaching dams
will save these endangered species of salmonoids that we are
talking about.
So, we are awaiting your studies. They will be important to
the overall character of how we develop a mitigation plan for
those fish, and it is going to be critical to the region. As
you heard me say--you were here when I was talking with the
Bureau of Reclamation--we have spent the last 80 or 90 years
taking an arid State like Idaho and watering it and making it
habitable not only for species of plants and animals, but the
human species, and I do not want to see it dewatered in the
name of a single species when science would lead us to a
different, and I hope, better course.
I noted there is an item in the Corps budget for
engineering activities directed at the dams and fish passage on
the Snake-Columbia Rivers. Could you supply for the record how
much money is in this budget for planning, design, or
construction of such things as dam modification, surface
collectors, irrigation project changes, or other activities for
salmon recovery?
Dr. Westphal. We will do that.
General Ballard. Yes, sir.
Senator Craig. If you would please. And then please be
specific as to how the money is being requested for each of the
activities. I think that would be very helpful to us.
Is there anything being done through the fiscal year 2000
budget to address the CASPIAN tern issue on Rice Island at the
mouth of the Columbia? I am recommending you go out and buy
some coyotes or foxes and put them on that island. [Laughter.]
[The information follows:]
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, IDAHO, OREGON & WASHINGTON
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000
-----------------------------------------------
Subproject/item Engineering &
Planning design Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice Harbor:
Auxiliary Water Supply...................................... .............. 350 ..............
Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program (AFEP)................... .............. 60 ..............
Lower Monumental:
Auxiliary Water Supply...................................... .............. 350 ..............
Adult Passive Integrated Transponder Facilities............. .............. 100 ..............
End Bay Deflectors.......................................... .............. .............. 10
Little Goose:
Auxiliary Water Supply...................................... .............. 350 ..............
Extended Screen Barrier Screen Mods......................... .............. 310 1,200
Trash Boom.................................................. .............. 550 3,460
Adult Passive Integrated Transponder Facilities............. .............. 110 ..............
Lower Granite:
Auxiliary Water Supply...................................... .............. 350 ..............
Juvenile Bypass Facility Improvements....................... .............. 970 ..............
Extended Screens Barrier Screen Mods........................ .............. 310 1,200
Barges Moorage Cells........................................ .............. 250 80
McNary:
Fish Ladder Exit Mods....................................... .............. .............. 890
Cylindrical De-water Test................................... .............. 110 1,190
Orifice Shelters............................................ .............. 15 765
Extended Screens Barrier Screens Mods....................... .............. 250 3,290
Replace Gates/Stoplogs...................................... .............. 180 2,770
Adult Passive Integrated Transponder Facilities............. .............. 110 ..............
John Day:
Extended Screen Barrier Screen.............................. .............. 2,310 4,770
Smolt Monitoring facility................................... .............. 100 1,080
End Bay Deflectors.......................................... .............. 205 1,565
The Dalles:
Auxiliary Water Supply...................................... .............. 1,120 ..............
Adult Channel Dewatering.................................... .............. 730 ..............
Bonneville:
Bonneville 1st Downstream Migrant & Outfall Facilities...... .............. 3,530 600
Bonneville 2nd Downstream Migrant & Outfall Facilities...... .............. 570 3,210
Bonneville 2nd Gatewell Debris.............................. .............. 380 800
Mitigation Analysis:
Walla Walla District Study Activities \1\
Turbine Study........................................... 1,450 .............. ..............
Ice Harbor Separator Evaluation......................... 890 .............. ..............
Gas Abatement Study..................................... 475 .............. ..............
Snake River Feasibility Study........................... 890 .............. ..............
Fish Ladder Temp Evaluation............................. 710 .............. ..............
Fallback Study Ice Harbor/McNary........................ 710 .............. ..............
Lower Granite Surface Bypass Collection................. 8,260 .............. ..............
Multiple Bypass (AFEP).................................. 770 .............. ..............
Estuary PIT Recovery (AFEP)............................. 770 .............. ..............
Gas Fastrack............................................ 2,960 .............. ..............
Portland District Study Activities \1\
Lower Columbia Feasibility Study........................ 5,900 .............. ..............
Gas Abatement Study..................................... 950 .............. ..............
Turbine Survival Program................................ 2,900 .............. ..............
Bonneville Surface Bypass............................... 12,390 .............. ..............
Bonneville 1st Fish Guidance Efficiency................. 2,360 .............. ..............
Bonneville Flat Plate Passive........................... 60 .............. ..............
Integrated Transponder Facilities Bonneville Adult 590 .............. ..............
Fallback...............................................
Bonneville 2nd Fish Guidance Efficiency................. 1,770 .............. ..............
The Dalles Surface Bypass............................... 2,920 .............. ..............
The Dalles Spillway Survival............................ 2,720 .............. ..............
Powerhouse Surface Bypass............................... 590 .............. ..............
Spillway Surface Bypass................................. 1,770 .............. ..............
John Day 24 Hour Spill Test............................. 2,950 .............. ..............
John Day Mitigation Relocation to Ringold Hatchery...... 180 .............. ..............
Lower Columbia Adult Measures........................... 2,360 .............. ..............
Gas Fastrack............................................ 975 .............. ..............
Adult Passive Integrated Transponder Facilities......... 180 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total Planning Activities............................. 59,450 13,670 26,880
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Columbia River Fish Mitigation Project Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request--$100,000,000.
\1\ Some of the study activities for the Mitigation Analysis subproject require engineering, design, and
construction of prototype facilities. If this is so, the cost for this engineering, design, and construction
is included in the Planning column.
caspian tern
Senator Craig. Other than that, no.
Dr. Westphal. I will let General Fuhrman answer this, but I
think we do have a project to move the Caspian----
General Fuhrman. We are looking at that in conjunction with
other agencies as an----
Senator Craig. But you are a player in that, are you not,
General?
General Fuhrman. Yes, we are. We certainly are.
Senator Gorton. How about some cats?
Senator Craig. Let the record show that the Senator from
Idaho is not totally off base here. [Laughter.]
Senator Burns. How about some wolves?
Senator Craig. Well, we could be a supplier there is no
question.
But it is important that we see what you are doing there
and how much you are a player. That is important that we
resolve that issue, for the sake of the young salmon.
ports of clarkston and lewiston
Is there sufficient O&M budget money for dredge work needed
on the ports of Clarkston and Lewiston in your current budget,
do you think? I am talking about the ongoing necessary works to
keep those channels open.
General Fuhrman. Senator, yes, there is.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Dr. Westphal. Mr. Chairman, Senator Craig, if I could just
mention one thing----
Senator Craig. Excuse me, Doctor.
Dr. Westphal. I am sorry. I just wanted to mention to you
that I took a trip to the Northwest late last year. In fact, I
think I spoke with Senator Gorton while I was on that trip. I
was at Bonneville at the time. I went to the Lower Snake and
viewed all the projects there with the Corps. It was a very
short trip and I did not have a chance to really talk to local
folks, so I just basically talked to the Corps.
But we are definitely working this whole process, which is,
as you know, a very, very lengthy and difficult process in a
way, as carefully as we can, and we are trying to be as
responsible as we can in responding to the scientific
information that is required to make these decisions. But the
release of that information is just a very small piece of the
overall EIS that is about to come out, hopefully by September
of this year, and that is why we responded that way. We think
that in the end we will have a good study that we can stand
behind.
Senator Craig. Well, I certainly hope that is the case. You
saw with your tour out there what I think is a tremendously
proud legacy and one that we ought to be trying to enhance and
perfect. And yes, it has problems and one of our problems is
developing a mitigation plan to try to save these species of
fish. But it should not be one that we run from at all because
it has afforded the Pacific Northwest some tremendous assets
that I am certainly proud of. That is why I am as strident as I
am with organizations that try to recreate the region in their
own image for political purposes and ignore the science.
Thank you.
devils lake, north dakota
Senator Bennett. Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I do
want to thank Dr. Westphal, General Ballard, General Fuhrman,
and Mr. Caver. I must confess that I used to think that dealing
with the Corps of Engineers was like dealing with pre-
democratic Eastern European countries, except Romania's
Ceauescu was easier to deal with. [Laughter.]
But I have changed my mind. We have gone through some
significant disasters, the Grand Forks and Devils Lake
flooding, and the Corps of Engineers has been of invaluable
assistance to us and has spent a lot of time and a lot of
effort trying to help us get through these tough times. So, I
deeply appreciate your commitment to help.
Dr. Westphal, you have worked with us closely on both
Devils Lake and Grand Forks. I want to just mention to you--
members of the subcommittee will be tired of hearing this but
Devils Lake is continuing to rise. The Senator from Utah,
Senator Bennett, once offered pumps that they bought apparently
for the Great Salt Lake and did not use. The problem is that if
you use pumps, you would have to find a place to pump the
water. This is not a region where there is an empty pail. So,
we cannot transfer one region's problem to cause a problem in
another region in our State. That is the difficulty.
But we are working through a range of issues, including the
design of an outlet and a series of other matters. I want to
impress upon you once again the urgency that I know you
understand. That lake is expected to rise again this summer. It
is the most vexing thing in the world to us. It is one of only
two closed basins in America. The other is the Great Salt Lake.
It is a flood that comes and stays unlike most other things
that we deal with. Most floods we deal with are river floods
where we see a house floating down a raging river someplace and
then the flood is over and the river subsides. That is not what
is happening to us in this basin.
We had a meeting with the Governor and legislative leaders
and others in Bismarck last Friday talking about the time line
and other issues, but I would just ask again how you see the
time line on the Devil's Lake outlet and if you have enough
resources--I expect you do--committed to this in order to try
to reach a conclusion on it.
Dr. Westphal. We have the resources, and the last update I
had is a little bit dated. It is the end of last year when I
asked for an update on where we were with the studies. The
Corps at the District level was incorporating some new data
into the analysis to try to look at the regional impacts. But
since then I have not had an update, unless General Fuhrman has
one. So, let me just say that I will get you an update on when
we expect to have a report on that.
Senator Dorgan. I would appreciate that.
General Fuhrman. Just to add to that, as you are well
aware, Senator, we are continuing to look at alternatives,
along with the local sponsors, and hope to have an update to
Congress by the last of April.
[The information follows:]
Devils Lake Outlet
The time line for completion of the Devils Lake outlet will be
addressed in the Interim Report to Congress and is dependent on the
alternatives evaluated and eventual direction provided. Once there is a
recommended course of action, additional funding resources of at least
$5M would be required to initiate and complete plans and specifications
for approved actions.
grand forks, nd
Senator Dorgan. One other question on the Grand Forks dike.
The President requested $10 million I believe in his 2000
budget request. Does this adequately reflect the capability of
the Corps for the initial construction on the permanent levy in
the coming fiscal year?
Dr. Westphal. Yes, that does.
General Fuhrman. Yes.
Senator Dorgan. If additional funds would become necessary,
I assume that the Corps would seek a reprogramming or some
other approach?
Dr. Westphal. Yes.
General Fuhrman. Yes, we would.
Senator Dorgan. Well, I am not usually so reasonable or so
agreeable, but I must say that my experience both with the
previous panel, and also with the Corps of Engineers the last
few years, has been really quite a remarkable experience. They
have men and women in the field who work day and night and have
put a lot on the line for those of us in North Dakota who have
been threatened by these flooding crises, and I want to say
thanks to a lot of people who work down in the bowels of your
agency and who do some awfully good work.
Dr. Westphal. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to
submit a couple of additional questions for the record.
Senator Bennett. Without objection.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much.
yellowtail dam, mt
Senator Bennett. Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. We can handle most of your problem up there.
We will just declare all North Dakota wilderness. We will ship
our wolves over there. I am just trying to get rid of some
wolves.
Senator Dorgan. What is that fellow's name? [Laughter.]
Senator Burns. Up in our State, just so the people in this
room understand my previous comment, you cannot touch these
protected wolves. There is a pack of 10 that is laying 200
yards off of a guy's barn. He is trying to calve and he
estimates that he has lost 30 calves and 25 cows, and he cannot
do anything to stop the wolves. All you can do is watch them
wolves carry your calf crop off, and you get pretty excited.
I think I want to raise one issue again, the Yellowtail
Dam. I think you have some joint responsibilities on the
Yellowtail with the Bureau of Reclamation on flood control and
water release. I would suggest that you start the dialogue now
between the Bureau of Reclamation, because we have a tremendous
snowpack this year, General, and I fear for that.
regulatory administrative appeals process
I am also concerned, General Ballard, in your appeals
process, that you have got the rules written for those permits
that were denied, the denied permits, and you are sort of
shying away from the jurisdictional part of that language of
the law. I will tell you we have more problems with the
jurisdictional end of this situation on wetlands, that problem,
than we do any other part. So, I would suggest to take the
language of the law and implement it where you have the most
problems, and I think most of it is in jurisdiction.
I can tell you that the Corps has really overstepped its
bounds in some areas in the wetlands. It is not contiguous to
impaired waters or to navigable streams or anything like that.
So, those are the only things that I want to--other than
that, we have got a lot of work to do on the Missouri that is
above the Yellowstone, and we want to do that. We are losing
land every day along the Missouri between Culbertson and
Williston and we should deal with that. Of course, there again
that has to do with Fort Peck.
I am also very interested in working with you as far as the
Fort Peck interpretive center and those kinds of things, and we
will work our way through that.
But you have done some good work up there and we appreciate
that, but those are the areas that concern me most. I would
start that dialogue with the Bureau of Reclamation, though,
because we have a tremendous snowpack this year.
And thank you for coming, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. Senator Kohl?
lafarge lake, wi
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
Gentlemen, good to see you here.
Dr. Westphal. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kohl. I would like to ask a series of questions on
the La Farge Lake deauthorization project.
The Water Resource Development Act of 1996 deauthorized the
flood control project at La Farge. The Army Corps of Engineers
was instructed to transfer the 9,000 acres acquired during the
1960's and 1970's to the State of Wisconsin and the Department
of the Interior to be held in trust for the Hochunk Nation.
Also, as part of the flood control project, the Corps of
Engineers was given jurisdiction over the relocation and
maintenance of State highway 131 and a few of the county
highways.
Three questions. Number one, when will the land transfer
project deauthorization and completion of remaining project
features be accomplished?
General Fuhrman. I will take that one, Senator. Currently
field documentation of historic cultural resource protection,
site safety, environmental remediation of abandoned farm sites
and wells and real estate activities, all of which need to be
accomplished prior to the land transfer, are fully funded and
are on track to be completed by 30 September of this year.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
Will the Corps be including a request for funding to
implement section 361 in future presidential budgets?
Dr. Westphal. Well, while we cannot really commit today to
what we are going to include in the 2001 budget, since we have
yet to even begin developing that, I will tell you that we will
proceed on this project as expeditiously as we can, and if we
need to, we will make an effort to fund what is required. I
will work with you and your staff to do that.
Senator Kohl. I do appreciate that.
One last question. Does the Corps agree that the Wisconsin
Department of Transportation is in the best position to conduct
the road relocation, and if so, when will the Corps be
completing the necessary contractual arrangements with the
State of Wisconsin on this issue?
General Fuhrman. Senator, we believe that the Wisconsin
Department of Transportation has the necessary expertise to do
an excellent job at accomplishing the highway work that is
needed and identified out there. We are currently reviewing
that to determine what types of authorities we have to allow us
to work with the Department, and we will be working closely
with you to resolve that issue.
Senator Kohl. Did I get a clear answer on that? Not as
clear as I would like.
General Fuhrman. Well, there is an authorities issue here
in our ability to grant money to the State, and we will need to
work with the Congress on that piece of it.
Senator Kohl. I thank you, and I thank you, Senator
Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
mississippi river and tributaries budget request
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to
be here today to welcome our witnesses. It is my first
opportunity to congratulate publicly my friend, Dr. Joe
Westphal, on his service as Assistant Secretary of the Army.
In looking at the budget request, I noticed that for the
Mississippi River and Tributaries project, in which I am very
interested, the President has requested a total of $280 million
for this next fiscal year. This is the same as the request for
the current fiscal year.
Congress reviewed that request last year and found it to be
woefully inadequate in terms of the capability of the Corps for
that project and also to protect lives and property in the
region. So, the amount for fiscal year 1999 was increased to
$323.6 million, which we hope will go a long way toward getting
us back on schedule and on track with many of the programs in
the Mississippi River and Tributaries project.
My question is--and General Ballard or whoever you suggest
should answer this--I understand that this is still short of
the Corps' capability for these activities. I wonder if, for
the record, you could give us the figure, the dollar amount,
that the Corps has within its capability for projects within
the Mississippi River and Tributaries program.
General Ballard. I think that figure, Senator, is about
$350 million.
Dr. Westphal. $350 million.
Senator Cochran. Which means that if the Congress
appropriated that amount and the President would sign the bill,
you could use that money efficiently and effectively to carry
out the authority that has already been granted to the Corps on
those projects. Is that correct?
General Ballard. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Cochran. I know that some of these projects have
controversies surrounding them, and I know you are trying to
deal with those and involve the public. I have been in
Mississippi on occasions when meetings have been held. We have
tried to encourage those who have opinions on these to come
forward. Sometimes they overdo it, but the fact is we are
trying to make sure that these projects are sensitive to
environmental concerns, to the needs of production agriculture,
the people who live in the area, and it is a very, very big
challenge.
This is a project that was authorized a long time ago. It
continues to be short of funds and behind schedule, and a lot
of people are suffering because of that. We hope that the Corps
will give added impetus to the work being done in that region
of the country.
I notice in the other parts of the budget there are some
increases being requested, and this is not one of them. I am
disappointed in that. I hope we can work with you in this
committee to try to deal with the challenge of meeting our
responsibilities to the people in that area of the country.
Dr. Westphal. Yes, sir.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns [presiding]. I guess the chairman ran away.
Senator Cochran. You are it. [Laughter.]
Senator Burns. The Senator from Washington.
columbia and snake rivers
Senator Gorton. General Ballard, a year or so ago, we had a
meeting that was very unpleasant and unhappy for both of us in
my office about a recreation study carried out by the Walla
Walla office. Because I remember that and I suspect you do as
well and do not like unhappy meetings like that, I cannot do
anything but start my comments off by saying in how positive a
way you responded. I am still not sure I like much about the
new survey, but it is much improved over the old one.
More important than that, however, were the comments that
Senator Craig made, that when some portions of its results were
leaked and were put out in a distorted fashion, that you
stepped forward and said that this was highly misleading and
that you are going to wait until you have finished with what
you have done and are going to try to come up with an as
objective set of answers as you possibly can. That is in the
finest traditions of the Corps. Having started out unhappily, I
wanted to tell you how very positively I respond to that kind
of work on your behalf. It was absolutely first rate.
General Ballard. Thank you very much, Senator. I do
remember our meeting and your words are very complimentary. I
commit to you my continued support as we try to work these
issues together.
Senator Gorton. Good.
john day dam drawdown study
Now, I do want to state, again following the same
philosophy that Senator Craig did, my unhappiness--my
opposition to two elements in this budget. I have supported
both the studies that are taking place with respect to the
Snake River dams and phase one of the John Day studies. I have
done so in spite of the fact that many of my constituents and
many on the other side of the river have lobbied me not to
allow you even to have undertaken those initial studies because
they feel that any draw-down on John Day and any destruction of
the Snake River dams would be so overwhelmingly damaging to
them. My response has been that I did not think that we could
be against undertaking such studies and that, in fact, that I
thought they would end up showing the value of those dams.
Nevertheless, I have to tell you that to ask for money,
even on a contingent basis, for a second phase of a study when
you have not completed phase one of the study, and when
obviously there has been no opportunity for the people of the
area to respond to phase one, seems to me to be highly
premature. I am not telling you that at this point that under
any and all circumstances I would oppose a phase two, although
it is a lot of money over a considerable period of time, but I
certainly do want to tell you that I will oppose authorizing it
or appropriating money even on a contingent basis now before we
have seen phase one, not only we have seen phase one, but even
more importantly the people of the area have seen phase one.
And the McNary study falls in exactly the same category.
I think we need an opportunity for the people of
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, for that matter, to
respond to what we are already doing before we take additional
steps. So, I want to make it clear that I am going to try to
see to it that those appropriations are not made this year
without necessarily saying that there are not further studies
that are appropriate at some time in the future.
Having said that and having said that you have done so many
things so well, I do want to ask a question of you now on a
different subject.
bonneville dam and the dalles dam powerhouse rehabilitation
Major rehabilitation efforts have been authorized on the
Bonneville Dam and on the Dalles Dam, but the requests from the
administration for powerhouse improvements seem to be
significantly less than what you could actually use in the year
2000 by a margin of less than $11 million to more than $16
million. The Bonneville work that sometime ago was slated to be
completed in the year 2003 is likely not to be completed until
the year 2008. Obviously, that drives up costs with the
contractors that you are working with and power generation
capability of the dams diminishes as the houses age.
Why do we not have a request for the amount of money that
you can efficiently and effectively spend on the Dalles and
Bonneville for the year 2000?
General Fuhrman. The amount that we can effectively use is
$3.3 million, sir.
Senator Gorton. That is for the Dalles.
General Fuhrman. Yes.
Senator Gorton. And Bonneville?
General Fuhrman. I will have to provide that for the
record, sir.
[The information follows:]
Bonneville Powerhouse Phase II, Oregon and Washington (Major
Rehabilitation)
The fiscal year 2000 amount that we can effectively use for Major
Rehabilitation at Bonneville is $16.3 million.
Drawdown studies
Senator Gorton. Okay, this is the kind of question that you
are probably better off answering in writing than directly to
me in any event.
I simply want to echo what Senator Craig said. You were
asked to undertake studies at a certain level, come up with
engineering feasibility, come up with a number of other
answers. The determination as to what to do about the results
of those studies, of course, is a policy determination for
Congress and recommendations by the President of the United
States. I just echo what Senator Craig said. I have no reason
to think that you are not doing this objectively and without
political considerations in mind, and I simply encourage you to
keep moving in that direction.
The Assistant Secretary, in his conversation with me,
earlier emphasized that as well, and I include him so far in
the compliments.
General Fuhrman. Thank you.
Dr. Westphal. Thank you.
Senator, I am not 100 percent sure on this, but I believe
that perhaps one of the reasons that you see funding in there
for the phase two is that we start the budgeting process so
early in the previous year and we did not know when the phase
one EIS feasibility study would be completed. We thought it
would be completed early, that the NEIMS part of the process
would be done earlier. In fact, we expected something at the
beginning of the year. I believe probably that is the reason
that we went into that proposed----
Senator Gorton. One of you said September.
Dr. Westphal. Now it is pushed back to September.
Senator Gorton. Now it is December.
General Fuhrman. For that particular John Day phase one
study, it is due to Congress in December, Senator.
Senator Gorton. December, okay.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. That is all I have.
credits and reimbursements
Senator Domenici [presiding]. Thanks for your patience in
waiting so long.
Let me talk with you a minute, General. At the last year's
hearing, I believe the Corps estimated that there was potential
for around $800 million of unfunded liabilities over the next
several years for potential reimbursements, credits, and other
payments for work that has been authorized to be undertaken.
Could you update the committee on this situation? Do you
believe this is a big problem? Is it not possible that the
types of financing arrangements could consume very large
portions of the construction budget if we are not careful? And
what are the potential impacts or pitfalls with this kind of
funding?
General Ballard. Mr. Chairman, as a way of updating, we are
looking at credits and potential reimbursement in an amount
that is approaching roughly $950 million, so a growth of about
$150 million from what we were forecasting for last year. That
represents some 46 projects that are both approved, pending or
in the cue in some fashion or other. Now, all of those that are
not approved will have to be coordinated with the Congress.
My concern is that as this amount continues to grow, there
is some potential that the Corps could end up becoming a grant
agency in some of our districts. That possibility is there.
But I am more concerned about the potential loss of
technical talent and capability within the districts as we
migrate more toward a grant or a pass-through organization.
This moves us away from the intent of Congress when the Corps
of Engineers program was first developed, and that was to have
a trained cadre of engineers and scientists available to
respond to a national emergency. So, that is where my concern
is as this program continues to grow.
Senator Domenici. Dr. Westphal, you are aware that the
committee in the conference report on the 1998 energy and water
appropriations bill placed certain restrictions on the approval
of reimbursement agreements, acceptance of advanced funds and
other arrangements, because of our concerns related to the
potential out-year budget impacts. Now, obviously, the General
is concerned about what that would do if it became very big.
Do you feel that the conditions we imposed were reasonable?
What suggestions do you have which would allow some of these
financing mechanisms to be used, but still would have some
reasonable limitation in terms of the overall effect?
Dr. Westphal. Mr. Chairman, first let me say I echo the
Chief's concerns about this. I do believe that your concerns
are justifiable and I do think that there is a need for us to
work together to come to some understanding on how to deal with
these demands in the future. It is obvious that we want to try
to help projects move faster and we want to help constituents
get the work done in a more rapid fashion perhaps, but it is
turning out to be a system that in large part is only used by
those communities and sponsors that have the cost share money
available, and so other opportunities are not available to
other communities.
So, we hope to work with you on some resolution. I do not
know what that would be today. I think obviously it is the
prerogative of Congress to make that decision. It has an effect
on the balance between the appropriators and the authorizers.
It has an effect on the balance of power within the Congress
and outside the Congress. I think it is an important decision
that I would be willing to work with you on, whether it is
setting caps on the amount of money that we are allowed to go
through or simply making some determination as to the type of
project that can be allowed to go forth under a reimbursement.
Senator Domenici. We look forward to working with you
technically how we could word it and what would be a reasonable
limitation. I think we ought to start thinking about it. Maybe
we can be ready in a couple of months when we are ready to mark
up and see what we could put in the appropriations bill.
new study starts
While we praise the budget with reference to it having a
higher funding level requested over last year and not being so
difficult to try to implement up here on the Hill, I note that
you only have one new study start included in the 2000 budget.
Why is this and what makes that one study, the Santa Ynez River
study in California, so special that it was singled out over
all others that the Corps has requested to OMB? Did you not
have about 100 with studies eligible to be initiated?
Dr. Westphal. We originally recommended 90, sir.
Senator Domenici. All right. So, 90 that you recommended
and 1 got funded. I wonder why it got funded. Does anybody
know?
Dr. Westphal. Well, the President's budget was working
under also very significant caps as he tried to provide a
balanced budget to Congress, one that does not use the surplus,
uses the surplus for Social Security purposes. Under those
caps, we had to make some determinations about where we felt
there was the greatest need to move the program forward. In
that regard, the O&M part of the budget, taking care of the
tremendous need that there is out there for maintenance of our
aged infrastructure, was a higher priority.
We also felt that we do have a backlog of projects that we
need to move----
Senator Domenici. Wait now. I understand all that. Frankly,
I would like you to provide for the record the 90 and tell us
how much you requested for each. A lot of them are very small.
Dr. Westphal. We can do that.
[The information follows:]
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2000 REQUESTS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prim. capability
-----------------------------------
Study name Fiscal
State year 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE AK.................... 80
REDUCTION, AK--Shoreline protection
for the threatened public
facilities at Barrow, AK...........
CHANDALAR RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, AK-- AK.................... 80
Environmental protection for the
watershed in conjunction with
navigation and flood protection
measures...........................
CHESTER CREEK WATERSHED STUDY, AK-- AK.................... 100
Environmental restoration measures
for Chester Creek..................
GASTINEAU CHANNEL, JUNEAU, AK-- AK.................... 100
Channel accessibility for current
vessel spectrum requirements.......
SKAGWAY HARBOR, AK--Harbor depth and AK.................... 100
size for current and projected
vessel needs.......................
THORNE BAY HARBOR, AK--Potential for AK.................... 100
new and expanded harbors at both
North and South Thorne Bay.........
SOUTHWEST ARKANSAS, AR-- AR.................... 100
Environmental restoration of the
Corps reservoirs (Millwood,
Dequeen, Dierks and Gillham Lakes)
in Little River basin..............
RIO SALADO OESTE, SALT RIVER, AZ-- AZ.................... 100
Restoration of riparian habitat and
water quality in the city of
Phoenix, AZ........................
SEDONA, AZ--Flood damage prevention AZ.................... 100
for Coconino and Yavapi Counties
and the City of Sedona, AZ.........
KERN RIVER VALLEY (ISABELLA LAKE), CA.................... 100
CA--Comprehensive review of project
operations for environmental
measures...........................
KLAMATH RIVER, ECOSYSTEM CA.................... 100
RESTORATION, CA--Environmental
restoration measures for anadromous
fish and ripariam habitat..........
PAJARO RIVER WATERSHED, CA--Flood CA.................... 100
damage prevention and environmental
restoration for 1,300 sq. mi. of
central California.................
SAN JACINTO RIVER, CA--Flood damage CA.................... 100
prevention and environmental
enhancement opportunities in the
San Jacinto Watershed..............
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHORELINE, CA-- CA.................... 100
Flood damage prevention in low
lying areas of Santa Clara County..
WILLIAM G. STONE LOCK, CA CA.................... 200
(Feasibility)--Review justification
of lock operations for commercial
navigation.........................
OAK CREEK, FLORENCE, CO--Flood CO.................... 100
damage prevention for the city of
Florence, CO.
CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE CANAL, ENV DE.................... 100
REST, DE &--Environmental
restoration including habitat
restoration through the beneficial
use of dredged material............
MID DELAWARE RIVER BASIN DE.................... 100
COMPREHENSIVE STUDY--Environmental
restoration and flood damage
prevention including dredged
material disposal..................
HILLSBOROUGH RIVER BASIN, FL--Flood FL.................... 100
damage prevention and environmental
restoration through Temple Terrace,
Sulphur Springs and Tampa, FL......
MILE POINT, FLORIDA--Erosion along FL.................... 100
the north bank of the St. Johns
river in Duval County, Florida.....
LONG ISLAND, MARSH, AND JOHNS GA.................... 100
CREEKS, GA--Comprehensive watershed
master plan for parts of
metropolitan Atlanta, GA...........
SAVANNAH HARBOR TIDEGATE, GA-- GA.................... 100
Tidegate Federal maintenance versus
transfer to non-Federal entity.....
UTOY, SANDY & PROCTOR CREEKS, GA-- GA.................... 100
Environmental restoration and flood
damage prevention for central
Fulton Co., GA and metropolitan
Atlanta............................
HILO HARBOR NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, HI.................... 80
HI--Modification or expansion of
existing harbor....................
KAWAIHAE DEEP DRAFT HARBOR HI.................... 80
MODIFICATIONS, HI--Modifications to
existing harbor....................
NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, HONOLOLU HI.................... 120
DISTRICT--Harbor size and
configurations for the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands....
SOUTHEAST ILLINOIS, IL--Ecosystem IL.................... 100
restoration in the area of two
Corps constructed projects
(Harrisburg Local Protection and
Saline River Channelization).......
METROPOLITAN REGION OF INDIANAPOLIS, IN.................... 100
IN--Flood damage prevention
including the center of Marion
County, Indiana and metropolitan
Indianapolis.......................
ARKANSAS RIVER CHANNEL STUDY, KS-- KS.................... 100
Environmental restoration and flood
damage prevention of the Arkansas
River and adjacent lands from the
Colorado-Kansas state line to the
vicinity of Great Bend, KS.........
BANKLICK CREEK BASIN, KY--Flood KY.................... 100
damage prevention for Kenton
county, KY.
EAGLE CREEK RIVER BASIN, KY--Flood KY.................... 100
damage prevention for communities
of Carroll county, KY..............
GREEN RIVER HEADWATERS WATERSHED, KY.................... 100
KY--Ecosystem restoration through
the modification to the operation
of two existing Corps projects.....
METROPOLITAN REGION OF LOUISVILLE, KY.................... 100
KY ECOS--Ecosystem restoration
along the Ohio River and
tributaries including wetlands
creation...........................
TRADEWATER RIVER WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM KY.................... 100
RESTORATIONS--Ecosystem restoration
of west central Kentucky including
Christian, Hopkins, Caldwell,
Webster Crittenden and Union
Counties...........................
ST. BERNARD PARISH, LA--Flood damage LA.................... 100
prevention for the St. Bernard
Parish, LA........................
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, MA.................... 100
MA--Environmental restoration for
the watershed portions of
Middlesex, Suffolk, Norfolk, and
Worcester counties, MA.............
COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS ECOSYSTEM MA.................... 100
RESTORATION, MA--Ecosystem
restoration including dredge
material disposal and coastal
wetlands...........................
NANTICOKE RIVER BASIN, MD & DE-- MD.................... 100
Environmental restoration including
watershed planning, wetland
restoration, and beneficial uses of
dredged material...................
REDWOOD RIVER BASIN, MN-- MN.................... 100
Environmental restoration and flood
damage prevention for Redwood
county in the vicinity of Marshall,
MN.................................
BIG FIVE LEVEE SYSTEM, MO--Flood MO.................... 100
damage prevention for Union and
Alexander counties, Illinois.......
MONROE COUNTY, MO--Flood damage MO.................... 100
prevention for Monroe County,
Illinois...........................
PRAIRIE DU ROCHER (IFC), MO--Flood MO.................... 100
damage prevention for Randolph
County, Illinois...................
BROAD RIVER BASIN, NC & SC-- NC.................... 100
Environmental restoration and flood
damage prevention for portions of
18 counties in both North and South
Carolina...........................
CAPE FEAR RIVER LOCKS & DAMS, NC-- NC.................... 100
Review operation of locks and dam
for disposition and/or
environmental restoration..........
CURRITUCK SOUND, NC--Environmental NC.................... 100
restoration in Currituck and Dare
counties in the northeastern part
of North Carolina..................
VERDIGRE CREEK AT VERDIGRE, NE-- NE.................... 90
Flood damage prevention for the
Village of Verdigre, NE............
SHREWSBURY RIVER & TRIBUTARIES, NJ-- NJ.................... 100
Flood damage prevention and
environmental restoration in
Monmouth County, New Jersey........
CIMARRON RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NM, NM.................... 100
OK, CO, & KS--Ecosystem restoration
and flood damage prevention of the
Cimarron River basin...............
RATON, NM--Flood damage prevention NM.................... 100
for city of Raton, NM..............
GREAT CHAZY RIVER BASIN & NY.................... 100
TRIBUTARIES, NY--Flood damage
prevention and environmental
restoration for the communities of
Champlin, Mooers Forks, Ellenburg,
and Ellenburg Depot................
HUDSON & MOHAWK RIVERS AT WATERFORD, NY.................... 100
NY--Flood damage prevention and
environmental restoration for
Waterford, New York................
MOHAWK RIVER BASIN, NY--Flood damage NY.................... 100
prevention for Oneida, Herkimer,
Schoharie, Greene, and Montgomery
Counties, New York.................
SARANAC RIVER BASIN & TRIBUTARIES, NY.................... 100
NY--Flood damage prevention and
environmental restoration for the
communities of Plattsburgh and
Morrisonville......................
BIG DARBY CREEK BASIN, OH-- OH.................... 100
Environmental restoration in the
central part of Ohio within the
counties of Pickway, Franklin,
Madison, Union, Logan, Champaign,
and Clark counties.................
METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, OH.................... 100
BUTLER CT--Flood damage prevention
and ecosystem restoration in
southwestern Ohio..................
METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, OH.................... 100
OH & KY--Ecosystem restoration for
Hamilton and Clermont Counties in
Ohio and Boone, Campbell, and
Kenton Counties in Kentucky........
ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN, OK--Ecosystem OK.................... 100
restoration integrating the
Tenkiller Ferry Lake hydropower
operations with overall basin plan,
including land management..........
OPTIMA LAKE, OK--Optimize lake usage OK.................... 100
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER, OR & WA-- OR.................... 100
Comprehensive long range approach
to the Ecosystem restoration for
the Lower Columbia River...........
UMATILLA RIVER, OR--Environmental OR.................... 100
restoration on the Umatilla Indian
reserva- tion.....................
ALLEGHENY RIVER NAVIGATION, PA-- PA.................... 100
Develop optimum future plan for
river locks and dams to include
current operation, closure and
disposition........................
CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED, PA, MD, & PA.................... 100
DE--Environmental restoration and
flood damage prevention in Chester,
Delaware, and Lancaster Counties,
PA; New Castle Co., DE; and Cecil
Co., MD............................
RIO BAYAMON AT BAYAMON, PR--Flood PR.................... 100
damage prevention at Rio Bayamon,
Puerto Rico, ten miles west of San
Juan...............................
RIO NIGUA AT ARROYO, PR--Flood PR.................... 100
damage prevention for the southeast
part of Puerto Rico, Arroyo........
PENNINGTON COUNTY & VICINITY, SD-- SD.................... 90
Flood damage prevention for
Pennington County, South Dakota,
including Rapid City...............
BUFFALO BAYOU & TRIBUTARIES, TX-- TX.................... 100
Flood damage prevention and
environmental restoration for the
Houston, TX channel extending from
the Houston Ship Channel upstream
to Barker Dam......................
GALVESTON BEACH EROSION, TX--Prevent TX.................... 100
or mitigate shore damages
attributable to the Federal
navigation works...................
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--BRAZOS TX.................... 100
RIVER, TX--Modification of
floodgate configuration to reduce
traffic accidents and delays.......
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--COLORADO TX.................... 100
RIVER, TX--Modification to the
Colorado River Locks to reduce
traffic accidents and delays.......
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--SABINE TX.................... 100
RIVER, TX--Review navigational
needs and environmental restoration
(Sabine River to High Island, TX)..
LOWER BRAZOS RIVER, TX--Flood damage TX.................... 100
prevention for the Texas counties
of; Brazoria, Fort Bend, Austin and
Waller.............................
LOWER GUDALUPE & SAN ANTONIO RIVERS, TX.................... 100
TX--Flood damage prevention and
environmental restoration for
potions of Calhoun, Dewitt,
Gonzales, and Victoria counties....
UPPER GUADALUPE & SAN ANTONIO RIVER TX.................... 100
BASINS, TX--Ecosystem restoration
and flood damage reduction within
the south-central part of Texas....
CLINCH RIVER WATERSHED, VA-- VA.................... 100
Environmental restoration and flood
damage reduction in southwest
Virginia and includes the
communities of Raven, Richlands,
Doran, and Dante...................
JOHN H. KERR RESERVOIR, VA & NC-- VA.................... 100
Flood damage prevention and
environmental restoration of north-
central North Carolina and south-
central Virginia...................
LOWER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER BASIN, VA-- VA.................... 100
Environmental restoration for a ten
county area east of Richmond and
south of Washington, DC............
LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA-- VA.................... 100
Environmental restoration including
wetland restoration on the south
shore of the Chesapeake Bay........
OMPOMPANOOSUC RIVER, VT-- VT.................... 100
Environmental restoration in east
central Vermont....................
MOUNT ST. HELENS ENV RESTORATION, WA.................... 100
WA--Environmental restoration of
wetlands, riverine, riparian, and
upland habitats lost or altered due
to the Mt. St. Helens eruption.....
NEW CREEK WATERSHED, WV-- WV.................... 100
Environmental restoration and flood
damage prevention in Mineral and
Grant Counties, West Virginia......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
santa ynez, ca study
Senator Domenici. So, I understand budgeting and caps. I
appreciate your reminding me, but do not worry about it.
What I want to know is why the only one to be chosen was
this Santa----
Dr. Westphal. Santa Ynez?
Senator Domenici. Ynez. Yes, gee, I should know that. Ynez.
Dr. Westphal. Santa Ynez, right.
Well, it was a model project that had elements of flood
protection, good environmental restoration. It was a good study
that was well supported by its cost share sponsors. It was a
good model project and it was determined to be one that we
could support.
Senator Domenici. Well, my guess is that it has some
unusual support within the administration. [Laughter.]
You know, you would be better off if you just said it.
In any event, would you please tell us in detail why it is
so great since you are here defending it. Give it to us in
writing.
Dr. Westphal. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
Santa Ynez
The selection was based upon a combination of factors including:
flood threat, potential economic viability of a recommended plan,
environmental impacts, and the support and likelihood of non-Federal
participation for the implementation of a solution.
harbor services fund
Senator Domenici. I have nothing against it. Obviously, I
do not know much about it. I could hardly pronounce its name.
So, I have no prejudices or bias.
Now, while we said the budget looked better, there is
something in it that is kind of difficult because, as the
President has done in a number of appropriations, he does not
break the caps, because he gets some receipts, some new taxes
or new revenues, and he puts that in the appropriations bill.
Obviously that offsets the spending. So, if you wondering what
is the big magic about breaking the caps but not breaking them,
it is this kind of thing.
In this budget, you have a very large amount of money for a
Harbor Services Trust Fund, almost $1 billion, $900 million.
Probably part of that is old taxes, old revenues, but what
portion of it would levy new burdens on somebody or some entity
to pay taxes or fees?
Dr. Westphal. It is a fee proposed on the vessel carriers.
It is a user fee. It would collect about $1 billion, $951
million, and that is the amount that we project to expend on
the maintenance, dredging, and construction side on the
navigation projects. So, we are attempting to collect only the
amount that would be required to spend every year to develop
and maintain these ports.
Senator Domenici. Yes. Well, I guess what I need to know
is--maybe your budget man could tell me--in this new trust fund
how much of that is from residual old user fees or old taxes?
General Fuhrman. About $600 million of that would be
equivalent to what came out of the existing Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund, and the new piece of that would be about $300
million, which is designated toward the new construction.
Senator Domenici. If we did nothing and did not even create
this Harbor Services Fund, there is about $600 million coming
in. If the appropriations process chose to put in the bill, it
pays for $600 million of this $900 million, meaning somewhere
between $250 million and $300 million is new. Now, can somebody
explain to me where the $300 million new in fees come from? Not
the old ones. Nobody is complaining about those. They already
exist. We do not want to bother a sleeping dog.
I happen to be the first one to pass one of those, in case
you are wondering. The first tax for the user fees came up in a
little committee I was on 26 years ago. I almost got thrown out
of the Senate for it. [Laughter.]
Everybody wondered what the hell a New Mexican had to do
with asking southern States to pay a little fee for the lock
and dam. But it passed eventually. So, it is in there, that
diesel tax. It has gone up since then.
Now, what is the new one? What is the new stuff? Does
anybody know?
Dr. Westphal. If I understand your question--and maybe I am
not understanding exactly, but there is about $1 billion in the
existing fund. The proposal is to repeal that existing fund and
transfer the balances over to the new fund and make those
balances available for appropriations.
Senator Domenici. Now, let me start over. There is $250
million for construction that is currently not authorized. Does
this budget propose that we raise the money for that from new
source of revenue?
Dr. Westphal. From the harbor services user fee.
Senator Domenici. Is that new?
Dr. Westphal. Well, it is a proposed fee that Congress
would have to approve.
Senator Domenici. I guess I would like to just know, how
much are we going to raise fees and on whom to make this trust
fund as solvent as you want it to fit your budget, $250 million
worth. Who is going to pay that?
General Fuhrman. Currently we have the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund which is funded by a tax, and that is used for
maintenance and repair. That is generating about $600 million a
year for operations and maintenance. That would be done away
with and a new fee structure established for a user fee that
would generate $950 million a year, of which about $300 million
would be used for new construction and the remainder would be
used for the same thing the old harbor maintenance trust fund
was used for, which was maintenance.
Senator Domenici. So, somebody has to be able to tell us of
this $950 million--I understand what you are saying--how much
resembles, looks like, is very close to what we are currently
doing, what we are going to do under a new trust fund, and how
much would be new? Where would the new money come from that we
are getting? Can you do that for me? If you cannot do it today,
you can do it in a report to me, or how can you do that?
Dr. Westphal. Typically we need about $900 million. We want
to be able to raise that amount of money with the use of the
new fee to not have any carryover balances, essentially be able
for you to appropriate what we collect in the fee annually and
put in the fund.
Senator Domenici. I understand.
Dr. Westphal. Now, this first year, since you do not have
the proposal yet--the proposal is coming in a few weeks--if you
approve the harbor services fee proposal, we will not have
enough money in the new fund to fund fully the $1 billion. We
will have to be able to transfer the monies from the existing
fund to the new fund to be able to do that.
Senator Domenici. The fund never paid for new construction,
but it is going to pay for new construction under the new
proposal.
Dr. Westphal. Right.
Senator Domenici. So, it is a bigger fund with a bigger
purpose.
General Fuhrman. Yes, sir. New construction up to this
point in time has been paid out of general revenues.
Senator Domenici. Now, obviously, when you increase the
size of the trust fund on the receipt side so that you will
have more money to spend, you have got to tax somebody that is
not being taxed now, and that is what I would like to get. Now,
maybe it is not ready yet.
Dr. Westphal. Well, no, the harbor maintenance tax was
found unconstitutional last year by the Supreme Court--the
portion of that tax at least that was levied on exports. That
tax was being levied on the commodities. So, with that, we had
to basically only collect the import side of that. On the
import side, we have got problems with GATT and some of our
trading partners in Europe who are challenging the import side
of that fee.
So, our plan that we are going to submit to Congress is to
repeal the entire harbor maintenance tax and replace it with a
harbor services user fee, which essentially would shift from a
tax on the commodities to a fee on the vessel carrier, so on
the carriers of those commodities; in other words, relating the
fee to the services we provide to the ships as they enter the
channels and enter the ports and make that fee equivalent to
the work we have to do to maintain the ports and maintain their
accessibility nationwide.
support for the harbor service fee
Senator Domenici. There is an argument against this that
will be made obviously that the whole Nation benefits, not just
those from a system of harbors and inland waterways and the
like. But is there general agreement and support within the
shipping community for this approach that the administration is
talking about?
Dr. Westphal. Well, Senator, when I first came on board, we
had a proposal ready to go, and I did some vetting of that
proposal with various stakeholders. There was very little, if
any, support for it at the time. We had some difficulty
defending the proposal, to be honest with you. So we sent that
proposal back to our analysts and our folks that had put it
together to work up some of the recommendations and concerns of
the stakeholders. We spent almost 6 to 7 months doing that.
Today, we have a proposal that is now currently being
vetted with the other Federal agencies that I think is a much
more acceptable proposal. I think that it will get a fair
assessment from stakeholders. It may still be opposed by some,
but essentially I think we have addressed many of their
concerns and it is a much more defensible proposal. We hope to
be able to bring it to you within the next few weeks after we
go through that interagency process.
Senator Domenici. So, the acceptability of that and the
ability of us to count it in the budget is going to be very
important as to whether you have a good program or not a good
program. So, we are right back or we might be. If Congress says
we are not going to do this thing, then we are very short in
terms of having enough money to do this.
Dr. Westphal. It will affect approximately about $300
million roughly for the construction side on the navigation
part of the budget. Yes, sir.
administrative appeals
Senator Domenici. Now, just two questions about the
regulatory program, administrative appeals. The conference
report in 1998 stated, ``The conferees expect that the increase
provided over the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997 will
be used to begin implementation of an administrative appeals
process for the Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program.'' The
Energy and Water Subcommittee of the House and Senate both
stated their concern for implementing this process again in
1999.
Have you complied with the directions of Congress, and if
you have not, why not?
Dr. Westphal. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have to be honest and
say, no, we have not complied with it in the sense that it has
taken us much longer to develop the rule and to put it together
and get it ready to go to the Federal Register. The rule on the
denial part is at the Federal Register today as we speak. But
it has taken much longer than you and the committee wanted us
to take on that.
On the jurisdictional determination, the rule is also ready
to go forward, and we believe that with the added funds that we
have proposed in the budget this year, we will be able to
implement that part of the rule once it gets vetted through the
Federal Register process.
Senator Domenici. So, the expectation that we had was that
the Corps would implement both an administrative appeals
process and the jurisdiction determination appeals process. So,
what is the timetable for implementing those processes and
procedures now?
Dr. Westphal. I probably have to get back to you
specifically on the dates, but the rule is now in the Federal
Register on the denial part, and the other, the jurisdictional
part, is getting ready to go anytime now. So, I do not recall
if it is a 30-day or 60-day period for response to the rule,
and then there is the final draft that has to be submitted
later in the summer. So, I am hoping that by the end of this
year we will be able to say we are implementing the rule.
General Fuhrman. With regard to the denial piece, Senator,
that is essentially in effect as soon as it hits the Federal
Register. So, any permit actions that take place out there
after that are subject to the appeals process for that.
Senator Domenici. Well, Congress has specifically earmarked
or provided $5 million for the Corps to implement the
administrative appeals process for 1998 and for 1999. In light
of the fact that you have not implemented the appeals process,
how were these funds used and why did you not take appropriate
action to initiate and fund the administrative appeals process
pending the rules? How was the money used? Was it used, that $5
million?
General Fuhrman. Yes, sir. Last year you appropriated $106
million to us, which was $5 million over the previous year's
appropriation of $101 million. Our budget in the regulatory
business is primarily personnel. Some 80 to 90 percent of that
is personnel, some 900 people spread throughout the country,
some 90,000 actions each year.
And we have worked hard at moving forward in trying to
satisfy the report language of the Congress in implementing
these rules. We decided to do it in a phased fashion, given the
resources that we had to move forward with. From my
perspective, our folks out there are very dedicated. The folks
out there have done a good job of trying to reach that goal.
Senator Domenici. So, you used it to maintain the quality
of your staff.
General Fuhrman. The quality of the program, sir.
General Ballard. Not only the quality of the program, but
Senator, as you know, we had a tremendous backlog and so we
used quite a bit of that money to work the backlog off and to
maintain the quality of the staff.
level deferred maintenance
Senator Domenici. I have only three remaining questions and
they will not take long. General Ballard and General Fuhrman,
what is the level of deferred critical maintenance work in the
civil works program, and does it concern you? Can you give the
committee an example of the type of work which falls into this
category of critical deferred maintenance and what the impacts
would be on project operations or efficiencies if this failed
to occur?
General Ballard. Sir, we are looking at a backlog of
deferred maintenance of about $1.6 billion. It is a concern of
ours if we are to maintain those critical infrastructures that
we have out there. This particular budget is a good budget and
will put a curb to some of that growth, but it does not address
the fact that we still have back there some $1.6 billion.
I would ask General Fuhrman to read you some of those
examples.
General Fuhrman. I will submit a summary for the record,
Senator, but just a couple of examples, for instance, to
replace two miter gates at the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway. It
is a $3 million cost. Concrete repairs at one of our upper
Mississippi River locks, about $600,000. Repair structural
elements at several of our other locks, another $4.4 million.
[The information follows:]
Operation and Maintenance--Backlog of Deferred Maintenance
[Dollars in Thousands]
Work Category Estimate
Additional Operations And Investigations To Optimize
Project Effectiveness............................... $109,781
Construction And Maintenance Of Dredged Material
Disposal Facilities For Navigation.................. 26,952
Dredging................................................ 294,850
Environmental Compliance................................ 13,073
Maintenance and Development Of Recreation Facilities,
Visitor Centers, Operating Equipment, Etc........... 190,023
Maintenance Of Dams, Reservoirs, Structures, Service
Facilities, Equipment, Etc.--Flood Damage Reduction. 132,046
Maintenance of Hydropower Projects...................... 96,960
Maintenance Of Locks, Dams, Reservoirs, Service
Facilities, Equipment, Etc. For Navigation.......... 714,029
Maintenance Of Natural Resources Facilities Including
Fish And Wildlife................................... 12,983
Mitigation Of Archeological And Cultural Resources...... 14,110
Real Estate Activities, Including Claims, Audits,
Encroachments, Etc.................................. 22,421
Remaining O&M Funded Major Rehabilitations For
Navigation.......................................... 252
Water Management Equipment.............................. 1,537
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 1,629,017
project conditions
Senator Domenici. What is the condition that we are talking
about here that makes these critical? What is wrong?
General Fuhrman. Very close to failing in the next several
years, and we need to get in and fix it now. It is not a safety
issue right now, but has the potential to be a safety issue in
the very near term.
General Ballard. And we have similar problems, Senator, in
powerplants and all of the infrastructure that we own. As you
know, we have some structures that are well over 100 years old,
and they are in a sad state of repair and we need to do
something about it.
Senator Domenici. Well, let me tell you, every year when we
go through the individual budgets up here, I bite my lip and
get more and more concerned. The President of the United States
goes on national television and tells America how great we are
and says I need 81 new programs, and we have got a backlog of
projects that may fail on us causing significant economic
impact to the country. It seems like it is better to announce
that you have got something new for everyone than to do what
you are obligated to do.
I cannot find $1.6 billion. I cannot find $300 million or
$400 million to get it started. They did not give us enough of
a budget, and the Congress is not going to invent this money.
It all comes out of the same pot.
So, I wish I could remember these when I have to go debate
and talk about all these new programs. We could probably add up
things that line agencies of the Federal Government submitted
as projects they need, and it probably exceeds all the new
money for new programs. But just to repeat myself, it is not
very politically sexy to get up there and say we need $1.6
billion in the State of the Union for water projects to fix
locks and dams that are going to fall apart.
You do not have anything to do with that. That is above
your pay grade too, except you can fight for it. I hope you
did. Did you submit these requests for these deferred
maintenance stuff in your budget process?
Dr. Westphal. Yes, I did.
dam safety
Senator Domenici. Now, the same question that I asked with
reference to dam structure safety of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Can you submit for the record a summary of what processes and
procedures you used to end up being able to tell this
committee, as I assume you will, that the dams that you are in
control of and manage, et cetera are in good shape and there is
no imminent danger, unless it is something untoward, of
failures? Can you submit that to us in writing?
General Fuhrman. Yes, we can, sir.
Senator Domenici. Is that a true statement that you would
answer in some way similar to what I just stated?
General Fuhrman. Yes, sir. We have a very effective dam
safety program and consider it one of our most important pieces
of business.
[The information follows:]
Corps of Engineers Dam Safety Program
The Corps of Engineers has a very effective dam safety program and
consider it one of our most important pieces of business. The Army
Corps of Engineers actively manages our dams to ensure that the risks
to the public are minimized. We have no dams which are known to present
an imminent danger to the public.
Our dam safety program was established and has been maintained to
be in compliance with the Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety. We are an
active member of the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety (ICODS)--a
group of Federal officials who exchange information and ideas on dam
safety and work to foster interstate cooperation; and the National Dam
Safety Review Board--which provides a forum to elevate dam safety
issues of National importance.
Each Corps District has a senior engineering official designated as
the Dam Safety Officer. It is the Dam Safety Officer's responsibility
to ensure the proper operation, maintenance, and funding for all of the
dams under his or her control. Each Dam Safety Officer has the proper
technical expertise available either on staff, by contract, or from
other Corps Districts, to safely operate, maintain and assess our dams.
Our formal programs which help us to ensure dam safety include the
following:
Operations and Maintenance Program.--Under this program, we fund
our day-to-day work on our dams, including smaller repairs and some
emergency repairs. The staff who operate and maintain our dams, are our
everyday eyes and ears who keep an eye on the condition and performance
of their project. This program also funds our monitoring
instrumentation, which allows us to monitor and evaluate the
performance and safety of our dams under all loading conditions and
provides data on project behavior for application to future evaluation
and designs.
Formal Periodic Inspection Program.--Our PI program requires a
thorough inspection and continuing technical evaluation of each dam on
a 5-year cycle (or more often). This program allows us to uncover
problems with our structures that are not readily apparent during day-
to-day surveillance.
Dam Safety Assurance Program.--Our DSAP provides us with a
mechanism to evaluate and remediate dam safety concerns related to
earthquakes, flood capacity, and changes in the state-of-the-art.
design and construction criteria.
Major Rehabilitation Program.--Under this program, we fund larger,
long-duration construction projects which improve the long-term
reliability or functionality of a dam.
And finally, each dam which, due to its location, could pose a
potential risk to life or of serious property damage, has an Emergency
Action Plan (EAP) which provides procedures to ensure that proper
actions are taken during a highly unlikely event of a dam safety
situation beyond our control. An EAP includes procedures for
identifying and evaluating emergency situations, guidance for emergency
operations and potential repairs, and notification of affected parties
concerning existing and potential emergencies.
In summary, we continue to make dam safety a priority in the Corps
of Engineers. Our aging inventory of dams will require our continued
commitment to uphold our dam safety obligation to the American people.
acequias irrigation system, nm
Senator Domenici. Back to two things in my State. The
Acequias irrigation system, which is a very special historic
system being preserved for both utilization and historic
purposes. We expressed concerns about the progress being made
in this irrigation system rehabilitation in my State. In
addition, the committee expressed the expectation that the
Corps would strengthen its communication and coordination
efforts with the State and local interests. What can you report
to the committee in this regard?
Dr. Westphal. Well, I think I will let General Fuhrman give
you the details, but I think we have made some really good
progress in this area.
Senator Domenici. General Fuhrman.
General Fuhrman. As you remember, Senator, before we were
going at these piecemeal with requiring an annual supplement to
project cooperation agreements [PCA's] between the Corps and
the State of New Mexico. I am happy to report that now we have
moved beyond that and have established programmatic PCA's with
the State and we are in the process of initiating the
programmatic NEPA so that these projects can move forward under
those umbrella agreements.
Senator Domenici. So, if that reaches fruition, that means
we will not be doing one project at a time with all the delays,
but will be qualifying a system.
General Fuhrman. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
upper rio grande water operation model
The Upper Rio Grande water operations model in New Mexico.
The committee requested a report, in consultation with the
Bureau, on the progress and plans to complete the Upper Rio
Grande water operations model. What is the status of this
report?
General Fuhrman. That is scheduled for completion in fiscal
year 2000. We are happy to report that the testing to date has
been very successful in that model. It is looking good.
Additional committee questions
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, we have some
additional questions that you can answer for the record.
[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
program overview
Question. Does the increased budget request of the fiscal year 1999
request reflect a change in the Administration's attitude toward your
entire program or just parts of it?
Answer. This budget request reflects the Administration's concern
for the preservation of the Nation's infrastructure and environmental
values. Further, it recognizes the importance of the Nation's ports and
harbors to America's place in the global economy.
Question. As and example, how does your budget request treat flood
control and inland navigation waterway projects compared to last year?
How much more would these projects cost the taxpayer based on the
budgeted completion schedules than they would if funded at an efficient
rate or schedule?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget request for flood control and
inland navigation projects is substantially better than last year
although it does not fund these projects at optimum schedules. For
fiscal year 1999, the budget request for flood control and inland
navigation projects was $497,000,000; for fiscal year 2000, the budget
request for these projects totals $785,000,000. It is not possible to
conduct a definitive analysis of the delay costs because so many
assumptions about the future are required, and many of these decisions
have not yet been made. Let it suffice to say there are costs
associated with inflation and costs associated with inefficiencies.
Question. General Ballard, how are completion schedules impacted
based on the budget request compared to the Corps' most efficient
schedule?
Answer. Generally, 28 port development projects and activities are
funded to meet optimum completion schedules in accordance with the
proposed Harbor Services User Fee which will cover all construction
costs. Amounts for 165 flood damage reduction, inland waterways, and
shore protection projects and activities which rely on general tax
revenues to finance their construction costs are constrained to a level
that is about two-thirds of what is needed to maintain optimum
completion schedules. In addition, 9 high priority projects for
mitigation, ecosystem restoration, and other purposes are funded to
meet optimum completion schedules. Specifically, completion dates for
136 projects and activities would be unchanged from the fiscal year
2000 budget and completion dates for 66 projects and activities would
be moved up if projects and activities were funded on their most
efficient schedules. The average change in the completion dates for
affected projects would be 5 months.
Question. What was your request to OMB for the construction
program, and generally, how would completion schedules be impacted if
projects were funded at the level requested of OMB?
Answer. The Army recommended a fiscal year 2000 construction
program to OMB that totaled $1.815 billion. This program was based on
completing projects on their most efficient schedules and the impacts
would be the same those noted previously. This amount was later reduced
to $1.725 billion after enactment of appropriations for fiscal year
1999.
Question. Dr. Westphal, you have indicated that `` * * * the plan
is to stabilize the Civil Works budget in the future'' by reducing the
General Investigations program of the Corps of Engineers. You have also
correctly noted that the study program is the pipeline that feeds the
Corps' construction effort. What do you mean by ``stabilize'' the
Corps' budget? Given past history with substantially underfunded budget
requests, why isn't this another effort to put the Corps of Engineers
out of business by turning off the ``spigot'' of work that feed the
construction program?
Answer. There is a large buildup of ongoing work in this part of
the Corps program. When you compare the eventual large, future
construction requirements that these projects will incur with the tight
budgetary ceilings that we are subject to in the outyears, it is
prudent to slow down continuing projects and severely limit the number
of new starts in the General Investigations account, for the time
being. The nationwide activities such as the floodplain management,
planning assistance and international water study efforts, provide for
important, grass roots level support for helping local areas with their
water resource problems and, therefore, were generally kept at the
fiscal year 1999 appropriations level funding.
Question. Dr. Westphal, in a recent statement before the Water
Resources Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee you said, ``Once the backlog of costly projects is worked
down somewhat, then we expect to resume funding for studies at a higher
level.'' Now this sound strangely similar to statements a few years
back related to the Bureau of Reclamation's program, when the Secretary
of the Interior indicated that new construction work would be suspended
for a few years in order to work off some of their backlog and then
resume funding at higher levels. Yet, we never seemed to get back to
some of the traditional work of the Bureau, but have now gotten heavily
involved in environmental enhancement and other work that is not part
of the Reclamation mission. What can you tell this subcommittee that
will lessen our concerns about the future of the Corps' Civil Works
program, realizing that you and the current Administration will not be
around if the Corps program is adversely impacted by this approach?
Answer. My plan is definitely not to go out of the design and
construction business. The Corps Civil Works mission is very much in
the business of addressing, evaluating and solving the nations water
resource infrastructure problems. But this year is still a difficult
one from the standpoint of the current budgetary situation and choices
must be made. Consequently, while the program presented is a good one,
particularly from the Operation & Maintenance and construction
standpoint, including 20 new construction starts, this is achieved by
holding back on several items, one of which is General Investigations
and the outyear commitments that it can create. We need a pause in the
study program in order to put a sizeable dent in the number of projects
currently in the construction pipeline. I hope, if all goes well with
the Corps program in 2000 as well as with the economy and the budget in
general, that we can resume a higher new start program in the outyears.
harbor services fund
Question. A key component of the President's Budget is a
legislative proposal to replace the existing Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund with a New Harbor Services Fund which would fund the annual
maintenance and construction requirements for deep draft harbors around
the country. While maintenance has been accomplished through this sort
of financing for many years, expanding the program to include
construction is a step which creates some inequities and imbalances in
the overall water resources program nationwide.
For example, the fiscal year 2000 budget for the Corps of Engineers
would ``fully fund'' the annual needs for deepening deep draft harbors
at the expense of other activities which again are underfunded and have
completion schedules that are stretched out.
Dr. Westphal, what is the rationale for extending the availability
of the Harbor Services Fund to include construction of deeper
navigation channels? Why wasn't construction authority provided as part
of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund? What is wrong with the present
way funding is provided through the general fund of the Treasury for
deepening projects? What would be the impact if this financing
mechanism was not approved?
Answer. The Harbor Services Fund would provide the funds necessary
to pursue improvements of deep draft ports and channels at the optimum
level, that is, with no delays due to funding constraints. This
translates into more work accomplished in less time. The revenue
targets for the Harbor Services User Fee were calculated to allow this
to happen without the accrual of large surpluses. Who are the winners?
The ports, the shippers, the economy.
Extending the authority of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to
include construction would not be productive. The Supreme Court ruled
the Harbor Maintenance Tax unconstitutional on exports in March 1998.
The tax is still being collected on imports and domestic goods.
However, a replacement needs to be addressed in a timely manner since
the tax on imports is under scrutiny as the European Union claims that
it violates articles of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT). While the Administration wants to abolish the tax, it also
wants to offer an alternative, equitable funding mechanism at the same
time. That mechanism is the proposed Harbor Services User Fee.
The realities of the Federal Budget process necessitate looking for
innovative, equitable ways to ensure funds are available to produce the
navigation benefits that accrue to ports and shippers. It is good for
the Nation's business to get navigation benefits on line as quickly as
we can and at the least cost possible. To do this, a funding source
other than the General Fund is needed. The Harbor Services User Fee
will ensure the Army has the resources necessary to meet the growing
demands of the Nation's ports.
Because the collection of the Harbor Services User Fee will be
credited to the Operation and Maintenance, General, and Construction,
General, accounts as offsetting receipts, the lack of the fee would
constrain obligation authority within the discretionary caps of the
Budget Enforcement Act. Under such a constrained program, project work
likely would not be funded at capability levels, which is what the use
of the Harbor Services Fund would do. The greatest impacts would be in
the construction program as project schedules would have to be
stretched out over time in order to keep total budget authority within
the discretionary ceilings of the Budget Enforcement Act.
Question. Since the Nation as a whole benefits from a sound system
of ports and channels, why should the cost of building and maintaining
them be placed solely on shippers?
Answer. While it is true that the Nation's economy benefits from a
healthy port system, it is also true that our economy allows
individuals to profit from their industries. User fees charged by the
Federal Government, for whatever reason, are based on the long-
established principle that those who benefit from a government-provided
service may be required to help pay for it. Vessel owners and operators
are the beneficiaries of the port improvement, operation and
maintenance activities of the Federal Government. They are good at what
they do and profit from it. Therefore, it is only fitting that they
contribute financially to a developed, reliable, safe U.S. port system.
Another reason for a Harbor Services User Fee addresses an even
more basic economic issue: the allocation of scarce resources. The
realities of the Federal Budget process necessitate looking for
innovative, equitable ways to ensure funds are available to produce the
navigation benefits that accrue to shippers. It is also good business
practice to get benefits on line as quickly as we can and at the least
cost possible. To do this, a funding source other than the General Fund
is needed. The Harbor Services User Fee will ensure the Army has the
resources necessary to meet the growing demands of the Nation's ports.
Question. Is there general agreement and support within the
shipping community with the approach of the Administration has put
forth related to the Harbor Services Fund?
Answer. I believe they are still thinking very hard about the
proposal. The shippers would pay the users fee and the ports are
concerned about competitiveness. Last year, I conducted several
outreach sessions with port representatives and listened carefully to
their concerns. We have been working the key issues very hard to draft
a proposal which reaps navigation benefits without placing an
unreasonable financial burden on the shippers.
Question. General Ballard, do you perceive any problems with
financing the construction deepening of ports through this type of
arrangement? Do you think that this approach will adversely impact the
construction program? How about the fiscal year 2000 budget request,
are there any impacts as a result of this proposal, in your judgement?
Answer. I do not see a problem with financing port deepening
construction projects from the Harbor Services Fund if legislation is
enacted to allow this arrangement. It will be similar to the manner in
which port maintenance requirements have been met in prior years, and
will provide a reliable funding source so that port deepening projects
could proceed on their most efficient construction schedules. However,
non-Federal sponsors of other types of projects will very likely not be
pleased with this proposal because most other projects which rely on
general tax revenues to finance their construction will proceed on
constrained schedules. This situation has created two groups projects
that are treated differently from one another in the fiscal year 2000
budget request. It may adversely impact the construction program as the
groups compete for scarce resources.
Question. Have any projects had to be delayed or under-funded in
order to accommodate the port deepening construction? What will these
delays mean in terms of increased costs and delayed benefits?
Answer. As I indicated previously, 28 port development projects and
activities that would be funded from the Harbor Services Fund are
included in the fiscal year 2000 budget request to meet optimum
completion schedules. Amounts for 165 flood damage reduction, inland
waterways, and shore protection projects and activities which rely on
general tax revenues to finance their construction costs are
constrained to a level that is about two-thirds of what is needed to
maintain optimum completion schedules. In addition, 9 high priority
projects for mitigation, ecosystem restoration, and other purposes are
funded to meet optimum completion schedules. It is not possible to
conduct a definitive analysis of the delay costs and delayed benefits
because so many assumptions about the future are required, and many of
these decisions have not yet been made. Let it suffice to say there are
costs associated with inflation, costs associated with inefficiencies,
and costs associated with forgone benefits.
fully funded projects budgeted for fiscal year 2000
Question. General Ballard, could you provide for the record a list
of all projects that are included in the budget which are ``fully
funded'' at or near the optimum rate for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Yes, I will provide such a list for the record.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 ``FULLY FUNDED'' CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL PROJECTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000
DIV ST PROJECT BUDGET
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PO....................................... AK.......................... CHIGNIK AK.................. 4,357
PO....................................... AK.......................... COOK INLET, AK.............. 500
PO....................................... AK.......................... KAKE HARBOR, AK............. 2,568
PO....................................... AK.......................... ST. PAUL HARBOR, AK......... 500
SA....................................... AL.......................... MOBILE HARBOR, AL........... 700
SP....................................... CA.......................... GUADALUPE RIVER, CA......... 5,000
SP....................................... CA.......................... HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA. 3,200
SP....................................... CA.......................... LOS ANGELES HARBOR CA....... 9,785
SP....................................... CA.......................... SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA.... 4,960
SA....................................... FL.......................... CANAVERAL HARBOR DEEPENING, 830
FL.
SA....................................... FL.......................... CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL........ 2,750
SA....................................... FL.......................... CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN 52,300
FLORIDA, FL.
SA....................................... FL.......................... EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA 21,100
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL.
SA....................................... FL.......................... KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL......... 39,800
SA....................................... FL.......................... MANATEE HARBOR, FL.......... 4,700
SA....................................... FL.......................... MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL.... 15,000
PO....................................... HI.......................... KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, 75
KAUAI, HI.
PO....................................... HI.......................... MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI.... 272
LR....................................... IL.......................... CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL....... 7,629
MV....................................... LA.......................... PORT FOURCHON, LA........... 2,184
NA....................................... MA.......................... BOSTON HARBOR, MA........... 1,000
NA....................................... MD.......................... BALTIMORE HARBOR AND 9,578
CHANNELS (BREWERTON
CHANNEL), MD.
SA....................................... MS.......................... PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS....... 7,792
SA....................................... NC.......................... WILMINGTON HARBOR NC........ 18,300
MV....................................... ND.......................... DEVILS LAKE ND.............. 10,000
NA....................................... NJ.......................... DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, 16,500
NJ, PA & DE.
NA....................................... NJ.......................... NEW YORK HARBOR & ADJACENT 2,000
CHNLS, PORT JERSEY CHNL, NJ.
NA....................................... NY.......................... KILL VAN KULL AND NEWARK BAY 60,000
CHANNEL, NY & NJ.
NA....................................... PA.......................... WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE 20,000
RAISING).
SA....................................... PR.......................... SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR......... 8,000
SA....................................... SC.......................... CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC....... 37,284
SW....................................... TX.......................... CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX..... 8,700
SW....................................... TX.......................... HOUSTON--GALVESTON 60,000
NAVIGATION CHANNELS TX.
NA....................................... VA.......................... NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS 550
(DEEPENING), VA.
NW....................................... WA.......................... COLUMBIA RIVER FISH 100,000
MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID.
XX....................................... XX.......................... DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL 20,000
FACILITIES PROGRAM.
XX....................................... XX.......................... RIVERINE ECOSYSTEM 25,000
RESTORATION AND FLOOD
HAZARD MITIGATION.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 2000 construction capabilities
Question. Also, could you provide for the record a list which shows
the Corp's construction capability, how the funds would be used, and
how much the schedule could be advanced with the additional funding?
Answer. Yes, I will provide the requested list for the record.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
(Amounts in Thousands)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amounts
Congressional Estimated included in Study
Districts Project and State Type Fed, IWTF, President's capability Purpose of additional capability Amount
& HMTF cost budget
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA:
AL 1 BLACK WARRIOR (N) 18,900 3,000 (C) 3,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
AND TOMBIGBEE
RIVERS,
VICINITY OF
JACKSON, AL
AL 1 MOBILE HARBOR, (N) 305,568 700 (C) 700 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
AL
AL 2 WALTER F GEORGE (MP) 37,000 750 (MR) 750 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
GA 2 POWERHOUSE AND
DAM, AL & GA
(MAJOR REHAB)
AL 2 WALTER F GEORGE (MP) 30,800 3,600 (MR) 3,600 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
GA 2 POWERPLANT, AL
& GA (MAJOR
REHAB)
ALASKA:
ALASKA (E) 25,000 (C) 13,911 (C) COMPLETE BUCKLAND CONSTRUCTION...................... $8,911
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATE NOME CONSTRUCTION.......................... 5,000
INFRASTRUCTURE, NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/
AK OR POLICY CONCERNS.
------------
s s 13,911
AK AL BETHEL BANK (FC) \1\ 18,031 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
STABILIZATION,
AK
CHIGNIK HARBOR, (N) \1\ 5,589 4,357 (C) 4,357 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
AK
AK AL COOK INLET, AK (N) \1\ 9,450 500 (C) 2,178 (C) ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION BY 1 YEAR...................... .........
AK AL DILLINGHAM (FC) \1\ 3,277 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
EMERGENCY BANK NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/
STABILIZATION, OR POLICY CONCERNS.
AK
AK AL HOMER SPIT STORM (FC) \1\ 6,600 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
DAMAGE
REDUCTION, AK
AK AL KAKE HARBOR, AK (N) \1\ 18,000 2,568 (C) 2,568 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT...........................
ST PAUL HARBOR, (N) \1\ 14,349 500 (C) 2,500 (C) ADVANCE COMPLETION OF CONTRACT # 1 BY 6 MO AND 2,000
AK INITIATE CONTRACT # 2.
ARIZONA:
AZ 6 CLIFTON, AZ (FC) \1\ 16,100 645 (C) 645 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT.................................... .........
AZ 2, 5 NOGALES WASH, AZ (FC) \1\ 523 (C) 180 (C) CONSTRUCT FLOODWARNING SYSTEM....................... .........
AZ 2, 5 RILLITO RIVER, (FC) \1\ 28,600 (C) 2,643 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT.................................... .........
AZ
ARKANSAS:
AR 2 ARKANSAS RIVER, (FC) \1\ 418 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
TUCKER CREEK,
AR
AR 2, 3 DARDANELLE LOCK (MP) \1\ 29,700 11,964 (MR) 11,964 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
AND DAM
POWERHOUSE, AR
(MAJOR REHAB)
AR 1, 2, 3, 4 MCCLELLAN--KERR (N) \1\ 632,500 3,080 (C) 3,500 (C) CONTINUE EVALUATION STUDIES OF CUT-OFF STRUCTURE 420
OK 2, 3 ARKANSAS RIVER EROSION.
NAVIGATION
SYSTEM, AR & OK
AR 1, 4 MONTGOMERY POINT (N) \1\ 242,000 20,000 (C) 45,000 (C) ADVANCE COMPLETION OF PROJECT ONE YEAR.............. 25,000
LOCK AND DAM,
AR
AR 4 OUACHITA AND (N) \1\ 261,000 (C) (C) LACK OF LOCAL COOPERATION........................... .........
LA 3, 4, 5 BLACK RIVERS,
AR & LA
AR 3 OZARK (MP) 44,700 (MR) 500 (MR) INITIATE REDESIGN OF EXISTING FIVE TURBINES......... 500
(POWERHOUSE),
AR (MAJOR
REHAB)
AR 2, 4 PLUM BAYOU LEVEE (FC) 1,700 (C) 1,000 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT.................... 1,000
SYSTEM, NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW RIVER LEVEES, AR
ARKANSAS OF THIS PROJECT HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR
POLICY CONCERNS.
AR 3, 4, RED RIVER (N) \1\ 120,262 (C) 4,000 (C) CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS FOR BLACK LAKE, 2,600
LA 4 EMERGENCY BANK PLEASANT VALLEY AND HUNTERS ISLAND.
PROTECTION, AR INITIATE DESIGN BOIS D'ARC REVETMENT................ 1,000
& LA CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT REVETMENT................... 400
NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
------------
s s 4,000
CALIFORNIA:
CA 3, 4, 5 AMERICAN RIVER (FC) \1\ 28,510 4,000 (C) 4,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
11 WATERSHED
(NATOMAS), CA
CA 3, 4, 5 AMERICAN RIVER (FC) \1\ 47,600 17,000 (C) 17,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
11 WATERSHED, CA
CA 3 CACHE CREEK (FC) \1\ 15,740 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
SETTLING BASIN,
CA
CA 6 CORTE MADERA (FC) 21,700 500 (C) 500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
CREEK, CA
CA 13,15,16 COYOTE AND (FC) \1\ 55,735 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
BERRYESSA
CREEKS, CA
CA 1 CRESCENT CITY (N) 1,446 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
HARBOR, CA
CA 15,16 GUADALUPE RIVER, (FC) \1\ 78,500 5,000 (C) 5,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
CA
CA 1 HUMBOLDT HARBOR (N) 12,300 3,200 (C) 3,200 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT.................................... .........
AND BAY, CA
CA 21, 22, LOS ANGELES (FC) \1\ 150,000 30,000 (C) 50,000 (C) INITIATE RELOCATION OF UPRR-COMPTON CREEK BRIDGE.... 20,000
23, 24, 25, COUNTY DRAINAGE ADVANCE COMPLETION BY 12 MONTHS.....................
26, 27, 28, AREA, CA
29, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34,
37, 38, 39,
42
1CA 32, 36, LOS ANGELES (N) \1\ 116,200 9,785 (C) 9,785 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
38, 42 HARBOR, CA
CA 2, 3, 5, LOWER SACRAMENTO (FC) \1\ 4,660 2,317 (C) 2,317 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT.................................... .........
7, 11 AREA LEVEE
RECONSTRUCTION,
CA
CA 2, 3 MARYSVILLE/YUBA (FC) \1\ 32,260 300 (C) 300 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT.................................... .........
CITY LEVEE
RECONSTRUCTION,
CA
CA 18, 19 MERCED COUNTY (FC) \1\ 91,800 500 (C) 500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
STREAMS, CA
CA 2, 3, 5, MID-VALLEY AREA (FC) \1\ 14,900 4,000 (C) 4,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
7, 11 LEVEE
RECONSTRUCTION,
CA
CA 1 NAPA RIVER, CA (FC) 91,000 4,500 (C) 4,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
CA 4, 11, 18 NEW MELONES (MP) \1\ 402,000 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
LAKE, CA
CA 43 NORCO BLUFFS, (FC) 5,580 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
SANTA ANA
RIVER, CA
CA 36, 38 PORT OF LONG (N) \1\ 19,800 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
BEACH
(DEEPENING), CA
CA 2, 3, 5, SACRAMENTO RIVER (FC) \1\ 179,900 7,000 (C) 7,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
7, 11 BANK PROTECTION
PROJECT, CA
CA 3 SACRAMENTO RIVER (N) \1\ 24,900 (C) (C) COST SHARING AND FINANCING BY LOCAL INTERESTS ARE
DEEPWATER SHIP UNAVAILABLE.
CHANNEL, CA
CA 2, 3, 5, SACRAMENTO RIVER (FC) \1\ 76,322 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
7, 11 FLOOD CONTROL
PROJECT, CA
(DEF CORR)
CA 2, 3 SACRAMENTO (FC) \1\ 16,550 3,000 (C) 6,000 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 6 MONTHS................. .........
RIVER, GLENN-
COLUSA
IRRIGATION
DISTRICT, CA
CA 3, 5 SACRAMENTO URBAN (FC) \1\ 28,215 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
AREA LEVEE
RECONSTRUCTION,
CA
CA 3, 7, 10, SAN FRANCISCO (N) \1\ 172,250 (C) (C) LACK OF ADEQUATE LOCAL SUPPORT...................... .........
11 BAY TO
STOCKTON, CA
CA 15, 17 SAN LORENZO (FC) \1\ 13,230 4,800 (C) 4,800 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
RIVER, CA
CA 48 SAN LUIS REY (FC) \1\ 61,100 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
RIVER, CA
CA 39, 40, SANTA ANA RIVER (FC) \1\ 896,000 20,000 (C) 28,000 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION PRADO DAM..................... 5,000
41, 42, 43, MAINSTEM, CA INITIATE K-RAT MITIGATION........................... 3,000
44, 45, 46,
47
------------
s s 8,000
CA 22 SANTA BARBARA (N) \1\ 5,360 4,960 (C) 4,960 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
HARBOR, CA
CA 29 SANTA MONICA (N) \1\ 4,660 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
BREAKWATER, CA
CA 23 ANTA PAULA (FC) \1\ 36,000 14,800 (C) 16,195 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT.................................... .........
CREEK, CA
CA 49 SILVER STRAND (BE) 15,300 (C) 351 (C) COMPLETE GRR........................................ 351
SHORELINE, NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
IMPERIAL BEACH, HAS IDENTIFIED POLICY CONCERNS.
CA
CA 20 SUCCESS DAM, (FC) 30,900 1,250 (DS) 1,250 (DS) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
TULE RIVER, CA
(DAM SAFETY)
CA 45, 47 SURFSIDE--SUNSET (BE) 43,200 (C) 400 (C) INITIATE ENGINEERING & DESIGN FOR PERIODIC 400
-NEWPORT BEACH, NOURISHMENT.
CA
CA 2, 3 UPPER SACRAMENTO (FC) \5\ 5,640 3,055 (C) 3,055 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT.................................... .........
AREA LEVEE
RECONSTRUCTION,
CA
CA 10 WALNUT CREEK, CA (FC) \1\ 71,930 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
CA 3 WEST SACRAMENTO, (FC) \1\ 24,700 7,700 (C) 7,700 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
CA
CA 7 WILDCAT AND SAN (FC) \1\ 20,200 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
PABLO CREEKS,
CA
CA 3 YOLO BASIN (E) \1\ 12,145 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
WETLANDS,
SACRAMENTO
RIVER, CA
COLORADO:
CO 3 ALAMOSA, CO (FC) \1\ 5,552 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
CONNECTICUT:
CT 3 FAULKNERS (FC) 4,500 (C) 582 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT.................................... .........
ISLAND, CT NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
DELAWARE:
DE AL DELAWARE COAST (BE) \1\ 11,800 259 (C) 259 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
PROTECTION, DE
DE AL DELAWARE COAST- (BE) 46,090 (C) 325 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF .........
REHOBOTH TO THIS PROJECT HAS IDENTIFIED POLICY CONCERNS.
DEWEY BCH, DE
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA:
AQUATIC ....... 49,000 4,500 (C) 6,000 (C) FULLY FUND PROGRAM.................................. .........
ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION
(SECTION 206
AQUATIC PLANT ....... 32,000 3,000 (C) 5,000 (C) FULLY FUND PROGRAM.................................. .........
CONTROL
BEACH EROSION ....... 27,600 2,500 (C) 4,000 (C) FULLY FUND PROGRAM.................................. .........
CONTROL
PROJECTS
(SECTION 103
BENEFICIAL USES ....... 10,200 1,000 (C) 2,000 (C) FULLY FUND PROGRAM.................................. .........
OF DREDGED
MATERIAL
(SECTION 204)
DREDGED MATERIAL ....... 248,255 20,000 (C) 20,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
PROGRAM
EMERGENCY ....... 100,000 8,500 (C) 13,000 (C) FULLY FUND PROGRAM.................................. .........
STREAMBANK
PROTECTION
PROJECTS
(SECTION 14)
EMPLOYEES ....... 214,197 19,554 (C) 19,554 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
COMPENSATION
FLOOD CONTROL ....... 295,500 26,900 (C) 35,000 (C) FULLY FUND PROGRAM.................................. .........
PROJECTS
(SECTION 205)
INLAND WATERWAYS ....... 750 45 (C) 45 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
USERS BOARD--
BOARD EXPENSE
INLAND WATERWAYS ....... 2,220 185 (C) 185 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
USERS BOARD--
CORPS EXPENSE
MITIGATION OF ....... 5,100 500 (C) 500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
SHORE DAMAGES
(SECTION 111)
MODIFICATIONS ....... 126,475 8,500 (C) 12,000 (C) FULLY FUND PROGRAM.................................. .........
FOR IMPROVEMENT
OF ENVIRONMENT
(SECTION 1135)
NAVIGATION ....... 52,509 4,500 (C) 7,000 (C) FULLY FUND PROGRAM.................................. .........
PROJECTS
(SECTION 107)
RIVERINE ....... 925,000 25,000 (C) 25,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION AND
FLOOD HAZARD
MITIGATION
SNAGGING AND ....... 1,100 100 (C) 500 (C) FULLY FUND PROGRAM.................................. .........
CLEARING
PROJECTS
(SECTION 208)
FLORIDA:
FL 15 BREVARD COUNTY, (BE) 154,000 (C) 1,000 (C) INITIATE NOURISHMENT................................ .........
FL NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED POLICY CONCERNS.
FL 11, 15 CANAVERAL HARBOR (N) 6,600 830 (C) 830 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
DEEPENING, FL
FL 11, 15 CANAVERAL (N) 124,470 2,750 (C) 2,750 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
HARBOR, FL
FL 13 CEDAR HAMMOCK (FC) 11,600 (C) 238 (C) INITIATE PROJECT.................................... .........
(WARES CREEK)
FL 5, 6, 8, CENTRAL AND (FC) 2,586,300 52,300 (C) 52,300 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
10, 11, 12, SOUTHERN
13, 14, 15, FLORIDA, FL
16, 17, 18,
19, 20, 21,
22, 23
FL 18, 22 DADE COUNTY, FL (BE) 163,300 2,000 (C) 4,000 (C) COMPLETE RENOURISHMENT OF BAL HARBOUR, AWARD TEST .........
BEACH FILL CONTRACT.
FL 7, 8, 12, EVERGLADES AND (E) 75,000 21,100 (C) 21,100 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
14, 16, 17, SOUTH FLORIDA
18, 19, 20, ECOSYSTEM
21, 22 RESTORATION, FL
FL 12 FORT PIERCE (BE) 28,000 (C) 500 (C) CONTINU PROJECT..................................... .........
BEACH, FLO NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED POLICY CONCERNS.
FL 11 INDIAN RIVER (BE) ........... (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
COUNTY, FL
FL 3, 4, 11, INTRACOASTAL (N) 1,085 (C) 400 (C) INITIATE PROJECT.................................... .........
12, 14, 15, WATERWAY, PALM
16, 17, 18, BEACH COUNTY,
19, 22, 23 FL
AL 2 JIM WOODRUFF (MP) 35,600 6,000 (MR) 6,000 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
FL 2 LOCK AND DAM
GA 2 POWERHOUSE, FL
& GA (MAJOR
REHAB)
FL 5, 8, 10, KISSIMMEE RIVER, (E) 243,500 39,800 (C) 39,800 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
11,12,15, 16 FL
FL 22 LAKE WORTH INLET (N) 4,500 (C) 1,000 (C) INITIATE PROJECT.................................... .........
SAND TRANSFER
PLANT
FL 14 LEE COUNTY, FL (BE) 8,900 (C) 185 (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
(REIMBURSEMENT)
FL 13 MANATEE HARBOR, (N) 19,885 4,700 (C) 4,700 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
FL
FL 10, 12, 16 MARTIN COUNTY, (BE) 25,600 (C) 213 (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
FL
FL 18, 22 MIAMI HARBOR (N) 47,566 15,000 (C) 15,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
CHANNEL, FL
FL 4 PALM VALLEY (N) 18,700 3,000 (C) 5,000 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 1 YEAR................... .........
BRIDGE, FL
FL 1 PANAMA CITY (BE) 22,905 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS..........
BEACHES, FL
FL 8, 9 PINELLAS COUNTY, (BE) 144,600 2,000 (C) 3,476 (C) RENOURISH SAND KEY & TREASURE ISLAND................ .........
FL
FL 4 ST. JOHNS COUNTY (BE) 153,400 (C) 300 (C) COMPLETE DESIGN..................................... .........
(ST. AUGUSTINE NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
BEACHES), FL HAS IDENTIFIED POLICY CONCERNS.
FL 11 TAMPA HARBOR-- (N) 6,932 (C) 1,000 (C) INITIATE PROJECT.................................... .........
BIG BEND
GEORGIA:
GA 9 BUFORD (MP) 32,900 3,650 (MR) 3,650 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
POWERHOUSE, GA
(MAJOR REHAB)
GA 11 HARTWELL LAKE (MP) \1\ 20,800 1,500 (MR) 1,500 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
SC 3 POWERHOUSE, GA
& SC (MAJOR
REHAB)
GA 1 LOWER SAVANNAH (N) \1\ 3,196 (C) 200 (C) INITIATE PROJECT.................................... .........
SC 2 RIVER BASIN, GA
& SC
GA 10 RICHARD B (MP) \1\ 618,100 8,500 (C) 8,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
SC 3 RUSSELL DAM AND
LAKE, GA & SC
GA 10 THURMOND LAKE (MP) \1\ 69,700 8,000 (MR) 8,000 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
SC 3 POWERHOUSE, GA
& SC (MAJOR
REHAB)
GA 1 TYBEE ISLAND, GA (BE) \1\ 17,244 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
HAWAII:
HI 2 IAO STREAM FLOOD (FC) \1\ 14,297 219 (C) 340 (C) ADVANCE COMPLETION OF GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM BY 6 .........
CONTROL, MAUI, MONTHS.
HI (DEF CORR)
HI 2 KIKIAOLA SMALL (N) \1\ 4,997 75 (C) 75 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
BOAT HARBOR,
KAUAI, HI
HI 2 MAALAEA HARBOR, (N) \1\ 11,329 272 (C) 272 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
MAUI, HI
ILLINOIS:
IL 12, 20 ALTON TO GALE (FC) 109,018 (C) (C) COST SHARING AND FINANCING BY LOCAL INTERESTS ARE .........
MO 8 ORGANIZED LEVEE UNLIKELY.
DISTRICT, IL &
MO (DEF CORR)
IL 12 CHAIN OF ROCKS (N) \1\ 24,500 1,600 (C) 2,200 (C) COMPLETE PLACEMENT OF RIPRAP IN IN DRAINAGE DITCH 600
CANAL, ADVANCES PROJECT COMPLETION BY THREE MONTHS.
MISSISSIPPI
RIVER, IL (DEF
CORR)
IL 13 CHICAGO SANITARY (E) \1\ 2,000 100 (C) 600 (C) COMPLETE DESIGN AND INITIATE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE 500
AND SHIP CANAL II.
DISPERSAL
BARRIER, IL
IL 1, 2, 5, CHICAGO (BE) \1\ 169,100 7,629 (C) 18,629 (C) ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION REACH 2 (IRVING TO BELMONT).... 2,000
7, 9 SHORELINE, IL ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION REACH 4 (I-55 TO 30TH ST)..... 1,300
ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION REACH 4 (33RD ST TO 37TH ST)...
INITIATE CONSTRUCTION REACH 4 (37TH ST TO 43RD ST).. 4,000
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT............................. 3,000
700
------------
s s 11,000
IL 8, 10, 12 DES PLAINES (FC) \1\ 2,200 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
WETLANDS
DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT, IL
IL 12 EAST ST LOUIS & (FC) 1,369 (C) 488 (C) COMPLETE GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT................ 488
VICINITY NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
(INTERIOR FLOOD HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
CONTROL), IL
IL 12 EAST ST LOUIS, (FC) \1\ 32,335 2,000 (C) 2,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
IL
IL 20 LOCK AND DAM 24 (N) \1\ 25,000 3,844 (MR) 3,844 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
MO 9 PART 1, MISS
RIVER, IL & MO
(MAJOR REHAB)
IL 20 LOCK AND DAM 24 (N) \1\ 38,400 1,200 (MR) 1,200 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
MO 9 PART 2, MISS
RIVER, IL & MO
(MAJOR REHAB)
IL 20 LOCK AND DAM 25, (N) \1\ 25,900 4,456 (MR) 4,456 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
MO 9 MISSISSIPPI
RIVER, IL & MO
(MAJOR REHAB)
IL 16 LOVES PARK, IL (FC) \1\ 22,500 3,888 (C) 3,888 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
IL 1, 2, 3, MCCOOK AND (FC) \1\ 490,000 2,500 (C) 4,500 (C) ADVANCE COMPLETION OF GROUNDWATER PROTECTION SYSTEM. .........
4, 5, 6, 7, THORNTON
8, 9, 10, 13 RESERVOIRS, IL
IL 12, 20 MELVIN PRICE (N) \1\ 740,700 2,900 (C) 4,000 (C) ADVANCE CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS FACILITIES BY 36 1,100
MO 2 LOCK AND DAM, MONTHS SUBJECT TO COMPLETION OF 215 AGREEMENT.
IL & MO
IL 12, 20 MELVIN PRICE (N) \1\ 215,000 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
MO 2 LOCK AND DAM,
SECOND LOCK, IL
& MO
IL 9, 10, 11 NORTH BRANCH (FC) \1\ 21,735 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
CHICAGO RIVER,
IL
IL 3, 5, 6, O'HARE (FC) \1\ 31,377 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
8, 9,10, 13 RESERVOIR, IL
IL 19 OLMSTED LOCKS (N) \1\ 1,020,0 28,634 (C) 51,000 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 12 MONTHS............. 22,366
KY 1 AND DAM, OHIO 00
RIVER, IL & KY
IA 1, 2, 3, UPPER MISS RVR (E) \1\ 242,862 18,955 (C) 18,955 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
4, 5 SYSTEM ENV MGMT
IL 16, 17, PROGRAM, IL,
18, 20 IA, MO, MN & WI
MN 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6
MO 1, 2, 4,
6, 8, 9
WI 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9
INDIANA:
IN 4 FORT WAYNE (FC) \1\ 37,021 4,000 (C) 4,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
METROPOLITAN
AREA, IN
IN 1 INDIANA (BE) \1\ 184,000 (C) 40 (C) CONTINUE MONITORING PROGRAM......................... 40
SHORELINE NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
EROSION, IN HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
IN 9, 10 INDIANAPOLIS (FC) \1\ 39,975 (C) 10,991 (C) CONTINUE PROJECT.................................... 10,991
CENTRAL NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
WATERFRONT, HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
WHITE RIVER, IN
IN 6, 7, 10 INDIANAPOLIS, (FC) \1\ 11,837 (C) 1,588 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION............................... 1,588
WHITE RIVER
(NORTH), IN
IN 1 LAKE GEORGE, (FC) \1\6,000 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
HOBART, IN
IN 1 LITTLE CALUMET (FC) \1\ 131,618 3,900 (C) 9,400 (C) ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION ON STAGE IV-1.................. 3,600
RIVER, IN COMPLETE BURR STREET LEVEE.......................... 500
INITIATE PUMP STATION 1A............................ 1,000
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT............................. 400
------------
s s 5,500
IN 8, 9 NEW HARMONY, IN (FC) \1\ 2,455 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
IN 9 OHIO RIVER (N) \1\ 18,000 (C) 500 (C) INITIATE PROJECT.................................... 500
(GREENWAY NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
CORRIDOR), IN HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
IN 8, 9 OHIO RIVER FLOOD (FC) \1\ 4,378 (C) 1,318 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT.................................... 1,318
PROTECTION, IN NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
IN 8, 9 PATOKA LAKE, IN (FC) \1\ 7,200 2,000 (MR) 3,500 (MR) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION THREE MONTHS............. 1,500
(MAJOR REHAB)
IOWA:
IA 3, 4, 5 DES MOINES (FC) \1\ 28,000 (C) 6,600 (C) AWARD LUMP-SUM CONTRACT FOR RED ROCK TRAILS, SEG 4,550
RECREATION IVB;.
RIVER AND CONTINUE P,E&D FOR 11 PROJECTS;..................... 1,430
GREENBELT, IA CONTINUE SUPERVISON AND INSPECTION.................. 370
CONTINUE PROGRAM MGT. AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE 250
ACTIVITIES.
NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
------------
s s 6,600
LOCK AND DAM 12, (N) \1\ 15,500 2,600 (MR) 2,600 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
MISSISSIPPI
RIVER, IA
(MAJOR REHAB)
IA 1 LOCK AND DAM 14, (N) \1\ 20,000 4,092 (MR) 4,092 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
IL 17 MISSISSIPPI
RIVER, IA
(MAJOR REHAB)
IA 4, 5 MISSOURI RIVER (E) \1\ 81,400 5,000 (C) 10,000 (C) ADVANCE COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION AT VARIOUS SITES .........
KS 2, 3 FISH AND BY SIX MONTHS. ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY SIX
MO 1, 2, 4, WILDLIFE MONTHS.
5, 6, 9 MITIGATION, IA,
NE 1, 2, 3 NE, KS & MO
IA 4, 5 MISSOURI RIVER (FC) \1\ 139,193 3,000 (C) 3,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
KS 2, 3 LEVEE SYSTEM,
MO 1, 2, 4, IA, NE, KS & MO
5, 6, 9
NE 1, 2, 3
IA 1 MUSCATINE (FC) \1\ 6,820 2,500 (C) 2,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
ISLAND, IA
IA 5 PERRY CREEK, IA (FC) \1\ 42,580 9,500 (C) 9,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
IA 3, 4 RED ROCK DAM AND (FC) \1\ 44,500 (C) 400 (C) CONTINUE REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION ACTIVITIES......... 400
LAKE RED ROCK, NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
IA HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
IA 4 WEST DES MOINES, (FC) \1\ 12,996 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
DES MOINES, IA
KANSAS:
KS 4 ARKANSAS CITY, (FC) \1\ 27,400 4,300 (C) 4,300 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
KS
KS 4 WINFIELD, KS (FC) \1\ 6,600 154 (C) 154 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
KENTUCKY:
KY 1 BARKLEY DAM AND (MP) \1\ 159,799 1,450 (C) 2,750 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 12 MONTHS................ 1,300
TN 7, 8 LAKE BARKLEY,
KY & TN
KY 5 DEWEY LAKE, KY (FC) \1\ 13,700 2,500 (DS) 4,900 (DS) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 12 MONTHS............. 2,400
(DAM SAFETY)
AL 4, 5 KENTUCKY LOCK (N) \1\ 533,000 7,750 (C) 15,000 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 9 MONTHS................. 7,250
KY 1, 5 AND DAM,
MS 1 TENNESSEE
TN 2, 3, 4, RIVER, KY
5, 6, 7, 8
IN 9 MCALPINE LOCKS (N) \1\ 268,000 2,800 (C) 10,800 (C) ADVANCE AWARD OF PHASE I LOCK CONSTRUCTION 24 8,000
KY 3 AND DAM, OHIO MONTHS; AWARD BOAT MOORING CONTRACT; ADVANCE
RIVER, KY & IN PROJECT COMPLETION BY 24 MONTHS.
KY 3, 4 METROPOLITAN (FC) \1\ 12,115 3,251 (C) 3,251 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
LOUISVILLE,
POND CREEK, KY
KY 5 SALYERSVILLE, KY (FC) \1\ 8,630 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
KY 4, 5 SOUTHERN AND (E) \1\ 10,000 (C) 2,000 (C) INCREASE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAM......... .........
EASTERN
KENTUCKY
KY 2, 6 TAYLORSVILLE (FC) \1\ 92,980 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED EXCEPT FOR UNPROGRAMMED RECREATION .........
LAKE, KY FACILITIES.
LOUISIANA:
LA 5, 6 ALOHA--RIGOLETTE (FC) \1\ 7,078 581 (C) 581 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
, LA
LA 1, 4, 6 COMITE RIVER, LA (FC) \1\ 82,700 4,000 (C) 4,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
LA 3 GRAND ISLE AND (FC) \1\ 36,547 (C) (C) ENGINEERING AND DESIGN WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE
VICINITY, LA FUNDS.
LA 1, 2, 3 INNER HARBOR (N) \1\ 533,000 13,000 (C) 15,900 (C) INITIATE DEMOLITION OF EASTSIDE BUSINESS............ 500
NAVIGATION ADVANCE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN...................... 2,400
CANAL LOCK, LA
------------
s s 2,900
LA 1, 2, 3 LAKE (FC) \1\ 520,000 11,887 (C) 27,046 (C) PARALLEL PROTECTION:
PONTCHARTRAIN COMPLETE LONDON, SIMON-LONDON..................... 151
AND VICINITY, COMPLETE GENTILLY................................. 383
LA (HURRICANE COMPLETE ORLEANS, PHASE 1C........................ 1,200
PROTECTION) COMPLETE LONDON PUMPING STATION # 4............... 3,320
COMPLETE LONDON PUMPING STATION # 3............... 6,150
INITIATE ORLEANS PHASE 1B LEE & LONDON............ 100
INITIATE MIRABEAU AND FILMORE..................... 2,516
CONTINUE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 1,339
MANAGMENT.
NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
------------
15,159
LA 1, 2 LAKE (E) \1\ 22,800 (C) 500 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT.................................... .........
PONTCHARTRAIN NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
STORMWATER HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
DISCHARGE, LA
LA 2, 3 LAROSE TO GOLDEN (FC) \1\ 80,000 2,000 (C) 2,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
MEADOW, LA
(HURRICANE
PROTECTION)
LA 1, 2, 3, MISSISSIPPI (N) \1\ 171,000 1,500 (C) 1,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
4, 6 RIVER SHIP
CHANNEL, GULF
TO BATON ROUGE,
LA
LA 1, 2, 3 NEW ORLEANS TO (FC) \1\ 171,000 1,400 (C) 2,000 (C) ADVANCE INITIATION OF ONE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BY 600
VENICE, LA 12 MONTHS.
(HURRICANE
PROTEC- TION)
LA 4, 5, 6 OUACHITA RIVER (FC) 29,500 (C) 3,300 (C) INITIATE CONTINUING CONTRACTS FOR LEVEE ITEM 2, 3,300
LEVEES, LA GRAVEL SURFACING FOR MONROE TO SANDY BAYOU AND
INITIATE P&S FOR ITEM 3.
NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATIOIN'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
LA 3 PORT FOURCHON, (N) 2,557 2,184 (C) 2,184 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT.................................... .........
LA
AR 3, 4 RED RIVER BELOW (FC) \1\ 83,069 (C) 600 (C) INITIATE CONTINUING CONTRACTS TO CONSTRUCT LEVEE 400
LA 4, 5 DENISON DAM, ITEMS 5 & 9A.
TX 1 LA, AR & TX INITIATE DESIGN OF LEVEE ITEM 6..................... 100
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT............................. 100
NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
------------
s s 600
LA 4, 5, 6 RED RIVER (N) 1,895,691 21,113 (C) 23,613 (C) ACCELERATE INITIATION:
WATERWAY, COGNAC REINFORCEMENT DIKES........................ 1,250
MISSISSIPPI POISSON ACS....................................... 1,000
RIVER TO CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT........................... 250
SHREVEPORT, LA
------------
s s 2,500
LA 1, 2 SOUTHEAST (FC) \1\ 374,000 47,066 (C) 100,000 (C) JEFFERSON PARISH:
LOUISIANA, LA COMPLETE 17 CONTRACTS............................. 28,448
CONTINUE 7 CONTRACTS.............................. 4,230
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN............................ 50
SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION.................... 4,386
ORLEANS PARISH:
COMPLETE 2 CONTRACTS.............................. 6,463
CONTINUE 4 CONTRACTS.............................. 8,154
SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION.................... 1,203
------------
s s 52,934
LA 1, 2, 3 WEST BANK (FC) 192,000 7,000 (C) 15,070 (C) WESTWEGO TO HARVEY CANAL AREA:
VICINITY OF NEW ADVANCE INITIATION OF REACH 3 STRUCTURES (MT 852
ORLEANS, LA KENNEDY/AMES/OAK COVE FLOODWALLS) CONTRACT BY 6
MONTHS.
ADVANCE INITIATION OF ESTELLE PUMPING STATION TO 283
LP&L 2ND LIFT CONTRACT BY 7 YEARS.
WEST OF ALGIERS:
ADVANCE INITIAION OF ALGIERS LOCK TO BELLE CHASSE 1,606
HWY (ORLEANS LEVEE # 9) BY 8 YEARS.
ADVANCE INITIATION OF ALGIERS LOCK TO BELLE CHASSE 3,804
HWY TO CUTOFF (PLAQ LEVEE # 8) BY 8 YEARS.
EAST OF ALGIERS:
ADVANCE INITIAION OF ALGIERS LOCK TO BELLE CHASSE 387
HWY TO HERO LEVEE (PLAQ LEVEE # 11) BY 8 YEARS.
ADVANCE INITIATION OF ALGIERS LOCK TO BELLE CHASSE 500
HWY (ORLEANS LEVEE # 12) BY 9 YEARS.
LAKE CATAOUATCHE AREA: ADVANCE ENGINEERING AND 638
DESIGN.
------------
s s 8,070
MAINE:
ME 2 ST JOHN RIVER I- (FC) 3,432 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
C DEMO PROJECT
MARYLAND:
DC DE ANACOSTIA RIVER (E) 12,000 4,031 (C) 4,031 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
MD 4, 5, 8 AND
TRIBUTARIES, MD
& DC
MD 1 ASSATEAGUE (BE) \1\ 16,900 (C) 6,200 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION............................... .........
ISLAND, MD
MD 1 ATLANTIC COAST (BE) \1\ 270,300 200 (C) 200 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
OF MARYLAND, MD
MD 1, 2, 3, 4 BALTIMORE HARBOR (N) 44,521 9,578 (C) 9,578 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT.................................... .........
VA 1 AND CHANNELS
(BREWERTON
CHANNEL), MD
MD 1 CHESAPEAKE BAY (E) \1\ 10,000 (C) 210 (C) DESIGN WORK ON SMITH ISLAND WSTWTR TREATMENT PL. & .........
VA 1 ENVIRONMENTAL NORFOLK DIST. PROJ.
PROGRAM, MD, VA NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
& PA HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
MD 1 CHESAPEAKE BAY (E) 2,500 559 (C) 559 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT.................................... .........
OYSTER
RECOVERY, MD
MD 6 CUMBERLAND, MD (FC) \1\ 27,584 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
WV 1 AND RIDGELEY, NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
WV HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
VA 11 NEABSCO CREEK, ....... \1\ 1,125 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
VA
MD 1 POPLAR ISLAND, (E) \1\ 320,000 9,502 (C) 16,000 (C) INITIATE FIRST DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT PROJECT... .........
MD
MASSACHUSETTS:
MA 8, 9, 10 BOSTON HARBOR, (N) \1\ 12,150 1,000 (C) 1,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
MA
MA 10 CAPE COD CANAL (N) \1\ 30,500 5,000 (MR) 5,000 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
RAILROAD
BRIDGE, MA
(MAJOR REHAB)
MA 2 HODGES VILLAGE (FC) \1\ 18,600 3,257 (MR) 3,257 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
DAM, MA (MAJOR
REHAB)
MA 7 REVERE BEACH, MA (BE) 6,825 (C) (C) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRED......... .........
MA 7 ROUGHANS POINT, (FC) \1\ 8,000 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
REVERE, MA
MA 9, 10 TOWN BROOK, (FC) \1\ 30,600 1,500 (C) 1,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
QUINCY AND
BRAINTREE, MA
MICHIGAN:
MI 1 GREAT LAKES (N) \1\ 11,254 (C) 500 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION UPPER ST MARYS RIVER (VIDAL 500
MN 8 CONNECTING SHOALS). CHANNEL DEEPENING.
WI 7 CHANNELS AND
HARBORS, MI,
MN, & WI
MINNESOTA:
MN 2 CHASKA, MN (FC) \1\ 30,397 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
MN 1 LOCK AND DAM 3, (N) \1\ 15,400 3,200 (MR) 5,000 (MR) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 6 MONTHS................. .........
MISSISSIPPI
RIVER, MN
(MAJOR REHAB)
MN 2 MARSHALL, MN (FC) \1\ 7,850 2,275 (C) 3,275 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 9 MONTHS................. .........
MN 8 PINE RIVER DAM, (N) \1\ 9,820 3,390 (DS) 3,390 (DS) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
CROSS LAKE, MN
(DAM SAFETY)
MN 1 ROCHESTER, MN (FC) \1\ 67,210 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
MN 6 STILLWATER, MN (BE) \1\ 8,700 (C) 1,158 (C) COMPLETE STAGE 2 CONSTRUCTION....................... .........
NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
MISSISSIPPI:
LA 1 EAST PEARL, (E) \1\ 4,000 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
MS 2, 3, 4, 5 WALKIAH BLUFF--
BG155
MS 5 JACKSON COUNTY (FC) 10,000 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
INDUSTRIAL
WATER SUPPLY,
MS
MS 4 NATCHEZ BLUFF, (FC) \1\ 13,039 (C) 500 (C) CONTINUING CONSTRUCTION OF MADISON STREET TO STATE 500
MS STREET.
NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
MS 5 PASCAGOULA (N) 39,041 7,792 (C) 7,792 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
HARBOR, MS
AL 1, 4, 7 TENNESSEE--TOMBI (N) 91,800 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
MS 1, 3, 5 GBEE WATERWAY
WILDLIFE
MITIGATION, AL
& MS
MS 5 WOLF AND JORDAN (N) 2,943 (C) 1,000 (C) INITIATE PROJECT.................................... .........
RIVERS MS
MISSOURI:
MO 5 BLUE RIVER (FC) \1\ 211,000 13,700 (C) 13,700 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
CHANNEL, KANSAS
CITY, MO
MO 8 CAPE GIRARDEAU, (FC) \1\ 36,293 1,900 (C) 1,900 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
JACKSON, MO
MO 9 LONG BRANCH (FC) 20,288 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED EXCEPT FOR UNPROGRAMMED RECREATION .........
LAKE, MO FACILITIES.
MO 2 MERAMEC RIVER (FC) \1\ 28,030 3,500 (C) 3,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
BASIN, VALLEY
PARK LEVEE, MO
IL 12, 20 MISS RIVER BTWN (N) \1\274,000 3,000 (C) 4,650 (C) ADVANCE INITIATION OF THE CHESTER REACH CONTRACT BY 600
MO 1, 3, 8 THE OHIO AND MO SEVEN MONTHS.
RIVERS (REG INITIATE AND COMPLETE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR 450
WORKS), MO & IL DEVILS ISLAND AND ELIZA PT/GREENFIELD (PH 2).
INITIATE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IVORY LANDING. 100
CONTINUE REGIONAL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL 250
GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM (REEGIS).
CONTINUE ESSENTIAL DATA COLLECTION ADVANCE PROJECT 250
COMPLETION BY 6 MONTHS.
------------
s s 1,650
MO 3, 8 STE GENEVIEVE, (FC) \1\ 36,100 7,000 (C) 10,000 (C) ADVANCE COMPLETION OF PUMP STATION/GRAVITY DRAIN BY 1,000
MO 6 MONTHS.
ADVANCE COMPLETION OF LEVEE/DITCHING/GRADING 2,000
CONTRACT BY 12 MONTHS. ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION
BY 4 MTHS.
------------
s s 3,000
AR 3 TABLE ROCK LAKE, (MP) \1\ 60,200 13,000 (DS) 13,000 (DS) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
MO 7 MO & AR (DAM
SAFETY)
MONTANA:
MT AL FLATHEAD RIVER, (FC) 90 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
MT
NEBRASKA:
NE 1 MISSOURI (FC) \1\ 21,000 300 (C) 300 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
SD AL NATIONAL
RECREATIONAL
RIVER, NE & SD
NE 1, 3 WOOD RIVER, (FC) \1\ 10,000 100 (C) 100 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT...........................
GRAND ISLAND,
NE
NEVADA:
NV 1, 2 TROPICANA AND (FC) \1\ 208,500 20,100 (C) 35,000 (C) COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF LOWER FLA-MINGO DIVERSION 14,900
FLAMINGO CHANNEL AND INITIATE AND COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF F-
WASHES, NV 1 DEBRIS BASIN ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 12 MONTHS.
NJ 13 ARTHUR KILL (N) 216,000 (C) (C) PROJECT REQUIRES REAUTHORIZATION.................... .........
NY 13 CHANNEL,
HOWLAND HOOK
MARINE
TERMINAL, NY &
NJ
NJ 2, 3 BRIGANTINE TO (FC) 329,000 (C) 7,000 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION............................... .........
GREAT EGG NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
(ABSECON) HAS IDENTIFIED POLICY CONCERNS.
NJ 2 CAPE MAY INLET (BE) \1\ 87,700 1,700 (C) 1,700 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
TO LOWER
TOWNSHIP, NJ
DE AL DELAWARE RIVER (N) \1\ 214,000 16,500 (C) 16,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
NJ 1, 2, 4, MAIN CHANNEL,
5, 12, 13 NJ, PA & DE
PA 1, 2, 3,
7, 8, 10, 15
NJ 2 GREAT EGG HARBOR (BE) \1\ 358,800 419 (C) 419 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
INLET AND PECK
BEACH, NJ
NJ 9 HACKENSACK (FC) 12,500 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
MEADOWLANDS, NJ NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONERNS.
NJ 5, 8, 10, JOSEPH G MINISH (FC) 33,705 (C) 8,000 (C) CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION.NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S
11, 13 HISTORIC REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/
WATERFRONT OR POLICY CONCERNS.
PARK,NJ
NJ 10, 13 LIBERTY STATE (FC) 19,150 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
PARK LEVEE AND
SEAWALL, NJ
NJ 5, 8 MOLLY ANN'S (FC) \1\ 20,600 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
BROOK AT
HALEDON,
PROSPECT PARK
AND PATERSON,
NJ
NJ 13 NEW YORK HARBOR (N) 72,100 2,000 (C) 2,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
& ADJACENT
CHANNELS, PORT
JERSEY CHANNEL,
NJ
NJ 11 PASSAIC RIVER (FC) 18,300 1,800 (C) 1,800 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
PRESERVATION OF
NATURAL STORAGE
AREAS, NJ
NJ 5 RAMAPO AND (FC) 6,530 (C) (C) COST SHARING AND FINANCING BY LOCAL INTERESTS ARE .........
NY 22 MAHWAH RIVERS, UNAVAILABLE.
MAHWAH, NJ AND
SUFFERN, NY
NJ 5, 8 RAMAPO RIVER AT (FC) \1\ 11,240 1,300 (C) 1,300 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
OAKLAND, NJ
NJ 3, 6 RARITAN BAY AND (BE) 30,000 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
SANDY HOOK BAY, NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
NJ HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
NJ 6, 7, 12 RARITAN RIVER (FC) \1\ 286,000 1,000 (C) 1,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
BASIN, GREEN
BROOK SUB-
BASIN, NJ
NJ 3, 6 SANDY HOOK TO (BE) \1\ 979,000 9,000 (C) 9,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
BARNEGAT INLET,
NJ
NEW MEXICO:
NM 3 ABIQUIU DAM (FC) \1\ 7,000 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
EMERGENCY
GATES, NM
NM 1, 2, 3 ACEQUIAS (FC) \1\ 66,000 1,500 (C) 1,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
IRRIGATION
SYSTEM, NM
NM 2 ALAMOGORDO, NM (FC) \1\ 41,400 700 (C) 700 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
NM 3 GALISTEO DAM, NM (FC) \1\ 3,990 (DS) (DS) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
(DAM SAFETY)
NM 2 LAS CRUCES, NM (FC) \1\ 6,600 2,400 (C) 2,400 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT.................................... .........
NM 1, 3 MIDDLE RIO (FC) \1\ 46,800 600 (C) 600 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
GRANDE FLOOD
PROTECTION,
BERNALILLO TO
BELEN, NM
NM 2 RIO GRANDE (FC) \1\ 62,300 600 (C) 600 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
FLOODWAY, SAN
ACACIA TO
BOSQUE DEL
APACHE, NM
NM 2 TWO RIVERS DAM, (FC) \1\ 1,932 (DS) (DS) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
NM (DAM SAFETY)
NEW YORK:
NY 9, 13 ATLANTIC COAST (BE) \1\ 91,000 300 (C) 300 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
OF NYC,
ROCKAWAY INLET
TO NORTON
POINT, NY
NY 6, 10, 16 EAST ROCKAWAY (BE) \1\ 63,000 3,320 (C) 3,320 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
INLET TO
ROCKAWAY INLET
AND JAMAICA
BAY, NY
NY 1, 2 FIRE ISLAND (BE) \1\ 532,000 3,000 (C) 3,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
INLET TO JONES
INLET, NY
NY 1 FIRE ISLAND (BE) \1\ 571,400 3,250 (C) 3,750 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION OF WEST OF SHINNECOCK INLET .........
INLET TO ELEMENT.
MONTAUK POINT, NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
NY HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERN'S.
NY 22 HUDSON RIVER, NY (N) 12,000 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
(NEW YORK CITY NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
TO WATERFORD- HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
ATHENS CHANNEL)
NJ 7, 10 KILL VAN KULL (N) \1\ 823,300 60,000 (C) 60,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
NY 13, 14 AND NEWARK BAY
CHANNEL, NY &
NJ
NY 3, 4, 5 LONG BEACH (BE) 239,500 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
ISLAND, NY
NY 1 MORICHES INLET, (N) \1\ 9,100 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
NY
NY 8, 18, 23, NEW YORK CITY (E) 22,500 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
26 WATERSHED, NY NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND /OR POLICY CONCERNS.
NJ 6, 9, 13 NEW YORK HARBOR (N) \1\ 131,661 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
NY 7, 8, 11, COLLECTION AND
12, 13, 14, REMOVAL OF
15 DRIFT, NY & NJ
NY 25 NEW YORK STATE (N) \1\ 8,000 (C) 4,200 (C) REIMBURSE PROJECTS COMPLETED BY NYS BARGE CANAL CORP 4,200
CANAL SYSTEM, NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
NY HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
NY 26 NORTH (FC) \1\ 3,194 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
ELLENVILLE, NY
(DEF CORR)
NY 25 ONONDAGA LAKE (FC) \1\ 4,000 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
STORM WATER
DISCHARGE, NY
NY 16, 18 ORCHARD BEACH, (BE) 5,200 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
NY NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS STUDY HAS
IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
NY 1 SHINNECOCK (N) \1\ 16,900 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
INLET, NY
NY 17, 18 YONKERS, NY (DEF (FC) \1\ 13,529 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
CORR)
NORTH CAROLINA:
NC 3 AIWW, (N) 70,700 7,000 (C) 7,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
REPLACEMENT OF
FEDERAL HIGHWAY
BRIDGES, NC
NC 4 B EVERETT JORDAN (FC) 147,557 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
DAM AND LAKE,
NC
NC 7 BRUNSWICK COUNTY (BE) 73,800 (C) 200 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION............................... .........
BEACHES, NC-- NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
OCEAN ISLE HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
BEACH PORTION
NC 7 CAROLINA BEACH (BE) 163,780 (C) (C) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRED......... .........
AND VICINITY,
NC
NC 2, 4 FALLS LAKE, NC (FC) 183,000 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
NC 8 HAMLET CITY (FC) 3,200 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
LAKE, NC
NC 7 WILMINGTON (N) 247,100 18,300 (C) 18,300 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
HARBOR, NC
NC 7 WRIGHTSVILLE (BE) 25,200 (C) (C) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRED......... .........
BEACH, NC
NORTH DAKOTA:
ND AL BUFORD-TRENTON (FC) \1\ 40,000 5,000 (C) 10,000 (C) ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS FROM WILLING SELL- ERS 5,000
IRRIGATION
DISTRICT LAND
ACQUISITION, ND
ND AL DEVILS LAKE (FC) \1\ 29,000 10,000 (C) 10,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
EMERGENCY
OUTLET, ND
ND AL FT YATES BRIDGE, (MP) 40,577 (C) (C) CURRENT FUNDS ARE ADAQUATE MAJOR ACTIVITIES ON THIS .........
ND PROJECT HAVE CURTAILED PENDING EXECUTION OF A MOA
WITH THE STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE.
ND AL GARRISON DAM AND (MP) \1\ 37,000 6,500 (MR) 6,500 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
POWER PLANT, ND
(MAJOR REHAB)
MN 7 GRAND FORKS, ND-- (FC) \1\ 175,900 10,000 (C) 10,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
ND AL EAST GRAND
FORKS, MN
ND AL HOMME LAKE, ND (FC) \1\ 16,000 3,000 (DS) 3,000 (DS) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
(DAM SAFE- TY)
ND AL LAKE ASHTABULA (FC) \1\ 14,700 (DS) (DS) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
AND BALDHILL
DAM, ND (DAM
SAFETY)
ND AL LAKE ASHTABULA (FC) \1\ 7,800 500 (MR) 1,535 (MR) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 12 MONTHS................ .........
AND BALDHILL
DAM, ND (MAJOR
REHAB)
ND AL SHEYENNE RIVER, (FC) \1\ 30,610 (C) 1,700 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION OF BALDHILL DAM POOL RAISE .........
ND SEPERABLE ELEMENT.
ND AL SOURIS RIVER, ND (FC) \1\ 101,387 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
OHIO:
OH 16, 18 BEACH CITY LAKE, (FC) \1\ 3,500 1,400 (DS) 1,400 (DS) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
MUSKINGUM RIVER
LAKES, OH (DAM
SAFETY)
OH 3, 6 HOLES CREEK, (FC) \1\ 3,896 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
WEST
CARROLLTON, OH
OH 13, 17, 19 LOWER GIRARD (FC) \1\ 1,593 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
PA 4 LAKE, OH
OH 9 MAUMEE BAY STATE (BE) \1\ 8,317 (C) (C) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRED......... .........
PARK, OH
OH 1, 2 METROPOLITAN (FC) \1\ 13,035 2,266 (C) 4,000 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 6 MONTHS.............. 1,734
REGION OF
CINCINNATI,
DUCK CREEK, OH
OH 1, 2 MILL CREEK, OH (FC) \1\ 163,000 915 (C) 915 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
OH 12,15 WEST COLUMBUS, (FC) \1\ 91,700 8,000 (C) 16,000 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 12 MONTHS............. 8,000
OH
OKLAHOMA:
OK 1, 2 MINGO CREEK, (FC) 75,400 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
TULSA, OK
TX 4 RED RIVER (N) \1\ 400 (C) 275 (C) CONTINUE SEDIMENTATION STUDY........................ 275
EMERGENGY BANK NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
PROTECTION, AR HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
& LA
OK 1, 2 SKIATOOK LAKE, (FC) \1\ 9,800 500 (DS) 500 (DS) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
OK (DAM SAFETY)
OK 2 TENKILLER FERRY (MP) \1\ 37,900 6,800 (DS) 6,800 (DS) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
LAKE, OK (DAM
SAFETY)
OREGON:
ID 1 BONNEVILLE (N) \1\ 336,298 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
MT AL NAVIGATION
OR 1, 2, 3, 5 LOCK, OR & WA
WA 3, 4, 5, 6
OR 2, 3 BONNEVILLE (MP) \1\ 24,267 (MR) (MR) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
WA 4 POWERHOUSE
PHASE I, OR &
WA (MAJOR
REHAB)
OR 2, 3 BONNEVILLE (MP) \1\ 104,600 10,800 (MR) 16,300 (MR) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION ONE YEAR (1) FROM 5,500
WA 4 POWERHOUSE SEPTEMBER 2009 TO SEPTEMBER 2008.
PHASE II, OR &
WA (MAJOR
REHAB)
OR 2, 3 BONNEVILLE (MP) \1\ 678,707 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
WA 4 SECOND
POWERHOUSE, OR
& WA
OR 2, 3 COLUMBIA RIVER (MP) \1\ 73,966 6,368 (C) 6,368 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
WA 3, 4 TREATY FISHING
ACCESS SITES,
OR & WA
OR 1 COLUMBIA RIVER, (N) \1\ 150 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
SEAFARERS
MEMORIAL,
HAMMOND, OR
OR 2 ELK CREEK LAKE, (FC) 174,000 500 (C) 7,000 (C) ACCOMPLISH PASSIVE FISH PASSAGE CORRIDOR IN FISCAL 6,500
OR YEAR 2000.
OR 1, 3 LOWER COLUMBIA (FC) 28,000 262 (C) 617 (C) PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BARLOW POINT 90
WA 3 RIVER BASIN SITE.
BANK PREPARE P&S FOR COLUMBIA SLOUGH SITE................ 100
PROTECTION, OR PREPARE DECISION DOCUMENT ON OTHER SITES............ 165
& WA
------------
s s 355
OR 1, 3, 4, 5 WILLAMETTE RIVER (FC) 33,300 (C) 118 (C) PROVIDE DESIGN, PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, 118
BASIN BANK AND CONSTRUCT THE SHADY DELL SITE.
PROTECTION, OR
OR 4 WILLAMETTE RIVER (FC) \1\ 70,600 1,700 (C) 3,500 (C) INITIATE DIVERSION WORK............................. 500
TEMPERATURE COMPLETE P & S FOR INTAKE TOWER..................... 1,000
CONTROL, OR GATE FABRICATION.................................... 300
------------
s s 1,800
PENNSYLVANIA:
PA 9 BROAD TOP (FC) \1\ 5,500 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
REGION, PA NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJEC HAS
IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
PA 3 GLEN FOERD, PA (FC) \1\ 1,110 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
PA 12 JOHNSTOWN, PA (FC) \1\ 32,664 6,800 (MR) 6,800 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
(MAJOR REHAB)
PA 10 LACKAWANNA (FC) \1\ 9,839 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
RIVER,
OLYPHANT, PA
PA 10 LACKAWANNA (FC) \1\ 47,575 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
RIVER,
SCRANTON, PA
PA 18, 20 LOCKS AND DAMS (N) \1\ 705,000 21,600 (C) 53,078 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 12 MONTHS............. 31,478
2, 3 AND 4,
MONONGAHELA
RIVER, PA
PA 21 PRESQUE ISLE (BE) \1\ 58,085 520 (C) 520 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
PENINSULA, PA
(PERMANENT)
PA 14 SAW MILL RUN, (FC) \1\ 10,575 3,500 (C) 3,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
PITTSBURGH, PA
SCHUYLKILL RIVER (FC) 2,700 (C) 2,625 (C) CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION............................... .........
PARK, NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW PA OF THIS PROJECT
PHILADELPHIA, HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
PA
PA 12 SOUTH CENTRAL PA (E) \1\ 36,750 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
ENVIRONMENTAL NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATIONS REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT HAS
IMPROVEMENT, IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
PA
PA 9, 10, 12 SOUTH CENTRAL PA (E) \1\ 44,650 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
ENVIRONMENTAL NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
IMPROVEMENT, HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
PA
PA 3 SOUTHEASTERN (FC) 25,000 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
ENV. ASSIS. NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
EAST CENTRAL HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
INCINERATOR
SITE
PA 6 SUNBURY, PA (FC) \1\ 18,063 (C) (C) LACK OF LOCAL COOPERATION........................... .........
PA 11 SUSQUEHANNA (E) \1\ 2,000 (C) (C) LACK OF LOCAL COOPERATION........................... .........
RIVER, PA
PA 12 WEST VIRGINIA (FC) \1\ 12,000 (C) 2,000 (C) CONTINUE DPR FOR WV PROJECTS........................ 2,000
WV 1 AND NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATIONS REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT HAS
PENNSYLVANIA IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
FLOOD CONTROL,
PA & WV
PA 10 WILLIAMSPORT, PA (FC) \1\ 13,190 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
PA 11 WYOMING VALLEY, (FC) \1\ 108,300 20,000 (C) 20,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
PA (LEVEE
RAISING)
PUERTO RICO:
PR DE ARECIBO RIVER, (FC) 12,500 2,500 (C) 2,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
PR
PR DE PORTUGUES AND (FC) 430,300 5,434 (C) 5,434 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
BUCANA RIVERS,
PR
PR DE RIO DE LA PLATA, (FC) 63,300 1,000 (C) 3,000 (C) INITIATE CONTRACT FOR FLOOD PROTECTION WORKS FROM .........
PR RIVER MOUTH TO DORADO ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 6
MONTHS.
PR DE RIO GRANDE DE (FC) 138,300 (C) 500 (C) INITIATE PROJECT.................................... .........
LOIZA, PR
PR DE RIO PUERTO (FC) 321,000 9,566 (C) 9,566 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
NUEVO, PR
PR DE SAN JUAN HARBOR, (N) 24,100 8,000 (C) 8,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
PR
RHODE ISLAND:
RI 1 ALLENDALE DAM, (FC) 300 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
RI NOTE: THE ADMINSTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT HAS
IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
RI 2 NARRAGANSETT (N) 1,425 (C) (C) COST SHARING AND FINANCING BY LOCAL INTERESTS ARE .........
TOWN BEACH, UNAVAILABLE.
NARRAGANSETT,
RI
RI 2 QUONSET POINT- (FC) 2,400 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
DAVISVILLE, RI
RI 1, 2 SEEKONK RIVER, (N) \1\ 700 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
PROVIDENCE, RI
SOUTH CAROLINA:
SC 1 CHARLESTON (N) 98,444 37,284 (C) 37,284 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
HARBOR, SC
(DEEPENING &
WIDENING)
SC 1 FOLLY BEACH, SC (BE) 98,689 (C) (C) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRED......... .........
SC 1 MYRTLE BEACH, SC (BE) 140,535 (C) (C) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRED......... .........
SOUTH DAKOTA:
SD AL BIG SIOUX RIVER, (FC) 27,975 (C) 150 (C) COMPLETE OPTIMIZATION STUDY, CHUTE/STILLING BASIN 150
SIOUX FALLS, SD DESIGN, AND P&S.
SD AL CHEYENNE RIVER (E) 108,000 2,000 (C) 3,000 (C) ACCELERATE REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES................... 1,000
SIOUX TRIBE,
LOWER BRULE
SIOUX, SD
SD AL PIERRE, SD (MP) 100,000 10,000 (C) 10,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
TENNESSEE:
TN 6 BLACK FOX, (E) \1\ 6,817 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
MURFREE AND
OAKLANDS
SPRINGS
WETLANDS, TN
TN 3 EAST RIDGE, (FC) \1\ 18,750 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
HAMILTON CO.,TN
TN 3 TENNESSEE RIVER, (FC) \1\ 6,669 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
HAMILTON
COUNTY, TN
TEXAS:
TX 7, 18, 22, BRAYS BAYOU, (FC) \1\ 293,010 9,800 (C) 9,800 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
25 HOUSTON, TX
TX 14 CHANNEL TO (N) \1\ 26,820 8,700 (C) 8,700 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
VICTORIA, TX
TX 9, 22, 25 CLEAR CREEK, TX (FC) \1\ 75,830 3,200 (C) 3,200 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
TX 7, 8 CYPRESS CREEK, (FC) \1\ 9,848 (C) 4,569 (C) INITIATE & COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION.................... 4,569
HOUSTON, TX
TX 5, 24, 26, DALLAS FLOODWAY (FC) 112,150 (C) (C) PROJECT REQUIRES ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION........... .........
30 EXTENSION,
TRINITY RIVER
PROJECT, TX
TX 16 EL PASO, TX (FC) \1\ 116,300 6,200 (C) 6,200 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
TX 11, 14 GIWW, ARANSAS (N) \1\ 20,660 9,000 (C) 9,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
NATIONAL
WILDLIFE
REFUGE, TX
TX 8, 9, 18, HOUSTON--GALVEST (N) \1\ 415,543 60,000 (C) 60,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
25, 29 ON NAVIGATION
CHANNELS, TX
TX 6, 24, 26 JOE POOL LAKE, (FC) \1\ 227,000 (C) 26,700 (C) REIMBURSE JUDGEMENT FUND............................ 26,700
TX
TX 13 MCGRATH CREEK, (FC) 11,050 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
WICHITA FALLS,
TX
TX 2, 9, 11 NECHES RIVER AND (N) \1\ 41,895 2,000 (C) 2,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
TRIBUTARIES
SALTWATER
BARRIER, TX
AR 1, 2, 3, 4 RED RIVER BASIN (FC) \1\ 88,422 (C) 2,100 (C) CONTINUE PROJECT.................................... .........
LA 4, 5 CHLORIDE NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
OK 2, 3, 4, 6 CONTROL, TX & HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
TX 1, 4, 13, OK
17, 19, 26
AR 1, 2 RED RIVER (FC) \1\ 318,600 (C) 5,500 (C) CONTINUE PROJECT.................................... 5,500
LA 5 WATERWAY, TX, NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
OK 3 AR, OK, LA HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
TX 1, 4 (INDEX AR TO
DENISON DAM, TX
TX 20, 21, SAN ANTONIO (FC) \1\ 153,100 610 (C) 610 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
23, 28 CHANNEL
IMPROVEMENT, TX
TX 18, 22, SIMS BAYOU, (FC) \1\ 214,320 18,300 (C) 18,300 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
25, 29 HOUSTON, TX
TX 2, 9 WALLISVILLE (N) \1\ 78,000 (C) 4,756 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT.................................... 4,756
LAKE, TX NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
UTAH:
UT 2 LITTLE DELL (FC) \1\ 41,215 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
LAKE, UT
UT 2 UPPER JORDAN (FC) \1\ 9,660 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
RIVER, UT
VIRGINIA:
VA 4 AIWW, BRIDGE AT (N) \1\ 23,100 3,000 (C) 5,000 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 24 MONTHS............. .........
GREAT BRIDGE,
VA
VA 6 JAMES R OLIN (FC) \1\ 34,800 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
FLOOD CONTROL
PROJECT, VA
VA 5 JOHN H KERR DAM (MP) 59,600 1,400 (MR) 1,400 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
AND RESERVOIR,
VA & NC (MAJOR
REHAB)
VA 5 LYNCHBURG, VA (FC) 20,000 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
(COMBINED SEWER NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
OVERFLOW) HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
VA 1, 2, 4 NORFOLK HARBOR (N) \1\ 137,496 550 (C) 550 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
AND CHANNELS
(DEEPENING), VA
VA 3, 7 RICHMOND (FC) 8,100 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
FILTRATION
PLANT, VA
VA 7 RICHMOND LOCAL (FC) 105,153 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
PROTECTION
PROJECT, VA
VA 3, 7 RICHMOND, VA (FC) 20,000 (C) 10,000 (C) CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION OF RETENTION TUNNEL........... .........
(COMBINED SEWER NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
OVERFLOW) HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
VA 6 ROANOKE RIVER (FC) 28,800 1,197 (C) 1,197 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
UPPER BASIN,
HEADWATERS
AREA, VA
VA 2 VIRGINIA BEACH, (BE) \1\ 247,300 (C) 26,600 (C) CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION............................... .........
VA (HURRICANE NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
PROTECTION) HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
VA 2 VIRGINIA BEACH, (BE) \1\ 27,658 (C) 1,400 (C) CONTINUE PROJECT.................................... .........
VA NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
(REIMBURSEMENT) HAS IDENTIFIED POLICY CONCERNS.
WASHINGTON:
ID 1 COLUMBIA RIVER (E) 1,376,330 100,000 (C) 100,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
OR 2 FISH
WA 4, 5 MITIGATION, WA,
OR & ID
WA 3, 6 GRAYS HARBOR, WA (N) 18,507 (C) 450 (C) COMPLETE FINAL CRAB MITIGATION AND CLOSE OUT THE .........
PROJECT.
ID 1, 2 LOWER SNAKE (E) 232,000 1,300 (C) 1,800 (C) PROVIDE ADDITIONAL WILDLIFE LAND DEVELOPMENT........ 500
OR 2 RIVER FISH &
WA 4, 5 WILDLIFE
COMPENSATION,
WA, OR & ID
WA 3, 4 MT ST HELENS (FC) 195,800 540 (C) 540 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
SEDIMENT
CONTROL, WA
WA 8, 9 MUD MOUNTAIN (FC) 68,717 (DS) (DS) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
DAM, WA (DAM
SAFETY)
OR 2 THE DALLES (MP) \1\ 94,000 2,300 (MR) 3,300 (MR) PROCURE WINDINGS.................................... 1,000
WA 4 POWERHOUSE
(UNITS 1-14, WA
& OR (MAJOR
REHAB)
WEST VIRGINIA:
WV 3 BLUESTONE LAKE, (FC) \1\ 107,300 750 (DS) 4,200 (DS) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 12 MONTHS............. 3,450
WV (DAM SAFETY)
WV 3 GREENBRIER RIVER (FC) \1\ 12,000 (C) 1,000 (C) CONTINUE DETAILED DESIGN............................ 1,000
BASIN, WV NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
KY 4, 5 LEVISA AND TUG (FC) \1\ 1,837,8 5,400 (C) 23,100 (C) CONTINUE LOWER MINGO CO, WV N/S..................... 1,300
VA 9 FORKS AND UPPER 41 CONTINUE PIKE CO, KY N/S............................ 1,100
WV 3 CUMBERLAND CONTINUE MARTIN CO, KY, N/S......................... 900
RIVER, WV, VA & CONTINUE UPPER MINGO CO, WV N/S..................... 600
KY CONTINUE WAYNE CO, WV N/S........................... 300
CONTINUE MCDOWELL CO, WV N/S........................ 2,200
CONTINUE BUCHANAN CO, VA DPR........................ 800
INITIATE PIKE CO, KY TRIB DPR....................... 500
CONTINUE HARLAN, KY................................. 1,500
CONTINUE MIDDLESBOROUGH, KY......................... 5,000
CONTINUE CLOVER FORK, KY N/S........................ 3,000
INIT PLAN--3QTR--TOWN OF MARTIN,KY.................. 500
N/S: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT HAS
IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
------------
s s 17,700
WV 2 LONDON LOCKS AND (N) \1\ 20,300 600 (MR) 1,400 (MR) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 12 MONTHS............. 800
DAM, KANAWHA
RIVER, WV
(MAJOR REHAB)
WV 2 MARMET LOCK, (N) \1\ 294,000 9,800 (C) 11,350 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 6 MONTHS.............. 1,550
KANAWHA RIVER,
WV
WV 2 MOOREFIELD, WV (FC) \1\ 20,494 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
WV 2 PETERSBURG, WV (FC) \1\ 19,711 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
OH 6 ROBERT C BYRD (N) \1\ 363,474 7,150 (C) 9,300 (C) COMPLETE BANK STABILIZATION......................... 2,150
WV 2, 3 LOCKS AND DAM,
OHIO RIVER, WV
& OH
WV 3 SOUTHERN WV (E) \1\ 20,000 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
ENVIRONMENTAL
INFRASTRUCTURE
PROGRAM, WV
WV 2 STONEWALL (FC) \1\ 231,000 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED EXCEPT FOR UNPROGRAMMED RECREATION .........
JACKSON LAKE, FACILITIES.
WV
WV 1 TYGART LAKE, WV (FC) \1\ 7,500 2,900 (DS) 2,900 (DS) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
(DAM SAFETY)
PA 9 WEST VIRGINIA (FC) \1\ 4,000 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.......... .........
AND NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
PENNSYLVANIA HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
FLOOD CONTROL,
WV & PA
WV 2 WINFIELD LOCKS (N) \1\ 227,400 1,400 (C) 3,200 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 24 MONTHS............. 1,800
AND DAM,
KANAWHA RIVER,
WV
WISCONSIN:
WI 3 LAFARGE LAKE & (FC) \1\ 17,000 (C) 3,000 (C) CONTINUE ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT OF PROJECT LAND .........
CHANNEL IMPRV, TRANSFER AND DEAUTHORIZATION.
WI 1962 ACT NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
WI 2 PORTAGE, WI (FC) \1\ 7,666 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: 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 2000 CAPABILITY AMOUNTS SHOWN CONSIDER EACH PROJECT OR STUDY 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 2000 IS THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT CONSISTENT WITH THE ADMINISTRATION'S ASSESSMENT OF NATIONAL
PRIORITIES FOR FEDERAL INVESTMENTS. IN ADDITION, THE TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED FOR THE ARMY'S CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM IN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET IS
THE MAXIMUM THAT CAN BE EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY USED. THEREFORE, WHILE WE COULD UTILIZE ADDITIONAL FUNDS ON INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS AND
STUDIES, OFFSETTING REDUCTIONS WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN OUR OVERALL BUDGETARY OBJECTIVES.
\1\ COST ESTIMATE INCLUDES AN ALLOWANCE FOR INFLATION THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.
reimbursements and credits
Question. General Ballard, what you have done to manage non-Federal
sponsor requests to perform work for credit or reimbursement or to
advance funds for projects?
Answer. In the past, we have entertained all requests to perform
creditable or reimbursable work or advance funds if we had the
authority and the request was consistent with the project schedule and
other decisions on budget and appropriations. However, because of the
growth in interest in these arrangements, we will review the program
and will consider establishing criteria to limit the impact of such
arrangements on the program. Also, our policy is that before
negotiating an agreement involving non-Federal work or advanced funds
that could require possible future Federal appropriations we will
coordinate the request within the Administration and with the
Appropriations' Committees.
general expenses appropriation request
Question. General Ballard or General Fuhrman, the budget request
for fiscal year 2000 includes $148 million for executive direction and
management functions of the Corps of Engineers. Is this level of
funding adequate to manage the Civil Works program?
Answer. The General Expenses funding level has remained at the $148
million level for the last two fiscal years as the headquarters and
division offices have undergone several restructuring and downsizing
initiatives. These initiatives included a review and realignment of
roles and missions to eliminate duplication, remove operating
functions, reduce the number of division offices, and reorganize
internally. These efforts were taken to make the most efficient use of
the reduced workforce while still providing the executive direction and
management needed to accomplish the civil works mission and be
responsive to our customers.
This reduced workforce has permitted us to maintain an appropriate
level of executive direction and management with a constant $148
million budget. However, as we approach our target manpower level,
staffing reductions begin to taper off and it no longer is possible to
absorb the increased costs of salaries, operations, and inflation.
Nonetheless, we continue to look at ways to get our job done in the
best manner possible at the lowest cost.
Question. The General Expenses program has been held constant for
the past several years. What impact has this had on your program,
especially your ability to attract and retain talent needed to manage
the program?
Answer. I am very concerned about maintaining the technical and
managerial expertise of the workforce, especially in the division
offices and the headquarters. The problem is that when we cut staff to
fit dollar ceilings not all the reductions are in the right job
disciplines. To correct these imbalances, we then have to step up
recruitment and, when we fill those positions, our costs of moving
people to the jobs goes up. This puts more pressure on the General
Expenses account so that we have to cut more staff to stay within our
budget. You can see the predicament which is being driven by trying to
manage a people-intensive account with a negative-growth budget. I call
it a negative-growth budget because, although it's a flat budget in
real dollars, the purchasing power is less than the prior year's.
Question. What actions have you taken to streamline or bring about
efficiencies required to maintain your Executive Direction and
Management at this level?
Answer. The Corps of Engineers has taken significant steps to
reduce costs and increase efficiency. In compliance with Congressional
direction, we reduced the number of divisions from 11 to 8 in fiscal
year 1997. While reducing the number of divisions, we have reduced the
number of positions funded by the General Expense account. The total
number of positions to be funded from the General Expenses account in
fiscal year 2000 is 1,142 which is 35 below the fiscal year 1999 level,
and 226 below the number we had with 11 divisions in fiscal year 1996.
Of the fiscal year 1996-2000 reduction, 56 percent comes from the
division offices while the remaining 44 percent is from the
headquarters and support activities.
While we have reduced staff in accordance with the Federal
Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994, our General Expenses staffing
levels have been reduced by one-third from fiscal year 1990 to fiscal
year 1999 and about one-third of this reduction has come in the last 3
fiscal years. We have seen the division office staffing go from 950 in
fiscal year 1990 to 584 in fiscal year 1999 while the headquarters has
gone from 608 to 453 during this period. These reductions have
permitted us to maintain an appropriate level of ED&M with a constant
$148 million budget.
Question. Your statement identifies business process improvements
you are currently undertaking in an effort to hold down executive
direction expenses. Given these process improvements, will it be
possible to further reduce your General Expenses budget?
Answer. We continue to look at ways to get our job done in the best
manner possible at the lowest cost. I have undertaken a comprehensive
review of the headquarters operating budget this year to assure we are
staffed appropriately, and that we only incur expenses for essential
goods and services. However, as we approach our target manpower level,
staffing reductions begin to taper and it no longer is possible to
absorb the increased costs of salaries, operations, and inflation.
The executive direction and management activities performed by the
headquarters and division offices plays a key role in providing
guidance and oversight to our vital civil works mission. We will
continue to work this issue and would greatly appreciate the support of
the Appropriations Committees as we guide our Civil Works program into
the next millenium.
Question. What is the justification for maintaining extra offices
in Chicago and Omaha?
Answer. The regional offices in Chicago and Omaha are the remnants
of the two division offices that we have closed and merged with the
Great Lakes and Ohio River Division and the Northwestern Division
respectively. Since our division office restructuring in fiscal year
1997, we have been steadily reducing the staffs of each of these
combined offices, taking into consideration the well-being of our
workforce. The Great Lakes and Ohio River Division office and the
Northwestern Division office have had their General Expenses staffing
levels reduced by a total of 50 full-time equivalents, or FTE, between
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1999. We are continuing with our plan
to size these two division offices in accordance with our standard
sizing of all division offices. This will result in these two division
offices being staffed at approximately 75 FTE each, or 150 combined. I
intend, however, to continue to maintain a very small presence in
Chicago in order to support our international team efforts with Canada
through the International Joint Commission (IJC).
regulatory program--administrative appeals
Question. The Conference Report on the fiscal year 1998 Energy and
Water Appropriations Act stated, ``The conferees expect that the
increase provided over the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997 will
be used to begin implementation of an administrative appeals process
for the Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program.'' The Energy and Water
subcommittees of the House and Senate both stated their concern for
implementing this process again in the fiscal year 1999 report. Have
you complied with the directions of the Congress? If not, why not?
Answer. We have complied with the Congressional direction in the
Committee report language as best as we could, consistent with our
commitment to protect aquatic resources as required by law and to
provide fair and responsive services to the public. The final
regulation for appeals of permit denials and conditions was published
in the Federal Register on 9 March 1999, with an effective date of 6
August 1999. The process for the appeals of jurisdiction determinations
is more complex and labor intensive. With the levels of funding for the
Regulatory Program in recent years and the increase in the number of
permit applications, we have not been able to start up this part of the
appeals process without compromising our services to the public. We
could not implement it within the below-budget appropriations in fiscal
year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 without adversely impacting our services
to the public. Consequently, the President's Budget again requests an
appropriation of $5 million to implement the appeals process for
jurisdiction determinations.
Question. Now the expectation was that the Corps would implement
both the administrative appeals process and the jurisdiction
determination appeals process. What are your plans and timetable for
implementing the procedures?
Answer. Based on our budget request, the timetable for the full
appeals process would be as follows:
Permit Denials and Conditions
March 9, 1999. Final regulation published in the Federal Register.
Permit applicants are being notified that they may submit appeals of
district decisions regarding their applications. Division offices are
in the process of filling appeals officer positions and conducting
training.
August 6, 1999. Effective date for the appeals process to begin.
Division appeals officers review the appeals submitted by the public
and render decisions.
Jurisdiction Determinations (Fast-track Implementation)
Initiation of Action.--Once funding is provided, the Corps could
begin the process of interagency coordination and approval by ASA(CW)
quickly.
First 150 days.--This period would be used to complete interagency
coordination and approval by ASA(CW) and OMB. The final regulation
would be published in Federal once approvals are received. The
additional appeals officers required for this part of the appeals
process would be hired and trained.
Tenth month after initiation.--Effective date when we would begin
reviewing appeals submitted by the public. (If the Corps began
interagency coordination in, let's say, September/October 1999, the
effective date would be extended by about 3 months to the June/July
2000 time frame).
Question. The Congress specifically earmarked or provided $5
million for the Corps to implement the administrative appeals process
in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999. In light of the fact that you
have not implemented the administrative appeals process, how were these
funds used? Why didn't you take appropriate actions to initiate and
fund the administrative appeals process?
Answer. The Appropriations Committee report language stated the
intentions of the Committee to have a full appeals process implemented.
However, the appropriations the Corps received in the fiscal years you
mention were below the President's budget requests which would have
provided for the full appeals process without sacrificing services to
the public. At 90,000 permit actions in fiscal year 1998, workload is
at an all time high. More citizens depend on our responsiveness to
their permit applications than the number that would use the appeals
process. Therefore, most of the Regulatory funds in these years was
prudently used to continue providing timely, equitable services to the
public. In fiscal year 1999, we were able to set aside some funds for
the appeals of permit denials and conditions which will become
effective on August 6, 1999.
Question. I believe the Corps has indicated that they will
implement only a partial administrative appeals process for permits
denied. This means that property owners who disagree with the Corps on
jurisdiction determinations will still have to spend an extended period
of time in the permitting process before having the ability to
challenge the decision in court. Please explain your justification for
the Corps' decision to focus both its regulatory efforts and increased
budget on a program already subjected to direct judicial review, and
how do you believe this to be a fair and equitable process?
Answer. A wetland delineation does not restrict an applicant from
doing anything. He or she simply has to apply for a permit if the
activity is in a wetland. If the permit is disapproved, or approved
with certain conditions, then the applicant can challenge the
delineation. The Corps performance goal is to process permit actions
within 60 days and the most recent analyses of performance data showed
that this goal is achieved 95 percent of the time. Everyone agrees that
the appeals process is less expensive and less time consuming than
litigation. Our experience has been that most applicants within the
local Corps district office are satisfied with a fair hearing, even if
they do not get the result they want. We want the permit process to be
fair and equitable to our citizens and we do not believe that
litigation is the best way to resolve differences. While we have
supported the implementation of administrative appeals, the problem has
been the affordability of a full appeals process and its impacts on the
other parts of the Regulatory Program. To have dedicated $5 million
from our already austere program for the full process would have meant
shortages of regulatory personnel in the districts. This would have
meant a noticeable reduction in our responsiveness.
Question. The Conference Report on the fiscal year 1999 bill
indicated that implementation of an administrative appeals process for
only permit denials is unacceptable. Why has the Corps recently again
insisted that it will only implement a program that addresses permit
denials and that it needs more money to implement a full program,
against the expressed instructions of the Congress?
Answer. The Army's position is to support Committee report language
as fully and as best as we can, within the resources provided in
appropriation acts. However, the appropriations we received in the
fiscal years you mention were well below the President's budget
requests. To have dedicated $5 million from our already austere program
for the full process would have meant shortages of regulatory personnel
in the districts. The public would suffer because, with fewer team
members to process permit applications, backlogs would grow and private
citizens and businesspersons would have to wait longer to receive a
permit. Given the limited funding and the number of people impacted by
the permit program vs. the number who would benefit from an appeals
program, we believed that a phased implementation would work best for
the program and the public.
mississippi river and tributaries
Question. General Ballard, I'm informed that the MR&T flood control
system cannot pass the project design flood, or even a recurrence of
the flood that actually accrued in 1927. Is the budget request for the
MR&T project sufficient to make meaningful progress in addressing the
flood control needs along the Mississippi River and tributaries, in
your judgment?
Answer. While the budget request for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries project would allow work to proceed on all projects, albeit
not on optimal schedules, the development of the budget required
difficult trade-offs. It does not reflect the full level of capability
within the Mississippi River and Tributaries project.
Question. Are you concerned that the budget request is not
sufficient to address this critical situation?
Answer. Until critical work is completed on the Mississippi River
and the Atchafalaya River, the entire lower valley remains at risk from
major flood events. Because I am concerned, I have exercised my full
authority to assure that the most critical work within the Mississippi
River and Tributaries project receives a funding priority.
Question. What risk does not having the ability to pass the project
or near project flood pose to the region and the Nation?
Answer. Through the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Government
has made major investments over the past 70 years to reduce the risk of
a recurrence of the level of flood damages experienced during the 1927
Flood. As a result of these Federal investments, the risk of failure
has been diminishing with each passing year. However, if the project
flood or a near project flood were to occur, because the project is not
yet complete and because of the increased development throughout the
valley since 1927, we would experience major damage on a large scale.
If large areas of the 35,457 square mile alluvial floodplain were
flooded, life and property would be threatened; and interruption to
highway, rail, and interstate commerce would result. Both agricultural
and industrial interests would be adversely affected and would require
a significant time to recover.
Question. General Ballard, do you believe that the amount requested
for fiscal year 2000 for the MR&T project is adequate to address the
flood control, navigation, and environmental problems and opportunities
facing the lower Mississippi Valley?
Answer. No, sir. In my opinion, adequate progress in solving these
problems and meeting needs within the Lower Mississippi Valley would
require a larger program in fiscal year 2000.
Question. General Ballard, what is the Corps' capability for the
MR&T project in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Corps capability for fiscal year 2000 for the
Mississippi River and Tributaries project is $350 million.
Question. How much do you think is needed to make adequate progress
toward completion of this extremely important work?
Answer. An appropriation of $350 million would be needed to
maintain optimal schedules.
Question. Please provide for the record a list which shows the
Corps' capability for studies, construction and operations and
maintenance for fiscal year 2000.
Answer. Yes, sir. I will provide for the record the fiscal year
2000 capabilities for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES
(Amounts in Thousands)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amounts
Congressional Estimated included in Study
Districts Study and State Type Federal President's capability Purpose of additional capability Amount
cost budget
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTHORIZED STUDIES
ARKANSAS:
COLLECTION AND ....... 725 365 365 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
STUDY OF BASIC
DATA
AR 4 SOUTHEAST (COM) 4,495 .............. 1,200 CONTINUE FEASIBILITY STUDY.......................... $1,200
ARKANSAS, AR NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
PRECONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING AND
DESIGN
ARKANSAS:
AR 1, 2, 4 BAYOU METO (FC) 12,000 1,767 5,000 ADVANCE COMPLETION OF PED 24 MONTHS................. 3,233
BASIN, AR
AR 1, 2, 4 GRAND PRAIRIE (FC) 11,584 .............. .............. FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
REGION, AR
(SEPERABLE
ELEMENT)
CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS
ARKANSAS:
AR 1 CACHE RIVER (FC) 155,000 (C) (C) LACK OF LOCAL COOPERATION........................... .........
BASIN, AR
AR 1, 2, 4 CHANNEL (FC) 3,667,000 37,685 (C) 43,165 (C) COMPLETE TENN/WILLOW MS LA.......................... 1,100
IL 19 IMPROVEMENT, COMPLETE YUCATAN LA................................. 1,000
KY 1 AR, IL, KY, LA, COMPLETE WARFIELD MS................................ 1,500
LA 1, 2, 3, MS, MO & TN COMPLETE VAUCLUSE AR................................ 1,000
4, 5, 6, 7 INITIATE WOLF ISLAND BAR KY ADVANCE PROJECT 880
MO 8, 9 COMPLETION BY 2 MO.
MS 1, 2, 3,
4, 5
TN 7, 8, 9
------------
5,480
AR 1 EIGHT MILE (FC) \1\ 9,000 700 (C) 700 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
CREEK, AR
AR 1, 2, 4 GRAND PRAIRIE (FC) \1\ 245,350 21,900 (C) 21,900 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
REGION, AR
AR 1 HELENA AND (FC) \1\ 8,370 2,190 (C) 2,190 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
VICINITY, AR
AR 1 HELENA HARBOR, (N) 32,156 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
PHILLIPS
COUNTY, AR
AR 1, 2, 4 MISSISSIPPI (FC) 1,995,000 23,250 (C) 35,750 (C) ADVANCE COMMERCE BIRDS PT LEVEE GRADE RAISE MO...... 1,000
IL 19 RIVER LEVEES, ADVANCE WILSON PT PT LOOKOUT LA ITEM 489 R.......... 1,000
KY 1 AR, IL, KY, LA, ADVANCE CAROLINA VALEWOOD MS ITEM 502-L............. 1,000
LA 1, 2, 3, MS, MO & TN ADVANCE VALEWOOD CARLISLE MS IT 496L................ 2,200
4, 5, 6, 7 ADVANCE STATELINE WILSON PT LA ITEM 503-R........... 1,000
MO 8, 9 ADVANCE WILSON PT PT LOOKOUT LA ITEM 487-R.......... 300
MS 1, 2, 3, ADVANCE CARVILLE MARCHAND LA........................ 500
4, 5 ADVANCE ALHAMBRA HOHEN SOLMS LA..................... 300
TN 7, 8, 9 ADVANCE HOHEN SOLMS MODESTE LA...................... 700
ADVANCE REVEILLE PT PLEASANT LA..................... 500
ADVANCE DRINKWATER MO PUMP STATION.................. 1,000
INITIATE BLUE LAKE AR............................... 1,000
INITIATE CAIRO IL ITEM 2............................ 500
INITIATE ISLAND 8, KY............................... 1,000
INITIATE ABOVE CAIRO IL ITEM 1 ADVANCE PROJECT 500
COMPLETION 6 MONTHS.
------------
12,500
AR 1 ST FRANCIS (FC) \1\ 387,000 4,350 (C) 4,850 (C) ADVANCE COMPLETION OF CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS AT MAIN & 500
MO 8 BASIN, AR & MO DITCH 2, ITEM 2, MO BY 9 MONTHS.
AR 4 TENSAS BASIN-- (FC) \1\ 475,336 8,930 (C) 9,930 (C) SEE BELOW........................................... .........
LA 4, 5, 6 OVERALL
TENSAS BASIN, (FC) (94,280) (0) (C) (0) (C) LACK OF ADEQUATE LOCAL SUPPORT...................... .........
BOEUF TENSAS
LESS TENSAS R
TENSAS BASIN, (FC) (96,230) (0) (C) (0) (C) PROJECT COMPLETE.................................... .........
LAKE CHICOT
PUMPING PLANT
TENSAS COCODRIE (FC) (56,466) (0) (C) (0) (C) COMPLETED PROJECT................................... .........
PUMPING PLANT
TENSAS RIVER (FC) (42,600) (0) (C) (0) (C) LACK OF ADEQUATE LOCAL SUPPORT...................... .........
AR 1 WHITEMAN'S (FC) \1\ 3,300 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
CREEK, AR
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
ARKANSAS:
CHANNEL (FC) ........... 55,876 66,676 .................................................... .........
IMPROVEMENT,
AR, IL, KY, LA,
MS, MO & TN
AR 1, 2, 4 CHANNEL (FC) ........... (17,046) (20,046) DREDGE ADDITIONAL 4,000,000 CY ON MISSISSIPPI RIVER 3,000
KY 1 IMPROVEMENT, BUDGET AMT IS FOR 110 DAYS; 5 YR AVERAGE IS 184
LA 1, 2, 3, DREDGING, AR, DAYS; CAPABILITY WOULD ALLOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL 70
4, 5, 6, 7 IL, KY, LA, MS, DREDGING DAYS.
MO 8 MO & TN
MS 1, 2, 3, 4
TN 6, 7, 8
AR 1, 2, 4 CHANNEL (FC) ........... (38,830) (46,630) STABILIZE BANK TO PROTECT SHORELINE................. 7,400
KY 1 IMPROVEMENT, STONE REPAIRS TO REVETMENTS AND DIKS................ 400
LA 1, 2, 3, RVT & DIKES,
4, 5, 6, 7 AR, IL, KY, LA,
MO 8, 9 MS, MO, TN
MS 1, 2, 3,
4, 5
TN 6, 7, 8
------------
7,800
AR 1 HELENA HARBOR, (N) ........... 284 484 DREDGE HARBOR ADDITIONAL 200,000 CY BUDGET AMT IS 200
PHILLIPS FOR 9 DAYS; 5 YR AVG IS 12 DAYS; CAPABILITY WOULD
COUNTY, AR ALLOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL 6 DREDGING DAYS.
INSPECTION OF (FC) ........... 443 443 .................................................... .........
COMPLETED
WORKS, AR
AR 4 LOWER ARKANSAS (FC) ........... 66 66 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
RIVER, NORTH
BANK, AR
AR 4 LOWER ARKANSAS (FC) ........... 108 108 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
RIVER, SOUTH
BANK, AR
AR 1, 2, 4 MISSISSIPPI (FC) ........... 3,736 4,686 REPLACE DOLPHIN, GOOSE POND IL...................... 150
IL 19 RIVER LEVEES, RESTORE SLOPE, WEST MEMPHIS AR...................... 500
KY 1 AR, IL, KY, LA, RESTORE SLOPE, JOINER AR............................ 100
LA 1, 2, 3, MS, MO & TN REPLACE CULVERT NEW MADRID MO....................... 200
4, 5, 6, 7
MO 8, 9
MS 1, 2, 3,
4, 5
TN 7, 8, 9
------------
950
AR 1 ST FRANCIS (FC) ........... 6,300 9,550 CLEANOUT CHANNEL AT HIGHWAY 90, AR & MO............. 2,400
MO 8 BASIN, AR & MO CLEANOUT CHANNEL, DITCH 251 UPPER, MO............... 250
CLEAR CHANNEL, BIG SLOUGH & MAYO DITCHES, AR........ 300
CLEANOUT CHANNEL, DITCH 9, LAKE CITY, AR............ 100
AERIAL BRUSH CONTROL ON VARIOUS CHANNELS............ 200
------------
3,250
AR 4 TENSAS BASIN, (FC) ........... 2,344 2,344 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
LA 5 BOEUF AND
TENSAS RIVERS,
AR & LA
AR 1, 2 WHITE RIVER (FC) ........... 964 964 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
BACKWATER, AR
AUTHORIZED STUDIES
ILLINOIS:
IL 12 MISSISSIPPI (FDP) \1\ 100 30 30 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
MO 8 RIVER,
ALEXANDER
COUNTY, IL AND
SCOTT COUNTY,
MO
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
ILLINOIS:
INSPECTION OF (FC) ........... 45 45 .................................................... .........
COMPLETED
WORKS, IL
CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS
KENTUCKY:
KY 1 HICKMAN BLUFF, (FC) \1\ 19,810 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
KY
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
KENTUCKY:
INSPECTION OF (FC) ........... 25 25 .................................................... .........
COMPLETED
WORKS, KY
KY 1 LAKE NO 9 (FC) ........... .............. .............. PERIODIC MAITNENANCE OF PUMPING PLANT NOT CURRENTLY .........
TN 8 PUMPING PLANT, REQUIRED.
KY
AUTHORIZED STUDIES
LOUISIANA:
LA 3, 5, 6, 7 ALEXANDRIA, LA (FDP) 3,150 700 700 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
TO THE GULF OF
MEXICO
LA 6 DONALDSONVILLE (FDP) 3,500 250 250 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
TO THE GULF, LA
LA 5 SPRING BAYOU, (SPE) 100 .............. 100 INITIATE RECONNAISSANCE PHASE OF STUDY.............. .........
LOUISIANA
LA 6 WEST BATON ROUGE (SPE) 2,100 .............. 100 INITIATE RECONNAISSANCE PHASE OF STUDY.............. .........
PARISH, LA
PRECONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING AND
DESIGN
LOUISIANA:
LA 6 LA STATE PEN (FC) 424 .............. .............. FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
LEVEE
LA 3, 5, 6, 7 MORGANZA, LA TO (FC) 2,025 700 700 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
THE GULF OF
MEXICO
CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS
LOUISIANA:
LA 3, 4, 5, ATCHAFALAYA (FC) \1\ 185,000 7,500 (C) 8,000 (C) ADVANCE LAND ACQUISITION ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 500
6, 7 BASIN, FLOODWAY 9 MONTHS.
SYSTEM, LA
LA 3, 4, 5, ATCHAFALAYA (FC) \1\ 1,720,0 19,750 (C) 23,750 (C) ADVANCE BAYOU YOKELY PUMPING STATION 9 YEARS........ 2,000
6, 7 BASIN, LA 00 INITIATE LEVEE ENLARGEMENT CONTRACT, 2ND LIFT--ITEMS 2,000
W46 & W52.
------------
4,000
LA 6 LOUISIANA STATE (FC) 19,500 3,000 (C) 9,000 (C) ADVANCE LEVEE UPSTREAM CAMP C 12 MONTHS--CONTRACT # 2,200
PENITENTIARY 1. 2,200
LEVEE, LA ADVANCE LEVEE UPSTREAM CAMP C CONT 2 12 MONTHS-- 1,600
CONTRACT # 2.
ADVANCE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE CONTRACT 6 MONTHS ADVANCE
PROJECT COMPLETION 1 YEAR.
------------
6,000
LA 1, 2, 3 MISSISSIPPI AND (FC) \1\ 66,900 100 (C) 100 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
MS 5 LOUISIANA
ESTUARINE
AREAS, LA & MS
LA 3 MISSISSIPPI (FC) \1\ 99,200 10,400 (C) 11,884 (C) ADVANCE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RR CONTRACT 6 MONTHS.... 706
DELTA REGION, ADVANCE DIVERSION STURCTURE CONTRACT 6 MONTHS....... 778
LA
------------
1,484
TENSAS BASIN, (FC) (166,900) (8,930) (C) (9,930) (C) ADVANCE AWARD ITEM 1C............................... 469
RED RIVER ADVANCE AWARD ITEM 1D............................... 375
BACKWATER, LA PURCHASE LANDS...................................... 156
NO IMPACT ON PROJECT COMPLETION.....................
------------
1,000
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
LOUISIANA:
LA 3, 4, 5, ATCHAFALAYA (FC) ........... 644 1,702 REFOREST FOR HABITAT REQUIREMENTS AND FULLY FUND 143
6, 7 BASIN, FLOODWAY EXISTING CONTRACT.
SYSTEM, LA REPAIR INTERIOR ROADS AND CONSTRUCT NEW TRAILS...... 276
PROCURE SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR PEST AND FOREST 354
MANAGEMENT.
CONSTRUCT ACCESS POINTS TO LANDS AND PROVIDE SAFETY 285
& HANDICAPPED FEATURES TO FACILITIES.
------------
1,058
LA 3, 4, 5, ATCHAFALAYA (FC) ........... 10,560 14,925 REPLACE GUIDEWALL AT BERWICK LOCK................... 500
6, 7 BASIN, LA REPLACE SOUTHWEST GUIDEWALL AT BAYOU BOEUF LOCK..... 1,750
REPLACE SOUTHWEST GUIDEWALL AT SORREL LOCK.......... 525
REPLACE NORTHWEST GUIDEWALL AT BAYOU SORREL LOCK... 1,170
REPAIR WEST CHAMBER GUIDEWALL AT BAYOU SORREL LOCK..
420
------------
4,365
LA 4, 5, 6, 7 BATON ROUGE (N) ........... 157 157 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
HARBOR, DEVIL
SWAMP, LA
LA 4, 5, 6, 7 BAYOU COCODRIE (FC) ........... 101 101 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
AND
TRIBUTARIES, LA
LA 1, 2, 3 BONNET CARRE, LA (FC) ........... 1,068 1,068 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
INSPECTION OF (FC) ........... 373 373 .................................................... .........
COMPLETED
WORKS, LA
LA 4, 5, 6 LOWER RED RIVER, (FC) ........... 84 3,034 INITIATE CONSTRUCTION OF BAYOU RAPIDES REPLACEMENT 2,950
SOUTH BANK STRUCTURE.
LEVEES, LA
AR 1, 2, 4 MAPPING (FC) ........... 1,117 1,117 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
KY 1
LA 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7
MO 8, 9
MS 1, 2, 3, 4
TN 7, 8, 9
LA 3 MISSISSIPPI (FC) ........... 436 591 OPERATION OF DAVIS POND PUMPING STATION............. 155
DELTA REGION,
LA
LA 3, 5, 6, 7 OLD RIVER, LA (FC) ........... 4,027 8,110 ACQUIRE EXHIBITS FOR VISITOR CENTER................. 1,208
REPLACE ELECTRICAL WIRING AT OLD RIVER LOCK......... 150
CONSTRUCT NEW SHOP BUILDING AT THE OLD RIVER COMPLEX 700
SAND BLAST AND PAINT GANTRY CRANE...................
REPLACE CREOSOTE NEEDLES AT THE OVERBANK STRUCTURE.. 430
REPLACE MITER GATES AT OLD RIVER LOCK............... 250
1,345
------------
4,083
AR 4 TENSAS BASIN, (FC) ........... 2,927 2,927 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT RIVER BACKWATER, LA....... .........
LA 5 RED
CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS
MISSISSIPPI:
MS 1 HORN LAKE CREEK (FC) \1\ 3,120 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
TN 9 & TRIBUTARIES
(INCL COW PEN
CREEK), MS & TN
MS 1, 2 YAZOO BASIN-- (FC) 1,740,246 24,279 (C) 40,985 (C) .................................................... .........
OVERALL
YAZOO BASIN, (FC) (38,954) (0) (C) (0) (C) FUNDED AS PART OF TRIBUTARIES ASCALMORE-TIPPO-OPOS .........
SUM, MS.
YAZOO BASIN, (FC) (18,505) (0) (C) (0) (C) COST SHARING AND FINANCING BY LOCAL................. .........
BACKWATER--ROCK
Y INTEREST IS
UNAVAILABLE
BAYOU AREA, MS
YAZOO BASIN, (FC) (254,491) (20) (C) (20) (C) FUNDED AS PART OF THE YAZOO ACKWATER UNIT........... .........
BACKWATER LESS
ROCKY BAYOU, MS
YAZOO BASIN, (FC) (97,840) (500) (C) (1,000) (C) ADVANCE DESIGN ON YAZOO REFORMULATED PLAN NO IMPACT 500
BACKWATER PUMP, ON COMPLETION OF UNIT.
MS
YAZOO BASIN, BIG (FC) (109,383) (3,915) (C) (4,415) (C) PURCHASE MITIGATION LANDS SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS....... 500
YAZOO BASIN, (FC) (161,439) (0) (C) (0) (C) COMPLETED WORK......................................
COMPLETED
UNITS, MS
YAZOO BASIN, (FC) (244,284) (6,294) (C) (20,000) (C) INITIATE & COMPLETE:................................
DEMONSTRATION 1--FLOODWATER RETARDING STRUCTURE................. 1,363
EROSION 11--RISER PIPE CONTRACTS.......................... 2,777
CONTROL, MS 3--BANK STAB ITEMS................................ 962
4--BOX CULVERT CONTRACTS.......................... 616
6--LOW DROP CONTRACTS............................. 1,102
REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION, MONITORING, E&D AND S&A.. 6,886
NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
------------
13,706
YAZOO BASIN, (FC) (7,511) (0) (C) (0) (C) FULLY FUNDED........................................ .........
F&WL MITIGATION
LANDS, MS
YAZOO BASIN, (FC) (194,431) (20) (C) (20) (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
MAIN STEM, MS
YAZOO BASIN, (FC) (32,408) (1,570) (C) (1,570) (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
REFORMULATION
UNIT, MS
YAZOO BASIN, (FC) (243,000) (340) (C) (340) (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
TRIBUTARIES, MS
YAZOO BASIN, (FC) (338,000) (11,620) (C) (13,620) (C) ACCELERATE CONST CHANNEL ITEM 4..................... 1,000
UPPER YAZOO PURCHASE MITIGATION LANDS NO IMPACT ON PROJECT 1,000
PROJECTS, MS COMPLETION.
------------
2,000
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
MISSISSIPPI:
MS 2 GREENVILLE (N) ........... 333 333 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
HARBOR, MS
INSPECTION OF (FC) ........... 193 193 .................................................... .........
COMPLETED
WORKS, MS
MS 2 VICKSBURG (N) ........... 199 199 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
HARBOR, MS
MS 1 YAZOO BASIN, (FC) ........... 3,265 4,865 REPAIR INTAKE STRUCTURE & TOE DRAIN SYSTEM.......... 800
ARKABUTLA LAKE, REPLACE UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS.............. 800
MS
------------
1,600
MS 2 YAZOO BASIN, BIG (FC) ........... 209 4,709 CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION OF BOGUE PHALIA............... 4,500
SUNFLOWER
RIVER, MS
MS 1 YAZOO BASIN, (FC) ........... 3,214 4,354 REPAIR OUTLET STRUCTURE & EMERGENCY SPILLWAY........ 500
ENID LAKE, MS REPLACE UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS.............. 640
------------
1,140
MS 2 YAZOO BASIN, (FC) ........... 946 946 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
GREENWOOD, MS
MS 1 YAZOO BASIN, (FC) ........... 4,280 6,580 REPAIR DAM BERM DRAINAGE SYSTEM..................... 800
GRENADA LAKE, REPAIR & RESURFACE ACCESS ROADS..................... 1,500
MS
------------
2,300
MS 1, 2 YAZOO BASIN, (FC) ........... 1,059 1,059 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
MAIN STEM, MS
MS 1 YAZOO BASIN, (FC) ........... 4,334 5,534 REPAIR OUTLET STRUCTURE AND TOE DRAIN SYSTEM........ 1,200
SARDIS LAKE, MS
MS 1, 2 YAZOO BASIN, (FC) ........... 1,269 1,269 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
TRIBUTARIES, MS
MS 3, 4 YAZOO BASIN, (FC) ........... 493 493 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
WILL M
WHITTINGTON AUX
CHAN, MS
MS 1, 2, 3 YAZOO BASIN, (FC) ........... 560 560 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
YAZOO BACKWATER
AREA, MS
MS 3 YAZOO BASIN, (FC) ........... 846 846 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
YAZOO CITY, MS
CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS
MISSOURI:
MO 8 ST JOHNS BAYOU (FC) \1\ 58,800 7,800 (C) 9,800 (C) ADVANCE COMPLETION OF NEW MADRID PUMPING STATION 12 2,000
AND NEW MADRID MONTHS.
FLOODWAY, MO
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
MISSOURI:
INSPECTION OF (FC) ........... 202 202 .................................................... .........
COMPLETED
WORKS, MO
MO 8 WAPPAPELLO LAKE, (FC) ........... 3,500 7,705 COMPLETE HIGHWAY D3 RELOCATIONS..................... 880
MO INITIATE CONTRACT FOR HIGHWAY D4 RELOCATION......... 2,975
OVERLAY ASPHALT GREENVILLE DAY USE AREA............. 100
MANTAIN NON-REC ROAD BELOW THE DAM.................. 150
REPAIR HOLIDAY LANDING ENTRANCE FORSAFETY........... 100
------------
4,205
AUTHORIZED STUDIES
TENNESSEE:
MS 1 MEMPHIS METRO (COM) 2,075 675 675 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
TN 7, 8, 9 AREA, TN & MS
PRECONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING AND
DESIGN
TENNESSEE:
KY 1 REELFOOT LAKE, (FC) 750 318 318 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
TN 8 TN & KY
TN 7, 8, 9 WOLF RIVER, (FC) 579 525 525 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
MEMPHIS, TN
CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS
TENNESSEE:
TN 9 NONCONNAH CREEK-- (FC) \1\ 18,400 2,500 (C) 2,500 (C) .................................................... .........
OVERALL, TN &
MS
TN 9 NONCONNAH CREEK, (FC) \1\ (131) (0) (C) (0) (C) LACK OF RECENT EXPRESSION OF LOCAL INTEREST......... .........
ENVIRONMENTAL
ENHANCEMENT, TN
& MS
TN 9 NONCONNAH CREEK, (FC) \1\ (17,941 (2,500) (C) (2,500) (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
FLOOD CONTROL 1)
FEATURE, TN &
MS
TN 9 NONCONNAH CREEK, (FC) \1\ (328) (0) (C) (0) (C) LACK OF RECENT EXPRESSION OF LOCAL INTEREST......... .........
RECREATION
FACILITIES, TN
& MS
TN 7, 8 WEST TENNESSEE (FC) \1\ 143,000 2,398 (C) 2,398 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT........................... .........
TRIBUTARIES, TN
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
TENNESSEE:
INSPECTION OF (FC) ........... 113 113 .................................................... .........
COMPLETED
WORKS, TN
TN 9 MEMPHIS HARBOR, (N) ........... 800 1,400 DREDGE HARBOR ADDITIONAL 800,000 CY BUDGET AMT IS 600
MCKELLAR LAKE, FOR 27 DAYS; 5 YR AVG IS FOR 42 DAYS; CAPABILITY
TN WOULD ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 20 DREDGING DAYS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: 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 2000 CAPABILITY AMOUNTS SHOWN CONSIDER EACH PROJECT OR STUDY 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 2000 IS THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT CONSISTENT WITH THE ADMINISTRATION'S ASSESSMENT OF NATIONAL
PRIORITIES FOR FEDERAL INVESTMENTS. IN ADDITION, THE TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED FOR THE ARMY'S CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM IN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET IS
THE MAXIMUM THAT CAN BE EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY USED. THEREFORE, WHILE WE COULD UTILIZE ADDITIONAL FUNDS ON INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS AND
STUDIES, OFFSETTING REDUCTIONS WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN OUR OVERALL BUDGETAR OBJECTIVES.
BUDGET AND CAPABILITY AMOUNTS REFLECT FEDERAL FUNDS, EXCEPT FOR PROJECTS WITH COSTS ALLOCATED TO NAVIGATION, FOR WHICH THE AMOUNTS INCLUDE
NON-FEDERAL FUNDING FROM THE INLAND WATERWAYS & HARBO MAINTENANCE TRUST FUNDS.
\1\ COST ESTIMATE INCLUDES AN ALLOWANCE FOR INFLATION THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.
operation and maintenance budget request
Question. Does this budget provide the funds necessary to
adequately operate and maintain the project and to respond to the
Corps' many challenges in this environmentally sensitive area?
Answer. The budget maintains the operations portion at current
funding level. We have funded the most critical maintenance in fiscal
year 2000. However, repeated reductions in the maintenance program
could delay, slow down or defer channel surveys, repair of levee
slides, repair of equipment, maintenance of flood control, navigation,
and salinity control structures, and maintenance of recreation
facilities. Reductions would also cause adverse impacts on commercial
navigation and related industries and local, regional, national, and
international commerce.
formerly utilized sites remedial action program
Question. Briefly, describe for the Committee the differences in
the Department of Energy's proposed accelerated clean up plan for the
FUSRAP program. How does the Corps' overall project costs and schedules
compare to the DOE accelerated cleanup plan?
Answer. In June 1997, the Department of Energy (DOE) developed a
draft accelerated cleanup plan, which showed that FUSRAP could be
completed in 2002. To achieve that completion schedule, the accelerated
plan 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. The draft accelerated
cleanup plan also was based on an estimate of the requirement at the
Luckey site which, it has since been established, greatly
underestimated the quantities requiring remediation. In addition, DOE
estimates did not include any requirement for remediating contaminated
ground water. 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. The Corps received only $140 million in fiscal
year 1998 and in fiscal year 1999, and has been allocated a ceiling of
$150 million a year, starting in fiscal year 2000, to complete FUSRAP.
We estimate that at this funding level, with a remaining requirement of
$1.1 billion, it will require until at least 2010 to complete the
program. The review of cost estimates, by site, which the Corps
completed during the 3rd quarter fiscal year 1998 confirmed that our
costs to complete are comparable to DOE's proposed accelerated cleanup
plan, when adjustments are made to compensate for the scope
differences. The Corps has also built new cost estimates from the
bottom up to validate our initial assessment in the Report to Congress.
These estimates fall within the range provided in the Report to
Congress.
Question. General Ballard, the Congress has directed DOE and the
Corps to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to carry out the
program and to eliminate any misunderstandings that may exist between
the two agencies as to the roles and responsibilities related to the
FUSRAP cleanup program? What is the status of the MOU and when do you
expect to have it finalized? What are the remaining sticking points in
working out a final MOU?
Answer. The Corps and DOE have entered final negotiations regarding
the MOU. I anticipate that the final agreement will be signed shortly.
All major issues have been resolved.
Question. Last year you indicated that the execution of the program
was not being hampered by your lack of regulatory authority, or the
lack of an MOU with DOE. Is this still true? Please explain.
Answer. It is still true that our execution of the program has not
been adversely impacted by our lack of regulatory authority under the
Atomic Energy Act or the lack of a memorandum of understanding with the
Department of Energy. As I testified last year, we believe that the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,
as amended, provides sufficient authority for the Corps to execute
FUSRAP. In addition, language in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 1999, clarifies Corps cleanup responsibilities
under FUSRAP.
Question. The Corps has been in charge of the FUSRAP cleanup effort
for about 18 months. Update the Committee on the Corps' progress,
particularly in maintaining cost and schedules since the Corps took
over the program. What are the most significant issues or problems you
now face in maintaining the momentum of the cleanup program? How does
your fiscal year 1998 performance compare to that which DOE had planned
to execute?
Answer. During fiscal year 1998, the Corps succeeded in maintaining
or improving on the schedules which it inherited when responsibility
for executing the program was transferred to the Corps. In a few cases,
the Corps developed slightly different schedules based on local
community involvement and optimizing available resources. We are in the
process of adjusting our schedules based upon our current funding
limitations.
Question. In your report to Congress last March, you indicated that
your assessment of the program would allow the Corps to complete 16 of
the sites transferred to you by 2002 with the remaining being completed
by 2006. Is that assessment still valid? Can you provide a more
definitive schedule and cost to complete the program?
Answer. That report provided technical capability without regard to
any fund constraints. We still believe that with funding to support
optimal schedules we could complete the remaining sites by 2006. In
order to do so, however, we would require an appropriation in fiscal
year 2000 of $264,000,000, in fiscal year 2001 of $217,500,000, in
fiscal year 2002 of $187,500,000, in fiscal year 2003 of $187,000,000,
in fiscal year 2004 of $376,500,000, in fiscal year 2005 of
$82,500,000, and in fiscal year 2006 of $22,000,000.
Question. What success is the Corps having in establishing clean up
standards at the various sites left to be addressed?
Answer. Each site has a set of circumstances unique to that
individual site, and requires considerable coordination with
stakeholders and regulators to establish the cleanup criteria. During
fiscal year 1998 the Corps completed two Records of Decisions
documenting final cleanup standards. We also completed documentation,
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA), to carry out interim
removal actions at five sites. Interim removal actions also require the
determination of an appropriate cleanup criteria. I believe that we
have been successful in establishing cleanup criteria which will permit
us to complete cleanup within the estimated range provided in the
Report to Congress.
Question. Since some sites are being completed, what is the process
for transferring those sites off of the government's books? Is this a
problem between you and DOE, if so, what is being done to resolve the
differences between the two agencies? Who will be responsible for long
term monitoring and site control once cleanup has been completed?
Answer. The Corps and DOE are in agreement that the Corps would be
responsible for site surveillance and maintenance during the first two
years following completion of remedial activities, while DOE will be
responsible for site surveillance and maintenance after the first two
years and for the long term. DOE will retain accountability for real
property during remediation and will be responsible for disposing of
government owned sites. Now that the broader issues have been resolved,
the Corps and DOE will develop specific procedures for documenting that
the cleanup at a site is complete.
Question. Now, just recently, DOE informed the Corps that an
additional area, the Dayton sites, is eligible for inclusion in the
FUSRAP effort. What can you tell the Committee about the potential cost
impact of the Dayton sites on the annual funding level for FUSRAP? How
many other additional sites are there that could be eligible for the
FUSRAP, and how will this additional cleanup requirement impact future
budgets?
Answer. At present I am unable to estimate the potential cost
impact of the Dayton sites. I have requested that our Great Lakes and
Ohio River Division develop a preliminary cost estimate based on
sampling data currently available, including information developed by
DOE in the late 1940's and by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA) just last year. We are aware of 18 potential new sites which
then Secretary of Energy Frederico Pena referenced in his letter to
Secretary of Defense Cohen around the same time when transfer of
Program execution to the Corps became effective. We have made no
attempt to estimate the potential impact of these sites on future
requirements.
program execution
Question. General Ballard, your statement indicates that the Corps'
expenditure performance in fiscal year 1998 increased by $400 million.
How do you account for this increase?
Answer. Senator, my commanders focused on execution. It is vital
that they carry out the work that you and the rest of the Congress have
assigned us. In fiscal year 1998 we had the added work of the FUSRAP
program and we had a substantial increase in expenditures for the
Construction, General program. A number of large projects are well into
their construction cycles thereby generating large expenditures.
Question. You also indicate that you expect to have another
improvement in performance in fiscal year 1999. How will you accomplish
this increase?
Answer. The majority of the increase will come in the construction
and maintenance programs. I have made it a top priority of mine to
execute the program that you have assigned us. It is then a top
priority of the Division Commanders and they are pressing hard to
accomplish the projects. In the operation and maintenance program there
is identified work that can and should be accomplished that will
require the expenditure of all available funds, about $150 million more
than fiscal year 1998.
In the construction program the divisions have laid out schedules
that will result in expenditures of almost $300 million more than
fiscal year 1998. My Commanders are continuing to seek ways to improve
their performance even more. The projects have been funded and we will
see that they are implemented to serve their intended purpose.
Question. What is the estimated level of unobligated carryover
balances into fiscal year 2000 that you don't expect to utilize, and
what is the reason for this level of carryover balance?
Answer. We have an estimated unobligated carryover of $724 million
in direct appropriations into fiscal year 2000. The majority of the
carryover falls into two appropriations, Construction, General (CG) and
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) appropriations. The
estimated unobligated Construction, General carryover is $447 million.
Most of this carryover is due to one or more of several reasons. The
most significant of these reasons are overly optimistic scheduling,
design delays, environmental problems, problems with local sponsor
financing, lack of local sponsor, delays in real estate acquisition,
insufficient authorization, sponsor requested protracted schedule,
fully funded multiyear projects, and contractor delays. Much of the
carryover is associated with projects that have had appropriations in
statutory language, which cannot be reprogrammed for use on other
projects when delays occur. Most of the funds appropriated to the FCCE
account are from emergency supplemental appropriations acts. The
current balance represents carryover of funds appropriated in the
fiscal year 1997 emergency supplemental appropriations act. This
balance has been used to fund the emergency preparedness program in
fiscal year 1999 and will be used to fund that program in fiscal year
2000.
Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works) Fiscal Year 1999 Projected
Unobligated Carryover
[Dollars in Millions]
SCHEDULED
DIRECT APPROPRIATIONS CARRYOVER
General Investigations........................................ 37
Construction, General......................................... 408
Operation & Maintenance, General.............................. 70
FC, Mississippi River & Tributaries........................... 12
Regulatory Program............................................ 4
General Expenses.............................................. 11
Flood Control & Coastal Emergencies........................... 177
FUSRAP........................................................ 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL................................................... 724
Question. General Ballard and General Fuhrman, what is the level of
deferred critical maintenance work in the civil works program?
Answer. The backlog of deferred maintenance items is currently
estimated at $1.6 billion.
Question. Is this of concern to you?
Answer. This is of major concern to me. In addition to our mission
as the nation's water resources problem solvers, we are responsible for
maintaining a very complex and diversified system of harbors,
reservoirs, hydropower facilities, locks and dams. So far, we have
managed to keep our aging infrastructure operating safely with minimal
down time. When maintenance is put off, it may not be noticed the first
year, but deterioration worsens with the continued exposure of project
features to the elements and normal usage. Eventually, conditions can
no longer be ignored and remedial action is necessary.
Question. Can you give the Committee an example of the type of work
which falls into the category of critical deferred maintenance and what
impacts would be on project operations or efficiencies if failure
occurred?
Answer. Some of our deferred work packages are as follows (a)
replacement of deteriorated miter gates at the Port Allen lock--if the
old gate sticks or breaks loose, the facility would be shut down; (b)
additional rip rap to bolster the Jackson Levees--failure to reinforce
weakened areas could result in a breach and extensive flooding; (c)
flushing the Los Angeles River subdrain system--a blocked system causes
excessive hydrostatic pressure on the concrete structure and possible
failure; (d) repair spillway gates and upgrade overhead crane at
Millers Ferry Lock and Dam--inoperable spillway gates threaten the
integrity of the entire embankment and the old crane is becoming
increasingly difficult and unsafe to operate; and (e) concrete
guidewall repairs on Okeechobee Waterway--defective guidewalls can
result in navigation traffic congestion and possible damages to
transiting vessels which could, in-turn, damage the lock structure,
causing a shut down.
Question. Has the Corps evaluated the problem and developed a plan
to address the issue?
Answer. I have asked each of the Corps Division Commanders to
personally evaluate his backlog situation and present to me a plan for
coming to grips with the issue. The backlog of deferred maintenance is
very dynamic in nature. As certain previously-deferred items become
critical, they are included in the budget or addressed with available
funds during the year of execution. By establishing a goal of expending
all of available O&M funds during the fiscal year managers at all
levels have been put on notice to take advantage of any available funds
for the purpose of reducing the backlog. Our fiscal year 2000 budget
includes some work that had been previously deferred, but at the same
time, new items have been added to the list. Although the backlog has
grown, the fiscal year 2000 budget request reflects a more favorable
balance between those work items added and those taken off the list.
south pacific division
acequias irrigation system, new mexico
Question. Last year, the Committee expressed concerns about the
progress being made on the Acequias Irrigation system rehabilitation
project in my State of New Mexico. In addition, the Committee express
the expectation that the Corps would strengthen its communication and
coordination efforts with State and local interests. What can you
report to the Committee in this regard?
Answer. The Corps has made significant progress in the last year in
streamlining our processes and strengthening coordination effort with
local stakeholders. First, with approval of the amended Project
Cooperation Agreement on March 8, 1999, we will no longer require
annual review and approval of this agreement by the Corps and our local
sponsor, the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. Second, the
amended agreement incorporates Section 215 crediting/reimbursement
provisions allowing the sponsor to design and build projects and
receive credit for this work toward project cost sharing. Third, the
amended agreement provides for 100 percent Federal funding of
``reconnaissance'' level studies of individual Acequia projects.
Finally, our environmental procedures are being streamlined through
preparation of a programmatic environmental impact statement in the Rio
Chama Basin. The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a draft
Coordination Act Report for the basin as well. We expect these changes
to accelerate project construction in the near future.
upper rio grande water operations model, new mexico
Question. The Committee requested a report, in consultation with
the Bureau of Reclamation, on the Corps' progress and plans to complete
the Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model in New Mexico. What is the
status of that report?
Answer. The report has been drafted and forwarded to our Washington
level headquarters. It will be forwarded to the Army and, subsequently,
to the Committee shortly.
Question. Funding was provided by the Congress for the current year
to award a construction contract on the Dushore, Sullivan County
Pennsylvania small project. What is the status of and schedule for
completing plans and specifications, and awarding the construction
contract of the project?
Answer. Following completion of a feasibility study for this
project at Loyalsock Creek, Borough of Dushore, Sullivan County,
Pennsylvania, in March 2001, the Corps of Engineers is scheduled to
initiate plans and specifications and these would be completed in
December 2001. A construction contract award is set for March 2002.
technical centers of expertise
Question. General Ballard, I have some question regarding a recent
policy directive you issued, which restructured the project approval
process for Technical Center of Expertise (TCX), and its specific
effects on the St. Louis TCX, the Center of Photogrammetric Mapping.
I understand, and I believe you are aware, General Ballard, that
the St. Louis Center received its TCX designation in 1995 in
recognition for the unique specialized expertise it had developed in
the area of photogrammetry, Geographic Information Systems (GIS),
Global Positioning Systems, civil engineering and remote sensing, among
others. Due to its expertise, the Center has developed a large non-COE
customer base and heavy workload, with a vast majority of these
projects short term and in the $50,000 to $150,000 range--which is
relatively small. Furthermore, almost 100 percent of the project work
is contracted out to the private sector, allowing for a significant
amount of firms to grow and prosper around this work.
General Ballard, as you are also aware, recently the Corps
restructured the process by which a Technical Center of Expertise can
do work for customers outside of its particular District. Is it now
necessary for the [St. Louis District Photogrammetric Mapping Technical
Center of Expertise] to receive approval from both Corps HQ as well as
the district in which the work is to be done, whether or not the work
is to be done in support of assigned Corps missions or for non-COE
customers? Is all this correct?
Answer. It is not necessary for a Center of Expertise (CX) to
obtain Headquarters approval to work for customers outside its
particular district. However, the Corps recently introduced a
requirement that there be coordination between division offices before
an activity, including a CX, in one division performs work outside the
geographical boundaries of that division. The Corps established this
requirement to ensure that division commanders would have complete
responsibility for the flow of work within their geographic area of
responsibility. This is central to the Corps regional business center
concept which we have established to maximize our organization's
effectiveness and efficiency in delivering services to our customers.
Question. Is it true that the nature of most of the projects, which
the St. Louis Center undertakes on behalf of non-COE clients, require a
high level of technical understanding as well as a rapid response
capability?
Answer. Much of the facility engineering and natural resources
photogrammetric mapping performed by the St. Louis District requires
highly skilled technical expertise; in many case a rapid response is
also required.
Question. Is this same level of expertise available elsewhere
within the Corps? If so, why was St. Louis designated a TCX in 1995 and
labeled the Center for Photogrammetric Mapping?
Answer. The St. Louis District was designated as a Technical Center
of Expertise in 1995 because of its superior combination of technical
expertise, project management experience, and contracting capability in
photogrammetric mapping. Under revised regulatory guidance, which
eliminated the Technical Center of Expertise classification, the
technical expertise of Photogrammetric Mapping Center has been
recognized through its listing on the Directory of Expertise (DX).
However, some other districts also have the technical expertise in
photogrammetric mapping and contracting experience sufficient to meet
many requirements.
Question. Has the restructuring of the approval process had a
negative effect on the ability of the Center for Photogrammetric
Mapping to respond rapidly, which, in the past, outside clients have
come to both expect and depend upon.
Answer. There have been some instances in which the requirement to
coordinate with another division in order to do work outside the
assigned geographical boundaries has caused delays in initiating aerial
mapping photography for customers. They can reasonably be expected to
diminish as Corps activities, including the CX, become familiar with
the new procedures, and develop and implement measures to streamline
the coordination process.
Question. Is it not true that, since implementation of the
restructuring, the project load of the St. Louis TCX has dropped off,
as clients have sought and found alternative contracting avenues
besides the Corps, such as the US Geological Survey and the Tennessee
Valley Authority, which are not restricted by a lengthy and
unpredictable approval process?
Answer. I am aware that there have been specific instances when
other activities have sought and found alternative contracting avenues
besides the Corps, such as the US Geological Survey and the Tennessee
Valley Authority, as a result of the requirement that the CX coordinate
with another division in order to do work outside the geographical
boundaries of its division.
Question. Do you believe that, as a result of a possible loss of
work, the inflow of funds will substantially decrease, thus restricting
the ability of the [St. Louis District] Center for Photogrammetric
Mapping to continually build upon its resource base and not even
increase, but maintain its technical edge?
Answer. I believe that the Photogrammetric Mapping Center may
experience some loss of workload in the short term as a result of our
requirement that use of the CX be coordinated across division
boundaries. However I am confident that over the long term, as a result
of providing superior service and streamlined approval procedures, the
TCX will be able to maintain a workload which will sustain the current
level of technical expertise.
Question. Hasn't this restructuring that you have ordered--
protracted response process, decreased workload and diminished level of
expertise--directly conflicted with the Corps strategic mission of
becoming more streamlined and responsive to non-COE clients, also known
as the ``Support for Others'' program?
Answer. While there have been delays in the processing of requests
for photogrammetric mapping support by the CX, I believe that the
number and length of these delays will decrease as Corps activities,
including the CX, become familiar with the new procedures and develop
and implement measures to streamline the coordination process.
Furthermore, I believe that, on balance, the Corps regional business
center concept will maximize our organization's effectiveness and
efficiency in delivering services to our customer.
Question. Is it correct that by taking the simple step of
reclassifying the St. Louis District Center for Photogrammetric Mapping
from a Directory of Expertise to a Mandatory Center of Expertise, the
Center would be recognized as possessing unique technical expertise and
management skills, and thus be allowed to perform work for others
without the restricting additional layers of review?
Answer. The St. Louis District's Photogrammetric Mapping Center has
previously been recognized as possessing unique technical expertise and
management skills through its listing on the Directory of Expertise
(DX). I fully expect this listing to be renewed. However, performing
work for others outside the Mississippi Valley Division's geographical
area of responsibility, without prior coordination with the division
having responsibility for the area where the work is located, would be
inconsistent with the regional business center concept.
Question. Is it not true that an internal Corps review of this
reclassification of St. Louis District] has indeed already been
conducted, with no adverse impact found on either the Corps or the
private sector?
Answer. The Corps initial Approval Request Report for a Mandatory
Center of Expertise designation for St. Louis District did not identify
any adverse impacts on either the Corps or the private sector. What was
decisive in this case, however, was the inconsistency of the MCX
designation with the concept of regional business process centers.
Question. Is it not also true that the reclassification process was
in its final stages as early as last November, receiving all of the
required civilian signatures and half of those needed from military
personnel?
Answer. There were differing opinions on my staff. That is not
uncommon. However, after weighing the pros and cons of the
alternatives, as presented by my staff, I decided that the best course
was not to designate the St. Louis District as a Mandatory Center of
Expertise.
Question. Why did this process come to a complete standstill?
Answer. The process did not come to a complete standstill. However,
because of the differing opinions on my staff, the process took longer
than might originally have been anticipated.
Question. The inability of the Corps leadership to reclassify the
St. Louis Center as a Mandatory Center of Expertise will clearly have
an adverse impact upon not only the Center, but all photogrammetric and
GIS activities that the Corps undertakes. Efficiency will be reduced,
increased personnel will be required and costs will rise--do you
believe that the Corps has sufficient resources and manpower available
to handle these increased costs and personnel?
Answer. Although there may be some initial impacts on the St. Louis
District's photogrammetric mapping program, I do not believe that there
will be a long term adverse impact on the St. Louis District nor an
adverse impact on the Corps as a whole. On balance, I believe that our
regional business center concept will increase our efficiency and
effectiveness in serving our customers.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
mississippi river and tributaries
Question. The budget request for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries program remains at $280 million, the same amount requested
for fiscal year 1999. What is the Corps capability for this program?
Answer. The Corps capability for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries program is $350 million.
Question. Is there a funding level for this account which will
obviate the need for earmarks, while allowing work to continue on
priority projects?
Answer. The President's budget for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries program in fiscal year 2000 is $280 million. The budget
would allow work to proceed on all projects, albeit not on optimal
schedules.
mississippi river levees
Question. What is the status of the ongoing work to address
deficiencies on the mainline Mississippi River levees?
Answer. Construction continues on the Mississippi River Mainline
Levee and Berm Enlargement project, to bring the levees up to grade and
otherwise assure the capability of the levee system to successfully
pass the project flood. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
was completed and a Record of Decision was signed on 5 October 1998.
Construction of most work items scheduled to commence in fiscal year
1997 and fiscal year 1998 has proceeded during preparation of the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and is either complete or
nearing completion. The Corps expects to award the next two
construction contracts in May and June 1999, for work items located in
Missouri and Mississippi. These work items represent levee enlargements
for the purpose of eliminating levee grade deficiencies at critical
reaches of the levee system. On 4 December 1998, EARTHJUSTICE Legal
Defense Fund, Inc., challenged the adequacy of the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement.
A hearing is tentatively scheduled for late May 1999. The Corps is
proceeding with planned fiscal year 1999 work, neither expediting nor
delaying work due to the litigation.
natchez, mississippi
Question. What is the status of work to address erosion on the
bluffs in and around the city of Natchez, Mississippi?
Answer. A portion of the top priority reach, Area 3, Clifton
Avenue, was constructed in 1997 by the Natural Resource Conservation
Service under its Emergency Watershed Protection Program. Construction
of the remainder of Area 3 is presently underway by the Corps of
Engineers and scheduled for completion later this year. A Project
Cooperation Agreement was executed in March 1998 and the construction
contract awarded in June 1998. Preparation of a Project Cooperation
Agreement amendment, supporting documents, and design covering the next
priority reach, Area 4, Madison Street to State Street, is currently
underway, and every effort is being made to accelerate activities to
award a construction contract for Area 4 this fiscal year.
Question. How much funding is needed within the existing
authorization?
Answer. Sir, through fiscal year 1999, $12,500,000 has been
appropriated. The total additional amount considered necessary to fully
fund the remaining authorized work is $7,049,000. This includes funding
the remaining work on Area 4, Madison Street to State Street at a cost
of $3,769,000; and the remaining two authorized reaches--Area 6, Bluff
above Silver Street, $1,110,000 and Area 7, Bluff above Natchez Under-
the-Hill, $2,170,000.
Question. What work needs additional authorization?
Answer. Sir, additional authorization would be required for the
Corps to construct additional features sought by the local sponsor,
which are: bluff stabilization measures in Area 1, Weymouth Hall, Area
2, Between Weymouth Hall; and Park Street; and Area 8, D.A. Biglane
Street. Bluff stabilization for Area 5, Silver Street has been
accomplished by the city, and no additional work or authorization is
required for this area.
Question. What is the estimated cost of this work?
Answer. The estimated cost of construction for Areas 1, 2 and 8 is
$13,935,000. This would increase the total first cost of the authorized
project from $26,065,000 to $40,000,000. The estimated Federal cost
would be approximately $30,000,000 and the estimated non-Federal cost
would be approximately $10,000,000.
jackson county, mississippi
Question. What is the status of the Jackson County, Mississippi,
water supply project?
Answer. Sir, the non-Federal sponsor, Jackson County, Mississippi,
is preparing the construction plans and specifications which are
scheduled for completion in April 1999. The Project Cooperation
Agreement is scheduled to be signed in July 1999. The construction
contract is scheduled for award in November 1999, with completion in
January 2001.
Question. How much funding is needed within the existing
authorization?
Answer. Sir, the existing funding authorization is $10,000,000. We
have received $9,200,000 to date through Congressional Adds. Therefore,
an additional $800,000 is needed to fulfill the existing authorization.
Question. What work needs additional authorization?
Answer. Sir, the project calls for expansion of the Jackson County
industrial water supply system in segments based on funding
availability. Jackson County has already constructed a portion of the
total project and desires to use Corps funding in the construction of
the remaining project.
Question. What is the estimated cost of this work?
Answer. Sir, the estimated cost of this work is $5,000,000.
coastal environmental impact study, mississippi
Question. It is my understanding that the Corps has undertaken a
coastal environmental impact study for the Gulf Coast of Mississippi.
What is the purpose and scope of this study?
Answer. Sir, The Mississippi Gulf Coast has been developed by the
casino industry at a greater rate than was envisioned by either the
State of Mississippi or the Federal agencies when Mississippi first
allowed gaming on navigable waters. As a result, existing casinos have
developed most of the coastline previously used for commercial and
industrial facilities. New casino applicants must obtain Department of
the Army permits to build in environmentally sensitive areas in
Harrison and Hancock Counties, MS. Additionally, other large projects
such as malls and subdivisions are also being proposed to locate in
these same sensitive areas. We believe it is necessary and timely to
undertake a Coastal Environmental Impact Statement (CEIS) to determine
the likelihood and number of additional casinos locating on the
Mississippi Gulf Coast in the future, estimate the numbers of other
large-scale projects, and do a broad study of the environmental
consequences of these future casinos and projects. The scope of the
CEIS is expected to encompass the coastline of Harrison and Hancock
Counties, and extend landward about one mile north of Interstate 10.
Question. What is the estimated cost of this study?
Answer. Sir, The estimated cost of this study is approximately
$750,000.
Question. Is the necessary funding included in the President's
budget?
Answer. Sir, the Regulatory Program fiscal year 2000 Budget request
includes $325,000, which is sufficient to continue this study effort.
Question. What is the schedule of work for this study?
Answer. Sir, the study will be initiated in June 1999, and is
scheduled for completion in September 2001.
demonstration erosion control
Question. Please provide a summary of all ongoing Demonstration
Erosion Control (DEC) projects in Mississippi. Please include total
estimated cost of each and funding to date.
Answer. The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Black Creek
Watershed is $3,495,000 of which $1,398,000 has been provided for work
on 1 riser pipe, 1 floodwater retarding structure and 2 bank
stabilization items.
The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Hurricane-Wolfe
Watershed is $375,000, of which $351,000 has been provided for work on
15 riser pipes.
The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Coldwater River
Watershed is $1,879,000, of which $1,094,000 has been provided for work
on 2 low drop structures, 3 box culvert, and 1 bank stabilization.
The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Abiaca Creek
Watershed is $2,308,000, of which $441,000 has been provided for work
on 1 levee and 1 riser pipe.
The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Batupan Bogue
Watershed is $2,615,000, of which $2,226,000 has been provided for work
on 2 low drop structures, and 3 bank stabilizations.
The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Cane--Mussacuna
Watershed is $439,000, of which $189,000 has been provided for work on
1 low drop structure.
The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Hotophia Creek
Watershed is $350,000, of which $325,000 has been provided for work on
1 low drop structure.
The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Otoucalofa Creek
Watershed is $1,876,000, of which $951,000 has been provided for work
on 1 channel improvement, 1 riser pipe, 1 low drop structure, and 1 box
culvert.
The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Yalobusha River
Watershed is $1,755,000, of which $1,618,000 has been provided for work
on 2 riser pipes, 2 low drop structures, and 3 box culvert.
The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Toby Tubby Creek
Watershed is $2,527,000, of which $275,000 has been provided for work
on 1 floodwater retarding structure, and 1 bank stabilization.
Additionally, $5,000,000 has been provided for engineering and
design, construction management, data collection and monitoring
activities, and approximately $850,000 has been provided for lands and
relocation activities which will be expended throughout these
watersheds.
In summary, work with an estimated total cost of $26,469,000 has
been initiated in ten watersheds. Of the total cost, $14,718,000 has
been provided through fiscal year 1999 with a balance to complete of
$11,751,000. The fiscal year 2000 budget request of $6,294,000 will
allow completion of all contracts scheduled for award in fiscal year
1999. The budget does not, however, propose to continue the program and
does not include funding for additional contracts in fiscal year 2000
or beyond.
Question. Please also provide a list of all DEC watersheds.
Answer. A list of the authorized watersheds in the Demonstration
Erosion Control project include: Black Creek; Hurricane-Wolfe;
Coldwater River; Abiaca Creek; Batupan Bogue; Cane-Mussacuna; Hickahala
Creek; Hotophia Creek; Long Creek; Otoucalofa Creek; Yalobusha River;
Pelucia Creek; Toby Tubby Creek; Burney Branch; Sherman Creek; and Town
Creek.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bennett
regulatory program--administrative appeal
Question. Why hasn't the Corps done as Congress and the President
instructed by creating an appeals program that allows for
jurisdictional challenges?
Answer. The President's budget for the last two years has included
funding requests for the Regulatory Program that provided for the full
appeals program. However, the appropriations for these years have been
significantly below the requests. The Corps has difficulty maintaining
its staffing levels in the districts to cover the basic program
services. At the appropriations levels enacted, the Corps could not
implement the full appeals program without making significant
reductions to the basic services. The Corps has worked hard to improve
its regulatory services to the public and does not want those services
to be degraded.
Question. What has the Corps done with the monies (both fiscal year
1998 and fiscal year 1999) that were specifically earmarked, at the
request of the Corps, for the implementation of the administrative
appeals process?
Answer. The Army budgeted for the administrative appeals process in
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 but did not request that the
funds be earmarked. The Appropriations Committee report language stated
the intentions of the Committee to have a full appeals process
implemented. However, the appropriations we received in the fiscal
years you mention were well below the President's budget requests which
would have funded the full appeals process without sacrificing services
to the public. More citizens depend on our responsiveness to their
permit applications than the number that would use the appeals process.
The Regulatory Program is a labor-intensive program and, as such,
requires a 2-3 percent increase in funds each year just to maintain
staffing levels. Most of the Regulatory funds in these years was
prudently used to maintain staffing levels of the districts in order to
continue providing timely, equitable services to the public. In fiscal
year 1999, we have been able to set aside some funds for the appeals of
permit denials and conditions which will become effective on August 6,
1999.
Question. One of the purposes of the 1993 wetlands plan is that the
regulatory program must be efficient, fair, flexible and predictable,
and must be administered in a manner that avoids unnecessary impacts
upon private property and the regulated public. The administrative
appeal was designed to ``increase fairness in the wetlands permitting
process.'' Yet the Corps has implemented an appeals program that is
opposed by the regulated community and only increases the burden on
private property owners. Why has the Corps implemented an appeals
program that contradicts the Presidents instructions?
Answer. The Corps has heard from members of the regulated community
that they are pleased we have an appeals process for permit denials and
conditions going into effect this year. Many in the development
community wish we had gone further and adopted the appeals process for
jurisdictional determinations as well. However, at five times the cost
of appeals of denials and conditions, the cost of jurisdictional
appeals has not made its implementation feasible.
The President's budget requests have included the funds for a full
appeals process and they have been specific as to the costs required to
fund it. These requests also included funds to maintain current staff
in order to ensure other services do not decline. In the fiscal year
1998 appropriation, there was a program increase equivalent to the cost
of the appeals program, but no funds were provided to cover the labor
cost increases needed to maintain the rest of the regulatory program.
After three years of level funding at $101 million, the program was
unable to maintain its staffing level and even today the districts have
many vacancies. We believe that we would have unfairly sacrificed the
basic services of the program (e.g., timely decisions and protection of
the environment) and reversed the progress made to improve these
services if we had set aside $5 million for jurisdictional appeals that
would benefit fewer members of the public.
Question. In fiscal year 1997, the Corps acted on 65,138 Section
404 permit applications. Out of those, there were only 28 individual
permit denials. As the Corps has most recently indicated that it plans
to only implement a partial administrative appeals process for only
permit denials, the Corps appears prepared to spend about $180,000 per
permit denial. Meanwhile, property owners who disagree with the Corps
over their jurisdictional determinations will still have to spend over
a year in the permitting process before having ability to challenge the
decision in court. Please justify the Corps decision to focus both its
regulatory efforts and increased budget on a program already subjected
to direct judicial review and how you believe this to be a fair an
equitable process.
Answer. While we have supported the implementation of
administrative appeals, the problem has been the affordability of a
full appeals process and its impacts on the other parts of the
Regulatory Program. Our cost estimate for appeals of permit denials and
conditions is $1 million per year. The cost to implement a
jurisdictional appeals process is estimated to be $5 million. To have
dedicated $5 million from an already austere program for the full
process would have meant shortages of regulatory personnel in the
districts. This would have meant cutting back on other services. The
program impacts a sizable segment of the public through its permit and
enforcement-resolution programs. While everyone recognizes the
advantages of jurisdictional appeals, it does not make sense to cut
basic services in order to spend money on an activity which would
benefit a much smaller group.
A wetland delineation does not restrict an applicant from using his
or her property. He or she has to apply for a permit if the activity is
in a wetland. The Corps' performance goal is to evaluate permit actions
within 60 days, and the most recent analysis or performance data showed
that this goal is achieved 95 percent of the time. If the permit is
disapproved, or approved with certain conditions, then the applicant
can bring a lawsuit against the Corps to challenge the delineation. In
addition to 31 permit denials in fiscal year 1997, there also were
5,000 permits issued that were subject to conditions. These will be
subject to the existing appeals process.
Everyone agrees that the appeals process is less expensive and less
time consuming than litigation. The Corps' experience has been that
most applicants are satisfied with a fair hearing in the local Corps
district office, even if they do not get the result they want. We want
the permit process to be fair and equitable to our citizens and we do
not believe that litigation is the best way to resolve most
differences.
Question. As indicated in the 1999 Conference Report, the
implementation of an administrative appeals process for only permit
denials is unacceptable. Furthermore, the Conference Report language
directs the Corps to demonstrate its progress in implementing a full
administrative appeal process when it requests its fiscal year 2000
budget. Why has the Corps recently insisted that it will only implement
a program that addresses permit denials and stated publicly that it
needs more money to implement a full program, against the express
instructions of Congress?
Answer. The Army's position is to support Committee report language
as fully and as best as we can, within the resources provided in
appropriation acts. However, the appropriations we received in recent
years were well below the President's budget requests. To have
dedicated $5 million from our already austere program for the full
process would have meant shortages of regulatory personnel in the
districts. The public would suffer because, with fewer team members to
evaluate permit applications, backlogs would grow and private citizens
and businesspersons would have to wait longer to receive a permit. The
permit program serves more citizens than would the appeals program so
we decided that a phased implementation would work best for the program
and the public. We believe that we would be doing the Nation a
disservice by drastically curtailing or eliminating the other program
activities in order to implement fully the administrative appeals
program.
We have complied with the Congressional direction in the Committee
report language as best as we could, consistent with our commitment to
provide fair and responsive services to the public. The final
regulation for appeals of permit denials and conditions was published
in the Federal Register on March 9, 1999, with an effective date of
August 6, 1999. Permit denials and conditions made on or after March 9,
1999 are subject to this appeals process. The August implementation is
necessary to recruit and train the appeals staff.
The process for the appeals of jurisdiction determinations is more
complex and labor intensive. With the levels of funding for the
Regulatory Program in recent years, the Corps has been unable to start
up this part of the appeals process without compromising its services
to the public. However, the Corps is making progress on drafting a
jurisdictional appeals regulation and should be able to implement
appeals of jurisdictional determinations in early fiscal year 2000 if
the requested funds are appropriated.
______
Questions Submitted by Burns
regulatory program
Question. I am concerned about the Army Corps of Engineers new
final rule on administrative appeals to Section 404 permits as
published in the March 9 Federal Register. As I recall, the President,
in his Wetlands Plan of 1993, directed the Army Corps of Engineers to
establish an administrative appeals process for Section 404 permits.
However, I understand that the final rule on administrative appeals
will deal only with appeals of denied Section 404 permits, not appeals
of jurisdictional determinations. Lacking this later provision disturbs
me especially since Congress rejected this notion last year of not
allowing the public to appeal jurisdictional determinations of the
Corps. Why do you insist on not allowing such appeals when you stated
in your March 10 testimony that you allow these types of appeals with
the fiscal year 2000 budget?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the
Regulatory Program includes funds for implementation of an appeals
program for jurisdiction determinations. It would be implemented by a
separate regulation published in the Federal Register. In fiscal year
1999, the Corps is implementing a system for appeals of permit denials
and conditions within the appropriation of $106 million.
The Corps has worked very hard to improve its services to the
public and run a program that is fair to landowners and commercial
developers while still protecting wetlands. If the Corps were to go
ahead with jurisdiction appeals in fiscal year 1999 at the current
funding level, many basic permit evaluation and related services would
have to be reduced to cover the costs of jurisdiction appeals. I would
not like to see these services degraded. An appeals process for
jurisdiction determinations is another step in the right direction, but
the Corps needs the resources to implement it without sacrificing the
basic services which the public expects and deserves.
Question. You recall Congress's strong language in the fiscal year
1999 appropriations to the Corps that not including appeals for
jurisdictional disputes was unacceptable and that the Corps needed to
demonstrate its progress to implement a ``full administrative appeals
process'' with its fiscal year 2000 Budget request. You also remember
that $5 million was provided in fiscal year 1999 to implement this
administrative appeals process. Given this guidance along with the $5
million provided, why should not Congress rescind these funds given
your new final rule?
Answer. The Corps is drafting regulations for the jurisdiction
appeals which we hope to have completed this year for implementation in
fiscal year 2000. As I stated earlier, appeals of permit denials and
conditions will begin this year. The fiscal year 1999 appropriation was
the same amount as the fiscal year 1998 appropriation and both were
well below the requested amounts. The Regulatory Program has been
struggling to cover basic services for several years because
appropriations have not kept pace with the increasing program demands
and costs. The fiscal year 1998 increase of $5 million, the only
increase since fiscal year 1995, was used to cover basic labor-related
costs such as salaries, training of regulatory personnel, and travel to
permit sites. Overall staffing had declined due to three years without
a budget increase. The population that will benefit from the appeals
program is small compared to the general public who depend upon the
Corps for permit evaluations, enforcement and resolution.
Question. If you believe lack of funding is part of the problem to
administer an appeals program for jurisdictional disputes, why haven't
you raised program fees to generate additional funds? What has been
done with the money previously allocated by Congress to begin
implementing a jurisdictional appeals process?
Answer. The President's budget includes proposed appropriations
language concerning regulatory permit fees. The Corps has not changed
its fee structure since 1977. The proposal in the President's budget
would authorize the Secretary of the Army to pursue reasonable changes
that the Corps would adopt following notice and comment rulemaking. The
objective is to consider changes that would make the fees more
equitable and reduce the net Federal costs associated with the
Regulatory program. Under the proposal, the revenues would be credited
as offsetting collections, not added to the Regulatory Program account.
The fiscal year 1998 appropriation of $106 million was an increase
of $5 million over the previous appropriations that had been held to
$101 million in fiscal year 1995, 1996, and 1997, all of which were
well below the President's requests. Most of the increase was used to
cover labor costs, including filling vacancies in the districts. As a
result of the level funding during these years, the Corps lost some
district staff and basic program services were being affected.
Because of the constrained funding, the Corps was not able to fully
satisfy the Appropriations Committee report language regarding
administrative appeals. In fiscal year 1998, however, the Corps did
begin steps to implement the program for appeals of permit denials and
conditions, at an annual cost of $1 million. To have dedicated $5
million for the full appeals process would have had too severe an
impact on the basic services.
Question. You are familiar with the recent decision by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in U.S. v. Wilson. In that case
the court found invalid the Corps/EPA rule which asserts federal
jurisdiction over an isolated wetland--a wetland not directly connected
or adjacent to interstate waters--on the basis that degradation of the
wetland could affect interstate commerce. The court required the
existence of an actual effect on interstate commerce before the Corps
could claim jurisdiction over the wetland. However, the Corps chose to
apply the court's holding only within the five states that comprise the
4th circuit: Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and
South Carolina. The result is a federal regulatory program that is
broader in 45 states and narrower in 5 states. How do you justify this
uneven federal jurisdiction? Why not apply the court's holding
throughout the nation? What is wrong with requiring a finding of an
actual connection to interstate commerce before the federal government
regulates private land?
Answer. While we agree that all states should be regulated
consistently, we do not agree with the court holding in the Wilson
case. We are currently considering issuing a regulation to clarify the
Clean Water Act jurisdiction for isolated wetlands that would be
applicable nationwide. The Fourth Circuit decision is only required to
be applied within the Fourth Circuit. In this regard, we have issued
interim guidance within the Fourth Circuit to comply with the court's
decision while we develop the national regulation. While documenting an
actual connection to interstate commerce would be possible in almost
all cases, this approach would result in substantial delays and
unnecessary work for the Corps and permit applicants.
Question. I understand the Corps has recently proposed to severely
restrict the use of streamlined permits for minor projects--so-called
nationwide permits--in wetlands near ``impaired'' waters, in ``critical
resource'' waters and wetlands, and in the 100-year flood plain. This
proposal is likely to halt many projects that are minor and routine,
but nonetheless important to public and private entities alike. Can you
tell me how much of the United States is in the 100-year flood plain?
Answer. The Corps estimates that approximately 8 percent of the
land area in the continental United States is within the 100-year flood
plain.
Question. How much of the 100-year flood plain is federal
jurisdictional wetlands?
Answer. The Corps estimates that approximately 35 percent of the
100-year flood plain consists of wetlands that are subject to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act.
Question. How much of the wetlands within the 100-year flood plain
are affected by authorizations under the nationwide permit program?
Answer. Nearly all of the 30 current nationwide permits that
authorize Section 404 activities could be used to authorize discharges
into wetlands within the 100-year floodplain. While all of the wetlands
in the 100-year floodplain could be affected by the NWP program, most
wetlands in the 100-year floodplain would not be affected by any
specific NWP authorization. During 1997, for example, 21,176 acres of
non-tidal wetlands were filled under general permit authorizations,
including NWP authorizations. Many of these non-tidal wetlands are
outside of the 100-year floodplain. We estimate that there are
approximately 55,000,000 acres of wetlands in the 100-year floodplain.
Therefore, only a small proportion of the wetlands in the 100-year
floodplain are filled as a result of activities authorized by
nationwide permits.
Question. What is the effect on flood control of the activities
authorized by nationwide permits in wetlands in the 100-year flood
plain?
Answer. Activities that result in permanent, above-grade wetland
fills in the 100-year flood plain will decrease the flood-holding
capacity of that floodplain. Unless that loss of flood-holding capacity
is mitigated, that 100-year flood plain will increase in area,
resulting in the flooding of a wider area during 100-year storm events
Question. How does this proposal square with Congress' intent
expressed in 1977 when it provided authority to allow nationwide
permits and that the nationwide permits program was to be an integral
part of the Section 404 regulatory program?
Answer. The proposal to prohibit the use of certain NWPs to
authorize permanent, above-grade wetland fills in the 100-year flood
plain is not contrary to the Congressional intent of 1977, because only
certain activities would be subject to this prohibition. Congress also
indicated that the NWPs were for activities that have minimal
individual and cumulative effects. This proposal will help ensure that
this standard is met. Some activities in the 100-year flood plain could
be authorized by other NWPs.
It is important to note that NWPs are optional permits. If the
landowner cannot comply with all conditions of the NWP, then he or she
can apply for authorization through the individual permit process, or
request authorization through a regional general permit, if such a
permit is available for the proposed activity. We are considering ways
to maximize protection of the 100-year flood plain capacity while not
unnecessarily restricting use of NWPs.
Question. According to the Corps' own data, in fiscal year 1997
under the nationwide permits program, about 16,000 acres were permitted
across the country--about 320 per state. In return, the Corps required
the restoration of 28,600 acres as mitigation for the authorized
impacts--about 572 per state. As a result, isn't there a net gain of
12,600 acres nationwide under the nationwide permits program--about 252
acres per state?
Answer. The data in your question is cited in the July 1, 1998,
Federal Register notice that contains the proposed NWPs to replace NWP
26. The figures, however, are for activities authorized by the Corps
through the standard permit process. For general permits, including
NWPs and regional general permits issued by Corps district offices, the
Corps required approximately 24,800 acres of compensatory mitigation
(including the restoration, creation, enhancement, and preservation of
aquatic resources) for approximately 21,400 acres of waters of the
United States lost due to activities authorized by general permits. The
net gain from activities authorized by NWPs and regional general
permits during 1997 was 3,400 acres. Since the Corps databases combine
impacts and mitigation figures for both NWPs and regional general
permits, the Corps cannot separate how much of the wetland losses and
gains are due to NWP activities. Also, some of the mitigation was for
preservation of existing wetlands.
Question. If there is this kind of gain of wetlands, rather than
loss, why are the restrictions proposed by the Administration
necessary?
Answer. Each year we spend over $7 billion for flood damages. As a
matter of policy we do not believe that we should encourage development
of our flood plains. The purpose of the proposed flood plain
restriction is to address concerns about public health and safety by
reducing the loss of life and property caused by flooding, safeguarding
sources of drinking water supplies, and protecting and restoring the
natural functions of the Nation's flood plains. It is important to note
that, although there is some wetland gain as a result of activities
authorized by general permits, wetland gain is not necessarily
providing additional flood-holding capacity or reducing flood hazards.
For example, wetland restoration, creation, or enhancement activities
required for wetland losses in the 100-year flood plain that are
authorized by general permits may be conducted off-site and outside the
100-year flood plain.
Question. According to the Corps' own data, mining activities under
the new proposed nationwide permit for mining activities will impact
145 acres of wetlands nationally, or 2.90 per state. If this is not a
minimal impact, what is? Why is it necessary to further restrict the
use of the proposed nationwide permit for mining activities?
Answer. Mining activities affect more than wetlands. These
activities can have substantial adverse effects on streams and
economically important fish species, such as endangered salmon, that
inhabit those streams.
Question. With respect to ``impaired waters,'' which is not defined
in the Administration's proposal, how many waters will be designated as
``impaired,'' and thereby off-limits to use of the streamlined
nationwide permits under this proposal?
Answer. Based on data in a report published by the Environmental
Protection Agency in 1996, approximately 252,000 river miles, 6.55
million acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, 4,730 shoreline miles of
the Great Lakes, and 11,155 square miles of estuarine waters in the
United States are considered ``impaired. `` According to this report,
few states have developed criteria to determine if the loss of wetlands
is the cause of the waters being designated as impaired. As for the NWP
restriction, the Corps is considering using the State lists, which are
produced in accordance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, to
determine which waters are impaired. The sources of impairment subject
to the NWP restriction include nutrients, organic enrichment resulting
in low dissolved oxygen concentration in the water column,
sedimentation and siltation, habitat alteration, suspended solids, flow
alteration, turbidity, or the loss of wetlands. We are considering
allowing the NWPs to authorize activities in impaired bodies of water,
provided the authorized activity, plus any required mitigation, results
in net improvement of the aquatic ecosystem of the impaired water.
According to this 1996 report, approximately 124,902 river miles
are impaired due to siltation, 97,147 river miles are impaired due to
nutrients, 69,391 river miles are impaired due to oxygen-depleting
substances, 48,573 river miles are impaired due to habitat alterations,
and 48,573 river miles are impaired due to suspended solids. For lakes,
ponds, and reservoirs, approximately 3.36 million acres are impaired
due to nutrients, 1.68 million acres are impaired due to siltation,
1.34 million acres are impaired due to oxygen-depleting substances, and
840,000 acres are impaired due to suspended solids. Approximately 311
shoreline miles of the Great Lakes are impaired due to nutrients and
311 shoreline miles of the Great Lakes are impaired due to oxygen-
depleting substances. For estuaries, approximately 6,340 acres are
impaired due to nutrients, approximately 3,458 acres are impaired due
to oxygen-depleting substances, and 1,729 acres are impaired due to
habitat alterations.
Question. Recent reports indicate that the Corps is about to
release a final rule establishing an administrative appeals process
within which to appeal decisions by the Corps. However, the reports
quote John Studt, Chief of the Corps Headquarters Regulatory Branch, as
acknowledging that the appeals process will not allow an appeal of the
Corps determination that one's land is ``wetlands'' subject to the
Corps jurisdiction. I'm concerned about that because right now I
understand that in order to challenge assertion of jurisdiction by the
Corps, the Corps requires a landowner to apply for a permit to use his
land, and only if the permit is denied can the landowner go to federal
court to challenge not only the permit denial, but the original
determination by the Corps that the land is a wetland. I'm also
concerned that the Corps is ignoring specific directions of the Senate
Appropriations Committee. The Committee provided funding for an
administrative appeals process for fiscal year 1998. The report
accompanying the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for fiscal year
1999, S. Rep. 105-206, states that the committee supports
implementation of an administrative appeals process ``including appeals
related to jurisdictional determinations'' (p. 76). My question is,
given these specific concerns and directives by the Senate, is the
Corps going to issue an appeals process that includes appeal of
determinations that a persons land is wetlands? And if not, why not?
Answer. Appeals of permit denials and conditions will begin in
fiscal year 1999. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request
includes funding for a full appeals process that includes jurisdiction
determinations. The appeals process for jurisdiction determinations
will follow, once the necessary funding is available. We want to
implement this initiative and urge Congress to provide this funding in
fiscal year 2000.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Craig
regulatory program--administrative appeals
Question. What has the Corps done with the monies (both fiscal year
1998 and fiscal year 1999) that were specifically earmarked, at the
request of the Corps, for the implementation of the administrative
appeals process?
Answer. The Army budgeted for the administrative appeals process in
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 but did not request that the
funds be earmarked. The Appropriations Committee report language stated
the intentions of the Committee to have a full appeals process
implemented. However, the appropriations we received in the fiscal
years you mention were well below the President's budget requests which
would have funded the full appeals process without sacrificing services
to the public. More citizens depend on our responsiveness to their
permit applications than the number that would use the appeals process.
The Regulatory Program is a labor-intensive program and, as such,
requires a 2-3 percent increase in funds each year just to maintain
staffing levels. Most of the Regulatory funds in these years was
prudently used to maintain staffing levels of the districts in order to
continue providing timely, equitable services to the public. In fiscal
year 1999, we have been able to set aside some funds for the appeals of
permit denials and conditions which will become effective on August 6,
1999.
Question. In fiscal year 1997, the Corps acted on 65,138 Section
404 permit applications. Out of those, there were only 28 individual
permit denials. As the Corps has most recently indicated that it plans
to only implement a partial administrative appeals process for only
permit denials, the Corps appears prepared to spend about $180,000 per
permit denial. Meanwhile, property owners who disagree with the Corps
over their jurisdiction determinations will still have to spend over a
year in the permitting process before having the ability to challenge
the decision in court. Please explain your justification for the Corps'
decision to focus both its regulatory efforts and increased budget on a
program already subjected to direct judicial review, and how do you
believe this to be a fair and equitable process?
Answer. While we have supported the implementation of
administrative appeals, the problem has been the affordability of a
full appeals process and its impacts on the other parts of the
Regulatory Program. Our cost estimate for appeals of permit denials and
conditions is $1 million per year. The cost to implement a
jurisdictional appeals process is estimated to be $5 million. To have
dedicated $5 million from an already austere program for the full
process would have meant shortages of regulatory personnel in the
districts. This would have meant cutting back on other services. The
program impacts a sizable segment of the public through its permit and
enforcement-resolution programs. While everyone recognizes the
advantages of jurisdictional appeals, it does not make sense to cut
basic services in order to spend money on an activity which would
benefit a much smaller group.
A wetland delineation does not restrict an applicant from using his
or her property. He or she simply has to apply for a permit if the
activity is in a wetland. The Corps' performance goal is to evaluate
permit actions within 60 days, and the most recent analysis or
performance data showed that this goal is achieved 95 percent of the
time. If the permit is disapproved, or approved with certain
conditions, then the applicant can bring a lawsuit against the Corps to
challenge the delineation. In addition to 31 permit denials in fiscal
year 1997, there also were 5,000 permits issued that were subject to
conditions. These will be subject to the existing appeals process.
Everyone agrees that the appeals process is less expensive and less
time consuming than litigation. The Corps' experience has been that
most applicants are satisfied with a fair hearing in the local Corps
district office, even if they do not get the result they want. We want
the permit process to be fair and equitable to our citizens and we do
not believe that litigation is the best way to resolve most
differences.
Question. As indicated in the 1999 Conference Report, the
implementation of an administrative appeals process for only permit
denials is unacceptable. Furthermore, the Conference Report language
directs the Corps to demonstrate its progress in implementing a full
administrative appeals process when it requests its fiscal year 2000
budget. Why has the Corps recently again insisted that it will only
implement a program that addresses permit denials and that it needs
more money to implement a full program, against the expressed
instructions of the Congress?
Answer. The Army's position is to support Committee report language
as fully and as best as we can, within the resources provided in
appropriation acts. However, the appropriations we received in recent
years were well below the President's budget requests. To have
dedicated $5 million from our already austere program for the full
process would have meant shortages of regulatory personnel in the
districts. The public would suffer because, with fewer team members to
evaluate permit applications, backlogs would grow and private citizens
and businesspersons would have to wait longer to receive a permit. The
permit program serves more citizens than would the appeals program so
we decided that a phased implementation would work best for the program
and the public. We believe that we would be doing the Nation a
disservice by drastically curtailing or eliminating the other program
activities in order to implement fully the administrative appeals
program.
We have complied with the Congressional direction in the Committee
report language as best as we could, consistent with our commitment to
provide fair and responsive services to the public. The final
regulation for appeals of permit denials and conditions was published
in the Federal Register on March 9, 1999, with an effective date of
August 6, 1999. The process for the appeals of jurisdiction
determinations is more complex and labor intensive. With the levels of
funding for the Regulatory Program in recent years, we have not been
able to start up this part of the appeals process without compromising
our services to the public.
milo creek
Question. Milo Creek flows under the communities of Kellogg and
Wardner, Idaho. During a rain on snow event in May of 1997, the creek
jumped its banks and burst through the city streets and yards. Raw
sewage ran down the streets and backed up into one home running through
its pipes and flowed out of the roof of the home. The situation is even
more complicated because the area lies within the Bunker Hill Superfund
site. The water running through the streets contained high levels of
heavy metals. The blood lead levels obtained for 1998 showed an
increase in children's levels in the direct area of the Milo Creek
project. The communities and the State chose Alternative D of the Corps
Reconnaissance Report Phase of 1995 for reconstruction and Phase I of
the project has been completed and they are going to bid for Phase II.
The COE has reviewed and commented on the Phase I and is awaiting bids
for Phase II. However, the COE has not financially participated in the
project. The communities are currently short of funds and with the high
snow pack (150 percent of normal) they are expecting another flooding
situation. If the project can't be completed this year, the potential
for additional health and environmental related damages is likely to
occur.
As the COE has been committed to the Milo Creek project through
their studies, can you apply the money that has been held for the Milo
Creek project and use the money for the Phase II portion of the
project?
Answer. There are no Corps funds being held for the Milo Creek
project. Also, the Corps has no authority to apply funds to continue
the construction of the State's project. The Corps conducted a
reconnaissance level study under its Section 205 authority to determine
if a viable solution existed that would solve the flooding problems.
While this study was favorable, it was only to recommend more detailed
feasibility studies. Following the flooding of 1997, local officials
decided not to continue with the more detailed study but focus on
addressing the immediate problems. This resulted in implementation of a
project by the State of Idaho.
The Corps could continue the project under the Section 205 program
if a local sponsor is willing to participate in continuing the planning
and design phases of the project, which could lead to the Corps funding
the Federal share of construction.
libby dam, mt
Question. My office has been working with the landowners in
Boundary County, Idaho. They have been experiencing ongoing
difficulties with the operation of the Libby Dam in Montana. When the
dam was built it was to be managed for flood control, power management
and recreation. Since that time the government has added management for
the Kootenai River sturgeon and salmon. The down river landowners have
experienced serious erosion because of water flows coming from the dam.
The levels of the river are kept higher year long allowing for
seepage to occur along the river causing additional erosion and crop
loss. This comes about from sturgeon requiring a higher flow during the
months of June and July, and salmon requiring faster water during
August.
As the requirements for Endangered Species affect the management of
the river, can you provide relief for the landowners during the rest of
the year to allow their land to `dry out' prior to the onset of these
faster flows by adjusting river levels? Can the levels and flows be
maintained year round to protect agriculture from damages and erosion?
Answer. We regulate Libby Dam for flood control within our overall
operational constraints. The only time the land can `dry out' is
usually the latter part of March and early April. The flood control
operation of Libby Dam requires releasing water during the fall and
winter to assure that the reservoir has adequate flood storage space at
the onset of spring runoff. In years of higher than normal snowpack,
like 1996, 1997 and 1999, the Kootenai River is generally high from
November until March. Depending upon how large the snow pack is in a
given year, April may be the only opportunity to reduce flow in the
spring.
Regarding the levels and flows, operation of the Libby project is
constrained in large part because of the Corps of Engineers' commitment
to implement actions consistent with the Biological Opinions in place
under requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Current periods of
low flow may be from September through November. In a wet winter, flow
will be high from December through March, when April becomes the only
opportunity to reduce flow.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Reid
construction, general--continuing authorities
Question. In your statement, Dr. Westphal, you request $1.24
billion for the Construction General Program. Is this funding for new
studies under the Continuing Authorities Program or completion of
projects already in construction?
Answer. The $1.24 billion request for Construction, General
includes $57 million for the Continuing Authorities Program. This
amount is sufficient to allow a balanced program of study, design and
construction, including both continuation of projects underway and new
starts.
Question. You mention only one new ``survey''. I'm assuming this is
a reconnaissance study. I understand that there may be a backlog in the
General Investigation Program, has there been a decrease in requests
from local agencies and interests for new surveys?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $100,000 for
one new start reconnaissance section 905b analysis. The new start
surveys are being constrained to allow the backlog of projects
approaching construction to be reduced. The number of requests for new
start surveys has not decreased.
harbor services fund
Question. In your statement, Mr. Secretary, you state that you will
be pursuing Harbor Services Fund legislation separately from WRDA 99.
When do you propose to send it to Congress?
Answer. I plan to send the legislative proposal to Congress in
April.
challenge 21 program
Question. Do you have any projects being considered under the new
Challenge 21 program anticipated in Water Resources Development Act of
1999?
Answer. More than 50 potential sponsors of Challenge 21 projects
have been identified. However, none has been formally selected yet.
Regarding WRDA 99, it is not our intent to budget for specific
Challenge 21 projects, but rather to treat this as a program in which
projects would be proposed and funded throughout the year.
Question. Do you have a selection criteria established for projects
that will
be considered under this program?
Answer. Basically, all floodplains are eligible for the Challenge
21 initiative. Candidate projects must show the potential to both
reduce flooding and restore riverine ecosystems. Priority will go to
projects with strong local support and potential to include other
Federal, non-Federal, and non-profit agencies in implementation of the
project. More specific selection criteria will be established when
funds are appropriated.
Question. You do not mention the Project Cooperation Agreements and
reimbursement issue in your statement, but I would like to know whether
you see this as a problem with future financing of projects? Without
closure in the Congressional committees regarding this issue, should
negotiations continue on Project cooperation Agreements with
reimbursement as a component with non- Federal entities?
Answer. Yes, reimbursements could become a problem in the future if
the amount continues to grow each year. There is a potential that the
Corps could become a primarily a grant agency in some districts with
large reimbursable type projects. We are concerned about the potential
loss of technical expertise within districts as the number of
reimbursement type projects increases. We want to work with Congress to
resolve this problem, but it is the prerogative of Congress to make the
decision on whether or not to continue to undertake such projects. Our
current practice is not to begin negotiation of an agreement involving
non-Federal work or advanced funds that could require possible future
Federal appropriations until we have coordinated the request within the
Administration and with the Appropriations Committees.
Question. In your statement, you say that you have fully
implemented the Project Management concept and are streamlining the
planning process to ensure completion of studies within budget and on
schedule. Is your agency prepared to delegate the responsibility and
authority to Division/District levels so that steps can be taken to
fulfill this commitment?
Answer. We have model feasibility cost sharing agreements, which if
signed without deviation, require no review at higher level in the
Corps. If the sponsor requests deviations from the model, the agreement
does require additional review.
Improving our project delivery process is an ongoing concern of
mine. Over the past several years we initiated a number of process
improvements to reduce the time required to take a project through the
planning, design, and construction process. We will continue to improve
and refine our process in the future but there is only so much that can
be done within the current authorization/appropriation process. A
recent review of our process by the National Research Council
determined that `` * * * the Corps project planning procedures are
generally sound and not excessively lengthy when compared to private
sector planning studies.'' There are, however, areas where the Congress
can help us further streamline the process. I am prepared to work with
you to further expedite and improve our project delivery process.
Question. In your statement, you mention that changes to the
Continuing Authorities Program recommended by a process action team
will be implemented. Currently, sponsors are not required to provide
cash until the construction phases of a project. How will your changes
affect small jurisdictions (Nevada) with limited funds for upfront
contribution?
Answer. Under the traditional Continuing Authorities Program, after
the first $100,000, sponsors currently provide 50 percent of the cost
of the feasibility study at the time of the feasibility study. Under
the environmental authorities, S.1135 and S.206, the total study cost
is Federally funded and then cost-shared at the time of construction.
The current proposal would create a single project development process
that captures some elements of each existing process. Cost-sharing
would be initiated during planning on all projects; however, it would
be at the more favorable construction cost-sharing percentage for all
authorities. This will create a simpler and more equitable process for
all sponsors under all authorities. We believe that local sponsors who
have provided 50 percent of the feasibility cost for S.205 small flood
control projects in the past would be satisfied with this proposed
change.
restructuring of headquarters and division offices
Question. In your statement, you reference the reorganization of
Headquarters and Division offices. You mention a staff reduction of 14
percent from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 1999. Why is the General
Expenses budget request the same as last year?
Answer. The executive direction and management of the Civil Works
program, performed by the headquarters and division offices, plays a
key role in providing oversight and direction to our important civil
works mission. Staff reductions have permitted us to maintain an
appropriate level of executive direction and management with a constant
$148 million budget from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2000. Since
General Expenses is a labor-intensive account which requires personnel
cuts to absorb cost growth, this flat budget requires us to absorb
inflation, pay increases, and extraordinary expenses within the
operating base. The projected fiscal year 2000 inflation of about 3
percent plus the 4.4 percent in pay increases translates to
approximately $5.3 million of cost increases being absorbed.
regulatory appeals process
Question. In your statement, you recognize the struggle regarding
the Regulatory appeals process. You have requested an increase of $11
million. How will the increase in funding be used to remedy the
problems with the appeals process? Will you be adding staff to your
Regulatory field offices in order to process applications in a timely
manner?
Answer. Of the $11 million increase in the President's budget, $3
million is for labor cost increases and filling vacancies in the
district offices, and $5 million is for implementation of the appeals
process for jurisdiction determinations. Even without an appeals
process, the Corps must maintain staffing levels in the districts to
evaluate permit applications in a timely manner. This is the purpose of
the additional $3 million.
Additional staff will be needed, however, to process administrative
appeals for jurisdictional determinations. For appeals of permit
denials and conditions, which is being implemented this year, each
division office will have an appeals officer. More appeals officers
will be added, perhaps in the districts, to handle the appeals process
for jurisdiction determinations. Just as the Corps is committed to
evaluating permit applications in a timely manner, it plans to do the
same for appeals.
lower las vegas wash wetlands
Question. In Las Vegas there is an area known as the Lower Las
Vegas Wash Wetlands. The area feeds directly into Lake Mead and
therefore is significant to the ecology of the region. There are
significant water quality issues such as erosion and perchlorate
contamination in the Wash. Unfortunately, the Corps has budgeted only
$100,000 for this key environmental project. Could you give me a status
update on this project?
Answer. Our final reconnaissance report was completed in June 1998.
We have been working with the non-Federal sponsor, Clark County
Department of Parks and Recreation, to develop and finalize the project
study plan. The sponsor has been trying to identify a funding source
for its cost sharing of the feasibility study for several months and is
presently working with the Nevada Water Agency to secure the necessary
non-Federal funds. Although we have currently scheduled the feasibility
study to begin in August 1999, there remains a high level of
uncertainty regarding the source of non-Federal funds.
Question. Since there is a Lake Mead Water Quality Forum that
constitutes 21 members of the federal, state and local agencies, the
meetings of which are periodically attended by the Bureau of
Reclamation and Corps of Engineers, couldn't this project be a model of
the National Research Council recommendation regarding watersheds as
the basic planning unit?
Answer. Yes, the Lake Mead Water Quality Forum could be a model of
the National Research Council recommendation regarding watersheds as
the basic planning unit. The Lower Las Vegas Wash feasibility study
will focus on habitat restoration opportunities in the watershed.
Habitat restoration represents a specific component of the water
quality focus of the Lake Mead Water Quality Forum. Since the Clark
County Department of Parks and Recreation is a member of the Lake Mead
Water Quality Forum, there may be information that would be beneficial
to our study and theirs.
Question. The Water Quality Forum is moving toward the finalization
of proposals which they will be presenting my staff. Will the Corps be
able or willing to coordinate with the Forum as proposals are finalized
at the local level?
Answer. Yes, we will review and evaluate the proposals of the Lake
Mead Water Quality Forum to determine whether or not any of the
proposals could be pursued under existing Corps authorities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byrd
Question. Mr. Chairman, the President's fiscal year 2000 budget
request for the Corps of Engineers of $3.9 billion in new budget
authority is, generally speaking, much better than his budget request
for fiscal year 1999, but the request is still below the level enacted
for fiscal year 1999. While I am heartened that the Corps is receiving
some support from the Administration for its programs and projects, I
am concerned about the Corps; ability to carry out its critical
mission. These are difficult budget times, despite all of the media
hype about the projected budget surpluses, yet the Corps provides
crucial services to the nation in the areas of navigation assistance
flood mitigation, recreation opportunities, and power generation. I
look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member and other
members of the Subcommittee to ensure that sufficient funds are made
available for the Corps to continue its projects and programs.
In reviewing the specifics of the budget request for the Corps, I
note that the request proposes a decrease of 27 million in general
investigations and that this decrease will result in (1) less funds for
navigation, flood damage prevention and shoreline protection studies,
(2) reduced support for preconstruction engineering and design, (3)
lower levels of flood plain management, and (4) a decrease in research
and development.
Will these proposed program decreases for general investigations
have a negative impact on the long-term health of our economy, our
ability to protect communities from the ravages of floodwaters, or on
our quality of life?
Answer. No. I do not believe that the proposed program decreases
will have a negative impact on the long term health of our economy. We
will continue to address the flood damage reduction needs of the
nation's communities. Let me assure you that the Army Civil Works
mission continues to very much be in the business of addressing,
evaluating and solving the nation's water resource infrastructure
problems. We are simply proposing a pause in the new study start
program for the Corps this year in order to catch our breath and at
least put a sizeable dent in the number of projects currently in the
construction pipeline. I hope, if all goes well with the Corps program
in 2000 as well as with the economy and the budget in general, that we
can resume a higher new start program in the outyears.
I also note some major decreases are proposed in the construction
account for locks and dams, for local protection projects, for beach
erosion control projects, and for dam safety assurance projects.
Question. Will these program decreases proposed for construction
projects have a negative impact in the short term on our economy and on
flood protection?
Answer. The proposed fiscal year 2000 construction program
generally does not fund flood protection projects at their optimum
schedules and these projects would not be completed as expeditiously as
possible. In this context, there could be a negative impact on the
economy of an affected locality if flood protection were not in place
when a flood occurred.
Question. Won't the proposed construction decreases have the effect
of postponing the completion of many projects, delaying the benefits
that will be realized from their completion?
Answer. About 66 projects included in the President's budget would
be affected by the funding levels proposed for the fiscal year 2000
construction program. These projects would be delayed an average of 5
months from their optimum schedules. It is not possible to conduct a
definitive analysis of the delayed benefits because so many assumptions
about the future are required, and many of these decisions have not yet
been made. Let it suffice to say there are costs associated with
forgone benefits.
Question. Does the Corps of Engineers have construction
capabilities above the level proposed in the President's budget
request? What level of construction funding did the Corps include in
its request to the Office of Management and Budget?
Answer. Yes, the Corps has construction capabilities that
individually total about $2 billion. However, these capabilities
consider each project by itself without reference to the rest of the
program. The Army initially recommended a fiscal year 2000 program to
OMB that totaled $1.815 billion. This amount was later reduced to
$1.725 after enactment of appropriations for fiscal year 1999.
environmental projects and aquatic ecosystems
Question. While most activities of the construction account are
proposed for decreases relative to the fiscal year 1999 funding level,
two areas would receive modest increases: environmental projects and
work involving aquatic ecosystems. While these increases are quite
small, it seems noteworthy that while most construction activities are
slated for decreases, these two are proposed for increases. What work
is slated to be accomplished by the new funds recommended for
environmental projects and aquatic ecosystems?
Answer. Although the request for fiscal year 2000 for the Section
1135 and Section 206 programs is $5.7 million greater than the request
for fiscal year 1999, it is actually $7.2 million less than was
appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 2000 request of $13
million is just $1.2 million more than we expended last year in fiscal
year 1998. The $13 million will allow us to pursue a balanced program
of work, including continuation of over 300 projects underway,
coordination with local sponsors seeking new projects and initiation of
new projects.
Question. Does the President's budget request propose to increase
funding for environmental activities at the expense of navigation,
flood mitigation and control, and dam safety?
Answer. For the fiscal year 2000 budget, 28 port development
projects and activities are funded to meet optimum completion schedules
in accordance with the proposed Harbor Services User Fee which will
cover all construction costs. Amounts for 165 flood damage reduction,
inland waterways, and shore protection projects and activities which
rely on general tax revenues to finance their construction costs are
constrained to a level that is about two-thirds of what is needed to
maintain optimum completion schedules. The completion schedules for
these projects is similar to the completion schedules prepared for the
fiscal year 1999 budget. In addition, 9 high priority projects for
mitigation, ecosystem restoration, and other purposes are funded to
meet optimum completion schedules.
o&m increase
Question. What types of needs and costs will be covered by the five
percent increase for operation and maintenance.
Answer. While providing for the operation and maintenance of the
Corps projects at justifiable levels of service in all of the five O&M
business processes, (navigation, flood damage reduction, hydropower,
recreation, and environmental stewardship) it better enables us to
extend the useful life of our aging infrastructure.
Question. Does the proposed increase cover all of your anticipated
increases for operations and maintenance?
Answer. As I mentioned, we can continue to safely operate and
maintain our projects, however over the years budgetary limitations
have resulted in a buildup of unfunded maintenance work items. Since
that buildup has grown to be over $1.6 billion, we cannot conceivably
cover all of that work in one year. The increase has helped us to
address some items which had been previously deferred while minimizing
the number of new items to be added to the backlog.
impact of 2000 funding level
Question. What types of needs and costs will be covered by the ten
percent increase for the Regulatory Program?
Answer. The President's budget requests $117 million which is $11
million more than the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. The funds would
be used as follows:
Administrative Appeals Process.--Allows applicants to contest
regulatory decisions without going to court. In fiscal year 1999, the
Corps will be implementing appeals of permit denials and conditions.
The appeals process for jurisdiction determinations would be
implemented with $5 million in the fiscal year 2000 budget request.
Maintaining Program Performance.--About $3 million is required to
cover ordinary manpower cost increases and inflation. This is essential
to allow filling of vacancies so program performance does not decline.
At 90,000 permit actions in fiscal year 1998, workload is at an all-
time high. The fact that there was no funding increase from fiscal year
1998 to fiscal year 1999 has meant staff vacancies in the districts
cannot be filled this year.
Watershed Management Efforts and related area studies.--About $2.5
million in new funding would allow additional special studies of
sensitive areas with intensive developmental pressures. Study products
help predict permit impacts in a more comprehensive manner than is
possible on a permit-by-permit basis. Individual future projects can
then be evaluated much more efficiently and expeditiously, and some
management plans can result in shared regulatory responsibilities with
state and local governments, reducing duplication and delays.
Wetland Delineator Certification Program.--The Corps is developing
a national program for the training and certification of non-federal
individuals as certified wetlands delineators. Final implementation has
not occurred because of funding constraints; Start-up costs for full
implementation in all districts is approximately $500,000.
Question. Why is this increase needed for the for the Regulatory
Program?
Answer. Because the Regulatory Program is a people-intensive
program, the requested funds will continue the Corps commitment to
serve the public in a fair and reasonable manner while ensuring the
protection of the aquatic environment required by laws and regulations.
In fiscal year 1998, the Corps authorized 90,000 activities in writing.
With the number of permit activities increasing by at least 5,000 each
year, the President's budget request will ensure that this level of
service is maintained.
The Corps also will continue to pursue important initiatives.
Regional and nationwide general permits increase cooperation with state
and local governments and help streamline the regulatory process. The
Corps will establish an administrative appeals process for jurisdiction
determinations which, in addition to the appeals of permit denials and
conditions to be implemented this year, will allow the public to
challenge regulatory decisions without costly, time-consuming
litigation.
Question. Why is this increase needed for the for the Regulatory
Program?
Answer. Because the Regulatory Program is a people-intensive
program, the requested funds will continue the Corps commitment to
serve the public in a fair and reasonable manner while ensuring the
protection of the aquatic environment required by laws and regulations.
In fiscal year 1998, the Corps authorized 90,000 activities in writing.
With the number of permit activities increasing by at least 5,000 each
year, the President's budget request will ensure that this level of
service is maintained. The Corps also will continue to pursue important
initiatives. Regional and nationwide general permits increase
cooperation with state and local governments and help streamline the
regulatory process. The Corps will establish an administrative appeals
process for jurisdiction determinations which, in addition to the
appeals of permit denials and conditions to be implemented this year,
will allow the public to challenge regulatory decisions without costly,
time-consuming litigation.
marmet locks and dam
Question. Congress provided $6,500,000 last year for land
acquisition, detailed engineering, and design work associated with a
major lock replacement program at Marmet Lock and Dam along the Kanawha
River. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the project
is $9,800,000. The Marmet Lock and Dam is a major navigational
structure, responsible for moving millions of tons of cargo to and from
West Virginia every year. This major lock replacement project will help
maintain and increase the efficient flow of commerce.
Last year the Corps estimated that is would need to buy about 250
properties for this project. How many have been purchased to date, and
how many do you anticipate having purchased by the close of fiscal year
2000?
Answer. We have purchased approximately 35 properties so far, and
we will have purchased approximately 110 properties by the end of
fiscal year 2000.
Question. When do you anticipate that the land acquisition for the
project will be complete? When do you anticipate that the land
acquisition will be sufficiently far enough along that you can begin
construction?
Answer. The land acquisition will take through fiscal year 2002 to
complete. We will have completed sufficient land acquisition and design
by the end of fiscal year 2001 to initiate construction of the lock in
fiscal year 2002.
Question. How much money will be needed beyond fiscal year 2000 to
complete the project? What work will remain to be done?
Answer. An additional $264,200,000 is needed beyond fiscal year
2000 for continued engineering and design of the lock and appurtenant
features, acquisition of the 140 remaining properties, and construction
of the lock.
Question. Are there additional Corps capabilities at Marmet for
fiscal year 2000 above those identified in the President's budget?
Answer. The Corps has the capability, subject to the qualifying
language, to use an additional $1,550,000 to advance engineering and
design and land acquisition. This would accelerate project completion
by approximately six months.
Senator Byrd. Gentlemen, I am encouraged that the President's
budget for fiscal year 2000 includes support for this project for the
inland navigation system. Marmet has a strong benefit/cost ratio
because of the substantial value of the coal, chemicals, and other
products shipped along the Kanawha River and the Ohio system. While the
budget request indicates an increased level of support by the
Administration for this project, I would remind the Corps that many
people are affected by this project--not just those whose lives and
homes are being disrupted by the construction, but also all of the
people whose work depends upon the locks, the shipping, and the
products that go through Marmet. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all of
us to help move this project forward as efficiently as we can to avoid
any unnecessary delays.
greenbrier basin flood protection
Question. The Greenbrier Basin of eastern West Virginia is one of
the prettiest parts of the State and one prone to extensive flooding.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 authorized the Corps to
implement local protection plans to help mitigate damage from future
flooding. The fiscal year 1997 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act provided $500,000 for the design and implementation
of a flood warning system in the Greenbrier basin.
Has the Corps reached an agreement with the City of Marlinton on a
local protection plan? Have the details of the plan been worked out and
agreed to among the participants?
Answer. The Corps has been working with the City of Marlinton, and
has generally come to an agreement for a plan of protection. The local
protection plan includes a levee down the front side of Marlinton that
borders the Greenbrier River and a secondary levee along the Riverside
area of town. For the remaining flood protection, two alternatives are
presently under consideration. One involves the extension of the levee
upstream along Knapps Creek, the other would be for construction of the
Knapps Creek diversion channel.
Question. Has a local sponsor been identified for the non-Federal
part of the local protection plan? What is the non-Federal cost? What
is the total cost?
Answer. The City of Marlinton has expressed an interest in being
the local sponsor. The total project cost is estimated to be
approximately $54,700,000. The city qualifies for a reduction in its
cost share to 14 percent based on ability-to-pay provisions. The non-
Federal share would be approximately $7,700,000; however, the city may
need other assistance to provide this amount. The Federal share would
be approximately $47,000,000; however, in accordance with Section 574
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, the amount authorized
to be appropriated for the Greenbrier River Basin project is limited to
$12,000,000.
Question. What activities are currently being conducted on the
Marlinton local protection plan?
Answer. The Corps is finalizing the design, conducting field
investigations, and evaluating the feasibility of the two alternatives
in the Knapp Creek area.
Question. What capabilities does the Corps anticipate for fiscal
year 2000 for the Marlinton local protection plan?
Answer. The Corps capability for the Marlinton local protection
project, an element of the Greenbrier River Basin project, is
$1,000,000, subject to the qualifying language. If provided, these
funds would be used for continuing the Marlinton detailed project
report.
Question. What is the status of the flood warning system for the
Greenbrier basin?
Answer. The system was installed in 1997 and 1998, within the 18
months specified in the 1997 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act. The system is operational. The Project Cooperation
Agreement was modified so that an additional stream gage could be
installed this spring at Renick, West Virginia.
Question. How much will it cost to maintain the flood warning
system once it is fully operational?
Answer. It will cost approximately $32,400 per year to operate the
rain gages, including the Renick gage. The State of West Virginia is
the project sponsor.
Question. What future construction and operational needs are
required for the flood warning system?
Answer. Installation of the gage at Renick will complete the flood
warning system.
Question. How many stream gages and how many rain gages are
included in the flood warning system?
Answer. The system includes 6 stream gages, including the gage at
Renick, and a number of rain gages operated by the National Weather
Service.
Question. What is the relationship between the Corps and the
National Weather Service with regards to the warning system?
Answer. The National Weather Service assisted in the installation
of the computer work stations at the stream gages and operates the rain
gages. The U.S. Geological Survey also has assisted with installing the
housing for the stream gages.
west virginia tug fork flood protection projects
Question. For fiscal year 1999 Congress provided $11.35 million to
continue work on flood protection projects in southern West Virginia
along the Tug Fork and its tributaries as part of the multi-state
Section 202 project. While the President's request includes $5.4
million for Levisa and Tug Fork projects for fiscal year 2000, all of
these funds are slated for other States.
In fiscal year 1999 for the Section 202 Levisa and Tug Fork project
area in West Virginia, $4,500,000 was appropriated to initiate the
McDowell County project and $1,475,000 for the Upper Mingo County
project that specifically included the Mingo County tributary areas. I
understand that both project reports have been completed, yet as of
today, the Corps has yet to execute project agreements for either area.
What accounts for this substantial delay?
Answer. For McDowell County there was an unresolved issue over the
level of design detail in the report necessary for proposed ring
levees. Subsequent to submittal of the report, there has been
consideration given to a plan involving Federal participation in the
consolidation of local schools in lieu of constructing ring levees for
the schools. This assessment of plan details and examination of
authorities also has contributed to delays in completion of the report
review and execution of an agreement. The report is expected to be
approved in April 1999, and execution of the PCA within 90 days after
report approval. For the Upper Mingo County tributaries area, it took
five months to resolve project issues and obtain approval of the
supplemental report. The supplemental report was approved on March 1,
1999, and the supplement to the Project Cooperation Agreement is under
review.
Question. What activities will remain to be done beyond fiscal year
1999 in lower Mingo County and what is the cost of the remaining
effort? Does the Corps have capabilities in lower Mingo County in
fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Non-structural flood damage reduction, including measures
such as elevating structures, demolishing and replacing structures, and
structure-specific ringwalls, would continue beyond fiscal year 1999 if
funds were provided. The remaining cost is $7,000,000. The Corps
capability, subject to the qualifying language, for fiscal year 2000 is
$1,300,000.
Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
year 1999 in upper Mingo County along the Tug Fork and its tributaries
and what is the cost of the remaining effort? Does the Corps have
capabilities in upper Mingo County in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Non-structural flood damage reduction measures would
continue beyond fiscal year 1999 if funds were provided. The remaining
cost is $18,200,000. The Corps capability, subject to the qualifying
language, for fiscal year 2000 is $600,000.
Question. What activities will remain to be done beyond fiscal year
1999 in McDowell County, West Virginia and what is the cost of the
remaining effort? Does the Corps have capabilities in McDowell County
in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Non-structural flood damage reduction measures would
continue beyond fiscal year 1999 if funds were provided. The remaining
cost is $148,800,000. The Corps capability, subject to the qualifying
language, for fiscal year 2000 is $2,200,000.
Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
year 1999 in Wayne County and what is the cost of the remaining effort?
Does the Corps have capabilities in Wayne County in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Non-structural flood damage reduction measures would
continue beyond fiscal year 1999 if funds were provided. The remaining
cost is $6,000,000. The Corps capability, subject to the qualifying
language, for fiscal year 2000 is $300,000.
Floods have repeatedly devastated many counties in West Virginia,
including those that are part of the Tug Fork basin. The Section 202
project provides important protection to communities and livelihoods.
Each of these project areas has local sponsors to fund the non-Federal
portion of the project. I look forward to working with the subcommittee
to make further progress on providing flood protection for the West
Virginia parts of Section 202.
wheeling riverfront
Question. Wheeling, West Virginia, is in the midst of a major
preservation and rehabilitation project to protect and enhance its
cultural and commercial resources in its central business district. I
understand that the Corps has had discussions in the past with the
Wheeling National Heritage Area about how joint efforts along the
Wheeling Riverfront could be arranged and about what capabilities the
Corps might have in participating in this project. This is an important
project and I believe the Corps might have some expertise that would be
useful in this effort.
What would be the first step toward involving the Corps more
closely with the revitalization efforts, underway in Wheeling?
Answer. Since the Wheeling waterfront project is recreational in
nature, and since recreation projects have historically been assigned a
low budgetary priority, Corps involvement would not occur unless
Congress added funds for the project. If Congress did so, the Corps
could conduct a reconnaissance study to determine what role the Corps
could play in the future development of the Wheeling Riverfront
project.
Question. What resources would be needed by the Corps in order for
it to actively participate in the Wheeling Riverfront project?
Answer. The normal cost of a reconnaissance study is $100,000.
Question. What legislation, if any, would be required to authorize
the Corps' participation?
Answer. A Committee study resolution provides the authority for the
Corps to study opportunities for urban waterfront development along the
Ohio River. This authority extends to design. The project is on the
pool of Hannibal Lock and Dam, West Virginia and Ohio. Section 4 of the
1944 Flood Control Act, as amended, provides the authority for the
Corps of Engineers to participate in the addition of recreation
facilities on Corps lands at Corps projects. However, additional
authorization in law would be required for the Corps to participate in
recreation development on non-Corps lands.
Question. What unit of the Corps would have the lead in this
participation?
Answer. Wheeling is within the geographic boundaries of the
Pittsburgh District, which would be the lead District. If necessary,
resources from other Corps offices could be made available to assist in
this project.
Question. What would be the cost-share requirements for the
project?
Answer. A reconnaissance study to determine the Federal interest in
future Corps involvement would be 100 percent Federally financed. The
feasibility phase, if applicable, would be cost shared 50 percent
Federal and 50 percent non-Federal under a Feasibility Cost Sharing
Agreement. Design would be financed 75 percent Federal and 25 percent
non-Federal under a Design Agreement. Project construction costs would
be cost shared 50 percent Federal and 50 percent non-Federal. Design
costs would be folded into project construction costs, and the non-
Federal sponsor would contribute the other 25 percent of design costs
in the first year of construction. The non-Federal sponsor for the
feasibility, design, and construction phases must be a unit of
government. Funds provided by another Federal agency may be used for
the non-Federal share if such use is authorized in law.
Question. What types of capabilities might the Corps be able to
bring into the Wheeling Riverfront project (including the Ohio River
front area and the mouth of Wheeling Creek where it enters the Ohio
River)?
Answer. The Corps has extensive capabilities in recreation master
planning, environmental assessment, facilities engineering and design,
and construction management that could be used in development of this
project.
west virginia statewide flood protection plan
Question. In 1998, the Corps signed an agreement with the West
Virginia Soil Conservation Agency to conduct a comprehensive study of
the chronic flood problems that devastate West Virginia, to be
conducted on a 50/50 cost share basis.
How long will the study take to complete?
Answer. The cost sharing agreement for the second and last phase of
the study is scheduled for execution in May 1999 and the study is
scheduled for completion in July 2001.
Question. What will the study do?
Answer. The study will develop a comprehensive strategy for
addressing flooding problems throughout West Virginia, concentrating on
unmet flood control needs, especially in high-priority areas of the
state where chronic flooding occurs.
Question. What will the study provide?
Answer. The study will provide a statewide flood damage assessment,
identification of existing flood control shortfalls, assessment of
existing Federal and state flood protection programs, formulation of
flood protection and floodplain management program improvements,
assessment of non-Federal financing capability, identification of
financing needs for investment in flood protection, development of a
long-term investment strategy for the state, and a detailed report on a
statewide flood warning system.
Question. What has been appropriated by the Federal Government to
date for this project?
Answer. Appropriations for the West Virginia Statewide Plan total
$950,000 through fiscal year 1999.
Question. What additional Federal resources are needed for this
project?
Answer. No additional funds are required to complete the study.
Question. What level of support (funding and in-kind services) has
been provided by the non-Federal cooperator?
Answer. $50,000 was used for a reconnaissance-level investigation
at Federal expense. The feasibility study cost is $1,800,000 and will
be cost shared 50 percent Federal and 50 percent non-Federal in two
phases. For Phase I, the West Virginia Soil Conservation Agency, which
is the study sponsor, provided $213,600 in cash and $62,000 in in-kind
services. The cost sharing agreement for Phase II is scheduled for
execution in May 1999. Details of cash contributions and in-kind
services for Phase II are being identified by the study sponsor at this
time.
Question. What is the current status of the project?
Answer. Several work tasks identified in the project study plan
currently are underway. The Corps and the National Resources
Conservation Service are updating statewide flood damage data and
information on flood control projects in the state that are either
completed, under construction, or in various planning stages. The Corps
and the West Virginia Soil Conservation Agency are arranging the
initial meeting of the Flood Mitigation Task Force, which is a part of
the Statewide Plan process, and are developing the schedule for a
series of workshop meetings to be held across the state to solicit
citizen and local government input into the planning process. The
workshop meetings are likely to begin in early May.
robert c. byrd locks and dam
Question. A major project was authorized in 1986 at Gallipolis,
West Virginia, to improve the lock system of the Robert C. Byrd Locks
and Dam. This project is making great progress, but I understand that
several years worth of work remain. The President's budget request for
fiscal year 2000 includes $7.15 million for this project.
What is the total cost of the project and how much funding is
needed beyond fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The total project cost is $373,000,000. The project's
balance to complete after fiscal year 1999 is $16,278,000.
Question. What is the status of the on-site mitigation work?
Answer. The on-site mitigation construction contract, which was
awarded in September 1997, is 35 percent complete, with completion
scheduled for December 2001. This effort consists of construction of a
50-acre wetland area and fish rearing ponds.
Question. What plans are there for providing fishing access to the
Ohio River at the Locks and Dam?
Answer. Fishing access on the West Virginia bank of the Ohio River
is complete. A fishing access site at the abutment on the Ohio side of
the river will be constructed in 2001.
Question. What has been your relationship with the West Virginia
Division of Natural Resources on this project?
Answer. The Corps has established a very good working relationship
with the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR). They have
actively participated in the design of the mitigation features for this
project and they participate in all partnering sessions for the
mitigation work. The on-site mitigation contract includes a system of
fish rearing ponds. Upon completion of this contract, the WVDNR will
assume operation and maintenance of this area as its primary fish
hatchery in West Virginia.
Question. What additional capabilities does the Corps have for
fiscal year 2000 beyond those identified in the President's budget
request for work on this project? If funding is provided, how much will
the project completion be accelerated by these additional capabilities?
Answer. In addition to the fiscal year 2000 budget request of
$7,150,000, the Corps has additional capability, subject to the
qualifying language, of $2,150,000, which would advance project
completion by one year.
winfield lock & dam
Question. The Winfield Lock Replacement project has completed all
of phase I and most of phase II-A. The new lock chamber at Winfield is
capable of handling 11 jumbo barges at one time and can speed barge
traffic through the lock in less than 45 minutes. While much of the
construction has been completed, work remains on site protection and
clean-up, onsite environmental mitigation, and post-project efforts
involving the National Guard. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget
request includes $1.4 million for this project.
What is the status of the transfer of two buildings to the National
Guard?
Answer. A License Agreement was sent in March 1999 to the West
Virginia National Guard for signature. This agreement will permit the
Guard to use the buildings until the final transfer is accomplished
next year.
Question. What is the status of the bank erosion work?
Answer. Bank erosion corrective actions were initiated in January
1999 and are scheduled to be completed by mid-summer 1999.
Question. What additional capabilities does the Corps have in
fiscal year 2000 for the project above those already identified in the
President's budget request? By what length of time would these
additional capabilities accelerate the completion of the project?
Answer. In addition to the fiscal year 2000 budget request of
$1,400,000, the Corps has additional capability, subject to the
qualifying language, of $1,800,000 that would advance completion by two
years.
bluestone drift and debris
Question. Drift and debris periodically accumulate behind Bluestone
dam. This accumulation of drift and debris has been identified as a
significant problem. Following a study authorized in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992, the Corps identified a preferred
plan for managing the drift and debris. For fiscal year 1999, $420,000
was appropriated to finalize the construction design for handling the
drift and debris and for continued development of a public awareness
program.
What benefits will be derived from the completion of the drift and
debris project?
Answer. Completion of construction of the multi-level intake
structure would prevent accumulation of drift and debris during periods
of high inflow to the project and reduce the accumulation of drift and
debris pileups on the National Park Service property at Sandstone
Falls.
Question. What operational changes will occur as a result of the
completion of the drift and debris project?
Answer. Completion of the multi-level intake structure would not
require any operational changes to the project.
Question. What group is covering the non-Federal costs of the
project?
Answer. The current and prospective drift and debris management
program associated with the project has four components, namely
construction of the multi-level intake structure at the project,
acquisition of debris removal equipment, the public awareness program,
and cleanup of debris downstream on National Park Service lands. The
Corps could construct the multi-level intake structure and acquire
equipment as part of project operation and maintenance at full Federal
expense. The Corps, the National Park Service, the West Virginia
Division of Environmental Protection, and other non-Federal interests
are participating in the public awareness program. The Corps
participation is part of project operation and maintenance. The
downstream cleanup currently is financed by the National Park Service
and the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection. If non-
Federal cost sharing in the construction of the intake structure or
Corps cost sharing in the downstream cleanup were authorized, the West
Virginia Division of Environmental Protection would be the cost sharing
sponsor.
Question. What additional Congressional legislation will be
required to implement the preferred plan?
Answer. No authority is required for the Corps to construct the
multi-level intake structure, acquire equipment, or continue to
participate in public awareness efforts. Legislation would be required
for the Corps to participate in the downstream cleanup.
bluestone dam safety project
Question. What risks are currently posed by the Bluestone Dam to
the communities and environments below the dam?
Answer. Under current design criteria, the probable maximum flood
is estimated to overtop the existing dam by 13 feet. Dam failure would
cause catastrophic flooding along the Greenbrier, New, Gauley, Kanawha,
and Elk Rivers, including the metropolitan area and heavily
industrialized capital city of Charleston, West Virginia. This would
place more than 115,000 persons at risk, with property damages in
excess of $6,500,000,000.
Question. What level of flooding would cause the dam to fail
catastrophically? How likely that such a level of flooding might occur?
How likely is it that the dam will catastrophically fail in the next 50
years? In the next 100 years?
Answer. The dam would be in danger of failing if pool levels
approaching the top of the existing dam were to occur. This flood
level, known as the 500 year flood event, has a 0.2 percent chance of
occurring in any year, a 10 percent chance of occurring at least once
in the next 50 years, and an 18 percent chance of occurring at least
once in the next 100 years.
Question. What operational changes would take place as a result of
the completion of the dam safety project?
Answer. Daily operations of the project would not change. For
catastrophic floods approaching a probable maximum flood level, the six
hydropower penstocks would be used to provide additional discharge
capacity. Once activated, the penstocks would remain open until pool
levels return to normal and the penstock bulkheads could be restored.
Use of the penstocks does not increase downstream damage; however, the
time required for pool levels to return to normal could delay the start
of cleanup efforts by several days.
Question. What are the benefits that might be associated with
combining the dam safety project and the drift and debris project?
Answer. The main benefit attributed to a combined effort would be
that a single structure could be built for the resident engineer's
office that would serve both construction efforts. It is possible that
the two efforts could be constructed under a single contract.
Question. Could the drift and debris project precede the dam safety
project? What additional costs and risks might this impose?
Answer. The drift and debris project could precede the dam safety
project. However, there are increased risks to life and property
associated with any delay in initiating the dam safety project.
island creek at logan
Question. The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 authorized a
non-structural (local protection plan) project combined with some
channel improvements for Island Creek at Logan. This area experienced
major flooding in 1957, 1963, 1974, and 1977. The Corps completed
studies in 1993 and recommended a plan of action that would provide
significant flooding reductions and have a positive benefit-cost ratio
of 1.34. $1.5 million in Federal funds have been spent on the project,
but activity stopped in fiscal year 1994 because the Logan County
Commission, the local sponsor, was unable to provide the non-Federal
share of the project implementation costs. Last year, the State of West
Virginia agreed to provide funds to assist the Logan County Commission
in sponsoring the project.
Have any Federal construction funds been spent on this project?
Answer. No Federal construction funds have been spent to date.
Question. With the local sponsor now able to provide the non-
Federal cost share, are more general investigation funds needed for
completing studies or are only construction funds needed to implement
the plan of action?
Answer. $25,000 in General Investigation funds have been
reprogrammed to review plan formulation and conduct an economic update
of the project benefits. In fiscal year 2000, the Corps has a
capability, subject to the qualifying language, of $500,000 in General
Investigations funding to develop a project management plan and
complete a General Reevaluation Report. The Corps could complete
preconstruction engineering and design in fiscal year 2001.
Question. What can the Corps do to re-initiate this project?
Answer. The Corps recently reprogrammed $25,000 to review plan
formulation and conduct an economic update of the project benefits to
reaffirm the Federal interest in further study and project
implementation.
london lock and dam
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $600,000 to
initiate construction of the London Lock and Dam rehabilitation
project. This project would replace the upper guard wall and extend the
lock chamber. The rehabilitation project is needed to avoid any future
lockage delays on the Kanawha River at London, where traffic exceeded 8
million tons in 1995.
What is the total cost of the project?
Answer. The total cost of the project is $20,300,000.
Question. When is it scheduled to be completed?
Answer. The project is scheduled for completion in September 2004,
subject to receipt of funding to initiate the project construction in
fiscal year 2000.
Question. Is any Congressional action other than appropriations
required for the project?
Answer. No additional Congressional action is necessary to proceed
with the project.
Question. Does the Corps have additional capabilities for fiscal
year 2000 that would accelerate the completion of this project were
funds available?
Answer. In addition to the fiscal year 2000 budget request of
$600,000, the Corps has additional capability, subject to the
qualifying language, of $800,000, which would advance completion by one
year.
lower mud river
Question. The Lower Mud River project, authorized by Section 580 of
the 1996 Water Resources Development Act, was originally a Department
of Agriculture project. Its purpose is to mitigate the repeated
flooding events that have caused extensive damage to the city of
Milton, West Virginia.
What is the status of the limited reevaluation report being
conducted by the Corps on the earlier Department of Agriculture study?
Answer. The Corps is preparing to enter into a design agreement
with the West Virginia Soil Conservation Agency to cost share work on
the Limited Reevaluation Report. It is anticipated that the agreement
will be signed in May 1999 and the report will be completed in December
1999.
Question. What group is the non-Federal sponsor for the
reevaluation and what funds have they provided for the reevaluation?
Answer. The West Virginia Soil Conservation Agency will serve as
the non-Federal sponsor for the reevaluation report. It will provide
required cost shared funds at the time of execution of the design
agreement.
Question. What capabilities does the Corps have for fiscal year
2000 to move forward with the Lower Mud River project? What funding
would be required?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, the Corps has the capability, subject
to the qualifying language, of $1,000,000 to continue preconstruction
engineering and design under the General Investigations appropriation.
cooperative agreements
Question. I understand that the Corps has developed model
cooperation agreements with ``cookie cutter'' language intended to
expedite the review and approval process, yet review and approval still
takes many months. This type of delay costs valuable time, may
negatively impact the economy, and could increase risks for communities
and businesses from flooding and transportation uncertainties. At what
level within the Corps are project cooperation agreements approved?
Answer. Project cooperation agreements are approved at the
Washington level unless there is an approved model agreement for that
particular type of project. If there is an approved model and the
district does not deviate from the model, then approval is delegated to
the division or district commander. Except for the Continuing
Authorities Program, my office approves all agreements not in
accordance with an approved model.
Question. Is it the intention of the Corps to eventually delegate
approval for all project cooperation agreements to the district level
or lower?
Answer. While delegation of approval of Project Cooperation
Agreements was considered, it is not the intention of the Army to
delegate the approval of these important agreements, except where model
agreements are in place and followed. The Army considers these
agreements to be important policy documents laying out the respective
responsibilities and commitments of both the project sponsor and the
Federal Government. Moreover, once signed, such agreements bind the
Government just as they bind the non-Federal sponsor. We intend to work
with the Corps to identify and put into practice changes in the
requirements and review process to improve the efficiency with which
agreements can be reviewed and approved.
Question. What is the status of the implementation of the project
cooperation agreement ``cookie cutter'' language?
Answer. I strongly encourage the efforts of the Corps to develop as
many model agreements as possible. The approval of more types of model
agreements, along with options appropriate to specific situations, will
help to expedite the negotiation process with the sponsor and minimize
the number of agreements that must come to the Washington level because
they are not in accordance with law or Army policy. The Corps has
developed, and I have approved, the use of over 35 model agreements.
The Corps is currently working an additional five potential models and
is in the process of identifying what other models are needed to
support further delegation of project cooperation agreements to the
division or district commanders. In addition to the development of
additional model agreements, opportunities are being investigated to
simplify and expedite the Washington level approval process.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Murray
columbia river fish mitigation project
Question. In the Conference Report to the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998 (H. Rept. 105-271),
the conferees requested the Northwest Power Planning Council, with the
assistance from the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB), to
review the Corps' major fish mitigation capital construction activities
in the Columbia River Basin. The Power Planning Council divided the
review into three phases. The first two reports were submitted to the
Committees in July 1998 and January 1999. The final report is due next
month.
Answer. One area reviewed by the ISAB was the Corps' work to
develop surface bypass/collection facilities at Lower Granite Dam and
other mainstem projects. The Power Planning Council concurred with the
ISAB's findings that surface collection continues to show promise and
should continue to be pursued by the Corps.
Question. How much of your fiscal year 2000 request is allocated to
developing and testing surface bypass and surface spill technologies?
Also please identify which projects are involved in this work, and what
level of funding is proposed for each.
Answer. Approximately $35 million is requested for surface bypass
development and related spill effectiveness and survival evaluations.
In addition, $5.9 million is requested to continue the `fast track' gas
abatement efforts which may improve spill conditions for juvenile
passage. Surface bypass work will be carried out at Lower Granite for
$8.26 million, at John Day for $5.31 million, at The Dalles for $5.64
million and at Bonneville for $15.3 million.
Question. In its first report, the ISAB recommended that the Corps
pursue surface bypass technologies at John Day Dam instead of extended
length screens. Please explain how the Corps is implementing this
recommendation.
Answer. The Corps is investigating surface bypass at the powerhouse
through use of existing skeleton bays and funding in fiscal year 2000
would be used to initiate plans and specifications for construction of
the surface bypass prototype facility. At the spillway, fiscal year
2000 work would include testing an overflow weir and initiating a
Feature Design Memorandum for a raised spillway bays crest, subject to
preliminary analysis in fiscal year 1999.
The ISAB has concluded that the subject of adult passage at
Columbia and Snake River dams has not been adequately dealt with. The
scientists believe that the Corps' planned activities relating to
adults are supportable, but probably not sufficient to ensure that
adult spawning migrations are unimpeded and completed with minimal
mortality induced passage.
Question. It is my understanding that only about 9 percent of the
Corps' fiscal year 2000 budget request is proposed for adult passage
activities. Do you intend to reexamine this allocation in light of the
ISAB's findings that more needs to be done for adults?
Answer. Yes. The ISAB report on adult measures did not identify
specific passage measures in addition to those underway. However, the
Corps is presently coordinating with regional interests to determine
what additional passage improvements should be pursued. Results of this
coordination may lead to redirection of funds within the budget
request.
Question. What additional measures to assist adults will you
consider?
Answer. We are looking at both facility improvements and additional
studies to better understand the critical areas of uncertainty, for
improved adult fish passage at Corps of Engineers dams. The facility
improvements include additional backup auxiliary water supply systems,
automated fishway control systems, replacement/upgrade of diffuser
gratings and valves, refurbishing/upgrade of fishway entrances and
weirs, upgrade of fishway staff gauges, and rebuilding fishwater pumps.
Additional study areas, developed in coordination with regional salmon
managers, include: relation of adult fallback at dams to specific
project operations and impacts on fish survival and reproductive
success; causes of delay in fishways; identification of factors causing
unaccountable losses of adults; quantification of straying and the
impact on survival; effects of water quality on migration and survival;
evaluation of kelt (spawned-out steelhead) passage and survival, and
improvement of dam count accuracy.
The ISAB's review has provided useful recommendations on a variety
of activities including extended length screens, gas abatement
activities, surface bypass systems, adult passage, and other items.
Question. How will the Corps ensure that these recommendations are
given full consideration in the development of future budgets for the
program?
Answer. The Corps intends to seek regional recommendations
regarding how the findings of the ISAB and the Northwest Power Planning
Council can be implemented in the Columbia River Fish Mitigation
Project. This is consistent with language in House Report 105-271 which
states `Upon completion of the review, the Corps of Engineers shall
seek regional recommendations, as provided by the Bonneville Power
Administration Fish and Wildlife Budget Memorandum of Agreement dated
September 16, 1996, on implementing the recommendations contained in
the review.' The Corps intends to seek the recommendations primarily
through coordination in existing forums such as the regional System
Configuration Team. Results of this coordination will be reflected in
future budget requests for the Columbia River Fish Mitigation Project.
bonneville and the dalles powerhouse projects replace generating units
Question. Two construction projects in the Corps' fiscal year 2000
justification are the rehabilitation of generating units at the
Bonneville Powerhouse and The Dalles Powerhouse. The original
completion date, at least for the Bonneville Powerhouse project, was
2002. It seems unlikely that under the current funding levels that the
completion date can be met, and the date will more likely be around
2008 or 2009.
Is the request of $10,800,000 for fiscal year 2000 for the
Bonneville Powerhouse enough to maintain the original schedule for
completion?
Answer. No, it is not.
Question. What level of appropriations would be required over the
next three fiscal years in order to meet the original schedule?
Answer. For Bonneville, at this point, the original schedule cannot
be met. Due to requirements of the project biological opinion, units
can only be completed one at a time, with short duration overlaps.
Funding at the following levels would advance project completion by 1
to 2 years: fiscal year 2000 $16.3 million, fiscal year 2001 $11.4
million, and fiscal year 2002 $10.1 million. For The Dalles, it is
unlikely the original programmed schedule for completion in fiscal year
2005 can be regained at this point. Funding levels estimated at $12 to
$15 million per year beginning in fiscal year 2001 would advance
project completion by 1 to 2 years.
Question. If you had greater funding for these projects, what work
would you prioritize?
Answer. Work is already prioritized within each project according
to greatest need and to maximize work efficiency. Greater funding for
these projects would allow earlier completion of the project by
accelerating the work.
Question. What are the implications of not maintaining the original
schedule in terms of the overall costs of the project, risk of failure
of the units, and lost efficiency?
Answer. At Bonneville, not maintaining the original schedule will
increase somewhat the project cost and risk of failure of the
generating units, and will delay the expected increase in unit
efficiency of four to six percent.
At The Dalles, the original rehabilitation program (Units 1-14)
included only 9 generator rewinds, since 5 had already been repaired
under the O&M program. Since initial funding commenced in 1997, two
additional generators have been rewound, both due to failure. Delays,
for any reason, increase the risk that additional generating units will
fail, thus increasing costs for repair, lost power revenues due to
unscheduled unit outage and reduced plant availability. Loss of an
estimated 4 percent increase in unit efficiency also results from delay
of turbine blade replacement. In addition, total project costs increase
due to out-year inflation as project completion is stretched out.
Question. What are the impacts in relation to the survival of fish
during passage?
Answer. For both Bonneville and The Dalles, past studies indicate
that the survival of juvenile fish increases with increased turbine
efficiency. In addition, the shape of the new turbine hub, blades and
discharge ring have been redesigned at Bonneville to reduce potential
injury to migrating juveniles that travel through the turbines. If we
can complete installation earlier, increased juvenile fish survival
rates should be realized.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dorgan
devils lake dikes
Question. The Corps is currently completing the third phase of
levee protection for the City of Devils Lake, North Dakota. What is the
status of the current project to raise the Devils Lake levee (to TOL
1457 feet)?
Answer. Sir, the earth work and the riprap to top of levee 1452 are
substantially complete and the levee protection for the city to top of
levee 1457 will be complete by September 1999. Three of the five
pumping stations associated with the levee are complete and
operational. The remaining two are under construction and will be
operational this summer.
Question. I am pleased to learn that the major construction work on
the dike is complete even though the more costly aspects of the
project, installing pumps and rockwork, remains to be completed.
Congress has approved a three-phase increase in the dikes in recent
years. If the Corps had not proceeded with the diking on an emergency
basis, can you tell the Subcommittee what the consequences would have
been?
Answer. Without the levee protecting the City of Devils Lake,
approximately one-third of the city, including much of the airport,
would be in the lake. Wave action from the lake would have destroyed
additional homes and businesses. Portions of Highways 19, 20, and 2
running through the city would be under water as well. The rest of the
city would have remained vulnerable to future lake level rises. We are
also continuing to take emergency actions, when necessary, for other
communities and Tribal structures threatened by the rising lake levels.
Even with these efforts, Devils Lake continues to cause about
$25,000,000 in damages for every additional foot of rise.
Question. Indeed, we would have had a full-fledged disaster on our
hands. As it is, we still face enormous problems and that is why we
need to proceed with a comprehensive flood fighting strategy that
includes an outlet for Devils Lake.
Pursuant to the direction of Congress, the Corps is developing a
report to Congress on the Devils Lake outlet. What is the schedule for
completing the draft interim report to Congress on the Devils Lake
outlet?
Answer. The draft interim report will be completed by the end of
April 1999. The report will detail various alternatives to manage the
rising lake.
Question. May I note for the benefit of the Chairman and my
colleagues that this report will be made soon and should give us ample
time for review before we proceed with the mark-up of next year's
appropriations bill.
This outlet plan has been a challenging undertaking since it
involves a chronic flood that has come and stayed for over five years.
Can the Corps please describe to the Subcommittee some of the promising
aspects of the plan which may help to solve this perplexing problem of
chronic flooding?
Answer. The Corps is looking into alternatives that would bring
fresh water to the outlet. The fresh water would be captured prior to
its entering Devils Lake and mixing with the more saline water
currently in the lake. The fresh water reduces or eliminates impacts to
downstream water quality. By eliminating the water quality problem, the
full capacity of the pump station could be used much of the time,
thereby increasing the effectiveness of the outlet at reducing the lake
level and avoiding damages. Pumping would still be restricted to stay
within the capacity of the Sheyenne River. The Corps is also looking at
staging construction and using trigger elevations to determine when to
build portions of the outlet plan. This would cause portions of the
outlet to be built only when they are needed, improving the cost
effectiveness of the plan.
Question. Some have suggested that we could use nearby lakes to
syphon off some water from Devils Lake on an interim basis. Is there a
plan which would provide some relatively quick means of containing
rising water?
Answer. A controlled gravity channel to the Stump Lakes could be
effective as an interim emergency measure to slow the rise of Devils
Lake. The Stump Lake plan could be designed and constructed much
quicker than the outlet to the Sheyenne River. It also helps manage the
water within the basin, reducing any outside concerns; although there
are concerns that would have to be addressed, including impacts to a
Federal wildlife refuge.
Senator Byrd. I want to thank the Corps for its cooperation with
the State of North Dakota and the Devils Lake Region and to encourage
continued efforts to find workable interim and long-term solutions for
this critical problem.
grand forks dikes
Question. I understand that there may have been some slippage in
the construction timetable for completing the Grand Forks dikes--from
2005 to 2007. What is the current schedule for completion of the Grand
Forks Flood Protection Project?
Answer. The scheduled completion for the Grand Forks--East Grand
Forks project has slipped from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2007 due
to constrained budget ceilings assigned to our overall construction
program. The completion date based on the constrained budget ceilings
is December 2006, a twelve month delay. However, note that this project
was funded at the full capability in the Budget year, fiscal year 2000.
Question. What is causing the delays in this critical project?
Answer. The scheduled completion for the Grand Forks--East Grand
Forks project has slipped from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2007 due
to constrained budget ceilings in the outyears. Nationwide, many worthy
water resource projects compete for a limited amount of annual budget
ceiling. In order to fund as many projects as possible, most projects
are funded at a less than optimal level, causing schedules to be
stretched out; this was the case for the Grand Forks--East Grand Forks
project.
Question. Do I understand that the capability of the Corps would be
to complete the project in 2005?
Answer. If sufficient funding resources are made available, we
could complete construction of the Grand Forks--East Grand Forks
project by December 2005, which is fiscal year 2006.
Question. I understand that the Corps submitted a reprogramming
request of $1.1 million for Grand Forks flood control for fiscal year
1999. Can you tell the Subcommittee the status of this request?
Answer. Yes sir, the additional $1.1 million requested for the
Grand Forks, North Dakota--East Grand Forks, Minnesota project was
received on 16 March 1999.
subcommittee recess
Senator Domenici. We will be back in session 9:30, Thursday
for a hearing with the Department of Energy.
[Whereupon, at 12 noon, Tuesday, March 9, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, March 11.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:39 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Cochran, Craig, Reid, and
Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Atomic Energy Defense and Nonproliferation Programs
STATEMENT OF DR. VICTOR H. REIS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
OFFICE OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
ACCOMPANIED BY:
ROSE E. GOTTEMOELLER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NONPROLIFERATION AND
NATIONAL SECURITY
LAURA S.H. HOLGATE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FISSILE MATERIALS
DISPOSITION
OPENING STATEMENT
Senator Domenici. First let me, without elaborating, just
apologize for being late. It was unavoidable on my part, and I
am sorry. Senator Reid, you had to waste time waiting for me.
Senator Reid. I had a chance to read my newspaper. I am
doing fine.
Senator Domenici. Thank you for coming. This morning, the
subcommittee will consider the fiscal year 2000 budget request
for the Department of Energy's defense, nonproliferation, and
materials disposition programs. Combined, these programs
account for $5.5 billion of the $18.3 billion requested for the
Department and are the core of DOE's national security
function.
That is a very slight decrease from the current level,
because of the $200 million provided in 1999 to implement a
plutonium disposition accord with Russia.
These programs together are the backbone of our strategic
nuclear deterrent. On the one hand, we do see the threat to our
Nation posed by others' weapons of mass destruction, and on the
other hand maintaining our deterrence against the threat that
remains. We are considering the programs together because they
are interrelated. If, for example, in the coming decade when we
make rapid progress with disposition of plutonium and uranium
in Russia and our ability to verify our potential adversary's
stockpile levels we may be able to reduce our nuclear stockpile
substantially. Conversely, a lack of progress in these areas
would prevent us from pursuing stockpile reductions.
We will begin today with Dr. Reis to review the request for
the Defense Programs, then go to Ms. Gottemoeller, who is
currently the Director of the Office of Nonproliferation--and
we are very proud to have you there. She has been nominated to
this position, and I hope she will be there soon in an official
capacity--and then we will finish with Ms. Holgate, Director of
the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition, and we are glad to
have you also.
Let me first place a few accolades in the record with
reference to you, Dr. Reis. Frankly, it has been something very
solid and beneficial to our nuclear deterrent that you head
this part of the Department of Energy. I commend and
congratulate you for the diligent efforts that you have made
with reference to stockpile stewardship, a new kind of
stewardship in an era of transition, and it looks like from the
science standpoint it is working quite well. There is a great
enthusiasm in the nuclear laboratories for this kind of
science, which is taking place, since underground nuclear tests
have been banned in the United States.
Senator Reid.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID
Senator Reid. Senator Domenici, I appreciate you mentioning
Dr. Reis. I was going to say a few words about him. I think
that the American public does not know what public servants do.
The work that is done by these three individuals, of which Dr.
Reis is the one that I know certainly the best, having worked
with him for these many years, makes our civilization such as
it is.
The difference between our having a safe, reliable nuclear
stockpile or not having one is work that we do on this
subcommittee, and we rely on you for results. I personally
appreciate all the time and effort and I am glad that you have
chosen, with your great academic background and your experience
in the private sector, to stay in public service, because as I
said, the American public does not realize the importance of
your job, but Senator Domenici and I do, our staffs, and we can
say no more than that.
Mr. Chairman, the stockpile stewardship and management
program is being adopted by a policy which the nuclear arsenal
would be maintained. There were numerous discussions by many in
the administration and here in Congress regarding the minimum
amount needed, and I am pleased to see the budget request is at
that level which we have talked about for a number of years,
$4.5 billion.
Now there have been questions about what the needs of the
program are. We are going to talk about that today, the
National Ignition Facility, Dual Access Radiographic
Hydrodynamic Test Facility, and others that are essential to
the verification, and safety and reliability of the nuclear
arsenal.
But as I see it, there are two convincing arguments
applying to the rationale for these investments and others.
Science must be comprehensive to keep the verification
credible. The laboratories consisting of experts to coordinate
with the Department have to come together on these projects.
Now, the question is, what is the future of both the
science and the credibility and the verification and
reliability? At this point, from our perspective the question
for the future rests on whether the labs and the tests at the
Nevada Test Site will be functioning as active partners in the
validation of the science of the Stockpile Stewardship program.
What we saw in the President's budget did not make me
happy, but I have recently been given information that
indicates a serious effort to better integrate the Nevada Test
Site into the stockpile stewardship and management program, and
so that is one of the things that we will be watching.
I note the Chiles Commission has reported that of all the
centers necessary to maintain confidence without testing, the
Nevada Test Site has the highest average age of personnel.
Consequently, either by retirement or death, expertise is
leaving the Nevada Test Site at an extremely rapid rate.
So Dr. Reis, I recommend that you repeat the success at the
National Labs at the Test Site with the implementation of a
similar program that will attract and maintain highly motivated
and skilled personnel who could effectively turn their energies
to the resumption of testing or whatever else is necessary to
maintain the safety and reliability of our arsenal.
The magnet that attracts an enduring workforce, without
which the test ban treaty becomes somewhat meaningless as far
as I am concerned, is a new technically challenging program
that has a front line role in the safety and reliability of the
arsenal.
So I look forward, as I indicated, to working with you and
this subcommittee will look forward to getting our bill to the
floor as rapidly as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
statement of dr. victor h. reis
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator Reid.
Dr. Reis, you may proceed.
Dr. Reis. Thank you, and thank you, Senator Domenici and
Senator Reid for your kind remarks about my service. One of the
gratifying parts of that, of course, is working with people
like yourselves and your staffs, and that makes it all
worthwhile.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Dr. Reis. I have a relatively short oral statement, and
with your permission I will submit my full statement for the
record.
Senator Domenici. It will be incorporated.
meeting the stockpile stewardship challenge
Dr. Reis. Mr. Chairman, Senator Reid, the challenge of
stockpile stewardship is to maintain the safety, reliability,
and performance of the current U.S. nuclear weapons
indefinitely without underground nuclear explosive tests. This
is indeed a major challenge.
We are asked to maintain forever an incredibly complex
device no larger than a desk filled with exotic radioactive
materials that must create, albeit it briefly, temperatures and
pressures only seen in nature at the center of stars, do it
without integrating nuclear tests and without any reduction in
extraordinarily high standards of safety and reliability and,
while we are at it, downsize the industrial complex that
supports this enterprise by a factor of two, and start up
critical new manufacturing processes.
We must do this with an industrial system that was
structured to turn over new designs every 15 years and for
which nuclear explosive testing was the major tool for
demonstrating success. We must meet this challenge, restructure
the complex, and do most of it within the next 5 to 10 years,
while the current weapons are still within the design life and
the designers, production and test folks are still active.
Mr. Chairman, it has been over 10 years since new weapons
production stopped and over 6 years since the last underground
nuclear test, and I would claim we are meeting the challenge.
We have certified the stockpile as safe and reliable 3 years
running. The major elements of the program are in place, and
the budgets are projected to be stable in the outyears. While
there is still much to do, it is fair to say that the road
ahead is reasonably well-mapped and what remains is to but
integrate the pieces and to stay the course.
In short, I believe that all of the many external reviews
have concurred that Stockpile Stewardship is a successful
program. Why do I say that? First of all, there is a compelling
national mission. Despite the end of the Cold War, nuclear
weapons play a leading role in the Nation's policy of strategic
deterrence.
Strategic deterrence is the bedrock of all of our national
security efforts. At the same time, the maintenance of a safe,
secure, and reliable nuclear force underpins our arms control
efforts. It is as described in the Presidential Commission for
Ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of ``supreme
national interest.'' That goal acts as the one and only beacon
for the Defense Programs and the weapons complex.
lab missions flow from stewardship
Stewardship provides an enormous technical and scientific
challenge to the DOE's nuclear weapons laboratories, Los
Alamos, Livermore, Sandia National Laboratories, which are
designed to respond to big national technical challenges. They
work best in such an environment as, indeed, do the folks at
the Nevada Test Site.
In a few short years, Stockpile Stewardship has become what
is probably the world's largest single-purpose scientific
program. Our industrial partners have built by far the world's
largest computers and those computers are solving real problems
throughout the complex.
Subcritical experiments, hydro testing, laser pulse power,
and a variety of other experimental facilities are helping to
validate codes and bring the necessary understanding to provide
confidence in the stockpile now and in the future. I think it
is fair to say that the labs are working together with the
other parts of the nuclear weapons complex, industry, and
academia better than ever. Other lab missions flow from
stewardship, not compete with it.
production complex response to stewardship
Stockpile stewardship has likewise changed the rest of the
complex. With the end of the Cold War, there is no new
requirement for nuclear weapons production, though there
remains a requirement to return to production, if so ordered.
The most obvious part of this change has been the
downsizing of the physical plant, the ending of production at
Rocky Flats, Pinellas, and Mound, and the shifting of
responsibilities, equipment, and people to other parts of the
complex.
As the stewardship requirements have become better
understood, the production complex--Oak Ridge Y-12, Kansas
City, Pantex and Savannah River have--has fully responsive to
the stewardship mission.
This new production activity is driven by recognizing that
if the stockpile is to remain viable forever, and that is the
mission, then every part of every weapon must sooner or later
be replaced and certified. This means that every part must be
thought of as a limited life component, and there is a premium
for knowing when a part must be replaced, and there is a
premium for developing and certifying new, efficient, safe, and
environmentally friendly production processes.
All of this is embedded in the Stockpile Life Extension
Program, SLEP. The first W87 life extension unit will be
delivered to the Air Force this May. SLEP will drive production
in the complex no less than certification, but it must be part
of an integrated whole. That integrated whole must fit within a
relatively fixed budget. That is why we are continuing to look
hard at consolidating the production plant management into a
single contract.
tritium production
The last programmatic element I will mention is tritium,
the ultimate limited life component. When I came to DOE some 5
years ago, the new source for tritium was a headline item. What
would the new source be and where would it be located?
Last December, Secretary Richardson announced that we will
buy irradiation services from the Tennessee Valley Authority
[TVA], and the accelerator production of tritium will be a
back-up. Negotiations with TVA based on the Economy Act are
essentially complete.
Mr. Chairman, this is the fifth defense program's budget
that has revolved around Stockpile Stewardship. We have a clear
goal. We have the people and elements of the program in place.
We have demonstrated success across a wide variety of
stewardship tasks. We have a budgetary commitment. The task is
now to complete the integration of the Defense Program complex
and to stay the course.
prepared statement
With your continued support, we will continue to meet the
challenge of maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile, a
supreme national interest.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Victor H. Reis
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify on the Department of Energy's fiscal
year 2000 Defense Programs budget request of approximately $4.5 billion
for the Stockpile Stewardship Program. This budget continues support
for critical initiatives begun during the past five years that are
creating and using the new tools and technologies needed for science
based stewardship. These tools and technologies are necessary as we
seek to maintain a high level of confidence in the safety and
reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear
testing.
It has been nearly 10 years since we have manufactured a new
nuclear weapon and over six years since the last underground nuclear
test. Our confidence in the safety and reliability of the current
stockpile remains high. The third annual certification of the nuclear
weapons stockpile was transmitted to the President by the Secretaries
of Energy and Defense on December 22, 1998. It states that the
stockpile is safe and reliable and that there is no need to conduct an
underground nuclear test at this time.
The Stockpile Stewardship Program faces formidable challenges:
continue to maintain an aging stockpile; restructure and modernize the
weapons complex; and, retain the capability to resume nuclear testing
and meet production requirements appropriate to future national
security needs. The Department is meeting these challenges and is
confident of its abilities to maintain the stockpile without testing.
We have laid out a plan--weapon by weapon, part by part, that
addresses the tasks required to maintain the stockpile over the next
ten years, and beyond. We have support on this program from the
Department of Defense, and the Administration has committed to funding
this program and all its parts. And, we have a back up. The President,
as one of the safeguards under which this nation would enter into the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) requires us to maintain the Nevada
Test Site in a state of readiness should there ever be circumstances in
which we would return to testing. The successful subcritical and other
experiments conducted there bear evidence that the Nevada Test Site
remains a ``can do'' operation. There is a joint DOD/DOE review of the
entire test readiness program for the 2001 budget process.
Another Presidential safeguard under the CTBT requires us to
maintain the vitality of the nuclear weapons laboratories--Los Alamos
(LANL), Lawrence Livermore (LLNL) and Sandia. History tells us that
great laboratories need great missions like the Manhattan and Apollo
projects. The enthusiasm and vigor with which our laboratories are
embracing the Stockpile Stewardship Program bear witness that it too is
a great mission. The program is attracting the kinds of people drawn to
the challenge of solving tough issues of national importance.
Although we continue to plan and refine the Stockpile Stewardship
Program, it is already working. We have modified the B61 bomb and have
seen it enter the stockpile to replace the aged B53 bomb. We are
constructing new experimental facilities and tools--the National
Ignition Facility (NIF), the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test
Facility (DARHT), and Atlas--and our computation program has developed
the world's fastest supercomputers. By using stewardship tools, we have
solved some problems that in the past would have most likely required
nuclear testing. We have done literally hundreds of experiments with
existing facilities that increase our understanding of nuclear weapons.
We have safely dismantled over eleven thousand nuclear weapons since
1991, and have produced numerous parts, on time, while continuing to
downsize the production complex.
stockpile stewardship interagency coordination
A key element of the Stockpile Stewardship Program's continued
success is an effective corporate level strategic planning process. I
am pleased to advise you that we are on schedule to transmit the fiscal
year 2000 Stockpile Stewardship Plan (SSP), also called ``The Green
Book'' to the Congress by mid-March. In the development of the SSP, we
rely heavily on the Department of Defense, the National Security
Council staff, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the OMB,
and other senior policy officials in the ``nuclear community'' to help
ensure that we are on the right track. The feedback we have received on
this year's Plan is very favorable. In fact, I was recently informed in
a letter from the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Strategic Command,
Admiral Richard Mies, that this Plan reflects a strong commitment by
DOE to solicit and address the concerns of the nuclear weapons
community.
During 1998, the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) formed joint DOE/DOD
teams to review four major areas of the Stockpile Stewardship Program:
tritium, the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI), the
National Ignition Facility (NIF), and pit production. The Nuclear
Weapons Council concluded that these joint DOE/DOD team efforts were
worthwhile, generating alternative options and validating DOD
requirements and DOE plans. The NWC found that tritium, NIF and ASCI
programs were on-track. The NIF program integration was identified as a
potential concern by the NWC which we are addressing now. The NWC
further examined the management and oversight cost controls of ASCI
software development in more detail and found that the proper project
cost and schedule controls are in place. After reviewing the DOE pit
production plan and alternatives for larger and smaller production
capacities developed by the joint DOE/DOD team, the NWC decided that
the current DOE plan is a prudent approach. The NWC approved DOE's pit
manufacturing strategy and will monitor the development of long-term
plans. This strategy for pit manufacturing will be detailed in our
response to the fiscal year 1999 National Defense Authorization Act and
submitted to Congress shortly.
To better retain U.S. nuclear capabilities, we have been working
closely with the Commission on Maintaining U.S. Nuclear Weapons
Expertise, better known as the Chiles Commission. As you know, Congress
tasked the Commission with developing a plan for recruiting and
retaining scientific, engineering, and technical personnel that the
Commission deems are needed, across the nuclear weapons complex over
the long term, to maintain a safe and reliable nuclear weapons
stockpile without nuclear testing.
how stockpile stewardship is working
For the benefit of new Committee members, I will briefly summarize
the Stockpile Stewardship process and the challenges it now faces
before I go into a more detailed discussion of program elements. Each
year representative samples of each type of weapon are returned to
Pantex from the active forces and are 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 reliability and safety is assessed. If that
effect is deemed significant, the defective part is remanufactured and
replacedand a nuclear weapon has about as many parts as a modern
automobile. Like the battery or spark plugs in your car, some parts,
for example, neutron generators and gas reservoirs, require replacement
at regular intervals. Other parts of a nuclear weapon are made from
radioactive materials which decay such as plutonium, enriched uranium
and tritium; and as they decay, may change both their own properties
and the properties of other materials within the weapon.
Remanufacturing replacement parts sounds simple, but subsequent to
the time that many of the current weapons in the stockpile were
originally manufactured, some of our production plants have been closed
and manufacturing processes, techniques and standards have changed.
General Motors does not build cars the same way it did 40 years ago.
Everyone is more health and safety conscious and more concerned about
waste. Today, replacement parts require even tighter production
controls than the extraordinarily rigid standards under which the
original parts were designed and manufactured. A nuclear weapon, less
than the size of a small desk, has enough explosive power to completely
destroy a modern city, and yet it must be able to survive extraordinary
accidents with less than a one-in-a-million chance of exploding. New
industrial materials and new manufacturing processes make it hard to
get exact replacement parts for an old car or appliance. Yet, we must
produce replacements with modern material and processes that will still
maintain weapons safety and reliability.
As our stockpile weapons age we expect more parts to become
defective--just as with our automobiles. Because new warheads have not
been produced since 1989, we cannot replace old weapons with new ones.
In addition, our weapons designers with nuclear testing experience are
also aging. In about ten years, most of them will have retired. This
means that as our newest system, the W88, reaches the end of its
original design life in 2014, and we may no longer have anyone with the
necessary job experience to perform underground testing of nuclear
weapons. Similarly, the engineers and technicians who originally
produced even this newest weapon may also be gone. It is this time
factor that is critical to the success of the Stockpile Stewardship
Program.
Since we cannot do a complete underground test of a nuclear
explosion, we can divide the explosion sequence into each of its parts,
then 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
plan to put all the data together into a computer and develop
simulations to see if the resulting performance is within
specification. Each part of the simulation must predict the results of
each of the separate tests, and where they exist, the results must be
consistent with data from previous underground nuclear tests. We have
already begun this process.
stockpile life extension and surveillance
We are working closely with the DOD to finalize detailed plans to
extend the lifetime of each weapon system in the stockpile. The
Stockpile Life Extension Program (SLEP) is DOE's planning framework for
a proactive management of system maintenance activities. Under SLEP,
options are developed to address potential refurbishment actions. These
options address correcting known problems, preventing foreseeable
problems, and improving safety and use control. These life extension
options allow the Department and DOD to anticipate and plan for future
resource requirements such as workforce, skill mix, equipment, and
facilities.
These requirements provide the framework for stockpile
refurbishment workload and stockpile research and development
activities at our laboratories and provide guidance for our production
plants in the design and certification of replacement components,
validation of new materials, and development and certification of new
manufacturing processes. The cycle is continuous and is closely
integrated. Data and information from our surveillance programs and
from the hundreds of experiments and simulations being performed to
help identify which parts of a weapon are aging gracefully and which
parts present current and potential future problems.
Stockpile surveillance has been a major element of the U.S. nuclear
weapons program ever since the first weapons were put into service.
Approximately 100 stockpile weapons are thoroughly examined each year.
The results provide data not only for assessing the current safety and
reliability of the stockpile, but also for developing predictive models
and age-focused diagnostics required to anticipate weapons
refurbishment requirements.
The technologies and methods, as well as a fundamental
understanding of materials properties and weapons science, to
significantly improve detection and predictive capabilities are being
developed in the Enhanced Surveillance Program (ESP). An aging
mechanism in a stockpile high explosive was identified through the ESP,
ultimately concluding that the changes actually improved the stability
of the explosive. This assessment is permitting the reuse of the high
explosive during the W87 life extension program, thus avoiding
significant costs. We have also embarked on a novel strategy to
accelerate the aging process in plutonium. The capability to predict
the lifetime of components made from plutonium will permit us to more
accurately identify when pit replacements are needed and when facility
investments must be made in order to support pit replacement.
Dual revalidation is designed to provide a baseline assessment of
the condition of weapons in our aging stockpile. Two teams, one from
the laboratory that originally designed and developed a weapon and the
second from the other weapons laboratory, are performing in-depth
evaluations of the weapon's ability to meet revalidated military
requirements. The W76 is the first weapon to be reviewed. Each team has
performed at least one system hydrotest on the W76, and they have
collaborated on a Shipboard Vibration Test. The review of the W76 will
be completed in December 1999. The dual revalidation peer review
program not only baselines the weapon system, but also provides an
excellent opportunity for experienced designers to pass their skills on
to the next generation of scientists and engineers.
manufacturing capabilities
Manufacturing continues to play a critical role in the Stockpile
Stewardship Program. During fiscal year 1998, almost 1,000 Limited Life
Components (LLCs) were produced. Plans call for the production of over
1,300 LLCs in fiscal year 1999. These product deliveries signal the
successful transfer of production activities from plants which have
been closed. The weapons complex is also performing major refurbishment
actions on several weapon types, including the B83, B61, and the W87.
In December 1998, the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge completed and shipped to
Pantex the first refurbished component for the life extension program
of the W87 under our Stockpile Life Extension Program. Earlier this
month, the first deliveries of electronic and mechanical parts for the
W87 life extension were shipped to Pantex from the Kansas City plant.
The first W87 life extension unit will be assembled at Pantex by the
end of this month with the first group of units due for delivery to the
Air Force in May. This is considered a major milestone in meeting a DOE
commitment made to the Air Force.
The Advanced Manufacturing Design and Production Technologies
Initiative (ADAPT) is providing the manufacturing complex with advanced
capabilities for: designing, developing, and certifying components and
systems; and for 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 by adopting state-of-the-art business and engineering
practices. Our production complex must take advantage of modern
manufacturing techniques. As an example, a secure communications and
data network was established among the production plants and
laboratories which is facilitating rapid interchange of design and
manufacturing information related to the W87 life extension program. In
the future, this will serve as the backbone of a modern simulation
product realization environment. The network is already reducing the
time needed to produce classified parts, in some instances up to 90
percent.
We remain committed to maintaining a robust and world-class
microelectronics capability at Sandia National Laboratories. This
effort will allow us to both develop and exploit emerging technologies
that show great promise for miniaturizing weapon components and
improving their reliability and for maintaining a critical capability
in radiation- hardened electronics needed to address the threat
environments of the future.
Toward that end, in December 1998, the Department of Energy and
Intel Corp. announced that Intel Corp. will provide a no-fee license
for its Pentium processor design to Sandia National Laboratories for
the development of custom-made radiation-hardened microprocessors for
use in United States satellite, space vehicles, and defense systems.
The agreement will save U.S. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars
in microprocessor design costs and provide the federal government with
a ten-fold increase in processing power over the highest performing
existing technology. Radiation hardening ``immunizes'' systems and
applications from ionizing radiation, such as cosmic rays, which affect
the reliability of conventional electronics. Prototypes of the custom
chips will be fabricated and tested at Sandia's Microelectronics
Development Laboratory. While our production workload is certainly far
smaller than in the past, the demands on our manufacturing processes
have actually increased. Let me explain what I mean. We now know how
critical baseline data is to stockpile certification in the absence of
underground testing. Understanding how parts change over time involves
comparing old and new parts. In the past, our production facilities
built components with a primary focus on staying within design and
process specifications. However, we have learned that seemingly
insignificant variations in products or processes at the time of
manufacture can often be the key to component lifetime and hence to
weapon performance.
Thus, we have significantly expanded the amount and type of
baseline data, critical to modeling, collected during production. We
now record much more than just the product specifications. We collect
information on the physical and chemical properties of individual parts
as well as the constituent raw materials. New parts receive significant
analysis using new technologies and characterization tools covering the
full scale from the microscopic to macroscopic level. Processes are
also being re-instrumented to capture key parameters during production.
All information is collected in readily accessible databases. The
future of certification relies, in part, on our ability to accurately
record the condition of parts as they were built. These investments in
baselining tools and technologies will continue across the complex with
future life extension activities.
We are continuing to right-size and modernize our production
complex for the 21st Century. The Stockpile Management Restructuring
Initiative (SMRI) is the first step and includes the tritium facilities
at the Savannah River Site; uranium machining, recycling and storage
facilities at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant; assembly and high explosive
fabrication facilities at the Pantex Plant; and non-nuclear production
facilities for electronic, electro-optical devices, plastic and
machined parts at the Kansas City Plant.
A pit production capability is being reestablished at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory, a capability the DOE has not had since the
closure of the Rocky Flats Plant in 1989. A W88 first development unit
pit was successfully produced last year and by 2001, the first pit for
stockpile use will be produced. By 2007, LANL will have a limited
capability to manufacture replacement pits for the units destroyed
during surveillance activities.
The final phase of a five year process to resume enriched uranium
operations at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant will be completed in fiscal year
1999. The Kansas City Plant has now been qualified for the production
of tritium gas reservoirs for the W76, W78 and W80 warheads and Sandia
National Laboratories will soon have a new production facility on-line
for neutron generators and will deliver almost 300 units in fiscal year
2000.
In November 1998, the Heartland supercomputer, one of the largest
and most powerful computer systems operating in a North American
manufacturing facility was installed at the Kansas City Plant. This
system is quickly becoming a key asset in solving production problems
by simulating production processes with some of the same software that
is used in engineering and physics simulation on weapon systems and
which would previously have required very expensive prototypes. For
example, the Heartland supercomputer has been used to evaluate new
forge weld designs on such products as the W87 reservoir transfer tube,
to determine process parameters for filling electronic systems with
foam for structural integrity, and to evaluate soldering techniques in
the radar systems for the B83 and B61.
In addition, over 1,000 nuclear warheads were safely dismantled at
the Pantex Plant in fiscal year 1998, approximately 275 dismantlements
will be completed in fiscal year 1999, and 375 dismantlements are
planned for fiscal year 2000. The decrease in quantity after fiscal
year 1998 does not reflect a decrease in workload because the systems
remaining to be dismantled involve more complicated procedures and
therefore, require additional time and resources. Dismantlements
resulting from the nation's response to START I, however, will
essentially be completed by fiscal year 2001.
In December 1998, Secretary Richardson announced that a review of
the management structure throughout the DOE would be conducted. Until
this review is completed, no decision will be made on the Department's
proposal to consolidate contracts at our defense weapon production
facilities. Under this concept, the management and operating contract
for the Kansas City Plant in Kansas City, Missouri, the Y-12 Plant in
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas, would be
consolidated into a single contract to improve programmatic performance
and integration.
tritium
Current policy requires the Department to develop a new tritium
production source by about fiscal year 2005 to support a START I
nuclear stockpile with a five-year reserve, and to maintain the ability
to ``hedge'' to a START I level even if the START II Treaty enters into
force. Tritium, which decays fairly rapidly, has not been produced in
the U.S. since 1988 and defense requirements have been met by the
recycling of tritium from dismantled weapons. Secretary Richardson
announced on December 22, 1998, a decision to use existing light water
reactors as the primary source of tritium production. He designated the
Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors as the
preferred facilities. Consistent with the Department's dual track
strategy, the Secretary designated the linear accelerator as the back
up technology for tritium production. As such, the Department will
complete engineering development and preliminary design for the
Accelerator Production of Tritium (APT). The Secretary stated that the
use of existing TVA reactors was preferred because this alternative
uses proven technology, offers the best deal for taxpayers, has the
most flexibility to meet present and future tritium requirements, and
is most consistent with U.S. arms reduction goals. An interagency
agreement with TVA under the Economy Act on an as-needed, pay-as-you-
go, cost basis is nearing completion and will result in operating costs
being as low as possible for the production of tritium.
The Secretary of Defense publicly endorsed the Secretary's tritium
production decision, and the Chairman of Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) has made a commitment that the NRC will expeditiously review
requests for regulatory approvals associated with the use of tritium-
producing fuel rods in NRC-licensed reactors. The production of tritium
at TVA facilities is expected to begin in 2003. The tritium gas will be
extracted from the rods at the Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF) at the
Savannah River Site. Construction of the TEF will begin in fiscal year
2000 and will be completed in time to support stockpile tritium
requirements.
During the three years since the Record of Decision on the
Environmental Impact Statement for Tritium Supply and Recycling, the
projects for both dual-track options were subjected to numerous reviews
by independent groups of experts. Regulatory oversight was provided by
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) in appropriate areas. A review of
nonproliferation aspects was provided by an interagency review group.
experimental programs
It is at the DOE's Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratories and at the Nevada Test Site that the science base
of the Stockpile Stewardship Program is developed. Experimentation is
how, in the absence of nuclear testing, we divide the physics of the
explosive sequence into each of its parts, and analyze each separately.
Information that we have from the production and surveillance
activities described previously, helps us to focus our experimental
work. Information that we have from over 1,000 U.S. nuclear tests also
tell us what we don't know and where we need to fill in gaps in our
knowledge through experiment and observation.
Hundreds of experiments, large and small, are performed each year
in support of Stockpile Stewardship. Subcritical experiments performed
at the Nevada Test Site have received considerable publicity. The sixth
subcritical experiment, Clarinet, took place on February 9, 1999. This
experiment was the second of three planned for fiscal year 1999. Two
subcritical experiments are planned for fiscal year 2000 and additional
subcritical experiments are being considered.
Subcritical experiments provide empirical data on the high pressure
behavior of plutonium; realistically benchmarking data on the dynamic,
non-nuclear behavior of components in today's stockpile; analyzing the
effects of remanufacturing techniques; understanding the effects of
aging materials; and addressing other technical issues. Information
from these experiments will be key to qualifying the pit production
capability at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), as well as
certifying the performance of weapons which will contain the
replacement pits. These experiments also contribute significantly to
the maintenance of the critical infrastructure and educational base of
skilled personnel at the Nevada Test Site. In addition to helping us
understand the effects of aging on plutonium, these experiments are key
to our test readiness program. Subcritical experiments are consistent
with the safeguards under which the President has recommended
ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
We do a good job of investigating the first part of the nuclear
explosion; that is, the implosion of the plutonium pit by high
explosive, with non-nuclear experiments. 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 1998, we
conducted some 50 non-nuclear hydrotests at the Pulsed High Energy
Radiographic Machine Emitting X-rays (PHERMEX) and the Flash X-Ray
(FXR) machine facilities at LANL and Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL). We will do approximately the same number in fiscal
year 1999 and in fiscal year 2000. In addition, we plan to conduct
approximately 150 less complex experiments per year aimed at
understanding and answering questions about high-explosives behavior
and explosive effects on materials.
Experiments using the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE)
are investigating proton radiography, a new technique in which proton
beams from a linear accelerator are used directly in a novel approach
to hydrodynamics-radiography that, if successful, could provide
additional information to our process of certifying pits. This
technique is one of the candidate technologies being considered to make
detailed, three-dimensional ``motion pictures'' of the implosion
process. Smaller-scale dynamic proton radiography experiments have
already been performed at LANSCE to address important certification
issues (e.g., cold high-explosives performance), paving the way for
validation of advanced explosives simulation models.
This year we will be conducting a series of measurements at the
Brookhaven National Laboratory as a next step in evaluating protons for
weapon radiography. Such technology could be used in an advanced
hydrotest facility. Accelerator experiments are also being used to
probe basic properties of weapons materials that have a direct bearing
on the functional lifetime, hydrodynamic behavior, nuclear performance,
aging and corrosion of weapons materials and components. Based on these
experiments, data can be extracted on equation of state, strength,
microstructure, and aging properties of weapons materials.
In the area of inertial confinement fusion (ICF), the Department is
conducting an aggressive research program to support the stockpile. In
order to transfer resources to the National Ignition Facility project,
the Nova laser at LLNL is scheduled for shutdown in 1999. Program
emphasis will shift to the Omega laser at the University of Rochester.
About 1,300 shots are planned for Omega in fiscal year 2000. A major
activity at Omega in fiscal year 1999-2000 will be installation and
operation of a cryogenic target handling system in preparation for
deuterium-tritium cryogenic fuel implosion experiments.
In 1998, the Z-pulsed power facility at Sandia National
Laboratories achieved a record x-ray energy and temperature levels. In
1999 and 2000, we plan to conduct about 160 shots in Z in the areas of
weapons effects, weapons physics and NIF ignition. The major activity
in Z over the next two years will be the installation of the Beamlet
laser from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory which will be used as
a diagnostic on Z. This diagnostic will enhance investigations in all
areas. The ICF program is implementing a detailed multi-laboratory
national ignition plan to achieve ignition and to address other
stewardship issues during NIF operations.
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.
Whenever feasible, the goal is to obtain data experimentally by more
than one method in order to improve our confidence in the associated
physics models being used in the advanced Accelerated Strategic
Computing Initiative (ASCI) simulation codes.
progress on major experimental facilities
Construction is well underway for three major facilities that are
essential to the long-term success of the Stockpile Stewardship
Program--the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the Dual-Axis
Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility (DARHT), and Atlas. NIF, the
world's largest laser, will enable our scientists to generate
conditions of temperature and pressure approaching those that occur in
nuclear weapons. Demonstrations of how aged or changed materials could
behave under these unique conditions will provide data essential to
test the validity of computer based predictions. The NIF building is
about 47 percent completed. The siding and roofing were completed in
November 1998. A major event this summer will be the installation of
the target chamber. The first NIF experiments are planned to begin in
October 2001 using eight of 192 laser beams. The NIF is expected to be
completed on schedule in October 2003, and on budget at $1.2 billion.
We continue making good progress in completing the DARHT facility.
This facility will examine the shape and size of an imploding pit model
from two different directions with greatly improved radiographic
resolution. DARHT will also demonstrate a capability of multi-pulsing
to obtain pictures at more than one point in the implosion process.
Construction of the facility to house the x-ray machines was completed
and the first arm of the facility, using a single pulse accelerator,
will be operational with experiments scheduled to begin this summer.
Design and prototyping of the second arm is well underway and this
multi-pulse machine is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2002.
The Atlas pulsed power facility is under construction at LANL. The
design of Atlas is complete, the large and long-lead procurements have
been placed, and the assembly of the first segment of the machine is
underway. The Atlas facility is scheduled to be completed and commence
operations in 2000. Atlas will provide an improved capability to
conduct hydrodynamic experiments for assessment of secondary assemblies
in nuclear weapons.
simulation and computation
The Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) is developing
the high-performance computational modeling and numerical simulation
capabilities necessary to integrate theory, existing data, and new
experimental data to predict results that can be verified and
validated. The ASCI program, a collaborative effort between the
Government and U.S. industry, is developing the world's fastest, most
powerful computational and advanced simulation and modeling
capabilities. These advanced supercomputers are needed to complete the
shift from nuclear test-based methods to science-based methods and to
assess and certify the safety, security, and reliability of the
stockpile without underground nuclear testing.
Advanced computational capabilities that include application codes,
computing platforms, and various tools and techniques, are being
developed under ASCI and incorporated into ongoing stockpile
computational activities. This technology is being developed at about
twice the rate of commercial computing speed and power advances. ASCI
has been highly successful in meeting its milestones and providing
effective new tools to support stockpile stewardship. Information
developed from other elements of the Stockpile Stewardship Program,
such as NIF and our subcritical experiments, will provide the basic
physics models and data for ASCI simulations.
At the end of fiscal year 1998, ASCI unveiled its second generation
of computing systems. Two major systems capable of running in excess of
three trillion operations per second (3 teraops) peak speed were
delivered ahead of schedule and within budget. Blue Pacific, developed
by IBM, is located at LLNL, and Blue Mountain, developed by Silicon
Graphics, Inc., is located at LANL. These systems are each 15,000 times
faster and have roughly 80,000 times the memory of the average personal
desktop computer. On February 12, 1998, the Department announced the
selection of IBM to partner with ASCI on the Option White 10 teraops
supercomputer to be located at LLNL. Building upon the experience and
knowledge gained with the 3 teraops Blue Mountain system, LANL will
conduct a procurement for a computational system that will achieve a
peak performance level of 30 teraops by mid-year 2001. And the
Department's first generation, Option Red Intel computer system,
installed at Sandia National Laboratories in 1996, with a peak speed of
1.8 trillion operations per second is now operating in production mode.
The unprecedented computational power of ASCI is also being made
available to selected groups in the university community through the
Academic Strategic Alliances Program. In 1997, the Department awarded
contracts 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. The work of the
university teams will be of similar difficulty and complexity to that
needed for Stockpile Stewardship and provide another benchmark by which
we can assess the accuracy of our own work. These projects are expected
to lead to major advances in computer simulation technologies as well
as to discoveries in basic and applied science; areas important to
ASCI, the broader Stockpile Stewardship Program, and other application
areas. Applications being developed and run by the university teams are
unclassified and deal with significant non-defense scientific, economic
and social priorities.
We are already utilizing the capabilities of the newly installed
ASCI platforms to support assessment of the stockpile. Specifically, we
have run the highest resolution safety simulation of a stockpile
weapon, and we have run a 3-dimensional simulation that will help
explain a ``mystery'' from the nuclear test archives, that is relevant
to our current program. We have run simulations to support the
certifications of the B61 modification and the W76 neutron generator.
These simulations would not have been possible without the capability
provided by the ASCI platforms performing at the teraops level.
However, in order to simulate a 3-dimensional full-system weapon and
its performance as defined by nuclear weapons designers, scientists,
and engineers at DOE national laboratories, we must scale the current
capability to the 100 teraops level by 2004.
The fiscal year 2000 request for the ASCI and Computations program
operating budget, which totals $543 million, is about 12 percent higher
than the fiscal year 1999 request. In addition, $114 million for
simulation activities that previously were part of the ASCI program
plan and $36 million for construction projects to house ASCI computers
is requested. The fiscal year 2000 request is in line with planned
increases resulting from advances in code development work and with
simulations that necessitate additional memory, storage, and networking
capability. It continues the momentum in both hardware development and
acquisition to obtain computers capable of sustained operations of 100
teraops level by 2004. It also permits building 3-D computer codes,
which in conjunction with the other experimental programs such as
inertial confinement fusion, are aimed at providing the required levels
of fidelity in weapons simulations.
Two new computational initiatives begun in fiscal year 1999 will
continue in fiscal year 2000. The Distributed Computing at a Distance
(DisCom2 ) project develops key computing and communications
technologies that will enable DP laboratories and plants to apply high-
end computing across thousands of miles, to meet the urgent design,
analysis, and engineering needs of Stockpile Stewardship. The Numerical
Environment for Weapons Simulations (NEWS) will create data exploration
super corridors at the weapons laboratories to support large-scale data
analysis for researchers and weapons assessment teams.
nuclear emergency response and technology partnerships programs
There are two other elements that exist across the weapons complex
that play a role in maintaining the leading edge expertise of our
people and program. Defense Programs funds DOE's nuclear emergency
response programs which primarily consist of engineers, scientists, and
other technical personnel from the three weapons laboratories,
production facilities, and other DOE management and operating
contractors. This program provides a technical response capability for
any type of radiological or nuclear accident or incident including
radiological releases, U.S. nuclear weapons accidents, or a malevolent
event involving a nuclear device or radiological dispersal device. A
robust exercise schedule provides challenging scenarios for all
radiological emergency response assets in order to maintain and verify
departmental readiness to meet our mandated responsibilities in
conjunction with a wide range of interagency programs (e.g. Defense
Threat Reduction Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FBI,
etc.). These scenarios include overseas nuclear weapons accident
exercises, field training exercises, multi-agency resolution of nuclear
terrorism crises, response to transportation accidents and commercial
nuclear reactor accidents.
The DP Technology Partnership Program, which has been restructured
to directly support Stockpile Stewardship, represents an important
investment in the future. The private sector has technical leadership
in many areas critical to weapons activities and the Technology
Partnership Program initiates effective collaborations between the
laboratories and industry that strengthen all Stockpile Stewardship
Program components. It is a difficult task, but we already have
success. For example, Sandia and a world class commercial electronics
supplier of radio frequency (RF) products are partnering to develop a
replacement arming, fusing and firing system for the W76/Mk4. This
project will develop the capability for procuring war reserve RF
components from a state-of-the-art, tailored, low-cost, low-volume,
high- reliability manufacturing process. In addition, LANL is working
with a provider of highly advanced, ultra-short pulse laser technology
to develop sophisticated devices that will give LANL an entirely new
capability to non-destructively inspect and measure the interior of a
pit with extremely high resolution.
program integration
You have heard about how, over the last several years the
Stewardship program has successfully set in motion a series of
initiatives to ensure high confidence in the safety and reliability of
the nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing or traditional
new weapon development. Core technical capabilities have been fostered
and facility milestones have been established to strengthen a strong
science-based foundation for Stewardship. Construction of facilities
like DARHT, NIF, and Atlas is now underway to provide state-of-the-art
experimental facilities for pursuing fundamental weapons physics
understanding. The subcritical experiments at NTS return extremely
valuable data on the dynamic materials behavior of explosively driven
plutonium. The ASCI program has successfully delivered world-class
computational power and has focused and paced the development of
simulation-based predictive capability that is required to integrate
the scientific knowledge derived through ongoing experimental and
theoretical program efforts. A Stockpile Life Extension (SLEP) program
has formalized a disciplined process for introducing needed changes to
the enduring nuclear weapons stockpile to address age-related risk. The
time has now come to direct attention on a focused approach toward
integrating and synchronizing the various ``tools'' of the Stewardship
``toolkit'' to more effectively achieve strategic program objectives;
namely, by methodically applying science in a timely way to confidently
manage life extension in the nuclear weapon stockpile.
In the fall of 1998, I chartered a Program Integration Task Force
comprised of senior managers of the nuclear weapons laboratories and
production plants, as well as the appropriate headquarters personnel
with stewardship management responsibilities. The Task Force provided
recommendations for: (a) taking the next steps toward more effective
integration of science with stockpile deliverables; (b) providing more
overall coherence among all program elements; and (c) identifying a
basis for system-wide planning of program and budget.
The Task Force reported back to me in late November 1998. One of
its main recommendations was to eliminate the organizational interface
between the core stewardship R&D program, and the ASCI and stockpile
computing program. This imperative was driven by the urgent need to
accelerate integration of experimental data with the major three-
dimensional weapons computer applications codes under development. In
validating these codes, an improved predictive capability, derived from
enhanced physics understanding of weapon performance and safety issues,
could be more confidently applied in meeting critical certification
milestones associated with stockpile life-extension modifications. As a
result of this consolidation, the weapons science activities of the new
organization could be more coherently managed at the interface with
stockpile manufacturing and production activities.
The Task Force also emphasized the imperative for Headquarters to
vigilantly manage the program balance at the science/production
interface. Its suggestion was to apply a risk management approach in
making programmatic tradeoffs between resources and deliverable
schedules. The principle is fairly simple: weapons science activities
not well integrated with stockpile deliverables would, in time, lose
focus and drift away from relevancy and strategic objectives linked to
the continued certification of weapon performance, safety, and
reliability. On the other hand, any weapons production without the
active integration of science through rigorous certification would
eventually result in the inevitable loss of confidence without nuclear
testing, thus losing nuclear deterrence for the Nation. Balancing these
two major efforts under the stewardship ``umbrella'' will demand a more
keen attention to enterprise-wide planning and budgeting, always
governed by the principle that budget requirements should reflect an
integrated set of program objectives.
In December of 1998, I took action on these Task Force
recommendations by integrating the Stewardship science program under a
new organization, the Office of Research, Development, and Simulation.
This office is now actively pursuing program integration by working
with the nuclear weapons laboratories and Nevada Test Site to jointly
identify and begin planning a set of ``weapons technology campaigns''.
A ``campaign'' is defined as a major technical effort that focuses
resources on developing a critical enabling technology to support
confident certification.
A compelling weapons science or technology issue that demands a
measurable enhancement in predictive capability will drive each
campaign. Thus, each campaign will be designed to integrate
experiments, simulation, and weapon-system assessments. Campaigns will
be focused on achievable goals and identifiable end states for the 2004
time frame. The three laboratories and NTS will join in a common,
complementary effort to define appropriate technology milestones.
Technical efforts will be designed to exploit the current experimental
and computational infrastructure to the maximum extent feasible, while
integrating new capabilities as they become available. Collectively,
the campaigns will be aimed at enhancing certification in the 2004 time
frame, when about half of our nuclear-test-experienced weapon designers
will have retired. By aggressively pursuing these integrating
campaigns, we expect to successfully meet the challenges of the next
decade.
Campaigns will result in a clearer set of program expectations tied
to needs and priorities. This in turn will result in our ability to
articulate our deliverables and budget requirements far more precisely
and far more measurably than has been done in the past. Ultimately, I
believe, this will result in a better understanding of what the public
is buying for the funds provided. I am convinced that it will also
provide, in the future, a clearer and more demonstrable model for
addressing what can not be provided at a given level of resources.
conclusion
These are but a selection of the broad range of on-going planned
Stockpile Stewardship Program activities. Let me reemphasize that the
current stockpile is well tested and well understood. The designers and
engineers who built our existing weapons are still available and are
still 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. We are mindful,
however, that the clock is ticking on both the design life spans of the
weapons, and the career spans of test-experienced designers, engineers,
and production experts. We have an unprecedented, but time sensitive,
challenge to put in place both the tools and the people that will carry
us beyond test-based expertise to science-based expertise for the
future.
If supported appropriately, I believe the Stockpile Stewardship
Program can indefinitely maintain a safe and reliable stockpile without
the need to conduct nuclear testing. I know of no other national
security issue that is more important for our Nation today and for the
next millennium.
statement of rose e. gottemoeller
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Ms. Gottemoeller, would you proceed with your testimony?
Your written remarks will be made a part of the record. If you
would abbreviate your oral remarks, and we will wait on the
questions till all three witnesses have testified, then we will
proceed.
Ms. Gottemoeller. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have
my remarks entered into the record. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before this committee and discuss our
fiscal year 2000 budget request.
In my oral remarks, I would really like to hit a few of my
office's planned activities as highlights for fiscal year 2000.
The President has identified weapons of mass destruction
proliferation as a national emergency, and I am proud of the
role that DOE and my office play in responding to that
emergency.
material protection, control and accounting [mpc&a]
Our total request for fiscal year 2000 is $747.3 million,
representing an 11 percent increase over our fiscal year 1999
appropriation. This increase reflects the growing threat to
U.S. security in both international and domestic arenas. Russia
is at the top of our priority list. Through our Material
Protection, Control and Accounting, or MPC&A program, we are
helping Russia secure its nuclear weapons nuclear materials and
reduce the risk that these materials will be diverted to the
weapons in rogue regimes or terrorist organizations.
This has been a highly successful effort which has expanded
to include 55 facilities throughout the former Soviet Union. To
date, we have completed upgrades on 30 metric tons of material
and have improved the security of some 400 tons, metric tons,
in total. We are working now at virtually every site we know of
that contains weapons--usable nuclear materials in the former
Soviet Union, including the major sites in the Russian defense
complex.
We still have much work to do, since we know that the
Russians have at least 650 tons of nuclear material not in
weapons and in need of upgraded protection, but we have
developed the goodwill and the structure needed to efficiently
pursue the security of the remaining stocks of nuclear
materials.
Senator Domenici. Might I ask, why do you say 650 tons? Do
you accumulate all kinds, rather than telling us what each one
is?
Ms. Gottemoeller. Yes, sir. That is an accumulation of
plutonium as well as highly enriched uranium. It is the
planning number that we use, although we know from our
interactions with our Russian colleagues that the number may be
larger than that.
Senator Domenici. Okay. Go ahead.
Ms. Gottemoeller. We are requesting $145 million for this
effort in fiscal year 2000. Our efforts in the area of Russian
military security are made possible in large part because DOE's
role and my office's role is important in setting the
international standard for the production of nuclear materials
and facilities here in the United States.
initiatives for proliferation prevention and nuclear cities initiative
I would now like to turn to the other side of the Russian
proliferation problem, the brain drain. Our Initiatives for
Proliferation Prevention programs and our newly launched
Nuclear Cities Initiative are working to address the complex
issues in this arena. I know much has been said and written
recently on these efforts, but I would like to say this. We
have through the initiatives for proliferation prevention
successfully kept thousands, at last count over 5,900, former
Soviet weapons experts at home and out of weapons work in rogue
States, terrorist groups, and criminal organizations.
As the General Accounting Office recommended, we need to do
a better job of ensuring more money gets to Russia. We also
need to redouble our efforts to achieve commercial success with
these projects. However, the overall goal, as GAO actually
acknowledged, of keeping these experts at home is succeeding.
international nuclear safety
Elsewhere in our Russia-related activities, I am pleased to
report that my office has successfully completed integrating
the Department's Office of International Nuclear Safety into
our structure. There is a natural synergy between the nuclear
safety work and my office's more traditional missions. We are
making excellent progress in improving the safety of Soviet
reactors, including improving Soviet safety diagnosis and
response training, pursuing the installation of safety
equipment, and establishing regional nuclear safety training
centers.
Moreover, our efforts to aid the closing of the Chernobyl
complex continue and, indeed, are intensifying in fiscal year
2000. While we work to counter threats abroad to our national
security, we are stepping up our security efforts here at home.
The threats to domestic safety and security are more diverse
than ever and, at the direction of President Clinton and
Secretary Richardson, we are moving smartly to address these
concerns.
chemical and biological weapons
The Department, through my office, is rapidly pursuing the
President's call to improve our chemical and biological
detection and identification capabilities. For our chem-bio
initiative we are requesting a 70-percent increase from $19 to
$32 million in fiscal year 2000.
The prime goal of these efforts is to provide first
responders with portable, fast, and accurate tools to detect
and ID chemical and biological agents. With one anthrax hoax in
the United States every day, the ability to detect hoaxes and,
in the worst case, confirm the use of chemical or biological
agents is vital to reducing the effect of such events. Our
investment in this area is leveraging the already strong
expertise residing in the national laboratory system,
especially those in the fields of chemistry and biology.
In addition to our CBW detection work, other important
technical advances are being pursued in our arms control
research and development area. The tools being developed
through this office will improve our ability to detect
proliferant activities in other countries and increase our
confidence in the verifiability of international agreements
such as the comprehensive test ban treaty.
domestic security
Now, sir, I would like to turn to our domestic security
missions, which are equally important and challenging. Our
Office of Security Affairs continues its vital role in
protecting classified information and the security of the DOE
complex overall. This has been another frequently discussed
topic in recent months, but I would like to say this. Our
mission requires us to remain accountable to the American
public. To do this, we must effectively balance two equally
essential missions, protecting classified information to
prevent others from using it to harm U.S. interests, and
keeping secret only that information which needs to be
protected.
To meet these goals, the Department is working aggressively
to review materials before they're released to ensure the
absence of restricted or formerly restricted data as Congress
has required. At the same time, we are working to comply with
President Clinton's executive order to declassify documents
that no longer require protection.
emergency management
The last program I would like to mention is one that gets
few headlines but allows me and my colleagues in the DOE
leadership to get to sleep at night, from time to time anyway.
This is the Office of Emergency Management, which is also
operated out of my office 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365
days a year. Our staff is ready to respond to any of a wide
variety of possible events that would affect our national
security and safety, and the overall performance of the DOE
complex.
prepared statement
There are many additional programs in our office, and time
does not allow for as complete a listing as I would like to do,
but I will be happy to answer any of your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rose E. Gottemoeller
introduction
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present this statement for
the record on the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2000 budget
request for the Office of Nonproliferation and National Security (NN).
The Department of Energy generally, and the Office I head specifically,
have received extremely strong support from this committee. I'd like to
thank you for that support and say that I look forward to working with
you in the future as we work to address some of our nation's most
important and critical challenges.
It has been stated many times, but it bears repeating: The world we
face today is vastly changed from the one we lived in during the cold
war. The challenges we face are more varied and less predictable. None
of the threats we face is more serious than the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction to rogue states and, even more worrisome,
terrorist organizations. The President has declared the threat of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation to constitute a
``national emergency'' and I am proud of the role the Department of
Energy, and my Office in particular, is playing in responding to that
emergency.
Within the Department, the Office of Nonproliferation and National
Security is unique in the range of our contributions to national
security. The Office is responsible for national security missions in
both domestic and international settings. In Russia, DOE employees and
laboratory experts are on the ground and actively working to improve
the security of hundreds of tons of plutonium and highly enriched
uranium at dozens of facilities. We are also working with thousands of
former Soviet Union weapons scientists to provide them with non-weapons
jobs and prevent them from straying into work with countries of
proliferation concern. Here at home, we are accelerating our efforts to
harness the skills of the national laboratories to meet the growing
threats of chemical and biological weapons and the very serious risk
that such weapons will be used on U.S. territory. In addition, my staff
is ensuring the protection of U.S. nuclear materials and of DOE sites.
At the same time, we must balance the critical job of protecting this
nation's nuclear secrets, with meeting our obligation to declassify
appropriate documents to ensure our accountability to the American
people.
fiscal year 2000 budget request
The Office's fiscal year 2000 budget request is $747.3 million,
representing an 11 percent increase over our fiscal year 1999
appropriation. This increase reflects the ever growing challenges our
nation faces in the international, as well as domestic arenas. While I
won't, in my prepared remarks, go into detail on all of our programs, I
would like to highlight for you some of our main projects and some
areas of proposed expansion in 2000.
material protection, control and accounting
First, I will turn to the situation in Russia. The members of this
committee are keenly aware of the importance Russia plays in our
overall nonproliferation strategy. For several years, we have been
building up a legacy of trust and personal relationships that has
allowed us to cooperatively pursue security upgrades throughout the
Russian nuclear complex. The importance of this work, carried out under
our Material Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A) program, cannot
be overstated. Our programs have been key to international efforts to
prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by terrorists or would-be
nuclear states. In this goal, we have made considerable progress, but
we have recognized that the task before us is much greater than we
understood when this program began in 1994. Russia's economic collapse
in August has forced us to re-evaluate our methods and priorities and
brought, from the Russians themselves, a renewed sense of urgency to
our cooperation. This now includes an increased awareness of the
``insider threat'' of nuclear materials diversion and an understanding
that the size, and geographic scope of the nuclear enterprise is larger
than had been appreciated in 1994.
With this background, over half of our proposed budget increase
would be dedicated to our Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation,
which implements our Russian nuclear security efforts. The Russian
MPC&A program would receive $145 million, which represents a $5 million
increase over last year but an almost $40 million increase over our
original baseline. This effort includes a long-range plan that will
continue beyond our original completion date of 2002. Our extended
deadline reflects one simple fact--the job of securing nuclear
materials is a much harder and a larger endeavor than anyone--including
Russia--understood when our program began. While we will have completed
upgrades on the number of sites originally included in our program
plan, designed in 1994, we have secured Russian agreement to cooperate
on more than two dozen facilities that we didn't even know existed when
the program began. In addition, in order to limit the program's overall
requirements, we are venturing for the first time into the long-overdue
area of ``materials consolidation.'' The Russians themselves have
finally realized the risks associated with maintaining such a far flung
nuclear complex. Our cooperative consolidation efforts will help reduce
the number of facilities housing nuclear materials, thereby reducing
the strain on the Russian system and the long-term MPC&A requirements--
including our own.
A word, if I may, about the absolutely incredible men and women who
have been working on this problem night and day for the past several
years. The image of the civil servant and government bureaucrat has
been impugned for years in our society. I know that the members of this
committee are well aware that the average civil servant is motivated
and hardworking, but I have been struck since I became director of NN
by the absolute dedication of our MPC&A task force and the almost
superhuman level of their efforts. Their travel includes some of the
most remote and least hospitable locations in the world, spending weeks
away from family and basic comforts and making repeated trips to such
locations in order to facilitate and complete their assignments. The
work load for the average MPC&A Task Force member is extreme, as we had
sought to limit the task force size to one appropriate for a limited
duration project. This is an issue that we are examining extremely
closely at the present time, in the expectation that the team will
become larger and longer range in its organizational outlook.
Our ability to address Russian nuclear security concerns comes in
large part from NN's responsibilities at home for the protection of
nuclear materials. These include directing a rigorous safeguards and
security program for the entire Department of Energy complex to ensure
the demonstrated security of our own nuclear materials. Our work in
Russia has benefitted greatly from our direct expertise in the
protection of materials and facilities here at home, and from the
knowledge that our efforts and accomplishments set the international
standard for the protection of nuclear materials.
While we still have considerable work in ahead of us to upgrade
security around Russian nuclear materials, we are also striving to
address other sources of proliferation risk and concern in the former
Soviet Union. We consider our work at nuclear sites to be the first
line of defense against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The
second line of defense is the internal borders of Russia, and helping
to ensure that any stolen or misappropriated materials cannot leave the
country. Our Second Line of Defense program has already installed
nuclear material detectors at the main international airport in Moscow
and at the Caspian seaport of Astrakhan. We have identified 22
additional border crossings that for tactical or strategic reasons
warrant the installation of similar equipment. This is yet another
example of how a relatively small investment can help protect ourselves
and our friends against the greatest of threats.
initiatives for proliferation prevention/nuclear cities initiative
Another critical component of our nonproliferation efforts in the
former Soviet Union is our effort to engage and orchestrate alternative
employment for underemployed and unemployed ex-Soviet weapons
scientists. Through our Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention
program, we have worked with over 170 institutes and sponsored
collaborative scientific efforts with over 4000 ex-Soviet nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons experts. This work has helped keep
these experts in Russia and the Newly Independent States, as opposed to
selling their know how to rogue regimes, criminal groups or terrorist
organizations.
We are embarking on a much more comprehensive enterprise which also
seeks to develop alternative, non-weapons jobs for weapons scientists,
this time as part of our Nuclear Cities Initiative. The ten closed
nuclear cities in Russia are the jewels in the Russian nuclear crown.
We are pleased that Russia is finally taking steps to reassess and
restructure their nuclear complex and has approached us about helping
to develop new jobs for weapons scientists who will lose their defense
work as weapons facilities close. We are approaching this endeavor with
a mixture of commitment and pragmatism, realizing that such efforts
will take time. But the goals of keeping the Russian weapons scientists
at home, and helping to reduce the size of the Russian nuclear
infrastructure, contribute directly to U.S. security.
The Department of Energy, and my Office in particular, has taken
note of the concerns expressed in the General Accounting Office's
recent report on our Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program.
We are working aggressively to implement their recommendations and
believe that adoption of their comments will greatly improve what is
already a successful enterprise. These include a strengthened review
process to further ensure non IPP projects have dual-use benefits for
Russian military programs and an increased effort to provide a greater
percentage of resources to Russian and NIS scientists.
international nuclear safety and cooperation
Elsewhere in the former Soviet nuclear complex, NN is now actively
engaged in the area of international nuclear safety. The transfer of
the Department's international nuclear safety activities into NN is now
complete and has gone extremely well. There is a very strong natural
connection between various Russian and NIS activities within NN's
already existing projects and the nuclear safety initiatives. We
continue to make excellent progress in improving the safety to Soviet-
designed nuclear reactors and establishing self-sustaining nuclear
safety infrastructures. We are addressing the most serious risks at
these reactors by improving the plants' physical operating conditions,
installing safety equipment, developing improved safety procedures,
establishing regional centers for training reactor personnel, and
conducting in-depth safety assessments of the operating plants.
national security challenges
Our work in Russia, as important as it is, must not and does not
distract our attention from our critical and considerable domestic
activities. The changed situation abroad is matched by a changing
picture at home. The President highlighted his concerns about new
domestic threats in January at a National Academy of Sciences event in
which he stated that ``The enemies of peace realize they cannot defeat
us with traditional military means. So they are working on two new
forms of assault: cyber attacks on our critical computer systems, and
attacks with weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological,
potentially even nuclear weapons. We must be ready--ready if our
adversaries try to use computers to disable power grids, banking,
communications and transportation networks, police, fire and health
services--or military assets.''
President Clinton, and his entire national security team, are
increasingly concerned about these threats. We are, at the President's
direction, making concerted and coordinated efforts to meet these
growing challenges. Let me explain what DOE and NN are doing in this
area.
chemical and biological threats
Among the Secretary's top priorities is responding to the growing
threat of chemical and biological (CBW) attacks inside the United
States. The Department of Energy, drawing upon the diverse and
extensive expertise of the national laboratories, has extraordinary
assets in the fields of biology and chemistry, pursued for both the
pure and applied scientific value. With relatively modest sums of
money, the Department is seeking to leverage these skills and
experience to improve our ability to detect and identify biological and
chemical agents.
To pursue this work, we are requesting a total of $32 million,
which is a $13 million or 70 percent increase over our 1999
appropriations. The focus of these efforts is to better equip first
responders with the tools to identify and categorize chemical and
biological agents. The tools we seek to develop must be portable, fast,
accurate and simple, so that they can be put to immediate use in the
field, serving to protect the American public from hoaxes or, worse,
actual attacks.
Again, Mr. Chairman, defining the challenge is as simple as
answering it is complex. There is, on average, one anthrax threat in
the United States every day. In January, the shortcomings of our
current capabilities were made glaringly clear, when an anthrax threat
was directed at the 7th floor of the Department of State. While this,
fortunately, turned out to be a hoax, we need to do better in fielding
smart systems capable of detecting potential WMD agents. Today, there
are no simple, portable and reliable detection and identification tools
for biological agents available to those officials who are assigned the
role of getting to the scene of a CBW attack first. Delays in assessing
the credibility and severity of specific incidents create confusion,
waste resources, and, in the event of a real attack, costs lives. In
sum, our limited abilities in this area actually increase the
``terror'' effect of such attacks or hoaxes, thus inviting additional
events. The sooner we can field the types of portable detection
equipment we are working on, the sooner we will be able to deter and
reduce the number of such attacks.
There are questions raised from time to time about why involve the
Department of Energy--whose weapons expertise is focused in the nuclear
arena. To be direct, DOE and its laboratories have a broad range of
ongoing programs in biological and chemical areas which provide it with
a unique set of skills to apply to this problem. Although originally
developed in the service of our primary nuclear mission, these world-
class capabilities can be leveraged for critical chemical and
biological detection work. Programs such as the human genome mapping
project or chemical spill remediation efforts are also being drawn upon
to better protect our citizens against the most insidious of attacks.
research and development
The larger part of our research and development program, for which
we are requesting $221 million in total, is dedicated to other ground
breaking and vital efforts to improve our national security. Within the
NN office, our Research and Development activities are working to
ensure the early detection of proliferation-related activities and to
improve our ability to verify existing or planned international
treaties. While I cannot discuss in open session some of our work, we
are pursuing a number of important avenues which will help detect, with
increasing reliability, efforts to produce and refine nuclear
materials, as well as new and better ways to detect and characterize
nuclear tests and activities contrary to international norms or U.S.
security interests.
declassification initiative
I would also like to highlight additional areas of work here at
home. Within our Office of Security Affairs, we continue the critical
effort to declassify hundreds of millions of pages of archived
information while ensuring the appropriate protection of classified
information. The Secretary and my entire Office are committed to
meeting the goals of the President`s executive order on
declassification while, at the same time, ensuring that Restricted and
Formerly Restricted Data are not inadvertently released. Some might see
these two responsibilities as conflicting, but I do not. They are not
only compatible, but mutually supportive. Our requirement to remain
accountable to the American public by avoiding excessive secrecy, while
at the same time ensuring the vigilant protection of our nation's
nuclear information are part of the same goal--ensuring the security
and freedom for the American public, and fulfilling our public trust.
We must protect the nation from the threat of nuclear terrorism as well
as the danger of excessive secrecy. Both are critical to meeting our
obligations as public servants and I am confident in our ability--given
continued support--to achieve these goals.
emergency response
Even as we prepare to address the risk of attack here at home,
including our CBW detection efforts and our domestic security work, we
are constantly preparing for how to respond should an emergency
develop. The Office of Emergency Response is a critical resource for
the Department and the United States Government as a whole. This
extensive communications network and dedicated staff are vital assets,
and enable the Department's leadership to receive and process updates
and help manage the response to a large variety of contingencies. These
include environmental concerns associated with the management of DOE
sites, to the more extreme cases of attack or sabotage. As with the
other offices within my responsibility, I have been extremely impressed
with the professionalism and dedication of the staff within this
program office. Their efforts help reduce the likelihood of a crisis
and enable us to reduce the consequences, should one arise. Their
efforts are generally underappreciated in the eye of the public,
largely due to their skill and success in their jobs.
conclusion
I would like to end where I began, and thank the Chairman and the
entire Committee for their support for the Department and my Office as
we address the nation's critical national security missions. I look
forward to our continued work together. Thank you.
statement of laura s.h. holgate
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Ms. Gottemoeller.
Ms. Holgate, will you proceed with your testimony, and your
prepared remarks will be made a part of the record.
Ms. Holgate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Reid, members
of the committee. I am pleased to appear before you today to
discuss the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2000 budget for
fissile materials disposition.
The Office of Fissile Materials Disposition's principal
focus is on disposing of inventories of surplus U.S. weapons--
usable plutonium, and highly enriched uranium, as well as
providing technical support for and ultimately implementing
Administration efforts to obtain reciprocal disposition of
surplus Russian plutonium.
These disposition activities, along with other
administration efforts aimed at dismantling weapons delivery
systems, securing nuclear materials and preventing the spread
of nuclear weapons knowledge, are part of the Administration's
overall strategy to reduce the threat from weapons of mass
destruction.
A recent New York Times editorial stated that nothing would
do more to protect American security in the decades ahead than
ensuring that Russia's immense stockpile of nuclear weapons and
materials is diminished. That, members of the committee, is our
goal.
fiscal year 2000 budget request
The fiscal year 2000 budget request for these activities is
$200 million, an increase of $32 million over the fiscal year
1999 comparable amount. The increase in fiscal year 2000 will
allow the Department to continue detailed design of the pit
disassembly and conversion facility and the MOX fuel
fabrication facility, as well as begin design of the
immobilization and processing facility, key elements of the
United States hybrid plutonium disposition strategy involving
immobilization and burning of mixed oxide [MOX] fuel in
existing, domestic reactors.
This budget request will also allow the program to continue
testing the pit disassembly and conversion prototype at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory, to establish a technical baseline
for the ceramic immobilization plant process, conduct fuel
qualification, continue MOX fuel facility license activities,
initiate a MOX lead test assembly program, and conduct a
repository analysis associated with disposition technologies.
The $160 million out of the fiscal year 2000 budget request
is allocated for these elements, required to dispose of 50 tons
of excess U.S. plutonium.
Proceeding with planned design, development, and licensing
is important, because it strengthens the U.S. negotiating
position with Russia and sends a strong message that the United
States is serious about reciprocal plutonium disposition. A
decision to stop or significantly slow the design effort would
result in demobilization of the disposition facility design
teams, loss of continuity, and increased costs.
The United States, however, will not begin construction of
new facilities for disposition of U.S. plutonium unless there
is significant progress on plans for plutonium disposition in
Russia. This is necessary to avoid putting the United States at
a strategic disadvantage in future negotiations with Russia as
well as to avoid large scale expenditure of funds until they
are required.
u.s.-russia plutonium agreement
With regard to progress with Russia on plutonium
disposition, important foundations have been laid in the last
year. In July 1998, Vice President Gore and former Russian
Prime Minister Kiriyenko signed a Scientific and Technical
Cooperation Agreement. The agreement provides for conducting
tests and demonstrations of technologies needed to dispose of
surplus weapons plutonium in Russia, including plutonium
conversion and nondestructive assay, burning mixed oxide fuel
in reactors, and immobilization of waste.
This work is needed to build trust and cooperation and will
add to the technical knowledge base, confirm the viability of
certain technologies, and demonstrate the technologies that
might be employed for disposition of surplus Russian plutonium.
The program's fiscal year 2000 budget includes $24.9
million to implement this agreement and to carry out other
activities in support of the plutonium disposition in Russia as
part of the President's Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative.
At the Moscow summit in September 1998, President Clinton
and President Yeltsin signed a Joint Statement of Principles.
This statement committed the two countries to seek to conclude
a bilateral plutonium disposition agreement as soon as
possible. This bilateral agreement will specify the
technological approach and schedules to be followed by each
country, the types of facilities to be constructed in Russia,
and commitments with respect to the support of these activities
in Russia.
Negotiations on this agreement are underway, and in initial
conversations with Russian counterparts we feel significant
commonality of vision on the content, structure, and timing of
this agreement.
The United States delegation is led by the Department of
State, with key negotiation and technical support being
provided by my office. I believe that an agreement can be
concluded this year to enable plutonium disposition to proceed
in both countries.
Once this agreement is in place, the U.S. and Russia would
each proceed with parallel programs with comparable rates of
disposition. In Russia, the program will require the design,
construction, and operation of facilities to convert weapons
plutonium metal into oxide powder and to fabricate MOX fuel, as
well as to modify Russian reactors to permit MOX utilization.
The estimated annual capacity of existing Russian reactors
is 2 metric tons of MOX fuel per year. The U.S. goal is to
increase this rate of disposition in Russia of Russian material
to no less than 5 metric tons per year, for the expansion of
the plutonium conversion and MOX fabrication facilities, and
the identification and utilization of additional reactor
capacity, whether inside or outside Russia, to consume MOX fuel
fabricated from plutonium withdrawn from Russian weapons.
fiscal year 1999 emergency supplemental appropriation
The Department intends to assist Russia to implement this
bilateral agreement initially through the emergency
appropriation of $200 million provided in fiscal year 1999.
This dramatic gesture has been instrumental in the Russians'
current cooperative approach in this negotiation. This funding
will be expended in the Russian Federation over a 2- to 3-year
period following completion of the agreement.
A detailed budget justification and obligation plan will be
submitted to Congress once the strategies are defined as part
of the negotiations progress. This funding is likely to be
utilized primarily to begin to create a MOX infrastructure in
Russia.
The $200 million will not cover the entire cost of
implementing this agreement. Russia will need to contribute
some resources, and the Administration plans to seek support
for a portion of this program from the international community,
both the private and public sector. If, however, the program
requires additional future appropriations, the administration
will consider such needs in the course of its normal budget
process.
gas u.s.-russian reactor technology development
The fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development Act
provided an earmark of $5 million for joint U.S.-Russian
development of gas reactor technology called for the Russian
Federation to provide a matching contribution of $3 million in
either comparable funds or contributions in-kind. This level of
funding should be adequate to cover gas reactor technology R&D
efforts in fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
In closing, the Fissile Material Disposition Program has
come a long way in building the domestic and international
consensus necessary to begin disposing of surplus highly
enriched uranium and plutonium. Along the way, the program has
led U.S. efforts not only to identify a hybrid strategy for
disposing of surplus weapons plutonium, but also to begin
implementation of this strategy. Technology development, tests,
and demonstrations are ongoing, and a prototype pit disassembly
and conversion system successfully began operations at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory in November.
DOE is about to announce a major contract award for MOX
fuel fabrication and irradiation services, and Title I design
will soon begin for two of the three disposition facilities.
Negotiations have recently begun with Russia aimed at achieving
a bilateral agreement for plutonium disposition.
Now is the time for the United States to continue this
important mission by sending a clear signal to the world
community that we are intent on finishing this job. Returning
to the words of the New York Times editorial, the modest amount
of money needed to achieve these goals now could save
Washington many billions of dollars in the future to deal with
the Russian nuclear threat.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Laura S.H. Holgate
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
before you to discuss the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2000
budget request for Fissile Materials Disposition.
With the end of the Cold War, hundreds of tons of weapons plutonium
and highly enriched uranium have become surplus to defense needs in
both the U.S. and Russia. Continued downsizing of nuclear weapons
stockpiles and implementation of arms reduction agreements are expected
to result in further weapons dismantlements and increases in stockpiles
of surplus weapons materials. Denying a potential proliferator access
to these materials is the principal barrier to acquiring a nuclear
weapons capability. Given the current political instability and
worsening economic conditions prevailing in Russia, there is a very
real threat that nuclear weapons materials could be stolen or diverted
into the hands of terrorists or non-nuclear nations. These materials
could be readily fabricated into crude nuclear weapons for use not only
against other nations but also in the U.S. against Americans.
Within the Department of Energy, the Office of Fissile Materials
Disposition's principal focus is on disposing of inventories of surplus
U.S. weapons-usable plutonium and highly enriched uranium as well as
providing technical support for and ultimately implementation of
Administration efforts to obtain reciprocal disposition of surplus
Russian plutonium. These disposition activities--along with other
Administration efforts aimed at dismantling weapons delivery systems,
securing nuclear materials, and preventing the spread of nuclear
weapons knowledge--are part of the Administration's strategy to reduce
the threat from weapons of mass destruction.
The fiscal year 2000 budget request for these activities is $200
million, an increase of $32.5 million over the fiscal year 1999
comparable amount. The increase in fiscal year 2000 is primarily to
allow the program to begin design of a key U.S. plutonium disposition
facility to immobilize surplus non-pit plutonium, procure lead test
assembly equipment required for mixed oxide (MOX) fuel irradiation
tests, and hire the field staff necessary to oversee plutonium
disposition facility design activities at the selected DOE site. The
sections that follow describe the current and planned activities and
requested funding for the Department's fissile materials disposition
activities.
surplus plutonium disposition summary
The Program's efforts in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 will focus on
implementing the Administration's hybrid strategy for plutonium
disposition. This strategy calls for immobilizing surplus weapons
plutonium in ceramic surrounded by vitrified high level radioactive
waste and burning surplus plutonium as mixed oxide fuel in existing,
domestic commercial reactors. Both approaches render the surplus
plutonium as inaccessible and unattractive for retrieval and weapons
use as the plutonium remaining in spent fuel from commercial reactors.
DOE is pursuing both disposition technologies because they provide
important insurance against unexpected difficulties with the
implementation of either technology by itself and they help ensure an
early start for this important task. This hybrid strategy also provides
the United States with flexibility and leverage in negotiating with
Russia and our allies on the critical task of reducing Russian excess
weapons plutonium. While the proposed immobilization technology would
be expected to make the weapons plutonium difficult for terrorists or
third world countries to use in weapons, the Russians have repeatedly
expressed concern that the U.S. immobilization approach would not
destroy plutonium and would leave it available for possible re-use in
weapons, thus reversing the disarmament process. Moreover, there is
reason to believe that if the U.S. implements only immobilization,
Russia will continue to store, rather than eliminate, its stockpile of
surplus weapons plutonium.
The Program is conducting necessary technology development and
demonstrations, completing site-specific environmental analyses,
designing three disposition facilities, and providing key negotiation
and technical support for efforts to attain a bilateral agreement for
the disposition of surplus Russian plutonium.
Proceeding with planned design, development and licensing is
important because it strengthens the U.S. negotiating position and
sends a strong message to the Russians that the U.S. is serious about
reciprocal plutonium disposition. A decision to stop or significantly
slow the design effort would result in demobilization of the
disposition facility design teams, loss of continuity and increased
costs. Since the licensing of the MOX fuel fabrication plant and use of
MOX fuels in reactors is dependent upon a foundation of design and
technical analysis, failure to proceed with the resulting technical
program will significantly lengthen the critical licensing path.
pit disassembly and conversion
The United States has declared 50 metric tons of plutonium as
surplus to national defense needs. Approximately two-thirds of this
amount is either in the form of classified nuclear weapons components
called ``pits'' or clean plutonium metal. Before weapons plutonium from
pits can be disposed of, it must first be removed from pit form and
converted to an unclassified oxide form suitable for disposition and
international inspection. The Department plans to use the Advanced
Recovery and Integrated Extraction System (ARIES) process, a low-waste,
modular pyro-chemical process, to convert the pits and plutonium metal
to plutonium oxide. ARIES is being developed jointly by the Los Alamos
National Laboratory and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Sandia National Laboratories is developing robotics for the system.
In November 1998, DOE began operation of an integrated pit
disassembly and conversion prototype which utilizes the ARIES process
at DOE's Los Alamos National Laboratory. This demonstration, which
involves dismantling up to 250 pits over a two to three year period,
will provide important information for designing and operating a full-
scale Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility.
The fiscal year 2000 budget request seeks funding to continue
testing of the integrated prototype system at Los Alamos. Funding is
also being sought to complete Title I & begin Title II design of a
full-scale Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility. Contingent on
significant progress on Russian plans for plutonium disposition, as
well as successful testing of the prototype, a full-scale facility,
capable of processing thousands of pits per year, could be operational
in fiscal year 2005.
immobilization
Approximately one-third of the 50 tons of surplus U.S. plutonium is
in the form of impure metal, oxides and reactor fuel which are
unsuitable for MOX use without extensive purification. To dispose of
this material, as well as to provide an alternate disposition pathway
should the MOX/reactor approach prove impossible to implement, the
Department is focusing on a ``can-in-canister'' approach for
immobilization. Under this approach, feed materials would be converted
to oxide which would be mixed with ceramic material to form disks. The
disks would be stacked and sealed into steel cans which would be
arrayed within large canisters into which vitrified high-level waste
would be poured. The radioactive waste barrier increases the
proliferation resistance of the immobilized plutonium. The can-in-
canister approach would make use of a high level waste vitrification
facility such as currently exists at Savannah River or is planned to be
built at the Hanford Site. Subsequently, the canisters would be
disposed of in a geologic repository.
While the United States has experience with immobilizing high level
wastes, the technological aspects of how to immobilize weapons
plutonium on an industrial scale need to be resolvedFiscal year 2000
efforts will be aimed at resolving technological issues associated with
impurities in the surplus plutonium forms, developing and demonstrating
production-scale processes and equipment, and conducting the necessary
verification testing of the preferred can-in-canister approach in order
to be confident that it can be successful in a timely and cost-
effective manner.
The fiscal year 2000 budget request also seeks funding to begin
Title I design of an Immobilization and Processing Facility. Contingent
on significant progress on Russian plans for plutonium disposition, as
well as successful development and refinement of the immobilization
process, a full-scale facility could be operational in fiscal year
2006.
mixed oxide fuel fabrication and irradiation services
The other half of the hybrid disposition strategy involves
irradiating MOX fuel in existing, domestic reactors. While MOX fuel is
used in Western Europe on an industrial scale, the principal
uncertainty in the U.S. involves the required cost and business
arrangements. Because the Department doesn't own the reactors needed to
irradiate the MOX fuel or a MOX fuel fabrication plant, DOE is
conducting a competitive procurement to acquire the services of an
industry consortium to design, construct and operate a MOX fuel
fabrication facility; to irradiate the MOX fuel produced in that
facility in existing, domestic, commercial reactors; and to deactivate
the fuel fabrication facility at the end of the disposition mission.
This approach would maximize private sector participation by teaming
fuel designers and fabricators, architect & engineering firms,
construction firms, and reactor operators. Under this arrangement the
consortium will have full responsibility for construction and operation
of the fuel fabrication facility as well as modification and operation
of the reactors in which the fuel will be used.
The MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility would be designed, constructed,
and operated by a private sector consortium at an existing DOE site.
The facility would be government-owned and operated solely for the
disposition of surplus U.S. plutonium. The government would retain the
right to terminate operation of the fuel fabrication facility, either
at the completion of the plutonium disposition mission or earlier, if
required. The facility will be regulated and licensed by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC). In the case of operating reactors, the
reactor owners would retain their inherent responsibility for operating
their reactors safely in accordance with their NRC licenses.
The procurement was initiated in May 1998. Following analysis of
three separate proposals, DOE expects to award a contract this month to
an industrial consortium to start fuel fabrication facility design,
licensing, reactor analysis, and fuel qualification.
The fiscal year 2000 budget request will fund process development
for MOX fuel fabrication, procurement of lead test assembly equipment
for irradiation tests of the MOX fuel, as well as completion of Title I
and initiation of Title II design of a MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility.
Contingent on significant progress on Russian plans for plutonium
disposition, as well as successful completion of design and licensing
efforts, a full-scale facility could be operational in fiscal year
2007.
russian plutonium disposition
The next two to three years will be a crucial period in U.S.
Russian relations concerning the disposition of surplus weapons
plutonium. Proceeding with U.S. long lead-time activities leading up to
construction is necessary to maintain momentum and pressure on Russia
for a plutonium disposition agreement, and serves as a sign to private
industry, the public and the world community that the U.S. is serious
about disposing of stockpiles of surplus weapons plutonium. The United
States is proceeding with research, design and licensing activities for
disposing of surplus U.S. plutonium but will not begin construction of
new facilities for disposition of U.S. plutonium (Pit Disassembly and
Conversion Facility, Immobilization and Associated Processing Facility,
and Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility) unless there is significant
progress on plans for plutonium disposition in Russia. Completing
design is necessary to avoid putting the United States at a strategic
disadvantage in future negotiations with Russia as well as to avoid the
large-scale expenditure of funds until necessary.
At the Moscow Summit in September 1998, President Clinton and
President Yeltsin signed a Joint Statement of Principles for Management
and Disposition of Plutonium Designated as No Longer Required for
Defense Purposes. The Statement committed the two countries to seek to
conclude a Bilateral Plutonium Disposition Agreement. The Bilateral
Agreement would specify the technological approach and schedules to be
followed by each country, the types of facilities to be constructed in
Russia, and commitments with respect to the financing of these
activities in Russia.
Negotiations are underway, and initial conversations with Russian
counterparts reveal significant commonality of vision on the content,
structure, and timing of this agreement. The U.S. delegation is led by
the Department of State with key negotiation and technical support
being provided by the Department of Energy. The Russian delegation is
led by the Ministry of Atomic Energy (MINATOM), supported by the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I believe that an agreement can be
concluded this year to enable plutonium disposition to proceed in both
countries.
Once the Agreement is in place, the U.S. and Russia would each
proceed with parallel programs with comparable, although not
necessarily identical, rates of disposition. In Russia, this program
would require the design, construction, and operation of facilities to
convert weapons plutonium metal into non-weapons form and to fabricate
MOX fuel, as well as to modify Russian reactors to permit MOX
utilization. The estimated annual capacity of existing Russian reactors
(7 VVER-1000 reactors and 1 BN-600 reactor) is two metric tons per
year. The U.S. goal is to increase this rate of plutonium disposition
in Russia to five metric tons per year through the expansion of the
plutonium conversion and MOX fabrication facilities and the
identification and utilization of additional reactor capacity (whether
inside or outside Russia) to consume MOX fuel fabricated from plutonium
withdrawn from Russian weapons.
The Department intends to assist Russia to implement this Bilateral
Agreement initially through the emergency appropriation of $200 million
provided in fiscal year 1999. This funding will be expended in the
Russian Federation over a two- to three-year period following
completion of the United States/Russian agreement. A detailed budget
justification and obligation plan will be submitted to Congress once
strategies are defined as negotiations progress. Although the United
States and Russia have not yet agreed on rates, techniques, or
facilities for plutonium disposition, this funding will likely be
utilized to begin to create a MOX infrastructure in Russia. The $200
million will not cover the entire cost of implementing the agreement.
Russia will need to contribute some resources, and the Administration
plans to seek financing for a portion of this program from the
international community, both the private and public sectors. If,
however, the program requires future appropriations, the Administration
will consider such needs in the course of its normal budget process.
work with russia
In July 1998, Vice President Gore and the former Russian Prime
Minister Kiriyenko signed a Scientific and Technical Cooperation
Agreement. The Agreement provides for conducting tests and
demonstrations (up to and including pilot-scale tests and
demonstrations) of technologies needed to dispose of surplus weapons
plutonium including plutonium conversion and nondestructive assay,
burning mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in reactors, and immobilization. This
work is needed to build trust and cooperation and will add to the
technical knowledge base, confirm the viability of certain
technologies, and demonstrate the technologies that might be employed
for disposition of surplus Russian plutonium.
The fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriation
earmark of $5 million for joint U.S.-Russian development of gas reactor
technology called for the Russian Federation to provide a matching
contribution of $3 million in either comparable funds or contributions-
in-kind. This level of funding should be adequate to cover gas reactor
technology research and development efforts in the fiscal year 1999-
2000 timeframe.
The portion of the fiscal year 2000 budget to be allocated towards
cooperation with Russia is $24.9 million. This funding will allow the
Department to continue a series of collaborative disposition efforts
which include analyses and small-scale tests and demonstrations of
plutonium disposition technologies, and fund efforts in the United
States to implement a United States/Russian accord for disposition of
excess weapons plutonium in Russia. These activities are part of the
President's Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative.
budget request summary for plutonium disposition activities
In summary, the portion of the fiscal year 2000 budget to be
allocated towards plutonium disposition activities (pit disassembly and
conversion; immobilization; MOX fuel fabrication and irradiation
services; and work with Russia) is $177.0 million. This funding will
allow the Department to continue detailed design of the Pit Disassembly
and Conversion Facility and the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility; begin
design of the Immobilization and Processing Facility; continue testing
of the pit disassembly and conversion prototype; establish the
technical baseline for ceramic immobilization plant process; conduct
fuel qualification, continue MOX fuel facility licensing activities,
initiate a MOX lead test assembly program; and conduct repository
analyses associated with disposition technologies. The fiscal year 2000
budget for U.S. plutonium disposition activities represents an increase
of $22.3 million over fiscal year 1999. This increase is due to the
start of Title I design for the Immobilization and Processing Facility
($21.8 million), and Title II design for the Pit Disassembly and
Conversion Facility ($8.7 million), procurement of lead test equipment
for the MOX fuel approach ($7.5 million). This increase is partially
offset by decreases in MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility design and other
activities (-$15.7 million).
highly enriched uranium disposition
In fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, the program will continue
to focus on implementing the Department's July 1996 Record of Decision
to disposition as much as possible of the surplus highly enriched
uranium (HEU) by down-blending it with other uranium to make low
enriched uranium which is commercially usable as power reactor fuel.
This approach advances U.S. nonproliferation goals, reduces storage and
security costs, and provides revenues to the Treasury from the
commercial sale of these surplus assets over time. The remaining
surplus HEU, originally determined to be unsuitable for commercial use,
is to be down-blended and disposed of as waste.
To date, about 174 metric tons (MT) of HEU have been declared
excess to national security needs. Because of the various forms of HEU
and the availability dates from weapons dismantlement and site cleanup
operations, down blending will take place over an extended period of
time. Title to 63 MT of HEU has been transferred to the United States
Enrichment Corporation (USEC). Thirteen MT was transferred to USEC and
has been down-blended pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 1992. An
additional 50 MT is being shipped over the next six years (4 MT to
date) pursuant to the USEC Privatization Act. An additional 33-40 MT of
off-specification HEU material, not saleable on the open market, is
expected to be transferred to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for
use in its reactors over the period between 2001 and 2006. DOE is
preparing plans for disposition of the remaining surplus HEU.
The portion of the fiscal year 2000 budget for surplus uranium
disposition activities is $5.8 million. This funding will allow the
Department to facilitate and implement disposition of surplus highly
enriched uranium, including off-specification HEU.
surplus fissile material storage
In January 1997, the Department issued a Record of Decision
regarding the storage of all weapons-usable fissile materials and the
disposition of surplus plutonium. The Department will reduce the number
of sites where plutonium is stored through a combination of storage and
disposition alternatives. Under this decision, DOE began shipping
surplus plutonium pits from Rocky Flats to Pantex in April 1997 and
will complete the shipments in fiscal year 1999. Stabilized and
separated non-pit plutonium from Rocky Flats will be moved to Savannah
River (after certain conditions are met). Storage of surplus plutonium
at other sites will continue, pending disposition. Highly enriched
uranium will continue to be consolidated and stored at the Oak Ridge Y-
12 Plant, pending disposition.
In August 1998, the Department issued an amended Record of Decision
to remove all surplus non-pit plutonium from Rocky Flats by 2002, in
accordance with the Department's June 1998 Accelerated Closure Pilot
Project that calls for closing the site by 2006. The plan calls for the
Department to transfer surplus non-pit plutonium from Rocky Flats to
Savannah River for storage in a modified Building 105-K.
The portion of the fiscal year 2000 budget to be allocated towards
storage of surplus fissile materials is $4.3 million. This funding will
allow the Department to begin operation of an upgraded storage area for
surplus plutonium pits at Pantex. The increase of $3.4 million from
fiscal year 1999 reflects a shift in Program emphasis from analysis of
storage and transportation issues required during the construction
phase to operation of the upgraded area. Design and construction of
upgrades for surplus pit materials will be funded from fiscal year 1997
carryover balances.
core technologies and nepa compliance
The Department is currently preparing an Environmental Impact
Statement to help determine the site(s) where surplus weapons plutonium
disposition activities will take place. Four sites (Hanford, Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Pantex and Savannah
River) are being considered for constructing and operating key
disposition facilities.
On December 22, 1998, Secretary Richardson selected the Savannah
River Site as the preferred site for building and operating the Pit
Disassembly and Conversion Facility. Savannah River was selected
because the site has extensive experience with plutonium processing. In
addition, locating the pit disassembly facility with other existing and
planned facilities at the site might provide some savings in
infrastructure.
Previously, the Department named Savannah River as the preferred
site for two other key disposition facilities--the Mixed Oxide (MOX)
Fuel Fabrication Facility and the Immobilization and Processing
Facility. Subsequent to the release of the Environmental Impact
Statement later this year, final site selection will be made in the
Record of Decision to follow shortly thereafter.
The portion of the fiscal year 2000 budget for Core Technologies
and NEPA is $5.6 million. This funding will provide crosscutting
technologies and program integration activities.
program direction
Program Direction provides the overall management, oversight,
staffing, and administrative support necessary to carry out the Fissile
Materials Disposition Program. The portion of the fiscal year 2000
budget for Program Direction is $7.3 million and represents an increase
of $2.7 million over fiscal year 1999. This increase is for seven
additional full-time equivalents (FTEs) over the fiscal year 1999 FTE
level for field oversight and project management for the design of
three plutonium disposition facilities. The increase also includes
funding for FTEs funded with prior year balances in fiscal year 1999
and movement of support service activities into Program Direction from
Core Technologies and NEPA in accordance with Congressional direction.
The $7.3 million level for Program Direction continues to represent a
modest 3.7 percent of the total Fissile Materials Disposition Program
budget request.
conclusion
This Fissile Materials Disposition Program has come a long way in
building the domestic and international consensus necessary to begin
disposing of surplus highly enriched uranium and plutonium. Along the
way, the Program has led U.S. efforts not only to identify a hybrid
strategy for disposing of surplus weapons plutonium, but also to begin
implementation of this hybrid strategy. Technology process development,
tests, and demonstrations are ongoing and a prototype pit disassembly
and conversion system successfully began operations at the Los Alamos
National Laboratory in November. DOE is about to announce a major
contract award for MOX fuel fabrication and irradiation services and
Title I design will soon begin for two of the three disposition
facilities. Negotiations have recently begun with Russia aimed at
achieving a bilateral agreement for plutonium disposition. Now is the
time for the United States to continue this important mission by
sending a clear signal to the world community that we are intent on
finishing the job. It is an investment in our future well worth making.
surplus nuclear materials threat
Senator Domenici. We are going to proceed with questions,
and if any Senator has a time schedule I would yield to them.
Ms. Holgate, I would like to hear you when I ask questions
be able to explain this threat related to surplus nuclear
materials, and what we are doing without having to quote the
New York Times, so would you be thinking about that?
Ms. Holgate. Certainly, sir.
Senator Domenici. I would appreciate it. Not that they
should not be quoted, but I would think you ought to have some
other sources beyond the New York Times as to the importance of
this program.
stockpile safety reliability, and security
I suggest that we go one round quickly. Dr. Reis, for the
record, is the nuclear weapons stockpile safe, reliable, and
secure?
Dr. Reis. Yes, it is, Senator.
Senator Domenici. Do you have confidence that the weapons
in the stockpile can and will perform as designed?
Dr. Reis. Yes, I do.
Senator Domenici. Do you have concurrence in those
conclusions from the laboratory directors at the three nuclear
laboratories?
Dr. Reis. Yes, we do, Senator. We sent a letter to the
President, and I assume he will send the letter and the
materials along with that up to Congress very, very shortly
indicating just those facts, including not just the laboratory
directors, but the Commander-in-Chief of the United States
Strategic Command as well.
critical needs not addressed in budget
Senator Domenici. Are there any critical needs with
reference to the Stockpile Stewardship program, that program
upon which we predicate the safety and reliability and security
of the weapons, not addressed in the budget because of a lack
of budgetary resources?
Dr. Reis. We feel the budget is responsibly addressing the
stockpile right now, sir.
Senator Domenici. If the defense side of this budget were
to be cut substantially, could that change the answer to the
three questions you have just given?
Dr. Reis. It certainly could.
Senator Domenici. Will you be prepared during the budget
and appropriation process to respond in that regard?
Dr. Reis. I would be glad to do so.
chiles commission report and recommendations
Senator Domenici. The Chiles Commission report for just a
moment, we will move to it first. Are you familiar with the
report and, if so, can you review briefly the findings and
recommendations?
Dr. Reis. Yes, sir. I have a copy of the report right here,
and we have been through those recommendations with Admiral
Chiles, who briefed myself, Under Secretary Moniz, and the
Secretary.
They listed basically some 12 recommendations. I will not
go through all of them now. In the briefing that they gave to
the Secretary----
Senator Domenici. Just generally tell us, what they were
concerned about?
Dr. Reis. This was--as you recall, a congressionally
mandated commission that was to look at the personnel policies,
will we have enough people in the long term to support the
Stockpile Stewardship program. It was specifically oriented
toward the people, the personnel policies, and the level of
expertise at the laboratories, at the plants, and in the
Federal structure.
What they discovered was, and we concur that we have some
considerable amount of work to do. All is not well at any of
those facilities, we have got some plans in place, but it is
important to move aggressively to ensure that we have those
people in the future when the time comes.
balance of production plants and labs funding
Senator Domenici. Let me move now to two different
budgetary percentages, first the budget request, about 7.5
percent increase in the stockpile stewardship. At the same
time, it includes a 4-percent reduction of stockpile
management. Does this cause any problems in carrying out the
program with the labs and the production plants?
Dr. Reis. Senator, every year we have to go through and
balance very carefully the plants and the laboratories and that
is not an easy judgment to make. People can differ in terms of
those numbers, but we believe those are the best numbers right
now.
nuclear power plants in russia
Senator Domenici. I will save this series of questions for
you until after the other Senators have inquired. I will just
ask one question each of the other two witnesses.
Ms. Gottemoeller, could you tell me how many nuclear power
plants in Russia are of the type and model at Chernobyl?
Ms. Gottemoeller. The Chernobyl style reactors are RBMK
reactors, sir. I do not have that exact number at my finger
tips, so I will have to provide that for the record.
Senator Domenici. Are there some?
Ms. Gottemoeller. Absolutely, sir, yes.
[The information follows:]
RBMK Reactors
There are currently 14 operational RBMK reactors. This includes 11
in Russia, 2 in Lithuania and the 1 remaining operational Chernobyl
unit in Ukraine.
y2k impact on chernobyl-type reactors
Senator Domenici. Might I just ask, we are helping to make
these reactors safer, and working with them on technological
advances and improvements. But I read with some concern that
Y2K may have a very big impact on Chernobyl-type reactors. Are
we aware of that, and is that any of our concern at this point?
Ms. Gottemoeller. Sir, we have actually had a very
productive seminar in cooperation with the IAEA, the
International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. We have also had
two workshops in Moscow. We have gone to Moscow and sat down
with the power plant industry and, in fact, there are some
considerable concerns, many of which are associated with the
stability of the power grid serving the reactors.
There is quite a bit of concern that should there be a Y2K
problem with regard to the electricity flow into the power
reactors, the RBMK types as well as the other types, that it
could lead to a serious accident, and so that has been a
concern to us, and we have proposed to the Congress a
reprogramming request to work quickly with the Russians on some
programs to lay out the steps that they have to take within the
next 9 months in order to resolve these problems. We think that
they can be resolved, but they need to pay some attention to
them.
Senator Domenici. Now, we granted your reprogramming, but
the House has denied it twice. What was the reason for denying
the Y2K programming?
Ms. Gottemoeller. My understanding, sir, is that there was
a concern with regard to a hardware request. That is, we had
hoped to perhaps supply some emergency generators for the power
plants in case there should be a power failure of the kind I
described a few moments ago.
As a matter of fact, we have been able to respond to their
concerns by really refocusing our request on the very important
prioritization planning work that has to be done. In other
words, we have removed the request for hardware from the
reprogramming request, and we hope that that will deal with the
concerns that have been expressed by the House.
Senator Domenici. I misstated. We had not granted the
reprogramming, but they denied it before we had a chance. We
are prepared to, but all we got was a denial from the other
body. We will work with you when you are ready on our side.
Ms. Gottemoeller. Thank you very much.
u.s.-russian plutonium agreement
Senator Domenici. One question now of Ms. Holgate. This
$200 million that we have provided, set aside for
implementation of the U.S.-Russian plutonium agreement, why
isn't this just foreign aid to Russia that we are throwing down
a rat hole, helping the Russians with their nuclear development
by giving them money? How do you explain that?
Ms. Holgate. Well, first of all, sir, let me thank you
personally for your role in providing that additional funding.
Senator Domenici. Obviously, I do not believe what I just
said.
Ms. Holgate. I understand. Nor do I, sir. One of the key
reasons that it is not simply throwing money down a rat hole,
is that it is in pursuit, specifically, of U.S. national
security interests.
The other reason is that the Department does not intend to
implement that funding through writing a check to Boris Yeltsin
or Minister Adamov. It will be implemented through a series of
contracts, most likely with U.S. contractors, in achieving
deliverables and providing goods and services in Russia in an
auditable, reliable fashion. As we work out the details of what
needs to be done in Russia, we will be coming to you with a
detailed budget proposal on how we will do that.
The achievements of the work that will be accomplished with
those funds contributes directly to our national security
interests by reducing the threat associated with these
materials. Russia, as you know, is one of the most likely
sources of loose nuclear material, given the enormous volume
that they have there, and access to the material is really the
final barrier to the development of a rogue nation with nuclear
capabilities.
Senator Domenici. Without divulging anything that is
classified, how many bombs could this plutonium that we are
going to dispose of that is Russian, how many bombs could it be
used to make if it is not disposed of?
Ms. Holgate. Tens of thousands, sir.
Senator Domenici. So the starting point for your answer is,
this will eliminate the potential for 10,000 or more Soviet
nuclear weapons to use this plutonium as a part of their
fabrication, correct?
Ms. Holgate. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Senator Reid.
stockpile y2k concerns
Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Now, Dr. Reis, Senator Domenici asked Ms. Gottemoeller
about Y2K, and we have here a report from GAO that just came
out, and in this they say among other things resolving the year
2000 computing problem is the most pervasive time-critical risk
facing Government today. Unless adequate actions are taken, key
Federal operations, national defense it mentions could be
seriously disrupted.
Tell us how you look at this Y2K, with all the many
sensitive programs over which this subcommittee and you have
jurisdiction.
Dr. Reis. Senator, we take Y2K very, very seriously. We
have looked in detail at all the weapons themselves, all of the
support systems, and the certification process. We provided the
appropriate oversight to ensure the work is correct. All of
those systems, all of the strategic systems are, in fact, Y2K-
compliant--the weapons themselves and the support systems. The
last time I looked at this there was only one, if you will,
mission critical system that had not been certified. This is a
pay system, and a badging system at Sandia.
It is certainly critical to people at Sandia that they get
paid properly, but we are literally working basically at that
level. Not only have we reviewed it, but we gave that review to
the Nuclear Weapons Council. The Strategic Command has also
reviewed their systems, so we are quite confident from a Y2K
perspective that the strategic forces and their supporting
systems that we have to deal with are compliant with Y2K.
explosive testing contamination
Senator Reid. Your written and oral testimony refers to a
combination of experiments and computer simulations to
demonstrate safety and reliability in our stockpile. Many of
the experiments require violent explosions involving nuclear
materials. I understand that explosive testing has resulted in
some contamination of certain areas at the laboratories. Would
you describe this contamination?
Dr. Reis. Senator, I will have to get back to you on the
details on that for the record.
[The information follows:]
Contamination Resulting From Explosive Testing
Explosive testing at the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratories has resulted in the release of depleted uranium,
beryllium, lead and copper into the immediate vicinity of the test
location. The air, surface water, groundwater and soil at the sites are
regularly monitored by the laboratories and reported to State and
Federal agencies; sample concentrations for these contaminants remain
below applicable Federal, State, and DOE standards for all
environmental media.
In addition, as a result of explosive testing at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory experimental test site, in a remote area
some 40 miles from the laboratory and population centers, tritium
contamination of on-site groundwater exceeds Federal drinking water
standards. Wells have been established between the contaminated areas
and the site boundary to monitor tritium migration to ensure protection
of the water supply. The measured migration data, along with the local
geological structure known to exist and the inherent radioactive decay
rate of tritium, are used to project contamination levels at the site
boundary. There has never been, nor is there projected to be, a tritium
contamination level at the site boundary that approaches the Federal
drinking water standard. Water supplies are anticipated to remain
unharmed.
maintaining test readiness
Senator Reid. You are going to continue these very
important experiments, is that not true?
Dr. Reis. That is correct.
Senator Reid. How do you intend to demonstrate our
continuing ability to resume testing?
Dr. Reis. Senator, we have looked at the Test Site, a
number of areas, a number of activities that will maintain that
capability. I think the one most vital is the continued and
very aggressive series of subcritical experiments that we are
working with plutonium and high explosive.
On those tests, of course, we do not have a nuclear
explosion, but from a safety perspective, from procedures
perspective, you go through many of the same things that one
would do on a full scale nuclear test. We are maintaining the
diagnostics facilities as well.
One of the things I was specifically concerned about, just
for that question, is we have asked the Department of Defense
this year to review our test readiness programs to give us an
independent look at just how well we are doing on those. We
feel comfortable, but we would like to have a broader look at
that, and they will be looking at that specific area in detail
over the next year.
attract and maintain skilled workers
Senator Reid. You refer to the task, and in my opening
statement I talked about the Chiles Commission, and Senator
Domenici talked about the Chiles Commission, and their report
is that the skills at the Nevada Test Site are in serious
jeopardy because the workforce there is nearing retirement, and
similar problems at the weapons labs to make sure that we
attract and maintain the highest caliber of scientist, which we
have had for the last 40-plus years.
What is your plan to attract and retain the skills
necessary to maintain these capabilities at the laboratories
and the Nevada Test Site?
Dr. Reis. The Chiles Commission also made some significant
recommendations on how to do that, and again, I concur with
those recommendations. They start off by suggesting that both
the Administration and Congress must maintain a national
commitment.
The type of people who go to work at the Test Site, who go
to work at the laboratories, who go to work at these plants,
these are not people who are necessarily interested in just
making a buck for their day. They are really interested in
supporting their country's efforts. They are interested in
working on technical challenges, and that means that we have to
demonstrate to them that we have that commitment, and we have
the budgets, and we have the support that continue to go along
with that over time.
So the first thing is to again maintain that commitment,
and part of that, if you will, is to say that we support the
programs that basically make that happen.
They are also attracted not just by the challenge of the
job, but by the ability of having the facilities available to
work on, and that also means that we have to support those. We
have to support the facilities themselves.
In addition to which, certainly for the laboratories, and
again for many of the other establishments is, we have to make
the connections. Through the alliance program and through other
things within the universities we get those people in the
universities familiar with what we are doing, working on
similar programs, so one could recruit the right sorts of
people. Some of those programs are in place and are working
very, very well.
I think what the commission said, we ought to be doing more
of that, and I certainly concur that we will have to be doing
more of that.
Senator Reid. Spread throughout the laboratories and the
Nevada Test Site, there are some of the finest scientists in
the world, Ph.D's in all kinds of scientific backgrounds. That
is what we are talking about, maintaining these people in our
defense capabilities, as compared to them going off and working
in the private sector some place, is that not right?
Dr. Reis. That is correct.
nuclear emergency response program
Senator Reid. The nuclear emergency response program has
undergone major revisions over the past few years. I continue
to hear concerns that these changes may have diminished our
response capabilities. These concerns need to be specifically
and effectively allayed. How does the Department organize its
lines of responsibility and funding for the emergency response
program and, second, do you think this is the right
organizational structure?
Dr. Reis. I believe we have a very good organizational
structure right now. I believe the nuclear emergency support
teams that we support within the Defense Programs continues to
get high marks. I believe in terms of their ability to respond
to emergencies it is integrated with the emergency response,
the communications, the day-to-day emergency response work that
Ms. Gottemoeller discussed.
These are always complex issues in terms of how one
organizes it, because the broader emergency response of the
Department has to do with a lot more than just the nuclear
responses. As well, there is chemical, biological responses.
There is just all sorts of different types of things which, as
Ms. Gottemoeller said, they are duty 365 days a year, 24 hours
a day.
I think the specifics of the nuclear emergency response
teams that we are dealing with is embedded within that overall
organizational structure.
emergency response capability
Senator Reid. Do you think we need to undertake a study to
establish our ability to respond to the variety of emergency
situations that could occur, or do you think we are okay as is?
Dr. Reis. Do you want to try on that one?
Ms. Gottemoeller. Sir, with regard to the emergency
response capability in the Department, it is quite broad-
ranging. I agree with Dr. Reis on that.
The complex is a very complicated structure with many
different kinds of missions being undertaken, clearly, and it
is, I think, very important to ensure that whatever approach we
take to the organization of emergency response that it be
highly integrated throughout the Department, and that the major
operational programs, Defense Programs and our other major
operational programs be intimately involved in the
implementation of emergency response.
So I think that there is room for improvement in the way
emergency response is organized in the Department. I speak with
my hat on as the person responsible, as I said earlier, for
overall emergency management in the Department. I think it is
worth a look, but I would like to underscore very firmly that
emergency response, wherever and however the necessity for it
arises, must be very, very well-integrated with the other
programs.
initiatives for proliferation prevention
Senator Reid. As I indicated when I was complimenting Dr.
Reis, you also have a knowledge of Russian language, is that
true?
Ms. Gottemoeller. Yes, sir.
Senator Reid. I think that is worth a comment. That is one
of your main responsibilities, and I am sure it makes it a lot
easier with your having the Russian language capabilities, and
I am sure that is an understatement.
One last line of questioning, Mr. Chairman, then I will
stop.
In your opinion, how effectively can you prevent our
proliferation and prevention vessels from delivering dual use
benefits to the Russian military programs?
Ms. Gottemoeller. Sir, this is an issue which we take
extremely seriously inside the initiatives for proliferation
prevention program and, in fact, since 1997, when a new
management team took over the IPP program, we have redoubled
our efforts to ensure that project proposals that come in do
not have a dual use aspect to them. They are reviewed by
multiple layers in the interagency, including the intelligence
community here in Washington. They are reviewed by our
scientists at the labs, who are also tied into the overall
interagency governmental review process.
We are extraordinarily serious about this aspect. We want
to ensure that the work that is done is valuable in its
scientific importance but also, of course, keeps scientists at
work at their lab benches and not wandering off to Iran or
North Korea, but equally important is the necessity that these
projects and this program do not serve the development of
military capability on the Russian side.
nuclear smuggling
Senator Reid. I applaud your efforts to interdict nuclear
smuggling at important border crossings, but I have to
acknowledge that we have not been very successful as a country
in preventing illegal entry into the United States, and so I am
really a little concerned about what efforts, based on how
unsuccessful we have been, what efforts have the Russians
mounted to provide border security against the smuggling of
nuclear materials at points other than formal border crossings
and at formal border crossings?
Ms. Gottemoeller. I will say a few words to begin with,
Senator, about our second line of defense program.
Our material protection control and our accounting program
is the first line of defense, and I would like to underscore
that that is I think really the first way that we prevent
smuggling of nuclear materials by ensuring that the facilities
themselves are under the best possible safety and security,
that we have good fences, that we have effective guard forces
and good locks on the doors. That is the first way that we
prevent nuclear smuggling from taking place.
We have also, through a very effective working relationship
with the Russian customs service, just in the last year begun
our second line of defense program where we work with the
Russian customs service to put up nuclear detection devices at
the most vulnerable and high volume border crossing points.
Senator Domenici was with us this past summer when we
opened up the first of such border crossing protection points
at Sheryemetyevo-1 Airport. They are extremely, I think,
effective where they operate. They are at very high intensity
sites. For example, the other point we opened up this summer
was at Astrakhan seaport on the Caspian Sea, where there is a
very high level of shipping traffic to Iran, so we are choosing
very high priority places to put these nuclear detection
devices, in addition to which, though, we have found that we
have to layer basically these programs, and there are programs
across the U.S. Government.
I do not want to say that the DOE is doing all the work in
that regard. For example, there is a great deal of work that
the Department of Defense is doing in working with the non-
Russian Newly Independent States in order to improve their
border patrols and border controls overall, and so we work very
closely and pay attention to integrating the work that we do
with the work in other U.S. Government agencies and in other
agencies of the Russian Government as well.
Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Thank you. Senator Reid, I failed to
mention in response to your opening remarks, when you spoke of
the extreme age of the scientists at the test site, and some of
your other thoughts with reference to maintaining it, that I am
going to work with you to see what we can do, and talk
generally about it. We are now looking with your staff and with
others at some specific things.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
panelists, we appreciate your being here this morning. I will
make a brief comment before I ask questions specific to the
interest in my State at the INEEL and Argonne Laboratory West,
because oftentimes when you think of them, I will tell you that
DOE weapons and defense labs do not necessarily jump to your
mind compared to New Mexico and Nevada and other places.
We have had a proud history at the site dealing with the
country's naval nuclear propulsion program, and Idaho and the
Navy have effectively and safely managed Navy spent fuel for
decades.
Unfortunately, as we know, in Russia naval fuel has not
been managed as carefully. The Defense Department's cooperative
threat reduction program is beginning to address Russia's spent
naval fuel. The INEEL and Argonne West have the experience to
provide valuable technical assistance on this problem, and I
would like to see a commitment from all of you to bring DOE's
experiences into the project rather than to have DOD reinvent
the wheel.
We are all squeezing budgets at this time and squeezing
them hard, and my guess is there is a wealth of experience and
knowledge already out there that could be of great assistance,
as an example, and we mentioned the Caspian Sea just a moment
ago, and the shipping traffic there.
As an example of this experience base, Argonne West is
working in Kazakhstan on storage of spent nuclear fuel at a
breeder reactor on the shores of the Caspian Sea. The
Kazakhstan Government has decided to shut the reactor down
permanently, but some safety upgrades will be required first to
fire protection systems, et cetera. Argonne has experienced
people and a proven track record in Kazakhstan to see that this
work is done quickly and efficiently.
Another issue we need to address is the continued
production of plutonium in Russia at its BN-600 fast breeder
reactor. Some people may not realize that at the same time we
are trying to enter into agreements with Russia to dispose of
its surplus stocks of plutonium, Russia is continuing to make
plutonium.
Argonne West again has the experience to convert fast
breeder reactors, because they did it in EBR-2 in Idaho. We
need to use this expertise that we already have at our national
labs to assist the Russians, who face similar problems.
The budget for nuclear energy work at Argonne is cut by $20
million in the President's request, and that would mean the
laying off of about 250 workers. It really does not make sense
to me that we lay off skilled workforce when their skills could
be applied to pressing global nuclear safety issues, so it is
with that in mind, Mr. Chairman that I will only ask a couple
of questions, and then I will come back for more so that we can
share equitably in this time.
environmental surety program
Dr. Reis, as DOE facilities are retired from use and become
part of DOE's cleanup program, I think it is important that we
leave the facilities in a condition which minimizes the amount
of waste we will have to clean up later. The INEEL has been
assisting the defense sites in meeting this challenge for the
last 2 years through the defense environmental surety program.
By all accounts, and from letters of endorsement received
from defense production sites, DOE's environmental surety
program was a very successful and cost-effective program. My
question to you, why was this program zeroed out in the fiscal
year 2000 budget?
Dr. Reis. Senator Craig, while we did zero it out from a
headquarters perspective effective with the implementation of
the fiscal year 1999 budget, what we have done is turned the
responsibility over to the folks at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory. I agree with you that it has been a successful and
cost-effective program, but on any budget you basically have to
make decisions. If the folks who are on the ground who have to
do that environmental cleanup, which are the people at Los
Alamos, feel that it continues to be a successful program, I
have no doubt that it will continue to get funded.
Senator Craig. But it is not in the budget now.
Dr. Reis. It is not in the budget right now, that is
correct.
Senator Craig. So for fiscal year 2000, if the President's
budget came into place, we would assume this program would not
exist.
Dr. Reis. No, I do not think that is true at all. If the
folks at Los Alamos, who again are the people on the ground,
decide this still is the best way to handle the job, it will
get funded.
Senator Craig. Do we know the status of that at this
moment?
Dr. Reis. We are still working on that, Senator Craig.
environmental safety center
Senator Craig. Well, we will still work on it with you,
then.
Ms. Gottemoeller, at your confirmation hearing last fall
you talked about DOE's plans to establish the joint U.S.-
Russian international center for environmental safety to work
on international nuclear cleanup issues. Some of this work was
to be administered by the INEEL and Argonne West. Can you tell
us where DOE is with respect to getting a signed agreement with
the Russians and initiating this program?
Ms. Gottemoeller. Yes, sir. I am actually very happy to be
able to report progress to you since we last spoke on this
matter last fall. The establishment of the Environmental Safety
Center will be a centerpiece of the upcoming Gore-Primakov
Commission meeting in 2 weeks time, and the statement
establishing the center we actually expect to be signed by the
Vice President and the prime minister, so it is a go, sir.
Senator Craig. Excellent. Congratulations.
Ms. Gottemoeller. Thank you, sir. We are looking forward to
having INEEL closely involved in it.
russian naval fuel assistance
Senator Craig. My next question in on Russian naval fuel
assistance, and this may be for any witness here. Much of
Russia's naval spent fuel is sitting in their idled submarines,
we are told, and they do not really have the resources to deal
with it.
In Idaho, the Navy has been safely managing U.S. naval
spent fuel for decades, as we all know. Idaho's personnel have
a lot of experience on this issue. Would any of the witnesses
care to respond with ways we might more cooperatively work on
the Russian submarine fuel issue to get it into a safer storage
condition?
Ms. Gottemoeller. Senator, if I may take a crack at that,
we at DOE already have a very fast-moving material protection
control and accounting program to deal with fresh fuel from the
Russian submarine program, and that is in both the northern
fleet area and the Far East.
It has been very fast-moving. The Russian Navy has really
put a number of intense schedules on us, because particularly
in the far north, of course, we have a very short construction
period to work with, but we have been able to work very quickly
to get that fresh fuel under better, safer, and more secure
conditions.
We are currently on both the U.S. interagency basis and in
discussions with the Russians considering how to move on to the
broader range of problems that you address. DOD already has its
successful efforts underway under the cooperative threat
reduction program to dispose of the Russian strategic strike
submarines, the SSBN's, and now we are considering what steps
we should take and what priorities we should set in dealing
with the broader question of naval spent fuel and submarine
disposition.
So this, too, will be a subject for the Gore-Primakov
Commission meeting coming up in several weeks time, but I
wanted to assure you that not only are we engaged very actively
in interagency discussions on this, but also we are beginning
to engage with the Russians on this.
Senator Craig. So you mentioned a type of submarine. I
assume that will be decommissioned and ultimately cut up, and
therefore those are some of the subs that have that spent fuel
in them. You will obviously have to deal with the fuel at that
time.
Ms. Gottemoeller. Exactly, sir. The program that the CTR
program has undertaken to cut up the SSBN's, they already have
embraced in that an entire complex of activities to address the
spent fuel problem. The same kind of program would have to be
worked out with regard to the attack submarines, the so-called
SSN's and the cruise missile submarines, the SSGN's.
I would like to point out, however, that in examining this
issue we do believe that it will be a very large task to
undertake and quite expensive, and so we believe that this
particular set of projects will be ripe for the involvement of
the international community, and that is an explicit part of
what we have been planning under the expanded threat reduction
initiative, President Clinton's new initiative in this regard.
Senator Craig. I was just going to say, surely we were
going to seek a shared burden there.
Ms. Gottemoeller. Yes, sir, indeed, and I think that there
will be other countries who are interested in participating.
russian breeder reactors
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, let me do one more question,
if I could, and then I would turn to our other colleagues here.
Even as we work cooperatively with the Russians on
disposing of excessive weapons plutonium, Russia's fast breeder
reactors are producing plutonium. That is an accurate
statement, is it not?
Ms. Gottemoeller. Yes, sir.
Senator Craig. In Idaho----
Senator Domenici. What was that, sir?
Senator Craig. As we are working with the Russians to get
rid of weapons plutonium, we still have Russian reactors
producing plutonium. That seems to be a bit of a contradiction,
but it appears to be the case.
In Idaho we have experience in converting the breeding
blanket on the EBR-2 reactor to stainless steel and making
other fuel alterations to reduce plutonium production. Would
any witnesses care to respond to how DOE could use the EBR-2
experience in collaboration with the Russians and Kazakhstan to
alter their breeder reactors? Is there any thought in mind
there?
Ms. Holgate. Yes, sir. I had the pleasure of meeting with
some of the scientists from Argonne West to discuss this very
issue within the last couple of weeks. We have an active R&D
program underway in Russia to work on converting that BN-600
reactor to use MOX fuel, and a key element of that will be
removing the breeder blankets that actually create the
plutonium, and I am convinced that there is a cooperative role
for Argonne West's experience as we move forward with the
Russians on that project.
Senator Craig. These reactors I assume would be converted
to energy production. Is that the intent with the MOX fuel?
Ms. Holgate. Yes, sir. There is only one of them.
Senator Craig. There is only one?
Ms. Holgate. Only one BN-600.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Senator Cochran.
sufficiency of budget request
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, Thank you.
Dr. Reis, you responded to the chairman's question about
whether or not the amount requested in this budget is going to
be sufficient to ensure the safety and reliability of the U.S.
nuclear weapons stockpile, and you answered in the affirmative.
I tried to remember our hearing last year when we talked
about this program that was being put in place and using
simulation and other processes as substitutes for testing of
our nuclear weapons, and I thought I remembered at that hearing
that you said, or some other witness said that it would require
$5 billion a year to fund this stockpile stewardship program,
and I am curious what has changed to make the request of $4.5
billion, $500 million less, sufficient.
Dr. Reis. Senator, I do not recall saying $5 billion. We
could look back at the record. As long as I am the
administration witness, I would support the President's budget,
or I basically would not be here, and I have been through three
administrations now.
Another witness might have said $5 billion, and I think
there is no question it is a question of relative confidence.
If the Senate, or if the Congress suggests that we could use
more in certain areas, I would certainly not object to that one
bit. Last year we asked for--$4.5 billion, and the Congress
only gave us $4.3 billion, so there is clearly different
adjustments in terms of how much money you can spend on this.
It is a matter (a) of confidence, and (b) getting through--
dealing with other priorities within the Administration. You
have heard some of these other priorities which are very
important today, and again the Congress also has other
priorities.
So I believe that the budget we have put forward to you is
sufficient to answer the question, are we confident in our
ability to support the stockpile now and support the stockpile
in the future.
comprehensive test ban treaty
Senator Cochran. Will the ratification of the comprehensive
test ban treaty change any of the plans that you have underway
for this program?
Dr. Reis. No, sir. In fact, the whole idea of Stockpile
Stewardship was to project ahead toward that time when the
Comprehensive Test Ban treaty was ratified and was in place,
and so we are building as a basic assumption that it will
occur.
I will add that in order for us to maintain confidence
after that treaty is ratified, we would have to maintain the
support for this program for the indefinite future.
aging nuclear scientists of concern
Senator Cochran. There was something in your prepared
remarks that got my attention, that the age of our nuclear
weapons scientists, those who are familiar with the weapons and
are capable of building a weapon, is such that by the year 2014
most of them are going to be gone. We will not have anybody
around who knows how to build a nuclear weapon if we had to, or
if we wanted to. Why is that a concern?
Dr. Reis. Clearly that is a concern because we may have to
build again. The pace of the program, the reason we are moving
ahead on the simulations, the reason we are moving ahead on the
experiments is to get those new people in place to certify the
stockpile while the people who have actually had the testing
experience are there to help us. Let me tell you and tell the
American people that those weapons are safe and the program we
have in place is the right program. So far, so good, but we
have to stay the course and keep moving in that direction.
Senator Cochran. On the question of proliferation, I was
pleased to hear the work that is being done in Russia to try to
improve the capacity there for controlling exports of weapons-
grade material and other devices.
Do you get involved at all in missile proliferation issues
as well, because that is so closely connected with nuclear
weapons.
Ms. Gottemoeller. Senator, actually the Department as you
know focuses really on the warheads and on the fissile material
and so no, I do not become directly involved in matters to do
with missile proliferation.
concern about russian assistance to iran
Senator Cochran. There has been some concern about Russian
assistance to Iran in building a nuclear reactor down there.
Why does Iran need a nuclear reactor, with all of its oil
reserves and other energy resources? What is the purpose of
building a nuclear reactor, other than to produce weapons-grade
material?
Ms. Gottemoeller. Sir, that is a question we ask ourselves
every day, and it is a very good question I think.
We have, as you know, imposed sanctions on three Russian
entities just since January this year, two of which we are
concerned are engaged in nuclear cooperation with Iran, and so
we have been very much focused on that question and very
concerned about it, and have been very direct with the Russian
Government in expressing our concerns, and in conveying the
necessity that they move rapidly to resolve these concerns and
ensure that there is not cooperation going forward with the
Iranian reactor program outside that which was agreed
bilaterally with the Russian side regarding the Bushier
reactor.
Senator Cochran. To your knowledge, have these sanctions
had any effect on Russian business or institute activity?
Ms. Gottemoeller. Sir, I know the Russian Government is
paying close attention. I was in Moscow 2 weeks ago with Deputy
Secretary of State Strobe Talbott. We have gotten their
attention, there is no question about it, but there is a team
in Moscow even today talking again with them about these
issues, so there is no question in my mind that the Russian
Government is very focused on trying to resolve our concerns.
We are just going to have to see what happens.
But again, this is an issue that has consistently been
raised at the highest level in our Government, and I know it
will be an issue in 2 weeks time at the Gore-Primakov
Commission meeting.
Senator Domenici. Senator, would you yield on that?
Senator Cochran. Yes.
Senator Domenici. Let me just say to you, and for the
record I indicated in my opening remarks about the only thing
that Russia has going with America that is yielding any
resources to Russia are energy programs. We do not have an
economic program of assistance. We would be kind of foolish to
be putting money into that, and they know from this Senator
that we have to appropriate most of that in this committee.
They know that the Iranian situation could cause any of
these programs to be canceled just because the United States
Congress could feel, as you have expressed to me, a grave
concern that while we are doing this they are having their
games with Iran, and I think in the last 4 or 5 months there is
evidence that has been raised to higher and higher levels, and
they now know it, and they have made some statements which
would indicate they cannot fool us any more, that something is
really happening. They still question the scope of what they
are doing, but nonetheless I think your line of questions is
very, very important.
start ii
Senator Cochran. In your visit recently to Russia, were you
able to get a sense for what the intention of the duma might be
toward ratification of START II, and do you continue to feel
that that is an important initiative for our Government to
continue to press with the Russians?
Ms. Gottemoeller. Yes, Senator, I think it is absolutely an
important initiative for us to press with the Russians, because
START II will be an important aspect, I think, not only of
further strategic arms reductions with the Russians but it
also--you know, frankly, the Russians I think realize,
particularly those professionals in the ministry of defense,
that they have a tremendous budget burden to bear if they are
expected to keep their force levels up to START I numbers, so
within the ministry of defense, and I am convinced within the
Government as a whole, there is a recognition of the importance
of getting START II ratified.
Now, in the last couple of weeks we have seen, particularly
in the media, but we have seen reference to the fact that there
are those in the duma who also realize that it is time to begin
to move to get this agreement ratified. Even, I noticed in the
press last week, Mr. Zhirinovsky has spoken up now and said
that it is time to move forward and get the START II treaty
ratified, so we continue to be hopeful that in fact they will
move and get it ratified, and then we can move forward and
begin with a negotiation of the START III agreement.
status of nuclear power plant in cuba
Senator Cochran. In connection with the nuclear power
program in Russia, we know that because of the Chernobyl
incident there are causes for concern about the integrity of
the reactors. At one point it was a worry here that in Cuba
they were going to build some Chernobyl-type reactors. What is
the status of that situation in Cuba, and do we have any threat
to safety and security of people in Florida or elsewhere in the
United States because of their nuclear power program in Cuba?
Ms. Gottemoeller. Senator, indeed the Russians, the Soviets
before them and the Russians have been cooperating to build a
nuclear power plant in Cuba. That project is currently dormant,
however, because the Russians, as you know, are suffering
severe economic problems and so are the Cubans, and so in terms
of that program being an active project, it simply is not so at
the present time according to our observations.
However, I would like to assure you that we keep a very
close eye on that project in case it becomes active again.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. I am sorry it has taken so long, Senator
Dorgan. Now you can have as long as you like.
tritium production
Senator Dorgan. I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank
all of you. This is frankly an area that I have not spent much
time thinking about or discussing or studying.
Dr. Reis, your testimony is very interesting in giving us,
at least giving me a description of what stockpile stewardship
means. One part of your testimony, I would like to just ask a
brief question about, is the production of tritium. I
understand its role with respect to a nuclear weapon. What I do
not understand is where this comes from.
I understand the decay requires it to be refreshed from
time-to-time, and you are suggesting in your statement that we
have not produced tritium since 1988, or whatever, and we,
therefore, must begin going back into production. What is
tritium?
Dr. Reis. Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen, and when you
get--I will not get into the physics of it, but it has two
neutrons in addition to the proton and the electron going
around, and so it is a special isotope of hydrogen, and it is
not found in nature. You have to make it, and the fact that it
has those extra neutrons, that gets involved in the fusion
process and also helps particularly in the fission process
itself.
I would say it is like STP for your car, or something like
that. It is a product that really is designed to make this
whole nuclear weapon go. It is key to the whole hydrogen bomb
approach, and is found in all our nuclear weapons, and as far
as we know found in all the current modern nuclear weapons of
all the nuclear weapons states.
cooperative efforts with russia
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much. Let me ask a question
about the issues that Ms. Holgate and Ms. Gottemoeller
discussed. I have not been to Russia, regrettably, but I
understand, their economy is in decay; in collapse. They have
chaos virtually everywhere you look because they do not have
the resources to do the things that they really need to be
doing.
We are encouraging them under our arms control agreements
to destroy weapons and destroy delivery systems, with some
success. I think the Nunn-Lugar expenditures and other
approaches have been remarkably successful.
We are also involved in the disposition of fissile
material, ours and theirs, hopefully, and then also working
very hard on nonproliferation issues. Included in that is the
closed cities initiative.
One of the things that I have been interested in is the
role of food in all of this. I want to ask just a general
question. As you know, we produce an enormous amount of food in
North Dakota, and Idaho, and some in New Mexico, and we produce
grains far in excess of what we can use. My understanding is
there is a desperate need for that, overseas even in Russia,
and I am wondering if in the context of what we are doing with
nonproliferation, with the destructions of weapons systems and
delivery systems, whether there is a role either with respect
to incentives or barter using food.
We use food in PL-480, we use it in GSP credits and so on,
but is there an additional role that we might evaluate here in
the context of all the things we are trying to do to encourage
the Russians to move in the right direction at a time when they
do not have enough food? Food, of course, is one of the
requisites for living and stability.
So let me ask Ms. Gottemoeller if you would respond to
that.
Ms. Gottemoeller. Thank you, Senator. As you know, food
assistance is in general a very important part of our
cooperative efforts with Russia and has played a vital role in
the crisis that has emerged since the August crash of the
ruble, and so both historically and at the current stage it is
an important, very important part of our overall relationship
with Russia.
With regard to the very interesting idea that you have
raised, we have already begun working together with your staff
to evaluate the idea. My staff met with yours last week once,
and I understand they will be meeting again today, and so I
think it is an idea well worth exploring, and we really look
forward to working with you on it.
Senator Dorgan. I appreciate that. This is one of the ideas
that I have shared with Senator Craig, who I think also may
have some interest in it.
I ask the question not to do anything other than enhance
the kinds of subjects we are talking about. I happen to think
that of all the issues we deal with in the world today, the
proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass
destruction and their delivery systems represent the one area
that has the potential of seriously threatening us, our
children, and our grandchildren, and the future of this world.
The work that you are doing and the work we are doing as a
country to establish a priority in these areas is absolutely
essential for our survival, and my hope is that we are able to
see a START III and see continued reductions in nuclear weapons
and delivery systems.
I hope all of that can be remarkably successful, but the
discussion about Iran and North Korea and missile tests, the
efforts in the black market to achieve materials to produce
nuclear weapons, all of these things are very frightening and
very scary, and that is why the work that you all are doing is
very important, and that is why funding for that work is so
important as well.
Mr. Chairman, I have more, but I will be meeting with the
witnesses as I become more familiar with these areas. You have
had the advantage of spending a lot of time in this area and
have done wonderful work. I thank the representatives from the
agency.
Senator Domenici. Well, Senator, the 5 years since the
beginning of the Stockpile Stewardship as an alternative to
underground testing, I have been the chairman of the committee
for those 5 years, and I am very fortunate in that I have
become acquainted with and am kind of proud of this program,
and I do my best not only here but with the administration to
keep their budget up.
I was part of getting them to go up to the $4.5 billion
level without any question, and those who are familiar with it
know that.
Dr. Reis. Without any question, Senator.
russian plutonium disposition
Senator Domenici. And also with reference to the plutonium
disposition, which I think you quickly caught on to, it is
very, very important in terms of the disarmament, a major
international disarmament approach, but it is difficult. I
mean, there is no question they have different motives,
different goals, et cetera, than we do.
I want to ask Ms. Holgate, Senator Craig raised the issue
of--what he said, it is kind of ironic that in the fast breeder
reactors they are producing plutonium and we are trying to get
rid of 50 tons of their weapons-grade pit-formed plutonium. I
know that some of these reactors do produce plutonium, but are
they processing plutonium so that it can be used in weapons?
Ms. Holgate. Not that I am aware of, sir.
Senator Domenici. So there is a difference. That plutonium
that is coming out of those reactors, something has to happen
to that.
Ms. Holgate. That is correct.
Senator Domenici. And what we are talking about is pure
plutonium for weapons that has already been processed and is in
the kind of forms that were part of the nuclear weapons.
Ms. Holgate. That is correct, sir.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely right. My
intent was not to do that. My intent was to suggest that we
could assist them in converting these reactors to breed less
plutonium and we have the talent and the skill to do that.
progress with russia on plutonium disposition
Senator Domenici. Senator, one of the anomalies that exists
right now that makes it very difficult for this agreement with
the Russians with reference to the disposition of plutonium to
occur is that they actually believe this pure plutonium is a
very, very valuable legacy, not a legacy for military use, but
a legacy for civilian use in breeder reactors, because it is a
great fuel for breeder reactors, and they have dreams of
building the second and third generation of breeder reactors.
In fact, we are either fortunate or unfortunate, depending
on how you look at it, to have the head of the Russian nuclear
agency and an expert in this idea of coming forth with another
generation that would use this plutonium, which caused them not
to want to destroy it. On the other hand, I think we are
struggling here with the concept of just keeping some kind of
improved light water reactor, the next generation of that
alive, and not a third and fourth generation breeder reactor,
and that is causing some very difficult times in terms of the
negotiating. It is a difficult concept, bridging.
Let me say to you, Ms. Holgate, I do not want to overstate
the case of the urgency of getting an agreement signed and
putting some of this money to actual use, but you know that I
was instrumental in pushing to put a time limit in that
communique you spoke of. In fact, it says we will be on the way
in 6 months.
I do not know the exact words, but it has a 6-month time
frame in there, and now I am telling you from a practical
standpoint how important it is, because there it sits, and it
has only been there since the supplemental of when, September,
when did we do it, or October, and the House in trying to find
money to cover a new supplemental is already contemplating
using $125 million of it. I thought $100 million yesterday when
I spoke to your negotiators. It is $125 million, or, I am
sorry, $150 million. It is going up every day. They will have
some more supplementals and they will use the entire $200
million as an offset.
So I think it is vitally important that we show some
progress and that the Russians understand this is not going to
sit around there for very long, and they have got to respond to
money, because they desperately need it.
Ms. Holgate. I could not agree more, sir, and believe me, I
am reminding our State Department colleagues of the importance
of that on virtually an hourly basis.
production of new weapons
Senator Domenici. Well, I do want to say, since the
Department of Energy has all the expertise, in my opinion, and
talent, it is with great reluctance that I have sat by and
watched the State Department of the United States take over
these negotiations, but that is a bigger issue than me. I mean,
that is an executive issue that I guess I could fix it by
saying they cannot in a bill, but I would not do that.
But they have now guaranteed me that they have the best
negotiator that they have ever had on these kinds of matters. I
have met him. I just hope he is not a typical State Department
negotiator, because they deal in eons in terms of
relationships, and this one will not last that long.
Let me ask a question regarding the production of new
weapons. In my State and in various parts of the country where
we have groups that are against stockpile stewardship and our
laboratories spending the money they are spending, which you
were just asked, is it enough. They are saying it is too much,
but they are also saying we are making new nuclear weapons, new
nuclear bombs.
Now, are we currently producing or planning to produce any
new nuclear weapons, and when did we last produce a new nuclear
weapon?
Dr. Reis. There are no current plans whatsoever to produce
new nuclear weapons. The last one produced was in 1989.
Senator Domenici. Now, I am certain that those very same
people and groups do not believe you, and do not believe me.
Dr. Reis. I am under oath. [Laughter.]
Senator Domenici. Well, frankly, I just want to repeat that
everything I can determine the Department is not engaged in any
clandestine efforts to produce nuclear weapons, they are not
being produced, and we have not produced them in quite some
time.
Dr. Reis. That is correct, Senator.
reestablishing pit production
Senator Domenici. Now, sometimes the opponents say, well,
you are producing, you are getting ready to produce pits, which
are an integral part of the American, as we name it, the pits
of an American nuclear weapon, and you are getting ready to
have a facility in Los Alamos that could produce 20 pits by the
year 2007, and they construe that to be making bombs, new
bombs.
Now, the truth of the matter is, the Stockpile Stewardship
Program is aimed, as you indicated, at determining each and
every part of the nuclear weapon, and whether it still has
integrity in it, and whether it still has life and can do its
job, and the pit production, when we get there, it is to have
some spare pits for replacement purposes. Is that correct?
Dr. Reis. That is correct. As you know, every year we take
apart weapons in the stockpile. We take apart approximately 11
of each weapon type, bring them back from the stockpile, take
them apart, and one of those from each type are, if you will,
destructively tested, where we take the pit, and we look at its
characteristics. We look at it under microscopes, electron
microscopes. We go through all the forensics that we need to.
That pit is no longer useful, so when we have to replace
those and put those back in the stockpile, we have to put a new
pit in the weapon. We did make some spares when we made those
production pits. Those spares will be running out in a
relatively short period of time, and so we need a new system, a
new factory, if you will, to put those pits together.
We have closed the Rocky Flats, where we made those pits in
the past. It is completely closed, and no intention of opening
it, so we have to replace the pits we are currently using for
those surveillance programs.
gao report on ipp
Senator Domenici. Let me move to Ms. Gottemoeller. The GAO
has issued a report on one of the programs that is aimed at
trying to keep Russian scientists with the kind of expertise
that we are talking about here in Russia, rather than having
them as a commodity for barter or sale in the world.
That report indicates that scientists who receive support
from the IPP program may work on dual use technologies, or may
even continue to work on weapons technology when they are not
working in the IPP projects. How do you respond to that
complaint?
Ms. Gottemoeller. Well, Senator, if I may, I would like to
divide my answer into two parts. First of all, as I indicated
earlier, we are very, very serious about ensuring that projects
that are undertaken in the IPP program do not in fact
contribute in a dual use mode or in a nuclear mode to the
development of new capability in the Russian military
establishment, and we are very serious about that.
We make every effort through our review processes,
including through very serious review processes involving the
intelligence community, to bring all information to bear in
order to ensure that there is no such aspect to any of our IPP
projects.
I would like to point out, though, that with regard to the
nuclear weapons scientists, Russia is still a very important
nuclear weapons State under the NPT, and they have the same
stockpile stewardship concerns that we have. In other words,
they need to continue to maintain the safety and the security
of their very large nuclear arsenal, so essentially it is
important for their nuclear scientists to continue to work in
their stockpile stewardship program, and that is a very
important aspect that we support for our own national security,
because we want to ensure that their nuclear stockpile remains
safe and secure.
However, with regard to the chemical and biological
scientists, the problem is easier because chemical and
biological weapons have been outlawed by international law, and
so we really have an easier problem there in terms of
delineating exactly what those scientists may and may not work
on.
With regard to the nuclear programs it is a little bit more
complex, but I am confident that we can ensure that the
scientists are not contributing to new Russian nuclear
capability.
russia's production of nuclear weapons
Senator Domenici. I would say, and you correct me if I am
wrong, that the Russians could not honestly answer that they
are not producing new nuclear weapons, because they do that,
right? They still are producing them, is that correct?
Ms. Gottemoeller. Sir, their approach to stockpile
stewardship is----
Senator Domenici. I am going to get to that in a minute.
Just answer my question.
Ms. Gottemoeller. They are producing, yes.
Senator Domenici. The point of that, however, is that we
chose a path at a juncture in our nuclear weapons history to go
with very complicated weapons that we thought were far
superior, difficult to put together, and we try to maintain
them and keep them for long periods of time, which is what we
are preserving, that kind of weapon.
Ms. Gottemoeller. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. They made a decision to go with a much
easier design that does not have as long lasting qualities and
is--in some cases the parts are more robust. They replenish
those frequently, as compared to us doing it rather
infrequently, and us indicating now we are not going to
replenish them as a weapon at all, and so they must do that to
keep their stockpile up even if they were engaged in a
stewardship program, is that correct?
Ms. Gottemoeller. That is correct, sir. They employ a
remanufacturing approach.
Senator Domenici. Remanufacturing of the weapon?
Ms. Gottemoeller. Yes.
Senator Domenici. And we are engaged in pieces that we are
going to replace to keep it solid. We need a huge inventory of
new things to make sure we are doing that right. We need big
computers. They may not. They might like to have them, but they
may not need them to keep theirs going in a remanufactured
mode.
I do want to say that I am very pleased with the work you
are doing, and I did all I could to get your rank moved up. I
think when you are over there negotiating with the Russians in
the capacity that you are, you ought to have the right title,
and I hope we can work on that again and get it working in the
committee and see what we can do to raise your title to what it
ought to be.
Ms. Gottemoeller. Thank you very much, Senator. I very much
appreciated your support throughout. You have been a great
help.
new construction projects
Senator Domenici. With reference to the construction of new
buildings, Dr. Reis, there are three new construction starts in
your stockpile stewardship program. The evidence before you and
before us from the independent project review submitted to
Congress gives a mixed picture of DOE's readiness to initiate
new construction projects.
What actions have you taken to ensure that projects are
thoroughly reviewed for mission needs, the scope, costs, and
schedules are firm and clearly established, and that quality
project management personnel are in place at the labs within
DOE?
Dr. Reis. Well, Senator, I think I agree with you that our
record in terms of new construction projects is mixed. Some we
do very well, and some we have done less than very well, to say
the least.
The Department has put together a detailed review by
external reviewers. We have initiated our own processes as
well, working particularly with John Browne, the Director out
at Los Alamos where we have a particular concern. In addition,
Dr. Bishop, Bill Bishop, our program manager for the
accelerated production of tritium, which is one program that
was on time and on budget and Dr. Bishop has gotten a special
assignment, if you will, to go through and assure ourselves
that we are moving in the right direction on construction
projects.
There are others--the National Ignition Facility, which is
probably the largest, most complex program being done in the
Nation is on time, on schedule, and has put in place right from
the start some of the very best program management that we know
available.
So we are trying to, if you will, use a lessons learned
approach as well. Those things that are doing well are going to
help those things that are not doing so well.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Senator Craig.
nuclear cities initiative
Senator Craig. Just one last question, and I guess it is
really more of a comment than a question. Senator Dorgan
referenced the nuclear cities initiative that Secretary
Richardson has developed with the closed weapon cities of the
Soviet Union, and I see that initially the teams are between
Russian cities and DOE weapons labs.
I guess my comment would be that it would be my hope that
after the initial teams have been in place for a while, that
maybe DOE would consider opening this initiative to nonweapons
labs.
Once again, I think we have an opportunity to contribute
here, and would like to do that, and I know certainly folks at
my lab would very much like to.
Ms. Gottemoeller. If I may comment, Senator, we already
have that door open, and very much want to have the
participation not only of the weapons labs but of the
nonweapons labs as well, and frankly I think one of the very
important areas that we can work on that will involve INEEL is
with reference to the Environmental Safety Center.
The Russians have some interesting technologies that we
have seen coming out of their nuclear complex, out of their
nuclear cities which can provide some important help for them
in their cleanup arena, and I expect that the Environmental
Safety Center will be able to work with them to help to develop
some of those technologies and perhaps commercialize them
beyond Russia, so I really see an important role for INEEL in
that regard.
Senator Craig. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Domenici. Senator Cochran.
domestic security
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I feel constrained to ask
about the so-called lapse in security that we have been reading
about in the press, the fact that we have had secrets or
classified information about our nuclear weapons program fall
into the hands of other countries, particularly China in this
situation, that we have had reported.
Have there been changes implemented now to fully protect
the security of our classified information with respect to our
nuclear weapons program?
Dr. Reis. Let me take that one, and perhaps Ms.
Gottemoeller would like to comment.
We have had significant changes, and we have had those
changes occurring over some years. I think Secretary Richardson
has been particularly aggressive in that regard, but when this
program, or this issue first came up some years ago both the
Department and the other parts of the national security
establishment were made aware, and we have begun compensatory
actions right from the start.
Senator Cochran. Can you assure us that the information
that we have classified and restricted is being safeguarded by
new procedures that are being monitored carefully and enforced
to protect the Nation's security interest?
Dr. Reis. We are doing everything we can in that regard,
Senator Cochran.
Do you want to add to that?
Ms. Gottemoeller. Senator Cochran, perhaps I would just add
a few details. Secretary Pena, and after Secretary Richardson,
and Dr. Reis referred to the very energetic way in which
Secretary Richardson has tackled this problem, but the
implementation of Presidential Decision Directive 61 has been
taken very seriously over the last 6 months by now two
Secretaries, it has resulted in a senior FBI individual, Mr. Ed
Curran, coming over and taking over the counterintelligence
operations at DOE, working very closely with the labs. He has
helped to bring in some very experienced FBI specialists to
work with the laboratories and with the lab directors to
improve their counterintelligence performance.
We have also doubled and then redoubled the budget for
counterintelligence, beginning with $7 million and now up to
$31 million over the past year, so we are moving in that
regard, and you were referring to some of the security
procedures. That has been an area that has received an enormous
amount of attention, and we are really strengthening security
procedures, including incorporating the use of polygraphs in
certain circumstances.
So, I think that there is a great deal of attention to this
set of problems now, and I think that we have a path forward.
We have to continue working it very hard, but we do have a path
forward.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
chinese nuclear weapons
Senator Domenici. Dr. Reis, I want to join in a way with
Senator Cochran, who expressed concerns. Obviously, we will all
be hearing more about what has happened over the last years
with reference to China.
I wonder, Dr. Reis, from another vantage point, you know,
we know so much about the Russian nuclear stockpile, and the
SALT negotiations have yielded a great deal in terms of where
we ought to be and where we are moving, and what has dawned on
me of late is that I have not heard anything about
relationships between the United States and China regarding
their nuclear stockpile, nor have I heard any assessment in any
committees about how serious it is, and I think we ought to
look at that, too.
We are so busy now worrying about Russia, and Russia is in
an economic doldrum from which they may not spring forth with
any economic vitality for a long time. But China is not in that
condition, and China seems to be producing a lot of nuclear
weapons, and they are not even loath, Senator Cochran, to
putting them in parades. They just run their nuclear weapons
down the streets and roads in parades.
So there is a lot know about them, but I think maybe we
ought to consider asking somebody to brief us, or some
committee, maybe yours, on the status of the Chinese nuclear
weapons situation, because it is getting more and more serious,
and we do not seem to be--other than now we are worried about
how they got it, we do not seem to be talking about how serious
it is.
Maybe you have in your subcommittee, when you are talking
about antimissiles. Has there been some assessment of China in
that?
Dr. Reis. Senator, I would encourage you to do so. I think
we obviously cannot discuss this here. I think there are people
in the laboratories who have, I think, as fine a knowledge as
there is on that subject.
As you point out, we certainly do not know the same amount
that we know about other nations' weapons, but I think we have
the ability to give you, or to answer those questions about
what we know and what we do not know. There are certainly
experts at the laboratories who I am sure would be available to
give you their candid views on what the status is in China.
Additional committee questions
Senator Domenici. Could you answer our submitted questions
within 2 weeks?
Dr. Reis. Absolutely.
[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
condition of the nuclear weapons stockpile
Question. Dr. Reis, is the nuclear weapons stockpile safe, reliable
and secure?
Answer. Yes. The Secretaries of Energy and Defense have completed
the third annual certification and transmitted it to the President. It
states that the nuclear weapons stockpile is safe and reliable and no
underground nuclear testing is required at this time.
Question. Do you have confidence that the weapons in the stockpile
can and will perform as designed?
Answer. Yes. Based on the detailed analysis conducted during the
annual certification process, I am confident that the stockpile will
perform as designed.
Question. Are there any critical needs not addressed in the budget
request because of lack of budgetary resources? If so, please explain.
Answer. No. The budget request for Defense Programs is sufficient
to address all critical needs. We have considered carefully both the
long-term and short-term needs of the Stockpile Stewardship program,
and believe that we have presented a balanced program within the $4.5
billion funding envelope.
funding for weapons activities
Question. Will the budget request before the committee allow DOE to
meet all the DOD annual weapon alterations, modifications, and
surveillance schedules? If not, explain what they are and why they are
not of sufficient priority that they are not included in the
Department's budget request?
Answer. The budget request does not allow DOE to meet DOD's targets
for annual weapon alterations, modifications, and surveillance
schedules. Although the highest priority requirements are met in our
budget request, some workload related to alterations, modifications,
and surveillance has been stretched out. This includes: Pantex workload
to support full stockpile surveillance efforts on the W80, W62, B83 and
W88; Y-12 plant workload activities for surveillance test assemblies
for the W87, W88, and B61; Kansas City Plant workload for the B61-7
common radar alteration; and Sandia workload for surveillance test
assemblies for the B61 alterations, and for Gas Transfer Systems for
the W62, B83, and W87. The changes were necessary to balance near-term
stockpile requirements with long-term stockpile stewardship needs.
While these deferred activities are important, they will not have a
direct impact on the safety or reliability of the stockpile for fiscal
year 2000.
chiles commission report
Question. In response to a provision in the National Defense
Authorization of 1997, the Commission on Maintaining United States
Nuclear Weapon Expertise (the so called Chiles Commission) has
submitted their final report and recommendations on recruiting and
retaining the critical technical and scientific workforce needed to
support and maintain over the long term a safe and reliable nuclear
weapons stockpile in the absence of underground nuclear testing. First,
are you familiar with the report, and if so, can you review briefly the
Commission's findings and recommendations?
Answer. Yes, I am familiar with the report. The Commission's report
contains 12 findings and 12 specific recommendations for action to be
taken by the DOE, the Congress, the Administration, DOE national
laboratories, and production plants. These recommendations emphasize
competitive recruiting and retention practices, management and
structural reforms, and long-term stability and oversight issues.
Question. Does DOE agree with the findings and recommendations?
Does this cause you alarm or concern?
Answer. The Commission was comprised of individuals with knowledge
of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Their findings and
recommendations are sound and I find no reason to be either alarmed or
concerned. The Commission ``found a great deal that was healthy in the
nuclear weapons complex with many trends moving in the right
direction'' and that ``the nuclear weapons program is not in crisis,
but additional steps are needed now.'' I commend the Commission for its
thoroughness and willingness to report their findings and
recommendations in an objective manner.
Question. How does DOE plan to respond to the Commission's
recommendations?
Answer. The Commission's recommendations call for actions not only
by DOE but by the Congress, the Administration, and the DOE
laboratories and production plants. The Department's response to the
Chiles Commission report will encompass a number of actions beginning
with a request to DOE Defense Program lab and plant directors for data
regarding critical skills and newly hired employees. This information
will help us to corporately assess whether current hiring trends will
maintain critical technical positions.
Question. Now, one of the Commission's recommendations was that the
DOE establish and implement, on a priority basis, plans for
replenishing essential technical workforce needs in critical skills
which will erode significantly over the next few years. How does the
Department plan to proceed with this recommendation?
Answer. To proceed with the Commission's recommendation to
replenish the essential technical workforce, we have requested a
listing of critical skills from all DOE Defense Program laboratory and
plant directors to include: the number of people to be hired in these
critical skill areas during fiscal year 1999; the number hired as of
April 1, 1999; the projected number to be hired for the remainder of
fiscal year 1999 and for fiscal year 2000 consistent with current
budgets; and, an assessment of the number of new hires on the
demographics in the critical skill areas. The data from the labs and
plants will enable us to assess whether current and projected hiring is
sufficient to ensure that critical skill areas are not eroding over
time. By the end of fiscal year 2000, new hires in critical skill areas
should begin to lower the average age of the technical and scientific
workforce in the nuclear weapons program.
stockpile stewardship
Question. Overall, the budget request for Stockpile Stewardship
increases by $160 million or 7.5 percent over the fiscal year 1999
appropriation of $2.126 billion for a total of $2.286 billion requested
for fiscal year 2000. Major increases are being requested for the core
stockpile stewardship program, construction of new facilities to
support the stockpile stewardship effort, and the Accelerated Strategic
Computing Initiative (ASCI).
I note that the budget request projects a 7.5 percent increase for
Stockpile Stewardship and at the same time includes a 4 percent
reduction for Stockpile Management. Does this cause any problems in
carrying out an integrated program with the Labs and the production
plants?
Answer. This does not cause any significant problems in carrying
out an integrated program with the labs and production plants. The
budget must balance many legitimate but competing requirements within a
finite resource envelope. I believe that the budget request submitted
to Congress reflects the appropriate balancing of priorities.
Question. Why has Defense Programs allocated such significant
increases in the Stockpile Stewardship program and apparently reduced
the Stockpile Management program?
Answer. The increases in the Stockpile Stewardship program are
primarily driven by the planned growth in the Accelerated Strategic
Computing Initiative program itself, and increases to support its
integration into the ongoing science and engineering programs. This
integration will allow these programs to more effectively support the
long-term needs of the stockpile, both at the labs and at the plants,
particularly through support to the Stockpile Life Extension Program,
the Enhanced Surveillance Program, and the Advanced Manufacturing
Design and Production Technologies initiatives.
The reduction in the Stockpile Management program reflects reduced
dismantlement requirements; completion of one time costs associated
with the restart of enriched uranium operations at Y-12; and completion
of congressionally directed infrastructure improvements at the plants.
Question. The approach in the past has been to have an integrated
program between the weapon labs stockpile stewardship and the
production plants stockpile management effort. How does this budget
unify and integrate the laboratories and the production complex?
Answer. We continue to have a closely integrated program that
balances near and longer term needs of the stockpile. Ongoing
maintenance and evaluation of the current stockpile ensures the near-
term viability of the stockpile, while investments in science today
will provide the technologies and tools necessary to conduct
maintenance and evaluation of the enduring, long term stockpile.
Examples of this integration are found in the Accelerated Strategic
Computing Initiative, the Enhanced Surveillance Program, the Advanced
Design and Production Technologies initiative, and Stockpile Life
Extension Programs.
Question. Dr. Reis, the Department has been spending over $2.0
billion annually to develop the scientific base, the Stockpile
Stewardship effort, to replace the capabilities lost when the United
States made the decision to stop underground nuclear weapons testing.
How much has been spent to date in developing this scientific and
analytical capability?
Answer. We have invested about $2 billion annually, on average, in
these scientific and analytical capabilities since the initiation of
the Stockpile Stewardship Program in 1996, for a total of about $10
billion through fiscal year 2000. This represents roughly half of
Defense Programs' funding for this period.
Question. When will the Department be able to say with confidence
that the Stockpile Stewardship program is capable of replacing the
underground testing program? Can you give the committee any examples of
how the scientific capability of Stockpile Stewardship program has
already contributed to solving real problems in the current stockpile?
Answer. Stockpile Stewardship is working now. While it has been
more than six 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 judgment of the two weapon design
laboratories. This success, using the experimental and testing tools
available today, provides confidence that 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 confirms that
Stockpile Stewardship can be relied on now and in the future. We have
successfully completed the process three times, and the fourth annual
certification process is underway. The third certification was provided
to the President by the Secretaries of Energy and Defense on December
22, 1998.
The scientific capability of the Stockpile Stewardship Program is
solving real problems in the current stockpile. Observations from our
surveillance program have led to questions which have been resolved
through the combined application of our advanced computational codes
and laboratory experiments. The success in providing B61-11
certification relied heavily on the scientific capability of the
Stockpile Stewardship program. New capabilities developed since the
start of the Stewardship program, such as proton radiography, have
provided scientific contributions to certification. Complex chemistry
models of high-explosive binder materials, benchmarked by proton
radiography experiments, have provided us estimates of the service
lifetime of our high explosives enabling us to make some decisions
regarding stockpile refurbishment schedules.
Question. Is the Department of Defense confident that the Stockpile
Stewardship program is capable of addressing the nuclear weapons
stockpile security, safety and reliability needs and issues?
Answer. I cannot speak for the Department of Defense, however, the
Department of Energy has maintained an active dialog with the
Department of Defense regarding our Stockpile Stewardship Program since
the program was established at the direction of the President as part
of his decision to extend the moratorium on underground nuclear
testing. Our Stockpile Stewardship Program Plan which outlines the
steps necessary to ensure that the enduring U.S. nuclear stockpile
continues to remain safe and reliable for the foreseeable future in the
absence of underground nuclear testing has been reviewed and approved
each year by the Department of Defense. The Secretaries of Defense and
Energy have recently concluded their third annual stockpile
certification to the President affirming that there is no need to
conduct an underground nuclear test to resolve any safety or
reliability problem in the stockpile.
national ignition facility
Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2000 includes $248
million for the National Ignition Facility (NIF) which is a major
element of the Stockpile Stewardship effort fiscal year 1999 was the
peak year for construction funding, and the budget request for fiscal
year 2000 maintains the fiscal year 2003 completion schedule. The
project remains within the estimated $1.1 billion cost estimate.
Dr. Reis, how important is the NIF to the success of Stockpile
Stewardship and maintaining the nuclear deterrent?
Answer. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is essential for the
success of the science-based Stockpile Stewardship program. It will
enable us to conduct weapon physics experiments and measurements
important to 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. The fusion ignition
mission will test many of the same skills used in analyzing nuclear
weapon performance and NIF will test simulation codes developed under
the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI).
As the world's premier laser facility, NIF will attract the highest
quality scientists for work in high energy density science and weapons
physics. It will provide an excellent tool for recruiting and training
the next generation of scientists for the Stockpile Stewardship
Program.
Question. Now, I understand that DOE plans to use the first several
beam lines of NIF to address nuclear weapons stockpile issues prior to
actual completion of the entire facility in fiscal year 2003, is that
correct? Explain the importance in using NIF as early as possible and
how this will contribute to the overall success of not only the NIF
project, but also to the Stockpile Stewardship Program as well.
Answer. The size and complexity of NIF and the scientific precision
needed to achieve ignition, make it important to gain detailed
understanding of the laser performance at NIF as soon as possible. For
non-ignition weapons science, we would like to get the results of
selected higher energy experiments as soon as possible. In particular
there are a number of important tests that could significantly aid
development and testing of the computer simulations in ASCI. Therefore,
the NIF project plans to provide the infrastructure on a schedule that
allows for experiments to be done before the completion of the
construction in 2003.
NIF will be about fifty times more energetic than present
facilities, such as the Omega laser at the University of Rochester.
Even the first several beam lines of NIF will have significantly more
power and energy than present facilities. This higher power and energy
of these beam lines will allow experiments on stockpile specific
issues, hydrodynamics, radiation physics, and material properties to
expand into new parameter regimes not presently attainable. The NIF
Weapons and Ignition planning groups have developed proposed campaigns,
which exploit partial NIF operation during the startup and testing
process and better prepare NIF scientists for full-power NIF
operations. Early experimental utilization of NIF will also improve NIF
maintenance, startup and operating procedures.
Question. Now, the budget justification implies that there is a
shortfall in funding for NIF which puts the ignition at risk, delays
the initiation of the cryogenic handling system, and provides only
minimal development of target diagnostics and experimental equipment.
If NIF is as important to the national security as you say and setting
aside budget constraints, how do you explain the lack of budget support
to these elements of NIF? What impact does this shortfall have on DOE's
fiscal year 2001 initial use of NIF and the fiscal year 2003 project
completion schedule?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 project completion schedule is not at
risk, nor is the ultimate technical objective of achieving ignition.
However, there is a potential delay from the schedule established in
1996 in the start of new program activities on the cryogenic target
system that is required for ignition experiments as well as a potential
delay in development of selected NIF diagnostics. The delays have no
impact on completion of the NIF construction project, but could delay
achieving ignition by as much as one year. Experiments using the first
eight laser beams are still expected to begin in fiscal year 2001 and
will result in obtaining significant data for ignition, weapons
physics, and laser startup, but collection of some specific
experimental data may be delayed due to the potential diagnostic
delays. We are working to improve the integration of our experimental,
computational and stockpile workload to better meet stockpile
certification needs. In that process, we are developing options that
could mitigate or eliminate the potential delays in the diagnostics and
cryogenic target system for NIF should that prove to be a higher
priority than other activities within the ICF or Core Stockpile
Stewardship lines of the budget.
Question. The budget request includes $5.9 million in operating
funds to support the NIF Project. Is this sufficient to support the
hiring and training of scientists needed to meet DOE Program goals once
initial operation of NIF begins and the project is fully operational in
fiscal year 2003?
Answer. The $5.9 million budget request in operating funds for NIF
is contained within the Other Project Cost (OPC) portion of the Total
Project Cost (TPC) for the NIF Project and is not used for the purposes
of funding the operations or staffing of NIF. The OPC funding request
is to provide for project funded activities such as required
environmental and safety documentation and startup planning. The hiring
and training of scientists needed to achieve the NIF mission is funded
by the national ICF and weapon science programs. In the present plan,
the staffing requirements for first use of NIF are adequately funded in
the program operations budget.
Question. What impact does the budget request have on the schedule
for proving ignition from laser fusion?
Answer. We plan to prove ignition with the indirect drive approach
as expeditiously as possible. When we submitted last year's budget, we
projected that ignition experiments would begin in early fiscal year
2006. At the time this year's budget was submitted, we projected a
delay of up to one year in the start of ignition experiments due to
unavailability of the cryogenic target handling system and some
diagnostics. We have been studying options that may mitigate or
eliminate these potential delays.
advanced driver development
Question. Over the past several years, scientists at Sandia Lab
have made major advances in pulsed power accelerators using the Z
facility. Yet, the fiscal year 2000 budget before the committee
requests no funding to continue important advanced driver development.
Other than budget constraints, what is the rationale for this drastic
action?
Answer. Development of pulsed power accelerator technology such as
that used at the Z-facility, is funded in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
year 2000 within the Inertial Confinement Fusion budget. The Sandia
pulsed power program has achieved outstanding success at the Z facility
and continues to set performance records in x-ray output, and in power
level and temperature. The Department's fiscal year 2000 budget request
at Sandia also reflects the completion of the installation of the
important Z/Beamlet backlighter Z facility. The Z facility will be used
for experiments contributing to stockpile evaluations and for research
to understand the potential of reaching fusion conditions with z-
pinches. A review by the National Academy of Sciences will begin within
a few months to evaluate the scientific and technical credibility of
obtaining fusion with the z-pinch approach.
Consistent with Congressional direction, the Advanced Driver
Development budget category under the ICF Program supports only the
development of high average power lasers and should not be confused
with funding for advanced pulsed power. No funding is requested for the
Advanced Driver Development budget category in fiscal year 2000.
Question. Does DOE plan to accomplish this work in other parts of
the Inertial Fusion program?
Answer. The Department's strategy in the near-term is to fully
exploit the Z facility for Stockpile Stewardship needs. Development of
advanced pulsed power accelerator technology depends on continued
progress in Z-pinch physics, validation of fusion ignition on the
National Ignition Facility, as well as a consensus on mission need. Any
decision to proceed with another fusion facility within the Stewardship
program would have to consider the value of additional fusion
capability balanced against other program needs.
Question. What impact will this action have on the goals of
inertial fusion energy and future defense program needs?
Answer. The continuance of the Defense Programs pulsed power
program enables the United States to retain world leadership in this
rapidly advancing technology. The Z accelerator at Sandia has already
been used for some Stockpile Stewardship program applications. Pursuing
inertial fusion for defense applications advances inertial fusion
energy because the two applications have many areas in common. However,
substantial additional technology development is required for inertial
fusion energy, including a reliable high-repetition rate driver and a
target-driver standoff concepts. The Department intends to use laser,
pulsed-power, and other facilities to advance its capability in
inertial fusion for defense and energy applications. The great
challenge of obtaining inertial fusion and the complexity of applying
this capability for defense and energy interests dictates the need for
expert judgments in evaluating development paths. The Department needs
both steady technical progress and scientific reviews to guide its
fusion development decisions. The present programs are balancing these
factors.
Question. How important is the work undertaken in the Advanced
Driver Program to attracting and retaining scientists in DOE's
stewardship program?
Answer. The Z-pinch drivers are being applied to DOE's stewardship
program today and this work is a factor in attracting and retaining
scientists. These experiments are attracting experimentalists and
theorists throughout the nuclear weapons community, including Los
Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. These scientists
are using and advancing their skills to design and field experiments at
the Z facility that validate large simulation codes--skills which are
required for a successful stewardship program. The excitement and
satisfaction level of these scientists is high. As a result, the
laboratories are attracting some of the best new scientists in the
field to participate in these experiments, particularly in the
disciplines of shock physics and radiation transport--both key areas of
expertise in nuclear weapons science. Other areas of Stewardship
activity are similarly vibrant and important. The Z-pinch success is a
useful, but not a dominant factor in attracting and retaining
scientists for Stewardship.
funding for stockpile management
Question. The stockpile management program supports the enduring
stockpile by assuring the availability of adequate supplies of tritium;
provides safe and secure storage of nuclear materials and components to
prevent proliferation; provides the ability to respond to potential or
real weapons incidents or accidents, and the capability to respond to
evolving nuclear terrorist threats; and provides a flexible
infrastructure capable of supporting changing stockpile size.
The goals of the program are to: provide high confidence in the
safety, reliability and performance of the enduring stockpile without
nuclear testing; ensure the effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear
deterrent; and provide the ability to resume underground nuclear
testing and reconstitute nuclear weapons production capacities should
national security demand them in the future.
The total budget request for Stockpile Management is $1.998
billion, a reduction of $48 million below the current year funding
level. However, the details reflect a significant reduction in the
dismantlement of retired nuclear weapons (down 36 percent or $23
million); and the core stockpile management program (down 4 percent or
$68 million).
Dr. Reis, does the reduction in the Stockpile Management program
concern you?
Answer. I would be concerned with the safety and reliability of the
stockpile at any funding level. It is my job to be concerned. That
said, the budget request for Stockpile Management is sufficient to
address all critical needs.
Question. What will be the adverse impacts resulting from the
reductions in various elements of the Stockpile Management Program?
Answer. To manage within the Stockpile Management Program budget,
we have reduced funding for the dismantlement program which may be
reflected in a reduced workforce. Our goal is to manage employment
level reductions through attrition as much as possible.
Question. Which elements have been reduced to the point to give you
major concern? Please explain why.
Answer. Again, as I have said, I would be concerned with the safety
and reliability of the stockpile at any funding level. Among my current
concerns are that we renegotiated several of the workload commitments
to the Air Force and Navy. None of these adjustments will reduce the
safety or reliability of the stockpile. These renegotiations will,
however, continue to push out work into later years. Secondly, we must
work to develop a multi-year budgeted modernization program at the
plants. We do not have all of the manufacturing capabilities that are
critical to extending the life of the nuclear weapons stockpile. We
plan to start to reestablish these capabilities as part of an
integrated plant modernization program in the fiscal year 2001 budget.
Lastly, we are concerned with maintaining plant critical skills as we
continue to experience manpower reductions. A large majority of the
current workforce will be of retirement age within the next few years.
This is the labor force that has the experience of building nuclear
weapons. It is critical that we undertake our Stockpile Life Extension
Program while this labor force who knows how to build weapons is still
available. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that manpower
reductions have made it difficult to retain junior level people to gain
these skills for future requirements and to attract new personnel. The
Commission on Maintaining United States Nuclear Weapons Expertise
recognizes the problem and made various suggestions including
incentives to retain personnel at retirement and attract new personnel.
reestablishment of pit production
Question. Over the past several years, DOE has been working to
reestablish plutonium pit manufacturing at Los Alamos to replace pits
destructively tested in the surveillance program and to replace pits in
the future should surveillance indicate a problem with a pit. This is a
critical element of DOE's production complex reorganization.
Could you update the committee on DOE's efforts to reestablish pit
production at Los Alamos? Are you still on schedule to achieve an
annual production capacity of 20 pits by 2007?
Answer. The DOE is on schedule to deliver a certified W88 warhead
to the stockpile in fiscal year 2001 which is required to achieve a
manufacturing capacity of 20 pits per year by fiscal year 2007.
Currently, we are manufacturing development units to refine the
processes to be used in production. Two development units have been
completed and a third is scheduled for assembly in the near future.
Manufacture of development units will continue into the beginning of
fiscal year 2000. Once the processes, tooling, and qualification
infrastructure are fully in place (much of which is being accomplished
in fiscal year 1999), manufacture of qualification units will begin in
fiscal year 2000. Qualification testing (to insure processes,
procedures, and tooling can meet the consistency and product
reliability of manufacturing and design specifications) will then be
initiated. Achieving the capacity of manufacturing 20 pits per year in
a reliable and sustained manner will require additional manufacturing
equipment and facility improvements to both the plutonium facility and
supporting facilities.
Question. Have you been able to produce a certifiable pit? What
problems or issues remain to be resolved in order to achieve
certification?
Answer. We are scheduled to produce a certifiable W88 pit in fiscal
year 2001. Currently, there are no specific problems or issues with
regard to certification, but much remains to be done. A number of
qualification, engineering, and physics tests must be conducted to
achieve certification.
Currently, we are manufacturing development units to refine the
processes to be used in production. Manufacture of development units
will continue into the beginning of fiscal year 2000. Once the
processes, tooling, and qualification infrastructure are fully in place
(much of which is being accomplished in fiscal year 1999), manufacture
of qualification units will begin in fiscal year 2000. At this time
qualification testing (to insure processes, procedures, and tooling can
meet the consistency and product reliability of manufacturing and
design specifications) will be initiated. Engineering and physics
testing will continue to confirm that performance of the newly
manufactured pits are equivalent to those currently in the stockpile.
Question. How does the budget request for fiscal year 2000 advance
your efforts to reestablish this capability, and does the budget
request maintain the 2007 date for producing DOE's goal of 20 pits per
year?
Answer. The budget request for fiscal year 2000 enables DOE to
continue to reestablish a pit manufacturing capability and to conduct
qualification, engineering, and physics tests required to certify newly
manufactured pits for entry into the nuclear weapons stockpile and to
establish a 20 pits per year capacity by 2007.
On the manufacturing side, the budget request allows continued
development of processes, tooling, and procedures necessary to
manufacture the pits, and actual manufacture of W88 qualification pits.
The budget also supports replacement of older laboratory equipment with
new equipment required to manufacture twenty pits per year.
For certification, the budget request provides funds for
qualification, engineering, and physics tests to continue. In fiscal
year 2000, qualification testing (to insure processes, procedures, and
tooling can meet the consistency and product reliability of
manufacturing and design specifications) will be initiated. Engineering
and physics testing begun in fiscal year 1999 will continue.
tritium production
Question. In December of last year, the Secretary of Energy
selected the commercial light water reactors for tritium production,
and designated the linear accelerator as ``backup'' technology if
needed sometime in the future. What was the basis of the Secretary's
decision to select the commercial light water reactor? What major
hurdles remain that could slow down or derail the use of commercial
light water reactors as a tritium source?
Answer. After spending a great deal of time considering the
alternatives, the Secretary determined that the use of Tennessee Valley
Authority reactors offers the lowest technical and schedule risk, and
the lowest cost of the options under consideration. At the same time,
the Secretary designated TVA's existing Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors
as the preferred facilities for tritium production rather than
investing in the completion of TVA's unfinished Bellefonte Unit 1
reactor. The use of existing reactors offers unique advantages over any
other tritium supply option including significantly lower investment
costs and potentially the lowest life cycle cost. It is the only option
that avoids a large capital expenditure on a major new weapons facility
at a time when we are pursuing further arms reductions. It is the only
option that allows us to proceed on a pay-as-you-go basis, allowing the
Department to buy only what it needs. Because TVA has agreed to a cost-
based Economy Act transaction, the annual costs will be low,
particularly so if the options are not exercised and the reactors
remain in a stand-by mode.
Assuming that adequate funding is provided and Congress places no
additional restrictions on the project, there are no ``major hurdles''
that would slow or derail the project.
Question. Now, I understand that the NRC must provide regulatory
approval in order to use a commercial reactor for tritium production,
is that correct? What is the date that you must have NRC approval in
order to meet the 2005 availability date of tritium? Have the DOE and
NRC established firm schedules and major milestones to meet DOE's need
date?
Answer. The NRC must approve amendments to the facility operating
licenses for Watts Bar and the Sequoyah reactors in order for them to
use the burnable absorber rods designed by DOE, rather than the
standard burnable absorbers used. TVA must obtain NRC approval for
these license amendments in time to insert the tritium-producing
burnable absorber rods into the Watts Bar reactor core in early fiscal
year 2004 and into the core of one of the Sequoyah reactors a few
months later.
DOE and TVA estimate that the application for license amendments
for Watts Bar and Sequoyah will be completed and submitted to the NRC
about 14 months from now, about the middle of calendar year 2000. The
NRC Chairman has committed that the agency will expeditiously review
these license amendment applications. DOE and TVA expect,
conservatively, that by the middle of 2002 the NRC will be in a
position to act favorably upon the amendment requests. That expectation
is based upon an assessment of the activities that are involved in the
review and approval of license amendments by the NRC including the
confirmatory demonstration just completed at the Watts Bar facility.
Question. I believe the Secretary stated that the commercial light
water reactor was the most consistent with U.S. arms reduction goals.
Can you explain why the Department believes this to be the case? Does
the Administration believe that the commercial light water reactor
option is also best suited to meet U.S. nonproliferation goals, and if
so, why?
Answer. On balance the Administration believes that the commercial
light water reactor (CLWR) option is best suited to meet U.S.
nonproliferation goals. The CLWR option entails the use of a civilian
reactor to produce material for use in nuclear weapons, departing from
the long-standing principle of maintaining a distinction between U.S.
civil and military activities. Such distinction, however, is not
mandated by law with respect to tritium production or by treaty; there
have been many past exceptions involving dual-use facilities; and a
number of factors will mitigate the impact on U.S. nonproliferation
efforts.
These mitigating factors include the fact that the reactor to be
used for tritium production belongs to TVA, a U.S. government
instrumentality with a long history of supporting U.S. defense needs;
the fact that the reactor could remain eligible for (and be compliant
with) International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections; and the
fact that implementation of this option could be delayed until
necessitated by tritium demand, which could be reduced through
additional arms control treaties.
The accelerator option does not transgress the civil/military
dichotomy, but it could not follow possible future reductions in
tritium requirements as efficiently. The substantial early investment
in an accelerator specifically built for military purposes, moreover,
could be seen as building up U.S. nuclear weapon production
capabilities at a time when the U.S. is seeking to reassure non-nuclear
weapon states that it is committed to nuclear arms reductions. This
could weaken U.S. bargaining positions in such fora as the 2000 Non-
Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.
Question. What are the Department's plans for an orderly close out
of the accelerator, including associated target design, tritium
separation and balance of plant design? What is DOE's funding profile
to complete this work?
Answer. In accordance with Presidential guidance and in keeping
with the Department's commitment to have a backup technology, DOE will
complete the development and demonstration work and the preliminary
design of the APT plant. All of the components mentioned are included
in that work. The project will provide a final report to the Department
with all of the technical information and the preliminary design that
will allow the Department to finish the design and build a plant should
that ever be required.
This effort will require $88 million in fiscal year 2000 and a
total of $172 million between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2002, at
which time the project will be completed. The current profile (pending
completion of a detailed re-planning), with fiscal year 1999 as a
reference, is shown in the table below.
ACCELERATOR PRODUCTION OF TRITIUM FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 THRU FISCAL YEAR 2002
[Escalated dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
----------------------------------------------------
2000-2002
1999 2000 2001 2002 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating.................................................. $85 $57 $35 $23 $115
Capital.................................................... 20 31 26 ........ 57
----------------------------------------------------
Total APT............................................ 105 88 61 23 172
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
independent project review
Question. Over the past few years, the committee has been working
with the House Energy and Water Subcommittee and the Department to
establish an independent project review process for capital
acquisitions by DOE. The committees felt that this was necessary
because of major cost overruns and changes in a project scopes which
have resulted to significant schedule delays and increased projects
costs. Over the past several months, DOE has been completing and
transmitting to the Congress independent project reviews which assess
the readiness of particular projects to proceed to construction. These
reports have indicated varying states of readiness at the Labs to begin
construction of projects funded in prior years.
The budget request for fiscal year 2000 includes 3 new construction
starts for the Stockpile Stewardship program and 1 new start under Non-
proliferation and Verification R&D.
Dr. Reis, the fiscal year 2000 budget includes funding for 3 new
construction starts under Stockpile Stewardship. The evidence from the
independent project reviews submitted to the Congress gives a mixed
picture of DOE readiness to initiate project construction. What actions
have you taken to insure that projects are thoroughly reviewed for
missions needs; that scope, costs and schedules are firm and clearly
established; and that quality project management personnel are in place
at the Labs and within DOE?
Answer. We have instituted measures to ensure that the three new
construction starts for Stockpile Stewardship are thoroughly reviewed
to confirm that they are ready to proceed. External Independent Reviews
on site have already been scheduled for the three new projects in the
fiscal year 2000 budget request. These reviews will focus on mission
need and project cost, schedule and scope baselines.
We are planning preparatory readiness reviews for each project that
will be led by DP staff with project management expertise who are
independent of line managers, and include members from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, other agencies, and contractors with cost and
management expertise. These reviews identify areas needing improvement,
and ensure that the projects are ready for the external assessments,
including mission need and scope, cost and schedule baselines.
We are in the process of placing experienced project management
personnel in place at the labs and within DP for these and other
projects. A survey of the qualifications of all project management
personnel is under way to support that process. In addition, DP will
work with the Department on its recently proposed certification program
and related training for project managers.
Question. Now there have been significant problems at Los Alamos in
the past related to establishing firm project scopes, and keeping
projects on schedule. Specifically, what has or is being done at Los
Alamos to strengthen their construction oversight and project
management practices?
Answer. Defense Programs has made significant efforts to strengthen
construction oversight and project management at Los Alamos. The
Department and the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) conducted a
construction projects management assessment in 1997 and concluded that
there was a need for better project baselines, management, and control
systems. Bases on this assessment, the Department and LANL developed an
Action Plan to management construction projects. In July 1997, the
Nuclear Construction Project Office was established at the Albuquerque
Operations Office to provide a single field line management
organization to provide management and oversight of stockpile
management projects at LANL.
Formal agreements between the Department and LANL are completed on
each project to define their respective roles, responsibilities and
accountability; the project baselines and management systems that will
be employed during project execution; and the specific programmatic
objectives that must be met by each project. A more rigorous and formal
project authorization system has also been put into place providing
improved funds control, definition of project deliverables, and
supporting documentation. This enables management to ensure that
appropriate resources are in place to support construction project
activities
An integrated review process has been developed which ensures
program, project, and safety objectives are quantified and achieved
through technical review and decision processes. Integration between
program and construction project activities is supported by plans that
integrate programmatic work with equipment installations and
construction activities.
Question. One of the new construction starts is a new $106 million
Strategic Computing Complex at Los Alamos. When will the Independent
Project Review be completed for this project? What specific actions
will you take to ensure this project is managed to critical schedules,
and that cost management is critically reviewed?
Answer. The independent assessment for the Strategic Computing
Complex is scheduled to begin on April 12, 1999, with a final report to
Congress by the end of May, 1999, although some slippage may occur due
to other ongoing reviews. Additionally, a readiness review for the
Strategic Computing Complex will begin on March 29, 1999, and will be
completed before the independent assessment begins.
In terms of project management, Defense Programs has revised the
way construction projects are managed. These revisions are based upon
critical analysis of the program and utilize many of the attributes
that have been successfully employed in projects such as the National
Ignition Facility. Key changes include the creation of small project
teams with clear, unambiguous roles, responsibilities, and appropriate
authority to execute the projects; organizational changes to ensure
senior management monitoring of the baselines; and an interim
qualification of all project management team members.
Los Alamos National Laboratory has taken additional steps to
improve the management of this project by hiring a professional
construction project management firm to assist them in the oversight of
the ``design and build'' contractor. They have also hired a
professional engineering firm to assist them in their reviews of
mechanical systems. The addition of these two external groups will
significantly enhance the strength of the Laboratory's management team
on this project.
chemistry and metallurgical research (cmr) building upgrade
Question. The Department has been struggling with upgrades to the
CMR building at Los Alamos for many years. This facility, built in the
1950s, undertakes important analytical work related to plutonium,
uranium, and other alloys and materials in support of the weapons
program. The project has been plagued with constant scope changes, cost
increases and significant schedule delays. The Department has had a
difficult time determining how to proceed with the project which has
been suspended for the past few years in an effort to determine firm
baselines of scope and costs for the CMR facility upgrade project.
Explain the Department's decision and plans for the CMR building at
Los Alamos. Why was the decision made to proceed with upgrades of the
existing facility, which was constructed in the 1950s and sits on an
earthquake fault, instead of constructing a new facility?
Answer. In 1988, the Special Nuclear Materials Laboratory (SNML)
project (88-D-105) was authorized to replace the CMR Building to
support continued weapons production and certification. In 1991, the
long term mission of the SNML became uncertain as weapons production
ceased and there was uncertainty relative to the amount of work
involving plutonium material which CMR would be required to support in
the coming years. Therefore the Department decided not to proceed with
construction of the SNML, but provide interim upgrades to the CMR.
These upgrades were initiated in 1992 and later designated as Phase 1.
In addition, studies were conducted to determine further upgrades
required for continued long-term operations (later designated Phase 2).
In 1995, the Department opted to initiate Phase 2 of the CMR Upgrades,
bringing the Total Estimated Cost for the entire project to $174.1M,
and cancel the SNML project.
It has only been in the past year that ongoing geologic studies
have revealed the presence of a seismic fault running under the North
side of the CMR facility. Because of the geologic information, the
project has been refocused on completing only those upgrades necessary
to maintain safe and reliable operations in the facility through fiscal
year 2010. The Department is examining the activities at CMR to
determine where these activities should be conducted in the future.
Question. How important is the CMR facility to the defense mission
of DOE? What role will this facility play in carrying out the defense
mission of DOE?
Answer. The capabilities of CMR are essential to DOE's defense
mission. The CMR facility is the only laboratory facility with full
capability for performing analytical chemistry and materials science
for special nuclear materials. The CMR is critical to the Stockpile
Stewardship Program in pit surveillance, pit manufacturing, stockpile
lifetime extension, and nuclear weapons certification. Analyses
performed at CMR assure that specifications for plutonium are met in
pit production and pit surveillance.
Question. How do you plan to use the $18 million requested for
fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget request provides $18 million
for completion of facility upgrades necessary to meet the safety and
regulatory requirements for continued CMR operations. These
requirements, and their scheduled implementation, have been formally
defined and prescribed by the approved CMR safety authorization basis--
the Basis for Interim Operations. These high priority safety upgrades
are necessary to reduce CMR operational risks to the public and workers
in the near-term, and to operate the CMR facility safely through fiscal
year 2010. To meet the safety and regulatory requirements, the majority
of the safety upgrades have been initiated in fiscal year 1999, and
fiscal year 2000 funding will allow the design and construction of
these upgrades to continue. If these upgrades are not completed as
scheduled, the CMR facility operations will be severely curtailed or
suspended.
Question. What steps and actions has the Department taken at the
field and headquarters level to ensure that the project does not
experience further scope changes and costs increase once work proceeds?
Answer. In the spring of 1997 the Department initiated an in-depth
review of project management issues at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL) as they related to the stand down of the CMR Upgrades
Project. The review identified root causes, contributing factors, and,
when put into place, corrective actions that will address systemic
institutional performance problems and as well as construction project
deficiencies. An external independent assessment was also conducted in
August 1998 and a number of findings and recommendations were made,
which again reflected the issues previously identified in 1997.
While corrective actions have been initiated on the basis of both
institutional and project-specific issues, both the DOE and LANL have
taken other actions to assure control over project scope, schedule, and
cost. Significant organizational changes have occurred to put senior
management focus on corrective measures and to assure project
accountability. Technical expertise has been expanded both within the
project and within engineering support offices. Procedures and other
management tools have also been improved to increase project control.
All findings and recommendations from previous assessments/reviews,
including the two mentioned above, have been captured as part of an
Action Plan (AP). The AP details both the institutional and project-
specific correction actions to be taken to address the findings and
recommendations. The AP is being used to establish baselines for
several stockpile management construction projects and to strengthen
project management oversight of milestones and cost. Project baselines
and stronger oversight will enable management to ensure that
appropriate resources are in place to support construction project
activities. In addition, the Stockpile Management program established
the Nuclear Construction Projects Office (NCPO) at Albuquerque to
integrate and strengthen oversight of all the program projects at Los
Alamos. Staffing was increased and roles and responsibilities were
clarified between the NCPO, Los Alamos Area Office, and LANL.
idaho operations office
Question. I notice that funding for the Idaho Operations Office is
being reduced significantly below the fiscal year 1999 funding level?
Why is this?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, support will continue for the
Radiological Assistance Program of approximately $400 thousand per
year. The DP tasks supported by the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory under the umbrella of the Idaho Surety Program
will either be completed in fiscal year 1999 or have been refocused
into areas outside of Idaho's expertise. This is the case with the task
supporting the Advanced Design and Production Technologies initiative,
the program has refocused its priorities from modeling efforts to the
development of processes and tools specifically required to support the
Stockpile Life Extension Program.
use of prior year balances
Question. Last year there was sizeable controversy regarding the
expected level of unobligated balances within the Weapons Activities
budget. If I recall correctly, the House reduced the program by several
hundred million dollars based on information developed by GAO on
projected levels of unobligated funding.
Could you review for the committee last year's situation and update
us on where the program ended up as it relates to unobligated balances?
How did the balances carried over into fiscal year 1999 actually
compare to GAO's estimate and Defense Programs' estimates?
Answer. Last year, reports from the authorizing and appropriations
committees specified that Defense Programs should use prior year
balances, ranging from a low of $50 million to a high of $341 million,
to offset the need for new budget authority to fund the fiscal year
1999 program. The final appropriation directed that the fiscal year
1999 program be financed using $4.4 billion in new budget authority and
$82.5 million in prior year balances.
The controversy arose because the information developed by the GAO
and provided to the committees differed significantly from DP's
analysis. GAO reported to the committees that DP would have up to
$340.7 million in ``excess'' balances at the end of fiscal year 1998,
while DP's estimates indicated that little or no excess uncosted
balances were expected, and $49.4 million for unobligated balances. The
actual end-of-year unobligated balances for direct programs in the
Weapons Activities account were $46.6 million.
Question. Now, the final appropriations bill used some $82.5
million of prior year balances to finance the fiscal year 1999 budget.
Were these balances available? If the balances were not available, what
adjustments were you forced to make?
Answer. No. There was not $82.5 million in excess prior year
balances available to finance the fiscal year 1999 budget. We plan to
obligate $4.447 billion in fiscal year 1999, which includes $28.6
million for program scope justified and approved in prior years but
delayed until fiscal year 1999. The balance, $4.418 billion, represents
obligations for new workscope composed of $4.4 billion in new
appropriations, and $18 million in prior year balances.
In an effort to implement the guidance in the appropriation, which
directed that fiscal year 1999 activities be funded using $4.4 billion
in new budget authority and $82.5 million in prior year balances,
Defense Programs undertook a rigorous process to examine all prior year
balances reported at the end of fiscal year 1998. Since overall ending
fiscal year 1998 uncosted balances for Defense Programs were well below
the Department's goal for operations and maintenance activities, there
was little flexibility to use these funds against fiscal year 1999
requirements. Only about $18 million was available from unobligated and
uncosted balances to be redirected without unacceptable impact to
ongoing program activities. Therefore, we will only execute program
level that falls $64 million below the level outlined in the conference
report accompanying the 1999 appropriation.
Question. If I understand your budget, you were forced to make some
$64 million in program reductions because there was only a little over
$18 million of prior year balances available. How was the $64 million
reduction allocated by specific activity, and did this result in any
adverse impacts?
Answer. To arrive at the current program and site allocations, we
accommodated first all congressional direction contained in the
appropriation and authorization bills and reports on fiscal year 1999
programmatic and site funding, and then assessed the reduction
proportionally to each Defense Programs decision unit. Much of the
reduction has been accommodated by small slips to work schedules,
procurements and maintenance with no significant adverse impacts.
office of counterintelligence fiscal year 2000 budget request
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Office of
Counterintelligence requests funding of $18.6 million with another
$12.6 million in additional funding to come from the national
laboratories from other Defense programs to be spent by the Office of
Counterintelligence. Why did you find it necessary to ``tax'' other
programs for additional funds?
Answer. The Counterintelligence (CN) program for fiscal year 2000
is a $31.2 million program. All of the $31.2 million will be under the
management purview of the Office of Counterintelligence. However, it is
composed of two pieces. The first is direct funding of $18.6 million
which is for costs primarily related to central counterintelligence
activities. The second portion, $12.6 million, is not a tax rather it
is an estimate of the activities the laboratories will need to fund to
better cover their counterintelligence responsibilities under the
direction of the Office of Counterintelligence.
Question. Specifically, where will the $12.6 million come from?
Provide for the record a list by site of how the $12.6 million will be
assessed.
Answer. The funds will come from the laboratories that need to make
additional expenditures to cover their counterintelligence
responsibilities. This includes primarily the three weapons
laboratories, but some additional expenditures will be required at
other laboratories as needs for enhancements in counterintelligence are
identified. The character of the improvements necessary will dictate
whether these costs to be borne by the laboratory are from direct
program funding or from overhead. The counterintelligence program is
sending a team out to the laboratories in April and one of their
responsibilities will be to get an estimate by site and activity of the
expenditures necessary. When the information is complete, we will
provide it to the Committee.
presidential initiative
Question. Ms. Gottemoeller, three years ago, I considered the
programs you oversee to be critical to U.S. national security. What I
have come to realize since the collapse of the Russian economy, since
the IMF and the World Bank have pulled out, and now that Yelsin's power
is in serious question, is that your programs are the centerpiece of
U.S.-Russian relations. I've met with the President's national security
staff to discuss the President's Russia initiative, and I agree
something has to be done since Russia cannot fulfill its obligations
under many of our bilateral agreements. But I only see a few very small
increases in your programs. Can you tell me how the President's
initiative affects the programs you oversee?
Answer. The President's initiative is a positive step for the
programs I oversee. His five year plan provides additional resources to
what I consider to be one of the United States' top national security
threats: nuclear proliferation.
In the area of nuclear security in Russia and the Newly Independent
States, the President's Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative will keep
the Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting (MPC&A) Program's
budget at a more sustained level than previously planned and will help
to provide a more vigorous level of effort during the next five years
of the program's implementation. The President's Russia initiative
provides the MPC&A program with funds to address the expanding mission,
including work at additional Russian navy and civilian sites with
weapons usable nuclear material; emergency measures and long term
operations efforts; and nuclear material consolidation. The President's
initiative will provide top level support for these measures and enable
the MPC&A program to undertake these new, key projects to improve
nuclear materials security and simplify the nuclear materials problem
in Russia.
Other key programs affected by the President's initiative are the
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) and the Nuclear Cities
Initiative (NCI) programs. The President's initiative foresees
providing funding support at the $30 million level annually for each
program through 2004. Each is integral to the initiative and promotes
the initiative's objectives. The two programs, while both addressing
nonproliferation in the former Soviet Union, are complementary, but
different. Let me explain the two programs in more detail.
IPP addresses chemical, biological, and nuclear nonproliferation
issues in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus. It seeks to prevent
the drain of expertise from former Soviet weapons of mass destruction
institutes to countries of proliferation concern by engaging scientists
and engineers working at those institutes in cooperative projects with
DOE National Laboratories. The purpose of these projects is to verify
technical feasibility and identify Newly Independent States (NIS)
technologies for commercialization in partnership with U.S. companies.
The hallmark of the IPP program in the NIS is the scientist-to-
scientist interface, which is enabled through firm, fixed-price
contracts between the NIS laboratories and the DOE National
Laboratories. These contracts assure stringent oversight of the
projects at the NIS institutes. In addition, the project proposals
themselves are reviewed by the U.S. Government interagency community
for dual-use and policy concerns. For projects where technical
feasibility is verified and demonstrated, the project is moved to a
second stage, a three-way partnership involving a U.S. industry
partner, a DOE National Laboratory, and an NIS institute. Finally,
through the development of free-standing businesses or product lines,
long-term economic outcomes, in terms of royalties and jobs, are
created for the NIS scientists and engineers involved. IPP has funded
over 400 projects in total, of which 84 are cost-shared with U.S.
industry. Several of the IPP projects have reached the point of full
commercialization.
The NCI focuses on job creation for scientists and technicians who
are being shed from the Russian nuclear weapons complex as a result of
downsizing. It is taking place in the ten closed nuclear cities of
Russia, starting with just three--Snezhinsk, Zheleznogorsk, and Sarov.
Extension to other closed cities, planned for the second year, will be
guided by lessons learned during the first year of engagement at the
first three cities. These were chosen because IPP, and before that, the
DOE lab-to-lab program, had engaged extensively with these cities and
developed contacts. While IPP operates in the institutes of the closed
cities, NCI operates in the more open municipal areas, engaging the
new, post-Soviet political and civic leadership and encouraging the
development of the non-weapons economy. In these areas, its efforts
include such measures as infrastructure development, creation of low
capital requirement businesses, and business/entrepreneurship training.
NCI has only recently been authorized to obligate funding, and so the
first NCI activities are now being funded in the three closed cities.
materials protection control and accounting (mpc&a)
Question. You know that I have had some very serious concerns about
the management of some of your programs; Materials Protection and IPP
in particular. I know you have made changes, and those programs now
report directly to you. I understand that the number of sites that need
to be secured is much higher than the original estimate. How long do
you think this program will need to continue?
Answer. The Materials Protection, Control and Accounting program
based its original completion date on data contained in the 1995 Joint
Atomic Energy and Intelligence Committee (JAEIC) Report. The report
identified 80-100 buildings in the Former Soviet with weapons grade
nuclear material which required rapid upgrades. The program determined
that upgrading these 80-100 buildings would require a sustained effort
through 2002. However, since the 1995 JAEIC Report, the program has
greatly expanded due to improved knowledge of and access to sites and
buildings containing weapons usable nuclear materials. To date, the
program has identified approximately 400 buildings requiring upgrades
at 55 sites. We also have expanded the work with the Russian Federation
Navy to include all sites with fresh nuclear fuel and naval spent fuel
of proliferation concern. Our initial planning did not project such
excellent cooperation with or access to so much of the Russian Naval
complex. Also, economic and political uncertainties in Russia during
1998 made security of the nuclear material more difficult and have
slowed some work.
While the harsh Russian economic conditions have increased the risk
of theft of nuclear materials, it also has created new opportunities to
address proliferation risks. For example, the program is initiating a
material consolidation program to simplify the nuclear security problem
by moving material into fewer buildings at fewer sites. Prior to this
crisis, this innovative approach would have been less likely to be
supported by the Ministry of Atomic Energy (MINATOM). The recent
violent acts at MINATOM and Russian Naval nuclear installations have
promoted a more proactive approach by the Russian Federation to reduce
the size of the problem. We are now actively working with the Russian
Federation to develop a strategy to consolidate nuclear material into
fewer buildings at fewer sites.
Today, the program is still on track to complete rapid upgrades at
100 of the most vulnerable buildings by the 2002 targeted date.
However, in light of the expanded work, we are currently updating the
plan. Our new estimate of 400 buildings requiring upgrades will likely
be adjusted downward if we are able to undertake a vigorous
consolidation effort with the Russians, which we fully expect at this
time. Thus, as we develop our new work plan, we are necessarily
factoring in some uncertainties. The President's Expanded Threat
Reduction Initiative shows the program extending through fiscal year
2004, but work may be required beyond that time. We will keep you
informed as our new work plan develops.
Question. Russia has now offered to work with us to consolidate the
nuclear material in Russia. Have we reached an agreement on that
proposal?
Answer. Material consolidation is a new element to the Material
Protection, Control, and Accounting Program and is under discussion
currently. We are exploring opportunities with the Russian Federation
to consolidate nuclear material into fewer buildings at fewer sites to
simplify the nuclear security task and also possible blend down of some
of the excess highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium. At this
time, we have not finalized the proposal, but we are working with the
Russian Federation Ministry of Atomic Energy to develop a strategy and
a proposal that will work towards consolidating nuclear material in the
near future.
Question. Do we know how much material the Materials Protection
program has secured?
Answer. The Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting Program
is improving the security on approximately 400 metric tons of weapons
usable nuclear material by installing initial rapid upgrades, such as
delay barriers, access control and portal monitors. Of this amount, we
have completed the installation of fully integrated material
protection, control and accounting systems for approximately 30 metric
tons.
Question. I also am aware of the conflict between some of your
managers and the leadership of the labs over the Materials Protection
program. Both sides make good points, but are you aware of that problem
and are you taking steps to resolve it?
Answer. Our MPC&A program was originally established as a temporary
task force, but work in Russia has proven to be much bigger, tougher
and longer-term than anyone would have expected when we began in 1994.
The Russian economy has not improved, and in fact has gotten worse. The
size and geographic span of the Russian nuclear material storage
complex is greater than anyone in the United States knew. I took steps,
as Director of our Office of Nonproliferation and National Security, to
establish a more permanent management structure for our nuclear
security operations in Russia and the MPC&A Task Force. Now the MPC&A
Task Force is reporting to me directly, and I have brought on board a
senior State Department official to advise me and the Department on new
approaches to manage the MPC&A program and other Russian programs. I
expect these changes will dramatically improve the oversight and
implementation of this extremely important program and provide for a
more efficiently and effectively managed effort. Our goal is to further
increase the successes and effectiveness of the MPC&A program in Russia
through this change.
gao report on initiatives for proliferation prevention (ipp)
Question. Ms. Gottemoeller, the GAO has issued a report critical of
the IPP program. How do you respond to the complaint that Russian
scientists who receive support from the IPP program may work on dual-
use technologies or may even continue to work on weapons technologies
when they are not working on IPP projects?
Answer. The Department and General Accounting Office (GAO) do not
agree on this issue. GAO claims that some Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention (IPP) projects support the development of ``dual-use''
technology that may enhance Russian military capabilities. The cases
cited by GAO provided no direct aid to Russia's military or weapons of
mass destruction programs. Moreover, DOE has been extremely concerned
about this issue and reinforced the existing review process in the mid-
1997 time frame. This reinforcement enhanced interagency participation
in the review process, to screen out potential ``dual-use'' projects--
especially in the areas of chemical and biological weapons.
Nevertheless, we have implemented GAO's recommendations to further
strengthen the review process.
IPP is not subsidizing Russian weapons activities, as GAO contends,
because each project is designed to produce non- defense products and
results in one or more specific deliverable. The deliverables are
reviewed by a U.S. laboratory principal investigator who verifies that
these meet the original terms of contract requirements. We take this
oversight very seriously. DOE scientists spent the equivalent of ten
man-years in the NIS in fiscal year 1998 alone, ensuring that IPP
projects were being properly conducted, according to firm, fixed-price
contracts. Time spent by Russian scientists on these non- defense IPP
contracts is time that they cannot spend working on Russian weapons
projects--or on weapons of mass destruction programs for third parties.
We know that senior Russian weapons scientists are devoting time to
their IPP projects, because we are receiving work products, reports,
equipment prototypes, and other deliverables that reflect their project
work. Moreover, in many cases IPP program money is the only actual
payment scientists are receiving, thus making IPP work more attractive
to Russian participants than non-paid defense-related assignments.
The involvement of DOE laboratory personnel with that of NIS
scientists and engineers provides assurance that old reports and data
from archives are not sent in as new deliverables. The direct interface
with DOE personnel also helps ensure that IPP funds are being spent on
IPP projects and are not diverted to other purposes at the recipient
institutes.
The fundamental goal of the IPP program is to keep NIS weapons
specialists working in their home countries, rather than selling their
services to foreign states or organizations of proliferation concern.
At virtually all Russian weapons institutes, salaries are going unpaid
for months. These scientists and those formerly employed at the
institutes are the proper targets of the IPP program, because these are
the individuals who are most likely to be tempted to sell their
services abroad.
GAO also raised the possibility that 19 chemical and biological
projects had not received necessary interagency review. It has recently
been verified by review of IPP documents and records that these 19
projects had received necessary interagency review before their
approval. In addition to this, the remaining IPP chemical and
biological projects (for a total of 30) have been rechecked to assure
that necessary interagency reviews are underway and should be completed
by April 15, 1999.
initiatives for proliferation prevention (ipp)
Question. I am interested in the GAO's finding that most of the IPP
funds are spent at our labs and not in Russia. Would you provide to the
Committee a break-down of the how much of the funds appropriated for
Materials Protection and IPP is spent in the U.S. and how is spent in
Russia?
Answer. IPP expenditures in the United States have been high
because of the involvement of the DOE National Laboratories--an
involvement that is one of the core strengths of the IPP program and
one that is mandated in the legislation founding the initiative. It is
the close involvement of DOE National Laboratory scientists and
engineers in the IPP projects that assures that the work done and the
deliverables received, under firm, fixed-price contracts, are receiving
stringent oversight. The principal investigators monitor each contract,
collaborate with the NIS scientists and engineers, working jointly on a
given project, participate in selecting an industry partner in the
U.S., arrange the Cooperative Research and Development Agreements
(CRADA) with the industrial partner, and then monitor the CRADAs.
Often, joint publications and joint inventions result from these
collaborative efforts.
This crucial involvement of DOE laboratory personnel provides
confidence that NIS scientists and engineers are not submitting old
reports and data from their files as new deliverables. The hands-on
involvement of DOE personnel also helps to safeguard that IPP funds are
being spent on IPP projects and are not sidetracked for other
activities at the recipient institutes. In fiscal year 1998 alone, IPP
principal investigators from the laboratories spent the equivalent of
nearly 10 man-years at facilities in the NIS ensuring that IPP projects
were being done properly and in compliance with contract requirements.
(It should be noted that although these days were worked in the NIS,
the travel funds were counted as being spent in the United States, an
accounting artifact that does not provide a full picture of resources
devoted to work in the NIS).
Another factor affecting the proportion of IPP funds expended in
the United States is that IPP provides important support for other U.S.
government programs. For example, since International Science and
Technology Center (ISTC) funds cannot be spent in the United States,
IPP funds are used for work at U.S. National Laboratories in support of
ISTC work in Russia. Over the life of the Program, six IPP projects
worth approximately $950,000 were funded in direct support to ISTC
projects. In addition, IPP has been funding nearly $500,000 in ISTC
salaries on an annual basis. IPP has also provided continued indirect
support to ISTC from National Laboratory overheads and other related
sources. DOE lab scientists are listed as `collaborators' on 238 ISTC
projects and perform a number of activities which can include proposal
review, review of reports and performance of hands-on research.
Indirect support duties also include performance as program
`coordinators' for ISTC projects for which at least partial
compensation is received.
Despite these factors, however, the IPP program is implementing
changes to increase the commercial emphasis of IPP projects and to
raise the overall proportion of project funds sent to the NIS to well
above 50 percent. Our goal is 60 percent. This will be accomplished by
requiring that each laboratory place more of its IPP project dollars on
U.S. industry cost-shared projects, to which U.S. industry is
contributing resources, as opposed to technology demonstration and
feasibility projects not involving U.S. industry. For these U.S.-
industry cost-share projects, an increased share of funding will go to
the NIS. In addition, on-going technology demonstration projects that
are not meeting project milestones or have only a slight chance of
commercialization will be canceled and the funds made available for
more commercially promising projects. As an aggregate, these measures
will result in an increasing commercial emphasis, more U.S. industry
cost-share and participation, and a greater percentage of overall IPP
funds going to the NIS.
For fiscal year 1997 Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP)
appropriated funds, the DOE National Laboratories allocated $12.4
million to the Newly Independent States (NIS). They allocated $15.5
million to laboratory-related activities. This amounts to 44.4 percent
of IPP project dollars allocated to NIS contracts in fiscal year 1997.
For fiscal year 1998 appropriated funds, the allocation percentage
to NIS contracts is projected to be 48 percent as new contracts are
finalized. The current distribution reflects that the DOE National
Laboratories have allocated $6.7 million or 28.2 percent to the NIS and
$17.0 million or 81.8 percent of funds is committed to laboratory-
related activities. As contract negotiations with NIS institutes are
completed and costing of funds under the new contracts can begin, the
NIS expenditures are anticipated to rise to as high as 48 percent,
allocating a 52 percent portion in the National Laboratories.
It is also the IPP program goal to increase the number of Thrust
Two projects, which involve a cost-sharing with U.S. industry, as a
percentage of overall projects underway. This will contribute, in a
positive way, to increasing the flow of funds to the NIS partners.
For the Materials Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A)
Program, during fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997, as the program
was getting established and U.S. coordination costs were higher, the
MPC&A program spent $107.7 million on U.S. laboratory labor and travel
and $56.3 million on upgrades at FSU facilities, including FSU labor
and MPC&A equipment installed at FSU facilities (this equipment was
from FSU and Western commercial vendors). This broke down to about 66
percent and 34 percent, respectively.
Since fiscal year 1998 through January 1999, the MPC&A program
costs were $100.7 million for U.S. laboratory labor and travel and $90
million for FSU labor and MPC&A equipment. These costs amount to around
53 percent and 47 percent, respectively. This trend is heading toward
lower U.S. laboratory costs as the MPC&A program engages in more
efficient management.
It must be stressed that much of the laboratory travel associated
with both the MPC&A and IPP programs is carried out in Russia and the
NIS, overseeing or performing project work in inhospitable or even
hazardous environments. Without the travel of laboratory specialists to
these difficult and remote locations, MPC&A and IPP project work would
not be possible.
nuclear cities initiatives (nci)
Question. This year's Defense Authorization Act required a report
on the Nuclear Cities Initiative which we have received--but it is very
vague. Will you submit to the Committee a more detailed report so we
can understand basic issues about the Nuclear Cities Initiative such
as; who will serve as the United States executive agent for this
program, where the money will be spent, or what the money will be spent
on?
Answer. The Department will be happy to provide ongoing status
reports of progress under the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI) to the
Committee. The Nuclear Cities Initiative has progressed considerably
since the December report that DOE submitted to the Congress.
DOE serves as the U.S. Executive Agent for Nuclear Cities
Initiative on behalf of the U.S. Government.
As reported to the Gore-Primakov Commission in March 1999,
important initial projects are being launched in each of the three
initial target cities, Sarov, Snezhinsk and Zheleznogorsk. Highlights
of the current status and plans are:
Working groups have visited each of these three cities and
identified promising projects. One of the primary aims of the mutual
effort will be to establish a business friendly infrastructure within
the cities. As a start, in 1999, almost $2 million in funding will be
devoted to upgrading the telecommunications systems and to establishing
business development centers to promote market-based economic activity
within each community.
In Snezhinsk (Chelyabinsk-70), a pharmaceutical packaging project
has been identified for joint work, leveraging resources to support
this important activity to benefit public health and welfare. In
Zheleznogorsk (Krasnoyarsk-26), the U.S. working group team has just
completed its evaluation. The Silicon of Siberia project, which alone
could result in the creation of 500 jobs over four years, will be one
target of joint development, with other smaller projects currently
being identified.
Progress in the six short months since the NCI Agreement was signed
has been impressive and both U.S. and Russian participants look forward
to building a foundation of cooperation that will lead to sustainable
job creation in the closed nuclear cities.
status of russian talks
Question. Ms. Holgate, Deputy Secretary Moniz, Deputy Secretary
Holum, and you briefed me in some detail on this yesterday but, for the
record, would you summarize the status of the talks with Russia?
Answer. The negotiations are underway. Initial conversations with
Russian counterparts, particularly in February, reveal substantial
common ground on a number of substantive elements as well as on the
structure and urgency of this agreement. The U.S. delegation is led by
the Department of State with key support being provided by the
Department of Energy. The Russian delegation is led by the Ministry of
Atomic Energy (MINATOM), supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
I believe that an agreement can be concluded this year to enable
plutonium disposition to proceed in both countries.
parallel u.s. and russia programs
Question. Congress directed in last year's Act that ``the United
States should not proceed unilaterally to dispose of excess plutonium
without parallel progress on the Russian side.'' The budget request
states that the Administration will not construct new facilities for
disposition of U.S. plutonium unless there is significant progress on
plans for plutonium disposition in Russia. When the Administration says
``significant progress,'' is that consistent with the Congressional
requirement for an agreement to be in place?
Answer. Yes. The United States will not unilaterally dispose of its
surplus plutonium without parallel progress on the Russian side. The
Department's fiscal year 2000 budget request for fissile materials
disposition seeks funding to proceed with the up-front research,
design, licensing and fuel qualification activities. Proceeding with
these long lead-time activities is necessary to maintain momentum and
pressure on Russia for a plutonium disposition agreement, and serves as
a sign to private industry, the public and the world community that the
U.S. is serious about disposing of stockpiles of surplus weapons
plutonium. The United States will not begin construction of new
facilities for the disposition of U.S. plutonium unless there is
significant progress with Russia on plans for the disposition of
surplus Russian plutonium. A comprehensive bilateral agreement would
certainly represent ``significant progress.''
Question. Your budget request for fiscal year 2000 includes funds
to complete Title I and Title II design of the pit disassembly and
conversion facility and to procure some long-lead equipment. You are
also on the verge of issuing a contract this year with a fuel
fabricator and utility team to fabricate and burn MOX fuel. It seems to
me that Russia is years behind in that regard. Are you getting in front
of Russia, and how do you plan to deal with a slow-down if the Russian
program does not proceed quickly?
Answer. I do not believe the United States is getting out in front
of the Russians on this matter. Russia is currently conducting
feasibility studies on various technical alternatives for converting
plutonium metal to plutonium oxide, suitable for fabrication into mixed
oxide (MOX) fuel. Following a decision by Russia, we can proceed with
design of a full-scale Russian plutonium conversion facility. On the
U.S. side, once we have a contract in place, we too can proceed with
the design of the full-scale plutonium conversion facility. The
contract for MOX fuel fabrication and irradiation services is written
so as to allow changing the output of the MOX plant to allow for
parallel progress with Russia.
The U.S. contract for MOX fuel fabrication and irradiation services
was awarded on March 22, 1999. We needed to award this contract in
order to select and obtain commitments on which reactors would be used.
Among other things, the first phase of this contract will include
design of the fuel fabrication facility. Without the facility design
and the identification of reactors, we would be unable to move forward
with the licensing requirements for the fabrication facility and the
reactors. Russia, on the other hand, already knows which reactors will
be used for plutonium disposition and they have begun work on fuel
qualification. Russia is working on a conceptual design of a MOX fuel
fabrication facility with the French. Our Technical Cooperation
Agreement gives us a key mechanism to keep Russian research and
development moving ahead during the process of negotiating a
comprehensive bilateral agreement.
Question. Is the procurement of that long-lead equipment consistent
with the commitment to proceed in parallel with Russia?
Answer. Yes. In order to obtain the necessary equipment design
information for review and use, the architect-engineer must procure the
long-lead equipment early in the design phase, before the facility
design is complete. However, no equipment manufacturing would begin
unless there is significant progress with Russia on plans for plutonium
disposition. Should significant progress be delayed, equipment vendors
would not be authorized to fabricate hardware.
definition of 50 tons
Question. Russian Minister Adamov has complained to me that the 50
tons of plutonium the United States plans to disposition of is not all
weapons grade. I understand that initially we will work with Russia to
dispose of equal amounts of each country's plutonium, but, over the
long run, Russia has a great deal more plutonium that the U.S. How are
we going to achieve parity over the long run?
Answer. You are correct in your understanding that under the
bilateral agreement currently envisioned, the United States and Russia
will likely dispose of equal amounts of plutonium and that Russia is
believed to have a great deal more plutonium than does the United
States. Parity in remaining plutonium stockpiles is intended to be
addressed as part of the broader strategic arms reduction process
(START).
Question. Would you provide for the record a list of what plutonium
each country possesses--in the case of Russia it will be our best
estimate--and a list of what plutonium each side has proposed to
dispose of?
Answer. As specified in the DOE publication, Plutonium: The First
50 Years (DOE/DP-0137, February 1996), the current U.S. plutonium
inventory is 99.5 metric tons (MT). The U.S. inventory is composed of
85.0 MT of weapons grade (less than 7 percent Pu240), 13.2 MT of fuel
grade (more than 7 percent and less than 19 percent Pu240), and 1.3 MT
of reactor grade (more than 19 percent Pu240). Of the 85 MT of weapons
grade plutonium, 38.2 MT have been declared excess to national security
needs. In addition, the Department of Energy considers 14.3 metric tons
of non-weapons-grade plutonium to be surplus.
The DOE publication, Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting
(MPC&A) Program Strategic Plan (January 1998), states that experts
believe that the former Soviet Union produced more than 150 MT of
plutonium. In September 1997, Russian President Yeltsin announced a
decision to remove gradually from military nuclear programs, up to 50
metric tons of plutonium which has become available through the nuclear
disarmament process. Thus far, Russia has provided no further breakout
of this material.
mox vs. vitrification
Question. Ms. Holgate, your program proposes to dispose of excess
U.S. plutonium in two ways: burn it in reactors as MOX fuel or mix it
with a ceramic, place that material in a steel can and surround the
steel can with vitrified high-level waste. It seems to me that it will
be relatively easy to recover the plutonium stored in steel cans,
especially as the radioactivity of the waste around it decreases--
something that will occur fairly rapidly. Have you determined that the
steel can storage technique meets the spent fuel standard?
Answer. The Department is focusing on this ``can-in-canister''
approach for plutonium immobilization. Under this approach, plutonium
feed materials would be converted to oxide which would be mixed with
material to form ceramic disks. The disks would be stacked and sealed
into steel cans which would be arrayed within large canisters into
which vitrified high-level waste would be poured. The radioactive waste
barrier increases the proliferation resistance of the immobilized
plutonium. Subsequently, the canisters would be disposed of in a
geologic repository. The Department believes that this ``can-in-
canister'' immobilization approach meets the spent fuel standard in
which the surplus plutonium is made as inaccessible and unattractive
for retrieval and weapons use as the plutonium remaining in spent fuel
from commercial reactors. Nonetheless, DOE has asked the National
Academy of Sciences to examine the degree to which both U.S.
disposition technologies meet the spent fuel standard. The National
Academy of Sciences assessment is expected to be completed this summer.
Question. Would you be comfortable with China or North Korea
disposing of plutonium using the steel can approach?
Answer. As a practical matter, a nuclear weapons state such as the
United States, Russia or China has the technology to recover separated
plutonium from either spent MOX fuel or the immobilized waste form. The
real question that needs to be asked, however, is whether it is
practical for a nuclear weapons state to do so in light of more readily
available alternatives, which are cheaper and easier. Given this fact,
the United States would be comfortable with Russia or China disposing
of their surplus plutonium through immobilization and subsequent
disposal in a geologic repository. North Korea, however, is not a
recognized nuclear weapons state and is believed to lack key technology
and readily available stockpiles of plutonium with which to readily
fabricate nuclear weapons. As a result, under no circumstances would
the U.S. be comfortable with North Korea disposing of surplus plutonium
in this manner, should such material be available.
schedule
Question. Ms. Holgate, your program proposes to actually begin
burning up U.S. plutonium in 2007. When do you plan to complete the
disposition of all 50 tons of excess U.S. plutonium?
Answer. Assuming the U.S. and Russia complete a plutonium
disposition agreement later this year, the United States could dispose
of its 50 metric tons of plutonium by 2022. This assumes a peak
disposition rate of 5 metric tons of plutonium per year, with the
ability to accelerate this rate should parallel progress be achievable
in Russia.
Question. How did you decide what an acceptable schedule would be?
Answer. The schedule is an aggressive one based on a number of
factors including technical considerations, cost, infrastructure and
Russian considerations. However, given the current political
instability and worsening economic conditions prevailing in Russia and
the very real threat that surplus plutonium could be stolen or diverted
into the hands of terrorists or non-nuclear nations, I feel that the
aggressive schedule is warranted.
canadian reactors
Question. I've been intrigued by the idea proposed a number of
years ago to burn U.S. and Russian weapons-derived plutonium in
reactors in Canada. Do you still plan to fabricate fuel for Canadian
reactors, and when might we ship that fuel to Canada?
Answer. Yes. A joint U.S.-Russian non-proliferation experiment is
planned to be conducted this summer in Canada to demonstrate the
feasibility of disposing of excess weapons plutonium by using it in
mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in CANDU reactors. The Los Alamos National
Laboratory has fabricated eight small fuel pins containing 119 grams of
plutonium from dismantled U.S. weapons for the United States part of
the experiment. The Russian Federation's Bochvar Institute is preparing
to fabricate a similar amount of fuel from Russian plutonium. In the
experiment, a Canadian test reactor will simultaneously irradiate these
small quantities of MOX reactor fuel.
DOE believes there is adequate interest and reactor capacity
available within the United States to dispose of all excess U.S.
plutonium. There may, however, be a need for additional reactor
capacity to augment Russia's capability to dispose of its plutonium in
reactors.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Craig
nonproliferation technology
Question. Secretary Richardson recently challenged all DOE national
laboratories to ``identify technical breakthroughs which will
revolutionize our proliferation detection capabilities.'' Do you plan
to increase your support of research and development at non-defense
laboratories so that the full capabilities of the DOE laboratories can
get to work on meeting this important challenge?
Answer. The Nonproliferation and Verification Research and
Development (R&D) Program will continue to support R&D at both defense
and non-defense laboratories to utilize the full capabilities of the
DOE laboratories. In fiscal year 2000, Chemical and Biological
Nonproliferation has been identified as the highest priority growth
area with a budget request for this program of $31.2M, an increase of
almost 70 percent over the fiscal year 1999 budget of $18.5M.
In preparation for an expanded fiscal year 2000 budget the Chemical
and Biological Nonproliferation Program invited all DOE National
Laboratories to participate in a call for proposals. Technology gaps in
our current program as well as on-going projects that could be
accelerated into fielded capabilities through the infusion of
additional R&D funding were the targets of this solicitation.
Laboratories were encouraged to team with both academia and industry
where technical expertise was needed and where systems were maturing
towards implementation.
Both new proposals and ongoing research and development projects
will undergo a rigorous two-step peer review which will be conducted
this Spring. The peer review panel will consist of technical experts
and end-users from other government agencies, industry and academia.
Funding decisions will be made on the basis of this peer review
process which will focus upon the work's potential impact and
advancement over current state of the art capabilities, the scientific
and technical quality of the work, and finally the program management
and technology implementation plan. It is expected that some of this
important work will be conducted at the DOE's non-defense laboratories
to meet our proliferation detection challenges.
russian navy fleet
Question. I understand that the current U.S. program to dismantle
Russian ballistic missile submarines is only addressing a fraction of
the total number of inactive Russian submarines. The fuel for these
submarines could present an environmental threat if not dealt with. Do
you agree that these submarines pose a threat? Would you support an
accelerated program to defuel all of the Russian submarines?
Answer. Yes, I agree that the possibility of an environmental
threat is present if dismantlement is not handled properly; we are also
concerned about possible nuclear safety and security threats. We are
coordinating through an interagency process to develop a strategy to
deal with this very important issue. We will keep you informed of our
progress.
kazakhstan bn-350 activities
Question. I understood Argonne-West is conducting a very successful
program to secure the spent fuel and blanket assemblies from the BN-350
reactor in Kazakhstan. I also understand that Kazakstan has decided to
shut down the BN-350 permanently. Experience in Idaho with the
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II could be used to assist Kazakhstan in
fire protection and handling of the radioactive sodium. Do you have
plans for helping to resolve these concerns and assist the shutdown of
the BN-350 reactor?
Answer. The Department of Energy intends to assist Kazakhstan with
the safe shutdown of the BN-350 reactor. In this effort, we plan to
work closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the
Government of Kazakhstan, and other countries with experience in sodium
cooled reactor technology. We plan to place particular emphasis on
safety issues, including sodium fire protection and sodium draining.
Due to its experience with the operation and shutdown of the
experimental Breeder Reactor-II, Argonne National Laboratory-West is
playing and will continue to play a large role in our work to improve
safety and to assist in the shutdown of the BN-350.
nuclear cities initiative
Question. The Mayor of Idaho Falls has expressed interest in
establishing a sister cities arrangement with the Russian city of
Ozersk and supporting the work of ANL and INEEL in that city. What is
your position on the mayor's proposal and on opening up the Nuclear
Cities Initiative to DOE's non-weapons labs?
Answer. The NCI Program has already been cooperating with Idaho
Falls. Through the Energy Communities Alliance Annual Conference, NCI
brought together the Mayor of Idaho Falls, Linda Milan, and the Mayor
of Ozersk, Sergey Cherishov, to discuss economic development
strategies. Additionally, NCI staff introduced the Russian and American
mayors to the Director of Sister Cities International, Alexander Gorev,
to promote their cooperation. And finally, NCI program staff has
requested Sister Cities International to permit both Idaho Falls, ID,
and Richland, WA, to pair with Ozersk in a new ``Sister Cities''
relationship.
The Department supports the participation of the non-weapons
laboratories in the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI). Currently, the
Savannah River Site and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory have
significant roles assigned under the NCI. For example, the Savannah
River Site teams with Los Alamos National Laboratory in heading the
Sarov City Working Group. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is
teamed with Lawrence Livermore National laboratory in the program
efforts at Snezhinsk. The Oak Ridge Site and Sandia National
Laboratories are teamed in the Zheleznogorsk Working Group. Argonne
National Laboratory was recently tasked with the development of a new
medical isotopes functional working group under NCI.
bn-600 reactor
Question. Russia's BN-600 reactor still incorporates a breeding
blanket that produces about 450 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium
per year. Does the Administration plan to propose the conversion of the
BN-600 blanket and the use of MOX fuel in the BN-600 as part of its
plan to spend the $200 million emergency appropriation for Russian
plutonium disposition provided by Congress?
Answer. The government of Japan recently announced its intention to
provide funding for the conversion of the Russian BN-600 breeder
reactor for operation as a plutonium burner. The Department of Energy
intends to cooperate with the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy
(MINATOM) and the Japanese government on issues associated with the
conversion and the related funding.
subcommittee recess
Senator Domenici. Okay. We look forward to that. We stand
in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Thursday, March 11, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-124, the
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici
(chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Gorton, Craig, Reid, and
Murray.
Also present: Senators Campbell and Allard.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Environmental Management and Civilian Waste Management Programs
STATEMENTS OF:
JAMES M. OWENDOFF, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
LAKE H. BARRETT, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN
RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
OPENING STATEMENT
Senator Domenici. The hearing will please come to order. I
know Senator Reid is not here, but he will arrive shortly. I
apologize, but I can only be here until 10:15, because I am
finishing the budget markup upstairs in another room. So I
would like to get started and keep my remarks to a minimum, in
order to get on with testimony of our witnesses.
We welcome the presence of Senator Campbell, who, while not
being on the subcommittee, has asked, as he did last year, if
he could come here and ask some questions about Rocky Flats. We
will be glad to let you do that, Senator.
This morning we review the budget request of the Department
of Energy's Environmental Management Program, and the Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management Program, otherwise known as the
Yucca Mountain program.
I want to welcome the witnesses here today, Mr. James
Owendoff, Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Environmental
Management; and Mr. Lake Barrett, Acting Director of the Office
of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
Gentlemen, we have a busy schedule today in the Senate, and
I ask that you be as brief as possible in summarizing your
prepared statements, as you know they will be thoroughly read
by the subcommittee. Without objection, right at the offset,
your full prepared statements are going to be made part of the
hearing record.
Before I turn to Senator Reid, who will be along shortly, I
want to mention one item of particular interest to Senator Reid
and me, and that is the accelerator transmutation of waste. We
included in last year's act $4 million to develop a road map
for accelerated transportation of waste technology.
The Department has made a great deal of progress in
developing that road map, and I hope to come back to that issue
at a hearing in April specifically for that purpose.
Having said that, I wonder if, Senator Campbell, would you
like to----
Senator Campbell. Perhaps just a brief comment.
Senator Domenici. Please.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL
Senator Campbell. Thanks for letting me sit with this
subcommittee. I am a member of the full committee as well.
Because of Rocky Flats, I have a very, very keen interest in
this, and I am very pleased to see the administration has
requested $657 million to continue the cleanup. I might tell
you, Mr. Chairman, the sooner we get that cleaned up, we will
be able to perhaps supply more money to WIPP, which is in your
state.
One thing I am concerned about is a proposal by the
administration that we build some temporary tent structures to
house it until this lawsuit is handled in New Mexico. I think I
should tell my friends here that are going to be testifying,
that is absolutely unacceptable. Our communities will go nuts
if we tell them we are going to store any kind of waste in
temporary tents, because their feeling, of course, is that once
it is stored there in tents, it is just going to stay there,
and we will not really make a concentrated effort to get it
cleaned up.
Last year, as you probably know, we did get an additional
$30 million through the budget here in the Senate to accelerate
that cleanup, but it has not been going as fast as some of us
would like it. I am sure you are aware of that, and I would
hope, as I am going to ask Secretary Richardson this afternoon,
at Interior appropriations, to try and prioritize that. He has
said that he will come out and take a look at that himself, as
Hazel O'Leary has done, and a few others have done.
Unfortunately, in the past, they come out for the photo
ops, and then they don't make a concentrated effort to get the
cleanup done. I think Secretary Richardson, since he is from
New Mexico, and is very keenly aware of the problem in New
Mexico and Colorado, will prioritize it, and I would hope that
you would, too. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will ask some
questions at the appropriate time.
Senator Domenici. Senator Reid, since I have to leave at
10:15 to finish the budget markup, I started----
Senator Reid. I am glad you did.
Senator Domenici [continuing]. In your absence.
I think both of you know that we are involved in activities
in the Department of Energy that are vitally important and can
have significant impacts on the budget of the Department of
Energy, because of very expensive programs. I might say in the
presence of Senator Campbell that the one object of cleanup
that is going along with some sense of urgency, and some real
goals that are being accomplished, is the Rocky Flats. It is a
shining star and we hope it will stay on track.
We want to fund it and get it done. It seems like at the
other cleanup sites, we are no further ahead today than we were
10 years ago, that is just my editorial comment, but Rocky
Flats is doing very well.
So let us proceed. If you would proceed at this point, we
would be delighted to hear your testimony, Mr. Owendoff.
statement of james m. owendoff
Mr. Owendoff. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee,
thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to discuss
the Department of Energy's Environmental Management program and
our fiscal year 2000 budget request. I would like to cover
several subjects in my brief oral statement.
First, I will mention some significant progress we have
made, as well as some of the challenges we face. Second, I will
describe our budget request for fiscal year 2000.
program goals and progress
As you know, the Environmental Management program is
responsible for managing and cleaning up the environmental
legacy of over 50 years of production of nuclear weapons and
government nuclear energy projects. Cleaning up environmental
contamination is just one part of our program. In addition, we
are responsible for the safety and security of more than 25
metric tons of weapons-useable plutonium, over 2,000 tons of
intensively radioactive spent nuclear fuel, and for storing,
treating, and disposing millions of cubic meters of radioactive
waste.
Clearly, this is a big job. To bring some closure to this
program we have set a goal of cleaning up as many sites as
possible by the end of 2006. By closing sites early, we reduce
the hazards facing the public and our workers, concentrate our
resources on cleaning up sites, rather than overhead costs
necessary to keep a site open, and thereby lowering the long-
term cost to the taxpayers.
We have set very ambitious goals for closing, by the end of
2006, the Rocky Flats site in Colorado, and the Mound and
Fernald sites in Ohio. Our plans for closing these sites assume
a stable funding stream, but a stable funding stream is not
enough. Our ability to reach these goals will also require the
creative use of the facilities and technical personnel at other
sites.
A cooperative strategy of integration across the complex is
imperative. Such a strategy requires dedicated efforts by DOE,
contractors, regulators, Native Americans, local governments,
and other stakeholders to succeed.
We are making progress toward our goal, as evidenced by
some of the recent accomplishments. When we came before you at
this time last year we had 53 sites requiring active cleanup.
During this past year we reduced that number to 48, and we
planned to complete cleanup at six more sites by the end of
fiscal year 2000.
With the completion of the remaining last two sites last
year we completed surface cleanup at all 22 uranium mill
tailings sites, as well as more than 5,300 contaminated
properties in the vicinity of those sites. We have made real
progress in reducing risks and mortgages at our large sites,
where cleanup will continue past 2006.
hanford activities
For example, in fiscal year 1998 we completed deactivation
of the N-reactor complex, the last of nine reactors, at the
Hanford site, and the B-plant, a plutonium processing facility
at Hanford. In both cases we reduced annual surveillance and
maintenance costs from $20 million to less than $1 million.
Our past investments in technology development are now
making significant demonstrable contributions. In the past year
alone we demonstrated 40 technologies to reduce risks and/or
costs of cleanup projects, and our sites used new technologies
in 108 instances.
waste isolation pilot project
We have made significant steps toward beginning the
operations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico,
where we intend to dispose of our transuranic waste. In May
1998, the Environmental Protection Agency certified that WIPP
met disposal standards, and in June 1998, the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board concluded that WIPP could be operated
safely.
We expect to begin shipments of non-mixed transuranic waste
to WIPP, assuming pending litigation is favorably resolved. We
are also working with the state to obtain a permit that will
allow us to ship mixed waste.
fiscal year 2000 budget request
Turning to our request for fiscal year 2000, we are
requesting $5.7 billion in traditional budget authority, $100
million more than was appropriated for the current fiscal year.
We are also requesting $228 million in budget authority to
support privatization projects. This budget will support
accelerated cleanup and closure, the deployment of new
technologies, and progress in treating and disposing of nuclear
waste, including shipments to WIPP.
The request also supports closure of Rocky Flats. We have
developed a baseline defining the critical path for closing in
2010, and have identified opportunities to accelerate closure
to achieve the goal of closing the site by the end of 2006.
In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, we have given
priority to our high-risk problems, such as stabilizing and
ensuring the security of plutonium, stabilizing high-level
waste tanks, and ensuring the safe storage of spent nuclear
fuel, including the foreign research reactor spent nuclear
fuel, with highly enriched uranium, that we are bringing back
to the United States to reduce worldwide nuclear proliferation
risks. We intend to meet our statutory and regulatory
requirements, as well as our obligations under compliance
agreements, with state and federal agencies.
We will continue to ensure that our cleanup projects are
well managed and use the taxpayers dollars most efficiently.
All of our cleanup work is organized into projects. You can see
the projects and the associated performance measures in our
budget request, which is organized by project, as requested in
last year's appropriations bill.
We are also taking a number of actions to improve our
project management performance. We are conducting external
independent project assessments and enhancing our federal staff
capability to independently review our projects, and we
continue to improve our contracting methods to provide our
contractors with the right incentives and penalties for good or
poor performance.
In conclusion, our fiscal year 2000 request will enable us
to reduce our risks, meet legal obligations, and continue to
work toward our goal of completing as much cleanup as possible
by 2006. We would like to continue to work cooperatively with
Congress to meet these goals.
I also ask for the committee's consideration of the $53
million reprogramming request that we have submitted for the
operation of the high-level waste tanks for the fiscal year
1999 budget. I want to apologize for the untimely submission of
that request. It was in no way intended to preclude an
appropriate review by the Congress of that request.
prepared statement
As we indicated to the committee staff, we are also
finalizing a reprogramming request for the Savannah River site
in South Carolina and expect to submit that request in the next
several weeks.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to answer any
questions asked.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James M. Owendoff
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Department of Energy's
Environmental Management (EM) program and its fiscal year 2000 budget
request.
During this past year, the Department has made a significant amount
of progress both in cleaning up sites and in operating a truly
performance-based management system. Our budget request for fiscal year
2000 provides $5.7 billion in traditional budget authority, allowing us
to continue progress towards our cleanup goals. The request also
includes $228 million in budget authority to support privatization
projects.
The commitments based on this budget will be accelerated cleanup
and closure, deployment of new technologies, and progress in treating
and disposing of legacy nuclear waste. We have set very ambitious goals
for closing several sites by the year 2006, including the Rocky Flats
Site in Colorado, and the Mound and Fernald Sites in Ohio. We also plan
to complete cleanup at the Weldon Spring Site in Missouri, our sites in
California and various other locations by that date. Consequently, we
are eager to continue working with Congress to focus funding on
cleaning up and closing sites.
The EM budget also reflects our expectation that we will begin
shipments of transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(WIPP) this year and our intent to support and increase shipments in
fiscal year 2000. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
certified WIPP for disposal of radioactive waste in May of 1998. We
hope to make our first shipments this year if pending litigation is
resolved favorably, a crucial step forward in providing for the
permanent disposal of a portion of the Department's long-lived
radioactive waste and the accelerated closure of sites like Rocky
Flats.
introduction
Before discussing our fiscal year 2000 budget request, I would like
to provide an overview of our program and some of our accomplishments
in the past year. We continue to work towards the goal we have
established to clean up as many of the remaining contaminated sites as
possible by 2006, safely and cost-effectively. Indeed, when we came
before you at this time last year, we had 53 sites requiring active
cleanup. Having completed cleanup at three sites, with transfer of
another two sites to the State of North Dakota at its request, that
number is now reduced to 48, and will decrease by six more sites by the
end of fiscal year 2000. By working towards our goal for accelerated
cleanup, we not only reduce the hazards presently facing our workforce
and the public, but also reduce the long-term financial burden on the
taxpayer. For every year that a site remains open because cleanup has
not been completed, we are paying a ``mortgage'' of overhead costs for
activities such as site security, facility operations, personnel, and
safety. The fiscal year 2000 budget request is now fully structured to
emphasize site closure and project completion.
a. meeting the challenge of the environmental legacy
The EM program is responsible for managing and cleaning up the
environmental legacy of the nation's nuclear weapons and government
nuclear energy projects. Beginning with World War II, DOE and its
predecessor agencies developed the largest government-owned industry in
the United States, responsible for nuclear weapons research,
development, testing, and production as well as a variety of other
nuclear-related research projects. When most nuclear weapons production
operations ceased in 1989, DOE established the Office of Environmental
Management to address the environmental legacy of nuclear weapons
production and other nuclear-related programs. Our responsibilities
include facilities and sites in 30 states and one territory which
encompass about 2.1 million acres--an area equal to that of Rhode
Island and Delaware combined.
Although EM is often referred to as the ``cleanup program,'' this
term can be misleading if it is interpreted to compare EM's program to
EPA's Superfund program or the environmental restoration program at the
Department of Defense. In addition to these ``standard'' cleanup duties
at DOE sites, EM is also responsible for the world's largest nuclear
stewardship program, which maintains the safety and security of more
than 25 metric tons of weapons-usable plutonium and over two thousand
tons of intensely radioactive spent nuclear fuel, and for carrying out
critical nuclear non-proliferation programs.
Completing the cleanup of the legacy from nuclear weapons
production will allow the Department to focus on its science, security,
and energy missions and will fulfill commitments to communities and,
where appropriate, return lands and facilities to the communities for
reuse.
Finally, it is important to note that the nature of much of the
waste handled by DOE is fundamentally different from most chemical
waste cleanup programs, since radioactive waste cannot be broken down
into constituent elements, but instead requires isolation from the
environment through treatment and/or disposal while it decays. Because
of the frequently long-lived radioactive nature of the 36 million cubic
meters of waste (containing about one billion curies of radioactivity),
we can treat it, stabilize it, contain it, isolate it and monitor it,
but we cannot destroy it with currently available technology.
b. accomplishments and progress--cleaning up and closing sites
I am pleased to report that our program has produced substantial
cleanup results at contaminated nuclear facilities around the country.
For example:
Since 1989, we have completed necessary cleanup actions at nearly
half (about 4,100) of individual waste sites (known as ``release
sites'') out of a total inventory of 9,700 release sites.
We completed surface cleanups of all 22 large uranium mill tailings
sites as well as more than 5,300 ``vicinity properties,'' including
elementary schools and homes. This project included remediation of over
40 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and material, a volume that
would cover a football field with a mound of dirt four miles high. We
are now monitoring low-level ground water contamination at some mill
tailings sites, with active remediation planned at three sites.
We have made significant steps toward beginning transuranic waste
disposal operations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New
Mexico--we received certification from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in May 1998 that WIPP met disposal standards and
notification in June 1998 from the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board that WIPP can be operated safely.
We successfully operated two high-level waste vitrification
facilities in South Carolina and New York, where last year we converted
nearly 2,500 cubic meters of waste into 331 canisters of ``glass logs''
ready for disposal. The first phase of the high-level waste
vitrification campaign at the West Valley, New York facility was
completed in fiscal year 1998, under budget and ahead of schedule, and
we are now vitrifying the tank heels.
The Department awarded the second part of ``Phase 1'' of a
``privatization'' contract, covering the extended design of new
facilities for the treatment of a portion of the high-level waste in
the tanks at the Hanford Site in Washington.
We finished connecting community drinking water hookups surrounding
Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York. We have sponsored more than
1,500 hookups for off-site residences from fiscal year 1996 through
fiscal year 1998 to ensure that residents' drinking water supply
remains unaffected during long-term ground water cleanup.
In support of non-proliferation goals, we have now completed a
total of eight shipments of spent nuclear fuel from foreign research
reactors from fifteen countries, including Chile, South Korea, and
Columbia. Seven shipments have been received at the Savannah River Site
in South Carolina and, in fiscal year 1998, the first shipment to the
Idaho National Engineering and Environment Laboratory was completed.
We completed ``closure'' of a second high-level waste tank at the
Savannah River Site in South Carolina. After removing waste, the tank
was backfilled using an innovative grout to immobilize residual
radionuclides.
We disposed of 30,000 cubic meters of low-level waste and 10,000
cubic meters of mixed low-level waste in fiscal year 1998 alone.
At Rocky Flats, we stabilized or repackaged about 5,000 kilograms
of plutonium-bearing residues in fiscal year 1998. In addition, Rocky
Flats staff drained acid plutonium liquids from two 2 liquid-piping
systems in Building 771 and then removed the pipes.
We demonstrated 40 alternative technology systems and made 42
systems ready for implementation with cost and engineering performance
information.
Field operations' use of new technologies that can reduce cleanup
cost and schedules is gaining momentum. EM has verified the first-time
use of alternative technologies at a site in 108 instances at cleanup
projects throughout the DOE complex in fiscal year 1998.
We continue to use pollution prevention techniques to reduce our
overall costs. In fiscal year 1998 alone, DOE sites completed over 700
pollution prevention projects, avoiding the generation of 45,000 cubic
meters and saving an estimated $155 million.
We continued our financial management improvements: at the end of
fiscal year 1998, our uncosted balances were lower than the established
benchmark for the third year in a row.
We are proud of our accomplishments, but also realize that
completing our daunting task will require accelerated cleanup and
greater efficiency if we are to succeed at the level of funding
requested in the year fiscal year 2000.
the fiscal year 2000 request reflects the evolution of the em program
We have been giving priority to high risk problems such as
stabilizing and ensuring the security of plutonium, stabilizing tanks
containing high-level radioactive waste, and ensuring the safe storage
of spent nuclear fuel, including foreign research reactor fuel in
support of non-proliferation goals. We are working to accelerate
cleanup and reduce ``mortgages,'' and have aligned our budgeting and
management systems to support this goal. We are integrating waste and
materials management across the DOE complex to support closure of sites
like Rocky Flats and to improve the efficiency of our operations. We
also know that successful cleanup requires investing in developing and
deploying more effective technologies; without successful investments
in innovative technologies, the cost and technical challenges would
make long-term success impossible. Finally, we have found that
performing good technical work is not enough. Getting the job done
requires cooperation with regulators and other stakeholders. We have
supported effective public participation through continued
relationships with states and site-specific and national advisory
boards, as well as funding for Indian tribes potentially affected by
our activities.
The fiscal year 2000 request of $5.7 billion, $100 million more
than the level appropriated in fiscal year 1999, reflects our effort to
maintain a stable program that provides sufficient resources to meet
our multiple demands of risk reduction, compliance and mortgage
reduction.
a. management reforms
In last year's presentation to you, we described a number of
changes in the way EM manages its work to better reflect our focus on
completion and closure and to provide better accountability to program
managers, Congress, and our stakeholders. The reforms begun in fiscal
year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 have now been institutionalized and are
more fully integrated across the different components of the program.
1. Taking a Project-Based Approach to Cleanup
The EM program has made great strides over the last several years
in organizing the work that must be accomplished to complete the
cleanup of the weapons complex into ``projects.'' These projects have
end-state goals and contain schedules and life cycle costs for
achieving those goals. This ``projectizing'' of the work has resulted
in increased site ownership and accountability and improved cost-
effectiveness in planning and conducting our work. We recognize,
however, that improvements are needed, for example, in the way the
projects are structured and in the underlying baseline data defining
schedules and life-cycle cost to complete each project. We are actively
working to improve the quality of data by implementing a more formal
system to control and document changes to the project baselines, and
are also pursuing various strategies to validate the baselines. To
determine if these efforts have been effective, the Secretary has
requested that the Office of the Inspector General review some
representative projects in July, and report back on additional
improvements that may be needed. Through such efforts, we expect to see
data quality improve with each subsequent update.
With more than 350 projects of the scope and complexity of those
facing EM, it is critical that we clearly define what we are trying to
accomplish, how and when we are going to accomplish it, and at what
cost; and that we are applying sound project management practices. To
improve our project management performance, EM is developing the
capability to conduct in-house independent reviews of projects to
examine their cost, schedule, and technical baseline, as well as other
parameters of good project management. Our reviews use experts within
DOE and in external organizations with nationally-recognized expertise
in project management. EM has conducted independent reviews of three
privatization projects--the Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System, the
Oak Ridge Transuranic Waste Treatment project, and the Carlsbad
Transuranic Waste Transportation Project--and a review of alternatives
to the In-Tank Precipitation process at the Savannah River Site. In
addition, the Office of Field Management has conducted a number of
baseline reviews, as directed by report language accompanying the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of fiscal year 1998. We
are using the recommendations from these reviews to improve the
management of our projects.
2. Restructuring the Budget
In fiscal year 1999, we established a new budget structure to align
with our goals of accelerated cleanup and to support project-based
management of our work, allowing us to more closely track costs and
performance at a project level. The fiscal year 2000 budget request
continues that structure, but is now built from the ground up, one
project at a time, with costs, schedules and expectations for
performance identified for each project. Congress supported this change
to ``projectizing'' our work in last year's budget request and directed
EM to prepare its fiscal year 2000 budget request based on individual
projects, an approach we fully support.
The budget and management structure is based on our vision of
completing cleanup at as many sites as possible by the year 2006. These
accounts--in both the defense and non-defense portions of the budget--
are:
--Site Closure Account.--Includes funding for sites for which the EM
program has established a goal of completing its cleanup
mission by the end of fiscal year 2006. After EM's cleanup
mission is complete at these sites, no further Departmental
mission is envisioned, except for limited long-term
surveillance and maintenance, and the sites will be available
for some alternative use;
--Site/Project Completion Account.--Funds cleanup projects
anticipated to be completed by fiscal year 2006 that are
located at sites or facilities where a DOE mission (e.g.,
weapons research/production or scientific research) will
continue beyond 2006;
--Post 2006 Completion Account.--Funds projects and site cleanup that
are too technically complicated and expensive to be completed
by 2006 and includes treatment of high-level wastes and cleanup
of large intensely contaminated ``canyon'' buildings.
3. Measuring--and Managing--Performance
In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act, EM
has moved aggressively to develop and implement a performance-based
budget that measures tangible, on-the-ground accomplishments to
demonstrate results for the resources provided. EM has established
Corporate Performance Measures that demonstrate environmental cleanup
progress and provide a balanced approach to assessing effectiveness and
efficiency. The fiscal year 2000 budget request provides quantitative
performance goals at the project level for these Corporate Measures. By
combining this project data at the Operations/Field Office level, we
have established Management Commitments that are being used to review
and evaluate quantitatively performance in the field.
We began developing the current performance measurement system in
fiscal year 1994 when EM became a pilot program under the Government
Performance and Results Act. We have continually refined the system and
have made significant progress in incorporating the requirements and
spirit of the Act into our management system. The measures we have
established--quantities of waste disposed, release sites completed,
nuclear materials stabilized, facilities deactivated and
decommissioned--represent tangible progress, not just paper progress,
that link to our cleanup goals. The performance measurement system is
increasingly integrated from top to bottom--from the EM Program level
across the complex to the project level in the field. The accuracy and
consistency of the data have improved from year to year and, as
reliability improves, the determination of the field and the Program to
meet their performance commitments increases as well. We are now
working to improve our life-cycle quantity estimates so that they can
be used to set near-term performance goals.
b. progress toward completing cleanup
By focusing on completing cleanup at most of our sites by 2006, we
expect to substantially reduce life-cycle costs. We have made
substantial progress towards this vision. We are completing site
cleanups: in fiscal year 1998, EM completed surface cleanups at all
uranium mill tailings sites with the completion of the last two of the
22 originally designated sites. EM is scheduled to complete its work at
another three sites in fiscal year 1999, specifically Sandia National
Laboratory in California, Ames Laboratory in Iowa, and Princeton Plasma
Physics Laboratory in New Jersey; and this fiscal year 2000 budget
request provides funds for completion of another three sites--Argonne
National Laboratory-West in Idaho, the General Atomics site in
California, and the Battelle Columbus-King Avenue site, in Ohio.
We are making progress toward reaching our closure goals at Rocky
Flats and other closure sites. Rocky Flats has defined the critical
path for closing in fiscal year 2010 and is now revising this
``baseline'' to reflect a closure goal of 2006. This fiscal year 2010
baseline identifies a number of opportunities to accelerate closure and
achieve the fiscal year 2006 goal, such as accelerating off-site
shipments of plutonium residues and metals and oxides by two years and
decommissioning facilities more efficiently. The accelerated closure
goal is obviously aggressive, and we have a lot of challenges ahead--
including beginning operations at WIPP to allow for the disposal of
Rocky Flats transuranic waste. However, we are committed to making our
best efforts, and the fiscal year 2000 budget request supports the
current baseline and activities already identified as necessary to meet
the fiscal year 2006 goal. For example, the fiscal year 2000 request
provides for shipments of plutonium-bearing materials to Savannah River
Site for temporary storage. It also includes decommissioning of the
Building 779 cluster, a former plutonium production facility, by June
2000, constituting not only an acceleration of the schedule for this
specific project, but also providing an opportunity to examine
technologies to accelerate the overall schedule for decommissioning,
useful for other projects at Rocky Flats and throughout the DOE
complex.
We continue on track at the Mound and Fernald sites in Ohio, with a
goal of turning over as many of the facilities at the sites as possible
to the communities for private use. In fiscal year 1998, for example,
the Department executed a sales agreement with the Miamisburg Mound
Community Improvement Corporation for transfer of facilities and
structures at the Mound Site, documenting our commitment to completing
work at the site. We are seeing progress at our sites funded from the
Non-Defense account as well: in fiscal year 1998, we completed the
primary vitrification campaign of the high-level waste at the West
Valley Demonstration Project ahead of schedule, and have begun the
vitrification of high-level waste tank heels which will continue
through fiscal year 2001.
We are also making progress at our larger sites, where cleanup will
continue beyond 2006, in completing projects and reducing the mortgage
and the ``footprint'' of the cleanup task. For example, we completed
deactivation of N-Reactor in fiscal year 1998, the last of nine
production reactors at the Hanford Site in Washington. This involved
the deactivation of 86 facilities and the removal of 33 grouted
``monoliths'' containing most of N-Reactor's high-dose materials.
Completing the deactivation at N-Reactor reduced overhead costs of
safely maintaining the facility from about $20 million to $500,000 a
year. In addition, C-Reactor was placed in safe storage, with the
result that inspection requirements can be reduced from every one to
every five years, and with an annual surveillance and maintenance
savings of $190,000.
After completing active cleanup, the Federal Government will be
obligated to maintain some controls at many sites to monitor, maintain,
and provide information on the stabilized and contained residual
contamination. These activities are necessary to ensure the continuing
integrity of the cleanup and the protection of public health and
safety. Such long-term stewardship will include passive or active
controls and, often, treatment of groundwater over a long period of
time. The extent of long-term stewardship required at a particular site
will depend on the remedy and resulting end-state developed in
consultation among DOE and other representatives of the Administration,
Congress, Tribal Nations, representatives of regulatory agencies
including state and local authorities, representatives of non-
governmental organizations, and interested members of the public. The
Department is committed to meeting its obligations to provide long-term
stewardship of these sites.
Funding for long-term stewardship is managed through various
organizations, including (1) the Grand Junction Office, which funds
long-term surveillance and maintenance at closed uranium mill tailings
sites and several former nuclear weapons sites, such as the Pinellas
Site, as well as closed experimental reactors; (2) the Nevada
Operations Office, which funds long-term surveillance and maintenance
for former nuclear explosion sites, located in Alaska, Colorado,
Mississippi, New Mexico and Nevada; and (3) individual DOE Operations
Offices, where cleanup of some areas has been completed but other
activities continue. We are currently preparing a study on long-term
stewardship, pursuant to the settlement of a lawsuit on the
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (NRDC v. Richardson). We
expect to complete the study by December 2000.
c. science and technology
The EM Program has made significant changes in the way our science
and technology program conducts its business of providing new or
improved cleanup solutions. No longer solely a developer of cleanup
technologies, this program has extended its role to provide the full
range of science and technology resources and capabilities that are
needed to deliver and support fully developed, deployable solutions to
DOE's cleanup and long-term environmental stewardship problems--from
basic research through development, demonstration, deployment and
technical assistance. We are also enhancing the membership of our Focus
Areas--the teams that address DOE's five major environmental problems--
to include a lead national laboratory for each team to complement
talent already on the teams. It is our intent that these teams of the
Nation's best available environmental scientists will serve as
``centers of expertise'' to provide the broadened services assumed by
this program.
More than 500 site-identified environmental problems need new
technological solutions if we are to meet EM cleanup goals. Over 80
percent of these problems are categorized as high and medium priority.
To provide sound advanced planning and a well executed strategy to
ensure we are making the best possible science and technology
investments to meet these needs, we have recently developed three
complementary products: an EM R&D Program Plan that ``maps''
investments in solutions to our cleanup needs, a Strategic Plan for the
Office of Science and Technology (OST) to administer these investment
plans, and an OST Management Plan that delineates improved business
processes. These new plans provide a fully integrated approach that
ensures our science and technology activities are planned and managed
in an interactive, coordinated and participatory relationship with EM
cleanup project managers and stakeholders.
The request of $230.5 million in fiscal year 2000 support science
and technology activities that:
--meet the highest priority cleanup project needs
--reduce the cost of EM's costliest cleanup projects
--reduce technology risk
--accelerate and increase technology deployment by bridging the gap
between development and use
EM's past investments in science and technology are already making
important cleanup contributions. Let me offer some examples:
During fiscal year 1998, innovative technologies made an
increasingly important contribution in cleanup actions at the sites.
For instance:
--The Savannah River Site used an improved in-tank grouting process
to seal the second of 24 high-level waste tanks that must be
emptied and sealed with grout to trap the residual waste and
strengthen tank integrity.
--The Borehole Miner, which was adapted from the mining industry and
uses a water jet to mobilize waste for pumping, was used at Oak
Ridge to remove sludge and saltcake from underground storage,
successfully transferring 95 percent of the waste from five
hydrofracture tanks. This technology provides access to
previously inaccessible areas.
We now have several technologies to treat mixed waste, including
polymer macroencapsulation. Waste from over 20 sites has been treated
using this process, where solid waste is encased in a non-leaching
plastic monolith suitable for disposal.
We are now able to safely perform tasks in extremely hazardous
environments using remotely operated robotic equipment, such as the
``Houdini vehicle.'' The Houdini can be inserted through 24-inch
openings into radioactive tanks and then opened into a four-by-five
foot mini-bulldozer, complete with a plow blade, manipulator and remote
cameras to perform various tasks. The Houdini provides access to the
interior of the tank, which was previously inaccessible.
During fiscal year 1998, 40 technologies that meet needs identified
by site personnel were demonstrated. All of these technologies reduce
risk and/or costs associated with cleanup or provide technical
solutions that did not previously exist. Another 42 alternative
technologies were made available for implementation in cleanup projects
during fiscal year 1998. Valuable cost and engineering performance data
are available for all of our technologies as they are made available
for implementation. Many other new technologies are currently in late
stages of development and will be ready for use in time to contribute
to our accelerated cleanup goals.
We are also seeing significant success in moving beneficial
technologies out into the field through the Technology Deployment
Initiative (now known as Accelerated Site Technology Deployment), begun
in fiscal year 1998. In fiscal year 1998, we initiated 14
competitively-selected projects, resulting in 13 deployments by the
year's end, and another 42 projects were selected for possible funding
in fiscal year 1999. In our fiscal year 2000 budget request, deployment
assistance activities are an integral part of the work performed by the
Focus Areas, rather than a separately budgeted activity.
Our Environmental Management Science Program (EMSP), which is
managed in partnership with DOE's Office of Science and operates in
tandem with the Focus Areas, is EM's assurance that basic scientific
knowledge is advanced to support the development of cutting-edge
environmental technologies. This program is proving to be a
programmatic and management success for DOE's cleanup effort. The
National Academy of Sciences has given EMSP high marks, and it was
recognized with the Vice President's ``Hammer Award'' in 1998 for the
innovative management approaches it is using. Research sponsored by
EMSP is providing some significant technical results. For example,
researchers at the University of Washington are genetically engineering
a natural soil bacterium with high resistance to radiation into a
natural detoxifier for complex mixed wastes. The efforts may yield an
inexpensive, effective bioremediation of contaminated sites.
In fiscal year 1998, we awarded 33 3-year EMSP grants in two areas
to respond to EM technology needs: decontamination and decommissioning,
and high-level radioactive waste. During fiscal year 1999, we have
issued Request for Proposals solicitations for vadose zone, subsurface
contamination research, and research on the biological effects of
exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation.
d. complex-wide integration to support cleanup
Critical to our success in closing sites and accelerating our work
is integrating the way the Department manages its waste and materials
by making the best use of the unique capabilities at DOE sites to
address cleanup problems. This means taking a corporate view of EM's
work and sharing information and resources across sites. Our
integration initiative is seeking to consolidate treatment, storage and
disposal facilities where it makes good sense; apply innovative
technologies at multiple sites; eliminate redundant facilities and use
available capacity rather than construct new facilities; and apply
lessons-learned and site successes complex-wide.
We have made significant progress in the past year in building the
information base and the institutional structure to support and
encourage integration. For example, we now have complex-wide data on
waste and material inventories, both current and projected, and on
their disposition pathways. Cross-site teams are identifying and
evaluating integration opportunities, such as the consolidation of
small quantities of transuranic waste currently being stored at small
sites such as Battelle Columbus in Ohio and Energy Technology
Engineering Center in California. These efforts will provide the
technical basis and focal point for working with local communities and
regulators, as well as within the Department, on integration proposals.
We have several key initiatives to facilitate closure by moving
materials to other sites for interim storage, with requested funds
supporting the necessary activities in both the receiving and the
sending sites. For example, the Department has been consolidating
storage of certain special nuclear materials, such as plutonium.
Plutonium weapons components from the Rocky Flats Site for example,
have been shipped to the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico
or to the Pantex Plant in Texas, an action that is now complete. This
consolidation has allowed the Department to greatly reduce the cost of
maintaining security for the remaining plutonium materials at the Rocky
Flats Site.
Second, the Department has proposed shipping certain plutonium
metals and oxides (non-pit plutonium) from the Rocky Flats Site to the
Savannah River Site in South Carolina. The Savannah River Site is in
the process of modifying the K Area facilities to store this excess
plutonium, consistent with a recently issued decision made in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
Third, the Department is seeking to share facilities with
comparable capabilities to avoid duplication in treating and disposing
of similar wastes. We have been conducting extensive technical analyses
and working with state representatives and with other stakeholders to
address both technical and non-technical issues. In fiscal year 1999 we
expect to make decisions based on the Waste Management Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement that will further clarify the number of
low-level and mixed low-level waste treatment and disposal facilities
that will be needed for DOE's wastes. These decisions are likely to
result in some consolidation of waste disposal as well as development
of capabilities that do not currently exist, capabilities that are
needed to support closure of sites.
Finally, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico
provides one of the most compelling examples of shipping nuclear waste
to greatly reduce costs and risks. Currently a large amount of
transuranic waste is being stored at about two dozen sites around the
United States. In many cases, this waste has been stored for decades
with no place to go for disposal. Beginning disposal operations at WIPP
will allow the Department to reduce the number of sites where this type
of waste is stored and is critical to the closure of sites such as
Rocky Flats, where the site cannot be cleaned up and closed unless the
transuranic waste is disposed of. We have made significant steps toward
beginning disposal operations, but still need to resolve outstanding
litigation and permitting issues so that disposal operations can begin.
Our ability to meet waste management commitments in other states--most
notably in Idaho and Colorado--is dependent on beginning operations.
conclusion
The EM program has a vision for completing cleanup at most sites by
2006. Focusing on this goal will not only accelerate risk reduction,
but will result in substantial cost reductions that can be applied to
cleanup at other sites. Realizing this vision will require a sustained
national commitment. We understand that this is attainable only with an
enormous amount of work and with the Department working cooperatively
with Congress.
Appendix A
summary of the fiscal year 2000 budget
The total fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Department of
Energy's Environmental Management Program is $5.7 billion in
traditional budget authority and $228 million of privatization funding.
The fiscal year 2000 appropriation will fund cleanup at sites in
twenty-two states across the Nation. Five sites receive two-thirds of
Environmental Management funding--Savannah River Site in South
Carolina, Hanford Site in Washington, Rocky Flats in Colorado, Idaho
National Engineering and Environment Laboratory in Idaho, and Oak Ridge
Reservation in Tennessee. This section describes progress and
highlights from the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the major
Environmental Management sites and other selected sites.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize our fiscal year 2000 request, organized by
the five primary appropriation accounts and by Operations/Field Office
and Site, respectively.
Our fiscal year 2000 budget proposal provides details on each
project, including performance measures, which we use to hold managers
accountable, and expect to be held accountable by Congress. We would
like to summarize the budget request and some major activities for
several sites:
1. Savannah River Site, South Carolina;
2. Hanford, Washington;
3. Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado;
4. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho;
5. Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee;
6. Fernald Environmental Management Project, Ohio;
7. Waste Isolation Pilot Project, New Mexico;
8. Los Alamos, New Mexico;
9. West Valley Demonstration Project, New York;
10. Wiamisburg Environmental Management Project (Mound Site);
11. Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project, Missouri;
12. Nevada Test Site, Nevada;
13. Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York;
14. California Sites.
TABLE 1.--ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST \1\
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense
Program Account Facilities Defense EM Def. EM Non-Def UE D&D Total
Closure Privatization EM Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Closure........................ $1,054,492 ........... ............. $211,146 ......... $1,265,638
Site/Project Completion............. ........... $980,919 ............. 100,866 ......... 1,081,785
Post 2006 Completion................ ........... 2,513,548 ............. 18,922 ......... 2,532,470
UE D&D Fund......................... ........... ........... ............. ......... $240,198 240,198
Program Direction................... ........... 349,409 ............. ......... ......... 349,409
Science & Technology................ ........... 230,500 ............. ......... ......... 230,500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Traditional Budget 1,054,492 4,074,376 ............. 330,934 240,198 5,700,000
Authority....................
Privatization....................... ........... ........... $228,000 ......... ......... 228,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total EM request.............. 1,054,492 4,074,376 228,000 330,934 240,198 5,928,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include $420,000 payment to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund,
requested in the Defense appropriation, Post-2006 Completion account.
TABLE 2.--ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST--FUNDING BY SITE
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000
appropriation appropriation congressional
total total request total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albuquerque operations office:
Albuquerque Operations Office.................................. 18,120 8,080 5,550
Grand Junction................................................. 14,015 7,163 8,500
Kansas City Plant.............................................. 3,513 1,756 1,100
Los Alamos Nat. Lab............................................ 131,315 81,574 110,834
Lovelace-BERI.................................................. 789 478 481
Maxey Flats.................................................... 8,000 1,200 1,200
Monticello..................................................... 25,558 34,250 22,000
Pantex Plant................................................... 23,243 11,299 15,000
Pinellas....................................................... 2,318 2,797 5,500
Sandia National Laboratory..................................... 48,368 27,260 19,435
UMTRA Ground Water Sites....................................... 5,559 5,902 13,000
UMTRA Surface Sites............................................ 35,936 20,782 .............
--------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 316,734 202,541 202,600
Carlsbad area office: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.................. 173,700 185,404 186,404
Chicago operations office:
Ames Laboratory................................................ 363 306 260
Argonne Nat. Lab.--East........................................ 15,921 18,170 19,761
Argonne Nat. Lab.--West........................................ 3,630 1,142 809
Brookhaven National Lab........................................ 26,137 30,001 29,553
Chicago Operations............................................. 435 1,101 644
Princeton Plasma Physics Lab................................... 3,290 3,343 3,073
--------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 49,776 54,063 54,100
Idaho operations office: INEEL..................................... 415,556 435,642 409,422
Nevada operations office:
Amchitka....................................................... 848 765 592
Central NTS/Project Shoal...................................... 1,858 4,160 4,969
Gasbuggy/Gnome Coach........................................... 235 66 278
Nevada Test Site............................................... 64,985 73,045 76,673
Rio Blanco/Rulison............................................. 160 75 2,669
Salmon Site.................................................... 832 1,970 126
--------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 68,918 80,081 85,307
Ohio field office:
Ashtabula...................................................... 14,637 15,405 15,405
Columbus....................................................... 12,567 12,125 16,134
Fernald........................................................ 258,700 274,002 280,589
Miamisburg..................................................... 86,622 88,949 93,353
Ohio Field Office.............................................. ............. 94 94
West Valley.................................................... 113,746 107,353 107,353
--------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 486,272 497,928 512,928
Oakland operations office:
Energy Technology Engineering Center........................... 17,625 16,494 17,398
General Atomics................................................ 4,280 2,030 1,100
General Electric............................................... ............. 313 500
Lab. for Energy-Related Health................................. 6,802 4,389 3,863
Lawrence Berkeley Nat. Lab..................................... 9,265 10,668 11,098
Lawrence Livermore Lab......................................... 54,210 49,214 49,891
Oakland Operations Office...................................... 2,279 2,700 1,100
Separations Process Res. Unit.................................. ............. ............. 500
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center............................. 1,006 1,000 1,400
--------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 95,467 86,808 86,850
Oak Ridge operations office:
Oak Ridge National Lab......................................... 49,439 59,677 57,805
Oak Ridge Offsites............................................. 53,131 22,516 23,839
Oak Ridge Operations Office.................................... 5,027 8,809 10,930
Oak Ridge Reservation.......................................... 290,340 275,957 310,987
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant................................ 39,582 35,983 37,500
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant............................. 43,053 35,119 37,500
Weldon Spring \1\.............................................. 66,686 63,500 52,000
--------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 547,258 501,561 530,561
Rocky Flats field office:
Rocky Flats Environmental Tech Site............................ 611,303 638,397 637,132
Rocky Flats Field Office....................................... 20,797 18,803 20,078
--------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 632,100 657,200 657,210
Richland operations office:
Hanford........................................................ 906,861 953,001 1,028,280
Richland Operations Office..................................... 44,536 45,491 36,831
--------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 951,397 998,492 1,065,111
Savannah River operations office:
Savannah River Ops Office...................................... 28,117 33,157 30,280
Savannah River Site............................................ 1,099,806 1,181,789 1,192,220
--------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 1,127,923 1,214,946 1,222,500
Other:
Multi-Site Programs............................................ 113,053 85,542 77,098
Program Direction.............................................. 345,000 337,073 349,409
Science & Technology........................................... 269,213 243,156 230,500
Ur/Th Reimbursement............................................ 40,000 30,000 30,000
--------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 767,266 695,771 687,007
EM Subtotal: 5,632,367 5,610,437 5,700,000
FFTF (trans to NE in fiscal year 1999)................... 41,727 ............. .............
Y2K Supplemental Appropriation........................... ............. 13,840 .............
Use of Uncosted Balances................................. (11,253) (20,658) .............
Total, traditional budget authority.......................... 5,662,841 5,603,619 5,700,000
Privatization............................................ 200,000 228,357 228,000
--------------------------------------------
EM total..................................................... 5,862,841 5,831,976 5,928,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ It is the intent of the Environmental Management Program to fund the Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action
Project at a program level of $63.5 million. The Program will work to identify sources for this important
activity.
Savannah River Site, South Carolina Fiscal Year 2000 Request
[In thousands]
Defense, Site/Project Completion.............................. $397,636
Defense, Post-2006............................................ 824,864
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 1,222,500
The Savannah River Site continues its work to stabilize legacy
nuclear materials and spent fuel from both the Savannah River Site and
other sites across the complex, including plutonium residues and other
plutonium-bearing materials from the Rocky Flats Site in Colorado. This
work is critical both in resolving health and safety concerns about
these radioactive materials, now in liquid or unstable forms unsuitable
for long-term storage, and in supporting closure goals at Rocky Flats.
In July 1997, the Secretary approved the operation of both the F-Canyon
and H-Canyon, for the stabilization of ``at-risk'' nuclear materials.
By the end of fiscal year 1998, these canyons had stabilized 3,500
gallon of Pu-242 solutions, 80,000 gallons of Pu-239 solutions, 16,000
corroding targets, and 144 canisters of failed or declad spent nuclear
fuel. We expect to complete activities in the F-Canyon by fiscal year
2002 and in the H-Canyon in fiscal year 2005.
We are not requesting funding for the Actinide Packaging and
Storage Facility (APSF) in fiscal year 2000. In light of the recent
decision by the Department identifying Savannah River Site as the
preferred location for new missions related to excess plutonium
disposition, we have decided to temporarily suspend work on this
facility until we can reevaluate the facility's overall requirements to
ensure, for example, that the facility is properly sized and integrated
with other facilities, given these new missions. We are, however,
continuing modification of facilities in the K-Area and, pending
completion of the appropriate NEPA analysis, will be ready to receive
surplus plutonium-bearing materials from Rocky Flats in January 2000,
supporting the accelerated closure of that site.
Much of the EM work at the Savannah River Site that will be
completed after fiscal year 2006 involves management of approximately
34 million gallons of high-level waste in tanks, including vitrifying
waste for final disposal and removing waste from storage tanks so the
tanks can be closed. While this is a long-term project, we have made
significant progress. In fiscal year 1998, the Savannah River Site
workers closed another storage tank in the tank farm, removing waste
and backfilling with grout, and produced 250 canisters of vitrified
waste in the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF), 50 canisters
above their fiscal year 1998 target goal. As of first of March, we had
a total of 588 canisters of vitrified waste in storage, or 11 percent
of the total amount that needs to be produced.
Our goal for production of canisters in fiscal year 2000, however,
is lower. The budget request supports production of only 100 canisters
at DWPF, primarily because of the need to devote resources to
developing an alternative to the In-Tank Precipitation (ITP) facility
that was to pre-treat certain wastes. ITP operations were terminated in
January 1998 because we were unable to successfully pre-treat the waste
and limit the levels of benzene generation in the tanks to a safe and
manageable levels. We undertook a systems engineering analysis to
evaluate all possible alternatives, which was reviewed by a panel of
independent experts. Based on the review, we are pursuing three
options, with a final selection of a technical approach expected in
late fiscal year 2000.
The fiscal year 2000 budget request continues support for receipt
and storage at the Savannah River Site of spent nuclear fuel from
domestic and foreign research reactors in support of national and
international non-proliferation goals. In fiscal year 2000, we expected
to receive 67 casks of spent nuclear fuel from foreign and domestic
sources and safely store them at the Savannah River Site's basins. We
will also continue to treat and reduce our legacy of mixed and low-
level waste at the site through continued operation of the Consolidated
Incinerator Facility.
We will also continue the cleanup of contaminated release sites and
contaminated ground water plumes at the Savannah River Site. In fiscal
year 2000, we will complete remediation of six release sites and
operate eight ground water remediation systems.
Finally, scientists and engineers at the Savannah River Site have
been collaborating to develop a cost-effective path forward for some of
the spent fuel through research and development of new technologies.
This work is helping to address one of our most daunting problems: how
to manage spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear materials without
chemical separations. Our investments in the Alternative Technology
Program has shown progress. An Environmental Impact Statement
identifying the ``melt-and-dilute'' process as the preferred
alternative to prepare aluminum-based spent nuclear fuel for geologic
disposal was issued in December 1998, and a final decision is expected
in April 1999. The fiscal year 2000 budget contains funds for the
design of a new facility to implement this treatment process. As other
countries begin to address similar problems, these new U.S.-born
technologies will be available to help.
Hanford Site, Washington Fiscal Year 2000 Request
[In thousands]
Defense, Site/Project Completion.............................. $376,296
Defense, Post-2006............................................ 687,397
Non-defense, Site/Project Completion.......................... 1,418
Defense, Privatization........................................ 106,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 1,171,111
The Hanford Site in Washington remains perhaps our greatest cleanup
challenge. Originally carved out of 560-square mile site in a broad
curve in the Columbia River during World War II, the Hanford site is
home to the largest variety of environmental hazards in the former
nuclear weapons complex, including large amounts of spent nuclear fuel,
unstable weapons-grade plutonium, 177 underground high level
radioactive waste tanks, and more than a hundred square miles of
contaminated ground water. It is important not to lose site of the
successes and accomplishments that have occurred despite the serious
remaining challenges. We believe that our fiscal year 2000 budget
request for Hanford addresses the requirements for continued cleanup
progress. The Hanford budget is requested largely (65 percent) through
the Post-2006 Completion Account and the Project/Site Completion
Account (35 percent).
One of the extraordinary success stories at Hanford during the past
year was the success deactivation of the N-reactor complex, resulting
in an annual mortgage cost reduction from $20 million to $500,000. This
required:
--deactivation of 86 facilities in the N-reactor area;
--removal and treatment of more than a million gallons of
contaminated water;
--removal of nearly 5,000 cubic feet of contaminated sediment; and
--retrieval and repackaging of 350 pounds of fuel fragments.
The reactor complex is now in a low-cost ``surveillance and
maintenance'' mode, pending final disposition, perhaps decades from
now.
In fiscal year 1998, we also completed the deactivation of the B
Plant, one of Hanford's original World War II plutonium processing
facilities, 4 years ahead of schedule and $100 million under budget.
The deactivation reduced surveillance and maintenance costs at the
Plant from $20 million to less than $1 million a year. Deactivation
involved the disposal of 45,000 gallons of bulk hazardous chemicals,
the transfer of 23,000 gallon of neutralized acid waste to the tank
farms, and the removal and disposal of 10,000 ft3 of
radioactive waste and equipment. The B plant deactivation also required
the successful decoupling of the adjoining Waste Encapsulation and
Storage Facility (WESF), which shared operating systems with B Plant.
WESF stores highly radioactive cesium and strontium capsules and must
continue to operate until the capsules can be dispositioned.
The 177 underground tanks storing over 54 million gallons of highly
radioactive waste remains one of the biggest challenges at the Hanford
site. We have made significant progress in reducing the hazard of leaks
from single-shelled tanks: to date, we have stabilized 64 tanks that
have or are suspected of leaking by transferring free liquids to non-
leaking double shelled tanks. Only three ``potential leakers'' remain
to be stabilized, which will be completed following a mutually-agreed
upon schedule negotiated with the State in fiscal year 1999.
The Department is pursuing a privatization approach for obtaining
treatment for the tank waste which, in Phase I, would provide treatment
for at least 10 percent of the waste and 20 to 25 percent of the
radioactivity in the tanks. In August 1998, we signed a contract with
BNFL, Inc. that allowed for an initial 24-month period to enable the
contractor to develop more of the design for the treatment facility and
to obtain financing and submit a fixed price bid. In fiscal year 2000,
the Department will decide whether to authorize BNFL to proceed to
construction and operation, based on an evaluation of whether the
proposal represents the best value for the taxpayer.
Following Congressional direction in the Strom Thurmond National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, the Department has
established the Office of River Protection which will manage all
aspects of our efforts to store, retrieve, treat, immobilize, and
dispose of the high level waste from the tank farms. The Department has
prepared an Integrated Management Plan, provided to Congress in January
1999, which includes 27 new positions out of total of 109 positions
that will staff the Office. The 27 positions have been advertised. In
addition, we are proceeding expeditiously with the appointment of a
manager for the Office of River Protection.
We are continuing to dispose of contaminated soil and debris from
environmental restoration operations at Hanford in the Environmental
Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF). Since opening two year ago, the
Department has disposed of more than a million cubic meters of waste in
the ERDF.
We recently restarted stabilization operations for surplus
plutonium stored in the Plutonium Finishing Plant. This is a critical
step in the deactivation of the Plutonium Finishing Plant, which will
substantially reduce risk and mortgage costs at Hanford.
The Department also completed ``cocooning'' the C-reactor, one of
the eight original reactor along the Columbia River. By deactivating
and stabilizing the reactors in this manner, the department will be
able to maintain the reactor in a safe and low cost status until final
disposition is performed in 75 years.
Despite some setbacks, we are moving forward with the long-term
goal of cleaning up the Hanford site and making it available for
community reuse or conservation based on a community involvement
process appropriate to the large scale of the operation. For example,
we are now evaluating issues associated with transferring the Wahluke
Slope along the Columbia River in a manner that is protective of the
river and responsive to community needs.
Our fiscal year 2000 budget request supports a number of
commitments, including:
--A total of 14 waste site remediations are scheduled for completion
in the 100 Area, and 2 more in the 300 Area, with 228,252
m3 (302,366 tons) of soil removed, in addition to
the completion of backfill of 10 waste sites.
--Complete closure of cells 1 and 2 in Environmental Restoration
Disposal Facility. Additionally 142,181 m3 (314,400
tons) of soil will be disposed.
--Implement Integrated Groundwater/Vadose Zone science and technology
roadmap to support site assessment and remediation and system
assessment capability development.
--Waste Management activities include preparing about 130
m3 of transuranic waste for shipment to WIPP;
initiating disposal of about 2,500 m3 of mixed low-
level waste; disposing of 3,800 m3 of low-level
waste; and reducing about one million gallons of liquids in the
high level waste tanks through the Evaporator.
--Complete fuel retrieval, drying, transport and storage system
testing to support commencement of fuel removal from the K-West
basin in early fiscal year 2001.
--Continue stabilization of 160 liters of plutonium bearing
solutions, and about 238 containers of plutonium metals and
oxides. Commence stabilization of about 600 kilograms of
plutonium bearing residues and plutonium bearing polycube
materials.
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado Fiscal Year 2000
Request
[In thousands]
Defense Site Closure.......................................... $657,210
Almost two-thirds (62 percent) of the Defense Closure Account
request supports accelerated cleanup at the Rocky Flats Site, a
facility located 16 miles northwest of Denver, Colorado. The site was
used to shape plutonium and uranium weapons components and for other
defense-related production work. The cleanup poses significant
challenges because of the large amounts of plutonium and other
compounds remaining in tanks and production lines in facilities, the
significant volumes of hazardous and radioactive wastes stored
throughout the site, and widespread contamination of soils, sediments,
and groundwater.
The Rocky Flats Site is one of the featured prototypes, and
certainly the largest site, for our goal of accelerating site cleanup
and closure by 2006. There are many challenges facing this project, but
we are confident that by remaining focused on our goal we can produce
substantial savings and provide dramatic risk reduction sooner then
previously expected. Our current baseline is to complete cleanup and
closure by 2010. The General Accounting Office is now assessing the
status and obstacles to accelerated closure and is expected to report
its results this Spring. The site contractor is still developing its
baseline for accelerated closure. The accelerated closure baseline will
be submitted to DOE in May 1999, and DOE is expected to complete its
validation of the baseline in December 1999. Based on that revised and
validated baseline, we expect to be able to describe in detail what is
required to close the site by 2006 and provide our level of confidence
in our ability to close by 2006. Whatever the result, we have clearly
come a long way since the previous contractor estimated a few years ago
that it would take $30 billion and 30 years to complete cleanup at
Rocky Flats.
The key ingredient for closing Rocky Flats is being able to move
nuclear materials and waste off of the site. Making progress in this
critical area requires not only preparing the materials and waste for
shipment, but also making sure that the receiving sites are ready. For
example, there are approximately 40,000 kilograms of plutonium residues
that need to be packaged and sent to WIPP. We are currently modifying a
facility to provide temporary storage. However, unless WIPP opens soon,
we will need to provide further alternative storage for those residues;
the fiscal year 2000 budget request for Rocky Flats does not include
funds to construct such a storage facility. In sum, there are six sites
in six states to which we need to ship waste and materials from Rocky
Flats. In some cases we have already begun shipments, such as the
dozens of truckloads of waste that have been already been shipped to
Envirocare in Utah.
The Department has clearly made enormous progress both in reducing
risks at the site, and in greatly improving our management plans for
cleanup and closure. Approximately 5 metric tons of plutonium residues
were stabilized and/or repackaged in fiscal year 1998, and we expect to
stabilize or repackage 32 metric tons in fiscal year 1999. By the end
of fiscal year 1999, all pits and weapons-grade uranium will be shipped
from Rocky Flats to other receiver sites, and about 99 percent of the
residues are projected to be ready for shipment to WIPP or to Savannah
River Site. We are making progress on demolishing buildings at Rocky
Flats, not only reducing risks but also reducing mortgage costs
required to maintain those excess buildings: all remaining glove boxes
will be removed from Building 779 by the end of fiscal year 1999, and
Building 729--part of the Building 779 cluster--will be completely
demolished.
The fiscal year 1999 appropriation and fiscal year 2000 budget
request for Rocky Flats ($657 million each year) fund the activities we
have already identified as necessary for accelerated closure. If our
fiscal year 2000 request for Rocky Flats is fully funded, we are
committed to producing the following results:
--Demolishing the B-779 cluster of buildings, the first plutonium
operations buildings in the world decontaminated and turned to
rubble.
--Ship more than 14,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste off site
for disposal.
--Process more than 60 metric tons of plutonium residues preparing
for safe disposition.
--Bring on-line a new plutonium packaging system and package 500 cans
of plutonium.
--Ship plutonium metals and oxides to the K-Area at the Savannah
River Site beginning in January 2000, pending completion of
NEPA requirements.
The progress at Rocky Flats is also demonstrating the success of
the Department's performance-based, integrating contractor strategy.
Because award fees are based on meeting specific performance and safety
goals, the contractor has a strong incentive to make progress on
cleanup.
We understand the importance of continuing to seek ways to
accelerate cleanup at Rocky Flats to reduce risk and long-term costs.
We also understand the vital role of accelerated site closure to the
community where commercial and residential development along the
Denver-Boulder corridor has reached nearly to the fence line of Rocky
Flats.
Idaho National Engineering and Environment Laboratory, Idaho Fiscal Year
2000 Request
[In thousands]
Defense, Site/Project Completion.............................. $108,961
Defense, Post-2006............................................ 291,253
Non-defense, Site/Project Completion.......................... 9,208
Defense, Privatization........................................ 115,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 524,422
The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) supports the receipt
and safe interim storage of spent nuclear fuel, including Navy fuel and
domestic and foreign research fuel; the storage and treatment of high
level waste in 11 underground tanks; the cleanup of 43 ``release
sites'', or contaminated areas, and 11 surplus facilities; and the
management of legacy waste, including transuranic waste to be shipped
to WIPP. Many of the critical activities at the site are subject to the
Settlement Agreement signed with the Governor of Idaho in 1995, which
would result in the suspension of shipments of spent nuclear fuel to
INEEL if milestones are not met.
One of the most complex challenges at INEEL is the remediation of
buried wastes, such as remediation of the Radioactive Waste Management
Complex, of which the Pit 9 site, a burial pit containing about 250,000
cubic feet of radioactive waste, is a part. The Pit 9 project is now
being conducted by the Management and Operating (M&O) contractor under
an alternative approach supported by the state and EPA regulators
following termination of the previous subcontractor. We began stage 1,
the subsurface investigation, in October 1998, and have met all
regulatory milestones to date. The Pit 9 cleanup was one of our first
attempts at fixed-price contracting for a large and technically complex
project, and both the Department and the contractor learned hard
lessons from the experience. We are applying those lessons in other
projects at the site and across the DOE complex.
INEEL plays a key role in providing safe storage and management of
spent nuclear fuel, in support of the Administration's non-
proliferation goals. INEEL received its first shipment of foreign
research reactor fuel in fiscal year 1998 and will continue to receive
shipments in fiscal year 1999 and 2000. INEEL is actively improving
storage conditions at the site, transferring fuel from wet to dry
storage, or from aging facilities to modern, state-of-the-art
facilities. For example, we are storing spent nuclear fuel and core
debris from the Three Mile Island incident at the INEEL Test Area North
and will begin moving the fuel from wet storage into dry storage at the
end of this month. The Department has issued a request-for-proposal in
a privatization initiative to procure a new facility for dry storage of
other fuel, which will be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $5 million for
this project in the privatization account.
A significant portion of the INEEL budget request supports the
management of high level waste. INEEL has about 1.4 million gallons of
liquid sodium-bearing waste stored in 11 underground tanks, and about
135,000 cubic feet of calcined waste in temporary storage. In the near-
term, we will continue to calcine the liquid, a process that converts
the liquid waste into dry, granular material resembling laundry
detergent; calcined waste is easier to store and is greatly reduced in
volume. However, the calcining facility will be placed in standby mode
on April 30, 1999, as required by the State, until an environmentally
safe and economic path forward for the liquid and calcined waste can be
identified. Development of an Environmental Impact Statement for the
high-level waste alternatives is underway and expected to be finalized
in fiscal year 2000.
We continue our efforts to characterize and prepare transuranic
waste for shipment to WIPP and to develop the Advanced Mixed Waste
Treatment Project, a privatization project that will provide treatment
for transuranic and alpha mixed low-level waste (waste that contains
long-lived radionuclides at levels below those of transuranic waste).
We are, however, in jeopardy of missing a milestone in the Settlement
Agreement that requires that we initiate shipment of INEEL transuranic
waste out of Idaho by April 30, 1999, because of the delay in opening
WIPP. The Department considers compliance with the Agreement a top
priority and is working to resolve this issue.
INEEL now operates under the sponsorship of the EM program. As part
of the long-range effort both to further the development of and
capitalize on INEEL's core competencies, INEEL leads a major
integration effort that uses a systems engineering approach to refine
EM waste, spent nuclear fuel, and nuclear disposition baselines. The EM
integration initiative evaluates cross-site and cross-program
opportunities for efficiencies and cost reductions to streamline
cleanup.
Finally, the M&O contract for INEEL expires at the end of September
of this year. Contract proposals are due in this month and the contract
will be awarded in June 1999, providing for a three-month transition
period. The current contractor, Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies
Company, has decided not to compete for the contract, so there will be
a new contractor at the site in October. We will work to ensure a
smooth transition that maintains continuity of the projects and
schedules.
Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee Fiscal Year 2000 Request
[In thousands]
Defense, Post-2006............................................ $264,561
Non-defense, Post-2006........................................ 3,802
UE D&D Fund................................................... 135,198
Defense, Privatization........................................ 32,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 435,561
The Oak Ridge Reservation is comprised of three facilities--the Y-
12 Plant, the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) (formerly the K-25
uranium enrichment facility), and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL). Funding for almost all environmental management activities at
Oak Ridge is included in the Defense, Post-2006 Completion Account,
with funding for the cleanup of ETTP coming from both this account and
the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund. In the
fiscal year 2000, we are requesting that funding for some projects
previously funded in the Non-Defense Account be provided in the Defense
Account. We believe that consolidating funding under one account will
provide more managerial integrity and may reduce indirect and overhead
charges compared to funding these projects from multiple accounts.
The Department continues its efforts to reindustrialize facilities
in Oak Ridge, particularly at ETTP. The primary goal is to clean up
ETTP as quickly and as safely as possible so that the presence of DOE
and its contractors can essentially end, and the site can be reborn as
an industrial park. As of November 1998, about 790,000 cubic feet of
space has been leased to 43 private companies. In some cases, the
Department has conducted cleanup of the building and, in other cases,
the private company is undertaking the cleanup. Overall, we estimate
$179 million in savings in life-cycle costs the Department would
otherwise have to spend cleaning up or maintaining these surplus
facilities. The Department is now in the process of developing a
consistent DOE-wide policy for assuring that the health and safety of
private industry workers at ETTP and other leased facilities are
protected. In this way we will be better able to move ahead with more
confidence in our path forward for this important program.
The fiscal year 2000 request continues support for the
decommissioning of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment at ORNL. This
experimental nuclear reactor was designed to use a fuel of highly-
reactive uranium-233 blended with a molten salt coolant. After 4\1/2\
years of operation, the reactor was shut down in December 1969. The EM
program has begun to make substantial progress, with input from the
National Academy of Sciences, in stabilizing this reactor. For example,
the EM program has installed and continues operation of a system to
remove reactive gases from the reactor tanks until the fuel salt can be
removed. In fiscal year 2000, we plan to complete fabrication and
testing of the uranium conversion equipment and complete planning and
design of the fuel salt removal process.
We have completed cleanup of the fourth of eight highly radioactive
waste storage tanks, called the ``Gunite Tanks,'' at ORNL and have
started work on the next tank, expected to be completed six months
ahead of schedule. The tanks were built in 1943 and were used for waste
from chemical separations (reprocessing) operations until the late
1970's. The tanks vary in size, with some having a capacity of 170,000
gallons (approximately the size of a 4-bedroom house). The estimated
cost of the project is now $80 million, less than half the original
estimate of $200 million. A key factor in the accelerated schedule has
been the development of a variety of remote technologies, such as the
``Houdini'' vehicle and a robotic arm that provide access to the tank
interior, which have allowed work to proceed on two tanks
simultaneously, rather than sequentially as initially planned.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) incinerator at Oak Ridge,
permitted by the State to treat mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes
regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and by EPA to
treat PCB-contaminated wastes regulated under TSCA, offers unique
capability within the DOE system. In addition to treating wastes
generated by Oak Ridge facilities, the TSCA incinerator has also been
used to treat wastes from other sites in the DOE complex, providing a
cost-effective and integrated approach to managing these wastes.
However, in February 1998 and again in February 1999, the Governor of
Tennessee rejected the annual burn plans for the incinerator proposed
by the Department, shutting off use of the incinerator for wastes
generated at DOE sites other than those managed by the Oak Ridge
Operations Office. The Governor cited equity concerns, including the
lack of DOE sites available for disposal of waste from Oak Ridge and
the adequacy of funding levels for environmental management at Oak
Ridge, as well as the overall commitment of the Federal Government to
the Oak Ridge site. The Department has assured the State leaders of our
firm commitment to the site and is working to resolve State concerns.
Fernald Environmental Management Project, Ohio Fiscal Year 2000 Request
[In thousands]
Defense Site Closure.......................................... $280,589
The cleanup activities at Fernald Environmental Management Project
account for more than $280 million, or 27 percent of the funding in the
Defense Site Closure Account. The Fernald te, encompassing
approximately 1,050 acres near Cincinnati, produced uranium for nuclear
weapons from 1951 to the end of Cold War in 1989. Nearly forty years of
uranium production for nuclear weapons left the Fernald Site with soil
and groundwater contamination, a large backlog of wastes, including
some unstable liquids, as well as stored nuclear materials such as
depleted and enriched uranium. Several years of cleanup progress have
included stabilization of liquid uranium solutions, off-site shipment
of low-level waste, and deactivation, decontamination and demolition of
several large industrial buildings at Fernald. The current baseline
calls for cleanup to be completed by fiscal year 2008, but the
Department is seeking enhanced efficiencies to complete work by fiscal
year 2006. Groundwater remediation and long-term institutional controls
will be necessary after active cleanup is completed.
Last year we reported to you that we were beginning to dispose of
waste in an on-site disposal cell. Site personnel realized that such a
disposal cell would be required for some waste to keep disposal costs
attainable, and the community realized constructing it at the Fernald
site would be more equitable than demanding that all wastes be disposed
of off-site in other states. I am pleased to report that we are
successfully filling the first and second section of this disposal
cell. We are now constructing a liner for section three. The
availability of this on-site disposal cell is enabling us to accelerate
disposal of contaminated soil and debris resulting from cleanup and
building demolition.
We also reported last year that we were expecting to begin
excavating, treating, and shipping radioactive residue from the Waste
Pits to an off-site disposal facility. We began excavation and loading
of that material into railcars in February of this year and expect to
begin shipments by rail for disposal in the April/May time frame.
Finally, Fernald personnel have continued the process of razing
deactivated and decontaminated industrial buildings. They completed
demolition of 5 of the 11 major facility complexes (Plants 1, 4, 7, 9
and the Boiler Plant), resulting in outyear reductions in mortgage and
landlord costs.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, New Mexico Fiscal Year 2000 Request
[In thousands]
Defense, Post 2006 Completion................................. $186,404
The Department is requesting funding at essentially the same
funding level as appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico.
Opening and operating WIPP is a key element of the Department's
strategy to provide for the permanent disposal of a portion of the
Department's stored long-lived radioactive waste. Currently a large
amount of transuranic waste (more than 100,000 cubic meters) is being
stored at more than two dozen sites around the United States. In many
cases, this waste has been stored for decades. By shipping this waste
to WIPP for disposal, the Department will be able to reduce the number
of sites where this type of waste is stored, reducing the costs of
storing this waste and the long-term risks to the public and the
environment. Opening WIPP for disposal is critical to the closure of
sites such as Rocky Flats, where the site cleanup plan relies on
disposal of the transuranic waste.
Many of the schedules and requirements in the Federal Facility
Compliance Act orders between the States or EPA, and DOE at the
transuranic waste sites (e.g., INEEL and Rocky Flats) are based on the
assumption that WIPP will open and begin accepting waste in the
immediate future. In May of 1998, EPA certified WIPP for disposal of
radioactive waste, and the Department declared WIPP ready to begin
operations. We hope to make our first shipments this year, if pending
litigation is resolved favorably. The Department is developing the
necessary transportation capacity to move transuranic waste from sites
where it is stored to WIPP to meet compliance agreement requirements.
The Department continues to do everything possible to open WIPP and
meet its legal obligations. The fiscal year 2000 budget will allow WIPP
to continue disposal operations. The Department expects to ramp up the
receipt rate of contact-handled transuranic waste shipments to 14
shipments per week by the end of fiscal year 2000 and to 17 shipments
by December 31, 2000.
The WIPP program also funds a variety of institutional programs
that provide economic assistance and operational oversight for affected
governments and stakeholder groups. The funding request for fiscal year
2000 includes $20.9 million for New Mexico Impact Assistance, as
required by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act Amendments of 1996, and
additional funds for cooperative agreements with New Mexico Emergency
Response, Indian Tribes, Southern States Energy Board, and others.
The Department is relying on privatization to obtain the capital
equipment for transuranic waste transportation to reduce costs. The
fiscal year 1999 budget included $19,605,000 in the Defense
Privatization account to transport remote-handled transuranic waste
from generator sites to WIPP. Because this contract is not expected to
be awarded until late fiscal year 1999 or early fiscal year 2000, the
Department is not requesting additional funding in fiscal year 2000.
Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico Fiscal Year 2000 Request
[In thousands]
Defense, Post-2006 Completion................................. $104,834
Non-Defense, Post-2006 Completion............................. 6,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 110, 834
Our goal at Los Alamos National Laboratory is to complete cleanup
work by 2006 except for a few complex contaminated sites and
disposition of legacy transuranic waste, and to complete all EM cleanup
projects at Los Alamos by 2015. Through fiscal year 1998, the
Department completed remediation of 1,395 release sites and
decommissioning of 41 facilities, out of a total of more than 2,000
release sites and 130 facilities. We plan to complete 9 additional
release sites and one facility in fiscal year 1999, and 28 release
sites and two facilities in fiscal year 2000.
The fiscal year 2000 EM budget request for Los Alamos of $110
million is nearly $30 million more than our fiscal year 1999 budget.
Much of this increase (86 percent) is devoted to environmental
restoration work, such as drilling new regional ground water wells to
characterize the hydrogeology and work required to complete cleanup in
anticipation transferring land to the community. Pursuant to the
requirements of Public Laws 105-119 and 105-245, DOE has identified ten
parcels totaling about 4600 acres for potential transfer to the County
of Los Alamos and the Pueblos, has published a draft Environmental
Impact Statement on the land transfers and supporting Environmental
Restoration Report, and will submit a detailed project plan for cleanup
of a land parcel, referred to as ``TA-21'', to Congress by late March
1999. DOE intends to follow a phased approach in accomplishing the land
transfers, starting with the transfer of the relatively simple,
uncontaminated parcels in 2000 and continuing with the transfer of the
more complex sites in the outyears.
Another significant increase in the Los Alamos budget is
attributable to the need to manage wastes recently-retrieved buried
transuranic waste and to characterize, certify, and ship the waste to
WIPP for disposal. Los Alamos was the first site to have waste
certified by DOE for disposal at WIPP. In fact, the WIPP certification
rule that EPA promulgated in fiscal year 1998 specifically includes EPA
approval of the characterization program at Los Alamos for certain
transuranic wastes.
The fiscal year 2000 request for EM does not include funds for
management of on-going waste generation; the Department transferred
this waste management responsibility at Los Alamos, along with funding
responsibility, from EM to the Office of Defense Programs in fiscal
year 1999.
The Department recently designated Los Alamos as the lead
laboratory for research and development efforts to support the
Department's response to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Recommendation 94-1 on nuclear materials safety. In this capacity, Los
Alamos provides solutions to complex-wide technical and operational
issues associated with stabilization and storage of plutonium and other
nuclear materials.
West Valley Demonstration Plant, New York Fiscal Year 2000 Request
[In thousands]
Non-Defense, Site Closure Account............................. $107,353
Cleanup of the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP), located in
upstate New York less than 40 miles from Buffalo, is being conducted at
the site of the only nuclear fuel reprocessing facility to operate in
the U.S. The private company processed commercial spent nuclear fuel to
extract plutonium and uranium from 1966 to 1972, generating 2,200 cubic
meters of liquid high-level waste.
The principal operation at West Valley is the solidification of the
liquid high-level waste into borosilicate glass using a process called
vitrification. The primary vitrification campaign began in June 1996
and was completed ahead of schedule in June 1998. Vitrification of the
high-level waste tank heels is currently underway and will continue
through fiscal year 2001.
Following the vitrification of the high-level waste, the equipment
and facilities used in carrying out the project will be decontaminated
and decommissioned, based on the results of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for the completion of the
project. This phase of the cleanup project is expected to begin in late
fiscal year 2000.
The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and
DOE are working together and with stakeholders, including a Citizens'
Task Force, to formulate a preferred alternative for closure or long-
term management of the site. Selection of a preferred alternative and
subsequent ROD will determine the outyear scope of work for the project
and final disposition of the waste. The EIS and ROD process is
scheduled to be completed in May 2000. The estimated completion date
for WVDP may extend through 2015, reflecting the uncertainty related to
the future EIS ROD.
Another critical element of the EM program at West Valley is the
safe management of 125 spent nuclear fuel elements stored at the site.
EM will continue surveillance and maintenance of the spent fuel
facility to ensure safe storage until the spent fuel can be shipped to
the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (currently
planned for 2001).
In fiscal year 1999, major activities include continuation of
vitrification of the HLW tank heels (producing approximately 15
canisters of solidified HLW), development of an EIS Preferred
Alternative for project completion, progress towards resolution of
responsibility issues with the State of New York, and continuation of
preparations for shipment of spent nuclear fuel.
In fiscal year 2000, major activities include continuation of
vitrification of the HLW tank heels (producing approximately 5
canisters of solidified HLW), issuance of a Final EIS and ROD for
project completion, and continuation of preparations for shipment of
spent nuclear fuel.
Miamisburg Environmental Management Project (Mound Site) Fiscal Year
2000 Request
[In thousands]
Defense Site Closure.......................................... $92,353
Non-Defense, Site Closure..................................... 1,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 93,353
The Miamisburg Environmental Management Project, a 306-acre
facility near Dayton Ohio used for tritium and plutonium-238
operations, consists of 416 release sites and 111 facilities. We have a
goal of completing cleanup of the site by 2005 or earlier. We are
making good progress--all legacy bulk tritium has been shipped off-
site, and a consolidated treatment processing facility and a
radioactive wastewater treatment facility have been constructed and are
in use. In fiscal year 1998, we completed remediation of the Miami-Erie
Canal, allowing re-establishment of a park for the local community. In
fiscal year 1998, we demolished or removed 25 buildings out of an
initial inventory of 106 buildings scheduled for demolition or removal
and will complete another 5 in fiscal year 1999, adding to the 17
buildings that had been demolished or removed before fiscal year 1998.
We have negotiated an agreement to transfer the ownership of the
site to the Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation as
cleanup is completed. Currently 28 private businesses employing more
than 250 workers are leasing facilities at the Mound Site. Within the
next few months, we plan to transfer ownership to the community of the
first parcel of land, consisting of two buildings currently occupied by
private businesses. This transition process will allow the Department
to eventually leave the site without creating an economic void in the
community.
Nevada Test Site and Operations Office, Nevada Fiscal Year 2000 Request
[In thousands]
Defense, Post 2006 Completion................................. $85,307
The Post-2006 Completion Account includes $85 million for cleanup
and waste management activities at the Nevada Test Site, as well as
funds to remediate eight other inactive sites contaminated by past DOE
nuclear testing in five other states (Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi,
Nevada, and New Mexico). The Nevada Test Site (NTS) is located 65 miles
from Las Vegas and encompasses 1,350 square miles, an area roughly the
size of Rhode Island. In addition to the cleanup of radioactive
contamination resulting from above- and below-ground testing of nuclear
weapons and management of its on-site waste, the Nevada Test Site plays
a crucial role for other DOE sites as one of the major low-level waste
disposal facilities in the DOE complex. By fiscal year 2006, the
Department expects to complete restoration of the surface area of off-
site locations and complete shipments of transuranic waste to WIPP,
while continuing to operate low-level disposal facilities at NTS for
the DOE complex. institutional controls and to maintain groundwater
monitoring.
In fiscal year 1999, the Department expects to meet its commitment
to dispose of more than 37,000 cubic meters of low-level waste, more
than half of which is from other DOE sites, and to complete cleanup of
446, or 32 percent of the contaminated release sites. In fiscal year
2000, the Department is committing to disposing of 64,000 cubic meters
of low level radioactive waste at NTS--a 70 percent increase over
fiscal year 1999. Based on new scientific findings about transport of
plutonium and other actinides in ground water, the Department is
increasing it efforts to monitor ground water at NTS to improve our
understanding of this complex issue. We also plan to continue treating
transuranic waste in fiscal year 2000 for shipment and disposal WIPP.
Weldon Spring Remedial Action Project, Missouri Fiscal Year 2000 Request
[In thousands]
Non-Defense, Site Closure Account............................. $52,000
The Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project (WSSRAP) in Missouri
includes a decommissioned uranium processing plant, an abandoned quarry
used as a dump site, as well as numerous vicinity properties that were
contaminated by uranium processing operations conducted for nuclear
weapons support in the 1950's and 1960's, similar to the Fernald Site
in Ohio. The Oak Ridge Operations Office in Tennessee is managing the
cleanup, which includes about one million cubic yards of waste at the
229-acre site.
Cleanup of the Weldon Spring Site is expected to be completed as
early as 2002. All contaminated material will be placed in an on-site,
above-grade cell for permanent disposal. Long-term surveillance and
monitoring for the disposal facility will be conducted after project
completion, and the remaining land will be released for unrestricted
use.
Our progress in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 puts us on
track for completing cleanup in 2002. Fiscal year 1998 marked the start
of the waste placement in the 1.4 million cubic yard capacity disposal
facility, with about 640,000 cubic yards of material being placed in
the facility in fiscal year 1998. The construction of the Chemical
Stabilization and Solidification Facility was completed and treatment
of waste pit sludge begun in fiscal year 1998, with treatment of sludge
completed in fiscal year 1999. Cleanup of all vicinity properties but
one were completed. The site Groundwater Record of Decision will be
signed, and Quarry restoration activities will begin in fiscal year
1999.
In fiscal year 2000, the waste placement activity will be nearly
completed, and the construction of the disposal facility cap will
begin. Quarry restoration will continue, and the chemical plant site
restoration and waste pit remediation will begin. Although the fiscal
year 2000 budget targets $52 million for Weldon Spring, it is the
intent of the Department to fund this program at a level of $63.5
million, the level of funding of fiscal year 1999, to ensure the 2002
completion date can be attained.
Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York Fiscal Year 2000 Request
[In thousands]
Non-Defense, Site/Project Completion Account.................. $29,553
At the Brookhaven National Laboratory, we are treating contaminated
groundwater at several on-site locations and will start the first off-
site groundwater treatment system by the end of this fiscal year. Over
1,500 homes have been hooked up to the municipal water supply to ensure
that the residents' drinking water supply remains unaffected during
long-term ground-water cleanup. To eliminate sources of potential
future contamination, we have removed buried waste as well as a number
of underground storage tanks and cesspools, and have capped on-site
landfills. In fiscal year 1999, the Department expects the regulatory
and stakeholder review process for proposed cleanup remedies to be
completed, and the final remedies to be identified for contaminated
soils, sediments and groundwater. We will begin implementing the final
remedies in fiscal year 2000.
A site-wide review in fiscal year 1997 highlighted concerns with
the Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor, due in part to the
radioactively contaminated water collecting in underground air ducts
associated with the facility. I am pleased to report substantial
progress in addressing this concern through the combined efforts of
this office and the Office of Science. The contaminated water has been
removed, and sources of potential further water intrusion have been
sealed off. Moreover, the Offices of Science and Environmental
Management have reached agreement on managing the remaining
characterization, stabilization, and decommissioning of the Research
Reactor, and both offices have committed funding in fiscal year 1999
and fiscal year 2000 to maintain the momentum on this project. Final
decommissioning of this facility is scheduled to begin in fiscal year
2001.
The EM Program will continue its activities in fiscal year 2000 to
dispose of legacy wastes and will also continue to compliantly store,
treat, and dispose of wastes generated by on-going Brookhaven
operations, with the transfer of waste management responsibilities to
the generating program expected in fiscal year 2001.
Sites in the State of California Fiscal Year 2000 Request
Defense, Site/Project Completion Account:s]
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.................... $49,891
Oakland Operations Office................................. 800
Non-Defense, Site/Project Completion Account:
Energy Engineering Technology Center...................... 17,398
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory..................... 11,098
General Atomics........................................... 1,100
Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research............. 3,863
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center........................ 1,400
General Electric.......................................... 500
Oakland Operations Office................................. 300
A total fiscal year 2000 request of $86,350,000 supports activities
at the seven sites in California. The funds will support the
characterization, remediation, decontamination and decommissioning of
contaminated release sites and facilities; waste minimization efforts;
and management of hazardous and radioactive wastes generated at sites.
We are committed to completing cleanup at all sites by 2006, including
shipping legacy waste off-site, ending EM responsibilities. For those
sites with on-going Departmental missions, we plan to transfer
responsibility for managing newly generated wastes to the waste
generating programs by fiscal year 2003, and transfer responsibility
for long-term maintenance of completed remedial actions (e.g., pump and
treat facilities) and surveillance and monitoring by fiscal year 2006.
The major accomplishments expected for fiscal year 2000 include:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.--LLNL consists of two
sites--the Main site and Site 300. We will complete the Site-Wide
Proposed Plan for the Interim Record of Decision at Site 300. At the
Main site, EM will activate and start operational testing of the
Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory Site and complete deployment of electro-osmosis
innovative technology in source area contaminant remediation, for a
potential life cycle savings of over $50M and reduction in time for
cleanup of over 40 years compared to conventional pump and treat
technology. We plan to complete cleanup at the LLNL sites by 2006.
General Atomics.--EM will finish all cleanup activities in fiscal
year 2000 with the completion of decontamination and decommissioning
activities at the Hot Cell Facility, formerly used by DOE for nuclear
research and development.
Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research.--We will complete
soil excavation at the western dog pen and Strontium-90/Radium-226
Areas in fiscal year 2000, keeping us on schedule for completing
overall site cleanup, including off-site waste disposal, by fiscal year
2002.
Energy Technology Engineering Center.--The Department signed a
contract in December 1998 with Boeing North America, the owner of this
facility, to complete cleanup by 2006. The contract calls for transfer
of all facilities and land to the owner, who will take responsibility
for any long-term stewardship needed for the completed remedies. In
fiscal year 2000, we will complete the decontamination and
decommissioning of the SNAP-8 facility and the H-1 Heater Facility.
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.--We will complete excavation of
PCB-contaminated soils in the Lower Salvage Yard. Responsibilities for
on-going waste management were transferred to the generator in fiscal
year 1997. We expect to complete EM's cleanup responsibilities by 2002.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.--Excavation of contaminated
soils at several on-site locations at Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory will continue, as will storage, treatment and disposal
activities to reduce legacy waste, with a goal of completing EM
responsibilities by 2003.
statement of lake h. barrett
Senator Domenici. We will proceed now with Mr. Barrett, and
then we will ask questions.
I note the presence of Senator Wayne Allard, from Colorado.
Would you like to comment now before we proceed with the
witness?
Senator Allard. Well, I have a statement I would like to
make, if that is okay with the Chairman, if it is appropriate
for your agenda this morning.
Senator Domenici. What is your time schedule for this
morning?
Senator Allard. Well, I need to preside at 11:00 o'clock,
and I want to thank the Chairman for letting me sit here on
your subcommittee.
Senator Domenici. You are welcome. Let me proceed with the
witnesses, and I will give you a chance here shortly.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Barrett.
Mr. Barrett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members
of the committee.
viability assessment
We, in the Civilian Waste Radioactive Waste Management
Program, have made significant progress in the last year.
Specifically, we completed the Viability Assessment, which was
sent to this committee and the President, and the rest of the
Congress.
The Viability Assessment found that there were no
showstoppers and that work should proceed in characterizing the
Yucca Mountain site. This Administration continues to move
forward with the scientific characterization of Yucca Mountain,
progressing toward a national decision whether the site is
suitable to be a geologic repository. We are now nearing the
conclusion of our scientific site characterization effort.
The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request supports
the Viability Assessment's findings. It is important to note
that we still have work to do. The budget request, building on
the scope of work identified in the Viability Assessment,
spells out what we plan to do in fiscal year 2000 to support
the decision process in the coming years.
yucca mountain schedule
The overall schedule for the Yucca Mountain activities is
shown on this chart to your right. We are on target for a
decision in 2001 whether Yucca Mountain is suitable to be the
location of a geologic repository, and if the site is suitable,
to submit a License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission in 2002.
Meeting those milestones will maintain a schedule for the
start of waste emplacement in 2010, if the site is suitable and
licensed.
Your continued support for this program is essential. This
program is essential to our national policy for the management
of commercial spent nuclear fuel, the cleanup of our defense
nuclear facilities, the disposition of our naval nuclear spent
fuel, and the disposition of surplus plutonium to support the
nation's nuclear non-proliferation goals in this post-Cold War
period.
recent accomplishments
Before I discuss the 2000 fiscal year budget request, I
would like to give you a brief summary of our recent
accomplishments. We are focusing on the work products to
support the milestones on this chart.
They are specifically the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement in the summer of this year, the Final Environmental
Impact Statement in 2000, a determination if the site is
suitable for a recommendation to the President in 2001, and a
License Application, if the site is suitable in 2002.
Last year, as I noted, we completed the Viability
Assessment. That assessment served to identify the critical
issues that must be addressed before a decision may be made by
the Secretary whether to recommend the Yucca Mountain site for
development as the nation's first repository. Our fiscal year
2000 budget request implements the work plan to address those
issues to allow a final national decision.
At Yucca Mountain, we are working to understand the key
scientific issues, including the flow of water through the
repository, and the effect of heat from waste packages on the
geology and the hydrology.
We are investigating design alternatives to enhance
performance. Our understanding of those issues will help reduce
the uncertainties related to the performance of a repository.
Now I would like to turn specifically to the fiscal year 2000
budget request.
fiscal year 2000 budget request
We are requesting $370 million in new budget authority and
the release of $39 million from the funds appropriated in
fiscal year 1996 in the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriation, for a total funding of $409 million. We have
proposed allocating $332 million to continue the scientific and
engineering work at the Yucca Mountain site characterization
program, $6 million for waste acceptance, storage, and
transportation, and $71 million for program management, which
includes our nuclear quality assurance and regulatory and
National Environmental Policy Act responsibilities.
The $332 million devoted to the Yucca Mountain site
characterization will be used to continue the necessary
cutting-edge scientific and engineering work to implement the
characterization of the Yucca Mountain site; to reduce the
remaining uncertainties about the site's performance, by
developing models that predict the geophysical and engineering
performance; to further refine our repository and waste package
designs; to assist in the assessment of the repository safety
strategy and total system performance. This includes the
flexibility to incorporate emerging new technologies, such as
accelerator transmutation of waste, which could supplement and
improve the performance of a repository in Yucca Mountain. We
also are working to finish the environmental impact statements.
In addition to the hard science and engineering technical
activities under way at Yucca Mountain, we believe that the
financial support envisioned by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to
the state and units of local government is important in
enabling these governments and citizens directly adjacent to
the Yucca Mountain project to remain informed and to
participate in a meaningful way in the day-to-day program
actions that may affect them. To that end we seek your approval
of our request for such funding.
The budget request for the waste acceptance storage and
transportation program is $6 million. This request will support
our continuing long-lead work that must proceed transporting
spent fuel to a federal receiving facility, and continue
interactions with the standard contract holders to discuss how
best to accommodate the delay in the acceptance of spent fuel
from commercial utilities.
In the program management area the $71 million requested
will support the Nuclear Regulatory Commission mandated nuclear
quality assurance activities, regulatory compliance, program
control and management activities. The funding requested also
provides core support for the Nuclear Waste Policy Act mandated
EIS's, the planning and program management, and the extensive
records management systems that we must have.
concluding remarks
As I noted in my opening remarks, we have made substantial
progress and we are appropriately positioned to finish the site
characterization effort. The Viability Assessment found that
there were no ``showstoppers'' with respect to the site at
Yucca Mountain.
They also identified the necessary remaining scientific and
technical work we have to complete, and provided the funding
profile required, which our fiscal year 2000 budget request is
based upon.
Funding at our request level will give us the resources
required to address the last remaining questions about the
suitability of the Yucca Mountain site. We are committed to
determining the suitability of the site, and we seek your
support in our efforts toward moving through this critical
national decision.
prepared statement
Thank you for your support, and I would like to answer any
questions that you may have.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lake H. Barrett
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Lake H. Barrett,
Acting Director of the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management. I appreciate the opportunity to present
our fiscal year 2000 budget request to you and discuss our plans for
continuing to move forward with the scientific and technical program
activities at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada.
The fiscal year 2000 budget request of $409 million is devoted to
supporting principally those activities that may lead to a decision to
recommend the site currently being characterized at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada for development of a repository for the Nation's spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
background
The Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program and, in
particular, the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project being
implemented is the cornerstone of the national policy for the
management of spent nuclear fuel produced by nuclear power reactors for
the generation of electricity and the clean-up of the high-level
radioactive waste currently stored at sites that were key facilities of
the nuclear weapons complex. The Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
Program also directly supports the requirement to dispose of the
Department of Energy's spent nuclear fuel including naval nuclear spent
fuel. The disposition of surplus plutonium and other nuclear weapons
materials in a permanent geologic repository is a key factor in
maintaining the United States' international leadership position
regarding nuclear nonproliferation.
Since the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982, we
have made significant progress. We have designed and are implementing a
program that is leading the developed countries in planning for
geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high level waste. Despite
the progress made, the implementation of this program continues to be
one of the most daunting public policy challenges before us. The
Department, is however, getting closer to being able to make a decision
regarding the recommendation of the site to the President for
development as a repository, if it proves to be suitable.
viability assessment
Since I last appeared before you, the Department completed, and
submitted to the President, the Congress, and the public, the Viability
Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain and its companion
documents. The Viability Assessment is comprised of four major
elements: (1) a preliminary design concept for a repository and waste
package; (2) a total system performance assessment that describes the
probable behavior of a repository in the Yucca Mountain geologic
setting; (3) a plan and cost estimate for the remaining work required
to complete and submit a License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission; and (4) an estimate of the costs to construct and operate a
repository.
The Viability Assessment is the compilation of over fifteen years
of scientific and engineering work at the Yucca Mountain site. It
provided Congress, the President, and the public with information on
the progress of the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project. The
Viability Assessment serves as an important management tool for the
Program to guide the completion of site characterization by identifying
critical issues that need to be addressed before a decision can be made
by the Secretary on whether to recommend the Yucca Mountain site for a
repository.
The key conclusion of the Viability Assessment is that there are no
``show stoppers'' with respect to the Yucca Mountain site and that work
should proceed to support a decision in 2001 on whether to recommend
the site. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request supports that
conclusion and I seek your support as well. It is important to note
that we still have work to do. The budget request, building off of the
scope of work identified in the Viability Assessment, spells out, in
some detail, what we plan to do in fiscal year 2000 to support the
decision process in the coming years.
The Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, in accordance
with the guidance provided by the Fiscal Year 1997 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, applied the majority of our funding and
two years of focused, concentrated effort to the development of the
Viability Assessment. The Viability Assessment having been issued only
three months ago, now provides both the short-term and long-term
planning basis for the Program. It lays out the scope of work and the
cost profile for the remaining work that must be accomplished to not
only reach the decision point regarding the recommendation of the site
to the President, if the site is found to be suitable, but also the
work that must be accomplished and costs associated with it to
construct a repository subsequent to receiving a License from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is being used by the Program as a
point of departure for developing and implementing the planning
baseline against which Congress and outside observers may measure our
progress in the future.
We have also made the Viability Assessment widely available by
putting it and its companion documents The Analysis of the Total System
Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program,
December 1998 (Total System Life Cycle Cost Report) and the statutorily
required Nuclear Waste Fund Fee Adequacy: An Assessment, December 1998
(Fee Adequacy Report), and all the supporting technical studies--on our
Internet home page.
litigation
Before I discuss the fiscal year 2000 budget request and some of
the accomplishments in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, I would
like to touch briefly on the ongoing litigation with State agencies and
utilities regarding the Department's delay in accepting commercial
spent fuel.
As you know, the Department is in litigation over our inability to
meet our contractual obligation to accept spent fuel from the nuclear
utility companies by January 31, 1998. The Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit found that the Department has an
obligation to commence spent fuel disposal by January 31, 1998. The
Court denied the utilities' and States' request for a move-fuel order,
finding that the Standard Disposal Contract provides a potentially
adequate remedy. The Court stated that the Department may not rely on
the ``unavoidable delays'' clause to excuse its delay in performance
and suggested the ``avoidable delays'' clause of the Standard Contract
as the potentially adequate remedy. This clause provides for an
equitable adjustment of schedules and contract charges to reflect any
estimated additional costs incurred by the contract holder.
Pursuant to the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, the Department will process claims presented to it
under the standard disposal contract. Although we have held settlement
discussions with several utilities, only one utility has proposed a
bilateral modification and request for equitable adjustment of the
contract, and no formal claims have been filed.
To date, ten utilities have filed claims for monetary damages in
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In the first three cases decided by
the Court, the Department was found to have breached its contracts with
three utilities, each with only one shutdown reactor, and the
Department is now engaged in discovery to determine the amount of
damages the Government must pay these utilities. Other cases, most
involving utilities with operating reactors paying ongoing fees to the
Department, are currently pending.
quality assurance
Our Quality Assurance Program, working as it should, has detected
certain deficiencies in the execution of the Yucca Mountain Site
Characterization effort, which has resulted in a redirection of work to
respond to these deficiencies. Corrective Action Plans approved by our
Office of Quality Assurance are being implemented. Process improvements
have been identified, procedures have been revised, training is
underway, and managers have increased their self-assessments. Although
these efforts are causing us to refocus and redefine some of our
currently planned work, we anticipate that we can accommodate this
effort with minimal impact on cost and schedule. We expect some of the
analyses, however, may have to be based on less data than previously
planned but we are confident that the analyses will support the Site
Recommendation Report and License Application.
payments to the state and affected units of local government
We believe that the support envisioned by Section 116(c) of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, to the State and units of
local government affected by site characterization activities is
important in enabling local governments and the citizens most directly
impacted by the Yucca Mountain Project to remain informed and to
participate in a meaningful way in the day to day program actions that
affect them. Financial support is particularly important for the rural
counties' programs where financial resources are severely limited and I
would urge that you support the funding requested.
summary of fiscal year 2000 request
With respect to fiscal year 2000, we are requesting $370 million in
new budget authority and the release of $39 million from funds
appropriated in fiscal year 1996 in the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriation (currently in a Congressional Reserve) for total funding
of $409 million. This request level fully supports the funding profile
for the scientific and engineering activities planned for the Yucca
Mountain Project as described in the Viability Assessment.
We have proposed allocating $332 million to continue the scientific
and engineering work at the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization
Office; $6 million for the activities directed by the Office of Waste
Acceptance, Storage and Transportation; $10 million for the Program's
Nuclear Quality Assurance program; and $61 million to carry out the
Program's Management and Integration functions.
Before I review with you how we are proposing to use the funds
provided for in the fiscal year 2000 budget request, I would like to
briefly highlight, in summary fashion, some of the fiscal year 1998 and
projected fiscal year 1999 accomplishments.
fiscal year 1998-fiscal year 1999 accomplishments
yucca mountain
At the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project Office, we are
continuing the transition from a project whose principal focus was on
the collection of scientific data to a project that is increasingly
focused on activities that support the remaining key near-term
requirements described in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
amended. Those key activities will provide the remaining technical
documentation (collectively these materials are referred to as the
``Site Recommendation Report''), to support whether the Secretary
should recommend to the President the site currently being
characterized at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, if the site is found to be
suitable, as a repository for the Nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste.
In fiscal year 1999, the Program applied $282 million to the site
characterization effort at Yucca Mountain. That was almost 80 percent
of the Program's total appropriation.
The Project is focusing their activities on scientific and
engineering investigations related to the remaining key uncertainties
about the Yucca Mountain site. Those uncertainties were discussed in
the Viability Assessment. They include the presence and movement of
water through the repository block; the effects of water movement on
the waste package; and the effects of heat from the decay of
radioactive materials inside the waste packages on the site's geologic
and hydrologic behavior.
The focus at Yucca Mountain during fiscal year 1998 was on
completing the Viability Assessment, completing excavation of, and
starting testing in, the Exploratory Studies Facility Cross Drift that
extends to the west side of the repository block, and on starting one
major thermal test and completing two others.
Development of the Viability Assessment represented many ``firsts''
for us. It was the first time we have articulated our integrated
understanding about the whole Yucca Mountain Site since the 1986
Environmental Assessment supporting the decision to carry out site
characterization. It was the first time an integrated technical review
of one of our major technical reports included members of the
Department of Energy complex who currently have responsibility for
waste forms planned for geologic disposal. It was the first time we
have used the Internet as an important part of our process for
distributing major technical reports to the public. Lessons we have
learned from these activities are being implemented as we start
developing the Site Recommendation Report and the License Application.
In addition to the Viability Assessment, we produced key supporting
documents such as the Total System Performance AssessmentViability
Assessment Analysis Technical Basis Document and the Yucca Mountain
Site Description.
In December 1997, we started excavation of the 16.5-foot diameter
cross drift in the Exploratory Studies Facility to better understand
the geologic and hydrologic conditions of the west side of the
repository block. By the close of fiscal year 1998, we completed
excavation of over 2578 meters. The remaining 103 meters were completed
in October 1998. Geologic mapping of the cross drift has been
completed. Model predictions of the stratigraphy of the cross drift
were verified to be within a few meters in elevation of the actual
stratigraphic contacts. The eastern splay of the Solitario Canyon fault
was mapped, and showed the actual offset to 220 to 230 meters matched
the predicted offset of 230 meters.
Long duration tests are providing critical input for validating
models we use to predict performance of a repository. We designed three
different thermal tests to evaluate how the high temperatures in a
repository (from heat generated by radioactive decay of the emplaced
waste) can affect the natural barriers (i.e., the rock surrounding the
emplacement drifts) and the engineered barriers (i.e. the waste package
and the emplacement drift openings). Our thermal testing program is
well underway.
--The single heater test, which began in August 1996, was completed
in fiscal year 1998. The final results from this test are
generally consistent with model predictions of temperature,
rock displacement, and moisture movement. Data were obtained on
heat transfer, thermal conductivity, thermal expansion, thermal
chemistry, air permeability, and hydrology of the heated rock.
The test also allowed us to refine the design and
instrumentation of the drift scale heater test.
--The large-block heater test, which began in February 1997 in a
fourteen foot high section of an outcrop at Fran Ridge, an area
adjacent to Yucca Mountain in a portion of the potential
repository host rock exposed at the surface, was completed in
fiscal year 1998. The use of an isolated block allowed us to
measure the moisture movement caused by heat in a controlled
environment. Core samples obtained from the block are now being
analyzed to look for changes in rock fractures due to heating.
--The drift scale heater test is a long-term test to obtain data on
the mechanical and thermohydrologic properties of a repository
host rock. The test, which began in fiscal year 1998, nearly
1000 feet below the surface of Yucca Mountain inside the
Exploratory Studies Facility, is in the heat-up cycle. On
December 3, 1997, a series of electric heaters were turned on,
initiating the flow of heat into a section of the mountain.
Designed to simulate the heat from actual waste packages, the
drift scale test is the largest of the three heater tests at
Yucca Mountain, and for that matter, is the largest underground
thermal test ever conducted in the world. During fiscal year
1998, we increased the temperature in the test drift from
ambient 86 degrees Fahrenheit to 275 degrees Fahrenheit. The
goal is to maintain the drift wall rock temperature at 392
degrees Fahrenheit for two years before the cool down cycle
begins. The total duration of this test will be eight years:
four to heat-up and four to cool down.
Testing in an underground facility at Busted Butte near Yucca
Mountain began in fiscal year 1998 and is still ongoing. Test results
in the Calico Hills rock unit will provide an analog to expected
conditions in the same type of rock that lies below the potential
repository horizon. Tests are being conducted to validate laboratory
data and conceptual numerical transport models. These tests are
intended to reduce uncertainties in assessments of the potential
transport of key radionuclides from the repository area, through the
unsaturated zone, and into the water table underlying Yucca Mountain.
Tests also will address the importance of colloid-facilitated transport
of radionuclides, especially plutonium. Observations at Busted Butte
are important to understanding transport in the unsaturated zone,
beneath the emplacement drifts, because additional sorption of
radionuclides is expected even in a scenario dominated by fracture
flow. Future work will quantify the fracture-matrix coupling that will
be incorporated into the updated site-scale models to support the total
system performance assessment for the Site Recommendation Report and
the License Application.
Under the agreement with Nye County, eight wells have been
completed along Highway 95 south of Yucca Mountain. We have collected
cutting samples and are reviewing the geologic logs. We are in the
process of analyzing water samples from these wells. This data will be
used in updating the geologic framework model.
Thus far, our repository performance assessments have shown that
the rate and amount of seepage of water into the emplacement drifts is
very important to repository performance. Since the effects of tunnel
ventilation may well mask the detection of any seepage, in 1998 we
isolated individual niches in the Exploratory Studies Facility from
ventilation to see whether any seepage can be detected. To date, no
seepage has been observed in these test niches.
One alcove in the Exploratory Studies Facility has been isolated
from ventilation effects to monitor humidity and seepage during the
higher rainfall caused by El Nino. This alcove is within the vicinity
of the potential repository block area near to and within the Ghost
Dance fault exposure. To date, no seepage has been observed.
The focus at Yucca Mountain during fiscal year 1999 will be on
issuing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement; completing the last
phase of the peer review of the Total System Performance Assessment
that supported the Viability Assessment; and updating repository and
waste package designs to support updating the Total System Performance
Assessment for the Site Recommendation Report. Those activities are
also the Program's Government Performance and Results Act commitments.
In fiscal year 1999, to date, we have made the following progress:
--In support of the Environmental Impact Statement, we began the
Department-wide review of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. We are on schedule for meeting the July 1999 date
for publishing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
starting the public hearings.
--Completed a topical report on the methods we plan to use to model
and evaluate the potential for a nuclear criticality event
(sustained chain reaction). The report was transmitted to the
NRC in January 1999.
--Completed License Application Design Selection workshops aimed at
assuring validity and transparency of the process for selecting
repository designs and options that will be modeled for the
Site Recommendation Report and License Application.
--Completed management plans to guide writing both the Site
Recommendation Report and the License Application and began
developing the first drafts of both these documents.
--Completed phase one of the Busted Butte radionuclide transport
test. The preliminary results provided significant information
on flow partitioning between fracture and matrix of the rocks
beneath the potential repository.
--Continued National Environmental Policy Act consultation and
coordination activities with numerous federal, state, and local
agencies and Native American tribal organizations. Status
briefings on the Environmental Impact Statement's development,
as well as coordination of any Environmental Impact Statement
data needs, were conducted with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, U.S. Bureau
of Land Management, U.S. Air Force, State of Nevada and
affected counties, and Native American tribes.
waste acceptance, storage, and transportation
The Department's acceptance of commercial spent nuclear fuel
remains a critical objective of the Program and, in the Office of Waste
Acceptance, Storage, and Transportation (OWAST) area, that is where we
focused our efforts. However, in recognition of the hardships
associated with the Department's delay in waste acceptance, we have
offered to make equitable adjustments with the contract holders to
address those issues.
In fiscal year 1998, we developed a generic, non-site specific
topical safety analysis report for a centralized interim storage
facility. The report was submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
and contained the required analyses and evaluations necessary to show
that the operation of such a facility would meet the Commission's
requirements for the protection of the environment, public safety, and
health. We have continued interactions with the Commission and expect
their approval this year.
In fiscal year 1999, the Program utilized just under $2 million to
conduct activities that are the responsibility of the Office of Waste
Acceptance, Storage, and Transportation. Several of the sub-elements of
the OWAST function were de-emphasized in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal
year 1999 to apply resources to the Yucca Mountain Site
Characterization activity rather than on transportation activities.
We continued to refine a competitive procurement strategy for
acquiring waste acceptance and transportation services utilizing
private industry. We issued a revised draft Request for Proposals (RFP)
in December 1997, that embodies a market-driven approach relying on the
maximum use of private industry capabilities, expertise and experience
to acquire contractor services to accept and transport commercial spent
nuclear fuel to a Federal facility. In September 1998, the draft RFP
was revised to address public/industry comments, and a Notice of
Availability was published in the Federal Register. Work on the RFP was
subsequently deferred until a repository siting decision process is
completed. When that process is completed, activities related to the
acquisition of waste acceptance and transportation services will be
reinitiated.
program management and integration
In fiscal year 1999, we continued to ensure that the integration
requirements between the various components of the waste management
system were adequately addressed and alternative system designs and
proposals were evaluated with careful attention paid to their effects
on system operations and costs. We completed a Total System Life Cycle
Cost Report and a statutorily required Fee Adequacy Report. Those two
documents accompanied the Viability Assessment at the time of its
issuance.
The Program also concluded and is implementing Memoranda of
Agreement's with the Office of Environmental Management and the Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program that specify each Office's technical,
programmatic, and financial responsibilities with respect to spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
In an effort to utilize our resources more efficiently, we
streamlined our operations. The program reduced headquarters staff in
1998 through a significant reduction-in-force. With reductions-in-force
and staff reassignments, the Program reduced Headquarters staffing by
39 percent. Since fiscal year 1992, the Program has significantly
shifted the balance of staffing from headquarters to Nevada, with a
reduction at headquarters of 50 percent and an increase in Nevada of 40
percent.
In fiscal year 1999, responding to the Congressional direction
regarding the use of its support service contractors, the Program
reduced, by over 10 percent, funding for ``* * * management and
administrative support service contractors at the Yucca Mountain Site
Characterization Project Office and Headquarters.'' No reductions were
made in other support service contracts that provide support for
Nuclear Regulatory Commission-required quality assurance verification
and support for preparation and publication of the required
Environmental Impact Statement.
The attachment to my statement provides a more detailed treatment
regarding the objectives of work and progress made in fiscal year 1998
and fiscal year 1999.
application of the fiscal year 2000 budget request
overview
The President's fiscal year 2000 Budget Request for the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management is consistent with the policy
direction provided by Congress in the last several Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Acts. The Program's Budget Request focuses
principally on the activities being conducted by the Yucca Mountain
Site Characterization Project. The Budget Request will fund activities
necessary to complete the final years of the site characterization
program, including:
--Completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement in 2000; and
--The decision, by the Secretary, whether to recommend the site to
the President in 2001 for development of a repository, if the
site is found to be suitable.
Should the President and Congress accept the site recommendation,
the work to be completed in fiscal year 2000 is critical to the
development and submission of a License Application for repository
construction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2002.
yucca mountain
In fiscal year 2000, the funds that will be allocated to the Yucca
Mountain Site Characterization Project will be used to move us beyond
the Viability Assessment, specifically to:
--Continue the necessary scientific and engineering work to complete
the characterization of the Yucca Mountain site;
--Address the remaining uncertainties about the site's ability to
contain and isolate nuclear waste, including completion of some
of the design analyses for the engineered barrier that will
serve, in part, as the basis for the Site Recommendation Report
and License Application (such as structural, shielding,
thermal, criticality, cost, and design basis event aspects);
--Further refine our repository and waste package designs to assist
in the assessment of a repository safety strategy and total
system performance, including updated reports on waste package
materials and waste form characteristics;
--Continue to strengthen our understanding of the expected
performance of the proposed repository's natural and engineered
barriers;
--Evaluate total system performance using updated models to support
development of the Site Recommendation Report and License
Application;
--Complete the public hearings on the draft Environmental Impact
Statement and develop a Comment Response Document that will be
included in the final Environmental Impact Statement;
--Prepare, and issue, the final Environmental Impact Statement for a
Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and
High-level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain; Nye, County
Nevada. Incorporate public comments, as appropriate, on the
draft Environmental Impact Statement; and
--Continue efforts to support the preparation of a high quality,
complete, and defensible Site Recommendation Report and, if the
site recommendation is approved, a License Application.
The plan for fiscal year 2000 and beyond reflects the transition of
the project activities from scientific investigations to data
synthesis, model validation, repository and waste package design, and
safety analysis. Those activities are essential inputs to: (1) the
decision by the Secretary whether to recommend the site to the
President, if the site is found to be suitable; and (2) the submission
of a License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, if the
site is approved for repository development. Near-term priorities will
be on enhanced characterization efforts to develop the remaining
information required to support the Site Recommendation Report and the
License Application. Specific activities for fiscal year 2000 will
focus on:
Core Science.--Core Science includes collection of site
characterization and performance confirmation data from the surface and
subsurface, and testing in the laboratory; environmental data
collection, monitoring, and requirements compliance; site and materials
performance testing; scientific test planning and design; formulation
of scientific hypotheses; modeling and hypothesis testing; development
of scientific information for technical data bases; and completion of
models and synthesis reports that serve as the basis for scientific
descriptions and analyses used in the documentation supporting
remaining major program milestones, including the Site Recommendation
Report and License Application.
Our planned activities in the Core Science area are focused on data
synthesis and documentation, model updating and validation and
continuing performance confirmation efforts to advance our overall
knowledge for the Site Recommendation Report and the License
Application. Specific activities will focus on testing in the
Exploratory Studies Facility, including the Cross-Drift and the drift
scale test; confirmatory field-scale tests; modeling; environmental,
safety and health compliance; and environmental monitoring and
mitigation activities.
Within the Exploratory Studies Facility, we will continue the long-
term drift-scale thermal test that began in December 1997. This test
will allow us to explore how the rock and fluids in a repository system
will behave in the long-term presence of heat generated by radioactive
decay of the emplaced waste. Testing in the Cross-Drift will continue
to collect data on hydrologic properties of the repository horizon
(i.e., fracture-matrix interaction, and fracture flow properties,
particularly of the lower lythopysal unit where approximately 65
percent of the emplacement drifts are expected to be located).
We will refine the geologic process models that underlie the total
system performance assessment models that will support both the Site
Recommendation Report and License Application. Conceptual and numerical
models of flow and transport, the near-field environment, and
repository thermohydrology used in the Viability Assessment will be
updated to reflect scientific data that have been collected since mid-
1998. Saturated zone and unsaturated zone models for flow and
radionuclide transport will be validated for use in the Site
Recommendation Report and License Application. Confirmatory data
collection and long-duration testing will continue.
Confirmatory field-scale tests will continue to support refinement
of near-field environment models. These models involve coupled thermal,
chemical, mechanical, and hydrologic processes and describe how water
could enter emplacement drifts, interact with waste packages, and
transport radionuclides through the engineered barrier system. These
tests support the evaluation of near-field process models that will
directly support the total system performance assessment for the Site
Recommendation Report by reducing and quantifying uncertainty in
calculations of radionuclide releases from the engineered barrier
system. These tests will also confirm predictions of coupled process
behavior in the repository near-field associated with repository
heating.
We will continue to monitor transient seismicity and meteorological
events and moisture movement in the Exploratory Studies Facility and we
will conduct hydrographic monitoring in boreholes. Meteorological data
for use in radiological dose assessments and biosphere modeling will be
collected and airborne transport characteristics monitoring at Yucca
Mountain will continue.
The fiscal year 2000 budget includes $10 million for a cooperative
agreement between the Department and the University and Community
College System of Nevada (UCCSN). The agreement started in fiscal year
1999 and will continue into fiscal year 2002. The principal purpose of
the cooperative agreement is to develop and continue providing the
public and the Yucca Mountain project with an independently derived
body of scientific and engineering data concerning the study of Yucca
Mountain as a potential high level waste repository in support of the
Site Recommendation Report and License Application. Under this
agreement, UCCSN will perform scientific or engineering research, and
develop and foster collaborative working relationships between
government and academic researchers.
In fiscal year 2000, work will focus primarily on research and
evaluation in the areas of seismology and hydrology and improvement of
data retrieval systems to support Program goals. Geodetic measurements
and studies with respect to the strain rate of the earth's crust in the
Yucca Mountain region will be conducted to help determine the
probability of the occurrence and magnitude of seismic events. The
UCCSN will conduct studies related to fluid inclusions with respect to
potential rising of hydrothermal fluids at Yucca Mountain. Under this
task, UCCSN will collect and analyze data and share the results with
federal and State of Nevada scientists. Continuing work on improving
data retrieval systems will explore and enhance record indexing
techniques to provide a better method of tracking and retrieving data
in the records management system in support of the licensing support
system. In addition many smaller tasks will be conducted by UCCSN such
as saturated zone data analysis, long term performance confirmation
monitoring, microbiologically influenced corrosion research and
hydrogen embrittlement testing.
Nye County is drilling a network of boreholes to be used to monitor
the movement of groundwater south of the proposed repository, off the
Nevada Test Site. The county's researchers are establishing the
conditions that exist before repository construction and will use the
network as an Early Warning Monitoring System. We are coordinating with
Nye County to obtain water measurements and water and rock samples from
their drilling program. Cooperative planning has produced a program of
scientific activities that complement the Nye County objectives. We
will conduct chemistry and isotopic analysis of the water; and
paleohydrologic, Eh/redox potential, rare earth and trace element
analysis; and geophysical log interpretations.
Environmental monitoring and compliance activities will continue.
These activities include monitoring air quality and meteorology, water
resources studies, archeological and radiological studies, and
monitoring of ecosystem and socioeconomic indicators. We will maintain
and acquire requisite permits so that uninterrupted site activities may
continue, and we will conduct surveillances, audits and assessments of
site activities to ensure regulatory compliance. Many of these
activities are regulated by statutes and regulations such as the
Endangered Species Act, Comprehensive Environmental response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, and the Clean Water Act.
Design and Engineering.--The Design and Engineering includes three
major areas--Waste Package Development, Repository Design, and Systems
Engineering. Waste Package Development includes two very distinct areas
of engineering activity--waste package design and waste forms and waste
package materials testing. Repository design also includes two distinct
areas--subsurface facilities design and surface facilities design.
Systems Engineering integrates all aspects of design and ensures that
the Monitored Geologic Repository can be constructed as designed, and
will perform safely and efficiently.
The fiscal year 2000 performance measure, associated with the
Government Performance and Results Act, involves deciding on the
reference design that will be presented in the Site Recommendation
Report and License Application. The License Application Design
Selection evaluation now underway, will result in technical
recommendations for repository/waste package designs and options. The
design will, most likely, result in additional features that will
require detailed design analyses prior to the design selection in
fiscal year 2000.
The reference design for the Site Recommendation Report and License
Application will be documented. Design documentation will include
safety and accident analyses and will describe the design in sufficient
detail to show that a repository can be operated safely during waste
emplacement at Yucca Mountain and after all waste packages have been
emplaced (i.e., preclosure period).
Important areas of ongoing design emphasis include: waste package
materials; waste form testing and analyses; waste handling system and
emplacement operations; (i.e., repository concept of operations); a
demonstration of design compliance with codes, standards, and
regulatory requirements (i.e., design verification); assurance that the
technical work being performed within the individual engineering
specialties is integrated (i.e., interface control); and detailed
engineering for these elements of a repository system that show no
similarities to systems licensed previously in commercial nuclear power
plants.
Nuclear waste forms that will be placed in a repository include
spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants, spent nuclear
fuel and high-level waste from the Department of Energy, Naval nuclear
spent fuel, and immobilized plutonium. A repository will be designed to
accommodate the varied size, weight, radioactivity, and heat
characteristics of these materials in the repository. Development of
repository acceptance criteria (e.g., disposal interface
specifications) for noncommercial spent fuel will continue.
Licensing/Suitability/Performance Assessment.--The primary focus in
fiscal year 2000 is to compile the technical documentation that will
comprise the Site Recommendation Report. A draft Site Recommendation
Report will be developed and will be available at the hearings planned
for early fiscal year 2001 to notify the public that the Secretary of
Energy is considering whether to recommend the site to the President.
The final Site Recommendation Report, together with the final
Environmental Impact Statement, and other information required by the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, including the views of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the State of Nevada, will be
considered by the Secretary of Energy in deciding, in early fiscal year
2002, whether to recommend the site to the President.
Development of the License Application for repository construction,
which would be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the
Secretary of Energy, will continue. Before the License Application
would be submitted, we would continue to work with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to resolve procedural and technical issues.
Interactions with the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, and other
external organizations will continue.
The focus of performance assessment activities will be to update
the total system performance assessment models used in the Viability
Assessment, and use them to support development of the Site
Recommendation Report and License Application. The total system
performance assessment models will be refined based on site
characterization information, design information, and feedback from
external organizations (e.g., Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Performance Assessment Peer Review
Panel) acquired during fiscal year 1998 and 1999.
All technical data used for a repository and waste package design,
total system performance assessment, and models for site processes and
conditions must be traceable and electronically retrievable in
accordance with 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J. The latest web-based
technologies will continue to be utilized to ensure that program data
and records are quickly and easily retrievable at the time that the
Secretary of Energy may decide to recommend the site to the President.
NEPA.--The primary focus will be on National Environmental Policy
Act compliance. Activities include completing the public hearings on
the draft Environmental Impact Statement, which will be held
nationally, completing the final Environmental Impact Statement,
including the Comment Response Document, and issuing it in August 2000.
Operations/Construction.--To support collection of scientific data,
we will construct one large test area (alcove) and one smaller test
area (niche) in the Cross-Drift tunnel. We will continue to provide
support services necessary for continued testing in the Exploratory
Studies Facility, the Cross-Drift, and the Busted Butte Test Facility.
These services include providing test set-up, training, and test
facility modification; maintaining and upgrading the ventilation,
electric, and other utility systems; aligning the underground rail
system; providing site and underground security; and providing other
services designed to protect worker health and safety and protect the
environment. We also will support surface based testing by providing
any necessary drilling/coring and well work-over. We will continue to
maintain underground and surface test facilities, vehicles, and
equipment consistent with programmatic and asset management
requirements.
External Oversight and Payments Equal to Taxes (PETT).--We will
continue to support external oversight activities and payments equal to
taxes. External oversight activities consist of financial and technical
assistance to the State of Nevada and affected units of local
government (i.e., Churchill, Clark, Esmeralda, Eureka, Lander, Lincoln,
Mineral, Nye, and White Pine Counties in Nevada and Inyo County in
California). Payments-Equal-to-Taxes are made to the State of Nevada
and Nye, Clark, and Inyo Counties. Payments-Equal-to-Taxes will
increase in fiscal year 2000 due to the increased value of facilities
at the Yucca Mountain site.
Yucca Mountain Project Management.--We will continue to enhance our
critical project management and project control activities, including
planning, budgeting, and scheduling. This will include activities to
ensure that staff are qualified to perform their approved activities,
and trained to perform them safely, and that performing organizations
are provided with the facilities, equipment, information systems, and
support services needed to perform their approved activities.
Project management also includes conducting public information and
outreach programs to ensure open and informative interactions with the
public, technical review organizations, and other program managers. We
will maintain records and ensure technical information is broadly
disseminated to these groups.
International Conference.--In September 1998, Secretary Richardson
announced at the International Atomic Energy Agency's General
Conference that, in 1999, DOE would host a conference on global efforts
to dispose of nuclear materials in geological repositories. The ``DOE
International Conference on Geologic Repositories'' will be held
October 31-November 3, 1999. The purpose is to share results of our
experience and progress and welcome the input of others. Tours of the
Yucca Mountain site and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New
Mexico will be on October 31 and November 3, with the conference taking
place on November 1 and 2, 1999.
waste acceptance, storage, and transportation
In fiscal year 2000, the budget request for the Waste Acceptance,
Storage, and Transportation program area is $6 million. The request
will support the following set of functions:
--Interactions with standard contract holders to discuss how best to
accommodate the delay in the acceptance of spent fuel from
commercial utilities;
--Activities related to generic and non-site specific long-lead time
activities that must precede the removal of spent nuclear fuel
from reactor sites once a federal facility becomes available;
--Interactions with potentially affected parties to plan for the
provision of technical and financial assistance, as required by
Section 180(c) of the NWPA, as amended, to States and Indian
Tribes for emergency response training for public safety
officials through whose jurisdiction shipments of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste will be transported; and
--Preparation of acquisition documents and technical specifications
to facilitate issuance of an RFP for acquisition of waste
acceptance and transportation services from private industry.
program management and integration
The $71 million that we request will support Nuclear Quality
Assurance, Regulatory Compliance, Program Control, and Management
activities.
--$17 million for Regulatory Compliance related activities that
include Nuclear Quality Assurance/Quality Control, the Yucca
Mountain Environmental Impact Statement, and independent
technical validation and verification;
--$18 million for Program Control that includes planning, program
management and control functions, Total System Life Cycle Cost
Report and Fee Adequacy Report preparation, systems engineering
and integration; and
--$36 million for Management functions that include federal salaries,
information technology applications, audits, records
management, and public information.
As noted, the budget request of $71 million supports the
fundamental base program, which support crosscutting programmatic
activities such as strategic and contingency planning; program
monitoring and control; quality assurance; technical oversight, systems
integration; regulatory compliance and integration; human resources and
administration; information resource management; and federal salaries.
Nuclear Quality Assurance.--Our Nuclear Quality Assurance
activities ensure the adequate and appropriate implementation of
federally-mandated Nuclear Quality Assurance requirements related to
radiological health and safety and waste isolation. In fiscal year
2000, we will conduct audits and surveillances on activities performed
by the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project and the Waste
Acceptance, Storage, and Transportation Program; provide support for
the disposition of the Department's nuclear materials (including naval
nuclear spent fuel); and continue to document our compliance with
quality assurance requirements. These activities will support the
development and eventual licensing of nuclear waste storage and
disposal facilities.
Regulatory Compliance.--The Program's Regulatory Compliance
activities focus on ensuring that the activities leading to the
implementation of the waste management system are consistent with the
regulatory guidance and provisions of the Program's governing
authorities. In fiscal year 2000, we will continue to interact on a
proactive basis with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear
Waste Technical Review Board to address key technical issues. We will
continue to transition our focus from the issue of how individual
features of the site perform in isolation, toward the goal of achieving
a common understanding of the issues important to overall repository
performance and the adequacy of proposed methodologies and approaches
to resolution of important technical issues.
These activities are critical to the success of the overall program
as they directly affect the Commission's licensing process. We intend
to continue our dialogue with the Commission on these issues. Following
the issuance of the Viability Assessment, we will continue to engage in
more frequent interactions to address key technical issues.
Program Control/Systems Engineering.--The overall objective of our
systems integration effort is to ensure that the various components of
the federal waste management system (such as transportation services
and procurement activities, and repository and waste package design
activities) are integrated into a single system that is safe,
efficient, reliable, and cost-effective. In fiscal year 2000 we will
ensure that those integration requirements between the various
components of the waste management system will be adequately addressed
and, if necessary, alternative system designs and proposals will be
evaluated with careful attention paid to their effects on system
operations and costs. We have just completed a Total System Life Cycle
Cost Report and Fee Adequacy Report and we will work within the
Department to address a wide range of issues associated with the
acceptance of Department-owned spent nuclear fuel, high-level
radioactive waste, and Naval nuclear spent fuel.
Program Management.--The program is continuing to implement the
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Strategic System Management
Policy. The policy clarifies accountability, responsibility, and
authority. It codifies management policies and requirements. Further,
it provides for a performance-based approach that promotes
accountability across federal and contractor organizations. The
implementation will focus management attention on the identification
and consolidation of overlapping, duplicative, and redundant management
system requirements, processes, and practices necessary to manage the
program.
We will continue to use our information management technology to
improve the productivity of the Program's human resources, drive
process improvements, and reduce overall program costs. We are also
responding to increased demand from Program stakeholders and the public
for easy and timely access to a wide range of information about the
Program. As an example, we made available, through our Internet Home
Page, the Viability Assessment, its companion documents, and all
relevant technical studies/analyses supporting the Viability
Assessment. Interest in these documents has been high. We have received
comments or requests for additional information related to the
Viability Assessment via e-mail from as far away as Australia, Germany,
and the Philippines. Internet access will also be provided to program
documents supporting the Site Recommendation and License Application.
We expect even greater demands for information systems, support, and
services as we move to licensing.
concluding remarks
As I noted in my opening remarks, we have made substantial progress
in the last year and we are appropriately positioned to continue. The
Viability Assessment, as you know, found that there were no ``show
stoppers'' with respect to the site at Yucca Mountain. It laid out the
path forward for the Program. It identified the necessary remaining
scientific and technical work we have to complete and it laid out the
funding profile we require.
We are almost at the end of site characterization. Funding at our
request level will give us the resources required to address the last
remaining questions about the suitability of Yucca Mountain on the
schedule we have laid out. If the site if found suitable, the Secretary
will be in a position then to make a decision about recommending the
site to the President for development as the Nation's repository for
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
I urge your favorable consideration of our appropriation request.
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Fiscal Year 1998-Fiscal Year 1999 Major Program Accomplishments
yucca mountain
During the past year, the Program focused its efforts on the
transition from conducting scientific investigations to data synthesis,
model validation, repository and waste package design, and safety
analysis necessary to develop the Site Recommendation Report, and
License Application. Specifically, we focused on: (1) completing the
Viability Assessment and; (2) completing design and scientific and
performance assessment models to support development of the draft
Environmental Impact Statement.
During the balance of fiscal year 1999, we will see the completion
of several activities and continuation of longer-term efforts. Our
major emphasis will continue to be on implementing the Viability
Assessment Volume 4, License Application Plan and Costs to guide
technical work that will address the remaining uncertainties in support
of a site suitability determination, Site Recommendation Report and
License Application.
Emphasis will be on completing those activities and analyses that
contribute to developing the Site Recommendation Report and drafting
the License Application. These activities and analyses are grouped into
the broad categories of Core Science, Design and Engineering,
Suitability/Licensing, Performance Assessment, NEPA, Operations and
Construction, and the supporting category of Project Management. Each
of these categories plays an important role in assembling a
comprehensive picture of the viability of a repository at the Yucca
Mountain site.
The Viability Assessment.--The Viability Assessment, completed on
schedule in fiscal year 1998, was submitted to the President and
Congress on December 18, 1998. Even before it was released, it was used
as a management tool to focus future work needed to support the
decision on a site recommendation.
Core Science.--The majority of the surface-based testing needed for
licensing has been completed. With completion of the Cross-Drift in the
Exploratory Studies Facility, the focus of underground work will shift
to investigations of the Solitario Canyon fault and to hydrologic and
thermal studies of the upper and lower portions of the repository rock
unit. Testing in the cross drift will provide additional insight into
fracture patterns, potential faults, distinct rock layers, and
hydrologic characteristics of the repository, and the Solitario Canyon
fault. This testing will further reduce uncertainties about the site
and help us better understand processes that are critical to site
suitability and repository construction.
Two additional boreholes (SD-6 and WT-24), to the west and north,
respectively, of the proposed repository block are providing
information on rock properties, deep stratigraphy, and the saturated
zone to support three-dimensional geologic and hydrologic modeling
efforts.
Three tests using electric heaters to simulate heat generated by
radioactive decay of the emplaced waste were designed to yield
important information on how heat affects rock chemistry, rock
mechanics, and site hydrology--and thus repository performance. The
first study, a large-scale underground test, used a single heater to
heat a 25-cubic-meter volume of rock to 212 degrees Fahrenheit (100
degrees Celsius). The second study involved heating a large, discrete,
aboveground block of rock that permitted us to more closely control and
monitor test parameters. The third study approximates an actual waste
emplacement drift--an underground alcove about 50 meters long--will be
heated over several years 392 degrees Fahrenheit (200 degrees Celsius).
In mid-fiscal year 1998, a controlled experiment was initiated to
determine the infiltration rate and travel time through the Tiva Canyon
welded tuff. The test involved a surface infiltration network and a
collection system located in Exploratory Studies Facility Alcove 1
directly below the surface infiltration plot. Monitoring of this
experiment is planned to determine the relationship between
infiltration and drift seepage.
The drift seepage testing program was expanded during fiscal year
1998 and 1999. Pre- and post-excavation air permeability tests were
completed at two niches in the Exploratory Studies Facility.
Concurrently, 40 liquid-release tests were performed in 16 test
intervals to determine the drift seepage threshold flux, which is
defined as the liquid-release rate at or below the level where water
will no longer seep into the drift. These experiments directly feed the
unsaturated zone, drift seepage, and near field models, and are a
critical input to performance assessment simulations.
Matrix and fault flow tests are underway in the Paintbrush Tuff
exposed in Exploratory Studies Facility Alcove 4 to determine how the
presence of a structural break, such as a fault, affects the movement
of water in this medium. Similarly, pneumatic and liquid-release
testing of the densely welded repository unit has been conducted in
support of the Alcove 6 fracture-matrix interaction experiment. Results
from these two experiments will be incorporated into the unsaturated
zone process model and used in the performance assessment.
Hydraulic and transport testing using conservative and reactive
tracers has been completed in the Prow Pass hydrogeologic unit at the
C-Hole complex. Test results from this low-flow zone near the water
table are important because any radionuclides released from a breached
waste package would first encounter this hydrogeologic unit.
Sample collection and analysis of the oxidation-reduction potential
of saturated zone were performed for boreholes WT-17 and WT-3 south and
east of Yucca Mountain. Measurement of this parameter is important to
performance assessment because reducing conditions in the saturated
zone can render radionuclides immobile due to strong sorption
potential.
During the remainder of fiscal year 1999, we will continue
documenting our present understanding of the geologic conditions and
processes at Yucca Mountain, and completing models of geologic and
hydrologic processes in the saturated and unsaturated zones, sufficient
to support the Site Recommendation Report and working draft License
Application. We will continue with the four-year heat-up phase of the
drift-scale heater test. We will continue to collect meteorological,
and other environmental data to support the Environmental Impact
Statement, Site Recommendation Report, and the License Application.
Nye County is drilling a network of boreholes to be used to monitor
the movement of groundwater south of the proposed repository, off the
Nevada Test Site. They are establishing the conditions that exist
before repository construction and will use the network as an Early
Warning Monitoring System. We are coordinating with Nye County to
obtain water measurements and water and rock samples from their
drilling program. Cooperative planning has produced a program of
scientific activities that complement the Nye County objectives. We
will conduct chemistry and isotopic analysis of the water; and
paleohydrologic, Eh and redox potential, rare earth and trace element
analysis; and geophysical log interpretations.
We implemented a cooperative agreement with the University and
Community College System of Nevada to perform scientific and
engineering research, and develop and foster collaborative working
relationships between the government and academic researchers.
Design and Engineering.--We continued to develop and refine
repository design requirements. To this end, several analyses to
substantiate or resolve assumptions related to requirements and
criteria were completed or revised.
A study of design features and design alternatives that will be a
basis for selecting the License Application reference design will be
completed. Features are design enhancements that can be easily
incorporated within multiple alternative designs. Alternatives involve
significant changes to the fundamental design concepts on which the
Viability Assessment was based. Each has the potential for improving
repository performance, simplifying the safety strategy, or both.
The waste package nondestructive examination and weld development
program proceeded with demonstrations of remote welding and successful
nondestructive examinations. A full-diameter mockup of the waste
package made from alloy C-22 and carbon steel (VA Design) was achieved
by shrink-fitting the carbonated barrier around the alloy C-22.
Ultrasonic inspection revealed 100 percent contact between the two
surfaces.
Corrosion testing of candidate waste package materials continued.
Additional specimens were acquired and installed for exposure in the
large chambers maintained under controlled temperatures and humidity
levels. The Project initiated an experimental study for measuring the
composition of the ionic salts as they concentrate on heated metal
surfaces. Testing started on alloy C-22 and titanium specimens under
controlled slow-strain rates. Revision 1, Version 1.3, of the Waste
Form Characteristics Report was completed. This report describes
preliminary degradation process models for use in the site
recommendation and license application performance assessments. The
update for the Engineered Materials Characterization Report was also
completed. This report documents all of the test results and
performance models generated in the past two years.
For the remainder of fiscal year 1999, design and engineering
activities will include the coordination and planning of waste package
and repository surface and subsurface designs; the design and
acquisition of services and equipment for the Cross-Drift in the
Exploratory Studies Facility; preparation and maintenance of design
requirements and design control documents; performance testing; and
development of modeling programs for waste forms and waste packages.
Suitability/Licensing.--Our investigations of the Yucca Mountain
Site have resulted in a substantial understanding of the site, a
preliminary reference repository design, and assessments of the
performance of a repository system. However, additional work is needed
to complete the postclosure safety case, support the preclosure safety
case and support remaining design decisions. The primary focus in
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 is to compile the technical
documentation that will support the Site Recommendation Report.
We significantly refined our analysis for a repository safety
strategy. The strategy relies on engineered barriers, geologic
features, and natural processes to retard movement and prevent releases
of radionuclides to the natural environment and to reduce exposure to
the public.
We completed management plans for both the Site Recommendation
Report and License Application. Our focus for the remainder of fiscal
year 1999 will be to complete development of the working draft License
Application and start a comprehensive review of the draft. We will also
develop a draft of the Site Recommendation Report that will be
available for public review at the consideration hearings. Those
hearings are planned for early fiscal year 2001.
Interactions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will
continue to focus on two objectives. The first is to reach a common
understanding regarding the issues that are significant to overall
repository performance. The second objective is to reach agreement on
the adequacy of proposed methodologies and approaches to address
important technical issues, such as criticality control and seismic
design. The goal is to reach a mutual understanding of a repository
concept as it develops. This understanding will provide bases for
Nuclear Regulatory Commission preliminary comments on the sufficiency
of site characterization and design information for inclusion in a
License Application.
Performance Assessment.--During fiscal year 1998, we completed
development of the Total System Performance Assessment for the
Viability Assessment's (TSPA-VA) supporting technical volume ``Total
System Performance Assessment-Viability Assessment Analysis Technical
Basis Document.'' Site characterization data, design information,
process level modeling results, and opinions elicited from various
experts provided the basis for abstracted component models used in
TSPA-VA. The second and third interim reports from the Performance
Assessment Peer Review Panel were issued in fiscal year 1999.
Recommendations from this panel and those from external organizations
(e.g., the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission) were factored into the development of the TSPA-
VA model.
The TSPA-VA model is being used in fiscal year 1999 as one of the
tools to evaluate various design alternatives and options currently
under consideration. The TSPA-VA model is also being used during the
remainder of fiscal year 1999 to support development of the draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Concurrent with this, activities are
underway to begin refining the abstracted total system performance
assessment component models that will be used to support the final
Environmental Impact Statement, Site Recommendation Report, and License
Application. We have begun to hold a series of workshops where open
issues are identified, discussed, and prioritized. Specific work
activities will be defined based on the outcome of these workshops to
ensure that the issues are addressed in future performance assessment
analyses.
Following completion of these workshops, refinement of the total
system performance assessment abstracted models will commence. The
Performance Assessment Peer Review Panel issued its final report in
February of 1999. Their recommendations and those of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, and other
external groups will be used in the development of refined total system
performance assessment models. The methodology and assumptions that
will be used in future total system performance assessment iterations
will be documented in a report to be issued in July 1999.
NEPA.--In fiscal year 1998, in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act, we began to prepare the draft Environmental
Impact Statement. A management council, which includes representatives
of the Office of Environmental Management, the Office of Environment,
Safety and Health, and the Office of General Counsel, is helping us
provide guidance for developing the draft Environmental Impact
Statement ensuring coordination within the Department of Energy. A
preliminary draft Environmental Impact Statement is undergoing
Departmental review.
In fiscal year 1999, we will complete and issue the draft
Environmental Impact Statement and hold hearings across the nation to
receive public comments.
Operations and Construction.--In fiscal year 1998, the Busted Butte
test facility construction was completed. This facility will enable
scientists to conduct field-scale observations of the Calico Hills
formation. This is the same rock stratum that is located below the
repository.
Also, in early fiscal year 1999, we completed the excavation of the
Cross-Drift in the Exploratory Studies Facility. This drift will give
us access to more of the area near the location where waste might be
emplaced.
In fiscal year 1999, we will continue to support the operation and
maintenance of the Exploratory Studies Facility, including test set up
and training, alcove modification, maintenance and upgrades to
ventilation, electric, and other utility systems, security, and the
protection of health, safety, and the environment. We recently
completed transition to the Integrated Safety Management System. The
Exploratory Studies Facility continues to be monitored for occupational
health compliance with ventilation and air quality requirements for
dust abatement and silica exposure mitigation.
waste acceptance, storage, and transportation
In the Waste Acceptance area, we performed fee verification for
commercial spent nuclear fuel; interacted with other Departmental
offices, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, utilities, and others
concerning nuclear materials safeguards.
A non-site specific centralized interim storage facility Topical
Safety Analysis Report was completed and submitted to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission in fiscal year 1998. That report is currently
under staff review. We have continued interactions with the Commission
staff during the review process. A cold demonstration program of a
prototype spent fuel dry transfer system was initiated in June 1998.
This demonstration program is sponsored jointly by the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management and the Office of Environmental
Management with industry participation. This system can be used by
nuclear utilities with reactors that have limited crane capacities and
are incapable of handling large storage casks. And, we continue to
maintain and update our data base on industry development of storage
and transportation technologies. We continued interaction with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding review of the dry transfer
system topical safety analysis report that had been submitted
previously for Commission consideration.
The Program issued a revised draft RFP to obtain additional
comments on the planned acquisition of waste acceptance and
transportation services, including canisters, transport casks, and
storage modules. The RFP, to address the public/industry comments, was
updated and a notice of availability was published in the Federal
Register in September 1998.
In recognition of our obligations under Section 180(c) of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, which provides for
financial and technical assistance to States and Indian Tribes through
whose jurisdictions the Department plans to ship spent nuclear fuel,
the Program issued, in April 1998, a Notice of Revised Proposed Policy
and Procedures in the Federal Register. The Notice reflected our
consideration of input from the States, local public safety officials
and other interested parties on the proposed implementation procedures.
In fiscal year 1998, we also continued to provide funds through
cooperative agreements to national and regional groups to address
transportation related issues.
program management and integration
Over the past year the Program Management and Integration area
continued to support the activities of the two Business Centers--the
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office and the Office of Waste
Acceptance, Storage, and Transportation.
Nuclear Quality Assurance.--The Office of Quality Assurance
completed the transition and consolidation of the Program's quality
assurance activities in fiscal year 1998. This resulted in more
effective execution of quality assurance activities and provided cost
reductions in implementation. The Office of Quality Assurance supported
the development of the Viability Assessment in fiscal year 1998, and is
providing assistance to Site Recommendation Report activities in fiscal
year 1999. The Office of Quality Assurance is continuing to support the
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating
contractor staff in fiscal year 1999 in the Process Validation and Re-
engineering efforts, which will result in procedural enhancements and
consolidation. The Office of Quality Assurance continues to provide
quality assurance guidance for the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization
Project and the Office of Waste Acceptance, Storage and Transportation.
Program Control/Systems Engineering.--We provided program- and
project-level systems engineering and integration support for the
ongoing Yucca Mountain site characterization, waste package, and
repository design activities and the waste acceptance, storage, and
transportation efforts. We implemented the Interface Management Process
to allow the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office and the Office
of Waste Acceptance, Storage and Transportation and their design and
procurement contractors to effectively control system-level design
interfaces. We worked extensively with Departmental elements
responsible for the government's spent fuel and high-level radioactive
waste to develop waste acceptance criteria that are compatible with the
radioactive waste management system design requirements. We defined
roles and responsibilities concerning the acceptance of Department-
owned spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste and we
completed Memoranda of Agreements with Office of Environmental
Management and the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. We incorporated
immobilized plutonium waste forms into the technical baseline.
We coordinated and integrated the Program's activities with other
Departmental elements regarding the Department's spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste. We continued to develop and implement an
integrated schedule for the Monitored Geologic Repository system, the
Office of Environmental Management, and the Office of Fissile Materials
Disposition.
We continued to conduct systems engineering studies and analyses
and completed a number of studies, including the effects of early
receipt of spent nuclear fuel on the program; impacts of early reactor
shutdown, options for the disposal of site-generated wastes; dual
purpose canister disposability benefit analyses; and the impacts of all
legal-weight truck transportation. We completed work on analyses for
the Total System Life Cycle Cost Report as well as the Fee Adequacy
Report. Those reports were issued as companion documents to the
Viability Assessment. We completed Revision 1 of the Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management Total System Description of the waste
management system as currently envisioned. We have also been actively
working on developing a cooperative agreement with the Russian
Federation to work together on geologic repository issues.
Regulatory Compliance.--We continued to interact regularly with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and Commissioners to address
management and technical issues (e.g., quality assurance, total system
performance assessment, repository and waste package design) and
participated in numerous Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and panel
meetings. We renegotiated the prelicensing agreement that provides
guidelines for communications between the staffs and management
organizations of the Department and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
We supported interagency discussions on the development of the
Environmental Protection Agency radiation protection standard for Yucca
Mountain. In addition, we coordinated and integrated program-related
National Environmental Policy Act, environmental, safety, and health
activities to ensure compliance with Federal and State requirements and
Departmental directives.
Program Management.--We issued Revision 2 of the OCRWM Program Plan
in July 1998. Revision 2 essentially continues the thrust of the draft
1996 revised plan, and identifies strategic objectives for fiscal year
1998--fiscal year 2003, states the assumptions that the plan rests on,
defines measures of success, and provides for contingency planning. It
is intended to serve not only as the foundation of program management,
but as a common framework that all parties can use to evaluate our
progress and shape their own participation in the Program.
We continued the development and implementation of a program wide
information architecture to provide the foundation for the definition,
development, organization, and management of, and access to, all
program data, records, and information systems. Regarding our external
communications, we continued to use our World Wide Web presence to
distribute a variety of program information to interested stakeholders.
Our address is http://www.rw.doe.gov/
Many of the Program's policy and technical documents, including the
Viability Assessment and all of its relevant companion and supporting
documents, are available to the public through our electronic
databases.
During fiscal year 1998, we continued our Y2K compliance efforts by
initiating the assessment and testing of all software applications. We
validated for Y2K compliance and implemented all mission-critical
systems ahead of the Department's stretch goal of January 31,1999.
Assessment of non-mission critical systems is in progress, and we
expect to validate and implement all non-mission critical systems later
in fiscal year 1999.
yucca mountain water migration
Senator Domenici. Senator Reid, do you have any questions?
Senator Reid. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barrett, I have some questions, but because of the
press of the time of the committee and my time, if you would
just respond yes or no, that would be appreciated.
I understand that water poses a risk to long-term
containment of spent nuclear fuel and other high-level
radioactive waste. Do you agree?
Mr. Barrett. Yes.
Senator Reid. I also understand that early on in the Yucca
Mountain project it was thought that it would take more than
1,000 years for surface water to penetrate to repository
depths, is that right?
Mr. Barrett. Some theories say that.
Senator Reid. If no, then how long would those that
disagree say it would take?
Mr. Barrett. It is a physical distribution of how the water
moves, so it is a complex issue. Some of the water can move
very fast, but the majority of the water moves very slowly.
Senator Reid. Okay. Do you agree that scientific evidence
now exists that proves that surface water penetrated to
repository depths in about 40 years?
Mr. Barrett. We have indication that some water has.
Senator Reid. Please, yes or no.
Mr. Barrett. Yes.
Senator Reid. Mr. Barrett, I understand that the water
moves so rapidly to the repository depths, because of what is
called high-speed pathways, is that correct?
Mr. Barrett. I have never heard the words high-speed
pathways.
rock fractures
Senator Reid. Okay. Would you say they are just cracks in
the rocks then?
Mr. Barrett. There are natural fractures in all rock,
including Yucca Mountain, and there are analyses that say water
has been present in some of those fractures in the last 50
years.
Senator Reid. The question is: Why is the rock cracked, and
what are possible things that could generate cracks in massive
rock formations?
Here is the question: Earthquakes are thought to generate
massive deep fissures in the ground, and I suppose then that it
is possible that earthquakes could generate cracks in the rock
around Yucca Mountain. Would you agree to this supposition?
Mr. Barrett. Most of the cracks----
Senator Reid. Can you answer that yes or no?
Mr. Barrett. I cannot, sir.
Senator Reid. Okay. You cannot. Then you would disagree
with my supposition that earthquakes generate cracks in rocks
around Yucca Mountain.
Mr. Barrett. No, I do not disagree with that.
Senator Reid. Okay. You are aware that there is evidence
that the earth around Yucca Mountain is stretching and that the
program there is funding further study of this area, is that
true?
Mr. Barrett. That is true.
Senator Reid. Could stretching like this also generate
cracks in the rock around Yucca Mountain?
Mr. Barrett. Yes.
Senator Reid. Is it true that earthquakes are normally
proceeded by stretching and distortion of the earth?
Mr. Barrett. Yes.
earthquake threats
Senator Reid. Because the Yucca Mountain region experiences
the third highest frequency of earthquakes in the United
States, I suppose that it is not surprising to see that
significant stretching and distortion of the earth is there,
would you agree, yes or no?
Mr. Barrett. I cannot. There is some. It is a relative
thing. Yes, there is stretching at Yucca Mountain----
Senator Reid. Okay. That is the question.
Mr. Barrett [continuing]. But we do not believe that
stretching is causing any of the fractures that have to do with
the water infiltration.
Senator Reid. That is your opinion.
Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir.
Senator Reid. Okay. So we have agreed on a number of things
here this morning. What I cannot understand, and what I believe
you should not tolerate, is the dismissal of the threat of
earthquakes to the performance of the repository. Water is the
worst threat to containment.
It is reaching repository depths many times faster than
expected, because of cracks in the rock. There may be some
dispute as to how the cracks got there, but everyone
acknowledges that water is getting there quicker and quicker.
Earthquakes and their associated distortion can proliferate
these cracks, leading to greater amounts of water reaching the
repository faster. So I would say that the cracks, however they
get there, would pose a threat to the repository performance,
is this true or false?
Mr. Barrett. The way that question was put together, I
would say that is false.
Senator Reid. Okay. Can you extend this argument to the
rate at which uncontained radioactivity reaches the
groundwater?
Mr. Barrett. Could you say that again?
Senator Reid. Yes. If there is an argument that the water
can reach where the containment is, would you agree that
radioactivity would follow the path of water?
Mr. Barrett. Radioactivity will go with the water. There
are different layers from the surface to the Yucca Mountain
repository horizon and from that the horizon down to the
saturated zone below it. There are different scenarios.
Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. It seems to me, since I have 20 minutes
before I have to leave, that I can still yield to you for a
couple of questions.
Senator Campbell.
storage of waste at rocky flats
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my opening
statement I did mention this rumor I had heard that DOE was
talking about putting temporary tent storage at Rocky Flats,
and I appreciated Mr. Owendoff's commitment that we are going
to finish that up and get it cleaned up by 2006. We have kind
of pushed that date back a few times, as you know.
But I also mentioned that our communities are just going to
rebel at that thought of temporary storage, and I wanted to
tell you that my reaction will also be somewhat near nuclear. I
would like your comment on that, if that is true or not, that
they intend to store any hazardous or radioactive material in
tents.
Mr. Owendoff. Senator Campbell, I think your concern and
your angst are also shared by Secretary Richardson, which he
has testified on----
Senator Campbell. He will be testifying before another
committee this afternoon, Interior Appropriations, and I will--
--
Mr. Owendoff. So you will hear firsthand----
Senator Campbell. You bet.
plutonium oxide stabilization
Mr. Owendoff [continuing]. Senator. We are in a box. We
believe that it is necessary to continue the stabilization of
the plutonium oxides that are at Rocky Flats. An option for us
is to not stabilize those oxides that ultimately will go down
to WIPP.
So the approach that we are taking is, we want to continue
the progress on stabilizing those oxides and putting them in
containers. These are very robust containers that are used to
transport waste to WIPP. Then what we are looking at are
options that, if for some reason WIPP does not open in a timely
fashion this year, that we will have places to put those
containers.
Now, one option that we are looking at is putting those
containers in an existing facility. If we put them in an
existing facility, then that would delay when we would be able
to decontaminate and demolish that existing facility.
Another option would be some temporary storage--I know they
are referred to as tents, but they are not like the tents my
boy is in over in Saudi Arabia right now. They are fabric
structures, with a concrete or paved floor in them.
We believe that can be an appropriate option, at a very,
very low-dollar cost. We realize, though, that the message that
that can send is that we are temporarily storing the waste, but
it is not concrete structures or long-term storage. In the
balance, though, Senator, we believe that is an appropriate
approach.
additional workload at rocky flats
Senator Campbell. Well then, I just have to tell you, Mr.
Chairman, as a member of this committee or the full committee,
I intend to try and put language in our appropriations bill
that prevents that from being stored in anything that I would
describe as a tent or temporary storage.
Let me also ask you this, if we are committed to trying to
get that cleaned up by 2006, why are we adding more work to it?
It is my understanding that the Department has asked Savannah
River, as an example, to develop plutonium canisters, and now
Rocky Flats has been told that they will have to do that.
If we are going to close it up by 2006, why are we adding
to the workload, which would tend to push the closure back
further?
Mr. Owendoff. I think if we look at the whole picture with
Rocky Flats, we are asking many of the other sites to accept
material from Rocky Flats, so we have asked Savannah River to
accelerate when they would receive these plutonium oxides.
There are certainly some increased costs that Savannah River
has experienced as a result.
Senator Campbell. I know very simply this, that you are
going to add to the workload. Can we get a commitment that it
is not going to add to the time frame by which it will be
closed?
Mr. Owendoff. That is our commitment, Senator, and what my
disappointment is, whatever information that your staff may
have gotten from the contractor was, that they did not relate
to you the reductions in cost that we have been achieving. So
all you have been seeing is more and more, but we have been
receiving significant reductions in costs, which we are going
to continue some $70 million----
Senator Campbell. Well, it is not only the money, I am
concerned about time frame, too.
Mr. Owendoff. I am going out this evening, Senator
Campbell, to Rocky Flats to talk about this.
transuranic waste
Senator Campbell. All right. One last question, do you
agree with New Mexico, there is one type of waste called
transuranic waste, and it is my understanding that we have
asked for--the President's budget is a pretty healthy
commitment, but there is only one place where that waste is
developed, and that happens to be at Rocky Flats, and there are
different kinds, some radioactive, some not hazardous, and so
on, that will eventually go to WIPP, but does that mean that
there will be any additional parts of that monies that will be
going to Rocky Flats, since that is the only place where this
stuff called TRU is developed?
Mr. Owendoff. Senator, Rocky is not the only place that
has----
Senator Campbell. Oh, it is not.
Mr. Owendoff [continuing]. TRU waste. Los Alamos, Savannah
River, Hanford, Oak Ridge have TRU waste.
lawsuit at wipp
Senator Campbell. Well, that takes care of that question.
The last thing is that in the State of New Mexico we have this
ongoing lawsuit. What is your agency doing to try and help the
state resolve the outstanding problem so it can be opened?
Mr. Owendoff. Well, the key date is next Tuesday, when
Judge Penn here in the District Court is going to rule on the
injunction, and I believe at that time we will have a clearer
picture, Senator.
Senator Campbell. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate you allowing me to ask those questions.
Senator Domenici. Thank you. Senators Murray and Craig,
could I just impose on you? I have not asked any questions yet,
and I must go up to the sixth floor and finish the budget
markup in 15 minutes.
I would like to ask a few questions, and then if one of you
want to stay beyond that for your questions, you are free to do
that.
Senator Craig, of course, you are on the committee. It
would be good if you could maintain the committee functioning
for a while. Senator Murray has to leave when I leave, right?
Senator Murray. Yes.
Senator Domenici. So why don't you take a minute or two
right now. You said you needed two.
hanford site budget
Senator Murray. Just a couple of quick questions, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
Obviously, the Hanford budget is critical for those of us
in Washington State, and I was pleased to see the President's
budget with an additional $100 million. I hope this committee
can support it. Mr. Owendoff, can you just quickly tell us what
that additional funding will be for?
Mr. Owendoff. Yes, ma'am. The portion of that additional
money going to Hanford will be used to support tank waste
operations, the Plutonium Finishing Plant operations, and work
at K Basins.
tank waste remediation system privatization
Senator Murray. Now, let me ask you about the TWRS, or the
tank waste remediation system privatization request. This is
something I have worked hard on, and Congress has been
reluctant in the past to fully fund that. Can you tell us what
will happen if Congress does not fund that?
Mr. Owendoff. There are two things, Senator Murray. One is
the $106 million for the 2000 budget request, and the other is
the funds that we are requesting for the advanced
appropriation.
The reason that we are requesting advanced appropriation is
we believe that that will add to the confidence of the
commercial lenders, as we go through the next 24 months of
developing the design and the financing package for TWRS. This
will give confidence to the lenders that we are serious about
this project and in support of this project.
As you well know, in the past our record has been somewhat
spotty as far as large projects having support, continued
support, so we use this as a method to get that continued
support and drive down those costs.
hanford site manager
Senator Murray. Thank you. Finally, we have to get an
experienced innovative site manager at Hanford. Can you tell me
when the Department is going to appoint somebody?
Mr. Owendoff. The Secretary indicated that it was his goal
to try to get a manager by the end of this month for Hanford. I
know that is difficult and challenging, but that is----
Senator Murray. We are waiting for it. Thank you.
Mr. Owendoff. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Well, I have a very,
very long series of questions. I obviously will not get them
done, but I will submit them to both of you.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, because of the time I did not
ask questions of James Owendoff. I would ask permission to be
able to submit those in writing to him.
Senator Domenici. Without objection.
estimated cost of cleanup
Senator Domenici. Maybe 2 weeks to respond, is that fair
enough for you-all? Okay. What is the current estimate, Mr.
Owendoff, to clean up the waste generated by nuclear weapons
activities in the past years, and how long will it take to
complete the cleanup.
Mr. Owendoff. Our estimate, based on analysis that came in
last June, Senator, is $147 billion, and that is our projection
through year 2070. We will have an update to that this summer,
where we will update those numbers. The good news of that
effort that we see, is we go down by each site, project by
project at each site, and understand the scope and the costs.
Senator Domenici. How does this estimate, even though you
are going to update it, how does it compare to previous
estimates, and what is the reason for the difference, if there
is one?
Mr. Owendoff. We have had in the past, where the estimates
have been $200 billion, $300 billion.
The difference is that I think we have looked at some
realistic cleanup goals, what needs to be cleaned up, what
material needs to be disposed of, and what are those
technologies that do that. So there is a whole series of things
that we can certainly share for the record on those.
[The information follows:]
Comparison of Cost of DOE Cleanup With Previous Estimates
In 1995 and 1996, as requested by Congress, the Department
developed its first estimates of life-cycle cost and schedule for the
remaining EM cleanup effort. These Baseline Environmental Management
Reports (BEMRs) described the estimated scope of the EM program. The
1996 report stated that, as a mid-range estimate, the program would
cost approximately $230 billion (constant 1996 dollars) spent over a
70-year period, using certain assumptions about funding levels,
productivity, and land use in developing the estimate.
The Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure report issued in June
1998 reported a life-cycle cost estimate of $147 billion. The $147
billion life-cycle estimate was adjusted to form the basis of EM's
portion in the Department's fiscal year 1998 Annual Financial Report
for fiscal year 1998 estimate, which was determined to be about $145
billion.
The primary reasons for the difference between BEMR and Paths to
Closure can be attributed to the fact that BEMR: (1) included costs for
both ``legacy'' waste associated with historical nuclear weapons
production and nuclear related activities, and newly generated wastes;
(2) included costs for the eventual transfer of DOE facilities not
currently in the Environmental Management program; and (3) in some
cases, used different end-state assumptions than Paths to Closure.
Paths to Closure addresses a somewhat different scope. For example,
Paths to Closure includes costs for legacy waste cleanup but not newly
generated wastes, and excludes costs for any facilities not currently
in the Environmental Management program. Additionally, Paths to Closure
reflects improved estimates for a number of projects and improvements
in efficiency in accomplishing the same or comparable activities,
thereby lowering total life-cycle costs of the program. In addition,
$145 billion representing EM's portion of the fiscal year 1998
environmental liability statement reflects future estimated costs
starting in fiscal year 1999, while the 1996 BEMR estimates costs
beginning in fiscal year 1996.
level of cleanup
Senator Domenici. All right. What level of cleanup is
assumed in the 2006 plan? Is the Department assuming a mid-
level cleanup or maximum cleanup in this plan?
Mr. Owendoff. Mr. Chairman, we look at each site
individually. The key is what is the land use. In the case of
the Mound facility in Ohio, we are looking at industrial
standards. For the Fernald site in Ohio, it is open space. For
Rocky Flats, it is also open space. So there is a difference
between the industrial, open space, versus residential
standards.
Senator Domenici. Is there any contention by anyone in
litigation or at the local level that says that approach is not
valid?
Mr. Owendoff. I think we will always see some concern and
some discussion back and forth on what the appropriate future
land use should be. Certainly, there are local governments and
communities that are concerned, just as there are on Superfund
sites, that if you do not clean them up to background levels,
that that might encumber the use in the future. But we believe
there is a reasonable tradeoff that needs to be discussed.
Senator Domenici. Well, I, for one, want to make my
observations part of the record at this point. I am convinced
that we are going to have to do some work on better defining
the risks of radioactive levels, and that we will not be able
to meet our cleanup goals if we leave the standards as they
are.
They are all based on some linear extraction. There is no
real research, although we just started now with some real
research on that aspect of the danger of low-level
radioactivity. I want you to know we will try to support you
with reference to its different--the standard could be
different, if you have industrial sites or if you have open
space, as compared with residential, otherwise, we are never
going to get some of these sites cleaned up. We will just sit
there and spend money forever.
fusrap sites
There is a little known program, it has kind of a funny set
of letters, F-U-S-R-A-P, FUSRAP. Now, Congress gave the program
to the Corps of Engineers with an assignment to take on a few
of these cleanup sites and see if they could make better
progress than we have been doing. Do you have a report or
something to tell us about how they are doing?
Mr. Owendoff. The Corps of Engineers, Mr. Chairman, to my
understanding, has submitted a report. It has not been our
task, nor has the Congress asked us to oversee the----
Senator Domenici. No. I am certainly not asking you to do
that. You have enough to oversee.
Mr. Owendoff. In answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, I
do not.
Senator Domenici. Okay. I would like the committee to know
that while this is a small program, it very well might point to
some approaches where the Corps of Engineers might be able to
come along, and rather than take as long as the Department of
Energy takes, for some reason, whatever they are, they seem to
be making some headway and they are happy with their
assignment. So, we will get a report from the Corps.
Mr. Owendoff. Mr. Chairman, if I could just comment just on
that. As we have seen, certainly on Rocky Flats and the others,
there is a necessary integration across the complex for
materials, and to make things happen. FUSRAP was very
straightforward--get material from one place and dispose of it.
Senator Domenici. Well, nonetheless, it appears that you
were not able to get it done as quickly as they have.
Mr. Owendoff. I think we can demonstrate that we are doing
that.
twrs privatization project
Senator Domenici. Good. I hope so. I understand that the
requirement for budget authority for the TWRS privatization
project increases from $106 million this year, to $600 million
in 2001, and $660 million in 2002. Am I correct, and if so,
what will the impact be on the project, if the committee is
unable to provide the additional budget authority? What options
do you have?
Mr. Owendoff. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we will have a
limited number of options, because trying to stretch this
project out is really going to be very difficult. We have had
to make commitments in the past down at Savannah River in
building a high-level waste vitrification plant, and I believe
we need to do the same thing in Hanford.
Let me state, though, Mr. Chairman, quickly, we are looking
at a range of alternatives of financing and approaches, so we
will be coming back to the committee over the next 2 years and
sharing with you that range. So we are not going to give you
just one price.
funding requirements for fiscal year 2001
Senator Domenici. For all the programs, how much is your
2001 over baseline assumptions?
Mr. Owendoff. We do have a significant problem. Those
estimates will be coming in to us in May, Mr. Chairman, but I
know we have some challenges in 2001.
Senator Domenici. So, your funding requirement is going to
be up substantially, right, is that what you are saying?
Mr. Owendoff. That is what I am hearing from the field, but
I do not have dollars. I would normally anticipate that that is
what the field----
Senator Domenici. I would very much appreciate it if in
your response to questions you would try to give us a better
handle on what that might be.
Mr. Owendoff. I understand.
epa groundwater standard
Senator Domenici. Let me just ask two questions about Yucca
Mountain, please. As we understand, there is not just one
standard you are trying to meet, there is an EPA standard for
Yucca Mountain, and it includes a separate groundwater
standard, is that not correct, Mr. Barrett?
Mr. Barrett. EPA is still developing their standard, and
they have not yet submitted one for agency review, but they are
considering including a groundwater standard, as well as an all
pathway standard.
Senator Domenici. Well, whether it is final or not, you are
certainly part of the mix that is looking at what standard they
are thinking of setting, are you not?
Mr. Barrett. We would have to demonstrate through science
and technology that we could meet whatever the legally
promulgated standard would be, and that would be the EPA
standard which goes to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, who
would then oversee us. So yes, we would have to meet whatever
it is.
Senator Domenici. Well, are you participants in trying to
help decide what the right standard is? Does DOE just sit on
the sideline and watch that occur?
Mr. Barrett. No, sir. DOE provides technical information on
what we know about Yucca Mountain. The EPA will do the
judgment, as to what should be the appropriate environmental
safety standard for the country under the statute, but we
provide scientific information on what science can and cannot
do.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Barrett, it seems to me when you were
testifying, although you were not using a lot of words, because
the questioner wanted you to be brief, you do not have to be
quite so brief to me when I ask you a question. How could you
give the estimates that you were giving of the possible success
of Yucca when you must admit that whether we could meet the
standards at all will depend upon what standard the EPA
determines to be the appropriate standard with reference to
groundwater. They could set a standard, could they not, that
would make it impossible for Yucca to proceed?
Mr. Barrett. That is correct, sir.
Senator Domenici. From what you hear, they are moving in
the direction that may very well have that standard, is that
correct?
Mr. Barrett. I expect that there will be a range of
requirements for an EPA standard. Some of those may not be
achievable, some of those may be achievable.
groundwater contamination
Senator Domenici. Now, whether I like the standard or not,
it just does not make any difference. They are charged with
doing it, and that then yields to a very serious question, what
do your models tell you about when and how much radioactive
material, whatever the contaminant level is, will reach the
groundwater under Yucca Mountain, and are these levels of
concern to you?
Mr. Barrett. In our viability assessment report, which was
the reference at the time last year, we had estimates to when
that would be. We did not expect to see any contamination off-
site at Yucca Mountain for several thousand years.
Nominally, at 10,000 years we expected to see, based on our
probabilistic projections, around .1 millirem per year to a
person who drank the water, had a garden, had cows; essentially
was exposed to all pathways. We believe that that is not an
unreasonable exposure to the person, and that is what we had
there.
Now, we do not know what the standard is. The standard will
be duly promulgated, and we will compare the performance of
Yucca Mountain against that standard, and that will be the
criteria of----
Senator Domenici. Could you tell us just quickly, how much
does that .1 millirem--how do you compare that with what an
average person gets daily in the United States?
Mr. Barrett. It is a small fraction of the annual
background. It is a small percentage, very small.
Senator Domenici. I am going to leave now, but I would like
to do this, since Senator Allard has been here so long, I would
like to--Senator Gorton, did you have some comment you would
like to make?
Senator Gorton. Could I ask one very brief question----
Senator Domenici. Yes.
hanford site budget
Senator Gorton. Mr. Owendoff, the Administration, it seems
to me, has come up with a much better and realistic Hanford
budget this year. Our note, however, is that even at over a
billion dollars it is a relatively modest $23 million short of
the legal requirements of the Tri-Party Agreement. Is that the
case, in your view, and if so, how do you propose to keep to
the legal requirements of that agreement?
Mr. Owendoff. Senator Gorton, certainly, if one looks at
what the estimated funding needs are for all the various
projects, there is some dollar amount on some projects, but I
think, as you pointed out, when one looks at a billion dollars,
there are some abilities to defer some things. But these we
need to discuss with the regulators and the stakeholders,
because everybody is engaged with the budget.
So, I think there are some things that are not legally
required that we could defer to accomplish, legally required
activities. There's also the ability for us to get some prices,
some lower prices than what we anticipated, so I think as one
works through the year, that's where these----
Senator Gorton. But you are committed to meeting all of the
legal requirements of that agreement.
Mr. Owendoff. Yes, Senator.
Senator Gorton. Okay. That is all I have. Thank you very
much, Mr. Chairman.
waste isolation pilot plant
Senator Domenici. I would like to make one last comment. I
note the presence of Senator Craig. He has a genuine interest
in the status of WIPP, because of transuranic waste that is in
his state.
I would just say, we have a governor, he is elected by the
people, he was elected by a very huge majority last time, and
he is insisting that the environmental department of the State
of New Mexico issue a permit before any materials are moved to
our state.
In addition, New Mexico cannot proceed any faster when
there is a temporary injunction placed against them by a court,
so everyone has their version of what they will not do.
However, I think the reality is that New Mexico and WIPP may
not be able to be open, because of one or other of these issues
that I have just raised, I hope not, and I think that everybody
will have to sit down and talk sensibly about that in the event
that that is the case.
I do believe that we are not far away from an opening date,
but we have said that before; although, this judge is going to
decide this coming Tuesday. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, I hope we are not far away
from the opening date. There is another date that is important,
the legal commitment date created by a court between DOE and
the State of Idaho to begin to move transuranic waste out of
Idaho. That date is April 30 of this year, so I will be
pursuing that question in a few moments. There are time lines
out there, and the governor of the State of Idaho will act, no
question about it, if that agreement is violated.
He will have to act, for all the political reasons that
Senator Reid, and I, and others become so exorcized about
nuclear materials. The new governor of Idaho will have to
respond, so I will pursue that question. There are time lines
out there. The governor of New Mexico has an obligation to his
people, but so does the governor of Idaho.
Senator Domenici. I understand. I do not know that anybody
is going to violate a Federal district court order, that is all
I am saying. The judge will decide on Tuesday, and I am very
hopeful that he decides that we have done everything that we
were supposed to do. I have every reason, having been briefed,
that that will happen.
Senator Craig. Good.
rocky flats site
Senator Domenici. My final comment is, Rocky Flats is doing
so well. I think it would be interesting for you, if you can,
to do an absolute analysis of what it is doing better than the
other sites.
There are certain characteristics about what is going on
there that seem to me are not going on in some of the other
sites, both as to local communities efforts and agreements with
the states, and also with reference to management and the
company doing the work. I mean everything seems to be just
perfect. The match seems very, very good. It is not so
elsewhere.
Mr. Owendoff. If I could, just as a second, I think if you
look at Weldon Springs, in Missouri, Fernald, in Ohio, Mound,
in Ohio, I think you will see that those are preceding Rocky
Flats, and we are making progress, they are closing.
If you look at Weldon Springs, all the buildings are down.
The pads are gone. The disposal cells should be finished up in
2 years. Mound will be 2 years behind it. We are using those
experiences to help us with the integration work at Rocky, so I
believe we are not just waiting for Rocky to happen all at
once.
I think we are demonstrating that we are making progress at
these sites, as well as making progress at the larger sites,
like I mentioned at Hanford, taking the projects that were
costing us $20 million down to $1 million by taking out the
nuclear materials, getting the cost of the monitoring that is
required down. So I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we are making
demonstrable progress.
Senator Domenici. Thank you. Maybe we can spend a little
less money if you are being so successful.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
I will proceed with the hearing, and in doing so, I will
turn to my colleague from Colorado, who has waited here
patiently. Do you wish to make any comments or ask questions
before I make my comments and follow-up with questions?
rocky flats funding
Senator Allard. I again want to thank the chairman of this
committee for his support in my efforts to get Rocky Flats
cleaned up as soon as possible. The target date right now is
2006. I also want to recognize the efforts of your Secretary
and my secretary for working to make sure that we have extra
dollars in there, in this year's budget. I do recognize that. I
personally thank him for that.
I realize there are a lot of challenges, and I am heartened
to hear that there is some optimism about the way the project
is moving along. But there are a few things that I think I must
raise just as a concern, because this is a number one priority,
as far as I am concerned, for Colorado.
I think it has gone on entirely too long, and I know that
you do have interests in other states that have similar
concerns, but my bottom line is that we could sure hold this
out as an example of how sites could be cleaned up, and I think
really by doing that could help your program and your
assurances to other Americans who have similar problems that
these things can happen.
I do have a couple of follow-up questions that my
colleague, Senator Ben Campbell, asked you, and I want to
recognize his efforts and help also in a public way in helping
to get Rocky Flats cleared up.
additional work requirements
But recently you suggested that the Rocky Flat site team
might be crying wolf about the effects of added scope
requirements on its budget, and you further inferred that Rocky
Flats failed to acknowledge benefits and/or additional funding
somehow obtained from other sites, and my colleague, Senator
Campbell, was coming up to that question and did not quite ask
it directly like I have. I wonder if you might explain where
these additional funds came from, and if you could be specific,
I would appreciate it.
Mr. Owendoff. Let me just take a step back, Senator Allard,
if I may. If we look at where we were 3 years ago, we were in a
situation at Rocky where we did not know where much of the
spent nuclear materials would go--where the plutonium materials
that were there would go. There was some general ideas, but we
did not have a pathway.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. Owendoff. It was at that time that we said, within the
Environmental Management budget, let us take on a man-on-the-
moon goal, what can we do in 10 years for the whole complex,
not just Rocky. I'll get to Rocky specifically, but we said,
what can we do across the complex.
We were very sensitive that both the Congress as well as
the American people are not going to be satisifed with $6
billion a year for the next 70 years. That just will not
happen.
Now, by taking that goal on we could not demonstrate what
are all the activities that we are going to have to put in
place to meet the 2006 goal, just like we did in the man-on-
the-moon program, but we said, if we do not challenge ourselves
there, then for sure we will never get there. Some of the
things since then that have taken place are, we have moved
highly enriched uranium to Oak Ridge, we have moved plutonium
pits, the useable material, to Pantex, and there will be some
materials that will be utilized at Los Alamos.
Also, we have accelerated removal of one material which
will go to Savannah River to be processed, some of the higher-
grade oxides. In fact, we have even modified an existing
facility. Instead of waiting for a brand new facility, we
looked and we modified a current facility for the storage of
those materials that allowed us to have that acceleration.
Now, when we looked at Rocky Flats, we said the biggest
thing that is costing us in the way of, let us say steady-state
expenses, is the amount that it takes to keep it running as
well as the safeguards and----
Senator Allard. Securities.
Mr. Owendoff [continuing]. Securities. Exactly right. So
the quicker we can get those down, then the greater savings
that--I mean more money can go into cleanup, the less money has
to go into the safeguards and securities.
By the way, I have a very cooperative working relationship
with Jesse Roberson and with Bob Carr, so we are not in an
adversarial relationship. In fact, as I mentioned to Senator
Campbell, I am going out this evening and will spend all day
tomorrow at Rocky Flats, and one of the things that we are
looking at is the contractor, Kaiser Hill, who has submitted a
baseline for closing Rocky in 2010.
We know that there are opportunities then to then pull that
closure date to 2006, and what we want to do is to strategize
to ensure that there are not other opportunities for us to have
higher confidence to bring those costs down--and bring that
project in.
Senator Allard. So your bottom line is, by facilitating the
disposal of some of the more radioactive material there earlier
on, that is where the cost savings comes down----
Mr. Owendoff. Yes.
Senator Allard [continuing]. And then consequently, you are
asking for additional responsibilities for Rocky Flats to
assume. I think my colleague mentioned the containers. So you
are saying, well, we have that, we expect to absorb those other
costs, is that what you are saying?
Mr. Owendoff. Well, let me state this. The one reason that
Kaiser Hill requested that they be allowed to have the contract
to purchase the containers is, they were going to be purchased
by Savannah River, the receiving site----
Senator Allard. I see.
Mr. Owendoff [continuing]. But Kaiser Hill said, we believe
that is an integral part in the mechanics of our business. When
would Rocky Flats receive them, would the containers be on
spec, and things like that. So what they have asked is that
they be able to take over the procurement responsibility.
Now, I certainly realize that from a funding standpoint, I
am the one that has to make some balances across the complex
and to understand where we are. I believe that we held flat
funding, our request had been $625 million, as you mentioned.
It was ``plussed up'' within the Congress.
Even though we had some small increases, we held to that
amount, and we had some tough choices across the complex. So we
believe that by requesting at the higher level in the 2000
budget request, doing that, that we had provided some increases
from where our plan was last year.
Senator Allard. There is some disagreement, I think,
between Kaiser Hill, maybe, on this, and maybe we can get to
the bottom of that. We will work on that. We will work with you
and we will work with them and see just exactly what is
happening there.
alternatives for storage at rocky flats
The scope changes have started eating into some of these
efficiency savings for some money that would be spent on
accelerated closure into funding. Scope changes, for example,
the accelerated demolition of buildings 771 and 779 is being
put in danger, because money for the demolition of these sites
is instead of being used for the purchase of the--that is what
we talked about, was the 997--and the building of the tents
now. Are you aware of how much money would be saved yearly if
we could get these buildings down?
Mr. Owendoff. I do not have in my head, Senator Allard----
Senator Allard. Does $60 million sound okay to you or close
to range?
Mr. Owendoff. Well, that is a lot of things. If we look at
the construction of facilities, we are talking in the $3
million to $4 million for potentially additional temporary
storage, but I think what is key there is, how much would we
build, what would it look like.
My preference is that we would continue on with the
demolition of a facility and not try to use it as temporary
storage, because I believe that the other alternatives are a
very cheap way to go. The fabric structures are very cheap,
Senator.
costs associated with delay in opening wipp
Senator Allard. Could you tell me the hidden costs of WIPP
not opening on time, as they would apply to Rocky Flats?
Mr. Owendoff. We are working on what those costs are. I do
not believe that they are significant through this year. As
long as we can get WIPP open within this year, they are not
significant costs, but once we go beyond this fall, that is
when we have to start making the commitments on some additional
temporary storage, because we believe that it is prudent to
continue stabilizing the oxides, and we need to have some place
to store those containers.
shipping non-mixed waste to wipp
Senator Allard. Well, I think my colleague shares the
concern, the Idaho delegation and Colorado delegation have the
same concern about the WIPP. We spent over $2.1 billion, and
then we are not putting anything in there. It seems crazy, to
me, to ask the taxpayers to do that, and I think that it is
important that we get that open as soon as possible, and try to
work on this.
We have reviewed some of the law, and whatnot, and I would
appreciate a yes or no answer on this. Does DOE have the
authority to ship straight, non-mixed, that's the transuranic
waste, to WIPP, without the State of New Mexico approval?
Mr. Owendoff. Let me submit that, because I want to make
sure we have the current injunction. You did not refer to the
injunction----
Senator Allard. No, I did refer to the----
Mr. Owendoff [continuing]. You referred to the State of New
Mexico.
Senator Allard [continuing]. Because I am going to cite you
a specific reference in law, that reads like this, and it is my
reading of RCRA, and as long as you are not mixing stuff with
it you do not have to go for a RCRA permit. It is 42 USCA,
6903(27), that states, ``Solid waste does not include special
nuclear or by-product material, as defined in the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954.'' If, in fact, the material at Rocky Flats falls
within the definition of this, then it would not require a
state RCRA permit, would it not?
Mr. Owendoff. It should not, if there are not hazardous
materials.
Senator Allard. Right. If it is just straight material, it
goes out. If it is not mixed, it can go right to the State of
New Mexico, and there should not be any ability for the State
to prevent it from going there, should there?
Mr. Owendoff. I am not trying to defend the State, but let
me tell you that from what the State has said is, we need to
ensure that that, indeed, is non-mixed, that there are no
hazardous contaminants in it. So even though we would say it is
non-mixed, New Mexico has indicated we need to have some
assurances on why it is non-mixed.
Senator Reid. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Owendoff. Yes, I would be glad to.
Senator Reid. If the reasoning of New Mexico is right,
Nevada ears' should be perked up real loud, because if New
Mexico can keep it out on that basis, by having the
environmental agency of the state say it cannot come in, Nevada
should be able to do the same thing.
Senator Allard. A reasonable argument.
Mr. Owendoff. Yes.
Senator Allard. It just seems to me that we are letting
some unnecessary delays occur here, and I just wanted to press
that point in a public way, because I think it is an important
point.
Mr. Owendoff. Senator Allard, if I may, I think this is, as
we were talking about, in general, how do we accelerate things,
and the ideas--several years ago we would look at and felt we
were going to have a RCRA permit for WIPP, and that there would
be no need to have to try to send just non-mixed, or straight
radioactive material, without any hazardous constituents.
However, one of the things that we looked at to be able to
accelerate activities is, let us go through and only ship non-
mixed waste, rather than waiting until we did have the RCRA
permit, so that we could continue with shipment of the
material. So we looked at--that was not on our initial
baseline.
Senator Allard. My understanding is that we have non-mixed
waste, and we would like to get it out, get it moving.
Mr. Owendoff. That is correct. That is correct.
Senator Allard. I want to thank the committee and the
chairman for his indulgence. I have some other questions, but I
would like to submit those to you, and if they would fall under
the deadline of the committee for response, I would appreciate
it.
I wanted to make my major points here, and Mr. Chairman,
you graciously allowed me to do that, and I thank you very
much. We continue to look forward to working with you, and we
are going to continue to push for the closing of 2006. Thank
you.
Mr. Owendoff. Thank you, Senator Allard.
Senator Craig. Senator, thank you very much. We share some
common interests, and I am pleased you could be here this
morning to ask those questions. Gentlemen, thank you very much.
shipment of transuranic waste out of idaho
Assistant Secretary Owendoff, you heard me lead up to the
ultimate question that I will ask. Today is March 18. The
Department of Energy has a deadline of April 30 to begin moving
transuranic waste out of the State of Idaho.
When Secretary Richardson appeared before the Senate Energy
Committee last month he testified that the State of New Mexico
had repeatedly pushed back the date of issuing the hazardous
waste permit for WIPP, and as a result he has withdrawn $10
million from the WIPP budget to provide funding for
alternatives to WIPP, which will still meet DOE's deadline of
April 30 to the State of Idaho.
What alternatives are in the works? Will your plan ``B,''
if you have one, still meet the April deadline?
Mr. Owendoff. Senator Craig, we are looking at
alternatives. I think as you can appreciate, because that can
involve other entities, that those can be very sensitive,
certainly.
Senator Craig. We are all very sensitive about this issue.
Mr. Owendoff. I appreciate that. But I want to say that we
are going to certainly abide by what was in the settlement
agreement, that indicated if material is not--if TRU waste
shipments do not start by April 30, then that holds up foreign
research reactor fuel from coming into the State. Now, we do
not take that lightly.
Our commitment is continued, and I can assure you that a
lot of my time is spent on this issue of looking at a number of
alternatives which would allow us to begin that shipment. So
this is not a casual date to us----
Senator Craig. No. That is what I wanted----
Mr. Owendoff [continuing]. As the end of March date is for
the TMI fuel to move out of wet storage. So I have those dates
right in front of me, Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Well, Senator Allard had mentioned the type
of waste--non-mixed waste--that we think under the law can move
and should move to WIPP now. I think we have some 50-odd
barrels of the nearly half-million--let me repeat that--nearly
half-million drums of mixed transuranic waste in Idaho.
So we are kind of the waste king when it comes to the
transuranic materials, but we believe those 50 drums could
move, should move, and it is important that our country
demonstrate they will move them, that there is a will to move
waste, and to handle it appropriately.
I think it also demonstrates to the states involved that
they cannot play the politics of waste when there is no science
to back it up. That is very important.
pit-9 at inel
On Pit-9, when Secretary Richardson appeared before the
Energy and Natural Resource Committee to testify on the DOE
budget, I had a series of questions for him regarding DOE's
intent to proceed on Pit-9.
Secretary Richardson replied that due to pending
litigation, Pit-9 was the topic he needed to discuss with me
privately. We are working to get that meeting together. I have
been in touch with his office. I hope we can put that together
right quickly.
Would you convey to the Secretary my eagerness to discuss
this issue? I think it is important that it get handled
appropriately and in a timely fashion. It potentially has
impact on new contracts, new contractors, as it relates to how
the site gets managed, and it is just one of those things that
is incumbent upon all of us that--attorneys love to sue, and
they love to play legal games, but sometimes we are well ahead
if we all sit down at a table and resolve issues and do so in a
straightaway fashion.
Have you received any new direction from the Secretary
regarding the use of alternative dispute resolution for Pit-9?
Mr. Owendoff. I have not, Senator.
three mile island fuel storage
Senator Craig. Okay. Another milestone in the DOE
settlement agreement with the State of Idaho, calls for moving
Three-Mile Island fuel stored in Idaho from wet storage to dry,
as we have discussed, by June 1, 2001. Fuel movement must be
started by March 31 of this year.
Mr. Owendoff. That is correct.
Senator Craig. Is that project on track?
Mr. Owendoff. It is, Senator Craig. In fact, Warren
Bergholtz, the acting manager, this morning is with the NRC. We
should be receiving that license from the NRC. We have some
other activities that we need to accomplish before the March 31
date, but we are proceeding with those, and we do anticipate
that we will be able to start fuel movement. We do not see that
there is a showstopper problem. It is just working through, as
you can appreciate----
Senator Craig. Sure.
Mr. Owendoff [continuing]. With the events that took place
last summer. We will probably err on the very cautious side,
but anyway, we expect to meet that date.
spent nuclear fuel programs
Senator Craig. That is good news. DOE's national spent fuel
program and its integrated spent fuel program are managed by
the INEEL. The work is actually carried out at a number of DOE
labs, including Argonne and Sandia. The programs were funded at
$35.5 million in fiscal year 1999. In the year 2000, DOE has
requested $22 million. I find that very disappointing.
These spent fuel programs are responsible for making sure
the information is available to include DOE spent nuclear fuel
in the Yucca Mountain repository environmental impact statement
and license application, which we all know is a critical last
step in DOE's cleanup program.
It is my understanding that DOE is managing about 250
different spent fuel types, and that the DOE license
application for Yucca Mountain must include information on the
specific fuel types to be disposed of in the repository.
Will the proposed funding level allow DOE to obtain the
information needed to include all DOE spent fuels in the
license application?
Mr. Owendoff. Senator Craig, we believe that the budget is
sufficient to do that. The folks within Environmental
Management are working with Lake Barrett's people, we believe
that we have that appropriate information that is there.
I must state there are some small amounts of what is often
referred to as cats and dogs, very unique fuels that we know we
are going to have to do some additional work on.
There had been some shifting of activities in looking into
the out years, based on some near-term things, some other
things we needed to get done at Idaho, and also in looking at
the schedule for the repository and the needed information. But
we believe that the budget is appropriate, Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Well, the proposal to reduce spending for
these programs by nearly 40 percent I think does call into
question the department's commitment to ship fuel out of Idaho.
I mean that is how I am looking at it through my glasses at the
moment.
Can you explain how such a drastic funding reduction is
consistent with meeting the commitments DOE has made to the
people of my state?
Mr. Owendoff. Senator Craig, let me get an in-depth
breakdown of those costs and that rationale, but in general,
let me say that because of our commitment that I think is
demonstrated, of moving the Three Mile Island fuel into dry
storage, of the privatization project that we currently have on
the street to move Peach Bottom fuel into dry storage, I think
that we are demonstrating that we are taking those preliminary
steps, demonstrable steps of stabilizing and reducing the costs
for overseeing the spent fuel, and also putting it into a form
that we have a confidence will be able to move into the long-
term repository, without repackaging it.
[The information follows:]
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
In its National Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) and Integrated SNF
programs, DOE is focusing the requested funding on activities needed to
support development of the geologic repository license application,
while deferring activities that do not have to be completed until later
in the process of preparing to send DOE's spent fuel to a repository.
This approach allows us to accomplish those tasks that must be
completed in the near term to stay on course to fulfill our commitments
to the State of Idaho. The activities that are being deferred or
reduced are in PBS ID-SNF-101 and PBS ID-SNF-102, as described below:
--In fiscal year 1999, funding for repository design support was used
for total system performance assessment and criticality
analysis. In fiscal year 2000, further analysis of these topics
is being delayed since the information provided by this
activity is not needed until 2002.
--In fiscal year 1999, DOE initiated an extensive release rate
testing program for DOE spent fuels to demonstrate that DOE
spent fuels will not be a major contributor to the repository
release rate. Follow-up work on this task is being deferred by
one year (to fiscal year 2001), since accomplishing the work on
this slightly delayed schedule will still allow the results to
be available in time to meet the schedule for potential
submittal of the geologic repository license application in
2002.
--In fiscal year 1999, DOE provided significant support to Argonne
National Laboratory in development of the electrometallurgical
treatment system for sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel. This
effort will be essentially completed prior to fiscal year 2000.
In fiscal year 1999, funding was required for development and
procurement of hardware for the Multi-Detector Analysis System (MDAS--
to conduct nondestructive assay and examinations to obtain
characterization data for spent fuel). In fiscal year 2000, a reduced
level of funding will be sufficient since the only remaining tasks are
to demonstrate the MDAS technology.
--In fiscal year 1999, funding was required to allow completion of a
NEPA analysis for a container system to be used in transporting
spent fuel from Idaho to an off-site repository. This
initiative was required to meet a settlement agreement
milestone. The NEPA analysis has been completed.
--In fiscal year 2000, the level of funding for program support will
also be reduced, consistent with the reduced level of effort
overall.
Finally, DOE has also identified emerging issues which must be
addressed in fiscal year 2000 concerning development of information on
DOE spent fuel to support geologic repository performance assessment
for the license application. To ensure that DOE/EM supports preparation
of the repository license application, DOE is working internally to
fund these activities within the EM program.
defense spent fuel and waste
Senator Craig. Thank you very much. Mr. Barrett, your
program is in various stages of preparing both a repository
environmental impact statement and the repository license
application.
In accordance with President Reagan's 1985 decision to
dispose of defense waste in the civilian repository, will the
EIS and license application now in preparation for Yucca
Mountain make provisions for defense-spent fuel and waste?
Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir.
Senator Craig. Well, obviously, that is the answer I wanted
to hear. I do not want us to get down the road aways and say,
oops, we did not include that. Obviously, that is the mission
now, and I am glad to hear that that is the case.
outyear funding requirements for cleanup
A major issue the Department faces in Idaho and other
cleanup sites is insufficient funding in the out-year budget
plans to meet cleanup obligations. How do you expect to meet
cleanup commitments to the states without significant growth in
the out-year budgets?
Mr. Owendoff. Senator Craig, certainly as I mentioned to
the Chairman earlier, we know that in the out-years we do have
some significant challenges. One of the ways that we are
looking at of accommodating that is being able to get finished
with sites like Weldon Springs, Mound, Fernald, and----
Senator Craig. So what are we looking for, a renegotiation
in cleanup schedules? Would that not be a part of it?
Mr. Owendoff. I do not know that it is, per se--I am not
going to say to you that we now have to renegotiate everything.
I think one of the things that we need to continue to do is to
look at the relative risk of the activities at each
installation and facility, and to ensure that we have the funds
going to the highest risk and look at what are the benefits for
some of the other activities.
In a balanced budget situation, as you well know, I think
it is going to be very challenging for us in the out-years to
have significant increases in the budget amounts, but I think
at this time last year there were a lot of people crying wolf
on what will happen on the 2000 budget. I think the Secretary
demonstrated that he was able to have a hundred-million dollar,
roughly a hundred-million dollar increase in the
Administration's budget that came through the Congress. So some
said at this time last year that it will never happen.
In fact, the budget request would be reduced, but I think
the secretary demonstrated that he can get those monies when
they are necessary.
utility compensation for on-site storage
Senator Craig. Okay. When the Secretary was before us on
February 25, I submitted a series of questions regarding his
proposal to compensate utilities for the on-site storage of
their spent nuclear fuel in lieu of DOE's 1998 waste acceptance
obligation. I had not yet received a reply to my questions. Do
you have any indication of time when I might expect that
response?
Mr. Barrett. I know those are actively being worked on
within the administration, and I expect they will be sent to
you soon, sir.
on-site storage costs
Senator Craig. All right. Mr. Barrett, the reason I ask
that, and I will ask you a similar kind of question, because my
guess is the Secretary drew upon the analysis done by you and
your staff regarding the cost, feasibility, and any technical
or legal pitfalls on such an approach.
What kind of an analysis have you and your contractor staff
performed on this subject or these subjects?
Mr. Barrett. At the Secretary's request we scoped various
scenarios that could be done. There were tremendous
uncertainties, because it depends upon what the utilities would
wish to do to try and implement such a proposal.
For example, there is a very broad range between a utility
that, for example, has space in their existing spent fuel pool,
but may have an allocation, what their situation is. We would
believe that the costs are very minimal for that additional
burden resulting from the Department's inability to pick up
that fuel.
In the middle would be utilities that have an active power
production program at their site, but have dry storage. We
believe it would be best that perhaps we would assume the
financial aspects of that, but they would do all the active
management. That is a different situation. Then there are those
reactor sites where the utility no longer generates
electricity, and they are in the process of decommissioning
that site, where the corporate entity would like to be able to
go away. We have to consider the management of the fuel at
these sites.
Senator Craig. I appreciate all those scenarios, Mr.
Barrett. Did you attempt to estimate the cost of the variations
or the various proposals versus, let us say, the cost of an
interim storage facility?
Mr. Barrett. We have done cost estimates for the various
situations that we are faced with. We are costing out HR-45,
and we have information that will be coming for that. We intend
to do the same for S. 608.
When the Secretary said the estimated costs would range
from $2 billion to $3 billion in that hearing, that was based
upon a mix, as we saw the situation. Basically, we drew on
generic industry numbers. We believe that to design, license,
and construct the basic storage facility at a reactor plant
would cost in the neighborhood of $10 million per site.
Senator Craig. Now, go back and repeat the $10 million per
site. How did you come to that figure?
Mr. Barrett. That is based on our understanding of what the
costs are in the industry for their sites that have done this.
Senator Craig. Is that an annualized operation, annualized
cost?
Mr. Barrett. No, that is a one-time cost.
Senator Craig. A one-time cost.
Mr. Barrett. A one-time cost to go through licensing,
design, and construction of a simple basic concrete pad. Once
you go through that process, we assume that nominally costs to
build storage containers are a million dollars a ton, or a
hundred dollars a kilogram.
That is a nominal industry cost today that utilities use.
We use that number as well. Those costs are for a Nuclear
Regulatory Commission-certified system.
So then we looked at the operational costs of a site of
around $5 million per year. That would be for a site where
there would be a lot of stand-alone costs. It might be
considerably less than that.
So this is a broad range that we used. For example, we
believe that there is virtually no cost of storing the fuel in
the pool, if there is room in the pool. There is a very broad
range of costs and there are many other circumstances that are
site by site, utility by utility.
regulatory concerns for on-site storage
Senator Craig. Does the proposal pose any regulatory
concern? Did you look at all of the legal and the regulatory
hurdles, including states and state utility commissions, and
potential lawsuits? Did you factor in the cost of lawsuits and
all of that? Did you run a guesstimate?
Mr. Barrett. No, sir, we did not include costs of
litigation on this. We did not, at this stage, go into any
legal analysis concerning individual state laws.
This was an idea, as the secretary said to you, to explore
if there was interest, and we need to have dialogue before we
can really come to any more specificity on----
nuclear regulatory commission--on-site storage
Senator Craig. Did you have any dialogue then with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the proposal?
Mr. Barrett. Not in any depth, but yes, there has been some
dialogue between myself and Commission staff, not with any of
the Commissioners, but with senior Commission staff.
We looked at the activities in Environmental Management,
for example, the Three Mile Island fuel, the fuel in Colorado,
where DOE is becoming the licensee under the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. So we looked at those experiences as well.
s-608
Senator Craig. Okay. You already in your comments, Director
Barrett, mentioned S-608, so obviously you are well aware of
what Senator Murkowski and I, and Senators Grams and Crapo have
done, and that is going to be a point of debate, and probably
long hours on the floor between Senator Reid and myself in the
near future.
I trust by your comments you are generally familiar with
the provisions of the legislation.
Mr. Barrett. I am aware of the number. I understand we have
a hearing on that next week, but I have not read it, sir.
Senator Craig. Well, basically, in brief terms, what it
says is an interim storage facility will be constructed in
Nevada by 2003, and that is the date that I want to discuss
with you. Your current plans, by this chart, call for a site
recommendation to the President in 2001, and a repository
license application by 2002.
Why is interim storage in Nevada so problematic to DOE,
since our interim storage facility starts after both of these
dates in the year 2003?
Mr. Barrett. As the Secretary stated, the Administration
opposes designation of interim storage in Nevada, until the
scientific work on the suitability of the repository is
completed.
Senator Craig. Is that a scientific argument or a political
argument?
Mr. Barrett. That was the Secretary's position.
long-range plan at ineel
Senator Craig. Okay. And he is sticking to it. All right.
DOE has made a commitment to Idaho to fund the long-range
business plan in order to help assure the long-term viability
of the INEEL. The commitment reached with DOE was $25 million a
year for 5 years, yet this has somehow settled in at $22.5
million, and has been difficult to achieve on an annual basis.
Would you be willing to recommit to the previous level, and
would you be open to potential increases in the future to
address these specific needs?
Mr. Owendoff. Senator Craig, as you mentioned, the specific
straight funding is $22.5 million; however, there is also the
lab discretionary research and development fund that pulls
monies in general from all programs so those come in between $8
million to $10 million, as well as there is a piece from a
university consortium that brings some monies in. So Senator
Craig, I believe we are well above the $25 million----
Senator Craig. In other words, it is all in how you add it.
Mr. Owendoff. That is correct.
complex-wide integration effort
Senator Craig. All right. Well, we will sit down with you
and see how you add it versus how we add it, and see if we can
understand the differences.
I understand that the environmental management system
integration work done at the INEEL may be used as a model for
DOE complex-wide integration of the cleanup program. This
integration will be necessary to accomplish cleanup, I think,
in a cost-effective way.
Mr. Owendoff, how do you plan to utilize the INEEL systems
and engineering expertise for complex-wide integration to the
cleanup program?
Mr. Owendoff. Senator Craig, I think you can see that
today, we are using the integration work in the roadmap efforts
that the INEEL prepared. It is being utilized by all the sites
in looking at where they are today, what their plans for
treatment and/or disposal.
We are also taking those activities and looking at where do
we have some shortcomings in research and development needs, so
we are identifying where we have a critical path, and assessing
how we can accomplish some more focused research and
development on those key junctures.
But we are utilizing those integration efforts today, and
it is not only on the main waste streams of high-level waste,
low-level waste, and transuranic waste, but there is probably
over a hundred of individual material dispositions, I mean
unique type of materials, radioactive materials, that again we
are using those road maps today across the other programs
within DOE Headquarters and trying to get to decisions on what
should the disposition be of those waste streams. So I can
assure you that that is an integral part of our strategy.
jack ass flats radiation exposure
Senator Craig. One last question, and then I will turn to
Senator Reid, if he has any more. Director Barrett, if I were a
DOE employee or military personnel traveling across Jack Ass
Flats, what kind of radiation might I be exposed to?
Mr. Barrett. Basically, natural background in the Jack Ass
Flats area. There is minimal radiation from any DOE activities
in the Jack Ass Flats area, which is adjacent to Area 25.
Senator Craig. What are current employees out there exposed
to?
Mr. Barrett. The natural background radiation, which should
be, I do not know in the Jack Ass Flats specifically, nominally
200 millirem, plus or minus.
groundwater potential problems
Senator Craig. How does that compare with the millirem
analysis that you gave in relation to groundwater potential
exposure in the out-years of a Yucca Mountain facility?
Mr. Barrett. Many orders of magnitude higher.
Senator Craig. How about three-thousand?
Mr. Barrett. No argument.
Senator Craig. It is awfully important that we keep these
measurements in perspective as to what is normal and what is
real, and what humans are now currently receiving versus our
attempted ability to measure out 10,000 years, or a thousand
years. I think your figure there was, was it not, .1 millirem.
Mr. Barrett. Ten-thousand years, .1 millirem. Yes, sir.
Senator Craig. That was at 10,000 years. I think it is
important that the record show those kinds of comparisons, so
that there is a little bit of understanding by those of us who
are novices in this area as to what these figures mean, or do
not mean, for that matter. I thank you for that.
It is obvious that we are talking about a minute
measurement compared to background today, and are levels that
those at DOE and the Defense Department find acceptable, and
are based on current medical science, as to what a workforce
can be exposed to. So I thank you very much for that.
I turn to my colleague, Senator Reid.
costs to set up on-site disposal
Senator Reid. The figures that we had originally were $5
million to set up an on-site disposal, but you said $10
million, so it is within that range, is that right?
Mr. Barrett. I am sorry. Operating costs versus the capital
costs to build the pad?
Senator Reid. It is my understanding that you said that to
construct an on-site storage facility would cost $10 million.
Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir. A one-time up-front cost.
Senator Reid. Some of the arguments we have heard before is
$5 million, but in the neighborhood of $5 million to $10
million is what it would cost.
Mr. Barrett. And some could be $5 million and some could be
$25 million.
total spent at the yucca mountain site
Senator Reid. Yes. Right. Also, how much have we spent to
this point in Yucca Mountain?
Mr. Barrett. Approximately $3 billion.
Senator Reid. That is construction. That does not count the
overhead costs.
Mr. Barrett. Very little of that are actual construction
costs. Since we started in 1983, most of that has been
scientific costs. Much of that work had been done in national
laboratories. That is how much we had spent on the Yucca
Mountain program. Some of that includes state monies, county
monies, the whole Yucca Mountain budget allocation.
Senator Craig. We have appropriated more than that in this
program since 1982.
Mr. Barrett. That is correct. For example, the repositories
that we looked at, potential repository sites in Texas and also
the monitored retrievable storage facility that we proposed in
Tennessee. So all of that other work is around $2 billion.
Senator Craig. In addition to the $3 billion.
Mr. Barrett. Yes. At a cost of about $5 billion, I believe.
I can check the numbers, if you want, specifically.
maintenance costs of on-site storage
Senator Craig. It does not have to be exact. That is fine.
Also, Mr. Barrett, it is my understanding that you had said
that in addition to the costs of constructing an on-site
storage facility there would be the costs of maintaining it,
and they would vary from $1 million to $5 million a year, is
that what you said?
Mr. Barrett. Virtually none, zero. I mean if it is just
additional fuel and--if the site has been decommissioned it is
$5 million a year. There may be situations that may be more
than that.
Senator Reid. But we are in the ball park.
Mr. Barrett. Yes.
costs of transporting nuclear waste
Senator Reid. We have not at all here today talked about
the costs of transporting nuclear waste if, in fact, there
becomes a site available in Nevada, either temporary or
permanent, is that right?
Mr. Barrett. We have described those costs in the report we
released with the viability assessment, which is the Total
System Life Cycle Cost report. We have those costs, sir.
Senator Reid. What would you estimate the transportation
costs to be?
Mr. Barrett. In the Total System Life Cycle Cost report for
the 70,000 metric tons considered it is close to $6 billion.
For the period that we costed to 2010, where we established the
system, and then put the infrastructure in place to be ready to
start moving fuel, approximately 17,000 tons of fuel, it is
around $2 billion.
Senator Reid. Those are current dollars.
Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir. Actually, that is budget authority,
but it is still in that neighborhood.
Additional committee questions
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions,
other than those we are going to submit in writing to Mr.
Owendoff, which are really not on point at this 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
on-site interim storage of spent nuclear fuel
Question. Mr. Barrett, could you explain the proposal put forth by
the Secretary to participate in assisting the utilities with on-site
interim storage of spent nuclear fuel produced by nuclear power
reactors?
Answer. The Secretary committed to work with Congress on nuclear
waste issues. His objective was to begin a constructive dialogue.
Taking title to utility spent fuel on site at reactors is a promising
near-term solution that can address our contractual obligation to
utilities. It is not intended to be a permanent solution or to alter
the Administration's commitment to permanent geologic disposal. This
proposal represents an alternative to years and billions of dollars of
litigation. As the Secretary indicated in his testimony, the
Department's proposal to take title to spent fuel at utility sites is
in an early stage of development. We could take title consistent with
our contract acceptance schedule. We could have utilities manage the
facility or we could assume responsibility. The Department is exploring
specific options, based upon individual circumstances at each utility.
Such options would consider current operating status of a utility,
availability of on-site dry storage, and utility financial needs. For
instance, a utility with a permanently shut down reactor and no ongoing
nuclear operations may want the Department to assume complete
responsibility for the management of the spent fuel and storage
facilities, while other utilities with operating reactors may prefer
the Department only to take financial responsibility. We still have to
address a range of issues, including liability, financial and
operational responsibilities. In return for taking title to spent fuel
the Department would expect the utilities to terminate their litigation
and claims. We want to hear from the utilities and to work with
Congress as this dialogue continues.
Question. What is this program expected to cost, how will it be
funded, and do OMB budget profiles support this effort over the next 5
years?
Answer. The Department's preliminary estimate is that the proposal
could cost up to $2 to $3 billion through 2010. The Department is
willing to enter a dialogue with Congress to ensure that the repository
program continues to be adequately funded, as well as address the
Secretary's proposal. In exploring any funding alternatives, the
Department's objectives would be: (1) that the Department impose no
undue burdens on either utility ratepayers or the taxpayers; and (2)
that the revenues raised by the nuclear waste fee remain available to
complete the nuclear waste management system.
acceleration of yucca mountain milestones
Question. Mr. Barrett, I am sure that you are aware of the growing
frustration and dissatisfaction by some regarding the pace at which the
Department is moving to begin construction of a storage facility for
spent nuclear fuel. Is there any way that the 2001 date to submit a
recommendation to the President and the 2002 submission date of a
license application to the NRC can be accelerated?
Answer. The Viability Assessment identified the remaining technical
work which must be accomplished and the schedule that must be met
before submitting a Site Recommendation and a License Application.
Provided that we have the funding that meets costs in our ``License
Application Plan and Costs,'' we believe that we can complete the
technical work, which includes complicated scientific testing and
analysis, and evaluation of design alternatives, and accomplish a Site
Recommendation and a License Application in 2001 and 2002,
respectively. We believe that accelerating the schedule we proposed in
the Viability Assessment would not allow us to address the remaining
uncertainties that exist and must be addressed before a decision to
recommend the site.
alternative options to on-site storage
Question. Mr. Barrett, is on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel
viable for the long-term?
Answer. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), through its
regulatory and inspection processes, ensures the public health and
safety for storage of spent fuel. The NRC, in its Waste Confidence
ruling, 10 CFR 51.23, has indicated that spent fuel can be safely
stored onsite for at least 30 years after a plant's operating license
expired.
Question. What other options is the Department exploring, other
than on-site storage?
Answer. The Department is committed to geologic disposal as the
permanent solution for nuclear waste. The Department continues to
proceed diligently to determine the suitability of the Yucca Mountain
site as a permanent geologic repository. If the site is found to be
suitable, the Secretary will make a decision whether to recommend it to
the President for development as a repository.
Question. What are the relative risks to the public associated with
on-site storage versus storage in a facility such as Yucca Mountain?
Answer. All commercial storage facilities, regardless of the
location, are licensed by NRC and meet the appropriate NRC regulations
to ensure safety to the public and the environment.
external oversight and payments-equal-to-taxes
Question. Mr. Barrett, could you explain the reason why the request
for external oversight and payments-equal-to-taxes doubles from $11.7
million in fiscal year 1999 to $22.3 million in fiscal year 2000? What
has changed since last year to require such a large increase in the
payment to Nye County, Nevada?
Answer. The increases from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2000
reflect the following: In fiscal year 1999, only $250,000 was provided
to the State of Nevada for external oversight. In the fiscal year 2000
Budget Request, $4.7 million is requested for State external oversight.
For external oversight for affected counties, we have requested
$108,000 less than that appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
We have requested $2.03 million in fiscal year 2000 for the
potential liabilities associated with the closeout of previous
contracts for work performed for Yucca Mountain in prior fiscal years.
This is a $1.84 million increase over fiscal year 1999.
There is $140,000 requested for School-To-Work in fiscal year 2000.
There were no funds provided for this purpose in fiscal year 1999.
We have requested $10 million for Payments Equal To Taxes (PETT) in
fiscal year 2000. The increase reflects the fact that the current PETT
agreement with Nye County (FYs 1994-1999) expires on September 30,
1999. The new agreement will reflect the increased value of facilities
at the Yucca Mountain site and increases in work activities at the
site.
The following table illustrates these changes:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
Fiscal year
year 2000 Difference
1999 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
External Oversight--State of Nevada..... .25 4.72 4.47
External Oversight--Affected Counties... 5.54 5.43 (.11 M)
Contract Close-out from Previous Fiscal .19 2.03 1.84
Year...................................
School-To-Work.......................... .14 .14
PETT.................................... 5.72 10.00 4.28
-------------------------------
Total............................. 11.70 22.32 10.62
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cost of doe cleanup program
Question. What is the current estimate to cleanup the wastes
generated by nuclear weapons production activities in past years and
how long will it take to complete this cleanup work?
Answer. As reported in the Department's Annual Financial Report,
DOE's fiscal year 1998 environmental liabilities estimate was $186
billion over the next 70 years to complete the cleanup of wastes
generated by nuclear weapons production and other government nuclear
energy programs. Previous analyses (the 1995 Baseline Environmental
Management Report, and the 1997 Linking Legacies report) indicated that
about 85 percent of the cleanup work results from nuclear weapons
production. The EM portion of the Department's fiscal year 1998
environmental liabilities estimate was based on data used to develop
the initial Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure report (Paths to
Closure) issued in June 1998, which reported a life-cycle cost estimate
of $147 billion. The $147 billion life-cycle estimate was adjusted
(e.g., removal of fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 costs and
various scope adjustments) to form the basis of EM's portion of the
fiscal year 1998 environmental liability estimate, which was determined
to be more than $145 billion. The balance of the Department's fiscal
year 1998 environmental liability was derived from the 1995 and 1996
Baseline Environmental Management Report.
EM presently has cleanup responsibility for a total of 113
geographic sites. At the end of fiscal year 1997, 60 of the 113
contaminated sites had been cleaned up. In fiscal year 1998, EM cleaned
up three geographic sites and transferred another two sites to the
State for cleanup at its request, which leaves EM with 48 sites
remaining to be cleaned up. By 2006, EM intends to complete cleanup at
all but 10 of its 48 remaining sites.
We are currently in the process of updating the life-cycle cost and
schedule estimate for cleanup of the EM program. This estimate is being
updated as part of the Paths to Closure planning process and is
presently scheduled to be released early this summer. This estimate
will form the basis for determining EM's portion of the Department's
fiscal year 1999 environmental liability.
Question. How does this estimate compare to the previous estimate,
and what is the reason for the difference? How much money has been
invested to date in the cleanup effort?
What are the major factors that have contributed to the reduction
in the estimated cost of the cleanup effort?
Answer. In 1995 and 1996, as requested by Congress, the Department
developed its first estimates of life-cycle cost and schedule for the
remaining EM cleanup effort. These Baseline Environmental Management
Reports (BEMRs) described the estimated scope of the EM program. The
1996 report stated that, as a mid-range estimate, the program would
cost approximately $230 billion (constant 1996 dollars) spent over a
70-year period, using certain assumptions about funding levels,
productivity, and land use in developing the estimate.
The primary reasons for the difference between BEMR and Paths to
Closure can be attributed to the fact that BEMR: (1) included costs for
both ``legacy'' waste associated with historical nuclear weapons
production and nuclear related activities, and newly generated wastes;
(2) included costs for the eventual transfer of DOE facilities not
currently in the Environmental Management program; and (3) in some
cases, used different end-state assumptions than Paths to Closure.
Paths to Closure addresses a somewhat different scope. For example,
Paths to Closure includes costs for legacy waste cleanup but not newly
generated wastes, and excludes costs for any facilities not currently
in the Environmental Management program. Additionally, Paths to Closure
reflects improved estimates for a number of projects and improvements
in efficiency in accomplishing the same or comparable activities,
thereby lowering total life-cycle costs of the program. In addition,
$145 billion representing EM's portion of the fiscal year 1998
environmental liability statement reflects future estimated costs
starting in fiscal year 1999, while the 1996 BEMR estimates costs
beginning in fiscal year 1996.
Since its inception in 1989 through fiscal year 1999, the
Environmental Management program has received $52.9 billion in funding.
This funding covers not only ``cleanup'' but also other EM activities
(e.g., nonproliferation, waste disposal, spent fuel storage, fissile
material, security, site infrastructure maintenance). The following
chart for the record displays this funding by fiscal year. (The
information follows.)
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total
1989 \1\ 1990 \1\ 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traditional BA.............................................. 1,657.3 2,274.1 3,601.0 4,286.9 5,520.3 6,000.0 5,809.3 6,067.3 5,661.2 5,662.8 5,603.6 52143.8
Privatization............................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 330.0 200.0 228.4 758.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, EM............................................. 1,657.3 2,274.1 3,601.0 4,286.9 5,520.3 6,000.0 5,809.3 6,067.3 5,991.2 5,862.8 5,832.0 52902.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects funds managed by the newly-created Office of Environmental Management, which were appropriated under DOE programs to support cleanup work. Funds were appropriated to EM-managed
accounts beginning in fiscal year 1991.
Question. What annual funding levels are assumed for the defense
portion of the cleanup effort over the next 5 year planning period? How
important is funding stability to the success of the program?
Answer. The Administration's outyear funding profile is dependent
upon enactment of Social Security, Medicare, and Universal Savings
Account proposals. The Defense funding for the Environmental Management
program for fiscal year 2001 through 2004 would be as shown in the
following table:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Environmental 4,486 4,486 4,486 4,486
Restoration & Waste Mgmt
\1\........................
Defense Facilities Closure.. 1,054 1,054 1,054 1,054
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............. 5,540 5,540 5,540 5,540
===========================================
Defense Privatization....... 671 659 633 594
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes funding for EH Health Studies.
In developing the report Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure,
the Department established annual funding targets for the EM Operations
Offices consistent with a stabilized $5.75 billion funding level for
the EM program for the immediate future. This funding level includes
both defense and non-defense appropriations, but does not include
funding for the privatization account. In a number of instances, EM
operations offices developed plans that were based on funding levels
higher than these targets in order to accomplish accelerated closure,
risk reduction, and other programmatic goals. The report stated that EM
would address these funding differences by seeking productivity
improvements, additional funding, as well as reprioritization of
activities where necessary. The Department will work with our
regulators, Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and our
stakeholders to address these issues.
The Department recognizes that under current budgetary constraints
and realities any increases above the current level of funding--which
has remained approximately stable for the past several years--are not
likely. However, funding stability is necessary for EM to develop and
successfully execute a credible plan that will accomplish our
regulatory requirements and other commitments in a timely manner,
assist in keeping our projects on schedule and within budget, and
ultimately reduce the long-term costs of the program. Depending on the
level, stable funding could provide predictability and sufficient
funding to accomplish these objectives.
Question. An important element in meeting cost projections and
schedules is early determination of the level to which a site is
cleaned up--the end land use plan. What level of cleanup is assumed in
the 2006 Plan? Is the Department assuming a mid-level cleanup or a
maximum cleanup in the Plan? How can DOE provide a credible estimate of
how much of the cleanup effort will cost if you do not know to what
level you are cleaning up a site?
Answer. The cleanup levels identified in Accelerating Cleanup:
Paths to Closure were determined on a site- by-site basis. The level of
cleanup for some EM sites has been agreed to by EPA or State regulators
in conjunction with EM field office personnel at those sites. The laws
governing these cleanups require that site-specific factors be
considered in deciding the level of cleanup. The agreed-to levels at
these sites are reflected in Paths to Closure.
However, in most cases, particularly at the large sites where
closure will not occur for decades, agreement has not yet been reached
with regulators and stakeholders on the cleanup levels and end states.
Where sites have not reached final agreement, the DOE field staff
developed planning-basis end states that are being used solely for
planning purposes. All end state assumptions used in Paths to Closure
have been shared with stakeholders and regulators and are acceptable to
them for planning purposes. At these sites where no final agreement has
been reached, the appropriate review and consultation will occur before
cleanup levels can be definitively established.
In developing the life-cycle estimate of $147 billion as reported
in the June 1998 Paths to Closure, EM did not assume a consistent level
of cleanup for all sites. As discussed above, the cleanup level agreed
to, or currently assumed for each site, is unique to that site. It is
clear, however, that a maximum, or ``green field'' approach is being
pursued at few, if any, sites. In fact, very few sites are being
cleaned up to a level allowing unrestricted use for the entire site;
consequently, EM is examining what long-term stewardship measures will
be required after cleanup is completed.
Given the fact that each EM site will not undergo the same level of
cleanup, EM developed its life-cycle estimate based on the agreed-to,
or currently assumed cleanup level for each site. EM believes that this
is the most meaningful and accurate approach to arriving at a credible
life-cycle estimate.
Question. How many sites are there to be cleaned up and how many
approved site cleanup plans are in place? Provide for the record your
schedule for having an approved site cleanup plan in place for each
site or major activity requiring a plan.
Answer. The Environmental Management (EM) program currently has 48
geographic sites remaining to be cleaned up. In fiscal year 1998, EM
completed cleanup at three geographic sites and transferred another two
to the host State (at its request) for cleanup, bringing the total
completed to 65 of the 113 sites currently under EM's responsibility.
In fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, EM plans to complete cleanup
at three additional geographic sites each year, leaving 42 sites for
cleanup in fiscal year 2001 and beyond.
Cleanup plans and site-specific strategies for all remaining EM
geographic sites are captured in each site's June 1998 Paths to Closure
report, and are compiled in the June 1998 national Paths to Closure
report. We are currently updating this information, with release
expected this summer; and we intend to update it annually. It is
important to note that while each site has a cleanup strategy in place,
not all assumed end-states and cleanup levels have undergone the
appropriate review needed to ensure agreement between regulators and
the Department. This is an ongoing process without a set schedule.
Where sites have not reached final agreement, planning-basis end-states
have been developed and shared with regulators, and have been found
acceptable for planning purposes. As part of the Paths to Closure
planning process, EM will provide the status of where each site is in
the cleanup process, identifying, for example, whether agreements have
been reached with regulators.
Question. Are there any site or activities being delayed or slowed
due to lack of agreement of the end land use or level of cleanup?
Answer. The Department is working closely with its regulators and
stakeholders to reach agreement on the eventual end use for its sites.
Reaching agreement on the end use generally will facilitate agreement
on required cleanup levels as well as allow for more expeditious
cleanup. In most cases, general agreement has been reached on the
desired future land use and resource uses for Department sites,
including the time frames in which those land uses should be attained.
The actual land uses ultimately selected, however, will be a risk
management decision based on the technical feasibility, costs, and
implementation risks associated with the specific remedial actions
carried out to achieve a certain level of cleanup. Although future land
use is always an important consideration, and substantial time may be
needed for a final decision on end use or level of cleanup, typically
there are several interim steps that can be taken to reduce risks that
do not require a final determination on land use, and therefore
necessary cleanup can proceed while final land use decisions are still
being discussed. Consequently, activities at the various Department
sites are not being delayed due to lack of agreement on the eventual
end use or the level of cleanup required.
Question. How much additional savings can be obtained or expected
if site end use land conditions were known?
Answer. The Department does not have an estimate of total life-
cycle costs if ``site end use land conditions were known.'' We believe
strongly that substantial cost savings are possible if cleanups are
performed to make land available for reasonably anticipated future end
uses, rather than seeking to make all sites clean enough for
unrestricted use everywhere. That is why we have been working closely
with EPA and state regulators to negotiate cleanup agreements that
result in cleanup standards that are based on reasonably anticipated
future land uses. We also worked with EPA and other agencies in
developing the Administration's recommendations to reform Superfund,
including a provision that would make it easier to consider future land
uses in remedy selection. These reforms have not yet been acted upon by
Congress. Nonetheless, we believe that the administrative reforms
adopted by EPA and state agencies have allowed us to negotiate remedies
that adequately consider future land uses.
The life cycle costs cited in previous responses include the costs
for these negotiated remedies where substantial savings were attained
by considering future land uses. In fact, one of the principal findings
of the 1995 and 1996 Baseline Environmental Management Reports and the
1998 Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure report was that, at most
sites, the contamination and waste is not being moved, but is being
contained in place, resulting in restricted land uses. There may be
some instances in which cleanup agreements require cleanup to a level
not justified by expected future land uses, but we are continuing to
identify those exceptional circumstances, and do not expect significant
additional savings by renegotiating cleanup agreements to account for
future land use. As a result, the Department is now developing a
program to provide adequate long-term stewardship (e.g., monitoring and
maintenance) of the residual hazards left after cleanup is completed.
We have not yet completed a technical or cost estimate for this
program, but expect that it should be relatively insignificant compared
to the cleanup program.
It is important to remember that much of the Department's
Environmental Management program involves stabilizing extremely
hazardous nuclear materials, and treatment and disposal of radioactive
wastes. The costs for these elements of the cleanup program will not
change based on expected land uses.
comprehensive environmental response, compensation, and liability act
(cercla) cleanup at doe sites
Question. What laws set the standards for cleanup or is DOE self
regulated and able to establish its own standard through negotiations
with State, local and other interests?
Answer. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) authorizes EPA to require responsible site
owners, operators, generators and transporters to clean up releases of
hazardous substances, including radioactive substances. In 1986, CERCLA
was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Under
section 120(a) of CERCLA, as amended, all Federal agencies, including
DOE, are subject to the same procedural and substantive requirements as
private parties. In addition, section 120 requires each Federal
facility listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) to enter into an
interagency agreement with EPA regarding the cleanup of the facility.
(States are often included as parties as well.)
DOE has entered into 17 interagency agreements with EPA and
affected States for 17 of the 18 DOE facilities listed on the NPL. The
agreement for the remaining facility is under negotiation, and is
expected to be executed during fiscal year 1999. These agreements
integrate the requirements of CERCLA with the applicable requirements
of other laws and regulations such as the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). This is done through a process known as
``ARARs''--applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements--wherein
EPA establishes a process described in CERCLA section 121(d).
Primarily, ARARs are requirements established under RCRA which States
have been authorized by EPA to enforce. Although the ARARs process
allows DOE to discuss cleanup standards with the regulatory
authorities, the EPA and state environmental regulators are, in effect,
the final decision-makers for cleanup work because of their regulatory
approval roles. DOE's role is to comply with schedules negotiated with
state and federal regulators for conducting studies, proposing
recommended courses of action, and implementing actions once regulators
have made decisions. The Department submits an annual report to
Congress on our CERCLA cleanups, as required by CERCLA section 120. A
copy of our 1997 report, the most recent available, is enclosed.
cost of doe cleanup program
Question. What will the 2006 Plan cost on an annual basis? What can
the committee expect to be completed between now and 2006 with the
funds appropriated?
Answer. Based on the June 1998 Paths to Closure report, EM
projected the cost of cleanup at $147 billion, of which $57 billion
would be spent between 1997 and 2006, in roughly equal annual
increments, and $90 billion would be spent after 2006. EM anticipates
that all but 10 sites would be cleaned up by 2006. This includes
completion of all cleanup activities at Rocky Flats, Fernald, Mound,
Weldon Spring, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and Battelle Columbus
Laboratories. In addition, 80 percent of all release sites, that is,
specific locations or areas where contaminants may have been released
to the environment, and stabilization of all nuclear materials and
spent fuel and completion of all preparations for their ultimate
disposition will have occurred.
EM is currently in the process of updating the life-cycle cost and
schedule estimate for cleanup of the EM program. This estimate is being
updated as part of the Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure planning
process and is presently scheduled to be released early this summer.
accomplishments
Question. What major accomplishments or activities were completed
with the funding provided for fiscal year 1998, and what do you expect
in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Environmental Management program has produced
substantial cleanup results at contaminated nuclear facilities and
anticipates achieving substantial results with the fiscal year 1999
appropriation and its fiscal year 2000 budget request.
Fiscal Year 1998 Accomplishments
With the cleanup of Naturita and Maybell sites in Colorado, we have
completed surface cleanup of all 22 large uranium mill tailings sites,
as well as more than 5,300 ``vicinity properties,'' including
elementary schools and homes. This project included remediation of over
40 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and material, and
construction of 19 disposal cells. We are now monitoring low-level
ground water contamination at some mill tailings sites, with active
remediation planned at three sites.
We received certification from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency in May that Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) met disposal
standards, and notification in June from the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board that WIPP can be operated safely.
We completed cleanup of 290 release sites, or local areas where
hazardous/radioactive releases had occurred, bringing the total number
of release site cleanups to about 4,100, almost half of our inventory
of about 9,700 release sites.
The Department awarded the second part of ``Phase 1'' of a
``privatization'' contract, covering the extended design of new
facilities for the treatment of between 6 percent and 13 percent of the
high-level waste in tanks by mass at the Hanford Site in Washington.
We closed a second high-level waste tank at Savannah River Site.
After removing waste, the tank was backfilled using an innovative grout
to immobilize residual radioactivity.
We successfully operated two high-level waste vitrification
facilities in South Carolina and New York, where last year we converted
nearly 2,500 cubic meters of waste into 331 canisters of ``glass logs''
ready for disposal. The first phase of the high-level waste
vitrification campaign at the West Valley, New York facility was
completed in fiscal year 1998, under budget and ahead of schedule, and
we are now vitrifying the tank heels.
In support of non-proliferation goals, we shipped three shipments
of spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors, bringing the
total at the end of fiscal year 1998 to eight shipments from fifteen
countries, including Chile, South Korea, and Colombia. Seven shipments
have been received at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina and, in
fiscal year 1998, we completed the first shipment to the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
We finished connecting community drinking water hookups surrounding
Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York. We have sponsored more than
1,500 hookups for off-site residences from fiscal year 1996 through
fiscal year 1998 to ensure that residents' drinking water supply
remains unaffected during long-term ground water cleanup.
To provide for state oversight of our management of low level
waste, we executed a Joint Federal/State oversight agreement of the
low-level waste disposal program at the Nevada Test site.
We disposed of 30,000 cubic meters of low-level waste and 10,000
cubic meters of mixed low-level waste in fiscal year 1998 alone.
At Rocky Flats, we stabilized or repackaged about 5,000 kilograms
of plutonium-bearing residues in fiscal year 1998. In addition, we
drained acid plutonium liquids from two 2 liquid-piping systems in
Building 771 and then removed the pipes.
We completed cleanup of the fourth of eight highly radioactive
waste storage tanks, called the ``Gunite Tanks,'' at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and have started work on the next tank. The cleanup made use
of several innovative remote access technologies developed through our
science and technology program (i.e., a robotic arm and vehicle, and a
waste dislodging and conveyance tool) that provided access to areas of
tanks which were previously inaccessible.
EM has verified the first-time use of alternative technologies at a
site in 108 instances at cleanup projects throughout the DOE complex in
fiscal year 1998.
We also began a Technology Deployment Initiative designed to spur
widespread use of available new technologies. Fourteen competitively
selected projects were initiated in fiscal year 1998 that resulted in
13 deployments by the year's end.
We completed Large Scale Demonstration and Deployment Projects
(LSDDP) at the Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor facility at Argonne
National Laboratory.
We continue to use pollution prevention techniques to reduce our
overall costs. In fiscal year 1998 alone, DOE sites completed over 700
pollution prevention projects, avoiding the generation of 45,000 cubic
meters and avoiding an estimated $155 million in waste management
costs.
We completed deactivation of the N-Reactor complex and the B Plant
at the Hanford Site, reducing annual surveillance and maintenance costs
for each of the complex from about $20 million to less than $1 million.
We also placed C-Reactor at Hanford into safe storage and completed
deactivation of the ROVER facility at Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory.
Fiscal Year 1999 Commitments
On March 26, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant received the first
shipment of transuranic waste for disposal. We plan to ship wastes to
WIPP from Los Alamos, Idaho National Environmental and Engineering
Laboratory, and Rocky Flats.
We expect to complete cleanup at Ames Laboratory in Iowa, Sandia
National Laboratory in California, and Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory in New Jersey.
At INEEL, the new dry storage facility for spent nuclear fuel was
completed, and we began transferring Three Mile Island spend nuclear
fuel from wet storage in the Test Area North-607 pool to the new
facility.
We will begin interim stabilization of an additional four high-
level waste tanks at the Hanford Site.
We will continue stabilization of ``at-risk'' nuclear materials,
such as plutonium-bearing materials at Rocky Flats and Savannah River
and failed or declad spent nuclear fuel, in the H- and F-Canyons.
We plan to deactivate about 65 facilities, and decommission 80
facilities.
We will begin stabilizing plutonium oxide at the Plutonium
Finishing Plant at Hanford.
At Rocky Flats, we will drain and remove 12 liquid systems from
Building 771 and drain 10 areas in Building 371.
We will complete the removal of spent nuclear fuel from Facility
7823 on the Oak Ridge Reservation.
We plan to demonstrate another 22 innovative technologies that meet
site-identified needs and make another 40 new technologies ready for
implementation with cost and performance data. We also plan to use new
technology in at least 60 instances in cleanup activities.
Another 32 accelerated site technology deployment projects have
been initiated in fiscal year 1999.
Environmental Management Science Program grants will be awarded in
the areas of biological effects of low doses of ionizing radiation and
subsurface contamination/vadose zone.
Fiscal Year 2000 Commitments
We will complete cleanup at 3 sites: Argonne National Laboratory-
West in Idaho, the General Atomics Site in California, and Battelle
Columbus Laboratory in Ohio, bringing the number of sites completed to
71.
We expect to increase the rate of shipments of transuranic waste to
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant to about 14 per week, and will be
disposing of waste from Rocky Flats, INEEL, the Hanford Site, and the
Savannah River Site.
We plan to begin shipments of plutonium metals and oxides from the
Rocky Flats Plant to the Savannah River Site, two years earlier than
initially planned, to support accelerated closure of Rocky Flats.
We will continue our efforts to bring down the ``mortgage'' at
Rocky Flats by demolishing Building 779 and decommissioning Building
771.
At Hanford, we will continue efforts at the K Basins to ensure we
meet the November 2000 milestone to begin moving spent nuclear fuel
from the basins to safe storage.
At Hanford, the extended design phase under the privatization
contract for treatment of tank waste will conclude in August 2000,
supporting a decision whether to proceed to construction and operation
of the treatment facilities.
At INEEL, we will begin construction of the Advanced Mixed Waste
Treatment Project facility under a privatization approach.
We will continue vitrification of high level waste at the Defense
Waste Processing Facility at the Savannah River Site, and will select
the technology and begin design work on the alternative to the In-Tank
Precipitation process to pre-treat certain salt wastes.
Complex-wide we will deactivate about 60 facilities, and
decommission 110 facilities, bringing the total number of facilities
decommissioned to more than 600 out of a total inventory of about 3,300
facilities.
We will stabilize about 160 liters of plutonium solutions, 38,000
kilograms of bulk plutonium residues, and 238 containers of plutonium
metal/oxides.
We plan to demonstrate another 30 innovative technologies that
address site-identified needs and make another 30 new technologies
ready for implementation with cost and performance data. We also plan
to use new technology in at least 60 instances in cleanup activities.
At West Valley in New York, we expect to vitrify 50 cubic meters of
high-level waste, producing 5 canisters and reducing the inventory of
waste to 32 cubic meters, and will begin shipments of spent nuclear
fuel to INEEL.
In addition, EM has established tangible, quantitative measures
that track cleanup progress at the sites and establish annual goals for
performance. These measures, found on page 45 of the Environmental
Management fiscal year 2000 Budget Request, provide additional
information on our accomplishments and commitments in fiscal year 1998,
fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000.
impact of transferring cleanup program to corps of engineers
Question. Mr. Owendoff, the committee has watched with interest the
good work that the Corps of Engineers has been doing with the FUSRAP
program. What would be the impact of transferring parts or the entire
cleanup program to the Corps to manage?
Answer. The Department believes that there would be no benefit to
transferring additional parts of the Environmental Management (EM)
program, and that there would be significant downsides to such a
transfer. The Department also believes the EM program has demonstrated
considerable success since the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program (FUSRAP) was transferred to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by
the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 1998. The Department has
been working closely with the Corps of Engineers to ensure that the
transfer of the program was successful and that the impacts on the
various stakeholders was minimal. I believe the Department's past
efforts and continued support of FUSRAP have contributed to the current
progress. In the Memorandum of Understanding between the Corps of
Engineers and the Department of Energy that was signed on March 17,
1999, this cooperative effort is formalized so that the program may
continue to make progress.
At the time of transfer to the Corps of Engineers, the Department
was completing cleanup at many FUSRAP sites and, at the remaining
FUSRAP sites, was shifting its efforts from characterization to
remediation of these sites and the associated vicinity properties. As
part of this shift, the larger and more complex sites were ready for
the start of major remediation efforts. DOE had completed cleanup at 25
of the 46 FUSRAP sites and significant progress had been achieved at
the other 21 sites prior to their transfer to the Corps of Engineers. I
had personally spent a lot of time working with Congressional
delegations, regulators and communities to agree on cleanup levels and
schedules to complete cleanup. We had also asked Congress in our fiscal
year 1998 budget request to significantly increase the funding for
FUSRAP to support a goal of completing the project quickly. At the time
of transfer, cleanup decisions were in place. In short, I believe the
Department had positioned the FUSRAP program to successfully move into
the implementation phase at the large sites, so that either the Corps
of Engineers or the Department could have made major progress in the
last 18 months.
Considerable effort had been made in characterizing the larger
FUSRAP sites and providing this information to the regulators and local
communities. By early 1993, however, agreement had not been reached on
the cleanup levels at these sites, the condition of the sites when the
cleanup was completed, and the future ownership of many of the sites.
In late 1995, the Department decided to take a dramatic step and
embarked on a two-fold strategy: (1) DOE would get consensus from the
regulators and communities on the cleanup approach for each site; and
(2) DOE would request a nearly doubling of the FUSRAP budget with the
commitment or goal of completing the cleanup in five years. This would
provide incentives for the regulators and communities to reach
agreement on achievable cleanup approaches, while providing the Office
of Management and Budget and the Congress with a commitment to get
cleanup of the FUSRAP sites completed as soon as possible.
The Department's task for 1996 was to achieve consensus on as many
of the large sites as possible to provide justification for the budget
increase. We knew it would be difficult to complete Records of
Decisions for the cleanup approach since there was not sufficient
characterization work done to be able to agree on the extent to which
soil should be removed. Rather than spend more time and money on
characterization, we recommended to the regulators and communities that
we proceed with ``removal actions,'' reaching agreement on what the
level of cleanup would be depending on the extent of contamination and
agreed-to land use. Where we had a pile of contaminated dirt which had
been stockpiled as interim storage from the cleanup of vicinity
properties, we would remove the contaminated dirt which was above
specific levels of contamination. We would continue the excavation
until the contamination level was below acceptable levels. This would
bring the site to the level appropriate to its agreed-to end use. The
community and property owner could then re-develop their land as a
residential or industrial site, or as a public area such as a park. In
some cases, this would be a couple of feet below the surrounding ground
level; in other cases, the excavation would be more extensive. Based on
negotiations with the regulators, communities, and Congressional
delegations during 1996 and the early part of 1997, we believed we had
a winning strategy and had received support in achieving consensus on
the cleanup approach and the associated funding needed to proceed.
This was the case at the Tonawanda disposal sites in New York, the
Maywood interim disposal site in New Jersey, the Wayne interim disposal
site in New Jersey, the St. Louis disposal sites near the airport and
downtown sites in Missouri, the Middlesex interim disposal site in New
Jersey, and the Colonie disposal site in New York. The Department had
developed a contracting strategy at the Wayne site where we
competitively bid the entire job on a fixed-priced basis for the
removal and disposal of the contaminated interim disposal site with
several options for the excavation below grade depending on how much
contamination we found. Since this approach was successful, we were
preparing contracts for each of the sites. Additionally, the Department
was developing alternatives for disposal of the waste generated by the
FUSRAP program. The Department had negotiated for disposal of some of
the waste in a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) disposal
site and was investigating other alternatives as well. Further, we were
aggressively renegotiating our disposal contracts.
We had also changed the approach from one of doing cleanups on a
cost basis, to an integrating contractor who issues a number of
competitive fixed-price contracts and only conducts cleanups where the
extent of the contamination is extremely difficult to quantify, such as
contaminated soil along old haul roads. The integrating contractor had
project managers and a health and safety staff at each site to ensure
the conditions of the contract were met, and to provide ready
availability to the local regulators and community. Thus we had taken
steps to ensure we were integrating the sites efficiently and
effectively.
I believe at the time the Congress transferred responsibility to
the Corps, DOE had: (1) developed consensus on the cleanup strategy
with the regulators, communities, and congressional delegations,
including future land-use designations and cleanup levels; (2) prepared
a contracting strategy that supported competitive fixed-price
contracts, which would provide safe and cost-effective cleanups; and
(3) adjusted the management approach which could focus on cleanups in a
streamlined and efficient manner. We were pleased with the progress we
had made from late 1995 to October 1997 in getting the FUSRAP onto a
fast track for cleanup and removal of contamination from urban areas.
We also believed that the two-fold strategy we embarked upon in late
1995 was the right approach and had been proven successful.
With regard to the transfer of other parts of the EM program to the
Corps, I believe any such transfers would have very serious impacts on
cleanup progress for several reasons. First, the other EM sites within
the Department are not independent, but rather have a strong degree of
interdependence that extends to all aspects of the Department's ongoing
missions. Even sites within the Closure Fund account, like Rocky Flats,
rely on other DOE sites with ongoing missions to accept radioactive
material, whether for storage, re-use, or disposal. Some of these site
activities are operated and managed by other non-EM Departmental
offices, with varied missions that may include energy operations,
research and development, waste management, or environmental
restoration efforts. This is significantly different from the single
focus of FUSRAP. The removal of cleanup portions of this matrix would
interrupt site management and operations at the multi-program sites.
By contrast, the nature of the sites in the FUSRAP program has
enabled the Corps to divide responsibility for the sites among its
numerous and autonomous districts. Although the FUSRAP sites are
connected historically, they are not interdependent. The sites were
managed under a single program by DOE in order to avoid redundancy in
management, even though geographically they could have been separated
into site groups and been managed without central coordination.
Second, the material being handled by the FUSRAP program is also
significantly lower in radioactivity than much of the material that is
managed at other DOE sites. The safe management of this highly
radioactive material depends upon the close coordination of the DOE
management teams at the various Department sites. It is doubtful the
Corps, without experience in management of significant quantities and
levels of radioactive material, would enhance the cleanup mission at
the sites. On the other hand, placing the Corps in charge of site
cleanups could disrupt the safety and health functions at the sites.
Third, the Department believes that it has gained significant
experience in managing cleanup projects and has been able to accelerate
the progress being achieved at its sites. Our actions have included
accelerated characterization, aggressive contracting approaches, and
incorporation of new technologies that have enabled the Department to
clean up sites more quickly, more efficiently, and more safely. We
believe that our successes at one site can be applied to other
Departmental efforts being carried out across the country and that DOE
is uniquely positioned to build on these successes.
For example, a major milestone was achieved in fiscal year 1998 by
the Department, which significantly contributes to the overall EM
cleanup mission. All Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA)
Surface Project remediation activities were completed. This brings to a
close one of the Department's longest running and major environmental
cleanup programs, which was authorized by Congress in 1978 and cost
approximately $1.5 billion, including $100 million provided by the
states involved. Under the UMTRA Surface Project, the Department
completed remedial actions at 22 of the 24 originally designated sites,
with two sites being delisted and their responsibility transferred to
the state of North Dakota. The project involved efforts with 11 States,
2 Indian tribes, and 23 communities. Cleanup was performed at over
5,300 vicinity properties located near the 22 designated UMTRA sites,
and over 40 million cubic yards of material were remediated and
nineteen long-term disposal cells were constructed. The disposal cells
must be permanently monitored and maintained. At most of these sites,
groundwater contamination remains and is being addressed by the UMTRA
Groundwater Project. The completion of the UMTRA Surface Project marks
a significant milestone in the Department's efforts to remediate the
environmental legacy from the production of nuclear weapons. Just as
mining and milling of uranium was the first step towards the production
of nuclear weapons, the completion of the UMTRA Surface Project
represents the first step towards ``closing the circle'' of the
environmental legacy from nuclear weapons production.
Overall in fiscal year 1998, EM completed cleanup at five
geographic sites, bringing the total completed to 65 of the 113 sites
currently under EM's responsibility. Progress was also demonstrated by
cleaning up portions of the EM geographic sites, referred to as
``release sites,'' and facilities. Cleaning up these areas ultimately
leads to the completion of the entire geographic site and in fiscal
year 1998, cleanup was completed at 290 release sites, and 108
facilities were decommissioned. This brings the total release sites
completed to 4,124 of the total 9,700 release site inventory, and 448
facilities decommissioned out of the 3,354 facility inventory.
We have also been making significant progress at our major sites.
For example, at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina, DOE
has made significant strides in groundwater and soils remediation over
the past several years. Of the 500 acres that require remediation,
nearly 330 acres have been remediated or are in the process of being
remediated. Of eleven groundwater contamination areas, six have
remediation systems in operation and over 3,000 million gallons of
groundwater has been treated. Innovative technology has played an
important role in acceleration of remediation at SRS and has helped
drive down costs. For example, passive technologies have reduced costs
while achieving excellent pollution removal. A total of 12 innovative
technology deployments in 1998 will further accelerate our remedial
activities. Unlike FUSRAP sites, significant work remains at the SRS to
manage the legacy nuclear materials and wastes requiring stabilization
and disposition. Additionally, the SRS will be assisting other DOE
sites, including the Rocky Flats site in Colorado, by accepting certain
excess nuclear materials. Key to these activities is the complex
operations in the H and F Canyon processing facilities and the Defense
Waste Processing Facility. These large facilities require specialized
management experience in nuclear safety programs, including radiation
safety and criticality control. DOE has more relevant and significant
experience in these areas and is better positioned than the Corps to
assure oversight in these key areas. DOE also has the requisite
experience to ensure that the waste tank farm operations are conducted
in a manner that fully supports the waste processing needs of the
Canyon facilities.
The Department also is actively engaged in a program to assure the
return of highly enriched uranium from foreign research reactors in
support of U.S. nonproliferation efforts. Program management activities
require extensive exchange with the Department of State, interface and
technical assistance to foreign research reactor owners, outreach with
affected States and receipt, transport and storage of spent nuclear
research reactors fuels at Savannah River and Idaho. Again, the
Department has significant and relevant experience in these complex
program areas.
The Department must manage its facilities in an integrated fashion
to accelerate cleanup, and more rapidly reduce large mortgage costs at
its sites. This integration is typified by the current plans to
accelerate the closure of the Rocky Flats site. The SRS is preparing to
receive surplus plutonium from Rocky Flats at an accelerated pace by
modifying the K Area Reactor to permit storage of the Rocky Flats
plutonium two years earlier than previously planned. This action will
help support accelerated Rocky Flats closure by fiscal year 2006, with
an estimated life cycle cost savings of approximately $1.3 billion.
Significant program integration efforts involving EM Headquarters, the
Rocky Flats site, Savannah River, the Hanford Site, the DOE Office of
Fissile Materials Disposition and other contractor and national
laboratory participants was necessary for providing the needed support.
In our view, the Department is better able to effectively manage these
integration efforts because of our extensive experience. In short, the
programmatic challenges faced at Savannah River require the unique
experience of the Department for effective, successful management.
At Rocky Flats, we are aggressively working to accelerate the
closure of the site, and are developing a revised baseline to achieve
closure by 2006. Closure of Rocky Flats is absolutely dependent on
other DOE sites. Waste and material generated during the closure is
going to a minimum of six other DOE facilities in six states. Material
from the pits is going to Pantex, highly enriched uranium to Oak Ridge,
residues to Savannah River, low-level waste to the Nevada Test Site,
and TRU waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP); decisions on
the disposition of classified parts still categorized as national
security material are being finalized, with the material likely to go
to Savannah River Site, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and/or the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Many of these shipments are on-
going. Some of the material being shipped is actually being stored or
processed in facilities funded and managed by other DOE programs in
addition to EM. Extensive coordination among DOE federal staff is
necessary to ensure schedule, cost, and environmental concerns are
known and are being resolved to allow the shipments to take place.
At Oak Ridge, Tennessee, the Department has made significant
progress in the remediation of the first gaseous diffusion plant at the
K-25 site. This site, now known as the East Tennessee Technology Park
(ETTP), is a good example of how the Department is working closely with
the private sector to accelerate cleanup and returning property and
buildings to productive use. The Department's innovative approach to
reindustrialization of the site has attracted 20 companies and over 650
jobs, and has resulted in considerable savings to the government. Major
remediation projects such as the removal of contaminated sludge from
highly radioactive storage tanks, called the ``Gunite Tanks'' at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory and the removal of radioactive deposits from
old process buildings have reduced the risk of criticality as well as
health and safety risk to workers and have been completed ahead of
schedule.
The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Incinerator, located at the
ETTP, is a unique resource used by other DOE programs and sites. This
facility treats radioactive, TSCA, and RCRA hazardous wastes from
numerous facilities, allowing them to maintain compliance with their
Site Treatment Plans required by the Federal Facility Compliance Act.
The Filter Test Facility (FTF), also located at ETTP, is another
facility operated by EM that provides a complex-wide service to other
DOE programs. The FTF tests High Energy Particulate Air Filters that
are used throughout the complex and are essential to worker safety and
controlling releases of radioactive constituents. This facility is the
only one within the DOE complex serving this function. In addition, EM
has awarded the Broad Spectrum Waste Treatment Contract at Oak Ridge to
effectively treat mixed hazardous and radioactive wastes to meet
compliance schedules established by the Site Treatment Plans at other
DOE sites as well as at Oak Ridge.
EM has also made considerable progress at Oak Ridge in several
other areas. Cleanup of Gunite Tanks is well underway using robotic
technologies, developed by EM's Office of Science and Technology (OST),
to empty the tanks of the transuranic contaminated sludges. This
project is attacking problems similar to the tank waste project at
Hanford, and lessons learned from Oak Ridge activities will be utilized
at Hanford. Technologies developed by OST at other sites have also been
instrumental in mitigating releases of contaminants to ground and
surface waters at the Oak Ridge Reservation, and at the Paducah,
Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio sites. In addition, EM is addressing a
highly complex problem with the decommissioning of the Molten Salt
Reactor Experiment at ORNL. EM is in the process of purging radioactive
gases from the system and is about to tackle the removal of Uranium
deposits that have migrated into the project's filter system. This is a
highly complex operation with high levels of radioactive material, and
EM is drawing on the expertise of DOE's National Laboratories to solve
the problem. Another technically difficult problem at Oak Ridge is the
treatment and packaging of TRU waste for eventual disposal at WIPP. Oak
Ridge currently has most of the DOE complex's remote-handled TRU, as
well as large amounts of contact-handled transuranic waste in storage
and has recently issued a fixed price contract to prepare this material
for shipment to WIPP.
EM is also a partner with DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy in dealing
with the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) at the Paducah and
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plants in Kentucky and Ohio. DOE provides
landlord services to USEC and obtains services from USEC's operating
contractor, Lockheed Martin Uranium Services, for maintenance and other
EM tasks. In addition, if USEC shuts down either of these plants, it
will be transferred to DOE and become part of EM's responsibilities.
Funds for this activity have been specifically earmarked by Congress in
the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund managed
by the Department's Oak Ridge Operations Office. Certain United States
nuclear utilities contribute to this fund based on past operations.
At the Weldon Spring, Missouri site, the Department is on track to
complete a complex remediation effort which involves decontamination
and demolition of dozens of contaminated structures, treatment of
millions of gallons of contaminated waste waters, hundreds of thousands
of cubic meters of sludge waste, removal and disposition of hundreds of
thousands of cubic meters of contaminated soils, and construction of an
on-site disposal facility that will close one of the first DOE
complexes used in the development of our nation's nuclear weapons
program. Working with the site contractor and with the cooperation of
stakeholders, DOE has been able to reach its remediation goals at
Weldon Springs within the cost and schedule objectives as originally
planned.
At the Fernald, Ohio site, the Department has been working to
accelerate the cleanup by closely coordinating our plans with the
regulators and the community. Again, dozens of structures are being
decontaminated and removed, and the land is being remediated so that it
can be returned to public use. Our cooperative approach with the
stakeholders and regulators will enable the Department to close this
site and return it to public use decades ahead of the original
schedule.
At Idaho, DOE has made major strides in meeting the Idaho
Settlement Agreement commitments for placement of spent nuclear fuel
(SNF) in dry storage. The new dry storage facility was ready to receive
its first shipment of SNF in December 1998, and the first transfer of
Three Mile Island SNF was loaded into the facility in March 1999. In
January 1999, DOE issued a Request for Proposal for a SNF privatization
storage project which, when awarded late this year, will be a critical
facility for providing dry storage capacity for additional SNF at
Idaho. In addition, DOE will complete moving at-risk SNF from wet
storage in the CPP-603 facility to safe storage by December 2000. Idaho
is and will continue to receive and store both domestic and foreign
research reactor fuel. The success of safely managing the highly
radioactive SNF has been due to the experienced and highly qualified
DOE staff at Idaho and Headquarters, and an established working
relationship with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of
Idaho. Idaho also manages the National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program and
integrates all SNF management and disposition activities across the DOE
complex, including coordination with the DOE Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, which is responsible for ultimate
disposal.
The inter-dependence between DOE sites is especially evident at
Idaho, which depends on other DOE sites, including Argonne National
Laboratory-West for examination of spent nuclear fuel, Yucca Mountain
for receipt of high-level waste and spent fuel, the WIPP site for
receipt of transuranic waste, and the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge for
receipt of highly enriched uranium. Shipments of transuranic waste from
Idaho to WIPP are being coordinated among EM Headquarters, the Carlsbad
Area Office, the Idaho Operations Office, and other DOE sites that will
be shipping to WIPP. Other sites also depend on Idaho, since it
receives their mixed low-level waste for incineration at Idaho
facilities.
At the Hanford, Washington site, the Department faces probably the
greatest technical challenges as well as the largest inventory of high
level waste. The cleanup of the K-Basins and the high-level waste tank
farms are unique missions involving high-level radioactive materials
which need the specialized expertise the Department has built over many
years. After about 50 years of producing nuclear materials at Hanford,
DOE is now cleaning up seriously degraded facilities containing great
hazards. The background, knowledge, skill and training of the
contractor and Department personnel are essential to conducting the
work safely. Many times the experience of the workers and the Federal
staff are a critical component in determining how to conduct work
safely in old facilities where existing conditions are uncertain. The
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) recognized the critical
importance of worker qualification and experience in issuing
Recommendation 93-3 to the Department on this topic, and DOE staff have
worked diligently over the past six years to reach the DNFSB
expectations. Furthermore, the DNFSB has issued a number of other
Hanford-specific recommendations that recognize the difficult challenge
of characterizing the wastes in the tanks, and highlight safety issues.
These are topics that demand personnel who are highly specialized and
trained in the nuclear sciences and engineering--exactly the people
that the Department and its contractors now have.
Furthermore, there are many interfaces across the Hanford site
which led the Department to adopt the Management and Integrating
contractor concept. We are now realizing the benefits of this
arrangement through greater cooperation among on-site organizations,
resulting in improved performance, cost savings and enhanced cleanup
accomplishments. For example, the groundwater and vadose zone studies
in the tank areas and in the other parts of the Hanford site are being
integrated to develop a site-wide picture of subsurface water
movements. Similarly, integration of work by the various contractors is
being accomplished through a systems engineering approach, governed by
Interface Control Documents. This effort is part of DNFSB
Recommendation 92-4. The integration of the numerous programs and
contractors enables DOE to manage the whole site, putting limited
resources on the most important work yet taking into consideration the
concerns of stakeholders. The Department views the path to success as
more integration; sharing cleanup with another Federal agency would
limit the opportunities for integration.
Progress in 1998 at Hanford included completion of the B-Plant
deactivation, four years ahead of schedule and at a savings of $100
million. Annual facility costs have been reduced from $20 million to
less than $1 million. DOE and its contractors used innovative
techniques to accelerate the project, including reengineering the
organization to make it more efficient, forming dedicated project teams
and using lessons learned from the successful early closure of the
PUREX Plant. The continuation of expertise from key Federal staff
involved in the PUREX project played a vital role in the success of the
B-Plant project. The N-Reactor deactivation project was also completed
in fiscal year 1998, placing the N-Reactor in a low-cost surveillance
and maintenance mode pending final disposition. This project included
the deactivation of 86 facilities, removal of 4,774 cubic feet of
sediment and 1,140,000 gallons of water, and 350 pounds of fuel from
the fuel basin. The N-Reactor deactivation project cost $120 million
over a 6-year period, and resulted in the N-Reactor being placed in a
safe and stable condition with an annual surveillance and maintenance
cost of only $350 thousand.
In light of all the progress EM is making, the Department does not
believe additional transfers to the Army Corps of Engineers would
provide any significant benefit. The FUSRAP program was the most
straightforward of the DOE's cleanup programs. With the exception of
the wastes stored at the Niagara Falls Storage Site, this program
involved material with some of the lowest concentrations of any
material managed by DOE. The inter-site and intra-Department
integration of radioactive materials at the other DOE sites being
remediated would be disrupted by other possible transfers of
responsibilities. The regulatory and safety issues involved with the
remediation of DOE sites could quickly lead to complications if
responsibility for cleaning up these sites were transferred to the
Corps, due to the fact that these other sites generally are
contaminated with material of significantly greater radioactivity
levels than the FUSRAP sites, which in many cases cannot be disposed of
at any facility other than a DOE site under DOE control. Likewise, a
number of sites contain special nuclear materials often require
coordination with and the involvement of other DOE sites. The
Department has extensive expertise in dealing with these waste
materials, which the Corps does not have.
For these reasons, I believe that the consequences of transferring
any additional portions of the Department's cleanup program to the Army
Corps of Engineers would be to slow down progress and that any such
transfer would be detrimental to the sites involved, the communities,
and the Government as a whole.
waste isolation pilot plant (wipp)
Question. How important is the opening of WIPP to DOE's waste
disposal strategy?
Answer. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is the cornerstone of the
Department's national strategy for disposal of transuranic waste.
Numerous legally-binding Consent Orders and Agreements between the
Department and States are predicated on the disposal of transuranic
waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). In addition, WIPP is
critical to achieving the accelerated closure of sites such as Rocky
Flats.
Question. Will DOE begin waste shipments to WIPP this year as
planned? What is your current schedule to make the first shipment? What
actions could jeopardize the first shipments at this late date?
Answer. On March 22, 1999, Judge John Garrett Penn concluded that
the permanent injunction he issued in 1992 does not prevent the
shipment of waste to WIPP for disposal, and that WIPP has interim
status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The
first shipment of waste from Los Alamos occurred on March 26, 1999. DOE
made its first shipment of waste from the Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory to WIPP on April 27, 1999, and plans to
begin shipments from the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site in
June or July 1999. There is still the possibility that private
plaintiffs or the New Mexico Environment Department will seek to block
shipments to WIPP from DOE sites outside of New Mexico.
Question. Mr. Owendoff, you know I have been extremely concerned
about the State of New Mexico's delay in considering a RCRA permit for
WIPP. Can you tell me where we stand today with respect to the suit
before Judge Penn and when you expect the New Mexico Environmental
Department to issue a permit?
Answer. I am happy to inform you that on Monday, March 22, Judge
Penn ruled that WIPP has interim status under RCRA and that DOE could
ship waste to WIPP. On Wednesday, March 24, eight federal judges in
three separate courts agreed that WIPP's opening should not be delayed.
The first shipment of waste from the Los Alamos National Laboratory
arrived at WIPP at about 3:30 am (MST) on Friday, March 26. Over the
next several months, DOE plans to send additional shipments to WIPP
from Los Alamos, Idaho and Rocky Flats based on the judge's decision
that WIPP has interim status and therefore may accept waste while the
permitting process is completed.
We do not expect that the Department will be in a position to ship
waste to WIPP from these three sites pursuant to a final permit until
late this year or sometime next year. It appears that the New Mexico
Environmental Department (NMED) will not issue a final permit until
October or November 1999, and under New Mexico's regulation, the permit
would not become effective until thirty days after its issuance. In
addition, the draft permit requires that NMED approve every site before
it ships mixed waste to WIPP, and NMED has never provided DOE with any
indication of its schedule for issuing these approvals for Los Alamos,
Idaho and Rocky Flats.
The latest draft of the permit issued by NMED also has provisions
that would require Westinghouse, DOE's contractor at WIPP, to provide
financial assurances for closure of the facility despite the fact that
RCRA exempts the federal government from the requirement for financial
assurances. Westinghouse estimates that, even if it finds an insurance
or bonding mechanism for providing such assurances, the cost could be
somewhere between $2-18 million annually. DOE will have to reimburse
Westinghouse for this expenditure.
We are also troubled by statements NMED has made during the permit
hearing and elsewhere that DOE might be: (1) required to submit a new
RCRA permit application; (2) prohibited from using Panel 1 after the
permit is issued; or (3) subject to enforcement actions under RCRA if
DOE ships waste to WIPP before the State issues the permit. We know of
no legal basis for these assertions, but NMED has been making them even
after Judge Penn concluded that WIPP has interim status.
Question. What would be the impact across DOE if WIPP does not open
as expected?
Answer. We are pleased to report that WIPP received its first
shipment of transuranic waste on March 26. We look forward to operating
WIPP as the integral part of our environmental cleanup program.
Question. How many State consent orders and agreements would be
impacted by a delay in WIPP opening?
Answer. There are sixteen states which have DOE facilities that
generate or store transuranic (TRU) waste. All of the facilities in
these states have ``waste disposition maps'' which identify WIPP as the
disposal facility. Key among the State consent orders and agreements
are those for Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
(INEEL) and the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) which
are at the critical point for milestone compliance. Several other DOE
sites may need to negotiate with their host state on transuranic waste
alternatives if the final resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
WIPP permit is issued beyond the October-November 1999 time frame.
At INEEL, DOE met the milestone in the Idaho Settlement Agreement
when the first shipment of TRU waste left the state on April 27, 1999.
Under the Agreement/court order, DOE must also meet the following TRU
waste interim deadlines: ship no fewer than 3,100 cubic meters of TRU
waste out of Idaho by December 31, 2002; after January 1, 2003, ship
out of the State a running average of no fewer than 2,000 cubic meters
of TRU waste per year; and ship an estimated 65,000 cubic meters of TRU
waste out of the State of Idaho by a target date of December 31, 2015,
but no later than December 31, 2018. If any of these deadlines are not
met, the DOE must suspend shipments of DOE spent nuclear fuel and
foreign research reactor spent fuel to INEEL for storage.
Under the terms of the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement, the
Department committed to ship 375 drums of TRU waste by the end of
fiscal year 1998. Because WIPP did not open, DOE renegotiated the
milestone with the regulators to ship 670 cubic meters of TRU waste
offsite by the end of fiscal year 1999. An inability to ship TRU waste
offsite for a prolonged period of time would require construction of a
storage facility for TRU and mixed TRU waste. In addition, DOE is
strongly committed to accelerated cleanup of Rocky Flats, and shipments
of transuranic waste should begin this year to support achievement of
that goal.
By making the first shipment from the Los Alamos National
Laboratory, the Department was able to meet a commitment to the State
of New Mexico and avoid entering into negotiations to identify
treatment requirements for the transuranic waste in storage at that
site.
Question. If WIPP does not open on time will DOE waste movements
come to a halt? What alternatives is DOE considering to maintain
schedules and cost savings tied to opening of WIPP?
Answer. On Monday, March 22, Judge Penn ruled that WIPP has interim
status and that there is no reason to delay shipments to WIPP any
longer. On Wednesday, March 24, eight federal judges in three separate
courts agreed that WIPP's opening should not be delayed. The first
shipment of waste from the Los Alamos National Laboratory arrived at
WIPP on Friday, March 26. DOE also made the first shipment to WIPP from
the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) on
April 27, 1999. Over the next several months, DOE plans to send
additional shipments to WIPP from Los Alamos, Idaho and Rocky Flats.
los alamos environmental restoration program
Question. A few months ago, there were new reports of contamination
of the groundwater aquifer around the Los Alamos Laboratory from high
explosive residues. Could you explain the problem and what DOE is doing
to address the issue?
Answer. The Department has detected high explosives (HE) residues
in groundwater beneath the southwest edge of the Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL). This contamination was discovered in the
characterization well R-25 that is currently being constructed at LANL
Technical Area 16. The contamination comes from past high explosives
research, development, and testing activities carried out in this area.
Prior to operations at the Pantex site, HE components for the nation's
nuclear stockpile were manufactured at the TA-16 area.
High explosives and chemicals associated with their breakdown were
present in most of the samples down to a depth of 1,607 feet.
Concentrations in most groundwater samples above 1,607 feet exceed the
EPA health advisory guidance for drinking water.
Groundwater in the TA-16 area is not used for drinking water. The
closest water supply well is located 3.5 miles east of the R-25 well.
The groundwater travel time between the R-25 well and the nearest water
supply well is probably between 50 and 200 years. Samples from the
nearest six water supply production wells on the LANL property were
tested and found to contain no high explosive degradation products.
Steps have already been taken to reduce the discharge of high
explosives processing water in the TA-16 area. In the early 1990s, LANL
recognized that high explosives wastewater discharges at TA-16 would
not meet State stream standards, and began to reduce discharges and
improve discharge water quality. These changes were completed in
September 1997 and included a new high explosives wastewater treatment
plant. In addition, installation of new vacuum pumps at TA-16 high
explosives processing facilities improved reuse of wastewater and
reduced flow to the wastewater treatment plant. Other changes
eliminated 19 of the 21 high explosive wastewater outfalls. Before
1997, the Laboratory discharged more than 12 million gallons of HE-
contaminated wastewater a year at TA-16. Since the new treatment plant
was installed and the wastewater outfalls were eliminated, the
Laboratory discharges only 120,000 gallons per year, or about 1 percent
of the amounts previously discharged.
The R-25 well is the third of 32 planned deep wells that LANL will
install as part of a seven-year groundwater study. The study,
documented in the Hydrogeologic Workplan, has been approved by the New
Mexico Environment Department and is being carried out jointly by the
Offices of Environmental Management and Defense Programs. The goal is
to develop better understanding of the geology, groundwater flow, and
geochemistry beneath the 43 square mile LANL area. The study will also
assess impacts that prior LANL activities have had on groundwater
quality in the area.
The TA-16 area is one of LANL's highest priority cleanup sites.
Removal of high explosives from contaminated soils near recently
eliminated wastewater outfalls will begin this year. In particular,
high explosive contaminated soils in the vicinity of the Building 260
outfall are scheduled for cleanup this summer. The Department is also
constructing R-25 as a monitoring well with nine sampling ports
distributed throughout the upper and lower zones of saturation. Once
completed, the additional samples will be collected on a periodic basis
to define the distribution of high explosive concentrations in
groundwater and to monitor changes in the quality of the groundwater
over time.
Question. Are you coordinating your actions with the State of New
Mexico and do they concur with your actions and plans?
Answer. The Department and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)
staff are working closely with regulators in the New Mexico Environment
Department and Groundwater Bureau to define future planned activities
as a result of the R-25 findings. State regulators have been briefed on
the R-25 results throughout the R-25 drilling effort. Results have also
been discussed with the New Mexico Environment Department at the
Hydrogeologic Workplan quarterly meeting on February 9, and at a
meeting with the New Mexico Environment Department and Groundwater
Bureau held in Santa Fe on March 4.
LANL staff discussed the R-25 results and future characterization
plans with State regulators at the March 29-31 Hydrogeologic Workplan
meeting.
Question. What are DOE's plans and schedule for installing a new
regional aquifer to the monitoring well to determine whether
contaminants have moved away from Technical Area-16?
Answer. The Department is accelerating the schedule for installing
a new regional aquifer monitoring well that will be located between the
characterization well R-25 and the nearest water supply wells as part
of the Hydrogeologic Workplan. The new well will show whether
contaminants have moved away from TA-16, and provide information to
assist LANL efforts to ensure that drinking water supplies are
protected. Drilling the new well will begin either this year or early
next year.
In addition to the regional aquifer well described above, LANL is
planning additional investigations in the TA-16 area to better
understand the nature and extent of groundwater contamination
identified by the R-25 drilling effort. Plans are currently under
development to determine the size of the contaminant plume that
contains high explosives components and the direction and velocity of
groundwater flow. The numbers and locations of any new wells will be
developed in cooperation with State regulators in the New Mexico
Environment Department and Groundwater Bureau.
hanford reprogramming/em program accountability and control
Question. Now I'd like to talk for a moment about the Hanford Tank
Operations reprogramming proposal, and the broader, more fundamental
issue of accountability and control within the Environmental Management
program.
First, regarding the reprogramming of $53.3 million for Tank
Operations at Hanford, I understand that DOE knew as early as May 1998
that additional ``critical'' work requirements would make it difficult
to stay within available funding levels. The Department was notified in
August of 1998 by the M&I contractor that there were increased funding
needs to address important issues in the tank farm. Yet, there was no
action taken until mid-February 1999 to alert the committee of a
potential problem, and it was not until February 24, 1999, that the
Department formally notified the appropriate Committees of Congress of
the funding shortfall and the need for the additional $53.3 million.
This chronology raises serious questions as to how the Department of
Energy manages its programs and the extent that the Department is able
to control how appropriated funds are spent.
Why, based on your own timeline, in May and again in July of 1998
when additional unscheduled work became known, didn't the Department
take actions to reorder priorities in an effort to stay within the
available funding level?
Answer. In May 1998, although some of the conditions that would
eventually require this reprogramming were known to exist, the impact
to fiscal year 1999 planning was not fully apparent. By July, a number
of events occurred, such as completion of a Process Control Plan for
tank C-106, the State's notification of its intent to sue related to
interim stabilization, and a high incidence of reported alarm failures,
that defined the urgent and emergent safety actions which would need to
be addressed in fiscal year 1999. However, the full scope, schedule,
and costs associated with these activities were not defined
sufficiently to be able to reprioritize work at that time. In
retrospect, we should have advised the Congress in August 1998 of the
new requirements and the potential for a reprogramming request. This
would have provided the Congress the opportunity to decide if the
fiscal year 1999 appropriation marks should be revised.
Question. Why in August of 1998 was the committee not informed of
the additional problems and funding needs as identified by the M&I
contractor? You'll remember that the Conference on the fiscal year 1999
Energy and Water Appropriations Bill had not taken place, so the
committee had the ability and opportunity to address this issue when
finalizing the fiscal year 1999 Environmental Management budget.
Answer. While the need was recognized, the information required for
a formal request was not fully developed. In August 1998, the Richland
Operations Office was still working on the contractor's multi-year work
plan. Additionally, the Department was in the midst of negotiations
with the State of Washington concerning stabilization of the single
shell-tanks. The full scope of the activities to be required was not
fully defined at that time. Therefore, the entire scope of the
additional work was not clearly defined, nor were the associated costs.
It would have been premature to request Congressional action without
proper details to support the request. However, in retrospect, had we
advised the Congress in August 1998 of the new requirement and
potential for a reprogramming request, it would have provided Congress
with the opportunity to decide if the fiscal year 1999 appropriation
marks should be revised.
Question. Why, knowing of the shortfall in funding, did the
Department authorize the M&I contractor to proceed with additional work
prior to notification and approval of a reprogramming by the Committee
on Appropriations of the House and Senate?
Answer. The contractor was authorized to proceed to address urgent
and emergent safety needs, as well as regulatory requirements. At no
time did Richland intend to exceed available funding limits, or violate
any fund controls. There had always been a plan in place to reduce
scope to stay within the limitations. However, this plan involved
significant impacts to site-wide programs. The need for the
reprogramming arose because of the requirement for additional operating
funds in the Post-2006 Completion Fund account. If the reprogramming
were to be disapproved, all programs under this account (i.e.,
environmental restoration, waste management, and Tank Waste Remediation
System/privatization support) would have had to absorb reductions to
allow the tank safety work to continue.
Question. Why did it take from August of 1998 until February 1999
for the Department to get a reprogramming request to the committee?
Answer. Last summer, the Richland Operations Office identified
several funding needs in the high level tank waste operations program.
These needs exceeded the identified potential funding sources.
Therefore, the Richland Office and Headquarters worked together to
develop the funding priorities to be included in the reprogramming
request as well as the potential funding sources.
During this process, additional funding needs arose as a
consequence of new technical issues with one tank that has posed
significant health and safety problems in the past, as well as the new
consent agreement with the State of Washington to resolve compliance
issues concerning interim stabilization of the single shell tanks.
To ensure that these new activities were properly priced and to
avoid the need to submit two reprogramming requests, the Richland
Office and Headquarters continued to work together to finalize the
technical approaches and pricing for these new activities before the
reprogramming request was submitted to Congress.
The Richland Office submitted its formal reprogramming request to
Headquarters on December 10, 1998; Headquarters submitted the request
to OMB on February 4, 1999; and the Department submitted the final
request to Congress on February 24, 1999.
In retrospect, we should have advised Congress in August of 1998 of
the new requirement and potential for a reprogramming request. This
would have afforded Congress the opportunity to decide if the fiscal
year 1999 appropriation marks should be revised or wait for a formal
reprogramming request.
Question. Finally, can you explain how or why the Department was
able to assume approval of the reprogramming in the fiscal year 2000
budget, which the Department prepared last year and submitted to the
Congress on February 1, 1999, when the requirements of the
reprogramming request were not fully known and no request had been
submitted to the committee?
Answer. The Department intended to present the Congress with a
request for fiscal year 2000 that was consistent with the reprogramming
request that would be presented to the Congress at approximately the
same time. In this manner, the Department would be presenting to the
Congress a consistent and coherent description of the program that the
Department was seeking to execute at the Hanford site in fiscal year
1999 and fiscal year 2000. With respect to the timing of the fiscal
year 2000 budget submission, the Richland portion of the fiscal year
2000 budget request was not finalized until late January 1999, so that
it would accurately reflect the information contained in the soon-to-
be-submitted reprogramming request. At no time did the Department
assume the reprogramming had been approved. If the reprogramming had
not been approved, we would have modified our request for fiscal year
2000 accordingly.
In retrospect, we should have advised the Congress in August 1998
of the new requirement and potential for a reprogramming request. This
would have provided the Congress the opportunity to decide if the
fiscal year 1999 appropriation marks should be revised.
Question. Secondly, and probably of more concern, is the total lack
of ability of DOE to control the waste cleanup program, not just at
Hanford, but throughout the DOE complex. This reprogramming is just one
illustration of the issues and problems. It is just a symptom of a
bigger problem namely, that DOE's cleanup efforts are being driven by
compliance agreements and state threats of legal action irrespective of
the actions by Congress in appropriating funds for the Environmental
Management program.
Mr. Owendoff, would you care to respond?
Answer. First, I would like to address the concern regarding the
extent to which the EM program is ``driven'' by cleanup agreements and
potential state legal actions.
The EM budget is driven by a number of factors, including:
(1) the need to mitigate or control risks to human health and the
environment posed by the Department's unprecedented inventory of
nuclear and hazardous wastes and materials;
(2) legal obligations to perform a variety of activities, and the
national policy to reduce global nuclear proliferation risks; and
(3) a strategy to invest in certain activities such as accelerating
project completion dates that can reduce longer-term program costs.
The Department's legal obligations arise directly from federal and
state environmental and public health laws and regulations that apply
to DOE's activities, and from compliance agreements that the Department
has entered into pursuant to those laws.
The Department recognizes the importance of both meeting its legal
obligations and managing a program within the current budgetary
constraints. In many instances, state and federal regulators have been
willing to renegotiate compliance milestones in light of emerging
technical information and budgetary constraints. However, state and
federal regulators have recently indicated an increasing reluctance to
continue to do so.
Many EM projects involve unique and complex technical and
managerial challenges. These include unique, high-level liquid
radioactive waste mixtures in leaking underground tanks, corroding
spent nuclear fuel in wet storage pools, and waste in burial pits
containing plutonium and other wastes in unknown concentrations and
locations. In a number of instances, the cost and schedules of these
projects have proved difficult to accurately define or project in
advance. However, the Department has taken a number of steps to improve
its project management to help ensure that projects can be completed on
schedule and within current budgets. For example, the Department has
undertaken a major effort to integrate cleanups between sites to take
advantage of potential economies of scale and to eliminate duplicate
facilities. Also, pursuant to Congressional direction, the Department
has created the Office of River Protection to manage the Hanford tank
program. EM also is creating the Office of Independent Project Reviews
to monitor and improve management of major projects. We are continuing
to improve our contracting methods to provide our contractors with the
right incentives and penalties for good or poor performances.
I must respectfully disagree with the suggestion that there is a
``total lack of ability to control the waste cleanup program.'' The
Department acknowledges that there have been prominent instances in
which project cost escalations and/or delays in schedules have led to
legal issues and budgetary pressures. These projects generally have
involved the unique technical challenges described above. In these
cases, the Department has taken steps to improve its management of
these specific projects as well as other technically challenging
projects. In fact, the Department has made substantial progress in
completing cleanup projects. By the end of fiscal year 1999, we expect
to have completed cleanup or made ``no further action'' determinations
for nearly half (47 percent) of the approximately 9,300 contaminated
release sites for which the EM program is responsible. This will result
in the completion of the active cleanup of 65 of the 113 sites
originally under the EM program (excluding the FUSRAP sites). We have
produced 617 canisters of waste vitrified into glass since operations
began at the Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina, and 237
canisters at the West Valley Demonstration Project in New York. In
1998, the Department completed the Uranium Mill Tailings Surface
Project (cleanup of 22 mill sites and 5,700 vicinity properties); the
decommissioning of the Hanford-Reactor and B-Plant; the cocooning of
the Hanford C-Reactor; and the completion of Phase I of the
vitrification program at West Valley, New York (vitrification of all
waste except for tank heels.) In addition, the Department is on track
to complete the closure of the Weldon Spring site by 2002 and the Mound
site by 2005. We are also on track to complete cleanup at Fernald by
2006 and continue to refine our project baselines at Rocky Flats in
order to meet our ambitious goal to clean up Rocky Flats by 2006.
The Department therefore believes that although there are several
instances in which project management has been a difficult challenge,
the program is being managed and we are making the necessary progress.
science and technology
Question. The funding request for fiscal year 2000 for the DOE
environmental management Science and Technology program is $230.5
million compared to $243.2 million provided of the current year, a
reduction of $12.6 million. Within the overall request is funding for
the Office of Science program which support the efforts of the
Environmental Management program. This is funded at $47 million in
fiscal year 1999 and the request for fiscal year 2000 is $32 million, a
reduction of $15 million from the fiscal year 1999 level.
Is the continued reduction in the Science and Technology program
strictly related to budget constraints or is there some other reason
for the decline?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, the Department requested $219.5
million for the Environmental Management Science and Technology
program, including $32 million for the Science Program. The Congress
appropriated $243.5 million for the Science and Technology program,
including $47 million for the Science program. This represented a $15
million increase from the request for the Science program and a $14
million overall increase. The increase provided by Congress in fiscal
year 1999 for the Science program will enable the Department to
initiate several new projects in fiscal year 1999 to address scientific
problems associated with vadose zone, subsurface contamination, and
groundwater issues at sites such as Hanford and to develop a better
scientific basis for understanding exposures and risks to humans from
low dose radiation.
In fiscal year 2000, the Department is requesting $230.5 million
for the Science and Technology program, including $32 million for the
Science program. The requested level for the Science program represents
the amount that is necessary to continue funding for the projects that
already have been initiated. The Department intends to assess the
results from the first round of Science program projects (for which
fiscal year 1999 is the last year of funding) prior to requesting
funding for new projects.
The Science and Technology program budget is developed in
conjunction with the budget for the other EM sites. The EM budget is
driven by a number of statutory and regulatory requirements for which
sufficient funding must be requested. The program's priority is to fund
these compliance requirements, and other safety-related priorities,
before it funds other important, but discretionary, items such as
research that allows the program to address many of the technical
challenges it faces.
We are committed to and pleased with the progress of the Science
and Technology Program, including the Environmental Management Science
Program, which is co-managed by EM and the Office of Science. We
continue to believe that a strong Science and Technology Program is
essential to the success of the EM Program.
Question. Now several years ago, GAO gave the program poor marks
for use of funds appropriated for technology development and moving
that technology into use around the DOE complex. What has DOE done to
bring about change and to focus the technology development program on
the areas of critical need?
Answer. The Environmental Management (EM) program has made
significant changes in the way our science and technology (S&T) program
seeks to deploy new technologies. S&T is no longer solely a developer
of cleanup technologies. S&T now provides the full range of science and
technology capabilities necessary to deliver and support fully
developed, deployable solutions to DOE's cleanup problems--from basic
research through development, demonstration, deployment and technical
assistance. We have enhanced the ``focus area'' membership--teams that
address EM's five major problem areas--to serve as centers of expertise
to provide technical assistance to the sites on technologies through
all phases of development and deployment. We have also established
Focus Area User Steering Committees that consist of senior-level user
and developer representatives who are involved in decisionmaking
throughout all phases of technology development. This ensures that
users provide input as technologies evolve so the technologies meet
sites' needs as they become available for use.
Also, an EM Research and Development Program Plan has been
developed that ``maps'' investments in technical solutions to site-
identified needs. This effort ensures that our science and technology
activities are planned and managed in an interactive, coordinated and
participatory relationship with EM cleanup project managers and
stakeholders.
S&T uses a multi-attribute decision model that defines and
prioritizes EM's technology needs and drives investments for science
and technology. The prioritization criteria help ensure we are meeting
our highest priority needs to solve environmental cleanup problems, as
well as addressing areas of high technical risks, addressing high cost
waste streams, and accelerating deployment.
To spur widespread use of available innovative technologies, EM
began an accelerated site technology deployment initiative in fiscal
year 1998. Fourteen projects were competitively selected and initiated
that resulted in 13 deployments by the year's end. Another 42
deployment projects were reviewed and approved for possible funding in
fiscal year 1999, from which 32 have been funded and initiated. The
cost and performance data from these successful deployments help
accelerate widespread use by eliminating the perceived business risks
associated with new technology.
S&T also helps sponsor the Interstate Technology and Regulatory
Cooperation Working Group (ITRC), a state and federal partnership for
streamlining the regulatory approval process. ITRC provides an
excellent forum for regulators from 26 states to collaborate with
representatives from federal agencies, industry and stakeholder groups
to raise the confidence of environmental decision-makers concerning
deploying new technologies. This collaboration among participating
states eliminates duplicative verification work, thereby reducing the
time and cost regulating agencies must spend reviewing and permitting
new technologies.
Question. Can you give the committee some idea of how you have been
able to develop and move technology from the concept stage to use at
DOE sites?
Answer. An example of a viable technology that grew from an idea is
cesium removal using crystalline silicotitanate (CST). Approximately
100 million gallons of radioactive waste are stored in underground
storage tanks at Hanford, Idaho, Oak Ridge, and Savannah River. The
waste contains the radioactive element cesium, which emits penetrating
radiation that presents health risks to workers and the public if they
are exposed to the tank waste. Removing the cesium from liquid tank
waste reduces the volume that must be carefully and expensively handled
to prevent such exposures.
To address the cesium removal problem, we began a collaboration
between Texas A&M University and the Sandia National Laboratory (SNL)
to improve our understanding of the molecular structure of this type of
waste. This effort showed promise as an improved method for separating
radionuclides from high level wastes. These early results led to a
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement between SNL and a
private company, UOP Molecular Sieves, to produce CSTs in an engineered
form. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) used their ``hot'' cell
facilities to perform successful pilot-scale testing (one-liter
samples). The results of the pilot-scale tests enabled scale-up to a
size suitable for processing Oak Ridge waste, and 25,000 gallons of
Melton Valley tank waste were successfully treated using a full-scale
system built by TTI Engineering under contract with ORNL. Going from
breakthrough to full-scale deployment took about five years and
involved one university, two National Laboratories, and two companies.
Question. One of the tools which has been developed is ``technology
roadmaps''. Explain the concept of these ``roadmaps'', how DOE plans to
use them, and how the budget request addresses areas where there are
significant science and technology issues to be addressed?
Answer. EM has been playing a lead role in the Department-wide
effort to use roadmapping techniques to improve the way we develop and
manage science and technology investments. Roadmapping within EM
involves an interactive dialogue between the user community responsible
for the cleanup and the science and technology community developing
solutions. This dialogue results in a jointly defined set of needs and
an investment strategy to address them. The success of the DOE
environmental cleanup program will ultimately depend on whether cleanup
project managers at DOE sites have the tools and information they need
to complete their projects on time and within budget.
EM has approached roadmapping at three levels. In November 1998, EM
issued the EM Research and Development Program Plan. This Plan outlines
a five-year investment portfolio for science and technology at the
program level and is based on data provided by the sites to support
EM's planning processes. The second level of roadmapping is at the
environmental problem level (i.e., high level waste, mixed waste,
deactivation and decommissioning, plutonium stabilization, and
subsurface contamination). We have developed a set of multi-year
program plans for each of these major problem areas which are reviewed
by the site users and ultimately endorsed by the Focus Area User
Steering Committees--groups established to ensure user and developer
coordination through all phases of technology development. The third
tier of roadmapping is at the project level and to date has been
focused on a limited number of projects (e.g., salt treatment
alternatives for cesium removal at the Savannah River Site and vadose
zone activities at Hanford). These roadmapping efforts provide the
underlying basis for the budget request.
To ensure the requested budget addresses areas where there are
significant science and technology issues, S&T uses a multi-attribute
decision model that defines and prioritizes EM's technology needs and
drives investments for science and technology. The sites across the DOE
complex recently reported over 500 environmental problems that require
technological solutions in order to complete cleanup activities, over
80 percent of which are categorized as medium and high priority. Also
86 pathways or events on the critical path to closure were identified
as having medium to high technological risk, where critical cleanup
projects may not be completed on time or within budget due to a
technology deficiency. This prioritization process uses these data to
ensure that S&T's investments are aimed at meeting the highest priority
needs, addressing areas of high technical risks, addressing highest-
cost needs, and accelerating deployment.
Question. How important is the Science Program to the success of
the environmental management and cleanup program?
Answer. The Environmental Management Science Program (EMSP), which
is co-managed by DOE's Offices of Environmental Management (EM) and
Science (SC), has a significant role in the successful cleanup of the
DOE weapons complex. The sites have identified a number of significant
and intractable problems they will face in the long-term, primarily in
work that needs to be done beyond the 2006 timeframe. The EMSP
addresses the most challenging, and potentially the most costly,
technical problems facing DOE related to high-level waste, spent
nuclear fuel, mixed waste, nuclear materials, remedial action,
decontamination and decommissioning, and health, ecology and risk.
Question. Is the $32 million funding level sufficient to carry out
a credible program? Please explain.
Answer. We are confident that the requested $32 million is adequate
to continue the multi-year grants that were awarded in previous years.
This includes the last year of 66 three-year research projects
initiated in fiscal year 1997, 33 three-year projects initiated in
fiscal year 1998 in the areas of radioactive tank waste and
decontamination and decommissioning, and fiscal year 1999 grants to be
awarded in September 1999 to address subsurface contamination/vadose
zone and effects of low dose radiation exposure.
Question. What, in your judgement, is the minimum credible annual
funding level?
Answer. At this time, we believe $32 million is the minimum level
at which the EMSP program can adequately conduct a research program
that provides basic scientific knowledge in support of the development
of ``cutting-edge'' environmental technologies. The requested level for
the Science program represents the amount necessary to continue funding
for the projects that already have been initiated. The Department
intends to assess the results from the first round of Science program
projects (for which fiscal year 1999 is the last year of funding) prior
to requesting funding for new projects.
Question. Can you give the committee some of the accomplishments to
date as a result of the funding provided for the Science Program?
Answer. We are pleased with the progress of the Environmental
Management Science Program (EMSP), which is co-managed by the DOE
Offices of Environmental Management (EM) and Science. Since its
beginning in fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 1999, EMSP has
invested over $190 million to support 235 research projects--work that
is already providing useful results. Some selected accomplishments are:
--We are genetically engineering a natural soil bacterium with high
resistance to radiation into a natural detoxifier for complex
mixed wastes. These results show the promise of yielding an
inexpensive, effective bioremediation of contaminated sites.
--We have also demonstrated innovative metal contaminant remediation
methods using tobacco plants (phytoremediation) to remove
methyl mercury from soils.
--We now have a better understanding of gas bubble-tank waste
interactions during barometric pressure changes, which can lead
to better methods of measuring and monitoring dangerous gas
formation in high-level waste tanks and process streams.
--We are developing a method that combines seismic reflection and
ground-penetrating radar to better map near-surface (2 to 8
meters) conditions at waste sites. This non-invasive approach
can facilitate retrieval of buried waste at sites with complex
geologies.
At the end of fiscal year 1999, we expect final reports from over
100 of the research projects awarded in fiscal year 1996, and we expect
to have many scientific results that will help EM in achieving its
cleanup mission.
Question. Has the Department decided whether there is no longer a
need for a stable Science Program as reflected in the budget request
for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. We believe the requested $32 million is appropriate at this
time to support the multi-year grants that were awarded in previous
years.
rocky flats cleanup
Question. Last year the Congress funded the cleanup work at Rocky
Flats in the Closure Account at $657 million. The budget request for
fiscal year 2000 is level funded at $657 million. The committee has
been funding the Rocky Flats cleanup effort based on an accelerated
schedule with closure by 2006. The current plan on which Rocky Flats
cleanup costs and schedules are based on project closure of the site by
2010 at a cost of $7.3 billion. DOE's Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to
Closure also indicates that cleanup will not be completed by the year
2010.
Accelerated cleanup of Rocky Flats is a key to DOE's efforts to
reduce landlord and mortgage costs thereby freeing up resources to be
applied to other critical cleanup work and sites. If Rocky Flats is not
accelerated and the resulting savings of an estimated $1.3 billion
realized, then there will be insufficient funds available to accomplish
work at other sites across the DOE complex.
Explain DOE's strategy and approach to cleaning up Rocky Flats. Why
doesn't DOE's report on Pathways to Closure support closure by 2006?
Answer. The Department fully supports efforts to clean up and close
Rocky Flats as soon as possible, including meeting the 2006 goal. The
strategy for cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats is straightforward, but
challenging. The nuclear material in the buildings at Rocky Flats needs
to be stabilized, packaged and sent off-site to a disposition facility
or for storage in preparation for disposition. Once the materials are
removed, the buildings will be deactivated and torn down. Waste
generated by all these activities will also be sent off-site to a
disposal facility. The soil will then be cleaned up to the agreed-upon
soil action level and some areas will then be capped. The existing
baseline and the Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure document show
this work being completed in 2010. The Department and the Rocky Flats
contractors have accepted a challenge to accelerate that goal to 2006.
This goal has not yet been translated into a detailed baseline and
assumptions necessary to give us confidence that this goal can be
turned into a plan, but we expect to receive a detailed baseline to
achieve the 2006 goal from the contractor in May 1999. We plan to
validate that baseline by the end of this year. Following this, we
expect that future revisions of Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure
will reflect the 2006 goal.
funding for 2006 completion
Question. Does the fiscal year 2000 request of $657 million support
the 2006 date, and if not, why? How much additional funding is needed
to maintain the 2006 completion schedule?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget request is based on the current
baseline for Rocky Flats, which has a 2010 closure date. However,
activities have already been identified that would help accelerate
closure to 2006, and these activities are included in the fiscal year
2000 budget request. Some examples include the ongoing shipment of
plutonium residues to the Savannah River Site (SRS) for stabilization,
and accelerating by two years the shipment of metals and oxides to SRS.
We are expecting the details of a 2006 closure baseline from the
contractor in May 1999. DOE expects to validate the baseline by the end
of this year. I am confident at this point that the Department's fiscal
year 2000 budget request includes adequate funds to support accelerated
closure.
wipp opening
Question. How important is the opening of the WIPP facility in New
Mexico to the Rocky Flats accelerated cleanup strategy. What impact
will a delayed opening of WIPP have on cleanup plan for Rocky Flats?
Answer. Opening WIPP is extremely important to the overall effort
to accelerate the closure of Rocky Flats and several other DOE sites.
We are very pleased that WIPP has begun receiving waste and expect this
will help clean up and close Rocky Flats. Nonetheless, more on-site
storage for TRU waste may be needed. The repackaging of plutonium
residues in fiscal year 1999, when combined with existing and projected
TRU waste in inventory at Rocky Flats, may result in more TRU waste
than can currently be stored at Rocky Flats even assuming shipments of
waste from Rocky Flats to WIPP. Therefore, even after WIPP begins
receiving Rocky Flats waste this summer, more storage capacity may be
needed. Rocky Flats is already increasing its storage capacity by
modifying existing temporary structures and expanding Building 440. If
Rocky Flats does not begin shipments of waste to WIPP by July 1999, and
is not able to ship at fairly aggressive rates, the site will need to
make a decision by the end of fiscal year 1999 on whether to start
modification or construction of additional storage facilities. We do
not expect the need for additional storage to impact the 2006 closure
goal.
cleanup budget
Question. What portion of the $657 million budget request is for
actual cleanup work and how much goes to other expenses such as
landlord and management costs?
Answer. Approximately $245 million (37 percent) of the $657 million
fiscal year 2000 request is for actual cleanup work, including
stabilization, packaging, and shipment of special nuclear material,
storage and shipment of waste, deactivation and decommissioning of
facilities, and environmental restoration activities. The remaining
$412 million (63 percent) (commonly referred to as fixed cost) supports
safeguards and security, surveillance and maintenance of over 600
facilities, infrastructure and utilities, analytical support, and
project/program management. The desire to reduce the high ``fixed
cost'' at Rocky Flats is one of the key reasons that the Department is
investing cleanup dollars for accelerated closure of the site.
mixed low-level and low-level wastes
Question. What are DOE's plans regarding disposal of mixed low-
level and low-level wastes? Do you have an approved plan, where is the
waste to go, what is the schedule for having plans approved, and what
are the major issues or problems associated with providing a path for
disposal of these wastes?
Answer. Low-level waste is currently being shipped to the Nevada
Test Site for disposal. Some mixed low-level waste is currently sent to
a commercial facility. The wastes now being shipped generally have a
low radionuclide content.
Some mixed low-level wastes that will be generated during cleanup
do not now have an approved disposal pathway. These mixed low-level
wastes are projected to have radionuclide levels greater than any
commercial facility is currently authorized to accept; and no DOE
facility can accept off-site mixed low-level waste, regardless of
radionuclide content, until DOE issues the Record of Decision for mixed
low-level waste based on the Waste Management Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement. We are pursuing two potential
disposition paths for this higher radionuclide waste--disposal in a
commercial facility in Colorado or disposal in a DOE facility. A
decision on these options is expected in fiscal year 2000.
idaho national engineering & environmental laboratory
Question. Briefly explain the strategy and major milestones for
waste management activities at the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory (INEEL).
Answer. The INEEL Waste Management program will safely treat,
store, and dispose of low-level waste, mixed low-level waste,
transuranic waste, and high-level waste in compliance with agreements
(e.g., the 1995 Settlement Agreement among the Department, the State of
Idaho, and the U.S. Navy), the Federal Facility Compliance Act Site
Treatment Plan, and other applicable environmental requirements.
The Department's strategy is to dispose of 6,500 cubic meters of
stored low-level waste by the end of fiscal year 1999, to treat and
dispose of backlogged mixed low-level waste (as defined in the Site
Treatment Plan) by 2003, and to treat and dispose of the retrievably
stored transuranic waste by 2018. Newly generated low-level, and mixed
low-level waste will be dispositioned within one year of generation.
High level waste will be treated and prepared for transport out of
Idaho by 2035.
Question. What impact is there on the Idaho Settlement Agreement if
the WIPP facility does not begin receiving waste this year as planned?
What alternate or backup plan is there to ensure that the requirements
of the Settlement Agreement are met?
Answer. The remedy for failure of DOE to meet the transuranic waste
shipment milestones outlined in the Idaho Settlement Agreement is the
suspension of DOE spent nuclear fuel and foreign research reactor
shipments to the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering
Laboratory (INEEL). DOE met the first milestone when the first shipment
left INEEL on April 27, 1999.
Question. Is there anything other than opening of WIPP which could
delay shipments of TRU waste out of INEEL in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. DOE shipped the first shipment of transuranic waste from
INEEL on April 27, 1999, to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New
Mexico. Over the next several months, DOE plans to send transuranic
waste shipments to WIPP from Los Alamos, INEEL, and Rocky Flats.
advanced mixed waste treatment project (amwtp)
Question. The fiscal year 2000 Budget Request includes $110 million
for the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project at the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. This project is being carried
out under the DOE Environmental Management Privatization program.
Update the Committee on the current status of the Advanced Mixed
Waste Treatment Project. Is construction of this facility required
under the Idaho Settlement Agreement?
Answer. The AMWTP has been proceeding very successfully since the
contract was awarded in December 1996. The contractor, BNFL Inc., has
submitted quality Phase I project deliverables on schedule. Examples of
such deliverables include the DOE Environment, Safety, and Health
Program Operating Plan; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
permit application; Air Permit to Construct application; and the Toxic
Substances Control Act permit application. The AMWTP Final
Environmental Impact Statement was completed and distributed in
February 1999, and the DOE Record of Decision was signed by the Acting
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management on March 22, 1999. In
the Record of Decision, DOE decided to implement the EIS Preferred
Alternative, which is to proceed with construction (Phase II) and
operation (Phase III) of the AMWTP facility, in accordance with the
Department's contract with BNFL Inc.
The project is still in Phase I. BNFL is in the process of securing
the necessary permits and completing needed safety and health documents
to obtain DOE authorization to proceed. BNFL will begin construction
after regulator approval is received. The regulators have indicated
they expect to issue the permit by the end of this year.
Completing construction of a facility by December 31, 2002, to
treat INEEL transuranic and alpha-emitting mixed low-level waste is a
specific requirement of the 1995 Settlement Agreement between the State
of Idaho, DOE, and the Navy. The AMWTP is on track for meeting this
construction milestone. Construction of a facility to treat these
wastes is also required by the INEEL Site Treatment Plan pursuant to
the Federal Facility Compliance Act, which is enforceable by the State.
Question. How will the budget of $110 million be used?
Answer. The $110 million in privatization program funds in the
fiscal year 2000 Congressional Budget Request will be available, if
necessary, to cover the costs incurred by the contractor during the
construction phase (Phase II) of the project if the Government decides
to terminate the contract for its convenience. When the facility
becomes operational in 2003, the $110 million will be available to pay
the contractor for the amortized capital facility costs over the first
25,000 cubic meters of treated waste, as required by the contract.
Question. What is the facility expected to cost? How long is the
facility expected to operate and at what cost?
Answer. There are two components of the unit price for treated
waste: an operating cost component and a capital amortization
component. The privatization funding pays for the capital amortization
component and the site's operating budget pays for the operating cost
component.
The privatization portion of the total project cost is $569.4
million, which includes the capital facility financing portion of the
contractor's price, profit, and the cost of financing (i.e., interest).
The facility is expected to operate until 2015 to complete the
treatment of 65,000 cubic meters of INEEL waste under Option 1 of the
contract, at a cost of $546 million, which includes the M&O Contractor
and other project support costs, as well as decontamination and
decommissioning costs. Therefore, the total project cost is $1,115.4
million. If DOE executes Option 2 of the contract, the AMWTP could also
treat up to 120,000 cubic meters of additional, similar waste from
INEEL or other DOE sites at a cost (in operating dollars) of $2,596 per
cubic meter. In this case, the facility could treat up to a total of
185,000 cubic meters of waste and would operate for its full expected
design life of 30 years.
Question. Why has the total project cost been revised from $1.078
billion to $1.115 billion? I thought that using the privatization
approach was an effort to control project schedules and costs?
Answer. The capital portion of the privatization contract is fixed
and is not subject to either price redetermination or economic price
adjustment. There has been an adjustment to the facility operating
costs due to two factors. First, the contract was negotiated with an
assumed, level production schedule. An updated production schedule has
been developed and incorporated into the contract which reflects a more
realistic waste processing schedule having less throughput during the
early facility startup phase. This adjustment totaled $7.8 million.
Second, escalation rates in the initial forecast were based on
rates established by the Office of Management and Budget. However, the
negotiated contract requires use of a Department of Labor index as the
basis for change in economic price adjustment. This contract
requirement resulted in an adjustment to the estimated life cycle cost
of $28.7 million. It can be expected that downward or upward changes to
unit prices will occur when the index forecast changes materially.
Future budget submissions will stay constant unless there is a
significant increase or decrease in the index. The economic price
adjustment clause of the contract does not apply to the privatization
(capital) part of the contract price; the clause applies only to
facility operating costs.
Question. Explain the change in the escalation rates from the OMB
required rates used in the initial estimates to the economic index
based escalation negotiated in the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment
Project contract which has resulted in an increase of $28.7 million in
the estimated life cycle cost of the project.
Answer. Escalation rates in the initial forecast were based on OMB
rates. However, during negotiation of the contract with BNFL, the
Department and BNFL negotiated the use of a Department of Labor index
as the basis for change in economic price adjustment. This contract
requirement resulted in an increase to the estimated life cycle cost of
$28.7 million. It can be expected that downward or upward changes to
unit prices will occur when the index forecast changes materially.
Future budget requests will reflect significant increases or decreases
in the index through adjustments to the project estimates. The economic
price adjustment clause of the contract does not apply to the
privatization (capital) part of the contract price; the clause applies
only to facility operating costs.
pit 9 project
Question. What is the current status of the impasse related to the
Pit 9 project at INEEL? What can you report regarding the Secretary's
commitment to find a path forward to resolve the impasse?
Answer. There are two matters in litigation regarding the default
termination of the Pit 9 subcontract with Lockheed Martin Advanced
Environmental Systems (LMAES) for remediation of Pit 9. First, LMAES
and Lockheed Martin Corporation have commenced an action in the United
State Court of Federal Claims against the United States. (Cases in that
court are filed against the United States rather than against an
individual department or agency.) Second, Lockheed Martin Idaho
Technologies Company (LMITCO) commenced an action against LMAES and the
Lockheed Martin Corporation in the United States District Court for the
District of Idaho, to which the Department is not a party.
The United States has filed a motion to dismiss the Court of
Federal Claims action because (1) there exists no privity of contract
between the United States and LMAES or the Lockheed Martin Corporation
upon which to base a direct contract action against the United States,
and (2) no action undertaken by the United States Government has
effected a cognizable taking of the property of LMAES or the Lockheed
Martin Corporation. That motion is pending before the Court.
With respect to the Idaho litigation, we understand that there have
been discussions between LMITCO and LMAES and the Lockheed Martin
Corporation. In addition, LMITCO has been exploring with the Department
various mechanisms that might be available and appropriate to address
issues raised by the Pit 9 subcontract dispute. Such an undertaking has
been impeded, however, by the efforts of LMAES and the Lockheed Martin
Corporation to have the Idaho litigation stayed (that is, consideration
of its merits delayed) while they pursue their Court of Federal Claims
action in Washington.
The Secretary and the Department remain committed to moving ahead
expeditiously on cleaning up the Radioactive Waste Management Complex,
including Pit 9. Working with EPA and the State of Idaho, the
Department has developed and begun to implement an ``alternative'',
three stage approach to the Pit 9 cleanup. Stage I focuses on
subsurface exploration. Stage II focuses on design, construction, and
operation of robotic and remotely operated retrieval systems and
confinement systems to demonstrate that remedial action Record of
Decision objectives are achievable. Stage III will complete the
remediation of Pit 9.
Question. What is the current cost to finish the project and how
does this compare to the original baseline estimate?
Answer. DOE, EPA, and the State have agreed to complete the
remediation of Pit 9 under a three-stage project for an estimated cost
of $200 million, which was the fixed price of the original project
under the now-terminated sub-contract signed in 1994 with LMAES. A more
detailed cost estimate will be available at the completion of stage 2
of the project.
Question. The budget justification indicates that DOE plans to
spend $50 million for an Alternate Pit 9 phased alternative approach.
Explain DOE's plans to proceed with a ``Alternate'' approach at Pit 9.
Doesn't proceeding with this effort make it more complicated and
difficult in resolving the current legal and contractual dispute?
Answer. Because the subcontract for the implementation of the Pit 9
interim action was terminated and the regulatory agencies are requiring
DOE to meet the terms of the original 1993 Pit 9 Record of Decision,
the development of a revised schedule and scope of work were necessary
to satisfy the requirements under the 1991 Federal Facility Agreement
and Consent Order to issue a Comprehensive Record of Decision for the
Radioactive Waste Management Complex in 2002. A three-stage process for
remediating Pit 9 was jointly developed by the DOE, EPA, and the State
of Idaho, and the schedule for completing the comprehensive
investigation of the Radioactive Waste Management Complex was extended.
The revised effort, referred to as the Operable Unit 7-10 Staged
Interim Action, will include three stages: Stage I focuses on
subsurface exploration; Stage II focuses on design, construction, and
operation of robotic and remotely operated retrieval systems and
confinement systems to demonstrate that remedial action Record of
Decision objectives are achievable. Stage III will complete the
remediation of Pit 9.
The $50 million requested in the fiscal year 2000 Congressional
Budget Request will be used for CERCLA work on the entire Radioactive
Waste Management Complex, which includes Pit 9. The Pit 9 portion of
these funds will be used to complete Stage I, continue work on Stage I
activities (including monitoring and waste treatability studies), and
initiate Stage III remediation.
The decision to proceed with the Staged Interim Action for Pit 9
described above does not affect the ability of the management and
operating contractor (Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company, Inc.
(LMITCO)) to resolve its dispute with Lockheed Martin Advanced Systems,
Inc. (LMAES).
hanford site
Question. Explain the overall strategy for cleanup and removal of
legacy waste from the Hanford Site, particularly as it relates to the
high level waste tanks and activities associated with the K-Basin.
Answer. The Hanford Site strategy is to protect the Columbia River
and to mitigate, to the extent practicable, the greatest hazards by
2006 while proceeding with the necessary preparations for longer-term
cleanup. As part of the near-term work, the corroded spent fuel in the
aging K-Basins is being moved away from the Columbia River into safe,
dry storage on the central plateau of the 200 Area, where it will
remain in interim storage awaiting final disposition in a national
repository. Other near-term actions include completing stabilization of
plutonium; interim stabilizing the single-shell tanks, some of which
have leaked, which involves transferring pumpable liquids into double
shell tanks; and developing a privatized vitrification facility to
treat and immobilize the high-level wastes in the double shell tanks
and low-activity wastes at the tank farms. The high-level wastes will
be placed in an interim storage facility to await final disposition in
a national repository, and the vitrified low-activity wastes will
remain in an on-site facility. Transuranic wastes will be shipped to
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant beginning in fiscal year 2000, and
other waste-types will be safely disposed on-site at Hanford.
The site is remediating contaminated soils, cleaning up facilities
and buildings through demolition or decontamination, and addressing
groundwater contamination to reduce risks and reduce surveillance and
maintenance costs. As agreed to by the regulators, DOE will address the
decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the surplus reactors in
two phases. Phase I will place the reactors in interim safe storage,
ensuring that facilities are safe and secure and reducing surveillance
and maintenance costs. Phase II will involve removal of reactor cores
to a disposal facility in the 200 area. The overall strategy for
remediation and D&D activities is to complete cleanup first in areas
nearest the Columbia River, then move cleanup efforts toward the 200
area. The majority of contaminated soils and materials will be disposed
on-site in the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility in the 200
area, which has already received over 1.5 million tons of contaminated
soil.
Question. How does the Paths to Closure plan support these DOE's
strategies?
Answer. The Paths to Closure report focuses on addressing the
highest risk activities first, along with accelerating project
completion and site closure. This strategy is reflected in the
prioritization of activities at the Hanford site, where mitigation of
the greatest Hanford hazards (e.g., tanks, spent fuel in K-basin, and
the Plutonium Finishing Plant) are given the highest ranking while
environmental restoration and deactivation work is executed in a more
constrained manner. The Paths to Closure analysis indicates that the
funding profile for a number of sites decreases in the 2006-2010 time
frame as projects are completed. Several major hazard-reduction
projects at Hanford should also be completed by this time. We therefore
anticipate that some additional EM funds will be available for the
Hanford site for the TWRS project and environmental restoration
activities.
Question. What are the areas where the Plan does not meet the
milestones of the Tri-Party Agreement? What is DOE doing to bring its
planned work into compliance with the Agreement?
Answer. Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure is consistent with
all current milestones in the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) with the State
of Washington and the Environmental Protection Agency. However, the
Richland Operations Office's June 1998 Plan was developed prior to the
signing of the BNFL contract. DOE is proceeding with negotiations with
BNFL to determine the full scope and schedule of the privatization
contract. The Department is also negotiating with the State of
Washington to revise the current high-level waste milestones in the TPA
based on the outcome of contract negotiations with BNFL.
Question. The 2006 Plan and budget realities demand increased
efficiencies in order to save resources which can then be applied to
critical cleanup work. What were the results of negotiations between
DOE, its regulators, and stakeholders to identify and agree upon needed
efficiencies to cover project compliance shortfalls?
Answer. The Department is continuing to strive for efficiencies to
avoid shortfalls. This was the purpose of numerous discussions that
were held between DOE, the field offices, federal regulators, state
regulators and stakeholders. At Hanford, these meetings explored
different means to get more work done given the existing budgets. The
general areas that were identified as areas of potential savings and
are currently being pursued are:
44. Reduce the amount of money going to support activities (e.g.
safeguards and security, project/program management).
45. Reduce infrastructure costs and activities.
46. Examine areas where DOE can improve and possibly reduce the
requirements to make sure that excessive, low value activities are not
placed on contractors.
47. Work closely with regulators to ensure that we are only doing
what is necessary to fix a problem.
48. Perform the work that is currently being done in waste
management and environmental restoration using fewer resources.
49. Delete unnecessary work, or if it is not a high priority,
explore the possibility of moving it to the future.
The regulators and stakeholders actively participated in the fiscal
year 2000 budget development. They are aware that additional
efficiencies alone may not be sufficient to solve all future funding
issues. We will work with the State and local stakeholders to address
compliance issues that may arise.
Question. What major cleanup activities remain to be accomplished
at Hanford other than the tank remediation work?
Answer. Other than tank remediation work, the other major Hanford
cleanup projects include:
--completion of stabilization activities at the Plutonium Finishing
Plant;
--removal of spent fuel from the K-Basins near the Columbia River and
placement into the Canister Storage Building on the 200 Area
plateau;
--stewardship of nuclear materials and spent fuel pending final
disposition;
--retrieval, certification and packaging of transuranic wastes for
shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico;
--remediation of 1,497 contaminated areas (release sites); this will
require moving almost 6 million tons of material, much of it
from along the Columbia River, to safe disposal in the
Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility in the 200 Area;
--decontamination and decommissioning, and ultimately dismantlement
and disposal of 244 structures including final disposition of
the seven deactivated reactors in the 100 area;
--remediation of contaminated ground water to prevent migration
towards the Columbia River, including operation of ``pump and
treat'' systems to extract contaminants such as chromium,
carbon tetrachloride and strontium-90.
tank waste remediation system (twrs)
Question. Explain the TWRS privatization proposal. How much will it
cost to cleanup the storage tanks at Hanford?
Answer. Under the privatization approach, the Department has moved
from a government-owned, contractor-operated facility concept to a
contractor-owned, contractor-operated facility concept where the
Department will purchase the necessary Hanford tank waste treatment and
immobilization services. In July 1998, the Department submitted its
Report to Congress, Treatment and Immobilization of Hanford Radioactive
Tank Waste, which details the history and the next steps in the
privatization of the treatment of tank wastes.
In February 1996, the Department solicited and awarded contracts
for Phase I of the privatization contract, Part A, which required the
contractor teams to demonstrate their technical, operations,
regulatory, business and financial approach. During 1998, after a
controlled process that analyzed contractor proposals, the Department
selected BNFL, Inc., and authorized it to proceed to Part B-1 of the
contract. We are now in Part B-1, which is a 24-month design period
that is intended to develop sufficient engineering and financial
maturity to establish fixed-unit prices and to finalize project
financing terms, including BNFL's ability to obtain outside financing.
The design phase ends in August 2000. DOE will then make a decision
whether to authorize BNFL to construct and operate the facilities as
proposed.
If authorized, BNFL would provide both high-level and low-activity
waste treatment and immobilization services and would be expected to
process approximately 10 percent of the Hanford tank waste by mass and
20 to 25 percent by radioactivity. Phase I is scheduled to be completed
in 2018, with the potential to continue into Phase II with BNFL. The
Phase II concept for full-scale production facilities to complete the
tank waste remediation effort will be developed based on Phase I
experience. Under all scenarios being considered for Phase II, the
Phase I plant will be expanded and continue to operate in Phase II.
The tank waste will be processed by using vitrification, a process
that immobilizes the waste in glass. The less radioactive low-activity
waste will be permanently and safely stored at the Hanford site. The
high-level waste will be temporarily stored at Hanford. It will
eventually be moved to a national repository. Both types of waste will
be treated in the BNFL facility.
The design, construction, and operation of the treatment facilities
for both high-level radioactive wastes and low activity wastes will be
the responsibility of BNFL. BNFL will commit its own equity to the
project, augmented with additional financial backing to pay for
facility construction. The Department will pay fixed-unit prices for
delivery of the immobilized waste.
In the fiscal year 2000 Congressional Budget Request, the
Department estimated the cost of Phase I of the vitrification project
to be approximately $12.5 billion (current year dollars). This estimate
includes the cost to construct, operate, and deactivate the privatized
vitrification facility, as well as BNFL's financing costs and fee. It
also includes the costs that will be incurred by the Department at the
Hanford site to support to the operations of the privatized facility,
including activities to retrieve the waste from the tanks, deliver feed
to BNFL, accept and store the low-activity and high-level vitrified
products, and provide other infrastructure support to BNFL
In the report Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure, released in
June 1998, the Department estimated the total life-cycle cost of
cleaning up the 177 underground high-level waste storage tanks at
Hanford to be approximately $52 billion (current year dollars). This
estimate included the costs of both Phase I and Phase II. However, this
estimate was prepared before the Department selected and authorized
BNFL, Inc., to proceed with the design of the Phase I vitrification
facility. The Department is currently evaluating several options for
facility design and operations during Phase I, each of which has an
impact on total life-cycle costs for the project. The Department will
update and provide a revised total life-cycle cost estimate for the
project as Phase I proceeds.
Question. The budget request for fiscal year 1999 includes $106
million, a slight increase over the current year level, to continue the
Hanford TWRS privatization project. What activities were carried out in
fiscal year 1998, what work is scheduled to be accomplished in fiscal
year 1999, and what work is planned to be accomplished in fiscal year
2000?
Answer. Fiscal year 1998 resulted in the completion of Phase I Part
A of the TWRS privatization contracts. Part A was a 20-month period to
establish the technical, operational, regulatory, and financial
elements required by privatized facilities to provide waste treatment
services at fixed-unit prices. The 20-month period was divided into a
16-month period for the contractors to provide Part A deliverables and
a four-month period during which they were reviewed and DOE determined
whether to proceed to Phase I Part B. During performance of Part A, the
contractors developed two parallel solutions for 1) Low Activity Waste
(LAW) treatment and immobilization services only, and 2) LAW and High-
Level Waste (HLW) services. During fiscal year 1998, the DOE reviewed
the deliverables from both contractors and negotiated a contract
modification with BNFL to proceed into Phase I Part B-1.
Fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 encompass the time period
associated with Phase I Part B-1. During this period BNFL will: (1)
optimize the LAW and HLW treatment and immobilization system, mitigate
risk, and reduce contingencies in the waste treatment and
immobilization system defined by BNFL during Part A of the contract;
(2) revise the technical, operational, regulatory, and financial
elements of the waste treatment and immobilization system; (3) provide
firm fixed-unit prices for waste treatment services; and (4) perform
all contractor activities necessary to reach financial closure for
privatized facilities. The major decision affecting the TWRS
privatization project, whether to authorize BNFL to proceed into
construction and operation of facilities to treat the waste, is
currently scheduled for August 2000.
Question. What are the major compliance and other milestones and
decision points for the remainder of fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year
2000?
Answer. Major compliance and other milestones and decision points
for the Office of River Protection, which manages the Tank Waste
Remediation System project, include Tri-Party Agreement (TPA)
milestones, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board recommendations,
and decisions affecting scheduled for August 2000, whether to authorize
BNFL to proceed into Phase 1B2 for construction and operation of
facilities to treat and immobilize the Hanford tank waste. This
decision will be made based on BNFL's success in completing an
acceptable 30 percent design by August 2000, committing equity and
arranging financing for the construction and operations of the
facilities, and submitting an agreeable fixed unit price for treating
and immobilizing the tank waste.
The major TWRS compliance and other milestones for the remainder of
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone Description Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPA M-40-12.................... Resolve nuclear 30 Sep 99
criticality safety
issue.
TPA M-43-12.................... Start construction 30 Jun 99
for upgrades in the
first tank farm.
TPA M-43-13.................... Start construction 30 Jun 00
for upgrades in the
second tank farm.
TPA M-45-08A................... Complete systems 31 Dec 00
description and
operation strategy
for tank leak
monitoring and
mitigation.
TPA M-41 series (Consent Initiate pumping for 30 Jul 99
Decree). interim
stabilization of
single shell tanks
S-102, S-103, and S-
106.
TPA M-41 series (Consent Initiate pumping for 15 Jun 00
Decree). interim
stabilization of
single shell tanks
U-103, U-105, U-
102, and U-109.
TPA M-41 series (Consent Reduce pumpable 30 Sep 99
Decree). liquid remaining to
be removed from
single shell tanks
to 93 percent of
total liquid.
TPA M-41 series (Consent Reduce organic 30 Sep 00
Decree). complexed pumpable
liquids remaining
to be removed from
single shell tanks
to 38 percent of
total organic
complexed pumpable
liquids.
DNFSB 93-5..................... Transmit letter to 31 Dec 99
DNFSB reporting (originally 31
completion of May 98)
topical report to
resolve high heat
safety issue.
DNFSB 93-5..................... Transmit letter to 30 April 00
DNFSB reporting
resolution of
organic complexant
safety issue.
DNFSB 93-5..................... Complete vapor 31 Dec 00
sampling of all
double shell tanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How much does it cost annually to monitor and maintain
the 177 tanks at Hanford? What do you expect these costs to be after
the waste in the tanks is removed?
Answer. The highest priority items with the TWRS budget are those
necessary to maintain a ``minimum-safe'' condition. The current annual
``minimum-safe'' cost is about $100 million, and it is expected to
remain at this level until the amount of high level liquid waste is
substantially reduced.
In the post-2028 time-frame, when all the liquid wastes in the
tanks have been removed, treated, and immobilized, the tanks themselves
will remain, along with some solid waste material in the bottom of the
tanks. The final disposition for these residuals has not yet been
determined, but nominal surveillance and maintenance will be continued
until the tank farm area is completely remediated. The annual cost will
be a small fraction of the current surveillance and maintenance costs.
Question. What is the estimated total project cost for Phase I of
TWRS, how does it compare with the cost estimate reported last year,
and what accounts for the change?
Answer. The BNFL contract for Phase I contains target prices for
treatment and immobilization services during the construction and
operations phase. These target prices will be refined during the design
phase, which is August 1998 to August 2000. The current agreement
negotiated with BNFL establishes a $6.9 billion target price (constant
fiscal year 1997 dollars) for a 10-year, minimum-order quantity of
treatment and immobilization services. This minimum-order quantity will
treat 10 percent of the Hanford tank waste by mass and 20 to 25 percent
of the radioactivity.
This target price is higher than the original DOE estimate for
Phase I. The fiscal year 1999 budget submission as reflected in the
Construction Project Data Sheet showed an estimated cost of $5.14
billion. The higher price is due in part to the fact that the hazards
presented by the operations to be performed under the contract
necessitated more substantial facilities for processing and confinement
of the waste. These hazards are principally due to worker radiation
protection and seismic requirements. These facilities will have a 30-
year design life rather than the original concept of a 5 to 9-year
demonstration facility. As a by-product of the longer design life, the
proposed plant has the potential to treat additional waste, to treat
waste with a broader composition range, and to treat, with limited
additional investment, more than half of the tank waste by mass and
approximately 95 percent of the long-lived radionuclides if the plant
is expanded in a modular approach.
Question. What is the basis for the $1.45 billion estimated total
cost of the capital investment required under Phase I, and how
confident is DOE that the capital investment can be held within this
estimate?
Answer. The estimated cost of the capital investment required under
Phase I is $5.4 billion (current year dollars), as determined at the
end of Phase I Part A. (The $1.45 billion was a preliminary estimate of
construction costs developed prior to Phase I Part A.) At that time,
the design was only about five percent complete; and, as more data and
information become available, this cost estimate will be refined.
However, because the construction costs have such a large impact on the
total costs, DOE is working hard to control and manage these costs. The
contract with BNFL includes incentives for BNFL to reduce the capital
cost of the facility as part of the process of establishing ceiling
prices for waste treatment services. These ceiling prices will be
established prior to the start of Phase I Part B-2--the construction
and operations phase of the project. DOE is also negotiating with BNFL
to include in the contract incentives for BNFL to control and reduce
these costs during Part B-2. Any cost reductions will result in a
decrease in the price that DOE pays for waste treatment services.
Question. Now, I understand that the requirement for Budget
Authority for the TWRS privatization project increases from around $100
million this year to about $600 million in 2001 and $660 million in
fiscal year 2002. Am I correct, and if so, what will be the impact on
the project if the committee is unable to provide the additional budget
authority? What options would DOE have available to continue the
project at that point?
Answer. The Department identified in the fiscal year 2000
Congressional Budget Request a target funding level for the TWRS
privatization project of $606 million in fiscal year 2001 and $659
million in fiscal year 2002.
The Department would have several options if the target level of
funding is not provided. The Department's determination of which of
these options to proceed with would include a consideration of the
magnitude of any funding shortfalls and the potential for additional
funding shortfalls.
First, the Department could renegotiate the terms of the
privatization contract with the contractor. However, because the
current funding targets represent the optimal schedule for the project,
an extension of the schedule of the contract due to the unavailability
of sufficient funds would lead to increased project costs. The
magnitude of the cost increase would depend upon the extent of the
funding shortfall and the length of the extension of the contract.
Alternatively, the Department could abandon the privatization
approach and proceed with a traditional level-of-effort or cost-plus
contracting approach. Either of these approaches will present less risk
to the contractor in a budgetary environment, where project funding
fluctuates from year to year and the government is unable to provide
any certainty to the contractor regarding future funding levels.
However, these approaches again put the burden on the government for
project risks and cost growth. Thus, these options may increase total
project costs significantly.
It should be noted that the contractor may not be able to secure
adequate financing for the project if the government is unable to
provide a sufficient amount of budget authority. The private sector may
be unwilling to invest sufficient funds if it believes that the
government is not strongly committed to the project. In the event of
funding shortfalls, the contractor may attempt to either increase the
contract price to cover the increased risk of project termination or
even terminate the project.
The Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) establishes enforceable milestones
for removing and treating the high-level waste from the Hanford tanks.
The Department is working with the State of Washington and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to re-negotiate milestones for the
privatization project to align with the current privatization
schedules. The Department is also seeking to establish alternative
milestones in the TPA in the event the Department does not proceed with
the privatized approach.
Once the Department proceeds with the privatization approach, and
is subject to milestones consistent with that approach, a renegotiation
of the contract schedule or the abandonment of the privatization
approach and the re-establishment of a traditional contracting approach
could subject the Department to fines and penalties for non-compliance
with TPA milestones.
The Department believes that fully funding the privatization
approach will provide the most cost-effective option for successfully
meeting the government's obligation to remove the high-level liquid
wastes from the Hanford tanks.
Question. How does the TWRS privatization approach shift sufficient
risk to the private sector to ensure that hoped for efficiencies and
cost savings are realized?
Answer. The most visible way to see the risk shift from the
government to the contractor is through the payment process. Rather
than using a ``cost-plus'' type arrangement, DOE is paying BNFL based
on performance. In a cost-plus type of contract, DOE assumes all the
risk. However, in a performance or fixed-price type contract, once the
price is set for a given period, that price will be fixed through that
period. If BNFL costs go up because of their own actions, differences
would be absorbed from their funds; and DOE would not be responsible
for that cost growth. If BNFL can reduce costs, they will benefit from
the savings.
It should be noted that DOE will still assume part of the risk
relative to cost growth. DOE will assume risks from escalation and from
uncontrollable circumstances. But again, any actions or decisions of
BNFL that increase costs will be covered by BNFL. This places the
equity investment of BNFL and its parent company at risk.
In order to optimize the financing of the project, the Department
is applying ``financial engineering'' skills to complement physical
engineering skills. Financial engineering seeks to optimize the
allocation of risks, rewards and penalties. The balance between public
and private capital is critical to obtaining the best results. At
succeeding points in the development of the project, there will be
varying optimal capital structures. We will continuously review the
financial structure to minimize the ``life cycle'' cost of the program
over time.
Financing for the construction and operations phase will involve
BNFL equity, loans that are not backed by DOE (non-recourse debt), and
loans that rely upon some level of credit support from DOE (recourse
debt). Equity funding represents BNFL's direct corporate investment in
the success of the project. This investment is in a ``first loss''
position and would be at risk if the project should fail because of
inadequate performance by BNFL. Originally it was hoped that sufficient
private funding could be secured to fund the entire project. DOE now
believes it will need to back a significant portion of BNFL's loans to
enable BNFL to obtain sufficient and affordable private sector
financing. However, government payment of debt occurs only after BNFL
and its partners have lost all their equity investment and contingent
liabilities. Therefore, only under a worse case scenario would the
government be liable for the payment of the debt.
By shifting risks that the contractor can control to the contractor
and by using the right mix of incentives combined with the optimum mix
of financing type, significant cost savings can be attained. Initial
estimates indicate that, even with the financing costs associated with
the BNFL contract, substantial savings can be realized over alternative
contracting approaches. Private financing will inject powerful
incentives to contain costs and to ensure project success.
Question. What can you offer the committee that will assure us that
this approach is the most effective and cheapest way for the government
to procure this service?
Answer. BNFL has provided DOE with a technically robust approach
that is expected to perform as designed and that may be capable, with
future capacity expansions, of processing essentially all of the
Hanford tank waste. Also, one of Congress' concerns is that DOE's
traditional contracting methods may not result in work being performed
in an efficient and cost-effective manner. DOE has examined a number of
different options to process the Hanford waste as quickly and cost
effectively as possible. Based on the results of these studies and
investigations, the privatization concept was selected. A summary of
these comparisons was included in the July 1998 Report to Congress:
``Treatment and Immobilization of Hanford Radioactive Tank Waste.'' The
establishment of fixed prices and the risk to the contractor's own
equity together with incentives for cost reduction will drive the
contractor to perform work under the contract in an efficient and cost-
effective manner. DOE's evaluation has shown that work will be done
more efficiently and cost-effectively than under DOE's traditional
contracting approach.
Question. Since financing costs are a significant part of the total
project cost, why is it to the government's advantage to use this
privatization approach?
Answer. While the financing costs do represent a significant part
of the total project cost, the privatization approach offers savings
that balance these out. In our Report to Congress on the TWRS
privatization, we provided some detailed information on the financing
strategy and the benefits to be derived. Most specifically, the
Department's experience in the traditional cost reimbursement
contracting approach has been that schedules slip and costs increase.
The government bears the financial burden associated with these project
changes. The privatization approach places more responsibility on the
contractor to control the costs and schedule. Because the contractor
has a financial stake in the work to be performed, they are more
motivated to stay within budget and on schedule. Also, the contractor
assumes a greater share of the risks, particularly those under the
contractor's control such as technology performance and operating
efficiency. Private financing is shown to provide built-in incentives
as the contractor's money is also at risk. Project failure would result
in loss of equity. The contractor also has the incentive to perform
more efficiently since this can result in additional profit to the
company. The advantage to the government is realized through greater
efficiency during project performance and through achieving project
completion at cost and within schedule.
The Department's current plan is to finance the privatization
through the use of:
--Equity from BNFL. This is typically the most expensive type of
money because BNFL has this whole amount at risk should the
project fail and therefore requires a higher return on
investment.
--Non-recourse debt. This money will is backed by the contractor and
the projects ability to repay the money. This type of loan is a
little more expensive than recourse debt because, if the
project failed, the lender and BNFL could lose much of this
money.
--Recourse debt. This type of loan is backed by DOE, meaning that, if
the project failed, DOE would ensure that BNFL has the money to
repay its loan. This is the least expensive type of money, but
it also puts less risk on the contractor and lender and more
risk on DOE.
Each source of money has costs and benefits associated with it. DOE
is currently studying the mix of the different funding types to
determine the percentage of each funding source that will be used to
finance the TWRS Privatization. This study will not just consider the
costs of the funding types but also the benefits of each. The final
results of the study should indicate the optimum proportion of the
different funding types, the associated costs, and the associated
benefits. DOE is also evaluating other financing options in addition to
those discussed above. The financing approach will be determined in
August 2000.
Question. Under Phase II B of the contract with BNFL, does the
government have the option of whether or not to proceed with
construction of waste processing facilities? If you do, when must that
decision be made?
Answer. At the end of the 24-month design phase of the contract
(Phase I Part B-1), DOE will reach closure with BNFL on the cost of the
project and the firm fixed price the DOE will pay to have the waste
treated and immobilized. At that point, the contract can be terminated
if the DOE determines that the price is too high, the technology is not
satisfactory, or for any other reason which leads the DOE to conclude
that continuation of the contract is not in the Government's best
interest. This decision will be made in the summer of 2000.
Question. What criteria will the Department base its decision on?
Answer. At the end of the 24-month design phase (Phase I Part B-1),
DOE will decide whether to proceed with the subsequent construction and
operations portion or to pursue one of several other approaches to
process waste. The BNFL authorization to proceed will depend on:
1. DOE receiving acceptable fixed-unit prices
2. Acceptance of the BNFL design for nuclear and chemical process
safety
3. Adequate assurance of technical success
4. Assurance that BNFL can successfully manage the project
5. Substantial equity commitment by BNFL
6. Other significant financing arranged by BNFL
7. Assurance that the M & I contractor at Hanford (Project Hanford
Management Contract) can deliver waste to the facility on schedule
Question. What impact would a decision not to proceed have on
current compliance agreements?
Answer. The schedule proposed by BNFL, Inc., for treatment of tank
wastes in Phase I, which is required to comply with hazardous waste
regulations, does not meet the current Tri-Party Agreement (TPA)
milestones. The current milestones are based on an approach to the
project that has since changed because of the complexities identified
in Part A, and are no longer considered feasible. The Department has
been working with the regulators on a proposed strategy for re-
negotiating new TPA milestones which would align with current DOE/BNFL
``90 percent confidence level'' privatization schedules. These non-
enforceable target dates would convert to enforceable milestones
consistent with the Phase I Part B-2 contract including a reasonable
contingency.
The Department has proposed July 31, 1999, as the completion date
for negotiations on TPA milestones for tank waste remediation. If
negotiations are successful, DOE, Washington State and the EPA will
have reached agreement on a set of commitments for the privatized
approach to address the tank farm wastes. These commitments would
include provisions for an alternative tank waste treatment approach
should the Department decide not to proceed with the privatization
approach.
The milestones in the TPA are subject to enforcement by the State
of Washington and the EPA. The State has already indicated its intent
to take appropriate enforcement action for non-performance should we
fail to successfully renegotiate the existing milestones. A decision
not to proceed with privatization would be likely to significantly
delay the development of treatment capability and increase the
Department's vulnerability under the TPA.
The capital portion is $5.4 billion from the overall $12.5 billion
total project cost reflected in the fiscal year 2000 Congressional
budget submission. The $12.5 billion also includes an estimated $5.1
billion for facility operations and $2 billion for the Management and
Integrating contractor support. We are working hard at reducing
construction costs and considering various financial alternatives to
understand their impacts on risk allocation between the government and
BNFL. We will be discussing these alternatives with the Congress prior
to decision on the next phase, the construction phase.
Question. Do current OMB budget planning targets support the $600-
$660 million requirement for new budget authority in fiscal year 2001
and beyond?
Answer. Yes. The Administration's request for advance
appropriations is sufficient to cover the new budget authority required
to support the TWRS Privatization Phase I project in the years fiscal
year 2001 through fiscal year 2004. The amounts requested are
sufficient to cover the funding profile for the project as presented in
the Project Data Sheets in the Congressional Budget Request for fiscal
year 2000.
Question. Can you explain for the committee the concepts of loan
guarantees, lease/purchase, or other arrangements, and how they affect
the future budget picture for the TWRS project?
Answer. The Environmental Management privatization approach
requires the contractor to finance the acquisition of facilities to
deliver cleanup services. As the contractor begins to provide cleanup
services, DOE pays for its operating costs and the construction and
financing costs the contractor incurred. Based on this approach, the
Office of Management and Budget scores privatization projects (i.e.,
determines when and how much budget authority and outlays will be
counted against the budget caps) as service contracts, which means that
only sufficient budget authority is needed each year equal to the
government's legal obligations under the contract. If services will not
be delivered until the construction of a facility is complete, outlays
would not be scored during the construction period.
If privatization projects were to be scored as the purchase, lease-
purchase, capital lease, or operating lease of an asset, more budget
authority and outlays would be counted against the caps earlier in the
period of performance for the contract. For example, budget authority
for a lease-purchase would be scored in the amount of the estimated net
present value of the government's total estimated legal liability in
the year budget authority is first made available. Outlays for a lease-
purchase in which the government assumes substantial risk (e.g., with
loan guarantees) would be scored across the construction phase of the
contract.
The TWRS project will be financed using BNFL equity, non-recourse
debt, and recourse debt backed by the government. The debt supported by
the government is not a loan guarantee because DOE is not making a
commitment to the lenders to pay back the loans. The exact proportion
of each type of financing has not yet been determined. The financing
package will be a factor in the 24-month decision point to determine
whether Phase I Part B-2 can begin. BNFL's equity is at full risk
should there be a problem with the project. The more the government
supports the debt (as it does with progress payments), the lower the
financing cost of the project to the government. However, because the
government is accepting the added risk, the overall cost of the project
could rise even though the initial price to the government may fall. As
the party best able to manage the risk is no longer totally responsible
for managing its risk, the potential for failure increases and thus the
potential for increased costs becomes higher. At the end of Phase I
Part B-1, we will identify the optimum proportion for each type of
money. For the current estimate, these different types of money have
been accounted for and are included in the project estimates. Although
the exact proportions may shift some, at present we believe that they
will not shift enough to materially impact future budget requirements.
savannah river site
Question. Explain the plan using the F-Canyon to help accelerate
closure of Rocky Flats.
Answer. The key to accelerating closure of Rocky Flats is removing
nuclear materials from the site. Combined with substantial cleanup
work, moving nuclear materials (e.g., plutonium and uranium) from Rocky
Flats is the most critical element of our effort to reduce risks and
costs. The Department has been working to identify receiver sites with
appropriate facilities to manage the nuclear materials at the lowest
cost with the greatest safety and security.
On November 25, 1998, the Department issued the first Record of
Decision on Management of Certain Plutonium Residues and Scrub Alloy
Stored at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS). This
Record of Decision announced that the Department had decided to ship
the following nuclear materials to the Savannah River Site (SRS) for
stabilization to help accelerate closure of Rocky Flats by 2006:
--3,377 kg bulk (271 kg Pu) Sand, Slag, and Crucible (SS&C) and
Plutonium Fluorides
--700 kg bulk (200 kg Pu) Scrub Alloy.
The first shipment of SS&C was received at the SRS from RFETS in
early December of 1998. All the nuclear materials listed above are
scheduled to be shipped to the SRS by July of 2001. All of these
nuclear materials are scheduled for stabilization to metal in F-Canyon/
FB-Line by May of 2002 for safe, interim storage at SRS.
Question. What are the major elements and milestones for making
this happen?
Answer. There is only one major milestone for this stabilization
effort: by May 2002 the Savannah River Site will convert the above
Rocky Flats nuclear materials to stable metal and then package them to
meet the metal and oxide storage standard. The Department committed to
meeting this milestone in Revision 1 of the Implementation Plan for
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 94-1,
Remediation of Nuclear Materials in the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Complex, dated December 22, 1998. In addition, this stabilization
effort is a milestone in the fiscal year 1999 Savannah River Site
Annual Operational Plan/Westinghouse Savannah River Company/F-Area
Stabilization Project/Summary Task Description Sheet, dated September
2, 1998.
The first shipment of SS&C was received at the SRS from RFETS in
early December 1998. All the nuclear materials listed above are
scheduled to be shipped to the SRS by July 2001. All of these nuclear
materials are scheduled for stabilization to metal in F-Canyon/FB-Line
by May 2002 for safe, interim storage at SRS.
Question. How important is the opening of the WIPP to the success
of this effort? What alternative or contingencies exist if WIPP does
not open as scheduled?
Answer. Being able to dispose of waste at WIPP is extremely
important for the overall effort to accelerate closure of Rocky Flats,
as well as several other DOE sites. The type of waste sent to WIPP,
however, is transuranic waste that meets the WIPP waste acceptance
criteria. The material being shipped to SRS for processing in the F-
Canyon does not meet these acceptance criteria and cannot be disposed
of in WIPP. Hence, the opening of WIPP has no impact on shipment of the
Rocky Flats materials listed above to the Savannah River Site for
stabilization and safe, interim storage.
Question. Has the state of South Carolina approved this approach,
and if not, what is the schedule for getting State approval?
Answer. The Department provided copies of the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on Management of Certain Plutonium Residues and Scrub
Alloy Stored at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (DOE/EIS-
0277D and DOE/EIS-0277F) to the State of South Carolina when it was
issued as a draft for public review and comment, and when it was issued
as a final document. The Department also provided copies of the first
and second Records of Decision (ROD) on Management of Certain Plutonium
Residues and Scrub Alloy Stored at the Rocky Flats Environmental
Technology Site (63 FR 66136 of December 1, 1998 and 64 FR 8068 of
February 18, 1999) to the State of South Carolina. As documented in
Chapter 9 of the final EIS, the various agencies of the State of South
Carolina that reviewed the draft EIS either had no comment, or
specified that the ``Project is consistent with our goals and
objectives.'' The State of South Carolina had no comment on the final
EIS, as documented in Section V of the first Record of Decision.
actinide packaging and storage facility
Question. A key element/component to the Savannah River and DOE
wide nuclear material storage and handling capability is the Actinide
Packaging and Storage Facility and modifications to the K-Area
facilities. How do these facilities fit into DOE's waste management
strategy?
Answer. These facilities are expected to be very important for
secure storage of plutonium. The Actinide Packaging and Storage
Facility (APSF) is intended to store plutonium from the Savannah River
Site (SRS) and from the Hanford site near Richland, Washington. The
Department intends to use SRS K Area facilities to store Rocky Flats
plutonium. Both facilities will store plutonium until such time as the
Materials Disposition (MD) facilities that will be used to prepare the
plutonium for final disposition come on line.
Question. Explain the major changes which have occurred on the
Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility project and how the Department
plans to proceed with this project in the future.
Answer. There have been changes to the design of the APSF to expand
storage capacity and reduce life cycle security costs (putting the
vault underground), implementing International Atomic Energy Agency
safeguards and security requirements, and reducing personnel exposure
to existing project limits. A decision has been made to temporarily
suspend work on the APSF pending a re-evaluation of functional
requirements. This re-evaluation has become prudent given the
significant estimated construction cost increases for the APSF
subproject, coupled with the recent designation of the Savannah River
Site as the preferred location for the surplus plutonium Pit
Disassembly and Conversion Facility. We have concluded that it is
advisable to halt further progress on the APSF to allow time to conduct
a systems engineering evaluation of plutonium material management
functions and planned new storage facilities at SRS. This study will
consider the benefits and efficiencies available through designing and
constructing storage facilities with an eye towards shared storage,
economies of scale, and improved safety margins. The plan is to restart
the APSF project in fiscal year 2001, implementing the results of this
study.
Question. How will the funds previously appropriated for this
project be used?
Answer. Funds previously approved for this project have been used
to complete the original design of the facility and a number of other
development activities that have led to the existing design package.
The Department also intends to seek a $44 million reprogramming of
fiscal year 1999 funds from Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility
(APSF) to critical projects that have budget shortfalls. These include
(1) upgrades to the ventilation systems in the F and H Canyons that
address safety and health deficiencies, and (2) funding to support
operations in the H Canyon facilities for stabilization of plutonium
solutions.
in-tank precipitation project (itp)
Question. DOE has experienced major problems with the In-Tank
Precipitation Project which is a key facility in processing waste in
storage tanks at Savannah River. Describe the problems encountered and
why they were not foreseen .
Answer. During the design and construction activities related to
ITP, several studies and reviews raised questions about the operability
and efficiency of the ITP process. These concerns dealt with various
issues, including the generation of benzene, an explosive chemical.
However, the extent to which very large quantities of benzene would be
produced was not raised.
The In-Tank Precipitation (ITP) Facility initiated radioactive
operations in September 1995 to remove cesium and other radioactive
components from Tank Farm waste salt solutions. During slurry pump
operation in December 1995, benzene was generated from the reaction
tank at higher rates than expected, presenting an explosion risk.
Subsequent investigations revealed the source of the benzene was
decomposition of sodium tetraphenylborate (TPB) that was added to
precipitate cesium from the waste solution. ITP operations were
suspended in March 1996 to better understand the ITP process chemistry
and evaluate any impacts on down stream facilities.
While benzene generation was expected as a result of this process,
it was not anticipated to be produced at such high rates. Further
investigations revealed that trace amounts of some elements such as
paladium found within the waste were acting as catalysts driving the
chemical reaction and subsequent benzene production to much higher
levels then originally predicted. The presence of these catalysts was
not known during the limited testing phase.
Question. Also explain why the In-Tank Precipitation technology was
selected.
Answer. The ITP process was believed to be a cost effective
alternative for separating high-level radioactive cesium from the other
materials in the waste. There were several reasons supporting the
selection of ITP.
From a technical standpoint, ion-exchange was, and is, the more
commonly used technology for separation processing. However, that
technology was not as effective for the very alkaline high-level waste
at the Savannah River Site. On the other hand, the tests supporting the
ITP process at that time looked very promising.
From a cost standpoint, the ion exchange alternative was expected
to have a life-cycle cost (including capital and operating costs) in
excess of one billion dollars. The ITP process used existing high-level
waste storage tanks, which saved the costs of constructing new
facilities.
Question. How is the delay impacting waste processing efforts at
Savannah River, and what is DOE doing to address issues relating to
ITP?
Answer. Waste processing and pretreatment activities continue for
the sludge waste stream feed. Canister production continues at the
Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) with sludge-only canisters
being produced. As of March 22, 1999, we have produced over 600
canisters of the estimated 5,200 total (salt and sludge) canisters, and
will continue to produce sludge-only canisters until the replacement
for ITP is operational about fiscal year 2008.
We originally anticipated that ITP would begin operation in fiscal
year 1999 to pre-treat (i.e., separate out the highly radioactive
cesium from the balance of the salt waste) and supply the salt waste
stream precipitate (i.e., the cesium) for processing at DWPF. Due to
significant technical and safety issues incurred due to the higher than
anticipated levels of benzene generation with the ITP process, the
restart of operations at ITP were suspended in January 1998.
With the suspension of ITP efforts, we began a systems engineering
approach in March 1998 to assess all potential alternatives for
removing cesium from stored high-level waste solutions. This resulted
in a recommendation to pursue three options with a final selection of a
process in fiscal year 2000. The three options are: direct disposal as
grout, small tank in-tank precipitation, and non-elutable ion exchange.
On February 22, 1999, the Department published a Notice of Intent
to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the
alternatives to the ITP process. As part of this process, two public
scoping meetings were held in Columbia, S.C. and North Augusta, S.C. on
March 11 and 18, 1999, respectively.
In the SEIS, the Department will assess the potential impacts of
the three ITP replacement processes and a no-action alternative. The
Department does not have a preferred alternative at this time. However,
the Department intends to complete this SEIS in the February 2000 time-
frame, and a Record of Decision (ROD) some time after that.
Question. What impact does this have on the Defense Waste
Processing Facility operations?
Answer. The Defense Waste Processing Facility will continue to
produce sludge-only canisters, and, according to current waste feed
projections, should be able to maintain production of sludge-only
canisters until the year 2008 time-frame. At that time, we will need to
have the alternative salt separation process in place and producing
waste feed for DWPF.
Question. How much funding was provided for the operation of the
ITP facility in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, and how have
these problems affected the use of these funds?
Answer. The funding for the operation of ITP was $19 million in
fiscal year 1998 and $12 million in fiscal year 1999. These funds have
been used to maintain the ITP facilities in a safe condition until
final determination on the use of these facilities is made as a part of
the overall Salt Alternative assessment process.
Question. How will any unobligated balances be used?
Answer. There were no unobligated balances for the Salt Alternative
in fiscal year 1998 and we do not expect to have any fiscal year 1999.
Question. What level of funding is included in the fiscal year 2000
budget request, and how will those funds be used?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the High-Level
Waste Salt Alternative Disposition is $42 million. These funds will be
used to complete the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS), support research and development activities on three
alternatives to the ITP process, and construct a pilot prototype for
the preferred alternative.
Question. What date is assumed for the restart of ITP operations?
Answer. fiscal year 2008 is the anticipated start of radioactive
operations for any of the alternatives being evaluated.
Question. Will DOE have to construct a new facility?
Answer. Yes, if any of the three alternatives under consideration
are selected, new facilities would have to be constructed. At this time
we are also looking very closely at which, if any, existing facilities
could be utilized.
Question. Explain technology options being considered and the costs
associated with each.
Answer. Three technology alternatives are being evaluated. The
costs identified below include capital costs and operating costs in
support of construction for the necessary facilities associated with
each alternative. They do not include the costs for operation or the
facilities or for waste disposal. They are:
Small Tank In-Tank Precipitation.--This alternative would use the
same chemicals and process as the existing ITP batch process, but would
use continuous flow, low residence time, and chilled tank processing.
The high-level liquid waste would be mixed with monosodium titanate and
filtered to remove adsorbed uranium, plutonium, and strontium. The
adsorbed solids would be vitrified at DWPF. To capture the cesium, as
with the larger ITP process, this process would use sodium
teraphenylborate as the reactant to precipitate cesium out of the
waste. The precipitate stream would be fed to DWPF to be vitrified. The
smaller tank process would eliminate the benzene control uncertainties
associated with the large tank process. Preliminary cost projections
for construction of new facilities and the support activities necessary
for implementing this process are $1.1 billion.
Ion Exchange.--This alternative would use a different ion exchange
medium from that previously considered. The medium (or resin) being
proposed is crystalline silicotitanate (CST). The high-level liquid
waste would be mixed with monosodium titanate and filtered to remove
adsorbed uranium, plutonium, and strontium. The adsorbed solids would
be vitrified at DWPF. The CST resin ion exchange columns would be used
to remove the cesium from the salt solution. The cesium bearing-resins
would be vitrified in the DWPF. Preliminary cost projections for
construction of new facilities and the support activities necessary for
implementing this process are $1.2 billion.
Direct Disposal as Grout.--In this alternative, the high-level
liquid waste would be mixed with monosodium titanate and filtered to
remove adsorbed uranium, plutonium, and strontium. The adsorbed solids
would be vitrified at DWPF. The filtered salt solution which would
contain radioactive cesium would be combined with grout in a facility
that would be constructed under this alternative, and disposed of in
the SRS saltstone vaults. Preliminary cost projections for construction
of new facilities and the support activities necessary for implementing
this process are $900 million.
Question. Do future OMB budget planning targets have sufficient
room to accommodate a potential new facility to pre-treat the waste at
Savannah River?
Answer. The current OMB outyear targets provide a stable level of
funding for the Environmental Management program under the assumption
that the Administration's Social Security reform and other proposals
are enacted. To accommodate new requirements, such as the salt
alternative program, within these current targets, the EM program will
have to become more efficient and/or reprioritize currently planned
activities. EM intends to work with OMB, regulators, stakeholders, and
the Congress on such funding and prioritization issues as they arise.
canister production at dwpf
Question. Explain the reason why canister production is falling off
in fiscal year 2000.
Answer. The Department's fiscal year 2000 budget request stated
that it would be necessary to reduce sludge-only canister production
from its current level of 200 to 100 in fiscal year 2000 to accommodate
funding for salt alternative work. The reduced canister production,
accomplished by slowing down the waste removal activities, would then
provide additional funding for continued study of the high-level waste
salt alternatives.
However, subsequent to the fiscal year 2000 budget submission, and
based on senior level discussions and consideration of all factors
involved, the Savannah River Site has committed to maximizing canister
production (about 200 canisters) in fiscal year 2000.
processing of heavy water
Question. Last year Congress provided additional funds for the
Department to process tritium-contaminated water stored at the Savannah
River site. Could you update the committee on the current status of
this program? Has the agreement with Canada been completed and signed?
If not, why?
Answer. As currently planned, the heavy water contract with Atomic
Energy of Canada, Limited (AECL) will be in two parts. We expect to
sign the first part of the contract at the end of April 1999. Under the
first part of the contract, AECL will ship 35.5 metric tons (MT) of
clean heavy water to the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) to meet Savannah River Site (SRS) commitments to NIST. SRS will
then ship 50 MT of tritium-contaminated heavy water to Canada to
replace the clean heavy water shipped to NIST. By the end of May, we
expect to sign the second part of the contract. This part of the
contract will result in shipment of an additional approximately 950 MT
of tritium-contaminated heavy water to AECL.
AECL has decided to team with a Canadian partner, who will provide
the financial support needed for AECL to accomplish their functions
under the contract, as well as construct and operate a detritiation
facility in Canada. In addition, the Department has decided to add an
option to include another 500 metric tons of heavy water in the
contract, if and when the Accelerator Production of Tritium (APT)
program determines that it no longer needs or wants the water. This
heavy water is now being held in reserve for the APT program. When AECL
has negotiated a contract with their partner, we believe that all
preparations will be in place for both the Department and AECL to sign
the second part of the contract. The contract has been delayed until
now due to the contract changes discussed above and the fact that AECL
needed to find a funding source for their efforts.
Question. Does the fiscal year 2000 budget request continue to
support the program adequately and in accordance with the agreement?
Answer. Recognizing that the contract has not been finalized, the
fiscal year 2000 budget request provides sufficient funds for this
program.
Question. Does the Department believe the program is cost effective
and in the U.S. interest.
Answer. Yes. The Department no longer needs the heavy water.
Therefore, continuing to store this material is not cost-effective for
the Department. The revenues from the sale of heavy water will offset
the cost of cleaning up the former heavy water production and storage
facilities.
oak ridge national laboratory
Question. The budget request for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
proposes to transfer several activities conducted under non-Defense
environmental management to the Defense Environmental Management
program for fiscal year 2000. The total amount to be transferred is
estimated to exceed $60 million.
Please explain the reasons for proposing the transfer of several
programs previously conducted under the non-Defense environmental
program over to the Defense environmental management account for fiscal
year 2000. What is the total amount proposed to be transferred?
Specifically, what is the direct link to the Defense work that
would support the transfer to Defense EM?
Provide for the record a crosswalk which shows all programs or
activities being proposed for funding in the fiscal year 2000 budget
under Defense Environmental Management which were funded outside of the
Defense EM program last year. The crosswalk should show the amount of
funding in fiscal year 1999 and where it was provided, the request for
fiscal year 2000 and where it is requested, along with a brief reason
for the move, including a brief explanation of the direct link with
defense activities which would support the Department's proposal.
Answer. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory is a complex, multi-
funded site, which supported both weapons production (defense) and
energy research (non-defense) activities through the years. While waste
generated or shipped to the Bethel Valley and Melton Valley sites was
from both non-defense and defense funded activities, the majority of
the waste was produced from defense activities, including early
prototype reprocessing activities.
Historically, funding for environmental management activities at
Bethel Valley and Melton Valley was provided both from the defense and
non-defense accounts. During the 1980's funding was solely from the
defense account. Beginning in the early 1990's, funding for these two
sites was provided from both the defense and non-defense accounts. (In
fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1998 approximately $230 million
was provided from the defense account and approximately $260 million
from the non-defense account for environmental restoration activities.)
In fiscal year 1999, funding for environmental management
activities at these two sites was exclusively from the non-defense
account. The reason for this decision was due to budget constraints on
the defense account. The non-defense account no longer has the
flexibility to accommodate funding these important activities. For
example, in fiscal year 1999 Congress increased the defense
appropriations by about $90 M from the requested level, and decreased
the non-defense appropriations by about $30 M (out of $462 M) (6
percent). The Department believes that because the majority of waste at
the Oak Ridge sites is from defense funded activities, it is
appropriate that funding be provided from the defense account. This is
reflected in the fiscal year 2000 budget request. In addition, under
the new Management and Integration contract for environmental
management activities at ORNL there will be many more fixed price
subcontracts than in the past. The administration of these numerous
subcontracts would be much more difficult to manage if they were funded
from two different accounts. Thus, in order to streamline the program
management and administration costs, the decision was made to fund this
work from one account. The defense account was chosen because, as noted
above, the majority of waste at these sites is from defense funded
activities.
The following four activities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory were
funded from the Non-Defense Environmental Management Appropriation in
fiscal year 1999, and now are being requested in the Defense
Environmental Management and Waste Management Appropriation. The
crosswalk follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NON-DEF DEFENSE
FISCAL FISCAL
TITLE NON-DEF PBS YEAR DEFENSE PBS YEAR
1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melton Valley D&D..................... OR43201.................. 33,434 OR43101.................. 24,307
Melton Valley RA...................... OR43202.................. 2,573 OR43102.................. 1,300
Bethel Valley RA...................... OR43203.................. 18,473 OR43103.................. 28,569
Bethel Valley D&D..................... OR43204.................. 5,197 OR43104.................. 3,626
---------- ---------
Total........................... 59,677 57,802
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What is the National Metal Recycle Center which is being
funded from Oak Ridge Defense Direct Support in fiscal year 2000? What
level of funding was provided for this Center in fiscal year 1999 and
previous years? Provide a detailed breakout of the $4.162 million being
requested for Direct Support-Defense activities compared to the $2.898
funding level for fiscal year 1999.
Answer. The National Center of Excellence for Metal Recycle was
created in October 1997 to facilitate the cost effective recycle of
clean and decontaminated metals at DOE sites across the country. The
Center identifies recycling opportunities and provides technical
assistance to all DOE sites on projects that may be able to realize
cost reductions through recycling of materials for unrestricted use.
The Center provides expertise to support the evaluation of cost and
risk aspects of specific recycling projects to make sure that each
project is safe and cost effective. The Center's goal is to make
recycling a well understood and commonplace component of our cleanup
projects. The Center has already participated in six large projects and
several smaller actions that resulted in the recycling of 11,000 tons
of metal, with an estimated savings to the Department of approximately
$9.9 million.
The Oak Ridge Operations Office funds the Center, which provides
technical assistance to any site or recycling project in the DOE
complex. The Center receives funds from each of the three main Oak
Ridge appropriations, that is, Post 2006 Completion Defense, Post 2006
Completion Non-Defense, and the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund. The total
funding for the Center in fiscal year 1998 was $700,000 and $900,000 in
fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 2000 Congressional Budget Request
includes $900,000 for this program.
The requested detailed breakout of the direct support-defense
activities (PBS OR-48104) is provided below:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------
1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreements In Principle............................. 1,650 1,225
DOE Direct.......................................... 2,000 2,437
Metal Recycle....................................... 100 500
-------------------
Total......................................... \1\ 3,75 4,162
0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The current total fiscal year 1999 is $3.75 million. However, only
$2.898 million was shown in the fiscal year 2000 budget request due to
the availability of carryover funds. Therefore, Defense -funded Direct
Support requirements have really only increased a net of approximately
$400K.
DOE Direct funding covers crosscutting program technical
requirements such as: support to the EM portion of transportation
activities; technical program support in the areas of independent
validation; readiness assessments and laboratory audits; and State
mixed waste fees. This activity also supports corporate and educational
initiatives such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities/
Minority Educational Initiatives and educational grants to local
schools. The increase in fiscal year 2000 represents increased funding
for independent validation of program baselines and increased
independent audit requirements.
environmental management centers
Question. Regarding special ``Centers'', how many other ``Centers''
is DOE funding in the Environmental Management program? Provide for the
record a list of those ``Centers'' showing where each ``Center'' is
funded, what funding has been provided each year for the past 4 years,
the funding profile over the next 5 years, and what the benefit they
provide to the Defense EM program?
Answer. The Metal Recycling Center is the only Oak Ridge Center.
The majority of the Centers of Excellence were established in fiscal
year 1997, therefore the funding profile will begin with fiscal year
1997. Attached is a chart depicting where each center is located and
the funding profile, as well as a brief description of the benefits
provided to the Environmental Management Program.
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
[In thousands of dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Center of excellence ------------------------------------------------------- Description/benefit of
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001-2006 centers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albuquerque: LLW/MLLW Center of ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) Prepares Federal
Excellence \1\. Facilities Compliance
Act, Chief Financial
Officer Report to
Congress.
Chicago: Risk Management Center 1,103 1,962 2,389 2,415 14,490 Provides technical
of Excellence. expertise and support
to help field offices
implement EM/DOE risk
initiatives; technical
assistance to field on
the Accelerated Paths
to Closure
development.
Idaho: LLW/MLLW Center of Excel- ......... 498 395 ......... 13,264 Idaho is the lead for
lence \1\. complex-wide
Environmental
Management integration
efforts for LLW/MLLW
(opportunities for
acceleration of
cleanup, mortgage
reduction, cost
savings).
National Spent Nuclear Fuel Pro- 19,844 21,952 26,092 14,275 82,338 Idaho will provide
gram \1\. overall program
management to safely
and efficiently manage
DOE-owned spent
nuclear fuel and
prepare it for
disposal.
Nevada: LLW/MLLW Center of ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) Provides technical
Excellence \1\. assistance to the LLW
Federal Review Group;
completes disposal
facility Performance
Assessments/Composite
Analyses and leads
effort to consolidate
site audits of
treatment, storage and
disposal facilities.
Savannah River:
National Environmental 1,000 1,600 1,500 1,500 6,000 Coordinates/manages EM-
Training Office Center of related technical
Excellence. training and
facilitates increased
standardization of
contractor training.
National Spent Nuclear Fuel ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) Savannah River is the
Program **. lead for aluminum-
based and Foreign
Research Reactor
fuels.
FETC: Center for Acquisition and 2,125 1,275 1,594 1,702 10,841 Serves as a field
Business Excellence. resource in areas such
as research
acquisition plan
development, business
and technical
assistance in
developing procurement
strategy, and
identifying and
promulgating best
practices and lessons
learned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding for both the LLW/MLLW and National Spent Fuel Centers of Excellence are requested under Idaho and
released to other sites during execution.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
science and technology
Question. Mr. Owendoff, one of the Department of Energy's major
thrusts has been privatization of its cleanup efforts. One of the
dangers of privatization is that private companies are selling general
solutions that are not always tailored to the specific waste site.
Without proper departmental oversight and necessary tailoring, these
already expensive solutions can become even more costly.
How is the Department of Energy using university organizations--
such as DIAL at Mississippi State University--to provide independent
evaluations of the feasibility of cleanup proposals, such as the $10
billion cleanup effort at Hanford, Washington?
Answer. The Department is currently using a number of university
organizations and faculty--including for example, the Diagnostic
Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory (DIAL) facility at Mississippi
State University; the Hemispheric Center for Environmental Technology
(HCET) facility at Florida International University; and the Institute
for Central and Eastern European Cooperative Environmental Research at
Florida State University--to provide independent evaluations of the
efficacy of environmental technologies in cleanup proposals. The
Director of the DIAL facility has, for example, recently been invited
to participate in an independent assessment of the baseline technology
proposed by the privatization contractor for the Tank Waste Remediation
System at Hanford, Washington. In addition, researchers at DIAL are
currently working on validating a critical thermodynamic equilibrium
model that will be directly applicable to successful treatment of the
waste contained in all Hanford tanks, and to the work of the
privatization contractor.
waste isolation pilot plant (wipp)
Question. Mr Owendoff, the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency
has been informed that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) program
budget has been cut by $513,000. Mississippi and other states, through
which transuranic waste will ultimately travel to WIPP, have been using
this money to prepare for the impending shipments and address safety
concerns associated with them. With reduced funding for WIPP, how will
states such as Mississippi adequately prepare for the safety concerns
associated with these transuranic waste shipments?
Answer. On March 22, 1999, Judge John Garrett Penn concluded that
the permanent injunction he issued in 1992 does not prevent the
shipment of waste, and that WIPP has interim status under RCRA. This
ruling resulted in the Department completing the first shipment of
transuranic waste to WIPP on March 26, 1999. The Department plans to
continue shipments of waste to WIPP and to increase the rate of
shipments to 17 per week.
Since WIPP did not open when originally planned, the Department had
withdrawn approximately $13 million from the Carlsbad Area Office
budget to offset increased waste management costs at the sites where
transuranic waste is stored. However, now that shipping has begun, we
have already released funding for the Southern States Energy Board,
which supports the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency.
subcommittee recess
Senator Craig. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your time
and your willingness to be forthright in your responses.
The subcommittee will recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:06 a.m., Thursday, March 18, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:42 a.m., in room 138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Reid, and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Science
STATEMENT OF DR. MARTHA KREBS, DIRECTOR
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
STATEMENT OF BILL MAGWOOD, DIRECTOR
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
STATEMENT OF DAN REICHER, ASSISTANCE SECRETARY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. The hearing will please come to order.
First, I want to welcome my ranking member and indicate to
him that since he has a time schedule that is difficult, I will
let you proceed wherever you would like.
Would you like to make your opening statement?
Senator Reid. No, I'm okay.
Senator Domenici. Today, the subcommittee will review the
Department of Energy's budget request for the Office of
Science, the Office of Nuclear Energy, and the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs. In that regard, we
will hear from Dr. Martha Krebs, Director of the Office of
Science; Mr. Bill Magwood, Director of the Office of Nuclear
Energy Science and Technology; and Mr. Dan Reicher, Assistant
Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewables.
Before we begin, I want to compliment all three witnesses.
Mr. Magwood assumed his responsibilities after Congress was
extremely critical of the management of the Office of Nuclear
Energy Science and Technology and has initiated a number of
interesting, and worthwhile programs. We thank you for that.
Dr. Krebs is the first Director of Science at the
Department of Energy, since we created that office last year in
this committee. We thought there ought to be one focal point
for all of science. It was predominantly under you before, but
now it is unequivocal, in that now there is one office and you
are in charge.
Beyond that, obviously, she has other duties. She manages
some of the Department's most exciting research in the human
genome, high-energy physics, fusion energy, and other areas, or
I should say as part of that office. Those are all exciting
functions for the Department.
I have a great deal of confidence in Mr. Reicher. The
programs for which he is responsible within the jurisdiction of
this subcommittee, if we were able to provide the amount in
request, would expand 50 percent since 1998. I do not think
that we are going to be able to do that, however, but I do not
think the resources are going to be more fully justified.
But within the request, I do see some changes that I find
encouraging. I see an effort to move away from short-term
thinking and deployment toward long-term research. I see an
effort to choose among technologies and to stop pursuing
technologies that are not making necessary advances.
climate change budget request
With that said I must point out that, in my opinion, the
funding is rather lopsided in the President's request in terms
of dealing with climate change. Within the subcommittee
jurisdiction, the Administration has requested $436 million for
research and development related to climate change. Of that,
$399 million is for solar and renewable energy, $33 million is
for science, and a paltry $5 million is for nuclear energy.
I do not know how much longer policy makers are going to be
able to carry on this kind of a charade by continuing to ignore
nuclear power as we attempt to address the issue of climate
change. So I have to wonder if the Administration is serious
about climate change or is simply using this opportunity to use
renewable energy as a kind of a bone that they throw money at
indicating that it will solve the global climate issue.
I do not believe that is the case, and I do not know how
much longer we can continue to say to those who know we need
nuclear energy that this approach and this kind of balance or
lack of balance is something realistic.
Having said that, as soon as the distinguished Senator from
Nevada is finished, we are going to start with you, Dr. Krebs,
followed by Mr. Magwood, and then Mr. Reicher.
Senator Reid.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR REID
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Again, I
apologize to you and the witnesses. I had the morning cleared
for this hearing, but there was a meeting called at the White
House and I am obligated to attend, so I am going to have to
leave here at about 10:15.
I would ask permission that I be allowed to submit the
questions that I had prepared to these witnesses and that they
respond in a reasonable period of time.
Senator Domenici. That will be the order. The questions and
the Department's responses will be included at the appropriate
place in the record.
renewable energy technologies
Senator Reid. First I want to talk about energy efficiency
and renewable energy.
Mr. Reicher, energy-efficient advances in building
insulation, lighting technologies, and many other things have
saved the country enormous quantities of energy and money, and
I would like to think that work we have done within this
committee to direct attention to that has been one of the cost-
saving areas that we have done, and we should be proud of these
accomplishments.
Renewable energy sources that do not contribute to
pollution or global warming can be just as successful if these
technologies can become cost competitive with proven power
technologies. Tax incentive is another artificial subsidy
which, in my opinion, can never replace the effectiveness of
cost savings, and so competitiveness has to be a primary goal
in the renewable energy program.
Mr. Chairman, I just returned from a trip to South America,
and in Brazil they decided to privatize the power industry.
They went from 60,000 employees that worked for the Brazilian
government, now that it's private, to 6,000, and it is much
more effective and working very well. Can you imagine that,
60,000 to 6,000?
So my point here is that tax incentives and artificial
subsidies can never replace the effectiveness of cost savings.
Competitiveness has to be the primary goal in renewable energy
and some of our other programs. I hope that testimony here, Mr.
Reicher, will demonstrate the Department's commitment to
developing renewable resources that are market-driven instead
of policy-driven.
I am particularly interested in the program, because Nevada
is a state with significant renewable energy potential, as is I
think much of the Southwest, which has not been fully
developed.
We know that commercial geothermal power production is an
important resource already in northern Nevada. However, in
spite of high potential for wind power generation, no wind
power has been developed in Nevada. I have spoken to you and
others. There may be some problems with that, because of the
wind now blowing like it does in some parts of California, but
it is something I think we need to take a look at. We, in
Nevada, think the wind blows all the time.
Finally, Nevada is at the very center of the highest
quality solar power potential in the country. We have been told
by experts that there is enough sun generated where the Nevada
test site is located to supply power for the whole United
States, and the largest producer of solar power in the country
is down near Barstow, that is 200-megawatt facility, very small
compared to the potential available. So I think we need to do a
better job of solar energy.
The United States, particularly Nevada, will benefit
enormously from the development of cost-competitive and
renewable energy. So I wish you well.
science research budget request
As far as science, Dr. Krebs, the $2.8 billion request for
science programs competes significantly with other priorities
in our appropriations bill, such as water projects that are
important to many western states. Many seem to see science as a
luxury that can be reduced, later even abandoned. I do not
agree with that.
I believe that science provides one of the foundations of
leadership that the United States clearly must show in its
economy, its quality of life, and its ability to promote global
peace and security.
It is important that you, Dr. Krebs, demonstrate the
relevance and priority of your programs, because these programs
are very difficult to sustain given some of the other
priorities that people have looked to this subcommittee for
years to fund. One of the projects that I think we have to take
a close look at, we need to understand the development of
geologic faults, and their permeability is being reduced,
because I understand there are some general reductions in geo-
sciences.
This topic is critical to understanding what is going on in
the western United States. We had the serious earthquake in
Northern California and a serious earthquake in Southern
California.
Nevada is the second most earthquake-prone state in the
United States, and with the population growth as it is there, I
think we need to do a lot better in understanding earthquakes.
That also, as part of that, is the problems we are having on
nuclear waste. So I hope that you will all personally within
your discretion do a good job of promoting science programs,
because we need help in this subcommittee to do that.
nuclear energy programs
Last, Mr. Chairman, nuclear energy. Last year this
subcommittee held a hearing on the future of nuclear energy.
For the past 2 years the Administration has proposed a couple
of initiatives, the Nuclear Energy Research Institute and the
Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization. I want to build upon what
you have just said, Mr. Chairman.
I am not opposed to nuclear waste, if, in fact, we can show
that it is safe, but I think we cannot even consider more
nuclear power production unless we talk about the number one
problem dealing with nuclear power, and that is what you do
with the waste. That has taken months of our time here in the
Senate, what are we going to do with nuclear waste, and I find
that not addressed.
We have to do something about that before we can talk about
developing more nuclear power. Unless we can handle the waste,
there will never be nuclear power. That is in addition to all
the safety problems that we have.
So I hope and I agree with the chairman of the
subcommittee, that I doubt that geologic disposal will ever be
found acceptable. If we are going to do more with nuclear power
generation, we have to be able to answer what we are going to
do with disposal.
I compliment and applaud the chairman that he is willing to
take a look at other methods of disposing of nuclear waste. So,
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your allowing me to go on
with this extended statement. I look forward to the witnesses'
testimony.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Dorgan, do you have some opening remarks?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman.
The President has a briefing on Kosovo this morning, so I
regret I will not be able to attend the entire hearing. But I
did want to comment and indicate that the President's proposed
increases in both the conservation program and also the request
for expenditures on renewable fuels, I think, is one of a whole
series of approaches to deal with climate change; but it also
represents investments in the right kinds of things.
I welcome Dr. Magwood and Dr. Krebs. I do not know quite as
much about your work as I do of Mr. Reicher's, but am
interested in learning, and have been reading some of the
statements that you are offering today.
I want to thank Mr. Reicher, he came to North Dakota and
pronounced that North Dakota was the Saudi Arabia of wind
energy. I guess only when I am home he meant that to be the
case, but that does not mean that is what we are producing from
wind energy, but the potential in North Dakota is quite
extraordinary in wind energy, and bio-mass and wind energy
programs, I think, hold great promise, and I appreciate very
much the leadership of Mr. Reicher.
I found out during his visit in North Dakota that he has
kayaked the Yangtze River, and I wondered whether someone who
decided they wanted to kayak the entire Yangtze River was fit
for public service after that, and I discovered he is. He is an
extraordinary asset to our government. I appreciate all three
of you being here and presenting testimony today about these
important areas.
If we can make the right kinds of investments and make the
right kinds of choices about our energy future, we can address,
even as we make those choices, a lot of the significant
problems that lie ahead of us, and that is part of what the job
of this subcommittee is about, to help make those choices. The
President has made recommendations. I think they are sound
recommendations.
The proposed increases in areas, solar and wind, $274
million in the President's request, geothermal, $29 million,
and so on, represent, in my judgment, good choices, and I am
pleased to be here to support them, and pleased to welcome the
panel.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator.
I just wanted to say, particularly to you Senator Reid,
with reference to the admonishment toward the Science Program.
Dr. Krebs has a very high post, and of great concern to us,
because we need clear thinking and as much as we can get with
reference to science.
human genome projects
I do not know if you know, Dr. Krebs, but one of the
greatest wellness and health programs, research programs, that
ever came upon human beings is genome research--it will
revolutionize how we get well, stay well, and how we get rid of
hundreds of very, very big diseases that have bothered humanity
for a long, long time.
I think when people ask whether the Department of Energy is
really a science institution, you ought to hold your head up
proudly and say, ``Well, but for the Department of Energy and
Dr. Charles DeLisi, who moved to DOE from NIH, we would not
have the genome project.''
He was at NIH, and they did not want to start that project,
so he, in frustration, moved over to your department, and came
up to see me, and said, ``This is a great thing, we ought to do
it,'' and as a matter of fact, within 7 or 8 months, Senator
Lauton Chiles and I started it without any authorization,
nothing in the President's budget.
It was developed at NIH, the program was shared by the two
departments. We get one-third now, and we have for the last 8
or 9 years. They get two-thirds, but they deal theirs out all
over the country. One laboratory gets one program, another gets
another, with reference to chromosomes, and we have made some
giant strides. I assume you are enthusiastic about the genome
program, are you not?
Dr. Krebs. I am very enthusiastic about the genome program.
I think it is one of the best things that the Department of
Energy has done over the last 10 to 15 years. Creation of the
genome program will change the way biology is done in the
future.
Senator Domenici. Yes.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I had a tour of Lawrence
Livermore Laboratory, and they had this genome project there. I
misunderstood, let me make sure, but I had the impression they
took credit for it, but it was just part they were sharing with
everybody else.
Senator Domenici. Yes. They got a chromosome. I do not
remember which one. They might have two.
Dr. Krebs. Nineteen, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Which one?
Dr. Krebs. I think theirs is chromosome 19.
Senator Domenici. Los Alamos has one, et cetera. It is one
of many chromosomes, Senator Reid.
Dr. Krebs. Right.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, this is interesting and a
history that I was not aware of. I wonder if the staff might be
able to put together a little briefing memo for us establishing
the outline of this, because I think you make an excellent
point. There are a lot of investments we make that people are
very unaware of, and the origin of these often comes from----
Senator Domenici. Committees.
Senator Dorgan [continuing]. Areas of our government, and
committees, and committee and subcommittee chairs, and so on,
so that would be very helpful, I think, just to put together a
briefing.
Senator Domenici. It will. The staff will combine and get
it done. Thank you.
statement of Dr. Martha Krebs
Dr. Krebs. May I make a comment before I start my----
Senator Domenici. Sure. Then you can go to your sermon,
please?
Dr. Krebs. Right, my advocacy piece. [Laughter.]
Actually, the Office of Biological and Environmental
Research within the Department of Energy has existed for 50
years, since the time of the Atomic Energy Commission. We have
a document that celebrates those 50 years that could tell you
about the work we have done in nuclear medicine, as well as in
the genome, and I would be happy to provide that in addition to
whatever the staff might prepare. It is a very exciting story,
actually.
[Clerk's note.--The following information ``A Vital
Legacy,'' Biological and Environmental Research in the Atomic
Age, by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research,
U.S. Department of Energy, Internet address is www.er.doe.gov/
production/ober/ can be found in the subcommittee files.]
Senator Domenici. What happened, Senator, to the
predecessor agency, before we had Energy. There was the Atomic
Energy Commission, and then we had the Energy Research and
Development Agency [ERDA], and now DOE. It was because of the
development and use of the atomic weapons, the Department of
Energy and its predecessors became a primary focal point to try
to determine the health effects of those two first atomic
bombs. They were required to keep all kinds of data, and became
the data experts with reference to hundreds of thousands of
Japanese people. From that developed the expertise in
biological and environmental impact.
They have great biologists in the Department of Energy,
some of the best in the world, working at the laboratories, is
that not right?
Dr. Krebs. Working at the laboratories, also universities,
the positron emission tomography technology, and the research
that supports it in everything from addiction to brain tumors,
a lot of things have come out of the Department of Energy's
Biological and Environmental Research Program.
Senator Domenici. Please continue.
program overview
Dr. Krebs. Mr. Chairman, Senator Reid, Senator Dorgan, I am
delighted to be here this morning to describe the fiscal year
2000 budget for the DOE science programs. It is important to
keep in mind that in terms of the Federal investment and basic
and applied research, DOE is second only to the Department of
Health and Human Services.
The Office of Science itself is in a class with the
National Science Foundation. We are the primary funders of
physical science in this country, at $1.7 billion, and clearly
out rank organizations like NASA and the National Science
Foundation.
We have a principal role in large scientific user
facilities, the high energy and nuclear physics accelerators,
at Fermi, at SLAC, at Jefferson Lab, the Cyclotron sources and
research reactors for material science and chemistry.
But significantly, as well, we are an integral part of the
Department of Energy, both carrying out its science and
technology missions and commitments through the high energy and
nuclear physics programs, in what we call a theme of exploring
energy and matter, and not only are we looking at fundamental
particles, but also, for example, the building blocks of life,
like the genome.
We have a critical role in supporting the energy missions
of the Department of Energy, as well as the environmental
missions, in terms of both the consequences of the use and
production of energy, but also in supporting the cleanup
mission, understanding how to remove the contamination that has
been induced at our sites, and then as I noted before, we build
extraordinary tools to carry out extraordinary science, and we
get results year after year.
program accomplishments
Let me tell you about some of them. We have had new
findings this year on corrosion resistance, which will enable
better protective coatings for high-temperature, high-wear
environments, such as furnaces, turbines, engines. In the
exploration of the new world of nano-structures, we have
created small fibers 50 to 100 times more conductive than
copper, which could have a major impact in energy utilization.
Again, in the biological area, as a spinoff of the human
genome we have been using the genomic technologies to explore
other organisms. One of them is called D. radiodurans, which we
call ``Conan the Bacterium.'' It is a thousand times more
resistant to radiation than humans, and we sequenced its genome
this past year, and now we are engaged in the systematic
exploration of its properties.
We believe there may be long-term use of this organism for
bioremediation at some of our most contaminated sites, and, in
fact, the environmental molecular science program, which we
help the Environmental Management Program to manage jointly, is
exploring more practical applied applications of this
mechanism.
As I mentioned before, most recently we have been using the
positron emission tomography at the Brookhaven Laboratory to
explore the chemical pathways of addiction, and this year we
identified an epilepsy drug, GBG, as a treatment to block the
addictive effects of cocaine and nicotine. Joanna Fowler, who
leads that group, was recognized this year with the Lawrence
Award for her activity.
Science Magazine named the work of a group at the Lawrence-
Berkeley Lab on the accelerating universe as the scientific
breakthrough of the year. It represents a 10-year campaign that
indicates that there may be a new force in the universe that
works against gravity, expanding the universe at a faster and
faster rate.
Another advance was the first indications of neutrino mass
at the facility in Japan, but that was strongly supported by
the United States high energy physics program, and we supported
most of the U.S. scientists in that collaboration.
fiscal year 2000 budget request
Let me turn to the budget itself now. In fiscal year 2000
we are requesting $2.8 billion. It is up about $138 million, or
5 percent, over 1999, taking into account $46 million of one-
time projects. The overall activity is up about $184 million.
If you want to think about how we used that additional $184
million, it was an increase of $84 million for the Spallation
Neutron Source to keep it on track with the original proposed
cost profile, $70 million for the Scientific Simulation
Initiative, part of the President's information technology
initiative, and a $10 million increase for science education,
and the remaining is spread in various ways.
Despite increases for our major initiatives, difficult
decisions were made within the base program that are
defensible, but not comfortable. One of them was the example
that Senator Reid gave of our reductions in geoscience, but
some accommodations had to be made, given the tight constraints
that the Administration applied to the budget, and which I know
you have equally tight constraints as well.
Within these constraints we have to accommodate new
projects and new directions, and we have to make sure that we
balance the operation of existing facilities against that which
supports the research, and the researchers that use them.
The budget request has numerous important elements, but in
the time that remains, I will talk mainly about the two major
initiatives in the budget, the Spallation Neutron Source and
the Scientific Simulation Initiative.
spallation neutron source
The Spallation Neutron Source is a $1.36 billion facility,
expected to be completed in December 2005. It is a five-lab
collaboration, among Oak Ridge, Argonne, Berkeley, Brookhaven,
and Los Alamos. It is a high-priority facility for the
scientific community. It was recommended first in 1984, in the
National Academy study, and again reconfirmed in the 1999
material science study by the National Research Council.
The material impacts are important, but there are also
other activities that will benefit from this facility. In
particular, metals, ceramics, polymers, magnetic systems, and
biological systems as well as molecular structures, and
understanding the functional properties of biological
molecules.
A recent January 1999, review took place that has received
some fair amount of coverage in the scientific press, but also
in the House Committee on Science, that made some fairly strong
criticisms of this project. These criticisms were echoed in
testimony given by the General Accounting Office, but they only
confirmed what had been discovered by our review; namely, that
the technical project director must report to the lab director,
that the civil construction requires more oversight, and we
need to prepare a new baseline for the project by July 1999,
and regain additional cost contingency above what had already
been regained by the project.
Within a week of that review, the five lab directors
identified Dr. David Moncton, from Argonne National Laboratory,
as the project director. He has been on-site at Oak Ridge and
working with the technical team for the project, and today they
are briefing the involved lab directors from the five different
laboratories on the results of their review, which is
essentially a stem to stern technical review of the project and
a commitment to an action plan for the next 6 months to arrive
at the baseline and to get the project back on track.
This review will be presented to Under Secretary Moniz
tomorrow, and we will be presenting it, bringing Dr. Moncton to
the interested congressional committees and members on Thursday
and Friday.
gao study
Senator Domenici. Can I interject here? On the spallation
machine for Oak Ridge, was the GAO study helpful?
Dr. Krebs. The GAO study in general confirmed the findings
of our own review. They were present at our review, by our
invitation. Additional comments made by the GAO about the
Department's capability to manage large projects are things we
have heard before.
Senator Domenici. You have heard that before?
Dr. Krebs. Yes.
Senator Domenici. That was not the question. Was it
relevant?
Dr. Krebs. Only insofar as they confirmed what we had
already found out.
Senator Domenici. Okay.
Dr. Krebs. They did not provide any new information. It is
important for me to also say that Dr. Moncton was responsible
for the on-time and on-budget delivery of the $800 million
Advanced Photon Source at the Argonne Lab, so I think he is one
of the best people we could possibly find to deliver this kind
of a project.
I think it also demonstrates the effectiveness of our
construction management review process that has helped the
Office of Science deliver projects on time and on budget, such
as the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, the Jefferson Lab, the
Advanced Photon Source, the Advanced Light Source.
It demonstrates the workability of the collaboration of the
five lab directors, but we are going to go further, we will
negotiate stronger memorandums of agreement and clear
performance measures for all the labs.
scientific simulation initiative
Let me turn quickly now to the Scientific Simulation
Initiative, DOE's contribution to the President's information
technology for the 21st Century. This initiative is aimed at
providing the science base that will build the computer and
information technology for the second decade of the next
century. The National Science Foundation and DARPA have the
primary responsibility for this science base.
The Department of Energy and other mission agencies, NOAA,
NASA, and NIH, are investing in the Tera scale computer and
software infrastructure under development now for specific
applications.
DOE has a special role in that effort. In Defense Programs,
the Advanced Strategic Computing Initiative [ASCI] is
developing the trillion-operations-per-second machines and
intermediate software to enable certification of the safety and
security of the nuclear stockpile in a comprehensive test ban
regime.
It is now foreseeable that tens of Teraops will be
available in the next decade for science, also the next
century, but we have to start now developing the algorithms,
building the models, to match both the capability and the
structure of these new machines.
In the Department of Energy, we have two primary
applications to drive the development on these machines for
science, climate modeling and combustion. The criteria that we
use to choose these initiatives were, first of all, we needed
to have complex scientific problems for which an order of
magnitude increase in computing would transform the
understanding of the problem.
We needed a scientific community comfortable and
sophisticated about large-scale computing, and finally we had
externalities that justified prompt development and
exploitation of the coming technologies. In climate models, as
you have noted, the need to better understand the impact on a
regional scale of changes resulting from increased carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere and in the environment generally is
an increasingly pressing problem in our negotiations and
discussions with colleagues around the world. In combustion,
foreseeable emission limitations that may be the discussion of
regulations for transportation could present a crisis for
vehicles in the next decade.
In sum, DOE has critical scientific problems. We are in the
middle of the technology development, and the interagency
collaboration will enable us broad access to the scientific
community. It is very exciting, and it is relevant. We have a
lot of other activities that I could talk to you about. Our
scientific facilities are coming along.
In addition to bringing on RHIC, the B-factory, the
Combustion Research Facility at Sandia Livermore, we are also
in the middle of and working well in our upgrades at LANSCE. We
are making progress on the Large Hadron Collider. The Next
Generation Internet is moving along, and in the human genome we
will be dedicating the production sequencing facility that
matches some of the new investments at NIH.
prepared statement
Let me just say that in closing, this is a good budget. It
will enable exciting science. We believe we are managing
effectively in the face of lots of uncertainties. There is room
for improvement, and we look forward to working with you.
Senator Domenici. Do you have prepared remarks?
Dr. Krebs. I do. I would like to submit them for the
record, sir.
Senator Domenici. Your full statement will be made part of
the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Martha Krebs
Mr Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: This is the sixth time
I have had the honor of testifying before this subcommittee on behalf
of the budget for the newly renamed Office of Science (SC). The fiscal
year 2000 budget request for the Office of Science supports: Basic
Energy Sciences, Fusion Energy Sciences, High Energy Physics, Nuclear
Physics, Biological and Environmental Research, Computational and
Technology Research, Energy Research Analyses, Multiprogram Energy
Laboratories-Facilities Support, and supporting Science Program
Direction. The Technical Information Management program budget is
located within the Energy Supply R&D account. Continued leadership in
science and technology is a cornerstone of the President's and Vice
President's vision for America. During the past six years, the
Administration and this committee have provided substantial growth for
scientific research and enabling technology programs despite tight
overall fiscal constraints. This budget request builds upon and
strengthens those vital investments for the Twenty-first Century.
Scientific research and the knowledge and technologies that follow
have been credited with about half of the productivity growth of the
United States' economy in the past fifty years. What growth it has
been--millions of high-skill, high-wage jobs; the longest life
expectancy in human history; agricultural output to confound Malthus;
new means of working and communicating on a global basis; and exciting
new frontiers to explore. The Department of Energy, and its predecessor
agencies, have been a proud sponsor of science-driven growth through
the combined efforts of the National Laboratories, 66 Nobel Laureates
and thousands of other outstanding university and industry based
researchers nationwide. As we begin the Twenty-first Century, we
prepare for the next fifty years with focused investments in science
and scientific tools for the future.
The Department of Energy (DOE) budget for fiscal year 2000 plans
for the next century by providing for a $138 million increase in the
Office of Science, to invest in thousands of individual research
projects at hundreds of research facilities across the U.S., primarily
in our national laboratories and research universities. The fiscal year
2000 request will allow for continued construction of the Spallation
Neutron Source, the first world class neutron source built by the U.S.
in over 30 years; the pursuit of a new Scientific Simulation Initiative
that will revolutionize our ability to solve scientific problems of
extraordinary complexity and enable us to apply these new resources
toward advancing DOE missions; and participation in the Next Generation
Internet effort with a focus on R&D and implementation of the
technologies and tools that help meet mission requirements and
contribute to the Scientific Simulation Initiative.
our mission hasn't changed
As the Office of Science, our mission remains to: produce the
scientific and technical knowledge needed to develop energy technology
options; understand the health and environmental implications of energy
production and use; maintain U.S. leadership in understanding the
fundamental nature of energy and matter; provide and operate the large-
scale facilities required in the natural sciences; ensure U.S.
leadership in the search for scientific knowledge; and support the
availability of scientific talent for the next generation.
Achieving our mission contributes to the goals of the Department
and the Administration while advancing science and contributing to U.S.
economic growth. Our history of success continued in fiscal year 1999
with the following:
Hundreds of principal investigators, funded by SC, yearly win
dozens of major prizes and awards sponsored by the President, the
Department, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the major professional societies including: the 1997
Nobel Prize for Chemistry; National Medal of Science; Presidential
Young Investigator Award; 1998 Fermi and Lawrence awards; National
Science Foundation Career Award; eight 1998 R&D 100 awards; two 1998
Discover Awards; 1998 Federal Laboratory Consortium Award; Gordon Bell
Prizes and Fernbach Award; IBM's Supercomputer Award; and many other
awards and honors from scientific societies.
Researchers supported by the Office of Science showed that the
universe is not only expanding but that the outward motion appears to
be speeding up, not slowing down. The implication is that Einstein was
right when he suggested that there is a mysterious energy that fills
``empty'' space and that most of the energy of the universe is in this
form. The finding raises profound questions about the nature of space
and the ultimate fate of the universe including fundamental new
questions for physics. As a result, Science Magazine named The
Accelerating Universe ``the 1998 Breakthrough of the Year ''.
SC also provided support for the $100 million detector, Super-
Kamiokande, operated by a collaboration of 120 physicists from 23
institutions headed by the University of Tokyo's Institute for Cosmic
Ray Research (ICRR). This experiment demonstrated that the supposedly
massless neutrino must, in fact, have a non-zero rest mass. Once
verified, this discovery will force a revision in the Standard Model,
which assumes a massless neutrino and may alter our estimates of the
total mass of the universe, with implications for understanding its
origin and eventual fate.
Incredibly light synthetic metals with a potential electrical
conductivity 50-100 times better than copper per weight are being made
from carbon nanotubes doped with metals. First discovered in 1991,
nanotubes are a new class of materials formed from graphite-like sheets
of carbon rolled into exquisitely small cylinders (one-billionth of a
meter).
Microbial genomics, one of today's most exciting and high profile
fields in biology, was initiated by DOE in 1994. Science Magazine also
identified microbial genomics as one of the top 10 fields of discovery
in 1998. Two of the 1997 ``11 hottest papers in biology'' were for
microbial genomic sequences funded by SC. For example, SC research on
``Conan the Bacterium''--D. radiodurans R1, has shown extreme
resistance to genotoxic chemicals, oxidative damage, high levels of
ionizing and UV radiation, and desiccation. The ability to survive such
extreme environments is attributed in part to a unique DNA repair
system in combination with its chromosome copy number and structure.
The remarkable capabilities of this microbe may enable scientists to
engineer a form of D. Radiodurans that can help us clean up some of our
most troublesome waste problems.
The Human Genome Program was initiated by the Department of Energy
(DOE) in 1986 to map and determine the complete DNA sequence of the
human genome. A Memorandum of Understanding was established with the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1988 to coordinate the U.S.
Genome Project. The latest joint five-year plan was published in
Science Magazine in October 1998. This plan calls for determining the
complete sequence of the human genome by the year 2003, two years ahead
of the original target date. Recent successes include identifying the
gene for kidney disease.
SC has renewed our commitment 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. We are fostering new kinds of
partnerships among our national laboratory, university and industry
based researchers to maximize the effectiveness and impact of research
activities. In partnership with the Department's applied programs, SC
is also working to bridge the gap between basic research and
application through: joint planning of critical 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.
New scientific research facilities coming on-line include: the
William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory; the
Jefferson Lab's Large Acceptance Spectrometer; SLAC's B-Factory, the
Oak Ridge Free-Air CO2 Enrichment Facility, the JGI Production (DNA)
Sequencing Facility and the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC).
Initiation of RHIC operations in fiscal year 2000 opens an exciting new
era of nuclear physics studies: the behavior of hot, dense nuclear
matter and an expected new state of matter, the quark-gluon plasma.
Projects completed on time and budget include: Fermilab's Main
Injector, and the Combustion Research Facility Phase II.
Bringing science to the researcher's desktop became a reality as
over 30,000 technical reports (2 million full-text pages) of DOE's R&D
results became accessible and searchable over the World Wide Web via
the Information Bridge (www.doe.gov/bridge). Researchers are regularly
downloading 4,000 reports per week from this web site.
The Department of Energy is a science agency because its mission
and goals require technologies and scientific knowledge far beyond that
which is currently available. From safeguarding the nuclear stockpile
to ensuring our nation's energy supply for the next century, DOE
continues to challenge the frontiers of science and technology.
The DOE Strategic Plan outlines the vision, goals and strategic
objectives that will, through leadership in science and technology,
help the DOE to meet those challenges. In keeping with the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Office of Science fiscal year
2000 budget request includes program specific goals, strategies, and
measures that focus our research activities and ensure continuity with
Departmental plans and national goals.
rethinking our goals and strategies
In the past year, the Department has begun to rethink how we
characterize our R&D efforts across business lines to assemble the key
information for improving our analysis and management of these
investments. The result is a set of R&D Portfolios, scheduled for
public release this month, that capture the spectrum of DOE R&D efforts
in each Business Line.
The basic research of the Office of Science presses forward on the
frontiers of fundamental understanding but also supports and enables
the R&D of the other business lines. Thus, a Science Portfolio has been
developed so as to clarify and improve the integration of our program
results in the Department. As the Department R&D Portfolios evolve, the
Office of Science will continue to integrate basic research with the
applied R&D in the other business lines' Portfolios to ensure strong
linkages between technology needs and science.
A revised Strategic Plan of the Office of Science, also scheduled
for release at the end of the month, will articulate the long-range
vision, goals, objectives, and strategies for our programs. The Science
Portfolio complements and supports the Strategic Plan by providing a
near-term ``snapshot'' of our investments that dovetails with the new
strategic framework.
The motivations behind this planning effort are to develop a shared
long-term focus for SC programs, their scientific communities and
performers; to describe our present scientific programs and position
them for the future; to provide a framework for cooperation and risk
taking; to illustrate the unique and coordinated role of SC programs
within the DOE and the federal science investment; and to inform and
inspire our sponsors and the general public.
The new SC Strategic Plan, and supporting Science Portfolio, is
structured around five high-level goals with twelve strategic
objectives, listed in Figure 1. These goals were developed through a
series of planning activities and workshops that drew on the experience
and knowledge of our research scientists and stakeholders to capture
both what is necessary and what is possible for our science as we look
to the next century.
The first goal, Fueling the Future, is centered on science for
affordable and clean energy options for the future. Some of the
questions that motivate this goal are: How can we tap and harness
affordable, clean fuels? What clean new electric power systems will
fuel the future? and How can energy systems be made more efficient and
environmentally sound?
Development of this goal has been closely connected with the
development of the Energy R&D portfolio and the objectives directly map
onto the energy portfolio.
--Fueling the future: New fuels; clean and affordable power; and
efficient energy use.
--Protecting our living planet: Sources and fate of energy by-
products; impacts on people and the environment; and prevention
and protection.
--Exploring energy and matter: Components of matter; origin and fate
of the universe; and complex systems.
--Extraordinary tools for extraordinary science: Instrumentation for
the frontiers of science; scientific simulation; and
institutional capacity.
--Enabling world class science.
The second goal, Protecting our Living Planet, is centered on
understanding energy impacts on people and the biosphere. Some of the
questions that motivate this theme are:
--What are the sources and fate of energy-related by-products?
--What factors affect global climate and how can they be controlled?
and
--How do complex biological and environmental systems respond to our
energy use?
This goal also contributes to both the Energy R&D portfolio and the
Environmental R&D portfolio.
The third goal, Exploring Matter and Energy, is centered on
discovering the building blocks of atoms and life. Some of the
questions that motivate this theme are:
--What are the fundamental components of matter?
--How can the origin and fate of the Universe reveal the secrets of
energy, matter and life? and
--How do atoms and molecules combine to form complex dynamic systems?
This goal captures the most fundamental research in the Office of
Science. The complex systems question links to R&D efforts in all of
the DOE business lines.
The fourth goal, Extraordinary Tools for Extraordinary Science, is
centered on the national assets that DOE provides for forefront,
multidisciplinary research. This goal builds on the unique role of the
Office of Science in providing the nation with forefront research
facilities at our National Laboratories such as research accelerators,
reactors, computational centers, and other unique instrumentation. In
addition, the National Laboratories as a system of institutions is
increasingly becoming an extraordinary tool beyond the set of specific
facilities located on their sites. The Office of Science will continue
to ensure that these critical research tools remain accessible to peer
reviewed researchers from all across the nation and meet the technical
challenges of forefront scientific investigation. This goal looks to
the future and to training and educating the next generation of
scientists and engineers.
Some of the questions that motivate this goal are:
--How can we explore the frontiers of the natural sciences?
--How can we predict the behavior of complex systems? and
--How can we strengthen the nation's capacity for multidisciplinary
science?
This goal enables research in all of the DOE business lines. By
organizing future facility needs, as identified by the scientific
community, this theme ensures that America's research capability will
remain both accessible and state of the art.
The fifth goal, Enabling World Class Science, conveys the
commitment of DOE and National Laboratory staff to continuously improve
their operational processes. Of paramount importance is the selection
and conduct of excellent, productive science that is carried out safely
and with care for the environment and involvement of local communities.
implementing the strategies--initiatives for fiscal year 2000
The five goals provide a framework for current programs and a
platform for future efforts. Fiscal year 2000 initiatives and
priorities that support these goals include: utilizing the advances in
computation that are flowing from the Accelerated Strategic Computation
Initiative (ASCI) to aid scientific research in critical complex areas
as part of The President's Information Technology for the Twenty-first
Century (IT2); continuing progress made toward returning
U.S. International Leadership in Neutron Science; carefully managing
our partnership in the Large Hadron Collider; ensuring wide utilization
of our Scientific User Facilities; developing and applying DOE
applications and technologies for the Next Generation Internet;
providing the scientific basis for DOE's Climate Change Technology
Initiative; and providing unique services in the exploding field of
Genome Research. Figure 2 depicts the cross-connection between the
goals above and the priorities in the fiscal year 2000 request.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10AP13.004
Scientific Simulation Initiative.--It is now possible to obtain
computational capabilities 100 times faster than currently in common
use through the application of technologies developed for the
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI). Therefore the
Department of Energy, in coordination with the National Science
Foundation and other federal science programs, has developed a
Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSI) in support of the President's
Information Technology for the Twenty First Century (IT2)
Initiative. The purpose of the SSI is to further develop and employ an
emerging generation of very high performance computers as major tools
for scientific inquiry. These resources will revolutionize our approach
to solving complex problems in such areas as energy, the environment,
and fundamental research. This initiative will require close
collaboration between scientists in many disciplines: chemistry, fluid
flow, global systems, mathematics, computer science, etc. However, it
is important to remember that this is a research program and that even
the operation of computing facilities at this scale presents
significant research issues.
Within the Office of Science, the SSI will be an integrated effort
with the Computational and Technology Research (CTR) program
coordinating and overseeing competitive, peer reviewed selections of
sites for computational centers and basic science applications. In
addition, CTR will manage the leading edge research programs in
computer science and enabling technologies which will be required to
transform the SSI computing and communications facilities into tools
for science. The element of the program that addresses enabling
hardware and software will be directed by a joint SC/Defense Programs
ASCI effort. The management of the research programs required to use
these facilities for scientific discovery will be led by the
appropriate programs within the Office of Science: Basic Energy
Sciences for Combustion; Biological and Environmental Research for
Global Systems; and the Offices responsible for the scientific
disciplines selected in the basic science applications competition.
The first scientific applications to be run on these new massively
parallel computers have been chosen carefully. Combustion and global
systems are complex scientific problems for which terascale computing
will provide a transformation in our level of understanding. The
scientific communities in these areas are also experienced in using
computational tools. Finally, these two problems are central to DOE's
mission.
Combustion.--Currently, eighty-five percent of U.S. energy use is
derived from the combustion of fossil fuels and this dependence on
combustion is not likely to change in the coming decades. Combustion
remains one of the primary causes of lowered air quality in urban
environments. At present, engineers have neither sufficient knowledge
nor the computational tools to understand and predict the chemical
outcome of combustion processes with any degree of practical
reliability. Existing models that guide the design process are of very
limited usefulness because of the extraordinary complexity of the
combustion process. With very high end computing resources and a
concerted research program in combustion modeling, we can develop the
next generation of combustion modeling tools for accelerated design of
combustion devices meeting national goals of emission reduction and
energy conservation.
Global Systems.--Unlike many disciplinary areas of research, the
complex workings of the global environmental system cannot be studied
in a laboratory setting. The integration of knowledge from the many
disciplines that together describe the global system can only be
performed in computer simulation models. It is only through such
general circulation models that it is possible to understand current
climate and climate variability and to predict future climate and
climate variability, including prediction of the possible effects of
human activities on the global system. Advances in scientific
understanding are therefore predicated upon the successful development
of modeling tools to keep pace with the rapid advances in the quality
and quantity of data available. These tools will lead to the
development of detailed fully coupled global system models that
accurately reproduce, and ultimately predict, the behavior of the
interacting components of the system, i.e. the global atmosphere, the
world ocean, the terrestrial land surface and both glacial and sea ice.
Fundamental Research.--Whereas the scientific accomplishments of
this century have resulted in seeking and understanding the fundamental
laws that govern our physical universe, the science of the coming
century will be characterized by synthesis of this knowledge into
predictive capabilities for understanding and solving a wide range of
scientific problems, many with practical consequences. In this
endeavor, the computer will be a primary instrument of scientific
discovery. Many areas of scientific inquiry, critical to the
Department's mission, will be advanced dramatically with access to
high-end computation--including, but not limited to, materials
sciences, structural genomics, high energy and nuclear physics,
subsurface flow, and fusion energy research.
The Spallation Neutron Source (SNS).--The importance of neutron
science for fundamental discoveries and technological development has
been enumerated in all of the major materials science studies over the
past two decades, including a major study by the National Research
Council entitled ``Major Facilities for Materials Research and Related
Disciplines'' (Seitz-Eastman Report).
As the needs of our high-technology society have changed, so has
the way in which we conduct the R&D that helps us to meet those needs.
It has become increasingly important to develop new materials that
perform under severe conditions and yet are stronger, lighter, and
cheaper. Major research facilities are used to understand and
``engineer'' materials at the atomic level so that they have improved
macroscopic properties and perform better in new, demanding
applications. The SNS is a next-generation facility for these types of
applications. Neutron scattering will play a major role in all forms of
materials design and understanding. This research will lead to the
development of advances such as: smaller and faster electronic devices;
lightweight alloys, plastics and polymers for transportation and other
applications; magnetic materials for more efficient motors and for
improved magnetic storage capacity; improved understanding of form and
function in biological structures and the development of new drugs for
medical care. Upon completion, the SNS will be the world's most
powerful neutron source, accommodating more than 1,000 researchers and
30 to 40 special purpose instruments.
The SNS Total Project Cost (TPC) is estimated to be $1,360 million
over a 7.25-year schedule. Throughout the life of the project, semi-
annual reviews will track cost and management fiscal year 1999 funding
provides for the start of Title I design activities, initiation of
subcontracts and long-lead procurement, and continued R&D to reduce
technical and schedule risks. The fiscal year 2000 budget request of
$214 million would support Title II (detailed) design for the technical
components and control systems. Construction, on some of the
conventional facilities, is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2000
along with the procurement of key technical equipment.
The SNS project is an example of DOE's commitment to use the DOE
laboratories as a system. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is responsible
for the project with participation from Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Brookhaven National
Laboratory, and Argonne National Laboratory. The laboratories have been
working together in an increasingly effective manner and R&D is
proceeding smoothly with no technical barriers in sight.
In January 1999, an Office of Science construction management
review of the SNS made recommendations with respect to the project
director and staff experienced in the oversight and integration of all
aspects of the large complex project. The Laboratory Director has hired
a new Associate Laboratory Director for the project and is assembling
the necessary senior management team. As a first step, I tasked the
laboratory to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the project. The
assessment is due to the Department in the first week in April. These
construction management reviews have been a key tool for keeping SC
projects on time and on budget. The prompt action in response to the
review's recommendations will allow us to deliver the SNS as well.
Scientific Facilities Utilization.--This fiscal year 2000 budget
request continues to strongly support Scientific Facilities Utilization
in the following programs: Basic Energy Sciences, High Energy Physics,
Nuclear Physics, Fusion Energy Sciences, Biological and Environmental
Research, and Computational and Technology Research. Each year, over
15,000 university, industry, and government sponsored scientists
conduct cutting edge experiments at these particle accelerators, high-
flux neutron sources, synchrotron radiation light sources, and other
specialized facilities, such as the Combustion Research Facility (CRF)
at Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California. The CRF is an
internationally recognized facility for the study of combustion science
and technology, which will begin its first year of operation after its
Phase II development project. The user community continues to be
pleased with the results of the Science Facilities Initiative as
evidenced by their many letters of support and by the positive results
of surveys conducted at the facilities.
The Large Hadron Collider.--The foremost high energy physics
research facility of the next decade will be the Large Hadron Collider
(LHC) at CERN, the European Center for Particle Physics. The primary
physics goals of the LHC will impact our understanding of the relation
of mass, fundamental forces, and the structure and origin of the
universe. U.S. participation in the LHC is required to provide U.S.
access to the high energy frontier in order to maintain the U.S. as a
world leader in this fundamental area of science.
The LHC is an outstanding example of international cooperation in
large scientific projects, as well as interagency and inter-laboratory
cooperation. An International Cooperation Agreement has been negotiated
between CERN, DOE and NSF. The Agreement provides for U.S.
participation in the construction of the accelerator, and of the two
very large detectors, ATLAS and CMS. Carefully defined lists of
deliverables and costs have been agreed upon for each of these areas of
participation. U.S. costs are capped at $531 million ($450 million DOE
and $81 million NSF), consistent with Congressional guidance. In
return, participating U.S. universities and laboratories will join, as
full partners, in LHC experiments. In addition, a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) has been executed between DOE and NSF that defines
the relationship between the agencies relative to programmatic
coordination of U.S. LHC activities including joint oversight and
execution of the U.S. LHC Construction Program.
Under the terms of this MOU, Fermilab is the Lead Laboratory for
the accelerator portion of the program, which it will execute in
cooperation with Brookhaven (BNL) and Lawrence Berkeley (LBNL) National
Laboratories. BNL is the host laboratory for the ATLAS portion of the
program, which also involves Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and LBNL
along with 28 university groups. Similarly, Fermilab is the host
laboratory for the CMS detector portion of the program, along with 33
university groups. Cost and schedule baselines have been reviewed and
validated for each of the three programs and management systems are in
place to monitor progress against baselines.
The Next Generation Internet (NGI).--The program is creating the
foundation for more powerful and versatile networks of the Twenty-first
century, just as previous federal investments in information technology
R&D created the foundation for today's Internet. This program is
critical to DOE's science and technology missions because enhancements
to today's Internet from commercial R&D will not be sufficient to
enable: effective use of petabyte/year (would fill the hard drives of
millions of today's desktop PCS) High Energy and Nuclear Physics
facilities such as the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC); remote
visualization of terabyte to petabye data sets from computational
simulation; development of advanced collaboratories; and effective
remote access to tomorrow's advanced scientific computers.
For example, typical RHIC experimental collaborations involve
hundreds of scientists at dozens of institutions across the country and
the world. Using the current Internet, it would take about 2,500 hours
to transmit one day's data from RHIC to one remote site for analysis.
Using NGI it would take 25 hours.
Thus, DOE's NGI research program is focused on discovering,
understanding, developing, testing and validating the networking
technologies needed to enable wide area, data intensive and
collaborative computing. The DOE applications share two important
characteristics. They all involve extremely large data sets and they
all require that scientists be able to interact with the data in
(nearly) real time. Current network technology limitations
significantly limit our ability to address these characteristics.
The DOE program includes research in advanced protocols, special
operating system services for very high speed, and very advanced
network control, the components needed to enable wide area, data
intensive and collaborative computing. In addition the DOE program
addresses issues that result from the many different kinds of network
devices, network-attached devices, and services that need to be
integrated together. Examples of the components and services that need
to be integrated include: network resources, data archives on tape,
high performance disk caches, visualization and data analysis servers,
authentication and security services, and the computer on a scientist's
desk. This type of integration, as well as the issues of improving the
performance of the individual components, all require significant
research because the issues are currently not well understood. Indeed,
the first identification of many of these issues is the result of
previous work in collaboratories and visualization supported by DOE.
Thus, DOE's participation in the NGI builds on previous DOE
research and its over two decades of success in using advanced networks
as tools for science. Furthermore, the differences between the
requirements of commercial networks and networks for scientific
research require DOE to conduct this research because these tools and
technologies will not be developed by commercial R&D. However, the
results and ``spinoffs'' of this research, after testing and
prototyping by the scientific community, will impact broad commercial
use of networks. DOE's fiscal year 2000 NGI program will build on the
results of the competitive research solicitations conducted in fiscal
year 1999.
Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI).--Eighty-five percent
of our Nation's energy results from the burning of fossil fuels, a
process that adds carbon to the atmosphere. Because of the potential
environmental impacts of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide,
carbon management has become an international concern and is a focus of
the CCTI.
The Office of Science is well positioned to make significant
contributions to the many solutions needed to address this problem. SC
can build on the fundamental discoveries of core research programs in
carbon and non-carbon energy sources, carbon sequestration, and carbon
recycling, extending them to the new discoveries needed to make carbon
management practical and efficient.
Activities in both Basic Energy Sciences and Biological and
Environmental Research support the DOE and Administration CCTI efforts
in: science for efficient technologies; fundamental science
underpinning advances in all low/no carbon energy source; and
sequestration science.
The SC portion of the CCTI leverages the foundation of excellent
research already underway. The additional SC effort will also have a
major impact on many scientific disciplines by advancing the state of
knowledge in such fields as genome science, molecular, cellular and
structural biology, biochemistry, chemical dynamics, solid state
chemistry, photochemistry, ecology, nano- and meso-phase materials
science, condensed matter physics, engineering, theoretical chemistry
and physics.
For example, the BER microbial genome program has made significant
investments in the technology that enables genome sequencing at rates
previously unattainable. Capitalizing on these investments, the genomes
of microbes that produce methane and hydrogen from carbonaceous sources
will be sequenced as part of the first awards under CCTI. This will
enable identification of key genetic components of the organisms that
regulate the production of these gases. The carbon sequestration
research program will focus on understanding the natural terrestrial
sequestration cycle and the natural oceanic sequestration cycle as part
of the first awards under the CCTI. The ultimate goal is to enhance the
natural carbon cycle in both the terrestrial and oceanic systems. The
search for new fuel sources and carbon sequestration research are key
elements of the carbon management science program.
CCTI research and related activities within the Office of Science
will continue to be coordinated with the Office of Fossil Energy.
Fiscal year 1999 integration efforts include the coordination of new
CCTI proposal solicitations and preparation of a detailed carbon
dioxide sequestration roadmap.
Genome.--In its first full year of operation, the DOE Joint Genome
Institute (JGI) became a leading producer of high quality human DNA
among U.S. sequencing centers. The JGI is scaling up its sequencing
capacity from 21 million finished bases in fiscal year 1998 to 30
million finished bases and 40 million high quality draft bases in
fiscal year 1999. In total, SC will complete sequencing of 50 million
finished and 70 million high quality draft subunits of human DNA to
submit to publicly accessible databases in fiscal year 2000. In
addition, SC will complete the full genetic sequencing of more than 10
microbes that have significant potential for waste cleanup and energy
production.
Improvements in high throughput human DNA sequencing technology and
sequence data management are needed to complete the first human genome
by 2003 and to efficiently and cost effectively use that sequence
information for future medical diagnoses and scientific discovery. The
Joint Genome Institute, in which the National Laboratories work as a
system, are primarily focused on high throughput sequencing. Fiscal
year 2000 is the third year of a major 3-5 year scale-up in DNA
sequencing capability for this virtual institute. DOE will continue to
work with the private sector, where appropriate, to accelerate progress
and reduce cost in the Human Genome project. The SC program is actively
involved with other federal agencies funding, human, plant and
microbial research to encourage effective and efficient management of
the total federal genome research portfolio. Genomics is the foundation
for future biological research and is the reason that the next century
has been called ``the century of biology.''
Program Direction.--The Science Program Direction budget funds the
staff and related expenses that are necessary to develop, direct and
administer a complex and broadly diversified program of mission-
oriented basic and applied research. The Office of Science continues to
achieve technical excellence in its programs despite managing one of
the largest and most diversified and complex basic research portfolios
in the Federal Government with a relatively small Federal and support
contractor staff compared to other programs both within and outside the
Department and will strive to meet staffing levels as outlined in its
Workforce Management Plan. Enhanced business processes that are built
from our Activity Based Management activities and Strategic Information
Planning will enable the staff to carry out the mission and functions
of the organization effectively and efficiently. Work will continue on
piloting the transfer of management responsibility of newly generated
wastes at SC sites from Environmental Management to the Office of
Science. I am proud to recognize SC efforts that have resulted in:
lower prior year uncosted balances; reduced unnecessary duplication
through external peer review; support for new initiatives, such as the
Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSI); and more than six years of on-
time, on-budget construction projects due to an effective SC
construction management review program that has been recognized by both
the Government Accounting Office (GAO) and the National Association of
Public Administrators (NAPA).
The scientific and technological challenges of the Department's
missions demand an adequate supply of scientists, engineers and
technicians. For over 50 years, DOE and its predecessor agencies have
supported science and engineering education programs involving
university faculty as well as pre-college teachers and students.
Tapping the significant human and physical resources of the DOE
National Laboratories is perhaps the most distinguishing feature of the
agency's contribution to science education. Within the fiscal year 2000
request for Program Direction is SC's core program for science
education, supporting such activities as: the Undergraduate Research
Fellowship Program, the National Science Bowl, and the Albert Einstein
Distinguished Educator Fellowship. In addition, two new initiatives,
developed in partnership with NSF, will be supported through the five
SC scientific programs. The first initiative will be focused on
providing pre-college science and math teachers with research
opportunities that will improve their knowledge and skills of
scientific discovery and enhance their ability to apply them in their
classrooms. The second initiative will allow university faculty and
undergraduate student teams to participate in long-term research
projects at DOE Laboratories. Historically, over two-thirds of
undergraduates who have participated in DOE programs have gone on to
graduate school in disciplines directly related to DOE missions. These
activities will help to fulfill SC's responsibilities in developing the
next generation of scientists and engineers and to address the daunting
demographic trends that suggest these new scientists will have to come
from the ranks of women and minorities, two groups traditionally under-
represented in scientific fields.
science programs--basic energy sciences
Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation--$799.5 M; Fiscal Year 2000 Request--
$888.1 M
The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program is one of the Nation's
primary sponsors of fundamental research in materials sciences,
chemical sciences, geosciences, plant and microbial sciences, and
engineering sciences. Performance measurement helps determine the
distribution of activities supported within BES. All BES research
programs undergo rigorous peer evaluation through competitive grant
proposals, program reviews, and advisory panels. The program funds more
than 2,400 researchers at 200 institutions nationwide. BES-supported
research also underpins the Department of Energy missions in energy,
the environment, and national security. Strategic directions are set
through working relationships with other DOE programs, research
workshops with public and private scientific communities nationwide,
and policy directives.
Within the base research effort in fiscal year 2000, a program in
Complex and Collective Phenomena will continue to support work at the
frontiers of basic research that hold the promise of delivering
revolutionary breakthroughs. This effort is designed to obtain
fundamental knowledge of increasingly complex systems in order to help
bridge the gap in our understanding between the atomic and molecular
properties and the bulk structural and mechanical properties of
materials, for example. In addition, BES will continue its Partnership
for Academic-Industrial Research (PAIR) program to facilitate research
partnerships between academic researchers, their students, and
industrial researchers.
In fiscal year 2000, BES also plays a major part in the Climate
Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) and the Scientific Simulation
Initiative (SSI). The BES research under CCTI will primarily focus on
carbon recycling, improved efficiency in the use of fossil carbon
energy sources, and new and improved non-carbon energy sources.
Examples of the types of research areas in each of the four BES
subprograms are: high-temperature materials for more efficient
combustion; electrochemical energy storage; mechanical stability of
porous and fractured reservoirs/aquifers; and the biological process of
photosynthesis. The BES research under SSI includes Combustion Systems
Integrated Applications, an integrated effort bringing together
computational and communication resources, focused research in
scientific disciplines, and research in computer science and other
enabling technologies to solve the complex problems that characterize
DOE's scientific research needs.
In addition to directly supporting research performers, BES is also
the steward of 17 major national user facilities. Included among these
facilities are the four major synchrotron radiation light sources, four
high-flux neutron sources, and a number of specialized facilities for
electron beam microcharacterization, materials synthesis and
processing, combustion research, pulsed radiolysis, and ion beam
studies. The facilities are planned in collaboration with the
scientific community and permit scientists to carry out forefront
experiments that cannot be done in any other way. A major part of the
fiscal year 2000 BES budget request is for the continuation of the
Spallation Neutron Source project to provide the Nation with 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.
BES scientific user facilities enable researchers to gain the new
knowledge necessary to achieve the Department's missions and, more
broadly, to advance the Nation's entire scientific enterprise. The
number of scientists conducting research at the BES user facilities has
grown dramatically in recent years. BES user facilities are open to all
qualified investigators in academia, industry, and government
laboratories on a no-charge basis to all qualified researchers whose
intention is to publish in the open literature. Over 6,000 users were
accommodated at the BES scientific user facilities in fiscal year 1998.
These facilities have an enormous impact on science and technology,
ranging from determinations of the structure of superconductors and
biological molecules to the development of wear-resistant prostheses,
from atomic-scale characterization of environmental samples to
elucidation of geological processes, and from the production of unique
isotopes for cancer therapy to the development of new medical imaging
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, catalytic
materials, non-destructive evaluation, magnetic materials, surface
science, neutron and x-ray scattering, chemical and physical
properties, and new instrumentation. Ultimately the research leads to
the development of materials that improve the efficiency, economy,
environmental acceptability, and safety in energy generation,
conversion, transmission, and use. These material studies affect
developments in numerous areas, such as the efficiency of electric
motors and generators; solar energy conversion; batteries and fuel
cells; stronger, lighter materials for vehicles; welding and joining of
materials; plastics; and petroleum refining.
Chemical Sciences.--The Chemical Sciences subprogram has two major
components. The disciplinary areas within each component are connected
to and address needs of the principal DOE and BES mission goals and
objectives. One major component is comprised of atomic, molecular and
optical physics; chemical physics; photochemistry; and radiation
chemistry. This research provides a foundation for understanding
fundamental interactions of atoms, molecules, and ions with photons and
electrons. This work also underpins our fundamental understanding of
chemical reactivity. This, in turn, enables the production of more
efficient combustion systems with reduced emissions of pollutants. It
also increases 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. The
research supported provides a better molecular level understanding of
homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring at surfaces,
interfaces, and in bulk media. This has resulted in improvements to
known heterogeneous and homogeneous catalytic systems and to new
catalysts for the production of fuels and chemicals, better analytical
methods in a wide variety of applications in energy processes and
environmental sciences, new knowledge of actinide elements and
separations important for environmental remediation and waste
management, and better methods for describing turbulent combustion and
predicting thermophysical properties of multicomponent systems.
Engineering and Geosciences.--The Engineering and Geosciences
subprogram conducts research in two disciplinary areas, 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 on
fundamental knowledge of the processes that transport, concentrate,
emplace, and modify the 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. Ultimately the research impacts control of
industrial processes: to improve efficiency and reduce pollution; to
increase energy supplies; and to lower cost and increase the
effectiveness of environmental remediation of polluted sites.
Energy Biosciences.--The Energy Biosciences subprogram supports
mechanistic research on fundamental biological processes related to
capture, transformation, storage and utilization of energy. The
research focuses on plants and non-medical microorganisms to form a
broad scientific foundation for support of Department of Energy's goals
and objectives in energy production, environmental management, and
energy conservation. Basic research on plants includes photosynthetic
mechanisms and bioenergetics in algae, higher plants, and
photosynthetic bacteria; control mechanisms that regulate plant growth
and development; fundamental aspects of gene structure, function, and
expression; plant cell wall structure, function and synthesis; and
mechanisms of transport across membranes. Research supported in these
areas seeks to define and understand the biological mechanisms that
effectively transduce light energy into chemical energy, to identify
the biochemical pathways and genetic regulatory mechanisms that can
lead to the efficient biosynthesis of potential fuels and petroleum-
replacing compounds, and to elucidate the capacity of plants to
remediate contaminated environments by transporting and detoxifying
toxic substances. The research focus in the microbiological sciences
includes the degradation of biopolymers such as lignin and cellulose,
anaerobic fermentations, genetic regulation of microbial growth and
development, thermophily, e.g., bacterial growth under high
temperature, and other phenomena with the potential to impact
biological energy production, conversion and conservation. Organisms
and processes that offer unique possibilities for research at the
interface of biology and the physical, earth and engineering sciences
are also studied.
biological and environmental research
Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation--$436.7 M; Fiscal Year 2000 Request--
$411.2 M
For over 50 years, the Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
program has been bringing revolutionary solutions to energy-related
biological and environmental challenges. Through its support of peer-
reviewed research at the Department's national laboratories,
universities, and private institutions, the program develops the
fundamental knowledge needed to identify, understand, and anticipate
the long-term health and environmental consequences of energy
production, development, and use. The BER program contributes to a
healthy citizenry, cleanup of the environment, and understanding global
environmental change, and operates the world class facilities essential
to the scientific breakthroughs of the future.
As part of the President's Scientific Simulation Initiative, the
BER request includes funding to accelerate the development of advanced
global climate models with the high regional resolution needed for
definitive predictions. This fundamental research will support the U.S.
Global Change Research Program.
The BER request also includes funding for the President's Climate
Change Technology Initiative. The BER contribution to the initiative
includes research to sequence microbes for alternative fuel production
(methane and hydrogen production) and to develop natural carbon
sequestration processes in terrestrial and ocean systems.
Life Sciences.--The Human Genome Program continues to be the
centerpiece of our Life Sciences Research program, both in terms of its
contribution to the international effort to sequence the human genome,
and in terms of the spin-off technologies. Through efforts at the Joint
Genome Institute and its Production Sequencing Facility, DOE does its
share of high-throughput human DNA sequencing and develops, validates,
and integrates new DNA sequencing technologies into the production of
DNA sequencing. Fiscal year 2000 is the third year of a 3-5 year scale-
up in DNA sequencing capacity for the Joint Genome Institute. The DOE's
share of the funding for the U.S. Human Genome Program is about 25
percent of the national effort.
The field of microbial genomics continues to be one of the most
exciting and high profile fields in biology today. Initiated by DOE in
1994, microbial genomics and microbial genomic sequencing were
identified by Science Magazine as one of the top 10 fields of discovery
each of the past two years. The broad impacts of this research
emphasizes a central principle of the BER genome programs--complete
genomic sequences yield answers to fundamental questions in biology.
Microbes are being sequenced and characterized in several parts of the
BER program because of potential impacts across several DOE missions.
These include the Climate Change Technology Initiative (sequencing
methane or hydrogen producing microbes or microbes involved in carbon
dioxide sequestration), environmental cleanup (microbes for
bioremediation), alternative fuel sources (methane production or energy
from biomass), industrial processes (industrial useful enzymes), and
biological nonproliferation (understanding and detecting biowarfare
agents). The fiscal year 2000 request includes funds for determining
the DNA sequence of 10 microbes with significant potential for waste
cleanup, energy production, or carbon sequestration.
The fiscal year 2000 request provides continuing support for both
the national user facilities for scientists and the research support
needed to determine the molecular structure and function of enzymes,
antibodies, and other important biological molecules. Computational
structural biology research combines computer science, structural
biology, and genome research to predict the functions of biological
molecules. This information will enable the design or more efficient
use of biological molecules for drugs to control or treat a great
variety of diseases, environmental cleanup, or energy-production and
use.
The low dose radiation research program uses molecular level
knowledge gained from the Department's human genome and structural
biology research to determine the human health impacts, all the way
from effects on single molecules to people, of exposures to low doses
of energy and defense-related radiation. This information will provide
an improved scientific basis for remediating contaminated DOE sites and
achieving acceptable levels of human health protection, both for
cleanup workers and the public, in a more cost-effective manner that
could save billions of dollars. A key aspect of this program is the
regular communication between scientists who propose and conduct the
research and regulators who develop and implement risk policy.
Environmental Processes.--The Environmental Processes subprogram
conducts research on a range of issues related to the mission of the
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). Activities are focused on
understanding and predicting the potential consequences on climate and
ecological systems and resources of the emissions of aerosols and trace
gases, especially carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion.
Additional efforts support the Climate Change Technology Initiative
(CCTI).
As the major federal agency supporting research into climate
predictions on the decade-to-century time scale, the DOE continues an
integrated observational and modeling program focused on predicting
climate variability and climate change 10 to 100 years in the future.
The BER Climate Change Prediction Program will continue to extend its
modeling breakthrough in ocean simulation to develop a fully coupled
atmosphere-ocean model useful for climate prediction. Because of the
limited high-end computational resources, computer-intensive climate
modeling at regional spatial resolution has been difficult to perform.
To address this need, BER will support a Scientific Simulation
Initiative (SSI) in collaboration with other agencies, including the
National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration to
accelerate the development of advanced global climate change models
with higher spatial resolution than currently available. The SSI will
make high-end computational resources more available to the climate
modeling community than at present, improve climate models capable of
simulating the principal components of a coupled atmosphere-ocean
climate system, and increase the availability and usability of climate
change projections to the broader climate change research and
assessment communities.
The BER request includes funding to operate three Atmospheric
Radiation Measurement sites and eighteen AmeriFlux sites to provide
data to improve climate models and understand the magnitude and
variation in carbon sequestration in major terrestrial ecosystems in
North and Central America. The BER Environmental Processes subprogram
will also continue to support major experimental studies to develop
data to improve understanding of the ecological effects of climate and
atmospheric changes.
As part of the CCTI, BER will support research to better understand
the biophysical processes controlling carbon sequestration in
terrestrial and ocean systems, with the long term objective of both
developing approaches to manipulate these processes to enhance carbon
sequestration on land and in the ocean and understand the environmental
and economic implications of implementing such approaches. These
studies will complement previously noted efforts to sequence the
microbial genomes as part of the BER CCTI program.
The Environmental Processes subprograms provide a scientific basis
for assessing both the effects of human activities on the Earth's
climate and the need for action to mitigate any adverse effects. They
also provide information needed to determine the potential of natural
processes in terrestrial and ocean systems to help mitigate the
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion. The
Environmental Processes subprograms are coordinated with other agencies
through the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources.
Environmental Remediation.--Research in the Environmental
Remediation subprogram is 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 research and operation of the William R.
Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) as a national
scientific user facility to investigate fundamental molecular processes
and properties that affect the environmental transformation, mobility,
and biological availability of contaminants. The EMSL focuses on
molecular-level collaborative research in the environmental sciences,
and provides support to over 600 users, with over half of those from
academia. The subprogram also addresses both natural bioremediation,
which relies on naturally occurring microbial and plant processes, and
accelerated bioremediation, which seeks to accelerate desirable
processes through, for example, environmental modifications or the
addition of amendments to contaminated environments.
The Environmental Remediation subprogram request also includes the
infrastructure funding for BER program activities. The funding enables
minor construction activities associated with upkeep of buildings and
building systems at these research facilities. It includes such items
as new roofs and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning upgrades
and replacements.
Medical Applications and Measurement Science.--The Medical
Applications program fosters research to enable beneficial applications
of nuclear and other energy-related technologies for medical diagnosis
and treatment. The program promotes a fertile partnership among the
sciences, advanced technologies and medicine in three major research
areas: nuclear medicine; boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT); and
instrumentation. Research in radiopharmaceutical chemistry and imaging
techniques and investigation of a broad range of potential diagnostic
and therapeutic applications provide the scientific and technological
foundation for the expansion of nuclear medicine as a major medical
specialty and for the continued vitality of the national industries for
radiopharmaceutical development and production and medical imaging
instrumentation. The technologies developed under this program are
directed at solving major problems in medicine, such as the non-
invasive detection and localization of small malignant lesions in the
body, the quantitative measurement of dynamic organ function, and the
treatment of cancers that resist conventional therapies. Nuclear
medicine at the Department has accelerated with many recent
contributions in areas as diverse as medical imaging technologies for
improved diagnostic accuracy and radiopharmaceuticals for the study and
treatment of substance abuse. Medical Applications research, in
partnership with the Department's human genome and life sciences
research, is forging new technologies to find not only where disease-
causing 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 focuses on research and development
of new instrumentation to meet the needs of our environmental and life
sciences programs for better ways of characterizing samples ranging
from living cells to subsurface contaminants. The fiscal year 2000
request provides for a variety of activities, with particular emphasis
on using the advanced technologies developed in the Department's
National Laboratories for environmental and biomedical research.
high energy physics
Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation--$695.5 M; Fiscal Year 2000 Request--
$697.1 M
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. The Department of Energy
provides more than 90 percent of the Federal support for the Nation's
high energy physics (also called elementary particle physics) research
program. The balance is provided by the National Science Foundation
(NSF). Our knowledge of the universe, the fundamental constituents of
matter, and the laws of nature that underlie all physical processes
continues to grow as a result of this research.
High energy physics research not only helps us learn how the world
works, it also contributes to the Nation's economic competitiveness in
the high-technology marketplace. High energy physics research requires
accelerators and detectors utilizing state-of-the-art technologies in
many areas, including fast electronics, particle detectors, high speed
computing, superconducting magnets, and high power radiofrequency
devices. In these areas, high energy physics research frequently drives
the technology, which not only contributes to other scientific
disciplines, but also has led to many practical applications having
major economic and social impacts. Who could have predicted that
research that went into the building of accelerators and particle
detectors and the subsequent technology would contribute so much to
today's medical imaging capabilities. And who could have predicted that
particle physicists seeking new ways of communicating and sharing large
amounts of data would change the way in which the world communicates--
yet that is just what the World Wide Web has done.
The High Energy Physics program also has a history of attracting
and training some of the best and brightest young minds. The training
they receive prepares them for careers not just in high energy physics,
but also in other disciplines as well, including computer sciences,
teaching, industrial research. It is the unique problem solving
abilities learned from this scientific discipline that make them
attractive. More than half of the Ph.D.'s trained for high energy
physics find permanent employment outside the field.
Carrying out high energy physics research effectively depends on
many elements including the availability of forefront experimental
capabilities, effective use of specialized facilities, and the
availability of new and upgraded facilities to take advantage of new
technologies and research opportunities. The Department supports two
major high energy physics accelerator centers--the Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator
Center (SLAC). Each of these laboratories provides unique capabilities
and is operated as a national facility available to qualified
experimenters around the Nation and abroad on the basis of the
scientific merit of their research proposals. In addition, the high
energy physics program makes limited use of the AGS at BNL. (The AGS
will be transferred to the nuclear physics program, at the end of
fiscal year 1999, to be operated as an integral part of the RHIC
facility). Approximately 2,000 U.S. scientists and 200-300 foreign
scientists work at these facilities at any given time.
Experimental and theoretical researchers from more than 100
universities conduct about three fourths of the research, with the
remainder being done by national laboratory staff. In general, the
laboratories and universities perform different, but complementary,
activities. University scientists provide the primary intellectual base
for the program, performing experimental research at accelerators and
non-accelerator facilities, technology R&D, and theoretical research.
University grantees are selected and retained based on the quality,
appropriateness, and performance of their research activities. All
research proposals received are subjected to a rigorous multi-stage
review, especially including peer review by technical experts from the
high energy physics community.
National laboratories primarily provide major accelerator
facilities at which university scientists perform their research. In
addition, the laboratories provide the related technical and scientific
expertise, as well as day-to-day liaison between university researchers
and laboratory experts and management. Responsibility and authority for
setting the program at a national laboratory and for determining which
experiments are awarded running time rest primarily with the laboratory
directorate within the general guidelines provided by the Department.
Research requiring the use of a facility at one of the laboratories is
reviewed extensively by the laboratory including by the laboratory's
Program Advisory Committee (PAC), another form of peer review. The
Department carries out its oversight responsibilities by conducting
annual reviews of the laboratories' scientific programs. In addition,
the Department tracks project progress against budget and schedule
milestones using semiannual project reviews.
The Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) is home to the
world's highest energy superconducting accelerator, the Tevatron, which
provides both fixed target and colliding beam research programs. The
colliding beam research program has two major detector facilities, the
Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) and the D-Zero Detector, which
complement each other in their different technical capabilities.
Fermilab completed a very successful fixed target run this past year
prior to shutting the Tevatron down to bring the Main Injector on line.
These two collaborations continued to produce new scientific knowledge
during this run. The CDF collaboration of university and laboratory
scientists from around the world observed the predicted B meson which
contains a charm quark; this discovery completes the theoretically
predicted family of B mesons. In addition, the KTeV experimental
collaboration of university and laboratory scientists made the first
observation of the decay of a kaon into two charged pions plus an
electron-positron pair. This collaboration also made the first
observation of violation of time-reversal invariance (T-violation), by
making precise measurements of these decays. T-violation had been
predicted on the basis of other results, but had never been directly
observed.
Construction of the Fermilab Main Injector project was completed on
schedule and within budget. Commissioning is proceeding very well, and
the first physics run is expected later in fiscal year 1999. The CDF
and D-Zero upgrades are progressing well; and the upgraded detectors
will be moved back into position on the Tevatron beam line and
commissioning will begin with them late in fiscal year 2000. This
project will provide a fivefold increase in collider luminosity and a
doubling of intensity for the fixed target program, as well as allowing
simultaneous operation of the collider and fixed target programs, a
capability previously not possible. The Main Injector will greatly
enhance the physics capabilities of the Tevatron accelerator and its
detector facilities and increase the likelihood for major new
scientific developments early in the next century.
Also at Fermilab, the NuMI/MINOS (Neutrinos at the Main Injector)
project design got underway in fiscal year 1998. The experiment will
study the possible oscillations between different types of neutrinos to
determine if neutrinos have mass. The beam of neutrinos for the project
will be produced at Fermilab and aimed at two detectors--one on site
and the other at the Soudan Underground Laboratory in northern
Minnesota. The project baselines for cost, scope, schedule, and
management were established in November 1998. Detailed design for the
NuMI underground enclosure and technical components will be developed
in 1999, and excavation of the cavern in Minnesota for the MINOS
detector is also expected to begin later this year.
In addition, Fermilab continues to play an active role in the Large
Hadron Collider. Fermilab is the host and center of the U.S. CMS
detector effort of university and laboratory scientists, and host and
center of the U.S. LHC accelerator collaboration, with specialized
expertise in the design and fabrication of superconducting magnets.
At the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), the Stanford
Linear Collider (SLC), the world's only high energy linear collider,
continued during fiscal year 1998 to achieve record high luminosities
in positron-electron collisions, and the SLD detector reached more than
20,000 Zo events per week. Researchers from universities and
laboratories conducting research at SLAC are in the process of
analyzing the large amounts of data collected. In fiscal year 1999, the
SLC was shut down to allow for the B-factory to be brought on line.
Construction of the B-factory PEP-II storage rings was completed in
fiscal year 1998 on schedule and within budget. Commissioning began in
mid-May 1998, resulting in first electron-positron collisions in July
1998. Commissioning has continued to go very well, and substantial
progress toward achieving design luminosity has already been made.
Data-taking with the BaBar detector will begin later in fiscal year
1999, and about 39 weeks of operation is planned for fiscal year 2000.
The B-factory will provide a high luminosity, asymmetric electron-
positron colliding beam facility to study the preponderance of matter
over anti-matter in our universe. It will also provide opportunities
for university and laboratory scientists to pursue a rich program of
experiments in a large number of other areas of intense interest in
high energy physics. In addition to all-out running of the B-factory in
fiscal year 2000, emphasis will continue on R&D in support of a future
linear collider. Participation with NASA and university scientists in a
non-accelerator-based experiment, the Gamma-ray Large Area Space
Telescope (GLAST), is also planned.
The Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS) at Brookhaven National
Laboratory (BNL) will be transferred later in fiscal year 1999 to the
Nuclear Physics program to be operated as the injector for RHIC.
Operation of the AGS for the high energy physics program in fiscal year
2000 and beyond will be on an incremental cost basis. Recently, U.S.
university and laboratory researchers working at the AGS recorded a
first observed decay of a charged kaon to a pion and two neutrinos,
first observation of the decay of a neutral kaon to an electron-
positron pair, as well as evidence for the existence of an unusual
meson. AGS operation for high energy physics in fiscal year 2000 will
be for the high precision measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment
of the muon. Brookhaven is also a key participant in the LHC project as
host and center of the U.S. ATLAS detector collaboration of university
and laboratory scientists, as well as a participant in the U.S.
accelerator collaboration. BNL's Accelerator Test Facility (ATF), a
small, low energy electron linac, has achieved one of the brightest
electron beams in the world. It is used by universities, national
laboratory groups, and industry for testing new advanced accelerator
concepts.
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a machine that will be about seven
times the energy of the Fermilab Tevatron, is in the process of being
built at the European Laboratory for Particle Physics (CERN) in Geneva,
Switzerland. The U.S. and CERN have signed an agreement that provides
for U.S. support and participation in the project. The LHC will become
the foremost high energy physics facility in the world around the
middle of the next decade. With the LHC at the energy frontier,
American scientific research on the frontier depends on participation
in the LHC. 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.
The Department will provide a total contribution of $450 million
for the specifically agreed to components of the two detectors and the
LHC accelerator over the period fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year
2004. Of the $450 million, $250 million will support U.S. activities on
the LHC detectors, while $200 million will support U.S. activities
working on the LHC accelerator. NSF will provide approximately $81
million for U.S. work on the detectors. Almost all of this funding will
be spent in the U.S. for in-kind contributions from U.S. laboratories,
universities, and industry. Funding in the amount of $70 million is
being requested by the Department in fiscal year 2000.
During the past year, progress continued to be made on the
technical components for the LHC and many management details were
finalized. Technical, cost, and schedule baselines for the three
subprograms--ATLAS detector, CMS detector, and the accelerator--were
reviewed and approved; a Memorandum of Understanding between DOE and
NSF on U.S. participation in the LHC project was negotiated and signed;
and Project Management Plans were finalized and put in place for the
accelerator, ATLAS detector, and the CMS detector, as well as the
overall U.S. LHC Project Execution Plan. In fiscal year 2000, the
fabrication of components for the LHC continues. The U.S. LHC project
continues to be on schedule and within budget.
nuclear physics
Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation $334.6 M, Fiscal Year 2000 Request
$342.9 M
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. Nuclear processes
determine essential physical characteristics of our universe and the
composition of the matter that forms it.
Beyond maintaining 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 in 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 real knowledge of many nuclear
properties depends on understanding nuclear structure based on quarks,
and 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 every five years, provides the definition of
the pressing issues in nuclear science and the priorities for pursuing
important scientific problems in various budget scenarios.
Studies of nuclear structure require ultra-high resolution
``microscopes'', accelerators that produce particle beams of various
energies, depending on the problems to be studied. The request is
designed to provide the sufficient hours for these facilities, so that
researchers may take advantage of their unique capabilities.
Research programs at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator
Facility (TJNAF), formerly CEBAF, are studying 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 the size of a
quark cluster in a nucleus affects the strength of the interaction of
that cluster with other nucleons in the nucleus. It is interesting to
note that no one has ever observed a single free quark; they always
travel in closely knit groups of threes within nucleons and twos within
mesons. In fiscal year 2000, TJNAF will operate for 4,500 hours to
allow several high priority experiments to study the quark presence in
nuclei. The laboratory is fully operational, and all three experimental
halls are being utilized for experiments.
In fiscal year 2000, the new Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC)
at Brookhaven National Laboratory, a second major facility for the
study of new ``quark-based'' nuclear physics, will be searching for a
predicted quark-gluon plasma. Construction of RHIC will be complete in
the third quarter of fiscal year 1999, and the new facility will be
fully operational in fiscal year 2000. It is predicted that if a
collection of nucleons could be compressed and heated to a very high
temperature by collisions of high energy heavy nuclei, there would be a
phase transition to a new state of nuclear matter in the collision
region where the quarks are ``freed'' from their nucleon boundaries to
form a so-called quark-gluon plasma.
RHIC will be a unique, world-class facility with colliding
relativistic heavy ion beams that will permit exploration of this hot,
dense nuclear matter and recreate the transition from quarks to
nucleons which characterized the early evolution of the universe.
Studies with colliding heavy ion beams will provide researchers with
their first laboratory opportunity to explore this new region of
nuclear matter and nuclear interactions which up to now has only been
studied theoretically. In fiscal year 2000, RHIC will begin its first
full year of operations with a 33 week running schedule and a goal of
22 weeks (3,300 hours) for research and 11 weeks for accelerator
studies.
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. Three Nuclear Physics
facilities will be investigating these reactions by generating
radioactive beams as new probes of nuclear structure.
Another new generation facility, the Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam
Facility (HRIBF) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory is now producing some
of the previously unavailable nuclear beams so that these important
stellar processes can be studied in the laboratory. Beams for
experiments became available in fiscal year 1998 and it is possible for
the first time to study many processes which are crucial to our
understanding of how nuclei were synthesized in the Big Bang. In fiscal
year 2000, the HRIBF will operate for 2,400 hours for studies of these
processes and for studies of very proton rich nuclei far from
stability. Radioactive ion beams, in addition to the stable beams
normally provided, are also being produced at the ATLAS accelerator at
Argonne National Laboratory and the 88-inch Cyclotron at Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory. These laboratories are pursuing research
as well as developing new techniques for the generation of radioactive
beams. The experience gained and ideas generated at all three
laboratories will provide important input to the design of a proposed
new Isotope Separator On Line (ISOL) radioactive beam facility
presently being studied by the Nuclear Physics Program.
Subsequent to submission of the fiscal year 2000 budget request,
the Department has determined that the MIT/Bates accelerator will
continue to operate. The Department will work with the Administration
to submit a budget amendment and an amended budget request.
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. Construction
of a third major new facility to study this problem, the Sudbury
Neutrino Observatory (SNO), 7000 feet below the surface of the earth in
Canada, was completed in fiscal year 1998. In fiscal year 1999,
preliminary data is being accumulated as the detector is being filled
with ``heavy water''. SNO, which will be fully operational in fiscal
year 2000, is designed to sort out this long standing solar neutrino
problem. The project involves an international collaboration among the
U.S., Canada, and the United Kingdom.
fusion energy sciences
Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation--$222.6 M, Fiscal Year 2000 Request--
$222.6 M
The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Fusion Energy Sciences
program continues a broad-based, fundamental research effort to acquire
the knowledge base needed for an economically and environmentally
attractive fusion energy source.
Fusion research provides two major benefits--in the near term there
are advances in plasma science and technology spinoffs and in the long
term there is the basis for development of a new energy source.
Advances in plasma science have contributed to numerous other areas of
science. In astrophysics, it has allowed an understanding of the
behavior of plasma and magnetic fields in the earth's magnetosphere, in
the sun and other stars and the galaxies. Plasma physics is integral to
our understanding of magnetic storms, solar flares, shock waves in
space, magnetic fields, black holes, and star formation. In the area of
large-scale scientific computing, fusion research pioneered the use of
supercomputers to solve complex problems. Novel optical and magnetic
diagnostics have been created to provide access to the extreme
temperature, density, and magnetic fields prevalent in fusion
experiments. In addition, fusion and other plasma based research has
provided a stimulus to the development of large superconducting
magnets, development of advanced materials, advancement in pulsed-power
technology, and plasma aided manufacturing processes such as those used
in semiconductor device fabrication.
Although there is no schedule for developing and deploying fusion
energy systems, the availability of fusion, as an option for large
central station power plants, would be valuable insurance against
possible environmental concerns about fossil and nuclear energy. As
fusion is one of the few potential sources capable of providing an
appropriate energy intensity for urbanized society in an
environmentally sustainable fashion, development of fusion as a
practical energy source may be essential for the longer term. In
addition, there may also be non-electric applications of fusion in the
transmutation of wastes and isotope production.
The quality of the research in this program is continuously
evaluated through the use of merit based peer review and scientific
advisory committees. In addition, the Department has requested the
National Academy of Sciences to review the quality of science in the
fusion program in fiscal year 1999. We will also be carrying out a
review of fusion energy technologies using the Secretary of Energy
Advisory Board. The Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee has also
been asked to assess program restructuring and the overall balance of
research efforts. A program plan/roadmap for fusion, including both
magnetic and inertial and based on the above reviews, will be completed
by the end of 1999.
As a part of the ongoing restructuring of the program, the major
U.S. experimental facilities--the DIII-D at General Atomics, the
Alcator C-Mod at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the new
National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) at the Princeton Plasma
Physics Laboratory (PPPL)--are being managed as national resources with
multi-institutional topical teams addressing the scientific issues and
coordinating efforts on relevant facilities. The fiscal year 2000
budget request provides for substantial operation of all three
facilities, along with modest upgrades.
The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) located at PPPL was closed
down in fiscal year 1997 after 13 years of pioneering experiments
yielding significant scientific results from producing actual fusion
power in a laboratory. In fiscal year 2000 we will begin a 3-year
program to decontaminate and decommission the TFTR facility. This will
provide for the removal of the TFTR tokamak and activated components
from the experimental test cell and basement.
Fabrication of the NSTX, a vital new device of a much smaller scale
than TFTR, will be completed in April 1999. This proof-of-principle
facility will provide the scientific basis for an innovative magnetic
confinement concept that has indicated the potential for reactor-scale
plasma performance in earlier very small experiments.
In fiscal year 2000 a conceptual design will be completed for a
novel compact stellarator-tokamak experiment that combines the best
features of the two leading magnetic fusion concepts. Critical
computing codes will be modernized to take full advantage of the
President's Information Technology Initiative. In addition, three new
innovative concept exploration experiments will become fully
operational.
In accordance with congressional direction and with the cooperation
of our International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)
partners, the Department will complete an orderly closeout of our ITER
activities in fiscal year 1999. The R&D activities to complete the U.S.
Model Coil and to be involved in its test in Japan are proceeding
through fiscal year 1999 consistent with congressional direction. The
Model Coil is part of the largest superconducting magnet ever built to
operate with a changing magnetic field. It was recently completed and
is now en route to Japan where the testing will be done.
The European Union, Japan, and the Russian Federation are
proceeding with a 3-year extension of the ITER program to complete the
design of a reduced cost and reduced objectives facility, and to decide
in 2-3 years whether and where to construct ITER. We will be involved
only on the periphery of the project consistent with traditional
exchange of scientific information. If the other Parties decide to
construct a burning plasma facility like ITER, the United States will
then consider whether to propose to be involved.
With the closeout of the ITER activities, we are restructuring the
fusion technology development activities to focus on our domestic needs
in advancing the science of fusion. Emphasis will be placed upon R&D
that will enable existing and near-term U.S. fusion facilities to
achieve their ultimate performance capability. New methods of modeling
and predicting the behavior of fusion materials will be investigated.
R&D will continue on novel methods of enabling the new, innovative U.S.
fusion concepts to achieve their full performance. This will include
applied scientific research on issues such as the use of flowing liquid
walls to handle heat and particle flux in magnetic or inertial systems
and the study of advanced heating and fueling techniques. Some
international R&D collaboration will continue at foreign facilities
that have scientific research capabilities beyond those in the United
States. Also, as part of the restructuring of this element of the
fusion program, a Virtual Laboratory for Technology has been
established to improve the governance of the various, diverse enabling
R&D elements through improved advocacy, coordination, and
communication.
In conclusion, the U.S. Fusion Energy Sciences program has made
excellent scientific progress and has been responsive to the
congressional request to restructure the program. Fusion and plasma
science make a unique contribution to the nation's scientific
infrastructure in the near-term and provide a vital energy option for
the future. Europe and Japan are making large investments in this area.
The challenge to the United States is to continue a strong scientific
base program, including making effective use of existing facilities,
and to sustain a meaningful participation in the world program.
computational and technology research
Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation--$157.5 M; Fiscal Year 2000 Request--
$198.9 M
Some of the pioneering accomplishments of the Computational and
Technology Research (CTR) program are: development of the technologies
to enable remote, interactive access to supercomputers; research and
development leading to the High Performance Parallel Interface (HiPPI)
standard; and research leading to the development of the slow start
algorithm for the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), which enabled
the Internet to scale to today's worldwide communications
infrastructure. This long history of accomplishments in the CTR program
continued in fiscal year 1999 including: the 1998 Gordon Bell Prize for
Best Performance of a Supercomputing Application, the 1998 IEEE
Fernbach Award for outstanding contribution in the application of high
performance computers using innovative approaches and four R&D 100
Awards to CTR researchers in areas ranging from parallel numerical
libraries to near frictionless coatings.
The CTR program supports advanced computing research--applied
mathematics, high performance computing, networking, and operates
supercomputer and associated facilities that are available to
researchers 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The combination of support
for fundamental research, computational and networking tools
development, and high-performance computing facilities provides
scientists with the capabilities to analyze, model, simulate, and--most
importantly--predict complex phenomena of importance to the Office of
Science and the Department of Energy.
Experiments at Office of Science facilities may generate millions
of gigabytes (petabytes) of data per year (which would fill the disk
drives of millions of today's personal computers) presenting
significant computational and communications challenges in analyzing
and extracting information from the data. The wide-area, data-intensive
collaborations of the Department are the focus of DOE's efforts in the
Next Generation Internet (NGI) Initiative. CTR is responsible for DOE
participation in the NGI program to create the foundation for more
powerful and versatile networks of the Twenty-first century.
CTR also heads the Department's Scientific Simulation Initiative
(SSI) as a competitive, peer-reviewed program with the other program
offices in SC. CTR's role in the SSI includes management of the
selection process for the two basic science application efforts
initiated in fiscal year 2000, management of the SSI Advanced Computing
and Communications Facilities, and management of the Computer Science
and Enabling Technology component.
In addition to these computing related activities CTR also manages
the Laboratory Technology Research (LTR) program for the Office of
Science. The mission of this program is to support high risk, energy
related research that advances science and technology to enable
applications that could significantly impact the Nation's energy
economy. LTR fosters the production of research results motivated by a
practical energy payoff through cost-shared collaborations between
Office of Science laboratories and industry.
multi program energy laboratories
facilities support
Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations--$21.3 M; Fiscal Year 2000 Request
$21.3 M
Fulfillment of the DOE's science and technology goals depends
heavily on the existence and operating efficiency of the five
multiprogram SC 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
1000 buildings with 14.7 million gross square feet an average age of 35
years. Their estimated replacement value is over $8.7 billion. All
facilities at these laboratories are government-owned, contractor-
operated (GOCO). Total operating funding for these laboratories
including work-for-others is over $3 billion a year.
Portions of the infrastructure of these laboratories are old,
deteriorating, and, in some cases, obsolete. Improvements are needed to
comply fully with the environment, safety and health requirements in
effect today as well as to meet everyday operational needs.
The Office of Science established the Multiprogram Energy
Laboratories-Facilities Support (MEL-FS) program in 1981 to provide a
systematic approach to its stewardship responsibility for the general
purpose support infrastructure of these laboratories. The MEL-FS
program helps to preserve the government's investment in infrastructure
and to maintain infrastructure integrity in a reasonable and economic
manner at these laboratories.
The program supports line item construction projects to refurbish
and replace inadequate general purpose facilities and infrastructure.
This budget request provides for continuation of six on-going projects
and for two new projects. Projects are selected based on the Life Cycle
Asset Management the Cost-Risk-Impact Scoring Matrix. The new starts
are:
Fire Safety Improvements--Phase IV, (ANL-E).--This project will
bring 30 major facilities into compliance with the Life Safety Code and
the National Fire Alarm Code. It will significantly improve the fire
detection, suppression, and reporting capabilities at the lab, thereby
reducing the possibility and magnitude of personnel or property loss
during a fire.
Electrical Systems Upgrade, (ORNL).--This project will upgrade the
30-50 year-old electrical system to include: replacing overhead
feeders; installing advanced protective relaying capabilities at major
substations; and replacing major switchgear and transformers. This
project will increase system reliability and capacity, while reducing
the possibility of personnel injury or lost productivity due to system
failures.
The program also provides funding for Payments in Lieu of Taxes
(PILT) as authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
These discretionary payments are made to state or local governments
where the Department or its predecessor agencies have acquired property
previously subject to state or local taxation.
energy research analyses
Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation--$1.0 M; Fiscal Year 2000 Request--$1.0
M
The mission of the Energy Research Analyses (ERA) program is to
conduct technical assessments of the Department's civilian research and
development programs and to provide direction to future research and
development activities. Energy Research Analyses also conducts science
policy analyses, and coordinates the development of the Office of
Science Strategic Plan and the DOE Science Portfolio.
The fiscal year 2000 budget request will provide funding for peer
reviews of projects in the Office of Science, Fossil Energy, and Energy
Efficiency to continue to improve the quality and relevance of DOE
research and development. Other activities will include evaluation of
critical planning and policy issues of DOE science and technology using
expert groups at the National Academy of Sciences, the JASON group,
etc., as appropriate.
science program direction
Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation--$49.8 M; Fiscal Year 2000 Request--
$52.3 M
Science Program Direction provides the Federal staffing resources
and associated costs required to provide overall direction of
activities carried out under the Office of Science. This program
supports staff in the High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, Biological
and Environmental Research, Basic Energy Sciences, Fusion Energy
Sciences, Computational and Technology Research, Multiprogram Energy
Laboratories-Facilities Support, and Energy Research Analyses programs,
including management and technical support staff.
Science Program Direction also supports staff at the Chicago,
Oakland, and Oak Ridge Operations Offices directly involved in program
execution. The management and technical support 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.
At the direction of Congress in fiscal year 1999, funds were also
provided in Science Program Direction for Science Education. These
funds will support the Undergraduate Laboratory Fellowship, National
Science Bowl and the Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship
programs. These programs utilize the Department's scientific and
technical resources to enhance the development of a diverse, well-
educated and scientifically literate workforce.
science education
For fiscal year 2000, DOE proposes new science education activities
focusing on assets at our laboratories to build a partnership with
universities and educational institutions. These proposed science
education activities will allow university faculty and student teams,
at the undergraduate level, to participate on long term research
projects at DOE laboratories. In addition, pre-college science and math
teachers will be provided with laboratory research experience to
improve their knowledge and skills of scientific discovery and to
enhance their ability to apply them in a classroom environment. Funds
for these activities are included in the line program budgets.
There is a national need to maintain worldwide leadership in
science and technology and to stay competitive in critical research
areas such as high energy and nuclear physics, computational science,
and renewable energy technologies. Our outstanding National
Laboratories help to drive the progress of science and technology
development in the United States. To replenish our stocks of scientists
and engineers for the next century, we must invest in our nation's
youth to encourage interest in science and scientific careers. A proven
method to achieve this is by introducing students to the excitement of
scientific research through exposure to the National Laboratories.
Historically, over two-thirds of undergraduates who have participated
in DOE programs have gone on to graduate school in disciplines directly
related to DOE missions.
According to the latest research, trends show a declining number of
graduates in the natural sciences and engineering from the early
eighties to 1996. This trend is especially true among women, even those
who have displayed a natural aptitude for science and math on
standardized test scores. By instituting a program that effectively
promotes proficiency and inspires students, we can help to ensure our
future in science to develop the technologies that help us meet our
mission and contribute to economic growth.
The proposed science education activities will provide hands-on
experience to both students and faculty. Working with laboratory
researchers links this work to real world, mission driven challenges
while improving communications and connections between Academe and the
National Laboratories. Undergraduate students and college faculty will
be able to participate in and contribute to long-term research projects
at the National Laboratories, providing unique opportunities for hands
on experience with state-of-the-art equipment. This experience allows
the student to develop technical skills that build confidence and
reinforce classroom learning. This, in turn, will support a productive
relationship between the national laboratory and the participating
college or university while strengthening the research at both
institutions. This activity efficiently connects academia and industry
with the excellent resources of the DOE laboratories and the enormous
intellectual resources of the nation's universities. $5 million of the
SC request will provide over 1000 student and 200 faculty with
fellowships for the Faculty/Student Science Teams during academic year
2000-2001.
The second new activity involves the training of pre-college
teachers as part of a national effort to strengthen K-12 student
performance in science, mathematics, and technology. The Department of
Energy has a vested interest and vital role to play if Federal efforts,
to ensure science literacy for all Americans and to develop future
generations of scientists, are to be successful. This activity will
provide high school and pre-college teachers with 8-week appointments
at DOE's Office of Science Laboratories. In these settings, teachers
will work in teams with scientists and engineers and will participate
in and contribute to the ongoing research of the Laboratories. Teachers
will participate in designing experiments, creating mathematical
models, and collecting and analyzing data. Experience has shown that
allowing teachers to experience being treated as research colleagues
provides a sense of renewal, and increases connection to their field
and profession. Therefore, this activity includes additional follow-up
such as remote mentoring and opportunities for teachers to attend and
make presentations at regional and national meetings of scientific and
teacher organizations. It also includes loans and grants of equipment
and materials, assistance in translating their research experience into
investigations, activities, and demonstrations applicable to their
classroom settings, and sharing research experiences with their
colleagues. $5 million of the SC request will reach over 200 teachers
nationwide annually through this activity.
energy supply r&d programs
technical information management
Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation--$8.6 million; Fiscal Year 2000--$9.1
million
The Technical Information Management (TIM) program provides timely,
accurate technical information to DOE's researchers and the public by
collecting, preserving, and disseminating scientific and technical
information, the principal product resulting from DOE's multi-billion
dollar research and development programs. The TIM program also provides
worldwide energy scientific and technical information to DOE
researchers, U.S. industry, academia, and the public through
interagency and international information exchange agreements and
coordinates technical information-related activities across DOE and its
laboratories.
In fiscal year 2000, TIM will build on the huge success of the
Information Bridge (www.doe.gov/bridge) and use digital information
technology to complete a virtual library of energy science and
technology. Specifically, the Information Bridge, already with over 2
million pages of searchable full-text R&D information, will be expanded
to include both the most current research findings as well as historic
records. To complete the virtual library capability, collaborative
agreements with U.S. science journal publishers will be forged to
establish hyper-text linkages between TIM's electronic journal
citations and the publishers' full-text on-line journal articles. This
capability will potentially save the Department millions of dollars in
duplicate paper journal subscriptions.
closing
The significant increase in the fiscal year 2000 budget request for
the Office of Science recognizes the critical role that fundamental
knowledge plays in achieving the DOE missions and for the general
advance of the Nation's economy and the welfare of its citizens. The
Scientific Simulation Initiative represents a major investment in
producing the necessary scientific computation and information
infrastructure for DOE science applications as part of a multi-agency
initiative. This request will also provide the U.S. scientific
community with increased research capability and new opportunities at
the DOE scientific user facilities, including progress on SNS, a new
forefront neutron source, and upgrades of existing facilities. On
behalf of the Administration and the Department, I am pleased to
present this budget for the Office of Science and welcome the challenge
to deliver results.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer your
questions.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET REQUEST--OFFICE OF SCIENCE
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------------------
Program 1998 1999
Appropriation Appropriation 2000 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Energy Science.......................................... 651.8 799.5 888.1
Biological and Environmental Research......................... 395.7 436.7 411.2
Fusion Energy Sciences........................................ 224.2 222.6 222.6
Computational and Technology Research......................... 146.8 157.5 198.9
High Energy Physics........................................... 668.6 695.5 697.1
Nuclear Physics............................................... 314.7 334.6 342.9
Multiprogram Energy Labs-Facilities Support................... 21.3 21.3 21.3
Energy Research Analysis...................................... 1.4 1.0 1.0
Sciences Program Direction.................................... 37.6 49.8 52.3
SBIR/STTR..................................................... 80.7 ............... ..............
=================================================
Subtotal................................................ 2,542.8 2,718.5 2,835.4
General Reduction for Use of Prior Year Balances.............. (15.3) (13.0) ..............
Superconducting Super Collider................................ (35.0) (7.6) ..............
-------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 2.492.5 2,697.9 2,835.4
=================================================
Technical Information Management.............................. 10.1 8.6 9.1
General Reduction for Use of Prior year Balances.............. (0.1) (0.2) ..............
-------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 10.0 8.4 9.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
statement of william d. magwood
Senator Domenici. I think what I am going to do, Dr. Krebs,
is let everyone testify and then ask questions. So let us
proceed.
I think Mr. Magwood, you are next. If you have prepared
remarks that you do not plan to give in their entirety, they
will be made part of the record.
nuclear energy, science and technology
Mr. Magwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be
brief.
Mr. Chairman, I am Bill Magwood, Director of the Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, at the Department of
Energy. I am pleased to be here before you today to discuss our
fiscal year 2000 budget request.
Over the last year my office has worked very hard to focus
and prioritize our program activities among two primary goals;
first, to reassert U.S. leadership, nuclear technology
nationally, second, to conduct research and other activities
that we believe are required to prepare the country for the
next century. I believe we have made considerable progress
toward both goals.
Much of our recent progress would not have been possible
without the leadership demonstrated by this subcommittee in
advancing nuclear research as part of the Department's
technology portfolio. We have appreciated the interest and
support you have shown in nuclear technologies and look forward
to working closely with you as we continue our efforts to
maintain a viable nuclear energy future for the nation.
Before discussing our fiscal year 2000 request, I would
first like to highlight a few points. I think it is important
to reflect on some of our past accomplishments to understand
how the federal nuclear R&D program can best serve the American
people in the future. The Department of Energy has a rich and
successful history in development of nuclear technologies,
dating back to the Manhattan Project and the Atoms for Peace
Program. Our accomplishments have benefited the nation in many
ways.
As we all know, nuclear power technology itself was born in
federal research programs, but fewer people know that our
programs have given birth to nuclear medicine, which saves
lives and reduces health care costs, and further, as shown in
the first chart, even after nuclear power is launched as a
commercial business, our past work has resulted in
accomplishments and improvements to save American rate payers
millions of dollars every year.
nuclear energy research and development
We also are very proud of our work in the advanced light
water reactor program, which concluded a few years ago. Working
with industry we helped make a new generation of safe reactors
available to utilities in the United States and around the
world. Today, three companies have brought three advanced
nuclear power plant technologies to the market.
Any doubt that anyone may have harbored about whether these
technologies will perform as advertised need only to go to
Japan or look at my next chart to see the first two advanced
boiling water reactors in operation at the Kashiwazaki Kariwa
Nuclear Power Station. This seven-unit facility is, I believe,
the largest power plant of any type in the world, and it
supplies 23 percent of Tokyo Electric's capacity.
These advanced plants can now be routinely built in Japan
in less than 4 years. A similar U.S. Standard plant will be
built soon in Taiwan. Many U.S. jobs will be generated by these
activities and by other advanced nuclear power plant projects
in Korea and quite likely other nations over the next few
years.
These examples demonstrate how our past accomplishments
have enabled the United States to maintain its leadership role
in nuclear technology. However, the outlook for the future is
uncertain. As you can see in this next chart, the U.S. has
dramatically decreased its funding for nuclear R&D over the
last 20 years. In fact, an event that reverberated throughout
the international community, our R&D budget reached essentially
zero in fiscal year 1998.
This next chart shows that we have been out of step and
out-paced by many of our economic competitors. The blame for
this, I believe, rests largely with us. We did not change with
the times and we did not plan well for the future, but now I
believe we are on a positive track. I think we now know what is
needed and what our role should be in the future.
While we do not provide Federal research dollars overseas,
through our research initiative, we are able to show
considerable leadership in the international community by
holding various discussions and meetings. Our R&D funding is
essential in showing that we are serious and credible
participants in the international exploration of nuclear
technology.
nuclear energy research initiative
We were very pleased that Congress approved our proposed
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative for fiscal year 1999.
Universities, laboratories, industry, and the international
research community have shown great interest and excitement
about the NERI program.
For NERI's first year, we have received over $300 million
worth of research proposals for work conducted over 3 years,
and we have found that research organizations are anxious to
reestablish cooperation with the United States through the NERI
program. As a matter of fact, Deputy Secretary T.J. Glauthier
met just last week with a large delegation from Japan who had a
long list of projects they would like to cooperate with us on
using the NERI program as the basis.
For the coming fiscal year we are requesting a modest
increase for NERI from $19 million in its first year to $25
million in fiscal year 2000 to continue important work begun
this year and initiate a modest number of new and innovative
ideas coming from universities, our national laboratories, and
industry.
We are also proposing two new programs. One, the Advanced
Nuclear Medicine Initiative, is needed to apply the
Department's unique expertise in isotopes and large inventory
of alpha-emitting isotopes to fight against cancer, arthritis,
and many other illnesses.
nuclear energy plant optimization
The other is the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization [NEPO]
program. The NEPO program is designed to conduct research and
develop technologies that will be needed to optimize the
efficiency and safety of today's nuclear power plants as they
continue to operate for the long term. NEPO can help assure
that existing operating nuclear power plants continue to serve
our national interest by producing electricity in all weather
conditions, while reducing harmful air emissions.
As you can see in this chart, efficiency-enhanced nuclear
power plants comprise the largest contribution to utility plant
to reductions in CO2 emissions.
The next chart demonstrates that the operation of nuclear
plants----
Senator Domenici. Can you leave that one up for a moment?
What is this again?
Mr. Magwood. This represents the pledges made by the
utilities in the United States, leading up to the year 2000. I
think this covered approximately a 10-year period. It shows
that in efficiency improvements, the existing nuclear power
plants made up 33 percent of all the pledges that utilities
made in their reduction of CO2 emissions, compared
to fossil plants which only contributed 14 percent, and even
improvements in energy efficiency, which contributed 18
percent.
So even though we are not building nuclear power plants,
making the existing plants more efficient has proven to be a
major contributor to reducing offsetting CO2
emissions.
The next chart shows that the operational nuclear plants
were essential to states striving to meet the Clean Air Act
requirements. Increased generation of nuclear plants in these
states enabled these states to meet 37 percent of the emission
reduction targets required by the Clean Air Act. Operation
Nuclear Plants can continue to provide these benefits into the
middle of the next century.
While at $5 million, our request for NEPO is very modest,
we believe that it will enable us to demonstrate the needed
leadership at a time of great uncertainty in the electric
utility industry. You need only look at our joint comprehensive
DOE Electric Power Research Institute Strategic R&D plan to see
how even the possibility of a new DOE program in this area has
helped the industry define and organize the long-term research
needs for existing nuclear power plants.
Further, industry has committed to match our investments,
at least on a dollar-for-dollar basis, and we believe this
effort is a vital component of our effort to maintain nuclear
power for now and also in the long term. I would also like to
note that we are relying more than at any other time in our
history on independent external advice. The best example of
this was when in October 1998, Secretary Richardson established
the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee, or NERAC, to
help us plan for the future.
nuclear energy research advisory committee
As you can see in this last chart, we have 28 independent
prominent individuals on NERAC, including experts in fields
such as nuclear technology, medicine, education, policy,
economics, and non-proliferation. NERAC is chaired by Dr. James
Duderstadt, a former professor and President of the University
of Michigan.
This group is working with us to develop a nuclear energy
R&D long-term plan, a road map on the nation's nuclear science
and technology infrastructure, and a long-term isotope research
and production plan. In addition, NERAC has formed a special
subcommittee to help us guide the NEPO program and plan for the
long-term technology needs of existing nuclear power plants.
I think you will probably note that we still have Dr. Glenn
T. Seaborg listed, although I think we did footnote that he is
deceased. I could not just bring myself to quite take his name
off the list at this point, but I guess I will get around to
that at some point, we will miss his counsel greatly.
In closing, nuclear power and nuclear technology benefit
Americans in many ways. U.S. nuclear plants provide a fifth of
our electricity. Nuclear medicine is a part of every day life,
with over 40,000 diagnostic imaging procedures performed at
U.S. hospitals every day.
We believe that nuclear technology can continue to benefit
the American people in the future and with your help, support,
and counsel, the Department will play a role in pointing the
way.
prepared statement
I know there are many issues that interest the
subcommittee, ranging from the depleted uranium hexafloride to
the future of Argonne National Laboratory and the Fast Flux
test facility, and I look forward to discussing all of these
issues with you today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William D. Magwood
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am William D.
Magwood, IV, Director of the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear
Energy, Science and Technology. I am pleased to have this opportunity
to present our fiscal year 2000 budget request to you today. As you
know, this is my first time before this committee as Director and I
look forward to working with the Committee as you review our priorities
and allocate resources for the next fiscal year.
As we stand at the threshold of a new century, the United States
remains the most powerful force for peace, prosperity, and democracy in
the world. We remain a nation with abundant resources and capabilities.
The United States remains at the forefront of technological and
scientific advancement--ranging from air flight and space exploration,
harnessing the atom, to medicine and computing. Throughout, government
has been a partner in developing technology for the American people--
meeting vital national security interests and providing for the well
being and prosperity of the nation and its people. For the Office of
Nuclear Energy, these interests are represented by the following
strategic objectives:
--providing for energy diversity and security,
--developing Department of Energy mission critical technologies,
--maintaining vital nuclear research facilities and supporting a
strong knowledge base for nuclear technology in the 21st
century, and
--securing our nation's environmental future.
This program has a rich history, dating back to the Manhattan
Project and the Atoms for Peace Program. For over 50 years, we have
supported research and development that produced the prototypes for
reactor technologies that are in commercial use throughout the world
today. Similarly, for over 50 years, the Department, with its
infrastructure of reactors, accelerators, and hot cells, has developed
and brought to the American people, vital isotopes used for medicine,
research and industrial applications. Today, we are working in
partnership with clinicians, researchers, and industry to respond to
the needs of the 21st century. For almost 40 years, we have produced
radioisotopic generators and heat sources for space and for national
security missions--missions that we expect to continue well into the
next century. And as leaders in development and operation of nuclear
reactor technology, for over 50 years we have managed the safe
operation of nuclear energy's research reactors. Today, we support the
important work of the Office of Science and others by managing the safe
operation of all of the Department's research reactors. Finally, we
take seriously our stewardship responsibilities associated with prior
missions of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology and our landlord
responsibilities at the Test Reactor Area at the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and the former government
gaseous diffusion sites.
Overarching our strategy for the 21st century is the fundamental
belief that the United States must retain its leadership position in
nuclear energy--to be a player in shaping the international landscape
and advancing the interests of the American people at home and abroad.
roadmap for the 21st century
Our strategic framework, which flows down from the President's
National Security Strategy for a New Century, October 1998 and the
Department's Comprehensive National Energy Strategy, April 1998,
provides the basis for our fiscal year 2000 budget request. In
addition, the resources applied to implement this strategy are shaped
in part by the recommendations of the President's Committee of Advisors
on Science and Technology (PCAST) \1\ and by the response to these
recommendations provided by the laboratory directors of seven of our
national laboratories.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President's Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology, Federal Energy Research and Development Challenges of the
Twenty-First Century, Report of the Energy Research and Development
Panel, November 5, 1997.
\2\ U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory Directors,
Recommendations for a Department of Energy R&D Agenda, December 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, the PCAST panel on Federal Energy Research and Development
(R&D) identified nuclear energy as one of the technologies that could
alleviate global climate change and address other energy challenges,
including reducing dependence on foreign oil, diversifying the U.S.
domestic electricity supply system, expanding exports of U.S. energy
technologies, and reducing air and water pollution. PCAST recommended
that the Department establish nuclear energy R&D programs initially
funded at $60 million, growing over five years to over $100 million.
Although our funding levels do not approach the levels recommended by
PCAST, we are optimistic about the future of our nuclear energy
research and development activities as we demonstrate the value of this
work to the Nation. Today, the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
Technology remains focused on its core R&D missions and we are working
hard to establish meaningful plans and direction for the future.
This past October, Secretary of Energy Richardson established the
Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) to provide advice to
the Department on the direction of our nuclear technology and research
programs in the 21st century. This committee, chaired by Dr. James
Duderstadt, former President of the University of Michigan, is
comprised of 28 eminent senior policy, science and technology experts
from academia, industry, and our national laboratories with expertise
ranging from reactor operations and nuclear engineering to biological
sciences and nuclear medicine, to environmental sciences, economics and
strategic planning. The membership of this committee is diverse,
including an environmental advocate, senior officials from industry,
researchers in nuclear medicine, laboratory directors, and a former
Member of the Senate.
As their initial charges, I have asked this group to help us
formulate our Nuclear Science and Technology Infrastructure Roadmap, to
help us develop long-term plans for our nuclear energy research program
and our medical isotope production and research programs, and to help
us identify the technology needs of current U.S. nuclear power plants.
This spring, the NERAC will complete the Nuclear Science and
Technology Infrastructure Roadmap, evaluating our present and future
requirements for neutron generating facilities and assessing the
viability of our existing infrastructure of hot cells, accelerators,
and reactors to meet the Nation's needs for basic science research,
applied technology research, national security, space nuclear power,
and isotope production and related missions over the next 20 years.
This roadmap represents the first step in managing our long-term
nuclear R&D infrastructure and in the short-term, it is an important
tool in balancing future missions at our nuclear R&D facilities and in
identifying strengths and weaknesses in our current infrastructure.
Additionally, Secretary Richardson has tasked NERAC to provide in the
roadmap, their recommendations on whether the Fast Flux Test Facility
should be considered to meet the Nation's requirements for isotope
production or other important and enduring missions of the Department.
The expertise of NERAC is deep and their mandate broad, ranging
from helping us to define the direction and character of our future
programs, to providing independent oversight of our research programs,
to providing recommendations on our priorities.
providing for energy diversity and security
Today, as in the past, our research and development initiatives are
the centerpiece of our program. Although our focus has changed over
time, our R&D is based on the fundamental belief that nuclear energy
and technology is and will remain an important element in our energy
mix and will continue to provide important technological benefits and
advancements for the nation. Today, with increasing pressure to reduce
the discretionary spending and with R&D dollars more constrained in
both government and industry, we must adopt new approaches to advance
nuclear technology--through leveraging our federal R&D dollars with
others and greater collaboration among our universities, our
laboratories, and the private sector--to get the best return on
investment for the nation. And to further leverage our investment, I am
committed to expanding international cooperation.
Today, 104 reactors are operating to provide about 20 percent of
the electricity generated for the American people. This is the second
largest source of electricity behind coal. As we look to the future,
these plants are critical to maintaining compliance with our existing
emission laws and to assuring the nation maintains a flexible portfolio
of energy supply options. By 2010, about 10 percent of plants will
reach the end of their operating lifetimes, about 50 percent by 2020,
and the remainder by 2030. Re-licensing and extending operations for
these plants for another 20 years can have a dramatic impact on
sustaining generating capacity, with the added benefit of offsetting
carbon emissions from other sources. Without re-licensing, we face a
significant decrease in capacity and dramatic increases in emissions in
the near term. With the right strategies by government and industry,
these plants can continue to operate safely, reliably, and efficiently
well into the next century.
As you know, in the 1980's and 1990's, Congress funded nuclear
energy research that the Department cost-shared with industry to
develop the advanced light water reactors, a program established to
ensure the viability of nuclear energy and to advance energy security
and diversity in the 21st century. Today, three vendors have brought
two ``evolutionary'' designs and one ``passive design'' technology to
commercialization, with the first two advanced boiling water reactors
in operation today overseas. In November, I visited the Kashiwazaki
Kariwa Nuclear Power Station, where the first General Electric Advanced
Boiling Water Reactors are operating. An impressive sight, this is the
world's largest nuclear power station, with seven units supplying about
23 percent of Tokyo Electric's total capacity. In addition, the two GE
boiling water reactors represent today's state-of-the-art technology.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10AP13.001
Today, with the completion of the advanced reactor design program,
our R&D initiatives are focused on two primary areas:
--The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI), a new program funded
in fiscal year 1999 by the Congress at a level of $19 million,
aimed at reducing the barriers to the long-term use of nuclear
energy at home and abroad. I am pleased to report to you that
the response to this program has been exceptional. The
Department received 307 proposals for this program,
representing over $300 million in potential research. We are
not only pleased with the number of proposals, but with the
teaming occurring among the laboratories, our universities, and
industry and with the innovative ideas coming forward. In
fiscal year 2000, we are requesting an increase of this program
to $25 million, to continue the important work begun this year
and for a modest increase in the number of proposals that can
be selected.
--The Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program, a new program
in fiscal year 2000 to meet our national interest for safe,
secure, and reliable access to energy in the 21st century.
These plants are significant to our nation's energy portfolio
and represent a critical infrastructure that is needed beyond
the timeframes under which the existing plants are licensed.
This program, aimed at reducing barriers to efficient and safe
operation--increasing plant capacity from 71 percent in 1997 to
85 percent in 2010 and addressing issues associated with plant
aging--would be 50-50 cost-shared with industry through the
Electric Power Research Institute, guided by a joint EPRI/DOE
strategic plan, and coordinated with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
These initiatives are based on the recognition of a clear
distinction between the respective roles of government and industry in
advancing nuclear technology in the 21st century. Industry must
continue to carry the burden of short term research and they are
meeting this challenge very well with an investment well in excess of
$100 million annually. On the other hand, there is a clear role for the
Department in providing for the longer term research of initiatives
such as NERI and working with industry to fill the void on intermediate
term research--research equally needed to protect our critical energy
supply infrastructure.
developing department of energy
mission critical technologies
For well over 50 years, we have been developing, producing, and
delivering hundreds of types of stable and radioactive isotopes for
research, industrial applications, and for medicine. The dramatic
advancements made in nuclear medicine during the second half of this
century are, in large part, because the Department and its predecessors
had the foresight to pursue development of isotopes as a mission that
was ancillary to other historical missions of the Department.
In medicine alone, the application of stable and radioactive
isotopes for research, diagnosis, and therapies is an indispensable and
growing component of our health care. Isotopes reduce health care costs
and improve the quality of patient care. Each day, 40,000 patients
benefit from isotope-based medical imaging techniques. In industry,
isotopes are used for a multitude of applications, ranging from
radiography, to sterilization of medical instruments, to lasers and
smoke detectors. The NERAC projects that demand for medical isotopes
can be expected to increase between 8 and 17 percent per year over the
next 20 years.
Today, and in the future, our mission remains focused on bringing
new and improved isotope applications, products, and services to the
American people for use in medicine, industry, and research and on
assuring that a reliable supply of isotopes exists for the nation. This
program operates with a revolving fund, with about two-thirds derived
from federal appropriations and one-third from annual sales. It is our
policy to aggressively pursue opportunities for private sector
involvement in production, distribution, and sales of isotopes,
particularly commercial isotopes, and we have successfully privatized
several key operations, which previously had required a federal
appropriation. These privatizations allow us to decrease our cost of
operations while providing a revenue stream from the royalties derived
from the privatization.
In the last two years, we completed two important privatizations--
one, of hot cell facilities for production and processing of iridium-
192 and other isotopes in Idaho and another, of a technology developed
and patented by the Department for production of a promising new cancer
isotope, yttrium-90, derived from strontium left over from weapons
production at Hanford. Although each of these privatizations were
different, both are examples of DOE doing what it does best--developing
an isotope for treatment of devastating illnesses or for other
applications--and industry doing what they do best--bringing the
product to market with no additional cost to the taxpayer.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10AP13.002
In fiscal year 2000, we are requesting funding to continue the
construction of the beam spur at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center
(LANSCE) facility so that it can be accomplished while the facility is
in an outage and can come on line in fiscal year 2001 with no
significant interruption in the supply of isotopes. The beam spur
enables us to continue to provide vital short lived isotopes that can
only be produced in an accelerator of this size.
By the end of this fiscal year, modifications to the Annular Core
Research Reactor and associated Hot Cell Facilities at Sandia National
Laboratories will be completed and the facilities will be ready for
private sector use as a backup source of molybdenum-99, a precursor
isotope to the most widely used diagnostic imaging isotope, technetium-
99m . With this accomplishment, the goal of achieving the capacity for
an emergency backup supply will be met and no appropriation in fiscal
year 2000 is requested.
Lastly, we propose to launch the Advanced Nuclear Medicine
Initiative, a new program for fiscal year 2000, to apply the
Department's unique expertise and capabilities in isotopes to advance
nuclear medicine technology. This initiative will sponsor nuclear
medical science through university scholarships and internships in
nuclear medicine and support peer-reviewed research including use of
the Department's large inventory of alpha-emitting isotopes available
from DOE to fight a spectrum of illnesses, including various types of
cancer. This initiative responds to a need not currently addressed by
existing Departmental programs.
Additionally, we will continue to provide safe, proven, reliable,
maintenance-free radioisotope power systems for use in deep space and
national security applications as we have for 38 years. In 1997, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) launched the
Cassini spacecraft to Saturn using electric power from radioisotope
thermoelectric generators provided by the Department. Previous NASA
space exploration missions that have used radioisotope power systems
include the Apollo lunar module and the Pioneer, Viking, Voyager,
Galileo and Ulysses, Cassini and Mars Pathfinder spacecrafts.
Future NASA missions will require even lighter, lower power
systems, more efficient energy conversion, and new materials. Efforts
are underway to meet this requirement by developing an Advanced
Radioisotope Power System that uses a new technology. In fiscal year
2000, the program will complete fabrication and initiate testing of
module units of this technology, proceed to design and fabrication of a
full-scale qualification unit. In fiscal year 2000, we will continue to
develop the state-of-the-art power supplies that could cover a range of
power levels required to support future NASA space missions. These
technologies include advanced conversion concepts, new materials, and
heat source technologies. Potential new NASA missions over the next six
to eight years requiring radioisotope power systems include missions to
Mars, Europa, and Pluto and the Solar Probe mission to the Sun.
Because our supply of plutonium-238 used in these systems will be
exhausted in the first half of the next decade, we are conducting an
environmental impact analysis. The EIS on re-establishing a plutonium-
238 production capability will be completed early in fiscal year 2000.
Facilities at Oak Ridge, Idaho, and Hanford are currently being
evaluated and the Department has also sought expressions of interest
from the private sector for irradiation services. Additionally, we are
currently evaluating whether assembly and test operations performed at
the Mound Site should remain at Mound or should be transferred to
another site.
developing department of energy
maintaining vital nuclear research facilities and supporting a strong
educational infrastructure
Government, industry, and academia alike face similar challenges
today as we seek to sustain our critical nuclear science and technology
infrastructures--our facilities and our human resources. Like much of
the industrial base which took shape during and in the years following
World War II, the nuclear industry is a mature industry, comprised of
scientists and engineers, many of whom are currently retiring or will
retire over the next decade. Along with this, our nuclear science and
engineering programs at universities and colleges are challenged by
declining enrollments and aging facilities. The Department as well
faces these same challenges to our own workforce and our own
facilities.
Inextricably linked with our R&D programs are our initiatives to
arrest the eroding nuclear energy infrastructure. Opportunities for new
and exciting R&D serves not just to advance breakthrough technologies
for the American people, but serves to attract the best and brightest
to our universities, our laboratories, and our industry in general. To
strengthen our knowledge base, in fiscal year 2000 we propose to apply
a total of $11.3 million to enhance nuclear research and education
programs at universities and colleges across the country. This
Committee has been a strong proponent for this program and we have seen
it grow over the last several years. I am pleased to submit it again at
about the level you appropriated last year. I am also pleased to
include in it, the Nuclear Engineering Education Research (NEER)
program, vital to attracting and retaining faculty, at the same level
as appropriated last year. These initiatives under the university
programs will help ensure the future ability of the U.S. to continue to
apply the nuclear sciences to medical research, the development of new
materials, and future environmental and energy challenges.
To strengthen the infrastructure at our universities and ensure
that university research reactors are available into the next decade,
we are proposing a modest increase in the program in fiscal year 2000
to assist in the maintenance and modernization of university research
reactors by replacing outdated equipment and upgrading experimental
capabilities under the reactor upgrade activity. University research
reactors are a little-known but essential part of the nation's
scientific infrastructure. Currently, there are 28 university research
reactors at 26 universities in 21 states. These research reactors have
contributed to innumerable important scientific discoveries ranging for
analysis of moon rocks to dating of dinosaur bones, to new methods of
targeting and destroying rare brain tumors. Quoting John Bernard from
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ``the public thinks they are
all producing electricity, but these research reactors are much like a
microscope. You're producing a beam of neutrons to see the world.''
In the 1990's the Department concentrated the responsibility for
management of the Department's reactors in the Office of Nuclear
Energy, Science and Technology, where the core of the U.S. government's
expertise in nuclear energy research, technology and engineering
resides. Among the reactors under our purview are the High Flux Isotope
Reactor, the High Beam Flux Reactor, our Annular Core Research Reactor,
the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), and the Fast Flux Test Facility. We
also serve as landlord for the Test Reactor Area site at Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, where the ATR is located, and
where we are responsible for providing utility services and maintaining
the site area in a safe and environmentally compliant configuration. As
many of you know, there was an accident last year at the TRA during a
maintenance operation at a facility occupied by another DOE program in
which carbon dioxide inadvertently discharged from a fire suppression
system. The accident caused one death and several life-threatening
illnesses. I want to underscore the sincere regret expressed by
Secretary Richardson when he said, ``our hearts go out to the family
and friends of Kerry Austin.'' This is an accident that never should
have happened and I pledge that the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science
and Technology will work hard to ensure that safety remains at the
forefront of all of our activities.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10AP13.003
My office is also responsible for the Fast Flux Test Facility
(FFTF), the most recently deployed reactor in the Department, operating
between 1982 and 1992. Today, it is shutdown and maintained in standby
and this spring Secretary Richardson will decide whether to shut it
down permanently or pursue civilian missions for the reactor. To
provide a more informed decision, NERAC will complete this month, the
Nuclear Science and Technology Infrastructure Roadmap, to assess our
present and future requirements for neutron generating facilities in
light of our existing and currently planned infrastructure of hot
cells, accelerators and reactors. This roadmap will include
recommendations on whether there is a future need for FFTF to meet
mission critical requirements.
securing our environmental future
The Department is responsible for safe storage and disposal of
approximately 8,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel containing about 2,700
metric tons of uranium and transuranic elements from various civilian
and defense-related programs. Some of this fuel contains materials that
are highly reactive or are in a condition that precludes their disposal
in a geologic repository. A technology which may someday assist the
Department in dealing with this spent fuel challenge is the
electrometallurgical treatment technology under development at Argonne
National Laboratory (ANL). The demonstration of this technology will be
completed this August on a portion of sodium-bearing spent fuel removed
from the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) located at ANLWest in
Idaho. In fiscal year 2000, we expect to complete an Environmental
Impact Statement on the use of this technology for the remaining EBR-II
spent fuel as well as certain other spent fuels. In concert with this,
we expect the National Research Council to report back to the
Department in that same time frame with their final assessment of the
technology. Together, these activities will provide the technical basis
for a decision on whether to proceed with full scale operations of the
Fuel Conditioning Facility and treatment of the fuel.
Additionally, we will complete the processing of the sodium coolant
from the EBR-II and Fermi-I reactors in fiscal year 2000, enabling us
to shut down the last of the EBR-II facilities, with the exception of
the Fuel Conditioning Facility, used for the demonstration project. It
will be retained in standby pending a decision on treatment of the
remaining sodium bonded fuel.
My office is also responsible for important activities related to
the Federal uranium enrichment program that were not transferred to
USEC, Inc. when it was privatized in July 1998, including, sale of
surplus natural assay uranium and management of the about 57,000 14-ton
depleted uranium hexafluoride cylinders located at the gaseous
diffusion sites in Paducah, Kentucky; Portsmouth, Ohio; and the Oak
Ridge Site in Tennessee. For the past several years, we have worked to
improve storage conditions for the cylinders through inspections,
maintenance, and monitoring. As required by Public Law 105-204, signed
by the President last July, the Department is required to prepare a
plan to begin by January 31, 2004, construction of plants at Portsmouth
and Paducah to treat and recycle the depleted UF6 inventory.
The initial plan was submitted to this Committee on March 12, 1999. The
final plan will be submitted in May and we are confident it will meet
the intent expressed by Congress in the enacted legislation.
Mr. Chairman, Nuclear Energy's fiscal year 2000 funding request is
outlined in the following table:
Budget Authority
[Dollars in Thousands]
Program Element Request Fiscal year 2000
Nuclear Energy R&D............................................ $87,345
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems....................... 37,000
Test Reactor Area......................................... 9,000
University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support............ 11,345
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative........................ 25,000
Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization......................... 5,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Isotope Support............................................... 21,000
Termination Costs............................................. 65,000
Fast Flux Test Facility....................................... 30,000
Uranium Programs.............................................. 41,000
Program Direction............................................. 24,960
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total nuclear energy, science and technology request.... $269,305
I will now provide the Committee with greater detail regarding the
importance of our programs and the benefits they provide.
nuclear energy research and development (r&d)
The mission of the Nuclear Energy R&D program is to conduct
advanced research and development in areas such as nuclear power and
space power systems. In addition, this program supports nuclear
engineering education and enhancement of the Nation's nuclear science
infrastructure. It also supports the infrastructure needs for the Test
Reactor Area at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory (INEEL).
advanced radioisotope power systems
The Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies have provided
radioisotope power systems for use in space and terrestrial
applications for 38 years. These systems are safe, proven, reliable,
maintenance-free, and capable of producing either heat or electricity
for many years under the conditions required for deep space and
national security missions. The unique characteristics of these systems
make them especially suited for applications where large arrays of
solar cells or batteries are not practical, for example, at large
distances from the sun where there is little sunlight or in harsh
environments. To date, the Department has provided over 40 radioisotope
power systems for use on a total of 25 spacecraft. In fiscal year 1998,
NASA launched the Cassini spacecraft to Saturn, entirely electrically
powered by three radioisotope thermoelectric generators provided by the
Department. Critical national security activities and NASA missions to
explore deep space and the surfaces of planets could not occur without
these systems.
In fiscal year 2000, the program will continue developing new,
state-of-the-art power supplies required to support both future NASA
space exploration, such as a mission to Jupiter's moon Europa, a
mission to Pluto, and the Solar Probe mission to the Sun, and national
security applications. In keeping with NASA's new philosophy of
smaller, lighter weight and more technologically advanced spacecraft,
these future NASA missions will require lower power, highly efficient
lighter radioisotope power systems. In fiscal year 1998, DOE initiated
the development of the next generation radioisotope power system, using
a more efficient energy conversion technology to achieve a lighter
weight, more efficient power system. In fiscal year 2000, the focus
will be completing the design of the new system and proceeding to
fabricate a flight qualification unit to more accurately assess its
performance against NASA needs.
The outyear planning for future space missions reflects
arrangements with the national security users and NASA that the
Department will sustain the facility infrastructure to produce
radioisotope power systems. This infrastructure represents the sole
national capability to produce radioisotope systems. In accordance with
arrangements with our customer agencies, NASA or other users will
provide funds to the Department to pay for mission-specific costs,
including mission-specific development, hardware fabrication, and other
mission support costs.
A key factor in the ability to provide radioisotope systems for
future missions is to have an adequate supply of the radioisotope Pu-
238 that is used in all of these systems. It is very important to note
that Pu-238 is not weapons-grade material and is not usable as an
explosive in nuclear weapons. The current inventory of this isotope,
with the exception of approximately nine kilograms that were purchased
from Russia, was produced in the Savannah River reactors and processed
in the HB-Line facilities that are shutdown or are in the process of
being shut down. For the long-term, the Department has initiated an
environmental analysis to evaluate sites for supporting domestic
production of Pu-238. Sites to be evaluated include DOE's Hanford Site,
the INEEL, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
The Department is currently analyzing whether the assembly and test
operations performed in Building 50 at Mound should be retained at the
Mound Site or whether the functions should be moved to another site. As
you know, this site is being environmentally restored by DOE's Office
of Environmental Management and they plan to turn the site over to the
private sector and exit the site in 2005. In general, it is the
Department's policy to reduce our footprint where it can be
demonstrated to produce a savings for the taxpayer and we are currently
reassessing the cost involved in retaining operations at Mound versus
costs of consolidating at other sites. In the meantime, progress on the
environmental impact statement, begun this fiscal year, will continue
at a slower pace until we complete this important assessment.
The Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems Program is an important
part of the nuclear energy research and development efforts, and the
Department will continue to manage this program in an effective and
cost-efficient manner. We are submitting a report to Congress
summarizing the status of actions taken to streamline the program. In
conjunction with the user agencies, the Department will responsibly
maintain the capability to supply these systems for future missions
that are important to the exploration of space and vital to U.S.
national security interests.
test reactor area landlord
The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology is responsible
for the landlord program for the Test Reactor Area of the INEEL. The
TRA Landlord Program provides essential services to the Advanced Test
Reactor (ATR) and its related facilities, including the ATR Critical
Facility reactor, the TRA Hot Cells that were recently privatized for
isotope production, and the INEEL Applied Engineering and Development
Laboratories, as well as a machine shop that supports the entire site.
These facilities are operated primarily to support vital nuclear
reactor testing and materials testing for the Office of Naval Reactors,
but are also operated for other programs, including our isotope
program. This area of the site is expected to continue to perform
national security and civilian missions well into the 21st century. As
such, we must protect this critical infrastructure--maintaining
facilities and services at a level that ensures protection of the
workers and the public, the environment and minimizes programmatic
disruptions.
In fiscal year 2000, we are requesting $9 million for the landlord
program, a $2.3 million increase over last year. Most of the increase
is directed to ensuring that we meet commitments in managing our legacy
waste and in continuing the electric utility line item project, which
will be completed in 2003. The electrical utility project reconfigures
the 40 year old electrical utility system to meet current needs and
replace aged switchgear, panels, and transformers for which replacement
parts are not available or which have reached the end of their useful
lifetime and are not economical to repair. Additionally, we will
continue the fire protection upgrade line item in fiscal year 2000, at
a lower level than previous years, and then with a slightly increased
level of effort the following year to bring it to completion. The fire
protection line item was initiated several years ago to retrofit
existing facilities to meet provisions of the National Fire Protection
Agency's Life Safety Code and provide an adequate level of protection,
as needed, for building occupancy. We feel that this project is
particularly important in light of the suppression system- related
accident that occurred last year in this area of the site.
nuclear energy research initiative
World leadership in nuclear science and technology is vital to the
United States from the perspective of national security, international
influence, and global security. The United States has more nuclear
power plants in operation today than any other nation in the world and
most of the world's operating nuclear power plants are based on United
States technology. Many countries, especially the fast-growing
economies in Asia and the Pacific Rim, are interested in building new
plants using our designs. Given the projected growth in global
electrical energy demand as developing nations industrialize, our vital
strategic interests in addressing global climate change, nuclear
nonproliferation, nuclear safety, and economic competitiveness, and our
need to satisfy the growing domestic needs for energy in an
environmentally responsible manner, the United States must maintain its
scientific and technological leadership in nuclear energy.
Recognizing this need, the PCAST Panel on Federal Energy Research
and Development recommended in 1997 that the Department establish a new
nuclear energy research effort to address the key issues affecting
nuclear energy's potential as a future energy source. The key issues
affecting nuclear energy's future include disposal of spent fuel,
concerns about nuclear proliferation, plant safety and uncompetitive
economics. PCAST recommendations are that the Department competitively
select, through a peer-review process, proposals from universities,
national laboratories and industry to conduct scientific and
engineering research in the areas of proliferation-resistant reactors
and fuel cycles; new reactor designs with higher efficiency, lower
cost, and improved safety; lower output reactors for use in the global
market; and new techniques for the management and storage of nuclear
waste.
The Department's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
implemented the PCAST recommendations in fiscal year 1999 by
establishing the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) to fund new
and innovative scientific and engineering research on these key issues
and to preserve our nation's nuclear science and technology leadership.
The initiative has as its primary mission the advancement of nuclear
science and engineering research over the long-term.
We are very pleased with the response to the NERI program. The
Department received 307 final proposals from national laboratories,
universities, and industry, representing over $300 million in potential
research. Additionally, a significant fraction of the proposals
submitted by the national laboratories included teaming with
universities and others. These individual and collaborative research
proposals are being peer-reviewed by independent experts for scientific
and technical merit and will be evaluated for relevance to the
Department's nuclear energy objectives prior to funding selection. The
process by which grants are awarded under NERI is modeled after other
successful investigator-initiated independent peer review processes,
such as those used by the National Science Foundation and DOE's Office
of Science. As with all of the nuclear research programs, the NERI will
receive guidance from the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee.
The Department strongly supports the continuation of this vital
scientific and engineering research effort in fiscal year 2000 and we
request $25 million for this program, an increase of $6 million over
fiscal year 1999 to continue important research begun this year and to
award a modest number of new proposals in fiscal year 2000. In doing
so, we seek to address key obstacles affecting the expanded future use
of nuclear energy in the U.S.; advance the state of nuclear technology
to maintain our competitive position in overseas and future domestic
markets; promote and maintain nuclear science and engineering
capabilities to meet future technical challenges; and improve the
performance, efficiency, proliferation resistance, reliability, and
economics of nuclear energy applications.
nuclear energy plant optimization program
Over the last couple of years, there have been significant changes
in the strategic landscape--a growing recognition of the importance
that our existing nuclear power plants play in meeting the needs of the
nation for electricity during the first half of the next century and
their importance in meeting international commitments on climate
change. These plants are also critical to helping utilities meet state
implementation plans and EPA requirements for Clean Air Act compliance.
Two years ago, with electricity restructuring looming and concerns
over regulatory uncertainty, the prediction was that the existing
nuclear plants were doomed--that fewer plants would seek license
extensions and that many would shut down prematurely. Today, with
consolidations in ownership occurring and several plants announcing
their intention to seek license extensions, it is clear that there is a
future for many of the U.S. nuclear power plants. However, for these
plants to remain viable beyond 2020, both government and industry must
take action--government reducing regulatory and other barriers to
operation and industry, investing capital in the upgrading their
facilities for the future and investing in short-term R&D. Also,
together, government and industry should explore intermediate-term
evolutionary technologies to sustain these plants. For these reasons,
the Department is resubmitting its proposal for the Nuclear Energy
Plant Optimization (NEPO) program in fiscal year 2000 to address the
issues that could prevent continued operation of existing U.S. nuclear
power plants.
The DOE Energy Information Administration projects that even with
aggressive energy efficiency measures, U.S. electricity consumption
will increase 1.4 percent per year through 2020 the equivalent of seven
large 1000-megawatt power plants each year. During this same period,
about 127,000 megawatts of existing electricity generating capacity
could be retired because of age, competitive pressures, and as part of
U.S. utility measures to meet clean air standards. In order to meet the
demand for new baseload capacity, the Energy Information Agency
estimates that the U.S. would need to build the equivalent of over
1,000 new fossil plants by 2020. This magnitude of building would
require a huge economic investment over the next 20 years with the
potential for significant increases in air emissions.
However, continued operation of our existing nuclear power plants
can mitigate this need and dramatically reduce or offset air emissions.
For example, continued operation of 90 percent of the existing nuclear
power plants through their current license terms would displace over
3,950 million metric tons of carbon emissions between 1995 and 2035.
Extending the licenses of 75 percent of these nuclear plants could
reduce emissions by 64 million metric tons between 1995 and 2010, 208
million metric tons by 2015, and 2260 million metric tons by the middle
of the next century, when the last existing plant would shutdown.
The Department's Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program
is proposed to address issues associated with operating existing
nuclear power plants, in cost-shared cooperation with the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) and in coordination with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. As a collaborative program, industry would share
a minimum of 50 percent of the cost and the program would be guided by
a joint DOE/EPRI strategic plan. The proposed program would involve the
nation's national laboratories, universities, and industry and although
no federal research dollars would be allocated internationally, the
program would benefit from substantial international collaboration and
coordination.
Specifically, we propose the following R&D initiatives:
Managing the long-term effects of nuclear plant aging.--R&D
conducted under NEPO would provide a better understanding of material
degradation mechanisms and how they occur, enabling development of
cost-effective aging management strategies which will provide
capabilities to easily prevent, detect, or repair the degradation.
Improving nuclear power plant capacity factors from 71 percent in
1997 to 85 percent in 2010.--This initiative focuses on improving the
long-term economic performance of current plants through development of
technologies that will improve equipment reliability, lower operating
costs, and increase power output while maintaining high levels of
safety.
Optimizing power generation through efficiency and productivity
improvements.--Current nuclear plants were designed and are operating
with technology developed over 25 years ago. As plants age, components
and parts degrade or become obsolete, introducing inefficiencies, added
costs, and unreliability. There have been significant technology
advancements over the last 25 years that are applicable to power
generation, particularly in computers, communications, materials,
sensors and digital electronics, and artificial intelligence that
provide more accurate, reliable and cost-effective technologies;
however, most of these technologies are not qualified to meet Nuclear
Regulatory Commission requirements. Further R&D developments will
produce new technology applications that meet regulatory requirements
and that will improve plant operation and maintenance, increasing
overall plant output. This initiative is focused on demonstrations of
technologies necessary to achieve regulatory acceptance of the new
technologies.
Research performed under this program would be prioritized by the
NERAC subcommittee on operating nuclear power plant research,
coordination and planning.
university reactor fuel assistance and support
The Department of Energy's University Nuclear Science and Reactor
Support Program conducts the important task of supporting nuclear
science education and research in the United States. Under this
program, we work with universities and colleges across the nation, with
assistance from private industry, to maintain nuclear education
programs, support outstanding students, undertake innovative nuclear
engineering research, and continue the operation of research reactors.
Much of the program funding is used to provide fresh fuel to these
reactors, to remove spent fuel, and to upgrade the operational
capabilities at the university research reactors at 26 universities in
21 states.
To ensure that these valuable educational tools remain available
into the next decade, in fiscal year 2000, for the third straight year
we plan to support U.S. universities and colleges in their efforts to
modernize reactor safety systems and improve their operational
capabilities. These reactors are critical and unique assets of the U.S.
scientific infrastructure. They are used for educational purposes, to
conduct important medical and materials research, and to make vital
isotopes. In fiscal year 2000, we will continue to supply fresh fuel
to, and transport spent fuel from, universities requiring assistance.
In addition, we will continue converting university reactors that
currently use highly enriched uranium fuel to low enriched uranium
fuel, thus advancing our nonproliferation goals. Additionally, through
our reactor sharing program we will provide a means for students at
universities without reactors to have access to another university's
reactor for education, training, and research purposes.
We will continue the very important and successful Nuclear
Engineering Education Research grants initiative that provides much
needed funding to faculty for innovative research at universities at
the same level of funding you appropriated in fiscal year 1999. This
program is vital to the research needs of the U.S. universities'
nuclear engineering departments and, in particular, to attracting and
retaining faculty.
We plan to maintain our growing number of partnerships with the
electric utility industry and other private sector entities by
providing research grants to universities that receive similar
commitments from the utilities and private companies. As in the past,
we intend to provide funding equal to the amount contributed by private
organizations, to a maximum of $50,000 in Department of Energy grants
per university. In fiscal year 2000, we expect to fund $800,000 in
grants to 17 universities that will be matched by participating
companies.
We also plan to continue our support of scholarships for
outstanding students in undergraduate and graduate nuclear engineering
and health physics programs at our universities and colleges, including
fellowships for outstanding students at our minority institutions.
These fellowships and scholarships provide for the education of
approximately 18 outstanding graduate engineering students across the
country and approximately 62 undergraduate students. We will continue
an initiative, begun in fiscal year 1999, which provides practicums at
national laboratories for 30 undergraduates in their junior or senior
year, thus giving them valuable real-world experience in nuclear
engineering. In fiscal year 2000, we will begin an initiative to
support nuclear engineering recruitment activities in conjunction with
professional societies to ensure a highly informed group of college
freshmen enter university nuclear engineering and related scientific
courses of study. Also, we will continue a radiochemistry initiative
begun this year to help educate a new generation of radiochemists,
prepared to address the technical challenges associated with operating
nuclear plants.
isotope support
Our isotope program develops, produces, sells, leases, and ships
hundreds of different stable and radioactive isotopes for medical
applications, scientific research, and commercial use throughout the
United States and to approximately 25 other countries. Consistent with
our mandate in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, it is our longstanding
policy to produce isotopes when no domestic or private sector
capability exists; where unique government production facilities are
needed, such as nuclear reactors and isotope enrichment facilities; or
where other productive capacity is insufficient to meet the Nation's
needs. Over the last several years, we have aggressively pursued
private sector investment in new isotope production ventures and in
fiscal year 2000, we will complete privatization of our commercial
isotope production activities, including privatization of our business
functions. In instances where the private sector can produce isotopes
more efficiently than the government, we will sell, lease, or license
existing facilities, technologies and inventories for commercial
purposes.
The isotope program operates with a revolving fund and maintains
financial viability through revenues from sales and annual
appropriations. We function like a business, and as such, must have
sufficient operating cash to fill customer orders and maintain solvency
during market changes. Our fiscal year 2000 budget request, which funds
about two-thirds of the program, will provide the minimum necessary
operating cash. The revolving fund is audited annually by an
independent public accounting firm, KPMG Peat Marwick, and since the
first audit in 1992, the isotope program has continuously received an
unqualified opinion which states that the financial statements are
presented fairly in all material respects. The audited financial
statements are an essential management tool for the Isotope Program.
Although we are not obligated to provide all isotopes requested, we
strive to meet our customers' requests subject to inventory, production
capability, and financial constraints. This fiscal year, to obtain a
better understanding of our customers' requirements, a panel of medical
experts convened to develop a consensus on the growth of demand for
medical isotopes between now and the year 2020 and to identify future
support the Department of Energy will need to provide to the nuclear
medical community. The panel's report has been accepted by NERAC as the
basis for its development of a long-term isotope research and
development plan. The report indicates that the need for medical
isotopes used in diagnostics, therapy, and research will increase
between 8 and 17 percent per year over the next 20 years. Although the
cost of meeting this demand is not insignificant, it is a fraction of
that which would be saved in health care costs by the use of isotopes
for diagnosis and treatment.
The isotope program has negotiated a number of cooperative
arrangements with foreign suppliers, to assure an uninterruptible
supply of isotopes in the U.S. For example, in 1997 we completed a
cooperative production agreement with the Institute for Nuclear
Research (INR) in Troitsk, Russia, for production of strontium-82,
which was followed by FDA qualification of the Russian strontium-82 in
1998. This agreement resulted in the supply of material to Los Alamos
for chemical processing and eventual distribution to hospitals at a
time in which no large accelerator, necessary for strontium-82
production, was operating in the U.S. We are making similar cooperative
efforts for reactor-produced isotopes.
Because until recently the United States was dependent on a single
supplier of molybdenum-99, a major initiative of the past several years
has been to bring our facilities at Sandia National Laboratories--the
Annular Core Research Reactor (ACRR) and associated Hot Cells to the
point that emergency production of this important medical isotope could
be established if needed. molybdenum-99 is a precursor of technetium-
99m, an isotope used for diagnostic imaging, including body organ
functions, in more than 36,000 medical procedures each day in the
United States alone. This isotope allows physicians to accurately
diagnose cancer and other diseases without resorting to exploratory
surgery. Substantial modifications have been undertaken at these
facilities to ensure a stable production source that is capable of
meeting part or all of the U.S. demand is available if needed.
Modifications will be completed to both the ACRR and Hot Cell Facility
this year that will place them in a condition where emergency
production of molybdenum-99 could be constituted if needed. The demand
for molybdenum-99 continues to grow due to the application of this
cost-saving diagnostic technique, thus making it attractive to
privatization. For this reason, we are pursuing privatization of
molybdenum-99 production and related business activities. A draft
Request for Proposal (RFP) will be issued this month, followed by the
final RFP in May 1999, with a contract award anticipated by the end of
the fiscal year.
Our fiscal year 2000 request includes funding for relocation of the
Los Alamos isotope target irradiation station at the Los Alamos Neutron
Science Center (LANSCE), a facility owned by and operated primarily for
the Office of Defense Programs. Because of the research community's
identified year-round need for short-lived radioisotopes that can only
be produced in a large accelerator, we are continuing the modifications
to the LANSCE facility to construct a beam spur that can be dedicated
to isotope production. Without this beam spur, the nation will lose the
ability to make certain isotopes when LANSCE shuts down later this
year. The total estimated cost for the relocation of the LANSCE target
irradiation station is $14 million. Conceptual design and planning
activities for this project began in fiscal year 1998 to support
construction of the relocated target station and tie into the
accelerator beam, scheduled to take place in fiscal year 1999, in a
time-frame dictated by Defense Programs' accelerator maintenance
schedule. By the end of fiscal year 2000, construction should be 60
percent complete and with the additional $8 million requested, the new
station will be completed and commissioned in fiscal year 2001. The
fiscal year 2000 funding request is essential to minimizing the time
that the country is unable to produce these isotopes.
Additionally, the President's fiscal year 2000 request includes a
recommendation to establish a new program, the Advanced Nuclear
Medicine Initiative, initially funded at $2.5 million. This initiative
will apply the Department's unique expertise and capabilities in
isotopes to advance nuclear medicine technology in the U.S. Under the
initiative, the Department will sponsor nuclear medical science using a
peer-review selection process, encourage the training of individuals in
nuclear medicine methods by establishing scholarships and fellowships
for nuclear medicine specialists and by sponsoring summer internships
at appropriate institutions, and initiate a focused program to apply
alpha-emitting isotopes to fight a spectrum of malignant diseases
including most common cancers and infectious diseases such as
meningitis and AIDS.
termination costs
The termination costs program funds the deactivation of the
Experimental Breeder ReactorII (EBR-II) facility located at Argonne
National Laboratory-West (ANL-West) in Idaho. The objective of the
program is to place the EBR-II facility and other surplus facilities at
ANL-West in a radiologically and industrially safe shutdown condition,
for low-cost and long-term surveillance and maintenance, pending final
decontamination and decommissioning. The principle components of this
program are completing the electrometallurgical treatment demonstration
project, which will occur this fiscal year; completing processing of
the sodium coolant from the shutdown reactor, and closing the last of
the EBR-II facilities.
The Department is responsible for the safe storage and disposal of
approximately 8,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel containing about 2,700
metric tons of uranium and transuranic elements from various civilian
and defense-related programs. Some of these spent fuels contain
materials or are in a condition that may preclude their direct disposal
in a geologic repository. The electrometallurgical treatment technology
under development at ANL is a technology that has the potential to
assist the Department in dealing with this spent fuel challenge, a
challenge which is unique to the Department.
In particular, this technology may be the best way to deal with the
sodium-bearing spent fuel removed from EBR-II. This spent fuel contains
metallic sodium, a material which can cause an explosion when brought
into contact with water. This spent fuel must be treated if it is ever
to be relocated to a geologic repository. Under the Consent Agreement
between the State of Idaho and the Department (Batt Agreement), this
spent fuel as well as other sodium bonded fuel onsite must be removed
from the State by 2035. Consequently, this technology may be crucial to
the Department's success in meeting those obligations. If this
technology is not successful, new R&D activities will have to be
initiated to find other alternatives for treating the Department's
sodium-bonded fuel.
The Department will complete the electrometallurgical treatment
demonstration this fiscal year. In fiscal year 2000, the Department
will complete an environmental impact statement on using this
technology. In parallel with this, the National Research Council will
complete their review of the technology and will issue a final report
to the Department during the first quarter of fiscal year 2000.
Together, these activities will form the basis for a decision early in
fiscal year 2000 on whether to proceed with this technology for
treatment of the rest of the inventory of EBR-II spent fuel as well as
certain other spent fuels in the Department's inventory.
In 1994, the Department began the permanent shutdown of EBR-II and
associated support facilities at ANL-West. During fiscal year 2000, our
efforts to place these facilities in a radiologically and industrially
safe shutdown condition will continue. The Sodium Process Facility,
designed and constructed to convert the highly reactive sodium coolant
to an environmentally acceptable form suitable for routine disposal,
will complete its mission in early fiscal year 2000. The facility will
be placed in a safe configuration, awaiting further deactivation and
eventual decontamination and decommissioning. With exception of the
Fuel Conditioning Facility, used for electrometallurgical treatment,
all facilities will be in a shutdown configuration by the end of fiscal
year 2000.
fast flux test facility
Nuclear Energy also provides program management and technical
direction for the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) located at the Hanford
Reservation in Washington. FFTF is a 400 megawatt thermal, sodium
cooled reactor that operated between 1982 and 1992. Originally designed
to provide irradiation testing of nuclear reactor fuels for the U.S.
liquid metal reactor program, it operated for materials testing for
fusion, space reactor, and the international fast reactor programs. In
1992, the Department shut down the facility and placed it in standby,
pending a decision on using the facility as a bridge for tritium
production until an accelerator or a commercial light water reactor
could come on line to produce tritium. In December 1998, Secretary
Richardson announced that FFTF is not required for tritium production
or other defense missions. However, the Secretary indicated that he
will decide, this spring, whether to begin permanent deactivation of
FFTF or consider using it for other missions, such as medical isotope
production, plutonium-238 production for space missions, advanced
materials research, and nuclear energy R&D. If so, the Department would
initiate an Environmental Impact Statement on the potential restart of
the facility.
To provide a more informed decision, the Nuclear Energy Research
Advisory Committee will complete their evaluation this spring of the
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology Infrastructure Roadmap. This
road map is important not just to assessing the need for FFTF but for
assessing the existing facilities and capabilities for neutron science
and isotope production across the Department as well as the needs of
the Nation over the next 20 years.
The funding requested in fiscal year 2000 is the absolute minimum
level required to continue to maintain the facility in a safe condition
and in compliance with federal and state safety and environmental
regulations. Neither the fiscal year 1999 appropriated level nor the
fiscal year 2000 requested levels are sufficient for either option of
beginning permanent deactivation or pursuing restart for other
missions. Responsibility for funding FFTF standby activities
transferred from the Office of Environmental Management to the Office
of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology in fiscal year 1999.
uranium programs
The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology retains
important government activities related to the Federal uranium
enrichment program that were not transferred to the United States
Enrichment Corporation (USEC Inc.). In particular, this program
addresses the facility and environmental legacies associated with the
enrichment program, management of government assets, and associated
research and development.
One of the principal missions of Uranium Programs activities is to
effectively manage the Department's depleted uranium hexafluoride
(depleted UF6) inventories. A key responsibility of the
Department is to ensure that an estimated 46,400 cylinders of depleted
UF6 are maintained in an environmentally responsible manner
by conducting annual cylinder inspections, and developing and
implementing options to repair cylinders exhibiting accelerated
corrosion. The Department is currently evaluating alternative long-term
management strategies for the material. In December 1997, we issued a
draft programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) for public
comment, and we expect to issue the final programmatic EIS and the
record of decision shortly.
Maintaining safe cylinder storage in the interim requires
substantial work, with costs ranging from $12 to $15 million per year.
Many of these cylinders date back to the Manhattan Project and have
been in outside storage for up to 50 years. To improve storage
conditions, one cylinder yard has been reconstructed, and three new
cylinder yards have been built to date. A pilot cylinder painting
program has been completed, and 12,000 cylinders are being painted over
3 years to reduce accelerated corrosion of the cylinders. We are also
applying advanced technologies to facilitate inspections, detect leaks,
and evaluate cylinder wall condition.
In addition to appropriations received for management of DOE-
generated depleted UF6, the Department received $66 million
in fiscal year 1998 from the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC
Inc.) for the management and disposition of about 11,200 additional
USEC-generated depleted uranium cylinders. In accordance with fiscal
year 1999 appropriations report language, the Department submitted, on
December 17, 1998, its initial plan for applying the $66 million
received from USEC. These funds are administered in accordance with the
terms of the two Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) and related
correspondence for activities required to accept and maintain the USEC
material. Also, in July 1998, the President signed Public Law 105-204,
requiring the Department to prepare a plan to begin by January 31,
2004, construction of plants at Portsmouth and Paducah to treat and
recycle the depleted UF6 inventory. The initial plan was
submitted to this Committee on March 12, 1999. The final plan will be
submitted in May 1999 and we are confident that it will meet the intent
expressed by Congress in the enacted legislation. The Department's
fiscal year 2000 budget requests $5 million to be used in addition to
the MOA funds to begin activities to begin the process of constructing
depleted UF6 conversion plants.
Other Uranium Programs activities at the gaseous diffusion plants
in Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee
include maintenance of facilities and grounds, cleaning legacy spills
in the leased areas of the diffusion site consistent with the Federal
Facilities Compliance Act, and guarding and protecting highly enriched
uranium stored at the Portsmouth site.
Since the Department shut down highly enriched uranium production
at the Portsmouth Plant in 1992, we have been removing the highly
enriched uranium residues and placing the facility in a safe shutdown
condition. Progress on the removal of highly enriched uranium has been
substantial, and all highly enriched uranium oxides not planned for
transfer to USEC will be removed from the site by the end of fiscal
year 1999.
More than 70 facilities at the enrichment plants were not leased by
USEC, Inc. and remain the responsibility of the Department. As
landlord, my office maintains these facilities and their associated
permits and is responsible for completing environmental corrective
actions. We are also responsible for satisfying financial obligations
associated with enrichment operations before the transition to USEC,
Inc. Chief among these obligations is payment of post-retirement life
and medical benefits to the Department's enrichment plant operating and
power supply contractors and assisting in litigation involving claims
against the Department for its prior operations. Lastly, after
assisting in the transfer of regulatory oversight of the leased
facilities and obtaining an initial certificate of compliance from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department continues to review and
update safety documentation as necessary, for the non-leased facilities
and assist the NRC in preparing annual congressional reports on the
status of the diffusion plants.
My office is also responsible for the management and disposition of
the Department's surplus natural uranium inventories. The Department
currently has an inventory of approximately 24 million pounds of
natural uranium, with a total value of about $260 million, that may be
sold in the commercial market. All of the uranium to be sold under this
program is currently held at the Portsmouth or Paducah gaseous
diffusion plants. The USEC Privatization Act and the Energy Policy Act
allow the Department to sell excess uranium stockpiles subject to
certain conditions. Before the Department sells any of its excess
natural uranium, the USEC Privatization Act requires the Secretary to
determine that `` * * * the sale of the material will not have an
adverse material impact on the domestic mining, conversion, or
enrichment industry, taking into account the sales of uranium under the
U.S./Russian Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Agreement and the Russian
Suspension Agreement * * * ''
Finally, my office is also responsible for administering the $325
million authorized in Public Law 105-277 for the purchase of natural
uranium pursuant to 1997 and 1998 deliveries under the U.S./Russian HEU
Agreement. The purchase of this material is contingent on the Russian
and Western uranium suppliers reaching a long-term agreement on
purchases of the natural uranium component of the low enriched uranium
delivered under the U.S./Russian Highly Enriched Uranium Purchase
contract. I understand these negotiations are going very well and an
agreement may be reached soon.
program direction
In fiscal year 2000, we are requesting $25 million for salaries,
travel, support services, and other administrative expenses for 144
Headquarters and Operations Office personnel providing technical
direction to uranium, isotope support, and other nuclear energy
programs. This budget item includes management and staff support funded
by other Department of Energy accounts (e.g., technical direction for
the operation of the Department's research reactors funded by the
Office of Energy Research); other Federal agencies; and foreign
governments. It also funds the activities of the Nuclear Energy
Research Advisory Committee (NERAC).
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy
to answer any questions. Again, I look forward to working with you and
the Subcommittee this year as we examine important questions and issues
concerning the allocation of federal resources to strengthen our
universities and colleges, protect our critical infrastructures, bring
vital isotopes and technology to the American people, support deep
space and related missions, and meet our important stewardship
responsibilities.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10AP13.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10AP13.010
Nuclear Energy: Essential in Reducing CO2 Emissions
[Utility pledges to reduce greenhouse gases]
Improvements to nuclear plants.................................... 33
Renewable energy.................................................. 4
Methane recovery, foresty and fly ash reuse....................... 9
Improvements to fossil plants..................................... 14
Improved energy efficiency........................................ 18
Miscellaneous and uncategorized................................... 22
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10AP13.009
Importance of nuclear power
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
I might just say here for the record, I do not see how we
could have a Department of Energy, and have such little
emphasis on nuclear power. It borders on being a sham, in my
opinion, not your fault.
Clearly, when the Administration puts such emphasis, a
budget emphasis, on climate change technology initiative,
departmental cross-cut, it is obvious to me that we have a
department that wants to be for nuclear, but does not want to
offend those who are against nuclear.
Even so this document Climate Control Program which did not
include any of the old programs, said zero for nuclear
research, and then said this year it is going up 100 percent.
Kind of interesting. Anybody looking at it who does not like
nuclear power would love it.
They would say, ``Look here, solar and renewable, as a
climate change initiative has $398 million in the President's
request, and that bad old nuclear stuff, it has $5 million. So
we are still keeping it under check. The Department put little
or no emphasis on nuclear power.'' When you put up charts that
show in controlling the ozone problem, that one of the biggest
and most significant contributors is nuclear power, and
probably will be necessary in the future for us to meet our
treaty obligations, if we ever do validate it in Kyoto.
So I do not make any bones about it. I have done enough
research now on nuclear power, traveled the country enough to
say, and I am for it, and I believe we are going to miss the
boat as new technologies arrive which are going to permit
safer, modular, easy-to-build nuclear power plants. A very
small group of people can contain the Department of Energy, can
control it, and indicate that so long as we do all these other
things they will support the Department, but if you do anything
in nuclear, then that is the end of the game.
I have also found, and I want this on the record, and I
would like Dr. Krebs in particular to hear this, but also you
Mr. Magwood, I have traveled now and delivered two major
addresses on this subject, one at Harvard and one at MIT. The
response from across this country has been overwhelmingly
positive from those who know how we are falling behind in
technology of this type. Now, you showed on one of your charts,
that the rest of the world is not falling behind, and they are
proceeding, using American ingenuity and American talent. You
just showed us a super plant in Japan--how long did it take to
build that plant?
Mr. Magwood. Just about 4 years.
Senator Domenici. Four years. Incidentally, for those who
wonder, they have a high safety record, a marvelous safety
record in Japan. So 4 years to build it and there is no
indication that they are cutting corners, it is that they have
accepted nuclear power as something that is necessary and have
adjusted their regulatory program accordingly.
I do not know what other things we are going to find in
other hearings that might be necessary to move ahead in this
area. But I assure you, we cannot continue with a policy that
says let us not offend those who are against nuclear power,
because they have some power base that is important.
I think what is important is that we do the right thing,
and I believe we are moving in that direction in our committee.
I think whether it be this year or next year, but eventually
within a very short number of years, the administration will
come to the reality that you have to move ahead with nuclear
power if you want to have a clean environment and meet some
obligations with reference to our contribution to that
pollution.
Thanks for permitting me to follow-on on your remarks, and
now we will go quickly to our testimony on the solar and
renewable program. I have already complimented you, Mr.
Reicher, and I want to do that again. I think you have found
that we were pretty concerned about some of the things they use
solar and renewable money for. It did not seem to some of us to
be promoting the future, but rather promoting some
organizations, and I would appreciate it very much if you would
tell us about that, but also give us your vision and view, a
realistic one I hope, with reference to these programs.
STATEMENT OF DAN REICHER
Mr. Reicher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first of all I
want to thank you for the confidence you have expressed in the
job we have been doing in the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. I am pleased to testify on the Energy and
Water Development subcommittee portion of that budget. As you
know, the other portion of the budget comes from the Interior
subcommittee.
program accomplishments
Mr. Chairman, 20 years ago renewable energy was generally
produced at a very high cost and in a very inefficient manner,
and advanced power delivery system components and high-
temperature super conductivity did not even exist. Furthermore,
the alternative transportation fuel sector was very immature.
We have come a long, long way in the last two decades. In large
measure, it is as a result of the support of the Congress and
the work of many national laboratories.
The cost of electric power from wind turbines in 1980
ranged from thirty to forty cents a kilowatt hour, and it has
dropped as a result of aggressive R&D, to between four and six
cents a kilowatt hour.
At this price, wind power systems are entering the
marketplace, expanding from early California sites, to states
ranging from Vermont to Alaska, and from Wisconsin to Texas. We
are also working on the next generation of turbines, which
would bring the cost of wind power to as low as two-and-a-half
cents a kilowatt hour by 2002. We are close to 20,000 megawatts
of wind worldwide, and Mr. Chairman, this chart shows why wind
is now the fastest growing energy source worldwide. Worldwide
we have installed the equivalent of scores of fossil fuel
plants, with more than 2,000 megawatts installed in 1998 alone
across the globe.
I am pleased to announce today that the New Mexico Energy
Office, through our broadbased solicitation has been selected
for negotiation to evaluate four potential wind sites. We
anticipate that the negotiations will be completed within the
next few weeks.
photovoltaic
As another example, Mr. Chairman, the first commercially
available photovoltaic panels in the early 1980s produced power
at a cost of one dollar per kilowatt hour. By fiscal year 2000,
these PV systems will be delivering electricity for as low as
twelve to twenty cents per kilowatt hour, and in the next
decade it should drop to below a dime, if we continue adequate
support, particularly the work at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and Sandia National Lab.
We now have large PV manufacturing plants in states as
diverse as Virginia, Maryland, California, Michigan, Delaware,
and Massachusetts. The solar industry is a fast-growing part of
the U.S. economy; however, while both domestic PV production
and U.S. product sales are up, we risk losing our world market
leadership, having dropped from 44 percent in 1996 to 40
percent in 1997, to 35 percent in 1998. Our potential loss of
this growing market is exacerbated by a Japanese PV budget,
which is three times what we spend in the U.S.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Reicher, I note that I have to make a
phone call at 10:30. We will come right back to you in about
two minutes.
Mr. Reicher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Senator Domenici. The hearing will come to order, please.
Would you continue, Mr. Reicher?
biofuels programs
Mr. Reicher. Production of ethanol is also on track for
widespread domestic use at very competitive prices. As you
know, Mr. Chairman, the use of ethanol is a very effective
means to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. To compete with
today's inexpensive gasoline, our biofuels program focuses on
the development of facilities which make ethanol from
agricultural and forest waste and from dedicated crops.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar and former CIA director, James
Woolsey highlighted the phenomenal potential for waste to
ethanol production in a recent article in foreign affairs. I
request that it be entered into the record, and you will find
it a very interesting discussion of how we can cheaply produce
ethanol from waste materials.
Senator Domenici. Very good.
[The information follows:]
The New Petroleum
[Richard G. Lugar and R. James Woolsey]
why change?
Oil is a magnet for conflict. The problem is simple--everyone needs
energy, but the sources of the world's transportation fuel are
concentrated in relatively few countries. Well over two-thirds of the
world's remaining oil reserves lie in the Middle East (including the
Caspian basin), leaving the rest of the world dependent on the region's
collection of predators and vulnerable autocrats. This unwelcome
dependence keeps U.S. military forces tied to the Persian Gulf, forces
foreign policy compromises, and sinks many developing nations into
staggering debt as they struggle to pay for expensive dollar-
denominated oil with lower-priced commodities and agricultural
products. In addition, oil causes environmental conflict. The
possibility that greenhouse gases will lead to catastrophic climate
change is substantially increased by the 40 million barrels of oil
burned every day by vehicles.
Ethanol has always provided an alternative to gasoline. In terms of
environmental impact and fuel efficiency, its advantages over gasoline
substantially outweigh its few disadvantages. But until now it has only
been practical to produce ethanol from a tiny portion of plant life--
the edible parts of corn or other feed grains. Corn prices have
fluctuated around $100 a ton in the last few years, ranging from half
to double that amount. Ethanol has thus been too expensive to represent
anything but a small, subsidized niche of the transportation fuel
market. In spite of recent reductions in the expense of ethanol
processing, the final product still costs roughly a dollar a gallon, or
about double today's wholesale price of gasoline.
Recent and prospective breakthroughs in genetic engineering and
processing, however, are radically changing the viability of ethanol as
a transportation fuel. New biocatalysts--genetically engineered
enzymes, yeasts, and bacteria--are making it possible to use visually
any plant or plant product (known as cellulosic biomass) to produce
ethanol. This may decisively reduce cost--to the point where petroleum
products would face vigorous competition.
The best analogy to this potential cost reduction is the cracking
of the petroleum molecule in the early twentieth century. This let an
increasingly large share of petroleum be used in producing high-
performance gasoline, thus reducing waste and lowering cost enough that
gasoline could fuel this century's automotive revolution. Genetically
engineered biocatalysts and new processing techniques can similarly
make it possible to utilize most plant matter, rather than a tiny
fraction thereof, as fuel. Cellulosic biomass is extremely plentiful.
As it comes to be used to produce competitively priced ethanol, it will
democratize the world's fuel market. If the hundreds of billions of
dollars that now flow into a few corners in a few nations were to flow
instead to the millions of people who till the world's fields, most
countries would see substantial national security, economic, and
environmental benefits.
paying for rogues
Energy is vital to a country's security and material well-being. A
state unable to provide its people with adequate energy supplies or
desiring added leverage over other people often resorts to force.
Consider Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, driven by his desire
to control more of the world's oil reserves, and the international
response to this threat. The underlying goal of the U.N. force, which
included 500,000 American troops, was to ensure continued and
unfettered access to petroleum.
Oil permeates every aspect of our lives, so even minor price
increases have devastating impacts. The most difficult challenge for
planners, policymakers, and alternative-energy advocates is the
transportation sector, which accounts for over 60 percent of U.S. oil
demand. The massive infrastructure developed to support gasoline-
powered cars is particularly resistant to modifications. It precludes
rapid change to alternative transportation systems and makes America
highly vulnerable to a break in oil supplies. During a war or embargo,
moving quickly to mass transit or to fuel-cell or battery-powered
automobiles would be impossible.
For most countries, excluding only those few that will be the next
century's oil suppliers, the future portends growing indebtedness,
driven by increasingly expensive oil imports. New demand for oil will
be filled largely by the Middle East, meaning a transfer of more than
$1 trillion over the next 5 years to the unstable states of the Persian
Gulf alone--on top of the $90 billion they received in 1996.
Dependence on the Middle East entails the risk of a repeat of the
international crises of 1973, 1979, and 1990--or worse. This growing
reliance on Middle Eastern oil not only adds to that region's
disproportionate leverage but provides the resources with which rogue
nations support international terrorism and develop weapons of mass
destruction and the ballistic missiles to carry them. Iraqi vx nerve
gas and Iranian medium-range missiles show how such regimes can convert
oil revenues into extensive and sophisticated armament programs.
is oil running out?
Optimists about world oil reserves, such as the Department of
Energy, are getting increasingly lonely. The International Energy
Agency now says that world production outside the Middle Eastern
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) will peak in 1999
and world production overall will peak between 2010 and 2020. This
projection is supported by influential recent articles in Science and
Scientific American. Some knowledgeable academic and industry voices
put the date that world production will peak even sooner within the
next five or six years.
The optimists who project large reserve quantities of over one
trillion barrels tend to base their numbers on one of three things:
inclusion of heavy oil and tar sands, the exploitation of which will
entail huge economic and environmental costs; puffery by OPEC nations
lobbying for higher production quotas within the cartel; or assumptions
about new drilling technologies that may accelerate production but are
unlikely to expand reserves.
Once production peaks, even though exhaustion of world reserves
will still be many years away, prices will begin to rise sharply. This
trend will be exacerbated by increased demand in the developing world.
As Daniel Yergin, Dennis Eklof, and Jefferson Edwards pointed out in
these pages (``Fueling Asia's Recovery,'' March/April 1998), even
assuming a substantial recession, increased Asian needs alone will add
enough demand by 2010 (9 million barrels per day) to more than equal
Saudi Arabia's current daily production.
The nations of the Middle East will be ready to exploit the trend
of rising demand and shrinking supply. The Gulf states control nearly
two-thirds of the world's reserves; the states bordering the Caspian
Sea have another several percent. Barring some unforeseen discoveries,
the Middle East will control something approaching three-quarters of
the world's oil in the coming century.
a whole new world
If genetically engineered biocatalysts and advanced processing
technologies can make a transition from fossil fuels to biofuels
affordable, the world's security picture could be different in many
ways. It would be impossible to form a cartel that would control the
production, manufacturing, and marketing of ethanol fuel. U.S.
diplomacy and policies in the Middle East could be guided more by a
respect for democracy than by a need to protect oil supplies and
accommodate oil-producing regimes. Our intrusive military presence in
the region could be reduced, both ameliorating anti-American tensions
and making U.S. involvement in a Middle Eastern war less likely. Other
states would also reap benefits.. Ukraine, rich in fertile land, would
be less likely to be dominated over time by oil-rich Russia. China
would feel less pressure to befriend Iran and Iraq or build a big navy
to secure the oil of the South China Sea. The ability of oil-exporting
countries to shape events would be increasingly limited.
The recent report by the President's Committee of Advisers on
Science and Technology (PCAST) predicted that U.S. oil imports will
approximately double between 1996 and 2030, from 8.5 million barrels
per day, at a cost of $64 billion, to nearly 16 million barrels per
day, at a cost of $120 billion. They estimated, however, that with
concentrated efforts in fundamental energy research and investment in
renewable fuel technologies, this could be reduced to 6 million barrels
per day in 2030. The report concluded,
A plausible argument can be made that the security of the
United States is at least as likely to be imperiled in the
first half of the next century by the consequences of
inadequacies in the energy options available to the world as by
inadequacies in the capabilities of U.S. weapons systems. It is
striking that the Federal government spends about 20 times more
R&D money on the latter problem than on the former.
fuel farmers
Cellulosic ethanol would radically improve the outlook for rural
areas all over the world. Farmers could produce a cash crop by simply
collecting agricultural wastes or harvesting grasses or crops natural
to their region. Agricultural nations with little to no petroleum
reserves would begin to see economic stability and prosperity as they
steadily reduced massive payments for oil imports. Even more striking
would be the redistribution of resources that would occur if farmers
and foresters produced much of the world's transportation fuel. We know
from the positive results of micro-credit institutions and other such
programs that even small increases in income can be a major boost to a
subsistence-level family's prospects. If family income is a few hundred
dollars a year, earning an extra $50-$100 by gathering and selling
agricultural residues to a cellulosic ethanol plant could mean a much
improved life. Such added income can buy a few used sewing machines to
start a business or a few animals to breed and sell. It can begin to
replace despondency with hope.
There are likely to be even larger effects on rural development if
biomass ethanol production can lead a shift toward using plant matter
for other products as well, such as biochemicals and electrical energy.
The cleanliness of renewable fuel technologies makes them particularly
attractive to countries that lack a sophisticated infrastructure or
network of regulatory controls. At least some facilities that process
carbohydrates should lend themselves to being simplified and sized to
meet the needs of remote communities. If such towns can produce their
own fuel, some of their fertilizers, and electricity, they will be far
better positioned to make their way out of poverty and to move toward
democracy and free enterprise. Local economic development can promote
political stability and security where poverty now produces
hopelessness and conflict.
A major strength of the new technologies for fermenting cellulosic
biomass is the prospect that almost any type of plant, tree, or
agricultural waste can be used as a source of fuel. This high degree of
flexibility allows for the use of local crops that will enrich the
soil, prevent erosion, and improve local environmental conditions.
Finally, as recession and devaluations overseas move the American
balance-of-payments deficit from the 1998 level--$1 billion every two
days--toward nearly $1 billion every day, there will be increased calls
for protectionism. The best way to avoid the mistakes of the 1930s is
to have a solid economic reason for increasing U.S. production of
commodities now bought abroad. The nearly $70 billion spent annually
for imported oil represents about 40 percent of the current U.S. trade
deficit, and every $1 billion of oil imports that is replaced by
domestically produced ethanol creates 10,000-20,000 American jobs.
easy being green
To be politically and economically acceptable, changes in fuel must
be understood by the American public to be affordable and not
disruptive. Most other countries require the same tough criteria--U.S.
difficulties in convincing developing nations to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions are directly related to the cost and the damage this would
have on their development plans. But if one of the most effective ways
to reduce greenhouse emissions also produced an unproved balance-of-
payments deficit and opportunities for rural development, economic
benefits would suddenly far exceed the costs. The political
acceptability of reducing emissions changes substantially when the
economics change. A shift to biomass fuels stands out as an excellent
way to introduce an environmentally friendly energy technology that has
a chance of both enjoying widespread political and economic support and
having a decisive impact on the risk of climate change.
Renewable fuels produced from plants are an outstanding way to
substantially reduce greenhouse gases. Although burning ethanol
releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it is essentially the same
carbon dioxide that was fixed by photosynthesis when the plants grew.
Burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, releases carbon dioxide that
otherwise would have stayed trapped beneath the earth.
If one looks at the complete life cycle of the production and use
of ethanol derived from feed grains, the only addition of carbon
dioxide to the atmosphere results from the use of fossil fuel products
in planting, chemical fertilizing, harvesting, and processing. But this
fossil fuel use can be substantial--up to seven gallons of oil may be
needed to produce eight gallons of ethanol. When ethanol is produced
from cellulosic biomass, however, relatively little tilling or
cultivation is required, reducing the energy inputs. It takes only
about one gallon of oil to produce seven of ethanol. There is a virtual
consensus among scientists: when considered as part of a complete cycle
of growth, fermentation, and combustion, the use of cellulosic ethanol
as a fuel, once optimized, will contribute essentially no net carbon
dioxide to the atmosphere.
According to a 1997 study done by five laboratories of the U.S.
Department of Energy, a vehicle powered by biomass ethanol emits well
under one percent of the carbon dioxide emitted by one powered by
gasoline. More surprising, however, is that ethanol produced from
biomass emits only about one percent of the carbon dioxide emitted by
battery-powered vehicles, since the electricity for those is commonly
produced by burning fossil fuels at another location. Although local
air quality is improved, total carbon dioxide emissions are not
curtailed; they are merely exported--for example, from Los Angeles to
the Four Corners. Unless the electricity to charge the car's batteries
is produced by renewable fuels or nuclear power, electric vehicles are
only 20 to 40 percent better as carbon dioxide emitters than gasoline-
powered cars. Biomass ethanol beats both by a factor of about 100,
fundamentally changing the global-warming debate.
fringe benefits
Cellulosic ethanol is the only alternative fuel that requires, at
most, very modest changes to vehicles and the transportation
infrastructure. One need not spend money retooling Detroit, nor spend
years awaiting the gradual replacement of older vehicles by those with
new technology. Nor does one need to modify or construct pipelines and
storage tanks to hold hydrogen as an alternate to petroleum. This
compatibility with today's infrastructure saves billions of dollars and
not just years, but decades. Moreover, there is nothing incompatible
between using ethanol now in internal combustion engines and using it
later in more efficient power systems, such as hybrids or fuel cells.
Essentially all automobiles currently on the road can use fuel
containing up to ten percent ethanol. But strict fuel economy standards
have encouraged the development and production of flexible fuel
vehicles (FFVs) that can use up to 85 percent ethanol. FFVs are already
in dealers' showrooms, containing (at no added cost to the consumer)
the minor engine modifications--a computer chip in the fuel system and
a fuel line made out of slightly different material--that make large-
scale ethanol use possible. Even pure ethanol vehicles are quite
practical. Brazil has 3.6 million on the road.
Corn ethanol will continue to serve an important role as ethanol
production shifts to cellulosic biomass. Commercialization of corn
ethanol has provided a base of industrial experience, talented people,
and infrastructure from which a much larger cellulosic ethanol industry
may be launched. For corn farmers, biomass is no threat; it will
probably be a boon. Indeed, there is likely to be a continuing, perhaps
even an expanding, market for corn ethanol because of the value of its
byproducts, such as animal feed. In general, the transition from corn
to cellulosic biomass and from a few producers to many is likely to
expand opportunities for American farmers.
bioengineered bugs
Ethanol's economic viability depends on making it cheaper to
produce. This can be achieved by making it out of cellulosic biomass,
which includes essentially anything that grows or has grown:
agricultural and forest residues, prairie grass, kudzu, waste wood,
used paper products, even much of urban waste. Last year, about 95
percent of the ethanol produced in the United States came from corn.
But agricultural residues and other wastes have low or even negative
cost--some you are paid to haul away--while crops like prairie grass
cost only a few tens of dollars a ton. This represents a substantial
savings in the raw material used in ethanol and puts it within the
range of oil, even inexpensive Persian Gulf oil.
Only recently have scientists developed the means to convert
cellulosic biomass efficiently into ethanol. The edible portions of
corn and other grains easily ferment into ethanol because of their
chemical make-up. Most biomass, however, consists of more recalcitrant
hemicellulose and cellulose, requiring both the breaking up of these
two fibers as well as the fermenting of both five- and six-carbon
sugars. This all happens in nature, but two parts of it--fermenting
five-carbon sugars and breaking up cellulose quickly--are technically
challenging. The first is now done by genetically engineered
microorganisms; this tool and other new techniques are now being
brought to bear on the second problem.
How far along are these developments? The current efficiency of
ethanol processing is somewhat analogous to that of petroleum refining
in the early 1900s: after the invention of thermal cracking made it
possible to use a major share of the petroleum molecule for gasoline
production but before the invention of catalytic cracking opened up an
even larger share of petroleum to exploitation. In short, we have come
a long way, but still have some inventing to do. The new, genetically
engineered microorganisms have already taken us far toward the
fermentation of ethanol from a wide range of plant material, laying the
groundwork for reductions in processing costs as well.
The new microorganisms, combined with other improvements in
processing, fundamentally change the equation for considering ethanol a
major transportation fuel. According to a recent study by Dartmouth
engineering professor Lee Lynd, utilizing only some of the nation's
agricultural and forest residues, with no additional land use, could
supply over 15 billion gallons of ethanol a year--more than ten times
the amount now produced from corn, and enough to replace around eight
percent of the nation's gasoline. (Not all residues would be used, of
course, since some must be left for long-term fertility.) Lynd also
calculated that taking a little over half of the 60 million acres of
cropland historically idled by federal programs for conservation and
other purposes, and using for ethanol production the mown grasses with
which much of this acreage is ordinarily planted, would produce enough
ethanol to fulfill around 25 percent of the country's annual gasoline
needs. These calculations use current automobile mileage. Lynd notes
that, further mileage improvements, achieved through a shift to hybrids
or fuel cells, could obviate the need for gasoline entirely, without
taking land from food crops or nonagricultural uses. The coproduction
of animal feed and biomass residues from alfalfa and switchgrass is
especially promising. There is, in short, no basis for the argument
that America does not have the land to produce enough ethanol to make a
very large dent in U.S. gasoline consumption.
Biofuels must be produced in ways that enhance overall
environmental quality. Sound land-use policies certainly must be
followed, to protect wildlife habitat and address other environmental
concerns. But professional land-use techniques should readily
accomplish this. Alternative fuels are often seen as an unpalatable
necessity representing a retrenched standard of living, forced upon us
in an age of limits. The opposite may be true. Utilization of renewable
fuels will make it possible for us to continue enjoying the freedom
afforded by private cars, even as the production of petroleum begins to
decline.
the right stuff?
Early this century, Henry Ford expected that ethanol, not gasoline,
would be the fuel of choice for automobiles. His reasons are evident.
The two fuels can be compared by examining three basic parameters--
energy content, octane, and vapor pressure. Pure ethanol contains 69
percent of the energy of gasoline. A lower energy content translates
into fewer miles to the gallon; in order to travel the same range,
about a 30 percent larger fuel tank is needed (as is used in Brazil).
Many scientists believe that optimizing engines for ethanol use will
largely compensate for this difference, in part because ethanol is a
simple combination of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. It is vastly less
complex than gasoline, which means that fine-tuning an engine to
squeeze every last drop of energy from ethanol is potentially easier.
Octane is the measure of a fuel's ability to oxidize hydrogen and
carbon molecules within a fraction of a second. When the reaction is
not simultaneous, ``engine knock'' and inefficient combustion result.
Ethanol has an octane rating 15 percent higher than gasoline's. In the
1920s ethanol was briefly considered as a large-scale additive to
gasoline to stop the knocking of the new higher compression engines.
However, to the detriment of public health, ethanol lost out to highly
toxic tetraethyl lead, for three reasons: in contrast to ethanol, only
a small amount of lead was needed as an additive; some were concerned
that corn-derived ethanol would compete for land and threaten the feed
grains market; and since Prohibition was in effect, many were also
worried about the security problems associated with maintaining large
volumes of what is essentially 200-proof vodka. Ethanol's ability to be
an effective fuel, however, was never an issue.
A third important fuel measurement is vapor pressure, or how
readily a liquid evaporates. A fuel's vapor pressure is directly linked
to the quantity of vehicle emissions, since over 40 percent of
automobile emissions result from evaporation, not tailpipe emissions.
Substituting ethanol for gasoline in any amount reduces tailpipe
emissions and thus reduces urban smog. Pure ethanol, and any gasoline-
ethanol mixture that is more than 22 percent ethanol, has a lower vapor
pressure than gasoline and would therefore reduce the amount of
evaporative emissions.
Somewhat confusingly, however, blends of ethanol and current
gasoline have a slightly higher vapor pressure than pure gasoline when
the mixture contains less than 22 percent ethanol, because of the
unique mixing properties of the liquids. Some studies show that low-
level blends of ethanol and gasoline (like gasohol, which is ten
percent ethanol) can actually worsen local air pollution, especially
the formation of low-level ozone. Consequently, in cities in the
Northeast and California, proposals to encourage the use of ethanol
blends have often fallen on deaf ears. Some environmentalists see them
as camouflaged subsidies for Midwestern corn growers at the expense of
the cities.
But although low-level ethanol blends present complex issues,
blends with more than 22 percent ethanol--which can be used in FFVs--do
not have the vaporization problem. Moreover, with different approaches
to refining and blending gasoline, a solution to the vaporization
problem may well exist even at mixtures below 22 percent. Finally,
ETBE--an oxygenate made from ethanol that improves gasoline
combustion--improves air quality both in tailpipe emissions and
vaporization, although its use means the fuel contains five to ten
percent ethanol.
Choosing to use cellulosic ethanol is not a choice to forsake more
advanced automobile propulsion technologies, such as hybrids and fuel
cells. Ethanol is compatible with both. Jeffrey Bentley, vice president
of Arthur D. Little, Inc., a company recently honored by the U.S.
government for its novel fuel-cell technology, stated that ``ethanol
provides higher efficiencies, fewer emissions, and better performance
than other fuel sources, including gasoline * * *. Where ethanol is
available, it will be the fuel of choice by consumers.'' As both
hybrids and fuel cells continue to improve, automobiles powered by them
may dramatically reduce air pollution. Ethanol's compatibility with
both makes moving toward cellulosic ethanol as a transportation fuel
much more desirable.
If government policies promote FFVs, moreover, a large fleet of
ethanol-compatible vehicles will be available much earlier than would
otherwise have been feasible. This is because FFVs can burn gasoline
now but can use cellulosic ethanol as it becomes available. Introducing
FFVs into the national fleet differs radically in timing from other
changes in transportation. Even if an ideal hybrid or fuel-cell vehicle
came on the market, the slow rate of turnover in the nation's cars
would mean that it would be many years before its introduction would
make a dent in overall fuel use. But moving now to substantially
increase the number of FFVs being produced would create the capability
to shift to cellulosic ethanol as soon as it is available at attractive
prices.
In addition, insofar as U.S. security and environmental concerns
are more with the consumption of problem-causing petroleum fuel than
with fuel in general, substituting cellulosic ethanol for gasoline
improves relevant ``mileage'' radically, even in internal combustion
engines. For example, an average automobile gets approximately 17 miles
per gallon and is driven approximately 14,000 miles per year, thus
using 825 gallons of gasoline annually. Suppose that same automobile
were an FFV using a mixed fuel containing 85 percent cellulosic
ethanol. Because of ethanol's lower energy content, it would use about
1,105 gallons of fuel, but only 165 would be gasoline. Such a vehicle
could be said to be getting, in a sense, over 80 miles per gallon--of
national-security-risk-increasing, carbon-dioxide-producing gasoline.
The one remaining barrier to widespread replacement of gasoline
with ethanol is production cost. Relying on feed grains makes this cost
comparatively high and volatile, since corn is subject to the caroming
behavior of feed markets. In 1995, its price of $100 a ton nearly
doubled, forcing a sharp curtailment in ethanol production. A partial
shift to biomass should circumvent such instabilities. Over the past 15
years, the cost of producing a gallon of ethanol has been cut in half,
to just over $1 a gallon wholesale. If, as predicted, the new
biocatalysts, low and steady raw material costs, and improved
processing let costs fall another 50 percent or so, ethanol could
compete with gasoline at today's prices. If oil prices rise in the next
century, gasoline could actually be at a substantial price
disadvantage.
Such a reduction of ethanol cost is entirely plausible for two
reasons. First, a simple comparison of energy content reveals that a
dry ton of biomass crops--$40 is a reasonable current average cost--is
comparable to oil at $10-13 a barrel. Agricultural wastes, in many
cases, are considerably cheaper than either: many are free or have
negative cost. So the overall costs of cellulosic biomass are likely to
at least be in the same ballpark as those of crude oil. Second, further
reductions in the cost of processing seem quite achievable. The current
cost of processing ethanol is significantly higher than the equivalent
price per barrel for oil. But this discrepancy reflects the maturity
and sophistication of the petroleum industry, developed over the past
century, as compared to the fledgling biofuels effort. Producing
ethanol is not inherently more complex than refining petroleum--in
fact, just the contrary. The world has simply invested far more effort
in the latter.
jump-start
While the private sector will provide the capital, and motivation
to move toward ethanol, the federal government has a vital role to
play. Market forces seldom reflect national security risks,
environmental issues, or other social concerns. The private sector
often cannot fund long-term research, despite its demonstrated
potential for dramatic innovation. Hence, the federal government must
increase its investment in renewable energy research, particularly in
innovative programs such as genetic engineering of biocatalysts,
development of dedicated energy crops, and improved processing. The
very small sums previously invested by the Departments of Energy and
Agriculture have already spawned dramatic advances. Every effort should
be made to expand competitive, merit-based, and peers reviewed science
and to encourage research that cuts across scientific disciplines.
Research is essential to produce the innovations and technical
improvements that will lower the production costs of ethanol and other
renewable fuels and let them compete directly with gasoline. At
present, the United States is not funding a vigorous program in
renewable technologies. The Department of Energy spends under two
percent of its budget on renewable fuels; its overall work on renewable
technologies is at its lowest level in 30 years. Because private
investment often follows federal commitment, industrial research and
development has also reached new lows. These disturbing trends occur at
a time of national economic prosperity when America has both time and
resources for investing in biofuels. The United States cannot afford to
wait for the next energy crisis to marshal its intellectual and
industrial resources.
Research alone will not suffice to realize cellulosic ethanol's
promise. The federal government should also modify the tax code to spur
private investment. The existing renewable alcohol tax credits have
recently been extended by Congress through 2007--which will help the
growth of the new biofuels industry and offer some protection in the
transition from grain to cellulosic biomass. But the tax credit
structure should facilitate the gradual adoption of cellulosic
ethanol--in time, it should not need subsidies. Government incentives
to produce FFVs should also be increased.
Finally, there must be a coordinated effort across the many
different federal agencies that oversee government laboratories and
regulatory agencies. The analogy to the semiconductor industry is
instructive. In 1987, Congress authorized the creation of a government-
industry partnership, the Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology
Association (SEMATECH). Under the direction of the Department of
Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency, SEMATECH pursued
fundamental research in semiconductor components and manufacturing
processes. Private firms with innovative ideas were encouraged to
devote research dollars to transform the idea into a commercial
reality. The few domestic semiconductor manufacturers were brought
together in forums where the companies could discuss technical hurdles
without sacrificing competitive advantage. Today, the success of
SEMATECH is evident, as the high-technology sector demonstrates.
Biofuels offer a similar opportunity.
Cellulosic ethanol is a first-class transportation fuel, able to
power the cars of today as well as tomorrow, use the vast
infrastructure already built for gasoline, and enter quickly and easily
into the transportation system. It can be shipped in standard rail cars
and tank trucks and is easily mixed with gasoline. Although somewhat
lower in energy content, it has a substantially higher octane rating
than gasoline, allowing for more efficient combustion. It can radically
reduce the emission of global warming gases, help reduce the choking
smog of our cities, and improve air quality. It is far less toxic than
petroleum, far less likely to explode and burn accidentally, and far
simpler physically and chemically, making possible simpler refining
procedures. If a second Exxon Valdez filled with ethanol ran aground
off Alaska, it would produce a lot of evaporation and some drunk seals.
Our growing dependence on increasingly scarce Middle Eastern oil is
a fool's game--there is no way for the rest of the world to win. Our
losses may come suddenly through war, steadily through price increases,
agonizingly through developing-nation poverty, relentlessly through
climate change--or through all of the above. It would be extremely
short-sighted not to take advantage of the scientific breakthroughs
that have occurred and that are in the offing, accelerate them, and
move smartly toward ameliorating all of these risks by beginning to
substitute carbohydrates for hydrocarbons. If we do, we will make life
far less dangerous and far more prosperous for future generations. If
we do not, those generations will look back in angry wonder at the
remarkable opportunity that we missed.
Mr. Reicher. As an example, construction recently began in
Louisiana of a first-of-a-kind production plant, with 80
percent cost share, that will produce ethanol from sugarcane
waste. We are also supporting the development of plants in
California and New York that will use rice draw and even
municipal solid waste to produce ethanol, again, which can be
used in automobiles, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
superconductivity
A final example of our technological progress involves
superconductivity. Through our innovative industry-laboratory
R&D program, superconductivity has rapidly moved from discovery
to utility-scale prototypes that carry 100 times the current of
conventional copper cables, and this has occurred in only 10
years. I am pleased to note that the world's first super-
conducting power line will be installed in Detroit next year.
While we are making tremendous strides in these
technologies, we still have much work to do. The competitive
revolution and power generation has led to drastic decreases in
the price of electricity. Still, renewable energy is already
making market in-roads in many states.
The world's largest wind installation is being developed in
Iowa. Major new commitments to solar energy in many states,
ranging from Massachusetts, to Nevada, to New Mexico, biomass
power plants in states such as New York, Ohio, Minnesota,
Vermont, and Indiana, and tens of thousands of new geothermal
heat pumps in homes, businesses, federal installations, and
schools in states as diverse as Wisconsin, Kentucky, North
Dakota, and South Carolina.
We are also aggressively pursuing integration of fossil
fuel with renewable energy technologies. Projects that combine
wind with natural gas and co-firing of biomass with coal
demonstrate the opportunities that exist between renewables and
fossil fuels.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the opportunity to provide
a more in-depth discussion of our successes at the upcoming
subcommittee hearing on the deployment of renewable
technologies.
fiscal year 2000 budget request
Our fiscal year 2000 budget request would accelerate the
development and market penetration of renewables and advanced
power systems. Our request is $325 million, up $53 million, or
19 percent, from this year's enacted level. I would note that
this year's request is a small fraction of what Congress
appropriated for renewables in the early 1980s.
Let me quickly give you some examples of major program
activities in fiscal year 2000. The photovoltaic program will
initiate the development of new high-efficiency, multi-junction
solar cells to capture and convert one-third of the sun's
energy to electricity.
That would be up from 8 to 15 percent conversion today. The
biopower program will accelerate development of advanced
conversion systems, such as co-firing biomass with coal. The
biofuels program will continue its waste ethanol projects and
advance its core conversion technology research with
universities and national labs.
I would also note that biofuels have the potential to
mitigate major environmental problems in the West. Due to
suppression of forest fires, large quantities of dead and
diseased trees and underbrush have accumulated in the forest,
creating a severe fuel loading problem, which threatens human
life and property, as well as wildlife and timber resources.
Working with states, labs, and industrial partners, we are
evaluating forest thinnings for conversion to ethanol and co-
generation of electricity.
The wind program will place added emphasis on fuel testing
small wind turbine prototypes to verify performance for remote
sites, cold weather, and off-grade energy needs. We will also
begin testing the next generation of large turbines for major
on-grid power production as a major step towards producing
power at two to three cents a kilowatt hour.
The geothermal program will focus more resources on high-
priority research and technology development for electric power
applications. The program will accelerate work to produce an
advanced drilling system capable of economically accessing the
vast geothermal resources below 10,000 feet. These initiatives
will enable the program to achieve its goal of producing power
at three cents a kilowatt hour.
I also want to stress, Mr. Chairman, that in fiscal year
2000 we proposed to more than double our hydropower budget to
help us maintain and enhance our nation's existing
hydroelectric generation, which today provides 10 percent of
U.S. electricity.
With more than 200 hydro facilities up for relicensing in
the next decade, early indicators suggest than environmental
concerns may cause regulators to reduce generation capacities
or relicense facilities unless fish mortality and water quality
concerns are met. We are developing and completing testing of
advanced environmentally friendly hydropower turbine prototypes
that will improve water quality and reduce fish kills.
In fiscal year 2000, our hydrogen request will continue a
strong core R&D effort to meet the goals in producing the cost
of hydrogen production, increasing the energy density and
efficiency of our storage systems, and developing low-cost
reliable sensors to detect hydrogen leaks. Hydrogen, Mr.
Chairman, has a phenomenal potential for clean power production
and vehicle propulsion.
sole source vs. competitively awarded grants
Mr. Chairman, when I became Assistant Secretary about 17
months ago, I realized that the office faced many management
challenges, and I made a major commitment to you to fix them.
We have listened to you, to industry, to our other
stakeholders, and we have delivered. This committee said we
were relying too heavily on non-competitive mechanisms to
disburse funds. We listened and we delivered a dramatic
reduction in our use of non-competitive funding mechanisms.
The Office of Power Technologies, which represents the bulk
of the funding from this subcommittee, has increased its level
of competition to 93 percent, including congressionally
directed activities.
Close to 100 activities previously funded by sole source
contracts within the Energy and Water Development account in
fiscal year 1998 will now be competitively awarded. In 1998, we
competed the $1 billion management and operating contract for
the National Renewable Energy Lab, the first time it was
competed in 15 years.
Across all of our offices we have reduced uncosted balances
by more than 58 percent since the beginning of fiscal year
1996. I am very proud of this progress.
We realize, however, that our work to improve the way we do
our business is by no means complete, and so we have
established a new office management improvement team, and we
are working with the National Academy of Public Administration
to improve our procurement. The National Academy of Sciences is
also conducting a broad review of our R&D programs.
We are also trying to break down the stovepipes that have
often separated our various offices. Our bioenergy initiative,
for example, is helping us to better integrate our important
work in bio-power, biofuels, and bioproducts.
prepared statement
So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we have accomplished a
great deal over the last two decades. We have set aggressive,
but achievable goals. We have improved our management, and we
have requested a realistic budget. We hope that in light of our
success and our commitment we can earn this subcommittee's
support.
I am happy to respond to questions. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much for an excellent
statement.
[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 2000 budget request for
the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE). I will address three areas related to Solar and
Renewable Resource Technologies: (1) the tremendous technological
progress that has been achieved to date; (2) what we will accomplish
with the resources proposed in the fiscal year 2000 budget; and 3)
important management improvements we have instituted within EERE.
Technology Progress
Twenty years ago renewable energy was generally produced at a very
high cost and in an inefficient manner. Advanced power delivery system
components and high temperature superconducting materials did not even
exist, and the alternative transportation fuel sector was very
immature. We have come a long way.
For example, the cost of electric power from wind turbines in 1980
ranged from $0.30-$0.40 per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Through aggressive R&D
by EERE and its industry partners on wind turbine aerodynamics,
materials development and computer-aided design, we have been able to
reduce the costs to between $0.04 and $0.06 per kWh. At this price,
wind systems are entering the marketplace, expanding from the early
California windfarms to include States ranging from Vermont to Alaska
and from Minnesota to Texas. Wind energy systems are also poised to
expand into other Great Plains and Northeastern locations, such as
Oklahoma, Wisconsin the Dakotas, Maine, and New York. We are also
working on Next Generation Turbines to reduce the cost of electricity
from wind even further--to as low as 2 \1/2\ cents per kWh by 2002.
This cost will enable wind to compete in many regions of the U.S.
As another example, the first commercially-available photovoltaic
(PV) systems in the early 1980s produced power at a cost of more than
$1.00 per kWh. By fiscal year 2000, PV systems will be delivering
electricity for as low as $0.12-$0.20 per kWh--depending upon the
specific technology--making clean, reliable PV systems competitive in
many remote and on- grid sites here in the U.S. and around the globe.
By 2010 we project PV-generated electricity will drop to $0.10 per kWh.
At this price solar would be a competitive power option in many urban
and suburban areas where transmission and distribution systems are
constrained and also in rural areas across the entire United States
where distribution costs are too high. Improved materials manufacturing
techniques and energy conversion improvements--most supported by DOE
and its laboratories--have made and will make these cost reductions
possible and have facilitated the resurgence of the U.S. PV industry as
the world's leader in this $1.2 billion global industry, which grew 95
percent between 1995 and 1998. With large manufacturing plants in
Virginia, Maryland, California, Michigan, Delaware and Massachusetts,
the solar industry is a growing part of the U.S. economy. However,
global competition is fierce. While both domestic PV production
capacity and U.S. product sales are up, the U. S. risks losing its
world market leadership, having dropped from 44 percent in 1996 to 40
percent in 1997 to 35 percent in 1998. Our potential loss of this
growing market is exacerbated by a Japanese PV budget that is three
times what we spend in the U.S. ($240 million in Japan in fiscal year
1999 vs. $72 million in the U.S. in 1999).
Production of ethanol is also on track for widespread vehicle use
at competitive prices. To compete with today's inexpensive gasoline,
our biofuels program focuses on the development of facilities that make
ethanol from agricultural and forest wastes and dedicated crops.
Construction recently began in Jennings, Louisiana, on a ``first-of-a-
kind'' production plant with 80 percent industry cost-sharing that will
produce ethanol from sugarcane waste. This 20-million gallon facility
is scheduled to come on-line in the year 2000 with initial ethanol
production costs of $1.00 per gallon, putting us well on-track for the
program's 2010 production cost goal of $0.72 per gallon. We are also
supporting the development of demonstration plants in California and
New York that will use rice straw and municipal solid waste to produce
ethanol. Additionally, we are studying ways to add facilities to
existing corn-ethanol plants to produce ethanol from corn stalks and
leaves. R&D on ethanol technology is very important to our future
energy security. By 2020 net U.S. oil imports, which accounted for
about 50 percent of domestic petroleum consumption in 1998, will grow
to 65-70 percent of domestic petroleum consumption--with an annual oil
bill ranging from $130 billion to more than $180 billion in current
dollars.
A final example of technological progress involves
Superconductivity, a property of certain special materials allowing
them to carry large electrical currents without resistance energy
losses. While we have known about superconductivity for nearly a
century, hurdles such as ultra-low temperature requirements stymied the
development of commercial applications. Then Nobel prize-winning
discoveries in the late 1980s opened the possibility for practical uses
of these technologies to improve the efficiency and performance of the
electricity sector. Through EERE's innovative industry/laboratory R&D
program, High-Temperature Superconductivity (HTS) has rapidly moved
from discovery to utility-scale prototypes that carry 100 times the
current of conventional cable in only ten years. I am pleased to note
that the world's first superconducting power line will be installed in
Detroit in the fall of 2000. Installed more widely, superconducting
power lines and equipment would increase capacity, efficiency and
reliability during the crucial period ahead when competition will bring
new (and unplanned) stresses on our national electrical system.
While we are making tremendous strides in these technologies, we
still have much work to do. The competitive revolution in the power
generation sector has led to drastic decreases in the price of power
from new sources of generation. For example, natural gas-fired
combustion turbine technology produces electricity for about $0.03 per
kWh. Given the low domestic market prices of fossil fuels, market
penetration of renewable energy technologies is occurring more quickly
in remote locations domestically and also overseas where the cost of
electricity is generally much higher than in the U.S. Still, renewable
energy is already making market inroads in many states: the world's
largest wind installation in Iowa; major new commitments to solar
energy in at least 15 states ranging from Massachusetts to Illinois to
Arizona; biomass power plants in states such as New York, Ohio,
Minnesota, Vermont and Indiana; and tens of thousands of new geothermal
heat pumps in homes, businesses, schools and Federal installations in
states as diverse as Indiana, New Jersey, Kentucky, Nevada and Utah.
We are also aggressively pursuing integration of fossil fuel with
renewable energy technologies. Projects such as hybrid wind/natural gas
and co-firing of biomass with coal demonstrate the opportunities
between renewables and fossil fuels.
With this remarkable progress over the past two decades, we have
established a firm foundation for major market success of renewables
and advanced power delivery systems in the coming years.
Fiscal Year 2000 Program Focus
Our fiscal year 2000 budget request of $398.9 million--an 18.7
percent increase over fiscal year 1999--would help us accelerate the
market success of renewables and advanced power delivery systems. The
budget request has three central objectives. First, we will accelerate
U.S. technological progress by funding, in cooperation with industry
and other partners, a balanced and integrated portfolio of research and
development on renewable energy and power delivery technologies capable
of meeting the diverse needs of the competitive electricity marketplace
in the 21st Century. 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.
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 in other countries. The programs will help us achieve
two important goals for 2010: (1) Tripling the installed U.S.
electricity generation capacity of geothermal, biomass, wind, and
solar; and (2) developing ethanol from wastes and dedicated crops as a
cost competitive (less than $0.75 per gallon) domestically-produced
blended transportation fuel.
Some examples of major program activities in fiscal year 2000 that
will help us achieve these objectives include:
Photovoltaics.--The photovoltaic program will initiate development
of new high-efficiency, multi-junction solar cells to capture and
convert \1/3\ of the sun's energy to electricity (the concentrator cell
will be 33 and \1/3\ percent efficient). The program will also continue
efforts to reduce manufacturing costs and increase durability of PV
systems, extending their lifetimes to greater than 25 years by 2004.
Biopower/Biofuels.--In fiscal year 2000, the biopower program will
accelerate development of advanced conversion systems such as co-firing
with coal that offer economic, near-term reductions in carbon
emissions. In addition, the program will also continue its three highly
cost-shared, biomass power projects in Minnesota, Iowa, and New York
that will confirm the economic feasibility of integrated biomass power
projects and provide a vital stimulus to rural America.
The fiscal year 2000 biofuels program will continue its waste-to-
ethanol and corn ethanol projects, and advance its core conversion
technology research with universities and the national laboratories
through a highly competitive process. It will also co-fund the regional
biomass and feedstock development programs essential for
geographically-appropriate, genetically superior biomass material.
Wind.--In fiscal year 2000, the Wind program will place added
emphasis on field testing small wind turbine prototypes to verify
performance for remote site, cold weather, and off-grid energy needs.
The first Next Generation Turbine prototypes--large turbines for major
on-grid power production--will also begin testing, a major step towards
achieving the market- driven 2002 goal of 2\1/2\ cents per kWh in good
winds.
Geothermal.--The Geothermal program will focus more resources on
high-priority research and technology development for electric power
applications. In particular, the program will initiate a cost-shared
enhanced geothermal system (EGS) at an existing geothermal field,
putting the U.S. at the forefront of global competition to achieve the
first full-scale EGS capable of sustained operation. Additionally, the
program will accelerate work to produce an advanced drilling system
capable of economically accessing the vast geothermal resources below
10,000 feet. These initiatives will enable the program to achieve its
long-term strategic goals, including the technology-based cost target
of $0.03 per kWh.
Hydropower.--In fiscal year 2000, we are more than doubling our
hydropower budget request to help us maintain and enhance our Nation's
existing hydroelectric generation which today provides 10 percent of
U.S. electricity. With more than 200 hydropower facilities up for
relicensing in the next decade, early indicators suggest that
environmental concerns may cause regulators to reduce generation
capacities for relicensed facilities unless fish mortality and water
quality concerns are met. EERE is developing and completing testing of
advanced environmentally-friendly hydropower turbine prototypes that
will improve water quality and reduce fish kill so that we can retain
our current hydropower capacity of 75,000 MW.
Hydrogen.--In fiscal year 2000, our request will continue a strong
core research and development effort to meet the goals of reducing the
cost of hydrogen production, increasing the energy density and
efficiency of solid state storage systems, and developing low-cost,
reliable sensors to detect hydrogen leaks for a number of applications.
The program will also support the accelerated development of hydrogen
vehicle fueling stations in a 50/50 cost-shared venture with industry,
vehicle mounted storage systems, reversible fuel cells that can be
integrated with renewable energy systems and small fuel cells for
remote power applications.
Superconductivity.--In fiscal year 2000 US leadership in this
critical 21st Century technology will be visible through several ground
breaking program successes. In addition to the Detroit cable project
already mentioned, an advanced and environmentally friendly 10 megavolt
ampere transformer will be installed in a Milwaukee substation--the
world's first to supply power to a manufacturing facility. Also,
testing will continue of the world's largest superconducting motor
(1000 horsepower--installed fiscal year 1999). Superconducting
transformers and motors will be half the size of conventional
alternatives and have only half the energy losses. Another expected
breakthrough will be the continuous manufacture of an entirely new type
of superconducting ``tape'' based on discoveries at Los Alamos and Oak
Ridge National Laboratories. This new ``tape,'' which can now only be
made in short samples, offers unprecedented performance potential: two
thin one centimeter-wide metal tapes coated with this new
superconducting material will be able to carry the same electric load
as a very large, complex copper cable.
Competitive Solicitation.--In fiscal year 2000 we propose to create
an integrated Competitive Solicitation field validation program that
combines the best elements of the earlier Renewable Indian Energy
program and the Federal Buildings and Remote Power programs. Highly
cost-shared, and technologically and regionally-diverse projects under
this new solicitation will accelerate the development and use of the
most promising renewable and hybrid renewable/fossil energy systems,
leveraging as much as $30 million annually in new renewable energy
projects.
Management Improvements
When I became Assistant Secretary seventeen months ago, I realized
that EERE faced many management challenges and committed to fix them.
This Subcommittee also highlighted several issues. We have listened to
you--and to industry and other partners--and we have delivered.
Competition.--This Committee said that EERE was relying too heavily
on non-competitive mechanisms to disburse funds. We listened and we
delivered a dramatic reduction in our use of non-competitive funding
mechanisms. As you can see from the chart below, our use of broad-based
solicitations, program management directives, and an increased emphasis
on competition for laboratory subcontracts, has brought our level of
competitive awards by the Office of Power Technologies (OPT) to 93
percent (including Congressionally-directed activities). This
represents a reduction in OPT's discretionary use of sole source
mechanisms by almost 60 percent in one year. Close to 100 activities
previously funded by sole-source contracts within EERE's Energy and
Water account in fiscal year 1998 will be competitively awarded in
fiscal year 1999. This is a major success.
In 1998 we also competed the $1 billion management and operating
contract for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the first time
it has been competed in 15 years. The resulting contract with a
partnership of three outstanding organizations--the Midwest Research
Institute, Battelle, and Bechtel--strengthens the laboratory's
management team and sharpens its mission focus.
Uncosted Balances.--This Committee also said that EERE's uncosted
balances were too high. Again, we listened and we delivered. Across all
of EERE, we have reduced uncosted balances by more than 58 percent
since the beginning of fiscal year 1996.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10AP13.005
Within the Solar and Renewables R&D account we have made even
greater progress, reducing uncosted balances by 62 percent since fiscal
year 1996. By the end of fiscal year 1999, we will have reduced these
balances by more than $175 million versus the beginning of fiscal year
1996. This Committee also highlighted the use of support service
contractors. We listened and significantly reduced the proportion of
funding directed to support service costs and established more
streamlined procurement and business practices.
Management Practices.--While we are proud of the progress we have
made, we realize that our work to improve the management of EERE is by
no means complete. For example, I have just established a new
Management Improvement Team composed of senior managers from across the
various EERE sectors as well as representatives from our National
Laboratories, the Golden Field Office, and various DOE Offices to
improve the corporate management processes and procedures. We expect
recommendations from this team will increase our ability to
competitively award even more funding in fiscal year 2000 on a
competitive basis. Also, we are working with the National Academy of
Public Administration (NAPA) to undertake an independent review of our
financial management and procurement practices. This review should be
completed by the end of October 1999.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10AP13.006
Planning and Evaluation.--We are also developing smarter strategies
and carefully measuring progress in our core mission. We are developing
a new office-wide strategic plan and using technology ``roadmaps''--
jointly developed with industry--to ensure we are in step with the
needs and goals of the marketplace. We are making greater use of the
Government Performance and Results Act and peer-reviewed measures of
our technology progress. For example, we have commissioned the National
Academy of Science to conduct an independent peer review of the Office
of Power Technologies R&D programs. These tools and practices will help
provide the data and analysis necessary to help make smart--and
sometimes difficult--management choices such as our recent decision to
end work on the solar power tower program in fiscal year 2000. Finally,
just as any business must do to stay competitive, we are working with
the Department's Workforce 21 Initiative to ensure we have the right
training, skills, and human resources available to fulfill our
challenging missions.
Program Integration and Expanded Partnerships.--One of our major
management challenges is breaking through the ``stovepipes'' that often
separate our various missions. This is important because the solutions
to many of our renewable energy and energy efficiency challenges cross
technology and market lines. For example, in the biomass area both the
private sector industries (i.e., fuels, electric power, and chemical
products) and our own power, industrial, and transportation programs
have traditionally operated separately from each other. Leading
initiatives designed to better integrate our work include those in
Bioenergy, EnergySmart Schools, and Distributed Power.
As part of our efforts to integrate our biomass work, we are
launching a crosscutting Bioenergy Initiative. Biomass represents a
tremendous, untapped, domestic resource for our energy future,
particularly as an alternative to imported oil. By investing in a
bioenergy industry today, we can cultivate and harness renewable
biomass resources to fuel our cars, power our homes and businesses, and
supply our chemical needs in the 21st Century. The Department of
Energy, along with other federal agencies and private partners, is
launching a national partnership to develop an integrated industry to
produce power, fuels, and chemicals from crops, trees, and wastes. By
making a ``ton of biomass'' a viable market competitor to a barrel of
imported oil, this initiative will help grow the U.S. economy,
strengthen U.S. energy security, protect the environment, and
revitalize rural America. This effort will integrate the work from
existing DOE R&D in transportation biofuels, biomass power and programs
with the forest products and agriculture industries. It is only through
the integration of these efforts that biomass will be an effective
competitor to imported fossil fuels.
The EnergySmart Schools initiative is an EERE-led partnership that
brings together public and private sector resources to reduce the $6
billion in annual energy bills of our Nation's schools and redirect the
savings to our children's education. EnergySmart Schools will help to
reduce energy consumption and expand the use of clean energy
technologies in new and existing schools, improve the learning
environment, and increase awareness of energy-related issues. It is
estimated that this initiative--which will coordinate and build on the
work of existing EERE programs such as Rebuild America, the State
Energy Program, the Million Solar Roofs Initiative, Clean Cities,
Energy Star, and the and potential projects under the proposed Solar
Program Support/Competitive Solicitation program--will help schools
save up to $1.5 billion in energy costs and lower carbon emissions by
10 million metric tons by 2010 as they incorporate state-of-the-art
energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. Through the
EnergySmart Schools partnership, we will provide technical assistance,
demonstrate renewable and energy efficiency technologies, and offer
guidance on financing and building design.
EERE is also pursuing a new initiative to encourage the development
and use of distributed power technologies--i.e., the generation of
power at or near the point of use. Many technologies can be used in a
distributed manner, including wind, photovoltaics, combined heat and
power, concentrating solar power, fuel cells, gas microturbines,
hydrogen production and storage, battery and flywheel energy storage,
and hybrid renewable/fossil power systems. The benefits of the
distributed approach to power generation include reduced consumer costs
through increased system efficiencies, reduced environmental emissions,
and increased reliability. Our approach to achieving the benefits is
three-pronged: (1) R&D to facilitate introduction of distributed power
applications, such as the development of modular renewable and fossil
energy systems that can be scaled to need; (2) addressing crosscutting
regulatory/institutional issues such as our work with the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) to develop consensus-based
interconnection standards; and (3) developing policy options for
possible inclusion in electricity restructuring legislation.
Another challenge we are pursuing is to better leverage our
resources and facilitate technology deployment by expanding
partnerships with Federal, State, industry, and other entities. These
partnerships involve other Offices within the Department of Energy
including the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) and the Office of Science
(OS) as well as other Federal agencies including the Department of
Defense, NASA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department of
the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency. For example, we
work with FE as we implement our advanced geothermal drilling and
biomass co-firing with coal programs, and OS is a partner for
fundamental research on photovoltaic and superconducting materials and
biomass feedstock genetics.
At the State and regional level, we have developed closer working
relationships with State and tribal organizations including the
Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer
Institutions (ASERTI), the California Energy Commission (CEC), the New
York State Energy Research and Development Agency (NYSERDA), and the
Council of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT). For example, the Wind Energy
program is coordinating R&D with the California Energy Commission and
an industry partner to develop one of EERE's two Next Generation
Turbines.
Of course, in addition to our National Laboratories, our programs
will continue to tap the innovation and expertise available at the many
fine universities across the country. We will also continue to leverage
resources and ensure market acceptance of the technologies we develop
by pursuing cost-shared partnerships with the Nation's industries,
utilities and other power providers, and other leaders in the energy
field. For example, we are working with 18 universities across the U.S.
to research innovative new photovoltaic conversion technologies and we
have an extensive research partnership with the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) to accelerate development of superconducting wire,
transmission cables, and motors.
overview of the fiscal year 2000 request for solar and renewable energy
technologies
Our fiscal year 2000 program level for Solar and Renewable Energy
Technologies is $398.9 million--an increase of $62.9, or 18.7 percent
million over fiscal year 1999. The bulk of the EERE Energy and Water
Development Appropriation supports the work of the Office of Power
Technologies ($325.2 million). This office works with electric service
providers and related industries to advance clean, competitive and
reliable power technologies. 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,
real-time power system controls, 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.
Included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriation is $53.4
million for the Office of Transportation Technologies to support R&D on
production of biomass-based transportation fuels. The requested funds
also include $19.2 million for Program Direction, which provides the
Federal staffing resources and associated funding to support the
management and oversight of the Solar and Renewable programs.
Table 1 on the following page summarizes our total fiscal year 2000
budget request, together with the appropriations for fiscal year 1999
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 1999 appropriations and describe program
specifics and reasons for the requested funding change.
SOLAR AND RENEWABLE RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------------
2000 1999-2000
1998 1999 Request Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solar Building Technology 2.6 3.6 5.5 +1.9
Research...................
Photovoltaic Energy Systems. 64.7 72.2 93.3 +21.1
Concentrating Solar Power... 16.3 17.0 18.9 +1.9
Biomass/Biofuels Energy 27.8 31.5 39.0 +7.5
Systems--Power Systems.....
Wind Energy Systems......... 32.1 34.8 45.6 +10.8
Renewable Energy Production 3.0 4.0 1.5 -2.5
Incentive..................
Solar Program Support \1\... ......... ......... 10.0 +10.0
International Solar Energy 1.4 6.4 6.0 -0.4
Program \2\................
Geothermal Energy Systems... 28.7 28.5 29.5 +1.0
Hydrogen Research........... 15.8 22.3 28.0 +5.7
Hydropower Development...... 0.7 3.3 7.0 +3.7
Renewable Indian Energy 3.9 4.8 ......... -4.8
Resources \1\..............
Electric Energy Systems and 42.3 40.1 41.0 +0.9
Storage....................
Federal Buildings/Remote 4.9 4.0 ......... -4.0
Power Initiative \1\.......
-------------------------------------------
Power Technologies.... 245.2 272.3 325.2 +52.9
===========================================
Biomass/Biofuels Energy 30.3 41.8 53.4 +11.6
Systems--Transportation....
National Renewable Energy 3.2 3.9 1.1 -2.8
Laboratory.................
Program Direction........... 15.7 18.1 19.2 +1.1
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Solar and 294.4 336.0 398.9 +62.9
Renewable Energy.....
-------------------------------------------
Use of Prior Year Balances.. -24.4 ......... -0.8 -0.8
-------------------------------------------
Total, Solar and 269.9 336.0 398.1 +62.1
Renewable Energy.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The fiscal year 2000 Budget proposes to consolidate the Renewable
Indian Energy Resources and the Federal Buildings and Remote Power
programs through a competitive solicitation under Solar Program
Support ($10.0). This budget line would also include $2M for
electricity restructuring.
\2\ Excludes funding for international energy efficiency programs under
Energy Conservation.
solar building technology research
The request for Solar Building Technology Research is $5.50
million, an increase of $1.90 million from current levels. This funding
will be used to make solar water heaters an economically attractive
option for families across the U.S. by 2003. It will enable the
Department to develop a new generation of solar water heaters that is
50 percent less expensive than today's technology (from $0.08/kWh to
$0.04/kWh delivered energy cost). This would enable a family to buy a
solar water heater for about $1,000 and see their investment returned
in energy savings within four years. To accomplish this, the program is
divided into three areas: Technology Development ($4.7 million), Field
Validation ($0.5 million), and Quality Assurance ($0.3 million).
Within Technology Development (up $1.2 million), researchers will
select two of the concepts under study that are most likely to enable
the program to reach its cost goal. Development of these concepts will
then become the focus of the program during fiscal year 2000. It is
likely that one or both of these systems will use polymers, including
advanced plastics, as a replacement for the steel, glass, and copper
that make up current solar water heaters. Since polymers are
inexpensive and light weight, their use will reduce the cost of the
solar collector and lower the cost of installation. Work will include
testing to determine performance, ability to withstand freezing and
overheating, and weather degradation. Materials research will be an
important aspect of this work as several polymers formulations will be
tested to see which are best suited to long term exposure to solar
radiation.
In Field Validation (up $0.5 million) cooperative projects with
utilities and builders will address some of the technical barriers that
limit the use of solar water heaters. A Cooperative Research and
Development Agreement with the Salt River Project (a utility serving
the Phoenix region) will be completed that develops a roof integrated
solar water heater that can provide hot water at a levelized cost of
$0.06 to $0.07/kWh. This project, as well as projects with the
Wisconsin Public Service and Lakeland Electric, is driven by
restructuring of the electric industry as utilities seek to provide
additional products and services to their customers. In addition, solar
technical support will be provided to builders such as Pulte Homes, the
second largest builder of U.S. homes, and CAVCO, one of the largest
builders of manufactured homes. All efforts in this portion of the
program are limited to R&D activities that include system evaluation,
analysis of system performance, and assistance in solving problems such
as materials degradation and corrosion that industry cannot address by
itself.
Quality Assurance (up $0.2 million) funding will be used to address
the reliability of solar water heaters, a primary customer concern.
Performance and repair data from hundreds of systems that have operated
for at least five years will be analyzed to identify the components and
subsystems most in need of improvement. This data will be used to
refine computer models that predict the reliability of solar water
heating systems. This information will help the solar industry improve
the reliability of its product and provide guidance to the researchers
developing the new generation of solar water heaters.
photovoltaic energy systems
The request for Photovoltaic Energy Systems is $93.3 million, an
increase of $21.1 million from fiscal year 1999. The Photovoltaic
Energy Systems program conducts a balanced portfolio of R&D activities
that help U.S. industry to develop photovoltaic technology as a clean,
competitive, reliable energy supply option, and to maintain
technological leadership over strong international competition. The
increase in fiscal year 2000 will primarily be used to support basic
research to dramatically reduce dollar per watt values for
photovoltaics in the long term, and to support technology development
and deployment to incrementally reduce costs in the near term. 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 ($20.3 million), Advanced Materials and
Devices ($27.0 million), and Collector Research and Systems Development
($46.0 million).
The Photovoltaic Energy Systems program is working hard to increase
competition and reach out to a broader cross section of the industry.
For example, the Million Solar Roofs Initiative is forming new
partnerships all across the country with builders, solar equipment
manufacturers, city planners, financial institutions and utilities.
Furthermore, the fiscal year 2000 increases for basic research will be
used to issue competitive solicitations to a larger section of the
research community seeking new ideas on non-conventional, breakthrough
technologies.
Today, the U.S. stands as the world leader in photovoltaic
technology, with our industry garnering 35 percent of total sales in
1998. This has not always been the case, however, nor is it guaranteed
to continue. Leadership in photovoltaic technology was lost in the mid
1980's because of strong international support for PV development. As a
result of our 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.
However, in the past two years U.S. leadership has eroded, from 44
percent of total sales in 1996 to 40 percent in 1997 to 35 percent in
1998.
The U.S. photovoltaic industry faces intense competition from Japan
and Europe, which are aggressively researching and marketing their PV
technology. For example, Japan's fiscal year 1999 budget for
photovoltaics is 28.54 billion yen (approximately $240 million), which
is more than three times our funding level. Half of Japan's budget is
used to subsidize the purchase of residential PV systems. As a result,
Japan's PV industry sales grew 40 percent in 1998 and are on pace to
take over world leadership by the end of this year.
To maintain U.S. leadership--and to penetrate new, larger markets
such as energy service providers 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 (up $9.3 million) 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, layer growth processes,
semiconductor theory and material characterization methods.
Starting in fiscal year 2000 we will begin a High Performance PV
Initiative to support research to substantially increase the efficiency
of two key technologies: large area, single crystal interconnected thin
films, and multi junction concentrator cells made from elemental (III-
V-based) materials such as antimony, arsenide, gallium, phosphorous,
indium, or nitrogen. Fundamental research aimed at major innovations is
required to essentially double the conversion efficiency of thin films
from their current 8-10 percent to 15-20 percent, and to increase III-
V-based multi junction cells from 30 percent to 40 percent under 500X
solar concentration. Successful development of a 40 percent efficient
four-junction laboratory cell will allow a 33 percent efficient
concentrating module under a solar concentration of 500X, thereby
capturing one third of the sun's energy. Both the enhanced thin film
approach and the multi junction III-V approach will yield dramatically
reduced dollar per watt values for terrestrial photovoltaics. Also new
in fiscal year 2000 will be a competitive solicitation on basic R&D for
breakthrough, non-conventional PV technologies, such as liquid cells,
polymers, biochemical and biomimetic processes, etc., aimed at dramatic
cost reductions. Both of these new basic research activities will be
core program efforts to meet the Program's long term goals of $0.06/kWh
electricity.
Advanced Materials and Devices (no change) will continue
collaborative research with industry to improve device efficiency and
stability, particularly for large-area, thin-film deposition systems.
The centerpiece of this activity is the Thin Film Partnership Program,
a government/industry/university partnership program to accelerate
development of 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 $11.8
million) will be used to help reduce manufacturing costs of
photovoltaics, develop building integrated products, accelerate
electric utility use of photovoltaics, and expand work in support of
the million solar roofs initiative. 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 this cost-shared R&D with industry, average
manufacturing costs for DOE partners have declined by 50 percent since
PVMaT began and are expected to decline by another 40 percent by 2004.
In fiscal year 2000, a PVMaT competitive solicitation to develop new in
line process diagnostics and state-of-the-art measurement and
characterization equipment needed for module scale-up will be issued,
resulting in 5-7 new industry cost-shared contracts. A new solicitation
will be issued for highly leveraged utility projects designed to
provide utilities with hands-on experience with PV systems, and
validate technical and economic performance in specific high-value
applications such as building integrated applications. A portion of the
increase will also be used to fully fund Phase 3 building integrated
contracts under the PV:BONUS program, which supports cost-shared
efforts with industry 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 $1.5 million) will be targeted at specific
activities that support the 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 become an
example of technology developed here but exploited abroad.
In fiscal year 2000, the Million Solar Roofs Initiative will work
with 25 State and Local Partnerships across the nation which have made
preliminary commitments to install over 750,000 solar energy systems by
2010. These Partnerships work to eliminate barriers to the use of solar
energy and create market demand. The members of the Partnerships often
include utilities and energy services companies, builders and
developers, financial institutions, solar equipment manufacturers and
distributors, local government, state and Federal agencies and other
solar energy interests. Work will be expanded that includes development
of additional financing mechanisms, elimination of technical barriers
like the safe interconnection of photovoltaics to the utility grid,
technical training and establishment of net metering. Establishment of
the national Million Solar Roofs registry to track system installations
will also be fully implemented. Additionally, the Initiative will also
work to ensure that solar energy systems meet the requirements and
standards of state and local codes and standards. To ensure that the
Initiative is responsive to the State and Local Partnerships, the DOE
Regional Support Offices will coordinate Federal support and provide
technical assistance. As the largest single user of energy in the U.S.,
the Federal government is committed to installing 20,000 solar energy
systems on its own facilities by 2010. In fiscal year 2000, the
Initiative has an interim goal of 2,000 Federal solar energy
installations.
concentrating solar power program
The fiscal year 2000 funding request for the Concentrating Solar
Power (CSP) Program (formerly the Solar Thermal Energy Systems program)
is $18.85 million (up $1.85 million). The CSP Program leads the
national effort to develop clean, competitive, and reliable power
options using concentrated sunlight. Ranging in size from several
kilowatts to multi-megawatt installations, CSP systems can satisfy
substantial domestic and international energy needs, contributing up to
20,000 MW by the year 2020. Consequently, CSP systems are also expected
to make a significant contribution to the U.S. effort to reduce carbon
emissions in the early part of the 21st Century. An advantage of
concentrating solar power systems is the capability of being deployed
as either a distributed power system or as a dispatchable power system
(when hybridized), or both.
In response to the changes brought on by utility restructuring and
the resulting emphasis on competition, the CSP program has revised its
focus from developing specific technologies to providing technology
options to U.S. industry that will enable them to compete in near-term
renewable energy markets and further reduce the costs for long-term
penetration of broader energy markets. This paradigm shift has led to
the four new program technology paths described below.
Under the first path, Distributed Power Systems, ($6.7 million
requested, up $1.4 million) the CSP Program will work with three
industry partnerships to develop and demonstrate reliable dish/engine
systems. Under the Utility Scale Joint Venture Project (USJVP), three
25 kW systems are undergoing intensive reliability monitoring in fiscal
year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, with a near-term goal of reaching 1,000
hours between down times. In order to encourage competition, a second
solicitation was issued for alternative designs under the Dish/Engine
Critical Components (DECC) Project in fiscal year 1998. Awards were
made and operating hours are being accumulated on this system to prove
reliability. Next-generation improvements are being incorporated in
fiscal year 1999, with a completely-modernized, full-scale 25 kW
prototype system to be installed in fiscal year 2000. A third project
was launched in fiscal year 1999 to field an advanced-technology 10 kW
solar dish/engine system at a remote site in the Southwestern U.S. In
fiscal year 2000, the off-grid capability of the system will be
developed and tested. These systems are equally suited for either
stand-alone operation or for being hybridized with natural gas or
diesel fuel.
The focus of the second path is to reduce the costs of Dispatchable
Power Systems ($5.34 million, down $0.63 million). Based on the results
of an industry-led trough technology roadmap, a number of component and
system improvements were identified as being able to reduce the costs
of near-term trough plants from the current 10-12 cents/kWh to 6-
8 cents/kWh. To meet this need, the USA Trough Initiative was launched
in fiscal year 1999. Fiscal year 2000 work will focus on optimization
of the collector design, improved system integration with conventional
power plants (e.g., natural gas combined-cycle). This initiative will
reopen a domestic market for trough systems and provide a leading
position for U.S. industry in bidding on projects currently before the
World Bank. Additional activities include a SolMaT effort to develop
low-cost drives and concentrators.
Path three, Advanced Components and Systems ($5.96 million
requested, up $0.97 million), addresses the longer- range R&D required
for CSP systems to achieve energy costs in the 4 to 6 cents/kWh range,
thus allowing penetration of broader domestic and international
markets. In fiscal year 2000, the program will continue current project
work focused on higher-temperature technologies, the development of
durable reflective materials, and higher efficiency system designs
through the improvement of both solar concentrators and receivers.
The fourth path, Strategic Alliances & Market Awareness ($0.85
million requested, up $0.11 million), covers technology transfer,
communications, and technology roadmapping efforts to ensure that the
CSP program is focused on the needs of industry and the realities of
the marketplace. Analyses and studies conducted in fiscal year 2000 by
the world-class researchers at SunLab (a ``virtual'' laboratory
comprised of the CSP researchers at Sandia National Laboratories and
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory) are heavily relied upon by
U.S. industry, Federal and State agencies, and other organizations
involved in renewable energy development.
wind energy systems
The fiscal year 2000 funding request for the Wind Energy Systems
program is $45.6 million, an increase of $10.8 million over the fiscal
year 1999 appropriation. The mission of the Wind Energy Systems program
is to enable U.S. industry to complete the research, testing, and field
verification needed to fully develop advanced wind energy technologies
that lead the world in cost-effectiveness and reliability. Wind energy
has been the fastest growing source of energy in the world for the last
decade, with capacity additions worldwide totaling over 2000 MW in 1998
and industry sales of over $2 billion. Wind power stations in Europe
and developing countries account for most of the recent capacity
increases, using wind turbines supplied primarily by European
companies. While wind power development in the United States is
beginning to recover from several years of stagnation, prospects for
sustaining this growth are still highly uncertain as electric power
markets deregulate and place increased emphasis on low cost of energy
production. The key to positioning wind as an important U.S. clean
energy option for new competitive power markets, as well as export
markets, is the development of innovative, cost-competitive technology
that is being carried out under the Wind Energy Systems program. The
program is currently partnering with industry for R&D targeted to
reduce cost of energy from wind to 2\1/2\ cents/kWh at sites with good
winds.
In fiscal year 2000, the Wind Energy Systems program will focus on
Applied Research ($13.5 million), Turbine Research ($20.2 million), and
Cooperative Research and Testing ($11.9 million).
Applied Research (up $2.8 million) addresses fundamental
engineering and technology issues with a broad range of applications,
and is carried out at National laboratories and numerous universities.
The requested increase will support the Wind Partnerships for Advanced
Component Technologies (WindPACT) project. Under WindPACT, promising
research ideas and concepts generated in Applied Research will be
further developed and tested by a joint team of industry and laboratory
researchers on a component and subsystem basis. WindPACT will develop
improved wind technology components such as self-protecting rotors,
passive aerodynamic controls, and new generators that can readily be
incorporated into new turbine designs beyond those now included in the
Next Generation Turbine project. This competitive effort is expected to
attract new players into the wind industry because partnerships between
new entrants and existing wind companies will be encouraged and
previous technical experience with wind will not be required.
Turbine Research (up $3.8 million) is a cost-shared cooperative
program with industry and utilities that supports competitively-
selected research, testing, and field verification needed for advanced
technology wind turbines. The requested increase for Turbine Research
will support continuing partnerships with seven companies, and
initiation of several new field verification projects that will be
tailored to satisfy specific regional needs. Two companies are
designing turbines under the Next Generation Turbine project, which is
targeted to reduce energy costs from wind systems to 2\1/2\ cents/kWh
at 15 mph wind sites by 2002. In fiscal year 2000, these companies will
require increased funding as they enter into a period of peak design
activity and hardware procurement for their engineering and
manufacturing development prototype turbines. The Near Term Research
and Testing project will be completed in fiscal year 2000, yielding
several technological advancements for a more cost effective 750 kW
turbine, to help U.S. industry compete in current world markets.
Testing of prototypes will commence under the Small Wind Turbine
project, and several new field verification projects using small (up to
100kW) wind turbines will be in operation. The program will also take
the lead in completing R&D and field verification for a wind turbine
intended for use in extreme cold environments, such as Alaska and the
Antarctic, as the third phase of a Small Business Innovation Research
project begun by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and
the National Science Foundation.
Cooperative Research and Testing (up $4.2 million) focuses on near-
term R&D and testing at the world-class National Wind Technology Center
(NWTC) in Colorado, which features a user facility that allows U.S.
industries to expand testing of new wind energy technologies. The
requested funding increase will launch a new cooperative effort with
industry--Hybrid Systems for Village Power--which will build upon the
experience with ongoing wind hybrid power projects in Alaska and
provide opportunities for field verification on new wind control
systems and system integration options. In addition, a new Wind
Monitoring Network will provide verifiable data on long-term
performance of several large new wind projects. This information is
needed for developing strategies to accelerate the use of wind energy
under the new rules of the emerging competitive power markets. NWTC
capabilities for providing accredited certification testing services
will be expanded, and efforts will continue in establishing U.S.
certification capability for wind turbines in cooperation with
Underwriter's Laboratories (UL). UL is now offering certification
services to the wind industry--one wind turbine company has already
contracted for UL certification--and will begin to work with the NWTC
staff to define certification procedures. NWTC staff are presently
developing quality assurance, testing, and design evaluation procedures
which will be used to test turbines for UL certification.
biopower/biofuels
We are requesting $92.4 million for Biopower/Biofuels programs in
fiscal year 2000, an increase of 21 percent. This includes $6.0 million
to support the Bioenergy Initiative described earlier in this
testimony. The Initiative is an integrated effort spread among three
sectors within the Office of Energy Efficiency 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 chemicals.
The following is a brief discussion of the Biopower and the
Biofuels Programs:
Biopower Program
The budget requests for the Biopower program with the Office of
Power Technologies is $38.95 million in fiscal year 2000--an increase
of $7.5M over fiscal year 1999. The Biopower Program mission is to
integrate sustainable biomass feedstock production with efficient
biomass power generation systems that can provide substantial energy,
economic, and environmental benefits. The program focuses on
collaborative partnerships between the Department and the private
sector to conduct critical research, development, and cost-shared
demonstration activities. Through the introduction of competition to
the generation market, power producers who can also produce a variety
of energy related co-products will capture an increasing volume of
electricity sales. These applications will provide broader based, near
term markets for advanced biopower systems. The program's goal is the
establishment of 30,000 MW of renewable biomass capacity installed by
2020. The request includes $2.7 million for Thermoconversion and $32.15
million for Systems Development. Also included under collaborative co-
funding with biofuels are $3.1 million for feedstock development and
$1.0 million for the regional biomass energy program.
Thermoconversion.--The increase in Thermoconversion (up $1.2
million) will support basic research in biomass combustion and
gasification characteristics, especially related to cofiring biomass
with coal (a major near-term, low-cost market opportunity) and as
applied to integrated gasification power producing systems.
Systems Development.--Within the Systems Development activity (up
$5.8 million), $5.5 million is requested for the Vermont Gasifier
Project, $17.3 million is requested for the DOE/USDA Biomass Power for
Rural Development Initiative (an increase of $1.8 million), $5.4
million is requested for the Co-firing Biomass with Coal Initiative (an
increase of $2.9 million), and $4 million is requested for Small
Modular Systems Development.
The Vermont Gasifier project will demonstrate a pilot-scale state-
of-the-art gasifier combined with an advanced turbine, producing
approximately 8-12 MW of electricity from wood. In fiscal year 2000, a
hot-gas clean-up unit will be installed and the integrated combined
cycle gasification systems will be operated for 1,000 hours at double
the efficiency of direct- fired biomass units.
The Biomass Power for Rural Development initiative in fiscal year
2000 would support three projects: (1) co-firing tests of a 35 MW
retrofitted plant with switchgrass in Chariton Valley, Iowa project
will begin and up to 3600 acres of switchgrass will be planted ($1.8
million); (2) cofiring tests of willow and coal will be conducted along
with the completion of retrofit of two additional coal plants and up to
600 acres of willow will be planted as part of the New York Salix
project ($1.5 million); and (3) construction of the 75 MW Minnesota
Valley Alfalfa Producers integrated gasification combine cycle power
plant ($14 million).
The Co-firing Biomass with Coal initiative, currently conducting
test runs on the effectiveness of blends of coal and biomass, will
expand in scope to additional sites to include biomass gasification.
Sustained operations at selected sites will also be demonstrated.
Modular systems development is funding feasibility studies, prototype
demonstrations, and proceeding to full systems integration and
development of smaller gasification units (5kW to 5MW).
Transportation Biofuels
The Transportation Biofuels Energy Systems program within the
Office of Transportation Technologies has a budget request of $53.4
million in fiscal year 2000--an increase of $11.7 million over fiscal
year 1999. The mission of this program is to research, develop, and
demonstrate cost competitive technologies for the production of liquid
transportation fuels, in collaboration and partnership with industry,
other government organizations, and academic institutions. In support
of this mission, the program pursues the development of low-cost
biomass energy feedstocks and cost competitive conversion technologies
for liquid fuels production from agricultural residues, forestry
wastes, and energy crops. The development and deployment of biofuels
technologies can displace 0.30 quads of primary energy by 2010 and 0.84
quads by 2020, while promoting rural economic development. Since
biofuels produce almost no net carbon on a life cycle basis, they are a
very promising supply side option for reducing carbon emissions in the
transportation sector.
The requests of $53.4 million for the Transportation Biofuels
Energy Systems Program includes $37.4 million for ethanol production,
$1.0 million for biodiesel production, and $6.0 million for integrated
bioenergy research and development. The request includes $5.5 million
for feedstock development and $3.5 million for the regional biomass
energy program (collaborative co-funding with the Biopower program).
Ethanol production (up $1.5 million) is a major focus of the
Transportation Biofuels program, comprising 70 percent of the budget
request. Currently, ethanol is being used as a blend with gasoline in
10 percent ethanol/90 percent gasoline mixtures, can be used in
flexible fueled vehicles (up to 85 percent ethanol blends) and is being
considered for use in fuel cells.
We have established three industrial partnerships for the
construction of ethanol production facilities using waste biomass.
These highly leveraged partnerships, with DOE providing around 20
percent of the costs will result in ``first of a kind'' commercial
technology demonstration plants. We recently attended a ground breaking
ceremony for the construction of the first partnership project--a 20
million gallon waste to ethanol facility in Jennings, Louisiana. The
other two partnerships are to build ethanol production facilities in
California and New York. We are also working with the existing corn
(starch based) ethanol industry to demonstrate biomass (cellulose)
technology as add-on facilities using corn stalks and corn fiber to
increase production and improve economic viability of the process. At
least one feasibility study for an add-on facility will be completed in
fiscal year 1999.
The program will also continue advanced technology research and
development at our National Laboratories will improve energy conversion
and integrated process efficiencies and address key cost factors to
reach the production cost goal of $0.72 per gallon by 2010.
The Biodiesel program (up $0.2 million) will continue research and
development of efficient technologies for the production of biodiesel
to lower the cost of a biomass-based alternative to diesel fuel.
Opportunities for converting low- cost waste oils will be explored.
Collaborative Funding by Biopower and Biofuels
The $8.6 million Biopower/Biofuels request for Feedstock
Development (up $3.5 million) will expand the research and development
to increase the number of crop species for regional diversity and the
increase of the number of yearly harvesting in order to improve the
economics utilization of feedstock for production. These feedstocks
will provide a sustainable, reliable supply of biomass which can be
used for the production of fuels, chemicals and power. The Biopower/
Biofuels request for the Regional Biomass Energy Program of $4.5
million (up $1 million) will continue regionally focused activities
with State and local governments to increase the development and use of
biomass resources for multiple products.
renewable energy production incentive program
The request for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive Program
is $1.5 million, a $2.5 million decrease from fiscal year 2000 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. We estimate
that fiscal year 2000 payments to qualified Tier I facilities--which
use solar, wind, geothermal or dedicated (closed-loop) biomass
resources--will require approximately $0.3 million to pay for
electricity generated and sold. Remaining funds will be applied to
qualified Tier II facilities, and include non- dedicated (open-loop)
biomass resources (which would not be eligible for renewable energy tax
credits if they were owned by private industry).
A number of very legitimate concerns regarding the proposed cut in
REPI funding have been raised by the public power community. We are
carefully revisiting this issue.
solar program support
The fiscal year 2000 request for Solar Program Support is $10
million, $8 million for a Competitive Solicitation which would combine
current the current Renewable Indian Energy Resources and Federal
Buildings/Remote Power programs to encourage innovative applications
and deployment of renewable electric technologies and would provide $2
million for Electricity Restructuring.
The $8 million requested for a Competitive Solicitation (down $0.8
million from the predecessor programs) will speed early deployment of
renewable technologies by seeking technology proposals on the best ways
to use renewable technologies, either singly or in combination with
other renewable technologies, or in hybrid configurations with fuel
cells, natural gas or energy storage systems.
The two primary objectives of the Competitive Solicitation program
are: (1) to prove the availability of clean, affordable, and reliable
electric power supply options for the many remote and/or economically
challenged regions of the Nation; and (2) to obtain essential data on
operational performance, reliability, and benefits of renewable energy
and hybrid renewable energy systems in various geographic locations and
climatic conditions.
The information and experiences gained through this Competitive
Solicitation program will also help overcome specific impediments to
more widespread 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 capital costs over technologies with higher
capital 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.
This six-year, highly-leveraged program would combine two previous
budget items--the Renewable Indian Energy Resources and Federal
Buildings/Remote Power programs--into a single, integrated, technology-
focused competitive field validation program. (Compared to the prior
programs, funding is reduced by $0.8 million.) In keeping with the
origins of this program, the Solicitation program would designate two
targeted areas for competitive awards--systems benefitting Native
Americans and systems addressing the needs of Federal facilities--in
addition to providing for an ``open'' solicitation for other
applications of these systems. Remote power needs will continue to be
addressed as aspects of all three segments of this solicitation. Of the
$8.0 million proposed for fiscal year 2000, up to $3.0 million of the
solicitation will be dedicated to projects benefitting Native
Americans. Native American projects will require a minimum 20 percent
cost-sharing, and the ``open'' portion of the solicitation will require
at least 75 percent non-DOE funding. For a number of reasons, there are
tremendous synergies between renewable energy technologies and the
energy needs of Native Americans. Renewable resources such as solar and
wind are often abundant on tribal lands. In addition, Native Americans
often have substandard or, in some cases, no electricity service.
Renewable energy technologies can often provide the most cost-effective
option for providing electricity on tribal lands and can also be a
source of employment for tribes installing such systems onsite.
The request for Electricity Restructuring for fiscal year 2000 of
$2 million represents an increase of $100,000 over fiscal year 1999
appropriations. The purpose of the Department's electricity
restructuring activities is to develop a comprehensive understanding of
emerging electricity competition policies across the country and their
impacts on renewable energy and energy efficiency products and
services, and the impacts on various public benefit programs such as
low-income assistance.
The program will provide technical assistance and analysis to
State, Federal and tribal decision makers and others to assist them in
their efforts to achieve their renewable energy, energy efficiency, and
consumer protection goals as the industry is changed. This work is
critical to renewable and energy efficiency technologies because the
new electricity market and regulatory rules will have a major impact on
future technology deployment.
Due to the introduction of competition the electricity sector is
undergoing the most significant transformation that has occurred in
over 60 years. Fourteen States have enacted retail competition
legislation to permit customers to choose their electricity supplier
and four others have issued comprehensive competition orders. Fourteen
other States ended their 1998 legislative sessions with comprehensive
retail competition bills pending.
The transition to competition is challenging for a number of
reasons including the technical complexity of the electricity system,
the intricate web of Federal, State, and local law and regulation, and
regional differences. As a consequence, policy makers at all levels of
government need analysis and technical assistance on a portfolio of
market and policy mechanisms to achieve their restructuring goals. The
demand for this assistance is very high. For example, as part of the
recent broad-based solicitation, the Department received far more
restructuring-related analysis and technical assistance proposals than
our resources can support.
Although each State and region face unique electricity policy
challenges, there are many common issues. Furthermore, many States lack
the resources and expertise needed to address the complexities of
electricity restructuring and to keep track of what other States are
doing. Consequently, it is often more cost-effective and efficient for
certain technical assistance and analysis to be provided at the federal
level rather than duplicated on a State-by-State basis. In addition,
although a plethora of studies and analyses funded by entities with
economic interests in certain restructuring outcomes exist, user-
friendly information from independent entities on key policy issues is
often in short supply. The EERE electricity restructuring program works
to fill this information gap.
The restructuring program is also important to the development of
EERE's own research and development agenda. The success of our R&D
agenda hinges, in part, on assuring that the technologies we help
develop are compatible with the rapidly evolving electricity market
structure. Thus, the restructuring program informs our R&D work. For
example, the introduction of competition is likely to favor modular,
distributed systems that are less capital intensive than central
station plants. In response, many of our R&D programs are increasingly
focused on modular applications.
In fiscal year 2000, the Department proposes to expand technical
analyses on the impacts of electricity restructuring on renewable
technologies and energy efficiency technologies. Analyses on market
mechanisms such as labeling of electricity products for consumers,
``green'' certification, and energy services strategies will be
completed. The program 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 and efficiency technologies. To
facilitate these efforts, the program will also encourage the States
and others to form regional information exchange networks to share
``lessons learned'' about what does and doesn't work.
national renewable energy laboratory
The fiscal year 2000 request of $1.1 million for the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), (down $2.8 million), is to provide
for maintaining NREL facilities to assure appropriate scientific and
technical support for Solar and Renewable Energy R&D activities. The
request will fund infrastructure renovations and upgrades at the NREL
sites, including minor modifications, road repair, safety fencing, roof
repairs, and the installation of a 2,000 square foot multi-user
prefabricated facility for solar radiation research. In addition, the
request will fund acquisition of a variety of critical multi-program
laboratory equipment needed to upgrade or replace old equipment, and
also provide for the upgrading of the laboratory's data system
infrastructure.
geothermal energy
The Geothermal Energy request for fiscal year 2000 is $29.5
million, an increase of $1.0 million over fiscal year 1999 levels. The
Geothermal program in the Office of Geothermal Technologies works in
partnership with U.S. industry to establish geothermal energy as a
sustainable, environmentally sound, and economically competitive
contributor to the U.S. and world energy supply. 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 supports the five goals
of the Geothermal Energy Strategic Plan for 2010 which have been
endorsed by industry: supplying the electrical power needs of 7 million
U.S. homes; providing the heating, cooling, and hot water needs of 7
million U.S. homes; meeting the basic energy needs of 100 million
people in developing countries; ensuring that the United States
continues to lead in geothermal technology; and developing new
technology to meet 10 percent of U.S. non-transportation energy needs.
In contrast to last year, the budget request is allocated solely for
Geothermal Electric R&D and Development ($29.5 million). No funds are
requested for Geothermal Heat Pump Deployment in fiscal year 2000. The
$29.5 million request is allocated among: reservoir technology, $8.0
million; exploration, $7.0 million; drilling $7.5 million; and energy
conversion, $7.0 million.
The Reservoir Technology program (+$2.5 million) will perform water
injection tests at a commercial site at Dixie Valley, Nevada, develop a
suite of chemical tracers for tracing the flow of injected water, and
use field test data to improve reservoir models. These efforts will
lead to proper fluid management practices which could enable a
geothermal field to operate productively for over 100 years. The
Enhanced Geothermal Systems initiative under the Reservoir Technology
program will focus on extending the productivity and lifetime of
geothermal reservoirs through rock fracturing, stimulation, and water
injection.
The Exploration program (+$1.5 million) will collaborate with
industry on 3D-seismic techniques to locate and characterize new
geothermal fields. Individual geophysical methods will be integrated to
develop ``smart'' systems which will select more reliable exploration
targets. Greater effectiveness in locating geothermal resources will
greatly reduce the number of non-productive wells.
The Drilling program (+$2.5 million) will complete the testing of
improved PDC drill bits, unshielded high-temperature logging tools, and
a high-temperature casing inspection tool. The Geothermal Advanced
Drilling System will be initiated which will give economic access to
the extremely large geothermal resources contained in rocks at great
depth. One element of the Geothermal Advanced Drilling System is a high
speed data link that will transmit a variety of real-time drilling data
to the surface for decision making while drilling. About 50 percent of
the cost of the high speed data link will be provided by major private
sector partners. In addition, a consortium for high-temperature
electronics suitable for applications in geothermal wells will be
formed by the Gas Research Institute, Honeywell, Boeing, other industry
leaders, and the Drilling program. Finally, the program will transfer
to industry the technology to acoustically align downhole line shaft
pumps which will save industry millions of dollars annually.
In the Energy Conversion program (+$1.0 million), the Kalina Cycle,
a new plant design for more efficient and cost-effective electricity
generation, will be tested in partnership with industry. The non-
Federal cost share of this demonstration project is over 60 percent.
The program will also field test gas monitors and anti-fouling coatings
for heat exchanger tubes which will reduce geothermal power plant
operating and maintenance costs. The new Modular Geothermal Power Plant
initiative under the Energy Conversion program will support the design,
construction, and testing of a small (300 to 500 kW) power module for
distributed or off-grid sites. This initiative creates a supply option
for developers wishing to install small-scale geothermal plants which
can be used in remote, off-grid, and/or grid-connected locations,
providing flexibility in adapting to the changing electric power
industry. This is particularly important because geothermal is emerging
as an attractive ``green power'' customer choice option as program R&D
continues to cut power generation costs.
Competition is key to the cost-effective management of geothermal
R&D activities. All three geothermal initiatives described above, as
well as many other research and development activities, will be
competed through solicitations.
hydrogen
The request for Hydrogen is $28 million, an increase of $5.7
million from fiscal year 1999. Industry is investing substantially in
both hydrogen production systems and the development of the Proton
Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells that require a hydrogen stream to
operate. Buses powered by fuel cells with onboard hydrogen are being
tested in metropolitan districts, and residential fuel cell systems are
entering into pre-commercial testing. These ventures portend commercial
activities for the distributed production, storage and utilization of
hydrogen by 2001 to 2003.
The Hydrogen Program is authorized by the Hydrogen Future Act of
1996 to fund those projects which are evaluated on a competitive basis.
In fiscal year 1999, the Department funded 92 percent of the Hydrogen
Program through four competitive solicitations. The fiscal year 2000
request will support a balanced program to increase market penetration
of renewable/hydrogen energy systems and hydrogen-powered vehicles, and
long-term research and development in the production of hydrogen from
renewable resources through a similar competitive process. The program
focuses on three key activities: Core Research and Development ($14.1
million), Technology Validation ($11.4 million), and Analysis and
Outreach ($2.5 million).
Core Research and Development (up $5.0 million) supports R&D on
hydrogen production, storage and utilization. The increased funding
will fully fund thermal conversion processes that produce hydrogen from
natural gas with a 25 to 35 percent decrease in the cost of producing
hydrogen over conventional processes. Long-term research programs will
also be enhanced in awarding multiple cooperative agreements for
photobiological and scaled-up photoelectrochemical processes. These key
activities, in conjunction with the industrial development of the PEM
fuel cell, will enhance the ability of the industry to consider low-
cost hydrogen options for power, industry and transportation market
sectors by 2004.
Storage R&D is focused on developing and demonstrating hydride and
carbonaceous materials for the storage of hydrogen at low temperatures
for power and transportation applications. The increased funding will
permit the award of one project to characterize a family of new metal
hydride materials and another award to assemble carbon absorbents into
a laboratory system.
Utilization technology 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 newly developed solid state hydrogen leak detector prototype
design will be fabricated and field tested. A low-cost 25 kWe fuel cell
will be demonstrated.
Technology Validation (up $0.4 million) supports 50/50 cost-shared
ventures with industry on hydrogen vehicle fueling stations, vehicle-
mounted hydrogen storage systems, reversible fuel cells to operate with
renewable systems, and small hydrogen fuel cell systems for remote
power applications. The fiscal year 2000 request supports the operation
of a reversible fuel cell with 60 percent round-trip efficiency; the
incorporation of high-pressure hydrogen storage on vehicles;
construction of a quick-fill refueling station to service Las Vegas
shuttle buses and government vehicles; and the design and construction
of small-scale fuel cells for remote applications.
Analysis and Outreach (up $0.3 million) conducts portfolio and
technology analyses to determine what steps are required to transition
to a hydrogen energy economy. Technology analyses will periodically
review specific areas (i.e., thermoconversion, storage, etc.) to ensure
that research is of high quality and of significance to the overall
objectives of the program.
hydropower
For fiscal year 2000, the Department is requesting $7.0 million for
Hydropower Development, an increase of $3.8 million over fiscal year
1999 funding. With this funding, the program will complete proof-of-
concept testing of an innovative, non-shearing ``fish-friendly''
turbine design (competitively selected in earlier activities) and will
provide for the completion of experiments to develop biological
performance criteria for advanced turbine design. The program will also
initiate the competitively selected engineering design of a ``fish-
friendly'' turbine to increase dissolved oxygen.
Once complete, these new turbines can replace equipment at existing
facilities where environmental concerns may cause a reduction in
generation. Hydropower provides approximately 10 percent of the total
U.S. electricity generation 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.
electric energy systems and storage
$41.0 million is requested for the Electric Energy Systems and
Storage program in fiscal year 2000, an increase of $0.9 million from
fiscal year 1999. 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
Transmission Reliability Research ($4.0 million), High Temperature
Superconductivity ($31.0 million), Energy Storage ($6.0 million), and
Climate Challenge (no funds requested).
The fiscal year 2000 budget request for Transmission Reliability
Research is $4.0 million, an increase of $1.0 million from fiscal year
1999. Before electric restructuring, vertically integrated utilities
sold electricity and reliability services from central station power
generators over transmission lines that were constructed to serve
specific load areas. This system was not designed to allow competitive
sales of energy and services from any generator to any customer, and
the resulting constraints to this type of operation must be resolved
cost effectively to allow full market competition. Transmission
Reliability provides Federal support to develop technologies and policy
options that will maintain and improve the reliability of the Nation's
electricity delivery system during the transition to competitive power
markets. The program is being implemented through a National
Laboratory/electricity industry partnership, and is leveraging funds
from other partners. Transmission Reliability has two key activities:
Power System Reliability ($3.8 million) and Distributed Power ($0.2
million).
Power System Reliability (up $1.3 million) will develop advanced
computational and information systems to monitor and control the power
system in real time, and advanced power electronics to accomplish fast,
high-power switching under real time system control. Reliability
technologies and policy options are developed in the context of
competitive markets, and research will account for changes in market
forces as rules and restructuring legislation are developed and
implemented. Real-time control of the power system can provide
information to remove transmission bottlenecks and operate the system
in a way that can turn ``two-lane roads'' into ``superhighways,''
releasing capacity for competitive markets.
Distributed Power (down $0.3 million) funding will continue
development of technologies, and removal of technical, regulatory, and
institutional barriers to enable the integration of distributed
generation and storage into the electric and natural gas systems.
Distributed technologies include renewable resources, fuel cells,
microturbines, battery and flywheel storage, and direct load control.
Integration of these technologies offers environmental and economic
benefits and extends competition to the retail customer level.
It is anticipated that the Transmission Reliability program will
last approximately five years and will ensure that research and
development for reliable systems and competitive markets is maintained
until new market and/or regulatory structures are developed that
provide the incentives for the private sector to assume this work. The
program will be reassessed each year to determine the need for Federal
involvement depending on the nature and implementation needs of new
regulations, and the impact of market forces.
The fiscal year 2000 budget request for High Temperature
Superconductivity is $31 million, a decrease of $1.5 million. The
funding is divided between the Superconductivity Partnership Initiative
($14.0 million), Second Generation Wire Initiative ($8.0 million) and
Strategic Research ($9.0 million). The program is accomplishing two
major technological goals: solving the difficult problem of
manufacturing electrical wires from the family of brittle ceramic
superconducting materials, while, in parallel creating designs of
super-efficient electrical systems. The products will be resistance-
free electrical wires that carry 100 times the current of conventional
alternatives and the design of advanced systems that have only half the
energy losses and are half the size of conventional alternatives of the
same power rating.
The Superconductivity Partnership Initiative (down $0.5 million)
will support six major projects to develop first-of-a-kind electrical
systems that can provide quantum improvements to the efficiency and
capacity of the national electrical grid. These include transmission
cables, transformers, large motors, flywheel energy systems and
magnetic separation systems that meet required performance goals. The
revolutionary equipment emerging from the program in the 2005-2010
timeframe will have a major role in meeting the new demands of a
competitive electricity industry for increased capacity and
reliability. Superconducting cables will relieve congestion at critical
parts of the grid as well as improve delivery efficiency. They will
also allow load growth in urban areas to be accommodated by repowering
existing ducts, without the need for acquiring new property.
Superconducting transformers will accommodate increased demand for
electricity without the need for construction of new substations and
will protect against accidental ``fault currents'' that now cause
serious damage and power outages. The program's past success has
demonstrated that this extremely ambitious undertaking is possible
within the funding requested due to careful planning and leveraging of
resources. Leveraging includes the 50 percent cost share that the
program has been able to attract, even though the projects are very
high risk. Additional leveraging occurs through the project teams being
a vertically integrated consortium of companies containing a future
user (an electric power company), a manufacturer, and a superconducting
component supplier. The funding reduction will result in research being
completed in fiscal year 2001 rather than in fiscal year 2000, but is
not expected to impact accomplishment of important goals.
The Second Generation Wire Initiative (no change) is crucial to
producing superconducting wire that meets the program's performance
goals. Four industrial consortia will be working with the national
laboratories to scale up recent discoveries that are the basis for this
initiative. Private sector participants' 50 percent cost-sharing
leverages program funds.
The Strategic Research program element (down $1.0 million from
fiscal year 1999) is the incubator for discoveries and innovations that
have characterized this successful program. The activities supported
include in-house national laboratory research and joint research
carried out with private companies under 50 percent cost-shared
agreements. The requested level of funding will adequately support
multi-disciplinary research teams that have made major breakthroughs in
the past, and will also support a number of cooperative research
projects with industry. Important leveraging is obtained through
integrating research funded by the DOE Office of Science and leveraged
research at two NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology)
laboratories where each program dollar is matched by two NIST dollars.
The $6.0 million request for the Energy Storage Systems program (up
$1.5 million) will fund focused research on energy storage technologies
which will reduce the high cost of power outages, improve power
quality, and enhance technology choices in a competitive utility
environment. Efficient energy storage is critical for service
reliability and for the success of distributed power generation. In a
restructured electricity industry with many independent power
producers, energy storage will play an increasingly crucial role in
combining multiple inputs of varying power quality and matching output
to a changing load. Program emphasis will be placed on battery systems
integration and on the development and evaluation of advanced storage
technologies. All projects will be carried out in close cooperation
with industry.
No funding is requested for the Climate Challenge program in fiscal
year 2000 (down $0.1 million).
international solar energy program
The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the International Solar
Program is $6.0 million, a slight decrease of $350,000 from $6.350
million in fiscal year 1999. The mission of the International Solar
Energy Program is to encourage acceptance and use of renewable energy
technologies by developed and developing countries in support of U.S.
national interests and policies. With World Bank estimates indicating
that developing countries alone will require five million megawatts of
new electricity capacity over the next four decades (the world's total
installed capacity today is three million megawatts), international
markets will provide growing opportunities for U.S. sales of advanced
renewable energy and energy efficient technologies and job creation.
And it is these same technologies that also hold the greatest potential
for mitigating global climate change.
The primary goal of the International Solar Energy Program is to
support the expansion of U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency
technology exports to help meet the energy needs of developed and
developing countries, reduce the rate of consumption of finite global
resources, and address local and transnational environmental issues.
The program has been refocused in response to Congressional direction.
While the Program will continue to provide support for the U.S.
Initiative on Joint Implementation, all activities will be refocused
into three broad program areas: Emerging Global Environmental and
Energy Issues (USIJI), facilitating Market and Trade Development, and
advancing U.S. Energy and Environmental Security interests.
The Emerging Global Environmental and Energy Issues will be
implemented specifically through and in conjunction with the U.S.
Initiative on Joint Implementation (USIJI). USIJI is a DOE-led
interagency program that supports the development of flexibility
mechanisms under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (U.N.
FCCC) such as Joint Implementation (JI), Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM), and Emissions Trading. This element will also focus on
encouraging meaningful participation by developing countries in the
effort to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
The Market and Trade Development element will accelerate reductions
in U.S. technology production costs and advance deployment of
technologies through overseas market expansion. Activities will focus
on stimulating global economic development and regional economic
stability, and accelerating domestic economic growth, market
competitiveness, and employment. This element will be implemented in
key regions through bilateral (e.g., Gore-Mbeki in South Africa) and
multilateral (e.g., Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, Hemispheric
Initiatives and International Energy Agency) technology cooperation
activities and information exchange and dissemination. Private sector
technology development will be encouraged while seeking opportunities
for leveraging U.S. funds and stimulating deployment in strategic and
emerging markets through project-based activities.
The Energy and Environmental Security element is designed to
advance U.S. strategic interests in bilateral and multilateral energy
and environmental security activities and will provide specialized
assistance in the utilization of appropriate technologies. This element
will be implemented in support of existing and emerging bilateral and
multilateral treaties and agreements (e.g., U.S.-China Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Protocol). This element will also
assist the Department in meeting U.S. obligations and commitments to
provide disaster relief and assistance by facilitating private sector
technology development and deployment in strategic and emerging
markets.
solar program direction
The fiscal year 2000 Congressional Request for Solar Program
Direction is $19.2 million, an increase of $1.1 million. 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 all support services, the
Working Capital Fund, and crosscutting requirements.
There are two principal changes in Solar Program Direction this
year. First, funding for electricity restructuring, included under this
account in fiscal year 1999, is provided for under Solar Program
Support in fiscal year 2000. Second, the request includes $1.85 million
to address anticipated staffing adjustments resulting from Workforce 21
plans.
Workforce 21 is a Department-wide effort to address unintentional
negative impacts resulting from aggressive downsizing in recent years.
While the Department has been able to fill most essential positions
through intra-agency transfers and a very few replacement hires (even
as we met or exceeded our reduced workforce targets) some gaps in
filling critical technical and professional positions still remain. The
Program Direction request level will enable EERE to fill limited number
of key technical and professional staff positions at DOE headquarters
and in the field. Clerical and administrative positions will remain
essentially level.
conclusion
Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee
for the opportunity to discuss our fiscal year 2000 budget request. I
hope you agree that the management improvements we have instituted--and
continue to refine--are enhancing the value received by American
citizens for their investment. We believe that the technologies our
programs are now developing will lead to a clean, cost-effective, and
secure electric power and transportation fuel system for the United
States. We fully understand that we must set and meet aggressive
technology research and performance goals so that the new power
generation, power delivery, and transportation fuel systems we are
developing can compete in the marketplace. And while the task before us
is certainly challenging, we are confident that our proven record of
achievement--combined with hard work, careful planning, and adequate
financial and workforce resources--will lead to even more success
ahead, enabling the Nation to respond not only to the important energy
and environmental challenges but also to the global market
opportunities of the next century.
appropriate use of appropriated funding
Senator Domenici. Let me just ask a couple of questions.
While you are there, I will go with you first, and if Senator
Reid has any questions, can you answer them within two weeks?
Mr. Reicher. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Last year, we raised concerns about your
office, and among those were paying for members of industry
associations to attend national and international conferences,
publishing magazine articles, writing op ed-style articles in
magazines, and preparing talking points in support of the
Department's programs.
You have told us about your competitiveness initiative,
which is a great effort. What about this kind of activity, what
are you doing about these sorts of things?
Mr. Reicher. Well, Mr. Chairman, as a part of our push to
increase competition, we have encompassed those kinds of
activities. What we basically said to groups of all sorts, from
trade associations, to universities, to others, is that if you
want to work with us you are going to have to compete for the
dollars.
So virtually all that we are now doing, this sort of public
outreach communications, is now being done on a competitive
basis, so I think that should very quickly and very much lead
to the end of those kinds of sole source situations.
Senator Domenici. Well, I guess what I really need is for
you to be more specific for a minute. We were paying groups to
publish magazines about solar energy. Now, does that come
within the definition that you just described, that you may
still be doing it, but it is going to be competitive?
Mr. Reicher. Let me say it this way, Mr. Chairman. We now
compete the dollars for what we call information dissemination
and public outreach. Within that, we fund a variety of
mechanisms for communicating the technology progress of our
work. So what I want to stress to you is that first, these are
competitive mechanisms that we are using.
Second, by virtue of the fact that they are competitive, we
are looking very carefully to avoid the kind of funding
situations you are speaking about in the past. So I am quite
confident that the kinds of problems that you have seen, that
you have raised, that you have highlighted for us are no longer
the case with what we are going forward with in terms of our
work.
Senator Domenici. Well, I would like you perhaps by the end
of this fiscal year to give us a report on this new approach
that you have taken--how it has affected the kind of activity
that we were complaining about, what is being done in terms of
industry association members being paid to go to international
conferences. Do your Requests for Proposals envision that the
Department pay people to go to international conferences that
are not part of our government team?
Mr. Reicher. It does not envision that, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
Report on Information and Dissemination Activities, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy will provide a
report to the Subcommittee providing details on how financial
assistance for Information and Dissemination activities was competed in
fiscal year 1999. The report will explain the process used to compete
the financial assistance activities and summarize the types of
activities that were funded. The report will be provided by September
30, 1999.
Senator Domenici. Okay. Talking points in support of the
Department's programs, you have outside groups preparing those.
Mr. Reicher. Again, that is not the sort of thing that we
intend to be----
Senator Domenici. I know this could be, to some, kind of
nit-picking, but I do not think it is. I think it is not what
the Congress of the United States thinks we are doing in this
area. The committee has an oversight and stewardship
responsibility to understand if appropriated funds are being
used wisely, so that we do not end up looking silly about
funding a program that does not do R&D. We need to bring these
renewables on board as soon as possible, and make realistic
choices with reference to their effectiveness.
That is kind of your job, and, again, I say I think you are
doing very well at it.
kyoto accord
Do you know very much about the Kyoto Accord in terms of
what it requires and what its goals are, and the like? Are you
an expert on that, or do you know something about this area?
Mr. Reicher. I know something about it.
Senator Domenici. Okay.
Mr. Reicher. I do not consider myself an expert.
Senator Domenici. So might I ask you, is it possible for
the United States to meet the mission goals of the Kyoto Accord
on the path we are on now?
Mr. Reicher. On the current path we are on now, the
business as usual path, we would not meet those goals.
carbon fuel tax
Senator Domenici. A number of groups indicated in order to
meet the goals of the Kyoto Accord that we would have to impose
a substantial tax on carbon fuels, somewhere in the area of $45
per barrel, if that tax is imposed on oil. Do you anticipate
that if we did that, that would have an effect on the American
economy? If you do not think that is what is required, then
just say I do not think the $45 is what anybody is thinking
about.
Mr. Reicher. Let me say it this way, there have been a
range of projections about what it would take to meet the Kyoto
goal. The Council of Economic Advisors has done a study that
suggests that it can be met more cheaply than I believe the
figures you are suggesting would indicate, a combination of
international emissions trading and advances in technology to
bring prices--to bring the cost of technologies and the use of
clean technologies to market.
Also, five of the national laboratories produced a study a
couple of years ago that also suggested that we could meet much
of the Kyoto goal with only modest increases in terms of the
cost of fuel and energy.
Senator Domenici. I think, based on what you read, and you
have just indicated that you read a myriad and a diversity of
things, you would easily recognize that, from an economic
standpoint, one of the things that affects the American economy
most significantly and most rapidly on the inflation side is
increased costs of energy to a typical American consumer from
his automobile, to the energy source that ultimately heats his
home.
Mr. Reicher. Absolutely.
Senator Domenici. If that goes up 15 or 20 percent, it is
pretty hard to control inflation regardless of the other
economic curbs that we are permitted with in terms of--and you
are aware of that.
Mr. Reicher. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would just stress that
the other really two-thirds of the office that I run is devoted
to, in fact, improving the efficiency of energy use, so that
interestingly, even if the price of a particular unit of energy
were to rise, if we can use it more efficiently, that can net
out at zero or only a modest increase for consumers.
So one approach is improving the efficiency of energy use,
the others, as you have heard this morning, is developing a
very broad and diverse set of energy resources, and the more
that those are domestic, the better off we will be.
Senator Domenici. How are we doing with reference to
efficiency? Are we sliding backwards? We were moving ahead
rather wonderfully 8 or 10 years ago. I think we kind of lost
our----
Mr. Reicher. We, to some extent, have leveled off, in terms
of the efficiency of use, and that is why, in fact, we feel it
is so important to continue to make the strong kinds of pushes
that we have made between industry and government. For example,
in the area of automobiles, we are at a good path now to be
producing an affordable 80-mile-per-gallon automobile, U.S.
built, in the middle of the next decade, and obviously, that
will have a dramatic impact on fuel use, production, and U.S.
competitiveness.
Senator Domenici. Well, let me move to Mr. Magwood for just
a minute. Do you pay for any magazine articles that promote
nuclear power?
Mr. Magwood. Do we pay for any magazines?
Senator Domenici. Yes.
Mr. Magwood. I am a member of the American Nuclear----
Senator Domenici. No, no, no, I mean--you personally do pay
for them. I'm asking about your program office.
Mr. Magwood. If you are asking do we fund people to put
articles in newspapers and magazines, no, we do not do anything
like that.
Senator Domenici. Does your office pay for the preparation
of pamphlets that are put out by pro-nuclear groups?
Mr. Magwood. No.
Senator Domenici. Do you pay for editorials to be written
by somebody in the outside that might be promoting nuclear
power?
Mr. Magwood. No.
Senator Domenici. I raise this, because I actually believe
that if they did, we would just have one firestorm. It would
seem to me that those that are anti-nuclear would talk about
this not being the business of government to be involved in
promoting nuclear power, and frankly I think that is the case
for all power.
We either say get government involved in promoting nuclear,
based upon its contribution to the American economic system and
to energy resources in conservation, or we do not do any of it.
I feel rather strongly about that.
I would think if you did that with $300,000 of Office of
Nuclear Energy money it would not take us 1 week from the time
it hit the marketplace, even if it was authentic and true, but
just because it was about nuclear, somebody would be camping
over on the White House steps or over at the Vice President's
office saying, what is this about using money to promote
nuclear energy.
nuclear powerplant relicensing
Now, having said that, let me ask you, how are we
proceeding with reference to expediting in a rational way, in a
healthy way, relicensing of nuclear powerplants? Can you give
us your advice and update us on where we are?
Mr. Magwood. I think the early signs are very good. I have
met with all of the commissioners at the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, I have met with the senior staff, and I have also
met with the industry to talk about this issue, because I think
it is so important. I have been extremely pleased with what I
have heard. I am very encouraged with the attitude and approach
the NRC has taken toward relicensing.
They recognize this as an opportunity to show that they can
provide safe regulation of nuclear powerplants, in a manner
that is very efficient and fair. They have worked very closely
with the industry to carry out their duties, doing so in such a
way that the process does not drag on for a long time.
Additionally, I met with senior executives from Baltimore
Gas and Electric, and they tell me that they expect to complete
their action with NRC to relicense the Calvert Cliffs nuclear
powerplant about 2 years ahead of schedule.
Senator Domenici. Excuse me, I need to take a brief recess.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Senator Domenici. Please proceed.
Mr. Magwood. I was just saying that my understanding is
that the first examples of the license renewal process,
Baltimore Gas and Electric's application and Duke Power's
application have both gone very well and are well ahead of
schedule. It is my understanding that these relicensing actions
will be completed almost 2 years ahead of schedule. We are very
pleased with what is going on so far.
nuclear energy research initiative [neri]
Senator Domenici. Last year Congress provided you with $19
million for nuclear energy research initiative. You have
requested $25 million for fiscal year 2000. How much interest
have you received from researchers for the $19 million?
Mr. Magwood. There has been a great deal of interest
expressed in NERI. I believe we have received about 308
applications from researchers all over the country, from
universities, from industry, from national laboratories, and
combinations, there is a lot of collaboration in that
community, which we are very pleased to see, and they have
proposed research over 3 years worth around $300 million for
the $19 million.
So the interest has been very high, and in addition to the
proposals we have received, as I have indicated earlier, the
international community is also very excited. We have been
talking with Europeans, Koreans, the Japanese, and they are all
very interested in working in cooperation with our NERI
program. So the interest is extremely high.
Senator Domenici. When are you going to award contracts
under that program, Mr. Magwood?
Mr. Magwood. Mid- to late May. We will award the first
contracts in the middle of May.
Senator Domenici. The middle of May. Will the $25 million
simply continue the awards funded in 1999, or will you be able
to have some new ones?
Mr. Magwood. Well, the way we have structured this program,
we allow people to tell us what they think they are going to
need over a 3-year period. We make no commitment beyond the
first year. We can only provide them 1 year of money at a time,
but assuming that we actually award a contract, we would not
require an awardee to reapply for the money in the following
year; therefore, a lot of the money that we will use in fiscal
year 2000, if we get the $25 million, will go to simply
continue work that is already started.
I would say probably about $20 million of the $25 million
would go simply to continue work that has already started.
moly-99 program
Senator Domenici. Mr. Magwood, I understand that when the
Department submitted its budget for 2000 that the Department
planned to privatize the Moly-99 program at Sandia by September
of this year.
Mr. Magwood. Yes.
Senator Domenici. I understand that there may be some
reluctance by the private sector to assume responsibility. Do
you still plan to privatize this by September?
Mr. Magwood. We had a conference with the private sector at
Sandia National Laboratory I believe just last week, and we are
still having discussions with the industry. It is clear they
clearly would have liked to have seen us go forward with the
Food and Drug Administration approval process for Moly-99
before talking about privatization, but they have not said at
this point that where we are now is not acceptable. We think
there is still some room to negotiate, and we are still
optimistic that we will be able to do this.
Senator Domenici. State for the record essentially what the
Moly-99 program is.
Mr. Magwood. Moly-99 is a precursor to Technetium-99m,
which is used by U.S. clinicians in diagnosing all sorts of
illnesses, heart disease, and cancer through imaging processes.
Senator Domenici. So it is in the medical field.
Mr. Magwood. Yes. My understanding is that it is used about
36,000 times a day in the United States.
Senator Domenici. If you do not get it privatized by
September as planned, will you need additional funds for the
privatization effort?
Mr. Magwood. We have not requested additional funds,
anticipating privatization. Our budget is rather limited, so we
really were not able to support both maintaining activities
such as placing a new isotope reduction facility at the LANSCE
facility in Los Alamos, while at the same time continuing Moly-
99.
So we had to make some tough choices, and the choice we
made was to move forward with the privatization. If we are not
successful in privatizing we will have to reassess the
situation, but there is no money in our request to support that
at this time.
fast flux test facility [fftf]
Senator Domenici. Your budget request assumes that a
decision to restart, permanently shut down, or maintain the
FFTF in its current condition will be made this spring.
Mr. Magwood. That is correct.
Senator Domenici. Has the decision been made? If the
decision is made to restart it or permanently shut it down, how
much additional funds will be necessary?
Mr. Magwood. Our budget, as you indicated, assumes a
decision will be made by the end of April, and Secretary
Richardson told me just yesterday that he fully expects to make
that commitment and make his decision before the end of April.
To answer your question about the funding, we currently
have $30 million requested in the budget. If we continue in
standby and proceed with an environmental impact statement, we
will require about an additional $10 million. If the decision
is to shut it down immediately, it will require I believe about
an additional $20 million.
ebr-ii
Senator Domenici. Now, EBR-II reactor for fuel treatment
program at Argonne, that laboratory is expected to encounter a
$20 million reduction in this year's budget. Are you going to
make, at some later date, a decision about whether to use the
electrometallurgical process technology to treat the EBR-II and
other fuels?
Mr. Magwood. Yes. We currently are developing in an
environmental impact statement regarding the use of
electrometallurgical technology for treating all of the
Department's sodium-bonded fuel. This EIS will be completed by
the end of the year, and also by the end of the year we will
complete, or rather the National Academy of Sciences National
Research Council, will complete their review of this
technology.
They have had a team that has been looking at this since
the beginning of our research program. The Secretary will use
this information in making a decision about whether to go
forward with the use of this technology on a production scale,
or whether to shut down the program. I have talked with the
Deputy Secretary about this several times--if we decide to shut
it all down, we will not require any new funding, but if we
decide to move forward we will have to seek some sort of new
funding, or seek a reprogramming of some sort.
nuclear energy research advisory committee
Senator Domenici. I just have two remaining questions. Let
me ask them now while we have you here, even though I am using
considerable time. I think it is good that you have created a
Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee. You have indicated
who they are, a few changes, for obvious reasons.
Your office uses this group, I assume, to help you with
reference to the direction and focus of your program. Has that
committee reviewed your current research program?
Mr. Magwood. That is ongoing right now. There are actually
several activities going on within the advisory committee
review of our research activities. One is being led by Dr. John
Ahearne, of Sigma Xi, who is conducting a long-term research
and development strategy, and he has accumulated a large group
that is going to be studying that over the next several months.
Dr. Richard Reba, from the University of Chicago, who is an
expert in nuclear medicine, is analyzing our isotope production
research plans. Finally, Dr. John Taylor, who is retired from
Electric Power Research Institute, is leading a group that will
be assessing the near term needs, when I say near term, within
10 years, of research for existing nuclear powerplants. So we
have really tried to cover all the ground in our program, and I
think that the NERAC has been a very valuable contributor to
that.
Senator Domenici. That kind of an approach that you have
just described and intend to use, would it or could it result
in an advisory group telling you where the deficiencies in a
research program are that are imminent or necessary or the
like?
Mr. Magwood. Absolutely.
nuclear energy plant optimization program
Senator Domenici. Okay. We spoke a little bit about the
nuclear energy plant optimization program, although we did not
call it that. You and I discussed where we were on relicensing.
That is sort of the same thing. Last year we passed the nuclear
energy plant optimization request in our appropriations and it
did not get out of the full Congress.
I think we need an explanation of the significance and
importance of it, so rather than just answer that for me now,
would you supply a succinct answer in writing to why we need
it, you and your experts indicate, so that we can make the case
both on the floor and in the committee.
Mr. Magwood. I would be happy to.
[The information follows:]
Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Program Justification
how nuclear energy helps our nation
A reliable and affordable electric power supply is a prerequisite
for a strong economy and sustained growth. The United States has
enjoyed such a supply of affordable electricity principally because of
the diversity in its fuel mix. Nuclear energy is an important part of
this diversity and since the oil embargo of 1973, it has provided about
one-half of the electricity needed to meet demand growth. It has proven
to be an extremely safe and reliable source of electricity supply,
e.g., in the winter of 1996 when rivers were frozen and coal barges
could not get to power plants, nuclear power plants continued to
operate. Not only are the fuel and technology used in the nuclear
energy completely domestic, but the fuel costs for nuclear are a
smaller fraction of the production costs and are far more stable when
compared with the fuel costs for fossil fuels. Therefore, the use of
nuclear energy tends to insulate the economy from fossil fuel price
fluctuations.
how existing nuclear power plants help the environment
Nuclear energy generates electricity without emitting any
greenhouse gases or other harmful air pollutants such as sulfur oxide
and nitrogen oxides. It has played an important role in limiting U.S.
emissions by avoiding two billion metric tons of carbon emissions since
1973. The 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S. provide approximately 20
percent of the electricity generated and avoid more than 150 million
metric tons of carbon emissions annually. Continued operation of the
existing nuclear power plants (75 percent) another 20 years beyond
their current license terms could reduce emissions by 64 million metric
tons between 1995 and 2010, 208 million metric tons by 2015, and 2260
million metric tons by the middle of the next century. Also, with new
requirements for lower emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide
for fossil plants, particularly in the eastern part of the nation, the
contribution of existing power plants in avoiding harmful air emissions
becomes even more important. These plants are critical to achieving our
international goals on climate change and to meeting current
requirements under the Clean Air Act.
why it is important to ensure continued operation of nuclear power
plants
In order to ensure a continued high standard of living for the
American people, we need to maintain a diverse, secure energy portfolio
of fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and renewables. Currently solar and
wind energy provide less than one tenth of one percent each of the
total energy consumption in the United States. Due to inherent
limitations of energy intensity available for solar and wind power,
their share is not expected to become significant in the near future.
The share of electricity generation from non-hydroelectric renewable
electric generators was 1.21 percent for 1997. Their share including
co-generation was 2.1 percent in 1997 and Energy Information
Administration (EIA) projects it to grow to 3.23 percent in 2020 in the
reference case forecast. However, if a state or federal mandated
requirement of a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), which specifies
that 5.5 percent of electricity generated (or sold) in the state must
be produced by qualifying renewable power plants (these generally
include all renewable facilities except hydroelectric plants and
municipal solid waste), is achieved, and if we assume that the yields
for energy crops grown on pasture and crop land will be nearly 20
percent higher than expected in the reference case, then by applying
the most optimistic assumptions for capital costs, operation and
maintenance expenses, and capacity factors for non-hydroelectric
renewables, their share of generation is limited to be no more than
6.22 percent of total electricity generated in the U.S. in 2020.
Hydroelectric power currently supplies close to 10 percent of U.S.
electricity needs but its expansion potential very limited due to a
lack of available new sites, high construction costs, growing
environmental concerns, and competing uses of water resources. The
share of hydroelectric generation is projected to decline from 9.96
percent in 1997 to 6.7 percent in 2020.
Therefore, despite environmental concerns, use of coal and natural
gas to generate electricity must continue. Nuclear energy generation
must continue as well. The EIA projects that even with aggressive
energy efficiency measures, U.S. electricity consumption will increase
by 1.4 percent per year through 2020--the equivalent of seven large
1,000 megawatt power plants each year. During this same period, 127,000
megawatts of existing electricity generating capacity could be retired
because of age, competitive pressures, and as part of U.S. utility
measures to meet clean air standards.
Continued operation of existing nuclear power plants is an
important hedge against uncertainties associated with meeting emission
limitations for fossil plants and is critical to meeting demand in the
future and sustaining our energy supply infrastructure.
issues that could impact continued operation of nuclear power plants
Deregulation of electricity production in the United States has
increased economic uncertainties in the electricity sector. Existing
and proposed environmental laws are causing the closure of older
fossil-fuel plants. Similarly, we are at a critical juncture with
regard to the continued operation of nuclear power plants in the United
States. Licenses for U.S. nuclear power plants will begin to expire in
large numbers in 2010; licenses for 13 plants representing some 11,700
MWe will expire in 2014 alone. A few utilities have decided to close
older, less efficient nuclear facilities before their license
expiration date. Six reactors closed before license expiration with the
resultant loss of approximately 4,000 megawatts of U.S. generating
capacity in the past three years.
However, over the last couple years the strategic landscape has
started to change. Two years ago, with electricity restructuring
looming and concerns over regulatory uncertainty, the prediction was
that existing nuclear generation capacity was doomed--that fewer plants
would seek license extensions and that many would shut down
prematurely. Today, with consolidations in ownership occurring and
several plants proceeding and making good progress with license
renewal, it is clear that there is a future for the majority of U.S.
nuclear plants. However, for these plants to remain viable beyond 2020,
both government and industry must take action--government reducing
regulatory and other barriers to operation and industry, investing
capital in upgrading their facilities for the future and investing in
short-term R&D.
Industry must continue to carry the burden of short term research
and they are meeting this challenge very well with an investment
approaching $100 million annually. Most of this research is aimed at
enhancing day to day operational performance and to respond to
regulatory and other relicensing issues. On the other hand, there is a
clear role for the government in filling the void in intermediate term
research--research as proposed by the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization
(NEPO) program to address plant aging issues and to improve safety and
reliability of existing nuclear power plants.
independent advice on nuclear energy r&d
The President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST) Panel on Federal Energy Research and Development recognized the
critical role of nuclear power in its report of November 5, 1997. The
Panel's report recommended that the Department work with its
laboratories and industry to develop a program jointly funded with
industry, to address the problems that may prevent the continued
operation of existing nuclear power plants.
The nuclear industry has consistently urged DOE to assume this
important role. A number of letters to the Secretary of Energy from
Kurt Yeager, CEO of Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and from
EPRI's Nuclear Power Council, comprised of the nuclear utility
executives who guide the industry's collaborative R&D program, were
sent to DOE in 1997 and 1998 in support of this role.
the nuclear energy plant optimization (nepo) program
Existing nuclear power plants serve the broad national strategic
interests of expanding the economy, providing for energy security, and
improving the environment. Recognizing these national interests, and
consistent with the Comprehensive National Energy Strategy and
recommendations of PCAST, the Department proposes, the NEPO program,
beginning in fiscal year 2000. The goal of NEPO is to ensure that
current nuclear plants can continue to deliver adequate and affordable
energy supplies up to and beyond their initial 40-year license period
by resolving open issues related to plant aging, and by applying new
technologies to improve plant economics, reliability, and availability.
As a program that addresses higher risk, more long-term R&D than
that performed by industry, and as a program addressing issues
associated with existing nuclear power plants, it would be conducted in
at least 50-50 cost shared collaboration with industry and with close
coordination with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Senator Domenici. Did you have anything else you wanted to
add, sir?
Mr. Magwood. No. I would just like to say that I appreciate
your interest in this issue. It has been gratifying to have
Members of Congress take a leading role and actually pushing us
along in some areas, perhaps areas that we had not even really
thought much about, but I appreciate your interest and
involvement.
micro-machines program at sandia
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Dr. Krebs, let me
ask you about a technology that is not within your
jurisdiction, but ask if you are familiar and if you know about
it. Do you visit Sandia National Laboratory very often?
Dr. Krebs. I have visited Sandia Laboratories several times
during my time in this job.
Senator Domenici. Are you aware of a research project they
have going in terms of nuclear safety, but it has some very
other significant uses called micro-machines?
Dr. Krebs. I have seen some of their work in that area and
some of the--they send me pictures and I have gone through that
part of the laboratory.
Senator Domenici. The reason I was asking is because I
trust your judgment and I was going to ask if you were as
interested in it as a future technology as I have become, but
since you are not that familiar you would not have an
observation on that, would you?
Dr. Krebs. Not particularly about micro-machines, but as I
noted in my testimony, we are very engaged in exploring the
performance of materials on a nano-scale, and the next step
after that is taking it into technological applications. Now,
these small machines are not quite at nano-scales yet, but
nonetheless, you have to start someplace.
Senator Domenici. Well, there is just a gigantic interest
in them----
Dr. Krebs. Right.
Senator Domenici [continuing]. What they are doing,
producing machines just like you have your microchip, there are
machines on it instead of inactive things, and they are so
small, one-tenth of a hair, a hundredth of a hair, and they
could end up being put in your blood system, and they could
attack things like the plaque that makes heart conditions and
the like. Actually, engineers designed them with micro-
equipment just like you would design a----
Dr. Krebs. It is very exciting.
spallation neutron source [sns]
Senator Domenici. It is kind of interesting. Are you
satisfied that when we go to the House and say we want to
continue the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge that we are
going to have enough information within the next month or so
showing that we have taken care of most of GAO's concerns?
Dr. Krebs. I do believe that, yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. I would appreciate your making a note
that as soon as you have the project in a position where you
can clearly state we are on course with an appropriate
management team and it should be built pursuant to specs, and
if the specs are right, it will work, we would like to have
that from you.
Dr. Krebs. I think I can have the first installment of that
to you on Thursday, with the report from the--the recent report
that is coming out tomorrow.
Senator Domenici. If there is a subsequent installment,
would you get that to us as a matter of course, get it to our
subcommittee?
Dr. Krebs. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
Spallation Neutron Source Project Assessment Report and Action Plan
executive summary
The Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) is a $1.36 B project to build
what will be the world's most powerful research facility for neutron
science. As a seven-year construction project supported by the
Department of Energy (DOE), the SNS is now in its first year of
congressionally approved line-item funding. In January 1999, the DOE
reviewed the project's status and recommended that experienced project
leadership be recruited to strengthen project performance. With the
support of the DOE and the five national laboratories \1\ participating
in the project, the new SNS leadership has conducted a thorough project
assessment and developed a comprehensive course of action for
completing the project safely, on budget, and on schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The preferred site for the SNS is at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORAL) and essential technical expertise is being provided
by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Brookhaven National Laboratory
(BNL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), and Los Alamos
National Laboratory (LANL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assessment determined that many qualified people and adequate
management systems are in place throughout the partner laboratories to
support the current R&D activities of the project. The present
accelerator concept is sound, uses existing, low-risk technology, and
is highly likely to achieve the desired performance and reliability.
High-quality technical work is ongoing. Planning for safe execution of
the project within the Integrated Safety Management systems of all the
partner laboratories is advanced. The final Environmental Impact
Statement has been submitted to DOE and approved, and the Record of
Decision is expected in May.
As the project enters the Title I design phase, the primary needs
identified by the project assessment are to recruit additional
experienced staff for key positions, optimize and fully integrate the
technical design, and strengthen the business and project management
systems to support construction activities. Through prompt
implementation of the management action plan developed from the
assessment, the project will establish within the next six months or
sooner:
1. An integrated SNS organization with experienced people in key
roles, fully engaging the expertise available from the partner
laboratories;
2. An optimized project baseline, with adequate contingency, that
delivers maximum scientific output within the $1.36 B budget;
3. Strengthened Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) that formalize
accountability for deliverables, ensure project authority over all
project personnel at partner labs, and cap overhead rates; and
4. Fully integrated and efficient project and business management
systems to plan, track and expedite work accomplishment, and
effectively control the project.
Completion of the action plan will position the SNS to be
constructed safely and within budget by fiscal year 2006. In full
operation the SNS facility will meet or exceed its performance goals
and deliver pulsed neutron beams of unprecedented power and reliability
to a world-class instrument suite.
introduction
For 30 years there has not been a major new neutron source
commissioned in the United States. This situation has led to a serious
decline in the competitiveness of U.S. researchers compared to their
European and Japanese colleagues. Lacking new opportunities, successive
generations of young neutron scientists have migrated into other fields
of research, significantly depleting the strength of an enterprise in
which North America played the seminal role as recognized by the 1994
Nobel Prize in Physics. Although decline within the U.S. neutron
research community has occurred, global neutron research has expanded
its unique role in determining the structure of critical materials,
especially complex magnetic and organic substances which are essential
to our high-technology economy. Given the growing age of existing U.S.
facilities and the compelling scientific importance of neutrons, the
construction of a leading-edge neutron research facility has become an
urgent national priority.
The U.S. neutron research community has now focused on
reestablishing world leadership in this critical field by building the
Spallation Neutron Source at the preferred site of ORNL. Using advanced
accelerator technology, and at a cost of $1.36 B, this source will be
ten times more powerful than any existing facility worldwide when it is
completed in fiscal year 2006. Including new-generation neutron-source
technology and instrument design, the SNS will extend its scientific
advantage to an even greater level. Success in achieving these
challenging technical goals can only be accomplished through exemplary
cost, schedule, and safety performance.
The DOE regularly reviews its major construction projects using a
comprehensive approach that has an outstanding reputation for depth and
integrity. During January 26-28, 1999, the DOE conducted such a review
of the SNS project, which has its first year of construction line-item
funding. The purpose of this review was to validate the projects
proposed Level 1 (Office of Science) cost, schedule, and technical
baseline. The review determined that the project planning was not
sufficiently mature to support the validation of the necessary baseline
and recommended that experienced project leadership be recruited to
ensure the project could be executed successfully. In early March, Dr.
David Moncton--previously the leader of the recently successful
Advanced Photon Source project--was appointed. With the support of DOE
(Appendix A) and the five DOE laboratories participating in the
project, he has attracted other experienced managers, enlisted
independent specialists, and conducted a rapid assessment of every
aspect of the project to determine the assets, status, and the course
of action necessary to establish the baseline and complete the project
successfully. Part of this assessment considered whether the project's
scope was optimized to provide the greatest capability for neutron
science that could be obtained within the budget of $1.36 B.
Informed by this assessment, DOE review reports, and its collective
experience with major scientific projects, the new SNS leadership
developed the action plan summarized in Section 4 below. This plan
contains the actions, milestones, and strategies needed for the balance
of fiscal year 1999 to position the SNS for success in meeting its
performance objectives.
The SNS project has a great deal of work to accomplish in a short
period of time. But there exists within the DOE system, and available
to the project through the five-lab collaboration, expertise sufficient
to achieve all the long-range goals of the project and build a facility
that will revolutionize neutron scattering worldwide. This facility
will reestablish the U.S. as the premier center for neutron research,
and its safe construction, on schedule and within budget, will clearly
demonstrate the commitment and the capacity of the DOE national
laboratories to achieve world-class management and scientific
performance.
project vision and management principles
The key element in the SNS project planning is the formation of an
effective multi-laboratory partnership to insure that the best
scientists/engineers and the optimum technology are employed in the
design and construction phases with followed by successful
commissioning and operation. To execute this project effectively, the
participating laboratories must share a common vision for the facility
and embrace an active management approach that transcends institutional
boundaries. Underlying both of these elements must be a strong
commitment to attract and support people who are highly qualified in
every aspect of technical and management responsibility.
Vision
By the year 2006, the SNS will have been completed safely, within
cost and on schedule by the multi-laboratory partnership. It will be
positioned to meet or exceed its performance goals within the ensuing
few years, delivering pulsed neutron beams of unprecedented power
reliably to instruments with highly advanced designs. Through their
involvement in these developments, an expanded user community will
advance the frontiers of knowledge in a broad range of scientific
fields.
In these accomplishments, the partner laboratories will have met or
exceeded their individual goals and enhanced their reputations in areas
important to their own competencies. But more importantly the people
involved will have achieved something that none of them alone could
have done--turning this vision into a reality that will transform many
fields of science for decades to come.
Management Principles
Environment, safety and health.--Of overriding importance is the
safety of our people and the protection of the environment. It is our
philosophy that accidents and injuries can be prevented, that we must
rigorously adhere to relevant safety and environmental standards, and
that no individual working for the SNS project should feel compelled to
do work he/she believes is not safe. Managers and workers share this
responsibility, and all must work to continuously improve our
collective performance.
High-quality people.--Our next most important principle is that
optimum results will be achieved on this complex project by the best
people working in a collaborative and supportive environment.
Integrated, cross-laboratory teamwork.--A major challenge in this
project is to manage effective collaboration among the participating
laboratories. We will need to establish explicit mechanisms to overcome
institutional, geographic, and communication barriers and build an
integrated SNS team.
Project-based thinking to deliver on time and within budget.--It is
essential to recognize that the SNS is first a major construction
project with specific deliverables and a firm cost and schedule. A key
principle for a project of this magnitude and technical complexity is
the need to optimize globally--that is, over the entire project--rather
than locally. For every project element, the temptation must be avoided
to optimize local technology, budget or schedule, whenever doing so
would not benefit the project overall.
Active management and clear communication.--Management has a
fundamental responsibility to make and communicate decisions in an open
and logical manner, while achieving the highest possible degree of
consensus. It is essential that project employees and managers respect
and trust one another, and that the management team act in a way that
is deserving of that trust.
Collaboration Management
The most fundamental issue in collaboration management is the
nature of the ``contract'' between ORNL as the lead lab and the other
partner laboratories. Because ORNL has the ultimate responsibility for
delivering the SNS project and operating the completed facility, it is
imperative that ORNL provide credible technical and project leadership
on behalf of the collaboration. It is incumbent on ORNL to delegate
appropriate authority to the partner labs for execution of their work
consistent with their demonstrated performance and the terms of the
Memoranda of Agreement. It is equally important that ORNL have full
ability to track and appropriately manage SNS activities at the partner
labs. In implementing this trust-but-verify approach, it is desirable
to have maximally transparent boundaries between the partner labs,
thereby creating an integrated project team with accountability and
communication as clear as if the project were executed in the
traditional single-lab approach.
action plan
Planned actions developed by the new SNS leadership are grouped
within six principal categories and are summarized below.
People and Organization
The Project Office will be reorganized by July to establish clear
responsibility for each technical and administrative area and increase
the number of project-experienced managers (Fig. 1). An accelerator
technical staff (led by an experienced Accelerator Systems Division
Director) will be promptly established at ORNL to lead integration and
review of component and system designs, prepare for facility
operations, and guide procurement, fabrication, installation, testing
and commissioning strategies. An integrated project human resources
plan will be developed (in phases and completed by October) to guide
the hiring process. Key staffing needs identified during this project
assessment will be filled as soon as possible with qualified and
experienced individuals. The HR plan will include policies and
mechanisms for ensuring project input into performance appraisals for
people performing SNS work, position description requirements, staffing
levels, and strategies to ensure that broad diversity in talent is
achieved.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10AP13.007
Technical Concept
By August 1999, a plan for SNS instrumentation will be developed
that reflects the need for best-in-class instruments, involves the user
community, capitalizes on the capabilities of the federally-funded
laboratories with substantial neutron science experience, and includes
ongoing instrument development. This plan will propose mechanisms and
incentives for investment by potential investors, a strategy for
engaging the scientific community early in the project, and user access
policies tailored to the needs of the neutron scattering community in
the U.S. A series of workshops aimed at outreach to new user
communities (e.g., the biological/biomedical community) will be
launched. Also, by August 1999, a staffing plan for operations, ongoing
instrument development, and on-site user activities and support will be
developed to optimize the design of the conventional facilities. An R&D
program on a backup solid target will be initiated now.
The present linac/accumulator ring (LAR) concept will be optimized
for 2-MW operation by May 1999 and its detailed cost estimate will be
reviewed and scrubbed by the project management in June. This process
will strive to identify available funds to increase project contingency
and to provide additional instruments, targets, and office/laboratory
space. This 2-MW LAR design will be reviewed by the Accelerator Systems
Advisory Committee and proposed as the project baseline to DOE in mid-
July. In parallel, a study will be started immediately (provided
sufficient resources can be identified) to explore modified accelerator
designs by June. If modifications are shown to have substantial cost
advantages with no loss of performance or negative impact on the
project's long-range schedule, then their designs, cost estimates, and
schedules will be developed by October 1999 and adopted through the
project's formal change control process.
Conventional Facilities and Site
Full geotechnical qualification of the preferred ORNL site will be
pursued aggressively. Innovative technology and a site drilling plan
will be employed, and the three-season surveys for threatened species
and endangered plants will be completed by the end of calendar year
1999. Facilities programming will be initiated now to ensure that
adequate requirements to support researchers and operations staff are
identified in the design. Systems requirements documents for all
facilities will be completed, and the design requirements and site plan
of the Joint Institute for Neutron Science will be reviewed with the
University of Tennessee to ensure that the SNS site plan and programmed
space needs are optimized. Based on the actions above, the final SNS
site qualification will be completed by September 1999.
Project Management
The Memorandum of Agreement with each partner laboratory will be
revised by May 1999 to formalize each laboratory's accountability for
deliverables, strengthen the authority of the Project Director over
SNS-assigned personnel at each location, and cap overhead rates applied
to SNS activities for the duration of the project. The role of the
project Upper Management Council will be developed to provide
additional and regular advice and assistance with strategic
collaboration management issues.
Environment, Safety and Health, and Quality Assurance
A focused effort on target radiological issues in the preliminary
safety analysis report (PSAR) will be instituted now to support a
project decision in June 1999 on target hazard classification and
potential mitigation proposals. Completion of the draft PSAR will be
expedited to the first quarter of fiscal year 2000. The project ES&H
group will issue a draft plan by July 1999 to establish appropriate
project-wide ES&H standards for engineering design. A quality assurance
(QA) approach will be developed and a tailored QA plan will be approved
by September 1999. To facilitate development of this plan and enhance
cross-project teamwork, a workshop including QA specialists and
technical managers will be conducted.
Business Systems
A number of actions are planned to improve the project's management
support systems, including human resources, finance and accounting, and
procurement.
With DOE assistance, policies and plans to better facilitate
recruitment of experienced personnel will be established to provide
continuity of service benefits when hiring between DOE laboratories.
Relocation and family assistance to address recruiting concerns at ORNL
(including transfer of ORNL personnel hired at partner laboratories)
will be procured. Routine use of videoconferencing capability available
to SNS project teams at all partner labs will be implemented by July
1999 to reduce travel costs and enhance communications.
By October 1999, methods to automate the integration of financial
and cost performance reporting system information with project
schedules will be in place, reducing the manual effort currently
required to reconcile these data and to provide improved contingency
control. The project office will conduct a detailed analysis of
overhead rates at all partner laboratories and verify cost estimates
during the June cost estimate scrub. This action will support the
establishment of long-term capped overhead rates as reflected in the
strengthened MOA. An SNS project financial audit plan will be
formalized by October 1999, to include plans for regular financial
reviews and guidance for audit activity at partner laboratories.
A project-wide procurement strategy will be developed by July; this
strategy will include advanced procurement planning, guidance for
acquisition decisions, reporting requirements and formats, approval
levels, and buyer/technical staff roles and responsibilities. A
workshop led by ORNL project procurement will be scheduled to help
develop this strategy, build teamwork, and resolve inefficiencies
resulting from constraints on procurement organizations in the partner
laboratories. Based on the project procurement strategy, the
procurement workload and resulting staffing plan will be developed and
in place by October 1999.
conclusions
This assessment report and action plan addresses the SNS project's
organization, technical, and scientific capability, site qualification,
project management systems, business systems, and human resources. The
plan focuses on establishing by July 1999:
1. An integrated SNS organization with experienced key staff in
place that takes advantage of the capabilities at the partner
laboratories, while building at ORNL the technical and administrative
strength to lead the construction effort and operate the completed SNS
user facility for world-class scientific research;
2. A validated, self-consistent, and optimized technical, cost, and
schedule baseline with adequate cost and schedule contingency and
maximized neutron-science capability within the $1.36 B budget;
3. Strengthened interlaboratory MOA that formalize accountability
for deliverables, ensure project authority over all project personnel,
and cap overhead rates for the life of the project.
Major objectives to be achieved by October 1999 include:
4. To complete the geotechnical analysis of the preferred site at
ORNL to determine that it is acceptable;
5. To establish a firm hazard category for the target facilities to
allow optimal design and planning to proceed and ultimately to allow
safe and cost effective operation;
6. To implement fully integrated and efficient project management
systems to plan, track, and expedite work accomplishment, and
effectively control the project; and
7. To establish financial, procurement, human resource, and related
business systems that are tailored to project needs and linked to the
project management databases.
The assessment determined that many qualified personnel and
management systems adequate for the R&D phase are in place throughout
the partner laboratories. High-quality technical work is ongoing.
Planning for safe execution of the project within the Integrated Safety
Management systems of all the laboratories is advanced. The final
Environmental Impact Statement has been submitted to DOE for approval
and the Record of Decision is expected in May. The primary project
needs are to significantly upgrade the capabilities and systems of the
central project office during the design phase, and to fully optimize
and integrate the design for construction and operation.
Project management, reporting, business, and human resource systems
will also be tailored to execute the project in the multilaboratory
environment. These systems will become fully mature by October 1999.
The critically important task of developing a staffing plan and
attracting highly qualified personnel will proceed concurrently. The
Upper Management Council, consisting of one senior line manager
appointed by each partner laboratory director, will be convened on a
regular basis to assist project management and help refine the
collaboration management approach. Successful completion of the
described action plan will position the SNS to be completed safely by
the multilaboratory partnership within budget and on schedule.
DOE Letter of Agreement
Department of Energy,
Washington, DC, February 19, 1999.
Dr. David Moncton,
Associate Laboratory Director for the Advanced Photon Source,
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL.
Dear David: Al Trivelpiece told us that the five laboratory
directors responsible for the construction of the SNS met and that you
were their enthusiastic and unanimous choice to lead the SNS project. I
was very pleased to learn that you are seriously considering this
position and that you already have agreed to undertake a personal
review of the project. I understand and support your need to review all
aspects of the project and to discuss your findings and recommendations
with both the DOE and the five laboratory collaboration.
We have agreed that you will assemble a Senior Management Team from
both within and outside the present SNS project. The Senior Management
Team will conduct a comprehensive month-long asset assessment using a
set of teams composed of outside experts and internal asset owners.
Under review will be, among others things, financial resources, human
resources, project management systems, business management systems,
physical assets, and the site itself. Importantly, we have agreed that
your assessment will include the reference design and its associated
costs and schedules. You will prepare a Project Plan containing
findings and recommendations by the first week in April and will
present this plan to DOE, the directors of the SNS partner
laboratories, and the several SNS advisory committees immediately
thereafter. A longer-term goal is to have the project ready for a Level
1 baseline review by July 1999.
I want to assure you that DOE is open to accepting a wide range of
recommendations subject only to a very few constraints, which we have
already discussed. These constraints are the following. (1) The Level 0
Baselines (cost, scope, and schedule) approved by Secretary Pena in
December, 1997, and modified only as a result of the fiscal year 1999
appropriation must be maintained; within the TPC, there must be an
adequate contingency. (2) The SNS project must continue as a five-
laboratory collaboration with ORNL as the preferred site. (3) In accord
with the recommendations of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory
Committee (BESAC) regarding the technical specifications of the SNS,
the design must be sufficiently flexible so that the SNS can be
operated at a significantly higher power in a later stage. Furthermore,
the upgrade path must minimize downtime for the users. (4) Finally, it
is very important that the design maximize scientific capability
through a large and robust initial suite of instruments and through
other accommodations to the needs of the neutron science user
community.
Other recommendations of BESAC were that the design rely on low-
risk technology initially, the linear accelerator design not exclude
direct injection of long pulses into a spallation target, and the
source have a predictability and reliability as set forth in the Kohn
report and be capable of operating at least 240 days annually. You
should consider these recommendations as you undertake your assessment
of the project.
We have also agreed to work with you and the Laboratory to
accommodate needs related to recruitment and retention incentives for
the SNS senior management team and other issues. Please let me know if
there is anything that I can do to expedite your review. I look forward
to your presentation to me and to the Office of Basic Energy Sciences.
Again, I want to sincerely welcome you into the SNS collaboration and
offer my full support and help during the coming weeks.
Sincerely,
Martha A. Krebs,
Director, Office of Science.
Senator Domenici. I do not want to burden the record on it,
but I just want to say it concerns me greatly that we are in
this position, and it should concern you, concern the
Department of Energy. The Department of Energy does not have
the greatest record of getting these kind of major projects
through completion. I do not care to use statistics, but that
record is not very good. I would hope that this Spallation
Neutron Source machine, which everybody thinks is a great tool
for science, that we do not mess it up in terms of managing its
construction and early operation.
Dr. Krebs. I have a great concern for it, too. I consider
this project to be a critical element of the Department's role
and the Office of Science's role as a provider of major unique
scientific user facilities. We have paid a lot of attention to
the management of the project.
The difficulties that were discovered were discovered by
our process, which is an extremely open one, and we took very
strong, prompt action, and we will continue to do that as the
project goes along.
employment levels
Senator Domenici. The Office of Science, which you head,
has one of the lowest ratios of program direction funds to
program funds. In other words, your office uses very few
Federal employees to oversee a great deal of research funds.
Are you able to attract and retain sufficient employees to do
this kind of work, and/or do you have authority to go outside
and contract for them?
Dr. Krebs. This is a hard question to answer. We have some
very dedicated, extraordinarily bright, committed people who
work for the Office of Science. About 50 percent of them are
eligible for retirement, so I have been able to keep them on
board, because they care a great deal about the programs that
we support.
Our headquarter's FTE number has gone down in the last 5
years from 380 to about 270. So as I look forward in the next 2
to 5 years, I think the ability to attract, retain, and
compensate the kind of people we have now is a big concern for
me.
Senator Domenici. Are you starting to plan now?
Dr. Krebs. Sir, the Secretary has engaged in a Workforce-21
planning exercise, by which he has reviewed the commitments
that the Department made, I guess now 3 or 4 years ago, I
cannot remember, and there are adjustments being made, so we
will be able within the next year to begin to address some of
these issues.
Mr. Reicher. Mr. Chairman, if I could make a brief comment.
Senator Domenici. Please.
Mr. Reicher. In line with what Dr. Krebs said, under
Workforce-21 Secretary Richardson has recognized that under the
Strategic Alignment Initiative, which brought down the FTE
levels in the Department substantially, we do now face a
situation where there are some specific technical and other
personnel needed in the Federal ranks to run our programs. In
the case of my office, our staff, our Federal staff, is down
somewhere on the order of 27 percent in the last few years, and
our budget is up somewhat.
What we found is that we do not have, in fact, adequate
federal staff to administer the taxpayers' dollars as well as
we think we need to, and so part of Workforce-21 is designed to
address some of those disconnects in the staffing of the
Department of Energy and a variety of offices. I think all are
hopeful that in your consideration of the various budget
requests that these targeted increases in Federal staffing
would be supported. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Thank you. Thanks to both of you. I
wonder if Workforce-21 also reviews the areas where we are not
short to see if there is an excess elsewhere.
Dr. Krebs. I think it looked across all of the
organizations in the Department, and I cannot tell you whether
they shifted from one to the other. I do not know that.
Senator Domenici. Well, we get a constant barrage of
inquiries about whether or not the OE, in skinning down,
because of budget restraints, has more people in Washington
than they need and reduced forces elsewhere, they reduce jobs
elsewhere. I do not know the answer to that, but----
Dr. Krebs. May I make a comment?
Senator Domenici [continuing]. I am concerned that we have
such a shortage in these areas, and we have to do some
planning, especially in the one you described, about 50 percent
being ready to retire. I mean you need corporate memory, but
you need to have some talented people.
Dr. Krebs. May I make a comment?
Senator Domenici. Sure.
field structure
Dr. Krebs. I think that it is important to distinguish the
way different programs at the Department of Energy use the
field structure. The Environmental Management Program, for
example, really operates very strongly in the field and manages
their programs in the field.
For a program like the Office of Science, where we reach
across so many different disciplines in the scientific
community, it is very difficult to reproduce that capability in
the field, so that the planning, program execution and
oversight in large measure stays at headquarters rather than
being--and some contract management, some project management
for big facilities like the Spallation Source does take place
in the field, and so we have a different balance than, for
example, the Environmental Management Program might have. The
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewables, or our Nuclear
Energy, might be similar in that regard.
Senator Domenici. Do you wish to comment on that, Mr.
Reicher?
Mr. Reicher. Yes. We have a mix of both R&D like the Office
of Science, and then some deployment-oriented programs, so what
we are focused on is ensuring we have the core capability at
headquarters to manage the cross-cutting R&D, but then we also
have important Federal workers in the field in six different
cities who help us with the deployment of these technologies.
So striking that balance has been a part of the Workforce-
21, and I would also add the Secretary's review of the whole
field structure.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Magwood, I would assume your portion
of the Department got so small that you must have a problem
that everybody is new.
Mr. Magwood. I think that our situation is similar to Dr.
Krebs'. In fact, our outlook for retirement is worse than the
Office of Science. We have one of the older offices in the
Department, and we have already lost a great deal of important
talent, partially because of the need to downsize to meet the
strategic alignment initiatives, but also, quite frankly,
because there is some exacerbation on the part of some of the
professionals in Nuclear Energy about the direction of the
program over the last few years.
We have reversed that, and a lot of people we think are
going to hang on for a while. I really am focused now on trying
to bring some younger people into our office to make sure that
the expertise we have can perpetuate into the future. We are
very pleased with the outcome of the Workforce-21 initiative,
and our program direction request reflects our expectations
there.
low dose radiation research
Senator Domenici. Dr. Krebs, everywhere we look in terms of
nuclear waste disposal, any area where we have a potential for
low-level radiation, we are confronted with the fact that
almost everybody tells us that we do not know the effects
properly, and that most of them say we overstated the effect of
low-level radiation.
We have finally come to a point at which I am very pleased
to be part of, where Congress provided $12 million for a
research program to try to help us understand the health
effects of low-level ionizing radiation, that is, whether there
is at very low levels a linear relationship between radiation
exposure and cancer, which we have all, based on one major
study, accepted the linear relationship, and even a non-
scientist can look at an explanation of it and have some real
wonder about whether it truly is scientifically extendable, as
it has been.
I understand that in response to that money you have put
out solicitations for a $7 million proposal, and that you
received $60 million or $70 million worth of applications.
Dr. Krebs. Correct.
Senator Domenici. Are they good institutions and
partnerships that want to do this research? Are they among the
best in the country?
Dr. Krebs. Yes. I think they range across all of our
laboratories and all of the major research universities, so we
think that we will be able to run an external peer review
process that will assure that we have the best and the most
relevant research to the program plan, within the program plan.
Senator Domenici. Do you share my enthusiasm that the
country ought to get this done?
Dr. Krebs. I think that this is a particularly opportune
time for the scientific community to take another look at this
problem. Given the tools that we have developed within the
genome program, and since the damage that occurs, that induces
any kind of radiation response arises first at the genetic and
genomic level, we now have the tools so that we can take a look
at it, so it is a particularly appropriate time.
Senator Domenici. Now, the biological and environmental
research advisory committee has helped you develop the research
plan for this effort, is that right?
Dr. Krebs. Correct, sir. I requested last year that they
provide a plan, they have submitted it. I believe that it has
been shared with you.
Senator Domenici. Does your budget for 2000 fully fund the
program set out by the advisory committee.
Dr. Krebs. It does not, sir, as far as I understand.
Senator Domenici. How much are you short?
Dr. Krebs. I would have to provide you, for the record, but
my understanding is that we have $10 million in the budget, and
to completely take advantage of all the opportunities that the
scientific community has identified would take more than $20
million.
[The information follows:]
Low Dose Radiation Research Program
Senate Report 105-206 dated June 5, 1998, directed the Biological
and Environmental Research (BER) program to provide the Senate Energy
and Water Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee a draft
plan for the Low Dose Radiation Research Program. A draft program plan
called for the program to spend $3 million in fiscal year 1998, $5
million in Fiscal year 1999, and $10 million per year in fiscal year
2000-2007. The fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development
Appropriation provided $8 million for this program ($3 million in the
BER budget and $5 million in the budget for Environmental Management),
for a total of $13 million in fiscal year 1999, and called for the
development of a long range program plan. The Biological and
Environmental Research Advisory Committee (BERAC) prepared a program
plan that was delivered to Congress in March 1999. This plan called for
$22.4 million in fiscal year 2000, in contrast to the fiscal year 2000
request of $10 million.
Senator Domenici. More than what?
Dr. Krebs. $20 million.
Senator Domenici. Okay. We thought it was about $22
million, is that about right?
Dr. Krebs. Yes.
Senator Domenici. The reason I ask and the reason I will be
concerned about documentation and what the advisory group said
is because I do not think you want to do one of these and not
get it right. You must do the peer review, you have to get the
right answer so that when we are finished we do not have
everybody that is anti-nuclear questioning the results. They
will anyway, therefore, it is critical that we be
scientifically sound.
Dr. Krebs. You want to do the right science----
Senator Domenici. You have it.
Dr. Krebs [continuing]. The fastest way.
high flux beam reactor
Senator Domenici. Can we talk a minute about the High-Flux
Beam Reactor?
Dr. Krebs. Certainly.
Senator Domenici. The Department intends to decide in June
whether to re-start the High-Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven.
Would your request provide sufficient funds to re-start the
reactor or shut it down, depending on the decision?
Dr. Krebs. Let me provide that for the record. Right now,
we are about to release in late May or early June the draft
environmental impact statement for the future of the high-flux
beam reactor. We can release that draft without a preferred
alternative.
If we release the draft that way, then when the final
report is released come next November or December that would be
the time when we would have to finally determine a preferred
alternative.
The Secretary has indicated that he is willing to consider
an early decision, but we have not engaged him in the review of
the issues that would lead to that decision that might lead us
to have a preferred alternative with the draft. If the decision
were to restart, we would still have a considerable amount of
activity to undertake to prepare for actually turning on the
reactor.
If the decision were to shut down, we would still need,
again, approximately the same amount of funding that is in our
2000 budget request to prepare the facility for a safe
shutdown. A decision, even an early decision to restart, would
require some 16 months before we could expect the facility to
operate again, and the funding in a shutdown case does not
account for any of the decommissioning and decontamination
costs.
[The information follows:]
High Flux Beam Reactor Funding
Yes, the fiscal year 2000 funding request for the High Flux Beam
Reactor is adequate for restart or shutdown activities.
During the first quarter of fiscal year 2000, before completion of
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the associated Record of
Decision, activities that are common to all of the EIS alternatives
will continue. These activities are part of the High Flux Beam Reactor
(HFBR) Transition Project initiated in 1998. These include the canal
liner, as well as the seismic upgrades to the operations level crane
and the control room, the repiping of the stack drains, the
installation of Suffolk County Article 12 leak detection
instrumentation, and the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) update
implementation.
If the DOE decision is to restart the reactor, restart related
activities will start when DOE authorization is given. It will take
about 16 months from the time the decision is made to restart for the
reactor to start operations. These activities include, the secondary
water basin, piping, and isolation valve upgrade, canal internals
fabrication, SAR implementation of corrective actions, Operational
Readiness Review implementation, and hiring and training of personnel.
If the DOE decision is to shut down HFBR, activities will start to
place HFBR in safe shutdown. These activities include draining and
removal of all radioactive fluids and removal of activated components
in the pressure vessel. These activities will continue throughout
fiscal year 2000.
bates laboratory funding
Senator Domenici. Let me just talk a minute about the MIT
Bates facility. Your budget request includes no funding for the
continued operation of that facility at MIT.
Dr. Krebs. Correct.
Senator Domenici. After the submission of the request I
understand Secretary Richardson committed to submit a budget
amendment to provide some continued funding for the Bates
facility. Can you tell us when we will receive that amendment,
and what you would propose to do at MIT next year?
Dr. Krebs. My best understanding at this moment is that an
amendment was cleared by OMB last night. The details of how
that facility will operate in fiscal year 2000 I will have to
provide you for the record. But it would be our intention to
complete the BLAST detector and to operate the facility through
the year 2004, to complete the science that can be obtained
from BLAST. We may be able to operate another detector as well,
but we need to look at that carefully.
Senator Domenici. From where are you going to get the
money? Have you decided that yet?
Dr. Krebs. Well, I think that is in the budget amendment,
sir.
Senator Domenici. Oh, good. We will be interested in it. It
seems to me that this facility, I have great respect for MIT,
it seems like it just cannot die. It must have some very
excellent supporters somewhere. Do you have any idea whom they
might be?
Dr. Krebs. Well, sir, what I can tell you--certain kinds of
support you probably know better than I, but in terms of
scientific support, I can tell you that last year we asked the
Nuclear Science Advisory Committee to review the medium energy
physics program, and they came in very high on the Bates
facility.
So to the extent that the Administration has been able to
find additional funding for this project, it is a good thing to
do.
Senator Domenici. That would not be the only scientific
facility around that there would be great science support for,
would it? I think that probably you and I could come up with 50
or 60 before this hearing is over.
Dr. Krebs. I am sure you could.
Senator Domenici. In any event, the Secretary made a nice
turnaround there, and he is entitled to make a few changes,
just so he cuts the right programs to pay for it. It would be
all right with me.
[The information follows:]
Nuclear Physics
The budget amendment will provide sufficient funding to maintain
support of the staff, operate the accelerator for research, fabricate
the Bates Large Acceptance Spectrometer Toroid detector (BLAST), and
develop the capabilities to carry out a research program using BLAST
when it is completed.
The Bates Laboratory will operate 2000 hours for research during
fiscal year 2000. This time will primarily be used to pursue new
investigations using the recently completed Out-of-Plane Spectrometer
System (OOPS). OOPS fabrication has been supported by the National
Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. The OOPS system will
be used with continuous wave (cw) beams extracted from the new South
Hall Pulse Stretcher Ring.
Fabrication of the BLAST detector will continue. BLAST will utilize
the very high current, cw, polarized electron beams which circulate in
the new Pulse Stretcher Ring.
Upon completion of BLAST in fiscal year 2001, the Bates scientific
program will shift primarily to BLAST, and it is expected that a three-
year program of research will be carried out with that new detector.
At the end of fiscal year 2004, the Bates Laboratory will begin a
planned termination of activities, reaching a Decommissioning and
Decontamination (D&D) level of support in fiscal year 2006.
MIT plans to provide additional support in fiscal year 2000 and
fiscal year 2001 for enhanced research operations.
climate change technology initiative
Senator Domenici. With reference to climate change
technology initiative, I am trying to determine if the climate
change technology initiative is a new effort or a relabeling of
the current work. For example, within the geoscience budget,
the core program would drop $6.9 million under your request,
but the geoscience climate change technology initiative would
go up 6.8. Is this new work, or simply relabeling the old
program?
Dr. Krebs. There is no question that within the Basic
Energy Sciences Program and some parts of the Biological and
Environmental Research Program the climate change technology
initiative begun last year was essentially an extension and
expansion of directions that were already being pursued, and it
simply allowed us to engage more fully in opportunities that we
had identified.
This year, in order to accommodate the directions of the
initiative, we had to make some hard decisions about the
activities that were not necessarily so clearly connected.
Senator Domenici. Unless any of you have some comments that
have been provided by either answers or questions, we have
completed this round. Yes, Mr. Reicher.
Mr. Reicher. Just a quick follow-up, Mr. Chairman. On the
climate change technology initiative, I wanted to echo what Dr.
Krebs said, and that is that I think there has been something
of a misunderstanding that the climate change initiative
represents a whole new category of work, but, in fact, it is
pulling together a whole host of activities that have been
undertaken by the Department and other agencies for a long
period of time that can address climate change as well as a
host of other challenges we faced, and to that, or added some
new activities, but the bulk of the work are solid existing
programs that span all the energy technologies and efficiency
work that we have been doing for a great deal of time.
accelerator transmutation of waste
Mr. Magwood. Just one thing. I mentioned to you that we met
with a large contingent from Japan to talk about cooperation,
and one area that they were very interested in talking to us
about was the accelerator transmutation of waste, a subject I
know you are very familiar with.
We are working closely with the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management to move forward with the road map
to study accelerator transmutation of waste. After listening to
what the Japanese had to say, I think that there is a very
significant opportunity to cooperate with them over the long
term with this program, and we will be looking forward to doing
that. I just wanted to let you know that that this activity is
underway.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. We are going to have
questions that we will send to you that are from Senators Reid,
Craig, and McConnell. Let us use the 2-week return that we had
agreed upon with Senator Reid for all three.
potential programmic problem areas
Let me ask each of you, with reference to the things you
manage and things under your control, I will start with you,
Dr. Krebs, is there any program activity, construction project,
or the like, that is in trouble out there that you think a
subcommittee ought to know about, and if something breaks at
least we have been informed? It is sort of like asking the
Corps of Engineers are your dams safe.
We have given them money to make sure that they are and
they report every dam is safe. We get surprised frequently on
things that do not turn out exactly as we would like at the
Department of Energy, and I am not referring to the spying or
the espionage issue. Do you understand my question?
Dr. Krebs. I think I do, sir. It is hard for me, when I
think about having to answer this, knowing that, in fact, my
colleagues in the scientific community come in to talk to you
on, or talk to any number of people here in Washington on a
regular basis, if you want me to tell you that they have all
the money they think they need----
Senator Domenici. Oh, no.
Dr. Krebs [continuing]. They do not. If on the other hand
you want to know that within this budget are we operating our
facilities in an at least optimized way, I think I can say that
we are. In terms of facilities that are under construction,
there will be no surprises, because, again, our program reviews
and our project reviews are very open, and you hear almost as
soon as we do when there are difficulties, and right now,
outside of the Spallation source, we anticipate no problems.
Senator Domenici. You have a lot of nuclear reactors that
you have responsibility for. Are any of them leaking?
Dr. Krebs. One is shut down, namely, the High-Flux Beam
Reactor, and the other is being upgraded, namely, the reactor
at Oak Ridge.
Senator Domenici. Are there any projects, major projects,
that are running over the cost estimates?
Dr. Krebs. It depends on how you count it, sir. GAO might
say something differently than we would. But right now, we are
wrapping up the B factory, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider,
the Fermi Main Injector, and the Combustion Research Facility.
To my knowledge, they are pretty much on schedule and on cost.
Senator Domenici. Maybe what you ought to do for the
record, and just consider this a question to be answered, maybe
you ought to list all the major projects you have going on,
what their estimated costs are, where we are in----
Dr. Krebs. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici [continuing]. The construction phasing,
and where the estimates are.
Dr. Krebs. Okay.
[The information follows:]
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
Remaining Actual Actual
Title, Location and Project Number TEC Appropriation Approp. Estimated Obligations Costs to
To Date Needed Completion to Date (4/ Date (4/
30/99) 30/99)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY SUPPLY--NUCLEAR ENERGY:
TRA LANDLORD:
Fire and Life Safety 15,446 11,366 4,080 4th Qtr 2001 11,366 6,559
Improvements Idaho
Engineering And
Environmental Laboratory
Idaho 95-E-201..............
Electrical Utility Upgrade 6,700 341 6,359 4th Qtr 2003 341 88
Idaho Engineering And
Environmental Laboratory
Idaho 99-E-200..............
ISOTOPE SUPPORT: Isotope 14,000 6,000 8,000 3rd Qtr 2001 6,000 1,069
Production Facility, TA-53 Los
Alamos, New Mexico 99-E-201.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
Remaining Actual Actual
Title, Location and Project Number TEC Appropriation Approp. Estimated Obligations Costs to
To Date Needed Completion to Date (3/ Date (3/
31/99) 31/99)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES: Spallation Neutron Source: Oak Ridge National 1,159,500 101,400 1,058,100 1st Qtr 2006 32,835 18,448
Laboratory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 99-E-334.................................
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS:
Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) Fermi National Accelerator 76,200 19,800 56,400 2nd Qtr 200 19,800 3,548
Laboratory Batavia, Illinois 98-G-304................................
Wilson Hall Safety Improvements Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 15,600 6,700 8,900 3rd Qtr 2002 6,700 93
Batavia, Illinois 99-G-306...........................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY--CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEC ($000) \1\ Total Total
------------------- Remaining Actual Actual
Title, Location and Project Number Appropriations Appropriations Estimated Obligations Costs to
DOE MNVaP To Date Needed Completion \1\ to Date (3/ Date (3/
31/99) 31/99)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Alfalfa Project (MAP) Granite Falls, Minnesota DE- 49,821 182,179 11,040 ( \2\ ) 1st Qtr 2001 11,040 10,354
FC36-96GO10147.............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total Estimated Cost (TEC) and the estimated completion is the original estimated project cost and completion date for the project.
\2\ Due to recent developments, Minnesota Valley Alfalfa Producers have requested the project be restructured as a co-firing project which will reduce
the TEC by not requiring new construction. DOE participation and costs are yet to be determined.
Additional committee questions
Senator Domenici. Does anybody else have any comments
there? I think I will ask the same question of each of you.
That last one should apply to each of you, if you would, and
also when you leave during the next--in preparing the answers,
if there is something you think the committee should know about
that may not go exactly as planned, or there is evidence that
it might not, I would appreciate you telling me about it in the
answers that you give us.
[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 McConnell
depleted uranium hexafluoride
Question. How much appropriated funding has the Department
requested for the maintenance of depleted uranium hexafluoride
cylinders stored at Paducah, Portsmouth, and Oak Ridge. Specifically,
how much has been allocated to each facility for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Department requested fiscal year 2000 appropriations
totaling $10.9 million for depleted uranium hexafluoride cylinder
maintenance at the Paducah, Portsmouth, and Oak Ridge sites. Initial
plans call for about $2.8 million to be allocated to Paducah, $2.7
million to be allocated to Portsmouth, and about $3.7 million to be
allocated to Oak Ridge. Approximately $1.2 million will be used in
managing cylinder maintenance at the three sites in an integrated
manner. Lastly, about $0.5 million will be used to perform engineering
development type work necessary to sustain, optimize and enhance the
cylinder storage system. In addition, the Department will apply funds
obtained under the Memoranda of Agreement with USEC to conduct cylinder
maintenance activities and to build storage yards associated with
accepting USEC-generated DUF6 cylinders.
Question. The Department of Energy entered into two Memoranda of
Agreement with USEC totaling $66 million for the management of
cylinders transferred from USEC to DOE. How will this money be spent
and will any of the MOA funds duplicate already appropriated funds or
requested funds?
Answer. The Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) funding will not duplicate
already appropriated funding or requested funding. The Department
projects the $66 million will be utilized over the fiscal year 1999
through fiscal year 2009 time frame for cylinder maintenance, yard
construction, conversion facility preparations, and required near-term
activities as shown on the attached table. Approximately $24 million of
the $66 million has been earmarked for additional conversion
preparation, and required near-term activities with specific yearly
funding levels predicated upon the Department's evaluation of the
private sector response to the Expression of Interest (EOI) and the
need to support the Department's rapid implementation of the program.
As required under the MOAs, the funds will only be used for purposes
that are attributable to accepting and managing the cylinders received
from USEC. However, Memoranda of Agreement funds will be used in
conjunction with appropriated funds for procurement activities, NEPA
activities, and other near-term activities associated with the
DUF6 program.
Question. Please outline for the Committee the schedule and key
milestones DOE has identified for the Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride
Conversion plan.
Answer. The Department's current schedule and key milestones are
attached (see attached table). This is an aggressive schedule that
should result in the awarding of contracts in 2000 and the initiation
of construction activities in 2002. This schedule would, therefore
achieve the goals anticipated in Public Law 105-204 two years earlier
than required by the law.
The Department intends to issue a Final Plan for the Conversion of
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride by the end of May. The Final Plan will
reflect the Department's review of the responses to the Expression of
Interest ideas from affected members of the local communities, Congress
and other stakeholders. This document will provide a more detailed,
final schedule for the DUF6 conversion project.
Question. Recently the Department issued an Expression of Interest
on the DUF6 conversion plan. Please inform the Committee the
number of responses the Department has received and which organizations
responded to the Department's request.
Answer. The Department has convened a Source Evaluation Board (SEB)
to analyze the responses to the EOI, prepared the draft Request for
Proposals, and other acquisition responsibilities associated with
contracting for DUF6 conversion. The Department was pleased
with the industry's response to the EOI. The number of respondents to
the EOI far exceeded our expectations and we have gained important
insights from the responses. Regarding your specific questions, the SEB
considers the number of EOI's received and the company names providing
the EOI's to be Source Selection Sensitive information. Thus, the
Department cannot release this information at this time. However, the
Department recognizes Congressional interest in this process and is
evaluating whether it can release summary, non-proprietary EOI data to
the Congress and public. A determination from the Office of General
Counsel is expected soon.
Question. The Department has proposed to use $5 million associated
with conversion of depleted uranium cylinders. Please explain for what
purpose this funding will be spent.
Answer. The $5 million will be used for site specific National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities to enable the Department to
begin conversion facilities construction and begin acquisition
activities to meet the schedule anticipated by Public Law 105-204. It
should be noted that the budget request to Congress specified that some
of the funds would be used for preparation of a Request for Proposals.
The Department currently plans to issue the Request for Proposals prior
to the beginning of fiscal year 2000, enabling remaining funds to be
used to accelerate required NEPA analysis.
MOA FUNDS BY FISCAL YEAR
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major activities 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2009-09 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cylinder Maintenance......................... 6.27 6.98 4.38 1.65 1.85 1.65 4.50 27.28
Yard Construction............................ 7.92 3.50 ...... ...... ...... ...... ....... 11.42
Conversion Preparation....................... 3.30 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ....... 3.30
Funds Available for Additional Conversion TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 24.00
Preparation, and Required Near-Term
Activities..................................
---------
Total.................................. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ....... 66.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULL-SCALE DUF6 CONVERSION CAPABILITY SCHEDULE AND KEY MILESTONES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate Dates Key Milestone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Quarter 1999..................... Issue a request for Expressions
of Interest (EOI).
Complete and issue the final
PEIS.
Second Quarter 1999.................... Receive EOI responses.
Issue the PEIS Record of
Decision.
Issue Final Plan.
Issue draft Request for
Proposals (RFP) for conversion
contract.
Third Quarter 1999..................... Receive comments on draft RFP.
Issue final RFP for conversion
contracts.
Fourth Quarter 1999.................... Receive proposals.
Begin proposal evaluation.
2000................................... Award DUF6 conversion
contract(s).
2002................................... Complete design, and start
construction of full-scale
facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
armed guards at the paducah gaseous diffusion plant
Question. In the Energy and Water bill from last year, there was a
provision to restore arming and arrest authority to the security guards
located at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion plant. The legislation, which
was developed in cooperation with your office and USEC, requires that
the two parties split the costs appropriately. Nearly eight months
later, this problem has not been resolved and I am told this problem
might not be resolved for another eight months. Please explain why this
problem hasn't been resolved and when you expect the law to be fully
implemented.
Answer. As you know, the Department's regulatory oversight over the
United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) ended on March 3, 1997,
when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission assumed oversight authority over
USEC. With the enactment of the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, the Department of Energy and the United
States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) have been working together and
have now established a process to restore the arming, arrest and use of
deadly force authority for the guard force at the Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant consistent with the Act. A conservative estimate of the
time needed, these authorities should be restored to the entire guard
force by no later than December 31, 1999. Although the responsibility
for rearming the guard force largely rests with USEC, the Department
will take those steps under our control to accelerate this process. We
believe based on discussions with USEC and a recently completed
assessment of their program, discussed below, that they are well on the
way to restoring these authorities and that by the end of August, there
will be guards at Paducah who have completed the requisite training and
qualification and who have been issued Weapons Authorization Cards by
the Department.
There are two major activities that USEC must complete in order for
the Department to reissue Weapons Authorization Cards to the guard
force: one, demonstrating that pertinent federal requirements for
arming, arrest, and use of deadly force authority have been put into
place and following this, training and qualifying the guard force to
meet the regulations. The regulations themselves are extensive, derived
principally from Titles 10 and 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations
and addressing a wide range of topics: physical protection of property,
medical fitness implementation, limited arrest authority, use of force
by protective officers, and pertinent regulations of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Meeting these requirements demands a
significant investment of time, resources and infrastructure by USEC
(e.g., employing firearm safety professionals, medical professionals,
maintaining a firing range and exercise facilities).
Based on a recently completed on-site inspection by DOE of Paducah,
we believe that USEC has made substantial progress in re-establishing
the supporting program for these authorities and that they should be
ready to start training and qualifying guards by the end of July 1999.
To further accelerate this process, DOE will issue Weapons
Authorization Cards to individual guards as they complete their
training. Ultimately, the time needed to fully restore these
authorities is under the control of USEC, who is responsible for
training and qualification, including the scheduling of training.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
general
Question. I noticed in your testimony that you state 85 percent of
domestic energy use comes from fossil fuels. And of that, almost 30
percent is from coal. Then you point out that this level of consumption
will not likely change in the coming decades. My state can help here
since Montana has the largest coal reserves of any state in the United
States (120 billion short ton). So what are you doing to promote the
development of coal within this country?
Answer. Coal is the most abundant and lowest cost energy form in
the United States. However, there are challenges to using coal cleanly
to reduce both traditional pollutants and greenhouse gases. The
Department of Energy's (DOE) role includes meeting the research and
development (R&D) challenges of improving the efficiency of the fossil
energy cycle in a clean, environmentally friendly manner in order to
continue to benefit the Nation through the economic advantages of coal.
These challenges include further technological improvements to meet new
smog and particulate standards and possibly new requirements for air
toxic emissions. Land constraints will increase the need to reduce
solid wastes. Also, pressures will increase to find economically
acceptable ways to reduce both emissions and atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases.
DOE's R&D effort is, therefore, aimed at providing a combination of
ultra-high efficiency technologies and low-cost carbon capture and
disposal technologies could make it possible to significantly reduce,
if not eliminate, these environmental concerns over coal and permit the
Nation to continue to prosper from coal's economic benefits. Technology
now appears within reach that can double today's power plant
efficiencies, virtually eliminate air emissions, release no net carbon
dioxide, and still produce power that is low enough in cost to be
competitive with the best of today's pulverized coal plants. It may
also be possible to use coal as a low-cost resource in an integrated
``energy complex'' to produce high-grade, low-pollution transportation
fuels that, coupled with improved engine technology, could double fuel
combustion efficiency and further reduce air emissions from the
transportation industry.
While much remains to be done to ensure that coal use remains a
domestic energy option well into the next century, the DOE has already
achieved much to enable ``clean'' coal technologies to be a cost
competitive and environmentally superior option in the near term
through its successes in the Clean Coal Technology (CCT) Demonstration
Program. For example, barriers to using the Nation's vast low-sulfur,
but low-energy-density western coal resources are being addressed
through two advanced, coal-upgrading projects under this cost-shared
program. In the ENCOAL project in Campbell County, Wyoming, and Rosebud
SynCoal Partnership project in Rosebud County, Montana, a stable coal
product is produced which has a low-moisture content, low-sulfur
content, and a high heating value (12,000 Btu/lb). Additionally, the
ENCOAL project produces a liquid product equivalent to No. 6 fuel oil.
The products from these two projects are being sold to utility and
industrial consumers.
Notwithstanding these and many other near-term commercial
successes, ongoing research activities to provide future opportunities
for clean coal technologies, advanced power generation systems, and
advanced clean fuels are being promoted by the Department.
Advances through clean fuels research will provide, in the longer
term, for coal-derived substitutes for traditional petroleum products
that have the potential to provide the secure supply of transportation
fuels that is needed by major sectors of the Nation's economy.
Development of such a coal-based fuels industry will positively affect
our balance of payments, create high-paying jobs, and ensure a stable
alternative source of supply as increase in demand is expected after
2015. In addition, these fuels will be more environmentally friendly
than petroleum-based products, while using the Nation's vast domestic
coal resources to provide the necessary level of energy security. This
research is carried out by the Department in partnership with industry,
academia, and other Government agencies and laboratories at the
national and state levels.
Question. I understand, from your testimony, that you are focusing
on developing modeling tools to evaluate future combustion systems.
What will these modeling tools do and how will these modeling tools
consider different combustion sources (coal, gas, and oil)?
Answer. A Virtual Demonstration Program, which was recently
initiated in Fossil Energy, will increase the effectiveness of advanced
power plant designs by providing the modeling tools and computational
framework necessary to enhance overall predictive capability and
process understanding. The result will be to reduce the time and costs
associated with the transition from pilot-to commercial-scale
development of the next generation of combustion systems. It will also
help identify the power and fuel system advanced research needs in
power and fuel system r&d. Those r&d efforts will focus heavily on
developing the fundamentally-oriented data and integration tools
required to support fuel-flexible (coal, oil, natural gas, biomass,
etc.) integrated gasification combined cycle and pulverized coal-based
technologies, such as Vision 21 high performance power and fuels
systems.
The modeling tools to be developed will take advantage of the most
recent advances in the field of virtual demonstration to include: 3D
visualization technology, integrated information management, process
simulation, advanced numerical techniques for control and process
simulations, and overall model integration.
Since these models are based on fundamental scientific principles
(the laws of fluid dynamics, chemical kinetics and thermodynamics,
structural mechanics, radiation, etc.), their results and their
applications will not be limited to one fossil fuel feedstock but will
be applicable to coal, oil and gas as well.
Question. I noticed your fiscal year 2000 budget request is
generally increasing. This reassures me that you recognize the
importance of supporting our domestic energy industries. As you know,
we are losing much of our domestic production capabilities, such as in
the oil and gas industries, due to low energy prices. Even though I am
working to address that problem, development of renewable energy
sources in the United States is another area that I have much interest.
However, the fiscal year 2000 budget is tight as you well know. Since
we probably won't be able to fund all of your requested increase, what
are your priorities in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Increased investments in technology research, development
and pre-commercial deployment are of critical importance to meeting the
energy and environmental challenges of our times and of the next
century. However, we realize the existence of budget constraints and
will work closely with the Committee to identify priorities.
solar and renewable resources
Question. You may have heard about a proposed ethanol plant to be
constructed in Great Falls, Montana. This project hasn't yet be
constructed even though it has all of the necessary permits and plans
approved. They are having financial troubles. This plant plans to
convert wheat waste into ethanol. I understand you are developing
demonstration plants to convert agricultural products into ethanol such
as:
--sugarcane wastes in Louisiana;
--rice straw in California; and
--solid wastes in New York.
What are the Department's plans to develop other demonstration
projects to produce ethanol from other dedicated crops, such as wheat,
and forest waste?
Answer. The Department has requested funds to develop partnerships
for commercial scale technology demonstrations, using agricultural
residues and forestry wastes, in industry owned plants to produce
ethanol and co-products. These plants will be ``first-of-a-kind'' waste
to ethanol facilities in the United States. We believe that these low
cost cellulosic waste materials offer opportunities to produce ethanol
at competitive costs in the near term. The Department's major role with
our partners has been to provide technical and engineering assistance
in obtaining process data and engineering warranties. Our industrial
partners will obtain private financing to construct, operate, and own
these cellulosic-based facilities. The Department's approach in
developing these new technologies avoids some of the financial
difficulties that may be experienced when depending on commodity crops
that also supply higher valued food markets. Our longer term plans call
for the use of dedicated crops (switchgrass, hybrid poplar, willow)
which are being developed for high biomass productivity at low cost, in
the year 2004. Our understanding is that the facility planned for Great
Falls, Montana will use wheat and barley grain, which employs a starch
based process that has been used for many years by the corn ethanol
industry. In most cases, there are few, if any, process and engineering
technology or warranty issues requiring resolution.
solar and renewable resources
Question. I have a keen interest in your biomass/biofuels program
given my state produces a fair amount of agricultural products which
could be converted into producing electric power or transportation
fuels. I understand that for fiscal year 2000 you will be increasing
funding for the development of biomass conversions systems for:
--wood into ethanol in Vermont;
--alfalfa into ethanol in Minnesota;
--willow and coal into ethanol in New York; and
--switchgrass into ethanol in Iowa.
What other biomass conversion systems, such as wheat into ethanol,
have you considered? How can we help encourage you to consider such
conversion systems?
Answer. The Department shares your interest in converting
agricultural products into electric power or transportation fuels. We
have requested additional funds under the Bioenergy Initiative, which
will integrate activities critical to the future viability of a biomass
based industry that will produce products such as fuels, power, and
chemicals. Technologies and systems that are developed and demonstrated
under the initiative could be applied to a broad range of feedstocks,
including those that are grown in Montana. The projects in Vermont,
Minnesota, New York, and Iowa are actually biomass power projects that
will demonstrate gasification and biomass co-firing options. Results
from these projects will also apply, in large measure, to Montana. With
regard to ethanol, the biomass conversion systems that the Department
is considering will apply to most agricultural residues, including
wheat straw.
doe strategy/plans to develop co-firing demonstrations
Question. Since it has been shown that biomass can replace up to 15
percent of the fuels used by existing coal power plants, what are your
strategy and plans to develop cost-sharing demonstrations for such co-
fired (biomass and fossil fuels) plants in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. DOE's strategy has been to demonstrate co-firing options in
a broad cross-section of boiler types with a variety of dedicated crops
and residues in order to expand the base of utilities employing co-
firing in existing generating units. This is being accomplished on a
cost-shared basis with utilities and other partners.
To further the commercial application of biomass co-firing, certain
issues remain that need to be addressed. These include examining
numerous types of biomass can be used for co-firing including wood,
energy crops such as switchgrass, and agricultural residues. Similarly,
coals (which can range from a lignite coal to an anthracite), have
varying characteristics that can affect the success of co-firing.
Additional issues that need to be addressed involve materials handling,
how materials are delivered into the boiler itself, and boiler design
that can vary from either a stoker design to pulverized coal type.
Furthermore, utility restructuring is changing the ownership profile of
utility boilers which will affect the planning and ultimate decision
making process by the owners of the generating stations.
With these factors in mind, it is our intent to pursue additional
partnerships in other areas such as rural electric cooperatives,
federal facilities, and non-utility generators, including colleges and
universities where coal is used to either generate heat or power. These
cost-shared demonstrations are envisioned as part of a new program
element that will round out the examination of the various options and
approaches to cofiring in order to resolve any remaining technical
barriers and identify the characteristics that will lead to viable
ongoing co-firing operations by the private sector.
hydrogen program
Question. Regarding other renewable resources, such as hydrogen,
what are the Department's plans and funding requests in fiscal year
2000 to develop fuel cells from hydrogen?
Answer. In support of the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology's report, the Hydrogen Program is collaborating
with the other fuel cell programs within the Offices of Transportation
Technologies and Building Technologies. The Hydrogen Program does not
independently develop fuel cells, but uses the technology developed by
the other programs to support industry apply the technology for
electricity generation. In the fiscal year 2000 budget, the Hydrogen
Program has requested $1.5 million to build prototype 50kW and 25kW
Proton Exchange Membrane fuels cells for stationary power in remote
villages and battery replacement applications, respectively.
user fees
Question. I understand that the Basic Energy Sciences Program
involves the use of major facilities at various national laboratories.
And I understand that these national laboratories consume much of the
budget for the Basic Energy Sciences Program. What considerations have
you made to adopt a user fee concept for these facilities to cover more
of their increasing costs since other organizations use these national
labs?
Answer. The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) facilities are part of the
Department's system of scientific user facilities, the most
sophisticated and successful of its kind in the world. These facilities
enable researchers to gain the new knowledge necessary to achieve the
Department's missions and, more broadly, to advance the Nation's entire
scientific enterprise. The magnitude of these user-facility investments
exceeds the resources of all but the federal government. These
investments allow the most promising scientific opportunities to be
addressed and attract the world's brightest scientists to unlock
nature's most challenging secrets, thus helping the United States
maintain its industrial and technological competitiveness. Access to
these extraordinary tools is provided by DOE on a no-charge basis to
all qualified researchers whose intention it is to publish in the open
literature.
The Department's longstanding user fee policy was formulated to
encourage use of these unique facilities by leading researchers under
the following philosophy:
--to promote increased cooperation among Government, industrial, and
academic researchers for the benefit of the entire Nation and
to enable the United States to maintain its industrial and
technological competitiveness in the world,
--to encourage industry and academia to conduct basic research of
direct programmatic interest to DOE,
--to encourage investment by industry and academia in facilities
through the fabrication of instrumentation and beamlines, thus
leveraging the Government's investment in its facilities,
--to make available the instrumentation and beamlines constructed by
participating research teams to general users.
DOE also recognizes that several committees that have considered
the issue of user fees to supplement the base operating expenses of
national user facilities have not recommended implementation of user
fees. These studies include the 1991 ``Report to Congress on the
Department of Energy's User Fee Assessment and Collection Practices,''
the study by the OECD Megascience Forum Working Group on Removing
Obstacles to International Cooperation (June 1998 report of the
Subgroup on Access to Large-scale Research Facilities), the November
1997 report of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC)
Panel on Synchrotron Radiation Sources and Science, the report by the
OSTP Interagency Working Group on Structural Biology at Synchrotrons
(``Synchrotron Radiation for Macromolecular Crystallography,'' January
1999), and the NAS study ``Developing a Federal Materials Facilities
Strategy'' supported by the Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology
of the Commission on Physical Sciences/Mathematics and Applications.
A few of the reasons that the implementation of a user fee policy
may adversely impact user facilities are:
1. A large amount of cost sharing already occurs at BES user
facilities with respect to beam line construction, instrumentation and
facility upgrades. Levying user fees upon NSF and NIH researchers to
supplement operating costs may well reduce these agencies' support of
instrumentation.
2. Sharing base operating expenses among offices/agencies that use
a facility has been shown not to work--such arrangements result in
unclear ownership responsibilities and increased funding uncertainties.
3. User fees discourage industrial use of facilities, thus
decreasing long-term industrial research and technology transfer
activities.
4. Fragile international collaborations relating to user facilities
are all based on DOE's current policy; if this changes, the U.S. could
be forced to pay user fees at foreign facilities. The adoption of
policy to charge foreign users a fee to access U.S. facilities would
open the door for foreign facilities to do likewise. Implications of
such a change could be enormous. For example, it is estimated that the
U.S. uses about 25 percent of CERN (the European Laboratory for
Particle Physics). The annual budget for CERN is approximately $600M,
so the U.S. could be asked to pay up to $150M for use of this facility
alone. It should be noted that U.S. activities at CERN and at other
European laboratories are now largely balanced by foreign usage, and
in-kind contributions to DOE (i.e., the High Energy Physics facilities
for this example).
5. Since most research (over 75 percent) at the BES facilities is
federally funded, the effect of charging user fees for nonproprietary
research would be to transfer funds from one agency to another.
DOE's longstanding user fee policy was developed within the
framework of OMB Circular A-25 and was implemented in 1979.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Craig
termination and electrometallurgical treatment funding at argonne
national laboratory
Question. One of my greatest concerns with DOE's fiscal year 2000
budget request is the $20 million shortfall for Argonne National
Laboratory-West in the area of electrometallurgical processing. The
funding request for the Termination account is $20 million lower than
the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. Finding a remedy for this shortfall
is one of my highest priorities. A cut this deep would result in
several hundred layoffs at Argonne National Laboratory. In fact, to
minimize the overall impact, the layoffs would have to occur just a few
short months from now. Why aren't these layoffs mentioned in the DOE
budget request?
Answer. The Department's fiscal year 2000 request will support the
continued work of the Laboratory's skilled workforce until a decision
is made on the future use of the technology. Their work to investigate
the application of electrometallurgical technology to the Department's
spent fuel management challenges is essential to enabling the
Department to make an informed decision on the future use of this
technology. After the Department completes its Environmental Impact
Statement on the use of electrometallurgical technology, it will issue
a formal Record of Decision in January 2000. No lay-offs will occur
prior to this decision. If the Department decides to proceed with the
use of this technology, we will seek to reallocate sufficient
Department funds to implement such a decision; if, instead, the
Department decides against using electrometallurgical technology, we
will proceed to terminate program activities.
Question. I understand that the Department plans to complete early
next year the environmental impact statement on the treatment of
sodium-bonded spent fuels. Therefore, assuming a positive outcome to
the EIS, funding will be required in fiscal year 2000 to initiate full-
scale treatment of sodium bonded fuels. However, the budget that the
Administration submitted to Congress includes no funding for treatment
in fiscal year 2000. Does that mean that the Administration is
anticipating a negative outcome from the EIS process?
Answer. We remain optimistic about the application of the
electrometallurgical treatment technology to the Department's inventory
of sodium bonded spent nuclear fuel. As you know, the demonstration
project will be completed in fiscal year 1999. Additionally, by the end
of the calendar year, the National Research Council will complete their
independent technical review of the electrometallurgical treatment
technology. Thus far, the National Research Council has indicated that
there is no other technology sufficiently developed, with the exception
of the PUREX process, that could be used for treatment of sodium bonded
fuel. Further, they have indicated that any other technology, including
PUREX, would require a significant investment of funds and time for
development and demonstration.
We are confident that the EIS and the review by the National
Research Council will provide a strong basis for a decision on whether
to use this technology for the treatment of the remaining sodium bonded
fuel. Once a decision is made, the Department will seek appropriate
adjustments in its fiscal year 2000 budget.
Question. Is it true that the electrometallurgical technology that
is being developed by Argonne has potential application in concepts
such as accelerator transmutation of waste, metal cooled reactor
systems, and other concepts?
Answer. Electrometallurgical treatment technology development at
Argonne National Laboratory is directed only to the Department's
mission of conversion of spent nuclear fuel into durable high-level
waste forms which can be qualified for disposal. I understand that
related, but different, technologies may be applicable to the
accelerator transmutation of waste concept. This possibility is part of
a roadmap now being prepared by the Department's Office of Civilian
radioactive Waste Management.
nuclear energy research initiative
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget requests only a modest
increase in DOE's Nuclear Energy Research Initiative--from $19 million
this year to $25 million in fiscal year 2000. This does not seem to
demonstrate a very strong commitment on the part of the Administration
to support nuclear energy R&D.
The DOE request of $25 million for fiscal year 2000 will allow only
about $6 million in new awards in fiscal year 2000; the other $19
million will be required to fund the second year of projects that will
be initiated in fiscal year 1999. By comparison, for fiscal year 1999
DOE received $19 million for NERI, and received 307 proposals
requesting a total of $300 million dollars.
Do you believe that an increase of $6 million next year is adequate
to support the large number of worthy new proposals anticipated in the
next fiscal year?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 request of $25 million, a $6 million
increase over fiscal year 1999, will allow the start of some new
research efforts in fiscal year 2000 in addition to continuation of the
second year of research for the awards made in fiscal year 1999. We
believe the modest funding increase from $19 million in fiscal year
1999 to $25 million in fiscal year 2000 will allow the Nuclear Energy
Research Initiative (NERI) program a controlled growth that will assure
effective program implementation and goal achievement. However, as
evidenced by the overwhelming response from the nuclear community to
the fiscal year 1999 NERI solicitation, the number of new proposals
funded in fiscal year 2000 will likely be significantly smaller than
number of worthy proposals expected to be received. It is our hope that
this program will grow as we demonstrate its value to the Nation.
Question. Given the importance that the Administration has assigned
to issues of climate change, and given the obvious advantages of
nuclear power in addressing climate change, I'm puzzled as to why the
Administration has requested a $270 million increase for conservation
and renewable energy research programs, but only an $11 million
increase for nuclear energy research programs. In fact, the
Administration's request for nuclear energy research is lower than last
year's request. Can you explain the logic behind the Administration's
request?
Answer. The Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2000
includes $25 million for NERI, an increase of $6 million, and $5
million for Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO), a proposed new
program. The fiscal year 2000 budget request of $25 million for the
NERI program builds on the work started in fiscal year 1999 and funded
by the Congress at $19 million. We believe that the moderate increase
in funding we have proposed is appropriate and will provide time to
assure that the program is effectively accomplishing the objectives. It
is our hope that the program will grow as we demonstrate its value to
the Nation. With respect to the NEPO Program, we believe that the
request of $5 million is sufficient to begin to demonstrate the
benefits of this program. Both the NEPO and NERI programs are essential
to retain nuclear energy as a viable option and key component of the
Nation's energy mix.
Question. With the large number of research proposals that will be
funded under NERI, how does the Department plan to integrate this
research into a rational, long-term nuclear energy research and
development program?
Answer. The focus of NERI is the resolution of the longer-term
issues affecting the future use of nuclear energy. These issues, namely
proliferation, economics and waste generation, were clearly identified
in the November 1997 Report of the Energy Research and Development
Panel of the PCAST. The PCAST report also provided recommendations for
research in certain key areas: proliferation resistant reactor and fuel
technology, new reactor designs with higher efficiency, lower cost and
improved safety; low-power reactors; and new techniques for on-site and
surface storage and permanent disposal of nuclear waste. These
recommendations are the focus of the Department's long-term R&D program
and the basis for the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 budget
requests.
The Department views NERI as a ``birthing place'' where the
scientific and engineering ideas of our Nation's brightest researchers
can be developed into more focused and specific projects that will
provide solutions to the nuclear energy issues. R&D activities under
NERI will initially be small to moderate in size and scope, and
typically be conducted over a three-year period. The Department plans
to monitor the progress and success potential of each R&D effort. The
R&D conducted during the initial three-year period will identify
promising scientific and engineering solutions and technological
advancements that will require specific project efforts to achieve R&D
objectives necessary to effectively resolve or reduce the effects of
the nuclear issues.
The Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC),
established by the Department in 1998, will conduct periodic reviews of
on-going R&D programs and advise the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science
and Technology on its long range R&D plans, priorities and strategies.
Question. Will you draw on the facilities and expertise at Idaho's
laboratories for the integration and conduct of this long-term research
and development?
Answer. The Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory
(INEEL) and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL-W) represent the
Department's core nuclear research and development capability. The
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology will continue to
depend on assistance from these Idaho national laboratories in crafting
our long term nuclear technology research and development strategy, and
to provide key nuclear research. For example, INEEL and ANL-W were
among the many organizations that submitted R&D proposals to the
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative. Both organizations were successful
in having several proposals selected for funding. The INEEL is a
participant is five of the proposals that were funded, and ANL is a
participant in 10 proposals that were funded.
university reactor fuel assistance and support
Question. DOE has proposed $11.345 million for university reactor
fuel assistance and support in fiscal year 2000, a modest $345,000
increase over fiscal year 1999. This program is essential to ensuring
an adequate supply of nuclear-trained professionals for the nuclear
power industry, the national laboratories, the environmental
restoration industry, and a host of other industries. This program also
provides funding to support the operation of the 28 university-based
nuclear research reactors in the U.S. Given the importance of
university nuclear engineering programs and university research
reactors to maintaining the viability of nuclear power in the U.S., do
you believe this funding level is adequate?
Answer. While the University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support
Program has had significant funding increases over the past several
years, the need to further strengthen the nuclear engineering
infrastructure remains. Our request of $11.345 million in fiscal year
2000 will continue a level of effort in important areas such as the
Nuclear Engineering Education Research (NEER) initiative. However, as
we enter the next century, there are challenges that must be met to
strengthen our educational infrastructure and train the next generation
of nuclear scientists and engineers. Clearly, more resources from the
Department can help assure that the Nation meets these important
challenges. But this work will also require a rededication by the
universities, our national laboratories, and particularly industry to
modernize research reactors and enhance university nuclear engineering
programs.
clean air credits and atlantic council report
Question. A report by the Atlantic Council recommended that
governments assure the financial integrity of nuclear power by giving
credit to nuclear energy for avoided emissions. This is something that
is not currently done under the Clean Air Act for SO2.
What is DOE's reaction to a proposal such as this in the context of
the Administrations electricity restructuring bill? Do you see this as
a viable proposal for acknowledging nuclear's non-emitting contribution
to our electricity supply?
Answer. The primary focus of the Administration's bill on
electricity restructuring is on competition and consistent with that
focus, the bill does not include significant environmental provisions.
However, we understand that the type of allocation suggested could be
accommodated under the existing law. Several utilities have discussed
this issue with the Department and the Environmental Protection Agency,
which has the primary jurisdiction in this area. The matter remains
under consideration. The individual states have considerable discretion
in how to reach emission levels specified in their State Implementation
Plants.
The Department believes that a reliable and affordable electric
power supply is critical for the U.S. to enjoy a strong economy and
sustained growth. Such a supply of electricity requires diversity in
its fuel mix--we need to maintain a diverse, secure energy portfolio of
fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and renewables. Nuclear energy has been
an important part of this diversity and generates electricity without
emitting any greenhouse gases or other harmful air pollutants such as
sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides. The 104 nuclear power plants in the
U.S. provide approximately 20 percent of the electricity generated and
avoid more than 150 million metric tonnes of carbon emissions annually.
With new requirements for lower emissions of sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxide for fossil plants, particularly in the eastern part of
the nation, the contribution of existing nuclear power plants in
avoiding harmful air emissions becomes even more important.
We are at a critical juncture with respect to the continued
operation of nuclear power plants. Many U.S. nuclear plant owners are
approaching a key decision point as to whether their plants should be
shutdown at or before their initial license period, or whether they
should apply for a twenty-year extension on that license. U.S. nuclear
power plant licenses will begin to expire in large numbers in 2010;
licenses for 13 plants representing some 11,700 MWe will expire in 2014
alone. Faced with regulatory and economic uncertainties, some utilities
already have exercised their option to close nuclear facilities well
before their initial license expiration date. This trend has resulted
in the closing of 6 reactors before license expiration, a loss of
approximately 4,000 megawatts of U.S. generating capacity, in the past
three years. Critical issues facing the continued operation of existing
nuclear power plants need to be addressed in the near term so that this
trend does not continue.
Production costs (operating and maintenance costs plus fuel costs
but excluding capital costs) for existing nuclear power plants at 1.91
cents per kilowatt-hour [kwh] are comparable to those for coal at 1.83
cents per kwh and are significantly less than those for natural gas at
3.38 cents per kwh. An appropriate credit for avoided emissions would
allow existing nuclear plants to better compete in the restructured
market. Continued operation of existing plants is a prerequisite for
the Nation to preserve the option of continued and expanded use of
nuclear energy.
proposal for on-site storage of utility fuel
Question. With respect to DOE's proposal to compensate utilities
for the on-site storage of their spent nuclear fuel in lieu of taking
possession in response to DOE's 1998 waste acceptance obligation, as
the Director of the DOE program office which is most familiar with the
nuclear power industry, do you foresee any concerns about the
feasibility, safety, licensing or other regulatory issues associated
with DOE's implementation of this on-site storage proposal?
Answer. The Department currently is engaged in discussions with
utilities concerning the feasibility of the Secretary's proposal to
take title for on-site storage. The feasibility of implementing this
proposal would depend on the willingness of the utilities to accept
this proposal and the ability of DOE to fund the costs.
Implementation of the on-site storage proposal would not be the
long term permanent solution nor will it alleviate the need for
additional spent fuel storage capacity required for continued operation
of existing power plants. Although spent fuel may be safely stored at
nuclear power plants under Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations,
current plants were designed only for short-term storage until spent
fuel could be moved to the permanent repository being built by the
Department.
renewable energy
Question. According to DOE's budget there was over $1 billion in
annual U.S. renewable energy technology sales in 1998. Can you tell us
how much energy that represented?
Answer. The reference to annual renewable energy technology sales
was to the value of equipment sales and related services provided by
U.S. industry. The $1 billion consists of approximately $100 million in
sales of wind plants (112 MW), $228 million in sales of photovoltaic
modules (54 MW), $400 million in sales for geothermal power plants (380
MW) and $450 million in sales of geothermal heat pumps. These are total
sales, both domestic and export, for these U.S. renewable energy
industries. However, if one wanted to look at the sales of electricity
produced by the installed renewable energy power plants in the U.S.,
the nearly 2,300 megawatts of geothermal power in the states of
California, Hawaii, Nevada, and Utah alone produces 14-17 billion
kilowatt-hours per year of electricity, which is worth about $1 billion
in annual utility sales, according to the geothermal industry.
Question. It sounds like this is a rather robust market for
renewable energy. We are also told by the Administration that consumers
will be willing to pay more for so-called ``green power''. Given this
robust market, why should the federal government continue to subsidize
renewable power technologies at $325.2 million for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. While $1 billion in sales may seem to indicate a ``robust''
market for renewable power technologies, such a market size is still
quite small in comparison to the scale of conventional energy
technology markets. For example, the U.S. electric power industry as a
whole has annual sales of about $215 billion. As to the market for
``green power,'' it is difficult to forecast human behavior in future
restructured electric markets. It is not plausible at this time to
assume with any confidence that demand for ``green power'' alone will
be sufficient to create a large enough demand for renewable energy (and
a corresponding level of profits for the industry to fully sustain its
own R&D) so that the Federal Government should reconsider the level of
R&D commitment to these technologies. In fact, we believe that
sustained and even increased investments in renewable energy 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 economic competitiveness. In part due to the past support of this
Committee, the U.S. maintains a leadership position in some, but not
all, renewable energy technologies. However, our economic competitors
recognize, as we do, that a massive market for clean energy
technologies, especially in the developing world, is emerging. Many
studies and industry observers have concluded that developing these
technologies and successfully competing for the global markets in clean
energy technologies is of major importance to the U.S. These
technologies are essential to meeting the energy, environmental, and
economic challenges as we begin the next century.
international renewable energy technology programs
Question. Please describe DOE's international renewable energy
technology programs.
Answer. The Solar International Program's mission is to encourage
greater acceptance and private-sector use of U.S. renewable energy
technologies in overseas markets in ways that support U.S. national
interests and policies. The primary goal of the program is to
facilitate the expansion of U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency
technology exports to help meet the energy needs of developed and
developing countries, reduce the rate of consumption of finite global
resources, and address local and transnational environmental issues.
The International Solar Energy Program addresses specific problems
that slow the acceptance and use of new and existing technologies, and
speeds the deployment of technologies by targeting distinct market
barriers. It supports efforts to increase the competitiveness of the
U.S. renewable energy industry in large and rapidly growing global
energy markets. These efforts also support the U.S. industry's ability
to make continuing technological improvements and achieve cost
reductions that are critical to enhancing the competitiveness and
market penetration of renewables in the United States. The program
works cooperatively with the private sector and by increasing the in-
country understanding of local renewable energy potential, and
promoting dialogue and interaction with U.S. firms.
The program has been redirected in response to Congressional
direction to continue support for the U.S. Initiative on Joint
Implementation but also to refocus activities into three broad program
areas: Emerging Global Environmental and Energy Issues, Facilitate
Market and Trade Development, and Advance U.S. Energy and Environmental
Security Interests.
The Emerging Global Environmental and Energy Issues will be
implemented specifically through and in conjunction with the U.S.
Initiative on Joint Implementation (USIJI). USIJI is a DOE-lead
interagency program that supports the development of flexibility
mechanisms under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (U.N.
FCCC) such as Joint Implementation (JI), flexibility mechanisms, and
Emissions Trading. This element will also focus on encouraging
meaningful participation by developing countries in the U.N. FCCC.
The Market and Trade Development element will accelerate reductions
in technology production costs and advance deployment of technologies
through overseas market expansion. It will stimulate global economic
development and regional economic stability, and accelerate domestic
economic growth and employment. This element will be implemented in key
regions through bilateral (e.g., Gore-Mbeki in South Africa) and
multilateral (e.g., Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, Hemispheric
Initiatives and International Energy Agency) technology cooperation
activities and information exchange and dissemination. Private sector
technology development will be encouraged while private sector
deployment in strategic and emerging markets will be stimulated through
project based activities.
The Energy and Environmental Security element is designed to
advance U.S. strategic interests in bilateral and multilateral energy
and environmental security activities and will provide specialized
assistance in the utilization of appropriate technologies. This element
will be implemented in support of existing and emerging bilateral and
multilateral treaties and agreements. This element will also assist the
Department in meeting U.S. obligations and commitments to provide
disaster relief and assistance by facilitating private sector
technology development and deployment in strategic and emerging
markets.
Question. Are these programs really an export subsidy?
Answer. The Solar International Program is not an export subsidy
program. The purpose of the program is to stimulate global economic
development and regional economic stability, and accelerate domestic
economic growth and employment. One of the ways this will be
accomplished is by facilitating international technology cooperation in
bilateral and multilateral discussions, agreements and treaty
negotiations. Developing and facilitating the deployment of appropriate
technologies offers U.S. industries the opportunity to adapt existing
or emerging technologies to meet unique needs and conditions of
developing and transition countries. Technologies that may face
significant commercial barriers domestically may be readily adaptable
to large and growing markets in the developing world. Thus the program
facilitates private sector technology development and deployment in
strategic and emerging markets through project based activities.
Question. If so, should we be doing the same for export of other
non-emitting energy technologies such as nuclear and hydropower?
Answer. Hydropower is a long-standing renewable technology and the
International Solar Program is encouraging the acceptance and use of
U.S. hydropower in developing and transition country markets.
Additionally, the development of environmentally-friendly hydropower
turbines (to mitigate impacts on fish and water quality) by DOE's
Hydropower Program will help meet critical domestic and international
needs at both existing and potential new hydropower sites. With
adequate Congressional support and funding, research and development on
these turbines should lead to commercially available products by about
2010.
The International Solar Program supports the export of renewable
energy technologies and nuclear power is not considered a renewable
technology. Nuclear energy technologies receive Congressional support
independent of the International Solar Program. Consequently, it is
inappropriate for this program to encourage acceptance of U.S. nuclear
power technologies in developing and transition countries.
climate change
Question. Has DOE developed any analysis regarding the ``credit for
early action'' legislation introduced by Senators Chaffee and
Lieberman? If so, could you please provide a copy of this analysis for
the record?
Answer. In an ongoing effort, DOE, together with other agencies, is
reviewing the ``early credit'' legislation introduced by Senators
Chaffee and Lieberman to better understand its provisions. We have
begun some exploratory work to assess how an early action crediting
system might affect existing voluntary programs. To date, however, no
report has been produced to analyze the possible efforts of this
proposed legislation.
Question. In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences/National
Research Council released a report entitled, ``Global Environmental
Change: Research Pathways for the Next Decade.'' Has DOE factored into
its budget and programs the recommendations of this report regarding
climate change research priorities? If not, why not?
Answer. This important NAS/NRC report contributes to national
understanding of the climate change issue and increasingly, DOE is
embracing central themes of the NAS/NRC report.
The emerging issue of climate change presents a need for more
comprehensive integration of the efforts and budgets of multiple
federal agencies. For this crosscutting issue, the existing budget
process reveals a legacy of funding single issues and single agencies.
We need to work hard to coordinate formerly independent approaches to
address the issue of climate change.
Among its many findings, the report discusses a very important
national need to ``prepare for surprises.'' To this end, the report
offers the pathway structure noted above as a way of casting a wide net
while maintaining selective depth in important focal areas.
Scientists believe strongly that unfocused research on the
complex and varied Earth system is unlikely to be productive.
On the other hand, scientists who view the world through
pinholes are likely to bump into trees and fall off cliffs. How
can needed focus be given to the USGCRP while still casting the
research net sufficiently wide to catch the unexpected?
How to prepare for surprises is a challenge and one of the reasons
that the DOE Strategic Plan is shaped with a central guiding pathway
structure:
--Science and Technology Leadership
--Energy Resources /Security
--Environmental Quality
--National Security
With limited federal budgets, there is a need to maintain a focus
on important areas. EERE develops clean and efficient energy
technology. We help the US economy by reducing its energy intensity,
often measured as energy consumed normalized by economic activity (E/
GDP). Even conservative estimates place this improvement at about 1
percent per year. During the decade of oil shocks, energy technologies
were improving (becoming more efficient) as measured by this ratio at
an annual rate of about 3 percent or more--which shows the importance
of an enduring signal in sustaining improvements. DOE was heavily
involved in this national success, and recently examined only five of
several hundred technologies for long-term performance. Setting aside
the considerable environmental benefits of these technologies, DOE
worked with GAO to establish their cost-effectiveness. That study found
that these five technologies cumulatively saved more than $28 Billion
in avoided energy costs during the period 1978-1997. This compares
quite favorably with the cumulative total investment in the federal
energy efficiency and renewable energy programs for that same period of
about $8 billion.
We will continue to factor into our budget and programs the
recommendations of the NAS/NRC report.
Question. How does DOE set its priorities for climate change
research?
Answer. Priorities for the DOE energy technology R&D programs are
set on the basis of projected benefits of these programs in terms of
the strategic goals of the Department, the expected program costs, and
likelihood of success. The strategic goals of the Department are:
--improve the efficiency of the energy system;
--ensure against energy disruptions;
--promote energy production and use in ways that respect health and
environmental values;
--expand future energy choices; and
--cooperate internationally on global issues. In order for a
technology program to be funded, it must contribute to multiple
DOE goals--not just climate change.
Question. Has DOE participated in United Nations programs
associated with the Global Environment Facility? If so, what projects?
Answer. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE), through the interagency U.S. Country Studies Program (CSP),
provides technical assistance and guidance to some Global Environmental
Fund (GEF) funded projects. The intent is to improve the technical
quality of deliverables and products from GEF funded activities.
Specifically, U.S. CSP provides some technical assistance to improve
the quality of country National Communications to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The following countries are currently receiving technical
assistance: Bangladesh, Bolivia, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Mexico,
Micronesia, Philippines, Tanzania, Thailand and Uruguay.
agriculture
Question. I appreciate DOE's efforts in implementing the 1995
Memorandum of Understanding between DOE and the Department of
Agriculture by adding Agriculture as one of its Industries of the
Future. As you know, I am a signatory to that MOU and have a long-
standing interest in DOE's agriculture-related activities. The
Administration's fiscal year 2000 Budget Request for the Industries of
the Future program includes $4 million for Agriculture. How would this
money be spent? Would precision agriculture technologies fit into your
planned activities?
Answer. We appreciate your support over the years for agriculture-
related research and development at the Department. One of our newest
efforts to help America's farmers is the Agriculture Team in the
Industries of the Future program, which received $2 million of funding
this fiscal year. The Team recently issued its first solicitation for
projects, targeting two areas of industry's technology roadmap:
processing and utilization. Product separation and new, more effective
catalysts are examples of high priority topics in the first category;
the structure and functionality of different plant parts are such
examples in the second. The selection of winning proposals for that
solicitation will occur in June. Those projects will likely require at
least an equal amount of funds in fiscal year 2000 to complete or
continue their planned work. Assuming the Agriculture Team receives the
full funding requested, that would leave $2 million or less for new
project starts in the Team's request for proposals for the next fiscal
year, which it now plans to issue in mid-summer.
The Team has not yet had full discussions with its industry
partners in the agricultural, chemical and forestry communities to
learn their views about the focus for the fiscal year 2000
solicitation. Given the high level of interest in the current
solicitation topics; the technical hurdles still to be overcome in just
the processing area, for example, where the Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory has historically shown technical
expertise; the need to avoid duplicating research work elsewhere, such
as at the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and, the amount of funding
that could be applied to new projects by the Agriculture Team next
year, it seems unlikely that industry leaders would encourage us to
broaden our focus to the other areas of the roadmap, plant science or
production, where precision agriculture is included. However, we want
to emphasize that no decisions have been made yet about the specific
details of the Team's fiscal year 2000 solicitation.
fish friendly turbines
Question. I am pleased to see that DOE's budget request includes $7
million for continuation of research into advance--or what are
sometimes called ``fish-friendly''--turbines. I think this research is
key to a continued role for emissions-free hydropower as part of our
electric generation system. Can you describe the status of DOE's work
on fish-friendly turbines and how fiscal year 2000 funding would be
utilized?
Answer. Competitively-selected advanced turbine conceptual designs
with improved environmental performance were completed by Voith Hydro,
Inc. and the Alden Research Laboratory in 1997. Features of an advanced
Kaplan-type turbine design developed by Voith are already being
incorporated in the rehabilitation of the Bonneville Dam hydropower
plant. These features include a minimum-gap runner, low flow
turbulence, improved blade design with thicker entrance edges, smoother
surfaces, and oil and grease reduction, all of which reduce injury and
mortality to fish. Voith, teamed with Georgia Tech, will also conduct
computer analyses to predict fish behavior in turbines. DOE is
initiating pilot-scale proof-of-concept testing of the innovative Alden
design in order to verify predicted biological performance. Biological
studies of shear stresses experienced by fish in the turbine
environment are being completed by the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (PNNL) and the results will be factored into design criteria
by the DOE program for both engineering design and prototype
fabrication.
In fiscal year 2000, DOE program funding will continue the
biological studies being conducted by PNNL, specifically addressing the
issues of turbulence, pressure and gas supersaturation. Proof-of-
concept testing for the Alden design will be completed, and a
competitive solicitation will be issued to select one or more industry
partners to develop advanced turbine engineering designs, leading to
full-scale prototype fabrication and testing at one or more operational
hydropower sites.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Reid
federal research investment in renewable energy
Question. After billions of dollars of Federal Research investments
in renewable energy technologies, these still produce only about 2
percent of U.S. electricity. Can you tell me why I should continue to
support the funding requests for renewable technologies?
Answer. Although most renewable technologies are competitive in
limited market segments (for example, off-grid photovoltaics; biopower
where low cost or negative cost waste feedstock is available or where
cogeneration is appropriate; and geothermal where there are established
high quality resources), these technologies have not yet reached the
point where they can capture a large share of the overall electricity
market. However, significant progress on technology cost, performance,
and reliability has been made and several technologies are poised to
make market inroads over the next decade.
Since the mid-1970s when most of the renewable energy technology
R&D programs began in earnest, the total investment has in the range of
$5 to $6 billion (actual dollars). Since then, we have cut costs
dramatically. For example, the cost of electric power from wind
turbines which ranged from 30 to 40 cents a kiloWatt hour in 1980 has
now dropped to between 4 and 6 cents a kiloWatt hour because of
aggressive R&D. The next generation of turbines now under development
should bring costs down to as low as 2 and a half cents per kiloWatt
hour by 2002. Likewise, the first commercially available photovoltaic
(PV) panels in the 1980s produced power at a cost of $1 per kiloWatt
hour. Depending upon the materials used and the technology application,
PV systems will be capable of delivering electricity for as low as 12
to 20 cents per kiloWatt hour, and in the next decade it should drop to
below 10 cents through continued R&D by 2010. By this timeframe, the
price of photovoltaic generated electricity is expected to be
competitive with conventional sources of power in remote locations,
rural areas where transmission and distribution costs are high, and
urban areas where transmission and distribution systems are congested.
While non-hydropower renewables do only provide about 2 percent of
our nation's electricity today, continuing reductions in technology
production and O&M costs--combined with enhanced efficiencies and
extended system lifetimes--will enable much further domestic market
penetration of these clean power technologies. Though actual market
generation rates will be determined by a number of factors such as
growth in consumer electricity demand, competition from other
generation technologies (particularly natural gas), and access to
investment financing, we strongly believe that amount of power
generated by renewables will at least triple by 2010.
Finally, as more clean renewable energy technologies enter the
commercial marketplace here in the U.S. and sales of our advanced
technologies increase overseas, our economy will be strengthened as
more jobs are created for the people of this nation. For these reasons,
I strongly urge your continued support for the research and development
of these technologies.
research and development of alternative energy sources
Question. Isn't it the case that research and development of
alternative energy sources is essential to maintain access to
affordable energy for future generations? Can't it be said that we are
striving to find alternative sources not only because of environmental
issues but for future access?
Answer. Certainly part of the rationale for the Department's
research and development on alternative energy resources is to ensure
reliable access to affordable energy for future generations. We want to
make sure that our nation's children--and all those that follow--
continue to have the energy resources available that are essential to a
strong economy and the American quality of life.
We also believe, though, that our work on these technologies is
already making significant impacts. For many U.S. citizens living in
remote or underdeveloped portions of our country, power supplied by
renewable resources can make the difference between having electric
lights, refrigeration, and electronic communications or not. We strive
to find clean and renewable electric power and transportation fuels for
a variety of reasons, including: developing a variety of clean,
domestic energy choices and thereby enhancing our energy security
access to these energy resources in the future; mitigating
environmental and human health impacts associated with energy
production, consumption, and use; and to return economic benefits to
the American taxpayer through the creation of skilled, high-wage jobs
domestically and sales of the technologies they produce around the
world.
use of the nevada test site
Question. Nevada is a prime area for expansion of alternative
energy resources. The Nevada Test Site is an ideal location for test
and evaluation of renewable energy and alternative fuel technologies.
How do you propose to use the Nevada Test Site for future research and
design efforts?
Answer. There are a number of hydrogen projects which have been
discussed with Nevada personnel and which would be complementary to the
Nevada Test Site. One project which includes a 50kW generation plant
that can co-produce hydrogen and electricity has already been
implemented. The Department issued a competitive solicitation in March
to develop a prototypical hydrogen refueling station in Nevada. This
fueling station will enable the refueling of either hydrogen or blends
of natural gas and hydrogen into vehicles. As the number of
alternatively fueled vehicles increase, a need for additional satellite
fueling stations are expected. We anticipate the Nevada Test Site will
be considered as the Department develops this refueling infrastructure
through the competitive process.
In the areas of Photovoltaics, concentrating Solar Power and Energy
Storage, with ample space and excellent solar resources, Nevada is an
ideal location for the test and evaluation of renewable energy and
alternative fuel technologies such as storage systems. The Test Site is
one possible location, but there are also other locations in Nevada
that might be advantageous. The Nevada Portfolio Standard may provide
an excellent incentive for commercial solar energy deployment in the
near-to-mid term if it is implemented.
wind energy progress
Question. What advances have been made regarding wind power? Have
any strides been made toward getting wind power competitive with other
technologies?
Answer. We've made great progress in improving wind power in the
last ten years. Cost of wind turbine projects has been reduced from
2,000 to $/kW to less $1,000 while the cost of producing electricity is
now in the range of 4-6 center per kWh. Additionally, rotor size has
increased from 15 meters to 40 meters or more, generator size from 100
kW to 750 kW or larger, and capacity factors from 0.2 to 0.35 to 0.40.
Total capacity installed in the United States will increase to over
2,000 MW this year, as the world total increases to over 10,000MW.
We've also made major strides in understanding the physics of wind
energy technology. These improvements, together with industry's
experience in manufacturing and operating new turbines, are being
applied in design of advanced wind turbines. Within the Next Generation
Turbine project, seven conceptual designs of advanced turbines have
been completed, and two projects are moving forward. The Next
Generation Turbine effort, together with several other ongoing and
planned joint projects with U.S. manufacturers, should substantially
upgrade U.S. industry's wind technology capabilities and narrow the gap
between wind and other competing forms of electric generation. These
turbines are expected to bring costs down to as low as 2\1/2\ cents/kWh
in good wind sites.
solar cells development
Question. Solar cells that produce electricity directly from
sunlight have been under development for a long time. Your program is
trying to develop a solar cell that is only 40 percent efficient, so
that's less than half of the solar energy would be converted to
electricity. Why would such an inefficient power source be valuable?
Answer. A 40 percent solar cell is not inefficient. Quite the
contrary, development of a 40 percent solar cell would be a significant
scientific accomplishment. When solar cells were first developed by RCA
Bell Laboratory in the 1960s, efficiencies were in the 4 percent to 6
percent range. The Department of Energy began an earnest R&D program in
the mid-1970s, and over the past two decades has made dramatic
improvements in the technology. Today, multijunction cells under
concentrated sunlight can routinely achieve efficiencies in the 28
percent to 32 percent range. Efforts to develop a four-junction device
that could achieve 40 percent efficiency would yield dramatically
reduced dollar per Watt values (greater than 50 percent) for
terrestrial photovoltaics. It should be noted that the efficiency of
the average automobile gasoline engine is less than 25 percent, yet
everyone values the transportation they provide. Furthermore, coal
fired plants are less than 40 percent efficient.
A conservative estimate of the average residential roof size in the
U.S. is 200 square meters (10 meters by 20 meters). The amount of
energy in sunlight is 1000 Watts per square meter, which means 200,000
Watts, or 200 kilowatts, strike the average residential roof in the
U.S. (enough for 50 homes). Using a solar cell system that is just 10
percent efficient would produce 20 kiloWatts of electricity, which is
more than five times the amount of energy the home needs. Therefore,
typical photovoltaic systems for residential use take up only a
fraction of the space on the roof, and, at 10 percent, 20 percent or
someday 40 percent efficiency, add significant value to a home's energy
needs.
Photovoltaic technology adds value to the nation's energy mix.
Photovoltaic solar cells are a versatile electricity technology that
can be used for any application, from the very small to the very large.
It is a modular technology that enables electric generating systems to
be incrementally built to match growing demands. It is a technology in
which systems are easy to install, maintain, and use. And it is a
convenient technology that can be used anywhere there is sunshine and
that can be mounted on almost any surface, from rooftops, to roadsides,
to mobile units, virtually anywhere there is sunshine.
Photovoltaics (PV) also offer additional benefits. For example, PV
presents a domestic reserve of energy that will never be depleted and
makes the U.S. less vulnerable to international energy politics and
volatile fossil fuel markets. Photovoltaic solar cells are made from
materials, such as silicon, which are domestically abundant.
Finally, PV systems produce no greenhouse gases, so their use can
help offset carbon dioxide emissions and their possible consequences.
Consequently, building a photovoltaic infrastructure would provide an
insurance policy against global warming and climate change.
With so many positive attributes, photovoltaic energy is clearly a
valuable natural resource.
Question. The United States is not alone in solar cell development.
Can you compare the budgets and progress of our efforts in this country
with solar cell research and development programs in Europe and Japan?
Answer. The European and Japanese R&D programs are very strong and
aggressive, resulting in a recent upsurge of competition to the U.S.
photovoltaic industry. The Japanese budget alone is over three times
the U.S. R&D budget in fiscal year 1999 ($230M vs $72.2M). Both the
Japanese and German governments spend hundreds of millions of dollars
on subsidies for their residential roof programs, which have
dramatically increased sales for their industries. For example,
Japanese PV manufacturers reported shipment increases of 41 percent,
from 35 megaWatts in 1997 to 49.2 megawatts in 1998. In the same time
period, U.S. shipments rose only 5 percent, from 51 megaWatts in 1997
to 53.7 megaWatts in 1998. If this trend continues, Japan may well
surpass the U.S. next year and become the world leader, a position the
U.S. has held since 1993. Overall, in both the U.S. and in foreign
countries, the efficiency of commercial solar cells has increased by
about 30 percent in the last 20 years. However, production costs have
steadily fallen I all countries, so that the cost per unit power ($/
Watt) is now about \1/4\ of what it was 20 to 25 years ago.
1999 PHOTOVOLTAIC R&D BUDGETS BY COUNTRY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United
States Japan Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total R&D Program....................... 72,200 230,000 180,000
Million Solar Roofs \1\................. 1,500 130,000 100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Japan has a residential solar roof program that installs 10,000 PV
roofs per year which subsidizes one third of the cost of the PV
system, and Germany just approved a six-year, 100,000 PV roof program
to be funded at one billion Marks, or $600M.
WORLD PV CELL & MODULE SHIPMENTS
[MW]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States......................................... 51.0 53.7
Japan................................................. 35.0 49.2
Europe................................................ 30.4 30.1
Rest of World......................................... 9.4 18.7
-----------------
4Total.......................................... 125.8 151.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
providing dispatchable solar power
Question. Solar power is produced only when the ``sun is shining''
so that some means of providing power after sunset must be developed.
What concepts and research efforts are being developed to solve this
dilemma?
Answer. Both the Photovoltaic (PV) and Concentrating Solar Power
(CSP) Programs at the Department are pursuing various methods of
harnessing the sun's energy for use after sunset. This ability to
dispatch solar power when it is needed greatly enhances the economic
value and broadens the application of solar technologies.
The simplest and most practical approach for PV energy storage is
by using batteries. The battery of choice is the deep-cycle flooded
lead-acid battery. Other battery types are being investigated,
particularly nickel-cadmium batteries for use in inaccessible
environments (e.g., microwave repeater stations on mountain tops).
These batteries are more expensive but have a longer lifetime and less
sensitivity to deep discharge. Most stand-alone PV systems use flooded
lead-acid batteries for energy storage. R&D is being conducted to
improve the integration of batteries with PV to optimize system
performance and battery life. Other storage research is focused on
improved batteries and advanced storage technologies (e.g. flywheels)
that are lower cost, longer life, and more robust in the rigorous
standalone application environment. In longer-term R&D, energy storage
through the electrolysis of water and subsequent production of hydrogen
is being investigated. After sunset, the hydrogen can be combined with
oxygen in the air to yield electric power through a fuel cell.
Another concept to eliminate the need for storage in some
photovoltaic applications is to tie the PV system to the utility power
grid. When the sun is out, the PV system provides power to the
application, such as a home or business. If there is excess electricity
being produced by the PV system, the solar system will run the utility
meter backwards and the user gets credit for the electric power
delivered to the grid. At night, the home or business is powered by the
grid, thus eliminating the need for storage batteries. In this sense,
the utility grid is the storage.
For CSP technologies--dishes, troughs, and towers--there are
different approaches depending on the type of system. Because CSP
systems generate heat to produce power, all three technologies may be
hybridized with fossil fuels (e.g., diesel fuel for dishes; natural gas
or coal for troughs and towers). The 354 MW of trough plants operating
in the California desert are a fine example of a solar/natural gas
hybrid system. For stand-alone CSP systems, one option under
investigation is a solar dish/hydrogen fuel cell combination, where the
high-temperatures generated by solar dish systems produce power during
the day and electrolyze water to produce hydrogen for use in a fuel
cell to provide power at night. Like PV, dish systems can also use
conventional battery storage. While efficient thermal storage is being
considered for trough technology. This storage mechanism has been
successfully demonstrated for power tower systems using molten-salt
technology. In a test last summer, Solar Two produced power for 153
consecutive hours (over 6 days) using only sun and salt.
solar power vs. storage
Question. Is energy storage technology ahead of solar power
technology, or is solar power ahead of storage?
Answer. An argument could be made that solar power systems are more
commercially developed than efficient storage methods for kW-scale
power. This is due to the expense and (in the case of lead-acid
batteries) the relatively short life of deep-cycle batteries. However,
energy storage in PV systems today makes use of commercially available
battery technologies that are produced in large-scale for solar and
many other applications. Both PV and energy storage technologies have
made significant advances in recent years in terms of cost reduction
and improved life. Improved durability of batteries continues to be
researched while large-scale manufacturing processes are being
developed for PV. Better system integration of these technologies is
another focus of research that is expected to pay large dividends in
the coming years.
locations receiving federal r&d funds for solar power
Question. Solar power production is more effective in some areas of
the country than in others. Do you think there is any relationship
between the areas of most valuable solar resource and locations of
Federal R&D in solar power?
Answer. In the case of both solar photovoltaic and concentrating
solar power, there is a close relationship between areas of high yearly
insolation and the location of R&D facilities. Although photovoltaic
systems have been tested in many sites all across the country and under
almost all environmental conditions, all five research facilities
within the Photovoltaic Program are located in areas of high
insolation. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is located
in Denver, Colorado; Sandia National Laboratories is located in
Albuquerque, New Mexico; the Southwest Technology Development Institute
is located in Las Cruces, New Mexico; the Photovoltaics for Utility
Scale Applications (PVUSA) test site is located in Sacramento,
California; and the Florida Solar Energy Center is located in Cocoa,
Florida. The first four facilities are located in dry, very sunny
areas, and the last facility is located in a sunny, but very humid
area. The CSP Program uses the labs at Sandia and NREL (combined to
form ``SunLab'') and has directed most of its R&D efforts in the U.S.
Southwest where the solar radiation is ideal for CSP systems.
locating solar r&d in areas of high solar radiation
Question. Can you make a case for co-location of solar technology
test and evaluation in areas of maximum solar power potential?
Answer. As stated above, in the case of both solar photovoltaic and
concentrating solar power, there is a close relationship between areas
of high yearly insolation and the location of R&D facilities. Most of
the R&D funded by both the PV and CSP Programs is conducted in the U.S.
Southwest. Though more so for CSP than for PV technologies, co-locating
solar technology test and evaluation in areas of high solar radiation
allows for optimal test results and more closely emulates the
environment where these technologies will be used in commercial
applications.
hydrogen program
Question. What are the expected benefits of systems that are
powered by hydrogen?
Answer. There are multiple benefits that are accrued by using
hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen fuel cells are expected to improve the
efficiency of energy systems by making more productive use of energy
resources that protect the environment and enhance national security.
For electric generation systems, the hydrogen fuel cell can be better
integrated at the site of electric power utilization as a distributed
system that can provide both electricity and heat, and thereby achieve
an overall efficiency of 80 percent. For transportation applications in
non-attainment areas there would be a significant improvement in the
air quality due to the fuel-cell exhaust being primarily water. Also,
natural gas or renewable/electrolysis of water can be substituted for
petroleum as the source of hydrogen, which would decrease global
warming emissions and decrease the Nation's reliance on imported oil.
Question. The deployment of a ``hydrogen infrastructure'' is
frequently referred to as a major obstacle to hydrogen-powered
vehicles. What is the Federal Government's role in overcoming this
obstacle? What are your plans and progress for developing a hydrogen
infrastructure?
Answer. There are several barriers that need to be overcome in
order for the public to accept hydrogen-powered vehicles. There is an
issue associated with the establishment of a sufficient number of
hydrogen stations that can dispense a fuel at competitive prices to
today's petroleum-based fuels. There is also the need to provide the
cost for the infrastructure to support those stations. The Department
has issued a solicitation for a refueling station in Las Vegas, NV that
will co-produce electricity from a stationary fuel cell and hydrogen
for dedicated vehicles. It is expected that this option will lower the
cost of both producing the electricity and the hydrogen fuel to levels
that will enhance the commercial deployment. As a distributed system
that uses natural gas as the feedstock, it is expected to have a lesser
impact on supporting infrastructure requirements. As advanced reformer
and fuel cell technology becomes available from 2001 to 2004, future
refueling stations will be considered as cost-shared joint ventures
with industry.
In addition, there is the need to ensure that the public will be
able to fuel their vehicle safely and in a reasonable amount of time.
The Department is working with the industry, the National Hydrogen
Association and the International Safety Organization on the
development of an appropriate set of codes and standards. The
Department is also supporting the development of safety plans and
testing for projects, and the deployment of pre-commercial systems in
public environments. It is expected that the automobile industry will
first develop hydrogen fuel cell buses and fleet vehicles for niche
markets that will facilitate further deployment of these systems in the
marketplace prior to requiring an infrastructure to support the general
public's personal vehicles.
Question. Fiscal year 1999 Appropriations for hydrogen research
directed completion of a facility in Nevada that would produce and
store hydrogen and use a path-breaking fuel cell to supply power. What
is the status of that facility?
Answer. A solicitation was issued on March 18, 1999 with a closing
date of May 14, 1999 for a 50/50 cost-shared project to build and
operate a 50 kW stationary fuel cell electric generation system and
hydrogen/natural gas quick-fueling station at a site near the Nevada
Operations Office in northern Las Vegas. It is expected that this
station will be built and operational by September 30, 2000.
nevada test site
Question. Nevada is primed and ready for implementation of
alternative energy resource facilities. A majority of the State is
Federally owned and unsettled. Additionally, the Nevada Test Site is
available for use. What are your plans for constructing facilities or
using existing facilities in Nevada?
Answer. As you have asserted, Nevada is blessed with numerous
renewable energy resources and is primed for the use of alternative
energy resources. To facilitate the increased use of solar energy in
Nevada, the Office of Power Technologies awarded a $183,000 grant to
the Corporation for Solar Technology and Renewable Resources (CSTRR)
September 1998. CSTRR joined with Pulte Home Corporation to develop a
strategy for the wide scale installation of solar water heating systems
in Nevada and Arizona. To help them, they formed a team which includes
Nevada Power Company, University of Nevada Las Vegas , University of
Nevada Reno, and the Nevada State Energy Office. The team augmented the
DOE grant with $297,000 of its own. Through this grant, they have
evaluated a number of solar water heaters and selected two systems that
best fit Pulte's performance and reliability requirements. They have
been integrated into the design of Pulte's homes and have been
installed on several model homes in Las Vegas. Educational materials
are being developed by Pulte, as is a marketing strategy. Las Vegas'
abundant solar resource and rapidly growing population makes it an
ideal location to show that solar technology can be an inexpensive
energy option. The goal of the project is to develop a sustainable
market that results in solar water heaters on thousands of buildings
and facilities throughout Nevada and the rest of the Southwest.
Within the Photovoltaic Program, the State of Nevada is a Million
Solar Roofs (MSR) partner and has made a commitment to install up to
10,000 solar roofs. The Photovoltaic Program is also providing
financial support to several utility companies within the state to
install grid-tied PV systems. UtiliCorp United and the Nevada Power
Company are teaming on a project to install kW PV systems on residences
to examine their contribution to voltage stability, harmonics and power
quality. Sierra Pacific Power is part of a team led by Central and
South West Services to purchase in volume and install 180 PV powered
fluid handling systems. Finally, the Corporation for Solar Technology
and Renewable Resources (CSTRR) is located in Las Vegas and the Program
has worked with CSTRR to identify PV projects in Nevada.
In the area of the Geothermal Energy Program, today there are 14
power plants in Nevada with a capacity of about 208 MW. Using current
technology and known resources Nevada has a potential of up to 500 MW,
although there are no known plans to commercially develop these
additional resources. Two geothermal power companies, Oxbow Geothermal
and Ormat are headquartered in Reno and Sparks, respectively. Both
companies have major projects within Nevada, and the Department has
partnered with them in developing improved geothermal technology. In
addition, there are 80 MW thermal installed at 34 sites for direct use
applications such as space heating and industrial processes. Another 31
sites have a potential for development of almost 1400 MW thermal,
mainly for space heating.
The State of Nevada may also be a candidate for an alternative
energy test bed to assess various renewable energy and power delivery
technologies, especially in a distributed power mode. DOE is
considering development of such a site through a competitive process in
the fiscal year 2001 time frame.
ranking the value of major renewable technologies
Question. Looking into the future, can you rank in order the
overall value of the major renewable technologies?
Answer. Unfortunately, there are too many variables to look into
the future to rank the overall value of the major renewable energy
technologies in any meaningful way at this time. Factors such as
domestic market utilization rates, the level of international sales of
domestically-produced technologies, private sector investment, consumer
preferences, the value of environmental (e.g., emission) benefits,
foreign competition, foreign market barriers and subsidies, resource
availability, and the great variances among emerging State laws and
regulations make such rankings essentially impossible.
Certainly, it appears that some technologies will enter the
marketplace in a substantial manner sooner than others, but this is not
an accurate indicator of their eventual value ranking. In fact, this
would merely be an estimate of market penetration and the cumulative
benefits provided at a given point in time. Other technologies may
require a somewhat longer research and development process, but may
eventually be more suitable to wider market penetration and greater
overseas sales and thus surpass their market entry predecessors.
Finally, while oftentimes the various renewable technology resources
complement each other (e.g., when the sun goes down, the wind
oftentimes increases, yielding opportunities for hybrid renewable
energy technology supply systems), there may well be some level of
competition among the technologies in certain geographic regions that
will be decided by consumers and the marketplace itself.
use of hydrogen and hydrogen research
Question. You say your mission hasn't changed and that it includes
developing energy technology options. My understanding is that your
office is pursuing the use of Hydrogen as an optional technology.
Efficiency requires coordination with the Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Office. What steps are you taking to ensure that
appropriate communication is taking place between your staff and Dr.
Reicher's staff?
Answer. I agree that coordination between the Office of Science
(SC) and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE) is
critical. The largest activity that supports hydrogen research within
the Office of Science is in the Energy Biosciences subprogram of the
Basic Energy Sciences program. In addition to one-on-one meetings
between program managers, there are several other coordination
activities. For example, one of our program staff has served as a
reviewer of the EE Hydrogen program; and currently, the Director of our
Energy Biosciences Division participates in the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Bioenergy Energy weekly staff
meetings, thus providing both EE and SC with unique perspectives of
each others problems and opportunities.
Question. What do you see in the future for Hydrogen Technologies?
Are we looking at decades of research before this technology becomes
effective and efficient?
Answer. Hydrogen can be used by many energy technologies, from
combustion to fuel cells. The impediments are, however, two fold. The
first is one of infrastructure. Our fuels infrastructure is based on
transporting and distributing hydrocarbons. This infrastructure depends
on pipelines and trucks eventually leading directly to our homes and
places of work for heat or distribution centers. Much of this
infrastructure, perhaps even the majority, is not suitable to handle
hydrogen safely. The second is one of efficiency in production of
hydrogen. There are current technologies for converting hydrocarbons to
carbon dioxide and hydrogen. However, they are not yet economically
competitive. There are some new ideas being developed and explored both
at university and government laboratories and in industry that have the
potential to solve this problem. Longer term research is going to be
needed to enable the splitting of water as a source of hydrogen using
solar energy, either by artificial or natural photosynthetic processes.
Question. What amount of the fiscal year 2000 budget request within
Energy Research will be directed to hydrogen research?
Answer. The Office of Science is responsible for broad support of
the science base for all the technology offices within the department.
The mechanism by which this is accomplished is competitive peer review
of all applications. In fiscal year 1998, we provided $2.3 million in
support of meritorious applications for research on hydrogen. In fiscal
year 1999, we are currently providing $2.2 million and have received
applications in the Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) that
are relevant to hydrogen. Because the review of the CCTI applications
has not been completed, it is not possible to provide an exact number
for fiscal year 1999. The same is true for fiscal year 2000. There will
be a solicitation in fiscal year 2000 for the CCTI that will address
among other relevant issues, hydrogen. In addition, applications
relevant to hydrogen are submitted to the base programs; and selection
is done on the basis of peer review. The amount that will be funded in
fiscal year 2000 will depend on the applications submitted and the
outcome of the peer review. We anticipate the fiscal year 2000 funding
will approximate the fiscal year 1999 funding.
objectives of strategic plan goals
Question. I see that the objectives of your ``Fueling the Future''
and ``Protecting our Living Planet'' goals are to 1) find energy
systems that are more efficient and environmentally sound and 2) to
determine how our energy use affects environmental systems. Will you be
addressing the environmental issues of nuclear energy, especially waste
management and disposal, as a part of these?
Answer. The Office of Science will soon release its new Strategic
Plan to guide its research through the next 25 years. Much of this
research, because it is basic, has broad potential applications, some
presently understood and some not. Having said this, there are areas of
basic research which will have relevance and benefit for nuclear waste
management and disposal. For example, programs in materials sciences
will investigate materials used to contain waste (such as metals,
glasses, ceramics and polymers), and the corrosion, welding properties,
fracture behavior, and radiation resistance of such materials. Chemical
Sciences projects will explore the molecular level reactions of
actinide compounds necessary for the safe handling, storage, and
disposal of radioactive wastes. Geoscience investigations will examine
the transport of contaminants in porous media and the transformation of
wastes by the subsurface environment. And, programs in plant and
microbial sciences will study how these biological systems interact
with nuclear waste products, leading to potentially new or improved
remediation strategies and technologies.
nuclear waste projects in the budget request
Question. The budget request includes $411.2 million for Biological
and Environmental Research and $342.9 million for Nuclear Physics. Are
any of these projects focused on storage of nuclear waste?
Answer. There are no projects in the budget request for either of
these programs that are focused on storage of nuclear waste.
accelerator transmutation of waste (atw)
Question. I understand that there are feasible techniques to reduce
the hazardous lifetimes of radioactive wastes. Is your Office doing
research on these techniques ?
Answer. The Office of Science is not doing research on these
techniques directly, but accelerator technology developed by the Office
of Science, et al, is the focus of a $4 million DOE R&D roadmap for one
of these techniques: the accelerator transmutation of (radioactive)
waste (ATW). The roadmap is due to be completed and submitted to
Congress by October 1, 1999. The effort is being led by the DOE Office
of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (RW), with participation by
the DOE Offices of Defense, Nuclear Energy and Science. Four technical
working groups have been formed, in addition to a group of
international experts.
oversight of major construction research facilities
Question. Isn't the Office of Science responsible for providing
research and oversight of major construction of research facilities? Do
you have plans for constructing facilities or using existing facilities
in Nevada?
Answer. The Office of Science is only responsible for the
construction oversight of Office of Science funded research facilities.
The BER Program is currently supporting a research project that is
using the Desert Free Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment (FACE) facility.
The project, ``Effects of Elevated CO2 on Root Dynamics and
Root Function in a Mojave Desert Ecosystem,'' is undergoing peer review
for continued support. The site is located outside of Las Vegas,
Nevada, at the Department of Energy's Nevada Test Site.
competitiveness of nuclear power
Question. You say that nuclear energy is essential in reducing
carbon dioxide emissions. There are many other ``green'' technologies
that could also reduce carbon dioxide emissions. At this time, these
other technologies are not competitive on the open market. My
impression is that nuclear energy is also not competitive on the open
market. No new reactors have been built in more than 20 years. Many of
the old reactors are being decommissioned.
Public distaste for nuclear power incurs hidden costs that can be
offset only by real reductions in capital and operating expenses for
nuclear power facilities. Otherwise, the industry will continue to turn
to other opportunities. How do you plan to decrease the costs
associated with nuclear energy (including waste disposal) in order to
make it competitive on the open market and attract industrial power
advocates?
Answer. Nuclear power plants are among the most efficient sources
of baseload electricity available today, with operating costs averaging
at about 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. Rather, the unacceptably high
costs historically attributed to nuclear power plants are from the high
costs and long lead times associated with construction and licensing of
these plants. Since the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
much has changed that would make economics associated with building and
operating new plants more economic. We believe that nuclear energy is
and will continue to be an important source of electricity for the
nation and with the right strategies by industry and government to
address barriers to use of nuclear energy, both existing and new
nuclear plants will be competitive with other energy sources in the
next century.
A few years ago, with the shut down of several older, smaller
nuclear power plants, and with electricity restructuring looming, many
believed that existing nuclear power plants could not compete in the
electricity supply market. However, this has not proven to be the case.
Today, the trend is toward consolidation of ownership of nuclear plants
as states favorably address stranded costs, as we see a growing
recognition of the importance of nuclear to meeting international
commitments on climate change, and as we see that these plants can be
operated efficiently, reliably, and safely. Already, several plants are
proceeding well ahead of schedule with license extension and others
have expressed their intent to proceed with license extension. We
believe that the majority of existing plants will continue to operate
well into the next century. To support their continued operation, the
Department is proposing to launch the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization
(NEPO) program, in fiscal year 2000. With a modest level of funding,
leveraged with industry funding, we believe we can begin addressing
important issues that can remove barriers to extended operation of the
existing plants. This program conducted in at least 50-50 cost-shared
cooperation with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and with
coordination with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), would seek
to increase plant capacity from 71 percent in 1997 to 85 percent in
2010 by addressing issues such as materials degradation, plant aging,
and other issues affecting plant reliability, economics, and safety.
In the 1980's and mid-1990's the Department and industry funded and
completed, the Advanced Light Water Reactor (ALWR) program. This
program is the foundation for restoring favorable economics and
increased confidence in nuclear power in the United States. Three
improved, simplified U.S. plant designs were submitted for NRC Design
Certification in cooperative, cost-shared programs of DOE and the U.S.
industry: the General Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR)
and ABB-Combustion Engineering System 80+ large plants (1350 MWe), and
the smaller Westinghouse AP-600 (600 MWe) simplified passive plant. The
ABWR and System 80+ received NRC Design Certification in May 1997. The
AP600 received NRC Final Design Approval in September 1998, and should
receive Design Certification in 2000. We believe that design
certification, coupled with the latest NRC one step licensing process,
reduces the uncertainty and risk that characterized many nuclear plant
projects in the 1970's and 1980's. In addition, the significant
improvements and simplification of these plant designs, will reduce the
time and cost required to construct nuclear power plants.
In fiscal year 1999, with advice from the President's Committee of
Advisors on Science and Technology, the Department proposed and
Congress funded $19 million for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.
This program is specifically aimed at conducting new and innovative
research to address barriers to long term use of nuclear energy, such
as waste, proliferation, and economics. As an investigator-initiated,
peer reviewed research program, proposals were solicited from
universities, national laboratories, and industry in the following
general areas:
--Proliferation resistant reactor and fuel technology
--New reactor designs to achieve improved performance, higher
efficiency and reduced cost; also, low output power reactors.
--Advanced nuclear fuels
--New technologies for nuclear waste management
--Related fundamental science and technology.
We received over 300 proposals in response to the solicitation and
in May 1999, the Department awarded grants to the top 45 research
projects. The majority of these awards were for collaborative research
among universities, laboratories, and industry, including significant
collaboration with international R&D organizations. The NERI program is
expected to produce significant innovative research and development
that will contribute to the reduction of nuclear plant costs and
construction schedules and to improvements in proliferation resistance,
nuclear waste technology, and other promising areas of nuclear energy
development.
In the final analysis, the long-term use of nuclear power in the
United States will depend on economics. This in turn will depend on the
efficacy of the R&D that is conducted, on demonstrating the benefits of
nuclear power, and on restoring and maintaining a sufficient
infrastructure of the needed technical qualifications in industry,
universities and laboratories.
nuclear energy research initiative waste management activities
Question. It is the focus of Nuclear Energy Research Initiative
(NERI) to determine how, if possible, nuclear energy can be used over
the long term as an environmentally responsible and reliable energy
source. You are requesting an increase of $6 million over fiscal year
1999 funding to address obstacles affecting the future of nuclear
energy in the U.S. Do these obstacles include nuclear waste management
and storage?
Answer. Yes. Nuclear waste, principally spent fuel is one of the
five main research areas of the fiscal year 1999 NERI research program.
The focus of the NERI nuclear waste research is to address issues
related to the management and interim or onsite storage of commercial
spent fuel. The fiscal year 1999 NERI research solicitation identified
waste research needs in the following specific areas: new concepts for
on-site or interim storage of spent fuel; strategies and technology for
the reduction of high level waste volume; and fundamental research to
eliminate storage corrosion processes. The NERI nuclear waste research
effort is being coordinated with other Department offices including the
Offices of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Science, and
Environmental Management to avoid duplication of research.
Question. How will these additional funds be used to address waste
disposal uncertainties?
Answer. The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology plans
to utilize approximately $19 million of the requested $25 million in
fiscal year 2000 to fund the second year of the R&D proposals awarded
in fiscal year 1999. The additional $6 million will be used to fund new
research in several key areas, including nuclear waste management,
proliferation resistant reactor and fuel technologies, new reactor
designs, and advanced nuclear fuels. The Department is seeking new
alternatives and technological solutions to minimize the impact of
spent fuel-nuclear waste while maintaining compatibility with the
policy for ultimate disposal in a geological repository. NE will select
and fund the best scientific and engineering research proposals
received from U.S. universities, national laboratories and industry
based on a competitive, peer reviewed selection process.
nuclear energy--social acceptability and cost
Question. How will the Department address what could be the two
biggest obstacles to nuclear energy--social acceptability and cost?
Answer. The Department recently completed the Advanced Light Water
Reactor Program (ALWR) which produced three advanced nuclear power
plant designs that have been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC). The General Electric Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) and
the ABB-Combustion Engineering System 80+ received NRC Design
Certification in May 1997. Design Certification of the Westinghouse
AP600 is expected in 2000. These ALWR designs have made significant
advancements in the already robust safety features and life cycle cost
aspects of nuclear energy.
In order to keep the nuclear energy option viable for the United
States, the Department has proposed in its fiscal year 2000 budget,
research and development activities under the Nuclear Plant
Optimization (NEPO) program. NEPO is a new initiative proposed in
fiscal year 2000, to cooperate with the industry to develop key
technologies that can help assure the long-term viability of our
nation's existing nuclear power plants. This initiative is particularly
important as utilities deal with uncertainties associated with
electricity restructuring. NEPO seeks to develop and apply new
technologies to improve plant economics, reliability and availability,
and resolve issues related to plant aging while maintaining a high
level of safety.
The proposed NEPO program would help reduce the production costs of
existing plants because the R&D conducted: (1) would provide a better
understanding of material degradation mechanisms and how they occur,
enabling development of cost-effective aging management strategies
which will provide capabilities to easily prevent, detect, or repair
the degradation; (2) would improve equipment reliability, lower
operating costs, and increase power output while maintaining high level
of safety; and (3) would optimize power generation through efficiency
and productivity improvements by making use of technology advancements
in computers, communications, materials, sensors, digital electronics,
and artificial intelligence.
Nuclear energy can become competitive for new capacity additions,
if its capital costs can be reduced. Reduction in capital costs can be
achieved through the application of advanced technologies in all phases
of design, licensing, fabrication, construction and operation; through
the use of tools such as probabilistic risk assessment to simplify
designs; and by the application of risk-based regulations as a means to
streamline the regulatory requirements and process. NERI focuses in
part on developing technologies which would make the option of nuclear
energy more competitive in the future.
The NERI program, which was initiated this year, will address the
principal obstacles to expanded future use of nuclear energy--
proliferation, economics and nuclear waste management. NERI research is
focused on improved proliferation-resistant reactor and fuel
technologies; new reactor designs and technologies to improve
efficiency, enhance safety and reduce cost; advanced nuclear fuels to
improve fuel economics and reduce waste by-products; and new
technologies to manage and temporarily store spent nuclear fuel. NERI
complements NEPO by addressing our nation's long term nuclear energy
future by funding investigator initiated research and development at
universities, national laboratories, and industry to advance nuclear
power technology.
nuclear energy research initiative and nuclear energy plant
optimization funding
Question. I am impressed that NERI and the Nuclear Energy Plant
Optimization (NEPO) program are so successfully coordinating with
outside industry, national labs, and universities. Where do the Federal
dollars allocated to these programs go?
Answer. There was an overwhelming response by the science and
technology community to the fiscal year 1999 NERI solicitation; 308
researcher-initiated R&D proposals were received from 68 different
institutions including 40 universities, 9 national laboratories and 19
industry companies totaling over $100 million in first-year funding and
a total of $353 million for the three-year period. Over 210 of the
proposals involved collaborations among several R&D institutions,
particularly with universities, to foster and maintain a nuclear energy
R&D infrastructure. In May 1999, the Department selected the top 45
projects for award of fiscal year 1999 funding. The projects selected
will involve 21 universities, 8 national laboratories, 16 private
sector organizations and with a substantial level of interest and
collaboration with international R&D organizations. Funding for NERI is
used to fund new and innovative research at the universities, national
laboratories and industry.
The proposed NEPO program would involve the nation's national
laboratories, universities, and industry in addressing issues
associated with operating nuclear power plants in cost-shared
cooperation with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and in
coordination with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The research
and development program is cost-shared with industry providing a
minimum of 50 percent of the cost. The Department, national
laboratories, and EPRI have developed a Joint DOE-EPRI Strategic
Research and Development Plan to Optimize U.S. Nuclear Power Plants.
This plan was issued on March 20,1998 and was based on inputs from the
national laboratories, NRC, universities, and other key stakeholders.
This plan, which will be updated in fiscal year 1999, identifies
critical R&D needs which are not currently being addressed or planned
to be addressed by the industry, NRC, or others. The plan also defines
a process for selection of the highest priority projects based on
available funding. Project selection will be guided by the Nuclear
Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC). The federal dollars would
fund the organizations which are best suited to conduct the research
and development selected for funding. It is expected that efforts at
national laboratories, universities, and industry will be funded.
Question. Are they provided as grants to universities and national
labs?
Answer. NERI awards to universities and industry will be in the
form of grants or cooperative agreements. Funding for the national
laboratories will be provided using the standard DOE work authorization
process.
The proposed NEPO program is a collaborative cost-shared program
with industry providing a minimum of 50 percent of the cost. The
government and industry, through EPRI, will identify and prioritize
work and use an independent peer review process to select performing
organizations. We expect that universities, national laboratories and
industrial organizations will all be involved in NEPO R&D activities.
Question. Are any of these funds provided to Nevada researchers?
Answer. Selection of proposals for funding was completed and awards
were announced in May 1999. Although no proposals were submitted from
researchers in State of Nevada, there is substantial nuclear-related
expertise in Nevada, at the universities and industry, and we look
forward to receiving future proposals from your State for participation
in NERI, and if appropriated by Congress in fiscal year 2000, for
participation in NEPO.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Stevens
low income weatherization program
Question. The Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy focuses its research, development, and deployment
efforts on transportation, industry, buildings and the federal
government. In transportation, DOE focuses on cleaner fuels and great
fuel efficiencies. It has highlighted nine industries that account for
more than 75 percent of industrial energy use, including forest
products, petroleum refining, and mining. For buildings, DOE tries to
reduce the $220 billion of energy consumed in homes and offices each
year through R&D in lighting, heating, cooling, and ventilation, as
well as better construction practices and energy delivery systems.
Through the Federal Energy Management Program, DOE seeks to reduce the
$8 billion the federal government spends annually on energy through
cost-saving incentive programs. The President has proposed a 3.4
percent reduction from fiscal year 1999 in the energy conservation
budget.
The fiscal year 2000 weatherization assistance program will provide
federal assistance to more than 76,900 low-income homes. There are
Alaskans living in third world conditions above the Arctic Circle who
pay more than 50 cents per kilowatt hour for energy. In much of my
state, more than half of a family's annual income goes to energy in
much of my State. Is this program scaled towards those poor families
with the lowest incomes AND with the highest energy costs?
Answer. The mission of the Department of Energy's Weatherization
Assistance Program is to reduce the energy costs of low-income
families, especially those with children, persons with disabilities,
and the elderly, while ensuring their health and safety. Each state's
annual Weatherization program plan lays out how priorities will be
determined by the local agencies which perform the weatherization
service throughout the state. Energy burden is a factor that is
considered by weatherization agencies in Alaska, in prioritizing homes
for Weatherization service.
In Alaska's case, however, many families living in remote areas
have homes which need far more assistance than is either allowable or
affordable within the national Weatherization program's legislative
constraints. Many rural Alaskan homes need major repair or
rehabilitation before energy efficiency measures make sense.
Furthermore, the expense of delivering energy efficiency measures to
these remote communities is so high that the average cost per home far
exceeds the maximum average allowable under DOE's program, which in
1999 is $2,032. As a complement to the DOE Weatherization program, the
state of Alaska provides for these homes by allocating state funds
(about $3 million in the current year) that can be used for repair and
rehabilitation as well as energy efficiency improvements. The cost per
home averages between $5,000 and $14,000. Unlike the DOE funds, there
is no cap on the amount of state funds that can be used for each
residence.
efficient delivery systems in remote villages
Question. Your budget proposal includes funding for a number of
advanced fuel technologies. However, most rural Alaskan communities
rely on diesel generators for their power. Clean, efficient, modern
technology is not yet an option for many of these folks. What can your
agency do to help make the existing energy delivery systems in our
villages more efficient?
Answer. Since fiscal year 1996 the Department has been engaged in
efforts to assist rural Alaskan communities to integrate wind energy
systems with existing diesel generation units to increase the
efficiency, and reduce the cost of operating those diesel systems. In
the village of Kotzebue, for example, approximately $4.5 million of DOE
funds have been made available to date to install a 1.5 to 2.0 megaWatt
wind energy system to augment an existing 11.3 megaWatt diesel system.
When fully operational, the wind energy system at Kotzebue will be able
to provide as much as 25 percent to 30 percent of annual electricity
requirements, and reduce diesel fuel costs by a similar 25 percent to
30 percent figure. The Kotzebue project, with ten 66 kW wind turbines
currently installed, is serving not only as a model to reduce
dependence on expensive and difficult to maintain diesel generation
systems, but also as a ``center of excellence'' to share lessons
learned with other communities in the state to help them harness wind
resources available to them. In addition to the Kotzebue project, the
Department is also supporting a high-penetration 130 kW wind energy
system at the Village of Wales. This system, to be installed in the
Summer of 1999, will in periods of high winds have the ability to
provide all of the electricity required by the village, and will serve
as a model for wind energy installations in other small villages in the
state. Further, the Department is working with the Alaska Department of
Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) to help the villages of Gambell,
Mekoryuk, Point Hope, St. Michael, and Unalakleet to perform detailed
measurements of their wind resources as a first step leading to the
possible installation of wind energy systems in those communities. In
support of DCRA the Department also funded a market assessment of the
potential for wind energy use in approximately 80 rural Alaskan
communities. DCRA and the Institute for Social and Economic Research at
the University of Alaska -Anchorage are now analyzing that data to
determine additional rural communities that might be candidates for
wind energy installations to augment their existing diesel generation
systems.
A multi-year program that was initiated as part of the hydrogen
program in the fiscal year 1998 budget concerned the development of 3
to 5 kW fuel cells for residences and buildings that could operate with
a diesel fuel. The fuel cells can be deployed within or next to the
building and be used to co-produce heat as well as power. Overall
efficiencies for these systems are anticipated to be in the 80 to 90
percent range, and can thereby decrease the fuel requirements by half.
Also, if several of these systems were to operate in a village
environment as a distributed network, then it is expected that the
reserve requirements for backup systems will be less. A demonstration
of a fuel cell system in an arctic climate is planned to be operated by
the end of 2000.
In addition, hybrid systems of diesel generators with batteries
have been shown to enhance diesel efficiency by as much as 50 percent
while leveling out fluctuating load patterns. Several such systems are
being studied along the Alaskan coast in cooperation with Chugach
Electric and the State of Alaska. Installation and field testing of a
prototype generator/storage system is scheduled for fiscal year 2001.
Funded by DOE, a 1.4 MWh energy storage system now operates on the
remote Metlakatla island in southeastern Alaska. The 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. Data collected on the performance of this system could be
used by other Alaskan sites to improve their power supply and power
quality situations.
Finally, in the fiscal year 2000 budget request, the Department has
asked for funding for a Competitive Solicitation Program (one of the
two programs in the solar Program Support line item) that could be of
assistance to communities in Alaska and other states seeking to improve
their energy delivery systems. (This program is a proposed integration
of two previous lie items: the Renewable Indian Energy Resources
Program and the Federal Buildings/Remote Power Program.) Through
competitive awards, the Department would carry out targeted field
validation projects that prove the availability of clean, affordable,
and reliable electric power supply options in remote and/or
economically challenged areas of our Nation. These projects would not
only benefit the requirements but also provide essential data on
operational performance, reliability, and benefits of renewable energy
and hybrid renewable energy generation/cogeneration systems in various
geographic locations and climatic conditions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dorgan
renewable energy
Question. Could you comment on the progress being made to make
renewables competitive relative to other more established fuels. How
long is it going to take to get a mature technology? I'm especially
interested in progress with wind.
Answer. Research and development has significantly reduced the cost
of producing electricity from renewable resources over the last twenty
years. For example, in the early 1980's the cost of producing power
from the first photovoltaic (PV) systems was more than $1.00 per
kilowatt-hour (kWh), while today's PV technology can produce
electricity from sunlight at less than a quarter of that cost. By
fiscal year 2000 we expect PV systems to be able to deliver electricity
for as low as $0.12-$0.20 per kWh. The cost of electricity from wind
turbines in 1980 ranged from $0.30-$0.40 per kWh, while today it is
between $0.04 and $0.06 per kWh. Although many renewable technologies
are competitive in limited market segments (for example, off-grid
photovoltaics, biomass where low cost or negative cost waste feedstock
is available or where cogeneration is appropriate, geothermal where
there are established high quality resources), they have not yet
reached the point where they can capture a large share of the overall
electricity market. Concurrent with the impressive reductions in the
cost of producing electricity from renewable resources, for a number of
reasons (including deregulation of the natural gas and oil industries
and the railroads) the price of fossil fuels has fallen significantly,
which, together with improvements in conventional power generation
technology, has lowered the cost targets at which renewable
technologies become competitive with conventional fuels in a
significant portion of electricity markets. Assuming success in meeting
the technology cost and performance goals for our R&D programs--and we
believe we will continue to be successful and meet these goals--a
number of the renewable technologies will become competitive in the
2010 to 2020 time frame. Wind is expected to achieve costs of between
$0.025 and $0.03 per kWh by 2010, somewhat lower than today's average
costs for electricity from fossil plants. The cost of electricity from
photovoltaic systems is projected to be under $0.10 per kWh in 2010,
decreasing to about $0.065 per kWh by 2020. This should allow
photovoltaics to be competitive with electricity delivered from the
grid in at least some retail commercial and residential markets.
Both technology improvements and market penetration typically
follow an ``S'' curve, with slow progress initially, followed by
accelerated developments for a period of time and then, finally, slow
progress again when the technology matures. Generally it takes decades
after a technology is introduced into the market place for the
technology to mature with respect to technology improvements or market
penetration; however, we expect the Federal R&D role to be completed
long before the technologies reach ``full maturity'' and that the
marketplace will provide most of the incentives for incremental
technology improvements during this ``full motivation'' phase.
prospects for wind
Question. What are the prospects for wind generally, especially in
remote locations? Do you see a time when wind could help these areas
reduce their electricity costs?
Answer. In remote villages without connection to a central grid and
where the cost of diesel fuel is often one to two dollars per gallon or
more, use of wind energy appears very competitive. What is still
necessary is to develop control strategies and retrofit packages to
join wind power with existing diesel power systems or other
technologies such as fuel cells. To that end, the Department is working
on three projects in Alaska to evaluate the performance of wind/diesel
hybrid systems and to establish the performance of wind turbines in the
Arctic climate. Moreover, we are proposing an expansion of this effort
through the Hybrid Systems for Village Power project in the fiscal year
2000 request.
Over 800 MW of wind technology will be installed in 1998 and 1999
in the United States, largely because of the purchaser's desire for
clean, green energy and because of the temporary production tax credit.
The pace of wind development for windfarms thereafter depends on a
great many factors. The Administration has proposed a five-year
extension of the temporary production tax credit and that would provide
a major economic motivation to overcome the initial higher cost of wind
projects. In addition, we would expect wind energy to capture a
significant share of a renewable portfolio standard if the Congress
enacts the Administration's proposal. There is also inherent demand for
green power although we do not have a good handle on its size. For wind
farm applications, if environmental and other factors are not included,
the cost of wind energy is not yet competitive with that from new
natural gas plants. New wind technologies under development will narrow
the gap between wind and natural gas technologies.
co-firing biomass with lignite
Question. What are the prospects for co-firing biomass with
lignite? In other words, could biomass be burned along with liginte to
improve its efficiency and air quality characteristics?
Answer. The prospects for co-firing biomass with lignite appear
promising. An assessment of co-firing alternatives was conducted at the
coal-fired boilers of Central & South West Utilities. One of the
conclusions drawn from this assessment is that biomass and lignite are
very similar, in terms of fuel characteristics. There is very little
difference between the energy content of biomass and the lignite coal;
lignite generally has a heating value of 6,400 BTU/lb and biomass fuel
5,000 BTU/lb. Both can be readily fired in coal-fired boilers with
minimum modifications.
Question. If current biomass technologies aren't appropriate, do
you see some other kind of technology that would be compatible with
lignite?
Answer. As stated in the previous question, current biomass
technologies are appropriate for co-firing biomass with lignite. In
fact, the differences between biomass and lignite are less than those
between coal and biomass, due to the high moisture content and low BTU
of lignite relative to coal. In general, lignite has low BTU content
and an ash that tends more to slag than coal ash and, therefore, is
fired in boilers with larger size and larger gas flow passages to
prevent clogging due to the slag. Hence, in some ways the co-firing
prospects for lignite seem more promising.
Question. Could co-firing with lignite be done at EERC?
Answer. We are aware of the Energy & Environmental Research
Center's (EERC) capabilities in the field of energy, particularly
fossil energy. We are also aware of the EERC's experimental capability
to conduct co-firing tests with lignite.
subcommittee recess
Senator Domenici. We stand in recess. Thank you. The
subcommittee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., Tuesday, April 13, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
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 2000
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.]
CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of Michael D. Madigan, 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 2000 appropriations and request it be included in the
formal hearing record along with the testimonies listed on the attached
Statement List.
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 2000 Federal Appropriations for
California Water, Fishery and Flood Control Projects, March 5, 1999.
That document contains recommendations adopted by the Commission at its
March 5, 1999 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 are not as extreme as last year. However, the
proposed amounts in some of the large ongoing flood control
construction projects are inadequate to maintain the construction
schedule. 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 completed
project. The Commission has supported projects over the years that are
funded under ``Continuing Authorities'', such as Sections 205, 206, 503
and 1135. These projects compete for very limited funds. This year the
Commission voted to request Congress consider increasing the funding in
these Authorities, so more of the needed projects in these categories
can be funded.
The California Water Commission has long recognized water recycling
as an important element in the management of California's water
resources. It is the Commission's view that water recycling projects
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. The
Commission agreed to work with USBR on language which will give the
local sponsor greater assurance of future year support. This will also
encourage sponsors to go ahead with expanded facilities with greater
expectation of out-year funding.
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 2000 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
90 Bay-Delta Ecosystem $500,000 $1,000,000
Restoration
110 Sacramento & San Joaquin 2,000,000 3,000,000
Rivers Comprehensive Study
210 American River Watershed 5,000,000 5,000,000
238 Arroyo Pasajero 150,000 2,685,000
302 Sacramento River Restoration 3,000,000 6,000,000
at Glenn-Colusa Irrigation
District
333 Kaweah River (Tulare) .............. 2,500,000
381 Los Angeles County Drainage 30,000,000 50,000,000
Area Project
382 Santa Ana River Mainstem 20,000,000 28,000,000
387 Norco Bluffs Bank .............. 2,200,000
Stabilization Santa Ana
River
400 Flood Control Act of 1948, 26,000,000 50,000,000
Section 205 Flood Damage
Prevention
420 Water Res. Development Act, 4,500,000 10,000,000
1996, Section 206, Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration
430 Water Res. Development Act, 15,000,000 30,000,000
1996, Section 503, Watershed
Mgt. Restoration &
Development
440 Water Res. Development Act, 8,500,000 20,000,000
1986, Section 1135, Project
Modification for Improvement
of the Environment Pro-
gram
U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
500 Bay-Delta Ecosystem 95,000,000 95,000,000
Restoration
612 Coleman National Fish 1,500,000 1,500,000
Hatchery Modification
621 Winter-Run Chinook Salmon, 520,000 520,000
Captive Broodstock Program
622 Hamilton City Pumping Plant 2,250,000 3,750,000
Fish Facility
663
Arroyo Pasajero Studies .............. 920,000
Cantua Creek Strm Group-EIS
701 Central Valley Project 72,617,000 72,617,000
900 Public Law 102-575, Title XVI 3,000,000 3,000,000
and Amended by Public Law
104-266 (Mid-Pacific Region)
1000 Public Law 102-575, Title XVI 26,100,000 26,100,000
and Amended by Public Law
104-266 (Lower Colorado
Region)
1108 Salton Sea Research Project 1,000,000 1,000,000
1302 Title I Division (Lower 13,092,000 13,092,000
Colorado)
1304 Basin-wide Program 12,300,000 17,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
u.s. army corps of engineers
CWC 90--Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration.--The CALFED Bay-Delta
Program is an open collaborative, state-federal-stakeholder effort
seeking to develop a comprehensive long-term plan to restore ecosystem
health and improve water management for beneficial uses of the Bay-
Delta system. The Program is developing a comprehensive package of
Program elements that, together, must:
--Improve and increase aquatic and terrestrial habitats and improve
ecological functions in the Bay-Delta to support sustainable
populations of diverse and valuable plant and animal species.
--Provide good water quality for all beneficial uses.
--Reduce the mismatch between Bay-Delta water supplies and current
and projected beneficial uses dependent on the Bay-Delta
system.
--Reduce the risk to land use and associated economic activities,
water supply infrastructure, and the ecosystem from
catastrophic breaching of Delta levees.
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 Corps of Engineers is an official
part of the ongoing effort and needs to be adequately funded to allow
the Corps' experts to officially participate in CALFED activities.
CWC 110--Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study.--In
January of 1997, the Central Valley of California was confronted with
the largest and most extensive flood disaster in the State's history.
The Sacramento River and its tributaries sustained two major levee
breaks. In the San Joaquin River Basin, extensive damages resulted from
over two dozen levee breaks, sedimentation, and deposition of sand and
silt in the fields where flood water poured through the levee breaks.
As a result, Congress appropriated $3 million in fiscal year 1998 and
$3.5 million in fiscal year 1999 to initiate a comprehensive flood
damage reduction and environmental restoration assessment for the
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins.
The State of California and the Army Corps of Engineers have
initiated a four year Comprehensive Study. The Comprehensive Study will
build on existing data outlined in investigations such as the
Sacramento River Watershed Management Plan, the State's San Joaquin
River Management Program, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(CVPIA), and integrated with these and other existing programs. The
first phase of the Comprehensive Study is 18 months long. This interim
report is nearing completion and will be sent to Congress in April of
1999.
Phase II will result in full development and calibration of basin-
wide hydrologic and hydraulic models. Phase II report will include a
programmatic EIS/EIR which describes a broad range of potential flood
damage reduction measures and integrated ecosystem restoration
measures. Some ``early implementation projects'' will be identified,
developed, and to the extent possible recommended for authorization and
implementation. Early implementation projects must (1) address
identifiable flooding problems, (2) be consistent with the strategy,
(3) be singularly effective in achieving program goals, (4) demonstrate
broad acceptability, and (5) be readily implementable.
CWC 210--American River Watershed.--Recently the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers said, ``Sacramento has one of the lowest levels of flood
protection of any U.S. city its size.'' Located at the confluence of
two major rivers, a large portion of the Sacramento area is threatened
by flooding from the American River and the Sacramento River. The area
of risk covers over 100,000 acres and consists of over 160,000 homes
and structures, 400,000 residents and over $37 billion in developed
property.
The Reclamation Board supports at a minimum Congressional
Authorization of Folsom Dam modifications as part of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999. This would increase the level of
protection from 1 in 77 to about 1 in 110. The Folsom modifications are
common to all plans currently under consideration by Congress.
CWC 238--Arroyo Pasajero.--At present, DWR, USBR, and the Corps are
only a few months away from completion of the Draft Feasibility
Investigation Report, which will identify two candidate alternatives
that show a federal interest in a Corps flood control project. The two
projects, the enlarged Westside Detention Basin and the Pasajero Gap
Detention Dam, are estimated to cost approximately $260 and $229
million with benefit cost ratios of roughly 1.7:1 and 1.1:1,
respectively. While both plans provide significantly improved flood
protection to the Aqueduct where the overwhelming majority of the flood
control benefits are accrued, the Gap Dam provides roughly double the
level of protection to most of the Arroyo Pasajero flood plains that
cover nearly 100,000 acres within Westlands Water District and the
Tulare Lake Basin.
Severe flooding has been experienced five times at the Arroyo
between 1969 and 1993. On March 10, 1995, during the largest Arroyo
Pasajero flood on record, a section of Interstate 5 upstream of the
Canal collapsed when flood flows peaked on the Arroyo. Seven people
lost their lives and there was substantial local property damage. Flood
damage claims filed by private landowners adjacent to the Canal have
exceeded $12 million from this one flood alone.
CWC 302--Sacramento River Restoration at Glenn-Colusa Irrigation
District.--Finding a solution to the fish passage problem at Glenn-
Colusa Irrigation District's Pump Station is an important element to
Central Valley fish restoration. The agencies that have worked
cooperatively to develop the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District's Fish
Screen Improvement Project include Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District,
the United State Bureau of Reclamation, the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, the Department of Fish and Game, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Department of Water Resources and the Reclamation Board.
The project consists of two important elements, the fish screen
facility and the gradient facility. Construction began on the
approximately 600-foot extension to the existing flat-plate fish screen
in May of 1998.
The second critical element of the Fish Screen Improvement Project
is the design and construction of the gradient facility in the mainstem
of the Sacramento River. It is designed with the characteristics of a
natural riffle, providing a ``hard point'' in the river that will
stabilize the Sacramento River in the project reach, and restore the
minimum water surface elevations at the fish screen to provide adequate
water speed for efficient screen and fish bypass performance.
Construction of the gradient facility is expected to begin subsequent
to the fish screen construction in 2000 and be completed by 2001.
CWC 333--Kaweah River (Tulare).--Terminus Dam was authorized by the
1944 Flood Control Act and was constructed by the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers in 1962. Since construction of Terminus Dam, damaging floods
have occurred in many years. Downstream communities and areas adjacent
to the flood plain are at risk of future flooding.
Initially, various alternatives were evaluated, including
alternative storage sites, detention basins, construction alternatives,
and nonstructural measures. Based on technical, economical, and
environmental criteria, the only feasible alternative is to raise and
widen the spillway at Terminus Dam. The Corps' Authorized Plan includes
raising the elevation of the existing Terminus Dam spillway. Reservoir
storage capacity would be increased by 42,600 acre-feet (about 30
percent). This feature will save an estimated seven million dollars of
the approximate 40 million dollar Project cost.
The State of California sponsor is The Reclamation Board and the
local sponsors of the Project are the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation
District (lead agency), City of Visalia, Tulare Lake Basin Water
Storage District, Tulare County, and Kings County.
CWC 381--Los Angeles County Drainage Area Project (LACDA).--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.
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. Construction
began in February 1996. Six construction contracts which included 4.5
miles of levee raising and modifications to seven bridges have been
completed.
The President's Proposed Budget for fiscal year 2000 includes $30
million for this Project, and if not increased, would delay the
completion of the project by at least one to two more years. This will
prolong the risk of flooding and continue to jeopardize the safety of
those living in the 75-square-mile overflow area. Such a condition is
unacceptable.
CWC 382--Santa Ana River Mainstem (Includes San Timoteo).--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. 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.
The $28 million request includes $20 million dollars to continue
construction on Seven Oaks Dam and the Lower Santa Ana River plus $8
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 Bank Stabilization-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 the
base of the bluffs has resulted in undercutting and subsequent bank de-
stabilization 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 flood flows within the
Santa Ana River attack the toe of the bluffs. Water Resources
Development Act of 1996, 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. Certain
geotechnical design considerations have resulted in an increased cost
for the project, and the Commission is therefore seeking supplemental
funding in the amount of $2,200,000 in fiscal year 2000 for completion
of construction of the Norco Bluffs Bank Stabilization Project.
CWC 400--Flood Control Act of 1948, Section 205, Flood Damage
Prevention.--The California Water Commission heard testimony at its
March 5, 1999 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.
The Commission has witnessed many successful projects in California
over the years that have been funded from this Authority. However, the
list of project requests are exceeding the funding level. The
Commission voted to support a request to Congress to increase the
nationwide funding level from the present $26,000,000 to $50,000,000.
CWC 420--Water Resources Development Act, 1996, Section 206,
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.--The California Water Commission heard
testimony at its March 5, 1999 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 projects 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 nonFederal 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.
The Commission voted to support a request to Congress to increase
the nationwide funding level from the present $4,500,000 to
$10,000,000.
CWC 430--Water Resources Development Act, 1996, Section 503,
Watershed Mgt. Restoration & Development.--The California Water
Commission heard testimony at its March 5, 1999 meeting requesting
support on individual projects. The Commission supports fiscal year
2000 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 nonFederal interests for
carrying out watershed management, restoration and development projects
at locations listed in Section 503, Water Resources Development Act,
1996.
The Commission voted to support a request to Congress to increase
the nationwide funding level from the present $15,000,000 to
$30,000,000.
CWC 440--Water Resources Development Act, 1986, Section 1135,
Project Modification for Improvement of the Environment Program.--The
California Water Commission heard testimony at its March 5, 1999
meeting requesting support on individual projects. The Commission
supports fiscal year 2000 appropriations for each of these projects.
Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Section 1135, 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. The Commission voted to support a request to Congress to
increase the nationwide funding level from the present $8,500,000 to
$20,000,000. Additional funds are needed as this list of important
projects increase.
u.s. bureau of reclamation
CWC 500--Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration.--At the confluence of
California's two largest rivers, the Sacramento and San Joaquin, the
San Francisco Bay and adjoining Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-
Delta) together form the largest estuary in the western United States.
The Bay-Delta is a haven for plants and wildlife, supporting over 750
plant and animal species. The Bay-Delta supplies drinking water for
two-thirds of California's citizens and irrigation water for over 7
million acres of the most highly productive agricultural land in the
world.
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is an open collaborative, state-
federal-stakeholder effort seeking to develop a comprehensive long-term
plan to restore ecosystem health and improve water management for
beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta system. The Program is fundamentally
different from previous efforts because it seeks to address ecosystem
restoration, water quality, water supply reliability, and levee and
channel integrity as co-equal program purposes.
On December 18, 1998, CALFED released the Revised Phase II Report
which outlined the draft preferred alternative for solving the problems
in the Bay-Delta system. The CALFED Program expects to release a
Revised Draft EIS/EIR in the spring of 1999. This release will be
followed by a public comment period and further refinement of the
proposed plan. The goal is to have a final EIS/EIR certified by
December 1999 with implementation of the plan to begin in the year
2000.
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.
Remaining rehabilitation facilities are additional water treatment
facilities which include one sand filter, an air compressor, and one
ozone contact/stripper capable of treating 15,000 gallons per minute
and installation of various ozone equipment. Also, installation of a
54-inch pipeline from the ozone treatment plant to the large raceways.
The replacement of facilities for administration, the fish health
laboratory and public contact area will be the final items to complete
the modifications at Coleman NFH.
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.
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 the genetic diversity of the stock.
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. In each year since its inception, the
program has provided progressively better spawners, gamete quality,
fertilization and production of juvenile fish. The artificial
propagation program is actively pursuing improvements to rearing
facilities and genetics and mating protocols to eliminate concerns
about hybridizing Spring run. 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.
CWC 622--Hamilton City Pumping Plant Fish Facility.--Finding a
solution to the fish passage problem at Glenn-Colusa Irrigation
District's Pump Station is an important element to Central Valley fish
restoration. The agencies that have worked cooperatively to develop the
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District's Fish Screen Improvement Project
include Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, the United State Bureau of
Reclamation, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Department
of Fish and Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Water Resources and
the Reclamation Board.
The project consists of two important elements, the fish screen
facility and the gradient facility. Construction began on the
approximately 600-foot extension to the existing flat-plate fish screen
in May of 1998. Included in the screen structure are three internal
bypasses that will allow for reduced fish exposure to the screen. The
bypasses will exit the fish into the lower oxbow channel. Significant
improvements are being made to the lower oxbow channel and training
wall to meet hydraulic criteria past the facility. In addition, a water
control structure (weir) with a removable bridge to allow access to
Montgomery Island for routine dredging operations has been designed by
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District and constructed under Reclamation's
contract.
Adequate funding for completion of construction is essential to
meeting the important goals of a long-term fish passage solution at
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District's main pump station and to assist with
Central Valley fish restoration.
CWC 663--Arroyo Pasajero Studies--Cantua Creek Strm Group-EIS.--The
Cantua Creek Stream Group consists of seven western San Joaquin Valley
ephemeral streams, as well as several smaller unnamed drainages located
west of the San Luis Canal segment of the California Aqueduct extending
between 20 and 50 miles north of the Arroyo Pasajero.
Flood water overtopped the western embankment of the Canal in 1969
and 1995, causing extensive damage to the concrete lining. Since the
1960s, over 40,000 acre-feet of Cantua Creek Stream Group flood water
and an estimated 2.5 million cubic yards of sediment have entered the
Canal from overtopping or through the drain inlets. These streams have
also deposited as much as 2.9 million cubic yards of sediment upslope
of the Canal, eliminating 1,600 acre-feet (about 50 percent) of the
original impounding capacity. The Cantua Creek Stream Group poses a
flood risk with a potential to breach the Canal and disrupt water
service to millions of people in southern California and the southern
San Joaquin Valley. In addition, the cost associated with the
degradation to water quality from uncontrolled flood inflow is a
substantial expense to both the Canal operators and water customers.
The situation is continually worsening as additional sediment is
deposited along the west side of the Aqueduct.
The Department of Water Resources, with cost sharing by USBR, is
completing a reconnaissance study of these drainage and sedimentation
problems and will be performing feasibility level investigations during
fiscal year 2000 to seek solutions. In addition, interim improvements
to restore diminished impounding capacity and improve sediment
decanting capabilities for smaller flood flows will extend into fiscal
year 2000. Under the San Luis Unit Joint-Use Facilities Agreement, USBR
is responsible for 45 percent of the cost of this work.
CWC 701--Central Valley Project.--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--Public Law 102-575, Title XVI and Amended by Public Law
104-266 (Mid-Pacific Region); CWC 1000--Public Law 102-575, Title XVI
and Amended by Public Law 104-266 (Lower Colorado Region).--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. The
Department of Water Resources' Bulletin 160-98, California Water Plan
Update, January 1998, identifies up to 800,000 acre-feet of total
potential additional water recycling in California 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. The
Commission agreed to work with USBR on language which will give the
local sponsor greater assurance of future year support. This will also
encourage sponsors to go ahead with expanded facilities with greater
expectation of out-year funding.
CWC 1108--Salton Sea Research Project.--Over the last several
decades there has been concern over the increasing salinity of the
Salton Sea and the impacts it has had on the Sea's ecology. Increasing
salinity and other water quality issues are threatening biological
values and recreational uses of the Sea. An additional concern is the
rising water surface elevation. The raising water surface has flooded
much of the developed area and the shoreline wildlife habitat used by a
number of different bird species. The rising sea also has inundated
much of the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge at the south end of the
sea. The full impacts of increasing salinity, the decline in other
water quality attributes, and water surface elevation on endangered
species that inhabit the sea are unknown, but studies are presently
ongoing. In order to identify and evaluate possibilities for improving
the condition of the sea, a program of additional planning, research,
and environmental impact analysis are needed.
The objectives of this program are to identify and evaluate
alternatives to: improve water quality conditions; maintain quality
habitat for migratory birds and endangered species; enhance the
fishery; and protect human recreation values in and around the Salton
Sea. Environmental scoping and scientific research of remediation
alternatives currently is underway.
CWC 1300--Colorado River Salinity Control Program; CWC 1302--Title
I Division (Lower Colorado).--The California Water Commission heard
testimony at its March 5, 1999 meeting requesting support for federal
funding levels that are required to meet the numeric criteria and
standards that have been established for salinity on the Colorado
River.
The Commission supports fiscal year 2000 appropriations of
$13,092,000 for Title I of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Act, which covers delivery of water to Mexico, pursuant to the 1944
Mexican Water Treaty and Minute 242 of the International Boundary and
Water Commission.
CWC 1304--Basin-wide Program.--The California Water Commission
heard testimony at its March 5, 1999 meeting requesting support for
federal funding levels for water quality programs under Title II of the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. The Commission voted to
support a request to Congress to increase the Basin-wide funding level
from the present $12,300,000 to $17,500,000. The Commission believes
that this increase is necessary to meet the established numeric
criteria and standards for salinity in the Colorado River.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10NDP.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10NDP.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10NDP.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10NDP.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10NDP.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10NDP.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10NDP.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10NDP.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10NDP.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10NDP.010
______
Prepared Statement of Barbara LeVake, President, and Peter D. Rabbon,
General Manager, the Resources Agency and the Reclamation Board, State
of California
THE RECLAMATION BOARD FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL
PROJECTS--FISCAL YEAR 2000 SUMMARY
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Board
Corps of Engineers' projects Page budget recommends
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS--
SURVEYS
Sacramento and San Joaquin 1 $2,000 $3,000
River Basins Comprehensive
Study.....................
Northern California Streams
--Middle Creek............. 1 150 300
San Joaquin River Basin....
--Stockton Metropolitan 1 200 380
Area (Section 211)........
--West Stanislaus County... 2 250 400
Sutter Basin (Sutter)...... 1 60 100
PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND
DESIGN
American River Watershed... 4 5,000 5,000
Yuba River................. 4 150 700
South Sacramento County 4 500 4,000
Streams...................
San Joaquin River Basin....
--Tule River............... 4 150 800
Arroyo Pasajero............ 4 150 2,685
Kaweah River (Tulare)...... 4 582 582
III. CONSTRUCTION--GENERAL
Sacramento River Bank 5 7,000 7,000
Protection................
Mid-Valley Area Levee 5 4,000 4,000
Reconstruction............
Marysville/Yuba City Levee 5 300 300
Reconstruction............
West Sacramento Project.... 5 7,700 7,700
American River Watershed 5 17,000 17,000
(Common Elements).........
Kaweah River (Tulare)...... 5 .............. 2,500
Lower Sacramento Area Levee 5 2,317 2,317
Reconstruction............
Upper Sacramento Area Levee 5 3,055 3,055
Reconstruction............
American River Watershed 5 4,000 7,900
(Natomas).................
Merced County Streams...... 5 500 500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 U.S Army Corps of Engineers flood control projects.
The Board in general supports the President's 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 River Basins Comprehensive 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
multiobjective investigation to balance flood damage reduction,
environmental restoration, and other water resources proposed along the
Rivers. The Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement was executed in February
1998. An interim status report will be released in April 1999. 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
is an interim study proposal.
Middle Creek.-- A reconnaissance study which evaluated several
alternatives near Middle Creek's confluence with Clear Lake in 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.
San Joaquin River Basin
This survey, authorized in 1964, is a study of the San Joaquin
River and its tributaries in regard to flood control measures. The
following are interimstudy proposals.
Stockton Metropolitan Area (Section 211).--Construction to protect
the urban areas of Stockton has been completed. This feasibility study
will evaluate alternatives for protecting the rural areas. The Board
recommends funding to complete this study.
West Stanislaus County.--A feasibility study is ongoing to evaluate
flood control alternatives for the westside communities in Stanislaus
County. The Board recommends funding to complete the feasibility study.
Sutter Basin (Sutter)
A reconnaissance study is being conducted to evaluate increased
flood protection for Sutter County which has repeatedly sustained flood
damage. The Board recommends funding to initiate the feasibility study.
preconstruction engineering and design
American River Watershed
The Sacramento urban area has only a 77-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 and preconstruction engineering and design.
Yuba River
The Marysville and Yuba City areas have experienced seven major
floods. A feasibility study was completed in April 1998. The Board
recommends funding to continue preconstruction engineering and design.
South Sacramento County Streams
The completed feasibility report recommends levee and channel
improvements to protect the urbanized area of south Sacramento. The
Board recommends funding for continued PED.
San Joaquin River Basin
Tule River.--The proposed enlargement of Success Dam on the Tule
River will improve flood protection for the City of Porterville and
surrounding community. The Board recommends funding to continue PED.
Arroyo Pasajero
Flood protection is inadequate for the California Aqueduct (a major
water transfer facility) and two communities located 50 miles southwest
of the City of Fresno. The Board recommends funding to continue PED.
Kaweah River (Tulare)
This project would provide flood protection to the communities of
Visalia, Farmersville, Tulare, Ivanhoe, and Goshen. The project was
authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. The Board
recommends funding to continue PED.
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 to continue construction.
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 continue 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 to continue construction.
West Sacramento Project
The Board is the nonfederal 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 recommends funding
to continue construction.
Kaweah River--discussed in PED
The Board recommends funding to initiate construction.
Lower Sacramento Area 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.
Upper Sacramento Area 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. The Board recommends funding to
reimburse the federal cost-sharing portion to the nonfederal sponsor.
Merced County Streams
This project provides increased levels of flood protection to the
Cities of Merced and Atwater and associated urban areas. First phase of
construction has been completed. The Board recommends funding to
continue construction.
______
Prepared Statement of Gaye Lopez, Manager, Colusa Basin Drainage
District
USBR Fiscal Year 2000 Request: $1,000,000
The Colusa Basin Drainage District requests the Committee's support
for $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2000. This amount will allow the
District to begin the final design and preparation of plans and
specifications for Phase I reservoir projects, the acquisition of
rights of way, the installation of a water stage and quality monitoring
system, the clearing of the Colusa Basin Drain, studies of feasibility
of catchment basins and other innovative facilities and the planning/
implementation of nonstructural flood control and water quality/
environmental measures.
The Colusa Basin Drainage District appreciates your past support
for our Integrated Resources Management Plan for water management that
addresses flooding and that provides opportunities for future
conjunctive use of water resources to meet the diverse needs of
agricultural, urban and wildlife interests in the Colusa Basin.
Each of the three phases of the District's Plan consists of three
components: structural facilities, improved O&M of existing facilities,
and new nonstructural and environmental enhancements. Phase I of the
Program includes 3,000 acres of wetland and streambank restoration.
Background
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 all or part of 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, these three counties suffered an estimated
$100,000,000 in damages and 1 death due to flooding; in 1998, these
three counties suffered an estimated $40,000,000 in damages due to
flooding. In November 1995, a majority of landowners voted to implement
the District's Integrated Resources Management Plan to address flood
damage while obtaining the other benefits of increasing groundwater
supplies, surface water storage, and improved 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 of the integrated resources management
approach to resolving the Basin's flooding problems. Hydraulic studies
on proposed facilities were completed in 1998. The preparation of
Basin-wide programmatic environmental documentation commenced during
1998 and is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1999. Project
specific environmental documentation will begin later this year.
This request is for an appropriation of $1,000,000 in fiscal year
2000; however, the District has the capability and need for $2,000,000
to put this project more on the schedule earlier submitted to your
Committee. The $2,000,000 would not be used for construction, but we
believe would be sufficient to complete all necessary pre-construction
tasks for one or more reservoir projects.
We believe our Integrated Resource Management 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.
US Army Corps of Engineers Fiscal Year 2000 Request: $500,000
The Colusa Basin Drainage District is requesting $500,000 in
funding for fiscal year 2000 for use by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to begin the design, planning, and environmental review
associated with a 3,000 acre wetlands project. The project will be
located in the southern portion of the Sacramento Valley, California.
The District--in conjunction with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Corps of Engineers and a number
of state and local agencies--is using the technique of integrated
resource management in order to provide flood protection and
environmental restoration to the Colusa Basin, which is located on the
west side of the Sacramento Valley. The Colusa Basin Watershed Program
includes structural flood protection measures (small off stream
detention basins on ephemeral streams that lack anadromous fisheries),
improved operation and maintenance of existing flood control
facilities, and nonstructural flood protection measures (creation of
wetlands, riparian and upland habitats and the introduction of best
management practices to control erosion and sedimentation). One of the
goals of the Program is to create 10,000 acres of habitat in the Colusa
Basin over the next 20 to 30 years. The Program is fully compatible
with the ecosystem restoration projects being proposed and implemented
by the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
The site of the proposed wetlands will be northern Yolo County and
southern Colusa County, in the midst of the Pacific Flyway. These lands
are located adjacent to the Colusa Basin Drain and have regularly been
flooded in past years. The project would involve constructing one or
more detention basin(s) that would store floodwaters and so create
seasonal wetlands. The proposed site of the project also contains
groundwater wells, which may permit the creation of permanent wetlands
or other habitat. In order to reduce the costs of operation and
maintenance, agricultural activities that are consistent with the use
of the property as habitat may be permitted during the summer months on
portions of the property.
______
Prepared Statement of Joseph L. Campbell, President, Board of
Directors, Contra Costa Water District
Subject: Contra Costa Canal Fish Screen fiscal year 2000 Appropriation
The Contra Costa Canal (Rock Slough) intake of the Central Valley
Project (CVP) is the largest urban water intake in California's
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The intake is the primary source of water
for 400,000 people in Central and Eastern Contra Costa County.
Because this 60-year-old intake is not screened, its impact on the
aquatic life of the Delta has been a subject of concern for many years
as local, state and federal interests work together to restore the
health of Bay-Delta estuary. Under provisions of the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act [PL 102-575, Sec. 3406 (b) (5)], the Secretary
of Interior is required to screen the Contra Costa Canal intake, which
is owned by the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR).
Over the past five years, the relevant federal, state and local
agencies have worked together to develop a plan to screen the intake,
have completed the permitting, and have completed the design for the
fish screen that will protect threatened and endangered species in the
vicinity of the Contra Costa Canal intake. The project went to bid in
February.
Appropriations have been requested for the fish screen in each of
the past four years. In response, the Congress has appropriated
$4,330,000 to the Department of Interior for the fish screen. A final
appropriation of $5,000,000 is critical, because construction is
scheduled to begin this summer. If additional funds are provided by the
State of California, the level of Congressional appropriation could be
reduced.
Completion on the current schedule is critical to the Contra Costa
Water District's continued ability to draw water for its 400,000
customers. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), requires that the
Rock Slough screen be completed and provided authority for USFWS to
shut down all pumping if the screen is not completed in a timely
manner. Thus, it is essential that the remaining construction funds be
provided in the fiscal year 2000 appropriation.
The fish screen is one element of a larger program to mitigate
fishery impacts in the Delta. The progress to date on the Contra Costa
Canal Fish Screen is a success story both for this facility and in the
broader context of the multi-party effort to restore the deteriorated
Bay-Delta estuary, the largest estuary on the West Coast.
Your active support for this essential appropriation is
appreciated. It will complete a congressionally mandated facility,
protect Delta fisheries, and insure that water supplies for 400,000
people served by the Contra Costa Water District are not jeopardized.
______
Prepared Statement of Carl W. Mosher, Director, Environmental Services
Department, City of San Jose, California
My name is Carl W. 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. San Jose is the lead agency of 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 1,200,000 residents, businesses and industries in
Silicon Valley. South Bay Water Recycling, which recycles effluent from
the treatment plant, is the largest urban water recycling project in
northern California.
We are requesting your assistance in increasing the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) funding for South Bay Water Recycling from the
$3,000,000 in the President's budget to $10,000,000. The first phase of
the program, completed in 1998, will deliver up to 15,000,000 gallons
of water per day. It was financed by the cities of San Jose, Santa
Clara and Milpitas and five other agencies, in cooperation with the
Santa Clara Valley Water District. The City is now planning a second
phase to double recycled water use at a cost of an additional
$100,000,000.
As you know, Title XVI of the CVPIA (Public Law 92-575) authorizes
the Bureau of Reclamation to contribute up to 25 percent of eligible
project costs. However, due to competing demands, BOR's Mid-Pacific
Region has budgeted less than half of the $35,000,000 authorized by
Congress. The Bureau has indicated that they will be unable to
participate in future planning or construction until Congress
appropriates sufficient funds to meet their existing obligations. The
President's fiscal year 1999/00 Budget includes a request for SBWR for
$3,000,000. At the current rate of funding, that will not occur until
2007.
Through the efforts of San Jose, the Santa Clara Valley Water
District and other Silicon Valley cities and agencies, our region is
becoming a leader in sustainable water use, integrating water supply
and wastewater discharge through innovations in water recycling and
conservation. Long-term local plans anticipate up to 100,000,000
gallons of reuse per day by 2020, through projects coordinated with our
regional effort, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program.
If sufficient federal funds are not available to leverage local
funding, Silicon Valley and other California communities will not soon
achieve sustainable water use. Given the need for water in the
environment, competing demands of agriculture and cities, and the
constant threat of drought, water recycling just makes sense. The
California Department of Water Resources projects a deficit of six
million acre-feet of water during a critical dry year. During the
1970's and early 80's, the federal government spent tens of billions of
dollars to fund facilities so we could stop treating our rivers and
lakes as sewers and cesspools. Certainly this smaller investment is
justified to use water more wisely and more often, and restore our
environment.
In order to obtain funding authorized by Congress and allow Bureau
participation in future phases, the City is seeking a write-in
appropriation for SBWR for $10,000,000 next fiscal year. We appreciate
your support for this level of funding during upcoming committee
hearings.
______
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 GlennColusa Irrigation
District (GCID or District).
I appreciate the opportunity to provide you this statement
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. The District delivers water to approximately
1,200 families who have about 141,000 acres of land in cultivation in
Glenn and Colusa Counties. More than $270,000,000 in agricultural
products are produced annually on GCID farms, helping to sustain an
estimated 12,000 jobs in the region.
The District is also the sole source of surface water for three
wildlife refuges--the Sacramento, Delevan and Colusa National Wildlife
Refuges--that cover some 20,000 acres in the heart of the Sacramento
Valley. The District and the United States Bureau of Reclamation have
negotiated an agreement that provides for long-term conveyance of water
to these refuges as well as cost sharing. Winter water supplied by GCID
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 winterrun salmon and other fishery resources at the Hamilton City
Pump Station. Over the last several years, the District has invested
over $3,000,000 in the construction of an interim flatplate fish screen
and other improvements to provide immediate protection to the
endangered winterrun chinook salmon and other fish species, and on
biological monitoring. In addition, GCID has deposited $5,500,000 into
an account to be used solely for the purpose of design and construction
of the new fish screen extension and gradient facility, known as the
``long term solution'' for the fish passage problems at the Hamilton
City Pump Station. Finally, GCID has spent an additional $5,500,000 on
environmental review, land acquisition, environmental mitigation and
downstream channel improvements, design and construction of the long
term fish passage solution.
While the interim flatplate screen, installed in late 1993, has
been very effective, it is only an interim solution. In order to
provide this permanent protection of the fisheries resources, the
permanent fish screen has been under construction since the spring of
1998, and completion is anticipated in late 1999. Construction of the
gradient facility portion of the project is scheduled to begin in 2000
and be completed in 2001. Until completion of the fish screen
extension, the gradient facility, and testing of the performance of the
structures, the District will continue to face restrictions which
result in pumping only 75 percent of the District's full water
entitlement.
Unlike some other projects, the availability of nonfederal
costsharing is not in doubt at GCID. The District has, in addition to
the funds already invested in the fish screen project, set aside
$5,500,000 to date to help pay for the nonfederal, 25 percent costshare
of a new permanent fish screen. California voters have approved almost
a billion dollars for projects like the GCID fish screen to help
restore fisheries throughout the Central Valley. We are ready and able
to costshare any federal funds provided by this Committee.
On behalf of GCID, the fishery and all of those whose economic fate
is tied to the recovery of the winterrun salmon, I respectfully request
that you provide $3,750,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation in fiscal
year 2000 to continue work on a permanent new fish screen at the
Hamilton City Pump Station. The President's Budget includes $2,252,000
for the fish screen extension portion of the project. GCID urges an
increase because construction of the fish screen extension is
approximately one year ahead of schedule, resulting in an accelerated
schedule of biological and hydrological testing that must occur after
completion of construction to verify that the structure meets the
resource agencies' fish screening criteria. Specifically, an allocation
of $3,750,000 is needed to allow completion of construction and
initiation of testing of the facility in 2000.
Without such a commitment of funds, construction may be delayed,
and testing of the facility will be delayed. That will mean less water
for the farmers and a less speedy recovery of the fishery. Failure to
provide the funds necessary to complete the project represents a lose-
lose proposition. It is bad for the farmers and it is bad for the
fishery resource. Again, I urge you to provide an allocation of
$3,750,000 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 $6,000,000 to the Corps of Engineers to
continue work on the Sacramento River gradient or riffle restoration
project. Construction of the gradient restoration project will
stabilize the river elevation and improve the effectiveness of the new
fish screen built at the District's pumping plant. In addition, the
gradient facility is critical to ensuring the long-term viability of
the new fish screen structure under changing river conditions. The
President's Budget includes $3,000,000 for the gradient facility. GCID
urges the increase to $6,000,000 because preliminary estimates from the
Corps indicate that $3,000,000 is far short of what is needed. The
Corps currently anticipates that the construction of this element of
the project could begin in 2000 and be completed in 2001. Thus, GCID is
concerned that the amount presently in the President's Budget will not
be adequate to allow the Corps to award a construction contract for the
gradient facility in the fall of 1999, as this low level of funding
will not allow for completion of the construction in the one year time-
frame.
In addition to the budget impacts of the short construction
schedule, GCID is currently requesting that Congress increase the cost
ceiling for the gradient facility from $20,700,000 to $26,000,000. The
original cost estimates were based upon a 30 percent basis of design.
Further design work and other factors indicate that the total cost of
the gradient facility will exceed the $20,700,000 ceiling. GCID is also
seeking a post-authorization change to the gradient facility to expand
the scope of work to include bank stabilization work at approximately
River Mile 208, north of the fish screen project. Geomorphological
studies indicate that flood damage at River Mile 208 potentially puts
the entire project at risk. These post-authorization changes also
indicate an increase of the fiscal year 2000 budget for this element of
the project.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, GCID requests that the Subcommittee earmark,
from within the funds made available for refuge water supply,
$2,400,000 for fiscal year 2000 to continue work on the upgrade of GCID
canal facilities necessary to make refuge deliveries. The President's
Budget request includes $4,500,000 for all central valley refuge
conveyance projects, and GCID requests that $2,400,000 be earmarked for
the District's project designed to expand water service to the
Sacramento Refuge complex. In addition, GCID requests that the budget
for all Central Valley refuge supply projects be increased to
$6,900,000 to assure that the necessary funds will be available for
completion of the GCID Refuge Conveyance Project. Preliminary estimates
by Reclamation indicate that the proposed budget of $4,500,000 for
refuge supply projects is far short of the total amount actually needed
for completion of the GCID Refuge Conveyance Project and the initiation
of work on the other supply projects in the Central Valley. A shortfall
in the refuge supply budget could adversely impact the GCID Refuge
Conveyance Project by interfering with the completion of construction
in progress. Thus, GCID urges an increase in the overall budget for
refuge supply projects, which would assure that the funds earmarked for
the GCID Refuge Conveyance Project will be available, and may alleviate
funding problems associated with other Central Valley refuge supply
projects which are also essential.
GCID's Refuge Conveyance Project will enable the District to make
year-around water deliveries to the three National Wildlife Refuges in
the GCID service territory (the Sacramento, Delevan and Colusa National
Wildlife Refuges) as well as make Stony Creek available for possible
fish restoration activities. It will also allow water deliveries during
the winter for crop diversification and to expand the acreage flooded
for rice straw decomposition and wildlife habitat. 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 fish bypass problem at the Hamilton City Pump
Station and our refuge water supply project, and I respectfully request
your support once again in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coachella Valley Water District
whitewater river basin
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with the Coachella Valley Water
District as local sponsor, is nearing completion of the feasibility
study for the Whitewater River Basin flood control project. This
statement provides a brief status report on this important project.
The Whitewater River Basin feasibility study is defining a flood
control project in the northern portion of the Coachella Valley in the
low desert area of Southern California. This area is subject to
alluvial fan type flooding originating from sources as far north as
Joshua Tree National Park. This area has existing businesses and
residences and is forecast to be a potential growth area.
The feasibility study is formulating a plan which will have a
favorable benefit cost ratio for the flood control project. The
feasibility study is also identifying a major environmental restoration
component. The study will identify nonstructural flood control
components which will enhance the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard
Preserve, protecting the endangered Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard
as well as providing a multispecies habitat area protected from
development. Without this flood control project, protecting the sand
source for the dune environment of the preserve could be very difficult
to achieve.
The local community supports the flood protection goals of this
project and the local environmental community supports the project as
well.
Thank you for the continued funding of the feasibility study. The
project proposed in the feasibility study will be put forward for your
consideration for the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, if
possible. Your careful consideration of this important flood control/
environmental enhancement project will be appreciated.
______
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 $133,000,000 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, March, 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 $18,000,000 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.
On January 15, February 3 and March 25, 1998, due to El Nino-driven
storms, Bear Creek overtopped its banks in several locations within and
downstream of the city of Merced, flooding 33 homes, county, city and
Merced Irrigation District infrastructure, and thousands of acres of
prime agricultural land, with total damages in the millions of dollars.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, with input from the National Weather
Service, estimates that the January 15th and March 25th events were
both one-in-100 year events, unprecedented for the area. The greatest
storm intensity in both storms centered in northeastern Merced County
in and around the watershed of Black Rascal Creek, tributary to Bear
Creek, upstream of the Merced County Streams Project's proposed
Haystack Mountain Dam site. According to Corps of Engineer's rating
tables for the Black Rascal Creek Bypass gaging station, January flows
reached 4,300 cubic feet per second (cfs) in a channel with a rated
maximum capacity of 3,000 cfs, 143 percent of channel capacity. March
flows exceeded 4,700 cfs, or 157 percent of channel capacity. Had the
Merced County Streams Project's Haystack Mountain Dam been in place, no
flooding would have occurred along Bear Creek during the January,
February or March events.
Due primarily to the New Years, 1997 devastating California flood,
the U. S. Congress and the California legislature authorized a four
year study, identified as: ``Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins
Comprehensive Study.'' The study was authorized under the Flood Control
Act of 1962 (Sacramento River) and the 1964 Congressional Resolution
(San Joaquin River). According to a brochure distributed by The
Reclamation Board of the State of California and the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Sacramento District, the study:
``. . . will initially identify problems, opportunities,
planning objectives, constraints, and measures to address
flooding and ecosystem problems in the study area. It will
ultimately develop a strategy for flood damage reduction and
integrated ecosystem restoration along with identification of
projects for early implementation. Solutions will include
consideration of both structural and non-structural measures .
. .''
According to the study timeline, in April, 1999, an interim report
will be presented to Congress. In 2001, a Draft Strategy for Flood
Management and Related Environmental Restoration will be completed. By
the Spring of 2002, the final Strategy and EIS/EIR, including an
implementation plan will be completed.
There is great concern on the part of the City of Merced, County of
Merced and the Merced Irrigation District officials that the Merced
County Streams Project will be ``swallowed up'' by the Comprehensive
Study, becoming one of many new flood control projects that have not
yet received Congressional authorization. The Merced County Streams
Project has been authorized by Congress. This important and urgent
Project must not lose its priority for Congressional funding or be
further delayed while the Comprehensive Study is undertaken.
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 $500,000 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 Milton Losoya, Mayor, City of Woodland
The City of Woodland requests Congressional support for adding
$750,000 to the fiscal year 2000 federal budget, to enable the Corps of
Engineers to begin the Cache Creek Flood Protection Feasibility Study
in fiscal year 2000. The study, estimated to cost $2,500,000 million
over a 2-3 year period, will be 50 percent federally funded, 50 percent
state and local funded. The City Council has approved the City funding
for the local share.
FEMA has recently completed a new Flood Insurance Study for the
Woodland area, showing approximately a 600 percent increase in the area
of the city in the 100 year flood plain. This creates a significant
impact to existing residences and businesses, and a virtual building
moratorium on new industrial development, which is now predominately in
an unnumbered A zone. This will have major economic impact on the City
of Woodland if not addressed in an expeditious and proactive manner.
The Corps of Engineers has completed two Reconnaissance Studies
(Reconnaissance Report, Westside Tributaries to Yolo Bypass, CA June
1994, and Northern California Streams Reconnaissance Report, Cache
Creek Environmental Restoration, California, December 1995) which
address structural solutions to this problem. The Corps studies show a
benefit cost ratios of between 1.3 and 1.8 depending on the solution
selected. Analysis indicates that the flood threat has been intensified
by the construction of Interstate Highway I-5, which diagonally bisects
the community. Considering projected damage estimates for the 100 year
flood, the project shows a 1.8 benefit cost ratio. The annualized cost
for flood protection is about half the annualized cost of damages from
a 100 year flood. With the receipt of the proposed revisions to FEMA's
Flood Insurance Rate Maps, there is clear community support to proceed
with a structural fix to the flood protection system.
The next step is completion of a Corps feasibility study to
determine the optimum solution for the community, so that design can
begin. Given the impacts to the community, a two year schedule for the
study is desired so that we may proceed as soon as possible with a
structural fix (costs of which are estimated by the Corps to range from
$42,000,000 to $84,000,000).
______
Prepared Statement of the Honorable George Pettygrove, Mayor, City of
Fairfield, California
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is George
Pettygrove. I am the Mayor of the City of Fairfield, California. The
City of Fairfield requests $400,000 in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and
Water Appropriations bill to continue funding for the Ledgewood Creek
Section 205 Small Flood Control Project.
In fiscal year 1999, Congress provided $300,000 to begin study of
flooding on Ledgewood Creek. The requested appropriation in fiscal year
2000 will complete the feasibility study necessary to determine
appropriate flood control measures for this area of the City.
When the Corps of Engineers studied Ledgewood Creek in preparation
for the design of the Fairfield Vicinity Streams Project improvements,
the Corps 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 five hour closure of I-80 caused some
commuters to be three hours late to work, as well as trucking delays in
delivery of goods.
Due to a combination of the construction of the Fairfield Vicinity
Streams Project and the construction of developer improvements, a
portion of 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 to the north to include an upper reach of Ledgewood Creek
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 Corps 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.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
City of Fairfield, and I urge your support for this priority project
for our region.
______
Prepared Statement Jon D. Mikels, Chairman, Supervisor, Second
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 1999-2000 Federal Budget.
Corps of Engineers:
Santa Ana River Mainstem--Construction of Seven Oaks
Dam, San Timoteo Creek Reach 3B and Lower Santa
Ana River Reaches 8 & 9. New construction start
for Prado Dam..................................... $28,000,000
Upper Santa Ana River Watershed--Reconnaissance
Study............................................. 100,000
Orange County, Santa Ana River Basin--Feasibility
Study............................................. 100,000
Mojave River Forks Dam--Feasibility Study........... 300,000
San Bernardino County Feasibility Studies--a. Lytle
Creek, b. Wilson, Potato and Wildwood Creeks...... 100,000
Mission Zanja Creek--Feasibility Study.............. ( \1\ )
Bureau of Reclamation: San Sevaine Creek Water Project--
Public Law 84-984 Small Reclamation Projects Act
Loan Program........................................ 10,180,000
\1\ Support.
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 Mainstem 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 Reaches 1, 2 and 3A
and the Lower Santa Ana River Reaches 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 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) floodplain 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 91 percent complete as of January
1999. Construction can be completed in fiscal year 1999/2000.
San Timoteo Creek: San Timoteo Creek/Reach 1 construction was
completed in September 1996. Construction on Reaches 2 & 3A was
completed in April 1998. Overall, construction is approximately 60
percent complete.
Funding Required
The funding amount required exceeds the President's proposed budget
by $3,000,000 due to necessary studies and mitigation for endangered
species. In addition, $5,000,000 is requested for Design and
Construction start for Prado Dam. To continue construction of the
Mainstem Project on schedule in fiscal year 1999/2000, federal funding
in the amount of $28,000,000 would be required as follows:
Seven Oaks Dam: Construction and Mitigation............. $3,000,000
Lower Santa Ana River:
Construct Reaches 8 & 9............................. 13,000,000
Landscaping and Sediment Removal.................... 5,000,000
Engineering Design.................................. 2,000,000
Prado Dam: Design and Construction start................ 5,000,000
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: $1,400,000,000--Includes $473,000,000 local
share
PRESIDENT'S BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000................ $20,000,000
FUNDING SHORTFALL FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000................. 8,000,000
REQUIRED FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000.................. 28,000,000
REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of $28,000,000 for Santa Ana River
Mainstem, F.Y. 1999/2000.
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
overtopping 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 60 percent complete. An alternative
has been developed for Reach 3B that will include the construction of
approximately 1300 feet of improved channel and 18 in-channel
sedimentation basins. Plans for the final phase will be developed
during the remaining 1998/1999 fiscal year with completion anticipated
during the mid 1999/2000 fiscal year.
Completed Phases
Reach 1: 0.7 Mile of Channel, COMPLETED, September 1996; Waterman
Avenue Bridge, COMPLETED, September 1996.
Reach 2: 1.9 Miles of Channel, COMPLETED, December 1997; Redlands
Boulevard Bridge, COMPLETED, March 1998.
Reach 3A: 0.8 Mile of Channel, COMPLETED, May 1998.
Remaining Construction and Schedule
Reach 3B: 0.2 Mile of Channel and 18 Sedimentation Basins along 2.2
Miles of channel. Plans and Specifications: June 1998-December 1999;
Right-of-Way Acquisition: April 1999-December 1999; Construction Start:
April 2000; and Construction Completion: September 2001.
Estimated Project Cost
The total estimated project cost is approximately $67,000,000 with
the federal participating cost at 75 percent or $50,250,000 and the
local participating cost at 25 percent or $16,750,000. The cost of the
remainder of the project is estimated to be $35,000,000, with the
Federal share at $26,250,000 and the local share at $8,750,000
REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of continued funding for the San Timoteo
Creek Project.
upper santa ana river watershed reconnaissance study
The area will focus on the watershed of the Santa Ana River and
tributaries located above Prado Dam and primarily in San Bernardino
County. The study is to describe all watershed characteristics and uses
to define problem areas under present and future conditions and assist
county and local interests in developing a long term master plan for
watershed management in the interest of improving specific water
resource uses including environmental preservation and restoration,
urbanization water supply and conservation and water-related recreation
activities.
The San Bernardino County Flood Control District supports the
reconnaissance study for management of the upper Santa Ana River
Watershed.
REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of $100,000 for upper Santa Ana River
Watershed, F.Y. 1999/2000.
orange county, santa ana river basin feasibility study (chino
agriculture preserve area)
The Chino Dairies are located in a 30 square mile area immediately
north of Prado Dam reservoir, in the unincorporated portion of San
Bernardino County, California. The study provides information on the
following elements: operations of Chino Dairies, water conservation in
Chino Groundwater Basin, flood control facilities to relieve runoff
from upstream development in the City of Ontario, water quality
concerns of Orange County residents and the regulatory enforcement of
the Chino Dairies. The Chino Dairies provide 25 percent of all the milk
consumed in California and it is a one billion dollar industry.
The San Bernardino County Flood Control District supports the
feasibility study to help with flood control facilities, water
conservation and keep the dairies maintain their viability.
REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of $100,000 for Orange County, Santa Ana
River Basin, F.Y. 1999/2000.
mojave river forks dam feasibility study
The Mojave River flows north out of the San Bernardino Mountains
into the desert communities of Victorville and Barstow. The Mojave
River Forks Dam (Dam) is an ungated facility designed and constructed
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to alleviate flooding. Since that
time, environmental regulations such as the Endangered Species and
Clean Water Acts and the recent water rights adjudication have changed
the River's uses. The study will consider factors such as the current
water rights adjudication while facilitating balance among the River's
competing uses and diverse interest. Alternatives include modification
of the Dam's operation and outlet works, construction of a release
tower and operable gates and construction of one or more off-line
detention basins.
The San Bernardino County Flood Control District supports this
feasibility phase study to evaluate viable water conservation
alternatives while optimizing the balance between environmental, flood
control and water supply needs.
REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of $300,000 for Mojave River Forks Dam,
F.Y. 1999/2000.
san bernardino county feasibility studies (lytle creek and wilson,
potato & wildwood creeks)
The Lytle Creek drainage basin comprises 173 square miles in the
north-central part of the Santa Ana River Basin, San Bernardino County,
California. The purpose of the study is to conduct an investigation of
the Lytle Creek watershed to determine opportunities for water quality/
flood control enhancement, sediment/erosion control and environmental
restoration. Sand and gravel operations along the Creek have resulted
in damages to the drainage patterns, sediment movement and the riparian
habitat. In addition, a high rate of urbanization in the ``Inland
Empire'' region has led to increased runoff. These factors pose an
increase flood risk in the basin.
Wilson, Potato and Wildwood Creeks originate in the San Bernardino
Mountains and flow in a south and southwesterly direction through the
city of Yucaipa, San Bernardino County. The study would investigate
methods to control erosion and reduce the impacts to the downstream
open space areas, residences and commercial areas within the watershed.
The runoff creates a large volume of debris and sediment within the
City of Yucaipa. Flooding along these creeks is threatening to damage
residential and commercial development and infrastructure facilities.
The San Bernardino County Flood Control District is requesting
these feasibility studies to evaluate the systems and determine
appropriate methods of protection through new facilities and management
of the existing floodplain.
REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of $100,000 for San Bernardino County,
F.Y. 1999/2000.
mission zanja creek feasibility study
The area is located in the City of Redlands, San Bernardino County.
The Mission Zanja Creek (Creek) project begins at about 2,000 feet east
of Interstate 10 to the Reservoir Canyon Drain, just west of 8th
Street. Floods of 1965, 1976 and 1980 caused about $4,300,000 million
(1988 price level) in damages. Frequent flooding along the Creek is
caused by inadequate capacity of the existing inlet to the covered
channel near 9th Street. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study
indicates that expansion of inlet on the Creek will result in a small
increase in the level of protection, but will increase flooding the
areas surrounding Reservoir Canyon Drain. Even though, this project
will cause flooding at the downstream area, but it will be much
smaller.
The San Bernardino County Flood Control District supports the
feasibility study to improve the inlet of Mission Zanja Creek to reduce
flooding area.
REQUESTED ACTION: Support of Mission Zanja Creek, F.Y. 1999/2000.
san sevaine creek water project
Project Description
The San Sevaine Creek Water Project includes ten recharge
facilities, two miles of levees; construction of seven miles of
drainage ways to convey runoff to the recharge facilities; six miles of
linear parkways; and the preservation of 137 acres of sensitive
wildlife habitat. This project will provide water conservation and
flood protection to a drainage area of approximately 51 square miles
within the cities of Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario as well as
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. There will be an average of
approximately 25,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater recharge from
the San Sevaine and Etiwanda Creeks' tributaries in the project area.
Project Status
The Loan Application was signed by the Bureau of Reclamation
Commissioner Eluid Martinez on April 11, 1996, approved by the
Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt on May 9, 1996. As of July 15,
1996, the San Sevaine Creek Water Project completed 60-day
congressional approval process. On December 17, 1996, the project
Repayment Agreement was approved by the Board of Supervisors of San
Bernardino County and approved on January 8, 1997 by Robert Johnson,
Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau has
indicated an eight-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 of this major water
project, continued federal assistance from this Small Reclamation
Project Act loan and grant are required to complete the project's
construction. Without these funds it will be decades before local
interests can accrue sufficient funds to construct this vital water
project. To date, the Bureau of Reclamation has provided approximately
$10,500,000 million towards construction of the project.
The California Water Commission has consistently, since the late
1980's, supported the construction of this project.
Public Law 84-984,
Federal Authority as amended in 1956
Bureau of Reclamation grant contribution approximately.. $27,400,000
Bureau of Reclamation loan contribution approximately... 19,200,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total B of R project (not additive) Approximately. 52,900,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Total Local Contribution Approximately.................. 33,700,000
1997/98 fiscal year Federal Budget (New Project Start).. 1,333,000
1998/99 fiscal year Federal Budget...................... 1,177,000
President's Budget fiscal year 1999/2000................ 10,180,000
The District and County have coordinated with the Bureau of
Reclamation and the National Water Resources Agency in a cooperative
effort to obtain the continued funding for this project. The District
and County appreciate the continuing support provided by the Bureau of
Reclamation towards this project.
REQUESTED ACTION: Support President's proposed F.Y. 1999/2000
budget in the amount of $10.18 Million.
______
Prepared Statement of Keith E. Beier, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Escondido,
California, and Marie Waldron, Council Member, City of Escondido,
California
san diego area water reclamation program
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for the seventh
straight year, we are pleased to have the opportunity submit this
testimony in support of continued funding for the San Diego Area Water
Reclamation Program, including the Escondido portion. Let us say again
how much we appreciate what you have done for the people of Escondido.
Last year, the Congress provided $13,000,000 for this project, as
requested by the Administration. And, as we reported to you last year,
with the support we had received through fiscal year 1999 from Congress
and the Administration, we were able to move the project forward in
full compliance with our agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation. We
hope you will be able to provide $10,600,000 for the total project,
fully funding the President's fiscal year 2000 Budget Request. We know
that the budget caps and the other priorities in the President's budget
request place you under enormous fiscal pressure, but we feel confident
in asking for full funding because the people of Escondido still need
usable water and it is still a fact that our surrounding area is a
desert with increasing dependence on reusable water. Let us again point
out that we will reclaim and reuse a large amount of the wastewater
that we now pump into the Pacific Ocean at a rate of 14,500,000 gallons
per day.
the escondido water reclamation program
As we must continue to report to you, 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 1960s.
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.
cost and funding data
With respect to the Escondido portion of the project, we are please
to report that, through fiscal year 1999, Escondido has spent more than
$14,000,000 on design, preliminary studies, environmental documents,
right of way purchases and construction of improvements at the Hale
Avenue Resource Recovery Facility (HARRF) and reclaimed water
pipelines. With your approval, since fiscal year 1994, Bureau of
Reclamation funding has reached $3,485,649. Phase I improvements to the
HARRF construction is well under way, and Phase II, which includes
completion of the improvements at the HARRF and construction of the
reclaimed water pipelines, pump stations and reservoir, will commence
construction in early fiscal year 2000.
We would be remiss in our stewardship of your support if we did not
report to you that the cost of the Escondido Regional Water Reclamation
Program in 1999 dollars has increased to $76,575,000. This is a sharp
increase in the project costs and is a reflection of a robust
construction economy in southern California. Region wide construction
costs have increased by a magnitude of 20 percent in the last two
years.
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.
In closing, we are at the point of making large financial
commitments to our water reclamation and redistribution program and
would not be able to do so without the past and present support of the
Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water. And,
as our fiscal commitments increase, our dependence upon support from
Congress and the Bureau of Reclamation funding increases. Let us again
express our thanks and our appreciation for the support you have
provided. We respectfully request your continued support, and would be
delighted to respond to any questions the Subcommittee may have.
______
Prepared Statement of the County of San Joaquin and the San Joaquin
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, California
San Joaquin County, located in the heart of California's central
valley, has both a vibrant agricultural economic base and a 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 was staggering ($100+ million) and the potential loss
due to flooding is enormous. The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
(SJAFCA) has been formed and construction is nearly complete (a
$70,000,000 investment) to restore the Stockton Metropolitan Area to a
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. We are
anxiously waiting for the Corps' completion of the Section 211
reimbursement study.
At the other extreme of the weather spectrum, San Joaquin County 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
groundwater levels dramatically drop during a less-than-average water
year. During these drops, the threat of salt water intrusion in our
groundwater basin from the Delta is a major concern. Our local water
district (Stockton-East Water District) has invested $65,000,000 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. We
need to have the Corps complete the feasibility study of the Farmington
Dam recharge project in order to increase the yield of the severely
limited Stanislaus River supply.
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 2000 for the following Corps of Engineers and Bureau
of Reclamation projects:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers--General Investigations-Surveys:
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study.....$3,000,000
Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta Investigations........... 200,000
San Joaquin River Basin Stockton Metropolitan Area
(Section 211) Requesting an Additional $180,000......... 380,000
San Joaquin River Basin Stockton Metropolitan Area
(Farmington Dam)........................................ 150,000
San Joaquin River Basin Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers..... 50,000
Port of Stockton and San Joaquin River Channel Deepening.. 150,000
Bureau of Reclamation:
South Delta Barriers...................................... 20,000
Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration--CALFED...................95,000,000
detailed comments
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study.........$3,000,000
The San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study is an ongoing $9,000,000
study of the water resources needs of the San Joaquin and Sacramento
Rivers. Flood control and environmental needs will receive equal
consideration. We expect setback levees, dredging and re-operation of
existing reservoirs will receive a careful review in this study. A
status report to Congress is expected to be released this April, which
will outline $16,000,000 to $20,000,000 of studies to be performed in
future years. The President approved $3,500,000 for fiscal year 1999
and $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 for the collective San Joaquin and
Sacramento River Basin Studies. At this time, we do not know the exact
allocation between each of the basins, although 50-50 seems likely. The
State is the cost-sharing partner in these studies.
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Investigation.................... $200,000
This is a special study and a regional planning report which
addresses multiple resource needs, including flood control, recreation,
environmental restoration, navigation, water supply, etc. The
California Department of Water Resources is the cost-sharing partner
with the CALFED process. To date, field test levee-strengthening
methods have been pursued and the study provides input to the CALFED
process. The President's budget for this investigation for fiscal year
2000 is $200,000.
San Joaquin River Basin Stockton Metropolitan Area............ $380,000
Before Federal dollars can be appropriated to reimburse the local
agency (up to 75 percent reimbursement), a Section 211 Report must be
approved by the Secretary of the Army. The 211 Report should be
completed later this year or early next year. The President's fiscal
year 2000 budget of $200,000 is adequate to complete the required 211
Report, but an additional $180,000 is required to adequately proceed
with the Feasibility Report addressing rural flood control
improvements. The Corps' Draft Feasibility Report is due in August 1999
and the Final Feasibility Report is due in March 2000.
San Joaquin River Basin Stockton Metropolitan Area Farmington
Dam....................................................... $150,000
The study costs for this investigation will determine if a Federal
interest may exist for a groundwater recharge project and environmental
enhancements. The President has included $150,000 in his fiscal year
2000 budget. The current fiscal year 1999 budget includes $400,000.
Since this is a feasibility study, all Federal funds must be matched by
local funds. The local cost-sharing sponsor for this study will be the
Stockton East Water District.
San Joaquin River Basin Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers......... $50,000
A Reconnaissance Study of ecological restoration and non-structural
flood control improvements is being performed on the Mokelumne and
Cosumnes Rivers. The current fiscal year 1999 funding is $18,000 and
the President's fiscal year 2000 budget is $50,000. Separate studies
and reports are being prepared by April 1999 for the Cosumnes River
(between the Delta and Michigan Bar) and the Mokelumne River (between
the Delta and Camanche Reservoir).
Port of Stockton and San Joaquin River Channel Deepening...... $150,000
This is an ongoing feasibility study which is being performed for
dredging and deepening the San Joaquin River channel through the Delta
to the port of Stockton to depths of 40 feet. Greater depths will
enhance navigation through the Delta to and from the Port. A fiscal
year 2000 budget of $150,000 has been proposed to perform the surveys.
Please note that this project is not included on the California Water
Commission's project listing because it is included in the California
Marine Affairs and Navigation Conference (CMANC) listing of projects.
Bureau of Reclamation
South Delta Barriers.......................................... $20,000
The project provides temporary barriers in the south Delta to
improve water quality. The fiscal year 1999 Budget includes funding for
$200,000 and the President's fiscal year 2000 Budget includes funding
for $20,000. In order to maintain the temporary program, $20,000 is
needed and the California Water Commission may be requested to
recommend an increase in funding.
Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration......................... $95,000,000
Current year funding is for $143,300,000 and the President's fiscal
year 2000 Budget has included $95,000,000. Funds for this program have
been used primarily for acquisition of lands, development of habitat,
and fishery enhancement/protection improvements. Although we support
CALFED's assistance with Woodbridge Irrigation District's efforts of
enhancing the Mokelumne River, we are concerned that the overall CALFED
program is overlooking the need of surface and groundwater supply
requirements within the County of San Joaquin. The CALFED program does
not recognize county area of origin protections; and there are no water
quality improvement objectives to improve the water quality of San
Joaquin County water supplies. There is no documentation of the
benefits that will be derived from the expenditure of funds,
particularly to displace agricultural lands.
______
Prepared Statement of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose,
California
calfed bay-delta program
Background.--In an average year, half of Santa Clara County's water
supply is imported from the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta estuary (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 nearly 1,700,000 residents in the
Santa Clara County, the most important high-tech center in the world.
In average to wet years, there is enough water 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 drinking water supply. Organic materials and
pollutants discharged into the Delta, together with salt water mixing
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. And as demonstrated by the recent flooding in Central
Valley, the levee systems can fail and the water quality at the water
project intakes in 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 to address
ecosystem and water management issues 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 $700,000,000,000 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. Recovery efforts cannot begin until adequate funding
becomes available to implement the array of critical ecosystem
restoration and water quality projects.
Fiscal Year 1999 Funding.--$75,000,000 was authorized in fiscal
year 1999 for CALFED Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration.
Fiscal Year 2000 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support $95,000,000 in the Administration's
fiscal year 2000 Budget to finance early implementation of ecosystem
restoration in the Bay-Delta, provide critical improvement in water
supply and water quality, and the continuance of final programmatic
EIS/EIR.
guadalupe river project
Background.--The Guadalupe River is a major waterway flowing
through a highly developed area of San Jose, California. Historically,
the river has flooded downtown San Jose and Alviso beyond local
prevention capabilities. According to the 1991 General Design
Memorandum, estimated damages from a 1 percent flood in the urban
center of San Jose are over $526,000,000. The Guadalupe River
overflowed in February 1986, January 1995, and March 1995, damaging
homes and businesses in the St. John and Pleasant Street areas of
downtown San Jose. In March 1995, heavy rains resulted in four separate
breakouts along the river, inundating close to 300 homes and business.
Project Synopsis.--In 1971, the local community requested that the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) reactivate its earlier study.
Since 1972, substantial technical and financial assistance has been
provided by the local community through the Santa Clara Valley Water
District in an effort to accelerate the project's completion. To date,
more than $70,500,000 in local funds have been spent on planning,
design, land purchases, and construction, and projects in the Corps'
project reach, as well as in reaches downstream of the Corps' limits,
have been completed through the local community's efforts.
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 was completed in August 1996. Completion of the last phase in
2002 is dependent on federal funds and mitigation issue resolution.
To achieve a successful, long-term resolution to the issues of
flood protection, environmental mitigation, avoidance of environmental
impacts, and project maintenance cost, a multi-agency ``Guadalupe Flood
Control Project Collaborative'' was created in 1997. A key outcome of
the collaborative process was the signing of the Dispute Resolution
memorandum in 1998, which resolved major mitigation issues and allows
the project to proceed.
Fiscal Year 1999 Funding.--$7,000,000 was authorized in fiscal year
1999 to continue Guadalupe River Project construction.
Fiscal Year 2000 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the need to
continue construction to provide critical flood protection for downtown
San Jose and the community of Alviso, it is requested that the
Congressional Committee support $5,000,000 in the Administration's
fiscal year 2000 budget for the continuance of construction and
mitigation work on the Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project.
upper guadalupe river project
Background.--The Guadalupe River is one of two major waterways
flowing through a highly urbanized area of Santa Clara County,
California. Historically, the river has flooded the central district of
San Jose and southern areas beyond local prevention capabilities.
According to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1998 feasibility
study, severe flooding in the Upper Guadalupe River's densely populated
residential floodplain south of Interstate 280 could potentially cause
$280,000,000 in damages.
The probability of a large flood occurring before implementation of
flood prevention measures is high. The Upper Guadalupe River overflowed
in March 1982, January 1983, February 1986, January 1995, March 1995,
and February 1998, causing damage to several residences and businesses
in the Alma Street and Willow Street areas. The 1995 floods in January
and March, as well as in February 1998, closed Highway 87 and the
parallel light-rail line, a major commute artery.
Project Synopsis.--In 1971, the Santa Clara Valley Water 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 the 1982 and 1983 floods, the Santa Clara Valley Water
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. 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 Santa Clara Valley Water District strongly emphasized
overriding the development plan's determination, providing compelling
reasons for the higher 1 percent or 100-year level of protection. In
1998, the Acting Secretary of the Army did not concur to extend the
National Economic Development Plan's 50-year plan to 100 years,
resulting in a project that will provide less flood protection, and
therefore, be unable to reduce flood insurance requirements and
reimbursements, as well as eliminate recreational benefits and increase
environmental impacts. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has
requested that the costs of providing 50-year and 100-year flood
protection be analyzed again during the preconstruction /engineering
design phase and figured into the determination of the National
Economic Plan.
Fiscal Year 1999 Funding.--$575,000 was authorized in fiscal year
1999 for the Upper Guadalupe River Project to proceed with
preconstruction engineering and design.
Fiscal Year 2000 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
of flood damage from the Upper Guadalupe River and the need to continue
preconstruction engineering and design, it is requested that the
Congressional Committee support $300,000 in the Administration's fiscal
year 2000 budget for the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Protection
Project. Statement of
upper penitencia creek project
Background.--The Upper penitencia Creek Watershed is located in
northeast Santa Clara County, California, near the southern end of the
San Francisco Bay. In the last two decades, the creek has flooded in
1980, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1998. While the January 1995 flood
damaged a commercial nursery, a condominium complex, and a business
park, the February 1998 flood damaged many homes, businesses, and
surface streets.
The proposed project on Upper Penitencia Creek, from the 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 agricultural parcels and
a corridor along Upper Penitencia Creek. Based on the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' (Corps) 1995 reconnaissance report, 4,300 buildings are
located in the flood prone area, 1,900 of which will have water
entering the first floor. The estimated damages from a 1 percent or
100-year flood exceed $121,000,000.
Study Synopsis.--Under authority of the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566), the National Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) completed an economic feasibility study
(Watershed Plan) for constructing flood damage reduction facilities on
Upper Penitencia Creek. Following the 1990 U.S. Department of
Agriculture Farm Bill, the NRCS watershed plan stalled due to the very
high ratio of urban development compared to agricultural development in
the project area.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District requested that the Corps
proceed with a reconnaissance study in April 1994 while the NRCS 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, initiated in February 1998, is scheduled for
completion in 2001.
Fiscal Year 1999 Funding.--$250,000 was authorized in fiscal year
1999 for the Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection Project for
project investigation.
Fiscal Year 2000 Funding Recommendation.--Funding Recommendation.
Based upon the high risk of flood damage from the Upper Penitencia
Creek and the need to proceed with the feasibility study, it is
requested that the Congressional Committee support $250,000 in the
Administration's fiscal year 2000 Budget for the Upper Penitencia Creek
Flood Protection Project. Statement of
llagas creek project
Background.--The Llagas Creek Watershed is located in southern
Santa Clara County, California, serving the communities of Gilroy,
Morgan Hill and San Martin. Historically, Llagas Creek has flooded in
1937, 1955, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1969, 1982, 1986, 1996, and 1997. The
January 1997 flood damaged many homes, businesses, and a recreational
vehicle park located in areas of Morgan Hill and San Martin areas where
protection is proposed. Overall, the proposed project will protect the
floodplain from a 1 percent flood affecting more than 1,100 residential
buildings, 500 commercial buildings, and 1,300 acres of agricultural
land.
Project Synopsis.--Under authority of the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (PL 83-566), the National Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) completed an economic feasibility study in 1982 for
constructing flood damage reduction facilities on Llagas Creek. The
NRCS completed construction of the last segment of the channel for
Lower Llagas Creek in 1994, providing protection to the project area in
Gilroy. The Santa Clara Valley Water District is currently updating the
1982 environmental assessment work and applying for a U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) 404 Permit for the project areas in Morgan Hill
and San Martin.
Until recently, the Llagas Creek Project was funded through the
traditional PL-566 federal project funding agreement with the NRCS
paying for channel improvements and the Santa Clara Valley Water
District paying local costs including utility relocation, bridge
construction, and right of way acquisition. Due to a steady decrease
since 1985 of annual PL-566 appropriations, the Llagas Creek Project
has not received adequate funding from U.S. Department of Agriculture
to complete the PL-566 project. To remedy this situation, the Santa
Clara Valley Water District has been working with congressional
representatives to legally transfer the construction authority from the
Department of Agriculture to the Corps. In order for Congress to
support this authorization transfer, the Corps must prepare a decision
documents to accompany the request. Using available fiscal year 1999
general investigation funds, the Corps will initiate and complete a
Limited Re-evaluation report, which will function as the decision
document.
Fiscal Year 1999 Funding.--No federal appropriation received in
fiscal year 1999.
Fiscal Year 2000 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
of flood damage from Llagas Creek, it is requested that the
Congressional Committee support the addition of $880,000 in the
Administration's budget to continue construction of the Llagas Creek
Project.
santa clara basin watershed management initiative
Background.--The Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative
was spearheaded in 1996 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
the State Water Resources Control Board, and the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board for the purpose of establishing a
practical management process to oversee the effort to balance natural
systems with urban development in the Santa Clara Basin. Recognizing
the importance of quality of life and diversity, the initiative's goal
is to establish an on-going process of managing activities and natural
processes to maximize benefits and minimize adverse environmental
impacts for the benefit of the community as a whole. The Santa Clara
Basin Watershed includes areas in northern Santa Clara County which
drain into San Francisco Bay, and portions of Alameda and San Mateo
counties.
The initiative will address the integration of activities within
the watershed while focusing on water quality protection. Some of the
specific issues being addressed include land use and development, water
supply, flood management, environmental restoration, and the regulatory
process.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District is one of many stakeholders
who continue to demonstrate commitment to this multi-year effort by
providing funds and actively participating with the initiative's Core
Group and Working Group. Providing the initiative's direction, the Core
Group includes representatives of the business community, local
government, environmental groups, agriculture, resource and regulatory
agencies, and other interested stakeholders.
The Initiation phase was completed in December 1996, and the 4-year
planning phase has commenced with a watershed assessment report that
provides a preliminary assessment of the watershed's condition based on
available data. The assessment report is scheduled to be completed in
March 2000. A state of the watershed report describing alternatives to
managing the watershed is scheduled to be completed in December 2000.
The final product of the planning phase will be a comprehensive
watershed management plan, incorporating stakeholder input and
extensive public outreach, intended to guide watershed 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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to provide technical and
planning assistance in the development of a watershed plan for the
Santa Clara Valley. The Watershed Management Initiative has progressed
to the point where the Corps' participation is now necessary for
continuing the watershed assessment and addressing pressing regulatory
issues.
Fiscal Year 1999 Funding.--No federal appropriation was authorized
in fiscal year 1999 for the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management
Initiative.
Fiscal Year 2000 Funding Recommendation.--In order to continue the
initiative's progress to date, it is requested that the Congressional
Committee support the addition of $300,000 in the Administration's
fiscal year 2000 budget to cost-share Santa Clara Basin Watershed
Management Initiative work, including conducting a watershed
assessment, developing a data management system, identifying project
alternatives, and directing stakeholder meetings.
central valley project
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
from the American, Shasta and Trinity rivers to users located in the
service area.
Specific 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, municipal, and industrial water users in the San
Joaquin Valley and Southern California. Funding for the Joint Use
Facilities are divided to 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 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.
Project Synopsis.--Annual invoices from the state of California for
the federal share of operation and maintenance costs average
approximately $10,000,000. For several years, federal funding was
inadequate to cover the pro-rated federal share of Joint Use Facility
costs. The Santa Clara Valley Water District intervened by using the
contributed Funds Act to direct a $20,000,000 advance payment of its
Central Valley Project capital costs toward an operations and
maintenance payment.
As a contractor of both the Central Valley Project and the State
Water Project, the Santa Clara Valley Water District hopes to
expediently resolve the issue of unreimbursed operations and
maintenance expenses. These expenses are carried by the state without
interest, seriously impairing the cash flow and financial management of
the State Water Project.
In fiscal year 1998, an agreement was reached between the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation and project contractors to provide direct funding
for project conveyance and pumping facilities, reducing annual
appropriations from approximately $10,000,000 to $3,500,000.
Fiscal Year 1999 Funding.--$3,500,000 was authorized in fiscal year
1999 for operations and maintenance of the San Luis Joint Use
Facilities.
Fiscal Year 2000 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon past
expenditures, it is requested that the Congressional Committee support
$4,525,000 in the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget to continue
operations and maintenance of the San Luis Unit Joint Use Facilities.
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
habitat, 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 discharges into San Francisco Bay.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District is participating with the
city of San Jose in the development of the reclamation and reuse
program. Toward this end, the Santa Clara Valley Water District is
assisting the city of San Jose by providing financial support and
technical assistance, and acting as a liaison for water retailers. The
design, construction, construction administration, and inspection of
the program's transmission pipeline and Milpitas 1A Pipeline was
performed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District under contract to
the city of San Jose.
The city of San Jose is the program sponsor for Phase 1, consisting
of almost 60 miles of transmission and distribution pipelines, pump
stations, and reservoirs. Completed at a cost of $140,000,000, Phase 1
is scheduled for full operation in May 1999 with expected deliveries of
5,000 acre-feet per year of recycled, nonpotable water.
Phase 2 planning is now underway. A study, to be completed in 1999
at a cost of approximately $3,500,000, will provide a master plan for
the years 2005 and 2020. Phase 2's near-term objective is to increase
deliveries by the year 2005 to 15,000 acre-feet per year.
In 1992, PL 102-575 authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to work
with the city of San Jose and the Santa Clara Valley Water District to
plan, design, and build demonstration and permanent facilities for
reclaiming and reusing water in the San Jose metropolitan service area.
The city of San Jose reached an agreement with the Bureau of
Reclamation to cover 25 percent of Phase 1's costs, or approximately
$35,000,000; however, federal appropriations have not reached the
authorized amount.
Fiscal Year 1999 Funding.--$3,000,000 was authorized in fiscal year
1999 for project construction.
Fiscal Year 2000 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an additional appropriation of
$7,000,000 to the $3,000,000 included in the Administration's fiscal
year 2000 budget, for a total of $10,000,000 to fund the Phase 2 study
and cover congressionally authorized appropriations for Phase 1 work.
______
Prepared Statement of the San Diego, California, Water Reclamation
Program
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 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 $365,000,000 in water reclamation
facilities through this fiscal year, and has programmed another
$70,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 to continue these efforts. Upon
completion of the water reclamation and recycling projects in the next
20 years, the City will have well over $1,000,000,000 of capital
investment in this program. The City's projects include 4 new and one
expanded water reclamation plants with a combined capacity of
70,000,000 gallons per day. The 30 mgd North City Water Reclamation
Plant has been in operation and delivering reclaimed water to customers
since September 1997, and the 7 mgd first phase of the South Bay Water
Reclamation Plant is currently under construction. Also included are
over 125 miles of reclaimed water distribution system pipelines, 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 $168,000,000 through this
fiscal year, and $193,000,000 of the projected expenditures through
fiscal year 2000 are eligible for federal funding. Nearly half of the
$1,000,000,000 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 $10,600,000 in fiscal year 2000 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, over 27,000,000,000 gallons (83,000 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,
hundreds of miles of reclaimed water delivery pipeline, and a
groundwater project providing for conjunctive use of reclaimed water
and other sources of supply.
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 or completed for a number of
these reclamation facilities. The City of San Diego has completed the
construction of its flagship reclamation facility, the 30 mgd North
City Water Reclamation Plant. Reclaimed water has been delivered to
numerous customers in the North City area and the City of Poway since
September 1997. And construction of the City of San Diego's 7 mgd first
phase of the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant is under way.
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 19,600,000,000 gallons
(60,200 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 and one expanded water
reclamation plants: two 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 agricultural,
commercial, industrial and residential customers through a network of
over 125 miles of distribution pipeline, as well as a groundwater
recharge and extraction project providing for conjunctive use of
reclaimed water and other sources of supply.
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 up to 9,800,000,000 gallons (30,000 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 has been taking
deliveries from the North City WRP. Initial users in San Diego include
the internationally known Torrey Pines Golf Course, Marine Corps Air
Station Miramar, and CalTrans, as well as numerous schools, parks,
nurseries and residential homeowner associations. The existing North
City reclaimed water distribution system could be extended to the north
and the south, and various alternatives are being investigated to
replace the previously-planned Water Repurification Project, which has
been discontinued by the City.
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 1,300,000,000 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 has been followed by the
construction of the 7-mgd first phase South Bay Water Reclamation Plant
(South Bay WRP) near the international border with Mexico. The Phase I
South Bay WRP will provide almost 2,300,000,000 gallons (7,000 acre-
feet) of reclaimed water annually to 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, as well as potentially providing reclaimed water to
Mexico. A future 8 mgd Phase II of the South Bay WRP could provide an
additional 2,600,000,000 gallons (8,000 acre-feet) of reclaimed water
annually.
A future 12 mgd Otay Valley Water Reclamation Plant is also planned
to provide additional reclaimed water supplies for the southern service
area.
San Pasqual Regional Water Reclamation and 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 expanded San Pasqual Water 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 groundwater/reuse regional project
will add approximately 2,600,000,000 gallons (8,000 acre-feet) annually
to local water supplies. Implementation of the project will be subject
to funds being made available.
The estimated costs (in 1999 dollars) which are eligible for Bureau
of Reclamation Title XVI funding for the City of San Diego Water
Reclamation Program are as follows:
Northern/Central Regional Water Reclamation System:
North City WRP...................................... $52,379,000
North City WRP Demineralization Facilities.......... 10,500,000
Mission Valley WRP.................................. 25,541,000
Northern/Central San Diego Distribution System...... 233,914,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal Northern/Central Regional System....... 322,334,000
South Bay Regional Water Reclamation System:
South Bay WRP....................................... 33,990,000
Southern San Diego Distribution System.............. 25,768,000
Otay Valley WRP..................................... 14,880,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal South Bay Regional System.............. 74,638,000
San Pasqual Regional Water Reclamation/Groundwater
Project............................................. 63,854,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Total City of San Diego Water Reclamation
Program....................................... 460,826,000
______
Prepared Statement of Tib Belza, Chairman, Yuba County Water Agency
Request
Please appropriate $700,000 for fiscal year 2000 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 completed the Draft Feasibility Report, Yuba River
Basin Investigation, California, January 1998. The report identifies
federal interest in approximately $26,000,000 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 $700,000 of federal funding in fiscal year
2000. 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 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
$818,000,000 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 $2,100,000 Feasibility Study that
ultimately cost $2,600,000. Half the cost of the Feasibility Study was
non-federal. The Feasibility Study has identified federal interest in
approximately $26,000,000 in levee improvements. The $700,000 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, $1,800,000 in federal funds and a
total of $3,100,000 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 $700,000 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 on Behalf of the Nuisance Flooding Near the 3B's
Portion of the Butte Basin Overflow, Sacramento River, Butte County,
California
Gentlemen: This project directly affects properties in Butte, Glenn
and Colusa Counties, as well as the Butte Basin Overflow flood relief
structure for the Sacramento River.
Nuisance flooding near the 3B's structure, on the Sacramento River
north of Ord Ferry Road, has been reported for more than 15 years.
Butte County has noted a multiplicity of flooding problems in the area,
bounded by the Sacramento River Big Chico Creek, River Road, Little
Chico Creek and Ord Ferry Road. Unfortunately, we do not have the
resources to define the source of all of the problems or to provide
solutions.
The most notable and destructive problem is nuisance flooding that
crosses Ord Ferry and River Roads, when the Ord Ferry Gage on the
Sacramento River reads between 110, and 114 feet. The Butte Basin flood
relief facilities are designed to overflow when the Ord Ferry Gage
exceeds 114 feet. This flooding interrupts interstate commerce closing
and damaging roads, as well as damaging crops and prohibiting their
planting/harvesting in all three counties. This also fills the Butte
Basin Overflow facility, which reduces its flood holding capacity when
the real flood hits.
Butte County is requesting a Section 205 Reconnaissance
Investigation by the Reclamation Board and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
to define the problems and solutions.
If you have any additional questions please contact Stuart Edell,
Butte County Public Works, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965,
Telephone (530) 538-7266, FAX (530) 538-7683.
______
Prepared Statement on Behalf of the Cherokee Canal, Sediment Removal
and Streambed Alteration Project, Butte County
Gentlemen: This project affects properties in central Butte County,
between Highway 70 at Pentz Road and Highway 162 at Butte Creek.
Changes in environmental policies in the last 10 years have
severely attenuated the mining practices, which have abated the excess
sediment transport, which is the source of the problem. The sediment is
the remains of the hydraulic mining operations by the Cherokee Mine in
the late 1800's. Winter storms transport this sediment from the
foothills to the flat valley floor where it is deposited in the
Cherokee Canal Flood Control Project. The excess sediment fills the
flood control facilities, which reduces their capacity and endangers
the lives and properties of the resident of Butte County.
The potential loss of prime agricultural land combined with the
loss of the Agricultural Experimental Station (the primary source of
rice seed in California), and the potential pollution from inundation
fertilizers is too great of a hazard to ignore.
Re-institution of environmentally sound mining practices upstream,
combined with a downstream excess sediment removal program, is a
potential solution. It should reduce the maintenance costs and resolve
the downstream problem of repeated disturbances to habitat for excess
sediment removal.
Butte County's goal is to request a Reconnaissance Investigation by
the Reclamation Board and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, looking toward
an 1135 study.
If you have any additional questions please contact Stuart Edell,
Butte County Public Works, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965,
Telephone (530) 538-7266, FAX (530) 538-7683.
______
Prepared Statement of the Department of Water and Power, City of Los
Angeles
The Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles
(Department) is the largest municipal utility in the United States
serving a city of 3,700,000. The Department has traditionally relied
heavily on imported sources of water to meet the City's needs. Imported
water continues to be a primary supply. However, drought conditions,
increased environmental concerns, and limitations on the development of
additional supplies have led Los Angeles and other cities to utilize
water conservation and water recycling as alternatives to importing
more water. The Department's goal is to displace up to 10 percent of
the city's water supply needs with recycled water by 2010.
In support of this goal the Department respectfully requests the
subcommittee's approval and support of an appropriation of $7,500,000
for the Los Angeles Area Water Reclamation Program as contained in the
President's budget for fiscal year 1999-00. The budgeted amount for the
city's East Valley Water Recycling Project (reference Grant Agreement
No. 1425-5-FG-30-00070) and for the Terminal Island (Los Angeles
Harbor) Water Recycling Project ( reference Draft Cooperative Agreement
No. 1425-8-FC-30-00031) is $6,580,000. These projects were authorized
pursuant to Section 1613 of Public Law 102-575, the Reclamation
Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992. Included within this
budget is $920,000 for the West Basin Municipal Water District.
The East Valley project will utilize recycled water to recharge a
local groundwater basin to supplement the city's drinking water supply.
About 10 of the 13 miles of pipe and over 95 percent of the pump
station have been constructed. Over $47,000,000 of the total estimated
$55,000,000 have been spent. Construction is scheduled to be completed
in April 1999. Project commissioning and testing will start at this
time. This is the city's largest water recycling project and the
cornerstone of the city's water recycling program.
The Terminal Island (Los Angeles Harbor) Water Recycling Project
will provide advanced treatment of tertiary wastewater and a
distribution system to deliver recycled water for groundwater recharge,
and to industrial and irrigation customers. The treatment plant has
been awarded and construction will begin in May 1999. Design of the
distribution system is nearly complete. Pipeline construction is
scheduled to start in March 1999. The total project cost is estimated
to be $52,000,000. The project will begin supplying water to customers
by February 2001.
Mr. Chairman, the Department appreciates the opportunity to submit
this statement. Thank you for your longstanding support of water
recycling projects in Southern California.
______
Prepared Statement of R. L. Schafer, Secretary/Watermaster, Tule River
Association, Porterville, California
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The Tule River
Association hereby request your consideration of an appropriation of
$800,000 in the fiscal year 2000 Federal budget for the United States
Army Corps of Engineers for preconstruction engineering and design
(PED) of the Tule River, Success Reservoir Enlargement Project. The
President's budget for this line item contains $150,000 which is
inadequate for an orderly continuation of design of the project.
The Draft Success Reservoir Enlargement Feasibility Study and EIS/
EIR are complete, in reproduction and will be issued to the public
later this month, March 1999. A public hearing has been scheduled in
Porterville, California on April 22, 1999 and a Chief's report to the
Congress is scheduled in September 1999. The Success Reservoir
Enlargement Project is simplistic in design involving raising of the
existing spillway 10 feet and widening the spillway 165 feet.
The enlargement project would provide 28,000 acre-feet of
additional storage space in Success Reservoir and increase the flood
protection from a 1 in 47 year event to a 1 in 100 year event for the
City of Porterville and downstream agricultural lands.
The Corps intends to commence PED in June 1999 and the fiscal year
1999 appropriation bill contains $100,000 for PED. The estimated Corps
cost for PED is $1,200,000 which is cost shared 75 percent Federal and
25 percent non-Federal, and results in a Federal cost of $900,000. The
Corps has the capability, and as the project is readily designed, PED
could be completed in fiscal year 2000 with adequate funding.
The Association urges the subcommittee to support an appropriation
of $800,000 in fiscal year 2000 for Corps preconstruction engineering
and design of the Success Reservoir Enlargement Project.
______
Prepared Statement of R. L. Schafer, District Engineer Cawelo Water
District, Bakersfield, California
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The County of Tulare,
Cawelo Water District, North Kern Water Storage District and Semitropic
Water Storage District request your consideration of an appropriation
of $500,000 in the fiscal year 2000 Federal budget for the United
States Army Corps of Engineers for feasibility studies for the Poso
Creek Stream Group (Deer Creek, White River, Rag Gulch and Poso Creek).
The President's budget for the Poso Creek Stream Group Corps general
investigation for fiscal year 2000 contains $60,000 which is
inadequate.
The Corps of Engineers are currently developing a reconnaissance
study of the four streams of the Poso Creek Stream Group for flood
control, and it is the opinion of the local sponsors, identified above,
that the Corps will determine that at least two of the stream studies
will indicate a Federal interest for continuation of a 50/50 cost
sharing feasibility study.
Poso Creek, White River and Deer Creek are uncontrolled streams
that continue to devastate agricultural lands and flood the communities
of Earlimart, McFarland, Alpaugh and Allensworth. The major arterials
State Route 99 and SR 43 have been closed, resulting in the disruption
of commerce by time delaying detours for several days, during the past
two years due to flooding from the streams under investigation by the
Corps.
Since the Corps of Engineers typically expend up to $1,000,000 over
a two year period for a feasibility study, the fiscal year 2000 federal
appropriation for the Poso Creek Stream Group needs to be $500,000 for
an orderly continuation of flood control investigations by the Corps.
The local sponsors urge the subcommittee's appropriation of
$500,000 in fiscal year 2000 for Poso Creek Stream Group feasibility
studies by the Corps.
______
Prepared Statement of Ed Henderson, Chairman, Napa County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District
napa river flood control project
Background
The Napa River is the main waterway into which all tributaries on
the Napa Valley flow. The river reaches its highest flow and the main
point of concentration of storm water 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, California.
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
flood plain is well over $500,000,000. 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 and 1997. Last February, the
river rose just above flood stage on three occasions, but subsided
before major property damage occurred.
Over the years, the community has expressed a strong desire for
increased flood management. Since 1962, twenty-seven 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 $100,000,000 in damage. The town of Napa is
particularly vulnerable to floods: during a typical 100-year flood,
more than 325,000 gallons of water flow through the downtown river area
per second, with the potential of inundating 2,000,000 square feet of
businesses and offices and nearly 3,000 homes.
Flood damage in downtown Napa has recurred in January 1993, January
and March 1995, January 1997 and February 1998, resulting in disaster
declarations and Damage Survey Reports filed with FEMA, reaffirming the
urgent need to implement the cost-effective project. In March 1995 and
January of 1997, additional flood disasters occurred and FEMA is
reviewing the damage claims.
Damages throughout Napa County totaled about $85,000,000 from the
January and March 1995 floods. The floods resulted in 27 business and
843 residences damaged countywide. Almost all of the damages from the
1986, 1995 and 1997 floods within the project area would have been
prevented by the project; 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 $542,000,000 in property damage alone. According to the most up-
to-date models, uncontrolled flooding over the next 100 years will
likely cause $1,600,000,000 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
that would be damaged by flooding. These local measures still leave
most of the city of Napa vulnerable to frequent damaging floods.
Congress has authorized flood control projects 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 that 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 flood plain 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 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 of 1997 and are now under final review by Corps
Headquarters. Land acquisition is planned to begin this spring with a
goal of a new construction start in the summer of 2000.
The coalition plan now memorialized in the Corps draft SGDM
includes the following engineered components: lowering of old dikes,
marsh plain and flood plain terraces, oxbow dry bypass, Napa Creek
flood plain terrace, upstream and downstream dry culverts along Napa
Creek, new dikes, levees and flood walls, bank stabilization, pump
stations and detention facilities, and bridge replacements. The
benefits the plan will provide include reducing or elimination of 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 businesses, 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 7,000 people and over 3,000
residential/commercial units 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 ration under the Corps calculation. One
billion in damages will be saved over the useful life of the project.
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, was approved last year by
a two-thirds majority of the county's voters for the local share. Napa
is California's third highest repetitive loss community. This plan is
demonstrative of the disaster resistant community initiative, as well
as the sustainable development initiatives of FEMA and EPA.
project synopsis
Fiscal Year 1999 Funding
The 1999 budget included $744,000 to prepare plans and
specifications and finalize the Project Cooperation Agreement for the
project.
Necessary fiscal year 2000 Funding
Funding for the Napa River Project during 2000 in the amount of
$6,500,000 is needed to initiate construction of the project.
Recommendation
Based on continuing high flood risk and severe damage from the Napa
River, we request that the Committee support $6,5000,000 to initiate
construction of the Napa River Flood Control Project.
project elements
March 1999
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 incorporated the refined design into its key preconstruction
documents. Design documents are under final review and the construction
drawings are being prepared. The County is negotiating the Project
Cooperation Agreement (PCA) with the Corps and is planning to begin
acquiring lands this spring. The County is working to ensure that
construction of the project will start in fiscal year 2000.
project components
The following redesigned project components were developed by the
Community Coalition, incorporated by the Corps and listed here with a
brief description. These components are included in the Corps' final
design plan.
Marsh Plain and Flood Plain Terraces
Providing room for rising floodwaters, 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, flood plain 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 over 650 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 flood plains; maintenance of existing trees; planting
of new trees; the addition of rock bank toe protection and a grade
control structure are all 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
storm water. The project includes the construction of three pump
stations to safely return this water through the floodwall into the
Napa River.
Floodwalls
Located at the tops of the riverbanks, floodwalls offer substantial
protection from large floods.
napa valley watershed management
Background
The Napa Valley watershed faces many challenges and stresses to its
environmental health and flood management abilities. From a healthy
river point of view, the Napa River has been on a recovery path since
its low point in the 1960's, when the last of the native salmon were
taken from the system by severe water pollution and habitat
destruction. Steelhead trout have survived as a remnant population of
two hundred that is presently in need of higher quality and more
extensive spawning areas for recovery to a significant population.
Beginning populations of fall run Chinook salmon have taken up
residence in the watershed in those few areas available for spawning.
While the chemical and wastewater pollution of earlier years has been
effectively dealt with, excess sediment is still a critical stress on
the salmon population, as it is to the spawning and rearing areas of
the river in the estuarine zone upstream of San Pablo Bay, populated by
delta smelt, splittail, green sturgeon and striped bass.
The River has been prioritized as an impaired water body by the
U.S. EPA and Region II Water Quality Control Board because of the
sediment production. The excess sediment generated in the watershed
suffocates spawning areas, reduces the stream's flood-carrying ability,
fills deep pools, increases turbidity in the stream and estuary,
carries with it nutrients that bring significant algae blooms during
the summer and fall, and changes the morphological balance of the
streams and river toward more unstable conditions.
Over time, both private and public diversions and levees have been
constructed in a chaotic way. The accumulated encroachment has
constrained the river and its riparian corridor to approximately one
third of its optimum morphological width for much of its length. The
Napa Valley has also been extensively drained in the last century,
eliminating nearly all of the sloughs and extensive wetlands that once
covered the valley floor. Combined with increasing agricultural and
urban development, the narrowed channel and loss of wetlands has
greatly changed the river and its major tributaries, limiting its flood
management capabilities. The river now regularly scours extensively on
both bed and banks, generating large amounts of sediment that settle in
the lower river and estuary, only to be stirred and moved by the tides
during the dry season. Loss of tidal wetlands in the lower river due to
70 years of dike construction has resulted in a much smaller area to
disperse sediment, exacerbating losses in all types of riverine and
estuarine-related complex habitats in the system.
In an effort to address these conditions and to develop local tools
for improving natural resource management, Napa County Resource
Conservation District is proceeding with a local effort entitled the
Napa River Watershed Stewardship program. This project, which has
recently received funding through the CALFED Category III Program, is
intended to address a broad range of ecological and biological values
in the Napa River watershed, including steelhead and salmon
populations, and improved wetlands and flood plain functions.
One of the key elements of the program, from the Napa County Flood
Control District's perspective, is the watershed monitoring and
computer modeling of watershed functions. Their goal is to use these
modeling and monitoring efforts to form strategies in developing flood
management and restoration approaches for the upper Napa Valley
watershed. The overall project is intended to extend the implementation
of the recommendations included in the Napa River Watershed Owner's
Manual, a framework for watershed management for the Napa River basin.
It will address the issues of habitat and fishery degradation, and will
enhance and expand riparian, riverine, estuarine, and freshwater
aquatic habitats for species. It will provide services to the project
collaborators in the form of training, education, computer-assisted
design and modeling of enhancement projects, and financial assistance
for implementation. It will also provide training in specific project
monitoring, as well as general watershed monitoring, to be included in
the database and GIS at the Resource Conservation District. Services
will be delivered through work with existing and new local tributary
stewardship groups throughout the Napa Valley.
The approach to implementation is the Stewardship Watershed
Management, which relies on a large degree of participation by
landowners and residents of tributary and mainstream regions. The
stewardship process has been very successful in developing and
supporting local responsibility for natural resources management, with
a heavy emphasis on monitoring and adaptive management of the resources
based on monitoring feedback. Planning is done using interest-based
consensus, with implementation from a wide variety of partners that may
vary from one specific project to another. Watershed education exchange
typically takes place through existing groups. Project implementation
is commonly done by the landowner, whether public or private with
support from the District, rather than by the district on behalf of the
landowner.
request
In an effort to develop a complementary approach to this total
effort, the Napa County Flood Control District is seeking that the Napa
Valley Watershed Management Study be continued by the Corps of
Engineers. The authority for this study is the Northern California
Streams Study Authority stemming from the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1962, Public Law 87-874. Specifically, the Napa County Flood Control
District is beginning to work closely with the Corps in examining the
watershed management needs, including flood control, environmental
restoration, storm water retention, storm water runoff management,
water conservation and supply and wetlands restoration in the Napa
Valley, including the communities of Yountville, St. Helena and
Calistoga in Napa County. To ensure maximum utility, the District has
requested the Corps to work closely in this effort with the Napa County
Flood Control District, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the
Napa County Resource Conservation District, the Napa County Farm
Bureau, the California Department of Fish and Game, the local
communities, and the Napa River Watershed Task Force, which was
recently appointed by the Napa County Board of Supervisors to develop a
collaborative process to assess the watershed management needs of the
Napa Valley. In particular, the County is requesting the Corps to
examine the following issues: Up-Valley communities flood protection
strategies;Hillside erosion mitigation strategies in conjunction with
the agricultural industry and Groundwater preservation and water supply
issues
The study must be conducted in close coordination with the Napa
County Resource Conservation District's on-going Napa River Watershed
Stewardship Program.
project synopsis
Fiscal Year 1999 Funding
Congress appropriated $100,000 to initiate the Napa Valley
Watershed Management Study.
Necessary Fiscal Year 2000 Funding
Funding for the Napa Valley Watershed Management Study during
fiscal year 2000 in the amount of $100,000 is needed to have the Corps
of Engineers continue the study to examine watershed management needs.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Stockton, California
The City of Stockton supports the following Corps of Engineers and
Bureau of Reclamation water, flood control and fishery projects:
Stockton Metropolitan Area.................................... $200,000
Farmington Dam................................................ 150,000
San Joaquin Watershed......................................... 2,000,000
Cosumnes and Mokelumne River.................................. 50,000
Water Resources Development Act, 1996, Section 206, Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration, Stockton Waterfront................ ( \1\ )
Port of Stockton and San Joaquin River Channel................ 150,000
South Delta Barriers.......................................... 20,000
\1\ No additional funds requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
u.s. corps of engineers
Stockton Metropolitan Area--$200,000
This project was analyzed by the United States 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 $200,000 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 United States Army Corps of Engineers proposes $1,000,000 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. The Corp's draft feasibility report is due in
August 1999, and the final feasibility report is due in March 2000.
Farmington Dam--$150,000
The study costs for this investigation will determine if a Federal
interest may exist for converting Farmington Dam into a multiple
purpose reservoir inclusive of flood control, water supply, groundwater
recharge, and environmental enhancement. The President has included
$150,000 in his fiscal year 2000 budget. The current fiscal year 1999
budget includes $500,000. 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--$2,000,000
The San Joaquin River Comprehensive Study is an ongoing $9,000,000
study of the water resource's needs of the San Joaquin and Sacramento
Rivers. 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. A status report
to Congress is expected to be released this April, which will outline
$16,000,000 to $20,000,000 of studies to be performed in future years.
The President approved $3,500,000 million for fiscal year 1999 and
$2,000,000 for both the San Joaquin and Sacramento River Basin studies.
At this time, we do not know the exact allocation between each of the
basin, although 50-50 seems likely. The State is the cost sharing
partner in these studies.
Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers--$50,000
A reconnaissance study of ecological restoration and non-structural
flood control improvements is being performed on the Mokelumne and
Cosumnes Rivers. The current fiscal year 1999 funding is $18,000, and
the President's fiscal year 2000 budget is $50,000. Separate studies
and report are being prepared by April 1999 for the Cosumnes River
(between the Delta and Michigan Bar) and the Mokelumne River (between
the Delta and Camanche Reservoir).
Water Resources Development Act, 1996, Section 206, Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration--Stockton Waterfront--No additional funds
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 dead-end
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--$20,000
The project provides temporary barriers in the south Delta to
improve water quality. The fiscal year 1999 budget includes funding for
$16,000 and the President's fiscal year 2000 budget includes funding
for $20,000.
The City of Stockton conditionally supports the following project:
bureau of reclamation
Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration--$95,000,000
Current year funding is for $143,000,000 and the President's fiscal
year 2000 budget has included $95,000,000. 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.
Resolution No. 99-0108 Stockton City Council
WHEREAS, during the week of March 22, 1999, appropriate committees
of the Congress of the United States will conduct hearings to consider
federal appropriations for water, flood control, and fishery projects
for fiscal year 2000; and
WHEREAS, several projects to be considered at said Congressional
hearings will directly impact the City of Stockton and its environs;
and
WHEREAS, the expeditious construction of said projects is required
to protect the health, welfare and safety of the residents of this
area; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the City of Stockton does hereby support the appropriation
by the Congress of the United States of funds for fiscal year 2000 for
the planning, continuation and completion of flood control and
reclamation projects, namely: a. Stockton Metropolitan Area, $200,000;
b. Farmington Dam, $150,000; c. San Joaquin River Watershed,
$2,000,000; d. Consumnes and Mokelumne Rivers, $50,000; e. Water
Resources Development Act, 1996, Section 206, Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration-Stockton Waterfront, No additional funds requested; f. Port
of Stockton and San Joaquin River Channel, $150,000; and g. South Delta
Barriers, $20,000.
2. That the City of Stockton does hereby support the appropriation
by the Congress of the United States of funds for fiscal year 2000,
with conditions, namely: a. Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration,
$95,000,000.
(1) The City of Stockton is concerned that the CALFED Program
continues to overlook the need of surface and groundwater supply
requirements within the County of San Joaquin.
(2) The City of Stockton is concerned that the CALFED Program does
not recognize County area of origin protections and there are no water
quality improvement objectives to improve the water quality of San
Joaquin County water supplies.
(3) The City of Stockton is concerned that the CALFED Program does
not provide documentation of the benefits that will be derived from the
expenditure of funds, particularly to displace agricultural lands.
3. That the Statement by the City of Stockton, California, before
the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development of the Senate and House of Representatives, is hereby
approved as the official Statement of the City Council. A copy of said
document is attached as Exhibit ``A'' and incorporated by this
reference.
4. That the Mayor is hereby directed to forward a copy of said
Statement to the appropriate Congressional Committees and to the City
of Stockton's representatives in the Senate and House of
Representatives, and the City Manager will monitor and initiate proper
follow-up communication and correspondence to reflect the City
Council's position.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED March 2, 1999.
GARY A. PODESTO,
Mayor of the City of Stockton.
ATTEST:
KATHERINE GONG MEISSNER, City Clerk of the City of Stockton
______
Prepared Statement of Jim Venable, Chairman, Board of Supervisors,
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Resolution No. 99-5 Supporting Federal Appropriations for Flood Control
Projects for Fiscal Year 2000
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 2000 and have requested written testimony to be submitted to the
committees prior to March 31, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District supports the completion of construction for the project to
reduce flooding and bank destruction along the Santa Ana River at Norco
Bluffs, California; the completion of a feasibility study and
initiation of design efforts for a flood control project on Murrieta
Creek, a sub basin of the Santa Margarita River watershed in Riverside
and San Diego Counties, California; the initiation of a flood control
reconnaissance study for the San Jacinto River; the continuation of
construction of the Santa Ana River Mainstem project; and the
initiation of construction at Prado Dam; 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 February 16, 1999, that they support appropriations by
Congress for fiscal year 2000 for the following projects:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Santa Ana River at Norco Bluffs: Construction--General.. $2,200,000
Murrieta Creek:
Feasibility Study--Flood Control.................... 232,000
Preconstruction Engineering & Design................ 100,000
San Jacinto River: Reconnaissance Study--Flood Control &
Other Purposes...................................... 100,000
Santa Ana River Mainstem: Construction--General......... 23,000,000
Prado Dam: Construction--General........................ 5,000,000
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 Congresswoman Mary Bono.
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.
Design of the project by the Corps is nearly complete, and is fully
funded. Certain geotechnical design considerations have resulted in an
increased cost for the project. We, therefore, are now seeking the
Committee's approval of supplemental funding in the amount of
$2,200,000 in fiscal year 2000 for completion of construction of the
Santa Ana River at Norco Bluffs Bank Stabilization 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 $10,000,000, from Murrieta Creek overflow.
Camp Pendleton also suffered extensive flood damage, estimated at
$88,000,000, 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 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Feasibility Study addressing flood
control, environmental enhancement, and recreation for Murrieta Creek
was initiated in April 1998. We request that the Committee approve
$232,000 in fiscal year 2000 appropriations to complete the Feasibility
Study for a flood control project on Murrieta Creek within the Santa
Margarita Watershed.
Murrieta Creek--Preconstruction Engineering & Design
The District anticipates the Corps completing the Murrieta Creek
Feasibility Study in February 2000, and issuing a favorable Chief's
Report in May 2000. The Corps will then be in a position to initiate
the detailed engineering design necessary to develop construction plans
and specifications for a Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project. The
District respectfully requests that the Committee approve a fiscal year
2000 appropriation of $100,000 for the Corps to initiate the
Preconstruction Engineering and Design phase for a Murrieta Creek Flood
Control Project.
San Jacinto River
The 730-square mile San Jacinto River watershed 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 is 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 2000 appropriations to undertake a Reconnaissance Study on the San
Jacinto River. In fiscal year 1999 the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure through Docket No. 2588, directed the
Corps to undertake the study, however, the necessary funding was not
provided as a part of that Resolution.
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 over 90
percent complete, and proceeding on schedule. We anticipate
construction on Seven Oaks Dam to be completed in August of 1999. For
fiscal year 2000, an appropriation of $3,000,000 is requested to
address various endangered species issues, including that of the San
Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, in the Santa Ana River wash in the vicinity of
the damsite.
An appropriation of $8,000,000 is being sought to complete
construction of ``Reach 8'', the last remaining segment of the lower
Santa Ana River Channel. An appropriation of $5,000,000 is requested to
initiate construction of ``Reach 9'' (immediately downstream of Prado
Dam), a section of streambed to receive some floodwall/slope revetment
work to protect existing development along its southerly bank. The
removal of accumulated sediment within an already completed section of
the Santa Ana River Channel near its outlet to the Pacific Ocean, along
with much delayed landscaping work, will necessitate a fiscal year 2000
appropriation of $7,000,000 which includes engineering and project
management support.
The Prado Dam feature of the Santa Ana River Mainstem project
continues to move closer to an eventual construction start. Engineering
design for the dam embankment and outlet works is approximately 90
percent complete. Design work has been initiated on the various
interior dikes included in the project, and additional design contracts
are ready to be let for the balance of engineering work necessary prior
to construction. A fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $5,000,000 would
allow the Corps to complete its design efforts on the Prado Dam
project, including construction plans and specifications in advance of
awarding construction contracts.
We, therefore, respectfully request that the Committee support an
overall $28,000,000 appropriation of Federal funding for fiscal year
2000 for the Santa Ana River Mainstem project.
______
Prepared Statement of Carl L. Blum, Deputy Director, Department of
Public Works, Los Angeles County, California
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 1920s 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 $3,600,000,000 in potential flood damage.
Development which occurred after World War II exceeded the
projections the Corps used in the 1930s 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 came close to overtopping in
1980 from a 25-year flood. 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 Corps 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 $2,250,000,000 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: The threat of flooding to over one-half million people and the
large economic impact FEMA's final Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)
have on the overflow area that became effective July 6, 1998.
Until the project is completed, any delay in construction will
cause great financial hardship on thousands of people, who thought the
existing river provided adequate protection and now need to buy flood
insurance (an impact as high as $65,000,000 annually).
This project, currently estimated to cost approximately
$240,000,000, is scheduled to be completed within the next three years,
pending adequate funding. The following table shows the history of
federal funding for the project:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expenditure of
Federal fiscal year Federal funding federal funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994-95.......................... $500,000 Initiation of first
construction
contract awarded
in September 1995
1995-96.......................... 11,300,000 Continuation of
first contract
1996-97.......................... 14,400,000 Completion of first
contract and
initiation of two
contracts awarded
in August and
September of 1996
1997-98.......................... 20,700,000 Completion of
contracts awarded
in August and
September 1996,
and initiation of
one contract
awarded in
February 1998
1998-99.......................... 50,000,000 Completion of
contract awarded
in February 1998,
and initiation of
two new contracts
awarded in
September and
December 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three 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 1999.
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 maintain
the level of construction activity at $50,000,000 this upcoming fiscal
year. As a result, we strongly support the California Water
Commission's recommendation for $50,000,000 of Federal funds to
continue construction of the LACDA Project.
______
Prepared Statement of Dick Lyon, Mayor, City of Oceanside, CA
The City of Oceanside is pleased to submit this request for
appropriation for the City's Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater
Desalting Research and Development Project. We would greatly appreciate
your assistance in funding this important facility.
The existing Mission Basin Groundwater Desalting Facility has been
an unqualified success. Since its completion in 1994, the facility has
produced 2,000,000 gallons per day of superior-quality water from
previously unusable brackish groundwater. This represents seven percent
of the City's daily water supply needs--enough water to serve 4,000
Oceanside households. As our only water source that does not cross
major earthquake fault lines, it is also a critically-needed emergency
water supply.
The Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and
Development Project will be a genuine win-win project. It will expand
the capacity of the facility to 6,200,000 gallons per day, serving
twenty-two percent of Oceanside residents. By reducing our dependence
on imported water from the Colorado River and the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River Delta, Oceanside will be part of the solution to
California's water supply dilemma. Closer to home, the project will
significantly increase the reliability of our water supply--an
essential ingredient in the long-term health of our regional economy.
When the facility expansion becomes a demonstrable success, the City
will explore the use of reclaimed water injected into the groundwater
basin to increase its capacity to 20,000,000 gallons per day.
The cost of the expansion is estimated at $11,600,000. The
authorization for this project recommends funding for twenty-five
percent of 3,000,000 gallons per day of the 4,300,000 gallon per day
expansion. It is estimated that the 3,000,000 gallon per day expansion
will cost $8,100,000. Therefore an appropriation of $2,030,000 for the
3,000,000 gallons per day authorization from the Bureau of Reclamation
will enable the City to complete the project while reducing the
financial impact on rate payers, and will advance the City towards our
ultimate goal of producing 20,000,000 gallons per day. The funding will
create a ripple effect in Southern California and beyond by
demonstrating the efficient use of groundwater desalting technology,
stimulating other agencies to develop their own projects. Ultimately,
appropriating funds to the City of Oceanside will provide some much-
needed relief to the water supply crisis affecting the entire
Southwestern United States. Construction is due to begin in mid-1999,
and to be complete in 2001.
The City of Oceanside respectfully requests that you appropriate
$2,030,000 in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development
Appropriation bill for this project.
The City of Oceanside is requesting appropriations of $2,030,000 in
the fiscal year 2000 budget for the Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater
Desalting Research and Development Project.
appropriation request 1999
The City of Oceanside is requesting appropriations of $2,030,000 in
the Fiscal Year 2000 budget for the Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater
Desalting Research and Development Project.
Construction cost estimate is $11,600,000.
Benefits to the City of Oceanside and the Southern California
Region include the following:
--Provides an emergency water supply for the City and the Camp
Pendleton Marine Corps Base.
--Creates a highly reliable water supply, which is critical to the
region's long-term economic health and its ability to attract
and retain businesses.
--Provides benefits to California and the rest of the nation by
reducing the region's demand for imported water from the
Colorado River and the environmentally sensitive Sacramento-San
Joaquin River Delta.
The existing Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Facility.
Background
The City of Oceanside owns and operates a 2,000,000-gallon-per-day
facility that recovers and desalts brackish Groundwater from the San
Luis Rey Mission Groundwater Basin. Oceanside proposes to expand this
facility to 6,300,000 gallons per day.
Water from the Mission Basin was previously considered unusable as
a municipal water source due to its high salinity and mineral content.
The current desalting facility produces 2,200 acre-feet of potable
water annually--enough water to meet the annual needs of 4,000
households.
Oceanside's local water supply development has received support
from many agencies including the State of California, which loaned the
City $5,000,000 to build the initial small-scale demonstration project.
proposed brackish groundwater desalting & development project
The project will increase production capacity of the existing
desalting facility to 6,300,000 gallons per day, or 6,400 acre-feet per
year. This new water supply will be sufficient to meet 22 percent of
the City's average annual water supply needs.
The project will benefit Oceanside and the larger San Diego region
by creating a local, highly reliable water supply. Unlike imported
water, this local water supply does not cross major earthquake fault
lines to reach consumers. A reliable water supply is critical to the
region's long-term economic health, and its ability to attract and
retain businesses.
The project will also serve as a model for other groundwater
desalting projects in San Diego County and elsewhere in Southern
California. The proposed expansion involves the use of Energy Saving
Polyamide (ESPA) reverse osmosis membrane elements. The membranes offer
significant savings in both investment and operation expenses that
exceed other membrane elements currently on the market.
The Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and
Development Project will use reverse osmosis technology to produce
potable water of higher quality than the City's imported water supply.
The reverse osmosis process involves pumping water at high pressure
through semi-permeable membranes. Membrane pores are large enough to
let water molecules through, but small enough to remove salts, metals,
and other dissolved impurities.
--Groundwater pumped from the basin is treated first with chemicals
to optimize membrane operations, then filtered.
--The pretreated water then is pumped through the reverse osmosis
membranes to remove all but the smallest molecular compounds.
Dissolved minerals and other impurities removed by the reverse
osmosis membranes are discharged to the City's ocean outfall
for disposal.
--The water receives additional chemical treatment to meet drinking
water standards before it is added to the City's potable water
system.
______
Prepared Statement of Donald R. Kendall, Ph.D., P.E., General Manager,
Calleguas Municipal Water District
calleguas municipal water district recycled water program
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit this written testimony on the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation appropriations for fiscal year 2000. The Calleguas
Municipal Water District is listed in the Bureau's budget as a ``new
start'' for Title XVI water recycling funding ($1,500,000).
project description
A. Main Features
The Calleguas Municipal Water District proposes to implement a
regional water reuse program. The principal objectives of the proposed
program are: Increase the reliability of water service within the
District's service area; Assist in achieving regional solutions to
meeting wastewater discharge requirements; Provide necessary facilities
to achieve long-term salt balance in the region; and Implement the
Calleguas Creek Watershed Plan.
The program is made up of several water recycling projects which
include wastewater reclamation and groundwater recovery projects which
will use reverse osmosis (RO) technology for demineralization. The
treatment facilities will be connected by a Brine Disposal Pipeline
designed to collect the concentrated effluent from the various
demineralization facilities which are planned.
The source of water for the water recycling projects are eight
wastewater treatment plants located throughout the District's service
area. The source water for the RO plants will be local brackish
groundwater high in total dissolved solids (TDS). Most of the area is
underlain by two aquifer systems and generally the upper aquifer system
is high in TDS as a result of over extraction, the concentration
effects of agricultural use, and discharges from the local publicly
owned treatment works (POTW) that percolate to the upper aquifer
system.
The water which will be developed through this program will provide
a wide range of beneficial potable and non-potable uses and will
substantially reduce the region's demand for additional imported water
supplies. The time frame for project implementation extends through the
year 2020. The individual projects which make up the program include:
Simi Valley Wastewater Reclamation Project.--The project will
construct distribution and related facilities to enable the use of
recycled water produced at the Simi Valley Water Quality Control Plant.
Ultimate project yield is 5,000 AF.
Conejo Creek Diversion Project.--This project will construct
distribution and related facilities to enable the reuse of secondary
treated wastewater from the City of Thousand Oaks Hill Canyon
Wastewater Treatment Plant. The secondary effluent is currently
discharged into Conejo Creek, a tributary of Calleguas Creek. The
project will construct a diversion structure on Conejo Creek which will
be used to diver the treated wastewater for deliveries to Pleasant
Valley County Water District and Camrosa Water District. The two
Districts will in turn deliver the reclaimed water to their customers
for use in agricultural and landscape irrigation applications. The two
Districts, which produce a good portion of their supply from the
Pleasant Valley Groundwater Basin, will use the recycled water in-lieu
of pumped groundwater. In exchange, the groundwater will remain in
storage. The ultimate yield of the project is 14,000 AFY.
Camarillo Wastewater Reclamation Project Expansion.--The project
will expand the reuse of recycled water form the Camarillo Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Recycled water will be used for agricultural and turf
irrigation. The ultimate yield of the project is 2,840 AFY.
Oak Park/North Ranch Wastewater Reclamation System Expansion.--The
proposed project will expand an existing recycled water distribution
system to enable the additional use of recycled water produced at the
Tapia Water Reclamation Facility in Los Angels County. The proposed
expansion will construct facilities to expan d service to an additional
200 acres within the North Ranch area of Ventura County and will serve
recycled water to a 27 hold golf course, two public parks, and about 35
landscape irrigation customers. The additional amount of recycled water
which will be used is 750 AFY.
South Las Posas Brackish Groundwater Recovery Project.--This
project will construct wells, treatment and distribution facilities to
enable the recovery and use of groundwater from the south Las Posas
Groundwater Basin. The project will entail the extraction of
groundwater, desalination, and the conveyance of the product water to
the Calleguas MWD potable water distribution system for further deliver
to Calleguas' retail water customers. The ultimate project yield is
5,300 AFY,
West Simi Valley Brackish Groundwater Project.--The project will
construct facilities to enable the recovery of groundwater from the
western portion of the Simi valley Basin. The extracted and
demineralized groundwater will be delivered to Calleguas' potable water
distribution system for delivery to C alleguas' retail water customers.
The project will convert five existing wells, drill and equip three new
wells, construct well collection and transmission pipelines, a reverse
osmosis treatment facility and related transmission distribution
facilities. The ultimate project yield is 3,400 AFY.
Thousand Oaks Brackish Groundwater Recovery Project.--The proposed
project will construct distribution and related facilities to enable
the recovery of groundwater from the Thousand Oaks Groundwater basin.
This groundwater currently cannot be used either for potable or
agricultural applications due to its poor water quality, mostly due to
the high mineral content. The project will entail the extraction of
groundwater, blending the groundwater with imported water which is of
better quality, and the conveyance of the product water to Calleguas'
distribution system for further deliver to their retail water
customers. The ultimate project yield is 900 AFY.
Regional Brine Line Disposal Facility.--The proposed project will
construct facilities to dispose of brine which will be generated
through the demineralization of recycled water and brackish
groundwater. The proposed pipeline will be a regional facility which
will collect the brine from six exi sting major wastewater treatment
plants and two proposed groundwater desalination facilities within the
Calleguas service area. The brine will be conveyed via the regional
brine line for disposal to the Pacific Ocean via an ocean outfall.
B. Operational Aspects
The Calleguas Recycled Water Program is a series of projects
involving wastewater treatment facilities, recycled and potable water
distribution facilities, brackish groundwater treatment facilities and
a regional brine line. All of these agencies are participating in this
regional program: Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 and No. 1,
Southern California Water Company, City of Simi Valley, Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California, Pleasant Valley County Water
District, Camrosa Water District, City of Thousand Oaks, City of
Camarillo, Camarillo Sanitary District, City of Oxnard, Oceanview
Municipal Water District, United Water conservation District, City of
Port Hueneme, Ventura County Public works Agency, Construction
Battalion Center at Port Hueneme, California Water Service Company, Las
Virgenes Municipal Water district, Triunfo County Sanitation District,
City of Moorpark, and California American Water Company.
C. Schedule
The Recycled Water Program is comprised of several projects most of
which will be implemented in phases. It is anticipated that all or most
of the projects will be implemented by the year 2010. Three of the
projects are in the advanced stages of implementation. For these
project, feasibility studies and CEQA compliance documentation have
been completed and can, therefore, be implemented in 2000.
D. Project Costs
The capital costs of the proposed program is estimated at
$161,350,000 million. Table 1 delineates the program cost by project. A
summary of the project cost is as follows:
Simi Valley Wastewater Reclamation Project.............. $18,600,000
Conejo Creek Diversion Project.......................... 23,900,000
Camarillo Wastewater Reclamation Project................ 4,400,000
Oxnard Wastewater Reclamation Project................... 97,700,000
OakPark/North Ranch System Expansion.................... 2,200,000
Moorpark Wastewater Reclamation Project................. 2,400,000
South Las Posas Groundwater Recovery Project............ 9,100,000
West Simi Valley Groundwater Recovery Project........... 6,900,000
Thousand Oaks Groundwater Recovery Project.............. 1,500,000
Regional Brine Line..................................... 24,100,000
E. Sources and Status of Nonfederal Funding
The potential funding sources which have been identified to finance
the implementation of the water recycling program include: $20,000,000
USBR Grant; $20,000,000 Proposition 204 Water Recycling Loan; Recycled
Water Sales--Wholesale; Metropolitan Local Projects Program
($35,000,000); Calleguas rates and charges (e.g., connections fees, new
demand charges); Certificates of Participation or Water Revenue Bonds;
and POTW's contributed funding to avoid nitrification expenses.
water supply
A. Amount of Recycled Water Put to Beneficial Use.
Total ultimate project yield is 54,000 AFY. The recycled water
produced from these projects will either be utilized for; agricultural
purposes, landscape irrigation, groundwater recharge or direct
consumptive use. The irrigation components of the projects increase the
overall water supply to the region. In-lieu groundwater replenishment
components of the projects will serve two purposes. First, the
replenishment of the groundwater basin will aide in the correction of
the existing groundwater overdraft problem. Secondly, the groundwater
placed in storage will be subsequently recovered and used as a potable
supply. The groundwater recovery projects will be put to beneficial use
groundwater that would otherwise be unusable due to poor water quality
and will therefore, increase the availability and reliability of the
region's sources of supply.
B. Describe and Quantify the Demands That Will Be Met With the Recycled
Water.
Calleguas is primarily dependent upon the Metropolitan Water
District for its water supply. In fact, the District's entire drinking
water supply is provided by the California State Water Project.
Since 1964, the Districts population has quadrupled from 138,000 to
520,000 in 1996 (roughly 75 percent of Ventura County's population.
Rapid population and economic growth has placed additional demands on
the District resulting in an increase in annual deliveries from 9,000
AF to in excess of 95,000 AF in the same period. The projected demand
for imported supplies in 202 is 148,000 AFY if no additional recycled
water projects are implemented and 120,000 AFY if a majority of the
proposed projects are implemented. If the proposed projects are fully
implemented then Calleguas MWD does not need any additional imported
supplies from MWD (e.g., Colorado River and SWP). This is very
significant given the issues with the California 4.4 Plan and the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
C. How Would the Project Reduce Demand on Existing Federal Water Supply
Facilities?
Calleguas' only other water supply alternative is the Metropolitan
Water District. Metropolitan has two sources of imported supplies, the
Colorado River and the Sacramento Bay-Delta. In both watersheds the
Federal government through the US Bureau of Reclamation is the primary
stakeholder. To the extent Calleguas can lessen its demand for imported
water from Metropolitan by developing local supplies, Metropolitan will
correspondingly reduce is demand for Federal water through the Colorado
River Aqueduct and the Sacramento Bay-Delta.
D. Regional or Watershed Perspective?
The program provides the following water supply and management
benefits:
--Enhanced Reliability: By enhancing and preserving the local sources
of supply, the program will provide an increased measure of
water supply reliability in the event of curtailment of
imported water deliveries due to drought or earthquake. This
reliability will ensure adequate supplies for thousands of area
families and that the region will continue to meet the water
needs of various industries. Moreover, the program will
guarantee a long-term water supply for agricultural operations
in the region.
--Resource Conservation: Groundwater replenishment of the various
aquifer systems underlying the Calleguas' service area will
alleviate the prevailing overdraft condition and will also aide
in the mitigation and prevention of further seawater intrusion.
--Increased Level Of Independence: Since the early 1960's, much of
urbanized Ventura County has become exceedingly reliant upon
imported water deliveries. The program will assist the region
in maximizing beneficial use of local water resources thereby
decreasing the region's precarious dependence on unpredictable,
imported water deliveries.
--Delta Protection: Development of the program will benefit
biological resources in the Sacramento bay-Delta due to reduced
demands for imported water. To the degree that recycled water
is utilized to supplant imported deliveries, an equivalent
amount of water could remain in the Delta to aid in sustaining
sensitive species and habitat.
TABLE 1.--CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT SUMMARY OF WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM, YIELDS AND CAPITAL COSTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Project Name/Phase Project Code Project Yield Project
(AFY) Capital Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASTEWATER RECLAMATION
Simi Valley Wastewater Reclamation Project:
Phase I..................................................... RW.01.01 250 $1,500,000
Phase II.................................................... RW.01.02 3,250 $15,000,000
Phase III................................................... RW.01.03 1,500 $8,500,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. N/A 5,080 25,000,000
===============================================
Conejo Diversion Project (Hill Canyon Wastewater Reclamation
Project):
Phase I..................................................... RW.02.01 6,000 $16,500,000
Phase II.................................................... RW.02.02 8,000 $9,500,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. N/A 14,000 $26,000,000
===============================================
Camarillo Wastewater Reclamation Project:
Phase I..................................................... RW.03.01 1,710 $1,200,000
Phase II.................................................... RW.03.02 1,130 $3,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. N/A 2,840 $4,200,000
===============================================
Oxnard Wastewater Reclamation Project:
Phase I..................................................... RW.04.01 5,000 $45,000,000
Phase II.................................................... RW.04.02 5,000 $10,000,000
Phase III................................................... RW.04.03 10,000 $5,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. N/A 20,000 $60,000,000
===============================================
Oak Park/North Ranch Wastewater Reclamation System Expansion: RW.05.02 750 $1,750,000
Phase II.......................................................
===============================================
Moorpark Wastewater Reclamation Project:
Phase I..................................................... RW.06.01 757 $3,000,000
Phase II.................................................... RW.06.02 953 $3,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. N/A 1,710 $3,000,000
===============================================
Total Wastewater Reclamation.............................. N/A 44,300 $119,950,000
===============================================
BRACKISH GROUNDWATER RECOVERY PROJECT
South Las Posas Brackish Groundwater Recovery Pro- ject........ GW.01.01 5,258 $11,500,000
West Simi Valley Brackish Groundwater Recovery Pro- ject....... GW.02.01 3,382 $7,100,000
Thousand Oaks Brackish Groundwater Recovery Project............. GW.03.01 900 $300,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total Brackish Groundwater Recovery Projects.............. N/A 9,540 $18,900,000
===============================================
REGIONAL BRINE DISPOSAL
Regional Brine Disposal Pipeline:
Phase I..................................................... BD.01.01 N/A $18,250,000
Phase II.................................................... BD.01.02 N/A $4,250,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total Regional Brine Disposal Pipeline.................... N/A N/A $22,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of Michael D. Armstrong, General Manager, Monterey
County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA)
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony
for inclusion in the hearing record of the fiscal year 2000 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 Subcommittee's 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 five years the Monterey County Water Resources
Agency has worked diligently to present the Subcommittee with an fiscal
year 2000 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 2000 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 $2,600,000.
This is the sixth 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 five years this Subcommittee
provided $9,264,000 for our project. The current appropriation amount
of $2,600,000, when combined with other federal funding which is
available from the U.S. Treasury in the amount of $4,550,000 pursuant
to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, should yield a total loan
amount of $7,150,000 for fiscal year 2000 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 2000, when combined with the
additional Treasury portion, is intended to fulfill the Bureau's sixth
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 1999
funding provided monies for the second 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,
1998, and 1999 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 $36,000,000 of its own funds getting to this
point.
FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS \1\
[Millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received Received Received Received Received Requested
in 1995 in 1996 in 1997 in 1998 in 1999 for 2000 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSIP............................... 1.064 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.6 2.6 11.864
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include Treasury portion of $9.092 for CSIP.
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 (MRWPCA)
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity today to provide this
testimony for inclusion in the hearing record on the fiscal year 2000
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
five years, this subcommittee provided $6,500,000 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 beginning in
April 1998, and since full operation, the plant has produced somewhat
over 5,000 acre-feet (AF) of recycled water.
The project will ultimately provide 19,500 acre-feet of recycled
water per year 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 five-year field study. The results of the follow-up
testing program again verified 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,
$1,700,000, 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 2000. The amount
requested, when combined with the additional Treasury portion, is
intended to fulfill the Bureau's sixth-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, fiscal year 1998,
and fiscal year 1999 through February 4, 1999, as follows:
FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS \1\
[Millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received Received Received Received Received Requested
in 1995 in 1996 in 1997 in 1998 in 1999 for 2000 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVRP............................... ......... 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.7 8.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include Treasury portion of $6,205,000 for SVRP.
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 continue, even at the planned
reduced rate over eight years. 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 $21,200,000 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 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 2000
budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Corps of
Engineers includes $582,000 to complete pre-construction engineering
and design (PED) of a project to increase the water storage capacity 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
$35,000,000.
The President's budget also provides $1,680,000 for ongoing
operation and maintenance of Terminus Dam in fiscal year 2000. 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 $2,500,000
to initiate construction of the Terminus spillway project in fiscal
year 2000 and keep the project on schedule.
The Corps of Engineers has been actively studying and planning this
modest project for more than 10 years. During that time, the Kaweah
Delta Water Conservation District and other local authorities have
invested $1,800,000 of their owns funds in the planning and development
process. The State of California is 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 in the spring of 2000. With an additional
appropriation of $2,500,000, the Corps could begin construction work in
the early summer. A commitment of construction funding for fiscal year
2000 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 and local funds for the acquisition of real estate
and valuable environmental mitigation lands.
The California Water Commission supports a $2,500,000 General
Construction appropriation for the Terminus Project in addition to the
amounts requested in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget for pre-
construction and operation and maintenance. The State of California has
already appropriated funds for the purchase of mitigation lands, and
the state and other non-federal sponsors have budgeted their required
funds for fiscal year 2000.
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 agricultural counties in the nation.
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.
Flooding downstream from the dam occurs when flows from individual
creeks blend together and form a sheet flow through urban and
agricultural areas. Included in the flooded areas are the communities
of Visalia, Farmerville, Tulare, Ivanhoe and Goshen. Since construction
of Terminus Dam, 10 damaging floods have occurred, the most recent in
1997 and 1998.
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 (by the installation of fuse gates) would
increase the reservoir storage capacity by 30 percent, thus providing a
much higher level of flood protection for the region.
California's growing population will place ever-increasing demands
on its water supply and flood control infrastructure. 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 Michael Di Giorgio, Mayor, City of Novato,
California
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Michael Di
Giorgio, and I am the Mayor of the City of Novato, California, located
20 miles north of San Francisco. Thank you for the opportunity to
present testimony regarding the fiscal year 2000 budget for the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
The City of Novato requests $600,000 in fiscal year 2000 for Phase
II of the Novato Urban Flood Control Project, a Section 205 small flood
control project on Rush Creek. Phase II improvements are necessary to
maximize the value of the Phase I work, for which Congress earmarked
$350,000 in fiscal year 1999.
Once completed, the Rush Creek project will resolve chronic
flooding in the downtown area of the City of Novato. Flooding has
occurred on Rush Creek in three of the last four rainy seasons,
damaging residential and commercial property, local infrastructure, and
jeopardizing public safety.
Included in the City's scope of work for Phase II of the Novato
Urban Flood Control project is a new culvert under Olive Avenue, flood
flow pipes from Olive Avenue to Golden Gate Place, and earth channel
dredging from Golden Gate Place to the Caltrans U.S. Highway 101 right-
of-way. The City is prepared to cost share this project consistent with
the authorization.
The City is optimistic that only one additional year of funding
will be necessary, beyond the requested appropriation for fiscal year
2000, to bring Rush Creek flood flows under control. The total cost for
this project is estimated at $2,000,000, including the local share.
background
In the past, the City of Novato has spent over $9,000,000, from
property assessments, to pay for local creek improvements and other
flood control measures. In 1985, a local election approved benefit
assessment funds to finance flood control improvements for the City of
Novato. These funds are completely expended with a portion of the work
left uncompleted. Until the fiscal year 1999 appropriation, no federal
funds had been utilized for those channel improvements in the City.
Currently, the community pays more than $100,000 annually in flood
insurance, and 2,958 parcels are located within the special flood
hazard area, based on the flood insurance rate maps prepared by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Following completion of the
Rush Creek improvements, it is expected that a re-mapping of the FEMA
flood insurance maps would reduce the community outlay for flood
insurance.
______
Prepared Statement of Joe Serna, Jr., Mayor, City of Sacramento,
California
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
2000 funding for flood control protection projects in Sacramento.
First, I would like to express my appreciation to the Subcommittee for
its efforts in past years to fund flood protection measures for the
City. Sacramento, California, continues to face the highest flood risk
in the nation. During the past several years, the Energy and Water
Appropriations Subcommittee has recognized the dire need for flood
protection in and around the Sacramento area and has provided funds for
a variety of previously authorized projects. In order to continue our
efforts, we must once again request your support for funding vital
Sacramento area flood control projects in fiscal year 2000.
This year, the City of Sacramento is seeking $43,100,000 in federal
funding through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to finance
ongoing projects, which are described below and in the enclosed chart.
The projects include the so-called ``common elements'' authorized in
the 1996 Water Resources Development Act as well as other projects
previously authorized.
The Clinton Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget provides
$34,000,000 for these projects, which is $9,100,000 less than the
City's request. The major difference is that the Corps of Engineers did
not include construction money for the South Sacramento Stream Group
Project. If the Congress authorizes a Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) this year, construction money could be used for this important
project in fiscal year 2000. The City urgently needs the Subcommittee's
leadership and support to obtain our full funding request in order to
move forward with these previously authorized projects.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed budget for fiscal year
2000 recently submitted to Congress provides $17,000,000 for
continuation of construction of the Common Elements Project. This level
of funding is necessary to keep the project moving forward and we
support the Administration's request. 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.
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 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
$7,000,000 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, submitted the South
Sacramento Streams Group Chief's Report to Congress for inclusion in
WRDA 1998. We urge the Subcommittee to fund design and construction for
this project in the fiscal year 2000 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. This
year the President has requested $26,900,000 for all Section 205 flood
control projects. We urge the Subcommittee to support Section 205
funding in the fiscal year 2000 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 in the amount of $4,000,000 for reimbursement to SAFCA
for the Federal share of the flood control improvements, as well as
$3,900,000 in construction appropriations to complete the Ueda Parkway
recreation elements of the project.
The President's Budget for fiscal year 2000 provides for $5,000,000
in Preconstruction, Engineering and Design (PED) funds for the American
River Watershed comprehensive plan. The City, SAFCA, and the
Reclamation Board and members of our congressional delegation are
working diligently on congressional authorization of additional
improvements on the American River system as part of the 1999 Water
Resources Development Act. Once authorized, the Corps of Engineers will
need significant funds to proceed with meaningful design in 2000 and
not lose a year in the schedule to implement these improvements.
Therefore, we urge the Subcommittee to support $5,000,000 in PED funds
for the American River Watershed comprehensive plan.
Once again, 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 residents. Adequate flood protection is essential
in this most flood-prone of American cities. We thank you again for the
Subcommittee's commitment in previous years to providing this vital
protection, and we ask for your renewed support in assuring its
continuation.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Project Fiscal year 2000 city/ Fiscal year
1999 enacted SAFCA request admin. request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American River Comprehensive Plan: Funds to continue the 0.05 5.0 5.0
planning and design of Sacramento flood protection projects...
American River Common Elements: 24 miles of levee improvements 15.0 17.0 17.0
along the American River and 12 miles of improvements along
the Sacramento River levees, flood gauges upstream of Folsom
Dam, and improvements to the flood warning system along the
lower American River..........................................
South Sacramento Streams: Prevention of flooding of portions of 0.9 \1\ 4.0 0.5
Sacramento from the south, where four creeks convey foothill
runoff through urbanized areas into Beach Lake and the Delta..
Mapgie Creek: Authorized under the Corps' Section 205 program, 1.65 1.7 \2\ (26.9)
this project will provide a high degree of flood protection on
Magpie Creek..................................................
Sacramento River Bank Protection: Will correct harmful erosion 10.08 7.0 7.0
along the banks of the American River which threatens the
integrity of the existing levees..............................
American River Watershed (Natomas): Reimbursement to SAFCA for 9.0 4.0 4.0
the Federal share of the flood control improvements undertaken
by the local project spon- sor...............................
American River Watershed (Natomas Recreation, Ueda Parkway): A 0.0 3.9 0.0
waterway, bike and pedestrian path that connects all of
Sacramento as the recreation component of the recently-
completed Natomas Flood Control Project (see above)...........
Lower Strong & Chicken Ranch Sloughs (DO5 Pump Station): a N/A 0.5 0.5
feasibility study to restore 100-year level of flood
protection to Chicken Ranch Slough drainage to the American
River.........................................................
------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 36.68 43.1 34.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Construction funds assume passage of WRDA in 1999.
\2\ Total request for the Corps of Engineers Section 205 programs. No specific earmark is available for Magpie
Creek. This funding level is therefore not included in the total.
______
Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
Chairman Domenici and members of the subcommittee. The Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California (MWD) appreciates the opportunity
to submit testimony regarding the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's
(Reclamation) and the Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) fiscal year
(fiscal year) 2000 budget, for the Hearing on Energy and Water
Appropriations. MWD is a public agency created in 1928 to meet the
supplemental water demands of those people living in what is now
portions of a six-county region of Southern California. Today, the
region served by MWD includes 16,000,000 people living on the coastal
plain between Ventura and the international boundary with Mexico. It is
an area larger than the State of Connecticut and, if it were a separate
nation, would rank in the top ten economies of the world.
Included in our region are more than 225 cities and unincorporated
areas in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Ventura. We provide more than half the water consumed
in our 5,200-square-mile service area. MWD's water supplies come from
the Colorado River via the district's Colorado River Aqueduct and from
northern California via the State Water Project's California Aqueduct.
introduction
Our testimony focuses on Reclamation's water resources management
and ecosystem restoration programs that are of major importance to MWD
and other Southern California water supply agencies. Specifically, MWD
strongly recommends your approval of a Reclamation fiscal year 2000
budget that includes full funding for San Francisco Bay-Sacramento/San
Joaquin Delta Estuary restoration activities, as requested in the
President's budget. We also recommend your approval of the full budget
request for Corps participation in these Delta restoration activities.
MWD urges your support for adequate federal funding for Reclamation's
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program that will ensure
protection of water quality for this important source of water supply.
MWD also urges your support for Reclamation's Endangered Species
Conservation/Recovery projects that will provide for conservation of
endangered and threatened species and habitat along the lower Colorado
River, and provide mitigation for impacts associated with Reclamation's
projects. Finally, MWD urges your full support for Reclamation programs
that will help stretch existing water resources, such as water
reclamation and groundwater recovery projects for Southern California
agencies. These programs are essential for regional water supply
reliability.
u.s. bureau of reclamation budget
California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration
In 1996, Congress passed the California Bay-Delta Environmental and
Water Security Act, which authorized $430,000,000 over three years for
ecosystem restoration and water management improvements in the San
Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. The Bay-Delta serves as the hub of
California's water system, fueling the State's $750,000,000,000
economy, supplying more than two-thirds of the State's 33,000,000
residents with a portion of their drinking water and irrigating 45
percent of the nation's produce.
Recognizing the importance of the Bay-Delta to California's
economic and environmental health, the California voters approved a
$1,000,000,000 general obligation bond in November 1996, which contains
$600,000,000 for improvements in the estuary.
In 1999, $75,000,000 was appropriated for environmental restoration
activities in the Bay-Delta. The Administration's fiscal year 2000
budget request of $95,000,000 represents the first year of broad
program implementation for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. This federal
money for the Bay-Delta will fund an array of critical improvements,
including habitat restoration, watershed protection, fishery
enhancement, water supply reliability and water quality improvement.
MWD strongly urges your support for the restoration of one of the
largest estuaries in the nation by ensuring the appropriation of these
critically-needed funds.
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
The Colorado River is a large component of the regional water
supply and its relatively high salinity causes significant economic
impacts on water customers in the MWD'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. Furthermore, high salinity adversely affects
the region's progressive water recycling programs, and is contributing
to an adverse salt buildup through infiltration into Southern
California's irreplaceable groundwater basins. The second phase of the
study is scheduled to be completed in July 1999. Based on a 1988 study,
Reclamation estimated that water users in the Lower Basin were
experiencing in excess of $750,000,000 in annual impacts from salinity
levels in the river in 1995, and that impacts would progressively
increase with continued agricultural and urban development upstream of
California's points of diversion. As part of the Salinity Management
Study, the economic impacts have been refined for MWD's service area
and have been submitted to Reclamation for its use in updating its
Lower Basin estimate. Droughts will cause spikes in salinity levels
that will be highly disruptive to Southern California water management
and commerce. The Salinity Control Program has proven to be a very
cost-effective approach to help to mitigate the impacts of higher
salinity. Continued federal funding of the program is essential.
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
approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with normal water
supply conditions. For the last four years, federal appropriations for
Reclamation have not equaled the Forum-identified funding need for the
portion of the program the Federal Government has the responsibility to
implement. It is essential that implementation of Reclamation's
basinwide salinity control program be accelerated to permit the numeric
criteria to be met again under average annual long-term water supply
conditions, making up the shortfall. To assist in eliminating the
shortfall, the Forum once again recommends that Reclamation utilize
upfront cost sharing from the Basin states to supplement federal
appropriations. This concept has been embraced by Reclamation and is
reflected in the President's proposed budget.
The President's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget contains funding
of $12,000,000 for implementation of the basinwide program. MWD
requests that Congress appropriate $17,500,000 for implementation of
the basinwide program, an increase of $5,500,000 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 Forum supports this
level of funding. MWD as well as the Forum supports the level of
funding proposed by the President for operation and maintenance of the
salinity control units already constructed, and investigations.
Endangered Species Conservation/Recovery
MWD is presently engaged in an innovative partnership with
Reclamation and other Department of the Interior agencies, as well as
other water, power, and wildlife agencies, environmental organizations,
and Indian Tribes in the states of Arizona, California, and Nevada, to
develop a multi-species conservation program for the Lower Colorado
River. The program will address the conservation, enhancement, and
recovery needs of a broad suite of more than 70 listed and sensitive
species and their associated aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitats in
the three states, while providing long-term regulatory certainty for
all parties. An effort of this nature can only succeed through the
development of innovative voluntary public-private partnerships.
MWD encourages your support for Reclamation's participation in the
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program. Reclamation's
participation in this program has been a valuable asset to the
partnership. Funds provided under this project will in part help fund
critically needed interim conservation measures for endangered species
and their habitats, as well as planning under the long-term
conservation program.
The President's budget requests $15,118,000 for fiscal year 2000 to
fund programs under the ``Endangered Species Conservation/Recovery''
activity and $13,540,000 to fund programs under the ``Lower Colorado
River Ops Program'' activity. Included in the former amount are funds
to support preservation, conservation, and recovery of native and
endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species in the Lower
Colorado River region. Included in the latter amount are funds to
implement measures required by the interim biological opinion on
Reclamation's lower Colorado River operations, and develop the multi-
species conservation program. MWD strongly supports funding at the
requested levels.
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation) facilitates
implementation of fish and wildlife mitigation and enhancement programs
associated with Reclamation's projects through cost-sharing
partnerships with local, state, tribal, and/or nongovernmental
organizations. The Foundation is able to leverage federal dollars on at
least a 1:1 matching basis.
The Foundation's support for programs like the Lower Colorado River
Multi-Species Conservation Program is extremely important to the
development of comprehensive solutions to these complex endangered
species issues. An effort of this nature can only succeed through the
development of innovative voluntary public-private partnerships.
The President's budget requests $1,300,000 for fiscal year 2000,
which anticipates a two dollar nonfederal match for each federal
dollar. MWD strongly supports the President's requested level of
funding.
Water Recycling and Groundwater Recovery
Projects funded under Title XVI of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) and the
Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation Act of 1996 (Public Law
104-266) as well as the Bureau's Loan Program will greatly improve
Southern California's water supply reliability and the environment
through effective water recycling and recovery of contaminated
groundwater. Implementation of such projects is difficult without
combined federal, state and regional assistance for planning, design
and construction. MWD expects to contribute about $20,600,000 in fiscal
year 2000 to recycled water and groundwater recovery projects in the
region, and the State is assisting with low-interest loans. Funding in
the fiscal year 2000 budget for previously unfunded projects as well as
the continued support for previously-funded projects is a positive step
toward realizing regional water supply reliability. MWD urges your full
support for the $31,514,000 for Title XVI and $12.425 for the Loan
Program in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget, as well as future
funding for all Southern California projects that might move forward
under the jointly-funded Southern California Comprehensive Water
Reclamation and Reuse Study.
Brackish Water Desalination
Metropolitan requests for federal funding, appropriations for
desalination activities aimed at developing new and innovative
technologies. Technologies to be investigated include innovative
pretreatment options such as nanofiltration, ultra low pressure reverse
osmosis membranes, and carbon aerogel capacitive deionization (CDI).
Brackish water desalination represents a potentially viable alternative
to reduce reliance on imported water supplies and minimize the economic
impact associated with high salinity water. Current salinity removal
technologies are energy-intensive and expensive. Treating Colorado
River water to the secondary total dissolved solids (TDS) standard,
using conventional membrane technology, can cost $300 or more per acre-
foot. These high costs have precluded the widespread implementation of
brackish water desalination technologies, especially for large-scale
applications. Breakthroughs in desalination technology will offer
potential benefits to water utilities with sources impaired by high
salinity levels. It is estimated that $2,000,000 will be required to
continue this research being sponsored by Metropolitan and its member
agencies.
army corps of engineers
The Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) comprehensive civil works
program has the capability to contribute to the social, economic, and
environmental well-being of California. MWD is primarily interested in
the Corps' environmental restoration studies and projects that address
the needs of the Bay-Delta Estuary.
The President's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget includes numerous
programs in the Corps' South Pacific Division, which includes
California. Several ecosystem restoration studies and projects
specifically address significant habitat issues at various locations in
the Bay-Delta watershed. These ecosystem restoration and flood
prevention programs, and the Corps' full participation in CALFED Bay-
Delta efforts, represent an important opportunity in the process of
developing and implementing a solution to the water resources and
environmental problems facing the Bay-Delta Estuary. Corps programs
that will contribute to the long-term Bay-Delta solution include
environmental restoration studies in the Sacramento and San Joaquin
River watersheds, habitat conservation and mitigation elements of flood
damage prevention projects, and ecosystem restoration programs.
MWD urges Congress to fully support these Corps programs as the
fiscal year 2000 federal appropriations process moves forward.
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony. We believe our
comments emphasize the importance of continued funding for Reclamation
and Corps' water resources management and ecosystem restoration
programs that are critical for water supply reliability in Southern
California.
______
Letter From Lawrence M. Libeu, President, Western Coalition of Arid
States
Eastern Municipal Water District,
Perris, CA, March 22, 1999.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, on Energy and Water
Development, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Domenici and Members of the Subcommittee: As the
President of the Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) and as
Chairman of the National Water Resources Association's (NWRA) Water
Resources Management Committee, I am writing to urge your support for
the $12,425,000 contained in the President's fiscal year 2000 Budget
Request for the five projects in the Bureau of Reclamation's Small
Reclamation Loan Program. The funding that would be provided will move
these projects closer to completion in a timely manner so the Federal
Government and the local districts can see a return on the investment
regarding this vital infrastructure program.
I appreciate that under the Balanced Budget Agreement between the
Congress and the President that every program and the dollars for those
programs are looked at with a critical eye in terms of the worthiness
of the investment. This is why I am concerned with the trends that I
have seen regarding the overall Bureau of Reclamation budget. I believe
the Bureau's budget needs to be focused and increased to place a
greater emphasis on completing the authorized project and programs that
are already on the books.
I want to thank your subcommittee for its past support and would
ask that your subcommittee continue to support this valuable program.
Sincerely,
Lawrence M. Libeu,
WESTCAS President.
______
Prepared Statement of Steve Miklos, Mayor, City of Folsom, California
section 503 watershed restoration project
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Steve
Miklos and I am the Mayor of the City of Folsom, California, located
approximately 25 miles east of Sacramento. Thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony regarding the fiscal year 2000 budget
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The City of Folsom is an historic gold rush town, dating back to
the mid-1800s. As such, the storm drainage system in the original
portion of the city is inefficient and unsophisticated at best. The
untreated storm runoff from this area flows directly into Lake Natoma
and the American River. To study and address needed water quality-
related improvements and restoration of the City's urban watershed, the
City of Folsom requests $500,000 in fiscal year 2000 to continue a
Section 503 Watershed Restoration Project.
The Section 503 funding is necessary for technical, planning and
design assistance with the City storm drainage system, which directly
impacts water quality in the American River and the Sacramento River
watershed. The Sacramento River watershed is specifically authorized in
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to receive funding under
this program. Recent hydrology studies suggest that the existing storm
drainage systems in Folsom 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. Analysis of the current drainage
system will help us determine how to minimize these problems.
Historic Folsom drains by a system of roadside ditches, swales,
street culverts, and urban streams that traverse through the area. The
hills are steep, and the ground is a mixture of gravels, soils, and
granite outcroppings. One major urban stream system has become so
interlaced with the above, that it flows under structures, is
intertwined with pipes and culverts and, under flood conditions,
impacts several properties. This creates problems during heavy rains
for numerous residents, businesses, and vehicular traffic, conveying
sediment into the river, flooding roadways and neighborhoods. This
system drains into Lake Natoma through the historic Powerhouse State
Park. Constant erosion has been an ongoing problem in these roadside
ditches and yards. Another section of Historic Folsom drains overland
through our City Corporation Yard, which includes a landfill, and into
Lake Natoma.
In fiscal year 1999, Congress earmarked $100,000 to initiate a
Section 503 Watershed Study on these storm drainage problems. Staff has
met several times with Corps staff to identify the problem and
investigate solutions. The 905b study is underway and is expected to be
completed in the summer of 1999.
The City of Folsom has committed over $2,000,000 in local funds for
watershed study and storm drainage improvements throughout the
community. While this work has greatly improved storm drainage in
certain areas, additional work is still needed to restore the urban
watershed, so that sediment does not continue to impact the system or
Lake Natoma, and provide increased security against water quality
degradation by contamination from urban uses.
The City proposed that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continue
technical, planning and design assistance on a Section 503 Watershed
restoration project for the city's storm drainage system for urban
watershed restoration and water quality-related improvements. The City
is prepared to cost-share work on this project, consistent with the
authorization.
______
Prepared Statement of Mayor George Pettygrove, City of Fairfield,
California
section 205--ledgewood creek project
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for this
opportunity to speak before you today in support of the City of
Fairfield's Ledgewood Creek project. The City of Fairfield appreciates
this committee's continuing support for our flood control efforts over
the years, and we look forward to working with the committee to
continue to improve our flood control infrastructure.
The City requests that this committee provide an earmark of
$400,000 for the continuation of the Section 205 Ledgewood Creek
Project. This project received $300,000 in funding for fiscal year
1999.
When the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studied Ledgewood Creek in
preparation for design of the Fairfield Vicinity Streams Project
improvements, the Corps predicted that Ledgewood Creek could bifurcate
and flood Interstate 80 (I-80). On February 3, 1998, the prediction
came true. Run-off from the Ledgewood Creek drainage basin could not be
contained within the unimproved creek channel and the creek overflowed.
From approximately 7:45 a.m. until 12:45 p.m. (roughly five hours), all
four westbound lanes of I-80 were closed. Within an hour after the
closure, a logjam of cars backed up over 15 miles. Three of the four
eastbound lanes were also closed for a portion of the morning due to
the flooding. In addition to preventing flooding in I-80, the
improvement of Ledgewood Creek from Abernathy Road to the Fairfield
city limits will remove approximately 300 acres of residential,
commercial, and industrial property from the FEMA AO flood zone.
The City of Fairfield appreciates the committee's continuing
assistance on the Ledgewood Creek project. As you know, our city is one
of the fastest growing communities in California. Fairfield's
population continues to grow rapidly, and we continue to attract major
corporate and industrial development. Fairfield faces new and difficult
flood control challenges. Your assistance is greatly appreciated on all
of these projects. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Mayor Steve Miklos, City of Folsom, California
highway 50 pond study and remediation
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for this
opportunity to speak before you today in support of the City of
Folsom's request for a $100,000 earmark for the Bureau of Reclamation
to study and remediate the possibly dangerous situation at the Highway
50 Lake Natoma Pond.
Lake Natoma, created by Nimbus Dam and a part of the American River
Watershed, is located at Folsom, California. The southern shoreline of
the lake crosses beneath Highway 50 and creates a small ``pond'' south
of the highway. This ``pond'' is actually a relatively still backwater
of the lake and apparently suffers from very poor circulation. The
Highway 50 pond is in full view of all traffic on the highway and is an
unsightly introduction to the Folsom community for residents and
visitors. Scum, floating trash and other debris are constantly present
on the surface of the water. Further, the pond's status with respect to
contaminants, disease, and other water quality threats to both Lake
Natoma and the American River are unknown at this time.
This project will provide funding to the Bureau of Reclamation for
purposes of investigating the current status of the pond area, causes
of the apparent contamination of the pond, and identifying and
undertaking remedial work. Without this earmark, it is likely that the
pond will continue in its current state or further deteriorate, with
unknown effects on Lake Natoma and the American River. I should also
point out that the Nimbus Fish Hatchery, the main hatchery on the Lower
American River, is located less than a half mile downstream from this
obviously contaminated pond.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify
regarding the City of Folsom's three important projects before your
committee, and I request that the committee view favorably this very
important project.
______
Prepared Statement of Karan Mackey, Chair, Board of Supervisors, County
of Lake, California
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Karan
Mackey, and I am the Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors in Lake
County, California. I appreciate this opportunity to present to the
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee an urgent request for federal
assistance.
The County of Lake requests $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 to
construct the next phase of the Clear Lake Basin 2000 project, a
Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration project. Clear Lake in Lake
County experiences serious water quality problems as a result of both
sewage and sediment discharge directly into the Lake. Phase II of Basin
2000 will improve the quality of water flowing into Clear Lake, Cache
Creek-the only outlet for Clear Lake-and, ultimately, the Sacramento
River and the delicate Bay-Delta ecosystem.
Lake County has designed and partially implemented the Clear Lake
Basin 2000 Initiative. Basin 2000 is a multi-phased watershed
restoration effort that recycles wastewater effluent to create wildlife
habitat, improve Clear Lake's water quality, and generate geothermal
power. The initiative's first phase became operational in 1997.
Lake County has completed has completed a Section 503 Watershed
study, include all planning and design work for development of a series
wetland sites that will cleanse the water flowing into Clear lake and
completely eliminate the discharge of sewage into the Lake. The
requested $2,000,000 will begin construction of 300 acres of wetlands
out of the 1,000 acres ultimately planned for the project, a wetlands
effluent pipeline, and flow control facility to feed water into the
wetlands.
With the completion of Phase II, the Clear lake basin 2000
Initiative offers the following benefits: restores 20 percent of the
watershed's lost wetlands; eliminates the last potential wastewater
discharge to the Sacramento River, protects local ratepayers from
quadrupling of rates that would be needed without wetlands recycling;
provides multiple environmental and economic benefits from recycling
that would be lost if traditional disposal methods were used instead;
and insures compliance with a state-ordered deadline for a new disposal
method.
Lake County received funding from the Corps in the last two fiscal
years to complete a Section 503 Watershed Study and initiate a Section
206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project to improve the water quality
of Clear Lake. The County contributed significantly to this process,
funding much of the engineering and design work with non-federal
monies. The Corps of Engineers Preliminary Restoration Plan (PRP) for
this restoration project will be completed shortly; the final PRP is
expected to follow approximately two months later. Construction could
proceed in September 1999 and be in ``full swing'' next Spring.
The total cost of Phase II is $36,100,000. Seventy-five percent of
the funding will come from Lake County, State partners and non-
governmental partners. The other 25 percent will come from federal
funds through EPA and the Corps of Engineers. Lake County urgently
needs a federal commitment in fiscal year 2000 of $2,000,000.
Communities in Lake County, represented by Congressman Mike
Thompson, and communities in Yolo County, represented by Congressman
Doug Ose, will directly benefit from federal funding for Phase II of
the Basin 2000 Initiative. Cache Creek is mostly in Yolo County and it
receives the benefits of treated effluent because situated downstream
of the constructed pipeline that was the successful result of Phase I.
I thank the Subcommittee for its attention to this urgent request.
______
Prepared Statement of Tom Hollingsworth, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, California
As your distinguished Subcommittee writes the fiscal year 2000
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 2000 Budget Request
does not contain enough money to perform both pre-construction design
and modeling tasks.
I would like to take this opportunity to request that your
distinguished Subcommittee include $400,000 in the fiscal year 2000
Budget Request for the continuation of the pre-construction engineering
and design. The addition of $200,000 to the proposed budget will allow
the modeling to take place in conjunction with preliminary engineering.
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 Richard Akin, Supervisor, County of Sutter,
California
fiscal year 2000 energy & water appropriations sutter basin study
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for this
opportunity to speak before you today in support of the Sutter Basin
Study. The County of Sutter appreciates this committee's continuing
support for our flood control efforts over the years, and we look
forward to working with the committee to continue to improve our flood
control infrastructure.
The County of Sutter requests a $300,000 earmark in the fiscal year
2000 Energy & Water Appropriations bill to proceed with the Army Corps
of Engineer's General Investigation Reconnaissance Study for the Sutter
Basin in Sutter County, California.
Between the west bank of the Feather River, the Sutter Bypass, and
the east bank of the Sacramento River, Sutter County contains
approximately 220 miles of floodwater retaining levees. The County has
repeatedly sustained damages due to flooding. This area has a long
history of flooding which supports the perception that a serious threat
to lives and property exists. The County's economy is depressed, at
least party due to the reluctance of businesses to locate in an area
they perceive to be prone to flooding.
The US Army Corps of Engineers is currently conducting a General
Investigation Reconnaissance Study for the Sutter Basin in Sutter
County, California, for which Congress provided $100,000 in the fiscal
year 1999 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Sutter County requests
an earmark of $300,000 in the fiscal year 2000 Energy & Water
Appropriations bill to proceed with the Sutter Basin Feasibility Study.
The Study is required to provide an in-depth evaluation of flood
control capability and needs, and to identify projects needed to
achieve a specified level of protection.
Mr. Chairman, the County of Sutter appreciates the committee's
continuing assistance related to flood control in our region. Thank you
for the opportunity to appear before your committee.
______
NATIONWIDE WATER RESOURCE ORGANIZATIONS
Prepared Statement of the National Waterways Alliance
As members of the National Waterways Alliance, we appreciate the
opportunity to submit this statement in support of adequate funding for
the Army Corps of Engineers' civil works program. The Alliance is a
coalition of waterway-related associations, industries, and
organizations in the agricultural, aluminum, building materials,
chemical, coal, fertilizer, iron and steel, paper and wood products,
petroleum, and other sectors shipping or receiving products by water
transportation. It also includes both shallow- and deep-draft ports,
river valley associations, shippers, flood control interests, water
recreation and coastal entities, electric utilities, agricultural and
electric power cooperatives, maritime labor, dredging operators,
shipyards and repair facilities and other waterways services, all
serving many millions of producers, customers, and consumers across the
country.
As a coalition of waterways interests, we are well aware of the
Subcommittee's strong commitment to meeting the Nation's water
resources needs, as evidenced by the level of funding provided for
civil works programs in the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act. Your commitment to a program of
adequate investment in the waterways infrastructure is deeply
appreciated, and we urge you to continue to invest the necessary funds
to sustain waterways programs in a realistic, responsible manner.
We are concerned, however, with the lack of necessary support for
civil works evidenced in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget
request. The great stride forward taken by your Subcommittee last year
in providing a more reasonable funding level would be erased should the
fiscal year 2000 budget request be adopted. The proposed level of
funding of $3.9 billion assumes collection of some $950 million from
the still-to-be-submitted Harbor Services Fund proposal. This is a
budgetary gimmick relying upon a legislative measure yet to be
revealed--a dangerous assumption that poses a substantial threat to
fulfillment of civil works missions.
an imbalanced fiscal year 2000 budget request
Most of the increase in the fiscal year 2000 budget request is
earmarked for deep-draft port maintenance and construction, which is
dependent upon revenue to be transferred from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund, contingent upon enactment of the proposed Harbor Services
Fee. Other civil works missions, principally inland navigation and
flood control, are funded at roughly two-thirds of what is needed for
efficient program operation.
The level of funding requested for civil works activities would
endanger our ability to continue an effective waterborne transportation
system. The construction program, for instance, is funded at $1.239
billion, which is some $200 million below fiscal year 1999
appropriations. This downward trend in spending would stretch out
construction schedules, adding to project costs and delaying the
realization of project benefits, and also increase the already
substantial backlog of necessary rehabilitation. Lack of a modern,
first-class navigation system already places agricultural producers,
miners, and forestry workers, among others, at risk of losing global
markets. Although budgeted at a higher level, the operations and
maintenance program is still underfunded, with a backlog of at least
$1.5 billion in deferred maintenance. Also, many worthy flood control
projects would see reductions in funding or simply cease to be funded,
a dangerous gamble with billions of dollars of potential damages.
Of additional concern is the general investigations category, the
vehicle through which new projects are considered and studied. The
President's budget request reduces this category by $20 million from
last year's appropriated level and only recommends one new
reconnaissance study. In testimony before the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Administration witnesses
stated that the Army Corps of Engineers had recommended 90 new starts
in the general investigations category! Without this critical step,
many meritorious new projects may never be considered.
realistic civil works funding
Waterways-related industries strongly support a more realistic
funding level of $4.7 billion for civil works activities in fiscal year
2000. This level would continue the progress made by this Subcommittee
in its fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 appropriations and allow
the Army Corps of Engineers to honor its commitments to local
communities, ports and harbors, inland navigation and other water
resources interests. Most of these demands are imposed by legislation
and by cost-sharing commitments with non-Federal sponsors. Further, a
$4.7 billion program can be fully justified as a prudent investment in
helping the Corps of Engineers to maintain navigation, prevent floods,
ensure dependable water supplies, facilitate water recreation, promote
environmental restoration and meet other program needs.
Adequate investment in civil works programs positively impacts the
country's economic development and global competitiveness. The U.S.
waterways system includes 1,500 miles of deep-draft channels with 300
ports capable of handling ocean-going vessels along the Atlantic, Gulf,
and Pacific Coasts as well as the Great Lakes. In addition, the inland
waterways consist of 12,000 miles of mainstem navigable waterways. This
vast network of shallow-and deep-draft navigation channels provides a
reliable and efficient water transportation system that, in 1997,
carried 2.3 billion tons of domestic and foreign commerce including 60
percent of U.S. grain exports, 23 percent of chemical movements, and 20
percent of coal shipments. These and other commodities that move on the
waterways are the building blocks of our economy. Water transportation
supports the economies of many regions of the country and keeps U.S.
products competitive in international markets.
Also, in the last half-century, Corps of Engineers' flood control
projects have prevented nearly $500 billion in river and coastal
damages. In 1997 alone, these projects saved an estimated $45.2 billion
in flood damages. The investment made by Congress in these programs has
been critical in protecting life and property. The civil works program
also funds over 4,000 water recreation sites as well as coastal
protection programs, bank stabilization, hydropower, and municipal and
industrial water supply.
We respectfully urge you, therefore, to consider the diverse public
benefits of civil works programs and the tremendous return on Federal
investments that they provide. We request that you allocate sufficient
funds to meet civil works needs as we prepare to enter the next
millennium. In the case of waterways programs, adequate investment now
will be a much lower price to pay than dealing with the consequences
later of delaying needed maintenance and modernization.
We thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit this
statement, which we hope you will consider in marking up your fiscal
year 2000 bill.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation
The American Farm Bureau Federation appreciates the opportunity to
submit this statement in support of adequate funding for the Army Corps
of Engineers civil works program. The American Farm Bureau Federation
is the nation's largest general interest organization for farmers and
ranchers. American Farm Bureau represents 4.9 million Farm Bureau
families in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Farm Bureau's members grow
all commercially produced agricultural commodities cultivated in the
United States.
Farm Bureau compliments the Subcommittee on its strong commitment
to meeting the nation's water resources needs, as evidenced by the
level of funding provided for civil works programs in the Fiscal Year
1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. Farm Bureau and
its members appreciate the Subcommittee's commitment to a program of
adequate investment in the waterway infrastructure. We urge you to
continue to invest the necessary funds to sustain waterways programs in
a reasonable manner.
Farm Bureau is concerned by the lack of commitment to civil works
demonstrated in the administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request.
The Subcommittee's effort to provide adequate funding for civil works
last year would be lost should the fiscal year 2000 budget request be
adopted. The proposed level of funding of $3.9 billion assumes
collection of some $950 million from the as yet undefined Harbor
Services Fund proposal. Relying upon this $950 million assumption is
dangerous and poses a substantial threat to fulfillment of civil works
programs.
Most of the increase in the fiscal year 2000 budget request is
earmarked for deep-draft port maintenance and construction, which is
dependent upon revenue to be transferred from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund which itself is contingent upon enactment of the proposed
Harbor Services Fund. Other civil works missions, principally inland
navigation and flood control, are funded at roughly two-thirds of what
is needed for efficient program operation.
One of the most important things Congress can do to help farmers is
to provide a low-cost, efficient transportation infrastructure. An
important part of that infrastructure was initially created decades ago
with the inland waterways transportation system, featuring a series of
locks and dams on the Mississippi between Minneapolis-St. Paul and St.
Louis.
The inland waterway system is absolutely critical to American
agriculture. About \1/3\ of American agricultural production is
exported; about 60 percent of those exports move down the Mississippi
River system to our ports on the Gulf of Mexico. As these barges return
upriver, they often bring agricultural inputs like fertilizers into the
interior regions of the Midwest. This barge traffic has been estimated
by Price Waterhouse to support between 300,000 and 450,000 jobs in the
ten-state region of the Mississippi River Valley. These jobs generate
about $4 billion in income.
For farmers in midwestern states, the ability to use the river to
transport what they produce is critically important. Farmers in
Minnesota shipped an average of 195 million bushels of corn, 64 million
bushels of soybeans, and 26 million bushels of wheat on the Minnesota
and Mississippi Rivers every year during the 1990's. This is equivalent
to \1/4\ of the total corn crop grown in Minnesota, and these corn
shipments were worth over $470 million in 1997. In other Midwestern
states, river transportation is as important as it is to Minnesota, or
more so. Missouri farmers shipped an average of 52 million bushels of
corn, 30 million bushels of soybeans, and 42 million bushels of wheat
annually in the 1990's. Iowa farmers shipped an average of 203 million
bushels of corn annually, and 66 million bushels of soybeans annually
on the Mississippi River system in the 1990's. Illinois farmers shipped
a whopping 591 million bushels of corn (about \1/3\ of the state's
total corn crop), 170 million bushels of soybeans, and 26 million
bushels of wheat on the Mississippi and Illinois rivers annually in the
1990's. Clearly, the Mississippi, Missouri, Minnesota, and Illinois
Rivers are key transportation arteries that carry the massive
agricultural production of the Midwestern states to their export
markets.
Unfortunately, as the system ages, it is increasingly taxed and is
less able to meet the demands placed on it. Many of these facilities
are 60 years old and are inadequate to meet modern navigation needs.
Many of these locks are only 600 feet long, when the average tow in use
today is 1,100 feet long, inclusive of barges and towboat. You can
imagine the back-ups that often occur during peak shipping seasons as
each tow must stop, be broken into two parts, pushed separately through
the lock, and reassembled on the other side. This is a process that
takes about ninety minutes for each tow; this creates delays that cost
the entire economy money and reduces the per-bushel price farmers earn
for their produce. This congestion is costing our economy millions of
dollars annually in lost time and productively that a comparatively
small federal investment in improved infrastructure could recover.
River congestion on the Mississippi equals lost income to farmers
who can't afford to forgo any income with commodity prices so low.
Inefficient water transportation will result in further lost export
market share for U.S.-grown grains and less income for farmers.
Preliminary results from a Texas A&M study indicates that producers
could lose between $100 million and $150 million a year if bottlenecks
on the Mississippi continue to reduce the efficiency of our inland
waterway system.
At Farm Bureau, we believe that farmers are the first
environmentalists because we depend on the land to earn a living. There
will also be environmental benefits to improving the navigation
infrastructure on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Moving bulk
freight is the most efficient and safest means available. The movement
of 100 million tons of bulk commodities on the Mississippi River system
(an average year's bulk freight on the rivers now) keeps 1 million rail
cars or 4 million trucks available for other movements of grains or
other commodities and keeps these rail cars and trucks off the roads
and away from road crossings in rural communities, according to the
Iowa Department of Transportation. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency laboratory tells us that towboats emit 35-60 percent fewer
pollutants than railroad locomotives or trucks. According to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, a gallon of fuel in a towboat can carry a
ton of freight 2.5 times farther than rail and 9 times farther than a
truck. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recently suggested that
anywhere from $100 million to $300 million is saved annually in air
clean-up costs due to usage of the river system that might otherwise
have to be spent if river freight had to move on other modes.
Farm Bureau policy #117 (Waterways), as approved by the AFBF's
voting delegate body at the Farm Bureau convention in January 1999
says, in part:
Public policy should encourage expansion of inland water
transportation since it represents the most efficient mode--We
encourage a Midwestern, multi-state effort to review results of
existing river and related studies and identify impacts of
associated state and federal regulation. Based on that review,
we will propose a multiple-use strategy for the Upper
Mississippi River and its tributaries that serves agriculture,
industry, transportation, and the environment--We support the
Corps' (of Engineers) efforts in updating locks and dams and
cleaning of channels in the Mississippi River system to
accommodate new, larger barges.
Farm Bureau requests that Congress increase the appropriation for
the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2000 for improvements for
the Mississippi River system. This appropriations increase should
include $9 million in additional funds to conduct pre-engineering and
design studies for lock chamber extensions and guide wall extensions
for Locks 25, 24, 22, and 21 on the Mississippi and the LaGrange and
Peoria locks on the Illinois River; $5 million to meet dredging
shortfalls on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Waterways, and $17
million in funding for major maintenance on the Mississippi River
system.
The level of funding requested for civil works activities would
endanger our ability to continue an effective waterborne transportation
system. The President's request would fund construction program is
funded at $1.239 billion, $200 million less than the fiscal year 1999
appropriations. This downward trend in spending would stretch out
construction schedules, adding to project costs and delaying the
realization of project benefits, and also increase the already
substantial backlog of necessary rehabilitation. Lack of a modern,
first-class navigation system already places agricultural producers,
miners, and forestry workers, among others, at risk of losing global
markets. Also, many worthy flood control projects would see reductions
in funding or simply cease to be funded, a dangerous gamble with
billions of dollars of potential damages.
The waterways industry strongly supports a more realistic funding
level of $4.7 billion for civil works activities in fiscal year 2000.
This level would continue the progress made by this Subcommittee in its
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 appropriations and allows the
Army Corps of Engineers to honor its commitments to local communities,
ports and harbors, navigation and other water resources interests. Most
of these demands are imposed by legislation and by cost-sharing
commitments with non-Federal sponsors. Further, a $4.7 billion program
can be fully justified as a prudent investment in helping the Corps of
Engineers to maintain navigation, prevent floods, ensure dependable
water supplies, facilitate water recreation, promote environmental
restoration and meet other program needs.
Adequate investment in civil works programs positively impacts the
country's economic development and global competitiveness. The U.S.
inland waterways system includes 1,500 miles of deep-draft channels
with 300 ports capable of handling ocean-going vessels along the
Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Coasts as well as the Great Lakes. In
addition, the inland waterway system consists of 12,000 miles of
mainstem navigable waterways. This vast system provides a reliable and
efficient water transportation system that, in 1997, carried 2.3
billion tons of domestic and foreign commerce including 60 percent of
U.S. grain exports, 23 percent of chemical movements, and 20 percent of
coal shipments. These and other commodities that move on the waterways
are the building blocks of our economy. Water transportation keeps U.S.
products competitive in international markets and supports the
economies of many regions of the country.
We respectfully urge you, therefore, to consider the many public
benefits of civil works programs and the tremendous return on federal
investments that they provide. We request that you allocate sufficient
funds to meet civil works needs as we prepare to enter the next
millennium. In the case of waterways programs, adequate investment now
will be a much lower price to pay than dealing with the consequences
later of delaying needed maintenance and modernization.
______
Prepared Statement of W. Ron Allen, President, National Congress of
American Indians
introduction
Chairman Domenici, Vice-Chairman Reid and distinguished members of
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. Thank
you for the opportunity to present this statement regarding the
President's Budget Request for fiscal year 2000 Indian programs and
services specifically in the Department of Energy. My name is W. Ron
Allen. I am President of the National Congress of American Indians
(NCAI) and Chairman of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe located in
Washington State.
NCAI views the fiscal year 2000 federal budget process as an
opportunity to begin to set a better course for federal Indian
policymaking in the next century. Tribal governments have found
themselves in an increasingly defensive posture in the development of
federal Indian policy over the last four years, and budget cuts and
budget riders have been the point of attack on tribal self-
determination.
Tribal leaders have set as an important goal that the tribal budget
must become a higher priority within the appropriations process. The
federal government has treaty and trust obligations to support Indian
tribes that it is simply not meeting. Also, tribal citizens pay federal
taxes but receive little support from federal funds that go to states.
Programs serving the American Indian and Alaska Native population have
rarely received the federal funding required to fulfill even the most
basic needs and funding for Indian programs has lagged far behind the
funding of non-Indian programs. Compared to all other sectors of the
American populace, American Indians and Alaska Natives most often rank
at or near the bottom or top of most social and economic indicators,
whichever is worse. Of the 558 federally-recognized Indian tribes, a
great majority of their populations are characterized by the most
severe unemployment, poverty rates, ill-health, poor nutrition and sub-
standard housing in the U.S. In an era of federal budget surpluses,
there are no excuses for failing to meet the federal obligation to
remedy the human tragedy behind the statistics.
The solution for the poor conditions in Indian Country must be a
reinvigorated approach to economic development. The federal budget for
fiscal year 2000 can do much to build the necessary infrastructure of
roads, schools, housing, child and elder care, hospitals, clinics,
technology, law enforcement, courts and other critical elements of any
functioning economy in the United States. The United States has an
obligation to help rebuild the shattered infrastructures of Indian
Nations and create the opportunity for economic prosperity that will
benefit not only Indian people, but the entire American economy. It
should also be noted that the conversion of welfare entitlement funds
into state discretionary funding has added to the urgency felt
throughout Indian Country to boost economic development.
Also, the use of appropriations riders to ambush tribal self-
government has become more and more frequent. Tribal self-government is
recognized in the United States Constitution and hundreds of treaties,
federal statutes and Supreme Court cases and is deserving of serious
consideration by the Congress. At the very least, if the federal
government is going to contemplate legislation affecting tribal self-
government, the legislation should be considered in the authorizing
Committees, given opportunity for consultation with the affected
tribes, and taken up as stand-alone legislation where Members of
Congress can know and understand what they are voting on. We have been
made aware of the introduction of Senate Resolution 8 by Senators Ted
Stevens and Robert Byrd. S. Res. 8 would amend the Senate rules to
reinstate a former rule which prohibited legislative riders on
appropriations bills and which would require a three-fifths vote to
waive a point of order under the rule. NCAI would surge the members of
this Sub-committee to support S. Res. 8.
As Congress begins to shape the fiscal year 2000 budget, the NCAI
urges an increased investment in Indian programs and tribal government
infrastructure. We believe that the President's fiscal year 2000 budget
request has taken a very positive step in that direction. The following
testimony is an overview of the recently released President's fiscal
year 2000 budget request that provides NCAI's viewpoint on sections of
the budget that are most critical to tribal governments.
background information
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin my testimony by providing a
general context regarding federal funding for Indian programs.
Unfortunately it has been a rare occasion indeed, if ever, that
programs serving the American Indian and Alaska Native population have
received the federal funding required to fulfill even the most basic
needs of tribal members. Of the 558 federally-recognized Indian tribes,
a great majority of our populations are characterized by severe
unemployment, high poverty rates, ill-health, poor nutrition and sub-
standard housing. Historically, funding for Indian programs has lagged
far behind the funding of many non-Indian programs and this gap only
continues to grow.
Compared to all other sectors of the American populace, American
Indians and Alaska Natives most often rank at or near the bottom or top
of most social and economic indicators, whichever is worse. When
comparing trends between fiscal year 1975-1999 for the total BIA budget
and the federal non-defense budget as a whole, federal spending as a
whole increased at a rate of $41 billion a year, with an average level
of $669.8 billion, while when corrected for inflation, the BIA budget
actually declined by $10 million a year, on an average spending level
of $1.7 billion. Throughout the entire fiscal year 1975-fiscal year
1999 period, per capita spending on the U.S. population as a whole
consistently increased, whereas per capita spending on Indians through
major Indian-related programs began to fall after fiscal year 1979.
Furthermore, in fiscal year 1996, federal funding for Indian
programs fell short 13 percent or $581 million from the President's
budget request for that fiscal year. This was mostly seen in dramatic
cuts in funding for the BIA ($322 million less), Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) New Indian Housing ($134 million less), and
the Indian Health Service (IHS) ($80 million less). In fiscal year
1997, funding for these programs fell short 4.1 percent or $175 million
below the President's request. And in fiscal year 1998, there was a 1.2
percent or $52 million shortfall from what the President requested. In
fiscal year 1999, this unfortunate trend continued with a $100 million
shortfall.\1\ Mr. Chairman, in a year when the U.S. economy is booming
and the federal government is expecting over seventy billion dollars in
surplus funds, the federal government should not be cutting funds to
American Indians, this nation's poorest people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See generally ``Indian-Related Federal Spending Trends. FY
1975-1999'', Congressional Research Service (CRS), February 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you are well aware, in recent years tribes have faced
extraordinary challenges throughout the appropriations process.
Unprecedented reductions in federal Indian program funding left many
tribes facing extreme circumstances. Non-funding ``riders'' attached to
Interior Appropriations bills reached well past the scope of the
appropriations process and were interpreted by Indian Country as an
attempt to diminish tribal sovereignty and change the basic fabric of
the federal-tribal relationship. While we appreciate the commitment to
balance the federal budget and reform the welfare system, we maintain
that such laudable initiatives do not and should not preclude the
federal government from fulfilling its trust responsibilities to Indian
tribes throughout this great nation. In short Mr. Chairman,
extraordinary budget reductions in federal Indian programs have created
a state of emergency for many tribal governments. NCAI is encouraged,
however, with the Administration's fiscal year 2000 commitment to begin
addressing some areas of priority concern to Indian Country.
As Congress begins the appropriations process for fiscal year 2000,
NCAI aggressively seeks support from this Subcommittee in reversing the
decline in funding for federal Indian programs that we have experienced
since fiscal year 1996. In general, we believe that the President's
fiscal year 2000 budget request has taken a very positive step in this
direction. We are concerned, however, that even the Administration's
request for certain essential tribal programs and services remain
seriously inadequate. Accordingly, tribal budgets are insufficient to
meet the most basic needs of tribal populations.
The following testimony is an overview of the recently released
President's fiscal year 2000 budget request that provides NCAI's
viewpoint on sections of the budget under the Department of Agriculture
that are most critical to tribal governments. As more specific
information is released from the Administration regarding the details
of the budget request, NCAI will provide further information regarding
the priorities of the tribal government members of NCAI.
department of energy
The Department of Energy (DOE) manages programs to mitigate and
remediate Indian lands including ceded and former Indian lands
contaminated by the Cold War legacy. Inadequate funding is detrimental
to programs that institute: 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, the siting of permanent repositories for spent nuclear waste on
former traditional lands (under an arbitrary policy which inequitably
supports non-Indian state and county governments for oversight
activities, but does not involve tribes in geographical proximity and
indigenous to the area).
The Nevada Test Site is within the traditional homelands of the
Shoshone and Paiute peoples whose culture, environment, and health has
been already impacted by federal government-sponsored atomic testing
and other activities. The DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management (OCRWM) has performed 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 16-year
compilation of the Yucca Mountain study, the Yucca Mountain Viability
Assessment, was released in December 1998. However, the Indian nations
indigenous to the area do not have the technical staff to analyze the
massive data.
Last year's DOE-OCRWM budget did not provide funding for oversight
activities for the tribes indigenous to this area. However, $16 million
was given to 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) for oversight activities
at Yucca Mountain. This year, $10.2 million has been requested for non-
Indian governments. NCAI asks that this committee end the disparate
treatment of tribal governments by earmarking $5 million for tribal
involvement in the Yucca Mountain area. By funding the impacted tribes,
Congress will transform the DOE-OCRWM'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, as amended. 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.
The current NCAI Nuclear Waste Program year is the second under a
renewed five-year cooperative agreement period. The Program budget is
at its lowest funding level since its inception in 1982, and DOE-OCRWM
did not request funding to continue this highly successful program and
important link to Indian Country. In order to sustain a viable program
to provide tribal leaders with relevant and current information and
assist in the interactive DOE process, the NCAI requests the Congress
to direct the DOE-OCRWM to provide annual funding to the NCAI
cooperative agreement in the amount of $300,000 as part of its trust
responsibility toward keeping tribes informed on programmatic impacts
and maintaining open dialogue with impacted tribal communities.
The NCAI is making an effort to inform tribes located near nuclear
utilities that the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
budget contains $10 million 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 budget reflects a 44 percent increase in 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 DOE Office of Environmental Management Office of Public
Accountability (EM-22), ten tribes have cooperative agreements to
participate in site cleanup and waste management oversight activities.
The DOE-EM program fiscal year 2000 budget request does not provide an
increase for critical tribal program continuity. Adequate tribal
program funding always has been a problem, despite the fact 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 impacts on tribal budgets,
however their budget does not reflect this assertion. We request the
Congress provide increased tribal funding for a total of $6 million for
the cooperative agreements so as not to undermine tribal cleanup
programs, and to provide funding for Indian outreach by organizations
including NCAI.
Funding for the Waste Isolation Pilot Project comes primarily
through DOE-EM. We are aware that DOE-EM has lowered funding allocation
for emergency preparedness, public information, and accident prevention
activities in the fiscal year 2000 budget. The tribes on the WIPP
transportation corridor in the designated corridors do not have
adequate emergency response capability in the event of a radiological
transportation accident. Emergency response organizations require
several years to develop. In the interest of protecting tribal
communities, NCAI requests that the DOE-EM's WIPP emergency
preparedness funding be increased to $1 million.
NCAI also supports funding for the following tribal programs: (1)
Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy--provides grants and technical
assistance to tribes for weatherization, wind energy systems,
hydropower, photovoltaic, and renewable energy technologies, $5
million; (2) Fossil Energy--supports oil exploration and drilling
research which is beneficial to tribes, $540,000; (3) Defense
Programs--educational and scientific outreach by national laboratories,
$750,000; (4) Economic Impact & Diversity--support for small business
and educational grants $200,000; and, (5) Bonneville Power
Administration--cultural resources for Pacific Northwest Tribes, $5
million.
Non-Indian organizations are being provided funding to conduct
forums and policy analysis about tribal government participation and
impacts. Tribal businesses and Indian organizations are capable of
doing this work, probably at a more reasonable cost. We reject the
notion that outside consulting and convener groups like Aspen and
Keystone are receiving funding to delve into American Indian and Alaska
Native issues while they remain largely ignorant of tribal sovereignty
and cultural matters. We believe such funding should be made available
to tribes and Indian organizations, such as NCAI. A tribal organization
will also protect tribal integrity, maintain confidentiality, and
prevent breaches of protocol. NCAI respectfully requests this committee
recommend to the DOE the need change this outdated and unproductive
practice of non-Indian intrusion.
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. Tribes throughout the nation
relinquished their lands as well as their rights to liberty and
property in exchange for this trust responsibility. The President's
fiscal year 2000 budget request acknowledges the fiduciary duty owed to
tribes. We ask that Congress maintain the federal trust responsibility
to Indian Country and continue to aid tribes on our journey toward
self-sufficiency. 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 2000 Budget.
______
Prepared Statement of R. Max Peterson, Executive Vice President,
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
u.s. army corps of engineers
The fiscal year 2000 budget proposal for Civil Works Appropriations
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is $4.2 billion, of which $3.9
billion is requested in appropriated funds and $0.3 billion would be
financed through non-Federal funds and trust fund receipts. The budget
proposal reflects continued commitment to proper management of our
natural resources, through dedication of $687 million to environmental
programs (a $56 million increase over fiscal year 1999) and through
$258 million in contributions to intergovernmental environmental
programs. The Association appreciates the fact that many of our
recommendations from recent fiscal years have been maintained by the
Corps in their succeeding year's budget request.
We continue to encourage 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 urge the Corps
to continue to take steps to expedite the approval process for those
projects.
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. We are
especially interested in the new ``Challenge 21 Initiative'' which will
result in development of partnerships to restore riverine ecosystems to
address flood prevention through non-structural alternatives.
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, $100
million for Columbia River Fish Mitigation in Washington. 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 urges the Corps to
work with those States interested in transferring mitigation properties
in fee simple for management by the state. Such transfers should result
in an overall savings to the Corps.
The Association is also generally supportive of the funding
requested for some of the large river restoration projects. The
Association supports the fiscal year 2000 request of $39.8 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 committing 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.
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 and wetlands identification.
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 Clean Water Initiative. 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.
tennessee valley authority (tva)
The Association supports the President's budget request for TVA to
receive $7 million in appropriations to fund operations of Land Between
the Lakes (LBL) National Recreation Area. The LBL requested
appropriation is the same level of funding enacted for the area in
fiscal year 1999. Four million dollars in proceeds are expected from
user fees and other sources for a total operating budget of
approximately $11.0 million. LBL's operation is vitally important to
boating, fishing, hunting, camping, wildlife observation and other
conservation-oriented activities in the southeastern U.S.
Other funding for traditional TVA stewardship programs will be
attained through monies obtained by restructuring of TVA's debt. These
programs will be paid for with power revenues using the flexibility
provided by refinancing of the debt. No other appropriations are
proposed for TVA.
TVA's new approach to funding of other stewardship programs places
these programs in a precarious position for future years. The
Association strongly urges TVA to continue to fund these vital programs
using power system revenues. TVA has previously utilized appropriated
dollars to improve the quality of life in the Tennessee Valley. TVA is
requested to keep the Association and member organizations apprised of
significant changes in the delivery of these traditional services.
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 also supports TVA's efforts to implement new comprehensive
shoreline management policies and urges TVA to work closely with member
states within the Tennessee Valley. Water level management and aquatic
vegetation management programs remain important issues to the member
states and we urge TVA to continue to work closely with States on these
issues.
The Association is concerned about the status of the navigation
lock at Chickamauga Dam. TVA is requested to work closely with the U.S.
Corps of Engineers to determine best construction options and
strategies for obtaining federal funding. The Association urges
Congress to appropriate funding to address this critical problem.
The Association recommends that TVA continue to actively support
and participate in the States' Clean Streams 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.
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.
federal energy regulatory commission (ferc)
The Association recommends Congress appropriate $7.5 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.
bureau of reclamation (bor)
Over its 97-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 refreshing new goals that better balance 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 $95
million to continue this work, which has never been funded at the full
authorization level of $143 million per year. This authorization
expires in 2000, and the Association supports legislation extending the
authorization to 2003 to allow for funding the entire $403 million
authorized program. 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 Bay/Delta system provides
habitat for 120 fish and wildlife species. The Association fully
supports BOR's request for $95 million for this work for fiscal year
2000, and would encourage Congressional extension of the authorization
until 2003.
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 $47.3
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 $47.3 million, and to make the CV Project Restoration fund a
Permanent appropriation.
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 2000, 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 2000, 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 and strongly
supports the request of $13.1 million for Pacific salmon recovery.
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 $31.5 million for these purposes.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials
The Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) strongly
supports full funding, as authorized in the National Dam Safety Program
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-303), for the National Inventory of Non-
Federal Dams in fiscal year 2000. Full funding is $500,000. This
critical database of state- and federally-regulated dams, administered
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has provided vital information on
dams in the country. The timely information provided by the National
Inventory of Dams is essential in our ongoing efforts to mitigate dam
failures.
ASDSO is a national organization of more than 1,600 state, federal,
and local dam safety officials and private sector individuals dedicated
to improving dam safety through research, education, and communication.
ASDSO is based in Lexington, Kentucky.
The National Inventory of Dams is one part of a continuing effort
by federal and state dam safety officials to identify and mitigate the
risk associated with dams and to preserve the nation's investment in
its water control infrastructure. It is an essential tracking tool,
which has revealed pertinent statistics on a national level while, at
the same time, providing critical data needs to state dam safety
regulators. The funding provides for updating, transmittal, compilation
and distribution of information to the national database. The funding
also gives the Corps the ability to continually upgrade the system to
maintain its technological validity.
the database
This computer database houses vital information on federally and
state-regulated dams across the nation. The database tracks information
about the dam's location, size, use, type, proximity to populations,
hazard classification, regulatory facts, and other technical data. It
can be used by the dam safety community to access comprehensive
statistical information and to integrate effects of dams within
Geographic Information Systems (GIS), the state-of-the-art technology
in tracking lifeline systems and responding to emergency events.
The database can be used by policy makers as a tool when dam safety
issues are under consideration. For instance, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency uses the data to determine State Dam Safety
Assistance Grants awarded annually under the National Dam Safety
Program. It is essential that the National Inventory data is current to
make equitable and accurate decisions about these grant determinations.
Another example: data indicates that a majority of non-federal dams do
not have emergency action plans in place something important to policy
officials not only as it concerns dam safety, but also as it affects
emergency preparedness. The inventory is a critical database for
emergency managers during severe weather, earthquakes or other natural
events that threaten dams.
To date, detailed data on approximately 75,000 dams is housed in
the inventory. Of this number, about 9,500 dams are termed high-hazard,
meaning they threaten human life and could cause significant downstream
damage should they fail. Reports generated from the Inventory have
highlighted the fact that about 1,800 of these high-hazard structures
are within one mile of a downstream city a statistic not known before
the database was in place.
The National Inventory has determined that dams are built primarily
for recreation, flood control, irrigation, water supply, fire and farm
ponds, mine tailings impoundment, and hydroelectric power generation.
States regulate about 71,000 of these structures; the federal
government owns or regulates the remaining 4,000.
need for continued funding
An inventorying system, such as this one, was determined by dam
safety administrators and federal legislators in the 1980's to be one
of the primary objectives in a national program to improve dam safety
in this nation. A priority which was paramount on the minds of the
public after several devastating failures had occurred:
--The Buffalo Creek Dam failure of 1972 killed 125 in West Virginia.
--The Teton Dam failure in 1976 caused the deaths of 14 and $400
million in property damage.
--The Laurel Run Dam failure in 1977 killed 40 in Pennsylvania.
--The Kelly Barnes Dam in Taccoa Falls, Georgia killed 39 and caused
$2.5 million in damages in 1977.
As a result of these disasters and the clear recognition of the
tremendous potential for more failures, Congress passed the National
Dam Safety Program Act of 1986 and re-authorized and updated this law
with the National Dam Safety Program Act of 1996. Through these laws,
Congress and has been very clear, in recent years, that it recognizes
the need to mitigate disasters from dam failure. This recognition of
the need for a national dam safety program, accompanied by funding,
must continue to advance the programs now in place to reduce risks from
dam failure.
Although we have not seen a dam failure to match the ones mentioned
above, failures and devastation continue to occur and still threaten
this nation as dams continue to age and deteriorate and as downstream
populations grow. In the past year alone, approximately 88 documented
failures have occurred across the nation. A woman was killed in New
Hampshire two years ago as a direct result of dam failure. Dam and
downstream repair costs resulting from failures in 23 states reporting
in a recent year totalled $54.3 million. Failures can affect large
populations, may flood into neighboring states and may cost millions of
dollars in federal disaster relief spending.
Most failures occur at dams that are determined to be deficient or
unsafe. There are over 1,800 unsafe non-federal dams in the United
States including: 3 unsafe dams in New Mexico; 8 unsafe dams in Nevada;
49 unsafe dams in West Virginia; 41 unsafe dams in Utah; and 13 unsafe
dams in Washington.
The priority on rehabilitating our aging and deteriorating national
infrastructure must include dams. Dams provide people with tremendous
everyday benefits such as drinking water, electricity, protection from
floods, wetlands areas, recreation and irrigation.
To measure our progress toward assuring the safety of all dams, a
centralized, accurate database of information on dams is essential. The
National Inventory of Dams can supply this necessary statistical data.
But, this type of data is only as good as its last update. The database
must be continuously updated and the system upgraded as the vital
information on dams changes.
conclusion
In summary, the data in the National Inventory of Dams is important
to federal and state dam regulators to have access to accurate, current
information on dams that impact the safety of communities, other dams,
flood prone areas and future projects. In addition, the data is
essential to managers of the National Dam Safety Program at FEMA, who
requires the data to make accurate and equitable determinations of
annual state dam safety assistance grant awards. Emergency managers
need the data in disaster mitigation and response, as do policy makers
who constantly need to know the ``state of America's dams.'' Continual
updating of this data is imperative to the value of the National
Inventory of Dams.
ASDSO strongly urges this Subcommittee to continue funding in the
amount of $500,000 in fiscal year 2000 to the Corps of Engineers for
the National Inventory of Dams.
______
Prepared of Lisa S. Holland, Chair, Association of State Floodplain
Managers, Inc.
The Association of State Floodplain Managers appreciates the
opportunity to express support for fully funding several programs of
the Army Corps of Engineers which can significantly expand the Corps'
ability to reduce losses due to flooding. We have found that Planning
Assistance to States (Section 22) and Flood Plain Management Services
provide for important elements of effective floodplain management.
Challenge 21, the proposed Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood
Hazard Mitigation Initiative, offers new opportunities for use of non-
structural options to achieve flood loss reduction. These are all
elements of the Corps' activities that are especially helpful to
communities and states around the country in reducing flood losses.
The Association of State Floodplain Managers is an association of
over 3,500 state and local officials and other professionals engaged in
floodplain management, flood hazard mitigation, flood preparedness,
warning and recovery and in working with the National Flood Insurance
Program. Our members have expertise in the fields of engineering,
planning, community development, hydrologic forecasting, emergency
response, and water resources.
The three programs we are discussing, PAS, FPMS and Challenge 21,
are all programs which directly support the two major themes identified
by Assistant Secretary Westphal in his testimony before the
Subcommittee as important to the way the Corps should formulate and
implement Civil Works policy. He said it should be based on building
strong partnerships with states and local communities as well as other
federal agencies. Additionally, he stated that Civil Works policy
should help economic growth and prosperity by ``combining sound
infrastructure management and development with environmental protection
and ecosystem restoration''. We full support these strategies for the
Corps.
Under General Investigations, ``Coordination Studies With Other
Agencies'' includes $6.5 million for Planning Assistance to States in
the budget request for fiscal year 2000. As you know, the fiscal year
1999 budget provided $6.3 million for this program. This amount, which
was 1 million over the budget request, was provided by the Congress to
help to reduce the work backlog and meet the growing need of localities
and local and regional governmental entitles for technical assistance
from the Corps. The Senate provided $7.5 million in recognition of the
backlog and the $6.3 was agreed to in Conference. The situation has, of
course, been helped by the Congressional effort this fiscal year, but a
significant backlog remains. Further, increasing federal efforts to
encourage cooperation and capability building among federal agencies
and state and local governments have produced more demand for the
Corps' guidance and assistance. We hope that the Committee will approve
funding at least at the budget request and, hopefully, above the budget
request.
Also under General Investigations, Flood Plain Management Services,
$9 million is requested for fiscal year 2000. This is the funding level
for fiscal year ``99, although last year's budget request sought $9.4
million. The Floodplain Management Services Program funds specific
technical assistance requests from states, local governments and
tribes. Generally, these address needs for identification of flood
hazards in communities under growth pressure, assessing and taking
steps to assure the safety of dams and providing the technical
information to identify appropriate flood mitigation options,
floodproofing, flood warning and hurricane evacuation studies. Without
the technical assistance the Corps provides, structures may be built at
risk, exposing citizens and the nation's taxpayers to future costs.
Clearly, projects funded under FPMS work tangibly to reduce flood
losses and costs to the federal government and support the partnership
and economic growth/infrastructure management strategies above.
The Corps is requesting $25 million for its Challenge 21
initiative. While authorization is not yet in place for this promising
program, the Senate version of this year's Water Resources Development
Act does including authorizing language. Challenge 21 would provide the
Corps with a full-range toolbox to help communities and states. It
offers essential flexibility such as the ability to accommodate smaller
projects for communities where a traditional structural project might
not be justified or the ability to mix structural and non-structural
elements to better design an overall project. The continuing
authorities nature of the proposed program is important because
confidence in a sustained federal commitment is important to
communities for development and implementation of these smaller
projects. It is probable that hundreds of communities in the nation
have the potential to benefit substantially from this innovative
initiative. We hope that the Committee will provide the nation's
communities with the valuable tools of Challenge 21.
It is a pleasure to share our views on the effectiveness and
usefulness of these programs in the achievement of flood loss
reduction. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony. We are
always ready to respond to your questions. Please contact ASFPM
Executive Director, Larry Larson, at (608) 274-0123 if further
information is needed.
______
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS
Letter From Philip Beachem, Chairman, New Jersey Maritime Advisory
Council
March 26, 1999.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: New Jersey relies heavily on waterfront and
coastal commerce to maintain its healthy economy. New Jersey's deep
draft commercial waterways handle in excess of a quarter billion tons
of cargo a year, producing more than $1 billion in customs revenue for
the Federal Government. In addition to our ports, New Jersey's $50
billion maritime industry includes more than $1 billion in commercial
and recreational fishing activities on our inland waterways and rivers.
The continued partnership between the Corps of Engineers and the State
of New Jersey is crucial to our local, regional, and national economy.
Shore protection and flood control projects are equally important
to the economy of our State and the health and safety of our citizens.
These projects protect vital infrastructure and reduce storm damage to
personal and public property.
In addition to this testimony on behalf of the sixty-two corporate,
government, and academic members of the New Jersey Maritime Advisory
Council, we have also provided technical data for the benefit of the
members of your Subcommittee.
We respectfully request your favorable consideration. New Jersey is
prepared to move resolutely ahead in partnership with the Federal
Government.
Respectfully submitted,
Philip Beachem,
Chairman.
SUMMARY OF THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK NEW JERSEY FEDERAL CIVIL WORKS
APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Sponsor
Budget Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION
Kill van Kull--Newark Bay Channels, NY & $60,000,000 $60,000,000
NJ.....................................
NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill, NY & NJ.. .............. 2,000,000
NY & NJ Channels: Port Jersey, NJ....... 2,000,000 2,000,000
NY Harbor Collection & Removal of Drift, .............. 1,000,000
NY & NJ................................
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 62,000,000 65,000,000
===============================
STUDIES
Arthur Kill Channel Extension........... 100,000 100,000
NY Harbor & Red Hook Flats Anchorages... 300,000 300,000
NY & NJ Harbor Navigation Study......... 884,000 884,000
NY & NJ Harbor Navigation Study--PED.... 2,534,000 2,534,000
NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill, NY & NJ.. 1,312,000 1,312,000
NY & NJ Estuary Restoration Study....... .............. 100,000
NY Harbor & Adjacent Channels: Claremont .............. 1,500,000
Channel, NJ............................
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 5,130,000 6,730,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF NEW JERSEY FEDERAL CIVIL WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR
2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Sponsor
Budget Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOOD CONTROL
Green Brook............................. $1,000,000 $1,000,000
MillBrook............................... .............. 2,200,000
Molly Anns Brook........................ .............. 1,000,000
Passaic River Flood Storage............. 1,800,000 1,800,000
Passaic River Minish Park............... .............. 8,000,000
Poplar Brook............................ .............. 250,000
Ramapo River-Oakland.................... 1,300,000 1,300,000
Raritan River-South River............... 569,000 569,000
Upper Passaic-Long Hill................. 200,000 200,000
Upper Rockaway River.................... 200,000 200,000
Woodbridge & Railway River.............. 100,000 100,000
Shrewsbury River........................ .............. 100,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 5,169,000 16,719,000
===============================
SHORE PROTECTION
Barnegat Bay............................ 400,000 400,000
Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet...... .............. 700,000
Brigantine Inlet-Great Egg Inlet-Absecon .............. 14,300,000
Brigantine Inlet-Great Egg Inlet- .............. 337,500
Brigantine.............................
Cape May Inlet to Lower Township........ 1,700,000 2,000,000
Delaware Coastline-New Jersey & Delaware .............. 850,000
Great Egg Inlet and Peck Beach.......... 419,000 419,000
Great Egg Inlet to Townsend Inlet....... .............. 226,000
Lower Cape May Meadows-Cape May Point... .............. 523,000
Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet....... .............. 300,000
Raritan Bay & Sandy Hook Bay-Cliffwood.. .............. 275,000
Raritan Bay & Sandy Hook Bay-Highlands.. .............. 200,000
Raritan Bay & Sandy Hook Bay-Keyport.... .............. 200,000
Raritan Bay & Sandy Hook Bay-Leonardo... 225,000 225,000
Raritan Bay & Sandy Hook Bay-Port .............. 400,000
Monmouth...............................
Raritan Bay & Sandy Hook Bay-Union Beach 320,000 320,000
Raritan Bay & Sandy Hook Bay-Section 934 .............. 200,000
Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet............ 9,000,000 18,000,000
Townsend Inlet to Cape May Inlet........ .............. 1,250,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 12,064,000 41,125,500
===============================
DREDGING
New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway 519,000 519,000
Environmental Restoration..............
New York Collection & Removal of Drift.. .............. 5,500,000
Dredging in Support of OpSail 2000...... .............. 1,000,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 519, 000 7,019,000
===============================
PLANNING ASSISTANCE
Section 22, Public Law 93-251........... .............. 300,000
===============================
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
Barnegat Inlet.......................... 1,270,000 1,580,000
Cold SpringInlet........................ 545,000 545,000
NJ Intracoastal Waterway................ 1,854,000 1,854,000
Salem River............................. .............. 1,200,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 3,669,000 5,179,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FEDERAL CIVIL WORKS
APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Sponsor
Budget Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT
Delaware River, Philadelphia to the Sea $3,660,000 $4,160,000
Construction & Maintenance of Disposal
Areas..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sharpe James, Mayor, City of Newark, New
Jersey
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, land use 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 in the summer of 1999 two months utilizing last year's
appropriation of $3,000,000, which also brought the project to final
design. Prior appropriated funds have been utilized to fully design the
bulkhead, a segment of naturalized streambank, and a system of walkways
and public open spaces. Adjacent, currently dormant, sites will become
desirable locations for development of commercial properties. However,
the fiscal year 1999 funding will only take us through the construction
of five hundred feet of bulkhead and some of the mud flats restoration,
not to a usable facility.
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 and enhancement.
A light rail system, the 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. Conversely, the riverfront will become a
destination served by that system, providing an important open space
and waterfront opportunity for residents of one of the most densely
populated cities in the nation.
The environmental benefits of the project include flood control,
riverbank and wetlands restoration, creation of urban green space, and
enhancement of water quality in the Passaic River. These improvements
will allow the Passaic River to be converted from one of the nation's
most troubled waterways to a cultural and recreational asset. Ongoing
and planned greenway projects will provide pedestrian and bicycle
access to the waterfront from Newark's residential neighborhoods as
well as the City's five major institutions of higher learning.
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, also accessible from
the riverfront walkway when it is fully built, the City of Newark and
Essex County are constructing a minor league baseball facility along
Route 21, which will be open for use this July. On the eastern portion
of Minish Park, residents of a crowded community, Newark's Ironbound,
will have direct access to the river and its streambank for active and
passive recreation for the first time. The development of the Passaic
Riverfront is also a driving consideration in the planned construction
of a major downtown sports and entertainment venue to house major
events and competitions.
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.
The City of Newark currently is conducting a master plan study for
the entire riverfront area, which will guide us in tying together these
incredibly exciting, and challenging, projects. We have a once in a
lifetime opportunity to coordinate several major development activities
into a virtually seamless development plan. The appropriation of $15
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.
______
Prepared Statement of Kevin S. Corbett, Executive Director, Port
Authority Affairs State of New York, Empire State Development
Corporation; Frank M. McDonough, Executive Director, New Jersey
Maritime Resources State of New Jersey, Commerce & Economic Growth
Commission; and Lillian C. Borrone, Director, Port Commerce Department
the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
On behalf of the Port of New York and New Jersey, we wish to thank
you for the support you have shown for the navigation and water
resources programs in recent years.
Herein, we offer our comments on the US Army Corps of Engineers'
fiscal year 2000 budget request. We fully support the proposed funding
for the construction of the Kill van Kull-Newark Bay Channels to 45
feet. However, we believe that funding is also required for the
deepening of the Arthur Kill Channel to 41 feet. In order for the
benefits of these and other projects to be realized as soon as
possible, and to avoid unnecessary project cost increases, we request
that the subcommittee appropriate funds at the levels described in this
statement. These funds will ensure that essential navigation
infrastructure will be in place to accommodate post-Panamax ships
currently deployed in international commerce. Using a conservative
estimate for future cargo volumes, we believe that our Port will grow
in excess of three percent per year--which equates to cargo volumes
doubling by 2015. Accommodating the deep draft vessels that will move
this cargo is critical to not only the Port's vitality but also to the
nation's commercial competitiveness. The Administration's proposal,
enhanced by our requests for additional funds, will keep this critical
work on track to the benefit of the regional and national businesses
that utilize the East Coast's largest international gateway.
Listed below are the projects and appropriation amounts that we
request for the Port of New York and New Jersey. Those projects
displayed in bold are our additional requests.
Port Request
Construction:
Kill van Kull--Newark Bay Channels, NY & NJ......... $60,000,000
NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill, NY & NJ.............. 2,000,000
NY & NJ Channels: Port Jersey, NJ................... 2,000,000
NY Harbor Collection & Removal of Drift, NY & NJ.... 1,000,000
Studies:
Arthur Kill Channel Extension....................... 100,000
NY Harbor & Red Hook Anchorage...................... 300,000
NY & NJ Harbor Navigation Study..................... 884,000
NY & NJ Harbor Navigation Study--PED................ 2,534,000
NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill, NY & NJ.............. 1,312,000
Flushing Bay and Creek, NY.......................... 600,000
NY & NJ Estuary Restoration Study................... 100,000
NY Harbor & Adjacent Channels: Claremont Channel, NJ 1,500,000
A brief description of each of these activities follows.
construction
Kill van Kull--Newark Bay Channels, NY & NJ (Phase II).--The Kill
van Kull-Newark Bay Channels project--deepening to 45 feet--was
authorized for construction in the fiscal year 1985 Supplemental
Appropriations Act (Public Law 99-88) as well as the 1986 Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA). The channel serves the busiest and
largest container facilities on the Atlantic seaboard. The terminal
operators and ocean carriers that call on the Port Newark and Elizabeth
Marine Terminals, as well as the harbor pilots, have insisted that
rapid completion of the 45 foot deepening project is essential if the
port is to efficiently serve major carriers that call in the port. It
is imperative to the continued navigational safety and economic
vitality of the port region, and its ability to accommodate projected
commerce, that the construction to 45 feet below MLW be completed as
soon as possible. With the funding provided for fiscal year 1999 and
the proposed funding for fiscal year 2000, the project has been given a
good start.
The Corps' current schedule forecasts that the project will be
finished no earlier than 2005. The Port Authority, as local project
sponsor, is prepared to provide the non-Federal cost-share, estimated
at $256 million. The Port Authority is working in cooperation with the
Corps to accomplish the project several years sooner than originally
planned and bring the project in under its authorization level by
providing an optimum dredged material disposal solution. We appreciate
the Administration's second year budget for fiscal year 2000 of
$60,000,000.
NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill Channel, NY & NJ.--The Arthur Kill
Channel, NY & NJ, Howland Hook Marine Terminal (HHMT) project was
authorized in the 1986, 1992 and 1996 WRDA's. The project's controlling
depth is currently 35 feet. The proposed channel improvements include:
(1) deepening the existing 35-foot channel to 41 feet below MLW from
its confluence with the Kill van Kull Channel to the HHMT; (2)
deepening to 40 feet below MLW from the HHMT to the Petroport and Tosco
facilities in New Jersey; and (3) selected widening and realignment of
the channel to ensure safe navigation. The Port Authority has invested
$35 million to date to modernize the HHMT and has spent, along with the
City of New York, approximately $18 million for the berth dredging
required to return this terminal into active service. The HHMT
currently employs 275 people on peak days and is expected to increase
to a range of 650 to 800 employees by the year 2000. In addition, HHMT
is the Northeast Strategic Port of Embarkation in the event of a
national emergency. Finally, the City, the State of New Jersey and the
Port Authority are working to augment operations by re-establishing
rail service to the terminal in late 1999.
In addition to the benefits that will accrue to the HHMT and the
petroleum facilities along the Arthur Kill, implementation of this
deepening project is vital to the Port's future capacity to grow. The
HHMT is the largest marine terminal in New York City and has
significant potential for expansion. The deeper channel will not only
improve container movement but also will enhance petroleum vessel
transit in the harbor's waterways, minimizing lightering and reducing
the chances of oil spills or accidental pollution of the harbor due to
groundings. We, therefore, respectfully request that the fiscal year
2000 appropriations include $2,000,000 to initiate channel improvements
in the Arthur Kill Channel. We would prefer a greater amount to shorten
the construction time frame for the 41-foot project but recognize the
budgetary constraints you currently face.
New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels: Port Jersey, NJ.--The 1986
WRDA authorized construction of the Port Jersey Channel to 41 feet. The
Port Jersey Channel, located in Bayonne, NJ, presently serves
approximately one half dozen shipping lines calling at Global Marine
Terminal. In addition, the channel provides access for the U.S.
Military Ocean Terminal (MOTBY) as well as the Port Authority Auto
Marine Terminal. MOTBY (which will remain in service under Army control
until mid-1999 and then be turned over to the City of Bayonne except
for a portion used by the U.S. Coast Guard) has been approved by the
Local Re-use Authority (LRA) for a number of maritime and commercial
re-uses, including a 125 acre plus container terminal. As the only
privately owned terminal in the port, Global pays approximately
$10,000,000 in Federal, state, and local taxes annually. More than 300
vessels, carrying approximately 280,000 twenty-foot equivalent units,
call annually upon the terminal. Well over 600 terminal employees, with
an annual payroll of $25 million, and 3,000 indirect jobs depend on
this facility for their livelihood. Recognizing the demand of ocean
carriers and responding to a critical need to provide deeper water on
an emergency basis, the State of New Jersey in 1997 constructed a 38-
foot channel leading to Global at a cost of $10,000,000. The Federal
cost-share for construction of this channel would have been $6,500,000,
using the standard 65/35-project cost share formula. We support the
Administration's request of $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 to initiate
construction plans and specifications, and to implement the deepening
and disposal required to improve the Port Jersey Channel.
New York Harbor Collection & Removal of Drift, NY & NJ.--The Harbor
Collection & Removal of Drift Project removes sunken hulls and
dangerous, decaying shoreline structures, which are sources of drift,
jeopardize the smooth and safe flow of maritime traffic, and foul the
region's beaches. The Corps has estimated that nearly 18,000
commercial, public and recreation vessels collide annually with harbor
drift, causing damage to propellers, shafts and hulls. The annual
associated repair costs and other economic losses average greater than
$53,000,000. Ample opportunities exist for advancing this project,
particularly within the Arthur Kill (NY/NJ), Shooters Island, NY & NJ,
and Kill van Kull (NY) reaches. This project was authorized under the
1988 WRDA with an annual authorization of $6,000,000. Although the
project's benefits are primarily navigational and safety related, the
Shooter's Island NY & NJ reach has significant environmental benefits
for migratory birds as a rookery. We are, therefore, respectfully
requesting a total of $1,000,000 in the fiscal year 2000 budget to
complete design and initiate the Shooter's Island Reach.
studies
NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill, Extension to Perth Amboy.--The Port
is the busiest petroleum-handling harbor in the nation. An average of
30 billion gallons of product is transported annually. Much of this
activity and chemical shipping activity is centered along the Arthur
Kill. In order to adequately assess the navigation needs of the
petroleum industry located on the lower Arthur Kill, an assessment is
needed to evaluate channel improvements south along the Arthur Kill
Channel below the current 41-foot project to Howland Hook Marine
Terminal and Petroport facilities previously discussed. The State of
New Jersey has indicated that it would support the study and provide
the non-Federal cost share. We support the Administration's request for
$100,000 in the fiscal year 2000 budget to complete the study.
New York Harbor & Red Hook Anchorages, NY.--The Red Hook Anchorage
is part of the New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels project. The
anchorage was designed and constructed by the Corps in the early 1960's
for ocean going cargo ships and tankers averaging 525 feet in overall
length and with 30-foot drafts. Today, the dimensions of the anchorage
are inadequate to accommodate modern, ocean-going vessels that are
1,000 feet long with drafts of 40 feet or greater. Therefore, to ensure
safe navigation and maintain the Port's capability to accommodate
current and future vessel needs, we support the Administration's
request for $300,000 in fiscal year 2000 to initiate a feasibility
study for the deepening of Red Hook Anchorage. The Corps has the
authority to undertake this study under a congressional resolution
adopted by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on
December 5, 1980. The States of New York and New Jersey support this
project; and they have agreed to fund the non-Federal cost equally.
NY & NJ Harbor Navigation Study.--In the reconnaissance study,
authorized by the 1996 WRDA, the Corps determined that evaluation of
the channel deepening needs of the NY & NJ Harbor to 50 feet below MLW,
or greater, is in the national interest. The States of New York and New
Jersey and the Port Authority are the local sponsors. As part of the
ongoing $18 million feasibility study, scheduled for completion in
December 1999, the Corps will make recommendations for future
navigation infrastructure improvements for the Port, in the context of
a National Economic Development Plan. These recommendations will
facilitate the Port's ability to continue to serve the nation's marine
transportation needs based upon anticipated trade growth demands on
shipping. The ocean carrier industry has made it clear that their
future container vessels will require navigation channels dredged to
depths that exceed the depths found currently in the Port. To complete
the Feasibility Study, we support the Administration's request to fund
the remaining Federal share of $884,000. Upon completion of the
feasibility work, the Corps is prepared to enter the pre-construction
engineering and design (PED) stage of the project. We support the
Administration's request for $2,534,000 to initiate these activities.
NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill Channel, NY & NJ.--As we noted
earlier, the controlling depth for the Arthur Kill is 35 feet. Even as
construction hopefully will commence in fiscal year 2000 for the 41-
foot project, planning for an ultimate depth of 45 feet should
continue. The 1996 WRDA authorized the project depth to as much as 45
feet. Although new congressional authorization is needed to increase
the Section 902 funding cap, a preconstruction, engineering and design
effort will be needed for construction of the 45-foot channel. The
Corps has estimated the cost of this study to be $3 million, with the
local share provided by the State of New Jersey and Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey. The Port supports the Administration's request
for $1,312,000 in fiscal year 2000.
Flushing Bay and Creek, NY.--The purpose of this study is to
determine the feasibility of providing environmental restoration to the
Flushing Bay and Creek project vicinity. The New York City Department
of Environmental Protection provided a letter of support for this study
in 1996. Funds will be used to continue the feasibility phase of the
study that will be shared on a 50-50 percent basis by Federal and non-
Federal interests. We support the budget request of $600,000.
NY & NJ Estuary Restoration Project.--As part of the Harbor
Navigation Study, investigations on upland improvements including
terminal expansion are being conducted by The Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey in cooperation with the States of New York and New
Jersey and the Corps of Engineers. These activities have culminated in
the development of a business investment plan for future port
development and improvement. Proposed harbor improvements may include
activities beyond construction of navigation infrastructure. For
example, the implementation of a restoration and remediation plan for
the New York/New Jersey Estuary is also a significant part of any
future strategy for the harbor. To assess Federal participation in such
a program, it is important for the Corps of Engineers to prepare a
reconnaissance study to make a determination as to Federal interest in
such an effort. To that end, we respectfully request that funds in the
amount of $100,000 be appropriated for the Corps of Engineers to
conduct the necessary assessment.
New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels: Claremont Channel, NJ.--
Located on the Hudson River in the State of New Jersey, Claremont
Channel currently has an average depth of 27 feet below MLW. Section
202(b) of the 1986 WRDA authorized federalization of the channel to 41
feet. The State of New Jersey, the Port Authority, and the region's
pilots have identified optimal designs for the channel, with depths
ranging from 34 to 38 feet. This deepening project will support current
shipping activities in the channel. Two scrap metal exporting companies
and a crushed stone aggregate terminal are the major users of the
Claremont Channel. Scrap metal exports have averaged over 1.5 million
long tons per year and are our region's number one export. Meanwhile,
crushed stone transshipments approach 4 million tons annually.
Combined, these three firms employ 300 persons directly and provide
nearly 3,000 indirect jobs through suppliers as well as support to
longshore services. New Jersey will invest $21,000,000 in construction
activities in 1999. We respectfully request that $1,500,000 be
appropriated for fiscal year 2000 to complete the study of this
currently inadequate channel.
conclusion
For the first time in a while, the budget request comes close to
resembling the annual funding levels approved by Congress for deep
draft navigation projects. The fiscal year 2000 budget for ports is of
marked contrast to those of recent years, especially last year when the
harbor construction budget totaled $40 million. The difference is
partly explained by the Administration's proposal that Congress enact a
new user fee scheme to replace the constitutionally crippled Harbor
Maintenance Tax. Judging by the controversy surrounding the proposal
and the difficulty Congress had in enacting the HMT in 1986, there is
pessimism as to how quickly Congress will be able to come to a decision
on a new fee. There is sufficient funding available in the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund to support channel maintenance for the next few
years. We ask that even as the authorizing committees consider this new
fee proposal, your committee again provide sufficient appropriations to
meet the needs for the deep draft navigation program. We believe that
the budget levels proposed by the Administration for the Kill van Kull-
Newark Bay and Port Jersey channels are sufficient to meet the demands
of current navigation requirements. However, we believe that the Arthur
Kill Channel to Howland Hook project should be constructed starting no
later than fiscal year 2000. The Howland Hook Marine Terminal is
growing rapidly and is key to our Port accommodating projected trade
growth in the near term; hence, we urgently request that it be
considered a priority under new starts for construction funding. (We
also respectfully request that funds be appropriated to complete a
feasibility study to deepen the Claremont Channel.) Lastly, we
appreciate the Energy & Water Development Subcommittee's diligence in
providing for the nation's water resource needs. Thank you, and we hope
that you will have the opportunity to visit our Port in the very near
future.
______
Prepared Statement of Vernon A. Noble, Chairman, Green Brook Flood
Control Commission
summary
The Commission requests that the Congress appropriate $1,000,000
for the Project in fiscal year 2000, to continue construction of the
Project in 2000.
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 2000 for $1,000,000 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 28 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 1998, the Congress, with the agreement of the President,
appropriated $9,900,000 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 1996 dollars, would be $582,700,000.
New Jersey has programed budget money for its share of the project
for fiscal year 2000.
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 2000.
We urgently request an appropriation for the project in fiscal year
2000 of $1,000,000, as proposed by the Administration.
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, in 1998 an independent Task Force, consisting of
representatives appointed by the affected municipalities and counties,
examined alternative possibilities for providing flood protection for
the upper portion of the basin.
In late 1998, after regular meetings throughout the year, the Task
Force reached a unanimous conclusion. They recommended that the Corps
of Engineers study a specific new possible site for a detention basin.
They also recommended that the Corps of Engineers review another site
which had been considered some years ago. Both of these sites are in
the Watchung Mountains, where flood water must be detained to provide
protection for the densely populated areas at the foot of the
mountains.
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.
______
SOUTHEASTERN U.S. WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of Sheldon L. Morgan, President, Warrior-Tombigbee
Waterway Association
historical
The Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association represents a broad
cross-section of shippers, carriers, and the general business community
in the Warrior-Tombigbee basin in Alabama, and users in nine southern
states. The Association began in 1949 to work for the redevelopment of
the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway System. Construction of its original 17
locks and dams began in the late 1870's, and completed in 1915. The
navigation system provided by these locks and dams had gradually
deteriorated and, following World War II, the annual tonnage had
leveled off at 2.5 million tons, due to the condition and limited
capacity of the obsolete locks. The Association began in 1950 to work
with Alabama's Congressional Delegation and the Army Corps of Engineers
to plan for modernization. Five new locks were built between 1954 and
1975. The last remaining old structure (Oliver Lock and Dam) was
replaced in 1992--the first under the Water Resource Development Act of
1986. The Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway now has modern and standard sized
locks throughout its length. These six new locks replaced the seventeen
old, turn-of-the-century locks, and today, this system represents a
most noteworthy example of the positive impact of the Federal water
resource development program. The most persuasive evidence of the
validity of this project and the wisdom of those who made it possible
comes from the record compiled during and following the investment in
its redevelopment. During the economic studies which justified these
investments, it was projected that by 1980, the Waterway would carry
some eight million tons annually, producing a positive benefit to cost
ratio. These levels were reached in 1966 and, by 1980, twice the
projected tonnage was being moved. Traffic has since reached 25 million
tons annually, a level three times that which had been projected.
Clearly this has been a valid investment in infrastructure.
Subsequently, due in large part to the federal investment in this
waterway, several billion dollars have been invested by industry,
agriculture and other non-Federal agencies, providing thousands of
jobs. For example, the Alabama State Docks, as a result of a $300 +
million expansion program, now offers the most advanced export coal
handling technology available in this country, along with similar
improvements for handling grain, bulk materials, steel and forest
products. It is interesting to note that the investment by this one
local agency exceeds the total Federal investment in building all the
locks and dams on the entire waterway, including the new Oliver Lock.
The Alabama State Docks is once again embarking upon a multi-million
dollar improvement and expansion program.
developments by users
This Waterway must continue to be efficient and reliable if its
users are to remain competitive in world markets. Shipments of ore,
steel, and related products have increased because of the new and
modern U.S. Steel facilities in Birmingham, and a new British Steel
mill at Tuscaloosa and Mobile. The efficiency and modernization of the
waterway have been important factors in U.S. Steel's continuing
investments to modernize its Fairfield mill. Fairfield is now again one
of the bright stars in the USX crown. Recent investments substantially
exceed $1 billion. The new British Steel mill surpassed $100 million in
initial investment, and an additional $154 million is now underway.
This mill utilizes the river southbound for export, as well as
northbound for raw materials and domestic sales of finished product.
Hence there is a favorable impact on the balance of payments which will
be further enhanced by the current expansion. British Steel has
recently completed a $100 million Direct Reduction Iron Plant at Mobile
to ship production on the Black Warrior-Tombigbee to Tuscaloosa Steel.
Major facilities for mining interests, forest products and marine
equipment account for well over another $1.5 billion in recent
investment. Coal comes out of Kentucky to electric generating plants on
the BWT. There are new facilities at the Port of Mobile, which handle
more forest products than the total handled by all other Gulf Coast
ports. The efficiency and reliability of the waterway are key factors
in the development and competitiveness of these facilities, upon which
thousands of jobs depend.
These are but examples of how this waterway is so central to the
economy of this entire region, impacting both domestic and
international markets. Attached with this statement are letters further
highlighting this importance. These represent a broad cross-section of
the economic heartbeat of an entire region. Throughout these statements
you will find repeated references to the importance of confidence in
the waterway to the willingness of business and industry to continue to
invest in our area and of their customers to depend on its reliability
for the movement of their products. Please note the wide range of
interests represented by these statements: financial institutions;
public utilities; port facilities; coal mining; manufacturers;
suppliers; marine interests; petroleum and chemical processors and
general business.
budget requests
We support the President's recommendation for O&M funds and ask for
add-ons of $3 million for additional capability be provided for the
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway to help catch up on deferred projects. This
would be realistic funding which we will support as absolutely
essential to day to day activities of the O&M program, and with good
management it will allow for the continuation of several on-going
projects which are near the point of culmination, following several
years of investigation, design and now beginning the actual work. These
projects address long-standing problems and have required extensive
research and coordination and reflect excellent teamwork by the Corps
and the industry. But for the support of this committee, they would not
be nearing reality. We wish to emphasize that this level of funding is
the minimum essential level.
From this have come both short and long range programs which have
provided a basis for orderly progress toward keeping the Waterway
efficient and reliable. The funding requirements to which I have
referred stem from work we need to continue now under these programs. I
respectfully repeat that the performance of this waterway in
successfully handling a level of tonnage some three times the
projections made during its design, attest to foresight of this
Committee.
To summarize, the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway is a classic example
of the positive aspects of the Civil Works Program. The Congress has
seen its potential and has supported its development. And now the
project continues to demonstrate its worth. Investment and expansion
continue locally.
The Warrior-Tombigbee Development Association request for
Operations & Maintenance funding in fiscal year 1999 for the Black
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway in the amount of $16.0 million. This is
level funding for the normal O&M work, and is the minimum to keep
navigation capability at a nominal level. However, additional
capability of the Corps is important to the continuing improvements
that have been deferred. These include upland disposal sites, mooring
cells, rock removal, a long range study of future needs and demands and
other vital improvements totaling $3.0 million. Therefore, our total
request is for a total of $19,025,000 for fiscal year 2000.
______
Prepared Statement of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The following is a summary of the funding items for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2000 to meet the needs of the
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway, and which we ask the Committee to approve:
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway:
Operations & Maintenance Funds for Corps' Budget
fiscal year 2000 (level funding).................. $16,000,000
Funds for Additional Capability not included in
Corps' O&M Budget Request \1\..................... 3,000,000
For General Investigations (Long Range Study)....... 250,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Funds Required.............................. 19,250,000
\1\ Funds for Additional Capability items are not included in the Corps'
Budget request, so it is not likely that the committee has been informed
of the need of funding for this particular Additional Capability. We are
requesting the additional funds for continuing projects and emphasize
the need for additional O&M capability funds if we are to have an
adequate current year program, and to support on-going projects designed
to improve safety and efficiency and to reduce future costs to the
Federal Government. O&M projects to be funded from this request are
continuing projects under the 20 year long range plan for improving the
BWT, including remaining vital upland disposal sites and recycling three
that are filled (these substantially reduce annual dredging costs) rock
removal and stop log replacement (equipment needed for lock
maintenance). General Investigations funds would be used to continue
long range studies for further modernization of the waterway.
Other needs allied to the Warrior-Tombigbee are:
Mobile Harbor:
Operations & Maintenance Funds, for Corps' Budget
fiscal year 2000 \1\.............................. $20,200,000
Construction........................................ 700,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Funds Required.............................. 20,900,000
\1\ Requested funds for Mobile Harbor are 2.5 million more than the
President's budget. Historically, this is the level of funding required
to maintain the harbor.
Written statements of support are attached.
______
Prepared Statement of James A. Vann, Jr., President and Chief Executive
Officer, Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc., Andalusia, AL
On behalf of Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AEC) and its
member owners, I respectfully request your support for the Corps of
Engineers fiscal year 2000 funding request for the Black Warrior-
Tombigbee Waterway and Mobile Harbor. The enclosed statement explains
AEC's interest in these projects which are vital to our business. The
benefits of low-cost coal transportation afforded by these projects are
enjoyed by our member systems and their individual electrical
customers' accounts, which number approximately 325,000.
Please give your support to the Corps of Engineers' budget requests
for these projects. We sincerely appreciate your continued support in
this matter and in other issues related to the rural electric program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc.
background information
Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AEC) is a wholesale power
supplier for 21 member-owners located in central and south Alabama and
northwest Florida. The member-owners serve over 325,000 customer-
members. AEC operates the Charles R. Lowman Power Plant, located at
Milepost 89.5 on the Tombigbee River, a coal-fired power plant which
burned 1,557,404 tons of coal in 1998. Also, AEC has a site on the
Black Warrior-Tombigbee River which is a possible location for a future
base-load fossil fired generating plant.
statement of interest and support
AEC joins the collective effort to improve the efficiency and
reliability of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway because of the lower fuel
transportation costs which the waterway provides to AEC's Lowman
electric generating plant. The Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway (BWT),
the Tenn-Tom Waterway, and the Port of Mobile are vital to our delivery
of coal economically and efficiently to this plant, which is located on
the Tombigbee River near Jackson, Alabama. During calendar year 1998,
we received 938,483 tons of coal via the BWT which accounts for over 60
percent of total coal received.
Because delivered coal cost is such an important factor in our
ability to maintain competitive rates to our member systems, AEC
supports the Black Warrior-Tombigbee project and level funding for the
Corps of Engineers' fiscal year 2000 budget. In addition, AEC supports
the critical needs identified by the Corps which have been deferred
over the past three years.
In addition to the dependency which AEC has upon the BWT, there are
benefits to our region and our end-consumers as a direct result of a
viable BWT waterway and the Port of Mobile. These systems provide an
invaluable link between our region and the world markets. As such, they
stimulate the region's economy, provide jobs, and help reduce the trade
deficit.
specific benefits of the warrior-tombigbee waterway and the port of
mobile to aec
The amount of coal moved to AEC's Plant Lowman by barge on the BWT
for the past six years is as follows:
Year Tons
1993.......................................................... 866,731
1994.......................................................... 1,077,485
1995.......................................................... 874,044
1996.......................................................... 1,103,919
1997.......................................................... 1,052,575
1998.......................................................... 938,483
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 5,913,237
The savings in transportation costs represented by the above
tonnage exceeds $30 million compared to AEC's next viable option of
delivery via rail.
AEC plans to continue to move the majority of its coal via the BWT
in 1999 and beyond. We have utilized the Port of Mobile for
transloading a small test shipment of foreign coal, and have made
further plans to accept more of this coal for testing in 1999.
statement with regard to appropriation amounts
AEC supports near level funding ($16 million) for Operation and
Maintenance in the Corps of Engineers' Fiscal Year 2000 Budget. We view
this as a minimum requirement in that this level of O&M funding is
necessary to cover the minimum expected needs within the Mobile
District for fiscal year 2000. In addition, there are vital
improvements which would bring the waterway efficiency to a higher
level, totaling $3,000,000.
AEC also supports the appropriation of adequate O&M funds of
$20,200,000 for Mobile Harbor.
Lastly, AEC supports an amount of $250,000 for General
Investigations, as identified by the Corps in cooperation with the
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association.
conclusion
We appreciate the opportunity to submit a statement on behalf of
our member owners in central and south Alabama and northwest Florida
pertaining to the benefits of the BWT waterway and the Port of Mobile.
AEC and its member-owners fully support the Corps of Engineers' 2000
budget request for $16 million in operations and maintenance funds for
the BWT waterway, the appropriation of an additional $3 million in
funds for deferred projects, as well as $250,000 for General
Investigations, and $20.2 million for Mobile Harbor O&M. While we are
well aware of budget constraints, we believe these projects should be
funded at these levels to assure a viable transportation system. With
the money that has already been spent in construction of the BWT
transportation system, proper funding for operations and maintenance
is, in our view, prudent management of what is undoubtedly a national
asset.
______
Prepared Statement of Lynn Sherrill, Vice President, Operations,
Crounse Corporation, Paducah, KY
Maintenance and improvements to the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterways and
Mobile Harbor are a matter of vital interest to our Company. Crounse
Corporation has, since 1990, barged approximately one million tons of
coal per year from the Upper Ohio Valley to locations on the Black
Warrior River and Mobile, Alabama area.
We have found the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway to be our highest cost
operating area, and can ill afford to have the system deteriorate below
its present level, because of reduced maintenance funding.
______
Prepared Statement of Charles Story, Vice President Governmental &
Public Affairs, Degussa-Huls, Theodore, AL
Degussa-Huls Corporation is pleased to have the opportunity to
express our support for the $16 million Corps of Engineers' Operations
and Maintenance Budget for the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and for the
$3 million additional funding necessary to complete badly needed
projects which have been delayed due to the lack of funding. The Port
here in Mobile is very crucial to the economic well being of our entire
Community, and we also strongly support an appropriation of $20.2
million for the Mobile Harbor.
Our Company has invested over $1.5 billion in the Mobile Area, and
employ over 1500 employees from this area. As such we are one of the
largest employers in south Alabama. Our Company as well as many other
companies in the area who are part of the Chemical Industry are heavily
dependent on the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway System and the Harbor
facilities here in Mobile. Our industry each year moves a tremendous
amount of raw materials and finished products through the Port and the
Waterway System. The increased efficiency which we would experience as
a result of these appropriations would directly benefit our Company and
our industry, and lay the ground work for even more growth in an
industry which has contributed greatly to the sound economy which we
enjoy here in south Alabama.
Degussa-Huls which is German owned selected Mobile 25 years ago
partly because of the good transportation infrastructure which we have
here in the Port of Mobile. The Port and the Waterway System are a
vital link in this infrastructure. We have had a number of expansions
here in Mobile (in competition with other sites in Europe) which were
made possible by transportation advantages that we enjoyed in this
area. Maintaining and improving this infrastructure and its efficiency
with adequate appropriations will provide significant benefits for the
entire south Alabama Area.
We urge you to support these appropriations, and thank you for your
consideration of our request.
______
Letter From Joseph H. Langjahr
Foss Maritime,
Seattle, WA, February 18, 1999.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Domenici: The purpose of this letter is to express
our support of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway project and, in
particular, our support of the Corps of Engineers O&M budget of $16.0
million for this waterway, together with additional critical needs.
Foss Maritime Company began providing marine transportation
services in the Pacific Northwest in 1889. During the past 110 years,
Foss Maritime has developed a complete waterborne tug and barge
transportation system that currently operates throughout Puget Sound,
Washington; Alaska; Columbia/Snake Rivers, Oregon; San Francisco and
Southern California. We deploy over 200 tugs and barges in order to
perform a multitude of commodity movements, vessel-related harbor
services and international and coastwise ocean towing. During the past
decade, Foss Maritime has invested more than $100 million in vessel
conversions and new construction to rebuild and modernize its fleet of
marine equipment. We employ about 1,300 people throughout our operating
area.
Recently, Foss Maritime was selected by The Boeing Company to
design, build and operate a roll-on, roll-off ship to transport Boeing-
built Delta IV rocket boosters from Decatur, Alabama, to space vehicle
launch sites at Cape Canaveral Air Station, Florida, and Vandenberg Air
Force Base, California. The 310-foot ship, to be owned and operated by
Foss Maritime or one of its subsidiaries, under Boeing time charter,
will carry three common booster cores and associated containerized
cargo. At a light operating draft of eight feet, the ship will be
capable of navigating the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and Warrior-
Tombigbee Waterway from Boeing's rocket booster factory being built in
Decatur.
This Foss Maritime ship is scheduled to enter Boeing service by
July 1, 2000. We have awarded a contract to Halter Marine, Inc.,
Gulfport, Mississippi, to construct the ship, along with an option for
a second vessel, and it is being built in Halter Marine's shipyard in
Pascagoula, Mississippi.
The primary operating route of this ship will be through the
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway from
Decatur to Mobile, Alabama; from Mobile through the Gulf of Mexico and
the Atlantic to Cape Canaveral; and from Mobile through the Caribbean
Sea, Panama Canal and the Pacific to Vandenberg. Therefore, maintenance
of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and strict compliance with regulated
pool depths is absolutely essential to the success of this entire
Boeing project.
Last year the amount appropriated to the Corps of Engineers for
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Operations & Maintenance was $16.0 million.
The Waterway will need at least level funding for fiscal year 2000.
However, the Corps has additional capability for certain projects such
as upland disposal programs, rock removal and stop log replacement.
These are vital to the continuing improvements year to year which
ultimately will bring the Waterway efficiency to an expected level. We
encourage your committee to provide an additional $3.0 million in O&M
capabilities for these projects.
Finally, Mobile Harbor is an important component of our project and
we support the appropriation of funds in an amount of $20.2 million.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views and our concerns
to you and your committee on these vitally important projects.
Very truly yours,
Joseph H. Langjahr,
Vice President & General Counsel.
______
Prepared Statement of Allen Henry, President, Henry Marine Service,
Inc., Spanish Fort, Alabama
We join in the collective effort of the Warrior Tombigbee Waterway
because of lower costs, energy efficiency, all are important to local,
national, and international commerce.
Henry Marine Service, Inc. operates out of the Mobile, Alabama area
offering support services to the larger inland barge lines serving the
states of Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and Louisiana. We employ
approximately 25 employees on a full time basis in the repair service
for towboats and barges. In addition, I own three towboats providing
towing in the Mobile harbor for the inland towing companies requiring
smaller towing vessels to deliver their barges dockside and shipside in
the Mobile area.
Additionally, smaller tugboats normally service the barge lines by
towing their barges to locations in the tri-state area where it is not
possible to navigate with the larger towboats used by the major barges
lines. This service requires me to employ about thirty pilots and
deckhands full time, in addition to my shipyard employees.
The Warrior Tombigbee Waterway, Tennessee Tombigbee, and Alabama
River are very important to the viability of my company. Therefore it
is very important that the Corps of Engineers continue to receive
maximum funding for the fiscal year 2000.
We cannot emphasis enough how important it is for the level of
funding of 16 million dollars, additional O&M capabilities of 3 million
dollars, and general investigation funding of .25 million dollars be
approved for fiscal year 2000.
Also, we strongly endorse and support the appropriation of funding
for the Mobile harbor in the amount of 20.2 million dollars in fiscal
year 2000.
If these annual appropriations for funding of waterway projects do
not continue, then companies like Henry Marine Service, Inc. will
disappear
Thank you very much for your efforts.
______
Prepared Statement of J. Tim Wilk, Hunt Crude Oil Supply Co.,
Tuscaloosa, AL
Hunt Refining Company presently employs approximately 250 residents
of West Alabama and has been an important participant in the local
economy since 1946. Curtailment of our use of the Warrior-Tombigbee
Waterway System (WTWA) would have a long-term impact on employment at
Hunt Refining Company and ultimately, the surrounding counties.
The WTWA system and the Port of Mobile are critical to the
operation of our Refinery in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. We barge over 40
percent of our crude oil and over 25 percent of our refined products
using both the Port of Mobile and the WTWA system. We use the Port of
Mobile as a starting point to pipeline or barge foreign and domestic
crude north at the rate of approximately 12 million barrels per year.
Hunt Refining Company supports the Warrior-Tombigbee project and
joins the collective effort to improve the efficiency and reliability
of the WTWA system. We are currently limited by draft restrictions most
of the year, high river the other part of the year, and to a special
combination of two-barge tows all year. Through improvements, we can
avoid significant increased costs during periods when the river is
above flood stage or at very low levels. Increased navigability of the
waterway, increases our transporter choice, ultimately keeping costs
competitive.
The corps of Engineer's 1999 Budget for the BWT Operations and
Maintenance is $16.0 MM. We believe the BWT needs at least level
funding to cover the minimum expected needs for fiscal year 2000. The
Corps has several projects, which have been deferred over the last
three years that can now get underway. These include the upland
disposal programs, rock removal and stop log replacement. These
deferred projects as well as funding for several studies will cost an
additional $3.25 MM. We are asking for your support for a total of
$19.25 MM for fiscal year 2000.
We further support the funds needed for the Mobile Harbor in the
amount of $20.2 MM.
______
Prepared Statement of James M. DeCosmo, Manager of Lands, Research and
Procurement, Southeast Timberlands, Kimberly-Clark, Mobile, AL
Kimberly-Clark (K-C), began operations in Mobile following its
merger with Scott Paper in December of 1995. Including the acquisition
cost, K-C has invested over $2 billion in the Mobile Plant and support
operations. These investments represent an average annual capital
investment of $50 million in Mobile.
For the past sixteen years, Kimberly-Clark has continuously
utilized the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway, Coosa-Alabama River System, as
well as the Port of Mobile. In 1983, the first year K-C shifted from
truck and rail to river transportation, some 1.06 million tons of
forest products were transported with two tugboats and forty barges.
Due to the efficiencies and reliability of the Waterways, K-C
transported in excess of 3.5 million tons of forest products in 1998,
1.0 million of which was exported to International Markets. To sustain
marine operations at this level requires over 20 tugboats, 150 barges
and over 250 jobs directly related to operations and maintenance.
For K-C to operate on the Waterway requires operating expenses in
excess of $13.5 million. These operating expenses are required to
support a $28 million capital investment in wholly owned woodyards and
joint venture wood processing facilities.
With this investment in Kimberly Clark's Southern Operations and
the dependence on the Waterways, it is critical that the river
channels, locks & dams, bridges, harbors and all other elements of
navigation be adequately maintained, upgraded and funded to meet the
existing and future demands of the waterways, particularly the Warrior-
Tombigbee Waterway.
In consideration of the value of the river system and the
importance of operational reliability, Kimberly-Clark unanimously
supports and recommends a minimum of $16.0 Million for the fiscal year
2000 Operations and Maintenance budget for the Warrior-Tombigbee
Waterway and $20.20 Million for Mobile Harbor.
K-C is a multi-billion dollar packaged products company
strategically focused on diapers, personal care products, consumer
tissue and away-from-home products. To continue to be the market
leader, all facilities and operations throughout the world must remain
competitive, from the procurement and transportation of raw materials
to the satisfaction of each and every customer.
The Mobile operation has been and is committed to being a leader in
World markets. To maintain a position of leadership and a viable
operation, all facets of manufacturing must continually improve. To
remain a competitor in a highly competitive industry, it is imperative
that the waterways continue to be adequately maintained and upgraded to
meet the challenges tomorrow brings. The Warrior-Tombigbee and Coosa-
Alabama River waterways are the ``Main Artery'' that support the Mobile
Harbor, Kimberly-Clark's Southern Operations and the thousands of jobs
directly and indirectly related to its business. These waterways and
ports will play a significant role in K-C's future success.
With these considerations in mind, we ask that you give the
requested budgets and appropriations your full support.
Thank you for your help, consideration and support in this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of John S. McClelland, Jr., Midstream Fuel Service,
Inc., Mobile, AL
As a member of the Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development, your
active support is requested for fiscal year 2000 projects designated by
the Army Corps of Engineers for the Port of Mobile and the Black
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway. The crucial projects designated by the Army
Corps of Engineers for these strategic waterways are necessary to
sustain normal operations and to provide for regular maintenance.
The Port of Mobile is a vital link for the Southeast region of our
nation to trading partners both domestic and foreign. Multiplying the
effectiveness of the Port of Mobile is the Black Warrior-Tombigbee
Waterway which links the harbor to 16,000 miles of the inland waterway
system. The efficiencies of these waterways will continue to enhance
economic opportunity and prosperity in the Southeast region.
Our company, Midstream Fuel Service, Inc., with headquarters in
Mobile, Alabama, is an ardent supporter of the efforts of the Army
Corps of Engineers to operate and maintain these assets. Growth and
maintenance of these waterways have allowed our company to grow from a
one-boat, one-barge harbor operation to a dynamic petroleum supply and
support company. We operate towboats, tank barges and marine terminals
which all rely on these waterway systems to service the marine needs of
our customers. Our service reaches deep into Alabama on the Black
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway, allowing our inland customers to ship bulk
petroleum products in an efficient, cost-effective manner. In the Port
of Mobile, we supply fuel to ships, tugs and inland vessels that are
transiting the region. Vessels employed in offshore oil production use
our Mobile harbor base for support services. The level of our
commercial success has been and will continue to be highly dependent on
the efficiency of these waterways.
For fiscal year 2000, the Army Corps of Engineers will need a level
funding of $16 million for operation and maintenance of the Black
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway. An additional $3.0 million will be
requested for improvement projects that have been deferred during the
past three years but are ultimately needed. These projects include
upland disposal programs, removals and stop log replacement. There is
also a need for general investigations with required funding of $.25
million.
The fiscal year 2000 funding requirement for operation and
maintenance of the Mobile Harbor is $20.2 million. Continued O&M
funding for the Mobile Harbor is critical to the Port of Mobile and the
Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway.
The Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association will present statements
of support for the Army Corps of Engineer's funding proposal to your
Subcommittee during the first week of March. Midstream Fuel Service,
Inc. enthusiastically supports their testimony as representative of
those who depend on the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and the Port of
Mobile for our commercial success.
Thank you for the work you have done in the past to keep these
waterways navigable. We look forward to continued successful navigation
in the Port of Mobile and on the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway.
______
Prepared Statement of George E. Duffy, President, Navios Ship Agencies,
Inc., Mobile, AL
We request that you support the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Operations and Maintenance Budget for $19,000,000 and General
Investigations funding of $.25 million for the Warrior-Tombigbee
Rivers.
Our vessels and our principal's vessels carry 3.4 million tons of
iron ore and 1.8 million tons of furnace coke per year with the
majority bound for industries in the State of Alabama. The Port's
ability to maintain its present draft has enabled us to remain
competitive on the world market. The continued dredging of the Warrior-
Tombigbee allows this cargo to go through the waterway system of the
Tombigbee. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has done an outstanding job
maintaining this system.
A large portion of this cargo is for steel operating in the
Birmingham, Alabama area. These import raw materials enable the steel
mills to supply steel for various supplies to this nation. Some of
these cargo products from the steel mills are re-exported through the
Port of Mobile, which helps to reduce our trade imbalance. The
efficiency and reliability of waterways commerce is essential for us to
provide the raw materials necessary for our principals to meet the
demands of the various markets within the State of Alabama and the
United States.
We have been in operation since 1957 utilizing the Port of Mobile,
the Warrior-Tombigbee and the Black River systems. We realize the
importance of tight budget control, yet the benefits on industry,
commerce and trade as well as job return must be recognized. Therefore,
we solicit your support. We join in the collective efforts of all those
affiliated companies who realize the importance of maintaining this
waterway system so that we may continue to bring in the necessary raw
materials for our manufacturing industries within the State of Alabama.
For these reasons, we request you to support the $19,000,000 for the
Operations and Maintenance programs for fiscal year 2000.
______
Letter From M. Dean White
Orsouth Midland Enterprises,
Orsouth Transport Co.,
Mobile, AL, March 1, 1999.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: I am writing to express my support for the
continued maintenance and improvement of the Black Warrior-Tombigbee
Waterway System.
Orsouth Transport Co. is one of the largest regional carriers by
water in the Warrior-Tombigbee System. Last year we transported
approximately 2.0 million tons of commodities on this waterway, and an
additional 2.8 million tons through the Port of Mobile, including coal,
scrap metals, direct-reduced iron, and aggregates. These tonnages are
significant to the economies of the states in that region, from the
points of view of both producers and consumers. Barging is a very low-
cost method of transportation, responsible for moving more than 15
percent of all of the United States total freight for less than 2
percent of the nations total transportation costs. This translates into
savings for the consumer, such as lower rates for electricity.
Another important aspect of the Warrior-Tombigbee System is that it
provides the only alternative to the Mississippi River to move product
to the Gulf Coast. This was extremely important during the drought year
of 1988, when the lower portion of the Ohio River was closed for an
extended period, and the lower Mississippi River was severely
restricted for approximately five months. The availability of the
Warrior-Tombigbee System allowed us to continue to serve utility and
industrial customers, and keep those customers from having to shut down
operations because they could not receive raw material.
Orsouth Transport Co. fully supports and recommends appropriation
of $16 million for operations and maintenance of the Black Warrior-
Tombigbee System for fiscal year 2000. Furthermore, we recommend
additional funding to permit the Corps of Engineers to proceed with
some of the projects that have been deferred over the past three years,
which total $3 million. These projects include upland disposal
programs, rock removal, and stop log replacement. Another $.25 million
is being requested for General Investigations, vital to long-term
planning. All of these funds are necessary to assure that the Warrior-
Tombigbee System remains an important part of the Inland Waterway
System. Finally, we support an appropriation of funds in the amount of
$20,200,000 for Mobile harbor. The Port of Mobile is an integral part
of the waterway system, especially as an alternative origin to the Port
of New Orleans. Improvement of the Mobile harbor will increase
utilization of the Warrior-Tombigbee System overall, and generate
significant additional monies for the states in this region. We request
your support in reviewing and approving these project funding limits
for fiscal year 2000.
Sincerely,
M. Dean White,
Port Captain.
______
Prepared Statement of Charles A. Haun, Executive Vice President, Parker
Towing Company, Inc., Tuscaloosa, AL
My name is Charles A. Haun and I am Executive Vice President for
Parker Towing Company of Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
We are a full service marine transportation company operating a
fleet of boats and barges and twelve ports on the southern portion of
the U.S. Inland Waterways System. We are involved in the transportation
of all types of commodities including coal, coke, ores, stone, forest
products, steel, and manufactured products. We have been in operation
for over fifty years and our approximately 200 employees are entirely
dependent upon the efficiency of the waterway.
Parker Towing Company endorses and supports fully the efforts of
the Warrior-Tombigbee Development Association to improve the overall
operation of this vital waterway system. The Warrior-Tombigbee System
and the Port of Mobile are of great importance to our company and the
industries we serve. Proper and adequate funding of the waterway
project will ensure that more industries can rely on this energy
efficient delivery system. The region's employment and economic well-
being could be adversely affected to a great degree should the
efficiency of the waterway be degraded.
As a member of the Warrior-Tombigbee Development Association,
Parker Towing Company emphatically supports an appropriation of $16
million for the Corps of Engineers for operation and maintenance of the
Warrior-Tombigbee System for fiscal year 2000, additional capability
funding of $3.0 million, and general investigations of $0.25 million,
for a total of $19.25 million. In addition, we support the Corps'
request for operation and maintenance funds for Mobile Harbor in the
amount of $20.2 million.
______
Prepared Statement of Lawrence L. Merrihew, Senior Vice President,
Regions Bank, Mobile, AL
The economies of Alabama and the U.S. Gulf Coast are greatly
impacted by the Port of Mobile and the inland waterways serving these
areas. The Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway is also a vital factor in
this respect. It serves manufacturing, mining, and the agricultural
areas, as well as industrial production facilities in western Alabama.
The waterway has served as an economic stimulant for over 100 years and
receives periodic improvement, bringing it to the point today, that it
is a modern system linking vital areas of the economy.
There are so many vital materials that are shipped on the Black
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway that its overall impact is sometimes not
adequately considered. For instance, most of the coal exported from
Mobile is shipped down this very waterway. Therefore, it is important
that the amount needed, as requested by the Corps of Engineers for
Operations & Maintenance (O&M) of $16.0 million, be appropriated for
fiscal year 2000. This level of funding is necessary to support the day
to day O&M program, and to continue ongoing channel improvement
projects that will maintain the waterway in its current state. In
addition, there is a request for $3.0 million to continue projects that
have been on hold for the past three years (upland disposal programs,
rock removal, and stop log replacement). We desperately need your
support for these projects also.
We also request support of the appropriation of adequate O&M funds
for the Mobile Harbor in the amount of $20.2 million.
An efficient and reliable waterway system is important to all of
us, and most certainly is a justifiable investment by the federal
government. The cost benefit ration will be matched many times over by
the local investment.
______
Letter From Jerry L. Stewart
Southern Company Generation,
Birmingham AL, February 19, 1999.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Domenici: On behalf of Alabama Power Company, Gulf
Power Company, and Mississippi Power Company, I am writing to express
our support for the Warrior-Tombigbee Development Association and its
president in their efforts before your committee. Because of the
importance of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway to local, national, and
international trade, the Southern electric system joins with the
Warrior-Tombigbee Development Association in an effort to improve the
efficiency and reliability of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway.
Alabama Power Company, Gulf Power Company, and Mississippi Power
Company have used the Warrior-Tombigbee to transport coal to their
respective electrical generating plants at Demopolis, Alabama, West
Jefferson, Alabama; Mobile, Alabama; Pensacola, Florida; Sneads,
Florida and Biloxi, Mississippi. In 1997, through the use of contracted
barge carriers, these companies moved over 10.3 million tons of coal by
way of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway. All of this coal would have
required a longer move down the Mississippi River through New Orleans.
The Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway allows the barges to move down the
Warrior-Tombigbee River to Mobile and other destinations. The
significant importance of this capability to our system is obvious from
a transportation flexibility standpoint. Additionally, the Port of
Mobile is the hub of the Central Gulf Coast and the continued
development of its facilities and support services is critical to the
economy of the tri-state area served by the Southern electric system.
Alabama Power Company, Gulf Power Company, and Mississippi Power
Company utilize water transportation because of the economic advantage
to our millions of customers. Any expenditures for maintenance or
upgrading which improve the efficiency and reliability of the waterway
will have a positive impact on our customers. At the same time, higher
cost resulting from inefficiency or the unreliability of the Warrior-
Tombigbee Waterway will have a direct and adverse effect upon our
customers.
It is imperative that there be a continuous program for maintenance
and upgrading of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway channels and locks. We
support the proposed budget request for $16.0 million in Operations and
Maintenance funds for the Black Warrior-Tombigbee River for the fiscal
year 2000. Additionally, we support the earliest completion of the
capital projects (upland disposal programs, rock removal an stop log
replacement) that have been deferred over the past three years in the
amount of $3.25 million, as well as the appropriation of funds for
Mobile Harbor in the amount of $20.2 million.
Adequate funding of programs required to maintain the efficiency
and reliability of our nation's waterways is critical to its superior
economic health and welfare. I strongly urge and solicit your support.
Sincerely,
Jerry L. Stewart,
Vice President Fuel Services.
______
Prepared Statement of Carlton J. Melton, Regional Vice President, Gulf
& Inland Region, Stevedoring Services of America, Mobile, AL
Stevedoring Services of America (SSA), is a 50 year-old stevedoring
and marine terminal operating company that utilizes the Warrior-
Tombigbee Waterway and Port of Mobile, AL in our daily operations. We
handle approximate annual tonnage, via the Tombigbee Waterway and Port
of Mobile as follows: 1.7 million tons of forest products, 1.5 million
tons of bulk cargo (coal) through Mobile and 270,000 tons of bulk and
breakbulk products through the Port of Columbus, MS. This business
results in direct employment of sixty (60) people and an additional
300,000 man hours per year for four (4) local International
Longshoremen Association unions generating an annual total of over
$12.5 million in wages and benefits.
SSA fully supports the collective effort to improve the efficiency
and reliability of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway (BWT). The waterway
is a vital national transportation artery providing access to low cost,
energy efficient, environmentally safe barge transportation. Moreover
it is critical to SSA's business, to maintaining international commerce
at the Port of Mobile and growing our local, state and national
economy. Maintaining and improving the efficiency and reliability of
the waterway is essential to protect and grow SSA's business.
SSA's supports the position that the Corps' submitted budget for
the BWT should be at least level funding ($16.0 million) for fiscal
year 2000 and that the Corps has the additional capability ($3.0
million) for fiscal year 2000 to get underway those projects which have
been deferred over the past three years (upland disposal programs, rock
removal and stop log replacement). We also support $0.25 million for
general investigations.
Maintaining the Mobile Harbor is critical to our business, and the
Alabama State Docks. Therefore, we urge your support for appropriation
of funds ($20,200,000) for maintaining and improving the Mobile Harbor.
We strongly urge you to support the aforementioned budget request.
The BWT is an important segment of our national transportation
infrastructure. After all, our nation's transportation infrastructure
is what keeps America moving and competitive in the global economy.
We very respectfully appreciate your consideration of this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of Michael D. Thompson, President, Thompson Power
Systems, Birmingham, AL
We are pleased to express our support of the Warrior-Tombigbee
Waterway and the Port of Mobile. These natural resources provide a
vital economic link for many communities along the Birmingham and
Mobile corridor. Thompson Power Systems has benefited from the strong
growth of the Southeast's economy. Our marine business has grown and we
expect growth to continue. The continued reliability of the Waterway
and the Port of Mobile are paramount to our company's success and the
long term expansion of our regional economy.
The Port of Mobile is the gateway to international markets for many
U.S. products. Likewise, the Waterway network that serves the inland
states provides efficient transportation of bulk cargoes that fuel our
heartland's economy. Thompson Power Systems joins in an industry-wide
effort to improve the efficiency and maintain the reliability of the
waterways and ports through which we provide our business. Therefore,
we support the following appropriation of funds:
Warrior-Tombigbee Operations & Maintenance.............. $16,000,000
Study for General Investigations........................ 250,000
Funds for Mobile Harbor................................. 20,200,000
Corp of Engineers Deferred Projects..................... 3,000,000
As noted, we encourage the Corps of Engineers to commence the
projects that have been deferred. Projects such as the construction of
upland disposal dikes and mooring cells are vital to the steady use of
the waterways systems.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue which greatly
impacts our company and region.
______
Prepared Statement of Keith H. Jansen, Director, Raw Materials Planning
Procurement Distribution and Sales, U.S. Steel, Pittsburgh, PA
USX Corporation is heavily involved in the transportation of raw
materials for steel making throughout the United States. Due to the
fact that transportation rates are such a large part of raw steel
costs, and, imported steel has been given an unfair advantage, it is
vital that the Federal Government maintains the transportation
infrastructure of this country in preserving the ability of the steel
industry to remain competitive. It is with this in mind, that we
request the United States Senate fully support the Warrior-Tombigbee
Waterway System. Water borne transportation is by far the lowest cost
mode, as it affords USS Fairfield Works in Birmingham Alabama the
opportunity to move raw materials inbound and steel outbound by water
at a cost that assists in preserving the economic viability of that
plant.
It is for this reason that we offer our support to the Corps of
Engineers in their request of level funding ($16 million) for fiscal
year 2000. Additionally we support the Corps for funding ($3.0 million)
of those projects, which would enhance the present waterways
capabilities and the maintenance of the Mobile deep water harbor
($20,200,000). Obviously the Warrior-Tombigbee is essential in the
continued industrial development of the entire southeastern region and
remains an integral transportation cog in the wheel of commercial
success.
We do appreciate the support that you and your colleagues have
provided in the past and look forward to your continued support in
preserving a strong domestic economy.
______
Prepared Statement of T. Keith King, P.E., President and CEO, David
Volkert & Associates, Inc., Mobile, AL
David Volkert & Associates, Inc. (Volkert) is an engineering/
architectural/planning firm which employs 450 people and maintains
Alabama offices Birmingham, and Gulf Shores. Volkert strongly supports
funding for the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and the Port of Mobile for
fiscal year 2000.
We believe the proposed $16 million for Operations and Maintenance
funds is justified since this level funding amount is necessary to
cover the known and reasonably expected needs for fiscal year 2000,
support the day-to-day O&M program, and continue on-going channel
improvement projects. In addition, we support an additional $3,000,000
needed by the Corps to continue on projects which have been deferred
for the past three years (upland disposal programs, rock removal and
stop log replacement). We also support appropriating $250,000 for
general investigative studies, which ultimately will bring the waterway
efficiency to the expected level.
Since the City of Mobile's largest industry is her Port and the
City's present economy and future progress depends upon her Port,
Volkert also supports the $20.2 million funding for Mobile Harbor.
Confidence in the Waterway and its efficiency and modernization are
important in bringing much needed new industry to Mobile and to the
State of Alabama. Lower operating costs to users of the Waterway and
Port of Mobile are essential in obtaining a reasonable balance of the
international export market allowing the U.S. to continue to reduce our
trade deficit. Increases in shipping and commerce result in
opportunities for many companies, similar to Volkert, to obtain
business and offer meaningful employment to citizens of the State of
Alabama and other parts of the U.S.
Volkert appreciates this opportunity to express our support of
Chairman Charles A. Haun and President Sheldon L. Morgan, of the
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association, and the testimony to be given
by them before the Appropriations Committee of the Senate and House. We
are proud to join in the collective effort to improve the efficiency
and reliability of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and the Port of
Mobile.
______
Letter From George R. Richmond
Jim Walter Resources, Inc.,
Brookwood, AL, February 26, 1999.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to make a statement to your Subcommittee. Please accept
this letter as my statement.
Jim Walter Resources, Inc. currently mines 8 million clean tons of
coal per year. Of that amount, nearly 60 percent of our production is
exported. All of our export production goes through the Port of Mobile.
Our payroll for 2,100 employees last year was in excess of $107,000,000
and taxes withheld and/or paid were in excess of $33,000,000. It is
obvious from these facts and figures that this Company relies heavily
on our port facilities and that they are of the utmost importance to
this Company, its employees and the economy of the State of Alabama.
I strongly support the Corps of Engineers budget request for $16.0
Million in Operations and Maintenance funds for the Black Warrior-
Tombigbee for fiscal year 2000, along with the request for $3.0 Million
for the Corps to undertake projects which have been deferred over the
past three years and $250,000 for general investigations. I also
support the appropriation of funds for Mobile Harbor, in the amount of
$20.2 Million. Our waterways and port facilities provide economic
prosperity to Alabama that is worthy of your support. Further, I
support the statements and testimony to be given by Mr. Sheldon L.
Morgan, President of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association. I
believe that the value of improved efficiency and reliability of the
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and Port of Mobile cannot and must not
underestimated.
The world coal business is at its most competitive level in
history. News of any problems, especially transportation and delivery
problems, is quickly spread by other coal producers around the world to
the buyers to discourage purchases here. A blemish on our delivery
record can have devastating, long-term effects from which we might
never fully recover. Buyers lost today may never return tomorrow.
important matter.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to give my comments on this
very important matter.
Sincerely,
George R. Richmond,
President and Chief Operating Officer.
______
Prepared Statement of J. Craig Stepan, General Manager, Warrior & Gulf
Navigation Company, Chickasaw, AL
I am J. Craig Stepan, General Manager of Warrior & Gulf Navigation
Company. Our company is an active member of the Warrior-Tombigbee
Waterway Association and wholly supports the testimony to be presented
by Mr. Sheldon Morgan as President of the Association. I wish to take
this opportunity to highlight the impact that the Black Warrior-
Tombigbee Waterway and the Port of Mobile have on the success and
development of our Company.
Warrior & Gulf is a barge line and terminal operator headquartered
in Chickasaw, Alabama, and owns 20 towboats and 240 barges, moving
approximately 9 million tons of bulk materials on the Black Warrior-
Tombigbee River System. This makes WGN the dominant water carrier
operating in the region. Additionally, we own and operate two (2) bulk
and general cargo terminals at Port Birmingham and Mobile, Alabama,
providing storage, transloading and intermodal services for truck, rail
and water transportation. Our total employment is 235 people.
Warrior & Gulf has provided barge transportation on the Black
Warrior-Tombigbee River Systems since 1940 for export and domestic
coal, iron ore, coke, import and export steel products, export and
domestic wood chips, and several other types of bulk commodities. An
efficient and properly maintained waterway system integrated with the
Port of Mobile is vital to Warrior & Gulf and its customers. This
waterway system has made the entire region world competitors through
the reliable, efficient movement of raw materials and finished products
both for domestic and overseas consumption. In order to encourage
continued economic development along this great waterway we must
continue in our efforts to ensure this viable low cost transportation
alternative remains in place. The continued efficiency of this waterway
is extremely critical to the viability of the industries it serves and
helps to develop. This waterway system and harbor hold great
opportunity for developing trade initiatives with Mexico, South America
and the world.
Historically, our shoaling problems vary greatly from year to year
dependent upon the length of our high water season (December-April) and
the amount of flooding that occurs. This winter we have been placed on
notice by the U.S. Corps of Engineers that normal spring and summer
river operations will be jeopardized due to severe shoaling at Buena
Vista, Little McGrews, St. Elmo, Jackson and East Bassetts. The full
extent of the economic impact of this problem is difficult to estimate,
but clearly all the river carriers and their customers will suffer a
negative financial impact.
We have worked closely with the Corps of Engineers and
wholeheartedly endorse their budget request of $16.0 million in O&M
funds for the Black Warrior-Tombigbee system for fiscal year 2000 to
ensure continued transportation operations.
An additional $3.0 million is required to fund necessary deferred
projects including channel rock removal, upland disposal site
management and stop log replacement. Beyond that $.250 million is
required to fund a study essential to planning the effective long term
use of the waterway.
Lastly, it goes without saying that the maintenance of the Mobile
harbor is vital to our waterway and the entire southern region. We,
therefore, support the appropriation of $20.2 million to adequately
fund Mobile harbor's O&M needs.
Our company and its employees respectfully request your continued
support and assistance as your subcommittee considers appropriation of
funds for these very important issues concerning the Black Warrior-
Tombigbee System, the Port of Mobile and those they serve.
______
Prepared Statement of Jack E. Ravan, Director and Chief Executive
Officer, Alabama State Docks Department, Mobile, AL
The State of Alabama, as a result of the strategic location of the
Port of Mobile on the Gulf of Mexico and its extensive inland waterway
system, is one of the major maritime states within the continental
United States. The State, primarily through the facilities of the
Alabama State Docks in Mobile, conducts maritime trade with more than
125 nations worldwide. The Port of Mobile, which consistently ranks in
the top 15 deep water Ports in the Untied States, annually services an
equal proportion of domestic and foreign cargoes.
The Alabama State Docks, a state owned revenue based business,
serves as the local cost-sharing partner of the Mobile Harbor Federal
Project. A recent analysis of the impact of the State Docks on the
State of Alabama identified that every county in the state benefited
from the services provided by the Port of Mobile. The analysis
identified approximately 120,000 employees statewide that benefit
directly and indirectly from the State Docks. Wages received by these
employees were estimated at over $3 billion. Therefore, it is easily
understood why full and timely support by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in its navigation operations and maintenance programs for
Mobile is critical to the state's economy.
For the past several years, our communications with your committee
have portrayed a solid partnership with the Corps in maintaining a
highly functional project. This has been possible not only because of
the federal funding provided, but also because of the Port's
willingness to modify operational procedures when less than full
project dimensions exist. Our communications have also noted the risk
of hurricanes to the project. Unfortunately, in the last eighteen (18)
months, the Port has experienced two hurricanes. When combined with
less than full dimensions at the time of the most recent storm, severe
shoaling of the project resulted. The Port has been operating at a
significantly reduced capacity for the last six months and recovery is
not anticipated for the next four to six months. The last time such
conditions existed was in 1979 when a more severe hurricane hit the
Port. As a matter of history, it only took three months to restore the
Port to full operation on that occasion.
The Administration's budget for fiscal year 2000 identifies $17.562
million for operation and maintenance of the Mobile Harbor Federal
Project. The average annual expenditure for the past three fiscal years
has been approximately $20.133 million. The proposed budget will once
again place the project in a state of risk in the event of another
hurricane. Therefore, it is requested that $20,812,000 be appropriated
for the Mobile Harbor Federal Project for fiscal year 2000. This amount
also includes $750,000 in Construction General funds required to
evaluate future operational expansion requirements.
As addressed earlier, approximately one half of the cargo
transiting the Port of Mobile is domestic. This cargo flows through
Mobile as a result of the existence of six waterway systems servicing
Alabama, the southern United States and the states bordering the Gulf
of Mexico. Again, the economic viability of this region and its ability
to compete in both the domestic and world market place is dependent
upon the Corps of Engineers navigation operation and maintenance
programs. Therefore, we request that your committee support these
waterway systems at the levels indicated.
Coosa-Alabama........................................... $31,556,000.00
Tennessee-Cumberland.................................... $38,320,000.00
Tennessee-Tombigbee..................................... $23,900,000.00
Appalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint....................... $7,510,000.00
Black Warrior-Tombigbee................................. $19,250,000 00
Gulf Intercoastal Waterway.............................. ( \1\ )
\1\ As requested by GICA.
Your consideration and support is greatly appreciated.
______
Prepared Statements and Letters Supporting Appropriations Request for
Fiscal Year 2000 for Projects on the Alabama-Coosa River System
Prepared Statement of Ralph O. Clemens, Jr., President, Coosa-Alabama
River Improvement Association, Inc.
summary
Mr. Chairman & distinguished Committee members: This statement
includes the following:
(A) A plea to recognize and maintain our Nation's inland waterways
system as a vital part of the national transportation infrastructure;
(B) A request for support in the following areas:
(1) O&M funding for federal projects in the Coosa-Alabama Basin as
well as Mobile Harbor;
(2) Funding for feasibility phase investigation of alternatives to
improve the reliability of the navigation channel below Claiborne Dam
on the Alabama River;
(3) Reopening the Coosa Navigation Project;
(4) Resisting any attempt to raise user fuel tax on the Inland
River navigation industry;
(5) 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
Thank you for the opportunity to present to this Subcommittee my
perspective on several topics relating to our Nation's waterways system
in general, and to the Coosa-Alabama River Basin in particular. As
President of the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, I speak
for a large and diverse group of private citizens and political and
industrial organizations that sees the continued development of the
Coosa-Alabama Waterway as an opportunity for economic growth in our
region as well as the Nation.
Our membership reflects a broad range of callings and professions,
including shippers and tow operators, businessmen, bankers and private
individuals who have a stake in future economic development for their
firms and successors to enjoy. Then there is a larger group of elected
officials and their constituents typical of the twenty-three
municipalities and nineteen counties along the waterway who are members
of this association. Spurred by a desire to promote economic growth
through enhanced waterway transportation, these members work diligently
to develop our waterway into a productive part of the river
infrastructure of the State and Nation.
We are concerned about the deteriorating waterway infrastructure
throughout the nation. Our inland waterways are vital to this Nation's
welfare. America's ports, navigable waterways, flood protection, water
supply, environmental restoration, hydroelectric, and other water
resources programs enhance economic development, national security, and
general well being. These programs serve the national interest in
countless ways, returning far more in public benefits than they cost. A
top-notch navigation system able to meet the demands of both domestic
and international commerce is a driving force behind the national
economy, transporting annually almost 15 percent of the nation's
commodities, one out of every eight tons. The waterways are vital to
our export and import capability, linking our producers with consumers
around the world. It is incumbent upon the Federal Government to
maintain and improve this system of interstate commerce. Therefore, we
ask Congress to appropriate enough funds for required maintenance and
construction to keep the waterways the economic multiplier it is. The
Civil Works budget in fiscal year 2000 must be approximately $4.7
billion to maintain the system and allow for modest growth. The Federal
government must make this commitment to improve the water
transportation network or risk facing serious economic consequences and
jeopardizing tremendous public benefits.
Some think tanks are advocating turning the Corps of Engineers'
Civil Works Program over to state or private managers. We urge caution
and due deliberation in such a move. Having one agency responsible for
maintaining water projects on the Alabama River, for example, provides
benefits that can't be measured in dollars and cents. Security,
responsiveness and historical knowledge are incalculable to users of
the river. The Corps' experience is a public investment. The O&M
funding appropriated annually is a public investment. Slashing that
investment does not automatically translate into private prosperity.
We are concerned that any budget strategy that reduces funding for
the operations and maintenance of inland and intracoastal waterways
will have a detrimental effect on the economic growth and development
of the river system. We cannot allow that to happen. In the Alabama-
Coosa River Basin, we must be able to maintain the existing river
projects and facilities that support the commercial navigation,
hydropower and recreational activities so critical to our region's
economy. The first priority then must be the O&M funding appropriated
to the Corps of Engineers to maintain those projects. Budget requests
for the individual projects follow:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Association's
Project budget budget request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama-Coosa River, AL \1\(AL River $5,185,000 $5,185,000
incl Claiborne L&D)....................
Miller's Ferry L&D...................... 5,560,000 5,560,000
Robert F. Henry L&D..................... 6,183,000 6,183,000
Lake Allatoona, GA...................... 6,328,000 6,328,000
Carters Lake, GA........................ 8,150,000 8,150,000
Lower Alabama Navigation Study (AL River 150,000 150,000
south of Claiborne) feasibility study..
-------------------------------
Totals............................ 31,556,000 31,556,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes dredging from the mouth of the Alabama River through
Claiborne L&D to Miller's Ferry. Coosa River not included.
We also support funding O&M for Mobile Harbor at $20,200,000, an
increase of $3,038,000 over the President's Budget amount of
$17,162,000. The $20.2 million represents an historical average of
costs just to maintain the Harbor and does not include funding for new
construction. We cannot allow Mobile Harbor infrastructure to
deteriorate because not enough funds were appropriated.
To attract new business into the Alabama River Basin, we must
improve the infrastructure of the river itself, specifically the
navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam. Increased reliability is
the only way prospective investors will entertain establishing an
industry that uses river transportation. The Corps of Engineers
currently maintains 65-70 percent reliability through training dikes,
reservoir management, and dredging. Of these measures, dredging is the
most effective, but we can do more.
The most affordable and most environmentally friendly solution to
increasing navigation reliability on the Lower Alabama River is to
improve the training dikes. (Training dikes are levees or barriers
built out from river banks to direct the water flow into the navigation
channel, thus aiding in scouring the bottom and decreasing dredging
costs.) Mobile District has begun a feasibility study to determine the
interest of the Federal Government in such a project. Without an
improvement in the navigation reliability on the Lower Alabama River,
we cannot hope to attract new river-related industry into the Basin. We
ask Congress to appropriate $150,000, as requested, to enable the
Mobile District to continue the feasibility study already underway.
A major objective of our association is to complete a navigable
waterway from Mobile to Rome, Georgia. The history of the Coosa River
Project is well known by this committee, but the proposal reflects our
emphasis on infrastructure investment 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 done. We are well aware of the restrictive funding for
such an undertaking in the current environment, but ask the Committee
to recognize that a Coosa-Alabama waterway would be 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
this 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 2000 does not currently include a
proposal to increase a user's fuel tax, but 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. Suffice it to say here that an
increase in user fuel tax will have detrimental effect in the short run
on consumer prices and 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 waterway system needs more incentives for investment,
not obstacles and disincentives.
The last issue I wish to address is a plea based on our experiences
over the past several years with attempts by the Fish and Wildlife
Service to list the Alabama Sturgeon as endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973. As you know, in December of 1994, the Secretary of
Interior, Mr. Babbitt, decided not to list the Alabama Sturgeon, citing
a lack of scientific evidence that the fish was a separate and distinct
species or even currently existed in the habitat scrutinized. Now, the
Fish and Wildlife Service sees fit to again propose listing the fish,
despite a clear alternative to saving the fish that has been underway
for several years now, an alternative outside the confining
restrictions of the Endangered Species Act.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with the Alabama-
Tombigbee River Coalition, developed a Sturgeon Conservation Plan that
has strong potential to propagate the Sturgeon population in the Mobile
River Basin. The State of Alabama, charged with the execution of the
Plan, currently has three sturgeons in a hatchery in Marion, Alabama,
ready for propagation. Congress has appropriated over one million
dollars to this effort so far. Listing the fish as an endangered
species under the ESA means the sturgeon would have to compete with
other listed species for money to complete a recovery plan,
jeopardizing funding already available as well as the work done on the
Conservation Plan to this point. We strongly support the Sturgeon
Conservation Plan as an example of the compromise required in the
environment-economic debate. We ask the Congress to fully fund and
support the Sturgeon Conservation Plan as the best way to save sturgeon
in the Mobile River Basin.
In summary, we request your support in the following areas:
(1) Sufficient funding of the US Army Corps of Engineers Civil
Works budget to maintain and enhance the U.S. inland waterways system;
(2) O&M funding for the Coosa-Alabama Basins and Mobile Harbor;
(3) Funding for investigating the feasibility of improving the
reliability of the navigation channel below Claiborne Dam on the Lower
Alabama River;
(4) Reopening the Coosa Navigation Project;
(5) Resisting any attempt to raise user fuel tax on the Inland
River navigation industry;
(6) Supporting the Sturgeon Conservation Plan as developed through
the cooperative efforts of the Alabama-Tombigbee River Coalition and
the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Thank you for allowing us to present our views and for your strong
support of the Nation's waterways.
______
Prepared Statement of Phillip A Sanguinotti, President, The Anniston
Star, Anniston, AL
As a part of a collective effort to maintain and extend the Coosa-
Alabama waterway, I wholeheartedly support the Coosa-Alabama River
Improvement Association's funding request for fiscal year 2000.
I strongly believe in and support the regional effort to improve
and extend the Coosa-Alabama Waterway. This would include improving the
navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam, maintaining and improving
training works and dredging, which would enhance economic development
of the river basin between Mobile and Montgomery.
Also, I believe that lowered freight rates would provide a better
export market, thus helping the trade business. I also urge the Senate
to support the Interstate Compacts to resolve the two-basin water
disputes among Alabama, Georgia and Florida, as well as amend the
Endangered Species Act to include reasonable, balanced measures between
environmental concerns and economic development.
Any support you and your committee can give the Association will be
greatly appreciated by everyone involved.
______
Prepared Statement of Otha Lee Biggs, Judge of Probate & President,
Monroe County Commission, Monroeville, AL
The Monroe County Commission, Monroe County, Alabama, respectfully
request support for the President's Budget for funding of River
Projects in the Alabama-Coosa River Basin for fiscal year 2000, in the
amount of $31.556 million as well as $20.2 million for Mobile Bay.
There is great economic need to improve and extend the Coosa-
Alabama Waterway System from Rome, Georgia to the Port of Mobile.
Included in the funding request is $150,000.00 for the second year of a
feasibility study of ways to improve the navigational reliability below
the Claiborne Lock & Dam which is the first Dam along the Alabama-Coosa
River System and is located in Monroe County, Alabama. Unless
navigational reliability is stabilized from below the Claiborne Lock &
Dam to the Port of Mobile, the full and positive economic benefits
cannot be realized in the Southeastern part of the United States. One
mile from the Claiborne Lock & Dam is located the largest Pulp and
Paper complex of its kind in the world and the efforts of your Senate
Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development in the
past toward the development of this great waterway system was
instrumental in bringing this $1.5 billion investment to Monroe County,
Alabama, as well as other major industries that have located in this
river basin.
We again respectfully request approval of the Association's funding
request for fiscal year 2000.
______
Prepared Statement of Sandy Smith, Executive Director, Monroeville Area
Chamber of Commerce, Monroeville, AL
Our organization is in support of the Coosa-Alabama River
Improvement Association's request for fiscal year 2000 funding.
We support the regional effort to improve and extend the Coosa-
Alabama Waterway, and the need to improve the navigational ability
below the Claiborne Dam.
Lower freight rates provide a better export market, thus helping
our area manufacturers. In this regard, we also ask that you provide
$150,000 in funding for a feasibility study by the Corps of Engineers
on ways to improve navigation reliability below Claiborne Dam.
Please support our request! Thank you in advance.
______
Prepared Statement of William F. Joseph, Jr., Chairman, Montgomery
County Commission, Montgomery, AL
The Montgomery County Commission has a vital interest in the
development of the Coosa-Alabama River project which was originally
authorized by the Congress in 1945. The benefits which accrue to the
citizens of this region, and to the nation, fully justify the complete
construction and operation of this economical waterway.
We fully support the testimony provided by the Coosa-Alabama River
Improvement Association. For many years this group has represented us
and they accurately reflect our feelings of support for this waterway
project.
Of particular interest to us is funding to operate and maintain
(O&M) water projects in the Alabama-Coosa River Basin.
Also, we feel that the requested appropriation to fund a
feasibility study of ways to improve the navigation reliability below
Claiborne Dam will enhance the economic development of river basin
between Mobile and Montgomery. Additionally, we believe that the
requested appropriation to continue the operation and maintenance of
the entire system directly relates to lowered freight rates and
improves the export market and creates a positive improvement on our
nation's trade balance.
We urge your favorable consideration of the recommended
appropriations for fiscal year 2000. Adequate funding as requested is
necessary to insure that progress is made for further development of
the system and to properly operate and maintain the existing portion.
Similar information has been sent to Honorable Randall Packard,
Chairman, House Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water
Development, regarding this matter.
______
Letter From James T. Jordan
J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc.,
Centre, AL, March 15, 1999.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: This letter is to let you know that I
strongly support the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association's
funding request for fiscal year 2000.
I also support the regional effort to improve and extend the Coosa-
Alabama Waterway which needs to be much improved for navigational
reliability below the Claiborne Dam. There is also a need to maintain
and improve training works and dredging because the economic
development of the river basin between Mobile and Montgomery depends on
these improvements.
If freight rates are lowered, this will provide a better export
market, thus helping the trade business.
I also support funding of $5,185 million for the Alabama-Coosa;
$6,183 million for RF Henry; and $20.2 million for Mobile Bay.
Anything you can do to help the above will be very much
appreciated.
Sincerely,
James T. Jordan,
Director, CARIA.
______
Letter From Mayor David D. Whetstone, Jr.
City of Prattville,
Prattville, AL, March 15, 1999.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: I write to support the fiscal year 2000
budget request for continued improvements to the Alabama-Coosa
Waterway. I have had the pleasure to serve on the Coosa-Alabama River
Improvement Association (CARIA) for a number of years and have
personally seen the progress that has been made on this waterway,
thanks to the support of your subcommittee and subsequent federal
funding.
Based on the past improvement efforts, I would urge you and your
subcommittee to allow the progress to continue with an appropriate
allocation for fiscal year 2000. We need to improve the navigational
reliability below Claiborne Dam and we need to maintain and improve
training works and dredging.
As Mayor of one of the fastest-growing cities in Alabama, I know
firsthand how important this river basin is to the continued economic
development of our State from Mobile to Montgomery. With our City's
industrial growth, we too are seeing an increased need for improved
waterway transportation.
Thank you for your continued support of CARIA and for your
subcommittee's consideration of the fiscal year 2000 funding request.
Sincerely,
David D. Whetstone, Jr.,
Mayor.
______
Letter From W.O. Pace
Autauga County Commission,
Prattville, AL, March 15, 1999.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations For Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: This letter is to inform you that the
Autauga County Commission, Autauga County, Alabama, supports the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers request for funding fiscal year 2000 to operate
and maintain water projects in the Alabama-Coosa River Basin. There is
a definite need to improve navigation reliability on the lower Alabama
River for economic development reasons, i.e., decreasing tonnage on the
river because of the meandering of the river, sharp turns and low water
below Claiborne Dam; also, there has been a dearth of industries
seeking to relocate within the River Basin. Therefore, we need to
improve the navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam and maintain
and improve training works and dredging. Economic development between
Montgomery and Mobile depends on these improvements. The Corps is able
to maintain an authorized nine foot channel 65 to 70 percent of the
time, but major problems occur during July through September.
Barge costs on the Alabama River are higher than other waterways.
Shippers use barges in one direction only, but pay for travel both ways
because there is no backhaul available and there is not enough industry
in the Basin to warrant two-way shipping. Ninety four percent of tons
moved on the Alabama River are downbound. For these reasons, shippers
have found other modes of transportation or left the Basin altogether.
Adding to the costs the shippers have faced are delays caused by
the shallow water depth. Also, after 1991, environmental attacks on
sand and gravel businesses shipping by barge were so costly, a lot of
these businesses closed. Lowered freight rates provide a better export
market, thus helping the trade business. Waterways provide efficient
transportation that tends to lower inflation. Congress must support the
Interstate Compacts to resolve the two-basin water disputes among
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. Also, if Congress would amend the
Endangered Species Act to include reasonable, balanced measures between
environmental concerns and economic development instead of such
stringent regulations, this would greatly improve economic development.
We would sincerely appreciate your help in this matter that is so
vital to the State of Alabama.
Sincerely,
W.O. Pace,
Chairman, Autauga County Commission.
______
Prepared Statement of James D. Wallace, President, Selma and Dallas
County Chamber of Commerce, Selma, AL
It is my privilege to represent a rural city and county in Alabama
which has suffered through many economic nightmares not of their own
making. So, it is incumbent on me to always seek our projects which we
believe will be helpful in pulling this area out of its economic
dilemma and into the mainstream of development.
Our people are a wonderful, dedicated hardworking lot, but they
need to have the same opportunities as many of the much more developed
areas of these United States.
One of our hopeful signs through the years has been the proposed
development of our waterways not only for industrial tonnage, but also
for outdoor recreation and the clean economic dollars it brings into a
community.
The proposals supported by the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement
Association are aligned with our thoughts on what will be in the best
interest of the slow, but continued improvement to our waterways. This
has been a painfully slow, but ongoing process and we are hopeful that
Congress will continue to give fiscal support to this area.
The Coosa-Alabama System forms a corridor from Georgia through
Alabama, ending up in Mobile Bay. One part of the system is dependent
on the other so all the pieces of the puzzle are in need of funding
support.
We applaud you for supporting us in the past and are hopeful you
will continue to do so.
______
Prepared Statement of Carl Morgan, President, Economic Development
Authority, Selma, AL
We at the Selma and Dallas County Economic Development Authority as
well as representatives from the city of Selma, Alabama, wish to convey
our support of the funding request for fiscal year 2000. It is
imperative to the economy of Alabama that every effort is made to
improve and extend the Coosa-Alabama Waterway. Enhancing the
navigational reliability of the waterway below the Claiborne Dam and
maintenance of the training works and dredging is also vital to the
economic development of the river basin between Mobile and Montgomery.
Alabama's waterways have always been of the utmost importance.
Cahaba, the first capital of the state, was located between two rivers
and as a result industries who enjoyed this advantage thrived. Although
over one-hundred and fifty years have passed and steamboats no longer
traverse the rivers as they once did, Alabama's waterways remain
crucial to economic development today.
Within the last six months, businesses which could supply more than
2,500 jobs to the residents of Dallas County have visited the
community. One major criterion has continued to be river access in
relation to any sites under consideration. Several of our existing
industries utilize the Alabama River on a daily basis and would not be
able to continue to produce without this resource. For this reason, we
are asking you to help our residents by voting to approve the funds
requested and as noted below:
Alabama-Coosa................................................. $5.185
Miller's Ferry................................................ 5.560
RF Henry...................................................... 6.183
Allatoona..................................................... 6.328
Carter's Lake................................................. 8.150
Feasibility study of Lower AL River........................... 0.150
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 31.556
In addition, we support funding $20.2 million for Mobile Bay.
Obviously, increased user fees and taxes stifle waterway commercial
development. Without a doubt, lowered freight rates provide a better
export market. Ultimately, well-maintained waterways provide efficient
transportation which then lowers inflation.
We need this legislation in order to help the citizens of Alabama
and especially river towns such as Selma survive.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of Donald G. Waldon, Administrator, Tennessee-
Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority, Columbus, MS
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to submit our recommendations
concerning the funding needs for the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and
related projects in fiscal year 2000 for your consideration.
The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority is an
interstate compact comprised of the States of Alabama, Kentucky,
Mississippi, and Tennessee. Governor Paul Patton of Kentucky is
chairman of the compact, which promotes and markets the waterway and
it's economic and trade potential to the region and the nation.
tennessee-tombigbee waterway funding
We are very concerned about the continued deterioration of the
waterway caused by under funding during the past few years. Over $8
million of essential and critical repairs to the waterway will be
indefinitely postponed beyond fiscal year 2000 unless the Congress
restores the cutback in its funding as proposed by the Administration.
The following table briefly demonstrates the recent decline in funds
and shows that amount needed to adequately maintain the waterway.
tenn-tom funding history
Millions
1997.......................................................... $22.4
1998.......................................................... 19.5
1999.......................................................... 20.2
2000 Request.................................................. 19.9
2000 Recommendation........................................... 23.9
The Authority's recommendation of $23.9 million will fund some $4
million of important O&M work that will not be accomplished if the
President's budget is approved. It is most imperative that these
additional funds are provided to ensure the continued safe and
efficient operation of the project. The requested increase in funds
will address the following needs:
--$1,500,000 for additional dredging and spoil containment to ensure
unimpeded commercial navigation.
--$850,000 to help correct a potentially unsafe navigation condition
at Bevill Lock.
--$800,000 of additional funds provided to the Alabama and
Mississippi conservation agencies that are needed to better
manage some 140,000 acres of federally owned wildlife
mitigation lands.
--$750,000 thousand for urgently needed repairs to structures along
the 234-mile waterway.
The Corps of Engineers has already undertaken measures to reduce
operating costs of the waterway. For example, some campgrounds and
other recreation facilities are now closed earlier in the season
because of lack of operating funds. It is a travesty to curtail public
access to these waterway attractions. About $50 million have been
invested in these facilities that are very popular with the public,
attracting some 6 million visitors annually. The Tenn-Tom is the 4th
best Corps project in the nation for generating income from
recreational use and funding cuts are hurting receipts. Regrettably,
those revenues collected from recreational users are deposited in the
Treasury and not provided directly to the waterway to help finance its
operations.
Unless the Congress addresses this growing problem of indefinitely
deferred maintenance and repairs of the Tenn-Tom, the physical
integrity of the waterway will continue to erode and its ability to
generate expected economic benefits will greatly diminish. The Congress
has invested nearly $2 billion in the waterway and non-federal
interests have committed an additional $4 billion in port facilities,
industries, and other capital investments on the assumption the federal
government will fulfill its responsibilities to maintain the project.
It would be ``penny wise and pound foolish'' not to do so.
The $500-million Boeing rocket plant now under construction at
Decatur, AL, must have a dependable and adequately maintained
navigation channel to ship its rockets for launching. Starting in 2000,
the rockets will be transported on a specially built ship to launching
sites in Florida and California via the Tenn-Tom. Boeing officials have
begun to question the reliability of the waterway because of its under
funding. The plant will employ some 2,000 workers.
We, therefore, respectfully request that you and your committee
approve $23.9 million for the operation and maintenance of the
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, a budget that will help correct the
malign neglect of the past that has hurt the waterway's performance.
kentucky lock
The Authority recommends that $15 million be appropriated in fiscal
year 2000 for the continued construction of a new lock at Kentucky Dam
on the Tennessee River. This project is one of the most critically
needed improvements to the nation's waterway system. The recommended
funding is necessary to ensure the new lock's completion by 2008 before
the existing lock is closed for an extended period and commerce is
halted.
The existing 60-year old lock is a bottleneck to commerce, costing
shippers and industries millions of dollars in additional
transportation costs. The average delay to transit the antiquated lock
is more than 6 hours. Over 43 million tons of U.S. products and
commodities pass through this part of the nation's inland waterway
system each year. The new lock will return $2.50 in economic benefits
(mainly savings in transportation costs) for each dollar spent. This is
an excellent investment for the future economy of the nation.
chickamauga lock
We request that $3 million be provided to the Corps of Engineers to
continue major repairs to the Chickamauga lock and Dam on the Tennessee
River near Chattanooga. This project is over 50 years old and has
serious structural problems. The Corps began repairs to the project
this year that when completed will extend the physical life of the lock
and dam to about 2010. Without these repairs, the lock will permanently
close to traffic due to safety precautions in 2005.
Permanent closure of the lock to commerce would landlock east
Tennessee, seriously crippling several major industries that are
dependent on barge transportation and hurting that region's economy.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, closing Chickamauga will
also have significant adverse impacts on national missions conducted at
its Oak Ridge, Tn. facilities. These repairs will extend the life of
the antiquated lock until the Congress can decide whether to replace it
or close the waterway.
In that regard, we recommend that the Corps be given the necessary
funds to expeditiously conduct a study of the feasibility of replacing
this out-moded structure with a new project.
other programs
In closing, the Authority supports the proposed budget of $7
million for TVA's management of the Land Between the Lakes recreation
area. We also support those funds requested for the Appalahian Regional
Commission, an agency that greatly influences our region's economy and
quality of life.
Thank you for your careful consideration of our requests for the
continued funding of these most important projects and programs.
______
Prepared Statement of James H. Hodges, Governor, State of South
Carolina, Columbia, SC
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee; on behalf
of the citizens of the Palmetto State, thank you for the opportunity to
submit for the record comments regarding the fiscal year 2000 Water and
Energy Appropriations Bill.
I'm extremely proud to report to you that the historical, positive
partnership South Carolina enjoys with the Federal Government and
particularly the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), is as strong as
ever, and if possible, growing stronger. We appreciate your support of
our efforts to maximize the value of South Carolina's natural
resources, upon which our state's economic well-being is so very
dependent.
Our lakes and reservoirs are critical to hydroelectric power
production; intracoastal waterways and ports are key economic
development components; and beaches and shoreline essential to
recreation and tourism. Protection of the natural environment is key to
South Carolina's varied ecosystems and habitats, and integral to its
unspoiled beauty.
At the outset, I wish to express our gratitude for this Committee's
interest in, and support of, our prior years' testimonies. With your
help, South Carolina is moving forward on major USACE projects having
national implications, such as the deepening and widening of Charleston
Harbor and the protection of our famous Myrtle Beach Grand Strand area,
one of America's most popular vacation destinations. While there
certainly remains work to be done, I am enthusiastically encouraged
with our ``partnership's'' measurable progress and tangible results.
Sharing in the nation's current economic prosperity, South Carolina
is moving ahead with progressive economic development, job creation,
and environmental protection. We are a leader in the South in terms of
economic growth, and are below the national average in unemployment
rate. We are, however, a small state and our relative prosperity is
very dependent upon funding such as this Appropriations Bill. It's
obvious that its contents, and the actions of this Committee, have
widespread implications for the state as a whole.
With regard to the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Appropriation
Bill specifically, I note with pleasure the relative `health' of this
Bill as compared to recent years' submissions, particularly funding for
the Corps of Engineers. My comments for the record reflect input from,
and the concerns of, the principal State Agencies that work most
closely with the USACE Charleston District Office; namely the SC State
Ports Authority; the SC Department of Natural Resources; and the SC
Department of Health and Environmental Control/Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management. Attached to my testimony as ``Supporting
Documents'' are individual descriptions of the approved and on-going,
USACE projects throughout South Carolina.
In commenting on this legislation, it's my intention to convey to
this Committee the value of our partnership, and highlight those areas
both where we can further the Administration's goals, and where we need
Federal assistance sustaining critical project/program implementation.
I'm confident through our mutual support South Carolina will
effectively cross the ``Bridge to the 21st Century''.
south carolina's harbors and ports
Our significant harbor and port assets continue to be the fuel of
our economic engine. The great Port of Charleston, a national asset, is
now in the execution phase of a fully funded, $138.7 million deepening
and widening project; a project whose reality is the product of this
Committee's commitment and the state of South Carolina's significant
investment. The benefits to be realized will transcend the obvious as
creative collateral activities such as using the dredge material to
build berms for fish habitat, are pursued; a Win-Win for economists and
environmentalists alike. Likewise, our smaller, but equally important,
ports of Georgetown and Port Royal are principal players in the
industrial shipping arena. Dredging and dike maintenance projects are
critical to the effectiveness of these waterways, and South Carolina
stands ready to support any project requirements necessary to utilize
existing USACE capabilities should additional Federal funds be
identified. I'll elaborate on this area later.
I would like to comment on the three principle appropriation
accounts within the USACE (Civil Works) fiscal year 2000 budget
proposal that have direct impact on South Carolina and its quality of
life: General Investigations (Studies); Construction General; and
Operations and Maintenance (O&M).
studies
We are appreciative of budgeting provided for general
investigations related to Congaree, Santee, Cooper, and Yadkin-Pee Dee
rivers, which are essential to overall water resources evaluation.
There are, however, two additional reconnaissance studies in need of
Committee support: the Broad River Basin, NC & SC; and the Charleston
Harbor Extension (Please note: the Charleston Harbor Extension study
will require a Committee Resolution for study authorization). The only
funding required is $100,000 to initiate each study, and the definitive
insights gained are certainly worth the minimal cost. Study
descriptions are provided in the Supporting Documents.
In a related issue, there are growing concerns with regard to
contamination of sediments in the greater Charleston Harbor and
Estuary. In a cooperative effort, the University of South Carolina and
the SC Department of Natural Resources have approached the USACE
Charleston District Office about conducting such a study in an effort
to pro-act to the obvious hazard associated with dredging and spoil
disposal of contaminated sediments. The SC Legislative Delegation has
keen interest in this initiative, and I am fully supportive of any
solution that can be implemented to assist in bringing such a study to
fruition. Your support would be greatly appreciated.
construction general
As alluded to earlier, we are pleased to finally have our major
Charleston Harbor Deepening/Widening project funded and underway, and
to be nearing completion of the Myrtle Beach Storm Damage Reduction
project. Adequate funding is also in place to carry out USACE
Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) projects. This essential, cost
shared program, has been, and continues to be, well managed and
implemented under USAGE Charleston District Office cognizance, as is
considered by state planners to be invaluable to effective resource
planning.
Also funded within the Construction account is the Aquatic Plant
Control (APC) Program. Control of noxious aquatic plants continues to
be a matter of serious concern to South Carolina. Productivity of our
waterways and hydro-electric dams are essential to our economy.
Millions of dollars have been spent to date to research, eradicate, and
control destructive weeds in our lakes and reservoirs, and we have made
measurable progress. The downside is that in order to secure our gains,
continued control activities must take place or re-growth will occur
and we'll be back to ``square one''. Unfortunately, despite this
Committee's adding funds to the Aquatic Plant Control Program last
year, all of it was funneled into research and none made available to
states for control activities. Again this year there are no funds in
the Administration's budget for APC, and I respectfully request you
reexamine this ``pay me now or pay me later'' scenario, and specify
$250,000 for South Carolina in order to keep this serious problem at
bay. Details can be found in the Supporting Documents.
operation & maintenance (o&m)
Nowhere are there greater implications for funding than in the O&M
account. Maintenance of the nation's navigable waterways and existing
infrastructure is critical to the economic viability and safety of both
the State and its citizens. There are shortfalls in the O&M area that I
would like to highlight and seek your support in alleviating.
Dredging and Diking are critical to the overall navigability of our
waterways. Murrells Inlet is home to an active commercial fishing fleet
and several marinas housing significant numbers of commercial and
private recreational vessels. Current navigability is being compromised
due to shoaling and sediment overflow from the upstream deposition
basin. Inaccessibility of this channel will result in virtual collapse
of local economic livelihood. This O&M project calls for maintaining .6
miles of the entrance channel; three miles of inner channel; one
turning basin; deposition basin; and two stone jetties, but received
zero funds this year. There has not been dredging activity since 1988
and there is an immediate need in order to keep the channel at the
required depth of 12 feet. USAGE capabilities are consistent with the
estimated $1.48 million project cost, and can support this critical
activity.
While Georgetown Harbor has current maintenance funds allocated,
additional funds are necessary to control harbor depth, which is not an
activity currently funded. Passage of larger ships is important to the
harbor's viability and failing to dredge this year will denigrate this
harbor's capability to support commercial shipping. An estimated $2.8
million is necessary to restore Georgetown harbor to navigable depth.
As mentioned earlier, dikes along the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway are in serious disrepair. Existing O&M funds are inadequate to
accomplish the needed dike repair necessary to ensure adequate dredge
disposal areas in the near future. $1.5 million is necessary to execute
minimum dike repair and undertake systematic erosion control.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, we in South Carolina recognize that
despite the current positive economic climate and budget surpluses,
resources are not unlimited and priorities must be established. But
South Carolina also occupies a unique position in our national
interest. Key military installations, coastal geography, interstate
trade routes, and international commerce are all dynamics at work
within our boarders. We consider ourselves good stewards of taxpayer
resources and a responsible partner in the prudent expenditure of
valuable funds. I urge you to favorably consider our reasonable
requests for fiscal assistance, and furthermore, to think of your
commitment as an investment, not an expense.
We look forward to continuing our partnership in the collective
pursuit of excellence for our deserving constituents.
______
Prepared Statement of Cyrus M. Jollivette, Vice President for
Government Relations, University of Miami
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am privileged to
have the opportunity to submit this statement on behalf of Rosenstiel
School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami in
Coral Gables, Florida.
Respectfully, the University, joined by the City of Miami Beach,
Florida seeks your support for the establishment of a demonstration
project in Miami Beach which could arrest the continuing problem of
coastal erosion, particularly in the cities of Miami Beach, Surfside,
and Bal Harbour, Florida. This demonstration project would focus on the
12 miles of sandy beaches between Bakers Haulover Inlet and Government
Cut.
By the mid-seventies, this beach segment had severely eroded,
leaving only a small area of dry beach during low water. To prevent
loss of land and to prevent damage to existing structures from storm
surge, many of the adjacent properties had to be protected by sea walls
and revetments. Because of the lack of sufficient dry beach, tourism
declined, which has adverse effects on the economy of the region.
To remedy some of these problems, in 1975, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE), in partnership with Miami-Dade County, initiated the
Miami-Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Surge Project. At
that time, Miami-Dade County and the ACOE entered into a 50-year
contract for the joint management of Miami-Dade's sandy beaches. During
the period 1979-1982, the ACOE constructed a hurricane dune and
nourished the beaches between Bakers Haulover Inlet and Government Cut.
A total of 60 million cubic yards of sand was placed on the beach
thereby increasing its width to 300 feet. The implementation of the
beach nourishment has had a tremendously positive effect on the economy
of the region.
In judging the performance of the project, it should be realized
that beach nourishment is a repeat process and, based on experience
with other beaches, should be carried on the average of every 5 years.
The Miami Beach Nourishment, has a considerable better track record.
Only after some 15 years were there areas that needed to be
renourished. However at this time, 20 years after the start of the
original nourishment, the beach as a whole has eroded to an extent that
a large scale renourishment seems unavoidable unless a return to the
situation in the mid 1970s is accepted. The major problem is where to
find sand in sufficient quantities to re-supply the beaches, as the
near-shore deposits of sand which have been the source for the
nourishment project have been exhausted.
The erosion along the beaches between Bakers Haulover Inlet and
Government Cut is not uniform. Since the implementation of the
nourishment during the period 1979-1982, the northern two-third has
steadily eroded whereas the southern one-third has accreted.
Furthermore, in the erosional part there are ``hot spots'' where the
erosion is much more severe than in others. The reason for this
situation is not directly obvious and has to do with the local off-
shore bathymetry, wave climate, and sediment characteristics. In
addition, Bakers Haulover Inlet plays an important role in the erosion
along the beaches of Bal Harbor and Surfside. The present shoreline is
irregular in plain view--rather than a smooth curve between the two
inlets--and is characterized by indentations and protrusions.
Although there is some transfer of sand across the inlets, to a
first approximation the area between the two inlets can be considered a
self-contained littoral cell. The seaward boundary of that cell is not
known and the big question is how much sand is lost to the offshore.
The remaining sand is redistributed in the cell by waves. From a recent
study, it is known that sand eroded from the northern two thirds of
beach can be traced to the southern one-third of the beach. Also,
bathymetric surveys show that the beach does not conform to the
straight design slope of 1:40. The actual beach slope is gentler and
the underwater beach shows a bar. This leads to a loss of dry beach.
As suggested earlier, the causes of the irregular appearance of the
shoreline, the presence of erosional ``hot spots'' and the shape of the
beach profile are related to offshore bathymetry, wave climate, and the
characteristics of the beach sand. Therefore, to identify the cause(s)
of erosion, to explain the presence of the erosional ``hot spots'' and
to predict the anticipated beach profile, information is needed on
bathymetry, wave climate, and sediment characteristics.
None of this information is in sufficient detail and will require
measurements, the results of which would be interpreted using computer
models. Deep-water waves will be carried inshore to calculate the wave
characteristics at breaking. From this information, long-shore
currents, sediment transport and changes in bathymetry, including the
position of the shoreline will be calculated. The measurements will
allow construction of an improved sediment budget. For this effort, the
beach would be divided into compartments, both in the long-shore and
cross-shore direction. The principle of conservation of sand would be
applied to each compartment, i.e., the rate of change of the sediment
volume in each compartment would equal the volume of sediment in minus
the volume of sediment leaving the compartment. Comparison with
observed changes in bathymetry, including changes in beach profile,
should identify the causes of erosion and erosional ``hot spots'' as
well as the shape of the beach profile.
The City of Miami Beach remains committed to identifying outside
sources of sand and expediting the evaluation of the environmental,
physical and economic viability of the potential sources, to ensure
that sufficient quantities of beach-quality sand are available to
fulfill future needs. However it is realized that continuing to pump
sand to the beaches without addressing the underlying causes of
erosion, will lead to an endless cycle of needing more, increasingly
expensive sand.
Another possible solution is to transfer sand from the southern
accretional part to the northern erosional part of the beach. Recycling
will reduce the dependence on outside sources of sand.
Although presently beach nourishment is the accepted way to combat
erosion, the lack of sand sources requires us to rethink the process.
It could well be that for Miami Beach a combination of beach
nourishment and hard structures (e.g., off-shore breakwaters) is a more
desirable solution. The hard structures would reduce the sand losses
and more importantly when located properly, would concentrate the sand
that has eroded from the beaches in places where it can be retrieved by
dredges.
The measurements and subsequent analysis referred to in the
previous section should help to optimize the use of outside sand
sources and the recycling technique and provide the necessary knowledge
to properly design combined measures of nourishment and hard
structures.
To arrive at a solution to the erosion problem, the City of Miami
Beach in cooperation with the University of Miami is suggesting a two-
prong approach consisting of the development of a long-term beach
management plan and the implementation of two demonstration projects.
Combating beach erosion takes a regional (the beach area between
the two inlets) rather than a local (``hot spots'') approach. The first
order of business in establishing a beach management plan is to
identify the causes of the beach erosion and to determine whether there
exists an equilibrium shoreline position and equilibrium beach profile.
After that the questions of how, where and when to combat erosion can
be addressed. This includes the question whether hard structures should
be included. An important item in arriving at answers to these
questions is the development of an improved sediment budget. In view of
the necessary field measurements, the development of the beach
management plan is expected to take 5 years.
Mr. Chairman, the University of Miami is pleased to be an active
partner of the City of Miami Beach, Florida in an effort to provide an
efficient, cost-effective remedy for the continuing coastal erosion
problems along the southeast Atlantic Coast. We are convinced that the
results of this proposed demonstration project will make an important
contribution to gaining a permanent solution to the problem.
To accomplish this important program the University of Miami seeks
$2 million from the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Subcommittee through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Your support
would be appreciated, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues and I at the
University of Miami thank you for the opportunity to present these
views for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Volusia County, Florida
On behalf of our citizens and fishermen, Volusia County, Florida,
is requesting that the Subcommittee appropriate $1,000,000 in fiscal
year 2000 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Construction
account to fund, in part an 1000 foot oceanward extension of the South
Jetty of the Ponce DeLeon Inlet. This funding is essential to protect
the Inlet, along with the existing North Jetty and its landward
extension funded by this committee in fiscal year 1999. A more detailed
case history and description of the situation and project follow 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.
In the current fiscal year, the COE received $4,034,000 from the
Operations and Maintenance account to extend the North Jetty of the
Inlet landward by 800 feet. This maintenance project is underway and
intended to be completed as soon as possible to prevent the erosion
that 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.
Volusia County is requesting that the COE receive the South Jetty
construction funds in anticipation of the project's authorization in
the next Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). S. 507, as reported by
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee includes a contingent
authorization for the South Jetty project, estimated to cost
$5,454,000, of which $2,988,000 allocated to as the federal cost. We
understand that the South Jetty project is included in the WRDA
language the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is
currently drafting. We also understand that the Jacksonville District
Engineer and the Atlanta Division Engineer have forwarded a positive
recommendation to COE headquarters on the project. The COE anticipates
that the construction of the jetty extensions will help stabilize the
Inlet and reduce future maintenance costs.
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 was the first step toward correcting the
failure and meeting the challenge. Funding the beginning phase of the
1000 foot oceanward extension of the South Jetty in fiscal year 2000 is
the next critical step toward providing safe passage for 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.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Seminole Tribe of Florida
The Seminole Tribe of Florida is pleased to submit this statement
regarding the fiscal year 2000 budget for the Army Corps of Engineers
(COE). The Tribe asks that Congress provide $21.1 million in the COE's
construction budget for critical projects in the Florida Everglades, as
authorized in section 528 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
of 1996. The Tribe's Everglades restoration project on our Big Cypress
reservation is a highly ranked critical project that the Tribe and the
COE have worked cooperatively on for over two years. The Tribe's
critical project includes a complex water conservation plan and a canal
that transverses the Reservation. The Tribe has invested a significant
amount of funds to support the conceptual planning and design of this
project, as well as for the environmental analysis required by federal
law. The Tribe firmly believes that the federal government should
provide the funds authorized by WRDA and relied upon by local sponsors,
including the Seminole Tribe, for Everglades restoration projects that
will benefit federal lands and the highly sensitive and nationally-
valued Everglades ecosystem.
The Tribe's critical project is a part of the Tribe's Everglades
Restoration Initiative, which includes the design and construction of a
comprehensive water conservation system. This project is designed to
improve the water quality and natural hydropatterns in the Big Cypress
Basin. This project will contribute to the overall success of both the
federal and the state governments' multi-agency effort to preserve and
restore the delicate ecosystem of the Florida Everglades. In
recognition of this contribution, the Seminole Tribe's Restoration
Initiative has been endorsed by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Task Force and has been found to be consistent with the recommendations
of the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida.
the seminole tribe of florida
The Seminole Tribe lives in the Florida Everglades. The Big Cypress
Reservation is located in the western basins, directly north of the Big
Cypress National Preserve. The Everglades provide many Seminole Tribal
members with their livelihood. Our traditional Seminole cultural,
religious, and recreational activities, as well as commercial
endeavors, are dependent on a healthy Everglades ecosystem. In fact,
the Tribe's identity is so closely linked to the land that Tribal
members believe that if the land dies, so will the Tribe.
During the Seminole Wars of the 19th Century, our Tribe found
protection in the hostile Everglades. But for this harsh environment
filled with sawgrass and alligators, the Seminole Tribe of Florida
would not exist today. Once in the Everglades, we learned how to use
the natural system for support without harm to the environment that
sustained us. For example, our native dwelling, the chickee, is made of
cypress logs and palmetto fronds and protects its inhabitants from the
sun and rain, while allowing maximum circulation for cooling. When a
chickee has outlived its useful life, the cypress and palmetto return
to the earth to nourish the soil.
In response to social challenges within the Tribe, we looked to our
Tribal elders for guidance. Our elders taught us to look to the land,
for when the land was ill, the Tribe would soon be ill as well. When we
looked at the land, we saw the Everglades in decline and recognized
that we had to help mitigate the impacts of man on this natural system.
At the same time, we acknowledged that this land must sustain our
people, and thereby our culture. The clear message we heard from our
elders and the land was that we must design a way of life to preserve
the land and the Tribe. Tribal members must be able to work and sustain
themselves. We need to protect the land and the animals, but we must
also protect our Tribal farmers and ranchers.
Recognizing the needs of our land and our people, the Tribe, along
with our consultants, designed a plan to mitigate the harm to the land
and water systems within the Reservation while ensuring a sustainable
future for the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The restoration plan will
allow Tribal members to continue their farming and ranching activities
while improving water quality and restoring natural hydroperiod to
large portions of the native lands on the Reservation and ultimately,
positively effecting the Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades
National Park.
The Seminole Tribe's project addresses the environmental
degradation wrought by decades of federal flood control construction
and polluted urban and agricultural runoff. The interrupted sheet flow
and hydroperiod have stressed native species and encouraged the spread
of exotic species. Nutrient-laden runoff has supported the rapid spread
of cattails, which choke out the periphyton algae mat and sawgrass
necessary for the success of the wet/dry cycle that supports the
wildlife of the Everglades.
The Seminole Tribe designed an Everglades Restoration project to
allow the Tribe to sustain ourselves while reducing impacts on the
Everglades. The Seminole Tribe is committed to improving the water
quality and flows on the Big Cypress Reservation. We have already
committed significant resources to the design of this project and to
our water quality data collection and monitoring system. We are willing
to continue our efforts and to commit more resources, for our cultural
survival is at stake.
seminole tribe's big cypress critical project
The Tribe has developed a conceptual water conservation plan that
will enable us to meet new water quality standards essential to the
cleanup of our part of the Everglades ecosystem and to plan for the
storage and conveyance of our water rights. The Tribe's Everglades
Restoration Initiative is designed to mitigate the degradation the
Everglades has suffered through decades of flood control projects and
urban and agricultural use and ultimately to restore the nation's
largest wetlands to a healthy state.
The Seminole Tribe critical project provides for the design and
construction of water control, management, and treatment facilities on
the western half of the Big Cypress reservation. The project elements
include conveyance systems, including major canal bypass structures,
irrigation storage cells, and water resources areas. This project will
enable the Tribe to meet proposed numeric target for low phosphorus
concentrations that is being used for design purposes by state and
federal authorities, as well as to convey and store irrigation water
and improve flood control. It will also provide an important public
benefit: a new system to convey excess water from the western basins to
the Big Cypress National Preserve, where water is vitally needed for
rehydration and restoration of lands within the Preserve.
conclusion
Improving the water quality of the basins feeding into the Big
Cypress National Preserve and the Everglades National Park is vital to
restoring the Everglades for future generations. By granting this
appropriation request, the federal government will be taking a
substantive step towards improving the quality of the surface water
that flows over the Big Cypress Reservation and on into the delicate
Everglades ecosystem. Such responsible action with regard to the Big
Cypress Reservation, which is federal land held in trust for the Tribe,
will send a clear message that the federal government is committed to
Everglades restoration.
The Seminole Tribe is ready, willing, and able to begin work
immediately. Doing so will require substantial commitments from the
Tribe, including the dedication of over 2,400 acres of land for water
management improvements included in the critical project. However, if
the Tribe is to move forward with its contribution to the restoration
of the South Florida ecosystem, a substantially higher level of federal
financial assistance will be needed as well.
The Tribe has demonstrated its economic commitment to the
Everglades Restoration effort; the Tribe is asking the federal
government to also participate in that effort. This effort benefits not
just The Seminole Tribe, but all Floridians who depend on a reliable
supply of clean, fresh water flowing out of the Everglades, and all
Americans whose lives are enriched by this unique national treasure.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the request of the
Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Tribe will provide additional
information upon request.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Miami Beach, Florida
The City of Miami Beach appreciates the opportunity to submit for
the record (1) testimony on an innovative new beach erosion control
initiative, and (2) testimony in support of the request by Miami-Dade
County for beach renourishment funds.
coastal erosion prevention initiative
The City of Miami Beach, Florida, in conjunction with the
University of Miami seeks your support for the establishment of a
demonstration project in Miami Beach which could arrest the continuing
problem of coastal erosion, particularly in the cities of Miami Beach,
Surfside, and Bal Harbour, Florida. This demonstration project would
focus on the 12 miles of sandy beaches between Bakers Haulover Inlet
and Government Cut Inlet.
By the mid-seventies, this beach segment had severely eroded,
leaving only a small area of dry beach during low water. To prevent
loss of land and to prevent damage to existing structures from storm
surge, many of the adjacent properties had to be protected by sea walls
and revetments. Because of the lack of sufficient dry beach, tourism
declined, which has adverse effects on the economy of the region.
To remedy some of these problems, in 1975, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE), in partnership with Miami-Dade County, initiated the
Miami-Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Surge Protection
Project. At that time, Miami-Dade County and the ACOE entered into a
50-year contract for the joint management of Miami-Dade's sandy
beaches. During the period 1979-1982, the ACOE constructed a hurricane
dune and nourished the beaches between Bakers Haulover Inlet and
Government Cut. A total of 20 million cubic yards of sand was placed on
the beach thereby increasing its width to 300 feet. The implementation
of the beach nourishment has had a tremendously positive effect on the
economy of the region.
In judging the performance of the project, it should be realized
that beach nourishment is a repeat process and, based on experience
with other beaches, should be carried on the average of every 5 years.
While Miami Beach has had a better track record, the beach as a whole
has eroded to an extent that a large scale renourishment seems
unavoidable, in spite of the completion of three renourishment efforts
over the past 15 years. The major problem is where to find sand in
sufficient quantities to re-supply the beaches, as the near-shore
deposits of sand which have been the source for the nourishment project
have been exhausted.
The erosion along the beaches between Bakers Haulover Inlet and
Government Cut is not uniform. Since the implementation of the
nourishment during the period 1979-1982, the northern two-third has
steadily eroded whereas the southern one-third has accreted.
Furthermore, there are ``hot spot areas'' where the erosion is much
more severe than in others. The reason for this situation is not
directly obvious and has to do with the local off-shore bathymetry,
wave climate, and sediment characteristics. In addition, Bakers
Haulover Inlet plays an important role in the erosion along the beaches
of Bal Harbor and Surfside. The present shoreline is irregular in plain
view--rather than a smooth curve between the two inlets--and is
characterized by indentations and protrusions.
Although there is some transfer of sand across the inlets, to a
first approximation the area between the two inlets can be considered a
self-contained littoral cell. The seaward boundary of that cell is not
known and the big question is how much sand is lost to the offshore.
The remaining sand is redistributed in the cell by waves. From a recent
study, it is known that sand eroded from the northern two thirds of
beach can be traced to the southern one-third of the beach. Also,
bathymetric surveys show that the beach does not conform to the
straight design slope of 1:40. The actual beach slope is gentler and
the underwater beach shows a bar. This leads to a loss of dry beach.
As suggested earlier, the causes of the irregular appearance of the
shoreline, the presence of erosional ``hot spots'' and the shape of the
beach profile are related to offshore bathymetry, wave climate, and the
characteristics of the beach sand. Therefore, to identify the cause(s)
of erosion, to explain the presence of the erosional ``hot spots'' and
to predict the anticipated beach profile, information is needed on
bathymetry, wave climate, and sediment characteristics.
None of this information is in sufficient detail and will require
measurements, the results of which would be interpreted using computer
models. Deep-water waves will be carried inshore to calculate the wave
characteristics at breaking. From this information, long-shore
currents, sediment transport and changes in bathymetry, including the
position of the shoreline will be calculated. The measurements will
allow construction of an improved sediment budget. For this effort, the
beach would be divided into compartments, both in the long-shore and
cross-shore direction. The principle of conservation of sand would be
applied to each compartment, i.e., the rate of change of the sediment
volume in each compartment would equal the volume of sediment in minus
the volume of sediment leaving the compartment. Comparison with
observed changes in bathymetry, including changes in beach profile,
should identify the causes of erosion and erosional ``hot spots'' as
well as the shape of the beach profile.
To arrive at a solution to the erosion problem, the City of Miami
Beach in cooperation with the University of Miami is suggesting a two-
prong approach consisting of the development of a long-term beach
management plan and the implementation of a demonstration project.
Combating beach erosion takes a regional (the beach area between
the two inlets) rather than a local approach. The first order of
business in establishing a beach management plan is to identify the
causes of the beach erosion and to determine whether there exists an
equilibrium shoreline position and equilibrium beach profile. After
that the questions of how, where and when to combat erosion can be
addressed. This includes the question whether hard structures should be
included. An important item in arriving at answers to these questions
is the development of an improved sediment budget. In view of the
necessary field measurements, the development of the beach management
plan is expected to take 5 years.
The City of Miami Beach remains committed to identifying outside
sources of sand and expediting the evaluation of the environmental,
physical and economic viability of the potential sources, to ensure
that sufficient quantities of beach-quality sand are available to
fulfill future needs. However it is realized that continuing to pump
sand to the beaches without addressing the underlying causes of
erosion, will lead to an endless cycle of needing more, increasingly
expensive sand.
Another possible solution to be investigated is to transfer sand
from the southern accretional part to the northern erosional part of
the beach. Recycling will reduce the dependence on outside sources of
sand.
Although presently beach nourishment is the accepted way to combat
erosion, the lack of sand sources requires us to rethink the process.
It could well be that for Miami Beach a combination of beach
nourishment and hard structures (e.g., off-shore breakwaters) is a more
desirable solution. The hard structures would reduce the sand losses
and more importantly when located properly, would concentrate the sand
that has eroded from the beaches in places where it can be retrieved by
dredges.
The measurements and subsequent analysis referred to in the
previous section should help to optimize the use of outside sand
sources and the recycling technique and provide the necessary knowledge
to properly design combined measures of nourishment and hard
structures.
Mr. Chairman, the City of Miami Beach is pleased to be an active
partner with the University of Miami in an effort to provide an
efficient, cost-effective remedy for the continuing coastal erosion
problems along the southeast Atlantic Coast. We are convinced that the
results of this proposed demonstration project will make an important
contribution to gaining a permanent solution to the problem.
To accomplish this important program the City of Miami Beach seeks
$2 million from the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Subcommittee through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
support for miami-dade construction request
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.
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 1999 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 2000 request for $7.3 million in beach
renourishment funds.
Your support would be appreciated, Mr. Chairman. The City of Miami
Beach thanks you for the opportunity to present these views for your
consideration.
______
OHIO RIVER VALLEY INLAND NAVIGATION PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of R. Barry Palmer, Executive Director, DINAMO
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 US
Army Corps of Engineers, we in the Ohio Valley are beginning to see the
results of 18 years of continuous hard work in improving our river
infrastructure.
Lock and dam modernization at Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam, Grays
Landing Locks 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. The immediate problems
really are focused on completing in a timely manner lock and dam
modernization projects authorized by the Congress in subsequent water
resources development acts. Substantial problems remain for adequate
funding of improvements at the Olmsted Locks and Dams, Ohio River, IL/
KY; Lower Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3 & 4, PA; McAlpine Locks
and Dam, Ohio River, IN/KY; Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, WV; and for the
Kentucky Locks, Tennessee River, KY. The construction schedules for all
of these projects have been severely constrained, and we are requesting
increased funding for these construction projects at an ``efficient
construction rate.'' Following is a listing of the projects and an
efficient funding level determined by the US Army Corps of Engineers to
advance these projects, in order to complete construction by 2008 or
earlier:
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
$7,150,000 for continued construction.
2. For the Winfield Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV,
$1,400,000 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, $56,100,000 for continued
construction of the twin 110 foot x 1,200 foot locks and design of
the new gated dam.
4. For improvements to Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3 & 4,
PA, $53,00,000 for continued construction of Dam 2, for relocations
related to the construction project, and continued design of Lock 4.
5. For the McAlpine Lock Project on the Ohio River, IN/KY,
$10,800,000 to continue design of the new 110 foot x 1,200 foot lock
addition and for continued construction of the new 110 foot x 1,200
foot lock.
6. For the Marmet Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV,
$11,350,000 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,
$15,000,000 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, Greenup, Emsworth, Dashields, and
Montgomery Locks and Dams, $9,600,000. This level of funding is needed
to complete for WRDA 2000 and WRDA 2002, respectively, the studies
leading to interim feasibility reports (construction authorization
documents) for additional capacity at these five lock and dam
locations. Also the Corps of Engineers needs additional funding to
complete the Ohio River Main Stem Study to determine where additional
improvements may be needed in future years on the Ohio River Navigation
System.
For the five projects identified in Points 3-7, the fiscal year
2000 Civil Works Budget of the US Army Corps of Engineers allocates
only $70,584,000, when the ``efficient'' construction level for fiscal
year 2000 identified by the Corps is $146,250,000. This difference is
that an additional $75 million for these five projects is needed in
fiscal year 2000. Attached is a chart outlining fiscal year 1998 and
fiscal year 1999 appropriations, fiscal year 2000 budget requests by
the Administration, and fiscal year 2000 efficient funding levels for
Ohio Valley lock and dam modernization projects. The information
related to efficient funding levels was provided to DINAMO by the
Commander, Great Lakes and Ohio River Division, US Army Corps of
Engineers.
Completion dates for the Lower Mon project have been delayed 7
years from 2003 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 was 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.
Additionally it should be noted that there are about $340 million in
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 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.
Expenditures for lock and dam modernization are an investment in
the physical infrastructure of this nation. The Corps of Engineers
construction budget of $1.24 billion for fiscal year 2000 is about $300
million less than the $1.52 billion Congress provided for fiscal year
1999. Mr. Chairman, we have great confidence in the Corps of Engineers
and urge your support for a funding level more in line with the real
water resources development needs of the nation. For lock and dam
modernization on America's inland navigation system, targeted
construction funding ought to be at a level of about $250-300 million
annually. Last year Congress provided about $4.1 billion for the Corps
of Engineers program and about $125 million for lock and dam
modernization on America's inland navigation system. It is reasonable
that funding for the Corps program should be increased to levels closer
to $4.4 billion. With this kind of increased funding, as amply
supported in both the House and Senate appropriations committee report
language last year, it is clear that a national lock and dam
modernization program could be sustained at a level commensurate with
the needs for improving the nation's inland navigation system.
We thank you for the opportunity to present this request and our
thoughts on these matters.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING OF OHIO VALLEY LOCK AND DAM MODERNIZATION PROJECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------------------------
1998 Energy & 1999 Energy & Funding at
Water Water Efficient Level
Development Development 2000 Budget of Construction
Appropriation Appropriation Request
Act Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction:
Robert C. Byrd Locks & Dam, Ohio River, $5,356,000 $8,000,000 $7,150,000 $7,150,000
OH/WV..................................
Grays Landing Locks and Dam, Monongahela 2,900,000 ............... ............... ...............
River, PA..............................
Point Marion Locks & Dam................ ............... ............... ............... ...............
Winfield Locks & Dam.................... 8,500,000 4,500,000 1,400,000 1,400,000
Olmsted Locks & Dam \1\................. 98,400,000 54,500,000 28,634,000 56,100,000
Locks & Dams 2, 3, & 4 \1\.............. 18,200,000 26,500,000 21,600,000 53,000,000
McAlpine Locks & Dam, Ohio River, IN/KY 6,720,000 5,300,000 2,800,000 10,800,000
\1\....................................
Marmet Locks & Dam \1\.................. 1,830,000 6,500,000 9,800,000 11,350,000
Kentucky Lock Addition, Tennessee River, 4,000,000 8,500,000 7,750,000 15,000,000
KY \1\.................................
London Locks & Dam \2\.................. 1,000,000 ............... 600,000 600,000
Surveys: Ohio River Main Stem Study (John T. 8,800,000 10,150,000 7,157,000 9,600,000
Myers/Newburgh)............................
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals................................ 155,746,000 123,950,000 86,891,000 165,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Targeted priorities by DINAMO.
\2\ Major rehabilitation of London L/D would require a ``new construction start,'' included in the fiscal year
2000 budget.
______
Prepared Statement of Joseph E. Lema, Vice President, Manufacturers and
Services Division, National Mining Association
The National Mining Association (NMA) urges inclusion of funding in
the fiscal year 2000 budget for construction and rehabilitation of
inland waterways navigation lockage facilities at selected sites on the
Ohio, Monongahela, Kanawha, and Tennessee Rivers, and for expeditious
completion of the ongoing Ohio River Main Stem Study being performed by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
NMA member companies produce two-thirds of the coal mined in the
United States and most of the other nonfuel metallic and nonmetallic
minerals. Producers of coal and many other nonfuel minerals rely on
safe, efficient, and competitive inland barge transportation services
for intermodal rail/barge, truck/barge, and conveyor/barge shipments to
utility plants, agriculture, construction, and metals production sites,
and port terminals on the Gulf of Mexico from which mining commodities
are shipped in coastal commerce and international trade.
navigation program
The Ohio River from Pittsburgh to its juncture with the Mississippi
River at Cairo, Illinois, and the interconnecting Monongahela, Kanawha,
and Tennessee Rivers are a major component of the nation's bulk freight
transportation network which links commercial centers in the east and
the midwest and, through its connections with the Tennessee River and
the Mississippi River, most of mid-America from the upper east and
midwest to the Gulf of Mexico. Added to their proven effectiveness in
carrying bulk commodities, barge operations are fuel efficient and free
of conflicts with other ground transportation modes, thereby reducing
emissions which otherwise would be encountered if trucks were to be
utilized in place of barges resulting in higher levels of traffic
congestion. One typical barge tow on the Ohio River can accommodate two
trainloads of coal, and can handle freight tonnage which would require
900 truck movements, clearly showing the economic and environmental
advantages of barges.
Underscoring the importance of moving forward swiftly with
construction and rehabilitation projects to replace obsolete facilities
and to increase lockage capacities on the Ohio, Monongahela, Kanawha,
and Tennessee Rivers is the breakup of Consolidated Rail Corporation
(Conrail) in 1999 by the purchase of Conrail's trackage by two mega-
rail-carriers in the east, thereby reducing from three to two the
number of major, line-haul railroads providing service in the east.
Railroad restructuring in the east through consolidation of line-haul
trackage makes the effectiveness of the inland waterways particularly
strategic and critical as fiscal year 2000 begins.
From year to year, and currently, NMA has applied a systems
approach toward analyzing inland waterways problems and needs in our
appearance before this Subcommittee, NMA's involvement with the Inland
Waterways Users Board, our communications with representatives of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and NMA's participation in meetings with
shippers, carriers, terminal operators, and others such as the Marine
Transportation System (MTS) Task Force organized under the leadership
of the Secretary of Transportation to develop an MTS Strategy for our
nation. In continuation of NMA's systems approach employed for many
years of concerted effort in support of assuring the viability of the
inland waterways system through funding approved by this Subcommittee,
a process which has demonstrated important benefits by virtue of budget
approvals by this Subcommittee since the mid-1980's, NMA urges the
Subcommittee to approve the budget items presented below for funding in
fiscal year 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Item \1\ Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio River Main Stem Systems Study (KY, Complete feasibility level
IL, IN, PA, WV and OH), with priorities engineering designs and
for John T. Myers, Newburgh, Cannelton, NEPA studies for priority
Emsworth, Dashields and Montgomery sites. lockage improvements, and
expedite similar activity
for other sites.
Marmet Locks and Dam on the Kanawha River Construction to replace
(WV). obsolete structure and
increase lockage capacity.
Locks and Dams, 2, 3 and 4 on the Construction to replace
Monongahela River (PA). three obsolete L&D's with
two L&D's.
Kentucky Lock and Dam on the Tennessee Construction to add a 1,200-
River (KY). ft x 110-ft lock chamber.
Olmsted Locks and Dam on the Ohio River Construction to replace
(IL & KY). obsolete L&D's 52 & 53 at
new L&D site.
McAlpine Locks and Dam on the Ohio River Construction of a new,
(IN & KY). second 1,200-ft X 110-ft
lock chamber.
John T. Myers Locks and Dam on the Ohio Preconstruction engineering
River (IN & KY). and design for addition of
a second 1,200-ft x 110-
ft lock chamber.
Greenup Locks and Dam on the Ohio River Preconstruction engineering
(KY & OH). and design for addition of
a second 1,200-ft x 110-
ft lock chamber.
London Locks and Dam on the Kanawha River Major rehabilitation of
(WV). aging structure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except for the John T. Myers and the Greenup Locks and Dams, each of
the budget items presented above presently are authorized. The two
sites yet to be authorized justifiably warrant addition of second
1,200-ft x 110-ft lock chambers to accommodate existing traffic.
These fiscal year 2000 budget recommendations for navigation
project construction and rehabilitation arise from a systems approach
to identification of problems and needs on the Ohio River System
summarized by the following points:
--Locks and Dams 2, 3 and 4 on the Monongahela River near Pittsburgh
typically are transited by commercial barge tows requiring
passage through each of those sites as they navigate that
segment of the River, which can be accomplished better by the
removal of Lock and Dam 3 and uniformly upgrading obsolete
Locks and Dams 2 and 4.
--The Marmet Locks and Dam on Kanawha River should have a new 800-ft
x 110-ft lock to match the new lock built at the Winfield
Locks and Dam downstream near Charleston to effectively
accommodate barge tows which originate in the Marmet pool and
must transit Marmet before arriving at the Winfield site as
barge tows flow toward the Ohio River.
--Locks and Dams on the Lower Ohio River below Huntington should have
twin 1,200-ft x 110-ft locks to accommodate heavy barge
traffic characterized by towboats pushing 15 jumbo barges that
require such lock chambers to transit sites in a single pass
without breaking up the tow. In addition, the second chamber
becomes especially critical at times when lock closures are
required for repair and maintenance operations, leaving a
single lock in service. For the past 10 years, barge tonnage on
the Ohio River has increased at an average annual rate of two
percent, reflecting a 22 percent increase in 1996 over 1986, a
rate which is expected to continue especially in line with
growth in the demand for electricity fueled by coal.
--The Kentucky Lock and Dam should have a new 1,200-ft x 110-ft
lock chamber to handle a modern 15-barge tow from the Lower
Ohio River which must transit the site to proceed on the
Tennessee River just above Paducah in proximity to the junction
of the Lower Ohio River and the Tennessee River, matching Ohio
River locks.
--The first three locks and dams on the Upper Ohio River below
Pittsburgh are obsolete, aged and deteriorated, requiring
modernization through replacement and/or major rehabilitation.
--The London Locks and Dam on the Kanawha River above the Marmet
Locks and Dam is aged and deteriorated, requiring early major
rehabilitation.
--The Ohio River Main Stem Study underway for several years should be
expedited at least to the point where interim reports on
engineering feasibility of improvements at key lock and dam
sites will be issued in fiscal year 2000, and accompanying
preconstruction engineering and design work can be initiated
for priority construction and rehabilitation projects during
fiscal year 2000 and the years 2000 to 2003.
The Ohio River System is a principal corridor for distributing coal
and other commodities via intermodal truck-barge and rail-barge routes
in eastern and midwestern states. The corridor is especially expansive
by virtue of the Ohio River's connections with other rivers, in
particular the Monongahela, Kanawha, Big Sandy, Green, Cumberland,
Tennessee and Mississippi Rivers, furnishing continuity of barge
traffic to the southern states and the Gulf of Mexico. Table 1 shows
how barge freight has been growing on selected rivers in the Ohio River
System from 1987 to 1996.
TABLE 1.--BARGE FREIGHT TRAFFIC \1\
[Millions of tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal All Commodities
River ---------------------------------------------------
1987 1996 1987 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio River Mainstem \2\..................................... 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.
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 goals, 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.
The replacement of Locks and Dams 52 and 53 with new twin 1,200
foot x 110 foot locks at a new site located between the Ohio River
junctions with the Mississippi River and the Tennessee River will
reduce the number of controlling lock and dam sites on the Ohio River
to 20. This will furnish a significant improvement for barge traffic in
the river segment just above the mouth of the Ohio River. 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 such barge
tows, enabling single passes by the barge tows through each of the
sites.
Barge traffic passing through eight lock and dam projects between
Huntington, West Virginia and Paducah, Kentucky is exceptionally heavy.
Of those eight sites, 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 timely to schedule
construction projects at the remaining six sites in the Lower Ohio
River, specifically at the J.T. Myers, Newburgh, Cannelton, Markland,
Meldahl, and Greenup sites, which each have 1,200-foot main chambers
and 600-foot auxiliary chambers, whereas twin 1,200-foot by 110-foot
lock chambers are justified in order to accommodate existing and
projected barge traffic. NMA urges the Subcommittee to consider these
needs as high priorities for funding navigation construction in fiscal
year 2000.
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. In H.R. 4060, the
fiscal year 1999 Appropriations bill (Public Law 105-245), the
Subcommittee recognized the expertise and capability of the ``the Corps
to participate meaningfully in acid drainage remediation efforts.''
Further, the Subcommittee directed the Corps of Engineers to assume a
participatory role in the National Mine Land Reclamation Center . . .
``using available funds and to the extent authorized by law.'' Since
the enactment of this funding measure, the Corps has not complied with
this directive. The NMA urges the Subcommittee to pursue this issue
with the Corps and request a status report on its effort to participate
in the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative.
______
MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of Donald T. Bollinger, Chairman, Louisiana
Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry
1. Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA
(construction general).--Recommend Corps be funded to full capability
in fiscal year 2000 to perform required work on the saltwater intrusion
mitigation plan and complete design studies for potential phase III 55-
foot channel.
2. Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, maintenance
dredging.--Recommend approval of President's fiscal year 2000 Budget of
$64,430,000 under O&M General to construct new anchorages and maintain
new and existing anchorages.
3. Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), LA, maintenance
dredging.--President's fiscal year 2000 Budget is $14,989,000 under O&M
General. Recommend that Corps be funded increased capability for bank
stabilization.
4. Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock, LA.--President's
fiscal year 2000 Budget only includes $13,000,000 in construction funds
for the IHNC New Ship Lock. Recommend that Corps be funded to full
capability to continue lock construction and fully fund the community
impact mitigation plan.
5. Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA.--Recommend approval of
the President's fiscal year 2000 Budget of $2,743,000 under O&M
General.
6. Intracoastal Waterway Locks, LA.--Recommend approval of the
President's fiscal year 2000 budget of $700,000 in GI funds to continue
the feasibility study and to develop plans for replacement of Bayou
Sorrel Lock on the GIWW, Morgan City-to-Port Allen alternate route.
7. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA and TX.--President's fiscal year
2000 budget is $12,506,000 under O&M General. Recommend that Corps be
funded increased capability for a new crane at the IHNC Lock and the
construction of two miter gates for the Port Allen lock.
8. Calcasieu Lock, LA.--Recommend approval of President's fiscal
year 2000 budget of $541,000 in GI funds to continue the feasibility
phase of the study to replace Calcasieu Lock on the GIWW.
9. Calcasieu River and Pass, LA.--President's fiscal year 2000
Budget is $7,560,000 under O&M General. Recommend the Corps be funded
increased capability to provide additional advanced dredging
maintenance; to provide rockwork at Dugas Landing; to fully fund
contracts to dredge the bar channel and miles 5-14; and to renovate
disposal areas.
10. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport,
LA.--President's fiscal year 2000 Budget is $21,113,000 in Construction
General and $8,781,000 for O&M General. Recommend that Corps be funded
to full capability to complete work already under way.
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, the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway and the Calcasieu
River waterway and the maritime interests related thereto of the State
of Louisiana relative to Congressional appropriations for fiscal year
2000.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports that in 1997 a total of
420.7 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 20 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 236,000 barges through the Port of New Orleans
annually. In 1997, 2,371 ocean-going vessels operated by more than 80
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 (34.8 percent); Asia (27.5 percent); Europe (26.6 percent);
Africa (9.5 percent) and North America (1.6 percent). During the same
year, more than 5,900 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 1997, the region's ports and
port facilities handled 212 million tons of foreign waterborne
commerce. Valued at $38.9 billion, this cargo accounted for 18 percent
of the nation's international waterborne trade and 23.9 percent of all
U.S. exports. Bulk cargo, primarily consisting of tremendous grain and
animal feed exports and petroleum imports, made up approximately 92
percent of this volume. More than 41 million tons of grain from 17
states, representing 50.9 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 82.2 million short tons of petroleum and petroleum products,
approximately 16 percent of U.S. waterborne imports of petroleum
products.
In 1997, 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 74
million tons of international cargo worth $18.7 billion (included in
lower Mississippi River statistics). General cargo totaled 10.3 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 facilitated the provision of deepwater port access, passage
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, 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. The absence of funding for this vitally important project
in the President's fiscal year 2000 Budget was most disappointing. 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.
Along with the Port of New Orleans, the Port of South Louisiana,
the nation's largest port with 183.6 million tons of foreign and
domestic cargo in 1997, and the Port of Baton Rouge, the nation's sixth
largest port with 84 million tons of foreign and domestic cargo in
1997, 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 2000 Budget amount of
$64,430,000 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.
Maintenance of adequate depths and channel widths in the
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Channel (MRGO) 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 1997, 530 general cargo vessels calling on
the MRGO Tidewater facilities accounted for 26.6 percent of the general
cargo tonnage handled over public facilities at the Port of New Orleans
and 85.1 percent of Louisiana's containerized cargo.
Because of the MRGO's demonstrated vulnerability to coastal storm
activity, annual channel maintenance dredging and bank stabilization
are essential to assure unimpeded vessel operations. In 1998, heavy
shoaling related to Hurricane Georges resulted in the imposition of a
draft restriction from the project depth of 36 feet to 25 feet. The
President's fiscal year 2000 Budget amount is $14,989,000 under O&M
General. We, however, strongly recommend that the Corps be funded
increased capability for 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 one and will provide $110 million
annually in transportation cost savings. In addition to minimizing
adverse impacts to adjacent neighborhoods, the project includes a $33
million Community Impact Mitigation Program. The President's fiscal
year 2000 Budget amount of $13,000,000 for the IHNC New Ship Lock will
pay for continued engineering and design work, construction, and
partial funding of the mitigation program. We, therefore, recommend
that the Corps be funded to full capability to enable construction and
mitigation program implementation. In particular, we recommend that the
mitigation program be fully funded.
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 1997, these channels accommodated cargo
movements exceeding 3.5 million tons. In addition to routine traffic,
Baptiste Collette Bayou is used by shallow draft vessels as an
alternate route between the MRGO, GIWW and the Mississippi River. The
President's fiscal year 2000 Budget amount is $2,743,000 under O&M
General.
More than 84.9 million tons of cargo transverse the GIWW in the New
Orleans District annually. The President's fiscal year 2000 Budget for
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Louisiana and Texas is $12,506,000 under
O&M General. In addition, we recommend that the Corps be funded
increased O&M capability for a new crane at the IHNC lock, two miter
gates at the Port Allen lock and continued maintenance of the Louisiana
and Texas sections of the GIWW.
To assure the efficient flow of commerce on the GIWW, approval is
urged for the President's budget of $700,000 in fiscal year 2000 GI
funds to continue the feasibility study to develop plans for replacing
Bayou Sorrel Lock, Morgan City-to-Port Allen alternate route. Also we
recommend approval of the President's budget of $541,000 in GI funds to
continue the feasibility phase of the study to replace Calcasieu Lock.
The Port of Lake Charles, Louisiana, is served by the Calcasieu
River, which is often below project depth and width. This Port is one
of Louisiana's major deep-water ports, benefiting the economy of the
state and the nation. In 1997, the Port handled 33.1 million tons of
import cargo and 16.7 million tons of export cargo. The Port and
private facilities along this waterway provide thousands of jobs for
the Lake Charles area. In 1997, 945 ships and 6,834 barges used the
Calcasieu River waterway. The Port area's growth and continued success
depends on the provision of a reliable and safe channel at full project
dimensions. Project deficiencies necessitate one-way traffic for many
ships, which results in delays and disrupted cargo operations that are
costly and inefficient to industry. We request the Corps be funded
increased capability to provide additional advanced dredging
maintenance and rockwork at Dugas Landing. In addition, we request full
funding of contracts to dredge the bar channel, dredge miles 5-14, and
renovate disposal areas.
One additional project warrants consideration. The J. Bennett
Johnston 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 deep draft ports on the lower
Mississippi River. The President's fiscal year 2000 Budget includes
$21,113,000 in Construction General for substantial project completion
and $8,781,000 for Operations and Maintenance. We 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. Gary P. LaGrange, Executive Director of
the Port of South Louisiana, Mr. Roger Richard, Executive Director of
the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission, Mr. Glenwood Wiseman,
Executive Director of the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District,
Mr. Benny Rousselle, President of Plaquemines Parish, Mr. Channing
Hayden, President of the Steamship Association of Louisiana; Capt. John
Levine, President of the Associated Branch Pilots and Capt. Mark
Delesdernier, President of the Crescent River Port Pilots Association
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 2000 for Ports on the Lower
Mississippi River, J. Bennett Johnston Waterway and Calcasieu River
Waterway
Amount in
fiscal year 2000 budget
President's fiscal
Project year 2000 budget
Mississippi River Ship Channel Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA.
(Construction General)..............................................
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, Maintenance
Dredging, & Stabilization (O&M General)............. 64,430,000
Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO), LA. (O&M General) 14,989,000
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock LA. (Construction
General)............................................ 13,000,000
Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA. (O&M General).. 2,743,000
Intracoastal Waterway Locks (GI Funds).................. 700,000
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway LA. & TX. (O&M General)...... 12,506,000
Calcasieu Lock, LA. (GI Funds).......................... 541,000
Calcasieu River and Pass, LA. (O&M General)............. 7,560,000
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway:
(Construction General).............................. 21,113,000
(O&M General)....................................... 8,781,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total J. Bennett Johnston Waterway................ 29,894,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 146,363,000
Lower Mississippi River--Foreign Waterborne Commerce
[Calendar Years: 1985-1997]
Percent
1997.............................................................. 18.0
1996.............................................................. 16.6
1995.............................................................. 18.6
1994.............................................................. 17.8
1993.............................................................. 18.1
1992.............................................................. 18.2
1991.............................................................. 16.6
1990.............................................................. 17.6
1989.............................................................. 16.9
1988.............................................................. 15.9
1987.............................................................. 18.2
1986.............................................................. 15.1
1985.............................................................. 14.8
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER \1\
[Calendar year 1997]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar
World Area value Tonnage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe................................................ 26.2 20.9
Asia.................................................. 31.6 34.8
Africa................................................ 10.5 12.4
N. America............................................ 0.6 0.7
Latin America......................................... 31.1 31.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Foreign Waterborne Commerce.
Lower Mississippi River
[In millions of dollars]
Principal Countries Dollar value
Japan......................................................... 3,345
Saudi Arabia.................................................. 2,852
Venezuela..................................................... 2,429
Mexico........................................................ 1,995
Netherlands................................................... 1,640
All others.................................................... 26,666
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 38,927
[Thousands of short tons]
Principal countries Tonnage
Saudi Arabia.................................................. 23,975
Japan......................................................... 19,951
Venezuela..................................................... 18,380
Mexico........................................................ 15,160
Colombia...................................................... 8,580
All others.................................................... 126,019
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 212,065
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER \1\--PRINCIPAL COMMODITIES--CALENDAR YEAR 1997
[STONS]
Petroleum & Petroleum Products.......................... 82,186,500
Iron & Steel............................................ 9,594,101
Metalliferous Ores...................................... 7,168,299
Fertilizers............................................. 6,648,718
Nonmetallic Mineral Manuf............................... 2,033,539
Coal, Coke & Briquettes................................. 1,518,558
Chemicals............................................... 1,128,575
All Others.............................................. 3,572,351
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
IMPORTS TOTAL..................................... 113,850,641
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Cereal & Cereal Products................................ 41,340,365
Oilseeds & Oleaginous Fruit............................. 20,102,971
Animal Feeds............................................ 13,727,175
Coal, Coke & Briquettes................................. 7,820,702
Petroleum & Petroleum Prods............................. 7,019,284
Chemicals............................................... 2,203,473
Vegetable Fats & Oils................................... 1,704,335
All Others.............................................. 4,296,467
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
EXPORTS TOTAL..................................... 98,214,772
\1\ FOREIGN WATERBORNE COMMERCE.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
mississippi river gulf outlet facts and comparisons--calendar year 1997
Responsible for 2.7 million tons of international general cargo.
Represents 26.6 percent of general cargo handled over public
facilities at the Port of New Orleans.
Responsible for 85.1 percent of all container cargo in the State of
Louisiana.
Represents approximately 22.3 percent of the Port of New Orleans'
vessel calls.
Cargo handled at public facilities via the MR-GO had an estimated
economic impact of $793 million to the State of Louisiana.
The economic activity resulting from the MR-GO supported an
estimated 12,075 jobs in the New Orleans metropolitan area.
Sources: Port of New Orleans UNO Economic Impact Study.
Calendar year STONS
1975.......................................................... 5,386,800
1976.......................................................... 6,970,600
1977.......................................................... 8,780,700
1978.......................................................... 9,411,100
1979.......................................................... 8,227,200
1980.......................................................... 5,541,500
1981.......................................................... 5,794,800
1982.......................................................... 5,571,800
1983.......................................................... 5,435,000
1984.......................................................... 8,034,500
1985.......................................................... 6,916,000
1986.......................................................... 8,145,000
1987.......................................................... 7,703,000
1988.......................................................... 7,687,000
1989.......................................................... 7,289,000
1990.......................................................... 7,059,000
1991.......................................................... 6,094,000
1992.......................................................... 6,444,000
1993.......................................................... 7,160,000
1994.......................................................... 5,586,000
1995.......................................................... 5,700,000
1996.......................................................... 5,042,000
1997.......................................................... 5,253,000
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10NDP.011
MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET
[1997 Commodity profile]
Percent
Food & Farm Prods................................................. 17.2
Petro/Petro Prods................................................. 2.2
Crude Mat'ls...................................................... 36.9
Cola.............................................................. 0.2
Chemical.......................................................... 18.9
All others........................................................ 0.2
Primary Mfgr Goods................................................ 16.9
Mfr Equipment..................................................... 7.6
Note: Foreign Waterborne Commerce
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engrs & Port of New Orleans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
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 fiscal year 2000 Appropriations in
reference to projects of public interest that affect Louisiana's deep-
water ports.
1. 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
2000 is necessary for this required work.
2. MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER FROM BATON ROUGE
TO THE GULF OF MEXICO.--We urge approval of the $64,430,000 in the
President's fiscal year 2000 budget under O&M General.
3. MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET MAINTENANCE DREDGING AND BANK
STABILIZATION.--In addition to the $14,989,000 in the President's
fiscal year 2000 budget under O&M General, we urge that the Corps be
funded an increased capability in fiscal year 2000 to maintain this
channel, which includes bank stabilization on both banks and jetty
maintenance.
4. NEW INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL SHIP LOCK.--Recognizing that
only $13,000,000 is included in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget
for construction funds, we urge that the Corps be funded to full
capability in fiscal year 2000 for this project, which is essential to
advance the engineering, design, and construction and to continue the
community impact mitigation plan.
5. CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS. LOUISIANA.--We urge approval of the
$7,560,000 in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget under O&M General
and recommend that the Corps be funded an increased capability in
fiscal year 2000 to provide additional advance maintenance dredging, to
maintain rock protection at Dugas Landing Embankment, as well as fully
fund contracts to dredge the bar channel, to dredge Miles 5-14, and to
renovate disposal areas.
6. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO SHREVEPORT,
LOUISIANA.--Recognizing that $21,113,000 is in the President's fiscal
year 2000 budget to substantially complete this vital project and
$8,781,000 for O&M in fiscal year 2000, we urge that the Corps be
funded to full capability for fiscal year 2000. 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 under way.
7. THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED HARBOR SERVICE FEE.--We do not support
the President's proposed fees to replace the Harbor Maintenance Tax.
The strength of our nation's transportation system is its foreign and
domestic waterborne commerce. It benefits the entire nation through the
revenue and jobs it provides the country. Therefore, the maintenance of
our nation's ports should be handled through the general fund and not
by placing another tax burden on this vital industry, which serves the
country well.
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 Senate Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee on fiscal year 2000 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 approximately 9,000
deep-draft vessels in waterborne 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
(SWP) are critical to keep project draft. Project draft ensures the
Mississippi River's deep-water ports will handle the country's foreign
and domestic waterborne commerce in the most cost-effective way
possible.
For years we have urged this Committee to provide funds to maintain
project draft at SWP. You have responded, and your wisdom has
benefitted the entire American heartland served by the Mississippi
River system. SWP was greatly restricted throughout the 1970s. 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 heave 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. However, the lack of available hopper dredges is
jeopardizing the stability of the channel.
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
environmentally beneficial West Bay Diversion Project, which we fully
support.
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 and
attractive to vessels. 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 $15.30 per ton to
$10.28 a ton. Using the average, $12.79, each foot of draft represents
an additional $38,370 in vessel revenue, or $191,850 for the five
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 SWP and the water injection dredges 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 and other bulk cargo
facilities. This area caters to the bulk trade and must have a stable
channel depth consistent with the depth at SWP. 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 SWP open, especially when the
river is abnormally high. The action by Congress to reduce the
government hopper fleet has drastically diminished 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 Corps'
records show there was a shortage of hopper dredges for the 1997
highwater season, and this year is no different. Two hoppers were
needed to begin work in SWP, but none were available. The Corps,
through a test program, has employed two dustpan dredges to try to keep
the channel open. This is not efficient because the silt is only moved
to the edge or side of the channel and can fall back into the waterway.
In fact, the situation became so difficult that ships were taking about
eight hours to transit a two-mile reach at the jetty end of SWP.
Normally it takes about two and one-half hours to transit the entire 20
miles of the SWP. This serious situation resulted in the WHEELER being
released from Mobile to work the troubled SWP area. 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 2000 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. For
safety reasons in this narrow channel, one-way traffic 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.
Hurricane Georges compounded the MR-GO problems by causing severe
shoaling in the channel restricting the project depth of 36 feet to as
low as 25 feet. Restoration has been ongoing for over five months.
Initially the lack of available hopper dredges curtailed work. The
highest wages under the International Longshoreman's Association's
contract ($24 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 2000. This will allow annual maintenance dredging,
north and south bank stabilization, and jetty maintenance, which is
essential to provide the stability needed for vessel and port
operations.
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 1920s
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 2000 budget of $13,000,000 is not sufficient. 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
2000 capability for this important project to insure its completion.
Delays are unthinkable since the new lock is long overdue.
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 rough figures, their
import and export tonnage is up from 49.8 million tons in 1997 to over
50.1 million tons for 1998. The public and private facilities along
this waterway provide thousands of jobs for the Lake Charles area. In
1998 there were 1,150 ships and 6,999 barges that used the waterway.
While cargo tonnage and barge traffic is only up slightly, it should be
noted that ship traffic up from 945 in 1997 to 1,150 in 1998, a 21.69
percent increase. Part of this increase in ship traffic is due to ships
calling with less cargo because of the channel deficiencies. 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. Last year, because of channel
deficiencies, we know at least one major tanker service that calls at
one of the area's major refineries reduced their operating draft by two
feet in order to meet their company's safety and environmental policy
requirement. This draft reduction reduces the delivery capacity to the
facility, causing a less efficient plant operation and increasing the
operating costs of the ships serving the plant. In just this one
specific case, over the course of a year, the ship and refinery costs
will increase by $4.7 million. The added costs have the potential of
eventually causing a shift of the cargo currently destined for Lake
Charles to other ports. This will reduce jobs in the area and disrupt
the economy of the community. The Port area's growth and continued
success depends on a reliable and safe channel that should be at full
project. We request funding to the full capability of the Corps to
maintain this channel at its project dimensions.
The J. Bennett Johnston 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 2000.
The proposed Harbor Service Fee (HSF) in the President's budget,
which would replace the Harbor Maintenance Tax, is ill-advised. What it
fails to recognize is that there is no equitable way in which the cost
can be spread fairly among the shipping community. Whether the HSF is
to the cargo or to the ship, the fee will change trade patterns and
even jeopardize our trading position in the world market. The proposal
will disrupt jobs and the economies of port areas. It will circumvent
the normal, healthy competition among U.S. ports. Ships carrying low-
valued cargo, primarily bulk cargoes, operate on a very low profit
margin; therefore, cargoes like grain and coal can least afford the
tax. The end result could well be that the U.S. could lose its ability
to compete in the world market for the export of these cargoes. This
impact on bulk trade will be particularly detrimental to Louisiana
because of the high volume of such cargoes that move through our state.
We encourage Congress to fund the maintenance of our nation's ports
through the general fund. After all, it is our nation (the people) that
benefit from a strong U.S. position in world trade, not the shipping
industry. If our nation is to remain competitive in the world market,
we must maintain and improve our waterways and deliver U.S. goods at
the lowest possible price to foreign markets.
Thank you for allowing the Association to submit testimony on the
Corps' funding needs.
______
Prepared Statement of J. Ron Brinson, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Port of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA
The Port of New Orleans is located at the terminus of the most
extensively developed waterway system in the world, the 14,500 mile
inland waterway system of the United States. 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 26, 1999 statement of the Louisiana
Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry on behalf of the ports and
related maritime interests on the lower Mississippi River, J. Bennett
Johnston Waterway and the Calcasieu River Waterway.
We greatly appreciate the outstanding support and cooperation
received over many years from you and your subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of Gary P. LaGrange, Executive Director/CEO, 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 third
largest in the world, handling more than 216 million short tons of
cargo during 1998. Of this total tonnage, more than 100 million tons
are shipped in international trade by deep water vessel and 116 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 from 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.
1. Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA
(Construction General)
2. Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, Maintenance Dredging
and GI Funds For Navigation Study
3. Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO), LA., Maintenance Dredging
4. Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock, LA
5. Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA
6. Intracoastal Waterway Locks, LA
7. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA and TX
8. Calcasieu Lock, LA
9. Calcasieu River & Pass, LA
10. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport
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.
______
Prepared Statement of Roger P. Richard, Executive Director, Port of
Greater Baton Rouge, Port Allen, LA
The Port of Greater Baton Rouge respectfully requests that your
committee give favorable consideration to the following projects.
1. Mississippi River Ship Channel--Gulf to Baton Rouge,
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.
2. 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.
3. Intracoastal Waterway Locks, LA.--Recommend approval of the
President's fiscal year 2000 budget of $700,000 in GI funds to continue
the feasibility study and to develop plans for replacement of Bayou
Sorrel Lock on the GIWW, Morgan City to Port Allen alternate route.
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 ports.
We also earnestly request your support for funding of the other
projects included in testimony prepared and submitted by Mr. Donald T.
Bollinger. A summary of Mr. Bollinger's statement is attached. These
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
and support of these important projects for the Mississippi River are
greatly appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of Glenwood W. Wiseman, Executive Director, Lake
Charles Harbor & Terminal District, Lake Charles, LA
The Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District respectfully requests
favorable consideration from you and your committee for the following
projects.
1. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.--The District supports full
funding for the O&M general and supports additional funding for
advanced maintenance dredging, disposal area renovations and bank
stabilizing rock.
This project is vital not only to the Port of Lake Charles, but to
many parts of the nation. The Calcasieu River provides a route for oil
and gas to enter the country's 15th largest port and ultimately be
distributed to the Midwest and Northeast areas. The Port also provides
a route for exports such as bagged grains, wood and paper products, dry
bulk materials and other commodities which originate from as far as the
Pacific Northwest.
The District also requests support for funding of the other
projects included in the testimony of Mr. Donald Bollinger. These
projects are extremely important to Louisiana ports as well as the
nation.
Your assistance with these matters are most appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of Benny Rousselle, 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 2000:
1. MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA
(CONSTRUCTION GENERAL).--We recommend that the Corps be funded to full
capability in fiscal year 2000 to perform required work on the
saltwater intrusion mitigation plan.
2. MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF, MAINTENANCE
DREDGING.--We recommend that approval of the President's fiscal year
2000 Budget of $64,430,000 under O&M General.
3. MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LOUISIANA.--The President's
fiscal year 2000 Budget is $2,743,000 under O&M General. Recommend that
Corps be funded increased capability for repair of jetty-breakwater at
Baptiste Collette.
We would certainly appreciate your consideration and all the
assistance you can give us in those projects.
______
Prepared Statement of John L. Levine, Jr., President, Associated Branch
Pilots, Metairie, LA
The Associated Branch Pilots is an Association of Pilots that have
been guiding oceangoing vessels into the entrances of the Mississippi
River system for over 125 years. We are called Bar Pilots because we
guide the ships past the 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 1998, the Associated Branch Pilots made 12,697 transits on
oceangoing vessels through Southwest Pass. Of these ships, 3,252 were
of 50,000 deadweight tons or greater and 475 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 1980'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 of 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
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 1998,
542 ships called on the port 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 improve the most efficient and
productive waterway system in the country.
______
Prepared Statement of Capt. Mark Delesdernier, Jr., President, Crescent
River Port Pilots' Association, Belle Chasse, LA
Mr. Chairman: I have served as President of the largest pilot
association in the United States for the past seventeen (17) 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 seventeen
thousand (17,000) ships during 1998. We pilot deep draft vessels on
more than one hundred (100) miles on the lower Mississippi River and
thirty five (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 forty feet (40) to forty five (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 to 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 a disaster if it is not kept at project width and
depth. The Crescent River Pilots strongly support approval of funding
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 Gov. M.J. ``Mike'' Foster, Jr., on Behalf of the
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Office of
Public Works and Intermodal Transportation
mississippi river and tributaries project
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Office
of Public Works and Intermodal Transportation, 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 2000 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 90 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 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....................................... $19,125,000
Old River............................................... 8,110,000
Bonnet Carre............................................ 1,068,000
Bayou Rapides Drainage Structure and Pumping Plant
(Lower Red River, South Bank Levees)................ 2,950,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System....................... 1,702,000
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. Specifically, there are six
levee slides at five locations along the West Atchafalaya Basin
Protection Levee which require immediate attention. We are requesting
an additional $4.2 million to be designated for this purpose in the
Atchafalaya Basin O&M account.
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. This project is considered
major maintenance and additional funds of $2.95 million are urgently
needed to construct this project. We urge your support for funding and
request that specific language be included in the appropriations bill
to earmark the funds and direct the Secretary of the Army to construct
this project.
All 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.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES (LA ONLY)--Request: $17,320,000
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project above Louisiana is
about 90 percent complete, but to a much lesser extent in Louisiana.
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 capable of producing the
funds necessary for both maintenance and rights-of-way.
LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY LEVEE--Request: $9,000,000
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. We also request authorization for credit for work
accomplished by non-Federal interests.
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN--Request: $27,750,000
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 may 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.
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT (LA ONLY)--Request: $23,604,000
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 $2,500,000 for the Vicksburg District for
fiscal year 2000 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: $9,930,000
The funds for fiscal year 2000 are to be used to continue
construction of levee Items 2A and 2B, complete the HaHa Pumping Plant,
Item 1E, levee Item 3B and Fool River pumping plant. An additional $1
million is requested to advance the award of Item 1C and 1D and
acquisition of lands.
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM--Request: $8,000,000
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.
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION PROJECT, DAVIS POND--Request: $11,884,000
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, as well as 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, Office of Public Works and Intermodal
Transportation, 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 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 Mississippi Valley Flood Control
Association in their request for a minimum of $335,000,000 MR&T budget
for funding to the full capability of the Corps throughout the whole
valley.
The State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and
Development, Office of Public Works and Intermodal Transportation, 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
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana
Louisiana projects Budget request request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and Maintenance:
Mississippi River Levees (LA only).. $2,092,000 $2,092,000
Atchafalaya Basin................... 10,560,000 19,125,000
Channel Improvement (LA only)....... 31,291,000 31,291,000
Old River Control Structure......... 4,027,000 8,110,000
Bonnet Carre Spillway............... 1,068,000 1,068,000
Lower Red River, SOL--Bayou Rapides .............. 2,950,000
Drainage Structure & Pumping Plant.
Tensas Basin:
Boeuf & Tensas Rivers, (LA only) 1,406,000 1,406,000
Red River Backwater Area........ 2,927,000 2,927,000
Atchafalaya Basin, Floodway System, 644,000 1,702,000
LA.................................
Baton Rouge Harbor--Devil Swamp, LA. 157,000 157,000
Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries...... 101,000 101,000
Mississippi Delta Region, 436,000 436,000
Caernarvon, LA.....................
Lower Red River--South Bank Levees.. 84,000 84,000
Construction:
Mississippi River Levees (LA only).. 13,020,000 17,320,000
Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee.. 3,000,000 9,000,000
Atchafalaya Basin................... 19,750,000 23,750,000
Channel Improvements (LA only)...... 21,104,000 23,604,000
Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater 8,903,000 9,930,000
Area...............................
Atchafalaya Basin, Floodway System. 7,500,000 8,000,000
Mississippi Delta Region, Davis Pond 10,400,000 11,884,000
Mississippi & Louisiana Estuarine 100,000 100,000
Area (Bonnet Carre)................
General Investigations:
Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico...... 700,000 700,000
Alexandria to the Gulf of Mexico.... 700,000 700,000
Donaldsonville to the Gulf of Mexico 250,000 250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Mississippi Valley Flood
Control Association.
______
Prepared Statement of M.V. Williams, President, West Tennessee
Tributaries Association, Friendship, TN and Chairman, Executive
Committee, Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, 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 Mississippi Valley
Flood Control Association with headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee. This
statement on behalf of the Association presents their views on fiscal
year 2000 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.
Since there are new members of the Sub-Committee I will briefly
discuss the 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 Iowa, 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 Mississippi Valley, extending from Burlington, Iowa 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
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
Mississippi Valley for well over sixty years.
Our Association is comprised of a very large group of individuals
who are businessmen, property owners, conservationists, farmers,
attorneys, doctors, wildlife enthusiasts, engineers, accountants,
environmentalists, civil servants and elected officials from all
political parties.
Our Objectives simply stated are:
To seek Congressional authorization for, and adequate annual
appropriations for the early completion of all flood control projects
necessary for the protection of the Lower Mississippi Valley against
the maximum probable flood.
To secure prompt initiation of, and early completion of existing
project for the stabilization of the banks of the Lower Mississippi
River, in order to assure the integrity of the Main River Levee System;
to provide increased flood discharge capacity, permanency of location
for harbor facilities and industrial sites, and to obtain deeper and
more reliable navigation channels.
To support channel and major drainage improvements throughout the
Lower Mississippi Valley to provide protection against headwater
flooding, and to provide adequate outlets for local and state drainage
projects.
To cooperate in every proper way with the Department of the Army,
the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, the Mississippi River
Commission and other agencies to hasten the accomplishment of flood
control in the Mississippi Valley.
We submit this testimony this year in support of the Mississippi
River and Tributaries Project which was established by the Flood
Control Act of 1928.
Our Executive Committee is composed of business and professional
men. They are men of wide experience in business, professional and
civic life. They are mature in their judgment and responsible in their
actions. It, therefore, has been no easy task for that Committee to
arrive at an asking figure based on urgent needs and yet tempered in
the light of the grave fiscal problems which face the Federal
Government. I say these things to emphasize that our asking was not
arrived at by whim and fancy.
We have closely examined the President's Budget Request for fiscal
year 2000 and find that it is completely inadequate for the Mississippi
River and Tributaries Project. The $280,000,000 that the President has
requested is the same amount that was requested last year, fortunately
for the Nation the Congress in it's wisdom increased that amount. We
request that this Committee strongly consider a minimum appropriation
for fiscal year 2000 for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project
of $335,000,000.
In requesting that such moneys be appropriated for flood control
and navigation works of the Lower Mississippi Valley, we are not
unmindful of the fact that in these critical times our Nation is being
called upon to rectify an economic condition that needs immediate
attention. We feel that we are justified in urging appropriations for
our project for the reason that the assets and resources of this great
nation must not be neglected during these times. We know of no other
appropriation which contributes as much to national wealth and
resources as flood control and navigation for the major rivers of this
country. Millions of acres which were overflow lands decades ago are
now highly productive and contributing to our national wealth. These
lands by reason of their geographic location are the most fertile of
the nation. They produce an abundance of food and fiber for the general
welfare and prosperity of the country. The inland waterways of the
nation provide the cheapest and in some cases the only method to move
bulk commodities that are also absolutely essential to the general
welfare and prosperity of the country. Moneys appropriated by Congress
for flood control and navigation has and will augment our national
resources and improve our economic well-being. The appropriations made
by Congress for the Mississippi River and Tributaries project are
investments in this nation's future.
In closing let me reemphasize that federal works projects with
proven merit such as the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project
represent a sound federal investment which will return to the tax
payers of this country generous dividends. Such federal investments
contribute to the economic well being of the Nation by reducing
unemployment; adding to the stability and economic growth of
agriculture and industry; and providing a flood free environment for
the welfare of the people of the Mississippi Valley.
We reaffirm the position we have always held that the physical
geography of the Mississippi River is such that flood control interests
do not stop at the main river but extend upstream along the adjacent
tributary streams and valleys. The Flood Control plan on the
Mississippi River therefore cannot be considered adequate or complete
until the flood control plans for these valleys, authorized as a part
of the Mississippi River and Tributaries project, are completed.
Under our Constitutional form of Government the Citizens as the
final authority and for whose protection and welfare our Government
exists, are entitled to the best protection from Floods our Nation is
capable of devising. We would respectfully request that this committee
consider that during it's deliberations of the Corps of Engineer's
fiscal year 2000 Appropriations.
We have attached a sheet to this statement that reflects the
President's Budget Request and the Mississippi Valley Flood Control
Association's request for Appropriations for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project for fiscal year 2000.
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION FISCAL YEAR 2000 CIVIL
WORKS BUDGET-MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project and State Budget request MVFCA request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surveys, continuation of planning and
engineering & advance engineering &
design:
Mississippi River, Alexander Co., IL $30,000 $30,000
& Scott Co., MO....................
Memphis Metro Area, TN & MS......... 675,000 675,000
Reelfoot Lake, TN................... 318,000 318,000
Wolf River, Memphis, TN............. 525,000 525,000
Bayou Meto Basin, AR................ 1,767,000 1,767,000
Morganza, LA to the Gulf of Mexico.. 700,000 700,000
Alexandria, LA to the Gulf of Mexico 700,000 700,000
Donaldsonville LA to the Gulf of 250,000 250,000
Mexico.............................
Collection & Study of Basic Data.... 365,000 365,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal--Surveys, continuation of 5,330,000 5,330,000
planning & engineering & advance
engineering & design.............
Construction:
St. John's Bayou-New Madrid 7,800,000 9,800,000
Floodway, MO.......................
Eight Mile Creek, AR................ 700,000 700,000
Helena & Vicinity, AR............... 2,190,000 2,190,000
Grand Prairie Region, AR............ 21,900,000 21,900,000
West Tennessee Tributaries, TN...... 2,398,000 2,398,000
Nonconnah Creek, TN................. 2,500,000 2,500,000
St. Francis Basin, MO & AR.......... 4,350,000 4,350,000
Yazoo Basin, MS..................... 24,279,000 40,985,000
Atchafalaya Basin, LA............... 19,750,000 21,750,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System... 7,500,000 8,000,000
MS Delta Region, LA................. 10,400,000 10,400,000
MS & LA Estaurine, Area, MS & LA.... 100,000 100,000
Louisiana State, Penitentiary, LA... 3,000,000 7,400,000
Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater, 8,930,000 8,930,000
LA.................................
Channel Improvements, IL, KY, MO, 37,865,000 43,165,000
AR, TN, MS & LA....................
Mississippi River Levees, IL, KY, 23,250,000 32,750,000
MO, AR, TN, MS & LA................
-------------------------------
Subtotal--Construction............ 176,732,000 217,318,000
Subtotal--Maintenance............. 117,500,000 131,914,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal--Mississippi River & 299,652,000 354,562,000
tributaries......................
Less reduction for savings & -19,562,000 -19,562,000
slippage.........................
-------------------------------
Grand total--Mississippi River and 280,000,000 335,000,000
tributaries......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of Aubrey Gravois, President, Board of
Commissioners, Lafourche Basin Levee District, Vacherie, LA
mississippi river levees
Although there are no current or scheduled contracts within the
jurisdiction of the Lafourche Basin Levee District for levee
enlargements and slope paving, we still have a few areas which are
below grade which needs to be elevated and slope paved. Therefore, we
are requesting that these small reaches be considered in future
appropriations.
The Board of Commissioners of the Lafourche Basin Levee District
urges the subcommittees to appropriate as much funds as possible for
the continuation of the levee enlargement and concrete sloped pavements
through out the State of Louisiana.
channel improvements
The revetment construction program must be funded annually to
prevent future levee failures, land losses and relocations. The
Lafourche Basin Levee District has several areas of continued caving
banks which concern us. Some of these banks are along reaches where
there are extremely very narrow battures and further these areas are in
locations where high tourism exist such as Oak Alley and Laura
Plantations. The Lafourche Basin Levee District urges the committee to
continue to appropriate as much funding as possible for the
continuation of strong Channel Improvement Program. If caving banks are
not controlled, the only answer is ``set back''. There is very little
room remaining available for levee setbacks in the jurisdiction of the
Lafourche Basin Levee District.
donaldsonville to the gulf of mexico reconnaissance study
The Board of Commissioners of the Lafourche Basin Levee District is
grateful for the funding already submitted and received towards this
very important study. For years now we have been deeply concerned with
the drainage and back water flooding problems that have been and is
continuing to occur in this basin which covers the jurisdictional
boundaries of our levee district. The benefits from this study will
hopefully become a massive project which will be of great benefit and
assistance to the Lafourche Basin Levee District with regards to flood
control efforts which will include wetlands hydrology, conservation,
restoration, and wildlife habitat. The Board of Commissioners of the
Lafourche Basin Levee District has taking on the responsibility of
being the Local Sponsor of this subject study and we are urging the
committee to commit to additional funding to the amount of $500,000 for
fiscal year 2000. Budget contains $250,000.
the levee district
The Lafourche Basin Levee District extends downstream from the City
of Donaldsonville to the Jefferson-St. Charles Parish Line area, a
distance of 63 miles, it includes the west (right descending) bank of
the Mississippi River, and is comprised of portions of the following
parishes: Ascension, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Charles,
Lafourche, and Assumption. The Mississippi River westbank levee is
continuous through out the Parishes of Ascension, St. James, St. John
the Baptist, and St. Charles Parishes.
Major industries have developed in the Lafourche Basin Levee
District. One of the largest is the Nuclear Power Plant or Energy in
Taft, Louisiana. Others such as ADM/Growmark, Agrico Chemical, CF
Industries, Monsanto, Occidental Chemical Corp., Shell Chemical Co.,
Triad Chemical, Union Carbide and others all reap the benefits of being
protected from the flooding of the Mississippi River through the assets
and contributions received for the MR&T Projects. Along with industrial
growth, our Levee District is continuing to experience an increase in
residential and urban expansions. A great portion of the rich land and
soil in our levee district is used for agricultural purposes.
Without the protection of the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Flood Control Project, the continued flood control and maintenance
improvements of the Lower River Valley Levees would not exist. The
project is a necessity for us to be able to continue to serve the
national needs of our economy and continued growth of our areas.
comments
The Lafourche Basin Levee District plans to continue to advise this
subcommittee of our current and future needs. We understand that all of
the items of the MR&T Flood Control Project are of extreme importance.
We also understand that this year we may not be able to submit oral
testimony before the subcommittees as we have done so in the past. We
hope that we can return to this type process, so that we can verbally
voice our concerns in person for the problems which occur in the Lower
River Valley. Four representatives from the Lafourche Basin Levee
District are here today desiring to present views to the subcommittee
and they are President Aubrey Gravois, Commissioner Lloyd Becnel,
Attorney Joseph C. Wiley, and Administrative Manager, Randy Trosclair.
conclusion
The Board of Commissioners of the Lafourche Basin Levee District
realizes that the funding being discussed for water resources must be
increased for the well being of our country. The improvements received
from the funds for the MR&T Flood Control Projects are the wealth of
the country, and they pay back their cost several times over and over.
We must continue to protect our future. We along with many other levee
districts endorse the recommendations presented by the Association of
Levee Boards of Louisiana, Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development, Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association and the Red
River Valley Association.
______
Prepared Statement of Billy J. Felty, Chief Engineer, St. Francis Levee
District of Arkansas
My name is Bill Felty. I am Chief Engineer of the St. Francis Levee
District of Arkansas. I live in West Memphis, Arkansas which is located
on the West side of the Mississippi River in the St. Francis Basin.
The St. Francis Basin extends from the foot of Commerce Hills near
Cape Girardeau, Missouri to the mouth of the St. Francis River seven
miles above Helena, Arkansas, a distance of 235 miles. It extends to
the West to the uplands of Bloomfield and Crowley's Ridge, having a
maximum width of 45 miles. The Basin is comprised of an area of 3,500
square miles.
Within the St. Francis Basin and the Lower Mississippi Valley, we
are witnessing a great industrial expansion and the economy in the area
is improving rapidly throughout the entire basin especially along the
Mississippi River. This industrial growth and prosperity could not
exist without the drainage and flood control protection made possible
by the appropriations from your Committee for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project (MR&T). Since 1928, the MR&T Project has prevented
flood damages in the Lower Mississippi Valley totaling $231 billion at
an investment of $9.9 billion. Additionally the MR&T Project has
resulted in an annual transportation savings on the Mississippi River
totaling $1 billion.
As your Subcommittee reviews the Civil Works Budget for fiscal year
2000 appropriations for the MR&T Project, please consider the
importance of this project to the Lower Mississippi Valley and to the
Nations economy and infrastructure. The amount of $280,000,000 in the
President's Budget for use in the MR&T Project throughout the Lower
Mississippi Valley is far below the amount needed to keep vital
projects on schedule. Considering the impacts that the Lower
Mississippi Valley has on the nations economy and infrastructure, it is
essential that we keep this project on track and complete it in a
timely manner.
Therefore, we support the amount of $335,000,000 as requested by
the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association for the fiscal year
2000 Civil Works Budget, Mississippi River And Tributaries
Appropriations as shown on the enclosed Budget Request sheet. This is
the minimum amount that the Executive Committee of the Association
feels is necessary to adequately fund the projects and maintain the
proposed schedules during the coming fiscal year.
The amount of $4,350,000 included in the President's Budget for
Construction on the St. Francis River Basin Project in Arkansas and
Missouri is sufficient to allow for adequate progress on the projects
within the Basin. However, the amount of $6,300,000 included in the
President's Budget for Maintenance within the St. Francis Basin is not
sufficient to adequately maintain the existing projects and keep them
in a good state of repair. Therefore, I am requesting an additional
capability in the amount of $3,250,000 be added to the budget to
provide for a total of $9,550,000 in maintenance funds for the fiscal
year for use in the St. Francis Basin Project. The amounts requested
are part of the total Mississippi River and Tributary Appropriations of
the Civil Works Budget.
I feel the Subcommittee will give fair consideration to the needs
of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Appropriations. I appreciate
the time given and the work you do to advance the development of the
water resource projects.
We have a large number of members from the St. Francis Levee
District here today to attend the Appropriations Hearings. They have
come to show their support for the St. Francis Basin Project and the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Projects.
______
Prepared Statement of Wayne Orillion, President, Board of
Commissioners, Atchafalaya Basin Levee District, Port Allen, LA
atchafalaya basin levee district
The Atchafalaya Basin Levee District was created in 1890 by the
Louisiana Legislature and is the largest levee district in the State.
The flood protection system within the District includes levees on the
Mississippi River, Atchafalaya River, Morganza Lower Guide and East and
West Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levees. The District is charged with
the obligation of securing and clearing interfering facilities for
rights-of-way for levee and levee drainage purposes, routine levee
maintenance, borrow pit maintenance, and land management including oil,
gas, mineral, campsites, hunting, and other leases.
mississippi river and tributaries atchafalaya basin, la project
The Atchafalaya River Basin, in south-central Louisiana, originates
at the confluence of the Mississippi, Red, and Atchafalaya rivers near
Simmesport. The basin extends in a north-south direction from the
latitude of Old River and Bayou Des Glaises to the Gulf of Mexico.
The Atchafalaya River is the largest of all distibutaries of the
Mississippi. Improvements in the Atchafalaya River Basin have been
authorized by Congress and constructed primarily under the Mississippi
River and Tributaries (MR&T) project. Basin flood protection works are
an integral and extremely important part of the lower Mississippi
River. The project allows one-half of the project design flood (1.5
million cubic feet per second) to be introduced into the Atchafalaya
Basin Floodway while the other half is allowed to continue down the
main Mississippi River channel. Floodways follow opposite sides of the
Atchafalaya River to the end of the levee system along the river. There
they merge into a single broad floodway that discharges into the Gulf
of Mexico through Wax Lake Outlet and the Lower Atchafalaya River.
Features of the Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana project include
levees, channel dredging, locks, floodgates, control structures,
Morganza Floodway and Control Structure, pump stations, drainage
structures, and drainage canals and enlargements.
levee slides, west atchafalaya basin protection levee
A levee slide is a partial levee failure brought on by the soil's
properties of shrinking and swelling. This condition is affected by the
soil's moisture content and results in a reduced shear strength. As the
shear strength is reduced, the levee's ability to hold itself up is
reduced until a portion of the levee breaks off.
There are currently six levee slides at five locations along the
West Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levee. Each slide area is shown in
the table below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slide length
Item Levee stations (Ft.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
W-46......................... 2552+27 to 2573+38 2,111
W-52......................... 2800+00 to 2900+00 10,000
W-58......................... 3047+00 to 3054+00 700
W-64......................... 3416+00 to 3424+00 800
W-64......................... 3499+00 to 3503+00 400
W-74......................... 3923+00 to 3927+00 400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These slides are of great concern to the Levee District and are in
need of immediate attention. Traditionally, the levee district repairs
minor slides in its normal maintenance program. However, the larger
failures which involve engineering expertise and funding beyond the
means of the levee district are the responsibility of the Corp of
Engineers. In some cases the slides occur partially due to lack of
proper compaction during the original construction process. The
estimated cost to repair the slides is $4.2 million.
The Board of the Atchafalaya Basin Levee District respectfully
requests that the funds presented in the President's budget for the
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, Atchafalaya Basin,
Louisiana project, Operation and Maintenance be increased by $4.2
million and that this $4.2 million be designated for the levee slide
repairs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10NDP.012
______
Prepared Statement of Reynold S. Minsky, President, Board of
Commissioners, Fifth Louisiana Levee District, Tallulah, LA
As each spring passes, the people of Louisiana sigh with relief.
Another ``high River'' season is over and all is well, yet each spring
draws the region closer to the inevitable, ``Project Flood.'' That
surge of water flowing south, down the Mississippi River Channel,
draining 41 percent of the United States at a level not experienced
since 1927.
If it were to happen this spring, Louisiana and Mississippi would
not be prepared. Levees insufficient in height would give way to the
force beyond their capabilities to constrain. Lives would be lost and
livelihoods destroyed that would take decades to restore. The cost of
restoring and rebuilding would be unequaled by any natural disaster
America has suffered.
Funding for adequate flood control in the Mississippi Valley now
will be minimum compared to the potential that exists if flood control
projects are not completed as currently planned.
The fiscal year 2000 Civil Works Budget, Mississippi River and
Tributaries (MR&T) Appropriations includes a total of $23,250,000 for
``Mississippi River Levees, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & LA.'' Insufficient
to divide among seven states and be able to show significant
improvement in flood control.
To guarantee that the Vicksburg District, Corp of Engineers is able
to maintain the level of progress needed to ensure MR&T construction
schedules are met, it is imperative that an additional $5,500,000 above
the $9,750,000 proposed budget be allocated for construction in the
Vicksburg Corp District. Another $400,000 will be necessary for proper
levee maintenance.
The Mississippi River Levee System in Louisiana and Mississippi
must be brought to heights and capabilities equal to that of the levees
stretching northward; otherwise, upper reaches of the Mississippi River
Levee System will become a funnel, protecting states to the north while
directing havoc southward. Increased funding for MR&T levee improvement
projects in Louisiana and Mississippi is the only means to eliminate
this possibility.
______
Prepared Statement of Audrey J. LaPlace, President, Board of
Commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee District, Lutcher, LA
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.
$42,000,000 for Mississippi River levees (Budget contains $23,250,000)
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. Enlargement and Slope Pavement construction
for the levee reach Marchand to Darrow is now completed, as are two
other items, Romeville to Remy and Remy to Garyville; all three items
accomplished while the Sierra Club's consent decree has been in effect.
This is a credit to the Corps of Engineers. After slipping out of the
program for the past two years, funds are now badly needed for
construction of the levee from Carville to Marchand.
Future levee enlargements and slope paving are required in the
Levee District. The Board of Commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee
District, urges the Subcommittees to appropriate $42,000,000 in fiscal
year 2000 for Mississippi River levees.
$50,000,000 for channel improvement (Budget contain $37,685,000)
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 $50,000,000 be appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
$10,000,000 for Louisiana State Penitentiary (Budget contains
$3,000,000)
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 the 5,000 maximum security inmates into tents on
higher ground. It is urgently recommended that $10,000,000 be
appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
$325,000,000 minimum recommended for all items of the MR&T flood
control project
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 eighth
year of construction, designed to protect the Parish, a portion of New
Orleans and its International Airport from hurricane tides. The West
Shore Hurricane Protection Project, St. John the Baptist Parish, is now
involved in a Feasibility Study and this Levee District is again
serving as Local Sponsor.
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. A portion
of 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 (7) 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. Four representatives from the Pontchartrain Levee
District are present today desiring to present views to the
Subcommittees--they are Commissioner Joseph Gautreau, Vice President;
Commissioner LeVerne B. Brown; 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, Mississippi Valley Flood Control
Association and Red River Valley Association.
______
Prepared Statement of Aubrey J. LaPlace, President, President, Board of
Commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee District, Lutcher, LA
in support of appropriations for lake pontchartrain & vicinity
hurricane protection, louisiana--st. charles parish and west shore
the projects
These recommendations are limited to two separable items under the
project ``Lake Pontchartrain & Vicinity, Hurricane Protection,
Louisiana'', (1) St. Charles Parish authorized in 1965 and (2) West
Shore, St. John the Baptist Parish, authorized in 1974. Federal funding
is required for construction on (1) St. Charles Parish and Feasibility
Study on (2) West Shore.
Funding requirements, fiscal year 2000
St. Charles Parish, Construction........................ $6,000,000
West Shore, Feasibility Study........................... 600,000
objectives
St. Charles Parish.--The Accelerated Plan has been developed in
conjunction with the Corps of Engineers whereby the ten mile levee
system first lift and drainage structures can be completed in a five
year period, providing a closed system and protection from hurricane
tides to elevation 9.0. We are now entering the second year of the five
year plan. Additional levee lifts will be added to raise the levee
system to elevation 13.5 as consolidation will allow.
West Shore.--The Feasibility Study is moving satisfactorily and
must be completed on schedule, two more years. Local 50 percent funding
has been deposited in an escrow account, matching federal funds are now
required.
project descriptions
The St. Charles Parish Hurricane Protection Levee is ten miles in
length, has five drainage structures, extends from the Bonnet Carre
Floodway to New Orleans International Airport and is situated about
four hundred feet north of U.S. Hwy. 61. Construction cost is estimated
at $99,000,000 financed at 70 percent Federal and 30 percent Local
(Pontchartrain Levee District). Project is now 30 percent complete.
Local contributions have been deposited in an escrow account and now
exceed the 30 percent local funding requirement compared to federal
funds. When the first lift and structures are completed, immediate
protection to elevation 9.0 will be in place, whereas now there is
nothing to prevent extensive, devastating flooding in St. Charles
Parish, a portion of Jefferson Parish and New Orleans International
Airport. Then additional lifts will be added to raise the levee to
elevation 13.5 as consolidation will allow.
The West Shore Hurricane Protection Levee will provide tidal
flooding protection to the Town of LaPlace and vicinity, St. John the
Baptist Parish. Other improvements to be protected are reaches of I-10
and I-55 along with U.S. Highways 61 and 51, and State Highways. These
are designated evacuation routes for New Orleans metro area. The
Benefit/Cost ratio is 2.1, and estimated construction cost is
$60,000,000. The Pontchartrain Levee District is serving as Local
Sponsor in partnership with St. John the Baptist Parish Council.
These are two critical emergency projects, we have local funds now
available, and the next move is in the hands of Appropriation
Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development. You must act now.
Representatives of the Pontchartrain Levee District appeared at the
Subcommittee Staff Office to submit this statement and answer any
questions. They are Commissioners Joseph Gautreau, Vice President,
Commissioner Michael Reames, Commissioner LeVerne B. Brown and Gerald
Dyson, Executive Assistant. You may call either of them or the
undersigned at any time for information, (225) 869-9721.
______
Prepared Statement of Kenneth L. Weiland, P.E., CEO and Chief Engineer,
Yazoo-Mississippi Delta (YMD) Levee Board
This statement has been prepared by Kenneth L. Weiland, P.E., CEO
and Chief Engineer for the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta (YMD) Levee Board.
It is submitted today, March 23, 1999, on behalf of the entire Levee
Board and the citizens we represent in the Mississippi Delta, which
includes the Yazoo and Sunflower River Basins. In addition to the
funding request contained herein, the YMD Levee Board also supports the
general funding testimony for fiscal year 2000 as submitted by the
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association. As members of this
Association, we join in their praises of your continuing support for
the important flood control projects within the Mississippi River and
Tributaries (MR&T) Project.
We are very concerned about the Administration's continued
submittal of budgets containing severely inadequate funding levels for
flood control projects within the MR&T project. Consequently, both
Levee Boards in Mississippi are making efforts to address these
concerns with key Administration officials as well as our Congressional
delegations. It is our desire to facilitate better support and
understanding of the importance of the MR&T project by policy and
budget decision makers within the Administration to reduce or eliminate
the complete Congressional overhauls of the MR&T budget that have been
required in recent years.
After careful consultation with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
officials, the YMD Levee Board continues our support and request for a
minimum annual funding level of 335 million dollars for the timely
completion and maintenance of the MR&T project. Following the
devastating flood of 1927 on the Mississippi River, the Flood Control
Act of 1928 verified the national priority placed on the development of
a comprehensive flood control plan (the MR&T project) to minimize the
likelihood of such devastation occurring again in the lower Mississippi
valley. The wisdom of this Act is obvious today, seventy-one years
later, by the fact that the project has yielded 20 dollars of benefits
for every dollar invested in the project. Unfortunately, however, a
substantial amount of work is still uncompleted on the project that
exposes many areas to the risk of flood devastation. The YMD Levee
Board makes its most urgent and ardent appeal that proper funding be
provided by Congress for the MR&T project. Your past support of this
vital work verifies your recognition of the consequences to the nation
that would result from allowing the MR&T project to become vulnerable
to a catastrophic failure of any one of its major components due to
delays and neglect caused by inadequate funds.
The following paragraphs identify certain projects within our Levee
District that merit special mention. For your convenience, we have
provided a detailed, tabular listing of key components of our funding
request for fiscal year 2000 at the end of this statement. As you will
note, the requested funding levels in the table are supported jointly
by both Levee Boards in Mississippi.
mississippi river levees and channels maintenance
As stated above, there can be no question of the importance of the
continued construction and maintenance of the mainline levee system and
channel protection on the Lower Mississippi River. The YMD Levee Board
is proud of our long record of protection of the mainline levee in our
District and understands that your generous funding to insure adequate
major maintenance of these features of the project is the key to
preventing a catastrophic failure of the system. Again we emphasize the
importance of adequate funding of the MR&T project, especially with
respect to maintenance of the mainline levees and the Mississippi River
channel.
upper yazoo projects
Following the destructive flood of 1932, Congress authorized the
formulation of a plan that would reduce the risk of flooding of the
Mississippi Delta from the uncontrolled release of headwater out of the
hills in north central Mississippi. The original plan, released in
1936, included a system of flood control reservoirs that would
discharge into a system of channels and levees that could safely convey
the headwater from the hills to the Mississippi River. In the late
1980's, this project was forced into reformulation under the guise of
environmental concern. Reformulation of the Upper Yazoo Project (UYP)
was completed in late 1993. Construction was immediately resumed on the
project, and outstanding progress has been made since. The tabular
funding request attached to the end of this statement reflects a
request for the funding necessary to assure that progress on the UYP
continues. The requested funding will support the necessary work to
complete the UYP to the city of Greenwood, MS, long considered a
milestone in the overall completion of the project. The YMD Levee Board
is very appreciative of the Congressional support of this project in
past appropriations and respectfully requests funding as shown to
assure that construction on this project can proceed as rapidly as
possible to completion.
yazoo headwater flood control reservoirs
As mentioned above, four major flood control reservoirs exist in
Mississippi to control the release of headwater into the Yazoo River
system. These reservoirs are Arkabutla, Sardis, Enid and Grenada. The
reservoirs have prevented an enormous amount of flood damages by
allowing drainage from the hills to be released into the Delta at a
rate that prevents flooding. The proper maintenance and operation of
these reservoirs is therefore critically important to all citizens
living downstream of them in the Delta. The YMD Levee Board has
specified a reasonable request for maintenance funding of the
infrastructure associated with these reservoirs. Providing the
requested funding will allow the Corps to make the necessary repairs
and operational improvements consistent with the critical role these
reservoirs play in protecting the Mississippi Delta.
sunflower river channel maintenance project
Over time, all streams in the Delta lose their capacity to convey
design discharges due to siltation in the bottom of the streams. In the
month of July, 1989, sections of the Mississippi Delta along the
Sunflower River system experienced significant flooding over half grown
row crops of food and fiber. In response to this devastation, the Board
of Mississippi Levee Commissioners (MLB), located in Greenville, MS,
requested a study by the Corps of Engineers (Corps) to determine
whether the reduction of the Sunflower River system flow capacities had
contributed to the flooding, and thus, whether the Corps should begin
its obligatory maintenance of the channels in this system. Subsequent
surveys by the Corps reflected loss of channel capacity from the
original design of approximately forty (40) percent. Studies were made
and plans completed by the Corps for the work necessary to perform this
major maintenance. The YMD Levee Board, whose District shares in the
damages resulting from the overflow of the rivers in this area, and the
MLB serve as the local sponsors of this project and have joined as
intevenors on behalf of the Corps to defend this work from litigation
that has been filed to delay this important work. We are very
optimistic that all legal roadblocks will be removed and urge the
requested funding levels be provided so that no delays occur once these
litigation matters have been resolved.
demonstration erosion control project
In past years, Congress has provided funds for the continuation of
construction of measures to control erosion and sedimentation in
streams located primarily in the headwater area of the Yazoo Basin.
Though most of this work is located outside of the physical limits of
our District, the YMD Levee Board supports your continued funding of
these projects due to the fact that substantial amounts of the
sediments controlled by the projects would eventually end up in the
Coldwater-Tallahatchie-Yazoo River system. Such sedimentation would
result in significant additional maintenance on this system to prevent
the loss of capacity of these rivers to carry the design discharges
from the four major flood control reservoirs. (Arkabutla, Sardis, Enid,
Grenada)
yazoo tributaries study
The Yazoo Tributaries Study is the last phase of the MR&T project
in the Yazoo Basin. This study will identify work necessary for proper
drainage and flood control on the major tributaries to the Yazoo River
system. Upon completion of the before stated UYP, construction on these
tributary streams can begin. The YMD Levee Board therefore urges
Congress to provide adequate funding for the timely completion of this
study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000--
-----------------------------------------------
MLB Levee
Project President's Board, YMD Requested
submitted Levee Board congressional
budget funding add-ons
request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yazoo Basin
Construction:
Upper Yazoo Project......................................... $11,620,000 $13,700,000 $2,080,000
Upper Steele Bayou.......................................... 3,915,000 4,500,000 585,000
Tributaries................................................. 340,000 340,000 ..............
Yazoo Backwater............................................. 520,000 1,000,000 480,000
Reformulation (backwater & tributaries)..................... 1,570,000 1,570,000 ..............
Demonstration Erosion Control............................... 6,294,000 20,000,000 13,706,000
Maintenance:
Big Sunflower River......................................... 209,000 4,800,000 4,591,000
Tributaries................................................. 1,269,000 1,300,000 31,000
Arkabutla................................................... 3,265,000 4,900,000 1,635,000
Sardis...................................................... 4,334,000 7,300,000 2,966,000
Enid........................................................ 3,214,000 4,400,000 1,186,000
Grenada..................................................... 4,280,000 6,600,000 2,320,000
Mississippi River Levees
Construction:
MS Valley Division.......................................... 23,250,000 35,750,000 12,500,000
Memphis District........................................ 7,500,000 13,500,000 6,000,000
Vicksburg District...................................... 9,750,000 15,300,000 5,550,000
Maintenance:
MS Valley Division.......................................... 3,736,000 4,686,000 950,000
Memphis District........................................ 1,460,000 2,410,000 950,000
Vicksburg District...................................... 1,269,000 1,700,000 431,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The figures provided in the table above are based on our assessment
of projected Corps capabilities using the best information available as
of 17 March, 1999. The YMD Levee Board and the MLB Levee Board support
funding at the full capability of the Corps in order to complete our
important flood control projects in a timely and effective manner.
Please do not hesitate to call us if you have questions or comments
regarding this information.
______
Prepared Statement of James E. Wanamaker, Cheif 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. Our Levee 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 undertaken by the United States. 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 continue to be aware of the desire
of the Congress to balance the Federal budget and appreciate the effort
made by the Congress to provide the maximum funding available for this
work. The Congressional adds for fiscal year 1999 have kept
construction moving in the Basin at an acceptable pace. The Lower
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association will be submitting a
general statement in support of the appropriation of $335,000,000 for
fiscal year 2000 for the construction, surveys, advanced engineering
and the operation and maintenance of the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project. The Lower Mississippi River receives flood water
from 41 percent of the continental United States and has experienced
water levels above flood stage for the past 6 years.
The President's Budget request again 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.
YAZOO BASIN FLOOD CONTROL FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------
Project 2000 2000 Levee
1999 President's Board (Local
Appropriations Budget Request Sponsor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction:
Yazoo Backwater............................................. $500,000 $520,000 $1,000,000
Upper Steele Bayou.......................................... 4,500,000 3,915,000 4,500,000
Demonstration Erosion Control............................... 13,500,000 6,294,000 20,000,000
Tributaries................................................. 200,000 340,000 340,000
Upper Yazoo Project......................................... 10,000,000 11,620,000 13,700,000
Maintenance:
Big Sunflower............................................... 2,500,000 209,000 4,800,000
Arkabutla................................................... 3,700,000 3,265,000 4,800,000
Enid........................................................ 3,270,000 3,214,000 4,400,000
Grenada..................................................... 4,330,000 4,280,000 6,600,000
Sardis...................................................... 5,300,000 4,334,000 7,300,000
Tributaries................................................. 1,238,000 1,269,000 1,300,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 49,038,000 39,260,000 68,740,000
Mississippi River Levees
Construction:
Vicksburg District \1\...................................... 14,850,000 9,750,000 15,300,000
Lower MS River Valley Division \2\.......................... 30,750,000 23,250,000 35,750,000
Maintenance:
Vicksburg District \1\...................................... 2,251,000 1,269,000 1,600,000
Lower MS River Valley Division \2\.......................... 6,500,000 3,736,000 4,686,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 mainline levees of $35.75
million, which will allow the continuation of two construction
contracts enlarging 18 miles of the most deficient levee in Mississippi
near Mayersville. These additional funds will also allow the initiation
and completion of relief wells on the Magna Vista to Brunswick Item
protecting our area of greatest underseepage problems during the recent
high waters.
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 additional funding
necessary to assure that construction continues on the remaining
projects in the Yazoo Basin.
Our request includes $4.5 million for the Upper Steele Bayou
Project which will allow the Vicksburg District to complete Main Canal
Item 2 which comes up through the City of Greenville and also Item 2 on
Black Bayou. This funding increase will also allow for the award of
Black Bayou Item 3 which also provides drainage to Greenville,
Mississippi. The Vicksburg District will be able to complete phase 4 on
Item 66-A at Swan Lake as part of the ongoing work at the Yazoo
Wildlife Refuge.
One million dollars is requested for the Vicksburg District to
initiate the design for the project in anticipation of the completion
of the Reformulation Report. Preliminary information indicates that
there will be an alternative with a positive benefit cost ratio. The
Mississippi Levee Board is currently scheduling meetings with public
and private environmental groups in an effort to arrive at a plan for
this project to provide flood protection and environmental benefits to
the South Delta area.
We are requesting $4.8 million to initiate construction of Items 2
and 3 on the Big Sunflower Maintenance Project. The Big Sunflower River
is the outlet for a major portion of the Mississippi Delta, including
parts of 10 Counties. This is also the outlet relied upon for 60
Drainage Districts in the Mississippi Delta. The two Mississippi Levee
Boards are currently intervenors in both the State and Federal
litigation involving the work planned for this project. It is our
opinion that the Corps of Engineers has made a strong argument in both
cases and with out these funds construction will be delayed at least a
year with the successful out come of this litigation.
Our request also includes additional funding for the Upper Yazoo
Project and maintenance of the Mississippi Reservoirs that provide
protection to the eastern portion of the Mississippi Delta. The
increased funding will allow the Upper Yazoo Project to continue
upstream to Greenwood and the reservoir funding will allow the Corps to
complete long awaited maintenance on our four lakes and Dams.
Demonstration Erosion Control and Tributaries features of the Yazoo
Basin Appropriation will reduce sediment to the Delta streams reducing
long term maintenance needs.
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 A. 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 74 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 74th Annual Meeting in Bossier City, Louisiana on February
18, 1999, 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; Environmental
Restoration; Flood Control; Bank Stabilization; A Clean Water Supply
for Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Agriculture Uses;
Hydroelectric Power Generation; Recreation; and Navigation 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 testimony
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.
We appreciate the President's fiscal year 2000 budget submission of
$3.9 billion from his fiscal year 1999 submission of $3.3 billion (21.5
percent increase); however, we take exception to the programs earmarked
for the increase. Most all of it will go to deep-draft ports and
channels and environmental programs. The traditional programs, inland
waterways and flood protection remained at the low, unacceptable level
as last year. These traditional civil work 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 prosper.
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.
We ask you to correct this imbalance in distribution of funds
within the Corps and to fund the Corps of Engineers at the level of
$4.7 billion which will realistically fund the ongoing programs. 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 specific 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 through 1997 was 3.1 million tons and the projected tonnage to
justify the project is 3.3 million tons. Estimates for 1998 are 3.4
million tons. We are extremely proud of our public ports,
municipalities and state agencies who have created this success. New
facilities opened in 1998 included a fertilizer terminal at Alexandria
and stone distribution at the Port of Shreveport-Bossier. Liquid
petroleum shipments increased in 1998 as did commercial stone
operations. Currently under construction, at our ports, are a wood chip
barge loading system, new liquid petroleum tank farm, fertilizer
facility and two general cargo warehouses. You are reminded that the
Waterway is not complete, ten percent remains, $200 million. We
appreciate the President's budget level of $21 million; however, we
respectfully request the expressed Corps capability of $25.1 million.
In order to keep the waterway safe and reliable we must continue at a
funding level higher than the President's Budget. The RRVA formed a
Navigation Committee for industry, the Corps and Coast Guard to partner
in making our Waterway a success. This effort has reaped many benefits.
We can not sacrifice what has been accomplished by inadequate funding
levels.
In fiscal year 1999 you reprogrammed 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 and reprogram the remaining
$582,600 from the `Daingerfield Reach' 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 Waterway in Louisiana as well as increased
migratory birds due to the newly formed pools. This will be a
multipurpose project addressing navigation, hydropower, bank
stabilization and environmental restoration. 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 in Arkansas and North Louisiana.
We must stop the loss of valuable farmland that erodes down river 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
navigable waterway. 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. We appreciate Congressional funding in fiscal year 1999
and request you again fund this project at a level of $17 million.
It is essential to protect the banks from caving and erosion along
the Red River below Denison Dam, Texas to Index, Arkansas along the
Texas/Oklahoma border. 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 navigable 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. You funded the
initiation of this project last year and we request you continue that
funding this year at a level of $5.8 million, the expressed Corps
capability.
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. Four of eleven items have been completed and levees
rehabilitated to meet federal standards. $5 million will construct two
more items; completing Miller County, AR and starting levees in
Lafayette County, AR.
In addition, Bowie County levee, in Texas, is crucial to the
integrity of the Arkansas levee system. Should the Bowie levee fail
flood waters will inundate behind the just completed Miller County
levees in Arkansas. It is important to have this projected funded for
$900,000, for the `locally preferred' option, according to cost sharing
under the Flood Control Act of 1946 not withstanding economic
justification.
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. $16 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 data is crucial to
understanding the ecosystem of the Red River basin west of Lake Texoma
and funding for this must continue.
Dr. Westphal, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), in
October 1998 agreed to support a re-evaluation of the Wichita River
Basin. Completion of this tributary will reclaim Lake Kemp as a usable
water source for the region. We request the expressed Corps capability
of $2.1 million to continue this important project.
Operation & 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 the expressed Corps capability to maintain a
safe, reliable and efficient transportation system. As experienced this
past year failure to maintain a revetment for $500,000, when the
problem was first identified, resulted in a catastrophic failure of the
revetment and adjacent levee. This led to an emergency repair of $5
million which could have been prevented. The President's level of $8.8
million does not address the backlog of maintenance at the five lock
and dams or deteriorating dikes and revetments. The Corps capability of
$14 million is required to maintain a safe waterway. 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 2000 requests red river valley association
[Note.--Projects are NOT in any order of priority. Project number
correspond to the backup information in Section V.]
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 1999 to continue the study. The Project
Study Plan (PSP) is complete and the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement
(FCSA) will be signed in March 99. The study will commence with full
participation from the communities in the project area which include
counties and parishes of Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma. It is
imperative that this study continue to be funded and the remaining
funds in the `Daingerfield' study be reprogrammed for this study in
Bill language.
[Note.--The local sponsor is prepared to cost share the study, 50
percent and has funds available.]
``Request that the Secretary of the Army is directed to use
$582,600 of the funds appropriated in Public Law 102-377 for the Red
River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana, to Daingerfield, Texas, project
for the feasibility phase of the Red River Navigation, Southwest
Arkansas, study.''
2. 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; $300,000 for a feasibility study
of modifications to restore the environmental quality of Grassy Lake,
Hempstead County, Arkansas, degraded by the construction of Millwood
Lake, Arkansas. Fiscal year 2000 Funds Requested: $300,000.
3. 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, and water
releases of these four lakes could be used to aid navigation. Flooding
remains a problem and the lakes' water supply is not being utilized to
its full benefits. Fiscal year 2000 Funds Requested: $300,000.
B. Construction
4. Red River Waterway Project, LA:
a. We support the $21,113,000 included in the President's budget
and items of work proposed by the Corps.
b. In addition, to insure that the integrity and safety of the Red
River navigation channel is maintained for reliable barge
transportation we request additional funding, at the Corps expressed
capability, to accelerate construction on Cognac Reinforcement
($1,250,000) and Poisson ACS ($1,250,000). These sites have been
identified by industry as problem areas. Fiscal year 2000 Funds
Requested: $2,500,000.
c. Mitigation: We support all efforts to meet this obligation of
the project. Existing funds must be carried forth to continue land
purchase actions.
d. Request the Corps cost share in the design and construction of
boat launch facilities in Pool 3; one at Hampton's Lake Recreation site
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. Two important municipal riverfront projects are the
Teague Parkway Trails in Bossier City and Shreveport riverfront
development. These sites will be cost shared 50/50 with the Red River
Waterway Commission who has their funds on hand to participate.
Total Funds Requested................................... $3,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 Federal Share.......................... 1,500,000
Local Sponsor Share..................................... 1,500,000
e. Following is the total Federal requirement for the Red River
Waterway Project (a thru d above):
President's Budget...................................... $21,113,000
Navigation Construction Adds............................ 2,500,000
Public Recreation Sites................................. 1,500,000
Mitigation..............................................................
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Requested for fiscal year 2000.............. 25,113,000
5. Red River Chloride Control Project:
a. In October 1998 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. He reprogrammed funds so that work could continue in fiscal
year 1999. We are disappointed there were no funds in the President's
budget.
b. Many of the features in the Wichita River basin have been
constructed 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
2000 Funds Requested: $2,100,000.
6. Red River Below Denison Dam, Arkansas Levees: Continue funding
levels to fully fund construction and restoration of Levee Item #5
(Miller County Levee District) and Levee Item #9A (Red River Levee
District in Lafayette County). This completes all Miller County Levees
and starts the Lafayette County Levees. Funds are to ``remain available
until expended''. Fiscal year 2000 Funds Requested: $5,000,000.
7. Bowie County Levee, TX: The plans and specifications have been
completed. We request construction funding for the `locally preferred'
option under the cost sharing requirements of the Flood Control Act of
1946 not withstanding economic evaluation. Assurances of support and
maintenance have been obtained from the local sponsor. Fiscal year 2000
Funds Requested: $200,000.
8. Red River Emergency; Bank Protection; AR & LA: Fully fund
construction on Black Lake Phase II ($2.0 mil), Hunters Island
Revetment ($7.1 mil), Pleasant Valley Revetment ($4.9 mil) and design
Bois D'Arc Revetment. These are the most critical sites that require
reinforcements as soon as possible. Funds requested include
engineering, design and construction management and are to `remain
available until expended'. Fiscal year 2000 Funds Requested:
$17,000,000.
9. Red River Waterway, Index, Arkansas to Denison Dam, Texas (Bank
Stabilization): We request the following items be funded at full
federal expense.
a. Phase II of the Sediment Transport Study will cost $275,000.
This will determine the quantity and types of sediments entering the
Red River, along Texas and Oklahoma, that are being deposited in the
Red River Waterway navigation channel and creating dredging costs.
b. To initiate construction and a monitoring program for a Bendway
Weir `demonstration project' located at US Highway 271 bridge between
Hugo, Oklahoma and Paris, Texas. Fiscal year 2000 Funds Requested for a
and b: $5,800,000.
10. Aloha-Rigolette Project, LA: Construction is underway and the
funding should continue at full Corps capability to complete the
project in fiscal year 2000.
President's Budget...................................... $581,000
To Complete the Project................................. 519,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Requested for fiscal year 2000................ 1,100,000
11. 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; as soon as the
local sponsor commits to the cost share requirement.
12. 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. A reconnaissance report
completed in November 1991 found that flood control levees along the
Red River in Little River County were justified and not environmentally
objectional. The Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of
Engineers is directed to perform preconstruction engineering and design
(PED) for the Ogden Levee. PED costs shall be initially 100 percent
Federally funded and shared in the same percentage as the project
purposes. The Ogden Levee is to be designed to the same specifications
as the opposite bank levees in Bowie and Miller Counties. A sponsor has
been identified and provided a letter of intent.
Total PED Funds Requested............................... $400,000
Fiscal year 2000 Funds Requested........................ 340,000
13. Bossier Levee System, LA: Direct the Corps to clear and snag
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 which includes the southern parts of Bossier City. Fiscal year
2000 Funds Requested: $500,000.
C. Operation and Maintenance
14. Red River Waterway, O&M:
a.The President's budget included $8,781,000 for the O&M of this
project which falls short of capability and needs. Maintaining existing
navigation structures is crucial to the safety of this new waterway. As
experienced in 1998 failure to spend $500,000 to maintain the Dismall
Swamp Revetment, when the problem was first identified, resulted in a
catastrophic failure of the revetment and adjacent levee which cost
$5,000,000 in emergency repairs.
b. WRDA 96 authorized the Corps to insure the oxbows remain
accessible to the Red River for environmental purposes. The O&M funding
level must be adequate to address this issue each year.
c. Currently there appears to be a failure in the Cupples Landing
Revetment, at the center of the Port of Shreveport-Bossier complex.
Continued erosion of this revetment will threaten existing port
structures. The Corps must be directed to investigate this and repair
the revetment at full federal expense.
d. Approximately 90 dikes and revetments are in need of repair in
order to maintain the integrity and safety of the channel. We request
funds for the Corps expressed capability of $2.5 million to repair
Cupples and Grand Bend revetments; however, the priority of revetments
can change due to changing river conditions.
e. We request the Corps expressed capability of $2.8 million to
complete the backlog of maintenance at the five locks and dams. If not
funded this maintenance will cost more in the future or become an
emergency, shutting down the Waterway.
Fiscal year 2000 President's Budget..................... $8,781,000
Revetment Repair........................................ 2,500,000
L&D Backlog Maintenance................................. 2,800,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total fiscal year 2000 O&M Funds Requested........ 14,081,000
15. Operations & Maintenance at Corps Projects: Request that all
O&M funded projects be funded at the level of `expressed Corps
capability'. A serious backlog of maintenance will create more
expensive problems in the future.
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 recently completed clearly demonstrates the benefits this
project would have in the region. The local sponsor, Red River
Commission of Arkansas, initiated and fully funded this Regional
Economic Impact Study which showed benefits greater than 2.0 to 1.
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 in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 with
reprogrammed funds from another Red River Study. It is imperative to
continue that funding.
2. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
3. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
4. 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. This project is NOT
complete, $200 million, remains to be constructed. The Red River Valley
Association encourages and supports the continuation of 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.
5. 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 (PL 89-789), and structural measures for Areas VI,
IX, XIII, and XIV were authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1970 (PL
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 (PL 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 (PL 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. PL 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, Dr. Zirschky,
Acting 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.
In October 1998, Dr. Westphal, ASA (CW), reprogrammed funds and
continued support for the Wichita River. Continued funding is needed to
maintain the environmental monitoring program in place and to initiate
work on the Wichita River portion of this project.
6. RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, ARKANSAS LEVEES
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.
Following the disastrous flood of May 1990, there can be no doubt
of the importance of properly maintained levees. All areas not
protected by properly maintained levees were flooded and the only
protection from enormous bank caving was where revetment projects had
been constructed by the Corps.
The Red River Levees 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 in recent years.
Another example of flood control work needed is levee
rehabilitation along the main stem of the 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 rehabilitation 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. The first item of construction on the Miller County
Levee System was completed in 1995 and three more items will be
completed by the end of fiscal year 1998.
It is imperative that Red River Levees continue as authorized by
Congress and that adequate funding be appropriated to accomplish the
construction of this needed protection. There are eleven construction
items to be constructed with four completed to date.
7. 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 Arkansas
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 in accordance with cost
sharing guidelines in the Flood Control Act of 1946.
8. RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION; AR & LA
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 under the authority ``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 land and economic
benefits 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 caving banks have an existing alignment that is usable
for the navigation channel and should be preserved now.
9. RED RIVER WATERWAY; 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.
A `sediment transport study' completed in 1998 demonstrated that
1.6 million tons of sand sediments from this stretch of river are
entering the navigation channel in Louisiana. A second phase of this
study is required to determine what benefits can be realized from
reduced dredging costs as well as the quantities of clay, silt and
sand, NOT considered, in the completed study.
Funds were appropriated in fiscal year 1999 to complete the design
of the demonstration project. It is critical to continue this funding
to construct and monitor the project as well as to continue with the
`sediment transport study'.
10. 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
2000 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.
11. 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.
12. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
13. BOSSIER LEVEE DISTRICT, BOSSIER PARISH, LA
There ia 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.
14. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
15. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
support statement: greater shreveport chamber of commerce
transportation--water
red river waterway project fiscal year 2000 budget
ISSUE: The Locks and Dams for the Red River Waterway Project have
been completed from the Mississippi River to Shreveport/Bossier City,
Louisiana. It is important to know that the project is only 90 percent
complete with $200 million required in construction appropriations. In
addition, it will take approximately $14 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 efficient use. If the channel is not
properly maintained, industry will be reluctant to use the Red River
since they would not be able to load barges to full capacity making
other modes of transportation competitive.
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 appreciate the allocation in the President's
fiscal year 2000 budget for $21 million in construction funds, which is
much higher than was in the budget last year. However, this falls short
of what we require and includes no funding for recreation. An
additional $4.5 million is needed for navigation and recreation
projects. Our total request for Red River Waterway construction is
$25.5 million.
Maintaining the infrastructure of this Waterway is extremely
important. Funding maintenance items sooner always costs less than
waiting until it becomes an emergency. The President's budget allocated
$8.8 million while a total of $14 million is required to complete all
regularly scheduled and backlog items. This includes the five locks and
dams and repair to dikes and revetments.
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 Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), ASA(CW), Dr.
Westphal, directed the Tulsa District to conduct a re-evaluation report
for the Wichita River Basin portion of the project. This is to be
completed in 1999.
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.
OUR POSITION: The President did not fund this project in the fiscal
year 2000 budget, even thought it is supported by the ASA (CW). It is
imperative that $2.1 million be appropriated so that the re-evaluation
of the Wichita River can be completed and the next phase of
construction start in fiscal year 2001. These funds also include the
environmental monitoring program currently underway to collect valuable
data on the ecosystem of this region.
______
Prepared Statement of the Caddo/Bossier Port Commission, Shreveport, LA
On behalf of the citizens of Northwest Louisiana, the Caddo-Bossier
Parishes Port Commission strongly urges the Congress of the United
States to allocate in fiscal year 2000 the necessary monies to ensure
safe and reliable inland waterway, and in particular Red River,
navigation and to carefully consider the numerous new taxes and user
fees proposed impacting the nation's ports.
Port's are a vital element of the national economy and national
security and federal commitment to provide reliable and secure funding
for our port system is paramount. Yet the waterways are facing once
again proposals for reduced funding, new user fees and the constant
call of the ``Green Scissors'' campaign to cut maritime programs to
pieces.
The President's budget request appears to shortchange inland
navigation and flood control while other civil works programs are
fully-funded. For example, construction and maintenance of projects
along the nation's inland waterways would be funded at less than half
the level needed to optimize project schedules while deep draft harbor
maintenance and construction would be funded at an optimal level. The
optimal spending would be funded, however, by a new Harbor Services
User Fee (HSUF), a hastily crafted proposal which leaves open troubling
and unanswered questions and unfairly places the entire financial
burden on certain commercial vessel operators. Instead of making
America's trade gateways safer or more efficient, the HSUF would make
them more costly and less competitive.
The Port of Shreveport-Bossier, regularly operating now for two
years, is a part of this national infrastructure. Maintaining the
international competitive position of this country's ports is necessary
in order for the inland ports to operate as much of the cargo carried
on inland waterways travels through the deepdraft ports.
The Port of Shreveport-Bossier 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 $73,000,000. Businesses located at the complex are Arch
Chemicals, Oakley Louisiana, Re-Claim Environmental, Red River
Terminals and Shreveport Fabricators.
______
Prepared Statement of the Red River Waterway Commission, Natchitoches,
LA
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 2000 for Red River Waterway Project. Adequate funding will
allow continued construction progress toward actual project completion
and will facilitate totally reliability in operations for continued
industrial and recreational development. The infrastructure investment
of $1.8 billion can only be justified if commercial and recreational
development interests can rely on an efficient, functional and user
friendly river system.
Construction on Red River is approximately 90 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 need for the red river waterway project
Navigation Structures (Revetments and Dikes).--These structures are
necessary to maintain the channel alignment so as to provide reliable
navigation to the users. In addition, the structures help insure that
barges can be loaded to the maximum depths allowable for profitable
operation.
Recreation Development.--Design and Construction in Pools 3, 4 and
5 should begin immediately. Important projects such as Shreveport
Riverfront, Teague Parkway Trails, Colfax and Hampton Lake establish an
excellent recreation foundation.
Operations & Maintenance Program.--Channel Maintenance (Dredging)
is critical to the viability of the waterway system. The Corps of
Engineers needs sufficient resources to adequately maintain the
navigation channel to provide dependable and reliable depths so that
barges moving on the system can be loaded to the maximum nine foot
draft. Reliable conditions will encourage other development on the Red
River. Maintenance of existing navigation structures at strategic
locations is vital to the users. The backlog of maintenance items at
the lock & dam structures could be devastating to the nation's
investment in the navigation system.
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.
Aids to Navigation.--As commercial use continues to increase, the
Coast Guard presence and resources must reflect a similar growth to
adequately maintain the buoy system on the Red River and stimulate
confidence in the river system.
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.
______
MIDWEST U.S. WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
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 2000 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 McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, as the
O'Hare Reservoir has recently been completed. Specifically, we request
the Subcommittee to include a total of $6,000,000 in construction
funding for the McCook and Thornton Reservoir projects 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 U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 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) and completed by the Corps
in fiscal year 1999. This reservoir is 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 the 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. The 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 $399 million
need to be completed. The tunnels connected to the O'Hare Reservoir now
discharge when they fill up during large rainstorms into the Reservoir
and this system is working well and providing benefits. Thornton and
McCook Reservoirs have not been built yet, so significant areas remain
unprotected. 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.
Since its inception, TARP has not only abated flooding and
pollution in the Chicagoland area, but has helped to preserve the
integrity of Lake Michigan. In the years prior to TARP, a major storm
in the area would cause local sewers and interceptors to surcharge
resulting in CSO spills into the Chicagoland waterways. Since these
waterways have a limited capacity, major storms have caused them to
reach dangerously high levels resulting in massive sewer backups into
basements and causing multi-million dollar damage to property. To
relieve the high levels in the waterways during major storms, the gates
at Wilmette, O'Brien, and the Chicago River would be opened and the
CSOs would be allowed to backflow into Lake Michigan.
Since the implementation of TARP, some backflows to Lake Michigan
have been eliminated. Since implementation of TARP, 358 billion gallons
of CSOs have been captured by TARP, that otherwise would have reached
waterways. After the completion of both phases of TARP, 99 percent of
the CSO pollution will be eliminated. The elimination of CSOs will
result in less water needed for flushing of Chicago's waterway system,
making it available as drinking water to communities in Cook, DuPage,
Lake, and Will counties, which have been on a waiting list.
Specifically, since 1977, these counties received an increase of 162
mgd, partially as a result of the reduction in the District's
discretionary diversion in 1980. Additional allotments of Lake Michigan
water, beyond 1991, will be made to these communities, as more water
becomes available from sources like direct diversion.
With new allocations of lake water, communities that previously did
not get to share lake water are in the process of building, or have
already built, water mains to accommodate their new source of drinking
water. The new source of drinking water will be a substitute for the
poorer quality well water previously used by these communities. Partly
due to TARP, it is estimated by IDOT that between 1981 and 2020, 283
mgd (439 cfs) of Lake Michigan water would be added to domestic
consumption. This translates into approximately 2 million people that
previously did not receive lake water, would be able to enjoy it. This
new source of water supply will not only benefit its immediate
receivers but will also result in an economic stimulus to the entire
Chicagoland area, by providing a reliable source of good quality water
supply.
the mc cook 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). The 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.
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.
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 $3,250,000 in construction funds
included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for
fiscal year 1999. However, it is important that we receive a total of
$6,000,000 in construction funds in fiscal year 2000 to maintain the
commitment and accelerate these projects. This funding is critical to
accelerate the detailed design, plans and specifications and initiate
construction of the McCook Reservoir. The community has waited long
enough for protection and we need these funds now to move the project
into construction. We respectfully request your consideration of our
request.
summary
Our most significant recent flooding 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 sewerage 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.
Given our large regional jurisdiction and the severity of flooding
in our area, the Corps was compelled to develop a plan that would
complete 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 2 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, now proceed into construction.
Therefore, we urgently request that a total of $6,000,000 in
construction funds be made available in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act to advance construction of the
McCook and Thornton Reservoir Project.
Again, we thank the Subcommittee for its support of our project
over the years and we thank you in advance for your consideration of
our request this year.
______
Prepared Statement of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee
Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished Committee, my name
is Wallace Gieringer. I am 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 have been 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
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
identified as our top priority a project 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 in world trade 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!
The Corps of Engineers awarded a $186 million construction contract
on July 19, 1997. Last year Congress appropriated $44 million to begin
construction of the lock and dam. Work is progressing.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, continuing Congressional
support is essential at this crucial time in the history of the
project. An appropriation of $44 million is needed for fiscal year 2000
to insure that Montgomery Point is in operation as soon as possible at
the lowest possible cost.
The Interstate Committee also respectfully recommends the following
as important priorities:
Providing $500,000 for the continuation of the Arkansas River, Fort
Smith Study. While navigation is the primary purpose of the McClellan-
Kerr, navigation needs and flood control are closely related. Sustained
high flows result in difficult navigation conditions and continued
flooding in the vicinity of Fort Smith, Arkansas. Flood control
features of the Navigation System in that area are based on the Van
Buren, Arkansas, gage, thus the flooding concerns and navigation
problems are interrelated. Accordingly, this study would address the
Navigation System Operating Plan to improve navigation conditions on
the river, as well as the performance of flood control measures,
especially in the Fort Smith reach.
The Interstate Committee supports funding for the Upper Colorado
River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. For fiscal year 2000 we request
$6.25 million for the U.S. Bureau Reclamation (``Upper Co region
Endangered Species Recovery Programs'') and (Activities), and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service $1.2 million (``Resources Management Funds''),
``Section Six Funds'', and ``RWS Budget Base Funds--Fisheries Activity;
Hatchery O&M, sub-activity, to operate the Endangered Fish Propagation
Facilities at Ouray National Wildlife Refuge, Utah.''
The Interstate Committee also requests funding in the amount of
$500,000 for the continuation of the 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 500,000 municipal, industrial and irrigation users and will also
reduce potential degradation of the existing groundwater quality by
minimizing migration of saline water.
Mr. Chairman, we strongly urge the Committee to provide funding in
the amount of $1.5 million to initiate the installation of tow haulage
equipment on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System at
designated locks in Oklahoma.
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 the 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 for Arkansas,
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 am
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.
1998 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 $44 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 is
progressing. 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 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 areas 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 $107.3 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 2000 to continue construction.
Adequate funding will insure that the urgently needed facility is in
operation as soon as possible at the lowest possible cost.
On another matter, we wish to express thanks, Mr. Chairman, for the
Committee's support of funding for the Morgan Bendway Environmental
Restoration Project. The groundbreaking ceremony was held in January in
Dumas, Arkansas. The state of Arkansas provided one-fourth of the cost
for this $3.3 million project which includes a 1,000 acre lake and
wetland restoration measures. This project adds to the many widespread
public benefits associated with the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
Navigation System.
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:
Provide $500,000 for the Arkansas River, Fort Smith Study. While
navigation is the primary purpose of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
Navigation System, navigation needs and flood control are closely
related. Sustained high flows result in difficult navigation conditions
and continued flooding in the vicinity of Fort Smith, Arkansas. As the
operation of the flood control features of the Navigation System in
that area are based on the Van Buren, Arkansas gage, the flooding
concerns and navigation problems are interrelated. Accordingly, this
study would address the Navigation System Operating Plan to improve
navigation conditions on the river, as well as the performance of flood
control measures, especially in the Fort Smith reach.
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. It is vitally important that the Corps continue engineering
studies to develop a permanent solution to the threat of cutoffs
developing in the lower reaches of the navigation system; and for the
Corps to construct these measures under the existing construction
authority.
Provide funding and direct the Corps to complete installation of
tow haulage equipment for all the locks and dams on the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System. 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.
$1.0 million needs be specifically provided and the Corps directed
to begin rehabilitation construction on the Plum Bayou Levee.
Fund completion of the 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.
Funds for repair and rehabilitation of the power units at the
Ozark-Jeta Taylor Lock and Dam Powerhouse which first went into
operation in 1970. This project is vitally needed to correct problems
which have plagued the slant axis turbines since they were first put in
operation and to continue the reliable production of power from this
facility.
We also urge the Congress to continue to encourage the Military
Traffic Management Command 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 2000 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 Arveschoug, District 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.
Let me first voice my support for the Interstate Committee's
priority funding requests for the fiscal year 2000 budget--the
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam project and the other priority projects
as listed by the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee member
states.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, we respectfully request
funding for the following: Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
Recovery Program--Fiscal Year 2000 Request--United States Bureau of
Reclamation, $6.25 million (Upper CO Region Endangered Species Recovery
Programs) and (Activities), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, $1.2
million (Resources Management Funds, Section Six Funds, and FWS Budget
Base Funds--Fisheries Activity; Hatchery O&M, sub-activity, to operate
the Endangered Fish Propagation Facilities at Ouray National Wildlife
refuge, Utah)
Reduction of Bureau of Reclamation Overhead Charges: we would like
to make this Committee aware of what we consider to be excessive
overhead costs on Safety of Dams projects and project O&M. Bureau
charges are adding 50 percent to 60 percent to the cost of O&M and
repair projects. Of that added cost, almost half comes from the
application of the Bureau's overhead surcharge. Congress should hold
the Bureau accountable for these costs by requiring the Bureau to study
less costly alternatives for the delivery of these basic services.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to give you an example of these
excessive charges on a project that we are involved with.
Introduction.--The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District
is the local public-agency sponsor of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.
The multipurpose Fry-Ark Project annually delivers approximately 70,000
acre-feet of trans-mountain water to eastern Colorado cities and farms,
serving a population of 620,000 and irrigating over 200,000 acres.
Authorized in 1962, the Fry-Ark Project was built and is today operated
and maintained by the Bureau of Reclamation. The Southeastern District
has the financial responsibility for the reimbursable construction
costs and annual operation and maintenance costs of the Project. That
obligation is met through the assessment of a tax on all real and
taxable personal property within the nine-county service-area of the
District, and through direct water and storage charges. In 1999 the
Southeastern District and our constituents will send the Bureau over
$5.7 million. For the most part we consider it an investment in much
needed water for our local communities.
In 1997 the Bureau of Reclamation determined that major ``Safety of
Dams'' (SOD) repairs were needed at the Pueblo Reservoir Dam, the
largest storage facility in the Fry-Ark Project system. Initial cost
estimates for the repairs were over $28 million. The costs would be
over and above the annual repayment and O&M costs, and would be shared
between the federal government and the Southeastern District. Under the
federal Safety of Dams Act of 1978 and 1984, the Bureau (federal
taxpayers) would pay for 85 percent of the costs while local sponsors
pay for 15 percent of the costs. That means that the Southeastern
District would pay about $4 million, which is about 60 percent of the
District's $6.3 million total annual budget. The District has committed
reserve funds and assessed additional user fees in order to meet this
additional financial obligation.
Because the District's financial obligations for the Fry-Ark
Project are substantial, and growing, we take a keen interest in how
the Bureau of Reclamation spends our constituents' dollars.
Excessive Administrative Costs.--The Safety of Dams (SOD) project
at Pueblo Dam has again raised concerns regarding the cost of the
Bureau of Reclamation's administration of project operations and
repairs (work began in 1997 and will be complete Spring 2001). As
documented in our Cost Comparison Report, the Bureau of Reclamation's
administration, or ``non-construction'' costs, of the SOD repair
project (design, engineering, oversight, construction management,
contract administration, etc.) Adds 48 percent to 58 percent to cost of
the construction project, private-sector industry standards suggest the
15 percent to 25 percent is a reasonable factor to administer a
construction project of this type.
The Bureau of Reclamation did not give the District the option to
administer the SOD repair project ourselves (such authority may not
exist). However, in a side-by-side comparison of the Bureau's estimated
administrative costs and the cost to administer the project at a local
level, we believe we could save at least $5 million. That would save
the federal taxpayers $4.25 million and the District $750,000, which is
a lot of money to us. It's simple to understand where the savings come
from when you compare the organizational chart for the Bureau's
administration with the organizational chart for our local option.
The Added Cost of Overhead Surcharge.--All Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR) direct labor costs charged to the Safety of Dams Project at
Pueblo pay for the Bureau's administrative functions for the Project.
In addition, the Bureau applies a surcharge to these direct labor costs
to cover general BOR overhead. Based upon Bureau accounting of the
total expenditures to date on this project ($5.2 million since fiscal
year 1997), nearly $1.5 million is to pay for these overhead
surcharges. To put that in perspective, the cost of direct labor for
Bureau personnel to work on this project has cost $1.8 million to date.
These overhead surcharges nearly double the administrative costs on
this SOD project. In many cases the same is true for normal operation
and maintenance on Bureau Projects. Because the Bureau of Reclamation
handles the O&M for the Fry-Ark Project and assess a surcharge on every
direct labor hour, a sizable portion of the District's annual payment's
for O&M never benefit the Project. While these dollars are being
siphoned off for general Bureau administration, we fall further and
further behind in addressing critical repair and maintenance on Project
facilities.
Bureau Response to Date.--Bureau decision makers on the Pueblo Dam
SOD Project have responded to the District's request to re-evaluate
their non-construction costs. As we were negotiating a repayment
contract for our share of these repair costs, we asked the Bureau to
re-think their estimated costs for ``construction management.''
Original estimates had this line item at $7.6 million just to manage
the day-to-day work of the on-site contractor who actually does the
repair work. With some repeated encouragement from the District, the
Bureau did lower the estimated cost for construction management down to
$4.3 million. The actual numbers will not be known for several months.
Even with this adjustment in estimated costs, the Bureau's
administration of this SOD Project nearly exceeds the actual bid price
for the major construction component of the Project (contract for RCC
placement--$8.9 million; Bureau non-construction costs--$8.3 million).
Conclusions and Recommendations.--The Southeastern District is
proud to be the local sponsor for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and
has considered itself a willing partner with the Bureau of Reclamation
on the development and operation of the Project since Congress
authorized the Project in 1962. However, the present-day cost of doing
business with the Bureau of Reclamation makes it more and more
difficult for the District to afford the partnership. The excessive
administrative charges and surcharges on the Pueblo Dam SOD Project are
just one example of just how costly it is to do business with the
Bureau. We have similar concerns with the Bureau's operation and
maintenance of the Fry-Ark Project. It is difficult for us to
repeatedly go back to our constituents to ask them for more money to
keep pace with the Bureau's costly business practices.
We offer the following recommendations as an alternative to the
status quo:
1. Allow for local administration of Safety of Dams projects and
O&M on Bureau facilities to reduce costs to local beneficiaries and the
federal taxpayer.
2. Reduce the Bureau's administrative structure so that the
fundamental services of the Bureau can be delivered at less cost--this
would allow for a reduction in the overhead surcharge rates now being
applied to maintain the current Bureau administrative structure.
3. Totally eliminate or substantially reduce the overhead
surcharges on all SOD projects--the general administrative functions of
the Bureau should already be covered by the current surcharges on
Project O&M and other direct charges.
4. Review and audit the Bureau's application of their ``cost
recovery objectives and policies'', and ``contracts and repayment
policy''--local water users cannot even discuss their future water
management objectives with the Bureau without being charged--where does
this money go?
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 Gerald H. Holman, Chairman for Kansas, Arkansas
River Basin 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
Oklahoma, Arkansas, Colorado, and Missouri to form the five (5) 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 our area. Your support is vital to
maintain its future viability. Construction is well underway and
continued funding authorization is needed. We 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:
1. 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. This model technology is demonstrating the feasibility
of recharging a major groundwater resource supplying water to nearly
one-half million irrigation, municipal and industrial users. 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 Bureau of Reclamation pilot project is fully operational.
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. The pilot project is
scheduled for an additional two years 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. Governor Graves supports this much needed project as a
benefit to 20 percent of the state's population. We are grateful for
your consistent funding support since fiscal year 1995 which totals $3
million as a compliment to cost share funds provided by the City of
Wichita.
We request continued funding in the amount of $500,000 for fiscal
year 2000.
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.'' This or similar
language was also approved in fiscal year 1999. We request this or
similar language remain for fiscal year 2000.
2. Cheney Reservoir.--The reservoir provides greater than 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. A partnership between
farmers, ranchers and the City of Wichita has proven beneficial in
implementing soil conservation practices and to better manage and/or
eliminate non-point source pollution. This partnership must continue
indefinitely to protect the reservoir and the Wichita water supply and
therefore, on-going funding will also be important. The City of Wichita
is providing funding for this critical, nationally acclaimed model
project. We request continued funding in the amount of $125,000 for
fiscal year 2000. As the funding from Section 319 of the Clean Water
Act is phased out, we request another source to maintain funding at a
total of $125,000.
Recently, the Bureau of Reclamation completed a Comprehensive
Facility Review for the Cheney Dam. The Review concluded that
significant damage exists in the soil-cement slope of the dam, which
must be fully determined, and needed repairs completed. Present plans
are to lower the reservoir during the winter of 1999/2000 to accurately
determine needed repairs and then complete those repairs. Lowering the
reservoir the necessary 4 feet will reduce available water supply by 24
percent. Repairs must be completed at the time the reservoir is
lowered. We request funding support in the amount of $500,000 to
accomplish the work required by the Bureau of Reclamation.
3. Arkansas River Mineral Intrusion Study.--A critically important
research 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 and now the
Bureau of Reclamation is funding completion of the modeling. Data
collection was complete at year end 1998 and the report could be
published by year end 1999. Special funding for this project is not
needed in fiscal year 2000. However, following analysis of the study
results, follow-on projects might be warranted along with federal
funding.
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. The flood of
1998 emphasized again the need to rapidly move needed projects to
completion. Approximately 1,600 homes were damaged or destroyed with
damage totaling approximately $38 million. Most of the damage occurred
in Sedgwick, Butler and Cowley counties. Our small communities do not
have the necessary funds or engineering expertise. Federal support is
needed. Projects in addition to local protection are also important.
This Committee has given its previous support to Kansas Corps of
Engineers projects. We request your continued support for the projects
listed below.
1. Arkansas City, Kansas Flood Protection.--Unfortunately, this
project was not completed prior to the flood of 1998. The flood
demonstrated again the critical need to protect the environment, homes
and businesses from catastrophic damages from either Walnut River or
Arkansas River flooding. When the project is complete, damage in a
multi-county area will be eliminated and benefits to the state of
Oklahoma just a few miles south will also result. The Secretary of the
Army was authorized to construct the project in fiscal year 1997. We
request your continued support in the amount of $4.3 million for fiscal
year 2000.
2. Winfield, Kansas Flood Protection.--This project is scheduled
for completion in June 1999. However, project closeout work will
continue into fiscal year 2000. We greatly appreciate the support to
complete the much needed project as was again demonstrated by the flood
of 1998. We request continued funding at the level needed by the Corps
of Engineers to closeout the project.
3. Walnut and Whitewater River Watersheds, Kansas, Reconnaissance
Study.--A reconnaissance study of the water resource problems in this
watershed is critical. The devastating flood of 1998 left more than 600
homes and businesses damaged in and around the city of Augusta. In
addition, local officials are concerned about the economic future of
the area due to water supply and infrastructure constraints. A study
would evaluate the basin needs and would include a reevaluation of the
proposed Douglass Lake project. We request funding in the amount of
$100,000 to conduct the reconnaissance study.
4. John Redmond Reservoir Reallocation Study.--John Redmond
Reservoir remains a primary source of water supply for many small
communities in Kansas. 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 for the Corps of Engineers study is $550,000. We request
your support.
5. Upper Arkansas River Watershed, Kansas, Reconnaissance Study.--A
reconnaissance study of the high flow carrying capacity of the Arkansas
River from the Colorado State Line to the vicinity of Great Bend is
important to western Kansas. This study would compliment the research
accomplished on the Colorado portion of the river below the federally-
constructed 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. The study will evaluate
the watershed changes to determine if flood damage prevention,
watershed and ecosystem restoration or other solutions to water
resource problems in the basin are warranted. We request this project
be funded in the amount of $100,000 to complete the necessary research.
6. Grand Lake Feasibility Study.--The Grand-Neosho River Committee
was formed at the request of the Kansas and Oklahoma congressional
delegations to evaluate water resource problems associated with the
adequacy of existing real estate easements necessary for flood control
operations which affect both Kansas and Oklahoma. A study authorized by
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 was completed in September
of 1998 and determined that if the project were constructed based on
current criteria, additional easements would be acquired. A Feasibility
study is now 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
request funding in the amount of $3 million in fiscal year 2000 to
fully fund Feasibility studies for this project.
7. Grand (Neosho) Basin Watershed Reconnaissance Study.--A need
exists for a basin wide water resource planning effort in the Grand-
Neosho River basin, apart from the issues associated with Grand Lake,
Oklahoma. The reconnaissance study would focus on the evaluation of
institutional measures which could assist communities, landowners, and
other interests in southeastern Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma in the
development of non-structural measures to reduce flood damages. We
request funding in the amount of $100,000 in fiscal year 2000 to
conduct the study.
8. 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, Iola, McPherson, Augusta, Parsons, Altoona and
Coffeyville) 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.
9. Operation, Maintenance and Planning Assistance Budgets.--To
effectively manage water resources in the state, continued funding for
the Corps of Engineers for planning assistance, operation and
maintenance is needed, specifically for Water Control. Of particular
interest at this time is on-going stream gaging support to help plan
and develop solutions to potential flooding so the devastating effects
of the flood of 1998 will not happen in the future. Continued funding
at the programmatic limits, specifically for Water Control, is
requested.
Your continued support of a most important U.S. Department of
Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service project is very much appreciated:
1. Quivira National Wildlife Refuge.--This is a joint project
involving the U.S. Fish & 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 groundwater and streamflow declines due to climatic
conditions as well as expansion of irrigated agriculture. An
engineering feasibility study is nearing completion which will 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. We appreciate your previous funding in fiscal year 1996 and
fiscal year 1997. Federal funds along with cost share funds from the
State of Kansas and area businesses/organizations were sufficient to
complete the study. No funding was requested for fiscal year 1998 or
fiscal year 1999 and none is requested for fiscal year 2000. 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., Chairman for Oklahoma
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, Oklahoma.
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.
Edwin L. Gage, Muskogee; and Mr. Terry McDonald, Tulsa; Mr. Lew
Meibergen, Enid.
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, projects and programs.
As we have testified in the past, serious problems exist at the
waterway entrance to the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
System. Extensive modeling and testing has proven that construction of
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam is the only acceptable means to correct
the problem. The project is well underway 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 $107,3
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. 635-363).''
We respectfully request the Congress to appropriate $44 million in
the fiscal year 2000 budget cycle to continue construction of the
authorized project. This is the amount the Corps of Engineers has
indicated is necessary to keep the project on schedule. This will help
insure 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 sector. There have
been more than 50,000 jobs created as a result of the partnered
investment.
Tow Haulage Equipment, Oklahoma.--We strongly urge the Committee to
provide funding in the amount of $1.5 million to initiate the
installation of tow haulage equipment on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas
River Navigation System at designated locks in Oklahoma. This project
would involve installation of tow haulage equipment on W.D. Mayo Lock
and Dam #14, Robert S. Kerr Lock and dam #15, and Webbers Falls Lock
and Dam #16, on the Oklahoma portion of the waterway. The tow haulage
equipment is needed to make transportation of barges more economical by
allowing less time for tows to pass through the various locks.
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 and Tenkiller
Ferry Lakes, Dam Safety Assurance Project in Oklahoma. We are pleased
that construction funding has been provided for these important
projects.
We support funding for the Grand Lake and Arkansas River System
Operations Feasibility Studies. We also support funding for
reconnaissance studies of watershed development needs for the Cimarron
River Basin, the Illinois River Basin, the Grand (Neosho) Basin
Watershed, and the Upper Arkansas River Basin.
Grand Lake Feasibility Study.--We support the ongoing effort to
evaluate water resource problems in the Grand-Neosho River basin in
Kansas and Oklahoma and request funding to initiate a comprehensive
Feasibility study. 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
operation of Grand Lake Oklahoma. A study, authorized by the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 was completed in September of 1998
and determined that if the project were constructed based on current
criteria, additional easements would be acquired. A Feasibility study
is now 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 provide $3 million to fully fund Feasibility studies for this
important project in fiscal year 2000.
Cimarron River Basin reconnaissance Study.--We request funding in
the amount of $100,000 to conduct a reconnaissance study of the
Cimarron 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.
Illinois River Watershed Reconnaissance Study.--We request funding
in the amount of $100,000 to conduct a reconnaissance study of the
water resource problems of the Illinois River Basin. The Illinois River
watershed is experiencing continued water resource development needs
and is the focus of ongoing Corps and other agency investigations.
However, 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 2000.
Grand (Neosho) Basin Watershed Reconnaissance Study.--We request
funding in the amount of $100,000 to conduct a reconnaissance study of
the water resource problems in the Grand (Neosho) Basin in Oklahoma and
Kansas. There is a need for a basin-wide water resource planning effort
in the Grand-Neosho River basin, apart from the issues associated with
Grand Lake, Oklahoma. The reconnaissance study would focus on the
evaluation of institutional measures which could assist communities,
landowners, and other interests in northeastern Oklahoma and
southeastern Kansas in the development of non-structural measures to
reduce flood damages in the basin. The committee requests funding to
initiate reconnaissance studies in fiscal year 2000.
Arkansas River System Operations Feasibility Study, Arkansas and
Oklahoma.--We also request funding for a Feasibility study of the
optimization of the Arkansas River system in Arkansas and Oklahoma. The
system of multipurpose lakes in Arkansas and Oklahoma on the Arkansas
River and its tributaries supports the McClellan-Kerr Navigation
System, which was opened for navigation to the Port of Catoosa at
Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1970. The navigation system consists of 445 miles
of waterway that winds through the states of Oklahoma and Arkansas.
This study would optimize the reservoirs in Oklahoma and Arkansas that
provide flows into the river with a view toward improving the number of
days per year that the navigation system would accommodate tows. The
committee requests funding of approximately $500,000 to initiate
feasibility studies in fiscal year 2000.
We also request funding for reallocation studies for John Redmond
Reservoir in Kansas, Broken Bow, Wister and Tenkiller Lakes in
Oklahoma.
John Redmond Reservoir Reallocation Study.--We request funding of
approximately $550,000 to conduct a reallocation study of the water
storage of John Redmond Reservoir, Kansas. A reallocation study is
needed at John Redmond Reservoir to insure an equitable distribution of
sediment storage between conservation and flood control storage's. This
study will help insure the project can continue to provide for both
important water resource purposes.
Broken Bow Lake Reallocation Study.--Public Law 102-580, PP 102(V)
provided for the reallocation of a sufficient amount of existing water
supply storage space to support the Mountain Fork Trout Fishery.
Releases of water for the fishery is to be undertaken under terms and
conditions acceptable to the Secretary of the Army.
The Corps has been cooperating with the state of Oklahoma to make
releases for the trout fishery in a series of demonstration programs
since 1989. There is a Federal interest in the reallocation of storage
from one project purpose if it achieves an increase in the net National
Economic Development benefits and has no significant environmental
impacts. However, recreation is a low priority for Army Civil Works
funding and the Federal government is limited to no net out-of-pocket
expense. A re-allocation study must be conducted to determine the
amount of storage needed to support the fishery, costs, benefits, and a
National Environmental Policy Act evaluation for impacts to existing
project purposes and downstream environments. The results of this re-
allocation study will be documented in a report to be used by the
Assistant Secretary of the Army. The report will provide
recommendations for future interim use arrangements. Mr. Chairman, we
support funding in the amount of $170,000 for this study.
Wister Lake Reallocation Study.--We request funding of
approximately $450,000 to conduct a reallocation study of the water
storage of Wister Lake, Oklahoma. Wister Lake is located on the Poteau
River near Wister, Oklahoma. The lake was completed in 1949 for flood
control, water supply, water conservation and sediment control. Wister
Lake is the primary water resource development project in the Poteau
River Basin. It provides substantial flood control, municipal and
industrial water supply, and recreation benefits for residents of
LeFlore County, Oklahoma, and the southeastern Oklahoma region.
Originally constructed for flood control and water conservation,
seasonal pool manipulation was initiated in 1974 to improve the
project's water supply and recreation resources. The conservation pool
level was permanently raised in the Water Resources Development Act of
1996. A reallocation study, which would include National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) coordination, is required. NEPA and other resource
evaluation and coordination would include the assessment of cultural
and fish and wildlife impacts, potential mitigation measures, and
reallocation studies.
Lake Tenkiller Reallocation Study.--We request funding of
approximately $500,000 to conduct a reallocation study of the water
storage of Tenkiller Ferry Lake, Oklahoma. Tenkiller Ferry Lake is
located on the Illinois River approximately 7 miles northeast of Gore,
Oklahoma, and 22 miles southeast of Muskogee, Oklahoma. Construction of
the existing project began in June 1947 and the dam was completed in
May 1952. The proposed study would involve reallocation of the
authorized project purposes among competing users of the project's
flood control, hydropower and water supply resources.
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.
We 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 critical. We
urge your continued support of this important 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 and
we urge this program be fully funded to the programmatic limit of $10
million.
Section 205. 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, 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 Cherokee, Sayre, Dewey, McAlester, Claremore,
and Warr Acres. Additionally, the Pawnee Indian Tribe has requested the
Corps' assistance with flooding problems. We urge this program be fully
funded to the programmatic limit of $40 million.
Section 14. 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, Wood, Kiowa, and Kingfisher. The city of
Clinton, Oklahoma, and Waurika Master Conservancy District have also
requested assistance. We urge this program be funded to the
programmatic limit of $15 million.
Sections 1135 and 206. We also request your continued support of
and funding for the Ecosystem restoration Programs (Section 1135 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and Section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996). The Ecosystem restoration Programs
are relatively new programs which offer 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 ecosystem
restoration projects located at Great Salt Plains Reservoir, the
Mountain Fork River, Meadow Lake, and the North Canadian River in
Oklahoma. The Section 1135 Program is already providing significant
benefits to the states of Kansas and Oklahoma. A Section 1135 project
is complete at Arcadia Lake in Oklahoma. A Section 1135 project is
underway at the Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge. We urge that these
programs be fully funded to programmatic limit of $25 million each.
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, state, 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, and critical flood plain
information is provided on a cost reimbursable basis to home owners,
mortgage companies, realtor's and others for use in flood plain
awareness and flood insurance requirements.
We also request your support and funding for the Challenge 21
Program. The Challenge 21 Program is in support of the Clean Water
Action Plan and would provide opportunity for the Corps of Engineers to
work closely with other Federal, State, and Local land and water
resource agencies to develop comprehensive solutions to reduce flood
damages and improve quality of life. The program would focus on
watershed-based solutions that could also include the restoration of
riparian and wetland ecosystems. Although the construction of dams and
levees has prevented billions of dollars in flood damages, many
communities still experience disastrous flood events. Some of that
flooding can be attributed to over development in and around the flood
plain. The Challenge 21 program will focus on opportunities to move
homes and businesses from harms way through structural and non-
structural measures and through comprehensive watershed planning
efforts. We support funding of this important initiative.
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 $3.9 billion will not keep projects moving
at the optimum level to complete them on a cost effective basis. Moving
the completion dates out is an unacceptable exercise since 50 percent
of the funds come from the Waterways Trust Fund. This will not only
waste federal funds but, those from the trust fund as well.
The Administration's proposal to use the money from the not-yet-
enacted Harbor Services Fund, is akin to counting your chickens before
they hatch. Mr. Chairman, this committee finds that proposal
unacceptable. We strongly urge the Appropriations Committee to raise
the Corps of Engineers budget to $4.7 billion so that the Corps can
meet the obligations of the Federal Government to people of this great
country.
Concerning another related matter, we have deep concerns about the
attempt to re-authorize the Endangered Species Act without significant
beneficial reforms. If a bill is passed through without reforms, it
will be devastating to industry and the country as a whole. We strongly
urge you to take a hard look at any bill concerning this re-
authorization and insure that it contains reasonable and meaningful
reforms.
The Tenkiller Utilities Authority.--The Tenkiller Utilities
Authority (TUA) was established October 19, 1998 as a Public Trust
under Oklahoma Law. TUA is comprised of twenty-nine (29) rural water
districts, rural towns, and Native American Governments. TUA's main
purpose is the production of safe drinking water on a wholesale basis
distributed through our Authority members to about 60,000 retail
customers. About 12,000 of that number are not presently serviced at
all. Current providers are individually struggling to meet increasingly
stringent drinking water standards and some are operating with outdated
equipment. By coming together under a single Authority, providers can
gain economies of scale and provide uniform, high quality water at
consistent prices.
TUA has been working closely with the Oklahoma water resources
board, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Eastern Oklahoma Development
district, Cherokee Hills Resource Conservation and Development Project,
and the Cherokee Nation. The cooperation and partnering among these
groups has been outstanding. The TUA has been successful in bringing
together, in a single regional entity, varied interests who share a
common goal: Improving the health and quality of life for all citizens
in the Lake Tenkiller region. The great challenge now before the TUA is
to finalize the plan and build the system. The members of the TUA
believe they can make it happen.
Mr. Chairman, we include the section on The Tenkiller Utilities
Authority to show that the studies and projects that are supported by
the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, are necessary and
essential to the further development of rural utilities and compliance
with mandated government regulations as they relate to water resources.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to present our views
on these subjects.
______
Prepared Statement of Christopher J. Brescia, President, Midwest Area
River Coalition 2000
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Christopher J.
Brescia, President of the Midwest Area River Coalition 2000 (MARC
2000). Thank you for the opportunity to submit our coalition's views on
the needs of the Mississippi Valley.
I would like to structure this testimony to address:
--The shortcomings in the President's fiscal year 2000 Budget for the
Mississippi Valley Corps of Engineers programs;
--Specific Upper Mississippi/Illinois Waterway fiscal year 2000
appropriations need; and
--Specific concerns with the Upper Mississippi/Illinois Waterway
Navigation Feasibility Study.
background
Over 60 percent of the U. S. grain exports reach world markets by
transiting the Upper Mississippi River system to our Gulf ports.
Returning traffic often brings agricultural inputs, petroleum, coal,
steel, cement and other materials into the inner reaches of the
Midwest. These exports contribute, on average, $18 Billion per year to
our balance of trade and are fundamental to supporting farmer incomes.
According to the independent accounting firm Price Waterhouse,
barge traffic originating and terminating on the Upper Mississippi and
Illinois Rivers has been estimated to support over 153,000 full-time
equivalents (FTEs) or between 306,000 to 459,000 full and part-time
jobs in the 10-state Mississippi River Valley. These jobs are estimated
to generate $4 Billion in income and between $11-15 Billion in business
revenue. This data reinforces other data establishing the strong
linkage between the Upper Mississippi and Lower Mississippi Valleys.
Our sixty-year-old lock and dam system on the Upper Mississippi and
Illinois Rivers has provided reliable, environmentally friendly and
cost-effective barge transportation which currently provides net
transportation savings of $1.5 Billion per year to the U. S. economy,
including $671 million in savings to farmers. However, in order to
continue these benefits, certain lock chambers need to lengthened to
accommodate modern tows (Tow boat with 15 barges).
While the 35 dam locations are structurally sound, traffic volume
has grown from 2 million tons to over 100 million tons of cargo,
creating congestion choke points at the lower portion of the system
(five locations on the Upper Mississippi River and two on the Illinois
River). This congestion is costing our economy millions of dollars per
year and is expected to grow exponentially as traffic increases by 63
to 100 percent over the next 30 years. River congestion, contributing
to transportation cost inefficiencies, is a key determining factor that
leads to reduced farmer income for those grains exported and in
relation to the overall price of corn, soybean and wheat in the
heartland. Without efficient water transportation U.S. exports will
continue to decline and farmer income will suffer needlessly.
Preliminary results from a Texas A&M study identify a potential loss of
between $100-$150 million per year to agricultural producers if
congestion choke points limit our capacity to process traffic
efficiently.
fiscal year 2000 mississippi valley appropriations needs
The Mississippi Valley's civil works needs are under funded by
approximately $190 million. The total requested level of $685 million
needs to be raised to $875 million in order for key projects to be
completed at optimum levels. The President's budget shorts the
Mississippi Valley construction program by over $100 million resulting
in inefficient time lines, extended schedules, delayed projects, broken
commitments to the local sponsors and loss of benefits to the nation.
The President's budget continues to place a strain on the operation
and maintenance of the system. It does not even provide sufficient
funds to cover ``non-deferrable'' maintenance and operations services,
the bare essentials. An additional $108 million would be needed to take
care of these problems.
The perils of flooding that led to the creation of the Mississippi
Rivers and Tributaries project are at a higher risk with the
President's budget. This integrated project protecting the populations
of seven states is quickly eroding in credibility. Levees in place are
as much as six feet below grade in height, in other areas below grade
in sections. The risk of not providing sufficient funding for this
program of national significance is unsupportable. Approximately $70
million in additional funds are needed for the 20+ projects within the
scope of this program and for general maintenance.
specific upper mississippi fiscal year 2000 appropriation needs
Within the Mississippi Valley's needs, there are approximately
$40.5 million additional dollars necessary in the Upper Mississippi,
Illinois and Missouri Rivers programs. We would urge the following
funds be made available accordingly:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget What we
request want Variance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Investigations:
Upper Miss Nav Study............... 6.700 15.700 9.00
Upper Miss Flow Frequency.......... 2.100 2.100 .........
Comprehensive Plan Study........... ......... 2.000 2.00
--------------------------------
Subtotal......................... ......... ......... 11.00
Construction General:
L&D 24 Part 1 Rehab................ 3.844 3.844 .........
L&D 24 Part 2 Rehab................ 1.200 1.200 .........
L&D 25 Rehab....................... 4.560 4.560 .........
Mel Price.......................... 2.900 3.900 1.00
EMP................................ 18.955 18.955 .........
L&D 12 Rehab....................... 2.600 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
L&D 14 Rehab....................... 4.092 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Missouri River Mitigation.......... 5.000 10.000 5.00
L&D 3 Rehab........................ 3.200 3.200 ( \1\ )
MS River (MO-OH)................... 3.000 4.500 1.50
--------------------------------
Subtotal......................... ......... ......... 7.50
Operation & Maintenance:
MS River, MN-MO.................... 103.547 108.547 5.00
MS River (MO-OH)................... 13.544 ......... .........
Illinois Waterway.................. 25.368 ......... .........
Kaskaskia River Nav................ 1.588 ......... .........
Missouri River..................... 7.812 ......... .........
Major Maintenance.................. ......... 17.00 17.00
--------------------------------
Subtotal......................... ......... ......... 22.00
--------------------------------
Total............................ ......... ......... 40.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Major maintenance.
Additional funds are needed to implement an expedited pre-
construction and design initiative for seven locks extensions on the
Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway. Addressing these
function now, during the study phase lowers our competitive risk and
prepares for whenever Congress authorizes construction, rather than
waiting until the full study is completed. In addition, additional
funds are needed to initiate a comprehensive study for an integrated
flood control system in the Upper Mississippi Basin.
Funding from the construction account in the Upper Mississippi
Basin is close to capability levels, except for two categories and the
Missouri mitigation program. It is important that additional funding be
provided for these accounts to meet efficient time lines and to create
additional opportunities for finding creative ways of enhancing the
habitat restoration on the Missouri River. Those projects with an
asterisk have Major Maintenance counterparts to the Major Rehab
projects underway.
One of the most vexing problems has been the lack of operation and
maintenance funds to sufficiently address dredging needs, major
maintenance needs at key locks and some key safety concerns. An
additional $5 million is needed for dredging alone. In many cases the
least cost alternative may not be the environmentally preferred
alternative needing additional funds. In addition, at L&D #3, there is
a clear safety concern requiring extension of the Guardwall Major
Maintenance Project ($13.3 M) for which no funds are available. At L&D
12 & 14 there are over $40 million in Major Maintenance project needs
that should be expedited. In addition, L&D 27 requires an additional
$1.1 M in major maintenance repairs. All these facilities have exceeded
their design life and are critical to the functioning of the system.
For example, in 1997 L&D 27 was closed for 50 days to replace parts on
the miter gates. The estimated cost to navigation for tows waiting was
estimated to be $17.5 million that year.
concerns with the upper mississippi/lllinois waterway navigation
feasibility study
Mr. Chairman, we have lost confidence in the Upper Mississippi
River/Illinois Waterway Feasibility process. We recommend that this
Committee review the process and methodology and take whatever steps
are necessary to direct the Corps of Engineers to provide Congress with
an Interim Feasibility report by June 2000. The competitive position of
our nation is at stake and we must be prepared to have Congress
informed sufficiently to make important authorization decisions in a
WRDA 2000. An independent economic critique will be provided the
Committee within the next six weeks to help clarify technical and
theoretical flaws in the approach chosen by the Corps of Engineers.
MARC 2000 is also prepared to make technical experts available for a
briefing of Committee Members and staff as might be deemed appropriate.
MARC 2000 has been part of this study process, working with the
Corps of Engineer, other federal agencies and State government
representatives for the last six years. Although we can point to some
positive outcomes to this process, we are dismayed by the ``new'' and
improved economic model used for calculating benefits and cost. Let's
examine some of the assumptions that are embedded in this thinking:
(1) While barge rates will increase due to congestion on the river,
rail rates will not increase over the next 50 years and rail will be
able to absorb any movements of commodities leaving the river.
Mr. Chairman, we spent two days at Secretary Glickman and Slater's
Transportation Summit last year and heard testimony from rail
representatives indicating the lack of any additional capacity to move
grain. In addition, when coming to this conclusion the Corps
acknowledged that they did not consider the increased costs to rail
that would have to be borne to increase terminal and switching
capacity. And, in interviews with grain companies who use both rail and
water, they indicate that the evolving patterns of grain movement, due
to global competition are moving in the exact opposite direction
required by the rail companies--that is movements over part of the year
instead of the whole year. Anyone with any common sense understands the
irrational logic behind this assumption, if not the skepticism we hold.
(2) In accepting traffic forecasts, the Corps of Engineers accepted
growth lines that do not take into consideration the major impact
biotechnology will have in increasing corn and soybean yields or
developing specialty grains for export customers.
Despite considerable documentation provided by leading biotech
companies and commodity groups, the Corps refuses to accept this
possibility in determining the National Economic Development Plan. Many
experts agree we are on the threshold of major potential in this field.
If the Corps is charged to think on a 50-year time line, then they must
incorporate this information accordingly.
(3) Because the Corps is unable to empirically prove the
relationship between barge freight increases and whether grain will
stay or not stay on the river, they have qualitatively determined
``barge freight demand curves.''
I won't go into details about this here, our economic paper will,
but consider the following. This model assumption claims that
relatively small increases in barge rates will lead to major diversion
of grain to other uses and conversely, lowering of barge rates
sufficiently will lead to major exports of U. S. grain. This assumption
is held without regard to knowing the demand capacity of other uses.
Think about that, we are asked to have faith in a model that not
only predicts that under certain conditions we will export the total
production of the nation, but also predicts that we will export the
entire production of the world. What are we going to do, import grain
from South America and then export it down the Mississippi River for
export to Asia? Our experts have evaluated this model, taken it apart
and had discussions with lead economists in the Corps and are aghast at
the lack of understanding of basic economic principles and market
functions.
(4) This model does not take into account the strategic decisions
of competing nations in meeting global customer needs.
This study is supposed to be evaluating the cost and benefits of
investing in infrastructure improvements for the future. This cannot be
done in isolation of global actions. When strategic investments are
considered in many other areas of this country's functioning,
countering foreign competition is an integral determinant for timing
investment decisions. We do this in business all the time. Not
factoring in the competition's capabilities into our strategy to
overcome the competition, is selling our country short.
(5) When calculating benefits of the waterway system, the non
water-based environmental benefits are not included.
There is strong documentation attesting to lower fuel consumption,
lower air emissions and much lower accident rates for barge
transportation over other modes. Over the next 50 years the Corps
conservatively estimates a 63-100 percent increase in traffic. No
societal benefits are attributed to foregone emission clean up costs,
energy consumption, fewer fatalities and reduced congestion in our
communities. Everywhere in the world societies understand the benefits
of moving bulk commodities on the river system, to keep congestion out
of cities and volumes off roads, except in the Upper Mississippi
Valley. There are no benefits provided for the savings in road repairs
that 100 million more tons would cause if truck became the next
alternative.
(6) Finally, we are asked to accept a model output that recommends
an investment schedule based on average growth as it occurs, rather
than anticipating growth.
Grain markets, especially, do not grow systematically. They react
to many factors in the production process, ocean-going freight rates,
weather around the globe and economic growth cycles of many customers.
Therefore, they have many peaks and valleys. If we don't build the
infrastructure that will allow the U.S. to grow into market demand, we
will lose out further to the competition. If we wait for the congestion
on the river to choke us, and try to implement band-aid small-scale
investment ideas in key congestion areas, then we will lose. If we had
built our highway system to carry existing traffic levels without
consideration for growth, we would not have the productivity gains that
have permitted our nation's economy to excel. The same principles apply
to the waterways.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of George E. Wolf, Jr., P.E., Assistant City
Manager/Director of Public Works, Kansas City, Missouri
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 2000. Herein we
discuss our concerns with the President's recommended fiscal year 2000
budget as it relates to flood control projects in the Kansas City area
dependent on annual 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. Some of these projects are located on urban
streams subject to severe flash flooding, which run along major
roadways, resulting in an extremely hazardous threat to public safety.
The enclosed attachment shows our fiscal year 2000 funding request
made to the Office of Management and Budget last October. Our
presentation to OMB was made the morning after yet another terrible
flood event ravaged Kansas City taking the lives of eleven people in
our community. The most devastating floods were along Turkey Creek and
Brush Creek, a tributary of the Blue River. Seven of the fatalities
occurred on a bridge crossing Brush Creek just upstream of the Blue
River. The small waterway opening at this location restricts the flow
in Brush Creek and acts as a dam, backing up floodwater to dangerous
depths prior to it overtopping the bridge. The City plans to replace
the bridge as soon as possible however, the unimproved Blue River
Channel is inadequate to convey the unrestricted flows from upstream.
The Blue River Channel project, currently under construction,
represents our most pressing need and for fiscal year 2000 we are
requesting that this project be appropriated $25,000,000. This will
allow the Corps to make significant progress on the next phase of the
Blue River project which reaches upstream to Brush Creek. Work in that
reach could then be completed in the fall of 2001, construction of the
final phase begun at that same time and the entire project completed in
2003, overall a twenty year construction project. Construction began in
1983 and was originally scheduled for completion in 1998; that has been
continually extended due to federal funding constraints.
The Blue River Channel project when complete will significantly
reduce the flood threat to inhabitants of the Blue Valley.
Additionally, the river winds through a long-standing business district
that, after much severe flooding, has now been partially abandoned. The
channel improvement will bring many of those sites out of the
floodplain and will reduce flooding depths by six to eight feet. This
will serve as a means to help reclaim those Brownfield sites in the
valley for redevelopment, and to once again build a thriving Blue
Valley community.
Kansas City, Missouri appreciates the past assistance we have
received with local flood control projects. We are prepared to provide
our share of funding in the future, and respectfully request that
federal funding adequate to keep these very important projects moving
toward the soonest possible completion be appropriated in the upcoming
year.
fiscal year 2000 appropriations flood control projects
The City of Kansas City, Missouri, in cooperation with the Corps of
Engineers, presently have five major flood damage reduction projects
underway. These consist of the Blue River Channel, Blue River Basin,
(also known as Dodson Industrial District), and Swope Park Industrial
Area, all along the Blue River in Kansas City, Missouri; and, the
Turkey Creek Basin and Kansas Citys, (the study of seven Missouri River
levees), both in Missouri and Kansas.
Kansas City fully recognizes the importance of flood control to our
community. Over the past several years we have spent nearly $65 million
on major flood control projects being done in cooperation with the
Corps of Engineers. We appreciate the past assistance we have received
with these projects, and are prepared to provide our share of funding
in the future.
Our fiscal year 2000 federal appropriations request for the flood
control projects is presented in the following table, together with the
activity to be performed with those funds by the Corps of Engineers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year President's
Project/Activity 2000 request budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue River Channel, Kansas City, $25,000,000 $13,700,000
Missouri: Continue Construction........
Blue River Basin (Dodson Industrial 500,000 377,000
Dist.), Kansas City, Missouri: Complete
Plans,Engineering & Design.............
Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas and Missouri: 300,000 266,000
Continue Plans, Engineering & Design...
Swope Park Industrial Area, Kansas City, 60,000 58,000
Missouri: Complete Feasibility Study...
Kansas Citys (7 River Levees), Kansas 350,000 315,000
and Missouri: Begin Feasibility Study..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Kansas City, Missouri, also requests that the several
key programs which provide federal assistance for flood mitigation
continue to be made available to local communities and that they be
generously supported with annual appropriations. 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 have made use of these programs in the past and will
continue to seek out beneficial uses for them in the future.
______
Prepared Statement of Fred Thomas, Sr., Chairman, Pikitanoi Rural Water
Supply System, Kickapoo Tribe
fiscal year 2000 appropriations request
The Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas joins with the State of Kansas and
rural water districts in 19 counties in the northeastern corner of the
state to seek funds for a ``special study'' of drinking water needs in
the region as a continuation and expansion of planning for the
Pikitanoi Rural Water System, Kansas. The amount requested is $500,000.
The ``special study'' has a total estimated cost of $1,000,000 and
contemplates two years of effort with funding of $500,000 in fiscal
year 2000 and $500,000 in fiscal year 2001.
Planning of the project by the Kickapoo Tribe, coordinating with
the State of Kansas, began in 1996 and has proceeded to the point that
federal funds are needed for continuation. All funds for the project to
date have been furnished by the Kickapoo Tribe from its private, non-
federal resources. The Kickapoo Tribe requests that funds appropriated
for the project will be included in the Corps of Engineers' budget for
Water Development.
significant developments
As will be related in the discussion of the history section of this
testimony, there have been significant developments in the project. As
originally planned by the Kickapoo Tribe, the project involved a seven
county area. Interest in the project has grown to the point that as
many as 19 counties are now seeking participation in the planning
process. The primary reason for interest is the shortage of high-
quality water in this part of Kansas.
The State of Kansas supports the planning effort based on recent
agreements in concept for the ``special study.'' The key to the
investigation is the study of alternatives to determine if a single
system to serve the project area is most appropriate from a financial
standpoint. The development of a single system will be compared with
the costs of developing several smaller and separate systems. More than
one source of water may be involved. While the Missouri River was
identified as the best source of water for the seven county area, the
``special study'' will address sources of water at existing reservoirs
on streams tributary to the Missouri River and groundwater potential,
even though both potentials may be at some distance from the point of
demand. In summary, a comprehensive investigation of water source and
configuration alternatives will be undertaken in the ``special study.''
Finally, while the Corps of Engineers is neither an advocate nor
supporter of the project, there has been an effort with the Kansas City
District to identify the scope and magnitude of the ``special study.''
If asked, we believe the Corps of Engineers will confirm that the
request for appropriations for the ``special study '' is reasonable
given the level of effort required to develop sound cost estimates of
alternatives to arrive at the best plan for the region.
history of project
The need for funds for the ``special study'' is long standing.
Several investigations have been undertaken of northeastern Kansas for
the purpose of arriving at a solution to a growing shortage of quality
water.
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 Department of Agriculture developed the Upper Delaware and
Tributaries Watershed Plan in 1994. This project studied the water
needs of the Kickapoo Nation and other water needs of the region. The
primary supply for the regional project was Perry Reservoir. The
project contemplated the development of a small reservoir on the
Kickapoo Indian Reservation to supply drinking water to the Tribe.
The Kickapoo Tribe completed a needs assessment of its present and
future population and associated water requirements within the
boundaries of the Kickapoo Indian Reservation as part of the Pikitanoi
Project planning. The needs assessment also included submissions from
10 rural water districts and 11 communities within the original study
area, which included parts of Doniphan, Brown, Nemaha, Pottawatomie,
Jefferson, Jackson and Atchison Counties.
The Kickapoo Tribe planned 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 system diverting from the
Missouri River near Atchison, was $127 million. See Table 1 for a
statistic summary of the original project. The project would include
304 miles of pipeline from 4'' to 24'' in diameter and 15 pumping
stations of 1,300 horsepower or less. At the original level of
interest, the treatment plant and transmission lines would be sized for
a demand of 11.6 million gallons per day or 9,669 gallons per minute.
The system configuration and the cost estimate were expected to change
as more rural water districts joined in the feasibility analysis.
Since completion of the Kickapoo investigation in 1997, other
systems in the original seven county area have expressed interest in
the project and are supplying information on future needs and points of
interconnection to the Pikitanoi Rural Water System. Additionally, the
cities of Hays and Russell have expressed interest in the project.
Their needs and needs of their region expand the area of interest in
the project to an additional twelve counties west of the original
project on both sides on Interstate 70. New counties in the project
include Leavenworth, Marshall, Riley, Geary, Shawnee, Dickinson,
Ottawa, Saline, Lincoln, Ellsworth, Russell and Ellis, bringing the
total to 19 counties. Figure 1 distinguishes between the original and
the expanded areas, including the cities of Hays and Russell.
The Kickapoo Tribe and other entities are coordinating with the
State of Kansas and the Kansas Rural Water Association. The funds
requested for fiscal year 2000 will be used to continue investigations
by the Kickapoo Tribe, rural water districts and communities in the
northeast corner of Kansas. The work will be conducted by non-federal
entities with oversight by the Corps of Engineers.
alternatives for water supply are subject of special study
The need for drinking water in northeast Kansas is acute. Local
surface water and groundwater sources are highly developed. When a
request of the Kickapoo Tribe for additional water from its current
emergency 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
the 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 other water systems included in the original service
area is common throughout northeastern Kansas, as evidenced by the
considerable interest of rural water districts and communities in this
project.
Project participants are examining a number of alternatives for
water source, transmission and distribution. The original project
examined Perry Lake and Tuttle Creek Lake, projects owned by the State
of Kansas as water supply sources . The Kickapoo Tribe has received
authorization for construction of a reservoir on the Delaware River
within the Reservation, and the applicability of this project to the
overall regional system will be evaluated. The Missouri River forms the
eastern boundary of the project area and constitutes an unlimited high-
quality supply of water. Groundwater is a good source in some areas and
is poor in others. All alternative water sources will be investigated
for the development of a single regional rural water project or
multiple projects.
organization
It is contemplated that the Corps of Engineers will provide
planning oversight for the ``special study.'' The participating non
federal entities in the planning process will include the Kickapoo
Tribe, a new entity formed by the water user districts and communities,
and the State of Kansas.
Federal procurement procedures will be followed to allocate funds
for the project to the entities involved in the planning process. For
those project tasks to be undertaken by the Kickapoo Tribe, a
cooperative agreement based on PL 93-638 contract principles between
the Corps and the Tribe will govern. It is anticipated that cooperative
agreements between the Corps and other non-federal entities will be
formulated and that those cooperative agreements will specify the scope
of work to be undertaken by those entities and the procurement
practices to be applied.
TABLE 1.--STATISTICAL SUMMARY PIKITANOI REGIONAL WATER PROJECT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020
Statistic 1990 Census 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
-------------------------
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 Level.......... 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......................................... Good to Poor
2,020 Design Needs, gallons per capita per average day:
In-Residence........................................ 81
Water Conservation.................................. -12
Lawns and Gardens................................... 66
School Enrollment................................... 3.0
Labor Force......................................... 3.0
Commercial and Industrial........................... 8.0
System Losses....................................... 22
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 171
2,020 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
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
[In 1998 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Alt 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 5,471,000 5,598,000
1998...................................
-------------------------------
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 the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
[Millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's UMRBA
Request Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction General:
Upper Mississippi River System 18.955 19.455
Environmental Management Pro- gram
Major Rehabilitation of Locks and 19.392 21.392
Dams...............................
Operation and Maintenance: O&M of the 142.459 157.459
UMR Navigation System..................
General Investigations:
Upper Mississippi and Illinois 6.7 6.7
Navigation Study...................
Upper Mississippi River System Flow 2.1 2.1
Frequency Study....................
Land Management System (Research & 3 (of 27) 3 (of 27)
Development).......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
background
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
organization created 18 years ago by the Governors of the states of
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum
for coordinating river-related state programs and policies and for
collaborating with federal agencies on regional issues. As such, the
UMRBA works closely with the Corps of Engineers on a variety of
programs for which they have responsibility. Of particular interest to
the basin states are the following Corps programs:
environmental management program
The Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program
(EMP) was authorized in the 1986 Water Resources Development Act in
response to the need for both restoring lost and degraded habitat and
improving scientific understanding of the river system. What was at
first a novel approach to interagency environmental management, has now
become a widely recognized and respected regional program.
The EMP consists of two primary components: the construction of
individual projects to rehabilitate or enhance critical habitat areas
and a long term monitoring program to track the environmental health of
the system. The habitat projects, which vary in size and range in cost
from about $200,000 to over $10 million, employ different types of
techniques, including such measures as island creation, water level
control features, side channel closures or openings, and selective
dredging to remove sediment. The long term monitoring program uses six
field stations throughout the river system which routinely collect
standardized data on water, sediment, fish, and vegetation at over 150
sites. In addition, the monitoring program headquarters at the Upper
Midwest Environmental Sciences Center is home to a multi-disciplinary
team of scientists who are interpreting and displaying the data in ways
that will be useful for management decisions.
The unique character of the EMP is, in part, a function of its
partnership design. While the Corps of Engineers is the lead agency,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and five
basin states all have specific roles to play in planning, designing,
evaluating, and operating and maintaining the habitat projects, as well
as conducting the data collection and analysis that is part of the long
term monitoring program.
Fiscal year 2000 marks the fourth year in a row that the
President's budget request includes less than the full authorized
funding of $19.455 million for the EMP. Last year, the Administration
recommended $18.355 million and Congress increased the funding level to
$18.9 million. Although the Administration's request is higher this
year ($18.955 million), it still falls $500,000 short of full funding.
The five basin states are hopeful that Congress will again affirm its
support for this important program by providing full funding for the
EMP in fiscal year 2000.
Funding shortfalls are of concern to the basin states for the
following reasons:
--The Congress is currently considering reauthorizing the EMP as part
of the 1999 Water Resources Development Act. The proposals
under consideration vary with regard to some provisions, but
all include an increase in the annual authorized funding level
to approximately $33 million. It would be particularly
unfortunate and ironic if the EMP were to face funding cutbacks
at the same time that Congress is poised to authorize future
funding increases. If the program is weakened by insufficient
funding in fiscal year 2000, it will be difficult to rebuild
the program to the enhanced levels envisioned by Congress in
pending reauthorization bills.
--Unlike most other Corps projects, the EMP is currently ``capped''
by its Congressional authorization both in terms of annual
appropriations and overall time frame. Therefore annual funding
decisions have a far greater impact on whether the program is
ultimately able to accomplish its goals. No other Corps program
or project of which we are aware is constrained by this unique
combination of time and financial limitations.
Funding shortfalls in the early years of EMP (FY 1988-91) and in
more recent years (FY 1997-1999) total nearly $37 million below
authorized levels. The annual cap on appropriations makes it
impossible to ``recapture'' this shortfall.
--Unless and until the EMP is reauthorized, funding shortfalls in the
closing few years of the current EMP authorization period will
have a particularly debilitating effect on the program. Some
habitat projects for which planning and design have been
initiated will not be able to proceed to construction, thus
negating the investment which has already been made in these
projects. The fiscal year 2000 budget will support the
continuing construction of 7 projects, the completion of 5
projects, and continuing planning and design work on 16
projects. A number of these projects have already been delayed
due to funding constraints. Unless the program is reauthorized,
some of these projects may need to be abandoned entirely if
sufficient funds are not provided prior to expiration of the
authorization in 2002.
--The success of the Long Term Resource Monitoring (LTRM) component
of the EMP is dependent, in part, upon relatively reliable and
constant funding levels. As a non-construction element of the
EMP which supports teams of scientific and field personnel, the
LTRM is particularly sensitive to annual funding variances. In
this regard, the LTRM is unique within the Corps' construction
general account, where there is typically more flexibility to
respond to annual budgetary fluctuations.
Efforts are underway to restructure the monitoring program so that
it will be more flexible and effectively positioned to
accommodate the future data and information needs in the
``second generation'' EMP. During this difficult transition
period, it will be particularly important to provide a minimum,
stable funding level for the LTRM, which has already suffered
from the effects of inflation on its fixed appropriations
authorization.
--The economic and ecological health of the Upper Mississippi River
are inexorably linked. Congress recognized this fact when, in
1986, it declared this river system to be ``a nationally
significant ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial
navigation system.'' Yet EMP funding cuts in the past few years
are widening the already large discrepancy between federal
investment in these two major river purposes. In fiscal year
2000, the Corps of Engineers will invest over $140 million in
operation and maintenance of the Upper Mississippi River System
for commercial navigation purposes. Another $20 million is
scheduled for major rehabilitation of aging locks and dams.
Though some of these investments have incidental environmental
benefits, full funding ($19.455 million) for the EMP is
critical if the federal commitment to multi-purpose management
is to be maintained.
major rehabilitation of locks and dams
Given that most of the locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi
River System are over 60 years old, they are in serious need of repair
and rehabilitation. For the past 13 years, the Corps has been
undertaking major rehabilitation of individual facilities throughout
the system in an effort to extend their useful life.
The UMRBA supports the Corps' fiscal year 2000 budget request of
approximately $19.4 million for major rehabilitation work at 5 locks
and dams on the Upper Mississippi River. Half of this amount is to be
provided by the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and will support work at
Locks and Dams 3, 12, 14, 24, and 25. These funds will be used for lock
rehabilitation, auxiliary lock closure rehabilitation, miter gate
installation, electrical and mechanical rehabilitation, scour
protection, rehabilitation of embankment systems that are subject to
overtopping during flood events, and work on outdraft bendway weirs and
wall openings. An additional $2,000,000 could be used in fiscal year
2000 to advance completion of work on embankment systems vital to
navigation and environmental interests.
operation and maintenance of the upper mississippi river navigation
system
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for operating and maintaining
the Upper Mississippi River for navigation. This includes channel
maintenance dredging, placement and repair of channel training
structures, water level regulation, and the daily operation of 29 locks
and dams on the Mississippi River and 7 locks and dams on the Illinois
River. The fiscal year 2000 budget includes slightly over $142 million
for O&M of this river system, including $103.5 million for the
Mississippi River between Minneapolis and the Missouri River, $13.5
million for the Mississippi River between the Missouri River and Ohio
River, and $25.4 million for the Illinois Waterway.
These funds are critical to the Corps' ability to maintain a safe
and reliable commercial navigation system. The efficiency of this
system is vital to the agricultural economy of the five states. In
addition, these funds support a variety of activities that ensure the
navigation system is maintained while protecting and enhancing the
river's environmental values. For example, O&M funds support innovative
environmental engineering techniques in the open river reaches such as
bendway weirs, chevrons, and notched dikes that maintain the navigation
channel in an environmentally sensitive manner. In addition, studies of
water level management options in a number of pools in the impounded
portion of the river are underway as part of the on-going navigation
O&M program. Pool level management is a promising new approach for
enhancing aquatic plant growth and overwintering conditions for fish
without adversely affecting navigation.
While the funds that the Corps has requested for fiscal year 2000
are expected to be adequate to meet basic O&M requirements, the UMRBA
supports additional funding of $15 million which could be effectively
utilized in fiscal year 2000 for critical needs such as electrical
repairs, bulkhead repairs, repairs to cracks and spalls on lockwalls,
concrete repairs, repairs to liftgates, revetment and dike repairs, and
replacement of roller gate chains at various lock locations on the
upper river.
navigation study
In 1993 the Corps of Engineers initiated a feasibility study of
navigation capacity expansion on the Upper Mississippi River and
Illinois Waterway, a transportation system that is vitally important to
the Midwest and the nation in linking agricultural commodities to
international markets. The states in the region have been providing
advice and counsel to the Corps throughout the study via a special
Governors Liaison Committee comprised of gubernatorial appointees from
each of the five basin states. The results of this study will be
critical to our ability to make reasoned decisions about the future of
the Upper Mississippi navigation system. Given that the merits of
future multi-billion dollar federal investments will be judged based
upon this study, the states of the basin are keenly interested in both
the analysis and the alternatives under consideration.
During the past year, the study experienced delays associated with
the need to more carefully review and verify the economic models and
some of the model inputs including traffic projections and demand
curves. As a result, the study completion date has been postponed by
one year to December 2000. Thus, much of the work necessary to bring
the study to a close will now be done in fiscal year 2000.
The five basin states support the President's request for $6.7
million in fiscal year 2000 for the navigation study. Those funds will
be used to continue the feasibility study, complete the plan
formulation process, complete the draft feasibility report and draft
Environmental Impact Statement, conduct internal and public review,
hold public meetings, and complete a site-specific report with a
baseline cost estimate. It is essential that the Corps has sufficient
funds to complete these important tasks and produce a sound economic
and environmental assessment of navigation capacity expansion needs.
upper mississippi river system flow frequency study
Flow frequencies for the Upper Mississippi River System badly need
revision. The flood profiles currently in use were developed in 1979 by
an interagency task force and replaced profiles previously adopted in
1966. A variety of factors suggests that the 1979 profiles need to be
updated:
--The 1979 flood profiles are generally lower than the earlier 1966
profiles. In the southern reaches of the Rock Island District,
the difference is as much as five feet. For example, the 1979
flood frequencies show that in the short time frame of 29
years, a ``100 year'' flood, a ``200 year'' flood, and a ``500
year'' flood have occurred in the city of Hannibal, Missouri.
This has caused many communities along the Upper Mississippi
River to question whether the 1979 methodology and resulting
profiles are accurate.
--There are now nearly 20 years of additional data available,
including flow records from several high water events including
the Great Flood of 1993. In addition, new methodologies have
enhanced the Corps' ability to model the complex hydraulics of
the Upper Mississippi River. In particular, following the 1993
floods, the Corps developed a new mathematical hydraulic model
(UNET) to answer ``what if'' questions such as the impact of
levee failures or reservoir operations on stages of the
Mississippi River. That model is now essentially complete and
will enhance computation of water surface profiles.
--Flood elevation profiles have a variety of uses including flood
insurance; floodplain management; and the study, design, and
construction of flood control projects. The need for updated
math models and flood profiles has been widely recognized,
especially since the Great Flood of 1993. The ``Galloway
Report,'' which the Clinton Administration commissioned
following the 1993 Midwest floods, recommended that the
methodology used for flow-frequency analysis be reassessed.
Similarly, the Flood Plain Management Assessment published by
the Corps in June 1995 recommended that hydrology and
hydraulics data be updated, including water surface profiles.
The five states of the Upper Mississippi River Basin have been
strong supporters of these recommendations.
The UMRBA supports the Corps' fiscal year 2000 budget request of
$2.1 million for the Flow Frequency Study. These funds will be used for
UNET modeling and initiating work on generating flood profiles.
land management system
The Corps of Engineers' Research and Development (R&D) budget for
fiscal year 2000 includes $27 million, $3 million of which it is hoped
will be used to support development of a Land Management System (LMS)
demonstration project on the Upper Mississippi River System. Despite
the fact that the LMS project could have utilized $4 million this year,
only $800,000 has been made available in fiscal year 1999 for the
demonstration sites on the Upper Mississippi River System.
The basin states support the LMS initiative, which is designed to
meet the increasing need for integrated approaches to natural resources
management. In particular, LMS will rely heavily on modeling tools that
can assess cumulative effects and forecast future conditions in a
quantitative framework. We are fortunate in the Upper Mississippi River
Basin to be chosen for the initial demonstration of these techniques.
The Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in Vicksburg, Mississippi is
leading the effort, which focuses on three specific locations in the
basin: Peoria Lake on the Illinois River, the Minnesota River, and Pool
8 on the Mississippi River. Problems such as backwater filling, poor
water quality, and habitat loss are common to all these locations and
are related to sediment transport and deposition. Evaluation of the
ecological consequences of hydrologic and sediment dynamics at these
sites within the Upper Mississippi River System will enhance LMS
applications to other large river systems.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Sam M. Hunter, President, Little River
Drainage District
My name is Dr. Sam Hunter, DVM of Sikeston, Missouri. I am a
veterinarian, landowner, farmer, and resident of Southeast Missouri.
I am the President of the Little River Drainage District, the
largest such entity in the nation. Our District serves as an outlet
drainage and flood control District to parts of seven (7) counties in
Southeast Missouri. We provide flood control protection to a sizable
area of Northeast Arkansas as well. Our District is solely tax
supported by more than 3,500 private landowners in Southeast Missouri.
Our District as well as other Drainage and Levee Districts in
Missouri and Arkansas is located within the St. Francis River Basin.
This is a project item of the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project.
The St. Francis Basin Project was authorized by Congress in 1928
for improvements by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The initial
authorization was justified by a projected benefit cost ratio of 2.4:1.
Today this ratio is 3.6:1 and the project is only 91 percent completed.
As you can see this has been a wise investment of our federal tax
dollars. Few projects or ventures with funding levels provided by the
Federal Government return more than they cost. This one does and we
need to complete it in a timely fashion.
Local interests have done their part in providing rights of way,
roads, utilities and the like. Our government now needs to fulfill
their part of the project and bring it to completion as quickly as
possible.
The St. Francis Basin project has had a base funding level of
approximately $10,000,000 over the past several years. Our last five
(5) year average has been $9.9 million. That baseline funding level
does not need to be diminished. The President's budget request of
$4,350,000 is not acceptable. The amount requested by OMB will not
provide sufficient funding levels for the Corps to maintain what they
have built and/or improved. If these funding figures are accepted and
not increased to $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and succeeding years
then we have digressed and not progressed.
Since the initiation of the project for improvements we have seen
many positive changes occur such as:
(1) Many miles of all weather roads have been constructed and are
usable almost daily each year.
(2) Better flood control and drainage.
(3) Development of one of the most fertile and diversified valleys
in the world.
(4) Growth of towns, schools, churches, industry, commerce, and
etc.
(5) Improvement of our environment: malaria, typhoid and other such
diseases are no longer the norm but the rarity.
(6) A future for our young people to have a desire to remain in the
area.
(7) Production of a variety of food and fiber products.
As you can see many changes have occurred and we who live there
welcome them fully. We, local interests, in Southeast Missouri and
Northeast Arkansas want this project brought to completion and
adequately maintained. We have waited over seventy (70) years and we
believe it is now time to complete a wise investment for our nation.
Our request to you today is to approve funding for the St. Francis
Basin at $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and succeeding years to
ensure completion of the project.
Further, we are here as a member of the Mississippi Valley Flood
Control Association which represents similar interests as our District
from the Gulf of Mexico upstream to the headwaters of the Mississippi
River.
The MR&T Project has only $280,000,000 in the President's budget.
The Corps of Engineers has the capability of $355,000,000 and the need
for a minimum of $335,000,000. We ask you to give consideration to
provide funding levels at $335,000,000 for this project for fiscal year
2000. This will provide some new construction but it will also provide
the necessary maintenance monies needed each year.
Thank you very much for your kind attention and the favorable way
this committee has responded to our needs in the past.
condensed information of the little river drainage district, st.
francis basin project and mr&t project
Little River Drainage District
(1) Circuit Court Drainage District of Missouri.
(2) Serves parts of seven (7) counties.
(3) Fully funded by special tax on landowners within Little River
Drainage District.
(4) Provides flood control and drainage to more than 3500 private
landowners.
(5) Located within St. Francis Basin.
(6) Large, diversified, and highly productive area for food and
fiber.
(7) Has functioned since 1907.
(8) Major contributor to St. Francis Basin (1,200,000 acres of
runoff annually).
(9) Member of Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association.
St. Francis Basin Project
(1) Authorized in 1928.
(2) Justified with 2.4:1 benefit-cost ratio.
(3) Presently providing a 3.6:1 benefit-cost ratio.
(4) Needs a minimum annual funding of $10 million.
(5) President's budget is $4,350,000. (This is simply inadequate to
maintain prior constructed features and initiate any new authorized
work).
(6) Project has baseline funding of $9.9 million annually for past
several years.
(7) Local interest wants and needs this project completed. We have
waited over seventy (70) years.
(8) Project 91 percent completed.
(9) Now projected for completion in 2007.
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project
(1) Authorized in 1928. Protects 30,000 square miles at times.
Protects 20,550 square miles at all times.
(2) Congress viewed project as a national problem at time of
authorization.
(3) Mississippi River drains forty-three percent (43 percent) of
Continental United States and some of Canada.
(4) Mississippi River is vital to production of food, industry,
commerce, transportation, our nations defense, environment, health,
etc.
(5) Annual funding levels of $335,000,000 needed to maintain and
continue construction.
(6) President's fiscal year 2000 budget amount of $280,000,000 is
inadequate.
(7) Project is now 57 percent completed. (Fiscally).
(a) Authorized levees are 92 percent completed. Projected year
to complete is 2009.
(b) Authorized channels are 93 percent completed.
(8) Local interest wants and needs this project completed. We have
waited over seventy (70) years.
(9) Corps has capability of $355,000,000.
(10) Finished portion yielding 7.9:1 benefit-cost ratio.
(11) Unfinished portion projected to yield 36:1 benefit-cost ratio.
(12) Entire project when completed will yield 20:1 benefit-cost
return.
(13) Project projected for completion in 2031.
______
Prepared Statement of James S. Anderson, President, Blue Valley
Association
The Blue Valley Association has represented businesses and the
community in the Blue River valley since 1920. One of the major
concerns of the association throughout its existence has been flooding
in the valley.
In order to provide some relief to the area, the Big Blue River
Rechannalization Project was approved by Congress in 1970. Construction
on the project began in 1983 and was scheduled for completion in 1998.
The project was to be constructed in three stages. Stages 1 and 2 are
complete. Construction on Stage 3 began in 1997. Our understanding is
that the project is now targeted to be completed by 2003, provided the
requested funding is approved. Reduced funding would continue to delay
the project by an additional three to five years.
The progress that has been made to date has provided environmental
cleanup, new jobs in the community, and flood relief to the landowners
in the lower portions of the Blue River Valley. Several of our members
have reported lower river stages after recent heavy rains.
However, there is much work remaining to be done before the project
is complete. We are concerned that the potential for flooding is still
a serious threat to the properties upstream from the completed channel
improvements. In addition, we are concerned that upstream development
along the Blue River and its tributaries may actually increase the risk
of flooding in some areas. If continued improvements upstream increase
the threat, then obviously it is important to complete this project at
the earliest date possible.
For these reasons, we ask your consideration in approving funding
for the projects and appropriations listed on the attached sheet for
the fiscal year 2000 budget.
Requested Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriation
Blue River Channel, Kansas City Missouri:Continued
Construction of Stage 3. Completion--2003........... $25,000,000
Turkey Creek, Kansas City Kansas and Missouri: Complete
design for construction start....................... 300,000
Missouri River Levee System:
Restudy Seven Levees--Begin feasibility study....... 350,000
Unit L-385--Complete revised plans. ROW being
acquired. Unit L-142--Complete design for new
start............................................. 550,000
Upper Blue River, Kansas and Missouri: Complete Final
Plans and Specifications this year for construction
in 2000. ROW to be acquired in 1999................. 500,000
Swope Park Industrial Area, Kansas City, Missouri:
Complete feasibility study.......................... 60,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 26,900,000
______
Prepared Statement of J. M. Peterson, President, and Darrel G. Curry,
Vice President of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association
The Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association, its members and
its officers thank you for the opportunity to present this statement
and request relating to the budget for fiscal year 2000.
This statement and the request contained herein relate to the
Missouri National Recreational River project which was authorized by
the Congress in 1978 per Section 707 of Public Law 95-625. The
Association's request for fiscal year 2000 is $250,000.00 for operation
and maintenance of structures built prior to 1978 pursuant to Section
32 of the Streambank Erosion Control and Demonstration Act. Additional
funding is needed for:
1. Providing for replacement of flood-destroyed facilities which
afforded access to the river in the project's lower reaches;
2. The acquisition of shoreline easements to increase wildlife
habitat and to improve and restore the scenic characteristics of the
river;
3. Provide streambank protection where and as needed;
4. Meet such other needs as may be required to achieve the
completion of the project.
This project seeks to preserve and protect the fifty-nine mile
segment of the Missouri River extending downstream from near Yankton,
South Dakota, circa mile 811, to the Ponca State Park, circa mile 752,
near Ponca, Nebraska. This reach of river is the only portion of the
Missouri lying downstream of the ``main stem'' dams which is still in a
relatively natural state. Here, the river is neither channelized nor
are its banks protected by other than isolated stabilization
structures. The entire shoreline is under relentless attack by the
voracious Missouri, including even those areas which have been afforded
some degree of bank protection. Three years of much higher than normal
flows have wrought havoc along this reach of river. Erosion is, of
course, a natural process; indeed, the Missouri is notorious for its
appetite for its shoreline. The problem here, however, is that in this
reach of the river the ``main stem'' dams have eliminated the annual
flooding which once characterized the river. Thus, while the erosion
continues, there is no offset in the nature of the natural and historic
``build-back'' (accretion) from flooding. To exacerbate the problem,
the water discharged from the dam near Yankton is relatively free of
sediment. Thus, it has a greater capacity to erode the downstream
shorelines than did the muddy waters of old. The cleaner water can
carry a greater sediment load, and it continues to utilize this
increased capacity to the fullest. Evidence of the increased erosion is
documented by Corps of Engineers' reports that this reach of river is
over sixty percent wider now than when Gavins Point Dam, near Yankton,
was completed in the mid-fifties.
While $21 million was authorized for this project, only some $2
million has been spent. The original management plan, will soon be
supplanted by a new management plan developed by the National Park
Service and Corps of Engineers. The proposed plan details a number of
desirable proposals for a variety of efforts designed not only to
increase public knowledge, accessibility and enjoyment of this historic
reach of the Missouri, but to preserve and protect those
characteristics which constitute its identity. Those very
characteristics made it worthy of its designation as a Recreational
River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
A significant factor underlying this request is the impending
national celebration of the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark
Expedition. Interest in this momentous event is accelerating
dramatically, and one of the focal points of that interest is this
segment of the Missouri. As the only remnant of a relatively natural
river lying downstream of the Missouri's dams, it affords a dramatic
glimpse of the Missouri which faced the Corps Discovery. Improved
access, signage, preservation of extant timber, islands, bars and
wildlife habitat will help ensure the continued existence of the
characteristics which impelled the Congress to include in the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act, this unique segment of the Missouri.
The Association is truly appreciative of the previous support and
assistance the Congress has provided, and we thank you for that on-
going concern. Joining in our extension of thanks are the numerous
individual outdoorsmen, landowners, hunters, fishermen,
environmentalists and others who love, respect and enjoy this national
treasure and wish to preserve and protect it. Again, our thanks!
______
UPPER MIDWEST WATER PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of Norman Haak, Chairman, Garrison Diversion
Conservancy District
Chairman Domenici and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: On
behalf of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District Board of
Directors, thank you for your past support of the Garrison Diversion
Project. Previous Garrison Diversion Unit appropriations have been used
to deliver reliable, high quality water supplies to residents in rural
communities across North Dakota, along with maintenance of 120 miles of
canals and pumping plants already constructed across the state.
The Garrison Diversion Project continues to be the backbone of all
water projects in North Dakota. Completing Garrison Diversion will
assure our citizens affordable access to an adequate quantity and
quality water supply for municipal, rural and industrial systems.
Garrison Diversion is the key for future economic development,
recreation, tourism and wildlife enhancement in our state.
This year's budget includes $24.5 million for the Garrison
Diversion Unit. Additional appropriations will continue development of
rural water supply systems across the state, providing a dependable
water supply to North Dakota residents, who now in many cases are
hauling water due to inadequate supplies. The funding received, or not
received, impacts the lives of families and business owners across the
state who are working toward finding solutions to meet their water
needs.
Meeting the Indian MR&I needs also concerns North Dakotans.
Existing ceilings are exhausted and the unmet needs on the reservations
are growing. Additional appropriations and an appropriate ceiling will
allow tribal leaders to continue working on their most critical water
needs.
A greater concern is the overall Bureau of Reclamation budget.
Current trends show this budget number shrinking on an annual basis.
Although the president's current budget request is an increase over
last year's appropriation, additional funding is definitely needed. The
Bureau budget needs to reflect a greater commitment to completing
currently authorized water projects. Although water conservation, water
reuse and restoring fish and wildlife resources are important, the
Bureau's budget needs to be refocused and increased to place more
emphasis on completing the authorized projects already on the books.
To this end, we fully expect the Dakota Water Resources Act to be
reintroduced in the very near future. This bill reduces the cost of the
project currently authorized and directs the funding to meet the
highest priority needs of the state. The state, under the terms of this
bill, will repay, with interest, major portions of the costs while
matching federal dollars with substantial nonfederal dollars in other
areas.
Mr. Chairman, North Dakotans from cities, farms and businesses are
committed to the Garrison Diversion Project. Although the project will
never be built as originally planned in 1944, it is still the most
important water project in our state. I want to thank your committee
for past support, and it is my hope your support will continue for this
fiscal year.
______
Prepared Statement of Kurt Pfeifle, General Manager, Mid-Dakota Rural
Water Project (Public Law 102-575)
fiscal year 2000 funding request
First let me thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
in support of the fiscal year 2000 appropriations for the Mid-Dakota
Rural Water Project and for the Subcommittee's support.
The Mid-Dakota Project is requesting $28 million in federal
appropriations for fiscal year 2000. This request anticipates $27
million for Project construction and $1 million for the authorized
``wetland'' component. As with our past submissions to this
subcommittee, Mid-Dakota's fiscal year 2000 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.
This year (FY 2000) the project is seeking additional funds above
the President's budget recommendation in the amount of $23 million.
Mid-Dakota understands and appreciates pressures on Congress to pass
and maintain a balanced and seemingly 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
appropriate the full amount of Mid-Dakota's request.
history of project funding
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 (1989 $s) 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 (1989 $s).
The total authorized indexed cost of the project now stands at $142.163
million. All federal funding considered, the Government has provided 43
percent of its commitment (56.546 million of $132.493 million) to
provide construction funding for the Project. In the 1998 Legislative
session the South Dakota Legislature appropriated $1.3 million
completing the State's authorized commitment to Mid-Dakota. When
considering the federal and state combined awards, the project is
approximately 47 percent complete, in terms of financial commitments.
Mid-Dakota wishes to thank this committee for its support over the
past six years. Within the limited monetary parameters of current
federal awards and funds appropriated by the State of South Dakota, we
have been able to put those scarce resources to good work, making
exceptional progress on project construction, albeit not nearly as fast
as is needed or as we had initially envisioned.
SUMMARIZATION OF FEDERAL FUNDING
[In millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total fed.
Mid- Pres. Conf. Award Level Additional Funds
Fed. Fiscal Year Dakota Budget House Senate Enacted (Underfinancing) Funds provided
Request Levels Applied Mid-Dak.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994................................................. 7.991 ......... ......... 2.000 2.000 1.500 .......... 1.500
1995................................................. 22.367 ......... ......... 8.000 4.000 3.600 .......... 3.600
1996................................................. 23.394 2.500 12.500 10.500 11.500 10.902 2.323 13.225
1997................................................. 29.686 2.500 11.500 12.500 10.000 9.400 1.500 10.900
1998................................................. 29.836 10.000 12.000 13.000 13.000 12.221 1.000 13.221
1999................................................. 32.150 10.000 10.000 20.000 15.000 14.100 .......... 14.100
2000................................................. 28.800 5.000 ......... .......... .......... ................ .......... ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals......................................... ......... 30.000 46.000 66.000 55.500 51.723 4.823 56.546
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the State of South Dakota has contributed $9.67
million in grants to the Mid-Dakota Project, in previous years. The
State of South Dakota completed its initial authorized financial
obligation to the Mid-Dakota Project in the 1998 Legislative Session.
The $15 million funding provided by the Subcommittee in fiscal year
1999 provided Mid-Dakota with the opportunity to achieve very
significant and exciting accomplishments for the fiscal year. These are
later summarized in the section titled ``Construction in Progress.''
Mid-Dakota will continue to deliver quality drinking water to five
community systems and approximately 600 rural customers. Mid-Dakota
estimates that an additional 550 rural customers along with six more
community systems will be receiving project water at the close of
contracts awarded in fiscal year 1999. The generosity of the
subcommittee has already had a deep and favorable effect on the lives
of nearly 10,000 South Dakotans.
president's fiscal year 2000 budget request
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 $5 million for fiscal year 2000. This represents a 50
percent decrease in the President's funding recommendation and a 67
percent decrease from what Congress appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
It is the only time the President has lowered his recommendation from
one year to the next. The Mid-Dakota Project will not be able to make
any significant progress in fiscal year 2000 at this level of funding.
In fact, it would not be an overstatement to say that Mid-Dakota may
have to suspend construction activities for fiscal year 2000, if the $5
million is not significantly increased.
As in previous years, Mid-Dakota is in ``catch-up'' mode, due to
lower than expected appropriations in prior years. The $28 million
request for fiscal year 2000 will help the project maintain an
acceptable construction schedule. The $5 million budget request by
President Clinton would have profound and devastating effects, pushing
the completion of the Project to the year 2015. Under the Clinton
Administration's proposal, thousands of South Dakota citizens will be
forced to wait an estimated 13 years until they can be connected to the
Mid-Dakota Project. The President's budget, if ultimately implemented
will provide an extended delay of Project benefits.
The following table demonstrates the effect of the President's
budget request for the Mid-Dakota Project as compared to other larger
appropriation levels. The table also demonstrates the significant cost
increases expected (using a conservative two-percent inflation
(indexing) factor):
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT COST AND TIMELINE TO COMPLETION \1\
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost
Fiscal Year 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 to
Finish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approp. $5.............................. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 78
Approp. $10............................. 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 72
Approp. $15............................. 15 15 15 15 10 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 70
Approp. $20............................. 20 20 20 9 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 69
Approp. $25............................. 28 25 15 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data in table is based upon various leveled annual appropriations, an estimated $67.17 million authorized
unappropriated federal funds and two-percent inflationary indexing.
As is evident by the foregoing table, the President's budget
recommendation will have an effect of significantly delaying water
service to those who need it most.
By its actions the Administration raises the potential of
increasing the total cost of the Mid-Dakota Project by more than $10
million. The federal government would not be alone in absorbing
negative impacts of funding shortfalls. In addition to making the Mid-
Dakota Project more expensive to the federal government, the resulting
delays would also have a direct and proportional effect on the rate of
debt service to be paid by the Project and ultimately the water users.
The repayment agreement entered into by Mid-Dakota and the federal
government (the Bureau of Reclamation acting on the Government's
behalf), demands that Mid-Dakota's ``minimum bill'' increase
proportionally with the indexing applied to the Project. This is done
by establishing the ratio of the federal authorization at the time Mid-
Dakota submitted its Final Engineering Report (FER) in 1994, compared
to the authorized ceiling today with indexing applied. This same ratio
is then applied to Mid-Dakota's ``minimum bill'' as was identified at
the time of execution of the repayment agreement. The following table
is offered as an example:
Mid-Dakota's ``minimum bill'' rate at the time of signing the repayment
agreement = $32.50
Leveled annual appropriations of $5 million--estimated increase to
minimum bill: 21 percent
Leveled annual appropriations of $10 million--estimated increase to
minimum bill: 16 percent
Leveled annual appropriations of $15 million--estimated increase to
minimum bill: 15 percent
Leveled annual appropriations of $20 million--estimated increase to
minimum bill: 14 percent
Leveled annual appropriations of $25 million--estimated increase to
minimum bill: 13 percent
By the Bureau of Reclamation's own design, slowing down the
development of the Mid-Dakota Project will ultimately make the Project
more expensive, in terms of; rates paid by water users construction
costs, total debt of the Project and Reclamation's oversight costs.
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 $28 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 2000 construction schedule. Further, reduced
appropriations have the effect of adding more cost to the amount needed
for completion of the Project.
Mid-Dakota has consistently informed members of Congress and
appropriate federal agencies, about the detrimental effects
insufficient funding has on the Project and ultimately the people who
are to receive the water. In previous years Mid-Dakota and the public,
which we will serve, have been able to make the most of the resources
provided the Project. 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
seven \2\ project components and are into construction on two other
major Project components. The following table provides a synopsis of
each major construction contract:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Contract 4-1A/B (schedules 1-5) should be complete in May,
1999.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Cont. Cont. Bid Final Over over
Cont. No./Description budget \3\ Award Cont. (under) (under)
Price Budget budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-1, Oahe Water Intake and Pump Station............. 4.662 3.959 3.945 (0.717) (15)
2-1, Oahe Water Treatment Plant..................... 13.361 9.920 10.278 (3.083) (23)
3-1A, Raw Water Pipeline............................ 1.352 1.738 1.719 0.367 27
3-1B, Main Pipeline to Blunt, SD.................... 7.823 6.916 7.024 (0.799) (10)
3-1C, Main Pipeline to Highmore, SD................. 5.439 4.791 4.798 (0.641) (12)
3-2A, Main Pipeline to Ree Hights, SD............... 3.261 3.155 3.155 (0.106) (4)
3-2B, Main Pipeline to St. Lawrence, SD............. 3.691 3.349 3.349 (0.342) (9)
4-1A/B (1-5), Rural Service Area Contract........... 9.169 9.983 10.601 \4\ 1.432 16
5-1, Highmore Water Storage Tank.................... 1.545 1.434 1.433 (0.108) (7)
5-1A, Onida Water Storage Tank...................... 0.471 0.395 0.395 (0.075) (16)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Totals........................................ 50.774 45.640 46.697 (4.077) (8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Contract budget is determined by Mid-Dakota's estimate for the contract at the time of bidding.
\4\ A significant portion of cost increases are attributable to the placement of additional users as
construction proceeds.
As is evident by the foregoing table, Mid-Dakota has been very
successful in containing Project costs. Currently the construction of
major Project components are approximately 8 percent under budget ,
providing an estimated saving of over $4 million. The savings are an
example of sound engineering, good management and advantageous bid
lettings. While we can't guarantee future contract bid lettings will
continue to provide the level of savings currently experienced, we do
think it speaks well of the Mid-Dakota Project and how we've managed
Project funding to date.
Mid-Dakota also provided the solution to a number of emergency
situations in fiscal year 1998. The ``rescue'' effort to the City of
Gettysburg, SD provided the town with a dependable, quality water
supply (Mid-Dakota) just as they were about to lose their existing
water intake, due to sluffing of the hillside at that location. The
town of Virgil, SD will have a new distribution system for the town,
replacing the old one that was in disrepair and draining the town
coffers to keep it running and supply drinking water to Virgil
residents. Mid-Dakota has verbally agreed to take-over the operations
of the Southern Spink and Northern Beadle Rural Water System (SSNB).
SSNB is a small community water supply system that lacks the necessary
resources to properly operate a potable water supply system. Mid-Dakota
replaced approximately eight miles of pipeline along U.S. Highway 212.
The Highway is scheduled for improvements in the Spring of 1999. A
water pipeline located in the Highway right-of-way would have to be
relocated increasing the cost of the Highway improvement. Mid-Dakota
instead placed its pipeline (that would have been constructed in the
future) out of the way of the Highway improvement. This lessened the
cost of the Highway project and provided for an uninterrupted supply of
water to people along the pipeline route.
tentative fiscal year 2000 construction schedule \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Project features listed in table are subject to rescheduling
based upon funding provided and readiness to proceed and other factors.
Actual construction activities, therefore, may not coincide exactly
with schedule presented here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-Dakota has developed an aggressive construction schedule for
fiscal year 2000, with plans to install nearly 900 miles of pipeline to
serve an estimated 3,250 more people than are currently receiving or
scheduled to receive Project drinking water. Our construction schedule
will also provide the necessary main pipeline infrastructure to move
forward with many more rural and community connections in the future.
Federal funding allocated in any given fiscal year is always the
limiting factor that drives Mid-Dakota's construction schedule.
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE, FISCAL YEAR 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated
Estimated number of population
Project Feature Cost meters to be
connected served
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gettysburg Service Area & Tower 1.500 300 1,600
\6\.............................
Highmore Central Service Area.... 3.575 180 500
Mac's Corner Service Area & Tower 3.210 110 350
Rezac Lake Service Area & Tower.. 2.767 60 175
Collin's Slough Service Area & 1.958 60 175
Tower...........................
Cottonwood Lake Service Area & 3.203 155 450
Tower...........................
Main Pipeline to St. Lawrence, SD 2.187 ........... ...........
\6\.............................
Administration................... .460 ........... ...........
Engineering & Legal.............. 2.116 ........... ...........
Inspection....................... 1.135 ........... ...........
Bureau of Reclamation oversight.. .460 ........... ...........
Other costs...................... 2.760 ........... ...........
Wetland component................ 1.000 ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
Totals..................... \7\ 26.331 865 3,250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Project components footnoted are part of fiscal year 1999
construction schedule. Costs shown in the table are needed to complete
construction of that particular component.
\7\ Mid-Dakota's request of $28 million anticipates that 6 percent of
any appropriation will be deemed unavailable by the Bureau of
Reclamation by application of ``under-financing.'' This level of
``under-financing'' would effectively reduce a $28 million
appropriation to $26.4 million.
closing
Mid-Dakota is intensely aware of the difficult funding decisions
that face the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and we do
not envy the difficult job that lies ahead. We strongly urge, the
Subcommittee to look closely at the Mid-Dakota Project and recognize
the dire need that exists. Consider the exceptionally high level of
local and state support. And lastly our readiness, our credibility and
our ability, to proceed.
Again, we thank the Subcommittee for its strong support in the
past.
______
Prepared Statement of the Mni Wiconi Project
fiscal year 2000 construction budget request
The Mni Wiconi Project beneficiaries (as listed below) respectfully
request appropriations for construction in fiscal year 2000 for the
project in the amount of $34,144,000 as follows:
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
Core Facilities (Treatment Plant, Pipelines)........ $11,895,000
Distribution System on Pine Ridge................... 6,138,000
West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water Systems.............. 9,916,000
Rosebud Sioux Rural Water System........................ 3,762,000
Lower Brule Sioux Rural Water System.................... 2,433,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Mni Wiconi Project.......................... 34,144,000
The Oglala, Lower Brule and Rosebud Sioux Tribes were consulted as
required by the Indian Self-Determination Act (Public Law 93-638, as
amended) when the Administration arrived at its fiscal year 2000
construction budget of $23.9 million for the Mni Wiconi Project. This
budget, however, does not address the needs of the project in fiscal
year 2000 or in fiscal year 2001, a major target year for the project.
The principle element in the budget for fiscal year 2000 is $11.895
million for the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System (OSRWSS) core.
The OSRWSS core system funds are needed to complete the project to
Murdo by fiscal year 2001, where water can be delivered to the largest
areas of demand in the West River/Lyman-Jones service area and all of
the Rosebud service area. By completing the project to Murdo, all of
the interconnection points for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe will also be
provided. Only the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and parts of West
River/Lyman-Jones will be without points of interconnection to the
OSRWSS core. This landmark in progress on the project by the end of
fiscal year 2001 is the most significant event in the project to date.
The requested funding level is needed for the next two years to achieve
the objective.
Important to note is the fact that in fiscal year 1999 the intake
and treatment plant on the Missouri River will be concluded. Completion
of the OSRWSS core pipeline system to Murdo is necessary to utilize, to
any significant degree, those completed facilities. Also, noteworthy is
the fact that major segments, but not all segments, of the core
pipeline will be completed in fiscal year 1999 between the treatment
plant and Murdo. The funding request for fiscal year 2000 will continue
the core pipeline construction, and the funding request in fiscal year
2001 will permit us to conclude the necessary construction to Murdo,
thereby providing interconnection to a population of 26,000, 50 percent
of the project population. Absent sufficient funds in fiscal year 2000
and fiscal year 2001, only 8,000 persons will be provided with
interconnection to the OSRWSS core to receive water from the Missouri
River.
All proposed sponsor construction activity will build pipelines
that will provide project water immediately to beneficiaries. In many
cases, construction is ongoing, and fiscal year 2000 funds are required
to complete those projects. In the absence of fiscal year 2000 funds
requested for the distribution systems, it will be necessary to
discontinue some on-going construction contracts and reinitiate them at
a later time. This will raise project costs. It will also lower faith
of contractors in the project, which will affect future bid prices.
Funding for OSRWSS core and distribution facilities are necessary
to bring the benefits of the Empowerment Zone designation to the Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation, one of five rural designations across the
Nation. There is great anticipation on the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation. The federal projection that as much as $.5 to $1.0 billion
in economic activity can be generated, however, is largely dependent on
the timely completion of a water system, which depends on
appropriations for this project.
unique needs of this project
Your consideration in this most important project, a project that
brings hope, dignity and a spirit of cooperation between Indian and
non-Indians, will be greatly appreciated. This subcommittee has
provided us with considerable support for which we are grateful. This
year the Administration has provided a decreased and inadequate budget.
It is necessary for the project to petition the subcommittee for the
appropriate level of funding to build the OSRWSS core to Murdo by year
2001, a major accomplishment that will provide interconnections from
the core system to nearly 50 percent of the project population or about
26,000 persons.
The possibility of a lower level of appropriations in fiscal year
2000 would be hurtful. Each year our testimony addresses the fact that
the project beneficiaries, particularly the three Indian Reservations,
have the lowest income levels in the Nation. The health risks to our
people drinking unsafe water are compounded by reductions in health
programs. We respectfully submit that our project is unique and that no
other project in the Nation has greater human needs. Poverty in our
service areas is consistently deeper than elsewhere in the Nation.
Health effects of water borne diseases are consistently more prevalent
than elsewhere in the Nation, due in part to (1) lack of adequate water
in the home and (2) poor water quality where water is available. Higher
incidences of impetigo, gastroenteritis, shigellosis, scabies and
hepatitis-A are well documented on the Indian reservations of the Mni
Wiconi Project area. At the close of the 20th century one cannot find a
region in which social and economic conditions are as deplorable. These
circumstances are summarized in Table 1. Mni Wiconi builds the dignity
of many, not only through improvement of drinking water, but through
employment and increased earnings during planning, construction,
operation and maintenance.
TABLE 1.--1990 BUREAU OF CENSUS ECONOMIC STATISTICS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Families
Below
Indian Reservation/State Per Capita Poverty Unemployment
Income Level (percent)
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine Ridge (Shannon County)..... $3,029 59.6 32.7
Rosebud (Todd County)........... 4,005 54.4 27.3
Lower Brule (Lyman County)...... 4,679 45.0 15.7
State of South Dakota........... 10,661 11.6 4.2
National........................ 14,420 10.0 6.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial support for the Indian membership has already been
subjected to drastic cuts in funding programs through the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and through Welfare Reform. This project, progressing
through the budget fighting efforts at the National level, was a source
of strong hope that would off-set the loss of employment and income in
other programs and provide for a healthier environment. Tribal leaders
anticipate that Welfare Reform legislation and other budget cuts
nation-wide will create a crisis for tribal government when tribal
members move back to the reservations in order to survive. This
movement has already started. Recent Census Bureau data indicate that
the population of Shannon County (Pine Ridge Indian Reservation)
increased over 21 percent between 1990 and 1997. The population of Todd
County (Rosebud Indian Reservation) has increased over 11 percent in
the same time period. Those population increases are greater than
anticipated and will create water needs that will more than utilize the
benefits of the Mni Wiconi Project Act. Public policy has resulted in
accelerated population growth on the reservations. The Act mandates
that:
. . . the United States has a trust responsibility to ensure
that adequate and safe water supplies are available to meet the
economic, environmental, water supply and public health needs
of the Pine Ridge, Rosebud and Lower Brule Indian Reservations
. . .
Indian support for this project has not come easily because of the
historical experience of broken commitments to the Indian people by the
Federal Government. The argument was that there is no hope and the
Sioux Tribes would be used to build the non-Indian segments of the
project and the Indian segments would linger to completion. These
arguments have been overcome by better planning, an amended
authorization and hard fought agreements among the parties. The
Subcommittee is respectfully requested to take the steps necessary the
complete the critical elements of the project proposed for fiscal year
2000.
The following sections describe the construction activity in each
of the rural water systems.
oglala sioux rural water supply system--distribution
Attachment A summarizes the status of the Oglala Sioux distribution
system on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. All projects rely on
groundwater. Pine Ridge and parts of West River will be the last
project sponsors to interconnect with the OSRWSS core to receive
Missouri River water. With projects now designed and proceeding under
construction award there are 932 services and 402.2 miles of
distribution and service pipelines, down from earlier projections due
to the pace of funding. We continue to extent the start of new
projects. Two projects were bid in 1998 and will require 2000 funds for
continuation. The Manderson Loop has been under construction since
fiscal year 1996, and the fifth of five phases will be scheduled for
completed with fiscal year 2000 funds. The Red Shirt Project in the
northwest corner of the Reservation will be started in fiscal year
1999, and is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2000. Parts of the
project have been deferred due to shortage of funds and higher costs
than anticipated on other project segments. Of special importance to
the Oglala Sioux Tribe is the start of the main transmission system
from the northeast corner of the Reservation to Kyle in the central
part of the Reservation. This transmission line is needed to
interconnect the OSRWSS core system with the distribution system within
the Reservation in order to deliver Missouri River water to the
populous portions of the Reservation. If adequate funds were available,
this segment of the project would be initiated in fiscal year 2000.
However, this critical component of the Oglala system has been deferred
to later years.
west river/lyman-jones rural water system--distribution
Appropriations received by WR/LJ have been applied to five service
area construction projects that now serve a significant percentage of
our membership. A summary of project status, members services and miles
of pipeline is provided in Attachment A. Construction funds obtained
from the fiscal year 2000 appropriation will be used to construct those
projects on which design is on going.
WR/LJ priorities in fiscal year 2000 are for construction of
distribution facilities that will receive project water delivered by
OSRWSS and LB core pipeline and treatment projects now under
construction and completed portions of the RST core pipeline. These
projects will bring needed water to the Ft. Pierre area of Stanley
County, rural users and the City of Presho in Lyman County and rural
residents of eastern Mellette County.
The project in eastern Mellette County is a joint undertaking with
the RST. The water source is the RST core pipeline. Distribution
pipeline constructed by WR/LJ will serve their membership and have
capacity for and deliver water to RST tribal members. A similar project
is now under construction to serve WR/LJ and RST members in western
Mellette County.
rosebud rural water system
Fiscal year 2000 is turning point for the Sicangu Mni Wiconi. The
work proposed will build on the projects completed or initiated in 1998
and 1999 and prepare for the OSRWSS reaching Murdo in 2001.
The improvements to the community system at St. Francis initiated
in 1999, will be used to distribute water to rural homes in the
surrounding area. The rural distribution project will connect numerous
additional rural residences to previously constructed distribution
pipelines. The work planned in the Mission/Antelope area will further
improve the reliability of the water supply to the area.
Fiscal year 2000 will also be a year of preparation for the
construction of the Rosebud core line to Murdo in fiscal year 2001.
Pre-construction work in design and right-of-way acquisition is needed
to insure timely and efficient construction of this major transmission
pipeline in the following year. After the Rosebud core pipeline is
constructed to White River, high quality water will be available for
both Indian and non-Indians in Mellette County and Northern Todd County
where the water is needed most.
lower brule rural water system--distribution
The core system pipeline from West Brule to Reliance has been
installed and tested, using the systems West Brule booster station,
which has also been completed. The new water treatment plant is under
construction, using a combination of funding from numerous sources.
These include HUD/IHS, EPA, USDA-RD, Mni Wiconi/LBRWS, and Tribal. A
second 300-gpm treatment unit has been ordered, giving the new plant
two-microfiltration units with a total winter capacity of 600 gpm. Of
the total $1,800,000 funding, $145,000 will come from tribal funds and
the Rural Development funds are a $150,950 grant and a $145,238 loan,
to be repaid from the rural water system operating revenues. The
balance of the funds is all grant funds, with $250,000 of those funds
anticipated to be Mni Wiconi/LBRWS funds. The second water treatment
unit will allow LBRWS to provide water to their members in the
communities of Lower Brule and West Brule, and until the Lower Brule
core system is completed from Vivian to Reliance, services will be
provided to West River/Lyman Jones Rural Water System for their members
in the Reliance North, Reliance South and town of Reliance sub-systems.
LBRWS also has under construction the reservoir located just North of
Medicine Butte as a part of this West Brule to Reliance core system.
Fiscal year 1999 funds will also be used, as set forth in that
fiscal year budget, to construct the Fort George Butte/County Road core
pipeline, and to design and construct a new administration building.
The pipeline project will provide water to approximately twenty-four
WR/LJ members along that route and, ultimately, to the LBRWS Fort
George Butte distribution sub-system, although those sub-system funds
have not been budgeted at this time.
Budgeted fiscal year 1999 funds will also be used to complete
design for the Vivian to Presho segment of the Vivian to Reliance to
West Brule LBRWS core system.
LBRWS requests fiscal year 2000 funding in the amount of
$2,433,000. These funds will be used for the following projects:
A. for purchase and installation of the second water treatment
unit.
B. for completion of the administration building.
C. for construction, including related engineering services, for
construction of the Vivian to Presho LBRWS core pipeline.
As shown above, LBRWS is continuing its obligation to complete the
basis core pipeline from Vivian to Reliance and from Kennebec North to
the reservation boundary by the legislatively mandated year 2003. In
order to accomplish that goal, appropriations to LBRWS must be adequate
to plan and construct, with all related costs, at least one major core
pipeline project each year. Funding at a level inadequate to accomplish
that will cost an additional $340,000 in administrative cost for each
year of inadequate funding, thus removing those funds from our total
authorized expenditure and, very possibly, depleting authorized funding
available for construction to a level which will not allow full
completion of the LBRWS core pipeline.
ATTACHMENT A.--PROGRESS ON MNI WICONI DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural
Residential Constructed
Project/Status Population Pipeline
(number) (miles)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSRWSS:
White Clay/Wakpamni, Operating............ 991 65
Slim Buttes, Operating.................... 403 42
Kyle North, Operating..................... 408 28
Kyle to Sharps Corner, Operating.......... 583 44
West Boundary, Operating.................. 16 10
Manderson Loop I, Operating............... 562 42
Manderson Loop II, Operating.............. 292 31
Manderson Loop III, Operating............. 530 24
Manderson Loop IV, Construction Awarded... 530 32
Manderson Loop V, Design OnGoing.......... 398 27
Rockyford to Redshirt, Construction 228 57
Awarded..................................
-------------------------
Subtotal................................ 4,940 402
=========================
WR/LJ:
Creighton Area, Operating................. 238 179
Elbon Area, Operating..................... 363 274
Kaodaka Area, Operating................... 318 247
Grindstone South, Operating............... 195 128
Reliance Area, Operating.................. 267 115
Vivian North, Construction Awarded........ 240 135
Mellette County West, Construction Awarded 214 171
Draper City Distr, Bid.................... 152 3
Ft. Pierre West, Design OnGoing........... 246 115
Mellette County East, Design OnGoing...... 147 103
Presho, Design OnGoing.................... 240 100
-------------------------
Subtotal................................ 2,619 1,570
=========================
RS RWS:
He Dog/Upper Cut Meat, Operating.......... 450 35
Soldier Creek/Ring Thunder, Operating..... 215 18
Phase III, Operating...................... 510 27
Phase IV, Under Construction.............. 20 21
N Parmalee/Black Pipe, Design OnGoing..... 40 12
Mission/Antelope/Ring Thund, Design 125 6
OnGoing..................................
St. Francis, Design OnGoing............... 1,200 15
Rural Distribution, Design OnGoing........ 250 15
-------------------------
Subtotal................................ 2,810 149
=========================
LB RWS:
West Brule to Reliance, Operating......... ........... 14
County Line Road Pipeline, Bidding........ ........... 14
Vivian to Presho, Design OnGoing.......... ........... 11
Presho to Kennebec, Design OnGoing........ ........... 9
-------------------------
Subtotal................................ ........... 48
=========================
Totals.................................. 10,369 2,169
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of Robert J. Byrnes, Mayor, City of Marshall, MN
Chairman Domenici and Members of the Appropriations Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the
City Council and the citizens of Marshall. Minnesota. We are requesting
$2.275 million in Federal funds for the construction of Stage II of the
flood control project authorized in the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986. This is the funding level that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has determined is essential for Stage 2 work on the Marshall,
Minnesota Flood Control Project in fiscal year 2000. The Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) has ask Congress to provide $2.275
million for the Marshall project in his Budget Request for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2000.
The Conference Committee designated $1.5 million for the Marshall
project in the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Bill. These funds were
augmented by $700,000 transferred to the project by the Corps of
Engineers, and $750,000 appropriated by the Minnesota State Legislature
in 1998. In addition, the City of Marshall has allocated cash funds of
nearly $1 million to the project, financed the dredging and
reconstruction work required on the diversion channel at a cost of
$350,000, and purchased property and easements at a cost of about $1
million.
The plans and specifications for the construction work have been
completed, and the project advertised for construction bids. All the
necessary property and easements have been purchased by the City. The
preparation work in Stage 1 of the project has been completed including
the dredging and enlargement of the diversion channel and the repair or
replacement of gates. The Ditch 62 project has been completed which
provides for the storm water collection system for about 60 percent of
the City. Bids for Stage 2 construction are scheduled to be opened
today, March 24, 1999, with construction scheduled to begin in April,
1999.
project location and description
The project is located in Lyon County in the Southwest corner of
the State of Minnesota, about 145 miles southwest of St. Paul. It is
near the center of the Redwood River basin. Southwest State University,
the business district, and most of the homes of the nearly 13,000
citizens are located in the floodplain of the Redwood River. Marshall
serves as the county seat of Lyon County, and is the commercial and
agricultural center for the region.
The Redwood River, a tributary of the Mississippi, enters the
southwest corner of the City, winds its way through the City, exiting
at the northeast boundary near the University campus. The Redwood River
basin serves an elongated drainage area of approximately 743 miles. The
river's elevation drops at the significant rate of 19 feet per mile
until it reaches the City. There the river slope flattens out to an
average of about 4 feet per mile. The lack of a confining valley, and
the reduction in grade on the plain, contributes significantly to
overland flooding in the Marshall area.
The geological decline in the elevation in the 50 miles from the
watershed area to the City of Marshall is greater than the Mississippi
River elevation decline from Minneapolis to New Orleans.
A federally constructed flood control project was completed in
1963. While it is successful in protecting much of the City during
frequent, smaller floods, the upstream and downstream channels were not
effective during major flood events. At those times, the Redwood River
overflows a county highway, bypasses the diversion control structure,
and floods the inter city area.
The project is designed to protect the City of Marshall from major
flood events. Briefly, the authorized plan calls for channel
improvements, drainage facilities, the construction of 4.7 miles of
additional levees, 3.8 miles of bank protection, 0.3 miles of new high-
flow diversion channel, an inter basin overflow structure,
modifications to the existing diversion channel and drop structures,
and limited recreation trails, picnic and rest area facilities.
project authority, funding, and status
The Marshall Flood Control Project was authorized in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986, and reauthorized in the Water
Resources Act of 1988. Funds were allocated in fiscal year 1984 to
initiate preconstruction engineering and design work. The total project
is estimated to cost $10.75 million of which Federal costs are
estimated to be $7.85 million, and non-Federal costs of $2 million. The
non-Federal costs have been provided through the State flood mitigation
grant program, and by bonding by the City of Marshall. The Design
Memorandum and Environmental Assessment were completed and approved in
1987.
Summarized Federal Financial Data
Estimated Federal Cost.................................. $7,850,000
Estimated non-Federal Cost.............................. 2,900,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Project Cost................................ 10,750,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Federal Allocations to Date............................. 4,397,000
Balance of Federal funds to Complete Project............ 3,453,000
Benefit-cost Ratio (8 percent).......................... 1.10
flow agreement signed
A major issue to be resolved in the Marshall Flood Control Project
was the flow rate of the Redwood River during major flood conditions.
A portion of the Redwood River basin waters are diverted into the
Cottonwood River basin. The project will require that historic
overflows are maintained between the two watershed districts. After
numerous public meetings, a flow distribution agreement was executed on
February 22, 1998, by the City of Marshall, Lyon County, the State of
Minnesota, and the Corps of Engineers.
project background
Water and land related problems in the Minnesota River basin were
first investigated by the St. Paul District Engineer in 1934, but his
study did not address the flooding and related problems in Marshall. In
1960, after the severe floods of 1957, improvements were recommended by
the Corps which included the construction of levees and a floodwater
diversion channel.
This flood control project was completed in 1963, by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to, ``provide protection for the people and property
of Marshall from the frequent flood risks.'' The major feature of the
project was a 2.4 mile diversion channel around the west and north
sides of the City, a 1,840 foot levee at the upstream end of the
project, and other features. The channel was designed to handle a 6,500
CFS flow. The overflow, then, would move naturally into the Cottonwood
River Watershed south of Marshall.
In 1969, a flood of 8,090 CFS was experienced in Marshall. The
river channel both upstream and downstream from Marshall was inadequate
to convey the 1963 design flows either to or from the diversion
channel. At flows greater than 3,500 CFS, floodwaters bypass the
diversion channel and flood the inner City of Marshall.
As a result of the failure of the 1963 flood control project to
protect the City, other studies were conducted by a private engineering
firm under the direction of the Corps in 1974. The Corps completed a
flood control report in 1976, and a feasibility study in 1979. This
report was updated by a reevaluation of the problems in 1984. The
current project was then authorized in the 1986 Water Resources
Development Act. It is important to note that the project as
constructed in 1963, has worsened the potential of flooding for the
City. The rate of flow is not adequate to move the flood waters through
the diversion channel, and other problems.
The three ``Holiday Floods of 1993'' (Mother's Day, Father's Day
and Independence Day) occurred at both ends of the diversion channel,
causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to homes,
businesses, and the City's infrastructure. As the water levels remained
at flood stage throughout the summer, it created an atmosphere of fear
and unrest among the citizens of Marshall.
In 1995, the Redwood River was again flowing at capacity, and the
City of Marshall narrowly avoided a disaster worse than the floods of
either 1969 or 1993. From 9 to 15 inches of rain fell near Montevideo,
Minnesota, less than 40 miles from the Redwood Watershed District.
If the storm had moved only a few miles to the southwest, the flood
waters would have engulfed the City at a rate of 8,000 to 12,000 cubic
feet of water per second. This is a much greater water overflow than
that which occurred in the disastrous flooding of 1969, and as much as
three times greater than the 1993 floods.
The District Office of the Corps of Engineers provided estimates
stating that the City would have incurred millions in property damage,
and that flash flooding of this nature could well have resulted in the
loss of lives. Corps officials stated that flash flooding of this
magnitude would have made most emergency measures futile. As a result
of the flat terrain in and around the City, and much of the Marshall
community would have been under water.
STAGE 2--CORPS SCHEDULE FOR MARSHALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Beginning date Completion date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plans & Specs Initiated.............................. 2/28/96..................... Complete
Plans and Specs Submitted............................ 2/28/98..................... Complete
Plans & Specs Approved............................... 3/31/98..................... Complete
Real Estate. Acquisition............................. 12/31/98.................... Complete
Certification of Real Estate......................... 1/15/99..................... Complete
Construction Contract Advertised..................... 2/24/99..................... Complete
Construction Contract Awarded........................ 3/24/99..................... 3/24/99
Construction Contract Completion..................... 3/24/99..................... 4/6/99
Construction Stage 2 Completion...................... 4/25/99..................... 11/30/01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
county ditch no. 62 drainage system
In addition to the Marshall Flood Control Project, the overall
protection of the City required the reconstruction and modification of
the storm sewer drainage system. The examination of the drainage
problems was acknowledged in the General Design Memorandum developed by
the Corps for Marshall, but is not included, nor is it a part of the
funding of this project.
County Ditch No. 62 serves as the storm sewer drainage system for
about 60 percent of the City's corporate limits. The Ditch extends
along the northeast part of the City, in close proximity to the levee
construction required for the Corps flood control project, and feeds
into the Redwood River. With the growth of the community, and the
development of property and the University campus, since the
construction of the Ditch in 1958-9, the flooding problems in the City
have been exacerbated by the lack of drainage and poor water movement
in a system that is no longer adequate for the community. Construction
was completed in 1998.
The City of Marshall, in cooperation with Lyon County and the State
of Minnesota, a comprehensive storm water system was planned, designed,
and jointly funded by FEMA, the State of Minnesota, Lyon County and the
City governments at a total cost of slightly more than $3 million.
There are elements of the Storm Sewer/Ditch Project that are closely
associated with the Flood Control Project.
stage 2--construction and funding needs
The Corps of Engineers has accepted bids for construction work that
spans both fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. The Congressional
appropriation for fiscal year 1999, Non-Federal funds, and fund
transfers by the Corps have, in combination, provided sufficient
dollars to move ahead aggressively on Stage 2 construction this Spring.
An appropriation of the $2.275 requested by both the Corps and City is
critical to the project.
Without full funding by Congress this Session for fiscal year 2000,
construction work will come to a halt in October, 1999, causing delays
that will substantially increase the cost of the project. Of even
greater importance is the risk of severe flooding that will confront
the citizens of Marshall another year. A half completed construction
project will provide very little protection for the City.
It has been noted by City officials that as soon as construction
work begins, some citizens are lulled into a sense of false security. A
number of homeowners have called the City asking to drop their costly
flood insurance, assuming their homes are protected by the unfinished
flood control project. Delays in the completion of the project results
in a lack of preparation and a state of readiness by some citizens. It
is these precautions and preparations that have prevented major
disasters in past flood events.
For these reasons, we respectfully request this Subcommittee to
appropriate $2.275 million of Federal funds in the fiscal year 2000
Appropriations Act to continue the work required under Stage 11 of the
Marshall Flood Control Project. This action will prevent further delays
in the completion of the project, and avoid the over budget costs that
inevitably occur when construction is stopped in the middle of a
project.
Thank you for the opportunity to bring this critical matter to your
attention through this statement. I will be delighted to respond to any
questions you may have about the project.
______
Prepared Statement Chairman Harold Miller, Chairman, Crow Creek Sioux
Tribe
The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe respectfully requests funds in fiscal
year 2000 to complete the feasibility study and for predesign
activities for the Crow Creek Sioux Rural Water System, in the amount
of $235,000. The funds requested will complete the feasibility study
currently underway, including the preparation of an Environmental
Assessment and Class I Archaeological survey, and provide for the
purchase of Geographic Information System (GIS) hardware to enable the
Tribe to plan for the development of a Municipal, Rural and Industrial
Water System for the Crow Creek Indian Reservation.
background--completion of needs assessment
The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe resides on the Crow Creek Indian
Reservation in central South Dakota on the eastern bank of the Missouri
River, a virtually unlimited water supply (Figure 1). Table 1 presents
the findings of our investigations of water needs to date.
Crow Creek has completed a Needs Assessment Report for the
Municipal, Rural and Industrial Water System. The report addresses
needs of a water project throughout the Crow Creek Indian Reservation
with a total cost of $24,750,000. The system would be designed to serve
a future population of 2,843 persons, primarily members of the Crow
Creek Sioux Tribe. Because the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe is youthful, with
median age of 18.9 years, the population is growing at a moderately
high rate, and the need for drinking water facilities will grow as time
passes.
Existing facilities include the Fort Thompson, Crow Creek, Big Bend
and Stephan public water systems, which serve an estimated population
of 1,520. Distribution facilities in the public water system would be
incorporated into the new project and improved upon where necessary.
The existing intake and treatment plant with 450 gpm capacity at Fort
Thompson would likewise be retained. Existing storage facilities with
241,000 gallons of capacity would be incorporated.
Quality of water in the public drinking water systems ranges from
good to poor. The Fort Thompson and Crow Creek systems, for example,
have total dissolved solids (TDS) within the range of acceptable
limits, but the Stephan and Big Bend water systems have total dissolved
solids that exceed suggested limits of acceptability, (Table 1). Some
of the individual rural wells, not connected to public water systems,
have acceptable water quality, but the majority of individual wells has
poor water quality with total dissolved solids ranging as high as 4,440
milligrams per liter.
The Missouri River is a source of dependable water supply for a
municipal, rural and industrial water project on the Crow Creek Indian
Reservation. The average annual streamflow at Fort Randall Dam is
18,214,000 acre feet. Streams crossing the Crow Creek Indian
Reservation, such as Campbell Creek, Elm Creek and Crow Creek, are not
dependable supplies of water.
Groundwater may be a reliable source of supply in the southeast
corner of the Crow Creek Indian Reservation. Sufficient exploration of
the terrace gravels at these locations has not been undertaken to
determine the long-term availability of water and its quality.
Need for a municipal, rural and industrial water project on the
Crow Creek Indian Reservation averages 262 gallons per capita per day,
including 48 gallons per capita per day for heavy water using industry,
such as a meat packing plant. The average need reflects system losses
of 38 gallons per capita per day, 15 percent of demand, an acceptable
level of leakage in transmission, distribution and in-house fixtures.
The average 262 gallons per capita per day reflects water uses for full
employment, commercial and industrial development of the Reservation,
provisions for livestock and moderate water conservation practices, the
latter reflecting a future plumbing code requiring the use of water
conserving fixtures in the home. Provision is also made for lawns and
gardens surrounding each of the 978 households projected for the
Reservation in year 2020 (Table 1).
The average future water need is 743,748 gallons per day. On days
of the year when maximum water use is approached, needs will rise to
1,926,000 gallons, approximately 2.59 times the average day requirement
. These values are equivalent to a maximum day flow of 1,338 gpm, of
which 450 gpm will be provided from the existing system at Fort
Thompson.
Construction costs of the water project are estimated at
$24,750,000. Twenty nine (29) pumping stations would be required
throughout the system with a total of 463 horsepower. Electrical costs,
based on 1996 dollars, would average $58,430 annually. Operation and
maintenance costs of the pumping stations have been estimated at
$17,000 annually, (Table 1-1). The project will require 181 miles of
pipeline (985,000 feet).
status of feasibility study
The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe obtained language in the fiscal year
1998 budget as follows:
. . . the Secretary of the Interior may use $185,000 of the
funding appropriated herein for a feasibility study of the
alternatives for the Crow Creek Rural Water Supply System to
meet the drinking water needs on the Crow Creek Indian
Reservation.
105th Cong., 1st Sess., Amendment No. 872, Congressional Record, p.
S7506 (July 15, 1997).
The Tribe entered a Cooperative Agreement with Reclamation on
September 28, 1998 for the preparation of a Special Study of
Feasibility Considerations for the Crow Creek MR & I Water System. This
requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
National Historic Preservation Act, section 404 of the Clean Water Act
for wetlands protection, and a detailed demonstration of the
construction and operational costs. Rights of way, easements, licenses
and other required permits shall be addressed.
The Bureau of Reclamation retained $20,000 of the $185,000 provided
in fiscal year 1999 for federal administrative expenses associated with
the Special Study. Reclamation's detailed review and comments shall
extend the originally contemplated period of time to complete the
Study. Consequently, an additional $75,000 is required to complete the
Feasibility Study.
In addition, the sum of $85,000 is required for the acquisition of
Geographical Information System (GIS) computer hardware, and $60,000 is
required for two full time employees (FTE), a Project Coordinator and a
GIS Technican. The sum of $15,000 is needed for training the GIS
Technician.
The sum of $235,000 is required in fiscal year 2000 for the Crow
Creek MR & I Water System.
conclusion
The project as proposed will provide safe and adequate drinking
water to the Crow Creek Indian Reservation for the projected
population, the development of commercial and business activities,
development of a heavy-water using industry and the support of all
livestock within the Reservation. The sum of $235,000 is required in
fiscal year 2000 to complete the Feasibility Study and enable the Crow
Creek Sioux Rural Water System to acquire the GIS computer hardware
needed for predesign activities.
TABLE 1-1.--STATISTICAL SUMMARY CROW CREEK SIOUX MUNICIPAL, RURAL AND
INDUSTRIAL WATER PROJECT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020
1990 Census Projected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crow Creek Population......................... 1,756 2,843
Indian.................................... 1,532 2,775
Non-Indian................................ 224 68
Median Age:
Crow Creek................................ 18.9 ...........
South Dakota.............................. 32.6 ...........
Crow Creek School Enrollment:
Ages 3 and 4.............................. 40 73
Ages 5 to 14.............................. 416 765
Ages 15 to 17............................. 97 179
Ages 18 to 19............................. 17 58
Over 20................................... 42 122
-------------------------
Total................................... 612 1,197
Housing:
Households................................ 434 948
Persons per Household..................... 4.05 3.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
South
Crow Creek Dakota
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Household Income......................... $12,673 $22,503
1990 Family Income............................ 13,125 27,602
1990 Per Capita Income........................ 3,717 10,661
Percent Families Below Poverty Level.......... 49.5 11.6
1990 Labor Force.............................. 480 342,112
Unemployed.................................... 139 13,938
Percent in Labor Force........................ 55.7 74.3
Percent Unemployed............................ 29.0 4.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value
Existing Public Water Systems:
Population Served................................... 1,520
Service Connections................................. 305
Flow Capacity, gpm.................................. 535
Storage Capacity, gallons........................... 241,000
General Water Quality, TDS, mg/l:
Secondary Suggested Limit........................... 500
Fort Thompson....................................... 479
Crow Creek.......................................... 706
Stephan............................................. 1,500
Big Bend............................................ 1,928
Rural Wells:
Maximum Observed................................ 4,440
Average Observed................................ 702
Water Availability:
Missouri River Streamflows, af/year................. 18,214,000
Campbell Creek Streamflows, af/year................. 2,669
Elm Creek Streamflows, af/year...................... 5,169
Crow Creek Streamflows, af/year..................... 13,749
Missouri River Monthly Minimum, af/month............ 260,668
Tributary Monthly Minimum, af/month.................................
Groundwater......................................... Goof to Poor
Design Needs, gallons per capita per average day:
In-Residence........................................ 81
Lawns and Gardens................................... 62
School Enrollment................................... 7
Labor Force......................................... 11
Commercial and Industrial........................... 13
Heavy Industry...................................... 48
Livestock........................................... 14
System Losses....................................... 38
Water Conservation.................................. -12
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 262
Design Needs:
Average Day, gallons................................ 743,748
Maximum Day, gallons................................ 1,926,308
Maximum Day, gpm.................................... 1,338
Annual, af.......................................... 833
______
Prepared Statement of Jay L. Kimble, Mayor, City of Stillwater, MN
Chairman Domenici and Members of the Appropriations Subcommittee, I
thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony requesting the
remaining $1.2 million needed to complete Stage 2 of the Stillwater,
Minnesota flood control project. Construction of Stage 2 extension of
the levee system will commence in late June or early July of 1999, and
is scheduled for completion by November 30, 2000, river levels
permitting.
The project was delayed first by the floods of 1997, and secondly,
the soil beneath the planned levee extension was very unstable,
requiring a revision of plans and the addition of another stage in the
construction process.
The flood waters of the St. Croix River did.not recede until August
of 1997. The construction area remained under water preventing
construction work to proceed as scheduled. Work on Stage 1 was
completed in late Summer of 1997, and additional soil borings were
taken for Stage 2. The soil was found to be very unstable, and unable
to support the levee system designed for Stage 2 of the project. The
construction of Stage 2 is requiring remedial action, and has been
designated as Stage 2S.
Phase I, the repair and reconstruction of the old levee wall was
completed in the Summer of 1998. A contract was awarded for Phase 2S in
November, 1998, and is expected to be completed in June, 1999. Phase 2
will begin the latter part of June or early July of this year, and will
be completed in fiscal year 2000. Stage 3 is scheduled for completion
in fiscal year 2002.
the addition of stage 2s to the project
Nine sawmills dotted the St. Croix River waterfront at Stillwater
during the lumbering days in the 1st half of the 19th Century. Billions
of feet of lumber were processed and shipped all over the growing
Midwestern part of the U.S. The current levee wall system was
constructed in 1938, in anticipation of the backup of the St. Croix
when Lock and Dam #2 was completed on the Mississippi. This Corps
project resulted in the widening of the River at Stillwater, covering
the sawdust and wood debris created by the sawmills a half Century
earlier.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports prior to the authorization of
this project stated, ``. . . Subsurface soils investigations along the
waterfront in Stillwater identified pieces of glass, wood and/or layers
of sawdust to depths of more than twenty feet below the ground surface
as remnants of the early logging and sawmill activities.''
Another Corps report stated, ``. . . The extent of the wood and
sawdust precludes the economics of excavating to remove these materials
and backfilling with satisfactory soil.''
Additional soil borings taken during and after Stage 1 to depths of
70 feet without finding stable soil conditions. To construct a new
cement levee wall system on an unstable base would result in a degree
of settling of the structure that would result in cracking and breaking
of the levee wall. To establish a firm base for the structure is
economically unfeasible feasible since the depths of such a base would
have to be more than 70 feet. How much deeper is unknown.
The third option was to pre-load the construction site with a soft,
organic silt material equal to, or greater than the weight of the levee
wall system. This process, over a period of time, will compact the
unstable soil, and allow the construction of the levee wall after the
soil has been compacted.
The surcharge embankment (see Figure 1) was constructed between
October and December of 1998. The Corps used 25,000 cubic yards of
granular fill the City of Stillwater had saved from the temporary levee
constructed during the floods of 1997. The surcharge embankment extends
about 1,100 feet, and is between 10-15 feet in height. Settlement
plates and vibrating-wire piezometers were installed in order to
monitor the settlement of the subsurface soils. The engineers predict
the settling process of the riverfront will take about six months.
project overview
The purpose of the Stillwater project is to provide flood control
and protection to the City of Stillwater, Minnesota's oldest city. The
project is divided into three stages. Stage 1 is the repair and
reconstruction of the existing floodwall (about 1,000 feet in length.)
Stage 2 will extend the floodwall North of the existing wall 1,100 feet
to prevent the annual flooding that occurs in that area. Stage 3
includes the expansion of the flood wall protection along the West side
of Lowell Park
stage 1 construction complete
Stage 1 included the repair and reconstruction of the existing
1,000 foot levee wall system where severe deterioration of the lower
wall has occurred, the development of the plans and specifications for
Phase I, the preliminary design work for Phases II and III, and a rip
rap treatment of the South end of the levee. The rise in elevation to
the South of the old levee permits rip rap to be used rather than
extending the levee wall system.
The original levee wall was constructed in 1938, under the auspices
of the Public Works Administration (WPA), and is on the register of the
U.S. Department of Interior's list of National Historic Sites.
The community is delighted with the Corps' work in the restoration,
repair and reconstruction of the old levee wall system.
But even more important, the erosion of the water front underneath
the structure has been halted. This levee not only protects the water
front, but a major trunk sewer line that carries 3 million gallons of
raw sewage each day to the Stillwater water treatment plant. The
engineers have warned that extensive, long-term flooding would result
in the rupturing of the trunk sewer line, and release of raw sewage
into the St. Croix River, one of the Nation's ``Wild and Scenic
Rivers'' designated by Congress.
While the repair and reconstruction work in Phase I of the project
substantially reduces the risk of a failure of the wall, it can not be
eliminated until the levee is extended and the annual flooding of the
area diminished.
stage 2 construction
Bids for Stage 2 construction, the extension of the levee wall
system, are expected to be awarded in July, 1999. This is an area North
of the reconstructed levee wall in Stage 1 of the project. The Stage 2
area is always the first area to flood, and where the most severe
flooding occurs during Spring run offs and heavy rains. Flooding occurs
annually at this location causing the emergency roadway adjacent to the
levee to become impassable for 4-6 weeks each Spring.
The Army Corps of Engineers has projected that $1.2 million will be
required to complete the work on the Stage 2 floodwall extension. These
funds will be needed in the Spring of fiscal year 2000, to avoid the
stoppage of construction work in the middle of Stage 2. Without funding
at the appropriate time, contractors would remove their equipment,
including barges used for heavy equipment, and reassign personal, thus,
increasing the cost of the project to both the City and the Federal
government. The United States Congress appropriated $2 million in
fiscal year 1999 to initiate work on Stage 2.
stage 2s in process
Stage 2S (``S'' for surcharge) was commenced in October, 1998 and
the surcharge placement was completed in December, 1998. It is
anticipated that the surcharge will need to be in place for
approximately six months, and that the process will compress the
subsoil from 18-24 inches. This will enable construction of the flood
wall to begin in mid Summer, and continue in the early Spring of 2000.
The cost of the placement of the surcharge was $255,000. Additional
costs will be incurred with the monitoring and removable of the
surcharge embankment in the Summer of 1999.
stage 3
Stage 3 consists of the construction of a secondary flood wall 125
feet inland from the existing levee. The wall will extend about two
feet above the ground. Sheet piling will be driven 15 to 20 feet below
the surface to prevent the seepage through the porous soil that occurs
during flood conditions. The secondary flood wall will provide the City
with a 50-year flood protection plan, and with the use of sandbags, a
100 year protection program. The seepage which now occurs with
sandbagging during flood events will be resolved by the deployment of
the sheet piling as a part of the flood wall.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is preparing a decision document
to validate the economic feasibility of the construction of the low
floodwall along the Western side of Lowell Park. The cost estimate for
Stage 3 is $4.25 million.
protect schedule
Stage 1--Construction Completed--October, 1997.
Stage 2--Project design, plans and specifications--Complete.
Stage 2S--In process. Completion date--July 1999.
Stage 2--Award bid for construction--July 1999.
Stage 2--Construction complete on Stage 2--October 2001
Stage 3--Study on for flood wall economics on October 1999.
Stage 3--Construction--April 2001.
legislative history
This project was authorized for $3.2 million in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992. Both the House and the Senate Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Subcommittee designated $2.4 million in
Federal funds for the purpose of designing, repairing, extending, and
expanding the levee wall system in the fiscal year 1994 Appropriations
Act. Additional Congressional appropriations were made for fiscal year
1997, fiscal year 1998, and fiscal year 1999 totaling $4.2 million.
The Minnesota Legislature has provided half of the required non-
Federal matching funds totaling $1.525 million for all three stages of
the project. The City of Stillwater has contributed $950,000 in project
funds, and has set aside the remaining funds required for Stages 1, 2,
and 3. To date, all non-Federal matching funds for all Stages of the
project are either in the escrow account, or available for transfer to
the escrow fund from the State account.
Recognition that additional funds would be required to complete the
project, the U.S. Congress amended the authorization in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1997, and increased the project's
authorization to $11.6 million. This level of funding will permit the
reconstruction of the existing levee, the extension of the levee to the
North, and the expansion of the levee wall by the construction of a
flood wall. The completion of Stage 3 is contingent on the decision
document in preparation by the Corps.
Summarized Financial Data \1\
Federal Cost..................................................$6,670,000
Non-Federal Cost.............................................. 2,670,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Project Cost...................................... 8,893,000
Allocations to Date........................................... 5,652,000
Balance to Complete..................................... 1,118,000
\1\ Does not include costs for Stage 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
historical significance of the project
The historic implications of the retaining wall system, and its'
solution, are extremely important to the entire State. In recognition
of the historic significance of Stillwater as the ``Birthplace of
Minnesota,'' the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer conducted an excellent
study completed in July, 1985, entitled, ``Historical Reconstruction of
the Riverfront: Stillwater, Minnesota.''
The purpose of the study was to provide the Corps of Engineers with
information to be used in the review of options for flood control of
the downtown area of the City. The research identified 117 sites in the
floodplain as being significant to the entire State. Twenty-three of
these sites are listed on the ``National Register of Historic Places''
by the U.S. Department of Interior. All are threatened by the lack of
an effective flood control system for the community.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is obligated to protect the
cultural or man made environment according to the Corps 1985 study. The
obligation is embodied in these laws that set forth Federal leadership
in locating, inventorying, and protecting such sites. The proposed
reconstruction and extension of the retaining wall system does not
threaten, damage, nor destroy any of the identified historical sites in
the area.
The project as authorized in 1992 and 1996 in the Water Resources
Development Acts provide the protection necessary to preserve these
historic structures for future generations.
action requested
Based on the information and data from the ``Design Memorandum''
and information prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, $1.2
million in Federal support will be needed in fiscal year 2000, and is
requested from this Committee. In recognition of the urgent need for
the completion of this project, Congress increased the authorization in
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to provide for the
completion of Phase II, and the opportunity to provide flood control
measures in Phase lilt
The project is in full compliance with the National Environmental
Protection Act, the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470
(f) and Section 110 (f), 16 U.S.C. 470h-2 (f), the Minnesota State
Historic Preservation Office, and have met the special provisions and
requirements of Federal and State laws that protect the wild and scenic
rivers, and other State and Federal laws enacted to protect the
environment and historic sites. We have been working with these
agencies for many years in anticipation of the construction and
extension of the levee system, and have a summary listing of their
letters of support for the project.
For these reasons we respectfully request that this Subcommittee
appropriate the sum of $1.2 million for the completion of Phase II
construction in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill
for fiscal year 2000. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this
critical matter to your attention through this statement. We would be
pleased to respond to any questions the Members of this Committee may
have.
______
Prepared Statement of the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission
corps of engineers--construction general budget
The Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission operates under
interstate compact to assist its sponsor states in coordinating public
policies and programs on the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers, which
together comprise 265 miles of their bi-state boundary. One of its
tasks is to assist in the participation by the two states in federal
programs which relate to the protection, use and development of the
waters, lands and river valleys.
The Commission has ten citizen commissioners, five from each state,
appointed by their respective governor. The Commission has long been a
champion of the Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management
Program (EMP) and urged and assisted Congress to create it the Water
Resources Development Act of 1968. Because the Upper Mississippi River
has such complex ecological and economic resources under the
jurisdiction of many agencies and units of government, our Commission
has fostered and been a part of numerous partnership efforts on the
river in its 33 years of service.
The Commission recommends appropriation of the full amount
recommended in the President's Budget [$18,995,000] for the Upper
Mississippi River EMP in fiscal year 2000.
The Upper Mississippi River System EMP has become the primary means
by which the federal agencies and states are working together to
restore habitat, to gain a better understanding of how the Upper
Mississippi River System functions as an ecosystem, and how it would be
likely to respond in future management scenarios.
The EMP's habitat rehabilitation and enhancement and long term
resource monitoring programs cover the entire 1,300 miles of the Upper
Mississippi River and Illinois River/Waterway from the Twin Cities and
Chicago, respectively, down to the confluence with the Ohio River. This
is the only inland river in the Nation designated by Congress as both a
major national wildlife refuge system and a major commercial navigation
system. Through more than two decades of cooperative partnership work
among the five basin states and the Corps of Engineers and Department
of the Interior, co-managers of federal river missions here, a
management strategy where the ecosystem and navigation purposes
complement one another has been worked out and implemented. This
success story needs to be continued without interruption. We
respectfully urge the Congress to again support this appropriation as
being in the national interest on ``The Nation's River.''
______
SOUTHWEST U.S. WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of William D. Hodges, President, Board of Directors,
Trinity River Authority of Texas
Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony for
consideration in regard to fiscal year 2000 budget preparation. The
Trinity River Authority of Texas requests that this letter and the
requests included herein be included in the formal record for the
fiscal year 2000 budget hearings.
Federal participation in Trinity River watershed water resource
projects has contributed substantially to Texas' economic development
and represent some of the soundest investments ever made with federal
funds. We respectfully request your committee's continuing support on
the following projects within the Trinity River basin:
Wallisville Lake, Texas.--After decades of delay, this most
important project at the mouth of the Trinity River is nearing
completion. The Galveston District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
has expressed the capability of beneficially spending $4,756 million
that will complete this project. The need for completion has been more
pronounced because of the drought conditions experienced in 1997 and
1998. The operation of Wallisville will eliminate the need to release
fresh water from Lake Livingston to keep saltwater out of the rice
fields of the lower Trinity River valley. Enough water to supply
approximately 40 percent of Houston's needs was released for the past
two years. The President's budget message did not contain any funds for
this activity, but we ask that you take all actions necessary to have
this level of funding added to the final fiscal year 2000 budget.
Upper Trinity River Basin, Texas.--The North Central Texas Council
of Government is the sponsor of this project. With the assistance of
nine cities, two counties and one special purpose district the NCTCOG
is contributing matching funds for this widely supported study. TRA
strongly supports the recommended appropriation of $720,000 included in
the President's budget message. If funded by Congress, these funds will
be used to design necessary improvements to the existing Dallas
Floodway.
Dallas Floodway Extension.--The City of Dallas is the local sponsor
of this project. In the past year the city has passed a major bond
issue intended to pay the local share of development costs. This
project will extend the existing floodway approximately eight miles
downstream and provide flood protection to a large flood-prone section
of the city. The area within the levees will be available as a linear
greenbelt that will be subject to extensive recreational use by the
public. The President's budget message for fiscal year 2000 includes
$1.553 million to continue pre-construction and design activities. TRA
encourages your support for this appropriation.
Navigation to Liberty.--The City of Liberty and the Chambers-
Liberty Counties Navigation District are the local sponsors of an
existing six-foot federal channel to the Port of Liberty at river mile
45. This channel is in need of maintenance dredging, but no funds have
been included in the President's budget message. The Corps of Engineers
estimates that an additional $900,000 will be necessary to complete the
channel to Smith Point which was funded this year. The Corps estimates
that an additional $1.5 million would be necessary to maintain the
channel to Liberty. We request that your committee include a total of
$2.4 million in the fiscal year 2000 budget for these purposes and
direct the Corps of Engineers to complete this work.
Operations and Maintenance.--Other funds are included in the
President's budget for operations and maintenance for a series of
federal Trinity River watershed lakes for which TRA serves as local
sponsor. These projects include Lakes Bardwell, Navarro Mills, Joe Pool
and Wallisville.
I would like to express our appreciation for this committee's
historic support for water resource development in the Trinity River
watershed. I can assure you that it is money well spent.
______
Prepared Statement of Richard Castro, Chairman, El Paso Water Utilities
Public Service Board
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before this
committee in support of the one million dollar appropriation request
for the El Paso Wastewater Reclamation program. My name is Richard
Castro. I am Chairman of the El Paso Water Utilities Public Service
Board which is responsible for developing and operating the wastewater
and water supply system in the City of El Paso.
The City of El Paso, Texas is located in the desert at the junction
of the Texas, New Mexico and Mexican borders. It is Texas' fourth
largest city, and the third fastest growing metropolitan area in the
United States. The El Paso, Texas and Ciuadad Juarez, Mexico, area
forms the largest international border community in the world with
shared water supply sources.
El Paso faces a serious future water supply shortage with its arid
climate and depleting underground aquifers, and water conservation is
essential to preserving the City's future. Since 1991, when a water
conservation ordinance was adopted by the City, year-round conservation
measures have been strictly enforced, including restrictions on
residential watering, non-commercial car washing, and incentives to
prevent water flowing into streets and leaks. Over the past eight years
this conservation program has reduced the per capita use of water from
203 gallons per day to 162 gallons per day. Despite this success, the
City of El Paso and Ciuadad Juarez, Mexico, will deplete their
groundwater supplies within the next 25 years.
The El Paso Reclaimed Water Project will serve the central El Paso
area and will provide reclaimed water to serve a variety of needs.
These include several large turf areas, including the Ascarate
Municipal Golf Course, the Chamizal National Park, local schools and
cemeteries, and City parks. Government users include the El Paso
Community College and a Juvenile Detention Center located in the
central part of El Paso. The project will also serve the Chevron
refinery, which is expected to be the largest reclaimed water customer
in El Paso, requiring one million gallons a day.
Given the density of the potential customers within the project
area, the project is the most cost-effective reclaimed water
distribution system within the City of El Paso. Three different
alternatives for delivering reclaimed water have been developed and are
being analyzed using a hydraulic computer model. Each alternative
includes in its schematic a single distribution system, dual
independent systems, and a single system constructed in two phases.
The proposal was authorized under Public Law 104-266 in 1996 and
received $750,000 for the cost of initial planning and design in the
fiscal year 1999 Bureau of Reclamation budget. The one million dollars
requested for fiscal year 2000 will allow for construction to begin on
the project. As with other Title XVI projects, 75 percent of the
project funding will be provided by our local government.
The past support of this Committee and the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation has allowed the City to initiate the largest and most
efficient water reuse project in the state of Texas. Additional funding
and other support have been given to the project by the state, the
North American Development Bank and the Border Environment Cooperation
Commission. However, the City is to the point where expansion of water
reuse is now needed on an even larger scale. Reclaimed wastewater is
the essential element and is at the core of our long term water
conservation and water supply plans and programs. Only with your help
will we be able to move forward in a timely manner. We greatly
appreciate the assistance provided by this Committee in the past and we
respectfully urge your support and assistance in allocating one million
dollars in fiscal year 2000 for the El Paso Reclaimed Water Project.
______
Prepared Statement of H. Thomas Kornegay, Executive Director, Port of
Houston Authority
On behalf of the Port of Houston Authority (PHA) and the over
204,000 Americans whose jobs depend upon activity at the Port of
Houston, we extend gratitude to Chairman Domenici, and members of the
subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of
several important navigation projects included in the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Civil Works budget for fiscal year 2000.
For many years, the Port of Houston Authority has provided
testimony to this subcommittee expressing appreciation for providing
the funds necessary for the Houston Ship Channel (HSC) to remain fully
functional by maintaining proper dredge depths and dewatering of dredge
disposal sites. Most importantly, we are grateful for this
subcommittee's support through the funding request for the required
studies prior to the authorization of the improvement project to deepen
and widen the Houston Ship Channel. We are deeply grateful for this
support and are particularly excited about the partnership of this
subcommittee, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Port Authority in
marching forward with an insightful view of the future of one of our
Nation's busiest ports in foreign commerce.
We express full support of the fiscal year 2000 Corps of Engineers'
budget request in the following amounts:
Houston Ship Channel (O&M).............................. $13,011,000
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels (Construction).... 60,000,000
Each of these funding requests is important to ensure the
continuous flow of commerce through this very busy waterway.
the port of houston--one of the nation's busiest ports
Port of Houston commerce generates over $7.7 billion annually to
the Nation's economy and over 204,000 people work in jobs that are
directly related to the Port of Houston's activity. Moreover, the port
generates nearly $500 million in customs fees and over $525 million
annually in state and local taxes.
It is no exaggeration to say that the Houston Ship Channel is one
of the most important economic lifelines between our Nation and the
world. Houston's favorable geographic location provides easy access to
the entire world business community through key ocean, land, and air
routes. More than 100 shipping lines connect Houston with more than 700
world ports and 200 countries. Three major railroads provide cargo
distribution throughout the United States with the intermodal link of
more than 160 trucking lines. The Port of Houston forms the core of the
Houston international community which includes more than 350 U.S.
companies with global operations and Houston offices for more than 45
of the world's largest non-U.S. companies. In addition, Houston is the
home of one of the largest consular corps in the Nation, with over 70
foreign governments represented. These factors have made the Port of
Houston a preferred gathering and distribution point for shippers
transporting goods to and from the Midwestern and Western United
States.
the port of houston--protecting our nation
During the Desert Shield/Desert Storm operation, the U.S.
government deployed 106 vessels carrying 458,342 tons of government
cargo and military supplies from the Fentress Bracewell Barbours Cut
Terminal at the Port of Houston. In fact, between August of 1990 and
October of 1991, the Port of Houston was the second busiest port in the
Nation in support of our troops. We are proud that the strategic
location of the Port of Houston allows us to play such an important
role in the defense of our Nation and the world.
modernization & the environment--successful partnership
The Houston Ship Channel, which opened in 1914, is believed to be
the result of the first-ever federal/local cost-sharing agreement. At
that time, the channel was 18\1/2\ feet deep. It was subsequently
deepened to its current depth of 40 feet with a width of 400 feet. This
last improvement was completed in 1996. While Houston is one of our
Nation's busiest ports, it is also one of the narrowest deep draft
channels. As you can imagine, ships and shipping patterns have
dramatically changed to meet the demands of world trade over the last
30 years. Yet, this busy waterway has not been widened or deepened to
accommodate these changes. As the local sponsor for the Houston Ship
Channel, the Port Authority began its quest to improve the channel in
1967. For reasons of safety, environment, and economics, the Houston
Ship Channel is long over-due to be improved. The Port of Houston, and
its partner in maintaining this federal waterway--the Corps of
Engineers--are leading the way to a unique approach to addressing the
environmental interests in the improvement of the Houston Ship Channel.
In the late 1980's, the Port Authority and the Corps of Engineers
joined with federal and state agencies to form an Interagency
Coordination Team (ICT) in a cooperative effort to address
environmental concerns with the project--a process advocated by
environmental groups and various resource agencies. The ICT included:
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USNRC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Texas
General Land Office (GLO), Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD), the Texas
Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC), the Texas Water
Development Board (TWDB), the Galveston Bay National Estuary Program
(GBNEP), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Port of
Galveston, and the Port of Houston Authority. Several committees were
established by the ICT. One of the most important committees
established was the Beneficial Uses Group (BUG). The BUG, chaired by
the Port, was charged with developing a disposal plan to utilize
dredged material in an environmentally sound and economically
acceptable manner that also incorporated other public benefits into its
design. Most important was the Port Authority's committed objective
that the final plan would have a net positive environmental effect over
the life of the project.
We are pleased to report that the ICT unanimously approved the
beneficial use plan for disposal of dredged material from the HSC
project as one that will have a net positive environmental effect on
Galveston Bay, while significantly increasing the net economic benefits
to the region and to our Nation. Three basic principles guided the BUG
in their efforts: dredged material should be considered a potentially
valuable resource; development of an environmentally acceptable
disposal plan is intrinsic to the approval of the project; and, the
adopted disposal plan must have long term environmental benefits for
the Galveston Bay system. The approach utilized by the BUG for
Galveston Bay made this effort unique and precedent setting. What was
attempted had never been done before. The BUG developed a preferred
disposal plan rather than reviewing a proposal in a regulatory setting.
The BUG also addressed one of the largest navigation projects in recent
years (approximately 62 Million Cubic Yards (MCY) of new work material
and an estimated 200 MCY of maintenance material over the next 50
years. Most importantly, the BUG actively solicited beneficial use
suggestions from environmental interests and bay user groups whose
collective ideas were given full consideration during the development
of the recommended plan. In fact, the community identified more
beneficial uses than the material available from the project plus 50
years of maintenance dredging. The result was the identification of
beneficial uses for the material to be dredged from the improvement
project. The final plan includes the creation of 4,250 acres of marsh--
a bird island, boater destination, restorations of two islands lost
over the years due to erosion, and subsidence. In addition, an
underwater berm will be constructed to provide storm-surge protection
and habitat.
port of houston--looking toward the future
The voters of Harris County in 1989 committed significant local
funding to support these improvements. By a 2 to 1 vote, citizens
approved a measure that will provide the local funding ($130,000,000)
to deepen the channel to 45 feet and widen it to 530 feet. The Corps of
Engineers and resource agencies involved in the ICT and BUG process
have worked diligently to address all concerns and to develop a truly
unique approach. The Port Authority heartily commends the cooperation
and hard work of the Corps of Engineers and the state and federal
agencies who have participated in the process that has this project
being applauded across maritime and environmental communities. This
project is the first in history to have netted no negative comments
during the public review phase of the Supplemental Impact Statement
(SIS).
houston-galveston navigation channels (construction)
From fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1999, Congress has
appropriated nearly $93,000,000 toward the project to deepen and widen
the Houston Ship Channel. The Port Authority has also contributed
substantially to support this effort.
Based on our cooperative and productive discussions with the Corps
of Engineers, we are convinced that the optimal timeline for completing
the navigation portion of this project is four years. A four year
schedule will accelerate the benefits of the project and reduce its
costs. Each year in reduction construction time adds more than $81
million in benefits, reduces escalation costs by $4.562 million and
drives down investment costs by more than $17 million. This
subcommittee has agreed that this fiscally sound reasoning is good
public policy and accordingly has provided the necessary funding to
keep this project at the optimum schedule.
This year, the Administration has included in the Corps of
Engineers' construction budget the $60 million request needed to keep
this project on the optimum schedule for completion of the navigational
portion of the project. We understand that the budget allocations are
predicated on anticipated revenue from the Administration's Harbor
Services Fund proposal which includes controversial user fees. We fully
recognize the challenges of this subcommittee in being responsible to
the fiscal needs of the Nation and yet trying to satisfy the many
demands on the budget for critically needed water improvement projects.
In a recent study conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute, the
Port of Houston was evaluated as a prototypical next generation
megaport. The port identified channel and berth depths as a major
impediment to accommodating ships of the future. Further, in this era
of environmental sensitivity, the Houston Ship Channel improvement
project is a beacon of light. The improvements to the environment that
will be reaped from this project cannot be ignored. The Port of Houston
Authority's Demonstration Marsh, utilizing dredged material for
beneficial uses, has been included in the Audubon Society's Christmas
Bird Count. Over 155 species of birds have been identified on this
marsh built entirely with material dredged from the Houston Ship
Channel.
The Port Authority has a responsibility to the citizens of Harris
County to operate the port in a cost-effective and efficient manner. We
would not be fiscally responsible if we did not strive to realize the
benefits of the project as soon as humanly feasible and at a most-
efficient cost to the partners involved. We urge the members of this
subcommittee to fully fund this important project. In doing so and in
reaffirming the subcommittee's commitment to our Nation's port system,
we urge the subcommittee to include the $60 million necessary to keep
the Houston Ship Channel project on its current optimal, cost-effective
schedule. We look forward to your leadership on this vitally important
matter.
houston ship channel--operations & maintenance
The Corps' fiscal year 2000 request for operations and maintenance
funding includes $13,011,000 for maintenance dredging of key stretches
of the channel, mosquito spraying, protection of various disposal
areas, and dewatering of dredge disposal sites. These include the
critical maintenance of channel depths at the Bayport flare--essential
to safety; removal of existing shoaled material in the Upper Bay;
dredging of Boggy Bayou to Greens Bayou; and dewatering of east and
west Jones disposal area.
conclusion
We greatly appreciate your support in past years and urge you to
include the funds requested to fully support these projects in this
busy federal waterway. These maintenance projects, and particularly the
funds necessary to continue construction of the HSC improvement project
at an optimal schedule are vital, not only to the Port of Houston's
continued ability to move the Nation's commerce in a safe, efficient,
and economical manner, but also to ensure the competitiveness of this
waterway in the world marketplace--an absolute necessity in this global
economy.
______
Prepared Statement of Frederick A. Perrenot, P.E., General Manager,
City of Houston
wallisville saltwater barrier project
We would like to express our appreciation and thank the Chairman
and this Subcommittee for their longstanding support for funding for
the Wallisville project. This request is for the final appropriation
necessary to complete the project.
The Wallisville project represents the culmination of 40 years of
cooperative efforts by the City of Houston, the Trinity River
Authority, the Chambers Liberty Counties Navigation District and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Corps currently estimates
that it will take approximately $5,000,000 to complete the project. If
appropriated, that amount will be spent to rehabilitate the locks at
the saltwater barrier, complete construction of the upstream overflow
barrier (``Control Structure A''), breach an old unused dam and
construct certain environmental enhancements to the project site.
With the Wallisville Saltwater Barrier in place, up to 260 million
gallons per day of freshwater held in the Lake Livingston reservoir,
becomes available as part of the drink water supply to address the
needs of about four million Texas Gulf Coast residents. Houston serves
as the regional supplier of surface water to meet the needs of
Pasadena, Baytown, Friendswood, Webster, South Houston, La Porte, Clear
Lake and Galveston, Texas, among others, as well as several hundred
municipal utility districts and industries.
When completed, the water users in the greater Houston area will
have provided a local share of approximately 66 percent of the total
costs of the co-dependent and interrelated Wallisville Saltwater
Barrier and Lake Livingston Reservoir projects. We urge you to closely
consider this final appropriation request of $5,000,000 in fiscal year
2000 so that the Wallisville project can be completed.
Again, we want to thank this Subcommittee for its support for
funding this project and request that this letter become part of the
record of testimony before the Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of Douglass W. Svendson, Jr., Executive Director,
Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association
This testimony for the record, March 26, 1999, before House and
Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittees is
submitted by Douglass W. Svendson, Jr., Executive Director of the Gulf
Intracoastal Canal Association. Ours is the oldest of the regional
waterway associations, having been established in Victoria, Texas in
1905. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway transports 121 million tons of
freight annually, the third highest volume among our inland and coastal
waterways after the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers.
GICA's membership includes both shallow draft and deep draft ports,
port commissions and navigation districts, barge and towing companies,
petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturers, shipyards, marine
fabricators, fuel terminal facilities, and individuals whose businesses
are waterway related and dependent. We have 180 members in the five
states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida served by
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. In addition, the GIWW is the link that
binds the North-South rivers to the canal, the coastal ports, and
ultimately the heartland of America. The Mississippi River intersects
the GIWW at New Orleans, one of our busiest ports, and the Tennessee-
Tombigbee Waterway intersects the GIWW at Mobile.
the overall civil works budget of $4.2 billion
During at least the last 4 years as the Administration has proposed
smaller Civil Works budgets, most organizations who file testimony with
your subcommittee, including ours, have expressed very strong concern
about these reductions, whether in flood control, operations and
maintenance, construction, or other. We were heartened when the final
appropriated level for fiscal 1999 was approved at $1.653 billion for
operations and maintenance.
Because the fiscal year 2000 operations and maintenance budget
allowance consolidates $692 million in port O&M with O&M, General,
expenditures for the preservation, operation, and maintenance and care
of existing river and harbor, flood control, and related works may
actually receive less than the recommended $1.835 billion in the
President's year 2000 budget.
This same concern applies to funds for construction in the year
2000 budget. If we underfund normal construction schedules that are
obviously within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' capabilities, we (a)
deny our nation the timely use of more modern locks, affecting our
international competitiveness, and (b) add to the ultimate cost of
construction.
the port fee and harbor services fund
The combination user fee and Harbor Services Trust Fund for port
maintenance proposed by the administration in its budget raises several
very serious issues for waterborne transportation, our domestic
economy, and international trade.
Whatever the constitutional infirmities of the previous harbor
maintenance tax, it was spread over a large base of commerce. This fact
alone helped mitigate a potentially harsh economic impact which might
otherwise have been injurious to many of our ports, our trade, and our
economic jobs base.
The proposed fee will be based on volume or tonnage, not value.
Those most injured will be our ports that ship large volumes of
commodities. This negative impact will ultimately fall on farmers, mine
operators, chemical and petroleum sectors, and all commodities
producers. Farmers and other producers have historically benefited
economically by retaining more of the ultimate sales price in their own
pockets, as a result of water transportation efficiencies.
A user fee, as proposed, is much more likely, we believe, to be
port and/or vessel specific, thus location dependent, and harm many but
the very largest ports. Even large ports stand to lose as a result of
the fees that could be levied on many bulk commodities which are
routinely traded on world markets. For commodities, successful trades
often are determined by pennies per unit of measure, or less. Margins
are exceedingly thin and relatively large fees will easily disrupt
normal buyer-seller patterns. Our commodities producers such as coal,
chemicals, and agricultural products stand to lose sales and market
share.
A related problem involves the nature of our ports in the overall
economy. Ports generate jobs themselves and also provide the impetus
for related industries to establish themselves adjacent or nearby.
Benefits of port spending are therefore quite broad in terms of
regional and national economies. Port related growth is not
characterized by only a few, specific identifiable beneficiaries we
usually associate with the obligation to pay user fees. Port
beneficiaries, including jobs creation and revenue enhancement, are the
thousands of citizens in the affected locale or region. The numbers
involved are broad and diverse--just such a class of people we usually
call the general population. General revenues are employed to fund
programs for this large a segment of the population
Thus, the national benefits and economic significance associated
with the sum total of port activities places these entities in a
category which is easily able to justify the use of general revenues in
support of broad, general economic benefits. Our association recommends
that the Congress look seriously at funding port activities from
general revenues, as was done prior to WRDA 1986.
specific budget requests for fiscal year 2000
The Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association supports the
Administration's budget request of $60 million for deepening and
widening the Houston--Galveston Ship Channel. This project has enormous
favorable economic implications for the regional and national economy.
It also offers an opportunity to increase deep draft/shallow draft
navigation safety.
Approximately 100,000 barge tows and 20,000 ships transit the
Houston Ship Channel each year. In response to the last major barge and
ship collision causing a serious oil spill in 1992, the Houston
Galveston Area Navigation Safety Committee (HOGANSAC) began studying
how to prevent ship/barge collisions on the Channel. With the work of a
broad coalition of deep and shallow draft mariners, shippers, the
Houston Pilots, environmental groups, the Corps and the Coast Guard a
solution was developed. The plan was to move the beacons to a straight
line 500 feet either side of the centerline of the channel between
Bolivar and Morgans Point and dredge the area between the beacons and
the deep draft channel to a depth of 12 feet to allow barge tows to
operate outside the deep draft channel.
We also support funding for the GIWW Section 216 Studies in the
President's budget, identified as RCP, Review of Completed Projects.
They are Brazos River to Port O'Connor, Texas, High Island to Brazos
River, Texas, and Port O'Connor to Corpus Christi, Texas. Within the
Brazos River to Port O'Connor study, we urge the committee to
specifically direct the secretary to re-route the GIWW across Matagorda
Bay.
Besides increasing safety, re-routing the GIWW across Matagorda Bay
will save substantial federal outlays. The re-route would enable barge
traffic to cross Matagorda Bay farther north than the existing
alignment. The existing channel is much closer to the Gulf, which
subjects our vessels to serious shoaling and very dangerous currents.
The Corps of Engineers recommended plan is not scheduled for
implementation until 2003 to 2005. At least $7 million (and possibly as
much as $9 million) will be spent during that time period compared to
$2 million to establish the re-route across Matagorda Bay now.
These two improvements will constitute the most significant
physical and environmental safety enhancements along the Texas coast in
years, and are supported by the environmental community. They will also
save scarce federal dollars.
Our association also endorses the President's budget request of
$8.7 million for construction of the channel to Victoria, Texas. This
project was delayed in last year's budget because of funding levels and
we urge the committee to provide funds for completion as soon as
possible, consistent with the Corps' full capability.
We support surveys funding in the President's budget for Calcasieu
Lock, Louisiana ($691,000), and Intracoastal Waterway Locks Study,
Louisiana ($700,000).
We support funding for the replacement of the Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal Lock to the extent of the Corps' full capability. We
encourage the committee to make certain this project is expedited,
rather than stretched out.
The Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association also supports the
operations and maintenance funding request for Tri Rivers Waterway
Development Association. We support sound economic development efforts
to improve the ACF waterway as a vital link for southeast Alabama,
southwest Georgia, and northwest Florida to export goods to other
national and international markets via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
We support inland waterway navigation as an environmentally sound
and cost effective transportation mode in the Gulf South region,
helping to reduce freight rates and promoting trade and development.
In addition, we support the President's budget request for
Pascagoula, Mississippi harbor project ($7,792,000) and Mobile, Alabama
harbor project ($700,000).
This concludes our prepared testimony. We appreciate the
opportunity to provide this statement for the record.
______
Prepared Statement of Ernie Zieschang, President, Port of Liberty
Commission
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for consideration
in regard to fiscal year 2000 budget preparation. The Port of Liberty
Commission requests that this letter and the appropriation requests
included herein be included in the formal record for the fiscal year
2000 budget hearings.
The Port of Liberty, Texas is located at river mile 45 on the lower
Trinity River. Navigation to the Port of Liberty is ``run of the
river'' and can be very difficult during low flow conditions. At the
present time, because maintenance dredging has not been completed in
the wake of a series of high flow events, navigation is impossible. We,
the people of the lower Trinity River valley, have a compelling
economic need to have our lifeline to the industrial complex on the
upper Gulf Coast of Texas reopened.
There are no funds earmarked in the President's budget message for
fiscal year 2000 for maintenance dredging of the federal government's
channel to the Port of Liberty. The Corps of Engineers has estimated
that it will cost $1.5 million to open this channel. The Corps has also
estimated that an additional $900,000 will be required to finish
dredging the channel to Smith Point in Chambers County. We request that
this committee include funds in fiscal year 2000 budget in the amount
of $2.4 million for these purposes.
The Port of Liberty Commission also supports an appropriation of
$4.756 million for the completion of the Wallisville Saltwater Barrier.
The Wallisville project includes among its facilities a navigation lock
that will facilitate navigation on the lower river during low flow
conditions.
We appreciate all of the fine work this committee has done for
interests in the lower Trinity River area over the years, and request
your support for federal maintenance and construction projects in our
area.
______
Prepared Statement of Gale Wm. Fraser, II, P.E., General Manager/Chief
Engineer, Clark County Regional Flood Control District
Presented herewith is testimony in support of a $35,000,000
construction appropriation necessary for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to continue the Tropicana/Flamingo Washes flood control
project and testimony to support $2,105,250 reimbursement to the non-
federal sponsors, Clark County and the Clark County Regional Flood
Control District, for work performed in advance of the federal project
pursuant to Section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
of 1996. This project is located in the rapidly growing Las Vegas
Valley in Southern Nevada.
The Las Vegas Valley has experienced unprecedented growth over the
past twenty-five years and all signs indicate that this growth will
continue for several more years. People have moved into the area from
all parts of the nation to seek employment, provide necessary services,
and become part of this dynamic community. It is estimated that 5,000
people relocate to the Las Vegas Valley every month of the year.
Currently the population is over 1.2 million. The latest statistics
show that nearly 30,000 residential units are built annually. Once all
these factors are combined, the result is that the Las Vegas Valley is
one of the fastest growing areas in the nation.
The Federal project proposed by the Corps of Engineers (Corps) is
designed to collect flood flows from a 160 square mile contributing
drainage area. The plan identified in the Corps' Feasibility Study for
the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes Project includes four debris basins,
four detention basins, 28 miles of primary channels, and a network of
lateral collector channels. The debris basins are designed to collect
flood flows from undeveloped areas at the headwaters of the alluvial
fans and trap large bedload debris before it enters the channels and
causes erosion damage. The detention basins will function to greatly
reduce the magnitude of the flood flows so that the flows can be safely
released through the developed urbanized area at non-damaging rates.
The outflow from the debris basins and the reduced flows from the
detention basins will be contained in the primary channel system which
will also serve as outfalls for the lateral collector channels. While
this latter element is considered to be a non-federal element of the
entire plan, it is a necessary element for the plan to function
properly. Because flow over the alluvial fans which ring the Las Vegas
Valley is so unpredictable in terms of the direction it will take
during any given flood, all of the components of the Corps' plan are
critical.
The Feasibility Report for this project was completed in October
1991, and Congressional authorization was obtained in the WRDA of 1992.
The first federal appropriations to initiate construction of the
project became available through the Energy and Water Resources
Development Appropriations Bill signed into law by the President in
October 1993. The Project Cooperation Agreement was fully executed in
February 1995. Appropriations to date have totaled $71,045,000, which
has allowed for the continued implementation of the project. The total
cost of the project is now estimated at $266,000,000, primarily due to
the delay in anticipated federal appropriations.
Certain elements of the Corps' plan have already been constructed
by the local community but require modifications in order to fit into
the Corps' plan and fulfill the need for a ``total fan approach'' to
the flooding problems of the Las Vegas Valley. The Red Rock Detention
Basin was constructed by Clark County in 1985 and modifications by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were recently completed in December 1996.
The release from the basin has been reduced and its capacity to hold
flood waters were enhanced, thereby increasing the level of downstream
protection provided by this feature. Although this was the first
feature completed, the immediate benefit realized was the removal of
approximately five square miles and 4,754 parcels from the alluvial fan
flood zones.
The non-federal sponsors also constructed the Upper Flamingo
Detention Basin. This facility was completed in February 1992, and is
one of the main components of the program. Under the Corps' plan, the
releases from this feature will also be reduced and its storage
capacity increased. We have been working with the local development
community in an effort to have them remove the excess sand and gravel
from the impoundment area of this facility. Our goal is to have local
contractors remove this surplus material for their own use at no cost
to either the federal or local governments, thus providing a
significant cost savings to the total project as well as maintaining
the construction schedule.
As local sponsors for this important flood control project, both
the Clark County Regional Flood Control District and the Clark County
Public Works Department anxiously anticipate the construction start of
each feature of this project.
Details of the Administration's fiscal year 2000 Civil Works Budget
Request indicate that $20,100,000 is proposed for the continued
construction of this project. The Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers informs us that their capability for fiscal year
2000 is $40,000,000. Funding at the $35,000,000 level will allow the
project to begin to return to the schedule as originally envisioned
when the Project Cooperation Agreement was executed. Furthermore,
funding at this level will allow: completion of construction of the
Tropicana Outlet Channel, Lower Red Rock Complex, Las Vegas Beltway
Channel (Section 10A), Blue Diamond Detention Basin; and the start of
construction for the Flamingo Diversion Channel and R-4 Debris Basin
and Channel. The non-federal sponsors are anxious to see these flood
control facilities installed. Any further delays places portions of the
federal project, and non-federal projects, both at risk.
In 1996, the Regional Flood Control District was notified by the
District Engineer of the Los Angeles District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, that due to reduced federal budget expenditures, expected
and subsequent years of anticipated federal funding would be greatly
reduced. The delay in funding, in the fastest growing community in the
nation, will mean increased costs due to lost opportunities and
inflation. The net result of the reduction in funding is currently
expected to delay the completion of the project from year 2001 to year
2006, a five-year delay.
In order to provide the required flood protection in a timely
fashion, the non-federal sponsors are implementing certain features in
advance of the federal government by pursuing the provisions of Section
211 of the WRDA 1996. An amendment to the Project Cooperation Agreement
to implement Section 211 of the WRDA 1996 is in its final review
stages. It is anticipated that the amendment will be approved within
the next two months. Further, Section 211(f) of the WRDA 1996
identifies this project as one of eight projects in the nation, to
demonstrate the potential advantages and effectiveness of non-federal
implementation of federal flood control projects. To date the non-
federal sponsors have designed and constructed features at Russell
Road, Valley View Boulevard, Dewey Drive, and Decatur Boulevard; and
designed the Las Vegas Beltway (Section 7A), which the federal
government has constructed, and Las Vegas Beltway (Section 7B, 8 and
9). The work performed pursuant to Section 211 of the WRDA 1996 totals
approximately $2,807,000. Therefore, the reimbursement for the federal
share is estimated at $2,105,250. The non-federal sponsors are
continuing to pursue the design and construction of additional features
with the primary purpose of providing flood protection in as timely a
fashion as possible at an estimated additional cost of $28,000,000.
While the non-federal sponsors are not asking to be reimbursed the
federal proportionate share at this time, the non-federal sponsors ask
that the committee support the execution of the amendment to the
Project Cooperation Agreement that institutes the language in Section
211 of the WRDA 1996 for this project.
This is an important public safety project designed to provide
flood protection for one of the fastest growing urban areas in the
nation. We ask that the committee provide the Secretary of the Army
with $35,000,000, the Corps of Engineers' capability in fiscal year
2000, in order to allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue
the design and construction of additional phases of this desperately
needed flood control project.
As the committee is aware, proactive flood control is the
investment required to prevent loss of life and damages. Flood control
is a wise investment that will, in the long run, pay for itself by
preserving life and property and reducing the probability of repeatedly
asking the federal government for disaster assistance. Therefore, when
balancing the federal budget, a thorough analysis should prove that
there will be substantial future federal savings in disaster assistance
that will warrant the continued level of funding through Civil Works
Budget appropriations.
______
Prepared Statement of George Renner, 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 2000 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Bill.
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 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. The CAP delivered over 1 million acre-feet of water to project
water users in 1998 and anticipates delivering 1.4 million acre-feet in
1999.
CAWCD was created 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, primarily water supply
and power costs. 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 an
elected 15 member Board of Directors from each of the three counties it
serves. CAWCD's Board members are public officers who serve without
pay.
Project repayment is provided for through a 1988 Master Repayment
Contract between CAWCD and the United States. Reclamation declared the
CAP water supply system (Stage 1) substantially complete in 1993, and
declared the regulatory storage stage, or Plan 6 (Stage 2), complete in
1996. No other stages are currently under construction. Project
repayment began in 1994 for Stage 1 and in 1997 for Stage 2. To date,
more than $489 million of CAP construction costs have been repaid to
the United States.
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 Phase One of the litigation, which was completed in 1998,
the District court ruled that CAWCD's construction cost repayment
obligation for CAP Stages 1 and 2 under the 1988 Master Repayment
Contract was limited to no more than $1.781 billion. In addition, the
court prohibited Reclamation from denying CAWCD the use of project
facilities. Phase Two of the litigation addressed Reclamation's cost
allocation procedures for CAP. Trial of Phase Two was completed in
December 1998, but the court has not yet issued a ruling.
In its fiscal year 2000 budget request, Reclamation is requesting
$27,326,000 for the CAP. Of this amount, $11,153,000 is requested for
the construction of Indian distribution systems, and $2,220,000 is
requested for completion of construction of sulfur dioxide scrubbers at
the Navajo Generating Station (NGS). The balance, $13,953,000, is
sought for other CAP activities, many of which would be partially
reimbursable by CAWCD if the repayment ceiling had not been exceeded.
Reclamation estimates that $8,810,000 of the $27,326,000 would be
subject to partial reimbursement resulting in a $6 million increase in
total reimbursable costs.
Reclamation's Project Repayment Appendix to the fiscal year 2000
budget justification documents indicates that a ``residual'' amount of
$401,535,392 is currently not covered under the repayment contract as
ruled by the court in Phase One of the CAP repayment litigation and may
not be repaid to the Federal Treasury. While CAWCD has challenged the
adequacy of Reclamation's cost allocation procedure from which this
residual amount was derived, we are concerned that Reclamation's budget
request would result in an additional $6 million of reimbursable costs
for which no repayment contract presently exists. In addition, CAWCD
questions Reclamation's authority to spend CAP appropriations in the
absence of an amendatory contract to cover repayment of the
reimbursable portion. CAWCD has met with Reclamation and has offered to
amend its repayment contract to cover an appropriate share of
Reclamation's cost overruns, provided that CAWCD's repayment obligation
is reduced by an appropriate amount to reflect the value of CAP water
which has been transferred from non-Federal to Federal uses since the
1988 Master Repayment Contract was signed. Reclamation has rejected
these offers. Thus, CAWCD believes it has no repayment responsibility
for any further funds Congress may provide that would otherwise have
been characterized as reimbursable.
Of the total $27,326,000 requested, $3,237,000 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 ($2,612,000), payments to FWS for non-
native fish eradication and native fish conservation ($500,000),
Reclamation's non-contract costs ($100,000), and public information
program ($25,000). Litigation brought by a local environmental
organization remains unresolved, and it is likely that it will be at
issue for some time. CAWCD continues to believe that Reclamation should
cease spending in this area until the pertinent issues are resolved.
For the past three fiscal years, Congress has cut all funding for these
activities; however, Reclamation continues to spend other CAP
appropriations for these purposes. In fact, language in the Conference
Report regarding the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill provided specific direction to the Secretary of the
Interior not to spend any current or previously appropriated funds for
this program. Yet, Reclamation's spending continues. As in prior years,
CAWCD recommends that Congress not appropriate funds in fiscal year
2000 to support any Reclamation activities under the 1994 Gila River
Biological Opinion issued by the FWS.
CAWCD continues to support appropriations necessary to ensure
timely completion of all CAP Indian distribution systems. However,
Reclamation's fiscal year 2000 budget request of $11,153,000 for CAP
Indian distribution systems is less than half of the FY1999
appropriation for this item. Reclamation has indicated to CAWCD that
the fiscal year 2000 funding request will be sufficient to maintain
current development schedules, but CAWCD is concerned that the reduced
funding request is an indication that Indian distribution systems are
being delayed.
CAWCD also supports the continuation of funding for the Tucson
Reliability Division. The requested $150,000 will allow planning work
to continue and will assist Tucson in developing and implementing a
plan including adequate reliability for putting its CAP water
allocation to use.
Finally, CAWCD supports increased funding for Reclamation's West
Salt River Valley Water Management Study. Reclamation's South/Central
Arizona Investigations Program includes a $200,000 line item to support
a continuing planning effort to study the integration and management of
water resources in the West Salt River Valley, including the use of CAP
water. CAWCD supports increasing this line item to $400,000 for fiscal
year 2000.
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.
______
Prepared Statement of George Miller, Mayor, City of Tucson
The people of Tucson greatly appreciate the funding support your
Committee has given over the years to the Central Arizona Project. A
crucial element of Tucson's planning for long-term reliance on CAP
water has been the provision of delivery reliability for Southern
Arizona through the construction of a storage reservoir and related
facilities as part of the Project. This feature of the Project is
commonly known as Terminal Storage. In the past five years, quality
problems with CAP water have caused the City to suspend direct delivery
of the water to customers. However, the City is taking steps to resolve
those problems. Until these problems are resolved, the City will be
storing CAP water underground and recovering it for delivery to
customers in lieu of direct delivery. Even after the problems with the
treatment and direct delivery of CAP water are resolved, the City will
not be able to shift to direct deliveries unless it is assured that
delivery of CAP water will be reliable.
I am writing to urge that the Bureau's ongoing environmental,
design and planning work for Terminal Storage be continued--so that the
City can be assured of CAP delivery reliability to assist the City in
maintaining direct delivery of CAP water as a future option. The Bureau
has requested that $150,000 be appropriated for the Bureau's ongoing
environmental and planning work for Terminal Storage. The City supports
the Bureau's request and urges that the requested funds be included in
the fiscal year 2000 appropriation so that our City can be assured of
CAP delivery reliability as the City works to shift its water supply
from groundwater to CAP water. We understand that the Central Arizona
Water Conservation District has no objection to this request because
Terminal Storage repayment is not included in the current contract
repayment ceiling of $1.781 million.
background re cap in tucson
Until the arrival of Colorado River water through the CAP aqueduct
in late 1992, Tucson was one of the largest metropolitan areas in the
United States wholly dependent upon groundwater. Since the early 1900s,
Tucson has been forced to mine groundwater--withdraw more groundwater
than is naturally replenished to the basin--to provide water to its
growing population. Recognizing the finite nature of the groundwater
resource, Tucson committed in the 1970s to a strong conservation ethic.
Over the years this has resulted in significant reductions in per
capita groundwater use. Nonetheless, current demands for water in this
basin exceed renewable supplies by a ratio of nearly two to one.
For many decades, Tucson has been a major supporter of the Central
Arizona Project to import Colorado River water to the metropolitan
areas of the state. Tucson recognizes that CAP water will be the most
viable long-term water source to sustain Tucson's economic and
population growth, meet the Arizona groundwater code requirements, and
conserve and preserve the City's groundwater resource for the future.
In 1988, the City entered into a subcontract for 148,420 acre feet of
CAP Municipal and Industrial water, the largest CAP M&I subcontract in
the state.\1\ Tucson is paying the annual capital charges on this water
and in 1999 will pay nearly $7 million to the Central Arizona Water
Conservation District in capital charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In recent years the Town of Oro Valley and the Metropolitan
Domestic Water Improvement District (MDWID) have become water
providers. The service areas of both entities were included in Tucson's
service area when CAP allocations were made, since the City, in the
Northwest Area Agreements, had contracted to provide CAP water for
these service areas. Recently the City, as part of a settlement of
litigation over MDWID's obligations under the Northwest Area
Agreements, transferred to MDWID 9,500 acre feet of the City's CAP
entitlement. An additional amount of CAP entitlement may in the future
be transferred to the Town of Oro Valley in connection with the
settlement of the obligations of Oro Valley and the City under the
Northwest Area Agreements. Consequently, both MDWID and Oro Valley also
have concerns over the long-term reliability of CAP deliveries in
Southern Arizona.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1989, after a lengthy process of study and public input, Tucson
adopted a long range Water Resources Plan. As part of that Plan, Tucson
made a policy decision of rapid transition from mined groundwater to
surface water, much earlier than required by Arizona's Groundwater
Management Code. In preparing for the use of CAP water, Tucson shifted
its economic resources from drilling new wells and maintaining the well
fields, to reorienting the water delivery system, and to the
construction of a large treatment plant capable of delivering
sufficient treated CAP water to substitute renewable water for nearly
all of the groundwater the City was delivering. Tucson invested over
$160 million in the facilities required for reliance on CAP water.
Unfortunately, when Central Arizona Project water arrived in the
Tucson area, the interaction between treated surface water and old
galvanized steel pipes in some portions of the city resulted in the
delivery of discolored water to seven percent of our customers who
received the water. Although major efforts were undertaken to correct
the problem, progress was slow. In November 1995, the city's voters
passed an initiative measure, Proposition 200, which bars Tucson Water
from making direct delivery of CAP water unless it receives enhanced
treatment to substantially reduce the total dissolved solids in the
water. In 1997, a privately sponsored initiative attempted prematurely
to convince the people of Tucson to allow resumption of direct delivery
and was defeated at the polls.
Consequently, Tucson is planning to recharge and recover a
significant portion of its CAP water until the problems associated with
direct delivery have been resolved. Because the direct delivery of CAP
water has been delayed, questions have been raised concerning the need
for Terminal Storage. A purpose of my testimony today is to assure you
that Tucson plans to solve the water quality problems and in the long
term to resume direct delivery of CAP water. Tucson needs Terminal
Storage.
Growth projections put the Tucson area's population at 1.2 million
by 2025, and at 2.5 million 100 years from now. Tucson Water delivered
approximately 115,000 acre-feet of water in 1997. Tucson Water's
service area is projected to need approximately 170,000 acre-feet in
2025, and nearly 250,000 acre-feet in the year 2100. Regional needs are
even greater. Tucson's subcontract for CAP water is 138,920 acre feet.
An additional 25,000 acre feet is allocated to private water companies
and state land in the area. It appears that this area's current CAP
allocations will be totally utilized by the year 2025.
Tucson is, and must remain, committed to the Central Arizona
Project to support the City's existing population as well as its future
growth. I assure this Committee that Tucson's long-term commitment to
the CAP remains intact, despite the water quality problems experienced
by the City when it directly delivered CAP water to its customers.
After describing these problems, I will address our support for
$150,000 of the proposed appropriations for the Tucson Reliability
Division of the CAP for fiscal year 1999.
technical cap implementation problems in tucson
Conversion of Tucson Water's service area population of nearly
600,000 people from groundwater to surface water has been a significant
challenge for the City. In order to comply with anticipated new
stringent EPA requirements, Tucson constructed a state-of-the-art water
treatment plant. We operated a pilot plant in Phoenix to identify and
deal with the problems that could be encountered when CAP water was
introduced in Tucson. A major public relations campaign was implemented
to prepare our customers for the changes they might encounter when CAP
water arrived. When the first 84,000 customers were transferred from
groundwater to CAP water in early 1993, 7 percent of those customers
experienced problems on a scale that had not been anticipated. The
surface water caused encrusted materials in old galvanized steel pipe
to break loose and resulted in the delivery of discolored water to
approximately 6,000 customers. The City established a special office to
deal with customer complaints and employed nationally recognized
experts to help solve the problem. However, a quick solution could not
be achieved, so the areas experiencing major quality were returned to
groundwater deliveries.
During 1994, the City continued to deliver treated CAP water to
customers in areas with newer pipelines. However, after the CAP
aqueduct was closed down in November and December, 1994 for siphon
repair, the Mayor and Council decided that deliveries of treated CAP
water would not be resumed to any customers until the problems with
direct delivery were fully resolved.
To assure that direct delivery of CAP water would not resume until
the quality of the water improved, the voters of the city approved a
citizens' initiative known as Proposition 200 in November 1995. It
provides that CAP water cannot be directly delivered to Tucson Water
customers unless the quality is equivalent to high quality groundwater
in Avra Valley west of Tucson. Enhanced treatment will be needed if CAP
water quality is to be improved to Avra Valley standards.
In 1996 the City contracted with the Bureau of Reclamation to
conduct pilot plant tests of enhanced treatment techniques and estimate
costs. This study is not yet complete. Meanwhile the City is developing
ways to continue to purchase CAP water and store it for future use. The
Mayor and Council have been clear and united in continuing their
commitment to taking substantial quantities of CAP water each year.
However, the City must deal with the quality issues which have arisen
because of the interaction between CAP water and the City's older pipe
system. Economic consequences will include pipeline repair and
accelerated replacement, costs for homeowner damages, and, as described
above, the possible construction of a new enhanced treatment plant.
We will preserve our basic conservation ethic, and our long-term
need for CAP water to meet the needs of Tucson's growing population
will continue. The CAP Use Study for Quality Water by Dames & Moore,
completed in the Fall of 1996, reported on alternatives for utilization
of the City's CAP allocation. Its long-term recommendation included
direct delivery of substantial quantities of treated CAP water.
Terminal Storage is critically necessary for such direct delivery.
To address its problem with corroded pipes, the City is
accelerating its main replacement program. More than half of the 200
miles of old galvanized water pipes have been replaced. The City is
also conducting a major new program to determine the level of water
quality acceptable to our water customers and the methods for assuring
that this level is maintained. A pilot program to deliver blended CAP
and groundwater to volunteer neighborhoods is under way.
terminal storage
The problems Tucson has had switching from groundwater to CAP water
highlight the need for a storage facility near the terminus of the
aqueduct--Terminal Storage, as the final element of the Central Arizona
Project in Southern Arizona. A reliable supply of CAP water is very
important to Tucson. It is also quite important to the Tohono O'odham
Nation. The Nation has a contract for 37,800 acre feet of CAP water,
and is to receive an additional 28,200 acre feet of water under the
terms of the Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act of 1982. This
may also be CAP water. The Nation has urged that Terminal Storage be
provided as part of the Central Arizona Project so that a reliable
supply of water will be provided to the Nation and its people.
The Bureau has been doing detailed planning and continuing the NEPA
processes on a terminal storage proposal that has been approved by the
City and the CAWCD board. The principal elements of the proposal are as
follows:
1. A 15,000 acre foot surface storage reservoir with 350 cfs
gravity flow to the Tucson Water Treatment plant;
2. Joint CAP recharge facilities with the CAWCD;
3. Recovery of recharged water from: a. Two of Tucson Water's
existing exterior wellfields, Avra Valley and Santa Cruz, with the
flexibility to introduce flows either at the treatment plant or into
the surface reservoir; and b. A new Central Avra Valley wellfield,
located on City-owned property with the pumped supply introduced
directly into the CAP canal on the discharge side of the Brawley
Pumping Plant.
4. Operation of the Tucson wellfields to be turned over to the
CAWCD, under a cooperative agreement, during any CAP outages.
The estimated cost of the federal portion of this project is $70
million for the storage facility; the cost of the local portion is
approximately $50 million for existing and new wellfields and
pipelines. The draft Environmental Impact Statement for Terminal
Storage was completed in April 1995. The final EIS was completed last
year.
We have urged the Bureau to continue the environmental work and
planning for Terminal Storage and the Bureau plans to do so, albeit at
a reduced level. Its appropriation request seeks $.12 million for work
in fiscal year 2000 related to Terminal Storage. The City respectfully
asks that this request be approved so that Terminal Storage can remain
alive while Tucson resolves its CAP problems and develops its long term
programs to return to direct delivery of CAP water.
______
Prepared Statement of Bernadine Boyd, President, Fort McDowell Tribal
Council, Fort McDowell Indian Community
On behalf of the Fort McDowell Indian Community [Community], I
request that the sub-committee appropriate a supplement to the fiscal
year 2000 budget for the Bureau of Reclamation in the amount of $3.2
million, representing the cost of environmental mitigation associated
with a loan pursuant to the Small Reclamation Projects Act, 43 U.S.C.
Sec. 422a [small project loan], authorized and funded as part of the
Community's 1990 water settlement.
the fort mcdowell water settlement
As part of the Community's 1990 water settlement, Congress directed
that the Secretary provide the Community a $13 million small project
loan, to be repaid at no interest over a fifty year period. Id.,
Sec. 408(e). The Congress further provided that, ``The Secretary [of
Interior] is directed to carry out all necessary environmental
compliance . . .'' and further ``authorized to be appropriated such
sums as may be necessary to carry out all necessary environmental
compliance associated with this settlement, including mitigation
measures adopted by the Secretary.'' Id., Sec. 410 (a) & (b). To date,
the environmental mitigation required by the Secretary as part of the
small project loan has been undertaken largely by and at the expense of
the Community. The Congress has not appropriated funds necessary to
allow the Secretary to assume these burdens. That is the purpose of
this request.
During the negotiations leading to the 1990 water settlement, the
Community made it clear that it required wet water, not simply a paper
water right: that is, the practical ability to deliver the necessary
water for full development of the reservation. The Community's water
budget was based on this principle. Most importantly for present
purposes, the federal cost sharing in the settlement was as well. In
correspondence between the Community and the Department, the Community
laid out its proposal regarding federal cost sharing as follows: the
Community required sufficient funding to enable it to beneficially use
its entire water budget; the Community determined those costs to be
approximately $38 million, in consultation with its engineer and
agricultural economists; the Community agreed to the $13 million small
loan for its agricultural development and agreed to apply that amount
against development costs, resulting in the Community's proposed
development fund of $25 million. In the final settlement, the State of
Arizona contributed $2 million to the development fund and the United
States contributed $23 million. Id., Sec. 408.
Clearly, the development anticipated through the small project loan
at the time of the settlement was a key component of the overall
settlement. As stated in the Community's testimony in support of the
bill, the small project loan was expected to develop approximately
1,600 acres of the reservation. Once finalized, the loan application
showed development of 1,584 acres, with state of the art drip
irrigation for permanent crops.
environmental mitigation costs of the small loan project
At the time of the settlement, the parties anticipated little, if
any, environmental mitigation would be required as part of the small
project loan. The Secretary was directed to undertake any required
environmental mitigation and the Congress authorized appropriations to
pay for such. However, these costs were not appropriated at the time
since the nature and extent of environmental mitigation, if any, were
unknown.
As the project progressed, the Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau
of Reclamation [Bureau] required substantial environmental mitigation.
Two of these mitigation requirements imposed obligations with
significant negative economic impacts on the Community.
First, before land clearing for the project began, six significant
cultural (archaeological) sites were identified by the Bureau
archaeologists. These sites could have been cleared for development
through excavation recovery. To avoid the substantial delay in the
project this would cause and the substantial cost of excavation to the
Bureau, the Bureau proposed and the Community agreed to simply avoid
these sites. These six sites are now fenced off and are surrounded by
developed fields. The irrigation system is built around these sites but
does not include them. Principally because these sites were excluded,
the total acreage developed by the project is 1,357, rather than the
1,584 expected at the time of the settlement.
At the time the cultural sites were fenced, it was estimated that
mitigation of the sites by excavation would have cost approximately $3
million. Recently, the Community obtained an estimate from
Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd., for the excavation and
recovery of these cultural sites. Their more current estimate shows
that the cost could now exceed $9 million. The Secretary saved
literally millions by avoiding the sites rather than excavating them.
However, the effect of this approach was to impose mitigation related
costs on the Community. Even if the Secretary were to undertake the
excavation of these sites now, the cost to place those sites into
development would be prohibitive. It would require redesign of the
entire project and the extension of laterals within these isolated
pockets. For all practical development purposes, these sites are now
isolated and forever lost to the Community.
Second, for the project to move forward, the Bureau and Fish and
Wildlife Service required biological or habitat mitigation. Because it
simply took the project lands out of desert habitat, the Community was
obliged to set aside other land as desert habitat. The Bureau could
have set aside land off reservation for this purpose. Instead, the
Bureau required that the Community set aside 330 acres of Verde River
front property on the reservation as permanent desert habitat in 1992.
This 330 acres cannot be developed or even used by Community members.
The Community recently obtained an appraisal of these 330 acres, which
showed a market value of $4.9 million.
Apart from the obvious costs to the Community summarized above,
these steps for environmental mitigation have affected overall value of
the project to the Community as well. As a result of the environmental
mitigation, the project is reduced in size from 1,584 acres to 1,357
acres. The Bureau has worked with the Community to identify additional
reservation land that can be developed to make up for this acreage
shortfall. However, these replacement lands are class III lands, much
lower quality and productivity than the class I lands that were
withdrawn from the project for environmental mitigation purposes. In
addition, these substitute class III lands have higher development
costs. An additional $1.9 million, over and above the original $13
million loan, will now be required to place these substitute lands into
development.
Even more disturbing is the reduction in the expected economic
benefits from the project. Under the project as originally approved in
1990 (1,584 acres in development with no environmental mitigation costs
imposed on the Community), the Community expected an internal rate of
return of 6.6 percent. As the project now stands, there are 1,357 acres
developed, with $4.9 million in costs for habitat mitigation, resulting
in an internal rate of return of less than 2 percent.
Clearly, this is not the bargain struck by the Community in the
1990 water settlement. By reducing the developed acreage, the Community
has fallen short of the full development goal upon which the settlement
was premised. By imposing the environmental mitigation burden on the
Community rather than the Secretary, the economic value to be derived
from the developed acreage is dramatically reduced. In fact, the
combined environmental mitigation costs and obligations imposed on the
Community may actually exceed the present value of the loan.
the appropriation proposed by the community
As the project neared completion last February, the Community
presented this problem to the Department of the Interior. The Community
made a proposal to the Department that, in its view, would place the
Community roughly in the position contemplated at the time of the water
settlement. Specifically, the Community proposed that the Department
forgive repayment of the small project loan. This would, in turn, have
released an escrow account of $1 million, plus interest, that was set
aside by the Community in 1990 to guarantee repayment of the loan. The
Community proposed to complete the project to the full 1,584 acres with
its own funds, a cost now estimated at $1.9 million. Finally, the
Community proposed that restrictions on the 330 acre habitat mitigation
area be lifted, in favor of regulation by Community under its own land
use plan that restricts development on a much larger part of the
reservation. Significantly from the Community's point of view, the
Community land use plan does not restrict members' use of the area, as
does the present restriction.
The Department studied the Community's proposal for months and
informally decided that, for technical budgetary reasons, it could not
solve the problem administratively. Although the Department
acknowledges its responsibility for environmental mitigation under the
water settlement act, Congress must appropriate the funds authorized by
the act so that the Department can fulfill its responsibility.
The Community proposes that its original proposal to the Department
be implemented through an appropriation for the environmental
mitigation costs already authorized in the water settlement. The
Community believes these costs can be calculated as follows:
--$3.2 million is a conservative estimate of the direct costs to the
Community of environmental mitigation: the Community proposes
to pay the $1.9 million necessary to complete the project to
1,584 acres; the Community will also suffer a long term
reduction in the value of the project because of the
substitution of class III for class I lands, estimated at $1.3
million (calculated by subtracting present value of project as
originally approved from present value of project as completed
with substitute lands, or $8.735 million minus $7.474 million
calculated at 6 percent interest; these calculations reflect a
delay in achieving full benefits as well as a reduction in
annual crop benefits);
--$3.2 million also approximates the present value of the $13 million
small loan repayment, using an interest rate of 6 percent;
--Congress should appropriate $3.2 million to the Bureau of
Reclamation, as representing the reasonable costs of
environmental mitigation, with direction that the Bureau use
the appropriation to close out the Community's small loan and
forgive repayment, thereby lifting all Bureau restrictions and
responsibility for the project, subject of course to full
payment of any unused portion of the original $13 million to
the Community for use in completing the project;
--with the small loan closed out, the escrow account held by the
Community to guarantee repayment will be closed, which funds
can be dedicated, along with other necessary Community funds,
to complete the project to the originally contemplated 1,584
acres;
--with the small loan closed out, all restrictions imposed on
reservation land by the Department as part of the loan must be
lifted, with the 330 acre habitat mitigation area reverting to
the Community's land use plan.
These steps will place the Community in the same approximate
position as that anticipated at the time of the settlement--sufficient
funding to apply its full water budget to beneficial use. The
circumstances here arguably support direct monetary compensation to the
Community, in light of the Department of the Interior's failure to
comply with its obligation to assume responsibility for all
environmental mitigation under the water settlement. However, the
Community does not propose that here. Rather, the Community proposes
that funding representing the Community's costs of environmental
mitigation be appropriated for the Bureau so that the Bureau can close
out the loan. Done any other way, the United States' costs will be much
higher and the final completion of the project, up to the anticipated
1,584 acres, will be greatly delayed.
The Fort McDowell water settlement was a turning point for the
Community. The irrigation project funded by the small project loan has
been constructed and 86,000 pecan and citrus trees have been planted.
The reservation has literally begun to bloom as these permanent crops
reach fruition. By any measure, the water settlement in general and the
small project loan in particular are successful. With this
appropriation, the final touches will be put on the settlement and the
United States and the Community can be proud of the result. As always,
the Community appreciates your support and wishes to thank the Arizona
congressional delegation in particular for its efforts on the
Community's behalf.
______
Prepared Statement of Carol W. West, Executive Director, Tucson
Regional Water Council
The Tucson Regional Water Council (TRWC) thanks you for the
opportunity to provide testimony concerning the Bureau of Reclamation's
fiscal year 2000 budget request. TRWC is a non-profit organization in
Tucson, Arizona whose members are water providers, business and
professional people, and concerned citizens dedicated to ensuring a
long-term stable, quality water supply for Tucson and the surrounding
region. Our members appreciate the Committee's long support of the
Central Arizona Project (CAP), and we owe a debt of gratitude to you
and your colleagues for your years of dedication to this project.
TRWC wishes to address the specific Bureau of Reclamation budget
line item: Tucson Reliability Division, which refers to system
reliability to utilize CAP water. In view of the importance to the
Tohono O'odham Nation, the towns of Marana and Oro Valley, Metropolitan
Domestic Water Improvement District, and the City of Tucson, TRWC
requests that the Committee support the Bureau's small request for
funding ($150,000) in the fiscal year 2000 bill.
There is widespread recognition among regional water providers that
the Tucson area will eventually find it necessary to directly utilize
CAP water for municipal purposes. The present move to recharge much of
the CAP water has been in response to customer dissatisfaction with the
initial treatment and delivery provided by Tucson Water. However,
recharging all the CAP water will not efficiently supply municipal
needs for the long-term.
Extensive testing conducted over the past five years shows that the
problems experienced by water users in 1992-94 can be avoided with the
proper pH adjustment and the addition of the corrosion inhibitor
polyphosphate. A voluntary neighborhood demonstration project sponsored
by the City of Tucson will be implemented shortly to show that a blend
of groundwater and recharged CAP water can produce water of acceptable
quality. The next logical step is to demonstrate to the community that
a blend of groundwater and properly treated CAP water is also an
acceptable, and more affordable option.
TRWC believes that providing reliability for the Tucson region is
critical to completing the Central Arizona Project and reducing
reliance on our dwindling groundwater supplies. Unless this region has
system reliability, it cannot achieve the most efficient uses of its
CAP allocations . . . not for municipal uses or other uses such as
mining. Direct utilization requires a stable and sure supply, and
funding the Bureau of Reclamation's request will enable the agency to
continue efforts to provide our region with the reliability that will
be vitally needed.
TRWC respectfully requests that this specific Bureau of Reclamation
budget line item Tucson Reliability Division be approved. Thank you for
your serious consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of Skip Rimsza, Mayor, City of Phoenix
On behalf of the City Council and the residents of Phoenix, the
sixth largest city in the country, I would like to present the
following testimony. I am pleased to present this testimony in support
of appropriations to help our city and region continue to foster a
partnership with the federal government to achieve our shared
objectives. We have been working with our delegation, this Committee,
the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and other federal
agencies to promote environmental restoration and flood control needs
in the most effective and economical way. We sincerely appreciate the
past support of this Committee and trust we will continue our
partnership to see several critical projects through to a successful
conclusion.
There are three initiatives under way which this Committee has
supported in the past and are included in the President's Budget.
Continued support is essential to achieve the public benefits for which
the projects are being designed.
rio salado and rio salado phase ii
We have been working for nearly five years with the Corps of
Engineers in a cost-shared partnership to study a project to restore
riparian wetlands along the Salt River in downtown Phoenix and Tempe.
The wetlands were lost over many years as a result of diversion of Salt
River flows for irrigation of the surrounding region.
In cooperation, the Corps, the City of Tempe, and we have developed
a cost-effective plan called Rio Salado to restore about seven miles of
the lost riparian wetlands. The plan has been approved by the Secretary
of the Army and the Administration and was included for authorization
in the Senate passed Water Resources Development Act of 1998. Even
though the House did not act on the bill, we are hopeful that Congress
will pass a WRDA 99 that will include authorization for the Rio Salado
project. In the meanwhile, preconstruction engineering and design is
continuing.
The Rio Salado project is the centerpiece of our efforts to
revitalize the environment and the economy of a part of our city that
has not enjoyed the fruits of progress as have other parts of the city.
The President's budget request is both sufficient and essential to keep
this project on schedule. We urge you to support the appropriation of
$1,545,000 for design of the Phoenix section of the project and the
$100,000 for the Tempe section. We also seek $100,000 to begin Rio
Salado construction subject to WRDA 1999 authorization. This funding is
critical if the Corps is to accelerate its schedule and begin to
contract construction in late fiscal year 2000.
The Rio Salado Phase II portion of this environmental restoration
project was included in the Corps of Engineers Reconnaissance Study in
1996 which led to the Rio Salado project. It is essentially a
continuation of the Rio Salado project and would connect the Rio Salado
project either to Tempe or to Tres Rios. We are seeking $200,000 for
the Corps to begin the feasibility study of this portion of the project
which will determine if the project moves upstream or downtstream in
the next phase. Completion of the study and construction of the project
would make much of the corridor whole. We strongly urge your support
for this appropriation.
tres rios
This is a truly unique project the outcome of which holds promise
to benefit the entire nation as well as the Phoenix region in
particular. The Bureau of Reclamation has constructed a demonstration
project, which uses wastewater from the regional wastewater treatment
plant to create wetlands near the discharge location. The Corps of
Engineers is studying expansion of those wetlands and the Bureau is
looking at ways to reuse the wastewater once again for groundwater
recharge in the Agua Fria River after it has flowed through the
wetlands. The demonstration project to date has exceeded all
expectations.
It is critical that we continue this project at full pace. The
President's Budget includes $486,000 for the Corps to complete its
feasibility study to expand the demonstration project and $50,000 to
begin preconstruction engineering and design. We believe this is
sufficient for the Corps.
The Bureau's budget contains $400,000 for its share of the effort,
which we support. We are seeking an additional $200,000 to allow the
Bureau to begin studies on the Agua Fria River groundwater recharge
portion of the project. This work should be undertaken under the
separate authority for a Metropolitan Phoenix Water Reclamation and
Reuse project under section 1608 of the Bureau's Title XVI Reclamation
and Reuse Program. It is important to have that portion of the study
completed in about the same time frame as the rest of the study and
design work to avoid losing the water coming from the wetlands
restoration project.
gila river, northeast drainage area
This is another innovative study designed to anticipate potential
flood control problems from the rapidly expanding development on the
alluvial plains in the Northeast section of the greater Phoenix area.
The results of the study will allow local jurisdictions to plan and
regulate development in a coordinated way throughout the region to
avoid creating flooding problems as has happened in many other rapidly
growing areas in the nation. We believe that spending a little time and
planning effort now will reap large savings in flood control costs and
flood damages in the future. The Corps budget contains $342,000 for
this study that we believe is enough to keep it on schedule.
summary
All three projects, Rio Salado with its Rio Salado Phase II
extension, Tres Rios, and the Gila River, will act in synergy to
restore lost environmental quality and provide for creative management,
conservation, and reuse of scarce water quantities in the Phoenix
metropolitan area. In summary, we are requesting that you retain
$1,645,000 for the Rio Salado project ($1,545,000 for the Phoenix reach
and $100,000 for the Tempe reach), add $100,000 in construction funds
for Rio Salado, include $200,000 to extend the Rio Salado study to
Phase II, that you retain the $486,000 for the Corps of Engineers
feasibility study of the Tres Rios project and $50,000 for Corps
preconstruction engineering and design, that you include $400,000 for
the Bureau's portion of Tres Rios, and that you include $200,000 for
the Bureau to proceed with the groundwater recharge study at the Agua
Fria.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to present this request and
thank you very much for your courtesy and consideration. We would be
pleased to provide any additional information you may need.
______
Prepared Statement of Jack A. Barnett, Executive Director, Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum
colorado river salinity control program
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 were refined and confirmed by the Congress when
Public Law 104-20 was enacted into law. A total of $17,500,000 is
requested for fiscal year 2000 to implement the needed and authorized
program. Failure to appropriate these funds will result in significant
economic damage in the United States and Mexico and threaten compliance
with adopted basin-wide water quality standards in the future. The
President's request of $12.3 million is a level funding request and the
Forum appreciates this Administration's support of the program.
Nonetheless, studies have shown that implementation of the program has
fallen behind the needed pace to prevent salinity concentrations 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
result in poorer quality water being delivered by 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 of the program beyond that
requested by the President is necessary.
The program authorized by the Congress in 1995 has proven to be
very successful and very cost effective. Proposals from the public and
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 benefit the quality of water delivered to
Mexico. Although the United States has always met the commitments of
the International Boundary & Water Commission's (Commission) Minute 242
to Mexico with respect to water quality, the United States Section of
the Commission is currently addressing Mexico's request for better
water quality at the Southerly International Boundary. Consideration of
all of this 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. The Title I portion of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the United States
made, through Minute 242, to Mexico concerning 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 the Bureau of 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 new salinity control
responsibilities to the Department of Agriculture, and to a sister
agency of the Bureau of Reclamation--the Bureau of Land Management.
Congress has charged the Administration with implementing the most
cost-effective program practicable (measured in dollars per ton of salt
removed). The Basin states are strongly supportive of that concept as
the Basin states consider cost sharing 30 percent of federal
expenditures up-front for the salinity control program, in addition to
proceeding to implement their own salinity control efforts in the
Colorado River Basin.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
of Gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum has become the 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, every three years the Forum prepares a formal report
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.
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 identified 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 in keeping with the agreed upon 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 in the United
States as well as Mexico and will be 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 as well as the
public 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 more effective in removing salt from
the Colorado River in a most cost-effective manner.
The Basin states have agreed to cost sharing on an annual basis,
which adds 43 cents for every federal dollar appropriated. 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 a deep aquifer 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
the Compact apportioned waters of the Colorado River.
______
Prepared Statement of Larry Libeu, President, Western Coalition of Arid
States (WESTCAS)
The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) is pleased to submit
comments for the record, regarding programs contained in the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) fiscal year 2000 budget, for the
hearing on Energy and Water Appropriations. WESTCAS is an organization
of cities, towns, water and wastewater districts and associate agencies
from the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oregon, and Texas and who are dedicated to environmentally
conscientious planning of water resources and development of water
quality standards for the unique ecosystems of the arid West. Of
particular interest to WESTCAS and its member agencies are the federal
programs that can further our goals through partnerships and
scientifically sound regulation and guidance concerning our most
precious resource--water.
colorado river basin salinity control program
Since 1974, federal agencies and the seven basin states have been
working together to maintain the Colorado River's salinity levels
within a range which does not limit the economic, recreational, and
environmental uses of the river. The Colorado River is a major source
of water supply for the urban and agricultural regions of Utah, Nevada,
Arizona, and Southern California. It is important that Congress
continue to fund the federal portions of this successful program. With
continued development of water sources in the Upper Colorado Basin and
continued shortfalls in salinity control funding, the salinity levels
will continue to increase in the Lower Colorado River Basin. The
increased salinity in the Lower Colorado River Basin will have a long-
term detrimental financial impact on agricultural and urban activities
in the areas dependent on the Lower Colorado River water.
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
approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with normal water
supply conditions. For the last four years, federal appropriations for
Reclamation have not equaled the Forum-identified funding need for the
portion of the program the Federal Government has the responsibility to
implement. It is essential that implementation of Reclamation's
basinwide salinity control program be accelerated to permit the numeric
criteria to be met again under average annual long-term water supply
conditions, making up the shortfall. To assist in eliminating the
shortfall, the Forum once again recommends that Reclamation utilize up
front cost sharing from the Basin states to supplement federal
appropriations. This concept has been embraced by Reclamation and is
reflected in the President's proposed budget.
The President's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget contains funding
of $12 million for implementation of the basin-wide program. WESTCAS
requests that Congress appropriate $17.5 million for implementation of
the basin-wide program, an increase of $5.5 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.
water recycling and groundwater recovery
Projects funded under Title XVI of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) will
greatly improve water supply reliability and the environment. Title XVI
projects authorized by the Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-266), but not included in the President's
proposed fiscal year 2000 budget for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
are considered to be equally important. Implementation of such projects
is difficult without combined federal, state and regional assistance..
These authorized projects will greatly improve water supply reliability
and the environment through effective water recycling and recovery of
contaminated groundwater in the arid west. WESTCAS strongly requests
that Congress increase the appropriation level for Reclamation's Title
XVI program from $31,514 million to $100 million in order to proper
fund all of these authorized projects.
WESTCAS supports the funding in the President's proposed fiscal
year 2000 Budget for the following programs which are important to
ongoing activities in our region:
efficiency incentives program
Reclamation is encouraging innovation in water resources management
to help meet the water conservation objectives of the Reclamation
Reform Act of 1982. The program provides partnership capability for
Reclamation and its customers, in cooperation with States and other
entities, in seeking solutions to water use efficiency and
conservation. The program supports technical assistance to districts in
planning, evaluating, and implementing efficiency measures. Activities
are located within all Federal water projects in the 17 Western States.
endangered species recovery implementation
Reclamation is designated as a cooperative participant in recovery
measures to minimize the potential effects of Reclamation actions upon
listed or candidate species and reduce the potential for more stringent
requirements being imposed upon Reclamation projects as a result of
formal consultation pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act. Activities are located throughout the region including the
Upper and Lower Colorado River basins.
national fish and wildlife foundation
This program operates under a delegated grant of authority for fish
and wildlife assistance programs from the Secretary to the Commissioner
of the Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation's funds are used for fish and
wildlife restoration projects in partnership with local, state, tribal,
and/or nongovernmental organizations. Funding for the Foundation, and
the Foundation's support for programs like the Lower Colorado River
Multi-Species Conservation Program, are extremely important to the
development of comprehensive solutions to the complex endangered
species issues.
desalination research development program
This program addressees problems and technology needs for water
supply augmentation, water quality improvement and protection. Studies
are directed at reducing costs and minimizing environmental impacts
from salt removal, developing commercially attractive technologies,
improving surface and groundwater quality, and facilitating cost-
effective conversion of previously unusable water resources to usable
water supplies.
water management conservation program
This program provides for a water quality monitoring program in
cooperation with state and local entities. Funding requests provide for
the coordination of water management and conservation efforts with the
water users and other non-Federal entities. It also provides for water
conservation centers and training, improvements in water measurement
and accounting.
wetlands development program
The Wetlands Development Program allows for the development of
design criteria, strategies, and implementation of wetland enhancement
projects which provide for water quality, wildlife habitat, and
aesthetic purposes. Projects are located throughout the 17 Western
States and include demonstration projects using reclaimed wastewater
from existing treatment facilities in Arizona and wetlands and wildlife
habitat in Nevada.
california bay-delta ecosystem restoration
The Bay-Delta system provides habitat for fish and wildlife and is
also critical to California's economy serving as the hub of
California's water system, supplying more than two-thirds of the
State's 32 million residents with a portion of their drinking water and
irrigating 45 percent of the nation's produce. In September 1996, the
President signed the California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement Act
which authorizes $143.3 million per year in Federal funding for Bay-
Delta ecosystem restoration activities in 1998, 1999, and 2000. Federal
money for the Bay-Delta will fund an array of critical ecological
improvements, including habitat restoration, watershed protection,
fishery enhancement and water quality improvement.
Recently your Subcommittee was provided with a report by the Bureau
of Reclamation ``Annual Costs of Bureau of Reclamation Project
Operation and Maintenance for Fiscal years 1993-97''. WESTCAS has not
had the time to adequately review the report, however, several of our
members have raised the issue for our Budget Committee to review the
report because of the tight budget constraints their district's are
confronted with and the possibility of having inappropriate costs being
passed on in their own operating budgets. We will forward our comments
on to your subcommittee in the near future and would ask that your
subcommittee look further into the details contained in the report.
conclusion
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony. We believe our
comments emphasize the importance of continued funding for Reclamation
water resources management and ecosystem restoration programs that are
critical for water supply reliability in the arid West.
______
PACIFIC NORTHWEST WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Power Planning Council
The Northwest Power Planning Council appreciates the opportunity to
submit written testimony in support of the Clinton Administration's
fiscal year 2000 budget request for 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 assure for the Pacific Northwest an adequate supply of power at
the lowest possible cost, and to develop a major program to protect and
rebuild fish and wildlife resources 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.
Three federal agencies under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and the
Bonneville Power Administration, administer programs critical to the
Columbia River Basin. The Council works closely with all three agencies
in fulfilling its statutory responsibilities.
u.s. army corps of engineers
Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program
The Council continues to support the Corps' Columbia River Fish
Mitigation Program. The focus of the program is to reduce the mortality
of both juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead during their migration
through the projects and reservoirs comprising the Federal Columbia
River Power System. The Corps' fiscal year 2000 budget proposal for the
program is $100 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
Council supports the Corps' full $100 million budget request.
Significant amounts have been appropriated for the program for more
than a decade, and a recent study by the National Marine Fisheries
Service suggests that juvenile salmon survival through the four lower
Snake River hydro projects and reservoirs has improved. Although the
data has not been independently verified, NMFS scientists believe that
survival conditions may have improved over pre-project conditions.
While it remains unclear whether increases in juvenile survival through
the Snake River projects leads to increases in adult returns, it is
reasonable to assume that the installation and improvement of fish
passage at the projects under the Corps' Columbia River Fish Mitigation
Program will make the federal hydroelectric system less lethal.
Accordingly, it is critical that the Corps' Columbia River Fish
Mitigation Program be fully funded in fiscal year 2000 to ensure that
the effort continues to make the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers
safer for juvenile and adult salmon.
Council Review of the Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program
In the Subcommittee's fiscal year 1998 Conference Report, a
provision in the Joint Explanatory Statement was included directing the
Council, with assistance from the Independent Scientific Advisory Board
(ISAB), to conduct a review of the Corps' Columbia River Fish
Mitigation Program. Given the magnitude of the task, the Council agreed
with the ISAB's recommendation to conduct the review in three phases,
including an overview of the entire Columbia River Fish Mitigation
Program.
The first phase dealt with the proposed installation of extended
length bar screens at John Day Dam and the construction of a new
juvenile bypass outfall at Bonneville Dam. The scientists believed that
the small increases in survival to specific species from installation
of the screens were not justified. The ISAB felt that limited funds
should be used for ``pursuing existing surface spill alternatives and
funding research toward possible deployment of a surface-flow bypass
system'' at the dam instead of installing screens. Given the
uncertainty identified by the ISAB on the benefits of screens, the
Council has called for further research and testing of screen
prototypes that take into consideration the scientists' concerns, prior
to recommending any further major investments in screen installation at
John Day Dam.
In addition, at Bonneville Dam, the ISAB stated ``the high
mortality inflicted upon juvenile salmon by predators at the present
bypass outfall locations justifies relocation of the outfalls to
locations and habitats where predation rates are expected to be
significantly reduced.'' In addition to relocating the bypass outfalls,
the scientists encouraged ``integrated, long-term planning and study of
other planned alterations'' at Bonneville Dam. The Council transmitted
the ISAB's report to the Subcommittee on July 1, 1998.
In the ISAB's second phase report, the scientists reviewed the
development and testing of surface bypass systems and the dissolved gas
abatement program. The ISAB concluded that over 20 years of work to
improve turbine intake screen technology has yet to result in a turbine
intake screen that can achieve the 80 percent fish passage efficiency
standard for all species and stocks. Therefore, efforts to develop
other juvenile fish bypass alternatives that can achieve the 80 percent
goal for all species and stocks should be pursued. Surface collection
and bypass continue to show promise; however, the scientists caution
that substantial uncertainties remain regarding the level and changes
in survival of juvenile salmon that can be provided by surface bypass
facilities. Given the uncertainty, the ISAB recommended that all
juvenile passage alternatives be evaluated against the baseline of
spill, since spill more closely mimics natural processes than any other
bypass alternative. Spill should be considered the alternative when
improvements anticipated from other bypass technologies do not meet
passage goals. The Council continues to support the federal spill
program for juvenile passage through the federal hydropower system.
In its report on dissolved gas abatement, the scientific board
concluded that the Corps' program is important for rectifying
supersaturation of waters of the Snake and Columbia rivers, and that it
should continue with high priority. Attainment of the Clean Water Act
total dissolved gas standard of 110 percent throughout the hydropower
system will be difficult under involuntary spill conditions with the
majority of dams in place. The current program of modifications of dams
to reduce gas supersaturation should have benefits to salmon and other
components of the ecosystem, the scientists said. The Council
transmitted the ISAB's second report to the Subcommittee on January 11,
1999.
The third phase of the ISAB's review addressed adult fish passage
at the dams and also included an overview of the entire Columbia River
Fish Mitigation Program. On March 2, 1999, the Council released the
report to the public for review and comment. In this report, the ISAB
concluded that the subject of adult passage at Columbia and Snake River
dams has not been adequately dealt with, that returning adults to
spawning grounds may be more important than juvenile survival, and that
the Corps' planned site-specific measures may be supportable but
probably are not sufficient to ensure that adult spawning migrations
are unimpeded. The ISAB recommended that additional evaluation, field
research, and capital projects will be needed to address the adult
passage issues.
Next month, the Council will review the comments submitted by the
public and finalize a comprehensive report to Congress that will
include not only the ISAB's findings, but also the Council's final
recommendations to Congress on the program. We intend to transmit the
final report to the Subcommittee no later than early May 1999.
The Council has learned a great deal during this review process,
both about the current configuration of the fish passage facilities at
the federal dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers, and with regard to
new principles and guidelines that should be considered by the Corps in
planning additional passage improvements. Developing fish passage
systems is not an exact science, but one that is continually evolving.
As we increase our knowledge of the behavior patterns of anadromous
fish, and river processes, and improve our understanding of the need to
protect biodiversity, we will develop more effective fish passage
alternatives. These alternatives likely will be implemented to benefit
the range of species and stocks in the river, and may result in
providing multiple passage solutions at individual projects. They also
will reflect that the best passage solutions are those that take into
account and work with the behavior and ecology of the species using the
river system.
The Council realizes that the Columbia River Fish Mitigation
Program has enjoyed high funding levels for several years. Continuation
of the program at its full capability is necessary to ensure that
critical improvements to the system are implemented, and important
studies and tests completed so that fish survival through the dams can
continue to improve.
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. Studies over the last 15 years have
demonstrated that the temperature at which water is released from these
reservoirs is a key limiting factor for survival of anadromous and
resident fish in the Willamette basin. Local, state and federal
agencies, including the Council, have been seeking modification of
water temperature in the McKenzie River downstream from Blue River and
Cougar 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. An
Environmental Impact Statement was completed, and a Finding of No
Significant Impact was signed by the Division Commander on April 24,
1996. In March of this year, Willamette spring chinook and winter
steelhead were listed as threatened by the National Marine Fisheries
Service under the Endangered Species Act; the last significant wild
stock of spring chinook in the Willamette is in the McKenzie River. The
current estimated cost to install multi-level intake towers at the two
projects is $70.6 million.
Due to cost limitations associated with the project's
authorization, the Corps' current focus is on the Cougar Lake reservoir
intake tower, which has a total estimated cost (including future
inflation) of $50.077 million. In its fiscal year 2000 budget, the
Corps is proposing Cougar Lake for a new construction start, and has
requested $1.7 million in funding. The Council supports this project
and the requested funding level, and urges the Subcommittee to include
it in its fiscal year 2000 funding recommendations.
bureau of reclamation
The Bureau is proposing to spend $11.734 million in fiscal year
2000 on the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project. The Council
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, Yakama tribal water supply facilities will be improved and
tribal economic development, fish and wildlife, and cultural programs
will be enhanced.
The Council also strongly supports the Columbia and Snake River
Salmon Recovery Project, which the Bureau is proposing to fund at
$13.122 million for fiscal year 2000. The funds are used for important
purposes in the Snake River Basin, such as acquiring water through
leasing or on a willing-seller basis for flow augmentation to aid
migrating salmon and steelhead, and to address Endangered Species Act
requirements.
bonneville power administration
The Bonneville Power Administration is the primary implementor of
the Council's fish and wildlife program. 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
in September 1997 in a memorandum of agreement signed by the
secretaries of the Army, 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 2000, Bonneville
estimates that its total fish and wildlife budget will be $403.6
million.
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 (ISRP) to review fish and wildlife
projects proposed to be funded through Bonneville's direct program. For
fiscal year 2000, Bonneville expects to commit $100 million to its
direct program, and use up to $27 million of its borrowing authority.
The Council shares the Committee's objective that all fish and
wildlife funds be spent judiciously after thorough independent
scientific review. We are continuing to work with the region to fully
and fairly 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.
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 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 120 organizations and individuals in Washington, Oregon 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 2000 Civil Works Budget.--The maintenance of channels
and harbors serving all currently authorized Pacific Northwest deep
draft and coastal ports is a top priority for PNWA. We urge Congress to
provide sufficient funding to meet national needs for both operations
and maintenance (O&M) and new construction. The Administration's fiscal
year 2000 budget request for navigation O&M in Idaho, Oregon and
Washington and the request for preconstruction, engineering and design
for the Columbia River Channel Deepening appear to be adequate, but the
request for new construction is not sufficient. We oppose the overall
level of the request for civil works because it is provides inadequate
funding for crucial Corps waterways programs nationwide. While the
request of $3.9 billion for the Corps is on par with fiscal year 1999
appropriated levels, the proposal would only fund inland navigation and
flood control construction projects at about 50 percent of their
optimal schedule. We believe that a level of funding closer to $4.7
billion is needed to maintain the integrity of the civil works program.
We strongly oppose the Administration's proposed Harbor Services Fund
proposal. We believe Congressionally appropriated funding from the
general treasury is the best and most appropriate way to meet both
routine maintenance and unexpected dredging needs. We also oppose new
taxes on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration services and
plans for taxes to recover the cost of Coast Guard navigation services.
We support continued federal funding for operations and maintenance
to present authorized depths of federally authorized navigation
channels at shallow coastal harbors in Oregon and Washington. We
support the current method of funding new project starts.
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.
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.
Some 20 percent of the employment in the Northwest states is
directly related to international trade. 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
downward trend in funding included in the President's fiscal year 2000
budget request.
The Columbia River deep draft channel is the lifeblood of the
Columbia/Snake River System, which serves shippers from more than 40
states. To protect future growth and development of the River System,
we ask the Committee to fund the requested $892,000 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
completing the feasibility study for channel improvements of the Blair
Waterway Navigation Channel at Tacoma. We also support the
Administration's $3.4 million request to complete construction of the
East Waterway Channel Deepening at Seattle, which is proposed to be
carried out during O&M dredging.
Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration.--PNWA encourages the
Committee to appropriate $100,000 to begin a study that would focus on
ecosystem restoration opportunities within the Lower Columbia River.
The study is strongly supported by the Lower Columbia River Estuary
Program, and the States of Oregon and Washington have jointly agreed to
non-Federal sponsorship of the study.
Portland Harbor Environmental Dredging Project.--PNWA encourages
the Committee to appropriate $100,000 for the Corps to undertake a
reconnaissance study for an environmental dredging project at Portland
Harbor.
Minimum Dredge Fleet.--We encourage the Committee to maintain the
currently active hopper dredges operated by the US Army Corps of
Engineers and to reject any additional future 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 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.
Operations and Maintenance of the Region's Hydropower System and
the John Day Drawdown study.--We are concerned that the President's
fiscal year 2000 Budget request for construction on the Bonneville Dam
powerhouse phase II and The Dalles powerhouse is insufficient. We
encourage the Committee to increase funding for the Bonneville
powerhouse construction to $16.3 million. We also encourage the
Committee to increase funding for The Dalles powerhouse construction to
approximately $3.3 million. We support the President's requests for
Operations and Maintenance at these and other regional projects.
We have testified in previous years that we do not believe there is
biological justification for drawdowns. Just this year, the National
Marine Fisheries Service testified before the Northwest Power Planning
Council that salmon smolt survival through the four dams on the lower
Snake River (Ice Harbor, Little Goose, Lower Monumental and Lower
Granite) is as high or higher than it was before those dams were built.
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 US 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, fish-friendly turbine programs and
habitat restoration and protection. Third, we oppose funding to carry
out Phase II of the John Day drawdown study, and we do not support
funding to study drawdown of McNary. These programs and others are
included in the Administration's $100 million budget request for
Columbia River Fish Mitigation. We encourage the Committee to redirect
the $5.5 million proposed for these studies toward fish recovery
programs for which there is broad regional support.
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 in the Columbia
Basin has been expanded significantly through the establishment of the
Columbia Basin Forum, formerly known as the Three Sovereigns Forum. A
memorandum of agreement establishing this new body was recently signed
by the federal agencies, tribes and states. This process was created
without consulting affected stakeholders, and the participants do not
intend to include stakeholders in the consensus process. PNWA believes
that effective fish and wildlife programs can be implemented without a
new governance body. If a new management structure is necessary for
addressing the Endangered Species Act, the Northwest Power Planning
Council offers an appropriate model. Federal, state and tribal agencies
and regional stakeholders should work cooperatively to develop
solutions that maintain Congressional authority over navigation and the
other authorized purposes of the federal projects and state authority
over water and land use. If PNWA urges the Committee to support
collaboration in the Columbia Basin 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.
Demolition of the former U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Complex at
Walla Walla.--We ask the Committee to appropriate $4.7 million to
remove asbestos and lead paint and to tear down the former Corps
complex at the Walla Walla Regional Airport, Washington.
Columbia River Channel Designation, Interstate 5 Bridge between
Vancouver and Portland.--We ask the Committee to appropriate $50,000 to
designate a new navigation channel under the high span of the I-5
bridge. We hope that this action will be authorized in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999. This new channel will connect to the
existing channel upstream of the bridge, allowing for more efficient
use of the Columbia River and the I-5 bridge for navigation and surface
transportation.
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 120 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 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 2000 Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) budget. A summary of our
fiscal year 2000 funding request follows:
1.Support Administration's position that existing laws provide
authority to support Trinity River Division fish and wildlife
management and restoration activities. Further, the Hoopa Valley Tribe
supports the Administration's position that Central Valley Project
Improvement Act (CVPIA) funds are authorized for expenditure in the
Trinity River Basin.
2. 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.
3. Support proposed funding increase for the Klamath Project and
request an additional $750,000 for the Karuk and Klamath Tribes.
4. Request $150,000 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.
5. 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. Moreover,
utilization of fishery resources of the Klamath River has been
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 currently 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 decline. Through the 1980's, corresponding declines of up to
80 percent of the salmon and steelhead populations occurred. In
response to 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. However, the downward trend in Trinity fish populations has
continued as reflected by listing of coho salmon under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) (6 May, 1997) 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 continued monitoring and research will be necessary to provide
insight on status of resources, evaluation of restorative measures, and
effective management recommendations for further restoration. Primary
among the scientific achievements to date has been the development of
in-stream flow criteria that 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 2000. The Secretary's
Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study Report is now ready for printing,
and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is scheduled for
completion by April, 2000.
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: hypotheses underlying the Trinity River Flow
Evaluation Study recommendations will be tested through research; and
monitoring data will be used to measure how well river ecosystem health
objectives are met.
narrative justification and funding requests
1. The Tribe is in agreement with the Administration's legal
conclusions contained in the fiscal year 2000 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.
2. Funding Request for Fish and Wildlife Management--In January
1998, agencies responsible for managing the Trinity River fishery
resources determined that $13,000,000 was needed annually to fund
comprehensive management within the Trinity River Basin in order to
restore the fishery resources to pre-dam levels. The Hoopa Valley Tribe
participated in the development of this management plan.
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 2000. The requested
funding would ensure the Tribe's involvement in water project
operations planning, environmental impact analysis, hatchery
investigations, fisheries management, and would accelerate resource
restoration through unified, inter-governmental management actions.
In its seventh year, the Co-Management Agreement between Hoopa and
BOR has contributed not only to the fulfillment of the Federal trust
responsibilities 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 $750,000 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 improve
the health of the upper Klamath Basin ecosystem. Endemic suckers listed
under the ESA in Upper Klamath Lake, as well as salmon and steelhead
living in downstream areas would benefit from increased Tribal
involvement.
4. Request $150,000 from the General Activities Planning budget for
a feasibility study for upgrading the Lewiston Hydro-power generator,
green sturgeon and Pacific Lamprey studies. It is expected that the
Interior Secretary's Trinity River permanent fishery flow decision will
result in reduced diversions of Trinity River flows into California's
Central Valley. While being greatly beneficial to Trinity River fishery
resources and upholding the federal trust obligations to Indian tribes,
the decision will likely reduce the amount of electricity generated
from diverted 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 Powerhouse generators in
anticipation of the increased releases to the Trinity River. An
expected benefit of increased generation of electricity from the
Lewiston powerhouse is the possibility of using its revenues to pay for
future fish and wildlife restoration activities within the Trinity
River Basin, thereby reducing long-term costs to the Federal
Government.
In addition, the Tribe requests that $50,000 be provided for
conducting population and fish health 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 very
beneficial to both the Federal Government and Indian tribes while
trying to resolve inter-governmental 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.
results anticipated
Trinity Restoration Program: Effective restoration 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, would be promoted through collective 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 1999 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. The Secretary's
fishery flow allocation decision, originally mandated for fiscal year
1997, was delayed due to incomplete environmental documentation. It is
now anticipated that completed environmental documentation shall be
available to support the Secretary's Decision expected in fiscal year
2000.
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
habitats of the Klamath and Trinity rivers. 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 in developing a
comprehensive foundation for fishery restoration. This foundation
includes on-the-ground restoration work, assembly of scientific data on
fisheries and habitat, and the coordination across 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 basic information for development of
long-term management programs for these 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, lack
of funding has prevented the development of management programs for
these species.
conclusion
The Hoopa Valley Tribe's relationship with BOR has improved
significantly in recent years; however, it is clear that the fishery
management problems associated with the Central Valley Project and
Klamath Project operations still 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 2000 budget. I am available to discuss these matters
with you in more detail at your convenience. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of William A. Brakken, Community Liaison/Central
Oregon Team Leader, Northwest Area Foundation
deschutes basin resources conservancy
I understand that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy
and Water Development has an upcoming hearing pertaining to the
Deschutes Basin Resources Conservancy (DRC) in Central Oregon. This
seemed an appropriate time to share some information with you regarding
the Northwest Area Foundation's past experience with the DRC, as well
as our potential future relationship.
As you may be aware, the DRC grew out of a collaborative planning
effort initiated in 1992 by the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation and Environmental Defense Fund to improve instream flows
and water quality in the Deschutes River. Ultimately, that initiative
attracted the support of a large and diverse number of organizations
and individuals throughout Central Oregon--many of whom are now
represented on the DRC Board. The Northwest Area Foundation provided
the bulk of financial support--$300,000 over three years--for this
planning effort. We consider it to be among the most successful of our
recent watershed planning and management grants.
Recently the Foundation shifted the focus of our mission from
short-term grantmaking to individual nonprofit organizations to working
with entire communities in long-term partnerships of approximately 10
years. We anticipate committing $150 million to only a dozen or so
community partnerships in our eight-state region over the next decade.
One of the first places we are exploring for a possible partnership is
the regional community of Central Oregon. We were drawn to this region
for a number of reasons. But one of the most significant was the
promising model for regional collaboration that is currently being
demonstrated by the DRC.
We are particularly impressed with the quality and diversity of
individuals that DRC has attracted to serve on its board of directors.
During the past six months members of the Foundation's Central Oregon
Team have met individually with more than 150 citizens of the region--
most all of them identified through personal referrals. Judging from
the number of referrals we received of people serving on the DRC board,
and our meetings with many of those individuals, we can attest to the
high caliber of the board, as well as its action-orientation. In fact,
we are hopeful we can attract a similar caliber of individuals to a
steering committee we will soon convene to help design our prospective
partnership with the community.
The specific goal of our community partnerships is to reduce
poverty by encouraging better integration of the social, economic, and
environmental facets of a community's development. To effectively
accomplish this goal, we will need to work closely with local
organizations focused on similar objectives, such as the Deschutes
Basin Resources Conservancy. We commend their efforts to you, and hope
you will support them in whatever way possible. That, in turn, will
help us better leverage our potential investment in Central Oregon.
Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me
with any questions.
______
Prepared Statement of Ron Nelson, Chairman, Deschutes Basin Resources
Conservancy
summary
The Deschutes Basin Working Group, dba the Deschutes Basin
Resources Conservancy (DRC), is a non-profit, private corporation
established in Oregon in 1996. In September 1996, Congress enacted and
the President signed Public Law 104-208, which included S.1662, the
Oregon Resources Conservation Act. Section 301(h) (Division B, Title
III) of Public Law 104-208 authorizes $1.0 million per year through
2001. The DRC is limited to spending 5 percent of any appropriation on
administration.
In 1999, Congress appropriated $500,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation to support the DRC. The DRC is using these funds to
implement projects to improve water quality and quantity in the
Deschutes Basin. Water projects are crucial in the Deschutes Basin
where steelhead and bull trout are listed as threatened and Fall
Chinook are proposed for listing under the Federal Endangered Species
Act.
The DRC has supported eight demonstration projects in the Basin.
From October 1998 to March 1999 the DRC has leveraged $272,180 of its
funds to complete $777,680 in on-the-ground restoration projects. These
projects include: piping irrigation district delivery systems to
prevent water losses; securing instream water rights to restore flows
to Squaw Creek; providing riparian fences to protect riverbanks;
working with private timberland owners to restore riparian and wetland
areas; and seeking donated water rights to enhance instream flows in
the Deschutes Basin.
The DRC is governed by a diverse group of directors from private
and public interests from the region. It is a community-based,
cooperative endeavor that believes economic progress and natural
resource conservation need to work together to achieve success. The DRC
seeks voluntary actions based upon contracts and compensation for
property and services. The DRC does not seek, nor is it authorized, to
impose regulatory mandates through legal or political action.
1999 drc projects
Annual Water Leasing Program.--The DRC is working with water users
in targeted areas for water rights donations or sales to improve
instream flows. The program began November 1998 by meeting with each
irrigation district manager to introduce the leasing program and the
process for transfers. In early 1999 water rights holders were
contacted requesting the user's water donation. This program enables
water right holder to protect their water rights by leasing and
improves Deschutes flows.
Central Oregon Irrigation District Piping.--For the most part the
irrigation canals in the Upper Deschutes Basin are unlined and have
been dug in porous, volcanic soils, so water losses through percolation
can be quite high over the long distances that irrigation water must
travel from the point of diversion to the farms. The DRC and Central
Oregon Irrigation District propose to install roughly 3,960 feet of
pipe, an inlet structure, an outlet structure, four clean-outs and four
diversion structures. COID figures to conserve .29 cfs or .57 an ac/ft.
Projected over a 180 day period, this calculates to 102.6 ac/ft water
conserved. One half of the conserved water from this project will be
returned to instream flows in the Deschutes River. This project is an
important demonstration of how water can be conserved to benefit both
the irrigation district and its water users and the Deschutes
ecosystem.
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Riparian Fencing.--The DRC and
the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation of
Oregon are partners on a project to protect riparian areas in the
Deschutes Basin's Eagle Creek, Skookum Creek and the mainstem river.
The project constructs fence for livestock exclosures, places cattle
guards at road crossings and installs solar pumps to provide animals
water away from the riverbank. One of the DRC's primary goals is to
improve water quality. Healthy, functioning riparian areas are critical
to improving water quality in the basin. Riparian vegetation provides
fish and aquatic habitat, stream shading to reduce water temperatures,
bank stability and a filter for nutrients and sediments entering the
water. This project is especially important for the habitat of Bull
Trout that are listed as threatened and Fall Chinook and steelhead that
are pending listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act. This
project involves voluntary cooperation by the tribal grazing group
allottees. The Warm Springs Tribes are involved in various other
projects to improve stream conditions both on and off the reservation.
This project is a part of a larger effort to improve flows and water
quality for fish and wildlife.
North Unit Irrigation District Piping.--The DRC, North Unit
Irrigation District, Bureau of Reclamation and Natural Resource
Conservation Service are partners in a Water Conservation Grant Program
project for the Deschutes Basin. These groups are providing funds to
replace an open irrigation lateral with buried pipe. The project
consists of installing approximately 20,235 feet of plastic pipe, with
19 turnouts and related appurtenances. The delivered water will be
pressurized due to the elevation difference between the inlet at the
main canal and landowner outlets. This pipeline will provide irrigation
for approximately 445 acres. This project will save water, improve
energy efficiency and reduce operation and maintenance expenses. The
project will annually save about 600 acre feet of water. The majority
of the conserved water comes from eliminating seepage from the open
lateral. Water will also be saved by reducing system management losses
(carry water) and improving delivery to small land parcels. Standard
measuring devices, flow meters or flow regulators will be utilized at
all outlets. Use of flow meters on the larger outlets will improve on-
farm irrigation water management because landowners can readily verify
how much water they are currently using or have used to date. One half
of the conserved water from the project will be returned to instream
flows in the Deschutes River. This project is an important
demonstration of how water can be conserved to benefit both the
irrigation district and its water users and the Deschutes ecosystem.
The pressurized system will reduce the pumping requirements for
sprinkler irrigation systems to save energy. Most of the irrigated land
served by this lateral is currently being sprinkler irrigated.
Foley Creek Riparian Areas, Wetlands and Forest.--Foley Creek is
one of the most significant steelhead spawning and rearing areas in the
Deschutes Basin. The DRC, EDF and landowners, Ochoco Lumber, are
working together to develop a forest management plan to improve
riparian areas and wetlands in Upper Foley Creek. The project also
includes an intensive timber vegetation inventory. This inventory will
provide the foundation to construct a carbon assessment that meets
Environmental Protection Agency criteria. This may result in carbon
contracts and other types of commodity contracts for the landowner to
protect this habitat and benefit financially. This project is a
demonstration of how private sector market solutions can improve the
Deschutes ecosystem.
background
In 1989, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Confederated
Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation began a cooperative project to
reconcile on-reservation ecological and economic conflicts. In late
1992, the Tribes and EDF expanded the scope of the project to include
the entire Deschutes Basin. It was agreed that the initial focus would
be on river flows and water pollution. Flow-deficient stream reaches
and excessive water pollutant loads could only be mitigated by
identifying and reducing existing water diversions and pollution
discharges. At the same time, a high value was placed on being ``good
neighbors'' to other landowners and resources users within the Basin.
Positive incentives for changes in resource uses were emphasized
instead of costly and divisive political and legal conflicts. Solutions
employing economic incentives, such as water rights and pollution
allowance marketing, were introduced and experiences elsewhere in the
West were reviewed.
A key forum for this community dialogue, the ``Ad Hoc Deschutes
Group'', was formed. The 14 member Ad Hoc Group had representatives of
all economic sectors in the Basin. The irrigation community holds the
most water rights and reservoir storage and therefore has the greatest
impact among resource users on the pattern and amount of river flows.
At the same time, water quality degradation stems from a diverse set of
land uses driving non-point water pollution. An important part of the
project was to assure that the federal interests in the Basin were
addressed along with those of the tribes, resource users, and local and
state governments.
The Ad Hoc Group recognized the need for a private organization
with ecosystem-determined goals and methods based on positive
incentives, consensus, and local governance. Since approximately half
of the Basin's land area is managed by federal agencies it was clear
that such a private organization would need the capacity to partner on
projects with the federal agencies to be truly ecosystem and basinwide
in scope. In March, 1996, Senator Hatfield introduced S. 1662
authorizing federal agencies to work with this private organization,
known as the Deschutes Basin Working Group. Title III of the Oregon
Resource Conservation Act of 1996, signed by the President in
September, 1996, authorizes the following:
--Federal agencies to work with the private Deschutes Basin Working
Group, dba Deschutes Basin Resources Conservancy (DRC)
--Secretaries of Interior & Agriculture to appoint DRC board members
for 3 year terms
--Federal participation with DRC in ecological restoration projects
on federal and non-federal land and water with 50-50 cost share
--Five year startup authorization of $1.0 Million a year federal
fund; 50/50 cost share with DRC
--Emphasize voluntary market-based economic incentives
The Deschutes Basin Working Group, later to adopt an operating name
of the Deschutes Basin Resources Conservancy (DRC), has the goal of
implementing on-the-ground projects that enhance the quality of the
region's natural resources and add value to its economy.
Its board consists of nine members from the Basin's private sector;
hydropower, livestock grazing, recreation/tourism, timber, land
development, irrigation (2), environmental (2), and two members from
the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation. In addition to
the private board members there are two board members appointed from
the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, two board members
representing the State of Oregon, and four members representing local
governments within the Deschutes Basin.
The DRC will receive funds through tax exempt donations from
individuals, businesses, and corporations, including philanthropic
foundations, and from government agencies seeking project development
assistance or collaboration. It will seek to develop income from direct
sources such as fee-for-service.
federal appropriations in fiscal year 2000 for the drc--an investment
in central oregon, in federal agencies' future role and in river basin
management
The DRC has a foundation enabling it to make a substantial
contribution toward meeting the region's economic and ecological
challenges. The potential for the DRC to marshal significant and
ongoing resources and cooperation is great. The engagement of private
sector interests in the design, funding, and implementation of
ecological restoration efforts is an important precedent to help
relieve federal budgetary requirements under a variety of programs and
responsibilities. The DRC's combination of private and local interests
with those of the federal agencies provides an opportunity to explore
the cooperative sharing of authorities and responsibilities. The DRC
represents a new institutional approach to river basin management that
will be applicable to other river basins throughout the nation,
particularly in the western regions.
______
Prepared Statement of Jan Lee, Executive Director, Oregon Water
Resources Congress
Chairman Domenici and Members of the Subcommittee: Mr. Chairman,
members of the subcommittee, I am Jan Lee, executive director of the
Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC). The OWRC represents irrigation,
water control, drainage and water improvement districts, private ditch
and irrigation corporations, cities and counties, individual farmers
and ranchers statewide as well as having agribusiness associates as
members.
I am writing to urge your support for the $18,366,000 included in
the President's fiscal year 2000 Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation
projects in the State of Oregon. The funding for these projects
represents a valuable commitment to meeting the needs of our member
organizations at a time when many are confronted with the problem of
how to meet water delivery needs for their district populations while
at the same time addressing environmental and Native American
requirements. There are particular projects like the Deschutes
Ecosystem Restoration program and the Klamath project in Southern
Oregon that typify this balance.
OWRC has a larger concern that the overall funding for the Bureau
of Reclamation the past several years has not been adequate to address
the backlog of projects in their program. We were greatly surprised
that Congress cut the Bureau's Budget by 11 percent for fiscal year
1999. The cuts in the Oregon Water management and Technical Assistance
program, Efficiency Incentives program, Water Management Conservation
Program and the Title XVI make it difficult for water users in the
state to address the combination of water/environmental/Native American
water resource issues.
In addition to the proposed funding for Oregon projects in the
fiscal year 2000 Budget, we would ask the Subcommittee to consider
funding to move forward the Willow Lake Natural Treatment System Title
XVI project in Salem, Oregon, a project that we support because of the
agricultural component associated with the proposal. We would also ask
that additional funding be included in the Efficiency Incentives
Program for the Bend Feeder Canal in Bend, Oregon.
I would also ask that the Subcommittee continue to look into the
issues surrounding the report to the Subcommittee that the Bureau of
Reclamation provided concerning annual costs associated with operation
and maintenance for fiscal years 1993-1997. Our district's already have
very tight budget constraints and are concerned with possibilities of
having increased costs passed on that may have nothing to do with their
projects.
Thank you for considering our requests and we look forward to
favorable action by the subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the McKenzie Watershed Council
The McKenzie Watershed Council is an advisory body established in
1993 with the purpose of helping to address management issues in
Oregon's McKenzie River watershed and to provide a framework for
coordination and cooperation among key interests. The mission of the
20-member council is to foster stewardship of McKenzie Watershed
resources, deal with issues in advance of resource degradation, and
ensure sustainable watershed health, function, and uses.
In March 1995, the Council, which includes a representative from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, agreed by consensus to support
federal implementation of the Willamette River Temperature Control
project. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been authorized to
evaluate and plan for the installation of temperature control
structures in the McKenzie Watershed on the Cougar and Blue River
projects. The recommended plan is to modify the projects by adding one
multi-level, ported intake structure at each project. These structures
will permit selective withdrawal of water from different elevations
within the reservoirs to achieve preferred downstream water
temperatures for anadromous and native fish species. The Cougar and
Blue River projects are only a few miles above their respective river's
confluence with the McKenzie River, so their influence on the McKenzie
temperature regime is significant. The recommended plan is expected to
produce an additional 16,700 spring chinook salmon annually in the
McKenzie River watershed.
Implementation of the Willamette River Temperature Control project
takes on extra significance with the expected federal threatened
species listing of the Upper Willamette spring chinook salmon. The
McKenzie Watershed contains the last self-sustaining population of
native spring chinook salmon in the Willamette system. Historically the
McKenzie Watershed was the destination for 40 percent of the native
spring chinook salmon passing above Willamette Falls. Obviously, the
McKenzie Watershed will play a major role in the restoration of
Willamette spring chinook salmon.
Alterations to the water temperature regime of the McKenzie River
have been cited by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as a key
limiting factor for the production of spring chinook salmon. In
addition to spring chinook, bull trout are listed as ``threatened''
under the federal Endangered Species Act, and their status would be
improved with a modified temperature regime.
The McKenzie Watershed Council commends the Clinton
Administration's funding request for construction of this critical
temperature control device. However, this funding request does not do
enough to protect the McKenzie River's spring chinook salmon. The
Council supports increasing fiscal year 2000 construction funding to $5
million, which will accelerate completion of this critical project. In
addition, this funding level will provide the scheduling flexibility
necessary to accommodate spring chinook salmon migration and spawning
cycles. It is essential that construction activities be managed in a
manner that will minimize impacts on salmon.
Adequate funding for this project, which will assure timely
initiation and proper management, will accelerate the recovery of the
McKenzie spring chinook salmon population. In comparison to other
recovery options such as aquatic habitat enhancement, temperature
control is the most effective and least costly alternative for
restoring fish populations. Implementation of temperature control
structures on the Cougar and Blue River projects will complement other
critical restoration efforts being completed by public and private
stakeholders in the McKenzie Watershed and throughout the Willamette
Basin.
______
Prepared Statement of William Martin, Chairman, Tumalo Irrigation
District
Chairman Domenici and Members of the Subcommittee: Tumalo
Irrigation District (TID) is writing to urge your support for their
request of $2,000,000 in the Bureau of Reclamation's fiscal year 2000
budget. This money would be used for the piping of the Bend Feed Canal.
This work would be undertaken through the Bureau of Reclamation's
Efficiency Incentives Program.
TID is located in Bend, Oregon and diverts its water from the
Deschutes River and from Tumalo Creek. The water diverted from the
Deschutes River is transported through a rapidly urbanizing area in an
open canal which is made of porous volcanic materials. A portion of the
canal is already piped and TID proposes using this funding for piping
the balance of the canal including the flume over Tumalo Creek.
The piping of the Bend Feed Canal will cost approximately
$4,000,000, half of which will be paid for by the Tumalo Irrigation
District. This piping will save a minimum of 20 cubic feet per second
(cfs). From this savings, TID proposes targeting a 5 cfs flow for the
Tumalo Creek, which currently is dried up in low water years The
remaining 15 cfs of old rights will be exchanged for TID's 1961 rights
which will be put in stream. The piping project will not expand TID's
irrigated acreage.
This project will help reestablish Tumalo Creek as a spawning area
for fish and contribute flow to the Deschutes River. These flows will
help in meeting the water needs of the northwest fish on the threatened
or endangered species list.
Although TID is experiencing an abundant snow pack this year,
district users remember the drought years. The water savings will help
insure a more reliable delivery of water in years of short supply.
This project is a continuation of TID's conservation plan. Over the
last four years TID has spent approximately $2,500,000 on piping its
canals, laterals and ditches. In addition to the $2,000,000 that will
be provided under the cost-sharing for this project, TID will spend
approximately $800,000 to replace two flumes and approximately $250,000
to install a fish screen in the next year.
TID is a small irrigation district and needs federal assistance for
the completion of the effort to pipe the Bend Feed Canal. As population
in the Bend urban area is occurring at a rapid pace, enclosing the
canal with pipe will reduce the drowning risk of children, pets and
wildlife. TID believes the project is beneficial to the public with its
water savings and safety features, and will provide increased
reliability to its users.
The Tumalo Irrigation District appreciates the Subcommittee's
consideration of this request for the Bureau of Reclamation's fiscal
year 2000 budget.
______
Prepared Statement of Mayor Donna Evans, City of West Jordan, Utah
Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing the opportunity to testify
before your Committee. My name is Donna Evans, and I am the Mayor of
West Jordan, Utah. The purpose of my testimony is to request $1.65
millionfor the federal share of the construction for the West Jordan,
Utah Water Reuse Project and $700,000 to complete the feasibility study
and the planning and design for the Jordan River Meander project to be
constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Water Reuse project has been authorized as part of Public Law
104-266 amending the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Facilities
Act (Title XVI of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment
Act of 1992). The City has committed the 75 percent local share for the
project and is prepared to proceed. The Corps of Engineers expects to
finish the feasibility study in fiscal year 2000 and complete the plans
and specifications for the project in the next fiscal year.
west jordan water reuse project
This project is located in the City of West Jordan, Utah, with a
current population of over 52,000 people. As a suburb of Salt Lake
City, the City of West Jordan is experiencing rapid growth. Since 1986
the water use in the City has increased over 55 percent to over 13,000
acre feet per year. During the summer months, water use increases
mostly as a result of lawn watering and other outdoor irrigation
activities. Records indicate that the average daily flow may increase
as much as 77 percent over average annual flow to a maximum daily water
use rate of almost 20 million gallons a day.
This project would consist of the construction of the facilities to
treat and distribute reclaimed water for the irrigation of public and,
possible, private properties. The reclaimed water would be obtained
from the effluent of South Valley water reclamation facility, located
in the City of West Jordan. Up to 7000 acre feet per year of water
would be available to reduce the peak loading of the culinary water
delivery system and supplies. The water would receive tertiary
treatment and disinfection prior to distribution.
Due to the rapid growth of not only the City of West Jordan, but
also the entire Salt Lake Valley, water resources are now being taxed
to their limits. Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District (SLCWCD),
which wholesales water to over twenty different entities in the valley,
is projecting reaching their current peak flow capacity in three years
or less. West Jordan currently purchases forty to fifty percent of
their water supplies from SLCWCD, most of which is during peak demand
of summer. Reducing the peak loading of West Jordan would not only
benefit the residents of the City, but also the rest of the customers
of SLCWCD by delaying or reducing the costly upgrades to the wholesale
delivery system of SLCWCD.
Although such water reuse is already being accomplished in other
areas of the country, it is a relatively new approach to water
conservation in Utah. The State of Utah has recently passed regulations
on the use of effluent from treatment facilities. All current discharge
parameters of South Valley Reclamation Facility meet the State
regulations for Type I uses. Type I use is that which ``where human
exposure is likely.'' Additionally, the State Division of Water Rights
has recently issued their opinion on how the rights to the effluent
would be distributed. Although there is not yet an official ruling, the
City has been assured by the State Engineer that whatever water the
City contributes to the treatment plant and has the original water
rights for, the City has a right to reuse that quantity of effluent.
Following the initial feasibility study, the City would proceed
with detailed plans and specifications for the required facilities.
These facilities would include, but not be limited to the following:
Diversion structure with sand and/or activated carbon filter beds;
lined holding pond or reservoir; pumping facility with chlorination or
other disinfection capabilities; booster pump station(s); distribution
system; and metering and billing capability.
For the most part, all facilities would be constructed on City
property or right of ways. Some land may have to be shared with or
purchased from South Valley Reclamation Facility. Disturbance of any of
the properties would be minimal. The impact would be no greater than,
and possibly less, than the installation of necessary utilities to
serve the growing population.
Initially, it is projected that the project would be delivering up
to 1000 acre feet of water to over 300 acres of City parks, cemeteries,
and athletic complexes. As the system is expanded, it could serve a
number of commercial landscapes and eventually private properties. As
aforementioned, the City could divert up to 7000 acre feet of water,
with current water rights.
With the continuing growth of the Salt Lake Valley and particularly
that of the City of West Jordan, new water supply sources are being
exhausted physically and financially. Over one third of all water
consumed is for irrigation of developed landscapes. This project would
put to beneficial use water which is now discharging directly into the
Great Salt Lake. Additionally, the project would reduce the use of
drinking quality water for irrigation purposes, making more available
where potable water is more critical. The $1.65 million would be the
full federal share for the entire project.
jordan river meander project
The Corps and the City of West Jordan are working on an
environmental enhancement project to restore the River's meander
through the City to reduce the River's current scouring impacts caused
by man-made changes to the River's channel. The project will restore
the River to its natural meandering path through a 1.7 mile corridor in
the City and relocate 48'' and 56'' sewer lines to an alignment further
west of the River.
The Salt Lake District Office of the Corps of Engineers reports
that with the funding they hope to complete the feasibility study in
early fiscal year 2000 and initiate the planning and design phases of
the project next fiscal year. The Corps will need $700,000 in fiscal
year 2000 ($130,000 to complete feasibility and $570,00 to begin
planning and design). The total Jordan River Meander project, including
construction, is $6.8 million.
Thank you very much for your kind consideration of our requests.
Water supply is essential to the quality of life in West Jordan, Utah
as it is in most western cities. The Reuse project redirects and
strengthens the City's new strategy in water conservation and long term
water supply. The Jordan River is the historic and ecological center of
our city and having it restored to a more meandering course will
enhance the quality of life for our citizens and improve the natural
environment for our wildlife. In both cases the help from you and your
committee will have a major positive impact on the quality of life in
our city for our citizens. Thank you for your help.
______
Prepared Statement of The Dry Prairie Rural Water
Dry Prairie Rural Water (DPRW) joins the Fort Peck Tribes in the
request for funds to continue the planning of the Fort Peck Reservation
Rural Water System in the amount of $447,000 from the Burec General
Investigations Account. DPRW serves the off reservation portion of
Roosevelt, Sheridan, Daniels and portions of Valley county. The funds
requested to address pre-authorization planning of the DPRW system are
$193,000.
With the funds from fiscal year 1999 appropriations, DPRW
accomplished a tremendous amount towards the advancement of the
project. The coordination and education of the public, Environmental
analysis and pre-construction engineering are progressing very well.
The state has also recognized the need for this system and have passed
through committee an $82,000 Renewable Resource grant and a $100,000
appropriation through the Joint Committee on Resources. These funds
will be for fiscal year 1999 and 2000.
With the funds from this request and the state and local funds, we
hope to able to complete the environmental assessment and final
engineering work. In the event the project is authorized this year, we
will be ready to begin design level investigations.
With the help from the previously allocated funds, DPRW has been
able to secure a strong public participation in this project. All or
100 percent of the cities have passed resolutions to participate in the
system. They have paid or budgeted $5 per water service. The rural
drive is going equally as well. From the rural sector we ask a $100 fee
to be included in the planning of the system. Over 50 percent have sent
in their fee with about 20 per week coming in at this time. The rural
membership drive was started in December of 1998.
One of the benefits that has already been realized from this effort
is the trust and friendship building between the on and off-Reservation
people. The joint effort to solve this common problem has made us aware
of the different problems each of us face on both sides of the
reservation borders. The problems will be easier to solve together.
The water quality problems in the DPRW service area are similar to
the problems on the Fort Peck Reservation. DPRW has one city with a
condemned water system with two more operating at the edge of
compliance. The quality of the ground water we are presently using has
deteriorated quickly in recent years. Several cities have recently
built treatment facilities only to find that they do not adequately
purify the water. The excessive amounts of iron, sodium, nitrates, and
sulfates are very expensive and difficult to filter out.
We strongly believe that the only permanent and most economically
feasible solution to the water problems in North East Montana is a
regional water system using Missouri River water. With out this type of
system, we will be forever struggling to find ways to make useless
water usable. The health and economical welfare of this area depends on
the success of this project.
The Montana delegation introduced S 841 and H 2306 to the 105th
Congress. These bills have been reintroduced this year. With strong
state and local involvement we hope to be more successful in our bid
for authorization.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux
The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes respectfully request
funds to continue planning of the Fort Peck Reservation RWS, Montana,
in the amount of $447,000. The Tribes are joined in fiscal year 2000 by
the Dry Prairie 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 ($254,000)
and within Dry Prairie Water System ($193,000).
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 through fiscal year
1999, $810,000 were appropriated.
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 Assiniboine and
Sioux Tribes have continued to work with the Bureau of Reclamation and
the 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 1999, incorporating the cost of
expanding facilities on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation to serve the
Dry Prairie 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 1999 Montana Legislature is
currently considering $182,000 in planning funds. The needs and
facility costs determined for the Dry Prairie Water System are being
incorporated into the Final Engineering Report.
Based on the considerable pre-authorization work that has been
completed fiscal year 2000 funding will provide for conclusion of the
environmental assessment and value engineering concepts in the Final
Engineering Report. In the event the project is authorized in fiscal
year 1999, the fiscal year 2000 appropriations will be used to complete
NEPA compliance requirements and to begin design level investigations.
progress of the fort peck assiniboine and sioux tribes
Through the efforts of this Subcommittee, planning for the project
has been adequately advanced and we are hopeful that the project will
be authorized this year. Specific technical objectives with the fiscal
year 2000 funds include continued public involvement and coordination
with off-Reservation interests in the Dry Prairie Water System by the
Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, continued work with the Bureau
of Reclamation on NEPA and ways of reducing project costs while
delivering necessary water requirements.
The Tribes are extremely pleased with progress on the project to
date. fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 1999 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 Reservation.
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 76
percent federal and 24 percent local, consistent with the Safe Drinking
Water Act, as amended, and comparable projects funded by the
Subcommittee, the non-federal cost share would be $16.0 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 Dry
Prairie 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 and to retire
debt. The Dry Prairie monthly cost of water at $40.00 is near the edge
of the ability to pay.
dry prairie water system activities
Part of the effort of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes
during fiscal year 1997 and 1998 was to work with the off-Reservation,
Dry Prairie, interests in the project to assist them with organization
and an improved understanding of the project. This resulted in the
formation of a Steering Committee for the Dry Prairie System, which
then evolved to the formation of a conservation district under Montana
law or a non-federal entity with a board of directors to plan and
design the Dry Prairie system.
The board has undertaken a fund drive for both communities and
rural residences. One hundred percent (100 percent) of the communities
have indicated their support of the project by contributing $5.00 per
service connection, and as much as 75 percent participation from rural
farmers and ranchers is expected with a $100.00 sign up requirement to
evidence the support of the individual to the project. The degree of
support for the project exceeds most other rural water projects in the
northern great plains and indicates the severity of the water problem
in the region. Improvement in the source and quality of water are
considered essential to stabilizing the population of the area and
attracting new industry.
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 Tables 1 and 2.
project authorization sought in fiscal year 1999
In the first session of the 105th Congress, the Montana delegation
introduced S. 841 and H.R. 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 was held in summer 1998. Means of
financing the project within the Reclamation budget were discussed in
the context of the GAO Report on this project and Lewis and Clark.
The Montana delegation is working with the Tribes and the Dry
Prairie Rural Water to re-introduce authorizing bills early in this
session. The 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 have worked with the Bureau of Reclamation to address its
concerns related to federal and non-federal cost share, among other
matters. Many of the initial issues have been clarified to the mutual
satisfaction of the sponsors and Reclamation. There has also been good
coordination with the Western Area Power Administration on the power
provisions of the bills.@
Table 1.--Comparison of Fort Peck Total Dissolved Solid Levels With
Comparable Projects
Total dissolved solids
project community
Project/community (mgl)
Fort Peck--Fort Kipp.............................................. 2,730
Lewis and Clark--Upper Limit...................................... 2,600
Mni Wiconi--Red Shirt............................................. 2,332
Mni Wiconi--Reliance.............................................. 2,056
Mni Wiconi--Murdo................................................. 1,761
Mni Wiconi--Kennebec.............................................. 1,740
Mni Wiconi--Presho................................................ 1,398
Fort Peck--Poplar................................................. 1,380
Fort Peck--Frazer................................................. 1,180
Lewis and Clark--Lower Limit...................................... 1,179
Mni Wiconi--Wakpamni Lake......................................... 1,125
Mni Wiconi--Horse Creek........................................... 869
Fort Peck--Brockton............................................... 748
Mni Wiconi--Pine Ridge Village.................................... 416
Table 2.--Comparison of Fort Peck Sulfate Levels With Comparable
Projects
Project/Community Sulfate (mgl)
Lewis and Clark--Upper Limit...................................... 1,500
Mni Wiconi--Reliance.............................................. 1,139
Fort Peck--Fort Kipp.............................................. 1,120
Mni Wiconi--Red Shirt............................................. 1,080
Mni Wiconi--Murdo................................................. 1,042
Mni Wiconi--Kennebec.............................................. 984
Mni Wiconi--Presho................................................ 644
Lewis and Clark--Lower Limit...................................... 538
Fort Peck--Frazer................................................. 498
Mni Wiconi--Horse Creek........................................... 410
Mni Wiconi--Wakpamni Lake......................................... 398
Fort Peck--Brockton............................................... 212
Fort Peck--Poplar................................................. 103
Mni Wiconi--Pine Ridge Village.................................... 70
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Geringer, Governor, State of Wyoming
This testimony supports the appropriation in fiscal year 2000 of
$17,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation's basin-wide Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Program. This testimony is submitted in support
of a fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $17,500,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation's Colorado River Salinity Control Program. Testimony was
recently submitted to this Subcommittee by the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum (Forum), a seven-state organization created by
the Governors of the Colorado River Basin States, by the Forum's
Executive Director, Jack Barnett. The State of Wyoming, a member state
of the Forum, concurs 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 urge the Congress to increase the appropriation for this Program
by $5,200,000. The implementation of the Program has fallen behind the
needed pace to prevent salinity concentration levels from exceeding
specified numeric criteria in the water quality standards for the
Colorado River. In addition to considerations of complying with this
basin-wide water quality standard, the United States has committed to
the Republic of Mexico, pursuant to Minute 242 of the 1944 ``Treaty
Between the United States and Mexico, Relating to Waters of the
Colorado and Tijuana River and of the Rio Grande,'' to managing the
salinity concentrations of water deliveries to Mexico.
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). Like the
Forum, the Council 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 meet the objective of assuring continuing compliance with the basin-
wide water quality standards.
The Council last met in October 1998 and developed funding
recommendations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 based on the progress
the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the
Bureau of Land Management and the seven states are making in
implementing their programs for managing and reducing the salt loading
into the Colorado River System. The Council's funding recommendations
further heeded analyzes made by the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Forum. Every 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 devised 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 2000 to accomplish needed salinity control activities.
This funding level is appropriate if the salinity of Colorado River
waters is to be controlled so as not to exceed the numeric salinity
concentration criteria contained within the water quality standards for
the Colorado River. Without the necessary levels of funding, there is
an increased probability that the numeric criteria will be exceeded
resulting in violations of the basin-wide water quality standards.
Without the necessary levels of funding, there is an increased
probability that the numeric criteria will be exceeded resulting in
violations of the basin-wide water quality standards. Failure to
maintain the standards' numeric criteria could result in the imposition
of state-line water quality standards (as opposed to the successful
basin-wide approach that has been in place since 1975) and impair
Wyoming's ability to develop our Compact-apportioned water supplies.
The present basin-wide salinity control program and its funding
arrangements appropriately reflects that the primary beneficiaries of
the basin-wide salinity control program are in the Lower Basin while
the most cost-effective opportunities to reduce salt loading are
upstream in the Upper Basin. Failure to maintain the standards' numeric
criteria could result in the imposition of state-line water quality
standards (as opposed to the successful basin-wide approach that has
been in place since 1975) and impair the states' ability to develop its
Compact-apportioned water supplies. Delaying or deferring adequate
funding 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 comply with the water quality standards. ``Catch-up'' funding
in the future 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.
In July, 1995, Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act. The amended Act provided Reclamation with additional
authorities that have improved upon the cost-effectiveness of
Reclamation's salinity control program, in large part because it
provided for proposals and greater involvement from the private sector.
Submitted proposals have far exceeded the available funding, while at
the same time overall progress in accomplishing the rate of salinity
control determined to be needed and as set forth in the Plan of
Implementation continues to fall behind the scheduled rate.
We urge this Subcommittee to fund the level for the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Program line-item in Reclamation's budget at
$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
for completed Reclamation 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 2000
appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation.
______
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single
life science organization in the world, comprised of more than 43,000
members, appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony on
the fiscal year 2000 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.
In 1997, 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 proposed a government-wide Climate
Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) to implement this commitment and to
find solutions to problems associated with greenhouse gasses. The
President's budget for DOE proposes $437 million for this initiative.
These funds will be allocated throughout the Agency's programs
including the Office of Science (SC). Biological research is slated to
receive a significant boost from this initiative. As part of the CCTI,
DOE will support microbiological research on carbon management science
including basic studies on microorganisms that consume carbon, and on
other microbes that assist in the development of carbon free energy
sources. 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 budget request for DOE's
science programs. The Administration's proposed budget for fiscal year
2000 requests $17.8 billion for the DOE overall. Included in that
request is $2.8 billion for programs supported by the Office of
Science. The following comments focus on research supported by the
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) and Basic Energy Sciences
(BES) programs and make recommendations related to carbon management,
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.
carbon management science
An important component of the CCTI program in BER addresses the
basic phenomena and strategies for managing the carbon budget of our
terrestrial and ocean systems. Biological sequestration of carbon, both
its capture and stability of the biologically produced carbon forms,
has major effects on the global CO2 and methane
concentrations. Furthermore, stored carbon such as soil carbon, has
beneficial effects on plant growth, water retention in soil, and soil
structure.
The President's budget proposes an increase from $5.5 million in
fiscal year 1999 to $13.0 million in fiscal year 2000 for the carbon
management research program. Approximately $5.8 million of this budget
would be devoted to genome sequencing of microorganisms important to
carbon sequestion and hydrogen production. ASM strongly supports this
enhanced effort and believes that new understanding will be derived
that will aid decisions about management of the global carbon cycle,
and new biotechnologies discovered that can reduce CO2,
convert carbon to useful products and stabilize fixed carbon.
genomics
DOE supports the Microbial Genome Program (MGP) within the Office
of Biological and Environmental Research . The program, developed in
1994 as a compliment to the Human Genome Program, already provides
complete genome sequence information on important microorganisms. The
Administration has proposed $10 million for fiscal year 2000, about $1
million more than last year.
Genome sequencing has revolutionized the scientific approach to
understanding biology and is providing a depth of insight not
previously possible. DOE's MGP has led the way in this new biological
era, completing full genome sequences of several microorganisms
important in energy and environmental processes. Now, however, other
nations have seen the promise of this field of research and have
mounted significant programs. Continued growth in the DOE MGP is
critical to maintaining U.S. leadership in this important field. This
research should include not only the genome sequencing but the
functional analysis of those genomes, the associated software and
databases to fully and efficiently analyze the information, and
development of new technologies to help characterize the genes of
unculturable microbes in nature.
In view of the tremendous potential to be derived form microbial
genome sequencing, 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, and a bacterium that is extremely
resistant to radiation, Deinococcus radiodurans. 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 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 level of $15 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 has
begun 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 in a more cost-effective manner. The results of
these initiatives will be readily available to other scientists,
through the use of on-line 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 microorganisms compliments
the research supported by the DOE's Natural and Accelerated
Bioremediation Program (NABIR) and other DOE bioremediation research
initiatives. The NABIR program is level funded from fiscal year 1998
with a request for fiscal year 2000 of $19.1 million. 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, which is more consistent with the
original $40 million plan for the program.
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 NABIR program
supports the basic research that is needed to understand this
technology to more reliably develop the practical applications for
cost-effective cleanup of pollutants at DOE sites. The ASM strongly
recommends that additional funding be allocated to balance the program
elements and pollutants studied as originally envisioned when the NABIR
Program was designed.
ocean science
Other exciting new microbiological research supported by BER is in
the Ocean Sciences Program. The Administration's budget request
includes $6.9 million for this program in fiscal year 2000.
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 $888.1 million for fiscal year 2000. This
funding level is an $88.6 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.
This program focuses on research in both microbiological and plant
sciences that will lead to new discoveries in producing energy without
risk to the environment and finding effective methods of cleaning up
existing contamination. The CCTI effort of BES is proposed to increase
from $8.0 million to $20.0 million in fiscal year 2000. Research on the
microbial role in the carbon cycle is an important part of this
program.
Other microbiological research supported by this program includes
biotechnology related to energy, 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 emitted 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, $6 million
more than fiscal year 1999 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 recommends that the CCTI programs in BER and BES receive
the $33.0 million proposed for fiscal year 2000, and that $5.8
million of this be devoted to genome sequencing of
microorganisms important to global carbon management.
--The ASM recommends $30 million be appropriated for the NABIR
program to provide the funds necessary to sustain a balanced
program of bioremediation research on chemicals important to
DOE site cleanup.
--The ASM fully supports the Administration's request for $6.9
million for the Ocean Sciences Program.
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 Dr. Ellen Futter, President, American Museum of
Natural History
Founded in 1869, the American Museum of Natural History is one of
the nation's pre-eminent scientific and educational institutions. For
over 129 years, the Museum has pursued a mission of examining critical
scientific issues and increasing public knowledge about them.
Throughout the Museum's history, its explorers and scientists have
pioneered discoveries that have offered us new ways of looking at
nature and human civilization. The Museum has sponsored thousands of
expeditions, sending scientists and explorers to every continent. This
rich scientific legacy includes an irreplaceable record of life on
earth in collections of some 32 million natural specimens and cultural
artifacts that are an extraordinary research tool and represent the
focus of science at the Museum. The Museum's power to interpret wide-
ranging scientific discoveries and convey them imaginatively has
inspired generations of visitors to its grand exhibition halls and
educated millions about the marvels of the natural world and the
vitality of human culture. With four million visitors annually (of whom
half are schoolchildren), the largest unified natural history library
in the Western Hemisphere, a staff of dedicated educators who seek to
inspire curiosity and a desire to learn in both children and adults,
the Museum is known as one of the nation's preeminent scientific and
educational institutions.
More than 200 active research scientists with internationally
recognized expertise conduct more than 150 field projects each year.
Museum scientists in the ten scientific departments are retracing the
evolutionary tree, documenting changes in the environment, and
describing the achievements of human culture affecting the public's
understanding of where we come from and where we may be headed.
The Museum's ongoing research provides the foundation for its
educational mission. The goals of its educational programs include
increasing scientific literacy among both adults and children
nationwide addressing issues that affect our daily lives and the future
of the planet and its inhabitants, and providing a forum for exploring
world cultures. The recent Museum's launching of the National Center
for Science Literacy, Education, and Technology in partnership with
NASA helps to further these goals. In creating the National Center,
AMNH and NASA recognized an opportunity to combine and leverage their
incomparable resources. The National Center creates materials and
programs that reach beyond our institutional walls into homes, schools,
museums, and community organizations around the nation.
The Museum actively continues a tradition of creating some of the
greatest scientific exhibitions in the world. Early in the year 2000,
the Museum will open the new Rose Center for Earth and Space, in one of
the most exciting chapters in the Museum's long and distinguished
history of science and education. The Rose Center includes a newly
rebuilt and updated Hayden Planetarium and will allow visitors to
journey among the stars and planets in our own galaxy as well as those
of other galaxies; the Lewis B. and Dorothy Cullman Hall of the
Universe, where interactive technology and participatory displays will
elucidate important principles of astronomy and astrophysics; and the
adjoining Gottesman Hall of Planet Earth (opening in 1999). The new
Hall of Planet Earth will explore key questions such as: how has the
Earth changed though time; why do ocean basins continents and mountains
exist; what causes climate change; and why is the Earth habitable. As
part of the exhibition the question of natural resources will be
explored: what are they; what resources are necessary to generate
energy (oil, coal, goethermal); where are they located; and how are
they formed. The Rose Center for Earth and Space will enable the Museum
to join science and education to provide a seamless educational journey
taking visitors from the beginnings of the universe, to the formation
and processes of Earth to the extraordinary and irreplaceable diversity
of life and cultures on our planet.
One of the strategic goals of the Department of Energy is to
utilize its assets to advance the nation's science literacy. In
addition to our mutual commitment to science literacy, the American
Museum and DOE share several other joint goals, including: making
science/scientific enterprise more accessible to a large and diverse
audience; harnessing the power of technology to support science,
exhibition, and education; and enhancing the diversity of the science
workforce working with schools, parents, and the community. The DOE has
enormous resources that can support the activities of the American
Museum's science, exhibition, and education programs. In partnership
with DOE, the Museum would significantly advance the public's access to
the expertise, data and technology that has been developed by DOE.
The Department of Energy has traditionally been one of the major
sources of support for research and laboratory instrumentation
equipment. The types of laboratories and instrumentation that the
American Museum seeks are indeed consistent with the DOE's mission. The
Molecular Systematics Lab is a critical tool to basic energy research,
the human genome project, and the Department's biological and
environmental research function (the BER account).
Technology is rapidly changing the way we perceive nature. With the
advent of DNA sequencing, museum collections have become critical
baseline resources for the assessment of the genetic diversity of
natural populations. Genomes, especially those of the simplest
organisms, provide a window onto the fundamental mechanics of life. One
of the goals of the DOE sponsored Human Genome Program is to learn
about the DNA of nonhuman organisms. This, the sponsors of the research
say, can lead to an understanding of their natural capabilities that
can be applied toward solving challenges in health care, energy
sources, and environmental cleanup. We believe that the Museum's
accomplishments in this area support and complement the Department of
Energy's goals in this area.
The American Museum has a history of being at the forefront of
conservation activities. In addition, the molecular systematics
programs at the Museum are on the cutting edge in the use of DNA
sequences in conservation and evolutionary research. The Museum houses
two molecular laboratories that are directed by four curators from the
Museum and one from The New York Botanical Garden. Current studies
focus on a variety of endangered species representing diverse
geographic and taxonomic scope, including: tiger beetles and moths of
the Atlantic coast of North America, sturgeon of the Caspian Sea,
muntjacs (small deer) recently discovered in Southeast Asia, lemurs and
whales of Madagascar, spotted owls of the Pacific Northwest, tiger
populations throughout Asia, and right whales around the world. Ancient
DNA, essential for historical study of changes in genetic markers in
endangered species, has been recovered from museum specimens of rare or
extinct animals, as well as 25-million-year-old termites fossilized in
amber.
As more species become threatened and extinct, it is more critical
than ever to catalogue and store the variety of life's natural genetic
diversity so that it will be available far into the future. For these
reasons, the Museum has launched a new effort to create a super-cold
storage facility. Located in a new, state-of-the-art collections and
laboratory building, this new storage facility will enable Museum
scientists and researchers from around the world to perform unique and
vital DNA research. This new storage facility will multiply the
possibilities for DNA research exponentially.
Molecular techniques have revolutionized the study of biology,
including conservation, evolution, and medicine. As part of our ongoing
mission in collections-based research we propose expanding activities
in the preservation of biological tissues and molecular libraries in
super-cold storage for current and future genetic research. This
collection is unique and valuable for research in several fields,
including:
--Conservation genetics.--The practice of systematics and the
management of endangered species rely on collections to provide
data on the natural distribution of populations on the planet
over time. Accurately identified specimens accompanied by data
such as date and locality of their collection are essential for
the design of field projects. With the advent of DNA
sequencing, museum collections have become valuable resources
for recognizing species and assessing changes in the genetic
diversity of natural populations throughout periods of
ecological change.
--Systematics.--Natural history collections are critical resources
for the creation of phylogenetic trees (branching diagrams
representing evolutionary relationships), as many species that
are pivotal to the reconstruction of a full evolutionary
history of a group are known only from museum material. The
American Museum frozen-tissue program provides a means to
appropriately store rare organisms for molecular work. This
collection serves as a permanent library of the molecular
structure of organisms and is an important source of loans to
investigators from around the world.
--Medicine.--Better understanding of the natural arrangements of
genomes and interactions among genes is driving, and will
continue to drive, the development of novel therapies for
disease. It is also clear that many genes of significant
scientific and medical importance are found only in a few
organisms. Such natural products are useful in ways we are only
beginning to understand. Tissue collections such as the one we
propose expanding at the Museum will preserve genetic material
and gene products from rare and endangered organisms that may
go extinct before science fully exploits their potential.
The super-cold natural history collection is a permanent world wide
resource for storage, conservation of genetic resources, and loans to
the scientific community. Most biological material in natural history
collections is dried or formalin fixed. While these methods preserve
anatomy, they do not preserve nucleic acids and proteins in workable
quantities. A super-cold natural history collection of vast biological
diversity is underway at the Museum.
Now in operation for eight years, the Musuem's molecular
laboratories have accrued tens of thousands of specimens. We will
create a database not only for record keeping, but also to make this
collection easily searched via the Internet and accessible for loans by
scientists outside the Museum. We foresee increased loan activity as
the fields of molecular systematics and comparative genomics continue
to grow. Because tissues could be easily depleted by several requests,
molecular libraries (DNA in fragments multiplied and stored in easily
workable vectors) are or will be constructed for many of these
specimens. Many of the tissues and molecular libraries in the Museum=s
frozen collection come from long-term field projects with extensively
detailed data.
We also suggest establishing a geographically based, publicly
accessible Web site that enables users anywhere to access the available
information. Projects of this type are critical to fostering a public
understanding of human genomics and the fundamental building blocks of
life, and are in keeping with the DOE's own stated goals.
Molecular information is important for understanding the history of
life. The phylogenetic trees constructed from DNA sequence data have
changed how biologists think about ecology, evolution, conservation,
development, and behavior. The phylogenetic approach relies heavily on
primary DNA sequences. However, many lineages of organisms have only
been sampled in a very cursory manner or not at all.
In the past, the time and expense of DNA sequencing forced
systematists to collect sequences from only one gene per species. A
single set of character information is inadequate to represent the
complexity of the organisms and their history. Fortunately, with
support of the Department of Energy's Human Genome Program, DNA
sequencing technology has improved rapidly in the past five years
(bases sequenced per unit time has increased at least tenfold). This
improvement has allowed the Museum's molecular labs to address gaps in
knowledge of biodiversity by sequencing DNA from rare, endangered, and
understudied organisms. Concomitantly, Museum scientists are working to
improve the theory and implementation of phylogenetic analysis of vast
data sets of DNA sequences and other forms of biological information
such as the anatomy of extant and extinct organisms.
Currently, the Museum has one old and one new sequencer, both of
which are operated on a 24 hour/day, 7 day/week schedule. Museum
researchers bring a great deal of knowledge of the natural world and a
staggering diversity of organisms into the lab. Our students and
scientists are not typically molecular biologists but rather
zoologists, botanists, and resource managers who are trained at the
Museum to collect raw sequence data from the organisms in which they
specialize and analyze the data for evolutionary and conservation
studies. Sequence data are shared worldwide on NIH's Genbank database
and via original scientific research disseminated in theses and peer
reviewed publications.
Given that DNA sequencing technology has improved vastly in
rapidity and cost effectiveness in the past five years, and given the
Department of Energy's increased pace for the Human Genome Program, we
seek in FY00 the addition of upgrade sequencing and computational
equipment to the Museum's molecular laboratories. These upgrades will
allow us to fully benefit from the intellectual resources represented
by our students and scientists and the physical resources contained in
our new super-cold storage facility. In addition, the Hall of Human
Biology and Evolution at the Museum is a major resource for the public
and especially students. The Human Genome Program of the DOE is an
important endeavor. We propose to assist the DOE to translate its
findings to the public through a AGenetics Bulletin, a set of
continually updated interactive media kiosks that display research
findings in the exhibition hall and can be made available
internationally via public web sites.
Despite empirical advances, no amount of sampling of DNA of extant
animals will help researchers overcome the gaps in evolutionary history
that are left by extinction events. As a result, analytical approaches
that combine DNA sequence with other types of information such as the
anatomy of living and fossil species are proving very informative.
However, because of the mathematical difficulty inherent in calculating
phylogenetic trees, our ability to understand data lags far behind our
ability to produce raw data.
A common theoretical problem in biology is the accommodation of
diverse kinds of information and their ability to jointly support
notions of evolutionary relationships. For example, several studies
focus on the integration of data from adult anatomy with molecular
information. How are such diverse kinds of information combined?
Furthermore, how can the information presented by the fossil record
help distinguish among hypotheses derived from molecular evidence? We
have addressed these issues through new ways of describing characters
(DNA or any feature of an organism) mathematically and linking them
through novel means of phylogenetic-tree reconstruction. These methods
are general and useful, but require immense computational attention,
necessitating the development of new parallel algorithms in order to
examine these procedures and questions.
In addition to building biological expertise at the level of the
molecule and organism, researchers at the Museum have been studying the
mathematical and algorithmic complexities of phylogenetic analysis in
great depth over the last 20 years. By expanding the parallel-
processing cluster, we plan to develop and explore new approaches to
making sense of the large and diverse datasets necessary to appreciate
organismal diversity. The Museum has made software available to the
research community free of charge and will continue to do so.
Furthermore the Museum serves as a center for training and symposia on
evolutionary theory.
We are seeking, therefore, a fiscal year 2000 DOE investment of $2
million to support genomic research and related facility and
instrumentation needs including a super cold storage facility, DNA
sequencing and computational equipment, and related educational
materials.
______
Prepared Statement of Joe L. Mauderly, Senior Scientist and Director of
External Affairs, The Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
It is proposed that the Department of Energy negotiate with the
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute to establish a long-term
agreement for operation of the privatized, government-owned Inhalation
Toxicology Research Institute facility on Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque,
NM.
executive summary
Beginning in fiscal year 1997, the Lovelace Respiratory Research
Institute joined DOE in a pioneering effort to privatize the operation
of a small DOE research laboratory, the Inhalation Toxicology Research
Institute in Albuquerque, NM. The facility was leased to Lovelace for a
five-year period, allowing Lovelace to diversify and build federal and
non-federal support for research in the facility, thereby preserving it
as a national research resource, offsetting the economic impact of
declining DOE funding and potential closure, and mitigating DOE's
liability for decommissioning the facility. Lovelace continues DOE work
under a cooperative agreement, and pays use fees for non-DOE work at
the facility.
Lovelace committed its resources to the success of the venture. It
focused its corporate mission, out-placed peripheral activities,
reorganized and consolidated its administrative and scientific
activities, renovated portions of the facility at its own expense,
developed an aggressive marketing program, diversified its customer
base, and spearheaded a community technology incubator program which
uses a portion of the facility.
The privatization has been successful.--Research support for
activities in the facility has increased. Research support has been
diversified, and major new programs have been initiated for both
federal and non-federal customers. To date, $359 thousand in use fees
were collected. Many companies have been served by the incubator.
Hundreds of direct jobs have been saved and many more indirect jobs are
supported by the effort.
The privatization is at a critical point, and the future
disposition of the facility must be resolved quickly or the effort will
fail.--Now, in the third year of the initial five-year agreement and
with no resolution of longer-term use, Lovelace is prevented from
establishing long-term research agreements for either federal or non-
federal clients. DOE's Albuquerque Operations Office recently provided
Lovelace with a draft agreement which would extend the lease for a
total of up to 10 years. Lovelace urgently seeks an arrangement that
provides a longer-term operating horizon and allows use fees to be used
for facility maintenance.
background of the privatization
The Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI) is an
independent, non-profit biomedical research organization located in
Albuquerque, NM and dedicated to the prevention, treatment, and cure of
respiratory disease. LRRI conducts basic and applied research for
government, industry, health advocacy organizations, and the public.
Beginning with a 1960 contract with the Atomic Energy Commission,
Lovelace developed and managed the government-owned laboratory which
became the DOE-owned Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute (ITRI), a
one-of-a-kind international center of excellence for basic and applied
research on respiratory disease, respiratory toxicology and
environmental lung health risks. DOE work at ITRI was funded primarily
by the Office of Energy Research (ER), with lesser levels of funding
from the Offices of Defense Programs and Environment, Safety, and
Health.
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the decline in DOE/ER
priorities for research on health outcomes resulted in the closure of
many of the Agency's laboratory-based biology programs, with the
exception of those closely related to the human genome and nuclear
medicine. Declining funding threatened the continued existence of the
ITRI facility, and its operation as a special purpose DOE laboratory
prevented Lovelace from replacing declining DOE funds by responding to
other federal and non-federal research customers in a competitive
manner. Recognizing the value of ITRI as a national research resource,
Lovelace negotiated an agreement with DOE to privatize the facility on
a five-year trial basis.
LRRI leases the ITRI facility from the government through DOE as
the landlord agency. The term of the present lease is five years, the
first year being fiscal year 1997. The lease allows use and sublease of
the facility for purposes generally consistent with past uses. Under
the lease payment is made to the U.S. Treasury at the rate of 3.53
percent of gross revenues from non-DOE sources, excluding support from
LRRI's own endowment. Under the cooperative agreement, a fee of 3.45
percent of the total value of grants and contracts is assessed for use
of government-owned equipment in work for non-federal customers.
Equipment fee revenues may be used at ITRI as DOE program funds as
specified in 10 CFR 600. The lease clauses included DOE support for
facility repair or replacement costs over $25,000. To terminate work
under the previous Management and Operating contract, DOE agreed to pay
costs incurred by reductions in workforce necessitated by the loss of
DOE funding and not offset by new business.
Upon privatization, DOE work by Lovelace in the leased ITRI
facility continued under a five-year cooperative agreement, with total
funding projected to decline progressively from approximately $13
million in fiscal year 1997 to $4 million in fiscal year 2001. LRRI
accepted the considerable challenge of developing new research and
business activities that, at minimum, must offset the progressive loss
of DOE support.
Lovelace committed its organization to the privatization effort
Enabled by the privatization of the ITRI facility, LRRI
consolidated its multiple research and administrative operations into a
single organization. The Institute then embarked on a rapid
transformation that purposefully linked the future of the organization
to its success in privatizing the ITRI facility. It recruited a new
President/CEO oriented toward development of research business,
narrowed its scientific focus to respiratory disease, out-placed
research programs not aligned with this focus, combined and reduced the
total size of administrative functions, shifted from a local to a
national Board of Directors, implemented a multifaceted marketing
program, consolidated its laboratory staff in the ITRI facility,
undertook (at its own expense) several facility renovations, and
subleased excess portions of both LRRI-owned and ITRI facilities.
the privatization has clearly been successful
The research conducted in the facility has grown and diversified
From fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 1999 (to date), LRRI has
increased its annual non-clinical research business from approximately
$17 million to approximately $21 million. This increase has been
attended by a considerable diversification of funding for work in the
ITRI facility. In fiscal year 1996, before privatization, 71 percent of
the work in the facility was supported by DOE, 12 percent by NIH, 9
percent by other federal agencies, and 8 percent by non-federal
customers. In fiscal year 1999 (to date), only 31 percent of the work
in the facility is funded by DOE, 16 percent by EPA, 10 percent by NIH,
10 percent by DOD, and 33 percent by non-federal sources. A total of
$359 thousand in facility and equipment use fees has been collected
from non-DOE clients to date.
LRRI's success has supported the local economy through the
retention of approximately 200 jobs directly within the Institute,
which translates into approximately 1000 total jobs, most of which are
in the local community.
new federal research initiatives depend on continued use of the
facility
DOE has a continuing need for the facility
It is clear that DOE itself has continuing need for the
capabilities offered by LRRI and the ITRI facility. During fiscal year
1999, DOE is funding approximately $700 thousand in new work obtained
through competitive grants programs from various offices, and this work
is intended to continue in future years. The Office of Heavy Vehicle
Technologies has established a growing environment, safety, and health
program concerning engine emissions, and LRRI is a major participant in
this program. Indeed, the funding for LRRI work on engine emissions,
made possible by the unique ITRI facility, nearly tripled from fiscal
year 1998 to fiscal year 1999, and is envisioned to continue for
several years.
the environmental protection agency has a continuing need for the
facility
In fiscal year 1998, congress established the National
Environmental Respiratory Center through the EPA appropriation as a
multi-year research program to address the growing crisis of
apportioning adverse health effects of environmental air pollution
among the many constituents of air pollution mixtures. This program,
developed by LRRI at the ITRI facility and unlike any other air
pollution research effort in the nation, is essential to providing a
foundation for the air pollution regulatory framework of the future.
The work was made possible by the unique capabilities of the ITRI
facility for creating in the laboratory complex mixtures of man-made
and natural air contaminants, and conducting laboratory assays of the
health effects of the mixtures. This body of research will be jointly
funded by EPA, other federal agencies, states, and industry, and is
intended to continue at a level of approximately $4 million/yr for at
least six more years. In addition to the Center, EPA has funded several
new projects at LRRI in response to competitive solicitations for work
on airborne toxic materials and environmental lung disease.
The Department of Defense has a continuing need for the facility
As described above, research funding from DOD has grown, and the
Agency clearly has a continuing need for the capabilities Lovelace
offers at the ITRI facility. Recent examples are studies to resolve
Gulf War Illness issues, the cancer hazards of depleted uranium
fragments retained deep in tissue, and the detection of airborne
biological agents.
The ITRI facility is slated to play an increasing role in the
development of new technologies to detect and mitigate chemical,
biological, and radiological threats of both military and domestic
importance. Based in part on the unique capabilities of the ITRI
facility for working safely with very hazardous agents and creating
atmospheres of airborne agents, a new working alliance has formed among
LRRI, Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratories,
and the University of New Mexico. This new Research Alliance for Health
and National Security will pool intellectual and technical resources to
develop new technologies to detect and reduce threats, protect
personnel, and stage and treat victims. Although each member
organization brings special capabilities to the Alliance, the continued
existence of LRRI's capabilities at the ITRI facility are central to
the work plan.
The National Institutes of Health has a continuing need for the
facility
NIH (NHLBI, NIEHS, NCI) continues to fund research utilizing the
ITRI facility. One example is the multi-year Special Center of Research
Excellence (SCORE) grant awarded jointly to the University of New
Mexico and LRRI to conduct research on the causes of the continual
increase in childhood asthma. Part of this work requires the
specialized capabilities of ITRI to generate atmospheres of tobacco
smoke and other air pollutant mixtures to determine their role in the
development of asthma. NIEHS recently awarded a developmental center
grant to the University of New Mexico, and a portion of the research
requires the environmental research capabilities of the ITRI facility.
There have been discussions with the Director of NIEHS regarding the
potential use of the ITRI facility in a more direct manner to support
the Agency's inhalation toxicology needs.
The facility is also being used to support a growing technology
business incubator
LRRI is playing a key role in an effort involving other community
groups to develop a technology business incubator program. The Business
Technology Group (BTG) was formed in the fall of 1997 by LRRI, Sandia
National Laboratories, the Albuquerque and Hispano Chambers of
Commerce, the Albuquerque Department of Economic Development,
Technology Ventures Corporation, the Center for Entrepreneurship, the
University of New Mexico, and several private companies. Local
incubator space was consolidated under the BTG, an Executive Committee
was formed to direct operations, and an Evaluation Committee was formed
to evaluate potential incubatees. LRRI provides a portion of the
incubator space through subleases of the ITRI facility, and provides a
wide range of administrative, scientific, and technical support
services to the occupants.
After only one year of operation, 41 new companies have already
been served by this incubator, providing numerous jobs in the
community, and several additional companies are either in negotiations
with BTG or have expressed interest.
There is an urgent need to resolve the long-term future of the facility
Both DOE and LRRI can take satisfaction in the clear success of the
exploratory privatization effort to date. The success of this effort
provides a unique demonstration that it is possible to privatize
government-owned research facilities and at the same time enhance their
value as a national resource.
It is now critical to build on this success by developing a long-
term plan for the use and maintenance of the facility. LRRI and the DOE
Albuquerque Operations Office are currently negotiating an extension of
the lease, but this is not an adequate long-term solution. For example,
even a revolving five-year lease would only permit LRRI to compete for
multi-year projects during the first two of each five years, an
arrangement which would ensure failure. It is important to note that
this limitation is troublesome for both federal and non-federal
customers, who have demonstrated their interest in maintaining programs
in the facility, as well as for LRRI, which has structured its
organization around the effort.
There are several alternative possibilities for resolving this
issue. For example, a longer-term (eg, 10 year) agreement with
negotiation on future use beginning at the mid-point (eg, at five
years) would be a step in the right direction. On the other end of the
spectrum, it may be possible to convey ownership of the facility to
LRRI or a community group. LRRI is open to discussing any possibility,
including those that might require a legislative mandate.
It is important to recognize that a long-term use arrangement can
not succeed without provision for investment in the maintenance of the
structures, heating and cooling equipment, etc. that are essential to
the usefulness of the facility. The Agency would incur a considerable
cost to decommission the facility if it were abandoned. It may be cost-
effective for the Agency to mitigate or delay this cost may be offset
by a modest investment in the facility. At a minimum, the use fees
collected from non-DOE research sponsors should be used for this
purpose.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. David E. Baldwin, Senior Vice President,
General Atomics, et al.
Chairman Domenici, Senator Reid and Members of the Subcommittee, we
are very pleased to submit this statement on the status of the fusion
energy sciences program. We each believe that the nation's fusion
research program is experiencing the most exciting and important new
developments in a long time. We want to tell you about some of those
changes and our developing plan for the future of fusion energy
research.
Fusion is a scientific and technological grand challenge. It has
required the development of the entire field of high-temperature plasma
physics, a field of science that contributes to the description of some
99 percent of the visible universe. Plasma physics also provides cross-
cutting insights to related fields such as nonlinear mechanics, atomic
physics, and fluid turbulence. Quality science has always been the key
to optimizing fusion systems. Throughout the history of fusion energy
research, the combination of exciting, challenging science and the
lofty energy goal has attracted gifted young people into fusion
research, many of whom have gone on to make important contributions in
related scientific fields and in the commercial technology arena.
The DOE Fusion Energy Sciences program is exploring multiple paths
for optimizing the fusion systems, taking advantage of both the strong
international program in magnetic fusion energy and the strong DOE
Defense Programs effort in inertial confinement fusion. As in other
fields, the advancement of plasma science and technology requires
facilities in a range of sizes, from the largest devices that press the
frontier of high-temperature plasmas to smaller experiments suitable to
begin the exploration of innovative ideas for fusion optimization. The
very largest facilities may require international collaboration while
the smallest are natural for university-scale investigation. Specific
questions of plasma science and fusion technology set both the required
number and the required scale of the experimental facilities in the
program.
fusion approaches and issues
There are two principal approaches to creating practical fusion
energy: magnetic fusion energy (MFE) and inertial fusion energy (IFE).
Scientific progress in both of areas has been profound over the past
decade. For both MFE and IFE, there is little question that the
generation of copious fusion energy in the laboratory is scientifically
and technically achievable. Fusion energy production of over 20 MJ per
pulse has already been achieved in MFE and is anticipated for IFE in
NIF in 2008. The challenge to fusion researchers now is to make fusion
power practical, affordable, and attractive. Each approach to fusion
has a different mix of technical attributes. As it is presently unclear
which approach will ultimately prove the most meritorious, a prudent
fusion development strategy is one which retains breadth and well as
depth in its scope and has a process for advancement of the most
attractive concepts and elimination of noncompetitive approaches.
Issues unique to MFE include (1) maximizing the pressure of the
plasma that can be held by the confining magnetic field; (2) minimizing
the transport loss of heat from the plasma; (3) achieving stable,
steady-state operation in self-heated, burning plasmas; and (4)
controlling of the plasma edge including exhaust of the fusion ash,
which is helium. Issues unique to IFE include (1) completing the target
physics program as part of the DOE DP Stockpile Stewardship Program;
(2) developing an efficient, rep-rated driver for target compression;
(3) developing low-cost methods for target fabrication, injection and
tracking; and (4) developing chamber concepts capable of containing
repeated micro-explosions over long periods. Issues in common include
production of the tritium fuel, reduction of activation of the
confining structure, and efficient conversion of neutron energy
produced to electricity.
recent changes in u.s. fusion research
As Members of this Subcommittee are well aware, the fusion energy
sciences program has been through a number of very significant changes
over the past few years. These changes have included substantial cuts
to the program budget (nearly 40 percent between fiscal year 1996 and
today) and the resulting termination of one major and several minor
experiments, an increased emphasis on scientific understanding and
innovative alternative approaches to fusion energy development, and the
withdrawal of U.S. participation in the design of a major international
fusion collaboration.
One of the more significant recent developments to occur in the
fusion program has been the closer alliance between inertial
confinement fusion scientists and magnetic fusion energy scientists. As
you are aware, the development of inertial confinement fusion has been
pursued primarily as a means of providing insight into the physics of
nuclear weapons and for maintaining the reliability of our nuclear
weapons stockpile. While some work on inertial fusion energy
development is funded through the fusion energy sciences budget, most
of that budget is focused on the development of magnetic fusion energy
and science.
Recently however, scientific and technological progress in inertial
fusion has led to increased confidence that inertial confinement may
present another potentially attractive path to fusion energy. So,
somewhat over a year ago, in response to this progress and to guidance
from your Subcommittee, intensive discussions began between the
leadership of the magnetic and inertial confinement fusion communities.
Those discussions and the strengthening bond between the magnetic
and inertial fusion communities has resulted in a new proposal or
roadmap for the management of our nation's fusion energy research.
a portfolio-based roadmap for fusion energy r&d
The ultimate goal of fusion research is the creation of a nearly
ideal energy source for future generations: one that is safe,
inexhaustible, without harmful atmospheric emissions, and that has a
fuel source readily available to all nations. After decades of R&D and
many advances, the promise of fusion energy remains bright. Significant
challenges, however, remain to fulfill this promise. In the nearer
term, fusion research yields rich benefits in fundamental science and
practical technology.
Within the fusion community, we are in the process of developing a
portfolio-based roadmap for the future of U.S. fusion research that we
believe to be responsive to this subcommittee's directions.
The central element of the roadmap is the exploration of a
portfolio of promising ideas for improved fusion concepts, including
improvements to the leading tokamak concept. This effort builds on the
major advances in the knowledge of fusion physics, gained particularly
over the last decade, coupled with greatly improved methods for
measurement of critically important local plasma parameters. Promising
ideas can be more readily identified in both MFE and IFE based on new
understanding in areas like plasma turbulence, nonlinear instabilities,
particle and radiation transport, MHD stability, wave-particle
interactions, and the plasma/material interface. This naturally leads
to the use of a ``portfolio'' approach. In order to provide a framework
to assess the relative level of development among the different fusion
concepts being pursued within MFE and IFE and to permit the application
of appropriate objectives and criteria for success within the fusion
portfolio, concepts are expected to advance through a series of
distinct stages of experimental development. The lowest stage is
identified as ``Concept Exploration'', then ``Proof of Principle'',
followed by ``Performance Extension.'' Success in these stages then
should lead to the technical and scientific basis for making a decision
to advance the concept to a stage of ``Fusion Energy Development,'' and
ultimately to a fusion demonstration power plant.
This development roadmap is optimized to provide the most cost-
effective route to the knowledge base for practical fusion power. At
all times it balances the risk of innovative new ideas, pursued
initially at low cost, with the scientific productivity of well
established concepts, pursued in more powerful and expensive devices.
An important aspect of this portfolio-management approach is that there
is strong scientific synergy across the elements of the portfolio, and
indeed scientific advances made in one concept are readily translated
to others. The breadth of the portfolio assures that attractive
opportunities are not missed, and roadblocks are not likely to span all
approaches. It also broadens the arena of spin-offs from fusion
research to other areas of U.S. science and technology.
fusion funding needs
In developing this plan or roadmap for fusion research, we are
trying to be responsive to both Congress's expressed concerns and to
the long-term energy needs of the nation. The program seeks to broaden
fusion research with a central theme of optimizing the fusion power
source through application of the underlying science. However, this is
necessarily a broader fusion program whose goals cannot be met at the
current level of funding ($223 million in fiscal year 1999), and the
fusion budget must be increased to $300 million per year in the near
term. While still well below the funding of only a few years ago, this
funding level will support a considerably broadened program in both MFE
and IFE, enable initiatives like the new laser fusion initiative, allow
for greater utilization of existing experimental facilities, ensure
that potentially viable paths to fusion are not overlooked, and ensure
continued measurable and substantial progress towards the ultimate goal
of practical fusion energy.
--Within MFE, there are today compelling and peer-reviewed near-term
opportunities for investment in innovative confinement
experiments (at a range of scales), new tools for the U.S.
tokamak facilities to address advanced-tokamak issues and
collaboration on the most powerful experimental facilities
overseas. These investments will enable a broad, coordinated
attack on key scientific and technical issues associated with
the optimization of magnetic confinement systems and the
achievement of the most attractive power plant concept.
--Within IFE, exciting opportunities exist in parallel with the
construction and operation of NIF, to demonstrate the
principles for a range of potentially attractive drivers for
repetitively imploding fusion targets (including both ion beams
and lasers), to address associated fusion target chamber
technologies, and to examine techniques for the mass
manufacture of precision targets. New innovative driver and
target concepts are also being developed, providing
opportunities for new science and a potentially more attractive
ultimate power plant.
--In support of both areas there are opportunities in technology
development, advanced simulation, and basic plasma science and
technology.
We recognize, however, that funding increases this year may be
heavily constrained. In this event, to begin to broaden the fusion
research agenda in fiscal year 2000, an appropriate level of support
for the Fusion Energy Sciences program would be $260 million, including
the $10 million needed to begin decommissioning of the DOE TFTR device
at Princeton. This level would permit a start on the expanded IFE
program and on important MFE opportunities which cannot be addressed at
the current level.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement.
______
Prepared Statement of Lynne P. Brown, Ph.D., Associate Vice President
for Government and Community Relations, Center for Cognition, Learning,
Emotion and Memory, New York University
Research into cognition, learning, emotion, and memory can help
educators, physicians, and other health care givers, policymakers, and
the general public by enhancing our understanding of normal brain
development as well as the many disabilities, disorders, and diseases
that erode our ability to learn and think, to remember, and to emote
appropriately.
New York University is seeking $10.5 million over five years to
establish at its Washington Square campus a Center for Cognition,
Learning, Emotion and Memory. The program will draw on existing
research strengths in the fields of neural science, biology and
chemistry, psychology, computer science, and linguistics to push the
frontiers of our understanding of how the brain functions, and how we
learn.
Such exploration into the fundamental neurobiological mechanisms of
the nervous system has broad implications for human behavior and
decision making as well as direct applicability to early childhood
development, language acquisition, teaching methods, computer science
and technology development for education, the diagnosis and treatment
of mental and memory disorders, and specialized training for stressful
occupation.
cognition, learning, emotion and memory studies at nyu (clem)
New York University is poised to become a premier center for
biological studies of the acquisition, storage, processing and
retrieval of information in the nervous system.
To be housed at NYU's Washington Square Campus within the Center
for Neural Science, the new Center will capitalize on the university's
expertise in a wide range of related fields that encompass our computer
scientists who use MRI imaging for research into normal and
pathological mental processes in humans, our vision scientists who are
exploring the input of vision to learning and memory, our physical
scientists producing magnetic measurements of brain function with a
focus on the decay of memories, our linguists studying the relation of
language and the mind, and our psychiatrists conducting clinical
studies of patients with nervous system disorders.
The New York University Program in Cognition, Learning, Emotion and
Memory (CLEM) focuses on research and training in the fundamental
neurobiological mechanisms that underlie learning and memory--the
acquisition and storage of information in the nervous system. Current
studies by the faculty at NYU are determining why fear can facilitate
memory; how memory can be enhanced; what conditions facilitate long-
term and short-term memory; and where in the brain all these memories
are processed and stored. The research capacity of this Center
capitalizes on our expertise in physiology, neuroanatomy, and
behavioral studies, and builds on active studies that range from the
mental coding and representation of memory to the molecular foundations
of the neural processes underlying emotional memories. Our faculty use
electrophysiological and neuroanatomical techniques to study the
organization of memory in the medial temporal lobe. Together these
researchers bring substantial strength in psychological testing,
computational sophistication, advanced tissues staining and electrical
probes, and humane animal conditioning.
These core faculty are well recognized by their peers and have a
solid track record of sustained research funding from federal agencies
and private foundations: total costs awarded and committed for their
research for full project periods from all sources presently total $7
million. Additional faculty are being recruited in areas of
specialization that include: the cellular and molecular mechanisms
operative in neural systems that make emotional memory possible,
neurophysiological studies of memory in non-human primates,
computational modeling of memory, and neuropsychological and imaging
research on normal and pathological human memory.
Colleagues in the Biology Department are doing related work in the
molecular basis of development and learning. Given the important input
of vision to learning and memory, the Center has strong links with the
many vision scientists based in the Psychology Department who work on
directly related topics that include form, color, and depth perception,
memory and psycholinguistics. Colleagues in behavioral science study
learning and motivation, memory and aging. Physical scientists explore
the magnetic measurement of brain function, with a focus on the decay
of memories. CLEM also shares research interests with colleagues in the
Linguistics Department, who study the relation of language and the
mind.
Research linkages extend to computational vision studies, now
centered in NYU's Sloan Program in Theoretical Neurobiology. The Sloan
Program works closely with computer scientists at our Courant Institute
on Mathematical Science, with colleagues at the Medical Center in
Psychiatry, who use MRI imaging for research into normal and
pathological mental processes in humans, and in Neurobiology, who are
conducting clinical studies of patients with nervous disorders,
especially memory disorders.
What is unique and exciting about the establishment of such a
comprehensive center at NYU is the opportunity to tap into and
coordinate this rich multidisciplinary array of talent to conduct
pioneering research into how the brain works. In this, the ``Decade of
the Brain,'' NYU is strategically positioned to be a leader.
early childhood and education
Research into the learning process as it relates to attention and
retention clearly holds important implications for early childhood
development. Although most of a person's brain development is completed
by birth, the first few years of life are critically important in
spurring intellectual development. For example, research has already
shown that in their early years, children need human stimulation, such
as playing and talking, to develop the ability to learn.
With more immigrant children in schools, language development is
another crucial area of study. If a child's brain were more receptive
to acquiring sounds during the first few months of life, and language
in the first few years of life, then students may learn a second
language more quickly if taught in the lower grades instead of waiting
for high school.
In the midst of a national debate on education reform, thousands of
education innovations are being considered without the advantage of a
fundamental understanding of the learning process. CLEM researchers,
coupled with educational psychologists, can contribute to a better
understanding of how parents can stimulate their children's cognitive
growth, how children learn at different stages and use different
styles, how educators can accommodate those styles, and how educational
technology can be harnessed to increase retention and memory.
At NYU, these efforts will be enhanced by our scholars and research
conducted in our School of Education and our New York State-supported
Center for Advanced Technology.
computer science and technology development
As we refine our knowledge of how the brain acquires, processes,
retains and retrieves information and images, we will also be able to
improve the design, development and utilization of computer science and
technology. As we reach a better understanding of how children learn,
we can more effectively harness computer technology in the service of
education.
At NYU, this effort is enhanced by the presence of our New York
State-supported Center for Digital Multimedia, Publishing and
Education, which brings together educators, laboratory scientists and
software designers who explore how interactive multimedia technologies
enhance learning and develop prototype teaching models.
specialized training
Research into how cognition and emotion interact can have
applicability to other diverse areas of interest including retraining
of adult workers, job performance and specialized training for high
risk or stressful jobs such as military service and emergency rescue
work.
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 NYU 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 have demonstrated how scientists from a
broad range of biological sciences are working together with leading
mathematics and computer science researchers to achieve a better
understanding of how the brain functions and how we learn. The
Department's commitment to education and to science will be well served
through this partnership.
______
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 2000
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 1999 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.
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 (PAHs).
PAHs are a major class of recalcitrant pollutants and are a significant
byproduct of petroleum processing and refining. PAHs 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 PAHs 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 (PSDs) 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 1999 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 $4 million in funding for IPEC in
fiscal year 2000.
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 1980s 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 2000 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 2000 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 $4 million for fiscal year 2000
and the succeeding fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 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 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. In
fiscal year 2000 the program will be focused on the use of available
unique laboratory facilities: OMEGA at the University of Rochester's
Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE), Z at Sandia National
Laboratories (SNL), and the Nike laser at the Naval Research Laboratory
(NRL). Significantly, the discontinuation of a major, older facility,
the Nova laser at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in
fiscal year 1999, requires the shift of many experiments conducted by
the weapons laboratories to the OMEGA facility at LLE. Experiments on
ICF facilities support the demonstration of thermonuclear ignition and
gain on the National Ignition Facility (NIF) now under construction at
LLNL. The facilities also provide data in support of the nuclear
weapons science-based stewardship activities of the Nation.
LLE, a major participant in ICF research since the 1970s, 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 makes
available technology to the public and private sectors through
interactions with industry and other Federal laboratories. In addition,
the Laboratory trains graduate students with the unique facility.
Finally, 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 for DOE in fiscal year
2000.
The Laboratory's primary ICF mission is to validate the direct-
drive option for ICF. OMEGA is also required to meet mission-critical
requirements for the indirect-drive ignition plan developed by DOE for
the NIF. Without LLE, the DOE schedule to demonstrate ignition and gain
in the laboratory, the objective of the NIF program, cannot be
realized. OMEGA with its 60 beams is also used for indirect-drive
experiments in collaboration with the National laboratories for SSP
experiments, including 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. ICFAC1 emphasized the priority of conducting
cryogenic experiments on OMEGA beginning in fiscal year 1999. OMEGA is,
and will continue to be, the principal facility in the National program
for ICF-based stockpile stewardship experiments until the NIF is
completed in fiscal year 2004. Beyond 2004, OMEGA will continue to be
used when full NIF energy or capability is not required, particularly
since the cost per shot on OMEGA is considerably less costly than a NIF
shot. Additionally, the repetition rate of OMEGA (one shot per hour) is
substantially higher than that planned for NIF (several shots per day).
To provide the operations support for program deliverables and
operation of OMEGA (for both cryogenic and SSP experiments), and
maintain the training programs at Rochester, a total authorization and
appropriation of $30,500,000 is requested for the University of
Rochester for fiscal year 2000, 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 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 ICF the heating and compression of fusion fuel
occurs 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. In 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
DOE has accepted the recommendations of independent reviews,\1\ \2\
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 2004. Beginning in fiscal year 2000, while NIF is under
construction, OMEGA will be the principal ICF facility used for nuclear
weapons stewardship experiments by LLNL and LANL, and for direct-and
indirect-drive ICF experiments.
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.
In addition to the ICF experimental program, LLE is a major
participant in NIF design and construction. At present, LLE is
fabricating the large polarizers and transport mirrors for the NIF, and
LLNL has also recently decided to have LLE coat, assemble, and test the
NIF deformable mirrors. LLE is the lead laboratory working with DOE and
the other participants to formulate the plan for the direct-drive
ignition campaign on the NIF. In collaboration with the other ICF
laboratories, LLE is also developing several advanced diagnostics
required for NIF experiments (see below).
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 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] T10NDP.013
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 the termination of Nova laser operations in
fiscal year 1999, OMEGA becomes the Nation's principal facility to
continue experimental work during NIF construction. Both LANL and LLNL
will continue to use OMEGA for indirect-drive experiments for ICF and
SSP experiments for the foreseeable future. Because of the high
interest and utility of the OMEGA facility to the weapons laboratories,
DOE's budget request includes funds for extended operations on OMEGA
for SSP experiments. With its lower per-shot cost compared to NIF, as
well as the higher shot-repetition rate, OMEGA will be a very important
supporting facility for experiments and diagnostic development for the
NIF after it's completion in 2004 (see Fig. 1).
the lle direct-drive program for fiscal year 2000
The goal of the glass-laser direct-drive target physics program is
to evaluate the performance of fuel capsules near ignition conditions.
OMEGA is also the first facility to attempt the fielding of high-fill-
pressure cryogenic DT capsules, the basis for the principal capsule
design to be used in the NIF indirect-drive ignition demonstration. In
addition to providing data for the NIF, these experiments are required
to 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 on-target irradiation uniformity of 98 percent to 99
percent. The realization of this goal is a principal objective for
fiscal year 2000. OMEGA is also being used to develop and test
diagnostics for NIF. Cryogenic fueling and target experiments on OMEGA
are necessary to demonstrate the likelihood of success of the direct-
drive option of NIF. Additionally, the OMEGA cryogenic system serves as
an engineering test-bed to support NIF cryogenic development. In
collaboration with LANL and General Atomics, the cryogenic capability
will be completed in fiscal year 1999 with the first fully cryogenic
capsule experiments 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\ A cryogenic capability,
advanced diagnostics development (including fusion-product charged-
particle diagnostics, -ray detection, and high-dynamic-range
optical and x-ray streak cameras), and beam smoothing are all required
for the NIF. LLE is the principal National facility to develop these
technologies for the program. LLE's design and testing of two-
dimensional smoothing by spectral dispersion and fabrication
capabilities for the large polarizers, transport optics, and deformable
mirrors for the NIF are essential to its completion and success.
LLE provides education and training in the field of ICF and related
areas for personnel with 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. One hundred eighteen University of Rochester
students have earned Ph.D. degrees at LLE since its founding. Forty-
eight graduate students from other universities were funded by NLUF
grants. A total of 34 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.
references
\1\ Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee Report to
Assistant Secretary Reis (February 21, 1996).
\2\ ``Science Based Stockpile Stewardship,'' JASON Report JSR-94-
345 (The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, November 1994).
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
Jersey
The following is the testimony of the University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), the largest public health sciences
university in the nation. The UMDNJ statewide system is located on five
academic campuses and consists of 3 medical schools, and schools of
dentistry, nursing, health related professions, public health and
graduate biomedical sciences. UMDNJ also comprises a University-owned
acute care hospital, three core teaching hospitals, an integrated
behavioral health care delivery system, a statewide system for managed
care and affiliations with more than 100 health care and educational
institutions statewide. No other institution in the nation possesses
the resources which match our scope in higher education, health care
delivery, research and community service initiatives with state,
federal and local entities.
We appreciate this opportunity to bring to your attention the
priority projects of UMDNJ that are consistent with the biomedical
research mission of the Department of Energy and Water. These include
the Child Health Institute of New Jersey, the Neurological Institute of
New Jersey, efforts to combat infectious disease and chemical and
biological terrorism, and our collaboration with the Department of
Energy on its environmental clean-up efforts.
Our first priority is the Child Health Institute of New Jersey at
the UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (RWJMS) in New Brunswick,
New Jersey. As part of the state's public higher education system, the
medical school's 2,500 full-time and volunteer faculty train about
1,500 students in medicine, public health and graduate programs and
ranks in the top one-third of the country with regard to the percentage
of its students who practice in primary care specialties after
completing their residency training. The School ranks in the top one-
third in the nation in terms of grant support per faculty member. RWJMS
is also home to The Cancer Institute of New Jersey, the only NCI-
designated clinical cancer center in New Jersey; The Center for
Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine; the Environmental and Occupational
Health Sciences Institute, the largest environmental institute in the
world; and the Child Health Institute of New Jersey.
The Child Health Institute is a comprehensive biomedical research
center focused on the health and wellness of children. In this program,
medical researchers direct efforts toward the prevention and cure of
environmental, genetic and cellular diseases of infants and children.
The Institute is integral to the long-term plan for the enhancement of
research at the medical school in developmental genetics, particularly
as it relates to disorders that affect a child's development and
growth, both physically and cognetively.
The program will enable the medical school to expand and strengthen
basic research efforts with clinical departments at the Robert Wood
Johnson University Hospital and with the new Children's Hospital in the
areas of Obstetrics, Pediatrics, Neurology, Surgery and Psychiatry. The
Child Health Institute will fill a critical gap in services through the
recruitment of an intellectual base upon which basic molecular programs
in child development will build.
The Child Health Institute will focus research on the molecular and
genetic mechanisms which direct the development of human form,
subsequent growth, and acquisition of function. Broadly, faculty and
students will investigate disorders that occur during the process of
development to discover and study the genes contributing to
developmental disabilities and childhood diseases; to determine how
genes and the environment interact to cause childhood diseases; and to
identify the causes and possible avenues of treatment of cognitive
disorders broadly found among conditions such as mental retardation,
autism and related neurological disorders.
Normal child development is a water dependent process, reflecting
water quality, quantity and its 19management' by cells and tissues.
Access to uncontaminated water is at the base of the tree of life.
Pollution of aquatic ecosystems poses a serious threat to the entire
ecosystem and studying how a toxin affects embryonic development is
central to understanding the risks pollutants represent, whether
derived from pesticides, industrial run-off, acid rain or landfills. In
multiple ways, the embryo is a sentinel for environmental toxins.
Research at the Child Health Institute will focus on molecular
mechanisms of early embryonic development, a natural, but vulnerable
water-based environment. Sixty percent of the weight of the average
human is contributed by water. The average 150 lb man contains about 40
to 45 quarts of waters, approximately 6 quarts of which is circulating
in the blood, and 39 quarts are within and between the cells of each
and every organ. The embryo is even more highly hydrated than the
adult. During development the embryo undergoes rapid changes in size
and shape requiring rapid changes in the structures and cells present
in any one tissue. In order to accommodate these rapid and essential
changes, the embryo is rich in molecules which have a very high water
binding capacity. After birth, the water in tissues allows cells to
continue to move about within the embryo with ease and also promote
fluid movement in blood vessels, the gastrointestinal tract and the
airways. For example, cystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited disorder
which afflicts millions of children world-wide. The genetic defect in
CF has been identified and involves a pump which, in effect, moves salt
and water into and out of cells. Children with CF insufficiently pump
water into the secretions of their pancreas and lungs and the dryness
of these secretions leads to obstruction of those organs and subsequent
infection and/or obstruction.
The CHI will address genetic disorders that lead to a much broader
array of disorders such as heart defects, autism, diabetes, muscular
dystrophy to name a few. The Institute will grow on a current funding
base at RWJMS of approximately $50 million, $17 million of which has
development as a theme. The CHI builds on existing significant
strengths within RWJMS and our associated joint research institutes
with Rutgers University.
The CHI will act as a magnet for additional growth in research and
health care program development in New Jersey. The Institute will
encompass 83,000 gross square feet and will house more than 40 research
laboratories and associated support facilities. Fourteen senior faculty
will direct teams of M.D. and Ph.D. researchers, visiting scientists,
postdoctoral fellows, graduate students and technicians for a full
complement of some 130 employees. At maturity, the Institute is
expected to attract $7 to $9 million dollars of new research funding
annually. The Institute's total annual operating budget is projected to
be $10 to $12 million: applying a standard economic multiplier of 5,
the total impact on the New Brunswick area is estimated to be $50 to
$60 million per year. Construction costs for the Institute are
estimated at $27 million, with approximately half of that figure
associated with local employment.
We respectfully seek $10 million from the Department of Energy and
Water to further advance the construction and development of the Child
Health Institute of New Jersey.
Our second priority is the Neurological Institute of New Jersey at
UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School (NJMS) and UMDNJ-University Hospital
(UH) in Newark, New Jersey. The Institute was created as a center of
excellence in the neurosciences in recognition of the fact that
neurological diseases are a leading cause of death and disability and,
of the widespread expertise that exists in this discipline on our
Newark campus.
University Hospital is the major provider of tertiary neurological
and neurosurgical services to the State of New Jersey, including
patient care, education and research. The NJMS-Department of
Neurosciences is ranked sixth nationally in research funding, with $4.1
million annually. NJMS offers the only fully accredited neurosurgical
residency program in the state. The Neurological Institute will serve
as an umbrella under which clinical, research and educational efforts
in the neurosciences would be focused to support a higher level of
achievement and expertise than currently exists in New Jersey.
The Neurological Institute will enable UMDNJ to further advance its
cutting-edge work in neurological disorders including stroke, multiple
sclerosis and Alzheimer's disease. About 50 million Americans are
affected by these diseases annually. Neurological diseases account for
some $400 billion annually in health care costs and lost productivity.
While neurological diseases and injuries are devastating, there are
breakthroughs in treatment with new drugs and/or surgical techniques,
which require research and testing, significant financial support and a
concentration of clinical expertise and potential research subjects in
a controlled environment. The Neurological Institute will provide such
a setting and will place New Jersey in the forefront of research and
treatment of neurological diseases.
The employment of new MRI-technology can aid in the diagnosis and
treatment of neurological diseases. We are working on the newest
treatments available, and an investment in the work of the Neurological
Institute is critical to advance our work in these diseases.
UMDNJ seeks a major step forward in the research arena with the
acquisition and placement of a state-of-the-art Magnetic Resonance
Imaging (MRI) instrument for the Neurological Institute. This MRI, with
a rated field strength of 3-4 Tesla, is expected to provide spatial
resolution in the millimeter range and temporal resolution of less than
one second--both carrying great significance at physiological levels.
Areas of research will include language, learning, memory, visual
processing and spatial representation. Clinical applications will
include Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis, tumor characterization
and epilepsy where brain dysfunction is clearly established. UMDNJ
would collaborate with its research partners, the Veterans
Administration Medical Center, Rutgers University and the New Jersey
Institute of Technology in the development of a neuroimaging
laboratory.
We respectfully seek $1.5 million from the Department of Energy and
Water toward the capital and instrumentation costs of a neuroimaging
laboratory for the Neurological Institute of New Jersey.
Our next priority project is our initiatives aimed at responding to
threats of emerging infectious diseases, and chemical and biological
terrorism.
UMDNJ is home to the International Center for Public Health, a
strategic initiative that will create a world-class infectious disease
research and treatment complex at University Heights Science Park in
Newark, New Jersey. We are also home to the New Jersey Medical School
National Tuberculosis Center, one of only three model Tuberculosis
Prevention and Control Centers in the United States funded by the
Centers of Disease Control (CDC).
In our complex world of instant communication and ease of global
transportation, disaffected individuals or political groups have access
to highly destructive weapons of terror. With our open society the
United States is particularly at risk to individuals, ideologically
motivated fanatics, or to nations seeking revenge. The possibility of
the employment of weapons of mass destruction on an innocent population
has already become a reality with the Sarin nerve gas attack in the
subways of Tokyo.
State and local governments and health organizations need reliable
information upon which to develop and coordinate response plans for
contingencies due to weapons of mass destruction. They need programs to
educate planners and response teams on the public health aspects of
these threats and how to recognize and respond to them. In addition,
they need to understand both the short and long term implications for
human and ecologic health. Such a plan requires a broad base of
scientific and educational expertise which has an international scope
in order to devise approaches for the early detection and treatment of
biological and chemical weapons of terror. As citizens of the nation's
most densely populated state, we in New Jersey have a particular
concern about being targets of biological and chemical terrorist
activities. Our communities abut each other and our traffic patterns
are statewide making us especially vulnerable to infectious disease.
There are no obvious geographical boundaries to readily institute a
quarantine. Our central location as a transportation hub for the
populous Northeast also makes us a prime target.
Terrorists have three types of weapons available to them. For the
first, explosive devices, although increasingly deadly, we have
developed responses and have become all too familiar with this form of
terror and chaos. The other two types of terrorist weapons are
relatively new and present particular challenges to our normal response
processes. These are chemical weapons of terror, such as nerve gas, and
biological weapons of terror, such as anthrax. Chemical and biological
weapons differ dramatically from explosions in that for these newer
threats early recognition and diagnosis is crucial for both those
initially affected and for others who might yet be affected through
spread of infection or contact with the chemical. Education of
emergency responders to correctly identify these threats, whether they
occur here or abroad, is crucial to minimize the impact of biological
and chemical weapons, as well as to protecting the emergency responders
themselves. Compounding our problems is the need for a better
understanding of the effects of likely chemical and biological agents
of terrorism, development of the means to prevent their spread, and to
rapidly treat their victims.
The nation's foremost program in education and training concerning
chemical and physical threats is headed by a UMDNJ faculty member who
is currently President of the American Public Health Association. Among
her programs is the Center for Education and Training which provides
training concerning chemical and physical agents to more than 160,000
police, firefighters, municipal and state employees, as well as to
physicians, nurses and industrial hygienists. Because of its scientific
expertise, UMDNJ is uniquely qualified to develop a program to educate
state and municipal governments, emergency responders and health and
hospital professionals on planning for the response to terrorism and
training personnel to deal with threats of terrorism and how they
affect public health.
We respectfully seek $1.5 million through the Department of Energy
and Water to expand our research, education and training programs in
response to threats of chemical and biological terrorism.
Our final priority is to seek continued funding for the Consortium
for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), which is in
its fourth year of funding from the DOE's Office of Environmental
Management (EM). CRESP has become an integral part of the technical
dialogue between DOE EM sites and their regulators on major issues. At
both the Savannah River and Hanford, regulators are taking our results
and using them to facilitate better remedial options to expedite or
validate decisions that bring cleanup to closure.
By focusing its scientific efforts on issues which are arising at
various points of regulatory interface, and providing data accepted by
all parties as sound and credible, CRESP believes its work is not only
proving valuable on specific issues, but is providing a basis for more
extensive, complex wide replication and application. The pace of
requests that CRESP scientists are involved in has expanded
dramatically. We believe that we are more than a source of new
information and methods. A mechanism such as CRESP is fundamental to
bringing resolution to the regulatory process that would otherwise not
be resolved.
The Administration's budget calls for CRESP to receive $3 million
for fiscal year 2000. However, to maintain our current level of
activity, we respectfully request an investment of $4 million. If CRESP
is going to expand to respond to new requests, it will require at least
that amount.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ). We are
grateful to this committee for its past support of our initiatives and
for your leadership in advancing biomedical and environmental research.
______
Prepared Statement of Joe F. Colvin, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute
On behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute, I would like to commend
you, Chairman Domenici, Ranking Member Reid and the members of this
subcommittee for focusing your attention on the value of nuclear-
related programs contained in the Energy Department and Nuclear
Regulatory Commission budget proposals for fiscal year 2000.
Before I proceed, let me say a word about the Nuclear Energy
Institute. NEI sets policy for the U.S. nuclear energy industry and
represents over 275 members with a broad spectrum of interests,
including every U.S. utility that operates a nuclear power plant. NEI's
members also include nuclear fuel cycle companies, suppliers,
engineering firms, research laboratories, radiopharmaceutical
companies, universities, labor unions and law firms.
In large measure, your continued support of nuclear-related
programs will ensure a strong legacy of nuclear energy, science and
security for our children and for generations to come. The programs
outlined in my testimony will further U.S. advances in nuclear medicine
and technology; help guard against international threats to our energy
security and nuclear safety; and encourage growth of the nation's
largest source of emission-free electricity.
Today, nuclear energy generates 20 percent of the nation's
electricity--enough for 65 million homes. More than 100 nuclear units
contribute to the stability of the nation's power grid and are the
greatest source of emission-free energy in the country. Policymakers
who recognize the nexus between energy and environmental policy cannot
ignore nuclear energy's unique value in mitigating emissions to meet
U.S. clear air regulations and international carbon abatement goals. To
capitalize on these benefits, comprehensive reform of the nuclear
regulatory process must be a priority in fiscal year 2000
appropriations legislation.
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. The NRC's $465.4 million funding request should be devoted to
implementing regulations that have a direct bearing on safety. One of
the single most important challenges facing the nuclear energy industry
is a regulatory process that consumes licensee and NRC resources on
issues that have little or no safety significance, and that produce
inconsistency in assessment and enforcement.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot overstate the importance of this
subcommittee's role, which has been instrumental in encouraging the NRC
commissioners and staff to complete work on many long-standing reform
issues. The NRC has a number of promising regulatory reform initiatives
underway. However, Congress should continue to guide regulatory reform.
The Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended,
requires that the agency recover approximately 100 percent of its
budget authority by assessing licensees annual fees consistent with the
regulatory benefits derived. Most of those fees are collected as a
generic assessment levied on NRC licensees, creating, in effect, a
``miscellaneous'' category to encompass nearly 80 percent of its
budget. This practice is contrary to sound and accountable budgeting.
The industry supports legislation to modify the fee structure so that
licensees are assessed only for NRC programs necessary to regulate
them. Unrelated agency expenditures, such as international activities
and regulatory support to agreement states or other federal agencies,
should not be included in nuclear plant licensee user fees, but should
be included in a specific line item on the NRC's budget, subject to the
authorization and appropriations process. Additionally, the agency's
ability to collect user fees should be authorized annually by Congress
until the commission completes its regulatory reform initiatives.
We strongly urge the subcommittee to reaffirm its recommendation
last year to eliminate agency expenditures in fiscal year 2000 that do
not benefit licensees so that user fees are fairly and equitably
assessed.
In the area of reform, the subcommittee should encourage the NRC to
develop and implement a long-term strategic plan as well as to focus on
activities that can be completed in the near term. The NRC's long-range
strategy should include these principles: A safety-focused regulatory
framework that incorporates risk insights; a more efficient and
accountable regulator; an integrated NRC strategy for achieving the
objectives of regulatory reform; and a specific timetable and
milestones to ensure the NRC's long-range plan is implemented on
schedule; and staff resources and a fully accountable budget that
supports fundamental NRC reform.
The nuclear energy industry believes that rather than increase the
NRC budget--and user fees--the commission can better focus its programs
and regulations on safety-based performance standards. Such an emphasis
on performance standards would free NRC resources for license renewal
of nuclear power plants and other discrete licensing actions without
increasing the agency's overall budget.
The nuclear energy industry fully supports approval of the funding
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. The NRC's oversight activities are a crucial step toward
timely implementation of the integrated used fuel management program.
On another front, this subcommittee can help resolve the long-
standing impasse regarding overlapping regulatory authority between the
NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency. This overlap authority
exists in many areas, but is most immediately apparent in establishing
radiation standards for a national repository for used nuclear fuel. As
the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Energy Department, the
industry respectfully urges you to clarify the matter of setting
radiation standards for Yucca Mountain. The NRC's regulations have
proven effective in protecting public health and safety as well as
worker safety at nuclear facilities. Conversely, EPA has little direct
experience in regulating the use of radioactive materials and relies on
a regulatory philosophy that lacks a scientific underpinning. The
industry encourages this subcommittee to take actions necessary to
eliminate dual regulation of nuclear facilities. For the reasons
stated, EPA's standard setting authority should be ceded to the NRC, an
independent agency with scientific and technical expertise.
nuclear energy research and development
Mr. Chairman, continued investment in nuclear energy research and
development will ensure the U.S. position as a world leader in nuclear
safety and technology. Through its fiscal year 2000 recommendations,
this subcommittee also can continue to capitalize on nuclear energy's
ability to avoid atmospheric emissions amid stronger Clean Air Act
controls and international air quality goals. In fact, DOE states that
without nuclear generation, the resulting increase in carbon emissions
would be five times greater than utility reduction goals for 2000 under
the agency's Climate Challenge Program.
A comparison of electricity generating sources reveals that nuclear
energy is the most economical federal research and development
investment. For example, in 1997, the federal government spent 5 cents
for every kilowatt hour generated at nuclear power plants. The cost per
kilowatt-hour of research and development in wind energy for that
period was $4,769; for photovoltaics, $17,006; for natural gas, 41
cents and for coal, 5 cents.
The nuclear energy industry encourages the subcommittee to support
a $40 million appropriation for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative,
which funds research and development at universities, national
laboratories and industry to advance nuclear power technology, pave the
way for the expanded use of emission-free nuclear energy and maintain
U.S. leadership in nuclear technology and safety abroad. During its
first year, NERI's review board received an impressive 300 grant
applications. In light of this enthusiastic commitment, the proposed
$40 million would permit NERI to grow yet remain manageable. The Energy
Department's $25 million request would support continuation of first-
year projects, but permit little, if any, expansion.
In addition to NERI, DOE's request for the Nuclear Energy Plant
Optimization program would allocate $5 million to research and
development projects that enhance the efficiency and reliability of our
103 nuclear power plants. The industry strongly supports a $10 million
program in keeping with recommendations of the President's Committee of
Advisors on Science and Technology. This initiative is particularly
important as utilities deal with uncertainties associated with electric
industry restructuring. NEPO seeks to work with industry to improve
plant economics, reliability, availability and plant aging while
maintaining a high level of safety.
Finally, the industry recommends $17 million for University
Supportprograms at universities and colleges to enhance research and
education in nuclear sciences by helping to sustain university reactor
and engineering programs. While DOE requested $11.3 million, the
nuclear energy industry believes additional funds are needed to expand
the Nuclear Energy Education Research initiative and recruitment of
future nuclear engineers and scientists.
In addition to these efforts, the industry strongly encourages the
subcommittee to restore $20 million for electrometallurgical research
at Argonne National Laboratories. This research would focus on devising
technology to treat used fuel that powered the Argonne reactor, EBR-II.
Research on the treatment of this metal fuel's unique composition could
be applied to the treatment and disposal of other reactor fuels with
unique characteristics.
federal storage and disposal of used nuclear fuel
A key component that ensures the continued benefits of nuclear
energy is the federal acceptance and disposal of used nuclear fuel.
Since 1982, the Energy Department has been siting and developing a deep
geologic repository for the disposal of used nuclear fuel. In recent
years, however, the agency has failed to advance an important aspect of
the program--the acceptance and removal of used fuel. A little more
than a year ago, the Energy Department was scheduled to start accepting
used fuel from national laboratories, nuclear power plants and defense
facilities at more than 100 locations in 40 states. The agency missed
its deadline in violation of its clear statutory duty under the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982. The law requires disposal at a single,
federally monitored location.
The Energy Department in December 1998 released a report ordered by
Congress supporting the continued scientific study of Yucca Mountain,
Nevada, as the site for a permanent repository for used nuclear fuel.
The report concluded that ``DOE believes that Yucca Mountain
remains a promising site for a geologic repository.'' Despite the sound
scientific basis for the viability assessment, the Administration still
refuses to move used nuclear fuel. A recent plan from Energy Secretary
Bill Richardson to take title of used nuclear fuel would leave used
fuel where it is today and would pay for the program through the
Nuclear Waste Fund. Although this proposal does not work as a stand-
alone concept, the industry recognizes the valuable opportunity that
Secretary Richardson has posed to industry stakeholders through the
promise of continued dialogue focused on immediate receipt of used
nuclear fuel. The industry welcomes that opportunity.
However, this country needs an immediate solution to central
storage and disposal of its used nuclear fuel. The industry urges the
subcommittee to support the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999, S. 608,
which would ensure funding for central storage and a geologic
repository by altering the funding mechanism of the program. Without
the budget modification in S. 608, DOE would fall short of funding
needs now that it appears that a more realistic date for the agency to
open a repository may be 2020, not 2010.
Despite the Energy Department's default, scientific and technical
activities must continue if the agency is to able to determine if the
permanent repository site is suitable. The agency's $409 million fiscal
year 2000 request for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management is necessary to ensure the office continues to meet
deadlines for data collection and study at the proposed Yucca Mountain,
Nev., repository. All of these projects further DOE's effort to prepare
a draft environmental impact statement and license application for the
repository. From the industry's perspective, the fiscal year 2000
request assures timely scientific study and analysis at Yucca Mountain.
The administration's budget for Yucca Mountain activities includes
$39 million from funds previously appropriated in 1996 for interim
storage. Congress set those funds aside for an interim storage facility
and an associated transportation framework pending passage of an
authorization bill. This subcommittee should prevent the diversion of
previously appropriated funds so that the money can be held for its
intended purpose. However, as stated above, the agency's $409 million
request is necessary to ensure the agency continues to meet its
deadlines.
The nuclear energy industry believes that Nevada's use of federal
grants by the state university system and counties has been wise and
has resulted in useful contributions to the repository project. These
efforts should continue to be funded. However, the nuclear energy
industry continues to support strong oversight of all expenditure for
the federal used nuclear fuel management program. Through this
subcommittee's vigilance, recent appropriations acts have precluded
Nevada from using grant funds for lobbying, litigation and certain
multistate activities . 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.
Several other programs warrant industry support at the recommended
funding:
Low-Dose Radiation Research.--The nuclear energy industry supports
the Energy Department's request of $10 million to study how cells react
to low radiation doses and to better understand biological responses to
radiation that would further enhance occupational radiation protection.
This research has garnered the support of the Health Physics Society,
as the attached Health Physics Society policy statement notes.
Uranium Decontamination and Decommissioning.--The industry believes
the federal government has a responsibility for site cleanup and
decommissioning. DOE's fiscal year 2000 request for appropriations from
the fund includes $242 million for activities at the government-owned
gaseous diffusion plants and $35 million for uranium/thorium tailings
cleanup.
Surplus Weapons Material Disposition.--The nuclear energy industry
supports the Energy Department's $200 million request for the disposal
of surplus weapons fissile materials so that the United States and
Russia can continue a parallel path to dispose of excess weapons-grade
material. 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.--
DOE's International Nuclear Safety Program is essential to improving
operational safety at Soviet-designed nuclear power plants. Potential
weaknesses in reactor safety abroad may pose threats to public health
and the environment and erode public confidence in the entire industry.
The Institute also supports continued funding for U.S. membership in
OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency. The industry also supports expansion of
DOE's nuclear nonproliferation program, including the nuclear cities
initiative with Russia.
Medical Isotopes.--The industry supports DOE' 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 Energy Department has a historical
mandate from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to provide medical isotopes.
DOE Radiation Standards.--An area of major concern to the industry
is overlapping authority on development of radiation standards for safe
cleanup and restoration of DOE's decommissioned facilities. We urge the
subcommittee to support the Energy Department in finalizing standards
in order to enhance a safe, economic and timely conclusion to the
agency's extensive environmental restoration program. Close involvement
between DOE and the NRC ensures early identification of potential
concerns that otherwise would require more costly long-term review.
conclusion
By funding the Energy Department's nuclear energy research and
development initiatives, the subcommittee would reaffirm nuclear
energy's valuable contribution toward achieving clean air compliance
and continue research to further enhance productivity 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 that preserves and improves our air quality.
The nuclear energy industry urges the subcommittee to consider the
equity of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's user fee. Licensees
should not be assessed 100 percent user fees for commission activities
that do not affect the regulation of licensees, but that have broader,
national or international application.
Finally, although the Department of Energy has failed to meet
statutory and court-affirmed deadlines for 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 progress to support the repository project.
I would like to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to share the
industry's perspective on issues vital to the nuclear energy industry.
______
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 formed in 1992 and is comprised of businesses and
industry trade associations which share a commitment to realize our
nation's economic, environmental and national security goals through
the rapid deployment of clean and efficient natural gas, energy
efficiency, and renewable energy technologies. Our members range in
size from Fortune 500 enterprises to small entrepreneurial companies,
to national trade associations.
Few activities have a greater impact on our nation's economy,
environment, and national security than the production and use of
energy. Our economic well-being depends on energy expenditures, which
account for approximately 7 to 8 percent of the nation's gross domestic
product and a similar fraction of U.S. and world trade. Energy
production and use also account for a large share of environmental
problems, such as regional smog, acid rain, and the accumulation of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Our national security is
increasingly linked to energy production and use, given our nation's
increasing dependence on foreign oil sources, including those from the
politically unstable Middle East. Expanded reliance on natural gas,
energy efficiency, and renewable energy are the three pillars of a more
secure and sustainable energy strategy that will help strengthen the
U.S. economy and clean up the environment.
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. The
Council would like to describe the following programs, which can
strengthen the nation's portfolio of energy generation technologies.
wind
World markets for utility-scale wind energy are growing at an
unprecedented rate. Figures for 1998 indicate that total worldwide
installed wind capacity stands at 9,600 megawatts (MW), up 19 percent
from a year earlier. This figure includes approximately 2,000 MW
installed in 1998. The Council supports DOE's total request of $45.6
million for wind energy research and development in fiscal year 2000 to
fund projects in turbine research ($20.2 million), cooperative research
($11.9 million) and applied research ($13.5 million). This level of
funding is particularly important to continue developing 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.
Total U.S. wind capacity grew by 235 MW in 1998, a significant
change from the previous three years when U.S. markets for wind energy
had slowed to 11 MW in 1997, 10 MW in 1996, and 41 MW in 1995.
Preliminary projections indicate that 600 MW of new wind generating
capacity will be developed in 1999 and that 120 to 250 MW of wind
capacity will be added through ``repowering'' development at several
older wind farms in California. Repowering involves the replacement of
older wind turbines with newer, more efficient models. While the long-
term future of wind technologies is uncertain in an increasingly
deregulated electricity market, cost-shared DOE/wind industry efforts
have the potential to develop the next generation of wind technologies
to deliver electricity in the range of 2.5 cents/kilowatt-hour.
The Council supports DOE's programs focusing on small wind turbines
which generate up to 50 kilowatts, including the cost-shared Advanced
Small Wind turbine project. Small wind turbines are used for smaller
on-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 small size of the domestic market
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 many new jobs, and give
more opportunities for the marketplace to choose the most competitive
small-scale renewable energy technologies.
DOE has also been effective in helping U.S. small wind turbine
companies overcome barriers to important international markets. While
DOE expenditures in this area have been very modest, support 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, Colorado. 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, Colorado) 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 in part 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 an 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 billion to $400 billion worth of new business over
the next twenty years. Experts estimate that U.S. companies can sell
over $1 billion of wind energy each year if U.S. industry can capture
25 percent of the worldwide wind energy market over the next five
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 United States in vast,
multibillion 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 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 next year and its
manufacturers have responded 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
much of 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 (MSR) Initiative.
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 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 four years have witnessed six U.S. companies
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.
BCSE is highly supportive of non-conventional PV programs within
DOE's Office of Power Technologies. The Council specifically supports
the non-conventional PV request of $4.3 million and specifically
requests the Committee to instruct DOE to dedicate $2 million for
Thermo Photovoltaic (TPV) research.
The Council also supports PV programs within DOE's Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, specifically 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 2000 should include the completion of collaborative
projects with utilities and builders to assess their impact on
improving solar water heating technology and the completion of a
cooperative research and development agreement with the Salt River
Agricultural Improvement and Power District to develop a solar water
heater that could provide hot water at a cost of 6 to 7 cents per
kilowatt-hour.
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 six years,
the primary program focus has been in collaboration with industry to
develop advanced solar thermal electric technologies to the point of
commercial readiness.
distributed generation
Utilities throughout the nation are reorganizing to meet the many
challenges associated with electric utility restructuring. Accordingly,
power providers are developing state of the art technologies aimed at
providing customers with the cleanest, most reliable, and cheapest
power possible. Combined heat and power (CHP) and distributed
generation technologies provide reliable on-site power generation with
dramatically improved efficiencies and cleaner fuels such as natural
gas and biomass gas. BCSE strongly supports $8 million for development
and deployment of CHP and related distributed generation systems,
managed by the Office of Industrial Technologies, which showcase novel
integrated schemes or hybrid system demonstrations.
renewable energy production incentive
As part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Sec. 1212), 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 succcessful in helping municipal
utilities such as the Sacramento Municipal Utility District develops
wind and solar generating facilities. We believe the Administration's
request is insufficient to meet the requirements of this program, and
request the Committee increase to $20 million the funding for the REPI.
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 2000 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 his 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
Some have suggested that a technology should have a minimum market
share before federal support is provided for R&D. We believe that the
role of the federal government should in fact decrease as new
technologies successfully penetrate the market and increase their
ability to support robust R&D programs on their own. 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 the American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society (ACS) strongly supports increasing
the federal investment in research conducted by the Department of
Energy's Office of Science (SC).
As part of our commitment to sustained research funding, ACS
supports doubling total federal spending on research within a decade,
fiscal year 1999-fiscal year 2009. This requires an average increase of
7 percent per year for each of the federal government's basic research
programs. For that reason, ACS applauds Congress' recognition of the
importance of energy-related research and for providing SC with an
increase of greater than 9 percent in fiscal year 1999. This is an
important first step.
ACS urges Congress to further strengthen the national investment in
research supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Science by
providing it with at least a 7 percent increase in fiscal year 2000.
The nearly 5 percent increase proposed in the fiscal year 2000
Administration budget request for SC is insufficient to meet the
energy-related research needs of our nation. Moreover, while the
Society is pleased with the strong funding levels for proposed research
initiatives such as the Scientific Simulation Initiative and the
Climate Change Technology Initiative, ACS is concerned about the
decrease in funding for ongoing basic research programs. For example,
the Society is distressed with the proposed 2.3 percent decrease in
funding for Chemical Science within the Basic Energy Sciences program.
The ACS supports programs within SC for the following reasons:
--The United States has a dynamic, comprehensive, interconnected
research system that has enabled us to assume global
leadership, enjoy a high standard of living, and ensure our
nation's security. Maintaining those benefits requires
continual renewal of investment in R&D, including research
sponsored by SC, which is an integral part of the federal
research enterprise.
--SC-supported research is advancing our national goals of reducing
energy consumption, harnessing new energy sources, and reducing
our dependence on imported oil and improving the quality of the
environment. Better understanding of combustion at a
fundamental level, improved hazardous waste storage, and the
development of new superconducting materials are some of the
areas of discovery SC supports. SC research also plays a key
role in efforts to understand global climate change.
--SC programs include a broad array of research activities that
advance the fundamental scientific knowledge base and train
future scientists in areas of great importance to our nation.
They are also the principal source of support for the non-
defense R&D carried out at DOE's nine multipurpose national
laboratories.
The American Chemical Society appreciates Congress' continued focus
on the nation's energy research needs, but also recognizes the
difficulty in achieving the goal of doubling research support within a
ten-year period. A national commitment to double federal support for
research will require additional resources. ACS encourages Congress to
work in a bipartisan manner with the Administration to identify and
employ the necessary resources. The Society looks forward to working
with Congress this year to strengthen the national investment in DOE
basic research.
chemistry: fundamental to meeting energy and environmental challenges
Most chemistry research at DOE is supported through two programs
within the Office of Science: Basic Energy Sciences (BES) and
Biological and Environmental Research (BER). These two programs support
the fundamental research that provides the discoveries, knowledge base,
and the experienced scientists and engineers needed to address the
environmental impacts of energy production and use. This research is
also essential for control and clean-up of radioactive and hazardous
wastes at DOE sites, particularly those sites involved in past nuclear
weapons production.
--Basic Energy Sciences is the most diverse research program within
DOE. This program supports scientific research related to
energy technology development, which consists of a wide range
of basic research activities in chemistry, as well as
materials, engineering, earth sciences, and energy biosciences.
Basic Energy Sciences is also the program through which major
research facilities are developed and maintained. The major
user facilities operated by BES at the DOE laboratories are
used extensively by industry, universities, and government on a
cost-shared basis.
--Biological and Environmental Research is focused on basic research
in the biomedical and environmental sciences to further
understanding of potential long-term health and environmental
effects of energy productions and use that includes research on
global climate change and the human genome project. The program
also supports the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory
for bioremediation research.
Investments in fundamental research have already paid off, as
documented in past DOE reports. Examples of promising work include the
following:
--BES-supported researchers have synthesized and tested an ion
exchange resin that removes a variety of metal contaminants
from groundwater and mixed wastes.
--Radioactive sludge intake wastes present clogging problems. Surface
chemistry information being produced through SC-supported
research is helping to control this situation.
--In other SC-funded work, scientists have decomposed dioxins in soil
using methods that are technically and economically feasible.
--BES-supported research is combining models of turbulent combustion
with realistic chemical kinetics to reduce the emission of
pollutants from internal combustion engines.
As the world's population grows, the energy and environmental
challenges confronting us will become more complex and difficult for us
to solve. The fundamental chemistry-related research supported by the
Office of Science will be essential to our efforts to meet these
challenges.
______
Prepared Statement of Jaime Steve, Legislative Director, American Wind
Energy Association
wind power is working
Cost-Shared R&D + Existing Tax Credit = New Jobs & Competitively
Priced, Pollution-Free Power
Over 230 Megawatts of New Domestic Wind Power Came On-Line in 1998.
Utility-Scale Wind Power Expands Throughout the U.S.
The American Wind Energy Association \1\ appreciates this
opportunity to provide testimony for the record on the Department of
Energy's Fiscal 2000 wind energy program budget before the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The American Wind Energy Association, or AWEA, was formed in
1974. The organization represents virtually every facet of the wind
industry, including turbine and component manufacturers, project
developers, utilities, academicians, and interested individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our testimony addresses the following issues:
(1) The need for increased appropriations for cost-shared DOE/
industry R&D partnerships aimed at further driving down the cost of
wind power to a level approaching 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
(2) Wind power is working throughout much of the U.S.--Alaska,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas, Washington,
Wisconsin, Vermont, and Wyoming. Cost-shared R&D--which has already
slashed the cost of wind power by more than 80 percent since the early
1980's--coupled with the existing wind energy production tax credit is
currently producing competitively-priced, pollution-free electricity.
(3) Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI). This program
would be significantly underfunded by the Clinton Administration budget
proposal. But even more importantly, AWEA suggests that Congress work
with the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop long-range alternatives
to unpredictable annual funding of this program. For this
appropriations cycle, AWEA recommends funding of $8 million--$12
million below the $20 million need identified by DOE in its fiscal year
1999 appropriations testimony.
a growing domestic wind industry
Utility-Scale Wind Development.--Total U.S. wind capacity grew by
235 megawatts (MW) in 1998, with major new wind plants being built in
states outside California, traditionally the nation's leading wind
energy producer. The states of Minnesota, Oregon, Wyoming, and Iowa
account for most of the new development.
This impressive growth exhibits a significant change from the
previous three years when U.S. markets for wind energy had slowed to
only 11 MW of new capacity installed in 1997, 10 MW installed in 1996,
and 41 MW installed in 1995.
This surge in U.S. wind energy capacity is due to two main factors:
(1) Cost-shared DOE/industry R&D partnerships which have reduced
the cost of wind energy by more than 80 percent since the early 1980's.
(2) The impending expiration (on June 30, 1999) of the Wind Energy
Production Tax Credit (PTC)which provides an incentive to produce
electricity with non-polluting wind resources. While developers are
moving quickly to erect new wind farms before the credit expires, AWEA
remains hopeful that the incentive will be extended and continue to
encourage additional projects in the future.
For 1999, AWEA is preliminarily projecting 600 MW of new wind
energy capacity, and between 120 and 250 MW of ``repowering''
development at several older wind farms in California. The term
repowering means removing older wind turbines and replacing them with
new, more efficient turbines. At some sites in California one new wind
machine can replace up to twelve turbines in operation since the early
1980's while generating more electricity at a significantly lower cost.
On the international front, wind power has been the fastest growing
energy source in the world in the 1990's--with global installed
generating capacity estimated to have grown by 25.7 percent annually
since 1990. Worldwide, the wind industry doubled the amount of capacity
in place three years ago, adding 2,100 megawatts (MW) to reach a total
of 9,600 MW at the end of 1998. That amount of capacity is sufficient
to generate approximately 21 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, or
enough power for 3.5 million suburban homes. Through this type of
growth, wind power has become one of the most rapidly expanding
industries, with worldwide equipment sales reaching roughly $2 billion
in 1998.
Small Wind Systems (i.e., 50 kW or less).--Although the worldwide
market for small wind turbines (with a capacity of less than 50
kilowatts per turbine) has not received as much attention, there is a
growing recognition that the market for small wind turbines is becoming
increasingly attractive. Small wind turbine markets are diverse, and
include many applications both on-grid and off-grid. One market
projection anticipates a five-fold increase in the small turbine market
by 2005.
Small turbines can provide electricity where none is available from
conventional sources or where fuel costs are prohibitively high, such
as diesel generators in Alaska. Currently, more than 2 billion people
around the globe are not connected to an electric power grid and that
number is growing. Small wind turbine manufacturers from Flagstaff,
Arizona to Norman, Oklahoma, to Norwich, Vermont are working to capture
this emerging market for U.S.-made goods and services.
One or more small turbines can power a cabin, telecommunications
relay, business, school, community center, clinic, or an entire
village. Farmers can use small turbines to power their homes and other
buildings or pump water for livestock or irrigation. In some cases,
utilities may erect a cluster of turbines at the end of a distribution
line instead of building a more expensive power plant or transmission
line.
wind program fiscal year 2000 request
AWEA supports DOE's fiscal 2000 wind program request of $45.6
million. A strong Department of Energy research and development effort,
aimed at achieving even further cost reductions, is a crucial component
in continuing to grow the U.S. wind industry and build on the successes
of 1998 outlined below.
Applied Research.--About $13.5 million of the overall Wind program
request would fund Applied Research containing core research efforts
involving universities and private entities. Work focuses on advancing
the U.S. wind energy technology base through research, testing, and
analysis of complex interactions between wind turbine structures and
materials. Efforts also examine how all parts of wind energy systems--
blades, drivetrains, generators, power converters, control systems, and
towers--can be optimized to increase reliability and further reduce
costs.
AWEA's member companies rely on these cost-shared efforts with DOE
and its laboratories for this type of research because most individual
companies are under-capitalized. Even larger corporations have limited
capability to carry out basic research efforts without specialized
assistance.
Activities under the core research component of Applied Research
are consistent with the recommendations of the President's Committee of
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report on energy research
and development to support research on computational fluid dynamics,
light weight adaptive structures, advanced control systems, and
variable speed and direct drive generators.
The additional $2.8 million requested above fiscal year 1999
funding would be applied to a new program--Wind Partnerships for
Advanced Component Technologies (Wind PACT)--to establish industry-
government teams to test promising new component parts. Under this
effort, two to three R&D subcontracts would be competitively selected
to explore potential concepts such as light-weight and direct-drive
generators, flexible and articulated rotors, feedback controls for load
alleviation, and high efficiency power converters.
Applied Research also includes R&D for technologies that enable
wind to be used in stand-alone, remote, or hybrid power systems. The
combined use of wind turbines with diesel generators and other
renewables and storage systems is a potentially large market for U.S.-
made technologies. The key research issue in this area is designing a
control system that allows diesel generators to be turned off, when
intermittent wind power is being produced, thus reducing overall
consumption of high-cost diesel fuel. In addition to laboratory R&D on
control systems, this program supports ``real world'' control system
field verification projects in Alaska. Approximately 60 percent of
field verification costs are met by private industry.
Ultimately, WindPACT and other Applied Research efforts are aimed
at moving new technologies from the laboratories to the marketplace
where they will directly benefit American consumers and taxpayers by
spurring new job growth, cutting electricity generation costs, and
reducing overall emissions of harmful air pollutants.
Turbine Research.--About $20.2 million of the overall Wind program
request would be invested in DOE's cost-shared Turbine Research program
aimed at further reducing the cost of utility-scale wind power to a
price approaching 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour at 15 mph wind sites. The
bulk of this effort is focused on completing research and development
with two industry partners leading to state-of-the-art utility scale
(500 kW--2 MW) wind turbines. These projects currently call for a 20--
75 percent industry cost-share.
The requested funding would support design review, analysis, and
testing services needed for several new and on-going Turbine Research
subcontracts with AWEA member companies. In addition, field
verification projects would be initiated that would be tailored to
satisfy specific regional needs. In addition, technical and data
analyses support would be continued for ongoing utility-scale Turbine
Verification Program projects.
Another important component of this program would direct $1.3
million in cost-shared R&D efforts to research, testing, and field
verification of smaller wind turbines. This effort is aimed at
assisting U.S. manufacturers capture a significant portion of the
growing international market for small, distributed electricity
generation throughout the developing world. Another component of the
$20.4 million Turbine Research effort would provide $1.8 million for
projects aimed at developing distributed (or, off-grid) wind resources
on Native American Lands. The additional $4.8 million requested above
fiscal year 1999 funding would be used for several field verification
efforts aimed at moving new turbine designs from the laboratory to the
marketplace.
Cooperative Research & Testing Program.--About $11.9 million of the
overall Wind program request would fund Cooperative Research and
Testing efforts conducted at the National Wind Technology Center
(NWTC), located new Rocky Flats, Colorado. The goal of this work is to
resolve near-term technical questions and provide technical support
thus allowing U.S. companies to better compete in world markets.
The additional $3.2 million requested above fiscal year 1999
funding would be used exclusively for field verification projects under
the Hybrid Systems for Village Power program and wind monitoring/
performance measurement at existing wind farms. This key efforts would
build off of hybrid field verification work in Alaska and provide
additional opportunities for field verification of new hybrid power
systems developed in the area of Applied Research. In essence, this
project would verify--through ``real world testing''--smaller wind
systems at existing stand-alone diesel power sites in Alaska and other
states, U.S. territories, Native American communities, and other
remote, off-grid locations.
A separate, but related, effort funded under Cooperative Research
and Testing would support continued development of international
consensus standards for wind turbine design, and establishment of wind
turbine certification capability in the U.S. Both of these activities
are essential to maximizing industry prospects for international sales
of U.S. wind energy products and services.
wind power is working in these states
Once based almost solely in California, the domestic wind energy
industry now features utility-scale projects in 18 states. This
economic expansion into the nation's heartland is directly tied to
dramatic cost reductions and reliability improvements stemming from
industry cost-shared partnerships with the Department of Energy
laboratories. Below are some of the state success stories of the last
year.
Colorado.--New Belgium Brewing Company, of Fort Collins, CO,--
makers of ``Fat Tire Amber Ale'' and other microbrews--said February 25
that it will soon become the largest private consumer of wind power in
the U.S. The decision has been put to a vote of the company's 70
employees, who unanimously OK'd the switch to wind power even though
the slightly increased cost cut into their bonuses, which are paid on a
cost-per-barrel basis.
By substituting 100 percent wind power for more conventional
sources of electricity, the brewery will reduce the amount of coal
burned by 980 tons per year and eliminate more than 4 million pounds of
carbon dioxide emissions annually. The power will be supplied by Fort
Collins Utilities (FCU), the city's municipal utility. A 660-kW wind
turbine will be built next fall at the Platte River Power Authority's
wind site near Medicine Bow, Wyoming, to support New Belgium's
subscription to FCU's wind power program. The new turbine will produce
about 1.8 million kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, which is
about the amount of electricity that New Belgium will consume over 12
months.
Two 600-kW turbines have operated at the Medicine Bow site since
April, 1998, producing power for 12 other Fort Collins businesses and
approximately 520 residents who have subscribed to the utility's wind
program.
Iowa.--Enron Corp. is erecting 250 high-tech wind turbines near
Alta and Storm Lake and will sell power to MidAmerican Energy. FPL
Energy, Inc. (a subsidiary of Florida Power & Light) is building 56
turbines at Clear Lake and selling power to Alliant Energy. When these
new wind turbines go on line, Iowa will be the third-largest wind
energy producing state in the nation, behind California and Minnesota.
Illinois.--The initial startup of a new 60,000-square-foot wind
turbine assembly plant in Champaign, IL has created 60 new jobs
building 22 story-tall wind machines each weighing 23 tons. Workers
have already built and shipped 56 turbines to a wind farm in Iowa and
recently finished the first of four of 47 turbines headed for Texas.
Owners, NEG Micon USA, Inc. (based in Rolling Meadows, IL) expect to
assemble and deliver 250 wind turbines across the U.S. in 1999. When
operating at full speed, the facility is capable of assembling more
than 400 wind turbines per year.
Minnesota.--Northern States Power Co. is building 425 MW of wind
capacity by 2002. When complete, these wind farms will be producing
enough energy to power the equivalent of 200,000 Minnesota households.
New Mexico.--In April, Southwest Public Service Co. starts
purchasing wind power from the brand new .7 MW Llano Estacado Wind
Ranch located halfway between Clovis, NM and Farwell, TX. The one test-
turbine is owned and maintained by Cielo Wind Power of Austin, TX. The
Llano Estacado generator will be mounted on a 230-foot tubular steel
tower and will be turned by three 80-foot long blades. Power is
produced when wind velocity reaches eight to 60 miles-per-hour,
although 25 MPH wind would be the most efficient. The generator will
turn off when the wind velocity is more than 60 MPH.
New Mexico is ranked #12 on a DOE list of the top 20 states for
wind energy development potential--even higher than California which is
ranked #17. With more turbines, New Mexico winds could produce 435
billion kilowatt-hours annually, the wind energy could create 130,000
jobs, and it has an economic potential of $10.9 billion.
North Dakota.--Grand Forks, ND gained 130 new high-tech jobs
earlier this year when LM Glasfiber, Inc., a wind turbine blade
manufacturer based in Denmark, opened a new $5.8 million production
facility in the town's new industrial park. More jobs will be added
when the company soon adds a sales and service department.
Oregon.--FPL Energy's new Vansycle wind farm, near the town of
Pendleton, went on line in December of 1998. The project's 38 high-tech
turbines are now producing about 25 MW of power--enough electricity to
meet the needs of about 60,000 people--for customers of Portland
General Electric.
Texas.--(A) The largest wind turbines ever erected in North America
were dedicated December 2, 1998 in Big Spring, Texas. Upon completion,
the project's 46 wind turbines will produce about 117 million kilowatt-
hours per year--enough electricity to serve the needs of 7,300 homes.
(B) Reliant Energy HL&P, a major utility based in Houston, TX.,
plans to offer its customers non-polluting electricity from the wind
this summer. HL&P will be buying the power generated by 22.5 MW of wind
capacity to be installed in the Delaware Mountain Wind Farm, which is
now under construction in rural Culberson County in west Texas. The
amount of electricity from the wind farm will be equivalent to the
power needs of more than 4,000 homes. American National Wind Power
(ANWP), a Houston-based wind farm developer, is scheduled to complete
the wind plant's first phase, which will total 30 MW in capacity,
before the end of June. ANWP hopes to ultimately expand the Delaware
Mountain Wind Farm to 250 MW, which would make it the largest U.S. wind
plant.
Wyoming.--The Foote Creek wind farm will soon have the capacity to
produce over 40 MW of power. Electricity generated at the site will be
purchased by Pacificorp, the Bonneville Power Administration, and the
Eugene (Oregon) Water & Electric Board.
renewable energy production incentive (repi)
Year-to-year uncertainty regarding funding levels for the Renewable
Energy Production Incentive (REPI) play havoc with the long-term
planning needs of running a municipally-owned utility. For this reason,
AWEA suggests the Congress work with the Department of Energy (DOE) to
develop long-range alternatives to annual funding of this program.
Assuming that significant changes in program funding and
distribution are unlikely to occur this year, AWEA recommends fiscal
year 2000 REPI funding of $8 million--$12 million below the $20 million
need identified by DOE (in its fiscal year 1999 appropriations
testimony) and by the American Public Power Association.
AWEA's recommendation differs markedly from the Administration's
proposed reduction to $1.5 million from current spending of $4 million
(fiscal year 1999 level). AWEA's $8 million recommendation is the same
funding level suggested in our fiscal year 1999 testimony.
The REPI program, authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
encourages municipally-owned utilities to invest in renewable energy
technologies including wind energy systems. REPI permits DOE to make
direct payments to publicly and cooperatively owned utilities at the
rate of 1.5 cent per kilowatt-hour for electricity generated from wind,
solar, geothermal, and biomass projects. Because wind energy projects
require a two to three year lead time for permitting and construction,
it is very important that stable and predictable funding be provided.
REPI was established to ensure equity between investor-owned
utilities--that utilize production tax credits--and publicly and
cooperatively owned electric utilities that are unable to do so. REPI
is particularly important in helping the following publicly owned
utilities develop wind energy projects: Bonneville Power Administration
(Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana); Cedar Falls Utilities (Iowa);
City of Brownfield (Texas); Eugene Water & Electric Board (Oregon);
Fort Collins Light & Power (Colorado); Lincoln Electric (Nebraska);
Lower Colorado River Authority (Texas); Marshall Utilities (Minnesota);
Moorhead Public Service (Minnesota); Nebraska Public Power District
(Nebraska); Platte River Power Authority (Colorado); Princeton
Municipal Light Dept. (Massachusetts); Sacramento Municipal Utility
District (California); Traverse City Light & Power (Michigan); and
Waverly Light & Power (Iowa).
conclusion
Smart investments in wind energy R&D have delivered--and are
delivering--value for taxpayers by developing a clean domestic energy
source providing significant economic, public health, and environmental
benefits. Working with DOE, the wind industry has cut the per kilowatt-
hour cost of wind power by more than 80 percent since the early 1980's
thus allowing utility-scale wind development in 18 states and
generating electricity equivalent to the residential electric needs of
over one million Americans.
As the cost of conventional electricity sources also continues to
decline, a strong DOE wind energy research and development effort
funded at $45.6 million is one crucial component of growing this
industry.
On behalf of the members and board of the American Wind Energy
Association, I thank you for the chance to share our views on these
important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The Energy Committee
of the Council on Engineering of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) is pleased to provide testimony on the fiscal year
2000 budget request for the Department of Energy (DOE). Our testimony
is directed to DOE's research and development (R&D) programs related to
the use of renewable and nuclear energy and fundamental energy
research.
introduction to the energy committee of asme
The 125,000-member ASME is a worldwide engineering society focused
on technical, educational, and research issues. It conducts one of the
world's largest technical publishing operations, holds some 30
technical conferences and 200 professional development courses each
year, and sets many industrial and manufacturing standards. This
testimony represents the considered judgment of the Energy Committee
and is not necessarily a position of ASME as a whole. The Energy
Committee consists primarily of members representing the eight
technical divisions that address energy technologies and resources.
Energy R&D was identified in a recent survey of ASME members as one
of the most important public policy issues. Energy Committee members
recommend that an energy policy:
--maintain U.S. competitiveness in the international marketplace;
--protect our national energy security;
--seek technological solutions to concerns about global climate
change and emissions of associated pollutants; and,
--protect the environment in all phases of the energy cycle, from the
extraction of fuels to the ultimate disposal of the byproducts.
role of technology
Increased national and international concerns about the environment
are placing higher demands on the performance of our energy systems. As
engineers, we cannot emphasize strongly enough that investments in
science, engineering, and technology are essential for enabling our
nation to meet its needs for inexpensive energy that is produced and
consumed in an environmentally friendly manner.
Meeting our future energy needs in a manner consistent with
national and global environmental well-being will require development
of a broad suite of technologies ranging from renewables to nuclear
energy. Fossil fuels, which are presently the worldwide predominant
energy source, will remain the primary fuel for provision of energy for
a number of years to come, both here and abroad. Therefore, efforts to
improve the efficiency and environmental friendliness of their use will
have a larger impact than might be true of other sources, particularly
in the next 20 years. Those efforts must be complemented by R&D
investments in a broad range of energy production technologies.
The Energy Committee believes that immediate priority for increased
funding for research programs should be given to:
--programs that maintain or even increase the use of nuclear energy,
--programs that develop renewable sources as viable energy options
for both domestic and foreign implementation, and
--programs that provide for basic research, which stimulates the
development of innovative technologies, addresses major science
and technology challenges, and maintains our educational
pipeline to ensure the supply of human capital.
programs in the office of nuclear energy
The Energy Committee supports the responsible use of all energy
resources for generating electricity, transportation fuels, and use in
the industrial, commercial, and residential sectors. Our assessment of
energy use projections, such as presented in the EIA Annual Energy
Outlook for 1998, lead to the conclusion that the United States must
continue to maintain a diverse mix of energy supplies. The U.S.
pioneered the safe utilization of atomic energy for commercial power
production. Technology developed in the U.S. is now employed world-wide
for nuclear power generation. For over two decades, no new nuclear
power plants have been approved for construction in the U.S. Abroad,
many countries are taking advantage of this clean, safe, and relatively
inexpensive power source. The U.S. has the opportunity to renew its
option on the effective use of nuclear power, which many believe will
be a vital part of a future where carbon emissions may be severely
curtailed. However, this will not be possible without significant,
sustained, national investment, coupled with the re-licensing of
existing U.S. nuclear plants.
Nuclear energy plant optimization
The Energy Committee is particularly supportive of efforts to
address extending the life and improve the effectiveness of
conventional nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Energy Plant
Optimization (NEPO) program marks the beginning of efforts to enable
maximum use of our existing nuclear generation capacity. Major advances
in science and technology offer the potential to substantially increase
the productive life of nuclear plants with improved safety and economic
performance. Given the potential benefits offered by the NEPO program,
the Energy Committee encourages consideration of additional funding,
above the $5 million proposed by the Administration for fiscal year
2000 to $10 million, with appropriate and justified increases in future
years.
Nuclear energy research initiative (NERI)
Renewal of efforts to develop fundamental new technology for future
nuclear power generation was supported by the Energy Committee last
year, and we continue to endorse investment in this young program.
Increased understanding of nuclear power technology, advances in
materials science, and improvements in many related sciences and
technology offer the potential to reduce plant construction and
operation costs and waste management requirements, and improve plant
operability, reliability, lifespan, and safety. A substantial fraction
of this initiative will go toward nurturing university research and
education in nuclear science and engineering, through direct funding
and reinforcing linkages between the nuclear technical community in
industry and our national laboratories. It will help ensure the
availability of an improved nuclear power option for the future, which
will benefit the U.S. by enhancing power production in this country and
enabling U.S. industry to compete effectively in the global energy
markets. The Energy Committee supports the increase in funding proposed
for this program.
Other nuclear programs
Consistent with support of the NERI program, the Energy Committee
supports continued investment in the University Reactor Fuel Assistance
and Support (URFAS) efforts. It is reasonable to believe that increased
investment in NERI and NEPO will require greater utilization of our
university reactors, therefore, the Energy Committee recommends a
modest increase to $13 million for fiscal year 2000.
The Energy Committee supports continuation of the Advanced
Radioisotope Program at the level proposed by the Administration (no
change from fiscal year 1999). The Energy Committee also supports
continued efforts to support establishment of a commercial application
for the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) at the level ($30 million)
proposed by the Administration. This effort is particularly prudent
considering the Administration-proposed establishment of an Advanced
Nuclear Medicine Initiative that would augment the commercial mission
envisioned for FFTF of medical isotope production.
programs in solar and renewable resources technologies
The development of technologies that enable use of solar and
renewable resources are of significant strategic importance to the U.S.
Development of competitive renewable options provides insurance for
potential energy security and global climate change impacts on our
energy future. They will enable the U.S. to achieve a more sustainable
energy economy.
The development of solar and renewable resource technologies
provides one of the greatest challenges to modern science and
engineering. Consistent with the magnitude of the challenge, it will be
necessary to sustain investment over long periods of time to enable
substantial progress in this arena. The Administration has proposed
substantial increases in funding for solar and renewable programs,
largely because of their potential to contribute to reduction of global
climate change emissions. It is likely, however, that efforts to
improve efficiency and reduce carbon emissions of fossil energy
technologies could have a larger near-term impact on global climate
change emissions than comparable investments in solar and renewable
technology.
Solar/renewable energy programs
The Energy Committee strongly encourages continued support of
fundamental science and engineering to facilitate discovery and
development of breakthrough technologies in all solar and renewable
resource applications. A key aspect of R&D should focus on the
development of innovative concepts at universities to complement the
work being pursued by the national laboratories. Demonstration programs
are an essential element to both evaluate technologies and to address
the many challenging operations and integration issues, and should be
focused on resolving performance uncertainties, examining systemic and
integration issues, and reducing cost and risk for commercial
development and deployment. Such programs should not attempt to create
a market for these technologies, which properly remains the
responsibility of industry.
The Solar Buildings and Hydropower programs are very small, with
small dollar increases. Both of these programs favorably impact the use
of renewable energy, at good cost/benefit ratios. The larger programs,
Concentrating Solar and Geothermal Energy, are slated for modest
increases (11 percent and 4 percent, respectively), which appear
appropriate considering their contributions.
The substantial increase (over 25 percent) in the hydrogen program
does not seem justified. Careful consideration of the rationale for
aggressive development of ``pure'' hydrogen technology systems should
be undertaken in light of the potential for on-board and on-site
conversion of hydrocarbon fuels to hydrogen offered by several
developing technologies. Furthermore, the time scale for implementation
of the ``hydrogen economy,'' should it become necessary and
economically feasible, is sufficiently long that urgent development is
not now required. The $7.5 million (24 percent) increase in the Biomass
program also does not seem to be merited in terms of its near-term
contribution to the nation's energy needs, unless the ``co-firing with
coal'' project can be shown to significantly reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
The major program dollar and percentage increases (about 30 percent
each) are in the two biggest programs: Wind and Photovoltaics (PV).
Both of these technologies have viable industries and are in a
``globally competitive'' mode, with research and development
investments driving down the delivered energy price of each. It is to
the advantage of the United States to be pre-eminent in both of these
technologies because of the value of their export markets and also
because of the energy security and emission-reduction objectives
offered by both technologies. The PV program represents the renewable
technology with the greatest overall energy/power potential, and also
has been a program with steadily increasing efficiency and reduced
energy/power costs. Both programs should continue to be examined for
benefits versus costs, especially with large program funding increases.
programs in the office of science
The bulk of funding allocated for programs in the Office of Science
support efforts along four themes, (1) the physics of matter, (2)
global climate change research, (3) fundamental transport and
conversion processes, and (4) advanced computation and information
technologies. The scientific merits of the majority of these programs
have been well documented and have earned the support of the Energy
Committee. The most substantial changes proposed for fiscal year 2000
relate to (1) the continued construction of the Spallation Neutron
Source ($84 million), which the Energy Committee generally supports,
and (2) initiation of the DOE elements of the Administration's
Information Technology for the Twenty-First Century initiative (IT\2\)
($68.5 million).
The Energy Committee strongly endorses the DOE efforts under the
IT\2\ with certain reservations. We applaud the inclusion of combustion
processes as a major computation challenge of which the Scientific
Simulation Initiative is a small portion ($7 million) of the proposed
funding. However, there are a great many additional challenges that
defy present engineering simulation (such as on-line simulation of
power grid dynamics, or composite material behavior) that would be
worthy research areas for advanced simulation. The development of
engineering simulation approaches has been less well represented in DOE
efforts than scientific computing, yet investments in engineering
simulation can often result in rapid translation into domestic economic
growth. We therefore support increased funding for the Simulation
Initiative to enable establishment of a more substantial programmatic
effort in engineering simulation as part of this new initiative.
Lastly, the Energy Committee is concerned that the Science
Education budget remains under funded, at $4.5 million. ASME has long
championed increased attention to science, mathematics and technical
education at all levels, but particularly in grades K-12. Considering
that almost $3 billion is budgeted for the DOE Office of Science, it
seems only reasonable that efforts to translate the scientific and
engineering experience of the present generation to those who will be
responsible for our future should be of paramount importance. We
therefore recommend a budget of $6 million for Science Education as the
first step toward increasing the interest and enthusiasm of our youth
for science and engineering.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony regarding the
renewable, nuclear, and science budgets proposed for the Department of
Energy. ASME's Energy Committee will be pleased to respond to requests
for additional information or perspectives on other aspects of our
nation's energy program.
______
Prepared Statement of Chester A. Farris, III, Chairman, Photovoltaics
Division, Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)
The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) is the national
industry association of the solar electric and solar thermal companies
in the United States. The Photovoltaics Division represents those
industry members who manufacture, distribute, and install solar
electric technologies known as photovoltaics (PV).
The Division strongly supports the Administration's fiscal year
2000 recommendation for $93 million in research and development funding
for photovoltaic technology. Over the last several years, federally-
supported photovoltaic research at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, universities, and the private
sector has yielded stunning results, enabling the U.S. to retain its
worldwide technological leadership position.
The industry respectfully solicits the Subcommittee to fund
critical cost-shared programs at the level of the Administration's
request. In order of priority, these programs are:
1. Thin Film Partnership
2. PV Manufacturing Technology R&D (PV MaT)
3. Million Solar Roofs and Building-integrated PV R&D
4. System Engineering and Reliability
5. High Performance R&D
the industry request
The Photovoltaics RD&D Program administered by the U.S. Department
of Energy has consistently achieved its long-and short-term goals and
objectives.
The primary goal of the Program is to conduct pure and applied
research on new materials and processes to lower the cost of
photovoltaics and boost user confidence in the application of this
innovative technology. The governments of Germany and Japan have
initiatives far more ambitious than those outlined by the fiscal year
2000 recommendation.
The US photovoltaics industry is comprised of over 20 US-based
manufacturers, 100 distribution and system integration firms, and over
100 solar electric installation companies. The US industry leads the
world technologically and has a dominant market share of over 40
percent. The ability to maintain America's leadership position can only
be sustained by leveling the playing field by fully funding the
programs proposed in the Administration's budget. Funding in Japan's
photovoltaics program now exceeds US $250 million per year. Germany has
launched a program to install 100,000 rooftop systems that would
increase the country's PV market requirement by an order of magnitude.
To date, the DOE Photovoltaics Program has been very effective in
directing the resources of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) and Sandia National Laboratories, which are jointly known as the
National Center for Photovoltaics (NCPV). The Labs' technical
competency and analytical capabilities have resulted in significant
improvements in the cost, reliability, and performance of photovoltaic
cells, modules, and systems. Research areas of particular note include
new substrate materials (high-strength glass and plastics), process
technology, building-integrated photovoltaics, and system measurement
and performance.
At the Subcommittee's request, the DOE Photovoltaics Program has
dramatically reduced ``uncosted'' balances, becoming the leading
renewable energy program to do so. The DOE Photovoltaics Program awards
funding almost entirely on a competitive bid basis and is well managed
and directed.
The Thin Film R&D and PV Manufacturing Technology programs have
resulted in a reduction in photovoltaic cell and panel manufacturing
costs from $50 per watt in 1976 to below $5 per watt today, a ten-fold
decrease. To reach parity with conventional power generation
technologies, our industry must continue to drive this cost down
further. This goal can only be achieved through aggressive R&D and
manufacturing technology programs such as the Thin Film Partnership and
the PV MaT Program. The current cost-sharing methodology used by the
Department ensures that participating companies must fully commit their
own dollars towards this goal, as well.
The Million Solar Roofs Initiative, announced by the Administration
in 1997, has encouraged several state agencies, local governments, and
electric utilities to establish promotion and technical assistance
programs for photovoltaics. However, the Million Solar Roofs Program
requires additional funding in order to ensure the long-term viability
of the US industry which is continually threatened by foreign
government subsidy programs.
Historically, it has taken considerable courage and foresight from
our elected officials to put in place infrastructure programs that have
long-term benefits to this country. America's highways, electricity
generation and distribution systems, aviation management systems, and
state and national parks were championed at times when such spending
was criticized.
The future economic strength of any nation is highly dependent on
readily available, reliable, affordable, and clean energy. To ensure
our nation's long-term energy security, independence, and
sustainability, the government's support is absolutely crucial. Without
question, this will be a daunting task. Photovoltaics have been and
will continue to be a pivotal technology to achieve these goals in the
new millenium.
The US photovoltaics industry urges you to support the
Administration's fiscal year 2000 recommendation of $93 million, which
includes explicit specific language supporting pure and applied
research, technology improvement and validation, and commercialization
technical assistance. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Les Nelson, Chairman, Solar Thermal & Building
Products Division, Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)
executive summary
The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) is the national
industry association of the photovoltaics and solar thermal equipment
manufacturers, component suppliers, distributors, and installers (via
our affiliated state and regional chapters). The Solar Thermal and
Building Products Division represents the section of SEIA's members who
are involved in solar water heating and solar space heating
technologies primarily for buildings, but also for commercial and
industrial processes and facilities.
The Division strongly supports the Administration's fiscal year
2000 recommendation for $5.5 million in funding a focused set of
research activities primarily at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and Sandia National Labs and select Universities. However,
to insure that the funding in research has a pathway towards the
private sector, the industry respectfully requests the Subcommittee to
endorse a limited set of technology validation activities to promote
new efficiencies in technology, greater utility of use by emerging
markets, and analysis for barrier reduction in regard to pollution
prevention, electricity displacement and load shifting, and building
integration.
the industry request
The Solar Buildings RD&D program administered by the U.S.
Department of Energy has been one of the under-appreciated RD&D
programs.
The goal of the program is to significantly reduce solar system
installed costs and operation and maintenance costs, largely through
research on technical innovations and lower cost materials, while
providing technical assistance to energy service companies, solar
companies and utilities on effective utilization of solar for load
shifting, demand management, pollution prevention, and emerging energy
service businesses.
The solar thermal industry is comprised entirely of small
businesses with nearly 400 US-based companies involved in the
manufacturing, distribution and installation of solar thermal systems.
The program has been extremely effective in directing the resources
of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Sandia National
Laboratory, the Florida Solar Energy Center and others in developing
their technical competency to drive whole new areas of RD&D that can be
transferred to the U.S. industry. Computer modeling of system
performance, evolution of new concepts, and provision of technical
assistance to emerging endusers are all quantifiable results of this
program.
The Subcommittee has explicitly endorsed RD&D and commercialization
efforts for other building-based technologies such as geothermal heat
pumps. The solar thermal technologies are as deserving, not only
because solar is a viable, clean, cost-effective option, but because
the U.S. solar industry has a clear record of cost-shared RD&D tied to
a willing utility and consumer base.
The Million Solar Roofs initiative, announced by The Administration
in 1997, has leveraged several local governments, utilities and states
to establish an aggressive promotion and technical assistance efforts
for solar thermal. The emerging technologies that DOE has worked so
ardently with industry to develop, should be allowed to penetrate this
evolving market.
The U.S. Department of Energy along with its national laboratories
and university partners are essential for the growth of this industry.
There is an established need by state air quality offices to be
provided analytical tools to quantify solar water heating pollution
prevention benefits. Similarly, the utility industry wants quantifiable
analysis on the demand reduction profiles of solar, while the new home
construction market demands products which can be integrated with
existing construction practices and products.
The research base is in place, the U.S. solar industry has shown to
be a reliable and willing partner, and the market is on the cusp of
growing with the appropriate and focused technical assistance.
The solar building industries urge you to support the fiscal year
2000 level of $5.5 million which includes specific language supporting
pure and applied research, technology validation, and commercialization
technical assistance. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Lennart Johansson, Chairman, Solar Thermalpower
Division, Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)
executive summary
The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) is the national
industry association of the photovoltaics and solar thermal equipment
manufacturers, component suppliers, distributors, and installers (via
our affiliated state and regional chapters). The Solar Thermal Power
Division represents the section of SEIA's members who are involved in
concentrating solar energy technologies primarily for electricity
generation, but also for thermal energy commercial and industrial
processes and facilities.
The Division strongly supports the Administration's fiscal year
2000 recommendation for $18.7 million in funding a focused set of
research activities primarily at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories. However, to insure that
the funding in research has a pathway towards the private sector, the
industry respectfully requests the Subcommittee to endorse a limited
set of technology validation activities to validate system performance
from the combined set of components created through joint collaboration
of US industry and the national laboratories via DOE.
the industry request
The Concentrating Solar Power RD&D program administered by the U.S.
Department of Energy has been one of the DOE programs that have been on
time, on budget, and shown proven merits.
The goal of the program is to increase the efficiency of a variety
of promising solar thermal technologies; to perform research on
optimizing solar thermal operations for solar troughs; to undertake
systems validations and lend competent technical assistance for solar
driven engine systems, to hone performance tools and to provide
technical assistance to energy service providers, solar-energy-related
companies and utilities on the effective utilization of solar for load
shifting, demand management, pollution prevention and the development
of emerging energy service businesses.
The concentrating solar thermal industry currently holds global
technical leadership with nearly 40 US-based companies involved in the
manufacturing, distribution and installation of concentrating solar
thermal systems.
To date, the DOE RD&D program for Concentrating Solar Power has
been extremely effective. Solar Dish engines systems were installed at
The Pentagon, at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado
and in Arizona in 1998. These systems needs continued validation and
expansion to other sites.
The solar trough systems are going through another year of new
technical O&M approaches in California where over 350 megawatts of
power are being produced. Over the last decade, the cost per kWh has
dropped from approximately 25 cents down to the 8- to 9-cent range with
further improvements expected for new projects with the assistance of a
continued and well-focussed RD&D program.
Largely due to the success of the program, international interest
has increased with potential trough projects under discussion in
Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, Greece, Mexico, Morocco and Spain.
With the increasing international interest, U.S. industries could be
poised on the cusp of a potential new wave of technology export
opportunities. Without a continued strong commitment by the USDOE to
support the solar thermal RD&D program, US industry alone may not be
able to maintain it's position of leadership in the face of the high
level of support being lent similar programs by the European Union and
other countries.
The Department of Energy has not been clear, however, on the
direction of this emerging technology program even though the costs of
the technology and the actual performance of solar concentrating
technologies have far exceeded several other major programs in their
energy R&D portfolio. This RD&D program typifies the need for federal
involvement, pre-commercial, non-incremental improvement and a solid
R&D basis--the epitome of what the Subcommittee has expressed in
earlier hearings.
The utilization of solar concentrating technologies has a pragmatic
path to the marketplace if the pure and applied RD&D are sustained.
Arizona Public Service, Public Service of New Mexico, and other
utilities have shown a solid commitment and excitement on the prospects
of this emerging technology. Aside from displacing the need for
conventional fossil-fuel combustion when the sun is shining, the vast
potential for utilizing clean-burning natural gas as a solar-hybrid-
generator to make solar thermal electric generation fully dispatchable
is a big plus. The hybrid solar/natural gas approach is used with great
success today in the solar trough plants in California. The modularity
of the technology also situates it as useful during a restructured era
in the electric utility where incremental generation and investment
provides far more flexibility than traditional large-scale baseload
electric generation units.
The concentrating solar thermal industries urge you to support the
fiscal year 2000 level of $18.5 million which includes specific
language supporting pure and applied research, technology validation,
and commercialization technical assistance. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Donald L. Klass, President, Biomass Energy
Research Association
This testimony pertains to the fiscal year 2000 appropriations for
mission-oriented, biomass energy and fuels research, development, and
deployment (RD&D) programs carried out by DOE's Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The Biomass Energy Research
Association (BERA) is a non-profit association in Washington, DC. BERA
was founded in 1982 by researchers and private organizations that are
conducting biofuels research. Our objectives are to promote education
and research on renewable biomass energy and waste-to-energy systems
that can be economically utilized by the public, and to serve as a
source of information on biomass policies and programs.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of BERA's
members for the opportunity to present our position on the federal
funding of mission-oriented biomass RD&D. Continued support of this
effort is essential to provide the stimulus to develop environmentally
clean, indigenous energy resources that can displace fossil fuels,
stimulate regional and national economic development and employment,
reduce our dependence on imported oil, improve our energy security, and
help to eliminate adverse climate and environmental changes.
I have examined EERE's appropriations request for biomass energy
and fuels RD&D in fiscall year 2000, and would like to offer a few
comments about our Board's concerns before presenting BERA's
recommendations. DOE continues to over-emphasize scale-up projects, the
budgets for which are large and which adversely impact the research
budgets. DOE has therefore been required to terminate research in
several microbial and thermochemical conversion areas. We feel that a
balanced research program should be sustained and protected, so BERA
continues to recommend both a diversified portfolio of research and an
appropriate amount of funding for scale-up without diminishing either
EERE's research or scale-up programs. Also, DOE's research on biomass
energy outside of EERE by the Office of Science (OS, former Office of
Energy Research), which supports basic academic research, and by the
EERE's Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) on chemicals from
biomass, complements EERE's biomass energy and fuels RD&D. All biomass
programs should be internally coordinated and jointly managed at DOE
Headquarters. Note that for fiscal year 2000, EERE's biomass-based
research under the title Hydrogen Research in the funding request is
included in BERA's recommendations, but our recommendations for OIT's
Agriculture Vision chemicals-from-biomass program are presented in a
separate BERA statement for the Interior and Related Agencies Bill.
EERE's appropriations request for biomass energy and fuels RD&D in
fiscal year 2000 includes details that have normally not been presented
in the past. We commend EERE for updating their biomass RD&D plan so
that it is now reasonably clear which projects have been completed,
terminated, or are new starts. Specifically, BERA recommends that
$113.7 million be appropriated for biomass energy and fuels RD&D in
fiscal year 2000. The highlights are:
--A total of $61.2 million for research and $52.5 million for
industry cost-shared scale-up.
--$31.2 million for research and $28 million for industry cost-shared
scale-up projects for Power Systems. The scale-up projects
include the integrated biomass production-conversion and
Vermont gasification projects.
--$25.5 million for research and $24 million for industry cost-shared
scale-up projects for Transportation. The scale-up projects
include the NREL ethanol pilot plant in Colorado, and
commercial ethanol plants in Alaska, California, New York, and
Louisiana.
--$4 million for biomass-based hydrogen research.
--$1 million for internal coordination and joint management of all
DOE biomass programs.
allocation of appropriation recommended by bera
BERA recommends that the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 be
allocated as shown in the table. BERA's recommendations are generally
listed in the same order as DOE's request for fiscal year 2000, except
we include several research areas that are either new or that BERA's
Board recommends be restored to sustain a balanced program of research
and scale-up. Note that the recommended budget for each scale-up
category does not include industry cost-sharing, which is required to
be a minimum of 50 percent of the total budget for each project.
OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended budget
Program area -------------------------------
For research For scale-up
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Systems
Thermochemical Conversion:
Advanced Combustion................. $2,000,000 ..............
Advanced Gasification............... 2,500,000 ..............
Advanced Pyrolysis.................. 2,000,000 ..............
Advanced Stationary Fuel Cells...... 2,000,000 ..............
Improved Emission Control........... 2,000,000 ..............
Wastewater Treatment................ 1,500,000 ..............
Ash Disposal and New Uses........... 1,500,000 ..............
Hot-Gas Clean-Up.................... 2,000,000 ..............
Advanced Materials.................. 700,000 ..............
Microbial Conversion: Advanced Anaerobic 2,000,000 ..............
Digestion..............................
Systems Development:
Vermont Gasifier.................... .............. $6,000,000
Integrated Production-Conversion.... .............. 19,000,000
Advanced Cofiring with Coal......... 2,000,000 ..............
Small Modular Systems............... 2,500,000 ..............
Municipal Solid Waste................... 3,500,000 ..............
Pelletized Biomass Fuel Systems......... 500,000 ..............
Feedstock Production.................... 2,000,000 2,000,000
Regional Biomass Energy Program......... 2,500,000 1,000,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 31,200,000 28,000,000
Transportation
Fermentation Ethanol:
Advanced Organisms.................. 3,000,000 ..............
Advanced Enzymes.................... 3,000,000 ..............
Advanced Pretreatment............... 2,000,000 ..............
NREL Pretreatment Pilot Reactor..... .............. 3,000,000
NREL Fermentation Pilot Plant....... .............. 5,000,000
Commercial Ethanol Plants by Company and
Location:
BCI International, Gridley, CA \2\.. .............. 5,000,000
Massada Resources, NY \3\ and .............. \7\ 7,000,000
Sealaska, AK \4\...................
Arkenol, Rio Linda, CA \5\.......... .............. ( \8\ )
BCI International, Jenninqs, LA \6\. .............. ( \9\ )
Advanced Mobile Fuel Cells.............. 3,000,000 ..............
Biodiesel............................... 1,000,000 ..............
Feedstock Production.................... 2,000,000 3,000,000
Thermochemical Conversion:
Ethanol Production.................. 3,000,000 ..............
Mixed Alcohols Production........... 3,000,000 ..............
Oxygenates from Biomass............. 3,000,000 ..............
Regional Biomass Energy Program......... 2,500,000 1,000,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 25,500,000 24,000,000
Hydrogen Research \1\
Advanced Thermal Processes.............. 2,000,000 ..............
Advanced Photolytic Processes........... 2,000,000 ..............
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 4,000,000 ..............
Integrated Bioenergy RD&D
Coordination and Integration............ 500,000 500,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 61,200,000 52,500,000
-------------------------------
Grand Total....................... 113,700,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BERA's recommendations pertain only to the biomass-based portion of
Hydrogen Research.
\2\ Rice straw, dilute acid.
\3\ Refuse-derived fuel, concentrated acid.
\4\ Waste softwoods.
\5\ Rice straw, concentrated acid.
\6\ Bagasse, dilute acid.
\7\ For Masada and Sealaska plants, and initiation of corn-enzyme
hydrolysis and fossil-derived syngas-microbial ethanol production
plants.
\8\ DOE's share of funding completed.
\9\ DOE supplied $4,000,000 in fiscal year 1999.
bera recommends $61.2 million for research and $52.5 million for
industry cost-shared, scale-up projects for fiscal year 2000
BERA's recommendations consist of a balanced program of mission-
oriented RD&D on feedstock production and conversion research and
technology transfer to the private sector. Advanced power generation
technologies and alternative liquid transportation fuels are
emphasized.
In addition, BERA strongly urges that at least 50 percent of the
federal funds for biomass research, excluding the funds for scale-up
projects, are used to sustain a national biomass science and technology
base via subcontractors outside DOE's national laboratories. While it
is desirable for the national laboratories to monitor this research,
increased support for US scientists and engineers in industry, academe,
and research institutes that are unable to fund biomass research will
encourage commercialization of emerging technologies and serious
consideration of new ideas. It will also help to expand the
professional development and expertise of diverse researchers committed
to the advancement of biomass technologies.
BERA's specific recommendations for research, the industry cost-
shared scale-up projects, and the dollar allocations are listed in the
table (page 2). Additional commentary on each program area is presented
below in the same order as in the table.
power systems
Thermochemical Conversion.--Currently, there is over 8,000 MW of
electric power capacity fueled by biomass in the United States.
Municipal solid wastes, forest and wood processing residues and pulping
liquors are the primary fuels. Continued research to develop advanced
biomass combustion, gasification, and pyrolysis methods could have
environmental and economic benefits that can lead to significant growth
in biomass power generation. Much of this research has been phased out
by DOE. Research (not scale-up) should be initiated or re-stored with
the goal of developing the next generation of thermochemical biomass
conversion processes for power generation. Stationary, integrated
biomass gasifier-fuel cell systems should be developed as potential,
high-efficiency power generation systems. New fuel cells that can
tolerate the sulfur levels found in certain biomass-derived fuel gases
without sacrificing system affordability and the testing of integrated
advanced fuel cell systems should be included in this work. In addition
to the restoration of this important research, priority should also be
given to the development of innovative enabling technologies consisting
of advanced emission control systems, improved ash disposal methods and
new ash uses, low-cost, hot-gas clean-up methods, and advanced
materials that eliminate corrosion and erosion problems for
thermochemical reactors and turbines. The status of these technologies
is far from what is needed, yet they are essential for practical, low-
cost thermochemical conversion of biomass.
Microbial Conversion.--Microbiological gasification by anaerobic
digestion is unique in that it produces methane directly, the major
component in natural gas, as a primary product from a full range of
virgin and waste biomass feedstocks. However, DOE has terminated most
of the research needed to develop advanced systems that yield low-cost
methane by reducing capital and operating costs. This research can lead
to the alleviation of numerous environmental problems encountered
during waste treatment and disposal, and should be restored.
Systems Development.--The scale-up of biomass gasification for
medium-Btu gas and power generation in Vermont continued in fiscal year
1999. This project should be funded in fiscal year 2000 to enable
testing of an advanced turbine system for the generation of 8-12 MW
from wood. The testing in Hawaii of the hot gas clean-up system, which
was shown in the preliminary work to be effective, was not completed
because the gasifier was shut down. This work should be completed, at
another site if necessary, to perfect the technology. The integrated
biomass production-power generation projects chosen by DOE for scale-up
in Minnesota (alfalfa), New York (willow-coal cofiring), and Iowa
(switchgrass-coal cofiring) as well as DOE's initiative to expand
biomass-coal cofiring at additional sites should be continued. Plans
should also be made to fund scale-up of the Whole Tree Energy system as
part of this effort. Research on the development of advanced biomass-
coal cofiring systems and small modular direct biomass combustion
turbines should be sustained to develop advanced designs for small
modular systems, and advanced combined cycle systems that can supply
cogenerated power.
Municipal Solid Waste.--MSW disposal is a continuing national
problem, which when combined with energy recovery, offers major
opportunities for power generation and recycling. Advanced MSW
disposal-energy recovery systems are needed for municipalities; there
is also a need for small, low-cost systems. Research in each of these
areas should be restored.
Pelletized Biomass Fuel Systems.--Research is needed to develop
low-cost, high-productivity biomass pelletizing and supply systems, and
automated residential and commercial heating units designed for these
fuels. The unavailability of such systems has been a large barrier to
the growth and expansion of residential and commercial biomass fuel
markets.
Feedstock Production.--See Feedstock Production in next section.
Regional Biomass Energy Program.--The Regional Biomass Energy
Program (RBEP), established by Congress in 1983, to take advantage of
the regional differences in biomass resources and energy needs, are
implemented through five separate regions located in the Southeast,
Northwest, West, Great Lakes, and Northeast. The RBEP has been
important in establishing individual state biomass programs, and in
stimulating technology transfer and the development and
commercialization of biomass energy in the private sector. RBEP
activities have created awareness and a positive image for biomass
energy while providing significant environmental enhancement and
creating new jobs, especially in rural areas. The private sector and
the states have been highly supportive of the RBEP and typically
provide 2 to 4 times the federal investment as cost sharing. In fiscal
year 2000, the RBEP will conduct activities to develop and encourage
the commercialization of technologies for power generation with
biomass, biomass-coal cofiring, small-scale distributed generation
systems, and biogas systems. These activities may include several
state-level, one-day workshops to educate stakeholders and to
facilitate the addition of new generating capacity based on biomass
fuels. Development of integrated disposal-biogas recovery systems will
be continued because the disposal of large quantities of animal manures
continues to be a major national problem.
transportation
Fermentation Ethanol.--Research on the conversion of low-cost
lignocellulosics to fermentation ethanol should be continued. The
targets should include the development of: genetically engineered
organisms that can simultaneously ferment all the C5/C6 sugars in
biomass; low-cost cellulase production for simultaneous
saccharification-fermentation; and advanced pretreatment of low-cost
biomass feedstocks, including the testing of the counter-current
pretreatment pilot plant reactor recently installed at NREL. This
research should focus on the development of accurate bases from which
advanced technologies can be scaled-up for commercial use with
confidence, and on advanced technologies that significantly reduce
processing costs. NREL's ethanol pilot plant should be operated on an
as-needed, cost-shared basis with DOE's industrial partners to support
the commercial ethanol plant program
Commercial Ethanol Plants.--Several fermentation plants are being
cost-shared by DOE in fiscal year 2000 as shown in the table on page 2.
The processes used are conventional and advanced technologies, such as
the microbial conversion of synthesis gas. The preliminary planning
work for other plants should continue, but BERA recommends that the
existing projects should produce operating data that confirm the
technologies before new scale-up projects are started.
Advanced Mobile Fuel Cells.--Research should be initiated to design
and perfect vehicular fuel cell systems equipped with on-board
reforming units for biomass-based liquids. The goal should be the
production of low-cost fuel gases suitable for direct use as motor
fuels and as fuels for on-board fuel cells.
Biodiesel.--Research should be focused on increasing natural
triglyceride yields to permit low-cost biodiesel production. Advanced
transesterification processes are already available, and engine and
emissions tests have been or are being performed by the engine
manufacturers.
Feedstock Production.--Land-based biomass grown as energy crops can
supply large amounts of fossil fuel substitutes. Considerable progress
has been made on the efficient production of short-rotation woody
crops, and on the growth of herbaceous species. In addition, research
on tissue culture techniques and on the application of genetic
engineering methods for low-cost energy crop production have shown
promise. This research should be continued to develop advanced biomass
production methods that can meet the anticipated feedstock demand. BERA
also recommends that industry cost-shared, scale-up projects chosen by
DOE of at least 1,000 acres in size be continued to develop large-
scale, commercial energy plantations in which dedicated energy crops
are grown and harvested for use as biomass resources. These projects
should be strategically located and should utilize the advanced biomass
production methods developed in the research programs. Successful
completion of this work will help biomass energy attain its potential
by providing the data and information needed to design, construct, and
operate new biomass production systems that can supply low-cost
feedstock for conversion to transportation fuels and electric power.
Thermochemical Conversion.--Almost all of DOE's RD&D on liquid
transportation fuels from biomass emphasizes fermentation ethanol.
Thermochemical conversion research should be started that targets
liquid motor fuel production at costs competitive with those of
gasolines and diesel fuels in the near-to-mid term. Research on the
thermochemical conversion of low-grade biomass for use as motor fuels
shows great promise. Preliminary research on the non-microbial
conversion of synthesis gas illustrates the potential of producing
ethanol, mixed alcohols and oxygenates, ethers, and coproducts at costs
that are much less than the corresponding costs of liquids produced by
microbial and fermentation processes. Some analysts project that fuel
ethanol from low-grade biomass by thermochemical processes may be able
to attain production costs in the same range as thermochemical methanol
from natural gas feedstocks. Each of these areas should be added to
DOE's program.
Regional Biomass Energy Program.--In fiscal year 2000, the RBEP
will conduct cooperative projects with state and local governments on
resource assessments, the selection of suitable sites for biomass-based
transportation fuel production and distribution facilities, and multi-
product biomass plants. Specifically, the RBEP will conduct a number of
technology transfer activities related to the production of fuel
ethanol from cellulosic raw materials. The activities will include
several state-level, one-day workshops to educate stakeholders about
fuel ethanol technologies, and the opportunities available in various
regions to develop new fuel ethanol production capacity with low-grade
biomass feedstocks. In conjunction with this work, the RBEP will
complete several publications that address the educational needs
related to the production of fuel ethanol. The RBEP will continue to
provide national leadership in the development of biodiesel fuels with
several engine testing programs, and will also work with the National
Park Service to increase the use of biofuels in selected national parks
that are encountering air quality problems.
hydrogen research
Innovative research on the thermal reforming of biomass in a
supercritical fluid reactor and in an advanced-design plasma reformer,
and on water splitting with algae, which is the equivalent of
photolysis, should be continued. Detailed study of each of these
advanced conversion methods may lead to practical processes for the
low-cost production of hydrogen.
integrated bioenergy rd&d
As mentioned on page 1, all of the biomass-related RD&D funded by
EERE and OS should be coordinated internally and jointly managed at DOE
Headquarters. The program managers at DOE Headquarters should be
heavily involved in this activity. The organizational phase should be
completed as soon as possible, after which the assigned management
responsibilities should continue. This will significantly enhance the
value of the total program for DOE and its industrial partners and
stakeholders.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Gridley, CA
Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Reid: 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.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony to the
Subcommittee regarding the progress that the City of Gridley has made
in developing a biomass facility fueled by rice straw. I want to begin
by thanking the Subcommittee for the past support it has provided for
the Gridley Rice Straw Project. The federal funds which have been
provided since fiscal year 1996 have been matched dollar for dollar and
have brought about the completion of permitting and environmental
assessments for the site of the facility so that construction can begin
this year.
This will be the last time the City will request funds for
development of this project. With this last installment of funds, the
City will be able to secure the completion of a cost-effective,
subsidy-independent, renewable source of liquid fuel for both
transportation and power production purposes. In securing a final
federal appropriation of $5 million in fiscal year 2000, the City of
Gridley and its partners can ensure that the Gridley plant will be
fully operational to use rice straw harvested during the year 2000.
In the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2000 budget request,
there is $10 million in the biomass/biofuels account to support ongoing
projects, and the Department has indicated its support of the Gridley
project and has indicated its intention that $5 million for the Gridley
project be provided within this amount of funds.
The City of Gridley, which operates its own utility, is involved in
the development of this technology for a number of reasons. The City of
Gridley is a rural community situated in the rice-growing region of the
Sacramento Valley in Northern California. Our community and region are
dependent upon an agricultural economy largely based upon rice
production. Thousands of jobs and more than $500 million annually of
the Sacramento Valley's economy are directly dependent upon the rice
industry.
The rice industry, however, is coming under tremendous pressure
because of new mandates to reduce air pollution and end open field
burning of rice acreage. Currently, the State of California has
statutorily reduced the burning of rice straw. By the year 2001, the
automatic right to burn rice straw will be eliminated. Given that there
are insufficient cost-effective mechanisms to remove rice straw from
the fields, we are greatly concerned that the restrictions will lead to
a reduction in rice acreage in production. A substantial portion of the
rice grown in the Sacramento Valley is grown on land with very heavy
clay soil types that are suitable for very little other than rice. The
elimination of burning as a means of dealing with the very tough rice
straw is having significant impact upon the economics of rice growing
in the Valley.
Since fiscal year 1996, the Subcommittee has shown its support for
the development of a biomass facility that will effectively utilize
rice straw in order to produce ethanol. Unlike the facilities of the
Midwest, the Gridley rice straw project will be able to use multiple
feedstocks to keep the plant operating year-round. The construction of
the Gridley plant will develop the technologies and processes necessary
for the cost-effective use of forest and timber industry byproducts as
well as agricultural waste products. Clearly, this plant will expand
biomass opportunities to a broad array of industries and agricultural
commodities, which will be beneficial to other parts of the state as
well as other regions of the country.
The Gridley Rice Straw Project will help the State of California
meet the important air quality goal of ending open field burning, while
at the same time provide rice farmers with an alternative rice disposal
method that could generate an additional source of revenues for the
grower. The Project will also create hundreds of direct and indirect
jobs in Northern California communities with high levels of
unemployment.
I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony and want to
thank the Subcommittee again on behalf of the City of Gridley and
communities in the Sacramento Valley and Northern California for its
support in ensuring a federal partner for the Gridley Rice Straw
Project, thus making this project a reality in the near future.
______
Prepared Statement of Prof. David K. Wehe, University of Michigan
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has provided support to the DOE
University Research Program in Robotics 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 innovative 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 is pleased
that the URPR is included in the DOE Budget Request for fiscal year
2000 at $4.0M. The URPR is requesting the Committee consider augmenting
this amount to $4.35M to compensate for DOE's expansion of the
Consortium to include the University of New Mexico.
request for the committee
We request the Committee include explicit language directing $4.35M
of ER&WM (EM-50) research funds to the University Research Program in
Robotics (URPR) for development of safer, less expensive, and more
effective robotic technology for environmental restoration and waste
management solutions.
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 relocated to EM to support 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: A 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. During the past year, reports from NSF, the
OSTP report on critical technologies, and the report from the
President's Advisory Committee on Information Technology suggests that
the areas of greatest concern to the nation are: the economy,
education, health care, and the environment. The URPR is making
technology contributions affecting each of these key areas.
Furthermore, the reports note key technology areas include information
technology and nanotechnology, and key enabling technologies include
manufacturing and materials. The URPR actively participates in
advancing these fields. The national need for an investment in the
development of intelligent machines which can interact with their
environment has been universally recognized for over a decade.
Intelligent Machines: Grand Challenge for the Next Millennium
Significant advances in computing power, sensor development and
platform architectures (e.g., unmanned airborne vehicles) have opened
new opportunities in intelligent machine technology. The long-range
implications of intelligent mobile and dextrous 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: Refining the Right Paradigm
The URPR instantiates the new paradigm recommended for Federal
investment in national S&T by the National Science Board (3/6/98) that
emphasizes the integration of long-range research and education. The
URPR's strategic mission is to make significant advances in our
nation's intelligent machine and manufacturing technology base while
emphasizing: education, technology innovation through basic R&D, and
DOE mission support. Furthermore, 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 group of DOE and national laboratory officials. During fiscal year
1999, the Consortium has worked through 8-10 levels of DOE bureaucratic
control, an unfortunate side effect of the current DOE structure which
governs the URPR. It is only because of the Committee's explicit
appropriations language that any funding has managed to pass through
this system.
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
allowed 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. Considering the remarkable achievements
of URPR over its history and the enlightened commitment of EM-50 to
this technology development, the URPR is now poised to enhance its
prominent role in education, technology innovation, and DOE mission
support.
Educating the New Millenium's Technologists
The URPR has already educated about 450 advanced degree students in
the critical engineering fields, including many with earned doctoral
degrees. These students have entered the work force, and lead an
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,
TX) and medical imaging (MI), video databases (CA), and intelligent
manufacturing (MI, FL, TX). We have historically seen a strong demand
for graduates educated through this project, even during the leanest of
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, effectiveness, and health and safety concerns. The RBX is a
national laboratory program which primarily applies commercially
available technology to current problems. In contrast, the URPR
supports needs-driven applied research to develop innovative and
synergistic technologies in support of EM focus areas.
URPR progress is annually evaluated by a thorough review of
technical accomplishments, and then 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 following EM projects:
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;
4. remote radiation mapping of the MSRE facility at ORNL during D&D
operations;
5. design and implementation of a real-time controller for use at
Hanford in support of the tank waste retrieval project; and
6. design and fabrication of a prototype Soil Sample Preparation
Module in support of the Contaminant Analysis Automation project.
During fiscal year 1999, the URPR achievements have included:
--1998 Discover Magazine Award for Technological Innovation:
Robotics. Personally presented by the Secretary of Energy.
--Invention of the room-temperature semiconductor radiation sensor
that holds the world's record for energy resolution.
--Development of a mutisensor visualization platform to aid operators
during D&D operations.
--Transfer of an inductive, radiation-resistant, high resolution
position sensor to a commercial vendor.
--Development of a system to reduce the time between a site-defined
need and a site-delivered implementation of the robotic and/or
automation hardware using simulation of components.
--Codified algorithms for assembly of standardized modules to produce
the complex manipulators needed for a wide range of hazardous
tasks.
As shown above, these efforts are directly linked to cleanup
operations in the DOE complex. During fiscal year 2000, 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 devices will evolve and inspire the
intelligent machines of the future, including smart automobiles,
obstacle avoidance aids for the disabled, and agile manufacturing cells
capable of being rapidly reconfigured.
This level of innovation can also be seen in the following
statistics:
--Approximately 15 patents awarded or pending.
--Over 700 technical papers published in technical journals and
conferences.
--The standard technical books for vision, radiation detection and
imaging, and robotics 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.
program request
During fiscal year 1999, 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 has requested $4M for the URPR in fiscal year
2000. We are requesting an additional $350K to fund the University of
New Mexico, added by DOE to the Consortium in fiscal year 1998, at a
level comparable to the other consortium members.
request for the committee
To continue this vital program, we request that the Committee
include the following language into the fiscal year 2000 Energy and
Water Appropriations Bill: For development of safer, less expensive,
and more effective robotic technology for environmental restoration and
waste management solutions, $4.35M of ER&WM (EM-50) funds are provided
to the University Research Program in Robotics (URPR).
______
Prepared Statement of The REPI Action Coalition
The undersigned members of the REPI Action Coalition request that
the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) program be funded at a
level sufficient to cover payments for eligible projects. $20 million
is needed in fiscal year 2000 to make full incentive payments for
electricity produced by all qualified facilities through the end of
fiscal year 1999. The current funding level of $4 million provides full
incentive payments for only a few projects and insufficient revenues
for the majority of projects.
Our coalition, which represents the interests of national consumer,
business, environmental, energy and industry organizations, is
incredulous that the Administration's fiscal year 2000 Budget Request
of $1.5 million for REPI represents a 62.5 percent reduction from the
existing funding level. At this level, most projects eligible for REPI
funding--including projects receiving funds in the prior fiscal year--
will not receive payments. This will cause irreparable damage to the
incentive value of a program designed to encourage public power to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a variety of projects including
landfill gas-to-energy projects.
Created by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, REPI authorizes the
Department of Energy to make payments of 1.5 cents per kWh of energy
produced from eligible renewable energy sources to consumer-owned
electric utilities. Unlike the tax credits awarded to investor-owned
utilities, the public power REPI program is inherently uncertain
because payments are dependent on the availability of annual
appropriations. In funding shortfall years, projects in Tier 1 (solar,
wind, geothermal and closed-loop biomass) are granted full payments.
Inadequate leftover revenues are then dispersed on a pro rata basis to
Tier 2 (landfill gas-to-energy) projects. Electricity for which payment
is not made may then be added to the next fiscal year's electricity
production and submitted by the qualifying facility for payment
consideration.
Congress established REPI in large part to provide benefits
commensurate with those available to investor-owned utilities through
the renewable electricity production tax credit in Section 45 and the
investment tax credit in Section 48 of the Internal Revenue Code. In
the years since REPI incentives have been in place, private entities
have enjoyed full access to their economic incentives while consumer-
owned electric utilities have received only partial appropriations
since 1996.
Since the program's inception, nearly $8.4 million in incentive
payments have been made to the owners of qualifying facilities. The
number of projects receiving REPI awards has increased from 6 projects
in 1995 producing 43 million kWh of electricity to 16 projects in 1998
producing 549 million kWh of electricity. Due to inadequate
appropriations, full payments for all eligible projects were last made
in 1996. Every year since then, the majority of eligible projects have
received only partial payment. Projects most impacted by the funding
deficit have been landfill gas-to-energy projects.
Despite this shortcoming, REPI is the most significant incentive
available to locally owned, not-for-profit electric utilities to make
new investments in renewable energy projects. These projects provide
important economic and environmental benefits to the communities served
by the municipal utility. Along with significant air quality benefits
resulting from the accelerated use of emissions-free energy sources,
new jobs are created each time these technologies are deployed.
An important and unique feature of the REPI program is its
potential to assist municipalities, and the communities they serve, in
reducing significant levels of greenhouse gases (ghg) through landfill
gas-to-energy projects. Landfill gas is about 50 percent methane and
methane is a potent ghg that is over 20 times more potent than carbon
dioxide in contributing to climate change. There is potential to reduce
over 2.3 million metric tons of carbon equivalent of ghg by deploying
these projects on existing untapped landfills. The comparative
economics of landfill-gas projects makes these facilities one of the
most promising near-term renewable resources.
Despite the funding shortfalls and the volatility of the
appropriations process, REPI is considered a true incentive among
potential project owners. For example, a feasibility study for the
construction of a municipally-owned wind farm in Iowa showed that REPI
assistance made an impressive difference in the cost of the project.
The REPI program increases in importance as new air quality
regulations and renewable energy mandates are imposed. Public power
systems will be at a disadvantage under the currently structured REPI
if renewable portfolio standards are included in electricity
restructuring proposals. Unlike the certainty of the tax credits and
incentives available to private entities, REPI funding is erratic and
insufficient to offset the higher costs of using alternative energy
resources.
In conclusion, REPI is an important tool in promoting renewable
energy resources by consumer-owned utilities which could be greatly
improved by program reform that addresses insufficient and uncertain
appropriations. We strongly encourage your help this year in saving
REPI by agreeing to restore funds at a level sufficient to cover on-
going and future payments.
Thank you.
The American Public Power Association, The Large
Public Power Council, City of Glendale,
California, PACE Energy Project, Minnesota
Municipal Utility Association, SUN DAY
Campaign, American Wind Energy Association,
Omaha Public Power District, American
Bioenergy Association, Klickitat Public
Utility District (Washington), Los Angeles
Department of Water & Power, Global Bio
Refineries Inc., University of California,
Los Angeles, American Green Network,
Business Council for Sustainable Energy,
Solar Energy Industries Association, Bio
Energy Industries Association, Bob Lawrence
& Associates, Public Citizen, Monterey
Regional Waste Management District
(California), Solid Waste Association of
North America, Board of Public Works, City
of Auburn, Nebraska, Salt River Project
(Arizona), Union of Concerned Scientists,
Lincoln Electric Service (Nebraska),
Friends of the Earth, Pacific Northwest
Generating Cooperative, City of
Tallahassee, Florida, Clean Fuels
Foundation, American Solar Energy Society,
International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Emerald Peoples' Utility District
(Oregon), Austin Energy (Texas), Waverly
Light and Power (Iowa), Nebraska Public
Power District, Environmental and Energy
Study Institute, New York Power Authority,
JEA (Florida), Moorhead Public Service
(MN), Geothermal Energy Association,
Lycoming County Resource Management
Services (PA), Potomac Resources, Windrush,
Inc., Consumer Federation of America, City
of Seattle, Traverse City Light & Power
Department (Michigan), Michigan Public
Power Agency, and Michigan Municipal
Electric Association.
______
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 40 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.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony outlining
our fiscal year 2000 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 $399 million for renewable energy technologies in fiscal
year 2000. 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, the
renewable energy production incentive program authorized by the Energy
Policy Act of 1992. Current funding is $4 million, but according to
DOE's Golden Fields Laboratory estimates, which are based on incentive
payments requested from qualified facilities, $20 million is needed to
fully fund all eligible projects. At a funding level of $20 million,
REPI will help the nation's locally owned, not-for-profit electric
utilities spur renewable energy use and development. This benefits the
environment because of the greater use of emissions-free energy
sources, and the economy because of the job creation potential that is
tied to the deployment of new technologies.
REPI permits DOE to make direct payments to publicly 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 not for profit electric utilities that are unable to do
so. Several electric utility restructuring bills introduced in the
105th Congress, and bills in state legislatures, mandate use of
renewable energy sources. REPI payments provide the singular financial
incentive for publicly 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. APPA urges
this subcommittee's support of REPI at $20 million to fully fund all
eligible projects.
storage for high-level nuclear waste
We support the Administration's budget request of $409 million for
DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. These funds will
enable DOE to continue preparations to accept spent fuel as well as to
continue scientific studies at Yucca Mountain leading to a second
viability assessment to compliment the completion of the first
assessment in late1998.
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 $7 million in fiscal year 2000.
During the next 15 years, 220 hydroelectric projects will seek new
licenses from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Publicly
owned projects constitute 50 percent of the total capacity that will be
up for renewal. Many of these projects were originally licensed over 50
years ago. Newly imposed licensing conditions can cost hydro project
owners 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 (pmas)
APPA has consistently supported increased efficiency in PMA
operations. However, Congress must recognize that federal power sales
revenues 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 plus interest. Power
sales also support many nonpower-related expenses associated with these
projects. Budget ``scoring'' rules aside, because the PMAs charge cost-
based rates, reducing discretionary appropriations to PMAs actually
costs the government nothing. As appropriations are lowered, power
rates fall accordingly thus reducing mandatory receipts on the other
side of the ledger. APPA urges members of the subcommittee to reassess
the Department of Energy's policy change whereby the federal power
marketing administrations would no longer purchase power. Customers of
three of the federal power marketing administrations would have to make
there own power purchase and transmission agreements directly with
suppliers. It is essential that the PMAs be able to purchase power
because it is used to firm up their hydro capacity, allowing them to
meet their contractual agreements.
corps of engineers and bureau of reclamation
APPA supports the Administration's fiscal year 2000 Budget Request
of $4,293 million for the Corp of Engineers and $857 million for the
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 four PMAs. 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 $180 million
in fiscal year 2000 for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC), an increase of nearly eight-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.
The FERC is charged with regulating certain interstate aspects of
the natural gas, oil pipeline, hydropower, and electric industries.
Such regulation includes issuing licenses and certificates for
construction of facilities, approving rates, inspecting dams,
implementing compliance and enforcement activities, and providing other
services to regulated businesses. These businesses will pay fees and
charges sufficient to recover the Government's full cost of operations.
climate change programs
APPA generally supports the fiscal year 2000 Budget Request of $4
million to fund the Climate Change Technology Initiative. The
initiative consists of a package of tax incentives and investments in
research and development to stimulate increased energy efficiency and
to encourage greater use of renewable energy sources. APPA is an
aggressive advocate of federal support for energy research and
development. While these programs do not directly provide benefits or
incentives to public power systems, APPA supports them nevertheless
because they will result in substantial improvements to the
environment.
U.S. DOE programs under the Climate Change Initiative include a mix
of tax credits and federal-spending programs designed to increase
efficiency and greater use of renewable energy resources. Important
elements of the initiative include support for the deployment of clean
technologies for buildings, transportation industry and electricity.
The request includes $122 million for DOE research on next-generation
coal combustion technologies, including integrated gasification
combined cycle and pressurized fluidized bed combustion.
______
Prepared Statement of Dwane Milnes, Executive Director, San Joaquin
Area Flood Control Agency and City Manager City of Stockton, California
subject: san joaquin river basin, stockton metropolitan area (section
211) increase fiscal year 2000 president's coe budget from $200,000 to
$380,000 and include $10 million of the expected $45 million federal
reimbursement
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Dwane
Milnes, Executive Director of the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
and the City Manager of the City of Stockton, California, located forty
five miles south of Sacramento. Thank you for the opportunity to
present testimony for the fiscal year 2000 budget for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) is a Joint
Powers Authority (JPA) of the City of Stockton, California and San
Joaquin County. SJAFCA was created to finance, design and construct a
$70 million dollar Flood Protection Restoration Project (FPRP). The
FPRP provides a 100 year level of flood protection for the City of
Stockton and surrounding areas of San Joaquin County. The project was
undertaken in response to a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
restudy of the area which identified a large new floodplain. The FPRP
protects a population of approximately 300,000 and removed severe
economic impacts to the region associated with floodplain designation
by FEMA. Construction of the FPRP was completed in November 1998.
The Corps of Engineers (COE) completed a Reconnaissance study of
the project area in 1997 and found a Federal interest. The COE is
continuing with a Federal study to establish the amount of Federal
reimbursement for the FPRP provided for in Section 211 of the Water
Resource Development Act of 1996 (WRDA 96) as one of eight specifically
named demonstration projects and a Feasibility Study to identify any
additional flood protection improvements. The COE report is scheduled
for completion in 1999.
The FPRP was initially financed completely with local funds
collected through the formation of an assessment district. The
assessment district provided $70 million dollars and was financed
through the sale of bonds. Annual interest payments on the outstanding
bonds are approximately $2.5 million. Therefore, it is important to
receive Federal reimbursement as soon as possible so that these
interest costs will cease. It should be noted that SJAFCA has already
received reimbursement from the State of California in the amount of
$12.6 million as the estimated state share of the FPRP costs.
The fiscal year 2000 President's Budget is currently programmed to
fund the current companion COE studies (San Joaquin River Basin,
Stockton Metropolitan Area (Section 211) for $200,000. The COE has a
capability of performing $380,000 of work on these studies. Therefore,
we are requesting an increase of $180,000 so that the COE can fully
staff both studies and accomplish them on the current schedule. In
anticipation of this report we also request that at least $10 million
dollars of the expected $45 million of Federal reimbursement be
included in fiscal year 2000 budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 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, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA),
and its member agencies, support the following Federal appropriations
for fiscal year 2000:
[Millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Funding type President's budget Recommended funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American River--Common Elements...... Construction............. 17.0................. 17.0
American River--Comprehensive Plan... PED...................... 5.0.................. 5.0
American River-North Area Project.... Construction............. 4.0.................. 4.0
(Reimbursement)
Sacramento River Bank Protection..... Construction............. 7.0.................. 7.0
South Sacramento Streams Group....... Construction............. 0.5.................. 4.0 Construction \1\
Section 205 Continuing Authorities Construction............. 26.9................. Support
(Magpie Creek). (Total Program)
Lower Strong & Chicken Ranch Sloughs Feasibility Study........ 0.5.................. 0.5
Ueda Parkway Recreational Construction............. ..................... Support City of
Improvements. Sacramento
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Construction funds in fiscal year 2000 contingent upon authorization in 1999 WRDA.
Sacramento has the dubious distinction of being the urban area with
the worst flood risk in the nation according to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Addressing this problem is our region's most critical
infrastructure issue as evidenced by the formation of a joint powers
agency, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) to solve the
problem and the millions of dollars spent over the past ten years on
improvements and countless engineering studies. A major flood on the
American River, would cause between $7 and $16 billion in damage and
likely result in lives being lost. The floodplain is home to over
400,000 residents, 150,000 homes, 5,000 businesses, the State Capitol,
and 1,300 government facilities.
Sacramento's existing level of flood protection has been a moving
target over the past year. Quantifying flood risk has been difficult
for engineers to explain, frustrating for policy makers who must make
decisions and virtually impossible for the general public to
understand. However, all interests from engineers to environmentalists;
corporations to small businesses; community activists to the local
homeowner all agree Sacramento needs more flood protection and we need
it now. The five largest floods on the American river this century 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 is
much greater than was thought 50 years ago when the original flood
control system was built. In fact, our existing system of Folsom Dam
and the downstream levees, which was designed to protect Sacramento
from a 250-300 year flood, now provides less than 100-year flood
protection. This means there is a 25 to 30 percent chance over the next
30 years of having the worst flood disaster in this nation's history
occur in Sacramento.
Sacramento has not been sitting idly since our near disaster in
1986. Over $80 million in local funds have been spent on flood control
improvements, engineering studies, public education and other
activities to further our region's flood control objectives. We have
been a very pro-active and innovative community. Accomplishments to
date include strengthening levees along the Sacramento River; raising
and constructing new levees in North Sacramento and Natomas; raising
levees protecting the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant; negotiating
an agreement for more flood space at Folsom; restoring bank erosion
sites along the Lower American River; and development of a flood
management plan including evacuation plans and development guidelines.
The flood control improvements to our system played an important role
in avoiding the devastating flood damages experienced by our neighbors
to the north and south during the past few years. In addition, we have
systematically re-evaluated the flood control system protecting this
region and identified the projects necessary to significantly reduce
our chances of a catastrophic flood. In order to advance these efforts,
SAFCA supports fiscal year 2000 Federal appropriations for the
following 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 to less than 100-year.
This is 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 an exhaustive feasibility study 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, 1996, and again in 1998. Sacramento is
continuing efforts to gain authorization of a project as part of a 1999
WRDA. As part of the fiscal year 2000 Federal budget, we are seeking
$5.0 million to move forward with Preconstruction, Engineering and
Design of the one flood control improvement all parties to the debate
support which is increasing the outlet capacity of Folsom Dam. The
funds requested would also allow the Corps to provide more detailed
information about flood control options in the event Congress fails to
enact authorizing legislation this year.
Common Elements.--As part of the 1996 WRDA, Congress authorized
flood control features which were common to all the long term
alternatives being considered for Sacramento. These included 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
recent floods in Northern California have demonstrated, we must
continue to 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. The first contract was
awarded on this project in 1998 to complete a two-mile stretch of the
American River north levee. The Corps has an ambitious schedule to push
forward with this project in 1999 and will require continuing
appropriations in fiscal year 2000 so as not to delay the project. We
support the Administration's budget request of $17.0 million in fiscal
year 2000 to allow completion of the project on an efficient
construction schedule and request this Committee's support.
North Area (Natomas) Levee Improvements.--In 1992, the recommended
plan for the American River was construction of a flood detention dam
at Auburn and levee improvements around Natomas and lower Dry and
Arcade Creeks. Congress did not include this project in the WRDA for
that year, but in subsequent legislation did authorize the levee
improvements around the Natomas basin and North Sacramento. The
authorizing legislation included provisions to reimburse the local
agency for constructing levee improvements which were consistent with
the Federal project. With over 75,000 residents at risk, subject to
life threatening flood depths of 20 feet in some areas, SAFCA decided
to initiate construction of the project using local funds with the
potential for future Federal reimbursement. By borrowing heavily from
other sources and debt financing through a capital assessment district,
SAFCA proceeded with construction of the authorized project and has
rapidly completed $60 million in flood control improvements. These
improvements were instrumental in preventing flooding in recent years.
However, the borrowing of funds, coupled with additional future flood
control obligations, has severely strained SAFCA's financing capability
to the point we are now seeking reimbursement as provided under the
authorizing 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, provide's the basis for reimbursement of not less than
$21 million agreed to by the Corps, and a future reimbursement as
appropriate based on the final cost accounting for the project and
further negotiations with the Corps. Congress included $9 million in
fiscal year 1998 and $10 million in fiscal year 1999 which the Corps
indicates is available to reimburse SAFCA once the agreement is
executed. SAFCA supports the President's request of $4.0 million in
fiscal year 2000. Two million completes the Federal share for the
initial $21 million reimbursement the other $2.0 million is for
additional constructed features, which SAFCA believes are consistent
with the authorized project, and are the subject of future negotiations
with the Corps. 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 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 creating a parkway which serves both
as an open space corridor and a floodway. By maintaining the open
space, we can insure channel capacity is maintained in the future.
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 four 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 in addition to
improving the reliability of the levee system. As a result, a bank
protection program to be implemented over the next several years has
been established to address the most critical reaches of the river
system. Construction on this project commenced in 1996. The President's
proposed budget includes $7.0 million in Construction funds for several
American River sites in fiscal year 2000. SAFCA supports this funding
which provides for an efficient construction schedule on the lower
American River sites.
south sacramento streams project
In 1995, homes in the South Sacramento area were threatened by rain
swollen creeks which 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. In its Chief's
Report, the Corps has recommended an NED 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 1999 WRDA. We
therefore request your committee's support for $4.0 million in new
start Construction in fiscal year 2000 contingent upon obtaining
Congressional authorization. The Corps has indicated they are on
schedule to deliver the first construction contract in early 2000 and
would have a capability of spending at least $4.0 million on
construction during that fiscal year. If funding is not provided,
construction would be unnecessarily delayed for a year. The President's
proposed budget includes only $500,000 to complete PED which would
appropriate if there was not WRDA until 2000.
magpie creek (section 205 continuing authorities program)
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 encompasses residential and commercial
developments downstream and would close 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
improvements on McClellen Air Force Base 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 2000
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, support the
President's proposed budget of $500,000 in fiscal year 2000 for a
Feasibility 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 Corps is
currently conducting a Reconnaissance level study as directed by your
Committee last year. They anticipate finding a Federal interest in
pursuing a Feasibility level study to identify potential solutions and
to determine if the originally authorized Federal project is deficient.
______
CALIFORNIA NAVIGATION AND RELATED PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of Theodore Stein, Jr., Commission President, Port
of Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Ted Stein,
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 its funding in fiscal year
2000. I am also presenting testimony on our project to deepen the Main
Channel which is presently under study. At the outset, let me say that
we sincerely appreciate the support of the Committee, over the past
three years, in providing funds that have kept construction of the Pier
400 Project--a vital and urgently needed project at the Port of Los
Angeles--on schedule.
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, acknowledged years ago, that a dramatic
increase in Pacific Rim trade volumes would likely take place over the
next several decades. To meet the anticipated burgeoning international
trade needs of the region and the Nation, the Port of Los Angeles
engaged in a long-term, cooperative planning effort with the Corps of
Engineers 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 will accommodate the projected growth well into the 21st century.
While the Port of Long Beach has since withdrawn from this
collaboration, the Port of Los Angeles has moved forward with its
implementation of the 2020 Plan.
Divided into phases, Stage 2 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 at the Port of Los Angeles have
been working with the Corps of Engineers since 1985 toward the
implementation of the 2020 Plan which was authorized in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA) (Public Law99-662), and
further sanctioned in WRDA 1988 (Public Law100-371) and WRDA 1990
(Public Law101-640).
The contracts for Stage 1 construction were completed by the Port
in 1997 and we received a credit of $63.8 million toward our share of
Stage 2 construction. Stage 1 included the dredging of new Federal
deep-draft navigation channels that abut existing land at Pier 300 and
the reclamation of 265 acres of new land at Pier 400. Stage 2 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 upon
which new state-of-the-art marine terminals will be built.
stage 2 construction
I am pleased to inform the Subcommittee that, based on funds
increased by this panel and Congress in fiscal year 1999, Stage 2
construction is on schedule with completion expected in January 2000.
The President's Budget for fiscal year 2000 includes $9.7 million to
complete Stage 2 construction. We support this amount.
main channel deepening project
The Port of Los Angeles also requests that your Subcommittee
include $750,000 for the Federal share of the Preconstruction,
Engineering and Design (PE&D) phase of the project to deepen the Main
Channel. Although part of the Pier 400 Project includes deepening of
some of the channels for safer and more efficient container ship
navigation, the Main Channel's current depth is inadequate to
accommodate the new state-of-the-art container vessels that carry more
than 6,000 TEU's. These vessels are longer and wider than most of the
current vessels, and most significantly, now draft up to 46 feet in
depth. Presently, five of the major container shippers in the San Pedro
Bay have vessels that draft 46 feet. Another 50 of this new generation
of vessels is either under construction or on order, and they will meet
the competitive requirements for shipping efficiencies in the 21st
century.
To accommodate the industry's shift to larger container vessels,
the Port must deepen existing deep-draft navigation channels by at
least an additional five feet, from the present depth of 45 feet Mean
Lower Low Water (MLLW) to a minimum of 50 feet, to allow for safe
shipping operation. This depth will accommodate the new generation
vessels at 46-foot drafts plus an allowance for tides and under-keel
clearance. The Main Channel project includes dredging approximately 4.5
million cubic yards of sediment not only from the Main Channel, but
also from the Turning Basin, the West and East Basins, and the East
Basin Channel. The estimated cost for the project is approximately $40
million.
Typically, the Corps of Engineers, in initiating a Federal project,
would perform preliminary studies. Based on favorable findings in these
studies, the Port would then seek a Congressional appropriation to fund
the feasibility study and other related studies. These steps can take
more than two years to complete before the feasibility study is begun.
To expedite this process, Section 203 of WRDA 1986 allows the local
project sponsor to pay the full cost of the feasibility study. If the
study shows a Federal interest, Section 203 further allows Federal
reimbursement to the local sponsor in an amount equal to 50 percent of
the costs. The Port of Los Angeles has undertaken a Section 203 Study
of the Main Channel's dredging needs and has signed a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with the Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers. The
MOA provides the framework under which the study will be completed and
details the responsibilities of both the Port and the Corps of
Engineers. The MOA also provides that support agreements are prepared
for the Port to have the Corps of Engineers complete and pay for the
work required for the studies.
The Port anticipates that the Section 203 Report will be completed
in less than a year. Ultimately, the Secretary of the Army will
transmit to Congress his recommendations in time for authorization in
the WRDA 2000 legislation. Consistent with the Corps of Engineers'
seamless funding, once the Section 203 Report is sent to Washington for
review by the Secretary, the PE&D phase can be undertaken by the Corps
of Engineers early in fiscal year 2000.
ongoing maintenance of existing federal channels and the 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 support an appropriation of $350,000 for ongoing
maintenance of the existing navigation channels and the harbor
breakwater. Specifically, $150,000 is needed for the Corps to perform
engineering design for the maintenance dredging of the West Basin;
$100,000 would enable the Corps of Engineers to continue their
condition survey of the Federal channels; and, an additional $100,000
would fund the continued rehabilitation of the harbor breakwater. This
work is critical. Ongoing maintenance of the navigation channels will
ensure that they remain at depths in which fully loaded container ships
can safely navigate and guarantee the stability of the breakwater
during severe storms.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, that the Port of Los Angeles has been a
``donor port,'' under the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) program,
contributing approximately $70 million per year in HMT revenues since
the inception of the fee in 1986. In contrast, the Port has been
allocated only about $700,000 in Operation and Maintenance dollars
because our maintenance dredging needs have been minimal. Consequently,
we urge your support for the full appropriation of $350,000 to pay for
the ongoing maintenance dredging of the Federal navigation channels at
the Port, and the other ongoing channel and breakwater maintenance
needs.
continued funding of the los angeles harbor model
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, $355,000 is
required for continued wave data collection. This information is
necessary to validate the numerical and physical models used for
ongoing project designs. During the state-of-the-art design phase for
the Pier 400 Project land reclamation, eight separate, but related,
models, were used and maintained by the scientists and engineers at WES
and were, likewise, used by the engineers at the Port of Los Angeles
and the Corps' Los Angeles District personnel.
Maintenance of the hydraulic and physical models at WES, and their
prototype data acquisition facilities, remains an essential resource
for the Corps' Los Angeles District and for the Port of Los Angeles.
economic impact of the pier 400 project
The Port of Los Angeles has testified in previous years on the
economic impact its operations have on the Nation's economy; it cannot
be over emphasized. Cargo throughput for the San Pedro Bay continues to
grow and is estimated to more than triple in the next two decades.
Actual growth in cargo handling, from 1990 through 1998, has already
exceeded the forecast growth for that period. The trend is only upward.
The ability of the Port to meet the continued demand of this phenomenal
growth is dependent upon sufficiently deep water channels (such as
those being constructed under the Pier 400 Project and planned for the
Main Channel) that can accommodate the largest state-of-the-art deep-
draft cargo vessels that are now on line in the world fleet of
container ships. These new vessels provide greater efficiencies in
cargo transportation, thereby offering consumers lower prices on
imported goods, as well as more competitive exports from the United
States to foreign markets.
The Pier 400 Project is clearly a project of national significance,
providing such economic benefits to the United States as: more than one
million permanent well-paying jobs across the country; more than one
billion dollars in wages and salaries; and, sales and income tax
revenues, including increased U.S. Customs Service revenues. The return
on the Federal investment is real and quantifiable, and is expected to
surpass the cost-benefit ratio as determined by the Corps of Engineers'
project feasibility study. The Federal investment in the Pier 400
Project has, and we hope will continue, to ensure that the Nation's
busiest container port remains competitive well into the 21st century.
in summary
Mr. Chairman, the Port of Los Angeles respectfully urges your
Subcommittee to include in the Corps of Engineers' fiscal year 2000
appropriation, the following funds to support the Corps of Engineers'
work on behalf of the Port of Los Angeles:
--$9.7 million for the Pier 400 Dredging and Landfill Navigation
Project;
--$750,000 to fund the Preconstruction, Engineering and Design phase
of the Main Channel Deepening Project;
--$350,000 for ongoing maintenance dredging, breakwater
rehabilitation and condition survey;
--$165,000 for ongoing maintenance of the Los Angeles Harbor Models
at WES; and,
--$355,000 for continued collection of wave data on the San Pedro Bay
and Port of Los Angeles channels.
The Port of Los Angeles has long valued your Subcommittee's
demonstrated support for and understanding of the importance of the
port industry to the economic vitality of the United States, and, in
particular, of the Port's role in contributing to this country's
economic vigor. This understanding has been evidenced by the
appropriation of scarce Federal dollars for harbor and navigation
projects such as our 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 Don Knabe, Chairman of the Board, Supervisor,
Fourth District, County of Los Angeles
Los Angeles County respectfully requests that the Congress of the
United States include funds in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water
appropriations bill for the following projects, which are urgently
required to preserve public safety in Marina del Rey and to begin the
process of planned shoreline protection in Los Angeles County.
Marina del Rey Entrance Channel Dredging ($6,500,000)
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 1969. Since
then, contaminants in some of the Marina's sediments have prevented
thorough dredging. While small, clean-sediment dredging projects were
conducted in 1987, 1994, 1996, and 1998, the south entrance to the
Marina is nearly closed. This situation jeopardizes the safety of
thousands of boaters who use our harbor, and it precludes prompt
response by the Coast Guard and others to air-sea disasters off of LAX
and other ocean emergencies.
This year, the Port of Long Beach is constructing a new terminal by
filling in a large slip. This project provides a unique opportunity,
which will not be duplicated in the foreseeable future, to remove and
safely dispose of 300,000 cubic meters of contaminated sediment from
Marina del Rey. The Port's project schedule calls for acceptance of the
Marina's sediments between October 1 and December 31, 1999, requiring
funding in fiscal year 2000. If implemented as planned, this project
will result in eliminating the need to dredge in Marina del Rey for
many years. It will also remove contaminants from the Santa Monica Bay,
provide clean material for beach replenishment, and greatly improve
boating safety.
It is critical that we take full advantage of this extraordinary
opportunity to dispose of contaminated sediments in an environmentally
safe and economical manner. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget
does not include any funds to perform maintenance dredging at Marina
del Rey. We are, therefore, requesting your support for an
appropriation of $6.5 million to remove the 300,000 cubic meters of
contaminated sediment, and as much clean sediment as is possible for
beach replenishment. 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 ($100,000)
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 study is focused on economical and environmentally safe
disposal options 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 was expected to require three years to complete, at a total cost
of $2.7 million. The study has been ongoing for two years and is
progressing on schedule toward completion next year. 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 2000 budget for completion of this study. We, therefore, ask your
support of the President's budget request of $100,000, for the Federal
share of the cost in fiscal year 2000.
Regional Dredged Material Management Plan Feasibility Study ($400,000)
It is estimated that approximately 2.5 million cubic yards of
contaminated marine sediments will need to be dredged from the harbor
waters of Los Angels County over the next five years. Unfortunately,
permanent sites for the disposal of these sediments are not available.
As a result, routine maintenance dredging and port expansion activities
have been critically hampered, impeding both navigation safety and the
livelihood of the area's economy. In addition, the continuous buildup
of contaminated sediments within the Los Angeles Region's coastal
waterways raises concerns with respect to potential impacts to public
health and the health of the marine environment.
A multi-agency Contaminated Sediments Task Force has been formed to
address these concerns and to try to solve the problems associated with
the dredging and disposal of contaminated sediments. This Task Force is
comprised of representatives from Federal and State regulatory and
resource agencies, ports and harbors, local agencies, research
institutions, and local environmental groups.
Recognizing the fact that contaminated sediments are a serious
problem for the Los Angeles Region, the State of California has
committed $1 million over a five-year period to fund the administrative
cost (staff time and coordination efforts) of the Task Force. Its
objective is to develop a management strategy to control and dispose
contaminated dredged material. However, the Task Force quickly
discovered that these funds are not sufficient to acquire the necessary
data, investigate disposal site alternatives, and initiate pilot
projects to analyze promising new technologies. These efforts need to
be accomplished to support development of regional management strategy
for contaminated sediments.
This letter is, therefore, to request your support for $400,000 in
Federal funds in fiscal year 2000 to prepare a Feasibility Project
Study Plan (PSP), negotiate and sign a Feasibility Cost Sharing
Agreement (FCSA) between the Federal government and non-federal
interests, and to initiate the feasibility study following the
execution of the FCSA. The feasibility study will develop a regional
dredged material management plan for the ports, harbors, and marinas
within the coastal waters of Los Angeles County. The study plan will
include: (1) gathering data; (2) investigating sediment threshold
levels for the disposal of contaminated dredged sediments; (3)
analyzing potential regional disposal site alternatives having economic
and environmental viability; and (4) preparing a framework to analyze
innovative dredged material treatment technologies through a series of
pilot projects.
It is understood that, as non-federal stakeholders, the Task Force
members will need to cost share the regional dredged material
management plan feasibility study with the Federal government, and we
are committed to work with the other members to secure funding for this
very important study.
Coast of California Study--Los Angeles County ($400,000)
Los Angeles County is famous for its beautiful, sandy beaches that
attract over 50 million visitors each year. What is little known is
that these beaches are not naturally sandy. Since the 1930's, over 35
million cubic yards of sand have been removed from various public works
projects and used to widen the beaches. Unfortunately, there has been
no planned approach to protecting and maintaining these beaches, which
are important parts of our infrastructure and a major economic engine
for the region. In fact, our beaches protect critical highways,
utilities, public beach facilities, as well as homes and businesses.
Based on data from a university study, the Economic Development
Corporation of Los Angeles has estimated that the annual economic value
of Los Angeles County's beaches is $20.7 billion.
The El Nino storms of 1998 caused severe erosion of some of our
beaches, resulting in the creation of a Los Angeles County Beach
Replenishment Task Force, which is intended to develop a long-term
management plan for our beaches, as well as to seek out funding sources
for beach restoration projects. The Task Force has determined that the
County's beaches have not been regularly surveyed since the early
1970's, or studied at all since the early 1990's. Effective beach
managmenet requires a thorough baseline study and annual surveys for
monitoring erosion and acretion.
The Coast of California Study, as authorized by the Water Resources
Development Act, is an ideal starting point for development of a long-
term beach management plan. Based on studies already completed for San
Diego and Orange Counties, your support for an fiscal year 2000
appropriation of $400,000 for a Los Angeles County--Coast of California
Study is requested.
______
Prepared Statement of Richard W. Parsons, Dredging Program Manager,
Ventura Port District
The Ventura Port District respectfully requests that the Congress:
1. Include $3,500,000 in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
maintenance dredging of the Ventura Harbor federal channel and sand
traps and repair of a groin.
2. Include $300,000 in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill to continue 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.
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 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 & maintenance needs
Dredging
The Corps of Engineers has determined that $2,875,000 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.
Groin Repairs
It is estimated that $625,000 will be required during fiscal year
2000 for the Corps of Engineers to repair extensive El Nino related
storm damage to the South Beach Groin. This structure is an important
component of the harbor's entrance system and its 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 this structure will result in
increased maintenance dredging costs in subsequent years.
study needs
The Corps of Engineers has asked that $100,000 be provided in
fiscal year 2000 to continue 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 dredging, it is respectfully requested
that the funding be increased to $300,000 in order to expedite this
effort 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 Alexander Krygsman, Director, Port of Stockton
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.
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
thirty-five (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 forty
(40) feet or more, if economically feasible. The funding for this study
was appropriated in fiscal year 1998. The reconnaissance study
determined that there is a Federal interest in further deepening the
Channel.
For the 2000 fiscal year, we are requesting three-hundred-thousand
dollars ($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 fifty percent (50 percent) cost-
shared.
The President's proposed 2000 budget only contains one-hundred-
fifty-thousand dollars ($150,000) for the feasibility 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 one-hundred-fifty-thousand dollars ($150,000) now could cost
millions in extra cost later.
The President's proposed 2000 budget includes one-million-six-
hundred-sixty-two-thousand dollars ($1,662,000) for maintenance. This
is insufficient. Every time insufficient funds are provided for
complete maintenance, and the maintenance dredging, therefore, cannot
be completed at one time, an additional mobilization and de-
mobilization cost of between five-hundred-thousand dollars ($500,000)
and one-million dollars ($1,000,000) is incurred when it is completed.
Three-million dollars ($3,000,000) is required for an average, complete
maintenance dredging job. Appropriating less than three-million dollars
($3,000,000) results in extra mobilization and de-mobilization cost
between five-hundred-thousand dollars ($500,000) and one-million
dollars ($1,000,000) United States Senate Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Sub-Committee of the Senate Appropriations Committee
Page three each time each additional maintenance job, which increases
the cost by thirty percent (30 percent) to sixty percent (60 percent),
not counting staff time, testing cost, permitting cost, et cetera. It
could very well double the actual cost.
We urge you to appropriate three-hundred-thousand dollars
($300,000) for the Stockton Deep Water Channel Feasibility Study. We
also strongly urge that three-million dollars ($3,000,000) be
appropriated to maintain the Channels so that the present benefits also
may continue to accrue, and to avoid the additional cost incurred when
insufficient funds are provided to complete the required maintenance at
one time.
______
Prepared Statement of Mayor Rodger Anderson, City of Morro Bay
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, over 50 years ago, the
Federal government has maintained the harbor entrance, breakwaters and
navigational channels.
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 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.
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 annually 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.
Exposure to the open ocean and strong winter currents carrying
sediment into the harbor create the need for a routine maintenance
schedule to insure that the harbor entrance and federally designated
navigation channels remain safe and navigable. It is imperative that
the federally constructed navigation channels and protective jetties be
maintained to insure safe commerce and navigation on a 300 mile stretch
of the California Coast.
This year, the President's budget recommend $2.5 million to
maintain our harbor in the fiscal year 2000 budget. We are requesting
your distinguished Subcommittee approve the funding as recommended in
the President's budget. This funding will be utilized for maintenance
of the federally designated navigation channels. It is estimated that
an additional $5.2 million in fiscal year 2001 will be required to
complete this crucial maintenance project, including maintenance of the
entrance area and the south jetty.
In addition to being home port to over 250 commercial fishing
vessels, Morro Bay Harbor is part of the federally designated National
Estuary Program. The Morro Bay Estuary was the subject of an ACOE
reconnaissance study (funded by Congress in 1998) of potential projects
to and restore sensitive habitat through improving tidal circulation.
The Bay Foundation, a local non-profit conservation group, has put
together a coalition to act as local sponsor for the Feasibility Phase
of the Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project. We also request you approve
the President's recommendation for $100,000 to initiate a feasibility
study for this project in fiscal year 2000.
Our thanks again for your actions and continued support. 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 Peter Green, Mayor, City of Huntington Beach,
California
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Peter
Green, and I am the Mayor of Huntington Beach, California. Thank you
for the opportunity to present testimony regarding the fiscal year 2000
budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The City of Huntington Beach requests $300,000 for a feasibility
study for the continuing Huntington Beach Coastal Bluff Restoration
Project at Blufftop Park. Although the Corps completed an initial
reconnaissance study in March of 1995, finding that the erosion of the
cliffs has been and will be gradual and attributable to normal wind and
wave erosion, in fiscal year 1999, Congress appropriated $100,000 to
amend the Corps initial reconnaissance study to include storm damage as
an accelerator to the normal bluff erosion. Several major Pacific
storms in the past ten years have caused major damage to these cliffs,
and it is anticipated that the amended reconnaissance Study will find
Federal interest in restoration of our coastal bluffs.
In February of 1995, while the Corps was performing its
measurements for the initial Reconnaissance study, a major Pacific
storm struck. Damage from this storm resulted in a state and Federal
disaster being declared. The Corps took cliff face measurements before
and after the storm event. This one storm event, it was discovered, had
created eight new embayments, causing the cliff face to retreat between
6 and 15 feet, over only a two-day period. With only a few more storms
such as this one, not only would Blufftop Park be gone, but Pacific
Coast Highway would also be threatened.
The initial study defined an 8,000 feet stretch of coastal bluffs
extending from the southern boundary of Bolsa Chica State Beach to 17th
Street. The ``Central Reach'' runs northward from the vicinity of
Goldenwest Street for approximately 4,600 feet. This portion of cliff-
face rises 30 to 40 feet above the Pacific Ocean. These cliffs consist
of poorly consolidated alluvium and marine terrace deposits. They are
subject to erosion from wave action, wind and storm damage. The slope
of the cliff-face is relatively steep. In the central and southeastern
portions of this reach, the beach berm is absent and wave run-up
routinely reaches the cliff base at high tide. Most of the cliff base
and portions of the cliff face have been protected by a non-engineered
revetment consisting of concrete rubble and quarrystone. Erosion
embayments exist in the cliff base and cliff face where revetment
coverage is sparse or absent.
This ``Central Reach'' contains the highest concentration of park
facilities along the cliff top, including safety railing, security
lights, pedestrian walkway, bicycle path, irrigated landscaping, picnic
tables, benches, bicycle racks, drinking fountains, metered parking
lots and a paved ramp leading from the cliff top to the beach at each
end of the reach. Records indicate that the pedestrian walkway and the
bicycle path are used by over 700,000 people annually. A closure would
cause an estimated annual recreational loss of $238,200. Seaward of the
northern parking lot, the bluffs are approaching failure in four large
embayments (total length of about 700 feet). The City has closed the
most seaward of the two trails. Four measures were considered for
reducing or eliminating loss under the assumption that the cliff will
retreat 8 feet in the next 25 years and 25 feet in the next 50 years.
The four measures include simply relocating park facilities and three
alternative methods of constructing engineered revetment. Three of the
four measured display a positive benefit to cost ratio.
______
Prepared Statement of Dick Lyon, Mayor, City of Oceanside
oceanside harbor maintenance and operation dredging program
The City of Oceanside and the Oceanside Harbor District request
your support of $1,170,000 in the fiscal year 2000 budget for the
Oceanside Harbor Maintenance Dredging Program.
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 of damage to vessels in the harbor
entrance.
Oceanside Harbor would experience severe negative impacts should
the dredging project not be funded. Such action would prevent 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 critically impacted.
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 beach sand restoration, shoreline protection,
recreational and commerce benefits.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and for
your consideration of the request.
san diego county regional shoreline study
The City of Oceanside is seeking $1,500,000 as an addition to the
fiscal year 2000 budget for a San Diego County Regional Shoreline
Study. The funds for this project are not included in the
Administration budget.
Oceanside has a 57-year history of beach erosion resulting from the
Camp Pendleton Harbor construction that began in 1942. The federal
government acknowledged its responsibility for Oceanside's beach
erosion in 1953. A letter report to the U.S. Navy from the Army Corps
of Engineers noted that the construction of the Camp Pendleton jetties
had compartmentalized the littoral cell and resulted in the loss of 1.5
million cubic yards of sand in Oceanside during 1950-1952. An
additional U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report to Congress in 1956
concluded that only restoration of the protective beach at Oceanside
would protect the upland area and restore and maintain a satisfactory
recreational beach. In 1958, the Navy extended the north harbor jetty
to reduce the entrance channel maintenance problems. This action
further aggravated the erosion of the beaches.
In 1967, congress authorized a review study of beach erosion at
Oceanside resulting in the Office of the Chief of Engineers confirming
100 percent federal responsibility.
Despite numerous and significant efforts in placing sand on the
beach, periodic nourishment of the beach from maintenance dredging of
the harbor entrance and sand bypassing project, no permanent solution
to the massive erosion problem has yet to be achieved.
The 1994 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reconnaissance Report on the
Oceanside Shoreline concluded that there is a federal interest in
maintaining the Oceanside beach and suggested several planned
alternatives, including a beach fill, a groin system with beach fill,
and a submerged breakwater system. However, federal cost-sharing law
provides that non-federal interests (the City) pay 35 percent of the
project construction costs and annual maintenance. The federal rules
also require a 50 percent cost-sharing for the feasibility phase of the
project study. The City of Oceanside has been advised that Congress can
only provide special 100 percent funding for a beach restoration
project if there is a study that would quantitatively justify a larger
federal cost-share based on the project being required to ``mitigate''
a federal action (i.e. the federal construction of the Camp Pendleton
Harbor). If the study documents that the erosion is 100 percent the
result of the federal construction of the harbor, full federal funding
would be justified on a future project. The City of Oceanside is
seeking $1.5 million to conduct the study to justify special federal
cost-sharing.
The language for the study is as follows:
SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL SHORELINE STUDY. In recognition of the
findings of past studies by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as
published in House Document 456, 86th Congress, 2nd session and other
related reports which conclude that the erosion of Oceanside Beach and
other downcoast beaches has been caused by the construction of Camp
Pendleton Harbor as a wartime measure, without provision for bypassing
material to the downcoast beaches; and in equity restoration and
maintenance of downcoast beach conditions that would be existing today
if adequate bypassing was provided as part of harbor construction
should be a Federal responsibility; therefore the Secretary, acting
through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is directed to conduct a study
to determine the extent of the erosion impact caused by Camp Pendleton
Harbor, and to develop plans to mitigate these impacts. The cost of the
study should be 100 percent Federal cost and not exceed $1.5 million.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and for
your consideration of the request.
______
Prepared Statement of Brian E. Foss, Port Director, Santa Cruz Port
District Commission
Santa Cruz Harbor is an active small craft harbor at the north
section of Monterey Bay, California. It was authorized as a federal
navigation project in 1958, constructed in 1964, and expanded in 1972.
A 1986 joint-venture between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Santa Cruz Port District provided for a permanent sand bypass system to
solve the ocean-driven shoaling problem at its entrance. The Port
District has successfully operated that system for the past thirteen
winters. However, the Port District has been unable to solve the
siltation problem emanating from the three-square mile watershed which
terminates at the north end of Santa Cruz Harbor.
Silt from Arana Gulch fills berths, fairways, and channels in the
harbor, making them hazardous and unusable. At this time, the siltation
is not solvable by the existing sand bypass system. The soil
characteristics of the watershed make beach disposal impractical at
this time. Arana Gulch sediment must either be taken upland or
delivered by barge offshore--both of these disposal options are quite
wasteful. They are also extremely expensive and cost the Port District
hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. Additionally, the 1998 El
Nino storms brought 15,000 cubic yards of material into the north
harbor alone from Arana Gulch. The event was declared a federal
disaster, and FEMA and the State of California are spending in excess
of $400,000 to return the harbor to charted depths.
On June 25, 1998, the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure passed Resolution Docket 2565 authorizing the Secretary
of the Army to review the Arana Gulch watershed siltation problem.
The Port District respectfully requests that $100,000 be
appropriated for the Arana Gulch reconnaissance study for fiscal year
2000.
______
Prepared Statement of Jimmy Smith, Commission President, Humboldt Bay
Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District, Eureka, California
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity for me, Jimmy Smith, as Commission Chairman of the Humboldt
Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District in Eureka, California
to submit prepared remarks to you for the record in support of the
Fiscal Year 2000 Energy and Water regular appropriations measure to
fund the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers into the new millennium.
Commissioner Roy Curless and Chief Executive Officer David Hull will
represent the Commission and District in meetings with subcommittee
staff and agency representatives and respond to any project-related
questions that arise during those meetings and appearances.
The Commission recognizes and expresses its debt of gratitude to
our retired Congressman Frank Riggs and retired Congressman Fazio (both
former members of this subcommittee), our new Congressman (and former
State senator) Mike Thompson, Subcommittee Chairman Packard from
California, and the other members of this subcommittee and staff for
their continuing efforts in funding the Humboldt Harbor and Bay
Navigation Project. This project is of critical importance to the
future development of Humboldt Bay and county, and the entire north
coast region of the State of California.
With your support, the conference report on fiscal year 1999
appropriations contained six million dollars for our project as a new
construction start we support the President's budget request in the
amount of $3.2 million in the construction general account to complete
project construction in fiscal year 2000.
We are likewise grateful to the subcommittee for including $3.910
million in the operations and maintenance general account for fiscal
year 1999. We support the President's budget request for an additional
$4.189 million in the operations and maintenance general account for
fiscal year 2000 and request the subcommittee increase this amount to
$5.689 million dollars.
The increased budget request from fiscal year 1999 is derived from
three sources. $300,000 is attributable to annualized cost increases
and additional survey work to monitor the new hydrodynamics of the
channel after completion of project construction. A second element of
the additional request above the President's budget will permit the
Corps to extend their survey south of the navigation channel to
determine how the sand accumulation is impacting the main channel
saving additional money over the long term. This survey effort will
cost an estimated $150,000. The last element included in the request is
for an additional $1.35 million to be appropriated to dredge this same
area.
Although the exact quantities to be dredged will not be determined
until the survey is complete, our estimates and the emergency nature of
this request accounts for the additional $1.5 million sought over the
President's budget request for the operations and maintenance general
account.
Completion of the long sought new construction project (the harbor
deepening project) will vastly improve the safety of navigation in
Humboldt Bay and help us begin to diversify our maritime economy. For
those unfamiliar with the geography, Humboldt Bay is the only deep-
draft natural harbor strategically situated along five hundred miles of
Pacific coastline between San Francisco and Coos Bay, Oregon. Extreme
winter storm conditions at the Humboldt Bay and entrance have posed
extreme navigation safety hazards, resulting in loss of life and
significant property damage over the years.
To us, regular maintenance dredging can be a life and death, as
well as economic, survival matter. For example, in a commendable effort
to save Federal and local sponsor financial resources, the Corps' San
Francisco District previously scheduled combined operations/maintenance
and construction dredging for this spring. An unanticipated delay in
final approval of our project cooperation agreement has resulted in
dangerous shoaling of portions of the bar and entrance channel being
allowed to persist for more than four months. Deep draft vessels and
commercial fishermen have encountered shoaling conditions currently at
18' in places where normally it would be 40' deep. This shoaling poses
additional safety risks of ship grounding over and beyond those
inherently unsafe seasonal conditions intended to be remedied by the
channel improvement project itself.
Recently a Corps hopper dredge itself was damaged by high wave
action while attempting to undertake emergency maintenance dredging of
the shoals. Indicative of adverse economic impacts, a vessel calling at
a Louisiana-Pacific Corporation facility was delayed by shoaling
conditions resulting in $1.5 million in delay penalties and lost sales.
This furthers the perception of an unreliable harbor entrance and could
have significant adverse impacts to the wood chip export market.
Completion of the construction will substantially alleviate these
conditions.
Project completion will provide unique economic development
opportunities for the North coast region. These capitalize upon our
natural resources base enabling us to ship our commodities to world
markets at competitive freight rates, and ship more of our imports and
exports by water rather than transship them long distances by road or
rail to market. At the same time, it will permit us to diversify our
economic base by improving our transportation infrastructure and
attracting new industrial activity to an area largely dependent upon
the economic well-being of the forest products industry. We are
currently suffering from closure of major facilities and continuing
uncertainty surrounding the industry's future as a major contributor to
our long term economic base.
With the support of then Congressman Riggs, Congress authorized the
Humboldt Harbor and Bay 38 foot deep draft navigation project in
section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (WRDA 1996)
(Public Law 104-303) at an estimated total construction cost of
$15,178,000 with a required local contribution of $5,180,000 and a
first Federal cost of $10,000,000. The project has a 1.9 to 1 favorable
benefit cost ratio. It has no significant environmental impacts and
enjoys the consensus support of Federal, State, regional and local
agencies.
In June 1998, with the support of the California Maritime
Infrastructure Authority in the first of its kind issuance of revenue
bonds to finance a Federal navigation project, we were able to raise
$3.9 million matched by an additional $1.0 million in local
redevelopment agency funds from the city of Eureka to meet our required
local contribution to the project construction cost. Since then, we
have been waiting for a final approved project cooperation agreement
and commencement of construction. The Harbor District Board of
Commissioners voted unanimously to authorize execution of the final
agreement on March 16, 1999.
In order to provide an additional revenue stream from which to
service the debt incurred in meeting its financial obligations, the
district has implemented the first of its kind harbor user fee under
section 208 of WRDA 1986 so that vessels and cargo benefitting from the
navigation improvements will share in the cost of providing them.
Thanks to an accelerated final review by Secretary Westphal's
staff, we anticipate his approval of the agreement this week with
advertisement and contract award to follow soon in the second quarter
this fiscal year and completion of construction on schedule next fiscal
year.
On behalf of the members of the commission and district, we
appreciate those prior occasions in which we have had the opportunity
to appear before the subcommittee and look forward to appearing before
this subcommittee on future occasions to provide progress reports
concerning the successful completion of this project. We are prepared
to supplement our prepared remarks for the record in response to any
questions that the Chair, subcommittee members or staff may wish to
have us answer.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. This
concludes my prepared remarks.
______
Prepared Statement of E.D. Allen, Chief Harbor Engineer, Port of Long
Beach
I am E. D. Allen, Chief Harbor Engineer for the Port of Long Beach,
California. The Port of Long Beach is this nation's largest container
port. 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
and Wave Data Collection Program; construction of the Queen's Gate
Deepening Project as part of our on-going 2020 Plan; Los Angeles River
maintenance dredging; Feasibility Studies for beach erosion; and
Reconnaissance and Feasibility Studies for Contaminated Sediment
Disposal.
In addition to the following specific project appropriation
requests, I am recommending the committee recognize the need for a
standby Corps dredging capability to supplement private contractors in
the event of emergencies.. I specifically recommend a standby dredging
and personnel training capability be funded without a minimum dredge
quantity per year. This will allow:
(1) private contractors to benefit from receiving previous Corps
annual dredging quantities and
(2) Corps of Engineers equipment to be used in emergencies 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 follow 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 the third
largest container port complex in the world, are ports of national
strategic and defense significance. The hydraulic model, along with
several numeric models, provide state-of-the-art methodology that can
be used to provide operational improvements to the San Pedro Bay ports
and many other harbor complexes. In addition, the Port, as the local
agency, is assisting in the Corps effort to provide collection of
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 1999, $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
our upcoming expansion within the Navy Basin and validate numerical
model results. This effort is being funded by the Port and is on-going.
It is necessary that the model remain ready for service such as this.
Funding in fiscal year 2000, in the amount of $165,000, would continue
annual maintenance on the model. Additionally, we are requesting
$335,000 in continued funding for the wave gage (prototype) data
acquisition and analysis program. The wave data gathering program is
essential as it provides real-world information to compare to model
performance. The wave data acquisition program began in 1987 to provide
validation of the design of the 2020 Plan, our Master Plan for port
expansion and navigation improvements. This program has now evolved to
construction monitoring and model verification which needs to continue
to confirm expected levels of impacts of the expansion plans. The
shipping industry's increasingly larger vessel size continues to
challenge port engineers. The need for modeling and wave gage data
acquisition continues to be a critical tool supporting the ports
ability to create facilities compatible with changing trade conditions
and operations. Therefore, Congress is respectfully requested to
appropriate $500,000 for fiscal year 2000 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 deeper navigation
channels at the Queens Gate entrance to San Pedro Bay 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 deepens the Long Beach Main Channel to 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 was funded in 1998 and 1999 and is on-going. We fully
anticipate that the Corps will provide sufficient programmed funds to
complete this project with no additional funding appropriations. I am
pleased to note that the Corps specified the work in such a manner that
we can achieve a measurable benefit from the project as each foot of
depth is dredged.
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 to federal fund
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.
On a yearly basis substantial quantities of silt remain in the
channel. 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.
Congress is requested therefore, to appropriate $2,000,000 for annual
silt removal. 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.
contaminated sediment disposal (civil works budget category--general
investigations)
The Contaminated Sediment Task Force, of which the Los Angeles
District of the US Army Corps of Engineers is a key member, is charged
with investigating the major issues involved in formulating and
implementing a regional contaminated sediment management strategy
including four major issues:
1. Upland Disposal.--Blending of contaminated sediments with clean
sediment to make structural fill as a promising disposal option.
However, there is no quantitative data on proportions, handling
methods, and desired end products that would support management
decisions on disposal/reuse options. There is great need to undertake a
pilot handling project to collect that information.
2. Screening Guidelines.--Quantitative sediment chemistry
guidelines are required to screen sediments for aquatic disposal and
necessitate gathering historical regional data on sediment chemistry,
toxicity, and bio-accumulation to be analyzed for region-specific
relationships between sediment chemistry and toxicity.
3. Watershed Management.--Control of future contamination via land
runoff as a key management issue. Field and modeling study of sediment
and contaminant transport in the Los Angeles region are required both
to build on existing watershed efforts and to acquire specific data on
the movement of contaminants into harbors.
4. Aquatic Disposal.--A regional confined aquatic disposal facility
is a promising management tool which provides a multi-user site active
over a period of many years. The approach requires an engineering
feasibility study of such issues as: quantifying the containment
disposal capability, the interface chemistry between sediments of
multiple users, and determining best management practices.
The program would be managed by the Los Angeles District and
requires $400,000 in Federal funding; substantial additional funding
would come from State and local sources. Congress is therefore
requested to appropriate $400,000 in fiscal year 2000 to support the
Contaminated Sediment Task Force in their effort to initiate a Regional
Contaminated Sediment Disposal Planning Study.
feasibility study beach erosion (civil works budget category--general
investigations)
The Port of Long Beach also supports C-MANC and the City of Long
Beach on their request for federal funding to initiate a Corps of
Engineers feasibility study on beach erosion. This beach erosion
problem is directly related to the focusing affect the federal
breakwater has on our large commercial harbor complex and surrounding
beaches. 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 based on the
1990 US census. We expect the current home value to be significantly
higher. Steady erosion has reduced the beach from an optimum of 175
feet to 50 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 of sand berms during high tides or expected storms. The City
has invested over $5,500,000 in capital improvement projects, annual
beach rebuilding, and storm protection to control the beach erosion
over the past 17 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 2000 to initiate the feasibility study.
Attached hereto is a Resolution to be adopted by the Board of
Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach on March 22, 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 Contaminated Sediment Task Force, 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 2000 by appropriating the requested funds.
Thank you for permitting me the privilege of this testimony.
Resolution No. HD-1958
A resolution of the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the city of
Long Beach, California, requesting the Congress of the United States to
appropriate funds to the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order
to continue planning, engineering and design for the San Pedro Bay 2020
Plan, to continue the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors model study
relating to improvements in San Pedro Bay, to conduct maintenance
dredging at the mouth of the Los Angeles River, to conduct feasibility
studies of beach erosion, and to develop a regional contaminated
sediment management strategy
WHEREAS, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles in San Pedro Bay,
California, are two of a limited number of sites on the West Coast of
the United States which possess the potential for deep water port
facilities as recommended in the West Coast Deep Water Port Facility
Study conducted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers; and
WHEREAS, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles have a record of both
physical and fiscal growth to the extent that together the two ports
are presently handling over 185.9 million metric revenue tons including
7.23 million twenty-foot equivalent units of container cargo annually
(fiscal year 1998), and the international cargo handled is valued at
over $159 billion annually (calendar year 1997); and
WHEREAS, the growth and activity of the Ports of Long Beach and Los
Angeles have a significant regional and national economic effect; and
WHEREAS, in 1998 the Los Angeles Customs District remained the
Nation's top entry and exit point for international cargo, valued at
over $181 billion, generating approximately $3.7 billion in Federal
revenues collected as United States Customs duties, approximately 85
percent of which is generated by the Long Beach and Los Angeles Ports;
and
WHEREAS, both Ports are now, and are increasingly becoming, hard-
pressed to provide facilities to meet the needs of the shipping
industry, and to that end are conducting extensive studies, in
conjunction with federal studies, to determine navigational,
transportation, and environmental requirements necessary to provide
economic and adequate surge-free berthing and cargo handling
facilities; and
WHEREAS, all existing land in the Port of Long Beach which can be
developed for shipping operations has been utilized or is in the
process of being developed and, in order to meet the needs of the
following decade, the design, permitting and construction of new lands
must continue; and
WHEREAS, continuation of the studies currently underway by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers, consisting of the Los Angeles
and Long Beach Harbors Model Study, including maintenance and operation
of the San Pedro Bay Hydraulic Model at Vicksburg, Mississippi, as
authorized by Section 123 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1976, is needed for use in the design and permitting processes for
future landfills for port development; and
WHEREAS, the Port of Long Beach handled over 27 million metric tons
of liquid bulk cargo (fiscal year 1998). Because of economies of scale,
liquid bulk cargo brought in by deeper draft vessels will have lower
transportation costs and environmental benefits in the form of less
vessel traffic. However, the existing navigation channel depths leading
to the Port limit the size of calling vessels until such time as the
Long Beach Deepening Project is complete; and
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles River is the largest of numerous flood-
control channels constructed and maintained jointly by the Los Angeles
County Flood Control District and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, and silt deposit from storm runoff accumulating in the mouth
of the Los Angeles River in the City of Long Beach constitutes a
restriction and hazard to both commercial and recreational boating; and
WHEREAS, the Southern California region has a significant volume of
contaminated sediments from area runoff and other activities and the
Los Angeles District of the US Army Corps of Engineers is a key member
of a Task Force charged with the investigation of major issues involved
in formulating and implementing a regional contaminated sediment
management strategy; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long
Beach, as a properly constituted and financially responsible local
agency, by its Resolution No. HD-890, adopted August 3, 1965, expressed
its intent to enter into such agreements as may be reasonably required
to further federal projects for the development and improvement of Long
Beach and Los Angeles Harbors; and
WHEREAS, at southeastern Long Beach in front of Alamitos Bay a
beach and seawall protects $200 million worth of homes (1990 US census
data). The primary method of protecting the homes has been annual beach
rebuilding and sand berms during storms. Steady erosion has reduced the
beach from optimum width of 175 feet to 50 feet and continues to reduce
beach width despite rebuilding efforts in 1994. The City has invested
over $5.5 million in capital improvement projects, annual beach
rebuilding, and storm protection to control the beach erosion over the
past 17 years. Despite this effort, in 1989 and 1993, storm waves
eroded the beach and breached the protective seawall causing damage to
homes.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of
Long Beach resolves as follows:
Section 1. That the Congress of the United States be, and is
hereby, respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds
necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, to maintain the San Pedro Bay Hydraulic Model at the
Waterways Experiment Station at Vicksburg, Mississippi, as part of the
Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Model Study.
Sec. 2. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby,
respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds
necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, to continue the existing wave gauge (prototype) data
acquisition and analysis program.
Sec. 3. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby,
respectfully requested to support the Chief of Engineers, United States
Army Corps of Engineers, to complete construction of dredging deeper
navigation channels to the Port of Long Beach to the full project
depth.
Sec. 4. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby,
respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds
necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, in conjunction with the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District, to engage in the necessary maintenance dredging at the mouth
of the Los Angeles River to remove silt deposits which have accumulated
at that location.
Sec. 5. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby,
respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds
necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, to complete feasibility studies to develop protective
measures to prevent beach erosion within the City of Long Beach.
Sec. 6. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby,
respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds
necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, to complete feasibility studies to develop and implement a
regional contaminated sediment management strategy for Southern
California.
Sec. 7. That the Executive Director of the Long Beach Harbor
Department be, and he is hereby, directed to send copies of this
resolution to the United States Senators and to Members of the House of
Representatives from California, with a letter requesting their
assistance in presenting this resolution before the proper
Congressional committees.
Sec. 8. That the Executive Director of the Long Beach Harbor
Department be, and he is hereby, further directed to send copies of
this resolution to the President of the United States; the Director,
Office of Management and Budget; the Secretary of the Army; the Chief
of Engineers, the Director, Directorate of Civil Works, the Division
Engineer-South Pacific Division and the District Engineer-Los Angeles,
all of the United States Army Corps of Engineers; and to such other
interested persons as he may deem appropriate.
The Secretary of the Board shall certify to the passage of this
resolution by the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long
Beach, shall cause the same to be posted in three (3) conspicuous
places in the City of Long Beach, and shall cause a certified copy of
this resolution to be filed forthwith with the City Clerk of the City
of Long Beach and it shall thereupon take effect.
______
Prepared Statement of John Bridley, Waterfront Director, City of Santa
Barbara, California
operations and maintenance dredging
As your distinguished Subcommittee writes the fiscal year 2000
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 1,100 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 2000 Budget Request includes $1,646,000
for operations and maintenance for Santa Barbara Harbor. I respectfully
request that the U.S. Senate, through your Subcommittee, maintain that
level of funding.
new construction project--dredge acquisition
The President's fiscal year 2000 Budget recommendation also
includes project funding for a potential new construction project in
Santa Barbara. The City of Santa Barbara and the Corps of Engineers
have pursued a proposal to design and construct a dredge for annual
operation and maintenance dredging of our Harbor. Under this proposal,
the City of Santa Barbara would contribute 20 percent funding
(approximately $1.6 million) with the Corps of Engineers funding
$4,960,000 for the acquisition of the dredge. The City would then take
over the annual costs to operate the dredge, which are estimated to be
$750,000-$1 million.
Unfortunately, the recommendation to proceed with funding of this
project cannot come at a worse time for the City. During the past year,
the City suffered severe damage from El Nino storms causing over $1
million in damage to the Harbor and Stearns Wharf. In November 1998,
Stearns Wharf was hit with a catastrophic fire causing over $10 million
in damage destroying a portion of the wharf and closing five
businesses. The financial impacts of these natural disasters have
severely impacted the City's ability to proceed with the dredge
procurement and operations at this time.
Although the City remains interested and committed to the dredge
acquisition in the future, due to the financial hardships of the fire
and winter storms last year, I respectfully request that the U. S.
Senate through your Subcommittee defer funding of this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Akin, Richard, Supervisor, County of Sutter, California, prepared
statement...................................................... 598
Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc., prepared statement........... 622
Allen, E.D., Chief Harbor Engineer, Port of Long Beach, prepared
statement...................................................... 861
Allen, W. Ron, President, National Congress of American Indians,
prepared statement............................................. 603
American Chemical Society, prepared statement.................... 821
American Farm Bureau Federation, prepared statement.............. 600
American Public Power Association, prepared statement............ 843
American Society for Microbiology, prepared statement............ 790
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, prepared statement..... 827
Anderson, James S., President, Blue Valley Association, prepared
statement...................................................... 727
Anderson, Mayor Rodger, City of Morro Bay, prepared statement.... 856
Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, prepared statement.... 701
Armstrong, Michael D., General Manager, Monterey County Water
Resources Agency (MCWRA), prepared statement................... 585
Arveschoug, Steve, District General Manager, Southeastern
Colorado Water Conservancy District, prepared statement........ 704
Association of State Dam Safety Officials, prepared statement.... 609
Audrey J. LaPlace, President, Board of Commissioners,
Pontchartrain Levee District, Lutcher, LA, prepared statement.. 681
Baldwin, Dr. David E., Senior Vice President, General Atomics, et
al., prepared statement........................................ 799
Ballard, Lt. Gen. Joe N., Chief of Engineers, Corps of
Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department of
Defense--Civil................................................. 63
Prepared statement........................................... 82
Statement of................................................. 79
Barnett, Jack A., Executive Director, Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement..................... 766
Barrett, Lake H., Acting Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management, Environmental Management and Civilian Waste
Management Programs, Department of Energy...................... 269
Prepared statement........................................... 297
Statement of................................................. 294
Beachem, Philip, Chairman, New Jersey Maritime Advisory Council,
letter from.................................................... 612
Beier, Keith E., Mayor Pro Tem, City of Escondido, California,
prepared statement............................................. 556
Belza, Tib, Chairman, Yuba County Water Agency, prepared
statement...................................................... 567
Beneke, Patricia, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Water and
Science, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior..... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Statement of................................................. 3
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah:
Questions submitted by....................................... 168
Statement of................................................. 15
Biggs, Otha Lee, Judge of Probate & President, Monroe County
Commission, Monroeville, AL, prepared statement................ 637
Blum, Carl L., Deputy Director, Department of Public Works, Los
Angeles County, California, prepared statement................. 579
Bollinger, Donald T., Chairman, Louisiana Governor's Task Force
on Maritime Industry, prepared statement....................... 656
Borrone, Lillian C., Director, Port Commerce Department of the
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, prepared statement.... 615
Boyd, Bernadine, President, Fort McDowell Tribal Council, Fort
McDowell Indian Community, prepared statement.................. 761
Brakken, William A., Community Liaison/Central Oregon Team
Leader, Northwest Area Foundation, prepared statement.......... 778
Bransford, Donald, President, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District,
prepared statement,............................................ 547
Brescia, Christopher J., President, Midwest Area River Coalition
2000, prepared statement....................................... 713
Bridley, John, Waterfront Director, City of Santa Barbara,
California, prepared statement................................. 865
Brinson, J. Ron, President and Chief Executive Officer, Port of
New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, prepared statement............... 667
Brown, Lynne P., Ph.D., Associate Vice President for Government
and Community Relations, Center for Cognition, Learning,
Emotion and Memory, New York University, prepared statement.... 802
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
Questions submitted by
631____________________________________________________________________
Johansson, Lennart, Chairman, Solar Thermalpower Division, Solar Energy
Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement
832____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., Vice President for Government Relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
644____________________________________________________________________
Jordan, James T., Director, J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc., letter from
638____________________________________________________________________
Joseph, William F., Jr., Chairman, Montgomery County Commission,
Montgomery, AL, prepared statement
637____________________________________________________________________
Kendall, Donald R., Ph.D., P.E., General Manager, Calleguas Municipal Water
District, prepared statement
581____________________________________________________________________
Kimble, Jay L., Mayor, City of Stillwater, MN, prepared statement
744____________________________________________________________________
King, T. Keith, P.E., President and CEO, David Volkert & Associates, Inc.,
Mobile, AL, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Klass, Dr. Donald L., President, Biomass Energy Research Association,
prepared statement
833____________________________________________________________________
Knabe, Don, Chairman of the Board, Supervisorn and Sales,
U.S. Steel, Pittsburgh, PA, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Johansson, Lennart, Chairman, Solar Thermalpower Division, Solar Energy
Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement
832____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., Vice President for Government Relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
644____________________________________________________________________
Jordan, James T., Director, J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc., letter from
638____________________________________________________________________
Joseph, William F., Jr., Chairman, Montgomery County Commission,
Montgomery, AL, prepared statement
637____________________________________________________________________
Kendall, Donald R., Ph.D., P.E., General Manager, Calleguas Municipal Water
District, prepared statement
581____________________________________________________________________
Kimble, Jay L., Mayor, City of Stillwater, MN, prepared statement
744____________________________________________________________________
King, T. Keith, P.E., President and CEO, David Volkert & Associates, Inc.,
Mobile, AL, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Klass, Dr. Donald L., President, Biomass Energy Research Association,
prepared statement
833____________________________________________________________________
Knabe, Don, Chairman of the Board, Supervisorrepared statement
614____________________________________________________________________
Jansen, Keith H., Director, Raw Materials Planning Procurement Distribution
and Sales, U.S. Steel, Pittsburgh, PA, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Johansson, Lennart, Chairman, Solar Thermalpower Division, Solar Energy
Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement
832____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., Vice President for Government Relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
644____________________________________________________________________
Jordan, James T., Director, J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc., letter from
638____________________________________________________________________
Joseph, William F., Jr., Chairman, Montgomery County Commission,
Montgomery, AL, prepared statement
637____________________________________________________________________
Kendall, Donald R., Ph.D., P.E., General Manager, Calleguas Municipal Water
District, prepared statement
581____________________________________________________________________
Kimble, Jay L., Mayor, City of Stillwater, MN, prepared statement
744____________________________________________________________________
King, T. Keith, P.E., President and CEO, David Volkert & Associates, Inc.,
Mobile, AL, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Klass, Dr. Donald L., President, Biomass Energy Research Association,
prepared statement
833____________________________________________________________________
Knabe, Don, Chairman of the Board, Supervisorional Water Pollution
Control Agency (MRWPCA), prepared statement
587____________________________________________________________________
James, Hon. Sharpe, Mayor, City of Newark, New Jersey, prepared statement
614____________________________________________________________________
Jansen, Keith H., Director, Raw Materials Planning Procurement Distribution
and Sales, U.S. Steel, Pittsburgh, PA, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Johansson, Lennart, Chairman, Solar Thermalpower Division, Solar Energy
Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement
832____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., Vice President for Government Relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
644____________________________________________________________________
Jordan, James T., Director, J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc., letter from
638____________________________________________________________________
Joseph, William F., Jr., Chairman, Montgomery County Commission,
Montgomery, AL, prepared statement
637____________________________________________________________________
Kendall, Donald R., Ph.D., P.E., General Manager, Calleguas Municipal Water
District, prepared statement
581____________________________________________________________________
Kimble, Jay L., Mayor, City of Stillwater, MN, prepared statement
744____________________________________________________________________
King, T. Keith, P.E., President and CEO, David Volkert & Associates, Inc.,
Mobile, AL, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Klass, Dr. Donald L., President, Biomass Energy Research Association,
prepared statement
833____________________________________________________________________
Knabe, Don, Chairman of the Board, Supervisor, Raw
Materials Planning Procurement Distribution and Sales, U.S. Steel,
Pittsburgh, PA, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Johansson, Lennart, Chairman, Solar Thermalpower Division, Solar Energy
Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement
832____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., Vice President for Government Relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
644____________________________________________________________________
Jordan, James T., Director, J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc., letter from
638____________________________________________________________________
Joseph, William F., Jr., Chairman, Montgomery County Commission,
Montgomery, AL, prepared statement
637____________________________________________________________________
Kendall, Donald R., Ph.D., P.E., General Manager, Calleguas Municipal Water
District, prepared statement
581____________________________________________________________________
Kimble, Jay L., Mayor, City of Stillwater, MN, prepared statement
744____________________________________________________________________
King, T. Keith, P.E., President and CEO, David Volkert & Associates, Inc.,
Mobile, AL, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Klass, Dr. Donald L., President, Biomass Energy Research Association,
prepared statement
833____________________________________________________________________
Knabe, Don, Chairman of the Board, Supervisord statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Johansson, Lennart, Chairman, Solar Thermalpower Division, Solar Energy
Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement
832____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., Vice President for Government Relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
644____________________________________________________________________
Jordan, James T., Director, J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc., letter from
638____________________________________________________________________
Joseph, William F., Jr., Chairman, Montgomery County Commission,
Montgomery, AL, prepared statement
637____________________________________________________________________
Kendall, Donald R., Ph.D., P.E., General Manager, Calleguas Municipal Water
District, prepared statement
581____________________________________________________________________
Kimble, Jay L., Mayor, City of Stillwater, MN, prepared statement
744____________________________________________________________________
King, T. Keith, P.E., President and CEO, David Volkert & Associates, Inc.,
Mobile, AL, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Klass, Dr. Donald L., President, Biomass Energy Research Association,
prepared statement
833____________________________________________________________________
Knabe, Don, Chairman of the Board, Supervisorith H., Director,
Raw Materials Planning Procurement Distribution and Sales, U.S. Steel,
Pittsburgh, PA, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Johansson, Lennart, Chairman, Solar Thermalpower Division, Solar Energy
Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement
832____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., Vice President for Government Relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
644____________________________________________________________________
Jordan, James T., Director, J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc., letter from
638____________________________________________________________________
Joseph, William F., Jr., Chairman, Montgomery County Commission,
Montgomery, AL, prepared statement
637____________________________________________________________________
Kendall, Donald R., Ph.D., P.E., General Manager, Calleguas Municipal Water
District, prepared statement
581____________________________________________________________________
Kimble, Jay L., Mayor, City of Stillwater, MN, prepared statement
744____________________________________________________________________
King, T. Keith, P.E., President and CEO, David Volkert & Associates, Inc.,
Mobile, AL, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Klass, Dr. Donald L., President, Biomass Energy Research Association,
prepared statement
833____________________________________________________________________
Knabe, Don, Chairman of the Board, Supervisorrepared statement
614____________________________________________________________________
Jansen, Keith H., Director, Raw Materials Planning Procurement Distribution
and Sales, U.S. Steel, Pittsburgh, PA, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Johansson, Lennart, Chairman, Solar Thermalpower Division, Solar Energy
Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement
832____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., Vice President for Government Relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
644____________________________________________________________________
Jordan, James T., Director, J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc., letter from
638____________________________________________________________________
Joseph, William F., Jr., Chairman, Montgomery County Commission,
Montgomery, AL, prepared statement
637____________________________________________________________________
Kendall, Donald R., Ph.D., P.E., General Manager, Calleguas Municipal Water
District, prepared statement
581____________________________________________________________________
Kimble, Jay L., Mayor, City of Stillwater, MN, prepared statement
744____________________________________________________________________
King, T. Keith, P.E., President and CEO, David Volkert & Associates, Inc.,
Mobile, AL, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Klass, Dr. Donald L., President, Biomass Energy Research Association,
prepared statement
833____________________________________________________________________
Knabe, Don, Chairman of the Board, Supervisorional Water Pollution
Control Agency (MRWPCA), prepared statement
587____________________________________________________________________
James, Hon. Sharpe, Mayor, City of Newark, New Jersey, prepared statement
614____________________________________________________________________
Jansen, Keith H., Director, Raw Materials Planning Procurement Distribution
and Sales, U.S. Steel, Pittsburgh, PA, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Johansson, Lennart, Chairman, Solar Thermalpower Division, Solar Energy
Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement
832____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., Vice President for Government Relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
644____________________________________________________________________
Jordan, James T., Director, J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc., letter from
638____________________________________________________________________
Joseph, William F., Jr., Chairman, Montgomery County Commission,
Montgomery, AL, prepared statement
637____________________________________________________________________
Kendall, Donald R., Ph.D., P.E., General Manager, Calleguas Municipal Water
District, prepared statement
581____________________________________________________________________
Kimble, Jay L., Mayor, City of Stillwater, MN, prepared statement
744____________________________________________________________________
King, T. Keith, P.E., President and CEO, David Volkert & Associates, Inc.,
Mobile, AL, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Klass, Dr. Donald L., President, Biomass Energy Research Association,
prepared statement
833____________________________________________________________________
Knabe, Don, Chairman of the Board, Supervisorn and Sales,
U.S. Steel, Pittsburgh, PA, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Johansson, Lennart, Chairman, Solar Thermalpower Division, Solar Energy
Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement
832____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., Vice President for Government Relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
644____________________________________________________________________
Jordan, James T., Director, J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc., letter from
638____________________________________________________________________
Joseph, William F., Jr., Chairman, Montgomery County Commission,
Montgomery, AL, prepared statement
637____________________________________________________________________
Kendall, Donald R., Ph.D., P.E., General Manager, Calleguas Municipal Water
District, prepared statement
581____________________________________________________________________
Kimble, Jay L., Mayor, City of Stillwater, MN, prepared statement
744____________________________________________________________________
King, T. Keith, P.E., President and CEO, David Volkert & Associates, Inc.,
Mobile, AL, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Klass, Dr. Donald L., President, Biomass Energy Research Association,
prepared statement
833____________________________________________________________________
Knabe, Don, Chairman of the Board, Supervisor
Johansson, Lennart, Chairman, Solar Thermalpower Division, Solar Energy
Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement
832____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., Vice President for Government Relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
644____________________________________________________________________
Jordan, James T., Director, J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc., letter from
638____________________________________________________________________
Joseph, William F., Jr., Chairman, Montgomery County Commission,
Montgomery, AL, prepared statement
637____________________________________________________________________
Kendall, Donald R., Ph.D., P.E., General Manager, Calleguas Municipal Water
District, prepared statement
581____________________________________________________________________
Kimble, Jay L., Mayor, City of Stillwater, MN, prepared statement
744____________________________________________________________________
King, T. Keith, P.E., President and CEO, David Volkert & Associates, Inc.,
Mobile, AL, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Klass, Dr. Donald L., President, Biomass Energy Research Association,
prepared statement
833____________________________________________________________________
Knabe, Don, Chairman of the Board, Supervisord statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Johansson, Lennart, Chairman, Solar Thermalpower Division, Solar Energy
Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement
832____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., Vice President for Government Relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
644____________________________________________________________________
Jordan, James T., Director, J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc., letter from
638____________________________________________________________________
Joseph, William F., Jr., Chairman, Montgomery County Commission,
Montgomery, AL, prepared statement
637____________________________________________________________________
Kendall, Donald R., Ph.D., P.E., General Manager, Calleguas Municipal Water
District, prepared statement
581____________________________________________________________________
Kimble, Jay L., Mayor, City of Stillwater, MN, prepared statement
744____________________________________________________________________
King, T. Keith, P.E., President and CEO, David Volkert & Associates, Inc.,
Mobile, AL, prepared statement
631____________________________________________________________________
Klass, Dr. Donald L., President, Biomass Energy Research Association,
prepared statement
833____________________________________________________________________
Knabe, Don, Chairman of the Board, Supervisor
Statement of................................................. 29
Business Council For Sustainable Energy, prepared statement...... 817
Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia, questions
submitted by................................................... 178
Byrnes, Robert J., Mayor, City of Marshall, MN, prepared
statement...................................................... 738
Caddo/Bossier Port Commission, Shreveport, LA, prepared statement 698
Campbell, Joseph L., President, Board of Directors, Contra Costa
Water District, prepared statement,............................ 546
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado,
statement of................................................... 270
Castro, Richard, Chairman, El Paso Water Utilities Public Service
Board, prepared statement...................................... 748
Cherokee Canal, Sediment Removal and Streambed Alteration
Project, Butte County, prepared statement,..................... 568
City of Gridley, CA, prepared statement.......................... 838
City of Miami Beach, Florida, prepared statement................. 649
City of Stockton, California, prepared statement................. 574
Clemens, Ralph O., Jr., President, Coosa-Alabama River
Improvement Association, Inc., prepared statement.............. 634
Coachella Valley Water District, prepared statement.............. 549
Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, questions
submitted by.................................................165, 381
Colvin, Joe F., President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear
Energy Institute, prepared statement........................... 814
Corbett, Kevin S., Executive Director, Port Authority Affairs,
State of New York, Empire State Development Corporation,
prepared statement............................................. 615
County of San Joaquin and the San Joaquin County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, California, prepared statement 557
Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from Utah, questions sub, 173, 265, 501
Curry, Darrel G., Vice President, Missouri River Bank
Stabilization Association, prepared statement.................. 728
DeCosmo, James M., Manager of Lands, Research and Procurement,
Southeast Timberlands, Kimberly-Clark, Mobile, AL, prepared
statement...................................................... 626
Delesdernier, Capt. Mark, Jr., President, Crescent River Port
Pilots' Association, Belle Chasse, LA, prepared statement...... 670
Department of Water and Power, City of Los Angeles, prepared
statement...................................................... 568
DiGiorgio, Michael, Mayor, City of Novato, California, prepared
statement...................................................... 589
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico:
Opening statement............................................ 383
Questions submitted by............................35, 117, 246, 337
Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota:
Questions submitted by..................................., 190, 521
Statement of................................................. 387
Dry Prairie Rural Water, prepared statement...................... 785
Duffy, George E., President, Navios Ship Agencies, Inc., Mobile,
AL, prepared statement......................................... 627
Evans, Mayor Donna, City of West Jordan, Utah, prepared statement 783
Farris, Chester A., III, Chairman, Photovoltaics Division, Solar
Energy Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement....... 830
Felty, Billy J., Chief Engineer, St. Francis Levee District of
Arkansas, prepared statement................................... 677
Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux, prepared statement.............. 785
Foss, Brian E., Port Director, Santa Cruz Port District
Commission, prepared statement................................. 859
Foster, Gov. M.J., Jr., on Behalf of the Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development, Office of Public Works and
Intermodal Transportation, prepared statement.................. 671
Fraser, Gale Wm., II, P.E., General Manager/Chief Engineer, Clark
County Regional Flood Control District, prepared statement..... 755
Fuhrman, Maj. Gen. Russell L., Director of Civil Works, Corps of
Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department of
Defense--Civil................................................. 63
Futter, Dr. Ellen, President, American Museum of Natural History,
prepared statement............................................. 793
George, Bruce, Manager, Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District,
prepared statement............................................. 588
George, Merv, Jr., Chairman, Hoopa Valley Tribe, prepared
statement...................................................... 775
Geringer, Hon. Jim, Governor, State of Wyoming, prepared
statement...................................................... 788
Gieringer, Wallace A., Chairman for Arkansas, Arkansas River
Basin Interstate Committee, prepared statement................. 702
Gottemoeller, Rose E., Director, Office of Nonproliferation and
National Security, Atomic Energy Defense and Nonproliferation
Programs, Department of Energy................................. 193
Prepared statement........................................... 210
Statement of................................................. 207
Gravois, Aubrey, President, Board of Commissioners, Lafourche
Basin Levee District, Vacherie, LA, prepared statement......... 676
Green, Peter, Mayor, City of Huntington Beach, California,
prepared statement............................................. 857
Haak, Norman, Chairman, Garrison Diversion Conservancy District,
prepared statement............................................. 729
Haun, Charles A., Executive Vice President, Parker Towing
Company, Inc., Tuscaloosa, AL, prepared statement.............. 628
Hayden, Channing F., Jr., President, Steamship Association of
Louisiana, prepared statement.................................. 663
Henderson, Ed, Chairman, Napa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, prepared statement...................... 570
Henry, Allen, President, Henry Marine Service, Inc., Spanish
Fort, Alabama, prepared statement.............................. 625
Hewgley, James M., Jr., Chairman for Oklahoma Arkansas River
Basin Interstate Committee, prepared statement................. 709
Hodges, James H., Governor, State of South Carolina, Columbia,
SC, prepared statement......................................... 642
Hodges, William D., President, Board of Directors, Trinity River
Authority of Texas, prepared statement......................... 748
Holgate, Laura S.H., Director, Office of Fissile Materials
Disposition, Atomic Energy Defense and Nonproliferation
Programs, Department of Energy................................. 193
Prepared statement........................................... 217
Statement of................................................. 214
Holland, Lisa S., Chair, Association of State Floodplain
Managers, Inc., prepared statement............................. 611
Hollingsworth, Tom, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
California, prepared statement................................. 598
Holman, Gerald H., Chairman for Kansas, Arkansas River Basin
Interstate Committee, prepared statement....................... 706
Hunter, Dr. Sam M., President, Little River Drainage District,
prepared statement............................................. 725
Israel, Keith, General Manager, Monterey Regional Water Pollution
Control Agency (MRWPCA), prepared statement.................... 587
James, Hon. Sharpe, Mayor, City of Newark, New Jersey, prepared
statement...................................................... 614
Jansen, Keith H., Director, Raw Materials Planning Procurement
Distribution and Sales, U.S. Steel, Pittsburgh, PA, prepared
statement...................................................... 631
Johansson, Lennart, Chairman, Solar Thermalpower Division, Solar
Energy Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement....... 832
Jollivette, Cyrus M., Vice President for Government Relations,
University of Miami, prepared statement........................ 644
Jordan, James T., Director, J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc., letter from 638
Joseph, William F., Jr., Chairman, Montgomery County Commission,
Montgomery, AL, prepared statement............................. 637
Kendall, Donald R., Ph.D., P.E., General Manager, Calleguas
Municipal Water District, prepared statement................... 581
Kimble, Jay L., Mayor, City of Stillwater, MN, prepared statement 744
King, T. Keith, P.E., President and CEO, David Volkert &
Associates, Inc., Mobile, AL, prepared statement............... 631
Klass, Dr. Donald L., President, Biomass Energy Research
Association, prepared statement................................ 833
Knabe, Don, Chairman of the Board, Supervisor, Fourth District,
County of Los Angeles, prepared statement...................... 852
Kornegay, H. Thomas, Executive Director, Port of Houston
Authority, prepared statement.................................. 749
Krebs, Dr. Martha, Director, Office of Science, Department of
Energy......................................................... 383
Prepared statement........................................... 393
Statement of................................................. 388
Krygsman, Alexander, Director, Port of Stockton, prepared
statement...................................................... 855
LaGrange, Gary P., Executive Director/CEO, Port of South
Louisiana, LaPlace, LA, prepared statement..................... 667
Langjahr, Joseph H., Vice President and General Counsel, Foss
Maritime, letter from.......................................... 624
LaPlace, Aubrey J., President, Board of Commissioners,
Pontchartrain Levee District, Lutcher, LA, prepared statement.. 683
Lee, Jan, Executive Director, Oregon Water Resources Congress,
prepared statement............................................. 781
Lema, Joseph E., Vice President, Manufacturers and Services
Division, National Mining Association, prepared statement...... 653
LeVake, Barbara, President, the Resources Agency and the
Reclamation Board, State of California, prepared statement,.... 542
Levine, John L., Jr., President, Associated Branch Pilots,
Metairie, LA, prepared statement............................... 669
Libeu, Larry, President, Western Coalition of Arid States
(WESTCAS):
Letter from.................................................. 595
Prepared statement........................................... 768
Lopez, Gaye, Manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared
statement...................................................... 545
Losoya, Milton, Mayor, City of Woodland, prepared statement...... 551
Lowe, A. Lynn, President, Red River Valley Association, prepared
statement...................................................... 688
Lyon, Dick, Mayor, City of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements..580, 857
Mackey, Karan, Chair, Board of Supervisors, County of Lake,
California, prepared statement................................. 597
Madigan, Michael D., Chairman, California Water Commission,
prepared statement............................................. 525
Magwood, Bill, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
Technology, Department of Energy............................... 383
Prepared statement........................................... 419
Statement of................................................. 415
Martin, William, Chairman, Tumalo Irrigation District, prepared
statement...................................................... 783
Martinez, Eluid, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior........................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Statement of................................................. 7
Mauderly, Joe L., Senior Scientist and Director of External
Affairs, The Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, prepared
statement...................................................... 796
McClelland, John S., Jr., Midstream Fuel Service, Inc., Mobile,
AL, prepared statement......................................... 626
McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions
submitted by................................................... 495
McCrory, Robert L., Professor and Director, Laboratory for Laser
Energetics, University of Rochester, prepared statement........ 807
McDonough, Frank M., Executive Director, New Jersey Maritime
Resources, State of New Jersey, Commerce & Economic Growth
Commission, prepared statement................................. 615
McKenzie Watershed Council, prepared statement................... 782
Melton, Carlton J., Regional Vice President, Gulf & Inland
Region, Stevedoring Services of America, Mobile, AL, prepared
statement...................................................... 630
Merrihew, Lawrence L., Senior Vice President, Regions Bank,
Mobile, AL, prepared statement................................. 629
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, prepared
statement...................................................... 592
Mikels, Jon D., Chairman, Supervisor, Second District, County of
San Bernardino, prepared statement............................. 552
Miklos, Mayor Steve, City of Folsom, California, prepared
statements...................................................595, 597
Miller, Chairman Harold, Chairman, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe,
prepared statement............................................. 741
Miller, George, Mayor, City of Tucson, prepared statement........ 758
Milnes, Dwane, Executive Director, San Joaquin Area Flood Control
Agency and City Manager, City of Stockton, California, prepared
statement...................................................... 846
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, prepared statement. 747
Minsky, Reynold S., President, Board of Commissioners, Fifth
Louisiana Levee District, Tallulah, LA, prepared statement..... 680
Mni Wiconi Project, prepared statement........................... 733
Morgan, Carl, President, Economic Development Authority, Selma,
AL, prepared statement......................................... 640
Morgan, Sheldon L., President, Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway
Association, prepared statement................................ 620
Mosher, Carl W., Director, Environmental Services Department,
City of San Jose, California, prepared statement............... 547
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington, questions
submitted by................................................... 188
National Waterways Alliance, prepared statement.................. 599
Nelson, Les, Chairman, Solar Thermal & Building Products
Division, Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), prepared
statement...................................................... 831
Nelson, Ron, Chairman, Deschutes Basin Resources Conservancy,
prepared statement............................................. 779
Noble, Vernon A., Chairman, Green Brook Flood Control Commission,
prepared statement............................................. 619
Northwest Power Planning Council, prepared statement............. 770
Nuisance Flooding Near the 3B's Portion of the Butte Basin
Overflow, Sacramento River, Butte County, California, prepared
statement...................................................... 568
O'Brien, Terrence J. President, Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago, prepared statement................ 699
Orillion, Wayne, President, Board of Commissioners, Atchafalaya
Basin Levee District, Port Allen, LA, prepared statement....... 678
Owendoff, James M., Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Management, Environmental Management and Civilian Waste
Management Programs, Department of Energy...................... 269
Prepared statement........................................... 273
Statement of................................................. 271
Pace, W.O., Chairman, Autauga County Commission, letter from..... 639
Palmer, R. Barry, Executive Director, DINAMO, prepared statement. 651
Parsons, Richard W., Dredging Program Manager, Ventura Port
District, prepared statement................................... 854
Perrenot, Frederick A., P.E., General Manager, City of Houston,
prepared statement............................................. 752
Peterson, J. M., President, Missouri River Bank Stabilization
Association, prepared statement................................ 728
Peterson, R. Max, Executive Vice President, International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, prepared statement.. 606
Pettygrove, Hon. George, Mayor, City of Fairfield, California,
prepared statements..........................................551, 596
Pfeifle, Kurt, General Manager, Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project
(Public Law 102-575), prepared statement....................... 729
Rabbon, Peter D., General Manager, the Resources Agency and the
Reclamation Board, State of California, prepared statement..... 542
Ravan, Jack E., Director and Chief Executive Officer, Alabama
State Docks Department, Mobile, AL, prepared statement......... 633
Red River Waterway Commission, Natchitoches, LA, prepared
statement...................................................... 698
Reicher, Dan, Assistance Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy:
Prepared statement........................................... 449
Statements of..............................................383, 438
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada:
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Questions submitted by.....................................176, 509
Statements of...........................................2, 194, 384
Reis, Dr. Victor H., Assistant Secretary, Office of Defense
Programs, Atomic Energy Defense and Nonproliferation Programs,
Department of Energy........................................... 193
Prepared statement........................................... 198
Statement of................................................. 195
Renner, George, President, Board of Directors, Central Arizona
Water Conservation District, prepared statement................ 757
REPI Action Coalition, prepared statement........................ 842
Richard, Roger P., Executive Director, Port of Greater Baton
Rouge, Port Allen, LA, prepared statement...................... 668
Richmond, George R., President and Chief Operating Officer, Jim
Walter Resources, Inc., letter from,........................... 632
Rimsza, Skip, Mayor, City of Phoenix, prepared statement......... 764
Rogers, Ross, General Manager, Merced Irrigation District,
prepared statement............................................. 550
Rousselle, Benny, Plaquemines Parish Government, Belle Chasse,
LA, prepared statement......................................... 669
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, prepared statement......... 846
San Diego, California, Water Reclamation Program, prepared
statement...................................................... 564
Sanguinotti, Phillip A., President, The Anniston Star, Anniston,
AL, prepared statement......................................... 636
Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose, California, prepared
statement...................................................... 559
Schafer, R. L., District Engineer, Cawelo Water District,
Bakersfield, California, prepared statement.................... 569
Schafer, R. L., Secretary/Watermaster, Tule River Association,
Porterville, California, prepared statement.................... 569
Seminole Tribe of Florida, prepared statement.................... 647
Serna, Joe, Jr., Mayor, City of Sacramento, California, prepared
statement...................................................... 590
Sherrill, Lynn, Vice President, Operations, Crounse Corporation,
Paducah, KY, prepared statement................................ 623
Smith, Jimmy, Commission President, Humboldt Bay Harbor,
Recreation and Conservation District, Eureka, California,
prepared statement............................................. 859
Smith, Sandy, Executive Director, Monroeville Area Chamber of
Commerce, Monroeville, AL, prepared statement.................. 637
Stein, Theodore, Jr., Commission President, Port of Los Angeles
Board of Harbor Commissioners, prepared statement.............. 850
Stepan, J. Craig, General Manager, Warrior & Gulf Navigation
Company, Chickasaw, AL, prepared statement..................... 632
Steve, Jaime, Legislative Director, American Wind Energy
Association, prepared statement................................ 822
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska:
Questions submitted by....................................... 520
Statement of................................................. 63
Stewart, Jerry L., Vice President Fuel Services, Southern Company
Generation, letter from........................................ 629
Story, Charles, Vice President Governmental & Public Affairs,
Degussa-Huls, Theodore, AL, prepared statement................. 624
Sublette, Kerry L., Sarkeys Professor of Environmental
Engineering, University of Tulsa, prepared statement........... 804
Svendson, Douglass W., Jr., Executive Director, Gulf Intracoastal
Canal Association, prepared statement.......................... 752
Thomas, Fred, Sr., Chairman, Pikitanoi Rural Water Supply System,
Kickapoo Tribe, prepared statement............................. 718
Thompson, Michael D., President, Thompson Power Systems,
Birmingham, AL, prepared statement............................. 630
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, prepared statement................. 621
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, prepared
statement...................................................... 810
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement.... 722
Vann, James A., Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer,
Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc., Andalusia, AL, prepared
statement...................................................... 622
Vanselow, Glenn, Executive Director, Pacific Northwest Waterways
Association, prepared statement................................ 773
Venable, Jim, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District, prepared
statement...................................................... 576
Volusia County, Florida, prepared statement...................... 646
Waldon, Donald G., Administrator, Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway
Development Authority, Columbus, MS, prepared statement........ 640
Waldron, Marie, Council Member, City of Escondido, California,
prepared statement............................................. 556
Wallace, James D., President, Selma and Dallas County Chamber of
Commerce, Selma, AL, prepared statement........................ 639
Wanamaker, James E., Chief Engineer, Board of Mississippi Levee
Commissioners, prepared statement.............................. 686
Wehe, Prof. David K., University of Michigan, prepared statement. 839
Weiland, Kenneth L., P.E., CEO and Chief Engineer, Yazoo-
Mississippi Delta (YMD) Levee Board, prepared statement........ 683
West, Carol W., Executive Director, Tucson Regional Water
Council, prepared statement.................................... 764
Westphal, Dr. Joseph W., Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil:
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Statements of................................................63, 65
Whetstone, Mayor David D., Jr., letter from...................... 638
White, M. Dean, Port Captain, Orsouth Midland Enterprises,
Orsouth Transport Co., letter from............................. 628
Wilk, J. Tim, Hunt Crude Oil Supply Co., Tuscaloosa, AL, prepared
statement...................................................... 625
Williams, M.V., President, West Tennessee Tributaries
Association, Friendship, TN and Chairman, Executive Committee,
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association, prepared
statement...................................................... 674
Wiseman, Glenwood W., Executive Director, Lake Charles Harbor &
Terminal District, Lake Charles, LA, prepared statement........ 668
Wolf, George E., Jr., P.E., Assistant City Manager/Director of
Public Works, Kansas City, Missouri, prepared statement........ 717
Zieschang, Ernie, President, Port of Liberty Commission, prepared
state-
ment........................................................... 754
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Atomic Energy Defense and Nonproliferation Programs
Page
Advanced driver development...................................... 250
Aging nuclear scientists of concern.............................. 235
BN-600 reactor................................................... 266
Budget request, sufficiency of................................... 234
Canadian reactors................................................ 265
Chemical and biological:
Threats...................................................... 212
Weapons...................................................... 209
Chemistry and Metallurgical Research (CMR) building upgrade...... 255
Chiles Commission Report......................................... 246
Recommendations.............................................. 223
Chinese nuclear weapons.......................................... 245
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.................................... 234
Contamination:
Explosive testing............................................ 226
Resulting from explosive testing............................. 226
Core technologies and NEPA compliance............................ 221
Critical needs not addressed in budget........................... 223
Declassification initiative...................................... 213
Domestic security..............................................209, 244
Emergency management............................................. 210
Emergency response............................................... 213
Capability................................................... 228
Environmental Safety Center...................................... 232
Environmental Surety Program..................................... 231
Experimental facilities, progress on major....................... 204
Experimental programs............................................ 202
50 Tons, Definition of........................................... 263
Fiscal year:
1999 emergency supplemental appropriation.................... 216
2000 budget request........................................210, 214
Fissile material storage, surplus................................ 221
GAS U.S.-Russian reactor technology development.................. 216
Idaho Operations Office.......................................... 256
Immobilization................................................... 218
Independent project review....................................... 254
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), GAO Report on..241, 260
International nuclear safety..................................... 208
Cooperation.................................................. 212
Kazakhstan BN-350 activities..................................... 266
Manufacturing capabilities....................................... 200
Material Protection, Control and Accounting [MPC&A].......207, 211, 259
Mixed oxide fuel fabrication and irradiation services............ 219
MOX vs. Vitrification............................................ 264
National Ignition Facility....................................... 249
National security challenges..................................... 212
New construction projects........................................ 243
New weapons, production of....................................... 240
Nonproliferation technology...................................... 265
Nuclear Cities Initiatives (NCI)..........................243, 262, 266
Nuclear:
Emergency Response and Technology Partnerships programs...... 205
Emergency Response Program................................... 228
Power plant in Cuba, status of............................... 237
Smuggling.................................................... 229
Weapons stockpile, condition of the.......................... 246
Russia's production of................................... 242
Office of Counterintelligence fiscal year 2000 budget request.... 257
Parallel U.S. and Russia Programs................................ 263
Pit:
Disassembly and conversion................................... 218
Production, reestablishing.................................241, 252
Plutonium disposition:
Activities, budget request summary for....................... 220
Progress with Russia on...................................... 239
Presidential Initiative.......................................... 258
Prior year balances, use of...................................... 257
Production plants and labs funding, balance of................... 223
Program:
Direction.................................................... 222
Integration.................................................. 206
Proliferation prevention and nuclear cities initiative (IPP),
initiatives for....................................208, 212, 229, 261
RBMK reactors.................................................... 224
Research and development......................................... 213
Russia:
Cooperative efforts with..................................... 237
Nuclear power plants in...................................... 224
Work with.................................................... 220
Russian:
Assistance to Iran, concern about............................ 235
Breeder reactors............................................. 233
Naval fuel assistance........................................ 232
Navy Fleet................................................... 266
Plutonium disposition......................................219, 239
Talks, status of............................................. 262
Schedule......................................................... 265
Simulation and computation....................................... 204
Skilled workers, attract and maintain............................ 227
START II......................................................... 236
Stewardship:
Lab missions flow from....................................... 196
Production complex response to............................... 197
Stockpile:
Life extension and surveillance.............................. 200
Management, Funding for...................................... 251
Safety reliability and security.............................. 222
Stewardship.................................................. 247
Challenge, meeting the................................... 195
Interagency coordination................................. 198
Is working, how.......................................... 199
Y2K concerns................................................. 225
Surplus:
Nuclear materials threat..................................... 222
Plutonium disposition summary................................ 217
Test readiness, maintaining...................................... 226
Tritium.......................................................... 202
Production............................................197, 237, 252
U.S.-Russia plutonium agreement................................215, 225
Uranium disposition, highly enriched............................. 221
Weapons activities, funding for.................................. 246
Y2K impact on Chernobyl-type reactors............................ 224
Environmental Management and Civilian Waste Management Programs
Accomplishments.................................................. 345
Fiscal year 1998-fiscal year 1999............................ 299
Major program............................................ 308
Progress--cleaning up and closing sites...................... 274
Actinide packaging and storage facility.......................... 374
Advanced mixed waste treatment project (AMWTP)................... 363
Cleanup:
Budget....................................................... 362
Complex-wide integration to support.......................... 279
Estimated cost of............................................ 318
Level of..................................................... 319
Outyear funding requirements for............................. 331
Program to Corps of Engineers, impact of transferring........ 347
Progress toward completing................................... 277
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) Cleanup at DOE Sites.............................. 344
Defense spent fuel and waste..................................... 331
DOE:
Cleanup Program, cost of...................................339, 344
Cleanup with previous estimates, comparison of cost of....... 318
DWPF, canister production at..................................... 377
Earthquake threats............................................... 314
EM Program, the fiscal year 2000 request reflects the evolution
of the......................................................... 275
Environmental legacy, meeting the challenge of the............... 274
Environmental Management Centers................................. 379
EPA groundwater standard......................................... 320
External oversight and payments-equal-to-taxes................... 339
Fiscal year:
2000 budget request........................................272, 296
Application of the....................................... 302
Summary of the.........................................280, 299
2001, funding requirements for............................... 320
FUSRAP sites..................................................... 319
Groundwater:
Contamination................................................ 321
Potential problems........................................... 336
Hanford:
Activities................................................... 272
Reprogramming/EM Program accountability and control.......... 355
Site......................................................... 365
Budget.................................................317, 322
Manager.................................................. 317
Heavy water, processing of....................................... 377
Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory..........330, 362
Long-range plan at........................................... 334
Idaho, shipment of transuranic waste out of...................... 328
In-tank precipitation project (ITP).............................. 375
Integration effort, complex-wide................................. 335
Jack Ass Flats radiation exposure................................ 335
Litigation....................................................... 298
Local government, payments to the State and affected units of.... 299
Los Alamos Environmental Restoration Program..................... 354
Management reforms............................................... 276
Nuclear waste, costs of transporting............................. 337
Oak Ridge National Laboratory.................................... 377
On-site:
Disposal, costs to set up.................................... 336
Storage costs................................................ 332
Alternative options to................................... 338
Maintenance costs of..................................... 337
Nuclear regulatory commission............................ 334
Regulatory concerns for.................................. 333
Utility compensation for................................. 332
Pit 9:
At Inel...................................................... 329
Project...................................................... 364
Plutonium oxide stabilization.................................... 315
Program goals and progress....................................... 271
Program management and integration........................302, 306, 311
Quality assurance................................................ 299
Recent accomplishments........................................... 295
Rock fractures................................................... 313
Rocky Flats:
Additional workload at....................................... 315
Alternatives for storage at.................................. 326
Cleanup...................................................... 361
Funding...................................................... 324
Site......................................................... 323
Storage of waste at.......................................... 315
S-608............................................................ 334
Savannah River site.............................................. 373
Science and technology....................................278, 358, 381
Spent Nuclear Fuel:
On-site interim storage of................................... 337
Programs..................................................... 329
Tank waste remediation system (TWRS)............................. 367
Privatization................................................ 317
Project.................................................. 320
Three Mile Island fuel storage................................... 329
Transuranic waste................................................ 316
2006 completion, funding for..................................... 361
Viability assessment...........................................295, 297
Waste acceptance, storage, and transportation.............301, 306, 311
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)........................322, 352, 381
Costs associated with delay in opening....................... 326
Lawsuit at................................................... 316
Opening...................................................... 362
Project...................................................... 272
Shipping non-mixed waste to.................................. 326
Work requirements, additional.................................... 324
Yucca Mountain............................................299, 302, 308
Milestones, acceleration of.................................. 338
Schedule..................................................... 295
Site, total spent at the..................................... 336
Water migration.............................................. 312
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Appropriated funding, appropriate use of......................... 469
Biofuels programs................................................ 440
Biopower/biofuels................................................ 461
Carbon fuel tax.................................................. 471
Electric energy systems and storage.............................. 467
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.................................. 447
Geothermal energy................................................ 465
Hydrogen......................................................... 466
Hydropower....................................................... 466
International Solar Energy Program............................... 468
Kyoto accord..................................................... 471
National Renewable Energy Laboratory............................. 464
Photovoltaic..................................................... 439
Energy systems............................................... 457
Program accomplishments.......................................... 439
Renewable Energy Production Incentive Program.................... 463
Renewable energy technologies.................................... 385
Solar and renewable energy technologies, overview of the fiscal
year 2000 request for.......................................... 455
Solar building technology research............................... 456
Solar Power Program:
Concentrating................................................ 459
Direction.................................................... 469
Support...................................................... 463
Sole source vs. competitively awarded grants..................... 448
Superconductivity................................................ 447
Wind energy systems.............................................. 460
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
Accelerator transmutation of waste............................... 492
Advanced radioisotope power systems.............................. 427
Department of Energy, developing...............................422, 424
EBR-II........................................................... 475
Energy diversity and security, providing for..................... 420
Environmental future, securing our............................... 426
Fast flux test facility [FFTF].................................433, 475
Isotope support.................................................. 431
Maintaining vital nuclear research facilities and supporting a
strong educational infrastructure.............................. 424
Mission critical technologies.................................... 422
Moly-99 program.................................................. 474
Nuclear energy plant optimization................................ 417
Advisory committee........................................... 418
Program....................................................429, 476
Nuclear energy research:
Advisory committee........................................... 475
And development (R&D)......................................416, 427
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative [NERI].................417, 429, 473
Nuclear energy, science and technology........................... 415
Nuclear power, importance of..................................... 437
Nuclear powerplant relicensing................................... 473
Program direction................................................ 435
Roadmap for the 21st century..................................... 420
Termination costs................................................ 433
Test reactor area landlord....................................... 428
University reactor fuel assistance and support................... 430
Uranium programs................................................. 434
Office of Science
Bates Laboratory funding......................................... 491
Biological and environmental research............................ 404
Climate change:
Budget request............................................... 384
Technology initiative........................................ 492
Computational and technology research............................ 411
Employment levels................................................ 486
Energy research analyses......................................... 413
Energy supply R&D programs....................................... 414
Facilities support............................................... 412
Field structure.................................................. 487
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.................................. 390
Fusion energy sciences........................................... 410
GAO study........................................................ 392
Goals and strategies, rethinking our............................. 395
High energy physics.............................................. 406
High flux beam reactor........................................... 490
Human genome projects............................................ 387
Low dose radiation research...................................... 488
Multi program energy laboratories................................ 412
Nuclear energy programs.......................................... 386
Nuclear physics.................................................. 409
Our mission hasn't changed....................................... 394
Potential programmic problem areas............................... 493
Program accomplishments.......................................... 390
Program overview................................................. 389
Sandia, micro-machines program at................................ 478
Science education................................................ 413
Science program:
Basic energy sciences........................................ 402
Direction.................................................... 413
Science research budget request.................................. 386
Scientific simulation initiative................................. 392
Spallation neutron source [SNS]................................391, 479
Strategies--initiatives for fiscal year 2000, implementing the... 397
Technical information management................................. 414
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
1
Animas-La Plata.................................................. 38
Bay-Delta:
Ecosystem funding............................................ 25
Funding by agency............................................ 26
Budget:
Priorities, stakeholders' input into......................... 29
Request...................................................... 2
Bureau of Reclamation............................................ 6
Bureauwide operation and maintenance costs....................... 28
California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration (CALFED).............. 5, 41
Appropriations and expenditures.............................. 26
Expenditures................................................. 27
Program...................................................... 4
Status of spending on........................................ 31
Central Arizona project.......................................... 49
Central Utah project............................................. 5, 15
Central Utah Project Completion Act.............................. 6
Competing water demands, managing................................ 42
Cost Overruns.................................................... 56
CVP, American River Division..................................... 49
Dakota Resources Act............................................. 17
Dam Safety Program...............................................20, 45
Dams:
Corrective actions, initiate safety of....................... 45
Initiate safety of........................................... 45
Safety evaluation of existing................................ 45
Desalination.....................................................11, 21
Funding in Federal Government Agencies.......................22, 23
Reclamation's Future Focus................................... 12
Role in.................................................. 11
Drought:
Assistance................................................... 20
Funding...................................................... 21
Emergency planning and disaster response program................. 52
Garrison diversion unit.......................................... 60
Glendive, Montana................................................ 31
Indian water settlements......................................... 25
Lake Powell draining............................................. 16
Land management and fish & wildlife activities................... 60
Long Beach water reclamation and reuse........................... 51
Lower Yellowstone title transfer--intake diversionary dam........ 55
Montana safety of dams projects.................................. 54
MR&I needs of Indian tribes...................................... 18
New Mexico drought conditions.................................... 34
Nimbus fish hatchery interpretive facility....................... 49
O&M activities, staffing levels for.............................. 29
Operation and maintenance costs.................................. 42
Overall Program Goals............................................ 13
Pueblo Dam....................................................... 46
Reclamation:
Grazing permits.............................................. 30
Recreation Management Program--Title XXVIII.................. 38
Red Butte Dam.................................................... 15
Red River Valley Water Need Studies.............................. 19
Safety of dams................................................... 19
Program...................................................... 7
Salinity control program......................................... 15
Salton Sea, California research project.......................... 39
San Juan Gallup--Navajo water supply study....................... 36
San Juan River project........................................... 24
Gallup, Mount Taylor pipeline................................ 35
Snake River plain aquifer........................................ 60
Taos Indian water rights settlement.............................. 36
Technical/Emphasis Areas......................................... 13
Title XVI water reclamation and reuse program.................... 54
Water reuse program.......................................... 16
Truckee River Operating Agreement................................ 10
Upper Rio Grande basin water management.......................... 37
Ute Reservoir pipeline project, Curry and Roosevelt Counties, NM. 37
Year 2000 compliance............................................. 47
Yellowstone River flooding conditions............................ 30
Yellowtail Dam & Bighorn Lake operations......................... 58
Yuma:
Area projects................................................ 52
Desalting plant.............................................. 50
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Acequias irrigation system, New Mexico.........................116, 163
Administrative appeals........................................... 112
Bluestone:
Dam safety project........................................... 186
Drift and debris............................................. 185
Bonneville and the Dalles powerhouse:
Projects replace generating units............................ 189
Rehabilitation............................................... 102
Bonneville powerhouse phase II, Oregon and Washington (major
rehabilitation)................................................ 103
Budget:
Overview..................................................... 66
Themes....................................................... 65
Business operations, improvement in.............................. 88
Caspian tern..................................................... 96
Challenge 21 program............................................. 176
Civil Works program:
Budget, fiscal year 2000..................................... 69
Performance.................................................. 69
Clarkston and Lewiston, ports of................................. 96
Coastal environmental impact study, Mississippi.................. 167
Columbia and Snake Rivers........................................ 101
Columbia River fish mitigation project........................... 188
Construction:
Capabilities, fiscal year 2000............................... 120
General......................................................71, 85
Continuing authorities................................... 176
Cooperative agreements........................................... 187
Corps of Engineers:
Dam Safety Program........................................... 115
Financial management system.................................. 89
Vision....................................................... 90
Credits and reimbursements....................................... 104
Dam safety....................................................... 115
Devils Lake:
Dikes........................................................ 190
North Dakota................................................. 97
Outlet....................................................... 98
Divisions........................................................ 87
Drawdown studies................................................. 103
Economy and the environment...................................... 70
Efficiency and responsive measures............................... 79
Emergency operations organization................................ 87
Environmental:
Programs..................................................... 67
Projects and aquatic ecosystems.............................. 179
Erosion control, demonstration................................... 167
Fiscal year 2000:
Civil Works program budget................................... 82
Continuing program, highlights of the........................ 71
FUSRAP program................................................... 80
General expenses................................................. 86
Account...................................................... 81
Appropriation request........................................ 146
General investigations........................................... 85
Government performance and results............................... 89
Grand Forks:
Dikes........................................................ 191
North Dakota................................................. 98
Greenbrier basin flood protection................................ 181
Harbor service:
Fee, support for the......................................... 111
Fund..............................................67, 109, 118, 176
Proposal................................................. 69
Headquarters..................................................... 87
And division offices, restructuring of....................... 177
Investigations, general.......................................... 72
Island Creek at Logan............................................ 186
Jackson County, Mississippi...................................... 166
John Day Dam drawdown study...................................... 102
Lafarge Lake, WI................................................. 99
Level deferred maintenance....................................... 113
Libby Dam, MT.................................................... 175
London lock and Dam.............................................. 187
Lower Las Vegas wash wetlands.................................... 177
Lower Mud River.................................................. 187
Marmet locks and Dam............................................. 180
Milo Creek....................................................... 174
Mississippi River and tributaries..............................149, 165
Budget request............................................... 100
Mississippi River levees......................................... 166
Natchez, Mississippi............................................. 166
New funding...................................................... 83
New investments.................................................. 71
New study starts................................................. 105
O&M increase..................................................... 179
Operation and maintenance:
Budget request............................................... 160
General......................................................71, 85
Program...................................................... 81
Program execution...............................................80, 161
Outlook...................................................... 84
Project:
Conditions................................................... 114
Cost sharing problems........................................ 64
Management...................................................79, 88
Projects budgeted for fiscal year 2000, fully funded............. 120
Regulatory administrative appeals process........................ 99
Regulatory appeals process....................................... 177
Regulatory program..................................67, 73, 81, 93, 170
Administrative appeal.................................147, 168, 173
Reimbursed program............................................... 84
Reimbursements and credits....................................... 146
Remedial Action Program, formerly utilized sites................85, 160
Restructuring.................................................... 86
Robert C. Byrd locks and Dam..................................... 184
Santa Ynez, CA study............................................. 109
Small Business Program........................................... 89
Snake River Dam removal.......................................... 93
South Pacific division........................................... 163
Staffing......................................................... 84
Strategic planning............................................... 88
Technical centers of expertise................................... 163
2000 funding level, impact of.................................... 180
Upper Jordan River restoration project, section 206.............. 91
Upper Rio Grande water operation model, New Mexico.............116, 163
Water resource development process............................... 66
Water Resources Development Acts of 1999 and 2000................ 69
West Virginia:
Statewide flood protection plan.............................. 184
Tug Fork flood protection projects........................... 182
Wheeling riverfront.............................................. 183
Winfield lock & Dam.............................................. 185
Yellowtail Dam, MT............................................... 98
-