[Senate Hearing 108-244]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran presiding.
Present: Senators Cochran, Stevens, Bennett, Craig, Bond,
Reid, Murray, and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
STATEMENT OF HON. LES BROWNLEE, UNDER SECRETARY OF THE
UNITED STATES ARMY AND ACTING ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
ACCOMPANIED BY:
LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT B. FLOWERS, COMMANDER AND CHIEF OF
ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MAJOR GENERAL ROBERT H. GRIFFIN, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS
opening statement of senator thad cochran
Senator Cochran. The committee will please come to order. I
have been asked to Chair the hearing by Senator Domenici, and I
am happy to do that. I have a statement that he and his staff
have prepared and I will ask unanimous consent that it be
inserted at this point in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Pete V. Domenici
The Committee will please come to order.
Today we begin the Energy and Water Subcommittee's fiscal year 2004
budget hearings with the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of
Reclamation. There will be two panels, and as the Subcommittee's
tradition dictates, this year we will begin with the Corps of Engineers
in the first panel and the Bureau of Reclamation in the second panel.
This Subcommittee has jurisdiction over our country's water
resources, under which falls the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of
Reclamation. Both agencies are responsible for managing this precious
natural resource in a cost-effective manner while balancing the needs
of its diverse users. I believe that the mission of these two agencies
will only become more critical over time, as increasing pressure is
placed on our water resources.
For fiscal year 2004 the President has requested an effective
amount of $4.049 billion, a decrease of $580 million, or 13 percent,
from the current year for the Corps of Engineers. For the Bureau of
Reclamation, the President has requested $880 million, a decrease of
$73 million or 8 percent from the current year. Unfortunately, this is
a budget request that only exacerbate problems this Nation faces in
addressing our various water resource requirements.
I have had first-hand experience of this over the last year as the
state of New Mexico struggled to balance various water users, people,
agriculture and endangered species, during a very serious drought. And
we will unfortunately continue to struggle as New Mexico is at less
than half of our annual snowpack for this year.
That being said, I am concerned that the Administration, in its
fiscal year 2004 request, has under-funded the Corps of Engineers to
such an extent that I question whether it could effectively carry out
its mandated missions next year if this request were enacted in its
current form.
An additional concern to me is the Administration's approach to the
Corps of Engineer's budget. The Administration's budget documents
relating to the Corps of Engineers state:
``While the level of funding can affect the rate at which the size
of the backlog changes, the measures taken (or not taken) to limit the
number of projects that become eligible for construction ultimately
will determine whether we are making progress or are falling further
behind.''
Unfortunately, this logic does not take into consideration the
issue of need. There is a clear role for the Federal Government,
through the Corps, to carry out flood control, commercial navigation
and ecosystem restoration. These needs do not simply go away because
you choose to limit what is constructed.
I think the Administration is missing the point that this country's
economic well-being is closely linked to its waterways, be they rivers,
harbors, or wetlands. Further, it is in our interest to ensure that we
maintain these resources for our continued successful competition
within the world marketplace.
This country has an aging water resources infrastructure. For
example, approximately 50 percent of the Bureau of Reclamation's dams
were built from 1900 to the 1950's, before the current state-of-the-art
construction techniques, therefore they require special maintenance
measures.
Even though budgets are tight, I am concerned that no one is
working to address this longer term problem. An aging infrastructure is
one of those problems that we all put off until we absolutely have to,
which in the end, will just cost us more and may very well endanger
life and property.
More importantly, the budget exercise we go through each year is
not an effort to figure out how little we can spend, but one that
carefully balances the greatest needs with our limited resources.
I would like to talk today about the impact the proposed fiscal
year 2004 budget will have on both agencies and what the Congress can
do to ensure that they can continue to effectively manage the country's
water resources.
I would like to welcome the members of the first panel from the
Corps of Engineers. They are:
--Undersecretary of the Army and Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil
Works, Les Brownlee,
--Lieutenant General Flowers, Chief of Engineers,
--Major General Griffin, Director for Civil Works, and
--Rob Vining, Chief, Programs Management Division.
Also here with us today are some of the Corps' Division Commanders.
They are:
--Brigadier General Larry Davis, South Pacific Division,
--Brigadier General Bo Temple, North Atlantic Division, and
--Brigadier General David Fastabend, Northwest Division.
Thank you all for being here today and for the work you do for this
Nation.
On our second panel will be the Bureau of Reclamation. Appearing
before us will be:
--Bennett Raley, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science with the
Department of Interior,
--Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, John Keys, and
--Program Director Ronald Johnston from the CUP Office.
Senator Cochran. This morning we are hearing from two
panels, the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation
presentation of the budget request for this next fiscal year.
We are happy to have as members of the first panel, Secretary
or Under Secretary Les Brownlee of the United States Army. He
is accompanied by Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Major General Robert Griffin,
Director of Civil Works. And we appreciate the attendance of
Senators.
And without a lot of conversation, let me just say that I
have reviewed the highlights of the budget that is being
submitted by the administration for the Corps of Engineers, and
I am disappointed that there are many important areas that seem
to me to be inadequately funded if we were to approve this
budget request without any changes.
And some of those, I am sure members of the committee will
look at very carefully. And I am also interested just as a
matter of introduction in some of the reforms that are being
suggested for the Corps of Engineers, and the way projects are
evaluated and the process that is followed in determining when
construction is appropriate for projects, for flood control
projects in particular.
And I will be interested in hearing your views about those
reforms and the degree to which you can inform us about the
details and how they will really work in practice.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Without a lot of other comments, I will put my statement in
the record, and yield to other Senators for any opening
comments they would like to make.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming the witnesses before the
Committee.
I appreciate the hard work the Corps of Engineers does in the state
of Mississippi and around the country in carrying out its
responsibilities.
While the Corps has taken on the added responsibilities of
assessing the national water resources and protecting Civil Works
infrastructures from possible terrorist attacks, its core mission
remains. Corps levees and floodwalls protect millions of homes, farms,
and businesses. Its coastal ports and barge channels carry 2 billion
tons of freight annually, and its dams generate one-fourth of this
nation's hydroelectric power.
For the individuals in my state who live in areas susceptible to
flooding, Corps of Engineers' projects are critical to protecting their
homes, businesses, and livelihoods.
I am very concerned that this budget submission shortchanges these
programs. I'm sure this committee will try to identify ways to make
improvements in this budget for flood control.
I hope that the leadership in the Department of Defense and our
witnesses will assist us in determining which projects have the highest
priorities and are ripe for funding.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses.
Senator Cochran. Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
echo the same frustration you have with the Army Corps' budget.
Clearly there is a lot of work to be done out there, and we
hope we will be able to assist them in getting most of it done.
The Army Corps and those of us who live in the Pacific
Northwest are very frustrated at this moment at the inability
of the Corps to manage the Snake/Columbia River complex in the
way necessary to be managed for navigation. We have got a
lawsuit we are working through out there that disallows
dredging for the moment. Some judge turned too green on us, and
we have got to work our way through it.
We have got fish runs coming back. We have got a river that
is being managed extremely well at the moment. Everything is
generally looking up on that river, except the inability to
effectively manage it as a waterway for very important traffic
in the Snake/Columbia River Basin systems.
Everybody wonders why I am interested in the Corps. I do
not think a lot of people realize that I have the furthest in-
land sea port in the United States in North Idaho, and it is a
critical economic link to our State.
Senator Reid. What is it, Larry? Which one is it?
Senator Craig. Port of Lewiston. It is at the upper end of
the slack water systems of the Snake and the Columbia system,
and handles a lot of traffic, a lot of forest products, and
grain out of Montana and the upper Midwest. So it is a very
important link.
And at this time, the Corps is not being allowed to do what
they should be doing because of the Ninth Circuit. Once again,
we come to the floor frustrated by a dysfunctional court system
that decides that they are going to deal politically instead of
legally with the world. Anyway, I have said enough. We are
anxious to hear from them.
Les, it is great to have you back in your capacity now,
your new capacity. You have had great experience here on the
Hill. We have enjoyed working with you in the past on a lot of
issues. We will enjoy working with you now in your position as
Under Secretary, and we will also look forward to the--hearing
from the Bureau of Reclamation, another critical agency to
western States.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Craig.
Senator Reid.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID
Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran. I
appreciate your filling in today.
First of all, Larry, Senator Craig, because there were a
number of statements made on the floor yesterday about the
terrible Ninth Circuit, which as you know, you and I are both--
it is our jurisdiction. And 24 judges sat on that rehearing.
The opinion was written by a judge appointed by a Republican,
the initial opinion. And of the ten dissents, which was
something we wanted--of the ten dissents, seven of them were
Clinton-appointed judges. If we had had six other judges who
had been appointed by the Republicans, who had voted with us,
we would have won that.
So I think the Ninth Circuit was certainly all way off base
on this, but I would hope that we would stop blaming it on
Democratic appointees, because it was----
Senator Craig. Well, if you noticed, I did not. I was very
generic in talking of the dysfunctionality of the Ninth
Circuit. The Supreme Court has already decided long ago that
you either fix it or they will just simply rule most of their
decisions out.
Senator Reid. The problem is, Larry, that they have so many
cases that the Supreme Court does not hear all their cases.
Senator Craig. Oh, that is the great tragedy for those of
us who live in the greater Northwest.
Senator Reid. Anyway----
Senator Craig. I see Senator Murray here. I think she
supports us on a lot of these frustrations.
Senator Reid. Senator Domenici and I have worked on this
subcommittee for many, many years, and I have enjoyed working
with him. He is a very--he is a friend, and does an outstanding
job in his capacity in being a Senator.
These hearings are intended to help us prepare our funding
proposals. We depend on the open exchange of information we
receive in these hearings. Most importantly we will develop our
appropriations bill by taking into account the needs of our
members and the needs of the American people.
The budget that OMB submitted for the Army Corps is totally
inadequate. It continues a recurring theme of trying to mask
deficit spending with funding gimmicks. The administration has
proposed a fiscal year request for the Army Corps of $4.04
billion. When you exclude proposed funding from the power
marketing legislative proposal included in the budget, that is
what it amounts to. This is about $600 million less or a 14
percent cut from the amount enacted in 2003.
For the Bureau the proposal is about $58 million less or a
7 percent cut over fiscal year 2003. This reduced amount of
funding--or level of funding, I should say, in reclamation,
water and related resources account is going to hamper progress
on many large projects and programs involving water and power
for the West, and also small projects.
The Army Corps general investigation account is taking a
tremendous hit. The fiscal year request is $100 million versus
$135 million enacted in fiscal year 2003, a 26 percent cut.
The administration is proposing to fund only 19
preconstruction, engineering, and design studies out of 89
funded last year. This means that 70 ongoing studies that have
been signed--that have signed cost-sharing agreements with
local sponsors must be terminated.
The Army Corps construction general account is proposed at
$1.350 billion or $406 million below what we had enacted last
year, a 23 percent cut. There are no funds provided for
discretionary new construction starts.
The Army Corps operation and maintenance general account is
proposed at--I am sorry--$1.939 billion. This assumes $145
million will be received from the Power Marketing
Administration for hydropower operation and maintenance.
But when properly accounted, the proposal is an 8 percent
cut. The Army Corps' Mississippi River and Tributaries account
is proposed at $280 million, a--which is $65 million below last
year, a 19 percent cut.
The only major account to see a budget increase for the
Army Corps is for general regulatory, a boost of $5 million
over last year, an increase of 4 percent.
The administration has proposed two new funding gimmicks
this year, and is recycling another one from last year. They
are proposing direct financing of the maintenance of the inland
waterway system by using $146 million from the Inland Waterway
Trust Fund. Keep in mind, this fund was established to provide
the industry cost share for new construction, major
rehabilitation, inland navigation projects. The fund is
financed by a 20 percent per gallon tax on fuel for vessels
operated for commercial waterway transportation.
If the administration's proposal is implemented, it would
ensure that the fund either went bankrupt or fuel taxes for the
inland waterway system would have to be increased
significantly.
The other new proposal is to tap $212 million from the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for construction and deep water
ports and channels. This fund was established for users to pay
maintenance costs of deep water ports and channels.
The fund is financed by cost on the value of cargo shipped
to or from U.S. ports. And the requests we get from members,
valid important requests every year for these deep water
channels, deep water ports and channels is overwhelming. We
cannot keep up with it without, in effect, stealing this money
for other projects.
While the harbor maintenance trust fund is better financed
than the inland waterway trust fund, using it for construction
of projects was not envisioned, and it would cause its
bankruptcy.
The recycled proposal is for direct funding of operation
and maintenance of the Corps, owned and operated hydropower
facilities by the Power Marketing Administration. This proposal
assumes that it will provide $145 million to the Corps for
hydropower operation and maintenance. This proposal was dead on
arrival last year, and I see no enthusiasm for it this year.
All three of these proposals would require specific
enacting legislation in order for them to become law. However,
the administration made no overtures to the Congress to explain
how these proposals would be a benefit to the Corps.
It is entirely possible that these overtures have not been
made because these proposals benefit neither the Corps or the
Nation. In fact, two of the proposals only served a mass
deficit spending with the beneficiary being the administration
in this budget game.
The budget proposed for the Bureau shows a slight increase.
However, this increase is quite deceiving. Many important
ongoing projects have received substantially reduced funding
levels.
The administration slashed funding for reclamations of
rural water and water recycling projects from what has been
provided in prior years. The administration's budget says that
they will--that while these are important elements in meeting
future western water needs, they should be done by someone
else. I do not know who that would be.
Most of the rural water projects funded by this
subcommittee provide clean drinking water to people that have
had only access to water of questionable quality for most of
their lives. The cost to our local communities of providing
this clean drinking water is well beyond the scope of most
communities.
Federal funding for recycled water projects is limited to a
25 percent overall project cost and, in many cases, capped at
$20 million. But without these Federal dollars, these projects
simply cannot go forward. The Federal dollars provide the
necessary leverage for State and local funds to be able to do
something that is meaningful.
The administration budget theme for this year is economic
security for our Nation. Based on the proposals submitted by
the Army Corps--submitted for the Army Corps and the Bureau of
Reclamation, it appears that they have overlooked valuable
components of our economic security.
For example, 41 States are served by the Army Corps' ports
and waterways. These ports and waterways provide an integrated,
efficient and safe system for moving bulk cargo. Two-point-
three billion tons of cargo are moved through these ports and
waterways each year. This--the value of this cargo to the
national economy approaches $700 billion. Navigable waterways
generate over 13 million jobs in the national economy, and $150
billion in Federal taxes. Annual damages prevented by the Corps
exceed $20 billion. By how much, I am not too sure.
From 1928 to 2000, the cumulative flood damages prevented,
when adjusted for inflation, were $709 billion for an
investment of only $122 billion. That is nearly a 6:1 return.
The Bureau and the Army Corps water projects, storage
projects have a total capacity of 575 million acre feet of
storage and provide municipal and industrial water supply to
millions of our citizens. Without these infrastructure
investments, the tremendous population growth in western
America would not have been possible.
The Bureau and the Corps provide about 35 percent of the
Nation's hydroelectric power, which amounts to 5 percent of our
total electricity. In the West, the percent of--or percentage
of hydropower, that power, is much greater.
Both the Corps and the Bureau contribute to our Nation's
environmental protection. Over $1 billion or about 25 percent
of the Army Corps' appropriation was targeted for environmental
activities. Reclamation expended a similar percentage on their
budget.
These are only a few of the things that these two agencies
contribute to our economy. The administration's proposals are
inadequate to fund ongoing projects at anything other than
minimal levels. And we are going to have to eliminate lots of
them.
In spite of all of the administration's rhetoric about the
economy--about economic security and maintaining our abilities
to compete in world trade, the administration has again--have
produced something that is remarkably shortsighted in this
budget.
The administration will not lead in the area of critical
infrastructure. But we have to. Congress has to. So I plan to
work with the subcommittee, Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member
Byrd, and Chairman Domenici to ensure that this subcommittee
gets the resources needed to fund these vital organizations
properly.
And I would say on a personal note, the employees of
these--of the Corps, I appreciate very much for their
outstanding service to organizations not only to Nevada, but to
our Nation as a whole.
PREPARED STATEMENT
More often than not, your employees do not get the credit
they deserve. There is not a single member in either chamber
whose State is not impacted positively by the work that these
agencies do, the Corps and the Bureau.
So I am sorry to take so much time. And I know you are
filling in and wanted to rush through this. I am----
Senator Cochran. That is not correct.
Senator Reid. That speaks----
Senator Cochran. I do not want to rush through it.
I want to carefully address the budget proposal and
consider it very carefully.
Senator Reid. That speaks well of you. If the roles were
reversed, I would want to rush through it, so----
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Harry Reid
Good Morning.
This is the first of our budget oversight hearings this year and,
as always, I look forward to working with my good friend, Senator
Domenici and his staff in preparing our annual spending package.
These hearings are intended to help us prepare our funding
proposals. We depend on the open exchange of information that we
receive in these hearings.
Most importantly, we will develop our appropriations bill by taking
into account the needs of our Members and the American people.
Once again, the budget that OMB submitted for the Army Corps is
totally inadequate. Further, it continues a recurring theme of this
administration of trying to mask deficit spending with funding
gimmicks.
The Administration has proposed a fiscal year 2004 request for the
Army Corps of $4.049 billion when you exclude proposed funding from the
power marketing legislative proposal included in the budget. This is
about a $600 million less or 14 percent cut from the amount enacted in
fiscal year 2003. For the Bureau of Reclamation, the proposal is about
$58 million less or a 7 percent cut over the fiscal year 2003 enacted
amount.
This reduced level of funding in Reclamation's Water and Related
Resources Account is going to hamper progress on several large projects
and programs providing water and power for the West.
The Army Corps' General Investigations account is taking a huge
hit. The fiscal year 2004 request is $100 million versus $135 million
enacted in fiscal year 2003, a 26 percent cut. The Administration is
proposing to fund only 19 Preconstruction Engineering and Design
Studies out of 89 funded in fiscal year 2003. This means that 70 on-
going studies that have signed cost sharing agreements with local
sponsors must be terminated if the budget proposal were enacted.
The Army Corps' Construction, General account is proposed at $1,350
billion, $406 million below fiscal year 2003 enacted, a 23 percent cut.
There are no funds provided for discretionary new construction starts.
The Army Corps' Operation and Maintenance, General account is
proposed at $1,939 billion, however, this assumes $145 million will be
received from the Power Marketing Administrations for hydropower
operation and maintenance. When properly accounted, the proposal is
$1,794 billion, $146 million below the fiscal year 2003 enacted, an 8
percent cut.
The Army Corps' Mississippi River and Tributaries account is
proposed at $280 million, $65 million below fiscal year 2003 enacted or
about a 19 percent cut.
The only major account to see a budget increase for the Army Corps
is for General Regulatory, a boost of $5 million over fiscal year 2003
enacted, or an increase of 4 percent. While I am glad to see this
increase for the Army Corps' permitting activities, I am appalled at
the cuts to the other major accounts.
The Administration has proposed two new funding gimmicks this year
and is recycling one from fiscal year 2003.
The Administration is proposing direct financing of the maintenance
of the inland waterway system by using $146 million from the Inland
Waterway Trust Fund.
This fund was established to provide the industry cost share for
new construction and major rehabilitation of inland navigation
projects. The fund is financed by a 20 cent per gallon tax on fuel for
vessels operated for commercial waterway transportation.
If the Administration proposal is implemented, it would ensure that
the fund either went bankrupt or fuel taxes for the inland waterway
system would have to be significantly increased.
The other new proposal is to tap $212 million from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund for construction of deepwater ports and
channels.
This fund was established for users to pay maintenance costs of
deep water ports and channels. The fund is financed by a tax on the
value of cargo shipped to or from U.S. ports.
While the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is better financed than the
Inland Waterway Trust Fund, using it for construction of projects was
not envisioned and would cause its bankruptcy as well unless the tax
rate was increased.
The recycled proposal is for direct funding of operation and
maintenance of Corps of Engineers owned and operated hydropower
facilities by the Power Marketing Administrations. This proposal
assumes that the Power Marketing Administrations will provide $145
million to the Corps of Engineers for hydropower operation and
maintenance.
This proposal was dead on arrival last year and I see no enthusiasm
among my colleagues for it this year.
All three of these proposals would require specific enacting
legislation in order for them to become law. However, the
Administration has made no overtures to the Congress to explain how
these proposals would be of benefit to Corps of Engineers or the
Nation.
It is entirely possible that these overtures have not been made
because these proposals benefit neither the Corps of Engineers nor the
Nation. In fact, two of the proposals only serve to mask deficit
spending with the beneficiary being the Administration in their annual
budget game.
The budget proposed for the Bureau of Reclamation shows a slight
increase; however, this increase is deceiving. Many important on-going
projects have received substantially reduced funding levels.
The Administration has slashed funding for Reclamation's rural
water and water recycling projects from what has been provided in
fiscal year 2003 and prior years. The Administration's budget says that
while these are important elements of meeting future western water
needs, they should be done by someone else. The implication is that
these are local problems and should be solved by local interests.
Most of the rural water projects funded by this Subcommittee
provide clean clear drinking to people that have only had access to
water of questionable quality for most of their lives. The cost to
local communities of providing this clean drinking water is well beyond
the scope of most communities.
Federal funding for recycled water projects is limited to a 25
percent of the overall project cost and in many cases is capped at $20
million. Yet without these Federal dollars many of these projects could
not go forward. The Federal dollars provide the necessary leverage to
obtain other state and local funds.
The Administration budget theme for this year is Economic Security
for Our Nation. Based on the proposal submitted for the Army Corps and
the Bureau of Reclamation, it appears that they have overlooked
valuable components of our economic security. Let me elaborate:
--41 states are served by Army Corps ports and waterways. These ports
and waterways provide an integrated, efficient and safe system
for moving bulk cargos. 2.3 billion tons of cargo are moved
though these ports and waterways. The value of this cargo to
the national economy approaches $700 billion. Navigable
waterways generate over 13 million jobs to the national economy
and nearly $150 billion in Federal taxes.
--Average annual damages prevented by Army Corps flood control
projects exceed $20 billion. From 1928-2000, cumulative flood
damages prevented when adjusted for inflation were $709 billion
for an investment of $122 billion, adjusted for inflation. That
is nearly a 6 to 1 return on this infrastructure investment.
--The Bureau and the Army Corps water storage projects have a total
capacity of nearly 575 million acre feet of storage and provide
municipal and industrial water supply to millions of our
citizens. The water supply infrastructure provided by the
Bureau and the Army Corps in the West are the life blood of the
communities they serve. Without these infrastructure
investments the tremendous population growth in our western
states would not have been possible.
--The Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers provide
about 35 percent of the Nation's hydroelectric power which
amounts to nearly 5 percent of the U.S. total electric
capacity. In the West the percent of hydropower to total power
supplied is much greater.
--Additionally, both the Army Corps and the Bureau contribute to our
Nation's environmental protection. Over $1 billion or about 25
percent of the Army Corps' fiscal year 2003 appropriations was
targeted for environmental activities. Reclamation expended a
similar percentage of their budget on these important
activities.
These are only some of the ways that these two agencies contribute
to our economy and yet the Administration's budget proposal has given
them short shrift. The Administration proposals are woefully inadequate
to fund ongoing projects at anything more than minimal levels.
In spite of all of the Administration rhetoric about economic
security and maintaining our abilities to compete in world trade, the
Administration has again produced a remarkably short sighted budget.
If the Administration will not lead in the area of critical
infrastructure, Congress will. I plan to work aggressively with Ranking
Member Byrd, Chairman Stevens and Chairman Domenici to ensure that this
Subcommittee gets the resources needed to fund these two vital
organizations properly.
On a personal note, I would like to take this opportunity to thank
you and your employees for the outstanding service that your
organizations provide not only to Nevada, but to our Nation as a whole.
More often than not, your employees don't get the credit they deserve.
There is not a single Member in either Chamber whose state is not
impacted positively by the work your agencies do.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Reid.
Senator Bond.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Acting Chairman. And
I woke up yesterday morning thinking that serving on 5
committees and 11 subcommittees was leaving me with too much
free time, so I jumped at the opportunity to serve on this
twelfth subcommittee.
And, Secretary Brownlee, General Flowers, General Griffin,
and all of you, I welcome you and the second panel. I join with
my colleagues in expressing the frustrations that we all have
felt.
I know at this time, gentlemen, particularly those in the--
well, all of you, have issues on your plate that are larger
than the details of the project feasibility study and
environmental impact statements. I know that each of you are no
strangers to military combat. Each of you have had to lead
troops into combat, and currently the troops are looking to you
for leadership. And, once again, on behalf of myself and the
people I serve, we express our gratitude for your sacrifice and
your commitment to the security of the Nation.
On the issue of domestic water resources, I have expressed
myself repeatedly about the continued insufficiency of OMB's
budget request. I would only say ``Amen,'' to what has been
said before, particularly Senator Reid's statement. I have the
pleasure of working with him on the authorizing committee, and
we have this problem in other areas.
But, Les, I would urge you, as I urged your predecessor,
please do not agree with me publicly, would you?
Inside joke, there.
Historically, given how much Congress is forced to modify
the budget request for the Corps, the OMB budget request for
the Corps has become about as relevant as a UN resolution is to
the French government. But as the acting chairman and Senator
Reid have said, your work has put people to work in our
country.
You save money by preventing waste associated with delay.
You have provided for a cleaner, better environment through
your efforts. And you have been true conservationists.
Every year, there is a referendum on the work of the Corps,
and it is called an appropriations bill. On a bipartisan basis,
we join to add resources to high priority projects, which
speaks to the value of what you do as demanded by the people
who pay the taxes and who elect us.
Now, I would also add on the matter, a minor matter that is
free of controversy, I encourage your efforts to identify the
best resolution to the questions of managing the Missouri
River. We do have--we do have an awful drought, and there is
going to be pain shared by the people in the upper basin with
the people in the lower basin. When water is short, everyone
feels cheated. Everyone wants more of it.
Senator Craig, I feel your pain.
The middle Mississippi River, which carries $27 billion in
cargo and is the primary avenue for transporting for our
agricultural projects, which give us in good years a $30
billion favorable balance in trade, has been closed and
restricted.
This is a difficult matter to resolve this. Why, the first
Bush Administration did not resolve it. The Clinton
Administration studied it for 8 years and kicked the can down
the road to this administration.
Past Congresses have given you conflicting mandates. Recent
Congresses have given you plenty of rhetoric but very little
legislative guidance, despite the efforts of some of us. If it
were up to me, Congress would pass legislation establishing
priorities for you to follow and let you get on with them.
Otherwise, I would just as soon pass legislation giving a
President, this one or the next, the authority to make a
decision once and for all, without having to struggle with all
the conflicting mandates imposed in decades past.
Then we would have a decision. We would have some
accountability, and we could move one way or the other and take
responsibility for it.
I realize you are victims in a thankless blame game where
the States and the agencies are polarized. You are left in the
middle with the hard job of balancing priorities, when that job
should be the job of Congress.
I look forward to working with the other members of this
committee to help you resolve those priorities. And I thank you
for your service for the security of this Nation.
Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to
Senator Murray.
Senator Cochran. Senator Murray.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator. I will not take much
time. We want to hear from our witnesses today.
Let me just thank you for being here today. I look forward
to your testimony. Clearly, there are a lot of critical
projects in my State, from transportation obstruction, water,
energy, environmental projects that I have a number of
questions on. I will save some time.
Let me just thank Senator Reid and the Chairman for their
assistance with our energy and water projects in the past
though. We have been very grateful for that, and I appreciate
that. And I look forward to the testimony this morning.
Senator Cochran. Senator----
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent
that--I have some questions I can submit in writing to the
witnesses.
Senator Cochran. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Senator Dorgan, you want to----
Senator Bond. I will ask the same.
Senator Cochran. Without objection.
Any Senators on the committee may submit questions. And we
hope you will respond to them in a timely fashion. Thank you.
Sir.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, but let me
say that the comments from my colleagues, Senator Reid and
Senator Bond, are right on the mark with respect especially to
some of the funding issues.
I note that Senator Bond indicates he is on 12
subcommittees, and my hope is that keeps him busy enough not to
be too active on this subcommittee.
We have had some long, spirited and interesting discussions
about Missouri River issues. And I know, General Flowers, you
will be in the middle of all of that, I am certain.
You started a 6-month process 12 years ago to create a new
master manual for the Missouri River. Twelve, 13 years later,
of course, we still wait. And Senator Bond and I both have an
acute interest in it.
The Bureau's budget for water and related resources, for
example, is nearly $43 million less than the amount we
appropriated in the recent omnibus bill, so a number of
projects will go wanting. There is under-funding of some Corps
projects, key Corps projects. I will not go into all of them,
but we in the West and Northern Plains are facing increasing
drought, and water needs are more acute than ever.
The money that is recommended in the administration's
budget is not nearly what is needed to respond to these issues
both at the Bureau and the Corps, so I will ask some questions
about a number of projects that I am very concerned about.
But I will wait until the question period to talk about
them, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
am going to have to go to another hearing so I am not going to
ask questions. I do want to make a statement, however.
I am sure the witnesses all know Alaska has half the
coastline of the United States. We have a very small
population, but we are completely dependent in many areas on
the Corps of Engineers for their projects.
Now, out at or on Unalaska, at the Dutch Harbor area,
Congress authorized a project that was needed. That is the
largest fishing port in the United States, and has been
consistently now. That harbor was delayed because of a dispute
between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Corps of
Engineers. It has never been built.
We have another situation there at King Cove, an enormous
battle that developed over access to King Cove to the
facilities at Cold Bay for transportation of people,
particularly in emergencies to the hospital. Congress provided
after a long, long debate with the Clinton Administration that
King Cove could build a road, and the road would be
determined--the location of it would be determined by the
communities, where it would go. They owned the property. That
road has been delayed also. It has never been built. And even
today there--the monies that we provided them to build the road
has been used to try to find some way to get it going.
We had money in the Energy and Water Bill 2 years ago for
the sewer, the Wrangell projects. OMB took it upon themselves
to veto those projects. And we put very strong language in the
omnibus package that has just been passed. I hope that will be
followed, that the Corps will follow the direction of Congress,
which the President agreed to when he signed that bill.
There is also money for False Pass and Seward Harbor. Both
of those had to be revisited again in the 2003 bill. And I hope
we do not have to do in, Mr. Chairman, in the 2004 bill what we
had to do in the omnibus bill to try and get the Corps and the
administration to follow the directions of the Congress as
agreed to by the President when he signs these bills.
We are in a situation where, now because of the delays in
so many other economic activities that those related to fishing
and the using--use of our harbors are absolutely essential to
our survivor--or survival now. And I really do not understand
these continued delays.
I know we are under attack by a whole series of very
extreme environmental organizations. They had their day--right
to their day in court, but when it is over, it ought to be
over.
And I am really very serious, Mr. Chairman, in saying that
somehow or other, these projects have to go forward. If it gets
to the point where I have to delay this bill until we get an
agreement that they--that the Corps will go forward, I will do
that. I have never delayed an appropriations bill, since I have
been on the committee or have been chairman, but I will do
that. And I will refuse to bring this bill up until I get an
understanding with the Corps that they are going to comply with
the law with regard to these projects, particularly in terms of
the Dutch Harbor Unalaska Project, and the basic project for
King Cove.
Now, those two projects are humanitarian as well as
necessary for the continuation of the economic activities in
those areas. And I am very serious. I do not know anything else
a Senator can do but finally use his ultimate right to delay a
bill until we get an understanding that that is--that those
projects are going to be built.
I would be happy to visit with you, Mr. Brownlee, or with
you, General Flowers, in any way. And I would be happy to go
down and have a meeting with the President of the United
States, if you would like. But these projects were authorized
and reauthorized by Congress, and they are going to be built.
One way or another, they are going to be built.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. I have no opening statement, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Secretary, you may proceed.
Mr. Brownlee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Craig wants to ask unanimous consent
to add other projects to my list.
Senator Craig. You want to add other projects to Ted's
list. Okay.
Senator Cochran. Without objection, it is----
Mr. Secretary, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF LES BROWNLEE
Mr. Brownlee. Thank you, sir. If I could just take a
moment, sir, to extend my best wishes to Chairman Domenici, who
I understand could not be here this morning, and I have
certainly grown to admire and respect and have great affection
for him, and so I just wanted to send him my very best from
here.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Mr. Brownlee. I would thank all of the members of the
subcommittee who were able to arrange to meet with me before
this hearing and also the courtesies of their staff to do so.
If there is any member whom I was not able to meet with, let me
just say that I will do so at your convenience to discuss any
of these matters. I just want to be sure that it is very clear
that I am available to do that.
I come here this morning, sir, with somewhat always mixed
emotions when I come back to the place, here, the Senate, where
I worked for almost 18 years on the staff of the Senate Armed
Services Committee. I have many heroes here in this body and
some of them are here this morning, so I appreciate very much
the opportunity to come and testify before the subcommittee on
the President's fiscal year 2004 budget for the Civil Works
Program of the Army Corps of Engineers. I am accompanied this
morning by Lieutenant General Robert Flowers, General Bob
Griffin, and Rob Vining.
I am going to take just a moment to say something about
General Flowers, and the committee already knows this very
well, but this is one of the Army's most capable general
officers. He provides extraordinary leadership to the Corps of
Engineers. It is an honor and a privilege for me to work
alongside him in this--on these important matters.
PREPARED STATEMENT
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
summarize my statement and ask your permission that the
complete statement be included in the record.
Senator Cochran. Without objection, it will be included in
the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Les Brownlee
introduction
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and to present the
President's budget for the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of
Engineers for fiscal year 2004. Accompanying me this morning is
Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers, Chief of Engineers.
army civil works program for fiscal year 2004
The fiscal year 2004 budget for Army Civil Works provides funding
to continue the development and restoration of the Nation's water and
related resources, the operation and maintenance of existing
navigation, flood damage reduction, and multiple-purpose projects, the
protection of the Nation's regulated waters and wetlands, and the
cleanup of sites contaminated as a result of the Nation's early atomic
weapons program.
The fiscal year 2004 budget for Army Civil Works includes new
discretionary funding requiring appropriations of $4.194 billion and an
estimated $4.234 billion in outlays from discretionary funding (see
Table 1). These figures are approximately the same as in the fiscal
year 2003 budget.
The new discretionary funding includes $812 million from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund. Of this amount, $607 million is for harbor
operation and maintenance and dredged material disposal facility
construction under existing law and $205 million is for harbor
construction under a legislative proposal set forth in appropriations
language proposed in the budget. The discretionary funding also
includes $256 million from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Of this
amount, $110 million is for construction and rehabilitation on the
inland waterways under existing law, and $146 million is for operation
and maintenance of the inland waterways under a legislative proposal
set forth in appropriations language proposed in the budget. The new
uses proposed for these two funds are described in greater detail in
the discussion of budget highlights.
The Administration is submitting a legislative proposal for direct
funding of hydropower facility operation and maintenance by Federal
power marketing administrations. New discretionary funding of $145
million would be derived from direct funding. This proposal also is
described in greater detail in the discussion of budget highlights.
Other sources of new discretionary funding include $2.947 billion
from the general fund and $34 million from Special Recreation User
Fees.
Additional program funding, over and above funding from the sources
requiring discretionary appropriations, is estimated at $494 million.
This total includes $143 million from the Bonneville Power
Administration for operation and maintenance of hydropower facilities
in the Pacific Northwest, $278 million contributed by non-Federal
interests for their shares of project costs and for project-related
work, $58 million from the Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund, and
$16 million from miscellaneous permanent appropriations.
Preparation of this year's budget included a new process for
assessments of program performance. These assessments were intended to
improve the effectiveness of Civil Works programs and to improve the
quality of their management and oversight. These assessments, and how
their results are reflected in budget decisions, are described in
greater detail in the discussion of budget highlights.
program highlights
Highlights of the fiscal year 2004 budget for Army Civil Works
include: an emphasis on priority missions, anti-terrorist facility
protection, and emergency preparedness, response, and recovery; an
emphasis on continuing construction projects and a de-emphasis on
design and initiation of new projects; and legislative proposals for
expanded user financing of projects through the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and the Federal power
marketing administrations. These highlights are described in greater
detail below and are followed by information on proposed studies and
management initiatives.
Priority Missions
The budget gives priority to ongoing studies, projects and programs
that provide substantial benefits in the primary (or ``core'') missions
of the Civil Works program, which are commercial navigation, aquatic
ecosystem restoration, and flood and storm damage reduction.
The budget also provides funding for other areas of Corps
involvement, including regulatory protection of waters and wetlands,
cleanup of sites contaminated by the Nation's early atomic weapons
program, and the management of natural resources and provision of
hydroelectric power and recreation services at Federally operated Civil
Works projects.
No funds are provided for studies and projects that carry out non-
traditional missions that should remain the responsibility of non-
Federal interests or other Federal agencies, such as wastewater
treatment, irrigation water supply, and municipal and industrial water
supply treatment and distribution. Furthermore, the budget does not
fund individual studies and projects that are inconsistent with
established policies governing the applicable missions.
Anti-Terrorist Facility Protection
Following the events of September 11, 2001, the Corps received
appropriations of $174 million to provide facility protection measures
(such as guards) that have recurring costs, to perform assessments of
threats and consequences at critical facilities, and to design and
implement the appropriate ``hard'' protection at those critical
facilities. The Administration is continuing its commitment to facility
protection in fiscal year 2004, with a budget of an additional $104
million for facility protection.
In addition, the budget includes a legislative proposal, set forth
in appropriations language proposed in the budget, to use funding from
the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) account to protect not only
operating Civil Works projects that normally are funded from the O&M
account, but also administration buildings and facilities and those
operating projects that normally are funded from the Flood Control,
Mississippi River and Tributaries account. This legislative proposal
would also authorize using Civil Works O&M funds to pay for protecting
the Washington Aqueduct drinking water plant, which is normally funded
from revenues that are generated by selling drinking water and
subsequently appropriated in the District of Columbia Appropriations
Act each year.
Of the $104 million in the fiscal year 2004 O&M budget for facility
protection, $91 million is for O&M-funded projects and $13 million is
for other projects and facilities.
Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account finances response
and recovery activities for flood, storm, and hurricane events, as well
as preparedness for these natural events and for support to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency through the Federal Response Plan.
The recent performance assessment of this program concluded that it
is moderately effective overall. The fiscal year 2004 budget provides
$70 million for this account. This amount is approximately what the
Corps spends on emergencies in a typical year. This amount would ensure
that there are sufficient funds to respond to major flood and storm
emergencies and would reduce the likelihood of having to borrow from
other accounts or seek emergency supplemental appropriations for
recovery efforts.
Emphasis on Ongoing, Budgeted Construction Projects
The Corps estimates that current backlog (that is, the estimated
costs to complete construction projects funded in the budget) exceeds
$20 billion. In recent years, these projects have had to compete for
funding with numerous new construction starts. To maximize the net
benefits of the construction program and realize those benefits more
quickly than under current trends, the budget limits funding for the
planning and design of new projects, provides funding to complete all
of the projects that can be completed in fiscal year 2004, and provides
substantial funding for eight projects that we consider to be the
highest Civil Works priorities nationwide.
The budget includes funding for continuation of 148 projects and
completion of 13 projects. In addition, the budget includes funding
across all accounts to continue or complete design of 22 proposed
projects. These projects were selected based on their economic and
environmental returns and because design is nearing completion. The
budget defers work on all lower priority design efforts.
Table 2 (attached) displays benefit/cost information on projects
under construction. The table provides information on remaining
benefits and remaining costs and is presented for all projects at a
discount rate of 7 percent.
Expanded Use of Navigation Trust Funds
The budget includes legislative proposals to expand the authorized
uses of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund. These proposals would shift some costs now borne by general
taxpayers to the commercial users of Federal navigation projects, and
would apply the unused balances in these accounts in fiscal year 2004
for the benefit of navigation. These legislative proposals are included
in the proposed appropriations language appearing in the Budget
Appendix for fiscal year 2004.
The Inland Waterways Trust Fund would be used to finance 25 to 50
percent of operation and maintenance costs for inland waterways, in
addition to the currently authorized financing for 50 percent of
construction costs. Inland waterways with average commercial traffic of
more than 5 billion ton-miles per year would be financed 25 percent.
All other inland waterways would be financed 50 percent.
The 5 billion ton-mile criterion was selected to distinguish
between high commercial-traffic projects that would be funded 75
percent from the general fund and 25 percent from the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund and those projects with lower commercial traffic that would
be funded 50 percent from each source. This criterion was used because
the projects with commercial tonnage above the criterion are those that
provide a greater return to the Nation and, consequently, are suitable
for a higher level of support from general taxpayers.
The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund would be used to finance the
Federal share of harbor construction costs, in addition to the
currently authorized financing for the Federal share of harbor
operation and maintenance costs and for the Federal share of the costs
of confined dredged material disposal facilities.
Direct Financing of Hydropower Operation and Maintenance Costs
Historically, each year the Army Civil Works program has financed
the operation and maintenance costs of Corps of Engineers hydroelectric
facilities, and Federal power marketing agencies have repaid the
Treasury for these costs from the revenues provided by ratepayers. The
exception has been in the Pacific Northwest, where under section 2406
of the National Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486, the
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has directly financed the costs
of operating and maintaining the Corps' hydroelectric facilities from
which it receives power. BPA has been providing operation and
maintenance funds in this manner each year, beginning in fiscal year
1999, and all parties agree that this financing arrangement is working
well.
Each year, Corps facilities experience unplanned outages around 3
percent of the time. In 1999, the General Accounting Office found that
the Corps' hydropower facilities are twice as likely to experience
``unplanned outages'' as private sector facilities, because the Corps
does not always have funds for maintenance and repairs when needed.
To address this problem, the budget proposes that the Southeastern
Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the
Western Area Power Administration finance hydropower operation and
maintenance costs directly, in a manner similar to the mechanism used
by Bonneville. The budget contemplates that these power marketing
administrations would make those hydropower operation and maintenance
investments that they believe are justified in order to provide
economical, reliable hydropower to their customers and that, as a
consequence, unplanned outages would decline over time to levels
comparable to the industry average. The Administration is submitting
this legislative proposal for consideration as part of proposed
authorizing legislation for the Department of Energy and related
agencies.
proposed studies and management initiatives
The fiscal year 2004 budget for Civil Works includes a limited
number of new studies, as well as a number of management initiatives.
These proposals are designed to support the Administration's
priorities, to improve program effectiveness, and to improve the
quality and objectivity of project planning and review.
The budget includes a number of proposals that, taken together,
represent a strong commitment to improving the quality and objectivity
of planning and review for new projects. The budget includes $3 million
to initiate the independent review of complex, costly, or controversial
project proposals. The budget also includes $2 million for a new, one-
time ``ex-post-facto'' economic analysis of completed projects, to
assess whether Corps projects are delivering the benefits that were
anticipated when they were planned. This study will help the Corps to
see where it was right and where it was wrong, and to understand the
reasons for its successes and failures in its process for estimating
benefits, in order to improve future analyses. In addition, the budget
contemplates realigning Corps planning expertise to ensure that this
capability is used to best advantage. Concurrently, the Corps is
improving planner training and streamlining and standardizing its
business processes, and my office has established a project planning
and review group to oversee project development.
The budget includes $1 million to initiate a new study of long-term
options for the operation and maintenance of existing low-use harbors
and waterways. The study would characterize the low-use facilities and
would include economic analyses supporting the options.
Five programs within Civil Works were assessed during development
of the fiscal year 2004 budget: the hydropower program; the flood
damage reduction program; the inland waterway navigation program; the
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies program; and wetlands-related
activities other than the Regulatory Program. In addition, the
effectiveness and cost of wetlands and flood damage reduction
activities were compared with other agencies. In response to the Flood
Control and Coastal Emergencies program evaluation, the budget
allocates significant funding to this program. After reviewing the
evaluation of the flood damage reduction program, we increased funding
for our two highest priority projects and identified them for the first
time in the budget. The reviews also helped in developing the financing
proposals for inland waterways and hydropower, described above.
The Army Civil Works program is continuing its efforts to integrate
strategic and performance planning with budgeting, which is part of the
President's Management Agenda and is required by the Government
Performance and Results Act. A draft Strategic Plan for the Army Civil
Works program is being reviewed. In addition, draft performance plans
for the Army Civil Works program are under review. After completion of
Administration review, all of these plans will be transmitted to
Congress.
There are four other elements of the President's Management Agenda.
For the human capital initiative, the Corps of Engineers has prepared
and is carrying out a strategic human capital plan. The Corps is
reviewing its current organization and management in an effort to
improve the quality and objectivity of project planning work. For the
financial management initiative, the Corps is working with the
Department of Defense Inspector General to resolve audit issues and
obtain an unqualified audit opinion on its financial statements for
future fiscal years. For electronic government and information
technology, the Corps has upgraded its capital planning and control
processes and prepared business cases for most of its key systems. For
competitive sourcing of commercial functions, the Corps has prepared a
draft competition plan, which is under review. The Corps is also
responding to the Army's ``third wave'' initiative supporting Army
transformation, the war on terrorism, and the competitive sourcing
initiative.
appropriation accounts
General Investigations
The budget for the General Investigations program is $100 million.
Within this amount, $10 million is to continue or complete
preconstruction engineering and design of 19 projects. The funding
levels proposed for this account--and the way that we have proposed to
allocate that funding--are key elements for our strategy to address the
construction backlog. They reflect an emphasis on completing policy-
consistent projects that are already budgeted in the Construction
account, rather than continuing to plan, design, and initiate new work.
The remaining funding would be used to continue policy-consistent
reconnaissance and feasibility studies, coordination, technical
assistance, and research and development, as well as to initiate 5
reconnaissance studies and the independent review and ex post facto
analysis studies described above. The budget includes funding for 5 new
reconnaissance studies that exemplify the watershed-based approach to
solving water problems and would enable the Corps to test holistic
methods for planning sustainable watershed development. (After the
fiscal year 2004 budget was released, the Congress provided funding to
initiate one of the studies in fiscal year 2003.)
Construction
The fiscal year 2004 budget for the Construction program is $1.35
billion. Of that total, $110 million would be derived from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund to fund 50 percent of the costs of construction
and major rehabilitation of inland waterway projects, and $7 million
would be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to fund the
Federal share of dredged material disposal facilities at operating
coastal harbor projects. In addition, under the Administration's
legislative proposal, $205 million would be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund to fund the Federal share of construction costs
for coastal harbor projects.
With three exceptions, funding is included in this account only for
projects that meet the following criteria: the project has been funded
in this account in a previous budget request; physical construction of
the project has started by fiscal year 2003; the project has been
actively under physical construction in at least one of the last 3
years; and the Executive Branch has completed a review and made a
determination that the project supports priority missions and is
consistent with established policies.
The three exceptions include one project proposed in the fiscal
year 2004 budget as a construction new start, the Chief Joseph Dam Gas
Abatement Project, Washington, which is necessary in order to satisfy
the requirements of Biological Opinions for the Columbia River Basin.
(After the fiscal year 2004 budget was released, the Congress provided
funding to initiate construction of this project in fiscal year 2003.)
The other two exceptions involve preconstruction work at two projects,
namely, design of the dam safety improvement project at Success Dam,
California, and continuing analysis and coordination for the Delaware
River Main Channel Deepening Project, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and
Delaware.
In addition to funding the completion of 13 projects in fiscal year
2004, the budget provides substantial funding for our eight highest
priority projects. These high priority projects are the New York and
New Jersey Harbor deepening project ($115 million); the Olmsted Locks
and Dam, Illinois and Kentucky, project ($73 million); projects to
restore the Florida Everglades ($145 million) and the side channels of
the Upper Mississippi River system ($33 million); projects to provide
flood damage reduction to urban areas, namely, the Sims Bayou, Houston,
Texas, project ($12 million) and the West Bank and Vicinity, New
Orleans, Louisiana, project ($35 million); and projects to meet
environmental requirements in the Columbia River Basin ($98 million)
and the Missouri River basin ($22 million). The Everglades work
actually is comprised of three distinct projects, as is the Columbia
River Basin work.
The budget provides $80 million for planning, design, and
construction of projects under the Continuing Authorities Program.
These are small projects for flood damage reduction, navigation,
shoreline protection, streambank protection, navigation project impact
mitigation, clearing and snagging, aquatic ecosystem restoration,
beneficial uses of dredged material, and project modifications for
improvement of the environment.
The continuing program for beneficial uses of dredged material is
being expanded to encompass additional types of beneficial uses at
operating projects. In addition to restoring aquatic resources pursuant
to section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1990,
the program also would be used for shore protection with dredged
material pursuant to section 145 of WRDA 76, as amended by section 933
of WRDA 86, and for other beneficial uses with dredged material
pursuant to section 207 of WRDA 96.
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries
The budget includes $280 million for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries program. The budget directs funding to the priority flood
damage reduction projects on the mainstem of the Mississippi River and
in the Atchafalaya River Basin, Louisiana. No funding is provided for
studies or projects that represent non-traditional missions or are
inconsistent with established policies. No funding is provided for new
studies or projects.
The budget includes funding for preconstruction engineering and
design for the Morganza to the Gulf, Louisiana, project. This project
numbers among the 22 projects program-wide that are funded for
continuing preconstruction engineering and design.
Operation and Maintenance
The budget provides funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to
carry out its operation and maintenance responsibilities at Corps-
operated projects for the purposes of commercial navigation, flood
damage reduction, recreation, natural resources management, and
multiple purposes including hydroelectric power generation. The budget
proposes that this account fund anti-terrorist facility protection
across all of these purposes and at Civil Works projects and facilities
normally funded from this and other accounts, as explained earlier.
The overall budget for the Operation and Maintenance account is
$1.939 billion. Of this amount, $600 million would be derived from the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for coastal harbor maintenance and $34
million would be derived from Special Recreation User Fees. Under the
Administration's legislative proposals, $146 million would be derived
from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to finance 25 to 50 percent of the
operation and maintenance costs for the inland waterways, and $145
million would be derived from direct funding by three Federal power
marketing administrations to finance hydropower operation and
maintenance costs. In addition to this funding, Bonneville Power
Administration would provide $143 million to directly fund the costs of
operating and maintaining hydropower facilities in the Pacific
Northwest.
The navigation maintenance portion of the budget continues the past
policy of focusing resources on harbors and waterways that have high
volumes of commercial traffic or that support Federal or subsistence
usage. No funds are provided for purely recreational harbors, and the
budget limits funding for shallow draft harbors and for low commercial-
use waterways. The budget provides: $620 million for deep draft harbors
(harbors with authorized depths of greater than 14 feet); $40 million
for shallow draft harbors; $311 million for inland waterways with
commercial traffic of more than 1 billion ton-miles per year; and $71
million for waterways with less commercial traffic, with priority given
to those operation and maintenance activities that provide the highest
return to the Nation.
The new study of long-term options for low-use harbors and
waterways reflects an effort to reach agreement on how to address the
needs of these harbors and waterways.
Regulatory Program
The budget for the Regulatory Program is $144 million. These funds
would be used for permit evaluation, enforcement, oversight of
mitigation efforts, administrative appeals, watershed studies, special
area management plans, and environmental impact statements. This
funding supports continued efforts to reduce the average review time
for individual permit applications, to improve protection of aquatic
resources, and to strengthen protection of regulated wetlands through
watershed approaches.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)
The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is an
environmental cleanup program for sites contaminated as a result of the
Nation's early efforts to develop atomic weapons. Congress transferred
the program from the Department of Energy in fiscal year 1998. We are
continuing to implement needed cleanups at contaminated sites. This
year's budget is $140 million.
General Expenses
Funding budgeted for the General Expenses program is $171 million.
These funds would be used for executive direction and management
activities of the Corps of Engineers headquarters, the Corps division
offices, and related support organizations. Within the budgeted amount,
$9 million is for activities funded for the first time from this
account: $2 million is to compete commercial functions between the
Federal government and private sources; and $7 million is to audit the
Civil Works financial statements, a function formerly carried out by
the Army Audit Agency using its own funding. After adjusting for these
two items, the amount of our request is $8 million above the fiscal
year 2003 enacted level. We would use the $8 million to finance
increases in labor costs and efforts to improve planning and management
capabilities.
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
As discussed above, the budget includes $70 million for this
account to ensure that the Corps has adequate funding available for
emergency preparedness and response to actual emergency events.
conclusion
I believe the President's fiscal year 2004 budget for the Army
Civil Works program is balanced and will make productive contributions
to the economic and environmental well-being of the Nation. The budget
continues support to ongoing work, emphasizes primary missions, and
applies resources to areas likely to have the greatest national
benefit. Providing the requested funding for the Army Civil Works
program is a wise investment in the Nation's future.
Thank you.
TABLE 1.--DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL WORKS FISCAL
YEAR 2004 BUDGET
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requested Funding:
General Investigations............................ $100,000,000
Construction...................................... 1,350,000,000
Operation and Maintenance......................... 1,939,000,000
Regulatory Program................................ 144,000,000
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries.. 280,000,000
General Expenses.................................. 171,000,000
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies............. 70,000,000
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program... 140,000,000
-----------------
TOTAL........................................... 4,194,000,000
=================
Sources of Funding:
General Fund...................................... 2,947,000,000
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund..................... 812,000,000
(O&M)......................................... (600,000,000)
(Construction--Disposal Facilities)........... (7,000,000)
(Construction--Legislative Proposal).......... (205,000,000)
Inland Waterways Trust Fund....................... 256,000,000
(Construction)................................ (110,000,000)
(O&M--Legislative Proposal)................... (146,000,000)
Special Recreation User Fees--O&M................. 34,000,000
Power Marketing Admin.--O&M Leg. Proposal......... 145,000,000
-----------------
TOTAL........................................... 4,194,000,000
=================
Additional New Resources:
Rivers and Harbors Contributed Funds.............. 278,000,000
Bonneville Power Administration................... 143,205,000
Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund........... 57,680,000
Permanent Appropriations.......................... 15,605,000
-----------------
TOTAL........................................... 494,490,000
=================
Total Program Funding........................... 4,688,490,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.--CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL\1\--FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGETED PROJECTS WITH BENEFIT-COST DATA SHOWN AT 7 PERCENT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 PERCENT RATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------ PRES BUD NO INFL NO INFL NO INFL
DIV NAME NET BENE/ NO INFL TOT FISCAL FED BAL TO TOTAL N- BAL TO
AVG ANN AVG ANN 7 PERCENT AVG ANN AVG ANN ANN FED COST YEAR 2004 COMPLETE FED COST COMPL
REM BEN REM COST RB/RC\2\ CUR BEN CUR COST COST\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LR INDIANA HARBOR (CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY), IN 21,669 5,500 3.10 21,669 6,987 2.10 40,000 5,700 18,837 38,000 24,691
LR INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN 3,445 704 4.89 3,445 1,349 1.55 12,857 2,600 5,865 4,286 1,366
LR KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY 66,509 26,753 2.49 66,509 41,741 .59 579,050 24,866 439,878 .......... ..........
LR LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN 10,074 5,130 1.96 18,578 11,722 .58 139,000 3,800 47,327 51,000 15,198
LR LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA 157,204 60,486 2.60 157,204 82,303 .91 702,966 35,000 424,488 .......... ..........
LR MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV 66,109 11,400 5.80 66,109 18,900 2.50 324,706 52,154 186,764 .......... ..........
LR MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY & IN 53,957 20,102 2.68 53,957 31,808 .70 324,000 26,100 209,304 .......... ..........
LR MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL 109,912 57,336 1.92 109,912 61,715 .78 572,000 18,000 499,294 164,000 47,064
LR METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, BEARGRASS CREEK, KY 2,652 263 10.08 2,652 977 1.71 7,895 1,400 1,847 4,251 196
LR METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY 4,527 480 9.43 4,763 2,349 1.03 13,414 2,500 641 5,772 889
LR METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH 3,821 2,376 1.61 4,198 3,681 .14 31,743 8,500 13,823 4,200 814
LR MILL CREEK, OH 51,544 53,043 .97 52,550 82,743 -0.36 154,156 3,900 45,952 215,000 127,270
LR OHIO RIVER GREENWAY PUBLIC ACCESS, IN 7,401 3,082 2.40 7,401 3,761 .97 16,900 1,000 12,535 16,900 15,280
LR OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL & KY 719,817 46,737 15.40 720,430 144,109 4.00 1,003,000 73,000 287,536 .......... ..........
LR ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV & OH 307,716 2,164 142.20 307,716 18,686 15.47 380,626 2,500 11,916 .......... ..........
LR WEST COLUMBUS, OH 24,050 1,211 19.86 24,050 13,376 .80 96,937 1,800 3,330 36,200 3,800
LR WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV 103,734 2,491 41.64 103,734 7,239 13.33 235,462 2,000 5,538 .......... ..........
MV CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF 2,647 1,000 2.18 2,647 1,213 1.18 30,861 2,300 21,309 .......... ..........
CORR)
MV COMITE RIVER, LA 24,904 13,202 1.89 24,904 15,033 .66 103,000 2,000 85,639 42,000 18,392
MV CROOKSTON, MN 769 89 8.64 1,118 739 .51 6,830 1,043 .......... 3,670 ..........
MV EAST ST LOUIS, IL 22,778 920 21.51 22,778 1,059 20.51 54,638 965 22,319 16,000 4,441
MV GRAND FORKS, ND--EAST GRAND FORKS, MN 32,627 18,322 1.78 32,627 32,400 .01 202,700 23,496 90,263 193,300 89,856
MV INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA 110,800 54,317 2.04 110,800 60,115 .84 625,000 7,000 530,851 60,000 48,876
MV J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA 53,351 7,213 7.40 133,284 137,854 -0.03 1,917,456 13,700 140,633 93,832 45,538
MV LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA (HURRICANE 14,512 4,540 3.20 95,771 68,669 .39 515,000 3,000 72,353 200,000 42,038
PROTECTION)
MV LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) 1,453 69 21.06 4,146 2,172 .91 80,300 461 1,905 34,700 1,416
MV LOVES PARK, IL 765 345 2.22 3,056 2,161 .41 23,625 5,785 .......... 8,669 ..........
MV MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO 2,773 1,001 2.54 2,773 1,091 1.54 44,966 2,000 23,504 11,233 ..........
MV MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), 261,809 7,225 21.42 261,809 12,225 20.42 257,038 1,700 50,462 .......... ..........
MO & IL
MV MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE, 972,000 59,000 16.47 1,350,000 145,000 8.31 175,000 196 147,042 404,000 387,727
LA
MV NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) 2,435 1,152 2.11 14,999 14,143 .06 174,000 2,000 22,844 70,000 27,282
MV SHEYENNE RIVER, ND 6,412 253 25.34 22,684 2,375 8.55 35,900 3,367 .......... 13,300 ..........
MV SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA 54,877 14,738 3.72 54,877 17,957 2.06 508,000 16,500 157,869 172,000 59,909
MV WEST BANK AND VICINITY, NEW ORLEANS, LA 71,282 9,516 7.49 98,682 19,465 4.07 190,000 35,000 77,213 102,500 49,529
NA AIWW BRIDGE AT GREAT BRIDGE, VA 4,084 2,329 1.75 4,084 3,832 .07 37,243 9,706 9,217 8,875 4,524
NA DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA & DE 24,659 22,000 1.01 24,659 24,393 .01 155,825 300 137,653 88,980 71,011
NA NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY & NJ 709,196 243,880 2.91 709,196 263,760 1.69 1,679,700 115,000 1,113,561 1,524,100 1,242,079
NA PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, 1,461 1,135 1.29 1,826 1,418 .29 19,500 1,000 8,159 1,700 1,700
NJ
NA RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ 43,553 21,075 2.07 43,553 31,419 .39 304,400 6,488 249,873 102,500 82,409
NA WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING) 27,143 3,877 7.00 27,143 12,832 1.12 129,422 10,021 24,271 43,602 5,952
NW BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD 3,822 1,877 2.04 3,822 3,296 .16 30,869 6,000 13,280 10,404 2,238
NW BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO 2,564 1,108 2.31 2,564 1,237 1.07 11,821 2,000 7,330 6,505 197
NW BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO 16,697 3,062 5.45 43,519 14,981 1.90 215,724 6,000 22,506 32,500 ..........
NW ELK CREEK LAKE, OR 3,606 4,689 .77 3,606 14,715 -0.75 179,400 500 67,188 .......... ..........
NW PERRY CREEK, IA 2,430 1,514 1.60 7,791 6,918 .13 58,638 2,200 17,658 38,232 3,051
NW PIERRE, SD 2,099 1,004 2.09 6,264 2,996 1.09 35,000 4,300 6,555 .......... ..........
NW WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE 2,177 68 31.85 2,177 1,013 1.15 9,006 1,082 .......... 3,713 ..........
PO KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI 631 172 3.67 631 453 .39 5,934 3,633 632 760 70
PO MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI 2,407 740 3.25 2,407 1,025 1.35 14,212 191 9,565 1,589 1,570
PO NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK 3,608 3,000 1.20 3,608 3,098 .16 42,673 6,000 31,611 4,482 1,378
PO ST PAUL HARBOR, AK 2,613 2,030 1.29 2,613 4,157 -0.37 47,944 3,826 19,962 10,501 ..........
SA ARECIBO RIVER, PR 5,807 1,382 4.20 6,112 1,454 3.20 14,877 1,000 5,404 11,520 3,847
SA BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA 6,757 2,081 3.25 6,797 3,597 .89 55,200 4,500 36,974 23,700 9,792
SA CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL 5,186 3,123 1.66 7,304 4,398 .66 85,301 2,000 47,054 4,968 8
SA CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC (DEEPENING & WIDENING) 12,158 3,672 3.31 22,995 11,775 .95 98,200 5,000 4,556 40,100 5,043
SA JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL 1,012 1,269 .80 3,080 2,255 .37 19,620 2,000 3,959 27,457 1,512
SA MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL 6,497 4,706 1.38 8,779 6,358 .38 55,771 2,700 15,823 36,246 10,670
SA MOBILE HARBOR, AL 105,308 65,587 1.61 105,308 64,337 .64 315,000 2,003 283,085 260,000 249,673
SA OATES CREEK, RICHMOND COUNTY, GA (DEF CORR) 190 62 3.06 190 167 .14 11,094 500 .......... 3,699 ..........
SA PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS 2,572 600 4.29 2,572 3,000 -0.14 37,678 2,989 .......... 19,000 1,698
SA PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR 7,040 1,359 5.18 46,934 9,060 4.18 430,232 5,200 24,201 144,757 24,139
SA RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC 5,480 597 9.18 126,165 43,319 1.91 619,210 4,328 5,275 3,260 1,360
SA RIO DE LA PLATA, PR 9,490 6,024 1.58 10,204 6,450 .58 58,713 1,100 50,697 33,148 13,145
SA RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR 45,686 18,208 2.51 60,915 24,277 1.51 293,383 16,500 185,878 101,813 40,243
SA ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA 4,632 2,760 1.68 4,632 3,843 .21 42,000 2,000 30,097 22,000 15,349
SA WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC 14,468 6,124 2.36 39,292 26,532 .48 290,000 9,650 115,583 141,000 33,655
SP ALAMOGORDO, NM 8,327 1,928 4.32 8,327 3,625 1.30 38,100 3,500 18,942 12,700 5,740
SP AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), 30,700 14,420 2.13 30,700 17,453 .76 119,700 4,000 95,883 64,400 51,517
CA
SP AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA 42,300 6,890 6.14 42,300 18,439 1.29 90,100 4,000 .......... 29,990 ..........
SP EL PASO, TX 6,366 1,065 5.98 10,873 10,569 .03 122,800 2,800 1,538 39,690 295
SP GUADALUPE RIVER, CA 25,785 5,829 4.42 25,785 14,808 .74 127,950 13,000 17,611 98,920 15,665
SP KAWEAH RIVER, CA 3,954 692 5.71 3,954 3,638 .09 27,800 8,400 .......... 21,700 ..........
SP MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA 25,530 90 283.67 25,530 4,326 4.90 37,100 500 300 12,400 ..........
SP MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA 4,126 1,662 2.48 4,126 2,487 .66 24,400 500 9,516 8,100 3,402
SP NAPA RIVER, CA 15,761 7,992 1.97 15,761 15,347 .03 122,200 7,500 82,648 123,200 20,663
SP OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA 185,000 23,012 8.04 185,000 23,580 6.85 133,300 7,000 108,594 129,600 107,305
SP PETALUMA RIVER, CA 230 145 1.59 2,275 2,252 .01 20,100 2,000 1,742 11,700 ..........
SP SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA 113,409 28,016 4.05 114,822 89,367 .28 992,000 15,700 247,497 451,000 140,308
SP SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA 20,266 4,532 4.47 20,266 5,405 2.75 45,600 2,100 40,023 24,700 9,230
SP TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV 18,934 2,686 7.05 22,276 19,854 .12 212,900 23,300 17,518 75,100 6,540
SP TULE RIVER, CA 2,112 1,728 1.22 2,112 1,970 .07 16,300 1,600 13,540 8,000 1,300
SP UPPER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA 1,300 174 7.47 1,300 883 .47 7,600 1,000 1,650 22,600 ..........
SW ARKANSAS CITY, KS 7,980 482 16.56 7,980 2,402 2.32 23,477 2,600 2,192 7,892 589
SW BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX 73,514 25,687 2.86 88,892 26,885 2.31 284,479 4,700 262,268 160,720 126,719
SW CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX 5,587 479 11.67 5,587 2,672 1.09 31,686 2,966 .......... 6,530 ..........
SW HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX 87,232 20,041 4.35 87,232 44,464 .96 433,988 18,726 225,720 148,210 70,251
SW JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, ARLINGTON, TX 1,119 550 1.87 1,119 598 .87 18,800 2,200 2,187 8,240 ..........
SW MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR 20,035 14,000 1.10 20,068 18,145 .11 261,500 20,000 30,056 .......... ..........
SW NECHES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SALTWATER BARRIER, TX 8,559 401 21.34 22,647 4,567 3.96 43,080 4,108 .......... 14,360 ..........
SW SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX 121,160 8,075 15.00 220,290 24,827 7.87 230,000 12,000 87,268 111,617 37,369
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 5,264,654 1,093,850 4.81 6,271,796 2,028,045 2.09 18,447,576 789,250 7,473,381 6,307,293 3,434,778
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: EC, EC 11-2-183, Page B-2-37 states: ``For beach erosion control projects where the initial fill has been completed and only periodic nourishment remains to be accomplished, enter:
Not applicable because initial construction has been completed.'' This statement is used because the initial construction of the project is ``essentially complete'' and we are just
``maintaining'' it with the periodic renourishment. Benefit/cost data are also not required for Dam safety projects, Deficiency Correction projects, Major Rehabilitation or Environmental
projects.
\1\ Excludes MR&T projects.
\2\ This column shows the Remaining benefit/Remaining Cost for each project calculated at a 7 percent discount rate.
\3\ This column shows the Net Benefit-Cost ratio, i.e. the annual benefits less the annual costs divided by the annual costs, for each project calculated at a 7 percent discount rate.
Mr. Brownlee. I want to take one more moment, sir. As most
of you know, about a year ago, I was appointed as the Acting
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works in addition to
my duties as the Under Secretary of the Army. And I have to
tell you I anticipated that with some dread when I heard it was
coming, because this is probably the part of the Army that I
knew the least about, and the issues were some in which I quite
frankly did not have a strong interest.
But after almost 1 year in this capacity, I just want to
tell the committee that it has been an absolute pleasure for me
to work on even these difficult and very important issues
because of the opportunity to work with the people in the Corps
of Engineers and in the Civil Works secretariat.
I have over 40 years of uninterrupted military and
government service, and I have never met people that are more
dedicated and capable than these folks in the Corps of
Engineers. They serve the Nation very, very well, both at home
and abroad. I have seen the results of their efforts and I just
could not appear here without telling you how very proud I am
to represent them in some capacity, to tell you that the
American people and you can take great pride in what they do.
They serve the Army and the Nation exceedingly well, and so it
is a pleasure for me and it is with a great deal of pride that
I am here this morning.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I am here to report that the
total Civil Works budget for fiscal year 2004 is $4.2 billion.
This is approximately the same amount as the total Civil Works
budget for 2003.
The budget places priority on ongoing studies and projects,
and the Corps' primary mission areas of commercial navigation,
flood, and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration. The budget emphasizes completing the ongoing
construction projects that have completed the executive branch
review process, and are economically justified, environmentally
acceptable, technically sound, and consistent with cost-sharing
policies.
The budget provides sufficient funding for 13 projects that
can be physically completed in fiscal year 2004, and for eight
other ongoing projects that are high priorities of the
administration as well as substantial funding for the flood
protection projects on the main stem of the Mississippi River.
Consistent with the focus on projects that already are under
construction, the budget limits funding to plan, design or
initiate new projects.
However, the budget does provide funding for 22 ongoing
design efforts that are estimated to provide substantial
economic and environmental returns and that are nearing
completion.
The budget includes a number of studies and management
initiatives that are designed to support the administration's
priorities, to improve program effectiveness, and to improve
the quality and objectivity of project planning and review.
The budget includes funding for reconnaissance studies that
exemplify the watershed-based approach to solving water
problems. In addition, the budget includes $2 million for an
analysis of whether completed Corps projects are delivering
benefits as planned.
Further, the budget includes $3 million to institute an
independent review of proposed projects that are likely to be
costly, controversial, or complex.
The budget focuses navigation, operation and maintenance
funding on harbors and waterways with high volumes of
commercial traffic. The budget limits operations and
maintenance funding for those shallow draft harbors and inland
waterways that have little commercial use and includes $1
million to study long-term options for operation and
maintenance of those projects.
The budget emphasizes anti-terrorist protection of Civil
Works projects and facilities, and includes $104 million to
improve the protection of facilities where the consequences of
an attack would be great.
The budget for the regulatory program will enable continued
improvements in protection of the Nation's wetlands and in the
efficiency of permit reviews and decision making. The budget
provides $70 million for the Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies account. This amount will enable us to respond to
major emergency and to finance most, if not all, recovery
costs.
The budget includes legislative proposals to expand the
uses of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund. The budget also includes a legislative
proposal for Federal power marketing administrations to
directly finance the specific operation and maintenance costs
of Corps of Engineers hydropower facilities.
The Civil Works program is separately accountable to the
President for implementing the President's management agenda.
We are making progress on improving performance planning,
financial management, human capital planning, competition
planning and E-government.
In summary, I believe the fiscal year 2004 Civil Works
budget is balanced in accordance with the Nation's priorities
and will make productive contributions to the economic and
environmental well-being of our Nation.
I look forward to working with this subcommittee on these
important issues and appreciate your continuing support. Thank
you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. General Flowers,
do you have a statement?
General Flowers. Yes, sir.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT B. FLOWERS
General Flowers. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of
the subcommittee, I am again honored to be testifying before
you, along with Under Secretary Brownlee on the President's
fiscal year 2004 budget for the Army's Civil Works Program.
Today, thanks to this subcommittee's strong support, the
Civil Works program is balanced, responsive and highly
productive. And I look forward to your continued partnership in
this important program that is so broadly beneficial to the
Nation.
My complete statement covers more details on the fiscal
year 2004 program, the backlog, future water challenges,
transforming the Corps, our business management system, and the
overall value of the Corps to the Nation's economy and its
national defense. With your permission, I will summarize some
of these major points.
First, a word about the President's budget and the value of
Civil Works to the Nation's economy and the environment: We
will work aggressively to make the most efficient use possible
of the fiscal year 2004 President's budget for the Army Corps
of Engineers. The budget funds the critical water resources
infrastructure that has improved the quality of our citizens'
lives and provided a foundation for the economic growth and
development of this country.
Our projects for navigation, flood protection, ecosystem
restoration, hydropower generation and recreation directly
contribute to the national economic might. The stream of
benefits realized is reduced transportation costs, avoided
flood and storm damages and improvements in environmental value
are considerable.
Just a few numbers in which you may be interested: The
navigation program you fund enables 2.4 billion tons of
commerce to move on the navigable waterways. The U.S.
Department of Transportation estimates that these cargo
movements have created jobs for 13 million people.
Another fact: Corps flood damage reduction structures save
taxpayers $21 billion in damages every year in addition to the
lives they save. And another: Private industry contractors
carry out virtually all of our construction work and over 50
percent of our civil, planning and engineering, money that goes
directly into the economy.
This budget also includes funding to support watershed
studies. These studies will allow us to work collaboratively
with many stakeholders. With the complexity of water problems
today, we believe this is the direction we must take to develop
the best, most comprehensive solutions.
Moving now to our backlogs, we estimate it will cost more
than $21 billion to complete the construction projects in the
Construction, General, Program funded in the fiscal year 2004
budget.
On the maintenance backlog, we continue to be challenged as
well. You can see from the numbers that I just cited on the
value of Corps projects that our infrastructure is a critical
element in a strong economy. Sustaining this level of service
becomes more of a challenge, as our infrastructure ages.
The funding required at the end of fiscal year 2004 to
complete the high priority maintenance work in the Operation
and Maintenance account is slightly over $1 billion. Now, that
represents an increase of about $127 million over last year. I
can assure that I will continue to do all that I can to make
these programs as cost effective as possible.
Next I would like to talk briefly about future water
challenges and a few thoughts about a need for a national water
policy. Last fall, the American Water Resources Association
sponsored a seminar on the need for a more comprehensive water
policy in the Nation. Conflicting demands for water are
increasing across the country and exist in almost every major
watershed.
Solutions to these complex problems will not be easy
without significant changes in our evolving national water
policy. Development of such policy will, in turn, require a
collaboration of many government organizations at all levels.
You have my assurance that the Corps stands ready to assist
you and the administration in this effort.
Turning now to the issue of Corps transformation: There are
many interested in transforming the Corps, inside and outside
of the organization. Some may have the larger goal of changes
in current water policy in mind. Others may want us to operate
more efficiently and effectively. We are listening to all of
these good ideas. And I have met with individuals, industry
groups and interest groups to hear what they have to say.
I have issued communications principles to ensure that all
within the Corps are practicing open, effective, and timely
two-way communication with the entire community of water
resources interests.
And let me assure you, I am committed to working with you
and all who are interested and to do all in my power to
transform the Corps to meet the Nation's needs.
And finally, a subject dear to my heart, the value of the
Civil Works program to national defense: All of you can be
proud that the Civil Works program is a valuable asset in
support of the National Security Strategy in many ways. For
instance, we have a trained engineering workforce, with world-
class expertise, capable of responding to a variety of
situations across the spectrum of national defense. In fact,
skills developed in managing Corps projects transfer to most
tactical engineering-related operations.
As an example, to date, 250 civilian members of our
byproduct Civil Works Program team have volunteered for
deployment in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, providing
engineering, construction, and real estate support. They wear
uniforms like those of active duty military personnel and, by
civilian standards, live under spartan conditions.
Nevertheless, they are inspired by knowledge that they are
participating in an important mission.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
In summary, the Corps is committed to staying at the
leading edge in providing service to the Nation. And I truly
appreciate your continued support to this end.
Thank you, sir, and members of the committee. This
concludes my statement.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers
introduction
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee: I am
honored to be testifying before your subcommittee today, along with the
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the Honorable
Les Brownlee, on the President's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget for the United
States Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Program.
My statement covers the following 6 topics:
--Summary of Fiscal Year 2004 Program Budget,
--Civil Works Program Backlogs,
--Future Water Challenges,
--Civil Works Program Transformation,
--Need for a More Robust Business Management System, and
--Other Thoughts.
summary of fiscal year 2004 program budget
Introduction
This is a good budget. New funding for the Civil Works Program,
including the Direct and Reimbursed programs, is expected to approach
$5.410 billion.
As shown in Table 1, Direct Program funding, including
discretionary and mandatory funding appropriated directly to the Corps,
totals $4.688 billion. Discretionary funding, including amounts
ultimately replaced by mandatory funding, totals $4.194 billion;
additional mandatory funding totals $494 million.
Reimbursed Program funding is projected to be $722 million.
Direct Program
The proposed budget reflects the Administration's commitment to
continued sound development and management of the Nation's water and
related land resources. 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.
The budget provides for continued funding of nearly all policy-
consistent studies and projects underway. It also provides for funding
of 5 new reconnaissance studies under the General Investigations (GI)
program.
Reimbursed Program
Through the Interagency and Intergovernmental Support Program we
help non-DOD Federal agencies, State, and other countries with timely,
cost-effective implementation of their programs, while maintaining and
enhancing capabilities for execution of our Civil and Military Program
missions. These customers rely on our extensive capabilities,
experience, and successful track record. The work is principally
technical oversight and management of engineering, environmental, and
construction contracts performed by private sector firms, and is fully
funded by the customers.
Currently, we provide reimbursable support for about 60 other
Federal agencies and several State and local governments. Total
reimbursement for such work in fiscal year 2004 is projected to be $722
million. The largest share--nearly $165 million--is expected from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for cleanup of wastes at numerous
sites under its Superfund program. Ninety percent of Reimbursed Program
funding is provided by other Federal agencies.
Staffing
Total staffing for the Civil Works Program for fiscal year 2004 is
24,800 FTEs, unchanged from fiscal year 2003. Of the total, 23,700 FTEs
are for the Direct Program and 1,100 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.
civil works program backlogs
Introduction
In the broadest sense, ``backlog'' is unfunded work. For the Civil
Works Program, it is defined more specifically, as the Federal share of
unfunded continuing and future work at some point in time, e.g., the
beginning of some funding period, such as fiscal year 2004. This
definition can be further variously qualified. Such continuing and
future work could include, for example, only work that is currently
programmed on projects now actively under physical construction, while
excluding such work where a project has not yet begun physical
construction or where physical construction has been suspended for more
than a year.
Construction Program
At the end of fiscal year 2004, it will cost more than $21 billion
to complete the construction projects of the Construction, General,
Program funded in the fiscal year 2004 budget, which represents
essentially no change from last year. The fiscal year 2004 budget
focuses resources on these projects as part of a comprehensive strategy
that would deliver benefits more quickly to the many Americans who rely
on worthy projects already underway, while increasing the net return
from the Nation's investment in the Civil Works program.
If one were to add the costs of other conceivable work on
construction projects not supported in the budget; on proposed projects
that are in the planning stage or undergoing pre-construction
engineering and design, and potential projects that already have
advocates but are not yet officially on the drawing board, the total
costs would mount quickly.
Maintenance Program
Water and related land resource management facilities of the Civil
Works Program are vast. As stewards of this infrastructure, we are
challenged to ensure that it continues to provide an appropriate level
of service to the nation. Sustaining such service, and the resultant
flows of benefits, through proper operation and maintenance projects,
is becoming increasingly more difficult because the costs of these
efforts are growing as our infrastructure ages.
To facilitate sensible budgeting, the maintenance backlog is
prioritized into two parts--high and lower priority work. The high
priority work includes maintenance would ensure attainment of
performance goals--specifically, providing continued levels of
service--in the budget year. Delay in accomplishment of this work could
result in more extensive and costly repairs or an increased risk of
falling short of performance goals. The lower priority work is less
urgent. It includes routine maintenance, major repairs, replacement of
outdated or worn facilities, management improvement studies, and
correction of environmental deficiencies.
At the end of fiscal year 2004, it will cost more than $1 billion
to complete the high priority maintenance work of the Operation and
Maintenance, General, Program funded in the fiscal year 2004 budget,
which represents an increase of $127 million over last year. More than
half of this work is for navigation facilities, which consists largely
of dredging and repair of structures such as locks, dams, breakwaters,
and jetties. The balance of the high priority backlog in the Operation
and Maintenance account is for flood damage reduction, recreation, and
environmental stewardship, and hydropower generation facilities. It
consists of work such as spillway repairs, seepage control, embankment
toe protection, access road and recreation facility repairs, and
environmental compliance actions.
In our effort to reduce the maintenance backlog, we are looking
closely at how we determine the appropriate level of service and are
searching for ways to reduce costs and thereby accomplish more with
available resources.
future water challenges
The Nation is facing important water and related land resources
management challenges with potentially serious implications. I would
like to offer the following observations and interpretations:
--As the world's climate changes, the prospect of changing hydrology
and water distribution and, in turn, environmental and
socioeconomic conditions, requires us to do a better job of
anticipating the need for changes in water and related land
resources management facilities, systems, and practices, and to
improve our methods for effecting such changes.
--As global markets expand, international commerce will demand more
efficient domestic ports and harbors, and improved vessel and
intermodal cargo handling facilities.
--With many properties and major populations located in the Nation's
floodplains, flooding will continue to be of concern. Moreover,
if current trends continue, flood-prone lands and natural flood
management systems will be compromised, and the threat of flood
damage will increase.
--Ongoing migration of the Nation's population to coastal plains and
coasts, and attendant property development, will increase risks
of loss from coastal storms and hurricanes.
--The ongoing migration to coastal plains and coasts will put
increasing pressure on coastal habitat, especially wetlands,
and other fish and wildlife ecosystems.
--Through Water Resources Development Acts of 1996 and 1999 (WRDA 96
and WRDA 99), the American public placed the health of natural
ecosystems in the forefront of the Corps of Engineers'
priorities. These acts, providing additional authorities to the
Corps for aquatic ecosystem restoration, wetlands management,
and nonstructural floodplain management.
--As the Nation's water and related land management infrastructure
ages, it must be rehabilitated, modified, replaced, or removed.
--As the Nation's population grows, there will be growing conflicts
among multiple interests within watersheds wanting to use
available water and related lands for diverse needs.
--The American public has a strong and growing interest in downsizing
the Federal Government and, in turn, its workforce. In light of
this, ongoing outsourcing and privatizing for accomplishment of
government work, including engineering, will increase. An
implication of this is that the nonfederal sector, including
state and private interests, will have to share greater
responsibility in water and related land resources management.
Policy for Complex Solutions
Our current and future water resources challenges are complex,
involving competing and conflicting demands on use of the Nation's
limited water and related land resources. They require, and should lead
to, significant further changes in our evolving national policy.
Development of such policy will require collaboration of many
government organizations, at all levels, working for the collective
good of the Nation.
civil works program transformation
Throughout its long and distinguished history, the Civil Works
Program has continually changed in response to then-relevant factors,
including advances in science, methods, and processes, changing public
values and priorities, and laws. For our program to remain a viable
contributor to national welfare, we must remain sensitive to such
factors, and continue to reorient, rescope, and refocus the program in
light of them. To that end, I'm committed to reforming the Civil Works
Program to meet the Nation's current water and related land resource
management needs.
Advising me in my effort to reform the Civil Works Program is the
newly formed Corps Reform Network, comprising all parties interested in
improving our program. On 9 February 2003 the Steering Committee for
the Corps Reform Network met at Corps headquarters in Washington, D.C.
to further the effort.
Let me tell you about some of the major steps we've already taken:
--Last year I issued the Corps' Environmental Operating Principles--a
clear commitment to accomplishing our work in environmentally
sustainable ways--with the express purpose of instilling the
principles as individual values in all members of the Corps
team.
--We've developed a rigorous training curriculum to improve our
planning capability. This will ensure that the best science is
applied in project development and that our planners will
integrate economics and ecology in developing Corps projects.
We're cooperating with major universities and have begun to
sponsor graduate education in water resources planning. We've
re-instituted our very successful Planning Associates Program.
Our Fiscal Year 2004 Budget for the Research and Development
(R&D) Program includes funding to improve economic models; one
of our principal efforts will be to develop the Navigation
Economic Technologies program, focusing on economic methods and
tools for navigation evaluations designed to address, update,
and improve specific models, and to address modeling issues
raised by the Corps and others. We need to make substantial
modeling advances to support decision making on proposed major
investments.
--We've redoubled our efforts to engage Federal, State, and local
agencies, stakeholders, and the public in meaningful dialogue.
--The Corps and ASA (CW) have allocated additional resources to
improve our internal review capability, and are considering
other measures to further improve such capability.
Let me also tell you about the major steps we'll be taking in the
months ahead:
--A report of the National Academy of Science (NAS) came out strongly
in support of an independent review process. We have proposed
$3 million in our fiscal year 2004 budget to initiate selected
independent reviews.
--We have proposed an ex-post-facto study of a sample of Corps
projects in order to determine how well the projects are
delivering anticipated benefits and to apply lessons learned to
improve our current planning process. The fiscal year 2004
Budget includes $2 million for this important effort.
--We'll be implementing every appropriate recommendation from the NAS
study on planning methodologies that Congress requested in WRDA
2000.
--We'll be working with the Administration and Congress to establish
one or more national centers of expertise, staffed with some of
our best engineers, scientists, and economists, that will be
responsible for studies of projects that are likely to be
costly, complex, or controversial.
We're committed to change that leads to open and transparent
modernization of the Civil Works Program for the 21st Century. To this
end, we're committed to continuing the dialogue with you and the Corps
Reform Network Steering Committee. Additionally, I have issued
communication principles to ensure open, effective, and timely two-way
communication with the entire community of water resources interests.
We know well that we must continue to listen and communicate
effectively in order to remain relevant.
need for a more robust business management system
Introduction
We have a reputation as the world's premier public engineering
organization, which we aim to keep. Our challenge, to this end, is to
``stay at the leading edge'' in service to the Army, Federal
Government, and Nation. The degree to which we will succeed will depend
largely upon improved business operations. To enable providing service
of highest relevance, we must improve our operations for more
expeditious and productive performance. In recognition of this, I have
been engaged, throughout my tenure as Chief, in an effort, initiated by
my predecessor, to reengineer the organizations and business operations
of the Corps of Engineers Civil Works and Military Programs. In that
effort we have selected the project management way of doing business,
or ``modus operandi,'' as the basis for developing a business
management system and attendant organizations and operations.
Accordingly, we have come to call our effort the Project Management
Business Process (PMBP) Initiative.
Project Management Business Process Initiative
Rationale for Selection
Our philosophy is that everything we do is a project, and every
employee is a member of some one or more project teams. Selection of
the project management modus operandi as the basis for developing a
business management system is consistent with this philosophy.
Furthermore, the Corps has used project management principles and
methods in accomplishment of much of its business throughout its
existence, providing seamless, flexible, efficient, and effective
service for its customers. Applying this highly successful model to all
of our business was eminently logical.
Purpose
In order that our 41 districts, 8 laboratories, 2 centers, and 8
divisions to work together as one United States Army Corps of Engineers
(UCSACE), we must establish common business practices that transcend
organizational and geographic boundaries. Accordingly, the purpose of
our PMBP Initiative is to develop, implement, and sustain a set of
modern, standardized business processes, based on industry's best
business practices, and an automated information system (AIS) to
facilitate use of the PMBP throughout USACE.
Implementation
The PMBP Initiative focuses on the business relationships between
and among people, including customers and stakeholders; process, and
communication. To create and sustain the PMBP we must examine and
define, to the PMBP system, how we do our work. In the process, we are
transforming ourselves into a customer-focused, team-based, learning
organization. Implementation of PMBP will be accomplished in four
steps, described below, under the aegis of subject matter experts from
all functions and echelons of the Corps.
Policy and Doctrine
We started this initiative with development of the Engineer
Regulation ER 5-1-11, entitled ``USACE Business Process,'' to set forth
policy and doctrine on how we will do business. It outlines goals,
objectives, and strategy for using teams to accomplish projects, with
customers as members of such teams. The regulation outlines seven major
imperatives which apply to all work of all the Corps, specifically,
that
--for any project there is one team and one project manager,
--plan for success and keep commitments,
--the project delivery team is responsible for project success,
--measure quality with the goals and expectations in the Project
Management Business Process (PMBP),
--manage all work with the PMBP Manual, using corporate automated
information systems,
--build effective communications into all activities, and
--use best practices and seek continuous improvement.
This regulation is the foundation for the PMBP system. It
emphasizes transformation of the Corps team into project-focused teams
sharing resources Corps-wide, as necessary, to deliver quality projects
on schedule.
Business Process Manual
The PMBP Manual provides guidance for achieving our policy and
doctrine. It establishes standard business processes for Corps-wide
application that:
--ensure consistency in program and project execution,
--focus on meeting customer expectations,
--set parameters for means to measure progress across the entire
organization, and
--enhance our ability to function both regionally and virtually with
efficient management of diverse resources.
These standard business processes are used to accomplish project
delivery and provide services. They enable sharing workforce resources
throughout the Corps to complete projects. If a project delivery team
needs someone with a particular skill to accomplish work on its
project, it can borrow service of whomever may be available with that
skill in any Corps office. The processes enable effective management of
projects in all lines of business in our Civil Works and Military
Programs. The processes are open for continuous improvement, giving all
team members opportunity to change them for the better. This will lead
to addressment of concerns of project managers, technical experts, and
customers to assure improvements in quality, project performance, and
customer satisfaction.
Automated Information System
Management of projects in accordance with the PMBP will be
facilitated through use of ``P2''--an automated information system.
This system, expanding upon and replacing PROMIS, will be used by the
Corps team for project delivery in all lines of work. It comprises
commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software configured with templates of
our standard business processes to assist project delivery teams in
managing their projects. The manufactures of this software--Oracle,
Primavera, and Project Partners--are assisting the Corps in configuring
the software to provide the templates.
P2 software employs state-of-the-art technology embracing program
and project management best-practices. It will become the principal
tool of Corps project and technical managers in collecting,
manipulating and storing program and project data. It will provide a
single source of all project-related information for all programs and
projects managed by field commands, and will interface with other
modernized systems to assure single-source data entry. It will enable
streamlined project and resource management, affording wider
availability and Web interfaces. And, finally, because of lower costs
to maintain and upgrade COTS software in future years, P2 will be more
cost-effective than PROMIS.
PMBP Training
We have developed a training curriculum to promote PBBP as our new
way of conducting business within the Corps and to guide individuals
and organizations in the progressive development of skills for using
PMBP. The curriculum promotes cultural change through individual self-
paced compact-disk courses followed by small group discussions on the
courses. Each individual covers the material and shares his/her
interpretation with others in facilitated small group discussions. This
process promotes common understanding of PMBP, its purpose, the roles
of individuals, and the means to develop projects though teamwork.
Summary
In summary, the PMBP system, including P2, is being implemented
Corps-wide to manage all Corps projects more efficiently and
effectively. Supporting policy and doctrine, definitions of our
business processes, and curriculum are in now in place Corps-wide. The
P2 part of the system will be completed and fully tested by the end of
fiscal year 2003; however, to avoid disruption of fiscal year 2003
financial closeout, we won't deploy P2 until mid-October. Once fully
deployed, the PMBP system will greatly enhance our ability to better
support the Army, other Federal agencies, and the Nation.
other thoughts
The National Welfare
Water resources management infrastructure has improved the quality
of our citizens' lives and provided a foundation for the economic
growth and development of this country. Our systems for navigation,
flood and storm damage reduction projects, and efforts to restore
aquatic ecosystems contribute to our national welfare. The stream of
benefits, realized as reduced transportation costs, avoided flood and
storm damages, and improvements in environmental value can be
considerable.
Research and Development
Civil Works Program research and development provides the Nation
with innovative engineering products, some of which can have
applications in both civil and military infrastructure spheres. By
creating products that improve the efficiency and competitiveness of
the Nation's engineering and construction industry and providing more
cost-effective ways to operate and maintain infrastructure, Civil Works
Program research and development contributes to the national economy.
The National Defense
The Civil Works Program is a valuable asset in support of the
National Security Strategy in that it provides a way to maintain a
trained engineering workforce, with world-class expertise, capable of
responding to a variety of situations across the spectrum of national
defense. This force is familiar with the Army culture and responsive to
the chain of command. Skills developed in managing large water and land
resource management projects transfer to most tactical engineering-
related operations. As a byproduct, Army Engineer officers assigned to
the Civil Works Program receive valuable training, in contracting and
managing large projects.
Additionally, the Civil Works Program has provided, and continues
to provide water and related land resources infrastructure critical to
national defense. Likewise, it has accomplished and continues to
accomplish research and development that support our homeland security
and war-fighting capability.
Homeland Security
The Corps is also a key member of the Federal Response Plan team
with proven experience in support of FEMA's response to both natural
disasters and events such as World Trade Center disaster (9/11).
Following 9/11 we completed 306 security reviews and assessments of
our inventory of locks, dams, hydropower projects and other facilities
to determine vulnerability to terrorist threat and potential
consequences of such an attack. We improved our security engineering
capability and identified and prioritized critical infrastructure.
Utilizing supplemental appropriations provided in fiscal year 2002
(Public Law 107-117, $139M), we have initiated the design and
implementation of security improvements on 85 of our current list of
306 critical facilities. We have also initiated security improvements
at administrative facilities to reduce risks to our employees.
One hundred four million dollars of the Operations and Maintenance
funds provided in this budget are targeted for facility security. We
will direct funding to those priority projects at which there is
potential for catastrophic consequences resulting in loss of lives or
economic consequences of greater than $200 million, and continue
security improvements at our administrative facilities. The
vulnerability assessments produce a recommended system of improvements
targeted to reduce risks associated with potential threats to
facilities. Elements of the proposed systems can include cameras,
lighting, fencing, structure hardening, and access control devices
designed to improve detection and delay at each facility.
Support to War-fighting Efforts
When the Army goes to war, personnel of the Civil Works Program
provide vital information to the battlefield. Their knowledge of beach
dynamics helps determine the sites for shore landings. Their expertise
in soil mechanics determines the best routes for armored vehicles.
Their experience in work on winter navigation helps the Army negotiate
frozen rivers. And commanders at all levels make use of topographic
products and satellite based navigation systems developed by the Corps.
conclusion
The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget for the Civil Works Program
is a good one. However, we must continue to find ways to reduce our
costs and shift more of those remaining to direct beneficiaries of our
services. Meanwhile, we will do our very best to execute the Civil
Works Program for maximum benefit to the Nation.
Under both our Civil Works and Military Programs, we are committed
to staying at the leading edge in service to the Nation. In support of
that, we are working with others to transform our Civil Works Program.
We're committed to change that leads to open and transparent
modernization of the Civil Works Program for the 21st Century. We also
are strengthening our business management capability for best
performance of both programs Corp-wide.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. This
concludes my statement.
______
Prepared Statement of Major General Robert H. Griffin
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to
testify before you as Director of Civil Works.
I would like to note some highlights of the fiscal year 2004 budget
for Remaining Items, which include the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
nationwide programs and activities. These include the General Expenses
appropriation, which provides for executive direction and management of
the Civil Works program at the Corps Headquarters and the Division
Offices.
activities under the general investigations appropriation
Special Studies
National Shoreline.--The budget includes the special study for
fiscal year 2004. The National Shoreline study is an interagency effort
to determine the extent and cause of shoreline erosion on all the
coasts of the United States and to assess the economic and
environmental impacts of that erosion. The study will analyze the
appropriate levels of Federal and non-Federal participation and the
advisability of using a systems approach to sediment management for
linking the management of all projects in the coastal zone so as to
conserve and efficiently manage the flow of sediment within littoral
systems.
Ex Post Facto.--The budget also includes the special study effort
for fiscal year 2004, Ex Post Facto Benefit-Cost Studies of 15 to 25
completed projects. The purpose of this study is to estimate benefit to
cost ratios for projects as they were built and as the actual project
outputs and services were delivered.
Independent Review.--The activities of this program are to design
and implement a review process that assures the proper level of review
in accordance with the scope and complexity of the studies; to identify
and secure a pool of highly qualified experts in each area of analysis
to conduct the reviews; to facilitate the review; and to facilitate the
resolution of issues and concerns identified during the review process.
Coordination with Other Federal Agencies, States, and Non-Federal
Interests
The budget for Coordination with Other Federal Agencies, States,
and Non-Federal Interests is $10.9 million. Following is a comparison
of the fiscal year 2003 appropriation and the fiscal year 2004 budget
for activities under this program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Activity 2004 Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning Assistance to States........................... $6,000,000
Special Investigations.................................. 2,200,000
Gulf of Mexico Program.................................. 100,000
Chesapeake Bay Program.................................. 100,000
Pacific Northwest Forest Case Study..................... 100,000
Interagency Water Resources Development................. 1,100,000
Interagency and International Support................... 150,000
Inventory of Dams....................................... 300,000
National Estuary Program................................ 100,000
North American Waterfowl Management Plan................ 100,000
Estuary Habitat Restoration Program..................... 100,000
Coordination with Other Water Resources................. 300,000
CALFED.................................................. 100,000
Lake Tahoe.............................................. 100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estuary Programs.--The budget is $100,000 to continue cooperation
with Federal and State agencies in the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's National Estuary Program. In addition, the budget is $100,000
for the Estuary Habitat Restoration Program. Funds for this initiative
would be utilized to support the interagency council established in the
Estuary Restoration Act of 2000. The council has responsibilities to
develop a national strategy for restoration of estuary habitat and
soliciting, reviewing and evaluating project proposals.
Planning Assistance to States.--The budget of $6 million is a major
portion of the Coordination with Other Federal Agencies, States, and
Non-Federal Interests program. The fiscal year 2004 budget would enable
the Corps to provide much needed planning and technical assistance for
a variety of water resource efforts to States, territories, and
Federally recognized Indian Tribes. The assistance is in the form of 50
percent Federal, 50 percent non-Federal cost-shared reconnaissance
level studies which provide information and guidance to help the non-
Federal sponsors become more active and effective working partners with
the Federal government in resolving water resource problems. The
studies may address a wide variety of water resource issues including
environmental conservation/restoration, wetlands evaluation, flood
damage reduction, coastal zone management, and dam safety. In fiscal
year 2001, 160 studies were performed for 43 States, as well as seven
studies for Federally-recognized Indian tribes.
Special Investigations.--Another major portion of the fiscal year
2004 budget is $2.2 million for Special Investigations. This program
provides for the increasing interests in Corps capabilities and the
continued growth in requests for investigations of nominal scope. The
activities of this program include: special investigations and reports
of nominal scope prepared pursuant to Congressional and other requests
from outside the Corps of Engineers for information relative to
projects or activities which have no funds; review of reports and
environmental impact statements of other agencies; and review of
applications referred to us by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
for permits or licenses for non-Federal hydropower developments at, or
affecting, Corps water resource projects.
Interagency Water Resources Development.--The budget is $1.1
million to conduct district activities, not otherwise funded, which
require coordination effort with non-Federal interests. These
activities include items such as meeting with City, County, and State
officials to help solve water resources problems or to determine
whether Corps programs are available and may be used to address the
problems. This budget also provides $200,000 for two American Heritage
River Navigators who are supported by the Corps of Engineers. These
River Navigators provide direct support to the Community Partners for
the New River, which flows through NC, VA, and WV; and for the Upper
Mississippi River above St. Louis, MO.
Gulf of Mexico Program.--The budget of $100,000 allows the Corps to
continue involvement in this U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)-initiated program, which blends programs and resources of
Federal, State, and local governments with the resources and
commitments of business, industry, citizens groups and academia. The
Gulf of Mexico Program is formulating and implementing creative
solutions to economic and environmental issues with Gulf-wide and
national implications. Hypoxia/nutrient enrichment and nonindigenous
species are focus areas, which are linked to authorized Corps missions
in the five-State program area.
Chesapeake Bay Program.--The budget of $100,000 enables the Corps
to continue participation in the EPA-initiated interagency program for
the protection and restoration of the bay's natural resources. These
natural resources have tremendous environmental and economic
significance to the northeast region and to the Nation.
Pacific Northwest Forest Case Study.--The budget of $100,000 is for
the Corps to continue participation in the interagency program
initiated by the White House's Council of Environmental Quality for
ecosystem management of the public lands in the Pacific Northwest
within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl.
Interagency and International Support.--The $150,000 budget allows
the Corps of Engineers to participate with other Federal agencies and
international organizations to address problems of national
significance to the United States. The Corps of Engineers has widely
recognized expertise and experience in water resources, infrastructure
planning and development, and environmental protection and restoration.
In fiscal year 2002 and 2003, program funding included support to the
State Department on Middle East and African infrastructure and water
issues, the World Water Council, and the National Park Service and
Environmental Protection Agency on homeland security.
Inventory of Dams.--The $300,000 budget is for the continued
maintenance and publication of the National Dam Inventory. This ongoing
inventory maintenance and publishing effort is a coordinated effort
involving data for the Federal and non-Federal Dam Safety community in
cooperation with the Interagency Committee of Dam Safety. This
inventory is now required for use by the Director of Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Dam Safety Review Board in
the allocation of dam safety program assistance funds to the various
States.
CALFED.--The budget of $100,000 allows the Corps to continue to
play a role in the CALFED Bay-Delta process in fiscal year 2004. The
CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a three-phased solution process for the
development of a long-term comprehensive plan that will restore
ecological health and improve water management for beneficial uses of
the Bay-Delta system. This program is a joint effort between local land
management agencies, the State of California, and the Federal
Government.
Lake Tahoe.--The budget of $100,000 is to allow the Corps to
continue the coordination efforts to protect the natural, recreational
and ecological resources in the Lake Tahoe Region associated with the
Presidential Executive Order ``Federal Actions in the Lake Tahoe
Region''.
The budget is $300,000 for Coordination with Other Water Resource
Agencies, including the Department of Agriculture and Regional Planning
Commissions and Committees, and $100,000 to continue cooperation with
Federal and State agencies and non-Federal interests in support of the
North America Waterfowl Management Plan administered by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Collection and Study of Basic Data
The fiscal year 2004 budget for Collection and Study of Basic Data
activities is $13.25 million. Following is a comparison of the fiscal
year 2003 appropriation and the fiscal year 2004 budget for activities
under this program:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Activity 2004 Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flood Plain Management Services......................... $7,500,000
Stream Gaging (U.S. Geological Survey).................. 500,000
Precipitation Studies (National Weather Service)........ 300,000
International Water Studies............................. 400,000
Hydrologic Studies...................................... 400,000
Scientific and Technical Information Centers............ 100,000
Coastal Field Data Collection........................... 2,500,000
Transportation Systems.................................. 500,000
Environmental Data Studies.............................. 100,000
Remote Sensing/Geographic Information System Support.... 200,000
Automated Information System Support--Tri-Service CADD/ 450,000
GIS Technology Center..................................
Flood Damage Data....................................... 300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flood Plain Management Services.--The largest portion of the
Collection and Study of Basic Data program fiscal year 2004 budget is
$7.5 million for the Flood Plain Management Services program. This
program continues to be one of the most prevalent non-project services
that the Corps provides for Federally recognized Indian Tribes, States,
and local governments. By working together with State, local, and
tribal land management decision makers, we are able to alert them to
various flood hazards, promote prudent use of the flood plains, and
help mitigate future losses to life and property. The active
involvement of land management decision makers is the key to sound
flood plain management in the United States. Significant flood events
over the past several years have raised public awareness and increased
the demand for information and assistance for mitigating flood losses.
The funding will provide flood plain management services to State,
regional, local governments, Indian Tribes, and other non-Federal
public agencies who, in turn, invest their own funds to avoid flood
hazards and make good use of the flood plains. This not only mitigates
future losses to life and property but also reduces the need for costly
Federal flood control works as well as the demand for other Federal,
State, and local services such as providing major disaster assistance
before, during, and after floods. Under this program, we also
participate with the FEMA, the National Weather Service, and local
governments in conducting critical pre-disaster hurricane evacuation
and preparedness studies for mobilizing local community responsiveness
to natural disasters in high hazard coastal areas of States and
counties along the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.
Coastal Field Data Collection.--The fiscal year 2004 budget for
this activity is $2.5 million to systematically acquire and assemble
long-term baseline data for coastal regions. These data are necessary
for adequate assessment of technical, economic, and environmental
feasibility for a variety of Corps projects, including projects for
coastal navigation, storm damage reduction, and mitigation of harbor
entrance impacts on adjacent shores. Cost-effective mission
accomplishment requires long-term and system/regional data that
encompass winds, waves, currents, water levels, bottom configuration,
sediment characteristics, and geomorphology. With 800 navigation
projects to maintain and repair (25 percent are more than 50 years
old), the costs attributable to having no data or poor data would be
significant. Data to be collected either are unavailable in existing
archives, are of uncertain or poor quality, or are too sparsely
distributed temporally and/or spatially to have statistical value. The
required data are regional in nature and not properly chargeable to
authorized projects. It also takes many years of data to establish a
statistically significant baseline to use in project studies. The value
of program data and project-related data is maximized through the use
of Corps-wide standards, routine updating of available data,
utilization of a centralized data library on the world wide web, and
dissemination over the Internet.
Automated Information System Support--Tri-Service CADD/GIS
Technology Center.--The fiscal year 2004 budget of $450,000 for the
Tri-Service CADD/GIS Technology Center represents the Civil Works share
of the total $3.341 million required to operate and maintain this
important center of expertise. The bulk of the remainder of the total
requirement is provided by OMA, the Navy, the Air Force, and the
Marines, in accordance with a 1992 agreement, establishing a Tri-
Service center in order to minimize duplication of effort of the
services. All phases of Corps work, including planning, real estate,
design, construction, operations, maintenance and readiness benefit
from CADD/GIS technologies.
Scientific and Technical Information Centers.--Public Law 99-802,
Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, requires technology transfer
from Federal agencies to the private sector. The fiscal year 2004
budget will be utilized to acquire, examine, evaluate, summarize, and
disseminate newly published scientific and technical information
generated within the Corps and other activities within the United
States and abroad.
Flood Damage Data Collection.--The fiscal year 2004 budget includes
$300,000 to continue a program to improve the technical accuracy and
quality of flood damage data including the relationship of flood
characteristics to property damage. This program facilitates the timely
collection of data when a damaging event occurs and the development of
a national flood damage database to support local, State and Federal
studies and research. Additionally, the program currently is developing
generic flood damage and property valuation relationships that could be
used Corps-wide. This will result in shorter, less-costly flood damage
reduction studies.
Research and Development
The fiscal year 2004 budget for Research and Development (R&D)
under General Investigations is $22 million. The Civil Works R&D
program is formulated to directly support the established business
programs and strategic directions of the Civil Works Program including:
Flood Damage Reduction, Inland and Coastal Navigation, Environment
Restoration, Hydropower, Emergency Management, Water Supply and
Regulatory. The Civil Works R&D requirements are primarily user driven
and the effort is essentially a problem-solving process by which the
Corps systematically examines new ideas, approaches, and techniques,
with a view toward improving the efficiency of its planning, design,
construction, operations and maintenance activities.
Results of this R&D effort are directly incorporated into practice
within the Civil Works Program through the Civil Works Guidance
Maintenance Program involving revisions or additions to Engineer
Regulations, Engineer Manuals, Technical Guidance Manuals, Engineer
Technical Letters, or Guide Specifications. Numerous other means of
technology transfer are also used such as formal training courses,
workshops, INTERNET and technical publications. The Corps Civil Works
R&D Program continues to provide practical end products and a high
return on investment for the Corps and the Nation.
In order to most effectively use the limited R&D resources and to
avoid unnecessary duplication of research effort, the Civil Works R&D
Program maintains aggressive external technical exchange and technology
transfer programs with other Federal agencies and State and local
governments including the TVA, Bureau of Reclamation, Bonneville Power
Administration, Western Power Administration, the Soil Conservation
Service, EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, USGS, DOT, the Navy.
The Corps also participates extensively with the Transportation
Research Board, the Water Science and Technology Board, the National
Research Council, the National Oceanographic Partnership Program, and
the Federal Acid Mine Drainage Technology Institution in coordinating
and leveraging research activities.
The strategic emphases of the proposed fiscal year 2004 GI R&D
program include:
--Regional Sediment Management (RSM)
--Systems-Wide Modeling, Assessment & Restoration Technologies
(SMART)
--Technologies and Operational Innovations for Urban Watershed
Networks (TOWNS)
--Common Delivery Framework (CDF)
--Navigation Economic Technologies (NETS)
Improved sediment management at navigation and flood damage
reduction projects offers tremendous potential for future project cost
reduction. Research in this area is focused on sedimentation prediction
and control techniques, optimizing channel depths and dimensions
including more cost-effective deep-draft channel design criteria to
safely and efficiently accommodate future international shipping
requirements, reduced dredging costs, increased navigation channel
safety and reliability, and increased options and opportunities for
beneficial uses of dredged sediment. Close coordination will be
essential between this research area and the SMART research program
discussed below.
The Systems-Wide Modeling, Assessment & Restoration Technologies
(SMART) Research Program addresses the Corps water resources needs at
the system/watershed level. The objective of this research effort is to
design state-of-the-science, user-oriented methods and procedures to
restore and manage natural resources with application toward the total
ecosystem/watershed. Research is also focused on environmental
restoration technologies for a wide range of water resources management
needs. The focus of this research enables the Corps to meet the legal
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), while supporting critical technology
needs of the major civil works business programs of Environmental
Restoration, Navigation, and Flood Damage Reduction.
The Technologies and Operational Innovations for Urban Watershed
Networks (TOWNS) research will include the following major thrust
areas: integrated decision support tools and forecasting methodologies
for use in flood damage reduction that incorporate changing urban
settings, climate changes and extreme events; technologies for
sustainable urban flood damage reduction (structural and non-
structural); real-time surveys and system monitoring for improved
condition assessment; and expedient and cost-effective flood fighting
and related emergency operations.
The objective of the Common Delivery Framework (CDF) research is to
develop a new framework approach to managing software guidance,
capabilities and resources for model/application developers in a
consistent and corporate context that enables the Corps to reduce costs
for developing and applying science and technology (S&T) products. The
initial work will investigate geospatial S&T development in the areas
of information security, metadata, interoperability, enterprise GIS,
visualization, and informatics.
The objective of the Navigation Economic Technologies (NETS)
research program is to enhance and standardize evaluation tools and
methods for shallow and deep draft navigation project life-cycle
analysis. The NETS R&D program will develop peer-reviewed procedures
and tools that will be used throughout the Corps by concentrating on
the following areas: (a) expanded and improved capabilities to forecast
navigation traffic in ports and on waterways; (b) improved tools and
approaches to evaluate and perform calculations of transportation
economic benefits and costs; (c) integration of tools and approaches
for systems evaluation and management; (d) improved capabilities to
integrate economic, environmental, and other factors for navigation
system investment and management; (e) procedures for integrating
uncertain variables within the economic evaluation of navigation; (f)
extension of benefit evaluation to include congestion, air quality and
other externalities; and (g) improved methods and data support for all
modes of transportation of commodities from production site to ultimate
consumption.
Research and Development Cross-Cut.--The conference report, House
Report number 102-177, accompanying the fiscal year 1992 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act stated the conferees' concern with
the trend of spreading research related programs throughout several
appropriation accounts in the Civil Works budget, and directed the
Corps to work with the committees to address this issue. In response to
this interest by the committees, the following table has been developed
to provide a consolidated display of all Civil Works research and
development activities for which there is funding in the fiscal year
2004 budget.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Account and Activity 2004 Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS:
Research and Development............................ $22,000,000
CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL:
Aquatic Plant Control............................... 3,000,000
Shoreline Erosion Control Development and 6,000,000
Demonstration Program..............................
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, GENERAL:
Coastal Inlet Research.............................. 2,750,000
Dredging Operations & Environmental Research........ 6,755,000
Aquatic Nuisance Control Research (formerly Zebra 725,000
Mussel Control)....................................
---------------
GRAND TOTAL....................................... 35,230,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
activities under the construction, general appropriation
Continuing Authorities
The fiscal year 2004 budget for the nine Continuing Authorities
funded under Construction, General is $64.5 million. This is a decrease
of $13.5 million from the fiscal year 2003 budget. The budget covers
funding of planning, design, and construction to continue ongoing
projects that provide solutions to flood control and emergency
streambank erosion problems under the Section 205 and Section 14
programs, navigation problems under the Section 107 program, shoreline
damage problems under the Section 103 and Section 111 programs,
clearing and snagging problems under the Section 208 program, and
environmental problems under Sections 204/207/933. Under our Continuing
Authorities Program, projects are accomplished expeditiously and result
in a high level of customer satisfaction. Continuing Authorities
projects continue to be an important segment of our total water
resources infrastructure investment program. No funds are requested for
new starts.
Inland Waterways Users Board
Funds are budgeted for fiscal year 2004 in the amount of $230,000
for the Inland Waterways Users Board activity. Section 302 of WRDA 86
created this 11-member advisory board of inland waterway users and
shippers to make recommendations to the Secretary of the Army and the
Congress regarding construction and rehabilitation priorities and
spending levels for commercial waterway improvements. The Board members
were initially appointed in late Spring of 1987. The Board has held 43
meetings since it was created. The Board's recommendations are a
valuable addition to our program and budget development process. We
appreciate the contribution of the Board's chairman and its members to
the efficient management and modernization of our inland waterways. We
believe the Board provides an important advisory function to both the
Secretary of the Army and the Congress.
Shoreline Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program
The fiscal year 2004 budget includes $6,000,000 to plan, design,
construct, and monitor projects to demonstrate and evaluate new
shoreline protection technologies. To date, over $10,000,000 has been
used to develop program goals, establish criteria for selecting
technologies and techniques to be tested, select sites and initiate
construction of the first demonstration site at Cape May Point, New
Jersey. The techniques developed under this program are expected to
yield up to $150,000,000 of savings in future budgets by reducing
erosion and/or lengthening the time between renourishments.
Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program
Funds are budgeted for fiscal year 2004 in the amount of $8 million
to continue ongoing Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability projects that were
approved prior to fiscal year 2004. This is an increase of $3 million
from the fiscal year 2003 budget. The Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability
Correction Program provides for modification of completed Corps of
Engineers dam projects. While no Corps dams are in imminent danger of
failure, some may have a higher dam-safety risk than originally
anticipated based on new data or the likelihood of extremely large
floods and seismic events. Seepage problems at Corps' dams are usually
related to increased reservoir levels above the previous pool of record
at a project. Static instability generally involves movement that
starts at a slow rate and could result in massive displacement of large
volumes of material if not corrected. Dam modification work is
proceeding under existing authorities on projects where cost-effective
risk reduction measures have been identified and approved.
Aquatic Plant Control Program
The fiscal year 2004 budget includes funds in the amount of $3
million for the Aquatic Plant Control Program authorized by Section 104
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1958, as amended. This is the same as
the fiscal year 2003 budget. These funds will be used to continue
research efforts for aquatic plant control technologies to support
operation and maintenance of Corps Water Resources projects. Primary
research efforts are focused on the non-indigenous submersed species,
hydrilla and Eurasian watermilfoil, with emphasis on development of
biological control agents.
Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program
Funds in the amount of $7 million are budgeted for fiscal year 2004
for ongoing projects in the Dredged Material Disposal Facilities
Program. This is a decrease of $2 million from the fiscal year 2003
budget. Section 101 of WRDA 86, as amended by Section 201 of WRDA 96,
established consistent cost sharing for construction of dredged
material disposal facilities associated with Federal navigation
projects, including disposal facilities for Federal project
maintenance. These funds will be used for the Federal share of
construction of applicable dredged material disposal facilities
required for maintenance of existing projects or fee payments to
private entities for the use of privately owned dredged material
disposal facilities if such a facility is the least cost alternative to
dispose of dredged material. All Federal costs for dredged material
disposal facilities associated with project maintenance will be
financed from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Employees' Compensation
The fiscal year 2004 budget includes $19.13 million for transfer to
the Department of Labor to repay the Employees' Compensation Fund for
costs charged during the period July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2002 and
for investigation of fraudulent claims for workers compensation
benefits. This is a decrease from the fiscal year 2003 budget. The
transfer to the Department of Labor is for payment of benefits and
claims due to injury or death of persons under the jurisdiction of the
Corps of Engineers civil functions.
activities under the operation and maintenance, general (o&m)
appropriation
Aquatic Nuisance Control Research (Formerly Zebra Mussel Research
Program)
The Corps Fiscal Year 2004 Operation and Maintenance, General,
appropriation budget includes $725,000 for the Aquatic Nuisance Control
Research Program which is a redefinition of the previously funded Zebra
Mussel Research Program (ZMRP). The program now addresses all invasive
species except for aquatic plants. Invasive species cost the public
over $137 billion annually. Authorized by the Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-646) this
effort includes the only Federally funded R&D program directed at
control of zebra mussels and their effects on public facilities. The
development of strategies to apply control methods involves engineering
design, operations, and maintenance of facilities and structures.
Control strategies are being developed for (a) navigation structures;
(b) hydropower and other utilities; (c) vessels and dredges; and (d)
water treatment, irrigation, and other control structures.
Proposed activities for fiscal year 2004 include expansion of as
many as possible of the technologies developed under the ZMRP to
address all invasive species. This will include continued research
efforts to examine a number of different technologies other than pulse
power to eradicate zebra mussels from structures and research on new
coatings to evaluate their ability to stop the settlement of zebra
mussels and other invasive species on various surfaces. Research
efforts will examine how current ballast water regulations can be
modified to reduce the potential for introductions of aquatic nuisance
species and the Aquatic Nuisance Species Information System will be
expanded into a WEB-based system, and invasive species engineering
guides will be incorporated into the system. The mechanisms that allow
invasive species to disperse through the Nation's waterways will
continue to be examined or determined. Investigations will also be
conducted to identify proactive procedures that will assist in limiting
new distributions. Scientists will visit projects where mosquitoes are
a problem to develop abatement programs and meet with local community
representatives to discus control technologies.
In cooperation with State and Federal agencies, scientists will
investigate methods to control invasion and of snakehead fish in Corps
Reservoirs and eradication methods once they are there. In addition, a
comprehensive database will be developed on zebra mussel densities,
molluscivore (fish that consume mussels) densities and growth, water
quality, and other pertinent habitat attributes. Information from
database will be used to construct models to predict the effects of
molluscivores on zebra mussel infestations and subsequent changes in
habitat quality. These models will quantify the beneficial aspects of
predation on zebra mussels, assist in impact prediction, and aid in
allocation of control efforts, and the formulation of control
strategies.
Automated Budget System
The Civil Works Operation and Maintenance Automated Budget System
(ABS), is an automated system used to enable Districts and Divisions to
prepare, review and submit their Operations And Maintenance programs
consistent with policy guidelines and priorities. The program is
continuously evaluated for effectiveness to identify areas that require
change in order to meet the needs of the overall Civil Works Operations
and Maintenance program. It provides extraction of standard reports to
support Division and Headquarters review and development of the Civil
Works O&M program recommendation. ABS reports provide cost breakouts by
business process, benefit codes, States, field units, navigation fee
codes, joint cost percentages and numerous other groupings to support
analysis, distribution, updates and performance monitoring. This system
is available to all managers at all Corps of Engineer levels who have
Operation and Maintenance management responsibilities. The fiscal year
2004 Budget includes $285,000 for this item.
Coastal Inlets Research Program
The fiscal year 2004 budget includes $2.75 million to fund the
Coastal Inlets Research Program to increase Corps capabilities to cost-
effectively design and maintain the over 150 inlet projects, which
comprise the bulk of coastal O&M expenditures. Because of their complex
nature, the behavior of inlets is poorly understood. This has resulted
in the Corps spending a large portion of its O&M allocations to
maintain inlet projects. The Coastal Inlets Research Program studies
functional aspects of inlets such as their short- and long-term
behavior and their response to waves, tides, currents, and engineering
modifications, given their regional geologic and oceanographic setting.
As inlet behavior and the consequences of navigation projects are
becoming better understood, sophisticated tools for management of
inlets for navigation projects, such as models and empirical
relationships, are becoming available. These new tools are leading to
more efficient, cost-effective designs that have been shown to reduce
O&M requirements and, consequently, costs.
With our fiscal year 2004 allocations for this program we will
begin a major R&D effort to implement state-of-the art predictive
formulas for sediment transport under waves and currents based on
models developed previously in this program; collect data and validate
the Inlet Modeling System, scour model, and morphology change models at
deep-draft channels and collect data and model channel and bypassing
processes at sites of opportunity in collaboration with Corps
Districts; perform physical and numerical modeling studies on
innovative jetty and channel-control designs to reduce dredging costs,
improve bypassing, and improve navigation reliability at inlet entrance
channels; begin creation of web-based Navigation Channel Resource
Center to house data on inlet channel surveys, performance, and
dredging which will serve as a resource for all analytical work in the
Coastal Inlets Research Program and provide the Corps with a central
location for channel data; continue adding to the inlets database
encompassing all Federally maintained and major non-Federal inlets;
extend the long-term morphology modeling system newly developed in the
Coastal Inlets Research Program to include the adjacent beaches,
navigation channel, and flood shoal together with the ebb shoal and
validate and release the model to the public; acquire field data at
inlet jetties to understand the beach and jetty interaction through rip
currents, developing a quantitative predictive method for rip current
sediment transport and; develop educational materials about coastal
processes, inlet processes, and dredging for the public and schools at
all levels.
Cultural Resources (NAGPRA/Curation)
The fiscal year 2004 budget includes $1.545 million to fund the
Cultural Resources (NAGPRA/Curation) Program. Enacted on 16 November
1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA) is a complex act that addresses the recovery, treatment, and
repatriation of Native American and Native Hawaiian cultural items by
Federal agencies and museums. As defined by the Act, cultural items are
human remains, associated funerary objects, unassociated funerary
objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. In fiscal
year 1994, the Corps of Engineers began the process of inventorying
human remains and associated funerary objects and completing summaries
as mandated by the legislation. In addition, the Corps is responsible
for curation of cultural resource materials collected from its flood
control projects. These collections are extensive and are located at a
variety of curation facilities across the Nation. The costs of the
program are to accomplish NAGPRA work and to fund centralized curation
support to the districts. Curation of these materials, which have the
largest volume among all Federal agencies responsible for this
activity, is required by a number of public laws.
In fiscal year 2004 the Corps will continue the process of
inventorying Native American and Native Hawaiian human remains and
associated funerary objects and complete summaries of unassociated
funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony as
mandated by the legislation. Information will be made available to
interested individuals and groups through notices in the Federal
Register. Districts will continue to be engaged in formal consultation
with tribes and organizations for the legislated purpose of
repatriating cultural objects for which there are legitimate claims. We
will continue in the pivotal role of assisting in the development and
implementation of an agency-wide, long-term plan for the curation of
Corps archeological collections (heritage assets). We will continue to
fulfill our charter activities to include an inventory of all DOD and
Corps heritage assets and participate in the development of standards
and guidelines for archeological collection rehabilitation. Work will
continue on the development and implementation of final guidelines and
procedures for field collection of archeological materials and the
long-term treatment of those collections. Finally, leadership will be
provided in the development of a training curriculum on the treatment
of heritage assets and working in consultation with all stakeholders,
take initial steps to make this training available to appropriate
managers and decision makers.
Dredge Wheeler Ready Reserve
The fiscal year 2004 budget includes $8 million to cover the cost
of keeping the dredge WHEELER fully operational in fiscal year 2003
while in Ready Reserve status in accordance with Section 237 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (WRDA 96). Section 237 contains
a provision requiring the Corps hopper dredge to be placed in a ready
reserve status. The section requires that no individual project funds
may be used to fund the dredge in its ready reserve status unless the
dredge is specifically used in conjunction with a project. In fiscal
year 1998, the WHEELER was placed in a ready reserve status as required
by WRDA 96. The hopper dredge WHEELER, in a ready reserve status, is
required to be able to perform emergency dredging work, but may not be
assigned any scheduled hopper dredging work. The dredge may be placed
in an active status in order to perform work that private industry
fails to submit a responsive or responsible bid for advertised
dredging, or where industry has failed to perform under an existing
contract. In light of this criteria, the WHEELER is being kept at the
dock, with sufficient crew to respond to any unforeseen requirement
within 72 hours, and be able to work for approximately 3 weeks. The
dredge is being maintained in a fully operational state and
periodically will perform routine dredging operations to test equipment
and keep the crew trained and prepared. In all but one year since put
into ready reserve, the WHEELER was called out of ready reserve status
to perform urgent dredging to assist industry dredges in restoring
navigation channels and waterways.
Dredging Data and Lock Performance Monitoring System
The Dredging Data and Lock Performance Monitoring System budget of
$1.18 million supports a continuing nationwide collection and analysis
program of dredging data essential for the Corps efficient and
effective management of the Nation's deep and shallow draft navigation
projects. These efforts are necessary to provide data for efficient
management of Congressionally authorized navigation projects, as well
as to respond to specific public laws, including Public Law 96-269
(Minimum Dredge Fleet) and Public Law 100-656 (Small Business Set-
Aside).
Data include dredging costs and quantities, equipment used, and
disposal site documentation. This data facilitates nationwide and
regional analysis and management for Corps performed and contracted
dredging for both channel deepening and maintenance categories of work.
The program also supports assessments on the technological changes of
vessels within the world fleet, which is necessary for estimating the
Nation's future maintenance dredging requirements. Up-to-date
information on world fleets, commodity flows, vessel routing through
Corps channels and assessment of underkeel clearances all contribute to
the identification of U.S. channels with the greatest safety and
piloting problems. The lock monitoring provides managers at 230 lock
sites and their regional and national offices with nationally
consistent operational and management data. Collectively, these data
systems support continuing evaluation of local conditions and
performance measures throughout the navigation system and, in-turn,
facilitate nationwide control and critical management decisions. These
data are critical for effectively monitoring and executing the overall
navigation program.
Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program (DOER)
The fiscal year 2004 budget includes $6.755 million for the
Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program (DOER). The DOER
program is an extremely important effort that combines engineering,
operational and environmental components of waterway management to
address issues impacting our ability to maintain a safe, reliable,
environmentally sustainable, and economically efficient navigation
system. The DOER Program is an integral and highly beneficial component
of the Corps navigation dredging and environmental protection missions.
Dredging and disposal must be accomplished within a climate of
increased dredging workload, fewer placement sites, environmental
constraints, and decreasing fiscal and manpower resources. Balancing
environmental protection with critical economic needs while
accomplishing dredging activities is a major challenge. Major features
of DOER include, innovative technologies research, environmental
resource protection, dredged material management, and (4) risk
research.
As part of these features in fiscal year 2004, the DOER program
will: (1) Transfer technology to a wide body of stakeholders that
addresses operational, economic, and environmental components of the
Corps dredging program in full coordination and cooperation with other
appropriate agencies and offices such as: Environmental Protection
Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) and State
natural resource managers. Aggressive technology transfer through
multiple media and rapid technology application ensures that research
products are integrated into decision making at Corps projects and made
available to port authorities and other navigation project
stakeholders.; (2) Identify, evaluate and develop innovative tools,
databases and software, equipment, and technology to improve the
design, operation, and management of Corps maintained navigation
projects. It will address problematic environmental resource issues,
such as environmental windows or threatened and endangered species,
using a combination of innovative engineering and scientific
approaches; (3) Develop dredged material handling, transport, and
placement options which are operationally efficient, environmentally
sound and cost effective and; (4) Apply a comparative risk-based
framework in the assessment and management of contaminated dredged
material and to develop logical decision support tools that quantify
uncertainty and facilitate efficient decision making.
Dredging Operations Technical Support (DOTS) Program
The fiscal year 2004 budget includes $1.545 million for
continuation of the Dredging Operations Technical Support (DOTS)
Program. The DOTS program fosters the one-door-to-the-Corps concept
through providing comprehensive and interdisciplinary technology
transfer, technology application, and necessary engineering,
operational and environmental training of all stakeholders for all
Corps navigation dredging projects. DOTS houses the Corps' technology
and information database and is managed from a centralized program to
maximize cost effectiveness and implement National policies, laws, and
complex technical requirements on a consistent basis. The DOTS is fully
accessible through the Internet and has received thousands of visits
from navigation stakeholders. The DOTS Program is a storehouse focusing
on application of state-of-the-art technology and research results to
field problems. Emerging scientific approaches sometimes cause
uncertainty in administration of the Corps navigation dredging program.
As such, DOTS provides a consistent technology base and ready response,
and training on technical issues through a readily accessible
technology transfer capability and generic technology application to
other projects with similar problems. Short-term work efforts to solve
generic Corps-wide technical problems for maintaining navigable
waterways are major features of the DOTS Program. Technology transfer
of new and emerging techniques for application at Corps and stakeholder
navigation maintenance projects is an important DOTS activity. In
response to new research results and continuing staff reductions the
DOTS program will continue to expand to provide technology transfer to
all O&M navigation projects and be fully responsive to stakeholder
needs.
Special emphasis is placed on transfer of technology developed by
the Corps and others to include proven international technology that
deal with maintenance and management of navigation structures and
navigable waterways. Typical technology transfer and training includes
management of contaminated dredged material, application of innovative
risk-based technologies to contaminated dredged material, maintenance
of coastal inlets and adjacent shorelines, shoreline stabilization and
river training activities, assessment and management protocols for
beneficial uses of dredged material, channel realignments, protection
of endangered species, equipment selection, rational application of
dredging windows, lock and dam maintenance needs, channel and harbor
maintenance activities and ship simulation activities.
A key feature of the program includes effective annual face-to-face
and internet on-line training of Corps staff, navigation stakeholders,
and others who have regulatory authority over Corps navigation
maintenance activities on the latest environmental and engineering
techniques associated with maintaining navigable waterways. The program
also supports joint Corps and United States Environmental Protection
Agency activities dealing with environmental aspects of the national
navigation program.
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program for Buildings and Lifelines
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program is included in the fiscal
year 2004 budget in the amount of $300,000 to respond to the
requirements of Public Law 101-614, National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP) and Executive Order (EO) 12941, Seismic
Safety of Existing Federal Buildings. The objective of Public Law 101-
614 is to establish and initiate for buildings and lifelines a
systematic approach to reducing loss of life, injuries, and economic
costs resulting from earthquakes in the United States. The EO directs
all Federal departments and agencies to develop an inventory of their
owned and leased buildings and an estimate of the cost of mitigating
unacceptable seismic risks in their buildings. Lifelines are defined as
public works and utility systems.
We are legally responsible to develop a plan to mitigate these
vulnerabilities. In addition, FEMA is pursuing the possibility of
requiring agencies to develop mitigation plans for their deficient
buildings. The funds requested will be used to help finalize the
details of the Corps mitigation plan and provide the tools for
implementation of the program, provide assistance to districts in the
development of mitigation concepts and designs, provide support to
Corps Headquarters in oversight and management of the mitigation
program, provide technical support to Corps HQ, maintain technical
seismic expertise, develop guidance for additional lifeline systems not
previously covered in commercially available standards or existing
Corps guidance, develop guidance for operations personnel, develop a
mitigation plan for the Corps lifelines, and update and maintain the
database. The development and updating of guidance for the seismic
evaluation and risk mitigation of lifeline facilities will continue as
well.
Facility Protection
On 11 September 2001, our Nation suffered a loss of unimaginable
proportions, with terror attacks in New York, Washington and the skies
over rural Pennsylvania. These events have emphasized the resolve of
terrorists to weaken our Nation by inflicting massive casualties and
destroying vital elements of our infrastructure. The scope of Corps of
Engineers water resources assets considered highly vulnerable to future
terrorist attacks include 75 hydroelectric power projects, 383 major
lakes and reservoirs with 376 million annual visitors, 8,500 miles of
levees, 276 locks, 4,340 recreation areas, 11.7 million acres of public
land, 25,000 miles of commercially navigational channels, 926 shallow
and deep draft harbors, and $1.2 billion in research and development
facilities.
In response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Corps
compiled a list of critical public assets in accordance with
Presidential Decision Directive number 63. In 2001, the Corps initiated
vulnerability assessments (RAM-D) of critical water resources
infrastructure to determine vulnerability to terrorist attacks. A clear
need exists for improved security and protection at vital Corps water
resources and administrative facilities supporting our missions. The
protection of Corps critical infrastructures incorporates the elements
of detection, protection, and response. The Corps is addressing these
elements by increasing surveillance and awareness and initiating crime
watch programs, continuing implementation of protection measures and
coordinating the response by local law enforcement support and local
guard forces. The assessments of Corps facilities have identified key
research areas, including waterborne threats, rapid recovery and
emergency response, vulnerability and damage assessment tools,
structural hardening.
The Corps will complete implementation of facility protection
standards at Mississippi River and Tributaries facilities, and will
continue Force Protection Standards for Corps Offices, interfacing with
other Federal, State and local government offices and private industry,
and will continue ongoing research efforts funded in fiscal year 2004.
The fiscal year 2004 budget includes $13 million to continue the
Corps of Engineers Civil Works Facility Protection effort, including
continuation of existing security levels and maintaining guard
positions and electronic monitoring systems at critical facilities.
Great Lakes Sediment Transport Modeling
The Great Lakes Sediment Transport Modeling Program is included in
the fiscal year 2004 budget in the amount of $1.0 million. Section
516(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 authorizes
development of sediment transport models for tributaries to the Great
Lakes that discharge to Federal navigation channels or Areas of Concern
(AOCs). The Great Lakes Sediment Transport Modeling program is intended
to use sediment transport models to target areas for preventive
measures to control sediment movement to navigation projects and AOCs.
These models are being developed to assist State and local resource
agencies evaluating alternatives for soil conservation and nonpoint
source pollution prevention in the tributary watersheds. The ultimate
goal is to support State and local measures that will reduce the
loading of sediments and pollutants to navigation channels and AOCs,
and thereby reduce the costs for navigation maintenance and sediment
remediation.
Fiscal year 2004 funds will be used to complete development of
models at four tributaries (Genesee River, New York; Black River, Ohio;
St. Joseph River, Michigan; and, Burns Waterway, Indiana), initiate
model development at four tributaries (St. Louis River, Minnesota/
Wisconsin; Oswego River, New York; Cuyahoga River, Ohio, and; River
Raisin, Michigan), and conduct scoping and coordination for future
model development at the next set of priority tributaries (Eighteen
Mile Creek, New York; East River, Wisconsin; Grand River, Michigan;
Sandusky River, Ohio). State and local partners will use models
developed under this program to reduce loadings of sediments and
contaminants to Great Lakes tributaries, thereby reducing future
dredging requirements at Federal navigation channels and promoting the
restoration of beneficial uses at Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
Harbor Maintenance Fee Data Collection
Public Law 103-182 authorizes up to $5 million to be used annually
for the administration of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The Corps
fiscal year 2004 budget includes $675,000 for this activity. The Corps
is required to collect data on domestic and foreign shippers of
waterborne commerce subject to the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) and
provide it to Customs for enforcement. Analysis of HMT revenues and
transfers is required to validate the adequacy of the HMTF in light of
the uncertainty over the legal and international challenges to the HMT,
and to document the operation of the trust fund in the Annual Report to
Congress. Analysis of waterborne commerce shipments and vessel movement
data is also needed to respond to legal questions to the HMT; to
analyze alternative funding options; and to assess the economic and
competitiveness impacts of other potential funding sources. Therefore
the Corps requires a portion of the administrative funding. The recent
transfer of the Foreign Waterborne Transportation Statistics Program to
the Corps requires the data processing system to be expanded to include
validation of users engaged in foreign trade, in addition to domestic
users. The budgeted amount will be needed in fiscal year 2004 to
operate and enhance the system to analyze, enforce, collect and
validate harbor usage information required by the Customs Service for
auditing HMT collections.
Inland Waterway Navigation Charts
The fiscal year 2004 budget includes $4,120,000 for Inland Waterway
Navigation Charts. In 1994, a barge on the inland water struck a bridge
pier in poor visibility caused an AMTRAK derailment accident near
Mobile, Alabama. Consequently, the National Transportation Safety Board
recommended that the Chief of Engineers begin to promote use of
electronic charts for safety of navigation on inland waterways. The
first part of that recommendation was to extend the coastal
Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) into the inland
waterways. That work is now about 90 percent complete. The second part
is this effort to provide accurate and current electronic navigation
chart (ENC) data necessary to allow the commercial system to be used to
improve safety and efficiency. The American Waterway Operators have
also stated a need for consistent Corps channel data for inland
waterway electronic charts, and the recent Marine Transportation System
study recommended that electronic chart coverage be extended into
inland waterways and the addition of hydrographic survey information.
National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is also
developing ENC products for their coastal charts, which require use of
source data--including Corps channel information. The Water Resources
Development Act, 2000, Section 558, requires Corps of Engineers
districts to provide digital hydrographic survey data to the NOAA in an
agreed upon format not later than 60 days after completion of a survey.
The U.S. Coast Guard also has plans for implementation of vessel
traffic systems (VTS) in New Orleans and other areas and merging of its
Aids to Navigation into the ENC datasets provided by other Federal
agencies such as the Corps and NOAA is necessary. VTS data could be
extremely useful to vessels using the waterway, although an electronic
chart is needed for display of the information.
This effort provides ENC for all inland waterways and other Federal
navigation channels maintained by the Corps of Engineers to be used by
commercial Electronic Chart Systems (ECS), which, when combined with
the existing DGPS, will improve the safety and efficiency of marine
navigation in both inland and coastal waterways of the United States.
On inland waterways, the Corps will collect more accurate survey and
mapping data than is currently on its paper charts. Accuracies of about
2 meters are necessary to match the positional accuracy of the DGPS
signal, which when combined in the commercial ECS will greatly improve
the safety and efficiency of navigation. This will allow safe
navigation through bridge openings during fog and other bad weather
conditions as well as during heavy traffic situations.
As part of this program, the Corps coordinated standards and
requirements with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), U.S. Coast Guard, American Waterway Operators (AWO), the Inland
Waterways User Board (IWUB); developed initial IENCs for most of the
Mississippi River, and all of the Ohio, Black Warrior, Tombigbee, and
Red Rivers; developed the plans, procedures and guidelines necessary
for standardization of inland waterway chart data products; developed
the internet web site for data dissemination; began new highly accurate
baseline surveys on the inland waterways of features needed in the IENC
data; and began coastal product development in two districts.
The Corps will continue coordination of standards and requirements
with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S.
Coast Guard, American Waterway Operators (AWO), and the Inland
Waterways Users Board (IWUB); complete IENCs for most of the
Mississippi River and all of the Ohio, Black Warrior, Tombigbee, and
Red Rivers; begin update program for completed IENCs; complete coastal
product development in two districts and begin development in new
districts; and continue baseline surveys of waterway features.
Long Term Option Assessement for Low Use Navigation
Operation and Maintenance funds for navigation are increasingly
constrained, necessitating project prioritization and the consideration
of long-term management strategies. The Budget continues to give
priority to maintaining inland waterway segments and coastal harbors
that have utilization, while also funding the operation and maintenance
of shallow draft harbors that support commercial or subsistence fishing
or Federal Government activities. This study will identify data needs
and methodologies to assess lower use inland waterways and harbors,
examine the level of continued Federal interest in these projects, and
provide an assessment of possible long-term management options for
projects with diminishing NED benefits. Such options will include
transfer to another public or private entity, privatization,
divestiture, and alternate O&M funding mechanisms.
Monitoring of Completed Navigation Projects
The fiscal year 2004 budget includes $1.750 million for the
Monitoring of Completed Navigation Projects (MCNP). This continuing
program monitors project performance, evaluates the performance against
pre-construction projections, and transfers the lessons learned into
guidance for Districts. Sediment transport patterns, water depths,
currents, waves, flushing characteristics, tidal stages, and other
hydrodynamic phenomena together with associated environmental impacts
are changed by the construction of navigation projects. Information
gained from monitoring navigation projects, including the magnitude and
rate of these changes, is required to verify design expectations,
determine benefits, and evaluate operational and maintenance
efficiencies. Information collected from monitored navigation projects
will be used by the local Districts to improve project performance.
Additionally, this information will be collected and analyzed on a
national basis to document successful designs, disseminate lessons
learned on projects with problems, and provide upgraded field guidance
that will help reduce life-cycle costs on a national scale.
National Dam Safety Program (NDSP)
The National Dam Safety Program Act (Public Law 92-367 as amended)
designates FEMA as lead agency in all efforts to enhance national dam
safety. The National Dam Safety Program is coordinated through the
Interagency Committee of Dam Safety (ICODS). The Chief, Engineering
Division, Directorate of Civil Works, represents the Department of
Defense as a member of ICODS. The Corps and FEMA signed a Memorandum of
Understanding for the purpose of establishing responsibilities for
management and administration assistance in the implementation of the
National Dam Safety Program. FEMA acting through ICODS will provide
support in development of Federal guidelines for dam safety, promotion
of public awareness programs, publications, training materials, the
National Performance of Dams Program, and workshops. The budget
includes $45,000 to continue this participation in fiscal year 2004.
National Dam Security Program
The budget includes $30,000 for the National Dam Security program
in fiscal year 2004. The Interagency Committee on Dam Safety (ICODS)
has recognized terrorism as one of the major threats to dams in the
United States. Of all the agency members of ICODS, the Department of
Defense acting through the Corps has the most unique and in depth
knowledge in the area of antiterrorism program development and
execution. This program uses the Army's experience in antiterrorism
planning and building design as the basis for developing a program for
safeguarding Corps dams and for export to the other Federal agencies
through ICODS. Training under this program is designed for the dam
operator and field manager in order to improve their awareness of the
potential threat and to establish lines of communications to minimize
damage if and when a threat is received. The program also provides for
the exchange of information on threats received and the establishment
of a database to review trends in the pattern of threats. The Corps and
other Federal agencies established a task group to study the extent of
the problem of internal terrorism against dams and other natural
resource facilities and to determine the proper level of security
awareness required for these facilities.
National Emergency Preparedness Program (NEPP)
The fiscal year 2004 budget of $6 million will enable the Corps of
Engineers to be prepared to accomplish its continuity of operations and
continuity of government responsibilities during national/regional
crises. This entails support of civil government through coordinated
execution of Federal agency plans and the planning/conducting of
exercises to test readiness to provide such support. This includes
responsibility for development of comprehensive national level
preparedness plans and guidance for response to all regional/national
emergencies, whether caused by natural phenomena or acts of man, plans
for response(s) to acts of terrorism, and the local preparedness
necessary to support Corps continuity of operations. The Corps provides
engineering and construction support to State and local governments in
response to catastrophic natural/technological disasters. Rapid
response to disasters of a regional/national magnitude requires that
extensive pre-emergency planning and preparedness activities be
conducted to assure the availability of a work force capable of
shifting from routine missions to crisis operations and the
organizational command and control structure(s) necessary to provide a
coordinated and comprehensive response in the critical early stages of
a catastrophic disaster.
The fiscal year 2004 program will provide for continuing the
implementation of the National Emergency Preparedness Program. The
fiscal year 2004 program will continue the process of catastrophic
disaster planning and exercising to enable the Corps to rapidly respond
to a broad spectrum of emergencies, with emphasis on natural disaster
and terrorists events that have regional and national implications. An
effort will be made to satisfy increasing demands on the program to
support multi-agency (Federal, State, and local government) requests to
exercise plans focusing on regional catastrophic natural and man made
disasters. Increasingly, Federal, State and local agencies are looking
to the Corps to take the lead in this area.
National Lewis and Clark Commemoration Coordinator
With a fiscal year 2004 Budget of $310,000, we plan to continue
coordination of all Corps of Engineer activities relating to Lewis and
Clark Commemoration. The bicentennial commemoration of the Lewis and
Clark Expedition will begin in 2003 and will continue through 2006. A
National Bicentennial Council has been established, and Federal, State,
Tribal, and local governmental entities are planning the roles they
will play in the commemoration. By virtue of its role as administrator
of large stretches of public land along the trail route and of the Army
heritage of exploring and mapping of the western United States, the
Corps will play a significant leadership role in the observance of the
Bicentennial. The nature of this event will involve large numbers of
the public traveling through numerous Corps local jurisdictions. The
Lewis and Clark Coordinator is responsible for ensuring consistent
agency wide information on safety, traversing navigation structures
(locks), historic facts, and the geographic location of the
Expedition's route. The Coordinator is also responsible for a
consistent agency position in coordination activities with the large
number of States, local communities and tribes planning local events
either on or in close proximity to Corps projects.
These funds with provide the means to develop partnerships,
maintain contacts (BIA and Tribal government designees, State
Governor's committees, state recreation and tourism departments),
improve facilities and interpretation and to implement plans for
Bicentennial activities by coordinating with commercial entities and
volunteer efforts.
Performance Based Budgeting Support Program (PBBSP)
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires
that the Corps, implement performance based budgeting for the Civil
Works Operation and Maintenance, General Program. The Performance Based
Budgeting Support Program (PBBSP) addresses this requirement by seeking
new methods for linking performance to annual budget requests and for
analyzing the potential economic impact of budget requests on business
processes.
With an fiscal year 2004 budget of $815,000, efforts will center on
further refinement of corporate performance principles and program and
project level performance measures that focus on anticipated
performance and output at different levels of funding, in accordance
with the revised finance and accounting cost codes that now align with
the five O&M business processes--navigation, hydropower, flood damage
reduction, recreation and environmental stewardship. These
measurements, at different organizational levels, provide the
analytical basis to make adjustments in priorities both at the program
and project levels concerning efficiency of facilities or services.
Comparison of measurements among projects at all levels helps focus
management attention on corrections of program or project deficiencies.
Protecting, Clearing and Straightening Channels
Section 3 of the 1945 River and Harbor Act (as amended by Section
915(g) of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act) provides continuing
authority for limited emergency clearing of navigation channels not
specifically authorized by Congress. A limit per project is not
specified; however, in any given year, a maximum of $1,000,000 may be
used nationwide. Work pursuant to this authority is undertaken as
emergency measures to clear or remove unreasonable obstructions to
navigation in navigable portions of rivers, harbors and other waterways
of the United States, or tributaries thereof, in order to provide
existing traffic with immediate and significant benefit. The fiscal
year 2004 budget of $50,000 is an estimate based on historical
experience. If actual requirements are more than estimated, funds will
be reprogrammed to meet demonstrated needs.
Recreation Management Support Program (RMSP)
The fiscal year 2004 budget for the Recreation Management Support
Program (RMSP) is $1.545 million. This program supports the Corps
recreation business program by funding activities of the Recreation
Leadership Advisory Team (RLAT).
The RLAT is composed of representatives from the division, district
and project levels of the Corps natural resources management program.
It meets on a regular basis and provides input, advice and support to
the Corps strategic planning activities for the recreation business
program. The RMSP, under the leadership of the RLAT, serves to identify
Corps national recreation program priorities and address those
priorities through valid management studies, management support, and
information transfer.
In fiscal year 2004, the RMSP will study the benefits of
recreation, meeting the outdoor recreation needs of various ethnic
groups, and customer satisfaction with Corps operated recreation sites
and facilities. It will track recreation trends and support various
tools to provide information to local managers to assist in operating
the recreation program at their projects. Information obtained through
RMSP and RLAT activities is critical to the Corps recreation business
program strategic planning.
Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program
Authorized by Section 516 of WRDA 96, the Regional Sediment
Management Demonstration Program (RSM) is included in our fiscal year
2004 budget amount of $1.545 million. The goal of this program is to
demonstrate that, by managing our O&M navigation channel maintenance
dredging, construction of shore protection projects and environmental
restoration and beneficial uses of dredged material in tandem, we can
reduce the total costs of all the projects within a given coastal
system and ultimately increase the economic and environmental benefits
throughout the Nation's coastal navigation system.
Our accomplishments to date include completion of a 3-year RSM
demonstration projects with an estimated cost savings of $9.4 Mill at
Mobile District. A demonstration at East Pass was completed in fiscal
year 2002 with collaboration with the United States Air Force. Many
more demonstration projects are underway. The cooperation among Federal
agencies and the collaboration among the three levels of government
have been the greatest accomplishments to date.
Reliability Models Program for Major Rehabilitation
Our fiscal year 2004 budget includes $675,000 for the Reliability
Models Program For Major Rehabilitation. The purpose of this program is
to respond to yearly needs of Districts and Divisions, which are
preparing Major Rehabilitation reports for the upcoming fiscal year.
The objective is to provide reliability models for project features or
components that are being considered for Major Rehabilitation, or to
provide procedures to consider the impact of various chemical,
environmental or physical processes in a reliability analysis.
The fiscal year 2004 funds will be used to prepare reliability
models and collect data for reliability analyses anticipated to be
required by several Districts. Reliability models and/or data are
anticipated to be needed for the following: Completion of a reliability
model for seepage through embankment dams and levees will continue;
Completion of a screening level tool for the districts to use to
prioritize major rehabilitation and dam safety projects; Evaluation of
data collected on performance of dam gates, to determine performance
modes and verify load cycles used in reliability analyses, and
electrical/mechanical systems model for locks and dams. Provide
reliability analysis procedures for selected hydropower equipment. It
is also anticipated that two rehabilitation workshops would be
conducted. The makeup of these units is subject to the needs of the
respective Districts and Divisions.
In prior year, reliability models and other analytical tools have
been provided in support of Major Rehabilitation reports on numerous
navigation and hydropower projects. In addition, 18 rehabilitation
workshops have been conducted in the last 10 years to provide
assistance to the Districts as they prepare their reports. These
workshops offer guidance in conducting reliability and risk analyses,
and provide the opportunity for interdisciplinary teams from the
Districts to discuss their particular project with HQUSACE and other
Districts personnel.
Removal of Sunken Vessels
Removal of sunken vessels, or other similar obstructions, is
governed by Sections 15, 19, and 20 of the River and Harbor Act of
1899, as amended. Primary responsibility for removal belongs to the
owner, operator, or lessee. If the obstruction is a hazard to
navigation and removal is not undertaken promptly and diligently, the
Corps may obtain a court judgement requiring removal, or remove the
wreck and seek reimbursement for the full cost of removal and disposal.
Determinations of hazards to navigation and Federal marking and removal
actions are coordinated with the Coast Guard in accordance with a
memorandum of understanding between the two agencies dated 16 October
1985. Removal procedures are outlined in 33 CFR 245. The fiscal year
2004 budget includes $500,000 for this program. If removal requirements
are more than estimated, funds will be reprogrammed to meet actual
needs.
Water Operations Technical Support (WOTS) Program
The Corps fiscal year 2004 budget includes $725,000 for the Water
Operations Technical Support (WOTS) Program. The WOTS Program provides
effective environmental and water quality engineering technology to
address a wide range of water resource management problems at Corps
reservoir and waterway projects, and in the river systems affected by
project operations nationwide. WOTS provides technical support to the
Corps' mission related project responsibilities, with special emphasis
on the transfer of technology. The program ensures that the
technologies developed by the Corps and other Federal agencies are
current and readily available to all Corps field offices. The effective
use of technologies is secured through rapid direct technical
assistance; field demonstrations; specialty workshops; publication of
information exchange bulletins, technical notes, executive notes,
technical reports, miscellaneous papers, instruction reports, videos,
meetings, seminars; and briefings at field offices.
Since its inception in fiscal year 1985, WOTS has provided
environmental and water quality technological solutions to over 1,3000
problems identified at projects from every Corps District. The program
annually publishes and distributes numerous copies of manuals,
bulletins, notes, and reports. WOTS annually conducts specialty
workshops, training personnel on the latest environmental and water
quality management techniques. In fiscal year 2003, the WOTS program
successfully responded to 80 direct technical assistance requests from
31 Corps Districts, conducted six technology demonstration efforts to
verify management strategies and techniques, four training workshops on
environmental and water quality management techniques, and prepared 12
technical publications for distribution to the field.
Waterborne Commerce Statistics
The Corps of Engineers serves as the Federal Central Collection
Agency, and is the sole U.S. Government source, for U.S. domestic and
foreign waterborne commerce and vessel statistics in conformance with
the River and Harbor Act of 1922 as amended. Activities supporting this
national statistics mission include: (a) collecting and reporting of
water transportation statistical data; (b) automated systems
development and operation, processing, compiling, and publishing
statistical data and information on waterborne commerce and vessels
moving on the internal U.S. waterways, the Great Lakes, and through all
U.S. ocean channels and ports; and (c) compiling and publishing the
official U.S. documentation of U.S. vessels engaged in commerce, and
their principal trades and zones of operation. The data provide
essential information for navigation project investment analyses,
including accurate benefit-cost analyses; for annual funding
prioritization for operation and maintenance of existing projects; for
computation of performance measures; for input into the U.S. National
Accounts; and for regulatory and emergency management decisions. The
budget includes $4.745 million for fiscal year 2004.
Activities Under the Regulatory Program Appropriation
The fiscal year 2004 budget amount of $144 million is comparable to
the fiscal year 2003 request, which was also $144 million. With the
requested funds, the Corps will continue to work toward reducing the
average review time for standard permits to 120 days. Standard permits
are the most complex and controversial of the Corps permit actions and
involve significant aquatic resources and large-scale projects with
major economic impacts. Standard permits generally involve intense
coordination efforts between the applicant and other Federal/State
agencies over difficult issues that may include endangered species,
historic properties, and water quality issues. While they only account
for approximately 5 percent of all permit actions, standard permits
demand a enormous resource commitment. Since fiscal year 2001, the
average review time for standard permits has increased from 150 days to
160 days. We are working diligently to reduce processing times on these
and less complex permit actions to reduce overall processing time.
Challenges to permit decisions are also increasing, resulting in more
documentation for the project manager on every permit. The Corps
administrative appeals program, however, is giving applicants the
ability to challenge regulatory decisions without resorting to
litigation.
Overall, the Corps is continuing to do an impressive job managing
its permit workload. Out of 82,000 permit actions, including standard
permits, 88 percent were handled within 60 days in fiscal year 2002.
This is largely due to continued emphasis and improvements to the
nationwide permit program. In January 2002, the Corps issued revisions
to its nationwide permit program. These changes not only increased
environmental protection for activities authorized through nationwide
permits, but also streamlined the approval process for some activities.
Although we are generally maintaining review times for these actions,
authorization requirements for nationwide permits are becoming more
complex than in the past and many nationwide permits now may involve
mitigation. In addition to permit decisions, in fiscal year 2002 the
Corps made almost 70,000 jurisdictional determinations, many of these
for single-family homeowners. This was an all time high. Many such
determinations are not associated with specific permits as the public
makes requests to learn if they are subject to Federal jurisdiction.
One area we are working to improve is the inspection of completed
permit actions and mitigation projects to ensure compliance with permit
conditions and mitigation requirements. A 2001 report on wetland losses
by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences
concluded that the Corps needed to improve its oversight of wetlands
compensatory mitigation activities.
In December 2002, the Corps issued a Regulatory Guidance letter
(RGL) and initiated implementation of a National Wetlands Mitigation
Action Plan. The RGL and mitigation action plan were developed with the
Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal partners. The
mitigation action plan complements the RGL and is intended to be
complete within three years. It is designed to address outstanding
concerns and to improve compensatory mitigation associated with wetland
impacts of projects permitted under the Clean Water Act. The RGL and
mitigation plan emphasize wetlands functions and a more holistic
watershed approach in determining impacts and mitigation. This effort
will involve considerable resources both at headquarters and the
districts as the Corps and EPA work to complete the plan within three
years.
The Regulatory Program is effectively implementing the watershed
approach to evaluate impacts and ensure effective compensatory
mitigation. Additional resources will be devoted to studies of
watersheds and similar sensitive environmental areas. Wherever
comprehensive reviews of individual watersheds can be undertaken, the
Corps is better able to manage and predict direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts of proposed projects. This leads to better and more
rapid evaluation of future permit applications that will result in
expedited permit processing and potential workload reductions.
As a follow-on to the mitigation plan, the Corps Regulatory Program
will be instituting a new database system designed to track additional
permit and mitigation statistics, as well as introduce a system for the
general public to submit and track permit applications on-line. The
system will supplement the Corps program to provide more information to
the public through the Internet regarding the Regulatory Program and
permit actions. This system has been designed to improve regulatory
business processes and will be installed in the first district in
August of 2003.
In January 2003, the Corps and EPA issued an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking to develop regulations focusing on isolated waters.
A 2002 Supreme Court decision (SWANCC) limiting Corps authority in
intra-State, non-navigable waters created a need to better clarify
Corps jurisdiction in these waters. Both public and Federal uncertainty
in wetland policy has resulted in more Corps time being devoted to
jurisdictional determinations. Development of policy and jurisdiction
definitions will be a substantial work effort that is expected to carry
into 2004. It will include public input, data collection, and
evaluation by Corps districts, especially those with large areas of
isolated waters.
activities under the flood control and coastal emergencies
appropriation
The Corps continues to provide leadership in response to natural
disasters and, therefore, must maintain a preparedness program that
meets the needs of the Nation. In order to execute an effective fiscal
year 2004 continued response-planning program and all-hazards
preparedness activities in support of the Federal Response Plan, funds
in the amount of $70 million are requested.
The Corps responsibility for emergency response requires that its
engineering, construction, and emergency operations capabilities be
maintained. When a disaster strikes, people's lives, livelihood and
property are at stake. Therefore, the level of funding requested is the
minimum sufficient to support an organization capable of responding to
all natural disasters: hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and other
disasters, such as contaminated public water supplies.
In addition to the preparedness program, the account funds
emergency activities in response to natural disasters, as authorized by
Public Law 84-99. Since we cannot predict the timing and magnitude of
disasters, emergency transfers may be made from other flood control
related appropriations amounts and supplemental appropriations will be
requested when the need arises.
Activities under this appropriation include: the review and
updating of response plans to maintain readiness; training to ensure
our capability to respond under adverse circumstances; procurement and
pre-positioning of critical equipment and supplies such as sandbags and
pumps, which are not likely to be available during initial stages of a
response; periodic exercises to test and evaluate plans, personnel and
adequacy of training; emergency facilities needed for rapid, effective
response to disaster areas; inspection of non-Federal flood control
projects to ensure their viability to provide flood protection;
emergency operations (flood response and post-flood response);
emergency repair and restoration of flood control works which are
threatened, damaged or destroyed by flood; emergency protection of
existing Federal hurricane and shore protection works; the repair or
restoration of Federal hurricane or shore protective structures damaged
or destroyed by wind, wave or water action of other than ordinary
nature; preventive work performed prior to unusual flooding that poses
a threat to life or property; providing emergency supplies of clean
water to any locality confronted with a source of contaminated water
causing or likely to cause a substantial threat to public health and
welfare; and provision of water supplies to drought-distressed areas by
reimbursable well drilling or transportation of water at Federal cost.
Work continues on comprehensive interagency response planning
activities. These activities support, under the Stafford Act, the
Federal Response Plan by providing engineering and construction support
following major disasters such as flooding in South Central Texas, and
Virginia/West Virginia; Typhoons Chataan and Pongsona in the Western
Pacific Ocean; Arizona wildfires; Tropical Storm Isidore, Louisiana;
and Hurricane Lili, Louisiana. Mission assignments in support of FEMA's
disaster response and recovery activities have included: emergency
debris removal; temporary housing; emergency water; restoration of
infrastructure; temporary power; construction management; and other
support which uses Corps engineering, contracting, and construction
expertise.
activities under the formerly utilized sites remedial action program
(fusrap)
The Corps has completed remediation at 4 sites, 2 of which were
transferred to the Department of Energy for long-term stewardship
activities per the 1999 memorandum of understanding between the two
agencies, issued 6 records of decision, and completed 6 interim removal
actions through the end of fiscal year 2002. The Corps expects to issue
2 records of decision and an Action Memorandum for one new removal
action in fiscal year 2003, and issue 6 records of decision in fiscal
year 2004 and complete two removal actions. The FUSRAP budget for
fiscal year 2004 will fund work at 21 sites in the States of
Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New
York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
activities under the general expenses appropriation
The General Expenses (GE) appropriation supports the executive
direction and management (ED&M) functions of the overall Civil Works
program performed by the Corps Headquarters and the regional Division
Offices. The primary purpose of the GE account is to provide definitive
policy guidance, program management, regional and national interface,
and quality assurance and oversight for all Corps activities toward
execution of a comprehensive Civil Works program. The fiscal year 2004
budget for the GE account is $171 million, approximately 3.9 percent of
the Corps budget. This supports a projected staffing level of 1,095
full time equivalents (FTE).
The fiscal year 2004 program of $171 million consists of
approximately 70 percent labor, 10 percent fixed costs such as rent,
utilities, communications, and the Plant Replacement and Improvement
Program (PRIP) paybacks, 6 percent for such discretionary costs, as
travel, training, supplies, and equipment and 12 percent for other
Civil Works programmatic type contracts, such as P2/PMBP, Planning
Capability Improvement Program, Workforce Planning, implementation of
Competitive Sourcing, CFO audit of civil works financial statements, E-
government initiative for outgrants and leasing requests, USACE
University, Leadership Development and the CWD-IM Support/Information
Assurance Program.
In fiscal year 2002, the Corps completed a 5-year draw down of the
strength in the GE account. The Corps downsizing efforts reflected
reductions realized through focusing on appropriate roles and missions,
elimination of duplication of effort, reducing the number of regional
division offices from 11 to 8, and continual process reviews to achieve
additional savings through efficiencies. Overall, this realized a
savings of 256 FTE or a 19 percent reduction. The staffing for the
Headquarters will be 420 FTE in fiscal year 2004. This staffing level
is the same as fiscal year 2003 and makes up less than 2 percent of the
total Civil Works workforce.
In fiscal year 2004, the average size of a division office will be
76 FTE performing ED&M. This is up by one from 75 FTE in fiscal year
2002 due to the civilianization of the Provost Marshall positions. The
size of the Pacific Ocean Division office is 20 ED&M FTE based on the
size of its Civil Works workload. The regional division offices make up
less than 3 percent of the total Civil Works workforce with a staffing
level of 553 FTE.
The GE account also funds staffing at the Humphreys Engineer Center
Support Activity (HECSA), which provides administrative support to the
Headquarters and the Humphreys Engineer Center at Ft. Belvoir; the
Institute for Water Resources, which provides water resource support
functions, such as conducting and managing national studies, special
studies, data collection and distribution, and technical support to
other Corps offices on water resource management matters; the Engineer
Research and Development Center (ERDC), which provides support to the
Coastal Engineering Research Board (CERB); and the Corps of Engineers
Financial Center, which provides centralized finance and accounting
activities Corps-wide. These activities represent 122 FTE.
plant placement and improvement program
The fiscal year 2004 Plant Replacement and Improvement Program
(PRIP) obligations under the Revolving Fund for items designed to
improve productivity, increase efficiency, modernize, improve the Corps
equipment and operational capabilities, and increase safety are
estimated at $84.1 million. This amount includes estimated fiscal year
2004 obligations of $33.6 million for 13 new major items and $33.4
million for 42 continuing major items. Major items are those assets
costing more than $700,000.
support for others
In fiscal year 2004, the Corps will provide reimbursable
engineering, environmental remediation, construction management,
emergency response and other technical support to more than 60 Federal
agencies. The estimated dollar value of the Corps efforts is $900
million. The program size depends on several factors: the requesting
agency's appropriation (which often is not known until after the fiscal
year has begun), the requesting agency's final decisions on how their
program will be executed, and the number, nature and magnitude of
national and international emergencies which the Corps will be
requested to respond.
conclusion
This concludes the detailed statement of Major General Robert H.
Griffin on Remaining Items of the fiscal year 2004 Civil Works Budget.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, General Flowers.
General Griffin, do you have a statement?
General Griffin. No, sir.
Senator Cochran. Let me, again, welcome you to the
committee hearing. We appreciate your attendance.
And as I say, I am pinch hitting for Senator Domenici, and
he has not only a full statement on the subject before us
today, but a number of questions, which I will submit at this
point and which have to be answered by our witnesses.
For my part, let me remind you that one of the most
important projects the Corps has under its jurisdiction is the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. I was reminded of
that earlier this year--or maybe it was last year. I went to
Enid Dam in the northern part of our State and spoke at the
50th anniversary of the construction of one of the large
projects that is a part of that project.
Not only is there a levy system that contains the
Mississippi River that was authorized by Congress as a result
of the huge devastation caused by the flood of 1927, but a
number of other spinoff projects all along the trail of the--
the length of the river have been authorized and funded by
Congress to try to help protect the lives and property of
people who live in the lower Mississippi River Valley.
And by and large, it has been an enormously successful
undertaking although very costly, and it has taken a long time
to complete the project. As a matter of fact there are still
some parts of that project that have not yet been completed.
Some are still in the design phase and planning phase. Others
are still under construction.
I would like for you to take a minute for me and let me
know what your reaction is to the budget submission as it
relates to the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project, and
in particular the protection of the main stem levy system. A
lot of work is being done, I know, along the river.
I have reviewed some of the projects in my State, Issaquena
County, and in Sharkey County in particular this year to see
how work is being done, the environmental sensitivity of some
of the work, the effort to take advantage of new technologies
and the like.
Could you assess for me what your view is of how that work
is proceeding? And is this budget submission sufficient to see
that that is continued so that the purpose for the original
authorization of that project is met?
General Flowers. Sir, let me begin. The President's fiscal
year 2004 budget provides $280 million for the MR&T. And that
money is sufficient to take care of projects on the main stem
of the Mississippi.
It is a very tough year with the global war on terrorism,
and some pretty tough calls have to be made, and I think this
was probably one of those tough calls. We have--as a former
president of the Mississippi River Commission, I understand the
great concern that you have, sir, and we will do everything we
can to make whatever money is afforded to us as effective as
possible in protecting the valley. And I do not know if Mr.----
Mr. Brownlee. Mr. Chairman, I would add that the flood
protection along the main stem Mississippi River, as I
understand, is a priority of the administration and has
received funding in accordance with that priority, so it was
recognized within the administration as a priority.
Senator Cochran. Thank you. There have been a number of
suggestions for reforms in the way projects are planned and the
construction process as approved. In looking at some of these
suggestions, it makes me wonder whether these are really
attempts to delay the planning and construction of projects in
the Civil Works budget of the Corps of Engineers.
I think the ultimate result is going to be that those
projects that are approved and undertaken are going to be a lot
more costly than they would have been otherwise.
What are your observations about these proposals? Do you
have any views about the proposals that we ought to take
seriously, and those that we might view with some skepticism?
What is the Corps' position on the reforms that are being
suggested?
Mr. Brownlee. Mr. Chairman, if I might just comment for a
moment on the intent of these measures, and then I will let
others who know more detail about the actual impact of it raise
that.
But the intent, of course, was to focus the funding, which
is modest, in accordance with the other priorities the Nation
faces to try to complete work on those projects that are
ongoing; to reduce the number of projects that are being
designed so as not to build up a backlog of projects that are
designed that we cannot afford to proceed with construction;
and, therefore, to try to get the highest payoff by getting
projects completed instead of spreading the money over so many
projects that they all move forward just a little bit. That was
the intent of the program. And I will defer to General Flowers
for----
Senator Cochran. Thank you, sir.
General Flowers. Sir, the Corps' planning process is one
that has been recognized by such bodies as the National Academy
of Sciences as a very sound one. And we have prided ourselves
on a very--on a process that has always been very open and very
public.
Now, having said that, it is also a process that takes a
lot of time and at times costs a lot of money. And so we are
looking for ways to transform the Corps to provide better
service to the Nation. And we have listened to a lot of input
on ways to do that, and on many we are already taking action.
We are within the Corps instituting a new project, management
business process that will go across the organization that will
hopefully make us more efficient.
We are becoming a learning organization so that we will
take advantage of all of our experiences, both good and bad. We
have established some environmental operating principles which
speak to sustainable development, to always take those into
consideration, and communications principles for being a much
more open and communicative agency.
And I would say specifically to the Civil Works program,
that we are working very hard to improve our planning
capability. And with us in the room today are four members of
our first new class of planning associates. They have been in
Washington this week. If you would, just please raise your
hands.
They are here--one from each of our Corps divisions, and
they represent our planning associates program and will, at the
conclusion of their program, receive Masters' in water
resources planning. We have been working very hard to
reestablish and strengthen that capability.
We are sponsoring the navigation economic modeling
symposium in April, I believe, to look at the status of the
science of economics and prediction. We are working with a
strategic plan, and our Civil Works are way ahead. And that has
been broadly circulated, talked about.
We have done some independent project review internally to
the organization. We have funded it. We have asked firms with
national recognition to come in and review some of the work
that we have done as a way of checking our work.
We have asked for funds in the fiscal year 2004 budget to
conduct a look-back study to determine, on projects that have
already been completed, if they are delivering the benefits
that we had calculated they should derive.
And we have asked for funding to $3 million in the fiscal
year 2004 budget to conduct an independent review of some of
our projects. And so I think we have heard what people have
said, and we are working to make the organization--or transform
the organization into an organization that will provide better
service to the Nation.
Does that mean we are finished? No. We look forward to
working with this committee, with the Congress, with the
stakeholders, and with all who have provided input to do a
better job.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, General.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I have one question, General. It is more of an
elaborate-if-you-would-please. Did I hear you talk about the
``need for a national water policy'' or ``a national water
policy''?
General Flowers. Sir, what we see as--what I have seen as I
have traveled around the country are growing debates on the
uses to which we can put a very precious resource. And my
belief is that in this 21st Century, water will become what to
the 20th Century oil was.
And so I think as a way to resolve these competing
interests, there is a need to dialogue about what will be
important to the Nation as we move to the future, and I--there
was a very important event last September. One of the members
of the committee came and spoke on the need for--and we had a
very healthy debate on the seminar with interests representing
the spectrum.
And I think we concluded that there were probably about 18
uses that you could put water to that were beneficial, but
oftentimes in competition with each other. And so there
probably needs to be a debate leading to hopefully some
consensus on how we should move forward.
I do know that in the areas in which we are involved that
would be very helpful if we could take a more holistic approach
to water issues. And what I am suggesting, sir, would be a
watershed wide approach that would, I think, enable the
Congress and the agencies that provide input to make sounder
recommendations on how to take care of those precious
resources.
Senator Craig. Well, I thank you for that observation. I
think those of us who grew up in the arid West understand the
criticality of water.
We also understand who ought to control it and who ought to
manage it. West of the Mississippi we have something called the
Western Water Law that this Congress determined a long time ago
ought to be the prerogative of the State and State governments
and State capitals.
And, of course, you have worked cooperatively over the
years with that relationship and understanding. East of the
Mississippi they have just always had a lot, never worried too
much. Actually, they worried more about managing too much than
not enough. And, of course, we have seen that change here just
in this area where we have just gone through a drought.
I do not disagree with you about the finite resource we are
dealing with and its character and how it will be seen and how
it must be handled in the future, but I would suggest that
caution be directed at actions you might take or efforts you
might want to stimulate as it relates to who calls the shots.
It is a national debate, and that is valuable. But if Western
States are considered secondary in that debate and not primary,
you are going to have difficulty.
I do not want this capital city to determine the allocation
of that resource for my State. That is the job of my capital
city. And that is the way it will stay as long as I serve.
Clearly, we must understand the value of the region and all
of those of us participating, but we have formed river
commissions before. We have formed a consortium amongst our
States that live in the arid West to effectively manage. And at
times the Federal Government has, in part, stepped in as an
arbiter. But all I can suggest to you in this impending
debate--and it will be there. My guess is it will not reach its
peak until you and I are long gone.
I am simply going to have to remain and will be, for
obvious reasons, a pretty outspoken advocate that that debate
occur at least for the West, the Pacific Northwest, in Olympia,
Washington, or Boise, Idaho, or Salem, Oregon, and not in
Washington, DC. Thank you.
General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Flowers, the 2003 check-in date for the Columbia/
Snake River biological opinion is fast approaching and some
have questioned whether the Federal caucus is adequately
implementing that biological opinion.
As I look at your Corps budget, it seems to contain a
commitment to that effort, the Columbia estuaries, a new start
in fiscal year 2003 and included in the budget upcoming, 2004.
The Columbia River fish mitigation program was short of
full funding in the 2003 appropriation bill, but the budget is
$95 million in the 2004 budget. And significantly, thanks to
the efforts of this committee, the subcommittee jump-started
the Chief Joseph Dam gas abatement project by including funding
in 2003, and I trust will do more in 2004.
Can you just take a minute and give me your view on how the
Corps is doing in meeting its obligations for the biological
opinion, and is there more that we can be doing?
General Flowers. Ma'am, I think we are working very hard at
meeting all of the aspects of the Bi-Op. And I think as you
stated, the budget for fiscal year 2004 reflects a commitment
to do just that. So within the organization, we see ourselves
meeting all of the requirements of the biological opinion, and
we will continue working.
Senator Murray. Is there more that we can be doing?
General Flowers. I do not know what that would be, ma'am. I
think you are doing a great job.
Senator Murray. Well, I will keep pushing the committee.
General Flowers. All right.
Senator Murray. Well, thank you. Let me ask you about the
John Day Lock and Dam. As you know, we have significant
problems there, and both upstream and downstream locks are
experiencing problems that are causing navigation of the locks
to take twice as long. The dam is experiencing leakage under
the foundation. And I guess I am kind of surprised that we are
facing an operation and maintenance issue of this scale, and
that it really appears to be unexpected.
So I would like to understand: Were we, in fact, unaware of
the deteriorating condition of that lock and dam? And what is
the outlook for repairs?
General Flowers. Let me defer that to General Griffin,
please.
General Griffin. Senator Murray, General Griffin.
We have--the seepage--first, I will address the dam in
general. It was built in the 1960's. It was built on fractured
rock, and because of that you get seepage, and over time there
has been increased seepage.
So we were not surprised by this. We are surprised by the
amount of increased seepage, so we--ma'am, we were not
surprised by that. You know, there are really two issues there,
as I know you are aware. One is a monolith that leaks is part
of this foundation issue. And on the monolith itself, that was
built in the 1960's. Repairs to the monolith will be complete
in September 2003. That will be done at a cost of $3.8 million.
The lock itself have--the failure to the gate itself, John
Day Gate, the preliminary analysis, as we have not completed
our review, but it is a cable operated gate, as you know, with
a counterweight and what happened is we believe there was a
binding there and the cable snapped.
As a result of that, we have extended lockages by an hour
and 10 minutes. The good news is, ma'am, that even though the
lock gate failed, we were able to bring in a floating bulkhead
and resume operations the next day. And so that we expect to
award in April. It is going to cost $3.7 million. We will have
that fixed by the end of June.
And so I know one of the other concerns was: Will we have
to shut the lock down in order to repair the monolith? And the
answer is no. We will have to go to 12-hours-on/12-hours-off
for 7 weeks, but we will not close the system during those
repairs.
Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you very much.
General Griffin. Yes, ma'am. Yes.
Senator Murray. I appreciate that. And, you know, John Day
is just one example in the Northwest of a significant backlog
of O & M funding needs. You have got the jetties at the mouth
of the Columbia and Coos Bay is edging towards failure as well.
And it seems like every lock and dam on the Columbia and
Snake system could use an increase of O & M funding right now.
And I know we have this funding shortfall for O & M, and it
makes it hard to move forward on new start projects like the
deepening of the Columbia River channel, which my ports feel is
really essential for ports, farmers, and exporters as we
compete in a global market.
So when I talk to people in the Northwest, they tell me
that they are concerned that O & M funding is being undercut
because we are having to address the security needs at the
Corps facilities.
General, if you could, just talk to us about the security
budget. Is it inadequate? Is it taking money from O & M? Is
that a concern, and how do we address that?
General Flowers. Well, this year in fiscal year 2004, we
intend to take $104 million to put in place projects to better
secure our critical infrastructure, and that does come out of
our O & M account.
Senator Murray. That comes out of the O & M. So it is a
concern?
General Flowers. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray. And that will impact our ability to do a
lot of our current O & M needs, as well as any new starts?
General Flowers. There will be an impact, and based on the
2004 budget that is proposed, our backlog of high priority
maintenance will exceed $1 billion.
Senator Murray. Well, I think that is a real concern for
this committee that we need to be aware of.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. General, let me talk about a couple of
things. And, Assistant Secretary, welcome to all of you.
The Grand Forks flood control project, which I know you are
involved in, the flood that virtually everyone remembers that
caused the evacuation of the entire city of Grand Forks
precipitated the requirement to build a new flood control
project.
The President's budget recommends a cut of nearly $10
million. We appropriated $35 million in the omnibus bill this
year. The President recommends $23.4 million. Will that keep us
on schedule to complete this flood control project by the end
of 2004, or will it throw us off schedule?
General Flowers. Sir, this budget, the 2004 budget reflects
fully funded projects that can be completed in fiscal year
2004, and keeping eight other high priority projects on a most
efficient schedule. The remainder of the projects will be
continued, but their duration will have to be stretched out,
and this is one of those projects. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. You are aware that FEMA will be remapping
there and creating the new flood plain, and when that happens
before the completion of the flood control project, 90 percent
of the people living in both of those cities on both sides of
the river, Grand Forks and East Grand Forks, will be required
to spend $10 million to $15 million in the interim for flood
insurance. The expectation was to try to move to complete this
project concurrent with the remapping so that we did not have
that problem.
You are saying that the President's recommendation slides
the completion date of this project at this point, huh?
General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. And how far does it slide it?
General Flowers. Sir, we will have to take that for the
record, if we could. But I believe it to be about 6 months to a
year.
[The information follows:]
With $23 million for fiscal year 2004 and a similar amount for out-
years, the project would stretch out to fiscal year 2008. With a total
appropriation of $60 million in both fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year
2005, critical features could be substantially completed by December
2005, and with follow-on appropriations of $1,811,000 in fiscal year
2006 the project would be physically completed by June 2006.
Senator Dorgan. Well, that is a major disappointment,
obviously, to the people of Grand Forks. I think it is the only
significant size city that was completely evacuated since the
Civil War in this country. It was quite a sight to see.
The Congress provided enormous help to the region as a
result of that dramatic Red River Valley flooding, which I
think was a 400- or 500-year flood. But the need to complete
this flood control project is urgent, and I am really
disappointed to see the President's recommendation. We will
try, of course, to build some of that back, which is, I am
sure, going to be very difficult.
Let me ask you about the Devils Lake issue. That is a flood
that has come and stayed, and you have announced a--the need
for an outlet, and that a potential wet cycle and the
devastation of having the water cascade naturally from the east
side of the lake when it reaches that overflow area would
produce pretty dramatic results downstream. And we have to stop
that. And so you have announced the need for an outlet. You
have actually announced a preferred outlet, is that correct?
General Flowers. Yes, sir. We have released a final
environmental impact statement with the constructed outlet as
the preferred alternative. And that will be going out shortly
for comment.
The--in my time as chief of engineers, and in probably my
time as an engineer, this was one of the most difficult
problems that I have been associated with, in that Devils Lake
is a closed basin and depends on essentially evaporation to
remove whatever water collects inside that closed basin. And we
know that geologically about every 800 to 1,200 years that
basin will overtop and spill into the Sheyenne River, or the
Red River of the North.
And we have been maintaining data for about an 80-or-so-
year period. And so we really do not know where we stand in
that geologic cycle. We do not know whether we are close to the
800- or 1,200-year time when it may overtop. And what we have
seen in the last few years has really pushed us out of the
predictive--our ability to really predict what might happen.
And so by choosing that as a preferred alternative, I was
reflecting my recommendation that the Nation not accept the
risk associated with ignoring this and using the more standard
modeling that we do for river-type basins. And so that is why I
announced this as a preferred alternative. It was a very tough
call, but that is it, sir.
Senator Dorgan. Will it be your request to fund this as
soon as you go through the comment period? Because you have
outlined a preferred alternative and the consequences of not
doing something at this point, will it be your determination to
recommend and request funding in the next budget cycle?
General Flowers. Sir, following--pending the EIS responding
to comments, et cetera, and once a record of decision is made,
if that decision is to do an outlet, then we would probably
move forward, yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. The budget request also zeros out the
Breckenridge Flood Control monies, which stops the Wahpeton
project, and Grafton Flood Control. Those are relatively small
projects, but what would the anticipation be with zero funding?
The project would just come to a halt?
General Flowers. Sir, if the project is in preliminary
design, it would be suspended until money becomes available. If
it is a project that has not been begun, then one of the
decisions made in formulating the 2004 budget was to not
include any new starts in the budget.
Senator Dorgan. Well, let me just say that I think the
budget request is a huge disappointment in a number of areas.
We are dramatically underfunded. Some key projects that must
move forward were not funded appropriately. And you indicated
that the budget will focus on finishing ongoing projects, but
the fact is that has not been the case in several of our
circumstances, but I want to work with you.
Let me ask one additional question, if I might, with
respect to the master manual, which at least the staff of
Senator Bond would be disappointed if I did not ask, I am sure.
That was a 6-month project that has now at the end of 12 years
produced a preferred alternative, the exact details of which, I
think, are still at this point not public. Is that correct?
General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. There is a preferred alternative that is
bouncing somewhere between yourself, The White House, and CEQ
and others. I had General Fastabend before the committee last
year. And, you know, he made an appointment to see me on May
23rd--I think it was May 23rd--the Corps was going to announce
the preferred alternative the next day. And so he was coming to
alert us to what the preferred alternative was going to be.
That meeting was then cancelled, and in a subsequent
hearing I said to General Fastabend, I am sorry, ``Could you
tell me what it was you were going to tell me, because clearly
you had a preferred alternative? You were going to disclose it.
Can you tell me what it was you were going to disclose but did
not disclose?''
And the answer was, ``No, I am under orders not to do
that.''
I said, ``Whose orders?''
He said, ``General Flowers' orders.''
General Flowers. Oh.
Senator Dorgan. So would you tell us what General Fastabend
was going to tell us but could not tell us as a result of your
orders, General Flowers?
General Flowers. Sir, if I could, I would defer to the
Under Secretary for this.
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, most Under Secretaries probably become
very good troubleshooters. I may have become a very good
troublemaker in some respects. But I had just been appointed as
the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works when
General Fastabend brought this matter to my attention. As I was
briefed on it--and I admit to no long history of knowledge of
these matters, but as I was briefed on it, it seemed to me
that--clearly as you know better than I do, these are very
complex, sensitive issues. There are differing sides. It does
not seem to cut politically. It seems to cut regionally.
Senator Dorgan. That is correct.
Mr. Brownlee. There are also matters, very important
matters dealing with endangered species that have to be dealt
with, and it was my decision. I ordered General Fastabend to
cease engines, to not take this outside the administration
until I had an opportunity to, A, learn more about it; and B, I
have to admit that it appeared to me that the process we were
following could have turned into one that was adversarial even
within the administration. And the 18 years I had spent working
on the staff here in this body told me that the best way to
address these kinds of issues is to get well informed, well
intentioned people around a table and see if we cannot work
something out.
So my direction to him was that we would work
collaboratively within the administration to see if we could
reach some positions that would more adequately satisfy these
very varying interests.
I have to admit to you that this has gone on longer than I
ever anticipated, but I also want to report to you that I think
we are right on the verge of entering formal consultation--
reinstating that formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and hopefully we can proceed.
It certainly is not my intent and it has never been my
intent to delay this as long as it has been. This actually
happened in the April, May time period. I never dreamed I would
be here saying, ``We are not there yet.''
But as you know very well, it involves very complex issues.
The drought has not helped things one bit. It has made it even
more difficult. I just want to tell you, sir, it is my intent
that the Army will continue to work this problem--but General
Fastabend was doing exactly what I told him to do.
So at this point in time, I just have to tell you that it
is my hope--I had hoped that by yesterday, we would be back in
formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Unfortunately, I got a call last night. It may be delayed a day
or two, but we are that close, I think, to reinstating formal
consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I perhaps have exhausted more
than my time. May I make an observation about that, however?
Senator Cochran. Of course.
Senator Dorgan. This is approximately another 1-year delay
on top of 11 previous. It is not the end of the world, but are
you willing to set a time-line, like another 12 years or so?
Because what will happen to us----
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan [continuing]. Is another assistant secretary
will come in and say, ``You know something? This is
controversial. And, General, I know you are working on this,
but pull back.'' And so, you know, your grandchildren will be
here and testifying on these things.
We need to make progress. The fact is this river is
critically important to the upstream and downstream States. It
has become a kind of a Hatfield/McCoy situation, but somebody
needs to step in and say, ``Look. Here is the best way to
manage this river, recognizing all of the interests of all of
the people that have an interest in this river.'' And it is not
going to happen by delay, and it certainly is not going to
happen by preventing us from knowing what the Corps has been
doing. And they were at a point where they had a preferred
alternative, and I would very much like to know what it is.
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, I understand.
Senator Dorgan. Can you tell me what it is?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I would not know the detail adequately
to describe it to you here at this point. I can tell----
Senator Dorgan. Well, could you tell the General to do it
then? Because he knows.
Mr. Brownlee. My understanding is it has been kind of
kicked around out there for awhile, but if I could, Senator, I
just want to say that I do not disagree with any of the points
you have made. I had hoped to appear before you to report a lot
more progress than I am reporting now. There is another nominee
for this particular position who I understand has already
appeared in one hearing before the Senate, maybe at another
one. But I did not feel that I could let that go forward
knowing as little as I knew about it. I apologize for that.
That is my problem and not yours.
I think that while there is not a lot of apparent progress
that I can put before you today, I think there has been some,
and hopefully we can reach the kind of solution that will
benefit the interests or balance the interest, at least, on
both ends of this river.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Assistant Secretary, thank you.
Senator Cochran. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. I have no questions for this panel.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We
appreciate your attendance at this hearing.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Cochran. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. One last comment: Both the Senators from
North Dakota and I are co-chairs of an important caucus here on
the Hill, and the Army Corps is a major player. And we began an
episode that started 200 years ago to celebrate it last month.
General, you have got $310,000 in the budget for the Lewis
and Clark Bicentennial. And you do play a major role in that. I
believe that was a military activity and an Army activity some
200 years ago.
General Flowers. It was, sir.
Senator Craig. Is that adequate funding?
General Flowers. Sir, I think given all of the competing
interests for the very scarce resources that the taxpayers
have, it is probably sound. We have been trying to put as much
of our O & M budget as we can toward preparing our portion of
the Lewis and Clark Trail for or to receive visitors during the
Bicentennial.
Senator Craig. Yes.
General Flowers. And I can provide to you and your staff a
by-project listing of where we intend to invest money over the
next couple of years.
[The information follows:]
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OVERALL CAPABILITY FOR LEWIS AND CLARK PROJECTS AS
OF MARCH 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Total Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hannibal Lock and Dam, WV............................... $229,500
Lake Ashtabula, ND...................................... 400,000
Mississippi River from Missouri River to Minneapolis.... 475,000
Mississippi River from Ohio River to Missouri River..... 1,013,000
Clinton Lake, KS........................................ 30,000
Perry Lake, KS.......................................... 967,000
Fort Peck, MT........................................... 2,594,000
Garrison, ND............................................ 4,808,000
Gavins Point, SD and NE................................. 7,396,000
Oahe, SD and ND......................................... 465,000
Dworshak Dam, ID........................................ 738,000
Ice Harbor, WA.......................................... 1,280,000
Little Goose, WA........................................ 50,000
Lower Granite, WA....................................... 265,000
McNary, OR.............................................. 601,000
Mill Creek, WA.......................................... 150,000
Bonneville, WA and OR................................... 2,793,000
Dalles, WA and OR....................................... 184,000
John Day, WA and OR..................................... 1,403,000
Albeni Falls, WA........................................ 65,000
Lake Washington Ship Canal, WA.......................... 15,000
Mud Mountain Dam, WA.................................... 15,000
Chief Joseph Dam, WA.................................... 15,000
Libby Dam, WA........................................... 15,000
National Coordinator and Events......................... 310,000
---------------
TOTAL............................................. 26,276,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Craig. Well, I would like to see that. It is a
short-lived project, but it is certainly one worthy of this
country, and one to be celebrated. And we want to see it go
forward for all of the public to enjoy. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Thank you all, gentlemen, for your cooperation with the
committee and being here today and presenting the budget
request for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
[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 Pete V. Domenici
constraining corps construction
Question. One of the items the Corps' budget reduces significantly
is the Preconstruction, Engineering, and Design, or PED-phase projects.
In last year's enacted appropriation, the Congress funded approximately
80 projects in this phase. The PED phase is the last stage before
construction. The administration is proposing to cut that number to
about 18.
Can you, General Flowers or Undersecretary Brownlee tell the
committee the practical effect this has for these projects?
Mr. Brownlee. The reduction in the number of PED's is an important
element of our budget proposal. It is not due to any limitation on
planning or design funds. Rather, until the large backlog of ongoing
construction projects is reduced we need to reduce the number of
projects that we design and initiate. The Fiscal Year 2004 Budget
continues much important ongoing planning, PED and research work but
does put on hold many continuing PED activities that had been ongoing
in previous years. The Fiscal Year 2004 Budget includes five new
reconnaissance studies and provides significant funding for priority
ongoing planning, research and PED work. Until the large backlog of
ongoing construction projects is reduced we need to reduce the number
of projects that we design and initiate.
Question. Would this budget, if enacted, force the Federal
Government to terminate contracts?
Mr. Brownlee. No PED contracts would be terminated as a result of
this budget. The PED activities would be in a pause status, not
terminating, and as such could be continued when funds become
available.
Question. Is there funding included in your budget to cover the
contract termination costs associated with this decreased PED activity?
Mr. Brownlee. Since no PED contracts would be terminated, there is
no termination costs associated with this decreased PED activity and no
funds for termination would be needed.
transformation of the corps
Question. The Congress and the administration are always seeking
new ways to do things more efficiently, more effectively, and less
costly. As always, we see continuous negative news reports about the
Corps. I would like to commend you, General Flowers, for undertaking
this effort to transform the Corps.
Commonly, constituents complain about the permitting process, or
that the construction process takes too long with a large project
averaging from 10 to 15 years, depending on the size. Can you tell this
committee what the Corps is doing internally to transform itself into a
more productive agency?
General Flowers. We are doing a number of things to transform
ourselves into a more productive agency. First, we are strengthening
the Planning Program. We're cooperating with major universities and
have established a planner training and development plan, to include
core curriculum, a new Planning Associates Program, and the Masters in
Water Resources Planning. We are also moving forward with a Planning
Leadership Development and looking at our structure with a focus on
establishing centers of Specialized Planning Expertise needed for the
21st Century. We are also looking to modernize planning processes,
tools and models as well as our environmental benefit evaluation and
formulation. We have developed and are now working on specific
procedures to implement the Environmental Operating Principles to
assist field planners in formulating environmentally sustainable civil
works projects. Having more effective planning practices will lead to
better studies, which will lead to better reports and a more efficient
study process.
We must improve our operations for more expeditious and productive
performance. In recognition of this, I have been engaged, throughout my
tenure as Chief, in an effort, initiated by my predecessor, to
reengineer the organizations and business operations of the Corps of
Engineers. In that effort we have selected the project management way
of doing business as the basis for developing a business management
system and attendant organizations and operations. This system, called
PMBP, including an automated information system (AIS) to go along with
it, is being implemented Corps-wide to manage all Corps projects more
efficiently and effectively. Supporting policy and doctrine,
definitions of our business processes, and curriculum are in now in
place Corps-wide. Deployment of the AIS is scheduled to begin in mid-
October and once fully deployed, the PMBP system will greatly enhance
our ability to better support the Army, other Federal agencies, and the
Nation.
As to our permitting process, we will have available by August 1,
2003, an electronic application and comment form tied to the
implementation of our new permit tracking system. Most Districts are
currently publishing their Public Notices on the web and are moving
toward electronic notification procedures. Other plans include the
hiring of additional personnel to reduce process time for the large
number of standard permits and general permits; continuing to encourage
pre-application coordination allowing potential applicants to work out
issues before submission of an application and allocation of additional
resources to studies of watershed approaches to the permit process. The
latter allows better prediction of future permit impacts in sensitive
areas so permit review can be expedited for standard permits as well as
other permit actions.
Question. It is my understanding that the Corps has undertaken an
examination of its processes, what is the most remarkable thing you
have found?
General Flowers. In examining the processes that are leading to the
transformation of the Corps I have found it remarkable how powerful a
concept ``working in teams'' can be. Through teams, we are able to
exchange information, ideas, and concepts, which lead to solutions
coming from a synergy that is simply not present when working in the
traditional ``stovepipe'' method.
Question. Did you seek out the views of any affected parties
outside the Corps, its customers and critics?
General Flowers. Yes, I have. Among those is the Corps Reform
Network, comprising all parties interested in improving our program. We
have also redoubled our efforts to engage Federal, State, and local
agencies, stakeholders, and the public in meaningful dialogue on what
the Corps should look like in the future. Additionally, I have issued
communication principles to ensure open, effective, and timely two-way
communication with the entire community of water resources interests.
We know well that we must continue to listen and communicate
effectively in order to remain relevant.
Question. What are ways the Congress can assist the Corps to become
better at its job?
General Flowers. Senator I would seek any and all advice and
guidance that the Congress can provide as to what you would like to see
out of your Corps of Engineers. We have heard what the people we have
spoken with have said, and we are working to transform the organization
into a one that will provide better service to the Nation. We look
forward to continue to working with the Congress as well as
stakeholders and all who have provided input, so we can all do a better
job.
inland waterway and harbor maintenance trust funds
Question. The administration's budget proposes to change the use of
both the Inland Waterway Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund. As the author of the Inland Waterway Trust Fund, I am concerned
about the impact of the proposal to utilize these funds for Operation
and Maintenance projects and to utilize the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund, strictly an O&M account, for construction projects.
If the Congress was to enact these two trust fund changes, General
Flowers, what is the effect?
General Flowers. The commercial interests that use the inland
waterways system are paying a portion of the costs of capital
improvements. However, the costs of operation and maintenance, which
are substantial, have continued to be borne entirely by the general
taxpayers.
The budget proposed to begin using some of the diesel fuel receipts
to finance a portion of the inland waterways system's operation and
maintenance costs. The administration has recommended using $146
million for this proposal in fiscal year 2004, which would cover about
38 percent of the estimated operation and maintenance costs. The
remaining costs would continue to be financed through general tax
revenues. Under the budget proposal, those who benefit commercially
from past Federal investments in the inland waterways navigation system
would pay a fair share of all of the system's costs--for the
construction and major rehabilitation of projects, as well as their
operation and maintenance.
The budget includes a similar proposal for coastal ports and
channels. Some users of certain U.S. ports now pay a tax in proportion
to the value of their imports. Treasury deposits these receipts, along
with tolls collected on the St. Lawrence Seaway, into the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund. Until now, Congress has used this Fund to
finance the cost of operating and maintaining these waterways. The
budget proposes to expand it use to include the Federal costs of the
Army Corps of Engineers work on coastal port and channel construction.
The administration has recommended using $205 million for this purpose
in fiscal year 2004.
Question. Wouldn't the two trust funds be essentially diluted if we
expand their scope?
General Flowers. Under both proposals, those who benefit
commercially from Federal investments in navigation would pay a fair
share of all navigation system costs--for the construction and major
rehabilitation of projects, as well as their operations and
maintenance. Since the funds would still be used for navigation, we do
not view the funds as being diluted.
Question. Can you tell this committee, if Congress enacted these
proposals today, at the current rate of spending, when would the trust
funds be insolvent?
General Flowers. At the current rate of collections and outlays,
the Inland Waterway Trust Fund could run out of funds by the end of
fiscal year 2006. Within this time frame, however, Congress and the
administration should be able to reach agreement on the best way to
allocate responsibility for future inland waterways operation and
maintenance costs.
The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund balance would continue to grow,
but more slowly, so long as annual outlays remain about the same and
the fund continues to receive harbor maintenance tax payments as
projected.
Question. What decisions would we have to make if these two funds
became insolvent?
General Flowers. The draw down of the fund will be affected by many
variables, including economic conditions and funding decisions. At the
current rate of collections and outlays, the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund would continue to show positive balances for many years. The
situation with the Inland Waterways Trust Fund is not as favorable; it
could run out of funds by the end of fiscal year 2006. Within this time
frame, however, Congress and the administration should be able to reach
agreement on the best way to allocate responsibility for future inland
waterways operation and maintenance costs.
power marketing administrations (pma's) direct spending proposal
Question. The administration has included for the second year, a
proposal to allow for direct spending by the PMA's of Operations and
Maintenance work. Bonneville already has this authority, and I believe
we need to pursue all of our options, however, I think we need to gain
a better understanding of the effect of this proposal.
How would the Corps budget be affected if we enacted this proposal?
Mr. Brownlee. Enactment of a direct funding authorization together
with the completion of necessary inter-agency Memoranda of Agreements,
would reduce the need to provide annual appropriations for hydropower
operation and maintenance (O&M) activities. The power customers are
willing to spend more on maintenance activities than Congress has
appropriated in recent years. We would apply the extra funds to
hydropower maintenance. This will improve the reliability of the power
that we provide by reducing the incidence and duration of unscheduled
equipment outages.
Question. What assurances do we have that the Corps would be
credited those funds which would be directly funded? How do we know
that the Corps gets the direct savings instead of those going to the
General Fund of the Treasury?
Mr. Brownlee. If the administration's proposal were enacted, we
would execute the Memoranda of Agreement and begin direct funding in
fiscal year 2004.
Question. One important concern I have is that if this proposal
were enacted, it appears that the costs for operations and maintenance
would just be passed on to the ratepayer without any oversight, either
by the administration or Congress. Is this true?
Mr. Brownlee. Under the administration's direct funding proposal,
every year all work and costs associated with a given Federal
hydropower facility would continue to be documented and submitted to
the PMA's. In the case of Bonneville, projected system costs are
submitted to the administration and identified in the President's
budget. Additionally, Congress requires a 3-year progress report on the
direct funding with Bonneville, which was completed and submitted in
December 2002. Thus the administration and Congress both will continue
to provide oversight of the use of funds.
Only costs associated with the production of electricity would be
passed on to the rate payer under this proposal, consistent with the
``beneficiary pays'' principle. Costs for other project benefits such
as navigation and flood control would continue to be covered with
annual appropriations. For multipurpose projects, the joint costs
allocated to hydropower would continue to be funded through annual
appropriations.
Every year all work and costs associated with a given Federal
hydropower facility must be documented and submitted to the PMA's.
These costs are also submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission in evaluation of rates nationwide. The PMA's and the Corps
use this information to develop 5-year work plans for projecting future
costs. In the case of Bonneville, these projected system costs are
submitted to the administration and identified in the President's
budget. Additionally, Congress required a 3-year progress report on the
direct funding with Bonneville, which was completed and submitted in
December 2002.
Question. How has Bonneville done under this authority? What's the
biggest complaint?
General Flowers. Through a strategy based on increased funding of
Corps hydropower facilities in the northwest, the region has
experienced a more stable power supply, additional generation of
electricity, and increased revenues. Breakdowns have decreased from 5.5
percent to 2.7 percent over the past 3 years under direct funding
authority.
Question. Can you tell us what benefits the Government and the
Corps has gained with Bonneville having its own authority?
General Flowers. One of the key management tools in efficiently
maintaining a hydropower facility is the ability to address maintenance
before a problem becomes larger. Direct funding achieves this objective
by providing a way to make additional funds available for maintenance.
In addition, direct funding has provided the flexibility to fund
critical maintenance as it is identified, rather than having to attempt
to forecast priorities as part of the budget cycle. This regional
system approach creates more reliable and improved system performance
in a region that 70 percent of the power needs are provided by the
hydropower system. Consequently, the closer partnership between
Bonneville and the Corps has led to an overall Performance Measurement
Management System--where system performance drives investment
decisions.
alamogordo flood control
Question. There have been questions raised about the level of flood
protection afforded to the residents of Alamogordo by the Alamogordo
flood protection project. In particular, there have been indications
that the project will not allow citizens within the area to be
protected by the project, to get out of the need to pay for FEMA flood
insurance. Could you please update the Committee on the status of the
Alamogordo project and the level of flood protection that will be
provided to the citizens of the area?
General Flowers. The project consists of three diversion channels,
South Channel, McKinley Channel, and North Channel. Construction of
South Channel was initiated in late 2000. The project is designed to
divert the 1 percent or 100-year flow from storms originating in the
Sacramento Mountains safely through or around the City. Upon project
completion, approximately 75 percent of currently flood-prone
structures will be removed from the 100-year floodplain and will no
longer be required to maintain flood insurance. Even with these
improvements, some residual flooding will occur from storms occurring
directly over the City. The local sponsor is currently considering the
need for additional protection.
Question. When will this project be ready to proceed to
construction and what is the estimated time for completion?
General Flowers. Phase I of the South Channel was initiated in
December 2000 and completed in June 2002. Remaining phases of the South
Channel will be initiated this spring, followed by McKinley Channel and
North Channel. The schedule will depend upon the availability of
funding and other factors. Subject to the usual qualifications on
capability, we could compete the project by September 2009.
emergency supplemental
Question. Are there any Civil Works requirements for the
supplemental, either in terms of emergency or terrorism needs that the
Congress needs to consider?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, at this time we expect to be able to address the
priority emergency and terrorism needs without supplemental funding.
Question. Within the fiscal year 2003 appropriation, are there
sufficient funds to cover your terrorism related expenses?
Mr. Brownlee. Senator, the Fiscal Year 2003 President's Budget for
facility protection required $65 million, but the appropriation was $35
million. This amount will be sufficient to pay for guards, provided
that we do not enter a heightened alert status for an extended period.
Question. From an economic security standpoint, is there anything
that would make sense for the Congress to include in the Supplemental
on behalf of the Corps?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir at this time we do not expect to need
supplemental funding.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
civil works contribution to national defense
Question. Please explain the contribution provided to this Nation's
Defense by the Civil Works Program?
General Flowers. The contributions provided by the Corps' Civil
Works program are substantial. The Civil Works Program is a valuable
asset in support of the National Security Strategy in many ways.
Foremost, we have a trained engineering workforce, with world-class
expertise, capable of responding to a variety of situations across the
spectrum of national defense. In fact, skills developed in managing
Corps projects transfer to most tactical engineering-related
operations.
The Civil Works mission complements and augments the Army's war
fighting competencies providing established relationships with the
Nation's engineering and construction industries--a force multiplier
with ``On the shelf'' contracts available for emergencies. Civil Works
members are deployable. During Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm,
more Civil Works employees volunteered for duty in Southwest Asia than
were needed. To date, 250 civilian members of our Civil Works Program
team have volunteered for deployment in support of Operation Enduring
Freedom--providing engineering, construction, and real estate support
specialists and professionals skilled in managing large, complex
projects.
Civil Works also provides professionals with expertise in natural
and cultural resources, water quality, flood plain management or toxic
waste control, helping the Army comply with more than 70 Federal
environmental statutes, and a breadth of experience and workload in
dozens of specialized fields that would not otherwise be possible.
Finally, Army Engineers experienced in Civil Works play a major role in
infrastructure in developing nations. They help to improve economic
conditions and strengthen democratic institutions in these nations and
foster good will through contact between governments and armed forces.
civil works value to the national economy
Question. Could you please provide an explanation of the overall
value that the Civil Works program makes to this Nation's economy?
General Flowers. The Corps Civil Works program supports our
national economy through the provision of physical infrastructure
features. These include navigation features that facilitate domestic
and foreign commerce by means of waterborne transportation; flood
control features that reduce the risk of flooding and the extent of
flood damages incurred; and hydroelectric power generation features
located at 75 Corps operated facilities.
economic security requirements
Question. Does the administration intend to submit a supplemental
appropriations bill covering unmet economic security requirements
associated with the recently enacted Omnibus Bill or associated with
the fiscal year 2004 budget?
Mr. Brownlee. At this time, we expect to be able to address the
priority needs of the Civil Works program without supplemental funding.
national water policy
Question. General Flowers, in your role as the Chief of Engineers,
what do you see as the major water resource challenges facing this
country in the future? Do you see value in an overall National Water
Policy Debate occurring?
General Flowers. Sir, because the conflicting demands for water
appear to be increasing across the country in major watersheds I see
value in the debate. Last fall, the American Water Resources
Association sponsored a seminar on the need to better coordinate water
policy. Solutions to complex water problems will not be easy without
collaboration of many government organizations at all levels, first and
foremost at the State level.
preconstruction engineering and design
Question. What was the decision process for funding only 19
Preconstruction Engineering and Design studies in the fiscal year 2004
budget? As Truckee Meadows is one that is going unfunded within my
State, you can understand, I am very curious. Reno has suffered many
devastating floods and is in desperate need of this flood protection
project.
Mr. Brownlee. The reduction in the number of PED's is an important
element of our budget proposal. It is not due to any limitation on
planning or design funds. Rather, until the large backlog of ongoing
construction projects is reduced we need to reduce the number of
projects that we design and initiate. The Fiscal Year 2004 Budget
includes five new reconnaissance studies and provides significant
funding for priority ongoing planning, research and PED work. For the
Preconstruction, Engineering and Design, we funded those projects that
had strong benefit to cost ratios or high environmental outputs and
that are near completion.
civil works budget less than previous years appropriations
Question. We have noted that the President's proposed Fiscal Year
2004 Budget is nearly $400,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2003
enacted Civil Works Program, what is the impact of such a drastic cut
on the ongoing Program?
Mr. Brownlee. Senator, in fiscal year 2002, the Congress
appropriated $1,828,035,000, net of a reduction for savings and
slippage, for specifically authorized projects included in the
Construction, General account in the fiscal year 2002 budget. The
amount in the President's fiscal year 2004 budget for specifically
authorized projects funded in the Construction, General account is
$1,466,095,000, net of a reduction for savings and slippage. Increasing
the budgeted amount for fiscal year 2004 by the difference of
$361,940,000 would enable the acceleration of a number of projects,
enabling benefits of approximately $1,500,000,000 to come on-line 1
year sooner. Cost savings would largely be attributable to differences
in price levels.
Question. How do you plan to manage such a drastic cut?
General Flowers. At this time, we are continuing to execute the
fiscal year 2003 program enacted by the Congress. The fiscal year 2004
budget was prepared before enactment of the fiscal year 2003
appropriations, so we will need to do some reprogrammings to address
changes in the continuing requirements of some work. We will finalize
our execution plans after enactment of fiscal year 2004 appropriations
legislation.
Question. What level of funding would be necessary to maintain the
progress realized in the Civil Works Program through the enacted
appropriations levels for the past couple of years?
General Flowers. Sir, the level of funding needed to execute at a
level commensurate with fiscal year 2003 appropriations, including an
adjustment for inflation, would be about $4.8 billion in fiscal year
2004. However, the fiscal year 2003 appropriations included funds for
projects that are not included in the fiscal year 2004 budget.
army recommendation
Question. What was the Fiscal Year 2004 Program that the Department
of the Army recommended? What rationale was provided as to why this
program was not supported?
Mr. Brownlee. Senator, a number of alternative funding levels were
developed, proposed and discussed. As you know, the advice and counsel
leading up to the final decision that form the basis of the President's
budget are part of the internal deliberative process. The Army's
requests were fully considered during the budget process.
Question. What level of funding would be necessary to sustain the
progress developed in fiscal year 2003 in meeting the Nation's water
infrastructure needs?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, the level of funding needed to execute at a
level commensurate with fiscal year 2003 appropriations, including an
adjustment for inflation, would be about $4.8 billion in fiscal year
2004. However, the fiscal year 2003 appropriations included funds for
projects that are not be included in the fiscal year 2004 budget.
Question. If the administration's budget proposal is enacted, what
will be the impact on meeting the Army Corps' O&M backlog? The
construction backlog?
General Flowers. Our latest estimate of the construction backlog of
ongoing budgeted construction work is $21 billion. I should note that
this figure does not include the construction costs of projects in
preconstruction, engineering and design or that are not budgeted. The
fiscal year 2004 budget applies nearly $1.3 billion to construction of
specifically authorized projects, as part of the administration's
comprehensive strategy to reduce the backlog over time.
We now refer to our operation and maintenance work that cannot be
deferred without added cost or a loss in performance as high priority
work. With the Fiscal Year 2004 President's Budget of $1.939 billion
for the Corps Operation and Maintenance, General program there would be
a backlog of an estimated $1.011 billion in high-priority operation and
maintenance work.
relationship to national defense
Question. What is the relationship of the Corps' Civil Works
Program to the defense of our homeland?
General Flowers. The Civil Works Program is a valuable asset in
support of the National Security Strategy in many ways. Foremost, we
have a trained engineering workforce, with world-class expertise,
capable of responding to a variety of situations across the spectrum of
national defense. In fact, skills developed in managing Corps projects
transfer to most tactical engineering-related operations. The Civil
Works mission complements and augments the Army's war fighting
competencies providing established relationships with the Nation's
engineering and construction industries--a force multiplier with ``On
the shelf'' contracts available for emergencies. Civil Works members
are deployable. During Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm, more
Civil Works employees volunteered for duty in Southwest Asia than were
needed.
To date, 250 civilian members of our Civil Works Program team have
volunteered for deployment in support of Operation Enduring Freedom--
providing engineering, construction, and real estate support
specialists and professional skilled in managing large, complex
projects, transferable to most tactical engineering-related operations.
Civil Works also provides professionals with expertise in natural and
cultural resources, water quality, flood plain management or toxic
waste control, helping the Army comply with more than 70 Federal
environmental statutes, and a breadth of experience and workload in
dozens of specialized fields that would not otherwise be possible.
Finally, Army Engineers experienced in Civil Works play a major
role in infrastructure in developing nations. They help to improve
economic conditions and strengthen democratic institutions in these
nations and foster good will through contact between governments and
armed forces.
terrorist threat
Question. How would you characterize the threat from terrorism to
this country's vital Civil Works Projects?
General Flowers. The vulnerability of water resources
infrastructure facilities to potential acts of sabotage has always been
a concern throughout history. All of our projects have some measure of
protection in place based on traditional risk assessments and would be
happy to personally discuss these threats further with you.
Question. Could you provide an example of the kind of risk that you
are talking about?
General Flowers. Again, I would be happy to personally discuss
these threats with you.
minimizing vulnerability to terrorist threat
Question. What efforts are you undertaking to minimize this risk?
General Flowers. Since the events of September 11, 2001, we have
increased and modified our security posture at our facilities in
response the changing threat levels. We performed an initial screening
of over 600 dams and other facilities and determined that approximately
350 projects could be considered to have high consequences in the event
of a terrorist attack. Consequences were based on the potential for
loss of life and/or impacts to the facility purpose including
navigation, flood control, hydropower, and ecological outputs. The list
was further refined to the 306 facilities that we believe warrant
security upgrades and detailed assessments and review has been
completed on all of these. Vulnerability assessments produce a
recommended system of improvements targeted to reduce the risk
associated with potential threats to the facility. Elements of the
proposed systems can include cameras, lighting, fencing, structure
hardening, and access control devices designed to improve detection and
delay at each facility.
One hundred four million dollars of the Operation and Maintenance
funds provided in this budget are targeted for facility security. We
will direct funding to those priority projects at which there is
potential for loss of lives downstream or economic consequences of
greater than $200 million and will continue security improvements at
our administrative facilities.
Question. Does the President's proposed budget provide adequate
resources to address this risk?
General Flowers. Sir, we are funding the highest priority need
first. Based on current assessments, we are comfortable with our
funding path.
Question. What funds would you need to adequately address the risk
to our Civil Works Projects?
General Flowers. Sir, we are funding the highest priority need
first. Based on current assessments, we are comfortable with our
funding path.
commodity flow through corps built harbors
Question. What is the percentage of the Nation's commerce that come
into or leave this country that goes through a Corps-built and -
maintained harbor?
General Flowers. Over 95 percent of the commodities that leave or
enter this country by ship moves through our Nation's coastal and Great
Lakes harbors, virtually all of which is in Federal channels maintained
by the Corps.
historic spending for infrastructure maintenance
Question. Could you characterize the proportion of the
discretionary budget of the Federal Government that is directed toward
building and maintaining this country's water infrastructure today to
say 30 years ago?
General Flowers. According to information published in the fiscal
year 2004 ``Historical Tables of the Budget of the United States
Government'', in fiscal year 1974, Federal Government outlays in
support of the ``water resources'' subfunction within the ``Natural
Resources and Environment'' function totaled $2.200 billion or 1.6
percent of discretionary outlays totaling $138.2 billion.
In the proposed fiscal year 2004 budget, Federal Government outlays
in support of the ``water resources'' subfunction within the ``Natural
Resources and Environment'' function are estimated to be $5.062 billion
or 0.6 percent of discretionary outlays totaling $818.8 billion.
With respect to the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program, in
fiscal year 1974, the Corps' outlays were $1.664 billion, or 1.2
percent of total Federal discretionary outlays. In the proposed fiscal
year 2004 budget, the Corps' outlays are estimated to be $4.117
billion, or 0.5 percent of total Federal discretionary outlays.
deteriorating infrastructure--economic impacts
Question. Could you provide some examples of this deteriorating
infrastructure could have to this Nation's economic and National
security?
General Flowers. Our inland waterways handle more than 15 percent
of the Nation's intercity freight traffic, including 20 percent of the
coal for power plants, petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel
fuel, strategic chemicals and minerals, and more than half of our
export grain. Generally, as this waterway infrastructure has aged,
backlog of maintenance and repair needs has grown. While many inland
waterway segments are heavily used, other service relatively low
volumes of traffic. The budget gives priority to the maintenance of
segments that carry a higher volume of traffic due to the economic
impacts that a breakdown could have.
Question. Could you provide a historical perspective on the value
of the Nation's inland waterways for Nation security and economic
security?
General Flowers. Many military and industrial facilities were
located on our inland waterways during World War II for added security.
Ships and submarines were built and launched from our inland waterways.
Over time, our inland waterways have been used to move strategic and
oversized equipment, such as nuclear generators and rocket components,
as well as military vehicles and equipment.
environmental projects
Question. What percentage of the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget is
associated with environmental projects?
General Flowers. Sir, nearly 19 percent of the fiscal year 2004
budget is classified as environmental, including the Regulatory Program
and Formerly Used Remedial Action Plan (FUSRAP) Program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
west virginia flood recovery
Question. What is the status of the flood-recovery work for which
the Corps was authorized to conduct at a level of $8 million in the
Fiscal Year 2001 Supplemental Appropriations bill for the July 2001
floods in West Virginia?
General Flowers. All work is complete. The Huntington District
Corps of Engineers accomplished three primary missions. These missions
included repair of public infrastructure, repair and restoration of
flood-damaged facilities at Corps' projects, and flood documentation.
Flood recovery efforts were accomplished in close coordination with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, the West Virginia Conservation Agency, and other Federal and
State disaster coordinators.
Approximately $5.1 million was used to assist affected counties
with infrastructure repair. Thirty-one emergency streambank protection
projects were constructed along West Virginia State Routes 1, 3, 16,
24, 35, 54, and 97 in Boone, Wyoming, McDowell, Raleigh, Mercer, and
Fayette Counties.
Approximately $2 million was used to repair and restore existing
facilities at several Corps projects that incurred damage during the
July 2001 event. At the R.D. Bailey project, $1,777,000 was utilized
for flood debris cleanup and to relocate facilities out of the flood
plain. At Summersville Lake, $80,000 was utilized to remove drift and
debris accumulations. On the Kanawha River, $143,000 was utilized for
removal of flood-related silt material following the flooding.
Approximately $900,000 was utilized for flood documentation. This
included flood damage surveys of residential, commercial, and public
structures. Surveys of damages to highways and utilities were also
conducted. High water marks were established and data was collected and
analyzed for stream profiles and cross-sections. Public workshops were
conducted to confirm structure damage and obtain flood experiences and
feedback for future use in the development of potential solutions to
the flooding problem.
Question. What is the status of the flood-recovery work for which
the Corps was authorized to conduct at a level of $10 million in the
Fiscal Year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Bill for the May 2002
floods in Southern West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, and Southwestern
Virginia?
General Flowers. Work is currently ongoing. The primary mission of
the Huntington District Corps of Engineers is to repair public
infrastructure and provide flood documentation. This mission is being
done in coordination with Federal, State and local emergency management
organizations.
Approximately $9,500,000 will be used to assist affected counties
with infrastructure repair in West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia. Of
this, approximately $6,000,000 will be used in West Virginia for
emergency road embankment repairs along U.S. Route 52, WV State Routes
16, 80 and 83, and County Routes 1, 3, 7/8, 7/28, 17, and 32/55.
Approximately $1,750,000 will be used in Kentucky for emergency road
embankment repairs along Kentucky State Routes 195 and 1441, and
approximately $1,750,000 will be used in Virginia for emergency road
embankment repairs along Virginia State Routes 67 and 83.
Approximately $500,000 will be utilized for flood documentation.
This will include flood damage surveys of residential, commercial, and
public structures. High water marks have been established and will be
used to determine approximate flood frequency levels.
marmet locks replacement
Question. Which lock in the United States is most heavily used?
General Flowers. Marmet is the most heavily used lock in terms of
commercial lockage cycles. In 2002, Marmet processed over 15,000
commercial lockages.
Question. Is the Marmet Lock replacement important to maintaining
and increasing the efficient flow of commerce along the Kanawha and
Ohio Rivers? How many tons of cargo, and what type of cargo, were
shipped through the locks in 2002? Does the project have a strong
benefit/cost ratio?
General Flowers. The Marmet lock replacement is important to
maintain and increase the flow of commerce. The locks move millions of
tons of cargo to and from West Virginia. Improvements at Marmet would
reduce the average transit time from 4.7 hours to 0.8 hours, a
reduction in lock transit time of 3.9 hours. At 2002 traffic levels,
the new lock would yield almost 14.8 thousand hours of reduced trip
time for the 3,793 tows that used the project.
In 2002, nearly 13.5 million tons of cargo were shipped through
Marmet. Coal accounted for 93 percent of all tonnage, or 12.6 million
tons. Other commodities were petroleum, crude materials, chemicals, and
manufactured machinery and goods.
The project has a total benefit to cost ration of 2.5 to 1 and a
remaining benefit to cost ratio of 4.2 to 1.
Question. The Marmet Locks and Dam are nearly 70 years old. Are the
locks deteriorating? If so, what impact does this have on
transportation and the safety of those working at the locks, in the
barge industry, and on area residents?
General Flowers. The Marmet locks and dam were placed in service in
1934. The locks have experienced significant deterioration over the
nearly 70 years of operation. The small chambers at Marmet require up
to five lockage cycles of the operating gates and valves to process a
typical Kanawha River tow. This intense level of usage has resulted in
accelerated deterioration in recent years. Concrete and embedded steel
at critical miter gate areas have failed, causing additional delays for
repairs and operational procedure changes to insure lockage safety. The
upstream guard wall was built on wooden cribbing which has failed. The
guard wall has moved horizontally 6", and has dropped vertically more
than 12". The potential for collapse of this guard wall is high, and
significant economic impact would result if lock access were blocked.
Further, to assure both lock and tow personnel safety, no one is
allowed on the upper guard wall while tows are approaching the lock and
landing on the guard wall. Although there are no safety issues with
area residents, locking procedures have been modified and restrictions
placed on commercial tows to minimize the risk of collapse of the guard
wall.
Question. When are the lock chambers projected to reach maximum
capacity? What is the impact of reaching maximum capacity? Is there
potential for the same type of delays, which averaged 32 hours per
transit, and number of accidents which were prevalent at the former
Gallipolis Locks and Dam on the Ohio River prior to the replacement of
the locks and the rehabilitation of the dam?
General Flowers. The existing lock chambers (with a capacity of 20
million tons annually) are projected to reach maximum capacity in 2005,
with average delays of approximately 47 hours per tow. High delays are
expected as the capacity limit is approached. While the chambers at
Gallipolis required double cutting of typical Ohio River tows, the
undersized chambers at Marmet require five cuts to process the typical
Kanawha River tow. Average transit time at Marmet could exceed the time
experienced at Gallipolis prior to the replacement of its locks.
The old Gallipolis locks were a safety hazard due to a dangerous
upstream curve on the lock approach, when coupled with high water
conditions. That condition does not exist at Marmet.
Question. What improvements will be realized with a completed new
lock at Marmet?
General Flowers. The Marmet lock replacement includes construction
of a new 110 wide 800 long lock chamber landward of the existing
56 wide 360 chambers. This lock is sized to process a Kanawha River
tow consisting of nine jumbo barges in a single lockage cycle, reducing
the average transit time to 0.8 hours. A new guard wall will provide
improved approach conditions for the new lock and continue to provide
protection to the navigation dam. The new lock will feature
programmable logic control to permit safe efficient operation of the
lock from a single central location.
Once the Marmet project is completed, the aging Kanawha River locks
will have been completely modernized. New locks at Winfield and Marmet,
and an extended lock chamber at London, will provide industry an
efficient, effective transportation system.
Question. Has the Corps completed real estate acquisition in Belle?
How many properties have been acquired?
General Flowers. The Marmet locks replacement project required
acquisition of 216 tracts of real estate. The real estate acquisition
phase was completed in 2002.
Question. What is the President's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget request
for the Marmet project? What will this amount allow the Corps to
accomplish?
General Flowers. The fiscal year 2004 budget request for Marmet is
$52.154 million. These funds would be used to continue construction of
the new lock, and continue environmental mitigation and cultural
mitigation.
Question. What is the full capability for Marmet? What additional
work will this amount allow the Corps to accomplish?
General Flowers. The maximum capability estimate for a study or
project reflects the readiness of work for accomplishment. It is the
most that the Army Corps of Engineers could obligate efficiently during
the fiscal year for that study or project. Because each estimate is
made without reference to the rest of the Army Civil Works program,
these estimates are not cumulative. Civil Works studies and projects
compete for funding and manpower. The President's fiscal year 2004
budget for the Army Civil Works program proposes funding levels that
reflect this administration's assessment of nation priorities in view
of the many potential uses of Federal funds. Consequently, while the
Corps could obligate additional funds on some studies and projects,
offsetting reductions within the Army Civil Works program would be
required to maintain overall budgetary objectives. Furthermore, the
budget allocates the funding available to the army Civil Works Program
in a manner that would enable the Corps to use funds effectively. The
fiscal year 2004 capability for Marmet is $69.2 million. These funds
would allow lock construction to proceed at an efficient rate in fiscal
year 2004.
london locks rehabilitation
Question. What is the benefit/cost ratio of the London Locks
Rehabilitation project?
General Flowers. The total benefit/cost ratio of the London locks
rehabilitation project is currently 21.1 to 1.
Question. Now that all of the necessary funding for the
rehabilitation project has been secured, what is the current status of
the project and what is the anticipated completion timeframe?
General Flowers. Construction to replace the upper guard wall and
extend the size of the lock chamber from 360 to 407 was initiated in
March 2002. The contract is 85 percent complete, and will be completed
in the summer 2003.
Question. By what percentage will lock capacity increase once the
rehabilitation is completed? What other benefits will be derived?
General Flowers. Once rehabilitation is complete, the riverward
lock capacity will increase by 21 percent. The chamber will better
serve modern tows by accommodating two jumbo barges in a single lockage
cycle, instead of one. Jumbo barges are the navigation industry's
preferred mode of shipment on the Kanawha River. Delays and queuing
time will be substantially lessened, an important benefit since traffic
demand at London is expected to grow. The other important benefit of
project rehabilitation is the ability to provide a safe and reliable
level of service. This will be achieved once replacement of the upper
guard wall is complete. The wall had failed structurally.
bluestone dam safety project
Question. What risks are currently posed by the Bluestone Dam to
the communities, businesses, and the environment below the dam?
General Flowers. Under current design criteria, the probable
maximum flood (PMF) is estimated to overtop the existing dam by 8. Dam
failure would cause catastrophic flooding along the New, Greenbrier,
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 $6.5 billion.
Question. What level of flooding would cause the dam to fail
catastrophically? How likely is it that such a level of flooding might
occur? What is the likelihood that the dam will fail in the next 50
years? In the next 100?
General Flowers. 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 is the current status of work completed on the dam
safety project with available funds?
General Flowers. The first phase of construction is underway. Phase
1 includes installation of a thrust block to partially stabilize the
dam and extension of the six penstocks which will be used to improve
discharge capacity if an event approaching the magnitude of the PMF
event were to occur. In fiscal year 2003, installation of the penstock
extensions will be completed, and work will continue on placing the
mass concrete thrust blocks. Plans and specifications will be initiated
for phases 2A and 2B. Phase 2A includes the Route 20 gate opening,
stilling basin training walls, east abutment monolith, fishing pier,
and other miscellaneous work. Phase 2B includes the 8 pre-cast
concrete parapet wall added to the top of the dam to accommodate the
PMF event and anchors which will further stabilize the dam.
Question. Are there additional Corps capabilities for this project
above those identified in the President's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget?
General Flowers. Subject to the prior stated qualifications on
capabilities, the Corps has an additional capability of $1.7 million
above the President's Budget request of $2.6 million, for a total of
$4.3 million. The added funds could be used to initiate Phase 2A
construction.
Question. Contingent on adequate funding being provided, this
project is not scheduled for completion until September 2008. In the
meantime, what additional measures can be taken to minimize the risks
to the public and to ensure that this project remains on track and a
high priority?
General Flowers. With maximum level funding that the Corps could
obligate efficiently, the project could be completed in September 2009.
An additional year is needed beyond our previous estimates in order to
accomplish additional model studies which will influence the design for
anchors in the stilling basin for the second phase of construction.
No temporary structural measures are feasible. The Huntington
District maintains a close vigil of any significant storm event that
could potentially move into or through the Bluestone Lake drainage
basin, and provides forecasts as early as possible in order to
determine if and when a hazardous pool level could occur. The Water
Control Plan provides for special operational techniques during major
floods to minimize risks to the public. In the event a forecast
indicates possible flow through the spillway, the Dam Safety Officer
would be briefed immediately, as well as other key personnel.
Continuous monitoring and updating of forecasts would occur and every
effort made to control the event. If spillway flow becomes imminent,
the District Engineer/Dam Safety Officer would decide if downstream
evacuation was warranted, and appropriate emergency organizations and
law enforcement agencies would be notified in order to minimize risk to
the public.
Question. What extra efforts is the Corps making to minimize the
impact of the project construction on the citizens of Hinton?
General Flowers. The Corps has undertaken several extra efforts in
order to minimize the impacts of project construction on the citizens
of Hinton. The Corps continue to work with a committee of local
residents appointed by the mayor to develop solutions to their concerns
about traffic, safety, and noise. In order to divert traffic away from
the Bellpoint community, a temporary 1,360 Bailey-type bridge was
built over the stilling basin to accommodate all construction traffic
during both phases of construction. The contractor uses the bridge for
all construction traffic including employee access and all construction
deliveries.
The committee and mayor are involved in Corps bi-monthly project
team meetings and quarterly partnering meetings with the contractor. A
web site has been created to keep town residents aware and informed of
the current status of the project, and serves as a way to provide
feedback and opinions. The web address is www.lrh.usace.army.mil/pa/
HotTopics/bluestone.htm. The project's Resident Engineer prepares a
monthly update for the area newspaper to inform residents about project
status. This information is well received and appreciated by the
community.
greenbrier river basin flood control
Question. What is the status of the City of Marlinton's effort to
identify a local cost share partner?
General Flowers. We are currently coordinating with the State of
West Virginia, the City of Marlinton, and the affected State
legislators to identify the appropriate non-Federal sponsor.
Question. Are there any Federal competitive grants that can be used
as the local match for the construction of Corps local flood control
projects, such as the Community Development Block Grant program under
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development?
General Flowers. Other Federal agency funds, such as those you
mentioned, can be used to cost share in Corps projects, if the granting
agency certifies in writing that the use of those funds for that
purpose is authorized.
Question. What type of in-kind contributions can the City of
Marlinton offer to the Corps to help defray costs associated with the
local match?
General Flowers. The town would receive credit for in-kind
contributions, such as value of lands, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material
disposal areas.
Question. What activities are currently being conducted on the
Marlinton local protection plan?
General Flowers. Current activity is limited to coordination
efforts with non-Federal interests to develop a project financing plan
and secure the local cost sharing match.
Question. What capabilities does the Corps anticipate for fiscal
year 2004 for the Marlinton local protection plan?
General Flowers. Subject to the previously mentioned qualifications
on capability, the maximum fiscal year 2004 capability is $2.5 million.
If provided, these funds could be used to continue detailed design,
complete plans and specifications for the first construction phase, and
prepare and execute a Project Cooperation Agreement. It is possible
that limited construction could possibly begin late in fiscal year
2004.
west virginia tug fork flood protection projects
Question. The President's request includes $15 million for the
multi-State Levisa and Tug Fork projects for fiscal year 2004; however,
none of these funds are slated for projects in West Virginia. Why are
no monies budgeted for the West Virginia Tug Fork projects?
General Flowers. There is no budgeted West Virginia project in the
Tug Fork program because economic analysis indicates that the costs
exceed the benefits.
Question. It was projected that the Corps would be closing out the
Lower Mingo, Upper Mingo, and Wayne County components of the project by
the end of fiscal year 2003. Will this goal be met? Please provide me
with a chart noting the number of eligible participants and the Federal
and local dollars spent for each region, including other improvements
that were made to the authorized areas such as new schools, community
structures, etc.
General Flowers. The three project components are nearly complete.
The majority of floodproofing and acquisition efforts will be completed
by the end of fiscal year 2003. The only remaining item is completion
of the Lower and Upper Mingo water and sewer service that will connect
flood proofed homes to the county-administered public system which is
being developed. However, the sewer/water contract has not yet been
awarded. Funding has been appropriated for the Federal share on the
contract. Final project closeout should occur in fiscal year 2004. No
further appropriations are necessary for the Lower Mingo, Upper Mingo,
and Wayne County elements of the project.
The following chart identifies the number of eligible participants
and the Federal and non-Federal dollars spent to date for Lower Mingo,
Upper Mingo, and Wayne Counties.
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project cost
Eligible -----------------------------------------------
participants Total Federal Non-Fed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Mingo County.............................. 585 $46.1 $43.8 $2.3
Upper Mingo County.............................. 270 13.5 12.8 0.7
Wayne County.................................... 115 6.6 6.3 0.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other significant project improvements are the new East Kermit
Elementary School and the new Kermit Town Hall and Fire Station. In
addition, all floodproofed structures in each of these three program
areas will be connected to a State-approved water and sewer system.
Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
year 2003 in McDowell County and what is the cost of the remaining
effort? What capability does the Corps have in McDowell County in
fiscal year 2004?
General Flowers. Remaining activities include voluntary
acquisition, floodproofing, and the design and construction of
relocated schools, town halls, and fire stations. Assuming a 100
percent participation rate in this voluntary non-structural project,
the remaining cost is $162.3 million. Subject to the previously
mentioned qualifications on providing capability amounts, the
capability for fiscal year 2004 is $8.0 million.
lower mud river
Question. What is the status of the revaluation report being
conducted by the Corps and the options that are being examined?
General Flowers. The draft report/Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement is scheduled for completion in March 2003.
A total of eight alternatives have been considered. One is the
channel alternative proposed by the NRCS, which consists of
approximately 2.8 miles of channel modifications, including stream
widening and overflow cuts, along the Mud River. A second plan would
divert flood waters approximately 2 miles around the Milton area. The
remaining six plans are levees, with varying levels of protection.
Question. What are the construction costs associated with each
option and the anticipated maintenance costs that will be the
responsibility of the local sponsor?
General Flowers. Based upon current estimates, the first levee plan
(low-level protection) will cost an estimated $30 million, with a
$13,000 annual O&M cost. The second levee plan (high-level protection)
is estimated to cost $40 million, with a $30,000 annual O&M cost. These
costs are subject to change during final design reviews and preparation
of the final report.
Question. Has the local sponsor indicated an ability to cover the
maintenance costs of the options being considered?
General Flowers. The City of Milton and the West Virginia
Conservation Agency have indicated that the O&M costs for both levee
plans would be affordable.
Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
year 2003 for the Lower Mud River project and what is the cost of the
remaining effort? What is the Corps capability for this project in
fiscal year 2004?
General Flowers. Remaining efforts include completion of detailed
design, completion of plans and specifications, execution of the
construction Project Cooperation Agreement, and construction of the
project. The Federal cost of the remaining effort is contingent upon
the alternative recommended in the reevaluation report. Subject to the
previously mentioned qualifications on capability, the maximum fiscal
year 2004 capability is $1.5 million. We could use these funds to
continue activities, including completing detailed design and
initiating plans and specifications.
little kanawha river feasibility study
Question. What is the status of the feasibility study for the
Little Kanawha River, for which $100,000 was provided in fiscal year
2003?
General Flowers. The Corps is meeting with potential sponsors for
projects that were identified in the reconnaissance report. If a
sponsor is identified, a feasibility study cost sharing agreement would
be executed and the study initiated.
Question. Does the Corps have additional capabilities for this
endeavor in fiscal year 2004?
General Flowers. There are no additional fiscal year 2004
capabilities beyond the President's Budget request of $65,000 for this
study.
operations and maintenance
Question. What are the budgeted amounts for Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) for the Kanawha River Locks and Dam, Summersville
Lake, and R.D. Bailey Lake?
General Flowers. The President's Budget for fiscal year 2004
contains the following requests: for Kanawha River Locks and Dam,
$7,655,000; for Summersville Lake, $1,469,000; and for R.D. Bailey Lake
$1,457,000.
Question. What are the full capabilities for each of the above, and
what additional O&M could be performed if full capability was achieved?
General Flowers. Subject to the previously mentioned qualifications
on capability, the maximum capability for the Kanawha River Locks and
Dam is $19,666,000. Additional work to be performed if the maximum
capability were appropriated includes the following: repair concrete
dam piers at Marmet and London; replace rail and structural members of
dam bulkhead cranes at Marmet and London; modify lower guide and guard
wall ladders at London, Marmet, and auxiliary chamber at Winfield;
rehab lower miter gates in auxiliary chamber at Winfield; install a tow
haulage unit at London; repair concrete in the riverward lock chamber
at London; and construct facility security at Winfield, Marmet, and
London.
Subject to the previously mentioned qualifications on capability,
the maximum capability for Summersville Lake is $2,969,000. If the
maximum capability were appropriated, additional funds would be used to
construct several project features at the Battle Run area. They would
be used to replace two restrooms, construct a campground entrance
station and host campsites, install courtesy docks at two boat launch
ramps, install a new sewage dump station, replace two lift stations,
and renovate playground with ADA-compliant equipment.
Subject to the previously mentioned qualifications on capability,
the maximum capability for R.D. Bailey Lake is $1,607,000. If the full
capability were appropriated, additional funds would be used to
construct a permanent trash boom and drift and debris staging area.
robert c. byrd locks and dam
Question. Please provide an estimate of the increased capability
and the reduction in navigation delays since operation of the new locks
commenced in January 1993. Please also include an estimate of the
navigation savings during this same time.
General Flowers. With the new R.C. Byrd locks, typical 15 barge
tows can now be processed in one operation instead of two, reducing tow
processing time from an average of about 16 hours to 1.6 hours. The
capacity of the older, smaller Gallipolis locks was estimated to be
63.3 million tons, while the new R.C. Byrd locks have a capacity of
148.5 million tons.
In the first year of operation, traffic at R.C. Byrd locks
increased by close to 15 percent. This occurred as it became cost
advantageous for upper Ohio utilities to source more coal from below
the Kanawha River since the project was no longer a constraint. Since
the new R.C. Byrd locks opened in 1993, annual traffic has grown from
almost 45.0 million tons to around 58 million tons. Current traffic
levels are around 55 million tons.
In the first 10 years of operation, the new R.C. Byrd locks have
realized total transportation savings of an estimated $302 million. The
total project cost is $381 million, with an incremental cost over the
without-project condition of $264 million. Using the current fiscal
year 2003 Federal Discount Rate of 5\7/8\ percent, R.C. Byrd Locks and
Dam project is expected to pay for itself by the end of calendar year
2003 in reduced transit times.
winfield locks and dam, west virginia
Question. Please provide an estimate of the increased capability
and the reduction in navigation delays since operation of the new
additional lock commenced in November 1997. Please also include an
estimate of the navigation savings during this same time.
General Flowers. The capacity of the old Winfield project was
estimated at 24 million tons. The capacity of the new lock at Winfield
is estimated at 69.5 million tons. Instead of the typical five-barge
tow being processed in five lockage cuts, a process taking
approximately 3 hours, the new lock can process nine-barge tows in a
single lockage cut taking approximately 1 hour. Total commercial
lockage cuts have reduced from over 22,000 to 3,000 annually.
The longer processing times at the old project also created
congestion generating average delays ranging from 3 to 12 hours per tow
between 1987 and 1997. Delays are currently around 30 minutes. Since
the new lock opened, transit times through Winfield have been reduced
by approximately 4.5 to 13.5 hours per tow. With 5 years of operation,
the new Winfield lock has realized an estimated $65.8 million in total
transportation savings from this reduced transit time. This cumulative
savings represent 22 percent of the incremental cost of the new lock.
The total cost of the project was $235.9 million. Discounting future
expected savings at the fiscal year 2003 Federal Discount rate of 5\7/
8\ percent and using the Feasibility Report's traffic forecasts,
Winfield lock will pay for itself by the year 2018.
proposal to use inland waterways trust fund for operations and
maintenance of corps inland waterways infrastructure
Question. Does this proposal violate the agreements underlying the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986, which affirmed continued
Federal responsibility for inland waterways operations and maintenance
(O&M) in return for waterways users assuming the obligation for
financing 50 percent of future construction and major rehabilitation
costs?
Mr. Brownlee. The commercial interests that use the inland
waterways system are paying a portion of the costs of capital
improvements. However, the costs of operation and maintenance, which
are substantial, have continued to be borne entirely by the general
taxpayers.
The budget proposed to begin using some of the diesel fuel receipts
to finance a portion of the inland waterways system's operation and
maintenance costs. The administration has recommended using $146
million for this proposal in fiscal year 2004, which would cover about
38 percent of the estimated operation and maintenance costs. The
remaining costs would continue to be financed through general tax
revenues. Under the budget proposal, those who benefit commercially
from past Federal investments in the inland waterways navigation system
would pay a fair share of all of the system's costs--for the
construction and major rehabilitation of projects, as well as their
operation and maintenance.
Question. Given the $23 billion backlog in construction and $1
billion backlog in O&M, is it possible that the double draw on the
Inland Waterway Trust Fund would deplete the fund in 3 years? If so,
how would future revenues for construction and O&M be generated? By
increasing the current 20 cents per gallon fuel tax on waterway users?
Would this, in turn, lead to a substantial increase in the
transportation costs of energy (namely coal) and agricultural products?
Mr. Brownlee. We have not proposed to change the way that Congress
finances the construction and major rehabilitation of inland waterways
projects. In fact, the budget includes a $3 million increase in
spending for such work, compared to the enacted fiscal year 2003 level.
At the current rate of collections and outlays, the Inland Waterway
Trust Fund could run out of funds by the end of fiscal year 2006.
Within this time frame, however, Congress and the administration should
be able to reach agreement on the best way to allocate responsibility
for future inland waterways operation and maintenance costs.
Question. The unspent balance in the Trust Fund and projected fuel
tax revenues for the foreseeable future are already committed to the
construction or major rehabilitation of congressionally approved
projects, such as the Marmet Lock replacement project. If the
administration's proposal goes forth, how can the administration
provide assurances that progress on these important construction
projects will not be jeopardized?
Mr. Brownlee. The administration would work with the Congress to
focus funding on the project that will most benefit the Nation.
Question. With inland waterways providing multiple benefits such as
flood control, water supply, hydropower, transportation, and
recreation, why should the transportation users be the only
beneficiaries to pay for operation and maintenance?
Mr. Brownlee. Transportation users would contribute only to the
costs allocated to inland waterway navigation. Costs allocated to other
purposes would continue to be financed in the manner appropriate to
those purposes. Generally, non-Federal sponsors pay for water supply
O&M costs, Federal Power Marketing Administrations would pay directly
for hydropower O&M costs (under a separate administration's proposal),
flood control O&M costs are paid from general revenues and the
financing of recreation costs varies among recreation areas.
homeland security
Question. Many do not view the Corps' Civil Works Program as an
important part of national defense. What is the role of the Corps in
the security of our Nation?
General Flowers. The Civil Works Program is a valuable asset in
support of the National Security Strategy in many ways. Foremost, we
have a trained engineering workforce, with world-class expertise,
capable of responding to a variety of situations across the spectrum of
security threats. In fact, skills developed in managing Corps projects
transfer to most tactical engineering-related operations. The Civil
Works mission complements and augments the Army's war fighting
competencies providing established relationships with the Nation's
engineering and construction industries--a force multiplier with ``On
the shelf'' contracts available for emergencies. Civil Works members
are deployable. During Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm, more
Civil Works employees volunteered for duty in Southwest Asia than were
needed. To date, 250 civilian members of our Civil Works Program team
have volunteered for deployment in support of Operation Enduring
Freedom-providing engineering, construction, and real estate support
specialists and professionals skilled in managing large, complex
projects, transferable to most tactical engineering-related operations.
Civil Works also provides professionals with expertise in natural and
cultural resources, water quality, flood plain management or toxic
waste control, helping the Army comply with more than 70 Federal
environmental statutes, and a breadth of experience and workload in
dozens of specialized fields that would not otherwise be possible.
Finally, Army Engineers experienced in Civil Works play a major role in
infrastructure in developing nations. They help to improve economic
conditions and strengthen democratic institutions in these nations and
foster good will through contact between governments and armed forces.
Question. What is the scope of Corps assets that are considered
highly vulnerable to future terrorist attacks?
General Flowers. At the present time the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has identified 306 facilities that warrant security upgrades.
These include USACE dams, locks, and a other facilities that provide
flood control, water supply, navigation, and hydropower to the Nation.
Question. What would you describe as the major terrorism threats to
our Nation's civil works projects?
General Flowers. The vulnerability of water resources
infrastructure facilities to potential acts of sabotage has always been
a concern throughout history. All of our projects have some measure of
protection in place based on traditional risk assessments. We would be
happy to meet with you to discuss the threat in greater detail.
Question. Could you provide an example of the kind of risk that you
are talking about?
General Flowers. Again, we would be happy to discuss these risks
with you personally in greater detail.
Question. Along the Kanawha River in West Virginia, there are three
busy locks and dam projects--London, Marmet, and Winfield--through
which millions of tons of coal and highly volatile chemicals traverse
every year. What extra precautionary measures is the Corps taking to
safeguard barges carrying highly explosive agents, or hazardous or
toxic agents?
General Flowers. This mission is being pursued by the U.S. Coast
Guard under the new Homeland Security Department. However, every effort
is made to increase the detection, assessment, and response to such an
act of terrorism on a vessel should it occur at, or within, a lock and
dam facility. Efforts by the Corps risk assessment teams developed
solutions to mitigate these threats and will be implemented based on
priorities that reflect our assessment of the risk.
Question. Overall, what efforts are you undertaking to minimize the
risk at Corps structures across the Nation?
General Flowers. Following 9/11 we completed 306 security reviews
and assessments of our inventory of locks, dams, hydropower projects
and other facilities to determine vulnerability to terrorist threat and
potential consequences of such an attack. We improved our security
engineering capability, identified proposed security upgrades, and
prioritized this work. Utilizing supplemental appropriations provided
in fiscal year 2002 (Public Law 107-117, $139 million), we have
initiated the design and implementation of security improvements on 85
of the 306 critical facilities. We have also initiated security
improvements at administrative facilities to reduce risks to our
employees.
Question. Does the President's fiscal year 2004 budget provide
adequate resources for the Corps to address terrorism in the future?
General Flowers. Senator, the budget provides sufficient resources
to address the priority fiscal year 2004 needs. One hundred four
million dollars of the O&M funds provided in this budget are targeted
for facility security. We will direct funding to those priority
projects at which there is potential for catastrophic consequences
resulting in loss of lives downstream or economic consequences of
greater than $200 million and continue security improvements at our
administrative facilities. Vulnerability assessments produce a
recommended system of improvements targeted to reduce the risk
associated with potential threats to the facility.
Question. What funds are needed to adequately address the risk to
Civil Works projects?
General Flowers. The budget provides sufficient resources to
address the priority fiscal year 2004 needs. Subject to the usual
aforementioned qualifications regarding capabilities, the maximum
capability for guards, maintenance, assessments and other activities to
fully address risk associated with USACE facility security in fiscal
year 2004 is $227 million.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
Question. The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 and Section
348(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 directed the
Secretary of the Army to convey all right and title 10,165 acres of
federally owned land to the State of South Carolina along with a lump
sum payment of $4.85 million in lieu of annual mitigation payments. The
Savannah District conducted a preliminary life cycle financial analysis
in an attempt to reduce the lump sum payment to the State of South
Carolina. This analysis was not required and now the Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) wants the State of South Carolina to pay for this
unnecessary analysis. Although Congress' intent was clear, the COE's
effort to transfer these lands to South Carolina is moving at a snail's
pace and COE has not asked Congress for the appropriation. The COE
agreed with this language in the two Water Resources and Development
Acts and should transfer the lands and the lump sum immediately with as
little red tape as possible. The attempt to delay the transfer by
insisting on reimbursement for an unauthorized and unneeded economic
evaluation is inappropriate. Why can't the COE move forward immediately
with transferring these lands to the State of South Carolina?
General Flowers. The authorization required that the Secretary and
the State of South Carolina enter into a contract for the State to
manage the conveyed parcels of land for fish and wildlife mitigation
purposes in perpetuity. Preparation of a preliminary life cycle
financial analysis to determine the appropriate lump sum payment amount
was consistent with the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
requirement. With enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 the analysis was no longer required and all activity on the
analysis was stopped. The part of the study that was done was
appropriately part of the project so it is legitimately cost-shared.
A draft Memorandum of Agreement detailing the terms and conditions
associated with the lands transfer and management as authorized by
paragraph (i)(3) of Section 348(k) has been provided to the State of
South Carolina for review and approval. Upon the approval of an
agreement satisfactory to both the Secretary and the State of South
Carolina and subject to the availability of funds, the lands and funds
will be conveyed to the State of South Carolina. At the present time,
sufficient funds have not been appropriated for this purpose.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
devils lake, north dakota
Question. I am pleased that the Corps has agreed that building an
outlet at Devils Lake is its preferred alternative, even though the
revised cost estimate presents this subcommittee with some
difficulties. Are you confident that water quality standards have been
addressed, within given cost constraints?
General Flowers. Under the option that the Cops report identified
as the preferred alternative, water quality impacts addressed
consistent with a balancing of effectiveness and cost. Some refinements
of the operating plan may be made through coordination with an
operation task force to reduce downstream water quality impacts. Beyond
that, further reducing the water quality impacts and exceedances of
water quality standards on the Red River would either require more
restrictive sulfate constraints, thereby limiting the discharge rate
and significantly reducing an outlet's effectiveness, or mechanically
treating the water, which would be very costly.
Question. Are there areas where the costs might be reduced?
General Flowers. If Congress funds the project, the Corps of
Engineers will look for every opportunity to reduce costs during
detailed design and implementation. Features currently proposed for the
project are considered essential; thus cost reduction by deletion of
project features is not viewed as an acceptable option. As more
detailed design is accomplished on features that have only been
developed to a conceptual level, such as the sand filter, the Sheyenne
River cutoffs and control structures, and other project features, a
reduction in costs could occur, although there is also a possibility of
an increase.
Question. With respect to the outlet at Devils Lake, do you believe
EPA will ``sign off'' on this from a water quality perspective?
General Flowers. The Corps has applied to the North Dakota
Department of Health for Section 401 water quality certification in
accordance with the Clean Water Act for the construction and operation
of the outlet. In addition, the North Dakota State Water Commission has
applied to the North Dakota Department of Health for a Section 402
National Pollution Elimination System permit for the operation of the
outlet. The certification and permit processes are still ongoing. The
EPA has indicated that North Dakota would coordinate with the State of
Minnesota and EPA expects that no North Dakota authorization would be
issued if it would cause a violation of North Dakota or Minnesota water
quality standards. EPA has been noncommittal as to what its reaction
would be should it be asked to intervene through a potential appeal by
the State of Minnesota. EPA has indicated that it has concerns but that
at least we have been moving in the right direction by trying to
address water quality impacts more fully.
Question. Do you think the administration will now commit to
supporting and funding this project given that the Corps'
recommendation is to build an outlet?
General Flowers. The administration did not fund the project in
fiscal year 2004. My recommendation on this project will follow public
review of the final environmental impact statement to be filed with the
Environmental Protection Agency in mid April 2003.
Question. Do you think the Corps could cover the portion of the
costs that involve Tribal lands, rather than having the State cost-
share this portion of the project?
General Flowers. The Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as
amended, requires cost sharing of the project as 65 percent Federal and
35 percent non-Federal, with the non-Federal responsibilities to
include provision of lands, easements and rights-of-way required for
the project.
grand forks, north dakota--east grand forks, minnesota
Question. The Grand Forks Flood Control project was scheduled for
substantial completion in December of 2004. This is vitally important
because FEMA is looking to remap the community and without this
project, the 100 year floodplain would include 90 percent of the two
cities (GF and East GF). This would force residents to pay between $10-
$15 million annually in additional flood insurance.
Last year, this subcommittee increased the budget recommendation by
$5 million which helps the process along, but much more funding will be
needed next year for substantial completion by the 2004 date. Can you
tell me if the budget request of $23 million for this project in fiscal
year 2004 would allow for substantial completion by December 2004, as
the Corps promised the Grand Forks community?
General Flowers. No, sir, the fiscal year 2004 budget amount would
not allow for substantial completion by December 2004.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
STATEMENTS OF:
BENNETT W. RALEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER AND SCIENCE
JOHN W. KEYS, III, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
ACCOMPANIED BY:
J. RONALD JOHNSTON, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, CUP COMPLETION ACT OFFICE
JOHN TREZISE, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET, OFFICE OF BUDGET, DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR
Senator Cochran. We are now going to hear from our second
panel. It is a panel which includes Assistant Secretary for
Water and Science, Bennett W. Raley; Commissioner John W. Keys,
III, of the Bureau of Reclamation; and Officer Ronald Johnston,
who is program director.
If you will come forward and take your seats at the witness
table, we will proceed.
The hearing will come to order.
Those who are leaving the room will please do so
expeditiously so we may proceed with our second panel.
Secretary Raley, we appreciate your presence. You're here
representing the Bureau of Reclamation. We ask you to please
proceed.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF BENNETT RALEY
Mr. Raley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. Yes, I am here on behalf of Secretary Norton to
present the President's budget request and have with me today
John Keys, Commissioner of Reclamation, Ron Johnston, Program
Director of the Central Utah Project and John Trezise, the
Department's Budget Director.
Mr. Chairman, Interior takes great pride in fulfilling the
multiple missions that we have. We have a mission to protect
and manage the Nation's natural resources and cultural
heritage, provide scientific information about those resources
and to honor our special responsibilities to the American
Indians, Alaska Natives and affiliated Island Communities.
Our responsibilities lie at the confluence of people, land
and water and touch the lives of individuals across the Nation.
How well we fulfill our mission influences whether there will
be water for people, water for farmers, and water for the
environment, in vast areas of this Nation.
We look forward to working with the Corps of Engineers as
partners in the Federal role in managing resources. But if I
could, to perhaps save Senator Craig a question, I want to
emphasize that from a Department of the Interior perspective
with respect to the 17 Reclamation States of the West, we
recognize a national water policy and have, since 1866, that
water policy being one of federalism. And everything that we do
with respect to water management in the west starts with that
foundation of federalism and recognizing the appropriate role
of States in managing the water resources that they are
entrusted with.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. That is why you
are a secretary in this administration. We appreciate that
attitude.
Mr. Raley. Well, thank you, sir.
We also know that the charge of the Department and how well
we fulfill that will have an impact on our children's ability
to use and enjoy the resources and the incredible vistas, the
wonderful places in this Nation, to live and work in healthy
communities, to have good jobs and good environments and a
future. We have a small part in that and we are very proud of
that. But we also recognize that our part of that has to be
within national priorities.
And so our budget, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
has tried to focus on fulfilling core missions--that is c-o-r-
e, not C-o-r-p-s; we have no wish to take on more than we can
handle--to first take care of what we have in terms of
maintaining and operating the investment of the last century,
to meet the security needs with respect to some very important
facilities that are under the jurisdiction of the Department,
and to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and
other very important national policy objectives.
Our budget was framed with that approach in mind. That was
the budget for the entire department, because we recognize that
we are an important part, the Bureau, of that broader mission
and that the Department of the Interior is a part of the
national priorities.
For the Department, the 2004 budget request is $10.7
billion, the largest Presidential request in the Department's
history, a 25 percent increase over the 2000 budget. With
respect to the programs under the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee, the request is for $916.2 million. This includes
$878 million for the Bureau of Reclamation and $38.2 million
for the Central Utah Project Completion Act activities.
Others, members of the panel and of this committee, have
already described the many ways that the Interior mission
touches people's lives. And I will not go into the details of
how many people we serve, how many acres are irrigated with
water from reclamation projects, or how much power is provided
to the citizens of this Nation. I would or do wish to highlight
a couple of areas within the budget.
WATER INITIATIVE
First of all, our budget request includes $11 million for a
Bureau of Reclamation Water Initiative that will focus on
meeting the core mission of today and the challenges of the
future in an even more efficient manner. We want to build on
lessons that we have learned in past decades and do a better
job with the public's money.
Let me be very specific about what is intended here. We
know that there can be great savings in water with the
implementation of some fairly simple technologies, technologies
that are common in some places and not common in others,
technologies like check structures in canals that allow all
needs to be met and to stretch existing reservoir supplies even
further. So, in times of drought, as much of the West is in
today, we can farm and have water for people further into the
drought than we otherwise would without these technologies.
These are technologies like computerized SCADA, the supervisory
control and data acquisition systems, to operate canals in a
more efficient way.
These, members of the committee, are steps that will have
very real benefits to water users in the basins where they can
be implemented, but they have historically not been as
attractive for investment as other alternatives. And we wish to
get back to the basics. We wish to bring our investments over
the last century up to par so that we can meet the challenges
of the next century.
SPECIFIC PROJECT REQUESTS
Our budget request also includes nearly $21 million for the
challenges we face in the Klamath Basin, for meeting water
supplies for farmers, for tribal trust needs, and for the
environment. It includes $19 million for the Columbia/Snake
salmon recovery; $17.4 for the Middle Rio Grande Project; and
$15 million in an account established exclusively for
implementation of the preferred program alternative for the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program that is so important to the Central
Valley and, in fact, the entire State of California.
The budget request includes $58 million to continue
construction of the Animas La Plata Project. This is the level
of funding that is needed for the Department to be able to meet
the 7-year construction schedule contained in the Colorado Ute
Settlement Act Amendment of 2000.
Lastly, let me explain if I could, the budget request for
rural water systems and Title XVI. Our budget includes $32
million for rural water projects. This is significantly reduced
from the level Congress recently enacted for 2003. This budget
reflects the findings of the OMB Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) that OMB and Interior jointly proceeded with. We believe
that there are gains in efficiency that can be achieved in
meeting the needs of rural communities.
Mr. Chairman, I grew up 60 miles from the nearest
stoplight, hospital, movie theater. The water that I drank,
when you took it out of the tap, set it on the table, the
flakes immediately started precipitating out. My guess is that
that water would not meet today's safe drinking water
standards, which may for some explain my behavior.
We understand the importance of rural drinking water, but
we also know that those needs are enormous throughout the West.
And it is incumbent upon us to meet those needs in absolutely
the most efficient manner possible. Our budget request this
year is a reflection of our commitment to do just that. With
respect to Title XVI, which is commonly known as the Waste
Water Recycling or Desalinization Programs that have been
implemented since 1992, when Title XVI was added, our funding
levels in part are based on the completion of the OMB PART
assessment tool that was also used for the rural drinking water
systems. The assessment tool that the Federal investment in the
critically important areas of waste water recycling and
desalinization technology can be more efficiently targeted. Our
belief is that the first priority for the Federal investment
should be to invest in the technology advances that will drive
the per-unit cost down to the lowest level possible so as to
make water from these sources competitive with alternatives as
quickly as possible.
SUMNER PECK
Finally, I would like to report on a matter that is of
direct importance to Senator Feinstein, if you would allow me.
Our budget for 2003, in the budget amendments submitted,
provided for funds to pay a judgment under a consent judgment
in what is known as the Sumner Peck litigation in the Central
Valley in California. I am authorized today to state that the
Department of Justice has determined that the Judgment Fund
will be available for payment of the amounts due under that
consent judgment in 2003. The Department of Justice has not
made a determination regarding the availability of funds from
the Judgment Fund for future years under this consent decree,
but I know that this is a matter of great importance to Senator
Feinstein and all of her colleagues from California. We wanted
to take the opportunity to inform this committee of the
resolution of this issue with respect to 2003, but also to make
it very clear that the issue has not been resolved for future
years.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, in light of the amount of time that you
probably have saved for questions for the Commissioner and the
budget officer, I would ask that my entire remarks be submitted
in the statement, and I will remain available for questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bennett W. Raley
I am pleased to be here today before the Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development to discuss with you the fiscal year 2004 budget for
the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to
highlight a number of important initiatives and to answer questions
that you might have.
On behalf of Secretary Norton, and as an introduction to our 2004
budget request, I'd like to offer some observations about the
Department's mission. We take a great deal of pride in our mission to:
--Protect and manage the Nation's natural resources and cultural
heritage;
--Provide scientific information about those resources; and
--Honor our special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska
Natives and affiliated Island Communities.
Our responsibilities touch the lives of each individual across the
Nation. How well we fulfill our mission influences:
--Whether farmers will have water and people can turn on the tap;
--Whether our children will enjoy America's grand vistas, places, and
history;
--Whether we can hike, bird watch, canoe, or hunt and fish in the
great American outdoors; and
--Whether our landscapes are healthy and our communities are
thriving.
departmental budget overview
Our 2004 $10.7 billion budget request provides the single clearest
statement of how we plan to honor these commitments in the upcoming
year. It lays the foundation for us to build a legacy of healthy lands
and thriving communities, including:
--Resource Protection.--Reflecting the Department's multiple
missions, the budget proposes $2.6 billion to fund programs
that improve the health of landscapes, sustain biological
communities, and protect cultural resources.
--Serving Communities.--The budget proposal includes $5.0 billion to
serve communities through fire protection, generation of
scientific information, education investments for American
Indians, and through activities to fulfill responsibilities
toward American Indians, Alaskan natives, and the Nation's
affiliated island communities.
--Resource Use.--Interior lands include many working landscapes where
ranchers, energy partners, and other entrepreneurs help
maintain thriving American communities and a dynamic economy.
The budget includes $1.5 billion to provide access for these
important uses.
--Recreation.--$1.4 billion in fiscal year 2004 budget investments
will ensure recreational opportunities for all Americans in the
network of public lands, parks and refuges that the Department
administers.
In total, the 2004 budget is the largest presidential request in
the Department's history. This budget proposal is about 25 percent
higher than the 2000 appropriations level of $8.6 billion, and
represents an increase of $338.7 million, or 3.3 percent, over the 2003
enacted level. Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of
existing legislation without further action by the Congress will
provide an additional $3.0 billion, for a total 2004 Interior budget of
$13.7 billion. The Department anticipates that it will collect $7.8
billion in receipts in 2004, equivalent to 73 percent of Interior's
current appropriations request.
The 2004 request includes $9.8 billion for programs funded in the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, an increase of $369.8
million or 3.9 percent over the 2003 enacted level.
The budget includes $916.2 million for programs funded in the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, a decrease of $31.1
million, or 3.3 percent below the 2003 enacted level.
bureau of reclamation
The Bureau of Reclamation is the largest supplier and manager of
water in the 17 western States. Its facilities include 348 reservoirs
and 456 dams with the capacity to store 245 million acre-feet of water.
These facilities deliver water to one of every five western farmers for
about 10 million acres of irrigated land and provide water to over 31
million people for municipal, rural, and industrial uses. Reclamation
is also the Nation's second largest producer of hydroelectric power,
generating 42 billion kilowatt-hours of energy each year from 58 power
plants. In addition, Reclamation's facilities provide substantial flood
control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits.
Since its establishment in 1902, water supply facilities developed
by Reclamation have contributed to sustained economic growth and an
enhanced quality of life in the western States. Lands and communities
served by the bureau's projects have been developed to meet
agricultural, tribal, urban, and industrial needs. In more recent
years, the public has demanded better environmental protections and
more recreational opportunities while municipal and industrial
development have required more high quality water. Continuing
population growth, especially in urban areas, will inevitably lead to
even greater competition for the West's limited water resources. These
increased demands are further compounded during periods of drought.
The Bureau of Reclamation request for current appropriations is
$878.0 million, a net increase of $23.1 million above the 2003 request,
as amended. The 2004 request is $33.3 million below the 2003 enacted
level.
The 2004 request for current appropriations is offset by
discretionary receipts in the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund,
resulting in a net request of $847.2 million. The request for permanent
appropriations totals $87.5 million.
The request for the Water and Related Resources account is $771.2
million. The account total includes an undistributed reduction of $40.0
million in anticipation of delays in construction schedules and other
planned activities.
The budget provides a total of $348.3 million for facility
operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation, an increase of $8.3
million over the 2003 request, as amended. The 2004 request for
facilities operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation is a decrease of
$3.4 million from the 2003 enacted level. The request includes $71.0
million for the Dam Safety program to protect the downstream public by
ensuring the safety and reliability of Reclamation dams.
Water Initiative.--The 2004 budget for Reclamation proposes ways to
manage water carefully and creatively for people, land, and the
environment. The poet Thomas Hornsby Ferris, wrote about the West:
``Here is a land where life is written in water.''
What was true 100 years ago remains true today. Managing water
wisely lies at the heart of maintaining healthy lands and thriving
communities. The budget request includes $11.0 million to launch a
Bureau of Reclamation Water Initiative that uses collaboration,
conservation, and innovation to make sure every drop of water counts.
This initiative is expected to benefit communities currently struggling
with increased water demands, drought, and compliance with the
Endangered Species Act. The funding increase will be used to: develop
pilot projects that demonstrate how to prevent crises-level water
conflicts in the West; expand the use of science to improve
desalination technology, promote adaptive management of watersheds, and
fund peer review of Endangered Species Act consultations; design water
management programs that address environmental needs on a basin-scale;
and train Reclamation employees to help them better carry out the ESA
as it relates to Federal actions.
The budget also includes $58.0 million for the Animas-La Plata
Project in Colorado, specifically for the Colorado Ute Settlement Act
Amendment of 2000 requirements outlined in the final record of
decision. The Department is committed to completion of this project and
requests an increase of $23.2 million over the 2003 enacted level.
The Reclamation budget puts increased emphasis on resolving water
management and delivery issues that involve endangered species in
several western States. The Klamath Project is funded at $20.8 million,
Columbia/Snake salmon recovery is funded at $19.0 million, and the
Middle Rio Grande Project is funded at $17.4 million.
The request provides $34.1 million for the Central Arizona Project.
The request includes $170.1 million for operating, managing and
improving California's Central Valley Project, including an increase of
$13.1 million from 2003 enacted level for the CVP Replacements,
Additions, and Extraordinary Maintenance program.
Collectively, the request includes $32.3 million for rural water
projects--Garrison Diversion Unit, Mni Wiconi, Mid-Dakota--which is a
67 percent reduction from the 2003 enacted level. The findings in the
OMB Program Assessment Rating Tool process indicated that a new
approach is necessary for rural water delivery programs. The
Administration intends to submit legislation this spring, establishing
a Reclamation Rural Water Program with adequate controls and
guidelines.
The budget includes $15.0 million in the account established
exclusively for implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Funds
provided will be used for ongoing activities within existing
authorities.
central utah project completion act
The Central Utah Project Completion Act provided for completion of
the Central Utah Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District; authorized funding for fish, wildlife, and recreation
mitigation and conservation; established the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Commission; and provided for the Ute Indian
Rights Settlement. A program office located in Provo, Utah provides
liaison with the District, Mitigation Commission, and the Ute Indian
Tribe and otherwise assists in carrying out responsibilities of the
Secretary. Under the Act, the responsibilities of the Secretary cannot
be delegated to the Bureau of Reclamation.
The 2004 request provides $38.2 million, an increase of $2.2
million over the 2003 enacted level. The budget refocuses resources to
address redesign and realignment of the Diamond Fork tunnel due to the
interception with water that is highly contaminated with hydrogen
sulfide. The 2004 request includes: $26.4 million for planning and
construction activities administered by the District; $9.4 million for
mitigation and conservation activities funded through the Mitigation
Commission; and $2.4 million for activities administered by the program
office, which includes $629,000 for mitigation and conservation
activities funded through the program office.
trust programs
Over one-half of our $369.8 million increase for 2004 will fund
trust reform initiatives. While the overall budget request is
approximately 3.9 percent over the fiscal year 2003 request, our fiscal
year 2004 Indian trust budget request is almost 50 percent higher than
what was included in the 2003 appropriations act.
Fulfilling our Trust responsibilities remains one of the
Department's greatest challenges. The Department has responsibility for
the management of 100,000 leases for individual Indians and Tribes on a
land trust that encompasses approximately 56 million acres. Leasing,
use permits, sale revenues, and interest of approximately $226 million
per year are collected for approximately 230,000 individual Indian
money accounts, and about $530 million per year are collected for
approximately 1,400 tribal accounts per year. In addition, the trust
manages approximately $2.8 billion in tribal funds and $400 million in
individual Indian funds.
Interior faces many challenges in reforming the management of its
Indian trust responsibilities. First, the Department has not been well
structured to focus on its trust duties. Second, fractionated interests
in individual Indian allotted land continue to expand exponentially
with each new generation. Today, there are approximately 4 million
owner interests in the 10 million acres of individually owned trust
lands. These 4 million interests could expand to 10 million interests
by the 2030 unless an aggressive approach to fractionation is taken.
There are now single pieces of property with ownership interests that
are less than 0.000002 percent of the whole interest.
Third, there are 230,000 open individual Indian money accounts, the
majority of which have balances under $100 and annual transactions of
less than $1,000. Interior maintains thousands of accounts that contain
less than one dollar, and has a responsibility to provide an accounting
to all account holders. Unlike most private trusts, the Federal
Government bears the entire cost of administering the Indian trust. As
a result, the usual incentives found in the commercial sector for
reducing the number of accounts do not apply to the Indian trust.
An increase of $114.1 million for the Office of Historical Trust
accounting will support the Department's plan to conduct a historical
accounting for individual Indian money accounts and to account for
funds in Tribal accounts. On January 6, 2003, the Department presented
a plan to the District Court in Cobell v. Norton for the historical
accounting for about 260,000 IIM accounts. The work described in that
Plan is expected to take five years to complete and is preliminarily
estimated to cost approximately $335 million. The budget includes
$130.0 million for these historical accounting activities. Funds also
will be used to provide for historical accounting activities related to
tribal accounts.
The 2004 budget proposes $21.0 million for Indian land
consolidation, an increase of $13.0 million, to expand pilot efforts to
reduce the fractionation of individual land ownership interests into a
nation-wide program. During 2003, we will establish a national program
office, standardize business practices, and develop a strategic plan to
guide expansion to more tribal reservations.
Interior is reorganizing trust functions in BIA and OST. The new
organization was developed after detailed analysis of the prior
organization and a year-long consultation process with tribal leaders.
In one of the most extensive consultation efforts ever undertaken by
the senior management level at the Department on any issue relating to
Indian Country, over 45 meetings with tribal leaders provided detailed
findings and recommendations. The new organization reflects a synthesis
of the views heard during the consultation process. It will meet
fiduciary trust responsibilities, be more accountable at every level,
and operate with people trained in the principles of trust management.
The 2004 budget provides an increase of $15.0 million to support the
new organization, which together with base funding available in BIA and
OST will provide resources needed for the new organization in 2004.
The proposed $183.8 million increase for trust management reforms
includes funding to help rebuild Bureau of Indian Affairs information
technology infrastructure to support trust and non-trust programs. The
BIA's information infrastructure and security use outmoded hardware and
software that do not meet lifecycle management and systems architecture
principles, and do not comply with the security requirements of OMB
Circular A-130 and the Government Information Security Results Act. The
Department requests IT funding for the significant new investments
needed to address these challenges. The 2004 budget includes increases
of $29.8 million for a ground-up rebuilding of the BIA IT
infrastructure to support trust, as well as non-trust programs, and
$2.5 million for Interior-wide IT security. The proposed rebuilding
will fit within the enterprise architecture and includes full business
cases for proposed investments.
The 2004 budget also proposes an increase of $4.5 million to
accelerate a new strategy to administer, manage, search, retrieve, and
store trust records. Reform efforts to date have improved records
collection and security. However, recent Interior reviews have resulted
in a reassessment of the resource requirements needed to establish
proper records retention schedules, establish and implement record
keeping requirements, safeguard records, implement and maintain
training programs, and meet records-retrieval needs in an effective and
cost-efficient way.
cooperative conservation initiative
The 2004 budget lays the foundation for a legacy of healthy lands,
presenting a blueprint for fulfilling the President's vision of a new
environmentalism of citizen stewards and cooperative conservation.
Building partnerships lies at the heart of this effort. Last year's
budget proposed a Cooperative Conservation Initiative. This year, our
budget again includes a Cooperative Conservation Initiative, structured
around bureau Challenge Cost Share programs and other existing
cooperative conservation grant programs.
The Cooperative Conservation Initiative, funded at $113.2 million,
will empower citizen stewards to conserve and protect natural
resources, while also achieving important community and economic goals.
The Initiative builds on existing conservation partnership programs and
will provide new and expanded opportunities for landowners, land
managers, and others to participate in projects that foster innovation
and create incentives for stewardship. Our budget also provides funds
for a public lands volunteers program.
The 2004 CCI request builds upon Interior's long history of working
collaboratively with others. It builds on existing conservation
partnership programs, including the challenge cost share programs of
the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National
Park Service, as well as FWS's Partners for Fish and Wildlife program,
Coastal program and Migratory Bird Joint Venture program. This
initiative also funds a program of volunteers to increase public
awareness of, and appreciation for, natural and cultural resource
protection.
The CCI request includes a $9.3 million increase for the Partners
for Fish and Wildlife program, the largest increase ever provided to
this program. The Fish and Wildlife Service will partner with 2,500
additional landowners on the program's waiting list. These new
partnerships will restore an additional 19,298 acres of wetlands;
83,601 acres of native grasslands, forest and other uplands; and 241
miles of riparian and in-stream habitat over 2003 levels.
conservation grants
The Private Stewardship grants and the Landowner Incentive Program
recognize continuing opportunities for conservation of endangered and
threatened species through partnerships with private landowners. The
budget request includes $50.0 million for Private Stewardship grants
and the Landowner Incentive program. Interest in the State portion of
the program is high, with over 80 grant requests totaling $61.0 million
for the program's first year.
The 2004 budget request includes a comprehensive, partnership
approach to meeting the President's commitment for fully funding the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. The 2004 LWCF program includes $662.4
million for the Department. It emphasizes conservation partnerships
with States, Tribes, local communities, and private citizens, including
a strong State grant program, and reduced Federal land acquisition.
This proposal recognizes the costs of adding to the significant land
holdings that are already managed by the Department and our commitment
to take better care of these lands. It also recognizes the value and
cost-effectiveness of partnerships. We can accomplish our conservation
goals by conserving endangered and at risk species through conservation
easements, working with private landowners to enhance habitat for
endangered and at risk species, and other innovative partnership
approaches.
conserving wildlife and fisheries
March 14, 2003 marks a milestone in the history of wildlife
conservation in America--the centennial anniversary of the national
wildlife refuge system. Reflecting the importance of this event and the
record of conservation established through this unique system of lands
and resources, the 2004 budget builds on last year's historic $48.4
million budget increase for the national wildlife refuge system by
requesting a total of $402.0 million for refuge operations and
maintenance, an increase of $33.6 million over 2003 appropriation
levels. The total budget request for the Fish and Wildlife Service is
$1.3 billion.
The Fish and Wildlife Service fisheries program has played a vital
role in conserving and managing fish and other aquatic resources. The
2004 budget enhances the Federal contribution to aquatic resource
conservation partnerships, by providing $103.6 million for the FWS
fisheries program. The request includes an $7.4 million increase for
operation and maintenance of the national fish hatchery system's
hatcheries, fish health centers, and fish technology centers. Also
included is a $1.0 million increase to combat aquatic nuisance species,
part of the larger, coordinated interdepartmental effort discussed
below.
other partnerships
As Stated earlier, the 2004 budget is based on a vision of
partnerships and leaving a legacy of healthy lands and thriving
communities resulting from efforts to work together across landscapes
and across communities. The 2004 budget sets forth the tools through
which these partnerships can flourish and leave a legacy of healthy
lands and thriving communities.
The Department's parks, refuges, and public lands host nearly 500
million visitors a year and provide access for economic uses,
activities that fuel the economic engines for communities adjacent to
our Federal lands. Recognizing that the Department's decisions can
greatly impact these gateway communities, the Department is working in
partnership with the people who live on the private lands that border
these areas and developing collaborative approaches to address local
issues.
Everglades.--The Everglades restoration effort also affirms the
power of partnerships. As stewards of about one-half of the remaining
Everglades ecosystem, the Interior Department works with a broad team
of Federal, State and local partners. In 2004, the President's budget
includes $111.8 million for Interior Everglades activities, an increase
of $27.8 million above 2003 enacted appropriations. The request
includes $40.0 million to protect the Big Cypress National Preserve by
acquiring the Collier family's mineral right holdings.
Exemplifying the partnership approach to this restoration effort,
the Department is building stronger coalitions to implement the
restoration program, including:
--Forming an advisory committee for public input to land managers in
South Florida on a wide range of issues;
--Providing scientific expertise to the State and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers to meet the objectives of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan; and
--Taking steps to ensure that appropriate quantities of water are
distributed at the right times and in the right places to
restore the unique Everglades ecosystem.
Invasive Species.--The Department is participating in an
interagency performance budget to promote invasive species management
that is being coordinated by the National Invasive Species Council. The
2004 budget proposes $57.5 million for the Department's portion of this
interagency effort.
At this funding level, Interior will participate in the control and
management of tamarisk and giant salvinia in the southwest; conduct
ballast water research; control and eradicate nutria in the Chesapeake
Bay and in Louisiana; plan early detection and rapid response to
eradicate outbreaks of sudden oak death in eastern hardwood forests of
the central Appalachian Mountains; and develop a marine invasive
species early detection warning system.
Abandoned Mine Reclamation and Clean Streams.--Through partnerships
the Office of Surface Mining is restoring streams impacted by coal
mining. Its Clean Streams program involves State and local groups to
enhance miles of riparian areas. The President's budget request
includes $281.2 million for State and Federal programs to protect the
environment during coal mining, assure prompt reclamation after mining,
and clean up abandoned mine lands. The request will enable OSM to
continue directly administering Federal regulatory and reclamation
programs in States that do not operate their own surface mining
programs as well as on Federal and Indian lands, and to reclaim 6,900
acres of disturbed land and other hazards that threaten human health
and welfare and environmental quality.
Payment of Lieu of Taxes.--The President's proposal calls for
$200.0 million for Payments in Lieu of Taxes, to compensate States for
Federal lands that cannot be taxed by local governments. The 2004
budget proposes to move the program from the Bureau of Land Management
to the Departmental Management account to reflect the breadth of this
program. The lands on which the payments are made are administered by
the NPS, FWS, and USDA Forest Service, as well as by the Bureau of Land
Management.
wildland fire and healthy forests
Building a legacy of healthy lands and thriving communities means
applying a healing hand to the landscape. The Department is advancing
the President's Healthy Forests Initiative to reduce decades-long
build-ups of underbrush and unnaturally dense forests.
The budget proposes $698.7 million for wildfire prevention and
suppression and Healthy Forest initiatives in fiscal year 2004. This is
a $48.5 million, or 7.5 percent increase over last year's budget
proposal. The request includes continued funding for a robust fuels
treatment program at $186.2 million, 400 percent above spending in
2000. At this funding level, the Department will treat 307,000 high
priority acres in the wildland-urban interface and an additional
768,000 acres that are not in the wildland-urban interface.
The Department is also taking a number of steps to improve the
productivity and performance of the fuels program that will help the
Department's firefighting bureaus take maximum advantage of the
opportunity for fuels treatment projects at the beginning of the fiscal
year when weather and workload conditions for fuels treatments are
optimal. The Department is accelerating project planning and selection,
issuing policy guidance and proposed legislative language designed to
facilitate and expand contracting in the fuels program, and issuing
policy guidance to expedite the budget allocation process for the fuels
program and individual projects.
The fuels treatment program is key to restoring forests and
rangelands to long-term health and preventing damage caused by
catastrophic wildfires. One approach to improving forest health that
holds promise is stewardship contracting. Stewardship contracts allow
the private sector, non-profit organizations, and local communities to
productively use materials generated from forest thinning.
The 2004 budget proposal also calls for $282.7 million for fire
preparedness, including increased funding for aviation contract costs.
The fire suppression request of $195.3 million reflects a $36.0 million
increase to fund suppression operations at the revised 10-year average.
This funding level will provide resources to respond to an ``average''
fire year without having to rely on emergency borrowing that can be
disruptive to other Interior programs. The Department is also working
to develop new and improved current cost control strategies for
suppression. The budget also includes $24.5 million for rehabilitating
burned areas. Timely stabilization and rehabilitation of severely
burned areas are critical to prevent further damage due to erosion,
loss of soil nutrients, and the introduction and spread of invasive
species. The budget also continues funding for Rural Fire Assistance at
$10.0 million. Frequently, local firefighting departments are the first
responders to wildland fires on public lands and play a vital role in
preventing fires from escaping initial attack and becoming
exponentially more expensive to suppress. In 2002, the Department
assisted 5,349 rural and volunteer fire departments through grants,
technical assistance, training, supplies, equipment, and public
education support.
helping to meet the nation's energy needs
Interior plays a central role in meeting the Nation's energy needs.
Conservation, renewable energy, and traditional energy sources all play
an intertwined role in helping the Nation meet these needs. The budget
supports the President's and the Department's goal for increasing
domestic energy supplies from a variety of sources, in an
environmentally acceptable manner, with a special emphasis on
developing renewable energy sources on Federal lands.
The 2004 budget request includes an increase of $444,000 for
activities on the North Slope, for a total of $8.4 million. Funding
will support planning for sales in the National Petroleum Reserve-
Alaska, and, if authorized, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Congressional authorization will be required for a lease sale to be
conducted in ANWR.
The budget requests an increase of $2.0 million for BLM to
strengthen inspection and enforcement activities, targeted primarily to
the Powder River and San Juan basins. The budget also proposes a
$500,000 increase to expand resource monitoring to improve assessment
of the cumulative impacts of oil and gas development, especially on
cultural resources and species at risk.
The 2004 budget includes $2.0 million for renewable energy
resources. This includes an increase of $100,000 over 2003 enacted
appropriations to support the development of geothermal, wind, and
solar energy on public land. This is more than five times the 2002
funding level for these programs.
The Outer Continental Shelf is projected to produce over 25 percent
of both the Nation's oil and natural gas in 2003. The Minerals
Management Service is the primary steward of the mineral resources on
the OCS. The MMS budget of $171.3 million includes an increase of $1.6
million to meet increased workload brought about by the demand for
Outer Continental Shelf program services in the Gulf of Mexico. The
2004 budget includes a total of $11.6 million, an increase of $3.9
million over 2003 funding levels for MMS to employ innovative business
processes and advances in electronic technology in the offshore
program. The budget also includes an increase of $300,000 to
investigate the energy resource potential found in methane hydrate
formations. The MMS will also invest an additional $3.0 million to
operate and maintain its minerals revenue management and royalty-in-
kind systems.
The 2004 BIA request includes a $2.0 million increase for grants to
Tribes to evaluate mineral resource potential on tribal trust and
restricted lands. The request also includes $1.0 million to help Tribes
expedite the development of tribal regulations governing mineral
leasing and permitting, and rights-of-way of tribal lands required
under the Energy Policy Act, 2002.
taking care of parks
Complementing the Department's cooperative conservation commitments
is a continued investment in taking care of National Parks. The
President's budget proposes a $2.4 billion budget for the National Park
Service, an increase of $131.4 million above 2003 appropriations.
This budget continues the Department's commitment to fulfill the
President's pledge of addressing the maintenance backlog in National
Parks, proposing $705.8 million this year toward this effort, an
increase of $54.1 million, nearly an eight percent increase over 2003.
The budget includes an increase of $16.3 million for cyclic
maintenance. This increase will provide additional funds for regular
maintenance activities and will help the NPS keep pace with its
maintenance needs and prevent additional projects from becoming
deferred. It also includes an additional $16.7 million for the repair
and rehabilitation program and a $4.7 million increase for
comprehensive condition assessments at parks. Data collected through
the condition assessments will be used in 2004 to evaluate progress in
eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog, as measured by a facility
condition index.
To date, our accomplishments are impressive. For example, the Many
Glacier Hotel at Glacier National Park was built in 1914. A highly
recognized National Landmark, this facility signifies an important
period in the development of the National Park Service. Due to the
harsh climate and insufficient maintenance in the past, this important
landmark had deteriorated to a stage where emergency stabilization was
necessary. The Department is in the process of stabilizing this
important facility.
But we still have more work to do. A key focus in the 2004 budget
will be to improve park roads. Here, too, the Department is reaching
out to partners. A signed memorandum of agreement with the Federal
Highway Administration will help us achieve our road maintenance goals
efficiently. The Department of Transportation's 2004 budget proposes
$300.0 million in 2004 for Park road repair as part of the
reauthorization of TEA-21, bringing the total park maintenance budget
to over $1 billion.
In the National Park Service, the Natural Resource Challenge helps
Park managers improve resource management by strengthening the
scientific base of knowledge about park resources. Our budget proposes
$76.1 million, an $8.7 million increase over 2003, for the program.
This increase will provide a 3 year cumulative total increase of over
$104 million above the 2001 level. The Natural Resource Challenge is an
integral component of President Bush's ongoing commitment to improving
natural resource management in Parks.
indian education
No task is more important to the American community than educating
its children. In education, the President has committed to ``leave no
child behind.'' At Interior, this commitment centers on the 48,000
children educated at schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
or by Tribes under BIA grants or contracts.
The budget request for Indian education continues the President's
commitment with a robust $528.5 million school operations budget
request, including funding for teacher pay increases. The budget
includes $3.0 million to establish a separate fund for new
administrative cost grants to encourage more Tribes to exercise their
authority to operate BIA schools by providing full funding for start-up
costs for the first year of tribal operation of bureau-operated
schools.
Children deserve safe, functional places to learn. The 2004 budget
invests $292.6 million in school facilities, including funds to replace
at least seven high priority school facilities and to repair schools
identified in the Indian school maintenance backlog. The President's
goal is to eliminate the backlog by 2006.
recreation
With almost 500 million visits each year to the Department's lands,
Interior provides a wide array of recreational opportunities, including
fishing, hiking, hunting, camping, and wildlife viewing. Public lands
managed by the Bureau of Land Management provide recreational venues
for a growing population in the West, hosting over 60 million visitors
annually.
The 2004 budget requests $48.7 million to enable the Bureau of Land
Management to continue to provide quality recreational opportunities.
BLM will address transportation and access needs and challenges, expand
interpretive and other visitor services, and support greater outreach
and consultation efforts to help resolve user conflicts in the face of
growing visitation.
In recreation as in conservation, partnering is central to achieve
our recreation goals. The Department depends on the contributions of
200,000 volunteers, almost three times Interior's Federal workforce, to
help address resource protection and public recreation needs. Over
126,000 volunteers work in parks, the rest work in refuges, public
lands, and other Interior sites across the country. In 2004 volunteers
will assist NPS staff with important park projects including the Lewis
and Clark bicentennial, the Powered Flight centennial, and the
Jamestown 400th anniversary. The budget request proposes to increase
funding by $1.5 million for partnership efforts and volunteer
recruitment and training. A $1.0 million increase is aimed at
bolstering volunteer participation and improving park capacity to
supervise, train, and reward volunteers. An increase of $500,000 will
allow NPS to establish full time volunteer coordinators to manage an
expanding program.
The Department's partnerships include working with States. Today,
the LWCF State grant program is a cornerstone of the Secretary's
commitment to involve State governments in conservation and recreation
activities. This program, enacted in 1965, helps States develop and
maintain high quality recreation areas and stimulate non-Federal
investments in the protection and maintenance of recreation resources
across the United States. Reflecting the President's goals, the
Interior LWCF program seeks to promote cooperative alliances, leave
land on State tax roles, and achieve conservation goals by emphasizing
innovative alternatives to fee simple title purchases, such as
conservation easements and land exchanges. This emphasis also enables
Interior land management agencies to focus more funds on caring for
lands already under their management.
The President's budget fully funds the Land and Water Conservation
Fund at $900.7 million. The LWCF proposal calls for $160.0 million in
State grants, an increase of $62.6 million over the 2003 funding level
enacted by the Congress.
law enforcement and security
The budget calls for increases for Interior's law enforcement and
security programs. The money would be used to hire additional
personnel, provide more training, and improve security operations. This
includes an increase of $28.9 million that is earmarked for
strengthening law enforcement and security operations at key Interior
visitor sites and $3.9 million to increase protection and law
enforcement at Interior refuges, public lands, and parks along U.S.
borders with Mexico and Canada. Of the increase for Interior visitor
site security, $26.8 million is slated for security improvements at the
Jefferson National Expansion Area in St. Louis, Missouri; Independence
National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the
Washington Monument in Washington, D.C.
science
All of the Department's efforts require good information.
Scientific information is the cornerstone for Interior's natural
resource management activities, providing a basis for making decisions
about resource protection, resource use, recreation, and community-
based programs. The USGS has the principle responsibility within
Interior to provide its bureaus the earth and natural science
information and research necessary to manage the Nation's natural
resources.
The President's 2004 budget proposes $895.5 million for the USGS.
The budget includes $17.1 million in new program increases above the
2003 conference level for high priority research needs, including
invasive species control and management and increased capability to
address science needs for Interior bureaus.
conclusion
The Interior Department's responsibilities lie at the confluence of
people, land, and water. The 2004 budget funds programs that support
our broad and multiple missions. Leaving a legacy of healthy lands and
thriving communities requires resources, creativity, and, above all,
collaboration. The 2004 budget supports this vision of forging
partnerships.
This concludes my overview of the 2004 budget proposal for the
Department of the Interior and my written Statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Secretary Raley. Commissioner
Keys, do you have a statement?
Commissioner Keys. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator Cochran. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOHN W. KEYS, III
Commissioner Keys. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is my
pleasure to be here today with you, and we do appreciate the
opportunity to come and talk with you about the President's
2004 budget request. We appreciate all of the support that we
have received from your staff over this year and especially in
preparing for this hearing. I will tell you that your staffs
are first-class, and we do enjoy working with them very much.
I have a statement for the record which I would hope you
would enter for me, please.
Senator Cochran. It will be entered in the record.
Commissioner Keys. The overall budget request for fiscal
year 2004 totals $878 million for the Bureau of Reclamation in
current authority. And from our perspective that budget is good
news for the West.
Let me digress for just a second. This is our centennial
year for the Bureau of Reclamation. The authorizing legislation
for the Bureau was enacted on June 17, 1902, and certainly we
are proud of Reclamation and what our part has been in
developing the West and our continuing relationship with the
States there and in providing that water supply.
We are currently the largest wholesaler of water in the
United States and the seventh largest power utility delivering
power and water to the West. About 31 million people depend on
us for water every day, and we serve about 10 million people
with power every day. We are proud of those 348 major dams and
58 power plants that we have across the West.
The budget request for 2004 is citizen centered and founded
on the President's principle of results rather than procedures.
An example is the Western Water Initiative that Mr. Raley just
talked about. Our budget is a fiscally responsible request
which will continue to provide funding to deliver water,
provide a stable source of power for our growing population,
keep our dams and facilities safe, and support sound
environmental stewardship efforts.
The 2004 request includes $771 million for the Water and
Related Resources. This will allow us to continue Reclamation's
emphasis on delivering and managing water and power, the two
valuable public resources that we are responsible for. In
cooperation and consultation with the States, tribal and local
governments, along with our other stakeholders and the public
at large, Reclamation offers workable solutions regarding water
and power resource issues that are consistent with the demands
for power and water across the western United States.
With the need to pursue cost-effective, environmentally
sound approaches to meeting these demands, the request
continues to emphasize the operation and maintenance of
Reclamation facilities in a safe, efficient, economic and
reliable manner. This is all done while sustaining the health
and integrity of ecosystems that address the water needs of a
growing population.
BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
Let me just give you a few highlights of that budget. Mr.
Raley mentioned the Animas-La Plata project in Colorado and New
Mexico and the request being $58 million. This year that level
of funding is crucial to complete the construction of this
project within the time frames required by the Colorado Ute
Settlement Act Amendments of 2000.
The 2004 request will continue the construction of Ridges
Basin Dam and the Durango Pumping Plant on the Animas River, as
well as continuing the preconstruction activities for the
Navajo Nation Municipal Pipeline and Ridges Basin Inlet
conduit, and other facilities there.
The Columbia-Snake River Salmon Recovery in Idaho, Oregon,
Montana, and Washington addresses the implementation of
reasonable and prudent alternatives included in two biological
opinions issued in December of 2000. We are working mightily to
make those work for the return of the salmon and the continued
operation of our projects there.
The Klamath Project in California and Oregon provides
funding for scientific studies and initiatives that will, as a
result of the 2002 to 2012 biological opinion, establish a
water bank. We think the water bank will separate the
requirements for water for the Endangered Species Act from the
requirement of water for deliveries to the irrigation
community. We think it is a great approach to try, and
certainly we have every effort there to make that work this
year.
The safety of Reclamation dams is one of our highest
priorities, if not the highest one. About 50 percent of
Reclamation's dams were built between 1900 and 1950, and 90
percent of these dams were built before the advent of current
state-of-the-art foundation treatments, and before filter
techniques were incorporated into those constructions. We have
$71 million of our budget dedicated to the continued safety of
those facilities.
Site security activities are ongoing in the funding program
improvements identified in 2002 and 2003. Since September 11,
2001, Reclamation has maintained the heightened security levels
at our facilities to protect the public, to protect our
employees, and all of the infrastructure there, and certainly
we will continue that. The 2004 budget includes those monies,
about $28-and-a-half million, for us to complete the analysis
and look at every one of those facilities that we operate and
maintain.
The desalination of seawater and groundwater poses a
promising opportunity to expand water supplies for both coastal
and inland areas. The 2004 budget contains increased funding
for desalination research activities aimed at decreasing the
cost and facilitating local implementation of desalination
projects.
The Western Water Initiative that Mr. Raley talked about is
one that we are proud of. It sets aside some money for us to
focus on those activities and bring forward other parts of our
program that are complementary to those activities. A feature
of the initiative that is especially promising is the one that
will actually take a look 25 years into the future around our
projects. The objective is to see if there are unmet demands
there that cannot be met by our existing infrastructure and
identify the areas that we and our stakeholders, with the
States, need to address over that period of time.
To be successful in dealing with today's complex water
issues, we know that collaboration is the key. We must all work
together to forge workable solutions. We are looking for new
ways to make existing water supplies go further. We must
continue to develop strategies where water can be used more
than once in order to satisfy multiple users and stretch those
existing water supplies even more. This means improved water
conservation, investments in science and technology, and
modernization of existing infrastructures.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I would be glad to provide more detail, and we would
certainly stand to any questions that you all might have today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Keys, III
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, Thank you
again for the opportunity to appear before you today to support the
President's fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Bureau of
Reclamation. With me today is Robert Wolf, Director of the Program and
Budget Group.
Our fiscal year 2004 request has been designed to support
Reclamation's core mission, as stated in DOI's Strategic Plan:
``Deliver Water and Hydropower, Consistent with Applicable State
and Federal Law, in an Environmentally Responsible and Cost Efficient
Manner.''
Funding is proposed for key emerging projects which are important
to the Department and in line with Administration objectives. The
budget request also supports Reclamation's participation in efforts to
meet emerging water supply needs, to resolve water shortage issues in
the West, and to promote water conservation and improved water
management.
The fiscal year 2004 request for Reclamation totals $878.0 million
in gross budget authority, an increase of $23.1 million from the fiscal
year 2003 President's Amended Request of January 7, 2003, and a
decrease of $33.3 million from fiscal year 2003 Enacted Level. The
request is partially offset by discretionary receipts in the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund, resulting in net discretionary budget
authority of $847.2 million, a decrease of $24.5 million over the
fiscal year 2003 Enacted Level.
Center to this is $11.0 million to launch a Western Water
Initiative that uses collaboration, conservation, and innovation to
make sure every drop of water counts. This initiative will provide a
comprehensive forward-looking water resource management program that
will respond to growing water demands. To be successful in dealing with
today's complex water issues, we know collaboration is the key. We all
must work together to forge workable solutions. We are looking for new
ways to make existing water supplies go further. We must continue to
develop strategies where water can be used more than once in order to
satisfy multiple users and stretch existing water supplies even more.
This means improved water conservation, investments in science and
technology, and modernization of existing infrastructures.
The four major components of the initiative are Enhancing Water
Management and Conservation; Expanding Science and Technology Program;
Preventing Water Management Crisis; and Strengthening Endangered
Species Act (ESA) Expertise.
This budget is good news for the West. Each year Reclamation is
focused on customer value as well as increased accountability and
modernization. This request is citizen-centered and founded on the
Administration's principle of results rather than procedures. It is
also a fiscally responsible request, which will provide funding to keep
our dams and facilities safe, deliver water, provide a stable source of
power for our growing population, and support environmental efforts.
demonstrated commitment and accomplishments
While performing its core mission, Reclamation delivered 10
trillion gallons of water to over 31 million people in the 17 western
states for municipal, rural, and industrial uses. Reclamation
facilities stored over 245 million acre-feet of water, serving one of
every five western farmers to irrigate about 10 million acres of land.
Those irrigated lands produced 60 percent of the nation's vegetables
and 25 percent of its fruits and nuts. As the largest water resources
management agency in the West, Reclamation continues to administer and/
or operate 348 reservoirs, 56,000 miles of water conveyance systems,
and 58 hydroelectric facilities, which generate 42 billion kilowatt-
hours annually.
Reclamation also continues to manage approximately 8.6 million
acres of Federal land, plus another 600,000 acres of land under
easements. In addition, our facilities provide substantial flood
control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. Reclamation and
its employees take very seriously their mission of managing,
developing, and protecting water and related resources in an
environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the
American public.
The fiscal year 2004 budget request demonstrates Reclamation's
commitment in meeting the water and power needs of the West in a
fiscally responsible manner. This budget continues Reclamation's
emphasis on delivering and managing those valuable public resources. In
cooperation and consultation with the state, tribal, and local
governments, along with other stakeholders and the public at large,
Reclamation offers workable solutions regarding water and power
resource issues that are consistent with the demands for power and
water. With the need to pursue cost effective and environmentally sound
approaches, Reclamation's strategy is to continue to use the
Secretary's four ``C's:'' ``Consultation, Cooperation and Communication
all in the service of Conservation . . .'' These principles provide
Reclamation an opportunity, in consultation with our stakeholders, to
use decision support tools, including risk analyses, in order to
develop the most efficient and cost-effective solutions to the complex
challenges that we face.
During the second session of the 107th Congress, both the committee
and Reclamation's stakeholders accentuated their concerns over the
availability of water two decades from now. Our fiscal year 2004
request includes measures that will be utilized to help assure that
water will be available for a growing population when needed. Through
our Western Water Initiative, Reclamation plans to develop a forward
looking water resource management program that will respond to growing
water demand.
Furthermore, funding is proposed for key emerging projects that are
important to the Department and the Administration's objectives. The
budget proposal also supports Reclamation's participation in efforts of
meeting emerging water supply needs, resolving water issues in the
West, promoting water efficiencies, and improving water management.
Moreover, Reclamation's request reflects the need to address an
aging infrastructure and the rising costs and management challenges
associated with scarce water resources. As our infrastructure ages, we
must direct increasing resources toward technological upgrades, new
science and technologies, and preventative maintenance to ensure
reliability, which will increase output, and improve safety.
More and more everyday we see how important water resource needs
are to our state, local and tribal partners. Many states are developing
statewide water plans or drought contingency plans to address resource
utilization and stewardship against the backdrop of large population
increases with the growing concern for sustainable development.
Reclamation, in partnership with other federal, state, local, tribal,
and private entities, has consistently proven its ability to work with
others to optimize water use. This technical capability is one of our
most valuable resources.
water and related resources
The fiscal year 2004 request for the Water and Related Resources
account is $771.2 million. The request provides funding for five major
program activities: Water and Energy Management and Development ($331.3
million); Land Management and Development ($41.3 million); Fish and
Wildlife Management and Development ($90.4 million); Facility
Operations ($176.8 million); and Facility Maintenance and
Rehabilitation ($171.5 million). The request is partially offset by an
undistributed reduction of $40.0 million, in anticipation of delays in
construction schedules and other planned activities.
The request continues to emphasize the operation and maintenance of
Reclamation facilities in a safe, efficient, economic, and reliable
manner, while sustaining the health and integrity of ecosystems that
addresses the water needs of a growing population. It will also assist
the states, tribes, and local entities in solving contemporary water
resource issues.
Highlights of the fiscal year 2004 request include:
Animas-La Plata in Colorado and New Mexico ($58.0 million).--The
fiscal year 2004 request includes $58 million for the project and will
fund the construction contracts awarded in fiscal year 2003 that are
associated with critical path activities. This level of funding is
crucial to complete the construction of this project within the time
frames required by the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000.
In December 2000, Congress enacted legislation to resolve the Colorado
Ute Indian Tribes' water right claims and allowed construction of a
smaller Animas-La Plata Project to proceed.
Columbia-Snake River Salmon Recovery in Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and
Washington ($19.0 million).--This program addresses the implementation
of Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) included in two
Biological Opinions issued in December 2000. The first opinion was
issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) entitled
``Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS),
Including the Juvenile Fish Transportation Program, and 19 Bureau of
Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin,'' and the second opinion
was issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) entitled
``Effects to Listed Species from Operations of the Federal Columbia
River Power System.''
Those Biological Opinions superseded all previous FCRPS Biological
Opinions and all actions will now be focused toward the new
``reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPA).'' Section 7(a)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with
NMFS and the FWS to ensure that agency actions will not likely
jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species,
or will not adversely modify or destroy their designated critical
habitats.
The FWS Biological Opinion is coordinated with the NMFS Biological
Opinion, and calls for operational changes to the FCRPS, by way of
additional research measures. A substantial majority of the action
items resulted from the NMFS Biological Opinion, while the FWS action
items included significantly increased regional coordination with the
Federal regulatory agencies; aggressive actions to modify the daily,
weekly, and seasonal operation of Federal dams; and the ``off-site
mitigation'' of hydro system impacts.
Klamath Project in California and Oregon ($20.8 million).--The
funding will provide for scientific studies and initiatives as a result
of the 2002-2012 biological opinions and for the establishment of a
water bank as required under those same opinions, as well as to provide
water to meet ESA compliance.
The request will also continue funding for studies and initiatives
related to improving water supply and quality to meet agriculture,
tribal, wildlife refuge, and environmental needs in the Klamath River
Basin and to improve fish passage and habitat.
Safety of Dams ($71.0 million).--The safety and reliability of
Reclamation dams is one of Reclamation's highest priorities.
Approximately 50 percent of Reclamation's dams were built between 1900
and 1950, and 90 percent of those dams were built before the advent of
current state-of-the-art foundation treatment, and before filter
techniques were incorporated in embankment dams to control seepage.
Safe performance of Reclamation's dams continues to be of great concern
and requires a greater emphasis on the risk management activities
provided by the program.
The fiscal year 2004 request of $71.0 million for the Safety of
Dams Program is being made to provide for the reducing of public safety
risks at Reclamation dams, particularly those identified as having
deficiencies. The request provides for risk management activities
throughout Reclamation's Safety of Dams inventory of 362 dams and
dikes, which would likely cause loss of life if they were to fail. Pre-
construction and construction activities for up to 19 of these dams are
identified for funding through the Safety of Dams Program. The fiscal
year 2004 request includes $1.7 million for the Department of the
Interior Dam Safety Program.
Site Security ($28.6 million).--Since September 11, 2001,
Reclamation has maintained heighten security at is facilities to
protect the public, its employees, and infrastructures. The
supplemental funding in fiscal year 2002 was necessary to cover the
costs of site security activities in three principle areas. The first
area was for guards and law enforcement, the second area included
reviews, studies, and analyses, and the third area was for equipment.
The fiscal year 2004 request continues funding for those critical
activities under the categories of Critical Infrastructure Protection
and Continuity of Operations.
Drought ($1.1 million).--The program includes those activities
related to administering the Reclamation States Emergency Drought
Relief Act of 1991, as amended, to undertake activities that will
minimize losses and damages resulting from drought conditions. The
major component of the program relates to response activities taken
during an actual drought to minimize losses or mitigate damages. The
program also provides for assistance in the preparation of drought
contingency plans.
Desalination of Seawater and Groundwater ($775,000).--This program
provides a promising opportunity to expand water supplies for both
coastal and inland areas. The 2004 budget contains increased funding
for desalination research activities aimed at decreasing the cost and
facilitating local implementation of desalination.
Our research activities are carefully chosen to align with the
Department's draft Strategic Plan and are developed in collaboration
with stakeholders. We believe that cost shared research conducted at
existing institutions is the quickest and most economical means to
achieve our ambitious long-term goal of decreasing desalination costs
by 50 percent by 2020.
Sumner Peck Settlement ($34.0 million).--The budget request
provides payment to the plaintiffs towards the settlement of Sumner
Peck Ranch Inc v. Bureau of Reclamation.
western water initiative
The new Western Water Initiative will position the bureau in
playing a leading role in developing solutions that will help meet the
increased demands for limited water resources in the West. The budget
proposes $11.0 million, which will benefit western communities that are
struggling with increased water demands, drought, and compliance with
the Endangered Species Act. The Western Water Initiative involves:
Enhanced Water Management and Conservation ($6.9 million).--Funding
will be used for the modernization of irrigation delivery structures
such as diversion structures and canals. This will also allow
Reclamation to use existing intrastate water banks where they are
available, and to promote intrastate water banking as a concept to help
resolve future water supply conflicts. Reclamation will develop
alternative ways to balance the existing demands for water for
agricultural, municipal, tribal, and environmental purposes. Examples
include water management tools; inexpensive and accurate water
measuring devices; and computer technologies that will allow remote
sensing and automation. Moreover, new canal lining material, data
collection and analysis systems should make predicting, managing, and
delivering water much more effective.
Preventing Water Management Crisis ($917,000).--Funding will enable
us to provide effective environmental and ecosystem enhancements in
support of Reclamation's project operations through proactive and
innovative activities. For example, we are exploring ways of addressing
issues at projects by identifying and integrating long-term river
system ecological needs within the context of regulated river
management.
Pilot projects will be selected from a list of critical areas based
on the potential for cost savings resulting from the development of a
program in advance of the occurrence of a crisis. Pilot projects are
anticipated to include environmental enhancements that provide support
for project operations or optimization of project operations for both
water supply and environmental benefits. For example, in some cases,
water release patterns can be modified to address environmental needs
without impairing the delivery of water for authorized project
purposes.
Expanded Science and Technology Program ($2.7 million).--
Reclamation's Desalination Research and Development Program will be
expanded to research cost reduction of water desalinization and waste
disposal. Reclamation has developed much of the current desalinization
technology used around the world today, and will continue to work with
partners in the industry to accomplish this goal.
Funding will also expand the effective use of science in adaptive
management of watersheds. This cooperative effort with the USGS will
assist Reclamation in reaching decisions that are driven by sound
science and research, are cost effective, and are based on performance
criteria.
Funding will also provide for peer review of the science used in
ESA consultations and other environmental documents issued by
Reclamation. The National Academy of Science, USGS, and other federal
and state entities with science expertise will peer-review the science
used by Reclamation in preparing Biological assessments. This
initiative will improve Reclamation's use of science and technology to
address critical water resource management issues.
Strengthening Endangered Species Act (ESA) Expertise ($458,000).--
Funding will be used to strengthen ESA expertise and will produce
identifiable mechanisms in order to achieve continuity in evaluating
biological assessments and/or biological opinions. This initiative will
enable managers to acquire a greater understanding of the purpose,
process and requirements of the ESA as it relates to federal actions
that are important to carrying out Reclamation's water resources
management mission.
central valley project restoration fund
The fiscal year 2004 Reclamation budget includes a request for
$39.6 million and is expected to be offset by discretionary receipts
totaling $30.8 million, which can be collected from project
beneficiaries under provisions of Section 3407(d) of the Act. These
funds will be used for habitat restoration, improvement and
acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the
Central Valley Project area of California. This fund was established by
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Title XXXIV of Public Law
102-575, October 30, 1992.
The funds will be used to achieve a reasonable balance among
competing demands for the use of Central Valley Project water,
including the requirements of fish and wildlife, agricultural,
municipal and industrial and power contractors. Reclamation is seeking
appropriations for the full amount of funds of the estimated
collections for fiscal year 2004.
california bay-delta restoration
The fiscal year 2004 Reclamation budget includes a request for
$15.0 million. The funds will be used consistent with commitment to
find long-term solutions in improving water quality; habitat and
ecological functions; and water supply reliability; while reducing the
risk of catastrophic breaching of Delta levees. Fiscal year 2004 budget
contains funds for Bay-Delta activities that can be undertaken within
existing statutory authorities for implementation of Stage 1
activities. Those activities are included in the preferred program
alternative recommended by CALFED and approved by the Secretary of the
Interior. The majority of these funds will specifically address the
environmental water account, storage, and program administration.
policy and administration
The request for Policy and Administration (P&A) is $56.5 million.
P&A funds are used to develop and implement Reclamation-wide policy,
rules and regulations (including actions under the Government
Performance and Results Act) and to perform functions which cannot be
charged to specific project or program activities covered by separate
funding authority. These funds support general administrative and
management functions.
loan program
No funding is requested for any direct loans. Funding of $200,000
is requested for program administration.
performance assessment rating tool (part)
During fiscal year 2002, all cabinet level agencies reviewed at
least 20 percent of their programs in concert with the Office of
Management and Budget. The Administration conducted these reviews using
PART, a standardized format for program evaluation and management.
Results from the PART process were one of many criteria used in making
budget decisions. The three Reclamation programs that were reviewed
were Hydropower, Water Reuse and Recycling Program (Title XVI), and
Rural Water. Reclamation is currently addressing all deficiencies
identified with respect to each program.
Hydropower was rated ``moderately effective'' and Reclamation has
begun developing long-term goals that will address the identified
issues, such as aging facilities and the need for better performance
measures. The Title XVI program review indicated that the program was
``moderately well managed.'' However, Reclamation's oversight of
individual projects is limited by strong local control, and the PART
findings indicated that there is no clear linkage between Federal
funding and progress towards outcomes.
The Rural Water Supply Projects were rated ``results not
demonstrated.'' Fiscal year 2004 funding requests for this program has
been reduced due to systemic program weaknesses, such as non-existent
guidelines for eligibility; local cost share and program planning; and
overlaps with other Federal agencies. The Administration intends to
submit legislation this spring, establishing a Reclamation Rural Water
Program with adequate cost controls and clear guidelines for project
development.
president's management agenda
Reclamation is engaged in a variety of activities designed to meet
the Department's ``Getting to Green'' Scorecard requirements related to
the President's Management Agenda (PMA). These activities are
concentrated in five major components of the PMA: Expanding E-
Government, Financial Management Improvement, Human Capital,
Performance and Budget Integration, and Competitive Sourcing.
E-Government.--Reclamation participates in a one-stop Internet
access that provides citizens information about recreational
opportunities on public lands and participates in the Volunteer.gov
website which provides information on volunteer activities. We also
recently completed an internal review of our web program and are in the
process of implementing the recommendations from the review, including
the development of a common website.
Financial Management Improvement.--Reclamation continues to make
progress to ensure that our financial systems are compliant with the
Joint Financial Management Improvement Program core requirements. To
ensure that accurate and timely financial information is provided, our
financial management program uses the Federal Financial System, the
Program and Budget System, and its corporate data base system to report
summary and transactions data on a 24-hour basis.
Human Capital.--Reclamation effectively deploys the appropriate
workforce mix to accomplish mission requirements. The use of existing
human resources flexibilities, tools, and technology is in a strategic,
efficient, and effective manner. Our workforce plan addresses E-
Government and Competitive Sourcing and a plan is in place for
recruitment, retention, and development of current and future leaders,
in addition supervisors are encouraged to work individually with
employees to develop Individual Development Plans.
Competitive Sourcing.--Reclamation's A-76 Inventory Consistency
Team was established to ensure consistency in inventory reporting. The
team established guidelines for commercial, commercial core, and
inherently governmental functions that are specific to Reclamation's
workforce. Two streamlined studies have been completed for 124 FTE and
a tentative decision has been announced, moreover two additional
streamlined studies are with the Independent Review Official and a
preliminary planning is underway for the Express Review studies
scheduled in early 2003.
Performance and Budget Integration.--Reclamation continues to issue
joint planning guidance through the Budget Review Committee process to
provide budget targets, priorities, objectives, and goals. A Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) planning calendar, including budget
process and major milestones, has been developed. In addition, budget
accounts, staff, and programs/activities are aligned with program
targets.
fiscal year 2002 accomplishments highlights and future planned
activities
In fiscal year 2002, we delivered the contracted amount of water to
our water users, thereby meeting our contractual obligations. However,
severe drought conditions increased demand for water, and in some
cases, the water delivered to the water users was not enough to meet
the increased requirement. If snow pack runoff continues at or below
normal levels and if the drought continues, there will be far less
water to release to our water users during fiscal year 2003 and fiscal
year 2004.
Reclamation renewed 100 percent of the water service contracts
expiring in fiscal year 2002, helping to ensure continued reliable
service. An additional contract that was not planned for was also
renewed for a total accomplishment of 114 percent.
Reclamation also completed Safety of Dams modifications on four
facilities in fiscal year 2002, the Caballo, Avalon, Clear Lake and Red
Willow dams. Also, in fiscal year 2003, Reclamation anticipates
completing Safety of Dams modifications at Deadwood Dam in Idaho and
Salmon Lake Dam in Washington.
Completion of these modifications improves overall facility
condition by reducing risk and improving safety. In some cases,
completion of the modifications increased Reclamation's ability to
deliver water by removing restricted capacity requirements, and
allowing the reservoir to be filled to full operational capacity, if
needed.
Reclamation's draft cost of power production per megawatt capacity
for fiscal year 2002 was $6,855. This amount puts Reclamation within
the upper 25th percent of the lowest cost hydropower facilities.
Reclamation also achieved a 1.3 percent forced outage rate, which
measures the amount of unplanned time out of service. This performance
level is 56 percent better than the industry average forced outage rate
of 3 percent.
By the end of fiscal year 2002, Reclamation conducted over 130
reviews of its recreational facilities to determine the state of its
facilities, identify corrective actions, and determine needed
improvements. Also in fiscal year 2002, Reclamation's partnerships and
cost-sharing practices allowed Reclamation to complete additional
corrective actions to improve more facilities than originally planned.
This resulted in performance greater than 100 percent completion of the
planned corrective actions.
Reclamation completed 130 percent of its planned site security
improvements. Moreover, funding was used to implement additional high-
priority security improvements at its high-priority facilities, which
was well above the target originally established.
fiscal year 2004 planned activities
In fiscal year 2004, Reclamation plans to deliver 27.0 million
acre-feet of water for authorized project purposes. In addition, we
will complete the Safety of Dams projects at Wickiup Dam, Keechelus
Dam, Pineview Dam, and Horsetooth Dam. This will reduce total reservoir
restrictions and increase the available storage capacity by 127,300
acre-feet. Reclamation will also complete projects or parts of projects
that have the potential to deliver an additional 42,030 acre-feet of
water, which will naturally be dependent upon water availability and
operations.
Reclamation plans to complete the Escondido and San Elijo Water
Reclamation Program; the Olivenhain Recycled Water Project; the Yuma
Area Water Resource Management Group bifurcation structure; portions of
the El Paso Waste Water Reuse Project; canal linings; and other
salinity reduction projects that increase water availability.
Reclamation also plans to continue ranking within the upper 25th
percentile of low cost hydropower producers, by comparing power
production costs per megawatt capacity, Reclamation plans to achieve a
forced outage rate 50 percent better than the industry average, which
is currently 3 percent. While Reclamation anticipates completing the
baseline condition assessments for 80 percent of the recreation
facilities it manages, it plans to continue to maintain the overall
facility condition rating assessed at the fiscal year 2003 baseline
level.
Reclamation intends to ensure that 14 percent of recreation
facilities meet universal accessibility standards, thereby increasing
access to recreation areas to the disabled from 8 percent in fiscal
year 2003, in addition to maintaining the annual level of on-the-job
employee fatalities and serious accidents at zero.
conclusion
This completes my statement. Please allow me to express my sincere
appreciation for the continued support that this Committee has provided
Reclamation. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at
this time.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Commissioner Keys, for your
statement. Mr. Johnston, do you have a statement to make?
PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. RONALD JOHNSTON
Mr. Johnston. I have a prepared statement in support of the
request for 2004 for the Central Utah Project. And in the
interest of time, I would simply ask that it be entered for the
record.
Senator Cochran. It will be so entered. Thank you very
much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of J. Ronald Johnston
My name is J. Ronald Johnston. I serve as the Program Director for
implementation of the Central Utah Project Completion Act under the
direction of the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science in the
Department of the Interior. I am pleased to provide the following
information about the President's 2004 budget for implementation of the
Central Utah Project Completion Act.
The Central Utah Project Completion Act, Titles II-VI of Public Law
102-575, provides for completion of the Central Utah Project by the
Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act also authorizes
funding for fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation;
establishes an account in the Treasury for deposit of these funds and
other contributions; establishes the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission to coordinate mitigation and conservation
activities; and provides for the Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement.
The Act provides that the Secretary may not delegate her
responsibilities under the Act to the Bureau of Reclamation. As a
result, the Department has established an 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 2004 request for the Central Utah Project Completion Account
provides $38.2 million for use by the District, the Commission, and the
Department to implement Titles II-IV of the Act, which is $2.0 million
more than the 2003 requested level and $2.2 million more than the 2003
enacted level. The request includes $6.4 million for the District to
implement water conservation measures, implement local development
projects, continue construction on Uinta Basin Replacement Project, and
continue planning and NEPA compliance for the facilities to deliver
water in the Utah Lake drainage basin. The request also includes $20.0
million for use by the District to complete the construction of the
Diamond Fork System. The problems associated with an unforeseen cave-in
and dangerous levels of hydrogen sulfide gas have been resolved, and
construction of the alternative facilities is progressing on schedule.
The funds requested for the Mitigation Commission ($9.4 million)
will be used in implementing the fish, wildlife, and recreation
mitigation and conservation projects authorized in Title III ($7.7
million); and in completing mitigation measures committed to in pre-
1992 Bureau of Reclamation planning documents ($1.7 million). Title III
activities funded in 2004 include the Provo River Restoration Project;
acquisition of habitat, access, and water rights; and fish hatchery
improvements.
Finally, the request also includes $2.4 million for the Program
Office for mitigation and conservation projects outside the State of
Utah ($239,000); operation and maintenance costs associated with
instream flows and fish hatchery facilities ($390,000); and for program
administration ($1.7 million).
In addition to the request described above, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs' budget includes $22.5 million for the Ute Indian Water Rights
Settlement.
In conclusion, we appreciate the opportunity to testify before the
Committee and would be happy to respond to any questions.
Senator Cochran. Senator Domenici has several questions
which, I will state, will be submitted to you. We hope you will
respond to them in a timely fashion.
Mr. Raley. We will.
Commissioner Keys. We will be glad to.
Senator Cochran. We would appreciate that very much.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The time
is late so I will be brief.
But let me say: Mr. Secretary, I do appreciate your
testimony and, I think, the reality and the importance you
bring to the Department as it relates to its responsibilities.
I was looking at your testimony and found most interesting the
Wildland Fire and Healthy Forests' proposal. And in that
initiative you are talking BLM lands, I assume, exclusively.
Mr. Raley. Yes, sir.
WILDLAND FIRE AND HEALTHY FORESTS
Senator Craig. And the treatment of nearly a million acres
of urban wildland interface--well, 300,000 of that, 700+ of
wildland-urban--well, I guess, it is all interface. Could you
expand on that a little more as to what your plans are? That is
certainly a positive, but aggressive, agenda but one, I think,
that is very necessary in the West.
Mr. Raley. Senator, this is Interior's component of the
President's Healthy Forest Initiative and the implementation of
that initiative will be done--must be done in close
coordination with and absolute partnership with the United
States Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service. The
areas for treatment and the method of implementation is what is
being discussed right now so that it can be done in the most
cost-effective manner. If you would like, we can provide you
with the state of knowledge, whatever it is as of today, as to
the manner of implementation. And I would suggest that we----
Senator Craig. Well, I would----
Mr. Raley [continuing]. Maybe get you that detail shortly.
Senator Craig. Thank you. I am working closely with the
Forest Service and understand, of course, that you do
coordinate because we have inter-dispersed lands there in most
every instance, in checkerboard patterns. But that is a very
aggressive agenda and one that I am pleased with. So, yes, a
briefing on that I would appreciate, as it relates to what we
do with the Forest Service on that issue.
The tragedy is when you talk drought and the absence of
water, you are also talking the presence of a lot of very dry
fuel in the forested lands of the West and the potential of
even as great a forest fire year this coming year as we had
last. And last was almost a record setter.
PREVENTING WATER MANAGEMENT CRISIS MONIES
John, in your proposal I am pleased to see, I assume by the
language in your presentation, the ``preventing water
management crisis monies,'' that that is a proactive account,
or an account to be proactive as it relates to the potential of
impending crises, i.e., a Klamath Falls or the avoidance
thereof.
Commissioner Keys. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Craig, what
we are trying to do is not limit the look to climatic futures,
because none of us can see the weather that is coming.
What we are trying to do is look at all of the different
factors involved in water supply and where they could reach
crisis levels in the future--looking at the growth of cities
and towns, Endangered Species Act requirements that are taxing
some of our existing systems now, the growing need for water
for a lot of other purposes, water quality control for fish and
wildlife, for recreation, the whole bit, and see where those
hot spots might occur 25 years into the future.
There may be some things that we can do now that start
stretching that water supply. Then, later, we can begin working
with our partners to implement a plan for having additional
infrastructure in place when we get to that time where we could
have a crisis if we do not react earlier.
Senator Craig. Is $1.1 million in the drought category as
it relates to the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief
Act of 1991 adequate based on impending drought scenarios in
the West at this moment?
Commissioner Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Craig, the worst time
to plan for a drought is when one is underway. What we are
trying to do is encourage people to prepare themselves ahead of
time so that there are contingency plans. That $1.1 million is
mostly planning funds that we are using with entities to be
ready for the next one.
Over the past few years, some of our monies have been used
to help tribes drill wells, to work with them on providing
water supplies to outlying areas and so forth. But this one is
directed mainly to contingency planning so that we can be ready
for the next drought.
Senator Craig. Well, we know what your snow courses tell
you today and what the impending water situation looks like in
the West at this moment. I would trust that you are well
underway and working with the--those who receive water on how
you will manage your way through the coming summer.
Commissioner Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Craig, we have been
doing that since last fall. We are receiving regular snow
surveys. We do them every 2 weeks now. This is crunch time for
us in preparing for next year and we are certainly working with
all of those stakeholders and their water supplies, both what
is available and what is projected. There are a lot of areas
that are going to be short, and we are trying to do some
planning for that.
Senator Craig. All right. Well, I would appreciate also,
when your time allows, to drop by and visit about the Snake
River adjudication that is underway and important in Idaho.
That would be appreciated by you.
And certainly, Mr. Secretary, we will look forward to
visiting with you.
Thank you all.
Senator Cochran. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Keys, we welcomed you to the authorizing
committee. I introduced you. That was a day of great praise of
your background and your service.
Commissioner Keys. Thank you.
Senator Bennett. And now you come to the place where you
get beat up.
It is a slightly different kind of a hearing here. May I
say that I am delighted that you are here and that you are
willing to make this kind of contribution to public service.
CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT
I want to specifically recognize Ron Johnston. The Central
Utah Project sounds enormously parochial, and that is only
because it is.
But I recognize that my father worked on the Central Utah
Project, and if I can share with the committee a comment my
father made to a staffer as they were walking back from the
Senate floor to his office and my father said, ``You know, if
the people of Utah were smart, if the people of Utah and their
Senator were smart, they would build the Central Utah Project
themselves. This looks like it will cost at least $150
million.'' Well, it has gone--it is almost that much per year
now and we are glad the Federal Government has helped us out.
Obviously, Mr. Keys, I have some questions about western
power. The 2004 budget request of the Western Area Power
Administration proposes to shift to the Bureau of Reclamation
the obligation to fund the approximately $6 million annual
contribution to the Utah Reclamation Conservation and
Mitigation Commission trust account. And that provides
important work in conservation and mitigation programs
associated with the Central Utah Project, or the Central Utah
Project Completion Act.
Now this was established by Public Law 102-575, and with
other contributions being made by all of the stakeholders and
project beneficiaries, including the State of Utah, the Central
Utah Water Conservancy District, as well as the Interior
Department. Now Western Area Power has been providing payments
into the account since 1992 on behalf of the power user
beneficiaries.
So with that lead-up, Mr. Commissioner or Mr. Keys, do you
support ending Western's responsibilities to contribute into
this account, and transferring this funding obligation from
Western to Reclamation? And if you have, why is that
contribution not built into the 2004 budget request?
Commissioner Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bennett, we do not
support that. I will be very candid with you: We were surprised
to find out about this change just this past week. We are in
heavy negotiations with Western Area Power Administration now
about them continuing the contributions of those monies to that
project.
Senator Bennett. Okay. Just so long as it comes, I am not
really excited about where. I just want the money.
Commissioner Keys. I understand, sir.
Senator Bennett. Okay. Continue your negotiations.
FLAMING GORGE EIS
Okay. Now it is my understanding that the Bureau will
release its draft EIS for Flaming Gorge this summer. Is that
correct, or is the date subject to change?
Commissioner Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bennett, that is the
schedule as we see it, and I have seen nothing that would
affect that schedule as of right now.
SECURITY ISSUES
Senator Bennett. Good. Finally, on security issues, so far
the Bureau has treated security costs as non-reimbursable. Do
you intend to continue to do that?
Commissioner Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bennett, what we are
trying to do is accommodate the extra requirements for security
that came out of the September 11, 2001 attack. At some time in
the future, we will have to go back and reassess what is
reimbursable on an annual basis.
But what we are trying to do now are all of those reviews
of facilities, the analysis of security for each one of the
facilities, and then at least get started into the hardware
preparations, the installation of facilities, before it becomes
reimbursable. So for the time being, we are able to maintain
that. At some time, we will have to take a hard look at that,
and certainly a part of that hard look would be working with
your committee here, sir.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. We have had a good relationship
with you as, of course, we have with Mr. Johnston who has been
very helpful in working with us on the goals of the Central
Utah Project.
One last area I want to probe a little, and you have gotten
there with your previous question: What did you do in the
Bureau when the Department of Homeland Security raised the
threat level? And what kind of budget impact did those actions
have? Do you have flexibility in the 2004 budget to accommodate
those kinds of circumstances? Just visit with us generally
about what happens when you go from yellow to orange, and what
kind of budget we need to look at.
Commissioner Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bennett, when we went
from yellow to orange, of course it heightened the level of
security for all of us and some of the requirements at some of
our facilities. There is flexibility in the security monies
that we have to go to the higher level. I am treading on a thin
line of what is secure and what is not and how much we can
cover here.
Senator Bennett. And you are speaking to the new chairman
of the Homeland Security Subcommittee----
Commissioner Keys. Yes.
Senator Bennett [continuing]. So take----
Commissioner Keys. Sir, what I would propose----
Senator Bennett [continuing]. Take the opportunity to ask
for a little money out of the----
Commissioner Keys. Okay.
Well, I will do that.
What we would prefer to do is, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bennett,
we would like to come and give you a secure briefing on all of
those facilities and the differences between those levels of
security and how we are prepared to do that.
I will assure you that we were able to achieve the change
of security levels within minutes, rather than hours or days,
when we went to the higher level this time. We were ready for
it. It happened, and it worked very well. We would certainly be
willing to come and give you a lot of details in a secure
briefing on all of those facilities that you are interested in.
Senator Bennett. Very good. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
Mr. Raley. Mr. Chairman, Senator, if I might just on that
last question----
Senator Cochran. Secretary Raley.
Mr. Raley. I think that it is fair that we inform this
subcommittee, however, that we may need to look at
redirecting--we do not know how much--but some funds within the
2003 budget to meet needs that will be apparent as a result of
the work that has taken place in fiscal year 2003. We believe
that those may be accommodated with existing resources, but we
obviously need to be in very close coordination with members of
this committee on these important matters.
Senator Bennett. Okay. Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for making that
comment. We appreciate your following the rules on
reprogramming, and we look forward to working with you on any
requests you have for that.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
silvery minnow on the rio grande
Question. As you are well aware, the State of New Mexico is
suffering a severe drought, the extent to which has not been seen in
recent history. Complicating this situation is the fact that we have an
endangered species, the silvery minnow, living in the Rio Grande. All
of these competing demands, combined with the drought, has resulted in
millions of Federal dollars invested in seeking a solution.
Can you provide the committee an update on the litigation and both
Interior's and the Bureau's involvement?
Answer. Litigation in the Minnow v. Keys case continues against the
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for alleged Endangered Species Act violations. Plaintiffs
identified the central issue to be the scope of discretionary authority
of Reclamation and the Corps over Middle Rio Grande water deliveries
and river operations to deliver water for the benefit of the minnow
over others. In a cross claim against the United States in Minnow v.
Keys, the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District seeks quiet title to
all Middle Rio Grande Project properties.
On September 23, 2002, Chief U.S. District Judge James Parker
issued an Opinion declaring the Fish and Wildlife Service's September
12, 2002, Biological Opinion arbitrary and capricious. The Service and
Reclamation were ordered to complete formal consultation for 2003 water
operations by March 1, 2003. Judge Parker's decisions were appealed and
stayed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The United States in its
appeal brief is arguing that the district court erred in its definition
of discretion and requirement to compensate for shortages. The 10th
Circuit has not made a decision and it is not known when it will do so.
Through the winter and early irrigation season, Reclamation has
continued to meet the flow requirements of the June 2001 Biological
Opinion which was in place prior to the Biological Opinion which was
struck down in September. Reclamation submitted a final Biological
Assessment to the Service on February 19, 2003, covering water
operations from 2003 to 2013. A final Biological Opinion was released
by the Service on March 17, 2003 and Reclamation will comply with the
recommended flow levels, working cooperatively with water users.
Question. In your opinion, is it possible for us to manage our way
through this difficult situation, or is it an impossibility?
Answer. We are doing our very best to manage the water situation in
these difficult circumstances. Several strategies have brought success
through difficult times in recent years. During court-ordered mediation
in 2000, Federal and non-Federal stakeholders came together and
developed solutions which led to supplemental water being provided to
the river to significantly help Rio Grande silvery minnow survival
while additional supplemental irrigation water was provided to farmers.
In January of 2000, Federal and non-Federal stakeholders signed a
Memorandum of Understanding to form the Endangered Species Act
Workgroup to develop the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act
Collaborative Program. The Program serves as a framework to coordinate
actions to protect and improve the status of two listed species, the
minnow and the flycatcher, while existing and future water uses are
protected and proceed in compliance with applicable laws. The Program
has made significant progress in implementing water acquisition,
habitat restoration, silvery minnow monitoring, propagation, and rescue
activities for the benefit of listed species.
In a landmark agreement between State and Federal stakeholders, a
Conservation Water Agreement was signed in June 2001, to provide up to
30,000 acre-feet of water annually for 3 years to benefit the silvery
minnow. An important component of this effort was another supporting
agreement between the United States and the Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District. As a result, in 2001, approximately 26,000 acre-
feet was released from upstream storage for the benefit of the minnow.
In 2002, an additional amount of approximately 26,000 acre-feet of
conservation water was released. Also in 2002, the City of Albuquerque
made available water to Reclamation and Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
district to benefit both the minnow and farmers. This supplemental
water contributed to the ability of Reclamation and others to remain in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act while continuing to deliver
water to downstream users. Similar opportunities for cooperation
between Federal and non-Federal stakeholders can also make a difference
in 2003.
Question. Can you briefly discuss your plan for this growing
season?
Answer. Reclamation has begun to release supplemental water it has
acquired from willing San Juan-Chama Project contractors through lease
agreements. This water is anticipated to last at least several weeks.
Discussions are ongoing to determine if there are stakeholders
interested in providing water willingly, and in accordance with State
law, to yield additional supplemental water. Given current forecasts
(65 percent of average inflow to El Vado Reservoir as of March 1st),
Reclamation expects that inflow during spring runoff should meet the
needs of both Indian and non-Indian irrigation along with March 17,
2003, final Biological Opinion flow requirements. Additional
supplemental water is necessary to remain in compliance with the
Endangered Species Act for the remainder of the year. Reclamation will
store water at El Vado Reservoir to meet prior and paramount needs of
Pueblos and Tribes.
During the course of discussions amongst Federal and non-Federal
parties over the Service's final Biological Opinion released March 17,
2003, strategies were developed to share in the responsibilities of
Endangered Species Act requirements. Absent a ruling from the 10th
Circuit Court, Reclamation plans on using available supplies of
supplemental water and exercising the discretion it currently has in
curtailing Middle Rio Grande Project diversions to the level needed to
remain in compliance with the final Biological Opinion requirements.
Question. What do you believe is the key to the success on the Rio
Grande and the minnow?
Answer. The key to success on the Rio Grande is continued
cooperation and collaboration amongst all the key Federal and non-
Federal stakeholders, including environmental groups, who currently
participate in the Collaborative Program. Collaborative Program
participants are currently working on long-term solutions to the
complex problems of protecting the listed species while managing
available water supplies, in a forum where frequent communication is
possible through a consensus process. Ongoing habitat restoration,
monitoring, propagation and rescue activities benefit the listed
species. Ongoing efforts in the development of a long term water
management plan include discussions on forbearance, water banking,
water conservation, and improved efficiencies in water operations.
Committees are made up of key stakeholders knowledgeable about
operational, legal, and contractual needs. Support of this Program is
very important in developing long-term collaborative solutions in this
very complex situation.
Question. How are we doing with our efforts to take the fish to the
water by modifying existing habitat so it is more hospitable for the
minnow?
Answer. Salvage efforts have transferred over 3,500 silvery minnow
to upstream areas and several hundred thousand eggs to rearing
facilities. The Service has released 100,000 silvery minnows since
December 1, 2002, for augmentation near Albuquerque, New Mexico, which
is located higher in the basin. The Service expects to release another
30,000 fish near Albuquerque in April 2003. The Collaborative Program
continues to develop a Habitat Restoration Plan that takes into account
the greater availability of water higher in the basin while being
sensitive to the significance of the existing population of silvery
minnow in the lower reaches. The Service's final March 17, 2003,
Biological Opinion places an emphasis on habitat restoration in the
upstream reaches. Propagation and augmentation efforts continue with a
goal of expanding silvery minnow populations throughout the Rio Grande
corridor to reduce dependence on downstream populations of minnows.
Question. What can we do to assist you in these efforts?
Answer. Continue to support the Collaborative Program and other
activities necessary to mitigate the current drought situation.
middle rio grande levees
Question. We provided an additional $10 million in the operations
and maintenance account to address the threatened levees along the Rio
Grande.
Can you tell the committee when the fiscal year 2003 funding will
be available for obligation?
Answer. Plans for utilization of the additional funding for the
threatened levees along the Middle Rio Grande have been underway for
many months. The funding is currently available for obligation. Most of
the funds will be obligated within the next 4 months, with all funds
being obligated by the end of fiscal year 2003.
Question. What is the current plan and schedule for repair work to
begin on the levees?
Answer. As a result of the additional funding for the threatened
levee sites in fiscal year 2003, work on one additional site will be
completed, while on-going work at seven other sites will be accelerated
in fiscal year 2003. In addition, design work will begin on two more
sites to prepare for funds available in fiscal year 2004.
Question. What level of funding does the Congress need to provide
the Bureau this year in order to complete this work in a reasonable
time, given the current risk of the levees?
Answer. Reclamation has the personnel and contracting capability to
effectively utilize $10.5 million per year for the period fiscal year
2003 through fiscal year 2012, the same as requested in the President's
fiscal year 2004 Budget Request. Over a period of 10 years, this level
of funding would reduce the number of sites where the levees are
threatened to a point where any new sites could be corrected within a
1- or 2-year timeframe. Reclamation's Albuquerque Area Office is
capable of performing all project requirements including designs,
environmental compliance work, contract administration, and project
management.
salt cedar on the pecos river
Question. The last several years the Bureau has started an effort
whereby you go into and around the banks of the Pecos River and take
out salt cedar trees in an effort to reduce their draw on the river
water. One salt cedar soaks up approximately 200 gallons of water a
day.
Can you tell me if this program is making any progress?
Answer. The Secretary of the Interior was authorized by an Act
(September 12, 1964, Public Law 88-594, 78 Stat. 942) to carry out a
continuing program to reduce non-beneficial consumptive use of water in
the Pecos River Basin. During the late 1960's and early 1970's, the
Bureau of Reclamation cleared about 33,000 acres of salt cedar in the
Pecos River floodplain in New Mexico and 18,000 acres in the Pecos
River floodplain in Texas. Currently, Reclamation maintains the
original 33,230 acres in New Mexico by keeping this area free of salt
cedar. Salt Cedar control and evaluation has also been identified as a
priority by the National Invasive Species Council. This project is
conducted on both private and public lands located from above Sumner
Dam downstream to the Texas State line. Reclamation contracts with the
Carlsbad Irrigation District to perform the mechanical removal work.
Salt cedar removal is primarily accomplished utilizing rubber-tire
tractors with root plows, and a D-7 caterpillar with a rake attachment.
The New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission cost-shares this project.
Mechanical clearing of salt cedar may not provide the most cost
effective nor long-term solution. Therefore, we are exploring a
partnership with Carlsbad Irrigation District to explore additional
options for salt cedar control.
Question. Has the Bureau given consideration to doing salt cedar
eradication anywhere else in New Mexico?
Answer. Reclamation works within its authorities to control the
growth of salt cedar. At Caballo and Elephant Butte Reservoirs in the
Rio Grande Basin, woody phreatophyte vegetation which is salt cedar and
screwbean mesquite, is also controlled. For about the past 43 years,
Reclamation has been maintaining approximately 6,300 acres at Caballo
Reservoir cleared primarily through mowing, and is considering
herbicide use there. Since 1972, approximately 4,900 acres have been
maintained clear of phreatophytes at Elephant Butte Reservoir, again
primarily through mowing. In addition to our traditional mechanical
methods, Reclamation recently initiated a demonstration program of
herbicide treatments. In August 2002, Reclamation completed herbicide
treatments on 200 acres of dense stands of phreatophytes within the
Caballo Reservoir floodplain.
Reclamation is also active in habitat restoration activities along
the Rio Grande between Cochiti and Elephant Butte to minimize
reinfestation of salt cedar or other noxious weeds. This work includes
removal on non-native species and replacement with natives, and
provides improved habitat for the Rio Grande silvery minnow and the
southerwestern willow flycatcher.
Reclamation also supports testing of biological control agents for
salt cedar. Reclamation is seeking the inclusion of test sites for
release of Diorhabda beetles or other potential agents in both the
Pecos and Rio Grande Basins.
Question. Is there sufficient need to expand this program?
Answer. The need to expand and coordinate salt cedar control
activities with local partners was recognized by the Department which
supported an addition of $600,000 in fiscal year 2004 to Reclamation
for this purpose. Expansion of salt cedar removal should result in
increased surface and ground water supplies.
Salt cedar is a real or potential threat to many watercourses in
New Mexico. Salt cedar alone has been estimated to cause 2.4 million
acre feet/year water, with irrigation water losses as high as $121
million annually. Reclamation, supported by the Department, is also
leading an initiative in fiscal year 2004 with Federal and non-Federal
partners to deploy the best science available for cost-effective,
integrated management for salt cedar. Reclamation in partnership with
local interests will develop a control and management plan that will
focus on resources at the greatest risk from imminent infestation or
the most valuable resources currently infested.
Reclamation looks to improve and expand the effectiveness of its
salt cedar control efforts utilizing combinations of methodologies,
including integration of re-vegetation with native species. The program
will also implement alternative treatments and evaluations will be
conducted to compare those methods to determine which treatment or
combinations of treatment are most effective.
section 208
Question. The fiscal year 2003 Omnibus funding bill included a
provision which requires the Bureau to contract out 10 percent of its
work to the private sector in fiscal year 2003, which is in line with
the Administration's proposal for contracting out more Federal work.
The goal here is to allow the private sector to do work currently done
by the Federal Government in instances where it makes sense to do so,
both from a cost and efficiency standpoint. As a frame of reference,
the Corps contracts out over half of its work.
Commissioner, what rating did the Bureau receive from the
administration on its efforts to contract out its work?
Answer. Reclamation is currently ``at green'' on the
administration's Competitive Sourcing initiative, with a composite
rating of 8.9 (out of 10).
Question. How do you plan to implement this effort to meet the
requirements of the Omnibus legislative language of 10 percent in
fiscal year 2003 and an additional 10 percent each year until you reach
40 percent?
Answer. While the Bureau of Reclamation fully supports the
administration's effort to increase efficiency by increasing
contracting opportunities, this is an area that will require additional
review by the Bureau.
The Bureau currently contracts out a significant amount of our
design and engineering work, but we have not determined the impact of
increasing beyond those existing levels. We find overly prescriptive
language of this sort may have an adverse effect in actual application.
Question. Assistant Secretary Raley, what is the administration's
position on this provision?
Answer. While we strongly support the President's Management Agenda
Initiative, including Competitive Sourcing, Section 208 will require
further review.
animas-la plata
Question. As many of my colleagues may be aware, the issue of the
Animas-La Plata project has been around for a long time. Last year,
this subcommittee provided $35 million for construction. This year, the
Bureau's budget contains $58 million for this project.
Can you provide us an update on the ALP project?
Answer. Reclamation authorized the initiation of construction
effective November 9, 2001. Nearly $18 million was expended in fiscal
year 2002 to: (1) complete final designs on the project features; (2)
complete the construction of a portion of the Inlet Conduit; and (3)
initiate mitigation activities on impacts to cultural resources,
wetlands, and fish and wildlife resources. Fiscal year 2003 activities
include award of construction contracts on the Durango Pumping Plant,
Ridges Basin Dam, and the relocation of three natural gas pipelines
that currently lie within the footprint of the dam. Additional lands
will be purchased that are needed for dam construction. Work will also
continue on the mitigation activities.
Question. Are we still on schedule and in compliance with the Ute
Water Rights Settlement Act?
Answer. The Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000
authorized appropriations for construction over a 5-year period to
allow construction to be completed in 7 years. Fiscal year 2002 was the
first year of construction. With the appropriations we have received to
date and with what is requested for fiscal year 2004, and what will be
budgeted for fiscal year 2005 and 2006, we are able to fund all
critical activities and are scheduled to complete the project within 7
years.
We are also utilizing the talents of both the Ute Mountain Ute and
Southern Ute Indian Tribes to perform much of the construction and
environmental data collection activities through Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act contracts and cooperative
agreements.
santa fe wells
Question. During construction of the Fiscal Year 2002 Supplemental,
the Congress provided funding for the drilling of emergency wells in
Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Can you update us on the progress of those wells, have they been
drilled?
Answer. The wells have been drilled and are currently being
completed. Construction is underway on the pipeline and pumping plants.
Final project completion is estimated for early fall.
Question. What is the impact of the current drought on these wells?
Answer. The current drought is not expected to significantly affect
the production of the new supplemental wells. However, the current
drought does increase the importance of getting the new wells on line
as soon as possible to supplement the City's existing water supply.
drought assistance
Question. The Bureau has $1.12 million in fiscal year 2004 budget
for Drought Emergency assistance. I have a concern, which many of my
colleagues have expressed, that no one is doing anything significant
about how to manage our non-agriculture drought problems.
Does the Bureau have the ability to do more within its existing
authorities if additional funding were provided?
Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation has authority to address both
agricultural and non-agricultural drought situations. In fiscal year
2002, Reclamation received requests for emergency drought assistance
and planning in the amount of approximately $12 million. Those requests
were for emergency domestic water supply wells, rehabilitation of
disintegrating delivery systems, acquisition of water for drinking, and
the acquisition of water for endangered species in order to continue
operating our projects. However, Reclamation must balance funding for
drought assistance along with the multiple priorities and emerging
needs within Reclamation's other programs.
western water initiative
Question. How does this tie into the new initiative for Western
Water in your budget request for $11 million?
Answer. Many of Reclamation's project water delivery facilities are
more than 60 years old, and inexpensive modernization of existing
infrastructure could add significant efficiencies to water delivery
systems, while providing the flexibility needed to help meet unmet
water demands. This Initiative will result in enhanced efficiency in
the operation of Reclamation projects, which in turn will enhance
Reclamation's performance in carrying out core mission functions: the
delivery of water and power in an environmentally sound and cost
efficient manner.
Question. How will New Mexico benefit from this new initiative?
Answer. The water crises in New Mexico, particularly the Middle Rio
Grande are part of what prompted this Western Water Initiative. There
are opportunities in New Mexico to implement water conservation and
efficiency improvements, both on-farm and in water delivery systems
that will result in an increased ability to meet otherwise conflicting
demands for water. Science and technology research may reduce the cost
of water desalination technologies by 50 percent by 2020, providing
additional fresh water to benefit people and the environment including
potential benefit to rural America through the treatment of brackish
water.
Question. What does this initiative hope to achieve and is it a
departure from what the Bureau is doing now?
Answer. The Initiative provides a focused effort to modernize water
delivery facilities in the West, some of which are more than 60 years
old. Inexpensive modernization of existing infrastructure could add
significant efficiencies to water delivery systems, providing the
flexibility needed to help meet unmet water demands. Reclamation will
focus on financial incentives and technical assistance for
modernization of water supply systems where the investment will allow
water managers to meet otherwise unsatisfied demands for water.
In addition, focused Federal participation will assist with basin
and watershed improvements as part of local, collaborative processes in
areas where the greatest potential for conflict exists.
Question. Do you expect that this program, if begun, will transform
the Bureau and how it manages its efforts with regard to water or is
this to be a short-term effort until the current drought conditions
subside?
Answer. The Bureau's fiscal year 2004 Western Water Initiative is
the beginning of what we hope will be the catalyst for a longer-term
strategic approach to predicting, preventing, and alleviating water
conflicts. It takes a proactive rather than reactive approach to water
management and conservation, research and development to bring down the
cost of desalination, prevent water management crises, and strengthen
Endangered Species Act expertise among Reclamation employees. By
developing a forward looking 21st century water resource management
program, we can better respond to the growing demand for water in the
West. This initiative will provide the tools necessary to address the
future water supply needs of farmers, cities, and rural communities in
those areas of the West that are most prone to conflict over water
supply, and do so in an environmentally friendly manner.
western water initiative
Question. Given that the Bureau only received a nominal increase in
funding this year, where did you reduce program dollars elsewhere to
fund this effort in this fiscal year?
Answer. Generally, the Bureau did not reduce any project line item
funding to accommodate the Western Water Initiative. Given the
similarity in purpose, programs such as the Environmental Program
Administration and Environmental Interagency were combined into the new
Initiative. However, funds for this initiative were developed in
concert with the overall budget request and funding levels.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
ongoing projects
Question. What would be the impact to the cost and schedule of on-
going Bureau projects, if the President's budget were enacted as
proposed?
Answer. At the present time there would be no impact to cost and
schedule if our budget was enacted as proposed.
Question. For those projects budgeted in the President's proposal,
are they funded at their optimal level?
Answer. At the present time all of the Bureau's projects in the
President's proposal are funded at a level that will allow projects and
activities to proceed to meet the needs of the project beneficiaries.
drought emergency assistance program weather modification
Question. Commissioner Keys: Please provide us with an update on
how funds provided in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 for a
regional weather modification program are being expended.
Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation developed a competitive
procurement process for Cooperative Agreements in fiscal year 2002 to
award research proposals that met the intent of Congress to establish a
research Weather Damage Modification Program. Seven States responded to
the Request for Proposals (RFP). They were North Dakota, Texas,
Oklahoma, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and California. The RFP and
contract awards for that work have been completed for the States of
Nevada and North Dakota, and awards are near completion for Texas,
Oklahoma, New Mexico, Utah, and California.
The fiscal year 2003 funding will be awarded through a similar
Request for Proposal process and existing work may be extended to
include further research efforts depending upon the needs of the
States.
western water initiative
Question. The Bureau is proposing to initiate a Western Water
Initiative in fiscal year 2004 to enhance efficiency and operation
Reclamation programs and projects. First year funding is $11 million.
This is significant first year funding for such an initiative. Could
you give us an overall cost estimate for this initiative and some of
the outputs that you expect to receive?
Answer. The total cost and duration of the initiative have yet to
be determined. The Western Water Initiative will be a means for the
Federal Government to provide technical and financial assistance to
State and local entities in areas in critical need of assistance. This
Initiative will result in enhanced efficiency in the operation of
Reclamation projects, which in turn will enhance Reclamation's
performance in carrying out core mission functions: the delivery of
water and power in an environmentally sound and cost efficient manner.
Ultimately, Reclamation will develop a forward looking 21st century
water resource management program that will respond to the growing
demand for water in the West, as opposed to costly crisis management as
experienced in the Klamath and the Middle Rio Grande Basins.
Reclamation's goal is to help avoid water use conflicts through
better use of technology, targeted research, identification of long-
term potential crisis areas, and increased expertise about the
Endangered Species Act. Examples of making improvements to existing
irrigation systems include:
--Installing water metering and measurement devices on outdated
irrigation systems to track the amount of water being used and
where.
--Converting open ditches to pipeline to reduce evaporation.
--Lining canals at reasonable cost to minimize seepage where it can
result in system-wide efficiency--some areas of the West can
reduce loss of by 50 percent or more.
--Developing a partnership with USDA to install on-farm irrigation
evaluation program, in which field irrigation is evaluated for
distribution uniformity and efficiency. This would include
locating, designing, and providing for review of flow
measurement devices and data, installation of water control
devices and instrumentation within irrigation districts.
--Using SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) system to
allow river managers to remotely monitor and operate key river,
pump, canal, and return flow control facilities by computer and
radio telemetry. SCADA equipment receives, accumulates,
records, and provides data on a real time' basis. Individual
stations can be set to continuously monitor river levels or
diversion flow rates. In addition, Reclamation and water
district managers can respond to daily water management needs
and emergencies in a timely fashion by controlling pump and
canal facilities remotely.
--Conducting pump testing programs that provide accurate flow rate
measurement data and information on the efficiency of the
pumping plants that would improve efficiencies in managing both
water and energy use.
Reclamation will also pursue the use of existing intrastate water
banks where they are available, and to promote intrastate water banking
as a concept to help resolve future water supply conflicts. In most
situations, water banks provide added flexibility in dealing with
environmental, tribal, Endangered Species Act, or other competing
demands for contracted water supplies.
title xvi--water reclamation and reuse
Question. Again this year, funding for the Title XVI program has
been slashed. Local communities all over the southwest have invested
hundreds of millions of dollars in water recycling projects. These
projects provide a crucial link in the water supply chain in Western
States. The small amount of Federal funding provided by Reclamation, in
many cases, is the catalyst that makes these projects feasible for the
local communities. If, as Reclamation states, their mission is
providing water and power to the west; how can the Title XVI program be
someone else's responsibility as stated in your program review?
Answer. Reclamation's Title XVI projects, while important, are not
part of Reclamation's core mission. The President's Budget request for
these programs recognizes that we must maintain our existing
infrastructure before we fund construction of new infrastructure. The
PART process for Title XVI generated extensive information on program
effectiveness and accountability, including the need for additional
performance measures. The principal PART findings for Reclamation's
Title XVI Water Reuse and Recycling program, with a PART rating of
``Moderately Effective'' indicate the program is moderately well-
managed, although Reclamation's oversight of individual projects is
limited by the strong degree of local control. Fiscal year 2004 funds
will be directed to the completion of projects already under
construction.
Additional performance measures are currently being developed for
Title XVI that should facilitate better long-term planning and provide
a clearer linkage between Federal funding and progress towards
outcomes.
Question. Why will Reclamation not budget for these projects?
Answer. Existing budget constraints have made it necessary to fund
higher priority items.
energy and water development act
Question. Commissioner Keys: A couple of years ago in the Energy
and Water Development Act, Reclamation were given the responsibility to
act as the clearing house for advanced water treatment technologies.
How is this effort being undertaken?
Answer. During 2001, Reclamation began development of a
desalination clearinghouse. In 2002, a draft clearinghouse web site was
created (www.usbr.gov/desal/). This site features information on
technologies, publicly available reports, cost estimation techniques,
and publicly available information. Coinciding with Reclamation's draft
clearinghouse review process, the WateReuse Foundation
(www.wateruse.org) published a request for proposal to create a
salinity management clearinghouse web site. Salinity management is a
component of desalination. Therefore in December 2002, Reclamation
invited the WateReuse Foundation to meet and discuss how best to
accomplish a water reuse and desalination clearinghouse web site so as
not to duplicate efforts. Both organizations agreed to cooperate in the
clearinghouse development.
Developments in desalination technology in the last 10 years have
dramatically altered the capability of desalination systems to meet
national water needs. Promising technological advancements are in the
area of reduced membrane fouling, improved pretreatment systems, and
increased energy recovery. Under the Desalination Research Act, we are
also investing in development of new desalination processes such as low
cost evaporation, chlorine resistant membranes, membrane distillation,
and membrane bioreactors. In early fall 2001, Reclamation provided
recommendations for technologies that should advance to the
demonstration phase to Congress.
Question. Are there any promising technologies?
Answer. Promising technologies ready for demonstration, pursuant to
the Desalination Act, include a sea water and inland brackish water
test bed commercialization project (focusing on energy efficiency, feed
water pretreatment, increased membrane life, concentrate disposal,
environmental impact, increased scale of economies, and boron removal);
Membrane Bioreactor System commercialization effort (focusing on
decentralized drinking water treatment of waste waters to replace
conventional treatment plants); Devaporation commercialization effort
in an inland rural area (which would feature concentration disposal
and/or renewable energy powered rural water treatment and low-cost) and
testing of a small-scale renewable energy/desalination systems suitable
for rural and Native American communities; and demonstration of a novel
method to produce fresh water and employ innovative concentrate
disposal methods, utilizing geothermal energy. Non-traditional
technologies that may offer lower costs and higher efficiencies are
currently being reviewed. These include technologies such as freezing
with clathrates, magnetics, ultrasonics, adsorption, and other novel
separation processes.
california bay-delta
Question. In the recently enacted Omnibus legislation, a provision
was inserted to clarify Reclamation's authority for feasibility studies
for Los Vaqueros water storage project, Upper San Joaquin water storage
project and Sites reservoir storage project. This clarification was
necessary due to the budget request for CALFED funding without a clear
authorization. Are there other issues likely to arise this year that
would require additional clarifying legislation? If Reclamation is
going to continue to request funding for the CALFED Bay Delta
Restoration Program, I would recommend that the Administration actively
try to resolve the authorization question for the overall project. We
have put ``band-aids'' on this program for 2 years due to the
authorization stale-mate and I am unsure of how much longer the
subcommittee will be able to continue this practice. Please carry that
message back to your superiors.
Answer. With the provision of feasibility authority in the Omnibus
legislation, Reclamation possesses adequate authority to expend the
current year appropriations for the CALFED activities delineated in the
legislation. Reclamation remains hopeful that legislation will advance
in this session to provide Federal agencies with the necessary program
authorization to fulfill the goals and commitment of the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program, and assure completion of program elements in a balanced
and integrated fashion.
western area power administration
Question. The Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request for the Western Area
Power Administration proposes to shift to the Bureau of Reclamation,
the obligation to fund the $6 million annual contribution to the Utah
Reclamation Conservation and Mitigation Commission Trust Account which
provides important work in conservation and mitigation programs
associated with the Central Utah Project. This trust account was
established under Public Law 102-575, the Central Utah Project
Completion Act with other contributions being made by all the
Stakeholders and project beneficiaries including the State of Utah, the
Central Utah Water Conservancy District and the Interior Department.
Western has been providing payments into the account since 1992 on
behalf of the power-user beneficiaries.
Do you support ending Western's responsibilities to contribute into
this account and transferring this funding obligation from Western to
Reclamation, and if so why have you not built this contribution into
your Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request?
Answer. Reclamation has just recently become aware of the
Department of Energy's proposal to transfer Western Area Power
Administration's obligation to provide funds annually to the Utah
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Committee to Reclamation and is
very concerned. Maintaining this source of funds for the Mitigation
Commission is important to continuing the very valuable ecosystem
improvement projects the Commission is carrying out in Utah. We would
welcome an opportunity to work with the subcommittee, the Mitigation
Commission, and the Western Area Power Administration on a mutually
acceptable solution.
title xvi--water reclamation and reuse
Question. The Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request identifies that the
Title XVI reuse project program will be funded at $12.6 million. This
is a dramatic reduction from past years' congressional decisions.
Please explain how the Bureau arrived at this funding level given the
importance of providing assistance to projects that are proceeding to
construction that depend on meaningful Federal assistance.
Answer. Reclamation's Title XVI program, while important, does not
serve Reclamation's core mission. Also, these projects must compete
with other Reclamation activities and projects for funding. Because of
Reclamation's aging infrastructure, we must be careful to ensure that
we direct sufficient resources toward maintaining our existing
facilities, and not just focus on building new ones.
Question. Based on response to question 1, could you please explain
the budget's reference to the Program Assessment Review Tool (PART). In
your budget justification, you note that water reuse is not a ``core
mission'' and therefore should not be a priority. This seems at odds
with the history of the Bureau and its purpose. Could you provide me
with an understanding of how the Administration defines the Bureau's
mission? Please identify the individuals who conducted the PART and the
expertise they hold in conducting such a review.
Answer. Although the Bureau's ``core function'' has not been
defined by law, the Administration's use of the term generally refers
to those programs that directly focus on water delivery and/or power
generation. The purpose of the water recycling program is to identify
and investigate opportunities for reclaiming and reusing wastewater and
naturally impaired ground and surface water, and to provide financial
and technical assistance to local water agencies for planning and
development of water recycling projects. While in this regard, it is an
important part of the bureau's mission, budget constraints prevented
the bureau from funding this program at higher level. Bureau staff
worked in consultation with OMB in conducting the PART process.
desalination
Question. I note that the Administration is placing new priority on
desalination research. In its budget request, it appears that most of
the requested research funding is slated to support this priority. Is
this correct?
Answer. The Science and Technology Program's total request was
$9,305,000--of that, desalination and advanced water treatment amount
to less than $3 million. The remaining program funds are directed to
research that increases water delivery reliability, infrastructure
reliability and efficiency, and decision support modeling.
Question. How much requested funding within the Bureau-wide
programs will be made available to support this new priority?
Answer. Requested funding for desalination would be available from
the following line items: Enhanced Science and Technology--
approximately $900,000 (one-third); Science and Technology's
Desalination and Water Purification Research (cooperative research with
external partners): $775,000; (3) Title XVI: approximately $1,000,000;
(4) Science and Technology's Advanced Water Treatment Research
$1,590,000. The total amount is $4,265,000. The Yuma Desalting Plant
funded under the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, Title I
also has funding dedicated to research towards reducing its operating
costs.
Question. How much of the Bureau-wide programs will support water
reuse research?
Answer. Desalination research under the Western Water Initiative
will be used to expand our desalination capabilities under the
Desalination Research Act. With this additional funding, we will be
better able to initiate several demonstration projects and expand our
desalination clearinghouse, and facilitate coordination of all the
parties involved with various aspects of improving desalination through
research.
Title XVI also authorizes research in this area. Treatment and
subsequent reuse of impaired waters and desalination face common
challenges as well as yielding complementary results--an increase in
the usable supply of water. Title XVI research investments can
simultaneously advance both reuse and desalination. It makes sense to
fold these activities together as a part of a coordinated research
strategy. To that end, last year we entered into an Memorandum Of
Understanding with several interests in reuse and desalination (i.e.,
the WateReuse Foundation, American Water Works Association Research
Foundation, Water Environment Research Foundation, and the National
Water Research Institute) to identify common issues and coordinate
research investments.
title xvi--water reclamation and reuse
Question. Over the past several years, Congress has requested on
several occasions that the Bureau provide us with the final reports
detailing the Southern California Wastewater Recycling and Reuse
Program and Bay Area Wastewater Recycling and Reuse Program? In light
of the budget's stated priority for desalination and the further
statement that reuse is not a ``core mission'' when can we expect that
these reports will be transmitted to us? Should we anticipate that the
stated budget findings on reuse means that we will receive a negative
report?
Answer. The Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and
Reuse Study is under Departmental review. This document is the
culmination of a 6-year study of Southern California's water supply
needs at a regional level and the potential for cooperative
consideration of effective ways of matching wastewater reclamation
opportunities with possibilities for reuse of recycled wastewater
throughout southern California. The Department is finalizing its review
and identifying editorial changes that will be made to the draft report
documents prior to submission to OMB and Congress.
You also asked about the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water
Recycling Program, or BARWRP study. The Administration recently
completed its review of the BARWRP Master Plan, and has raised several
concerns with the Master Plan. Secretary Norton will relay these
concerns when the BARWRP Master Plan is transmitted to Congress. I
anticipate that the report will be submitted to Congress this year.
sumner peck
Question. Mr. Reid. I am very concerned about the decision to take
budget resources away from ongoing reuse projects and other priorities
to fund $30 million in fiscal year 2004 for the settlement agreement
between the U.S. and Sumner/Peck. Please provide me with a specific
itemization on where the funds for the settlement are being provided in
relation to specific program and project funding reductions within the
fiscal year 2004 budget request.
Answer. No funding reductions or offsets were proposed with respect
to fiscal year 2004 funding for the Sumner Peck settlement, Sumner Peck
Ranch, Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation.
desalination
Question. Over the past several years, Congress has supported
important research and technology demonstration that has direct
industry support through industry and university cost-shared
assistance. I note that the budget request fails to identify how the
Bureau intends to maintain this successful program. In your response,
please explain how any funding under the new desalination priority will
be used to support the ongoing reuse research needs.
Answer. The budget request will build on the success of this
Desalination and Water Purification Research program authorized by
Congress in the 1996 Desalination Research Act. We propose to continue
bench and pilot studies and now embark on a few selected demonstration
projects to test actual applications of new technologies under real
world conditions. Some of the research will benefit both reuse as well
as desalination. Title XVI research funding will be dedicated to
research that benefits both desalination and reuse as well as research
related solely to reuse questions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
western water initiative
Question. I note that you have a new ``Western Water Initiative''
in your Fiscal Year 2004 Budget where you are requesting $11 million.
Who developed this initiative?
Answer. The Western Water Initiative was developed collaboratively
by the Office of the Secretary with a team of Bureau of Reclamation
senior leadership and program managers. The objective was to take a
comprehensive look at long-term water needs and show how best to
address them.
Question. Was it ever offered to the White House as a larger Bush
Administration Initiative?
Answer. Yes, it was included in the fiscal year 2004 budget
submitted to Executive Office of the President; discussions with OMB
and the Office of the President staff are ongoing.
Question. Why did they decline?
Answer. Discussions are continuing on the future scope of the
program.
Question. Why was rural water not a part of the Initiative?
Answer. Rural water is currently being reviewed and refined as a
stand-alone program. The Department is in the process of drafting
legislation to establish a structured rural water program within the
Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation recognizes that a significant need
exists in many parts of the west for a clean and safe water supply.
Further, it is our goal to work with those communities as well as with
other Federal, State and local entities to address those needs in a
cost effective manner.
Question. Do you have construction authority under this Initiative?
Answer. Currently no new construction authority is included under
this initiative.
Question. Part of your money for the Western Water Initiative is to
be spent on ``Preventing Water Management Crisis.'' Aren't you creating
a crisis in rural water with your Budget request?
Answer. No, the Administration conducted a Program Assessment to
evaluate the program's effectiveness. Once the areas related to program
effectiveness are addressed, funding for the program in the future will
be assessed.
We have determined that the program could be more effective and
welcome the opportunity to work with you on some overall approach and
goal setting for the program.
Question. Your Environmental and Interagency Coordination
Activities Budget and your Environmental Program Administration Budget
are reduced from your fiscal year 2003 request. What is the reason for
the reduction? It would appear inconsistent with your Western Water
Initiative.
Answer. The funding reductions to these programs are unrelated to
the Western Water Initiative. Programs are evaluated each year and
appropriate funds are requested according to the need.
part
Question. Could you provide the subcommittee with a copy of the
papers on rural water that Reclamation submitted to OMB as a result of
the PART review process that indicate your views on the rural water
projects in the Bureau's Budget? What is Reclamation's position on
providing rural water under Congressional authorized projects to
Indians and non-Indians?
Answer. I am pleased to provide the materials that Reclamation
submitted to OMB during the PART review process.
Reclamation recognizes that a significant need exists in many parts
of the west for a clean and safe water supply. Further, it is our goal
to work with those communities as well as with other Federal, State and
local entities to address those needs in a cost effective manner. We
also recognize the legislative requirements that Congress has placed on
us for certain projects. However, through the PART evaluation, it was
determined that clearly defined goals and criteria were needed in order
to efficiently and effectively meet the needs of the beneficiaries as
well as to stretch the limited Federal funds that are available for
this purpose. The Department is in the process of preparing a
legislative proposal which the Administration plans to submit to
Congress to provide the programmatic structure and guidance that is
necessary to move this effort forward.
rural water legislation
Question. When the Secretary of the Interior appeared before the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee a couple of weeks ago on
the Department's Budget, she made reference to the Department
developing some proposed legislation on rural water. Can you provide
some details on that proposal and the time frame for sending it to
Congress? Will the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 be exempt from
this legislation?
Answer. The Department is in the final stages of drafting
legislation to establish a structured rural water program within the
Bureau of Reclamation. While Reclamation has been directed by Congress
to plan, develop and construct 13 specific and individual rural water
projects since 1980, we have been extremely limited in our ability to
work with these and other communities that are in need of assistance
prior to the passage of the specific project authority. This has
resulted in inefficiencies and increased costs. It would establish
overarching programmatic goals, set criteria and provide greater
coordination among the various Federal, State and local programs
related to rural water.
It is unclear at this point whether the Administration's proposed
legislation would exempt the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000. Many
of the projects and activities authorized in that Act are underway and
we are working diligently with the State, the Garrison Diversion
Conservancy District and the other entities in the region on these
activities. As the proposed legislation moves to Congress, we look
forward to working closely with you and other members with an interest
in this important issue.
Question. From your description of the legislation, it would appear
that what we are doing in North Dakota under the Dakota Water Resources
Act would be a model for your legislation. Would you agree?
Answer. There are some aspects of the Dakota Water Resources Act
that could be useful as a model for Reclamation's rural water program
and we are looking carefully at how that program and others have worked
to date.
Question. Why was no funding provided for the MR&I program for the
Garrison Project?
Answer. The Garrison Diversion Unit was authorized August 5, 1965,
amended in 1986 by the Reclamation the Garrison Reformulation Act, and
further amended by the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000. One of the
components of the Garrison Diversion Unit is several MR&I projects in
North Dakota that would serve several communities including four Indian
reservations.
Reclamation's rural water projects, including those in North and
South Dakota, were rated under the Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) and received a rating of ``Results Not Demonstrated.'' OMB found
through the PART and Common Measures exercises that Reclamation's
program needs stronger controls for project development, and that
``lack of agency involvement during project development may result in a
project that is not in the best Federal interest.'' OMB recommended
that legislation be introduced which establishes a Reclamation rural
water program with adequate controls and guidelines, and indicated that
funding would be scaled back, including GDU MR&I programs, until such
controls and guidelines were in place.
underfinancing
Question. Can you discuss the consequences of under-financing the
water projects under construction in the Reclamation program?
Answer. The amount of underfinancing requested by Reclamation
represents about 4 or 5 percent of the total scheduled program. We can
reasonably expect to absorb that amount during a normal year due to
non-budgetary delays. This is based on historical experience with such
things as bad weather, construction delays, and environmental issues
with projects.
Question. Are we going to find project sponsors coming in and
asking for more money than they need because of this issue, just so
they can go to bid on contracts?
Answer. I am not aware of any.
Question. How does this affect the Garrison Project?
Answer. At this point in time, we are not expecting any major
delays to the Garrison Diversion Unit in fiscal year 2003 or 2004 due
to underfinancing. Underfinancing is always applied in the manner that
will cause the least negative impact.
Question. How do they make up for this funding in their contracts
for work?
Answer. In a normal fiscal year, Reclamation has an appropriation
available from Congress at the start of October, and has completed the
process of identifying likely slippages in accomplishment by the end of
November or December. General slippages are recovered in the next
construction season.
Question. Is this figure spread evenly across-the-board to every
line in the Bureau's Budget?
Answer. No, underfinancing will first be applied to projects and
programs that are experiencing slippages due to the factors, such as
construction issues, weather problems and environmental compliance
issues.
interior's trust responsibility
Question. What is Reclamation's view of carrying out the Department
of the Interior's Trust responsibility to the four Tribes in North
Dakota when it comes to water?
Answer. Reclamation takes its trust responsibility to Native
American Tribes seriously as we carry out the agency's programs. Water
development for the benefit of tribes is generally, in and of itself,
not considered as a trust responsibility, except perhaps where
Reclamation may be involved in implementing Indian water right
settlements. As we implement the issues raised by the Rural Water PART
recommendation, the Administration will address existing rural water
authorizations, including the planning, design, construction, and
operation and maintenance of rural water systems on the Standing Rock,
Spirit Lake, Fort Berthold, and Turtle Mountain Indian Reservations.
Question. Some might say that by delaying or not funding Indian
projects, it postpones a future Operation and Maintenance cost in the
Bureau's Budget with regard to Indian water projects? Is this true?
Answer. Yes, an indirect effect of delaying or not funding the
construction of Indian water projects will result in fewer facilities
and a smaller increase in operation and maintenance costs in the
Reclamation's budget for that year.
red river valley
Question. Can you discuss the status of the studies for the Red
River Valley? I am told that the Garrison Conservancy District and the
Bureau have developed an understanding on time frames and we should
know more later this year whether the schedule is working. Is that
true?
Answer. Yes, Reclamation is diligently working with Garrison
Diversion Conservancy District, the State agency designated by the
Governor of North Dakota as their representative, to jointly prepare
the Environmental Impact Statement. We are on schedule to complete the
Environmental Impact Statement by December 2005.
Reclamation has several Environmental Impact Statement activities
currently underway which include agency consultations, identification
of purpose and need, developing a process for screening alternatives
for detailed study, and data collection to define the affected
environment. Needs and Options activities in fiscal year 2003 include
data collection of historic water use, projecting future population,
estimating future water needs, biota transfer studies, developing cost
estimates for alternatives to be evaluated in the EIS, and conducting
follow-up water user meetings to determine interest in the proposed
project. Aquatic needs and recreation needs studies will also be
completed this year. The naturalized flow database will be completed,
models selected, and modeling initiated to determine available water
sources and to identify shortages.
reclamation's core mission
Question. Mr. Keys, in your testimony, you stated that your fiscal
year 2004 request has been designed to support Reclamation's core
mission, which you said was to: ``Deliver Water and Hydropower,
Consistent with Applicable State and Federal Law, in an Environmentally
Responsible and Cost Efficient Manner.'' But I would argue that your
budget does not support this mission this year. A good example is how
it funds projects designed to deliver water to communities and Tribes
through the municipal, rural and industrial water programs authorized
under the Dakota Water Resources Act. Under-funding water projects in
the budget request for the last several years--and particularly the
drastic cut in the fiscal year 2004 budget that you are presenting here
today--is neither cost efficient nor environmentally responsible. The
quality of the water that those on Indian reservations in my State must
deal with poses a real risk to health and safety. I have pictures of a
6-month-old baby bathing in dirty water that is the color of coffee,
and of people hauling water to many on the reservation that currently
have no water supply. The water that is wasted when the Tribe tries to
fill water bottles from a big tank with a hose is incredible, and the
Tribe regrets that it does not have the resources for a more efficient
system to preserve more of its precious water. Since you are not
funding water delivery projects in North Dakota in a cost-effective and
environmentally responsible manner, can you tell me some other ways
that your fiscal year 2004 budget supports this mission?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2004 request for the Garrison
Diversion Unit in North Dakota is $17.314 million. It includes funding
that will support activities such as the continued progress on the Red
River Valley Water Supply Study and Environmental Impact Statement;
construction of the Standing Rock Irrigation project; operations and
maintenance of the Oakes Test Area; minimum maintenance to assure
reliability of completed facilities; management of approximately 22,100
acres of Wildlife Development Areas and 34,862 acres at Lonetree Game
Management Area and Kraft Slough developed to mitigate project impacts
and enhance the environment; and ongoing work to mitigate project
impacts on the Audubon and Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuges.
In addition, it provides funding to carry out the Secretary's
responsibilities to operate and maintain the existing rural water
facilities on the Standing Rock, Spirit Lake, Fort Berthold, and Turtle
Mountain Indian Reservations. Funds are also provided to continue
operation, maintenance, and replacement activities at Jamestown Dam and
Reservoir.
The President's request also includes funding to continue
operation, maintenance and replacement activities at Heart Butte Dam
and Reservoir and Dickinson Dam and Reservoir. Project benefits include
flood control, irrigation, and recreation, fish and wildlife. Heart
Butte reservoir provides a water supply for 7,188 acres of irrigation
along the Heart River.
science and technology budget
Question. What role does your Science and Technology Budget play
with regard to the rural Western States?
Answer. Within the Science and Technology (S&T) budget the Advanced
Water Treatment line item is largely directed to research that benefits
rural and Native American communities' water supply and treatment
needs. For example, we are researching questions and developing
desalination and water reuse technologies with an eye toward making the
systems affordable, reliable, and appropriate for rural areas that need
clean and safe potable water supplies. The S&T budget is primarily
directed to research that benefits all of the western States in that it
has application across Reclamation. The S&T program uses a steering
committee to identify research needs and establish relative priorities
across the Bureau. Our Great Plains office, which represents the lion's
share of rural States, has a representative on that committee. In
addition, each region receives a portion of S&T funding to direct to
region-specific priorities.
drought assistance
Question. In your budget document you state ``Requests for
emergency and planning drought assistance out weigh the funding
available. There are still many interested States and tribes that have
not developed drought contingency plans focusing on preparedness,
mitigation, and response activities.'' Why do you continue to request
such a little amount of money for this area ($900,000) when Congress
repeatedly provides 4 and 5 times that amount when we finish with your
budget?
Answer. Throughout the budget planning process, Reclamation must
balance the multiple priorities of the budget against a number of
factors, including the multiple priorities of the Department of the
Interior. The requested amount represents a balance between this and
other priority activities. The requested level of funding will meet the
needs that are anticipated, keeping in mind that budgets are prepared
as much as 2 years in advance. However, depending upon weather
conditions, greater need and therefore greater requests have been
received in recent years. When drought conditions have been most severe
and demand is greater then the funds available, as has been the case
over the past few years, we have directed the appropriated funds to
emergency response, although we consider planning to be an important
aspect of mitigating the effects of the continuing drought conditions
in the West.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Cochran. Commissioner Keys, it is good to have a
westerner who talks with a southern accent and I am glad
Sheffield, Alabama, taught you how to say things right.
Mr. Johnston, we appreciate your presence this morning and
your contribution and your statement.
Thank you all very much. The hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12 noon, Wednesday, March 5, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]