[Senate Hearing 108-224]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-224
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2754/S. 1424
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2004, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Defense--Civil
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Nondepartmental witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-920 WASHINGTON : 2003
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800, DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
James W. Morhard, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi HARRY REID, Nevada
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana PATTY MURRAY, Washington
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
Professional Staff
Clay Sell
Tammy Perrin
Drew Willison (Minority)
Nancy Olkewicz (Minority)
Administrative Support
Erin McHale
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, March 5, 2003
Page
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 1
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 85
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
Department of Energy:
Office of Science............................................ 125
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy............. 142
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology............. 152
Monday, April 7, 2003
Department of Energy:
Office of Environmental Management........................... 189
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.............. 205
Thursday, April 10, 2003
Department of Energy: National Nuclear Safety Administration..... 247
Nondepartmental Witnesses
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 301
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 414
Department of Energy............................................. 450
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.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:32 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Craig, and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Science
STATEMENT OF DR. RAYMOND L. ORBACH, DIRECTOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. The Senator from Nevada will probably be
along shortly. Senator Craig, nice to have you here.
Today the subcommittee is going to review the Department of
Energy's fiscal year 2004 budget request for, one, the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewables, and the Office of Science
and the Office of Nuclear Energy. In that regard, we will hear
from Dr. David Garman, Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy. We will hear from Dr. Ray
Orbach, Director of the Office of Science, and Mr. Bill
Magwood, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy and
Science Technology.
All of these witnesses have appeared before the
subcommittee before and are well known to us. We look forward
to your testimony today.
Let me summarize just a moment. It will not take me very
long, Senator Craig, and then we will go right to the
witnesses.
The budget request for renewable energy under Mr. Garman is
$444 million, an increase of $24 million, about 6 percent over
the current year. However, more than all of the increases put
toward the President's initiative, an initiative that may
displace much of our dependence on foreign oil in years to
come, the so-called hydrogen research for the hydrogen car.
Under this subcommittee, we would more than double the
amount spent for that endeavor to $88 million. Unfortunately,
many of the traditional areas of renewable research, such as
biomass, renewable research, geothermal and wind, are proposed
to be cut. And that is below current levels in order to fund
this initiative. I am not sure that will hold. But somehow or
another, we will work it out.
I continue to believe in the importance of the balanced
portfolio. Our country must increase the diversity of energy
production in order to reduce our dependence upon unstable
sources of foreign energy. Under any scenario, renewable energy
technologies will play a dramatic role in our energy future,
recognizing the priorities of the administration, while
continuing to address the priorities of many of the Senators on
this subcommittee may prove to be a real challenge this year.
However, in addition to what we just talked about, the
budget request for nuclear energy has elements of both good
news and bad news. For me, the most notable new development,
and Larry Craig, I think you would be interested in this, is
the administration's request for $63 million to continue the
advanced fuel cycle initiative. I am very pleased that someone,
somehow, has worked through the Office of Management and
Budget, and the Executive Branch has finally recognized that
this is a truly long-term initiative of great significance. And
the sooner we start, the sooner we will find out if and when it
will be available as part of the nuclear cycle.
We have long believed that the country must move ahead to
the next generation of fuel cells that generate less waste,
extract full energy benefit from each gram of fuel. This is a
long-term effort that requires a much larger investment by the
Department.
Senator Reid and I have worked hard in our position of
chairman and ranking member and vice versa in this effort the
last few years. And to see the administration embrace the
importance is truly gratifying.
Generally, the whole area of R&D is a mix of good news and
some of bad news. The administration, with much help from this
subcommittee, has begun to correct many years of neglect. The
Department has now in place the structure of a well thought-out
R&D program and addresses the near-term goal of bringing a new
plant online through nuclear power in 2010 while performing the
R&D necessary for nuclear power to support growing demand for
worldwide electricity over the next 50 years, a Generation IV
program and advanced fuel cycle initiatives.
However, the request is not all good news, as the
Department proposes the elimination of new funding for the
Nuclear Energy Optimization Program. And perhaps you will
address that for us a bit. I know you work for the
administration. Nonetheless, we would appreciate your
evaluation for us as to what that does to the program; that is
the program of continued and maximum use of nuclear power
plants.
Finally, the budget request for the Office of Science, it
is only a little better than flat for the coming year. The
Department of Energy is the Federal Government's largest
supporter of physical science. And as such, I remain concerned
about the tremendous imbalance in the Government's investment
in physical sciences versus life sciences. NIH's budget has
doubled in 5 years, while DOE's science can probably claim and
prove that it has been slightly higher than inflation.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
Past successes in biomedicine have been built upon the
strong foundation of the physical and computational sciences
that are present in DOE. However, we will not be equipped to
take advantage of these remarkable new opportunities in
genomics, nanotechnology, and advanced materials and other
areas unless we increase the funding for DOE science.
The rest of my statement can be made a part of the record.
Senator Cochran has a statement. It will be made a part of the
record immediately following mine.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Pete V. Domenici
Today, the Subcommittee will review the Department of Energy's
fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy; the Office of Science; and the Office of Nuclear
Energy.
In that regard, we will hear from Mr. David K. Garman, Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Dr. Ray Orbach,
Director of the Office of Science; and Mr. Bill Magwood, Director of
the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.
All of the witnesses have appeared before the subcommittee before
and are well known to us. We look forward to your testimony today.
This is the Subcommittee's second hearing this year but our first
opportunity to review the Administration's budget request for the
Department of Energy. Overall, the Administration is seeking $21.7
billion for programs and activities of the Department within the
jurisdiction of this subcommittee. That is a $785 million increase over
the current year enacted level of $20.89 billion (or approximately 4
percent).
That increase appears reasonable, but it must be viewed in its
proper context. Almost all of the increases for the Department occur in
the nuclear weapons and nonproliferation programs of the NNSA, in the
Department's environmental clean-up programs, and in proposed funding
for the Yucca Mountain project.
The programs we are reviewing today, which make up just over $4
billion of the Department's budget, would increase by less than
inflation, or 2 percent over the current year enacted level.
The budget request for renewable energy research under Mr. Garman
is $444 million, an increase of $24 million (6 percent) over the
current year level. However, more than all of the increase is put
toward the President's exciting hydrogen initiative that may displace
much of our dependence on foreign oil by 2020. Hydrogen research under
this subcommittee would more than double to $88 million in fiscal year
2004.
Unfortunately, many of the traditional areas of renewable research,
such as biomass, geothermal and wind, are proposed to be cut below
current year levels in order to fund the President's agenda.
I continue to believe in the importance of a balanced energy
portfolio. Our country must increase our diversity of energy production
in order to reduce our dependence on unstable foreign sources of
energy. Under any scenario, renewable energy technologies will play a
dramatic role in our energy future. Recognizing the Administration's
priorities while continuing to address the priorities of many Senators
on this subcommittee may prove to be a real challenge this year.
Likewise, the budget request for Nuclear Energy has elements of
both good news and bad news. For me, the most notable new development
is the Administration's request for $63 million to continue the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.
I have long believed that the country must rapidly move ahead with
a next-generation fuel cycle that generates far less waste and extracts
the full energy benefit from each gram of fuel. This is a long-term
effort that requires a much larger investment by the Department.
Senator Reid and I have worked hard to sustain this effort for the last
several years and I am pleased to see the Administration embrace this
important initiative.
I am generally encouraged with the progress in nuclear R&D. The
Administration, with much help from this subcommittee, has begun to
correct many years of neglect. The Department now has in place the
structure of well-thought-out nuclear R&D program that:
--addresses the near-term goal of bringing a new plant on line
through the Nuclear Power 2010 program;
--while performing the R&D necessary for nuclear power to support the
growing demand for electricity world-wide over the next 50
years through the Generation IV Program and the Advanced Fuel
Cycles Initiative.
However, the request is not all good news, as the Department
proposes elimination of new funding for the Nuclear Energy Plant
Optimization program and a 50 percent cut to the well regarded Nuclear
Energy Research Initiative. We will address these concerns and others
as best we can.
Finally, the budget request for the Office of Science remains only
a little better than flat for the coming year.
The Department of Energy is the federal government's largest
supporter of physical sciences. As such, I remain concerned about the
tremendous imbalance in the government's investments in the physical
sciences verses the life sciences. For example, NIH's budget has
doubled in 5 years while DOE Science cannot even keep up with
inflation.
Past successes in biomedicine have been built upon the strong
foundation of the physical and computational sciences. However, we will
not be equipped to take advantage of remarkable new opportunities in
genomics, nanotechnology, advanced materials, and other areas unless we
increase funding in DOE Science.
Each of the program areas before us today will present unique
challenges and opportunities for this subcommittee. I will look forward
to engaging each of our witnesses today and working with the Senator
Reid and the members of the Subcommittee to put together the best
possible bill.
I will yield now to Senator Reid and any other Senator that would
like to make an opening statement.
Thereafter, we will hear from Mr. Garman, Dr. Orbach, and finally
Mr. Magwood.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the Undersecretary and Directors
for testifying before this committee today. The work you do is very
important to my state and to me. I'd like to commend David Garman, the
Director of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, for
the work he does with biomass research.
This scientific research is so important to a rural, agricultural
state like Mississippi. Biomass energy is estimated to contribute over
7 percent of Mississippi's total energy consumption--that amount is
double the national average. The majority of our lumber facilities burn
wood waste to generate steam for industrial processes. Biomass offers
special opportunities for benefitting Mississippi's economy by keeping
energy dollars in our state and by providing jobs in rural areas where
biomass is produced. By using their wastes for energy, disposal costs
are avoided, and industries are better able to compete.
The principal biomass waste streams that occur in Mississippi are
generated by agriculture (e.g., cotton gin waste), wood products
manufacturing (e.g., sawdust and wood scraps), animal wastes from
confined feeding operations, and municipal solid waste collections
(e.g., paper and cardboard, demolition waste, lawn and tree trimmings).
Last year I visited a biomass plant in Winona, Mississippi and
inquired about plans for using federal funds that were appropriated in
the fiscal year 2003 omnibus bill. I learned that the Winona biomass
project can enter its final stages of discovering the organism which
will cause the heated biomass to turn into gas. Once that organism or
``bug'' is discovered, the plant can operate from start to finish where
chips of wood can be input, burned and then gasified into ethanol. In a
town like Winona, that sort of success has great economic development
potential.
I am pleased to learn that the Department is concentrating its
biomass research efforts on the catalysts needed for biomass gasifiers.
Many communities, beyond the scientific community, will benefit from
this work.
I would also like to commend the Mississippi Diagnostic
Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory at Mississippi State
University. I am pleased to see that you're funding good science, like
the joint Los Alamos-Mississippi State project that we hope will be
useful for both DOE and Homeland Security. A continuing concern is how
do we take this magnificent science and turn it into the new
technologies DOE needs to accelerate cleanup. I am hopeful that you
consider using organizations such as DIAL at Mississippi State to turn
your science into technologies that will be used at the DOE sites.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission I have a question I'd like to
submit for the record.
Senator Domenici. And I yield now to Senator Larry Craig
for his comments. And then we will take the witnesses.
Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG
Senator Craig. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be
brief. And I do appreciate a chance to speak now. I have to
pull out about 3:00 to attend something else.
But first of all, I want to visit Bill Magwood. We have
been working very closely since Secretary Abraham announced
that the INEEL and Argonne-West would be DOE's lead lab for
nuclear energy. And certainly the chairman has been a leader in
advancing this cause for some time. He spoke to it a few
moments ago.
But I do appreciate the hard work that you have put into
the transition at the Idaho National Engineering Environmental
Laboratory and the new mission that we are talking about. I
have looked at the administration's budget request for nuclear,
and I am pleased by what is there. It is much improved. The
chairman just mentioned it. The previous administration had
pretty much zeroed things out. If we are going to advance the
cause of nuclear in the next generation, we have to get at it.
You are getting at it, and we appreciate that.
Obviously last year, the Chairman and I met with you, the
Vice President, Secretary Abraham. And we talked about
Generation IV reactor development, to get it beyond the design
or the study on papers to the actual step forward. And clearly,
that is what we are about now. And we thank you for that. And,
Mr. Chairman, I lay a great deal of the effort to your credit
for the work you have done there.
But we must keep trying to fix the Argonne layoff
situation. It is unacceptable to do it, if we are going to try
to grow nuclear. You do not fire one year and hire the next
year, when you have top quality scientists on board ready to
go. And that is really an issue that I think has to get
resolved as we move forward.
Dr. Orbach, I do appreciate your presence. I have read your
testimony. Although the Office of Science program does not have
a large presence in Idaho, you are doing a lot of extremely
valuable work. I want to highlight one area, and that is fusion
energy. Yesterday I introduced the Fusion Development Act of
2003. Senator Dianne Feinstein and I have worked cooperatively
on that as cosponsors. President Bush has been focused on the
movement of this Nation in a clean, sustainable hydrogen
economy. That is certainly important.
We have invested a fair amount in it so far, and we are a
ways down the road toward that. Obviously, continued
development and infrastructure become a major hurdle to
overcome. The President has acknowledged that fusion energy, if
we can make it practical and affordable, will be one of the
ways to get us to that hydrogen future. The other way is,
obviously, nuclear energy. And I will be working on that front
as well, as we work to craft this bill.
David, it is great to have you back before us. Between this
committee and the Energy Committee, we have been seeing you
quite often here on the Hill. And that is always appreciated.
The work you have done in the past year and of course the work
you did for Senator Murkowski is well recognized.
We also had you recently on a visit to Idaho. And I
appreciate your effort to take the time to better understand
what we do out there and the kind of work that goes on. And
while you were there, I suspect you heard us talk about some
agriculture and some bioenergy initiatives.
The issue that the Governor, while Senator, worked with me
on was fish-friendly turbines. They say it cannot be done. And
while some of our friends do not like to admit it, the
adjustment and the management of the Snake and the Columbia
River systems is beginning to establish record fish runs. We
have clearly stopped the decline in five of these critical
species. And there is now movement upward. And part of that is
beginning to understand, manage the river, retrofit many of
these hydro facilities with fish-friendly turbines. That work
began at Bonneville. It is working upriver. And it is
critically important to the West, to all of us, and to the
fisheries of our country.
So thank you very much for being here. We look forward to
your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Reid's statement will also be made a part of the
record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Harry Reid
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to see that you are feeling a
little better than you did last week. Senator Cochran filled in nicely
for you at the hearing, but we all missed you.
Today is the second in a series of five budget oversight hearings
for the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. Last Wednesday, the
Subcommittee heard testimony from the Bureau of Reclamation and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Today we will hear from three witnesses:
--Dr. Raymond Orbach, the Director of DOE's Office of Science;
--Mr. Bill Magwood, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy; and
--Mr. Dave Garman, the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Good afternoon, gentlemen, thank you for coming. Senator Domenici
and I both appreciate you taking the time to join us. My duties on the
Floor may require me to depart early today, but my staff will remain
here and will report back on what transpires. I do have a series of
questions for each of you and would ask, at this time, that they be
made a part of the record. I hope each of you can respond quickly
because the Chairman and I rely on your answers to help us make
informed funding decisions.
I plan to keep my comments very brief today, but do want to
highlight several issues concerning the budget requests for each of the
three DOE offices represented today.
Dr. Orbach, I have reviewed the budget for the Office of Science
and, by and large, I suspect that you and I share some of the same
frustrations with it. The administration's budget request provides your
office with a mere 1.4 percent increase. While I am somewhat comforted
by the notion that the ramp-down in construction funding for the
Spallation Neutron Source actually allows a research budget increase of
closer to 4.5 percent, my overall impression is that the request is
weak and shortsighted.
I hope that we are able to improve on that a little bit before
Congress completes work this year. As I have said many times before,
funding for research in the hard sciences is one of the very best and
most appropriate investments of taxpayer dollars that Congress can
make. Very few things that we do here can make our country safer or
more secure than maintaining a scientific and technological edge.
For many years now Chairman Domenici and I have watched as the last
two administrations have sent ever-escalating budget requests up here
for the National Institutes of Health that have far outstripped the
increases requested for the Office of Science. The imbalance between
funding for the physical science and the biological sciences was
getting to be staggering, particularly because both disciplines rely on
each other so much.
This year, the disparity has lessened, but not in the way I had
hoped. Rather than the usual 14-15 percent increase for NIH, the
administration has chosen to request an additional 7-8 percent. Again,
over the long-term, this is very short-sighted.
I am, however, pleased that the administration has decided to take
the long view on another important international effort, though.
Earlier this year, the administration announced that the United States
would re-join the international burning plasma fusion program, the so-
called ITER project. This was a wise decision that I hope will be
followed-up with robust budget requests.
I am also very pleased with the work you are doing on the Genomes
to Life Program and with the impressive pace of the nanotechnology
program.
You have been on the job now for nearly a year to the day and I
hope you are enjoying your time in one of the greatest jobs our Federal
Government has to offer.
Mr. Garman, my guess is that we are going to hear a lot from you on
the subject of hydrogen today. The administration's initiative has
certainly gotten a lot of attention, both positive and negative.
My inclination is to try to be as supportive as possible. I am
pleased that the administration has decided to tackle a big, long-term
renewable energy effort to complement the shorter-term focus on the
deployment of promising technologies that dominates much of the rest of
your budget.
My staff has been talking to me about the potential of the
``hydrogen economy'' for years, so I want to help as best I can.
Obviously, the devil will be in the details in how this program comes
together, but those are details that we can work out as we move
forward.
One immediate concern that I do have is that it appears that you
cut many of your other programs in order to accommodate the increases
for hydrogen. Particularly hard-hit is your geothermal program, which
is down $16 million.
I realize that you were probably told to go find the additional
dollars for hydrogen at the very last minute, long after you thought
your budget had been put to bed, but ultimately, your overall portfolio
must be balanced.
Good luck as you move forward.
Mr. Magwood, as you know I have been very supportive of your
programs during my years as Chairman and Ranking Member of this
Subcommittee. I am supportive even though it sometimes puts me in an
awkward spot due to that very visible word ``nuclear'' in your office's
title.
I support strong budgets for you because, as I mentioned earlier,
long-term, stable, investments in scientific research and development
is what makes our Nation strong.
My biggest problem with nuclear power comes at the end of the fuel
cycle. However, I firmly believe that investments in the future of
nuclear power can produce reactors that are safer and will not produce
the deadly waste streams that plague the current generation of
reactors.
To the extent that there will be an on-going waste stream, it will
be investments in the science that solves all or most of the disposal
problem.
This is why I am pleased that your Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
seems to be coming along nicely. Senator Domenici and I both have been
interested in transmutation of waste for years, so we are both pleased
that the Department is preparing to invest some resources in this area.
I need to be careful not to steal too much of Chairman Domenici's
thunder in talking about what I know to be one of his favorite
programs, so I will stop here.
Again, thanks to our witnesses for appearing today.
Senator Domenici. Let us proceed then with the witnesses.
Let us start with Dr. Orbach.
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND L. ORBACH
Dr. Orbach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. You are welcome.
Dr. Orbach. I would like to thank you and the members of
the committee for your support for the Department of Energy and
specifically the Office of Science. This is the beginning of my
second year now as director. And I have enjoyed my relationship
with you very much.
I hope I can submit my testimony for the record and just
make a few comments and introductions.
The investment of basic research of the Office of Science
supports the work of more than 8,000 researchers and students
at more than 250 universities and Department of Energy
laboratories. This year we reached 18,000 users of our
facilities. Our budget, as we have submitted it to you, is
roughly half for the operation of those facilities, and then
the other half for the research that is carried out across the
country, and indeed the world. That half is about equally
divided between universities and laboratory personnel.
We support as much research in the universities as we do in
the laboratories. All of that, both the components for
university and laboratories, are competed together with the
peer review process, so that everybody has an equal chance at
funding. Just because someone is in a research laboratory does
not mean that they have an advantage over anyone else.
The Office of Science is privileged to be responsible for
these large facilities. We think we complement the national
effort because of our commitment to long-term funding, high
risk with high payoff, and multidisciplinary teams.
Just to comment on our highlights of the budget, the areas
that are priorities for the Office of Science; Senator Craig,
as you have noticed, we have joined ITER now as a partner. We
are pleased to take our place as a partner in this very
important development. The consequences of fusion energy are
recognized in the National Energy Policy on an abundant and
clean source of energy.
High-performance computation remains a high priority. This
budget contains $14 million to begin looking at different
architectures so that we can find the structures that will
enable us to solve major problems, scientific discovery through
simulation and computation. We are working now with three, and
we hope four, vendors to try their structures out on real
science problems that we want to solve.
The Spallation Neutron Source, which will be the leading
source for neutron science in the world for at least a decade
or more, now that Europe has decided not to go in this
direction, is well under way and on track and on budget. We
look forward to that operation giving the United States primacy
again in neutron science.
Four of our five nanotechnology centers currently are
contained within the fiscal year 2004 budget. Nanotechnology is
an opportunity that the Office of Science is pursuing
aggressively. We are pleased that our scientists will have
access to these world-class facilities that are nowhere else
found but in the United States.
The life sciences, the Genomes to Life program is
proceeding well. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
support for this program. We are now expanding it to produce
the energy requirements that this country faces and also to
help with carbon sequestration.
Finally, in this budget there is a new initiative for
teacher education, for workforce development. We have a line
item that will enable us to bring, on a pilot basis, teachers
to our laboratories where we will work with them during the
summer and then follow up in their classroom, providing support
for them.
A program like this used to exist in the mid-1990's, and we
are anxious to begin it again. We have quantitative evidence
that the students whose teachers have gone through this program
fare much better on examinations in both science and
mathematics than a comparable category, a control group, of
students whose teachers had not experienced these
opportunities.
We have had some major accomplishments this year. We are
very proud of Mr. Raymond Davis, Jr., for receiving the Nobel
Prize in physics for his work on neutrinos. I think it marks
the beginning of development in cosmology where we will be
working at the very small in order to predict the behavior of
the very large. Mr. Davis' citation from the Nobel Committee
points that out as the beginning of the relationship between
the experiments we do here on Earth and what we observe at the
very large.
Finally, we have, through our materials program and our
nanotechnology program, been able to accomplish something I
think that all of us should take pride in, and that is
restoring sight. We have been able to implant a small chip in
the retina of a person who lost their sight over 30 years ago.
By use of our materials sciences--this is not a simple task to
keep electrical contacts stable in the vitreous humor of the
eye--that person was able to see.
So far, we are operating only at a small number of pixels,
only 16. But we have underway a 1,000-pixel implant, which will
enable a person who was blind to read a large-print newspaper.
Over 200,000 Americans each year suffer from retinal disease.
This program, we hope, will combine the material science
characteristics of the Office of Science with the medical
profession, showing again how the physical sciences can aid the
medical profession in accomplishing their goals.
PREPARED STATEMENT
This is a great opportunity for us to present our programs
to you. I want to thank you again for your support. This
concludes my testimony. I will be pleased to answer questions.
Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Your statement will
be made a part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Raymond L. Orbach
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today about the Department of Energy's (DOE)
Office of Science fiscal year 2004 budget request. I am deeply
appreciative of your support for basic research, Mr. Chairman, and the
support we have received from the other Members of this Subcommittee. I
am confident that our fiscal year 2004 request represents a sound
investment in our Nation's future. Through this budget we will
strengthen core research programs, increase operating time at major
scientific user facilities, and expand our capabilities for the future.
This budget requests $3,310,935,000 for the fiscal year 2004
Science appropriation, an increase of $47,059,000 over fiscal year 2003
(see Figure 1), for investments in: Advanced Scientific Computing
Research (ASCR), Basic Energy Sciences (BES), Biological and
Environmental Research (BER), Fusion Energy Sciences (FES), High Energy
Physics (HEP), Nuclear Physics (NP), Science Laboratories
Infrastructure, Safeguards and Security, Workforce Development and
Science Program Direction.
These investments in basic research directly support the work of
more than 8,000 researchers and students at more than 250 universities
and at DOE's national labs. In addition, another 18,000 researchers
annually take advantage of the major scientific user facilities
operated on behalf of the Nation. The Office of Science is the steward
of 10 national laboratories, which conduct and collaborate on the
multi-disciplinary research that is essential to providing sustained
progress toward the most difficult scientific questions and to ensuring
that our Nation is able to respond rapidly in times of need.
These researchers will advance the frontiers of nanoscale science;
pursue the key questions at the intersection of physics and astronomy
identified by the National Academy of Sciences; develop the knowledge
base for bringing genomes to life with the potential to harness
microbes and microbial communities to improve energy production and
environmental remediation; advance the goals of the Administration's
Climate Change Research Initiative and the National Energy Policy;
begin negotiations to participate in the international fusion project--
ITER; develop a new generation of computing architecture to identify
and address performance bottlenecks in existing and planned systems;
and bring the full potential of scientific computation to bear on the
Department's scientific problems.
The Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic
research in the physical sciences, providing approximately 40 percent
of all Federal funds in this area over the past decade. It is also the
steward, and by far the principal funding agency, of the Nation's
research programs in high energy physics, nuclear physics and fusion
energy sciences, as well as being the Federal government's largest
source of support for materials and chemical sciences. The Office of
Science also supports unique or critical pieces of U.S. research in
scientific computation, climate change, geophysics, genomics, and the
life sciences.
Research projects supported by the Office of Science are selected
on the basis of peer review and evaluation for quality, relevance and
performance as emphasized in the President's Management Agenda and R&D
Investment Criteria. These diverse and multidisciplinary programs rely
upon the advice of the scientific community in developing daring and
innovative research directions and facility capabilities. As a result,
the program oversees one of the strongest research portfolios in the
world--a strategic investment in the future technological strength and
agility of the Nation.
The Council on Competitiveness noted in its report Competitiveness
2001, Strengths, Vulnerabilities and Long Term Priorities, that,
``Given the rising bar for competitiveness, the United States needs to
be in the lead or among the leaders in every major field of research to
sustain its innovation capabilities.'' Beginning with the impact on
technology development of scientific discoveries in chemistry and
electromagnetism at the end of the 19th century, scientific discovery
has become the source of new technologies that are critically important
to economic progress, energy and national security. We are in a period
of rapid technological change. Advances in computing, communications
and scientific instruments--many of them developed by SC--have
transformed our society including the conduct of science. As a result,
there are new scientific opportunities today that promise revolutionary
technologies to come.
FIGURE 1.--OFFICE OF SCIENCE FISCAL YEAR 2004 PRESIDENT'S REQUEST
(B/A in Thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year 2003 2004
2002 Approp. President's President's
Request Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Scientific Computing Research.......................... 150,205 166,557 173,490
Basic Energy Sciences........................................... 979,560 1,019,163 1,008,575
Biological and Environmental Research........................... \1\ 554,125 484,215 499,535
High Energy Physics............................................. 697,383 724,990 737,978
Nuclear Physics................................................. 350,589 382,370 389,430
Fusion Energy Sciences.......................................... 241,100 257,310 257,310
Science Laboratories Infrastructure............................. 37,125 42,735 43,590
Science Program Direction....................................... 149,467 137,332 150,813
Workforce Development........................................... 4,460 5,460 6,470
Safeguards and Security......................................... 45,770 43,744 43,744
SBIR/STTR....................................................... \2\ 99,668 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total Office of Science................................... 3,309,452 3,263,876 3,310,935
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $68,822,000 of one time projects.
\2\ Includes $36,391,000 from other programs.
fiscal year 2004 science priorities
The fiscal year 2004 request supports major research programs that
respond to DOE priorities and will contribute to the strength and
vitality of the national research enterprise. Many of these research
programs are conducted jointly with other Federal agencies and are
illustrative of the wide array of scientific talent and resources that
DOE brings to bear on critical national challenges:
--Enter negotiations with representatives of the European Union,
Japan, Russia and other international partners on construction
and operation of a burning plasma experiment--the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER).
--Continue to build on its leadership in high performance computing
and networking to bring the full potential of scientific
computation to bear on the Department's scientific and
technical challenges. It will initiate a Next Generation
Computer Architecture program to identify and address
performance bottlenecks in existing and planned systems.
--Continue construction of the Spallation Neutron Source, proceed
with construction of three Nanoscale Science Research Centers
(NSRCs) and initiate work on two others. These NSRCs--located
at national laboratories in New York, Tennessee, Illinois, New
Mexico and California--will provide scientists with an
unmatched set of tools to design and build complex nanoscale
materials.
--Exploit its unique capabilities at the intersection of the physical
sciences, the life sciences and scientific computation to
continue and expand its effort to understand how the
instructions embedded in genomes control the development of
organisms, with the goal of harnessing the capabilities of
microbes and microbial communities to help us to produce
energy, clean up waste, and sequester carbon from the
atmosphere.
--Initiate a Laboratory Science Teacher Professional Development
program for K-14 teachers in science and mathematics. Teachers
will be competitively selected for a 4-8 week mentoring program
by both scientists and master teachers at a national
laboratory, followed by both additional 1 week mentoring visits
and long term continuing support.
--Exploit the capabilities of the world's finest set of research
facilities in particle physics to attempt to find the answers
to questions about matter and energy at the most fundamental
level. What gives elementary particles their great variety of
masses? Are there extra dimensions of space beyond the three we
know? Why is there so little antimatter in the universe when we
expect equal amounts of each were created in the Big Bang? What
is the Dark Energy that causes the recently observed
acceleration in the expansion of the universe and comprises
fully two thirds of the mass and energy budget of the universe?
What were the properties of the early universe before quarks
and gluons condensed into protons and neutrons?
science accomplishments
The Office of Science can trace its roots to the original
legislation creating the Atomic Energy Commission in 1947, which had a
charter to use fundamental research in nuclear physics and other
physical sciences towards ``. . . improving the public welfare,
increasing the standard of living, strengthening free competition in
private enterprise, and promoting world peace.'' More than five decades
later, the Office of Science can point to an extraordinary and diverse
array of scientific discoveries that have led to dozens of Nobel
Prizes, a draft map of the Human Genome, the creation of ``Bucky
Balls,'' discovery of the quark structure of matter and the
``Accelerating Universe,'' major breakthroughs in medical diagnoses and
nuclear medicine, and providing tools that allow researchers to ``see''
at the atomic and subatomic scales, to simulate complex interactions
and to collaborate across great distances.
That history of discovery (which is documented on the Office of
Science website, www.er.doe.gov/feature_articles_2001/June/Decades/
index.html) continues to this day, with major accomplishments in the
past year that are the result of our long-term, high-risk,
multidisciplinary research and strong management practices.
Two achievements in 2002 stand out as representative of the scope
and magnitude of the research sponsored by SC. First is a technological
miracle--restoring sight to the blind--being developed through an
extraordinary marriage of biology and the physical sciences. The
combination of diverse scientific disciplines such as these is a
hallmark of Office of Science research and a particular strength of the
DOE national laboratories. But realizing this remarkable technology
also relies on the unique capabilities of industry (Second Sight,
located in Santa Clarita, Calif.) and academia (the Doheney Eye
Institute at the University of Southern California and North Carolina
State University) in partnership with the national laboratories. In
this project, specially designed MEMs (microelectro-mechanical systems)
electrodes are positioned on the retinas of patients who have been
blinded by disease, enabling them to convert light to electrical pulses
that are received by the brain. Today's prototype enables a formerly
blind patient to distinguish light from dark. Tomorrow's technology has
the potential to restore almost full sight to the 200,000 people in the
United States who are blinded every year by macular degeneration. This
miracle of science is possible due to the long-term commitment of
dedicated teams of scientists supported by DOE.
The second was the award of the 2002 Nobel Prize for Physics shared
by Raymond Davis, Jr., whose sublime experiments led to the capture of
solar neutrinos, proving that fusion provides the Sun's energy and
leading to the creation of an entirely new field of research: neutrino
astronomy. Davis did his groundbreaking work while a researcher at
DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory, which is home to multiple Nobel
Prize recipients. This is the most recent of the Nobel Prizes that have
been awarded to DOE-supported scientists.
In its announcement, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said of
Davis's accomplishment: ``This year's Nobel Laureates in Physics have
used these very smallest components of the universe (neutrinos) to
increase our understanding of the very largest: the Sun, stars,
galaxies, and supernovae. The new knowledge has changed the way we look
upon the universe.''
science programs
advanced scientific computing research
Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriation--$150.2M; Fiscal Year 2003 Request--
$166.6M; Fiscal Year 2004 Request--$173.5M
The Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program underpins
DOE's ability to accomplish its mission through scientific computation.
The ASCR program supports research in applied mathematics, computer
science and high-performance networks and provides high-performance
computational and networking resources to enable the advancement of the
leading edge science that the DOE mission requires. ASCR delivers the
power of advanced scientific computation and networking to the wide
array of scientific disciplines supported by SC.
In fiscal year 2004, ASCR will embark on research to identify,
address and correct bottlenecks that presently constrain DOE's
capabilities in modeling and simulation. A research portfolio in Next
Generation Computer Architecture will be initiated to assess novel
computer architectures and their prospects for achieving optimal
performance for cutting-edge scientific simulations.
In fiscal year 2004, the ASCR program will continue to develop the
underlying mathematical algorithms, software building blocks and
infrastructure for the ``Scientific Discovery through Advanced
Computing,'' (SciDAC) program. SciDAC is an Office of Science research
endeavor to produce the scientific computing, networking and software
that DOE researchers will need for sustained progress at the scientific
forefront in areas of strategic importance to the Department. The scope
of the SciDAC program will be extended to include new activities to
address the urgent need for a quantitative understanding of matter at
the nanoscale.
The ASCR program will also maintain the vitality of its basic
research efforts in applied mathematics, computer and computational
science, and network research to bolster the foundation for continued
success in advancing scientific frontiers through computation.
In fiscal year 2004, the Genomes to Life research activities in
partnership with Biological and Environmental Research will be expanded
to include new research in the applied mathematical sciences that will
enable new computational techniques for the study of regulatory
networks and metabolic pathways for microbial systems.
Finally, in fiscal year 2004, ASCR will provide high performance
computing and networking resources at the levels needed to meet Office
of Science needs. The National Energy Research Scientific Computing
Center, as a result of an enhancement in fiscal year 2003, will be
operated at 10Tflops to meet the computational needs of nearly 2,400
users. ESnet will be operated to provide state-of-the-art network
services and capabilities to DOE-supported researchers nationwide to
collect, analyze, visualize and distribute large-scale scientific data
sets.
basic energy sciences
Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriation--$979.6M; Fiscal Year 2003 Request--
$1,019.2M; Fiscal Year 2004 Request--$1,008.6M
The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program is a principal sponsor of
fundamental research for the Nation in the areas of materials sciences
and engineering, chemistry, geosciences, and bioscience as it relates
to energy. This research underpins DOE missions in energy, environment,
and national security; advances energy related basic science on a broad
front; and provides unique user facilities for the United States
scientific community.
In fiscal year 2004, construction will proceed on three Nanoscale
Science Research Centers (NSRCs), project engineering design will be
initiated on the fourth NSRC, and a Major Item of Equipment will be
initiated for the fifth and final NSRC. NSRCs are user facilities for
the synthesis, processing, fabrication, and analysis of materials at
the nanoscale. The five NSRCs will be located strategically at national
laboratories across the country in New York, Tennessee, Illinois, New
Mexico, and California. These facilities, in conjunction with existing
user facilities at these national laboratories, will provide a
strikingly unique suite of forefront capabilities where the Nation's
leading scientists can design and build complex nanoscale materials all
in one place.
The five NSRCs will be the Nation's critical focal points for the
development of the nanotechnologies that will revolutionize science and
technology. They will provide state-of-the-art nanofabrication
equipment and quality in-house user support for hundreds of visiting
researchers. The Centers will provide an environment for research of a
scope, complexity, and disciplinary breadth not possible under
traditional individual investigator or small group efforts. As such,
the DOE Centers will be the training grounds of choice for the top
graduate students and elite postdoctoral associates who will lead the
future of scientific research.
A high priority in fiscal year 2004 is continued construction of
the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) to provide the next-generation,
short-pulse spallation neutron source for neutron scattering. The
project, which is to be completed in June 2006, is on schedule and
within budget with over half of the work completed as of the end of
fiscal year 2002. At the end of fiscal year 2004, construction of the
SNS will be 80 percent complete.
biological and environmental research
Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriation--$554.1M; Fiscal Year 2003 Request--
$484.2M; Fiscal Year 2004 Request--$499.5M
Today, we have unprecedented opportunities to use advances in
biology, computation, engineering, physics, and chemistry, to develop
new solutions for challenges in energy, the environment, and health.
The Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program is bringing
these diverse fields together at DOE laboratories, universities, and
private research institutes to find innovative approaches to address
DOE challenges.
In fiscal year 2004, the Genomes to Life program continues to
develop novel research and computational tools that, when combined with
our genomics, structural biology, and imaging research provide a basis
to understand and predict responses of complex biological systems.
Other BER efforts in the Life Sciences include Human Genome research
and DNA sequencing and Low Dose Radiation research.
BER contributions to the President's Climate Change Research
Initiative include research in climate modeling, atmospheric
composition, and regional impacts of climate change. Carbon cycle
research will work toward understanding what fraction of carbon dioxide
emissions are taken up by terrestrial ecosystems. New in fiscal year
2004 are ecological research efforts to begin to bridge the knowledge
gap between molecular level effects and the responses of entire
ecosystems to natural and human-induced environmental changes.
A key challenge in Environmental Remediations Science is to
understand the subsurface environment and to then develop innovative
options for clean up and protection. In fiscal year 2004, BER research
will continue to develop new cleanup strategies, including
bioremediation of metals and radionuclides and the treatment and
disposal of high-level radioactive wastes stored in large underground
tanks. The Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory is maintained at
the leading edge of computational capabilities for enhanced modeling of
environmental and molecular processes.
Because of DOE's diverse capabilities across a range of scientific
disciplines, BER Medical Applications research will continue to provide
the medical community with novel devices and technologies to detect,
diagnose, and treat disease. One example is research that will develop
the capability to detect genes as they are turned on and off in any
organ in the body with enormous impacts in developmental biology and
the diagnosis of disease.
fusion energy sciences
Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriation--$241.1M; Fiscal Year 2003 Request--
$257.3M; Fiscal Year 2004 Request--$257.3M
The Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program leads the national
research effort to advance plasma science, fusion science, and fusion
technology--the knowledge base needed for an economically and
environmentally attractive fusion energy source. The National Energy
Policy states that fusion power has the long-range potential to serve
as an abundant and clean source of energy and recommends that the
Department develop fusion. It is the consensus of fusion researchers
worldwide that the next frontier in the quest for fusion power is the
creation and study of a sustained, burning (or self-heated) plasma. The
Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) has concluded that
the fusion program is ready to proceed and has recommended joining the
ongoing negotiations to construct the international burning plasma
experiment, ITER, a strategy endorsed by the National Research Council
(NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences. Following these
recommendations, and an Office of Science reviewed cost estimate for
the construction of ITER, the Administration decided to join the ITER
negotiations.
To be successful, the ITER negotiations must resolve not only
citing of the project and an agreed-upon financial and procurement
arrangement, but also satisfactory management and oversight
arrangements. In these negotiations, the United States will strive for
a robust management structure and an oversight program based on the
principles of equity, accountability and transparency to ensure both
the success of the project and the best use of taxpayer dollars.
In light of the Administration decision to join the ITER
negotiations, many elements of the fusion program that are broadly
applicable to burning plasmas will now be directed more specifically
toward the needs of ITER, while some longer range technology
development activities will be curtailed. The majority of existing and
proposed program elements, however, already contribute to tokamak
science, thereby providing a strong base for our future contributions
to and ability to benefit from ITER.
Four areas characterize the FES program activities for fiscal year
2004 and beyond. These are Burning Plasmas, which will include our
efforts in support of ITER; Fundamental Understanding, which includes
theory, modeling, and general plasma science; Configuration
Optimization, which includes experiments on advanced tokamaks, advanced
magnetic configurations, and inertial fusion concepts, as well as
facility operations and enabling R&D; and Materials and Technology,
which includes fusion specific materials research and fusion nuclear
technology research. Integrated progress in all of these thrust areas
is required for ultimate success in achieving a practical fusion energy
source.
The fiscal year 2004 budget supports a balanced fusion science
program. The fiscal year 2004 budget request supports research in
alternate confinement concepts, to include the final design and initial
fabrication of the National Compact Stellarator Experiment facility at
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, facility upgrades and an increase
in facility operations, research in inertial fusion energy and basic
plasma science, as well as a focus on the use of high-end computational
simulation.
high energy physics
Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriation--$697.4M; Fiscal Year 2003 Request--
$725.0M; Fiscal Year 2004 Request--$738.0M
The High Energy Physics (HEP) program provides over 90 percent of
the Federal support for the Nation's high energy physics research. This
research seeks to understand the nature of matter and energy at the
most fundamental level, as well as the basic forces that govern all
processes in nature. High energy physics research requires accelerators
and detectors utilizing state-of-the-art technologies in many areas
including fast electronics, high speed computing, superconducting
magnets, and high power radio-frequency devices. Until 2007, when
Europe's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is scheduled to begin operations,
the United States is the primary world center for HEP research. In
fiscal year 2004, the HEP program will concentrate on facility
utilization, including direct support for researchers, as well as
incremental facility upgrades.
In fiscal year 2004, the Fermilab Tevatron Collider Run II will be
in full swing. The Run II program will enable many advances and
discoveries at the energy frontier, including: possible discovery of
the long-sought Higgs particle, thought to be the key to understanding
why particles have mass; providing even greater information about the
heaviest known particle, the top quark, discovered at Fermilab in 1995;
possible discovery of an entirely new class of particles that have been
predicted, by many theories, to be present in Run II data; or unfolding
of the as yet undiscovered space-time dimensions that have been
postulated to complete the unification of fundamental interactions. A
series of planned upgrades to the Tevatron accelerator complex, the
major detectors, and computing facilities will continue in fiscal year
2004 in order to enable a vigorous physics program that will maintain
Fermilab's scientific leadership through the end of the decade. The
NuMI/MINOS project, scheduled for completion in September 2005, will
provide a world-class facility to study neutrino properties and make
definitive measurements of neutrino mass differences.
Building on the outstanding performance of the B-factory at the
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), the HEP program will
increase support for operation of the B-factory in fiscal year 2004 to
break new ground in exploring the source and nature of matter-
antimatter asymmetry in the B-meson system. The upcoming round of
experimental results may provide evidence for new physics beyond the
Standard Model of particle physics. Incremental upgrades are also
planned in fiscal year 2004 for the accelerator to improve physics
output and for the computing capabilities to cope with high data
volumes.
Continued U.S. participation in the LHC project at CERN is a high
priority in fiscal year 2004. The U.S. contributions to the LHC
accelerator and the ATLAS and CMS detectors are on schedule and within
budget for the scheduled start-up date of 2007. Focus of this effort
will begin to shift in fiscal year 2004 from construction to pre-
operations for the U.S.-built detector components and to developing the
software and computing infrastructure necessary to exploit LHC physics.
Non-accelerator experimentation is a growing part of HEP research
and offers many exciting opportunities for the future. Progress
continues on particle astrophysics experiments and R&D in partnership
with NASA. Collaborations on the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) and
the Large Area Telescope (LAT), part of the Gamma-Ray Large Area Space
Telescope (GLAST) mission, will be engaged in full detector fabrication
and assembly in fiscal year 2004. The SuperNova Acceleration Probe
(SNAP) will begin fabrication of detector prototypes in support of a
2006 Conceptual Design. These experiments are working toward solving
key mysteries in astrophysics and cosmology, including dark energy,
high energy gamma ray sources, and antimatter in space, all of which
play a role in the story of the origin and fate of the Universe. Other
non-accelerator experiments are located at ground level, such as the
Pierre Auger project and the Supernova Cosmology Project, or deep under
ground, such as neutrino detectors.
In addition, the program continues to support advanced technology
R&D in fiscal year 2004 geared toward future accelerators, including a
high-energy, high-luminosity Linear Collider. In January 2002, the
HEPAP Subpanel on Long Range Planning stated that such a collider
should be the highest priority of the U.S. HEP program.
nuclear physics
Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriation--$350.6M; Fiscal Year 2003 Request--
$382.4M; Fiscal Year 2004 Request--$389.4M
The Nuclear Physics (NP) program supports fundamental nuclear
physics research, providing about 90 percent of Federal support for
this field. NP research advances our knowledge of the properties and
interactions of atomic nuclei and nuclear matter in terms of the
fundamental forces and particles of nature. It also supports the
scientific knowledge-base, technologies and trained manpower that are
needed to underpin DOE's missions for nuclear-related national
security, energy, and the environment.
The NP program seeks answers to questions in three broad areas. (1)
The basic constituents of nuclei, the neutrons and protons (nucleons)
are themselves each composed of three quarks and the gluons that
``carry'' the strong force between them. Yet, these quarks are
``confined'' and cannot be found individually in nature. Understanding
this confinement and the transition from a nucleon to quark description
of nuclear structure is a central question of the field. (2) The early
universe, up to a millionth of a second after the ``Big Bang,'' is
believed to have been a soup of quarks and gluons, a quark-gluon
plasma. Creation of microcosms of this primordial matter in the
laboratory is now being attempted in order to answer how the universe
evolved at the very beginning of time. (3) The chemical elements are
believed to have been created in stars and supernovae explosions, yet
the nuclear reactions involved in this process involve nuclei far from
the naturally occurring ones on earth. To answer how the elements were
made (nucleosynthesis) requires producing exotic radioactive nuclear
beams. Understanding the dynamics of supernovae also requires
understanding the properties of the elusive neutrino which can only be
detected in massive detectors.
In fiscal year 2004, the NP program will focus on enhancing the
operations of the program's user facilities, especially the
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), so as to bring all operating
facilities to about 83 percent of optimal utilization. This will
increase beam hours for research by about 5 percent over the fiscal
year 2003 Request. Nuclear Theory, new Low Energy instruments, and
increased support to non-accelerator research such as neutrino
experiments are also strongly supported.
In addition to increased operations at RHIC, fiscal year 2004
funding will support an aggressive experimental program with the newly
completed G0 detector at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
(TJNAF) to begin to map out the strange quark contribution to the
structure of the nucleon. The MIT/Bates research program with the BLAST
detector is being initiated in fiscal year 2003 with completion planned
in fiscal year 2004. The two Low Energy user facilities (ATLAS and
HRIBF) will also increase running schedules in fiscal year 2004 for
nuclear structure and astrophysics studies.
In fiscal year 2003-2005, the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO)
will make sensitive measurements of the flux and spectra of solar
neutrinos. Neutrino oscillations are evidence that neutrinos have mass,
an observation that forces a re-evaluation of the existing Standard
Model of particle physics.
science laboratories infrastructure
Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriation--$37.1M; Fiscal Year 2003 Request--
$42.7M; Fiscal Year 2004 Request--$43.6M
The Science Laboratories Infrastructure (SLI) program plays a vital
role in enabling the continued performance of world-class research at
the Office of Science laboratories by funding line item construction
projects to maintain the general purpose infrastructure (GPI) and the
clean-up and removal of excess facilities. In fiscal year 2004, SLI
will support six ongoing projects and one new start--seismic safety and
operational reliability improvements at SLAC. Excess Facilities
Disposition (EFD) will continue disposition of both contaminated and
non-contaminated excess facilities, resulting in reduction of costs and
risks while freeing-up valuable land. The fiscal year 2004 Budget
Request also includes funding for the Oak Ridge Landlord subprogram.
safeguards and security
Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriation--$45.7M; Fiscal Year 2003 Request--
$43.7M; Fiscal Year 2004 Request--$43.7M
Safeguards and Security reflects the Office of Science's commitment
to maintain adequate protection of cutting edge scientific resources.
In fiscal year 2004, Safeguards and Security will enable the Office of
Science laboratories to meet the requirements of maintaining approved
Security Condition 3 level mandates for the protection of assets.
Integration of security into the laboratories' systems and continued
risk management are also supported. In addition, critical cyber
security tools and software will be purchased to respond to the ever
changing cyber threat.
workforce development
Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriation--$4.5M; Fiscal Year 2003 Request--$5.5M;
Fiscal Year 2004 Request--$6.5M
Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists supports three
subprograms: Pre-College Activities such as the National Science Bowl;
the Undergraduate Research Internships for undergraduate students
wishing to enter science, technology and science teaching careers; and
Graduate/Faculty Fellowships for K-16 teachers of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Each of the subprograms targets a
different group of students and teachers in order to attract a broad
range of participants to the programs and expand the Nation's supply of
well-trained scientists and engineers. Focus of this program is on the
Physical Sciences and other areas of research which underpin the DOE
missions and have, over the last decade, seen a marked decline in the
numbers of undergraduate degrees awarded. Initiated in fiscal year 2004
is the Laboratory Science Teacher Professional Development program that
will provide long-term scientific community support from our National
Laboratories for K-14 STEM teachers.
science program direction
Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriation--$149.5M; Fiscal Year 2003 Request--
$137.3M; Fiscal Year 2004 Request--$150.8M
Science Program Direction enables a skilled, highly motivated
Federal workforce to manage SC's research portfolio, programs,
projects, and facilities in support of new and improved energy,
environmental, and health technologies, and to provide continuous
learning opportunities. Science Program Direction consists of four
subprograms: Program Direction, Field Operations, Technical Information
Management (TIM) and Energy Research Analyses (ERA).
The Program Direction subprogram supports Federal staff in
Headquarters responsible for directing, administering, and supporting
the broad spectrum of scientific disciplines. The Field Operations
subprogram is the funding source for the Federal workforce in the Field
complex responsible for providing business, administrative, and
specialized technical support to DOE programs. The TIM subprogram
collects, preserves, and disseminates the scientific and technical
information of the DOE. The ERA subprogram provides the capabilities
needed to evaluate and communicate the scientific excellence,
relevance, and performance of Office of Science basic research
programs.
As part of a restructuring effort, the Office of Science will focus
on its Federal human capital in fiscal year 2004 to effectively respond
to the science needs of the future and to the challenge of an
anticipated 50 percent turnover of retirement-eligible senior
scientists over the next 5 years. Also in fiscal year 2004, the Office
of Science continues to support a corporate DOE information management
system, the Electronic R&D Portfolio Management Tracking and Reporting
Environment (ePME), which enables end-to-end tracking of research
projects, information sharing across programs, and snapshots of the
Department's R&D portfolio. ePME will integrate with the e-Grants
functions of e-Government, the Department's e-Financial Management
System, and the e-Procurement Modernization System.
conclusion
The Office of Science occupies a unique and critical role within
the U.S. scientific enterprise. We fund research projects in key areas
of science that our Nation depends upon. We construct and operate major
scientific user facilities that scientists from virtually every
discipline are using on a daily basis, and we manage civilian national
laboratories that are home to some of the best scientific minds in the
world.
Our researchers are working on many of the most daunting scientific
challenges of the 21st Century, including pushing the frontiers of the
physical sciences through nanotechnology, exploring the key questions
at the intersection of physics and astronomy, and opportunities at the
intersection of the physical science, the life sciences and scientific
computation to understand how the instructions embedded in genomes
control the development of organisms, with the goal of harnessing the
capabilities of microbes and microbial communities to help us to
produce energy, clean up waste, and sequester carbon from the
atmosphere. The Office of Science is also pushing the state-of-the-art
in scientific computation, accelerator R&D, plasma confinement options
and a wide array of other technologies that advance research
capabilities and strengthen our ability to respond to the rapidly
changing challenges ahead.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this opportunity
to discuss the Office of Science's research programs and our
contributions to the Nation's scientific enterprise. On behalf of DOE,
I am pleased to present this fiscal year 2004 budget request for the
Office of Science.
This concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you might have.
Senator Domenici. With that, we will proceed now to you,
David.
Mr. Garman, nice to have you here. How do you like your
work?
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
STATEMENT OF DAVID K. GARMAN, DIRECTOR
Mr. Garman. Oh, I like it a great deal, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you. And thank you, Senator Craig, for your kind words. I
appreciate this opportunity, and I appreciate the support of
the subcommittee for our work.
As you know, funding for activities in my office is split
between the Energy and Water Development and the Interior
Appropriations bills. Our overall budget request for fiscal
year 2004 is $1.32 billion, a bit more than our request for
fiscal year 2003. However, our fiscal year 2004 request for
activities in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
is $37.2 million over the amount we requested for fiscal year
2003.
As the Chairman noted, our most notable expansion is in the
area of hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles research and
development, resulting from the President's Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative announced during his State of the Union Address. I
will say just a few words about hydrogen before highlighting
other elements of our proposal.
Our hydrogen technology subprogram is a key component of
the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. Our fiscal year 2004
request is $48.1 million above our fiscal year 2003 request.
This does not include additional funds that have been requested
for hydrogen in the Offices of Fossil and Nuclear Energy. Our
total hydrogen request is over $100 million. These funds would
be used to establish a national research effort on hydrogen
storage, to enhance technology development for hydrogen
production from renewables and distributed natural gas, to
accelerate work on codes and standards development, to
accelerate work on hydrogen education, and to validate some
hydrogen infrastructure technologies to support fuel cell
vehicles and their test and evaluation.
The increase in funding is designed to enable the industry
to make a commercialization decision on hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles and infrastructure by 2015. We believe this can help
bring affordable hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to the showroom
floor by 2020.
For our solar energy technology program we are seeking
$79.7 million, essentially the same as our fiscal year 2003
request. We want to continue our work to bring down the cost
and improve the reliability of solar photovoltaic systems.
Our wind energy technology program has been successful in
bringing down the cost of electricity generated from wind. Wind
energy systems have been the fastest growing source of
electricity worldwide for over a decade and are now providing
cost-competitive power in high wind speed areas. As a result,
our focus for wind R&D has shifted to larger blades and
turbines using advanced materials that will allow economically
viable development in the lower wind speed areas that are
present more evenly across the Nation.
In fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $41.6 million for
wind energy, which is $2.4 million less than our fiscal year
2003 budget request. This request is in alignment with our
projected needs to achieve our goals.
For our hydropower technology work, we are requesting about
$7.5 million, the same level of funding we requested last year.
As Senator Craig pointed out, our work in this area focuses on
improving the environmental performance of hydropower plants by
developing turbines that reduce fish injury and improve
downstream water quality.
Geothermal energy offers promise as a base load renewable
energy resource, particularly in the Western United States. Our
program focuses on exploration and reservoir technologies and
drilling research to enable industry to locate and produce new
geothermal fields at greatly reduced cost. In fiscal year 2004,
we are requesting $25.5 million for these activities, $1
million less than our fiscal year 2003 request.
Biomass and biorefinery systems present some interesting
challenges and opportunities for us. We know how to make power,
as well as a variety of individual fuels, chemicals, and
products from biomass. But we do not know necessarily how to do
it affordably and competitively. We believe that the synergies
of an integrated biorefinery that makes both power, products,
and fuels cannot only help us reduce our dependence on imported
oil, but expand economic opportunities in rural areas of the
country.
For the first time, we have brought together a diverse
industry together and produced a vision, an R&D road map, that
is helping us to restructure our biomass program and to focus
on the most promising long-term opportunities for these
technologies.
We have also dramatically improved the collaboration
between the Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. In that connection, the farm bill has provided $14
million in mandatory biomass funding, which we are going to
jointly manage with the Department of Agriculture under the
direction of the Biomass Research and Development Board
established under the Biomass R&D Act of 2000.
In fiscal year 2004, we are also requesting almost $77
million for electricity reliability, slightly more than our
fiscal year 2003 request. That program consists of four main
areas, including high temperature superconductivity,
transmission reliability research, distribution and
interconnection energy storage research, and the renewable
energy production incentive.
We are creating a new program office in the Department
bringing various transmission-related activities together. We
look forward to presenting more information to you about that
in the weeks ahead.
PREPARED STATEMENT
For now I ask that my full statement appear in the record.
I am happy to answer any questions the committee may have,
either now or in the future.
Senator Domenici. It will be made a part of the record.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David K. Garman
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today on the fiscal year 2004 budget
request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE).
As you know, the EERE budget is split between Energy and Water
Development and Interior Appropriations Bills. Our overall budget
request for fiscal year 2004 is $1,320,000,000 compared to
$1,318,651,000 requested in fiscal year 2003. Our fiscal year 2004
request for our Energy and Water Development programs totals
$444,207,000, or 34 percent of EERE's budget, compared to $407,000,000
requested in fiscal year 2003. The most notable programmatic expansions
are in the area of hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles research and
development (R&D), reflecting the priorities and recommendations of the
President's National Energy Policy, the Department of Energy's (DOE)
mission, EERE's Strategic Plan, and the EERE's Strategic Program
Review.
This request reflects EERE's streamlined new organization. Two
years ago, EERE was divided into 31 programs, in 17 offices, stovepiped
into 5 market sectors. Overlapping layers of management and duplicative
and inconsistent business systems generated significant inefficiencies
and made it difficult to ensure accountability and the most cost-
effective application of taxpayer funds. Responding to the President's
Management Agenda and our own Strategic Program Review, we launched a
dramatic restructuring of the EERE program in June 2002. This
restructuring streamlined our organization, eliminating up to four
management levels, and centralizing administration functions into a
single support organization with a focus on developing consistent,
uniform, and efficient business practices. This is arguably the most
dramatic restructuring in EERE's history.
--The restructuring combined all the hydrogen and fuel cell
activities, formerly scattered across two market sectors and
three programs, into a single program for greater efficiency
and synergy.
--The restructuring combined all the bioenergy-related activities,
formerly scattered across three market sectors and three
programs, into a single program focused on advanced
biorefineries. If successful, this research will allow waste
plant matter to be turned into high value chemicals, fuels, and
power.
--The fiscal year 2004 budget is fully aligned with EERE's new
management structure and strategic goals, allowing a strong
linkage between congressional appropriations and the
performance and productivity of EERE's research and development
(R&D) and deployment activities.
The fiscal year 2004 budget supports EERE's R&D and technology
deployment efforts to provide Americans with increased energy security
and independence through utilization of diverse domestic supplies,
greater freedom of choice of technology, and reducing the financial
costs and environmental impacts of energy utilization.
As Secretary Abraham noted recently, the Department has ``. . . an
ambitious, long-term vision of a zero-emissions future, free of
reliance on imported energy.'' We must call upon science, technology,
and the research talents in our national laboratories, universities,
and industry to help us move beyond today's energy choices towards
carbon-free generation of electricity and fuels, including hydrogen.
Secretary Abraham has also made clear that all missions at the
Department flow from our core mission to support national security.
This EERE fiscal year 2004 budget demonstrates that the Department
takes its responsibility toward national security seriously as it does
its responsibilities toward science and technology. The Department has
taken a deliberate and integrated approach to its research and
development portfolio, using the strengths of all DOE programs to
address this central mission. Clearly, environmental security and
economic security underpin national security and each is sustained by
science.
What is more, there is only one way to build an integrated budget
and that is to engage in a vigorous and disciplined planning process
that forces programs to set priorities.
Our EERE fiscal year 2004 budget request has been developed with
these challenges and opportunities in mind.
the president's hydrogen fuel initiative
Mr. Chairman, the big news in our fiscal year 2004 budget is, of
course, the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which directly
supports EERE's number one priority to dramatically reduce or even end
dependence on foreign oil.
Our nation currently imports 55 percent of our oil--a dependence
that is projected to rise to 68 percent by 2025. Since two thirds of
the 20 million barrels of oil we consume each day is used for
transportation, we must focus on finding alternative, domestic fuels to
power our transportation system if we ever expect to reverse this
trend.
In his recent State-of-the-Union address, President Bush announced
a groundbreaking plan to transform our nation's energy future from one
dependent on foreign petroleum, to one that utilizes the most abundant
element in the universe--hydrogen. The concept for this initiative is
simple, yet profound--create automotive operating systems that run on
hydrogen rather than gasoline. The benefits will be considerable and
widespread. Hydrogen can be produced from diverse domestic sources,
freeing us from a reliance on foreign imports for the energy we use at
home. Hydrogen can fuel ultra-clean internal combustion engines, which
would reduce auto emissions by more than 99 percent. And when hydrogen
is used to power fuel cell vehicles, it will do so with more than twice
the efficiency of today's gasoline engines--and with none of the
harmful emissions. In fact, fuel cells' only byproduct is pure water.
On February 6, 2003, at an event on energy independence in
Washington, D.C., featuring new uses for fuel cells including
automobiles, the President reiterated his commitment to his new
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative stating, ``The technology we have just seen is
going to be seen on the roads of America. And it's important for our
country to understand that by being bold and innovative, we can change
the way we do business here in America; we can change our dependence
upon foreign sources of energy; we can help with the quality of the
air; we can make a fundamental difference for the future of our
children.''
During his speech on energy independence, the President also
provided details of his initiative stating, ``We must make hydrogen
more plentiful and produce it in the most efficient, cost-effective
way. That is one of our challenges . . . We must increase the capacity
of hydrogen storage systems. And we must put in place the
infrastructure to get hydrogen to the consumers. There would be nothing
worse than developing a car and having no place for somebody to find
the fuel. People aren't going to buy many cars if they can't refuel
their car.''
To support the President's vision we need to make the necessary
research and development investments to develop vehicles powered by
hydrogen fuel cells and the infrastructure to support them. The
President's Initiative will accelerate research and development on
hydrogen production, delivery, storage and distribution, and establish
the necessary safety-related codes and technology standards. In
addition, it will accelerate the demonstration of fuel cell vehicles
and hydrogen infrastructure so that these technologies can be validated
under real world conditions.
The government's role here is clear. We will coordinate and cost-
share the high-risk R&D work of numerous private sector partners and
our national network of science laboratories. Government coordination
of this undertaking will also help resolve one of the difficulties
associated with development of a commercially viable hydrogen fuel cell
vehicle: the ``chicken and egg'' question. Which comes first, the fuel
cell vehicle or the hydrogen production and delivery-refueling
infrastructure to support it? The President's Initiative, in
conjunction with FreedomCAR--the public-private partnership with U.S.
automakers launched last year to accelerate the development of
practical, affordable hydrogen fuel cell vehicles--answers the question
by proposing to develop both systems in parallel. By so doing, federal
investments will help to advance commercialization of hydrogen fuel
cell vehicles and infrastructure by 15 years, from approximately 2030
to 2015.
To meet this challenge, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget
request commits $1.7 billion over five years for the FreedomCAR
partnership and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. This includes $1.2 billion
for hydrogen and fuel cells--$720 million in ``new'' money (i.e., not
included in baseline projections of spending). EERE's overall fiscal
year 2004 budget request for the FreedomCAR partnership and Hydrogen
Fuel Initiative is $256.6 million. There is an additional $15.5 million
for hydrogen production research requested by the Offices of Fossil and
Nuclear Energy, and $0.7 million requested by DOT Research Special
Projects Agency.
Mr. Chairman, we stand on the cusp of revolutionary change in
personal transportation in this country--and the world. The President
has completely recast this Nation's vision of personal transportation
by describing a future where vehicles will be fueled by hydrogen--and
he is taking the steps necessary to lead us to that future.
fiscal year 2004 energy and water development budget request
For fiscal year 2004, we request a $37,207,000 increase above our
fiscal year 2003 amended budget request.
Let me now briefly review the portfolio of Renewable Energy
Resources programs within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy. Before I begin, I'd like to highlight how the President's
Management Agenda has helped us focus our resources and become better
stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. For example, the R&D investment
criteria help us guide budget decisions to ensure we fund only
activities that can provide real public benefits and that the private
sector would not undertake without our help. And the budget-performance
integration initiative, through the Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART), has helped us to focus on continuing to improve our performance
goals, and to identify program planning and management strengths and
challenges.
Two years ago, the President's Management Agenda pointed out that
Federal government R&D programs in general ``do not link information
about performance to our decisions about funding. Without this
information, decisions about programs tend to be made on the basis of
anecdotes, last year's funding level, and the political clout of local
interest groups.'' This year, our funding request is in better
alignment with what it will take to achieve our goals.
Hydrogen Technology
The Hydrogen Technology Subprogram is a key component of the
President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.
The program works with industry to improve efficiency and lower the
cost of technologies that produce hydrogen from renewable energy
resources and natural gas. In addition, the program works with the
national laboratories to reduce the cost of technologies that produce
hydrogen directly from sunlight and water. Hydrogen can be used in
stationary applications for residential, commercial and industrial fuel
cells, as well as in fuel-cell powered vehicles. Development of this
clean energy carrier will lessen our dependence on imported fuels in
both stationary and transportation applications.
In fiscal year 2004, we request $87,982,000 ($48,101,000 more than
our fiscal year 2003 budget request) for the Hydrogen Technology
Subprogram (there is an additional $15.5 million in the Offices of
Fossil and Nuclear Energy for a total of $103.5 million). This will be
used to establish a national research effort on hydrogen storage; to
enhance technology development for hydrogen production from renewables
and distributed natural gas; to accelerate codes and standards
development; to create a major hydrogen education effort; and to
validate hydrogen infrastructure technologies to support fuel cell
vehicle test and evaluation.
Our fiscal year 2004 budget request represents a significant
consolidation and realignment in the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and
Infrastructure Technologies Program when compared to the fiscal year
2003 budget request. This budget request reflects the functional
priorities of the program: hydrogen production and delivery, hydrogen
storage, hydrogen infrastructure validation, safety and codes/standards
related to hydrogen and its infrastructure, and education and
crosscutting analysis. The new budget structure consolidates all
electrolyzer research and development under production and delivery.
In addition, the fiscal year 2004 request proposes that all fuel
cell activities be performed under Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriation. This is a change since some fuel cell work was requested
under Energy and Water Development Appropriation in fiscal year 2003.
Also, all hydrogen production, delivery, and storage work is proposed
to be under the Energy and Water Development Appropriation request in
fiscal year 2004. This is a change since some hydrogen storage and off-
board natural gas reforming work was requested under Interior and
Related Agencies in fiscal year 2003.
The increase in funding for fiscal year 2004 compared to the fiscal
year 2003 request enables hydrogen production, storage, and
infrastructure technology goals to be accelerated 15 years to enable
industry to make a commercialization decision regarding hydrogen
infrastructure and fuel cell vehicles by 2015.
Specific fiscal year 2004 program activities include:
--Accelerating development of low-cost, small-scale reformers and
separation technology to enable hydrogen generated from
distributed natural gas to achieve $3.00 per gasoline gallon
equivalent by 2005 and to be competitive with gasoline by 2010
($1.50 per gasoline gallon equivalent, delivered, pre-tax).
--Accelerating and expanding research on the production of hydrogen
from renewable resources to reach a 2008 goal of $2.55 per
gasoline gallon equivalent at the plant gate.
--Creating a national research effort in hydrogen storage
technologies, based on low pressure, solid state materials, to
enable achievement of 2010 goals of 2.0 kWh/kg (6 percent by
weight hydrogen storage capacity), 1.5 kWh/l and $4/kWh.
--Conducting operations of the Las Vegas fueling station to determine
emissions and system efficiency. Initiating limited
``learning'' demonstrations of hydrogen refueling stations to
support fuel cell vehicle test and evaluation.
--Providing leadership in developing safety-related codes and
standards and conducting necessary coordination with the
international community so that U.S.-based technology can
compete globally.
These efforts support the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, and will enable
the development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for the showroom floor
by 2020. Success of these programs will begin to eliminate the need for
imported oil, while simultaneously beginning to eliminate emissions and
significantly reducing greenhouse gases from America's transportation
fleet without affecting the freedom of personal mobility we demand.
Solar Energy Technology
The EERE Solar Energy Technology Program develops solar energy
systems that are more efficient, reliable, and affordable for
converting sunlight into electricity, space heat, hot water, and
lighting. A primary objective of the program is to increase the value
of solar energy by putting it at the point of use, making it an
integral part of super efficient, state-of-the-art residential and
commercial buildings and industrial establishments.
In fiscal year 2004, we request $79.7 million for the Solar Energy
Technology Program, which is level funding with our fiscal year 2003
request. The fiscal year 2004 activities are as follows:
Under Photovoltaic (PV) Energy Systems, we will increase technology
development to support module and systems reliability improvements. In
thin film modules, we will increase funding for accelerated lifetime
testing and diagnostics to determine failure modes in pre-commercial
products. In systems, we will increase funding for the inverter
initiative to accelerate attainment of a next-generation grid-tied
inverter with a greater than twenty-year lifetime. We will begin the
second year of three-year contracts under the PV Science Initiative
with universities to develop next-generation PV materials and devices
that have the potential for dramatic cost reductions. The PV Science
Initiative will more fully develop new ideas and concepts that can
replace conventional technologies with a new generation of lower-cost,
easier-to-manufacture technologies. In the Thin Film Partnership, the
program will continue funding the most promising industry cost-shared
contracts on technologies making the greatest achievements.
In Solar Building Technology Research, we will continue development
of a polymer water heater capable of operation in cold climates and
test a hybrid solar daylighting system.
The Concentrating Solar Power subprogram will be phased-out in
accordance with the National Academy of Science recommendations.
Zero Energy Buildings
The focus of the Zero Energy Buildings concept involves efforts to
integrate renewable energy systems into building designs and
operations, such as integrating photovoltaic, water heating systems
and/or space conditioning systems. These buildings use renewable energy
sources so that the buildings produce as much energy as they consume on
an annual basis.
In fiscal year 2004, we request $4.0 million for the Zero Energy
Buildings program, $4.0 million less than our fiscal year 2003 budget
request. The program will evaluate its activities to ensure no
duplications or overlaps with Interior-funded efforts in the Building
Technologies Program.
As part of the reorganization of EERE in fiscal year 2002, Zero
Energy Buildings activities have been moved from the Solar Energy
Program to the Buildings Technologies Program. This shift will enable
more effective access to the residential and commercial building
industries for Zero Energy Buildings technology developers and expand
the range of opportunities for industry participation and cost sharing.
The Zero Energy Buildings activities will continue to maintain
effective technical coordination with the Solar Energy Program.
In fiscal year 2004, we will focus on completing the evaluation and
monitoring of first generation Zero Energy Buildings homes, built by
leading homebuilders, to verify a 50 percent reduction in annual
utility bills to $600 per year for an average sized home in a temperate
climate.
Wind Energy
Wind energy systems have been the fastest growing source of
electricity worldwide for over a decade, and are now providing cost-
competitive power in high wind speed areas. As a result, the
Department's focus for wind energy R&D has shifted to advanced
technologies to allow economically viable development in the nation's
more widespread lower wind speed areas. These areas are on average five
times closer to major load centers, providing an opportunity to relieve
transmission constraints as a major wind energy barrier, and over
twenty times more abundant than currently-economic high wind areas.
Under the Technology Viability key activity, the program is underway
with a broad range of cost-shared public/private partnerships coupled
with laboratory supporting research and testing to achieve low wind
speed development goals for both large turbines used for utility scale
wind farms, and for smaller (<100 kilowatt) turbines for use in
distributed power applications. The Technology Application key activity
targets remaining technical and institutional barriers to wind energy
use, including grid systems integration, resource assessment, outreach
to states and stakeholders, and support for near-term industry needs
such as certification testing.
In fiscal year 2004, we request $41,600,000 for the Wind Energy
subprogram, $2.4 million less than our fiscal year 2003 budget request.
The request is in alignment with our projected needs to achieve our
goals.
In fiscal year 2004, the Wind Energy subprogram will select and
commence several new industry partnership projects for concept studies,
component development, and/or full system development under competitive
solicitations issued in 2003 for both large wind turbines and small,
distributed power scale turbines. It will also conduct research efforts
in wind turbine aerodynamics, structures, materials, advanced
components, and wind characteristics to support development of new and
improved tools and technology for low wind speed system design and
applications. Advanced systems integration studies will assess
opportunities for coordinated operation of wind and hydropower
generation, and production of hydrogen from wind and hydropower.
Hydropower
In the case of hydropower, the program focuses on improving the
environmental performance of hydropower plants by developing turbines
that reduce fish injury and improve downstream water quality. The
Department has engaged the expertise of the national laboratories to
study and better understand hydropower's biological and environmental
effects. Study results have been critical to the development of design
thresholds for industry to use in their efforts to improve existing
turbine designs.
In fiscal year 2004, we request $7,489,000 for the hydropower
subprogram, the same level of funding as our fiscal year 2003 request.
Under Technology Viability: Advanced Hydro Turbine Technology, we
have increased funding in fiscal year 2004 by $500,000 to support
testing of new prototype hydro turbines.
Under Technology Application: Low-Head/Low-Power R&D, we have
decreased funding in fiscal year 2004 by $500,000, to reflect a shift
in funding to higher-priority testing of new prototype hydro turbines
under Technology Viability.
In fiscal year 2004, the hydropower subprogram will develop and
test full-scale (greater than 1 MW) prototypes of retrofit and new
environmentally friendly turbine designs under competitively selected
public private partnerships awarded in prior years. The Department will
also complete the low head/low power resource assessment of all 50
states, identifying the undeveloped hydropower resources that could be
developed without building new impoundments.
Geothermal Technology
The Geothermal Technology Development Program works in partnership
with U.S. industry to establish geothermal energy as an economically
competitive contributor to the U.S. energy supply, capable of meeting a
portion of the Nation's heat and power needs, especially in the West.
The program focuses on exploration and reservoir technologies, and
drilling research because better understanding of geothermal resources
and cost-effective means of accessing those resources will enable
industry to locate and produce new geothermal fields at greatly reduced
cost.
In fiscal year 2004, we request $25,500,000 for geothermal program
activities, $1 million less than our fiscal year 2003 budget request.
In fiscal year 2004, the program will step up work on Enhanced
Geothermal Systems (EGS) cost-shared projects at three competitively-
selected sites. In fiscal year 2004, we will increase funding for EGS
by $2.5 million over our fiscal year 2003 budget request due to the
high priority of this program area and budget projections supporting
the field development phases of the cost-shared projects. The program
will also support at least five cost-shared, competitively-selected,
exploration projects initiated with industry to validate new technology
and find and confirm new geothermal resources within the United States.
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D
In fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $69,750,000 for Biomass/
Biorefinery Systems, a $16,255,000 decrease from our fiscal year 2003
budget request.
For the first time we have brought a diverse industry together and
produced a vision and R&D roadmap that has increased the level of
industry investment. This roadmap has allowed us to begin the process
of rebuilding the program and focusing on the most promising long-term
opportunities for these technologies. We have dramatically improved the
collaboration among federal agencies, especially the Department of
Agriculture (USDA). In addition, the Farm Bill provided direction and
funding to USDA to work with DOE in advancing biomass technologies. In
fact, the Farm Bill provides $14 million in fiscal year 2004 mandatory
biomass funding for the Department of Agriculture, which DOE's Biomass
Program will jointly manage at the direction of the Biomass Research
and Development Board established under the Biomass R&D Act of 2000.
The Department has focused its R&D efforts to high-priority, long-
term technologies, both within the Biomass Program and the entire EERE
portfolio. Earlier last year, the EERE bioenergy activities were
integrated into one office to help focus resources on a limited and
more coherent set of goals and objectives, increasing collaboration
with industry, reducing overhead expenses, and exploiting synergies
among similar activities in support of a future biorefinery industry.
This focus on a clear set of goals, substantial leveraging of research
funding with industry, and the transfer to industry of a number of
demonstration activities that industry should continue to pursue
without federal support has allowed a reduction in the need for funding
to achieve our goals.
Our fiscal year 2004 activities will include additional long-term,
high-risk R&D in thermochemical conversion in support of biorefinery
development. Efforts will continue on the testing of clean up and
conditioning technologies and catalysts needed for biomass gasifiers.
An industrial partner will validate the performance of an organism
capable of fermenting multiple biomass sugars for ethanol production.
Intergovernmental Activities
Intergovernmental Activities support the program mission by
providing consumers with improved choices for efficient and renewable
energy products. Intergovernmental Activities are managed as part of
the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program, which is comprised of
grant-related and technical assistance activities brought together
through the reorganization of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) in fiscal year 2002. Combining these activities will improve the
Department of Energy's effectiveness in deployment of efficient and
renewable energy technologies by streamlining administration of program
funding and consolidating management of competitive awards. The former
Renewable Implementation and Support activities have been given
stronger focus by inclusion in the Weatherization and Intergovernmental
Program.
The Intergovernmental Activities subprogram receives appropriations
from both the Energy and Water Development and the Interior and Related
Agencies subcommittees. Interior activities focus on energy efficiency
measures, while Energy and Water Development activities focus on
maintaining working relationships with international and Native
American tribal governments that inform and assist consumers with
renewable and efficient energy options.
In fiscal year 2004, we request $12,500,000 for Intergovernmental
Activities, $2.307 million less than our fiscal year 2003 budget
request.
--The International Renewable Energy Program promotes clean U.S.
exports, expanding the market of U.S. industries and reducing
the cost of energy to our trading customers while improving
their environment, reducing air and water pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions, and creating new jobs. In fiscal year
2004, we request $6.5 million for international activities (the
same level of funding as our fiscal year 2003 request).
--The Tribal Resources Program provides assistance to Native American
Tribes and Tribal entities in assessing energy resources,
comprehensive energy plan development, energy technology
training, and project development. In fiscal year 2004, we
request $6.0 million to assist Tribes in ways to use renewable
energy technologies on Tribal lands. Funds will be awarded
competitively.
The U.S. Country Studies Program has completed its mission of
showing how the United States could cost-effectively reduce global
greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency and renewable energy
exports and cooperative agreements with other countries. The funding
has been shifted to support Administration initiatives such as the
Energy Efficiency for Sustainable Development and the Global Village
Energy Partnership Initiatives announced at the World Summit for
Sustainable Development. DOE expects to leverage these investments with
loans and private investments. The goal is to attain significant energy
savings and environmental and quality-of-life improvements for the host
countries and their governments and citizens.
Electricity Reliability
Electricity Reliability provides funds for our Distributed Energy
and Electricity Reliability Program. This Program leads a national
effort to develop a flexible, smart, and secure energy system through
advanced technologies that improve capacity utilization of the
transmission and distribution system and through tools that provide
real-time information to system operators. This Program offers
solutions that bridge both the supply- and demand-side of the energy
equation and the need to upgrade our electric energy infrastructure.
The National Energy Policy and the follow-up National Transmission
Grid Study (NTGS) published in May 2002 identified critical needs to
modernize the nation's electric delivery system. This budget initiates
key responses to the 51 recommendations of the Grid Study including
bottleneck assessment, interaction with FERC on standard market design
and critical research and development needs. The fiscal year 2004
program consists of four main areas: High Temperature Superconductivity
(HTS), Transmission Reliability Research, Distribution and
Interconnection, Energy Storage Research, and Renewable Energy
Production Incentive.
In fiscal year 2004, we request $76,866,000 for Electricity
Reliability, $360,000 more than our fiscal year 2003 budget request.
For the HTS program, we request $47.838 million in fiscal year 2004
to develop applications of superconducting materials for the
electricity delivery system. High temperature superconducting materials
can be used to make wire conductors that are capable of carrying more
current than existing conductors while having virtually no electric
line losses of energy. The lack of electrical resistance of HTS
materials makes it possible to have super-efficient generators,
transformers, and transmission and distribution cables that reduce
energy losses by half while using equipment that is about one-half the
size of present electrical systems.
Transmission system operations have been made more complex by the
growing volume of wholesale power transactions. As a result, data
collection and visualization tools for utility planners and system
operators are required that boost diagnosis and response times and
increase the efficiency of market operations. The Transmission
Reliability activity has developed and installed prototype voltage and
frequency monitoring and visualization tools that allow transmission
operators to immediately recognize and correct system problems. Other
reliability tools are being installed, such as prototype satellite-
synchronized devices that afford operators a real-time view of system
conditions, provide information for reliable operation of the grid, and
enable more efficient operation of competitive electricity markets. In
fiscal year 2004, we request $10.720 million to expand R&D on grid
monitoring, data collection, and visualization tools.
The Transmission Reliability R&D subprogram request is proposing a
new initiative in fiscal year 2004--the National Transmission
Infrastructure (NTI) Initiative, with requested funding of $3.0
million. This initiative responds to the NTGS. The NTI Initiative
addresses the technical and market-related recommendations in the NTGS
that call specifically for DOE actions. Actions include ``national-
interest'' transmission lines assessment, and advanced technologies for
relief of transmission congestion, including sensors, monitoring and
control for real time operation, advanced conductors, analysis of new
system configurations and dynamics, and demand response. In addition,
increased emphasis will be placed on field validation and testing and
on providing more technical assistance to states and regions on topics
such as regional resource and transmission planning.
Interconnection, communications, and control systems are needed to
allow for a more ``plug & play'' design that can revolutionize energy
markets and create new products and services for industrial,
commercial, and governmental consumers who are interested in hassle-
free distributed energy solutions. The Distribution and Interconnection
(formerly DER Electric Systems Integration) activity is developing
standards, conducting tests, and performing analysis for the
interconnection and integration of distributed energy technologies for
customers and electric distribution systems. It includes activities to
develop the microgrid concept, to analyze the impact of high levels of
penetration of distributed energy devices on the distribution system,
and to address technical, institutional, and regulatory barriers to the
expanded use of distributed energy resources. In fiscal year 2004, we
request $7.249 million for this Subprogram.
The Energy Storage Research activity addresses important challenges
in the efficient operations of electric generation, transmission, and
distribution systems. As a peak shaving tool during times of
transmission overload, or during price peaks, energy storage allows
more efficient allocation of energy resources without necessarily
producing additional emissions. Energy storage systems can be used to
provide back-up power and power quality support to consumers,
potentially saving billions of dollars in downtime costs, damaged
equipment, and disrupted operations. In fiscal year 2004, we request
$5.0 million for Energy Storage Research activities to support higher
priority Transmission Reliability research and development, and take
advantage of potential synergies with expected developments under the
Vehicle Battery Program, which significantly increased its funding
request for fiscal year 2004.
The Renewable Energy Production Incentive Program stimulates
electricity production from renewable sources owned by States or
smaller private sector groups. In fiscal year 2004, we request $4.0
million, the same funding level as our fiscal year 2003 budget request.
Departmental Energy Management Program (DEMP)
DEMP targets services at DOE facilities to improve energy and water
efficiency, promote renewable energy use, and manage utility costs in
facilities and operations. In fiscal year 2004, we request $2.3 million
for DEMP activities, $700,000 less than our fiscal year 2003 budget
request. DEMP will audit facilities to identify energy conservation
opportunities; provide funding for best practices identification and
dissemination; and accomplish energy conservation retrofits through
direct funding and alternative financing.
National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI)
In response to the President's commitment of the United States to
develop a sensible, science-based approach to the issue of climate
change, facilitate progress toward achieving climate change goals,
near-term and long-term, and implement the President's National Climate
Change Technology Initiative, the Department has requested in fiscal
year 2004 a total of $40 million for the NCCTI Competitive Solicitation
program. Funding is requested in four R&D program accounts, as follows:
Energy and Water Development: EERE (Energy Supply--$15 million) and NE
(Energy Supply--$2.3 million); and Interior and Related Agencies: EERE
(Energy Conservation--$9.5 million) and FE (Fossil Energy R&D--$13.2
million).
These funds will be used to support a NCCTI competitive
solicitation aimed at exploring concepts, technologies and technical
approaches that could, if successful, contribute in significant ways
to: (a) future reductions in or avoidances of greenhouse gas emissions;
(b) greenhouse gas capture and sequestration (permanent storage); (c)
capture and conversion of greenhouse gases to beneficial use; or (d)
enhanced monitoring and measurement of greenhouse gas emissions,
inventories and fluxes in a variety of settings.
The NCCTI competitive solicitation is intended to spur innovation
and accelerate technical progress on climate change technology
development. The competitively selected research will complement DOE's
existing portfolio of climate change-related R&D activities, and will
be consistent with their missions, goals and objectives. The Climate
Change Technology Program will manage the NCCTI competitive
solicitation.
Facilities and Infrastructure
The Facilities and Infrastructure budget addresses capital
investments at two DOE laboratory sites: the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL), and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).
NREL is the Nation's premier laboratory for renewable energy R&D.
It also works to improve energy efficiency, advance related science and
engineering, and facilities technology commercialization. In fiscal
year 2004, we request $4.2 million for operating expenses.
For ORNL in fiscal year 2004, we request $750,000 to complete the
design of a new multistory building of approximately 52,000 square feet
to provide facilities for EERE R&D activities. This building will be a
state-of-the-art facility designed to operate as a demonstration of
energy efficiency technology. Energy Star certification will be sought
for applicable portions of the building.
Fiscal year 2004 funding is requested to award the Architectural-
Engineering contract for the project design and to provide project
management. This budget provides half of the requested amount for
Project Engineering and Design. Because industry will directly benefit
from this facility, we are requiring 50 percent industry cost share for
all phases of the project, including building design, as recommended in
the National Transmission Grid Study. The project also is consistent
with the ORNL Strategic Facilities Plan and complementary to the
Facilities Revitalization Project of the DOE-ORNL Office of Science
initiative to modernize their national laboratories.
Program Direction
Program Direction provides the federal staffing resources as well
as associated properties, equipment, supplies and materials required
for supporting the responsive management and oversight of programs.
Program Direction also funds support service contractors, equipment,
travel, and crosscutting activities.
In fiscal year 2004, we request $16.577 million, $390,000 more than
our fiscal year 2003 budget request.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, we welcome the challenge
and the opportunity to play a vital role in this Nation's energy future
and to support our national security.
This completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Magwood, you are last, but not least.
Congratulations on the nuclear work. And we finally got some
good funding in some big areas this year. It took about 3
years, but we are there now. Proceed to give us a summary, and
your statement will be made a part of the record.
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD, IV, DIRECTOR
Mr. Magwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an exciting
year to be here before you speaking about the nuclear energy
program. As you have observed, we have gone through a difficult
time over the years. After many years of planning and many
years of talking to our stakeholders in the research community,
it is a pleasure to be here with a budget that really lays the
groundwork for the future.
The programs proposed in our budget reflect the
administration's commitment to nuclear energy and one that is
interested in doing what is necessary to get new nuclear
technologies deployed in the United States and around the
world. The salient change in our fiscal year 2004 budget
request from previous years is the fact that we are now in the
process, as Senator Craig mentioned, of integrating the Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory as part of
our nuclear family. We are in the process of planning for the
future of this laboratory and working with other labs across
the country. I expect INEEL to become the center for our
overall efforts to develop advanced nuclear reactor and fuel
treatment technologies.
ADVANCED FUEL CYCLE INITIATIVE
One of the activities at INEEL, in association with many
other labs that we expect to see grow over the years, is our
budget proposal for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI)
that you mentioned earlier. With the $63 million proposed in
fiscal year 2004, this is one of the Secretary's capstone
initiatives. Through this major research program, we will
develop proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel treatment and
transmutation technologies that can reduce the volume and
toxicity of spent fuel. We think this is a very important
objective.
There are many unique aspects of this program. It involves
many of our national laboratories in a comprehensive and
integrated fashion. It brings universities, particularly the
University of Nevada-Las Vegas and Idaho State University, as
key R&D partners. Most importantly, it leverages the experience
and expertise of our international partners. Already, simply
through signing cooperative agreements, we have gained $100
million worth of research data.
Senator Domenici. What is this on and from whom?
Mr. Magwood. Working with our international partners
through agreements we signed with France and Korea and most
recently the European Union, we have gained access on----
Senator Domenici. On what subject?
Mr. Magwood. Advanced fuel cycles.
Senator Domenici. Good.
Mr. Magwood. Over $100 million worth of data has been
available. This is very important.
GENERATION IV NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS
For AFCI to be successful, however, it is important that we
move forward with Generation IV nuclear power systems. Two
years ago, when we launched the Generation IV program to
develop advanced reactor technologies, we were able to reach
out to the international community. We now have a total of 10
countries in the Generation IV international forum, including
the United Kingdom, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan,
Republic of Korea, Republic of South Africa, Switzerland and,
of course, the United States working together on advanced
technologies.
The work of the forum has been very intensive and very
cooperative. We are very pleased with what we have been able to
accomplish. The level of international cooperation has been
extraordinary. As an example, a French scientist was assigned
to the INEEL for a year to help formulate the Generation IV
technology road map. More recently, just this week, in fact,
the U.K. Department of Trade and Industry has assigned one of
its senior officials, Ms. Helen Wiser, to work at the
Department of Energy for the next 2 years. I am pleased to say
that she is here with me today to see her first Senate hearing
in the United States.
Last year, at a meeting in Japan, the Generation IV
National Forum presented Secretary Abraham and other senior
officials with the completed technology road map that
identifies six important technologies for the future. One of
these technologies, the Very High Temperature Reactor, is a
technology that we are very interested in exploring. We believe
that this technology could be the future source of cost-
effective, commercial-scale production of hydrogen, the power
of a growing economy, without emitting greenhouse gases and
other pollutants.
NUCLEAR HYDROGEN INITIATIVE
That brings me to our other major new initiative, the
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, which is part of the National
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative announced by President Bush. Through
this program, we expect to develop and demonstrate by 2007 new
technology that can produce hydrogen that could in the future
be coupled with Generation IV nuclear power systems. This is
very challenging work, but it is work that we believe can and
must be done.
NUCLEAR POWER 2010
Finally, it was around this time last year that Secretary
Abraham announced the Nuclear Power 2010 Program. This effort
is aimed at paving the way for the construction of new nuclear
power plants by the end of the decade. We have started
cooperative cost-share projects with three utility companies,
Entergy, Exelon, and Dominion Resources, to demonstrate the
early site-permitting process. We expect that this joint
government-industry effort will result in three applications to
the NRC this summer to obtain permits for sites operated by our
R&D industry partners.
In 2004, we will work with industry to respond to NRC
questions as these applications achieve successful conclusion
by 2005. While our tactical and regulatory demonstration work
is proceeding well, it is clear that the business and financial
issues facing prospective builders of nuclear power plants are
the biggest hurdles that need to be overcome. This was
highlighted by an independent study commission by the
Department from Scully Capital last year. This financial
advisory firm found that addressing key financial and business
risks associated with building new plants is essential if we
are going to see new plants in this country. We are continuing
to discuss these risks with industry and hope to make future
suggestions as to how those risks can be mitigated.
PREPARED STATEMENT
With that, I will keep my oral remarks brief and look
forward to your questions.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William D. Magwood, IV
Mr. Chairman, Senator Reid, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is
a pleasure to be here to discuss the fiscal year 2004 budget submission
for DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.
Over the last 30 years, nuclear power has risen to become the
second most important source of electric energy in the United States
and at the same time, the most operationally economic. The benefits of
nuclear power as a clean, reliable and affordable source of energy are
a key to the economic and environmental underpinnings of this Nation. A
central mission of the Department's nuclear energy research program is
to help enhance the basic technology and, through some of the most
advanced civilian technology research conducted today, chart a course
to the next leap in technology. In fiscal year 2004, we are proposing a
$388 million investment in nuclear research and development and for the
Nation's nuclear science, technology and education infrastructure, a 6
percent increase over the current year appropriation.
This budget request responds to the President's priorities to
deploy new generation capacity to fortify U.S. energy independence and
security while making significant improvements in environmental
quality. It builds on the important work started over the last 2 years
to deploy new nuclear plants in the United States by the end of the
decade, to develop advanced, next generation nuclear technology, to
strengthen our Nation's nuclear education infrastructure, and it
proposes exciting new priorities.
In fiscal year 2004, we propose to launch the Nuclear Hydrogen
Initiative to use high temperature nuclear energy systems for clean
hydrogen production as part of the President's Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative. We are also proposing the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
with research aimed at developing proliferation-resistant fuel
treatment and fuel cycle technologies that can reduce the volume and
toxicity of commercial spent nuclear fuel and maximize energy from
nuclear fuel.
During fiscal year 2002, we pursued significant management reforms
in order to implement the President's Management Agenda (PMA),
including a major reorganization to better reflect the Administration's
priorities, improve overall management and reduce the number of primary
organizational units from eight to three. To assure overall
accountability, PMA performance measures were cascaded from the
Director through our Associate Directors to the staff. We also placed
great emphasis on developing meaningful R&D investment criteria and
applying the criteria to our nuclear research initiatives. The nuclear
program successfully recruited and hired new junior professional staff
and we are working to put to new senior management team in place at the
Idaho Operations Office, who will oversee the Department's activities
at the INEEL and lead the continuing transition of this laboratory back
to its nuclear research roots.
The NE budget request also supports the infrastructure for
production of medical research isotopes, space and national security
power systems, and the site and security infrastructure for Argonne
National Laboratory-West in Idaho. I will now provide you more detail
on our nuclear R&D initiatives and the linkages between them.
advanced fuel cycle initiative
Of the issues affecting future expansion of nuclear energy in the
United States and worldwide, none is more important or more difficult
than that of dealing effectively with spent nuclear fuel. After a long
and difficult process, the country is moving forward with a geologic
repository, and we are on schedule to submit a license application to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the end of 2004.
With these successes, we are able to pursue research that can
optimize the use of the first repository and possibly reduce the need
for future repositories. As one of the Secretary's capstones, the
fiscal year 2004 Budget proposes an aggressive research and
demonstration program--the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative--with an
investment of $63 million in fiscal year 2004 to explore advanced,
proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel treatment and transmutation
technologies that can reduce volume and toxicity of spent nuclear fuel
for a geologic repository. If successful, these same technologies offer
benefits of enhancing national security by reducing inventories of
commercially-generated plutonium and enhancing energy independence by
recovering the energy value contained in spent nuclear fuel.
The Department is proposing a research program leading to
demonstrate proliferation-resistant fuel treatment technologies to
reduce the volume and radioactivity of high level waste, and the
development of advanced fuels that would enable consumption of
plutonium using existing light water reactors or advanced reactors.
With the President's request, the Department will continue work toward
demonstration of proliferation-resistant fuel treatment technology and
continue design of transmutation fuels for future use with current
reactor technologies.
For the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative to be successful, advanced
fuel treatment and transmutation research and development must be
integrated with the development of Generation IV nuclear energy
systems, particularly with those reactor technologies that can produce
very high energy neutrons that would be needed to transmute a wide
variety of toxic radioactive species. To support this goal, the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative will develop the advanced proliferation
resistant fuels and fuel cycle systems for Generation IV reactors.
generation iv nuclear energy systems
Two years ago, we launched the Generation IV program to develop
advanced reactor technologies for commercial deployment after 2010 but
before 2030. These advanced reactors offer significant advances in
sustainability, proliferation-resistance, physical protection, safety
and economics. Development of these reactors is being pursued by the
Generation IV International Forum, a group of ten leading nuclear
nations (United Kingdom, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan,
Republic of Korea, Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, and the
United States), which last year selected six promising technologies for
joint research, development, and demonstration. While the Department
has not yet decided upon which of these technologies it will eventually
focus, all of the technologies are of considerable interest. The six
innovative, next-generation technologies include two gas-cooled
reactors, one water-cooled reactor, two liquid-metal-cooled reactors,
and a molten salt-based reactor concept.
Key research objectives for these technologies will include such
activities as demonstrating advanced fuels and materials. The goal of
the initiative is to resolve the fundamental research and development
issues necessary to establish the viability of these concepts. By
successfully addressing the fundamental research and development
issues, the concepts are highly likely to attract future private sector
sponsorship and ultimate commercialization. In fiscal year 2003 and
fiscal year 2004, the Department will establish international
partnering agreements to guide joint research and begin research and
development on several of the reactor concepts, including very high
temperature reactors that would support cost-effective production of
hydrogen.
nuclear hydrogen initiative
Generation IV is closely linked to our new Nuclear Hydrogen
Initiative, aimed at demonstrating economic commercial-scale hydrogen
production using nuclear energy. Today, through electrolysis, we can
convert water to hydrogen using electricity but we believe that for the
future, very high temperature reactors coupled with thermo-chemical
water splitting processes offer a more efficient technology for
production of large quantities of hydrogen, without release of
greenhouse gases.
The hydrogen initiative grew out of the success of our Nuclear
Energy Research Initiative, in particular, two investigator-initiated
projects that identified a number of advanced reactor concepts capable
of producing large quantities of hydrogen with high efficiency and low
cost. Since then, we have awarded three additional NERI projects to
study nuclear production of hydrogen. Beginning this year and under the
international component of NERI (I-NERI), we are working in cooperation
with Commissariat d'Energie Atomique (CEA) on a three-year effort to
develop laboratory scale demonstration of the thermo-chemical water
splitting process.
The funds provided in fiscal year 2003 will allow us to accelerate
the Nuclear Hydrogen Technology Roadmap so that by fiscal year 2004, we
would begin implementing the research and development that is defined
by the roadmap. We would also continue exploring laboratory scale
demonstration of some of the key processes involved in nuclear hydrogen
production, such as other thermo-chemical water splitting processes or
high temperature electrolysis as well as development of high
temperature heat exchangers.
nuclear power 2010
The President's budget supports continuation of Nuclear Power 2010
in fiscal year 2004 to demonstrate, in cost-shared cooperation with
industry, key regulatory processes associated with licensing and
building new nuclear plants in the United States by the end of the
decade. As concluded in a business case study conducted in 2002 by
financial advisory firm Scully Capital, addressing key financial and
business risks associated with building and licensing the first few
nuclear plants is essential to proceeding with new nuclear plants in
the United States.
In fiscal year 2004, the requested funds will continue to support
the activities associated with submitting and achieving Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval of early site permits and
development of Combined Construction and Operating License
applications.
Last year, the Department initiated cooperative cost shared
projects with three generating companies--Entergy in Mississippi,
Dominion in Virginia, and Exelon in Illinois, to demonstrate the new
regulatory process for siting new nuclear power plants. These companies
are pursuing applications for Early Site Permits for new plants at
sites where they currently operate nuclear power plants--at Entergy's
Grand Gulf site, Dominion's North Anna site, and at Exelon's Clinton
site. The Early Site Permits will be submitted to the NRC by the end of
this fiscal year and in fiscal year 2004, we will continue our support
of these regulatory demonstration projects to achieve successful NRC
staff review and approval of the siting application in 2005.
Key to the deployment of new nuclear power plants, besides a viable
site, is selection of a nuclear power plant design and utility
application for a combined Construction and Operating License from the
NRC. In fiscal year 2003, the Department will solicit and award
industry cost-shared projects to implement activities to achieve
deployment of new nuclear power plants. This effort includes the
necessary analysis and planning for technology selection and project
cost determination, additional siting activities as appropriate,
advanced reactor development and certification, and demonstration of
the combined construction and operating licensing process.
university reactor fuel assistance and support
The Department sponsors the University Reactor Fuel Assistance and
Support initiative, which supports the enhancement of the U.S. nuclear
science and technology educational infrastructure. The need for trained
and qualified nuclear scientists has not diminished over the years, and
in fact, because of increasing retirements in the nuclear field, demand
today exceeds supply.
We are very pleased that the President's budget includes $18.5
million for this program for fellowships, scholarships, nuclear
engineering research, and for critical support to university research
reactors. In fiscal year 2002, the Department launched the Innovations
in Nuclear Infrastructure and Education program, encouraging
universities to form ground-breaking partnerships with national labs,
the private sector, and other universities to strengthen nuclear
engineering education and optimize the use of research reactors. In
fiscal year 2002, DOE issued awards to four consortia of universities
and their partners. In fiscal year 2003, DOE will be able to support an
additional award and will continue support for this program in fiscal
year 2004.
radiological facilities management
This budget request also includes $63 million in funds to maintain
critical research, isotope and space and national security power
systems facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, and Brookhaven
National Laboratory in a safe, secure, and cost effective manner to
support national priorities.
The fiscal year 2004 budget request also includes $13 million in
funds transferred from the National Nuclear Security Administration to
continue the Uranium-233 project at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This
project is aimed at stabilizing materials left over from the Cold War
to address a Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board recommendation,
while extracting isotopes from the uranium that are needed for very
promising medical research.
ineel--doe's command center for nuclear r&d
Finally, this budget supports the Secretary's realignment of the
mission of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
to focus the future of the site on nuclear research and development. As
the Department's leading center of nuclear research and development,
this laboratory is the ``command center'' for our efforts to develop
advanced reactor and fuel cycle technologies, including development of
space nuclear power and propulsion technologies.
While the nuclear energy program involves the collective talents of
universities, the private sector, international partners, and our
national laboratories--Argonne, Los Alamos, Sandia, and Oak Ridge among
them--the rebuilding of the Departments' nuclear program underway today
would not be possible without the dedicated scientists, engineers and
supporting staff of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory.
Clearly, environmental cleanup will remain a major focus of the
Department for the near-term but real progress is being made that will
clear the way for expansion of nuclear research and development. With
this year's budget, $110 million has been transferred from the
environmental cleanup program to the Department's nuclear program to
manage laboratory infrastructure and security.
This year's budget request combines the infrastructure for the
INEEL previously funded by the Office of Environmental Management, for
the Test Reactor Area landlord, and for the infrastructure of Argonne
National Laboratory West under the Idaho Facilities Management program.
Similarly, the Safeguards and Security program, combines the security
funds INEEL and Argonne-West, into a single program. With significantly
challenges to security since September 11th, we are very pleased that
our current-year appropriation is substantially higher than last year
and that the fiscal year 2004 request, at $54 million, is about 13
percent higher than this year.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
Senator Domenici. I have a series of written questions
which we will submit. We would appreciate your answering them
as soon as you can.
And we would like to just talk with you for a little while
here. Dr. Orbach, about 5 years ago, a number of science
initiatives directed at the lagging activities of the United
States in nuclear energy and nuclear activities were started by
this subcommittee. One of the least noticed but most important
is the study, which you were in charge of, to evaluate the low-
level radiation and its actual effects rather than the formula-
extracted radiation expectations that have been in existence
for a long time using linear projections.
Can you talk about that study for a minute? How is it
going? And are you certain that it is moving ahead such that
when we are finished, those who have never wanted this done and
always thought we should stay stuck on that linear formula will
be satisfied that it is done neutrally by peer excellent
scientists?
LOW-LEVEL RADIATION
Dr. Orbach. Yes, we currently have 53 research projects at
laboratories and universities on low-level radiation. We have
learned already that your last comment is correct, namely that
the extrapolation from the high-end radiation to low doses
simply is not accurate, does not work, and misses the essential
biology. We found already in our probes and our research
programs that there are intercellular activities that take
place. One cell influences another. So the conventional idea
that radiation would act only on the DNA of a particular cell
simply does not hold up at these low levels. We have been able
to look at adaptive responses, how cells adapt to radiation,
bystander effects, how cells adjacent to cells that suffer
radiation damage are affected. Individual genetic responses to
radiation at this level are very different, and there may well
be a genetic difference among individuals. We are
mathematically modeling radiation risk, as well.
We have received about 50 proposals for new research that
will be peer reviewed later this spring. New emphasis for this
research is to look at whole systems, rather than single cells.
This peer review process will be done fairly and independently.
As a consequence, those projects selected will be on the basis
of scientific merit alone.
Senator Domenici. But, Doctor, while I appreciate your
knowledge on it and the fact that it is very widespread and
exciting, on the other hand, the importance of this is to
determine at a point in time, sometime, whether or not that
formula is the right one to be using for low-level radiation
doses.
As you know, that formula has supplied the information for
nigh on decades now as to what the negative effect might be of
a certain dosage of low level radiation. The consequence of
that might not seem like much, as we discuss here, but it is
generally perceived as dramatic in America.
It determines how much cement you have to put on a site
that has once been exposed to low level radiation, so there is
no fear on the other side of it. It establishes cleanup
standards for all of the waste sites, because there has been
such enormous fear that if that formula has been used and what
we have done by way of spending money and the like to assure
safety is rather extravagant even to an undisciplined eye and
ear and mind, and now we have to kind of prove it over the
years or we have the constant excessive costs that are
attributable to the residue of nuclear activity.
So where are we in that regard? Five more years? Ten more
years? Will we come to some finality, as I have described it
here?
Dr. Orbach. I believe we will achieve a finality. I would
like to provide for the record our best estimate of when we
might be able to achieve that. What we have already discovered
is what you have just stated, namely that the extrapolation is
not an accurate way of describing the effects of low-level
doses of radiation. To make that quantitative into standards of
the sort you described, I would----
Senator Domenici. It would be awhile.
Dr. Orbach [continuing]. Need to look at it, and I will
respond back to you with that.
[The information follows:]
Low Dose Radiation Research Program
The Low Dose Radiation Research Program has the challenge of
conducting research that will inform the development of future national
radiation risk policy for the public and the workplace. The Program has
challenged scientists to quantify and understand the mechanisms of
molecular and cellular responses to low dose exposures to radiation,
currently 0.1 Gee (10 rads) or less, doses well below those previously
studied using older, less sensitive research tools. Indeed, for the
first time, some of our scientists have actually been conducting
research at radiation doses that overlap or approach the maximum
allowable radiation doses above background for the public (100 mrem/
year above background) or for nuclear workers (500 mrem/year above
background).
Mathematical models are, and will continue to be, used to predict
health risks from low doses of radiation by ``integrating'' information
obtained from human epidemiologic studies and from laboratory research.
Beginning in 1999, we asked an initially skeptical research community
to study biological effects at very low doses. They have risen to the
challenge with increasingly important and relevant ideas submitted and
progress made each year. Most scientists in the field believe that we
still do not know enough about the biological consequences of low dose
radiation exposure to be able to completely model human health risk.
However, this year the Low Dose Program is challenging scientists in
the risk modeling community to begin a systematic evaluation of how the
new data from research in this program can (or cannot) be used in new
mathematical models that estimate the health risks of low dose
radiation exposure. The program issued a call for new research, DOE
Notice 03-20, on February 19, 2003, that builds on our previous
research and is designed to jump start this process of biologically-
based risk modeling. This exciting new research opportunity will also
provide valuable feedback on additional laboratory research that is
needed to make biologically-based risk modeling a reality.
Our best estimate of the time required to reach sufficient
understanding of the biological consequences of low dose radiation
exposures to resolve the uncertainty and controversy surrounding the
use of the linear no-threshold model is based on current budget levels,
progress we have made to date, and the anticipated progress of current
and future research. The new modeling research that will be funded
later this year will require approximately 1\1/2\ to 2 years to
complete. The results of this research will lead to new laboratory-
based research aimed to fill remaining critical gaps in the information
needed to develop the new biologically-based risk models for radiation
exposure, a process that typically takes 3 years. Finally, results of
this research will again be used to develop improved biologically-based
risk models. Under current levels of funding, we estimate a total of 6
to 7 years is required to accomplish the research described above.
Given budget uncertainties as well as the uncertainties of
research, progress could be somewhat faster or slower. As scientists,
we never know if the next experiment will yield an unexpected
breakthrough. If one or more critical breakthroughs occur over the next
few years, progress could certainly be faster. At the same time, we
cannot know for certain prior to the completion of ongoing and planned
research if additional research will be necessary. If another round of
laboratory research and modeling is required at the end of the process
described above, it could, instead, be closer to 10 years before we
have a definitive answer. We are certainly encouraged by progress that
has been made to date and anxiously await the research results that
will be forthcoming in the future.
Senator Domenici. I would like to know that. And, sir, I
would also like to know that for those who have complained
about it not being the right way to do it--and I would like to
hope that every step of the way you have gone to the scientific
community and attempted to get the right answer. See, this is
the real Achilles heel for the anti-nuclear people. The anti-
nuclear people do not want this study to succeed, because so
long as that formula is used, it is enormously expensive to do
anything that has low-level radiation.
And if it is wrong, which most scientists say it is, we
ought to conclude that it is. So some would like you not to
succeed. And I urge you, as the head person, to be aware of
that and make sure that it is succeeding.
Dr. Orbach. I commit myself to that. This is a study based
solely on the science, on the quality of the science. And the
judgments will be on that basis alone.
Senator Domenici. Now you have another part of the
science--Senator, would you like to participate? Do you want to
make an opening statement or ask questions?
Senator Dorgan. No. I am just listening to you. As soon as
you are finished, I will ask some questions. But why do you not
proceed?
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
NANOSCIENCES
You have another very exciting activity within your domain
of the nanoscience centers. Now there is no question that
scientists that know, obviously including the great Dr. Davis
who you have alluded to from Rice University, I believe, that
got the Nobel because of research on nanoscience--and that was
in the very early stages, very early determinations. But they
have all concluded that this is something very fundamental in
terms of its capacity to offer new and exciting things to be
done and ways to do things going beyond the atomic structure
that we currently assume is part of everything. We go inside of
it, which is the nano part.
Now we have five centers. One is in my State, a combination
of Sandia, Los Alamos, an Air Force laboratory? Then you have
four more?
Dr. Orbach. Yes.
Senator Domenici. Now are you in charge of those centers,
or how are they being managed?
Dr. Orbach. Yes, my office is in charge of those centers.
They are administered through the Basic Energy Sciences Program
within the Office of Science. All five of those centers were
accomplished through, again, a peer review process. Each of
them have held open workshops of the order of 400 scientists
coming to each of the workshops. We have just had a very large
meeting last week in Washington to talk about the initiatives.
Each of the five, although, obviously, there has to be
overlap, because some of the fundamentals are similar, choose
their own areas of expertise where they can make the greatest
contribution. The two laboratories in your State, for example,
will be looking at the nano electronics area. This is because
of the extraordinary expertise that both Los Alamos and Sandia
have in that area. They will be looking not only at
electronics, but also photonics, at the nano scale.
So what we do is to build on the local strength of the
laboratories to focus on specific areas of interest. The Luhan
Center at Los Alamos is now the largest spallation source for
neutrons in the United States, and that is closely coupled to
the nanotechnology initiative. So we can do, not only
statistics, but also dynamics in situ while the materials are
being grown.
We also are pursuing similar approaches using our light
sources, or the spallation neutron source that is under
construction at Oak Ridge.
So each of the centers has its own flavor and its own
focus. This will give the United States leverage over any other
country in the world because, where it is true that each
country is investing in what I call table-top nanotechnology,
the United States is using very large facilities in intimate
relationship to the nanotechnology growth and determination,
physical property determination, centers so that, as we grow
them, we can study their properties.
This is something that no other country will have access to
on their own soil and will give, we believe, American
scientists and engineers and our companies a great advantage.
Senator Domenici. And those centers are funded, albeit in
small amounts, in this budget.
Dr. Orbach. Yes, the three centers are funded for
construction, including the one in New Mexico. The other two
centers are either in the engineering design stage at
Brookhaven National Laboratory, or we have an arrangement with
the State of Illinois where they will build a building at
Argonne and we will provide the equipment.
So the latter two are in the initial stages. By 2008 all
five laboratories are expected to be up and running.
Senator Domenici. They had a meeting here, did they not,
pretty recently, the nanoscientists?
Dr. Orbach. Yes, indeed.
Senator Domenici. I was there.
Dr. Orbach. I think you were one of the principal
spokesmen.
Senator Domenici. Let me ask, on the other part of little
things, microengineering, is that a specialty within the
Department, or are those things being done just by the
laboratories on microengineering or micromachines?
MICROMACHINING
Dr. Orbach. The micromachining is an integral part of this.
It is a way of getting down to the nano scale.
Senator Domenici. Yes. I understand.
Dr. Orbach. It is being funded by ourselves, as well, yes.
Senator Domenici. Have you seen a micromachine put on a
chip?
Dr. Orbach. I have seen the micromachines producing chips.
I do not think I have seen one on a chip. That is wonderful.
Senator Domenici. Have you seen--you have not seen a micro
engine working on a chip?
Dr. Orbach. Oh, yes, indeed. You can produce little motors
now at the micron level or submicron level, which is very
exciting.
Senator Domenici. And you know how you have a chip now that
has all the different things we talk about being on there?
Micromachines are now so small and so controlled that you take
a piece of material, much like the foundation of a chip, and
you put on it scores and scores of little, tiny engines. And
they are called microengines. And when they put the proper
machinery on it to expand the size, you can actually watch
these little, tiny, tiny machines work. They work just like a
turbine, in and out. And they are trying to figure out in due
course what you will use them for.
Dr. Orbach. Oh, these have phenomenal applications. For
example, in medicine----
Senator Domenici. Right.
Dr. Orbach [continuing]. These machines can be placed
inside the body at the cellular level.
Senator Domenici. Right.
Dr. Orbach. Very exciting.
Senator Domenici. And you may properly instruct the machine
so that, for instance, they will remove the plaque in your
heart instead of having surgery. At least they are thinking
about that kind of thing.
Let me complete just two more questions, and then move to
nuclear. And then I will yield to the Senator.
Let us talk about nuclear for a minute, one more with you.
Who is in charge more or less of moving ahead to see that the
United States is not, on the one hand, moving with a hydrogen
engine and on the other hand leaving us without a way to make
hydrogen in large quantities? We do not find hydrogen around.
We have to go make it.
And my understanding is, right now, there are only a couple
ways to make it. One is natural gas. And we surely would not
want to do that, I would not think. By creating huge new uses,
there is going to be a shortage of natural gas soon. And the
other would be some kind of nuclear reactors. Is that your
area, or your area, or whose?
HYDROGEN
Mr. Garman. Actually, we are working on it together.
Senator Domenici. Who is together?
Mr. Garman. In the Department of Energy, the Office of
Science, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
the Office of Nuclear Energy, and the Office of Fossil Energy
are all working together in a coordinated way. We have, in
fact, been producing what we call our hydrogen posture plan,
which is a way to describe to the Congress and the world
precisely how we are working together to tackle some of the
daunting technological challenges that we face, not only in
production, but in storage.
There is no one entity in the Department that should do
that. We do hydrogen, but we depend on the work in his lab, for
instance, to find a breakthrough in a hydride material to solve
a storage problem. So we are going to work very closely
together on all of these issues.
Senator Domenici. Well, it should not surprise you, if we
do an energy bill, and we are well on the way to having one
written, we are surely going to have a major section on the
research and development of the car engine and whatever the
United States is going to need to produce the hydrogen in the
future.
Senator Dorgan. Senator, would you mind if I could ask a
question about that?
Senator Domenici. Go ahead.
Senator Dorgan. I have to be upstairs at 3:30.
Senator Domenici. Sure.
Senator Dorgan. If I would be able to ask a question
following up on the one you just asked----
Senator Domenici. Go ahead.
Senator Dorgan [continuing]. And then perhaps one of Dr.
Orbach, as well.
The issue of hydrogen production is one in which you can
produce hydrogen from natural gas. You can also produce
hydrogen from nuclear. But hydrogen is ubiquitous. It is
everywhere. You can produce hydrogen through electrolysis by
separating the hydrogen and oxygen in water. In fact, this past
weekend I rode on a commercial bus that was on the city streets
of a city out west that was a fuel cell bus being powered by
hydrogen. The supply of hydrogen on a demonstration basis came
from several different sources; one from solar energy, second
from electrolysis, third from natural gas. And there are many
other ways to produce hydrogen, as well.
But Mr. Garman is quite correct, that we need to evaluate
both production, transportation, and storage, all of which are
important in moving towards this area.
And I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that stationary engines
are important, as well as the issue of how to use fuel cells to
power vehicles. And I am really anxious to work with you on
this. I think we can make a real difference, both on the Energy
Committee and also on the Appropriations Subcommittee dealing
with these issues.
Senator Domenici. We will.
Senator Dorgan. The President has put his administration on
course in support of this, which I think is very important. I
have indicated I think it is timid in terms of funding, but I
do not mean that as a heavy criticism, because it is no small
feat to have this administration say, ``Let us move in this
direction.'' I just want to make that point, because I am very
excited about this and want to work with Mr. Garman and you and
others on it.
Can I just ask a question about the funding of other
renewables? I asked you the question the other day, Mr. Garman,
and indicated my concern about reduction in funding of biomass,
level funding or slightly reduced funding in solar, wind, and
some other areas. Has the decision to move toward fuel cells or
a hydrogen-based economy meant that you have had to reduce what
otherwise would have been provided for other renewables?
OTHER RENEWABLES
Mr. Garman. No, sir. I do not believe it has. We looked at
each of these programs independently. After you apply the
congressionally-mandated reductions to the 2003 levels, funding
for solar is down $4.1 million. But we still have $80 million
to work with. Funding for wind is down $700,000. So we still
have a very robust request in this area. In hydropower, funding
is actually up a couple million dollars. And in geothermal
funding, it is down $3.4 million. But again, we still have a
robust $25.5 million program to work with.
We do have a significant reduction in the biomass program
of some $17 million in this account. That is substantial. We
think that with the availability of the Department of
Agriculture money, which was not available to us before, and
the fact that we are revamping and restructuring this program
to achieve greater results with the money we have, we have a
very strong and vibrant biomass program. The biomass program is
emerging to be the strongest it has been in years.
Senator Dorgan. Well, some of us want to watch those
renewable programs carefully. I am pleased you are there. I
have a lot of confidence in your ability.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Garman came out to North Dakota and spoke
to a wind energy conference. Seven hundred and fifty people
showed up at a wind energy conference. They are very, very
interested in the possibilities there.
So, Mr. Garman, I look forward to working with you on a
range of these issues.
I would like to ask Dr. Orbach, you were at Riverside, as I
recall----
Dr. Orbach. Yes.
Senator Dorgan [continuing]. Prior to this appointment. And
we have talked previously about micro and nanotechnologies. I
note the five centers. And I note the granting process that you
are involved in with grant funds. You are well aware of my
concern about where the grants in this country go from the
Federal Government. We have a process that is kind of a
perpetual process of renewal. Those large institutions that get
the grants will always get the grants, because they are the
major part of the peer review of who is going to get grants in
the future.
If you take California, Texas, Massachusetts, and New York
and take a look at the amount of research money that goes from
the largest researcher in the world, that is, the Federal
Government, to those States, it predicts where future economic
opportunities and future centers of excellence will be. And so
I am very concerned about making sure that the great talents in
the rest of the country are put to use on micro and
nanotechnologies, as we proceed. And I know you are familiar
with that, given the work that you were interested in at
Riverside. I hope that you will keep that in mind in your
current position as well.
In your testimony, you say the two major achievements for
2002, and you talk about them. Can you give me a notion of what
you think you might be telling the committee next year about
the two major achievements for 2003? What is out there that you
think is really fascinating, right on the edge, that is going
to be something that represents significant breakthroughs?
SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENTS
Dr. Orbach. Well, if I could address the first part of your
question, because I feel very strongly about it. Our
responsibility in our office is to our Nation. If we are not
careful, we are going to leave States behind in economic
development. I have been working very hard through EPSCoR
through the other programs we have in the Federal Government,
to encourage economic development for every State.
Your State has some absolutely first-class people and
investments. The investment that I visited personally at North
Dakota State University was impressive. Your Caterpillar
relationships up there already show that you can work and work
well.
The program I was involved in was a sharing program between
the North Dakota State University and the University of
California Riverside. That program is underway. We are
encouraging in the nanotechnology area scientists from all over
the country to participate. And it is hard when the facilities
are not available immediately and locally. So we are
encouraging partnerships to enable that to happen. You will see
me work very assiduously on the spreading of economic
development opportunities across this Nation. Otherwise, we
will leave States behind, and that is not acceptable.
If you ask a scientist what is going to happen in a couple
of years, it is always with some trepidation that they will
respond, because we have been wrong so often in our
expectations.
I can say that there will be something exciting at this
hearing next year. My guess is that it will be in the
biological area, for example, Genomes to Life. The work there
on hydrogen production, carbon sequestration, the new
initiatives that we are looking at in the nanotechnology area
in biology are going to be extraordinary.
Some of our large machine designs are also coming along.
The light source at Stanford, which is a free electron laser,
will increase the intensity in the X-ray, hard X-ray region by
10 orders of magnitude. We may enable biologists to be able to
look at a single molecule and determine structure, rather than
having to grow a single crystal, as they do now.
Senator Dorgan. Do you have one publication, Dr. Orbach,
that describes some of the really interesting areas of
research?
Dr. Orbach. Yes, we do. I would be delighted to provide
that to you. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Accomplishments and Awards
basic research with historic results
The Office of Science maintains our Nation's scientific
infrastructure and ensures U.S. world leadership across a broad range
of scientific disciplines. It supports research and development
programs enabling the Department of Energy to accomplish its missions
in energy security, national security, environmental restoration, and
science.
Office of Science research investments have yielded a wealth of
dividends, including significant technological innovations, medical and
health advances, new intellectual capital, enhanced economic
competitiveness, and improved quality of life for the American people.
Research supported by the Office of Science has made major
contributions to development of the Internet; magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI) and medical isotopes; composite materials used in
military hardware and motor vehicles; and x-ray diagnostics of computer
chips and other high-tech materials.
Office of Science research investments also have led to such
innovations as the Nobel Prize-winning discovery of new forms of
carbon, non-invasive detection of cancers and other diseases, improved
computer models for understanding global climate change and new
insights on the fundamental nature of matter and energy.
Research sponsored by the Office of Science has produced many key
scientific breakthroughs and contributed to this Nation's well-being:
--Helping to Develop the Internet
--Computing for Science's Sake
--Pioneering the Human Genome Project
--Expanding the Frontiers of Discovery
--Improving the Science of Climate Change Research
--Enhancing National Security
--Improving Energy Security
--Medical Imaging
--Restoring Sight to the Blind
--Enabling World-Class R&D
helping to develop the internet
The Office of Science helped develop the Internet. Really!
In 1974, the Office of Science first connected its geographically
dispersed researchers through a single network, a revolutionary, cost-
effective mechanism that provided supercomputing power to civilian
researchers and established a network model adopted by other Federal
Government agencies and States for their researchers.
Later, the Office of Science collaborated with DARPA, NSF and NASA
to transform the many independent networks of the 1980's into a single
integrated communications network that was the basis for today's
commercial Internet.
More recently, the Office of Science created the multicast backbone
(M-Bone), the Internet videoconferencing virtual network that launched
a new era in scientific collaboration in the early 1990's by linking
anyone with a workstation with audiovisual capabilities and a high-
speed connection to the Internet.
computing for science's sake
The Office of Science long has been respected as the world leader
in developing and using advanced computers as tools for scientific
discovery and to achieve breakthroughs in targeted applications
disciplines.
It pioneered the transition to massively parallel supercomputing
(involving 1,000 or more processors), producing the software, scalable
operating systems and other technologies needed and demonstrating its
value in fields ranging from seismic imaging to materials modeling.
The Office of Science also installed the first supercomputer
available to the civilian research community that broke the peak
performance barrier of 1 teraflop--or a trillion operations per
second--and developed the first civilian scientific application to
achieve actual performance over 1 teraflop.
pioneering the human genome project
The Office of Science initiated the Human Genome Project in 1986.
It also developed DNA sequencing and computational technologies
that made possible the unraveling of the human genetic code and
published a complete draft of the DNA sequence of the human genome in
2001.
This historic undertaking to discover the genetic blueprint of
human beings will enable scientists to identify more genes responsible
for diseases and develop new and diagnostic and treatment
possibilities.
Now the Office of Science is harnessing the biotechnology
revolution to develop clean energy and repair damage to our environment
through the Genomes to Life Initiative.
expanding the frontiers of discovery
The Office of Science funded the research that led to one of the
great intellectual achievements of the 20th century: the discovery of
all but one (the electron) of the most fundamental constituents of
matter, namely quarks and leptons, which confirmed the Standard Model--
physicists' current theory of matter and the forces of nature--and led
to 13 Nobel Prizes.
The Office of Science supported the 1996 Nobel Prize-winning
discovery of a new form of carbon, known as ``Bucky Ball,'' which is
spurring a revolution in carbon chemistry and may lead to a profusion
of new materials, polymers, catalysts, and drug delivery systems.
Now the Office of Science is underwriting research to solve the
mystery of ``dark energy,'' perhaps responsible for the remarkable
recent finding that the expansion of the universe is accelerating,
rather than slowing due to gravity as expected.
improving the science of climate change research
The Office of Science initiated the Climate Change Research Program
in 1978 to evaluate the environmental and health consequences of long-
term energy solutions. This was the first research program in the U.S.
to investigate the effect of energy-related emissions of greenhouse
gases, especially carbon dioxide, on climate and the environment.
The Office of Science also has developed software and computer
systems to model and simulate environmental conditions and project
climate change under varying emissions scenarios.
The Office of Science's climate change research program is the
third largest in the United States--and the only one that is focused
specifically on improving the scientific basis to understand, predict,
and assess the effect of energy-related emissions on climate and the
environment.
enhancing national security
The Office of Science has funded research leading to technologies
that make our lives safer in many ways. These include:
--neutron detectors that can identify concealed nuclear weapons and
land mines and are used for arms control and nonproliferation
verification;
--new holographic computerized imaging technology that identifies
hidden weapons, even non-metallic ones, through the clothing of
airline passengers;
--smoke detectors that sense smoke by detecting changes in the
ionization of the air; and
--advanced sensors that can detect explosives, narcotics, and
chemical and biological agents--and many other innovations that
will contribute to homeland security.
improving energy security
The Office of Science has contributed to improved energy savings
through several discoveries, including:
--lithium batteries that offer high-energy storage capacity and an
environmentally benign alternative to the harmful lead used in
conventional batteries;
--new and improved metals, plastics and other composite materials
used in military hardware and motor vehicles; and
--superconducting wires that can lead to more efficient types of
power generation, transmission, and electrical devices--and
thereby save energy and reduce emissions.
In addition, the Office of Science's research into fusion energy is
poised to pay big dividends. Scientists are figuring out the way the
sun and stars produce their energy--and that can have broad
applications for mankind, since fusion power holds important promise as
a clean, inexhaustible energy source.
medical imaging
The Office of Science is responsible for key advances in positron
emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which
permit non-invasive and improved detection and diagnosis of medical
conditions.
restoring sight to the blind
The Office of Science is now sponsoring research and development of
an artificial retina, which can restore sight in blind patients with
macular degeneration, retinitis pigmentosum, and other eye diseases.
A microelectronic chip implanted in the eye captures light signals
and visual information, bypasses damaged photoreceptors, and
electrically stimulates viable layers of the retina, thereby enabling
the blind to see.
enabling world-class r&d
Throughout its history, the Office of Science Development has
designed, constructed and operated many of the most advanced research
and development facilities in the world, which keep the United States
in the forefront of scientific discovery and technological innovation.
These include neutron scattering facilities, synchrotron radiation
light sources, the superconducting Tevatron high-energy particle
accelerator, the world's first linear collider, the continuous electron
beam accelerator, the relativistic heavy ion collider (the highest-
energy ``atom smasher'' in the world) and a Tokamak fusion test
reactor.
[Clerk's Note.--Attachments included with the preceding
information have been retained in subcommittee files.]
Senator Dorgan. Well, let me again say I will be anxious to
work with you.
And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to----
Senator Domenici. You are welcome.
I noticed when you mentioned the location of these science
facilities, you mentioned the four big States. One little State
does all right, New Mexico.
Senator Dorgan. I just did not want to advertise it.
But I know how well New Mexico does, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. That is because we have those big nuclear
laboratories and have to put up with all that nuclear stuff for
so long. Such a terrible burden; that is what some people
think. They want to close them up. If they have any more Los
Alamoses or Sandias, open them up in our State. That would be
fine.
I am just kidding, you understand.
Let me just say to all of you that I am very, very pleased
with the way the whole Department is growing in terms of
science. I am somewhat concerned that we move ahead as quickly
as possible in the nuclear research areas, because there seems
to me to be no way out for us and for the world but to find a
new generation of nuclear power plants.
And, Mr. Magwood, I know that you are charged with that.
And we will try in our new energy bill to even broaden that
authority and move on with it. You are charged under the Energy
Department to move ahead with the next generation. You call it
nuclear power IV. What does that phrase mean in terms of moving
ahead with that research?
GENERATION IV NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Magwood. I think you are referring to the Generation IV
Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative.
Senator Domenici. Correct.
Mr. Magwood. While we have very good technologies available
today that are available to the market, the technologies such
as the AP 1000, the ABWR from U.S. companies, and others that
are available internationally, there is a prospect that we
might be able to develop new advanced technologies that deliver
on the original promises of nuclear energy, that is,
technologies that are incredibly safe and present no
conceivable hazard to people outside of the plant site,
technologies that are extraordinarily economic and competitive
even with natural gas, and technologies that eliminate the
issues about proliferation.
We believe this is possible in a new generation of
technologies. What we have accomplished so far is that the
international community has agreed on what those technologies
might be. Now is the time, as you have mentioned, to move from
the planning stage, now that we have decided what those
technologies could be, to the laboratory and ultimately to the
field to prove that these technologies work.
Senator Domenici. Well, do you feel comfortable with the
level of funding in the budget? Are there one or two items that
you would like to share with us, either on the record or later,
that are of importance to you with reference to being
underfunded, as far as moving us forward in the nuclear area?
Mr. Magwood. We really are on the very beginning of what I
think is a very exciting time for our activities. There are
things that we will be able to do as time goes on that will
require more funding. For where we are right now, I think we
are doing okay. I am very pleased with the budget request that
we have put forth. I believe that as our plans become public,
there will be opportunities in the future that will require
additional resources, but I think well-deserved resources.
DOMESTIC ENRICHMENT
Senator Domenici. Let me just stay with you for a minute.
The Department has commented on the need for a new domestic
enrichment capacity as a means of maintaining a reliable and
economical U.S. enrichment industry. One of the ventures that
is being bantered around as an opportunity to accomplish this
is led by the European consortium of Urenco, a company with a
proven record in centrifuge enrichment technology. I know that
you are familiar with that company and with that process, are
you not?
Mr. Magwood. Yes, I am.
Senator Domenici. Do you have any concern that the efforts
of Urenco to build a new facility in the United States would in
any way pose a national security concern?
Mr. Magwood. No, none at all.
Senator Domenici. Do you believe that the development of
new enrichment capacity is sufficiently important to the United
States, as far as our energy security, that the development of
this facility by Urenco should be encouraged and facilitated by
the Department of Energy?
Mr. Magwood. Absolutely. We are doing everything we can to
help at this stage.
Senator Domenici. That is already happening.
Mr. Magwood. Yes.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Domenici. I thank you. And I thank all of you. And
the questions we give you, please answer them as soon as you
can.
[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
international thermonuclear experimental reactor project within fusion
Question. Dr. Orbach, each of the sub-programs funded under your
office are looking and planning towards substantial new research
investments or construction of the ``next big user facility'' that will
occupy the construction wedge that has been filled in recent years by
the SNS construction project, and will be filled in the next few with
the construction of the nanoscale science centers. Almost all of these
projected expenditures are beyond what is contemplated in the projected
baseline for the Office of Science. I would like to go over some of
those with you.
Dr. Orbach, you've outlined the Administration's recommendation for
the United States to rejoin the international fusion energy
experimental program, called ITER (for the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor.) Our participation in ITER will cost $1 to $1.5
billion over the next 10 years. The Administration has proposed taking
a very timid step down that path by requesting only $2 million for
fiscal year 2004. When will the big expenditures come?
Answer. Assuming that the negotiations proceed as planned,
construction of ITER is currently planned to start in 2006, so we would
expect to request construction funding in our fiscal year 2006 budget
proposal. Also, the Administration has requested $12 million for fiscal
year 2004.
Question. Why should the Congress or our international partners for
that matter, believe the Department will secure the resources to both
make our international contributions and maintain a healthy program
here in the United States?
Answer. Secretary Abraham has stated publicly his intention to
request additional funds for the construction of ITER as well as for
the maintenance of a robust domestic fusion program. Further, President
Bush said on February 6, in the context of the Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative, that he looked forward to working with you on a successful
effort on the ITER project.
Question. Is the Administration prepared to request the increased
budgets in future years to meet this large commitment without
negatively impacting other Science programs?
Answer. The Administration will continue to request budgets that
honor our commitment to the ITER project while maintaining a strong
research program across the Office of Science.
Question. Since ITER represents only one of several promising
fusion research directions, will the Department continue to fund
alternatives to the ``tokamak'' path towards fusion that is the focus
for ITER?
Answer. Yes, the Secretary restated his commitment to a robust
domestic program as he announced the President's decision to join the
ITER negotiations. Part of that robustness is the continuation of our
program in innovative confinement concepts as we strive to prepare for
the most attractive energy embodiment of fusion in the future.
advanced computing
Question. Last year, Japan raced ahead of the United States in the
high-performance computing wars when it completed the world's fastest
computer--the 40 teraflop Earth Simulator. As you are aware, the
Japanese Earth Simulator was based on vector architecture that the U.S.
supercomputing industry had largely abandoned. What does the United
States need to do to catch up?
Answer. As you may know, much of the U.S. computer industry takes
exception to premise that we have lost leadership (broadly defined) in
high-performance computing because of a single Earth Simulator.
Nevertheless, I take your question as addressing leadership in the
areas of computational science for which the Earth Simulator has been
designed, such as climate change. To revitalize and/or ensure ongoing
U.S. leadership in strategic areas of computational science, we need to
initiate an aggressive R&D program based on a strategy to deliver world
class supercomputers for scientific applications. The program must be
coordinated with DOE-NNSA and other Federal agencies with high-
performance computing missions, to leverage existing investments in
high performance computing and to establish a single, inter-agency
strategy for high-performance computing. We expect to participate in
this endeavor by supporting academic researchers, national laboratory
scientists and engineers in partnerships with the U.S. computer
industry to tailor computer designs and to provide the software
programming infrastructure needed to ensure maximum performance of
codes on complex scientific systems. We need to establish a computing
capability to solve key DOE civilian science mission problems that is
at least a factor of 50 greater than the present.
Question. What kind of supercomputing platforms do you need for the
types of problems you are challenged with in the Office of Science?
Answer. Our computational scientists need supercomputing platforms
that are easy to use and are free of the bottlenecks that presently
constrain the performance of their codes on scientific applications.
Due to the breadth of the Office of Science research portfolio, we
envision our high-performance computational needs will be met by a
suite of super computer architectures and software programming
environments. We expect this suite of architectures will consist of
high-performance variations of scalar systems, vector architectures and
approaches that are currently considered novel.
Question. How will you get them and how much will it cost?
Answer. We will foster the development of these systems by working
with all interested U.S. vendors to influence future offerings to meet
the needs of our computational scientists. Supercomputer platforms will
be acquired based on a competitive evaluation and review of systems
offered by vendors. Performance on actual scientific applications will
be one of several review criteria. Before we are in a position to
evaluate prospective systems, we need to embark on a long-term
commitment of establishing research partnerships between application
scientists, computer scientists and supercomputer designers.
Although we expect to take advantage of commercial market drivers
whenever feasible, we do recognize that these supercomputing platforms
are likely to be in the specialty category of vendor offerings.
Therefore, it is conceivable that each supercomputer platform could
cost several hundred million dollars. Future special purpose
architectures targeting certain applications might be cheaper if the
full suite of partnerships mentioned above were supported.
Question. Credible experts argue that we will need to spend an
additional $500 million over what we have planned for the next 4 years
in order to catch-up. Do you agree?
Answer. The Administration is still in the process of developing a
government-wide strategy for high-end computational science, so it is
premature to directly answer your question.
nanoscale research
Question. In fiscal year 2003, the Congress added $4.5 million to
begin construction of the Center for Integrated Nanotechnology in my
home State of New Mexico. This year, I am pleased to see the Department
request $30 million more for the construction of this $75 million
facility. The Department is also proceeding with construction of four
other centers around the country. I am concerned that the current
Science baseline budget does not include sufficient research dollars to
effectively utilize the five nanoscale centers that will be constructed
over the next few years--requiring an additional $350 million over the
next 3 years. Are we building too many centers, too fast, without
planning for the resources to utilize them?
Answer. The five Nanoscale Science Research Centers that are under
construction (one joint with the State of Illinois) as well as their
subsequent operations funding which includes user support and research
support are all accommodated within the Science baseline budget
presented in the President's Budget Request. These Centers are a high
priority for the Administration and the Department, because they offer
unique capabilities and build on the investments in the major
synchrotron radiation light sources and neutron scattering facilities
that are already in place at the Department's laboratories.
genomes to life and other funding shortfalls
Question. The Department wants to grow the ``Genomes to Life''
program in a way that will realize the promises of the Human Genome
Project, but that will require $850 million to build the necessary
research facilities. In addition, you have expressed your desire to
grow the Science Teacher Workforce Development program. Furthermore, we
are always under pressure to provide additional money for better
utilization of our existing science facilities. So, my questions to you
are as follows. How do we find the resources to do all of these things?
Or have we ``bitten off more than we can chew''?
Answer. The President's budget request before the Congress
represents a substantial step in allowing us to exploit the scientific
opportunities before us. The programs that you mention are multi-year
efforts, and we have to continue to prioritize and make tough choices
in these times of constrained budgets. The completion of some projects,
along with reduced funding requirements for the Spallation Neutron
Source effectively provides a 5 percent increase in funding for
science, allowing us to strengthen our research programs while also
increasing operating times at our user facilities, and beginning a new
pilot program at Argonne National Laboratory to train K-14 science and
math teachers.
science education
Question. Dr. Orbach, I appreciate the emphasis in your testimony
on a $1 million pilot program for improving the science and math
qualifications of teachers in our K-14 educational system in answer to
the President's call for ``qualified teachers in the classrooms.'' As
you know, such programs were conducted some years ago by the DOE. I
know from many personal testimonies that these programs were highly
successful in New Mexico. I really question whether you need any pilot
program at all. My recommendation is that you simply restart the
successful programs of a few years ago at levels far higher than $1
million. Would you be willing to provide an estimate of how large a
program the Department could undertake in fiscal year 2004 in this
vital area?
Answer. Our National laboratories have continued to support
fellowship and internship opportunities through their education and
workforce development offices. In most respects, these offices have
dramatically improved in their quality assurance and efficiency. Our
entire application, placement, tracking and evaluation system is
online. The President's fiscal year 2004 request allows for a robust
pilot program.
funding of science programs
Question. Dr. Orbach, fiscal year 2004 is the third year of
basically flat budget requests for the Office of Science. I think the
Department and Administration must start requesting significant
increases in the budgets for the Office of Science. Since that office
is the largest supporter of research in most physical sciences, I fear
that we are seriously jeopardizing the competitiveness of our Nation by
short-changing developments in these areas. In fact, our rush to fund
health sciences through the NIH, without comparable funding to the
Office of Science, may prevent us from realizing our goals in the
health sciences. After all, many developments in health sciences also
require advances in the physical sciences, we need strong health and
physical sciences to truly enable advances. Do you share my concern
that we must do more to increase the Nation's talent pool in the
physical sciences and that increased budgets for the Office of Science
are critically important in future years?
Answer. Senator, before answering, let me thank you for your strong
support for science and education. I do share your concern. I believe
that we need to do whatever we can to encourage U.S. students to choose
careers in mathematics, science and engineering. It is for that reason
that our budget request proposes a pilot program for training of K-14
mathematics and science teachers. I would point out, however, that when
a combination of reduced requirements for funding in one time programs
and large construction projects are taken into account, funding for the
Office of Science in the President's budget requests for fiscal year
2003 and fiscal year 2004 represented increases for science well above
the rate of inflation.
Question. Do you believe the United States is in danger of losing
its global competitive edge to the Japanese or the Germans or the
French because the Federal Government has ignored basic research
funding for the physical sciences?
Answer. A strong program of basic research in the physical sciences
and a scientifically literate workforce are essential to the continued
innovation that underpins our global competitiveness, and I believe
that the President's budget request for science will fund a strong and
balanced program of scientific research for the Nation.
low dose radiation research
Question. I helped initiate your important program in low dose
radiation research a few years ago, to try to better determine health
risks from exposures to low levels of ionizing radiation. This research
could have far-reaching implications, from improved cleanup standards
for DOE sites to better appreciation of the risks associated with
operations involving radioactive materials. With the National Academy's
seventh study on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (called BEIR
VII) nearing a conclusion, results from this program are especially
timely. In past years, this budget has been reduced in budget requests,
only to be restored by Congress. I appreciate that this year the
request of $17.5 million is close to the current year level of $17.8
million. But it's my understanding that the DOE's own program plan for
this study calls for budgets of about $25 million. Is this work
advancing the state of knowledge in this critical area at a pace to
impact the BEIR VII study?
Answer. Yes, while the Low Dose Radiation Research program is
effectively in its fourth year of funding and, as you correctly note,
funding has always been at a level $4 to $8 million below that
recommended by the Advisory Committee for the Biological and
Environmental Research program, the low dose program is already having
a substantial scientific impact. Building on decades of radiation
biology research we can now study the biological effects of radiation
with research approaches that are 10, 100, or even 1,000 times more
sensitive than those previously used. Progress has been made in our
ability to study lower, more realistic doses of radiation by a
combination of knowledge from past research, from new, more sensitive
technology, and from advances such as those provided by the Human
Genome Project. Today, for the first time, scientists have actually
been conducting research that overlaps or approaches the maximum
allowable radiation doses above background for the public (100 mrem/
year above background) or for nuclear workers (500 mrem/year above
background). The BEIR VII committee bases their report on information
received from expert scientific testimony and from peer reviewed
scientific publication. To date, the Low Dose Radiation Research
Program has resulted in over 190 new papers in the scientific
literature. The director at the National Academies for BEIR VII is well
aware of the Low Dose Radiation Research Program and has been given a
list of publications resulting from the program. Thus, the BEIR VII
will certainly consider the results of this research program in their
deliberations.
Question. And is it resource constrained in its progress?
Answer. We believe that the original estimate made by the
Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee for a 10-year,
approximately $220 million research program, while unconstrained by the
realities of tight budgets, is still a reasonable estimate to optimize
progress through the normal, iterative process of scientific discovery.
To date, including the current fiscal year (fiscal year 2003), the
program has invested approximately $82 million in new low dose
radiation research.
science in an underground laboratory
Question. Last year there was a review by NSF to explore deep
underground sites for sensitive nuclear experiments. As part of their
review, there was strong recognition that some experiments require the
deepest location--like the Homestake mine--and others benefit more from
the ultra-low background, ultra-clean conditions, and superb
infrastructure associated with the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant at
Carlsbad. I provided funding within the EM budget this year to start a
neutrino experiment at WIPP. But logically, these experiments should be
championed within the Office of Science. Will the Office of Science
seriously evaluate and champion opportunities for key experiments in
the environment provided by WIPP?
Answer. The Office of Science endeavors to support the most
interesting and promising experiments in all fields of basic research
consistent with its mission. We are aware of scientific opportunities
presented by a wide range of possible underground experiments, though
we have not received any formal proposals for such experiments. We are
also aware that there is an ongoing scientific debate about the
technical criteria for an underground site that is dependent upon the
needs the various experiments. Nevertheless, the Office of Science is
keenly aware of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's (WIPP) mission to
dispose of defense-related transuranic waste to protect human health
and the environment. WIPP is a critical facility for the Office of
Environmental Management's (EM) efforts to accelerate cleanup at sites
across the DOE complex.
Last year, as ordered by Secretary Abraham, EM completed a top-to-
bottom review of its cleanup program and concluded that significant
change was required in how the Department attacked risk reduction and
cleanup of its sites. A major finding of the review was the need to
realign the EM program so its scope is consistent with an accelerated,
risk-based cleanup and closure mission. The review team underscored the
necessity that EM should redirect, streamline, or cease activities not
appropriate for accelerated cleanup and closure.
Utilizing WIPP to conduct science experiments, no matter how
meritorious, would represent a major commitment of EM financial and
administrative resources for implementation and oversight of these
activities, which would not be consistent with the Administration's
accelerated cleanup initiative. A laser-like focus on EM's core mission
is needed to realize the cleanup of the Cold War legacy in our
lifetime.
global climate change research
Question. The Department of Energy has had a long-standing role in
the Global Climate Change research agenda. The White House just
recently announced a new Global Climate Change strategy. Can you
describe for me the role that the Department of Energy will have in the
new White House agenda and the need for enhanced research on Global
Climate Change that would take advantage of the assets in DOE's
laboratories?
Answer. The Department's role in the new White House agenda for
climate change Research will focus on improving climate models by
resolving major uncertainties in estimates of the sensitivity of the
climate system to various factors such as clouds and aerosols. Climate
change research supported by the Department will also help resolve the
magnitude and location of the North American carbon sink, and provide
improved methods and models for assessing the environmental and
economic costs and benefits of climate change, and of different options
and strategies for mitigating the change. Enhancements of Global
Climate Change Research that would take advantage of assets at DOE
laboratories include climate modeling and ecological processes.
Enhanced climate modeling research would enable researchers to take
greater advantage of computing facilities and computer science
capabilities at DOE laboratories, and to allow climate and carbon cycle
modelers at DOE laboratories to more fully utilize the data and
information coming from other DOE climate change research programs such
as the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement program and Ocean and
Terrestrial Carbon Cycle Research programs to develop, test, and
improve fully-coupled climate models. Enhancement of research on
ecological processes would provide the opportunity to more fully
utilize the unique interdisciplinary capabilities and facilities at DOE
laboratories in molecular biology, ecological genomics, ecology, and
computer modeling and simulation. The research would investigate how
complex ecological systems respond to climate and atmospheric changes
and how their capacity to, for example, sequester carbon from the
atmosphere and adapt to or recover from potential adverse impacts of
such changes can be enhanced.
science lab infrastructure
Question. Dr. Orbach, the Office of Science manages 10 science labs
that represent a Federal investment of tens of billions of dollars in
the most advanced scientific user facilities in the world. The annual
budget process seems to rarely reward the prudent and responsible
program manager who reinvests in infrastructure to maintain the
facilities. Two years ago this Committee initiated a Facilities and
Infrastructure program for the NNSA to reinvigorate the NNSA weapons
complex and it is starting to make a significant difference. Dr.
Orbach, do you believe the Science facilities that you oversee need a
significant infrastructure reinvestment to revitalize the Science Labs
research facilities and would you be willing to budget for such an
initiative?
Answer. The Office of Science has identified over $1.5 billion of
line item projects to renovate, modernize and replace existing
buildings and support facilities at the SC laboratories to better
support our research missions. A complete listing and description of
the projects can be found at the SC web site: http://
www.science.doe.gov/SC-80/sc-82 under ``Infrastructure Needs
Assessment.'' I am working with the laboratories to develop a strategy
for funding infrastructure improvements.
future nuclear energy budget requirements
Question. Mr. Magwood, as I indicated in my opening statement, I am
generally encouraged with the progress in nuclear R&D. The Department
now has in place the structure of a well-thought-out nuclear R&D
program that addresses the near-term goal of bringing a new plant on
line through the Nuclear Power 2010 program; while performing the R&D
necessary for nuclear power to support the growing demand for
electricity world-wide over the next 50 years through the Generation IV
Program and the Advanced Fuel Cycles Initiative. All of these
initiatives require funding well in excess of what is provided in the
current baseline?
Answer. We are confident that the fiscal year 2004 budget request
for these programs will meet the near-term needs of these programs,
most of which are at the early stages of development. We will evaluate
future funding needs as we more precisely define the areas of work and
implement these initiatives. Clearly, significant resources would be
needed to support the development, design, and deployment of innovative
technologies to achieve the economic and energy security benefits of
the programs. Whatever course our activities take, we expect the
funding the Department requests to be highly leveraged with our
international and U.S. industry partners.
Question. What level of resources will be required to achieve the
stated goals of each of these initiatives over the next 10 years?
Answer. The Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative is in
an early stage of development. The highest priority Generation IV
project is pursuing advanced nuclear technology that can produce both
cost-effective hydrogen and very efficient electricity production. The
out-year funding plan for Generation IV activities is currently being
developed. Discussions with potential collaborating partners are
underway and we anticipate substantial cost-sharing with both industry
and the international community. The estimated costs for AFCI research
and development over the next 10 years are presently under review by
the Administration and have not been finalized.
Question. What is the Department's funding strategy?
Answer. The Department is in the early stages of implementing the
Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative and the Advanced Fuel
Cycle Initiative. Regardless, the Department intends to leverage a
modest Federal investment with collaboration with our international
partners.
Question. What kind of resources can we reasonably expect from
international or industry collaborators?
Answer. We are currently exploring cost-sharing arrangements for
the design, licensing, construction, and startup of the Very-High-
Temperature Reactor (VHTR) with potential domestic and international
partners, both private and government. Substantial cost-sharing is
expected. Over the past 3 years, the AFCI program has established two
major international collaborative agreements which have provided over
$100 million worth of analytical and experimental data to the program.
One agreement is with the French Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique, and
the other agreement is with the Paul Sherrer Institute in Switzerland.
Also, the Secretary of Energy recently signed an agreement with the
European Commission, which provides for collaborative AFCI research and
development with European countries.
nuclear hydrogen initiative
Question. Hydrogen technologies will only allow us to free
ourselves from dependence on foreign oil if we can economically produce
it in a manner that does not harm the environment. Current methods of
producing hydrogen based on fossil-fuels are far too costly. I am
hopeful that one or more of the Generation IV reactor technologies
would allow us to generate hydrogen on a scale that would support a
future hydrogen based economy. I commend the Department for requesting
$4 million specifically for the nuclear hydrogen initiative. What level
of resources would the Department need to develop and demonstrate on a
pilot scale a nuclear reactor for hydrogen production?
Answer. The Department's new Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative is
designed to develop and demonstrate advanced technology hydrogen
production systems using nuclear energy. The Department plans to
achieve this goal by constructing progressively larger scale
demonstrations using non-nuclear heat sources, designed and optimized
to be eventually driven by heat from a high temperature nuclear system.
The Department is also exploring partnerships with industry and the
international community that could support a full-scale prototypical
system to demonstrate the commercial scale production of hydrogen. With
funds provided by Congress in fiscal year 2003, we are currently
developing a hydrogen technology roadmap which will define the
development program leading to a pilot scale experiment. The funding
estimates for a pilot scale facility will be developed over the next
several months.
Question. Can we do it on the time-scale of the President's broader
hydrogen timeline of 2015 to 2020?
Answer. We believe nuclear-based production of hydrogen could be
deployed on the time-scale of the President's 2015-2020 hydrogen
timeline.
nuclear power 2010 initiative
Question. Three years ago, this Subcommittee led the way in
creating a new R&D program in Nuclear Energy Technologies. The effort
has been focused on both near-term and longer-term development of next
generation power reactors. There are great opportunities to deploy new
reactors that would have superior economics, no possibility of a core-
meltdown, reduced waste, and more proliferation resistant. I commend
the Department for providing $35 million to support a near-term effort
with the goal of having new advanced reactors operating in the United
States by 2010. Can you elaborate on this program in greater detail and
provide an update?
Answer. The Department believes it is in the Nation's interest to
deploy new baseload nuclear generating capacity within the decade to
achieve the National Energy Policy objectives of energy supply
diversity and security while minimizing the impact on the environment.
To enable the deployment and operation of new, advanced nuclear power
plants in the United States by the end of the decade, it is essential
to demonstrate the new, untested Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
regulatory and licensing processes for the siting, construction, and
operation of new plant designs. In addition, research and development
on near-term advanced reactor concepts that offer enhancements to
safety and economics is needed to enable these new technologies to come
to market.
In fiscal year 2002, the Department initiated the Nuclear Power
2010 program. This program is a joint government and industry cost-
shared effort to identify sites for new nuclear power plants, develop
advanced nuclear plant technologies, and demonstrate new regulatory
processes that support a private sector decision by 2005 to order new
nuclear power plants for deployment in the United States within the
decade.
As an initial step in the Nuclear Power 2010 program to demonstrate
untested regulatory processes, the Department is cooperating with three
power generation companies--Exelon, Entergy and Dominion Resources--to
demonstrate the Early Site Permit (ESP) process at sites where these
companies currently operate nuclear power plants (Clinton Nuclear Power
Station, Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Station, and North Anna Nuclear Power
Station, respectively). This regulatory process is intended to approve
sites for the construction of new nuclear power plants in advance of a
utility commitment and order for the nuclear plant. Within the scope of
these 50/50 cost-shared industry cooperative projects, the three power
generation companies will develop and submit formal ESP applications to
the NRC by fall of 2003. NRC's approval of the then-submitted ESP
applications is expected in early 2006.
In 2003, the Department plans to expand its cooperation with the
nuclear industry by soliciting additional cooperative projects with
power companies or consortia of power and industry companies that
implement power company plans to deploy new nuclear plants. Cooperative
projects would include activities to demonstrate the combined
Construction and Operating License (COL) process and develop a
standardized advanced nuclear plant designs.
The Department has also initiated in fiscal year 2003 a cost-shared
project with industry to assess the construction schedule, manpower,
and cost requirements of the new advanced nuclear plant designs being
considered by power companies for near-term deployment and to identify
promising improvements in construction methods and techniques to
shorten the construction durations for these next new nuclear power
plants.
Question. Does the Department still plan on initiating a cost-
shared project with a utility to demonstrate the ``Construction and
Operating License'' process?
Answer. The Department believes that demonstration of the combined
Construction and Operating License (COL) process is essential to
achieve near-term deployment of advanced nuclear power plants in the
United States. In fiscal year 2003, the Department plans to issue a
solicitation to seek proposals from power companies or consortia of
power and industry companies for projects that enable a new nuclear
power plant to be ordered and licensed for deployment in the United
States within the decade. This project will provide for design
completion of a standardized advanced reactor plant, preparation and
submission of a COL application and support of NRC review, and hearings
associated with the application.
Question. What recommendations can you provide to this committee as
to how the government can address the financial and business risk
associated with building and licensing new nuclear plants?
Answer. There are currently three ways that an electric generating
company could finance a new nuclear plant: by obtaining commercial debt
financing, through equity financing, or a combination of both. These
options are not currently attractive because of significant financial
barriers and risks associated with building the first few new nuclear
plants. Last year, Sculley Capital, an independent financial advisory
firm, conducted a study for DOE of barriers to new nuclear plant
deployments and identified a range of financial assistance mechanisms
that could address the financial risks associated with building the
first few new nuclear plants. The study concludes that substantial cost
improvements in the cost per kilowatt-hour would be realized following
deployment of the first few plants, thereby allowing future builds to
be fully competitive in the electricity marketplace. This study has
sparked an ongoing discussion both inside the government and in the
private sector, but no conclusions have yet been reached in either.
nasa's nuclear systems initiative
Question. The fiscal year 2003 NASA budget proposed a ``nuclear
systems initiative'' to develop new radioisotope power systems for on-
board electric power on future space platforms. It would also conduct
research and development on nuclear electric propulsion systems that
would allow future space craft to speed throughout the outer reaches of
the solar system. NASA has proposed spending up to $1 billion in the
next 5 years. What has transpired over the last year?
Answer. A significant amount of planning and coordination between
NASA and the DOE has taken place in preparation for NASA's Nuclear
Systems Initiative, now named ``Project Prometheus.'' Activities
conducted under existing programs at DOE were focused to help prepare
for the initiation of the effort. For example, with regards to the
radioisotope power systems, a DOE contract was awarded to Lockheed
Martin Astronautics for a Stirling Radioisotope Generator, and industry
proposals for a Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator are
now being evaluated by the Department. Also, the purchase of 1 kilogram
of Pu-238 from Russia is underway.
With regard to the nuclear electric propulsion part of Project
Prometheus, NASA Research Announcements (NRA's) were issued for power
conversion and electric propulsion technology contracts. Initial space
reactor power system screening activities were completed using an
integrated team of specialists from DOE laboratories and NASA centers
to assess combinations of reactor and power conversion technologies and
a briefing on these screening activities was provided to industry. DOE
labs have also supported definition of three reactor concepts for
future consideration. A draft RFP was also developed by NASA with
support from DOE for mission and technology trade studies associated
with a Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter Mission (JIMO) in order to prepare for
possible future industry engagement.
These activities have helped to prepare for initiation of a
coordinated effort between NASA and DOE as Project Prometheus now
commences its first year.
Question. What role will be DOE's role in this exciting new effort?
Answer. DOE will continue as the executing agent for the
development of Radioisotope Power Systems. These efforts will include
the Stirling Radioisotope Generator (SRG), the Multi-Mission
Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG), the performance of
safety analyses, and the procurement of additional Plutonium-238 as
needed in support of the radioisotope program and potential future
missions. For the development of space fission reactor technology, or
the nuclear electric propulsion part of Project Prometheus, NASA and
DOE are currently examining the best approach for management of the
development effort within the Department. These reviews are ongoing and
include consideration of possible participation by DOE's Offices
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology and Naval Reactors.
advanced nuclear medicine initiative
Question. The Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative (ANMI) provides
basic research and educational grants in the field of nuclear medicine.
These R&D grants have yielded exciting results for the development of
new radiopharmaceuticals, insights in radiobiology, and possible new
methods of treating cancer. In recent years, the program has been
funded at the level of $2.5 million per year. In fiscal year 2003,
funding was dropped to zero. The Department has also proposed changing
the manner in which it provides radioisotopes to the research
community. The Department proposed this on the theory that it could
reach agreement with other sources (most likely NIH) to support this
important mission. Has the Department secured such an agreement? If
not, what are the prospects?
Answer. Department of Energy officials are at the beginning stages
of discussion with officials of the Department of Health and Human
Services, including the National Institutes of Health on the subject of
obtaining support from NIH for production of isotopes associated with
medical research sponsored by NIH. There is broad support for medical
research in development of new radiopharmaceuticals both within the
government and the private sector, and we are confident that as the
benefit for this research is demonstrated that there will be increased
support for offsetting the costs associated with the production of
medical research isotopes.
Question. Would you comment on the record how a DOE sponsored
revolving fund might be used to support this mission?
Answer. As was done with the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative
in fiscal year 2000, the revolving fund could be a suitable vehicle for
supporting medical isotope research, including production of isotopes
for such research.
advanced fuel cycle initiative
Question. I commend the Department for supporting the Advanced Fuel
Cycle work that this committee has strongly supported over the last few
years. Will you describe for the committee some of the successes of the
AFCI program, its relationship to the Generation IV reactor program,
and what your expectations are for the next few years?
Answer. The goals of the Advance Fuel Cycle Initiative are to
develop fuels and fuel cycle technologies required for the Generation
IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative and to develop advanced spent fuel
treatment and transmutation fuel technologies to optimize the
performance of the Yucca Mountain repository and delay or eliminate the
technical need for a second repository.
In fiscal year 2002, the program had several important
accomplishments. In the area of spent fuel treatment, the Department
developed UREX+ technology and successfully demonstrated the separation
of uranium from commercial spent fuel at a purity level of over 99.99
percent, which is equivalent to low-level Class C waste. Since spent
fuel is made up of 95.6 percent uranium, this is clearly a major
demonstration of the potential for reducing the volume of spent fuel
destined for a geologic repository. Other major successes include the
development and manufacture of advanced non-fertile fuels (i.e., fuel
which does not produce plutonium during the fission process). Both
nitride and metal advanced non-fertile fuels have been manufactured and
have passed quality assurance standards necessary to qualify for
irradiation testing in the Advanced Test Reactor. This activity
directly supports Generation IV fast-spectrum reactor fuel development.
As described in the AFCI Report to Congress, issued in January
2003, the AFCI program is pursuing parallel paths, AFCI Series One and
AFCI Series Two, to develop technologies both in support of the
Generation IV program and spent fuel treatment and transmutation. AFCI
Series One technology development is an intermediate term activity
which is focused on the developing advanced spent fuel treatment
technologies. Specifically, this technology separates various isotopic
components from commercial spent nuclear fuel, including the extraction
of uranium at a purity of greater than 99.99 percent for potential
reuse, or storage as low-level waste. In addition, the program is
developing proliferation-resistant fuel that can be recycled in
existing light water reactors to extract energy and reduce the
plutonium inventory in the spent fuel. In fiscal year 2003, AFCI plans
to demonstrate the separation of a plutonium-neptunium and cesium-
strontium on a laboratory scale. The successful demonstration of
cesium-strontium, at a high purity, can provide a unique advantage to
the repository program because it will allow the repository to be
operated in a cold condition, by isolating all the short-term heat long
in one drift, or above ground. The program is also in the process of
fabricating several specimens of oxide fuels containing various
combinations of uranium, plutonium, and neptunium for potential use in
existing light water reactors as a means extending the energy resource
of spent fuel and to reduce the inventories of plutonium. These
advanced oxide fuels are planned for irradiation testing in the
Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) in fiscal year 2004.
AFCI Series Two technology development is a longer term activity
(2020-2030 time frame). The main focus of AFCI Series Two is to develop
advanced, non-aqueous technologies which are cost effective,
environmentally sound, and capable of handling large volumes of fast
reactor spent fuel. AFCI Series Two technology development also
includes the development of advanced fuels for fast spectrum reactors--
Generation IV reactors including the capability of these reactors for
handling the transmutation mission. Application of AFCI Series Two
transmutation technology can significantly reduce the long-term
radiotoxicity and long-term heat load in the geologic repository.
The research and development being conducted in the AFCI program is
focused on producing results that will provide decision makers
sufficient information on cost, schedule, and waste streams to inform
decisions in fiscal year 2007 regarding the need for a second
repository.
cuts to neri and nepo
Question. Mr. Magwood, I appreciate the significant increase in
budgets requested for Nuclear Energy. But I'm surprised that a program
like the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative or NERI, that is the
largest supporter of university-based research in this vital field, is
targeted for a cut of 50 percent. I am also concerned that the Nuclear
Energy Plant Optimization or NEPO program is targeted for no funding,
when the Nation depends strongly on our existing nuclear plants to
avoid having to replace them with more polluting alternatives. Can you
please discuss the rationale for halving the NERI budget and killing
the NEPO budget just when we are undertaking other important ventures
to secure a future for nuclear energy in the Nation?
Answer. First, I think it is important to make clear that we
believe both the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) and the
Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program are important and very
successful programs. The programs have attracted significant
international and private sector co-funding. Moreover, the important
initiatives that we believe will form the base for our nuclear energy
research program in the future--the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, the
Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative, the Advanced Fuel
Cycle Initiative--all grew out of the success of innovative NERI
research and development.
While the funds requested for NERI in fiscal year 2004 represent a
reduction from previous years, the budget request will allow us to
support those projects that are continuing in the NERI and
International NERI programs. During the coming year, we will refine and
detail our plans for the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, Generation IV,
and the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. Once this is done, the
Department will be in a position to evaluate NERI in fiscal year 2005
in the context of our entire research portfolio.
Regarding the NEPO program, we have successfully leveraged a small
Federal investment with industry to address technical issues associated
with the long-term operation of the Nation's existing 103 operating
nuclear power plants. The program has funded a total of 33 projects
during its first 3 years, addressing issues such as plant aging and
electrical generation optimization. Thus, it is our hope that industry,
who invests between $80 and $90 million dollars annually on research,
will choose to continue some of these projects.
university reactor fuel assistance and support
Question. For the current year, the Congress provided $18.5 million
for the University Reactor support program. Can you give me an update
on this effort?
Answer. All current university programs efforts will be continued,
including providing fuel to university research and training reactors,
assisting university reactors to share their reactors with other
universities and secondary schools for educational and training
purposes, improving equipment and instrumentation at university
reactors, and providing research grants to university nuclear
engineering departments.
The Department continues to award numerous fellowships and
scholarships to students pursuing a nuclear engineering or a health
physics degree and assisting students at minority universities to
achieve a degree in nuclear engineering by partnering with a majority
nuclear engineering institution; helping to reinvigorate the
radiochemistry educational program through assistance to graduates,
post-doctorates, and faculty; and conducting outreach to college
freshman and secondary school students and teachers through the
American Nuclear Society by providing teacher workshops in the basics
of nuclear energy and engineering.
Lastly, the Innovations in Nuclear Infrastructure and Education
(INIE) initiative continues to maintain the Nation's university
research reactor infrastructure by awarding the fifth INIE grant. The
INIE program focus is to help strengthen the nuclear engineering
infrastructure which is vital to producing the nuclear engineers the
Nation requires for operation of its nuclear facilities, national
laboratories, and universities.
Question. Will this budget request allow the Department to expand
its support to the regional reactor consortiums?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget request will enable the
Department to continue support for five regional reactor consortiums.
Four awards were made in fiscal year 2002, with the additional funds
appropriated in fiscal year 2003; one additional award will be made.
Two additional consortia have been selected for future award.
uranium-233
Question. The Congress has urged the Department to proceed with a
Request for Proposal on a project to extract medically valuable
isotopes from the excess uranium-233 stored at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. This is potentially a very exciting effort. Can you provide
an update on this effort and tell when you expect the RFP will be out?
Answer. The Department's project to treat its inventory of U233
will greatly reduce the high cost associated with the storage of this
material and demonstrate the Nation's leadership in the effective and
responsible management of fissile materials. Perhaps more importantly,
this project will provide researchers all over the country with ready
access to isotopes that have shown considerable promise in treatment of
various forms of cancer.
The RFP was issued on June 13, 2002, and proposals were received on
September 26, 2002. On February 14, 2003, the Department notified the
bidders that were found to be in the competitive range required for the
contract that their proposals would be evaluated for final selection.
The evaluation process continues and we anticipate an award this
summer.
les
Question. Mr. Magwood, the Department has previously commented on
the need for new domestic enrichment capacity as a means of maintaining
a reliable and economical U.S. enrichment industry. One of the ventures
to accomplish this is led by the European consortium Urenco, a company
with proven centrifuge technology. I know you are quite familiar with
the company and their technology. Do you have any concern on your part
that the efforts of Urenco to build a new facility in the United States
would in any way pose a national security concern?
Answer. The Administration places a high priority on ensuring
nuclear nonproliferation safeguards are in place and that access to
sensitive technology is controlled. The information available to the
Department indicates that URENCO has acted responsibly with regard to
the control of sensitive technology and the employment of non-
proliferation safeguards.
The Department of Energy believes that LES's plans for the
deployment of centrifuge technology in the United States are of
considerable national benefit. Deployment of an LES plant will help
assure the important energy security objective of maintaining a
reliable and economical U.S. uranium enrichment industry.
Question. Do you believe that the development of new enrichment
capacity is sufficiently important to U.S. energy security objectives
that the development of a domestic facility by Urenco should therefore
be encouraged and facilitated in some manner by DOE? If so, how?
Answer. The Department believes there is sufficient domestic demand
to support multiple commercial uranium enrichment plant operators in
the United States and that competition is important to maintain a
viable, competitive domestic uranium enrichment industry for the
foreseeable future. The U.S. Government has encouraged the three Allied
government partners in Urenco (Great Britain, the Netherlands and
Germany) to continue its plans to deploy a new commercial uranium
enrichment plant in the United States.
cost of depleted tails disposal
Question. Pursuant to section 3113 of the 1996 USEC Privatization
Act, DOE is obligated to accept depleted tails for disposal from
domestic commercial enrichers, if the tails are declared low-level
waste, and subject to the generator paying the cost of disposal. DOE
has already agreed to accept post-privatization tails from USEC for
disposal. Is this same option available for the depleted tails of any
other commercial enrichment facility operating in the United States?
Answer. The NRC has not characterized depleted uranium tails as
low-level radioactive waste; therefore, Section 3113 of the
Privatization Act does not obligate the Department to accept
commercially generated depleted uranium tails for disposal. The
Department agrees with the NRC, and would not support an initiative to
declare depleted uranium tails as low-level radioactive waste.
Nevertheless, in view of the Department's plan to build DUF6
disposition facilities and the critical importance the Department
places on maintaining a viable domestic uranium enrichment industry,
the Department acknowledges that Section 3113 may constitute a
``plausible strategy'' for the disposal of DUF6 from the private sector
domestic uranium enrichment plant license applicants and operators.
The Department has two agreements to accept depleted uranium
generated by USEC. In the first case, the government received $50
million to accept 16,674 metric tons of depleted uranium generated by
USEC during the privatization process. The second case is the June 2002
agreement between USEC and DOE. While DOE agreed to accept title (but
not custody until the Department is ready to disposition) to 23,300
metric tons of depleted uranium hexafluoride as part of the agreement's
consideration, USEC agreed to a range of important actions, including
commitments to operate Paducah gaseous diffusion plant until replaced
and to deploy advanced enrichment technology employing DOE technology.
Question. Would one or both of the two conversion facilities under
construction be available on the same terms and conditions to any other
commercial enricher?
Answer. No authority, procedures, or cost for such a service has
been established. Were a commercial enricher to request such a service,
the Department would give the request its full consideration.
Question. What do you project to be the per kilogram cost of
accepting for processing and ultimate disposal depleted tails from
commercial generators?
Answer. I note that Section 3113(3) of the USEC Privatization Act
provides for reimbursement in an ``amount equal to the Secretary's
cost, including a pro rata share of any capital costs.'' As full costs
of providing such a service have not been established, and the
procedures to implement a service of processing DUF6 for ultimate
disposition have not been created, it is not possible to project a
meaningful cost estimate at this time. However, should a commercial
company request such a service, the Department would fully consider its
request.
Question. What is the per kilogram cost for the processing and
disposal of the commercial tails that DOE has agreed to accept to date?
Answer. The actual marginal cost of processing and disposal of the
depleted uranium hexafluoride generated by USEC has not been
determined. Once the Department's conversion facilities have been built
and are operational, a reasonable estimation of the marginal cost to
process commercial tails can be calculated. These tails will be
converted and dispositioned as part of the Department's inventories. It
is expected to take 25 years to completely disposition the Department's
depleted uranium stockpile. It should be noted that USEC will maintain
custody of the tails the Department has agreed to accept under last
year's Memorandum of Agreement until such time that they are accepted
for processing.
hydrogen
Question. Mr. Garman, the grand promise in the President's vision
of a hydrogen economy is dependent upon us finding a way to produce
hydrogen economically and cleanly. Today, the primary method for
hydrogen production is methane reformation, which results in
significant releases of greenhouse gases. Options for future production
will be built around either high temperature chemical processes, or
high-temperature electrolysis. I know you are also looking to reduce
the cost of producing hydrogen from renewable energy technologies. But,
as I look at the issue, I am once again forced to the conclusion that
nuclear power remains the most likely technology that will allow us to
produce hydrogen in large quantities, economically and cleanly. What
renewable technologies are most promising for the production of
hydrogen?
Answer. As part of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, research underway
in renewable hydrogen production technologies includes gasification and
pyrolysis of biomass from forest, crop, and urban residues. Wind-
powered electrolysis is another high potential pathway being
researched, recognizing that 40 million tons of hydrogen per year
(about half the U.S. light duty fleet energy requirement) could be
produced using the wind resources of North Dakota alone, based on
calculations by scientists at the lab. Water splitting through
photolysis is being researched as well as solar-concentrated high
temperature water splitting chemical cycles. Many of the aspects of
solar-concentrated high temperature water splitting chemical cycles
would be similar to methods using high temperature nuclear.
Finally, while hydrogen production from methane reformation
(without sequestration) would result in carbon releases to the
atmosphere, fuel cell vehicles using compressed hydrogen produced from
natural gas would still use 50 percent less energy and emit 60 percent
less carbon dioxide on a ``well-to-wheels'' basis compared to a
gasoline-powered vehicle.
Question. How do they compare and contrast to the nuclear option?
Answer. Producing hydrogen from renewable energy sources or using
the nuclear option can both potentially eliminate associated greenhouse
gases. Nuclear-enabled high temperature chemical cycle water splitting
is a promising route to hydrogen production with near-zero greenhouse
gas emissions. This approach relies on the success of the next
generation nuclear energy technology, i.e., Generation IV (GenIV). The
GenIV nuclear reactor, would be the heat source for the high
temperature cycle needed to produce hydrogen. This technology will
require large central facilities and a hydrogen distribution network.
National energy security is assured through energy diversity. The
renewable energy options being researched can support energy security
through a diversity of feedstocks and processes. Renewable technologies
such as biomass gasification or pyrolysis, ethanol reforming, wind
powered electrolysis, and photo-electrochemial water splitting
potentially offer the ability to provide distributed production at the
point of use without an extensive hydrogen delivery infrastructure. In
addition, renewable technologies such as high temperature chemical
cycles using solar collectors as the energy source can help leverage
the research being performed to develop the Generation IV nuclear
technology.
biomass r&d
Question. Mr. Garman, I note the 21 percent reduction the
Department has proposed for biomass R&D. Among the renewable
technologies under your purview, only biomass and hydrogen offer great
promise in helping the country to wean itself off our dependence of
foreign oil. As gasoline prices are projected to peak well in excess of
$2 per gallon this spring, I find it odd that biomass took such a large
hit. Can you explain your rationale?
Answer. The Department recognizes the tremendous potential of a
well-focused biomass R&D program to develop biorefinery technologies
that can produce fuels, power, and high-value chemicals and other
products. Nevertheless, Congressionally-directed activities reduced the
coherence of this program and significantly constrained the ability of
our scientists and engineers to move these important technologies
forward. Thus, when we made the tough choices about funding the most
important research for our Nation's energy security, environmental, and
economic goals, we decided to shift funds from the biomass program
where the effectiveness of our R&D work was already reduced into other
areas, particularly our longer-term hydrogen and fuel cell R&D.
EERE's budget reflects numerous factors: Administration priorities,
efficiencies realized by combining all biomass research under one
program, alignment with the Administration's R&D investment criteria,
program performance, expected public benefits, and bringing to
completion research on some technology applications that are ready to
be commercialized. It is also important to recognize that in fiscal
year 2004, DOE will continue collaborating with USDA in order to
leverage both agencies' resources as we are doing in fiscal year 2003.
In fiscal year 2003, under a joint solicitation required by the Biomass
R&D Act of 2000, USDA will award $14 million and DOE $5 million for
cost-shared R&D work identified in the Act.
Question. I also understand government-wide investment in biomass
technologies is increasing in other departments, particularly USDA. But
I do not believe Energy should cede its leadership role in technology
development to another agency. Will you elaborate on the government-
wide effort and Energy's role in that?
Answer. In fiscal year 2003, under a joint solicitation required by
the Biomass R&D Act of 2000, USDA will award $14 million and DOE $5
million for cost-shared R&D work identified in the Act. USDA's focus is
on environmental performance, economic viability, and feedstock
production. DOE's focus is on faster and cheaper conversion of biomass
to fuels and other bio-based products, and on syngas clean-up and
conditioning. DOE plays a lead role in seeking to reduce the production
costs of sugars and syngas (sugars platform and syngas platform),
intermediates needed in the production of several chemicals and fuels.
In addition, DOE funds R&D on conversion processes for producing fuels,
materials and chemicals that will leverage the two platforms.
high temperature superconductivity center
Question. Mr. Garman, I note that funding requests for Electric
Reliability and High Temperature Superconductivity remain flat between
fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004. That surprises me a little,
given the importance to the Nation of maintaining and improving
reliability of our electricity supplies, and the potential immense
impact that high temperature superconductivity can make to increase
efficiency of many electrical processes. Are you confident that we are
doing as much as we can do to improve our electric reliability and to
utilize high temperature conductors as quickly as possible?
Answer. Yes, I am confident that we are doing as much as we should
do. I agree that maintaining and improving the reliability of our
electric supplies is a priority. The Electricity Reliability budget was
increased by $360,000 in the fiscal year 2004 request, to $76.9
million. Within this budget, High Temperature Superconductivity R&D is
$47.8 million, the same as our fiscal year 2003 request and $15.5
million (+48 percent) above the fiscal year 2002 level. We have also
increased our fiscal year 2004 request for Transmission Reliability R&D
by $3.0 million. The Department reduced its request for the Energy
Storage program by $2.6 million, as mature technologies such as battery
storage system are handed off to industry for commercialization, and as
synergies with the transportation battery program are realized. In
addition, the Department supports development of distributed energy
technologies located closer to the point of end use, thereby increasing
the chance that the electricity grid will stay in balance.
Question. Please provide an update of this effort and describe the
types of commercial possibilities exist?
Answer. The Department recognizes the broad potential benefits of
superconductivity in our future electrical system. The fiscal year 2004
request will support development of pre-commercial prototypes for 100-
megawatt generators, longer distance power cables, fault current
limiters, and larger-scale flywheel electricity systems. Also, the
``next generation'' of superconducting wire is expected to accomplish
performance milestones needed for fiscal year 2005 use in equipment--a
breakthrough for improving performance and reducing cost. Successful
equipment research and development completion and availability of
``second generation'' wire will lead to commercial opportunities for
advanced, cost-effective, power equipment that generally is half the
size of conventional alternatives and has only half the energy losses.
In addition, commercial possibilities also exist in defense
applications of these technologies.
We note that the Department's budget for electricity reliability
and high temperature superconductivity has grown by more that 50
percent since fiscal year 2001. We believe we can reach the end of the
current research agenda by 2010, if we are able to focus our funding on
achieving the goals and avoid directed projects that do not contribute
to the goals.
Question. In order to achieve commercial successes, what level of
investment should be made in R&D over what period of time?
Answer. The current level of funding is appropriate to bring about
continual research advances, while still following a well-conceived
research roadmap. Program successes include establishing world
leadership in processing of ``first generation'' High Temperature
Superconductivity wire as well as in development of advanced power
equipment prototypes using this wire. Another success is the discovery
at DOE laboratories of methods to make ``second generation''
superconducting wire, able to achieve program cost and performance
goals, which are based on advancing the technology to the point where
commercial success is possible. We believe we can reach the end of the
current research agenda by 2010, if we are able to focus our funding on
achieving the goals and avoid directed projects that do not contribute
to the goals.
demonstration projects
Question. Mr. Garman, the Department did not propose to continue
funding for a number of demonstration projects that have been initiated
over the last several years. I understand you are attempting to get
more from your R&D dollars, and you are not interested in duplicative
demonstrations or funding projects that should properly be financed by
the private sector. At the same time, this committee is well aware of
unique cases where it is preferable to use appropriated dollars to
demonstrate technologies before they become commercially attractive.
Given these considerations, what criteria would you suggest to this
subcommittee in evaluating the many requests for demonstration projects
from Senators?
Answer. As you point out, there are unique cases in which it is
appropriate to demonstrate technologies before they become commercially
attractive. We strive to use the Administration's R&D investment
criteria to guide all of our activities, including demonstrations. One
criterion useful for evaluating demonstration proposals is the
existence of significant market barriers to commercialization. These
market barriers are conditions that do not satisfy the needs of a fully
competitive market. Such a determination can only be made on a case-by-
case basis, depending upon the market the technology faces. If the
analysis indicates that we can reduce the market barriers, or validate
the technology, we may propose a demonstration. Conversely, if we
cannot show that there are market barriers forcing underinvestment by
industry, we will not pursue the demonstration.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
diagnostic and instrumentation laboratory (dial)
Question. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the Undersecretary and
Directors for testifying before this committee today. The work you do
is very important to my State and to me. I'd like to commend David
Garman, the Director of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, for the work he does with biomass research.
This scientific research is so important to a rural, agricultural
State like Mississippi. Biomass energy is estimated to contribute over
7 percent of Mississippi's total energy consumption--that amount is
double the national average. The majority of our lumber facilities burn
wood waste to generate steam for industrial processes. Biomass offers
special opportunities for benefiting Mississippi's economy by keeping
energy dollars in our State and by providing jobs in rural areas where
biomass is produced. By using their wastes for energy, disposal costs
are avoided, and industries are better able to compete.
The principal biomass waste streams that occur in Mississippi are
generated by agriculture (e.g., cotton gin waste), wood products
manufacturing (e.g., sawdust and wood scraps), animal wastes from
confined feeding operations, and municipal solid waste collections
(e.g., paper and cardboard, demolition waste, lawn and tree trimmings).
Last year, I visited a biomass plant in Winona, Mississippi and
inquired about plans for using Federal funds that were appropriated in
the fiscal year 2003 omnibus bill. I learned that the Winona biomass
project can enter its final stages of discovering the organism which
will cause the heated biomass to turn into gas. Once that organism or
``bug'' is discovered, the plant can operate from start to finish where
chips of wood can be input, burned and then gasified into ethanol. In a
town like Winona, that sort of success has great economic development
potential.
I am pleased to learn that the Department is concentrating its
biomass research efforts on the catalysts needed for biomass gasifiers.
Many communities, beyond the scientific community, will benefit from
this work.
I would also like to commend the Mississippi Diagnostic
Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory at Mississippi State
University. I am pleased to see that you're funding good science, like
the joint Los Alamos-Mississippi State project that we hope will be
useful for both DOE and Homeland Security. A continuing concern is how
do we take this magnificent science and turn it into the new
technologies DOE needs to accelerate cleanup. I am hopeful that you
consider using organizations such as DIAL at Mississippi State to turn
your science into technologies that will be used at the DOE sites. Mr.
Chairman, with your permission I have a question I'd like to submit for
the record.
I am pleased to see that you're funding good science, like the
joint Los Alamos-Mississippi State project that we hope will be useful
for both DOE and Homeland Security. A continuing concern however is how
do we take this magnificent science and turn it into the new
technologies DOE needs to accelerate cleanup? Have you considered using
organizations such as DIAL at Mississippi State to help bridge the
``valley of death'' to turn your science into technologies that will be
used at the DOE sites?
Answer. The ``valley of death'' issue is a major concern of ours
and we have been developing strategies to efficiently transfer
scientific results to cleanup applications. First, we will work
directly with site cleanup personnel to identify problem areas where
science can make a significant impact and to further collaborate with
the site on these specific issues. This will ensure that our scientific
results are directly transferred to the sites for further development.
We regularly conduct technical exchange workshops and find these
invaluable, and will expand these at major cleanup sites. In addition,
we have found that frequently, scientists want to take their work to
the next stage themselves or at least provide technical support
throughout the development. We encourage appropriate Environmental
Management Science program researchers to develop partnerships with
applied organizations, such as DIAL.
Question. What future plans do you have to work with DIAL?
Answer. The Environmental Management Science program will continue
to select projects through competitive peer review that focus on the
Department's cleanup problems. A key research area continues to be
techniques to characterize and monitor contaminated sites. In
partnership with the national laboratories and universities, DIAL is
likely to be competitive in this area.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
science
Question. In the fiscal year 2003 Conference Report, we instructed
you to reprogram funds, if necessary, to respond to the challenge of
the Japanese Earth Simulator Computer. I believe the Earth Simulator is
a warning shot across the bow for American computing companies and
research. Does your advanced computing strategy adequately address the
need for a robust investment in American supercomputing to maintain
American competitiveness?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget request for Advanced Scientific
Computing Research includes $14 million for research in next generation
computer architectures (NGA) for scientific simulation. The NGA allows
us to embark on an R&D investment strategy to provide future high
performance computing resources that are optimized for scientific
simulations in areas of strategic importance to the Department.
Question. Given the remarkable successes of the Human Genome
Project, can you help the Committee understand the new science drivers
behind the Genomes to Life program?
Answer. The Human Genome Project, and DOE's associated Microbial
Genome Program, determined a representative human DNA sequence and the
DNA sequences of a rapidly growing number of microbes (nearly 100),
most with direct relevance to DOE mission needs in energy and the
environment. While the availability of genomic DNA sequence information
has revolutionized the way scientists think about and do biology it is
only a first of what will certainly be many very large steps. An
organism's DNA sequence is the blueprint, the complete set of genetic
instructions, which biology uses to create a living, working organism.
It gives scientists a complete list of all the parts (proteins for
example) along with the genetic on/off switches and rheostats that the
organism uses to make sure that all of its genes are active only at the
right time and place. However, the DNA sequence doesn't tell us what
all those parts do, how they actually work, how they interact with each
other, how they are regulated, and how different organisms, microbes in
the case of the Genomes to Life program, interact with each other.
These uncertainties are the scientific drivers for the Genomes to Life
program. In the end, we want to understand microbes of interest to DOE
so well that we have computational models that accurately predict their
behavior in response, for example, to environmental contaminants,
elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide. With this understanding we can use
those microbes to develop biology-based solutions to DOE needs--
abundant sources of clean energy, new solutions for cleaning up DOE
waste sites, removal of excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Question. We have a large capital investment in the Office of
Science user facilities that serve many users at universities and
laboratories. Are we operating these facilities at maximum capacity in
the fiscal year 2004 budget to meet the needs of these scientists?
Answer. The science user facilities are operating in the fiscal
year 2004 request between 83 and 100 percent of maximum capacity. It is
always difficult to find the right balance among completing priorities
for facility operations, research, construction, etc. We are satisfied
that we have allocated the funding in the request to achieve the best
balance possible.
Question. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am pleased that
the United States has resumed its participation in the ITER project.
However, the dollar levels look very low for our first year
participation. Are the funds in the budget adequate to fulfill our
international requirements?
Answer. The proposed fiscal year 2004 participation is of a
preparatory nature, 2 years in advance of the start of construction,
planned for fiscal year 2006. In this sense, the $12 million request is
sufficient to begin our involvement.
Question. As a follow-up, the U.S. participation seems fairly
modest compared to that of several of the international partners. Are
you satisfied that it appears that the United States will be just a
junior partner in ITER? Is a larger role something we should aspire to?
Answer. As just noted, the proposed fiscal year 2004 level of
funding does not necessarily presage the level of U.S. participation
during construction. With regard to that participation, the
Administration wishes to make a significant contribution to this
project. The ultimate answer to your question of participation levels
will depend on the final number of interested parties, and I will note
that South Korea has recently expressed interest in joining the
negotiations.
Question. Are you having any problems attracting top flight
scientists to your labs given the deteriorating condition of many of
these facilities? If so, what can Congress do to address the situation?
Answer. Recruitment of new staff is particularly critical at this
time as the generation that helped build the labs retires and the labs
compete in the job market to replace them. While it is always difficult
in hot new areas like genomics and nanoscience, decaying facilities and
sites, lack of adequate housing for post-doc and graduate students, and
salary gaps are making recruitment even more difficult. I should add
that retaining the current staff is not easy either.
We have anecdotal comments from Lawrence Berkeley, Brookhaven and
Oak Ridge National Laboratories that scientists are, in fact, declining
job offers based on the condition of working space offered them. Their
concerns range from quality of facilities and equipment and appearance
to location and amenities.
Berkeley, Brookhaven and Oak Ridge are our oldest laboratories.
Overall, 24 percent of the building space at our laboratories is more
than 50 years old. We have identified over $1.5 billion, $1.2 billion
of this total is for buildings, of line item projects to renovate,
modernize and replace our existing buildings to better support our
research missions. A complete listing and description of the projects
can be found at the SC web site: http://www.science.doe.gov/SC-80/sc-82
under ``Infrastructure Needs Assessment.'' We appreciate the support
from Congress of the President's funding requests to modernize the
Science laboratories.
Question. A few years ago you office supported an education
program. I see that your fiscal year 2004 budget proposes a new
workforce development program. Does this program address the workforce
development needs of the scientific community?
Answer. Our approach to science workforce development is to have a
comprehensive plan to expand the pipeline of students interested in,
attracted to, and retained into science and technology careers. To do
so, we have a major effort in offering mentor-intensive internships to
undergraduate students at our national laboratories drawn not only from
the typical 4-year research institutions but also from non-research
institutions and community colleges. We also have a Faculty and Student
Teams program that is aimed at developing long-term relationships
between the faculty of small non-research institutions and the
scientists at our national laboratories.
Of particular interest to us, is the proposed Laboratory Science
Teacher Professional Development program. If our Nation is to have a
sufficient number of physical scientists and engineers, we need to
address the serious declines in these majors among U.S. citizens. A
number of commissions and studies have shown that the best route to
stimulating student interest is through qualified and exciting teachers
especially in the middle school years. Our teacher professional
development program is aimed at attacking this problem through mentor-
intensive research and focused science-discovery experiences for K-14
teachers. It will forge long-term relationships between the national
laboratory scientists and our Nation's science teachers. Through this
approach we believe we can produce a group of teachers who will be
agents of change and inspiration to their students and local
educational communities. We believe this comprehensive plan will
utilize the unique human and scientific resources of the national
laboratories to help support the future science workforce development
of the Nation.
Question. What is so different about your office's approach to High
End Computing? What are you doing to develop this important area and
what are the benefits?
Answer. There are three major differences to our office's approach
to High End Computing. First, we will conduct this effort within the
context of an inter-agency strategy in High End Computing, to leverage
resources and to provide the strong, broad commitment needed to sustain
this long-term strategy. Second, we will engage our scientists with
computer design researchers and with U.S. computer vendors through
research collaborations, to evaluate computer system bottlenecks and to
identify cost-effective solutions. Third, we will support research in
the software programming environment to ensure that future
supercomputer platforms are easy to use as soon as they become
available.
Question. What actions have you taken in the last year to assure
the integrity of the Lab Directed Research and Development process?
Answer. The Office of Science implemented the following policy
changes to ensure that the LDRD program at its laboratories is executed
in full compliance with all Congressional and DOE regulations.
--My office issued detailed guidance on the roles and
responsibilities for Headquarters, DOE Site Offices/Operations
Offices and the Laboratories regarding adequate reporting and
effective oversight of the LDRD program.
--For the first time in the Office of Science, I can personally
assure you that a single Federal official--the site office
manager--will carry out a prospective review of the
laboratories' proposed LDRD projects, ensure their relevance to
DOE missions and concur in each project.
--Also, my office developed supplemental implementation guidance for
reporting LDRD charges on other Federal agency funded work for
others (WFO) projects and it is being implemented by each Site
Office.
--The Office of Science provided the necessary data to the CFO's
office for the annual LDRD financial report to Congress. This
report provides information and analyses to comply with
congressional requirements, and supports the conclusion that
the LDRD funds clearly benefit the national security missions
of the Department by providing innovative new research to
underpin future mission capabilities.
--In addition, each year the Science laboratories analyze and report
the benefits provided to defense and non-defense customer
categories as a percentage of total LDRD project dollars. They
demonstrate that LDRD benefits are commensurate with the
percentage of funds received.
I have made a personal commitment to ensure that we are fully
responsive to Congressional guidance on LDRD and will strive to make
our improved processes work efficiently and effectively.
energy efficiency and renewable energy
Question. I see that you have zeroed out funding for the
Concentrating Solar Power portion of the solar energy budget. I have
been told by many energy scientists, including researchers at the
National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), that CSP holds significant
promise for long-term energy potential. Why have you given up on
Concentrating Solar Power and what is it going to take to get you to
focus on it again?
Answer. EERE's budget reflects numerous factors: Administration
priorities, alignment with the Administration's R&D investment
criteria, program performance, expected public benefits, and bringing
to completion research on some technology applications that are ready
to be commercialized. Concentrating Solar Power was identified as a low
priority area because of a study by the National Academy of Sciences in
2000 that recommended: ``[The Department] should limit or halt its
research and development on power-tower and power-trough technologies
because further refinements would not lead to deployment.'' The study
also suggested that the Department reassess market prospects for solar
dish/engine technologies. Based on these recommendations, the fiscal
year 2003 budget began phasing out the CSP program, and the fiscal year
2004 budget terminates it.
In 2002, the Department sponsored two independent technical reviews
of Concentrating Solar Power: the first by Sargent & Lundy (S&L), an
engineering firm that conducts due-diligence studies in the power
sector; the second a review by the National Research Council (NRC) of
the S&L study. In November 2002, the NRC submitted its review of the
initial S&L study. The NRC found that many of the conclusions from the
S&L study were reasonable, but also identified several limitations and
deficiencies in the S&L analysis, which S&L has agreed to address. We
are awaiting the final report from Sargent & Lundy, and based on our
review of that and the NRC review DOE will reevaluate the possibility
of future Federal support for CSP.
Question. In the last two conference reports we have carried
language directing the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to
deploy some of their technologies in Nevada in partnership with
industrial and university partners. It is my understanding that this
effort is working out well for everyone involved, but I would be
interested in your thoughts.
Answer. Within the scope of this Congressionally-directed activity,
DOE and NREL staff identified a variety of RDD&D opportunities in
fiscal year 2002 that the indicated Nevada constituencies might conduct
to complement existing renewable program efforts and provide benefits
to Nevada and the U.S. Southwest. In response to a targeted
solicitation, nine proposals were selected for award from among 36
proposals. Work on eight of the nine projects commenced in October
2002. The ninth project with Pulte Homes for a Zero Energy Home
demonstration project/information center has been delayed due to the
departure of Pulte's project lead. Alternate builders are being sought
to support Pulte's end of the project and complete the award
negotiations. With the fiscal year 2003 appropriations only recently
concluded, no new awards have been made. In general, the implementation
process is proceeding smoothly but it is too early to characterize the
possible program technology and regional energy benefits that may
result from this funding.
Question. Biomass seems to have taken a substantial cut in the
fiscal year 2004 request. By all accounts this program has been very
successful. Why are you cutting back at this time?
Answer. The Department recognizes the tremendous potential of a
well-focused biomass R&D program to develop biorefinery technologies
that can produce fuels, power, and high-value chemicals and other
products. Nevertheless, Congressionally-directed activities reduced the
coherence of this program and significantly constrained the ability of
our scientists and engineers to move these important technologies
forward. Thus, when we made the tough choices about funding the most
important research for our Nation's energy security, environmental, and
economic goals, we decided to shift funds from the biomass program
where the effectiveness of our R&D work was already reduced into other
areas, particularly our longer-term hydrogen and fuel cell R&D.
EERE's budget reflects numerous factors: Administration priorities,
efficiencies realized by combining all biomass research under one
program, alignment with the Administration's R&D investment criteria,
program performance, expected public benefits, and bringing to
completion research on some technology applications that are ready to
be commercialized. It is also important to recognize that in fiscal
year 2004, DOE will continue collaborating with USDA in order to
leverage both agencies' resources as we are doing in fiscal year 2003.
In fiscal year 2003, under a joint solicitation required by the Biomass
R&D Act of 2000, USDA will award $14 million and DOE $5 million for
cost-shared R&D work identified in the Act.
Question. When you took over as Assistant Secretary 2 years ago,
you expended a substantial amount of time and effort in reorganizing
the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy office. One of the unique
features of the final organization chart was the creation of a Board of
Directors for EERE. You assured us at the time that the Board of
Directors was going to be a panel of your brightest minds and was going
to be afforded the opportunity to think big thoughts and advise you
directly. More to the point, you assured us that it was not a burial
ground for unwanted Deputy Assistant Secretaries. However, in the year
since the reorganization went into place, two of your five Directors
have left and the other three seem to be engaged in activities not
always directly related to your office's mission. Do you still stand by
the concept of a Board of Directors?
Answer. One of the innovations of the new EERE business model has
been the creation of the Board of Directors. It has also been one of
the early successes. Board members have represented EERE and the
Department in international climate change deliberations, formed
corporate strategies related to the FreedomCAR partnership and Hydrogen
Fuel Initiative, and advised on how to reshape the budget to comport
with new, emerging priorities. Proof positive of the importance of this
unique governmental entity is that we are conducting a national search
to replace the recently departing Board members and hope to have an
announcement as to their replacement in the coming weeks.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
science
Question. Dr. Orbach, the Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL) and
major Universities and research institutes in my State are valuable
resources for the Genomes to Life program and I urge you to expand the
use of those world class facilities. However, I also realize the Office
of Science's Biological and Environmental Research program sustained
real cuts into the base budget in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus budget.
For this budget year, I would like to work with the Chairman to include
significant increases for the Genomes to Life program in the BER
budget. Dr. Orbach, what would the Office of Science be able to do with
additional funds for the Genomes to Life program?
Answer. Senator Murray, I believe that the fiscal year 2004
President's request for the Genomes to Life program provides robust
funding, while balancing the needs of this exciting new program with
other equally compelling programs being carried out within the Office
of Science. In these very early days of research in the Genomes to Life
(GTL) program we have three types of research needs. First, we need to
fund large, multi investigator, multi institutional, multidisciplinary
research teams to do the kinds of science required by a program whose
technology, computational, and experimental challenges are as complex
and diverse as those of the GTL program. We have already funded 5 large
scientific teams ($5-7 million per year) whose research spans the four
core goals of the GTL program (approximately one team per goal): (1)
understand all the multi protein molecular machines in DOE-relevant
microbes, (2) identify the genetic regulatory machinery that controls
these machines, (3) understand complex, DOE-relevant communities of
microbes since microbes generally work in communities and not alone,
and (4) develop the computational resources needed to make all of this
happen. To ensure a diversity of research approaches that is so
important for fundamental discovery in science, we need at least two or
more teams of scientists addressing each of these large, challenging
goals. The fiscal year 2004 President's request includes an additional
$29.2 million for GTL. These additional funds could, for example,
support an additional large team of scientists focused on each of the
four core GTL goals. Second, we need to fund a wide variety of cutting
edge research projects that will help us develop many of the specific
technologies and research tools that will be needed by our large GTL
research teams, by planned GTL user facilities (see below), and,
indeed, by tomorrow's scientists across all areas of biology. These
individual investigator type projects are analogous to the many
projects funded in the Human Genome Project that led to the development
of the resources and technologies eventually used to actually sequence
the human genome. Third, the proposed GTL plan calls for cost-
effective, high throughput user facilities for carrying out much of the
routine biology and generating the necessary resources of GTL (and for
other areas of biology outside of GTL) just as the Human Genome project
needed DNA sequencing factories. Four high throughput facilities are
planned for (1) protein production, (2) imaging of microbial proteins,
molecular machines, and communities, (3) proteomics, and (4) whole
systems analysis.
Question. Dr. Orbach, does the fiscal year 2004 budget request have
enough funds to have full utilization of EMSL including computer
equipment?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Environmental
Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) includes $35,149,000 for operating
expenses and $1,989,000 for capital equipment. The EMSL is expected to
have sufficient funding to allow full utilization of the EMSL,
including the new high performance computer.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Domenici. And for all of you who came from the
Department and others, thank you for being here.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:31 p.m., Wednesday, March 12, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:40 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Cochran, Craig, and Reid.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Environmental Management
STATEMENT OF JESSIE HILL ROBERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. Today the subcommittee is going to review
the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2004 budget request for
(1) the Office of Environmental Management and (2) the Office
of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
In that regard, we will receive testimony from Ms. Jessie
H. Roberson, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management,
and from Dr. Margaret S.Y. Chu, Director of the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Both of today's
witnesses have testified before this subcommittee before. We
welcome you back and we look forward to your testimony today.
For the Office of Environmental Management the Department
has requested $7.2 billion, an increase of 4 percent from the
current year of $6.9 billion.
Secretary Roberson, since you took this job 2 years ago you
have done many impressive things. You have led and completed a
top-to-bottom review, you have revised the clean-up estimates
to take 35 years and $30 billion off the projected clean-up
program, you have significantly narrowed the focus of the
program, which was very much needed, you have shaken up the
senior management of your office--I do not know that you want
to say that. We will just say that for you--downsized the
headquarters staff, and you have recompeted existing clean-up
contracts, and perhaps most notably, secured increased budget
requests from the Office of Management and Budget. That is
truly borderline miraculous, considering that they always
wanted us to do more with less.
You have successfully increased the amount of money that is
going into this function, and now for fiscal year 2004 you are
promising to get rid of the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory by transferring it to the Office of
Nuclear Energy and completely restructuring the budget to focus
on your newly defined priority.
All of these we commend you for.
You have been nothing if not very busy during these first 2
years. You have proposed many changes in the programs. Many we
have liked, some we are not so sure we like, but all have been
vigorously pursued, and I believe your efforts will produce
real successes in years to come.
Still you have many challenges ahead, and I am sure you
will tell us about them today. You must continue to improve
project management. The Department must ensure that the letters
of intent and performance management plans produced over the
last years are funded and--equally important--followed. The
Department must convince the State regulators, jaded by years
of broken promises, that the Department is a reliable partner
in this clean-up, and the Department must learn to work more
efficiently, even in an era of heightened safeguards and
security concerns.
Your progress to date has been very good. I look forward to
hearing about your plans for fiscal year 2004.
Now, regarding the budget request for the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, this year it is $591
million, an increase of $131 million, a 28 percent increase.
After 20 years of scientific study, last year the President
notified Congress that the Yucca Mountain site should begin the
rigorous process of scientific and technical review leading to
an NRC license for the facility. In July of last year, Congress
accepted the President's recommendation, and the Yucca Mountain
project now shifts its focus to licensing, building and
operating the repository and related transportation
infrastructure. This is a huge task, and no one knows that
better than our Ranking Member, Senator Reid.
The country has decided to proceed with the construction of
a nuclear waste repository, and it will cost close to $10
billion in the next several years to complete it. We are all
going to have to work together to ensure a strong future for
nuclear power in our country and the world. Economics and
environmental protection will demand a major role for nuclear
power, and an acceptable spent fuel management policy, but even
if we are successful in developing alternative methods of
treating spent nuclear fuel, the country must still have a
permanent geological repository.
Each of the program areas before us today will present
unique challenges for this subcommittee. I will look forward to
engaging each of our witnesses today and working with all the
members of this subcommittee to put together the best possible
appropriations bill.
I will now yield to my Ranking Member, Senator Reid. Thank
you, Senator Reid.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID
Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Our subcommittee has spent a lot of time working with you,
Secretary Roberson, and your staff on the administration's
clean-up initiative last year. Obviously, I am happy to see
that your budget request fully supports the accelerated clean-
up program that has resulted from your efforts last year, but
the hard part now begins. We need to turn to the higher dollar
totals you are getting now and for the next few years into
verifiable progress in getting clean-ups done more quickly and
at lower cost.
There are members of this subcommittee and certainly the
full committee from States that have much bigger clean-up
programs than does Nevada, for sure, and if they have more
questions, they will pursue those, the details of that, but
your request this year includes a plea for some additional
flexibility on the treatment of construction projects, and this
is something I am confident Senator Domenici and I can
consider.
Let me now talk to you, Dr. Chu. As I understand it, and I
am almost certain I am right, this is your first opportunity to
testify before this subcommittee. I am most interested in
several statements that you made about the Department of
Energy's plans for submitting a license application in December
of 2004.
One of the most important conclusions of a report issued by
the GAO a few years ago was that DOE never rebaselined the
Yucca Mountain project. Your written testimony suggests the
only thing standing between you and a license application in
the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2004 is getting the full
fiscal year 2004 budget request. This strikes me as somewhat
unlikely, and I suspect it would strike the GAO as absurd,
given the technical and financial difficulties that your office
has faced for years, not you personally, but your office.
Even if you do file an application on time next year, your
supporters are probably going to want to know how it is that
you were able to get everything you needed to be done so
correctly and promptly when Congress has not given you anything
close to your budget request for more than a decade. All of us
will want to know what you have done poorly or not at all in a
rush to meet these milestones.
As you know, one of the biggest concerns about this project
is this issue of transporting waste across the country. Last
year the Secretary of Energy seemed to say that there is plenty
of time to resolve transportation issues. This is exactly what
he said. Because the site has not yet been designated, the
Department is just beginning to formulate its preliminary
thoughts about the transportation plan. There is an 8-year
period before any transportation to Yucca Mountain might occur.
This will afford ample time to implement a program that builds
upon a record of safe and orderly transportation of nuclear
materials and makes improvements to it where appropriate, end
of quote.
Your testimony, though, paints a different picture,
contrary to what the Secretary said. You indicate in your
testimony you have been underfunded and as a result you have
deferred critical work on transportation. I am more inclined to
believe your testimony than that of the Secretary's. They are
not compatible. One has to be more accurate than the other.
The transportation of nuclear waste has tremendous
implication for the health and safety of all Americans. It is
not an issue that should be used as an example for political
purposes. The fact remains, you have not studied transportation
and have no assurance that you can do this. I do not understand
how you can consider beginning a licensing process for the
repository when you do not know how you would transport this
waste.
While we are on the issue of trust, I want to make this
point about what I feel is the unfair treatment of Nevada. The
issue has only been worse, and I am not talking about you
personally, because you are new on the job and we have great
expectations for you and, as you know, I released a hold that I
had on you indicating that I thought you had good credentials
and would try to be fair, and you indicated that you would be,
and I have nothing to indicate that is not the case.
However, we have $600,000 in oversight funds for the State
of Nevada from fiscal year 2002 that have not been released to
the State, yet you are also holding half of the funding for the
State's affected counties despite the fact that your own
internal audits have revealed problems in only two of the
counties, that is Nye and Lincoln Counties.
If the audits are revealing disallowed costs in one or two
counties, I would prefer that you divert the funding to the
other units of affected government rather than sitting on it
all. I am not going to defend any counties that are spending
Federal dollars inappropriately if that, in fact, is the case,
but it is really unacceptable for you to hold all the monies
because two counties are doing something allegedly wrong.
And to make matters worse, the DOE has failed to provide
oversight funding for the States and counties in the fiscal
year 2004 budget. We put some money in, but we should not have
to do that. That should be part of the responsibility of you,
because there is lofty rhetoric coming out of the Department
all the time concerning partnering with our State and its
counties, but cutting off all funds does not seem to fill me
with any hope that you really care about what is taking place
in Nevada.
PREPARED STATEMENT
You have explained to my staff that you called for a
pause--that is your word, not mine--on funding, but I do not
find any of that compelling and plan to reinsert funding in the
fiscal year 2004 bill. I think that would be the right thing to
do.
Chairman Domenici has never tolerated the Department
treating his State or any other State or any locality shabbily,
and I am going to continue the example set by Senator Domenici
on how New Mexico has been treated with all the many things the
DOE has there, with what I feel should be the treatment of the
people of Nevada.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Harry Reid
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding this hearing today to
discuss the budget for the Environmental Management program and the
Yucca Mountain program.
Like you, I am pleased to welcome Ms. Jessie Roberson, the
Assistant Secretary for the Office of Environmental Management, and Dr.
Margaret Chu, the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Nuclear Waste.
Secretary Roberson, I am pleased you are here today. As the steward
of the largest program office within the Department of Energy, you have
a huge responsibility.
Our Subcommittee spent a lot of time working with you and your
staff on the Administration's Clean-up Reform Initiative last year.
Obviously, I am very happy to see that your budget request fully
supports the accelerated clean-up program that has resulted from your
efforts last year.
The hard part begins now. We need to turn the higher dollar totals
you are getting now and for the next few years into verifiable progress
on getting the clean-ups done more quickly and at lower cost.
There are several Members here from states that have much bigger
clean-up programs than does Nevada, so I will allow them to pursue you
on those details.
I see that your request this year includes a plea for some
additional flexibility on the treatment of construction projects. This
strikes me as something that Chairman Domenici and I can at least
consider.
However, let me now turn my attention to today's other witness, Dr.
Chu.
Dr. Chu, you have been on the job for just a little over a year
now. For whatever reason, the Administration was not able to find a
Bible and get you sworn in before last year's hearing despite your
confirmation by the Senate, so I am glad you are finally getting your
first opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee.
I want to talk for a few minutes about several components of your
testimony.
I am most interested in several statements you make about the
Department of Energy's plans for submitting a license application in
December 2004.
One of the most important conclusions of a report issued by the
General Accounting Office a few years ago was that the DOE never re-
baselined the Yucca Mountain project.
Your written testimony suggests that the only thing standing
between you and a license application in the fourth quarter of calendar
year 2004 is getting the full fiscal year 2004 budget request.
This strikes me as unlikely, and I suspect it would strike the GAO
as absurd, given the technical and financial difficulties you have
faced for years.
I completely understand why you would be reluctant to take advice
from me on a Yucca Mountain-related matter, but I am going to offer you
some anyway: if you are not going to make the deadline, you should
probably start laying that groundwork now. If you wait until next year,
the folks you are going to anger are going to be the Members whose
support you need most.
Additionally, even if you do file an application on-time next year,
your supporters are probably going to want to know how it is that you
were able to get everything you needed to do done correctly and
properly when Congress has not given you anything close to your budget
requests for the better part of a decade. All of us will want to know
what you have done poorly or not at all in a rush to meet this
milestone.
As you know, one of my biggest concerns about this project is this
issue of transporting waste across the country. Last year, the
Secretary seemed to say that there is plenty of time to resolve
transportation issues.
Here is what he said:
``Because the site has not yet been designated, the Department is
just beginning to formulate its preliminary thoughts about a
transportation plan. There is an eight- year period before any
transportation to Yucca Mountain might occur. This will afford ample
time to implement a program that builds upon our record of safe and
orderly transportation of nuclear materials and makes improvements to
it where appropriate.''
However, your testimony paints a very different picture. You
indicate in your testimony that you have been underfunded and as a
result you have ``deferred critical work on transportation.''
The transportation of nuclear waste has tremendous implications for
the health and safety of all Americans.
It is not an issue that should be used as an example to make a
political point.
How are we supposed trust you to secure the health and safety of
Nevadans, when we can't even trust you to tell the truth about what you
are doing with your budget.
The fact remains you haven't studied transportation and have no
assurances that you can do this safely.
I do not understand how you can consider beginning a licensing
process for the repository when you don't even know how you would
transport all this waste or if you can even do this safely.
While we are on this issue of trust, I would like to make one final
point about your program's treatment of the people of the Nevada.
In my view, the Department of Energy has shown little regard for
the people of Nevada.
This issue has only become worse in the last few years. In fact,
nearly $600,000 in oversight funds for the state of Nevada from fiscal
year 2002 have not yet been released to the state. You are also holding
on to half of the funding for all of Nevada's affected counties despite
the fact that your internal audits have revealed problems in only two
of them (Nye and Lincoln).
If the audits are revealing disallowed costs in one or two counties
I would much prefer that you divert the funding to the other units of
affected government rather than sitting on it. I will not defend any
counties that are spending Federal dollars inappropriately, if that is
in fact the case, but it is unacceptable for you to be withholding
those funds.
To make matters worse, the Department of Energy has failed to
provide oversight funding for the state and the counties in the state
of Nevada in the 2004 fiscal year budget. For all of the lofty rhetoric
coming out of the Department concerning partnering with our state and
its counties, cutting off all funding does not fill me with hope that
you really care about Nevadans at all.
I understand you have explained to my staff why it is that you have
called for a ``pause''--your word, not mine--in funding. However, I
don't find any of that compelling and plan to re-insert funding into
the fiscal year 2004 bill.
Chairman Domenici has never tolerated the Department treating his
state or his localities shabbily and neither will I.
Senator Domenici. Senator Cochran.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just make an
opening statement and submit some questions for the record.
Mr.Chairman, I am pleased to be here today to hear the
testimony of Secretary Roberson. She oversees a very important
program within the Department of Energy, the Environmental
Management program. That program is currently conducting
testing on a type of technology which has the potential to
expedite the clean up of nuclear sites. This process is called
the ``advanced vitrification system'' and the research on it is
conducted at Mississippi State University's Diagnostic
Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory (DIAL).
Following last year's hearing on this program, I was
pleased to learn the Department had invested in the preparation
of a work plan that would perform the engineering and design to
bring the advanced vitrification system to a pilot plant for
further testing. The advanced vitrification system technology
has been tested and evaluated for the Department for several
years at DIAL.
I commend the Administration for its efforts to reform the
waste program and I am pleased that our subcommittee provided
funds to demonstrate higher risk, high-payoff technologies,
including the advanced vitrification system technology. This
Committee has also continued to express its support for these
systems, most recently in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus
Appropriations Conference Report. In that the Congress urged
``the Department to consider continued evaluation, development
and demonstration of the Advanced Vitrification System'' and
directed the Department to ``develop the vitrification-in-the-
final-disposal-container AVS system in accordance with the work
plan.''
Mr. Chairman, the government should continue to invest in
advanced backup technologies that serve as an insurance policy
and may be essential to the national defense. I look forward to
hearing from Secretary Roberson on the progress she and
Secretary Abraham are making to reform the Environmental
Management program and achieve schedule and cost savings in the
waste program. I am also interested in the status of the
Department's evaluation of alternative technologies and I will
have some questions regarding that effort and her intentions
for implementing the Department's work plan for the advanced
vitrification system technology.
Madam Secretary, I am here to ask a question really, but I
will submit the questions I have for the record and ask you to
submit your answers for the record so we will not unnecessarily
delay the hearing, but at last year's hearing you may remember
that I raised a question about some competing technologies that
might be available in our clean-up efforts, and I was very
pleased to learn at that hearing that you had directed the
preparation of a work plan that could lead to the establishment
of a pilot plant for competitive testing against other
technologies.
This approach that is being tested now at Mississippi State
University has the potential to provide reduced costs and
competition that is needed in my opinion in this program. We
put in the committee report last year a suggestion that this
was an appropriate direction for the Department to move.
ADVANCED VITRIFICATION SYSTEM (AVS) AND RADIOACTIVE ISOLATION
CONSORTIUM (RIC)
Much of the funding has shown that the potential of the
advanced vitrification system at the Diagnostic and
Instrumentation Laboratory at Mississippi State University is
expected to provide analytical analysis that will answer
questions and provide a testing history that could be used to
compare with competing systems. I am hoping that you can give
us an updated report on the status of this initiative and what
your plans are for developing alternative technologies that
offer a cost and schedule savings in this program. That is my
purpose for being here.
Ms. Roberson. We will be glad to do that for you, Senator.
[The information follows:]
As you may be aware, the DOE Office of Inspector General issued a
report on the Advanced Vitrification System (AVS) in August 2002,
providing the following recommendations:
--Delay funding decisions on AVS until major uncertainties have been
addressed;
--Develop specific, focused performance measures to more fully gauge
progress in the evaluation and selection of an alternative or
advanced vitrification technology; and
--Address all technical, programmatic, and financial challenges and
uncertainties identified in previous studies during the
upcoming business plan evaluation.
I have agreed with these recommendations and developed an Action
Plan, which describes an approach to evaluate and develop
immobilization alternatives for treating high-level waste (HLW) at
Hanford. We have evaluated the technical and financial merits of AVS
and other alternatives recommended by a technical panel. Those
alternatives include an advanced Cold Crucible Melter and an Advanced
Joule Heated melter. As part of the evaluation, questions regarding
technical details of the AVS were provided to the Radioactive Isolation
Consortium (RIC). Representatives from the RIC provided the Department
with responses to the questions and participated in a review which was
held on February 24-28, 2003, in Richland, Washington. The two review
teams (technical and financial) are currently drafting their reports
and will submit them to a DOE technical working group (TWG).
The TWG has the responsibility of reviewing the reports and making
a recommendation to me for future research and development of
immobilization alternatives to treat HLW. A decision is currently
planned for June 2003. The Department has extended the period of
performance and associated funding to the Radioactive Isolation
Consortium (RIC) through the end of June 2003 to support this schedule.
Senator Cochran. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator.
Secretary Roberson, will you proceed? Your testimony will
be made a part of the record as if read. If you would
abbreviate it, we would be pleased.
Senator Reid. If I could just say this, I want to tell you
how much I appreciate you holding a meeting on Monday. We
should do more of these Mondays and Fridays when we do not have
the Senate in session. We can do this uninterrupted. We are not
running in and out of here. It is just such a better system,
and I appreciate you doing this.
Senator Domenici. Thank you. The only problem is, you are
among the few that appreciate it.
The other ones would rather not be at work on Monday, but I
think it is a very good day, I agree with you.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JESSIE HILL ROBERSON
Ms. Roberson. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Domenici,
members of the subcommittee, Senator Cochran, Senator Reid. I
am pleased to be here today to discuss the President's fiscal
year 2004 budget request for the Department of Energy's
Environmental Management program.
Eighteen months ago, Secretary Abraham directed me to
review from top-to-bottom the EM program and uncover those
obstacles hindering efficient and effective clean-up of our
sites. As you may be aware, the top-to-bottom review, which was
published last February, concluded that EM had lost the focus
of its core mission to remedy the legacy of the Cold War's
impact on the environment. We had to take immediate action.
With the top-to-bottom review as the blueprint for the
program, we have aligned EM's focus from risk management to
risk reduction and accelerated clean-up and closure, the
intended mission of the Environmental Management program from
the start. We have made remarkable progress this year towards
our goal of saving at least $50 billion over the life of the
program and completing the program at least 35 years earlier,
but we must not succumb to the idea that all problems are
solved.
The momentum we have gained must not be compromised or
allowed to weaken. We must stay the course. The actions and
strategies we have implemented, while producing key results,
must be given the chance to further evolve, bringing even
greater gains in risk reduction and clean-up sooner.
Underpinning these strategies are several groundbreaking
reforms that will propel us forward in our thinking and our
actions. We are implementing a new acquisition strategy. We are
aggressively using and managing the acquisition process as a
key tool to drive contract performance and risk reduction
results. We have established 10 special project teams to carve
new innovative paths for accelerated clean-up. Each team is
formulating corporate-level initiatives and activity-specific
actions to accelerate risk reduction further and in a much more
improved manner.
We have implemented a strict configuration control
management system that baselines a number of key critical
program elements. Robust change control and monitoring of those
key elements will facilitate a high confidence level that the
direction of the program is on course and that our objectives
are being accomplished.
The budget request before you is one of our most crucial
reforms. This request, a cornerstone of our transformation, is
a major step toward aligning performance with the resources
needed to expedite risk reduction and clean-up. This budget
request sets the foundation for budget planning and execution
of the accelerated risk reduction and closure initiatives.
Today, the EM program is still very much a defense
environmental liability, responsible for the disposition of
many tons of special nuclear material, 88 million gallons of
radioactive liquid waste, 2,500 metric tons of spent nuclear
fuel, 135,000 cubic meters of transuranic waste, and well over
1 million cubic meters of low-level waste. I ask the committee
to stay with us as we continue our quest to eliminate risks
posed by these materials at a pace few of us could have
imagined 2 years ago.
For example, just within the last week at Savannah River,
the Defense waste processing facility was restarted on March
29, and completed its first canister pour with waste and a new
glass FRIT. At Savannah River on April 1, the first 3013 cans
for safe long-term storage of plutonium materials was produced
in the FP line packaging and stabilization system 60 days ahead
of schedule.
At Rocky Flats, the Plutonium Stabilization and Packaging
System has produced 425 containers in the first 3 months of
this year and is producing at a rate of 140 3013's per month,
well ahead of the schedule for that campaign.
At Hanford, as of April 4, we are 97 percent complete in
stabilizing plutonium residues and are expecting to finish that
commitment 10 months ahead of schedule. We are also removing
and stabilizing spent fuel from K basins at a rate more than
five times greater than when we began operations and are about
54 percent complete.
At the Office of River Protection, waste retrieval from
Tank C-106 commenced on March 31. At Fernald, contract
modification was completed on March 28, making closure in 2006
an actual contract requirement and reducing the target cost by
$400 million. Contract transition at Mound has been
successfully completed and is focused on completing no later
than March 2006. At Oak Ridge, equipment removal operations
commenced in Building K-29 and ETTP, and at Idaho, the Advanced
Mixed Waste Treatment project sent its first TRUPACT-II to WIPP
on March 31.
None of these were viewed as realistic goals 2 years ago by
our skeptics and critics. We view our job as not to let
skeptics convince us of what we cannot do, but to demonstrate
by our actions what we can do. New ideas and breakthroughs have
grown from looking beyond the paradigm of risk management to
the new focus of accelerated risk reduction. We are
experiencing the realization that for the first time the goal
of completing the current clean-up is within our grasp.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We are at a turning point in this program in spite of the
challenges ahead, and there are challenges, challenges that
have existed from the beginning of this program. We did not
create them in accelerated clean-up. They have simply been
lying in wait. We are taking these challenges on. Our momentum
is building. I ask for your support of our fiscal year 2004
budget request of $7.24 billion to ensure our impetus does not
diminish.
Thank you, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jessie Hill Roberson
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be
here today to discuss the reform of the Department of Energy's
Environmental Management (EM) program, our progress in implementing
cleanup reform, and the importance of sustaining the momentum for the
benefit of the many generations to come. I appreciate the opportunity
to sit before you and share our actions of this past year and the
opportunities that lie before us.
In 1996, Congress took a bold step that fundamentally altered the
course of the cleanup program in the Department of Energy when it
supported the accelerated closure of Rocky Flats. This was at a time
when there was little reason and no demonstrated track record to
believe that the Department could deliver on a challenge of this
magnitude. Congress took further steps in 1999 when it created the
Defense Facilities Closure Projects account and challenged the
Department of Energy to close three of its nuclear sites by 2006. While
it has taken significant effort and dedication, today all three of
those sites, Rocky Flats, Mound, and Fernald, will close on or ahead of
schedule. The vision and support that Congress provided planted the
seeds of success in the cleanup program and we have already begun
harvesting those fruits.
Nonetheless, success at other sites in the EM program remained
elusive. Year after year, it continued to take longer and cost more to
complete the cleanup and we slowly devolved into a program that
promised little and delivered even less. By the end of fiscal year
2001, the environmental cleanup program stood as one of the largest
liabilities of the Federal government.
Last year, as ordered by Secretary Abraham, the Department
completed a Top-to-Bottom Review of its cleanup program and concluded
that significant change was required in how the Department attacked
risk reduction and cleanup for the rest of its sites. Two years ago, as
costs continued to increase, we estimated that it could take over $300
billion and nearly 70 more years to complete cleanup--20 years longer
than the actual operations of our oldest facilities and 25 times longer
than the actual construction of our most complex facilities. We
concluded that a fundamental change to how we approached, managed, and
performed the entire cleanup program was required. Last year I started
the effort to reform this massive program, and while our most daunting
challenges still lie in front of us, we are now focused, moving in the
right direction. The accelerated cleanup program has started to build
momentum.
Today the EM program is still very much a defense liability,
responsible for many tons of special nuclear material in the form of
plutonium and enriched uranium, which would make it one of the world's
largest nuclear super-powers. In addition, the EM program is
responsible for safely disposing of 88 million gallons of radioactive
liquid waste, 2,500 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, 135,000 cubic
meters of transuranic waste, and well over 1 million cubic meters of
low level waste. I ask the Committee to stay with us as we continue our
quest to eliminate risks posed by these materials at a pace few of us
could have ever imagined.
Since the completion of Secretary Abraham's Review, the estimated
cost to complete the cleanup program has decreased by over $30 billion
and the time to complete will be shortened by 35 years. This means that
the risks to our workers, our communities, and the environment will be
eliminated a generation earlier than the previous plan. But I am not
satisfied and neither should you. My goal is to accelerate risk
reduction and cleanup and shorten this program even further while
decreasing costs by more than $50 billion.
In fiscal year 2004, President Bush is requesting a record $7.24
billion for the accelerated cleanup program. The Administration's
funding request continues the great progress we made last year with our
regulators and communities. The Administration believes that this
investment, which we expect to peak in fiscal year 2005, is crucial to
the success of accelerated risk reduction and cleanup completion. We
anticipate funding will then decline significantly to about $5 billion
in 2008.
The EM portion of the fiscal year 2004 Congressional budget
contains some creative and innovative changes that are greatly needed
to support our accelerated risk reduction and closure initiative. The
first of these is a new budget and project baseline summary structure
that focuses on completion, accountability, and visibility;
institutionalizes our values; and integrates performance and budget.
Requested funding can clearly be associated with direct cleanup
activities versus other indirect EM activities. Second, where
appropriate, we have limited the inclusion of line-item construction
projects as activities for separate authorization and funding controls
to facilitate timely and sensible tradeoff decisions that otherwise may
not be possible. We solicit your support for this flexibility as we
implement our accelerated cleanup strategies, with the understanding
that improving project management remains a significant challenge for
the Department. Third, this budget reflects the transfer of multiple
activities that are not core to the accelerated cleanup mission to
other Department elements. They include the transfer of INEEL landlord
responsibilities to the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
Technology, transfer of the long-term stewardship program to the new
Office of Legacy Management, and several others.
The Administration considers this program vitally important. We
stand at an important crossroads in the cleanup program today--success
is clearly within our reach, but so is failure. I believe the cleanup
of the former nuclear weapons complex is far too important a matter to
be left to chance. With your past assistance, we laid a solid
foundation that is already showing signs of early success. Moving
forward, we need your continued support to achieve success.
a year of transformation
Last year at this time, the Top-to-Bottom Review had been recently
released, citing recommendations to quickly improve performance. I wish
to take a moment to recap the recommendations and update you on our
progress in remedying these weaknesses.
Improve DOE's Acquisition Strategy and Contract Management.--A key
conclusion of the Top-to-Bottom Review was EM's contracting approach
was not focused on accelerating risk reduction and applying innovative
cleanup approaches. Processes for contract acquisition, establishment
of performance goals, funding allocation, and government oversight were
managed as separate, informally related activities rather than as an
integrated corporate business process. Contracting strategies and
practices made poor use of performance-based contracts to carry out
EM's cleanup mission. The Top-to-Bottom Review Team recommended that
all current performance-based contracting activities be reviewed and,
where necessary, restructured to provide for focused, streamlined, and
unambiguous pursuit of risk reduction.
Move EM to an Accelerated, Risk-Based Cleanup Strategy.--EM's
cleanup strategy was not based on comprehensive, coherent, technically
supported risk prioritization--another important observation cited by
the Review team. The program was implementing waste management
practices and disposition strategies costing millions without providing
a proportional reduction in risk to human health and the environment.
Cleanup work was not prioritized to achieve the greatest risk reduction
at an accelerated rate. Interpretation of DOE Orders and requirements,
environmental laws, regulations, and agreements had created obstacles
to achieving real cleanup benefiting neither human health nor the
environment. Resources were diverted to lower-risk activities. Process,
not risk reduction, had become the driving force. The Review
recommended that DOE initiate an effort to review DOE Orders and
requirements as well as regulatory agreements, and commence discussions
with states and other regulators with the goal of accelerating risk
reduction.
Align DOE's Internal Processes to Support an Accelerated, Risk-
Based Cleanup Approach.--The Review found DOE's own internal processes
inconsistent with a risk-based cleanup approach. The hazards at the DOE
sites and the liability associated with them did not appear to dictate
the need for urgency in the cleanup decisions. The Review team
emphasized that the EM mission cannot be accomplished by continuing
business as usual. Immediate actions in all elements of the EM program
would need to be taken to transform DOE's processes and operations to
reflect the new accelerated risk-based cleanup paradigm.
Realign the EM program so its scope is consistent with an
accelerated, risk-based cleanup and closure mission.--The Review team
underscored the necessity that EM should redirect, streamline, or cease
activities not appropriate for accelerated cleanup and closure. A
laser-like focus on the core mission was needed to realize the cleanup
of the Cold War legacy in our lifetime. Though many of these non-core
activities may be worthy of DOE or federal government support, a
reassessment of the relevance of non-related or supporting missions was
warranted to focus the EM program. The financial and administrative
resources required for EM implementation and oversight of these
activities represent a major commitment for EM.
In response to the Review's recommendations we have:
Developed and are implementing a new acquisition strategy.--In the
area of acquisition strategy and contract management, we have not been
idle. We are aggressively using and managing the acquisition process as
one tool to drive contract performance. We are evaluating both the
performance and design of every contract in this program and as
opportunities become clear we are making corrective action. One example
of our progress is the December 2002 award of a new contract for the
cleanup and closure of the Mound site. The whole process, which
required changes in DOE's internal business practices, was accomplished
in just 6 months from time of the issuance of the Request for Proposals
(RFP) to the awarding of the contract. Another example is at Oak Ridge,
where we are transforming the cleanup contract into a closure contract
with a one-year demonstration period to further our overall cleanup
goals. Changing this contract arrangement will accelerate cleanup work
by 5 years and save $1 billion over the life of the program at the
site.
But that is just the tip of the iceberg. I envision a broader
overhaul of EM's entire acquisition process, including our methodology
for formulating acquisition strategy, developing RFPs, identifying
performance-based incentives, and providing oversight of contractor
performance. We are pursuing a path to both increase competition by
enlarging the pool of potential contractors competing for our work and
increase the accountability of our contractors to deliver real,
meaningful cleanup. Our acquisition strategy focuses on five areas.
First, we are ``unbundling'' work into smaller packages where it makes
sense. Second, we are driving innovation and improved cost performance
through the use of small and smaller businesses, complementing the
unbundling strategy. Third, we are actively promoting innovation in our
cleanup work through the competitive process where improved performance
is required. Fourth, we are extending or modifying contracts where
excellent performance has been clearly demonstrated. Fifth, we are
modifying and changing our acquisition processes to support these
strategies in order to allow them to be successfully implemented.
To complement these steps, we have launched a Contract Management
Review Board to review our contracts from a more corporate perspective.
Our goal is to ensure that the lessons learned, both good and bad, from
all our endeavors are institutionalized into our contracts and business
practices and that we suspend those contract philosophies that do not
support accelerated risk reduction and cleanup of our sites.
Established 10 special project teams to carve new innovative paths
for accelerated cleanup and risk reduction.--The Top-to-Bottom Review
identified unfocused and inconsistent work planning processes as the
principal contributors to EM's uncontrolled cost and schedule growth.
To address this failing, I formed ten special corporate projects, each
assigned a specific strategic objective. Each team is formulating
corporate level initiatives to accelerate risk reduction in a much
improved, more cost-effective manner. Objectives include contracting,
high-level waste, and consolidation of Special Nuclear Material. Each
of the special projects has a dedicated project manager, supported by
an integrated project team, to identify, plan, and execute needed
changes in the EM program. These project teams, using project
management principles, are key to correcting our work planning
processes and instilling rigor into our internal management decisions.
Meaningful, lasting reform must be the result of leadership and
commitment but it must find its way into the very core of the
organization to be sustained. Building a high-performing culture
requires attracting and retaining talented people who deliver
excellence in performance. Improving management efficiencies requires
that organizations challenge, hold accountable, and reward top-
performing employees. This corporate initiative does just that. These
ten teams will herald a new standard of performance, innovation, and
greater results for the EM program. Our goal is not just to establish
performance-based contracts but to solidify a performance-based program
for all who choose to have a role.
Implemented a strict configuration management system.--Another
reform we have implemented is a strict configuration management system
that baselines a number of key, critical program elements. Examples of
some of the key elements include the Performance Management Plans, EM
corporate performance metrics, contract performance measures/
incentives, and life-cycle costs. Strict change control and monitoring
of these key elements will facilitate a high confidence level that the
goals and direction of the accelerated cleanup initiative are being
met.
In October 2002, EM established several new corporate performance
measures for the program. EM will continue to track corporate measures
such as the number of geographic sites completed, the amount of
transuranic waste disposed, and the number of plutonium metal/oxides
packaged. However, new corporate measures such as the volume of liquid
waste in inventory eliminated, number of liquid waste tanks closed,
number of enriched uranium containers packaged, and amount of depleted
and other uranium packaged are a key part to the successful execution
of EM's accelerated cleanup strategies. In addition, EM is establishing
site resource-loaded baselines that will enable the program to
comprehensively track progress against its accelerated risk reduction,
cost, and schedule objectives. The establishment of these new
performance measures and a rigorous configuration management system are
resulting in clear lines of accountability for what is expected. With
this critical tool, EM is now able to make crucial corporate decisions
that will keep the program on track, control cost increases, and
minimize schedule growth.
Identified work activities that directly support accelerated
cleanup from those that do not.--A key finding of the Top to Bottom
Review was that EM was supporting and managing several types of
activities that may not be appropriate for an accelerated risk-
reduction and cleanup program. In that light, I took a hard look at
those activities and, while they may be of importance to the Department
and the Federal government, they may not be best aligned in the EM
program. Based on that assessment, for fiscal year 2004, the following
identified program elements were not included in the EM budget but,
because of their importance to the Department, have been transferred to
other DOE organizations with which they are more appropriately aligned.
They represent activities that are not part of the core accelerated
risk reduction and closure mission.
--Environmental Management staff at the National Energy Technology
Laboratory transferred to the new Office of Legacy Management.
--The Analytical Services Program transferred to the Office of
Environment, Safety and Health.
--The Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory transferred
to the Office of Environment, Safety and Health.
--Pre-existing liabilities and long-term contractor liabilities
transferred to the Office of Legacy Management.
--The Long-term Stewardship Program transferred to the Office of
Legacy Management.
In addition, landlord responsibilities for the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory were transferred to the Office
of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to reflect the site's major
mission realignment.
Revitalized our human capital strategy.--Another key management
reform is the human capital revitalization that strongly supports the
President's Management Agenda. This reform focuses on building a high-
performing culture that attracts and retains talented managers and
staff to deliver sustained performance excellence. We have built a more
robust performance accountability system that holds each manager and
employee accountable for actions and results and rewards them
accordingly. Individual performance management is being fully
integrated into EM organizational goals; executives are being held
accountable for achieving strategic program objectives, fostering
innovation, and supporting continuous improvement.
We are implementing an executive mentoring program with our senior
executives with the objective of having a cadre of executives who are
well-rounded and are prepared to effectively lead irrespective of the
position to which they might accrue. We are becoming a flatter and more
effective organization with a goal to have an organizational structure
that is clearly aligned to deliver on our accelerated risk reduction
and closure initiative.
Aligned tangible, consequential results to resources with this
budget request structure.--Given all these changes and advances, the
budget request before you is one of the most crucial. This budget
request structure is the foundation for budget planning and execution
of the accelerated risk reduction and closure initiative. This new
structure clearly identifies scope and resources that directly support
the core accelerated cleanup and risk reduction mission from those that
do not. The new structure consolidates risk reduction and completion
activities into only two appropriations (defense and non-defense) in
addition to the existing Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund. This structure removes barriers to facilitate
better resource utilization and segments accelerated completion into
three distinct accounts to highlight accountability.
In addition, implementation of this new structure will complement
other management reform initiatives by focusing on completion or
endpoint, clearly delineating how resources will be utilized (i.e., for
direct cleanup activities or for other activities in the program that
only indirectly relate to on-the-ground cleanup activities), and
communicating the goals and objectives that we value. Last, but not any
less important, this new structure will support integration of
performance and budget for the EM program.
the fiscal year 2004 budget request
The fiscal year 2003 budget was a transitional budget in which
management reforms were developed and significant efforts were put
forth to improve performance, accelerate cleanup, and reduce risk. The
strategic groundwork has been laid, and the EM program is moving
forward with its risk reduction and cleanup strategies. The investment
we have requested in our fiscal year 2004 budget will keep EM's new
accelerated risk reduction and cleanup strategies on track.
The EM fiscal year 2004 budget request has been tailored to meeting
our mission of accelerated risk reduction and completion. This budget
fully reflects each site's new accelerated risk reduction and cleanup
strategies. The fiscal year 2004 budget request is a major step toward
aligning performance with the resources needed to expedite risk
reduction and cleanup.
The 2004 budget request for EM activities totals $7.24 billion to
accelerate risk reduction and closure. The request includes five
appropriations, three of which fund on-the-ground, core mission work,
and two of which serve as support. The five appropriations and
associated requested funding are:
--Defense Site Acceleration Completion ($5.8 billion)
--Defense Environmental Services ($995 million)
--Non-Defense Site Acceleration ($171 million)
--Non-Defense Environmental Services ($292 million)
--Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund ($418
million)
Through the implementation of accelerated cleanup strategies, the
EM program anticipates that cleanup will be completed by 2035, at least
35 years earlier than originally anticipated, with the potential of
life-cycle savings of greater than $50 billion.
In building the request, the Department applied the following
principles and priorities:
Protect workers, public, and the environment.--The budget request
continues to place the highest priority on protecting workers, the
public, and the environment. The implementation of new cleanup
strategies will allow for an overall improvement in safety and
reduction in risk because cleanup will be completed sooner, reducing
the extent to which workers, the public, and the environment have the
potential to be exposed.
Ensure the appropriate levels of safeguards and security.--Due to
heightened security levels throughout the nation, it is crucial that we
maintain vigilance in our domestic security to protect our citizens.
The EM program is responsible for many tons of surplus nuclear
material. This budget request reflects our increased safeguards and
security needs. In particular, the sites with the largest funding needs
are Savannah River and Hanford. Savannah River's increase in funding
supports protective force staffing for the HB Line Category 1 Process
and plutonium stabilization activities, perimeter improvements,
maintenance on security systems, vulnerability assessments, and Capital
and General Plant Project upgrades. Hanford's increase in funding
supports updates to the Critical Facility Vulnerability Assessment,
additional security employees for Waste Treatment and Immobilization
Plant construction, security clearance processing, drug testing, and
accelerated movement of special nuclear material to Savannah River and/
or the Grout Facility.
Reduce risk methodically.--Accelerated risk reduction requires a
pragmatic approach to cleanup based on real risk reduction. Risk
reduction occurs in various stages, which involve the elimination,
prevention, or mitigation of risk. Because safe disposal of many
materials will take a number of years to complete, our major focus of
risk reduction is stabilization of high-risk materials.
The following categories of materials are considered to pose the
highest risk:
--High-curie, long-lived isotope liquid waste
--Special nuclear materials
--Liquid transuranic (TRU) waste in tanks
--Sodium bearing liquid waste in high-level waste tanks
--Defective spent nuclear fuel in water basins
--Spent nuclear fuel in leaky or poor water chemistry basins
--High TRU waste content (greater than 100 nanocuries/gram)
--TRU waste stored on the surface
--Remote-handled (RH) TRU waste
--Decontamination & Decommissioning of highly contaminated facilities
Although all of these items are to be considered when setting
priorities, their relative ranking may vary from site to site. For
example, the following sites have planned activities/milestones for
fiscal year 2004 that correspond to their site-specific risk
categories.
Hanford
--Close 6 single-shell tanks; the first tanks closed at the site.
--Complete interim stabilization of Hanford single-shell tanks, which
completes removing all pumpable liquids from single-shell
tanks.
--Complete 30 percent of the Hanford Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant.
--Complete stabilization of plutonium metals, oxides, and residues.
--Complete removal of all spent fuel from the K Basins and place in
dry storage in the Canister Storage Building.
Idaho
--Complete the transfer of spent nuclear fuel in the Power Burst
Facility canal from wet storage to dry storage at the Idaho
Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center.
--Ship off-site a total of 1,819 kg total uranium (leaving a
remainder of 825 kg).
--Begin the transfer of EBR-II spent nuclear fuel from the Chemical
Processing Plant to the Argonne National Laboratory--West for
treatment and disposition as an interim step to removing all EM
spent nuclear fuel from wet storage.
--Support treatment of sodium-bearing waste: complete conceptual
design activities for the sodium bearing waste treatment
project, initiate preliminary design on primary technology, and
complete Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment Facility Critical
Decision 1 documentation; and complete characterization of
remaining liquids and solids in the 11 underground tanks.
Rocky Flats
--Remove and ship remaining plutonium metals, oxides, and residue.
--Begin stabilization and hazard removal in two TRU waste buildings.
Savannah River
--Permanently close tanks 18 and 19, completing the closure of the
first tank grouping.
--De-inventory spent nuclear fuel from the Receiving Basin for Off-
site Fuels.
--Complete treatment of the aqueous portion of the plutonium-uranium
extraction (PUREX) waste at the Saltstone Facility.
--Produce 250 canisters of vitrified high-level waste.
Accelerate cleanup results.--To accelerate cleanup, 18 sites have
developed Performance Management Plans (PMPs), which identify
strategies, end states, end dates, key milestones, and commitments that
facilitate accelerated cleanup and site closure. These PMPs were
developed in collaboration with our state and federal regulators.
For fiscal year 2004, several examples of sites' milestones for
accelerated cleanup are:
Brookhaven National Laboratory
--Submit Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor Draft Record of
Decision to our regulators to determine the final end-state for
Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor.
--Complete construction of the Airport/Long Island Power Authority
Groundwater Treatment System.
Hanford
--Complete cocooning of the H Reactor.
--Complete excavation/removal of 100 B/C Process Effluent Pipeline.
--Dispose of 500,000 tons of remediation waste from waste sites and
burial remediations in the Environmental Restoration Disposal
Facility.
Idaho
--Begin shipment of RH TRU waste offsite (6-year acceleration)
supporting completion of shipments by 2012.
--Complete cleaning and grouting of second pillar and panel vaulted
tank, supporting acceleration of tank farm facility closure by
4 years to 2012.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory--Livermore Site
--Construct, install, and operate a new treatment system to address
groundwater contamination.
Los Alamos National Laboratory
--Permanently dispose of over 600 cubic meters of legacy TRU waste
through an integrated strategy of segregating, decontaminating,
and shipping to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).
--Complete shipment of 2,000 drums and initiate retrieval of legacy
TRU waste stored below grade.
Nevada Test Site
--Complete remediation of 55 release sites.
--Continue to dispose of low-level waste from complex-wide generators
in support of closure of other EM sites.
--Continue characterization and shipments of TRU waste to WIPP.
Oak Ridge
--Complete East Tennessee Technology Park K 29/31/33 decommissioning
for re-use (one-year acceleration), supporting closure of the
site 8 years earlier than planned.
--Complete Molten Salt Reactor Experiment flush salt removal, and
complete fuel salt removal from the first of two drain tanks.
Pantex
--Continue pump and treatment of the perched groundwater and
evaluation of more efficient cleanup technologies to mitigate
the contaminated plume.
--Complete demolition of Zone 10 ruins and initiate actions for the
demolition of Building 12-24 Complex.
Savannah River
--Eliminate low-level waste legacy inventory.
--Complete major remediation projects in the testing and experimental
areas.
WIPP
--Increase carrier capacity from 25 to 34 shipments of TRU waste per
week.
--Procure 11 RH trailers for a total of 14.
--Complete TRUPACT-II (a transportation container to safely transport
either TRU waste or standard waste boxes) fabrication to obtain
fleet of 84 TRUPACTs.
Maintain closure schedules.--Three major sites, Rocky Flats,
Fernald, and Mound, have accelerated closure schedules. In addition,
two smaller sites, Ashtabula and Battelle-Columbus are scheduled to
close in 2006. Funding in the fiscal year 2004 budget will allow these
sites to remain on track toward project completion and site closure.
At Rocky Flats, fiscal year 2004 funding provides for:
--Disposing of more than 109,000 cubic meters of low and mixed low
level waste.
--Disposing of more than 8,600 cubic meters of TRU waste (70 percent
complete).
--Completing the decontamination and decommissioning of 72 work sets
in Buildings 371, 717, 771, and 776.
--Cleaning 194 environmental release sites (81 percent complete).
At Fernald, fiscal year 2004 funding provides for:
--Treatment and shipment offsite of 150,000 tons of waste pit
material, which cumulatively represents approximately 80
percent of the total.
--Construction completion of Silos 1, 2, and 3 retrieval facilities.
--Completion of D&D of Plant 1 Complex Phase II, Liquid Storage
Complex Phase II, and Pilot Plant Complex.
At Mound, fiscal year 2004 funding provides for:
--Continued removal of high concentrations of tritium from Tritium
Effluent Reduction Facility to allow for early shutdown.
--Completion of soil excavation phase of Potential Release Site 66
and completion of the total remediation of Potential Release
Sites 68 and 267. These three Potential Release Sites represent
38 percent of the total soil remediation remaining.
At Ashtabula, fiscal year 2004 funding provides for:
--Complete disposal of 100 percent of building remediation debris
generated in fiscal year 2003.
--Initiation of excavation and shipment of remaining estimated known
scope (i.e., 38,000 tons) of contaminated soil to a licensed
disposal site.
At Battelle-Columbus, fiscal year 2004 funding provides for:
--Demolition of buildings JN-2 and JN-3.
Integrate technology development and deployment.--An integrated
technology development and deployment program is an essential element
for successful completion of the EM cleanup effort and for fulfilling
post-closure requirements. The EM Technology Development and Deployment
(TDD) program provides technical solutions and alternative technologies
to assist with accelerated cleanup of the DOE complex.
Through the fiscal year 2004 budget, EM technology development and
deployment investments are focused on high-payoff site closure and
remediation problems through a two pronged approach: Closure Projects
and Alternative Projects.
Closure Projects.--Principal near term closure sites (such as Rocky
Flats, Fernald, and Mound) will be provided with technical support and
quick response, highly focused technology development and deployment
projects. The goal is to ensure that accelerated site closure schedules
are achieved.
--At Rocky Flats and the Ohio closure sites, technical assistance
teams will assess critical technical issues and provide
technology alternatives including the treatment and disposition
of orphaned waste streams.
--At Mound, innovative technologies will be developed to determine
and enable treatment of radioactive contaminated soil beneath
buildings.
--At Fernald, the vacuum thermal desorption demonstration will be
completed to provide a technical solution for an orphaned waste
stream.
Alternative Projects.--Alternative approaches and step improvements
to current high-risk/high cost baseline remediation projects are our
second focus. The goal is to enable cleanup to be accomplished safely,
at less cost, and on an accelerated schedule. EM is focusing funds for
fiscal year 2004 on:
--Alternatives for Tank Waste Immobilization;
--Alternatives for Carbon Tetrachloride Source Term Location;
--Alternatives for Remediation of Leaked High-Level Waste Below
Tanks;
--Alternatives for Disposition of High-Level Salt Waste;
--Alternatives for Immobilization of High-Level Sludge Waste;
--Alternatives for Remediation of Chlorinated Ethenes Using Monitored
Natural Attenuation;
--Alternatives for Deposit Removal at Gaseous Diffusion Plants;
--Alternatives for Cleanup of Trichloroethylene under Buildings
(Paducah); and
--Alternatives for Expedited Processing of Scrap Metal/Equipment.
conclusion
We planted the seedlings of transformation one year ago. We have
fostered and guided the reforms. New ideas and breakthroughs have grown
from looking beyond the paradigm of risk management to the new focus of
accelerated risk reduction and cleanup. New strategies and plans are
thriving.
We are experiencing the realization that for the first time, the
goal of completing EM's mission is within our grasp. We have set into
motion a reformed cleanup program--one designed and managed to achieve
risk reduction not just risk management; to shift focus from process to
product; and to instill the kind of urgency necessary to clean up and
close down the nuclear legacy of the Cold War and to protect human
health and the environment.
We are at a turning point for this program. We must not lessen our
resolve. I ask for your support to continue this important work. We
must avoid passing this intolerable inheritance to our children.
Accelerating cleanup by at least 35 years and saving over $50 billion
is a wise investment for our children's future.
I look forward to working with Congress and others to achieve this
goal. I will be happy to answer questions.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Dr. Chu.
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
STATEMENT OF MARGARET S.Y. CHU, DIRECTOR
Dr. Chu. Mr. Chairman Domenici, Senator Reid and Senator
Cochran, as the Director of the Department of Energy's Office
of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management I appreciate this
opportunity to appear before you today. I have a more detailed
statement, and with your permission I will submit it for the
hearing record.
One year ago, I had the privilege of becoming the fifth
appointed director of this office and the first one since the
President and the Congress approved Yucca Mountain as the site
to be licensed and developed as the world's first repository
for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste.
In assuming the director's position at that critical time,
I realized that I had four significant challenges: First, to
transition the Federal and contractor organization from a focus
on-site investigation to an enterprise with the culture of
nuclear safety essential to obtain a license from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and successfully construct and operate a
repository.
Second, to work with the Congress in developing the means
of assuring stable funding needed to meet the formidable
schedule for the licensing and development of the repository.
Third, to create a safe and secure transportation
infrastructure needed to move nuclear waste and spent fuel from
over 100 locations across the United States.
And finally, to challenge our scientists and engineers to
find new and creative ways to enhance the operational safety
and certainty and reduce the life cycle cost of the program.
The President's fiscal year 2004 budget request reflects
these changes I have implemented, and I appreciate the
opportunity to present it to you today. With the formal
designation of Yucca Mountain last year, our office prepared a
detailed plan that will allow us to submit the license
application by December 2004 and to begin placing waste in a
licensed repository in 2010.
Both the Continuing Resolution and the reduction of $134
million from our fiscal year 2003 request will force us to
reduce, eliminate, or defer some of the work we had planned,
thus significantly increasing the risk of not meeting our
program goals. We are currently finalizing our analysis of the
impacts and will provide you with more detailed information
after we have completed consulting with the Department.
The schedule is extremely tight, and delays are costly to
our Government and more importantly the American taxpayers. For
every year of delay beyond 2010 the cost of storing and
handling just defense waste is estimated to increase by $500
million, and this figure does not include potential claims for
damages resulting from the Government's failure to accept
commercial spent nuclear fuel since 1998.
In the President's fiscal year 2004 budget, we have
requested $591 million for the program. As importantly, the
administration will propose, in discussion with the Congress, a
discretionary budget cap adjustment for the Yucca Mountain
program as a provision to the Budget Enforcement Act
reauthorization.
Beyond fiscal year 2004 our program will need significantly
increased funding for the design, construction, and operation
of the repository, as well as the transportation
infrastructure. This proposed cap adjustment will allow the
Appropriations Committee to provide sufficient funding for the
program's needs without adversely affecting other priorities.
This will provide us with a greater certainty of funding and
ensure the proper and cost-effective planning and acquisition
of capital as that is required for such a major capital
project.
I now would like to provide you with some highlights of our
fiscal year 2004 request. We will focus most of these funds and
efforts on completing and submitting a license application to
the NRC and accelerating work on developing a national and a
Nevada transportation system. Let me briefly discuss these
efforts.
The repository development activities constitute over 70
percent of our funding request. The main focus will be on
completing the technical product required for a license
application. As part of the license application preparation we
will respond to key technical issues agreed upon between DOE
and NRC, complete required elements of the design for the waste
package surface and subsurface facilities, complete a
preclosure safety analysis, and then a post-closure performance
assessment of the repository system.
In addition, all of the documents from years of scientific
studies that support a license application must be loaded into
an electronic web-based licensing support network and be
certified at least 6 months before the license application is
submitted.
Also, as part of the repository development, I am
requesting $25 million for a new cost-reduction and systems-
enhancement program. This program is focused on improving
existing technologies and developing new ones to achieve
efficiencies and savings and to increase our confidence in the
long-term performance of the repository. Funding of this
program will play a key role in our current efforts and also
achieve near-term cost savings and reduce the total system life
cycle cost.
For the transportation activities we are requesting $73
million. We will begin the initial procurement of the cask
fleet and place orders for long lead-time casks and equipment.
Additionally, we will prepare for acquisition of
transportational logistics services and assess other needs.
Requested funding also supports greater interactions and
dialogues with regional State and local organizations to
address important transportation issues such as emergency
response.
Of the $73 million requested in the transportation program,
about a quarter will be used to examine the development of a
Nevada rail line to the repository. If a decision is made to
pursue rail transportation, the Department must carefully
analyze the environmental impacts of constructing a rail line
within a particular corridor. Pending the outcome of this
process, we will begin conceptual design activities, conduct
field surveys, and pursue obtaining right-of-way. We will also
continue to assess the viability of other transportation modes.
PREPARED STATEMENT
These are the highlights of the 2004 fiscal year budget for
my office. In conclusion, our program is a key element of the
Department's and the administration's efforts to advance energy
and national security, contribute to homeland security, and
honor our environmental commitments. We now have the unique and
historic opportunities for moving far closer to solving the
nuclear waste problem by beginning, hopefully in less than 8
years, to move waste underground in the world's first licensed
geological repository. I urge your support for our budget
request and look forward to working with you on this vital
national issue.
I would be pleased to take any questions that the committee
has.
Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Thank you. Your statement will be made a
part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Margaret S.Y. Chu
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Margaret Chu,
Director of the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management. I appreciate the opportunity to present our fiscal
year 2004 budget request and discuss our plans to license, build and
operate a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and our
efforts to develop the transportation system needed to deliver the
nuclear waste to the repository.
The mission of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program is
to implement our Nation's radioactive waste management policy. The
policy, as established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
amended, requires permanent geologic disposal of commercial spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste resulting from the
Nation's atomic energy defense activities. This waste must be safely
isolated to protect human health and the environment. The disposal of
this waste in a geologic repository is also required to maintain our
energy options and national security, to allow a cleanup of our weapons
sites, to continue operation of our nuclear-powered vessels, and to
advance our international non-proliferation goals. The Department's
consolidation of spent nuclear fuel, and high-level waste from 131
sites in 39 States and the safe disposal of them at Yucca Mountain is
vital to our national interest.
The Program made significant progress in fiscal year 2002 toward
implementing the national radioactive waste management policy. In
February, the Secretary of Energy completed his review of our site
characterization work and recommended the site to the President. This
past summer, on July 9, 2002, Congress demonstrated its continued
support for a geologic repository by approving Yucca Mountain as a
suitable site for repository development, Public Law 107-200. The
President signed this bill on July 23, 2002. As a result, the Program
is focusing its near-term efforts on seeking a license to construct a
Yucca Mountain repository from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
We thank you for your strong bipartisan support of this important
effort.
the 2010 objective
The Program's key objective remains to begin receiving and
emplacing waste at a NRC licensed Yucca Mountain repository in 2010. To
achieve that objective the Program must, in less than eight years, seek
and secure authorization to construct the repository, begin
constructing the repository, receive a license to operate the
repository, and develop a transportation system to take waste from
civilian and defense storage sites and ship it to the repository. That
is an extremely tight schedule.
To construct a repository by 2010, the Program must have a
construction authorization no later than 2007. To have that authority
by 2007, the Program must submit a high quality and defensible license
application no later than 2004 since the NRC will require at least
three years to consider the application. And because we have deferred
critical work on transportation in the past, we must begin an
accelerated effort to develop the transportation system.
Meeting the 2010 objective will also require far greater resources
than the Program has thus far received. We estimate, for example, that
it will cost about $8 billion--more than 80 percent of the budget
required to meet the 2010 objective--to construct the repository and
develop the transportation system. That would average more than $1
billion a year--much higher than our previous annual appropriations.
the fiscal year 2004 budget request
Our budget request for fiscal year 2004 is $591 million. The
Program will not be able to meet the 2010 objective should funding fall
below this level. The schedule, as I have said, is extremely tight and
delay is costly. For every year of delay beyond 2010, the cost of
storing and handling Departmental defense wastes alone is estimated to
increase by $500 million. Regarding the nuclear utilities, the
government's liability for damages for not beginning to take commercial
spent fuel in 1998 already has been established by court decisions.
While an accurate calculation of damages must await determinations by
the courts, it is not unreasonable to assume that the amount of damage
will be significant and will increase with each year of delay.
To set the stage for our fiscal year 2004 budget request I would
like to briefly describe our fiscal year 2002 accomplishments, our
ongoing activities based on our fiscal year 2003 appropriation, and our
goals for fiscal year 2004.
fiscal year 2002 accomplishments
Yucca Mountain.--The Program completed nearly 20 years of site
characterization activities investigating the natural processes that
could affect the ability of a repository built underneath Yucca
Mountain to isolate radionuclides from spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste. These investigations showed that a repository
at Yucca Mountain can provide the reasonable expectation required by
the NRC that public health and safety, and the environment will be
protected. The underlying basis for our investigations and engineering
designs has withstood many independent scientific peer-reviews and
thorough examination by national and international oversight
organizations. Our site characterization investigations and analyses
clearly demonstrate that a repository within Yucca Mountain will meet
the Environmental Protection Agency's site specific standards.
The Department also developed a Final Environmental Impact
Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear
Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County,
Nevada. During preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement, the
Department held 66 public hearings in counties in the vicinity of Yucca
Mountain to inform residents of the area of the possible recommendation
and to gather their views and comments.
fiscal year 2003 on-going activities
With the formal designation of Yucca Mountain as the site for
repository development, the Program prepared a conceptual design and a
detailed plan for repository licensing, construction, and operation.
The goals of this plan are to submit the license application to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission by December 2004, and to begin receiving
waste at Yucca Mountain in 2010. Our fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year
2004 budget requests were consistent with this plan. The limited
funding provided during the continuing resolution, which was 10 percent
below our fiscal year 2002 level for the first 5 months of fiscal year
2003 and the final fiscal year 2003 appropriation of $457 million,
which is $134 million, or 22 percent below our request, required us to
replan our activities. While we are trying to maintain the license
application submittal date of December 2004, some important planned
work must be reduced, eliminated or deferred, thus significantly
increasing the risk that we will be unable to meet our Program goals.
Our request for fiscal year 2004 is essential if the Department is to
prepare a defensible license application for submission in 2004 and
meet our other Program goals.
The Administration also plans to submit a proposal to withdraw
permanently from settlement, sale, location or entry under some or all
of the general land laws certain lands comprising and contiguous to the
Yucca Mountain geologic repository operations area. It is necessary to
initiate this proposal now in order to ensure that we satisfy Nuclear
Regulatory Commission licensing requirements and maintain the
territorial integrity, security and isolation of the site.
Yucca Mountain.--The Program is now focusing its efforts on
completing our license application to the NRC for authority to
construct the repository. By the end of fiscal year 2003, the Yucca
Mountain Project expects to meet the following goals and objectives:
--Advance the preliminary design of the repository surface and
underground facilities and waste package elements, beyond the
current conceptual design, sufficient for the development of
the license application.
--Complete additional materials testing and analyses required to
support the license application design for waste package,
surface and subsurface facilities.
--Complete testing data feeds for the Total System Performance
Assessment Postclosure Report in the license application.
--Initiate the development of selected license application chapters
and sections, currently estimated at approximately 10,000 pages
in total.
--Process the majority of the Project records and technical documents
for inclusion into the licensing support network (numbering in
the millions of pages).
--Implement management improvements identified in the President's
management agenda.
Transportation Program.--With the fiscal year 2003 enacted
appropriation, only very limited activities will be performed toward
developing the transportation system, since resources will be focused
on repository licensing activities. A number of critical steps toward
developing a transportation system ready to ship waste in 2010 will be
initiated. As the Department has promised, we will issue a National
Transportation Strategic Plan by the end of this fiscal year. The plan
will address policies, interactions with States, local and tribal
governments, identify necessary activities and describe our approach to
having an operational transportation system in place by 2010. We will
complete the procurement strategy for waste acceptance and
transportation services and equipment. We will write a concept of
operations document and will evaluate transportation operating
scenarios to guide the development of the transportation system. We
will not be in a position to support the full-scale cask tests at
Sandia National Laboratories proposed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
program management and integration
A Program whose objective is to begin constructing and operating a
licensed repository and a transportation system in a relatively short
period of time is very different from a Program whose objective is to
investigate a site. It must be both structured and managed differently.
And because budgets as well as demands and schedules are tight, it must
be structured and managed both to meet the highest standards of
performance and to be as efficient and cost-effective as possible.
During this fiscal year, we have taken several initial steps to
turn this program into a project-oriented organization that is focused
on managing major capital projects efficiently and cost-effectively.
Our organizational realignment in November 2002 created an Office of
Repository Development, headed by the Deputy Director of OCRWM, and
provided that organization with a substructure that will enable it to
successfully manage the challenges of designing and licensing the
repository. Through management improvement initiatives I have directed,
we are meeting the commitments to the NRC to improve in five areas: to
better define roles, responsibilities, authority and accountability; to
strengthen our Quality Assurance program; to streamline procedures at
the project; to enhance our Corrective Action Program; and to implement
a Safety Conscious Work Environment that requires openness and
identification of potential safety issues without fear of reprisal.
These actions will better position us to be a successful NRC licensee
and to meet mandated requirements for a safely operating repository.
fiscal year 2004 key activities
As I indicated previously, the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management Program's budget request is $591 million in fiscal year
2004. This is essentially level with our original fiscal year 2003
request, but $134 million below the enacted level. Out of our total
budget, the amount requested for Yucca Mountain in fiscal year 2004 is
$419 million. However, funding for Yucca Mountain under the fiscal year
2003 enacted level is $109 million below the original fiscal year 2003
request.
The amount requested in fiscal year 2004 for National and Nevada
Transportation activities increases from $10.4 million, fiscal year
2003 enacted, to $73 million. However, our fiscal year 2003 enacted
level is over $19 million below the original request. The significant
increase in funding for National Transportation in fiscal year 2004
will fund the procurement of long-lead transport casks and auxiliary
equipment and accelerate operational capability. Funding for the
acquisition of certain cask systems not under development by industry
is necessary in fiscal year 2004 to allow the initiation of cask fleet
procurement. This critical procurement will facilitate waste acceptance
in the post-2010 time frame.
A total of $18 million is required in fiscal year 2004 to initiate
the development of a Nevada rail line from the national rail system to
the Yucca Mountain repository. In fiscal year 2004, the program will
initiate conceptual design activities, conduct environmental and
geotechnical field surveys, and prepare a land acquisition case file
required by Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Additionally, the
Department will continue to assess the viability of other modes of
transportation for shipments to the repository.
Yucca Mountain.--Consistent with Departmental and Program
objectives, the Yucca Mountain Project's main focus in fiscal year 2004
will be on completing the technical products required for a license
application for construction of the repository. The design, performance
assessment, safety analyses, and technical data in the license
application must be sufficient for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
conduct an independent review and reach a decision to issue a
construction authorization. The application must demonstrate that the
repository can be constructed and operated with reasonable expectation
that the health and safety of the public will be protected for at least
10,000 years.
The license application will include a description of site
characteristics; waste package, repository surface and subsurface
designs; the basis for development of operations and maintenance plans
for surface and subsurface facilities; results of a preclosure safety
analysis for the period prior to permanent closure; results of the
total system performance assessment for the postclosure period; and a
discussion of how the proposed waste package and repository will comply
with applicable regulatory requirements. It also will include a
discussion of the bases for development of safeguards, certification,
and physical security plans and descriptions of the quality assurance
program, test and evaluation plan for the development and operation of
the repository, and required performance confirmation programs. The
license application is expected to be approximately 10,000 pages. The
documents referenced by or supporting the license application, in
addition to other relevant documentary material, will be made available
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in electronic format through a
licensing support network. In accordance with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's regulation, 10 CFR 2, Subpart J, the available relevant
material must be loaded into the licensing support network and
certified at least 6 months before the license application is
submitted.
The license application must present a defensible position that the
repository can be constructed, operated, and closed without
unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has issued a site-specific licensing regulation
(Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 63, or 10 CFR 63)
that is risk-informed and performance-based. It requires the Department
of Energy to demonstrate in the license application that the repository
will meet the specified performance objectives while it is being
operated (preclosure) and after it is closed (postclosure).
In fiscal year 2004, with the funds identified in our budget
request, we will:
--Respond to major Nuclear Regulatory Commission ``key technical
issues'' necessary to support the license application. These
are issues that NRC has asked the program to address prior to
license application submittal.
--Complete the electronic Licensing Support Network (LSN) and
certification consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part
2, Subpart J, at least 6 months prior to submitting the license
application.
--Complete required elements of the preliminary design for the waste
package, surface facilities, and subsurface facilities, in
support of the license application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
--Complete the safety analyses for Department-owned spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste, and Naval spent fuel for
the license application.
--Complete the development and Yucca Mountain Project internal review
of five license application chapters for submittal to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for authorization to construct a
repository.
--Complete the total system performance assessment postclosure report
in support of the license application. This report will reflect
increased understanding of how emplaced nuclear waste will
interact with the natural and engineered barriers after the
repository is closed.
--Complete a draft of the license application for submittal to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Even though site characterization is complete, in fiscal year 2004
we will continue to collect valuable scientific information for our
Performance Confirmation baseline, which is required by the NRC for our
license. The NRC requires Performance Confirmation to continue until
the repository is permanently closed.
As specified in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, we are providing
funding for payments-equal-to-taxes to the State of Nevada and Nye
County, Nevada; Yucca Mountain is located in Nye County. We are also
providing funding to the University System of Nevada and to Nye County
and Inyo County, California for independent scientific studies. No
funding is identified in fiscal year 2004 for the Affected Units of
Local Government because the scope of work is yet to be defined. Fiscal
year 2003 is a transition year and DOE will review on-going activities
to determine which should continue as we enter the licensing phase. We
will be working with the State and counties in the next few months to
restructure their work and participation.
cost reduction and system enhancement through science and technology
The planned design for any facility is always based on currently
available technology, and the geologic repository is no exception.
Given a repository's long time horizon, technical developments that
mature in the future might well improve upon the repository's current
design in ways that reduce costs of out-year operations. Therefore, we
have not only a duty to take advantage of current technical advances,
but also an opportunity to foster the development of new technologies
that hold greatest promise.
We have initiated a new Cost Reduction and System Enhancement
program in fiscal year 2003 and are requesting $25 million for it in
fiscal year 2004. This program's objectives are to improve existing,
and to develop new, technologies to achieve efficiencies and savings in
the waste management system, and to increase our understanding of
repository performance. The program will enable us to ensure technical
excellence and develop new technologies; maintain our leadership in
nuclear waste management; and keep abreast of emerging technical
developments both here and abroad so that we can use them in enhancing
performance, lowering costs, and maintaining our schedule.
national transportation and waste acceptance program
To develop a system ready to begin shipping waste in 2010, the
program will accelerate efforts that were delayed during the site
characterization period as a result of funding constraints. The
Administration is requesting $73.1 million for this work in fiscal year
2004. We plan to begin the initial procurement of the cask fleet and to
place orders for long-lead time transportation cask systems and
equipment as soon as possible. The contracts will be multi-year, thus
requiring full funding before they are awarded. We will focus first on
those transportation cask designs that have not been previously
developed by industry and will be required for transportation. We will
also prepare for the acquisition of transportation and logistics
services, determine the approach for performing cask maintenance,
develop initial site specific service plans in consultation with the
utilities, and develop facility and equipment needs assessments for
waste acceptance at DOE's defense waste sites.
Funding in fiscal year 2004 will also support greater interactions
with regional, State and local organizations to address institutional
and technical transportation operations issues, including development
of a final grant process for providing emergency responder assistance
under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to States and tribal governments.
Of the $73.1 million requested, $18 million would be for activities
associated with developing a waste transportation infrastructure in
Nevada. The activities supported in this request are critical to
achieving our goal of waste acceptance in 2010. We will continue to
assess the transportation options for shipments to the repository.
However, the national rail system has been used for the last 25 years
to ship radioactive waste safely across the country. No rail link
exists between the national rail system and the Yucca Mountain site. If
developed, a rail line between the existing rail system and Yucca
Mountain would cost an estimated $300 million to $1 billion, depending
on the corridor and alignment proposed. Along with other transportation
systems, the Final EIS for Yucca Mountain examined five potential rail
corridors in the state of Nevada that could be used as transportation
routes to the repository. If a decision is made to pursue rail
transportation and to proceed with an alignment selection within one of
the corridors, the Department must analyze the environmental impacts of
constructing a rail line within that corridor. We will initiate
consultation to solicit input prior to the development of documentation
on a specific rail alignment in Nevada.
In fiscal year 2004, pending the outcome of the NEPA process, the
Program would initiate the conceptual design process, develop the draft
EIS for a rail alignment, and initiate the land acquisition planning.
Also, the program is working closely with the Office of
Environmental Management on DOE spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste
acceptance criteria to ensure we have an integrated, timely, and cost-
effective approach.
program management and integration
Our fiscal year 2004 request includes $23.7 million for program
management and integration activities, an increase of $4 million over
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, nearly all of which is devoted to
the Quality Assurance program. The request reflects the need to have
the strongest possible nuclear Quality Assurance program as we move
into the licensing phase. Quality Assurance is the cornerstone of
assuring the NRC that the Program has implemented activities related to
radiological safety and health and waste isolation that are required by
NRC regulations. We will continue to implement the management
improvement initiatives that we are beginning in fiscal year 2003 to
meet NRC expectations for a licensee.
program direction
The program is also requesting $75.1 million to support Federal
salaries, expenses associated with building maintenance and rent,
training, and management and technical support services, which include
independent Nuclear Waste Fund audit services and independent technical
analyses. These resources fund a small increase in Federal staff to
manage repository design/licensing activities and national
transportation initiatives and are essential to enable the Program to
meet the goal of submitting a license application in 2004.
Alternate Financing Proposal.--In fiscal year 2004 and beyond, the
Program will need significantly increased funding to pay for the
design, construction and operation of the repository, and the
transportation infrastructure. Much greater certainty of funding is
needed for such a massive capital project to ensure the proper and
cost-effective planning and acquisition of capital assets. The
Administration has indicated that, as part of a comprehensive
discretionary cap proposal, discretionary cap adjustments for nuclear
waste disposal activities will be proposed in the upcoming discussions
with Congress on extensions to the Budget Enforcement Act. This
proposal would provide adjustments for spending above an enacted fiscal
year 2003 appropriation base level of funding in fiscal year 2004 and
fiscal year 2005 for the program. These adjustments would be expected
to be continued with each reauthorization of the Budget Enforcement Act
until the repository facility is completed.
I want to emphasize that, under these proposed adjustments, the
Program would continue to be subject to the annual appropriations
process and Congressional oversight. These adjustments would allow the
Appropriations Committees to continue to evaluate our annual budget
requests on their merits and to provide funding sufficient for the
program's needs without adversely affecting other Congressional
spending priorities.
concluding remarks
We have reduced the near-term costs to construct the repository
facilities required to receive initial shipments of nuclear waste by
phasing the development of the repository while maintaining the overall
acceptance schedule.
We are aggressively pursuing ways to lessen the life cycle costs of
the repository, and are instilling a safety conscious work environment
and project organizational approach in the Program to meet our near and
long-term goals effectively and efficiently.
We are examining ways to remove waste from the nuclear power plants
sooner, once the repository is opened.
Our Program is a key element of the Department's and the
Administration's efforts to advance energy and national security
through science, technology and environmental management. It plays an
important role in contributing to our homeland security, and honors our
commitment to a clean environment for future generations. We need your
help to get on with this effort, and to perform at the highest level
without further delays. We urge your support for our budget request,
and we are pleased to be able to work with you on this important
national issue.
Senator Domenici. Senator Reid.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN LICENSE APPLICATION CHALLENGES
Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Chu, do you have people that are keeping track of the
litigation that is ongoing with Yucca Mountain, and do you have
an idea of how many different court proceedings there are in
number?
Dr. Chu. Yes. My understanding is the State of Nevada has
filed suit against the Department of Energy and has also filed
suit against the EPA and NRC, and these suits have been
combined, and it is my understanding, the oral arguments will
be heard sometime this September.
Senator Reid. They are that far away. I note that the
General Accounting Office evaluated DOE's progress toward
license application in December 2001 and estimated at that time
it would take until early 2006 to resolve all outstanding key
technical issues to NRC's satisfaction. You would agree with
that first sentence I read, would you not? Do you want me to
read it again?
Dr. Chu. Since I came on board, we have worked very
diligently with our M&O contractor.
Senator Reid. What is M&O? What does that mean?
Dr. Chu. Managing and operating contractor, which is
Bechtel SAIC, and they recently completed a conceptual design
for the repository and developed an estimate, a range estimate
of cost and time.
Senator Reid. I do not want to be rude. You are reading an
answer that there is no question to it. Just listen to this
first part of the question, okay. What I said is, I noted that
the General Accounting Office evaluated DOE's progress toward
the licensing application in December 2001. That is when they
did that, and they estimated it would take until early 2006 to
resolve all outstanding key technical issues to NRC's
satisfaction. Is that a fair statement?
Dr. Chu. No, I do not agree with that statement.
Senator Reid. Okay. Tell me what you disagree with.
Dr. Chu. Our plan is, actually I am quite confident that--
--
Senator Reid. No, but----
Dr. Chu. Okay, our plan is we will be able to address----
Senator Reid. But the GAO did say that, did they not?
Dr. Chu. I believe so.
Senator Reid. Yes, okay. Go ahead.
Dr. Chu. And then as soon as I came on board we did an
extensive review of where we were, and concluded we have a
schedule that will enable us to address all of the technical
issues before submitting a license application. The only
things----
Senator Reid. When do you expect you will be able to do
that?
Dr. Chu. It will be a few months before the license
application, so it will probably be a few months before
December of 2004.
Senator Reid. So that would be about a year-and-a-half or
something like that?
Dr. Chu. Right.
Senator Reid. Because the reason I mention that, since then
only 70 of the 293 outstanding key technical issues have been
resolved, and quality assurance is now being questioned by the
NRC and the General Accounting Office, and licensing support
network is due to be submitted by NRC 6 months ahead of the
license application, so you feel that the only obstacle to your
progress and ability to meet the license application deadline
of 2004 is a lack of funds?
Dr. Chu. Yes, I would say that, because--and let me say a
little bit about these key technical issues. We had completed
75----
Senator Reid. Okay. I have 70, so you have completed 5
more.
Dr. Chu [continuing]. And we have another 77 in various
stages of NRC review, and so we have a very detailed schedule
of which ones and when we are going to submit, and we are on
schedule right now. There will be 10 out of those 293 that NRC
agreed because it takes long-term data collection. These will
start to be addressed, but we will not have the answers until
after the license application.
TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Senator Reid. When do you expect to release a
transportation strategic plan?
Dr. Chu. Our plan is still sometime in 2003, and Senator
Reid, part of my problem is because of the funding shortfall we
are reassessing the whole program between the repository side
and the transportation side.
Senator Reid. And do you expect to involve stakeholders in
the development of this transportation plan?
Dr. Chu. That is something we talked about. We have not
made a decision yet at this point.
Senator Reid. Tell me why you would not involve
stakeholders.
Dr. Chu. I did not say that.
Senator Reid. No, I know. I say, but give me a reason--you
say you have not made a decision, but why would you not involve
them? What would be the reasons you would not involve them?
Dr. Chu. That is a good question. It probably would be a
good idea.
Senator Reid. Yes, I think it would be a good idea, don't
you? Do you have plans for involving stakeholders in the
decision process for selection of a transportation mode, a rail
corridor, a final repository design, and these questions you
may not be able to answer off-the-cuff, and if you want to do
it in writing, that would be fine. You do not have an answer to
that right now, do you?
Dr. Chu. There is a bigger question involved around it,
because of the funding shortfall, and we had made a decision
that the highest priority is going to be our license
application delivery. We do have a path forward. We feel
confident we can do it. The problem is the funding shortfall,
meaning we have to reprioritize the whole program, which
inevitably will impact the transportation plan.
Senator Reid. But you see, that is the problem that a
number of people had, and that is, how can you have a license
application if you have not done anything about transportation,
because they should be one and the same. You cannot have an
application unless you can figure out some way to get the stuff
there. It is just not going to appear out of the sky.
Dr. Chu. I agree. That is exactly the challenge I have
right now. You see, in the past, every time we get a funding
shortfall the transportation program was cut.
Senator Reid. But you do not necessarily agree that was a
good decision, do you?
Dr. Chu. No. Therefore, what I am doing right now is to
plan smartly and strategically so we have an increased chance
of success, because every time you stop a program it is
wasteful and disruptive. I want to minimize those things and
focus on what I need to do in the transportation program that
will always be used, given the uncertainty. In short, I want to
design a transportation program that provides me the maximum
flexibility and maximizes the chance of my success, given the
funding disruptions.
Senator Reid. My only point is, and I have been saying this
for sometime, and others, it is not just me, that we would be
better off if we had the transportation studies done before you
do the license application, because people think, as I do, that
it just is senseless to talk about filing an application if you
do not have some way to get the stuff there, so that is a
statement, not a question, okay.
Thank you very much for your patience, Senator Domenici.
One more question.
NEVADA STAKEHOLDERS SUPPORT
Does the zero budget request that has been presented mean
that you will not be working with any of the counties and you
will no longer support their commenting on documents or
participation at meetings or assessment of impacts or
preparation of data for the licensing support network, or other
provisions of information to the citizens? I guess my question
is, how in the world could you not have something in your
budget that affects State and local governments that are
affected?
Dr. Chu. I agree with you. The reason we did not put in any
budget request is because 2003 is a transition year from site
characterization to licensing, operation, and construction. My
goal was to work with the State and the counties and then try
to redefine the scope, and then their roles in this next phase,
many years to come.
Senator Reid. But you cannot do that with no money, can
you?
Dr. Chu. My plan is to work with them and then come up with
the scope, and then we will come up with the funding,
appropriate funding to reflect that scope.
Senator Reid. Well, in your statement you said you were
reassessing the repository and transportation across the board.
What does that mean?
Dr. Chu. Excuse me. Can you rephrase your question?
Senator Reid. In your statement you said you are
reassessing the repository and transportation across the board.
That is in your statement. What does that mean?
Oh, my staff said that is how you answered one of my
questions. I thought it was in your statement. You said you are
reassessing the repository and transportation across the board.
That was your answer.
Dr. Chu. That was a budget question? Was it a budget
question? I guess my point is, I only have one program, which
is the repository and transportation, so when it comes to
budget assessment, priority assessment, I have to look at the
program as a whole. That is what I am saying.
Senator Reid. And I am saying that you are saying the right
thing, but your actions are not. You have got to have the
transportation as a part of your program. You cannot just set
it to one side. Even though you may not have the money you
need, you have to figure out some way to have them so they are
both moving along.
Senator Domenici, thank you very much for your patience. I
appreciate it.
Senator Domenici. You are most welcome, Senator. I note
Senator Craig has arrived. Senator, I have not inquired, and I
thought I would do that and then yield to you.
Senator Craig. I am obviously behind the curve. You go
right ahead with your questions, and I may have some at the end
of the testimony. I merely came to give these fine ladies
support for the cause.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT'S FUTURE YEARS BUDGET PROFILE
Senator Domenici. They have testified, and their statements
are in the record.
In your written testimony, Ms. Roberson, you indicated that
you expect your budget to peak in fiscal year 2005, and then
decline to about $5 billion in 2008. Under the most optimistic
scenarios, completion of Rocky Flats, Fernald, and the Mound
clean-up in 2006 will save you approximately $1 billion off
your baseline, but by your testimony today you are indicating
that your budget for 2008 will be $2.2 billion less than it was
today.
So I wonder in which activity, sites or otherwise will you
find the additional $2.2 billion in savings, and some of the
other sites in the complex were expecting their budgets to
increase as a result of DOE's completing its work at Rocky
Flats and other clean-up sites. How can you do that in an
environment of a budget dropping $2.2 billion by 2008?
MAJOR ACTIVITIES TO BE COMPLETED BY 2008 AS LISTED IN THE PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT PLANS (PMPS)
Ms. Roberson. Senator Domenici, the clean-up of the three
larger closure sites, Rocky Flats, Mound, and Fernald is
clearly a major piece of that. We also have tens of other small
projects which amount to, during peak times, about $600 million
that are also scheduled to be completed 2008 or sooner.
In addition, in our performance management plans what we
have done is laid out the activities over time, so what you
have are estimates for completing the necessary work. So other
key activities would also have progressed to the point at some
of those sites, that continue to have clean-up, we will have
completed certain major activities. I could not go through the
specific list, but I would be glad to provide you with an
example of those for the record.
Senator Domenici. Would you do that, please?
Ms. Roberson. Yes.
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site/Ops Office Cleanup Endstates/Endpoints Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amchitka........................ Fiscal Year 2003................. Completion of subsurface groundwater
modeling and risk assessment.
Fiscal Year 2005................. CRESP independent assessment and DOE
groundwater model verification completed.
Battelle Columbus (West End of Fiscal Year 2006.......... Site completion including demolition of
Jefferson North Site). buildings and remediation of radiological
contamination.
Brookhaven National Laboratory.. Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2005... Completion of groundwater and soil cleanup
projects.
Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2008.. D&D of HFBR.
End of Fiscal Year 2008.......... Completion of EM Program at Brookhaven.
Energy Technology Engineering June 30, 2003.................... Ship TRU offsite.
Center.
September 30, 2005............... Complete RMHF D&D.
2007............................. Complete soil remediation and install
groundwater remediation system, completion
of cleanup program.
Fernald......................... September 2004................... Complete disposition of remaining low level
waste and mixed waste.
June 2005........................ Complete waste pits remedial action.
June 2005........................ Eliminate treatment requirement, and
transport waste from Silo 3 to Envirocare.
May 2006......................... Complete treatment of Silos 1 & 2 waste and
transport via rail to Envirocare.
December 2006.................... Complete soil excavation and on-site
disposal facility construction.
December 2006.................... Install needed infrastructure for Great
Miami Aquifer restoration.
December 2006.................... Complete facility D&D and disposal of D&D
debris-site closure.
Hanford......................... 2004............................. Retrieval and closure of 5 tanks.
2005............................. Complete PFP de-inventory.
2006............................. Complete removal of K Basin SNF, Sludge,
Debris, and Water.
2006............................. Retrieve, assay, and disposition 15,000
drums of buried suspect TRU.
Idaho........................... September 2003................... Complete cleaning and grouting of first
pillar and panel vaulted tank.
2004............................. Complete Pit 9 retrieval demonstration.
2005............................. Remediate PBF, CFA, TAN (except groundwater
plumes).
2005............................. Consolidate SNF from TAN to INTEC.
December 2006.................... Complete cleaning and grouting of the
remaining pillar and panel vaulted tanks.
September 2008................... Complete construction and readiness review
of sodium-bearing waste treatment
facility.
Los Alamos National Laboratory.. 2007............................. Complete all groundwater protection
measures and monitoring.
2008............................. Complete corrective actions at the highest
priority Material Disposal Areas
(landfills).
Lawrence Livermore National Fiscal Year 2006................. Ship TRU waste off-site.
Laboratory, Livermore Site. Fiscal Year 2006................. Complete groundwater remediation network.
Fiscal Year 2006................. Complete disposition of mixed and low-level
Fiscal Year 2006................. waste currently in inventory.
Transfer program to NNSA.
Mound........................... August 2005...................... Complete soil remediation of key Potential
Release Sites [PRS].
June 2006........................ Complete D&D of last 6 buildings.
December 2006.................... Site Closure.
Nevada Operations Office........ 2006............................. Complete all Off-sites surface closures.
2007............................. Complete disposition of all current legacy
TRU materials/waste.
2008............................. Complete closure of all industrial sites.
Oak Ridge Reservation........... 2004............................. ETTP: Complete K 29/31/33 decommissioning
for re-use.
2005............................. Melton Valley: Ship legacy waste for
offsite disposal.
2005............................. ETTP: Dispose of legacy waste.
2006............................. Melton Valley: Complete remedial actions,
site closure.
2008............................. ETTP: Complete Zone 1 and Zone 2 cleanup.
2008............................. ETTP: Dispose of empty DUF6 cylinders,
overpack and transport full and heel
cylinders offsite.
2008............................. Closure of ETTP.
2008............................. Complete cleanup of David Witherspoon 901
and 1630 Sites in Knoxville and the Atomic
City Auto Parts site in Oak Ridge.
Pantex.......................... April 2006....................... Complete interim soil clean up measures.
October 2006..................... Complete Ogallala Aquifer groundwater
remediation.
May 2007......................... Complete facility D&D and footprint
reduction.
September 2007................... Complete remediation of Perched Aquifer.
End of Fiscal Year 2008.......... Completion of remediation activities.
Sandia.......................... April 2004....................... Regulatory closure process for radioactive
waste landfill complete.
February 2005.................... CMI complete for chemical waste landfill.
March 2005....................... CMI complete for mixed waste landfill.
April 2004....................... Regulatory closure process for classified
waste landfill complete.
August 2006...................... Complete all closure activities for mixed
waste and chemical waste landfills.
August 2006...................... Complete remaining work for closure of SNL
cleanup project B complete all sites.
September 2006................... Complete all environmental restoration
activities related to drains and septic
systems.
September 2006................... Complete all environmental restoration
groundwater activities.
Savannah River Site............. 2006 to 2007..................... Close F Canyon.
Separations Process Research 2007............................. Complete clean up and release of 90 percent
Unit. (about 22 acres) of potentially impacted
SPRU land areas, return them to Office of
Naval Reactors, SNR.
2007............................. Complete groundwater cleanup.
West Valley..................... Fiscal Year 2004................. Complete decontamination activities.
December 2004.................... Complete construction and operational
readiness of Remote Handling Waste
Facility.
Fiscal Year 2005................. Begin decommissioning.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant..... April 2003....................... Increase WIPP capability to receive 100
TRUPACT-IIs and/or Half PACTs per week.
Second Quarter, Fiscal Year 2005. First receipt of RH-TRU waste.
Fiscal Year 2005................. HWFP modifications for TRUPACT-III.
Fiscal Year 2007................. Begin shipments of TRUPACT-III.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The out-year funding profile of $5 billion in 2008 will afford the accomplishment of our accelerated risk
reduction and cleanup goals, as noted in the attached table, through the synergetic combination of management
reforms, performance management plans, and integrated project management teams.
Senator Domenici. Does your outyear funding profile of $5
billion in 2008 fully fund all of the site performance
management plans you have spent the last year negotiating?
Ms. Roberson. I believe so, sir.
Senator Domenici. Would you confirm that and, if so, would
you tell us which ones it does not?
Ms. Roberson. I will confirm it in writing, but I can
assure you that it is in line with the plan that we have laid
out.
LOS ALAMOS ACCELERATED CLEAN-UP PLAN
Senator Domenici. Regarding Los Alamos clean-up, the
conference agreement on the fiscal year 2003 omnibus provides
an additional $50 million for clean-up at Los Alamos National
Laboratory consistent with the lab's performance management
plan, that is the PMP. The DOE and the lab must have the
agreement of the State on the PMP before the lab can proceed
with this accelerated plan, which I support.
A further complication is that last year New Mexico's
environmental department proposed rulemaking actions against
Los Alamos and Sandia based on a finding of ``imminent and
substantial endangerment''. I understand the order has been
stayed until May and the DOE has been negotiating with the
State regarding the pending action.
The State continues to push for more analysis and
characterization of contamination, while the Department wants
to proceed with the clean-up. What happens if the State never
comes to an agreement with you regarding the clean-up? Will
that impact on your ability to quickly ship waste to WIPP? Are
you taking into account special concerns about how this could
affect nuclear weapons operations at the laboratory at Los
Alamos, and can you give me an update on this situation?
Ms. Roberson. Senator, we are working very closely with the
National Nuclear Security Administration on this matter, since
they manage continuing operation on the site. Your facts are
absolutely up to date and correct. The negotiations, we were
hoping, would culminate within this week, no later than next
week. I am actually going to be going out to New Mexico next
week and meet with regulatory agencies there, and hope that we
can affirm some further progress.
If we are unable to reach agreement it will not impact our
commitment to accelerate the TRU waste movements. We have
invested a tremendous amount of energy and effort, working with
EPA and NRC to do that, and we think it is in the best
interests of New Mexico to proceed. However, the debate over
how much characterization of the data is needed is certainly an
element that would slow down our accelerated efforts at that
site.
Senator Domenici. Well, personally I would like very much
for you to keep us posted on that. I would think that based
upon what I know of your Department's efforts and the efforts
through Los Alamos, and we have gone a long way in getting that
ready, I would hope there are no additional requirements.
Sometimes they come up with them and they are truly ridiculous.
Sometimes they come up with them that are realistic, and I
would hope you would pass objectively on what they really are
all about and let us know.
Ms. Roberson. You can count on me to do that, Senator.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENTS
Senator Domenici. Over the last year the Department has
dramatically cut its budget request for investment in science
and technology development to support clean-up missions. This
budget has gone from $300 million to a request of $64 million
for 2004. That budget is focused on very, very near-term
objectives, from what we understand. Why have you abandoned the
notion that long-term clean-up costs over the next 30 years
could be effectively reduced through aggressive development of
the technologies?
Ms. Roberson. Well, Senator Domenici, we have not abandoned
the idea that our clean-up costs could be positively affected
by science and technology. In the fiscal year 2003 budget we
proposed, and the Congress approved, transfers the research and
development function in the environmental clean-up program to
the Office of Science, which we believe allows a more efficient
utilization of resources, and we have worked very well with the
Office of Science in that venue.
The element of the science and technology program that
remains in the EM is really focused on development and
deployment of specific initiatives that allow us to benefit
from the many technology endeavors undertaken in the last 2
years and tested and developed through the science and
technology program, so our efforts now are identifying the
issues or problems that we need technologies focused on, and
through a competitive arrangement, allow those companies to
demonstrate to us the most efficient and effective application
of those technologies. We believe we have moved the program to
the next step of identifying those best suited for deployment
in resolving those specific issues within the program.
WASTE MANAGEMENT EDUCATION RESEARCH PROGRAM
Senator Domenici. I have a long series of questions. I am
just going to ask two more and then I will yield to Senator
Craig.
The Department has had an environmental program going
called WERC, W-E-R-C, Waste Management Education Research
Program, that involves three universities, headed by New Mexico
State. Can you confirm today that DOE will fund WERC consistent
with the cooperative agreement and congressional direction?
Ms. Roberson. Senator Domenici, I can affirm that we intend
to maintain a working relationship with WERC. We are working
right now to ensure that the goals for the accelerated clean-up
and the timing align with our cooperative agreement with WERC,
and we may pursue some modification to that cooperative
agreement from a scope perspective, but I believe that I can
confirm we will continue to maintain a relationship with WERC
and funding for that initiative.
Senator Domenici. All right. That was not quite my
question, but I will take it as an answer that you will try
your very best, consistent with your reevaluation.
Ms. Roberson. Exactly.
Senator Domenici. Senator Craig.
IDAHO CLEAN-UP
Senator Craig. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you again, and to
both of you, thank you for being here. Both of these issues and
areas that you have responsibility over are important to our
country, and are certainly important to my State.
Jessie, you are obviously by now aware of a court decision
in Idaho as it relates to a relationship between Idaho, DOE,
and the clean-up on site at Idaho, and how all of that works
its way out. I guess instead of asking you if the reality is at
hand and we have to fund all that might be suggested by that
decision, if you had a figure to propose--my guess is you
probably do not--or at least a ball park figure, what I would
much prefer to suggest is that at least in my mind, and I hope
the State's, this court decision results in DOE and Idaho
getting back to the table not only to recognize that there is a
responsibility there for clean-up, but the judge argues, if you
will, all means all, but more importantly I think, as it
relates to the environment, the aquifer, what is the right
amount to do that meets the science, that meets the
requirements, that clearly might at some time create an
environmental risk if it were not exhumed and removed, and that
that is really an important way to approach this, than to
assume that we are going to cast a budget that over x number of
years cleans it all.
I am not quite sure that Congress has that kind of money,
or does DOE in this instance, but it is obvious to me now that
this may be an opportunity, as much as it is an obstacle, to
sit down with the State and work those differences out and to
understand that the State and the Federal Government by the
judge's decisions in this instance are at least coequal in
making determination. Would you disagree with that?
Ms. Roberson. I think not, Senator Craig. I would hold
myself a step away in that the litigation door is still open.
DOE is evaluating its options.
Senator Craig. Well, I appreciate the concept of an appeal.
I would hope your attorneys would come back and say that when
you have a court-ordered environment of the kind you are
operating in in Idaho, versus a relationship to contract and
commitment in other States, that they are, by definition,
somewhat different.
At the same time, I think that that gives us the
opportunity to clarify where we need to get in Idaho.
Ms. Roberson. Senator Craig, I would say two things. One, I
will leave the determination as to legal actions to our
attorneys. However, when we did reach settlement on this matter
last year, we at that time laid out the clean-up process and
timeline for doing just that. Obviously, the first step was the
Gem Project, the limited excavation. We are proceeding along
that path. We expect to continue to work with the State along
that path, but I cannot say what remedies may occur.
Senator Craig. I think we are going to assume successes in
these projects versus the historic problem we have had that we
have worked our way through. I think those successes and the
ability to determine that the manifest can be accurately
reviewed by exhuming will go a long way toward helping Idahoans
understand that we can do this in a way that is scientifically
based and resolves any problems we might have and that keeps
our environment and our aquifer intact.
Ms. Roberson. And Senator, that is absolutely our goal, as
we have laid out the commitments to demonstrate that. You are
right, excavation of all, estimated all, and I am not sure how
to define that, is probably well into the double digits of
billions. There are other elements to be considered, not just
excavation but transportation of that much material. There is a
whole school of safety and environmental matters that have to
play into the path that is laid out.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN FUNDING ISSUES
Senator Craig. Well, thank you for that. We will work with
you to try to resolve that issue.
Margaret, again let me thank you for the task you are
about. It is obviously important to meet the timelines if we
can and must, I think, aggressively try to have an application
by no later than 2004. That is aggressive, I do not think there
is any question about it, but then to hit the 2007 timeline to
be able to be--at least if we can start receiving by 2010, you
will deserve a gold medal.
Dr. Chu. Thank you.
Senator Craig. We would like to award that to you, or the
person who will follow you to this office. I must tell you,
though, I am disappointed the administration did not get the
budget cap adjustment that it was seeking as a part of the
budget resolution this year. I think that would have been very
helpful, obviously. The nuclear waste fund is taking in about
$600 million a year, and we have appropriated less than $100
million for the fund. I will certainly work with you to try to
resolve this so we can keep you on schedule from a resource
standpoint, at least.
Dr. Chu. Thank you very much, Senator Craig. We need all
the support.
Senator Craig. Well, I thank you. I do not know that I have
any specific questions of you, but this remains an extremely
important project for the country. We have been able to get
through some of the hurdles. Now we need to get through the
rest.
Dr. Chu. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Dr. Chu, I think you know that you are in a difficult
position. That goes without saying, but frankly, you are up to
it. You have the knowledge and strength to state what it is and
how things are as you understand them. Leave the politics and
the other things to us. You just do your work as you see it
should be done. That is why we ask you to do this job, and we
commend you for that.
It is difficult, there is no question, and clearly the
State of Nevada, with its wonderful Senators, has a different
opinion, it appears, than what the law would have in mind for
you to do, and in that regard you will constantly be on a
rendering stick, whatever that is. You will be going around and
around, and you are not very heavy so you cannot go around too
much.
There is not too much to render. In any event, we wish you
the best.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUNDING
Over the last years the Department has cut its budget--I am
speaking now of science and technology--as far as the clean-up
mission. Could I ask, why have you abandoned the notion that
long-term clean-up costs over the next 30 years could be
reduced by the deployment of new technologies?
Ms. Roberson. Sir, we have not abandoned the idea that
those costs can be positively affected; and our attempt is to
integrate those technologies that have been developed as a
result of investments over the last 10 years that they are
integrated into the actual demonstration of work in the field,
and so we are, through a competitive process, trying to
integrate the best of those technologies into our actual work
plans.
Senator Domenici. Frankly, I thought you were going to say
that a quick look at how much money we spent every year for the
last 10 years in this area, put up against how much of that
technology has proved useful, that you might have arrived at
the conclusion that we were wasting a lot of money. Had you
said that, I would have agreed with you. You said it
differently, but that is all right.
I do not know that we got so much out of the budgets of
$200 million and $300 million in science and technology towards
better ways of controlling this area. Everybody had a new idea.
Everybody funded it, but not too much came out of it, so what
you are saying is the lower number, you are still picking and
choosing the very best, is that correct?
Ms. Roberson. Exactly. That is exactly what we are trying
to do, out of those 10 years of investment, competitively
identifying those that we have funded, and pushing those into
the field to actually help solve the problems.
NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Senator Domenici. Last year, New Mexico's environmental
department issued a proposed rulemaking action against Los
Alamos and Sandia, based on the findings of quote, imminent and
substantial endangerment. I understand the order has been
stayed until May, and that DOE has been negotiating with the
State. Can you give me an update on the situation, and do you
believe there is imminent and substantial endangerment, to use
their words, at Sandia and Los Alamos?
Ms. Roberson. Senator Domenici, I do not believe there is
imminent safety or environmental threat to the public. The
negotiations are ongoing. We were hopeful that they would
culminate within the next 2 weeks. I am going to go out myself
next week and meet with the regulatory agencies and hopefully
find that they are very near culmination.
Senator Domenici. Well, I hate to say it, but I do not
believe there is either, so we agree for starters. I would hope
that they would get serious about this. We do not need any
publishing language like this if they do not really have
something. We have enough problems when there are serious
problems, other than to have somebody bantering them around, so
I urge that you move, and move very diligently to see if you
cannot rectify this.
On the safeguards and security, just a couple of questions.
The Department has a unique and challenging security
environment because of the special nature of our mission. Many
tons of special nuclear materials are under our control.
Security costs throughout the Department have been increasing,
particularly in the aftermath of September 11.
The costs to the Department have been going up, and now
that our country is at war with Iraq the condition has been
raised to an orange level, as the DOE sites refer to, in the
security condition 3. As a result, Senator Reid and I, and with
help from Senator Stevens last week led the fight here in the
Senate to add significant sums to the 2003 supplemental to
cover projected heightened security costs that the Department
did not budget. What threat level or security condition did you
assume in the development of the 2004 budget request?
Ms. Roberson. We assumed a SECON 3, which is the, I guess,
equivalent to a yellow, and so once elevated to an orange it
elevates us to a SECON 2 and does include some additional cost
to the program.
Senator Domenici. That will not be sufficient, then, if the
Department remains at security condition 3 for all of 2004.
Ms. Roberson. That is correct. That is an elevated
security. We are in an elevated security posture other than we
assumed for fiscal year 2003, and if we proceed into fiscal
year 2004 it would be the same situation.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY COSTS
Senator Domenici. Are there investments that we could make
today that would dramatically reduce operational security costs
over the next few years, and if you do not know about them now,
could you supply them for the record?
Ms. Roberson. I know a few, but I would probably like to be
a bit more thoughtful.
[The information follows:]
Although we continue to evaluate new barrier and system
technologies, the most dramatic reductions in security infrastructure
costs are achieved by consolidating materials. As an example, the Rocky
Flats security budget request in fiscal year 2004 is $18 million less
than the fiscal year 2003 budget based on the removal of plutonium and
highly enriched uranium from the site. Similarly, the disposal of
transuranic waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant from 23 locations
nationwide will have a significant impact on lowering safety and
security costs at those sites.
Senator Domenici. Tell us about a few.
Ms. Roberson. Obviously, consolidation of material at Rocky
Flats has a very positive impact on our security costs. Also,
consolidation at Hanford in a limited number of areas, versus
where we have material stored now. That is the strategy that we
are employing at all of our sites, and then every step you can
progress in the consolidation arena brings down your costs.
There are obviously also technological actions that can be
taken which make sense for longer-term storage versus short
term.
Senator Domenici. We seem to get rather a good response
from the chairman of Appropriations if we bring these issues
up. If they are not included in a budget we are able to get
them in a supplemental or add them as the bill goes through.
Being at an accelerated level of security is not free. If
your budget provides for a different level somebody has to put
up the resources, and if you do not have it in there, you take
it away from something, and we do not want that to happen when
you have a close budget like you have, that you have already
negotiated it out pretty thin.
POST CLEAN-UP EMPLOYMENT
Rocky Flats as a model, you often refer to the success of
Rocky Flats, and when you talk about what the environmental
clean-up program should actually be. Certainly there are
lessons to be learned from the DOE experience there. In many
ways, the situation was unique in that the plant was relatively
small, it was located in a large metropolitan area and provided
more job opportunities for displaced workers, and the local
community was committed to transitioning the site to a wildlife
refuge with very little continuing employment.
This contrasts dramatically with clean-up projects in DOE's
communities. That is, in many cases we owe most of their
livelihood in the area to the DOE presence and fewer
opportunities for displaced workers, and long, or continued
high level of DOE employment. That is not to say, having
repeated those, that we ought to be liable for all of them, but
the truth of the matter is, that is the case.
There are as many or more people involved getting paychecks
during the clean-up episode at Hanford and others than there
were when they were in full operational scale, and that means
that people are growing accustomed to a DOE paycheck. In fact,
on the West Coast they are growing accustomed to paychecks in
larger numbers for as high a pay as they were getting when all
of the reactors were full-steam-ahead in the Scoop Jackson era,
and it is very hard for you to make headway when people say,
you cannot change the contract because we cannot lower the
employment, is that not correct?
Ms. Roberson. That is correct. I would say the employment
changes as we move forward, we have worked very hard to tie
those to completion of the actual work. Unfortunately, this is
a program of fixing problems. The problems exist, and our job
is to address them, which means at some point you are done
fixing the problem.
Senator Domenici. You understand why I raise it.
Ms. Roberson. Yes.
Senator Domenici. Because you are telling us, and we
appreciate it, at least you have something going when others
had nothing. You have the Rocky Flats model and you are saying,
we are using it. I have just given you one big difference,
right?
Ms. Roberson. Yes.
Senator Domenici. Rocky Flats does not anticipate continued
employment post-completion, so it will not have as instant a
relevance to Hanford, but you are suggesting you are pursuing
that vigorously, is that correct?
Ms. Roberson. Senator Domenici, you said it absolutely
right. One of the clear challenges we have, really, across the
country, is the recognition that completing the environmental
issues in and of itself is the thing that opens the door to
other economic opportunities, rather than maintaining the
clean-up over a longer period of time.
Senator Domenici. Okay, and they are beginning to
understand that that is going to be the reality?
Ms. Roberson. Well, I hope we are effective. That is
certainly what we are trying to communicate.
Senator Domenici. Well, I think that we are going to
support you. I mean, we may get a lot of people that will not,
but we have to get there some day or we will never reduce the
cost.
Ms. Roberson. Well, I think some of the progress that we
are making is a demonstration, and I do see an alignment
occurring, but it does take time, you are absolutely right. It
is a bit more challenging, depending on the circumstances at
each site, but it is not applying a cookie-cutter approach, it
is applying the logic to the circumstances for each site.
Senator Domenici. All right.
Did you have something else?
Senator Craig. I was just going to react, Mr. Chairman, by
saying in relation to what you need, I am looking at what the
INEL was, if you will, in the production era versus in large
part now a clean-up era. We were 13,000, now we are 6,000. It
seems like the reduction of workforce has not been such an
obstacle there. Does it remain that much of an obstacle
elsewhere?
Ms. Roberson. I would have to say, over the last few years
we have evolved. It certainly is an obstacle generically in
that the understanding that the environmental clean-up program
is a project-oriented program focused on resolving an issue,
that if it takes you 30 years to do something it probably is
not a good thing for the environment or the public, and that
focus and that understanding is not something that has
necessarily permeated the entire program.
PRIVATELY FUNDED TECHNOLOGIES
Senator Domenici. I have a series of questions regarding
Title X of the Energy Policy Act, but I will submit those for
the record for you to answer.
Privately funded technology for EM. Let me just ask you, I
am aware of at least one company that has put their own money
into developing an innovative waste treatment and separation
technology, and if it works, could it reduce the cost of tank
clean-up at Hanford and other sites? I have noted the
President's 2004 budget includes a commitment that DOE will
share part of the savings from the development of innovative
clean-up technology as an inducement to encourage contractors
to take financial risks to develop breakthrough technologies.
Is the Department going to encourage such private sector
solutions?
Ms. Roberson. Senator, I am actually very familiar with
this specific technology and venture that you are speaking of.
I actually have a team that is going to go out to California
and monitor their testing. There is probably another step in
their demonstrating the application of that technology to our
specific waste, but we are certainly watching, and we are
encouraging them to proceed.
Senator Domenici. I am not touting it, that technology, but
rather the policy.
Ms. Roberson. And it is the policy we are deploying in the
clean-up program.
Senator Domenici. It seems to me to be far more exciting
than spending our own money on technology. People might be
rather excited if, in fact, they developed one and you gave
them this kind of a situation. It might be pretty good.
Senator Craig, did you have anything further?
Senator Craig. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Dr. Chu, did you have anything further to
say, or comment?
Dr. Chu. I hope in fiscal year 2004 we get the full
funding. It is extremely critical for us. The next 12 to 18
months are extremely critical for the viability of the program.
I want to reemphasize that, and thank you very much for all
your support.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Ms. Roberson, did you have anything further?
Ms. Roberson. Senator, I would like to thank you and the
subcommittee for the earlier comments on our proposed budget
structure and our fiscal year 2004 budget request. That is a
critical element of our reforms. It does, indeed, pattern after
the actions that were taken for Rocky Flats in 1998-1999. I
would be glad to provide any additional information, but it is
a critical phase in our reform.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to the Office of Environmental Management
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
rocky flats model
Question. Ms. Roberson, you often refer to the success at Rocky
Flats when you talk about what the environmental clean-up program
should be. Certainly there are lessons to be learned from the DOE
experience there. However, in many ways the situation at Rocky Flats
was unique in that the plant was relatively small, it was located in a
large metropolitan area that provided more job opportunities for
displaced workers, and the local community was committed to
transitioning the site to a wildlife refuge with very little continuing
employment. This contrast dramatically with clean-up projects in ``DOE
communities'' that in many cases owe most of their livelihood to the
DOE presence, have fewer opportunities for displaced workers, and long
for continued high levels of DOE employment.
Are you perhaps too optimistic that the Rocky Flats model will work
at many other sites?
Answer. In the 1996 Baseline Environmental Management Report, DOE
estimated that it would cost $17.3 billion and take until 2055 to clean
up the Rocky Flats Site. By utilizing an innovative and completion
oriented cleanup strategy we were able to reduce cleanup costs to $7.1
billion and the cleanup will be completed in 2006. The major elements
of our cleanup approach at Rocky Flats include:
--insisting on an uncompromising pursuit of top performance;
--creating and implementing a closure ``project'';
--implementing an aggressive performance-based; contracting strategy;
--employing innovative project planning and delivery;
--effectively managing human resources; and
--using innovative technology where applicable.
While the situation at the Rocky Flats site was unique in some
ways, every site has cleanup circumstances and variables analogous and
common to Rocky Flats. I certainly recognize that a ``one size fits
all'' approach to cleanup will not work. However, I do believe the
underlying cleanup strategy that we are using at Rocky Flats is
applicable in large measure to other sites as well.
Question. What encouragement can you provide that we will see the
same level of progress at other sites such as Hanford, Idaho, and
Savannah?
Answer. The cleanup challenges at larger sites such as Hanford,
Idaho, and Savannah River are formidable. Nonetheless, the underlying
approach we are utilizing at Rocky Flats is applicable to cleanup at
all of our sites. In particular, I believe that developing and
implementing innovative acquisition strategies that foster accelerated
cleanup and risk reduction through the use of performance based
incentives is key to improving the effectiveness and reducing the cost
of cleanup at our sites. These contracts and the associated performance
incentives must be structured around cleanup strategies that
aggressively focus on accelerating risk reduction to achieve defined
end states. In addition, we have taken a number of reform measures to
improve the effectiveness of the Environmental Management (EM) program
as a whole. These include:
--developing a new set of corporate performance measures that track
progress against cleanup and risk reduction goals;
--restructuring the EM budget to clearly identify the scope and
resources that directly support EM's core accelerated mission
from those that do not; and
--placing a number of key program elements such as life-cycle costs,
contract performance incentives, and site baselines under
strict EM Headquarters configuration management control.
I believe that the steps we have taken to reform the EM program
will facilitate a high level of confidence that the goals and direction
of EM's accelerated cleanup and risk reduction mission will be met.
future budgets
Question. Your total budget proposal for fiscal year 2004 is
approximately $7.2 billion. In your written testimony, you indicated
that you expect your budget to peak in fiscal year 2005 and then
decline to about $5 billion in fiscal year 2008. Under the most
optimistic scenarios, completion of the Rocky Flats, Fernald, and Mound
clean-ups in 2006 will save you approximately $1 billion off of your
baseline. But by your testimony today, you are indicating that your
budget in fiscal year 2008 will be $2.2 billion less than what it is
today. From which sites specifically will you find the additional $1.2
billion in budget savings?
Answer. The cleanups of Rocky Flats, Mound, and Fernald are clearly
a major segment of the reduction in resource requirements. We also have
tens of smaller projects across our sites which amount to about $600
million that are scheduled to be completed by 2008 or sooner.
Additionally, other major activities at our large sites, which
previously were not scheduled to be completed until after the closure
sites, are now scheduled to be completed by 2008 in accordance with our
performance management plans.
Question. Some of the other sites in the complex were expecting
their budgets to increase as a result of DOE completing its work at
Rocky Flats and other closure sites. How will you do that in an
environment of a budget dropping $2.2 billion by fiscal year 2008?
Answer. Prior to the Top-to-Bottom (TTB) Review, the approach was
to accelerate Rocky Flats and the other closure sites and re-invest the
savings after 2006 in the cleanup of other sites. As a result of the
TTB Review, the Department concluded that the cost to accelerate
cleanup and risk reduction based on new strategies, with some funding
increases over the next several years, would allow work completion
earlier than had been previously planned, with an earlier and larger
life-cycle savings. This strategy allows for cleanup work to be pulled
forward at more sites so that the communities actually benefit faster
from a cleaner environment than was previously thought possible.
Question. Does your out-year funding profile of $5 billion in
fiscal year 2008 fully fund all of the site performance management
plans you have spent the last year negotiating?
Answer. Yes. We believe with the synergetic combination of
management reforms, performance management plans, and integrated
project management teams, the out-year funding profile will afford the
accomplishment of our accelerated risk reduction and cleanup goals for
2008.
safeguards and security
Question. The Department of Energy has a unique and challenging
security environment because of the special nature of our mission and
the many tons of special nuclear material under our control. Security
costs throughout the Department have been increasing for years, and
particularly in the aftermath of September 11. And now that our country
is at war with Iraq, the security condition has been raised to the
``orange level'', or as DOE sites refer to it--Security Condition 3. As
a result of this, Senator Reid and I, with great help from Senator
Stevens, last week led the fight here in the Senate to add significant
sums to the fiscal year 2003 supplemental to cover projected heightened
security costs that the Department did not budget for.
What threat level or security condition did you assume in
developing the fiscal year 2004 budget request?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget request assumes a security
condition (SECON) 3 modified threat level, which corresponds to
Homeland Security's threat level ``elevated/yellow.''
Question. Will it be sufficient if the Department remains at
Security Condition 3 for all of fiscal year 2004?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget request provides resources for
the Department to remain at security condition 3 modified, which
corresponds to Homeland Security's threat level ``elevated/yellow.'' If
SECON 2 (``high/orange'') is implemented in fiscal year 2004, the
Environmental Management Program would assess the adequacy of the
fiscal year 2004 budget request based on the length of time SECON 2 is
in force.
Question. Are there investments we could make today that would
dramatically reduce operational security costs over the next few years?
If so, please provide specifics for the record.
Answer. Although we continue to evaluate new barrier and system
technologies, the most dramatic reductions in security infrastructure
costs are achieved by consolidating materials. As an example, the Rocky
Flats security budget request in fiscal year 2004 is $18 million less
than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation based on the removal of
plutonium and highly enriched uranium from the site. Similarly, the
disposal of transuranic waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant from
23 locations nationwide will have a significant impact on lowering
safety and security costs at those sites.
waste management education and research consortium
Question. For almost 12 years the Department has funded the highly
successful WERC, the Waste Management Education and Research
Consortium, based in New Mexico. WERC has developed an impressive
record for training new talent for the EM programs, I fear that the
failure to request funding is short-sighted. The fiscal year 2003
Omnibus included direction to the Department to fund WERC at last
year's level of approximately $2.5 million.
Can you confirm today that DOE will fund WERC consistent with the
cooperative agreement and the congressional direction?
Answer. We are committed to funding the Waste Management Education
and Research Consortium in fiscal year 2003 consistent with
congressional direction. Presently, we are working to ensure that the
goals for accelerated cleanup and the timing align with our cooperative
agreements. Accordingly, we may pursue some modification to our
cooperative agreements to ensure needed alignment with the accelerated
cleanup goals of the Environmental Management program.
idaho removal of buried waste
Question. As you are very much aware, there is a long-running
dispute between the DOE and the State of Idaho regarding the removal of
buried waste on site at Idaho. The DOE has maintained that it has a
responsibility to remove a portion of the waste stored above ground,
while the State has argued DOE is on the hook to remove all of the
buried waste at Idaho. The resolution of this dispute has major impacts
on the clean-up cost and schedule at Idaho. Last week, a Federal judge
issued a ruling that raises serious concerns about the Department's
chances that the 1995 clean-up agreement will be interpreted as the
Department has suggested.
What are the cost and schedule implications at Idaho if the DOE is
required to remove all of the buried waste?
Answer. Based on the judge's recent ruling, we believe the current
estimate for retrieval, characterization, packaging, and disposal of
all the buried waste is at least $10 billion. The current schedule
estimate indicates that the work could not be completed before 2018.
completion of clean-up at sandia
Question. The Department has proposed spending approximately $22
million for the clean-up of Sandia National Laboratory in fiscal year
2004. Will that level of funding keep Sandia on track for closure in
fiscal year 2006?
Answer. Yes, the requested fiscal year 2004 funding will keep
Sandia on track to complete the EM mission in fiscal year 2006.
clean-up situation at los alamos
Question. The conference agreement for the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus
provides an additional $50 million for clean up at Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL) consistent with the Lab's performance management plan
(PMP). Of course, the DOE and the Lab must have the agreement of the
State on the PMP before the Lab can proceed with the accelerated plan.
Further complicating the situation, last year the New Mexico
Environmental Department issued proposed rulemaking actions against Los
Alamos and Sandia based on a finding of ``imminent and substantial
endangerment.'' I understand that the order has been stayed until May
and that the DOE has been in negotiations with the State regarding this
pending action. The State continues to push for more analysis and
characterization of contamination, while the Department wants to
proceed with the clean up.
What happens if the State never comes to agreement with the DOE
regarding the clean-up plan for LANL?
Answer. In the event that we are not able to come to agreement with
the regulators on an accelerated cleanup path for Los Alamos National
Laboratory, we would propose a base funding level as enumerated in the
Office of Environmental Management's fiscal year 2003 Congressional
Budget Request, escalated appropriately. At this level, we would
proceed with cleanup in a non-accelerated fashion. This would allow us
to manage risk to protect the public and the environment, but would
limit our ability to actually reduce risk, thereby extending the
schedule for ultimate cleanup and increasing the life-cycle cost.
Question. Will that impact our ability to quickly ship waste out of
LANL to WIPP?
Answer. Yes. Consistent with Section 315 of the fiscal year 2003
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, a substantial portion
of the fiscal year 2003 budget authority for the Los Alamos National
Laboratory is currently unavailable because of the State of New
Mexico's failure thus far to endorse the site's Performance Management
Plan. This is affecting the Department's ability to accelerate the
shipments of transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The
significant increase in shipments called for in the PMP requires an
early investment in systems to increase the capacity at the LANL to
process and ship waste.
Question. Are you taking into the special concerns about how this
could affect nuclear weapons operations at Los Alamos?
Answer. The current rate of transuranic (TRU) waste shipments
exceeds the rate of TRU waste generation from nuclear weapons
activities at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Consequently, there
is no immediate concern that nuclear weapons operations would be
curtailed or otherwise adversely impacted because of a lack of waste
storage space. There is an estimated 2 years of storage capacity
``cushion''. As we achieve the commitment in the Performance Management
Plan to increase the number of waste shipments, the potential impact to
nuclear weapons operations will be reduced even further.
Question. Can you give me an update of this situation?
(Background.--The Department is proposing that over 2000 drums of
legacy transuranic waste will be shipped to WIPP in fiscal year 2004.
This is 10 percent of the TRU waste at LANL, much of it stored in tents
up on top of a Mesa. You will recall this area was almost burned in the
Cerro Grande fire of 2000.)
Answer. The Los Alamos National Laboratory has approximately 46,000
drum equivalents of transuranic waste in storage. The LANL Performance
Management Plan, calls for shipping 2,000 drums of the highest-activity
and dispersible transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant by
the end of fiscal year 2004. To this end, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission approved a revised method of meeting certain shipping
requirements for this subset of transuranic waste at LANL. The first of
these drums was shipped in December, and more drums were shipped in
January. This activity is referred to in the LANL PMP as the ``Quick to
WIPP'' plan. In addition, the LANL PMP calls for disposing of all
transuranic waste at LANL by 2010. LANL is currently averaging one
shipment (42 drums) to WIPP per week. The plan is to increase to two
shipments per week in May.
Additional actions have been taken to reduce the risk of fire
danger for this waste. Storage dome roofs are being replaced with
material having greater fire resistance. Fire loading within the domes
has been reduced; for example, wooden pallets have been replaced with
metal. Wooden crates containing waste are now being stored in large
metal containers; and brush and trees have been trimmed away from the
storage areas.
science and technology budget
Question. Over the last several years, the Department has
dramatically cut its budget request for investments in science and
technology development to support its clean-up mission. The budget has
gone from over $300 million to a request of just $64 million for fiscal
year 2004--and that budget is focused on very near-term objectives.
Why has the Department abandoned the notion that long-term clean-up
costs over the next 30 years can be effectively reduced through
aggressive development of new technologies?
Answer. The Office of Environmental Management's cleanup program
has not abandoned the notion that long-term cleanup costs over the next
30 years can be effectively reduced through aggressive development of
new technologies. EM's cleanup program clearly faces many technical
challenges that must be met through improved science and technology as
it moves forward to address the cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex.
The Department has included in the fiscal year 2004 budget request over
$63 million for critical, high-payback technology development and
deployment activities where quantum improvements can be gained, as well
as on activities supporting closure sites. The Department has also
requested over $29 million for the Office of Science to support
scientific research to address cleanup problems identified by EM. In
addition to this science and technology funding, EM is also moving to
renegotiate and restructure many of our site contracts to further
provide incentives for our contractors to seek out the best possible
science and technology solutions to cleanup problems.
title x of the energy policy act of 1992
Question. What is the level of claims for reimbursement that is
currently pending payment by DOE (i.e. through 2001)?
Answer. As of May 7, 2003, the total outstanding balance of
approved claims that are eligible for reimbursement pending future
appropriation of funds is $78.5 million. This is the remaining balance
after DOE's April 2003 payment to eligible EPACT Title X licensees of
its fiscal year 2003 appropriation for this purpose. The outstanding
balance reflects unpaid claims submitted by the licensees by May 1,
2002, for work performed through 2001. It does not include
approximately $38 million in new claims submitted by May 1, 2003, for
work performed through 2002, which have not yet been reviewed and
approved by DOE.
Question. How much of the claims have been audited?
Answer. The review and audit of all of claims submitted and
received by May 1, 2002, is complete. The review and audit of all
claims submitted by May 1, 2003, will be completed within 1 year of the
submission date, consistent with DOE's regulations (10 CFR Part 765)
implementing EPACT Title X.
Question. Based upon currently available funds, as well as funds
requested in the fiscal year 2004 budget, when will these claims be
fully paid? Based upon its projection of when current claims will be
fully paid, how much time will have elapsed from the time that the
claims were filed until the claims are fully paid?
Answer. As stated in the previous answer, there is an outstanding
balance of $78.5 million in approved claims. Based upon the fiscal year
2004 budget request of $51 million, this outstanding balance would not
be fully paid until fiscal year 2005. The elapsed time from submission
of these claims until payment in full of all the claims would be about
3 years.
Question. What is DOE's projection of the amounts of new claims it
expects to receive in fiscal year 2003? In fiscal year 2004? In fiscal
year 2005? In fiscal year 2006?
Answer. The following estimates are based on information provided
by the licensees who are eligible for reimbursement under the Title X
program. The amounts are the Federal government's share that would be
eligible for reimbursement assuming the claims are approved in full.
Approximately $20 million of the total claims submitted over this 4
year period would be for amounts that exceed the per dry short ton
reimbursement limit for uranium licensees; i.e., they would not be
eligible for immediate reimbursement in accordance with EPACT Title X,
as amended. However, these amounts would be eligible for reimbursement
after fiscal year 2008, if the Secretary makes a determination at that
time that there is sufficient authority under EPACT Title X, as
amended, to reimburse those amounts.
Fiscal year 2003.--$38 million ($7 million exceeds dry short ton
reimbursement limit).
Fiscal year 2004.--$36 million ($6 million exceeds dry short ton
reimbursement limit).
Fiscal year 2005.--$35 million ($6 million exceeds dry short ton
reimbursement limit).
Fiscal year 2006.--$33 million ($1 million exceeds dry short ton
reimbursement limit).
Question. What is DOE's current budget estimate for reimbursement
of Title X claims in fiscal year 2004? Fiscal year 2005? Fiscal year
2006?
Answer. As you know, we have requested $51 million for fiscal year
2004. For fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006, the Department plans
to request funding to meet our Title X obligations in a timely manner
based on the estimates provided by the licensees who are eligible for
reimbursement.
Question. Assuming (conservatively) that all claims are approved as
submitted, what is the level of shortfalls in the DOE budget estimates
to meet these claims? Under these projections, what would be the
balance of unpaid claims at the end of fiscal year 2006?
Answer. As of May 7, 2003, the total outstanding balance of
approved claims that are eligible for reimbursement pending future
appropriation of funds is $78.5 million. Approximately $38 million in
new claims were submitted by May 1, 2003. Assuming that all claims are
approved as submitted, the balance of unpaid claims at the end of
fiscal year 2004 would be $61 million--a reduction of $18 million
relative to the fiscal year 2003 balance. The Department anticipates
annual reductions to the unpaid balances at a similar level through
fiscal year 2006.
Question. Based upon DOE's current projections, what would be the
average length of time from the time that new claims are submitted
until they are fully paid?
Answer. Based on DOE's current assessment, it would take an average
of about 2 years before submitted claims are fully paid.
Question. What is DOE's rationale for the long delays in making
payments after approved and audited claim have been made?
Answer. After the claims have been audited and approved, the timing
of the actual reimbursements is subject to the availability of
appropriations for this purpose. Consistent with Title X of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992, we have made annual payments to the licensees. In
accordance with the Department's Title X regulations (10 CFR Part 765),
and subject to the availability of appropriations for this purpose, we
have made reimbursements within 1 year of claim submission. When
circumstances have allowed, we have made more than one payment in some
years and have accelerated payment of outstanding claims when possible.
For example, when Congress provided supplemental appropriations for
Title X several years ago, outstanding claims were promptly paid
consistent with those appropriations. Last August, when Congress
increased the reimbursement authority for the thorium licensee, all
outstanding claims to the uranium licensees had been paid; and in
September, we paid all remaining fiscal year 2002 Title X funds to the
thorium licensee to reimburse a portion of its previously approved
claims. Because the backlog of unpaid claims currently exceeds the
requested fiscal year 2004 appropriation, we will consider making
payments for the currently approved claims immediately following the
receipt of the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, as we did on one other
occasion when appropriations had not kept pace with approved claims.
The Federal Government has a legal obligation to pay its share of
the costs of remediation of Title X sites, just as the government has a
legal obligation to reimburse its contractors for the costs of
remediating contamination at the government's own facilities.
Question. Why should the reimbursement of the government's share of
the costs at Title X sites be subject to delays relative to the
reimbursement of the government's own contractors?
Answer. DOE's relationship to the Title X licensees is not
comparable to the relationship between DOE and its contractors. DOE's
contractors conduct work only at DOE's direction. By contrast, the
Department does not have contracts with the Title X licensees and
therefore cannot control the rate of reimbursable costs being incurred
at licensee's sites.
The reimbursement of the Federal Government's share of approved
costs at Title X sites is subject only to annual appropriations for
this specific purpose. The current and projected backlog of
reimbursements is the result of the increased reimbursement authority
for the thorium licensee, which increases the projected remaining
liability of the Title X program from about $80 million to about $280
million. When the fiscal year 2003 budget request was submitted, the
then-existing reimbursement authority for the thorium licensee had been
exhausted. Carryover funds and the $1 million fiscal year 2003 request
were more than adequate to fully reimburse the uranium licensee claims
submitted in 2002. The $225 million increase in thorium authority was
enacted on August 21, 2002, well after submission of the fiscal year
2003 budget request. Prior to this increase in authority, our planning
projections indicated we would need less than $15 million per year over
the next 4 fiscal years to keep current with our payments.
Question. Would it be equitable of the Congress to consider
applying the same standards for its own contractors, such as the Prompt
Pay Act requirements; penalty and damage provisions in the Federal
Acquisition Regulation and the Department of Energy Acquisition
Regulation, to Title X reimbursements?
Answer. There is no contractual relationship between the licensees
and the Department for the cleanup of their sites, and therefore it
would be inappropriate to apply the standards and provisions that you
refer to. The Department has a legal obligation to reimburse the Title
X licensees for the Federal Government's share of their cleanup costs.
However, the Department's ability to pay these costs is limited by the
amounts appropriated annually for this purpose. In fact, within the
limits of its appropriations, the Department has reimbursed licensees
at least annually as required by law, and we have reimbursed licensees
at least partially within 1 year or less after claim submittals,
consistent with the availability of appropriations and our Title X
regulations.
privately funded technology for em
Question. Ms. Roberson, I am aware that at least one company has
put up its own money to develop an innovative waste treatment and
separation technology that, if it works, could substantially reduce the
costs of tank cleanup at Hanford and at other sites. I also noted that
the President's fiscal year 2004 budget includes a commitment that DOE
will share part of the savings from the deployment of innovative
cleanup technology as an inducement to encourage contractors to take
the financial risk to develop breakthrough technologies.
What is the Department doing to encourage such private sector
solutions?
Answer. One of the major recommendations of the Top-to-Bottom
Review was improving the Department's contracting process with private
sector entities, which may yield the single best opportunity for
enhancing the economy and efficiency of the Environmental Management
cleanup operations. The Top-to-Bottom Review team construed the
acquisition function in a broad manner to include how the EM program
can provide incentives for or entice best-in-class contractors to
submit proposals in response to solicitations and how EM can
effectively access private sector companies that have not traditionally
submitted proposals to conduct EM work.
In implementing this recommendation, EM has chartered a special
contracting team to aggressively pursue new and improved contract
models to accelerate cleanup of our sites. We are currently challenging
our site contractors, through re-alignment and restructuring of their
contracts, to both seek out and deploy the best technology solutions to
our cleanup problems and to develop and proffer new business approaches
to accelerate cleanup. Where it makes good technical and business
sense, we will offer substantial incentives to a private sector company
to solve a cleanup problem through deployment of a technology that has
its roots entirely in a private sector investment.
Question. Would it be possible to put in place contracting
mechanisms that would permit and reward deployment of such privately-
financed cleanup technologies?
Answer. Consistent with laws and policies that ensure sound
contracting and fiscal responsibility, the Department has wide latitude
to implement contracts that would permit and reward deployment of
privately financed cleanup technologies.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. In the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Conference
Report, Congress once again directed DOE to continue to evaluate the
Advanced Vitrification System (AVS) and proceed to demonstration by
implementing the February 28, 2002 work plan. This direction makes
clear that an integrated demonstration of that technology is needed to
determine if the promise of lower costs and faster vitrification can be
realized. What is the status of your efforts to evaluate and
demonstrate the AVS technology?
Answer. As you may be aware, the DOE Office of Inspector General
issued a report on the Advanced Vitrification System in August 2002,
providing the following recommendations:
--delay funding decisions on AVS until major uncertainties have been
addressed;
--develop specific, focused performance measures to more fully gauge
progress in the evaluation and selection of an alternative or
advanced vitrification technology; and
--address all technical, programmatic, and financial challenges and
uncertainties identified in previous studies during the
upcoming business plan evaluation.
I have agreed with these recommendations and developed an Action
Plan, which describes an approach to evaluate and develop
immobilization alternatives for treating high-level waste (HLW) at
Hanford. We will evaluate the technical and financial merits of AVS and
other alternatives recommended by a recent technical panel. Those
alternatives include an advanced Cold Crucible Melter and an Advanced
Joule Heated melter. As part of the evaluation, questions regarding
technical details of the AVS were provided to the Radioactive Isolation
Consortium (RIC). Representatives from the RIC provided the Department
with responses to the questions and participated in a review which was
held on February 24-28, 2003, in Richland, Washington. The two review
teams (technical and financial) are currently drafting their reports
and will submit them to a DOE technical working group (TWG).
The TWG has the responsibility of reviewing the reports and making
a recommendation to me for future research and development of
immobilization alternatives to treat HLW. A decision is currently
planned for June 2003. The Department has extended the period of
performance and associated funding to the Radioactive Isolation
Consortium through the end of June 2003 to support this schedule.
Question. How soon can the work plan for AVS be implemented to
demonstrate whether its potential may be realized and does your
department have sufficient funding to begin implementation of this work
plan?
Answer. The Department is currently evaluating whether or not the
Advanced Vitrification System is plausible for use to treat high-level
waste at Hanford. If a decision is made by the Department to pursue
additional evaluation of the Radioactive Isolation Consortium's AVS,
the draft work plan provided to the Department in February 2002 will be
used to initiate development of the work scope and funding would be
available. A decision is currently planned for June 2003.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
Question. As I have noted in the past, I strongly support efforts
by the Department of Energy and the Kentucky Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet to develop and implement an
accelerated cleanup plan for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Like
you, I am disappointed that the Department and the State have not yet
been able to reach such an agreement.
Can you provide me with a brief update on the status of your
negotiations with the commonwealth of Kentucky to reach an agreement on
a site performance management plan for the Paducah facility?
Answer. The Department recently reached an agreement with the
regulators on new cleanup milestones for the next 3 years. This
negotiated resolution, while not accelerating cleanup at the site, does
clear the way for the development of an updated Paducah site management
plan (SMP), which serves as the blueprint for cleanup activities for
the next 3 years.
The three parties also agreed to conduct good faith negotiations to
develop a complete scope of work for the Paducah cleanup by September
15, 2003. I cannot commit at this time as to if, or when, a Performance
Management Plan, as that term is used in Section 315 of Division D,
Title III of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, will be
developed.
Question. What do you see as the major obstacles to reaching an
agreement?
Answer. The most significant obstacle to reaching an agreement
remains the difference of opinion as to the degree and nature of the
required cleanup beyond those actions to which we are already
committed. In addition, the Department and the Kentucky Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet are working to resolve
several notices of violation at the facility, issued previously by the
Commonwealth.
While I continue to hope for an accelerated cleanup agreement for
the Paducah site soon, Section 315 of the Energy & Water title of the
Omnibus clearly outlines the fiscal year 2003 funding for sites that
have not implemented site performance management plans with the
Department of Energy. Specifically, the language limits the funding for
those sites to either ``the comparable current year level of funding,
or the amount of the fiscal year 2003 budget request, whichever is
greater.''
Question. Can you tell me if the Department has determined which of
those amounts--the fiscal year 2002 level of funding or DOE's fiscal
year 2003 request--is the greater amount for the Paducah site?
Answer. The Department has determined that the greater amount is
the fiscal year 2002 funding level as appropriated and adjusted, that
is $125,315,000.
Question. Does the Department intend to provide the greater of
these two amounts for cleanup activities at Paducah, as specified by
Section 315?
Answer. We have provided Paducah with $110,884,000, which supports
the limited number of acceleration activities to which the Department
and the site regulators have agreed. Since we do not have an
integrated, long-range acceleration plan for Paducah, as reflected in a
performance management plan and agreed to with the regulators, and do
not expect to have one this fiscal year (2003), we do not anticipate
providing any additional funds for cleanup activities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
Question. What is the present status of the Moab Tailings Project
EIS and what is the expected timeline for completion?
Answer. An Environmental Impact Statement is currently being
developed to assess impacts from the following remediation scenarios:
cap the tailings in place at their present location, relocate the
tailings to the existing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-licensed
White Mesa Mill facility near Blanding, Utah, or relocate the tailings
to one of two sites, Klondike Flats or Crescent Junction, to be
developed on Bureau of Land Management land north of Moab.
Public scoping meetings were conducted during January 2003 in the
communities potentially affected by the remediation scenarios being
considered. The Draft EIS is scheduled for public release in January
2004. Following a 45-day public comment period on the Draft, the Final
EIS is scheduled to be available to the public in August 2004.
Question. What remediation work, if any, can be completed with the
level of funding provided under the Administration's request?
Answer. At the requested funding level of $2 million, no
remediation work will be performed. At the request level, the
environmental impact statement will be completed on schedule and
interim groundwater actions, tailings pile dewatering, and erosion and
dust control will be continued at their current level.
Question. If additional funds beyond the Administration's request
are appropriated, what remediation efforts might be undertaken and what
would be the most immediate priorities?
Answer. The requested funding level of $2 million includes all
activities planned for the Moab site in fiscal year 2004. The planned
activities are development of the draft Environmental Impact Statement,
which will incorporate recommendations of the National Academy of
Science Report on Moab to be completed in January 2004, and the final
EIS is expected to be issued in August 2004. In addition, funding for
interim groundwater action, pile dewatering, and erosion and dust
control is provided.
Question. What is the status of any present efforts at site
remediation, including the operation and maintenance of the interim
ground water pump and treatment system?
Answer. DOE will install the Interim Ground Water Corrective Action
by September 30, 2003. This action is a series of groundwater
extraction wells and a lined evaporation pond constructed on top of the
tailings pile. The extraction wells will allow for removal of
groundwater with the highest concentrations of ammonia. In addition,
DOE has completed the removal of contaminated soils from the U.S.
Highway 191 right-of-way adjacent to the DOE site. This removal allows
the Utah Department of Transportation workers to work in a clean area
during the Highway 191 widening project, which is planned for Summer
2003.
DOE will continue ongoing maintenance at the site, including
operating the tailings pile dewatering system, applying dust control
surfactant, and filling erosion rills that form on the pile.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. Ms. Roberson, I am very concerned about the delay in
awarding the River Corridor Closure contract, and the rumored reasons
for this delay. Delay will only hurt the efforts to accelerate cleanup
at the site. I have heard the reason for the delay may involve the
Administration's intention to remove the current requirement that the
successful contractor commit to become a signatory to the Site
Stabilization Agreement. If these disturbing reports are true, the
negative consequences to the Hanford Site and to the Tri-Cities
community would be substantial--including labor unrest that such a
policy reversal will cause across the site and not just affecting this
important closure contract.
I would like to know if this contract award is being delayed, and
if the Administration does intend to remove the Site Stabilization
Agreement requirement contained in the request for proposals and
contract terms?
Answer. The River Corridor Contract was awarded on April 25, 2003.
Shortly before that, on April 22, Secretary Abraham granted an
exemption from the requirements of Executive Order 13202 for
construction work covered by this procurement, determining that the
River Corridor project satisfies the requirements of section 5(c) of
the Order. This provision provides that an exemption may be granted for
a project where an agency has issued ``bid specifications'' containing
a requirement to abide by a project labor agreement and one or more
construction contracts subject to such a requirement have been awarded
as of the date of the Order.
Question. Ms. Roberson, for fiscal year 2003, the final conference
agreement imposed general reductions which will require decreases in
your cleanup budget.
Can I have your assurance that these general reductions will be
allocated in a manner to minimize disruption to priority projects, such
as the tank cleanup effort at Hanford, and will not be applied
disproportionately to any particular program?
Answer. The final fiscal year 2003 Environmental Management
Consolidated Appropriation, Public Law 108-7, imposed general
reductions totaling $118,058,000. These reductions were applied against
the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Non-Defense
Environmental Management, and Uranium Facilities Maintenance and
Remediation appropriations. Prior year balances totaling $5,546,276
were available to partially offset these general reductions. The
remaining $112,511,724 was applied proportionately against each
program, project or activity as directed by specific language contained
in the fiscal year 2003 Consolidated Appropriation Conference Report,
H.R. 108-10. The exception to this approach was the $25,000,000 general
reduction applied to the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation
appropriation. Within this appropriation, $340,329,000 was specified in
law for the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
account. Accordingly, the $25,000,000 reduction was applied only to the
Other Uranium Activities account within the Uranium Facilities
Maintenance and Remediation appropriation.
Question. Ms. Roberson, for almost four decades, the Hanford
Environmental Health Foundation (HEHF), a community-based non-profit
organization, has provided quality occupational health services to
workers at the Hanford site. I understand HEHF has broad support from
the community and organized labor at Hanford.
What is the status of efforts to ensure that workers at Hanford
continue to receive excellent occupational health services?
Answer. DOE is committed to providing excellent occupational
medical services to the Hanford workforce. The current contract with
the Hanford Environmental Health Foundation expires at the end of
fiscal year 2003, with no extensions available. In March, DOE issued a
Request for Proposals for a new occupational medical services contract.
Contractor proposals are due on May 23, 2003. We expect to make an
award and transition to the new contract by the end of the current
contract. The new contract will require the same high quality of
occupational health services that currently exist at Hanford. These
services include long-term health legacy activities, first aid,
employee assistance, emergency preparedness support, fitness for duty,
medical monitoring exams, and prevention/mitigation activities.
Question. Ms. Roberson, as you know, the HAMMER Training Center
provides for Hanford workers with excellent training for their jobs. I
have been told this has led to one of the best safety records across
the country. I am disappointed that the EM budget again fails to fund
HAMMER directly. I am further disappointed that there is no direct
proposal by the Administration for how to transfer HAMMER to another
part of DOE or another agency. I would like to work with you to protect
worker training and the value of HAMMER.
To do so, I would like to know if DOE now has any plans for the
transfer of HAMMER to another entity?
Answer. At the present time, DOE has no plans to transfer HAMMER.
Question. I would also like to know how EM plans to maintain the
training of Hanford workers at HAMMER if the program is not the direct
manager of the facility?
Answer. EM will continue to be a customer of HAMMER along with
other DOE and non-DOE organizations. We foresee HAMMER as an available
resource that the EM program may draw upon in support of the cleanup
mission.
Question. Ms. Roberson, assuming funds are provided by Congress, do
you support the activities of the Atomic Heritage Foundation's
Manhattan Preservation Project which would preserve historically
significant facilities such as Hanford's B-Reactor and T Plant so
future generations could visit them?
Answer. I do not support using Environmental Management cleanup
funds for this purpose. However, assuming funds are provided by
Congress to maintain and operate historic properties, DOE supports the
goals of preserving significant historic facilities, such as Hanford's
B-Reactor for the enjoyment and education of current and future
generations.
Question. Ms. Roberson, in 1994, the Hanford Joint Council was
created. In its 9-year history, a 100 percent success rate of resolving
over 40 highly contentious whistleblower cases. It is felt that this
board saved millions of dollars in attorney fees that would have been
paid out to fight these claims in court. More importantly, the Council
resolved the underlying safety issue brought up by the whistleblower. I
have learned that the Department of Energy dissolved this Council a few
weeks ago. The question is: why? The Joint Council cost the DOE about
$400,000 per year.
Could you please explain the logic behind doing away with the
Hanford Joint Council?
Answer. The Hanford Joint Council was a subcontractor to Fluor
Hanford Inc. (FHI). The Joint Council was established for an initial
period of 5 years, beginning October 1994. In July 1997, the charter
was revised and the scope of the Joint Council was established to
investigate and seek full and fair resolution of significant concerns
involving health, safety, quality and environmental protection issues
using an alternative mediation approach. From 1994 to 1997, there was a
significant backlog of safety, health and environmental concerns. The
backlog was due to a lack of confidence and trust in the Hanford
contractor's employee concerns programs. The Department saw a need to
establish an independent party to assist in the resolution of the
concerns/backlog. During this time, the Joint Council was established
and played a major role in the resolution of employee concerns.
Today, FHI has implemented a number of safety programs (Voluntary
Protection Program, President Zero Accident Council, Employee Zero
Accident Council, Hanford Atomic Trades Council Safety Representatives)
where contractor management and workers meet in an open forum to
discuss safety issues at the Hanford Site. In addition to the safety
programs, FHI has also enhanced their internal Alternative Dispute
Resolution Program (ADR) for resolving employee concerns.
Due to the implementation of the safety programs and the ADR
process identified above, FHI has seen a significant decrease in
anonymous concerns each year and is confident that safety concerns can
be raised without fear of reprisal. FHI has demonstrated that it has
programs in place that are adequately resolving concerns and are
continuing to improve the effectiveness of the Employee Concerns
Program.
Question. Ms. Roberson, I have been told that some workers at the
high-level nuclear waste tank farm area of Hanford have been
complaining of becoming ill after exposure to toxic vapors that escape
from the tanks.
I would like to understand how many workers have sought medical
treatment evaluation in the last 18 months from these exposures and
what the Department is doing to investigate the cause of the exposures?
Answer. There have been 29 requests for medical evaluation from
workers who reported smelling vapors in the tank farms over the last 18
months. All workers who reported smelling odors in the tank farms were
encouraged to seek medical attention and those who reported an actual
symptom, such as headache or nausea, were required to seek medical
attention. The medical evaluations determined that none of these cases
required medical treatment. The Contractor's Industrial Health and
Safety Program has implemented a number of appropriate and conservative
features to protect workers from exposures to high concentrations of
vapors, primarily consisting of ammonia and volatile organics.
First, a number of engineered controls are in place, consisting
primarily of sealing the known vapor leak paths such as around the tank
pit covers, valve covers and other structures. Second, administrative
controls are employed that include real time monitoring for vapors and
establishment of physical barriers to prevent workers from walking into
areas that may contain high vapor concentrations. Finally, industrial
hygiene technicians monitor the work areas in the tank farms to insure
that workers in and around the tanks are not exposed to high vapor
concentrations. This entails workplace monitoring using state-of-the-
art hand-held (which can measure in parts per billion) and fixed
monitoring equipment. Additionally, our contractor has established
administrative operating limits for vapor exposures that are below
national consensus standards and guidelines to provide additional
protection and assurance. For example, the most conservative limit for
ammonia exposure is 35 ppm for a 15-minute exposure; our contractor has
established that limit at 25 ppm for any exposure duration. The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets that limit at
50 ppm for an 8-hour exposure.
Additionally, external evaluations have been conducted to review
practices and make recommendations for improvements as appropriate. The
contractor has formed a team of employees, led by a bargaining unit
safety representative, to evaluate concerns and provide an improved
mechanism for communication with the workforce. We also have expanded
and upgraded our communication with the workforce on hazards in the
workplace and the appropriate controls when working in areas where
vapors may potentially exist. In addition, the required annual
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response training was upgraded
to focus on tank vapor hazards. Workers are regularly encouraged to
raise issues and concerns in a variety of different venues.
Workers also may request additional protective equipment in
accordance with OSHA regulations. The worker will be provided the
appropriate protective equipment based on an integrated analysis of all
the hazards associated with the work. The Department is actively
engaged with the contractor to continue to address these concerns and
assure a safe workplace and a well-informed workforce.
Finally, the Hanford Environmental Health Foundation conducted a 7-
month study of the medical records of over 800 Hanford Tank Farm
workers and has found nothing that would indicate that these workers
have suffered any adverse health effects from exposure to tank farm
vapors.
Question. Ms. Roberson, Washington State's Department of Ecology
and the U.S. EPA recently sent a letter to the DOE calling for Hanford
to end its practice of using unlined burial pits to dispose of
radioactive materials.
What is the Department's response to the notion that Hanford ought
to be utilizing state-of-the-art burial techniques that include pit
liners, leachate collection and groundwater monitoring in connection
with these burial grounds?
Answer. The current disposal practice of using unlined facilities
complies with applicable laws and regulations and is the accepted
practice both within DOE and commercially (Barnwell in South Carolina
and U.S. Ecology in Washington). DOE is evaluating a more robust burial
system to increase the margin of safety for the facility in terms of
human health and the environment. This style of disposal system,
analogous to a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 disposal
system, is evaluated in the revised draft Hanford Solid Waste
Environmental Impact Statement that is currently issued for public
comment.
Question. Ms. Roberson, if DOE decides to proceed with lined burial
pits, how much longer will unlined burial pits be used?
Answer. For certain waste streams, such as the Submarine and
Cruiser Reactor Compartments, as well as some other higher activity
waste, there is no health or safety reason to change the current
disposal practices of using unlined burial trenches.
However, for other low-level and mixed low-level wastes, we are
evaluating the use of other disposal methodologies, including lined
trenches, in the revised draft Hanford Site Solid Waste Environmental
Impact Statement. We anticipate the new disposal method, as selected in
the subsequent Record of Decision, could be available by fiscal year
2007.
Question. Ms. Roberson, last year, the U.S. EPA released a report
on the Columbia River Fish Toxics Inventory, detailing the health risk
to people who consume fish from the Columbia River, based upon tissue
analysis of the fish. According to the report, some groups such as
Native American tribes, have a 1 in 50 chance of contracting a fatal
cancer from lifetime consumption of this fish.
Has DOE conducted, or is DOE planning to conduct, any studies to
analyze the source of this contamination and how its release can be
stopped?
Answer. The Department has reviewed the above referenced report as
have other interested parties. These are not Hanford-derived
contaminants. They are primarily derived from agricultural, mining and
industrial sources throughout the Columbia River system. There was some
initial confusion when the report came out regarding the source of the
contaminants in the fish that were studied. Because the report
discussed (among other things) fish that were caught in the Hanford
Reach, some readers assumed the contaminants were from the Hanford
Site. A careful reading of the report, however, indicates otherwise.
The contaminants identified in the fish are heavy metals, pesticides,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), etc. The only connection with the
Hanford Site is that some of the fish were caught in the vicinity of
the Hanford Reach. The Columbia River in the Hanford Reach is a Class A
river and any Hanford-related contaminants (as measured just downstream
of the Hanford Site) are several orders of magnitude below the ambient
water quality standards. That being said, the Hanford Site is actively
working to remediate and minimize any potential impact from the
migration of contaminated groundwater into the Columbia River at the
localized plume areas along the Hanford Reach.
Question. Ms. Roberson, last October, the Department publicly
announced that it would close 40 of the high-level nuclear waste tanks
at the Hanford site by 2006. However, there is no agreement with
regulators about the definition of a ``closed'' tank nor has there been
any public discussion of this issue. This has led to serious concern
among regulators and the public that the Department is moving forward
without the proper notice and approval.
How do you intend to get the Department and its regulators and the
public in agreement on this issue?
Answer. The Department is striving to accelerate risk reduction by
closing tanks in compliance with regulatory requirements. The Tri-Party
Agreement (TPA) provides a framework for developing the tank closure
process with the State of Washington's Department of Ecology (Ecology)
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Office of River
Protection (ORP) is currently drafting a proposed change to the TPA
which addresses requirements for retrieval and closure of Hanford Site
single-shell tanks, establishes single-shell tank retrieval and closure
demonstrations, and associated regulatory process documentation
requirements. The single-shell tank system closure activities are
dependent upon successful modification of regulatory documents through
the addition of the Single-Shell Tank System Closure Plan. This plan
would go through the required regulatory process which includes public
review and comment.
Question. Ms. Roberson, last year, the U.S. EPA released a report
on the Columbia River Fish Toxics Inventory, detailing the health risk
to people who consume fish from the Columbia River, based upon tissue
analysis of the fish. According to the report, some groups such as
Native American tribes, have a 1 in 50 chance of contracting a fatal
cancer from lifetime consumption of this fish.
Ms. Roberson, can you tell me how many claims have been filed under
Subtitle D of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program Act of 2000 at Hanford?
Answer. As of June 4, 2003, the Department of Energy's Office of
Worker Advocacy had received 1,637 Hanford applications for assistance
under Subtitle D of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). Of these, 722 cases have been
reviewed.
Question. Further, can you tell me how many of these claims at
Hanford have been decided under the DOE Physicians' Panel?
Answer. As of June 4, 2003, 28 Hanford cases have been sent to the
Physician Panels, of which seven decisions have been issued.
Question. How many have been paid?
Answer. It is too early in the process for any EEOICPA Subtitle D
claims to have been paid. This will be done only when claimants have
completed the State workers' compensation claims process, a process
that is outside of DOE's control. It is important to point out that DOE
does not pay claims; however, under the provisions of Executive Order
13179, DOE is required to report to Congress on the number of claims
paid, and we are setting up procedures in order to carry out that
responsibility.
Question. Ms. Roberson, earlier this year, the Department published
a proposed Environmental Impact Statement for Hanford that was focused
on a variety of new technologies for treating low-activity waste. This
was followed by a series of public meetings where DOE committed that:
a) additional views would be carefully considered; and b) there would
be plenty of opportunity for change to the proposed EIS. I'm concerned
that, in contradiction to those commitments, the interests of my State
are being ignored by the DOE. Proper and timely treatment of low-
activity waste is important. But there may be even more important
opportunities to reduce waste volumes, costs, and schedules in the
high-level waste stream that are not even being considered by the DOE.
Governor Gary Locke wrote to express these concerns and my
understanding is that, not only hasn't he received a substantial
response, but also there have been informal indications that his
concerns will be ignored by DOE in the next round of the EIS process.
The residents of my State recognize that minimizing the cost of
effective Hanford waste clean-up is critical to ensuring that there is
enough funding to do the job right. It's impossible to make good
judgments about potential technologies that should be included in the
EIS without a thorough evaluation of the ``life-cycle'' costs
(including temporary waste storage, transportation, and long-term
disposal) for various high-level and low-activity waste technologies.
This point was also addressed in the Governor's response to the initial
EIS draft. I too would like to know specifically how DOE plans to
address the prospect for high-level waste technologies and the life-
cycle costs of various technologies before our Subcommittee considers
the fiscal year 2004 appropriations request. I'd be grateful for your
response at the earliest possible date.
Answer. The Department remains committed to vitrifying all of the
high-level waste present in the Hanford tank system. We anticipate that
only about 10 percent of the total volume of tank waste will ultimately
be classified as high-level. We have modified the Waste Treatment Plant
contract to add an additional high-level waste melter to assure
successful and timely processing of this material containing over 90
percent of the radioactive hazard. This portion of the waste will be
disposed of in a geologic repository.
Approximately 90 percent of the volume of waste in the tanks is
low-activity waste. Two low-activity waste melters in the Waste
Treatment Plant will allow us to vitrify a great deal of this waste. In
order to further optimize completion of tank waste treatment and
control the life-cycle cost of the project, the Department is
evaluating technologies that could be used to immobilize that portion
of the low-activity waste not ideally suited for vitrification in the
Waste Treatment Plant. At this time, the Department is making a nominal
investment in these technologies; approximately $6 million will be
invested in fiscal year 2004. The Office of River Protection (ORP) is
planning to complete technology selection by December 2003, and, if
appropriate, begin system design in late fiscal year 2004. Life-cycle
costs, including temporary waste storage, transportation, and long-term
disposal, will be considered during the technology selection process in
late 2003. The Washington State Department of Ecology was involved in
the identification of the candidate technologies and all comments
received were considered in scoping the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS). Preliminary life-cycle cost estimates are complete and more
refined estimates will be made as test and design data become
available. With regard to the proposed EIS for Retrieval, Treatment,
and Disposal of Tank Waste and Closure of Single-Shell Tanks at the
Hanford Site, the Department is evaluating several conservative cases
that will bound the environmental impacts that may result from
implementation of the supplemental treatment technologies. ORP has
completed public comment on the proposed scope of the EIS, and a Draft
EIS will be available for public comment in September 2003.
Question. Ms. Roberson, in 2001 DOE's Office of Inspector General
released a report regarding DOE's land holdings within the boundaries
of the Hanford Reach National Monument in Washington State. The report
recommended the transfer of these lands to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service as early as 2004. Such a transfer could challenge DOE's fiscal
responsibilities as set forth in an agreement between the agency and
the local governments in 1996.
I would like to know if this transfer is under consideration? If
so, what is the status of the transfer, has DOE established a framework
for implementation (including land surveys, agreements with the
Department of the Interior, certification of waste removal, transfer
liabilities, etc.), and how does DOE intend to fulfill the outstanding
payment obligations as set forth in the 1996 agreement?
Answer. In response to the DOE Office of Inspector General report,
DOE committed to pursue a phased transfer of approximately 265 square
miles of the Hanford Site that is included in the Hanford Reach
National Monument. The two phases correspond to completing certain
environmental cleanup activities at Hanford that would significantly
reduce the risk to the areas proposed for transfer. We have been
working with the various elements of the U.S. Department of the
Interior to define the specific legal processes to be used and the
various specific activities that would have to be completed such as
land surveys, etc., to complete the potential transfer. This work has
not been finalized. The target date for the first part to be
potentially transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve, is approximately
September 2004. The target date for the second phase, involving the
``Riverlands,'' McGee Ranch and North/Wahluke Slope, is September 2005.
DOE policies allow for discretionary payments in lieu of taxes
(PILT). The 1996 agreement to which you referred states that if there
is ``a change in the amount of property in Benton County under the
Department's control, Benton County shall identify and explain those
changes in its certification and, upon approval from the Department
which will be forthcoming within 60 days of receipt of certification,
payment will be made based upon that certification. The related PILT
intergovernmental agreements between DOE and Grant County, and between
DOE and Franklin County, specifically recognize that DOE's PILT
``Payment and any future assistance payments under section 168 of the
[Atomic Energy] Act are not entitlements.''
DOE's discretionary authority under section 168 is limited to
``those States and localities in which the activities of the Commission
are carried on, and in which the Commission has acquired property
previously subject to State and local taxation . . .'' Within the
limits of that statutory authority, DOE intends to fulfill its
obligations under the agreements referenced above.
______
Questions Submitted to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
yucca mountain funding level
Question. Dr. Chu, You noted in your testimony that the fiscal year
2003 funding level is a $131 million reduction from the President's
request. I've previously heard the Secretary note that this funding
shortfall introduces a ``high risk'' with regard to DOE's ability to
meet the goal of a December 2004 license application date. What
additional funding will be required in this fiscal year to keep all
critical elements of the program on schedule for the 2010 target
opening date?
Answer. The targeted 2010 opening date is premised on submitting a
license application by the end of 2004, receiving construction
authorization by the end of 2007, and receiving a license to receive
and possess waste in 2010. At a minimum, the under-funding in fiscal
year 2003 will make it more difficult to meet our goal of submitting a
license application by the end of 2004, and will require deferral of
work activities that are essential to beginning receipt in 2010. The
reduced appropriations have resulted in a replan of the Program through
submittal of the License Application (LA). The key impacts of this
replan are: LA submittal in December, 2004, but at a higher technical
risk; partial shut down of Yucca Mountain site and deferral of certain
scientific tests; and, further deferral of transportation work
supporting a 2010 waste receipt goal. Also, some workforce reduction
associated with the reduced appropriations is unavoidable.
Question. Will the Department be submitting a supplementary budget
request for these resources?
Answer. The Department is still evaluating its options for
addressing the fiscal year 2003 funding shortfall. The Program's fiscal
year 2003 appropriation was certainly below what we felt was a
realistic level to stay on schedule for submitting a license
application by the end of 2004. The shortfall has called into question
our ability to accomplish all the pre-license application work in the
time frame we have set. The Department has no plans at this time to
submit a supplemental budget request for fiscal year 2003, but is
considering options including a fiscal year 2004 budget amendment
request.
transportation
Question. Dr. Chu, I understand that adequate funding is not only
required for the license application, but also for other critical long-
lead elements of your program. Judging from our experience with WIPP
(Waste Isolation Pilot Plant), the transportation program will be
difficult to construct and will require years to put into place. How
much of your fiscal year 2003 budget is devoted to transportation?
Answer. In an effort to maintain the December 2004 license
application date, we have had to focus most of our resources in that
area. As a result, a total of $5 million is allocated to
transportation, $25 million less than requested in the Administration's
request.
Question. Do you believe that the program is starting soon enough
on transportation issues to have the system ready for operation by your
target date of 2010?
Answer. Development of the transportation system requires an
aggressive schedule to support the planned opening of the repository in
2010. Shortfalls in funding are impacting that schedule and we are
currently analyzing the longer term effects of the reduced funding on
the schedule.
modes of transportation
Question. Dr. Chu, from past debates on Yucca Mountain, it's clear
that transportation issues will remain a major controversy. The mode of
transportation will be one of the most controversial elements. I
believe that DOE has stated that it favors a ``mostly rail'' program.
Do you still favor primarily rail shipments?
Answer. The Yucca Mountain Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
stated that the preferred mode of transportation is mostly rail;
however, the Department has not made a final decision on mode (i.e.
mostly rail or mostly truck).
Question. When do you expect to issue a record of decision on
preferred modes of transportation?
Answer. The exact timing and content of any Record of Decision is
under evaluation within the Department in conjunction with other
aspects of transportation planning. The Department intends to issue a
Transportation Strategic Plan later this year that will outline the
timeframes for decisions needed to assure that transportation
capability will be available to support the planned initiation of
repository operations in 2010.
Question. What are the critical elements in the path toward
finalizing your waste acceptance and transportation systems?
Answer. The critical transportation elements are development of the
Nevada transportation infrastructure, initiating acquisition of
transportation casks and supporting equipment, and maintaining the
institutional program.
Question. And what cost and risk can you estimate for each element?
Answer. The largest risk involved with the development of the
transportation system is in the area of the development of the Nevada
component of the system. The development of equipment to ship wastes
has little risk since many components are available in the commercial
sector.
The FEIS, released with the Yucca Mountain site recommendation,
identified rail transportation as the preferred transportation mode. If
the decision is made to ship by rail the development of a rail line
would cost between $300 million and $1 billion depending upon which
corridor is selected. The acquisition of transportation casks and
supporting equipment will cost about $500 million.
Question. If a rail shipment isn't in place by 2010, how many truck
shipments will be required to replace the rail option?
Answer. Approximately 250 truck shipments would be required to ship
400 MTU in the first year of operation. The number of shipments would
increase linearly as the waste acceptance rate increased.
Question. If the Department starts with a truck shipment program
and transitions to a rail program later, won't this lead to some
unnecessary costs in the program?
Answer. First, it is important to note that even under a rail
shipment program, some shipment by truck is needed. Our goal is to
minimize unnecessary costs, while at the same time maintaining the
flexibility necessary for an optimum transportation campaign. The costs
associated with a transition from truck to rail would depend on the
length of time between the start of a truck shipment program and the
start of a rail shipment program. If the time span were short,
additional costs, if any, would be small. The longer the time span the
more truck casks, beyond the number needed once rail shipment started,
would have to be procured to meet the same acceptance rate. Such
additional equipment investments would have little use once rail
becomes operational.
shipment casks
Question. Dr. Chu, as you know some sites are placing waste today
in NRC-licensed dual-purpose storage and transportation casks. I
understand that sites are eager to have final guidance on the types of
canisters and casks that will be acceptable at Yucca Mountain.
Otherwise, sites may be doing work that simply must be repeated later.
Will the initial operations of the repository accept NRC-licensed dual-
purpose storage and transportation casks?
Answer. The Department's position is that multi-assembly canistered
spent fuel is not covered by the disposal contracts between the
Department and the utilities, and thus is not considered an acceptable
waste form, and absent a modification to these contracts, will not be
accepted for delivery to the Yucca Mountain repository. The Department
has stated its willingness to initiate the appropriate actions to
include such systems under the terms of the disposal contracts, as part
of an overall contract modification that would address other waste
acceptance and scheduling issues.
Question. Has the Department finalized acceptance criteria
sufficiently to give adequate guidance to utilities, including the
sites involved in decommissioning, which must move spent fuel to dry-
storage right now?
Answer. The current acceptance criteria were established and agreed
upon by the Department and utilities in the standard contract. The
Department is aware that subsequent to signing the standard contract,
issues have emerged that may require modifications to the acceptance
criteria and thus to the contracts. One such issue is the acceptance of
canister systems some utilities are now using to move spent fuel to dry
storage. Unfortunately, as a number of these issues are the subject of
ongoing litigation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the Department
is limited in its ability to pursue discussion of finalized or updated
waste acceptance criteria with utilities at this time.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
yucca mountain
Question. I note that the GAO evaluated DOE's progress towards
license application in December 2001 and estimated that it would take
until early 2006 to resolve all outstanding Key Technical Issues (KTIs)
to NRC's satisfaction. Since then only 70 of the 293 outstanding KTIs
have been resolved, quality assurance is being questioned by NRC and
GAO, and the Licensing Support Network is due to be submitted to NRC 6
months ahead of the LA. Can you really suggest that the only obstacle
to your progress and to your ability to meet the license application
deadline of December 2004 is the failure of Congress to provide
sufficient funding for your program?
Answer. There are nine Key Technical Issues associated with
repository development and operations at Yucca Mountain. Associated
with the nine KTIs are 293 agreements. At the time of the Yucca
Mountain site designation, NRC designated all 293 agreements as closed
pending DOE's provision of additional information to NRC. Since that
time, DOE has provided a portion of that information, and NRC has
agreed that 78 of the 293 agreements are complete as of May 23, 2003.
Despite significant budget shortfalls, DOE continues to develop the
documentation and analyses to complete the remaining agreements. All
agreements need to be addressed by defining a clear path to completion
before License Application, but they do not necessarily need to be
complete before LA.
DOE has identified some quality assurance issues that must be
successfully addressed. NRC and the GAO assessment that you referenced
have recognized these issues. While sufficient funding is not the only
obstacle to our program, it is the most critical obstacle to our
ability to meet our program goals. Sufficient funding is required for
detailed repository design, Licensing Support Network development, and
other key elements of an acceptable LA.
transportation planning process
Question. Given the amount of available funding in fiscal year
2003, is it your intention to defer the transportation planning process
in order to complete the LA by December 2004? What transportation
related activities do you plan to complete in fiscal year 2003?
Answer. Because of the reduced funding level it is necessary to
defer most of the national transportation activities in an effort to
hold to the December 2004 LA date. The Department does plan to issue
its Transportation Strategic Plan later this year.
Question. When do you expect to release a Transportation Strategic
Plan and to what extent will you involve stakeholders in the
development of that Plan?
Answer. The Department intends to issue a Transportation Strategic
Plan later this year. The Department expects to involve stakeholders in
the process to develop the Plan. Their comments will be considered as
the more detailed transportation planning documents are developed.
Question. What plans do you have for involving stakeholders in the
decision process for selection of a transportation mode, a rail
corridor, a final repository design, and for other decisions yet to be
made in regard to repository development?
Answer. The Yucca Mountain Final Environmental Impact Statement
stated: ``If, for example, mostly rail was selected, both nationally
and in Nevada, DOE would then identify a preference for one of the rail
corridors, in consultation with affected stakeholders, particularly,
the state of Nevada.'' The Department is taking a careful and
deliberative look at the potential resource impacts and other
implications in making both the transportation mode decision and Nevada
corridor decision. Decisions regarding transportation will be made
after thorough consultations with stakeholders, including State and
tribal representatives, as well as national and regional organizations
that interact with the repository program. Further details will be
developed as we proceed with transportation planning. We will continue
to work with the stakeholders, including the State of Nevada and
affected units of local government throughout the various phases of the
repository's development and operation.
stakeholder involvement
Question. What is your vision for continued involvement of affected
units of State and local government in the Yucca Mountain program
during the license and application phase and subsequent phases of
repository development?
Answer. I believe the Nuclear Waste Policy Act contemplated a
cooperative, ``government-to-government'' relationship between the
Department and the State and each of the affected units of local
governments throughout all phases of the repository development. I
believe that each governmental unit must have well defined roles and a
clear understanding of their responsibilities under the NWPA. Equally
important, we should clearly understand each others' responsibilities
and constituency. We need not agree on every issue but we should
understand and appreciate each others' positions.
Question. Does the zero budget request mean that you will not be
working with any of the counties, and that you no longer support their
commenting on documents, their participation at meetings, their
assessment of impacts, their preparation of data for the Licensing
Support Network, or their provision of information to their citizens?
If you are proposing to support some county programs and not others,
what criteria will you use for determining their participation?
Answer. The Department's practice has been to provide the State and
affected units of local government with oversight funding as
appropriated by Congress, and the Department does not expect to deviate
from this practice. As the Department transitions from a site
characterization phase to a licensing phase, it is important for the
Department, State, and affected units of local government to identify
the types of activities for which oversight funding can be requested
and provided. We are developing guidelines for activities that could be
funded in the licensing phase. These guidelines will be discussed at
the next Affected Units of Government meeting scheduled for June.
legacy management at yucca mountain
Question. What is your vision for legacy management in relation to
the Yucca Mountain project?
Answer. There are varying views of what ``legacy'' management can
mean. However, let me share with you the view I expressed during my
confirmation hearing. I believe the existence and continuing
accumulation of nuclear waste, spent fuel, and excess defense nuclear
materials in the United States and globally demonstrates that the long-
term management and disposal is not a matter of choice but a necessity.
Prudent management of these materials is a profound and enduring
responsibility of the Federal Government, the international community,
and the world at large. I believe geologic repositories are vital to
closing the nuclear fuel cycle and removing an impediment to the future
development of nuclear power in this country. At the same time,
repositories provide the means for us to manage excess defense nuclear
materials and promote global non-proliferation.
After many years of study, the scientific consensus is that the
best long-term solution for this legacy is safe disposal in a deep
geologic repository. Above all, the most important goal for this
program is the long-term safety of the repository. That is the most
important test we have to pass. It is the program's vision to have an
environmentally safe and secure repository that sets the standard for
safety throughout the world.
I hope the legacy of a safe repository at Yucca Mountain will be
recognition that this facility served a vital role in both energy and
national security for our Nation.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Domenici. We stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., Monday, April 7, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:37 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici and Reid.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Safety Administration
STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR LINTON F. BROOKS, UNDER
SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY,
ADMINISTRATOR FOR NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
ACCOMPANIED BY:
ADMIRAL FRANK L. BOWMAN, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR NAVAL
REACTORS
DR. EVERET H. BECKNER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE
PROGRAMS
KENNETH E. BAKER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE NUCLEAR
NONPROLIFERATION
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. The hearing will please come to order.
Thank you, everyone, for being here, and I apologize for my
being late. I had another hearing and I hurried as much as I
could.
Senator Reid. You are only 7 minutes late. That is not
late.
Senator Domenici. That is pretty good, yes.
The budget request for NNSA is $8.834 billion. That is an
increase of $870 million over the current year level, an 11
percent increase. It is containing the following major program
elements, one, nuclear weapons activities. The budget request
is--excuse me--is $6.378 billion, an increase of $642 million,
an 8 percent increase. We have, in addition, defense nuclear
nonproliferation, naval reactors, and the Office of the
Administrator.
First of all, the committee will review the fiscal year
2004 request for the National Nuclear Security Administration,
that will include nuclear weapons activities, nuclear
nonproliferation programs, and the naval nuclear propulsion
program.
In that regard, we will receive testimony from Ambassador
Linton Brooks, acting Administrator for NNSA. We thank you for
coming and you are doing an excellent job. We are glad to have
you here.
Admiral Frank Bowman, Deputy Administrator for Naval
Nuclear Propulsion. Thank you so much, Admiral, and once again
our compliments to you for the fine work you are doing.
And Dr. Everet Beckner, Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs. Good to have you.
And Mr. Kenneth E. Baker, acting Deputy Administrator for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. Welcome to all of you.
For fiscal year 2004, I have already indicated the budget
request is about $8.8 billion, an increase of 11 percent. By
all accounts, this is a good budget, continuing a trend that
began last year. The budget is consistent with the 5-year
budget program, which we required the NNSA to develop when we
passed the Act. The transition to a 5-year budget plan has been
challenging, and I am certain that it has been very challenging
to all of you here in this room and those who work with you and
for you. But I believe it is an important tool in developing
strong support for the NNSA budget inside the Office of
Management and Budget.
Within the NNSA budget, $6.38 billion is requested for
nuclear weapons activities in 2004. This is an increase of $462
million, 8 percent, over the current year. For nuclear
nonproliferation, the budget request is $1.34 billion, an
increase of $319 million, 31 percent. The most notable increase
within this budget is $272 million to start construction of the
plutonium disposition facilities in South Carolina.
However, I do not believe the budget provides enough
funding to do everything that NNSA could be doing to protect us
from the dangers of nuclear terrorism. That is a key reason
that Senator Reid and I worked to provide an additional $150
million for nuclear nonproliferation in the Homeland Security
supplemental, Senator, and which you even thought we should add
to that, Senator Reid.
Finally, the activities of the naval nuclear propulsion
program, that budget request is $768 million. That is an
increase of $66 million. That is an 8 1/2 percent increase.
This program continues its tradition of being one of the best
run in our national Government.
I look forward to engaging each of our witnesses today and
working with you, the members of the subcommittee, to put
together the best possible appropriation bill that we can.
I would like to briefly address the situation of the last
few months at Los Alamos, in my home State of New Mexico, by
saying what others have concluded, that the laboratory has been
managed well in a number of key areas, in particular the
management of its business and acquisition systems and in
performing internal audits and assessments. I should have said
``not managed well in those areas.'' The lab has made some
mistakes, and I am engaged with the Secretary and the NNSA as
to how best to fix those mistakes.
I will say as an aside, the interim director, Pete Nanos,
is doing a great job. Everybody associated with his current
tenure, albeit short-lived, seems to be saying the same thing.
But this turbulence during the last several months has
encouraged many long-term opponents of the lab and its nuclear
weapons mission to come out of the woodwork. Many people seem
to be talking about Los Alamos only in a pejorative way. But I
do not want to forget that the laboratory has a great deal of
merit on its side. They have done many incredible things in the
last 60-year history that have earned them the reputation of
being the premier scientific laboratory in the world.
From the darkest hours of World War II through the Cold War
to today, the laboratory at Los Alamos has typified America's
scientific might in a range of activities from the human genome
to nuclear weapons. It has always represented the best that the
country has. So we will work through these current problems.
Later this year, I intend to conduct hearings on all of the
laboratories, their roles, and missions. This will be done
wearing another hat, a hat of the Authorizing Committee of--for
the Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate.
Part of that process will include a reevaluation of how we
manage all of the laboratories, clarification of the
responsibilities that lay with the Secretary, the NNSA, the
contractors, such as the University of California, and the lab
directors.
In many ways, I fear that the way the DOE manages its labs
has become too complex and confused, and I am hopeful that
within a year or so with these hearings, in-depth hearings, we
will eliminate some of that confusion and come forth with some
more simplified approaches.
We ought to find ways to strengthen the management at Los
Alamos and other ways that are going to be appropriate in
making it better for our future. I do not think we can afford
to do anything less.
With that, I yield to my good friend and distinguished
Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID
Senator Reid. I served on this subcommittee for many years,
and following the retirement of Bennett Johnson I have been
ranking Democrat and oftentimes the chair of this subcommittee.
And the Senator from New Mexico and I have developed a very
fine relationship.
And let me say to each of you, this National Nuclear
Security Administration is something that I did not favor. I
thought it was unnecessary. The Nuclear--the National Nuclear
Security Administration is, basically, a product of the mind of
Senator Domenici. Other people may have worked with him on
this, but basically it was his idea, and he was the reason it
went forward. And as I announced last year at this same
meeting, I am now a convert. I think it has worked extremely
well. We have had good people who have been administering this
program, an interesting new program we have here.
So, anyway, Senator Domenici, I appreciate your having done
this. You were visionary in being able to do it.
I would also say this: Senator Domenici mentioned the labs.
I do not know if the people of this country--the people of the
State of New Mexico, are really aware of what has been done by
Senator Domenici and these laboratories. But for him, I can
remember as a relatively new member of this subcommittee, of
him talking with Senator Johnson about the labs, and that the
real science being conducted in this country is in the labs.
And some of the greatest scientists in the world are in these
laboratories.
So, certainly, the people of New Mexico should be aware of
the fact that Senator Domenici has worked so hard and done so
much to keep these labs funded, even in trying times to cut
back these funds. And there have been fires, and scandals, and
all kinds of things, but through it all the labs have come out
just fine.
Last year I raised a variety of concerns about the
administration's request for this agency. I felt that the
requests for the pit production program was short of what was
required to meet our milestones for the critical stockpiles
stewardship program. Senator Domenici and I worked together
last year, as we always do, and raised the budget for pit
production high enough to keep the program on track. We were
able to keep that additional funding in conference also.
I do not have the same concern this year. Actually, the
President's budget has me very pleasantly surprised. I think it
is a--this is fine. I see there are no gaping holes in the
request. As we move closer to markup, I am sure there will be
some modifications or requests here and there, but I do not
expect anything as dramatic as the last few years.
That having been said, there are certain things that you
have deleted from a variety of programs that have significant
member interest, and there will be tremendous pressure on us,
and rightfully so, to find--to fund these items within our
overall total. Maybe we can find some extra money; but the way
things are going, that is doubtful. And with the budget as
tight as I expect it to be, we may be forced to accommodate
them within the total of the money that we have and you have
given us.
Many of the items that you have deleted are programs that
have been funded year in and year out and have proved
invaluable contributors to our national defense. And so if you
see fit to delete them, that does not mean that we will.
I am always concerned and, I guess, it is Federal
Government that you have to get used to, is that if it has not
been done before, you do not do it. And there are certain
things that we have to continually improvise to meet exigencies
of a situation that develops, especially in an agency like
this.
So, and the last thing that I would like to say, is that
even though I know that you have tremendous pressure from OMB,
we want you to also understand that we have tremendous brain
power down here also. The staff that we have behind us are
experts. They do a wonderful job in making sure the legislative
branch of Government competes as it should constitutionally
with the executive branch of Government. And all of the wisdom
of the world is not within the executive branch of Government.
A couple more thoughts before I close. You requested
funding for an advanced concepts initiative for nuclear
deterrents which seems to expand on funding you sought and
received last year. So this is something we have to really be
careful on, careful about. We will examine this very closely.
The authorizing committee will consider this program in
expansional length when they mark up their bill, and we are
going to watch to see what comes out of that authorizing
committee.
I would also like to make sure that you give us all you can
on this 18-month test readiness posture. It is something
important for the country and the world, and we would hope that
you would give us the benefit of your thoughts in that regard.
Mr. Chairman, I am going--as I have indicated to you, I am
going to have to leave in a little bit. So I would ask your
permission to submit written questions and that the witnesses
get these back to us within 2 weeks.
Senator Domenici. We will do that, and if the witnesses
will respond within 2 weeks. Thank you very much for your kind
remarks and for your overall assessment.
We will start with you, Mr. Ambassador. You have heard so
many nice words, maybe you do not even have to testify. Maybe
you can just sit there and smile.
STATEMENT OF LINTON F. BROOKS
Ambassador Brooks. Well, Mr. Chairman, actually I am
gratified to know that we are thinking of the same things,
because you gave much of my statement. So I will abbreviate it
even further.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Reid, for the
opportunity to appear. This is my first appearance as the
acting Administrator, and I want to start by thanking the
subcommittee and the members on both sides of the aisle with
their strong support for our important national security
responsibilities. I have provided a detailed written statement
which I would like to summarize quite briefly before turning to
my colleagues.
NNSA has several complementary missions. We are supposed
to, above all, provide a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear
deterrent. In doing so, we are supposed to implement the
President's decisions on the Nuclear Posture Review. We are
supposed to reduce the threat of the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction. We are supposed to maintain a robust
security posture. We are supposed to reinvest in the nuclear
weapons infrastructure, support the nuclear propulsion needs of
the Navy. And we are supposed to do this in an efficient way by
supporting the President's management agenda.
As you noted, the budget represents an 11-percent growth
over last year and is consistent with the Future-Years Nuclear
Security Program that we have submitted. I share your
assessment that that has been an extremely valuable tool, and I
look forward to it being even more valuable in the years ahead
in enforcing sound planning and good fiscal discipline.
My colleagues will be talking about the details, but I
would like to give a very brief overview and then talk about
some broad areas.
The funds we are requesting for weapons activities will
enable us to implement the Nuclear Posture Review. They will
allow us to restore and maintain operational capabilities and
keep a robust science and technology infrastructure. We are on
schedule to produce, later this spring, the first certifiable
plutonium pit in this country since the closure of Rocky Flats
in 1989. And Los Alamos is on track to manufacture a
certifiable pit for the stockpile by 2007.
As Senator Reid mentioned, we are taking steps to reduce
our nuclear test readiness to 18 months. That is an important
initiative of the President's Nuclear Posture Review to which
we are fully committed. Both the fiscal year 2003 and 2004
budgets support this transition, which will take us about 3
years.
This budget also includes $21 million for advanced concepts
work. That is small in terms of the overall budget, but it is
important in policy terms. It includes $15 million for the
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. That system development work
will begin later this month following the submission of a
report to the Congress which the Defense Department submitted
in mid-March. In addition, there is $6 million for advanced
concepts work which we intend to use in conjunction with the
Department of Defense to revitalize the intellectual capital
and to think about what options might be necessary, and I need
to emphasize ``might be necessary,'' in the future.
The Nuclear Posture Review the President approved last year
gives a responsive infrastructure equal priority with offensive
strike and defense. We implement that in two particular ways:
the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities, which is an
account that will be with us forever and is intended to operate
and maintain the facilities needed for stockpile stewardship;
and the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program,
which is, basically, a get-well program that should be
completed in about a decade.
These programs work together to restore, revitalize, and
rebuild the weapons complex. They are fixing the backlog in
deferred maintenance, and I believe they are absolutely crucial
and hope the committee will continue to support them.
As the chairman mentioned, we are requesting a 30-percent
increase in Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation funds. Much of our
program is the same as last year. The largest dollar increase
is for the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility. Russia has agreed to
use the same design, and, therefore, both of us should be able
to begin construction in 2004. The other increases in
nonproliferation support the beginning of a program to purchase
additional highly-enriched uranium from the Russian Federation,
thus taking it permanently out of risk for proliferation, to
strengthen safeguards, and then for one or two other minor
initiatives.
Last year, NNSA assumed responsibility for a production
that will shut down the last three plutonium production
reactors in the Russian Federation. We are about to compete for
the contractor to actually carry that out. The contractor will
be selected from a group of contractors with extensive
experience both in fossil fuel plant construction, which we are
going to build to replace these reactors, and in working in
Russia.
Admiral Bowman will talk about the Naval Reactors program.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Ambassador, would you just hold for a
second?
Ambassador Brooks. Certainly, sir.
Senator Domenici. I have to see my constituents here just
for a second. If I do not see them, nobody else will.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Please proceed.
Ambassador Brooks. In fiscal year 2004, Naval Reactors will
support 103 reactors and 82 nuclear-powered warships, including
the first-of-a-class reactor when U.S.S. Virginia goes to sea.
Naval Reactors will continue to design and develop the
reactor for the new transformational carrier. And the budget
increase will allow beginning the development of the so-called
transformational technology core, which will achieve a
substantial increase in core energy and result in greater
operational ability and flexibility. In addition, the Naval
Reactor budget increase will allow maintenance and replacement
of some of the program's 50-plus-year-old infrastructure.
Key to ensuring the health and safety of all our activities
is safeguards and security. The program focuses on protection
of people, nuclear weapons, information, special nuclear
material, and infrastructure.
Immediately following September 11, 2001, my predecessor
initiated an increase in our security posture. And as a result
of that, I am satisfied with the level of security complex-
wide. Now, most of that increase was in physical protection,
and what that mostly means is more guards. As we look to the
future, physical protection is going to be more complicated and
costly. So in 2004 we will begin a modest research and
development effort to try and understand how technology might
improve security while reducing the demands on physical
security force, staffing, and overtime.
Finally, the budget requests $348 million for the Federal
workforce. This will provide our direction and oversight of
operations. Naval Reactors and our secure transportation assets
activities are separately budgeted.
Our budget reflects declining staffing increases, but it
also includes about $16 million for re-engineering and
relocation costs necessary to bring about the new
organizational model, which I will mention in a moment.
Before turning to my colleagues, I would like to mention
some of the management challenges that we have been facing and
some of the successes we have had. The most obvious challenge
you have already referred to, Mr. Chairman, and that has been
the management issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
It is important to put those challenges in context. There
has been no suggestion of any diminution in the high quality of
the science. There has been no suggestion of any problems with
security. There has been no suggestion of any problems with
safety. But there have been significant weaknesses in business
practices. As soon as we learned of them, Secretary Abraham and
I insisted the University of California, which manages the
laboratory, take corrective action. And generally, I am
satisfied--that is not true. I am pleased with the corrective
action taken to date. The University has been vigorous, and I
share your assessment that the interim laboratory director is
doing a superb job.
In addition to what we have done in Los Alamos, we have
compiled a comprehensive set of lessons learned to share that
with all of our sites to avoid similar problems in other areas.
On a more optimistic note, I believe we are making good
progress in meeting the intent of the Congress in creating the
National Nuclear Security Administration. On December 20 of
last year, I implemented the revised management approach we
reported to the Congress last year. We eliminated a layer of
management. We shifted the locus of Federal oversight to eight
site offices. We consolidated all business and administrative
support into a single service center to be physically
consolidated next year.
These changes, along with other workload reduction
initiatives, should allow us to reduce the Federal workforce by
about 20 percent by the end of next year in all areas except
secure transportation asset, nonproliferation, naval reactors,
and emergency operations.
I mentioned in the beginning of my remarks that we are
mindful of the President's management agenda. With an emphasis
on our new planning, programming, budgeting, and evaluation
process, we are trying to take a long view, budget with firm
resource envelopes, and then manage to those budgets. Our
process was modeled after the Department of Defense, but
tailored to our needs. It will take several budget cycles
before we get all the benefit this system will use, and I am
very pleased with our progress.
I am also pleased with our participation in the
administration's Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART).
This year the Office of Management and Budget evaluated four
programs that encompass about 20 percent of our total funding.
Two of those programs, the advanced computing initiative and
the nuclear material protection and cooperation, were rated in
the top 5 percent of all programs government-wide, and they
were the two highest rated programs in the Department of
Energy. We will be incorporating PART assessment for all of our
programs as part of our own internal evaluation cycle, starting
with the fiscal year 2005 budget we will begin working on this
summer.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I am confident we are headed
in the right direction. Our budget request will support
continuing our progress in protecting and certifying our
deterrent, reducing the global danger from proliferation, and
enhancing the force projection capabilities of the U.S. nuclear
Navy. It will enable us to continue to maintain the safety and
security of the NNSA complex, and, above all, I believe it will
meet the national security needs of the United States for the
coming century.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. My colleagues
and I will be ready to answer your questions after they have
had the opportunity to present their own statements.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linton F. Brooks
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the Fiscal
Year 2004 President's Budget Request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration. This is my first appearance before this Subcommittee as
the Acting Administrator of NNSA, and I want to thank all of the
Members for their strong support of our important national security
responsibilities. I would like to begin my testimony here today by
providing an overview of the NNSA mission requirements followed by the
highlights of our budget request.
overview
The NNSA, comprised of Defense Programs, the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation Program, and the Naval Reactors Program, has several
complementary mission requirements:
--Provide a safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent and implement
the President's decisions on the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)
recommendations.
--Reduce the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and continue to support the Global War on Terrorism
through aggressive nuclear nonproliferation programs.
--Maintain a robust security posture at NNSA facilities.
--Revitalize the nuclear weapons complex infrastructure.
--Support the nuclear propulsion needs of the U.S. Navy.
--Support the President's Management Agenda for more effective
government.
The fiscal year 2004 budget request totals $8.8 billion, an
increase of $878 million, about 11 percent, over the enacted fiscal
year 2003 budget. The request is consistent with the planned program
levels in the Future-Years Nuclear Security Program recently submitted
to the Congress. This substantial increase reflects the
Administration's commitment to sustain a stable and effective long term
national security program through the NNSA, as well as our obligation
to our citizens to conduct this program safely, securely, and in an
environmentally acceptable manner.
We are building on recent accomplishments. Although there is a
large increase in this year's budget request, there is no single new
initiative driving this growth. Rather, we are continuing plans and
programs already set in motion, and adjusting to the guidance in the
Nuclear Posture Review. We are moving beyond the talking and planning
phase of many programs conceived in the 1990's.
This budget supports the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which
continues to successfully certify to the President the safety and
reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile without underground
nuclear testing. It includes funds to begin a modest Advanced Concepts
initiative to provide nuclear deterrence options, begin the transition
to a 18-month test readiness posture, continue to revitalize the
facilities and infrastructure that are the bedrock of the weapons
complex, and push the outer limits of scientific, modeling, and
computing ability to apply new experimental capabilities to the
processes of maintaining and certifying the stockpile. It supports our
efforts to manufacture certifiable pits and to produce tritium.
In the area of reducing global nuclear danger, this budget request
for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program reflects the
President's and Secretary Abraham's emphasis on reducing proliferation
threats, including the Global Partnership formed at the Kananaskis
Summit in June 2002. The fiscal year 2004 request contains funds to
support attacking the problem globally, to improve the physical
security of nuclear material, to consolidate and reduce that material,
and to end its production. It also continues efforts to prevent illicit
trafficking of nuclear materials, to improve our ability to detect
proliferation, and to stem the ``Brain Drain'' of weapons experienced
scientists from Russia.
Under this budget, the Naval Reactors Program will initiate the
design and development of a new reactor that will utilize advanced
materials to achieve a substantial increase in core energy. The result
will be greater ship operational ability and flexibility to meet
increasing national security demands.
budget summary tables
The fiscal year 2003 estimates in the fiscal year 2004 budget
documents transmitted to the Congress reflect the President's fiscal
year 2003 Budget Request because final fiscal year 2003 appropriations
were not enacted until February 20, 2003. The Future-Years National
Security Program tables tie to the President's Budget Request. The
table below summarizes the enacted funding levels by appropriation. The
fiscal year 2003 appropriations estimates are made comparable to the
fiscal year 2004 President's Budget Request by eliminating fiscal year
2003 appropriations being transferred to the Department of Homeland
Security and to the Department of Energy's Office of Security (for
COOP/COG activities). The fiscal year 2003 totals detailed in the table
below also reflect applications of the general reductions and the
government-wide, across the board reduction of 0.65 percent enacted in
the final fiscal year 2003 appropriations.
The outyear budget estimates and associated programmatic
information for NNSA programs are contained in the Future-Years Nuclear
Security Program document I forwarded to the Congress in February.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 NNSA PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Fiscal
2002 Year 2003 Year 2003 Fiscal Percent
Comparable Comp Comp Year 2004 $ Change Change
Appropriation Request Approps Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons Activities................... $5,542 $5,846 $5,895 $6,378 $483 8.2
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation..... \1\ 1,048 1,028 \2\ \3\ 1, 1,340 318 31.1
022
Naval Reactors....................... 688 707 702 768 66 9.4
Office of the Administrator.......... 307 329 \3\ \4\ 32 348 27 8.4
1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... 7,585 7,909 7,940 8,835 895 11.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include $10 million appropriated as part of the fiscal year 2002 supplemental (Public Law 107-206)
for Domestic Sealed Sources Recovery in the Environmental Management Program.
\2\ Does not include funding appropriated for programs transferred to the Department of Homeland Security.
\3\ Does not include $9.125 million requested to be transferred in fiscal year 2002 from Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation to the Office of the Administrator. This transfer was approved early in fiscal year 2003.
\4\ Does not include funding appropriated for activities transferred to Homeland Security, or to Office of
Security for COOP/COG.
NNSA OUTYEAR BUDGET REQUESTS--FUTURE-YEARS NUCLEAR SECURITY PROGRAM
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
Year 2004 Year 2005 Year 2006 Year 2007 Year 2008 Year 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons Activities...................... $6,378 $6,661 $6,961 $7,277 $7,518 $7,651
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........ 1,340 1,356 1,371 1,389 1,322 1,346
Naval Reactors.......................... 768 808 795 811 819 834
Office of the Administrator............. 348 337 344 353 355 362
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 8,835 9,162 9,471 9,830 10,014 10,193
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nuclear forces and the nuclear posture review
Before going into Weapons Activities Stockpile Stewardship Program,
I will discuss the NNSA's response to the broader policy framework set
out in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and its implementation.
As the NPR has articulated, the 21st century presents the prospect
of a national security environment in which threats may evolve more
quickly, be more variable in nature, and be less predictable than in
the past. In this broad threat environment, nuclear weapons will play a
reduced role in the overall United States security posture--a point
reinforced in the NPR. At the same time, the NPR reaffirmed that, for
the foreseeable future, nuclear forces linked with an advanced
conventional strike and integrated with the capabilities offered by the
other two legs of the New Triad will continue to be an essential
element of national security by strengthening our overall abilities to
reassure allies of U.S. commitments, dissuade arms competition from
potential adversaries, and deter threats to the United States, its
overseas forces, allies, and friends.
The NPR offered a basic reassessment of the role of nuclear forces
and their contribution toward meeting these defense policy goals. It
established the need for a capabilities-based force, a dramatic
departure from the threat-based rationale for the nuclear force of the
past. This change, in combination with the judgment to no longer plan
our forces as if Russia presented an immediate threat to the United
States, was the basis for dramatic reductions codified in the Moscow
Treaty in the level of operationally-deployed strategic nuclear forces.
Over the next decade, the number of deployed warheads will be cut by
approximately two-thirds from today's level.
To meet the challenges of an uncertain and unpredictable threat
environment, and in seeking to mitigate any dangers associated with
dramatically reduced nuclear forces, the nuclear weapons enterprise
must be able to respond rapidly and decisively. This is the idea behind
the third leg of the New Triad. That is, by providing means to respond
to new, unexpected, or emerging threats in a timely manner, the R&D and
industrial infrastructure needed to develop, build, and maintain
nuclear offensive forces and defensive systems (of which the nuclear
enterprise is a key component) is itself a principal tool for achieving
our overall defense strategy. This concept, and its endorsement by the
NPR, has had enormous implications for NNSA in helping to gain strong
support for its programs from DOD and others.
We are pressing ahead with efforts to reverse the deterioration of
the nuclear weapons infrastructure, restore lost production
capabilities and modernize others in order to meet the stockpile
refurbishment plan. We are actively assessing the NPR's implications in
a number of other related areas. Finally, we are pursuing initiatives
endorsed by the NPR which are intended to provide the nuclear weapons
enterprise with the flexibility to provide a timely response to
``surprise,'' or to changes in the threat environment.
weapons activities--stockpile stewardship
The President's fiscal year 2004 request for Stockpile Stewardship
continues to build and expand on the scientific and engineering
successes that are the hallmarks of this program. This request totals
$6.378 billion, an increase of 8.2 percent. It will also allow us to
meet our requirements under the terms of the Nuclear Posture Review
including enhancing test readiness, reinvigorating the advanced
concepts work in the weapons laboratories, and restoring the weapons
complex to meet the national security requirements of the 21st Century.
There are a number of significant milestones we expect to achieve this
year.
--Manufacture the first certifiable W88 pit.
--Begin irradiation of the first Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber
Rods in the TVA's Watts Bar Reactor.
--Continue delivery of W87 Life Extended warheads to the Air Force.
--Complete environmental documentation in support of the Modern Pit
Facility.
--Deliver four ultraviolet beams of NIF laser light to the target
chamber.
--Initiate Stockpile Stewardship experiments in NIF.
--Perform two- and three-dimensional simulations of aging stockpile
weapons focused on Life Extension Program activities.
--Ship nuclear weapons, weapons components, and nuclear materials
safely through the Secure Transportation Asset.
--Conduct subcritical experiments at the Nevada Test Site to better
understand plutonium aging.
--Begin work on the Advanced Concepts initiative and, in particular,
on the RNEP Phase 6.2 studies with the Air Force.
These major milestones will be accomplished by the weapons complex
in addition to the manufacture of thousands of components needed to
maintain the stockpile. The complex will also carry out hundreds of
smaller scale experiments, perform surveillance activities, address
Significant Finding Investigations to ensure weapons safety and
operability, conduct flight tests with the support of the DOD, deploy
new manufacturing tools and processes at the production plants, and
safely dismantle weapons excess to national security requirements.
These and other activities are dependent on retaining today's
highly skilled workforce and recruiting the next generation of
stockpile stewards. Over the last several years, NNSA has made a
significant headway on this all-important front. Critical skill
vacancies across the complex have been reduced to 8 percent.
Inextricably linked to recruitment and retention is providing the
quality workspace and fully functioning tools and technologies needed
by our scientists and engineers to carry out their work. We are working
diligently to reinvest in the weapons complex infrastructure.
I would now like to highlight several activities under the
Stockpile Stewardship Program that I believe are of particular interest
to this committee.
Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign.--Restoring the
Nation's ability to manufacture plutonium pits in support of the
stockpile has been a central challenge for the stewardship program
since the closure of the Rocky Flats plant in 1989. The United States
has never before manufactured and certified pits without nuclear
testing. I am very pleased to report that late this spring, Los Alamos
will manufacture the first certifiable W88 pit. LANL also remains on-
track to manufacture a war reserve W88 pit by 2007. To achieve this
critical milestone, LANL has produced a number of development pits and
has performed a series of engineering tests and physics experiments to
confirm pit performance.
While the TA-55 facilities at LANL are adequate to support the W88
pit campaign, they do not appear to be capable of supporting the
manufacturing need for long-term stockpile support. NNSA has begun
planning for a Modern Pit Facility (MPF) consistent with the Record of
Decision for Stockpile Stewardship and Management and the NPR. In May
2002, the Secretary of Energy formally approved Critical Decision ``0''
(CD-0) for the MPF. The NNSA is now examining five candidate sites--
Pantex, Carlsbad, the Nevada Test Site, Savannah River and Los Alamos--
as possible locations for the MPF. We expect to issue a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) later this spring. Following a
series of public meetings, a final EIS and associated Record of
Decision (ROD) will be issued. The program will prepare site specific
environmental documentation if the ROD supports a decision to construct
and operate an MPF. The fiscal year 2004 request will allow conceptual
design and other planning activities, NEPA work, and technology
development activities to proceed on a schedule that will support a CD-
1 decision in fiscal year 2006.
Test Readiness.--While I continue to have confidence in the ability
of the Stockpile Stewardship Program to continue to ensure the safety,
security, and reliability of this Nation's nuclear deterrent, we must
maintain our ability to carry out nuclear weapons tests. Our current
readiness posture to conduct such a test is 24 to 36 months, as
established in a 1993 Presidential Decision Directive. Last year's NPR
stated that this period should be reduced in order to provide options
to deal with defense policy goals, including resolving unanticipated
problems in the stockpile. A study completed in July 2002 confirmed
that additional work was required to maintain the present posture, but
it also led us to conclude that the right posture is to be ready for a
test within approximately 18 months. With fiscal year 2003 funding now
in place, we intend to begin the transition to a 18 month posture. The
Nuclear Weapons Council has concurred that our intended action is
appropriate. The transition to this new readiness posture is expected
to take approximately three years.
Although there have been discussions about a transition to shorter
times, there is concern that an unnecessarily expedited time-frame may
cause adverse effects on critical personnel resources and require
significantly more funding. It is not likely that we will be able to
match the short lead times when the weapons complex conducted multiple
underground tests annually, nor do I think it is prudent to tie-up
important resources to indefinitely maintain an extremely short test
readiness posture. Since device and diagnostics preparations are driven
by the particular weapon to be tested and the questions to be answered
by the test, such a posture might not be responsive to a surprise in
the stockpile. The NNSA is studying this matter and I will soon be
reporting to the Congress on these subjects as directed in the fiscal
year 2003 Defense Authorization Bill.
Advanced Concepts/Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.--The NPR also
highlighted the importance of pursuing Advanced Concepts work to ensure
that the weapons complex can provide nuclear deterrence options well
into the next century. To that end, the fiscal year 2004 budget
includes $21 million for Advanced Concepts work. About $15 million will
be allocated to the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), with the
balance of the funding divided between the weapons laboratories for
concept and feasibility studies of possible nuclear weapon
modifications, or new designs to meet possible new requirements.
The Department of Defense submitted the report on RNEP to the
Congress on March 19, 2003, as required by the fiscal year 2003 Bob
Stump National Defense Authorization Act. The NNSA will begin an in-
depth study once the 30 day waiting period has elapsed. As members
know, this study will examine whether or not two existing warheads in
the stockpile the B61 and the B83 can be sufficiently hardened through
case modifications and other work to allow the weapons to survive
penetration into various geologies before detonating. This would
enhance the Nation's ability to hold hard and deeply buried targets at
risk. The RNEP feasibility and cost study is currently scheduled for
completion in 2006; however, we are looking at opportunities to reduce
study time.
For other advanced concepts, we will work with the DOD to assess
evolving military requirements. We will carry out theoretical and
engineering design work. I should stress that we have no requirement to
actually develop any new weapons at this time.
Physical Infrastructure.--Since its inception, the NNSA has been
committed to a disciplined corporate facilities management approach to
improve the facility conditions of the nuclear weapons complex. We made
this corporate commitment clearly recognizing the drivers and practices
of the past decade had ultimately resulted in a complex with
significant deterioration in our physical infrastructure and an
excessive backlog of deferred maintenance. The NNSA complex is part of
our Nation's strategic nuclear infrastructure and the third leg of the
New Triad as defined in the Nuclear Posture Review. The Nuclear Posture
Review gave a responsive infrastructure equal priority with offensive
and defensive weapons. Through our focused and disciplined efforts, we
now have underway an effective and integrated program to restore,
revitalize, and rebuild our nuclear weapons program infrastructure.
Two complementary accounts in the budget, Readiness in Technical
Base and Facilities (RTBF) and the Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program (FIRP), are essential to the operation,
maintenance, and renewal of a physical infrastructure. Funding for
RTBF, Operations of Facilities, increases by 4 percent in the fiscal
year 2004 request. The RTBF provides the funding needed to operate and
maintain the facilities required for certification, thus ensuring the
vitality of the NNSA national security complex and its goal of a
consistent readiness level. FIRP is a capital renewal and
sustainability program designed to eliminate maintenance backlogs. The
FIRP addresses an integrated, prioritized list of maintenance and
infrastructure projects, separate from the maintenance and
infrastructure efforts of RTBF, which will significantly increase the
operational efficiency and effectiveness of the NNSA sites.
Importantly, beyond the application of the new and much needed
funding, FIRP also brings a series of new facility management processes
and best business practices which are improving our corporate facility
management. One of the most important practices is the NNSA commitment
to deferred maintenance reduction: stabilizing our backlog by fiscal
year 2005 and returning it, for our mission essential facilities and
infrastructure, to industry standards by fiscal year 2009. To meet this
goal, the fiscal year 2004 budget request targets 45 percent of the
FIRP Recapitalization subprogram to facilities and infrastructure
specific deferred maintenance projects.
Integral to our corporate approach to RTBF and FIRP are the
linkages and discipline provided by the PPBE process, and specifically
the Ten-Year Comprehensive Site Plans (TYCSP) and associated facilities
and infrastructure planning processes. We are now in the third year
that the NNSA has approved the TYCSPs, incorporating technical
requirements and performance measures within the financial bounds of
the FYNSP resource levels. From the field perspective, these plans
provide Federal and M&O managers at each site with the tools and
processes to propose, prioritize and obtain approval of the work needed
to effectively manage their facilities and infrastructure. From the
Headquarters perspective, the TYCSP provides the NNSA with a
standardization that allows comparisons and planning to be effected
complex-wide.
In recent years, the combined and measurable efforts of FIRP and
RTBF have worked to assure that we restore, revitalize, and rebuild the
weapons complex infrastructure for today and tomorrow's missions.
Across the weapons complex both programs are fixing the backlog of
maintenance, keeping up with operational needs, and planning for the
future to make a clear and visible difference. These combined efforts
are crucial and I urge the committee to support them.
Stockpile Life Extension.--While preparing for the future, the labs
and plants are working very hard to extend the life of several elements
of the existing nuclear weapons stockpile through the Life Extension
Program (LEP). The NPR reaffirmed the decision as reached by the
Nuclear Weapons Council on the timing, pace, scope, and technical
aspects of the LEPs for the W76, W80, B61-7/11, and ongoing W87 work.
Through this program new subsystems and components are designed, built,
tested and installed, thereby extending the operational service life
for these warheads for some 30 additional years.
For the last several years, we have been extending the life of the
W87 warhead for the Air Force. This work is ongoing at Y-12 National
Security Complex, Lawrence Livermore and Sandia National Laboratories,
and the Pantex Plant. We are more than half way through this effort and
expect to wrap up the work by early 2004.
Life extension for the W76 involves a comprehensive overhaul of the
warhead, including replacement or refurbishment of the Arming, Firing
and Fuzing set, high explosives, gas transfer system and other
components. We will also be requalifying the weapon primary. For the
W80, we will be replacing the Trajectory Sensing Signal and Neutron
Generators, the tritium bottles and incorporating surety upgrades. For
the B61, we will be refurbishing the secondary. The First Production
Units for these systems are scheduled for delivery to the Navy and Air
Force in: fiscal year 2007, fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2006,
respectively.
Tritium.--In addition to restoring plutonium manufacturing
capabilities, NNSA will begin tritium production later this year when
several hundred Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber Rods (TPBARs) are
inserted into TVA's Watts Bar Reactor. However, because of significant
changes in stockpile size in the outyears as a result of the NPR and
the Moscow Treaty, the NNSA has, in concert with the DOD, adjusted the
tritium production requirements to reflect these changes. We remain
fully committed to exercise all elements of the system for producing,
extracting, and purifying new tritium, including initial operation of
the Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF) being constructed at the Savannah
River Site.
Timing of tritium production, extraction, and purification has also
been delayed by approximately 17 months for two reasons: (1) a
reduction in the stockpile requirements by the NPR and (2) a delay in
completion of the TEF project. This program delay can be accomplished
without impacting nuclear weapons readiness. A revised baseline has
been approved increasing the Total Project Cost from $401 million to
$506 million and delaying project completion from mid-fiscal year 2006
to late-fiscal year 2007.
Since the tritium decays by natural radioactivity at a rate of
about 5 percent per year, and since irradiation service costs are the
dominant operating costs in supplying tritium to the stockpile, it is
prudent not to produce tritium beyond the stated national requirements.
Since the program intends to complete and exercise all elements of the
tritium production and purification system (including TVA's reactor(s)
and the TEF) on a schedule that fully protects the stockpile
requirements, irradiation services are being deferred in order to use
funds planned for these activities to complete TEF.
National Ignition Facility.--I am pleased to report that tremendous
technical progress has been achieved over the last year at the National
Ignition Facility (NIF). Its mission is to obtain fusion ignition in a
laboratory setting by imploding a BB-sized capsule containing a mixture
of the hydrogen isotopes, deuterium and tritium. The NIF will provide
the capability to conduct laboratory experiments to address the high-
energy density and fusion aspects that are important to both primaries
and secondaries in the nuclear stockpile.
In December 2002, the first four NIF laser beams were activated to
generate a total of 43 kilojoules of infrared laser light in a single
pulse. In March 2003, NIF delivered its first 4 beam of ultraviolet
laser light focused onto a target at the center of the 30 foot-diameter
target chamber. With this accomplishment, all elements of each of the
NIF critical subsystems have been successfully activated and operated.
Stewardship experiments will begin in fiscal year 2004.
Advanced Simulation and Computing.--The Advanced Simulation and
Computing (ASCI) Campaign is creating simulation capabilities that
incorporate modern physics and engineering models to improve our
ability to predict with confidence the behavior of the nuclear weapons
in the stockpile. These models, validated against experimental data
from past above ground and underground nuclear tests, are the
repositories of expert designer judgment as well as the best scientific
representations of our current knowledge of the performance of the
nuclear weapons. The ASCI Campaign is driving the integration of the
theoretical and experimental efforts within the Stockpile Stewardship
Program.
At the same time that ASCI continues the development of the most
powerful computer capabilities needed for the future, the modern
simulation tools previously developed by ASCI--the Blue Pacific and
White Machines at LLNL, the Red Machine at SNL, and the Blue Mountain
and Q machines at LANL--are being applied day-to-day to address
immediate stockpile concerns. The ASCI codes are being used to close
Significant Finding Investigations as well as to support Life Extension
Programs for the W76, W80, W87, and B61. These activities are enabled
by the ongoing supercomputing infrastructures at the national
laboratories, encompassing both continuing operations as well as
research in new techniques for storage, visualization, networking, and
all aspects of the infrastructure required by modern computing.
By fiscal year 2008, ASCI will deliver a high fidelity, full-system
physics characterization of a nuclear weapon. At that time, the
campaign will deliver a suite of validated codes, running on
supercomputer platforms, acquired though open procurement, with user-
friendly environments, advanced visualization tools for analysis, and
the entire support structure to integrate the components together.
Other program deliverables include high-performance storage and high-
bandwidth networks. In support of a true integrated SSP effort, the
ASCI Campaign continues to push the envelope in distance computing as
well as in advanced encryption techniques and other approaches to
ensure secure, classified networking.
secure transportation
The Office of Secure Transportation is responsible for safely and
securely moving nuclear weapons, special nuclear materials, select non-
nuclear components, and Limited Life Components for the DOE and the
DOD. This work is carried out by 225 Federal agents stationed at three
sites--Pantex, Oak Ridge, and Albuquerque. These highly dedicated and
skilled agents are authorized to use deadly force in the performance of
their duties. Employing highly modified tractor trailers and escort
vehicles, and secure and redundant communications they have amassed an
impressive safety record of more than 100 million accident free miles
without cargo compromise. I would note that this office also provides
support to other elements of the DOE, including the Offices of
Environmental Management and Nuclear Energy.
nonproliferation--reducing the global nuclear danger
The NNSA's nonproliferation activities are central to the Bush
Administration's National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass
Destruction of December 2002, which lists ``Strengthened
Nonproliferation'' as a pillar of its approach to reducing
proliferation threats. Secretary Abraham and the NNSA are committed to
this critical mission. This commitment is reflected in the diversity of
our programs to address nonproliferation concerns in Russia, other
former Soviet states, and, increasingly, throughout the world. The NNSA
uniquely integrates technical and policy expertise to guide and
implement the full range of U.S. nonproliferation priorities. The
fiscal year 2004 request for this program is $1.34 billion, an increase
of about 31 percent.
The NNSA addresses concerns that arise from the two requisites of
nuclear weapons proliferation: materials and expertise. Whether
ensuring that former Russian weapons experts are able to put their
skills to use on peaceful and commercial initiatives, reducing the
footprint of Russia's ``closed'' nuclear cities, or leading on-the-
ground programs to secure at-risk nuclear materials in Russia or
elsewhere, NNSA is at the forefront of U.S. efforts to halt the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and advance U.S. nuclear
security interests.
The Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials
of Mass Destruction, formed at the Kananaskis Summit in June 2002, has
recommitted the G-8 nations to increase greatly assistance to
nonproliferation, disarmament, counter-terrorism, and nuclear safety.
The partnership pledges to provide $20 billion over the next ten years
for nonproliferation and threat reduction initially focused in Russia.
The United States is committed to provide half that total. The effort
of our G-8 partners will complement U.S. programs and meets past
Congressional concerns that we not carry a disproportionate burden.
I am also pleased to inform you of the substantial progress of the
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production Program (EWGPP). The
EWGPP is using best project management practices by applying the
Department's established directives on project management. On December
20, 2002, the projects received Critical Decision Zero (CD-0), mission-
need justification, and we have started the process to procure U.S.
contractors.
These contractors will be responsible for oversight, verification,
and payment to the Russian Federation Integrating Contractor for work
completed. The U.S. contracts will be performance-based with the award
fee provisions focusing on successful completion and the ability of the
U.S. contractor to incentivize the Russian Federation Integrating
Contractor's performance in meeting or exceeding cost, schedule and
quality objectives. The U.S. contractor is being selected from a group
of contractors that have extensive experience in both fossil fueled
power plants and in Russia. Although the projects will be executed in
the Russian Federation, using Russian equipment and personnel, we are
implementing a rigorous oversight plan to monitor the progress through
a formal project management system.
With three exceptions, our fiscal year 2004 request is essentially
the same as last year. Last year, at the President's request, Secretary
Abraham sought Russian agreement to dispose of additional Russian
highly enriched uranium. We are nearing agreement on the purchase of
Russian highly enriched uranium for U.S. research reactors and on
purchasing downblended uranium from Russian weapons for a strategic
uranium reserve. We have requested $30 million for this program.
Second, there has been a $19.7 million increase in the request for
programs to secure radiological sources that could be used in
radiological dispersal devices, also known as ``dirty bombs.''
The largest fiscal year 2004 budget increase, about $272 million,
supports our plutonium disposition efforts. The United States and
Russia will each dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons grade plutonium
by irradiating it as mixed oxide, MOX fuel, in existing nuclear
reactors. This program is on track. Over 75 percent of the detailed
design of the U.S. MOX facility will be done this year. Russia has told
us that it will use the U.S. design for the MOX Fuel Fabrication
Facility, thus ensuring the programs remain on roughly the same
schedule. Construction of both the U.S. and Russian MOX Fuel
Fabrication Facilities will begin in fiscal year 2004.
I would also like to comment on NNSA's efforts to ensure that
funding is focused on the highest nonproliferation concerns. Given that
adverse impacts of terrorists or rogue nations obtaining nuclear
weapons is intangible, we cannot easily assess risks using quantifiable
risk analysis methods. However, we have and will continue to conduct
qualitative risk analyses to determine that we are applying the most
cost-effective approaches to meet the greatest nonproliferation needs.
The NNSA recognizes that proliferation is a multifaceted problem,
and reduces the threat in a multitude of ways.
We're attacking the problem globally.--The Global Partnership is
only the most recent example of U.S. cooperation with the international
community on nonproliferation. International cooperation supports our
national nonproliferation objectives, and we pursue such cooperation in
new ways. The suite of NNSA programs promotes greater international
understanding and adherence to export controls, the application of
safeguards to secure nuclear materials, and measures to maintain
regional security in the world's most volatile regions.
NNSA is improving the physical security of nuclear material.--The
United States does this primarily through its Materials Protection,
Control and Accounting (MPC&A) program in Russia, as well as the Newly
Independent States/Baltics. In fiscal year 2004, this will include
security upgrades on 24 metric tons of Russian nuclear material and
1200 Russian Navy nuclear warheads. We will also continue our work to
ensure the adequate physical protection of nuclear material located in
40 countries around the world.
We are improving our work to secure radiological sources and
prevent their use in ``dirty bombs.''--The International Conference on
Security of Radioactive Sources delivered a concrete set of findings to
guide international efforts to gain better control of high-risk
radioactive sources worldwide. Secretary Abraham's announcement of a $3
million ``Radiological Security Partnership'' will set in motion a new
initiative to address potential threats from under secured, high-risk
radioactive sources.
NNSA is helping to consolidate nuclear material.--By reducing the
number of locations where this material is stored, the United States is
greatly reducing its vulnerability to theft or sabotage. By the end of
2003, we will have removed all weapons-usable material from 23
buildings into fewer locations, thus improving security.
Nuclear material can be reduced.--Fissile Materials Disposition
conducts activities to dispose of surplus highly enriched uranium and
weapon-grade plutonium. By disposing of 68 metric tons of plutonium in
the U.S. and Russia, the plutonium disposition program will reduce the
threat that this material could pose if acquired by hostile nations or
terrorist groups. The plutonium will be irradiated as mixed-oxide (MOX)
fuel in nuclear reactors, making the material no longer readily usable
for nuclear weapons.
The production of nuclear material for weapons can be ended.--The
value of reducing nuclear materials increases greatly if no new
material is being produced at the same time. The EWGPP discussed above
aims to accomplish just that by replacing Russia's remaining plutonium
production reactors with fossil fuel energy plants to meet the energy
needs of local communities.
The illicit trafficking of nuclear materials can be slowed.--The
Second Line of Defense Program and International Nuclear Export Control
programs focus on cooperative efforts to minimize the risk of illicit
trafficking of special nuclear material, radiological materials, and
dual-use technologies across international borders such as land
crossings, airports, and seaports. Under the fiscal year 2004 budget
request, the program will continue to target strategic border points
and transshipment countries around the world for deployment of
radiation detection equipment while maintaining existing equipment in
more than 20 countries.
The threat of the ``Brain Drain'' can be alleviated.--To prevent
adverse mitigation of WMD expertise, the Russian Transition Initiatives
(RTI) program commercializes technology and downsizes Russia's weapons
complex. This approach transforms the former weapons infrastructure
expertise into commercially viable, peaceful business ventures, and
shrinks the complex by moving fence lines, closing buildings, and
providing alternative employment opportunities to weapons experts.
We can continually improve our ability to detect proliferation.--
Research and development in proliferation detection provides the United
States timely detection of potential threats. These technologies are
key to identifying threats at borders or other critical thoroughfares,
detecting clandestine proliferation activities, and verifying treaty
adherence.
In sum, the United States, with NNSA leading the way, has developed
programs to address the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction--in all its dimensions.
naval reactors
Naval Reactors (NR) continues the success it has had for more than
50 years and is a prime example of how to manage unforgiving and
complex technology. Our Naval Reactors program, which supports the
nuclear-powered submarines and carriers on station around the world,
remains a vital part of the national security mission and the Global
War on Terrorism. In fiscal year 2004, NR will support 103 reactors in
82 nuclear-powered warships, including the first-of-a-class reactor
when the USS VIRGINIA goes to sea. In addition, NR will continue to
design and develop the reactor for the new transformational carrier
CVN-21. The NR budget request for fiscal year 2004 is $768 million,
about a 7 percent increase above inflation over fiscal year 2003. The
increase will allow NR to begin the development of the Transformational
Technology Core (TTC) utilizing advanced materials to achieve a
substantial increase in core energy. TTC will be forward-fitted into
the VIRGINIA Class submarines, and will result in greater ship
operational ability and flexibility to meet increasing national
security demands. This budget increase will also allow maintenance and
replacement of some of the program's 50-plus-year-old infrastructure as
well as remediation at sites no longer in use, allowing NR to continue
its ``clean-as-you-go'' policy.
safeguards and security throughout the complex
Security continues to be one of the NNSA's highest priorities. The
NNSA's Safeguards and Security program focuses on the protection of our
people, classified and sensitive information, nuclear and non-nuclear
materials, and the vital infrastructure of our laboratory and
industrial production complex. Overall, we have a very effective
safeguards and security program as validated by internal and external
independent reviews across our sites and operations. We then use the
results of these reviews to assess and confirm our security postures
and areas for improvement. Our fiscal year 2004 budget request
maintains a robust safeguards and security posture throughout the
weapons complex to protect our facilities, materials, information, and
people.
The request also supports evaluation and assessment of options to
use cost-effective measures to meet future security requirements. The
NNSA sites conduct Vulnerability Assessments that include a review of
potential targets and the identification of the variety of methods that
an adversary could or might attempt to use against the targets.
Tabletop exercises, computer simulations, and actual force-on-force
exercises, conducted both internally and through external independent
offices, are used to evaluate various scenarios and related options for
protection.
In our efforts to assure we have a robust, responsive and adaptable
security architecture, we have recently been conducting detailed, site
specific reviews, known as Iterative Site Analyses (ISA). The ISAs are
analytical, tabletop exercises which address a spectrum of potential
threats, both within and beyond the Design Basis Threat. The ISA is
conducted by independent and highly skilled security professionals from
across the government and private sector. These analytical efforts are
designed to give decision makers at each site and NNSA Headquarters a
better understanding of how potential changes in threat and protective
measures can be factored into actions that improve our system
responsiveness and overall security posture. The results are then used
in our risk identification and management efforts that assist in
determining the safeguards and security program structure and most
cost-effective investments at each site.
Immediately following the events of September 11, 2001, NNSA
initiated a series of efforts to increase our security posture. As a
result, I am very comfortable with the level of our security complex-
wide. Most of the increases in our security posture, however, were the
result of increases in the level of physical protection, mainly guard
forces. As NNSA looks to the future, it is clear that the threat and
protection challenges will continue to become more complicated and
costly. More effort is needed to identify and deploy technologies and
work procedures that can maintain or improve our security
responsiveness while reducing physical security force staffing and
overtime requirements.
In fiscal year 2004, the NNSA will initiate a modest research and
development effort to pursue emerging technologies. In addition to our
historic rate of physical protection upgrades, the modest research and
development effort will focus on applied technology to define a more
robust, flexible and cost-effective security architecture across all
aspects of our work in the coming decade. These areas include earlier
detection of adversaries, automated response capabilities, better
coordinated communications, more efficient efforts to delay
adversaries, better detection of contraband at site perimeters and
enhanced cyber-security. This relates to both the current
infrastructure and operations as well as our up-front planning for new
construction and operations. Early in 2003, we completed an initial
review of our technology needs and applications. In fiscal year 2004,
we will complete the gap analysis of needed security efforts, review
various technologies for near term application, and target areas that
have the potential for significant long-term contributions. Throughout
this effort, we will engage with the ongoing efforts and experiences of
the Department of Energy's other program areas and National
Laboratories as well as other Federal agencies such as Departments of
Defense and Homeland Security, to help assure sharing of best practices
and maximum leveraging of our resources.
relationship to department of homeland security
The standup of the NNSA has been shaped by the Nation's response
over the past eighteen months to the terrorist attacks on September 11,
2001. Because the NNSA is the steward of the facilities and assets for
the Nation's nuclear weapons complex, we placed the highest priority on
addressing urgent, emergent concerns about the safeguards and security
posture of our nationwide complex of facilities and transportation
systems. We also upgraded our emergency response assets, which are
available to be deployed in emergencies around the world. We have
accelerated research and development on chemical and biological agents,
and have shared the expertise resident in our laboratories and other
facilities with other agencies and municipalities as part of the
expanded focus on homeland security across the government. NNSA has
contributed research and development and Federal support programs to
the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and provided expertise
and administrative support for startup of the new department. These
programs, totaling about $88 million, include research and development
to counter the chemical and biological threats; nuclear smuggling
research and development; nuclear assessments program, from MPC&A; and,
Federal program direction funding in support of these programs.
The legislation establishing the new Department specified that the
Nation's radiological response capabilities will remain under the
direction of the Secretary of Energy and NNSA Administrator. Funding
for the radiological assets will remain within NNSA's Nuclear Weapons
Incident Response programs ($90 million in fiscal year 2004). The
assets will continue to respond to radiological accidents at
Departmental facilities and will support Federal law enforcement
activities where nuclear materials may be involved. NNSA's Office of
Emergency Operations will work cooperatively with the DHS, and, when
deployed in formally designated situations, the radiological assets
will take direction from the Secretary of Homeland Security as the Lead
Federal Agency. A Memorandum of Agreement establishing a framework for
DHS to access the capabilities of these assets was finalized between
the two Departments last month.
office of the administrator
Finally, I will summarize the fiscal year 2004 budget request for
the NNSA Federal workforce, both Headquarters and field. The Office of
the Administrator account provides the corporate direction and
oversight of NNSA operations consistent with the principles of
protecting the environment and safeguarding the safety and health of
the public and workforce of the NNSA. This account now represents the
consolidated program direction funds from the former Weapons Activities
and Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation accounts; the Naval Reactors and
Secure Transportation Asset activities retain separately funded program
direction accounts. Our fiscal year 2004 budget request of $348 million
reflects declining staffing levels and includes about $16 million for
re-engineering incentives and relocation costs necessary to bring about
the new NNSA organizational model.
management issues
I would like to conclude by discussing some of the management
challenges and successes NNSA has faced. The most obvious challenge has
been the ongoing problems at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. There
are three specific areas of concern at Los Alamos: improper use of
government-issued credit cards; potentially fraudulent use of purchase
orders; and, poor accountability of government property. These problems
taken together reveal significant weaknesses in business practices at
the Laboratory.
As soon as we learned about the extent of these problems this past
fall, Secretary Abraham and I insisted that the University of
California, which manages the laboratory for the Department, take
corrective action. Subsequently, the University has replaced the Los
Alamos Director and Deputy Director, and demoted or replaced 15 other
officials. The University also has subordinated business services and
auditing at the laboratory directly to the University, brought in
outside firms to conduct detailed audits, and made numerous changes in
the internal procedures. Generally, we are satisfied with the
corrective action taken to date. The Secretary has directed the Deputy
Secretary and me to conduct a review of the future relationship between
the University of California and the Department. This review will be
complete by the end of April. In addition, we are compiling a
comprehensive set of ``lessons learned'' from the Los Alamos problems
to share with all DOE sites.
On a more optimistic note, good progress has been made in
implementing the intent of the Congress in creating the NNSA. The
National Nuclear Security Administration is in its third year of
operation, focusing the management of the Nation's nuclear security
programs through a single organization. The new organization brought
together the Department of Energy's Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors organizations in a separately
organized and managed agency within the DOE. The standup of the
organization has been a complex undertaking, and I am pleased to report
that NNSA is now fully operational. As a result of our strategic
planning exercises last year, and the resulting re-engineering of
program responsibilities and organizations, we are getting a better
handle on the many diverse components of the NNSA programs. Through an
emphasis on our new Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Evaluation
(PPBE) process, we are planning programs with a long-term view,
budgeting within a firm five-year resource envelope, and managing
program and budget execution with more discipline, all leading to
better results for the citizens of the United States.
On December 20, 2002, the NNSA began a fundamental restructuring of
its management structure designed to implement the President's
Management Agenda to create a more effective NNSA. The NNSA of the
future will build upon the successes of the past by giving outstanding
people the tools needed for strong and effective management of our
vital national security mission. This reorganization eliminated a layer
of Federal management oversight in the field by disestablishing NNSA's
three Operations Offices at Albuquerque, Nevada, and Oakland; shifting
the locus of Federal management oversight to eight Site Offices, closer
to where the actual work is performed; and, consolidating all business
and administrative support functions into a Service Center to be
located in Albuquerque to increase overall efficiency. These changes
were the culmination of nine months of functional and business process
re-engineering, as first described in the Administrator's February 2002
``Report to Congress on the Organization and Operations of the National
Nuclear Security Administration.'' These management and organizational
reforms are expected to permit NNSA to achieve significant Federal
staff reductions of about 20 percent in the nuclear weapons enterprise
by the end of fiscal year 2004.
As we continue to implement the NNSA Act, we are particularly
mindful of the President's Management Agenda to which we are firmly
committed. We have invested much time and energy over the past year to
carrying out its five major initiatives. Implementation of a PPBE
process as NNSA's core business practice is designed to improve budget
and performance integration throughout the organization. During the
past twelve months, NNSA has been involved in an intensive effort to
design and implement a PPBE framework simultaneously with the standup
of the new NNSA organization. The processes have been designed in-
house, along the lines of the DOD's PPBS system but tailored to our
needs. We are adapting processes to address NNSA's emerging
organization and unique business operations, and working within limited
administrative staffing levels.
Budgeting structures are being updated and aligned with management
structures. We are making excellent progress in finalizing the cascade
of performance metrics linked from the NNSA Strategic Plan to the
individual budget and reporting (accounting) codes and contractor work
authorizations. There is a very significant improvement in the
Performance Measures across all programs for fiscal year 2004.
Evaluation is becoming formalized through linkage with the budget, and
improved by the realignment of roles and responsibilities for program
managers and financial managers across the complex.
We are pleased with the early progress of PPBE in becoming the core
operating philosophy for NNSA. The first year was spent on process
design, integration of the NNSA programs primarily at Headquarters, and
in consultations and coordination of our efforts with the DOE Office of
Management, Budget and Evaluation/Chief Financial Officer and the
Administration. The DOE Inspector General is currently auditing the
first year's implementation, with a report expected in late Spring
2003. Our near term goal is to extend more formalized PPBE roles and
missions from our Headquarters organizations to the new NNSA Federal
field structure and the M&O contractors as the NNSA re-engineering
proceeds during the next 12-18 months. It will take several budget
cycles and lessons learned to complete the culture change, and to
properly staff the organization to fully realize the benefits of PPBE.
The NNSA remains committed to this goal.
The NNSA also participated in the Administration's Performance
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) analyses, evaluating four programs that
encompass about 20 percent of NNSA's annual funding. The PART
assessment noted that the NNSA programs were well managed and that NNSA
management was proactively working to make additional improvements to
program effectiveness and efficiency. Two of the NNSA programs,
Advanced Simulation and Computing and International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation, were rated in the top 5 percent of programs
government-wide and received the highest PART ratings of ``Effective''
from the Office of Management and Budget. The PART analysis tool
embodies and reinforces the PPBE processes and discipline we are
implementing throughout NNSA. We plan to incorporate the PART
assessment for all of NNSA's programs as part of our annual Evaluation
cycle, starting with the fiscal year 2005 budget this summer.
conclusion
In conclusion, I remain confident that we are headed in the right
direction. Our budget request will support continuing our progress in
protecting and certifying our nuclear deterrent, reducing the global
nuclear danger from proliferation and weapons of mass destruction, and
enhancing the force projection capabilities of the U.S. nuclear Navy.
It will enable us to continue to maintain the safety and security of
our people, information, materials, and infrastructure. Above all, it
will meet the national security needs of the United Stated in the 21st
century.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. Now, I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you and members of the Committee
may have.
Senator Domenici. I think what I am going to do is go to
the Admiral and then have a few questions and observations
before I get to Dr. Beckner.
Ambassador Brooks. Certainly.
Senator Domenici. All right. Admiral, might I say before
you testify, that I am in the process, as part of my own
recapping of my activities as a Senator, the process of putting
a book together on nuclear and where we made mistakes as a
Nation----
Admiral Bowman. Sir.
Senator Domenici [continuing]. In not proceeding with
nuclear power. And I might suggest to you that, right up front,
I use as an example the safety record of yours, and the fact
that you now have well over 100 ships at sea with one or more
nuclear power plants on board. You were denied access to no
seaport other than one in New Zealand, which means that, for
those who wonder about the safety or, conversely, the danger of
nuclear fuel rods, the world has indicated that they permit
them to move everywhere and anywhere in and about the seas,
oceans, and seaports, and close to boats and far away from
them, and nobody seems to be the least bit worried about the
pollution that certainly would be very apt to exchange if there
was something amiss, because nothing will carry it better than
the water.
Admiral Bowman. Sure.
Senator Domenici. And it is a perfect setting for, where
have we gone awry in being so frightened about what to do with
spent fuel rods and what to do about them? So in that regard,
much of what you have said and one of the late speeches that
you made, I think, the year before last, is something we--I
have been looking at very carefully, and we thank you for that.
Admiral Bowman. Thank you, sir. I think smart ball for me
would be to not testify now and just wait for additional
questions.
Senator Domenici. We will make your speech a part of the
record in any event, but, sir, you had better talk.
STATEMENT OF FRANK L. BOWMAN
Admiral Bowman. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
for those kind words and for the opportunity to testify today.
With your permission, I do have a more detailed statement for
the record.
Senator Domenici. Yes, sir.
Admiral Bowman. Let me also thank you, though, for the
years and years of support that your committee and you
personally have continued to provide this program. Without your
support, that record that you just referred to would have been
absolutely impossible. We have worked very hard to earn the
trust and faith that you place in the program, and the citizens
of this country place in this program. We will continue to do
what is needed to make sure our nuclear fleet remains deployed
around the world, fighting terrorism as it is doing right now.
We all recognize the very serious threats our country faces
today; some from hostile nations, some from organizations with
no fixed borders, operating under a veil of secrecy and outside
the international community.
Right now, nuclear-powered warships are on the front line
ready to strike against any threat to the Nation. Nuclear
propulsion is and has been essential in providing the mobility,
the flexibility, and the endurance that today's much-smaller
Navy needs to meet a number of growing global missions. Events
since September 11, 2001, have continually highlighted the
value of Naval presence and, in particular, of nuclear power
for the Navy's major combatants.
On March 19, 2003, when Operation Iraqi Freedom began, 33
nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and attack submarines were at
sea. Three nuclear-powered aircraft carriers were ready to
carry out the initial strike on Iraq. The U.S.S. Theodore
Roosevelt, U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, and U.S.S. Harry Truman, and
U.S.S. Nimitz were on the way. The opening salvo of Operation
Iraqi Freedom included Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from
nuclear attack submarines. We had 10 nuclear attack submarines
in the Red Sea alone.
Some of these submarines had been covertly monitoring
events offshore. By preparing for the attack and providing
intelligence to national decisionmakers, submarines helped
integrate the total battleship picture. This is just another
example of the versatility and flexibility of these nuclear-
powered submarines.
Recent U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, along with
those associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom, re-validated,
again, the value of these forward-deployed nuclear-powered
carriers. These very powerful ships are four and a half acres
of sovereign territory from which we can conduct sustained
combatant operations and, as you said, without having to
negotiate staging rights from, or overflight rights over,
foreign soil. Diplomatic activity over the last year has shown
how unpredictable and troublesome those issues can be. Nuclear
power provides the flexibility for these ships to sprint where
needed and arrive ready for action.
Many of the impressive capabilities these nuclear-powered
ships and submarines possess were developed with the funding
that this committee has supported. The Navy's new Virginia-
class attack submarine will be delivered this coming summer--or
summer of 2004, I should say. And the next generation class of
aircraft carrier, CVN-21, will carry us through the 21st
century and well beyond.
Even though these new designs are important, Naval
Reactors' number one priority is ensuring that the officers and
sailors at sea operating these plants and defending our
Nation's interests, are operating in a safe, effective,
reliable situation. This is where most of Naval Reactors'
funding goes.
At the end of 2002, the average age of our nuclear-powered
ships was 17 years. By 2012, 10 years from then, the average
age will increase to over 24 years. As these ships age, they
place a greater and greater demand on my budgets. And as
critical components and systems fail in service or become
obsolete and require replacement, the problem gets harder as
time goes on.
Since September 11, 2001, the demand for submarines has
increased by 30 percent. We are trying to make do with the
numbers we have, which are 54 attack submarines today, by
running these submarines harder. If we continue to operate at
today's operational tempo, these submarine reactor cores will
not last the 30-plus years that we talked about last year.
In response, and in conjunction with the new core design
required by shifting to a lower uranium enrichment, Naval
Reactors has begun work on an advanced transformational
technology core that the Ambassador referred to, that will
deliver a significant energy increase to future Virginia-class
submarines.
The TTC is a direct outgrowth of the program's advanced
reactor technology work. It will also be a stepping stone for
future reactor development. The TTC will use new core materials
to achieve a significant increase in core energy density; more
energy in the reactor without increasing the reactor size,
weight, or space, and at a very reasonable cost.
The TTC can do one or more of the following: We can extend
the ship life if we ever go back to the pre-9/11 operating
tempos, we can maintain the planned 30-plus-year lives if we
continue on this increased operational tempo, or we can provide
more power for the weapons and weapons systems of the future.
It will not require any changes to the Virginia-class submarine
itself or major designs within the propulsion plant.
We are trying to do our part to help fill this gap of the
need for submarines for the country. But this increased tempo
of operations can only go so far and last so long. We really
need to buy more submarines. And the only way we can get there
is to buy submarines smarter, so we can afford more.
Buying submarines one at a time will not achieve the
numbers we need for the future, nor is it a cost-effective way
to buy anything, including submarines. As included in the
President's budget this year, multi-year procurements coupled
with buying material and economic ordering quantity, and
increasing production to two ships per year will provide
significant savings. I ask for your support of innovative
contracting approaches.
Let me talk just very briefly, sir, about this year's
budget request. Naval Reactors' fiscal year 2004 budget is $768
million, an increase of some $49 million, 7 percent after
inflation, compared to fiscal year 2003. The funding increase
supports this transformational core that I was talking about
plus accelerated remediation work and facility upgrades.
The ongoing support of this committee is one of the most
important factors in Naval Reactors' success story. This
subcommittee has recognized the requirements and demands of our
program, our growing need for power projection and forward
presence far from home which further strains our aging nuclear
fleet, and the funding required to meet these commitments today
and into the future.
The unique capabilities inherent in nuclear power have
played a vital role over the past 50 years in our country's
defense. This legacy is strong. It is as strong and vibrant
today as it ever has been. With your continued support, it will
continue far into the future. Naval Reactors' record is strong
as you mentioned, sir, and the work is important, and the
funding needs, I think, are modest.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, also, with your permission, I would like to
submit for the record the program's annual environmental
occupational radiation exposure and occupational safety and
health reports. I thank you for your continued support.
Senator Domenici. It will be made a part of the record.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frank L. Bowman
Thank you for inviting me to testify on Naval Reactors' fiscal year
2004 Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration
budget request.
Let me also thank you for the support you continue to provide my
Program. I know that with your support, we will continue the success we
have had for more than 50 years. We have worked hard to earn the trust
and faith you place in the Program. We will continue to do what is
necessary to ensure our nuclear fleet remains deployed around the
world, actively involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Global War
on Terrorism (GWOT).
We all recognize the serious threats our country faces today. The
threats come not only from hostile nations, but also from organizations
with no fixed borders, operating under a veil of secrecy and outside
the international community.
Nuclear-powered warships are on the frontline ready to strike
against any threat to our national interests and to respond to any
aggression against the United States. Nuclear propulsion is essential
in providing the flexibility, speed, endurance, and multimission
capability that today's smaller Navy requires to meet a growing number
of global missions.
Last year, I recounted the events of September 11, 2001, and how
rapidly nuclear-powered warships were able to get on-station in the
North Arabian Sea--validating again the value that nuclear power brings
to our Navy. I discussed the significant contributions that nuclear-
powered warships made during Operation Enduring Freedom.
I'm here to tell you this year that as the events of the GWOT and
Operation Iraqi Freedom unfold, the value of naval presence, and in
particular of nuclear power for the Navy's major combatants, has been
continually highlighted.
Over the past year, U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and the
Persian Gulf have revalidated and underscored the value of forward-
deployed nuclear-powered warships. Nuclear-powered submarines have been
covertly monitoring al Qaeda, providing intelligence to national
decisionmakers for the GWOT. Keeping track of merchant ships that have
possible connections with al Qaeda--knowing who's aboard, what the
ships are carrying, what the names of the ships are, what color they
are when they go into port, and what different color they might be when
they come out of port--is all of inestimable value to our Nation during
the GWOT.
On March 19, 2003, when Operation Iraqi Freedom began, there were
33 nuclear-powered warships, both aircraft carriers and attack
submarines, at sea. Three nuclear-powered aircraft carriers were ready
to carry out the initial air strikes on Iraq--USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT
(CVN 71), USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CVN 72), and USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN
75)--with USS NIMITZ (CVN 68) on the way. The opening salvo of
Operation Iraqi Freedom included Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from
nuclear-powered attack submarines.
Nuclear-powered aircraft carriers continue to provide 4\1/2\ acres
of sovereign U.S. territory from which we can conduct sustained combat
operations quickly without having to negotiate staging rights on--and
potentially overflight rights across--foreign soil. Diplomatic activity
over the last couple of months has shown how unpredictable and
troublesome these issues can be. Nuclear power enhances these warships'
capability and flexibility to sprint where needed and arrive ready for
around-the-clock power projection and combat operations. Sustained
high-speed capability (without dependence on a slow logistics train)
enables a rapid response to changing world circumstances, allowing
operational commanders to surge these ships from the United States to
trouble spots or to shift them from one crisis area to another. Nuclear
propulsion helps the Navy stretch available assets to meet today's
worldwide commitments.
Again and again, the ability to change from mission to mission is
demonstrated by our nuclear-powered warships. The versatility and
flexibility of our nuclear-powered attack submarines and aircraft
carriers are vital to defending our national interests. As we look to
the future, new and extremely valuable missions and capabilities are on
the horizon for nuclear-powered warships. In January 2003, the highly
successful SSGN GIANT SHADOW experiment onboard USS FLORIDA tested
strategic concepts and hardware that could double or triple the value
of submarines while reducing risk to the crews. GIANT SHADOW explored
how a network of forces--a network including submarines carrying
unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs), unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs),
and various aerial, underwater, and ground sensors--could be used to
provide surveillance, collect real-time intelligence, develop and
recommend a course of action for the joint commander, and launch a
time-critical strike, including covertly deploying special forces
ashore. This capability will offer powerful options to force commanders
for covert surveillance and weapons delivery.
In our unstable world environment, nuclear-powered warships will
continue to adapt. They will be ready to meet the changing needs of our
national security today, and in the future.
nuclear power--today and in the future
A forward-deployed, highly mobile Navy is imperative for the Navy's
Sea Power 21 in support of our country's global responsibilities and
obligations. Nuclear power delivers that mobility and delivers the
endurance that goes with it, both of which are absolutely necessary in
the world today, and as far out into the future as I can see.
Many of the impressive capabilities these ships possess were
developed with funding that was supported by this subcommittee.
Naval Reactors' number-one priority is ensuring that the officers
and sailors at sea defending our Nation's interests are operating safe,
effective, reliable nuclear propulsion plants. This is where most of
Naval Reactors' funding goes. Today, the Naval Reactors Program
supports 103 reactors (the same number of reactors that operate
commercially in this country) in 54 operational attack submarines, 16
ballistic missile submarines, 2 SSGNs (under conversion), 9 nuclear-
powered aircraft carriers, 4 training and prototype platforms, and a
deep submergence vehicle. In addition, we are in the various stages of
building five more attack submarines and three carriers, and refueling
four LOS ANGELES-class submarines and one NIMITZ-class carrier.
At the end of 2002, the average age of these ships was 17 years. By
2012 the average age will increase to over 24 years (see chart 1). As
these ships age, they place a greater and greater demand on Naval
Reactors' DOE budgets as key components and systems obsolesce and
require replacement.
Another priority of the Program is designing and developing new
nuclear propulsion plants to meet the Nation's needs. The Navy's new
VIRGINIA-class attack submarine will be delivered in summer 2004; and
the next-generation class of aircraft carriers, CVN-21, will carry us
through the 21st Century and well beyond. Naval Reactors has begun work
on an advanced Transformational Technology Core (TTC) that will deliver
a significant energy increase to future VIRGINIA-class submarines.
Since September 11, 2001, the Combatant Commanders' demand for
submarines has increased 30 percent, which validates the need for 68-70
attack submarines. We are attempting to make do with the numbers we
have (54 attack submarines today) by running these submarines harder.
We have increased our transit speed (speed of advance), increased our
operating tempo (time underway during deployment), and reduced our
turnaround ratio (which means the non-deployed time divided by the time
deployed). Before September 11, 2001, our basis for planning had been
to move these submarines from point A to point B at 16 knots. Today,
many submarines travel from point A to point B to point C at 20 knots.
The Navy's planning goals state that we should be operating while
deployed for 65 percent of the underway time (35 percent in port,
showing the flag and giving the crew some much needed rest or doing
some needed maintenance). Instead, most deployed attack submarines are
now at about 80 percent operational tempo. So we are trying to make
ends meet, but what's going to give at the end of the day is reactor
core endurance, because we are burning uranium out of these cores at a
much faster rate. If we continue to operate at today's level, these
submarine reactor cores will not last the 30-plus years we had planned.
ttc--right core at the right time
To help meet these ever-increasing national security demands with a
too-small submarine fleet, Naval Reactors has begun conceptual studies
on the Transformational Technology Core. The TTC is a direct outgrowth
of the Program's advanced reactor technology work. It is a stepping
stone for future reactor development; this development should support
procurement of the first core in about fiscal year 2008 for insertion
into a 2010 Virginia Class.
The TTC will use new core materials to achieve a significant
increase in core energy density (that is, more energy in the reactor
without increasing reactor size, weight, or space) and at a reasonable
cost. The timing of TTC development also corresponds to the need to
transition from 97 to 93 percent enriched uranium fuel--necessitated by
the decision to use uranium from retired nuclear weapons as starter
material for naval nuclear reactors in order to allow shutting down
U.S. highly enriched uranium enrichment facilities.
The TTC can do one or a combination of the following:
--Extend ship life if we return to past usage rate.
--Increase operating hours per operational year.
--Increase average power during ship operations, which could enable
the offboard sensors and UUV/UAV concepts or the higher speed
of advance discussed earlier
TTC will also save taxpayers' dollars. Once we achieve the
submarine force level needed to meet national security requirements,
increasing ship life will reduce the number of ships we need to buy to
sustain the force level.
The TTC is intended for forward fitting in VIRGINIA-class
submarines, which will be the mainstay of the submarine fleet in future
decades. We believe the first TTC will be available for installation in
a 2010 VIRGINIA-class ship; at that time 14 of the expected 30 ships
will be at sea or under construction. Because the TTC will not require
a VIRGINIA-class ship redesign, the end result is significantly greater
operational ability and flexibility. The TTC is truly the right core at
the right time.
Although the TTC will help submarines better meet increasing
operational demands, the only long-term solution to meeting force level
requirements is to build more submarines. It is imperative that we
increase the VIRGINIA-class submarine build rate to meet the Nation's
long-term force level requirement for attack submarines. To that end,
the President's budget supports one VIRGINIA-class ship per year until
2006 and then 2 per year in 2007 and 2008.
The practice of buying submarines one at a time will not achieve
the submarine numbers we need for the future, nor is it a cost-
effective way to buy anything, including submarines. This year's
shipbuilding plan helps the Navy get to where it needs to be by
procuring two per year starting in fiscal year 2007. In addition, the
increased production coupled with a multi-year procurement strategy
that includes material buys in economic ordering quantities will
provide significant savings (see chart 2).
fiscal year 2004 department of energy budget request
Naval Reactors' fiscal year 2004 DOE budget request is $768.4
million, an increase of $49 million (after inflation) from fiscal year
2003 to fiscal year 2004. The funding increase supports
Transformational Technology Core (TTC) development, remediation work,
and facility upgrades.
--TTC ($33 million increase).--As discussed earlier, Naval Reactors
has begun conceptual studies on the TTC to meet ever-increasing
national security demands caused by a smaller Fleet size and
higher operating tempo. Based on design core life, continuing
the current ship operating tempo could reduce the expected
submarine core life to less than 30 years. The TTC could extend
ship life beyond 33 years by at least 30 percent if we return
to the baseline operating tempo, or increase annual operating
hours or average power output without increasing the current
size, weight, or space of the current reactor. The TTC will be
provided at a reasonable cost while enabling the Fleet to meet
the increasing demand on the operating nuclear-powered ships.
--Remediation ($10 million increase).--Naval Reactors will continue
remediation efforts at Program sites in New York, Pennsylvania,
and Idaho. It is important that we continue our ``clean as we
go'' policy, to minimize any potential impact on the
environment or site workers. Over the past few years, older
facilities have been inactivated at a faster pace than our
cleanup rate has been able to match, and additional facilities
will be inactivated over the next several years. Accelerating
cleanup is necessary to minimize the potential for future
chemical or radiological releases to the environment, to
minimize the costs of maintaining idle facilities, and to free
up central areas at the various sites for future Program use.
--Facilities ($6 million increase).--Naval Reactors has consistently
funded facility and infrastructure maintenance within Program
targets. However, additional funding is necessary to accomplish
major maintenance and replacement of some of the Program's
more-than 50-year-old infrastructure, located in New York,
Pennsylvania, and Idaho. Significant infrastructure work is
required to ensure protection, preservation, and continued
reliable operation of Program facilities. Naval Reactors has
worked within targets to maintain facilities, but the cost of
necessary work now exceeds current funding.
Naval Reactors supports the 82 nuclear-powered warships that make
up over 40 percent of the Navy's major combatants. This responsibility
includes ensuring safe and reliable operation of reactor plants in
these ships, enhancing the reactor plants' performance, and developing
improved reactor plants to support the Navy's needs for the future.
Sustaining today's 103 operating reactors (the country also has 103
commercial reactors) requires continual analysis, testing, and
monitoring of plant and core performance. Nuclear propulsion is a
demanding technology--the harsh environment within a reactor plant
subjects equipment and materials to the harmful effects of irradiation,
corrosion, high temperature, and high pressure over a lifetime measured
in decades. In addition, naval reactor plants must have the resilience
to respond to rapidly changing demands for power; be robust enough to
withstand the rigors of battle and shock and to accommodate ships'
pitching and rolling; and be safe and easily maintainable by the
Sailors who must live next to them.
Naval Reactors' DOE laboratories have made significant advancements
in components, materials, core lives, and predictive capabilities.
These advancements allowed the Navy to extend the service life and
intervals between major maintenance periods for nuclear-powered
warships and to reduce ship offline time for maintenance. Increasing
ship availability also increases the Navy's warfighting capability and
supports the Navy's unplanned surge requirements that we've seen
recently, while reducing maintenance costs. Added ship availability is
particularly important in the face of Fleet downsizing because the
operational demands on each remaining ship continue to increase. In the
same vein, some development effort is devoted to ensuring that Naval
Reactors can meet the Navy's need to extend warship lifetime. Longer
ship lifetimes are achievable because we are able to extend reactor
plant lifetime. But longer lifetimes require more resources to support
an older fleet.
We have been able to extend the lifetime of some existing reactor
plants because of the robust designs that resulted from solid
engineering done over the past 50 years. After significant additional
engineering, we determined that those reactor plants will be able to
stay in service longer than we had originally intended. The engineering
work to support those ships in their extended lives will continue
during that extension. For new reactor core and reactor plant designs,
we are using the experience of the past 50+ years to incorporate
improvements into both design and construction. It is imperative that
we continue to deliver robust designs. It is equally important that we
do the necessary engineering work now to ensure that those reactor
plants are able to meet the needs of national defense now, and for the
next several decades.
New plant development work at the Program's DOE laboratories is
focused on completing the design of the next-generation submarine
reactor for the Navy's new VIRGINIA-class attack submarines, continuing
the design for CVN-21, and working on the Transformational Technology
Core. In order to accommodate this work, we have had to throttle back
on some promising advanced concepts technologies that include high-
temperature fuel and direct energy conversion.
The design of the reactor plant for the VIRGINIA-class submarine is
nearly complete. Shipboard acceptance testing continues. VIRGINIA will
go to sea early next year and will provide needed capability for the
Navy at an affordable price.
The CVN-21 nuclear propulsion plant design is well underway. CVN-21
is the first new carrier designed since the 1960's NIMITZ class. The
CVN-21 reactor plant will build on three generations of nuclear
propulsion technology developed for submarines since NIMITZ. The new
high-energy reactor design for CVN-21 represents a quantum leap in
capability. Not only will CVN-21 enable the Navy to meet operational
requirements of the future, but just as importantly, it will provide
flexibility to deal with changing warfighting needs in the future.
Reactor plant design work is on schedule to support the long design and
manufacturing lead-times of reactor plant components needed for the
CVN-21 construction schedule.
Major inactivation work on seven shutdown prototype reactors is
finished. The four prototype reactors at the Naval Reactors Facility in
Idaho are defueled and in an environmentally benign, safe layup
condition; site and reactor plant related remediation work, including
State-mandated inactivation efforts, is planned for fiscal year 2003
and future years. Dismantlement and cleanup work at the Windsor site in
Connecticut is complete, and approval from the EPA and the State to
release the site for unrestricted future use and property transfer is
expected in fiscal year 2004. The two shutdown prototype reactors at
the Kesselring site in New York have been inactivated and defueled, and
major dismantlement work was completed in fiscal year 2002. Other
inactivation work is continuing.
The MARF and S8G prototypes in New York continue to operate to
train students and provide a test platform for new nuclear propulsion
plant equipment. There are no near-term plans to inactivate these
plants.
naval reactors fiscal year 2004 department of energy budget detail
Since the early 1990s Naval Reactors' DOE budgets have decreased
more than 30 percent. The Program's DOE budget has been flat (in real
terms) from 2000 to 2003. To live within our means over the past
several years, Naval Reactors has eliminated infrastructure,
consolidated functions and facilities, revised work practices to become
more efficient, and downsized the nuclear industrial base. Bettis
Atomic Power Laboratory and Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, the
Program's two laboratories, respectively have the first and the third
lowest overhead costs as a percentage of total budget out of 30 DOE
sites featured in the ``fiscal year 2001 Functional Support Cost Report
of 30 Major DOE Contract Sites.''
Naval Reactors' technical budget request is categorized into four
areas of technology: Reactor Technology and Analysis, Plant Technology,
Materials Development and Verification, and Evaluation and Servicing.
This approach supports the integrated and generic nature of our DOE
research and development work. The results of Naval Reactors DOE-funded
research, development, and design work in the following technology
areas will be incorporated into future ships, and retrofitted into
existing ships.
--The $236.5 million requested for Reactor Technology and Analysis
will continue design work on both the next-generation reactor
for the VIRGINIA-class submarine and the new reactor for CVN-
21, and will ensure the safe and reliable operation of existing
reactors. The reduction in operating plant maintenance periods
places greater requirements on thermal-hydraulics, structural
mechanics, fluid mechanics, and vibration analysis work to
predict reactor performance more accurately and to identify and
avoid problems. The continued push for longer life cores means
that our reactors will have to operate beyond our operational
experience base for many years to come. Fortunately, improved
analysis tools and understanding of basic nuclear data will
allow us to predict performance more accurately and thus better
ensure safety throughout the extended core life. Other efforts
in this area include revising core manufacturing processes to
reduce cost and hazardous waste, performing reactor safety
analyses, designing advanced control drive mechanisms,
developing components and systems to support the Navy's
acoustic requirements, and developing improved shield designs
to reduce both weight and costs. These efforts support the
introduction of the Transformational Technology Core, a new
high-energy core to support increased Fleet operational
requirements. TTC is a direct outgrowth of the Program's
advanced reactor technology work and will not only help meet
national security demands, but also serve as a stepping stone
for future reactor plant development.
--The $131.4 million requested for Plant Technology provides funding
to develop, test, and analyze components and systems that
transfer, convert, control, and measure reactor power in a
ship's power plant. Reactor plant performance, reliability, and
safety are maintained by a full understanding of component
performance and system condition throughout the life of a ship.
The request reflects the goal of enhancing steam generator
performance, which will benefit both CVN-21 and VIRGINIA-class
steam generators. Development work for improving VIRGINIA steam
generator performance is needed to meet energy and power
requirements for the TTC. Naval Reactors is developing
components to address known limitations or to improve
reliability of instrumentation and power distribution equipment
to replace aging, technologically obsolete equipment that is
increasingly difficult to support. Additional technology
development in the areas of chemistry, energy conversion,
instrumentation and control, plant arrangement, and plant
components will continue to improve reactor performance and
support Fleet operational requirements.
--The $137.7 million requested for Materials Development and
Verification funds material analyses and testing necessitated
by our having extended the life of our ships beyond the
original projection. It also funds a portion of Naval Reactors'
work at the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), a specialized
materials testing facility operated by the DOE Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology. Materials in the
reactor core and reactor plant must perform safely and reliably
for the extended life of the ship. Testing and analyses are
performed on the fuel, poison, and cladding materials to verify
acceptable performance, as well as to develop materials with
increased corrosion resistance. Testing and development of
reactor plant materials also ensures reliable performance and
leads to improvements such as reduced stress in materials and
reduced potential for cracking.
--The $161.3 million request for Evaluation and Servicing sustains
the operation, maintenance, and servicing of land-based test
reactor plants and part of Naval Reactors' share of the
Advanced Test Reactor. Reactor core and reactor plant
materials, components, and systems in these plants provide
important research and development data and experience under
actual operating conditions. These data aid in predicting and
therefore preventing problems that could develop in Fleet
reactors. With proper maintenance, upgrades, and servicing, the
two operating test reactor plants and the ATR will continue to
meet testing needs for quite some time.
Evaluation and Servicing funds also support the initiation of
a dry spent fuel storage process line that will allow us to put
naval spent fuel currently stored in water pits at the Idaho
Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center and the Expended Core
Facility at the Naval Reactors Facility (NRF) into dry storage
at NRF. This process has now begun and will require small
increases to the Naval Reactors budget request in future years.
Additionally, these funds support ongoing cleanup of facilities
at all Naval Reactors sites to minimize hazards to personnel
and reduce potential liabilities due to aging facilities,
changing conditions, or accidental releases.
program infrastructure and administrative requirements
In addition to the budget request for the important technical work
discussed above, infrastructure and administrative funding is also
required for continued operation of the Program. Specifically, the
fiscal year 2004 budget request includes:
--Facility Operations.--$57.7 million in funding is to maintain and
modernize the Program's facilities, including the Bettis and
Knolls laboratories and the Expended Core Facility (ECF),
through Capital Equipment purchases and General Plant Project
upgrades. Because the cost of necessary work currently exceeds
funding, Naval Reactors has requested an additional $6.0
million in the fiscal year 2004 budget to help accomplish major
maintenance and replacement of some of the Program's more-than
50-year-old infrastructure to ensure protection, preservation,
and continued reliable operation of Program facilities.
--Construction.--$18.6 million in funding is to refurbish and replace
Program facilities. This includes the continuation of the ECF
Dry Cell project in Idaho, a project that will significantly
improve Naval Reactors' ability to process naval spent fuel for
dry storage. (Under a Settlement Agreement signed by the
Department of Energy, the Navy, and the State of Idaho, Naval
Reactors spent fuel must be among the early shipments to the
first permanent repository or interim storage facility.) The
requested funding also enables the continuation of the
Cleanroom Technology Facility.
--Program Direction.--$25.2 million in funding is to cover Naval
Reactors' 186 DOE personnel at Headquarters and the Program's
field offices, including salaries, benefits, travel, and other
expenses. This staff maintains oversight of the Program's
extensive day-to-day technical and administrative operations,
while continuing to ensure compliance with growing
environmental, safety, and other regulatory requirements--all
of which, notwithstanding our excellent record, necessitate
substantial effort.
president's management agenda
The President's Management Agenda promotes efficiency and
improvement. All Federal agencies are adopting and implementing the
initiatives where feasible. Naval Reactors has a proven track record of
results, especially within the following two areas of the President's
Management Agenda:
Budget and Performance Integration
Naval Reactors planning leads to well-documented, quantifiable,
proven accomplishments. The Program consistently meets midterm and end-
of-year goals. Milestones and research outputs are clearly linked to
the long-term Program goals of supporting operating naval nuclear
propulsion plants, providing new propulsion plants to meet national
security requirements, and maintaining outstanding environmental
performance.
Naval Reactors' comprehensive multi-year planning process requires
all Program activities to identify performance indicators clearly. This
process ensures that the Program continually meets or exceeds its
performance goals.
Better R&D Investment Criteria
Naval Reactors work builds on existing generic technology and as
such is evolutionary in nature. For general development efforts, the
Program's multi-year planning process helps measure progress and
ensures that goals are achieved. During reviews, competing lines of
research are evaluated to ensure that the highest priority work is
accomplished within existing resources. Each individual development
effort has clear starting and ending points, with established
milestones and off ramps. All plant types benefit from development work
targeted at specific platforms--including work on new, advanced plant
types, which could benefit existing submarines and aircraft carriers.
performance measurements, goals, and accomplishments
Naval Reactors has a long history of operating with the highest
levels of integrity and operational accountability. Our husbanding of
taxpayer dollars provided by this subcommittee is well recognized. Last
year in forwarding the President's fiscal year 2003 budget request to
you, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rated Naval Reactors as
``Effective''--the highest rating on OMB's scale--and noted: ``Outputs
are identifiable and make key contributions to national security.
Delivery schedules are consistently met. Contracts have positive and
negative incentives, and include performance requirements.''
Furthermore, in a report dated December 12, 2001, the General
Accounting Office recognized Naval Reactors' strong performance within
DOE and NNSA. The report stated: ``The Office of Naval Reactors, which
is a part of NNSA, has long been recognized as having a focused
mission, strong leadership, clear lines of authority, long-serving
employees, and a strong set of internal controls, as well as a culture
that enhances accountability and good control over its costs and
contractor performance.'' The Naval Reactors Program has always been
dedicated to continual improvement. We use semiannual reviews of short-
and long-range plans to rebaseline work and revisit Program priorities.
Monthly financial reports from contractors are used to compare actual
performance against Projected performance. Additionally, Naval Reactors
Headquarters maintains close oversight of its Management and Operating
contractors through periodic reviews, formal audits, and performance
appraisals.
For the fiscal year 2002 end-of-year performance results, my
Program met or exceeded all major performance targets. We ensured the
safety, performance, reliability, and service life of operating
reactors for uninterrupted support of the Fleet. We exceeded 90 percent
utilization availability for test reactor plants. By the end of fiscal
year 2002, U.S. nuclear-powered warships had safely steamed over 124
million miles. Naval Reactors developed new technologies, methods, and
materials to support reactor plant design, which included surpassing
the fiscal year 2002 goal of 96 percent design completion of the next-
generation submarine reactor. We initiated detailed design on the
reactor plant for the next-generation aircraft carrier, which is on
schedule to meet the planned ship construction start. Additionally,
Naval Reactors maintained its outstanding environmental performance--no
personnel exceeded Federal limits (5 rem per year) for radiation
exposure, and program operations had no adverse impact on human health
or the quality of the environment.
Naval Reactors expects to meet or exceed all fiscal year 2003
performance targets, which are to achieve 90 percent utilization
availability for operation of test reactor plants; to exceed 126
million miles safely steamed; to complete 99 percent of the next-
generation submarine reactor; to complete 55 percent of the CVN-21
reactor design; to continue ensuring that no personnel exceed 5 rem per
year of radiation exposure; and to have no adverse impact on human
health or the quality of the environment.
conclusion
The ongoing support of the Senate Appropriations Committee
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development is one of the most
important factors in our success story. The subcommittee has recognized
the requirements and demands the Program confronts daily: a growing
need for power projection and forward presence far from home, which
strains our dwindling number of nuclear ships; an aging nuclear fleet;
and the funding required to meet these commitments today and in the
future.
The unique capabilities inherent in nuclear power have played a
vital role over the past 50 years in our Nation's defense. This legacy
is as strong and vibrant today as it ever has been. With your support,
this legacy will continue far into the future as the Nation meets each
new threat with strength and resolve. Naval Reactors' record is strong,
the work important, the funding needs modest.
I thank you for your support.
Senator Domenici. Perhaps we will just proceed rather
quickly with the next witnesses. I do not think it will take
too long.
Okay, Dr. Beckner.
STATEMENT OF EVERET H. BECKNER
Dr. Beckner. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, it
is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to review several
significant programmatic accomplishments.
As Ambassador Brooks has highlighted, the stockpile
stewardship program has allowed us again this year to certify
to the President that the nuclear weapons stockpile is safe,
secure, and reliable. And at this time, there is no need to
resume underground testing.
Using the cutting-edge scientific and engineering tools of
stewardship, we have a more complete understanding of the
condition of the stockpile with each passing year. We annually
withdraw approximately 100 weapons from the active stockpile
and perform a comprehensive diagnostic exam of the weapons at
the Pantex plant. This examination studies the hundreds of
parts that make up the weapon. While most of these weapons are
reassembled and returned to the services, several are subject
to destructive evaluation, providing us additional insights
into the health of the stockpile.
To ensure that the existing stockpile continues to meet its
military requirements, the NNSA also has a comprehensive
refurbishment program known as stockpile life extension where
we are presently working on four warhead types in the enduring
stockpile, the W-76, W-87, B-61, and the W-80. This program
designs, builds, tests, and installs new subsystems and
components, thereby extending the operational service life for
those warheads. For example, we have already refurbished the
parts from nearly three-quarters of all W-87 warheads for the
Air Force. NNSA is also restoring the full suite of
manufacturing capabilities needed to respond to any stockpile
contingency.
As you can see, while we are maintaining and refurbishing
the stockpile, with each passing year it is getting to be a bit
harder to do so. In fact, it now appears that by the year 2020
or so, we will have refurbished every weapon in the stockpile.
Returning to the present, as members of this committee are
aware, we are installing an interim pit production capability
at Los Alamos. Within the next few weeks we expect Los Alamos
to deliver a W-88 pit, as Ambassador Brooks stated. It will
meet all quality manufacturing requirements for use in the
stockpile. It will be the first certifiable pit made by the
United States since the shutdown of Rocky Flats in 1989.
To obtain a better permanent manufacturing capability NNSA
has begun work on design and siting for a modern pit facility
that will be capable of manufacturing all pit types for the
current stockpile and any new requirements that we can
reasonably foresee should they arise.
To complete the material supply story, NNSA has recently
restarted wet chemistry operations at the Y-12 plant in Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, to produce highly-enriched uranium metal. And
further, we will begin producing new tritium for the stockpile
by irradiation of tritium-producing rods at a TVA reactor this
fall. To complete the story on tritium, in concert with the
Defense Department, we have adjusted the tritium production
plans to reflect changes resulting from the MPR and the Moscow
Treaty.
Critical to many aspects of stewardship is the role of
secure transportation. Again, this year, this organization of
Federal agents has safely and securely moved nuclear weapons,
nuclear components, and special nuclear materials over a
hundred million miles without serious accidents or compromise
of cargo. Our agents, many of them veterans of the armed
services, are highly skilled and authorized to use deadly force
in the performance of their duties.
But stewardship is more than maintenance and refurbishment;
it is also about the future. With the support of the Congress,
we are investing in leading edge scientific and engineering
tools required to support the stockpile now and into the
future.
Three areas deserve special mention. First, the Advanced
Scientific Computing Initiative, ASCI. Over the last several
years we have deployed several world class super computers:
White at Lawrence Livermore, Q at Los Alamos, and Red Storm at
Sandia. These machines are working full-time to address SFIs
and to support the important life extension work I mentioned
earlier.
Late next year we will begin to take delivery of two even
more capable machines including the largest and most capable
machine in the world, a 100 TeraOPS machine at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory. This suite of capabilities is
allowing us to solve critical weapons assessment problems that
only a few years ago were impossible.
Two, the Dual Access Radiographic Hydro Test Facility at
Los Alamos, called DARHT, is providing CAT-scan-like images of
weapons implosion processes. This facility is proving to be
even better than we anticipated in providing critical
hydrodynamic data to validate the ASCI codes. Increasingly,
this facility will become our workhorse for the study of ultra-
high density hydrodynamics, providing data previously available
only from full-scale testing.
And three, I am also pleased to report that the National
Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
continues to make excellent progress in meeting and even
exceeding its technical milestones. On March 6, laboratory
scientists delivered four beautiful beams of ultraviolet laser
light into the target chamber well ahead of schedule. Stockpile
stewardship experiments in the NIF will begin in fiscal year
2004.
Now, let me say a few words about the changes we are
planning in the fiscal year 2004 budget submission in response
to the Nuclear Posture Review and the threats this country
faces today. To ensure that future American presidents have
deterrent options to deal with these threats, we are proposing
a modest increase in the advanced concepts program in 2004.
The most significant elements of that program will be the
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, RNEP, which was mentioned
previously. As you know, this program will be conducted jointly
with the Air Force to examine whether or not one of two
existing warheads in the stockpile, the B-61 or the B-83, can
be sufficiently hardened, packaged, and delivered to allow the
weapon to survive penetration into various geologies and
attack-hardened, buried targets with high reliability. The
remaining $6 million of advanced concepts funds will be divided
between the weapons labs for studies of other new concepts.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be pleased
to answer your questions.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Mr. Baker, it is good to have you back.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH E. BAKER
Mr. Baker. Thank you, it is always a pleasure to brief you,
sir, on our program----
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Mr. Baker [continuing]. And the opportunity to give you,
sir, our 2004 budget request.
NNSA's nonproliferation activities are central to the Bush
administration's national strategy to combat weapons of mass
destruction. NNSA continues to be committed to the
nonproliferation mission as reflected in the breadth of our
programs to address nonproliferation concerns in Russia, other
former Soviet states and, increasingly, throughout the world.
The nonproliferation challenge is multidimensional, and our
budget request addresses the challenges on many fronts and in
many places. While much of our work is with Russia, we are
taking global commitments to address global threats.
September 11, 2001, and the aftermath have made it clear
that the threat comes not only from so-called rogue states, but
some national terrorist organizations that may take any
imaginable step to pursue their ruthless ends. The threat can
come from any region and can take many forms. So we need to
address it broadly.
Our 2004 request, as Ambassador Brooks has stated, is 31
percent above last year's appropriation. Most of the money is
in three areas. First, the United States and Russia are nearing
agreement on purchasing Russian highly-enriched uranium for
research, U.S. research reactors, and down-blending uranium
from Russian weapons for its strategic uranium reserve. We have
requested $30 million for this initiative. This is in addition
to the approximately 170 metric tons of weapons usable material
already blended down and sent to USEC.
The largest fiscal year 2004 budget request is about $276
million that supports our plutonium disposition program. The
United States and Russia will each dispose of 34 metric tons of
weapons-grade plutonium by irradiating it in mixed oxide, MOX,
fuel in existing nuclear reactors. Russia has told us that they
will use the U.S. design for the MOX fuel fabrication facility,
thus ensuring the programs remain roughly on the same schedule.
Construction of both U.S. and Russian MOX fuel facilities is
scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2004.
We have also requested a small increase in another program
to fund the IAEA additional protocol, and to help the IAEA
verify the extent and dismantlement of foreign clandestine
nuclear programs.
With this background, sir, I would like to touch on a broad
range of programs that we will pursue to support the
President's nonproliferation agenda with your help. We are
working with the global partners to reduce the proliferation
threats. For example, the global partnership against the spread
of weapons of mass destruction, formed at Kananaskis summit in
June 2002, has recommitted the G-8 nations to increase greatly
the assistance to the nonproliferation, disarmament,
counterterrorism and nuclear safety area. The partnership has
pledged to provide $20 billion over the next 10 years for the
nonproliferation and threat reduction in Russia and elsewhere.
The United States will provide half of that money.
We are working with the international community to better
secure high-risk radioactive sources that can be used for dirty
bombs. Six weeks ago, Secretary Abraham presided over an
international conference on this issue which was attended by
750 participants and 124 countries, far beyond our
expectations. And I think there could be no better symbol on
how seriously this world takes the dirty bomb. There is much to
be done and the fiscal year 2004 request is $36 million for
this purpose.
We are continuing to provide physical security of nuclear
material through the IAEA, through bilateral arrangements, such
as materials protection control and an accounting program in
Russia. In fiscal year 2004 this will include security upgrades
to approximately 24 additional metric tons of Russian nuclear
material and 1,200 Russian navy nuclear warheads, in general.
We expect to be complete with security improvements to the
under-secured weapons usable material in 2008, about 2 years
ahead of schedule.
While we have included a request for $24 million to address
the under-secured nuclear warheads at the strategic rocket
forces, NNSA has sought not to increase an overall budget for
Russian MPCEA. The pace of the program is now primarily
governed by Russia's ability to absorb assistance and by access
arrangement, now that we have our funding.
We are consolidating nuclear materials into Russia by
reducing the number of locations where the material was stored
and thereby reducing its vulnerability to theft and sabotage.
By the end of 2003, we will have removed all weapons usable
materials from 23 buildings, reducing the total number of
buildings where there is such material from 75 to 52. Over time
this number will decrease more.
The NNSA will help to end the production of Russian nuclear
material that could be used for nuclear weapons. Just a few
weeks ago, Secretary Abraham and Minister Rumyantsev signed a
key agreement that paved the way for the NNSA to work with
Russia to shut down the three plutonium reactors that are still
producing weapons-usable plutonium. These reactors, located at
Seversk and Zheleznogorsk will be replaced with fossil fuel
energy plants to meet energy needs of the local Russian
communities.
Additionally, our export control and second line of defense
programs are minimizing the risk of illicit movement of
radiological materials and WMD-related dual use commodities
across international borders. Under a new initiative called
Megaports, we will improve our ability to detect and stop
illicit traffic--transfer of such materials in major transfer
hubs around the world.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, a program that you started many
years ago continues to be more and more effective every day.
And that is our program to prevent the adverse migration of WMD
scientific expertise from Russia. This program funnels former
weapons scientists, their expertise into some commercially
viable area and peaceful business ventures, and shrinks the
complex from moving fences, from closing buildings, and for
other alternate forms of employment.
We have been continually improving our ability to detect
proliferation of timely potential targets through our robust
R&D detection program. Research and development of
proliferation detection provides the United States timely
detection of potential threats. Our R&D efforts are key to
identifying threats at critical thoroughfares, detecting
clandestine perverse proliferation activities and verifying
treaty adherence.
In summary, we in the NNSA are addressing the threat of
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in all dimensions.
I am proud of the work we do and more proud of the men and
women that spend weeks and months away from their family and
the comforts of their home and work this tireless mission as
fast as they can.
Mr. Chairman and Senator Reid, also, I want to thank you
for the years of support for these programs. With your help and
your continued help, we are making this country a safer place.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. I am going to submit
a number of questions for you all to answer in perhaps 2 weeks,
an adequate time.
I just want to say how thrilled I am to listen to the
testimony, to hear about the progress being made in some areas
that just a few years ago I never thought we would ever be
involved in. And to hear the progress in MOX and that the
Russians are now going along with it, we are both going to be
doing the same thing with reference to that program, is just
incredible. I never thought we would be there. There is a
substantial amount in the budget to proceed with dispatch in
that regard.
And, Mr. Ambassador, I note that much discussion today
about NNSA and I just want to continue to urge that you move
ahead wherever you can to make the transition total. And you
are--you are moving as fast as you can toward making the NNSA
the semi-autonomous agency contemplated by the statute, and
Senator Reid complimented you today and complimented it today.
I am pleased to hear that. And you know of my insistence that
once we have that statute drawn, that you proceed to live with
it and move in that direction as rapidly as you can. I note the
testimony here today by NNSA on many fronts is very good, and I
am very proud of it.
A couple of observations. I wanted to say, Admiral, believe
it or not, in another committee here in the Senate, the
Authorizing Committee for Energy and Natural Resources, just
today we approved as part of a new energy--comprehensive energy
bill, the creation of a testbed for the United States to begin
the development of a brand new nuclear reactor for civilian
use, a model, with many new characteristics which will make
even the latest of our light water reactors appear to be an
ancient, ancient mariner. And that will have a 10-year program
development which, hopefully, agencies as far as yours will
participate in helping them move ahead rapidly. It is not
intended to be a production reactor. It is intended to be a
model of the kind that could be used by America or the world as
the next generation of energy producers that would have many
things that the current reactors do not have; passivity in
terms of the physics of the instrument; many things that worry
people, it is as safe as could be even today, even to make them
better. That is going to be approved from what I can tell by
the Congress as a new activity.
That is pretty visionary and it is long overdue, but in the
environment that you and I lived in the last 15 years, it is
something we probably would never have expected to happen.
Admiral Bowman. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. In terms of the war we are in right now
and the aftermath of it, I can just surmise, not knowing
anything specifically, but I would think our President would be
very excited about moving ahead rapidly in some of the areas
that you were describing to us here today. It is obvious to me
that he is going to be interested in taking an international
lead in getting weapons of mass destruction more under control
in the world. And I am sure that as he asks about that, he will
find that within the Department of Energy many of the things
that he is going to want to be doing, the groundwork is there
for him to take the leadership in the world. I am very, very
pleased about that.
Dr. Beckner, I appreciate your testimony about NIF. I only
hope you are right. It has been so wrong early on that I am
almost tempted to call a separate hearing on NIF just to make
sure that I get it straight and that they get it straight. But
I did note your testimony and I will reread it.
In summary, it is on schedule and as an expert and
supervisor you were saying it is probably going to do what it
was intended to do, is that correct?
Dr. Beckner. That is correct.
Senator Domenici. It is not just going to have these rays;
they are going to do what they are supposed to do?
Dr. Beckner. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. They are going to be hot enough when we
are finished to do it?
Dr. Beckner. There is every reason to believe so at this
time.
Senator Domenici. As an aside, I was just going to ask:
What do either of you think about the Z machine at Sandia? I
assume we have another reading out of it. I imagine it is
another rather incredible instrumentality out there.
Dr. Beckner. It continues to perform very well.
Senator Domenici. And what will it be used for?
Dr. Beckner. Well, among other things, we are looking at
whether we may be able to do some plutonium hydrodynamics
experiments with it now. It remains to be seen if that will be
possible, but that is one of the new possibilities. So we are
encouraged by that.
Senator Domenici. It certainly is an example of an
achievement of high significance, so I assume it will be used
for something great.
Dr. Beckner. Certainly.
Senator Domenici. Is that a fair assessment?
Dr. Beckner. Of course. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Just because NIF is coming along does not
mean we should throw it away. The reverse might have been true
had we known about it.
I cannot think of anything else, other than that I will
submit questions. Did you want to make any other observations,
Mr. Ambassador, having heard the testimony or heard my ad-
libbing up here, blithering so to speak?
Ambassador Brooks. No, sir. Except to say, again, how much
all of my colleagues and I appreciate both the committee's
support and your strong personal support for these programs
over the years.
Senator Domenici. I think we are making some headway with
the OMB. It is a good-looking budget for a change. We do need a
little bit more money in some areas.
We are--incidentally, Mr. Baker, on the issue of the
Megaports and the machines, we had asked for an extra $150
million for that program, knowing that we are ready to go and
that there is some in the budget but not enough. It is still
there waiting to be decided as one of the issues. If that
happens, then we will not have to squeeze the budget so much.
We will have received that money in a supplemental for some of
the activity you are referring to.
Mr. Baker. Thank you very much, sir.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Domenici. We are asking for more than is in the
budget in our supplemental request.
[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
safeguards and security funding
Question. The NNSA has a unique and challenging security
environment because of the special nature of our mission and the many
tons of material and weapons under our control. Security costs
throughout the Department have been increasing for years, and
particularly in the aftermath of September 11. And now that are country
is at war with Iraq, the security condition has been raised to the
higher ``orange level'' security condition. As a result of this,
Senator Reid and I, with great help from Senator Stevens, last week led
the fight here in the Senate to add significant sums to the fiscal year
2003 supplemental to cover projected heightened security costs that the
Department did not budget for. What threat level or security condition
did you assume in developing the fiscal year 2004 budget request?
Answer. The Department and the NNSA implement and maintain our
Security Condition based upon the Homeland Security Advisory System
developed by the Department of Homeland Security. For instance, our
Security Condition 3 (SECON 3), which corresponds with Homeland
Security ``Number 3 Elevated Condition (Yellow),'' was anticipated for
routine day-to-day security operations during fiscal year 2004 and was
used for budget development.
Question. Will it be sufficient if the Department remains at
Security Condition 3 for all of fiscal year 2004?
Answer. Yes, that was the minimum baseline because of the present
world-wide tension.
Question. Are there investments we could make today that would
dramatically reduce operational security costs over the next few years?
If so, please provide specifics for the record.
Answer. Yes, we believe that there are ways in which we can
increase the efficiency of security operations, and we are working on
them. For instance, we are working with other agencies striving to
identify advanced technologies to maintain or improve security at
reduced costs. Additionally, we will continue to review our physical
and cyber protection measures by assessing vulnerabilities and
protection strategies, and identifying common cost effective solutions
for all NNSA sites. We are also working with the Department of Energy,
Office of Security, to expedite security clearances for individuals
who, when cleared, will reduce our guard force overtime costs. In
addition, our sites continue to evaluate changes in their operations,
such as consolidation of nuclear material and changes to security
perimeters that can provide increased detection and assessment
capabilities.
overall budget for stockpile stewardship
Question. Could you use additional resources in these areas if they
were provided?
Answer. The Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) is planned and
budgeted for by the NNSA Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and
Evaluation/Execution (PPBE) system, which establishes a formal,
resource-constrained baseline for the SSP. Within the 5-year planning
horizon of the Future-Years Nuclear Security Plan, workload has been
prioritized to fit this resource-constrained baseline.
Question. What are some of the highest priority tasks that you will
not be able to achieve within the requested budget?
Answer. Because of the way in which the NNSA budget is formulated,
particularly the programming part of the PPBE system, SSP's highest-
priority needs are addressed in the fiscal year 2004 budget request.
tritium
Question. The NNSA is preparing to spend over $500 million on a
Tritium Extraction Facility over the next few years in South Carolina.
The project is not going particularly well and last year its cost was
re-estimated to increase 25 percent. What is the status of the Tritium
Extraction Facility project?
Answer. A new baseline for the cost and schedule of the Tritium
Extraction Facility construction project (98-D-125) was approved by the
Deputy Secretary on February 24, 2003, following independent management
reviews. The total project cost is $506 million and the facility will
be operational by July 2007. When measured against the new baseline, to
date, the project is on schedule and spending is within the planned
profile.
Question. Given a possible change in tritium requirements as a
result of the Moscow Treaty and other arms reductions, what is the date
that we must resume tritium production? (Note: We don't need tritium
until well beyond 2012 now.)
Answer. Taking into account the Moscow Treaty, the NNSA plans to
initiate tritium production in October 2003 by irradiating several
hundred tritium-producing rods in the Tennessee Valley Authority Watts
Bar reactor until March 2005. Those rods will then be stored until the
Tritium Extraction Facility is ready to begin extraction operations in
fiscal year 2007. The NNSA will continue to use the Watts Bar reactor
to irradiate rods and to operate the Tritium Extraction Facility. There
are no current plans to use either of the Sequoyah reactors in the
foreseeable future.
This low-tempo operating approach has advantages over a scenario
that would delay the start of tritium production. First, this approach
yields the earliest demonstration that tritium capabilities have been
restored, which, in turn, enhances the confidence of NNSA and the
Department of Defense, thus reducing the need for a 5-year tritium
reserve. Reducing or eliminating the reserve would be a significant
factor in reducing tritium production requirements. Second, the
continuing low-tempo plan is the best way to ensure that tritium-
production experience is gained by maintaining the current government
and commercial capability base, thus eliminating the need for costly
reestablishment efforts in the future. This approach has been briefed
to the Nuclear Weapons Council.
We need tritium well before 2012. The lead time to produce tritium
to meet currently projected requirements is 3 to 5 years. Under NNSA's
current plan, the rate of tritium production will increase by fiscal
year 2008 in order to ensure that minimum projected stockpile
requirements are satisfied.
pit production
Question. Ambassador Brooks or Dr. Beckner, we have had many tough
conversations about the pit program over the years, and I have had to
work hard to add tens of millions of dollars over the last several
years to get it on track. As you know, I have always felt that our
ability to demonstrate our ability to rebuild this very important
weapons component was a key test of the stockpile stewardship program.
I understand we have, or will soon achieve an important milestone of
progress. Can you give the subcommittee an update on where we are on
pit production?
Answer. The Department of Energy/NNSA recognizes that manufacture
and certification of a W88 pit is a pivotal element of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program. As such, the NNSA has worked with Los Alamos
National Laboratory (LANL) to projectize the pit manufacturing and
certification campaign to ensure a disciplined process. The result of
this effort is that Los Alamos has completed the manufacture of the
first certifiable W88 replacement warhead pit in April 2003. This is
the first step to establish a capability to manufacture 10 pits per
year at Los Alamos in fiscal year 2007. Initially, Los Alamos will only
manufacture W88 pits and processes to manufacture other pits will be
developed at both Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
in fiscal year 2009.
Question. When do you expect you will be able to certify the first
pit? (Note: Los Alamos produced its first ``certifiable pit'' this
week. The internal milestone was to have it done by April 30.)
Answer. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is currently
scheduled to certify that W88 pits manufactured at LANL will meet W88
warhead requirements in fiscal year 2007. This success-oriented fiscal
year 2007 schedule requires that non-nuclear experiments and analysis
remain on track. Because the W88 pit is scheduled to be certified
without a nuclear test, a new level of precision in pit manufacturing
and certification must be established. This precision is essential to
ensure high confidence in stockpiled W88 warheads that would use a Los
Alamos manufactured pit.
supercomputing
Question. Ambassador Brooks or Dr. Beckner, as you are well aware,
this subcommittee has raised a number of questions about the direction
of the ASCI supercomputing program within NNSA. A particular point of
concern is the way in which the platform acquisition strategy has been
in a state of constant change over the last several years. The original
ASCI acquisition schedule (circa 1995) proposed the acquisition of the
following platforms at a projected total program cost of $1.7 billion
from 1996 through 2001:
--1 T--1997;
--3 T--1998;
--10 T--2000;
--30 T--2001;
--100 T--2003.
Actual costs during that period were approximately $2.9 billion.
Furthermore, the platform acquisition schedule continues to change. As
of today, NNSA has acquired or is planning to acquire the following:
--3 T--Red (SNL);
--3 T--Blue Mountain (LANL);
--3 T--Blue Pacific (LLNL);
--12 T--White (LLNL);
--20 T--Q (LANL);
--40 T--Red Storm (Sandia);
--100 T--Blue Jean (LLNL).
Is the current ASCI approach the most cost-effective and efficient
manner of achieving the desired capability and capacity?
Answer. We believe that the current approach has provided the
Stockpile Stewardship program with effective and efficient computing
cycles. High-end computing solutions emerging over the past year,
principally the advent of low-cost, high-performance Linux clusters,
are providing us opportunities to obtain even more cost-effective
machines for smaller jobs.
All of the ASCI platforms have been acquired through competitive
procurements, and in every case the machines have been brought in for
the amount we have budgeted. We have met all of our planned schedules
for the deployment of these computer platforms, except for the Q
machine at Los Alamos, which was downsized due to Congressional budget
reductions. The increase in the ASCI budget in the 2001 timeframe was
not caused by a change in our platform acquisition strategy. Instead,
increased program costs were caused by the merger of original ASCI with
the old Stockpile Computing program and by the inclusion of several new
program elements, including code verification and validation, distance
computing, visualization, and University Alliances.
Question. What are the mission requirements driving the ASCI
program?
Answer. The ASCI program, together with a vigorous experimental
program, is an integral part of the Stockpile Stewardship program. ASCI
provides the simulation capability, both software and hardware, to
enable decision-making to support the existing and future nuclear
weapons stockpile. Activities supported include annual assessment for
all current stockpile systems, resolution of significant findings
(SFIs), peer review and independent assessments, design and analysis of
weapons-related experiments and requirements for facilities, resolution
of technical issues affecting the production complex, nuclear test
readiness, the ability to respond rapidly to new military or design
requirements, and the development and validation of advanced physics
models and codes for more fundamental understanding of weapons physics
to reduce uncertainty in system margins and respond effectively to
future issues or significant findings that may arise.
Question. How much capacity is needed and when is it needed over
the next 10 years?
Answer. Our current acquisition strategy reflects the capacity
needs given to us by our weapons designers. However, the early success
of our code projects has increased demand for computer cycles beyond
our initial projections. We are in the process of reevaluating our need
for these cycles and extending our strategy through the end of the
decade.
Question. What is the maximum capability required in the top ASCI
platform, and when, over the next 10 years?
Answer. Since the inception of the ASCI program, the 2004 objective
has been to produce a supercomputer operating environment capable of
performing high-fidelity, three-dimensional weapons calculations at a
resolution sufficient for confident prediction of weapon behavior. In
1995, this appeared to be an ambitious and risky undertaking. ASCI
progress to date shows that we will be able to perform such
calculations at the rate of about one per month on a 100 Tera OPS
machine. As the nuclear weapons stockpile continues to age, the
challenges will grow ever more complex demanding greater computing
capabilities and faster turnaround times. We estimate that a 1-2 Peta
OPS (quadrillion operations per second) system will be required. We
believe that machines of this size will be technically feasible and
affordable near the end of the decade based on the continuing pace of
technology advances.
Question. Was the NNSA wise to abandon custom-designed chips and
vector architecture for much cheaper, commodity chip-based, massively
parallel systems?
Answer. The designers and engineers at the weapons laboratories are
using the ASCI machines to solve weapons related problems that only a
few years ago would have been impossible to solve. We did not make a
decision to abandon custom-designed chips and vector architectures. The
only bids we received on our early procurements were for massively
parallel machines based on commodity microprocessors. During this
period, the single U.S. vendor of vector architectures was purchased by
another company, and their vector machines were not available. Only
within the past month or so has a U.S. vendor been capable of
delivering a vector machine. We hope to see this architecture bid
competitively in our future procurements, and we are eager to see
whether there are applications for which this technology provides a
cost-effective solution.
Question. What level of customization is needed for the various
government interests in supercomputing (e.g. weapons design, molecule
modeling and simulation, cryptanalysis, bioinformatics, climate
modeling)?
Answer. We believe that computer architecture diversity is healthy
for the United States scientific community and the Nation. Different
scientific applications are unlikely to perform with high efficiency on
a single architecture. Through our Advanced Architecture and
Pathforward programs, we are currently supporting development of custom
architectures that we believe will yield effective performance for
weapons simulations and a large number of related scientific
applications for the Department of Defense. We do not have enough
experience with other applications, including cryptanalysis,
bioinformatics, and climate modeling, to be able to predict what
architectures are best suited to those problems.
Question. How effective are the current or planned ASCI platforms
in addressing the requirements of the program?
Answer. Our platforms are performing well, albeit they are
oversubscribed. They are being used to address relevant stockpile
issues in closing Significant Finding Investigations, certifying
weapons components, and supporting Stockpile Life Extensions and peer
reviews.
Question. Are there alternative architectures, interconnect
technologies, systems software and tools, or other approaches that will
result in improved performance for future ASCI platforms?
Answer. The answer, as with all technology dependent programs, is
yes. We have a long history of exploring, identifying and funding
technologies that help improve the performance of future platforms.
When better technologies become available, we would like to retain
enough flexibility in our procurement strategy to be able to take
advantage of them.
Question. If so, can industry supply the required alternative
architecture and software, i.e. is industry properly incentivized? Or,
must government lead the development of alternatives?
Answer. The computing industry is driven by market forces of which
high end computing represents a very small share. Nevertheless, our
investments have an impact out of proportion to our market share. We
have been extremely successful with our Pathforward program, which has
benefited the broader high-end computing community and is acknowledged
as a successful approach to incentivizing industry. Although the
funding for this program element is not as robust as in past years,
ASCI continues to make investments in Pathforward with industry
partners.
Question. As it relates to the ASCI mission requirements, what is
the cost/benefit of investing more heavily in capacity now, and
deferring acquisition of capability machines, thereby taking advantage
of the falling price/teraflop?
Answer. Our procurement strategy has provided cost-effective
supercomputers to our weapons designers and code teams. We are
investing heavily in the development of 3-D, high-fidelity physics
applications, which are addressing urgent stockpile issues. Effective
use of these applications by weapons designers will be impossible
without our largest platforms, and delays will severely limit our
ability to address these issues promptly.
modern pit facility
Question. Ambassador Brooks or Dr. Beckner, the NNSA is planning on
building a modern pit production facility that would come on line in
2019. Dr. John Foster has suggested that the NNSA should have a
significantly more flexible and accelerated approach that would allow
you to have a modular facility on line as early as 2010. Will you
update us on this project?
Answer. The Department has not made a final decision to proceed
with a Modern Pit Facility to ensure long-term pit production to meet
the needs of the United States nuclear stockpile. However, a Critical
Decision-0 (CD-0) on mission need relative to a Modern Pit Facility
(MPF) was made in May 2002. This decision enabled the start of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, including preparation
of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and conceptual design of a
MPF in fiscal year 2003. A preferred site will be announced in that
document. The Department plans to issue a Record of Decision (ROD) in
2004. The ROD will be based on the MPF Environmental Impact Statement
and other factors such as cost and technical considerations.
Question. How much more would it cost if you used a flexible/
modular approach suggested by Dr. Foster?
Answer. We are currently utilizing a modular approach and are
developing a range of costs relative to that approach. If it is
determined that it is necessary to accelerate the project, the costs
will likely rise in the early years of the project.
Question. Are you still planning on making a siting decision as
early as December of this year?
Answer. We are committed to a Record of Decision milestone of April
2004. However, our goal is to arrive at the Record of Decision earlier.
facilities and infrastructure initiative
Question. Ambassador Brooks or Dr. Beckner, 2 years ago I was very
pleased to work with Chairman Reid in getting the Facilities and
Infrastructure rebuilding effort underway with $200 million. For fiscal
year 2004, you have requested a total of $265 million. The state of the
complex had too long been a neglected issue. But last year, this
committee's focus on infrastructure was reaffirmed in the Nuclear
Posture Review--which concluded that we must have a flexible and
responsive nuclear weapons enterprise in order to meet the challenges
of an uncertain and unpredictable threat environment. However, I am
still concerned about two points. Past evidence put before this
committee indicated we needed to be spending an additional $300 to $500
million per year for the next 15 or so years to refurbish the weapons
complex. Why have you requested significantly less?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget request of $265 million is
substantial and will support some 150 Recapitalization, Facility
Planning, and Facility Disposition projects that will provide capital
renewal and sustainability, with an emphasis on deferred maintenance
reduction. Facility Disposition projects will reduce the footprint of
the complex by approximately 325,000 gross square feet. From the turn
of the century, the fragile condition of the nuclear weapons complex
has been described in a series of internal and external assessments.
The Foster Panel, Chiles Report, the DOE Inspector General, the Defense
Department, and the NNSA comprise the reports in the series.
Independently, each concluded that the complex is old, with half of the
facilities 40 years or older; and, to restore the complex to an
acceptable condition, substantial additional annual funding was needed,
on the order of some $300 to $500 million for about a decade. In
addition, all agreed that although money is important and needed,
strong structured management, absent in the past, is as important.
Two components dominate the NNSA's corporate management approach--
securing the appropriate level of funding, and rigorous management.
Current funding levels meet NNSA's planned facility requirements and
are approved by the OMB, and most importantly, the Congress. In
addition, improved management of the infrastructure is developed and
implemented through integrated management tools that include the Ten-
Year Comprehensive Site Plans (TYCSP), Project Execution Plans, a well-
structured Planning, Programming, Budget, and Evaluation process, upon
which is determined the longer view of program needs described in
NNSA's Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP). The request for
resources shown in the FYNSP seeks annual incremental increases of
about $50 million building to $500 million in fiscal year 2008. The
NNSA believes that growth of the Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program is building in accordance with the changing
culture regarding improved facilities management and the ability to
successfully execute the funds provided. The program has 2 years of
full funding experience, is proceeding according to plan, and has a
number of impressive successes to its credit.
Question. Secondly, if we are ever going to effectively reduce the
maintenance backlog, we must stop contributing to the backlog. My
review of the budget requests for regular maintenance of facilities is
still below what is needed. So while we are trying to reduce the
maintenance backlog through the F&I program, we are adding to it by
under funding regular maintenance. Do you agree with my contention?
Please respond.
Answer. The Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
Operation of Facilities budget identified in the Future Year Nuclear
Security Plan (FYNSP) in conjunction with the Facility Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program (FIRP) budget is adequate to maintain the
complex in a safe, secure, and compliant status. The President's fiscal
year 2004 request for RTBF proposes an overall increase of 7.4 percent
and a 4.2 percent increase for Operations of Facilities. The RTBF
program is committed to ensuring its facilities have responsible
maintenance programs and adequate funding to support the mission. NNSA
has established a goal of stabilizing (i.e., zero growth) the program
facility deferred maintenance backlog by fiscal year 2005 and to reduce
it to industry standard levels (or better) by fiscal year 2009. RTBF
will fund the complex at an adequate level; this will enable (FIRP) to
execute its deferred maintenance reduction responsibilities and help
recapitalize the complex.
Historically, the maintenance backlog has not been measured
consistently through the application of consistent direction across the
complex. In fiscal year 2003, NNSA has taken action to assure
consistent application of standardized definitions to create a
``corporate'' business process and allow the establishment of a
baseline. Until this was done, it was not possible to understand the
magnitude of what is needed. In fiscal year 2004 and beyond, NNSA will
track funding of maintenance and measure the maintenance backlog to
assure that actual progress is being made. With these tools and
measures in place, NNSA can and will ensure that maintenance is not
under funded.
Question. Will you update the committee on the Facilities and
Infrastructure Initiative?
Answer. The effort to restore the nuclear weapons complex began as
the Facilities and Infrastructure (F&I) Initiative. Upon congressional
authorization, the F&I Initiative became the Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program. The physical infrastructure of
the nuclear weapons program is managed by NNSA within a corporate
facilities management framework, which is designed to stabilize the
deferred maintenance backlog, improve the complex through facility
upgrade and new construction, while at the same time reducing the
footprint of our facilities through elimination of excess facilities,
yielding an operationally more economical, revitalized enterprise. The
general NNSA approach is that daily operations and maintenance to
ensure the availability of facilities and infrastructure essential to
the Stockpile Stewardship mission are principally funded within the
Readiness in the Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) program. Capital
renewal and sustainability are the focus of the Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program. Capital acquisition (line
items) is managed across several program areas, in accordance with an
Integrated Construction Program Plan.
The mission of the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization
Program (FIRP) is to restore, rebuild, and revitalize the physical
infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex. The program applies new
direct appropriations to address an integrated, prioritized series of
repair and infrastructure projects that will significantly increase the
operational efficiency and effectiveness of the NNSA weapons complex
sites. The FIRP mission is an integral component of the NNSA Strategic
Goal to provide state-of-the-art facilities and infrastructure
supported by advanced scientific and technical tools to meet
operational and mission requirements. The Nuclear Posture Review
discussed the need to revitalize the nuclear weapons complex as the
third leg of the New Triad of our national nuclear strategy. The
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program was established
specifically to address these concerns and assure that the NNSA
continues to meet its major performance objectives of ensuring the
vitality and readiness of the national security enterprise.
Base maintenance and infrastructure efforts at NNSA sites are
primarily funded within Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
(RTBF)/Operations of Facilities and through site overhead allocations.
These efforts focus on ensuring that facilities necessary for immediate
programmatic workload activities are maintained sufficiently to support
that workload. FIRP addresses the additional sustained investments
above this base for deferred maintenance and the infrastructure that
are needed to extend facility lifetimes, reduce the risk of unplanned
system and equipment failures, increase operational efficiency and
effectiveness, and allow for recapitalization of aging facility
systems. FIRP also manages utility line items. This capital renewal and
sustainability focus is the core mission of the Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program.
A major metric for the recovery of the facilities and
infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex is the reduction of the
NNSA's deferred maintenance, currently in excess of a billion dollars.
The NNSA has committed to stabilize its deferred maintenance by the end
of fiscal year 2005. Additionally, by the end of fiscal year 2009 the
NNSA has committed to reduce deferred maintenance to within industry
standards and return facility conditions for mission essential
facilities and infrastructure to an assessment level of good to
excellent (deferred maintenance replacement plant value less than 5
percent). FIRP will provide the major funding, and management effort,
to achieve this reduction.
A separate but vital sub-program is Facility Disposition. This
congressionally directed effort requires that at least $50 million of
the FIRP funding be used each year to dispose of excess facilities that
will provide the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk.
In the near term, this has meant focusing on footprint reduction. The
facility disposition effort not only frees high value real estate to
enable the modernization of the complex, but also provides NNSA the
foundation to manage the entire range of its excess facilities
portfolio. The NNSA is committed to reduce the nuclear weapons complex
footprint by 3 million gross square feet of excess space by 2009. FIRP
will provide the major funding and management effort to achieve this
reduction.
Embedded within the FIRP program management is the NNSA commitment
to congress to demonstrate credible deliverables, efficient management,
and fiscal accountability. The program's funding significantly ramps-up
over the next several years until it reaches the level determined by
the NNSA, and external reviews, required to restore the nuclear weapons
complex and ultimately return the condition of the complex to industry
standards by fiscal year 2009.
The NNSA is committed to responsible and accountable facility
management processes, including budgetary ones, so that the condition
of NNSA facilities and infrastructure is maintained equal to or better
than industry standards. This integrated corporate long-term goal,
encompassing improved facilities management and significant additional
funding, will ensure the recovery and subsequent sustainment of the
nuclear weapons complex.
Question. What have you accomplished, and where do we need to go in
the future?
Answer. The backdrop for the restoration of the weapons complex is
set in the following remarks/commitments made by General Gordon to the
Congress:
--Infrastructure is aging, in some cases failing. (HASC Oversight
Panel--11 July 2000)
--Cannot let our infrastructure decay . . . it's potentially
dangerous, it sends wrong signal . . . (HASC Oversight Panel--
11 July 2000)
--Are we under invested in facilities? . . . today I am positive of
the answer: we are under invested by a lot. (Senate Water and
Energy Subcommittee, Senate Appropriations Committee--13 March
2001)
--The facilities that underpin the American nuclear deterrent require
immediate attention, on the order of $500 million a year for at
least the next 10 years. (Senate Water and Energy Subcommittee,
Senate Appropriations Committee--13 March 2001).
General Gordon's early compelling argument, and successive
semiannual status reports to the authorization and appropriations
committees, prompted Congress to authorize $8.7 million in fiscal year
2001, $197 million in fiscal year 2002, and $243 million in fiscal year
2003 for the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program to
begin the restoration of the nuclear enterprise. With 2 years of full
funding, the significant achievements of the Facility and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) are as follows:
--Established advocacy for facilities--the third leg of the New Triad
of our national nuclear strategy
--Defined corporate facilities management, as an embedded concept in
NNSA strategy, planning, facility restoration,
recapitalization, and revitalization of the nuclear enterprise
--Introduced commonality and standardization regarding facility
management and accountability
--Championed a corporate facility management data base (FIMS)
--Introduced a graded approach to life-cycle facility management
--Established an approach to facility budgeting
--Established a ``first time ever'' complex-wide prioritized project
listing
--Developed criteria for priority approach to sifting requirements on
a ``worst first'' basis
--Embedded comprehensive long-term planning (Ten-Year Comprehensive
Site Plan (TYCSP))
--Established formal Federal review process
--Limned facility stewardship:
--Established facility complex baseline conditions
--Built performance measures to track conditions
--Developed a prioritization and integration process for project
selection
--Established desired steady state goal for complex-wide facility
condition
--Established fiscal visibility and accountability:
--Established financial visibility--both direct and indirect
--Established financial benchmarks
--Developed and promulgated Federal facility budget guidance
--Instituted institutional general plant projects for laboratories
--Established the recapitalization program controlled by work
authorizations and baseline change control
--Instituted procedural improvements:
--Periodic and independent reviews of program
--Performance measures/performance evaluation management plan/
laboratory appraisal plan
--Developing return on investment strategies/best practices such as
the multi-site--Roofing Repair Pilot Program
--Established strategic professional linkages--National Research
Council's Federal Facilities Council, civilian industry's
APPA; and the Energy Facilities Contract Group (EFCOG) as
well as within the DOE
--Conceived the FIRP in three parts--recapitalization, facility
planning, and facility disposition
--Established FIRP performance indicators for reduction of the
backlog of deferred maintenance and reduction of the complex's
facility footprint
--Established annual targets for achieving performance goals
--Managing FIRP with fiscal responsibility within FYNSP constraints
--Defined achievable targets for program execution in fiscal year
2002 and fiscal year 2003--$440 million
--Managing projects in accordance with a graded approach to meeting
DOE Order 413.3
--Faithfully adhere to the ``what and how'' approach to headquarter
and field responsibilities
--FIRP is executed through Federal field validation for baseline
credibility, fiscal and legal accountability
--FIRP requires identification of site-specific Stockpile Stewardship
Program supporting projects
--FIRP is managing to the parameters of a construction year--
obviously different than the fiscal year cycle
--Receiving wide-spread recognition for performance of Federal and
M&O staffs--congressional report language
--Congress continues to fund at growth levels established in Calendar
Year 2000.
With regard to the future, the formula remains, leadership support
within the NNSA, measurable results; Departmental support, OMB support,
and most importantly, continued support of the Congress. Corporate
facilities management is embedded at each of the eight sites,
performance measures on a par with industry standards management of the
backlog of deferred maintenance projects is occurring, the footprint is
shrinking ahead of plan, and the NNSA is performing within its means.
NNSA is positioned to be able to adequately maintain the vital ``Third
Leg of the New Triad'' of the Nation's nuclear posture.
nonproliferation budget
Question. To Ambassador Brooks or Mr. Baker: I am pleased to see
the broad and specific goals of your nonproliferation program continue
to receive strong support from the Administration. Overall, I believe
you have a pretty good budget for fiscal year 2004. How would you
characterize your progress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation programs?
Answer. We are making good progress toward achieving our goals and
objectives. We have had many successes in our programs, have
accelerated our efforts in protecting nuclear materials, and are now
aggressively ramping up several new cooperative programs and
initiatives, as follows:
--On March 12, we signed agreements with the Russian Federation to
initiate our work on the Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium
Production in Russia. This will allow us to begin work with our
Russian partners to close down the last three operating
plutonium production reactors in Russia.
--In a major development in reciprocal U.S. and Russian plutonium
disposition efforts, the Russians have recently agreed to the
U.S. design for their mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication
facilities. Construction should begin next year.
--We have recently begun cooperative work with Russia's Strategic
Rocket Forces in order to improve the security of their nuclear
warheads and we are providing security upgrades at two sites to
which the Russian Ministry of Defense has permitted DOE access.
We anticipate work on additional proposed sites in the future.
--We are working toward the goal of completing the materials
protection, control and accounting (MPC&A) upgrades by 2008 at
which point we will enter a sustainability phase and transition
to Russian ownership of the programs.
--We have initiated a project to equip foreign seaports with
radiological and nuclear detection systems to pre-screen
containers destined for U.S. ports.
--In our efforts to engage Russian weapons scientists in commercial
activities, our Russian Transition Initiative program has
secured over $90 million in private venture capital, in
addition to industry matching funds that bring in $3 for every
$2 invested by the U.S. Government.
--We are supporting U.S. Government participation in the G-8 Global
Partnership that involves the United States committing $10
billion of nonproliferation funds to be matched by $10 billion
from the international community over the next 10 years.
These are just some of the programs and projects we are working on.
Question. How many sites did you protect last year compared to
previous years?
Answer. We expect to significantly increase the number of sites
protected under more extensive or comprehensive MPC&A upgrades than in
previous years. We will complete comprehensive upgrades at an
additional 8 sites in fiscal year 2003 verses 4 sites in fiscal year
2002, raising the total number of sites protected with comprehensive
upgrades to 48. In fiscal year 2004, we will complete comprehensive
upgrades at an additional 7 sites raising the total number of fully
protected sites to 55.
Question. What, if anything, is needed to ensure the success of
this program?
Answer. We believe that the strategies we are pursuing within our
panoply of programs fully supported by the President and reflecting the
outcome of the recent review of nonproliferation programs by the
National Security Council are significantly reducing the WMD
proliferation threat to the United States. However, I would like to
stress the importance of the full and continued congressional funding
for the Department's programs. I am grateful for the cooperation from
Congress and look forward to continuing that cooperation as we advance
our shared national security objectives. It is also essential that we
enjoy full and complete cooperation from our international partners,
such as Russia, in breaking down bureaucratic barriers to program
implementation and take further steps to accelerate our efforts there.
I also believe that success in working with our G-8 partners to advance
our Global Partnership objectives will be essential to future success.
NNSA's nonproliferation mission and responsibilities set forth in
the National Nuclear Security Administration Act are broad enough to
encompass our conduct of nuclear nonproliferation activities outside of
Russia. However, we are seeking to clarify in the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 that NNSA has the requisite
authority to conduct its International Nuclear Materials Protection and
Control Program not only in the former Soviet Union but in other
countries where the risks of proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, materials, and technology also threaten the security of
the United States.
materials protection in russia
Question. Ambassador Brooks or Mr. Baker, I had an opportunity to
visit yesterday with Minister Alexander Rumyantsev, the Russian
Minister of Atomic Energy. We talked about many of our nuclear
nonproliferation programs of common interest. I reassured him of my
strong support for the programs, but I also raised with him my concerns
that we were still not making progress as fast as we should and are not
getting the access necessary to ensure our tax dollars are being
properly spent. But he raised another issue of concern--that the legal
agreements that form the basis of our cooperative efforts would expire
this summer, and that our governments were having trouble renegotiating
the agreements. That is potentially an issue of great concern. Will you
comment first on the access issue--are we getting what we need to
provide security upgrades in Russian production facilities storing the
greatest amounts of nuclear material?
Answer. Our efforts to secure materials in Russia are proceeding
well. We have made significant progress with the Russian Ministry of
Atomic Energy (MinAtom), especially at ``civilian'' facilities with
less stringent access restrictions imposed by MinAtom. In fact, we are
finishing work at the first large MinAtom fuel processing facility, the
Luch facility, this spring. Luch was the site of the attempted theft of
HEU by a facility insider several years ago. We expect to complete at
least 2 additional large MinAtom facilities next year (Novisibirsk &
IPPE in Obninsk). Consequently, this part of our program is in the
process of downsizing as work is completed.
Work at sensitive MinAtom facilities continues, but the pace is set
mostly by the time it takes to overcome access restrictions more than
anything else. We are making progress at these sites--contracts for
upgrades have and will continue to be signed at places like Tomsk,
Krasnoyarsk-26, Mayak, and C-70 as the year progresses. We are
achieving concrete results with the MOD as well. Last year we completed
negotiations for upgrades at the majority of the remaining sites in the
RF Navy believed to require comprehensive upgrades. This is another
area of our program that will be scaling down in the next couple of
years--assuming the RF Navy does not introduce additional sites where
upgrades are justified. However, our work with the Strategic Rocket
Forces (SRF) is just underway, and we should be seeing increased
activity in this area over the next few years.
We will continue to focus our efforts on providing upgrades to
sites containing materials of concern that we have access to in order
to reduce the threat as quickly as possible, while we negotiate access
to the remaining weapons sites.
In our Nuclear Cities Initiative program, we have had no problems
with access since signing an access arrangements document last year.
The Russian side does still have some difficulty figuring out how it
will provide access to foreign companies that want to own land and
property in Russia. That has made it a little more difficult than we
would like getting Western businesses to invest unreservedly in Russia,
but the regional and municipal authorities, and MinAtom itself, are
working to develop various proposals that will satisfy both the Western
private sector and Russian security requirements.
Question. Also, what are you doing to ensure this important work is
not stopped because of a failure to get proper legal agreements?
Answer. The bilateral agreements that govern our MPC&A activities
do not expire until 2006. These include the U.S/Russian Cooperative
Threat Reduction umbrella agreement and the 1999 Agreement. We will
start the renegotiation process well in advance of this deadline. In
the case of the NCI Government-to-Government Agreement, which is set to
expire at the end of this September, we have received a letter from
Minister Rumyantsev requesting extension of the Agreement for another
5-year term, without making any changes to the current text. However,
the Administration is reviewing the liability protection in this
agreement, which may impact our ability to extend it. We are working
with the Russians and our interagency colleagues to identify ways to
solve this problem.
mpc&a outside of the former soviet union
Question. Ambassador Brooks or Mr. Baker, historically the focus of
our nonproliferation programs has been almost exclusively on the former
Soviet Union. And Russia certainly remains the largest source of
nuclear materials which could become potential threats to our security.
But the events of the last 2 years have certainly shown us threats
exist all over the globe. What nonproliferation problems and
opportunities do you see outside the former Soviet Union?
Answer. While true that our programs focus on Russia, it's also
true that for many years we have engaged in a variety of
nonproliferation efforts around the world. Those nonproliferation
efforts continue today and have in fact expanded since September 11th.
As you correctly point out, there are several countries outside the
former Soviet Union, for instance in South Asia, that raise important
nonproliferation issues. In that context, there may be opportunities
for mutually beneficial exchanges that could lead to enhancements in
the security of nuclear weapons, weapons-usable nuclear material,
radiological material, and the prevention of illicit nuclear/
radiological material from crossing borders. In some key cases, we have
not fully engaged these countries because they remain outside the Non-
Proliferation Treaty and we are therefore constrained somewhat by law
and policy with respect to how we can assist them.
Question. What do you need in terms of money or agreements in order
to begin addressing those threats?
Answer. The recent fiscal year 2003 Supplemental Appropriations
included $15 million for nonproliferation work outside of the former
Soviet Union. That should be sufficient to continue our longstanding
engagement with these countries. However, if initial efforts in areas
such as South Asia lead to large programs of direct assistance in these
areas, additional resources would be required. We will be in a better
position to identify the required funding level once the scope of such
work has been more clearly defined and the U.S. Government has
completed its evaluation of what types of security assistance are
desirable and permissible.
NNSA's nonproliferation mission and responsibilities set forth in
the National Nuclear Security Administration Act are broad enough to
encompass our conduct of nuclear nonproliferation activities outside of
the FSU. However, we are seeking to clarify by means of the fiscal year
2004 National Defense Authorization Act that NNSA has the requisite
authority to conduct its International Nuclear Materials Protection and
Control Program not only in the states that resulted from the former
Soviet Union but in other countries where the risks of proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, materials, and technology threaten the
security of the United States.
Beyond that, the legal requirements, like the funding requirements,
will very much depend on the attributes of the country in question and
the scope of work proposed. We will certainly keep you informed as
these activities proceed.
Question. I remember that in Russia, early progress was
accomplished on a scientist-to-scientist basis through the so-called
``lab-to-lab'' approach. Is the original ``lab-to-lab'' approach being
revisited to encourage progress in some of the countries that may
present threats?
Answer. Yes, in many countries we have found direct exchanges
between technical experts to be a valuable tool of engagement.
Specifically with respect to countries outside the former Soviet Union,
we will use this approach in combination with other vehicles to engage
on sensitive nonproliferation issues.
russian plutonium disposition program
Question. Ambassador Brooks or Mr. Baker, I am pleased to see us on
the cusp of constructing facilities in the United States and Russia to
finally carry out the disposition of up to 34 metric tons of plutonium
in each of our two countries. However, I remain concerned about the
schedule and our ability to begin construction in Russia in fiscal year
2004. I don't say that because you are not doing everything you can, I
just say it because the job is very hard. Among the obstacles still out
there are securing all of the $1 billion in international financing for
construction, getting the right legal agreements in place, and finding
another $1 billion to finance the operations of the MOX plant. How are
we coming on those issues?
Answer. For the construction phase of the Russian plutonium
disposition program, pledges thus far total $800 million, leaving a
$200-million shortfall. We believe that the remainder of funding
necessary for construction will be obtained shortly. As for the
operations phase of the program, there are a number of non-government
funding sources that could be used for this purpose, including receipts
from the exports of Russian MOX fuel and displaced uranium fuel, cross-
subsidies from other Russian programs and Russian domestic MOX fuel
sales. In many cases, these are heavily dependent upon future
developments in the Russian and international nuclear industries and
markets, which are not predictable at the present time. Nonetheless, we
believe that a combination of these revenue sources could be used to
fund some or all of the operations phase of the disposition program.
In addition to obtaining funding, we have recently made significant
progress in developing a multilateral structure that allows for
bilateral U.S.-Russian program management. We are also working to adapt
the detailed design of the U.S. facility for use in Russia and to reach
agreement on licensing arrangements that will permit Russia to use
Cogema MOX technology for its MOX facility. Once the key details of
these efforts are decided, we can begin to set up the necessary legal
implementing documents.
Question. What confidence do you have that we can stay on schedule?
Answer. We expect to begin construction of both the U.S. and
Russian MOX facilities in fiscal year 2004. Russia's recent
announcement to use the design of the U.S. MOX facility to dispose of
34 metric tons of its surplus weapons plutonium will greatly accelerate
the Russian program. However, the requirement to maintain parallel
progress between the two programs may cause the U.S. program to be
delayed slightly in order to allow the Russian program to catch up.
russian transition initiatives
Question. Ambassador Brooks or Mr. Baker, on several occasions the
Administration indicated its strong support for programs designed to
employ scientists in the Former Soviet Union. The Initiatives for
Proliferation Prevention (IPP) has enjoyed success, but the Nuclear
Cities Initiative has had more difficulty in producing results,
although it has had some. In the environment of a huge budget increase
for nonproliferation, the budget request for these Russian Transition
Initiatives remains flat at about $40 million. Should I conclude from
that request that you do not see as much opportunity in those programs
as some of the others focused on materials?
Answer. No, we still see a great deal of opportunity and need in
the work of these programs focused on the human component of our
proliferation concerns, and believe that these scientist engagement
programs have a great deal of importance for our national security. At
the end of World War II, the U.S. Government was concerned about German
missile and nuclear expertise falling into the wrong hands, and we made
sure those German scientists did not trade their information on the
open market. Similarly, today we must make sure that the enormous
scientific and technical expertise left over from the Cold War in the
former Soviet Union does not find its way to rogue states or terrorist
groups. I believe that our requested budget levels are sufficient to
respond to the risk of adverse migration of this scientific and
technical expertise to terrorists or rogue states--especially
considering that these programs are highly leveraged by private sector
investment and matching contributions that meet or exceed U.S.
Government funding. But having performed a relative risk assessment of
adverse migration versus the magnitude of the threat posed by unsecured
materials, I believe the Administration has made some reasonable
decisions about the relative distribution of funding requests.
Question. Is the Administration not as concerned about ``brain
drain'' issues as it was several years ago?
Answer. Since September 11th, the Administration is even more
concerned about nuclear know-how falling into the wrong hands. In
recognition of that threat, the President requested and received a
supplemental of $15 million in fiscal year 2002 from Congress for these
programs. So ``brain drain'' from the former Soviet Union remains a
strong concern. However, since the early and mid-1990's when some of
these programs were begun, conditions have improved somewhat. The
Russian economy has stabilized and we are not seeing the run-away
inflation that stripped away life savings. The Russian Government is
paying nuclear scientists more regularly. Also, the Russian economy is
beginning to generate some private sector opportunities for these
scientists. Our programs have adapted to these changes by focusing less
on supplementing scientists' meager paychecks and more on seeking
sustainable economic transformation and downsizing of the Russian
weapons complex, taking advantage of market opportunities through
technology commercialization.
role of nnsa labs in department of homeland security
Question. Ambassador Brooks, approximately $140 million in R&D
activities at the labs has been transferred over to the Department of
Homeland Security to manage. As you know, I wrote several provisions
into the Act creating the Department of Homeland Security that will
ensure our national labs continue to bring their expertise to bear on
many problems facing us in the war on terrorism. Will you please
comment on how the transition of those programs is going?
Answer. The transition is progressing well. Of the approximately
$150 million in functional transfers to the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), approximately $85 million of these programmatic
activities were from the NNSA, $79 million from our Nonproliferation
and Verification R&D program and $6 million from the nuclear
assessments program. NNSA also transferred Program Direction funding
associated with these activities in the amount of $3.7 million.
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program management is working
closely with their DHS counterparts to assure a smooth transition of
the R&D activities towards countering nuclear smuggling and preventing
or countering the effects of biological or chemical terrorism. To
facilitate this transition, DHS has asked NNSA to participate in
execution of these programs through fiscal year 2003. In addition,
particular activities in which we continue to have a strong role are
the test bed for nuclear detection technology in cooperation with the
New York/New Jersey Port Authority and the establishment of the
BioWatch initiative in 30 cities across the country. We are working
closely with DHS personnel as they assume management of these programs,
so that the high quality work of the national laboratories continues to
serve the national need, without any loss of capability or momentum.
Question. Do you foresee any problems?
Answer. No, but I do feel that it will be important for NNSA and
DHS to work together to complement each others' missions. That is, NNSA
will continue to work on development of technology for national
security missions, some of which will have application to homeland
security problems. NNSA's Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program
will continue to focus on strategic R&D in support of WMD
nonproliferation missions, while DHS focuses on the more immediate-
operational needs of homeland security agencies, including the U.S.
Customs Service, the Coast Guard, and the Transportation Security
Administration. NNSA can complement the near-term development and
application of, for example, radiation detection technology by DHS,
with the strategic, ``leap-ahead'' research necessary to sustain
national security capabilities, drawing on the strengths of the
national laboratories and the NNSA responsibility for nuclear weapons
and materials.
Question. Do you believe counter-terrorism R&D will continue to be
a growing part of the labs missions?
Answer. Yes, the labs' research in nuclear, chemical, and
biological science and technology will continue to be important to
national security programs and provides the core competency to address
counter-terrorism concerns. NNSA will continue to maintain a strong R&D
program in nuclear technologies, which is of paramount importance to
both the weapons and nonproliferation missions, and the NNSA
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program will continue research on
methods to detect activities associated with proliferation of all types
of weapons of mass destruction. However, with the transfer to the DHS
of the R&D for the chem-bio domestic preparedness mission that
department must undertake the support of the science and technology
base in those disciplines. NNSA will no longer be funded to sustain the
required capabilities in those areas.
nasa's nuclear systems initiative
Question. Admiral Bowman, NASA is proceeding with its ``nuclear
systems initiative,'' and I know they remain interested in you managing
all or parts of that program. This initiative will develop new
radioisotope power systems for on-board electric power on future space
platforms, and it will also conduct research and development on nuclear
electric propulsion systems that would allow future space craft to
speed throughout the outer reaches of the solar system. Of course, much
of the historic capability in nuclear space systems resides at other
DOE labs outside of your program. What is your view of this effort and
the role for Naval Reactors?
Answer. First, I should make clear that we are not lobbying for
this work; our hands are already full with current and planned Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program work. We have no particular expertise in
radioisotope power systems and have no interest in managing this aspect
of the nuclear space initiative. However, NASA has indicated that they
are interested in NR taking the lead for reactor development in the
Nuclear Systems Initiative (NSI), including the Jupiter Icy Moons
Orbiter (JIMO). My view of the overall effort is based on what I have
learned from NASA, which has convinced me that fission reactor
technology is a key that will unlock new capabilities in space science.
If this effort is assigned to us by the Administration and funded by
Congress, our role should be to manage this work consistent with our
practices for naval reactor plants. If we are not in charge, I believe
that our role should be limited to occasional peer review.
Question. Do you agree that the other NNSA labs with expertise in
nuclear systems for space should play a strong role in this effort?
Answer. Yes, the NR program does not possess all the technical
expertise and facilities needed to execute this task entirely within
Naval Nuclear Propulsion program national laboratories. Consistent with
our practice for other advanced development efforts, NR would seek to
leverage existing expertise and facilities at NNSA labs, other DOE
labs, and in Industry to accomplish this task most effectively and at
the lowest cost to the taxpayer. However, this work would be managed
and budgeted for through Naval Reactors Headquarters. We believe that
strong centralized control is necessary for success in this area.
Therefore, we would coordinate this effort through one or both of our
existing single-customer laboratories, which would have the overall
responsibility for integrating the reactor system and identifying the
appropriate subcontractors (including DOE laboratories).
Question. What terms and conditions would you want in order to
manage the whole program?
Answer. To be clear, NR has no interest in managing the entire NSI
or JIMO efforts, both of which contain significant non-reactor work, in
which Naval Reactors possesses no relevant expertise. If Congress and
the Administration decided to assign this work to Naval Reactors, we
would continue to do business the ``NR way.'' This means that NR should
have complete financial, technical, and contractual control over the
parts of the NSI for which we are responsible. To make that control
effective, we would request a separate line in the DOE budget for space
reactor work. This would also help ensure that our space and Navy
responsibilities do not interfere with each other. We would use our
successful practices in naval reactor design by assigning one of our
single-customer laboratories the lead for integrating the reactor
system. Finally, this work would be conducted so that no sensitive or
classified naval nuclear propulsion information was disclosed. These
terms are important for us to preserve our total ownership approach to
doing business. I would request a letter from high levels in the
Administration to assign this mandate to Naval Reactors, codifying
these terms and conditions.
naval reactor labs
Question. You have two outstanding engineering labs, the Bettis
Atomic Power Lab and the Knolls Atomic Power Lab. Both of those labs
went through contract competitions within the last 5 years. Did
competing the contracts at your labs produce significant or notable
improvements in performance?
Answer. Competing Naval Reactors' labs resulted in lower combined
cost to the government to run those facilities. In the Request for
Proposal we asked that the successful bidder make any transition
transparent to the laboratory workforce. Cost savings were principally
through the ability to reduce contribution to corporate overhead. This
workforce continues to deliver the same consistently high-quality
engineering support for our nuclear fleet that it has for over 50
years.
Question. Can you elaborate on the Naval Reactors tradition as to
how you manage your labs? I ask that with full knowledge that the
weapons labs are much different animals from yours, but I ask just as a
point of contrast.
Answer. Naval Reactors' two national labs, Bettis Atomic Power
Laboratory (Bettis), and Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL), have
made vital contributions to the Naval Reactors Program for more than 50
years. It is difficult to isolate the factors that have led to this
success, but several do stand out. First, our labs have a very focused
mission: they only do work for this program and their general managers
report directly to me. Second, my field offices use an effective audit
and appraisal program that allows me to keep a close watch on the
performance of our labs. Third, Naval Reactors benefits from a focused
multi-year planning process, reviewed semiannually, as well as an
annual technical work review. Experts in naval nuclear propulsion
perform these reviews. Finally, Naval Reactors maintains a simple,
technically talented, enduring, lean headquarters structure that allows
us to oversee our responsibilities effectively. My headquarters staff
retains clear, total responsibility for all aspects of naval nuclear
propulsion, including management of the laboratories. Laboratory
general managers report directly to me. By statute (Executive Order
12344 codified in Public Laws 106-65 and 98-525) the Director of Naval
Reactors is a four-star admiral with an 8-year tenure, as well as a
deputy administrator in the NNSA/DOE. This is important for two
reasons: it gives the director the stature to handle the issues that
arise while overseeing such unforgiving technology and it gives him
enough time to learn all the aspects of the job while providing
leadership consistency.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
nuclear security
Question. Ambassador Brooks, since September 11th NNSA has sent up
numerous reprogramming requests to cover the costs of enhanced
security, particularly for periods when the Nation has gone to Code
Orange. Generally, we have been happy to approve these reprogrammings.
However, I am concerned that we have seen lot of supplemental
appropriations requests come to the Hill during the last few years and
they rarely, if ever, have any funding for the NNSA. Given that you are
the guardians of both our Nation's nuclear stockpile and also a
tremendous amount of fissile nuclear material around the country, this
concerns me. Is your organization not requesting additional funding for
nuclear security? Is OMB simply denying your requests?
Answer. While we continually work hard to establish a base
Safeguards and Security program request that will be sufficient to
effectively meet our annual security program requirements, we, like the
rest of the Nation, are doing this against a backdrop of rapidly
evolving threats of terrorism. Against this backdrop, we also continue
to actively assess our programs to assure performance and readiness.
Accordingly, budget changes within a year may be necessary. The fiscal
year 2004 budget request for Safeguards and Security is sufficient to
meet our currently known needs for ongoing Safeguards and Security
activities. This request was developed with information from an
assessment of the complex's needs following the September 11, 2001,
attacks, and was formulated using the NNSA Planning, Programming,
Budgeting and Evaluation process to assure that funding requests are
closely linked to established program plans and balanced across NNSA.
The requests for supplemental funding you mention have been related
to emergent requirements that could not be accommodated within the base
budget request--the ``unknown-unknowns.'' A good example is the amount
of time we will spend this year at the elevated ``SECON 2'' security
level at our sites. Rather than budget for this type of contingency, it
is our policy to work within the base budget and accommodate what we
can before requesting additional funding authority. The Administration
endorses this approach and, in fact, supported two such requests for
our S&S programs last year.
Right now, we are looking at the increased costs we're incurring
for site protection at the SECON 2 level. We are also expecting the DOE
to issue in the near future, a revised, Design Basis Threat. Each of
our sites will analyze their security postures and the range of
activities that may need to be taken to best address the new threat
guidance. The sites will also work throughout the coming year to
identify areas of efficiencies and operational improvements that could
reduce S&S costs while maintaining the level of protection we require.
Throughout our efforts, we will try to accommodate S&S program
needs within available funding. If increased funding is required, we
will promptly work with the Congress.
Question. What can we do to get the Administration to take the
threat of loose nuclear material as seriously as they seem to take the
threat of chemical or biological attack?
Answer. The Bush Administration takes all threats posed by WMD
seriously and has undertaken several major initiatives to address
security risks arising from nuclear and radiological materials.
Presidents Bush and Putin agreed last year to cooperate on ways to
accelerate the elimination of excess nuclear materials. To supplement
our ongoing programs to convert highly enriched uranium to nuclear
reactor fuel and dispose of excess weapons plutonium, we are currently
negotiating with Russia on several new initiatives that will increase
the rate at which nuclear materials are converted to non-weapons usable
forms. This year's G-8 summit meeting included a reaffirmation of
commitments by the United States and its allies to supply up to $20
billion of assistance to enable Russia to reduce proliferation risks,
with the elimination of excess fissile materials identified as a
priority area. Through the Materials Protection, Control, and
Accounting program run by DOE's National Nuclear Security
Administration, we have upgraded security at facilities and storage
sites in Russia and other countries that contain hundreds of tons of
weapons-usable nuclear material.
Secretary Abraham hosted an international conference in March to
identify steps that need to be taken globally to reduce the danger that
terrorists could use radiological dispersion devices. DOE is actively
engaged in assisting a number of countries to recover and safely
dispose of abandoned radiological sources that pose a security threat.
Domestically, the NRC is working to put in place improved security for
radiological sources used for commercial, medical, or scientific
purposes in the United States. DOE continues to operate the Off-Site
Source Recovery Program, which has already retrieved and securely
stored thousands of radioactive sources no longer needed for their
original purposes.
nevada test site
Question. The Nevada Test Site provided crucial capabilities to the
Nation during the Cold War, and the Administration claims that this
national asset must remain ready to undertake similar responsibilities
if called upon. Yet, the levels of activity at the Test Site and the
levels of employment have steadily diminished since the termination of
nuclear testing. The only way I see to maintain the former capability
is to establish new activities at the Test Site that require similar
skills and facilities. Without that approach, the entire capability
will evaporate. Older workers will depart through death and retirement,
and without a stable and demanding mission new workers will not
develop. Please tell me how your Administration plans to reverse the
decline in morale and mission content at the Nevada Test Site.
Answer. Since the moratorium on nuclear testing in 1992, the NTS
has maintained the readiness to conduct testing if deemed necessary by
the President. The skill mix needed for the readiness posture is
complimentary to that needed to support Stockpile Stewardship program
activities. By ensuring a continued robust subcritical experiment and
other physics research program capabilities such as JASPER and Atlas at
the NTS, historic skills and capabilities can be maintained.
To date, 19 subcritical experiments have been successfully
conducted at the NTS. The national laboratories rely on the technical
expertise and scientific skills of NTS workers to maintain underground
testing expertise and capability and to capture essential data from the
subcritical experiments. Although we expect the number of subcritical
experiments to decline over the next several years, the complexity of
the experiments and need for advanced diagnostics will increase.
NNSA is committed to continued use of the NTS and expansion of its
missions as is evident in the relocation of the Atlas program to the
NTS. Atlas is a high performance pulsed power machine and will be used
to implode targets and measure the physical properties of weapons
material. NNSA is committed to bringing this machine on line in Nevada
and fielding experiments in support of the Stockpile Stewardship
program.
As other DOE/NNSA facilities face encroachment by population
centers, we look to move those missions with greater need for remote
and secure operations to the NTS. It is recognized that the NTS has
sufficient infrastructure and security features that make it ideal for
nonproliferation and national security related projects. A clear
example is the planned relocation of the critical assembly work from
Los Alamos to the NTS. These assemblies will complement the existing
missions of the NTS by providing an additional training tool for
emergency response personnel and those who work in nuclear
environments.
This administration continues to enhance and support nuclear-
related emergency response activities and is working closely with the
newly-formed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to fight terrorism.
An ambitious DHS-sponsored program to train first responders and local
emergency managers from throughout the country at the NTS continues to
grow. Known as the National Center for Exercise Excellence, this
program will graduate 6,000 students this year alone. Within NNSA, the
existing NTS infrastructure is being modernized under current National
Center for Combating Terrorism (NCCT) funding to accommodate this
increase in student volume, and will ultimately enhance other national
security programs. The Remote Sensing Laboratory has provided the great
majority of radiological emergency response for the United States over
the last 30 years. These scientists and engineers, in close partnership
with the National Laboratories, are also developing the next generation
of counterterrorism technology for the Department of Homeland Security.
nuclear weapons stockpile
Question. Maintaining the safety and reliability of our nuclear
weapons stockpile is technically difficult, even if we were still
testing. The absence of testing makes this job even more difficult. I
know that the work of our weapons scientists and engineers is mostly
classified and carried out in secure facilities, but I suspect that
most of the scientific and technical tools are very similar to those
used for nonclassified research and development. Please tell me how the
Administration is assuring benefit to the classified program from the
enormous Federal investments in scientific and technical advances made
by DOE's Office of Science, the National Science Foundation, the
Department of Defense labs, Commerce's National Institute of Science
and Technology, and others like the Justice Department and our
intelligence agencies.
Answer. NNSA firmly supports leveraging science and technology
investments made by other Federal agencies. Let me provide just a few
examples from our Accelerated Strategic Computing program:
--Energy Sciences Network (ESNet).--The weapons program's SecureNet
relies heavily upon the Office of Science's ESNet as the
underlying infrastructure for wide area network communications.
--High Performance Storage System (HPSS).--Developed through a
consortium including the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL),
the three weapons laboratories, and IBM Government Systems,
HPSS provides a high speed, parallel, network-centered system
for high performance storage. ASCI continues to rely on ORNL to
provide storage system management support.
--Defense Threat Reduction Agency's PITHON.--This experimental
capability simulates hot x-rays by using a moderate energy
source. Data from this facility will be used as part of the
ASCI code verification and validation process.
--National Security Agency Encryptors.--Development and early
production of UltraFastlanes through the National Security
Agency enabled sufficient data transfer rates to support
designer work at the labs.
--National Science Foundation platforms.--Compute cycles from the
Blue Horizon platform at San Diego Supercomputing Center are
used to provide Stockpile Stewardship Alliance University
partners with access to unclassified supercomputing capability.
nonproliferation programs
Question. The nonproliferation programs within your Administration
are, for the most part, pursued by the same organizations that manage
the weapons research anddevelopment. In fact, most of the
nonproliferation scientists and engineers are either former or even
present weapons specialists in the Stockpile Stewardship program. Yet,
the management of these two activities within your administration is
quite different. For example, definition of the stockpile stewardship
program develops from a partnership between the Federal Government and
the civilian specialists. Is the same approach used for
nonproliferation activities?
Answer. As for the approach for development of U.S.
nonproliferation programs, the programs have evolved considerably over
the last 10 years. The phrase ``partnership between the Federal
Government and the civilian specialists'' may be somewhat misleading.
The National Security Council sets the agenda for U.S. nonproliferation
programs for the Executive Branch. However, the NNSA's nonproliferation
programs have received considerable input from Nongovernmental
Organizations (NGOs), Congress, and the Interagency. Also, milestones
and events such as the fall of the Soviet Union, the crash of the
Russian economy, accords by former Soviet States to abrogate nuclear
weapons, the September 11, 2002, terrorist attacks and others have had
major influence on the evolution of these programs. With 10 years of
experience implementing nonproliferation programs in the former Soviet
Union and in other countries around the world, the NNSA has developed a
broad range of experts upon which to draw for expertise, both inside
and outside of the NNSA.
Question. Do you think that efficiencies and cost savings could be
found by uniting these two programs into a single program, perhaps
entitled Nuclear Security programs?
Answer. By act of Congress, the National Nuclear Security
Administration has three line organizations: Defense Programs, Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors. Each program has a
distinct mission, a unique set of skills to accomplish the mission,
different stakeholders, and a dissimilar venue for performing the work.
Naval Reactors has specific legislative mandates. Defense Programs and
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, however, work quite independently to
perform their missions, although there are some areas of mutual
concern. Defense Programs carries out the Stockpile Stewardship Program
and other missions primarily in the United States; Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation conducts its programs internationally. Defense
Programs' primary customer is the Department of Defense while Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation works with U.S. allies to reduce the threat of
weapons of mass destruction, keeping threats away from the U.S. shores.
Congressional action to create the NNSA as a ``separately
organized'' agency within the DOE provides for the management of
nuclear weapons expertise and infrastructure under a single leader.
Defense Programs and Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation organizations
reflect the disparate missions of these organizations. A large part of
the work for each program is accomplished at the three NNSA
laboratories, Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, and Los Alamos. However, the
NNSA national laboratories have organized in such a way that the
expertise to support each program is provided by dedicated and
specialized support because of the nature of the work for each program.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, moreover, uses resources of other
laboratories and contractors outside of NNSA, including Pacific
Northwest, Argonne, Brookhaven, and Oak Ridge National Laboratories in
working in Russia and around the world.
In those areas where mutual concerns of Defense Programs and
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation converge, such as international access
to the U.S. nuclear weapons complex for treaty compliance, the NNSA is
particularly well organized to perform the necessary interfaces to
determine the best approach to accomplish both missions. Combining
these organizations would be disruptive and blur the distinct missions
of each organization. The structure of the NNSA provides for cost
effective management of resources through delivery of services to the
line organizations by the Offices of Management and Administration and
Infrastructure and Security.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Domenici. Anything further?
We stand in recess. Thank you all very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., Thursday, April 10, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--At the direction of the subcommittee
chairman, the following statements received by the subcommittee
are made part of the hearing record on the Fiscal Year 2004
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army--Civil
Corps of Engineers
Prepared Statement of Orange County, California and the Orange County
Flood Control District
Mr. Chairman and Members: On behalf of Orange County, California,
and the Orange County Flood Control District, I respectfully request
your support for fiscal year 2004 Federal appropriations to fund the
following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects:
Santa Ana River Mainstem Project (including Prado Dam)--$67,864,000
We especially urge your support of the $67.8 million for the Santa
Ana River Mainstem Project. This will allow the Corps to continue
construction on Prado Dam, which began construction in fiscal year
2003. Since fiscal year 1990, the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development has consistently provided the funds necessary to maintain
the planned schedule of construction for the Santa Ana River Mainstem
Project. As a result, the Seven Oaks Dam was completed in 1999, the
Lower Santa Ana River is about 90 percent complete, the Oak Street
Drain is complete, and work has commenced on the San Timoteo feature.
The urgency to complete all features of the project has been
highlighted by the flooding that has occurred throughout California
during the past several years and, in particular, by the damage
associated with the El Nino condition in 1997 and 1998. As the Corps of
Engineers has reported on several occasions, destruction from a design
storm on the Santa Ana River will cause damages exceeding $15 billion
and the loss of thousands of lives. The Orange County Flood Control
District requests continued support for the timely implementation of
the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project, including Prado Dam, by including
an appropriation of $67.8 million for fiscal year 2004.
Upper Newport Bay (Dredging)--$5,800,000
The construction dredging and restoration of Upper Newport Bay is
another high priority project for Orange County. The restoration of
Upper Newport Bay will ensure the preservation of one of California's
most precious remaining estuaries along the coast. We urge your support
for this very important and significant project.
Westminster/East Garden Grove, California--$300,000
Watershed restoration and flood control feasibility study on East
Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel.
Coyote Creek, Carbon Canyon Watershed in Orange County--$600,000
Watershed feasibility study for tributaries in western Orange
County that drain into Coyote Creek, Carbon Canyon, and the San Gabriel
River.
Newport Bay/San Diego Creek Watershed--$186,000
Continuation of watershed ecosystem restoration study.
Orange County Beach Shoreline--$600,000
This is a feasibility study for shore protection, watershed, and
water quality effort along the Orange County coast.
Special Area Management Plan (San Diego Creek SAMP)--$680,000
This is part of a cooperative effort between private property
owners and government to identify and protect critical wetland habitat
in south Orange County ahead of development.
San Juan Creek, South Orange County--$300,000
Continuation of watershed feasibility study for ecosystem
restoration and flood control.
Aliso Creek Mainstem--$618,000
Continuation of watershed feasibility study for ecosystem
restoration.
We thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee and
for your past record of support for projects that are so important to
Orange County.
______
Prepared Statement of DINAMO, The Association for the Development of
Inland Navigation in America's Ohio Valley
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Barry Palmer,
Executive Director of DINAMO, The Association for the Development of
Inland Navigation in America's Ohio Valley. DINAMO is a multi-state,
membership based association of business and industry, labor, and State
government leaders from throughout the Ohio Valley, whose singular
purpose is to expedite the modernization of the lock and dam
infrastructure on the Ohio River Navigation System. Largely through the
leadership of this subcommittee and the professional efforts of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, we in the Ohio Valley are beginning to
see the results of 22 years of continuous hard work in improving our
river infrastructure.
Lock and dam modernization at Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam, Grays
Landing Locks and Dam, Point Marion Lock, and Winfield Locks are
largely complete. These projects were authorized for construction in
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The immediate problems
really are focused on completing in a timely manner lock and dam
modernization projects authorized by the Congress in subsequent water
resources development acts. Substantial problems remain for reliable
and efficient funding of improvements at the Olmsted Locks and Dams,
Ohio River, IL/KY; Lower Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3 & 4, PA;
McAlpine Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IN/KY; Marmet Lock, Kanawha River,
WV; and for Kentucky Lock, Tennessee River, KY. The construction
schedules for all of these projects have slipped from 3 to 6 years
each, and we are requesting funding for these construction projects at
an ``efficient construction rate.'' This term means that these projects
can be operational by 2010 or earlier, if funded at or near the full
capability of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Additional funding is
also needed to complete pre-construction engineering and design (PED)
for Greenup Locks and Dam, Ohio River, KY/OH and for John T. Myers
Locks and Dam, Ohio River, KY/IN. The President's Fiscal Year 2004
Budget contains no monies for Pre-Construction, Engineering and Design
for the John T. Myers Lock Extension project, although the project was
authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 and has
received regularly scheduled funding for planning and PED for many,
many years. Additionally this Committee provided $800,000 last year for
a planning start at Emsworth, Dashields and Montgomery Locks and Dams,
Ohio River, PA. Following is a listing of the projects and an efficient
funding level determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to advance
construction projects for completion by 2010 or earlier and to advance
other projects through planning, construction, engineering and design
process:
Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2004
For the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam modification project, formerly
the Gallipolis Locks and Dam on the Ohio River, OH/WV, about $2,700,000
to continue major rehabilitation of the dam. Fiscal Year 2004 Budget
Request $2,500,000.
For the Winfield Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV,
$2,000,000 for continued construction and relocations related to
environmental mitigation. Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request $2,000,000.
For the Olmsted Locks and Dam, replacing Locks and Dams 52 and 53
on the Lower Ohio River, IL/KY, $73,000,000 to award the contract to
initiate construction of the new gated dam. Fiscal Year 2004 Budget
Request $73,000,000.
For the Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3 & 4, PA, $61,00,000,
to complete construction of the new Braddock Dam, continue any ongoing
contracts at Charleroi which were able to be awarded in fiscal year
2003 and award a major contract for the construction of the new
Charleroi Locks. In addition, critical Pool 2 relocations and Pool 3
dredging should resume in fiscal year 2004 in order to support timely
completion of the project. Initiating construction work at Charleroi in
fiscal year 2003 is critical to completing the project by 2010. Fiscal
Year 2004 Budget Request $35,000,000.
For the McAlpine Lock Project on the Ohio River, IN/KY, $70,000,000
to construction of the new 110 1,200 lock addition. Fiscal Year
2004 Budget Request $26,100,000.
For the Marmet Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV,
$69,200,000 to continue construction of the new 110 800 project.
Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request $52,154,000.
For the Kentucky Lock Addition on the Tennessee River, KY,
$53,400,000 to continue construction of the new highway and bridge work
and to begin construction of the upstream cofferdam. Fiscal Year 2004
Budget Request $24,866,000.
For Pre-Construction Engineering and Design for the John T. Myers
Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IN/KY, $2,500,000. A new construction start
for this project will be required soon, since this project was
authorized for construction in the Water Resources Development Act of
2000. Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request $0.00.
For Pre-Construction Engineering and Design for the Greenup Locks
and Dam, Ohio River, OH/KY, $5,800,000. A new construction start for
this project will be required soon, since this project was authorized
for construction in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. Fiscal
Year 2004 Budget Request $2,895,000.
For the Ohio River Mainstem Study, which will identify a
comprehensive investment plan for the next 50 years and also assess
system economic and environmental impacts associated with the plan,
$1,500,000 in fiscal year 2003. This level of funding is needed to
complete a preliminary draft report including a System Investment Plan
and Cumulative Effects Assessment. Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request
$1,350,000.
For the Emsworth, Dashields and Montgomery Locks and Dams, Ohio
River, PA, $1,500,000. Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request $0.00.
All lock and dam modernization projects should be completed in a
timely and orderly manner. It is important to note that monies to pay
for lock and dam modernization are being generated by 20 cents per
gallon diesel fuel tax by towboats operating on America's inland
navigation system. These tax revenues are gathering in the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund, in order to finance 50 percent of the costs of
these project costs. There is about $400 million in the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund. The real challenge is not the private sector
contribution to completing these lock and dam construction projects in
a timely manner, but rather it is the commitment of the Federal
Government to matching its share.
Additionally DINAMO opposes expansion of the authority of the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund to finance a portion of Operation and
Maintenance expenditures on America's inland navigation system. The
Trust Fund's balance and all future revenues are already spoken for.
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, many of
which are under construction. All of the current Trust Fund balance and
all of the 20-cents-per-gallon fuel taxes paid by transportation users
for the next 8 years are needed to complete just six of the priority
projects currently under construction. To spend these funds for O&M
will ensure that the construction or major rehabilitation of these and
other important ongoing and future projects will never be completed or
built--unless there is a future tax increase to replenish a bankrupt
Trust Fund! The proposal violates the agreements underlying the Water
Resources Development Act of 1098, which affirmed continued
responsibility for inland waterways Operations and Maintenance in
return for waterway users assuming the obligation for financing 50
percent of future construction and major rehabilitation costs. Congress
must ensure that the balance and all future Trust Fund revenues are
spent on the purposes for which they were collected--to modernize the
inland waterway system and ensure its future.
The construction schedules for Ohio River Navigation System
projects have slipped from 3 to 6 years, depending on the project.
Delaying the construction of these vitally needed infrastructure
investments is a terribly inefficient practice. Inefficient
construction schedules cost people a lot of money. A February 2002
study by the Institute for Water Resources concluded that $1.97 billion
of cumulative benefits (transportation savings) for Olmsted, Lower
Monongahela River 2, 3 & 4, McAlpine, Marmet, and Kentucky lock and dam
modernization projects have been lost forever. The benefits foregone
represent the cumulative annual loss of transportation cost savings
associated with postponing the completion of these projects from their
``optimum,'' or ``efficient,'' schedule. In addition, this study
concludes that $672 million of future benefits are at risk but will be
foregone (based on fiscal year 2002 schedules) if funding is not
provided to accelerate design and construction activities in accordance
with ``efficient'' schedules. In February of this year (2003) the
Institute for Water Resources updated this information: because of
additional construction schedule slippage, projects have been further
delayed and additional benefits have also been washed down the river.
(This chart, ``Inland Waterway New Construction Projects, Benefits
Foregone Attributable to Stretched Project Schedules in Fiscal Year
2003 Budget Request,'' is attached to this testimony.)
Expenditures for lock and dam modernization are an investment in
the physical infrastructure of this Nation. The President's $4.194
billion Corps of Engineers Civil Works Budget for fiscal year 2004 will
fall at least $800 million short of what will be needed to meet the
Nation's water resources needs. Mr. Chairman, we have great confidence
in the Corps of Engineers and urge your support for a funding level
more in line with the real water resources development needs of the
Nation. For lock and dam modernization on America's inland navigation
system, targeted construction funding ought to be at a level of about
$300 million annually, with half coming from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund and half coming from the General Treasury. Last year Congress
provided about $4.63 billion for the Corps of Engineers program and
more than $250 million for lock and dam modernization on America's
inland navigation system. It is reasonable that funding for the Corps
program should be increased to levels closer to $5 billion and about
$300 million for lock and dam modernization on our Nation's river
system, in order to complete the major lock and dam modernization
projects by the end of the decade or earlier.
Following is our analysis of the partial consequences of inadequate
funding of Ohio River Navigation System infrastructure improvements:
Olmsted Locks and Dam
Ground was broken on Olmsted Locks and Dam in 1996. Locks and Dam
52 and 53 will be replaced with this single facility at mile 964.4 of
the Ohio River. Olmsted will feature twin 110 1,200 lock chambers
and a submersible dam. During high water conditions, which should occur
about 60 percent of each year, tows will pass over the dam using the
navigable pass portion. The total cost is approximately $1 billion,
with a benefit/cost ratio of 3.5 to 1. The project is scheduled for
completion in 2011. Congress appropriated $65 million for construction
work in fiscal year 2003.
Olmsted has already slipped its completion date by 5 years, and
more than $1.84 billion in transportation benefits have already been
washed down the river (non-recoverable) because of construction
schedule slippage. The President's Fiscal Year 2004 Civil Works Budget
has funded the project on an Efficient Funding Schedule, and the new
facility could be operational by 2011 if this level of funding is
maintained. This improved construction scenario (when compared to
fiscal year 2003 construction schedule projections) could prevent the
loss of more than $2.63 billion in transportation benefits.
According to the Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics
for 2001, more than 82 million tons of commodities were shipped past
the point where Olmsted is being built. These shipments had a combined
value of $18.3 billion. The leading commodity shipped past the Olmsted
Lock site was coal, which made up 24 percent of the total tonnage.
Limestone, iron ore and grains such as corn and soybeans were other
significant commodities making up this traffic.
Lower Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3 & 4
Locks and Dams 2, 3 and 4 are the first three navigation projects
on the Monongahela River upstream of Pittsburgh. Lock and Dam 2 is
located at Monongahela River mile 11.2, Lock and Dam 3 is located at
mile 23.8, and Lock and Dam 4 is at mile 41.5. Lock and Dam 2 has a
main lock chamber measuring 110 720 feet and an auxiliary lock that
is 56 360. The other two projects have main lock chambers that are
56 720 and auxiliary lock chambers that are 56 360. Lock and
Dam 2 was originally built in 1905, with new locks completed in the
early 1950's. Lock and Dam 3 was built in 1907, and Lock and Dam 4 was
completed in 1932.
The dam at L/D 2 is being replaced by a gated dam being built using
an innovative in-the-wet method of fabricating segments off-site and
floating them in place, and the project will be renamed Braddock Locks
and Dam. L/D 3 will be removed. Twin 84 720 locks will be built at
L/D 4 (to be renamed Charleroi Locks and Dam). Construction on this
two-for-three replacement project began in 1994 and is scheduled for
completion in 2010, at a total cost of $750 million. The benefit/cost
ratio is 2.1 to 1. In fiscal year 2003, $42 million was appropriated
for this work. Continued funding at a rate of $35 million (Fiscal Year
2004 Budget) annually could delay completion an additional 9 years,
possibly by 2016 and the loss of more than $267.3 million in
transportation benefits.
According to the Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics
for 2001, almost 22.2 million tons of commodities moved through any or
all of the three locks. Of the 19.1 million tons of coal transiting
these locks, over 7.2 million tons were destined for 23 power plants in
7 States. The value of the 22.2 million tons was nearly $1.6 billion.
Nearly 10 million tons moved through all three locks.
McAlpine Locks and Dam
McAlpine Locks and Dam is located in downtown Louisville, Kentucky.
The dam is at mile 604.4 of the Ohio River and the locks are in the
Louisville and Portland Canal on the Kentucky side of the river. The
56 600 auxiliary lock was completed in 1921 and the 110 1,200
main chamber was opened in 1961. There is also an inactive 56 360
lock chamber. In 1960, the project was renamed from Lock and Dam 41 in
honor of a former Louisville District Engineer.
Construction began at McAlpine in 1999 on a new 110 1,200 lock,
which will replace the active 110 600 auxiliary and an inactive
auxiliary lock. The project is scheduled for completion in 2008 at a
total cost of $278 million, with a benefit/cost ratio of 1.8 to 1.
Congress appropriated $21 million for work in fiscal year 2003.
McAlpine has already slipped its completion date by 6 years, and over
$245 million in transportation benefits have been washed down the river
(non-recoverable) because of construction schedule slippage. Failure to
fund the project on an Efficient Funding Schedule in fiscal year 2004
(at $70 million) and each future year could delay completion by as much
as an additional three years, possibly to 2011. That scenario would
wash approximately another $124.86 million in benefits down the river.
According to the Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics
for 2001, more than 55 million tons of commodities were shipped through
McAlpine Locks. These shipments had a combined value of nearly $11.7
billion. Of the 20 million tons of coal moving through McAlpine in
2001, over 13 million tons went to more than 30 power plants in 8
States. McAlpine Locks was important to the steel industry, as it
passed 5.5 million tons of iron ore, pig iron and other raw iron and
2.5 million tons of iron and steel products.
Marmet Lock and Dam
Marmet Locks and Dam is located at mile 67.7 of the Kanawha River.
The locks were opened in 1933 and the dam was completed in 1934. The
two lock chambers measure 360 56. Located about 9 miles upstream of
Charleston West Virginia, the project is approximately 27 miles from
the head of navigation.
An improvement to Marmet Locks was authorized in 1996. The proposed
project is a new 800 110 lock chamber to go with the existing pair
of 360 54 chambers. Property acquisition and design work continue
and construction is underway. The total cost of the project is $313
million, and Congress appropriated $50 million for work in fiscal year
2003. The benefit/cost ratio is 2.9 to 1. Average annual benefits of
this new project are about $55.9 million a year. Marmet has already
slipped completion date by 3 years, and over $117 million in
transportation benefits have been washed down the river (non-
recoverable) because of construction schedule slippage.
According to the Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics
for 2001, just over 17 million tons of commodities were shipped through
Marmet Locks. These shipments had a combined value of $802 million. Of
the 16.1 million tons of coal moving through Marmet, 11.5 million tons
were destined for 30 power plants in 7 States, and another 1.5 million
tons went to steel plants.
Kentucky Locks and Dam
Kentucky and Barkley Locks work as a system for passing barge
traffic even though they are located on different rivers. Kentucky Lock
and Dam is located on the Tennessee River 22.4 miles upstream of the
junction with the Ohio River. Barkley Lock and Dam is located on the
Cumberland River 30.6 miles upstream of the Ohio. The two rivers are
connected by the Barkley Canal, which intersects the Tennessee River at
mile 25.3 and the Cumberland River at mile 32.8. Kentucky's lock
chamber is 110 600 and has been in operation since 1944. Barkley
was completed in 1966 and has a 110 800 lock chamber.
Ground was broken in October of 1999 on a new 110 1,200 lock at
Kentucky Lock. Completion is scheduled for 2010; the total cost will be
approximately $533 million, with a benefit/cost ratio of 2.4 to 1. The
existing 110 600 lock will continue to be used as an auxiliary.
Kentucky Lock and Dam's current single lock chamber is insufficient to
handle increasing tonnage. The lack of an auxiliary chamber forces tows
to use Barkley Lock during periods of extended delays and closures.
When Kentucky Lock is at 90 percent capacity, tows face average delays
of 5 to 6 hours. $30 million was appropriated for work on Kentucky
Lock's new chamber in fiscal year 2003. Kentucky Lock has already
slipped completion date by 2 years, and over $74 million in
transportation benefits have been washed down the river (non-
recoverable) because of construction schedule slippage. The President's
fiscal year 2004 Civil Works Budget ($25 million) will delay completion
of the project by as much as 10 years and approximately $551 million in
transportation benefits will be washed down the river.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we thank you for your interest and
support of lock and dam modernization on the Ohio River Navigation
System. It was that the rivers played a tremendous role in the defense
of our Nation. Today our Nation's security is more and more determined
by our economic muscle, our ability to compete for more and news
customers in different parts of the world. These locks and dams are at
the core of our basic infrastructure that enables Americans to compete
globally for its basic manufacturing products--iron and steel,
chemicals, petroleum products, aluminum, etc. We urge your support of
efficient funding of these vitally needed projects that last fifty or
more years and provide many dollars in return for the investment sunk.
We thank you for the opportunity to present this request and our
thoughts on these matters.
TABLE 1.--INLAND WATERWAY NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS--BENEFITS FOREGONE ATTRIBUTABLE TO STRETCHED PROJECT SCHEDULES IN FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Optimum Current Optimum Fiscal Year 2003 Average Est. Est. Est. Est.
Schedule Schedule Budget Schedule Annual Benefits Benefits Benefits Inflation @
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Benefits \1\ Schedule Foregone Schedule Foregone vs Foregone 2.7%
-------------- Change in vs Initial Change in Current Opt Not ------------
Project Years vs Opt \2\ Years vs ------------- Recoverable
($ Compl ($ Compl ($ Compl PDR ------------ Current -------------
million) million) million) ($ million) ($ Opt ($ million) ($ million)
million) ($ million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Mon 2-4.................. $645.0 2004 $750.0 2009 $750.0 2010 $29.17 6 $134.62 1 $19.24 $115.38 $1.27
London Rehab................... 18.7 2003 22.2 2003 22.2 2004 1.34 1 1.26 1 1.26 ........... 0.32
Marmet......................... 268.0 2007 313.0 2009 313.0 2010 55.90 3 117.53 1 36.87 80.66 0.04
Olmsted........................ 1,020.0 2006 1,060.0 2010 1,052.0 2011 526.25 5 1,848.55 1 327.11 1,521.44 0.31
McAlpine....................... 255.0 2002 278.0 2007 278.0 2008 41.62 6 245.36 1 29.12 216.24 1.06
Winfield \3\................... 221.6 2002 227.5 2002 235.5 2003 56.11 1 .......... 1 ........... ........... 0.13
R.C. Byrd \3\.................. 373.0 1999 373.0 2002 379.0 2003 161.20 4 .......... 1 ........... ........... 0.08
Kentucky Lock.................. 481.5 2008 533.0 2009 533.0 2010 55.10 2 74.91 1 36.34 38.57 0.03
Inner Harbor \4\............... 575.0 2009 576.4 2012 576.4 2014 109.70 5 322.37 2 117.58 204.78 3.75
Greenup \5\.................... 245.0 2008 240.7 2009 245.0 2020 26.50 12 163.92 11 163.92 ........... 81.96
Myers \5\...................... 182.1 2008 225.0 2010 182.1 2020 8.60 12 53.20 10 53.20 ........... 68.69
Chickamauga \6\................ 239.4 2010 239.4 2010 239.4 2015 1.96 5 5.43 .......... 5.43 ........... 34.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.................... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ 57 2,967.14 31 790.07 2,177.07 157.66
================================================================================================================================================================
Fiscal Year 2002 Analy- sis.... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ 29 2,621.82 35 1,149.35 1,472.48 172.95
================================================================================================================================================================
Change from 2002............... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ .......... 345.32 .......... (359.28) 704.59 (15.29)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Average Annual Benefits based on Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Justification of Expense, February 2002.
\2\ Benefits foregone estimated from net present value of benefits in each year of delay, based on 50-year project life, and adjusted to fiscal year 2002 base year. Discount rate adjusted to
6.125 percent.
\3\ Locks are completed, dam construction remains.
\4\ Inner Harbor ``Initial Optimum'' reflects Fiscal Year 2000 Optimum Schedule.
\5\ Greenup and Myers ``Initial Optimum'' reflects Fiscal Year 2002 Optimum Schedule.
\6\ Chickamauga not included in previous fiscal year 2002 analysis.
Prepared Statement of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials
Dear Chairman Domenici and Members of the Subcommittee: The
Association of State Dam Safety Officials is pleased to offer this
testimony on the President's proposed budget for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACOE) Fiscal Year 2004. The Association's testimony
includes issues related to the safety and security of the dams owned or
operated by the USACOE and in support of the National Inventory of Dams
(NID) authorized by the Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002.
The Association of State Dam Safety Officials is a national non-
profit organization of more than 2,000 State, Federal and local dam
safety professionals and private sector individuals dedicated to
improving dam safety through research, education and communications.
Our goal simply is to save lives, prevent damage to property and to
maintain the benefits of dams by preventing dam failures. Several
dramatic dam failures in the United States called attention to the
catastrophic consequences of failures. The failure of the federally-
owned Teton Dam in 1976 caused 14 deaths and over $1 billion in
damages, and is a constant reminder of the potential consequences
associated with dams and the obligations to assure that dams are
properly constructed, operated and maintained.
national inventory of dams
The National Inventory of Dams is a computer database, maintained
by the USACOE, that houses vital information of Federal and non-Federal
dams across the United States. The database tracks information about
the dam's location, size, use, type, proximity to nearest town, hazard
classification, age, height and many other technical data fields. The
database can be used for States or Federal agencies to access
comprehensive information for planning, security alerts or to use
within a Graphic Information System (GIS) vital in tracking lifeline
systems and responding to emergency events through using the geographic
and mapping abilities along with the engineering information within the
NID database.
The NID can be used by policy makers as a tool when evaluating
national or local dam safety issues. For example, it is extremely
useful in establishing the average age of the dams in the United
States, or identifying the number and location of a particular type of
dam construction (i.e. the number and location of ``thin arch'' dams
greater than 100 feet in height). In addition, the Federal Emergency
Agency uses the State dam data to establish the amount of State grant
assistance funds, in accordance with the National Dam Safety Program.
It is essential that this inventory be accurate and current.
There are over 78,000 dams on the National Inventory of Dams in the
country. To have access to this critical data when needed and to be
able to track trends in assessing dam safety improvements, it is
essential that this data be current and accurate. The NID can meet this
need, but it is only as accurate as the last update. The database must
be continually updated, the dam information is constantly changing
(i.e. new ownership, major repairs, removal of dams, increasing the
height and storage, additional downstream development or changes to the
dam's hazard classification). This data is now even more important as
the intelligence community and Federal law enforcement have identified
dams as a specific target of potential terrorists attacks. The data can
also be of tremendous benefit to Federal agencies such as FEMA, NWS,
USGS and the new Department of Homeland Security for locating large
dams, for watershed planning, flood control planning or emergency
response to failures or extreme storm events.
The USACOE has done an excellent job in developing and maintaining
the NID. Continuing updates and improvements to this database resource
should be a high priority. Federal agencies that own dams as well as
State dam safety programs provide updated information and corrections
to the data fields, which provides for accurate and current data.
The Association respectfully requests that the subcommittee
recognize the importance of this national dam database and increase the
appropriation amount from the proposed funding level in the President's
budget of $300,000 to the full authorized funding amount of $500,000.
dam safety, security, and operation and maintenance
The USACOE is recognized as a national leader in dam construction
and dam safety. The USACOE currently owns or operates 609 dams in the
United States, and these dams, like other critical components of the
national infrastructure are aging and the require vigilant inspection
as well as routine maintenance. In addition, the security of our
Nation's infrastructure is a major concern. Dams, especially the large
Federally-owned dams are a potential target for terrorists attacks.
The USACOE dams are typically very large, provide flood protection,
water supply, hydropower, recreation and many are critical to the
waterway navigation on the Nation's major rivers. The consequences of a
failure or misoperation of one of these dams can cause enormous loss of
life and property damage, as well as the loss of the benefits provided
by the dam. Therefore, the Association strongly supports appropriations
necessary to make needed repairs, to conduct security assessments and
improvements wherever necessary. The Association believes that
operation and maintenance are critical to the continued safe
performance of the dams. Too often deferred maintenance causes a small
problem to become larger and more costly; and if left unattended, may
cause the dam to become more susceptible to failure.
The Association respectfully asks that the subcommittee recognize
that inspections, safety repairs, security and routine maintenance are
all essential to assure the safety and the continuing benefits of
USACOE dams.
The Association specifically requests:
--Increase in appropriations for the USACOE Dam Safety Program non-
project management funds to $250,000 from the proposed $45,000;
--Increase in appropriations for the USACOE Dam Security Program non-
project management funds to $250,000 from the proposed $30,000
to include assistance to the State dam safety programs in
conducting security vulnerability assessments and for training
in the dam security assessment tools such as RAM-D;
--Increase in the USACOE ``Planning Assistance to States Program''
Line A.1e.(1) from $6,000,000 to $10,000,000 to provide much
needed assistance to the States to cost-share dambreak
modeling, developing emergency evacuation plans and to jointly
conduct security vulnerability assessments;
--Appropriations of $40,000,000 for needed dam safety repairs to the
Canton Dam in Oklahoma, the Tuttle Creek Dam in Kansas, the
Clearwater Dam in Missouri and to complete the safety repairs
to the Waterbury Dam in Vermont.
Finally, while the security of the USACOE dams is currently a major
priority, the continued safety, repair and maintenance of the USCOE
dams should not be diminished. Improved security on an unsafe dam may
deter an attack, but it still leaves the lives and property downstream
at an unnecessary risk. The Association also respectfully requests that
the fiscal year 2004 funding for Line B.6 Dam Safety and Seepage/
Stability Correction Program be increased to $15,000,000 from the
proposed $8,000,000; and that the Operation and Maintenance budget be
increased from the proposed $1,939,000,000 to $2,000,000,000 for fiscal
year 2004 with the additional funds dedicated to dam safety efforts not
currently funded in the budget.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to provide this testimony in support of safe dams. We look
forward to working with the Subcommittee and staff on this important
national issue.
______
Prepared Statement of Volusia County, Florida
On behalf of our citizens and fishermen, Volusia County, Florida
requests that the Energy & Water Subcommittee appropriate:
--$3,000,000 in fiscal year 2004 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
(Corps) Construction account to fund a 1,000 foot seaward
extension of the South Jetty of the Ponce DeLeon Inlet. The
Committee provided $1 million for construction of this project
in fiscal year 2003. The South Jetty seaward extension is
essential for safe inlet navigation and protection of the Inlet
channel and the North Jetty landward extension funded in fiscal
years 1999, 2000, and 2002.
--$3,000,000 in fiscal year 2004 to the Corps' Operations and
Maintenance account to fund the removal of 300,000 cubic yards
of sand from the North Cut of the Ponce DeLeon Inlet to provide
for safe navigation until the South Jetty construction is
complete.
A more detailed case history and description of the situation and
projects follow below.
Ponce DeLeon Inlet is located on the east coast of Florida, about
10 miles south of the City of Daytona Beach in Volusia County. The
Inlet is a natural harbor connecting the Atlantic Ocean with the
Halifax River and Indian Rivers and the Atlantic Intra-coastal Waterway
(AICW). Ponce DeLeon Inlet provides the sole ocean access to all of
Volusia County and is the only stabilized inlet on the east coast of
Florida between St. Augustine and Cape Canaveral, a distance of 112
miles. Fishing parties and shrimp and commercial fisherman bound for
New Smyrna Beach or Daytona Beach use the Inlet, as well as others
entering for anchorage. Nearby fisheries enhanced by the County's
artificial reef program attract both commercial and sport fisherman.
Head boat operators also provide trips to view marine life and space
shuttle launches from Cape Canaveral. In addition, U.S. Coast Guard
Lifeboat Station Ponce is located immediately inside Ponce de Leon
Inlet and provides navigation safety and security for boaters,
fisherman, divers and sailors from the entire east central Florida
region.
Unfortunately, the Inlet is highly unstable and, despite numerous
navigation projects, continues to threaten safe passage for the charter
boat operators and commercial fisherman who rely on the access it
provides for their livelihood. Recreational boaters and Coast Guard
operators are also at risk passing through this unstable inlet. The
shoaling of the channels in the Inlet so restricts dependable
navigation that the Coast Guard no longer marks the north channel in
order to discourage its use. The Coast Guard continues to move the
south and entrance channel markers and provides warnings that local
knowledge and extreme caution must be used in navigating the inlet.
More seriously, the Coast Guard search and rescue data for fiscal years
1981-1995 show that 20 deaths have resulted from vessels capsizing in
the Inlet, the direct result of the Inlet's instability. One hundred
forty-seven vessels capsized and 496 vessels ran aground in the Inlet
during the same period.
The Federal interest in navigation through the Ponce DeLeon Inlet
dates back to 1884 and continues to the present. The existing
navigation project was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1965. The construction authorized by that Act, including ocean jetties
on the north and south sides of the Inlet, was completed in July 1972.
It became evident soon after completion of the authorized project that
the project did not bring stability to the Inlet. A strong northeaster
in February 1973 created a breach between the western end of the North
Jetty and the sand spit the Jetty was connected to inside the Inlet.
The breach allowed schoaling to occur that was serious enough to close
boat yards and require almost $2 million worth of repairs, including
extending the western end of the North Jetty.
Under the existing maintenance agreement entered into upon
completion of the construction, the Corps periodically performs
maintenance on the Inlet. Maintenance projects have included several
dredging efforts, adding stone sections to the south side of the North
Jetty, extending the westward end of the North Jetty for the second
time, and closing the North Jetty weir. Prior to the North Jetty
project discussed below, the Corps' last maintenance was dredging,
completed on the entrance channel in January 1990.
In fiscal year 1998, the Corps received a $3,500,000 appropriation
for emergency maintenance on the North Jetty. Migration of the entrance
channel undermined the North Jetty, seriously threatening its
structural integrity. The fiscal year 1998 funds were used to construct
a granite rock scour apron for the 500 to 600 feet of where the Jetty
was undermined.
In fiscal year 1999, the Corps received $4,034,000 from the
Operations and Maintenance account to extend the North Jetty of the
Inlet landward by 800 feet. This maintenance project was completed in
July 2002 to prevent the erosion that will cause outflanking of the
North Jetty. Continued outflanking of the west end of the North Jetty
could create a new inlet for the Halifax and Indian Rivers resulting in
major changes to the Ponce DeLeon Inlet. The resultant shoaling of both
the north and south channels, as well as changes to the entrance
channel, would make passage through the inlet extremely dangerous and
unpredictable.
In fiscal year 2000, the Corps received $7,696,000 in their
Operations and Maintenance account for use in the Ponce DeLeon Inlet.
This appropriation provided funding to continue the North Jetty
project, funding for surveys designed to determine the scope of a new
maintenance contract for the Ponce De Leon Inlet, and funding for a
dredging project to address a minor maintenance issue under the
existing maintenance contract.
In fiscal year 2001, the Corps received $46,000 in their Operations
and Maintenance account for standard maintenance of the Ponce DeLeon
Inlet.
In fiscal year 2002, Congress appropriated $2.032 million to the
Corps' Operations and Maintenance account for completion of the North
Jetty construction. The Corps completed construction of this project in
July 2002.
In fiscal year 2003, Congress provided $1 million in the Corps'
Construction account for commencement of the South Jetty oceanward
extension, as authorized by WRDA 1999.
For fiscal year 2004, Volusia County requests that the Corps
receive $3 million for the balance of the Federal share of construction
funds for the South Jetty oceanward extension. The Corps anticipates
that the construction of the Jetty extensions will help stabilize the
Inlet and reduce future maintenance costs. In addition to creating a
safer navigation environment, completion of the North and South Jetty
will save future Federal maintenance costs.
The Ponce DeLeon Inlet presents a serious engineering challenge,
the success of which is measured in terms of human life and vessel
damage. The existing project has failed to stabilize the Inlet.
Extending the North Jetty was the first step toward correcting the
failure and meeting the challenge. Full funding of the 1,000 foot
oceanward extension of the South Jetty is the next critical step toward
providing safe passage for the commercial and recreational boaters in
Volusia County.
State agencies, including the Florida Inland Navigation District
and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection agree and
therefore have committed to assisting the County in meeting the local
cost share. In addition, providing these funds at this time is likely
to prevent the need for a much more substantial maintenance project in
the near future.
In addition to the construction funding for the jetty projects to
protect the Ponce DeLeon Inlet, the County also requests $3,000,000 be
appropriated in the Corps' Operations and Maintenance account, for the
Corps to remove 300,000 cubic yards of sand from the North Cut of the
Ponce DeLeon Inlet. As discussed above, the North Jetty construction
was completed in July 2002 and the South Jetty construction will begin
this year. Maintenance dredging is needed until both jetties are
constructed.
Until both the North and South Jetty projects are operational, sand
continues to shoal in the navigation channels of the Ponce DeLeon
Inlet. The shoaling creates unsafe navigation conditions, thereby
impeding commercial and recreational traffic. Removing 300,000 cubic
feet of sand from the North Cut of the Inlet will greatly improve safe
navigation. Finally, this effort is supported locally, as evidenced by
the County's grant of $395,000 to the Corps for emergency dredging of
the North Cut in fiscal year 2003.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Seminole Tribe of Florida
The Seminole Tribe of Florida is pleased to submit this statement
regarding the fiscal year 2004 budget for the Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps). The Tribe asks that Congress provide $14,835,000 in the Corps'
construction budget for critical projects in the South Florida
Ecosystem, as authorized in section 208 of the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 1999. On January 7, 2000, the Tribe and the
Corps signed a Project Coordination Agreement for the Big Cypress
Reservation's critical project. The Tribe's critical project includes a
complex water conservation plan and a canal that transverses the
Reservation. In signing this Agreement, the Tribe, as the local
sponsor, committed to funding half of the cost of this approximately
$50 million project. Design and planning efforts continue, and the
first phase of construction is nearly complete.
The Tribe's critical project is a part of the Tribe's Everglades
Restoration Initiative, which includes the design and construction of a
comprehensive water conservation system. This project is designed to
improve the water quality and natural hydropatterns in the Big Cypress
Basin. This project will contribute to the overall success of both the
Federal and the State governments' multi-agency effort to preserve and
restore the delicate ecosystem of the Florida Everglades. In
recognition of this contribution, the Seminole Tribe's Restoration
Initiative has been endorsed by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Task Force.
the seminole tribe of florida
The Seminole Tribe lives in the Florida Everglades. The Big Cypress
Reservation is located in the western basins, directly north of the Big
Cypress National Preserve. The Everglades provide many Seminole Tribal
members with their livelihood. Traditional Seminole cultural,
religious, and recreational activities, as well as commercial
endeavors, are dependent on a healthy Everglades ecosystem. In fact,
the Tribe's identity is so closely linked to the land that Tribal
members believe that if the land dies, so will the Tribe.
During the Seminole Wars of the 19th Century, the Tribe found
protection in the hostile Everglades. But for this harsh environment
filled with sawgrass and alligators, the Seminole Tribe of Florida
would not exist today. Once in the Everglades, Seminoles learned how to
use the natural system for support without harm to the environment that
sustained them. For example, the native dwelling, the chickee, is made
of cypress logs and palmetto fronds and protects its inhabitants from
the sun and rain, while allowing maximum circulation for cooling. When
a chickee has outlived its useful life, the cypress and palmetto return
to the earth to nourish the soil.
In response to social challenges within the Tribe, Tribal elders
provided guidance. Tribal elders directed the Tribe's leadership to
look to the land, for when the land was ill, the Tribe would soon be
ill as well. When looking at the land, the leadership saw the
Everglades in decline and recognized that the Tribe had to help
mitigate the impacts of man on this natural system. At the same time,
tribal members acknowledged that this land must sustain the Tribe and
its culture. The clear message from the Tribal elders and the land
called for a way of life to preserve the land and the Tribe. Tribal
members must be able to work and sustain themselves. Tribal leadership
needs to protect the land and the animals, while also protecting Tribal
farmers and ranchers.
Recognizing the needs of the land and the people, the Tribe, along
with its consultants, designed a plan to mitigate the harm to the land
and water systems within the Reservation while ensuring a sustainable
future for the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The restoration plan will
allow Tribal members to continue their farming and ranching activities
while improving water quality and restoring natural hydroperiod to
large portions of the native lands on the Reservation and ultimately,
positively effecting the Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades
National Park.
The Seminole Tribe's project addresses the environmental
degradation wrought by decades of Federal flood control construction
and polluted urban and other agricultural runoff. The interrupted sheet
flow and hydroperiod have stressed native species and encouraged the
spread of exotic species. Nutrient-laden runoff has supported the rapid
spread of cattails, which choke out the periphyton algae mat and
sawgrass necessary for the success of the wet/dry cycle that supports
the wildlife of the Everglades.
The Seminole Tribe designed an Everglades Restoration project that
reflects the need to live off of the land while minimizing impacts on
the Everglades. The Seminole Tribe is committed to improving the water
quality and flows on the Big Cypress Reservation. The Tribe already has
committed significant resources to the design and construction of this
project and to its water quality data collection and monitoring system.
The Tribe is willing to continue its efforts and to commit more
resources, for its cultural survival is at stake.
seminole tribe's big cypress critical project
The Tribe has developed a water conservation plan that will improve
water quality essential to the cleanup of the Everglades ecosystem and
to plan for the storage and conveyance of Tribal water rights. The
Tribe's Everglades Restoration Initiative is designed to mitigate the
degradation the ecosystem has suffered through decades of flood control
projects and urban and agricultural use and ultimately to restore the
Nation's largest wetlands to a healthy state.
The Seminole Tribe's critical project, a part of the water
conservation plan, provides for the design and construction of flood
control, storage, and treatment facilities on the western half of the
Big Cypress reservation with other conveyance facilities on the eastern
side. The project elements include canal and pump conveyance systems,
including major canal bypass structures, irrigation storage cells, and
water quality polishing areas. This project will enable the Tribe to
meet targets for low phosphorus concentrations, as well as to convey
and store irrigation water and improve flood control. It will also
provide an important public benefit: a new system to convey excess
water from the western basins to the Big Cypress National Preserve,
where water is vitally needed for rehydration and restoration of
natural systems within the Preserve.
conclusion
Improving the water quality of the basins feeding into the Big
Cypress National Preserve and the Everglades National Park is vital to
restoring the Everglades for future generations. Congress has
acknowledged this need through the passage of the last three Water
Resource Development Acts. This Committee has consistently shown its
support through appropriating requested amounts over the last 6 fiscal
years. By continuing to grant this appropriation request for critical
project funding, the Federal government will take another substantive
step towards improving the quality of the surface water that flows over
the Big Cypress Reservation and on into the delicate Everglades
ecosystem. Such responsible action with regard to the Big Cypress
Reservation, which is Federal land held in trust for the Tribe, will
send a clear message that the Federal government is committed to
Everglades restoration and the Tribe's stewardship of its land.
Completion of the critical project requires a substantial
commitment from the Tribe, including the dedication of over 2,400 acres
of land for water management improvements and meeting a 50/50 cost
share. The Tribe has initiated the first phase of construction with the
main conveyance canal. As the Tribe moves forward with its contribution
to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, increasing Federal
financial assistance will be needed as well.
The Tribe has demonstrated its economic commitment to the
Everglades Restoration effort; the Tribe is asking the Federal
government to also participate in that effort. This effort benefits not
just the Seminole Tribe, but all Floridians who depend on a reliable
supply of clean, fresh water flowing out of the Everglades, and all
Americans whose lives are enriched by this unique national treasure.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the request of the
Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Tribe will provide additional
information upon request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
murrieta creek flood control project
Murrieta Creek poses a severe flood threat to the cities of
Murrieta and Temecula. Over $10 million in damages was experienced in
the two cities as a result of Murrieta Creek flooding in 1993. The 1997
Energy and Water Appropriations Act dedicated $100,000 to conducting a
Reconnaissance Study of watershed management in the Santa Margarita
Watershed ``including flood control, environmental restoration,
stormwater retention, water conservation and supply, and related
purposes''. The study effort was initiated in April 1997 and completed
the following December. The Reconnaissance Study identified a Federal
interest in flood control on the Murrieta sub-basin, and recommended
moving forward with a detailed feasibility study for a flood control
project on Murrieta Creek.
Efforts on the Feasibility Study began in April 1998 and were
completed in September 2000. The Feasibility Study Report recommends
the implementation of Alternative 6, the Locally Preferred Plan (LPP)
for flood control, environmental restoration and recreation. The LPP is
endorsed by the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta and by the community as
a whole.
H.R. 5483, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2000 included
specific language authorizing the Corps to construct ``the locally
preferred plan for flood control, environmental restoration and
recreation described as Alternative 6, based on the Murrieta Creek
Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement dated September
2000''.
After finalizing the necessary cost sharing agreement in February
2001, the Corps initiated the detailed engineering design necessary to
develop construction plans and specifications for a Murrieta Creek
Project utilizing a fiscal year 2001 appropriation of $750,000. The
project received an additional appropriation of $1,000,000 for
engineering design efforts in fiscal year 2002. Those funds were
utilized to develop design-level topographic mapping for the entire 7-
mile long project, to complete all necessary geotechnical work, and to
begin the preparation of construction drawings for the initial phases
of construction.
The Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project is being designed and will
be constructed in four distinct phases. Phases 1 and 2 include channel
improvements through the city of Temecula. Phase 3 involves the
construction of a 240-acre detention basin, including the 160-acre
restoration site and over 50 acres of recreational facilities. Phase 4
of the project will include channel improvements through the city of
Murrieta. Equestrian, bicycle and hiking trails as well as a continuous
habitat corridor for wildlife are components of this and every phase of
the project.
The Omnibus Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2003 provides $1
million for a new construction start for this critical public safety
project. Construction activities on Phase 1 of the project will
commence in the Fall of 2003. The appropriation also allows the Corps
to complete its engineering design work for Phase 2 of the project.
Phase 2 traverses the area of Temecula hardest hit with damages from
the severe flooding of 1993. The Corps anticipates having a Phase 2
construction contract ready to award in the Summer of 2004. The
District therefore respectfully requests the Committee's support of a
$4 million appropriation in fiscal year 2004 so that the Corps may
complete construction on Phase 1, and initiate construction on Phase 2
of the long awaited Murrieta Creek Flood Control, Environmental
Restoration and Recreation Project.
santa ana river--mainstem
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662)
authorized the Santa Ana River--All River project that includes
improvements and various mitigation features as set forth in the Chief
of Engineers' Report to the Secretary of the Army. The Boards of
Supervisors of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties continue
to support this critical project as stated in past resolutions to
Congress.
The three local sponsors and the Corps signed the Local Cooperation
Agreement (LCA) in December 1989. The first of five construction
contracts started on the Seven Oaks Dam feature in the spring of 1990
and the dam was officially completed on November 15, 1999. A dedication
ceremony was held on January 7, 2000. Significant construction has been
completed on the lower Santa Ana River Channel and on the San Timoteo
Creek Channel. Construction activities on Oak Street Drain and the Mill
Creek Levee have been completed. Seven Oaks Dam was turned over to the
Local Sponsors for operation and maintenance on October 1, 2002.
For fiscal year 2004, an appropriation of $5.7 million is necessary
to initiate construction activities on several features within ``Reach
9'' of the Santa Ana River immediately downstream of Prado Dam. This
segment of the Santa Ana River project is the last to receive flood
protection improvements. The streambed existing today in a relatively
natural state would receive only localized levee and slope revetment
treatment to protect existing development along its southerly bank.
Approximately $500,000 of the total $5.7 million appropriation
requested for Reach 9 would fund environmental mitigation measures
necessitated by the Corps' construction activities.
The completion of landscaping activities on Reaches 5, 6 and 8 of
the Santa Ana River Channel in Orange County would require a $5 million
appropriation. The removal of accumulated sediment within an already
completed section of the Santa Ana River Channel near its outlet to the
Pacific Ocean will necessitate an fiscal year 2004 appropriation of $5
million. This dredging work is necessary before project turnover to the
Local Sponsors for operation and maintenance.
Construction activities on the last remaining phase of San Timoteo
Creek Channel, a Mainstem feature located within San Bernardino County,
would be completed given a final $15 million appropriation.
The Prado Dam feature of the Santa Ana River Mainstem project is in
need of several major upgrades in order that it mitigate the potential
impacts of a 100-year storm. All of the engineering work necessary to
redesign the dam is now complete. In fiscal year 2003, the Corps was
able to award a construction contract to begin modifications to the dam
embankment and outlet works.
An fiscal year 2004 appropriation of $37.164 million would allow
the Corps to continue with the construction of improvements to Prado
Dam's outlet works and embankment, and would fund all necessary
environmental mitigation measures. We, therefore, respectfully request
that the Committee support an overall $67,864,000 appropriation of
Federal funding for fiscal year 2004 for the Santa Ana River Mainstem
project including Prado Dam.
san jacinto & santa margarita river watersheds
special area management plans
The County of Riverside recognizes the interdependence between the
region's future transportation, habitat, open space, and land-use/
housing needs. In 1999, work was initiated on Riverside County's
Integrated Planning program (RCIP) to determine how best to balance
these factors. The plan will create regional conservation and
development plans that protect entire communities of native plants and
animals while streamlining the process for compatible economic
development in other areas. The major elements of the plan include
water resource identification, multi-species planning, land use and
transportation.
In order to achieve a balance between aquatic resource protection
and economic development, the Corps is developing what are termed
Special Area Management Plans (SAMP) for both the San Jacinto and Santa
Margarita Watersheds. This comprehensive planning effort will be used
to assist Federal, State and local agencies with their decision making
and permitting authority to protect, restore and enhance aquatic
resources while accommodating various types of development activities.
The Santa Margarita and San Jacinto watersheds include such resources
as woodlands, wetlands, freshwater marshes, vernal pools, streams,
lakes and rivers.
The final product of the SAMP will be the establishment of an
abbreviated or expedited regulatory permit by the Corps under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. The Corps' effort includes facilitating
meetings between all potential watershed partners, and the integration
of the joint study effort with the planning efforts of the balance of
the RCIP project.
The $500,000 Federal appropriation received for fiscal year 2001
allowed the Corps to initiate work on this 3 year, $5.5 million SAMP
effort. The $2 million appropriation received in fiscal year 2002
allowed the Corps to make significant progress on a ``landscape level
aquatic resource delineation'', and to initiate a functional assessment
to determine the value of waters and wetlands. The $1 million
appropriation received for fiscal year 2003 allowed the Corps to
complete their wetlands delineation effort.
Further funding is now needed to complete the SAMP effort. We,
therefore, respectfully request that the Committee support a combined
$2,000,000 appropriation of Federal funding for fiscal year 2004 for
the Corps to continue its work on the Special Area Management Plans for
the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita River Watersheds.
______
Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago
On behalf of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago (District), I want to thank the Subcommittee for this
opportunity to present our priorities for fiscal year 2004 and, at the
same time, express our appreciation for your support of the District's
projects in the years past. The District is the local sponsor for three
Corps of Engineers priority projects of the Chicagoland Underflow Plan:
the O'Hare, McCook and Thornton Reservoirs. We are requesting the
Subcommittee's full support for McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, as the
O'Hare Reservoir has been completed. Specifically, we request the
Subcommittee to include a total of $32,000,000 in construction funding
for the McCook and Thornton Reservoir projects in the bill. The
following text outlines these projects and the need for the requested
funding.
the chicagoland underflow plan
The Chicagoland Underflow Plan (CUP) consists of three reservoirs:
the O'Hare, McCook and Thornton Reservoirs. These reservoirs are a part
of the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). The O'Hare Reservoir Project
was fully authorized for construction in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662) and completed by the Corps
in fiscal year 1999. This reservoir is connected to the existing O'Hare
segment of the TARP. Adopted in 1972, TARP was the result of a multi-
agency effort, which included officials of the State of Illinois,
County of Cook, City of Chicago, and the District.
TARP was designed to address the overwhelming water pollution and
flooding problems of the Chicagoland combined sewer areas. These
problems stem from the fact that the capacity of the area's waterways
has been overburdened over the years and has become woefully inadequate
in both hydraulic and assimilative capacities. These waterways are no
longer able to carry away the combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges
nor are they able to assimilate the pollution associated with these
discharges. Severe basement flooding and polluted waterways (including
Lake Michigan, which is the source of drinking water for millions of
people) is the inevitable result. We point with pride to the fact that
TARP was found to be the most cost-effective and socially and
environmentally acceptable way for reducing these flooding and water
pollution problems. Experience to date has reinforced such findings
with respect to economics and efficiency.
The TARP plan calls for the construction of the new ``underground
rivers'' beneath the area's waterways. The ``underground rivers'' are
tunnels up to 35 feet in diameter and 350 feet below the surface. To
provide an outlet for these tunnels, reservoirs will be constructed at
the end of the tunnel systems. Approximately 93.4 miles of tunnels,
constructed at a total cost of $2.0 billion, are operational. Another
8.1 miles of tunnels, costing $141 million, are substantially complete
and the final 7.9 miles of tunnels, costing $168 million, are under
construction. The tunnels capture the majority of the pollution load by
capturing all of the small storms and the first flush of the large
storms. The completed O'Hare CUP Reservoir provides 350 million gallons
of storage. This Reservoir has a service area of 11.2 square miles and
provides flood relief to 21,535 homes in Arlington Heights, Des Plaines
and Mount Prospect. In its first 5 years of operation, O'Hare CUP
Reservoir has yielded $57.4 million in flood damage reduction benefits,
which exceeds its $44.5 million construction costs. The Thornton and
McCook Reservoirs are currently under construction, but until they are
completed significant areas will remain unprotected. Without these
outlets, the local drainage has nowhere to go when large storms hit the
area.
Since its inception, TARP has not only abated flooding and
pollution in the Chicagoland area, but has helped to preserve the
integrity of Lake Michigan. In the years prior to TARP, a major storm
in the area would cause local sewers and interceptors to surcharge
resulting in CSO spills into the Chicagoland waterways and during major
storms into Lake Michigan, the source of drinking water for the region.
Since these waterways have a limited capacity, major storms have caused
them to reach dangerously high levels resulting in massive sewer
backups into basements and causing multi-million dollar damage to
property.
Since implementation of TARP, 734 billion gallons of CSOs have been
captured by TARP, that otherwise would have reached waterways. Area
waterways are once again abundant with many species of aquatic life and
the riverfront has been reclaimed as a natural resource for recreation
and development. Closure of Lake Michigan beaches due to pollution has
become a rarity. After the completion of both phases of TARP, 99
percent of the CSO pollution will be eliminated. The elimination of
CSOs will reduce the quantity of discretionary dilution water needed to
keep the area waterways fresh. This water can be used instead for
increasing the drinking water allocation for communities in Cook, Lake,
Will and DuPage counties that are now on a waiting list to receive such
water. Specifically, since 1977, these counties received an additional
162 million gallons of Lake Michigan water per day, partially as a
result of the reduction in the District's discretionary diversion since
1980. Additional allotments of Lake Michigan water will be made to
these communities, as more water becomes available from reduced
discretionary diversion.
With new allocations of lake water, more than 20 communities that
previously did not get lake water are in the process of building, or
have already built, water mains to accommodate their new source of
drinking water. The new source of drinking water will be a substitute
for the poorer quality well water previously used by these communities.
Partly due to TARP, it is estimated by IDOT that between 1981 and 2020,
283 million gallons per day of Lake Michigan water would be added to
domestic consumption. This translates into approximately 2 million
additional people that would be able to enjoy Lake Michigan water. This
new source of water supply will not only benefit its immediate
receivers but will also result in an economic stimulus to the entire
Chicagoland area by providing a reliable source of good quality water
supply.
the mccook and thornton reservoirs
The McCook and Thornton Reservoirs of the Chicagoland Underflow
Plan (CUP) were fully authorized for construction in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-676). These CUP
reservoirs, as previously discussed, are a part of TARP, a flood
protection plan that is designed to reduce basement flooding due to
combined sewer back-ups and inadequate hydraulic capacity of the urban
waterways.
These reservoirs will provide a storage capacity of 18 billion
gallons and will provide annual benefits of $115 million. The total
potential annual benefits of these projects are approximately twice as
much as their total annual cost. The District, as the local sponsor,
has acquired the land necessary for these projects, and will meet its
cost sharing obligations under Public Law 99-662.
These projects are a very sound investment with a high rate of
return. They will enhance the quality of life, safety and the peace of
mind of the residents of this region. The State of Illinois has
endorsed these projects and has urged their implementation. In
professional circles, these projects are hailed for their
farsightedness, innovation, and benefits.
Based on two successive Presidentially-declared flood disasters in
our area in 1986 and again in 1987, and dramatic flooding in the last
several years, we believe the probability of this type of flood
emergency occurring before implementation of the critical flood
prevention measure is quite high. As the public agency for the greater
Chicagoland area responsible for water pollution control, and as our
past sponsorship for flood control projects, we have an obligation to
protect the health and safety of our citizens. We are asking your
support in helping us achieve this necessary and important goal of
construction completion.
We have been very pleased that over the years the Subcommittee has
seen fit to include critical levels of funds for these important
projects. We were delighted to see the $14,000,000 in construction
funds for the McCook and Thornton Reservoirs included in the Omnibus
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003. However, it is important that
we receive a total of $32,000,000 in construction funds in fiscal year
2004 to maintain the commitment and accelerate these projects. This
funding is critical to continue the construction of the McCook
Reservoir on schedule, in particular, to complete construction of the
grout curtain, distribution tunnels, and pumps and motors and to
accelerate the design of the Thornton Reservoir. The community has
waited long enough for protection and we need these funds now to move
the project in construction. We respectfully request your consideration
of our request.
summary
Our most significant recent flooding occurred on February 20, 1997,
when almost 4 inches of rain fell on the greater Chicagoland area. Due
to the frozen ground, almost all of the rainfall entered our combined
sewers, causing sewerage back-ups throughout the area. When the
existing TARP tunnels filled with approximately 1.2 billion gallons of
sewage and runoff, the only remaining outlets for the sewers were our
waterways. Between 9:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m., the Chicago and Calumet
Rivers rose 6 feet. For the first time since 1981 we had to open the
locks at all three of the waterway control points; these include
Wilmette, downtown Chicago, and Calumet. Approximately 4.2 billion
gallons of combined sewage and stormwater had to be released directly
into Lake Michigan.
Given our large regional jurisdiction and the severity of flooding
in our area, the Corps was compelled to develop a plan that would
complete the uniqueness of TARP and be large enough to accommodate the
area we serve. With a combined sewer area of 375 square miles,
consisting of the city of Chicago and 51 contiguous suburbs, there are
1,443,000 structures within our jurisdiction, which are subject to
flooding at any time. The annual damages sustained exceed $150 million.
If TARP, including the CUP Reservoirs were in place, these damages
could be eliminated. We must consider the safety and peace of mind of
the two million people who are affected as well as the disaster relief
funds that will be saved when these projects are in place. As the
public agency in the greater Chicagoland area responsible for water
pollution control, and as the regional sponsor for flood control, we
have an obligation to protect the health and safety of our citizens. We
are asking your support in helping us achieve this necessary and
important goal. It is absolutely critical that the Corps' work, which
has been proceeding for a number of years, now proceeds on schedule
through construction.
Therefore, we urgently request that a total of $32,000,000 in
construction funds be made available in the fiscal year 2004 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act to continue construction of the
McCook and Thornton Reservoir Projects.
Again, we thank the Subcommittee for its support of this important
project over the years, and we thank you in advance for your
consideration of our request this year.
______
Prepared Statement of the Calaveras County Water District
sacramento and san joaquin comprehensive basin study
calaveras county conjunctive use and groundwater feasibility study
Calaveras County Water District
Calaveras County (County) is located in the central Sierra Nevada
foothills about 25 miles east of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
(Delta). Ground elevations within the County increase from 200 feet
above mean sea level near the northwest part of the County to 8,170
feet near Alpine County. It is a predominately rural county with a
relatively sparse population and agricultural and industrial
development. Calaveras County is located within the watersheds of the
Mokelumne, Calaveras, and Stanislaus Rivers. All these rivers flow
west, through San Joaquin County into the Delta. Most of the County is
underlain by the igneous and metamorphic rocks of the Sierra Nevada.
Alluvial deposits of the Central Valley, which overlie the westward
plunging Sierra Nevada, are present along an 80 square-mile area
located along the western edge of the county and are part of the
Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin (ESJCGB). This requested
conjunctive use and groundwater feasibility study under the authority
of the Corps of Engineers' Sacramento and San Joaquin Comprehensive
Basin Study will be focused on the western part of Calaveras County.
In the fall of 1946, the Calaveras County Water District (CCWD) was
organized under the laws of the State of California as a public agency
for the purpose of developing and administering the water resources in
Calaveras County. Therefore, CCWD is a political subdivision of the
State of California and is governed by the California Constitution and
the California Government and Water Codes. CCWD is not a part of or
under the control of the County of Calaveras. CCWD was formed to
preserve and develop water resources and to provide water and sewer
service to the citizens of Calaveras County.
Under State law, CCWD, through its Board of Directors, has general
powers over the use of water within its boundaries. These powers
include but are not limited to: the right of eminent domain, authority
to acquire, control, distribute, store, spread, sink, treat, purify,
reclaim, process and salvage any water for beneficial use, to provide
sewer service, to sell treated or untreated water, to acquire or
construct hydroelectric facilities and sell the power and energy
produced to public agencies or public utilities engaged in the
distribution of power, to contract with the United States, other
political subdivisions, public utilities, or other persons, and subject
to the California State Constitution, levy taxes and improvements.
Project Need
The Calaveras County Conjunctive Use and Groundwater Feasibility
Study is needed to address future increasing water demands, provide
water supply reliability in extended droughts, and help mitigate
groundwater overdraft conditions in the ESJCGB.
The Calaveras County 1990 population totaled 32,000 people. By
2040, the County population is estimated to be between 100,000 and
150,000 (Source: Calaveras River Conjunctive Use Feasibility Study and
Pilot Program Report prepared by Bookman-Edmonston, June 2001). The
historic sparse population base has not required use of all the
District's water supplies. The rate base also could not support
construction of facilities needed to fully develop all the water
resources available to the District. The county is now experiencing
rapid growth, requiring the District to develop its remaining water
supplies to meet the increasing demand.
Multi-year droughts can threaten the District's ability to meet
water demands in the County. For example, the District's Jenny Lind
Water Treatment Plant is located on the Calaveras River a few miles
downstream of New Hogan Reservoir and during extended droughts, reduced
inflows into New Hogan increase the chance that there may not be enough
water to meet the current water demands. With increasing water demands
projected in the future, the water shortages will continue in dry years
and may become prevalent in normal and wet years.
The study area comprises the northeast portion of the ESJCGB as
defined by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The
ESJCGB is considered in an overdraft condition, and the western edge of
the basin is subject to saline intrusion from the Delta. The California
Department of Water Resources water level data for wells near the
Calaveras-San Joaquin County line, have recorded water level declines
ranging from 0.6 to 1.5 feet per year over the last 40 years. Without
programs to mitigate the groundwater overdraft, groundwater levels will
continue to decline in the groundwater basin.
Project Benefit
The Calaveras County Conjunctive Use and Groundwater Feasibility
Study would be developed to identify and maximize the use of the
District's surface water resources on the Mokelumne, Calaveras and
Stanislaus Rivers in conjunction with the groundwater supply to improve
supply reliability. The District currently does not use all of its
available surface water from the rivers flowing through the County. The
study would allow the District to investigate the use of more of its
entitlement in wet years by recharging the groundwater basin with water
the District is currently not using. The storage and transmission
capacity of the groundwater basin would be used to store the banked
surface water until it is needed. This water could then be used during
an extended drought to supplement reduced surface water supplies to
provide drinking water supplies to the area.
Maintaining supplies in District reservoirs, especially during dry
years, provides benefit to the District and other river water users
like the Stockton East Water District located in San Joaquin County.
Developing local/Federal studies and programs like the Calaveras County
Conjunctive Use and Groundwater Feasibility Study provides local and
regional benefits. It also provides additional statewide benefits by
contributing to the CALFED solution of meeting local water needs. By
meeting their own water needs, local areas are not dependent upon the
State to develop water supplies for them. This is consistent with the
goals of the CALFED Integrated Storage Investigation (ISI).
Because of the overdraft of the ESJCGB, coupled with extended
drought periods, reduced inflows increase the chance that there may not
be enough water to meet current demands. Developing local/Federal
studies like the Calaveras County Conjunctive Use and Groundwater
Feasibility Study provides critical local and regional benefits
allowing these areas to meet their own needs better.
The District, therefore, respectfully requests the Committee's
support of $1,000,000 in appropriations in fiscal year 2004 within the
Corps of Engineers' Program under the authority of the Sacramento and
San Joaquin Comprehensive Basin Study, so that the Corps may initiate a
feasibility study with regard to Calaveras County Conjunctive Use and
Groundwater.
mokelumne river, calaveras river, and stanislaus river watersheds study
Project Need
The Watershed Management Study Calaveras County Water District
(CCWD) is seeking under the Corps of Engineers' program, within the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Comprehensive Basin Study authority,
includes the Mokelumne River, Calaveras River and Stanislaus River
Watersheds. It proceeds from the basic assumption that water resources
management is most efficiently and effectively conducted on a watershed
level.
Calaveras County is located in the central Sierra Nevada foothills.
CCWD is responsible for developing and administering the water
resources of Calaveras County. Historically, a significant portion of
the water needs of Calaveras County have been met mostly with surface
water from the Mokelumne, Calaveras or Stanislaus Rivers.
Groundwater was only used to meet demands in local areas. This
proposed study area, which is part of the Eastern San Joaquin County
Groundwater Basin (ESJCGB), has been identified by the State of
California as being in a state of overdraft.
In an effort to gain a better understanding of the condition of the
water sources and the surrounding environment, this watershed
management approach is being requested. Some of the objectives of such
a study may include:
--To restore, protect, and enhance water quality and associated
aquatic resources and water supplies;
--To conserve, protect, and restore the natural resources of the
Mokelumne, Calaveras and Stanislaus Rivers Watersheds (land,
water, forest, and wildlife);
--To minimize the threat to life and the destruction of property and
natural resources from flooding and to preserve (or re-
establish) natural hydrologic functions;
--To restore, protect, develop, and enhance the ecological, historic,
cultural, recreational, and visual amenities of rural and urban
areas within the watersheds and particularly along stream
corridors.
The terrain of the watershed varies from mild elevations and
meadows in the western rolling foothills to more rugged mountains and
wilderness in the eastern high Sierra region. Tourism and recreation,
forest products, mineral resources, and agricultural products are
significant elements of the area's economic base. As a result, a
variety of land uses are found within the watersheds, including
residential, forested, industrial, agricultural, and recreational.
Residential land uses in Calaveras County are primarily rural
residential, with the unincorporated community of San Andreas being the
largest urban area within the watershed area. The California State
Department of Finance (CSDF) estimates the 2000 population of Calaveras
County to be about 38,500 persons.
While CCWD has been pursuing watershed management study efforts
since 2000 in partnership with adjoining counties for more focused
watershed management efforts, specifically in the Calaveras River
Watershed, a comprehensive management study coupling all of the three
watersheds (Mokelumne, Calaveras and Stanislaus Rivers), which fall
within the jurisdiction of CCWD is critical to better plan for both
water quantity and quality issues, and the environmental and natural
resources issues facing the watershed.
The CCWD has not only been a principle partner in watershed
management throughout the development of the more focused local
watershed planning studies, but has been concerned about watershed
issues since its very beginning as a water supply provider. CCWD
believes that a healthy watershed, including healthy ecosystems and
wildlife populations, makes the provision of clean drinking water
easier for water districts.
Because of the need for a comprehensive watershed management
program given the diversity of water supply, quality, environmental,
natural resources and the region's economic base, which is dependent on
its natural resources, we believe such an effort is warranted.
The District, therefore, respectfully requests the Committee's
support of $500,000 in appropriations in fiscal year 2004 under the
Corps of Engineer's program, within the authority of the Sacramento and
San Joaquin Comprehensive Study, so that the Corps may initiate a
feasibility study of the Mokelumne, Calaveras and the Stanislaus Rivers
Watersheds within the service area of the CCWD.
______
Prepared Statement of the Napa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
napa river flood control project--background
The project is located in the city and county of Napa, California.
The population in the city of Napa, approximately, 67,000 in 1994, is
expected to exceed 77,000 this year. Excluding public facilities, the
present value of damageable property within the project flood plain is
well over $500 million. The Napa River Basin, comprising 426 square
miles, ranging from tidal marshes to mountainous terrain, is subject to
severe winter storms and frequent flooding. In the lower reaches of the
river, flood conditions are aggravated by high tides and local runoff.
Floods in the Napa area have occurred in 1955, 1958, 1963, 1965, 1986
(flood of record), 1995, and 1997. In 1998, the river rose just above
flood stage on three occasions, but subsided before major property
damage occurred. In December of 2002, flooding occurred from the Napa
Creek at the transition to the Napa River, resulting in damage to
numerous residents and several businesses.
Since 1962, twenty-seven major floods have struck the Valley
region, exacting a heavy toll in loss of life and property. The flood
on 1986, for example, killed three people and caused more than $100
million in damage. Damages throughout Napa County totaled about $85
million from the January and March 1995 floods. The floods resulted in
27 businesses and 843 residences damaged countrywide. Almost all of the
damages from the 1986, 1995, and 1997 floods were within the project
area. Congress has authorized a flood control project since 1944, but
due to expense, lack of public consensus on the design and concern
about environment impacts, a project had never been realized. In mid-
1995, Federal and State resource agencies reviewed the plan and gave
notice to the Corps that this plan had significant regulatory hurdles
to face.
approved plan--project overview
In an effort to identify a meaningful and successful plan, a new
approach emerged that looked at flood control from a broader, more
comprehensive perspective. Citizens for Napa River Flood Management was
formed, bringing together a diverse group of local engineers,
architects, aquatic ecologists, business and agricultural leasers,
environmentalists, government officials, homeowners and renters and
numerous community organizations.
Through a series of public meetings and intensive debate over every
aspect of Napa's flooding problems, the Citizens for Napa River Flood
Management crafted a flood management plan offering a range of benefits
for the entire Napa region. The Corps of Engineers served as a partner
and a resource for the group, helping to evaluate their approach to
flood management. The final plan produced by the Citizens for Napa
River Flood Management was successfully evaluated through the research,
experience and state-of-the-art simulation tools developed by the Corps
and numerous international experts in the field of hydrology and other
related disciplines. The success of this collaboration serves as a
model for the Nation.
Acknowledging the river's natural state, the project utilizes a set
of living river strategies that minimize the disruption and alteration
of the river habitat, and maximizes the opportunities for environmental
restoration and enhancement throughout the watershed.
The Corps has developed the revised plan, which provides 100-year
protection, with the assistance of the community and its consultants
into the Supplemental General Design Memorandum (SGDM) and its
accompanying draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report (SEIS/EIR). Construction of the project began 2 years ago. The
coalition plan now memorialized in the Corps final documents includes
the following engineered components: lowering of old dikes, marsh plain
and flood plain terraces, oxbow dry bypass, Napa Creek flood plain
terrace, upstream and downstream dry culverts along Napa Creek, new
dikes, levees and flood walls, bank stabilization, pump stations and
detention facilities, and bridge replacements. The benefits of the plan
include reducing or elimination of loss of life, property damage,
cleanup costs, community disruption due to unemployment and lost
business revenue, and the need for flood insurance. In fact, the
project has created an economic renaissance in Napa with new
investment, schools and housing coming into a livable community on a
living river. As a key feature, the plan will improve water quality,
create urban wetlands and enhance wildlife habitats.
The plan will protect over 7,000 people and over 3,000 residential/
commercial units from the 100-year flood event on the Napa River and
its main tributary, the Napa Creek, and the project has a positive
benefit-to-cost ratio under the Corps calculation. One billion dollars
in damages will be saved over the useful life of the project. The Napa
County Flood Control District is meeting its local cost-sharing
responsibilities for the project. A countywide sales tax, along with a
number of other funding options, was approved 4 years ago by a two-
thirds majority of the county's voters for the local share. Napa is
California's highest repetitive loss community. This plan is
demonstrative of the disaster resistant community initiative, as well,
as the sustainable development initiatives of FEMA and EPA.
project synopsis
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding
The 2003 appropriations bill included $9,000,000 to continue
construction of the project. The funding was sought for demolition of
buildings and fixtures on 24 parcels that have been acquired by the
non-Federal sponsor, relocation of the Napa Valley Wine Train rail line
for an approximate 3 mile distance, as well as relocation of the
facilities serving this public utility, removal of 190,000 cubic yards
of soil which was contaminated by petroleum products,, construction of
marsh and flood plain terraces for an approximate 1.5 mile distance.
Included in this amount is the reimbursement to the non-Federal sponsor
for expenditures in excess of 45 percent of the total project costs to
date. The local sponsor has expended $90 million plus as compared to
Federal sponsor expenditures to date of approximately $20 million.
Necessary Fiscal Year 2004 Funding
Funding for the Napa River Project during 2004 in the amount of
$24,000,000 is needed to continue construction of the project. These
funds will be used to accomplish the following tasks:
--Complete HTRW remediation along the east side of the river for
additional 2 miles involving removal of an additional 200,000
cubic yards of contaminated soil;
--Initiate and complete the Contract 1B excavation work in Kennedy
Park;
--Initiate Contract 2East excavation work on the east side of river
from Imola to the Bypass;
--Continue engineering and design on future contracts;
--Accomplish Construction Management on contract underway;
--Initiate reimbursement of local sponsor with funds not required for
the above.
Included in this amount is the reimbursement to the non-Federal
sponsor for expenditures in excess of 45 percent of the total project
costs to date. By the end of June, 2003 the non-Federal sponsor will
have expended $150 million.
napa valley watershed management--background
Napa Valley watershed faces many challenges and stresses to its
environmental health and flood management abilities. From a healthy
river point of view, the Napa River has been on a recovery path since
its low point in the 1960's, when the last of the native salmon were
taken from the system by severe water pollution and habitat
destruction. Steelhead trout have survived as a remnant population of
200 that is presently in need of higher quality and more extensive
spawning areas for recovery to a significant population. Beginning
populations of fall run Chinook salmon have taken up residence in the
watershed in those few areas available for spawning. While the chemical
and wastewater pollution of earlier years has been effectively dealt
with, excess sediment is still a critical stress on the salmon
population, as it is to the spawning and rearing areas of the river in
the estuarine zone upstream of San Pablo Bay, populated by delta smelt,
splittail, green sturgeon and striped bass.
The U.S. EPA and Region II Water Quality Control Board have
prioritized the River as an impaired water body because of the sediment
production. The excess sediment generated in the watershed suffocates
spawning areas, reduces the stream's flood-carrying ability, fills deep
pools, increases turbidity in the stream and estuary, carries with it
nutrients that bring significant algae blooms during the summer and
fall, and changes the morphological balance of the streams and river
toward more unstable conditions.
In order to address issues such as encroachment of the river and
loss of wetlands and to develop local tools for improving natural
resource management, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco
District (Corps) and the Napa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District (NCFCWCD) is currently developing a Napa Valley
Watershed Management Plan (WMP) which identifies problems and
opportunities for implementing environmentally and economically
beneficial restoration in the Napa Valley watershed providing ecosystem
benefits, such as flood reduction, erosion control, sedimentation
management, and pollution abatement. The plan, which the District is
requesting funds for, would include the identification, review,
refinement, and prioritization of restoration and flood protection
opportunities with an emphasis on restoration of the watershed's
ecosystem (e.g.: important plant communities, healthy fish and wildlife
populations, rare and endangered habitats and species and wildlife and
riparian habitats).
The goal is to complete the WMP by providing technical, planning,
and design assistance to the non-Federal interests for carrying out
watershed management, restoration and development on the Napa River and
its tributaries from Soscol Ridge, located approximately 5 miles south
of the city of Napa, to Mt. St. Helena, the northern most reach of the
Napa River watershed, California. A management program incorporating
flood protection and environmental restoration would be developed as a
result of the watershed plan.
To address the above mentioned and other local, regional, and
national watershed concerns, the Napa County Board of Supervisors
appointed a Napa County Watershed Task Force (WTF) to identify
community based and supported solutions. The WTF submitted their
recommendation for further action to the Napa County Board of
Supervisors.
The Corps and the NCFCWCD developed the Napa Valley Watershed
Project Management Plan with input from the Napa County Planning
Department (NCPD), Napa County Up-Valley Cities, Napa County Watershed
Task Force (WTF), Napa County Resource Conservation District (RCD),
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the San Francisco Estuary
Institute (SFEI), and other regional and local stakeholders.
In an effort to identify problems and opportunities for
implementing beneficial restoration in the Napa Valley Watershed, the
Napa County Flood Control District is requesting the Napa Valley
Watershed Management Study be continued by the Corps of Engineers. The
authority for this study is the Northern California Streams Study
Authority stemming from the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962, Public Law
87-874. Specifically, the Napa County Flood Control District is working
closely with the Corps in the feasibility report to examine the
watershed management needs, including flood control, environmental
restoration, erosion control, storm water retention, storm water runoff
management, water conservation and supply, wetlands restoration,
sediment management and pollution abatement in the Napa Valley,
including the communities of Napa, Yountville, St. Helena, Calistoga
and the unincorporated areas of Napa County.
project synopsis
Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Funding
The fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill included $150,000 to
continue the Napa Valley Watershed Management Study. Funds are being
used for data evaluation and outreach and to create a data monitoring
framework for the watershed. This framework, known as the Watershed
Information Center (WIC), will serve as a coordinating body and data-
monitoring framework for the watershed. The WIC will serve as a library
for existing biological and physical data on the watershed. It can
serve as a forum for the multiple agencies, academic researcher and
non-profit organizations engaged in monitoring in the watershed.
Necessary Fiscal Year 2004 Funding
Funding for the Napa Valley Watershed Management Study during
fiscal year 2004 in the amount of $350,000 is needed to complete an
aerial photography/mapping project of the watershed area and complete
the Watershed Information Center. The mapping project was started in
fiscal year 2002 and in the current fiscal year has been supplemented
with LIDAR topography measurements provided by the State Regional Water
Quality Control Board. This mapping provides a Geographical Information
System (GIS) base for the management information of the watershed. The
WIC also was started in fiscal year 2002 and the current request will
complete creation of this data system. Both of these activities are
cornerstone components of the Napa Valley Watershed Management Study.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of St. Helena, California
The City of St. Helena is located in the center of the wine growing
Napa Valley, 65 miles north of San Francisco. The area was settled in
1834 as part of General Vallejo's land grant. The City of St. Helena
was incorporated as a City on March 24, 1876 and reincorporated on May
14, 1889.
The City from its inception has served as a rural agricultural
center. Over the years, with the growth and development of the wine
industry, the City has become an important business and banking center
for the wine industry. The City also receives many tourists as a result
of the wine industry. While, the main goal of the City is to maintain a
small-town atmosphere and to provide quality services to its citizens,
this is becoming increasingly difficult. Regulatory, administrative and
resource requirements placed on the City through the listing of
threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act on
the Napa River, as well as significant Clean Water Act requirements
require the City with a small population base to face significant
financial costs.
The City of St. Helena is a General Law City and operates under the
Council-City Manager form of government. The City Council is the
governing body and has the power to make and enforce all laws and set
policy related to municipal affairs. The official population of the
City of St. Helena as of January 1, 2002 is 6,019. St. Helena is a full
service City and encompasses an area of 4 square miles. Because of its
size and its rural nature, St. Helena has serious infrastructure, as
well as, flood protection and environmental needs that far exceed its
financial capabilities.
The Napa River flows along the north boundary of the City of St.
Helena in northern Napa County. The overall Napa River Watershed
historically supported a dense riparian forest and significant wetland
habitat. Over the last 200 years, approximately 6,500 acres of valley
floor wetlands have been filled in and 45,700 acres of overall
watershed have been converted to urban and agricultural uses. This
degradation of natural habitats has had a significant effect on water
quality, vegetation and wildlife, and aquatic resources within the Napa
River Watershed.
Surface water quality of the Napa River is dependent upon the time
of year, runoff from York and Sulphur Creeks, and urban area
discharges. During the winter months when streamflow is high,
pollutants are diluted; however, sedimentation and turbidity is high as
well. During the summer months when streamflow is low, pollutants are
concentrated and oxygen levels are low, thereby decreasing water
quality. Agricultural runoff adds pesticides, fertilizer residue, and
sometimes sediment. Discharges from urban areas can include
contaminated stormwater runoff and treated city wastewater. The Napa
River has been placed on the Clean Water Act 303(d) List and TMDL
Priority Schedule due to unacceptable levels of bacteria,
sedimentation, and nutrients. It is against this backdrop that the City
of St. Helena faces its biggest challenges.
st. helena napa river restoration project
The Napa River and its riparian corridor are considered Critical
Habitat for Steelhead and Salmon Recovery. The Steelhead is one of 6
Federally listed threatened and endangered species within the Napa
River and its adjoining corridor which requires attention. Current
conditions are such that natural habitats and geomorphic processes of
the Napa River are highly confined with sediment transport and
geomorphic work occurring in a limited area of the streambed and
channel banks. Napa River's habitat for the steelhead is limited in its
ability to provide prime spawning habitat. Limitations include: (1)
urbanization removing significant amounts of shading and cover
vegetation within and adjacent to the river; and (2) a detrimental lack
of pool habitat. Encroachment and channelization of Napa River have
degraded riparian habitat for rearing, resident, and migratory fish and
wildlife. The lack of riparian cover, increasing water temperature and
sedimentation in the river, has resulted in poor water quality. These
changes have reduced the project area's ability to support the re-
establishment of listed species.
In an effort to address these Federal environmental issues, the St.
Helena Napa River Restoration Project, a Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Project, was identified in the Napa Valley Watershed
Management Feasibility Study in April of 2001 as a specific opportunity
for restoration. The project would restore approximately 3 miles (20
acres) of riparian habitat and improve the migratory capacity of
Federally listed threatened and endangered species, providing greater
access to rearing, resident and migratory habitats in the 80 square
mile watershed above the project area.
The project will interface with and complement the City of St.
Helena's multiple objective flood project, the St. Helena Flood
Protection and Flood Corridor Restoration Project, which will provide
flood damage reduction through restoration and re-establishment of the
natural floodplain along the project reach, setting back levees and the
re-creation and restoration of a natural floodway providing high value
riparian forest.
This Section 206 project is necessary to ensure and improve the
viability of Federal and State listed species by providing rearing,
resident and migratory habitat in the project 3 mile stream corridor.
The project will also work to improve area habitat to benefit the
migration of steelhead to high value fisheries habitat in upper
watershed channel reaches. In an effort to build on recent geomorphic
and riparian studies on the Napa River, the Corps will use these
efforts from Swanson Hydrology and Geomorphology and Stillwater Science
to secure baseline information for this project.
The City of St. Helena respectfully requests the Committee's
support for $360,000 for completing the Detailed Project Report and
initiating plans and specifications for the St. Helena Napa River
Restoration Project under the Corps' Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Program.
york creek dam removal and restoration project
York Creek originates from the Coast Range on the western side of
the Napa Valley Watershed at an elevation of approximately 1,800 feet
and flows through a narrow canyon before joining the Napa River
northeast of St. Helena. York Creek Dam on York Creek has been
identified as a significant obstacle to passage for Federally listed
Steelhead in the Central California Coast. In fact, it has been
determined that York Creek Dam is a complete barrier to upstream fish
migration. In addition, since the City of St. Helena has owned York
Creek Dam, there has been a number of silt discharges from the dam into
York Creek that have caused fish kills.
Under the Corps of Engineers' Section 206 Authority, a study is
underway to remove the dam structure and to restore the creek in an
effort to improve fish passage and ecological stream function for this
Napa River tributary. Alternatives to be investigated and pursued
include complete removal of York Creek Dam, appurtenances and
accumulated sediment, re-grading and restoring the creek through the
reservoir area. Rather than merely removing the dam and accumulated
sediments, this alternative would use a portion of the material to re-
grade the reservoir area to simulate the configuration of the
undisturbed creek channel upstream. Material could also be used to fill
in and bury the spillway and to fill in the scour hole immediately
downstream of the spillway. Use of material on site will greatly reduce
hauling and disposal costs, as well as recreating a more natural creek
channel through the project area.
The revegetation plan for the site following removal of the earthen
dam will restore a self-sustaining native plant community that is
sufficiently established to exclude nonnative invasive plants.
Revegetation will replace vegetation that is removed due to
construction and stabilize sediments in the stream channel riparian
corridor and upper bank slopes. The species composition of the
revegetated site will be designed to match that of (relatively)
undisturbed sites both above and below the project site. In terms of
expected outcomes for the project, the removal of York Creek Dam will
open an additional 2 miles of steelhead habitat upstream of the dam,
and the channel restoration will reestablish natural channel geomorphic
processes and restore riparian vegetation.
The City of St. Helena respectfully requests the Committee's
support for $800,000 in appropriations under the Corps of Engineers'
Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program, so that the efforts
can proceed on completing the plans and specification and initiating
construction of the York Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project.
______
Prepared Statement of the Santa Clara Valley Water District,
San Jose, California
guadalupe river project
Background.--The Guadalupe River is a major waterway flowing
through a highly developed area of San Jose, in Santa Clara County,
California. A major flood would damage homes and businesses in the
heart of Silicon Valley. Historically, the river has flooded downtown
San Jose and the community of Alviso. According to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) 2000 Final General Reevaluation & Environmental
Report for Proposed Project Modifications, estimated damages from a 1
percent flood in the urban center of San Jose are over $576 million.
The Guadalupe River overflowed in February 1986, January 1995, and
March 1995, damaging homes and businesses in the St. John and Pleasant
Street areas of downtown San Jose. In March 1995, heavy rains resulted
in breakouts along the river that flooded approximately 300 homes and
business.
Project Synopsis.--In 1971, the local community requested that the
Corps reactivate its earlier study. Since 1972, substantial technical
and financial assistance have been provided by the local community
through the Santa Clara Valley Water District in an effort to
accelerate the project's completion. To date, more than $85.8 million
in local funds have been spent on planning, design, land purchases, and
construction in the Corps' project reach.
The Guadalupe River Project received authorization for construction
under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986; the General Design
Memorandum was completed in 1992, the local cooperative agreement was
executed in March 1992, the General Design Memorandum was revised in
1993, construction of the first phase of the project was completed in
August 1994, construction of the second phase was completed in August
1996. Project construction was temporarily halted due to environmental
concerns.
To achieve a successful, long-term resolution to the issues of
flood protection, environmental mitigation, avoidance of environmental
effects, and project monitoring and maintenance costs, a multi-agency
``Guadalupe Flood Control Project Collaborative'' was created in 1997.
A key outcome of the collaborative process was the signing of the
Dispute Resolution Memorandum in 1998, which modified the project to
resolve major mitigation issues and allowed the project to proceed.
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2002 was signed into
law on November 12, 2001. This authorized the Modified Guadalupe River
Project at a total cost of $226,800,000. Construction of the last phase
of flood protection is scheduled for completion by December 2004 and is
dependent on timely Federal funding and continuing successful
mitigation issue resolution. The overall construction of the project
including the river park and the recreation elements is scheduled for
completion in 2006.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding.--$8 million was authorized in fiscal year
2003 to continue Guadalupe River Project construction.
Fiscal Year 2004 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the need to
continue construction to provide critical flood protection for downtown
San Jose and the community of Alviso, it is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $12 million,
in addition to the $13 million in the Administration's fiscal year 2004
budget, for a total of $25 million to continue construction of the
final phase of the Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project.
upper guadalupe river project
Background.--The Guadalupe River is one of two major waterways
flowing through a highly urbanized area of Santa Clara County,
California, the heart of Silicon Valley. Historically, the river has
flooded the central district and southern areas of San Jose. According
to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1998 feasibility study, severe
flooding in the upper Guadalupe River's densely populated residential
floodplain south of Interstate 280 would result from a 100-year
flooding event and potentially cause $280 million in damages.
The probability of a large flood occurring before implementation of
flood prevention measures is high. The upper Guadalupe River overflowed
in March 1982, January 1983, February 1986, January 1995, March 1995,
and February 1998, causing damage to several residences and businesses
in the Alma Avenue and Willow Street areas. The 1995 floods in January
and March, as well as in February 1998, closed Highway 87 and the
parallel light-rail line, a major commute artery.
Project Synopsis.--In 1971, the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(District) requested the Corps to reactivate its earlier study. From
1971 to 1980, the Corps established the economic feasibility and
Federal interest in the Guadalupe River only between Interstate 880 and
Interstate 280. Following the 1982 and 1983 floods, the District
requested that the Corps reopen its study of the upper Guadalupe River
upstream of Interstate 280. The Corps completed a reconnaissance study
in November 1989, which established an economically justifiable
solution for flood protection in this reach. The report recommended
proceeding to the feasibility study phase, which began in 1990. In
January 1997, the Corps determined that the National Economic
Development Plan would be a 2 percent or 50-year level of flood
protection rather than the 1 percent or 100-year level. The District
strongly emphasized overriding the National Economic Development Plan
determination, providing compelling reasons for using the higher 1
percent or 100-year level of protection. In 1998, the Acting Secretary
of the Army did not concur to change the basis of cost sharing from the
50-year National Economic Development Plan to the locally preferred
100-year plan, resulting in a project that will provide less flood
protection, and therefore, be unable to reduce flood insurance
requirements and reimbursements, as well as eliminate recreational
benefits and increase environmental impacts. Based on Congressional
delegation requests, the Assistant Secretary of the Army directed the
Corps to revise the Chief's Report to reflect more significant Federal
responsibility. The Corps feasibility study determined the cost of the
locally preferred 100-year plan is $153 million and the Corps National
Economic Development Plan 50-year plan is $98 million. The District has
requested that the costs of providing 50-year and 100-year flood
protection be analyzed again during the preconstruction engineering
design phase for the determination of the National Economic Development
Plan. In a memorandum for the Assistant Secretary of the Army, dated
October 12, 2000, Major General Hans A. Van Winkle, Deputy Commander
for Civil Works, made a similar recommendation. The Federal cost share
has yet to be determined. The project was approved for construction by
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (Section 101).
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding.--$200,000 was authorized in fiscal year
2003 for the Upper Guadalupe River Project to continue preconstruction
engineering and design.
Fiscal Year 2004 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
of flood damage from the upper Guadalupe River and the need to complete
preconstruction engineering and design, it is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $3.3 million
in fiscal year 2004 for the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Protection
Project.
upper penitencia creek flood protection project
Background.--The Upper Penitencia Creek Watershed is located in
northeast Santa Clara County, California, near the southern end of the
San Francisco Bay. In the last two decades, the creek has flooded in
1980, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1998. The January 1995 flood damaged
a commercial nursery, a condominium complex, and a business park. The
February 1998 flood also damaged many homes, businesses, and surface
streets.
The proposed project on Upper Penitencia Creek, from the Coyote
Creek confluence to Dorel Drive, will protect portions of the cities of
San Jose and Milpitas. The floodplain is completely urbanized;
undeveloped land is limited to a few scattered agricultural parcels and
a corridor along Upper Penitencia Creek. Based on the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' (Corps) 1995 reconnaissance report, 4,300 buildings in
the cities of San Jose and Milpitas are located in the flood prone
area, 1,900 of which will have water entering the first floor. The
estimated damages from a 1 percent or 100-year flood exceed $121
million.
Study Synopsis.--Under authority of the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566), the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) completed
an economic feasibility study (watershed plan) for constructing flood
damage reduction facilities on Upper Penitencia Creek. Following the
1990 U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Bill, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service watershed plan stalled due to the very high ratio
of potential urban development flood damage compared to agricultural
damage in the project area.
In January 1993 the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District)
requested the Corps proceed with a reconnaissance study in the 1994
fiscal year while the Natural Resources Conservation Service plan was
on hold. Funds were appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 1995 and
the Corps started the reconnaissance study in October 1994. The
reconnaissance report was completed in July 1995, with the
recommendation to proceed with the feasibility study phase. The
feasibility study, initiated in February 1998, is currently scheduled
for completion in 2005.
Advance Construction.--To accelerate project implementation, the
District submitted a Section 104 application to the Corps for advance
approval to construct a portion of the project. Approval of the Section
104 application was awarded in December 2000. The advance construction
is for a 2,600-foot long section of bypass channel between Coyote Creek
and King Road. The District was planning to begin construction on this
portion of the project in 2002. However, due to funding constraints,
the current plan is for the District to complete the design and to turn
it over to the Corps to construct when the upstream reaches are ready
for construction.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding.--$559,000 was appropriated in fiscal year
2003 for the Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection Project for
project investigation.
Fiscal Year 2004 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
of flood damage from Upper Penitencia Creek and the need to proceed
with the feasibility study, it is requested that the Congressional
Committee support the $460,000 in the Administration's fiscal year 2004
budget for the Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection Project.
llagas creek project
Background.--The Llagas Creek Watershed is located in southern
Santa Clara County, California, serving the communities of Gilroy,
Morgan Hill and San Martin. Historically, Llagas Creek has flooded in
1937, 1955, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1969, 1982, 1986, 1996, 1997, and 1998.
The 1997, 1998, and 2002 floods damaged many homes, businesses, and a
recreational vehicle park located in areas of Morgan Hill and San
Martin. These are areas where flood protection is proposed. Overall,
the proposed project will protect the floodplain from a 1 percent flood
affecting more than 1,100 residential buildings, 500 commercial
buildings, and 1,300 acres of agricultural land.
Project Synopsis.--Under authority of the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566), the Natural Resources
Conservation Service completed an economic feasibility study in 1982
for constructing flood damage reduction facilities on Llagas Creek. The
Natural Resources Conservation Service completed construction of the
last segment of the channel for Lower Llagas Creek in 1994, providing
protection to the project area in Gilroy. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) is currently updating the 1982 environmental
assessment work and the engineering design for the project areas in
Morgan Hill and San Martin. The engineering design is being updated to
protect and improve creek water quality and to preserve and enhance the
creek's habitat, fish, and wildlife while satisfying current
environmental and regulatory requirement. Significant issues include
the presence of additional endangered species including the red-legged
frog and steelhead, listing of the area as probable critical habitat
for steelhead, and more extensive riparian habitat than were considered
in 1982. Project economics are currently being updated as directed by
Corps Headquarters to determine continued project economic viability.
Until 1996, the Llagas Creek Project was funded through the
traditional Public Law 83-566 Federal project funding agreement with
the Natural Resources Conservation Service paying for channel
improvements and the District paying local costs including utility
relocation, bridge construction, and right of way acquisition. Due to
the steady decrease in annual appropriations for the Public Law 83-566
construction program since 1990, the Llagas Creek Project has not
received adequate funding from U.S. Department of Agriculture to
complete the Public Law 83-566 project. To remedy this situation, the
District worked with congressional representatives to transfer the
construction authority from the Department of Agriculture to the Corps
under the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (Section 501). Since
the transfer of responsibility to the Corps, the District has been
working the Corps to complete the project.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding.--$325,000 was appropriated in fiscal year
2003 for the Llagas Creek Flood Protection Project for planning and
design.
Fiscal Year 2004 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
of flood damage from Llagas Creek, it is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $900,000 in
fiscal year 2004 for planning and environmental updates for the Llagas
Creek Project.
coyote/berryessa creek project
berryessa creek project element
Background.--The Berryessa Creek Watershed is located in northeast
Santa Clara County, California, near the southern end of the San
Francisco Bay. A major tributary of Coyote Creek, Berryessa Creek
drains 22 square miles in the City of Milpitas and a portion of San
Jose.
On average, Berryessa Creek floods once every 4 years. The most
recent flood in 1998 resulted in significant damage to homes and
automobiles. The proposed project on Berryessa Creek, from Calaveras
Boulevard to upstream of Old Piedmont Road, will protect portions of
the Cities of San Jose and Milpitas. The flood plain is largely
urbanized with a mix of residential and commercial development. Based
on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1993 draft General Design
Memorandum, a 1 percent or 100-year flood could potentially result in
damages of $52 million with depths of up to 3 feet.
Study Synopsis.--In January 1981, the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (District) applied for Federal assistance for flood protection
projects under Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act. The Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized construction on the
Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project as part of a combined Coyote/
Berryessa Creek Project to protect portions of the Cities of Milpitas
and San Jose.
The Coyote Creek element of the project was completed in 1996. The
Berryessa Creek Project element proposed in the Corps' 1987 feasibility
report consisted primarily of a trapezoidal concrete lining. This was
not acceptable to the local community. The Corps and the District are
currently preparing a General Reevaluation Report which involves
reformulating a project which is more acceptable to the local community
and more environmentally sensitive. Project features will include
setback levees and floodwalls to preserve sensitive areas (minimizing
the use of concrete), appropriate aquatic and riparian habitat
restoration and fish passage, and sediment control structures to limit
turbidity and protect water quality. The project will also accommodate
the City of Milpitas' adopted trail master plan. Estimated total costs
of the General Reevaluation Report work are $3.8 million, and should be
completed in the summer of 2005.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding.--$750,000 was appropriated in fiscal year
2003 for the Coyote/Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project to
continue the General Reevaluation Report and environmental documents
update.
Fiscal Year 2004 Funding Recommendation.--Based on the continuing
threat of significant flood damage from Berryessa Creek and the need to
continue with the General Reevaluation Report, it is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $750,000 for
the Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project element of the Coyote/
Berryessa Creek Project.
coyote creek watershed study
Background.--Coyote Creek drains Santa Clara County's largest
watershed, an area of more than 320 square miles encompassing most of
the eastern foothills, the City of Milpitas, and portions of the Cities
of San Jose and Morgan Hill. It flows northward from Anderson Reservoir
through more than 40 miles of rural and heavily urbanized areas and
empties into south San Francisco Bay.
Prior to construction of Coyote and Anderson Reservoirs, flooding
occurred in 1903, 1906, 1909, 1911, 1917, 1922, 1923, 1926, 1927, 1930
and 1931. Since 1950, the operation of the reservoirs has reduced the
magnitude of flooding, although flooding is still a threat and did
cause damages in 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1997. Significant areas of
older homes in downtown San Jose and some major transportation
corridors remain susceptible to extensive flooding. The federally-
supported lower Coyote Creek Project (San Francisco Bay to Montague
Expressway), which was completed in 1996, protected homes and
businesses from storms which generated record runoff in the northern
parts of San Jose and Milpitas.
The proposed Reconnaissance Study would evaluate the reaches
upstream of the completed Federal flood protection works on lower
Coyote Creek.
Objective of Study.--The objectives of the Reconnaissance Study are
to investigate flood damages within the Coyote Creek Watershed; to
identify potential alternatives for alleviating those damages which
also minimize impacts on fishery and wildlife resources, provide
opportunities for ecosystem restoration, provide for recreational
opportunities; and to determine whether there is a Federal interest to
proceed into the Feasibility Study Phase.
Study Authorization.--In May 2002, the House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure passed a resolution
directing the Corps to ``. . . review the report of the Chief of
Engineers on Coyote and Berryessa Creeks . . . and other pertinent
reports, to determine whether modifications of the recommendations
contained therein are advisable in the interest of flood damage
reduction, environmental restoration and protection, water conservation
and supply, recreation, and other allied purposes . . .''
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding.--No Federal funding was received in
fiscal year 2003.
Fiscal Year 2004 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $100,000 to
initiate a multipurpose Reconnaissance Study within the Coyote Creek
Watershed.
thompson creek restoration project
Background.--Thompson Creek, a tributary of Coyote Creek, flows
through the city limits of San Jose, California, approximately 50 miles
south of San Francisco. Historically, the creek was a naturally-
meandering stream and a component of the Coyote Creek watershed. The
watershed had extensive riparian and oak woodland habitat along
numerous tributary stream corridors and upland savanna. Currently,
these habitat types are restricted to thin sparse pockets in the
Thompson Creek restoration project area.
Significant urban development over the last 20 years has modified
the runoff characteristics of the stream resulting in significant
degradation of the riparian habitat and stream channel. The existing
habitats along Thompson Creek, riparian forest stands, are threatened
by a bank destabilization and lowering of the water table. Recent large
storm events (1995, 1997, and 1998) and the subsequent wet years in
conjunction with rapid development in the upper watershed have resulted
in a succession of high runoff events leading to rapid erosion. Today,
down cutting and head cutting persist and the channel continues to
incise and material is steadily eroded, leaving a deeply gullied and
eroded channel. Further downstream sedimentation causes problems with
flooding.
The upstream project limits start at the convergence of Yerba Buena
and Thompson Creeks next to Evergreen Park. The downstream project
limit is Quimby Road where Thompson creek has been modified as a flood
control project. The project distance is approximately 3 miles.
Status.--In February 2000, the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(District) initiated discussions with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) for a study under the Corps' Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Program. Based on the project merits, the Corps began
preparation of a Preliminary Restoration Plan (PRP) and subsequent
Project Management Plan (PMP). Approval of the PRP will lead to the
development of a Detailed Project Report (DPR). The DPR will provide
the information necessary to develop plans and specifications for the
construction of the restoration project.
project timeline
--Request Federal assistance under Sec. 206 Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Program--Feb 2002
--Initiate Study--Mar 2003
--Public Scoping Meeting and Local Involvement--Apr 2003
--Final Detailed Project Report to South Pacific Division of Corps--
May 2004
--Initiate Plans and Specifications--July 2004
--Complete Plans and Specifications--Oct 2004
--Project Cooperation Agreement signed--Dec 2004
--Certification of Real Estate--Mar 2005
--Advertise Construction Contract--May 2005
--Award Construction Contract--July 2005
--Construction Start--Sept 2005
--Complete Physical Construction--Dec 2006
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding.--$10,000 was received in the fiscal year
2003 Section 206 appropriation to complete the PRP.
Fiscal Year 2004 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the need to
continue the feasibility study to provide critical ecosystem
restoration for Thompson Creek, it is requested that the Congressional
Committee support an earmark of $200,000 within the Section 206 Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration Program.
san francisquito creek watershed project
Background.--The San Francisquito Creek watershed comprises 45
square miles and 70 miles of creek system. The creek mainstem flows
through five cities and two counties, from Searsville Lake, belonging
to Stanford University, to the San Francisco Bay at the boundary of
East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. Here it forms the boundary between Santa
Clara and San Mateo counties, California and separates the cities of
Palo Alto from East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. The upper watershed
tributaries are within the boundaries of Portola Valley and Woodside
townships. The creek flows through residential and commercial
properties, a biological preserve, and Stanford University campus. It
interfaces with regional and State transportation systems in the
mainstem area, by flowing under two freeways and the regional commuter
rail system. The local communities have formed a Joint Powers Authority
in 1999 to cooperatively manage flood and restoration efforts. San
Francisquito Creek is one of the last natural continuous riparian
corridors on the San Francisco Peninsula and home to one of the last
remaining viable steelhead trout runs. It is a highly valued resource
by all communities. Bank overflow has occurred eleven times since 1907
with record flooding in February 1998. The riparian habitat and urban
setting offer unique opportunities for a multi objective project
addressing flood protection, habitat, water quality, and recreation.
Flooding History.--The creeks mainstem has a flooding frequency of
approximately once in 11 years. It is estimated that over $155 million
in damages could occur in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties from a 1
percent flood, affecting 4,850 home and businesses. (1998
Reconnaissance Investigation Report, San Francisquito Creek Coordinated
Resource Management and Planning Organization, a local stakeholder
group). Significant areas of Palo Alto flooded in December 1955,
inundating about 1,200 acres of commercial and residential property and
about 70 acres of agricultural land. April 1958 storms caused a levee
failure downstream of Highway 101, flooding Palo Alto Airport, the city
landfill, and the golf course up to 4 feet deep. Overflow in 1982
caused extensive damage to private and public property. The flood of
record occurred on February 3, 1998, when overflow from numerous
locations caused severe, record consequences with more than $28 million
in damages, based on a March 1999 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
Survey Report. More than 1,100 homes were flooded in Palo Alto, 500
people were evacuated in East Palo Alto, and the major commute and
transportation artery, Highway 101, was closed. This report recommended
that the Corps proceed to a Section 905(b), expedited reconnaissance
phase, with study costs to be federally funded and not to exceed
$100,000.
Status.--Active citizenry are anxious to avoid a repeat of February
1998 flood. Numerous watershed based studies have been conducted by the
Corps, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Stanford University, and
the San Mateo County Flood Control District. Grassroots, consensus-
based Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Organization, now
called the San Francisquito Watershed Council, has united stakeholders
including local and State agencies, citizens, flood victims,
developers, and environmental activists for over 10 years. The San
Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority was formed in 1999 to
coordinate creek activities with five member agencies and two associate
members. The Joint Powers Authority Board has agreed to be the local
sponsor for a Corps project and received Congressional authorization
for a Corps reconnaissance study in May 2002. The JPA is also in the
process of initiating a Section 205 Continuing Authorities Program
project with the San Francisco District of the Corps for fiscal year
2003.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding.--No Federal funding was received in
fiscal year 2003.
Fiscal Year 2004 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested the
Congressional Committee support the $100,000 in the Administration's
fiscal year 2004 budget for the San Francisquito Creek Watershed.
south san francisco bay shoreline study
Background.--Congressional passage of Public Law 94-587, the Water
Resources Development Act of 1976, originally authorized the South San
Francisco Bay Shoreline Project. The Santa Clara Valley Water District
(District) is one of the project sponsors. The Corps' 1984
reconnaissance study included Santa Clara County, and proposed $15
million to $20 million of improvements to protect portions of the Santa
Clara County cities of Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, and San Jose. In 1990, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) concluded that levee failure
potential was low and suspended the project until adequate economic
benefits could be demonstrated.
The District is concerned because considerable development has
occurred in the project area since the project's suspension in 1990.
Many major corporations have since located within Silicon Valley's
Golden Triangle, lying within and adjacent to the tidal flood zone.
Now, damages from a 1 percent high tide would far exceed the $34.5
million estimated in 1981, disrupting business operations,
infrastructure, and residences. Also, land subsidence of up to 6 feet
near Alviso, as well as the structural uncertainty of existing salt
pond levees, increases the potential for tidal flooding in Santa Clara
County. When high tides coincide with wind generated waves, levee
overtopping occurs.
Project Synopsis.--The Corps' 1984 study assumed no change in levee
maintenance activities and hydrology, and identified overtopping, not
erosion or levee failure, as the most likely mode of tidal flooding.
The Corps attributed low potential benefits to levee improvements
because existing non-Federal, non-engineered levees have historically
withstood overtopping without failure.
The District believes that the low incidence of levee failure is
due to luck and diligent private and public maintenance programs--
programs that may not continue under the present regulatory
environment, restricted funding, and new property ownership. The trend
toward tougher regulatory controls restricts levee maintenance,
reducing the economic feasibility of continuing historic levels of
maintenance activities. Lower maintenance levels would leave these
levees and surrounding communities vulnerable to significant damages.
Public acquisition of approximately 13,000 acres of south bay salt
ponds was completed in early March 2003. The proposed restoration of
these ponds to tidal marsh will significantly alter the hydrologic
regime, which was assumed to be constant in the Corps' study. Adequate
tidal flood protection is critical to the success of the restoration
project, providing an opportunity for multi-objective watershed
planning in partnership with the California Coastal Conservancy, the
lead agency on the restoration project.
Since 1990, Corps staff in Washington, DC, has attempted
unsuccessfully to resolve the differences in their standards for
freeboard and levee stability with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. The 1997 levee failures and floods in California's Central
Valley elevated concern about the integrity of Bay Area levees. The
Corps recognized the potential Federal interest and requested funding
to reopen the reconnaissance study in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. No
funds were included in the final congressional authorizations. The U.S.
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
passed a resolution in July 2002 directing the Corps to review the
results of this study.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding.--No Federal appropriation was authorized
in fiscal year 2003.
Fiscal Year 2004 Funding Request.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $100,000 for
the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study to conduct a Reconnaissance
Investigation.
pajaro river watershed study
Background.--Pajaro River flows into the Pacific Ocean at Monterey
Bay, about 75 miles south of San Francisco. The drainage area
encompasses 1,300 square miles in Santa Clara, San Benito, Monterey,
and Santa Cruz counties. Potential flood damage reduction solutions
will require cooperation between four counties and four water/flood
management districts. There is critical habitat for endangered wildlife
and fisheries throughout the basin. Six separate flood events have
occurred on the Pajaro River in the past half century. Severe property
damage in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties resulted from floods in
1995, 1997, and 1998. Recent flood events have resulted in litigation
claims for damages approaching $50 million. $20 Million in U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) flood fight funds have been expended in
recent years.
Status.--Two separate Corps activities are taking place in the
watershed. The first activity is a Corps reconnaissance study
authorized by a House Resolution in May 1996 to address the need for
flood protection and water quality improvements, ecosystem restoration,
and other related issues. The second activity is a General Revaluation
Report initiated in response to claims by Santa Cruz and Monterey
Counties that the 13 mile levee project constructed in 1949 through
agricultural areas and the city of Watsonville is deficient. The
reconnaissance study on the entire watershed has been initiated by the
San Francisco District of the Corps and will be complete in fiscal year
2002. Watershed Stakeholders are working cooperatively to support the
Corps' reconnaissance study, which will provide information to help
reach an understanding and agreement about the background and facts of
the watershed situation.
Local Flood Prevention Authority.--Legislation passed by the State
of California (Assembly Bill 807) in 1999 titled ``The Pajaro River
Watershed Flood Prevention Authority Act'' mandated that a Flood
Prevention Authority be formed by June 30, 2000. The purpose of the
Flood Prevention Authority is ``to provide the leadership necessary to
. . . ensure the human, economic, and environmental resources of the
watershed are preserved, protected, and enhanced in terms of watershed
management and flood protection.'' The Flood Prevention Authority was
formed in July 2000 and consists of representatives from the Counties
of Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz, Zone 7 Flood
Control District, Monterey County Water Resources Agency, San Benito
County Water District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The
Flood Prevention Authority Board sent a letter of intent to cost share
a feasibility study of the Pajaro River Watershed to the Corps in
September 2001.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding.--$100,000 was authorized in fiscal year
2003 for the Pajaro Watershed Reconnaissance Study.
Fiscal Year 2004 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support the $100,000 in the Administration's
fiscal year 2004 budget for the Pajaro River Watershed Study.
san jose area water reclamation and reuse program
(south bay water recycling program)
Background.--The San Jose Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Program,
also known as the South Bay Water Recycling Program, will allow the
City of San Jose and its tributary agencies of the San Jose/Santa Clara
Water Pollution Control Plant to protect endangered species habitat,
meet receiving water quality standards, supplement Santa Clara County
water supplies, and comply with a mandate from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the California Water Resources Control Board to
reduce wastewater discharges into San Francisco Bay.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) collaborated with
the City of San Jose to build the first phase of the recycled water
system by providing financial support and technical assistance, as well
as coordination with local water retailers. The design, construction,
construction administration, and inspection of the program's
transmission pipeline and Milpitas 1A Pipeline was performed by the
District under contract to the City of San Jose.
Status.--The City of San Jose is the program sponsor for Phase 1,
consisting of almost 60 miles of transmission and distribution
pipelines, pump stations, and reservoirs. Completed at a cost of $140
million, Phase 1 began partial operation in October 1997. Peak
operation occurred in the summer of 2002 with average deliveries of 10
million gallons per day of recycled water. The system now serves over
400 customers and delivers over 6,000 acre-feet of recycled water per
year.
Phase 2 is now underway. In June 2001, San Jose approved an $82.5
million expansion of the program. The expansion includes additional
pipeline extensions into the cities of Santa Clara and Milpitas, a
major pipeline extension into Coyote Valley in south San Jose, and
reliability improvements of added reservoirs and pump stations. The
District and the City of San Jose executed an agreement in February
2002 to cost share on the pipeline into Coyote Valley and discuss a
long-term partnership agreement on the entire system. Phase 2's near-
term objective is to increase deliveries by the year 2010 to 15,000
acre-feet per year.
Funding.--In 1992, Public Law 102-575 authorized the Bureau of
Reclamation to work with the City of San Jose and the District to plan,
design, and build demonstration and permanent facilities for reclaiming
and reusing water in the San Jose metropolitan service area. The City
of San Jose reached an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation to
cover 25 percent of Phase 1's costs, or approximately $35 million;
however, Federal appropriations have not reached the authorized amount.
To date, the program has received $26 million of the $35 million
authorization.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding.--$3 million was appropriated in fiscal
year 2003 for project construction.
Fiscal Year 2004 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $9 million,
in addition to the $1 million in the Administration's fiscal year 2004
budget, for a total of $10 million to fund the work.
calfed bay-delta program
Background.--In an average year, half of Santa Clara County's water
supply is imported from the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta estuary (Bay-Delta) watersheds through three water projects: The
State Water Project, the Federal Central Valley Project, and San
Francisco's Hetch Hetchy Project. In conjunction with locally-developed
water, this water supply supports more than 1.7 million residents in
Santa Clara County and the most important high-tech center in the
world. In average to wet years, there is enough water to meet the
county's long-term needs. In dry years, however, the county could face
a water supply shortage of as much as 100,000 acre-feet per year, or
roughly 20 percent of the expected demand. In addition to shortages due
to hydrologic variations, the county's imported supplies have been
reduced due to regulatory restrictions placed on the operation of the
State and Federal water projects.
There are also water quality problems associated with using Bay-
Delta water as a drinking water supply. Organic materials and
pollutants discharged into the Delta, together with salt water mixing
in from San Francisco Bay, have the potential to create disinfection-
by-products that are carcinogenic and pose reproductive health
concerns.
Santa Clara County's imported supplies are also vulnerable to
extended outages due to catastrophic failures such as major earthquakes
and flooding. As demonstrated by the 1997 flooding in Central Valley,
the levee systems can fail and the water quality at the water project
intakes in the Delta can be degraded to such an extent that the
projects cannot pump from the Delta.
Project Synopsis.--The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is an
unprecedented, cooperative effort among Federal, State, and local
agencies to restore the Bay-Delta. With input from urban, agricultural,
environmental, fishing, and business interests, and the general public,
CALFED has developed a comprehensive, long-term plan to address
ecosystem and water management issues in the Bay-Delta.
Restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem is important not only because of
its significance as an environmental resource, but also because failing
to do so will stall efforts to improve water supply reliability and
water quality for millions of Californians and the State's trillion
dollar economy and job base.
The June 2000 Framework for Action and the August 2000 Record of
Decision/Certification contain a balanced package of actions to restore
ecosystem health, improve water supply reliability and water quality.
It is critical that Federal funding be provided to implement these
actions in the coming years.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding.--$23 million was appropriated for CALFED
activities under the Bureau of Reclamation's budget in fiscal year
2003.
Fiscal Year 2004 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Committee support an appropriation add-on of $35 million, in addition
to the $15 million in the Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget, for
a total of $50 million for the CALFED Program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Red River Valley Association
introduction
The Red River Valley Association is a voluntary group of citizens
bonded together to advance the economic development and future well
being of the citizens of the four State Red River Basin area in
Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.
For the past 78 years, the Association has done notable work in the
support and advancement of programs to develop the land and water
resources of the Valley to the beneficial use of all the people. To
this end, the Red River Valley Association offers its full support and
assistance to the various Port Authorities, Chambers of Commerce,
Economic Development Districts, Municipalities and other local
governmental entities in developing the area along the Red River.
The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association
during its 78th Annual Meeting in Shreveport, Louisiana on February 20,
2003, and represent the combined concerns of the citizens of the Red
River Basin area as they pertain to the goals of the Association,
specifically:
--Economic and Community Development
--Environmental Restoration
--Flood Control
--Bank Stabilization
--A Clean Water Supply for Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural
Uses
--Hydroelectric Power Generation
--Recreation
--Navigation
The Red River Valley Association is aware of the constraints on the
Federal budget, and has kept those constraints in mind as these
Resolutions were adopted. Therefore, and because of the far-reaching
regional and national benefits addressed by the various projects
covered in the Resolutions, we urge the members of Congress to review
the materials contained herein and give serious consideration to
funding the projects at the levels requested.
rrva testimony
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Wayne Dowd, and
pleased to represent the Red River Valley Association as its President.
Our organization was founded in 1925 with the express purpose of
uniting the Citizens of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas to
develop the land and water resources of the Red River Basin.
Even though the President's budget included $4.194 billion for
civil works programs this is $406 million (8.8 percent) less than
appropriated in fiscal year 2003. Again, the Corps took the biggest
reduction than any of the other major Federal agencies. This does not
come close to the real needs of our nation. A more realistic funding
level to meet the requirements for continuing the existing needs of the
civil works programs is $5.5 billion. The traditional programs, inland
waterways and flood protection remain at the low, unacceptable level as
in past years. These projects are the backbone to our Nation's
infrastructure for waterways, flood control and water supply. We remind
you that civil works projects are a true ``jobs program'' in that 100
percent of project construction is contracted to the private sector, as
is much of the architect and engineer work. Not only do these funds
provide jobs, but provide economic development opportunities for our
communities to grow and prosper.
It has come to our attention that there are some in the
Administration who are proposing to dismantle the civil works functions
and put them into other Federal agencies. Environmental and regulatory
functions might go to EPA or Department of the Interior and Waterways
may go to the Department of Transportation. This is not a good idea for
our Nation. Placing the regulatory and environmental missions in one of
those agencies puts it into a ``one agenda'', single focused agency.
The Corps of Engineers is the best agency to administer the regulatory
program, because they have all disciplines within their organization,
to include biologists, engineers, economists, etc. When the Corps of
Engineers reviews environmental issues we are best assured of a
balanced outcome that would best serve the people and our ecosystems.
Our concern with placing the inland waterways under Department of
Transportation is that they will not receive the same attention as the
more popular highways and airports. The facts are that one barge, 1,500
tons of commodities, is equivalent to 15 jumbo rail hoppers or 58
tractor-trailer trucks. According to EPA, towboats emit 35 to 60
percent fewer pollutants than locomotives or trucks, per ton of cargo
moved. This is why we should not dilute the importance of our
waterways. We should increase the importance of waterborne
transportation due to its efficiency, safety and being environmentally
friendly. The RRVA does not support any efforts to dissolve the Corps
of Engineer Civil Works functions into any other Federal agency.
We do not support any efforts to increase the benefit to cost ratio
for projects above 1.0 and we do not support increasing the local
sponsor's cost sharing requirements. This is not ``Corps reform'' it is
an initiative to eliminate the civil works program. We do support true
reform that would make civil works projects less expensive and faster
to complete. Corps reform should make the Corps of Engineers more
efficient, cheaper and faster in the execution of civil works studies
and completion of projects not eliminate the program.
I would now like to comment on our specific requests for the future
economic well being of the citizens residing in the four State Red
River Basin regions.
Navigation.--The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is living up to the
expectations of the benefits projected. We are extremely proud of our
public ports, municipalities and State agencies that have created this
success. New opportunities were announced in calendar year 2002 at each
of the ports that will increase the annual tonnage. You are reminded
that the Waterway is not complete, 12 percent remains to be
constructed, $242 million. We appreciate Congress's appropriation level
in fiscal year 2003; however, in order to keep the Waterway safe and
reliable we must continue at a funding level closer to $25 million.
The RRVA formed a Navigation Committee for industry, the Corps of
Engineers and Coast Guard to partner in making our Waterway a success.
In calendar year 2002 we succeeded in getting electronic charts
completed and they are now in use. Permanent channel markers are being
put in place and will be completed in calendar year 2003. Both of these
initiatives will provide all the aids to navigation necessary to insure
safe and efficient navigation, especially during high water events,
when commercial operations have ceased in past years.
An issue we need to address is the current 9 foot draft authorized
for the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway. Our Waterway feeds into the
Mississippi River, Atchafalaya River and Gulf Inter-coastal Canal,
which all accommodate 12 foot draft barges. The Atchafalaya River and
GIC are both authorized 12 foot channels. This would allow additional
cargo capacity, per barge, which will greatly increase the efficiency
of our Waterway and reduce transportation rates. We request that the
Corps conduct a reconnaissance study, to evaluate this proposal, at a
cost of $100,000.
The feasibility study to continue navigation from Shreveport-
Bossier City, Louisiana into the State of Arkansas is on going. We
appreciate that Congress appropriated adequate funding to complete this
study in fiscal year 2003. There is great optimism that the study will
recommend a favorable project. This region of SW Arkansas and NE Texas
continues to suffer major unemployment and the navigation project,
although not the total solution will help revitalize the economy. We
request funding to initiate planning, engineering and design, PED.
Bank Stabilization.--One of the most important, continuing
programs, on the Red River is bank stabilization in Arkansas and North
Louisiana. We must stop the loss of valuable farmland that erodes down
the river and interferes with the navigation channel. In addition to
the loss of farmland is the threat to public utilities such as roads,
electric power lines and bridges; as well as increased dredging cost in
the navigable waterway. These bank stabilization projects are
compatible with subsequent navigation and we urge that they be
continued in those locations designated by the Corps of Engineers to be
the areas of highest priority. We appreciated the Congressional funding
in fiscal year 2003 and request you fund this project at a level of $10
million.
Flood Control.--You will recall that in 1990 major areas of
northeast Texas, Southwest Arkansas and the entire length of the Red
River in Louisiana were ravaged by the worst flooding to hit the region
since 1945 and 1957. More than 700,000 acres were flooded with total
damages estimated at $20.4 million. However, it could have been much
worse. The Corps of Engineers estimates that without the flood control
measure authorized by Congress over the past several decades an
additional 1.3 million acres would have been flooded with an estimated
$330 million in additional flood damage to agriculture and urban
developments.
We continue to consider flood control a major objective and request
you continue funding the levee rehabilitation projects ongoing in
Arkansas. Five of eleven levee sections have been completed and brought
to Federal standards. Appropriations of $4.750 million will construct
two more levee sections in Lafayette County, AR.
The levees in Louisiana have been incorporated into the Federal
system; however, they do not meet current construction standards due to
their age. These levees do not have a gravel surface roadway,
threatening their integrity during times of flooding. It is essential
for personnel to traverse the levees during a flood to inspect them for
problems. Without the gravel surface the vehicles used cause rutting
and this can create conditions for the levees to fail. Gravel surfaces
will insure inspection personnel can check the levees during the
saturated conditions of a flood. Funding has been appropriated in
fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. Approximately 50 miles of levees
in the Natchitoches Levee District will be completed this year. We
request $2 million to continue this important project in other
parishes.
Clean Water.--Nearly 3,500 tons of natural salts, primarily sodium
chloride, enter the upper reaches of the Red River each day, rendering
downstream waters unusable for most purposes. The Truscott Brine Lake
project, which is located on the South Fork of the Wichita River in
King and Knox Counties, Texas became operational in 1987. An
independent panel of experts found that the project not only continues
to perform beyond design expectations in providing cleaner water, but
also has an exceptionally favorable cost benefit ratio. In fiscal year
1995 $16 million dollars was appropriated by the Administration, to
accelerate engineering design, real estate acquisition and initiate
construction of the Crowell Brine Dam, Area VII and Area IX.
Due to a conflict over environmental issues, raised by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, completion of the SFEIS was delayed pending
further study to determine the extent of possible impacts to fish and
wildlife, their habitats and biological communities along the Red River
and Lake Texoma. In an effort to resolve these issues and insure that
no harmful impact to the environment or ecosystems would result, a
comprehensive environmental and ecological monitoring program was
implemented. It evaluates the actual impacts of reducing chloride
concentrations within the Red River watershed. This base line data is
crucial to understanding the ecosystem of the Red River basin west of
Lake Texoma and funding for this must continue.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), in October 1998,
agreed to support a re-evaluation of the Wichita River Basin tributary
of the project. The re-evaluation report will be completed in fiscal
year 2003. Completion of this project will reclaim Lake Kemp as a
usable water source for the City of Wichita Falls and the region. This
project will provide improved water quality throughout the four States
of the Red River providing the opportunity to use surface water and
reduce dependency on ground water. We request appropriations of
$2,000,000 to continue this important environmental monitoring and to
initiate construction of the Wichita River control features.
Water Supply.--Northwest Texas has been overrun with non-native
species of brush and mesquite. It now dominates millions of acres of
rangelands and has negatively impacted water runoff. Studies have
indicated that brush management could increase runoff by as much as 30
percent to 40 percent. This would be of great value in opportunities
for more surface water use and less dependency on ground water. Other
benefits include an ecological diversity of plant and animal species,
range fire control and cattle production. A $100,000 reconnaissance
study would determine if there is a Federal interest and what magnitude
these benefits would be.
Lake Kemp, just west of Wichita Falls, TX, is a water supply for
the needs of this region. Invasion of non-native brush and siltation
have threatened the capacity of the lake to serve its intended
functions. A $100,000 reconnaissance study would investigate these
issues and determine if there are any potential solutions.
Operation & Maintenance.--We appreciate the support of your
subcommittee to support navigation to Shreveport/Bossier City, which is
now providing a catalyst to our industrial base, creating jobs and
providing economic growth. We request that O&M funding levels remain at
the expressed Corps capability to maintain a safe, reliable and
efficient transportation system.
It is very disturbing to see the Administration suggest that 50
percent of O&M costs be funded from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund
(IWTF). The law establishing this trust fund does not provide for it to
be used for O&M activities and the trust fund would be depleted in less
than 5 years. What is more troubling is that once this is allowed the
situation exists to increase the existing $.20 per gallon fuel tax on
waterway industries to $1.00 per gallon to cover 100 percent of the O&M
costs. This additional $.80 would drastically increase shipping rates
devastating a young waterway system such as ours. We do not believe
there can be a ``temporary'' use of this fund. Once the trust fund is
used for O&M purposes it will be very difficult to change.
It is our understanding that the criterion used to determine ``low
use'' waterways was set at 5 billion ``average ton-miles''. This is the
wrong criteria and methodology to use. Navigation projects are
justified using ``system ton-miles''. ``Average ton-miles'' is measured
from point of origin to the mouth of the river, while ``system ton-
miles'' is measured from point of origin to destination of cargo, which
makes sense. A more important issue is that ton-miles is only one
factor in determining success. Our Nation's waterways were built to
reduce transportation cost and they do that without moving one ton of
cargo. ``Water Compelled Rates'' is the term used for ``competition''.
Rail rates have dropped to match waterborne rates throughout the Red
River Valley. Many industries have experienced great transportation
savings without having to use the waterway. If our waterway were closed
the rail rates would immediately increase. This is one example on why
ton-miles cannot be the sole determining factor of success.
Full O&M capability levels are not only important for our Waterway
project but for all our Corps projects and flood control lakes. The
backlog of critical maintenance only becomes worse and more expensive
with time. We urge you to appropriate funding to address this serious
issue at the expressed full Corps capability. The ``Summary of Fiscal
Year 2004 Requests'', following this testimony, lists our major O&M
projects and the level needed to address this issue.
The Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) has never been fully
funded to its authorized amount. This has been an outstanding program
providing small, cost shared projects within our communities. We
believe this program should be funded at its full-authorized amount.
We are sincerely grateful to you for the past support you have
provided our various projects. We hope that we can count on you again
to fund our needs and complete the projects started that will help us
diversify our economy and create the jobs so badly needed by our
citizens. We have included a summary of our requests for easy
reference.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and project
details of the Red River Valley Association on behalf of the
industries, organizations, municipalities and citizens we represent
throughout the four State Red River Valley region. We believe that any
Federal monies spent on civil work projects are truly investments in
our future and will return several times the original investment in
benefits that will accrue back to the Federal Government.
grant disclosure
The Red River Valley Association has not received any Federal
grant, sub grant or contract during the current fiscal year or either
of the two previous fiscal years.
summary of fiscal year 2004 requests
[note: projects are not in any order of priority.]
General Investigation Studies (GI)
Red River Navigation, SW Arkansas.--This is a feasibility study
initiated on March 24, 1999 to investigate the potential to extend
navigation from Shreveport/Bossier, LA to Index, AR. To date $2,955,000
has been appropriated for this study and matched by the State of
Arkansas. These funds will complete the study in fiscal year 2003. The
initial study results indicate the probability that a project will be
recommended. Funds are requested in fiscal year 2004 to initiate pre-
construction, engineering and design (PED). Total fiscal year 2004
request--$400,000.
Southeast Oklahoma Water Resource Study.--Conduct a reconnaissance
study to evaluate the water resources in the study area. The study area
includes the Kiamichi River basin and other tributaries of the Red
River. A comprehensive plan will be developed to determine how best to
conserve and utilize this water. In fiscal year 2003 $100,000 was
received for this study. This is a complex 11-year study of ecosystem
restoration issues and the Oklahoma Water Resource Board has signed on
as the local sponsor. Total fiscal year 2004 request--$50,000.
Southwest Arkansas Study.--Conduct a reconnaissance report in the
four county areas of the Red River/Little River basins. Included would
be the four Corps lakes; DeQueen, Dierks, Gillham and Millwood. The
watershed study would evaluate; flooding, irrigation, fish and wildlife
habitat, water quality, recreation and water releases for navigation.
The State of Arkansas has expressed an interest in cost sharing the
feasibility study. Funding of $100,000 was received in fiscal year 2003
to initiate the study. Total fiscal year 2004 request--$200,000.
Washita River Basin, OK.--Under Public Law 534 NRCS, Department of
Agriculture, constructed approximately 1,100 small flood control
structures in the Washita River basin above Lake Texoma. These
structures have significantly reduced the sediment flow into Lake
Texoma; however, they are reaching their 50-year life expectancy. This
study will assist NRCS in determining how to extend the life of the
structures, which have had a great positive impact to the water
quality, flood storage capacity and ecosystem of Lake Texoma. Funding
of $100,000 was received in fiscal year 2003 to initiate the study.
Total fiscal year 2004 request--$100,000.
Mountain Fork River Watershed, OK & AR, Reconnaissance Study.--The
study area includes 754 square miles above Broken Bow Lake, OK. Broken
Bow Lake was justified for flood control, hydropower, water supply,
recreation and fish and wildlife purposes. In recent years the water
quality of Broken Bow Lake have deteriorated. This study will
investigate the impact of the up stream watershed nutrient and sediment
loading to the lake. Funding of $100,000 was received in fiscal year
2003 to initiate the study. Total fiscal year 2004 request--$100,000.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA, 12 Foot Channel Reconnaissance
Study.--The waterway flows directly into the Atchafalaya River and then
to the Gulf Inter-coastal Waterway, both have authorized 12 foot
channels. Except under extreme low water conditions the Mississippi
River accommodates barges of 12 foot draft. It is inefficient on
industry to have to ``special load'' barges destined for the Red River
to 9 feet when all other barges are loaded to 12 feet. More important
the added cargo per barge (one-third more) will have a dramatic impact
on reducing the waterborne rates for the Waterway, making it more
competitive. Total fiscal year 2004 request--$100,000.
Red River Brush Management Above Denison Dam, OK & TX,
Reconnaissance Study.--Over the past 200 years invasive and non-native
brush species have taken over this region. These species, especially
mesquite and salt cedar, absorbs enormous amount of water. Brush
control could yield as much as 30 percent to 40 percent increase in
rangeland runoff. Other benefits include an ecological diversity of
plant and animal species, range fire control and cattle production.
This is an eco-system restoration study. Total fiscal year 2004
request--$100,000.
Wichita River Basin above Lake Kemp Dam, TX, Reconnaissance
Report.--The scope of this study is to investigate creating riparian
eco-system features utilizing sediment depositions in the upper reaches
of Lake Kemp, while reducing deposits into Lake Kemp. The current
sediment deposits are impacting environmental functions of the Lake as
well as reducing storage capacity. Opportunities exist to construct
wetlands to improve ecological functions. Total fiscal year 2004
request--$100,000.
Red River Waterway, Index Arkansas to Denison Dam, TX.--Investigate
the restoration of natural resources, such as wetlands, bottomland
hardwoods and riparian habitat along approximately 245 river miles.
Various types of bank stabilization would be considered to protect
environmental zones and corridors. $63,000 was allocated in fiscal year
2002. This study is waiting for a local sponsor to be identified. Total
fiscal year 2004 request--$0.
Bois D'Arc Creek, Bonham, TX.--This is a reconnaissance study to
address the flooding on 16,100 acres on the lower two-thirds of the
basin. The towns of Whitewright and Bonham are within the basin. A dam
was determined feasible in the 1960's; however, there was no local
sponsor. Currently there are local sponsors interested in this project.
In fiscal year 2002 $126,000 was received to initiate this study. The
total study cost will be $1,270,000, Federal funds and $1,170,000 local
sponsor costs. This study is waiting on funding from the local sponsor,
Fannin County, TX. Total fiscal year 2004 request--$0.
Construction General (CG)
Red River Waterway Project--a. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--
Seven projects will be completed or awarded in fiscal year 2003 as well
as recreation facilities, the regional visitor center and continued
mitigation. These ongoing projects will be completed using the $13.7
million budgeted for fiscal year 2004. Additional funds could be used
for new projects, which include; Westdale Realignment ($2,500,000),
Pump Bayou Revetment ($500,000), Fausse/Natchitoches/Clarence
Reinforcement ($1,000,000), Scott Realignment ($2,500,000), Lumbra
Dikes ($2,000,000), Lindy C. Boggs Barrier Upgrade ($2,000,000),
continued mitigation ($1,300,000), Shell Point Drainage Structure
($1,000,000), Hammel/Carroll Revetments ($2,000,000) and Teague Parkway
Revetment ($500,000). Total fiscal year 2004 request--$29,000,000.
b. Index, AR to Denison Dam, TX; Bendway Weir Demonstration
Project.--This stretch of the Red River experiences tremendous bank
caving. A demonstration project using this Bendway Weir technique is
needed to determine if this method will work in the Red River. The U.S.
Highway 271 Bridge was selected due to the river threatening this
infrastructure and accessibility for evaluation. The project will
include underwater weirs 6 miles upstream and 5.5 miles downstream of
the bridge. There is great environmental enhancement potential with
this project. $765,000 has been appropriated to date and additional
funds are required to develop the PCA and reevaluate the design. A
local sponsor is still being secured. Total fiscal year 2004 request--
$250,000.
Red River Chloride Control Project (Wichita River Basin), TX.--A
reevaluation for the Wichita River Basin features had been ongoing
using reprogrammed funds. The office of the ASA (CW) has supported this
project and funds were appropriated in fiscal year 2003. The re-
evaluation report will be completed in fiscal year 2003. Funds are
needed for design, plans and specifications and to continue
environmental monitoring activities. Total fiscal year 2004 request--
$2,000,000.
Red River Below Denison Dam Levees & Bank Stabilization--a. Levee
Rehabilitation, AR--Funds are required to complete construction of
Levee Item #5 initiated in fiscal year 2001, initiate construction of
Levee Item #9 and initiate design for follow on Levee Item #6. Total
fiscal year 2004 request--$4,750,000.
b. Bowie County Levee, TX.--The local sponsor requested the
``locally preferred option'', which was authorized for construction. In
fiscal year 2003 $4,000,000 was appropriated to initiate this project.
The local sponsor is willing to execute a PCA and initiate real estate
activities in fiscal year 2003. Total fiscal year 2004 request--
$500,000.
c. Upgrade Levees, LA.--Approximately 220 miles of levees in
Louisiana do not have gravel surfaces on top of the levee, therefore do
not meet Federal standards. These levees are in the Federal system and
must be upgraded. This surface is required for safe inspections of the
levees during times of floods and to maintain the integrity of the
levee. The total project can be completed in four phases over 4 years.
$1,000,000 was appropriated in fiscal year 2003 and approximately 50
miles of levee have been upgraded in the Natchitoches Levee District,
LA. Total fiscal year 2004 request--$2,250,000.
d. Upgrade Levees, LA.--Many structures, through the Levee system
in Louisiana, have deteriorated to a condition that threatens the
integrity of the levees themselves. A project must be undertaken to
systematically upgrade these structures. Total fiscal year 2004
request--$600,000.
Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas.--Funds are required
to complete construction of Bois D'Arc Revetment ($4,200,000) initiated
in fiscal year 2002; and Dickson Revetment ($5,800,000) initiated in
fiscal year 2003. These funds would also complete the design on Finn
Revetment Phase II. These are important projects for protection of
valuable farmlands and to maintain the existing alignment of the river
in advance of navigation. Total fiscal year 2004 request--$10,000,000.
Little River County (Ogden Levee), AR.--A reconnaissance report in
1991 determined that flood control levees were justified along Little
River. The project sponsor, Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation
Commission requests that the project proceed directly to PED, without a
cost shared feasibility study. We request language and funding to
accomplish this. Total fiscal year 2004 request--$200,000.
McKinney Bayou.--The Reconnaissance Report showed a favorable
project to clear and reshape this drainage canal. Presently, the local
sponsor is unable to cost share continuation of this project due to the
extremely high cost of mitigation. Total fiscal year 2004 request--$0.
Big Cypress Valley Watershed (Section 1135).--The main focus of
this study is within the City of Jefferson, Texas. Informal
coordination with Jefferson has showed their continued support and
intent to participate. Their total share is estimated to be $601,600
with annual O&M costs of approximately $21,000. In fiscal year 2001
$120,000 was appropriated to initiate this project. No funds can be
expended until completion of the Master Plan and acquisition of land by
the local sponsor. Total fiscal year 2004 request--$0.
Millwood Lake, Grassy Lake, AR (Section 1135).--An environmental
restoration project of 15,000 acres of wetlands located downstream from
Millwood Dam. The Dam interrupted the flow to these wetlands and this
project would be a water delivery system to include restoring flow to a
400-acre pristine wetland area. It is private land; however, there is a
national interest for migratory birds. A potential sponsor is the
Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Commission. Total fiscal year 2004
request--$200,000.
East/West Burns Run Public Use Area, Park Modernization, Lake
Texoma, OK.--Modernization of these facilities will bring them up to
standards to serve the high volume of users experienced each year. The
Lake Texoma region economy depends mostly on recreation. This facility
will ensure continued success, but also increase the economic potential
for the area. Total fiscal year 2004 request--$6,000,000.
Operation & Maintenance (O&M)
Red River Waterway.--The President's budget is usually sufficient
to only operate the waterway and perform preventive maintenance. There
are major, unfunded backlog maintenance items that must be
accomplished. These items include inspection and repair of lock & dam
stop logs, repairs to tainter gate diagonal bracing at Lock #3 and
revetment repairs. The President's budget included no funding for
backlog maintenance. Total fiscal year 2004 request--$19,900,000.
Flood Control Lakes.--There are nine major flood control lakes in
the Red River Valley, plus the Truscott Brine Reservoir. These lakes
have served to prevent hundreds of millions of dollars of damage over
the past 50 years. However, they are getting to the age where
maintenance cannot be differed any longer. Backlog maintenance items
include repair to flood gates, powerhouse maintenance, dam structures
and recreation facilities. If upgrades are not made at recreation
facilities they may have to be closed due to safety concerns to the
public. Following is a list of the lakes and our fiscal year 2004
requests for each.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Flood Control Lake 2004 Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denison Dam, Lake Texoma, TX............................ $8,643,000
Hugo Lake, OK........................................... 3,138,000
Broken Bow Lake, OK..................................... 1,894,000
Pat Mayse Lake, TX...................................... 994,000
Warrika Lake, OK........................................ 1,691,000
Millwood Lake, AR....................................... 2,345,800
Direks Lake, AR......................................... 2,864,800
Gillham Lake, AR........................................ 2,743,000
DeQueen Lake, AR........................................ 2,768,800
Truscott Brine Dam, TX.................................. 1,717,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support of MR&T Operations and Maintenance (O&M).--Old River Lock
is the access tows have from the Mississippi River to the Red River
Waterway. When this structure is not in service tows must go down the
Atchafalaya River to the gulf and back to the Mississippi past New
Orleans, LA, adding days to the trip. It is critical to the success of
the Red River Waterway that the Old River structure be maintained.
Currently, there is a backlog of important maintenance items that must
be funded. Total fiscal year 2004 request--$21,000,000.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Louisiana Red River Waterway
Commission
On behalf of the citizens of the Red River Waterway District of
Louisiana, the Red River Waterway Commission urges the Congress of the
United States to allocate the funds necessary for fiscal year 2004 for
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway. Adequate funding will allow continued
construction progress toward actual project completion, stimulate
continued growth in tonnage movement, encourage the continuation of
private and public development as well as facilitate total reliability
in project function for industrial and recreational development. While
this project is still in its infancy stage; the infrastructure
investment has been justified by commercial and recreational
development along the Red River and intermodal transportation cost
savings because of water induced rates resulting from the project.
Tonnage volumes continue to steadily increase and cargo
classifications diversify providing numerous business opportunities for
this region. Further development will continue to take place with the
knowledge that users can rely on an efficient, functional and
environmentally sound river system.
Construction on Red River is over 90 percent complete, however, it
is vitally important that we understand the importance of steady
progress toward project completion with full knowledge of the financial
constraints on this country.
Areas of Need for the Red River Waterway Project
Operations & Maintenance Program.--Channel Maintenance (Dredging)
is critical to the viability of the waterway system. The President's
Budget should reflect funding for maintenance dredging or give the
Corps flexibility to operate and maintain projects as per our
agreements. By the way, dredging is maintenance and reliability of
channel should be of the highest priority. The Corps of Engineers needs
sufficient resources to adequately maintain the navigation channel to
provide dependable and reliable depths so that barges moving on the
system can be loaded to the maximum nine foot draft. Maintenance of
existing navigation structures at strategic locations is vital for
continued development. The backlog of maintenance items at the lock &
dam structures could be devastating to the Nation's investment in the
navigation system.
Navigation Structures (Revetments and Dikes).--The completion of
these river training works is necessary to maintain the channel
alignment so as to provide reliable navigation to the commercial users.
In addition, the structures help insure that barges can be loaded to
the maximum depths allowable for profitable operation and continued
industrial growth.
Construction/Maintenance Program.--The Corps of Engineers needs
resources available to react quickly to landowner bank caving
complaints that are a result of the project and are fully justified.
Mitigation and Bendway Dredging.--Continue with land acquisition
and developmental cost analysis associated with the mitigation portion
of the project to enhance the bottomland hardwood acreage within the
Red River Valley area of Louisiana. Continue the bendway dredging
operations to maintain the backwater connection to the channel of Red
River for ingress and egress of nutrient rich river water and numerous
species of freshwater fish.
Aids to Navigation.--As commercial use continues to increase, the
Coast Guard presence and resources must reflect a similar growth to
adequately maintain the buoy system on the Red River and stimulate
confidence in the river system. Necessary funding to upgrade assets
that lend reliability and credibility to our efforts is paramount.
Recreation Development.--Design and Construction in all Pools
should continue as practicable. Important developments such as the
Shreveport Riverview project, Teague Parkway Trails in Bossier City,
Colfax Recreation Area and Natchitoches Recreation Area have
established an excellent recreation foundation in Pools 3, 4, and 5.
______
Prepared Statement of the Caddo/Bossier Port Commission
On behalf of the citizens of Northwest Louisiana, the Caddo-Bossier
Parishes Port Commission respectfully urges the Congress of the United
States to allocate in the fiscal year 2004 Budget the necessary funding
to keep America's water navigation and transportation infrastructure
functioning in a safe, cost-effective and reliable manner. The Port and
Maritime Industries are a major contributor to our Nation's economy. As
an example, one out of every eight jobs in Louisiana is attributable to
these industries.
Moreover, our water highways are national assets, linking every
community in this Nation to the world. Unfortunately, the proposed
budget does not include funding for Red River maintenance dredging in
the Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Program. Dredging is absolutely
essential to maintaining a safe and reliable waterways system. In
addition, the $13.7 million budget allocated to the Corps of Engineers
for construction does not come close to meeting expressed Corps
capability of $29 million. Likewise, the Operating and Maintenance
budget appropriation for the Corps at $12 million does not meet
expressed Corps capability of $19.9 million.
The effect of these proposed cuts could also be exponentially
deepened by proposed changes that would finance 25 percent to 50
percent of the cost of operation and maintenance from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Since 1986,
these funds have been used to pay one-half of the cost of construction
and major rehabilitation on specified, fuel-taxed inland waterways
segments. This action violates the agreement reached prior to passage
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 affirming continued
Federal responsibility for inland waterways operation and maintenance
outlays in return for inland waterway users assuming the obligation for
financing 50 percent of future construction and major rehabilitation
expenditures. Of even greater concern is the potential this would
create for future increases in the fuel tax, negatively impacting cargo
rates and discouraging water transportation at a time when the industry
is experiencing strong gains.
The Port of Shreveport-Bossier, located at the head of Red River
navigation and in operation since 1997, stands today as a longtime
dream with a solid track record of success and over $95 million of
local public investment. In 2002, the Port reached the Two Millionth
Ton of Cargo milestone, at an earlier point in its development than
most ports of comparable size, and it added Southern Composite Yachts
to a growing tenant list at the 2,000-acre complex. These results
should provide a sense of pride to all members of Congress who believed
in the Red River Navigation Project and recognized its potential. We
urge you to continue to fund the waterways at a responsible level in
support of the continued growth of Port and Maritime Industries that so
directly impact our national economy.
______
Prepared Statement of the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners
This statement is prepared by James E. Wanamaker, Chief Engineer
for the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners, Greenville,
Mississippi, and submitted on behalf of the Board and the citizens of
the Mississippi Levee District. The Board of Mississippi Levee
Commissioners is comprised of 7 elected commissioners representing the
counties of Bolivar, Issaquena, Sharkey, Washington, and parts of
Humphreys and Warren counties in the Lower Yazoo Basin in Mississippi.
The Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners is charged with the
responsibility of providing protection to the Mississippi Delta from
flooding of the Mississippi River and maintaining major drainage
outlets for removing the flood waters from the area. These
responsibilities are carried out by providing the local sponsor
requirements for the Congressionally authorized projects in the
Mississippi Levee District.
It is apparent that the Administration loses sight of the fact that
the Mississippi River & Tributaries Project provides protection to the
Lower Mississippi Valley from flood waters generated across 41 percent
of the Continental United States. These flood waters flow from 31
States and 2 providences of Canada and must pass through the Lower
Mississippi Valley on its way to the Gulf of Mexico. We will remind you
that the Mississippi River & Tributaries Project is one of, if not the
most cost effective project ever undertaken by the United States. The
foresight used by the Congress and their authorization of the many
features of this project is exemplary.
The many projects that are part of the Mississippi River &
Tributaries Project not only provides protection from flooding in the
area, but the award of construction contracts throughout the Valley
provides assistance to the overall economy to this area that is also
encompassed by the Delta Regional Authority. The employment of the
local workforce and purchases from local venders by the contractors
help stabilize the economy in one of the most impoverished areas of our
country. The Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association will be
submitting a general statement in support of an appropriation of $435
million for fiscal year 2004 for the Mississippi River & Tributaries
Project. This is the minimum amount that we consider necessary to allow
for an orderly completion for the remaining work in the Valley and to
provide for the operation and maintenance as required to prevent
further deterioration of the completed flood control and navigation
work.
The Delta area of Mississippi remains exposed to severe flooding
from the Project Design Flood on the Mississippi River. The
administrative budget for Mainline Mississippi River Levees will
further delay protection from the River beyond the already projected
completion date of 2031. We are asking that the Congress appropriate
$55.609 million which will allow for the continuation of ongoing
contracts along our levee system and for the award of one additional
construction item in fiscal year 2004. The Board of Mississippi Levee
Commissioners has committed the necessary financial resources and staff
to allow for the orderly acquisition of rights-of-way which is required
by the local sponsor and we ask that the Congress continue to provide
adequate Federal funding to allow construction of these projects to
move forward in an orderly manner.
Although there is opposition to the recommended plan for the Yazoo
Backwater Project within the environmental community, the local support
for the recommended plan is strong. All six of the county Boards of
Supervisors in the project area officially support the recommended plan
provided in the Draft Reformulation Report released by the Corps of
Engineers in September 2000. The Corps of Engineers and Environmental
Protection Agency are currently working to gain consensus on the
science used in evaluating impacts. The Mississippi Levee Board remains
concerned about the apparent desire of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
to avoid the science involved and their continued effort to achieve
their goal for change in national policy utilizing this single project
as the vehicle. The Fish & Wildlife Service continues to advocate
alternatives that constitute no more than land use planning for the
area. The Vicksburg District Corps of Engineers has scheduled the
release of the Final Report this summer which would call for initiating
the acquisition of reforestation easements; the pump supply contract;
and relocations during fiscal year 2004. At this time, we would ask
that the Congress provide an appropriation of $12 million which will
allow for the Corps of Engineers to proceed on schedule in providing
protection to an area from flood waters that it has had to endure for
over 60 years after the Eudora Floodway feature was removed from the
Mississippi River & Tributaries Project.
The completion of channel work leading into the City of Greenville
being constructed as part of the Upper Steele Bayou Project portion of
the Big Sunflower River & Tributaries Project has proved itself on more
than one occasion. As we have had several rainfall events that
previously would have caused tremendous localized flooding and flooding
of many homes in the City of Greenville, rainfall from these storms was
conveyed by the project without damage to any homes. We are requesting
$1.29 million for construction to continue on the remaining features of
this project in the Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge and for the
acquisition of remaining mitigation lands required as this project
nears completion.
As with the work that provides the drainage of flood waters from
the City of Greenville, the Upper Yazoo Project, having been completed
to the City of Greenwood, has also proved itself during these heavy
rainfall events. Areas that were flooded in the City of Greenwood
during heavy rains in 1973 have remained flood free over the last 2
years. This work needs to extend upstream toward the towns of Lambert
and Marks so that they might receive the same level of protection as
Greenville and Greenwood. We are requesting $15 million for the Upper
Yazoo Project which will allow the Vicksburg District Corps of
Engineers to continue with planning, design, and the award of
construction contracts in an orderly manner. These channels also
provide the outlet for the four flood control reservoirs which store
excess waters from heavy rainfall events that occur in the upper
reaches of the basin.
Demonstration Erosion Control work in the Bluff Hills above the
Mississippi Delta has time and again proven the effectiveness of
stabilized stream banks and reduction of head cutting, both of which
reduces sediment from entering our channels. An appropriation of $20
million is being requested for the Demonstration Erosion Control
Project to ensure that construction continues on schedule reducing
maintenance requirements along the Yazoo, Tallahatchie, and Coldwater
River Systems in years to come.
We read day after day comments regarding the need for maintenance
of our Nations infrastructure. Completed portions of the Mississippi
River & Tributaries Project are no different than other infrastructure
across the country. The Big Sunflower River & Tributaries Project
provides the drainage outlet for over 4,000 square miles of the
Mississippi Delta (an area almost 4 times the size of the State of
Rhode Island). Construction on this project was initiated in 1947 and
completed in the mid 1960's. For over 50 years, the Mississippi Delta's
two Levee Boards, which serve as the local sponsors of this project,
have carried out their commitment to the Corps of Engineers for the
maintenance of this project. The Vicksburg District Corps of Engineers
determined in the early 1990's that major maintenance of these channels
was required to restore the project to the capacity achieved when the
work was completed in the 1960's. Opposition to the Big Sunflower River
Maintenance Project has led the Vicksburg District Corps of Engineers
to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The State of
Mississippi is also re-evaluating the Water Quality Certificate. Both
of these activities are scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2004,
at which time a construction contract for the first dredging item can
be awarded. All of the required right-of-way is in place for this item
and we are requesting $4.17 million to allow the award for this
contract.
Maintenance of our Mainline Mississippi River Levee System is
provided on a day-to-day basis by the many Levee Boards along the
Mississippi River. The Flood Control Act of 1928 clearly delineates
activities to be performed by the local sponsor and by the Federal
Government. We are requesting $8.69 million for the maintenance of the
Mississippi River Levees to allow the Corps of Engineers to adequately
carry out their responsibilities for major maintenance on this project.
A key feature in providing flood protection to the East part of the
Mississippi Delta are the four flood control reservoirs that hold back
flood waters from the Bluff Hills that would otherwise inundate the
Delta. All of these reservoirs are well over 50 years old and are
requiring major work to comply with the provisions of the Dam Safety
Act. We are asking for appropriation for maintenance of Arkabutla Lake
of $10.205 million, Enid Lake $7.47 million, Grenada Lake $8.358
million, and Sardis Lake $13.86 million. The increase in funds
requested will be utilized for much needed maintenance to features of
these projects. We are also asking for an appropriation of $1.135
million for the tributaries' features of the Yazoo Basin to allow
continued bank stabilization and shore line protection work.
There are other issues in the Administrations' Budget for the Corps
of Engineers that greatly concern everyone in the Valley. Inland
navigation along the Mississippi River is a vital feature in keeping
the economy of the Lower Mississippi Valley stable. This navigation
system passes through the heart of an area focused on by the Delta
Regional Authority and provides a nucleus on which other economic
development in the area can rely. The Administration's proposal to
utilize funds from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund for daily operation
of maintenance of the waterway is unacceptable. It is a proven fact
that construction rehabilitation funds needed to keep the navigation
system operational are insufficient and the depletion of the Trust Fund
for operation and maintenance will further hinder the rehabilitation of
the navigation system so vital to the economy of our Nation. Our inland
waterways navigation system provides benefits to the Nation of
approximately $900 million each year.
We have also been informed that the Secretary of the Army desires
to ``out source'' up to 90 percent of the civil work functions being
carried out by the Corps of Engineers. The Board of Mississippi Levee
Commissioners has long been concerned about the reduction of personnel
employed by the Corps of Engineers and its impact to the design and
construction of our projects, along with the lack of experienced
individuals available to assist during a major flood event along the
Mississippi River. The Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners is
opposed to any further ``out sourcing'' of activities currently being
performed in-house by the Corps of Engineers. We have found ourselves
in a position that local sponsor personnel are required to perform
activities during the design phase of our projects, or suffer from
delays to the contract award. This is caused by the time required by
procedures to have the work ``out sourced''. We are also opposed to any
function currently administered by the Corps of Engineers being
transferred to any other department of the Federal Government. The
experience of personnel throughout the Corps of Engineers in carrying
out their Congressionally authorized civil work functions cannot be
replaced if moved to other departments of the Federal Government.
We are grateful to the committee for providing us the opportunity
each year to present our testimony for the record.
______
Letter From the Little River Drainage District
Cape Girardeau, Missouri, March 19, 2003.
Senator Peter V. Domenici,
127 Dirksen, Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Domenici: My name is Dr. Sam Hunter, DVM of Sikeston,
Missouri. I am a veterinarian, landowner, farmer and resident of
Southeast Missouri.
I am the President of the Little River Drainage District, the
largest such entity in the Nation. Our District serves as an outlet
drainage and flood control District to parts of 7 counties in Southeast
Missouri. We provide flood control protection to a sizable area of
Northeast Arkansas as well. Our District is solely tax supported by
more than 3,500 private landowners in Southeast Missouri.
Our District, as well as other Drainage and Levee Districts in
Missouri and Arkansas, is located within the St. Francis River Basin.
This is a project item of the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project.
The St. Francis Basin Project was authorized by Congress in 1928
for improvements by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The initial
authorization was justified by a projected benefit cost ratio of 2.4:1.
Today this ratio is 3.6:1 and the project is still not completed. As
you can see this has been a wise investment of our Federal tax dollars.
Few projects or ventures with funding levels provided by the Federal
Government return more than they cost. This one does and we need to
complete it in a timely fashion.
Local interests have done their part in providing rights of way,
roads, utilities and the like. Our government now needs to fulfill
their obligatory part of the project and bring it to completion as
quickly as possible.
The amount allocated for maintenance in the St. Francis Basin
Project for fiscal year 2003 was approximately $12,000,000. This is a
funding level that will permit adequate funding to maintain the
features within that project on which the Corps of Engineers has made
improvements and which it is the responsibility of the Federal
Government to maintain. As a matter of information the Memphis District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was able to execute 99 percent of the
available funds for maintenance within that project for fiscal year
2003.
The President's budget for fiscal year 2004 contains $2.91 million
for construction whereas the Corps of Engineers has the capability of
$7.6 million. The President's budget has only $7.505 million for
maintenance within the St. Francis Basin Project whereas the Corps of
Engineers has a stated capability of $10.305 million for maintenance.
We believe the Corps could adequately use between $13 and $15
million each year for maintenance within this basin. We realize the
budgetary restraints this year and respectively request Congress to
approve funding for maintenance in the St. Francis Basin Project for
fiscal year 2004 in the amount of $10.505 million. This is
approximately $2 million less than what was actually spent in fiscal
year 2003 but it will provide funds for adequate maintenance of the
features within this basin which need annual attention.
Regarding the construction request we respectively request the
Congress to fund the amounts for construction for this project equal to
the Corps capability of $7.6 million.
Many positive changes have occurred to and within our sector of our
Nation because of this project. We who live there welcome these
changes. We, local interests, in Southeast Missouri and Northeast
Arkansas want this project brought to completion and adequately
maintained. We have waited over 70 years and we believe it is now time
to complete this wise investment for our Nation.
Secondly, the Corps of Engineers has a stated capability of more
than $435,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 in the MR&T Project. We ask you
to give consideration to provide funding levels at $435,000,000 for
this project. This will provide some very needed new construction and
some maintenance. The President's budget contains only $162,440,000 for
maintenance which is not adequate. The Corps has a stated capability of
$208,443,000. We respectively request full capability amounts. The
President's budget is for only $280,000,000 for construction which to
put it simply is not enough to keep this vital project maintained and
moving to a modernization and a reasonable completion date. Authorized
since 1928 and not completed does not bode well for such a wise
investment.
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project was authorized
following a record flood in 1927 that inundated more than 26,000 square
miles of the Mississippi River Valley. Over 700,000 people were left
homeless, many lives were lost, most if not all East-West commerce was
stopped and it adversely effected the economy and the environment of
our Nation. After that devastating event Congress in its infinite
wisdom passed a bill and established the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project (MR&T) and authorized the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to develop a plan to prevent such a disaster in the future.
To date the MR&T Project has prevented over $180 billion in flood
damages for an investment of less than $10 billion. Additionally our
Nation receives more than $900 million of navigational benefits each
year due to this project. It is readily seen that this project had
merit from the beginning and continues to reward the citizens not only
of the valley itself but of the citizens of the entire Nation. It is a
wise investment for this country, it is good for our economy, and it
will be a vital link to the defense of our Nation in the event of an
attack by our enemies.
This project is not completed and needs to be completed
immediately. Our locks are aged and have exceeded by 20 percent in some
instances of their expected life expectancy. The entire lock and dam
system on the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project needs to be
modernized in order for our shipping interests to compete with foreign
markets. While we sit idly by and watch our infrastructure deteriorate
our competitors in South America and Central America are building
better and more efficient features throughout their countries.
Ultimately this will lead to competition which our Nation will not be
able to fairly compete with.
Further, we are very concerned and strongly opposed to the
administration's recommendation in its fiscal year 2004 budget
submission to use funds from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to pay for
part of the operation and maintenance cost of the inland waterways as
well as some construction. The trust fund was established in 1978 and
was to be made available for construction and rehabilitation for
navigation on the inland and coastal waterways not for operations and
maintenance. This is not what our Nation agreed to in 1978 and is not
what was renewed under WRDA in 1986. We petition this Congress to stand
up and have our Nation live up to the promises made to the contributors
of that trust fund and abide by past agreements.
Should Congress allow this recommendation to come to fruition the
trust fund would be drained of all its funds in a short period of time
and the 50 percent cost share to pay for the construction for
navigation would not be available unless the tax on fuel used by our
shipping interests was raised considerably. In most cases these taxes
would have to be doubled. This industry and its operators would suffer
dreadfully and many would have to cease operations. Even today at least
one has filed for bankruptcy and at least one or two others is
contemplating the same. Should this continue to happen the best and
most desirable mode of transportation to get our farm commodities and
products to market would require overland transportation which would
place a giant burden on our highway system. Further, it would add to
the expense to our farmers for getting their products to market as well
as increasing the cost of fuel oil, gasoline, coal, chemicals, and the
other many items shipped by our barge industry.
It has been proven year after year our waterway transportation
system is the safest, the most environmentally acceptable, and the most
fuel efficient in moving mass amounts of commodities and materials
throughout our Nation. It would be totally unacceptable and extremely
unwise to diminish the role of that mode of moving products throughout
our Nation and expect them to be moved either by rail or by highways.
Our highway systems already are in dire need of repair and to add
additional demands on them would be extremely costly. They would become
very unsafe, and would require much more fuel consumption which we
currently do not have but must import. Hopefully, common sense will
prevail and Congress will make the choice to invest into one of the
greatest assets we have in our Nation.
The many locks and dams on our rivers are needed. They were
designed to accommodate traffic 50-60 years ago and it is now time to
upgrade, enlarge, and construct them to accommodate the industry as we
have it today. We have done the same thing with our vehicular traffic
on our roads by upgrading, enlarging, and constructing to meet the
modern day demands. It is now time and past time to do the same for our
water industry. Former President Eisenhower saw an increase in our car
and truck traffic on the horizon and thus we implemented an extensive
interstate system. Let's look to the future with progressive and wise
vision and do something in a similar way on our rivers. Our Nation is
the world's leading maritime and trading nation. We rely on an
efficient and effective marine transport system to maintain our role as
a global power. We must continue that role by setting the pattern for
our neighbor, allies, and other foes.
Our current waterway system has improved the quality of life and
has provided a foundation for economic growth and development in the
United States particularly throughout the Mississippi Valley. Our flood
control systems work, our transport systems are efficient, our multi-
purpose projects all contribute to our national prosperity. The
benefits are real, the flood damages are known to have prevented much
devastation. Transportation costs have been reduced and increased trade
worldwide has increased. Unfortunately our Nation has not invested in
water resource projects and has not kept pace with the economic and
social expansion not only in this country but on global markets as
well. Most of our locks and dams are outdated and were designed only
for a 50 year life. We have exceeded that on nearly half of those
locks. Many of our locks are undersized for modern commercial barge
demands and need to be modernized. Imagine our Highway system being as
it was 50 years ago and having to accommodate the massive number of
cars we have today. That is precisely what we are doing on our
waterways. We need to have greater vision and mettle and become
aggressive and progressive in meeting today's needs. There is currently
$10 billion needed for waterway improvements in addition to a backlog
of approximately $300,000,000 which we need to address in this country.
Our country should have the same vision and the same goal of
modernizing and upgrading our waterway system as we upgraded and
modernized our interstate system across our country in the 1960's.
The latest report by the American Society of Civil Engineers
provides us an independent report card review on America's
infrastructure. Features that were graded were roads, bridges, transit
systems, aviation schools, drinking water, waste water, dams, solid
waste, hazardous waste, navigable waterways, and energy. The highest
grade this independent organization gave was a C+ to our solid waste
disposal system. The overall average which they gave to our
infrastructure was a D+. This is shameful and this needs to be
corrected. The ASCE estimates approximately $1.3 trillion needs to be
spent on our infrastructure over the next 5 years. We can and should
heed their recommendation. This is not an ``in house'' review but an
independent assessment.
What a great way for our country to stimulate its economy and at
the same time be building and making investments into a system for the
future which will return back more dollars than expended. We petition
you to give this vital industry of our Nation a strong endorsement and
do all you can to ensure our waterways systems stay competitive with
our foreign competitors.
At a time when we need to stimulate our economy and at a time that
safety from terrorist activities needs to be enhanced and at a time
that many in our Nation are concerned about cleaner air, cleaner water,
etc., we have a great opportunity to meet the needs of all. We can be
making sound investments into our infrastructure which will turn back
more monies to the taxpayers of this country than was invested. We will
be increasing our defense capabilities should our Nation be attacked
from an outside force.
We are strongly opposed to any action that would transfer any part
or all of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works mission to any
other agency or department of the Federal Government. This agency has
completed and overseen the Civil Works mission since its inception and
has done quite well. Very few of our other governmental bodies can
report and show a return of the taxpayers investment as the Corps of
Engineers can and has been doing for many years. It has been reported
this administration desires to transfer the Corps Civil Works program
to the Department of Transportation, the Flood Control and
Environmental Restoration to the Department of Interior and the
Regulatory Program to the Environmental Protection Agency. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers has rendered extremely valuable services to
this Nation for many years. The Corps has created an inland waterways
system that is the envy of the rest of the world. Our Nation's
commercial transportation system is critical to the Nation's economy
and the environmental well being and part of this system is used to
transport military equipment in support of the war on terrorism. The
Corps has also been in the forefront to provide flood control and
environmental restoration projects and have supported our troops at
every armed conflict this Nation has been engaged in. In our opinion,
it will be a serious mistake and have a negative nationwide impact to
spread the functions of the Corps into several parts and across a
Federal bureaucracy. This Nation would lose a wonderful asset and one
we have enjoyed for many years.
Further, we are opposed to the continued trend to ``out-source'' or
to contract-out many of the present positions in the Army Corps of
Engineers, Civil Works Division. The current Secretary of Army has
proposed 90 percent of all Corps of Engineers positions be contracted
out which would eliminate approximately 22,000 current employees and
would make it almost impossible for much of their work to continue. The
Corps of Engineers needs to have a good core group of employees ``in
house'' in order to continue to function in an orderly manner and in a
fashion their mission was set out by Congress. It is our hope that our
good Congressional friends will recognize this as a problem and do all
they can to insure that such efforts are not successful.
I wish to thank you very much for your time and kind attention and
for taking the time to review the above discourse. We would be very
appreciative of anything this committee can do to help us improve our
environment, improve our livelihood, and improve the area in which we
live and work which ultimately is good for America. We are also very
appreciative of all this Committee has done for us in the past. We
trust you will hear our pleas once more and act accordingly.
Dr. Sam M. Hunter,
President.
______
Prepared Statement of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association
My name is M.V. Williams and I am the President of the West
Tennessee Tributaries Association. It is also my privilege to serve as
the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Mississippi Valley Flood
Control Association.
I hope that every one here has knowledge of the Mississippi Valley
Flood Control Association and a general idea of our objectives. For the
sake of time let me sum it up by saying we are an agency that gives all
the people of the Mississippi River Valley the opportunity to speak and
act jointly on all matters pertaining to flood control, navigation,
bank stabilization and major drainage problems. We have been coming to
Washington since 1922 and continuously since re-organization in 1935,
that's 68 years. Our members for the most part are elected officials
that give of their time and resources because they know full well that
their well-being and that of their family, friends and neighbors
depends on the whims of the majestic and mighty Mississippi River and
its Tributaries.
Today our great Nation is engaged in a global war on terrorism and
our first priority is to win this war and to give back to our citizens
that feeling of safety that was so rudely taken from us on the 11th day
of September, 2001 by a bunch of self-destructive fanatical murderers.
We know that each of you shares our concerns on this matter.
I am here today to talk about the fiscal year 2004 Appropriations
for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. But before I do, I
wish to thank all the Members of the United States Congress for adding
funds to the President's fiscal year 2003 Budget for the U.S. Army,
Corps of Engineers' Civil Works program. These additional funds are
needed to insure the continuation of the improvement of our water
resources, the restoration and protection of our natural environment
and the operations and maintenance of our inland waterways system and
our vitally needed flood control structures.
Today we are again faced with the Administration's Budget that is
totally inadequate to accomplish those things that I have just
mentioned. In addition to a lack of funding this 2004 Budget contains
requirements that are totally unacceptable to us. I would at this time
desire to address these concerns before talking briefly about the
Appropriations.
First, the Administration is proposing to reach into the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund to pay a large share of the cost of operations and
maintenance of the inland waterways of this country which by the way
are the envy of the rest of those that inhabit this planet.
The Inland Waterways Trust Fund was established by the Congress in
1978 to make available funds for future construction and rehabilitation
for navigation on the inland and coastal waterways, not for use for the
operations and maintenance of those waterways. The funds came from a
tax levied on the diesel fuel used by the commercial tow boats that
used the waterways. These funds were not used until the passage of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 at which time an agreement was
reached between the waterways operators and the Federal Government that
would call for an increase in the amount of fuel taxes coupled with the
understanding that the trust fund would not be used for operation and
maintenance costs.
If the Congress allows the use of trust funds for operations and
maintenance, the trust fund will be exhausted in a short period of time
and the 50 percent share to pay for construction for navigation
facilities will not be available unless the tax on fuel used by the tow
boats is raised once again. This action would make it extremely
difficult for barge operators to continue their operations thereby
making it more expensive for farmers to get their products to market
and for the public to realize savings in transportation cost for bulk
commodities such as fuel oil, gasoline and other crucial items shipped
by barge. We urge you not to accept this proposal made by the
Administration.
We again wish to express our strong opposition to any action that
would transfer any part of the Corps of Engineers' Civil Works mission
to other agencies or departments of the government and also our strong
opposition to any ``out-sourcing'' of the present positions in the
Corps' civil works functions.
We were very pleased to see that section 109 of the Fiscal Year
2003 Appropriations Bill reflected that the Congress shares our
opposition to these matters and did in fact see that no funds
appropriated would be used to study or implement any plans privatizing,
divesting or transferring of civil works missions, functions, or
responsibilities for the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Thank
you very much for that.
Now if I may let me speak very briefly on the amount of funds we
consider to be required for the Fiscal Year 2004 Mississippi River and
Tributaries Appropriations.
The management and direction of the Mississippi Valley Flood
Control Association is vested in a ten member Executive Committee who
are elected by the members of the Association from their respective
states, two each from the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas
and one each from the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri and
Illinois. The Executive Committee has spent time reviewing and
examining the Fiscal Year 2004 Proposed Budget for the Mississippi
River and Tributaries Project and after careful consideration we
arrived at the amount of $435,000,000 that we consider the amount
required to complete the MR&T Project in the most economically and
engineeringly feasible time frame that will also benefit, preserve and
restore the natural environment. I have attached a sheet to my
statement that reflects our request in more detail.
In closing let me state once again that our priorities are to win
the war on terrorism, to protect the homeland and to revitalize the
Nation's economy.
We must not forget the importance of funding the critical water
resources infrastructure needs in order to protect the lives and
property of our citizens and to protect the investment that has already
been made.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today. The
speakers to follow me will be more specific in their statements.
I shall close with the sincere hope that god will continue to bless
this country and bring about a quick and kind end to all the discord in
the world.
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION--FISCAL YEAR 2004 CIVIL
WORKS REQUESTED BUDGET--MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project and State MVCFA Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surveys, Continuation of Planning and Engineering &
Advance Engineering & Design:
Memphis Harbor, TN.................................. $700,000
Germantown, TN...................................... 171,000
Millington, TN...................................... 127,000
Fletcher Creek, TN.................................. 150,000
Southeast Arkansas.................................. 1,000,000
Coldwater Basin Below Arkansas...................... 500,000
Quiver River, MS.................................... 100,000
Alexandria, LA to the Gulf of Mexico................ 700,000
Morganza, LA to the Gulf of Mexico.................. 7,992,000
Donaldsonville, LA to Gulf of Mexico................ 1,400,000
Spring Bayou, LA.................................... 832,000
Tensas River, LA.................................... 500,000
Donaldsonville Port Development, LA................. 100,000
Collection & Study of Basic Data.................... 695,000
---------------
Subtotal--Surveys, Continuation of Planning & 14,967,000
Engineering & Advance Engineering & Design.......
---------------
Construction:
St. John's Bayou-New Madrid Floodway, MO............ 7,600,000
Eight Mile Creek, AR................................ 2,050,000
Helena & Vicinity, AR............................... 3,407,000
Grand Prairie Region, AR............................ 24,700,000
Bayou Meto, AR...................................... 16,000,000
West Tennessee Tributaries, TN...................... 620,000
Nonconnah Creek, TN................................. 3,068,000
Wolf River, Memphis, TN............................. 2,500,000
Reelfoot Lake, TN................................... 1,240,000
St. Francis Basin, MO & AR.......................... 6,300,000
Yazoo Basin, MS..................................... 53,555,000
Atchafalaya Basin, LA............................... 21,235,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway.......................... 14,200,000
MS Delta Region, LA................................. 3,400,000
Horn Lake Creek, MS................................. 395,000
MS & LA Estaurine Area, MS & LA..................... 30,000
Channel Improvements, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & LA... 44,017,000
Mississippi River Levees, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & 50,645,000
LA.................................................
---------------
Subtotal--Construction............................ 254,962,000
Subtotal--Maintenance............................. 208,433,000
---------------
Subtotal--Mississippi River & Tributaries......... 478,362,000
Less Reduction for Savings & Slippage................... -43,362,000
---------------
Grand Total--Mississippi River & Tributaries...... 435,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Board of Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo-
Mississippi Delta
yazoo basin, mississippi rivers and tributaries project
This statement today, made on behalf of the citizens represented by
the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee Board, is not only in support of the
funding requests contained herein, but also for the general funding
testimony offered for Fiscal 2004 by the Mississippi Flood Control
Association. The association is requesting funding in the amount of
$435 million for the Mississippi Rivers and Tributaries Project (MR&T),
an amount based on the association's professional assessment of the
capabilities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi Valley
Division.
I would ask that these remarks be made a part of the record.
In the aftermath of the devastating and historic Great Flood of
1927, the Flood Control Act of 1928 established as national priority,
the development of a comprehensive flood control plan to reduce the
likelihood of such a horrific event's ever happening again in the Lower
Mississippi Valley. As we look back, the MR&T has returned $180 billion
in benefits for the $10 billion invested--truly an American public
works success story.
Significantly, however, a substantial amount of uncompleted work on
the project remains, necessarily exposing many areas to the risks of
flooding. Consequently, the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee Board asks
Congress to provide funding at a level which will allow the MR&T to
continue at a pace commensurate with the national priority to protect
people and property from the ravages of flooding. In order to avoid the
sorts of delays which can result in the loss of life and livelihood, we
must again depend upon the good men and women of Congress to add the
necessary funding to the administration's budget which will allow the
Corps of Engineers to proceed with its work at full capacity.
A line-item chart reflecting existing and needed funding levels for
MR&T projects in the Lower Mississippi Valley follows, with special
emphasis given to those projects most critical to our levee district:
mississippi river levees
Overall, the construction needs for levees and channels in the
Lower Mississippi Valley is $55.609 million, with an additional $8.59
million required for maintenance. Work to continue the ongoing process
of strengthening deficient levees to the south of our district is
underway and needs to continue on schedule. Of particular interest to
our levee board is a series of projects designed to address the problem
of levee under seepage. We are asking that $2.93 million be allocated
to the Memphis District for three projects designed to address this
problem.
upper yazoo projects (uyp)
The number one priority for the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee
Board, the Upper Yazoo Project was conceived in 1936. The project
includes a system of flood control reservoirs which discharge into a
system of channels and levees intended to safely convey headwater from
the hills to the Mississippi River. While this project has been
advancing smoothly, it is critical to the people of the North Delta
that it continue to do so. While the President's budget contains only
$6.62 million for this project, we are asking that Congress increase
its appropriation to $15 million to insure that this important project
continues without interruption. These additional funds will be used to
complete Items 5A and 5B; to initiate construction on Item 6A; and to
acquire right of ways and mitigation lands for Item 6 and Item 7.
yazoo headwater flood control reservoirs
Four major flood control reservoirs exist in Mississippi to control
the release of headwater into the Yazoo River system--Sardis,
Arkabutla, Enid and Grenada. These have prevented significant flood
damages through allowing drainage from the State's hill section to be
released into the much lower Delta at controlled rates. All four are
aging and require both routine maintenance and upgrading. We are
requesting that Congress allocate the needed $39.89 million so that
they can continue to function effectively.
big sunflower river maintenance project
The primary drainage outlet for 10 counties in Mississippi, the
Sunflower River System has been subject to the same siltation factors
common to all Delta streams. The Corps of Engineers has determined that
the river has had a 40 percent reduction in its flow capacity.
The Levee Boards have been working closely with the Vicksburg
District as they complete the SEIS for the remaining work and with MDEQ
on obtaining the Water Quality Certificate for the work. Both of these
efforts are scheduled to be completed in 2004. Right-of-way is in place
for the next construction item. We are requesting $4.17 million so that
the SEIS can be completed and construction can be reinitiated as soon
as the Water Quality Certificate is issued.
demonstration erosion control project
We feel strongly that continued funding of DEC is important due to
the fact that substantial amounts of the sediments which would be
controlled by them would eventually end up within the
ColdwaterTallahatchie/Yazoo river system. We urge Congress to allocate
$20 million to this effort.
big sunflower river
We are requesting that Congress allocate $1.29 million so that the
Corps might purchase mitigation lands.
continuing authority programs
The YMD Levee Board has committed to assist local governments in
co-sponsoring projects that fall under the Corps' Continuing Authority
Program. There is tremendous need for Section 14, Section 205 and
Section 208 programs throughout our district. We urge Congress to both
increase the limits for these projects and to make the eligibility
process more competitive.
yazoo backwater project
We continue to support the Mississippi Levee Board's and Corps'
recommended project to address the problems of backwater flooding in
the South Delta. We support their funding request of $12 million to
advance design, initiate real estate activity and initiate a pump
supply contract.
Those of us at the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee Board are deeply
appreciative of the enormous amount of support lent our efforts by
Congress in the past, and it is with full awareness of the challenges
facing our great Nation that we earnestly request you support us again
in meeting our challenge of keeping the floodwaters at bay.
Humbly submitted on behalf of the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee
Board and all the citizens it seeks to keep dry.
______
Prepared Statement of St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas
executive summary
The Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association fiscal year 2004
Civil Works Budget, Mississippi River and Tributaries Appropriations-
Requesting Appropriations of $6,300,000 for Construction and
$14,733,000 for Maintenance and Operation in the St. Francis Basin
Project and a Total of $435,000,000 for the Mississippi River
Tributaries Project.
background information
My name is Rob Rash, and my home is in Marion, Arkansas, located on
the West side of the Mississippi River and in the St. Francis Basin. I
am the Chief Engineer of the St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas.
Our District is the local cooperation organization for the Mississippi
River and Tributaries Project and the St. Francis Basin Project in
Northeast Arkansas. Our District is responsible for the operation and
maintenance of 160 miles of Mississippi River Levee and 75 miles of St.
Francis River Tributary Levee in Northeast Arkansas.
The St. Francis Basin is comprised of an area of approximately
7,550 square miles in Southeast Missouri and Northeast Arkansas. The
basin extends from the foot of Commerce Hills near Cape Girardeau,
Missouri to the mouth of the St. Francis River, 7 miles above Helena,
Arkansas, a total distance of 235 miles. It is bordered on the east by
the Mississippi River and on the West by the uplands of Bloomfield and
Crowley's Ridge, having a maximum width of 53 miles.
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project and the St. Francis
Basin Project provide critical flood protection to over 2,500 square
miles in Northeast Arkansas alone. This basin's flood control system is
the very lifeblood of our livelihood and prosperity. Our resources and
infrastructure are allowing the St. Francis Basin and the Lower
Mississippi Valley to develop into a major commercial and industrial
area for this great Nation. The basin is quickly becoming a major steel
and energy production area. The agriculture industry in Northeast
Arkansas and the Lower Mississippi Valley continues to play an integral
role in providing food and clothing for this Nation. This has all been
made possible because Congress has long recognized that flood control
in the Lower Mississippi Valley is a matter of national interest and
security and has authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
implement a flood control system in the Lower Mississippi Valley that
is the envy of the civilized world. With the support of Congress over
the years, we have continued to develop our flood control system in the
Lower Mississippi Valley through the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project and for that we are extremely grateful.
Although, at the current level of project completion, there are
areas in the Lower Mississippi Valley that are subject to major
flooding on the Mississippi River. The level of funding that has been
included in the President's Budget for the overall Mississippi River
and Tributaries Project is not sufficient to adequately fund and
maintain this project. The level of funding will require the citizens
of the Lower Mississippi Valley to live needlessly in the threat of
major flood devastation for the next 30 years. Timely project
completion is of paramount importance to the citizens of the Lower
Mississippi. Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayou improvements are just one of
many construction projects necessary for flood relief in the St.
Francis Basin. Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayou improvements were
reauthorized by Congress through the Flood Control Act of 1928, as
amended. Section 104 of the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2001
modified the St. Francis Basin to expand the project boundaries to
include Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayous and shall not be considered
separable elements. Total project length of 38 miles includes Ten and
Fifteen Mile Bayou, Ditch No. 15 and the 10 Mile Diversion Ditch that
provide drainage for the West Memphis and Vicinity. Without additional
funds, construction would be delayed and West Memphis and Vicinity will
continue to experience record flooding as seen December 17, 2001. West
Memphis and Vicinity would experience immediate flood relief when the
first item of construction is completed.
u.s. army corps of engineers
We are strongly opposed to any action that would transfer any part
or the entire U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works mission to any
other agency or department of the Federal Government. This agency has
completed and overseen the Civil Works mission since its inception and
has done quite well. Very few of our other governmental bodies can
report and show a return of the taxpayer's investment as the Corps of
Engineers can and has been doing for many years. It has been reported
this administration desires to transfer the Corps Civil Works program
to the Department of Transportation, the Flood Control and
Environmental Restoration to the Department of Interior and the
Regulatory Program to the Environmental Protection Agency. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers has rendered extremely valuable services for
this Nation for many years. The Corps has created an inland waterways
system that is the envy of the rest of the world. Our Nation's
commercial transportation system is critical to the Nation's economy
and the environmental well being and part of this system is used to
transport military equipment in support of the war on terrorism. The
Corps has also been in the forefront to provide flood control and
environmental restoration projects and have supported our troops at
every armed conflict this Nation has engaged in. In our opinion, it
will be a serious mistake and have a negative nationwide impact to
spread the functions of the Corps into several parts across a Federal
bureaucracy. This Nation would lose a wonderful asset and one we have
enjoyed for over 200 years.
proposed funding
We support the amount of $435,000,000 requested by the Mississippi
Valley Flood Control Association for use in the overall Mississippi
River and Tributaries Project. This is the minimum amount that the
Executive Committee of the Association feels is necessary to maintain a
reasonable time line for completion of the overall Mississippi River
and Tributaries Project. Also, the amounts that have been included in
the President's Budget for the St. Francis Basin Project; construction,
operation and maintenance have not been sufficient to fund critical
projects. These declined amounts have resulted in a significant backlog
of work within the St. Francis Basin. Therefore, our District is
requesting additional capabilities of 6,300,000 for the St. Francis
Basin Project construction funds and $14,733,000 for the St. Francis
Basin operation and maintenance funds. The amounts requested for the
St. Francis Basin Project are a part of the total amounts requested for
the Mississippi River and Tributary Appropriations of the Civil Works
Budget.
summation
As your subcommittee reviews the Civil Works Budget of fiscal year
2004 Appropriations for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project,
please consider the significance of this project to the Mississippi
Valley and the Nation's, economy and infrastructure. As always, I feel
the Subcommittee will give due regard to the needs of the Mississippi
River Valley as it considers appropriations for the Mississippi River
and Tributaries Project. I would like to sincerely thank the
Subcommittee for its past and continued support of the Mississippi
River and Tributaries Project.
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION--FISCAL YEAR 2004 CIVIL
WORKS REQUESTED BUDGET--MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Recommended
Project and State Budget Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surveys, Continuation of Planning and
Engineering & Advance Engineering &
Design:
Memphis Harbor, TN.................. .............. $700,000
Germantown, TN...................... $51,000 171,000
Millington, TN...................... 84,000 127,000
Fletcher Creek, TN.................. 120,000 150,000
Southeast Arkansas.................. .............. 1,000,000
Coldwater Basin Below Arkansas...... 185,000 500,000
Quiver River, MS.................... .............. 100,000
Alexandria, LA to the Gulf of Mexico 435,000 700,000
Morganza, LA to the Gulf of Mexico.. 3,487,000 7,992,000
Donaldsonville, LA to Gulf of Mexico 800,000 1,400,000
Spring Bayou, LA.................... 500,000 832,000
Tensas River, LA.................... .............. 500,000
Donaldsonville Port Development, LA. .............. 100,000
Collection & Study of Basic Data.... 695,000 695,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal--Surveys, Continuation of 6,357,000 14,967,000
Planning & Engineering & Advance
Engineering & Design.............
-------------------------------
Construction:
St. John's Bayou-New Madrid .............. 7, 600,000
Floodway, MO.......................
Eight Mile Creek, AR................ 2,050,000 2,050,000
Helena & Vicinity, AR............... 2,180,000 3,407,000
Grand Prairie Region, AR............ .............. 24,700,000
Bayou Meto, AR...................... .............. 16,000,000
West Tennessee Tributaries, TN...... .............. 620,000
Nonconnah Creek, TN................. 2,618,000 3,068,000
Wolf River, Memphis, TN............. .............. 2,500,000
Reelfoot Lake, TN................... .............. 1,240,000
St. Francis Basin, MO & AR.......... 2,365,000 6,300,000
Yazoo Basin, MS..................... 7,740,000 53,555,000
Atchafalaya Basin, LA............... 14,075,000 21,235,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway.......... 7,768,000 14,200,000
MS Delta Region, LA................. 3,200,000 3,400,000
Horn Lake Creek, MS................. .............. 395,000
MS & LA Estaurine Area, MS & LA..... .............. 30,000
Channel Improvements, IL, KY, MO, 39,562,000 44,017,000
AR, TN, MS & LA....................
Mississippi River Levees, IL, KY, 42,919,000 50,645,000
MO, AR, TN, MS & LA................
-------------------------------
Subtotal--Construction............ 124,477,000 254,962,000
Subtotal--Maintenance............. 162,440,000 208,433,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal--Mississippi River & 293,274,000 478,362,000
Tributaries......................
Less Reduction for Savings & Slippage... -13,274,000 -43,362,000
-------------------------------
Grand Total--Mississippi River & 280,000,000 435,000,000
Tributaries......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Office
of Public Works and Intermodal Transportation, is the agency designated
to represent the State of Louisiana for the coordinated planning and
development of water resources, including flood control, navigation,
drainage, water conservation and irrigation projects. This statement,
submitted on behalf of the State of Louisiana and its twenty levee
boards, presents the recommendations for fiscal year 2004
appropriations for all U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
Projects in Louisiana.
Louisiana contains the terminus of the Mississippi River, third
largest drainage basin in the world, draining 41 percent, or 1\1/4\
million square miles, of the contiguous United States and parts of two
Canadian provinces. In addition, Louisiana contends with flows from the
Sabine River, the Red River, the Ouachita River, the Amite River and
the Pearl River. All of these river systems combined drain almost 50
percent of the contiguous land mass of this Nation through Louisiana.
Louisiana also plays a strategic part in providing the middle of
this Nation with access to the global marketplace through the Federally
constructed Inland Waterway System. Approximately 75 percent of all
soybeans, animal feed and corn, and almost 50 percent of all rice and
cereals grown in mid-America are shipped to world markets through
Louisiana. The 230 mile deepwater channel portion of the Mississippi
River from Baton Rouge to the Gulf is the largest port complex in the
world allowing Louisiana to rank first in the Nation in volume of
waterborne traffic. Louisiana's maritime industry accounts for 22.5
percent of the total Louisiana gross state product and supports
directly and indirectly almost 244,000 jobs. The ready availability of
this low cost waterborne transportation system allowed Louisiana to
develop the second largest refining capacity in the Nation, producing
15 billion gallons of gasoline annually at 19 refineries. Louisiana
ranks second in produced natural gas and third for oil production. The
pipeline system which supplies much of this Nation with natural gas and
refined petroleum products originates in Louisiana. But none of this
would have been possible without a comprehensive and extensive flood
control system to protect the landside facilities. Louisiana is
protected from riverine and tidal flooding by almost 3,000 miles of
levees (1,500 in the MR&T system) constructed jointly by Federal, State
and local entities. Louisiana's 20 levee boards are responsible for the
maintenance and upkeep of these levees which allow one-third of
Louisiana to be habitable year-round. Concentrated behind these levees
are the vast majority of Louisiana's urban centers and petro-chemical
complexes. Nearly 75 percent of the population lives and works in these
protected areas and produces more than 90 percent of the State's
disposable personal income. Approximately 60 percent of the State's
agricultural products are produced in these protected areas. The lives
and livelihoods of most of Louisiana's citizens depends on the
effectiveness of this comprehensive flood control system. But Louisiana
is not the only beneficiary of this investment. The petrochemical, oil
and gas industries in Louisiana that contribute to the economic well
being of the Nation are almost totally dependent on the Federally
constructed flood control system to protect their facilities. These
industries, and most of the agricultural industries in mid-America, are
heavily dependent on the Federally maintained navigable waterway system
to move their products. It is appropriate that the Federal Government
has committed to providing combined flood control and navigation
measures that benefit both Louisiana and the rest of the Nation.
But the levees and channel improvements that benefit the entire
Nation have been blamed for the rapidly deterioration of our coastal
wetlands that annually produce a commercial fish and shellfish harvest
worth $600 million and 40 percent of the Nation's wild fur and hides
harvest worth $15 million. Additionally these coastal marshes produce a
tidal surge dampening effect that was incorporated into the design of
our hurricane protection levees. The loss of these wetlands is
adversely impacting both the area's natural resources and the
effectiveness of the protection system. These wetlands are not
Louisiana's alone; they constitute 40 percent of the Nation's wetlands
and their restoration needs to be a national priority.
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project (MR&T) has been
underway since 1928 and isn't scheduled for completion until the year
2031--a date that will continually move further into the future unless
an adequate level of funding is provided each year. The
Administration's budget proposals for the MR&T Project for the past
several years appear to indicate a declining interest on the part of
the Federal Government in seeing this project through to a successful
completion. The Administration's proposed budget of $298 Million for
fiscal year 2004 is totally unacceptable. We strongly support the
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association's request for $435 Million
for the MR&T Project. This is the minimum amount necessary to continue
the on-going construction work and perform the bare minimum of
maintenance required to prevent further deterioration of the Federal
investment. We urge you to support this requested level of funding.
We strongly oppose the Administration's proposal to use funds from
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to pay for part of the waterway
system's routine operations and maintenance costs. The Inland Waterways
Trust Fund, established in 1978 and funded by user fee revenues
generated by a tax on towboat fuel, was intended to be used to pay one-
half the cost of construction and major rehabilitation of navigation
infrastructure. The Administration proposal will rapidly deplete the
fund and set the stage for significantly increasing--some say more than
doubling--the user fee. This will adversely impact the Nation's economy
in the agricultural, energy and transportation sectors and will
undermine America's international competitiveness. We urge you to
reject this ill-advised raid on the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, as
well as the tax increase it promises, and to insure that the balance
and all future Trust Fund revenues are spent for their original purpose
of modernizing the system to keep it functioning efficiently well into
the future.
We are also opposed to the Administration's budget proposal to
classify segments of the Inland Waterway System for funding purposes as
either high or low use dependent on the tonnage moved over a particular
segment. The Inland Waterway System--the whole system--allowed
industrial facilities scattered throughout the central portion of the
United States to obtain raw materials and fuel from distant locations
and to reach worldwide markets. The economies of thousands of inland
cities and towns are dependent on low cost waterborne transportation to
link America's far-flung mining, manufacturing, forestry and
agricultural industries with deepwater ports. To give preferential
status to the maintenance of only the main-stem portion of the waterway
system will wreak havoc on the economies of all the communities located
on the so-called low-use waterways, especially now when the Nation's
economy is still struggling to recover.
In making the following funding recommendations regarding specific
construction, studies, and operation and maintenance items, the State
of Louisiana would hope that Congress and the Administration will honor
their prior commitments to infrastructure development and fund our
requests. We feel that water resources projects are probably the most
worthwhile and cost-effective projects in the Federal budget, having to
meet stringent economic justification criteria not required of other
programs. We ask that this be taken into consideration in the final
decision to appropriate the available funds.
We wish to express our thanks to the Appropriations Subcommittees
on Energy and Water Development of the House and Senate for allowing us
to present this brief on the needs of Louisiana. Without reservation,
practically every single project in Louisiana which has been made
possible through actions of these committees has shown a return in
benefits many times in excess of that contemplated by the authorizing
legislation. The projects which you fund affect the economy of not only
Louisiana, but the Nation as a whole. The State of Louisiana
appreciates the accomplishments of the past and solicits your
consideration of the appropriations requested for fiscal year 2004.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES--SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004--STATE OF LOUISIANA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Louisiana
Louisiana Budget Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FC MR&T General Investigations:
Alexandria to the Gulf.............. $435,000 $435,000
Donaldsonville to the Gulf.......... 800,000 1,200,000
Morganza to the Gulf, PED........... 3,487,000 10,000,000
Collection & Study Data............. 190,000 190,000
Donaldsonville Port Development, LA. .............. 100,000
Point Coupee St Mary Watershed...... .............. 100,000
Collect & Study of Basic Data (AR, 280,000 280,000
LA, MS)............................
Spring Bayou Area, LA............... 500,000 600,000
Tensas River Basin, LA.............. .............. 500,000
FC MR&T Construction:
Atchafalaya Basin................... 14,075,000 24,075,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodwater System. 7,768,000 11,668,000
Channel Improvement................. 8,900,000 8,900,000
Mississippi Delta Region (FED)...... 3,200,000 3,200,000
Mississippi River Levees, LA........ 4,110,000 4,110,000
Mississippi River Levees (AR, LA, 23,615,000 25,115,000
MS)................................
Channel Improvement (AR, LA, MS).... 15,235,000 17,735,000
FC MR&T Maintenance:
Atchafalaya Basin................... 13,335,000 18,296,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System... 2,450,000 3,850,000
Baton Rouge Harbor (Devil's Swamp).. 15,000 281,000
Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries...... 85,000 85,000
Bonnet Carre Spillway............... 1,975,000 3,009,000
Channel Improvement................. 15,300,000 15,300,000
Dredging............................ 700,000 700,000
Inspection of Completed Works....... 425,000 425,000
Mapping............................. 440,000 440,000
MS Delta Region..................... 910,000 910,000
Mississippi River Levees, LA........ 785,000 1,285,000
Old River........................... 9,915,000 21,102,000
Mississippi River Levees (AR, LA, 2,050,000 2,650,000
MS)................................
Revetments & Dikes (AR, LA, MS)..... 14,000,000 14,000,000
Dredging (AR, LA, MS)............... 5,600,000 5,600,000
Mapping (AR, LA, MS)................ 365,000 365,000
Inspection of Completed Works (AR, 375,000 375,000
LA, MS)............................
Boeuf & Tensas Rivers............... 2,400,000 2,400,000
Red River Backwater................. 3,425,000 3,982,000
Lower Red River..................... 2,207,000 2,207,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The projects listed above are only those in Louisiana (except when
noted) and directly affect the State. We realize that there are other
projects in the Valley. We endorse the recommendations of the
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association.
The following is a list of budgetary items that the State of
Louisiana requests funding that differs from what is recommended in the
Fiscal Year 2004 Administrative Budget or is an item of particular
importance for the State. Those items that the State of Louisiana
believes have been appropriately funded have not been included.
FLOOD CONTROL, NAVIGATION, HURRICANE PROTECTION AND WATER RESOURCES
PROJECTS IN LOUISIANA--SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL YEAR
2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Louisiana
Louisiana Budget Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Investigations:
Studies:
Amite River & Tributaries, LA-- $100,000 $800,000
Bayou Manchac..................
Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, 150,000 1,000,000
Boeuf & Black, LA..............
Calcasieu Lock, LA.............. 100,000 800,000
Calcasieu River Pass Ship .............. 200,000
Channel Enlargement, LA........
GIWW--Ecosystem Restoration, LA. 100,000 600,000
Hurricane Protection, LA........ 100,000 1,000,000
LCA--Ecosystem Restoration, LA.. 848,000 3,000,000
Plaquemines Parish, LA.......... 100,000 500,000
Port of Iberia, LA.............. 150,000 2,000,000
St. Bernard Parish Urban Flood 100,000 500,000
Control, LA....................
St. Charles Parish Urban Flood 100,000 450,000
Control, LA....................
St. John the Baptist Parish, LA. 100,000 400,000
Southwest, AR (AR, LA).......... .............. 400,000
Pearl River, Bogalusa (MS)...... .............. 350,000
PED:
West Shore-Lake Pontchartrain, .............. 600,000
LA.............................
West Baton Rouge Parish, LA..... .............. 1,500,000
New Studies:
Bayou Nezpique Watershed, LA.... .............. 100,000
Millennium Port, LA............. .............. 100,000
Tangipahoa River Ecosystem .............. 100,000
Restoration, LA................
Construction General:
Comite River, LA.................... 2,000,000 6,565,000
East Baton Rouge Parish, LA......... .............. 4,600,000
Grand Isle, LA...................... .............. 200,000
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, 7,000,000 20,000,000
LA (IWWTF & CG)....................
Lake Pontchartrain, LA.............. 3,000,000 16,000,000
Larose to Golden Meadow, LA......... 461,000 1,200,000
MR-GO (Reevaluation Study).......... .............. 250,000
New Orleans to Venice, LA........... 2,000,000 6,000,000
Southeast, LA....................... 16,500,000 65,000,000
West Bank and Vicinity, New Orleans, 35,000,000 35,000,000
LA.................................
Red River Below Den Dam (AR, LA).... .............. 7,000,000
Red River Emergency (AR, LA)........ .............. 10,000,000
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, MS 13,700,000 29,000,000
River to Shreveport................
Ouachita River Levees............... .............. 3,000,000
Operations & Maintenance General:
Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, 19,367,000 24,367,000
Boeuf & Black......................
Barataria Bay Waterway.............. 286,000 4,909,000
Bayou Lacombe....................... .............. 315,000
Bayou Lafourche..................... 133,000 1,221,000
Bayou Segnette...................... 165,000 1,535,000
Bayou Teche......................... 48,000 354,000
Calcasieu River & Pass.............. 12,064,000 20,559,000
Freshwater Bayou.................... 1,558,000 3,558,000
Grand Isle, LA & Vicinity........... .............. 455,000
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.......... 19,418,000 29,028,000
Houma Navigation Canal.............. 1,242,000 1,422,000
Mermentau River..................... 2,651,000 4,651,000
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to 56,206,000 64,566,000
the Gulf...........................
Mississippi River--Gulf Outlet...... 13,485,000 34,325,000
Mississippi River, Outlets at Venice 1,841,000 5,116,000
Waterway Empire to the Gulf......... 7,000 247,000
Waterway Intracoastal Waterway to 37,000 237,000
Bayou Dulace.......................
Ouachita & Black Rivers (AR, LA).... 10,221,000 16,145,000
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway........ 12,013,000 19,900,000
Lake Providence Harbor.............. 32,000 421,000
Madison Parish Port................. 13,000 80,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The projects listed above are only those in Louisiana (except
where noted) and directly affect the State.
______
Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
introduction
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
organization created in 1981 by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating
river-related State programs and policies and for collaborating with
Federal agencies on regional issues. As such, the UMRBA works closely
with the Corps of Engineers on a variety of programs for which the
Corps has responsibility. Of particular interest to the basin states
are the following:
inland waterway trust fund
The UMRBA opposes expanding the uses of the Inland Waterway Trust
Fund to include operation and maintenance of the inland navigation
system. The Inland Waterway Trust Fund was established in 1986 to help
meet the Nation's navigation infrastructure investment needs for new
construction and major rehabilitation on inland rivers. That dedicated
revenue source, generated by taxes on commercial users of the inland
waterway system, should not be diverted to uses other than those for
which it was established. Moreover, the Corps has estimated that
partially funding inland waterway O&M from the Inland Waterway Trust
Fund would deplete the Fund entirely by the end of fiscal year 2006.
Given the pressing navigation infrastructure needs in coming years,
such a course would be imprudent.
environmental management program
For the past 16 years, the Upper Mississippi River System
Environmental Management Program (EMP) has been the premier program for
restoring the river's habitat and monitoring the river's ecological
health. As such, the EMP is key to achieving Congress' vision of the
Upper Mississippi as a ``nationally significant ecosystem and a
nationally significant commercial navigation system.'' Congress
reaffirmed its support for this program in the 1999 Water Resources
Development Act by reauthorizing the EMP as a continuing authority and
increasing the annual authorized appropriation to $33.52 million. The
UMRBA is pleased that the Administration's budget request, for the
first time since the 1999 reauthorization of the program, includes
nearly full funding for the EMP. The fact that the Administration has
identified the EMP as one of eight Corps projects ``that are the
highest priorities in the Nation,'' is tribute to the EMP's success.
EMP habitat restoration projects include activities such as
building and stabilizing islands, controlling water levels and side
channel flows, constructing dikes, and dredging backwaters and side
channels. At the recommended EMP funding level of $33.32 million,
approximately $18.8 million would be allocated to the planning, design,
and construction of such habitat projects. In particular, this level of
investment will support planning work on 15 projects, design of 14
projects, and construction of 12 projects. Approximately $8.6 million
would be devoted to the EMP Long Term Resource Monitoring program
(LTRMP) under a fully funded EMP budget of $33 million. At this funding
level, data collection activities would be revived, including
monitoring of water quality, sediment, fish, invertebrates, and
vegetation. This monitoring, along 300 of the river system's 1,300
miles, had to be suspended in fiscal year 2003 due to lack of funding.
If funding is not restored in fiscal year 2004, the LTRMP will need to
be significantly restructured. Either the spatial extent of the program
will need to be reduced, by eliminating field stations, or sampling
intensity and rigor will need to be reduced. Neither alternative is
sustainable and ultimately the ability of the program to fulfill its
Congressionally mandated mission will be jeopardized.
Meeting the ecological restoration and monitoring needs on the
Upper Mississippi River with renewed commitment and enhanced investment
is critical, given the setback that the EMP suffered in fiscal year
2003, when funding was cut by nearly 40 percent. Within the next year,
the Corps is expected to release its Navigation Study on the Upper
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System, including a recommended
plan for improving both the river navigation infrastructure and
ecosystem. Yet, without a strong EMP program as one of the tools to
meet river environmental needs, it is unlikely that the plan can be
successfully implemented. The UMRBA thus strongly urges that the EMP be
funded at $33.32 million in fiscal year 2004, as recommended by the
President.
major rehabilitation of locks and dams
Given that most of the locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi
River System are over 60 years old, they are in serious need of repair
and rehabilitation. For the past 17 years, the Corps has been
undertaking major rehabilitation of individual facilities throughout
the navigation system in an effort to extend their useful life. This
work is critical to ensuring the system's reliability and safety.
The UMRBA supports the Corps' fiscal year 2004 budget request for
major rehabilitation work at 3 locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi
River, including Lock and Dam 24, Lock and Dam 11, and Lock and Dam 3.
Half of these amounts are to be provided by the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund. Lock and Dam 24, located near Clarksville, Missouri, is nearing
completion of the first phase of its $87 million rehabilitation. Lock
wall concrete repairs are underway and expected to continue in fiscal
year 2004. However, the fiscal year 2004 budget request of $13 million
is a constrained funding level, which may require suspension of the
contract, thus ultimately increasing project cost. UMRBA thus supports
$17 million for rehabilitation of Lock and Dam 24, which is the fiscal
year 2004 capability level.
Rehabilitation of Lock and Dam 11, located near Dubuque, Iowa,
began in fiscal year 2002. The work includes repair and replacement of
various miter and tainter gate components, culvert valve
rehabilitation, and additional scour protection above and below the
dam. The fiscal year 2004 budget request is $1.313 million, but the
UMRBA supports the full capability funding of $6.52 million.
Lock and Dam 3, near Red Wing, Minnesota is located on a bend in
the river, which causes an outdraft current that tends to sweep down-
bound tows toward the gated dam. A related problem is maintaining the
structural integrity of a set of 3 earthen embankments connecting the
gated dam to high ground on the Wisconsin side. A reevaluation study is
now underway to assess alternatives for addressing these related
navigation safety problems and potentially combining the projects. The
UMRBA supports fiscal year 2004 funding of $600,000, as requested by
the President, to complete the study and begin work on plans and
specifications.
operation and maintenance (o&m) of the upper mississippi river
navigation system
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for operating and maintaining
the Upper Mississippi River System for navigation. This includes
channel maintenance dredging, placement and repair of channel training
structures, water level regulation, and the routine operation of 29
locks and dams on the Mississippi River and 7 locks and dams on the
Illinois River. The fiscal year 2004 budget totals approximately $144
million for O&M of this river system, which includes $97.859 million
for the Mississippi River between Minneapolis and the Missouri River,
$18.099 million for the Mississippi River between the Missouri River
and Ohio River, and $27.615 million for the Illinois Waterway.
These funds are critical to the Corps' ability to maintain a safe
and reliable commercial navigation system. In addition, these funds
support a variety of activities that ensure the navigation system is
maintained while protecting and enhancing the river's environmental
values. For example, O&M funds support innovative environmental
engineering techniques in the open river reaches such as bendway weirs,
chevrons, and notched dikes that maintain the navigation channel in an
environmentally sensitive manner. In addition, water level management
options for a number of pools in the impounded portion of the river are
being evaluated under the O&M program. Pool level management, such as
that being tested in Pool 8 and proposed in Pools 6 and 9, is a
promising new approach for enhancing aquatic plant growth and
overwintering conditions for fish, without adversely affecting
navigation.
Although the President's fiscal year 2004 funding request for O&M
is slightly higher than fiscal year 2003 funding levels for most
segments of the river system, unfortunately it is substantially less
for the St. Paul District (MVP) and well below capability levels in the
other two Districts.
[Millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Upper Mississippi River System O&M Accounts Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2004 Full
2003 Omnibus 2004 Request Capability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi River Between MO River and Minneapolis:
St. Paul District (MVP)..................................... 41.820 36.056 56.306
Rock Island District (MVR).................................. 41.820 44.429 54.779
St. Louis District (MVS).................................... 15.443 17.374 26.434
Mississippi River Between Ohio and MO Rivers.................... 17.000 18.099 29.399
Illinois Waterway:
Rock Island District (MVR).................................. 25.154 25.726 35.026
St. Louis District (MVS).................................... 1.683 1.889 1.889
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 23 percent reduction in Mississippi River O&M funding for the
St. Paul District is of particular concern. This dramatic cut will
eliminate the Mississippi River Endangered Species Recovery program and
all maintenance construction contracts, with the exception of dredging
and the continuing contract for the Lock and Dam 9 control systems and
building replacement. Anticipated contract suspensions or cancellations
include those for tow haulage unit replacements, Lock and Dam 4 dam
gate painting, Lock and Dam 1 Ambursen Dam rehabilitation, Lock and Dam
6 fixed crest spillway repairs, Lock and Dam 10 control systems and
building replacement, West Newton dredged material site unloading, and
Upper St. Anthony Falls lock dewatering. In addition, the St. Paul
District will be unable to address the recently-identified lock
bulkhead problems at several facilities. It is projected that $31
million will be required over the next 5 years to construct bulkhead
slots needed to safely dewater Locks 2-10 for repair.
The UMRBA supports increased funding for O&M of the Upper
Mississippi and Illinois River System, particularly in the St. Paul
District. Full capability funding in fiscal year 2004 for all three
Upper Mississippi River districts totals $204 million.
navigation study
The Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Navigation Study,
which began in 1993, was restructured in 2001, in response to
recommendations from the National Research Council and a new Task Force
of senior leaders from 5 Federal agencies. Now that the study is on a
new course, designed to address both navigation and environmental needs
in an integrated fashion, the UMRBA is anxious to see the study brought
to a successful and timely conclusion. On-going analyses are expected
to yield results that will be used to develop tentative integrated
plans by October 2003, incorporating both navigation improvements and
ecosystem restoration. Fiscal year 2004 activities will thus focus on
agency, stakeholder, and public review and input. This will be an
extremely critical step in the collaborative process, which is expected
to yield a Chief's Report by November 2004. In order to keep this
process on track, it is essential to fully fund the Navigation Study,
as requested by the President.
upper mississippi river comprehensive plan (flood damage reduction)
Section 459 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
authorized the Corps to develop what is termed the ``Upper Mississippi
River Comprehensive Plan,'' the primary focus of which is systemic
flood damage reduction and flood protection. In fiscal year 2003, a
Project Management Plan (PMP) was developed and data gathering efforts
are now underway. Funding is needed in fiscal year 2004 to continue the
inventory and digital data coverages of floodplain land use,
infrastructure, natural resources, and socioeconomic data and to begin
the development and analysis of alternatives. Development of the
Comprehensive Plan has been awaiting completion of the Flow Frequency
Study, which will provide updated flood elevation profiles and models.
That work is scheduled for completion this fiscal year, thus paving the
way for the Comprehensive Plan to be undertaken in earnest.
The total study costs for the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive
Plan are estimated to be $5.13 million. In fiscal year 2002, the first
year that funding was provided, $692,000 was allocated. In fiscal year
2003, an additional $1.814 million was provided. However, only $492,000
has been requested for fiscal year 2004. Unless additional funds are
made available in fiscal year 2004, the study will not be completed in
the 3-year time frame Congress directed when the study was first
authorized in WRDA 1999, and later reaffirmed in WRDA 2000. Thus, the
UMRBA supports full funding of $2.624 million in fiscal year 2004.
stream gaging
The Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the USGS operates
approximately 150 stream gages in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. In
fiscal year 2003, the Corps' share of the cost of these gages is $1.888
million. Most of these stream gages are funded through the Corps' O&M
account for the specific projects to which the gages are related.
However, there are a number of gages that are not associated with a
particular project. Thus, UMRBA supports the $500,000 requested under
General Investigations to support the Corps' share of non-project USGS
stream gages, many of which are located in the 5 States of the Upper
Mississippi River Basin. In fiscal year 2003, approximately $127,000
was provided by these ``General Coverage Funds'' for gages in the St.
Paul and Rock Island Districts.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's recommendations for
fiscal 2004 appropriations. We understand and appreciate that the
subcommittee's ability to fund programs within its jurisdiction is
limited by current national emergency but appreciate your consideration
of these important programs.
The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit organization
dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is
to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent
the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
need to survive. The Conservancy has more than 1,000,000 individual
members and 1,900 corporate associates. We have programs in all 50
States and in 28 foreign countries. We have protected more than 14.0
million acres in the United States and more than 80 million acres with
local partner organizations worldwide. The Conservancy owns and manages
1,400 preserves throughout the United States--the largest private
system of nature sanctuaries in the world. Sound science and strong
partnerships with public and private landowners to achieve tangible and
lasting results characterize our conservation programs.
The Nature Conservancy urges the Committee to support the following
appropriation levels in the fiscal 2004 Energy and Water Development
Appropriation bill:
construction general priorities
Section 1135: Project Modification for the Improvement of the
Environment.--The Section 1135 Program authorizes the Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to restore areas damaged by existing Corps projects.
This program permits modification of existing dams and flood control
projects to increase habitat for fish and wildlife without interrupting
a project's original purpose. The Nature Conservancy is the non-Federal
cost share partner on several projects including the McKarran Ranch on
the Truckee River, NV and Spunky Bottoms on the Illinois River, IL. The
Nature Conservancy supports full funding of $25.0 million for the
Section 1135 program in fiscal 2004, an increase over the
administration's $14.0 million request.
Section 206: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.--Section 206 is a newer
Corps program that authorizes the Corps to restore aquatic habitat
regardless of past activities. The Nature Conservancy has several
projects that put Section 206 to work restoring important habitat,
including a $5 million project at Kankakee Sands in Indiana, and the
Mad Island Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project in Texas. The Nature
Conservancy supports full funding of $25.0 million for this valuable
program in fiscal 2004, an increase over the administration's $10.0
million request.
Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program.--
The Environmental Management Program (EMP) is an important Corps
program that constructs habitat restoration projects as well as
conducts long-term resource monitoring of the Upper Mississippi and
Illinois Rivers. The EMP operates as a unique Federal-State partnership
affecting 5 States (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and
Wisconsin). The EMP was reauthorized in WRDA 1999 with an increased
authorization in the amount of $33.3 million. The Nature Conservancy
supports the President's request for full funding of $33.3 million for
fiscal 2004.
Estuary Habitat Restoration Program.--The Estuary Habitat
Restoration Program was established with the intent to restore 1
million acres of estuary habitat by 2010. This multi-agency program
will promote projects that result in healthy ecosystems that support
wildlife, fish and shellfish, improve surface and groundwater quality,
quantity, and flood control; and provide outdoor recreation. The Nature
Conservancy supports $10 million in fiscal 2004.
Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration.--The Everglades
and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration program is designed to save and
restore a critical natural treasure by acquiring high priority natural
lands for protection, capturing runoff lost to tide, restoring natural
hydropatterns essential for the overall heath of the system and for
protecting water supplies for human use. The Nature Conservancy
supports $45.0 million in fiscal 2004, an increase over the
administration's $14.8 million request.
Florida Keys Water Quality Program.--The Florida Keys Water Quality
Program is a unique restoration program designed to protect the fragile
marine and coral ecosystem off the Florida Keys. This marine ecosystem
is being impacted by excessive nutrients due to storm and waste water
pollution. This program is cost shared with State and local interests
to repair and improve the storm and wastewater treatment facilities on
the Florida Keys to reduce the harmful levels of nutrient pollution.
The Nature Conservancy, and its partners the State of Florida, Florida
Keys Aqueduct Authority, Monroe County, City of Islamorada, City of
Layton, City of Key Colony Beach, City of Marathon, and City of Key
West, support $30.0 million for fiscal 2004.
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation.--Created in WRDA 1986,
the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project is designed to
reverse the negative environmental impacts of lower river
channelization and bank stabilization through land acquisition from
willing sellers. The Mitigation Project allows the Corps to restore
chutes, side channels, and other off-channel floodplain habitat for
river wildlife. The Nature Conservancy supports the President's request
of $22.0 million for fiscal 2004.
Challenge 21: Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard
Mitigation Program.--The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1999
authorized the Challenge 21 program as a 5-year, $200 million effort to
enhance riverine ecosystems and encourage non-structural flood control
projects. Challenge 21 directs non-structural flood control, in part
through relocation of frequently flooded homes and businesses in
smaller communities; and habitat restoration, including floodplain
wetland restoration. The Nature Conservancy supports $5.0 million as an
initial appropriation in fiscal 2004.
general investigation priorities
White River Basin Comprehensive Study in Arkansas.--The White River
Basin Comprehensive Study will enable the Corps to pull together the
needs of myriad issues in the White River basin and permit a sensible
long term plan for the region. The Nature Conservancy strongly supports
$1.0 million in fiscal 2004 for the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to
continue the Comprehensive Study in the White River basin, an increase
over the administration's $300,000 request.
Savannah River Basin Comprehensive Water Resources Study.--The
Savannah Basin Comprehensive Water Resources Study will enable the
Corps and other partners to gain a better understanding of the
influence of hydrologic processes such as timing, duration, frequency,
magnitude, and rate of change of river flows on the river's ecology.
The Nature Conservancy, under a cooperative agreement funded by the
USACE and its cost share partners Georgia and South Carolina, is
working to develop a set of ecosystem flow recommendations for the
Savannah River Basin. Draft flow recommendations will be finalized by
May 2003. The Nature Conservancy supports the President's request of
$200,000 in fiscal 2004.
Sacramento and San Joaquin Comprehensive Basin Study.--The
Sacramento and San Joaquin Comprehensive Basin Study is examining how
to reduce the risk of flood while restoring the watershed's diverse
ecosystem. The Nature Conservancy supports the President's request of
$1.0 million in fiscal 2004.
Connecticut River Ecosystem Restoration Study.--The Connecticut
River Ecosystem Restoration Study identified several ecosystem
restoration opportunities along the mainstem of the Connecticut River.
These funds will support studies of the ecological flow needs and
initiate needed modeling on the Ashuelot River, NH and the West River,
VT, part of the Sustainable Rivers Project, a unique collaboration with
the Army Corps of Engineers and The Nature Conservancy. The Sustainable
Rivers Project seeks to reoperate 16 dams on 12 rivers to better meet
the needs of the freshwater ecosystem while still abiding by the
required purposes of the dams. The Nature Conservancy supports $315,000
for fiscal 2004, an increase over the administration's $115,000
request.
Southeast Oklahoma Feasibility Study.--The reconnaissance phase of
the Southeast Oklahoma Feasibility Study determined there is Federal
interest to preserve and/or restore the riverine ecosystem of the
Kiamichi River Basin between the confluence of Jackfork Creek and the
Kiamichi River and the upper reaches of Hugo Lake over the 50-year
period of analysis. These funds will support studies of the ecological
flow needs and initiate needed modeling on the Kiamichi River which is
part of the Sustainable Rivers Project, a unique collaboration with the
Army Corps of Engineers and The Nature Conservancy. The Sustainable
Rivers Project seeks to reoperate 16 dams on 12 rivers to better meet
the needs of the freshwater ecosystem while still abiding by the
required purposes of the dams. The Nature Conservancy supports $100,000
for fiscal 2004, an increase over the administration's $50,000 request.
regulatory program priorities
Southern California Special Area Management Plan (SAMP).--For the
past 3 years, the Army Corps has been working with three Southern
California counties to develop region-wide Special Area Management
Plans that identify, delineate and plan for the conservation of
wetlands within their jurisdictions. These SAMPs are a critical part of
the regional effort to protect critical natural and resources to plan
for continued economic growth in Southern California. They are emerging
as an important planning tool that addresses streamlining of Federal
wetlands regulations while promoting more effective wetlands
conservation and providing long-term certainty for economic interests
in the region. The Southern California SAMP process is being evaluated
as a model for wetlands planning in other areas. The Nature Conservancy
supports $1.9 million for fiscal 2004.
bureau of reclamation priorities
Recovery Implementation Program for Colorado Endangered Fish
Species.--The Recovery Program is in its thirteenth year of working for
the recovery of endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado River
Basin. The Recovery Program serves as a model of successful cooperation
between three States (Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming), Federal agencies,
water development interests, power users and the environmental
community in the recovery of four endangered fish species. The Nature
Conservancy supports $5.9 million in fiscal 2004 for the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
comments on the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. We
recognize that you receive many worthy requests for funding each year
and appreciate your consideration of these requests and the generous
support you have shown for these and other conservation programs in the
past. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
______
Prepared Statement of Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
Southeastern Federal Power Customers' (``SeFPC''), I am pleased to
provide testimony in reference to the Administration's fiscal year 2004
budget request for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (``Corps''). My
testimony will focus primarily on the budget request for the Corps'
South Atlantic Division (``SAD'') and the Great Lakes and Ohio River
Division (``LRD'').
The SeFPC has enjoyed a long and successful relationship with the
Corps' SAD and LRD offices that has greatly benefited the approximately
5.8 million customers that are SeFPC members. As the Subcommittee is
aware, the Corps is responsible for operating and maintaining Federal
hydropower generating facilities. The Southeastern Power Administration
(``SEPA'') then markets the energy and capacity that is generated from
the Federal projects in the Southeast. The SeFPC represents some 238
rural cooperatives and municipally owned electric systems in the States
of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Florida, Virginia, and West Virginia, which purchase power
from SEPA. In some cases, SEPA supplies as much as 25 percent of the
power and 10 percent of the energy needs of SeFPC customers. The SeFPC
therefore greatly relies on the power generated at Corps' projects in
the SAD and LRD.
drastic cuts in the corps' budget
The members of the SeFPC are dedicated to providing reliable and
economic power for their consumers. We therefore are concerned that the
President has proposed a 30 percent reduction in the Corps' Operations
& Maintenance (``O&M'') account and 25 percent reduction in the
Construction General Account for the upcoming fiscal year. With these
reductions in funding, the Corps will not be able to undertake the O&M
and Renewals & Replacements (``R&R'') work necessary to ensure the
long-term reliability of the Southeastern Federal hydropower
facilities. We are particularly concerned about the effects of the
proposed budget cuts on ongoing O&M work on hydropower infrastructure
within the SEPA system of projects.
The proposed reductions will impede the Corps' work in the
following SEPA projects: Walter F. George, J. Strom Thurmond, John H.
Kerr, Allatoona, and Carters.
We also are concerned the President's budget request has zeroed out
funds for construction at many of the projects operated by the Corps of
Engineers. If enacted, the prohibition on ``new starts'' would delay
the badly needed rehabilitation of generating facilities in the
Cumberland River System and throughout the Southeast. Many of the
hydroelectric generating facilities in SEPA's service area are nearing
the 50-year mark, when major rehabilitations are critical if the
project is to continue. Regrettably, the fiscal year 2004 budget
request does not place a high priority on critical needs, such as: (1)
$4 million for replacement of generating units at Wolf Creek project;
and (2) $2.8 million to initiate replacement of generating units at
Center Hill.
When a generating unit becomes inoperable, SEPA may be forced to
purchase expensive replacement power which could result in a reduction
of energy and capacity, possibly forcing the customer to purchase
expensive capacity elsewhere. This has occurred so frequently in the
last several years that the new SEPA rate design now includes a monthly
payment provision by customers to cover any replacement power. Such a
result is inappropriate because preference customers already have
contributed to the Corps' O&M and R&R expenses, and in essence are
double-charged. Even though excess payments pay down the debt
associated with the projects, when generating units deteriorate, the
O&M expenses greatly increase.
We are working on a long-term customer funding proposal that would
facilitate this badly needed replacement and rehabilitation work at
hydroelectric facilities in the LRD and SAD. We anticipate, however,
that this long-term initiative will not be finalized for several years.
In the meantime, some of these facilities will not be able to continue
running without Federal funds.
administration's proposal for direct funding of o&m
It is important to note that the relationship of the Corps, SEPA,
and the SeFPC, forged pursuant to the Federal Power Marketing Program,
is separate and distinct from other Corps activities. The Federal Power
Marketing Program is designed to pay for itself--consumers are
responsible for repaying the Federal taxpayer investment in the Corps'
multi-purpose hydroelectric facilities. In the rates charged by SEPA to
preference customers, a portion of each rate is devoted to future O&M
and R&R activities at these facilities. In turn, these revenues are
deposited in the Treasury and used to reimburse Congressionally
appropriated funds for O&M and R&R expenses at the Corps' hydropower
facilities. Funds collected from consumers may also be used for the
joint costs of dam activities such as recreation, navigation and flood
control. To date, preference customers have paid in SEPA rates over
$108 million in excess of amounts spent by the Corps on O&M and R&R.
The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request proposes to
alter this funding arrangement. This year's request includes a
provision from the President's fiscal year 2003 request calling for
direct funding of routine hydropower O&M for SEPA and the other Federal
Power Marketing Administrations. While we support the concept of direct
funding for O&M expenses, we have concerns with the Administration's
proposal. We believe the proposal could limit customer oversight and
involvement in how O&M funds are spent. Moreover, as we have discussed
in greater detail above, some of the most pressing needs at the
Nation's Federal hydropower facilities would require major
rehabilitation and other new construction expenses not covered by the
O&M proposal.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of our comments on the
Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Corps. We look
forward to working with you to ensure these critical needs are met.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Los Angeles Board of Harbor
Commissioners, Port of Los Angeles
Chairman Domenici, and Members of the Subcommittee: We are Nicholas
G. Tonsich, President of the City of Los Angeles Board of Harbor
Commissioners, and Larry A. Keller, Executive Director of the Port of
Los Angeles. Together, we oversee the activities of the Port of Los
Angeles, the largest container seaport in the United States. Our
testimony speaks in support of continuing the Federal role in carrying
out the major navigation improvements underway at the Port, which
underpin the United States' decisive role in global trade.
We thank your Subcommittee for its unwavering support of the now
completed Pier 400 Deep-Draft Navigation and Landfill Project that was
the first phase of the 2020 Infrastructure Development Plan at the
Port. In fiscal year 2002, your Subcommittees appropriated $5.8
million, thereby enabling the Port and the Corps of Engineers to
complete the Preconstruction and Engineering Design Phase resulting in
the successful commencement of construction of the Channel Deepening
Project, the second phase of strategic navigation improvements under
the 2020 Plan. The construction contract was awarded in August 2002 and
dredging began the following month. The project is scheduled for
completion in fiscal year 2005.
Again, in fiscal year 2003, your Subcommittee demonstrated its
decisive role in promulgating support for critical national water
resources policy through the appropriation of scarce Federal funds to
continue development of our Nations' navigation infrastructure program.
The Subcommittee's fiscal year 2003 earmark of $12 million has kept the
Channel Deepening Project on schedule.
Today, we respectfully submit testimony requesting full Federal
funding in fiscal year 2004 for continued construction dredging of the
Channel Deepening Project and for particular operations and maintenance
requirements. Consistent with the goals and priorities of the
Administration and the Congress, the Channel Deepening Project will
provide significant economic return to the Nation, fulfill the
commitment to environmental stewardship, and maintain essential
readiness for our national security while fostering positive
international relations. Therefore, we respectfully ask the
Subcommittee to fully fund our fiscal year 2004 appropriations
requests.
the importance of the 2020 infrastructure development plan to the
united states economy
Dramatic increases in Pacific Rim and Latin American trade volumes
have far exceeded our expectations! Consequently, infrastructure
development at the Port of Los Angeles is now more critical than ever.
More than 35 percent of containerized trade entering the United States
through the San Pedro Bay port complex that comprises both the Port of
Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. More than 20 percent represents
container throughputs at the Port of Los Angeles, alone. In fact, the
Port of Los Angeles handled more than 5.1 million TEUs in 2002. Those
figures have escalated to more than 6 million TEUs of container cargo
through the end of January of this year. These container throughputs
represent $300 billion in goods coming into the United States, and are
keen evidence of the unprecedented and continued growth for any
American seaport--and the importance of the Port of Los Angeles in the
national economy.
Pacific Rim and Mexican trade volumes with the United States are
also at an all-time high. These increased trade volumes have solidified
the Port of Los Angeles as a pivotal player in the global trading
network. With a robust Asian economy, we can best describe the
potential for increased two-way trade with the Pacific Rim region,
alone, as colossal! These goods went on to stores and manufacturing
plants across the United States, supporting jobs and local economies.
As was evidenced by the recent West Coast labor lock out, the indirect
impacts to our national economy are significant, and are a result of
the leading position the Port of Los Angeles enjoys in the national and
world economies.
In the late 1970s, the Port of Los Angeles quite accurately
forecast the current surge in the international trade needs of both the
Southern California region and the Nation. In the early 1980s, the Port
entered a long-term cooperative planning effort with the Corps of
Engineers, known as The 2020 Infrastructure Development Plan. Designed
to meet the extraordinary infrastructure demands placed on it in the
face of the continued explosion in global trade, the 2020 Plan
acknowledges the phenomenal growth of trade through the Port of Los
Angeles. Further, the 2020 Plan has become a blueprint for the
infrastructure development of other ports and adaptation to changes in
maritime technology and to the projected growth in trade volumes
experienced by most ports nationally. The Channel Deepening Project
marks the second phase of the 2020 Plan begun with the Pier 400 Deep-
Draft Navigation and Landfill Project. The Port of Los Angeles is
moving forward with the 2020 Plan.
the channel deepening project
The Channel Deepening Project began in February 1999 when the Port
and the Los Angeles District Corps executed a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA). The MOA expedited the preliminary study phase required to engage
the Corps in the Channel Deepening Project, a Federal navigation
improvement project. In anticipation of a favorable Chief of Engineers'
Report, Congress authorized the Channel Deepening Project in The Water
Resources Development Act of 2000. The Corps of Engineers approved the
Feasibility Study on December 29, 2000, thereby enabling the Channel
Deepening Project to proceed.
In fiscal year 2004, the Port of Los Angeles requests that your
Subcommittee include an appropriation of $35,000,000 for the Federal
share of continued construction dredging of the Channel Deepening
Project. The Corps of Engineers' has estimated the total project cost
of approximately $194,000,000 \1\ with a Federal share of $57,400,000,
and a local share of $136,600,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Escalated through end of construction in fiscal year 2005, per
OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We cannot over emphasize the critical importance of continuing
construction of the Channel Deepening Project in fiscal year 2004. At
-45 Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), the Main Channel is too shallow to
accommodate the new state-of-the-art container vessels designed to
draft as much as -48 feet and hold containers than 6,000 TEUs. The
Chief of Engineers' Report, issued in December 2000, concurred with the
Feasibility Study's recommendation that the Corps dredge the Channel to
at least -53 feet, including a modest allowance for varied tidal
conditions and under-keel clearance. The project also includes dredging
approximately 8.4 million cubic yards of sediment from the Turning
Basin, the West and East Basins, and the East Basin Channel. Of the
major container shipping lines that currently call at the Port of Los
Angeles, five have vessels that draft -46 feet when fully laden.
Consequently, they call with only partial loads to be able to safely
navigate the Harbor's channels. While unavoidable, this makes for an
inefficient shipping system and opens the door to cargo diversion to
Vancouver, Canada or other non-U.S. West Coast ports.
Simply, Mr. Chairman, there are no other ports on the West Coast of
the United States with the current infrastructure capacity to serve
these container ships in the Pacific Rim trade or to absorb the volume
of container throughputs. These state-of-the-art container ships
represent the new competitive requirements for international shipping
efficiencies in this century. It is imperative that Congress
appropriate the requested funding that will enable the Channel
Deepening Project to continue, with full funding that will keep the
project on schedule for completion in fiscal year 2005.
continued funding of the los angeles harbor models
Furthermore, the Port of Los Angeles also requests a total
appropriation of $3,170,000 for the San Pedro Bay Models at the Corps
of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station (WES) at Vicksburg,
Mississippi. This funding is critical for the Corps to maintain the Los
Angeles Harbor Model studies and the Wave Gauge Program. Our request
includes $170,000 for the maintenance of the physical model of the San
Pedro Bay to maintain operational readiness for the continued study of
navigation improvements at the Port, and $3,000,000 to upgrade the wave
gauges, wave generators, and computer systems that are now
technologically outdated and beyond their physical service life.
The information derived from these study tools is critical to the
validation of the numerical and physical models used for the design of
ongoing projects under the 2020 Plan of the Port. For example, during
the state-of-the-art design of the Pier 400 Project, the scientists and
engineers at WES, the Port of Los Angeles and the Corps' Los Angeles
District used eight separate, but related models, to site the land
reclamation element of the project and its effect on tidal resonance on
container ships at dock. As a result, maintenance of the hydraulic and
physical models at WES, and their prototype data acquisition
facilities, continue to be an essential resource for the Corps of
Engineers and the Port of Los Angeles.
the economic impact of the 2020 infrastructure development plan
As we have testified before, cargo throughput for the Port of Los
Angeles has a tremendous impact on our national economy. This fact
cannot be over emphasized. The ability of the Port to meet the
spiraling demands of the phenomenal growth in global trade through its
facilities is directly dependent upon the construction of sufficiently
deep navigation channels that will accommodate the largest state-of-
the-art deep-draft cargo container ships that are already in service.
These new ships provide greater efficiencies in cargo transportation,
thereby offering American consumers lower prices on imported goods and
exports that are more competitive from the United States to foreign
markets. However, for American seaports to remain abreast of these
industry trends, we must immediately make the necessary infrastructure
improvements that will enable the Port to participate in this rapidly
changing global trading arena.
The Channel Deepening Project is clearly a commercial navigation
project of national economic significance and one that will yield
exponential economic returns to the United States--and the Southern
California region--well into the future. The national economic benefits
are evidenced by the creation of more than one million permanent well-
paying jobs across the United States; more than $1 billion in wages and
salaries; and, local, State and Federal sales and income tax revenues,
including increased U.S. Customs Service revenues, deposited into the
Federal treasury. The return on the Federal investment is real and
quantifiable, and we expect it to surpass the cost-benefit ratio as
determined by the Corps of Engineers' project Feasibility Study many
times over. The Federal investment in the Channel Deepening Project
will ensure that the Port of Los Angeles, the Nation's largest
container seaport, remains at the forefront of the new global trade
network well into the 21st century.
in summary
Mr. Chairman, the Port of Los Angeles respectfully urges your
Subcommittee to include the following appropriations earmarks in the
fiscal year 2004 Budget to support the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
navigation construction projects on behalf of the Port of Los Angeles:
--$35,000,000 to continue construction dredging of the Channel
Deepening Project;
--$170,000 for ongoing maintenance of the Los Angeles Harbor Model at
WES; and,
--$3,000,000 to upgrade wave gauge and generators of the Los Angeles
Harbor Model at WES.
Thank you, Chairman Domenici, for the opportunity to submit this
testimony in support of continued Congressional support of the Channel
Deepening Project and other important Federal navigation projects at
the Port of Los Angeles. The Port has long valued the support of your
Subcommittee and its appreciation of the significant role the port
industry plays in maintaining the economic vitality of the United
States, and, in particular, the role of the Port of Los Angeles in
contributing to this country's economic vigor and national security.
______
Prepared Statement of the Louisiana Governor's Task Force on Maritime
Industry
As Chairman of the Louisiana Governors Task Force on Maritime
Industry, I hereby submit testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development on behalf of the ports on the lower
Mississippi River, the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway and the Calcasieu
River waterway and the maritime interests related thereto of the State
of Louisiana relative to Congressional appropriations for fiscal year
2004.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports that in 2001 a total of
420.3 million tons of foreign and domestic waterborne commerce moved
through the consolidated deepwater ports of Louisiana situated on the
lower Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and the Gulf of Mexico.
Deepening of this 232-mile stretch of the River to 45 feet has been a
major factor in tonnage growth at these ports. Due in large part to the
efforts of Congress and the New Orleans District of the Corps,
Louisiana's ports and the domestic markets they serve can compete more
productively and effectively in the global marketplace. Ninety-one
percent of America's foreign merchandise trade by volume (two-thirds by
value) moves in ships, and 20.8 percent of the Nation's foreign
waterborne commerce passes through Louisiana's ports. Given the role
foreign trade plays in sustaining our Nation's growth, maintaining the
levels of productivity and competitiveness of Louisiana's ports is
essential to our Nation's continued economic well-being.
In terms of transportation services and global access, Louisiana
ports enjoy a distinct competitive advantage. Hundreds of barge lines
accommodate America's waterborne commerce on the lower Mississippi
River. The high level of barge traffic on the river is indicated by the
passage of more than 222,500 barges through the Port of New Orleans
annually. In 2001, 2,020 ocean-going vessels operated by more than 100
steamship lines serving U.S. trade with more than 150 countries called
at the Port of New Orleans. The Port's trading partners include: Latin
America (40.3 percent); Asia (25.3 percent); Europe (23.6 percent);
Africa (9.4 percent) and North America (1.5 percent). During the same
year, 5,621 vessels called at Louisiana's lower Mississippi River
deepwater ports.
The foreign markets of Louisiana's lower Mississippi River ports
are worldwide; however, their primary domestic market is mid-America.
This heartland region currently produces 60 percent of the Nation's
agricultural products, one half of all of its manufactured goods and 90
percent of its machinery and transportation equipment.
The considerable transportation assets of Louisiana's lower
Mississippi River ports enable mid-America's farms and industries to
play a vital role in the international commerce of this Nation. In
2001, the region's ports and port facilities handled 232.5 million tons
of foreign waterborne commerce. Valued at $38.4 billion, this cargo
accounted for 18.1 percent of the Nation's international waterborne
trade and 26.7 percent of all U.S. exports. Bulk cargo, primarily
consisting of tremendous grain and animal feed exports and petroleum
imports, made up 91.2 percent of this volume. Approximately 49 million
tons of grain from 17 States, representing 58.5 percent of all U.S.
grain exports, accessed the world market via the 10 grain elevators and
midstream transfer capabilities on the lower Mississippi River. This
same port complex received 94 million short tons of petroleum and
petroleum products, 15.9 percent of U.S. waterborne imports of
petroleum products.
In 2001, public and private facilities located within the
jurisdiction of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans,
the fourth largest port in the United States, handled a total of 85.6
million tons of international and domestic cargo. International general
cargo totaled 8.9 million tons. Although statistically dwarfed by bulk
cargo volumes, the movement of general cargo is of special significance
to the local economy because it produces greater benefits. On a per ton
basis, general cargo generates spending within the community more than
three times higher than bulk cargo. Major general cargo commodities
handled at the Port include: iron and steel products; coffee; forest
products; copper; aluminum products; and natural rubber.
Fostering the continued growth of lower Mississippi River ports is
necessary to maintain the competitiveness of our Nation's exports in
the global marketplace and, consequently, the health of the Nation's
economy. Assuring deep-water access to ports has been a priority of our
trading partners around the world. Moreover, an evolving maritime
industry seeking greater economies of scale continues to support
construction of larger vessels with increased draft requirements.
Because it facilitated the provision of deepwater port access, passage
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, played a most
significant role in assuring the competitiveness of ports on the lower
Mississippi river and throughout the United States.
By December 1994, the Corps completed dredging of the 45-foot
channel from the Gulf of Mexico to Baton Rouge, LA (Mile 233 AHP).
Mitigation features associated with the first phase of the channel-
deepening project in the vicinity of Southwest Pass of the river,
accomplished in 1988, are nearing completion. We urge the continued
funding for this work in fiscal year 2004 to complete construction of
improvements to the Belle Chasse water treatment plant. This will
complete the approximate $15 million in payments to the State of
Louisiana for construction of a pipeline and pumping stations to
deliver potable fresh water to communities affected by saltwater
intrusion. We further urge that the Corps be provided funding to
proceed with design studies for Phase III, which will allow deepening
of the river to the 55-foot authorized depth.
Along with the Port of New Orleans, the Port of South Louisiana,
the Nation's largest port with 212.6 million tons of foreign and
domestic cargo in 2001, and the Port of Baton Rouge, the Nation's tenth
largest port with 61.4 million tons of foreign and domestic cargo in
2001, and other lower Mississippi River ports are dependent upon timely
and adequate dredging of Southwest Pass to provide deep draft access to
the Gulf of Mexico. The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget is
$56,206,000 under O&M General. We, however, strongly recommend that the
Corps be funded $64,566,000 to repair and construct foreshore dikes,
lateral dikes and jetties.
Maintenance of adequate depths and channel widths in the
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Channel (MRGO) is also of great concern.
This channel provides deep draft access to the Port of New Orleans
principal container terminals and generates an annual economic impact
of nearly $800 million. In 2001, 418 general cargo vessels calling on
the Port's MRGO terminals accounted for 31.2 percent of the general
cargo tonnage handled over public facilities at the Port and 68.7
percent of Louisiana's containerized cargo.
Because of the MRGO's demonstrated vulnerability to coastal storm
activity, annual channel maintenance dredging and bank stabilization
are essential to assure unimpeded vessel operations. The President's
fiscal year 2004 Budget is $13,485,000 under O&M General. We, however,
strongly recommend that the Corps be funded $34,325,000 for maintenance
dredging and bank stabilization.
We recognize the need for the Corps to evaluate the feasibility of
continuing the maintenance of a deep draft channel in the MRGO because
of increased maintenance costs and environmental impacts.
Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2004 Budget does not include
funding for such a study. We, however, strongly recommend that the
Corps be funded $813,000 to complete the MRGO Reevaluation Study. It is
important to note that although the Port of New Orleans plans to
relocate much of its container terminal capacity to the Mississippi
River, a determination to discontinue maintenance of the MRGO's deep
draft channel must be preceded by completion of the IHNC Lock
replacement project to assure continued deep draft access to the many
businesses serviced by the MRGO.
The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock is a critical link in
the U.S. Inland Waterway System as well as the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway (GIWW), and provides a connection between the Port of New
Orleans Mississippi River and IHNC terminals. In 1998, the Corps
approved a plan for replacement of this obsolete facility. The Corps
estimates that the lock replacement project will have a cost-benefit
ratio of 2.1 to one and will provide $110 million annually in
transportation cost savings. To minimize adverse impacts to adjacent
neighborhoods, the project includes a $37 million Community Impact
Mitigation Program. The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget of
$7,000,000 for the IHNC Lock Replacement will pay for engineering and
design work, construction, and the mitigation program, all on a delayed
basis. We, therefore, strongly recommend that the Corps be funded
$20,000,000 to complete demolition on the east side, and advance
engineering and design, levee contracts, and mitigation measures.
Operation and maintenance of the Mississippi River Outlets at
Venice, LA are essential to providing safe offshore support access to
energy-related industries. In 2001, these channels accommodated cargo
movements exceeding 3 million tons. In addition to routine traffic,
shallow draft vessels use Baptiste Collette Bayou as an alternate route
between the MRGO, GIWW and the Mississippi River. The President's
fiscal year 2004 Budget is $1,841,000 under O&M General. We, however,
strongly recommend that the Corps be funded $5,116,000 to perform
critical maintenance dredging.
More than 74.9 million tons of cargo transverse the GIWW in the New
Orleans District annually. The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget is
$19,418,000 under O&M General. We, however, strongly recommend that the
Corps be funded $29,028,000 to perform critical maintenance at the
navigation locks.
The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget for the Bayou Sorrel Lock,
LA project is $707,000 in GI funds. To assure the efficient flow of
commerce on the GIWW, we urge that the Corps be funded $707,000 to
advance the completion of the pre-engineering design for replacement of
the Bayou Sorrel Lock, Morgan City-to-Port Allen alternate route. We
further recommend that the Corps be funded $800,000 in GI funds to
advance the completion of the feasibility phase of the study to replace
Calcasieu Lock on the GIWW by 3 years.
The Port of Lake Charles, Louisiana, is served by the Calcasieu
River, which often does not meet project depth and width requirements.
This Port is one of Louisiana's major deep-water ports, benefitting the
economy of the State and the Nation. In 2001, the Port handled 37.1
million tons of import cargo and 17.3 million tons of export cargo. The
Port and private facilities along this waterway provide thousands of
jobs for the Lake Charles area. In 2001, 1,284 ships and 7,893 barges
used the Calcasieu River waterway. The Port area's growth and continued
success depends on the provision of a reliable and safe channel at full
project dimensions. The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget is
$12,064,000 under O&M General. We, however, strongly recommend that the
Corps be funded $20,559,000 to construct revetment at Devil's Elbow.
One additional project warrants consideration. The J. Bennett
Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, LA Project provides
236 miles of navigation improvements, 225 miles of channel
stabilization works and various recreational facilities. Project
completion will stimulate economic growth along the Red River Basin and
increase cargo flows through the deep draft ports on the lower
Mississippi River. The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget is
$13,700,000 (Construction General) and $12,013,000 (O&M General). We,
however, strongly recommend that the Corps be funded $29,000,000
(Construction General) and $19,900,000 (O&M, General) to complete work
already underway.
The need and impetus to reduce the Federal budget is certainly
acknowledged; however, reduced funding on any of the above projects
will result in decreased maintenance levels which will escalate
deterioration and, ultimately, prevent them from functioning at their
full authorized purpose. Reduction in the serviceability of these
projects will cause severe economic impacts not only to this region,
but to the Nation as a whole that will far outweigh savings from
reduced maintenance expenditures. Therefore, we reiterate our strong
recommendation that the above projects be funded to their full
capability.
1. Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA.--
Recommend the Corps be funded $196,000 (Construction General) to
perform required work on the saltwater intrusion Phase 1 mitigation
plan.
2. Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, Maintenance
Dredging.--The President's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget is $56,206,000 under
O&M General. Recommend that the Corps be funded $64,566,000 to
construct foreshore rock dike, soft dike at deep draft crossings, and
to repair Southwest Pass pile dike and tie-in.
3. Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), LA, Maintenance
Dredging.--The President's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget is $13,485,000 under
O&M General. Recommend that the Corps be funded $34,325,000 for
maintenance dredging and bank stabilization.
4. Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock, LA.--The President's
Fiscal Year 2004 Budget is $7,000,000 in Construction General funds.
Recommend that the Corps be funded $20,000,000 to continue construction
and mitigation for the IHNC Lock replacement.
5. Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA.--The President's Fiscal
Year 2004 Budget is $1,841,000 under O&M General. Recommend that the
Corps be funded $5,116,000 to perform critical maintenance dredging and
to repair jetties.
6. Bayou Sorrel Lock, LA.--The President's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget
is $707,000 under General Investigation Studies. Recommend that the
Corps be funded $707,000 to advance pre-engineering design for the
replacement of Bayou Sorrel Lock on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
(GIWW), Morgan City-to-Port Allen alternate route.
7. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA and TX.--The President's Fiscal
Year 2004 Budget is $19,418,000 under O&M General. Recommend that the
Corps be funded $29,028,000 to perform critical maintenance at the
navigation locks.
8. Calcasieu Lock, LA.--The President's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget is
$100,000 in GI funds. Recommend that the Corps be funded $800,000 to
advance the feasibility phase of the study to replace Calcasieu Lock on
the GIWW.
9. Calcasieu River and Pass, LA.--The President's Fiscal Year 2004
Budget is $12,064,000 under O&M General. Recommend that the Corps be
funded $20,559,000 to construct revetment at Devil's Elbow, perform
critical dredging and maintenance of disposal area.
10. MRGO Reevaluation Study, LA.--The President's Fiscal Year 2004
Budget has no funding for this study. Recommend that the Corps be
funded $813,000 (Construction General). Funds are needed to complete a
study to determine the advisability of maintaining the 36-foot depth of
the MRGO.
11. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport,
LA.--The President's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget is $13,700,000
(Construction General) and $12,013,000 (O&M General). Recommend that
the Corps be funded $29,000,000 (Construction General) and $19.9
million (O&M, General) to complete work already underway.
______
Prepared Statement of the Port of New Orleans
The Port of New Orleans is located at the terminus of the most
extensively developed waterway system in the world, the 14,500 mile
inland waterway system of the United States. The Port, via the
Mississippi River and the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, serves as the
gateway between America's heartland and the global marketplace.
The Louisiana Governor's Task Force on the Maritime Industry has
submitted a statement in support of fiscal year 2004 Congressional
appropriations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This statement
addresses Corps activities on the Lower Mississippi River and
connecting waterways, the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, and the
Calcasieu River Waterway. We endorse the statement of the Governor's
Task Force and the funding levels recommended therein.
We greatly appreciate the outstanding support and cooperation
received over many years from the subcommittee, and look forward to
working with you on these vitally important projects.
______
Prepared Statement of the Steamship Association of Louisiana
I am President of the Steamship Association of Louisiana (SALA).
Our Association represents ship owners, operators, and agents who
handle the majority of the 7,000 ocean-going vessels that call
Louisiana's deep-water ports each year. SALA is dedicated to the safe,
efficient movement of maritime commerce through the State's deep-water
ports. We endorse the testimony of Mr. Donald T. Bollinger, Chairman of
the Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry.
Channel stabilization and maintenance dredging in Southwest Pass
(SWP) are critical to maintaining project draft. Project draft ensures
the Mississippi River's deep-water ports will continue to handle the
country's foreign and domestic waterborne commerce in the most cost-
effective way possible.
For years we have urged this Committee to provide funds to maintain
project draft at SWP. You have responded, and your wisdom has
benefitted the entire American heartland served by the Mississippi
River system. SWP was greatly restricted throughout the 1970's. From
1970 to 1975, the channel was at less than project draft 46 percent of
the time. In 1973 and 1974, the channel was below the 40-foot project
draft 70 percent of the time. During some periods, drafts were limited
to 31 feet. Fortunately, those conditions have not recurred because of
a combination of factors: Your help, and the constant vigilance of the
Pilots, the Corps, and the maritime community. The years 1990 through
2002 show a tremendous improvement in channel stability. The funding
you provided was money well spent. The repairs to the jetties and
dikes, and the Corps' ability to rapidly respond to shoaling, have been
instrumental in maintaining project dimensions. However, the lack of
available hopper dredges has, at times, threatened the integrity of the
channel.
The Pilots have taken advantage of tidal flows and other factors to
recommend the maximum draft possible consistent with safe navigation.
This results in additional sales and increased competitiveness for U.S.
products on the world market. Industry's partnership with you has kept
Mississippi River ports competitive and attractive to vessels. An
additional 12 inches of draft to a large vessel with a loading capacity
of 250 metric tons per inch is an added 3,000 tons of cargo. As of this
writing, freight rates for grain moving from the Mississippi River to
the Far East were $24 per metric ton before world events increased them
to $30 per ton as this letter is written. Using $24 per ton, each foot
of draft represents an additional $72,000 in vessel revenue, or
$360,000 for the five additional feet over the old 40-foot project
draft that the new channel provides.
The funds we request for maintenance dredging ($64.6 million, $8.4
million over the President's request) are essential for the Corps to
maintain a reliable channel and respond rapidly to potential problems.
This builds the confidence of the bulk trade in a reliable Mississippi
River draft, which is critically important. Much of Louisiana's bulk
trade is exported agricultural products and imported petroleum
products. The export commodities are neither captive to Louisiana nor
the United States if they can be shipped from competing countries at a
consistently lower cost.
The deeper the channel, the more important channel stabilization
becomes. Adequate channel stabilization work minimizes the maintenance
cost of the deeper channel--a cost-effective investment. The faster the
project is stabilized, the faster and greater the benefits of reduced
O&M costs will be realized. Also, we recommend that the Corps conduct
research on prototype dredging techniques.
Funds are also needed for dustpan dredges to work the crossings
above New Orleans. These crossings control the draft to the Ports of
South Louisiana and Baton Rouge, home to eight of our ten major grain
elevators plus many mid-stream and other bulk cargo facilities. This
area caters to the bulk trade and must have a stable channel depth
consistent with the depth at Southwest Pass. Only two dustpan dredges
in the world are available to maintain the deep-draft crossings between
New Orleans and Baton Rouge. There are times when a high river is
followed by a rapid drop in the river's stage. In such cases, the
dustpan dredges may not be available, or both dredges may not be
capable of restoring the 12 crossings within a reasonable time. When
this happens, hopper dredges are used to assist in the work.
For all of the above reasons, we request full funding for the
mitigation features of the O&M General, 45-foot Mississippi River
project. We also request that the New Orleans District receive an
additional $32.1 million to address the shortfall carried forward from
fiscal year 2002. These funds were not provided by Congress in an
fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriation as requested by the Corps
and are seriously impacting needed channel maintenance on the
Mississippi River, the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO) and the
Calcasieu Ship Channel in fiscal year 2003. To ``catch up'' with the
dredging needs on these channels, we respectfully request this
additional funding in fiscal year 2004 if it is not provided in a
fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriation.
We also support Phase III of the Mississippi River channel
deepening project and urge that the Corps be funded to proceed with
design studies for the 55-foot channel, Baton Rouge to the Gulf of
Mexico.
The MR-GO is also a viable channel for the State of Louisiana. The
funds you provided in past fiscal years have allowed the Corps to
improve the channel considerably. However, the channel width has
remained limited primarily because of erosion. For safety reasons in
this narrow channel, one-way traffic restrictions apply to vessels with
a draft of 30 feet or more, causing delays to the tightly-scheduled
container traffic using the MR-GO. These specialty vessels serving the
Port's facilities are becoming larger. The highest wages under the
International Longshoremen's Association's contract ($27 per straight-
time hour) is paid for work at the MR-GO container facilities. Anything
that threatens the MR-GO jeopardizes these high-paying jobs, which are
held mostly by minority workers.
To improve safety on the MR-GO and protect Louisiana's container
trade (and the well-paying, minority employment it produces), we
request that the Corps be funded at $34.3 million for the MR-GO in
fiscal year 2004. This will allow annual maintenance dredging, north
and south bank stabilization, and jetty maintenance, which is essential
to provide the stability needed for vessel and port operations.
With facilities located on both the MR-GO and the Mississippi
River, an adequate route between the two is essential for efficient
transit between these facilities. The shortest route is the inadequate,
antiquated Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock built in the
1920's with a width of 75 feet and limited depth of 30 feet. Its
maximum capacity has long been exceeded. The average waiting time for
passage through the Lock has increased from 8\1/2\ hours in 1985 to
about 12 hours at present; however, we understand that waiting time can
be more than a day in some instances. A much larger ship lock is
necessary to accommodate today's traffic.
The replacement project for the IHNC Lock is important to the ports
on the lower Mississippi River and to the Nation's commerce since it is
on the corridor for east/west barge traffic. Without full funding, the
project will be delayed and increase the overall cost of the project.
We urge Congress to provide the Corps' full fiscal year 2004 capability
($20 million) for this important project to insure its completion.
Delays are unthinkable since the new lock is long overdue.
The Port of Lake Charles, Louisiana, is served by the Calcasieu
River, which is often below project depth and width. This is another of
Louisiana's major deep-water ports that benefits the economy of the
State and the Nation. The public and private facilities along this
waterway provide thousands of jobs for the Lake Charles area. This
channel, because of its project deficiencies, requires one-way traffic
for many ships, causing delays that disrupt cargo operations. This is
costly and inefficient for industry. The Port area's growth and
continued success depends on a reliable and safe channel that should be
at full project. We request funding to the full capability of the Corps
($20.6 million) to maintain this channel at its project dimensions and
to construct needed revetments at Devil's Elbow.
The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport,
Louisiana, Project is directly related to our deep-water ports. The
continuation and completion of this work will stimulate the economy all
along the Red River Basin with jobs and additional international trade.
This increased trade will help the Port of Shreveport and the ports on
the lower Mississippi River, providing needed growth and benefitting
the States of Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, which are
served through the Shreveport distribution center. Therefore, we
strongly recommend that the Corps be funded to full capability for
fiscal year 2004 at $29 million for Construction General and $19.9
million for O&M General to complete work already underway.
______
Prepared Statement of the Port of South Louisiana
The Port of South Louisiana very much appreciates being given the
opportunity to submit this statement and supportive material to signify
its endorsement of the statement of Mr. Donald T. Bollinger, Chairman
of the Louisiana Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry.
The Port of South Louisiana is comprised of nearly 54 miles of
Mississippi River north of New Orleans and south of Baton Rouge, with
more than 50 private and public docks and wharves. The Port of South
Louisiana is the largest tonnage port in the United States and third
largest in the world, handling more than 260 million short tons of
cargo during 2002. Of this total tonnage, more than 133 million tons
are shipped in international trade by deep water vessel and 127 million
tons are shipped in domestic trade by vessels and barges. Each year
more than 100,000 barges transport cargo at the Port of South Louisiana
and more than 4,300 ships call at the public and private wharves of our
Port.
A recent study by Dr. Tim Ryan of the University of New Orleans
indicates that nearly 20 percent of the domestic gross product of the
State of Louisiana is dependent upon the maritime industry and one of
eight jobs is created from the economic activity of the maritime
industry. Attached you will find statistics which have been developed
from the records of the Port of South Louisiana.
The Port of South Louisiana strongly urges the Congress to fund all
of the following projects.
--Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA;
--Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, Maintenance Dredging;
--Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO), LA., Maintenance Dredging;
--Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock, LA;
--Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA;
--Bayou Sorrel Lock, LA;
--Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA and TX;
--Calcasieu Lock, LA;
--Calcasieu River & Pass, LA;
--Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO) Reevaluation Study, LA;
--J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport.
The Port of South Louisiana strongly believes that the funding and
completion of the above maritime projects will enhance the ability of
the ports in the region to be competitive in the global economy and
will enhance the ability of domestic industry and agriculture to
compete in the export of its products.
______
Prepared Statement of the Port of Greater Baton Rouge
Maintaining open navigable channels for the Mississippi River and
its tributaries is vital to the Nation's commerce and national
interest. Therefore, the Port of Greater Baton Rouge respectfully
requests that you and your committee give favorable consideration to
the following U.S. Corps of Engineers projects:
1. Mississippi River Ship Channel--Gulf to Baton Rouge, Louisiana
(Construction General).--The Port of Greater Baton Rouge supports full
funding of $196,000 in fiscal year 2004 to the U.S. Corps of Engineers
General Construction Budget. These funds will provide for the required
work on the saltwater intrusion mitigation plan and the Phase I design
studies for the 55-foot channel. Both projects are important to the
future success of the Port of Greater Baton Rouge.
2. Mississippi River--Baton Rouge to the Gulf--Maintenance
Dredging.--The President's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget is $56,206,000 under
O&M General. The Port of Greater Baton Rouge recommends that the Corps
be funded $64,566,000 to construct foreshore rock dike, soft dike at
deep draft crossings, and to repair Southwest Pass pile dike and tie-
in.
3. Mississippi River--Gulf Outlet (MRGO), LA., Maintenance
Dredging.--The President's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget is $13,485,000 under
O&M General. The Port of Greater Baton Rouge recommends that the Corps
be funded $34,325,000 for maintenance dredging and bank stabilization.
4. Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock, LA.--The President's
Fiscal Year 2004 Budget is $7,000,000 in Construction General Funds.
The Port of Greater Baton Rouge recommends the Corps be funded
$20,000,000 to continue construction and mitigation for the IHNC Lock
replacement.
5. Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA.--The President's Fiscal
Year 2004 Budget is $1,841,000 under O&M General. The Port of Greater
Baton Rouge recommends that the Corps be funded $5,116,000 to perform
critical maintenance dredging and to repair jetties.
6. Bayou Sorrel, Lock, LA.--The President's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget
is $707,000 under General Investigation Studies. The Port of Greater
Baton Rouge recommends that the Corps be funded $707,000 to advance
pre-engineering design for the replacement of Bayou Sorrel Lock on the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Morgan City-to-Port Allen alternate
route.
7. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA and TX.--The President's Fiscal
Year 2004 Budget is $19,418,000 under O&M General. The Port of Greater
Baton Rouge recommends that the Corps be funded $29,028,000 to perform
critical maintenance at the navigation locks.
8. MRGO Reevaluation Study, LA.--The President's Fiscal Year 2004
Budget has no funding for this study. The Port of Greater Baton Rouge
recommends that the Corps be funded $813,000 (Construction General).
Funds are needed to complete a study to determine the advisability of
maintaining the 36-foot depth of the MRGO.
9. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport,
LA.--The President's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget is $13,700,000
(Construction General) and $12,013,000 (O&M General). The Port of
Greater Baton Rouge recommends that the Corps be funded $29,000,000
(Construction General) and $19.9 million (O&M, General) to complete
work already underway.
As stated in previous correspondence, these projects are vital not
only to the Port of Greater Baton Rouge but to the entire lower
Mississippi River and the Nation. They are projects of critical
national significance and have a tremendous impact on shipping for both
ocean-going vessels and barge traffic. The great Mississippi River is
the premier national waterway, providing accessibility to and from
foreign countries for the transportation of goods and services used by
countless number of U.S. companies and individual citizens. The channel
must be properly designed and maintained for the benefit of all ports
and commerce.
We also earnestly request your support for funding of the other
projects included in March 2003 testimony prepared and submitted by Mr.
Donald T. Bollinger. A summary of Mr. Bollinger's statement is
attached. Our waterway infrastructure must be properly maintained if we
are to increase trade and have the confidence of our trading partners
around the world. Your cooperation and support of these important
projects for the Mississippi River are greatly appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District
The Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District (Port of Lake
Charles, Louisiana) respectfully requests that the U.S. Senate
Appropriations Committee and Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development afford favorable consideration to proposed U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers projects affecting the Calcasieu River Waterway, Calcasieu
Lock and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. We specifically endorse the
appropriateness and necessity for increased funding levels as advocated
by testimony offered by Mr. Donald T. Bollinger, Chairman of the
Governor of Louisiana's Maritime Industry Task Force.
The Calcasieu River Waterway, including its nexus with the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway and Calcasieu Lock, is deemed ``military
essential'' and further supports two refineries, a major portion of the
Nation's liquefied natural gas imports, chemical industries, USDA
programs, and is a major economic engine for the region.
Your support of these essential projects toward maintaining our
contribution to the Marine Transportation System (MTS) infrastructure
will well serve regional and National interests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Associated Branch Pilots, Port of New Orleans
The Associated Branch Pilots is an Association of Pilots that have
been guiding oceangoing vessels into the entrances of the Mississippi
River system for over 125 years. We are called Bar Pilots because we
guide the ships past the constantly shifting and shoaling sand bars in
the area.
Southwest Pass of the Mississippi River is the main entrance for
deep draft oceangoing vessels entering the Lower Mississippi River
System. It is the shallowest stretch of the Lower Mississippi River
System and the area that requires the greatest effort by the Corps of
Engineers to maintain project depth.
In 2002, the Associated Branch Pilots made 10,850 transits on
oceangoing vessels through Southwest Pass. Of these ships, 3,444 were
of 50,000 deadweight tons or greater and 686 had a draft in excess of
40 feet.
This number of heavily laden vessels calling on the Lower
Mississippi River System is a result of having a channel with a depth
of 45 feet.
This first phase has proven to be extremely well designed and well
maintained by the fact that the maximum draft recommended by my
Association for vessels using Southwest Pass has been 45 feet or
greater, except for periods of extremely high water that caused
shoaling that overwhelmed the dredging efforts. This is in stark
contrast to the late 1970's and early 1980's when we often had to
recommend drafts less than the project depth due to shoaling.
To the world shipping community, this means that calling at ports
on the Mississippi River system will be more profitable because larger
ships can enter and carry greater amounts of cargo.
This is beneficial to the entire United States because it makes the
large quantities of petroleum, agricultural, and manufactured products
shipped from the Mississippi Valley more desirable due to increased
profitability.
I would also like to comment briefly on the East-West navigation
channels near Venice, Louisiana. Tiger Pass and Baptiste Collette
provide a shorter, more direct route to Breton Sound and the Gulf of
Mexico for offshore supply boats and small tugs and barges. These
channels not only represent a savings in time and money for these
vessels, but reduce the traffic in the main shipping channel, the
Mississippi River and its passes, which is one of the most congested
waterways in the country.
The dredging and maintaining of South Pass would contribute to the
safety of the overall waterway.
The Associated Branch Pilots also pilot vessels in the Mississippi
River Gulf Outlet, a man-made tidewater channel 75 miles long,
stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to an intersection of the
Intercoastal Waterway in New Orleans.
This channel leads to the Main Container Terminals for the Port of
New Orleans, the Roll On, Roll Off Terminal, the Port of New Orleans
Bulk Handling Plant, and additional General Cargo Docks. For the Port
of New Orleans to remain competitive in the ever growing container
trade, the continued maintenance of this channel is crucial. In 2002,
719 ships called on the port using the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.
Much is being said pro and con concerning the Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet. There is, admittedly, an erosion problem in the
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, but any curtailment of shipping traffic
in the channel without regard to the long term effect upon the Port of
New Orleans would be disastrous. I strongly support approval of funding
for both the maintenance dredging/jetty repair project and the erosion/
rip rap study for the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.
Funding of the Corps of Engineers' projects in the Lower
Mississippi River System has proven to be money well spent. It has
increased exports and imports that have benefited the entire United
States. I urge your support of the funding requested to enable the
Corps to continue to maintain and improve the most efficient and
productive waterway system in the country.
______
Prepared Statement of the Crescent River Port Pilots' Association
I am President of the largest pilot association in the United
States. The Crescent River Port Pilots furnish pilots for ships
destined to the Port of Baton Rouge, Port of South Louisiana, Port of
New Orleans, Port of St. Bernard, and the Port of Plaquemines.
The Crescent River Port Pilots have piloted and shifted over 14,750
ships during 2002. We pilot deep draft vessels on more than 100 miles
on the lower Mississippi River and 35 miles on the Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet.
The lower end of our route on the Mississippi River has a shoaling
problem starting with the high water season each year. The shoaling
requires daily attention by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
to maintain project depth.
Heavy-laden vessel calls on the lower Mississippi River system as a
direct result of the completion by the Corps of Engineers of the
deepening of the channel from 40 feet to 45 feet.
For several years now, we have had extraordinary success in keeping
the river dredges to project depth. This success is a direct result of
an experienced and vigilant Corps of Engineers that, through
experience, is able to timely bid in dredges to avoid extra dredging
cost by waiting too long to start maintenance dredging.
Channel stability sends a positive message to the world's shipping
community that schedule cargo for deep draft vessels months in advance
is reliable. This makes the port call on the Mississippi River very
profitable since the ships can lift greater tonnage.
Keeping project depth is beneficial to 27 States that are directly
tied to the Mississippi River Port Complex.
Additionally, I would like to comment on the east and west
navigation channels near Venice, Louisiana. Baptiste Collette and Tiger
Pass provide a shorter and more direct route to Breton Sound and West
Delta in the Gulf of Mexico for oil field support vessels.
The Crescent River Port Pilots also pilot ships in the Mississippi
River Gulf Outlet. A man-made channel approximately 75 miles long
starting in Breton Sound in the Gulf of Mexico and ending in New
Orleans where it intersects with the Intercoastal Waterway.
The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet feeds the main container
terminals in the Port of New Orleans. Additional docks, such as Bulk
Terminal and general cargo facilities depend on this channel, which
handled approximately 847 ship calls last year.
The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet has been a controversial channel
since its inception, but being an integral part of the Port of New
Orleans, it would be a disaster if it is not kept at project width and
depth. The Crescent River Pilots strongly support approval of funding
for both the maintenance dredging, and jetty repair projects.
Funding of the United States Army Corps of Engineers projects in
the lower Mississippi River system which includes the Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet, Tiger Pass, Baptiste Collette, and Southwest Pass has
proven to be money well spent.
I urge your support of the funding requested to allow the Corps of
Engineers to continue to maintain and improve the most productive
waterway system in the world.
Mr. Chairman, thanks for allowing me the opportunity to submit my
comments to your subcommittee.
______
FISCAL YEAR 2004 CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI
RIVER AND CONNECTING WATERWAYS, J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY AND
CALCASIEU RIVER WATERWAY--PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST AND RECOMMENDED
FUNDING LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Recommended
Project Budget Request Funding Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi River Ship Channel Gulf to 196 196
Baton Rouge, LA (Construction General).
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the 56,206 64,566
Gulf, Maintenance Dredging, and
Stabilization (O&M General)............
Mississippi River--Gulf Outlet (MR-GO), 13,485 34,325
LA (O&M General).......................
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, LA 7,000 20,000
(Construction General).................
Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA 1,841 5,116
(O&M General)..........................
Bayou Sorrel Lock, LA (GI Funds)........ 707 707
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA & TX (O&M 19,418 29,028
General)...............................
Calcasieu Lock, LA (GI Funds)........... 100 800
Calcasieu River and Pass, LA (O&M 12,064 20,559
General)...............................
MRGO Reevaluation Study, LA 0 813
(Construction General).................
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway 13,700 29,000
(Construction General).................
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway (O&M 12,013 19,900
General)...............................
-------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 136,730 225,010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared Statement of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona
Chairman Domenici, Ranking Member Reid, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of
the City of Flagstaff, Arizona in support of $4.5 million in the Army
Corps of Engineers budget for the Rio de Flag flood control project in
fiscal year 2004. I believe this project is critically important to the
City, to northern Arizona, and, ultimately, to the Nation.
As you may know, Mr. Chairman, with this subcommittee's help last
year, Rio de Flag received $1 million to start construction on this
important project. We are extremely grateful that the subcommittee
boosted this project well above the President's request, and we would
appreciate your continued support for this project in fiscal year 2004.
Like many other projects under the Army Corps's jurisdiction, Rio
de Flag received no funding for fiscal year 2004, although the Corps
has expressed capability of $4.5 million to continue construction on
the project. We are hopeful that the subcommittee will fund the Rio de
Flag project at $4.5 million when drafting its bill in order to keep
the project on an optimal schedule.
Flooding along the Rio de Flag dates back as far as 1888. The Army
Corps has identified a Federal interest in solving this long-standing
flooding problem through the Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona--
Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Study (EIS). The
recommended plan contained in this feasibility report was developed
based on the following opportunities: (1) flood control and flood
damage reduction; (2) environmental mitigation and enhancement; (3)
water resource management; (4) public recreation; and (5) redevelopment
opportunities. This plan will result in benefits to not only the local
community, but to the region and the Nation.
The feasibility study by the Corps of Engineers has revealed that a
500-year flood could cause serious economic hardship to the City. In
fact, a devastating 500-year flood could damage or destroy
approximately 1,500 structures valued at more than $395 million.
Similarly, a 100-year flood would cause an estimated $95 million in
damages. In the event of a catastrophic flood, over half of Flagstaff's
population of 57,000 would be directly impacted or affected.
In addition, a wide range of residential, commercial, downtown
business and tourism, and industrial properties are at risk. Damages
could also occur to numerous historic structures and historic Route 66.
The Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), one of the primary
east-west corridors for rail freight, could be destroyed, as well as
U.S. Interstate 40, one of the country's most important east-west
interstate links. Additionally, a significant portion of Northern
Arizona University (NAU) could incur catastrophic physical damages,
disruptions, and closings. Public infrastructure (e.g., streets,
bridges, water, and sewer facilities), and franchised utilities (e.g.,
power and telecommunications) could be affected or destroyed.
Transportation disruptions could make large areas of the City
inaccessible for days.
Mr. Chairman, the intense wildfires that have ripped through the
West over the last several years have only exacerbated the flood
potential and hazard in Flagstaff. An intense wildfire near Flagstaff
could strip the soil of ground cover and vegetation, which could, in
turn, increase runoff and pose an even greater threat of a catastrophic
flood.
In short, a large flood could cripple Flagstaff for years and even
decades. That is why the City believes it is so important to ensure
that this project remains on schedule and that the Corps is able to
maximize its capability of $4.5 million in fiscal year 2004 for
construction of the Rio de Flag flood control project.
In the City's discussions with the Corps, both the central office
in Washington and its Los Angeles District Office also believe that the
Rio de Flag project is of the utmost importance and both offices
believe the project should be placed high on the subcommittee's
priority list. We are hopeful that the subcommittee will heed this
advice and also place the project high on its priority list and fully
fund the project at $4.5 million for fiscal year 2004.
As you may know, project construction and implementation of Rio de
Flag was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of
2000. The total project is estimated to cost $24,072,000 (October 1999
price levels). The non-Federal share is currently $8,496,000 and the
Federal share is currently $15,576,000. Final project costs must be
adjusted based on Value Engineering and final design features. It is
important to note that the City of Flagstaff has already committed more
than $10 million to this project, which is well in excess of its cost
share agreement and shows the City's commitment to completing this
important project. Through this investment in the project, the City is
prepared to enter into the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) with the
Department of the Army.
The City of Flagstaff, as the non-Federal sponsor, is responsible
for all costs related to required Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way,
Relocations, and Disposals (LERRD's). The City has already secured the
necessary property rights to begin construction in 2003. Implementation
of the City's Downtown and Southside Redevelopment Initiatives
($100,000,000 in private funds) are entirely dependent on the success
of the Rio de Flag project. The Rio de Flag project will also provide a
critical missing bike/pedestrian connection under Route 66 and the BNSF
Railroad to replace the existing hazardous at grade crossings.
Both design and construction are divided into two phases. Phase I
is currently scheduled to commence construction in July of 2003. Phase
II of the project is scheduled to commence in April of 2004.
Mr. Chairman, the Rio de Flag project is exactly the kind of
project that was envisioned when the Corps was created because it will
avert catastrophic floods, it will save lives and property, and it will
promote economic growth. In short, this project is a win-win for the
Federal Government, the City, and the surrounding communities.
Furthermore, the amount of money invested in this project by the
Federal Government--approximately $15 million--will be saved
exponentially in costs to the Federal Government in the case of a large
and catastrophic flood, which could be more than $395 million. It will
also promote economic growth and redevelopment along areas that are
currently underserved because of the flood potential.
In conclusion, the Rio de Flag project should be considered a high
priority for this subcommittee, and I encourage you to support full
funding of $4.5 million for this project in the fiscal year 2004 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations bill. Thank you in advance for
your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee
Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished Committee, my name
is Lew Meibergen. I am Chairman of the Board of Johnston Enterprises
headquartered in Enid, Oklahoma. It is my honor to serve as Chairman of
the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, members of which are
appointed by the governors of the great States of Arkansas, Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
In these trying times of war on terrorism, homeland defense and
needed economic recovery, our thanks go to each of you, your staff
members and the Congress. Your efforts to protect our Nation's
infrastructure and stimulate economic growth in a time of budget
constraints are both needed and appreciated.
Our Nation's growing dependence on others for energy, and the need
to protect and improve our environment, make your efforts especially
important. Greater use and development of one of our Nation's most
important transportation modes--our navigable inland waterways--will
help remedy these problems. At the same time, these fuel-efficient and
cost-effective waterways keep us competitive in international markets.
As Chairman of the Interstate Committee, I present this summary
testimony as a compilation of the most important projects from each of
the member States. Each of the States unanimously supports these
projects without reservation. I request that the copies of each State's
individual statement be made a part of the record, along with this
testimony.
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam
The Interstate Committee continues to identify Montgomery Point
Lock and Dam as our top priority. As completion of construction nears,
we respectfully request a $15 million Congressional Add for a total
budget of $35 million for fiscal year 2004 to ensure that this urgently
needed lock and dam is in operation as soon as possible at the lowest
possible cost. Scheduled to be operational in 2004, Montgomery Point
will protect over $5 billion in public and private investments, some
50,000 jobs, world trade, growing military shipments and future
economic development.
Continuing problems caused by the lowering of the Mississippi River
continue to plague McClellan-Kerr entrance channel users. During times
of low water on the Mississippi River the entrance channel is drained
of navigable water depth. As the Mississippi River bottom continues to
lower, the McClellan-Kerr moves toward total shutdown. Thus, the entire
Arkansas River Navigation System is at risk, and its long-term
viability is threatened without Montgomery Point.
Use of the temporary by-pass channel increases navigation hazards
and existing dredge disposal areas are virtually full. Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Committee, continuing Congressional support is essential
at this crucial time in the history of the project.
The Interstate Committee also respectfully recommends the following
as important priorities:
Backlog of Major Maintenance--Arkansas
A $2 million Congressional Add to the fiscal year 2004 O&M funding
for advance maintenance dredging and a $5 million add for the backlog
of channel maintenance, for the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
Navigation System in Arkansas is vitally important. These additional
funds will help repair bank stabilization, channel and other
navigational system components that have deteriorated over the past 3
decades.
The O&M funding level has been stagnant for the past 11 years while
cost and maintenance needs have continued to increase. Your help in
adding $7 million to the project will reduce the critical backlog of
needed maintenance repairs, the lack of which cause impediments to
commercial navigation.
Equus Beds Aquifer--Kansas
Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project--continuation of a
City of Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and the State of
Kansas project to construct storage and recovery facilities for a major
groundwater resource supplying water to more the 20 percent of Kansas
municipal, industrial and irrigation users. The project will capture
and recharge in excess of 100 million gallons per day and will also
reduce on-going degradation of the existing groundwater by minimizing
migration of saline water. Federal authorization and continued Federal
funding is requested in the minimum amount of $1.5 million for fiscal
year 2004 for the budget of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Tow Haulage Equipment--Oklahoma
We also request funding of $2.5 million to initiate the
installation of tow haulage equipment on the locks located along the
Arkansas River Portion of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
System in Oklahoma. Total cost for these three locks is $4.7 million.
This project will involve installation of tow haulage equipment on W.D.
Mayo Lock and Dam #14, Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam #15, and Webbers
Falls Lock and Dam #16, on the Oklahoma portion of the waterway. The
tow haulage equipment is needed to make transportation of barges more
efficient and economical by allowing less time for tows to pass through
the various locks. Plans are complete and ready to implement.
The testimony we present reveals our firm belief that our inland
waterways and the Corps efforts are especially important to our Nation
in this time of trial. Transportation infrastructure like the inland
waterways, need be operated and maintained for the benefit of the
populace. Without adequate annual budgets this is impossible.
We strongly urge the Appropriations Committee to increase the Corps
fiscal year 2004 budget so that long deferred system-wide maintenance
may be accomplished and delayed construction projects may be completed
in a timely and cost-effective manner.
Mr. Chairman, Members of this Committee, we respectfully request
that you and members of your staff review and respond in a positive way
to the attached individual statements from each of our States which set
forth specific requests pertaining to those States.
We sincerely appreciate your consideration and assistance.
arkansas
statement of paul latture, ii, chairman for arkansas
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony to this most important committee. I
serve as Executive Director for the Little Rock Port Authority and as
Arkansas Chairman for the Interstate Committee. Other committee members
representing Arkansas, in whose behalf this statement is made, are
Messrs. Wally Gieringer of Hot Springs Village, retired Executive
Director of the Pine Bluff-Jefferson County Port Authority; Scott
McGeorge, President, Pine Bluff Sand and Gravel Company, Pine Bluff;
Barry McKuin of Morrilton, President of the Conway County Economic
Development Corporation; and N.M. ``Buck'' Shell, CEO, Five Rivers
Distribution in Van Buren and Fort Smith, Arkansas.
In this time of war concerns, war on terrorism, homeland defense
and needed economic recovery, our thanks go to each of you, your staff
members and the Congress. Your efforts to protect our Nation's
infrastructure and stimulate economic growth in this time of trial and
tight budgets are greatly appreciated. Our fiscal year 2004 requests
are modest.
First, we have grave concern about a provision of the President's
fiscal year 2004 budget request which would be very detrimental to the
inland waterways, and especially the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
Navigation System. That budget proposes 25 percent to 50 percent of the
cost of Operation & Maintenance of fuel-taxed inland waterways segments
be financed by the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (which by law is to be
used to pay 50 percent of the cost of lock-and-dam replacements and
major rehabilitations).
This budget proposal singles out so-called ``low-use'' waterway
segments moving less than 5 billion ton-miles of commerce annually, a
category which would include the McClellan-Kerr, and would require
reimbursement of 50 percent of O&M outlays from the trust fund.
The proposal is unfair. The inland waterways provide multiple
benefits: flood control, water supply, hydropower, transportation, and
recreation. While not the sole user of the waterways, transportation
users would be the only beneficiaries paying for the modernization and
maintenance of the waterways.
To take a portion of the inland O&M expenditures out of the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund would quickly deplete the present surplus and lead
to calls for closure of so-called low-use waterways or else for higher
fuel taxes, which would adversely impact our Nation's agricultural,
energy, and transportation sectors at a time when the economy is
struggling to recover.
We urge you to reject this ill-advised proposal and the tax
increase it promises as well.
We call to your attention four projects on the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System that are especially important to
navigation and the economy of this multi-State area: completion of
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, needed advance maintenance dredging,
backlog of channel maintenance, and completion of the Arkansas River
Navigation Study, AR & OK.
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, continuing Congressional
support is essential as construction for this major project nears
completion. We respectfully request a $15 million Congressional Add for
a total budget of $35 million for fiscal year 2004. With this funding
Montgomery Point is scheduled to be operational in 2004.
Montgomery Point will ensure reliable navigation to and from the
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System during periods of low
water on the Mississippi. Thus, it will protect over $5 billion in
public and private investments, some 50,000 jobs, world trade and
growing military shipments that have resulted from the McClellan-Kerr.
Completion of this $262 million project is near. We are very
grateful that you, your associates, and the Congress have recognized
the urgency of constructing Montgomery Point.
Advance Maintenance Dredging
A $2,000,000 Congressional Add to the fiscal year 2004 O&M account
for the McClellan-Kerr in Arkansas is needed for advance maintenance
dredging to assure that the authorized depth of 9 feet is maintained.
This funding is vitally important.
We especially appreciate your help in the fiscal year 2003 budget
by adding $1,000,000 to the O&M account for this procedure which is
used to dredge in known problem areas prior to an event that is
predicted to cause siltation above the authorized 9-foot channel depth.
Dredging of the system is currently done after areas have silted in
above the authorized channel depth causing light loading and delay
problems for the navigation industry. Locations of needed dredging
include the lower White River, at Pool 2, and the downstream approaches
to Locks 6, 5, 4, and 3.
Backlog of Channel Maintenance
A $5 million Congressional Add to the fiscal year 2004 O&M funding
for the McClellan-Kerr will help repair bank stabilization and other
components that have deteriorated over the past 3 decades and reduce
the critical backlog of maintenance repairs essential to commercial
navigation.
Bank stabilization and other components have deteriorated over the
past 3 decades and reducing the critical backlog of maintenance repairs
is essential. Repairs are necessary to maintain channel alignment,
provide full channel width, eliminate shoaling and solve sediment
build-up problems that cause light loading and delay problems for the
navigation industry.
The O&M funding level has been stagnant for the past 10 years while
cost and maintenance needs have continued to increase.
Arkansas River Navigation Study, Arkansas & Oklahoma
A $430,000 Congressional Add is needed for a total budget of
$1,500,000 for the important Arkansas River Navigation Study, AR & OK.
While navigation is the primary purpose of the McClellan-Kerr
System, navigation needs and flood control are closely related. Chronic
high-water flows and channel restrictions result in decreased
navigation traffic, as well as continued flooding in the vicinity of
Fort Smith, Arkansas and reduced recreational use.
This study addresses the Navigation System Operating Plan and
navigable depths to improve navigation conditions on the river as well
as the performance of flood control measures and the impacts of high/
low flows on environmental quality and recreation uses.
In addition, taking into account the need to realize the total
economic potential of the McClellan-Kerr Navigation System, WRDA 2000
directed the Corps to ``expedite completion of the Arkansas River
Navigation Study, including the feasibility of increasing the
authorized channel depth from 9 feet to 12 feet.''
Other projects are important to the environment, social and
economic well-being of our region and Nation. We recognize the
importance of continued construction of needed features to the
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System and strongly recommend
that you favorably consider the following in your deliberations:
--Support continued funding for the construction, and Operation and
Maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
System. Completion of Montgomery Point will eliminate up 95
percent of the need for dredging in the Lower White and bring
about substantial O&M savings for the Navigation System.
--It is important that future budgets include funds for needed
construction and the backlog of major channel maintenance that
continues to grow. Repairs are necessary to maintain channel
alignment, provide full channel width, and eliminate shoaling.
This channel maintenance will further contribute to the
efficiency and economy of the system.
--Continue construction authority for the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas
River Navigation Project until remaining channel stabilization
problems identified by the Little Rock District Corps of
Engineers have been resolved. It is vitally important that the
Corps continue engineering studies to develop a permanent
solution to the threat of cutoffs developing in the lower
reaches of the navigation system and for the Corps to construct
these measures under the existing construction authority.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, please help prevent a crisis for the
Arkansas River Navigation System and the multi-State region it serves
by appropriating $35 million for use in fiscal year 2004 to complete
construction for Montgomery Point Lock and Dam.
The entire Arkansas River Navigation System is at risk and remains
at risk until Montgomery Point is completed. Some $5 billion in Federal
and private investments, thousands of jobs, world trade and growing
military shipments for national security are endangered.
We fully endorse the statement presented to you today by the
Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We
appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to your most important
subcommittee and urge you to favorably consider these requests that are
so important to the economic recovery of our region and Nation.
kansas
statement of gerald h. holman, chairman for kansas
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Gerald H. Holman,
Senior Vice President of the Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce, Wichita,
Kansas and Chairman of the Kansas Interstate Committee for the Arkansas
Basin Development Association (ABDA). I also serve as Chairman of ABDA.
The Kansas ABDA representatives join with our colleagues from the
States of Oklahoma, Arkansas and Colorado to form the multi-State
Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We fully endorse the summary
statement of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee.
In addition to the important projects listed below, continued
construction to completion of the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam Project
is essential to maintain viable navigation for commerce on the
McClellan-Kerr Navigation System. This inland waterway is vital to the
economic health of our multi-State area. Likewise, your support is
vital to maintain its future viability. Construction is more than 80
percent complete and continued funding is needed. We state our
unanimous support for the $35 million needed by the Corps of Engineers
for fiscal year 2004 to maintain the most economical and cost efficient
construction schedule.
The critical water resources projects in the Kansas portion of the
Arkansas River Basin are identified below. The projects are safety,
environmental and conservation oriented and all have regional and/or
multi-State impact. We are grateful for your leadership and your past
commitment to our area.
We ask for your continued support for these important Bureau of
Reclamation projects on behalf of the Wichita/South Central Kansas
area:
Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project
This is the continuation of a Bureau of Reclamation project jointly
endorsed by the City of Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2
and the State of Kansas. This model technology has proven the
feasibility of recharging a major groundwater aquifer supplying water
to nearly 600,000 irrigation, municipal and industrial users. The
demonstration project has successfully recharged more than 1 billion
gallons of water from the Little Arkansas River. The project is
essential to help protect the aquifer from on-going degradation caused
by the migration of saline water.
The State of Kansas supports this much-needed project in order to
secure the quality of life and economic future for more than 20 percent
of the State's population. The project is included within the Kansas
Water Plan. All interested parties fully support the project as the
needed cornerstone for the area agricultural economy and for the
economy of the Wichita metropolitan area.
The demonstration project has confirmed earlier engineering models
that the full scale aquifer storage and recovery project is feasible
and capable of meeting the increasing water resource needs of the area
to the mid 21st century. Presently, the Equus Beds provide
approximately half of the Wichita regional municipal water supply. The
Equus Beds are also vital to the surrounding agricultural economy.
Environmental protection of the aquifer, which this strategic project
provides, has increasing importance to ensure quality water for the
future since south central Kansas will rely to an even greater extent
on the Equus Beds aquifer for water resources.
The aquifer storage and recovery project is a vital component of
Wichita's comprehensive and integrated water supply strategy. The full
scale design concept for the aquifer storage and recovery project calls
for a multi-year construction program. Phase One is estimated to cost
$17.1 million. The total project involving the capture and recharge of
more than 100 million gallons of water per day is estimated to cost
$110 million over 10 years. This is substantially less costly, both
environmentally and economically, when compared with reservoir
construction or other alternatives.
We are grateful for your previous cost share funding during the
demonstration phase, as a compliment to funds provided by the City of
Wichita. As we enter the construction phase, we request continued
Congressional support:
--By authorizing as a Federal project, the Aquifer Storage and
Recovery Project and directing the Bureau of Reclamation to
participate in its final design and construction to completion.
--Through continued cost share funding of the full-scale Aquifer
Storage and Recovery Project in the minimum amount of
$1,500,000 for fiscal year 2004.
Cheney Reservoir
The reservoir provides approximately half of Wichita's regional
water supply. Two continuing environmental problems threaten the water
quality and longevity of the reservoir. One is sedimentation from soil
erosion and the other is non-point source pollution, particularly the
amount of phosphates entering the reservoir resulting in offensive
taste and odor problems. A partnership between farmers, ranchers and
the City of Wichita has proven beneficial in implementing soil
conservation practices and to better manage and therefore reduce and/or
eliminate non-point source pollution. Lansat 7 imaging and digital
elevation modeling have been employed to identify high priority areas.
To date, over 2,000 environmental projects have been completed within
the 543,000-acre watershed. Buffer strips are most important for the
control of pollution from intermittent streams and also from livestock
waste. This partnership must continue indefinitely to protect the
reservoir and to extend the life of the Wichita regional water supply.
The City of Wichita is providing funding for this critical, nationally
acclaimed model nonpoint source pollution project. We request continued
Federal funding in the amount of $125,000 for fiscal year 2004.
Many of our agricultural communities have historically experienced
major flood disasters, some of which have resulted in multi-State
hardships involving portions of the State of Oklahoma. The flood of
1998 emphasized again the need to rapidly move needed projects to
completion. Major losses also took place in the Wichita metropolitan
area. Projects in addition to local protection are also important.
Our small communities lack the necessary funds and engineering
expertise and Federal assistance is needed. This Committee has given
its previous support to Kansas Corps of Engineers projects and we
request your continued support for the following:
--Arkansas City, Kansas Flood Protection.--Unfortunately, this
project was not completed prior to the flood of 1998. The flood
demonstrated again the critical need to protect the
environment, homes and businesses from catastrophic damages
from either Walnut River or Arkansas River flooding. When the
project is complete, damage in a multi-county area will be
eliminated and benefits to the State of Oklahoma just a few
miles south will also result. The Secretary of the Army was
authorized to construct the project in fiscal year 1997. The
project is slated for completion in fiscal year 2005. We
request your continued support in the amount of $2.6 million,
the level needed by the Corps of Engineers.
--Walnut River Basin, Kansas Feasibility Study.--This basin including
the Whitewater and Little Walnut Rivers is located in south
central Kansas. The feasibility study will identify ecosystem
resources, evaluate the system qualities, determine past losses
and current needs, and evaluate potential restoration and
preservation measures. The non-Federal sponsor is the Kansas
Water Office who believes that environmental restoration is a
primary need in the basin. Environmental restoration features
may also stabilize and protect streambanks from erosion and
improve the water quality in the basin. The request for fiscal
year 2004 is $160,000, which is the Corps' capability.
--John Redmond Reservoir Reallocation Study.--John Redmond Reservoir
remains a primary source of water supply for many small
communities in Kansas. It is suffering loss of capacity ahead
of its design rate due to excessive deposits within the
conservation pool. The flood pool remains above its design
capacity. Funding was provided in fiscal year 2001 to initiate
a study, which will ascertain the equitable distribution of
sediment storage between conservation and flood control
storages and also evaluate the environmental impact of the
appropriate reallocation. Additional funding of $75,000 is
needed in fiscal year 2004 to complete the study.
--Grand Lake Feasibility Study.--A need exists to complete evaluation
of water resource problems in the Grand-Neosho River basin in
Kansas and Oklahoma to evaluate solutions to upstream flooding
problems associated with the adequacy of existing real estate
easements necessary for flood control operations of Grand Lake,
Oklahoma. A study authorized by the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 was completed in September of 1998 and determined
that if the project were constructed based on current criteria,
additional easements would be required. Section 449 of WRDA
2000 directed the Secretary to evaluate backwater effects
specifically due to flood control operations on land around
Grand Lake. That study indicated that Federal actions have been
a significant cause of the backwater effects and according to
WRDA 2000, the feasibility study should be 100 percent
federally funded. A Feasibility study is necessary to determine
the most cost-effective solution to the real estate
inadequacies. Changes in the operations of the project or other
upstream changes could have a significant impact on flood
control, hydropower, and navigation operations in the Grand
(Neosho) River system and on the Arkansas River basin system,
as well. We request funding in the amount of $3 million in
fiscal year 2004 to fully fund Feasibility studies evaluating
solutions to upstream flooding associated with existing
easements necessary for flood control operations of Grand Lake.
--Grand (Neosho) Basin Watershed Reconnaissance Study.--A need exists
for a basin-wide water resource planning effort in the Grand-
Neosho River basin, apart from the issues associated with Grand
Lake, Oklahoma. The reconnaissance study would focus on the
evaluation of institutional measures needed to improve the
quality of the aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the basin and
to assist communities, landowners, and other interests in
southeastern Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma in the
development of non-structural measures to reduce flood damages.
We request funding in the amount of $100,000 in fiscal year
2004.
--Continuing Authorities Programs.--We support funding of needed
programs including the Small Flood Control Projects Program
(Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as amended) as well
as the Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program (Section 14
of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended). Smaller communities
in Kansas (Iola, Liberal, McPherson, Augusta, Parsons, Altoona,
Kinsley, Newton, Arkansas City, Coffeyville and Medicine Lodge)
have previously requested assistance from the Corps of
Engineers under these programs. The City of Wichita is also
requesting funding through this program to address flooding
problems. We urge you to support these programs to the $50
million programmatic limit for the Small Flood Control Projects
Program and $15 million for the Emergency Streambank
Stabilization Program.
The Planning Assistance to States Program under section 22 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1974, as amended, provides
Federal funding to assist the States in water resource
planning. The State of Kansas is grateful for previous funding
under this program which has assisted small Kansas communities
in cost sharing needed resource planning as called for and
approved in the Kansas State Water Plan. We request continued
funding of this program at the level which will allow the State
of Kansas to receive the $500,000 limit.
Also, Ecosystem Restoration Programs are relatively new programs
which offer the Corps of Engineers a unique opportunity to work
to restore valuable habitat, wetlands, and other important
environmental features which previously could not be
considered. Preliminary Restoration Plan studies are underway
at Newton, Garden City and Neosho County. We urge you to
support section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 and Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 at their $25 million programmatic limits.
Finally, we are very grateful that both the Corps of Engineers and
Bureau of Reclamation have the expertise needed for the development and
protection of water resources infrastructure. It is essential to have
the integrity and continuity these agencies provide on major public
projects. Your continued support of these vital agencies, including
funding, will be appreciated. Our infrastructure must be maintained and
where needed, enhanced for the future.
Mr. Chairman and Members of these Committees, we thank you for the
dedicated manner in which you have dealt with the Water Resources
Programs and for allowing us to present our funding requests.
Thank you very much.
oklahoma
statement of james m. hewgley, jr., chairman for oklahoma
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am James M. Hewgley,
Jr., Oklahoma Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate
Committee, from Tulsa, Oklahoma.
It is my privilege to present this statement on behalf of the
Oklahoma Members of our committee in support of adequate funding for
water resource development projects in our area of the Arkansas River
Basin. Other members of the Committee are: Mr. Ted Coombes, Tulsa; Mr.
A. Earnest Gilder, Muskogee; Mr. Terry McDonald, Tulsa; and Mr. Lew
Meibergen, Enid.
Together with representatives of the other Arkansas River Basin
States, we fully endorse the statement presented to you by the Chairman
of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We appreciate the
opportunity to present our views of the special needs of our States
concerning several studies and projects.
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam--Montgomery Point, Arkansas
As we have testified for several years, we are once again
requesting adequate appropriations to continue construction of this
most important and much needed project. This project must be kept on
the current schedule to insure the shippers on the system will not be
impacted by a low water event after that date. Lower funding will only
stretch out the completion of the project and add to the final cost in
real dollars and subject the shippers to possible losses due to low
water and restrictions on, or halting, navigation.
We respectfully request the Congress to appropriate $35 million in
the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle to continue construction on the
current project schedule. With the needed funding for fiscal year 2004
the project can be finished by July of 2004. This request coincides
with the President's recommendation that ``funding go toward ongoing
projects, particularly those nearing completion.'' This will help
insure the project is completed and in operation in a timely manner at
the lowest possible cost.
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to point out to this distinguished
Committee that this navigation system has brought low cost water
transportation to Oklahoma, Arkansas and the surrounding States. There
has been over $5.5 billion invested in the construction and development
of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation system by the Federal
Government ($1.3 billion) and the public and private ($4.2 billion+)
sector, resulting in the creation of over 50,000 jobs in this partnered
project.
Maintenance of the Navigation System
We request additional funding in the amount of $2 million, over and
above normal funding, for deferred channel maintenance. These funds
would be used for such things as repair of bank stabilization work,
needed advance maintenance dredging, and other repairs needed on the
system's components that have deteriorated over the past 3 decades.
In addition to the systemwide needed maintenance items mentioned
above, the budget for the Corps of Engineers for the past several years
has been insufficient to allow proper maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System--Oklahoma portion. As a result, the
backlog of maintenance items has continued to increase. If these
important maintenance issues are not addressed soon, the reliability of
the system will be jeopardized. The portion of the system in Oklahoma
alone is responsible for returning $2.6 billion in annual benefits to
the regional economy. We therefore request that $2.8 million be added
to the budget to accomplish the critical infrastructure maintenance
items following: Repair weir at L&D 14; repair tainter gates at L&D 17;
upgrade gate motor controls at L&D 14; dewater, inspect, repair Locks
14, 15, & 16; repair tainter gates at L&D 18; L&D 14-18--remote control
tainter gates; R.S. Kerr--repair miter gates; R.S. Kerr--repair Lock 15
support cell; replace pole lighting--Locks 14--18; replace tainter gate
limit switches--R.S. Kerr. These are the very worst of the needed
repairs of the many awaiting proper preventive maintenance and repair.
Tow Haulage Equipment--Oklahoma
We also request funding of $2.5 million to initiate the
installation of tow haulage equipment on the locks located along the
Arkansas River Portion of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
System. Total cost for these three locks is $4.7 million. This project
will involve installation of tow haulage equipment on W.D. Mayo Lock
and Dam #14, Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam #15, and Webbers Falls Lock
and Dam #16, on the Oklahoma portion of the waterway. The tow haulage
equipment is needed to make transportation of barges more efficient and
economical by allowing less time for tows to pass through the various
locks.
Arkansas River System Operations Feasibility Study--Arkansas and
Oklahoma
We are especially pleased that the budget includes funds to
continue the Arkansas River Navigation Study, a feasibility study which
is examining opportunities to optimize the Arkansas River system. The
system of multipurpose lakes in Arkansas and Oklahoma on the Arkansas
River and its tributaries supports the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
Navigation System, which was opened for navigation to the Port of
Catoosa near Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1970. The navigation system consists
of 445 miles of waterway that passes through the States of Oklahoma and
Arkansas. This study would optimize the reservoirs in Oklahoma and
Arkansas that provide flows into the river, with a view toward
improving the number of days per year that the navigation system would
accommodate tows. This study could have significant impact on the
economic development opportunities in the States of Oklahoma, Arkansas
and the surrounding States. Due to the critical need for this study, we
request funding of $1.2 million, which is greater than shown in the
budget, to continue feasibility studies in fiscal year 2004.
Miami, Oklahoma and Vicinity Feasibility Study
We request funding of $231,000 to complete the reconnaissance phase
for the vicinity in Ottawa County including and surrounding Miami,
Oklahoma in the Grand (Neosho) Basin. Water resource planning-related
concerns include chronic flooding, ecosystem impairment, poor water
quality, subsidence, chat piles, mine shafts, health effects, and
Native American issues. The State of Oklahoma's desire is to address
the watershed issues in a holistic fashion and restore the watershed to
acceptable levels. Study alternatives could include structural and non-
structural flood damage measures, creation of riverine corridors for
habitat and flood storage, development of wetlands to improve aquatic
habitat and other measures to enhance the quality and availability of
habitat and reduce flood damages.
We are pleased that the President's budget includes funds to
advance work for Flood Control and other water resource needs in
Oklahoma. Of special interest to our committee is funding for the
Skiatook and Tenkiller Ferry Lakes Dam Safety Assurance Projects in
Oklahoma and that construction funding has been provided for those
important projects. We would like to see Tenkiller funded at the $6.0
million level, which is the Corps' capability for fiscal year 2004. We
request that funding in the amount of $1.2 million be provided to
initiate the Canton Lake Dam safety project. We are also pleased that
funding is included to continue reconnaissance studies for the Oologah
Watershed, the Wister Watershed and the Miami, OK and Vicinity region.
We are also pleased to see continued funding for the SE Oklahoma Water
Resource Study, and the Miami, OK and Vicinity region.
Oologah Lake Watershed Feasibility Study
We request funding of $259,000 for ongoing feasibility studies at
Oologah Lake and in the upstream watershed. The lake is an important
water supply source for the city of Tulsa and protection of the lake
and maintaining and enhancing the quality of the water is important for
the economic development of the city. Recent concerns have been
expressed by the City of Tulsa and others regarding potential water
quality issues that impact water users, as well as important aquatic
and terrestrial habitat. Concerns are related to sediment loading and
turbidity, oilfield-related contaminants and nutrient loading.
Illinois River Watershed Reconnaissance Study
We request funding in the amount of $100,000 to conduct a
reconnaissance study of the water resource problems of the Illinois
River Basin. The Illinois River watershed is experiencing continued
water resource development needs and is the focus of ongoing Corps and
other agency investigations. However, additional flows are sought
downstream of the Lake Tenkiller Dam and there are increasing watershed
influences upstream of Lake Tenkiller which impact on the quality of
water available for fish and wildlife, municipal and industrial water
supply users, and recreation users of the Lake Tenkiller and Illinois
River waters.
Grand (Neosho) Basin Reconnaissance Study
We request funding in the amount of $100,000 to conduct a
reconnaissance study of the water resource problems in the Grand
(Neosho) Basin in Oklahoma and Kansas. There is a need for a basin-wide
water resource planning effort in the Grand-Neosho River basin, apart
from the issues associated with Grand Lake, Oklahoma. The
reconnaissance study would focus on the evaluation of institutional
measures which could assist communities, landowners, and other
interests in northeastern Oklahoma and southeastern Kansas in the
development of non-structural measures to reduce flood damages in the
basin.
Grand Lake Feasibility Study
A need exists to evaluate water resource problems in the Grand-
Neosho River basin in Kansas and Oklahoma to evaluate solutions to
upstream flooding problems associated with the adequacy of existing
real estate easements necessary for flood control operations of Grand
Lake, Oklahoma. A study authorized by the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 was completed in September of 1998 and determined that if
the project were constructed based on current criteria, additional
easements would be required. Section 449 of WRDA 2000 directed the
Secretary to evaluate backwater effects specifically due to flood
control operations on land around Grand Lake. That study indicated that
Federal actions have been a significant cause of the backwater effects
and according to WRDA 2000, the feasibility study should be 100 percent
federally funded. A Feasibility study is necessary to determine the
most cost-effective solution to the real estate inadequacies. Changes
in the operations of the project or other upstream changes could have a
significant impact on flood control, hydropower and navigation
operations in the Grand (Neosho) River system and on the Arkansas River
Basin system, as well. We urge you to provide $3 million to fully fund
Feasibility studies for this important project in fiscal year 2003 and
to direct the Corps of Engineers to execute the study at full Federal
expense.
Wister Lake Watershed Feasibility Study
We request funding of $200,000 to continue feasibility studies of
the Wister Lake watershed. Wister Lake is located on the Poteau River
near Wister, Oklahoma. The lake was completed in 1949 for flood
control, water supply, water conservation and sediment control. Wister
Lake is the primary water resource development project in the Poteau
River Basin. It provides substantial flood control, municipal and
industrial water supply, and recreation benefits for residents of
LeFlore County, Oklahoma, and the southeastern Oklahoma region.
Ecosystem degradation in the lake and in the basin, in general, is
occurring primarily as a result of non-point source pollution from
poultry operations, forestry practices, abandoned strip coal mines, and
natural gas exploration operations. The study will identify potential
measures to restore the ecosystem in the basin and will evaluate other
water resource problems and potential solutions.
We also support funding for the Continuing Authorities Program,
including the Small Flood Control Projects Program, (Section 205 of the
1948 Flood Control Act, as amended) and the Emergency Streambank
Stabilization Program, (Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as
amended). We want to express our appreciation for your continued
support of those programs.
Section 205
Although the Small Flood Control Projects Program addresses flood
problems which generally impact smaller communities and rural areas and
would appear to benefit only those communities, the impact of those
projects on economic development crosses county, regional, and
sometimes State boundaries. The communities served by the program
frequently do not have the funds or engineering expertise necessary to
provide adequate flood damage reduction measures for their citizens.
Continued flooding can have a devastating impact on community
development and regional economic stability. The program is extremely
beneficial and has been recognized nationwide as a vital part of
community development, so much so in fact, that there is currently a
backlog of requests from communities who have requested assistance
under this program. There is limited funding available for these
projects and we urge this program be fully funded to the programmatic
limit of $50 million.
Section 14
Likewise, the Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program provides
quick response engineering design and construction to protect important
local utilities, roads and other public facilities in smaller urban and
rural settings from damage due to streambank erosion. The protection
afforded by this program helps ensure that important roads, bridges,
utilities and other public structures remain safe and useful. By
providing small, affordable and relatively quickly constructed
projects, these two programs enhance the lives of many by providing
safe and stable living environments. There is also a backlog of
requests under this program. Funding is also limited for these projects
and we urge this program be fully funded to the programmatic limit of
$15 million.
We also request your continued support of the Flood Plain
Management Services Program (Section 206 of the 1960 Flood Control Act)
which authorizes the Corps of Engineers to use its technical expertise
to provide guidance in flood plain management matters to all private,
local, State and Federal entities. The objective of the program is to
support comprehensive flood plain management planning. The program is
one of the most beneficial programs available for reducing flood losses
and provides assistance to officials from cities, counties, States and
Indian Tribes to ensure that new facilities are not built in areas
prone to floods. Assistance includes flood warning, flood proofing, and
other flood damage reduction measures, and critical flood plain
information is provided on a cost-reimbursable basis to home owners,
mortgage companies, Realtors and others for use in flood plain
awareness and flood insurance requirements.
We also request your support of the Planning Assistance to States
Program (Section 22 of the 1974 Water Resources Development Act) which
authorizes the Corps of Engineers to use its technical expertise in
water and related land resource management to help States and Indian
Tribes solve their water resource problems. The program is used by many
States to support their State Water Plans. As natural resources
diminish, the need to manage those resources becomes more urgent. We
urge your continued support of this program as it supports States and
Native American Tribes in developing resource management plans which
will benefit citizens for years to come. The program is very valuable
and effective, matching Federal and non-Federal funds to provide cost-
effective engineering expertise and support to assist communities,
States and tribes in the development of plans for the management,
optimization and preservation of basin, watershed and ecosystem
resources. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 increased the
annual program limit from $6 million to $10 million and we urge this
program be fully funded to the programmatic limit of $10 million.
On a related matter, we would share with you our concern that the
administration has not requested, nor has the Congress appropriated,
sufficient funds to meet the increasing infrastructure needs of the
inland waterways of our Nation. The administration's requests will not
keep projects moving at the optimum level to complete them on a cost-
effective basis. Moving the completion dates out is an unacceptable
exercise since 50 percent of the funds come from the Waterways Trust
Fund. This will not only waste Federal funds but, those from the trust
fund as well.
As the Waterways Trust Fund is now defined, it is to be used for
the Waterway Industries' cost share of new construction and major rehab
of the inland waterway navigation system, so stated by law in the 1986
WRDA. The Administration's request to redirect some of those funds to
operation and maintenance is in conflict with the agreement between the
Congress and the Industry. We urge the Congress to protect and use
these funds for their intended purpose and to honor the agreement
between the Federal Government and the Waterway Industry.
We strongly urge the Appropriations Committee to raise the Corps of
Engineers' budget to $5 billion to help get delayed construction
projects back on schedule and to reduce the deferred maintenance
backlog which is out of control. This will help the Corps of Engineers
meet the obligations of the Federal Government to people of this great
country.
Concerning another related matter, we have deep concerns about the
attempt to re-authorize the Endangered Species Act without significant
beneficial reforms. If a bill is passed through without reforms, it
will be devastating to industry and the country as a whole. We strongly
urge you to take a hard look at any bill concerning this re-
authorization and insure that it contains reasonable and meaningful
reforms. We urge the re-authorization of the act with reforms at the
earliest possible time.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to present our view on
these subjects.
______
Prepared Statement of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and
the City of Mesa, Arizona
Chairman Domenici, Ranking Member Reid, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing us to testify on behalf of
the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) and the City of
Mesa in support of a fiscal year 2004 appropriation of $870,000 for the
Va Shly'ay Akimel, Arizona, project of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. This project, intended to restore a degraded stretch of the
Salt River in central Arizona, is critically important to the tribe,
the City, and the region.
Mr. Chairman, because of this subcommittee's efforts, $800,000 was
appropriated for the feasibility phase of the Va Shly'ay Akimel project
in fiscal year 2003. We are extremely grateful for the subcommittee's
ongoing support of the project. We respectfully request your continued
support for this project in fiscal year 2004 with an appropriation of
$870,000, the amount required to complete the feasibility study.
Like many projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Va Shly'ay
is drastically underfunded in the President's budget. Although the
budget does include $400,000 for the project in fiscal year 2004, the
Corps has a capability of $870,000 to complete the feasibility study in
the coming year. We hope that the subcommittee will provide this level
of funding in order to contain costs and maintain an optimal project
schedule.
SRPMC and the City of Mesa fully recognize the importance of
restoring the Salt River's environmental integrity. As a consequence,
the tribe and City--the non-Federal sponsors of the project--remain
committed to discharging the requisite cost-sharing obligations
associated with the project. We would also note that, as far as we
know, this project is the only one in the Nation featuring a joint
cost-share agreement between an Indian tribe and a local community.
This makes it a unique project of the Corps of Engineers. We have every
reason to believe that this example of municipal-tribal cooperation
could serve as a model for future joint projects of tribal communities
and local governments.
In conclusion, it is critically important that this project remain
on an optimal schedule. The Corps has expressed a maximum capability of
$870,000 to complete the feasibility study in fiscal year 2004. On
behalf of the SRPMIC and the City of Mesa, we ask that you fully fund
the Va Shly'ay Akimel project at $870,000 in fiscal year 2004.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Mining Association
The National Mining Association (NMA) membership includes companies
engaged in the production of coal, metallic ores, nonmetallic minerals,
and in manufacturing mining machinery and equipment. The transportation
of coal and minerals to domestic and international markets utilizes our
Nation's inland waterways system, Great Lakes, coastal shipping lanes
and harbors and shipping channels at deep draft inland and coastal
ports.
NMA believes that a strong transportation network comprised of our
highways, rails, inland waterways and ports is critical to the economic
growth, security and competitiveness of the United States. According to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics of
2001, approximately 2.4 billion tons of commerce moved in the U.S.
marine system (inland waterways, Great Lakes, coastal and deep-draft
ports). Of that total, approximately 1.04 billion tons were domestic
movements with coal comprising approximately 223 million tons or 21
percent of all commodities. Of the 223 million tons of coal, 170
million tons were carried on the inland and intracoastal waterways,
18.5 million tons on the Great Lakes and the remainder moved in
coastwise and intraport shipments. On the Ohio River system and its
tributaries, coal movements totaled 157 million tons or 56 percent of
all the traffic. Coal moved to power plants along the system and to
power plants in 8 States outside of the basin. In addition, 55 million
tons of coal was exported in 2001.
Iron ore, phosphate rock, and other minerals also utilize the
inland waterways system. In 2001, almost 66 million tons of iron ore
moved on the system. Of the total, 48.4 million tons moved domestically
with 44.8 million tons moved on the Great Lakes and 3.5 million tons on
the inland system. More than 1.7 million tons of phosphate rock moved
on the waterways system through coastwise movements.
NMA strongly opposes the administration's proposals in the fiscal
year 2004 budget to expand the responsibilities of the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund (IWTF) and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF). These
trust funds were established after a great deal of public debate and
study as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The
unique partnership for sharing construction, rehabilitation and
maintenance costs between the public and private sectors has built a
marine transportation system that is world class.
In addition, NMA is very concerned that the proposed Fiscal Year
2004 Budget for the Corps of Engineers does not provide sufficient
funding to keep critical navigation projects on schedule, allow for the
start of new projects, and address the maintenance backlog for existing
navigation projects. As the system is asked to do more, it is critical
that all parties are committed and a critical demonstration of the
commitment is through appropriations levels that address the current
challenges facing the system and plan for future demands.
administration's proposals to expand expenditures from the iwtf and the
hmtf
Users of the inland waterways system pay a fuel tax of 20 cents per
gallon, which has historically generated approximately $100 million
annually for the IWTF. Also, an additional fuel tax of 4.3 cents is
paid to the General Treasury for deficit reduction. These monies in the
IWTF are used to pay 50 percent of the annual costs associated with new
construction and major rehabilitation of locks and dams on the fuel-
taxed inland waterways. The remaining 50 percent is matched by money
from the Federal Government. Instead of being used immediately as
originally intended for inland waterways projects, the IWTF has a
surplus of approximately $394 million. In reality, there is no surplus
because these funds, as well as the revenue generated by the 20-cents-
per gallon fuel tax for the next 8 years, are committed to complete six
of the priority and congressionally-approved projects currently under
construction.
Without existing authorization, the administration's fiscal year
2004 budget proposes to use the surplus and future trust fund revenues
to finance 25-50 percent of the costs associated with operations and
maintenance in addition to current expenditures for new construction
and maintenance. The proposal is for IWTF to provide $146 million for
operations and maintenance in addition to the $110 million for IWTF
projects.
It is estimated that under this proposal the IWTF will be out of
funds in 3 years. The real effect of the administration's proposal is
an increase in user taxes for the transporters. It is estimated that
the diesel tax would have to be increased from its current 20 cents per
gallon to 53.5 cents per gallon--a stunning 168 percent increase. These
increases would be passed along as additional transportation costs and
reflected in the cost of coal and other minerals shipped on the inland
waterways systems. In 2001, more than 293 million tons of coal moved
domestically or to international markets. Consumers would see cost
increases for electricity generated by coal and for products such as
steel that use coal as a raw material. The already dismal coal exports
would be further disadvantaged in the international marketplace.
Barge companies and private sector companies, such as coal and
mineral producers, are not the only beneficiaries of a well-maintained
inland waterways system. However, they would be the only beneficiaries
paying for operations and maintenance of the system. The system also
provides benefits related to national security, water supply, flood
control, hydropower, and recreation. The Federal Government, up until
this time, has recognized the multiple benefits and has assumed
responsibility for operations and maintenance. During consideration of
the Water Resources Act of 1986, Congress debated this issue and the
current system was the outcome. And in 1996, a proposal to increase the
fuel tax by $1.00 per gallon was rejected by Congress.
The administration's proposal related to the HMTF would require
that the Federal share of deep-draft navigation channel construction
costs be allocated from the trust fund rather than the Federal
Government as currently mandated. Again, authorization does not exist
for this proposal. Investment in the Nation's ports and harbors is a
local and Federal partnership. Local authorities invest in marine
terminal capacity and efficiency, dredging of berths and approach
channels and cost sharing new construction dredging projects to widen
or deepen navigation channels. Ports are expected to spend
approximately $1.9 billion over the next 5 years on capital
expenditures. Currently, the HMTF covers 100 percent of all operations
and maintenance costs associated with maintaining our Nation's harbors.
The funds for the HMTF come from a tax on the value of cargo imported
into the United States or moved coastwise.
The Federal Government invests only in navigation projects that
return national benefits. The administration's proposal relieves the
Federal taxpayer, who is the ultimate beneficiary of these projects
from any responsibility to pay for the modernization of our Nation's
deep-draft navigation system. In addition, the proposal completely
abdicates the Federal responsibility for national security. The U.S.
Coast Guard, Navy and other units of the Armed Forces depend on well-
maintained and deepened harbors as bases of operation. At this time,
more than any other in recent history, the national security
implications are very clear. Furthermore, with the administration's
proposal for HMTF covering 100 percent of costs related to operations
and maintenance as well as the Federal share for new construction
projects, any Federal responsibility or role related to our Nation's
ports and harbors is abdicated.
general recommendations for fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the
army corps of engineers civil works program
NMA reviewed the proposed fiscal year 2004 Appropriations for the
Army Corps of Engineers and the Civil Works Program and has the
following general recommendations.
--A minimum of $5 billion should be appropriated in fiscal year 2004
for the Civil Works Program. This level balances the need to
address the significant project backlog and the capability of
the Corps with our Nation's need at this time for homeland
security and national defense.
--A level of $150 million should be withdrawn from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund to be matched by an equal appropriation
from the general fund for the construction and major
rehabilitation of locks and dams on the inland waterway system.
By maintaining this level of appropriations for the next 10
years, the surplus in the Trust Fund can be reduced to more
appropriate levels. Timely completion of these required
navigation projects would accelerate the national economic
benefits from the projects, minimize cost increases and ensure
a viable and reliable national waterways system.
--The fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the Corps' General
Investigations account should be increased to $154.4 million,
the same level as appropriated in fiscal year 2002. The
proposed fiscal year 2004 level of $100 million will not permit
the Corps to undertake any new studies. These studies are
critical to ascertaining and developing future projects that
will be needed to maintain and improve our system. It takes
time to complete these projects and while there are issues
related to new construction starts, projects should be in the
pipeline and ready should funds be available.
--The fiscal year 2004 proposed funding in the amount of $1.939
billion for the Corps' Operations and Maintenance functions
should be increased. At the end of fiscal year 2003, it was
estimated that critical maintenance backlog was $884 million.
Of the total, $534 million is navigation's share with $364 for
inland waterways. Currently, 53 percent of the locks and dams
operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are 50 years or
more. With the constraints related to funds for new
construction and rehabilitation, it is imperative that existing
locks and dams are maintained. Delaying necessary maintenance
impacts the ability to move commerce efficiently, exasperates
further deterioration and accelerates the need for major
rehabilitation and possibly at higher costs than necessary.
Further comments and specific project recommendations are
outlined below.
budget proposals supported by nma
NMA strongly supports the administration's fiscal year 2003 budget
proposal to increase funding for two priority projects: the Olmsted
Locks and Dam on the Ohio River (between Illinois and Kentucky) and the
Marmet Locks and Dam on the Kanawha River in West Virginia. The
proposed fiscal year 2004 funding level for Olmsted of $73 million,
which is the efficient funding level for the project, illustrates the
approach that should be taken for other priority projects as well. This
level will reduce any further construction delays resulting in delayed
economic benefits for the country. While Marmet is not at the efficient
funding level, the appropriations level is significantly more than
fiscal year 2003 and is recognition of the importance of the project.
Following the testimony is a list of projects that NMA supports for
additional appropriations to permit efficient funding schedules. By
appropriating funds at the level to permit efficient funding schedules,
the backlogs will be reduced and the Nation will be able to realize the
economic benefits that were projected when these projects were
authorized. The list also contains recommendations for additional funds
for preconstruction, engineering and design and surveys.
ports
Our Nation's ports and harbors provide the critical link in our
marine transportation system that provide U.S. shippers, both importers
and exporters, with options that maximize their ability to compete and
remain competitive in a global marketplace. U.S. deep-draft commercial
ports handle over 95 percent of the volume and 75 percent of the value
of cargo moving in and out of the United States. For the U.S. mining
industry, coal, iron ore, phosphate, and other minerals move to export
out of U.S. ports. In addition, minerals critical to the United States
are imported through our ports. Unfortunately, many of these minerals
could be produced in the United States but current policies are making
it increasingly difficult for U.S. mineral companies to remain in the
country. By providing the United States with much needed minerals from
domestic sources, our reliance on imports would be reduced and equally
important new jobs would be created contributing to the country's
economic strength.
The proposed fiscal year 2004 budget proposes only $212 million,
which represents less than half of the $430 million necessary to fund
ongoing and new projects for deep-draft harbors. As with inland
waterways projects, failure to maintain optimal schedules increase
costs and delay project benefits.
conclusion
NMA strongly opposes the administration's proposals to expand the
IWTF to cover 25-50 percent of operation and maintenance costs and the
expansion of the HMTF to cover deep-draft construction costs. In
addition, we are concerned that the administration continues to propose
funding levels for our inland waterways system that will continue to
have very negative impacts on the system. As a country we cannot afford
to neglect the continued improvement and maintenance of our Federal
navigation system. Failure to continue our investment and commitment to
all aspects of our marine system will have serious long-term
consequences for our Nation's economic health, safety and security.
nma's fiscal year 2004 appropriations request for inland waterways
projects
FISCAL YEAR 2004 APPROPRIATIONS LEVELS SUPPORTED BY NMA
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Efficient
2004 Request Funding Level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olmsted Lock and Dam................... $73 $73
Greenup Lock and Dam................... 2.895 3
Ohio River Mainstem Study.............. 1.35 1.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 2004 project appropriation levels needing additional funds
Construction and Rehabilitation
McAlpine Locks Replacement Project--Fiscal Year 2004
Request: $26.1 million, Efficient Funding Level:
$70 million
Located in downtown Louisville, Kentucky and near Jefferson,
Indiana, the project provides for a new 1,200 lock that will replace
an inactive 56 360 lock and a 110 600 auxiliary lock. According to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics for
2001, more than 55 million tons of commodities valued at nearly $11.7
billion were shipped through the locks. Coal was the leading commodity,
comprising 37 percent of all shipments. Of the 20 million tons of coal
moving through McAlpine in 2001, 13 million tons went to 30 power
plants in 8 States. Kentucky received the most tonnage with 12.6
million tons valued at $1.6 billion and coal was the top commodity
received in Kentucky. The total project cost is $278 million. The
project is 6 years behind schedule with a current loss of $245 million
in benefits.
Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4--Fiscal Year 2004 Request: $35
million, Efficient Funding Level: $61 million
Located on the Monongahela River near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania this
project replaces some of the oldest structures (some parts are more
than 100 years old) operating in the inland system. The extreme
structural deterioration of Dam 2 and Locks 3 and Dam 3 are of major
concern. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne
Commerce Statistics for 2001, almost 22.2 million tons of commodities
valued at $1.7 billion were shipped through any or all of the locks.
Coal comprised 86 percent of the tonnage moving through the locks. Of
the 19.2 million tons of coal moving through the locks, more than 7.2
million tons went to 23 power plants in 7 States. The value of the coal
was almost $1.6 billion. Pennsylvania received and shipped the most
tonnage through the locks with coal the No. 1 commodity. Construction
began on the $750 million project in 1994 and is scheduled for
completion in 2010. The project is 6 years behind schedule with a
current loss of $134.6 million in benefits.
Marmet Locks and Dams--Fiscal Year 2003 Request: $52.154
million, Efficient Funding Level: $69.2 million
Located on the Kanawha River near Belle, West Virginia this project
includes the construction of an additional 110 800 lock landward of
the existing smaller dams, which would be converted to auxiliary
status. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne
Commerce Statistic for 2001, 17.1 million tons of commodities valued at
$802 million were shipped through the locks. Coal shipments comprised
95 percent of all shipments with 16.1 million tons moving through
Marmet. West Virginia shipped the most tonnage with 16.4 million tons
valued at $665 million. Ohio received the most tonnage with 6.4 million
tons valued at $245 million. For both States, coal was the No. 1
commodity shipped. The project cost is $313 million. Originally
scheduled to be completed in 2007, it will not be completed until 2010
with a current loss of benefits of almost $118 million.
Kentucky Lock--Fiscal Year 2004 Request: $24.8 million,
Efficient Funding Level: $53 million
Located on the Tennessee River near Grand Rivers, Tennessee this
project includes the addition of a 110 1,200 lock and the relocation
of an existing railroad, highway and powerhouse access road. According
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics for
2001, almost 35 million tons of commodities valued at $6.2 billion
moved through Kentucky Lock. Coal was No. 1 commodity with 12.6 million
tons or 36 percent of all shipments. The value was almost $500 million.
Of the total coal shipments nearly 10 million tons moved to 9 power
plants. Construction began on this project in 1999 and the total cost
of $533 million. The project is now scheduled to be completed in 2010
(originally 2008) with a current loss of $75 million in benefits.
Preconstruction Engineering and Design
J.T. Myers Locks and Dam--Fiscal Year 2004 Request: $0,
Efficient Funding Level: $2 million
The John T. Myers Locks and Dam located on the Ohio River about
3\1/2\ miles downstream from Uniontown, KY. The John T. Myers and
Greenup Locks Improvements Interim Feasibility Report, a product Ohio
River Mainstem Study, recommends a 600 extension of the auxiliary
chambers at both locations along the Ohio River. This project was
authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The expected
cost is $225 million with a benefit/cost ratio of 1.8 to 1. According
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterbourne Commerce Statistics for
2001, over 75 million tons of commodities were shipped through the
project with a total value of $13.8 billion. Coal comprised almost 33
million tons or 44 percent of all shipments. Most of the coal went to
31 power plants in 8 States. Louisiana shipped the most commodities
with iron and steel No. 1 at almost 21 million tons. Indiana received
the most commodities with coal being No. 1 at 16.1 million tons.
Surveys
Emsworth, Dashields & Montgomery Lock and Dams--Fiscal Year
2004 Request: $0, Efficient Funding Level: $1.5
million
As the uppermost navigation projects on the Ohio River (located
downstream of Pittsburgh, PA), these three projects have main lock
chambers measuring 600 100 and auxiliary locks of 360 56. The main
chambers are one-half the size of the standard chamber (1,200 110) on
the Ohio River and the auxiliary locks are one-fourth the standard
auxiliary locks (600 100). Major remedial work was done in the 1980s
at a total cost of more than $100 million. The work was designed to
extend the life of the projects to the 2005-2010 timeframe. In order to
look at all of the problems and needs associated with the three
projects, Congress authorized and provided funding for a detailed
feasibility study.
______
Prepared Statement of the Midwest Area River Coalition 2000
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Christopher
Brescia, President of the Midwest Area River Coalition 2000 (MARC
2000). Thank you for the opportunity to submit MARC 2000's views on the
needs of the Mississippi Valley and especially the Upper Mississippi
River Basin for fiscal year 2004.
MARC 2000 supports full efficient funding levels for the Upper
Mississippi/Illinois River Navigation Feasibility Study and key major
rehabilitation projects on the Upper Mississippi/Illinois Rivers,
including the Environmental Management Program (EMP). We would like to
specifically highlight the increasing backlog of navigation-related
operation and maintenance projects in the entire Mississippi River
Valley. MARC 2000 rejects the call to raid the Inland Waterway Trust
Fund (Trust Fund) for purposes other than it was originally created.
upper mississippi/illinois river navigation feasibility study
This study is the most important ``project'' for the Upper
Mississippi River Basin. Full efficient funding is critical to keep
this study from falling even further behind. Re-initiation of the study
along broader parameters has increased the cost once again. Every year
we fail to complete this work adds burden to the system and increases
the risk of failure of these 70-year-old lock and dam structures.
MARC 2000 requests an increase to the President's request for a
total of $7.216 million for this study in fiscal year 2004 to keep the
study on schedule. Alternatively, $3.8 million in fiscal year 2003
supplemental funds along with the President's $3.216 fiscal year 2004
request would be an even more efficient funding stream. This is the No.
1 priority of our coalition.
Linked to this study is the need to begin PED for both 1,200 lock
design and enhanced environmental restoration. MARC 2000 urges the
appropriation of $8 million for this very important effort in providing
a seamless process and for not falling further behind in assuring the
region of a modernization program.
[In millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Investigative Budget Request Needed Amount Variance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Miss Nav. Study........................................... $3.216 $7.216 $3.8
Comprehensive Plan.............................................. .494 2.6 2.106
Upper Miss/Illinois PED......................................... 0 8.0 8.0
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 3.710 17.616 13.906
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing these functions immediately, as we approach the close of
the study phase, prepares us for Congressional authorization for large-
scale construction for the basin. Waiting until the study's completion
to address design work causes at least 2 more unnecessary years in
elevated competitive risk, a problem recognized in WRDA'99.
While this study evaluates navigation needs and environmental
restoration options for the basin, conclusion of the Comprehensive
Plan, along with full efficient funding, is needed so the Basin can
evaluate all aspects including: navigation, flood control and
environmental restoration.
construction general and major rehabilitation
The lock and dam system on the Upper Mississippi, once considered a
flagship for the Nation's principal artery, the Mississippi River, is
virtually crumbling in some cases.
MARC 2000, in concert with the Inland Waterway Users Board,
supports full efficient funding for key priority projects already
underway, with priority given to Lock and Dam 24 at $17.2 million
(+$4.2 million); Lock and Dam 11 at $6.5 million (+$5.187) and Lock and
Dam 3 at $.6 million. A congressionally approved fiscal year 2003 new
start at Lock and Dam 19 and a fiscal year 2004 new start at Lock and
Dam 27 need attention this year as well. Funding for EMP has met
requested levels, ensuring its credibility for fiscal year 2004.
[In millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction General and Major Rehabilitation Budget Request Needed Amount Variance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lock & Dam 24................................................... $13.00 $17.20 $4.2
L&D 11.......................................................... 1.313 6.50 5.187
L&D 3........................................................... .6 .6 0
L&D 19.......................................................... 0 1.2 1.2
L&D 27.......................................................... 0 6.0 6.0
Environmental Management Program................................ 33.320 33.320 0
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 51.943 78.636 26.690
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As indicated in the preceding table, construction and general
rehabilitation funding is severely lacking with an additional need of
$26.690 million in fiscal year 2004. Consistent under funding by the
President's budget results in inefficient timelines, extended
schedules, delayed projects, and broken commitments from our Federal
Government, and the loss of benefits to the Nation from an efficient
inland waterway system.
operations and maintenance
The President's budget continues to place a strain on the
operations and maintenance (O&M) of the system. One example of this is
the failure to fund an additional $26 million in non-deferrable
maintenance and operations services, work that is essential to keeping
the program working properly.
[In millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and Maintenance Budget Request Needed Amount Variance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miss. River--StL................................................ $35.473 $38.00 $2.527
Miss. River--Rock Island........................................ 44.429 54.429 10.00
Miss. River--St. Paul........................................... 36.056 45.405 9.394
Illinois River.................................................. 27.615 31.915 4.3
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 143.573 169.749 26.176
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding support for Operations and Maintenance has been lacking for
the last 5 years. The result is an accumulated backlog of critical
maintenance on the Upper Mississippi approaching $200 million in
navigation needs alone. As O&M allotment fails to address the
maintenance of our region's lock & dam sites, we face the greater risks
of lock closures and the hundreds of millions of dollars costing the
Nation via tows waiting for repairs to lock gates, chambers, and other
parts of the system.
critical backlog
An issue of paramount importance to the entire inland navigation
system is new safety-imposed de-watering requirements for locking
chambers. The recently discovered need to establish bulkheads at
virtually every lock in our system will compound the resource
allocation of existing dollars without additions to the President's
Budget. At least $81 million is needed in the Mississippi Valley to
address these concerns in fiscal year 2003-fiscal year 2005. The
inability to de-water a lock resulting from emergency closures or
winter rehabilitation work could bring the Mississippi River to a
standstill.
oppose raiding the inland waterway trust fund
Even more disconcerting than lack of funding support and a growing
backlog is the proposed raid of the Inland Waterway Trust Fund to be
reallocated to O&M needs. This fuel tax depository, founded over 20
years ago, was a result of a unique agreement between the Federal
Government and industry to establish a funding mechanism for costs
toward major construction of our infrastructure. Through the years,
industry has contributed more than a billion dollars into this fund,
into which over $400 million now sits while we await the conclusion of
the navigation study, and lose world market opportunities.
Proposals to use these dollars to cover 25 percent-50 percent of
the cost of O&M will eliminate the balance of the fund in just 2\1/2\
years, exactly when an Upper Mississippi Basin modernization plan
should be in place and begin to utilize those dollars for the purpose
for which they were intended. The implications of this trust fund raid
would also require additional .30-.40 cents per gallon to meet O&M
needs alone, or a 200 percent tax increase. The Inland Waterway Trust
Fund must be reserved for its original purpose. Anything less
constitutes a violation of the agreement and trust forged between the
Federal Government and industry in a good faith effort to ensure the
future of our inland waterways.
______
Prepared Statement of the Moss Landing Harbor District, Monterey Bay,
California
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
Chairman and Members of the Board of Harbor Commissioners, thank you
for the opportunity for me, Russell Jeffries, as President of the Board
of Harbor Commissioners of Moss Landing Harbor District in California
to submit prepared remarks to you for the record in support of the
fiscal year 2004 Energy and Water regular appropriations measure.
The Commission recognizes and expresses its gratitude to our local
Congressman, the Honorable Sam Farr, a valued member of the
Appropriations Committee for his continued assistance and support on
our behalf.
We express our profound appreciation to the Subcommittee and full
Committee for its inclusion of approximately $2.750 million in fiscal
year 2002 funds for periodic maintenance dredging of the federal
entrance channel and the initiation of a first-ever Dredged Material
Management Plan (DMMP) for the Harbor District in order to plan for
orderly maintenance dredging of the federal channel and local berths
over the next twenty or more years. This effort is supported by a
working group organized under national dredging team local planning
guidance, including representatives of the federal, state and local
agencies, and other stakeholder and public interest groups with an
interest in dredging activities.
To put our needs in proper perspective, our geographical location
and marine ecosystem is unique in that the harbor district is located
at the confluence of the Pajaro and Salinas Rivers in between two
national treasures--the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and the
Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve--precluding most
potential upland disposal sites. The SF-12 Aquatic Disposal Site is
grandfathered for sanctuary purposes. It is located fifty yards
offshore at the apex of the Monterey Bay Submarine Canyon which plunges
to a depth of 8,000 feet in less than one mile. Every year deposition,
erosion, and flushing cycles transport thousands of tons of sedimentary
material down the canyon like a chute--so much so that our dredged
material is a miniscule amount measured against the total annual
flushing event.
Periodic El Nino events deposit trace elements of DDT in our harbor
sediments traced to Salinas Valley agriculture--America's salad bowl--
as a natural sink. With no realistic long term alternative--including
upland disposal--to continued use of our current disposal site, our
very livelihood as the largest fishing port on the central coast and
largest concentration of marine scientific research south of Seattle,
is at stake.
Of amounts previously appropriated, approximately $2.4 million has
been expended for maintenance dredging to date and $350,000 has been
expended to begin the DMMP process. Most of that was transferred to the
Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station (WES) to prepare a
preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). We expect that something
on the order of $1,250,000 will belatedly emerge in operations and
maintenance funds in the fiscal year 2003 budget. Much of that has
already been expended or will be used to reimburse the San Francisco
District for program management costs, conduct of the required economic
analysis (including of a finding of a very favorable current benefit
cost ratio of 1.7 to 1), DMMP plan formulation and project scoping
(including alternative upland disposal site analysis), and technical
support to WES.
The completion of both the federal channel work and the Inner
Harbor with a combination of beach replenishment and ocean disposal at
the SF-12 historic disposal site marks the first time in a decade that
we have returned to a normal three year maintenance cycle of the
federal channel.
We are just now embarking on the heart of the ERA process defining
a preliminary statement of work, identifying data gaps to drive the WES
model, and initiating complementary local site-specific scientific
studies, and with those results completing the remainder of the DMMP
process.
To this end we request the Subcommittee's approval of $2.0 million
in appropriations from the Operations and Maintenance General Account
in fiscal year 2004 in order to complete the Ecological Risk Assessment
and Dredged Material Management Plan so that the process is completed
and plan implemented prior to the next periodic maintenance event
scheduled to occur in fiscal year 2005.
With the assistance of the local scientific community, we are
fortunate to have as much as three years of scientific data in the form
of benthic community biomass and tissue sampling, and first-ever
nearshore state-of-the-art bathymetric survey of the disposal site and
Monterey Bay Canyon. These efforts should prove invaluable in measuring
before and after direct impacts of dredged material disposal at the
disposal site.
With the assistance of the San Francisco district, we were
determined to take advantage of this year's dredging episode to do
before and after measurement of both sedimentary transport at the
disposal site and to measure any direct impacts on benthic
communities--the source of any bioaccumulation of contaminated
sediments in trace amounts. It appears that this will now occur with
district support as we proceed to the use of current dredging activity
as an experiment involving approximately 20,000 cubic yards from which
we can derive valuable data.
Despite the drastic differences between the use of the WES ERA
model adapted from aquatic Mississippi River application and our unique
submarine canyon ecosystem and volume of material, the district has
elected to proceed with a tracer study using European technology that
may be of help in other areas with similar problems. We now recognize
that we must undertake local site-specific data collection and studies
to complement the WES activities or the end result will not be a
document that will prove persuasive to the greater scientific
community, federal and state regulatory agencies, and an informed and
involved public in our community.
We now know that there is a considerable body of unpublished
relevant data concerning the Monterey Bay Canyon and the impact, fate
and effect of sedimentary material transport in the hands of the local
scientific community that must be collected, catalogued, analyzed, and
used both as input data and for comparison with the WES model so that
each can operate as an invaluable countercheck on the output results of
the other in predicting and directly measuring the impacts of dredged
material disposal at our ocean disposal site.
We have agreed with the district that in order to remove any
potential bias in data interpretation, an independent scientific peer
review group will be convened utilizing EPA guidelines for ERA review
to oversee this process.
The next periodic maintenance cycle would normally occur in fiscal
year 2005. We do not anticipate either another El Nino event on the
heels of the last severe one. Beyond completion of the ERA and gap
filling scientific research and peer review, a significant part of the
DMMP process is the identification and evaluation of potential upland
disposal sites of which there are few choices in our situation.
Nonetheless a long lead time would be necessary in our situation, front
end funding of which would necessarily be a part in order to complete
the DMMP process in exhaustive fashion.
From our perspective the better job we do completing the DMMP/ERA
process now in developing a persuasive case to the various
constituencies as a decision document supporting continued aquatic
disposal for all but a very small fraction of total dredged material in
exceptional circumstances over the twenty year span of the study will
save significant amounts of scarce federal and local dollars in the
future . . . that said, we sincerely hope our experience in this effort
will:
--Produce both a useful and practical multidisciplinary decision
document for those agencies exercising regulatory or oversight
jurisdiction over dredging in both our and other settings; and
--Serve as a model for collaborative effort in dredged material
disposal consensus decisionmaking in unique situations such as
for other Corps districts and local sponsors seeking to balance
required maintenance dredging to support navigation with the
corresponding need to protect environmentally sensitive areas,
in this instance the unique Monterey submarine canyon located
at the heart of the Monterey Bay Marine sanctuary.
I am prepared to supplement my prepared remarks for the record in
response to any questions that the Chair, Subcommittee Members, or
staff may wish to have me answer. Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Subcommittee. This concludes my prepared remarks.
______
Prepared Statement of the Port of Garibaldi
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Carol
Brown. I am one of three elected Commissioners of the Port of
Garibaldi, Oregon, located on Tillamook Bay on the Oregon Coast. We are
thankful for the support provided by the Committee for fiscal year 2002
and 2003, and we also appreciate the opportunity to present our views
on fiscal year 2004 appropriations issues.
appropriations request
The Port of Garibaldi requests an $8,000,000 appropriation for
operations and maintenance (O&M) of Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.
These funds will allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps)
Portland District begin the protection, restoration and repair of the
Tillamook Bay North and South Jetties. Specifically, the funds will
allow the Corps to build a revetment near the North Jetty root, and
perform additional restoration and repair work on the South Jetty.
The Committee provided an additional $200,000 for a Major
Maintenance Report in fiscal year 2002, and an additional $300,000 for
Plans and Specifications in fiscal year 2003. Both of these
appropriations were made above the Administration's budget requests for
the project. The Major Maintenance Report is nearly complete, and the
Corps will begin Plans and Specifications soon after the completion of
the report. We believe that the total cost to protect, restore and
repair the jetties will be $10-$15,000,000. The Administration did not
request funding for this project for fiscal year 2004.
report on the tillamook bay jetty system
There are serious problems with both jetties. The Corps' recent
engineering analysis demonstrates that erosion on the north side of the
North Jetty continues at a highly accelerated rate. Frequently, the
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) pulls its crewmembers out of the tower located
near the root of the North Jetty because of the threat of a jetty
breach at that site during periods of high seas. Should the breach
occur, shellfish beds, a county park and a state highway would sustain
severe damage. The USCG has also determined that deterioration of the
South Jetty has created a dangerous threat to navigation safety.
A functional Tillamook Bay Jetty System is key to maintaining
navigation safety, protecting both public and private property and the
environment, and preserving the economic vitality of the Oregon Coast.
In December 2000, The Board of Commissioners of the Port of
Garibaldi and Tillamook County prepared a report on the Tillamook Bay
jetty system and bar to inform legislators and other concerned parties
of the need to restore the jetties and their bar to safe, acceptable
engineering standards. Excerpts of that report are included below.
There are three major issues currently associated with the
deterioration of the system.
--There is a clearly documented increasing hazard to navigation from
erosion around the ocean ends of both jetties and resultant
damage to the bar, which is causing an escalating loss of life
in boating accidents every year.
--There is a potentially significant loss of landmass containing
recreational facilities and permanent structures in one area
where the North Jetty has already breached near its root.
--There is data currently being collected (but incomplete at this
time) which suggests a possible relationship between the
deteriorated condition of the jetties and bar and the degree of
flooding in some land areas surrounding Tillamook Bay.
The report contains a history of construction and repair of the
jetties by the Corps, an overview of construction and repair results, a
summary of an independent engineering report solicited by the Port and
the Corps' own evaluations of the jetties' present condition, reasons
for restoration of the jetties and bar, and the Commissioners'
endorsement of repair of the jetty system and bar as both an urgent
public safety measure and possible contribution to mitigation of
flooding in the estuary. We will provide a copy of the report to the
Committee upon request.
Background.--Since settlement in the 1800s, Tillamook County's
primary industries have been dairy, water and timber oriented.
Tillamook Bay and the five rivers which feed it have historically
furnished an abundance of shellfish, salmon and other species of fresh-
water and ocean food fish. Over the past century the area has become
renowned as one of the West's premier sport fishing locations.
Tillamook County's economy has always depended on prime conditions
in Tillamook Bay, its estuary and watershed for cultivation and use of
these natural resources. However, human activities including forestry,
agriculture and urban development have adversely impacted the entire
Bay area by increasing erosion rates and landslide potential in the
forest slopes and significantly reducing wetland and riparian habitat.
All five rivers entering Tillamook Bay now exceed temperature and/or
bacteria standards established by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality. The installation of a north jetty on Tillamook
Bay begun in 1912 caused increased erosion of the Bay's westerly land
border, Bayocean Spit, on the ocean side. The Spit breached in 1950.
This allowed the Bay to fill with ocean sands on its southern and
western perimeters and caused a major reduction in shellfish habitat,
sport-fishing area, and an increase in the cross-section of the bar. A
south jetty begun in 1969 helped stabilize the Spit and created the
navigation channel presently in use.
Increasingly poor water quality in the Bay's feeder rivers and a
substantial loss of marine life over the past twenty-five years enabled
Tillamook Bay to become part of the National Estuary Program in 1992.
The Project's scope of study included the estuary and watershed. One of
the stated goals in the Project's final Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan is ``the reduction of magnitude, frequency and impact
of flood events.'' This goal was found to be consistent with the scope
of study of the Corps' Feasibility Study for Water Resources in
Tillamook County now being conducted, and was incorporated into this
new project.
Previous Corps' evaluations of jetty systems clearly state the
adverse effects of jetty deterioration and infilling of channels and
bars on tidal prism (the rate at which water flows into and out of the
Bay) and indicate that they may influence flooding in a bay's estuary.
During the past thirty-six months measurements have been taken of
differential water levels in Tillamook Bay and its estuary and speeds
of tidal flows during normal and high water events. This data suggests
an increase in the cross-section of the Tillamook Bay bar and some
channel infilling, which may be affecting estuarine flooding. These
measurements are of stated interest to the Corps. The Port of
Garibaldi, many Tillamook County businesses that have been victims of
flooding, and some governmental agencies concerned with various aspects
of the flooding issue are supporting continuing gathering of these
measurements of water levels and tidal flow speeds.
While the conditions of jetties and their resultant bars invariably
and continually affect the bay on which they are constructed, their
basic function is the creation of a safe channel between ocean and
harbor for the transit of maritime traffic. As originally designed and
constructed, the Tillamook Bay jetties accomplished this. Due to their
present state of deterioration, that initial effectiveness has been
substantially reduced.
Results in Brief.--Tillamook County has suffered a series of
devastating floods since the winter of 1996. The storms caused by El
Nino/La Nina events have increased the rate of deterioration of
Tillamook Bay's jetties and bar. Their present condition is raising
increasing navigational safety issues. The North Jetty is now breached
in an especially sensitive location near its root where the wall
protects inhabited land, and the eroded area is increasing in size. A
significant quantity of water flowing through this area would result in
loss of the existing landmass adjacent to it and the structures on it.
A second area of deterioration on the North Jetty at the beach line is
threatening to breach. But in either location, an infill of the channel
with sands would reduce the navigability of the channel, further slow
the rate of tidal flow and impact the cross-section of the bar. An even
greater degree of danger to boaters than that which presently exists
would surely be created.
The Bayocean Spit breach in 1950 buried one-third the Bay's
shellfish habitat under ocean sands and did extensive damage to
estuarine lands. The lost shellfish habitat has never been recovered.
The direction of tidal flow in the Bay is such that a breach in the
North Jetty would cause additional buildup of ocean sands to the inside
edge of the Spit. This infill would eventually deposit toward the south
end of the Bay and demolish even more shellfish habitat and sport
fishing area, adversely impacting Tillamook County's already reduced
economy. The harbor area would certainly suffer some degree of damage,
resulting in increased commercial hardship.
But the most serious impact of jetty and bar deterioration has been
on navigational safety. The USCG Tillamook Bay Station has publicly
commented on the threat of a jetty breach to its observation tower, and
transit danger to sport, commercial and their own vessels due to
erosion effects, which now constitute a maritime hazard. Many local
sport and most commercial fishermen have abandoned Garibaldi as a
permanent berth and sought harbor facilities where channel navigation
is easier and transit of the bar less treacherous. The USCG has
formally requested that the Corps ``restore the north and south jetties
to their original dimensions, and remove materials from the original
construction that may now pose a maritime hazard.''
Principal Findings.--Since the last repair to the South Jetty,
approximately 302 feet have been lost to erosion, 215 feet of that
amount since 1998. The North Jetty was designed and authorized by the
USACOE to be 5,700 feet in length. As of December 2000, approximately
275 feet of the ocean end of the North Jetty is eroded and remains
below mean lower low water level--submerged, in other words. In 1990
the USACOE capped the head of the North Jetty from its above-water
point going landward for a distance of 161 feet in an unsuccessful
attempt at erosion control. The North Jetty remains at least 300 feet
short of its engineering-approved and authorized length. In the spring
of 2001, the Corps put in place temporary barriers to provide support
to the North Jetty at the root. These temporary barriers have largely
eroded since that time.
Because of the increased magnitude of storms since 1996, both
jetties have suffered far more damage than that normally expected to
occur to such structures. Erosion and displacement of large support
stones at the ocean ends of both jetties is particularly severe, and
the submerged ends of both structures are being pushed southward. The
USCG now identifies these two areas, adjacent to popular sport fishing
locations, as extremely dangerous locations. Water swirls around the
displaced boulders causing eddies sometimes strong enough to suck small
boats into them. Even in calm, flat seas, water breaks over these
boulders into waves powerful enough to throw smaller vessels onto the
jetties. (This was the case on September 22, 2000, when a sport fishing
boat inadvertently drifted inside the 200 foot exclusion zone and was
dashed onto the end of the South Jetty. Two people were killed and a
third injured, this incident being the most recent loss of life this
year in the accident record of the Tillamook Bay jetties and bar.)
Conclusion.--On behalf of the Port of Garibaldi and Tillamook
County, I thank the Committee for giving me this opportunity to provide
testimony on the Tillamook Bay Jetty System.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association
summary
Mr. Chairman & distinguished Committee members, this statement
includes the following: A) A plea to rend maintain our Nation's inland
waterways system as a vital part of the national transportation
infrastructure; B) A request for support in the following areas: 1)
Sufficient funding to maintain and improve our nation's inland waterway
system; 2) O&M funding for federal projects in the Coosa-Alabama Basin;
3) Funding to renovate and upgrade a recreation site on the Alabama
River; 4) Funding to complete backlogged maintenance items to keep the
Alabama River navigation channel a viable economic asset to the State
of Alabama.
expanded statement
The Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association is a large and
diverse group of private citizens and political and industrial
organizations that sees the continued development of the Coosa-Alabama
Waterway as an opportunity for economic growth in our region as well as
the Nation. The attached statements from many of our members and
interested parties in our region call for measures to assure a viable
inland waterways system and are indicative of the strong support of the
inland waterways system in our region of the country.
Our Association is concerned about the deteriorating waterway
infrastructure throughout the Nation. The waterways are vital to our
export and import capability, linking our producers with consumers
around the world. Barges annually transport 15 percent of the Nation's
commodities, 1 out of every 8 tons. It is incumbent upon the Federal
Government to maintain and improve this valuable national asset.
Therefore, we ask Congress to appropriate funds for required
maintenance and construction to keep the waterways the economic
multiplier they are. To maintain the inland waterways facilities and to
accommodate vitally needed growth will require a minimum of $5 billion.
The Federal Government must commit to improve the waterways
infrastructure or risk serious economic consequences and jeopardizing
large public benefits.
We are concerned that any budget strategy that reduces funding for
the operations and maintenance of inland and intracoastal waterways
will have a detrimental effect on the economic growth and development
of the river system. We are especially concerned about the President's
direction to direct funding away from those waterways suffering
temporary downturns in barge transportation. We cannot allow that to
happen. In the Alabama-Coosa River Basin, we must be able to maintain
the existing river projects and facilities that support the commercial
navigation, hydropower, and recreational activities so critical to our
region's economy. The first priority must be the O&M funding
appropriated to the Corps of Engineers to maintain those projects.
The President's Budget for fiscal year 2004 does not provide enough
funding to keep the Alabama River navigation channel open. Most
conspicuous is the absence of money for dredging, a vital element of
keeping the channel operational. We ask Congress to reinstate the
dredging capability on the Alabama River by adding $3 million for
dredging on the Alabama-Coosa River project. Without dredging, the
channel is vulnerable to being closed for several months of the year.
Without the channel, the State of Alabama has no hope of attracting
prospective users of barge transportation in the Alabama River basin,
which traverses counties with some of the highest unemployment in the
Nation. We cannot close any opportunities to bring jobs to these
counties. Several prospective barge-using shippers (representing 3 to 4
million tons a year) are currently evaluating the Alabama River basin
for relocating or expanding their businesses. A fully-maintained
channel is crucial to their decision. Maintaining the channel also
dampens the rail and truck prices for movement of goods between Mobile
and Montgomery. The relatively small investment in this channel pays
large dividends for the consumers and businesses in Alabama.
Recreation is a major economic factor on our waterways. Boating,
fishing, swimming, and camping have become an indispensable economic
tool for many of our lake and river communities, and, in that respect,
the Alabama River has extraordinary potential. One of the most
promising sites for development is the Corps-owned Swift Creek
campground. Now a minimally developed site, Swift Creek needs to be
upgraded and renovated to serve an ever-increasing demand for
recreational facilities on the waterway. We ask that $1.5 million be
added to the RF Henry project to renovate and upgrade Swift Creek.
Studies predict international trade, particularly with Latin
America, over the next 20 years will double or even triple current
levels of activity. Containerized cargo is expected to increase
dramatically as shippers move away from break bulk shipping and realize
the economies of moving goods in containers. The primary method of
moving that cargo out of the Port of Mobile is by truck and rail. There
is limited capacity to increase rail. Our highways cannot accommodate
the expected increase in truck traffic. The only logical, safe, and
environmentally-friendly alternative mode of transportation is by
water. With Montgomery sitting at a junction of road, rail, air, and
water modes, it makes sense to evaluate the feasibility of an
intermodal port in the Montgomery area. We ask the Committee to include
$100,000 in General Investigations to allow Mobile District of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to conduct this study, which was authorized by
resolution (Docket 2699) in July 2002 by the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee of the 107th Congress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Association's
Fiscal Year President's Fiscal Year
Project 2003 Budget Fiscal 2004 Budget
Appropriation Year 2004 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama-Coosa River, AL \1\ (AL River incl Claiborne L&D)....... $3,174,000 $2,961,000 $5,961,000
Miller's Ferry L&D.............................................. 7,094,000 5,429,000 5,429,000
Robert F. Henry L&D \2\......................................... 5,858,000 5,726,000 7,326,000
Lake Allatoona, GA.............................................. 6,456,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
Carters Lake, GA................................................ 9,958,000 10,012,000 10,012,000
-----------------------------------------------
Totals.................................................... 34,413,000 30,128,000 34,728,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes dredging from the mouth of the Alabama River through Claiborne L&D to Miller's Ferry. Coosa River
not included. The Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request includes funding for maintenance dredging to keep the
Alabama River navigation channel open.
\2\ Fiscal year 2004 request includes $1.5 million for upgrade and rehabilitation of Swift Creek campground and
$100,000 for a Federal study to determine feasibility of an intermodal port in the Montgomery-Selma, area.
In summary, we request your support in the following areas:
--Sufficient O&M funding of the US Army Corps of Engineers Civil
Works budget to maintain the Alabama River navigation channel,
including dredging below Claiborne Dam;
--Funding to renovate and upgrade Swift Creek campground on the
Alabama River; and
--Funding to evaluate the feasibility of an intermodal port in the
Montgomery-Selma area.
Thank you for allowing us to submit this testimony and for your
strong support of the Nation's waterways.
______
Prepared Statement of the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.
The Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc. respectfully submits
this written testimony to the Appropriations Sub-Committee on Energy
and Water Development for appropriations for fiscal year 2004.
Perkins County is located in northwestern South Dakota on the North
Dakota State line. We are the second largest county in South Dakota and
have a total of 2,866 square miles. Perkins County has a population of
3,542 people, of which 2,065 live in the two incorporated towns of
Lemmon and Bison. Number one business in our country is agriculture and
support services for the farmer and rancher. We have three
manufacturing plants in Lemmon that employ approximately 130-140 full-
time jobs. Other large employers in Perkins County are Federal
Government offices, State highway district offices, rural electric
offices, county government, hospital and clinic and three school
districts. Perkins County and the rest of northwestern South Dakota is
a semi-arid climate with an annual precipitation of 14 inches, of which
76 percent falls normally in April through September.
History of this project goes back to 1982 when a group of farmers
and ranchers in Perkins County were contacted by Southwest Pipeline
project in North Dakota if they would be interested in obtaining water
to serve Perkins County. At that time, approximately 100 farms and
ranches and the towns of Bison and Lemmon were interested, so Perkins
County was included in their feasibility study. In November of 1992,
Southwest Water Pipeline Project had grown to the point that Perkins
County was contacted about receiving water from the project and to be
included in the engineering design work. A committee of interested
landowners and representatives from the two incorporated towns were
organized through the Perkins County Conservation District/Natural
Resources Conservation Service. From this committee, nine directors
volunteered to serve on a board to study the feasibility of rural water
for the county. In March of 1993, Perkins County Rural Water System,
Inc. was organized as a non-profit organization. Two grants were
obtained from the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural
Resources for $50,000 each to do a feasibility study. At the same time,
the Directors were able to acquire good intention fees from rural
landowners, State land, Federal land, and the two towns for a total of
$28,250 to cost share the State money on an 80-20 share basis. A
feasibility study was conducted for Perkins County Rural Water by KBM,
Inc. of Grand Forks, North Dakota, and the Alliance of Rapid City,
South Dakota in 1994. In the 1995-96 South Dakota legislature, we
obtained State authorization and appropriation of $1 million. This
money was used to up-size the pipe in North Dakota for our capacity and
for administration costs of Perkins County Rural Water. We have signed
a contract with the North Dakota State Water Commission to deliver 400
gallons per minute to the border. We have also signed contracts with
both towns to be the sole supplier for their water systems. We have had
a very good response from the rural farmers and ranchers in that 50 to
60 percent have signed and paid for water contracts delivered to their
farmstead. The total for those contracts equals $81,500 plus
obligations of another $72,000 when the project becomes a reality. To
the ranchers and farmers of Northwestern South Dakota, that is a
substantial investment for them to make. We also have signed a contract
with a grazing association that run livestock on U.S. Forest Service
land. In the fall of 1999, we received Federal authorization with the
106th Congress for a 75 percent grant of $20 million. We have received
appropriations for the last two appropriation's bill in 2002 and 2003
for $3.4 million and $4.3 million respectively. The budget presented
has been sent to the Bureau of Reclamation in Bismarck, North Dakota to
be entered in their budget processing for 2004.
During our feasibility study, conducted by the combination of two
engineering firms of the Alliance of South Dakota and KBM, Inc. of
North Dakota, several alternatives were looked at to provide Perkins
County with quality water. These alternatives were pumping water from
Shadehill Lake or from deep-water wells drilled into the Fox Hills
formation. Due to the high salt content, both of these sources would
have to use reverse osmosis treatment that is very costly to build and
operate. Buying bulk water from a large rural water system turned out
to be the most feasible. Water from Southwest Water Authority is
already treated at a large treatment plant and distributed to the
border of North Dakota and South Dakota.
The quality of water in Northwestern South Dakota is the main
concern for the health and well being of the people. Although the water
in Perkins County typically meets the primary standards established by
the U.S. EPA, most of the chemicals in the water are exceedingly high
by the State of South Dakota standards. Due to the fact that new
standards by the EPA are set each year, it will be impossible for small
water systems such as those in our towns to comply. Just across the
line in North Dakota, two small towns have exceeded the fluoride levels
from the same aquifer that water is pumped in South Dakota. At this
time, fluoride in the Town of Lemmon is within one- to two-tenths of
the MCL set by EPA through the Safe Drinking Water Act. In the deep
wells of both Bison and Lemmon, the total dissolved solids, sulfates,
and sodium consistently exceed the recommended levels set by EPA.
Sodium is the major concern with the water in Perkins County. Running
at 450 parts per million and above, the medical community has problems
with people who have to be on a salt free diet. In the rural areas,
bacteria contamination has been noted in wells that dug into shallow
aquifers. The rural population has noticed declining water levels in
these same wells due to drought and over use. We are currently in a
drought that has dried up any surface water supplies for livestock. If
water had been available, some ranches would not have had to sell or
ship livestock out of the country last fall.
Inserts include the request for fiscal year 2004. We are able to do
this much construction work in 1 year and hope to finish the project in
6 years with this size appropriation per year.
2004 BUDGET
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income:
Bureau of Reclamation \1\........................... $5,000,000.00
Projected Water Sales............................... 259,000.00
All Other Income.................................... 101,000.00
---------------
Total Income...................................... 5,360,000.00
===============
Expenses:
Administrative expenses............................. 195,150.00
O&M expenses including water purchases.............. 156,500.00
Engineering, construction, contingency.............. 5,008,350.00
---------------
Total Expenses.................................... 5,360,000.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Request is for $5,000,000.00 in the Bureau of Reclamation Budget.
Water quality and quantity in Perkins County has been a plague for
the county over many years. Droughts, both long and short term, are a
fact of life for the people in this area. Being able to obtain quality
water during these periods and having a backup system for other times
would make the life in the country easier. Due to our isolation from
major water supplies, this may be our only chance to obtain water at an
affordable cost.
At the present time, we have finished our final engineering report,
environmental and cultural resources reports, and, with a 50-60 percent
signup rate, we are still signing up farmers and ranches. Upon
obtaining the amount requested, we would be able to proceed with
construction in the spring of 2004 and have the system completed in 6
years. We know that funds are hard to obtain, but finding quality water
in our area is even harder. Thank you for reading our report and, on
behalf of the people of Perkins County South Dakota, we hope you can
find the funds to build our system.
______
Prepared Statement of the Pontchartrain Levee District
mississippi river and tributaries project
FISCAL YEAR 2004 RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi River & Tributaries Flood Control Project... $435,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
comments on projects
History.--The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project (MR&T) was
authorized following the Record Flood of 1927 that inundated some
26,000 square miles of the fertile and productive land in the Alluvial
Valley of the Mississippi River, left 700,000 people homeless, stopped
all East/West Commerce and adversely affected both the Economy and
Environment of the entire Nation.
The MR&T Project has prevented over $180 billion in flood damages
for an investment of less that $70 billion and in addition the Nation
derives about $900 million in Navigation Benefits each year due to the
MR&T.
The Project is not complete and we cannot pass another event as
great as the 1927 Flood safety to the Gulf, this is an Historical
Event--not the much greater Project Flood.
Levees.--The Mississippi River and Tributaries Flood Control
Project has been under construction as an authorized project for about
76 years, and yet there are a number of segments not yet complete.
Although most levees are complete to grade and section in south
Louisiana and extensive reach from the Old River Control Structure in
lower Concordia Parish upstream to the Lake Providence area is still
below grade. Should these levees be overtopped during a major flood,
those people in south Louisiana know full well those flood waters are
going to head southward. Other items not yet complete are slope
protection and crown surfacing. It is recommended that a minimum of
$50,645,000 be appropriated for Mississippi River Levees.
Channel.--The second item of indispensable importance to the
Pontchartrain Levee District and the State of Louisiana is Channel
Improvements. Main line levees must be protected from caving banks
throughout this lower river reach where extremely narrow battures are
the last line of defense against levee crevasses and failures. If
caving banks are not controlled the only answer is ``setback''. Simply
stated there is no room remaining for levee setbacks in the
Pontchartrain Levee District. Revetment construction must be annually
funded to prevent levee failures, land losses and relocations. This
item also benefits the 55-foot depth navigation channel. The
Pontchartrain Levee District recommends at least $44,017,000 be
appropriated for fiscal year 2004 for Mississippi River Channel
Improvements.
Total Appropriation Request for MR&T.--The $435 million we are
requesting for Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriations for the MR&T Project is
the minimum amount we consider necessary to continue with vital on-
going construction work and to do the barest amount of maintenance work
that is required to prevent further deterioration of the Federal
investment already made to our Flood Control and Navigation Work and to
continue to work of restoring and protecting our natural environmental
including providing for adequate water supply. The total appropriation
we are requesting is attached.
Opposition.--We strongly oppose the Administration's recommendation
in its fiscal year 2004 Budget Submission to use funds from the INLAND
WATERWAYS TRUST FUND to pay for a part of the Operations and
Maintenance Cost of the Inland Waterways. The Trust Fund was
established in 1978 to make available monies for Construction and
Rehabilitation for navigation on the Inland and Coastal Waterways, not
for Operations and Maintenance. If Congress allows this recommendation
the Trust Fund would be drained in a short period of time and the 50
percent share to pay for Construction for Navigation would not be
available unless the tax on fuel used by tow-boats was raised, some day
doubled, which would make it extremely difficult for barge operators to
continue their operations and making it more expensive for farmers to
get their products to market and for the public to realize savings in
transportation cost for bulk commodities such as fuel, oil, gasoline
and other items shipped by barge.
We are also strongly opposed to any action that would transfer all
or any part of the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers Civil Works mission to
other agencies or department of the Federal Government. It has been
reported that the Administration would desire to transfer the Corps
NAVIGATION program to the Department of Transportation, FLOOD CONTROL
AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION to the Department of the Interior, and
the REGULATORY PROGRAMS to EPA. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
rendered extremely valuable services to this Nation since 1802 (over
200 years). The Corps has created an Inland Waterways System that is
the envy of the rest of the world. This commercial transportation
system is critical to the Nation's economy and environmental well-being
and part of this system is used to deploy military equipment in support
of the war on terrorism. The Corps has also been in the forefront to
provide Flood Control and Environmental Restoration Projects, they have
also supported our troops in every armed conflict this Nation has
engaged in. It would be a serious mistake of Nation-wide impact to
spread the functions of the Corps into several parts and across the
Federal Bureaucracy. This Nation would lose a wonderful asset that we
have enjoyed for many, many years.
We are strongly opposed to any proposal to ``out-source'' or
contract-out any of the present positions in the Corps of Engineers'
Civil Works function. The Secretary of the Army has proposed that 90
percent of all Corps of Engineers' positions be contracted out, this
would eliminate approximately 32,000 current employees and make it
almost impossible to continue with our work.
comments
The Pontchartrain Levee District has full realization of the
necessity of keeping these Subcommittees advised of current and future
needs for Federal monetary support on vital items of the MR&T Flood
Control Project. Beginning in 1995 the subcommittees refused to give
audience to the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association. This year
no oral testimony will be heard. Again, this is a great travesty of
justice. Such actions seriously erode the partnership that has been
built between Congress, the Corps of Engineers and local sponsors.
We trust that this pattern will revert back to the 63-year practice
of hearing our delegation.
conclusion
The Board of Commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee District,
compliments the Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development for its
keen understanding of real needs for the MR&T Flood Control Project
along with Hurricane Protection and efficient, alert actions taken to
appropriate funds for the many complex requirements. We endorse
recommendations presented by the Association of Levee Boards of
Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development, Mississippi
Valley Flood Control Association and Red River Valley Association. The
Board of Commissioners desires our statement be made a part of the
record.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 CIVIL WORKS REQUESTED BUDGET--MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND
TRIBUTARIES APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project and State Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURVEYS, CONTINUATION OF PLANNING AND ENGINEERING &
ADVANCE ENGINEERING & DESIGN:
Memphis Harbor, TN.................................. $700,000
Germantown, TN...................................... 171,000
Millington, TN...................................... 127,000
Fletcher Creek, TN.................................. 150,000
Southeast Arkansas.................................. 1,000,000
Coldwater Basin Below Arkansas...................... 500,000
Quiver River, MS.................................... 100,000
Alexandria, LA to the Gulf of Mexico................ 700,000
Morganza, LA to the Gulf of Mexico.................. 7,992,000
Donaldsonville, LA to Gulf of Mexico................ 1,400,000
Spring Bayou, LA.................................... 832,000
Tensas River, LA.................................... 500,000
Donaldsonville Port Development, LA................. 100,000
Collection & Study of Basic Data.................... 695,000
---------------
SUBTOTAL--SURVEYS, CONTINUATION OF PLANNING & 14,967,000
ENGINEERING & ADVANCE ENGINEERING & DESIGN.......
---------------
CONSTRUCTION:
St. John's Bayou-New Madrid Floodway, MO............ 7,600,000
Eight Mile Creek, AR................................ 2,050,000
Helena & Vicinity, AR............................... 3,407,000
Grand Prairie Region, AR............................ 24,700,000
Bayou Meto, AR...................................... 16,000,000
West Tennessee Tributaries, TN...................... 620,000
Nonconnah Creek, TN................................. 3,068,000
Wolf River, Memphis, TN............................. 2,500,000
Reelfoot Lake, TN................................... 1,240,000
St. Francis Basin, MO & AR.......................... 6,300,000
Yazoo Basin, MS..................................... 53,555,000
Atchafalaya Basin, LA............................... 21,235,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway.......................... 14,200,000
MS Delta Region, LA................................. 3,400,000
Horn Lake Creek, MS................................. 395,000
MS & LA Estaurine Area, MS & LA..................... 30,000
Channel Improvements, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & LA... 44,017,000
Mississippi River Levees, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & 50,645,000
LA.................................................
---------------
SUBTOTAL--CONSTRUCTION............................ 254,962,000
SUBTOTAL--MAINTENANCE............................. 208,433,000
---------------
SUBTOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES......... 478,362,000
LESS REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS & SLIPPAGE................... -43,362,000
---------------
GRAND TOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES...... 435,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Fifth Louisiana Levee District
In order to continue the current level of construction on the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project (MR&T), and to provide proper
maintenance of the completed portions, it is essential that the $435
million, as requested by the Mississippi Valley Flood Control
Association for fiscal year 2004 (copy attached), be appropriated for
the MR&T Project.
Less than $10 billion has been invested in the MR&T Project since
its authorization following the great flood of 1927, but even in its
incomplete stage, the MR&T project has prevented over $180 billion in
flood damages and makes possible about $900 million in navigation
benefits each year.
Levee enlargements have been completed along most of the
Mississippi River Levee, with one exception being portions of the
system in Louisiana where people and property remain vulnerable to a
Levee that is the lowest in the MR&T system, even though it conducts to
the Gulf 41 percent of the total water runoff of the Nation. It is
imperative that construction of these Levees remain a top priority for
the Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and that adequate
funding be provided.
I urge reconsideration of the Administration's recommendation (in
its Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Submission) to fund Operations and
Maintenance cost of the Inland Waterways by using funds from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund. Depletion of that fund will have long term
effects on construction for navigation, and ultimately on commerce and
individuals dependent upon River transportation of bulk commodities.
It is essential that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers remain intact
and not be divided into separate, smaller entities and transferred to
administration of other established Departments. The Inland Waterways
System created by the Corps is recognized world-wide and has set the
standard for construction of water control and navigational systems. It
must continue to function as one unit to retain its effectiveness.
It is vital to the people of Louisiana and to the Nation that the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project be completed as designed and
as quickly as possible. To transfer any part of the Civil Works
mission, or to ``out-source'' or contract-out positions in the Corps'
Civil Works organization, as proposed by the Secretary of The Army,
will wreck the current construction and maintenance time table and
eliminate approximately 32,000 current employees.
I respectfully request that $435 million be appropriated for the
MR&T Project for the coming fiscal year, and urge your support for
protection of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and the structure of the
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers as it currently exists.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 CIVIL WORKS REQUESTED BUDGET--MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND
TRIBUTARIES APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project and State MVFCA Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURVEYS, CONTINUATION OF PLANNING AND ENGINEERING &
ADVANCE ENGINEERING & DESIGN:
Memphis Harbor, TN.................................. $700,000
Germantown, TN...................................... 171,000
Millington, TN...................................... 127,000
Fletcher Creek, TN.................................. 150,000
Southeast Arkansas.................................. 1,000,000
Coldwater Basin Below Arkansas...................... 500,000
Quiver River, MS.................................... 100,000
Alexandria, LA to the Gulf of Mexico................ 700,000
Morganza, LA to the Gulf of Mexico.................. 7,992,000
Donaldsonville, LA to Gulf of Mexico................ 1,400,000
Sprung Bayou, LA.................................... 832,000
Tensas River, LA.................................... 500,000
Donaldsonville Port Development, LA................. 100,000
Collection & Study of Basic Data.................... 695,000
---------------
SUBTOTAL--SURVEYS, CONTINUATION OF PLANNING & 14,967,000
ENGINEERING & ADVANCE ENGINEERING & DESIGN.......
---------------
CONSTRUCTION:
St. John's Bayou-New Madrid Floodway, MO............ 7,600,000
Eight Mile Creek, AR................................ 2,050,000
Helena & Vicinity, AR............................... 3,407,000
Grand Prairie Region, AR............................ 24,700,000
Bayou Meto, AR...................................... 16,000,000
West Tennessee Tributaries, TN...................... 620,00
Nonconnah Creek, TN................................. 3,068,000
Wolf River, Memphis, TN............................. 2,500,000
Reelfoot Lake, TN................................... 1,240,000
St. Francis Basin, MO & AR.......................... 6,300,000
Yazoo Basin, MS..................................... 53,555,000
Atchafalaya Basin, LA............................... 21,235,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway.......................... 14,200,000
MS Delta Region, LA................................. 3,400,000
Horn Lake Creek, MS................................. 395,000
MS & LA Estaurine Area, MS & LA..................... 30,000
Channel Improvements, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & LA... 44,017,000
Mississippi River Levees, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & 50,645,000
LA.................................................
---------------
SUBTOTAL--CONSTRUCTION............................ 254,962,000
SUBTOTAL--MAINTENANCE............................. 208,433,000
---------------
SUBTOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES......... 478,362,000
LESS REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS & SLIPPAGE................... -43,362,000
---------------
GRAND TOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES...... 435,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Brazos River Harbor Navigation District
On behalf of the Brazos River Harbor Navigation District and the
users of Freeport Harbor, we extend gratitude to Chairman Domenici and
members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony in
support of the feasibility study for the proposed channel improvement
project for Freeport Harbor and Stauffer Channel, Texas.
We express full support of the inclusion in the fiscal year 2004
budget for: Second phase of a Corps of Engineers feasibility study for
Freeport Harbor, Texas--$500,000.
history and background
Port Freeport is an autonomous governmental entity authorized by an
act of the Texas Legislature in 1925. It is a deep-draft port, located
on Texas' central Gulf Coast, approximately 60 miles southwest of
Houston, and is an important Brazos River Navigation District
component. The port elevation is 3 to 12 feet above sea level. Port
Freeport is governed by a board of six commissioners elected by the
voters of the Navigation District of Brazoria County, which currently
encompasses 85 percent of the county. Port Freeport land and operations
currently include 186 acres of developed land and 7,723 acres of
undeveloped land, five operating berths, a 45-inch deep Freeport Harbor
Channel and a 70-foot deep sink hole. Future expansion includes
building a 1,300-acre multi-modal facility, cruise terminal and
container terminal. Port Freeport is conveniently accessible by rail,
waterway and highway routes. There is direct access to the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River Diversion Channel, and, State
Highways 36 and 288. Located just 3 miles from deep water, Port
Freeport is one of the most accessible ports on the Gulf Coast.
project description
The Fiscal Year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations signed into
law included a $100,000 appropriation to allow the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to conduct a reconnaissance study to
determine the Federal interest in an improvement project for Freeport
Harbor, Texas. The USACE, in cooperation with the Brazos River Harbor
Navigation District as the local sponsor, has completed that study. The
report indicates that ``transportation savings in the form of National
Economic Development Benefits (NED) appear to substantially exceed the
cost of project implementation'', thus confirming ``a strong Federal
interest in conducting the feasibility study of navigation improvements
at Freeport Harbor''. In fact, the Corps anticipates a benefit to cost
ratio of the project to be at an impressive more than 20 to 1 benefit
to cost.
Port Freeport has the opportunity to solidify significant new
business for Texas with this improvement project. In addition, the
improvement to the environment by taking a huge number of trucks off of
the road, transporting goods more economically and environmentally
sensitive by waterborne commerce is infinitely important to the
community, the State, and the Nation. Moreover, the enhanced safety of
a wider channel cannot be overstated.
economic impact of port freeport
Port Freeport is 16th in foreign tonnage in the United States and
24th in total tonnage. The port handled over 25 million tons of cargo
in 2001 and an additional 70,000 T.E.U.'s of containerized cargo. It is
responsible for augmenting the Nation's economy by $7.06 billion
annually and generating 30,000 jobs. Its chief import commodities are
bananas, fresh fruit and aggregate while top export commodities are
rice and chemicals. The port's growth has been staggering in the past
decade, becoming one of the fastest growing ports on the Gulf Coast.
Port Freeport's economic impact and its future growth is justification
for its budding partnership with the Federal Government in this
critical improvement project.
defense support of our nation
Port Freeport is a strategic port in times of National Defense of
our Nation. It houses a critically important petroleum oil reserve--
Bryan Mound. It also is the only port in Texas that is being considered
by the United States Navy and General Dynamics as the site for the
building of Amphibious Assault Vehicles. Its close proximity to State
Highways 36 and 288 make it a convenient deployment port for Fort Hood.
In these unusual times, it is important to note the importance of our
ports in the defense of our Nation and to address the need to keep our
Federal waterways open to deep-draft navigation.
community and industry support
This proposed improvement project has wide community and industry
support. The safer transit and volume increase capability is an
appealing and exciting prospect for the users of Freeport Harbor and
Stauffer Channel. The anticipated more than 20-to-1 benefit-to-cost
ratio that was indicated from the Corps of Engineers reconnaissance
study firmly solidified the Federal interest.
what we need from the subcommittee in fiscal year 2004
The Administration's budget included $250,000 for the first phase
of the feasibility study, which will be conducted at a 50/50 Federal
Government/local sponsor share. The Corps had indicated a capability
for Fiscal Year 2004 of $500,000 to continue the feasibility study and
keep this project on an optimal and most cost-efficient time frame for
the Federal Government and the local sponsor. We respectfully request
the additional $250,000 for fiscal year 2004.
______
Prepared Statement of Cameron County, Texas
On behalf of Cameron County and the users of the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, (GIWW) Texas, we extend gratitude to Chairman Domenici, and
members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony in
support of an appropriation to direct the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) to conduct a reconnaissance study to reroute the
GIWW.
We express full support of the inclusion in the fiscal year 2004
budget for: First Phase of feasibility study--$500,000.
history and background
On September 15, 2001, a tugboat and several barges struck the
Queen Isabella Causeway on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at the mouth
of the Brownsville Ship Channel east of Port Isabel. The accident took
the lives of eight people. On May 2, 2002, three barges being pushed by
a tug collided with the swing bridge at Port Isabel, Texas, closing the
waterway and stranding residents of Long Island Village. These
accidents prompted Cameron County to request a reconnaissance study to
study realignment of the portion of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway near
the swing bridge to straighten the circuitous route, thus significantly
reducing the threat of future accidents.
A January 1997 Reconnaissance Report of the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway-Corpus Christi Bay to Port Isabel, Texas (Section 216), was
conducted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The study was
initiated to determine the Federal interest in rerouting the GIWW. The
information available at the time indicated a less than favorable
benefit-to-cost ratio for the proposed realignment. Since the September
15 incident, the Corps, Cameron County officials, and a number of local
entities and residents of the County have reopened discussion of the
rerouting of the GIWW.
The Corps of Engineers agrees that new facts regarding the safety
of the current alignment warrants a revisiting of the issue to
determine the viability of rerouting the channel in a direct line from
the point where the waterway crosses underneath the causeway to the
point where it reaches the Brazos Santiago Pass and the Brownsville
Ship Channel. The route in question is the exact one traveled by the
tugboat and barges that struck the bridge on September 15, killing
eight people. The tugboat captain failed to negotiate the sharp turn
after it passed through the Long Island Swing Bridge. This particular
turn is one of the most dangerous on the entire waterway.
project description
The reconnaissance study allowed the Corps to reopen the
examination of the rerouting of the GIWW on the basis of safety. The
measure would seek to eliminate safety hazards to Port Isabel and Long
Island residents created by barges that move large quantities of fuel
and other potentially dangerous explosive chemicals through the
existing route under the Queen Isabella Causeway. The overall goal of
the study would be to enhance safety and transportation efficiency on
this busy Texas waterway by removing the treacherous turn tug and barge
operators are forced to make as they navigate the passage through the
Long Island Swing Bridge. In addition to the hazardous curve, the
winding and congested course taken by the waterway through the City of
Port Isabel adds needless distance and time to the transportation of
goods to and from Cameron County ports. These costs are borne not only
by commercial operators using the waterway, but also by consumers and
businesses all across Texas and the Nation. The rerouting would also
seek to correct the adverse impact of waterway traffic on Cameron
County residents. Apart from the obvious potential for damage to the
Queen Isabella Causeway, adverse impacts are created by waterway
traffic in the form of traffic delays associated with the Long Island
Swing Bridge and the transportation of hazardous materials within
several hundred feet of densely populated areas in Port Isabel and Long
Island.
Currently, a 1950's era swing bridge that floats in the waterway
channel connects Long Island and the City of Port Isabel. As waterborne
traffic approaches the bridge, cables are used to swing it from the
center of the channel and then swing it back into place. This costly
and time-consuming process, which frequently backs up traffic into the
downtown business district of Port Isabel, is estimated to drain
hundreds of dollars a year from the economy of this economically
distressed area. More serious problems are created when the heavily
used cables or winch motors on the swing bridge fail, leaving the
bridge stuck in an open or closed position. Equipment failures often
cause delays for several days and leave Long Island residents cut off
from vehicle access or the ports of Port Isabel and Brownsville cut off
from in-bound and out-bound barge traffic. During these times, supplies
of vital commodities are halted all across the Rio Grande Valley as
stocks dwindle and produce and finished goods begin to pile up.
impact of the gulf intracoastal waterway
The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway is an integral part of the inland
transportation system of the United States. Stretching across more than
1,300 coastal miles of the Gulf of Mexico, this man-made, shallow-draft
canal moves a large variety and great number of vessels and cargoes.
The 426 miles of the waterway running through Texas makes it possible
to supply both domestic and foreign markets with chemicals, petroleum
and other essential goods. Barge traffic is essential to many of the
port economies from Texas to Great Lakes ports, indeed, throughout the
entire GIWW. Some ports feel their future strategic plans are closely
linked to the efficient operation of the GIWW. This is true for ports
that rely almost entirely on barge traffic as well as ports that
function primarily as recreational facilities. Most of the cargo moved
along Texas waterways is petroleum and petroleum products. The GIWW is
well suited for the movement of such cargo, and, therefore, has allowed
many of the smaller, shallow-draft facilities to engage in both
interstate and international trade. Commercial fishing access via the
GIWW has had a significant impact on these port economies as well.
conclusion
A 1995 Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs report
entitled ``The Texas Seaport and Inland Waterway System'' warned of
concern with the safe operation of barges on the GIWW citing, ``a
serious accident perhaps involving a collision between two barges
carrying hazardous materials could force closure of the waterway''. No
one foresee the terrible accident that occurred on September 15 or the
additional one on May 2, 2002. The lives of eight people came to an end
and the lives of their loved ones was irrevocably changed forever. This
important waterway must be improved to prevent another tragedy.
what we need from the subcommittee in fiscal year 2004
The $500,000 that must be added to the fiscal year 2004
appropriations bill will allow the Corps of Engineers to begin to
remedy this dangerous situation. Cameron County, the users of the GIWW,
and the residents of the area respectfully requests the addition of
this much-needed appropriation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation
District
On behalf of the Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation district
and the users of the Cedar Bayou Channel, Texas, we extend gratitude to
Chairman Domenici and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity
to submit testimony in support of the improvement project for the Cedar
Bayou Channel, Texas.
We express full support of the inclusion in the fiscal year 2004
budget for: Pre-Construction Engineering and Design (OEM) For Cedar
Bayou, Texas--$100,000.
history and background
The River and Harbor Act of 1890 originally authorized navigation
improvements to Cedar Bayou. The project was reauthorized in 1930 to
provide a 10-foot deep and 100-foot wide channel from the Houston Ship
Channel to a point on Cedar Bayou 11 miles above the mouth of the
bayou. In 1931, a portion of the channel was constructed from the
Houston Ship Channel to a point about 0.8 miles above the mouth of
Cedar Bayou, approximately 3.5 miles in length.
A study of the project in 1971 determined that an extension of the
channel to project Mile 3 would have a favorable benefit to cost ratio.
This portion of the channel was realigned from mile 0.1 to mile 0.8 and
extended from mile 0.8 to Mile 3 in 1975. In October 1985, the portion
of the original navigation project from project Mile 3 to 11 was
deauthorized due to the lack of a local sponsor. In 1989, the Corps of
Engineers, Galveston District completed a Reconnaissance Report dated
June 1989, which recommended a 12 125 channel from the Houston Ship
Channel Mile 3 to Cedar Bayou Mile 11 at the State Highway 146 Bridge.
The Texas Legislature created the Chambers County-Cedar Bayou
Navigation District in 1997 as an entity to improve the navigability of
Cedar Bayou. The district was created to accomplish the purpose of
Section 59, Article XVI, of the Texas Constitution and has all the
rights, powers, privileges and authority applicable to Districts
created under Chapters 60, 62, and 63 of the Water Code--Public Entity.
The Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation District then became the
local sponsor for the Cedar Bayou Channel.
project description and reauthorization
Cedar Bayou is a small coastal stream, which originates in Liberty
County, Texas, and meanders through the urban area near the eastern
portion of the City of Baytown, Texas, before entering Galveston Bay.
The bayou forms the boundary between Harris County on the west and
Chambers County on the east. The project was authorized in Section 349
of the Water Resources Development Act 2000, which authorized a
navigation improvement of 12 feet deep by 125 feet wide from mile 2.5
to mile 11 on Cedar Bayou.
justification and industry support
First and foremost, the channel must be improved for safety. The
channel is the home to a busy barge industry. The most cost-efficient
and safe method of conveyance is barge transportation. Water
transportation offers considerable cost savings compared to other
freight modes (rail is nearly twice as costly and truck nearly four
times higher). In addition, the movement of cargo by barge is
environmentally friendly. Barges have enormous carrying capacity while
consuming less energy, due to the fact that a large number of barges
can move together in a single tow, controlled by only one power unit.
The result takes a significant number of trucks off of Texas highways.
The reduction of air emissions by the movement of cargo on barges is a
significant factor as communities struggle with compliance with the
Clean Air Act. Several navigation-dependent industries and commercial
enterprises have been established along the commercially navigable
portions of Cedar Bayou. Several industries have docks on at the mile
markers that would be affected by this much-needed improvement. These
industries include: Reliant Energy, Bayer Corporation, Koppel Steel,
CEMEX, US Filter Recovery Services and Dorsett Brothers Concrete, to
name a few.
project costs and benefits
Congress appropriated $100,000 in fiscal year 2001 for the Corps of
Engineers to conduct the feasibility study to determine the Federal
interest in this improvement project. The study indicated a benefit to
cost ratio of the project of 2.8 to 1. The estimated total cost of the
project is $16.8 million with a Federal share estimated at $11.9
million and the non-federal sponsor share of approximately $4.9
million. Total annual benefits are estimated to be $4.8 million, with a
net benefit of $3 million. Congress appropriated $400,000 each in
fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 to support the feasibility study.
This project is environmentally sound and economically justified.
what we need from the subcommittee in fiscal year 2004
We would appreciate the subcommittee's support of the required add
of the $100,000 appropriation needed by the Corps of Engineers to
complete the plans and specifications of the project so that it can
move forward at an optimum construction schedule. The users of the
channel deserve to have the benefits of a safer, most cost-effective
Federal waterway.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Newark, New Jersey
Chairman Domenici and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
giving the City of Newark the opportunity to submit testimony about a
project under your jurisdiction which is very important to the quality
of life of the people of Newark, New Jersey and the surrounding region.
The Passaic River Streambank Restoration Project, known as the Joseph
G. Minish Passaic River Waterfront Park and Historic Area, is an
important part of the overall economic, land use and transportation
development plan of the City of Newark.
The Joseph G. Minish Park/Passaic Riverfront Historic Area project
addresses the restoration and rehabilitation of approximately 9,000
linear feet of Passaic River shoreline. This encompasses the eastern
boundary of Newark's Central Business District, as well as the edge of
the City's densely populated Ironbound neighborhood. This reach of the
Passaic River, from Bridge Street to Brill Street, in the City of
Newark is eroded, deteriorated and environmentally degraded due to past
heavy commercial and industrial use and flooding. The total project
includes bulkheading and other streambank restoration measures, the
creation of a 40-foot-wide walkway on top of the bulkhead, and a system
of open spaces tying together large public park areas as well as open
space required in any private development.
The project was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) of 1990 (Public Law 101-640) as an element of the Passaic River
Flood Damage Reduction Project on November 28, 1990, modified in the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-580) by
extending the project area, and further modified in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-303). The project is divided
into three phases. Phase I consists of 6,000 feet of bulkhead
replacement (Bridge Street to Jackson Street) and 3,200 feet of
wetlands restoration (Jackson Street to Brill Street). The Project
Cooperation Agreement for Phase I was executed in May 1999. Plans and
specifications for this first phase have been prepared, and it is being
implemented in four contracts. Construction of the first bulkhead
section at a value of $2,069,910 was completed in September of 2000. A
second construction contract to continue Phase I has been contracted at
a cost of $4.7 million, and is scheduled for completion in March 2003.
The third contract specifications have been prepared, and will be bid
as soon as required property remediation is completed by a private
owner. The fourth contract includes a naturalized streambank area in
the riverfront area adjacent to City and County parkland in a densely
populated neighborhood, and could be constructed simultaneously to
contract three. The Army Corps of Engineers has committed funds still
available to apply toward Phase I elements. The State of New Jersey has
been the primary cost-sharing sponsor of Phase I, with significant City
investment and support. Some additional funding will be needed for
Phase I, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2002
project fact sheet. Prior appropriated funds have been utilized to
fully design the bulkhead, a segment of naturalized streambank, and a
system of walkways and public open spaces.
City Engineering professionals are coordinating with the Corps to
complete all elements of the bulkheading and its integration with
significant Combined Sewer Overflow facilities and related Phase I
costs. Close coordination has also been continuing with the NJ
Department of Transportation, which is rebuilding the section of Route
21 adjacent to Minish Park, and NJ Transit, which has begun
construction of the Minimum Operable Segment of a light rail line, the
Newark Elizabeth Rail Link, on the west side of Route 21. Adjacent,
previously dormant, sites have become desirable locations for
development of commercial properties, due to the projected walkway,
park and open space facilities. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has
become the tenant in a new office building on the riverfront, and a
private developer is planning new housing units on a riverfront site
adjacent to Penn Station. The complexity of all of these interrelated
projects, as well as the private development of properties in the area,
has increased the importance of moving the Minish Park construction at
an accelerated pace.
As planned, Phase II will add a 9,200-foot long and 40-foot-wide
waterfront walkway on top of and adjacent to the bulkhead, and Phase
III adds park facilities, plazas, and landscaping on the inland side of
the promenade, between the river and Newark's downtown edge. Future
project segments will create linkages to Riverbank Park and other
community facilities, including a naturalized streambank and a new
Essex County Park. However, a change in the phasing, but not the scope,
of the overall project would provide needed open space in one of our
Nation's oldest and most densely populated cities.
It is vital to the interests of the City of Newark, its residents,
visitors, businesses and investors that construction of the walkway and
park between Penn Station and the northern end of the completed
bulkhead proceed as soon as possible. This area includes the large park
proposed at Center Street and the Riverfront. Construction of this
project segment will allow pedestrians safe and convenient access to
the riverfront from Newark Penn Station north to the New Jersey
Performing Arts Center. The Army Corps has completed preliminary
designs, so that the waterfront walkway can built over the two sections
of the bulkhead which have been substantially completed, and the park
built on adjacent property now owned by the City of Newark and other
public entities.
Mandatory site remediation by private owners on property slated for
bulkhead construction has become more extensive than originally
anticipated. Since design efforts for Phases II and III are underway,
as are negotiations for a Project Cooperation Agreement, construction
of Phases II and III can take place on completed areas of Phase I. This
restoration will provide a new focal point for downtown development
activities, reconnect Newark to its riverfront and maritime history,
and allow neighborhood residents direct access to the riverfront as
part of a much-needed recreation complex.
An appropriation of $14 million for the continuation of
construction on the Newark Riverfront Project is requested, so that
this integral element in Newark's revitalization can move forward as
planned, and can be utilized by the Army Corps of Engineers, in fiscal
year 2004. The current funding will only take us through the
construction of bulkhead and some of the mud flats restoration, not to
a usable facility. An additional appropriation will enable the City,
State and Corps to proceed with a Phase II City/Corps cooperative
program agreement on the next set of essential Phase II and Phase III
elements. This will include the walkway/greenway component above and
behind the completed bulkheading, and the critical connective
infrastructure that will be needed to insure access and maximum
effectiveness and utilization of this project for the community and key
stakeholders and project partners.
A supplemental appropriation of $14 million is requested so that
this integral element in Newark's revitalization can move from partial
construction to the beginning of full project build-out. This
investment in Newark's future will help us to improve the economic
status of our Nation's third oldest major city. The development of the
riverfront now is a critical element in the overall plan for Newark's
downtown revitalization. This linear park will serve as a visual and
physical linkage among several key and exciting development projects.
It is adjacent to one of the oldest highways in the Nation, Route 21,
which is undergoing a multi-million dollar realignment and enhancement.
A light rail system, the Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link, is under
construction. It will connect Newark's two train stations, and
ultimately, Newark International Airport and the neighboring City of
Elizabeth, providing users with access to mass transportation.
Conversely, the riverfront will become a destination served by that
system, providing an important open space and waterfront opportunity
for residents of one of the most densely populated cities in the
Nation.
The environmental benefits of the project include flood control,
riverbank and wetlands restoration, creation of urban green space, and
enhancement of water quality in the Passaic River. These improvements
will allow the Passaic River to be converted from one of the nation's
most troubled waterways to a cultural and recreational asset. Ongoing
and planned greenway projects will provide pedestrian and bicycle
access to the waterfront from Newark's residential neighborhoods as
well as the City's five major institutions of higher learning.
The riverfront development will complement and provide a visual and
physical connection with the $170 million New Jersey Performing Arts
Center, which opened in the Fall of 1997 and has been incredibly
successful. Further north along the riverfront, also accessible from
the riverfront walkway when it is fully built, the City of Newark and
Essex County have opened Riverfront Stadium, home to a minor league
baseball team as well as community sporting events such as the Project
Pride Bowl. Also in close pedestrian proximity is the site for the new
Newark Sports and Entertainment Arena, which is expected to bring two
million visitors a year into the area. In addition, NJ Transit has
completed construction of a new concourse, which is directly adjacent
to the riverfront. Once the park and walkway are completed, rail and
bus passengers will be able to exit the Penn Station north concourse
directly onto the riverfront area. On the eastern portion of Minish
Park, residents of a crowded community, Newark's Ironbound, will have
direct access to the river and its streambank for active and passive
recreation for the first time.
The riverfront will be the nexus of these activities, creating a
vibrant downtown center that will provide economic development
opportunities for the citizens of Newark and our region. Visitors from
throughout the Nation are expected to come to visit our revitalized
city, and participate in the exciting growth and development taking
place. There is tremendous potential for Newark's riverfront to mirror
the success of other riverfront developments throughout the country,
and Newark stands ready to accept the challenges such developments
present.
The City of Newark has completed conducting a master plan study for
the entire riverfront area, which will guide us in tying together these
incredibly exciting, and challenging, projects. We have received State
of New Jersey planning funds to develop a redevelopment plan for the
entire site, which will serve to coordinate redevelopment plans with
private developers, public agencies, and non-profit partners. Funds
have also been made available by the State for a Newark Waterfront
Community Access Study, which is examining the optimum way to safely
cross Route 21 to enable pedestrians to enjoy the riverfront area. We
have a once in a lifetime opportunity to coordinate several major
development activities into a virtually seamless development plan. The
appropriation of $15 million which Newark requests will serve to
incorporate the Army Corps of Engineers' construction into our overall
economic development plan to reinvigorate Newark. I urge you to support
this appropriation request, and help us to continue Newark's
revitalization.
In closing, I would like to extend my thanks to the entire New
Jersey delegation for its ongoing support, especially to subcommittee
member Rodney Frelinghuysen for his advocacy of Newark's critical
projects. The time and attention of this subcommittee are deeply
appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Miami Beach, Florida
On behalf of the City of Miami Beach, I appreciate this opportunity
to submit for the record testimony in support of the request by Miami-
Dade County for beach renourishment funds.
support for miami-dade construction request
The City of Miami Beach would first like to thank the members of
the subcommittee for all their efforts in the past to provide support
for the State of Florida's beaches and in particular, those of Miami
Beach.
Beaches are Florida's number one tourist ``attraction.'' In 2002,
beach tourism generated more than $16 billion for Florida's economy and
more tourists visited Miami Beach than visited the three largest
national parks combined.
In addition to their vital economic importance, beaches are the
front line defense for multi-billion dollar coastal infrastructure
during hurricanes and storms. When beaches are allowed to erode away,
the likelihood that the Federal Government will be stuck with
astronomical storm recovery costs is significantly increased.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection estimates that
at least 276 miles (35 percent) of Florida's 787 miles of sandy beaches
are currently at a critical state of erosion. This includes the entire
6 miles of Miami Beach. As a result of the continuing erosion process
and more dramatically, recent intense storms which have caused
tremendous damage to almost all of the dry beach and sand dune
throughout the middle segment of Miami Beach. Three years ago, most of
the Middle Beach dune cross-overs were declared safety hazards and
closed, as the footings of the boardwalk itself were in immediate
jeopardy of being undercut by the encroaching tides. If emergency
measures, costing approximately $400,000 had not been taken by the
City, there would have been considerable risk of coastal flooding west
of the dune line in residential sections of Miami Beach. As you can
see, this example points to the commitment we as a beach community have
to our beaches, but Federal assistance remains crucial. While we are
thankful of the substantial commitment made by the subcommittee in the
fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Conference Report, there is still
much work to be done. Our beaches must be maintained not only to ensure
that our residents and coastal properties are afforded the best storm
protection possible, but also to ensure that beach tourism, our number
one industry, is protected and nurtured.
In 1987, the Army Corps of Engineers and Metropolitan Dade County
entered into a 50-year agreement to jointly manage restore and maintain
Dade County's sandy beaches. Since then, Metropolitan Dade County has
been responsible for coordinating and funding the local share of the
cost for the periodic renourishment of our beaches.
In order to ensure that adequate funding will continue to be
available, the City of Miami Beach supports and endorses the
legislative priorities and appropriation requests of Metropolitan Dade
County, as they relate to the restoration and maintenance of Dade
County's sandy beaches. Specifically, the City respectfully adds their
strong support for the efforts of Miami-Dade County and wholeheartedly
supports their fiscal year 2003 request for beach renourishment funds.
Your support would be appreciated, Mr. Chairman. The City of Miami
Beach thanks you for the opportunity to present these views for your
consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Green Brook Flood Control Commission
summary
The Commission requests that the Congress appropriate $10,000,000
in Construction General Funds for the Project in fiscal year 2004, to
continue construction of the Project.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Vernon A.
Noble, and I am the Chairman of the Green Brook Flood Control
Commission. I submit this testimony in support of the Raritan River
Basin--Green Brook Sub-Basin project, which we request be budgeted in
fiscal year 2004 for $10,000,000 in Construction General funds.
As you know from our previous testimony, a tremendous flood took
place in September of 1999. Extremely heavy rainfall occurred,
concentrated in the upper part of Raritan River Basin. As a result, the
Borough of Bound Brook, New Jersey, located at the confluence of the
Green Brook with the Raritan River, suffered catastrophic flooding.
Water levels in the Raritan River and the lower Green Brook reached
record levels.
There were tremendous monetary damages, and extensive and tragic
human suffering.
As we have previously reported to you, a thorough study of the
water levels throughout the Bound Brook Borough area in the terrible
flood of September, 1999 showed that although the flood water reached
record levels, it would have been contained by the extra margin of
safety, the ``free board'', which the Corps. of Engineers has
incorporated in the design of this Project.
The flooding of September 1999 is not the first bad flood to have
struck this area. Records show that major floods have occurred here as
far back as 1903.
Disastrous flooding took place in the Green Brook Basin in the late
summer of 1971. That flood caused $304,000,000 in damages (April 1996
price level) and disrupted the lives of thousands of persons.
In the late summer of 1973, another very severe storm struck the
area, and again, thousands of persons were displaced from their homes.
$482,000,000 damages was done (April 1996 price level) and six persons
lost their lives.
As you no doubt know, actual construction of the Project began in
late fiscal year 2001. This first construction involved the replacement
of an old bridge over the Green Brook which connects East Main Street
in the Borough of Bound Brook, Somerset County, New Jersey, with
Lincoln Boulevard in the Borough of Middlesex, in Middlesex County, New
Jersey. That work is now complete, and the new bridge is in use.
Last year, the New York District of the Corps of Engineers awarded
the second construction contract, known as Segment T.
This Segment T contract will complete the construction of
protection for the eastern section of the Borough of Bound Brook, New
Jersey. The protection consists of levees and associated elements which
will connect with the new and higher bridge. This Segment T also
includes a large pumping station being built into the levee, for the
purpose of gathering up the internal rain water, and pumping it safely
over the levee and in to the Green Brook stream on the other side of
the levee.
The next following segment of the Project is planned for
construction to begin later this year. This next construction, known as
Segment U, will begin the protection for the western portion of Bound
Brook Borough.
As that segment gets into construction, the final plans for the
remaining segments for the protection of Bound Brook Borough will be
translated into construction documents.
It is important to recognize that the Borough of Bound Brook will
remain in danger of further catastrophic flooding until the ring of
protection for the Borough is completed.
The constructed completed thus far will not provide protection for
Bound Brook Borough until the ring is closed around the Borough. It is
of the utmost importance that the remaining construction to complete
the protection for the people and property of Bound Brook Borough be
carried forward with dispatch. With the continued support of the
Congress, this work can continue seamlessly during the next few years.
Since the devastating Floyd flood of 1999, the Borough of Bound
Brook has been in desperate financial condition. That flood destroyed
extensive tax rateables, and the Borough is in a critical situation.
The only hope for stabilizing the municipal tax situation is
redevelopment projects in Bound Brook. Because of its strategic
location, there appear to be significant redevelopment opportunities
available for Bound Brook Borough.
However, realization of redevelopment depends upon completion of
flood protection on schedule.
Bound Brook Borough needs flood protection sooner, not later.
To accomplish that, the Project requires $10,000,000 in Federal
appropriation for fiscal year 2004.
The Green Brook Flood Control Commission was established in 1971,
pursuant to an Act of the New Jersey Legislature shortly after the very
bad flood of 1971.
The Green Brook Flood Control Commission is made up of appointed
representatives from Middlesex, Somerset and Union Counties in New
Jersey, and from the 13 municipalities within the Basin. This
represents a combined population of about one-quarter of a million
people.
The Members of the Commission are all volunteers, and for 32 years
have served, without pay, to advance the cause of flood protection for
the Basin. Throughout this time, the Corps of Engineers, New York
District, has kept us informed of the progress of their work, and a
representative from the Corps has been a regular part of our monthly
meetings.
We believe that it is clearly essential that the Green Brook Flood
Control Project be carried forward, and pursued vigorously, to achieve
protection at the earliest possible date. This Project is needed to
prevent loss of life and property, as well as the trauma caused every
time there is a heavy rain.
New Jersey has programmed budget money for its share of the Project
in fiscal year 2004.
We urgently request an appropriation for the Project in fiscal year
2004 of $10,000,000.
The Green Brook Flood Control Commission is dedicated to the
proposition that Bound Brook Borough, and the other municipalities, and
their thousands of residents, who would otherwise suffer in the next
major flood, must be protected. We move forward with continued
determination to achieve the protection which the people of the flood
area need and deserve.
With your continued support, we are determined to see this Project
through to completion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the subcommittee, for your
vitally important past support for the Green Brook Flood Control
Project; and we thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
GREEN BROOK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Money
Federal Congressional Effective Net Transfer by Corps Net Money Received by Corps
Federal Fiscal Year Administration Appropriation Savings and Appropriation to To (-) From (+) Available for Since
Budget Request (Nominal) Slippages Corps of Other Projects Work on Project Authorization in
Engineers (Work Allowance) 1986
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1986....................................................... $445,000 $445,000 -$19,000 $426,000 ................. $426,000 $426,000
1987....................................................... 1,370,000 1,370,000 ................. 1,370,000 ................. 1,370,000 1,796,000
1988....................................................... 1,400,000 1,400,000 ................. 1,400,000 ................. 1,400,000 3,196,000
1989....................................................... 1,500,000 1,500,000 -68,000 1,432,000 ................. 1,432,000 4,628,000
1990....................................................... 1,200,000 1,200,000 -116,000 1,084,000 +$23,000 1,107,000 5,735,000
1991....................................................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 -496,000 1,504,000 -98,000 1,406,000 7,141,000
1992....................................................... 2,600,000 3,169,000 -364,000 2,805,000 ................. 2,805,000 9,946,000
1993....................................................... ................. 3,500,000 ................. 3,500,000 ................. 3,500,000 13,446,000
1994....................................................... ................. 2,800,000 -594,000 2,206,000 +571,000 2,777,000 16,223,000
1995....................................................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 ................. 2,000,000 +135,000 2,135,000 18,358,000
1996....................................................... 3,600,000 3,600,000 -932,000 2,668,000 +193,000 2,861,000 21,219,000
1997....................................................... 2,781,000 2,781,000 -300,000 2,481,000 ................. 2,781,000 24,000,000
1998....................................................... ................. 3,100,000 -189,000 2,911,000 ................. 2,911,000 26,911,000
1999....................................................... ................. 9,900,000 -694,000 9,206,000 -6,500,000 2,706,000 29,617,000
2000....................................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 -142,000 858,000 ................. 858,000 30,475,000
2001....................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 -640,000 3,360,000 +89,000 3,449,000 33,924,000
2002....................................................... 10,000,000 10,000,000 -1,598,000 8,402,000 -1,000,000 7,402,000 41,326,000
2003....................................................... 5,000,000 7,000,000 ................. ................. ................. ................. .................
2004....................................................... 6,500,000 \1\ 10,000,000 ................. ................. ................. ................. .................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Recommendation of the Green Brook Flood Control Commission for Fiscal Year 2004 to Continue Construction
Reference: This summary of funding for the Green Brook Flood Control Project has been assembled based upon publicly available information.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Prepared Statement of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Dave Koland; I
serve as the manager of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District.
The mission of the Garrison Diversion is to provide a reliable, high
quality and affordable water supply to the areas of need in North
Dakota. Over 77 percent of our State residents live within the
boundaries of Garrison Diversion. I would like to comment on the impact
that the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request has on the effort
to provide reliable, high quality and affordable water supplies to the
citizens of North Dakota through the Garrison Diversion Unit.
The President's fiscal year 2004 budget request removed, from the
Garrison Diversion Unit budget, funding for one of the most successful
government programs in North Dakota. As I read the OMB Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART), dealing with Rural Water Supply
Projects, I can only conclude that they had no knowledge of the North
Dakota Municipal, Rural and Industrial (MR&I) program.
The MR&I program was started in 1986 after the Garrison Diversion
Unit was reformulated from a million-acre irrigation project into a
multipurpose project with emphasis on the development and delivery of
municipal and rural water supplies. The statewide MR&I program has
focused on providing grant funds for water systems that provide water
service to unserved areas of the State. The State has followed a policy
of developing a network of regional water systems throughout the State.
Every rural water system built in North Dakota is still operating. They
are providing safe, clean water to their members, reducing their debt,
putting money in reserve, complying with every State and Federal
regulation, and doing so with a stable, prudent rate structure.
north dakota's success story
Rural communities offer the experience and lifestyle many people
seek in which to raise their family. People live on farmsteads with a
rural water connection, while farmsteads without decent water stand
empty. For instance, Sheridan County lost 20.4 percent of its
population between 1990 and 2000, yet the rural water system serving
that county hardly lost a connection. Good water does make a difference
as to where people choose to live.
The key to providing water to small communities and rural areas has
been the Grant and Loan program of Rural Development and the MR&I
program jointly operated by the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District
and the State Water Commission. Without the assistance of these two
grant programs, the exodus from the rural areas would have been a
stampede.
Rural water systems are being constructed using a unique blend of
local expertise, State financing, rural development loans, MR&I grant
funds to provide an affordable rate structure, and the expertise of the
Bureau of Reclamation to deal with environmental issues. The projects
are successful because they are driven by a local need to solve a water
quantity or quality problem. The solution to the local problem is
devised by the community affected by the problem. Early, local buy-in
helps propel the project through the tortuous pre-construction stages.
The MR&I program has been so successful and so important to North
Dakota that the North Dakota Legislature loaned the program $15 million
to help deal with the severe lag time that developed in the Federal
appropriations process.
The desperate need for clean, safe water is evidenced by the
willingness of North Dakota's rural residents to pay water rates well
above the rates EPA considers affordable. The EPA Economic Guidance
Workbook states that rates greater than 1.5 percent of the median
household income (MHI) are not only unaffordable, but also ``may be
unreasonable''.
The average monthly cost on a rural water system for 6,000 gallons
of water is currently $48.97. The water rates in rural North Dakota
would soar to astronomical levels without the 75 percent grant dollars
in the MR&I program. For instance, current rates would have to average
a truly unaffordable $134.19/month or a whopping 3.8 percent of the
MHI. Rates would have ranged as high as $190.80/month or a prohibitive
5.3 percent of MHI without the assistance of the MR&I program.
The people waiting for water in our rural communities are willing
to pay far more than what many consider an affordable, or even
reasonable, price for clean, safe water.
environmental laws
The Bureau of Reclamation plays a vital role by ensuring compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and dealing
with international issues. Such is the case with the Northwest Area
Water Supply Project (NAWS). Canada and the province of Manitoba have
filed a lawsuit protesting the thorough Final Environmental Assessment
and the subsequent Finding of No Significant Impact on the NAWS
project.
One reason for the success of the North Dakota program is the
reliance on local control. Decision-making is accomplished at the
lowest level possible. The decision on who the system can afford to
provide service to and the rate structure is made by a local board of
directors composed of members who will be served by the water system.
Volunteer involvement and low administrative costs are hallmarks of the
program. Local firms that have experience in designing and constructing
systems in North Dakota typically provide engineering services.
Across North Dakota, we have seen the impact of providing good
water to rural areas and witnessed the dramatic change in small
communities. Homes once occupied by aging widows are soon rented or
sold to young adults, while houses and farmsteads without rural water
stand empty.
Good drinking water is still a dream in many rural North Dakota
communities. Turning on the tap each morning brings brown, putrid
smelling water instead of clear, fresh water a majority of people
enjoy.
The opportunity to impact rural North Dakota is now. If we do
nothing, it is easy to predict what will occur in rural North Dakota.
We only need to look at counties without good water.
It is in the best interest of North Dakota and the 150+ local
communities not yet served by a regional system that we build every
piece of rural infrastructure feasible. We must continue to build on
what has proven so successful in the past.
Providing a reliable source of good, clean water in rural areas has
worked to stabilize the rural economy in North Dakota. The combination
of leveraging Rural Development loan funds with MR&I grant dollars has
provided a cost efficient, long-term solution to the rural communities
in North Dakota.
If we act now, we can make a difference in rural North Dakota.
Providing for healthy, vibrant rural communities is good for North
Dakota and good for our Nation. We know from past experience that
providing good water for rural communities is one sure way of helping
people change the future.
The MR&I program in North Dakota should serve as an outstanding
example of a successful program that could be implemented in other
States.
discussion of overall bureau of reclamation budget
It is important to recognize that the fiscal year 2004 budget
submission of $771 million for the Bureau of Reclamation's Water and
Related Resources program is $45 million more than their request for
fiscal year 2003. It is $150 million less than has been called for by
the ``Invest in the West'' Coalition, a coalition of nine western water
organizations that are involved in the full array of western water
issues.
The ``Invest in the West'' goal, one with which I agree, is to
raise the Bureau's Water and Related Resources Budget to $1 billion by
the end of fiscal year 2005. This is simply a goal to restore the
budget to previous levels. The erosion of the Bureau's budget during
the 1990s has created problems across the west for virtually all of its
constituents.
budget impacts on garrison diversion unit
At this point, I would like to shift to the particulars of the
budget as it impacts the Garrison Diversion program and some specific
projects within the State of North Dakota. Let me begin by reviewing
the various elements within the current budget request and then discuss
the impacts the current level of funding will have on the program.
Attachment 1 shows the funding history over the last 7 years for
the Garrison Diversion Unit. The average is approximately $27 million.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 is $17.314 million.
A continuation of this trend is a formula for disaster. The President's
budget request does not even maintain the historic funding level and
ignores the needs of the current programs and does not keep up with
price increases expected in major programs as delays occur.
Fortunately, Congress saw fit to provide that the unexpended
authorization ceilings would be indexed annually to adjust for
inflation in the construction industry. The proposed allocation to the
indexed programs in the President's budget is zero. If a modest 2
percent inflation factor is assumed, the increase will be $8 million
for MR&I and $2 million for the Red River Valley phase. Simply put,
with the current request, we will lose ground on the completion of
these projects.
This year, the District is asking the Congress to appropriate a
total of $61.3 million for the Project. Attachment 2 is a breakdown of
the elements in the District's request. To discuss this in more detail,
I must first explain that the Garrison Diversion budget consists of
several different program items. For ease of discussion, I would like
to simplify the breakdown into three major categories. The first I
would call the base operations portion of the budget request.
Attachment 3 contains a breakdown of the elements in that portion of
the budget. This amount is nominally $20 million annually. However, as
more Indian MR&I projects are completed, the operation and maintenance
costs for these projects will increase and create a need that will need
to be addressed.
The second element of the budget is the MR&I portion. This consists
of both Indian and non-Indian funding. The Dakota Water Resources Act
contains an additional $200 million authorization for each of these
programs. For discussion purposes, I have lumped them together and
acknowledged that, however each program proceeds, it is our intent that
each reaches the conclusion of the funding authorization at
approximately the same time. We believe this is only fair.
The MR&I program consists of a number of medium-sized projects that
are independent of one another. Project costs generally run around $20
million. Some are, of course, smaller and others somewhat larger. One
that is considerably larger is the NAWS Project. The first phase of
this project is under construction. The optimum construction schedule
for completion of the first phase has been determined to be 5 years.
The total cost of the first phase is $66 million. At a 65 percent cost
share, the Federal funding needed to support NAWS is $43 million. On
the average, the annual funding for the NAWS Project alone is over $8
million. Four other projects have been approved for future funding, and
numerous projects on the reservations are ready to begin construction.
These requests will all compete with one another. It will be a delicate
challenge to balance these projects. Nevertheless, we believe that once
a project is started, it needs to be pursued vigorously to completion.
If not, we simply run up the cost and increase the risk of
incompatibility among the working parts.
An example of the former would be the certain impact of the
increased cost of construction over time through inflation, as well as
increased engineering and administration costs.
The third element of the budget is the Red River Valley Water
Supply Project (RRV) construction phase. The Dakota Water Resources Act
authorized $200 million for the construction of facilities to meet the
water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley communities.
It is my belief that the final plans and authorizations, if necessary,
should be expected in approximately 5 years. This will create an
immediate need for increased construction funding.
This major project, once started, should be pursued vigorously to
completion. The reasons are the same as for the NAWS project and relate
to good engineering construction management. Although difficult to
predict at this time, it is reasonable to plan that the RRV project
features, once started, should be completed in approximately 7 years.
This creates a need for an additional $25 million. Fortunately, it
appears the RRV project start will probably follow the completion of
the NAWS first phase.
Using these two projects as examples sets up the argument for a
steadily increasing budget. First, to accelerate the MR&I program in
early years to assure the timely completion of the NAWS project and
then to ready the budget for a smaller MR&I allocation when the RRV
project construction begins.
Attachment 4 illustrates the level of funding for the two major
items, MR&I and RRV. It is quickly apparent that if a straight-line
appropriation is used for each, a funding spike will occur in the sixth
year. This is when an additional $25 million will suddenly be needed
for the RRV program. It is simply good management to blend these needs
to avoid drastic hills and valleys in budget requests. By accelerating
the construction of NAWS and other projects, which are ready for
construction during the early years, some of the pressure will be off
when the RRV project construction funding is needed. Over time, a
smoother, more efficient construction program will result.
Attachment 5 shows such a program. It begins with a $61.3 million
budget this year and gradually builds to over $90 million when the RRV
construction could be in full swing (fiscal year 2008). Mr. Chairman,
this is why we believe it is important that the budget resolution
recognize that a robust increase in the budget allocation is needed for
the Bureau of Reclamation. We hope this testimony will serve as, at
least, one example of why we fully support the efforts of the ``Invest
in the West'' campaign to increase the overall allocation by $150
million in fiscal year 2004 and, over time, an increase totaling $1
billion.
The Bureau of Reclamation, Rural Development, Garrison Diversion
Conservancy District, State Water Commission and local rural water
districts have formed a formidable alliance to deal with the lack of a
high quality, reliable water source throughout much of North Dakota.
These cost-effective partnerships of local control, statewide guidance
and Federal support have combined to provide safe, clean, potable water
to hundreds of communities and thousands of homes across North Dakota.
attachment 2.--justification for $61.3 million gdu appropriation
fiscal year 2004
Northwest Area Water Supply is under construction after 15 years of
study and diplomatic delay. Construction of first phase is estimated to
be $66 million.
Designs are based on a 5-year construction period; thus, $12
million is needed for NAWS alone. Indian MR&I programs should be
approximately the same.
Ramsey County expansion, Southwest Pipeline, and Williston Water
Treatment Plant are under construction.
Red River Valley special studies are underway and need to be
accelerated.
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF INDIAN MR&I SYSTEMS PLUS $3.4
JAMESTOWN DAM..........................................
BREAKDOWN OF $57.9 MILLION CONSTRUCTION REQUEST:
Operation and Maintenance of Existing Supply System. 4.8
Wildlife Mitigation & Natural Resources Trust....... 4.4
Red River Valley Special Studies and EIS............ 1.0
Indian and non-Indian MR&I.......................... 39.0
Indian Irrigation................................... 3.2
Recreation.......................................... 0.5
Under financing 9.5 percent......................... 5.0
---------------
Total for Construction............................ 57.9
---------------
Grand Total....................................... 61.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
attachment 3.--elements of the base operations portion of the garrison
diversion unit budget fiscal year 2004
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and Maintenance of Indian MR&I Systems and $3.4
Jamestown Dam..........................................
Operation and Maintenance of Existing GDU Facilities.... 4.8
Funding of Natural Resources Trust and Remaining 4.4
Wildlife Mitigation Programs...........................
Indian Irrigation....................................... 3.2
Recreation.............................................. 0.5
Under financing at 9.5 percent.......................... 5.0
---------------
Total............................................. 21.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Letter From the North Dakota Rural Water Systems Association
Bismarck, North Dakota, March 26, 2003.
Gale Norton,
U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington, DC 20240.
Dear Ms. Norton: The North Dakota rural water community would
appreciate your assistance and support to restore rural water funding
for the fiscal year 2004 and re-establish a firm rural water supply
function of the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) for 2005 and beyond.
North Dakota has a healthy relationship with the BOR and has worked
side-by-side in the development and building of rural water systems.
The North Dakota State Water Commission, Garrison Diversion Conservancy
District, BOR, and project sponsors have successfully built rural water
systems in a team effort throughout North Dakota.
This unique team concept has delivered water through pipeline
projects to small communities as well as to rural residents at
responsible costs. North Dakota rural residents are willing to pay a
reasonable cost-share to complete current projects and begin future
projects. The EPA's household affordability ratio states water rates
should be 1.5 percent to 2.5 percent of a household's median income to
be considered affordable. The attached document provides information
documenting household water rate affordability ratios that range from
2.07 percent to 2.31 percent. These percentiles weigh on the high side
of what the EPA suggests is affordable.
The Southwest Pipeline Project provides treated drinking water via
2,600 miles of pipeline and serves 23 communities and more than 2,300
rural residents. The Federal cost-share of this project is $7,200 per
connection. The life of a water system is estimated at 40 years. $7,200
per connection divided by 40 years equals an investment by the Federal
Government of $180 per year per connection. North Dakota has a long
list of additional rural water projects that reflect similar economics.
Is $180 per year per connection too much for the Federal Government to
invest to sustain residents in rural North Dakota, which ranks 4th in
the harvesting of our Nation's principal crops?
New Federal drinking water regulations have increased the cost and
complexity of the water treatment and distribution process.
Increasingly, small communities find that their best and most efficient
solution for safe drinking water is to obtain their water supply from a
rural water system. Small communities simply cannot afford to comply
with the Federal mandates in many situations. In an effort to comply
with the Safe Drinking Water Act, communities with populations of less
than 500 will have to invest more than $1 million in treatment
facilities. Rural water systems provide a dependable supply of treated
drinking water to communities and rural residents from centralized
treatment facilities resulting in a very cost effective way to treat
water.
Drought conditions have plagued the west, southwest, and central
areas of North Dakota. Indications are that this drought pattern will
continue and is moving east as well. The need for an abundant supply of
quality water is serious.
The Dakota Water Resources Act authorized an additional $200
million for state MR&I and $200 million for tribal MR&I projects. North
Dakota has started a process of long-range water development planning
with many rural water systems in the construction phase. The Dakota
Water Resources Act is the basis of our planning. North Dakota has had
a healthy relationship with the BOR and is willing to share in the cost
of developing and building water systems to sustain our North Dakota
heritage.
Respectfully submitted,
Stuart Carlson,
Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) was established in 1912
as a trade association to support member needs, to protect water rights
and encourage conservation and water management statewide. OWRC
represents non-potable agriculture water suppliers in Oregon, primarily
irrigation districts, as well as member ports, other special districts
and local governments. The association represents the entities that
operate water management systems, including water supply reservoirs,
canals, pipeline and hydropower production.
bureau of reclamation
For this reason we support an increase of $150 million above the
administration's proposed budget request for the Bureau of
Reclamation's programs westwide. The administration's current budget
proposal is $45 million less than Congress provided in the 2003 omnibus
appropriations for Reclamation.
With many western States confronting significant budget deficits,
increased emphasis is being placed on targeted Federal aid. Oregon is
facing a $2 billion deficit, or about 16 percent of the State's general
fund budget. We also support the Western Water Initiative of the Bureau
of Reclamation.
oregon needs
Conservation Implementation
The largest need for funding for OWRC's members is to implement
water conservation projects. Irrigation districts in Oregon continue to
line and pipe open waterways to enhance both water supply and water
quality. But the ability to continue this work depends on some public
investment in return for the public benefits. Districts have conserved
water and provided some of the saved or conserved water to benefit the
fishery instream while also building reservoir supplies. Oregon
districts hope to continue this work through enhanced conservation, but
to do that the districts need support to implement effective
alternative programs such as pilot water banking projects (Klamath
Basin and the Deschutes Basin), energy reduction programs, additional
measurement and telemetry monitoring, etc.
Rogue River Basin
Medford Irrigation District
Rogue River Valley Irrigation District
Talent Irrigation District
Grants Pass Irrigation District
Three contiguous districts in the Rogue Project (Medford, Rogue
River and Talent irrigation districts) are requesting $1 million to
fund the Bear Creek and Little Butte Optimization Study by the Bureau
of Reclamation. That study will propose a plan to conserve water
throughout the basin by lining and piping canals within the districts,
considering the potential for raising Howard Prairie Dam and the
feasibility of other conservation options.
The Grants Pass Irrigation District (GPID) continues to address
conservation and the eventual outcome of the Savage Rapids Dam. In the
2004 budget, $3,700,000 is requested for the Rogue River Water
Conservation Project of the Grants Pass Irrigation District as part of
the Department of Agriculture budget for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, or the Western Water Initiative or other
applicable programs. If that amount is not fully funded, any unfounded
amount would be requested as part of an ongoing multiyear request. This
amount is not included in the administration's requested budget. The
request is supported by the Governor's office, as well as conservation
and recreation interests. The district will provide matching funds.
The GPID funding will be used to install piping or lining in 68.4
miles of existing open ditches and canals to reduce water seepage
losses. These actions will eliminate 53 percent of seepage and reduce
the District's diversion from the Rogue River by approximately 8,300
acre feet of water annually.
Deschutes Basin
Tumalo Irrigation District
Deschutes Resource Conservancy
Ochoco Irrigation District
The Tumalo Irrigation District has been piping canals and replacing
other water management structures to achieve conservation measures
districtwide. Public Law 106-496 authorized $2.5 million for the
current portion of the work to be accomplished. The district requests
$882,500 as the final portion of the authorized funds.
In the 2002 budget Congress appropriated $300,000 but the Bureau of
Reclamation reduced the amount to $275,000. In the 2003 budget Congress
appropriated $1,300,000 but Reclamation reduced that amount to
$750,000. As this work is already in the engineering and construction
process, the shortfall is delaying the project and the $882,500 is
needed to complete the conservation package.
The Ochoco Irrigation District (Prineville, Oregon) has worked with
the Bureau of Reclamation, along with the North Unit Irrigation
District (Madras, Oregon) for the better part of a decade to determine
the use of unallocated water in the district's reservoir. Approximately
$200,000 in additional dollars is required to finish the project.
Reclamation earlier invested $500,000 in the process, which has not
been completed.
The Deschutes Resource Conservancy has requested $2 million for
fiscal year 2004. The DRC is a non-profit corporation authorized by
Congress to receive technical assistance and financial support from
Federal agencies to support conservation and restoration in the
Deschutes Basin of Central Oregon, founded by 7 irrigation districts,
the Warm Springs Confederated Tribe, and others to maximize
collaborative efforts in the basin. Since 1998, the DRC has granted
irrigation districts and their water users almost $1 million in funding
for piping and water conservation work. The current request includes
partial funding of a pilot water banking project to enhance the 8,000
acre feet of leased water developed in 2001 and 2002. Expectations for
storage enhancement in 2003 exceed earlier program results.
From the funding request, in addition to the water bank, the DRC
hopes to fund pilot water management projects within the districts for
$550,000, providing telemetry and monitoring devices, restoring private
lands on tributaries in the Ochoco district, providing tailwater
management to enhance water quality in other districts, and evaluating
the feasibility of generating hydropower within irrigation pipelines.
Umatilla/Columbia Basins
Stanfield Irrigation District
Westland Irrigation District
Hermiston Irrigation District
West Extension Irrigation District
The Umatilla districts draw their water supply from the Umatilla
and Columbia Rivers. The districts are in the process of completing
boundary changes and seeking supplemental contracts as part of the
conclusion of the boundary process. This process has been on going for
a decade. The districts are not proposing new legislation or funding
but appreciate legislative oversight to get this project completed. If
the Bureau of Reclamation cannot accommodate these needs within its
existing budget, then additional funding should be provided to expedite
the conclusion of this long on-going need.
Eastern Basins
Burnt, Malheur, Owyhee and Powder River Basins Water
Optimization Study
The irrigation districts in these basins continue to seek support
for this optimization study to seek alternatives for more effective
water management through conservation projects and enhancement of water
supply. This project has been identified by the Bureau of Reclamation
as a regional need.
Klamath Basin
The Klamath Project districts continue to require support of their
Water Bank proposal, fishscreen funding and other projects within
Reclamation's budget for the Mid-Pacific Division.
In addition to those needs, the Enterprise Irrigation District in
the Klamath Basin has specific needs for funding two small projects
totaling a Federal request of $98,179. To eliminate water losses and
improve water management and control, the district requires $64,916 for
a repair and enhancement of a particular lateral in its system. The
district will be providing its portion of the cost share in addition to
that amount. Another portion of the system can be repaired and upgraded
by provision of $33,263. The district will provide additional cost
share funds.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding the
2004 Federal budget. While we support existing proposals, we feel that
given the record-setting droughts we have suffered in the past few
years and in anticipation of another drought this year, we need to
support an increased budget to stabilize the Nation's water supply for
the many needs it must meet. Providing a stable water supply feeds the
economy locally and at the national level.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Urban Agriculture Council
Mr. Chairman, Members of the subcommittee, I am Roger Waters,
President of the National Urban Agriculture Council (NUAC). NUAC is a
national nonprofit organization established as a center for the
promotion and implementation of effective water management in the urban
landscape.
NUAC's objective is to enhance the environment by increasing
education, training, and research on the use of recycled water and
water conservation techniques that produce healthier and more vigorous
landscapes while conserving potable water supplies. NUAC is
headquartered in Washington, DC. NUAC is a service and product oriented
council that is involved with quality research, technology development,
training, community outreach, and program and policy development.
Additionally, NUAC partners with our members and State and Federal
agencies to address the related issues of water availability, drought
preparedness and water management policy.
I would like to offer testimony on six Bureau of Reclamation
programs: Drought Emergency Assistance; Efficiency Incentives, Water
Management and Conservation, Technical Assistance to States, Soil and
Moisture Conservation, and the Title XVI--Water Reclamation and Reuse.
I would like to request that the subcommittee support efforts to
increase the overall Water and Related Resources budget of the Bureau
of Reclamation by $150 million above the administration's request in
fiscal year 2004. NUAC is part of the Western Water Industry's ``Invest
In the West'' campaign that aims to substantially increase the Bureau's
Water and Related Resources Budget to $1 billion by fiscal year 2005 to
meet critical water supply improvements throughout the western United
States. NUAC is proud to be a part of the important campaign on this
issue that includes the Western Coalition of Arid States, the WateReuse
Association, the Family Farm Alliance, the National Water Resources
Association, the Association of California Water Agencies, the Oregon
Water Resources Congress, the Upper Missouri Water Association and the
Idaho Water Users Association.
drought emergency assistance
NUAC was an active participant in the Interim National Drought
Policy Commission's efforts that produced a report and plan for moving
forward on recommendations for a national drought policy for our
country. Part of NUAC's core mission is to serve as a center for the
acceptance, promotion, and implementation of practical, science-based
water resource management and conservation measures. An important
element of our mission is making sure water users are prepared for the
eventuality of drought. We have been supportive of the efforts of the
Commission to produce such a vision as part of their recommendations in
the final report.
Federal response to drought planning has great impact on the
economic strength of our Nation. The USDA in the Global Climate Change
Prevention Act of 1990 underscored the need to address drought related
information and to ``coordinate research and share expertise with other
Federal agencies working on issues related to global change''. NUAC
believes that other Federal agencies require similar funding to meet
research objectives and prepare for the challenges of drought planning.
Droughts drastically impact the availability of water resources for all
purposes. The Agricultural Research Service has identified the drought
of 1988 as the most costly natural disaster in U.S. history with
economic losses estimated at more than $39 billion.
The Bureau of Reclamation requested $1,120,000 for fiscal year
2004. NUAC believes and would ask that Congress consider, that given
the ongoing and likely future potential for droughts throughout our
country, a budget of $10 million be included in this program for fiscal
year 2004. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Agriculture
appear to be the agencies best suited to working with State and local
governments, tribes and local water users on the issue of drought.
Through active planning these agencies future will save the Federal
Government from the more costly future expense of emergency bailouts to
recuperate from the devastation of drought. Funding commensurate with
the responsibilities of drought planning needs to be provided to the
Bureau in order for the agency to meet its objectives.
efficiency incentives program
NUAC is supportive of this program that provides a partnership
among the Bureau of Reclamation, water users and States to implement
water use efficiency and conservation solutions that are tailored to
local conditions. The Bureau of Reclamation requested only $3,265,000
for the program for fiscal year 2004. We would like to see the program
increased up to $5,000,000 so that a greater amount of work can take
place among water districts throughout the west for the necessary
planning, assistance, training and development of water conservation
plans and water efficient landscapes. The need for this training was a
key impetus upon which NUAC was founded. Water resource managers and
policy makers are increasingly challenged by management issues.
Paramount to making good management decisions is the availability of
sound scientifically based information. This information is the
keystone to the development of practical and environmentally sound
programs that are cost effective and socially responsible.
water management and conservation program
On the surface this program appears to be a duplication of other
Bureau of Reclamation assistance programs. The Bureau of Reclamation
requested $6,639,000 for this program for fiscal year 2004. A question
that has arisen is whether the Bureau of Reclamation has construction
authority for funds provided to districts under the program. This is an
issue we would like the Committee to clear up so projects could go
forward. We believe the funding requested is less than adequate and
would suggest it be increased to $10 million. However, if construction
is going to occur under this program, we would suggest a cap on the
size of the project receiving such funding, so it does not become a
program for the few and not the many.
technical assistance to the states
NUAC is concerned with how this program has been cut by Congress
over the past several years. We believe the data collection and
analyses for management of water and related land resources that occurs
with this funding is extremely important in the absence of a national
water policy. We would ask that the request of $1,908,000 not be cut.
We would further request that funding be increased to $3 million to
help make up the shortfall that has occurred from previous cuts.
soil moisture and conservation
The modest amount of the Bureau of Reclamation's request, $267,000
makes this program appear unimportant. NUAC would like to see this
increased by a modest amount to $500,000 with the caveat that this
increase be tied to assisting in implementing the recommendations of
the final National Drought Policy Commission Report. We believe this
program should be examined to see if it can assist in the proper site
management of Federally funded structures that require water for urban
landscapes and horticultural purposes.
title xvi--water reclamation and reuse
NUAC is supportive of the funding that has been provided for the
ongoing projects authorized by the Title XVI Program. The $12,680,000
budget request is substantially below the $36 million provided by
Congress for fiscal year 2002 and we would request that you consider
increasing the funding at least up to that level this year. The funding
provided for research, new starts, and feasibility studies needs to be
examined from the standpoint of how long it is going to take to fund
the existing projects, instead of looking to increase the number of
projects. We believe there is a need for a serious discussion among
water policy leaders on the methods to fund the future of this program
in a timely manner. With regard to research, we see this as an area for
the private and public sector to move forward on their own. It is
important that discussions continue on how and for what type of
research needs to take place and the role Reclamation should play in
that agenda. We believe the results of those discussions would be
beneficial in terms of laying the groundwork for any future legislative
changes to the program and NUAC looks forward to continuing to be a
part of that effort.
western water initiative
We note with some interest the new Western Water Initiative that is
proposed for fiscal year 2004 for $11 million. The Budget documents do
not give a lot of detail in terms of how this initiative is going to
actually work. We believe it is important for the Bureau to report on
an annual basis what they have done with the money, who has received
the funding and the expected results from the funding that is provided.
We believe it is important to put additional funding into water
management and conservation, as well as the science and technology
program.
An issue that we have with the Initiative is that it was developed
without any input from the stakeholders in the Reclamation program. We
spent considerable time and resources being involved in the Strategic
Plan development of the Bureau and the Department of the Interior. This
Initiative is being proposed and a direction being set that could have
been more fully developed and targeted if an opportunity had been
provided for such involvement. It raises the question of why this
funding was not directly incorporated into the existing program and how
it will be integrated into those programs' missions.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the record
on these programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
(CAWCD)
Mr. Chairman, the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
(CAWCD) is pleased to offer the following testimony regarding the
fiscal year 2004 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill.
The Central Arizona Project or ``CAP'' was authorized by the 90th
Congress of the United States under the Colorado River Basin Project
Act of 1968. The CAP is a multi-purpose water resource development
project designed to deliver the remainder of Arizona's entitlement of
Colorado River water into the central and southern portions of the
State for municipal and industrial, agricultural, and Indian uses. The
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) initiated project construction in
1973, and the first water was delivered in 1985. The CAP is now
delivering its full normal year entitlement of 1.5 million acre-feet
and Arizona is utilizing its full Colorado River apportionment of 2.8
million acre-feet.
CAWCD was created in 1971 to contract with the United States to
repay the reimbursable construction costs of the CAP that are properly
allocable to CAWCD, primarily non-Indian water supply and commercial
power costs. CAWCD also operates and maintains the project. Its service
area is comprised of Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties. CAWCD is a
tax-levying public improvement district, a political subdivision, and a
municipal corporation governed by a 15-member Board of Directors
elected from the three counties it serves. CAWCD's Board members are
public officers who serve without pay and represent roughly 80 percent
of the water users and taxpayers of the State of Arizona.
Project repayment is provided for through a 1988 Master Repayment
Contract between CAWCD and the United States. Project repayment began
in 1994 for Stage 1 and in 1997 for Stage 2. To date, CAWCD has repaid
$685 million of CAP construction costs to the United States.
In 2000, CAWCD and Reclamation successfully negotiated a settlement
of the dispute regarding the amount of CAWCD's repayment obligation for
CAP construction costs. This dispute has been the subject of ongoing
litigation in United States District Court in Arizona since 1995. The
settlement provides a 3-year timeframe, ending in May 2003, in which to
complete several other activities that are necessary for the settlement
to become final, including a final Indian water rights settlement for
the Gila River Indian Community. In 2002, when it became apparent that
these activities would not be completed by the May 2003 deadline, CAWCD
initiated discussions with representatives of the Department of the
Interior to extend the terms of the repayment stipulation. The
Department of the Interior has now agreed to extend the terms of the
repayment stipulation to May 2012 which should allow the United States
sufficient time to complete the necessary activities.
central arizona project
CAP construction activities are not yet complete. In its fiscal
year 2004 budget request, Reclamation seeks $34,087,000 for the CAP.
CAP Indian Distribution Systems.--$23,048,000 is requested for the
construction of Indian distribution systems. CAWCD continues to support
appropriations necessary to ensure timely completion of all CAP Indian
distribution systems. Most of the CAP non-Indian distribution systems
were completed over 10 years ago; however, many of the Indian systems
remain incomplete. CAWCD supports full funding for this important
program.
CAP Biological Opinion Costs.--$6,787,000 is earmarked to fund
activities associated with implementation of a 1994 biological opinion
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pertaining to delivery of
CAP water to the Gila River Basin and for native fish activities on the
Santa Cruz River. Historically, CAWCD has objected to Reclamation's
continued spending in these areas. Both environmental groups and CAWCD
challenged the 1994 biological opinion in court. However, given its
settlement with the United States over CAP costs, and a final judgment
in the litigation concerning the 1994 biological opinion, CAWCD
supports Reclamation's budget request to allow it to complete
Endangered Species Act compliance for CAP deliveries in the Gila River
basin.
Environmental Activities at New Waddell Dam.--Reclamation is again
requesting funds ($115,000) to complete a reservoir limnology follow-up
study at Lake Pleasant, continue Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
activities, and support non-contract costs (Reclamation staff costs).
According to Reclamation, this is the last environmental impact
statement commitment for New Waddell Dam. Reclamation has carried this
funding request in its budget justification documents for the past 5
years with no apparent progress toward its completion. CAWCD would urge
Reclamation to expedite the completion of this study and close out its
environmental program at New Waddell Dam.
Environmental Activities at Modified Roosevelt Dam.--Reclamation is
again requesting funds ($2,027,000) to complete environmental
activities at Modified Roosevelt Dam. This includes Endangered Species
Act compliance for the southwestern willow flycatcher and support for
Reclamation's non-contract costs. As is the case with New Waddell Dam,
these activities have been ongoing for at least 5 years with no
apparent end in sight. While CAWCD supports Reclamation's activities to
comply with the Endangered Species Act at Modified Roosevelt Dam, CAWCD
would also urge Reclamation to expedite the completion of these
activities and close out its environmental program at Modified
Roosevelt Dam.
Tucson Reliability Division.--Reclamation is requesting $390,000 to
continue coordination and design elements for the water supply
reliability features of the Tucson Reliability Division, also known as
Tucson Terminal Storage. The budget justification documents indicate
that these funds will be used to complete the planning report,
environmental impact statement, and designs for the reservoir. CAWCD is
not aware of any Reclamation decisions to actually construct
reliability features in the Tucson area. The repayment stipulation
requires that, prior to construction of any such feature, CAWCD must be
consulted regarding the development of these features and the
associated repayment obligation. While CAWCD supports the continuation
of planning efforts to identify acceptable reliability features for the
Tucson area, we expect to be consulted as planning activities proceed.
Recreational Trails.--CAWCD notes that Reclamation is requesting
$702,000 for the development of recreational trails along portions of
the Hayden Rhodes Aqueduct in Phoenix and Scottsdale. An additional
$600,000 is requested for the development of recreational trails along
portions of the Tucson Aqueduct in Pima County. $439,000 is identified
to support Reclamation's non-contract costs associated with various
land management activities throughout the CAP service area. CAWCD
continues to experience significant land management conflicts at the
CAP interface with private property owners. These conflicts might be
remedied through the development of an appropriate trails system. CAWCD
strongly supports Reclamation's activities in this area.
lower colorado river operations--mscp
In its fiscal year 2004 budget request, Reclamation also seeks
$13,822,000 for its Lower Colorado River Operations Program. This
program is necessary for Reclamation to continue its activities as the
``water master'' on the lower Colorado River. In addition, this program
provides Reclamation's share of funding to complete the Lower Colorado
River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP). Of the $13,822,000
sought, $2,769,000 is for administration of the Colorado River,
$1,821,000 is for water contract administration and decree accounting,
and $7,748,000 is for fish and wildlife management and development. The
fish and wildlife management and development program includes
$5,094,000 for the MSCP; an additional $4,000,000 will be contributed
by non-Federal entities.
CAWCD supports Reclamation's budget request for the Lower Colorado
River Operations Program. The increased funding level is necessary to
support the MSCP effort as well as environmental measures necessary to
fully implement the interim surplus criteria for the lower Colorado
River. Once reinstated, the interim surplus guidelines would allow the
Secretary of the Interior to declare limited Colorado River surpluses
through 2016 to assist California in gradually reducing its use of
Colorado River to its annual apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet.
These are both critical programs upon which Lower Colorado River water
and power users depend.
The MSCP is a cost-shared program among Federal and non-Federal
interests to develop a long-term plan to conserve endangered species
and their habitat along the Lower Colorado River from Lake Mead to
Mexico. CAWCD is one of the cost-sharing partners. Development of this
program will conserve hundreds of threatened and endangered species
and, at the same time, allow current water and power operation to
continue. CAWCD strongly supports Reclamation's budget request for
development and implementation of the MSCP.
colorado river basin salinity control project--title i
In its fiscal year 2004 budget request, Reclamation is requesting
$11,250,000 under the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project--
Title I. This program supports the operation of the Yuma Desalting
Plant (YDP), maintaining the U.S. Bypass Drain and the Mexico Bypass
Drain, and ensuring that Mexican Treaty salinity requirements are met.
Currently, Reclamation is not operating the YDP. Instead, Reclamation
is allowing all Wellton-Mohawk drainage water (over 100,000 acre-feet
per year) to bypass the YDP and flow to the Santa Clara Slough in
Mexico. These flows are in excess of Mexican Treaty requirements and
represent a significant depletion of the Colorado River water currently
in storage. Continuing this practice will eventually reduce the amount
of water available to the Central Arizona Project, the lowest priority
water user in the Colorado River basin, and increase the risk of future
shortages for CAP water users. The Colorado River system is now in its
fourth consecutive year of below normal runoff, and water levels in
Lake Powell and Lake Mead are at their lowest levels in 30 years. In
fact, water year 2002 was the lowest runoff year in recorded history on
the Colorado River. Reclamation's operation of the YDP would conserve
an additional 100,000 to 120,000 acre feet per year of Colorado River
water for use by the lower basin States. This amount is roughly equal
to the City of Phoenix's full annual entitlement to CAP water.
Reclamation acknowledges that the House of Representatives Report
accompanying the fiscal year 1995 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill directed Reclamation to maintain the YDP in such a
manner as to be capable of operating at one-third capacity with a 1-
year notice of funding. While the Plant was operated at one-third
capacity for a few months in 1992, it has not been operational at any
time since that test operation. Even though Congress has annually
appropriated several million dollars for Reclamation to maintain and
rehabilitate the YDP, Reclamation now states in a draft report recently
provided to CAWCD and other interested parties that it would require
$11 million for specific rehabilitation and modernization costs and 24
to 30 months to bring the YDP to operational readiness at one-third
capacity. An additional $15 million and an additional 12 to 24 months
would be needed to make the Plant fully operational. We request that
Reclamation be directed to bring the Plant to a state of readiness as
soon as possible. We believe that Reclamation can achieve one-third
operational capacity in 24 months within the funding limits currently
requested if it directs those monies toward that goal.
The $11,225,000 fiscal year 2004 budget request contains several
activities that could and should be stopped and those expenditures
directed toward making the plant operational using up-to-date
technology that will enhance both plant capacity and efficiency as well
as reduce operating cost:
--$751,000 of the request is listed as Water and Energy Management
and Development. It is further described as technology research
for lower cost operation of the YDP. All of this amount could
be dedicated to making the plant operational.
--$1,773,000 is listed as Facility Operations. While much of these
activities are directed toward Title I features other than the
YDP, part of the expenditures are for Pilot system operation
and research and testing of the Water Quality Improvement
Center. Some of these expenditures could be redirected to
making the plant operations.
--$5,524,000 is listed as Facilities Maintenance and Rehabilitation
and is further described as ``continuous efforts to ensure the
YDP can operate for treaty and other Federal requirements.''
Based on the activities described, essentially all of these
dollars could and should be directed to making the YDP
operational.
--$3,242,000 is described as being needed to continue a long term
program to bank water, to continue design deficiency
corrections, and to continue the YDP permitting and
environmental compliance process. There is no ongoing program
to bank water. Any water banking program would involve the
Interstate Water Banking program in Arizona. No such program is
planned in Arizona for YDP purposes. The other two activities
in this category already contribute to making the YDP
operational; therefore, all of these funds could and should be
directed toward making the plant operational.
A Reclamation analysis of Title I expenditure in 2001 indicates
less than $2,500,000 was spent for maintenance of facilities or
activities other than the YDP. That information and the analysis of the
$11,250,000 fiscal year 2004 funding requests demonstrates that
Reclamation could direct at least $8,000,000 of its fiscal year 2004
funding request toward making the YDP operational.
CAWCD welcomes this opportunity to share its views with the
Committee, and would be pleased to respond to any questions or
observations occasioned by this written testimony.
______
Letter From the Tumalo Irrigation District
March 28, 2003.
Honorable Pete V. Domenici,
Chair, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water,
SD-156 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Domenici: The Tumalo Irrigation District (TID) in
Bend, Oregon respectfully requests your support for inclusion of
$882,000 in the fiscal year 2004 Energy and Water appropriations bill
for the District's Bend Feed Canal Project. The 106th Congress
authorized the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the further
construction associated with the project in the amount of $2.5 million.
This amount would complete the Bureau's share of the project
construction funding.
The TID is proposing to continue and complete in this next fiscal
year construction to pipe a critical portion of our open canals,
essentially eliminating water loss and enhancing public safety along
the project's approximate 14,500 foot length. The conserved water would
be used to deliver enhanced water to the TID irrigators even in drought
years, as they currently receive inadequate water in 8 of 10 years. It
will also increase stream flows in Tumalo Creek and the Deschutes
River.
The TID Board of Directors has expressed its willingness to pay
their share of the estimated $5 million project cost of this important
project and have provided all of their share. We are concerned that no
funding for the project was requested by the administration in their
Fiscal Year 2004 Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation. Our request for
$882,000 for fiscal year 2004 would allow us to complete the project in
this next fiscal year which would benefit both the District and the
general public. We appreciate the previous funding that we have
received for work in this area and look forward to your favorable
consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Elmer McDaniels,
Manager.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
bureau of reclamation--fiscal year 2004 appropriation
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum's Recommendation:
--Title II Program Authorized in 1995 (Public Law 104-20)--
$17,500,000.
--General Investigation Funds--Adequate Funding.
--Operation and Maintenance--Adequate Funding.
This testimony is in support of funding for the Title II Colorado
River Basin salinity control program. Congress has designated the
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), to be
the lead agency for salinity control in the Colorado River Basin. This
role and the authorized program were refined and confirmed by the
Congress when Public Law 104-20 was enacted. A total of $17,500,000 is
requested for fiscal year 2004 to implement the needed and authorized
program. Failure to appropriate these funds will result in significant
economic damage in the United States and Mexico.
The President's request for funding for fiscal year 2004 is
$9,198,000 for this program. Studies have shown that implementation of
the program has fallen behind the needed pace to control salinity
concentrations. In previous years, the President has supported, and
Congress has funded, a program at about $12 million. In recent years,
the President's requests have dropped and this year's request, in the
judgement of the Forum, is inappropriately low. Water quality
commitments to downstream U.S. and Mexican water users must be honored
while the Basin States continue to develop their Compact apportioned
waters of the Colorado River. Concentrations of salts in the river
cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in the United States
and result in poorer quality water being delivered by the United States
to Mexico. For every 30 mg/l increase in salinity concentrations, there
is $75 million in additional damages in the United States. The Forum,
therefore, believes implementation of the program needs to be
accelerated to a level beyond that requested by the President.
The program authorized by the Congress in 1995 has proven to be
very successful and very cost effective. Proposals from the public and
private sector to implement salinity control strategies have far
exceeded the available funding and Reclamation has a backlog of
proposals. Reclamation continues to select the best and most cost-
effective proposals. Funds are available for the Colorado River Basin
States' cost sharing for the level of Federal funding requested by the
Forum. Water quality improvements accomplished under Title II of the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act also benefit the quality of
water delivered to Mexico. Although the United States has always met
the commitments of the International Boundary & Water Commission's
(Commission) Minute 242 to Mexico with respect to water quality, the
United States Section of the Commission is currently addressing
Mexico's request for better water quality at the International
Boundary.
Some of the most cost effective salinity control opportunities
occur when the USBR can improve irrigation delivery systems at the same
time that the USDA's program is working with landowners (irrigators) to
improve the on-farm irrigation systems. Through the newly authorized
USDA EQIP program, adequate on-farm funds appear to be available and
adequate USBR funds are needed to maximize the effectiveness of the
effort.
overview
In 2000, Congress reviewed the program as authorized in 1995.
Following hearings, and with administration support, the Congress
passed legislation that increased the ceiling authorized by this
program by $100 million. Reclamation has received cost-effective
proposals to move the program ahead and the Basin States have funds
available to cost-share up-front.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was authorized by
Congress in 1974. The Title I portion of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the United States
made, through Minute 242, to Mexico concerning the quality of water
being delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam. Title II of the Act
established a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado
River water users in the United States and to comply with the mandates
of the then newly legislated Clean Water Act. Initially, the Secretary
of the Interior and Reclamation were given the lead Federal role by the
Congress. This testimony is in support of adequate funding for the
Title II program.
After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the
Basin States concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be
amended. Congress revised the Act in 1984. That revision, while leaving
implementation of the salinity control policy with the Secretary of the
Interior, also gave new salinity control responsibilities to the
Department of Agriculture, and to the Bureau of Land Management.
Congress has charged the administration with implementing the most
cost-effective program practicable (measured in dollars per ton of salt
removed). The Basin States are strongly supportive of that concept as
the Basin States cost share 30 percent of Federal expenditures up-front
for the salinity control program, in addition to proceeding to
implement their own salinity control efforts in the Colorado River
Basin.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum has become the 7-State
coordinating body for interfacing with Federal agencies and Congress to
support the implementation of the program necessary to control the
salinity of the river system. In close cooperation with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and under requirements of the
Clean Water Act, every 3 years the Forum prepares a formal report
analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River, anticipated future
salinity, and the program necessary to keep the salinities under
control.
In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
the salinity levels measured at Imperial, and below Parker, and Hoover
Dams in 1972 have been identified as the numeric criteria. The plan
necessary for controlling salinity and to reduce downstream damages has
been captioned the ``plan of implementation.'' The 2002 Review of water
quality standards includes an updated plan of implementation. The level
of appropriation requested in this testimony is in keeping with the
agreed upon plan. If adequate funds are not appropriated, State and
Federal agencies involved are in agreement that damage from the higher
salt levels in the water will be more widespread in the United States
as well as Mexico and will be very significant.
justification
The $17,500,000 requested by the Forum on behalf of the seven
Colorado River Basin States is the level of funding necessary to
proceed with Reclamation's portion of the plan of implementation. In
July of 1995, Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act. The amended Act gives Reclamation new latitude and
flexibility in seeking the most cost-effective salinity control
opportunities, and it provides for utilization of proposals from
project proponents as well as more involvement from the private as well
as the public sector. The result is that salt loading is being
prevented at costs often less than half the cost under the previous
program. Congress recommitted its support to the revised program when
it enacted Public Law 106-459. The Basin States' cost sharing up-front
adds 43 cents for every Federal dollar appropriated. The federally
chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council,
created by the Congress in the Salinity Control Act, has met and
formally supports the requested level of funding. The Basin States urge
the subcommittee to support the funding as set forth in this testimony.
additional support of funding
In addition to the funding identified above for the implementation
of the most recently authorized program, the Salinity Control Forum
urges the Congress to appropriate necessary funds needed to continue to
maintain and operate salinity control facilities as they are completed
and placed into long-term operation. Reclamation has completed the
Paradox Valley unit which involves the collection of brines in the
Paradox Valley of Colorado and the injection of those brines into a
deep aquifer through an injection well. The continued operation of this
project and other completed projects will be funded through Operation
and Maintenance funds.
In addition, the Forum supports necessary funding to allow for
continued general investigation of the salinity control program. It is
important that Reclamation have planning staff in place, properly
funded, so that the progress of the program can be analyzed,
coordination between various Federal and State agencies can be
accomplished, and future projects and opportunities to control salinity
can be properly planned to maintain the water quality standards for
salinity so that the Basin States can continue to develop their
Compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado River.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and
Dry Prairie Rural Water
fiscal year 2004 budget request
The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and Dry Prairie Rural
Water respectfully request fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the
Bureau of Reclamation from the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development. Funds will be used to construct critical elements of the
Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System, Montana, (Public Law 106-382,
October 27, 2000). The amount requested is $14,486,000 as set out
below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri River Water Treatment Plant.................... $10,604,000
Fort Peck Electrical, Meters, Easements................. 650,000
Culbertson to Medicine Lake............................. 3,618,000
Dry Prairie P Electrical, Meters, Easements............. 635,000
---------------
Total............................................. 15,507,000
---------------
Federal................................................. 14,486,000
Non-Federal............................................. 1,021,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sponsor Tribes and Dry Prairie greatly appreciate the
appropriations from the subcommittee for fiscal year 2003 that have
permitted significant progress on the Missouri River intake and the
first phase of the Culbertson to Medicine Lake Project.
proposed activities
This project, which includes all of the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation in Montana and the Dry Prairie portion of the project
outside the Reservation, was authorized by Public Law 106-382, October
27, 2000. The request for fiscal year 2004 will begin the construction
of the Missouri River water treatment plant, which will require fiscal
year 2005 funds for completion. The request will also complete the
Culbertson to Medicine Lake Project, which was initiated in fiscal year
2003. The Master Plan on page 2 of the testimony shows the relationship
of the fiscal year 2004 request to the funds requested in fiscal year
2003 and the needs in fiscal year 2005.
MASTER PLAN--ASSINIBOINE SIOUX AND DRY PRAIRIE RWS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriated Funding Needs
Project Cost -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal Year
Segment (Oct. 2002) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2007-Fiscal
2002 Funds 2003 Funds 2004 2005 2006 Year 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assiniboine and Sioux RWS:
Intake.............................. $3,418,000 .............. $3,418,000 .............. .............. .............. $0
Missouri River Water Treatment Plant 19,861,000 .............. 464,000 $8,000,000 $11,397,000 .............. 0
Poplar to Big Muddy................. 25,583,000 .............. 0 .............. .............. $12,792,000 12,791,000
Highway 13 to FP Boundary........... 10,430,000 .............. 0 .............. .............. .............. 10,430,000
Poplar to Wolf Point................ 16,794,000 .............. 0 .............. .............. .............. 16,794,000
Wolf Point to Porcupine Ck.......... 28,539,000 .............. 0 .............. .............. .............. 28,539,000
FP OM Buildings..................... 1,050,000 .............. 0 .............. .............. .............. 1,050,000
Fort Peck Electrical, Meters, 4,414,000 .............. 0 490,000 490,000 490,000 2,944,000
Easements..........................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 110,089,000 $0 3,882,000 8,490,000 11,887,000 13,282,000 72,548,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning, Design, Admin:
Reclamation Oversight........... 4,634,000 295,000 154,000 465,000 465,000 465,000 2,790,000
Environmental Mitigation........ 579,000 0 0 64,000 64,000 64,000 387,000
Administration.................. 7,987,000 503,000 322,000 796,000 796,000 796,000 4,774,000
Easement Acquisition............ 3,104,000 0 0 345,000 345,000 345,000 2,069,000
Design.......................... 8,980,000 2,237,000 500,000 500,000 829,000 911,000 4,003,000
Inspection...................... 8,109,000 0 272,000 594,000 832,000 930,000 5,481,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal...................... 33,393,000 3,035,000 1,248,000 2,764,000 3,331,000 3,511,000 19,504,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 143,482,000 3,035,000 5,130,000 11,254,000 15,218,000 16,793,000 92,052,000
===============================================================================================================
Dry Prairie RWS:
Big Muddy to Plentywood:
Culbertson to Medicine Lake..... 4,630,000 .............. 2,265,000 2,365,000 .............. .............. 0
Remaining....................... 17,289,000 .............. 0 0 2,000,000 5,096,000 10,193,000
FP Boundary to Scobey............... 4,540,000 .............. 0 0 .............. .............. 4,540,000
Scobey to Plentywood................ 11,097,000 .............. 0 0 .............. .............. 11,097,000
Scobey to Opheim.................... 8,962,000 .............. 0 0 .............. .............. 8,962,000
Porcupine Creek to Glasgow.......... 4,370,000 .............. 0 0 .............. .............. 4,370,000
Glasgow to Opheim................... 3,955,000 .............. 0 0 .............. .............. 3,955,000
DP OM Buildings..................... 525,000 .............. 0 0 .............. .............. 525,000
Dry Prairie P Electrical, Meters, 3,732,000 .............. 0 415,000 415,000 415,000 2,487,000
Easements..........................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 59,100,000 0 2,265,000 2,780,000 2,415,000 5,511,000 46,129,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning, Design, Admin:
Reclamation Oversight........... 2,497,000 85,000 63,000 261,000 261,000 261,000 1,566,000
Environmental Mitigation........ 313,000 6,000 20,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 191,000
Administration.................. 4,675,000 121,000 132,000 491,000 491,000 491,000 2,949,000
Easement Acquisition............ 899,000 31,000 26,000 94,000 94,000 94,000 560,000
Design.......................... 4,838,000 342,000 100,000 350,000 427,000 427,000 3,192,000
Inspection...................... 4,369,000 .............. 170,000 245,000 219,000 386,000 3,349,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal...................... 17,591,000 585,000 511,000 1,473,000 1,524,000 1,691,000 11,807,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 76,691,000 585,000 2,776,000 4,253,000 3,939,000 7,202,000 57,936,000
===============================================================================================================
Total......................... 220,173,000 3,620,000 7,906,000 15,507,000 19,157,000 23,995,000 149,988,000
===============================================================================================================
Federal................................. 201,767,000 3,480,000 7,240,000 14,486,000 18,212,000 22,267,000 136,083,000
Non-Federal............................. 18,406,000 140,000 666,000 1,021,000 945,000 1,728,000 13,905,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL....................... 220,173,000 3,620,000 7,906,000 15,507,000 19,157,000 23,995,000 149,988,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The project also has the capability to build the first portion of
the pipeline leaving the water treatment plant. The section will be
east of the water treatment plant and will serve the community of
Poplar, headquarters community for the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes.
Construction is scheduled to start in fiscal year 2006. This will also
provide a source of water for a section of the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation contaminated by oil drilling operations and the subject of
EPA orders to the non-Tribal oil company responsible. The oil company
will provide the distribution system necessary to mitigate the problems
and the Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water System will provide the
interconnecting pipeline without duplicating any facilities identified
in the Final Engineering Report. This is an exigent circumstance that
will be corrected by the project in fiscal year 2006. No funds are
requested for fiscal year 2004 for this project even though design will
be complete.
The Dry Prairie rural water system will finish the facilities
necessary to bring water supplies from an existing treatment plant on
the Missouri River at Culbertson to Medicine Lake where the existing
water treatment is inoperable. The system to be completed in fiscal
year 2004 will also provide the capability to connect to Dane Valley
residents. The Dane Valley project will rely on fiscal year 2005 and
fiscal year 2006 funds to mitigate costs of hauling water so prevalent
there. The budget request is consistent with the Master Plan on the
previous page as approved by the Bureau of Reclamation.
status of project design
The Final Engineering Report (FER), water conservation plan and
Finding of No Significant Impact were completed in fiscal year 2002.
The FER was delivered to OMB in May 2002 and was released to the
Department of Interior for review and delivery to Congress in March
2003. The requirement to reside with Congress for 90 days will expire
at the end of July 2003. Design is nearing completion or is completed
for the Missouri River intake and the Culbertson to Medicine Lake
Project. Those projects will commence construction in July/August 2003.
Design of the water treatment plant will end in late fiscal year
2003 or early fiscal year 2004. The design of the lagoons at the water
treatment plant and the site landscaping will be completed in third-
quarter fiscal year 2003, and construction of these preliminary
facilities will begin in late fiscal year 2003.
Design of the Poplar to Big Muddy pipeline is well advanced and can
be completed to utilize first quarter fiscal year 2004 funds, but the
appropriation requirements to undertake this pipeline construction in
combination with the water treatment plant were considered too great to
include in the funding request. Therefore, construction of this
pipeline will depend on the availability of funds not currently
identified in fiscal year 2004 or fiscal year 2005 or as programmed in
fiscal year 2006 in the master plan presented above. The discussion of
this pipeline is intended to demonstrate the capability of the project
to use funds prior to fiscal year 2006 if funding were available.
Similarly, the design of the branches that will serve rural
residents between Culbertson and Medicine Lake can be concluded in time
to utilize fiscal year 2004 or fiscal year 2005 funds, and the
discussion is intended to demonstrate capability to use funding if it
were available.
local project support
The Fort Peck Tribes have supported the project since 1992 when
they conceived it and sought means of improving the quality of life in
the region. The planning was a logical step after successful completion
of an historic water rights compact with the State of Montana. This
compact was the national ``ice breaker'' that increased the level of
confidence by other Tribes in Indian water right settlement
initiatives. The Tribes did not seek financial compensation for the
settlement of their water rights but contemplated water development for
meaningful projects as now authorized.
The 1999 Montana Legislature approved a funding mechanism from its
Treasure State Endowment Program to finance the non-Federal share of
project planning and construction. Demonstrating support of Montana for
the project, there were only three votes against the statutory funding
mechanism in both the full House and Senate. The 2001 and 2003 Montana
Legislatures have provided all requirements of the non-Federal cost
share.
Dry Prairie support is demonstrated by a financial commitment of
all 14 communities within the service area to participate in the
project. Rural support is strong, with about 70 percent of area farms
and ranches intending to participate as evidenced by their intent fees
of $100 per household.
need for water quality improvement
The Fort Peck Indian Reservation was designated as an ``Enterprise
Community'' during the previous administration, underscoring the level
of poverty and need for economic development in the region. The success
of the economic development within the Reservation will be
significantly enhanced by the availability of higher quality, safe and
more ample municipal, rural and industrial water supplies that this
regional project will bring to the Reservation, made more necessary by
an extended drought in the region. Outside the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation, the Dry Prairie area has income levels that are higher
than within the Reservation but lower than the State average.
The feature of this project that makes it more cost effective than
similar projects is its proximity to the Missouri River. The southern
boundary of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is formed by the Missouri
River for a distance of more than 60 miles. Many of the towns in this
regional project are located 2 to 3 miles from the river, including
Nashua, Frazer, Oswego, Wolf Point, Poplar, Brockton, Culbertson, and
Bainville. As shown on the enclosed project map, a looping transmission
system outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation will deliver water 30
to 40 miles north of the Missouri River. Therefore, the distances from
the Missouri River to all points in the main transmission system are
shorter than in other projects of this nature in the Northern Great
Plains.
administration's budget for fiscal year 2004
The administration's budget for fiscal year 2004 contained serious
errors in analysis when it included the Fort Peck Reservation Rural
Water System with other rural water projects that were characterized as
follows:
``. . . many projects are currently developed by local sponsors
without agency involvement and submitted to Congress for authorization.
Agency involvement is necessary to ensure that all options to
efficiently and effectively meet local needs are considered. The lack
of agency involvement during project development may result in a
project that is not in the local interest . . .''.
The Tribes and Dry Prairie worked extremely well and closely with
the Bureau of Reclamation prior to and following the authorization of
this project in fiscal year 2000. The Bureau of Reclamation reviewed
and commented on the Final Engineering Report for the project, and
comments were either incorporated into the report or agreement was
reached on final presentation. The Commissioner, Regional and Area
Offices of the Bureau of Reclamation were consistently in full
agreement with the need, scope, total costs, and the ability to pay
analysis that supported the Federal and non-Federal cost shares. All of
these items were thoroughly and formally reviewed in writing by the
Bureau of Reclamation and there were no areas of disagreement or
controversy in the final formulation of the project. Bureau of
Reclamation testimony during the authorization phase fully supported
the project within the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and opposed any
Federal participation in the costs of the project outside the Fort Peck
Indian Reservation, as a matter of policy, but Congress addressed that
issue in Public Law 106-382.
The Bureau of Reclamation collaborated with the Tribes and Dry
Prairie to conduct and complete value engineering investigations of the
Final Engineering Report (planning), the Culbertson to Medicine Lake
pipeline (design), the Poplar to Big Muddy River pipeline (design), the
Missouri River intake (design) and (during the week of March 31, 2003)
on the regional water treatment plant (design). Each of these
considerable efforts has been directed at ways to save construction and
future operation, maintenance and replacement costs as planning and
design have proceeded. Agreement with Reclamation has been reached in
all value engineering sessions on steps to take to save Federal and
non-Federal costs in the project.
Cooperative agreements have been developed and executed from the
beginning phases to date between the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Tribes and between Bureau of Reclamation and Dry Prairie. Those
cooperative agreements carefully set out goals, standards and
responsibilities of the parties for planning, design and construction.
All plans and specifications are subject to levels of review by the
Bureau of Reclamation pursuant to the cooperative agreements. The
sponsors do not have the power to undertake activities that are not
subject to oversight and approval by the Bureau of Reclamation. Each
year the Tribes and Dry Prairie are required by the cooperative
agreements to develop a work plan setting out the planning, design and
construction activities and the allocation of finding to be utilized on
each project feature.
Clearly, the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System does not fall
into the category of concern expressed in the fiscal year 2004 budget
by the Bureau of Reclamation. This project has been authorized by
Congress with a plan formulated in full cooperation and collaboration
with the Bureau of Reclamation, and major project features will be
under construction in fiscal year 2003. The project sponsors are
disappointed that the fiscal year 2004 budget did not include a
significant level of funding for the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water
System in a year in which the overall budget for Reclamation increased
by more than 6 percent. The sponsors are similarly disappointed that
narrative in the report improperly characterized the planning, design
and construction history of this project.
______
Letter From the Wyoming Water Association
Cheyenne, WY, June 2, 2003.
The Honorable Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman,
The Honorable Harry Reid,
Ranking Minority Member,
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, Committee on Appropriations,
United States Senate, 129 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid: The Wyoming Water
Association is writing to request your support for an appropriation in
fiscal year 2004 of $6,915,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado River Region. The President's
recommended budget for fiscal year 2004 includes this line-item amount.
The Association respectfully requests the designation of $5,479,000 for
the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $851,000 for
the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, $535,000 for
Fish and Wildlife Management and Development and $50,000 for Water and
Energy Management and Development.
The objectives of the Wyoming Water Association are to promote the
development, conservation, and utilization of the water resources of
Wyoming for the benefit of Wyoming people. Since 1932, the Wyoming
Water Association has served the interests of Wyoming's water users.
With changing and growing demands on Wyoming's limited water resources,
complicated by an increasingly complex overlay of Federal laws and
regulations, management and development challenges and conflicts
continue to become more numerous. The Association maintains an active
role in supporting the State of Wyoming's efforts to put Wyoming water
to use for Wyoming's citizens.
These ongoing, highly successful, cooperative programs involving
the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes,
Federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests have as
their objective recovering endangered fish species while water
development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act of
1973. They reflect the proper approach to providing endangered species
conservation and recovery within the framework of the existing Federal
Endangered Species Act, while concurrently resolving critical conflicts
between endangered species recovery and the development and use of
Compact-apportioned water resources in the Upper Colorado River Basin
region of the Intermountain West.
The requested fiscal year 2004 appropriation will allow
construction of fish passage at the Grand Valley Project and Price-
Stubb diversion dams on the Colorado River near Grand Junction,
Colorado, providing access to an additional 50 miles of historic
habitat upstream of these dams. Floodplain restoration activities,
including levee removal and obtaining conservation easements will
continue at high-priority sites and is especially important for the
survival of the razorback sucker species. Screening of existing
diversion canals, including those of the Redlands Water and Power
Company and Grand Valley Project, will be accomplished with the
requested funding. Screens are needed to prevent endangered fish from
being drawn out of the river and into the canals and power plant
intakes at these facilities. The requested funding for the San Juan
River Recovery Program will be used to design a fish passage at the
Arizona Public Service weir and initiate floodplain restoration for
razorback sucker in that Basin.
Substantial non-Federal cost sharing funds are provided by the four
States, power users, and water users in support of these recovery
programs. Public Law 106-392, as amended by Public Law 107-375,
authorized the Federal Government to provide up to $46 million of cost
sharing for these two ongoing recovery programs' remaining capital
construction projects. The four participating States are contributing
$17 million and $17 million is being contributed from revenues derived
from the sale of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) hydroelectric
power. Additional hatchery facilities to produce endangered fish for
stocking, restoring floodplain habitat and fish passage, regulating and
supplying instream habitat flows, installing diversion canal screens to
prevent fish entrapment and controlling nonnative fish populations are
key components of the capital construction efforts. These facts
demonstrate the strong commitment and effective partnerships that are
present in both of these successful programs.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs.
The Wyoming Water Association gratefully thanks you for that support
and request the subcommittee's assistance relative to fiscal year 2004
funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation in these vitally important programs.
Sincerely,
John W. Shields,
Executive Secretary.
______
Prepared Statement of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe
fiscal year 2004 budget request
The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe respectfully requests fiscal year 2004
appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation from the subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development. Funds will be used to construct the
urgently needed pipeline from Fort Thompson to Stephan. Planning
studies for the project (Special Study, environmental assessment, and
water conservation plan) back up the request. The project has been
supported by the subcommittee since fiscal year 1995.
The amount requested for fiscal year 2004 is $6,824,000 as set out
below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Thompson to Stephan Emergency Project.............. $5,536,000
Reclamation Oversight................................... 208,000
Environmental Mitigation................................ 42,000
Administration.......................................... 637,000
Design and Investigations............................... 401,000
Inspection.............................................. 277,000
---------------
Total............................................. 6,824,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
proposed activities
The request for funds in fiscal year 2004 is for construction of
the urgently needed pipeline system between Fort Thompson and Stephan
on the Crow Creek Indian Reservation. Fort Thompson is on the Missouri
River near Big Bend Dam and has an intake and water treatment plant
capable of serving the entire Crow Creek Indian Reservation with high-
quality water. Stephan is a community 14 miles north of Fort Thompson
and the home of a regional Indian high school within inadequate and
extremely poor water quality. The pipeline system between Fort Thompson
and Stephan will be constructed with sufficient capacity to serve rural
households along the route and to extend the system in future years to
the Big Bend community, all part of the implementation of a
comprehensive system on the Reservation. This is not a new project but
one that has been in development for more than 8 years with oversight
by the Bureau of Reclamation and periodic line-item appropriations by
Congress.
exigent conditions
There is a need to construct facilities to distribute Missouri
River water and improve water quality throughout the Crow Creek Indian
Reservation. This action will reduce health risks to the membership of
the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and other residents of the Reservation. With
the exception of the community of Fort Thompson, water supplies and
water quality are deplorable throughout the Reservation.
There is an immediate need to extend pipelines from Fort Thompson
to the community and day school at Stephan where water quality is
extremely poor, and existing wells are limited in capacity. Efforts
last year to drill new wells to replace failing wells of very poor
quality were not successful. The new wells also fail to produce an
adequate water supply, and there was no improvement of the exceedingly
for water quality. The school at Stephan provides for over 200
students. Staff and teachers reside at the school. Reliance for
drinking water has been placed on bottled water, and fire protection is
inadequate given the current lack of supply.
Inspired by efforts of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, including the
planning for the Reservation municipal, rural and industrial water
system, the water treatment facilities at Fort Thompson have been
improved with microfilters that produce high quality water for
residents of the community. The new water treatment facilities are
incorporated as a part of the Reservation-wide project and, with
construction of necessary pipelines, will permit delivery of high-
quality water north to Stephan.
The need for the Reservation-wide project is underscored by the
population increases documented by the 2000 census. Our planning had
projected population increases on the Reservation from 1990 to 2000 at
a rate of 14.3 percent. The actual rate of growth experienced in the
last decade was 26.7 percent, significantly greater than what was
believed to be a liberal projection made from the 1990 census.
The subcommittee is respectfully requested to carefully consider
the Tribe's needs and provide the necessary funding to complete this
emergency project.
project construction costs and recommended project alternative
Costs of reservation-wide alternatives, including construction
contracts and non-contract costs, range from $15,403,000 (Alternatives
b, d and e) to $17,853,000 (Alternative a) in October 1998 dollars.
Based on the least cost scenario considering all life-cycle costs
and the Tribe's desire for self-determination, the Tribe's preferred
project alternative is Alternative a ($17,853,000): source of water on
Lake Sharpe near Fort Thompson, constructed, operated, maintained and
replaced by the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. Environmental factors, such as
cultural and historic resources, and identifiable impacts on physical
and biological resources are not significantly different between
alternatives.
Five alternatives for developing the project were:
--A project constructed, operated, maintained and replaced by the
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and meeting all needs through year 2030
within the Crow Creek Indian Reservation. Source of water would
be the Missouri River with modifications to the existing intake
and water treatment plant at Fort Thompson.
--A project constructed, operated, maintained and replaced by the
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and meeting all needs through year 2030
within the Crow Creek Indian Reservation. Source water would be
the Missouri River from the intake and water treatment plant
constructed by Mid-Dakota on Lake Oahe. The reservation system
would be connected to the Mid-Dakota system along the northern
and eastern borders of the reservation. Mid-Dakota would sell
water to the Tribe as a bulk user.
--A project constructed, operated, maintained and replaced by the
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe to service the Fort Thompson and Crow
Creek community areas, and rural areas in between, from intake
and water treatment plant at Fort Thompson. The balance of the
project would be constructed, operated and maintained by Mid-
Dakota with water supply from the Mid-Dakota intake and water
treatment plant.
--A project constructed, operated, maintained and replaced
exclusively by Mid-Dakota to service the entire reservation
with water supply from the Mid-Dakota intake and water
treatment plant.
--A project constructed by Mid-Dakota throughout the reservation and
operated, maintained and replaced by the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe
with water supply from the Mid-Dakota intake and water
treatment plant.
future operation, maintenance and replacement (omr) costs
Future operation, maintenance and replacement costs, including
staff, equipment, electricity, chemicals and all other materials
necessary for repair and replacement, have an estimated range in cost
from $597,195 (Alternative a) to $826,185 (Alternatives b, d and e).
present value of net costs
Net costs were estimated as the present value of the costs of
construction and OMR less the off-setting value of construction and OMR
earnings by members of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, an under-employed
labor force. Present value of net costs ranges from $15,348,180
(Alternative a) to $22,673,000 (Alternatives d and e).
construction schedule
A construction schedule beginning in fiscal year 2003 and ending in
fiscal year 2006 is proposed. Construction and non-contract employment
would provide 131 full-time equivalent man years of employment. Annual
levels of funding needs would range from $2,135,000 in fiscal year 2003
to $6,736,000 in fiscal year 2005.
environmental factors
Pipelines proposed for the project range from 1.5 to 12 inches in
diameter and have lengths ranging from 269.8 miles (Alternative c) to
276.4 miles (Alternative a). From five to seven pump stations with
horsepower ranging from 103.0 to 164.5 are representative of the
alternatives. From six to eight reservoirs with up to 495,000 gallons
of capacity are proposed. Future population growth will require
approximately 5 acres of new wastewater lagoons by year 2030.
Approximately 70 wetlands will be crossed by the project on the
basis of the current layout, which will be modified in later designs to
avoid wetlands. As many as 31 perennial stream crossings will be made.
Nearly 43 miles of prime farmlands will be crossed by pipelines where
most of the farmlands are defined as ``prime'' if irrigated in the
future. Approximately 23 miles of unstable soils will be crossed. Up to
134 miles of trust lands (slightly less than 50 percent of the total)
will be crossed by pipelines.
An Environmental Assessment and a class I cultural resource
inventory and descriptive report have been prepared.
population
The population of the Crow Creek Indian Reservation in the 2000
census was 2,225 persons: 2,074 Indian persons and 251 non-Indian
persons. Based on the rate of growth in the Indian and non-Indian
population over the past several decades, year 2030 population
estimates were made resulting in a future population of 3,417. These
estimates recognize a relatively high growth rate within the Indian
population and out-migration by non-Indians.
income and employment
Median household income in 2000 on the Crow Creek Indian
Reservation averaged $12,070 (down from $12,763 in 1990) as contrasted
with an average for the State of South Dakota of $35,282 (up from
$22,503 in 1990). The Indian labor force on the reservation represented
55.7 percent of the population over 16 years of age, and 21.6 percent
were unemployed. Across the State of South Dakota, 68.4 percent of the
population was in the labor force, and 3.0 percent were unemployed.
Income levels on the reservation are extremely low, and unemployment is
extremely high. The percentage of families below poverty level in the
2000 census was 56.5 percent on the Reservation and 9.3 percent in
South Dakota. (Note: the reporting is from the Special Study, which is
being modified in detail, but not substance.)
______
Prepared Statement of the Jicarilla Apache Nation
The Jicarilla Apache Nation respectfully requests $5 to $8 million
in the fiscal year 2004 appropriations cycle to begin construction on
the water delivery and wastewater infrastructure improvement project
authorized by Title VIII of Public Law 107-331, December 13, 2002 (The
Jicarilla Apache Reservation Rural Water System Act). This law
authorized a $45 million project to repair and replace the dilapidated
federally owned water delivery and waste water system that serves the
Jicarilla Apache Reservation in north-central New Mexico.
authorizing legislation
The Jicarilla Apache Reservation Rural Water System Act was
introduced by Representative Tom Udall (D-NM) along with the other New
Mexico Congressional Representatives Joe Skeen and Heather Wilson, as
original co-sponsors, and including 12 additional co-sponsors. Senators
Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) supported and guided the
legislation through the Senate. The purpose of the Act is to ensure a
safe and adequate water supply for the citizens of the Jicarilla Apache
Reservation, and authorizes the Department of the Interior, through the
Bureau of Reclamation (BoR), and the Nation to plan, design and
construct a safe and adequate water system utilizing Public Law 93-638
contracting authority. The Act requires the Secretary of the Department
of the Interior to enter a Public Law 93-628 contract with the Nation
with the ultimate goal of the Nation assuming title and responsibility
of operating and maintaining the system. The Act authorizes
appropriations in the amount of $45,000,000 for the construction of the
water system.
background
The existing water and wastewater facilities on the Jicarilla
Apache Reservation are held in trust by the United States Department of
the Interior and operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
Jicarilla Agency staff. The initial water supply system was erected in
the early 1900's in the community of Dulce primarily to serve the BIA
operations and facilities. The source of the community's water supply
is the Navajo River located about a mile from Dulce.
Over the years, random and ad hoc connections and expansions have
been made to the system, and without adequate upkeep and substantial
improvements, it has deteriorated and become over utilized. The public
water system does not adequately and safely serve the existing and
future growth needs of the Nation. Moreover, the system's deteriorated
state created serious public health problems. Jicarilla members are
experiencing high incidences of internal organ diseases affecting the
liver, kidneys and stomach. The diseases are suspected to be related to
the poor condition of the drinking water distribution system and
inadequate treatment of wastewater. The resulting pollution released
from non-compliant sewage ponds has creating public health hazards for
families and communities within and well beyond the Nation's borders.
The Nation has delayed important community improvement efforts,
including the construction of much needed housing and the replacement
of deteriorating public healthcare facilities and tribal administrative
offices due to the lack of a modern waste water treatment facility.
In the 1990's, the Nation began assessing the feasibility of
assuming ownership and operation of the systems and commissioned
studies to assess their condition. The findings indicated it would cost
$25 million to bring the systems into compliance with Federal water
quality standards. This investment did not, however, include community
expansion needs.
These dire conditions escalated in October of 1998, when the
drinking water diversion system on the Navajo River failed leaving the
community without water for 6 days. With no funding from BIA or other
Federal programs, the Nation was compelled to expend $5 million on an
emergency basis to replace the water treatment plant and associated
facilities in 1999.
legislative approach
The magnitude of the infrastructure issues couple with the BIA's
inability to comprehensively address the scope of the problems
associated with their systems left the Tribal leadership with no
alternative but to take the lead to resolve these issues. The Nation
approached the BoR and learned that legislation would be needed to
authorize BoR to conduct a Feasibility Study to determine the most
feasible method of developing a safe and adequate municipal, rural, and
industrial water supply for the Jicarilla Apache Reservation. The
Nation working with the New Mexico Congressional Delegation pursued
such legislation, and on July 10, 2000, the President signed into law
Public Law 106-243 which directed the Secretary of the Interior to work
in cooperation with the Jicarilla Apache Nation in conducting the
Feasibility Study. The statute also authorized $200,000 for the
completion of the study.
In September 2001, BoR, in cooperation with the Nation completed
the feasibility study and report, entitled ``Municipal Water and
Wastewater Systems Improvement, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Dulce, New
Mexico, Planning Report/Environmental Assessment.'' The report
recommended that none of the older existing pipelines be salvaged due
to age and size and that an estimated $35 million was needed to
adequately replace existing deteriorated facilities and to build a new
conventional wastewater treatment plant to treat water to Federal
discharge standards, eliminate the serious odor problem permeating the
community, and enhance the community's water supply. The report
recommended an additional $10 million to address environmental and
public health needs and to meet long-term growth and economic
development needs of the Jicarilla Apache Nation, for a total project
cost of $45 million.
tribal contributions to the project
After discovering the Federal programs and funding sources were
limited to solve even the immediate capacity problems and public health
concerns, the Nation was compelled to fund several projects beginning
in 1998.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects Tribal Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies and Engineering................................. $450,000
Water Treatment Plant................................... 2,730,000
Water Storage and Distribution.......................... 2,240,000
Mundo Development Infrastructure (completed by 2003).... 2,250,000
Wastewater Design and Initial Construction.............. 6,000,000
---------------
Total Tribal Investment........................... 14,670,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a percentage basis, this investment would amount to nearly 25
percent of total project costs, if what the Nation has already funded
($14.6 million) is added to the Federal portion being requested ($45
million). The Nation recently committed an additional $6 million to
begin construction on the new wastewater treatment plant because the
current situation is so extreme and requires immediate action. The
total project cost is broken listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace existing water system facilities................ $18,500,000
Replace existing waste water system facilities.......... 18,640,000
Total to replace existing water/wastewater systems...... 35,140,000
Provide wastewater facilities to areas not served....... 2,800,000
Total to replace existing water/wastewater facilities 35,140,000
for all existing development...........................
Water system facilities to the expansion area (known as 3,550,000
``Mundo Ranch'').......................................
Wastewater system facilities to the Mundo ranch......... 3,550,000
Total for water/wastewater facilities for Mundo ranch... 7,100,000
---------------
TOTAL PROJECT COST................................ 45,040,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the Nation is making the commitment to assume title to
the facilities and to operate these facilities in perpetuity once
constructed to Federal standards. This is a significant Federal benefit
as it alleviates the Federal liability in the operation of a
substandard system and shifts the costs of operations, maintenance and
replacement of these facilities to the Nation. It is estimated by the
O,M&R portion of the report, that it will cost approximately $750,000
per year to adequately operate and maintain these facilities. The
Federal investment would be protected under tribal management as BIA
funding for this purpose has been significantly cut over the years
resulting in the current conditions that exist today. The present value
of this cost over a 50-year project life at a 6 percent financing rate
is $12 million.
current status
In addition to the funding for the Feasibility Report, Senator
Domenici was instrumental in securing $2.5 million for final design
work and to prepare for the initiation of construction. Accordingly,
the Nation has entered into a Self-Determination Act (Public Law 93-
638) Construction Assistance Agreement on September 2002 with the
Bureau of Reclamation. As of April 15, 2003, the Nation has met all
conditions and requirements of this Agreement and has prepared final
plans and specifications to construct approximately $2.3 million in
water and wastewater infrastructure critical to its needs.
Advertisement for bids is scheduled for April 30th and construction is
scheduled to begin June 15. Completion of this phase will coincide with
completion of a wastewater treatment facility currently under
construction with tribal funds scheduled for operations in January
2004.
use of appropriations in fiscal year 2004
The Nation is prepared to begin final design work for the next
phase of construction upon notification of funding availability. A
design-build approach will be utilized to expedite construction and the
Nation has management capacity for up to $10 million for fiscal year
2004. Features that would be constructed are the raw water pumping
station and related pipeline, water distribution and wastewater
collection facilities in the southwest portion of the community and
similar features at the Mundo Ranch development. These components were
thoroughly studied and assessed in the Feasibility Report and would be
constructed accordingly.
conclusion
By authorizing this project, Congress provided a mechanism for the
United States to meet its trust responsibility to the Nation by
providing adequate water and wastewater infrastructure to protect and
advance the health, safety and welfare of the Jicarilla people. The
Nation, in cooperation with Reclamation and with the assistance of
Congress, has demonstrated the poor condition that these facilities are
in and have exposed the risk facing the Bureau of Indian Affairs as it
continues to operate these facilities in their current condition. The
Nation has demonstrated our resolve in improving conditions for our
people by investing nearly $15 million in infrastructure of our own
financial resources even though we believe strongly that the United
States has failed in providing these services as part of its trust
responsibility to the Nation.
In sum, the Jicarilla Apache Nation is suffering premature deaths,
community members are subject to continuing health hazards, and
community development is blocked by the Department of the Interior's
failure to maintain and modernize the public water system that it
established and undertook to operate on the Reservation. Interior has
asked the Jicarilla Apache Nation to take over the operation of the
public water system, and as a Tribal Government we are willing to take
over the operation of a safe and sound public water system. But before
we will take over the operation, Interior must fix the health hazard
that it has created. Therefore, we respectfully request the Committee
to appropriate $5 to $8 million in fiscal year 2004 to begin
construction of this project.
______
Prepared Statement of the Mid-Dakota Project
First let me thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
in support of the fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the Mid-Dakota
Rural Water Project and for the Subcommittee's support both past and
present.
The Mid-Dakota Project is requesting $23.869 million in Federal
appropriations for fiscal year 2004. As with our past submissions to
this subcommittee, Mid-Dakota's fiscal year 2004 request is based on a
detailed analysis of our ability to proceed with construction during
the fiscal year. In all previous years, Mid-Dakota has fully obligated
its appropriated funds, including Federal, State, and local, and could
have obligated significantly more were they available.
tentative fiscal year 2004 construction schedule \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Project features listed in table are subject to rescheduling
based upon funding provided and readiness to proceed and other factors.
Actual construction activities, therefore, may not coincide exactly
with schedule presented here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed construction would provide service to an estimated
14,000 more people than are currently receiving or scheduled to receive
Project drinking water (estimate includes the City of Huron, SD). Our
construction schedule will also provide the necessary pipeline
infrastructure to move forward with many more rural and community
connections in the future.
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER SYSTEM STATEMENT OF CAPABILITIES--FISCAL YEAR 2004 (OCTOBER 2003 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2004)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection
Construction Percent of Engineering Subtotals
Construction and Legal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100--Source and Intake (percent)................ .............. 12 10 ..............
200--Water Treatment (percent).................. .............. 0 0 ..............
Huron--Constructed MD Facilities............ $150,000 .............. .............. $150,000
Huron--Improvements & Assistance............ $100,000 .............. .............. $100,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotals................................. .............. .............. .............. $250,000
===============================================================
300--Main Transmission Pipeline (percent)....... .............. 8 8 ..............
Pumping Stations............................ $1,384,547 $110,764 $110,764 $1,606,075
3-3D Cathodic Protection System............. $142,800 $11,424 $11,424 $165,648
Increase Collins Slough BPS................. $884,660 $6,773 $6,773 $98,206
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotals................................. $1,612,007 $128,961 $128,961 $1,869,928
===============================================================
400--Distribution Pipeline (percent)............ .............. 6 6 ..............
Highmore East............................... $1,232,480 $73,949 $73,949 $1,380,378
Wolsey...................................... $7,737,224 $464,233 $464,233 $8,665,691
Staum Dam................................... $1,833,409 $110,005 $110,005 $2,053,418
Redfield East............................... $376,839 $22,610 $22,610 $422,060
Improve West Canning Service Area........... $207,050 $12,423 $12,423 $231,896
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotals................................. $11,387,002 $683,220 $683,220 $12,753,442
===============================================================
500--Water Storage (percent).................... .............. 12 6 ..............
Wolsey...................................... $2,050,000 $246,000 $123,000 $2,419,000
Staum Dam................................... $510,000 $61,200 $30,600 $601,800
Pearl Creek................................. $510,000 $61,200 $30,600 $601,800
Redfield.................................... $430,000 $51,600 $25,800 $507,400
Huron-Water Storage Tank Cost Share......... $600,000 .............. .............. $600,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotals................................. $4,100,000 $420,000 $210,000 $4,730,000
===============================================================
SCADA and Controls (percent).................... .............. 12 .............. ..............
Controls and SCADA System................... $509,925 $40,794 $40,794 $591,513
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotals................................. $509,925 $40,794 $40,794 $591,513
===============================================================
$17,858,934 $1,272,975 $1,062,975 $20,194,883
===============================================================
Administration and General as a percent of .............. .............. .............. $535,768
Construction--3.0 percent......................
Bur. of Rec. oversight as a percent of .............. .............. .............. $535,768
Construction--3.0 percent......................
Contingencies as a Percent of Construction...... .............. .............. .............. $1,785,893
---------------
TOTAL RURAL WATER SYSTEM CAPABILITIES-- .............. .............. .............. $23,052,313
FISCAL YEAR 2004.........................
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT COMPONENT REQUEST--FISCAL .............. .............. .............. $817,117
YEAR 2004......................................
---------------
TOTAL RURAL WATER AND WETLAND CAPABILITY-- .............. .............. .............. $23,869,430
FISCAL YEAR 2004.........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
impacts of fiscal year 2004 award
The most obvious impact of any significant reduction from Mid-
Dakota's request will be the delay of construction of one or more
Project components. The $23.869 million request will allow the Project
to proceed with construction of multiple contracts summarized later in
this testimony. An award of less than our request will result in the
deletion or reconfiguration of one or more of these contracts from the
fiscal year 2004 construction schedule. Further, reduced appropriations
have the effect of adding more cost to the amount needed for completion
of the Project.
history of project funding
The Project was authorized by Congress and signed into law by
President George H.W. Bush in October 1992. The Federal authorization
for the project totaled $100 million (1989 dollars) in a combination of
Federal grant and loan funds (grant funds may not exceed 85 percent of
Federal contribution). The State authorization was for $8.4 million
(1989 dollars). A breakdown of Project cost ceilings are as follows:
PROJECT COST CEILINGS (FISCAL YEAR 2004)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Ceiling......................................... $140,279,000
State Ceiling........................................... 9,670,000
---------------
Subtotal Rural Water System....................... 149,949,000
Wetland Enhancement Component........................... 2,756,000
---------------
Total Project Cost Ceiling........................ 152,705,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total authorized indexed cost of the project is approximately
$152.705 million (fiscal year 2004). All Federal funding considered,
the Government has provided 80 percent of its commitment ($114.135 \2\
million of $143.035 million) to provide construction funding for the
Project. When considering the Federal and State combined awards, the
project is approximately 81 percent complete, in terms of financial
commitments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Includes $17.860 million appropriated in fiscal year 2003, but
does not include Agency ``underfinancing''.
SUMMARIZATION OF FEDERAL FUNDING
[In Millions of Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Mid- Pres. Conf. Bureau Additional Fed.
Fed. Fiscal Year Dakota Budget House Senate Enacted Award Funds Funds
Request Levels Levels Provided
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994........................................................... 7.991 ......... ......... 2.000 2.000 1.500 .......... 1.500
1995........................................................... 22.367 ......... ......... 8.000 4.000 3.600 .......... 3.600
1996........................................................... 23.394 2.500 12.500 10.500 11.500 10.902 2.323 13.225
1997........................................................... 29.686 2.500 11.500 12.500 10.000 9.400 1.500 10.900
1998........................................................... 29.836 10.000 12.000 13.000 13.000 12.221 1.000 13.221
1999........................................................... 32.150 10.000 10.000 20.000 15.000 14.100 2.000 16.100
2000........................................................... 28.800 5.000 15.000 7.000 14.000 12.859 1.000 13.859
2001........................................................... 24.000 6.040 11.040 6.040 10.040 9.398 .......... 9.398
2002........................................................... 30.684 10.040 15.040 15.540 15.040 13.611 0.861 14.472
2003........................................................... 29.360 10.040 17.040 17.900 17.900 ......... .......... .........
2004........................................................... 23.869 2.040 ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals \3\............................................... ......... 58.160 104.120 112.480 112.480 87.591 8.684 96.275
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Includes Congressional appropriations for the operation and maintenance of the ``Wetland Enhancement'' Component of the Project.
Additionally, the State of South Dakota has contributed $9.67
million in grants to the Mid-Dakota Project, in previous years. The
State of South Dakota completed its initial authorized financial
obligation to the Mid-Dakota Project in the 1998 Legislative Session.
construction in progress
Mid-Dakota began construction in September of 1994, with the
construction of its Water Intake and Pump Station. Since that eventful
day of first construction start, we have bid, awarded, and completed 23
project components and are into construction on eight other major
Project components. The following table provides a synopsis of each
major construction contract:
SUMMARIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION
[In Millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Cont. Cont. Final Over Over
Cont. No. Description Budget \4\ Bid Cont. (Under) (Under)
Award Price Budget Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-1......................... Oahe Water Intake and Pump 4.662 3.959 3.945 (0.717) (15)
Station.
2-1......................... Oahe Water Treatment Plant... 13.361 9.920 10.278 (3.083) (23)
3-1A........................ Raw Water Pipeline........... 1.352 1.738 1.719 0.367 27
3-1B........................ Main Pipeline--Blunt......... 7.823 6.916 7.024 (0.799) (10)
3-1C........................ Main Pipeline--Highmore...... 5.439 4.791 4.798 (0.641) (12)
3-1D........................ Main Pipeline--CP 1st Phase.. 0.220 0.215 0.215 0.010 (0.5)
3-2A........................ Main Pipeline--Ree Hights.... 3.261 3.155 3.149 (0.112) (3)
3-2B........................ Main Pipeline--St. Lawrence, 3.691 3.349 3.352 (0.339) (9)
SD.
3-3A........................ Main Pipeline--Wessington, SD 2.700 2.406 2.383 (0.317) (12)
3-3B........................ Main Pipeline--Wolsey, SD.... 4.291 3.928 ( \6\ ) ( \7\ ) ( \7\ )
3-3C........................ Main Pipeline--Huron, SD..... 2.938 2.629 ( \6\ ) ( \7\ ) ( \7\ )
4-1A/B (1-5)................ Distribution System--West.... 9.345 9.983 10.731 \5\ 1.386 15
4-1A/B (6).................. Distribution System--North 8.333 8.329 9.028 \5\ 0.695 8
West.
4-2 (1)..................... Distribution System--Central. 4.727 4.717 4.700 (0.027) (0.5)
4-2 (2)..................... Distribution System--South 2.763 2.835 3.000 \5\ 0.237 9
Central.
4-2 (4-5)................... Distribution System--Central. 5.753 4.952 5.135 (0.620) (11)
4-2A (4).................... Distribution System--Central. 1.042 991 1.186 \5\ 0.140 13
4-2AP (2-3)................. Distribution System--Central. 10.340 9.824 ( \6\ ) ( \7\ ) ( \7\ )
4-2 AV (2-3)................ Distribution System Vaults-- 668 557 ( \6\ ) ( \7\ ) ( \7\ )
Central.
5-1......................... Water Storage Tank--Highmore. 1.545 1.434 1.433 (0.108) (7)
5-1A (1).................... Water Storage Tank--Onida.... 0.471 0.395 0.400 (0.075) (16)
5-1A (2).................... Water Storage Tank--Okobojo.. 0.381 0.338 0.333 (0.048) (13)
5-1A (3).................... Water Storage Tank--Agar..... 0.422 0.391 0.385 (0.037) (9)
5-1A (4).................... Water Storage Tank-- 0.952 0.814 0.808 (0.144) (15)
Gettysburg.
5-2 (1)..................... Water Storage Tank--Mac's 460 573 561 0.101 22
Corner.
5-2 (2)..................... Water Storage Tank--Rezac 438 493 499 0.060 14
Lake.
5-2 (3)..................... Water Storage Tank--Collin's 254 393 410 0.160 63
Slough.
5-2A (1).................... Water Storage Tank--Ames..... 300 378 ( \6\ ) ( \7\ ) ( \7\ )
5-2A (2).................... Water Storage Tank-- 800 696 ( \6\ ) ( \7\ ) ( \7\ )
Cottonwood Lake.
5-2A (3).................... Water Storage Tank-- 515 491 ( \6\ ) ( \7\ ) ( \7\ )
Wessington Springs.
6-1......................... SCADA & Controls............. ( \7\ ) ( \7\ ) ( \6\ ) ( \7\ ) ( \7\ )
----------------------------------------------------
Totals................. 99.247 91.59 75.472 (3.911) (4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Contract budget is determined by Mid-Dakota's estimate for the contract at the time of bidding.
\5\ A significant portion of cost increases are attributable to the placement of additional users as
construction proceeds.
\6\ In progress.
\7\ Not applicable.
As is evident by the foregoing table, Mid-Dakota has been very
successful in containing Project costs. Currently the construction of
major Project components are approximately 4 percent under budget,
providing an estimated saving of over $3.91 million. The savings are an
example of sound engineering, good management and advantageous bid
lettings. While we can't guarantee future contract bid lettings will
continue to provide the level of savings currently experienced, we do
think it speaks well of the Mid-Dakota Project and how we've managed
Project funding to date.
Additionally, Mid-Dakota is keeping in close contact with the City
of Huron, SD (population 11,893) regarding potentially serious EPA
water quality violations anticipated with the implementation of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) enhanced surface water rules. Engineers
who have analyzed the current drinking water source for Huron (James
River) have concluded that the City will not be able to treat the
current James River source without very significant and costly upgrades
to their existing treatment facilities. Further the engineers have
concluded that without these upgrades or switching to a new source
i.e., Mid-Dakota, the City will be out of compliance with the
Disinfection and Disinfection by-products rule D/DBP to be implemented
in 2003. Huron is located at the East end of the Mid-Dakota Project
(Mid-Dakota is being built in a general West to East manner) and is
currently Mid-Dakota's largest contracted user. It is anticipated that
Mid-Dakota will be in a position to connect to Huron in time to remedy
the potential EPA non-compliance issue faced by Huron.
closing
Mid-Dakota is very aware of the tough funding decisions that face
the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and we do not envy the
difficult job that lies ahead. We strongly urge, the Subcommittee to
look closely at the Mid-Dakota Project and recognize the dire need that
exists. Consider the exceptionally high level of local and State
support. And lastly our readiness, our credibility and our ability, to
proceed.
Again, we thank the Subcommittee for its strong support, both past
and present.
______
Prepared Statement of the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.
project history
History of this project goes back to 1977 when a group of farmers
in Perkins County were contacted by Southwest Pipeline Project in North
Dakota if they would be interested in obtaining water to serve Perkins
County. At that time, approximately 100 farms and ranches and the Towns
of Lemmon and Bison were interested, so Perkins County was included in
their feasibility study.
In November of 1992, Southwest Water Pipeline Project had grown to
the point that Perkins County was contacted about receiving water from
the project and to be included in the engineering design work. A
committee of interested landowners and representatives from the two
incorporated towns were organized through the Perkins County
Conservation District. From this committee, nine directors volunteered
to serve on a board to study the feasibility of rural water for the
county. In March of 1993, Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc. was
organized as a non-profit corporation. Two grants were obtained from
the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources for
$50,000 each to do a feasibility study. At the same time, the Directors
were able to acquire good intention fees from rural landowners, State
land, Federal land, and the two towns totaling $28,500 to cost share
the State money on a 80-20 share basis.
A feasibility study was conducted for Perkins County Rural Water by
KBM, Inc. of Grand Forks, North Dakota and the Alliance of Rapid City,
South Dakota in 1994. In the 1995-1996 South Dakota legislature, we
obtained State authorization and appropriations of $1 million. This
money was used to up-size the pipe in North Dakota for our capacity and
for administration cost of Perkins County Rural Water. We have signed a
contract with the North Dakota State Water Commission to deliver 400
gpm to the border. We have signed contracts with both towns to be the
sole supplier for their water systems. We have had a very good response
from the rural farmers and ranchers in that 50 to 60 percent have
signed and paid for water contracts delivered to their farmstead. We
have also signed a contract with the Grand River Grazing Association
that grazes cattle on U.S. Forest Service land.
In the fall of 1999, we received Federal authorization with the
106th Congress for a 75 percent grant of $20 million. Due to the fact
it is indexed back to 1995, that amount has grown to $28 million. In
2002, we received our first appropriation of $3.2 million.
Appropriations for 2003 were passed out of committee in February in the
amount of $4.3 million. With the appropriations for 2002 and 2003, we
will be able to hookup approximately 45 rural users, install a seven
pump station and hookup at the border to start delivering water to our
customers. Our request for 2004 is $5.0 million. With this money, we
will be able to deliver water to both towns and put them on line the
fall of 2004. These hookups are very essential to our corporation since
they will be our two largest customers and will provide quality water
for the first time for either municipality.
project location and description
Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc. (PCRWS) would provide
potable water to approximately 300 farms and ranches and two towns,
Lemmon and Bison, in Perkins County, South Dakota. The system will
serve rural users and provide bulk water to Lemmon and Bison. Currently
the only two existing water systems in the project area are the
municipal supply systems for the towns of Lemmon and Bison.
When constructed, PCRWS would be the first rural water system in
Perkins County.
The purpose of PCRWS is to create a water distribution network to
deliver treated water to rural subscribers, who currently rely upon
well water of variable quality and quantity. Both Bison's and Lemmon's
water currently has high concentrations of sodium and sulfates of which
recommended limits are consistently exceeded. The implementation of
this project would ensure a reliable supply of water to rural residents
that meet the water quality standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The proposed primary water source will be buying bulk water from
Southwest Water Authority of southwestern North Dakota. They obtain
their water from an intake on the Missouri River and move it to a
treatment plant at Dickinson, North Dakota. It is then piped to the
border for PCRWS. The proposed system will include approximately 550
miles of distribution pipe, 4-5 booster pumps, and 2-4 supply tanks.
sponsors
The Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., a non-profit
corporation consisting of nine directors from three districts, sponsors
the project. The money for the project is available at a 75 percent
Federal grant, 10 percent State grant, and 15 percent local match. The
75 percent Federal grant will be from the Bureau of Reclamation, the
lead Federal agency for the project. The State funds will be
administrated through the South Dakota Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. The consumers of PCRWS, plus a loan from the State
of South Dakota or U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development,
will provide the 15 percent local money. KBM, Inc. of Grand Forks,
North Dakota, and The Alliance of Rapid City, South Dakota is under
contract to perform the engineering services for the project.
water source alternatives
The proposed water source is a bulk supply of water treated and
delivered by Southwest Water Authority. Line capacity for delivery has
been or will be paid by PCRWS to deliver 400 gallons per minute to the
border of South Dakota.
Other alternatives that were considered are water from deep-water
wells and water from Shadehill Reservoir, a Bureau of Reclamation
project. Since both of these sources were very high in sodium and total
dissolved solids (TDS), treatment would be accomplished by reverse
osmosis. Raw water would have been blended with treated water to obtain
the quantity needed. A third alternative would have been a combination
of Southwest water and a treatment plant. All alternatives were
rejected because of the added expense to operation and maintenance of
the system.
water treatment facilities
Water will be treated at the Dickinson water treatment plant in
Dickinson, ND. The water treatment plant has expanded from 6 million
gallons per day to 12 million gallons per day and has also turned
management over to Southwest Water Authority within the last 2 years.
The current plant uses a conventional lime softening process to treat
the water. Chloramines are added at the Dodge pumping station and the
rest of the treatment takes place in the Dickinson treatment plant.
benefits of the project
PCRWS will provide a clean, safe domestic water supply to users in
Perkins County. Currently, rural residents obtain water from shallow
water wells whereas the towns obtain their water from deep-water wells
in the Fox Hills aquifer. Water quality in the shallow wells is high in
sodium and TDS. Water from the deep-water wells is high in sodium,
fluoride, and sulfates. These chemicals are either at or above
recommended levels set by the EPA. By buying treated water from an
existing water system, the towns can save money and still comply with
the rules and regulations set by the Safe Drinking Water Act and the
State of South Dakota.
permits and environmental requirements
Final report of Class I Cultural Resources Research and Survey
Design Plan has been completed. Presently the draft of the
Environmental Assessment has been completed and a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued and signed on February 3, 2003.
The Final Engineering Report along with the Environmental Assessment
are currently in Office of Management and Budget and will be
distributed to Congress in a few weeks. Utility permits to occupy State
and county rights of way have been acquired and right of entry from
private landowners for the first two phases are also being obtained.
Special use permits will be required for any part of the line that
crosses U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service land and
will be issued shortly.
proposed construction schedule
Construction of the PCRWS will be delayed till the summer of 2003
after reports and assessments have been approved by the Bureau of
Reclamation. Work on the Lodgepole project is on going and construction
hopefully will be started and finished this year. Construction in the
City of Lemmon and the Town of Bison is also planned for this summer.
Construction of the entire project is dependent on federal funding
levels per year, but the project could be completed in 5-6 years.
Maps showing the construction phases and the total project plus
project costs follow. Table 1 shows the total project construction
costs, table 2 shows final O&M costs for the total system.
work plan for fiscal year 2004
Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc. (PCRWS) budget is broke
down into three parts which includes Administration, Construction, and
Non-Project. Administration includes the day to day operation of the
System, Construction is broke down into several items of construction
for 2003, and Non-Project is the money spent on Federal lobbying.
Administration budget includes:
--Income including BOR grant funds, water sales, interest.
--Expenses include: Office administration; Utilities for both office
and pumps (O&M budget will be drafted later); Payroll including
all of the Office Managers wages, and 48.5 percent of General
Managers wages; Water purchases for the last 3 months of 2003
for people hooked up by fall; Office equipment for office use.
Construction budget includes:
--Income totally from BOR (based on $1.9 million carryover and $4.3
million appropriations).
--Expenses including: Advertising for bids, easements, construction
schedules; Legal fees for contracts, bid openings; Engineering
for plans and specs, bids, contracts, inspections; Construction
fees include:
--a. Lemmon infrastructure @ $720,000.00,
--b. Bison infrastructure @ $50,000.00,
--c. Combination of Phase I and II includes (page 79 in the FER):
--1. Rural pipeline (Lodgepole) consisting of all sizes,
approximately 70 miles;
--2. Border vault;
--3. Pumping Station #1;
--4. Three phase transmission line;
--5. Partial mainline to Bison;
--d. North Dakota State Water Commission Payment.
--Wages for construction will include all of O&M Manager's and 48.5
percent of General Manager's.
Non-Project budget includes:
--Income from hook-up fees and building rental fees.
--Expenses include directors and managers costs for work and travel
to Washington, DC.
Also included is a worksheet containing the breakdown of items
included in the three budgets.
The work plan for Perkins County Rural Water is as follows:
Administration
Income will include water sales for the fourth quarter, October
thru December ($16,600), interest income ($40,000), hookup fees
($7,400) and $7,500 from Bureau of Reclamation. Advertising, Legal
fees, Insurance, Accounting Fees, Mileage Reimbursement, Meals, Dues
and Fees, Office supplies, Repairs, and Telephone is based on past
budgets and will total to $25,250.00. Utilities, for the pumps, are
based on electricity needed to pump water for 3 months for a price of
$3,000.00. Depreciation is figured on equipment inventory, building,
and vehicle for a total of $4,000.00 (not included is depreciation of
pipeline, etc.). Payroll for this budget includes all of the Office
Manager's wages and benefits ($22,712.82), and 48.5 percent of General
Managers ($42,391.20 48.5 percent = $20,559.73). Water purchases are
based on water sold for last quarter of 2003 for rural hookups plus
Bison. Office equipment consists of copier ($5,000.00), computer for
telemetry and O&M management ($3,000.00), software including Arc View,
Telemetry, misc. ($4,000.00) for a total of $12,000.00. Building
includes heat, electric, taxes and insurance ($3,000.00, vehicle
includes tax and license, maintenance ($2,750.00) and a contingency of
($8,820.00).
Construction
Construction income will come totally from the BOR at $5,732,500.
All office items including advertising, legal fees, office
supplies, and telephone is a percentage of the total that we believe
will be used strictly for construction, amounts to $13,000. Engineering
is based on an estimate from KBM, Inc of $180,000 for 2003. The use tax
is the 4 percent State tax applied to the engineering fees and will be
$7,200 based on $180,000. Wages are calculated using 100 percent of the
O&M Manager and 48.5 percent of the General Manager's salary.
Contingency is 4 percent of the total.
Construction is broke down in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payment to NDSWC........................................ $946,000
Lemmon Infrastructure................................... 720,000
Bison Infrastructure.................................... 50,000
Border Vault............................................ 100,000
Three Phase Transmission Line........................... 225,000
Pumping Station #1...................................... 500,000
Lodgepole Distribution.................................. 1,800,000
Partial Main Transmission Line to Bison................. 907,700
---------------
TOTAL............................................. 5,248,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Project
Non-project is money that is used for lobbying for funds from the
Federal Government. Income for this budget will not come from the BOR.
Income will include $12,000 from hookup fees and $2,400 from rental
fees in the System's building.
Office budget will be mileage reimbursement ($500), office
supplies, ($500), and telephone ($100). Meeting expenses for both the
directors and manager is money spent on time in Washington, DC
($11,000). This includes the possibility of three trips to Washington
for up to three directors plus the manager. Three percent of the
manager's wages have been allocated for this item equaling $1,300.
Contingency is set at $1,100 (7 percent).
Conclusion
It is anticipated that the work proposed in this document will
require 12 months to complete. This time frame could lengthen
considerably, dependent upon future appropriations from the U.S.
Federal Government to the project.
A full budget is included at the end of the report broke down in
the three categories. Also included are the phase projections through
2007.
______
Letter From the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Los Angeles, California, March 27, 2003.
The Honorable Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Domenici: The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (Metropolitan) is pleased to submit the following testimony
for the record, regarding programs contained in the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's, the Department of Energy's and the Army Corps of
Engineers' fiscal year 2004 budgets for your Subcommittee's hearing
record.
Metropolitan strongly recommends your approval of a Reclamation
fiscal year 2004 budget that includes $30 million in funding for the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program. In addition, Metropolitan urges your support
for the San Joaquin Water Supply and Exchange Program, as part of the
reauthorization of the California Bay-Delta Act.
We ask for your support for additional Federal funding for
Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program (Salinity
Control Program). We request that Congress appropriate $17.5 million
for implementation of the Title II--Basinwide Program, an increase of
$8.302 million from the President's request to ensure water quality
protection for this important source of water supply to Arizona,
California, and Nevada. We support funding of the Grand Valley and the
Paradox Valley Units of the Title II, Salinity Control Program at the
President's requests of $752,000 and $2.102 million, respectively. In
addition, we support funding of the Colorado River Water Quality
Improvement Program at the President's request of $450,000. High
salinity from the Colorado River continues to cause significant impacts
to residential, industrial and agricultural water users. Furthermore,
high salinity adversely affects the region's progressive water
recycling programs, and is contributing to an adverse salt buildup
through infiltration into Southern California's irreplaceable
groundwater basins. The Salinity Control Program has proven to be a
very cost-effective approach to help mitigate the impacts of higher
salinity.
In addition, we support funding of the Title I, Salinity Control
Program at the President's request of $11.25 million to maintain the
Yuma Desalting Plant (Plant) and the saline water Bypass Drain, and
ensure that Mexican Treaty salinity requirements are maintained.
Although the Colorado and Gila Rivers experienced above-normal runoff
during the 1980's and 1990's, storage in the Colorado River system
reservoirs has now dropped to a 30-year low. With declining reservoir
levels, operation of the Plant is needed to reduce the amount of
drainage water that is bypassed and not credited toward Mexico's Treaty
entitlement delivery. As such, it is essential that Plant design
deficiencies be corrected promptly as a step toward its efficient
operation.
Further, we also ask that you support the reauthorization of the
Water Desalination Act of 1996 [Public Law 104-298, Section 8], which
Metropolitan supported in the fiscal year 2003 budget process, as well
as increasing the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request from
$775,000 to $4 million. Federal support of desalination is vital to
realizing technological advances leading to reduced costs, improved
efficiency and cost-effectiveness in order for this resource to become
an important water supply program for many regions of the United
States.
Metropolitan also requests your support for Reclamation's
Endangered Species Recovery Implementation program at the President's
request of $13.371 million. This activity develops and implements
projects for the stewardship of endangered, threatened, proposed, and
candidate species that are resident or migratory to habitats within the
Colorado River Basin as well as other regions of the western United
States. In addition, Metropolitan urges your support for the Lower
Colorado River Operations Program at the President's request of $13.822
million. This program includes:
--Protection of endangered species, ecological restoration, and
riparian restoration research along the lower Colorado River,
--Development of the cost-shared Arizona-California-Nevada/federal
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program to
provide future Endangered Species Act compliance, and
--Implementation of the Secretary of the Interior's responsibilities
for administering federal laws and court decrees related to
operation of Reclamation's reservoirs.
California has developed a Colorado River Water Use Plan
(California Plan) to provide a framework for the agencies that rely on
river water to reduce diversions to within California's 4.4 million
acre-foot per year normal apportionment. Successful implementation of
the California Plan is vital to the water supply reliability of the
State of California, and is critical to the Colorado River interests of
the six other Colorado River Basin States and Mexico. Two water
management reservoirs near the All-American Canal, an 8,000 acre-foot
reservoir to the east of the Imperial Valley and a 3,000 acre-foot
reservoir on the western side of the Valley, would help facilitate the
implementation of the California Plan and could be of significant
benefit to the other Colorado River Basin states and Mexico for
improved river operations and water deliveries. Reclamation funding of
$6.9 million is needed in fiscal year 2004 in order to complete the
environmental impact analysis and, if a decision is made to move
forward, the initial stage of project design. Reclamation has been
funding this work under the Colorado River Front Work and Levee System.
As such, Metropolitan requests that the Subcommittee augment
Reclamation's funding for this activity.
Projects funded under Title XVI of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) and the
Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation Act of 1996 (Public Law
104-266) will greatly enhance Southern California's water supply
reliability and the environment through effective water recycling and
recovery of contaminated groundwater. Additionally, Title XVI allows
Reclamation to conduct much needed water recycling and desalination
research programs, as well as, studies of potential water recycling
projects. Funding in the fiscal year 2004 budget for previously
unfunded projects, as well as the continued support for previously
funded projects, is a positive step toward realizing regional water
supply reliability. The Bureau of Reclamation's budget request for
research into the technologies and science of water recycling is
another vital step toward making water reuse a viable alternative for
communities faced with limited water supplies. Metropolitan urges your
full support for the $12.7 million for Title XVI.
Metropolitan desires your support for the funding level of $6
million, necessary for the Soil and Water Remediation-Moab Project
associated with radioactive uranium mill tailings in Moab, Utah. The
President's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget includes $2 million for maintenance
of the Moab Tailings Project which would be used for site maintenance
and completion of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process.
These funds would maintain the status quo, but they are not sufficient
for continued work to remove surface and groundwater contamination and
implement a reclamation plan. The President's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget
proposal is not designed to conduct the necessary remediation work. The
Colorado River adjacent to the site has been negatively affected from
site-related contamination, mostly due to ground water discharge. This
Project is essential for protecting the quality of Colorado River
water. In addition to the $2 million in the President's Budget,
Metropolitan supports an additional $4 million, as requested by
Governor Leavitt of Utah, to accomplish the following: operation and
maintenance of the interim groundwater pump and treat system;
completion of groundwater studies; completion of site stabilization
projects; and initiating design and onsite work for remediation.
The Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) comprehensive civil works
program has the capability to contribute to the social, economic, and
environmental well being of California. Metropolitan is primarily
interested in the Corps' environmental restoration studies and projects
that address the needs of the Bay-Delta Estuary. The President's
proposed fiscal year 2004 budget includes numerous programs in the
Corps' South Pacific Division, which includes California. Several
ecosystem restoration studies and projects specifically address
significant habitat issues at various locations in the Bay-Delta
watershed. Corps programs that will contribute to the long-term Bay-
Delta solution include environmental restoration studies in the
Sacramento and San Joaquin River watersheds, habitat conservation and
mitigation elements of flood damage prevention projects, and ecosystem
restoration programs. Metropolitan urges Congress to fully support
these Corps programs as the fiscal year 2004 Federal appropriations
process moves forward.
We look forward to working with you and your Subcommittee. Please
contact Metropolitan's Legislative Representative in Washington, DC, if
we can answer any questions or provide additional information.
Very truly yours,
Ronald R. Gastelum,
Chief Executive Officer.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004 APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's MWD
Appropriations Bill Budget Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation:
California Bay-Delta Ecosystem $15,000,000 $30,000,000
Restoration........................
Colorado River Front Work and Levee 155,000 6,900,000
System, Water Management Reservoirs
near the All-American Canal........
Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program--Title II:
Basinwide Program............... 9,198,000 17,500,000
Grand Valley Unit............... 752,000 752,000
Paradox Valley Unit............. 2,102,000 2,102,000
Colorado River Basin Salinity 11,250,000 11,250,000
Control Program--Title I...........
Colorado River Water Quality 450,000 450,000
Improvement Program................
Desalination Research and 775,000 4,000,000
Development Program................
Endangered Species Recovery 13,371,000 13,371,000
Implementation.....................
Lower Colorado River Operations 13,822,000 13,822,000
Program............................
Title XVI Water Reclamation and 12,700,000 12,700,000
Reuse Program......................
Water Conservation Field Services \1\ 500,000 \1\ 500,000
Program............................
Department of Energy: Removal of 2,000,000 6,000,000
Radioactive Tailings in Moab, Utah.....
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: South .............. ( \2\ )
Pacific Division.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For Metropolitan Water District.
\2\ Support Corps programs.
______
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Prepared Statement of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc.
high temperature superconductivity r&d
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee. My name is Bob
Lawrence, I am President of Bob Lawrence and Associates, Inc., of
Alexandria, Virginia. I appreciate the opportunity to present this
testimony, today, on the important subject of Superconductivity. I am
here to request an appropriation of $49 million for the Department of
Energy program for fiscal year 2004.
Background
Of all the technologies which are emerging today, Superconductivity
is arguably one of the most promising in terms of dramatic, potential
enhancements to American infrastructure and national benefits.
Laboratory results are now moving into government-industry partnerships
aimed at accelerating superconducting products into the electrical
marketplace with concurrent, dramatic, energy efficiency and
environmental improvements.
Superconductivity is the property of a material to conduct
unusually large quantities of electrical current with virtually no
resistance. Since the middle of the century, researchers have known
that certain ceramic materials show superconductive properties when
they approach a temperature near absolute zero, or the temperature of
liquid hydrogen and liquid helium. Practical applications of these
materials are difficult, however, since they are characteristically
very costly to make, very brittle in nature, and prohibitively
expensive to cool to the required, very low temperature.
In 1986, a new class of ceramic materials was discovered which
showed superconductive properties at temperatures up to 34K. Since that
time, improvements have produced superconducting materials at the
temperature of liquid nitrogen, or 72K. These ``high temperature''
superconductive (HTS) materials have generated great excitement since
the projected costs of applications have dropped by orders of
magnitude, and first viable products appear to be within reach.
the program
Today, a number of HTS-based pieces of electrical equipment are at
the prototype stage with capable manufacturing entities intimately
involved. Early candidates for commercial products include
Transformers, Electric Motors, Generators, Fault Current Limiters, and
underground Power Cables. Later in the commercialization process,
replacements for overhead transmission lines are also foreseen;
however, this will not be an early application. To enhance and
accelerate the prospects for early commercialization of HTS products,
the Department of Energy has developed a vertically integrated program
in which product oriented teams are focused on the development and
implementation of HTS equipment. Under the title of the
Superconductivity Partnership Initiative (SPI), these vertically
integrated teams typically each consist of an electric utility, a
system manufacturer, an HTS wire supplier, and one or more national
laboratories. Supporting these vertical teams is a Second Generation
Wire Initiative, in which development teams are exploiting research
breakthroughs at Los Alamos, Argonne, and Oak Ridge National labs that
promise unprecedented current-carrying capabilities in high-temperature
superconducting wires. Since superconducting wire is the main component
of all superconducting cables, products and systems, the price drop
projected by the Second Generation technology is highly significant and
important to successful commercialization.
Transformer development is being carried out by the team of
Waukesha Electric Systems, Intermagnetics General Corporation,
Rochester Gas and Electric, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This team has conducted a series of
reference designs concentrating mostly on a 30-MVA, 138-kV/13.8kV
transformer which is representative of a class expected to capture
about half of all U.S. power transformer sales in the next two decades.
According to industry experts, Japan and Europe are somewhat ahead of
the United States in transformer development.
The United States HTS electric motor team is headed by Reliance
Electric with American Superconductor Corp as the HTS coil supplier and
manufacturer. Also on this team are Centerior Energy (a utility
company) and Sandia National Laboratory. ``In February 1996, Reliance
Electric successfully tested a four-pole, 1,800 rpm synchronous motor
using HTS windings operating at 27-K at a continuous 150kW output. The
coils . . . achieved currents of 100A . . . , 25 percent over the
initial goal of 80 A.'' This program has now been extended to ``develop
a pre-commercial prototype of a 3.7MW HTS motor''. The demonstration of
this motor will be an important milestone in the commercialization
process, since it will provide a measure of efficiency, reliability,
and projected costs and benefits.
Generator efforts in the United States have recently begun with a
team headed by General Electric. The efforts here, again, appear to be
behind those in Japan. In Japan, funds expended on HTS design,
development, and demonstration exceed those in the United States. This
Japanese, heavily funded effort involves 16 member organizations with
representation from the electric utilities, manufacturers of electric
power equipment, research organizations, manufacturers of HTS wire and
tape, refrigeration and cryogenic suppliers, and independent research
institutes.
Fault Current Limiters represent a new class of electric utility
equipment with many attractive properties. This type of equipment may,
in fact, be a market leader, since its properties appear to provide
substantial potential cost savings to electric utilities as well as
containing power outages. This type of equipment is only possible using
superconducting technology.
Exciting developments have taken place in the field of underground
HTS cables for transmission and distribution. In the United States, two
teams are pursuing two different technical concepts, but each team is
led by a powerhouse electrical cable manufacturer; Pirelli North
America, and Southwire Co. First design cables are now under test in
practical applications. Worldwide, about 10 superconducting electric
power cable demonstrations are now underway, in various stages of
completion.
The Benefits
Dramatic cost and energy savings are projected when the candidate
systems and products from superconducting technology are fully
implemented, with incremental benefits accruing from the time of
technology readiness and commercial introduction to the time of full
market penetration. When fully implemented into the electric generation
and utilization sectors of our economy, superconducting technology is
expected to save $8 billion per year in retail value of presently lost
electricity, lost due to transmission and distribution. An additional
$8 billion per year can be saved with the installation of
superconductive transformers and electric motors. Yet another $1
billion or so can be saved by full implementation of HTS generators.
This totals fully implemented benefits of $17 billion per year from
full implementation of HTS technology in presently envisioned
equipment. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) experts and studies
carried out by Energetics, Inc. indicate that HTS underground cable
savings would be in the range of 125,000 kWhr per mile, per year. At
the present average rate of 6.89 cents per kWhr, this corresponds to
retail level monetary savings of $8,612.50 per mile per year. These
savings will flow directly into reductions in taxpayer electric bills,
under a competitive electricity delivery environment.
National Security
Above ground transmission lines are vulnerable to terrorist attack,
as well as severe weather. High Temperature Superconductivity would
allow transmission lines to be placed underground with very large
capacity increases per cross section. This also allows for a more
environmentally effective use of the surface land. Higher national
security and better environmental posture: a good combination.
There are Defense applications of this technology, enabling in
nature, applying to directed energy weapons. Exact applications are
sensitive in nature, but it is important to note that the benefits from
success in this technology will apply to many cross sections of the
American economy and infrastructure.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to
present this testimony. Major efforts in this technology are now
underway in China, South Korea, Japan, and a number of European
countries, as well as the United States. It is very important that we
make every effort to be ahead of the rest of the world in this
technology, and for that reason, I ask that the Committee provide an
appropriation of $49 million for the Superconductivity R&D program for
fiscal year 2004.
electric transmission reliability and technology needs
I am here, today, to request an appropriation of $18 million for
fiscal year 2003 for Transmission Reliability, a subject area found
within the Electric Energy Systems program of the Department of Energy.
Within that amount, I request that you designate $4 million to continue
the Aluminum Matrix Composite Conductor program which was started in
fiscal year 2002. This program has the promise of evolving a new family
of transmission line conductors which will carry twice the capacity of
today's conductors, greatly reducing the need for new transmission
rights-of-way. This will be, clearly, of tremendous benefit to our
Nation.
Since 1974, our country has confronted a series of alerts and
crises involving energy. In the early pursuit of alleviating these
crises, natural gas, coal, and electricity were examined as possible
alternatives to oil. However, in the ensuing years, there has been a
natural gas crisis, a natural gas bubble, another tightening of natural
gas supply, wide swings in the prices of oil-based products, and now, a
strong reminder in the electrical sector that our Nation's electricity
generation and delivery system is in desperate need of upgrading and
repair. Moreover, a new approach to planning for future electric
generation and, most importantly, the delivery system, is critical.
Numerous recent articles and reports describe the situation from a
variety of perspectives. Clearly, there is no ``National Grid'' to
accept and deliver electricity. Rather, our present system evolved from
a patchwork of local systems designed to accept local generation and
provide it to local customers from a regulated, wholly owned,
vertically integrated structure. Today, the national thrust is to move
this system into a configuration wherein merchant power generators sell
to a variety of widely situated customers on a competitive basis, and
the power is delivered through a reliable and affordable transmission/
distribution network. How this situation will ultimately evolve remains
conjecture; however, it is certain to involve a confluence of
legislation, regulations, technology advances, and societal changes
before it is all over.
The Nation's present patchwork system clearly requires upgrading
with a more global design based on a new system of planning and
financing. The U.S. electricity industry is in the midst of a
transition from a structure dominated by vertically integrated
utilities regulated primarily at the State level to one dominated by
competitive markets. In part because of the complexities of this
transition, planning and construction of new transmission facilities
are lagging behind the need for such grid expansion.
Electricity, when transmitted, flows over all available paths to
reach the customer and it cannot be easily directed in one particular
way. Major problems are occurring as new merchant power plants are
being built, but increased transmission capacity is not being
installed. In 2000, normalized capacity was 17 percent lower relative
to demand than it had been a decade earlier, and the projection for
2009 shows a further decline of another 12 percent.
Upgrades: Replacements, Additions, and Siting
Transmission rights-of-way are rarely abandoned. Rather, existing
conductors are replaced, often with wires capable of handling larger
power flows, or towers and conductors are replaced. Due to the problems
associated with constructing new transmission lines, it is important to
examine the possible options for increasing the transmission capability
on present sites and making maximum use of existing transmission
systems through upgrades. When feasible, upgrades are an attractive
alternative, because the costs and lead times are less than those for
constructing new transmission lines.
The most obvious but most expensive method for alleviating the
thermal constraints on a line is to replace the lines with larger ones
(conductors) through ``restringing'' or to add one or more lines,
forming ``bundled'' lines. This approach requires consideration of the
tower structures that support power lines.
Other typical cost estimates for restringing transmission lines
with larger conductors are:
--60 kV line, to 397.5 kcmil: $40,000 per mile,
--115 kV line, to 715.5 kcmil: $80,000 per mile,
--230 kV line, to 1,113 kcmil: $120,000 per mile.
``Long-distance power transmission can be essential in a
deregulated system, by increasing competitive offers for customers,''
said Ken Rose, senior economist with the National Regulatory Research
Institute in Columbus, Ohio. From suburbs to farms, the giant towers
and the drooping lines they support are loathed and opposed. ``It's
easier to site a generation plant than to build a 20-mile transmission
line through people's backyards,'' said Mike Calimano, vice president
for operations of the New York Independent System Operator, the State's
power grid manager. ``We haven't built any [transmission lines] from
Canada or the West since 1978, and that was a war,'' said Minnesota
State Attorney General Mike Hatch. ``We had highway patrols trying to
keep the peace. It was awful then,'' and will be again as new power-
line projects go forward, he warned.
The long-distance transmission lines, strung on 150-foot-tall steel
towers spaced at quarter-mile intervals, face particularly strong local
opposition. Citizen protests have also stalled plans to build power
plants, but outrage soars when it comes to the high-voltage wires.
Aluminum Matrix Composite Conductor Technology
This advanced transmission line conductor is expected to carry
twice as much electricity, per line, as present conductors, allowing
for transmission upgrades without needing additional land rights-of-
way. The program was begun in fiscal year 2002 with $4 million, and is
structured to be a 3-year effort at $4 million per year. Substantial
cost sharing from both industry and utilities is occurring. Continued
funding would allow industry, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the
Department of Energy to develop and demonstrate a new class of overhead
conductors through laboratory tests and field trials. Under the
proposed program, medium and large size constructions of composite
conductors will be developed and tested in preparation for the field
trials. Accessories tailored for each conductor construction will also
be developed and tested. The testing will include a low-voltage outdoor
test span operated by ORNL that can continuously cycle a 1,200-foot
multispan line to high-temperature operation.
Multi-year field trials will demonstrate medium and large size
conductor performance under different conditions, such as various
voltages, mechanical loading conditions, and operating conditions. WAPA
will host the first field trial in fiscal year 2002 under this program.
Field trials require performance monitoring, which spans more than 1
year. A number of the proposed laboratory tests require months to carry
out. Thus it is important that the proposed program be viewed with
respect to the overall multi-year plan.
Objectives of the Program in 2003 and 2004
The level of effort in fiscal year 2003 will be of slightly less
magnitude than the effort that was executed in fiscal year 2002 due to
a funding level of $3 million in fiscal year 2003 as opposed to the $4
million in fiscal year 2002.
The technical objectives in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004
are a continuation of 2002 activities as follows:
--Monitor the WAPA field trial with the 795 kcmil ACCR over a minimum
of 1 year, and preferably 2 years.
--Complete the laboratory testing of the 1272 kcmil and 598 kcmil/TW
ACCR. The testing is aimed at understanding and modeling the
conductor mechanical and electrical performance.
--Complete the thermal cycling of 795 kcmil ACCR at ORNL. Install and
test the 1272 kcmil and 598/TW conductors on the ORNL test
line. The objective of this task is to evaluate the performance
of 795, 1272 and 598/TW and accessories in operation at
elevated temperature. The test can simulate in 3 months the
emergency current conditions that would be expected over 40
years of operation.
--Install and monitor the 1272 kcmil in a new field trial with a
utility to be determined. The objective of this field test is
to demonstrate the installation, operation, and reliability of
1272 family of conductors for use on 230kV-500kV applications.
--Install and monitor the 598 kcmil/TW with in a field trial with a
utility to be determined. The objective of this field test is
to demonstrate the installation, operation, and reliability of
high efficiency composite conductors.
--Evaluate system network impacts of conductor upgrades.
--Establish national perspective regarding potential of new
conductors.
--Draft industry standards necessary for commercial introduction.
At this point in time, a comprehensive study has been completed by
the Department of Energy on the National Transmission Grid System. The
Study was completed in December 2001. Since that time, the Office of
Management and Budget has refused to fund the results and objectives of
the study, even though it is comprehensive in nature and could form the
basis for Congress to appropriate needed funds to fix our Nation's
critical grid problems. This action is unfortunate, and clearly not in
the Nation's best interest.
We ask the subcommittee to restore Transmission Reliability program
to the funding level that it had in fiscal year 2002--$18 million.
cost/benefits of geothermal energy r&d
I and my firm, have been working with the Department of Energy's
Geothermal program since 1990, and during the past 13 years, we have
seen many positive changes in the program which are helpful to the
industry and to our country as a whole. I come before you, today, to
request $37 million for the program for fiscal year 2004, of which, $4
million would be applied to the GeoPowering the West portion of the
Program.
Geothermal electric generation, at 16 billion Kw/hrs per year, is
the largest contributor to delivered electricity from Renewables except
for Hydro generation. For the past several years, the Geothermal
Technology program has been held back at budget levels below $30
million. This has been harmful to the industry which is dependent upon
the technology evolving from the DOE programs to develop new and ever
more difficult resources. During the fiscal year 2003 appropriations
process, the Senate funded the Geothermal program at $37 million.
Although the Conference only funded the program at $30 million, it was
certainly a step in the right direction. It is consummately in the
national interest to increase the funding level of this program to $37
million annually to accelerate increased geothermal use for energy
purposes.
At $37 million, last year's Senate level, it gives the Geothermal
program the chance to move forward with industry on several fronts. The
$7 million additional will actually be closer to $14 million
additional, since it is expected to draw an equal amount of industry
cost sharing. At the $37 million level, strong programs can move ahead
addressing Enhanced Geothermal Systems, where tertiary treated waste
water is injected deep into the earth to provide additional needed
water to under-saturated geothermal resources. The GeoPowering the West
program, addressing 19 Western States, can be strengthened. And most
importantly, Cost-Shared Exploratory Drilling, Reservoir Definition,
and New Resource Exploration can move forward in areas where it has
slowed to nearly a stop. Even at $37 million, the Geothermal program
will be the lowest funded of all Renewables, even though the program
has been the most successful based on present generation annual levels.
Overview
Cost-shared Department of Energy investments in geothermal energy
R&D, starting in the 1970's, have made possible the establishment of
the geothermal industry in the United States. Today that industry
generates over 16 billion kilowatt-hours per year in the United States,
alone. The total, retail value of this electricity exceeds $1 billion
per year. The Industry:
--returns over $41 million annually to the Treasury in royalty and
production payments for geothermal development on Federal
lands;
--supplies the total electric-power needs of about 4 million people
in the United States, including over 7 percent of the
electricity in California, about 10 percent of the power in
Northern Nevada, and about 25 percent of the electricity for
the Island of Hawaii (the Big Island);
--employs some 30,000 U.S. workers;
--displaces emissions of at least 16 million tons of carbon dioxide,
20,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 41,000 tons of nitrogen oxides,
and 1,300 tons of particulate matter every year, compared with
production of the same amount of electricity from a State-of-
the-Art coal-fired plant;
--has installed geothermal projects worth $3.0 billion overseas,
mostly in the Philippines and Indonesia.
Near Term Potential
The geothermal industry, with appropriate government R&D support,
can provide an additional 600 Megawatts of power in about 18 months.
This power will come from:
--Use of tertiary treated wastewater injection (Enhanced Geothermal
Systems): 200 MW.
--Implementation of new technologies into old plants, well field
upgrades, and turbine replacements: 400 MW.
In addition, direct use increases, through the GeoPowering the West
initiative, will provide an additional, near term, 100MW of use for
heating, cooling, industrial drying, agricultural applications, and
recreational purposes.
This is an additional 700MW of clean, renewable, geothermal energy
available within 2 years with appropriate government funding and
support, right in the heart of the Western States that presently have
the most critical power problems.
Longer Term Potential
The long term potential of Geothermal energy in the United States
is estimated to be 25,000 MW of electrical generation and an additional
25,000 MW of direct use. To date, the geothermal industry has made use
of only the highest grade geothermal resources in the United States.
The keys to realizing the enormous potential of geothermal energy are
improved technology to tap resources that can not, at present, be
economically developed, and cost shared programs with industry for
accelerated implementation of the technology. Substantial investments
in R&D by the geothermal industry, acting alone, have not happened and
are unlikely, because the developers are uniformly financial entities,
with small engineering components, which rely on the technology
centered at national laboratories and university institutes for project
development and engineering.
Technology Needs
Applied R&D is essential to reduce the technical and financial
risks of new technology to a level that is acceptable to the private
sector and its financial backers. The U.S. geothermal industry has
conducted a series of workshops to determine the industry's needs for
new technology and has recommended cost-shared R&D programs to DOE
based on the highest-priority needs.
The Geothermal Industry supports the Strategic Plan of the DOE
Office of Geothermal Technology. The plan calls for increased spending,
quickly reaching $50-60 million per year, a geothermal budget level
consistent with that recommended by the President's Committee of
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in their 1997 report.
Technical needs include:
Drilling.--Geothermal drilling differs dramatically from oil and
gas drilling since the necessary production holes are three times as
wide as oil and gas production holes, and they must be drilled through
hard, volcanic rock rather than sedimentary soils. Also, because of the
high temperatures and corrosive nature of geothermal fluids, geothermal
drilling is much more difficult and expensive than conventional oil and
gas drilling. Each well costs $1 million to $3 million, and an average
geothermal field consists of 10 to 100 or more wells. The drilling
technology program continues to show cost-saving advancements.
Exploration and Reservoir Technology.--The major challenge facing
the industry in exploration and development of geothermal resources is
how to remotely detect producing zones deep in the subsurface so that
drill holes can be sited and steered to intersect them. No two
geothermal reservoirs are alike. Present exploration techniques are not
specific enough, and result in too many dry wells, driving up
development costs. The industry needs better geological, geochemical,
and geophysical techniques, as well as improved computer methods for
modeling heat-extraction strategies from geothermal reservoirs.
Energy Conversion.--The efficiency in converting geothermal steam
into electricity in the power plant directly affects the cost of power
generation. During the past decade, the efficiency of dry- and flash-
steam geothermal power plants was improved by 25 percent. It is
believed that geothermal power-plant efficiency can be improved by an
additional 10-20 percent over the next decade with a modest investment
in R&D.
Reclaimed Water Use for Geothermal Enhancement.--Many potential
geothermal resources are not utilized due to insufficient water in the
hot zones. Reclaimed water, the disposal of which is an expensive
problem for many communities, could be used productively, in many
cases, to enhance the geothermal resources, making them more
economically viable for local use. In the United States, over 300
western communities each have a potentially useable geothermal resource
co-located within 5 miles. The technology which will evolve from this
effort could be broadly applicable to these communities and their
combined energy and wastewater problems.
GeoPowering the West.--This initiative, now in its third year,
seeks to develop, as well as provide information and implement those
technologies needed to utilize geothermal resources in the over 300
presently identified ``co-located'' communities in 19 Western States.
Studies now underway may increase the number of communities to over
350. The program is creating partnerships with the subject communities
to utilize hot geothermal waters for direct use applications such as
space conditioning, industrial drying, agricultural applications, and
recreational purposes. Additionally, the program will provide
technology needed to explore these resources for generation potential.
In the short time that this program has been ongoing, it has played a
major role in expanding the number of States with geothermal electric
generation potential from four to eight, or a doubling of candidate
States. This program is singularly important to the expanded geothermal
future of our country.
GeoSciences.--Basic research in the GeoSciences needs to continue
at national laboratories, universities, and research institutes to
expand and advance the knowledge base in this technology area. Funding
the GeoSciences ensures a flow of new, capable, engineers and
scientists into this important field as well as expanding the basic
knowledge base surrounding geothermal resources and geothermal energy.
It is important for this program to continue.
Conclusion
The cost shared, cooperative, research, development, and
implementation programs of the Department of Energy's Geothermal
program should serve as a model for programs whose purpose is to
provide and enhance national benefits, while reaping a return on
investment for the taxpayer. The $41 million that the industry returns
to various governmental entities in royalties and leases exceeds,
annually, the amount that the government invests in the future of the
technology. Yet, the future of the technology and the expanded industry
is closely tied to these programs. Clearly, the Geothermal research and
technology development is an outstanding example of a proper, taxpayer
investment. $37 million is required for fiscal year 2004.
______
Prepared Statement of the Solar Energy Industries Association
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would first like to thank
you for the opportunity to address the committee regarding the state of
the solar energy research programs sponsored by the Federal Government.
Our organization, the Solar Energy Industries Association, represents
photovoltaic, concentrating solar power, and solar thermal
manufacturers, distributors, contractors installers and component
suppliers throughout the United States.
These businesses have experienced a recent growth rate that can
only be described as blistering. Our most recent production survey data
shows that the world photovoltaics market last year increased by
approximately 40 percent above 2001 levels. These growth rates are why
U.S. photovoltaic production has doubled since 1996, and quadrupled
since 1994. Meanwhile, a project is underway to bring an additional 50
MW clean, reliable Concentrating Solar Power online by 2004. This
technology alone will be providing more than 400 MW of power in the
United States--enough to power more than 100,000 U.S. homes.
Market success is being further recognized at the polls. A USA
Today/CNN/Gallup poll released in May 2001 found that 91 percent of
Americans support ``investments in new sources of energy such as solar,
wind and fuel cells,'' with only 6 percent opposed. Meanwhile, in a
Washington Post/ABC News poll from June 2001 on American's desired
solutions to our energy problems, the No. 1 choice across America was
``develop more solar and wind power.'' A 2001 Newsweek poll similarly
found 84 percent of Americans favor increased funding for the
development of solar and wind power.
This demand is further spurred by increased performance and
decreased costs. DOE research continues to bring the cost of solar
systems down markedly even as performance improves, fostering the
strong growth of a domestic high-tech manufacturing base. However,
we're starting to see a very disturbing trend in photovoltaics. The
U.S. photovoltaics market reportedly increased 60 percent last year.
Total world manufacturing increased nearly 40 percent. However, U.S.
manufacturing barely held steady, losing a great deal of market share,
to Japan and the European Union, as can be seen below.
Distressingly similar trends can be seen in the concentrating solar
power market, where the ``power tower'' technology originally developed
in collaboration with the Department of Energy is now seeing its
commercial debut in Spain's ``Solar Tres'' project, and in the solar
hot water market, where Israel and other countries have seized a
commanding lead.
In all of these countries, the potential market is no stronger than
that in the United States. Government support, however, is much more
robust. In the coming years, we fully expect that increasingly
relevant, inexpensive, and high-performance solar technologies will
continue their exponential rate of sales growth. The only question is
whether the United States will fully harness this engine of
environmental benefit, energy security, and high-tech jobs growth, or
if we will simply yield to the competition of other countries, losing
what was once unassailable market dominance to our competitors. This
would be a sad echo of what has already happened with the wind turbine
market.
Solar energy's benefits to the Nation are far too numerous to list
here comprehensively. However, we cannot mention enough that as a long-
lived source of perpetually renewable energy, solar enables us to make
more of our energy at home, rather than being forced to acquire it
overseas or from volatile fuel markets. By its modularity and
simplicity, it can provide quick answers to grid congestion or supply
inadequacy problems, while sidestepping environmental and NIMBY issues.
The high coincidence of solar panels' peak output and daily peak demand
cycles makes them a particularly attractive solution for areas that
experience load pockets or seasonal demand spikes, avoiding the use of
the dirtiest and least efficient conventional generators. Finally,
solar will undoubtedly be one of the critical cornerstone technologies
of the hydrogen economy, giving us the ability to produce motor fuels
when and where we want them, with no emissions of any kind.
The most well known programs within DOE, and those that have
received the most consistent support are the photovoltaics research
initiatives. However, even these are likely still not realizing their
full potential. This is ``gold standard'' research--a 2001 Peer Review
of the DOE Photovoltaic Program concluded that:
``In terms of the programs' relevance to national needs, the
panelists found that the PV program's work was outstanding across all
activities . . . In summary, it is the panel's considered opinion that
the PV program is doing an extremely effective job of setting
priorities, balancing allocation of available resources, recognizing
and addressing critical problems and barriers to progress and
commercialization, and supporting the quality of work required to
achieve its goals . . . The panel notes that the consistently high
rankings assigned in this evaluation are very unusual, and they are
also very deliberate . . . The panel believes this to be a truly
outstanding element of the Department of Energy's programs.''
SOLAR CELL PRODUCTION, 1988-2002
[MW/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rest of World..................................... 3 4 4.7 5 4.6 4.4 5.6 6.35 9.75 9.4 18.7 20.5 23.42 32.62 47.8
Europe............................................ 6.7 7.9 10.2 13.4 16.4 16.55 21.7 20.1 18.8 30.4 33.5 40 60.66 86.38 112.75
Japan............................................. 12.8 14.2 16.8 19.9 18.8 16.7 16.5 16.4 21.2 35 49 80 128.6 171.22 251.07
United States..................................... 11.1 14.1 14.8 17.1 18.1 22.44 25.64 34.75 38.85 51 53.7 60.8 74.97 100.32 100.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 33.6 40.2 46.5 55.4 57.9 60.09 69.44 77.6 88.6 125.8 154.9 201.3 287.65 390.54 512.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within these programs, the cost-shared components have been
experiencing particular success. The advanced photovoltaics
manufacturing, (formerly PVMaT,) Thin Films Partnership, and Building-
Integrated PV (BiPV) programs obtain cost-competitive research in
coordination with industry, while keeping solar manufacturing in the
United States. Manufacturers of solar and related equipment are located
in States including California, Maryland, Delaware, Florida, Arizona,
New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and Massachusetts, employing
thousands of workers, all of whom benefit from the increased
performance realized from DOE programs.
The advanced photovoltaics manufacturing programs have focused on
helping to bringing efficiency and technology to bear on the complex
process of manufacturing solar cells, having now brought module-
manufacturing costs down by more than 50 percent. These innovations
occur in a competitive cost-sharing environment that ensures rapid and
cost-effective development and adoption of technologies that would not
likely emerge otherwise. It is a critical component to maintaining U.S.
technological viability in the face of particularly aggressive and
growing German and Japanese research efforts.
The BiPV program has attracted Administration notice, with the
Fiscal Year 2003 Congressional Budget Document trumpeting ``an exciting
and rapidly growing solar application which . . . will help cross the
profit threshold that holds the key to significant growth in
distributed, grid-connected electricity markets.'' Meanwhile, the Thin
Films Partnership continues to make important discoveries, routinely
knocking down their own efficiency records while investigating
materials that show the real, near-term potential of cutting module
prices by half or more. To support the research needs of the evolving
technology and growing industry behind these programs, SEIA requests at
least $100 million for the photovoltaics program in total.
Photovoltaics, of course, do not form a functioning system on their
own, and we therefore request that the systems and reliability account
receive robust funding so that all necessary inverter and balance-of-
systems work can be carried out.
A worrisome budget note is the effective closeout of the
Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) program. CSP systems currently produce
354 MW of clean, reliable, and relatively inexpensive power in the
California desert. Reentering the market with newer, more refined, and
more sophisticated technologies, early construction has begun for
another 50 MW plant in Nevada, and a 1 MW plant in Arizona. Other
project sites are being sought out or are in early negotiations now,
and the Western Governor's Association has stated that they support
further developing this resource.
A recent ``due diligence'' review of the CSP program, conducted by
third party consultants Sargent and Lundy under the auspices of the
National Research Council, found that ``CSP technology is a proven
technology for energy production, there is a potential market for CSP
technology and that significant cost reductions are achievable assuming
reasonable deployment of CSP technologies occurs.'' The
Administration's own budget document for 2003 states that:
``Large-scale CSP technologies have been operating successfully in
the California desert for 15 years. Over this time the cost of these
systems has decreased by a factor of 3, and . . . they are currently
the least expensive source of solar electricity. Recent technology
advancements . . . (have) revitalized the CSP industry and placed them
in a position to play a major role in near-term green power
opportunities, both domestically and overseas, as costs are projected
to drop into the 6-8 cents/kWh range.''
Given this degree of support, promise, and sheer technological
achievement, a closeout budget is simply unjustifiable.
In the recently released fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations,
Congress instructed the Department to ``spend not less than $5,500,000
for the continuation of work on concentrating solar power''. This
minimum level is wholly inadequate to operate an effective program. The
funding roller coaster for these programs has damaged their ability to
make long-term investments and to retain top-quality staff. Funding in
the range of $25 million would allow the Department of Energy, through
the national laboratories at Sandia and NREL, to validate technology
and components with industry as well as lowering operations and
maintenance costs in a stable environment. Given the growth potential
of this industry, and the very strong international interest in these
technologies, it seems a small price to pay.
We also note with interest the provision of the current Senate
Republican staff draft of the energy bill that provides substantial
research support for using Concentrating Solar Power as a source of new
hydrogen fuel. The simplest means of funding this account may well be
the hydrogen portion of the budget, which should address hydrogen
production from renewable resources.
SEIA also strongly supports the Administration's support for Solar
Buildings products and projects, including the visionary Zero Energy
Buildings Program. The multi-year goal of Zero Energy Buildings (ZEB)
is to achieve the requisite technology advances to spur widespread
adoption of zero energy residences by 2010 and zero energy commercial
buildings by 2015. This would slow and eventually eliminate new
buildings' consumption of our finite energy sources. Builders around
the country are increasingly developing new construction techniques,
utilizing new building materials, and including solar technologies
which will achieve zero finite fuel source energy consumption. For
these programs we request $8 million in funding.
A different program, formerly filed under the ``solar buildings''
heading, is Solar Heating and Lighting. Solar water heating
technologies are utilized around the world in quantities far exceeding
those in the United States. Such systems can significantly reduce the
consumption of electricity, and of natural gas, which is increasingly
being used to generate electricity, exposing the country both to
increasing energy dependence on foreign nations and to the inherent
risks of transporting these fuels. Solar water heating technologies are
already ubiquitous in many other countries, thereby saving other energy
sources for higher value purposes.
Within this program, emphasis will be placed on reducing the cost
of solar water heating by using light-weight polymer materials that can
replace the heavy copper and glass materials used in today's solar
thermal collectors. The goal is to complete R&D on new polymers and
manufacturing processes to reduce the cost of solar water heating to
4 cents/kWh in 2004. We recommend that this program be funded
explicitly at the $5 million level.
We are further concerned that in many cases, the budget for ``solar
buildings'' is frequently confused by the inclusion of non-solar
technologies and research programs. These earmarks tend to distract
resources and attention from important core research, and we urge that
they be reexamined and strictly limited.
With these minor changes to the existing budget, we are confident
that the committee can lay the foundations for a solar future where the
United States can regain its lead and reap the many benefits of this,
the cleanest of all energy sources.
______
Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association
This testimony pertains to the fiscal year 2004 appropriation for
biomass research, development, and deployment (RD&D) conducted by the
Department of Energy's (DOE's) Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE). Separate statements will be submitted in
support of biomass RD&D performed under the Interior and Related
Agencies Bill by EERE's Office of Industrial Technologies, and on
forest biomass production research by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service (USDAFS).
BERA recommends that for fiscal year 2004, $114,500,000 be
appropriated for RD&D under EERE's Biomass and Biorefinery Systems
Program, and biomass-related Hydrogen Technology Program.
--$24,000,000 to continue the Bioenergy and Bioproducts Initiative
(BBI, Crosscutting RD&D) and $5,000,000 to continue the
Regional Biomass Energy Program (RBEP).
--$21,000,000 for R&D under the core programs: Advanced Biomass
Technology--Thermochemical Conversion and Bioconversion.
--$26,000,000 for R&D and $32,000,000 for the industry cost-shared
scale-up projects under the core programs: Systems Integration
and Production (Exclusive of the BBI).
--$6,500,000 for the biomass-related core programs under Hydrogen
Technology.
On behalf of BERA's members, I would like to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the opportunity to present the recommendations of BERA's
Board of Directors for the high-priority projects and programs that we
strongly urge be continued or started. BERA is a non-profit association
based in Washington, DC. It was founded in 1982 by researchers and
private organizations that are conducting biomass research. Our
objectives are to promote education and research on the production of
energy and fuels from virgin and waste biomass that can be economically
utilized by the public, and to serve as a source of information on
biomass RD&D policies and programs. BERA does not solicit or accept
Federal funding for its efforts.
In fiscal year 2003, about 30 percent of the appropriation for
EERE's RD&D was provided as earmarked funds. This is less than the 43
percent figure for fiscal year 2002, but EERE's planned objectives for
their core programs will be extremely difficult or impossible to
achieve because the baseline funding requested and the appropriation
were almost the same in fiscal year 2003. The excessive earmarks do not
allow for sufficient funding of the core programs, and several cut-
backs have been necessary. BERA respectfully asks the Subcommittee to
carefully consider the impacts of earmarks on EERE's RD&D. If they are
for projects that are not in DOE's formal request, BERA urges that they
be add-ons to the baseline funds rather than deductions.
The original goal of the BBI created as a result of ``The Biomass
Research and Development Act of 2000,'' and Title IX of the Farm Bill,
was to triple the usage of bioenergy and biobased products. Congress
has provided annual funding for the BBI since fiscal year 2000. A
strategic plan has been developed by the multi-agency Biomass Research
and Development Board (BRDB), co-chaired by the Secretaries of Energy
and Agriculture, to achieve this goal. Its achievement is necessary
because of environmental, energy security, and projected fuel supply
issues, and our increasing dependence on imported oil. We must
determine whether practical biomass systems capable of displacing much
larger amounts of fossil fuels can be developed. The fossil fuel
displaced by waste and virgin biomass in 2000 was 1.55 million BOE per
day, approximately 79 percent of which was wood-based. In DOE's funding
request, the BBI is included under ``Crosscutting Biomass R&D.'' BERA
strongly urges that the BBI be continued in fiscal year 2004 at the
funding level recommended by BERA, and that the highest priority be
given to development of this program component.
program integration, coordination, and management
For several years, BERA has urged that all biomass-related research
funded by DOE should be coordinated and managed at DOE Headquarters so
that the program managers are heavily involved in this activity. We are
pleased to note that this process, which began in fiscal year 2002, has
continued in fiscal year 2003. BERA congratulates DOE on the progress
made in restructuring the program and its management. BERA also
congratulates DOE and USDA for the new spirit of working together and
coordinating the programs of each department to increase the usage of
agricultural and forestry biomass for the production of much larger
amounts of affordable fuels, electricity, and biomass-derived products
than have been realized in the past. These efforts are expected to help
facilitate the transition of waste and virgin biomass in the USA into
major sources of renewable energy, fuels, and chemicals.
BERA urges that the BBI be incorporated into the overall Federal
biomass research program. Without it, the time table for this
transition will be stretched out for several decades and possibly never
happen except to a very limited extent for niche markets. Large,
strategically located, energy plantations are ultimately envisaged in
which waste biomass acquisition and virgin biomass production systems
are integrated with conversion systems and operated as analogs of
petroleum refineries to afford flexible slates of multiple products
from multiple feedstocks. Unfortunately, relatively large amounts of
capital and inducements are required to get the private sector involved
in developing even modest size projects in the field. So to help
implement this program, BERA includes the BBI as a line-item in its
annual testimony.
BERA also continues to recommend that implementation of the BBI
should include identification of each Federal agency that provides
funding related to biomass energy development, each agency's programs,
and the expenditures by each agency. DOE and the USDA have initiated
this process. This is an on-going activity that should be expanded to
include other agencies and departments and help fine-tune the critical
pathways to program goals. Continual analysis of the information
compiled should enable the coordination of all Federally funded biomass
energy programs through the BRDB to facilitate new starts focused on
high priority targets, and help to avoid duplication of efforts,
unnecessary expenditures, and continuation of projects that have been
completed or that do not target program goals. Full implementation of
the BBI will enhance the value of the Federal expenditures on biomass
research to the country in many different ways.
bera recommendations
BERA's project recommendations consist of a balanced program of
mission-oriented RD&D on conversion research and technology transfer to
the private sector. Advanced conversion processes and power generation
technologies, alternative liquid transportation fuels, and hydrogen-
from-biomass processes are emphasized. Biomass production RD&D for
energy uses is ultimately expected to be done by the USDA.
BERA continues to recommend that at least 50 percent of the Federal
funds appropriated for biomass research, excluding the funds for scale-
up projects, are used to sustain a national biomass science and
technology base via sub-contracts for industry and universities. While
it is desirable for the national laboratories to coordinate this
research, increased support for U.S. scientists and engineers in
industry, academe, and research institutes that are unable to fund
biomass research will encourage commercialization of emerging
technologies and serious consideration of new ideas. It will also help
to expand the professional development and expertise of researchers
committed to the advancement of biomass technologies.
In its core RD&D, EERE has terminated research in several microbial
and thermochemical conversion areas. BERA believes that a balanced
program of high-priority research should be sustained and protected, so
we continue to recommend both a diversified portfolio of research and
an appropriate amount of funding for scale-up without diminishing
either EERE's R&D or scale-up programs. BERA's specific dollar
allocations are listed in the table on page 3. Additional commentary on
each program area is presented on pages 4 and 5. Other mission-oriented
biomass RD&D programs are funded through EERE's Office of Industrial
Technologies (OIT) under the Interior and Related Agencies Bill. DOE's
basic research on biomass energy outside of EERE by the Office of
Science, which supports academic research, should be designed to
complement EERE's mission-oriented biomass RD&D and the BBI.
allocation of appropriations recommended by bera
BERA recommends that the appropriations for biomass RD&D in fiscal
year 2004 be allocated as shown in the accompanying table. BERA's
recommendations are generally listed in the same order as DOE's
requests for funding under the headings Energy Supply, Biomass Program,
Biomass/Biorefinery Systems R&D; and Energy Supply, Hydrogen
Technology, Hydrogen/Fuel Cells/Infrastructure Technologies Program.
However, several research areas are included that are either new or
that BERA recommends be restored to sustain a balanced program. Note
that in fiscal year 2004, EERE incorporated several new changes in
program names and nomenclature in addition to those made in fiscal year
2003, and zeroed-out or moved some programs between EERE's Offices.
Note also that the recommended budget for each scale-up category does
not include industry cost-sharing, which is required to be a minimum of
50 percent of each project cost. BERA recommends that funds for the BBI
be used mainly for scale-up projects after evaluating the projected
contribution of each project to the BBI's goals. New projects should
not be started until this is done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Budget
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Program Area -------------------------------
Energy For Research For Scale-Up
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biomass/Biorefinery Systems:
Advanced Biomass Technology............... Thermochemical Conversion:
Combustion.................. $2,000,000
Gasification................ 2,000,000
Pyrolysis................... 2,000,000
Liquefaction................ 2,000,000
Bioconversion:
Fermentation (Ethanol)...... 4,000,000
Organisms and Enzymes....... 6,000,000
Fermentation (Methane)...... 1,000,000
Chemicals................... 2,000,000
Systems Integration/Production............ BBI (Crosscutting RD&D)\2\...... 2,000,000 $22,000,000
Thermochemical Conversion:
Ethanol..................... 3,000,000 4,000,000
Other Oxygenates/Mixed 4,000,000 4,000,000
Alcohols.
Syngas-Based Chemicals, 2,000,000 4,000,000
Fuels\3\.
Ash Deposition, Uses, 1,000,000
Disposal.
By-Products, Recovery, Uses. 1,000,000
Improved Emissions, Controls 2,000,000
Wastewater Treatment........ 2,000,000
Hot Gas Clean-Up............ 1,000,000
Small Modular Biopower.......... 0 2,000,000
Feedstock Infrastructure........ 2,000,000
Bioconversion:
Ethanol Scale-Up with 0 8,000,000
Cellulosics.
By-Products, Recovery, Uses. 1,000,000
Improved Emissions, Controls 1,000,000
Wastewater Treatment........ 2,000,000
Integrated Biorefinery
Development:
Designs, Economics, Markets. 1,000,000
Product Slates, Flexibility, 1,000,000
Costs.
Siting, Acquisition, 2,000,000 10,000,000
Construction.
Regional Biomass Energy 0 5,000,000
Program\3\.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................ ................................ 49,000,000 59,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrogen Technology\1\........................ Thermal Processes (Reforming)... 500,000 1,000,000
Photolytic Processes (Algae).... 1,000,000 0
Innovative Conversion Processes. 4,000,000 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................ ................................ 5,500,000 1,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.................................. ................................ 54,500,000 60,000,000
=================================================================
Grand Total............................. $114,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BERA's recommendations pertain only to the biomass-based portion of Hydrogen Technology.
\2\ BERA's recommendations for the Biomass and Bioproducts Initiative are expected to be used for research and
scale-up as indicated, but are not allocated by program area in this table.
\3\ The McNeil Gasification Project in Burlington, VT and the Regional Biomass Energy Program have been zeroed-
out of EERE's fiscal year 2004 budget. BERA strongly urges that they be restored and continued (see Systems
Integration/Production, Thermochemical Conversion, and Regional Biomass Energy Program sections in text).
Advanced Biomass Technology
Thermochemical Conversion.--Continued R&D to develop advanced
biomass combustion and gasification methods could have environmental
and economic benefits that can lead to significant growth in low-cost
power generation from waste biomass and the disposal of certain kinds
of high-moisture waste biomass such as biosolids (municipal sewage),
which are very costly to treat and dispose of. Most of this research
has been phased out by DOE. Research (not scale-up) should be initiated
or restored with the goal of developing the next generation of
thermochemical biomass conversion processes for power generation and
the utilization of high-moisture biomass for combined disposal-power
generation applications.
The pyrolysis of biomass, or its thermal decomposition in the
absence of oxygen, yields a large number of gaseous, liquid, and solid
products. Hardwood feedstocks were used commercially until the 1930's
to manufacture fuel gases, solvents, chemicals, fuel oils, and
charcoal. Because of the steadily increasing prices of natural gas and
petroleum crude oils, a few small-scale commercial biomass pyrolysis
systems have recently been installed and operated under conditions that
increase product flexibility and selectivity to yield cost-competitive
products. BERA recommends that exploratory research on biomass
pyrolysis be added to EERE's program to help design advanced processes.
All of the basic data compiled during DOE-funded research on biomass
pyrolysis in the 1970's and 1980's should be reexamined in this work.
Several thermochemical technologies are available for the
liquefaction of biomass feedstocks to afford storable liquid fuels and
chemicals. Included among these conversion methods is pyrolysis under
certain conditions that maximize the yields of liquid products, the
catalytic conversion of syngases from biomass to liquid chemicals such
as ethanol and other oxygenates, catalytic hydrogenation of biomass and
biomass derivatives such as natural oils for the direct production of
liquid fuels, and biomass liquefaction under supercritical conditions
of pressure and/or temperature. BERA recommends that thermochemical
liquefaction of biomass be added to EERE's program to find and improve
innovative conversion methods that have a high probability of leading
to cost-effective, storable liquid fuels from biomass.
Bioconversion.--The goal of simultaneous conversion of pentoses and
hexoses from low-cost cellulosics to fermentation ethanol at high
efficiencies on a commercial scale requires the use of special
processes for producing genetically engineered organisms and cellulase
systems at acceptable costs and performance. Research should continue
to perfect these technologies for incorporation into the overall
fermentation process designs to be used in the scale-up program for
fermenting cellulosic feedstocks.
Methane fermentation (anaerobic digestion) is unique in that it
produces methane, the major component in natural gas, at high
concentrations (medium-Btu gas) from a full range of virgin and waste
biomass. DOE has terminated most of this research. Research can lead to
advanced processes as well as the alleviation of numerous environmental
problems encountered during waste treatment and disposal. This research
should be restored.
Bioconversion is useful for converting a variety of biomass and
derivatives to a wide range of commodity and specialty organic
chemicals and polymers. The use of selected microbial populations is in
fact the only practical route to certain types of chemicals and
polymers. An exploratory program to advance this technology is a
natural adjunct to DOE's on-going biomass fermentation program. BERA
recommends that part of the research effort under Advanced Biomass
Technology focus on this field.
Systems Integration and Production
Biomass and Bioproducts Initiative (Crosscutting RD&D).--See pages
1 and 2 of testimony.
Thermochemical Conversion.--The availability of thermochemical
biomass conversion processes for producing ethanol, mixed alcohols, and
other oxygenates offers a range of non-microbial options for
commercializing biomass liquefaction technologies. This should be one
of the key components of EERE's program, but is minimal when compared
with the efforts expended on fermentation ethanol over many years. The
development of medium-Btu biomass gasification is also a key component
for the production of fuels, power, and chemicals. However, funding for
the commercial scale demonstration plant in Burlington, VT by DOE was
ended in fiscal year 2003. This plant is capable of use as a multi-
purpose development site for biomass gasification and related
technologies. BERA recommends that both thermochemical liquefaction and
gasification RD&D be expanded and continued by EERE. The existing plant
in Vermont should be utilized to test advanced gas clean-up methods and
advanced power generation systems.
Small Modular Biopower.--Research on the development of small,
biomass combustion turbines should be continued to develop advanced
designs for small modular systems, and for cogeneration and distributed
generation.
Feedstock Infrastructure.--BERA recommends that DOE develop the
infrastructure, while the Forest Service of the USDA initiates and
continues RD&D on biomass production, particularly woody biomass.
Bioconversion.--As reported last year, DOE's contributions to the
costs of several fermentation ethanol plants have either been completed
or are winding down. The processes used are conventional and advanced
technologies, and a plant using corn stalk feedstocks was planned for
the Midwest. BERA recommends that the existing scale-up projects should
be completed, the results analyzed, and the technologies confirmed
before other scale-up projects are started. Since corn continues to be
the main feedstock for U.S. plants, it is vital to commercialize the
use of low-cost cellulosic feedstocks to reduce the cost of
fermentation ethanol. RD&D should focus on the information needed to
facilitate scale-up and make this happen. Although much of it is in-
hand now, critical information related to biomass transport, storage,
and handling; feedstock characterization, pretreatment and hydrolysis;
storage, maintenance, and use of genetically modified organisms and of
active cellulase systems for pentose and hexose conversion; nutrient
cost reductions, by-product recovery and utilization; and improved
emissions, controls, and wastewater treatment, is still needed to
design optimum low-cost processes that afford fermentation ethanol at
competitive motor fuel prices. NREL's fermentation pilot plant and
counter-current pretreatment pilot plant reactor installed in fiscal
year 2000 should be fully utilized on a cost-shared basis with DOE's
industrial partners to support the scale-up of processes operated with
cellulosic feedstocks.
Integrated Biorefinery Development.--This program component is
expected to include the activities necessary to select and integrate
all unit operations employed in the biorefinery and the biomass
acquisition systems. This effort should address plant design, siting,
financing, permitting, construction, environmental controls, waste
processing and disposal, and sustained plant operations; feedstock
selection, transport, storage, and delivery; all waste and emissions
issues; and storage and delivery of all salable products. BERA
recommends that industrial partners be carefully selected for
participation in this cost-shared program at the beginning of each
project. This work should be given the highest priority. Most of the
funds for the BBI provided by Congress should be used for this effort.
Long-range planning is essential to ensure that each project has a high
probability of success and lays the groundwork for continued
installation of similar systems by the private sector.
Regional Biomass Energy Program.--The RBEP has been a
legislatively-mandated model information and outreach program for
almost 20 years. There is no other Federal program with the information
transfer role, capabilities, leverage, experience, local-level
presence, and widespread networks of the RBEP; nor is there a DOE
program so closely affiliated with State and regional government
organizations. Historically, RBEP's partners have provided between $2
to $4 for every $1 of RBEP funds, making it one of the most cost-
effective Federal programs. If DOE terminates this program, BERA
recommends that it be transferred to and operated by the USDA, and that
it continue to be managed by the government host organizations:
Coalition of Northeast Governors, Southern States Energy Board, Council
of Great Lakes Governors, and Western Governors Association, which
provide direct links to the governors and legislators of each State.
Hydrogen Technology
Research on the thermal reforming of biomass and on splitting water
with algae, which is the equivalent of photolysis, should be continued.
In addition, innovative conversion methods such as the use of anaerobic
digestion under ambient conditions and catalytic and non-catalytic
thermochemical gasification under certain operating conditions that
minimize methane formation while maximizing hydrogen formation should
be studied. These technologies may lead to low-cost hydrogen production
methods.
______
Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) and the university community involved in weather and climate
research and related education, training and support activities, I
submit this written testimony for the record of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
UCAR is a consortium of 66 universities that manage and operate the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and additional programs
that support and extend the country's scientific research and education
capabilities. The UCAR mission is to support, enhance, and extend the
capabilities of the university community, nationally and
internationally; to understand the behavior of the atmosphere and
related systems and the global environment; and to foster the transfer
of knowledge and technology for the betterment of life on earth. In
addition to its member universities, UCAR has formal relationships with
approximately 100 additional undergraduate and graduate schools
including several historically black and minority-serving institutions,
and 40 international universities and laboratories. UCAR is supported
by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other Federal agencies
including the Department of Energy (DOE).
doe office of science
The DOE is the third largest Federal sponsor of basic research and
the largest supporter of research in the physical sciences. It supports
more than 15,000 Ph.D. scientists, graduate students and post-doctoral
researchers in universities and national laboratories. The programs and
national user facilities of the agency's Office of Science are vital to
the Nation's basic research investment across all disciplines in the
natural and physical sciences. These yield both short-term benefits and
future advances in environmental research, basic computing and physics
research, energy supply, homeland security, and educational growth.
Last month the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
responded to the President's fiscal year 2004 request, and expressed
its concern for DOE's Office of Science budget, and the trend of level
or flat funding for programs within it. UCAR endorses the views of the
Committee. The President's request for DOE's Office of Science is flat,
and has remained level funded for a decade. Funding it at the request
of $3.3 billion would be significantly less than the $3.6 billion
recommended in H.R. 34, the Energy and Science Research Investment Act
of 2003, a bipartisan bill supported by almost 40 House members.
This request also falls short of the goal of the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), which
recommended in its October 2002 report that the budget request begins
bringing funding for the physical sciences into parity with that of the
life sciences.
In order to achieve parity, DOE's Office of Science should be
funded at $3.6 billion, a level that will critically augment and
reinvigorate the work of researchers throughout the Nation.
Within the Office of Science, the Biological and Environmental
Research (BER) program develops the knowledge necessary to identify,
understand, and anticipate the potential health and environmental
consequences of energy production and use. These are issues that are
absolutely critical to our country's well-being and security. The BER
program is of particular importance to the work of the atmospheric
sciences community. Specifically, the Climate Change Research Program
is dedicated to advancing very important climate work, including
climate modeling, the atmospheric radiation measurement program, global
change research, meteorological research. It also supports a mentoring
program for a 4-year graduate and undergraduate program for minority
students pursuing careers in the atmospheric and related sciences. The
request for this program is decreased almost 6 percent from the fiscal
year 2003 enacted level of $530 million. In following the
recommendation made above for the Office of Science, it is critical
BER's allocation be increased by 9 percent, for a total of $577.7
million.
climate change research initiative (ccri)
In fiscal year 2004, BER will continue to contribute to the
Administration's Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) to deliver
information useful to policy makers. The BER contribution to the CCRI
will primarily be through focused research on the carbon cycle to
further understand carbon dioxide emissions in relation to the North
American carbon sink. BER will also contribute to the CCRI in other
areas, including climate change modeling, atmospheric composition, and
regional impacts of climate change. To make significant headway in
these areas, it is very important the Committee support the fiscal year
2004 request for CCRI, of $25.3 million.
advanced scientific computing research (ascr)
DOE's ASCR provides advances in computer science and the
development of specialized software tools that are necessary to
research the major scientific question being addressed by the Office of
Science. ASCR's continued progress is of particular importance to
atmospheric scientists involved with complex climate model development,
research that takes enormous amounts of computing power. By their very
nature, problems dealing with the interaction of the earth's systems
and global climate change cannot be solved by traditional laboratory
approaches. Of particular importance to the U.S. National Assessment
effort in global change is ASCR's critical contribution to the
multiagency effort to develop the Coupled Parallel Climate Model (PCM)
and its successor, the Community Climate System Model (version 2.0).
The fiscal year 2004 request for ASCR is disappointing to the
community, providing it with a 0.5 percent increase. In order to regain
our international leadership in advanced computing, it is essential the
Committee to provide a 9 percent increase for ASCR and fund it at $188
million.
On behalf of UCAR and the atmospheric sciences research community,
I want to thank the Committee for the important work you do for U.S.
scientific research. We appreciate your attention to the
recommendations of our community concerning the fiscal year 2004 budget
of the Department of Energy. We understand and appreciate that the
Nation is undergoing significant budget pressures at this time, but a
strong Nation in the future depends on the investments we make in
science and technology today.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nuclear Energy Institute
On behalf of the nuclear energy industry, thank you for your
support of nuclear technology-related programs in the Energy Department
and your oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for
fiscal year 2003.
The Nuclear Energy Institute is responsible for developing policy
for the U.S. nuclear industry. NEI's 270 corporate and other members
represent a broad spectrum of interests, including every U.S. energy
company that operates a nuclear power plant. NEI's membership also
includes nuclear fuel cycle companies, suppliers, engineering and
consulting firms, national research laboratories, manufacturers of
radiopharmaceuticals, universities, labor unions and law firms.
America's 103 nuclear power plants are the safest, most efficient
and reliable in the world. Nuclear energy is the largest source of
emission-free electricity generation in the United States. Nuclear
power plants in 31 States provide electricity for one of every five
homes and businesses in the Nation, and the industry again last year
reached record levels for efficiency and electricity production. It is
essential that Congress adopt policies that foster the further
development of this vital part of our Nation's energy mix--and fulfill
existing Federal obligations, such as the commitment to manage used
nuclear fuel.
My statement for the record addresses three key points: (1)
Congress should reclassify the Nuclear Waste Fund, reorienting it to
its original purpose and ensuring adequate funding for the Yucca
Mountain repository project; (2) research and development (R&D) on
advanced nuclear technology should continue to maintain America's
leadership role in commercial nuclear technologies; and (3) the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's (NRC) budget and staffing should be reassessed
in light of current trends.
I also will discuss briefly several important programs supported by
the nuclear energy industry, including research into the health effects
of low-level radiation.
congress should reclassify the nuclear waste fund
National policy clearly establishes the Federal Government's
responsibility for deep geologic disposal of used nuclear fuel and the
by-products of defense-related activities. In 1982, the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act codified Federal policy for developing a repository for
long-term stewardship of used nuclear fuel.
President Bush last year approved Yucca Mountain as the site to
develop a Federal repository and the decision was overwhelmingly upheld
by the 107th Congress. I commend this committee for its leadership in
supporting the Yucca Mountain resolution and the President's request
for funding the program. The next step is for the Department of Energy
(DOE) to submit an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by
December 2004 for a license to construct the repository.
It is imperative that DOE meet its milestones for licensing, so the
repository can be built and operating by 2010. This is consistent with
our Nation's longstanding policy for responsible management of used
nuclear fuel. It also honors the Federal Government's commitment to
consumers--who, since 1983, have committed more than $22 billion for
used nuclear fuel disposal. The Nuclear Waste Fund has a balance of
more than $13 billion and is growing at a rate of about $1 billion
annually, including interest. The funds collected from consumers of
electricity from nuclear power plants specifically for used fuel
management must be available for repository construction and operation.
fund treatment diverts consumer money from original intent
The Nuclear Waste Fund was established in 1982 as a separate
account in the Federal treasury. However, congressional efforts to
control deficit spending in the 1980's and 1990's changed the status of
the fund. Appropriations from the fund, but not the receipts, were
placed under a discretionary spending cap. The result is that the
Nuclear Waste Fund is subject to appropriations caps and ``pay-as-you-
go'' budget rules, even though the fund is self-financed. These rules
expire on September 30, but the President's fiscal year 2004 budget
proposed that they be continued for 2 more years.
By the current approach, Congress must fund the used fuel programs
within the confines of the discretionary spending allocation for the
Energy and Waster Development Appropriations bill. As a result, Yucca
Mountain funding consistently has been reduced below the level of
receipts to provide increased funding in other, unrelated areas,
despite the fact that receipts into the fund are specifically earmarked
for the used nuclear fuel disposal program. In short, Congress's
current budgetary process is taking consumer contributions to the
Nuclear Waste Fund for use in funding unrelated programs.
The industry urges Congress to reclassify the Nuclear Waste Fund
this year to prevent future funding shortfalls for Yucca Mountain. This
will help ensure that the government does not further delay meeting its
legal obligation to remove used nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear
plant sites. And it is the right thing to do with Americans' money.
industry supports proposal to adjust spending cap
The nuclear energy industry supports the administration's proposal
to adjust the fund's discretionary spending cap. We have attached a
policy brief that examines this issue. We encourage the committee to
support the proposal. A more permanent solution is needed to ensure
that funds collected for the waste program are allocated directly to
the project based on annual project funding requirements and with
continued congressional oversight.
The industry strongly supports DOE's fiscal year 2004 funding
request of $591 million for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management. We do not believe that the program will be able to meet the
important milestone for submitting a license application to the NRC
absent this level of funding for the program.
We strongly urge restoration of funds not appropriated in fiscal
year 2003 so that the program recovers from reductions in scientific
study and licensing activities at the lower funding level of $460
million. Increased funding is necessary for DOE to file a license
application to the NRC in 2004. In additional, funding for other
critical activities--such as transportation planning--is essential to
DOE's ability to achieve the major milestones in the program.
Although the repository program is the foundation of our national
policy for managing used nuclear fuel, the nuclear industry also
recognizes the value in researching emerging technology for used fuel
treatment and management. Such farsighted R&D programs would allow our
Nation to remain the world leader in nuclear technologies. However,
technologies like transmutation--the conversion of used nuclear fuel
into less toxic materials--still require a Federal repository for
disposal of the radioactive by-products generated from the process.
research and development must foster nuclear energy
Nuclear energy is a secure, domestic source of electricity and
plays a vital role in meeting national Clean Air Act requirements and
voluntary greenhouse gas reduction programs. Last year, the industry's
average capacity factor--a measure of efficiency--was 91.5 percent, and
103 reactors generated a record 778 billion kilowatt-hours of
electricity. Production costs are low and stable over many years.
Nuclear energy is important today, and it will be even more
important in the future, given rising electricity demand and the nexus
between energy and environmental policy. For its part, the nuclear
industry will continue to increase the amount of electricity generated
by nuclear power by relicensing reactors, continuing to improve
efficiency and implementing new technology to uprate, or boost the
output from, current reactors.
But in the near future, new nuclear power plants will be needed.
The Energy Information Administration projects that demand for
electricity will increase about 1.9 percent annually over the next two
decades. To meet this increased demand, and replace outmoded fossil
fuel-fired power plants, the United States will need to add more than
327,000 megawatts of capacity--the equivalent of 36 mid-size (500-
megawatt) power plants every year between now and 2020.\1\ Some of the
new plants must be emission-free nuclear reactors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One-point-nine percent annual increase for 18 years (2003-2020)
equals 327,300 megawatts increased demand equals about 18,000 megawatts
per year equals 36 500-megawatt power plants per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As other nations pursue new or expanded nuclear programs, continued
R&D also is important for the United States to maintain energy
diversity--one of the strengths of our electricity infrastructure--to
expand nuclear energy's environmental benefits to our Nation, and to
remain the world leader in applying this technology. U.S. leadership is
necessary to ensure reliable operations and a significant export market
for U.S. products. The industry supports increased fiscal year 2004
funding for DOE nuclear energy R&D programs, especially the Nuclear
Energy Technologies (NET) program, which promotes the development of
new nuclear energy systems. Within this program, DOE includes Nuclear
Power 2010, which will foster the construction and operation of new
nuclear power plants by 2010 as one option to increase domestic
electricity supply. Already, three companies have identified plant
sites for potential new plants and are seeking to validate the NRC's
early site permitting process.
The nuclear energy industry urges the committee to approve at least
$60 million for the NET program. Within the NET program, $35 million
should be earmarked for the Nuclear Power 2010 effort and $20 million
for R&D needed to bring innovative reactor concepts, known as
Generation IV reactors, to the marketplace. NEI urges your support for
a demonstration project for using new reactor designs at a national
laboratory within the scope of the Generation IV reactor program. The
industry also supports the National Climate Change Technology
Initiative at $5 million.
The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI)--which seeks to
expand America's nuclear energy program for the 21st century--fills a
vital need identified in a 1997 report by the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). PCAST recommended a
competitive peer-reviewed R&D program to address potential barriers to
increased nuclear energy use and to maintain America's nuclear science
and technology leadership. PCAST also recommended an international
cooperative program within NERI.
The nuclear energy industry urges the committee to approve at least
$32 million in fiscal year 2004 for the NERI program. Within that
amount, NEI recommends $5 million for International NERI. Although
current funding has been sufficient to continue projects initiated in
previous fiscal years, DOE's fiscal year 2004 request reduces funding
by half, thus restricting any new R&D projects.
PCAST also recommended another R&D initiative--the Nuclear Energy
Plant Optimization (NEPO) program--to generate more low-cost energy
from America's existing nuclear power plants.
The nuclear energy industry encourages the committee to allocate
$10 million for the NEPO program, which seeks to improve already high
efficiency and reliability at U.S. nuclear power plants. This public-
private partnership is helping to facilitate America's economic growth
and improving our Nation's air quality. NEPO received $5 million in
fiscal year 2003--$5 million less than the PCAST recommendation. DOE
has proposed no funding for the program in fiscal year 2004.
The industry also requests $26.5 million for DOE's University
Support Program, which supports vital research and educational programs
in nuclear science at the Nation's colleges and universities. With
nuclear plant relicensing and plans for new plants, demand for highly
educated and trained professionals will continue.
NEI encourages the committee to consider a new $2 million program
within the Office of Nuclear Energy to support universities that have
undergraduate and graduate programs in health physics. The industry's
most recent survey of human resources revealed that health physics
professionals are declining in numbers and the need will become acute
in the next few years when many will retire. This critical resource
will be necessary to support the industry, government programs at DOE
sites and national laboratories, NRC activities and homeland security
programs to respond to potential dirty bomb threats.
The administration has proposed including nuclear energy in the
hydrogen fuel initiative. We believe hydrogen offers significant
promise as a future energy technology. Nuclear energy is the best
available technology for the large-scale production of hydrogen using
electrolysis. A DOE program supporting both concepts should be
supported in fiscal year 2004 at $12 million.
nrc's budget and staffing should be reassessed in light of current
trends
Our Nation's focus on security has led to significant security
enhancements at nuclear power plants. It is appropriate at this time
for the NRC to review its budget and resource allocations in light of
current demands and other resources available. For example, the NRC
currently is budgeted for about 200 staff in its Nuclear Security and
Incident Response organization. A significant portion of their work
overlaps with responsibilities of the new Department of Homeland
Security (DHS)--particularly in the areas of threat and vulnerability
assessment. The NRC should carefully review its organizational
structure as the DHS assumes a greater role in securing the Nation's
energy infrastructure. This review should be completed before
additional funding is authorized for NRC security-related activities.
Since September 11, 2001, the nuclear energy industry has remained
at a heightened level of alert. The defense-in-depth inherent in the
robust design of our plants has been reassessed and augmented. During
the past 18 months, our industry has invested an additional $370
million in security-related improvements, including fortified perimeter
security; improved background checks; and tighter access control at our
plants. As part of this effort, the nuclear energy industry has added
about one-third more security officers, for a total of 7,000 well-
trained, armed security officers at our 67 nuclear power plant sites.
The industry will continue to make these investments and improvements
to enhance private industry's best security program.
Our Nation's 103 nuclear power reactors are operating at very high
levels of safety and reliability. In fact, nearly 75 percent of the
reactors have the NRC's highest safety performance indicator in all
categories, and most of the others have only a single indicator in the
next lower level. The excellent safety record of U.S. nuclear power
plants lays the groundwork for refining regulatory oversight based on
performance and safety insights. Additionally, insights from the
reactor oversight process indicate that several major regulations for
power reactors are not providing a significant safety value. A
disciplined review of the regulations should be undertaken to eliminate
or modify outdated requirements.
The industry commends the Appropriations Committee for reducing the
nuclear industry user fee assessments for NRC activities that are
unrelated to regulation of the industry. The proportion of the NRC's
budget derived from user fees will continue to decrease by 2 percent
each year through 2005. In that year, licensees will support 90 percent
of the NRC's budget, which will not include activities that are not
directly related to regulating the industry.
In addition, the industry supports an evaluation reviewing the
scope and content of inspection programs; eliminating research efforts
of questionable value, such as studies of human performance and
organizational effectiveness; and streamlining the differing
professional opinion process to improve its effectiveness, while
minimizing its impact on issue resolution and the use of management
resources.
industry support for additional activities
Nuclear Nonproliferation.--The industry supports the disposal of
excess weapons grade nuclear materials through the use of mixed-oxide
fuel in reactors in the United States and Russia.
Low-Dose Radiation Health Effects Research.--The industry strongly
supports continued funding for the DOE's low-dose radiation research
program. This program will provide a better understanding of low-dose
radiation effects to ensure that public and private resources are
applied in a manner that protects public health and safety without
imposing unacceptable risks or unreasonable costs on society.
Nuclear Research Facilities.--The industry is concerned with the
declining number of nuclear research facilities. We urge the committee
to request that DOE provide it with a long-term plan for using existing
nuclear research facilities as well as for the development of new
research facilities.
Uranium Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning.--The industry
fully supports cleanup of the gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, KY;
Portsmouth, OH; and Oak Ridge, TN. Each year, commercial nuclear power
plants contribute more than $150 million to the government-managed
uranium enrichment plant Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund. NEI
urges the committee to ensure that these monies are spent on
decontamination and decommissioning activities at these facilities.
Other important environmental, safety and/or health activities at these
facilities should be paid for out of general revenues.
International Nuclear Safety Program and Nuclear Energy Agency.--
NEI supports the funding requested for the international nuclear safety
programs of both the DOE and NRC. They are programs aimed at improving
the safe commercial use of nuclear energy worldwide.
Medical Isotopes Infrastructure.--The nuclear industry supports the
administration's program for the production of medical and research
isotopes.
______
Prepared Statement of The American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society (ACS) would like to thank Chairman
Pete Domenici and Ranking Member Harry Reid for the opportunity to
submit testimony for the record on the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.
ACS is a non-profit scientific and educational organization,
chartered by Congress, representing more than 160,000 individual
chemical scientists and engineers. The world's largest scientific
society, ACS advances the chemical enterprise, increases public
understanding of chemistry, and brings its expertise to bear on State
and national matters.
As Congress and the administration seek to bolster the economy,
economists agree that investments in basic research boost long-term
economic growth more than other areas of Federal spending. These
investments foster the new technologies and trained scientific
workforce that drive the Nation's public health, defense, energy
security, and environmental progress. Although industry funds the bulk
of national R&D, the Federal Government provides 60 percent of basic
research funding and, remarkably, 40 percent of patents cite Federal
research as their source. Yet Federal research in the physical sciences
and engineering has been cut in half since 1970 as a percentage of GDP.
Fortunately, the President's top science and technology advisory
council, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and the Hart-
Rudman Commission on National Security have all recognized the need to
boost investment in physical sciences and engineering research. This
investment has never been more important given its central role in
advancing the Nation's economic, energy, and homeland security.
acs budget recommendations
Current Federal efforts to advance energy efficiency, production,
and new energy sources while reducing air pollution and other
environmental impacts will demand increased investment in long-term
energy research. By supporting people, research, and world-class
science and engineering facilities, the Department of Energy's Office
of Science expands the frontiers of science in areas critical to DOE's
energy, environment, and national security missions. Unfortunately, the
administration's budget request would continue the shrinking investment
in basic energy research at DOE in recent years, which must be reversed
to meet these national goals. ACS recommends a budget of $3.6 billion
for DOE's Office of Science in fiscal year 2004, a 10 percent increase
over fiscal year 2003.
Increases will help reverse the declining Federal support for the
physical sciences and to encourage more students to pursue degrees in
these fields. The Office of Science is the largest Federal supporter of
research in the physical sciences, funding almost 40 percent of
research in these fields. In view of the emphasis placed on the
physical sciences in the fiscal year 2004 budget, ACS is disappointed
that this vital office did not receive adequate support.
The Office of Science fosters the new discoveries and technical
talent that will continue to be essential to advances in coal,
hydrogen, biomass, genomics, and many other technology areas.
Additional funds should be directed to increase the number of grants,
especially in core energy programs, and to improve research facilities.
The Office is the primary source of Federal support in many research
areas essential to our energy security and economy, such as catalysis,
carbon cycle research, photovoltaics, combustion, and advanced
computing. Increased investment is also important given the declining
private support for long-term energy research.
increase grants in core programs
ACS recommends that increases for the Office of Science be directed
to advancing core energy research across disciplines, which enables DOE
to respond rapidly to new challenges. For example, DOE capitalized on
long-term atmospheric chemistry research, particularly in aerosols, and
quickly developed a single anthrax-bacterium detector. DOE must
strengthen its ability to attract scientists and train the next
generation of scientists and engineers by increasing the number of
grants in its core programs without reducing their size and duration.
Current appropriations allow the DOE Office of Science to fund only 10
percent of the unsolicited, peer-reviewed proposals it receives
annually. This rate is considerably lower than those of other agencies
and amounts to lost opportunities for both significant discoveries and
the education of the next generation of scientists and engineers.
Within the Office of Science, ACS particularly supports the Basic
Energy Sciences and Biological and Environmental Research programs. As
the cornerstone of the Office, the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program
supports an array of long-term basic research to improve energy
production and use and reduce the environmental impact of those
activities. The BES program manages almost all of DOE's scientific
user-facilities, and provides leading support for nanotechnology and
advanced computing research--two priority research areas that will have
important implications for energy efficiency and security. The
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program advances
fundamental understanding in fields such as waste processing,
bioremediation, and atmospheric chemistry to better understand
potential long-term health and environmental effects of energy
production and use and identify opportunities to prevent pollution.
Progress in these fields is also needed to develop and advance new,
effective, and efficient processes for the remediation and restoration
of DOE weapons production sites. ACS supports a strong role for DOE in
Federal efforts to advance pollution prevention and climate change
research.
doe and the scientific workforce
As the largest supporter of research in the physical sciences, DOE
can greatly affect the training and number of scientists in industry,
government and academia. Inadequate investment in any research field
constricts the supply of trained scientists and engineers who apply
research and develop new technology. For instance, declining support
for nuclear science and engineering will greatly affect the nuclear
sector as a majority of today's nuclear scientists and engineers near
retirement. Another example is the synergistic relationship between the
need for radiochemists and NIH's ability to conduct clinical trials.
Advances in diagnosis and treatment in nuclear medicine are dependent
on the synthesis of highly specific radiopharmaceuticals that target
biological processes in normal and diseased tissues. The Office of
Science, through BER supported research, occupies a critical place in
the field of radiopharmaceutical research. The NIH relies on the Office
of Science's basic research to enable clinical trials.
Another way for DOE to help attract students and retain talented
scientists and engineers is to renew its investment in scientific
infrastructure. The Office of Science effectively operates one of the
most extensive and remarkable collection of scientific user facilities
in the world, which provide tools for the research of more than 15,000
scientists funded by DOE, other Federal agencies, and industry. Many
facilities are in poor condition or have outmoded instrumentation.
Additional funding would allow for increased operating time, upgrades,
instrumentation, and technical support. More complete utilization of
DOE's facilities would increase the return on investment and maximize
their scientific contributions and educational value.
National laboratories also play an important role in providing
research and training opportunities to enhance the university
curriculum. ACS supports the initial plan by DOE to utilize its
national laboratories to help mentor and train science teachers.
Students at all levels clearly learn better when their teachers have a
deep understanding of the subject, and the first-rate multidisciplinary
research and scientific professionals at the national laboratories
certainly could be a rich resource for science and math teachers. We
are concerned, however, that increases for this new initiative will
come at the expense of more fundamental programs and thus urge that new
funding be provided. ACS also urges stronger coordination among
agencies with significant K-12 math and science programs in order to
maximize the Federal investment in this area.
______
Prepared Statement of Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
Southeastern Federal Power Customers' (``SeFPC''), I am pleased to
provide testimony in reference to the administration's fiscal year 2004
budget request for the Department of Energy and related Federal Power
Marketing Administrations (``PMAs''). My testimony will focus primarily
on the budget request for the Southeastern Power Administration
(``SEPA''). Among other issues, we wish to emphasize that the proposed
changes in SEPA's Puchased Power and Wheeling (``PP&W'') budget would
have a negative impact on Federal preference power customers throughout
the Southeast.
SEPA purchases, transmits, and markets the power generated at
Federal reservoirs to municipal systems, rural electric cooperatives,
and other wholesale customers throughout the Southeast. The SeFPC has
enjoyed a long and successful relationship with SEPA that has greatly
benefited the approximately 5.8 million customers that are SeFPC
members. As the subcommittee is aware SEPA markets the energy and
capacity that is generated from the Federal reservoir projects in the
Southeast. The SeFPC represents some 238 rural cooperatives and
municipally owned electric systems in the States of Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida,
Virginia, and West Virginia, which purchase power from SEPA. In some
cases, SEPA supplies as much as 25 percent of the power and 10 percent
of the energy needs of SeFPC customers.
administration's proposal to phase out purchased power and wheeling
The administration has proposed significant reductions in PP&W
funding for SEPA and the other PMAs in fiscal year 2004 and has
recommended the elimination of all Federal funding for PP&W by the end
of 2004. The President's proposal would reduce PP&W funding for SEPA by
over 55 percent in the upcoming fiscal year, from the current level of
$34.5 million to the proposed level of $15 million. This proposal is
very troubling to the SeFPC. The failure to fund these important
programs under SEPA's jurisdiction could have dire consequences for the
Federal power program in the Southeast and Federal preference power
generally.
If the President's proposal becomes law, the power supply for the
not-for-profit distributors and their customers throughout the
Southeast will be severely disrupted. SEPA's customers also will likely
lose the benefits of long-term contractual arrangements for
transmission and purchased power. Because SEPA does not own its own
transmission lines, the loss of PP&W appropriations will force us to
arrange our own transmission services, including delivery services from
SEPA projects. Also, elimination of SEPA's purchased power funds will
force us to buy our power from sources other than SEPA at higher
prices, which will be passed directly to our customers.
It is important to note that the President's proposal would yield
no cost savings for the Federal Government. The use of PP&W revenues is
a discretionary function with no budgetary impact. PP&W funds are
repaid annually by preference customers.
Thank you in advance for considering our comments on the
President's proposed fiscal year 2004 budget for SEPA.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Museum of Natural History
about the american museum of natural history
The American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) is one of the
Nation's preeminent institutions for scientific research and public
education. Since its founding in 1869, the Museum has pursued its
mission to ``discover, interpret, and disseminate--through scientific
research and education--knowledge about human cultures, the natural
world, and the universe.'' It is renowned for its exhibitions and
collections of more than 32 million specimens and cultural artifacts.
With nearly 4 million annual visitors--approximately half of them
children--its audience is one of the largest and most diverse of any
museum in the country. Museum scientists conduct groundbreaking
research in fields ranging from all branches of zoology, comparative
genomics, and bioinformatics to earth, space, and environmental
sciences and biodiversity conservation. Their work forms the basis for
all the Museum's activities that seek to explain complex issues and
help people to understand the events and processes that created and
continue to shape the Earth, life and civilization on this planet, and
the universe beyond.
Today more than 200 Museum scientists with internationally
recognized expertise, led by 46 curators, conduct laboratory and
collections-based research programs as well as fieldwork and training.
Scientists in five divisions (Anthropology; Earth, Planetary, and Space
Sciences; Invertebrate Zoology; Paleontology; and Vertebrate Zoology)
are sequencing DNA and creating new computational tools to retrace the
evolutionary tree, documenting changes in the environment, making new
discoveries in the fossil record, and describing human culture in all
its variety. The Museum also conducts graduate training programs in
conjunction with a host of distinguished universities, supports
doctoral and postdoctoral scientists with highly competitive research
fellowships, and offers talented undergraduates an opportunity to work
with Museum scientists.
The AMNH collections of some 32 million natural specimens and
cultural artifacts are a major scientific resource for Museum
scientists as well as for more than 250 national and international
visiting scientists each year. They often include endangered and
extinct species as well as many of the only known ``type specimens,''
or examples of species by which all other finds are compared. Within
the collections are many spectacular individual collections, including
the world's most comprehensive collections of dinosaurs, fossil
mammals, Northwest Coast and Siberian cultural artifacts, North
American butterflies, spiders, Australian and Chinese amphibians,
reptiles, fishes, and one of the world's most important bird
collections. The Museum has also established a super-cold storage
facility, described below, for collection of tissue samples with
preserved DNA for genomics research. Collections such as these are
historical libraries of expertly identified and documented examples of
species and artifacts, providing an irreplaceable record of life on
earth.
Permanent and temporary exhibits--from the Rose Center for Earth
and Space to The Genomic Revolution, discussed below--are among the
Museum's most potent educational tools, interpreting the work of Museum
scientists, highlighting its collections, addressing relevant
scientific and cultural issues, and presenting cutting edge content in
a way that is accessible to all ages, learning levels, and backgrounds.
The Education Department builds these exhibitions, as well as the
Museum's unique resources, to offer rich programming dedicated to
increasing scientific literacy, to encouraging students to pursue
science and museum careers, and to providing a forum for exploring the
world's cultures. These programs attract more than 400,000 students and
teachers on school visits and more than 5,000 teachers for special
professional development opportunities. The Museum is also reaching
beyond its walls: through its National Center for Science Literacy,
Education, and Technology, launched in 1997 in partnership with NASA,
it is exploiting new technologies to bring materials, and programs into
homes, schools, museums, and community organizations around the Nation.
support for department of energy science mission and goals
As one of the world's preeminent science organizations, DOE's
primary strategic goals include maintaining a world class scientific
research capability and enhancing homeland defense. Its leading science
program supports fundamental research in energy, matter, and the basic
forces of nature and the advanced computational and networking tools
critical to research. The American Museum shares DOE's fundamental
commitments to cutting-edge research and technology in support of
science and education, and it seeks, in concert with DOE, to leverage
complementary resources and to advance our many shared science goals.
Genomic Science
DOE is a leader in genomics research, advanced sequencing
technologies, and instrumentation. With the historic completion of the
first draft of the human genome, its work on the frontiers of genome
science continues, including research in energy-related biology,
comparative genomics, organisms' responses to biological and
environmental cues, and experimental and computational approaches to
predictive understanding of microbes and microbial communities.
Genomics research remains critically important to the DOE mission, not
only by helping to protect against bio-terrorism but also by
contributing to the broad goal of developing ``a fundamental,
comprehensive, and systematic understanding of life.''
The American Museum is deeply engaged in genome research closely
tied to DOE's mission areas and research priorities. It is home of one
of the world's largest natural history collections, a preeminent
molecular research program, and singular research resources in frozen
tissue samples and cluster computing. In the era of genomics, museum
collections have become critical baseline resources for the assessment
of genetic diversity of natural populations; studying genomic data in a
natural history context makes it possible to more fully understand the
impacts of new discoveries in genomics and molecular biology. Genomes
of the simplest organisms provide a window into the fundamental
mechanics of life, and understanding their natural capabilities can
help solve challenges in biodefense, medicine and health care, energy
supply, and environmental cleanup.
Frozen Tissue Collection
In support of its molecular program, the Museum has launched an
expansion of its collections to include biological tissues and isolated
DNA preserved in a super-cold storage facility. Because this collection
preserves genetic material and gene products from rare and endangered
organisms that may become extinct before science fully exploits their
potential, it is an invaluable resource for research in many fields
including genetics, comparative genomics, and biodefense. Capable of
housing 1 million specimens, it will be the largest super-cold tissue
collection of its kind. In the past 2 years, 15,000 specimens not
available at any other institute or facility have already accessioned.
At the same time, the Museum is pioneering the development of
collection and storage protocols for such collections. To maximize use
and utility of the facility for researchers worldwide, the Museum is
also developing a sophisticated website and online database that
includes collection information and digitized images.
Cluster Computing
DOE science programs are committed to ``providing extraordinary
tools for extraordinary science.'' The Museum, too, is a leader in
developing computational tools, as parallel computing is an essential
enabling technology for phylogenetic (evolutionary) analysis and
intensive, efficient sampling of a wide array of study organisms.
Museum scientists have constructed an in-house 560-processor computing
cluster, and are in the process of upgrading it to 128 dual CPU nodes
with 2 Gb/sec Myrinet interconnections. It is the fastest parallel
computing cluster in an evolutionary biology laboratory and one of the
fastest installed in a non-defense environment.
Over the past 9 years, Museum scientists have taken a leadership
role in developing and applying new computational approaches to
deciphering evolutionary relationships through time and across species;
their pioneering efforts in cluster computing, algorithm development,
and evolutionary theory have been widely recognized and commended for
their broad applicability for biology as a whole. The bioinformatics
tools Museum scientists are creating will not only help to generate
evolutionary scenarios, but also will inform and make more efficient
large genome sequencing efforts. Many of the parallel algorithms and
implementations (especially cluster-based) will be applicable in other
informatics contexts such as annotation and assembly, breakpoint
analysis, and non-genomic areas of evolutionary biology as well as in
other disciplines.
Institute of Comparative Genomics
Building on its strengths in comparative genomics, and in concert
with the scientific goals of DOE, the Museum has established an
Institute for Comparative Genomics so as to contribute its unique
resources and expertise to the Nation's genomic research enterprise.
Equipped with its molecular labs with DNA sequencers, vast biological
collections, researchers with expertise in the methods of comparative
biology, and the parallel computing facility and frozen tissue
collection described above, the Institute is positioned to be one of
the world's premier research facilities for mapping the genome across a
comprehensive spectrum of life forms.
The Institute has already established a record of significant
research achievements, which include obtaining a patent for innovative
approach to analyzing microarray data that will facilitate improved
diagnoses of diseases such as cancer and development of drugs to treat
such diseases, developing computational techniques to analyze
chromosomal sequence data, and winning grants to lead international
research teams in assembling the ``tree of life.'' In partnership with
the Department of Energy, with the support of a fiscal year 2002
appropriation, Dr. Rob DeSalle is conducting research that is making
notable progress in advancing understanding of bacterial genomics and
the evolution of pathogenicity.
These accomplishments are complemented by the Museum's ambitious
agenda of genomics-related exhibitions, conferences, and public
education programming, including the landmark exhibition, The Genomic
Revolution in 2001. The exhibition, attended by approximately 500,000
visitors and now touring nationally, examines the revolution taking
place in molecular biology and its impact on modern science and
technology, natural history, biodiversity, and our everyday lives. We
have also hosted several international conferences on important
genomics topics: Sequencing the Human Genome: New Frontiers in Science
and Technology, in Fall 2000; Conservation Genetics in the Age of
Genomics in Spring 2001; New Directions in Cluster Computing in June
2001; and in 2002, an international meeting to examine current
knowledge of life's history, Assembling the Tree of Life: Science,
Relevance, and Challenges.
As it moves forward, the Institute, working in cooperation with New
York's outstanding biomedical research and educational institutions, is
focusing on molecular and microbial systematics, on expanding our
understanding of the evolution of life on earth and the evolution of
critical organismal form and function through analysis of the genomes
of selected microbes and other non-human organisms, and on constructing
large genomic databases. Development of Institute activities will
entail expanding expertise in microbial systematics and the molecular
laboratory program that now trains dozens of graduate students every
year; utilizing the latest sequencing technologies; employing parallel
computing applications that allow scientists to solve combinatorially
complex problems involving large real world datasets; and developing of
K-12 curriculum materials, scientific conferences, and public exhibits.
The interests and expertise of DOE and the Museum intersect in
particular in these areas of comparative and microbial genomics. One of
the goals of DOE's Human Genome Project is to learn about the relevance
to humans of nonhuman organisms' DNA sequences. DOE science also
targets an area in which the Museum is expanding its expertise--
microbial genomics, the study of organisms that have survived and
thrived in extreme and inhospitable environments. DOE's Genomes to Life
and microbial genome programs are based on the understanding that
genomes, especially those of the simplest organisms, provide a window
into the fundamental mechanics of life. The Genomes to Life program is
also committed to developing the computational tools to integrate data,
to understand data, and to model complex biological systems. The
Institute's programs in comparative and microbial genomics and
computation could provide vital advances in these endeavors and support
DOE's biological and environmental research function (the BER account).
We seek $5 million for support of the Institute of Comparative
Genomics to partner with DOE and to contribute its unique capacities to
advancing shared priority areas of genomic science. The Institute
supports DOE's biological and environmental research function (the BER
account); and its diverse strengths and unique resources in comparative
genomics will help to further DOE's goals for building a scientific
research capacity to enable advances and discoveries in DOE science
through world-class research. In addition, further development of the
Museum's super-cold tissue collection will increase enormously the
possibilities for DNA research and provide an invaluable international
scientific resource. Our online collection database will ensure public
access to genomics information, furthering DOE's own goals for
fostering public understanding of human genomics and the fundamental
building blocks of life. The Museum intends to support the Institute
with funds from non-Federal as well as Federal sources and proposes to
use the requested $5 million towards overall costs for the Institute's
microbial genomics research program, including expansion and renovation
of the molecular laboratories to accommodate additional investigators
and students, research instrumentation, and scientific outreach and
dissemination (website, online databases).
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
Jersey
The following is the testimony of the University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), the largest freestanding public
university of the health sciences in the Nation. The University is
located on five statewide campuses and contains three medical schools,
and schools of dentistry, nursing, health related professions, public
health and graduate biomedical sciences. UMDNJ also comprises a
University-owned acute care hospital, three core teaching hospitals, an
integrated behavioral health care delivery system, a statewide system
for managed care and affiliations with more than 200 health care and
educational institutions statewide.
We appreciate the opportunity to bring to your attention our
priority projects that are consistent with the biomedical research
mission of the Department of Energy. These projects are statewide in
scope and include collaborations both within the University system and
with our affiliates.
Our first priority is the development of the Child Health Institute
of New Jersey at the UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (RWJMS)
in New Brunswick. As part of the State's public higher education
system, the medical school encompasses 21 basic science and clinical
departments and integrates diverse clinical programs conducted at 34
hospital affiliates and numerous ambulatory care sites in the region.
RWJMS ranks among the top one-third of medical schools in the Nation in
terms of grant support per faculty member. It is home to The Cancer
Institute of New Jersey, the only NCI-designated comprehensive cancer
center in New Jersey; The Center for Advanced Biotechnology and
Medicine; the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute,
one of the leading environmental health programs in the country; and
the Child Health Institute of New Jersey.
The mission of the Child Health Institute is to build a
comprehensive biomedical research center focused on the health and
wellness of children. In this program, medical researchers direct
efforts towards the prevention and cure of environmental and genetic
diseases of infants and children at molecular and cellular levels.
The Child Health Institute is integral to the long-term plan for
the enhancement of research at UMDNJ-RWJMS in developmental genetics,
particularly as it relates to disorders that affect a child's
development and growth, physically and cognitively. The program will
enable the medical school to expand and strengthen basic research
efforts with clinical departments at the Robert Wood Johnson University
Hospital (RWJUH) and, in particular, those involved with the new
Children's Hospital at RWJUH especially Obstetrics, Pediatrics,
Neurology, Surgery and Psychiatry. The construction of the Child Health
Institute at RWJMS will fill a critical gap through the expansion, by
new recruitment, of a intellectual base upon which basic molecular
programs in child development and health will build.
At the Child Health Institute, research will serve as the basis for
new treatments, therapies and cures for such devastating and
debilitating childhood syndromes as asthma, autism, diabetes, muscular
dystrophy, birth defects and neuro-developmental disorders. Research
will focus on the molecular and genetic mechanisms which direct the
development of human form, subsequent growth, and acquisition of
function. Broadly, the faculty and students will investigate disorders
that occur during the process of development to discover and study the
genes contributing to developmental disabilities and childhood
diseases; to determine how genes and the environment interact to cause
childhood diseases; and to identify the causes and possible avenues of
treatment of cognitive disorders broadly found among conditions such as
mental retardation, autism and related neurological disorders.
Normal child development is a water dependent process, reflecting
water quality, quantity and its ``management'' by cells and tissues.
Access to uncontaminated water is at the base of the tree of life.
Pollution of aquatic ecosystems poses a serious threat to the entire
ecosystem and studying how a toxin affects embryonic development is
central to understanding the risks pollutants represent, whether
derived from pesticides, industrial run-off, acid rain or landfills. In
multiple ways, the embryo is a sentinel for environmental toxins.
Research at the Child Health Institute will focus on molecular
mechanisms of early embryonic development, a natural, but vulnerable
water-based environment.
The Child Health Institute of New Jersey builds on existing
significant strengths in genetic, environmental, and neurosciences
research within the UMDNJ-RWJMS and associated joint programs with
Rutgers University and other research institutes. For example, the
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI) is a
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) recognized
center of excellence which investigates environmental influences on
normal and disordered functions; the Cancer Institute of New Jersey
(CINJ), a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer
Center, studies disordered cell growth; and the Center for Advanced
Biotechnology and Medicine (CABM) characterizes gene structure and
function.
The CHI will act as a magnet for additional growth in research and
healthcare program development in New Jersey. The Institute will
encompass 150,000 gross square feet and will house more than 40
research laboratories and associated support facilities. Fourteen
senior faculty will direct teams of M.D. and Ph.D. researchers,
visiting scientists, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students and
technicians for a full complement of some 130 employees.
Construction costs for the Institute are estimated to be
approximately $72 million; approximately half of this figure is
generally associated with local employment. At maturity, the Institute
is expected to attract $7 to $9 million dollars of new research funding
annually. The Institute's total annual operating budget is projected to
be $10 to $12 million, with total economic impact on the New Brunswick
area projected to be many times this amount.
The Child Health Institute has assembled over $40 million to fund
its building and programs through a strong partnership among private,
corporate and government entitities. The support of the Congress has
resulted in more than $6 million in directed appropriations for the CHI
over the past 4 years, including appropriations from this committee in
fiscal years 2001 and 2002. We respectfully seek $2 million to
complement support already received in Federal participation to further
advance the development of the Child Health Institute of New Jersey.
Requested funding will be utilized for the purchase of analytical
equipment, including laser scanning and photon microscopes, mass
spectometer, and ventilated rack systems.
Our second priority is the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer
Center (GPCC), established at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey (CINJ)
with the goal of eradicating prostate cancer and improving the lives of
men at risk for the disease through research, treatment, education and
prevention. The Center was founded in memory of Rep. Dean Gallo, a New
Jersey Congressman who died of prostate cancer diagnosed at an advanced
stage.
Prostate cancer is a devastating health problem in the Nation and
in the State of New Jersey, which continues to experience one of the
highest rate of cancer incidence and mortality. Prostate cancer is the
most common form of cancer, other than skin cancer, among men in the
United States and is second only to lung cancer as a cause of cancer-
related death among men. The American Cancer Society estimates that
189,000 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed and
approximately 30,200 men will die of the disease in 2002. Statistics
released by the Centers for Disease Control in 2002 placed New Jersey
fourth in the Nation for the rate or prostate cancer incidence.
The GPCC unites a team of outstanding researchers and clinicians
who are committed to high quality basic research, translation of
innovative research to the clinic, exceptional patient care, and
improving public education and awareness of prostate cancer. GPCC is a
center of excellence of the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, which is
the only NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center in the State. GPCC
efforts are focused in four major areas: (1) Basic, Clinical and
Translational Research; (2) Epidemiology and Cancer Control; (3)
Comprehensive Patient Care; and (4) Education and Outreach.
Basic, Clinical and Translational Research.--GPCC scientists are
investigating the molecular, genetic and environmental factors that are
responsible for prostate cancer initiation and progression. Appropriate
model systems developed by Dr. Abate-Shen at the GPCC are being
utilized to facilitate the design and implementation of novel
strategies for prevention and treatment. GPCC is fostering multi-
disciplinary efforts that will lead to the effective translation of
basic research to improved patient care and novel clinical trials. The
translational research program developed at the Gallo Prostate Cancer
Center has been recognized at national scientific meetings such as
those organized by the American Association for Clinical Research.
Epidemiology and Cancer Control.--Additional research activities of
the GPCC seek to understand the etiology of prostate cancer
susceptibility and to find effective modalities for prevention of
prostate cancer.
Comprehensive Patient Care.--Exceptional patient care is provided
through a multi-disciplinary patient care team in the areas of
urological oncology, radiation oncology and medical oncology for each
patient during all stages of the disease. Currently the Center has
fourteen active clinical trials that provide our patients with novel
clinical approaches for treating all stages of prostate cancer. Seventy
patients were enrolled in clinical trials in 2002.
Education and Outreach.--GPCC is continuing to educate the public
throughout the State of New Jersey about the importance of early
detection of prostate cancer, particularly in underserved communities
where there is a population at high risk for the disease. The Gallo
Center has developed an extensive network of partnerships with
organizations such as the 100 Black Men of New Jersey, the Men's Health
Network, the National Black Leadership Initiative on Cancer, and the
Jewish Renaissance Foundation to offer prostate cancer screenings in
minority and other underserved communities. The goal is to extend
prostate cancer screening services to all 21 New Jersey counties by
2004.
To date, the Gallo Center has raised over $12.2 million in external
public and private funding sources (including $3 million in support
from this committee) to expand its research, cancer control and public
outreach initiatives. The UMDNJ commitment to the overall development
of The Cancer Institute of New Jersey and of the Gallo Center total
over $83 million. This important funding has enabled us to establish a
world-class program in prostate cancer research that includes
publications in prestigious journals such as the New England Journal of
Medicine, Genes and Development, Cancer, Cancer Research, and Clinical
Cancer Research.
Our fiscal year 2004 initiative is designed to support the further
expansion of the Center's basic and clinical research initiatives,
public outreach and cancer control efforts in both the Newark and north
Jersey region, and the Camden/southern New Jersey region where we can
increase the availability of cancer programs to the state's major
population regions. Support of $3 million is sought to strengthen the
Center's basic and clinical research programs. This additional funding
will also allow us to enhance our treatment of patients with prostate
cancer through several new clinical trials for patients at all stages
of the disease. An additional level of funding support of $3 million is
requested to expand the Center's public outreach and screening
activities to reach vulnerable populations in the greater Newark and
Camden communities and in other locations across the State.
We thank this committee for its strong support of biomedical
research and for the University's programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal
and other State and locally owned utilities throughout the United
States (all but Hawaii). Collectively, public power utilities deliver
electricity to one of every seven electric consumers (about 40 million
people), serving some of the Nation's largest cities. However, the vast
majority of APPA's members serve communities with populations of 10,000
people or less.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining
our fiscal year 2004 funding priorities within the Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
renewable energy production incentive program (repi)
The Department of Energy's REPI program was created in 1992's
Energy Policy Act (EPAct) as a counterpart to the renewable energy
production tax credits made available to for-profit utilities. EPAct
authorizes the Department of Energy (DOE) to make direct payments to
not-for-profit public power systems and rural electric cooperatives at
the rate of 1.5 cents per kWh (now closer to 1.7 cents when adjusted
for inflation) from electricity generated from solar, wind, geothermal
and biomass projects. According to DOE sources, there is a backlog of
close to $40 million in requests for REPI funding for 2003. Taking a
step in the right direction, Congress appropriated $5 million for REPI
for fiscal year 2003, a 25 percent increase over DOE's request of $4
million for fiscal year 2003. Despite Congress' allocation and the
demonstrated need, however, DOE has again asked for only $4 million for
fiscal year 2004, citing budgetary constraints.
Fully funding REPI is an issue of comparability for 25 percent of
the utility sector and the communities these systems serve. For
example, in 2000, for-profit utilities and private developers received
about $58 million in renewable energy tax credits for wind power alone.
The same year, REPI subscribers received only $3.99 million for
renewable energy projects of all types. While APPA supports increasing
renewable energy use throughout the utility sector, our member
utilities simply must receive comparable federally sanctioned
incentives to help in that effort.
We believe Congress was committed 10 years ago to removing economic
barriers to enable all communities to benefit from the production of
more renewable and clean energy. We also believe that Congress is
equally committed today--not only to producing more renewable energy,
but also to diversifying America's portfolio of fuels, decreasing our
reliance on foreign sources of energy, and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. In fact, under a fully funded REPI program, close to 60
million metric tons of carbon equivalent could be reduced through the
development existing landfills into landfill-gas-to-energy projects. In
order to ensure that these efforts and other renewable energy goals are
achievable throughout the electric utility industry, Congress must
provide an increase for REPI.
renewable energy programs
As is demonstrated by our strong support for REPI, APPA believes
that investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs is
critical. We urge the subcommittee to support adequate funding to
ensure that renewable energy usage continues to increase as part of the
portfolio of fuel options available to our Nation's electric utilities.
We appreciate the subcommittee's recognition of the merits of these
programs as demonstrated by its passage of a substantial increase over
the President's fiscal year 2003 budget request. We encourage your
continued support of these vital renewable energy programs.
federal power marketing administrations (pmas)
APPA urges the subcommittee to increase the use of receipts for the
Purchase Power and Wheeling (PP&W) programs of the Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA), the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) and
the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) in fiscal year 2004.
The fiscal year 2004 budget proposes to drastically curtail the
abilities of WAPA, SEPA, and SWPA to use receipts--which do not score--
to provide these services to customers who cover these costs in their
electric bills. Appropriations are no longer needed to initiate PP&W
process, however, the subcommittee does establish ceilings on the use
of receipts for this important function.
The PP&W program is important because hydroelectric generation and
customer use are rarely in exact balance--both vary from hour-to-hour
and day-to-day. The PMAs often make purchases in the spot market to
``firm'' the resource when generation is less than the amount
contracted for delivery. And, in low-water years, which have been all
too frequent recently, the PMAs often purchase additional power to
fulfill their contracts with customers. Wheeling is the charge that the
PMAs pay to move electricity over a non-Federal transmission line. It
also reduces the need to build additional Federal transmission
facilities.
Therefore, we request that the subcommittee authorize the use of
receipts in fiscal year 2004 as follows:
--Western Area Power Administration (WAPA): $186.1 million needed--
includes $20 million recommended by OMB in the budget plus a
$166.1 million authorization in the fiscal year 2004 bill.
--Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA): $34.4 million needed--
includes $15 million recommended by OMB plus $19.4 million
authorization in the fiscal year 2004 bill.
--Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA): $2.8 million needed--
includes $288,000 recommended by OMB plus $2.6 million
authorization in the fiscal year 2004 bill.
storage for high-level nuclear waste
Since 1982, the Nation's electricity customers have committed $16.5
billion to the Nuclear Waste Fund in order to finance centralized
Federal management of spent nuclear fuel used for commercial purposes.
We therefore support the administration's efforts to finalize the
location of a permanent storage site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and we
support its request of $591 million for Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management in fiscal year 2004 to further this undertaking.
advanced hydropower turbine program
APPA supports the administration's budget request of $7.5 million
for the Advanced Hydropower Turbine Program for fiscal year 2004. This
program is a joint industry-government cost-share effort to develop a
hydroelectric turbine that will protect fish and other aquatic habitats
while continuing to allow for the production of emissions free
hydroelectric power.
During the next 15 years, 220 hydroelectric projects will seek new
licenses from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Publicly
owned projects constitute 50 percent of the total capacity that will be
up for renewal. Many of these projects were originally licensed over 50
years ago. Newly imposed licensing conditions can cost hydro project
owners 10 to 15 percent of power generation. A new, improved turbine
could help assure that any environmental conditions imposed at
relicensing in the form of new conditioning, fish passages or reduced
flows are not accomplished at the expense of emissions-free, renewable
energy production. This is particularly important given the
increasingly competitive market in which electric utilities operate
today. Flow levels will affect the economics of each of these projects
and many will be unable to compete if the current trend toward flow
reduction continues.
federal energy regulatory commission (ferc)
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has requested
$199.4 million for fiscal year 2004 for its overall operations. APPA
supports this request. The FERC is charged with regulating certain
interstate aspects of the natural gas, oil pipeline, hydropower, and
electric utility industries. Such regulation includes issuing licenses
and certificates for construction of facilities, approving rates,
inspecting dams, implementing compliance and enforcement activities,
and providing other services to regulated businesses. These businesses
pay fees and charges that cover most of the cost of the government's
operations.
navajo electrification demonstration program
APPA supports full funding for the Navajo Electrification
Demonstration Program at its $15 million authorized funding level for
fiscal year 2004 and for each succeeding year of its authorization
(through 2006). The purpose of the program is to provide electric power
to the estimated 18,000 occupied structures in the Navajo Nation that
lack electric power.
The Navajo Nation is served by the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority
(NTUA), an APPA member. NTUA provides electric, natural gas, water,
wastewater treatment, and photovoltaic services throughout the Navajo
Indian Reservations in the States of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah.
Fully funding the Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program will
significantly improve the quality of life for the people of the Navajo
Nation.
national climate change technology initiative
APPA supports the administration's efforts to promote greenhouse
gas reductions through voluntary programs and investments in new
technologies. We therefore support DOE's request of $15 million for
fiscal year 2004 to spur innovation of technologies that will reduce,
avoid, or capture greenhouse gas emissions.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Michigan, University of
Tennessee, University of Texas, University of Florida, and University
of New Mexico
research, education, and doe mission support
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has provided support to the DOE
University Research Program in Robotics to pursue long range research
leading to the ``development and deployment of advanced robotic systems
capable of reducing human exposure to hazardous environments, and of
performing a broad spectrum of tasks more safely and effectively than
utilizing humans.''
The DOE University Research Program in Robotics (URPR) has proven
highly effective in technology innovation, education, and DOE mission
support. The URPR has incorporated mission-oriented university research
into DOE, and, through close collaboration with the DOE sites, provides
an avenue for developing creative solutions to problems of vital
importance to DOE.
The URPR would like to thank the Committee members for their
historically strong support of this successful program. Recognizing the
shift in national priorities post-9/11/01, the URPR has begun to
include new applications as the target for its technology development.
Funding was equally split between EM and NNSA during fiscal year 2003.
This enabled the completion of dedicated research for specific EM
projects while integrating into the NNSA organization.
request for the committee
We request that the Committee include language for the University
Research Program in Robotics (URPR) research funds at its historic
level of $4.35 million to continue developing safer, less expensive,
and more capable robotic technology for NNSA applications.
developing advanced robotics for doe and the nation
Develop Robotic Solutions for Work in Potentially Hazardous
Environments
The goal of this program is to invent and utilize state-of-the-art
robotic technology in order to remove humans from potentially hazardous
environments and expedite remediation efforts considered essential.
Established by DOE in fiscal year 1987 to support advanced nuclear
reactor concepts, the project was moved to EM to support the higher
priority needs in environmental restoration. Reflecting the change in
national priorities post-9/11, the URPR began supporting NNSA
applications during fiscal year 2003. The project has produced an
impressive array of technological innovations, which have been
incorporated into robotic solutions being employed across Federal and
commercial sectors. This successful program demonstrates efficient
technology innovation while educating tomorrow's technologists,
inventing our country's intelligent machine systems technology of the
next century, and meeting today's applied research needs for DOE.
The URPR represents a DOE-sponsored consortium of five research
universities (Florida, Michigan, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Texas) of
long standing, working on the science of remote systems technologies to
advance their effectiveness in performing physical tasks in hazardous
environments associated with the DOE nuclear sites. The work of these
universities is now widely recognized as some of the best in the field
(the creation of spin-off companies, deployment requests from FEMA at
Ground Zero, wins in national technology competitions, archival journal
articles, etc.). Some of the focus technologies include innovative
mobile platforms and their semi-autonomous navigation, kinesthetic
input to teleoperation systems, simulation-based design and control,
manipulation of unwieldy objects, machine vision and scene assessment
for world modeling, improved radiation hardening of electronic
components, and integration technology to assist in the assessment and
deployment of complete solutions in the field. In addition to DOE
specific applications, the team is increasingly able to deploy their
technology for DOD applications (aircraft carrier weapon's elevator,
anti-terrorism systems, submarine operations, etc.), for Homeland
Security applications (surveillance and monitoring), for commercial
applications (manufacturing, building construction, space) and for
human augmentation and training (micro-surgery, rehabilitation of
humans, reduction of drudgery). We constantly seek to explore strategic
partnerships and utilize existing deployment resources to more rapidly
export this technology to the DOE sites that could most benefit from
this new technology.
Making the Nation Safer
In the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, our Nation has engaged in a
long-term war to counter terrorism. The National Research Council
recently [2002] published a thorough study of the role of science and
technology in countering terrorism entitled Making the Nation Safer.
This book represents the collective thoughts of 164 top scientists and
engineers focusing on homeland security of the United States. It
represents the combined output of the National Academy of Sciences, the
National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the
National Research Council. It identifies urgent research opportunities.
Of the seven cross-cutting technology challenges identified by the
committee, autonomous mobile robotic technologies were highlighted.
``Continued development and use of robotic platforms will enable the
deployment of mobile sensor networks for threat detection and
intelligence collection. Robotic technologies can also assist humans
and such activities as ordnance disposal, decontamination, debris
removal, and firefighting.'' Robotic technologies, cited as a
``critical long-term research need,'' are featured throughout the
individual chapters that address ways for mitigating our society's
vulnerabilities to terrorism and responding to an attack.
Our Nation's technology experts recommend: ``Agencies with
experience in robotics, such as DARPA, should support research on all
elements of robotic systems--including sensors, networks, and data
communication and analysis. The aim would be to develop robots to
assist in chemical (and biological or radiological) defense, thereby
reducing hazards to humans and increasing the capabilities of defensive
systems.'' [Rec. 4.8]
In addition, the report identifies the need to sustain the Nation's
scientific and engineering talent base and recommends [Rec. 13.4] a
human resource development program to increase training in those fields
consistent with the government's long-term priorities for homeland
security research. The report exhorts that ``expanding the number of
American scientists and engineers is particularly important.''
And directly related to our work in radiation sensing and imaging
is the recommendation [Rec. 2.6] ``A focused and coordinated near-term
effort should be made by the Department of Energy, through its National
Nuclear Security Administration, and by the Department of Defense,
through its Defense Threat Reduction Agency, to evaluate and improve
the efficacy of special nuclear material detection systems that could
be deployed at strategic choke points for homeland defense.'' And [Rec
2.7] ``Research and development support should be provided by the
Department of Energy and Department of Defense for improving the
technological capabilities of special nuclear material detection
systems, especially for detecting highly enriched uranium.'' Our
ongoing URPR research supports these tasks.
In summary, the University Research Program in Robotics is a key
player in executing the recommendations for making the Nation safer. We
commend the enlightened vision of those who have historically
recognized the importance of the URPR and supported this project.
innovation, education, and doe mission support
The URPR's strategic mission is to make significant advances in our
Nation's robotic and manufacturing technology base while emphasizing:
education, technology innovation through basic R&D, and DOE mission
support. The URPR has demonstrated that the advantages of operating as
a consortium are significant. The institutions of the URPR partition
the technical development into manageable sections which allow each
university to concentrate within their area of expertise (efficiently
maintaining world-class levels of excellence) while relying on their
partners to supply supporting concentrations. With full support of the
host universities, this effort naturally generated the in-depth human
and equipment capital required by the DOE community. Practically, the
long-term distributed interaction and planning among these universities
in concert with the DOE labs and associated industry allows for
effective technology development (with software and equipment
compatibility and portability), for a vigorous and full response to
application requirements (component technologies, system technologies,
deployment issues, etc.), and for the supported application of the
technology. Considering the remarkable achievements of URPR over its
history, the URPR is in the ideal position to execute its prominent
role in education, technology innovation, and DOE mission support.
DOE Mission Contribution--Robotic Technologies
Since its inception, DOE has promoted robotics as a necessary
enabling technology to accomplish its mission. The motives for
undertaking a comprehensive R&D effort in the application of advanced
robotics to tasks in hazardous environments reflect economic
considerations, efficiency, and health and safety concerns. The URPR is
DOE's only needs-driven research program to develop new remote systems
technologies to support the DOE thrust areas. In contrast, DOD, NIH,
and NASA continue to prove the benefits of much larger mission-oriented
robotics programs. During this difficult time of uncertainty, we need
Congressional support to continue this very successful national program
in technology innovation for advanced robotic systems.
Program Request for the Committee
During fiscal year 2003, the URPR provided vital contributions to
education and research while addressing DOE technology needs. The
motivation for this project remains steadfast--removing humans from
hazardous environments while enhancing safety, reducing costs, and
increasing response effectiveness. The URPR will begin supporting NNSA
missions during fiscal year 2004. Thus, the DOE fiscal year 2004 budget
submission could not include the URPR and Committee language is needed
to continue the technology missions of the URPR at the fiscal year 2002
and fiscal year 2003 level of $4.35 million.
______
Prepared Statement of the California Government and Private Sector
Coalition for Operation Clean Air's (OCA) Sustainable Incentive Program
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
California Government and Private Sector Coalition for Operation Clean
Air's (OCA) Sustainable Incentive Program, we are pleased to submit
this statement for the record in support of our fiscal year 2004
funding request of $7,000,000 for OCA as part of a Federal match for
the $180 million already contributed by California State and local
agencies and the private sector for incentive programs. This request
consists of $5,000,000 from the Department of Energy (DOE) for biomass
incentives, and $2,000,000 from DOE for alternative fuels
infrastructure funding.
California's great San Joaquin Valley is in crisis. Home to 3.3
million people, its 25,000 square miles may have the most unhealthy air
in the country. Even Los Angeles, long known as the smog capital of the
Nation, can boast better air quality by certain standards. While peak
concentrations of air pollutants are still greater in Los Angeles, for
the past 4 years, the San Joaquin Valley has exceeded Los Angeles in
violations of the 8-hour Federal health standard.
A combination of geography, topography, meteorology, extreme
population growth, urban sprawl and a NAFTA corridor with two major
highways that produce 5 million big-rig miles per day driven by diesel
powered trucks, have collided to produce an air basin which over
300,000 people, nearly 10 percent of the population, suffers from
chronic breathing disorders. In Fresno County, at the heart of the San
Joaquin Valley, more than 16 percent of all children suffer from
asthma, a rate substantially higher than any other place in California.
The extreme summertime heat works to create smog even though smog-
forming gases are less than half the amount in the Los Angeles basin.
There is no prevailing wind to flush the natural geologic bathtub and,
as a result, pollutants and particulates stagnate, accumulate and
create unhealthy air.
Degradation of human health is not the only consequence of poor
quality air. Because the 8-county air pollution control district is
designated as a ``severe'' non-attainment area, a significant number of
the Valley's businesses are required to obtain permits and comply with
increasingly burdensome regulations imposed by Federal and State law
and the Air Pollution Control District, resulting in added cost in
compliance, reporting and record keeping. At the same time, the area is
burdened by unemployment rates of nearly 20 percent. Encouraging
business expansion in or relocation to the San Joaquin Valley to combat
unemployment is extremely difficult in the face of such regulatory
burdens.
In the fall of 2003 the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District Board will decide whether to become the first District in the
Nation voluntarily to declare itself an ``extreme'' non-attainment
area. That designation, if made, will defer until 2010 the date for
attainment of Federal standards of air quality, but will come at a cost
of imposing permitting on thousands of more businesses and even further
discouraging business expansion or relocation. Unemployment will
certainly not be improved.
The San Joaquin Valley is home to the most productive agricultural
land in the world. Over 350 crops are produced commercially on 27,000
farms that encompass more than 5 million irrigated acres. While the
agricultural industry has made great strides at considerable expense to
replace old diesel engines and manage fugitive dust and other
emissions, farming cannot help but contribute to the problem. However,
it is a $14 billion industry that forms the backbone of the Valley's
economy.
Industry alone is not the source of the Valley's poor air.
Population growth faster than the rest of the State and nearly the rest
of the Nation, in an area without effective mass transit, where cheap
land has led to a landscape of suburbia and sprawl, results in
excessive over-reliance on the automobile. Trucking has increased
dramatically with the increase in population. Other factors such as
fireplace burning in the winter, open field agricultural burning
because of lack of adequate alternatives, and wild fires resulting from
lack of controlled burning in the nearby foothills and mountains all
contribute to the problem.
Despite the challenges listed above, much progress has been made.
The State has spent nearly $80 million on improvement and compliance
programs. Local government and private industry have spent over $100
million on technology and compliance. As specific examples, over one
half of the diesel operated irrigation pumps used by agriculture have
been replaced with cleaner engines. The City of Tulare has converted
its entire fleet of vehicles to natural gas as have several other
private fleet operators. A $45 million federally financed comprehensive
study of ozone and particulate matter is nearing completion. As a
result, the number of 1-hour EPA health standard exceedences has been
reduced by 40 percent since 1989.
But much more needs to be done. The District estimates that daily
emissions must be reduced by 300 tons to achieve attainment. There is
no single or short-term quick fix. The entire Valley is part of the
problem and the entire Valley will need to be part of the solution.
Operation Clean Air is a coalition of business, government, health
care and environmental groups throughout the 8-county San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District and Mariposa County. Its goal is
to clean the Valley's air and increase its economic prosperity. The
coalition seeks to catalogue efforts that have produced positive
effects and identify those strategies that could produce even greater
effects if supported by sufficient resources. At the heart of its
efforts will be an array of sustainable, voluntary practices and
activities that can and will be undertaken by all of the residents of
the San Joaquin Valley, both public and private, to improve air
quality.
This unique public-private partnership has invested considerable
resources in this project to date, and will continue to do so, but
Federal funding is both imperative and justified to help address what
is essentially an unfunded Federal mandate.
For fiscal year 2004, our Coalition is seeking funding of
$2,000,000 from the Department of Energy (DOE) for the installation and
operation of alternative fuels infrastructure throughout the San
Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The alternative fuels infrastructure will
allow for the accelerated introduction of alternatively fueled vehicles
in municipal fleets, public school fleets, and private fleets. The
widespread use of lower-emitting motor vehicles will provide
significant improvement to air quality in the San Joaquin Valley while
furthering the goals of the Department of Energy and the National
Energy Policy Act. Development of alternative fuel infrastructure will
augment the low-emission vehicle program by providing much needed
compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (CNG) fueling
facilities.
For fiscal year 2004, our Coalition is also seeking funding of
$5,000,000 to provide financial incentives to reduce open field burning
of residual agricultural materials by utilizing biomass-energy power
plants to burn this material in a controlled environment. This process
will result in multiple benefits to the San Joaquin Valley by reducing
air pollution and producing electrical power from a renewable source.
Thank you very much your consideration of our requests.
______
Letter From the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA)
Tempe, Arizona, April 10, 2003.
The Honorable Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development,
127 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510.
RE: Site Security/Anti-Terrorism Costs
Dear Chairman Domenici: Please include this letter in the hearing
record for the fiscal year 2004 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill.
As you are aware, following the events of September 11, 2001, the
Federal agencies responsible for providing site security and anti-
terrorism measures have taken additional steps to ensure the security
of Federal hydropower and transmission facilities and the security of
the general public. The facilities comprising the Colorado River
Storage Project provide a multitude of benefits to millions of
residents in the western United States. The security of these Federal
generation and delivery facilities is of national concern.
In the fiscal year 2003 Energy and Water Development Appropriations
bill, the House and Senate concurred in report language which says that
increased security costs in the aftermath of the events of September
11, 2001 are non-reimbursable expenses and should be funded through
appropriations. This recognition is consistent with the historic
treatment of such costs in crises such as Pearl Harbor.
We understand the President's fiscal year 2004 budget for the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation and the Western Area Power Administration
includes additional funding for such anti-terrorism/site security
activities. In light of this, the Colorado River Energy Distributors
Association (CREDA) requests that the Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee including the following in its fiscal year 2004
appropriations bill:
For fiscal year 2004 and each fiscal year thereafter, the increased
costs of ensuring security of Reclamation generation and Western Area
Power Administration delivery system facilities in the aftermath of the
events of September 11, 2001 shall be appropriated, non-reimbursable
and nonreturnable.
CREDA is a purchaser of Federal hydropower and transmission
services produced and transmitted by the facilities of the Colorado
River Storage Project. Our members serve nearly 3 million consumers in
six western States. CREDA has passed a resolution advocating that the
costs of increased security of these facilities should be non-
reimbursable and provided by appropriated funds. In addition, the
American Public Power Association (APPA), the National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association (NRECA) and National Water Resources
Association (NWRA) also have approved or have pending concurring
resolutions.
We appreciate your support of statutory language supporting this
position.
Sincerely,
Leslie James,
Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern States Energy Board
The Southern States Energy Board (SSEB) is pleased to provide this
statement for the record to the House of Representatives Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development as it considers fiscal
year 2004 funding for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), and specifically related
to the biomass/biofuels fiscal year 2004 budget request.
The Board commends Congress for restoring $3,000,000 to the U.S.
DOE Regional Biomass Energy Program (RBEP) in the fiscal year 2003
Omnibus Bill. However, SSEB and other regional governors' organizations
with existing cooperative agreements to administer RBEP have yet to
receive this appropriated funding. SSEB urges the Congress to restore
funding for the U.S. DOE Regional Biomass Energy Program and its
valuable State-based regional network at $5,000,000 in fiscal year
2004.
This line item, which would continue an appropriation that has
appeared in every Federal budget since fiscal year 1983, is for the
purpose of promoting economic development by fostering the use of
biobased products and bioenergy, and takes advantage of and sustains
existing networks and infrastructure developed throughout the Nation by
the regional governors' organizations.
Energy independence is a critical element in the President's Energy
Policy and can be significantly enhanced by developing viable domestic
alternative energy sources. Just as the Federal energy policy seeks to
encourage diverse energy sources, eliminating funding for the RBEP
greatly diminishes the States' ability to participate in the
development of biomass energy markets.
The Regional Biomass Energy Program was created by Congress in 1983
under the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bills Public Law
97-88 and Public Law 98-50. The enabling legislation instructed DOE to
design its national program to work with States on a regional basis,
taking into account regional biomass resources and energy needs. The
five regional programs, working with representatives in all 50 States,
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and hosted primarily by regional
governors' organizations (Southern States Energy Board, Coalition of
Northeastern Governors and the Council of Great Lakes Governors) are
recognized nationally for their combined experience related to biomass
technologies and policies.
SSEB and other regional governors' organizations hosting regional
biomass energy programs are critical partners of DOE for formulating
policies and facilitating private sector deployment of advanced energy
technologies and practices into target markets.
Beyond the potential economic development benefits, participating
States gain the opportunity to strengthen and integrate the work of
energy, agriculture, forestry, environmental and other State agencies.
Where issues are the same among several States, strategies can be
developed to address these issues across State borders. Examples
include the development of similar State legislative actions, working
with the private sector with multi-State locations, and multi-State
training and outreach to economize resources.
The southern States have participated in this strategy through the
Southeastern Regional Biomass Energy Program (SERBEP) which has
provided over $5.8 million in project funds since 1992 with a cost-
share of over $21 million by leveraging State and private funding for
technology development and deployment. In 1999, SSEB was selected as
the ``host organization'' for the SERBEP and received funding through a
5-year cooperative agreement.
SSEB is an interstate compact organization with enabling
legislation in each member State, covering the 16 States plus Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, all members of the Southern Governors
Association. To assure broad based representation, SSEB is governed by
a board composed of the governor and a member of the House and Senate
from each member State. Over the years of administering the SERBEP,
SSEB has created awareness and support for bioenergy/biobased products
in the executive and legislative branches of State government, improved
the effectiveness of SERBEP activities, provided more formal
interaction between the States and improved policy development and
coordination in particular.
We urge Congress to restore this modest but vital appropriation to
protect the Federal Government's 20-year investment in RBEP, and to
continue the promotion of the strong Federal interest in viable and
growing biobased products and bioenergy. Restoration of the
appropriation for RBEP places the Federal focus where it belongs, with
the States.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Wind Energy Association
commitment to r&d a crucial factor in achieving wind energy market
potential
U.S. Wind Energy Industry Has Shown Significant Growth Over the Last 5
Years
Continued Emphasis Needed on Small Wind Systems Used to Power Homes,
Farms and Small Businesses
The American Wind Energy Association \1\ (AWEA) appreciates this
opportunity to provide testimony for the record on the Department of
Energy's Fiscal 2004 wind energy program budget before the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. AWEA's
testimony addresses the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The American Wind Energy Association, or AWEA, was formed in
1974. The organization represents virtually every facet of the wind
industry, including turbine and component manufacturers, project
developers, utilities, academicians, and interested individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
request for the department of energy wind program--$55 million
AWEA requests a funding level of $55 million for the wind energy
program at the Department of Energy (DOE) to support wind energy
development at the national, State, and local levels. Working in
conjunction with the U.S. wind industry, power producers, suppliers,
industrial consumers and residential users, DOE provides important
technical support, guidance, information, and limited cost-shared
funding for efforts to explore and develop wind energy resources.
Moreover, the research and development (R&D) program at DOE is helping
to support advanced wind energy research that is attracting support
from major industrial companies. AWEA would like to commend the DOE
wind program for its efforts over the past year to involve the industry
in its program planning process. The department has solicited input
from AWEA on the direction of its program and been responsive to
comments received from the industry. AWEA's fiscal year 2004 budget
testimony is focused on two areas within the wind program:
Utility-Scale Wind Development
This cost-shared DOE/industry partnership program has proven to be
successful and with modest annual appropriations has been helpful in
significantly lowering the cost of wind power. In fact, over the past
20 years, the cost has been reduced by over 80 percent. The program is
aimed at further driving down the cost of wind power to a level fully
competitive with traditional electric power technologies. An important
emphasis is on developing wind turbines capable of operating in areas
with lower wind speeds. This would expand wind development potential by
20 times as well as allow the placement of turbines closer to existing
transmission lines.
An additional important element of R&D is applied research in the
areas of atmospheric physics and aerodynamics. This research can
provide knowledge that is essential to achieve the industry's
objectives of reducing the cost of wind energy. In addition to help
lower the cost of wind power, R&D support is necessary for
understanding the integration of wind energy into the Nation's power
systems and better understanding the long-term wind resource and costs
of operating and maintaining wind power stations. These activities will
reduce the perceived risks associated with wind energy developments and
thus reduce the cost of capital for project development.
Another activity required to reduce risk is an enhancement of the
blade and gearbox testing capabilities at the National Wind Technology
Center. The capabilities of the current facilitates are no longer
sufficient to test the next generation of wind turbines currently being
developed and deployed. The existing facilities have been instrumental
in increasing the reliability of wind turbine blades and gearboxes, and
thus contributing to the reductions in the cost of energy.
Small Wind Systems
More emphasis on DOE's small wind turbine program (machines rated
at 100 kilowatts or below) will help achieve greater cost reductions
and increase the availability of this energy option for homes, farms,
schools, and businesses.
overview
The U.S. wind industry is poised for significant growth. However,
important challenges lay ahead. For its part, the wind industry
continues to work to drive down the cost of wind-generated electricity,
thereby enhancing the competitiveness of the product to electricity
providers.
AWEA appreciates the support the subcommittee has provided to the
DOE wind program. In fiscal year 2003, the wind program was funded at
the same level requested by the Administration, $44 million. The fiscal
year 2004 request by the Administration represents a slight drop from
the current year budget. We believe that the funding provided by the
committee should reflect the important work conducted by the wind
program and respectfully request the funding be increased above the
request level.
The wind energy program at the Department of Energy has a strong
history of success. Over the last 20 years, the cost of wind energy has
dropped by more than 80 percent, to a level that is close to
competitive with traditional energy technologies. Cost shared industry/
government research and development activities at DOE and the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have played an important role in
this achievement. Programs such as Wind Powering America have been
educating interested parties across the country on the benefits of wind
power.
Continued investment at DOE in domestic energy alternatives like
wind power will allow the industry to keep driving down costs and
improving the efficiency of new wind turbines. Wind energy holds the
greatest potential of all non-hydro renewables to contribute to our
energy needs over the next decade.
Wind energy is positioned to be an important part of the Nation's
energy mix. Wind can be an important component in protecting against
volatile electricity rates. The costs of a wind plant are primarily up-
front capital costs, thus the price for electricity is stable over the
life of the plant because the fuel, the wind, is free.
Investing in domestic, inexhaustible renewable energy technologies
strengthens our national security, provides rural economic development,
spurs new high-tech jobs, and helps protect the environment. There are
no downsides to investing in wind and other renewables.
Finally, we want to stress the importance of the wind energy
Production Tax Credit (PTC), which provides a 1.5-cent per kilowatt-
hour credit for electricity produced (the credit is currently 1.8 cents
adjusted for inflation). A 2-year extension of this tax credit was
approved with bipartisan support in March 2002 and signed into law by
the President. The credit is set to expire again on December 31, 2003.
The wind industry is seeking a full long-term extension of the credit,
in order to provide for more certainty and stability for the industry.
Bipartisan legislation to extend the credit has been introduced in both
the House and Senate.
utility-scale wind development
In 2002, the generating capacity from wind power grew by 10
percent, with 410 megawatts (MW) of new equipment going into service.
At year's end, the installed capacity nationwide totaled 4,685 MW
across 27 States, or enough power to serve about 1.3 million average
U.S. households.
By mid-2003, installed wind energy capacity in the U.S. is expected
to be over of 5,000 MW. Development is planned in a number of States,
including New Mexico, California, Iowa and Minnesota. This new
development will help spur rural economic development through new
construction and manufacturing jobs, lease income for landowners, and
local and county tax payments.
Cost shared research and development programs at DOE have played a
key role in the development of wind energy. There is important work to
be done, however, to continue the momentum the industry has built. For
instance, the current generation of wind turbines have successfully
lowered the cost at the best wind sites (Class 5 & 6). However, in
order for wind to reach its full potential, the industry must penetrate
areas with moderate wind speeds (Class 3 & 4). Tapping such areas,
which are often closer to necessary transmission lines, could increase
the amount of wind development by a factor of 20.
small wind systems (100 kw and below)
AWEA believes a greater emphasis on small wind turbine research and
development is needed as the demand for these turbines continues to
grow. Distributed generation with small customer sited power plants has
great potential for reducing energy costs, promoting competition in the
marketplace, and strengthening the Nation's electrical supply network.
AWEA recognizes that some progress has been made at DOE in the
small wind turbine program. However, it is vital that additional
resources be dedicated to programs that will help make small wind
turbines cost-competitive for homeowners. DOE has significant programs
for technology development and deployment of other distributed energy
technologies, but programs for small wind have received little
attention despite the fact that small wind systems arguably have a
greater market potential.
The high up-front costs of small wind systems make it very
difficult for this technology to gain wide acceptance in the domestic
market. This would change if DOE had the resources to work with
America's small wind manufacturers to achieve cost reductions similar
to those achieved by the large, utility-scale wind industry. In some
States like California, that provide a State rebate for purchasers,
small wind turbine manufacturers have experienced a surge in sales,
demonstrating the public support for cost-effective small wind
turbines.
Additional Funding Request: Renewable Energy Production Incentive
(REPI)--$8 million
AWEA also advocates for additional funding for the Renewable Energy
Production Incentive (REPI) program as a separate item within the
Renewable energy budget. Year-to-year uncertainty regarding funding
levels for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) plays havoc
with the long-term planning needs of running a municipally owned
utility. Due to insufficient funds for the program, full payments for
eligible projects have not been made for a number of years. For this
reason, AWEA suggests the Congress work with the Department of Energy
to develop long-range alternatives to annual funding of this program.
The REPI program, authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
encourages municipally owned utilities to invest in renewable energy
technologies including wind energy systems. REPI permits Department of
Energy to make direct payments to publicly and cooperatively owned
utilities at the rate of 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity
generated from wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass projects. Because
wind energy projects require a 2- to 3-year lead-time for permitting
and construction, it is very important that stable and predictable
funding be provided.
conclusion
Continued investments in wind energy R&D are delivering value for
taxpayers by developing another domestic energy source that strengthens
our national security, provides rural economic development, spurs new
high-tech jobs, and helps protect the environment.
While the wind industry continues to grow in terms of new
generation capacity installed, continued Department of Energy wind
energy R&D is vital to growing this domestic power source. The current
debates in Congress regarding energy policy have brought to light the
important role wind and other renewable energy technologies, both
utility-scale and small-scale, can play in our Nation's energy
strategy.
AWEA appreciates the opportunity to provide this testimony to the
Subcommittee. We would be pleased to answer any questions that may
arise. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single
life science organization in the world, with more than 42,000 members,
appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony on the fiscal
year 2004 budget for the Department of Energy (DOE) science programs.
The ASM represents scientists working in academic, medical,
governmental and industrial institutions worldwide. Microbiological
research is focused on human health and the environment and is directly
related to DOE programs involving microbial genomics, climate change,
bioremediation and basic biological processes important to energy
sciences.
The Office of Science supports unique and critical pieces of U.S.
research in scientific computation, climate change, geophysics,
genomics, and the life sciences. This research is conducted at both the
DOE national laboratories and at approximately 250 universities
nationwide through peer-reviewed, competitive research. The Office of
Science is also an invaluable contributor to the scientific programs of
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science
Foundation (NSF). These partnerships bridge the gap between the
physical sciences, the life sciences and computational sciences,
allowing science to refine and advance our efforts in deciphering
genomes and their critical functions. The Office of Science is a leader
in these efforts and promoting multidisciplinary research that seeks to
harness the capabilities of microbes and microbial communities to help
us to produce energy, clean up waste, and sequester carbon from the
atmosphere. Furthermore, these cross-disciplinary programs contribute
enormously to the knowledge base and training of the next generation of
scientists while providing worldwide scientific cooperation in physics,
chemistry, biology, environmental science, mathematics, and advanced
computational sciences.
The Office of Science will play an increasingly important role in
the Administration's goal of U.S. energy independence in this decade.
Many DOE scientific research programs share the common goal of
producing and conserving energy in environmentally responsible ways.
Programs include basic research projects in microbiology, as well as,
extensive development of biotechnological systems to produce
alternative fuels and chemicals, to remediate environmental problems,
and to reduce wastes and pollution.
The Administration's proposed budget for fiscal year 2004 requests
$3.3 billion for the Office of Science, an increase of $5 million over
fiscal year 2003. The ASM would like to submit the following comments
and recommendations for funding levels for research in the Biological
and Environmental Research (BER) and Basic Energy Sciences (BES)
programs for fiscal year 2004. Federal investment in these programs
today, will help to ensure fundamental research to find solutions to
future environmental and energy problems while maintaining U.S.
scientific leadership worldwide.
microbial genomics
The Administration has requested $10 million for fiscal year 2004,
which is the same level as in fiscal year 2003. In view of the
tremendous potential from microbial genomic sequencing, the ASM
recommends that Congress provide $15 million for fiscal year 2004. In
1994, the Office of Biological and Environmental Research developed the
Microbial Genomics Program as a compliment to the Human Genome Program.
This early leadership in microbial genomics has allowed the program to
decipher the genomic sequences of many of the non-pathogenic
microorganisms available today. This information provides clues into
how we can design biotechnological processes that advance research in a
number of disciplines and national priorities, such as biogeochemical
cycles, global warming, and alternative energy research. Fundamental
microbial research will continue to underpin DOE's research
capabilities in other BER and BES programs, including: Genomes to Life;
bioremediation research; and carbon sequestration. DOE has also
developed, at the Joint Genome Institute (JGI), a highly efficient,
centralized sequencing facility that is a unique and valuable resource
for serving the Nation's non-medical microbiological researchers.
Knowing the complete DNA sequence of a microbe provides important
keys to the biological capabilities of the organism and is the first
step in developing strategies to more efficiently detect, counteract,
use, or reengineer that microbe to address an assortment of national
issues. The DOE has completed the DNA sequencing of more than 50
microbes with potential uses in energy, waste cleanup, and carbon
sequestration. For instance, the JGI has completed the genomic DNA of
several algae important in the ocean's photosynthesis process and in
soil bacteria that assimilate carbon dioxide, both important biological
processes for carbon dioxide capture from the atmosphere.
The ASM applauds DOE's leadership in recognizing this important
need in science and endorses expansion of its microbial genome
sequencing efforts, particularly in using DNA sequencing to learn more
about the functions and roles of the 99 percent of the microbial world
that cannot yet be grown in culture.
genomes to life program
The ASM strongly supports the Administration's funding of the
Genomes to Life (GTL) program at $59 million for fiscal year 2004. The
GTL program is ushering in a new biological era--the era of systems
biology, which will allow us to understand entire living organisms and
their interactions with the environment. This new level of exploration
(i.e., systems biology) will empower scientists to pursue completely
new approaches to discovery and spur the development of new products or
services from microbes and other organisms. With a deeper, genetically
based understanding of living organisms, the potential to utilize and
refine their functions will allow us to address many of today's
challenges in carbon sequestration, energy transformation, and
environmental clean up. The Genomes to Life program has just begun to
demonstrate the potential application of microorganisms for energy,
medicine, agriculture, environment, and national security needs. This
research will potentially offer new biotechnology solutions to these
challenges and those of tomorrow. Underlying the potential applications
of biotechnology for clean energy, mitigating climate change, and
environmental cleanup is the need for a solid understanding of the
functions, behaviors and interactions of every biological part (the
genes and proteins) of a microorganism. If we are to improve the
productivity of forests, bioremediation agents, biomass crops and
agricultural systems, it is imperative to understand how these
biological machines work. This will require a staggering amount of
expertise across the sciences (e.g., physical and computational), new
computational capabilities, new tools, and new interdisciplinary
approaches to genomics research.
In fiscal year 2004, the GTL program will increase its emphasis on
DNA sequencing of microbes and microbial communities. This sequencing
will serve as the core biological data needed to further understand the
control and function of molecular machines and microbial communities.
The ASM applauds the programs continued focus on microbial communities
and notes that this represents the kind of interdisciplinary science
that DOE has done successfully in the past, making use of advanced
technologies, specialized facilities, teams of scientists, and
computational power. The ASM also sees this program as the basis for an
expanded effort to understand more broadly how genomic information can
be used to understand life at the cellular level and urges Congress to
fully support this exciting program.
climate change research
The ASM is pleased to see the Administration's support of Climate
Change Research continue in its fiscal year 2004 budget. The ASM
endorses the President's proposed $143 million budget, an increase of
$6 million over fiscal year 2003. The Society is also supportive of the
proposed $19 million budget for the Ecological Processes section for
fiscal year 2004, a $5 million increase over fiscal year 2003.
In fiscal year 2003, the Administration launched the Climate Change
Research Initiative (CCRI), to study the potential effects of
greenhouse gases and aerosol emissions on the climate and the
environment. The Climate Change Research Subprogram is DOE's
contribution to the cross-agency CCRI and applies DOE's expertise in
genomics and computational climate modeling to determine the effects of
greenhouse emissions on the global climate. The Climate Change Research
subprogram supports four areas of research: Climate and Hydrology,
Atmospheric Chemistry and Carbon Cycle, Ecological Processes, and Human
Interactions. This research is focused on understanding the physical,
chemical, and biological processes affecting the Earth's atmosphere,
land, and oceans and how these processes may be changing because of
greenhouse emissions.
The Ecological Processes portion of the subprogram is focused on
understanding and simulating the effects of climate and atmospheric
changes on the biological structure and functioning of planetary
ecosystems. Research in 2004, will focus on understanding the responses
of a simplified terrestrial ecosystem (e.g., higher plants, consumers
of plant production, and soil microorganisms) to changes in a key
environmental factor, such as, temperature. This research is critical
if we are to better understand the changes occurring in our ecosystems
from increasing levels of atmospheric radiation absorptive gases.
The ASM urges Congress to support this important research within
the Office of Science budget. The Climate Change Research subprogram is
a key component in developing more accurate climate modeling and
ecosystem data, and promises to yield new technologies to address
future climate changes.
basic energy science
The Administration's requested funding for the Office of Basic
Energy Sciences (BES) is $1 billion for fiscal year 2004. This program
is a principal sponsor of fundamental research for the nation in the
areas of materials sciences, chemistry, geosciences, and biosciences as
it relates to energy. Biosciences funds an array of microbiological and
plant research focused on harvesting and converting energy from
cellulose and other products of photosynthesis into renewable
resources.
The ASM is supportive of DOE's continued emphasis upon biobased
energy research as a key component of the Nation's energy portfolio. In
2004, biosciences will continue to focus on recent successes in its
cellulose biosynthesis program, which is funding research into the
synthesis of cellulose, the most abundant biomolecule, as a potential
biofuel. Other microbiological research (e.g., Molecular Mechanisms of
Natural Solar Energy Conversion, $12 million in fiscal year 2004)
supported by the program includes fundamental research into the
characterization of molecular mechanisms involved in the conversion of
solar energy into biomass, biofuels, bioproducts, and other renewable
energy resources. Furthermore, the ASM believes continued research into
energy-rich plants and microbes be a DOE priority as genomic
technologies have given this research area a tremendous new resource
for advancing the Agency's bioenergy goals.
The ASM is also supportive of new activities, such as, the
Metabolic Regulation of Energy Production program ($19 million for
fiscal year 2004), which supports the biological advances needed to
complement the chemical nanoscale program within the Office of Science.
bioremediation
DOE's bioremediation research is contained in the Natural and
Accelerated Bioremediation Program (NABIR). The Administration's
proposed budget for the NABIR program is $24.1 million. The ASM
supports the Administration's request for bioremediation research.
However, the ASM believes that greater benefits will be achieved if the
NABIR program is increased to $30 million.
In fiscal year 2004, the NABIR program will focus on a number of
efforts: Biotransformation (microbiology to elucidate the mechanisms of
biotransformation of metals and radionuclides), Community Dynamics and
Microbial Ecology (structure and activity of subsurface microbial
communities), and Biogeochemical Dynamics (the dynamic relationships
among geochemical, geological, hydrological, and microbial processes).
Bioremediation scientists are searching for cost-effective technologies
to improve current remediation methods to clean up DOE's contaminated
sites. This research has the potential to lead to new discoveries into
reliable methods of bioremediation of metals and radionuclides in soils
and groundwater. The NABIR program supports the basic research that is
needed to understand this technology to more reliably develop the
practical applications for cost-effective cleanup of pollutants at DOE
sites. The ASM strongly recommends that additional funding be allocated
to balance the program elements and pollutants studied as originally
envisioned when the NABIR Program was designed.
new technologies and unique facilities
New technologies and advanced instrumentation derived from DOE's
expertise in the physical sciences and engineering have become
increasingly valuable to biologists. The beam lines and other advanced
technologies for determining molecular structures of cell components
are at the heart of current advances to understand cell function and
have practical applications for new drug design. DOE's advances in high
throughput, low cost DNA sequencing; protein mass spectrometry, cell
imaging and computational analyses of biological molecules and
processes are other unique contributions of DOE to the nation's
biological research enterprise. Furthermore, DOE has unique field
research facilities for environmental research important to
understanding biogeochemical cycles, global change and cost-effective
environmental restoration. In short, DOE's ability to conduct large-
scale science projects and draw on its unique capabilities in physics,
computation and engineering is critical for future biological research.
The ASM strongly supports the basic science agenda across the
scientific disciplines and encourages Congress to maintain its
commitment to the Department of Energy research programs to maintain
U.S. leadership in science and technology.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sun Grant Initiative
the national need for bioenergy and bioproducts
Energy Security.--As readily accessible domestic sources of
petroleum have waned, the United States has steadily increased its
reliance on imported oil from other nations. The proportion of imported
oil increased from about 30 percent of domestic consumption in 1970 to
about 56 percent in 2000. Evidence that world oil supplies will become
even more limited in the coming decades suggests that alternative
sources of energy and industrial chemicals must be developed as soon as
possible. Bioenergy resources can be further developed in ways that
complement and augment petroleum energy resources, helping to reduce
our dependence on imported oils while helping constrain the costs of
energy for American industries and consumers.
Farm Security.--Farmers have been experiencing economic hardships
throughout the 1990's and continue today, primarily because of
excessive production of core commodity crops. The hardships have flowed
throughout rural America and a devastating exodus to urban centers has
resulted. Viable alternatives and diversity are needed in agriculture
to bolster the Nation's independent farm families. Bioenergy and
bioproducts produced on American farms represent an opportunity to both
reduce dependence on imported oil while providing a significant source
of income to American farmers.
New Industries.--Imported oil is an important feedstock for
numerous uses other than energy and transportation fuels. Contemporary
plastics, synthetic fibers, lubricants, solvents, paints and numerous
other common products depend on petroleum as a feedstock. In the
future, agriculture will produce biobased feedstocks for production of
these products as well as many other non-food uses. Agriculture will
also be integral to manufacturing pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, building
materials, biocatalysts, and numerous other biobased products. The
development of biobased products will complement, augment, and be
integrated with the petroleum industry.
Rural Economic Development.--New biobased industries will benefit
not only agricultural producers but will also stimulate economic
development in the surrounding rural communities. In many cases,
transportation logistics and infrastructure requirements will require
that new biobased industries be physically located in rural
communities--new capital investments and economic stimulation will stay
in the rural community! A biobased economy will revitalize rural
America.
Environmental Protection.--The use of renewable bioenergy and the
production of many biobased products will have numerous benefits for
the environment. The increased use of renewable bioenergy will help
reduce greenhouse gases and will help U.S. communities and industries
improve air quality while remaining economically viable and
competitive. Products that were once ``wastes'' can now become
resources and ingredients in the development of new bioproducts. In
turn, bioproducts can be designed to be biodegradable, further reducing
the ``waste stream'' and reducing the demand for trash disposal land
fills.
New Science and Engineering Technologies.--The latest scientific
and engineering breakthroughs will be brought to bear on the challenge
of moving to a bio-based economy. For example, genomics,
nanobiotechology, and new computer modeling technologies will be
utilized to improve our technical understanding of plant biochemistry,
to develop new enzymatic processes and new materials for bioenergy
production and the development of new bioproducts.
the sun grant initiative
Land Grant Universities.--Today, land grant universities serve
agriculture by implementing research, extension, and educational
programs to benefit agricultural producers and consumers, to assist
rural families and communities, and to conserve the world's natural
resources. Clearly, agriculture will play an important role in
providing power, fuels, and biobased products for America. Because of
the unique position land grant universities have in science, service
and education, it is critical that they are proactively involved in
creating the biobased economy. Over the past several years, land grant
universities have been working to develop a new model for harnessing
the capacities of the distributed agricultural research and education
system into a national network that can work in ready partnership with
the Federal agencies to help reach national bioenergy goals, which has
led to the development of the Sun Grant Initiative.
The Sun Grant Mission.--The mission of the Sun Grant Initiative is
to (1) enhance national energy security through development,
distribution and implementation of biobased energy technologies, (2)
promote diversification and the economic viability of America's
agriculture through land grant based research, extension, and education
programs in renewable energy and biobased products, and (3) promote
opportunities for biobased economic diversification and the development
of new biobased industries in rural communities.
Centers of Excellence and a National Network.--A network of five
land grant universities are serving as regional Sun Grant Centers of
Excellence (Figure 1). The universities include South Dakota State
University, Oklahoma State University, the University of Tennessee-
Knoxville, Cornell University, and Oregon State University. Federal
funds will be shared equally among each of the regions. As Federal
funds become available, up to 25 percent of the funds will be utilized
at each center to enhance their abilities to develop model research,
extension, and educational programs on agriculture-based renewable
energy technologies and biobased industries located in rural
communities. The balance of the funds in each region will be awarded
competitively among all land grant universities in the region, drawing
on the expertise of all land grant universities to address national
priorities at the regional level.
These regional programs will embrace the multi-state, multi-
function, multi-disciplinary integrated approach that is at the heart
of the land grant method of addressing problems. The centers will
interface their activities with DOE research laboratories at Oak Ridge,
TN (ORNL, Oak Ridge National Laboratory) and Golden, CO (NREL, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory).
National Priorities
The Sun Grant Initiative programs will revitalize rural
communities, enhance the Nation's energy security and improve our soil,
water, and air. The primary challenges that must be faced include:
--The emergence of agriculturally based bio-industries that can
coexist with and complement petroleum based industries.
--Developing biobased industries that improve the environment and
protect air, water, soil, and other natural resources.
--Developing biobased industries that diversify American agriculture
and complement food production.
--Developing industries that provide opportunities for the growth and
prosperity of rural America.
The transition to agriculturally-based bio-industries will create
economic opportunities for other sectors of the U.S. economy through
creation of high-tech companies and jobs. Through the Sun Grant
Initiative, the United States will continue to be a world leader in
technology and innovation for future high-tech commerce and trade. We
will not only produce biomass feedstocks, we will also lead the world
in the technologies and the intellectual property that makes this
transition to a biobased economy possible.
Regional Priorities
During the development of the Sun Grant Initiative a series of
regional workshops were held with agricultural, industry and community
leaders. Priority needs were identified for bioenergy and bioproducts
projects within each region. The unique structure of the Sun Grant
Initiative will enable the land grant universities to address national
issues of concern to the Federal agencies in the context of regional
and local needs and circumstances.
relation to the sun grant initiative to federal agency biomass programs
The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 established an
Interagency Board to coordinate the biomass-related programs within and
among Federal departments and agencies. It is co-chaired by the
Departments of Energy and Agriculture. Other member agencies include:
the Department of Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, National
Science Foundation, Office of Science and Technology Policy and the
Office of the Federal Environmental Executive. The Act also established
an Advisory Committee to advise the Secretaries of Energy and
Agriculture and the Interagency Board on the future direction of
biomass research and development investments. The Advisory Committee,
now in its third year of activity, consists of 31 members from
industry, academia, non-profit organizations, and the agricultural and
forestry sectors, who are experts in their respective fields. In
December of 2002, the Biomass Research and Development Technical
Advisory Committee released a science ``roadmap'' outlining recommended
priorities for the development of biomass technologies in the United
States. In addition, Section 9008 of the Farm Security and Rural
Development Act of 2002 provided for a reauthorization of the funding
for the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 and provided
funding to support biomass production. Building on these several
legislative authorities, the Department of Energy and the Natural
Resources Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture are
collaborating in the development and implementation of a Biomass
Research and Development Initiative to address the priorities
identified in the roadmap.
One of the remaining challenges in developing bioenergy and
bioproducts technologies is that they have to be developed as a
complete system to be cost effective and economically viable. Many new
biobased businesses have failed because they only addressed one part of
a new biobased economy. In order for farmers to increase production of
a needed biofuels feedstock materials they need to be assured of a
steady demand. In order for bio-industries to develop a new product,
they have to be assured of a steady supply of biobased feedstock
materials. The rate limiting cost in developing biobased feedstock is
often the cost of shipment; it may be most cost effective to process
feedstock within a 50-mile radius of the site where it was grown, which
in turn requires a distributed network of bioprocesses or generators.
The generators may not break even unless they are also used to co-
generate heat or unless they feed energy back into local energy grids.
The Sun Grant Initiative provides a means for the Department of Energy
and the Department of Agriculture to access the research and education
expertise of the land grant university system across the country to
develop new technologies and education programs. The structure of the
Sun Grant Initiative will enable the Departments to ``put all the
pieces'' together to create comprehensive regional scale projects that
can address multiple real world production needs simultaneously. The
Sun Grant Initiative complements and completes the mix of legislative
and funding tools that support biomass research and development.
legislative developments
Legislation to authorize the Sun Grant Initiative was developed in
2002. The proposed legislative language defines the regional Centers of
Excellence and the network of collaborating universities, as well as
the mechanism for apportioning and distributing funds described in this
testimony. The proposed legislative language will authorize funding for
the Sun Grant Initiative at the level of $100 million. There is bi-
partisan support for introducing and passing this language in 2003. It
is our understanding that there will be communications from leading
Senate offices to the Committee indicating support for moving this
initiative forward and initiating start-up funding in fiscal year 2004.
funding request
We request initial start-up funding of $20 million for the Sun
Grant Initiative in fiscal year 2004. We suggest that funding be
provided through the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs of
the Department of Energy, in order to augment and expand the
Department's biomass and bioenergy research and development programs.
In order to facilitate coordination and collaboration with the
Department of Agriculture, we are also recommending funding of $1
million be provided in fiscal year 2004 through the USDA's Cooperative
State Research, Extension and Education Service.
______
Prepared Statement of the Health Physics Society (HPS) and Health
Physics Program Directors Organization (HPPDO)
This written testimony for the record for fiscal year 2004 requests
add-on appropriations to the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear
Engineering, Science and Technology (DOE-NE) to address an issue of
extreme importance to the safety of our Nation's workers, members of
the public, and our environment.
The safety of our Nation's workers, members of the public, and our
environment is in jeopardy because of the projected near-term and long-
term shortage of sufficient educated radiation safety professionals to
protect them. Protection of workers, the public, and the environment is
necessary as we use radiation and nuclear technologies to support our
Nation's energy, health, and security needs. The national shortage of
radiation safety professionals is primarily due to the fact that the
Nation's academic research and education programs responsible for
radiation safety and health are being terminated. Resolving this
shortage in national educational infrastructure has become one of the
highest priorities of the professional organizations responsible for
the performance and education of radiation safety professionals, i.e.,
the Health Physics Society (HPS) and the Health Physics Program
Directors Organization (HPPDO).
The Committee has expressed strong support for the University
Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support program's efforts to provide
fellowships, scholarships, and grants to students enrolled in science
and engineering programs at U.S. universities, and has expressed
concern about the ability of the Nation to respond to the growing
demand for trained experts in nuclear science and technology.
Accordingly, the Committee has appropriated funds in fiscal year 2002
(Senate Report 107-039) and fiscal year 2003 (Senate Report 107-220) to
the DOE-NE for addressing this problem through the University Reactor
Fuel Assistance and Support line item. Senate authorization committees
have also recognized the seriousness of this problem and introduced
provisions to address it through authorization of funds to university
programs in bills in the 107th Congress such as S.242, S.472 and H.R.4.
Health Physics is the profession that specializes in radiation
safety, an integral and necessary distinct discipline within the
nuclear sciences. A recent workforce study by the Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) has shown that the projected demand for health
physicists for both the Government and Industry far surpasses the
current ability of the academic programs to meet these employment
demands. The fact that this serious problem can potentially impact our
national cleanup program, our defense needs, and our nuclear power
industry is documented in the NEI study. The NEI study does not address
the impact the lack of sufficient qualified radiation safety
professionals will have on our Nation's health and homeland security
programs.
In a recent letter to the HPS, the DOE stated, ``We share your view
that an anticipated shortfall in the Nation's supply of radiation
safety professionals could have a deleterious effect on the safety of
our Nations' workers, the public and the quality of health care.'' This
view has been reinforced in a recent meeting with DOE-NE Director
William D. Magwood, IV, in which Director Magwood expressed support for
our organizations' submittal of testimony to this Committee to
appropriate a $2 million add-on in fiscal year 2004 (fiscal year 2004)
to the DOE University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support line item.
Following is the testimony prepared by the HPPDO and HPS providing
details of how an appropriation of approximately $2 million in fiscal
year 2004 would be used to start to stem the decline of health physics
university academic programs, and to assist in the public's
understanding of radiation safety as it is applied to the Nation's
energy, health, and security policies.
Requested Funding Levels--$2,067,000 Fiscal Year 2004
Distribution Categories.--Academic Program Support: HP Graduate
Fellowship Program, HP Undergraduate Scholarship Program, Health
Physics Education & Research (HPER) Grants, HP Minority-Majority
Partnerships. Health Physics Society Programs: HPS Grant to support
ABET-ASAC Accreditation, HPS Grant to support Science Teacher
Workshops.
HP Graduate Fellowships ($780,000 in Fiscal Year 2004).--This
program will greatly expand the existing NE/HP fellowship program in
DOE-NE and will replace programs lost from DOE-ES&H in 1999. The
program will specifically target and recruit students into MS and Ph.D.
programs at DOE-approved health physics academic programs. A total of
20 fellows will be targeted for initial 2004-2005 support. In addition
to tuition and fees, students will receive a stipend set at $20,000 per
year making the program competitive with the NSF Graduate Fellowship
Program. All students appointed to the program will be required to
participate in a practicum at a DOE site at least once during their
fellowship tenure. Applicants must be either U.S. citizens or permanent
resident aliens. A proposed DOE-approval list of graduate programs in
health physics is given in Appendix A.
HP Undergraduate Scholarships ($64,000 in Fiscal Year 2004).--This
program will target the recruitment of 20 undergraduate students into
academic programs offering B.S. degrees in health physics or
radiological engineering. The award will consist of an annual stipend
of $3,000. The program is open to students who will become Sophomores,
Juniors, or Seniors by September 2005. The award is limited for the
duration of the undergraduate program, typically 36 months for
Sophomores, 24 months for Juniors and 12 months for Seniors. A
Scholarship appointment will not exceed 36 months. Applicants must be
either U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens. A proposed DOE-
approved list of undergraduate programs is given in Appendix A.
Health Physics Education & Research (HPER) Grants ($895,000 in
Fiscal Year 2004).--These competitive awards will be provided to
universities to (1) support basic and applied research in health
physics and radiation protection, (2) assist in the recruitment and
retention of junior faculty at academic programs in health physics, and
(3) contribute to the strengthening of the academic community's health
physics infrastructure. A total of 7 research grants will be initially
funded in 2004-2005 at $120,000 per award. Applications must be from
DOE-approved graduate programs in health physics (see Appendix A).
Health Physics Minority-Majority University Partnerships ($213,000
in Fiscal Year 2004).--As an extension of the existing MMUP in Nuclear
Engineering, DOE-NE would sponsor a program that encourages existing
health physics academic programs to establish partnerships with
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other Minority
Educational Institutions. These partnerships will include new
articulation agreements between these universities, new agreements with
DOE facilities for internships and research participation programs, and
specialized instruction courses designed to introduce the non-
traditional student to the principles of health physics. This program
will encourage students from minority institutions to seek advanced
degrees in health physics through the offering of undergraduate
scholarships and graduate fellowships. At the proposed funding level it
is expected that as many as four partnerships would be established.
Each partnership would be funded at approximately $100,000 a year and
would be renewable up to 3 years.
HPS Grant to Support ABET-ASAC Accreditation ($65,000 in Fiscal
Year 2004)--In 2001, the Health Physics Society was granted status as
the Cognizant Technical Society for the Health Physics and Radiological
Sciences within the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
(ABET). Accreditation criteria are thus in place for health physics
academic programs to be accredited through ABET's Applied Science
Accreditation Commission (ASAC). A DOE-NE grant to the Health Physics
Society is proposed which would support this accreditation effort in
two areas:
--ABET-ASAC Matching Grant Program ($50,000 in Fiscal Year 2004).--
This program would permit academic programs in health physics
to apply for $5,000 matching grants from the Health Physics
Society to support their costs for preparation of an
accreditation self-study packet and for fees associated with
ABET-ASAC accreditation site visits. It is anticipated that
this matching grant program will be particularly important for
smaller programs that seek to be accredited, but have limited
resources for this effort. A total of 10 awards would be
available in the 2004-2005 academic year.
--ABET-ASAC Evaluator Training Program ($15,000 in fiscal year
2004).--This program would fund the HPS Academic Education
Committee's Subcommittee on Program Accreditation. A total of
ten $1,000 travel awards would be available for ABET Evaluators
to serve as observers during ABET-ASAC accreditation visits to
HP and other programs as part of their evaluator training. An
additional $5,000 would be made available to the Subcommittee
to sponsor workshops on Self-Study preparation and ABET-ASAC
Evaluator training at annual meetings of the Health Physics
Society.
HPS Grant to Support the Science-Teacher Workshop Committee
($50,000 in Fiscal Year 2004).--This program would provide a DOE-NE
grant to the Health Physics Society to support its efforts in material
development, instructor training, advertisement, and execution of
Science-Teacher Workshops across the country as organized by regional
chapters of the Health Physics Society. The HPS Science-Teacher
Workshop Committee would administer the grant through formal proposals
from individual HPS Chapters.
appendix a.--graduate and undergraduate programs in health physics \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These programs are currently considered by HPPDO to be
``strong'' programs as they are supported by more than a single faculty
member, have active research programs in radiation protection, have a
long history of producing graduates, and have been active in Health
Physics Society committees and academic program and accreditation
planning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed DOE Approval List for HP Fellowships, HPER Grant Award, and HP
Scholarships--To Be Replaced with ABET-ASAC List of Programs by
2006
Clemson University.--Dept. of Environmental Eng. and Science,
Clemson, South Carolina. Director: Robert Fjeld, Ph.D.
Colorado State University.--Dept. of Environmental and Radiological
Health Sciences, Ft. Collins, Colorado. Director: Thomas Borak, Ph.D.
Georgia Institute of Technology.--School of Mechanical Engineering,
Atlanta, Georgia. Director: Nolan Hertel, Ph.D.
Idaho State University.--Department of Physics, Pocatello, Idaho.
Director: Richard Brey, Ph.D.
Oregon State University.--Department of Nuclear Engineering &
Radiation Health Physics, Corvallis, Oregon. Director: David Hamby,
Ph.D.
Texas A&M University.--Department of Nuclear Engineering, College
Station, Texas. Director: Ian Hamilton, Ph.D.
University of Florida.--Dept. of Nuclear & Radiological
Engineering, Gainesville, Florida. Director: Wesley Bolch, Ph.D.
University of Massachusetts at Lowell.--Department of Physics,
Lowell, Massachusetts. Director: Clayton French, Ph.D.
University of Michigan.--Department of Nuclear Engineering &
Radiological Sciences, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Director: Kim Kearfott,
Ph.D.
University of Nevada Las Vegas.--Department of Health Physics, Las
Vegas, Nevada. Director: Mark Rudin, Ph.D.
University of Tennessee--Knoxville.--Department of Nuclear
Engineering, Knoxville, Tennessee. Director: Larry Miller, Ph.D.
undergraduate only programs in health physics
(Proposed DOE Approval List for HP Scholarships--To Be Replaced With
ABET-ASAC List of Programs by 2006)
Bloomsburg University.--Department of Physics, Bloomsburg,
Pennsylvania. Director: Jack Couch, Ph.D.
Francis Marion University.--Dept. of Physics and Astronomy,
Florence, South Carolina. Director: Derek Jokisch, Ph.D.
______
Prepared Statement of the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority
In December 2000, Congress enacted Public Law 106-511, 602, the
``Navajo Nation Electrification Demonstration Program'' (NNEDP). The
legislation was modeled on the historic Tennessee Valley Authority
legislation of the 1930's. Likewise, the goal of the NNEDP is to extend
electrical power to households on the Navajo Nation which currently
lack it. In fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, Congress
appropriated $3 million and $2.8 million, respectively. For fiscal year
2004, we are requesting the full $15 million per year authorized in the
public law. On behalf of the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA) and
the Navajo Nation, our Congressman Tom Udall (D-NM) and Congressman
Rick Renzi (R-AZ) have submitted the request.
Created in 1959, NTUA provides the vast Navajo Nation with the
modern conveniences of electricity, natural gas, water, wastewater
treatment services, and, recently, photovoltaic services. Currently,
NTUA serves approximately 31,314 electric customers, about 7,017
natural gas customers, 26,580 water customers, and 11,760 wastewater
customers throughout the 25,000-square-mile Navajo Nation. The Navajo
Nation spreads across northwestern New Mexico, northeastern Arizona,
and southeastern Utah. It is roughly the size of West Virginia.
Historically, the Navajo Nation suffers from the lack of access to
electricity and other basic infrastructure needs. On March 19, 2003,
during a hearing, the Department of Interior noted to the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs that a ``huge portion of the Navajo people
lack access to any electricity at all.'' We conservatively estimate
that 18,000 homes throughout the Navajo Nation are still without modern
utility services.
To successfully implement the NNEDP, we have developed a 5-year
strategic plan. In the Construction Phase (Phase One), we focused on
Navajo households located near existing power lines so that the
greatest number of new customers possible could be connected to
electricity with the amount of funding available. In completing Phase
One, NTUA has connected 505 Navajo Nation households. NTUA did this by
targeting groups of homes and homes near existing power lines. This
moved us toward the ultimate goal of NNEDP to ensure that every
household on the vast Navajo Nation has access to a reliable and
affordable source of electricity by the year 2006. In completing Phase
Two (fiscal year 2003), we will spend approximately $2 million for
electrical line extensions and $1 million for photovoltaic services.
The impact that NNEDP has had on Navajo families who until now were
living without electrical power is tremendous. On June 13, 2002, the
home of Lee and Genevieve Horseson of Tonalea, Arizona--located in the
rugged, remote country of northeastern Arizona--was the first NNEDP
home to receive electricity. The moment was unforgettable for the
Horseson family, NTUA, and the Navajo Nation when the lights lit up.
What seemed like a distant dream had become an immediate reality for
the Horseson family. Since then, many families like the Horsesons,
living in different locations across the Navajo Nation, have celebrated
being connected with electrical service for the first time.
In another instance, Mrytle Curley, a single mother of six living
in Arizona, wrote a letter to NTUA thanking us for choosing her as one
of the first beneficiaries of the NNEDP. Navajo citizens like Ms.
Curley once thought that electrical service was an impossible dream
because they were unable to pay for member extension construction
costs. Today, each evening, Ms. Curley and her children sit down to eat
dinner and complete school homework together--in adequate light! Each
week, as the project unfolds, more and more Navajo families are
enjoying the quality of life that other Americans take for granted.
NTUA and the Navajo Nation are committed to successfully
implementing and completing the NNDEP. We envision that we will connect
a significant number of Navajo homes throughout New Mexico, Arizona,
and Utah when we complete the project. Moreover, the electricity
service will contribute to improving the economic and social well-being
of Navajo people. Again, we respectfully request the House of
Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water fully
fund the congressionally authorized appropriations of $15 million for
the Navajo Nation Electrification Demonstration Project. With the
funding, we will continue to build and upgrade power lines to provide
electrical service to Navajo Nation households which currently lack
basic electrical service. True to our motto of Building Together for
Progress, we are demonstrating that Progress has indeed reached
hundreds of homes throughout our beloved Navajo Nation.
Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2004 Navajo Nation Electrification
Demonstration Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Extensions: NTUA estimates that 950-1000 new $10,155,202
customers are candidates for power line extensions
residing on the Navajo Nation and Eastern Navajo Agency
for fiscal year 2004. These customers have yet to be
serviced due to their inability to pay for member
extension construction costs...........................
Photovoltaic: NTUA estimates that 152 new customers are 2,291,211
candidates for PV systems for fiscal year 2004. These
customers live in areas too remote to economically
justify construction of an electrical distribution line
extension. The average cost to for each hybrid PV unit
and installation is $15,000............................
Distribution: To adequately meet current and new 1,624,587
customer electrical load needs, NTUA estimates 34 miles
of 1-phase to 3-phase line conversion will be needed
for fiscal year 2004...................................
Training: NTUA will administer training to staff 75,000
involving installation and maintenance of hybrid PV
units. NTUA will also educate new PV customers on
proper usage and management of their PV units..........
Project Administration & Support: To undertake the 854,000
NNEDP, NTUA needs additional staff: Project Manager,
Project Coordinator, Inspectors, Office staff,
Engineering technicians, Archeologist, and ROW agents.
All will be needed to manage the increased workload
impacting the organization.
The scope of work for extending power distribution
lines includes Project Management, Finance and
Accounting, Engineering, Construction, Material
Management, and Customer Service. Some of the specific
items include site surveys, secondary service wiring
including the pole, transformer, meters and meter
loops, engineering documentation, right-of-way
acquisition, archeologist, and procurement of material
to build electric distribution lines...................
---------------
TOTAL............................................. 15,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
American Museum of Natural History, Prepared Statement of the.... 472
American Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the..... 478
American Society for Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the..... 488
American Wind Energy Association, Prepared Statement of the...... 485
Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 376
Associated Branch Pilots, Port of New Orleans, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 372
Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 308
Baker, Kenneth E., Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Safety Administration,
Department of Energy........................................... 247
Statement of................................................. 279
Beckner, Dr. Everet H., Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs, National Nuclear Safety Administration, Department of
Energy......................................................... 247
Statement of................................................. 277
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator From Utah, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 236
Biomass Energy Research Association, Prepared Statement of the... 460
Board of Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 348
Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 341
Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., Prepared Statement of........... 450
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator From Missouri, Statement
of............................................................. 10
Bowman, Admiral Frank L., Deputy Administrator for Naval
Reactors, National Nuclear Safety Administration, Department of
Energy......................................................... 247
Prepared Statement of........................................ 269
Statement of................................................. 266
Brazos River Harbor Navigation District, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 404
Brooks, Ambassador Linton F., Under Secretary for Nuclear
Security, Administrator for National Nuclear Security
Administration, Department of Energy, Statements of..........247, 251
Prepared Statement of........................................ 254
Brownlee, Honorable Les, Under Secretary of the United States
Army and Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works),
Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department
of Defense--Civil, Statements of............................... 1, 14
Prepared Statement of........................................ 15
Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 73
Caddo/Bossier Port Commission, Prepared Statement of the......... 340
Calaveras County Water District, Prepared Statement of the....... 317
California Government and Private Sector Coalition for Operation
Clean Air's (OCA) Sustainable Incentive Program, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 482
Cameron County, Texas, Prepared Statement of..................... 405
Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 425
Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation District, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 407
Chu, Margaret S.Y., Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management, Department of Energy, Statement of........... 205
Prepared Statement of........................................ 208
City of Flagstaff, Arizona, Prepared Statement of the............ 374
City of Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners, Port of Los
Angeles, Prepared Statement of the............................. 363
City of Miami Beach, Florida, Prepared Statement of the.......... 410
City of Newark, New Jersey, Prepared Statement of the............ 408
City of St. Helena, California, Prepared Statement of the........ 322
Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
Opening Statement of......................................... 1
Prepared Statements of.......................................3, 128
Questions Submitted by.....................................183, 234
Statement of................................................. 194
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 428
Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA), Letter
From the....................................................... 484
Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 397
Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator From Idaho, Statements of........3, 129
Crescent River Port Pilots' Association, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 373
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Prepared Statement of the................ 436
DINAMO, The Association for the Development of Inland Navigation
in America's Ohio Valley, Prepared Statement of................ 302
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico:
Opening Statements of.................................125, 189, 247
Prepared Statements of.......................................1, 127
Question(s) Submitted by................65, 110, 169, 228, 242, 283
Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator From North Dakota:
Questions Submitted by......................................82, 120
Statement of................................................. 12
Fifth Louisiana Levee District, Prepared Statement of the........ 402
Flowers, Lieutenant General Robert B., Commander and Chief of
Engineers, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 29
Statement of................................................. 27
Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and Dry Prairie Rural
Water, Prepared Statement of the............................... 430
Garman, David K., Director, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, Statement of........... 142
Prepared Statement of........................................ 143
Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 414
Green Brook Flood Control Commission, Prepared Statement of the.. 411
Griffin, Major General Robert H., Director of Civil Works, Corps
of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department of
Defense--Civil................................................. 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 35
Health Physics Society (HPS) and Health Physics Program Directors
Organization (HPPDO), Prepared Statement of the................ 494
Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator From South Carolina,
Question Submitted by.......................................... 82
Jicarilla Apache Nation, Prepared Statement of the............... 438
Johnston, J. Ronald, Program Director, CUP Completion Act Office,
Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior.............. 85
Prepared Statement of........................................ 105
Keys, John W., III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 85
Prepared Statement of........................................ 99
Statement of................................................. 97
Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 372
Little River Drainage District, Letter From the.................. 343
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 352
Louisiana Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 365
Magwood, William D., IV, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology, Department of Energy, Statement of..... 152
Prepared Statement of........................................ 154
McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 235
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Letter From
the............................................................ 448
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 315
Mid-Dakota Project, Prepared Statement of the.................... 441
Midwest Area River Coalition 2000, Prepared Statement of the..... 390
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 346
Moss Landing Harbor District, Monterey Bay, California, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 392
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington:
Questions Submitted by.....................................188, 236
Statement of................................................. 11
Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 319
National Mining Association, Prepared Statement of the........... 386
National Urban Agriculture Council, Prepared Statement of the.... 422
Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, Prepared Statement of the....... 497
North Dakota Rural Water Systems Association, Letter From the.... 419
Nuclear Energy Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............. 466
Orange County, California and the Orange County Flood Control
District, Prepared Statement of................................ 301
Orbach, Dr. Raymond L., Director, Office of Science, Department
of Energy, Statements of.....................................125, 131
Prepared Statement of........................................ 133
Oregon Water Resources Congress, Prepared Statement of the....... 420
Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., Prepared Statements of
the..........................................................398, 444
Pontchartrain Levee District, Prepared Statement of the.......... 400
Port of Garibaldi, Prepared Statement of the..................... 394
Port of Greater Baton Rouge, Prepared Statement of the........... 371
Port of New Orleans, Prepared Statement of the................... 368
Port of South Louisiana, Prepared Statement of the............... 370
Raley, Bennett W., Assistant Secretary for Water and Science,
Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior.............. 85
Prepared Statement of........................................ 88
Summary Statement of......................................... 85
Red River Valley Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 333
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator From Nevada:
Prepared Statements of..................................8, 130, 192
Questions Submitted by.......................69, 116, 184, 244, 297
Statements of...........................................4, 190, 249
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 313
Roberson, Jessie Hill, Assistant Secretary, Office of
Environmental Management, Department of Energy, Statements of189, 196
Prepared Statement of........................................ 198
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the City of Mesa,
Arizona, Prepared Statement of the............................. 385
Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose, California, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 324
Seminole Tribe of Florida, Prepared Statement of the............. 311
Solar Energy Industries Association, Prepared Statement of the... 456
Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc., Prepared Statements
of...........................................................361, 472
Southern States Energy Board, Prepared Statement of the.......... 484
St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas, Prepared Statement of.... 350
State of Louisiana Red River Waterway Commission, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 339
Steamship Association of Louisiana, Prepared Statement of the.... 369
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator From Alaska, Statement of........ 12
Sun Grant Initiative, Prepared Statement of the.................. 491
The American Chemical Society, Prepared Statement of............. 470
The Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of.................... 359
Trezise, John, Director of Budget, Office of Budget, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior........................ 85
Tumalo Irrigation District, Letter From the...................... 428
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Prepared
Statement of
the............................................................ 465
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 475
University of Florida, Prepared Statement of the................. 480
University of Michigan, Prepared Statement of the................ 480
University of New Mexico, Prepared Statement of the.............. 480
University of Tennessee, Prepared Statement of the............... 480
University of Texas, Prepared Statement of the................... 480
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 356
Volusia County, Florida, Prepared Statement of................... 309
Wyoming Water Association, Letter From the....................... 435
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Activities Under the:
Construction, General Appropriation.......................... 40
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Appropriation.......... 52
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)..... 53
General Expenses Appropriation............................... 53
General Investigations Appropriation......................... 36
Operation and Maintenance, General (O&M) Appropriation....... 42
Additional Committee Questions................................... 65
Alamogordo Flood Control......................................... 69
Appropriation Accounts........................................... 18
Army:
Civil Works Program for Fiscal Year 2004..................... 15
Recommendation............................................... 71
Bluestone Dam Safety Project..................................... 76
Civil Works:
Budget Less Than Previous Years Appropriations............... 70
Contribution to National Defense............................. 69
Program:
Backlogs................................................. 30
Transformation........................................... 32
Value to the National Economy................................ 70
Commodity Flow Through Corps Built Harbors....................... 72
Constraining Corps Construction.................................. 65
Deteriorating Infrastructure--Economic Impacts................... 73
Devils Lake, North Dakota........................................ 82
Economic Security Requirements................................... 70
Emergency Supplemental........................................... 69
Environmental Projects........................................... 73
Future Water Challenges.......................................... 31
Grand Forks, North Dakota--East Grand Forks, Minnesota........... 83
Greenbrier River Basin Flood Control............................. 77
Historic Spending for Infrastructure Maintenance................. 73
Homeland Security................................................ 81
Inland Waterway and Harbor Maintenance Trust Funds............... 67
Little Kanawha River Feasibility Study........................... 79
London Locks Rehabilitation...................................... 75
Lower Mud River.................................................. 78
Marmet Locks Replacement......................................... 74
Minimizing Vulnerability to Terrorist Threat..................... 72
National Water Policy............................................ 70
Need For A More Robust Business Management System................ 32
Operations and Maintenance....................................... 79
Plant Placement and Improvement Program.......................... 54
Power Marketing Administrations (PMA's) Direct Spending Proposal. 68
Preconstruction Engineering and Design........................... 70
Program Highlights............................................... 15
Proposal to Use Inland Waterways Trust Fund for Operations and
Maintenance of Corps Inland Waterways Infrastructure........... 80
Proposed Studies and Management Initiatives...................... 17
Relationship to National Defense................................. 71
Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam..................................... 79
Summary of Fiscal Year 2004 Program Budget....................... 29
Support for Others............................................... 54
Terrorist Threat................................................. 72
Transformation of the Corps...................................... 66
West Virginia:
Flood Recovery............................................... 73
Tug Fork Flood Protection Projects........................... 77
Winfield Locks and Dam, West Virginia............................ 79
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Safety Administration
Additional Committee Questions................................... 283
Budget Summary Tables............................................ 255
Facilities and Infrastructure Initiative......................... 288
Fiscal Year 2004 Department of Energy Budget Request............. 272
Management Issues................................................ 264
Materials Protection in Russia................................... 292
Modern Pit Facility.............................................. 287
MPC&A Outside of the Former Soviet Union......................... 293
NASA's Nuclear Systems Initiative................................ 295
Naval:
Reactor Labs................................................. 296
Reactors..................................................... 262
Fiscal Year 2004 Department of Energy Budget Detail...... 274
Nevada Test Site................................................. 298
Nonproliferation:
Budget....................................................... 291
Programs..................................................... 299
Reducing the Global Nuclear Danger........................... 260
Nuclear:
Forces and the Nuclear Posture Review........................ 256
Power--Today and in the Future............................... 270
Security..................................................... 297
Weapons Stockpile............................................ 299
Office of the Administrator...................................... 264
Overall Budget for Stockpile Stewardship......................... 284
Performance Measurements, Goals, and Accomplishments............. 276
Pit Production................................................... 285
President's Management Agenda.................................... 276
Program Infrastructure and Administrative Requirements........... 275
Relationship to Department of Homeland Security.................. 263
Role of NNSA Labs in Department of Homeland Security............. 295
Russian:
Plutonium Disposition Program................................ 293
Transition Initiatives....................................... 294
Safeguards and Security:
Funding...................................................... 283
Throughout the Complex....................................... 263
Secure Transportation............................................ 260
Supercomputing................................................... 285
Tritium.......................................................... 284
TTC--Right Core at the Right Time................................ 271
Weapons Activities--Stockpile Stewardship........................ 257
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
Additional Committee Questions................................... 228
Cost Reduction and System Enhancement Through Science and
Technology..................................................... 211
Fiscal Year:
2002 Accomplishments......................................... 209
2003 On-going Activities..................................... 209
2004 Key Activities.......................................... 210
Legacy Management at Yucca Mountain.............................. 245
Modes of Transportation.......................................... 242
National Transportation and Waste Acceptance Program............. 212
Nevada Stakeholders Support...................................... 215
Program:
Direction.................................................... 212
Management and Integration.................................210, 212
Questions Submitted to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management..................................................... 242
Shipment Casks................................................... 243
Stakeholder Involvement.......................................... 244
The 2010 Objective............................................... 208
The Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request.............................. 208
Transportation................................................... 242
Plan for Yucca Mountain...................................... 214
Planning Process............................................. 244
Yucca Mountain................................................... 244
Funding:
Issues................................................... 223
Level.................................................... 242
License Application Challenges............................... 213
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Additional Committee Questions................................... 169
Advanced:
Computing.................................................... 170
Fuel Cycle Initiative........................................ 177
Nuclear Medicine Initiative.................................. 177
Biomass R&D...................................................... 181
Cost of Depleted Tails Disposal.................................. 180
Cuts to NERI and NEPO............................................ 178
Demonstration Projects........................................... 182
Diagnostic and Instrumentation Laboratory (DIAL)................. 183
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy........................... 186
Fiscal Year 2004 Energy and Water Development Budget Request..... 145
Funding of Science Programs...................................... 171
Future Nuclear Energy Budget Requirements........................ 174
Genomes to Life and Other Funding Shortfalls..................... 171
Global Climate Change Research................................... 173
High Temperature Superconductivity Center........................ 182
Hydrogen.......................................................162, 180
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor Project Within
Fusion......................................................... 169
LES.............................................................. 179
Low Dose Radiation Research...................................... 172
Nanoscale Research............................................... 171
NASA's Nuclear Systems Initiative................................ 176
Nuclear:
Hydrogen Initiative.......................................... 175
Power 2010 Initiative........................................ 175
Other Renewables................................................. 163
Science........................................................184, 188
Education.................................................... 171
In an Underground Laboratory................................. 173
Lab Infrastructure........................................... 174
The President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative......................... 144
University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support................... 178
Uranium-233...................................................... 179
Office of Environmental Management
A Year of Transformation......................................... 199
Additional Committee Questions................................... 228
Advanced Vitrification System (AVS) and Radioactive Isolation
Consortium (RIC)............................................... 195
Clean-up Situation at Los Alamos................................. 231
Completion of Clean-up at Sandia................................. 230
Environmental Management's Future Years Budget Profile........... 216
Future Budgets................................................... 229
Idaho:
Clean-Up..................................................... 222
Removal of Buried Waste...................................... 230
Los Alamos Accelerated Clean-Up Plan............................. 220
Major Activities to be Completed by 2008 as Listed in the
Performance Management Plans (PMPs)............................ 217
New Mexico Environmental Department Proposed Rulemaking.......... 224
Post Clean-Up Employment......................................... 226
Privately Funded:
Technologies................................................. 227
Technology for EM............................................ 234
Questions Submitted to the Office of Environmental Management.... 228
Rocky Flats Model................................................ 228
Safeguards and Security.......................................... 229
Costs........................................................ 225
Science and Technology:
Budget....................................................... 232
Development Investments...................................... 221
Funding...................................................... 224
The Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request.............................. 202
Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992......................... 232
Waste Management Education:
And Research Consortium...................................... 230
Research Program............................................. 221
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
Additional Committee Questions................................... 169
Advanced:
Computing.................................................... 170
Fuel Cycle Initiative.................................152, 155, 177
Nuclear Medicine Initiative.................................. 177
Biomass R&D...................................................... 181
Cost of Depleted Tails Disposal.................................. 180
Cuts to NERI and NEPO............................................ 178
Demonstration Projects........................................... 182
Diagnostic and Instrumentation Laboratory (DIAL)................. 183
Domestic Enrichment.............................................. 169
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy........................... 186
Funding of Science Programs...................................... 171
Future Nuclear Energy Budget Requirements........................ 174
Generation IV Nuclear Energy..................................... 168
Systems....................................................153, 155
Genomes to Life and Other Funding Shortfalls..................... 171
Global Climate Change Research................................... 173
High Temperature Superconductivity Center........................ 182
Hydrogen......................................................... 180
INEEL--DOE's Command Center for Nuclear R&D...................... 157
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor Project Within
Fusion......................................................... 169
LES.............................................................. 179
Low Dose Radiation Research...................................... 172
Nanoscale Research............................................... 171
NASA's Nuclear Systems Initiative................................ 176
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative...............................153, 155, 175
Nuclear Power 2010.............................................153, 156
Initiative................................................... 175
Radiological Facilities Management............................... 157
Science........................................................184, 188
Education.................................................... 171
In an Underground Laboratory................................. 173
Lab Infrastructure........................................... 174
University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.................156, 178
Uranium-233...................................................... 179
Office of Science
Accomplishments and Awards....................................... 165
Additional Committee Questions................................... 169
Advanced:
Computing.................................................... 170
Fuel Cycle Initiative........................................ 177
Nuclear Medicine Initiative.................................. 177
Scientific Computing Research................................ 136
Basic:
Energy Sciences.............................................. 137
Research with Historic Results............................... 165
Biological and Environmental Research............................ 137
Biomass R&D...................................................... 181
Computing for Science's Sake..................................... 166
Cost of Depleted Tails Disposal.................................. 180
Cuts to NERI and NEPO............................................ 178
Demonstration Projects........................................... 182
Diagnostic and Instrumentation Laboratory (DIAL)................. 183
Enabling World-Class R&D......................................... 167
Enhancing National Security...................................... 167
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy........................... 186
Expanding the Frontiers of Discovery............................. 166
Fiscal Year 2004 Science Priorities.............................. 135
Funding of Science Programs...................................... 171
Fusion Energy Sciences........................................... 138
Future Nuclear Energy Budget Requirements........................ 174
Genomes to Life and Other Funding Shortfalls..................... 171
Global Climate Change Research................................... 173
Helping to Develop the Internet.................................. 165
High:
Energy Physics............................................... 138
Temperature Superconductivity Center......................... 182
Hydrogen......................................................... 180
Improving:
Energy Security.............................................. 167
The Science of Climate Change Research....................... 166
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor Project Within
Fusion......................................................... 169
LES.............................................................. 179
Low Dose Radiation Research...................................... 172
Program...................................................... 159
Low-Level Radiation.............................................. 158
Medical Imaging.................................................. 167
Micromachining................................................... 161
Nanoscale Research............................................... 171
Nanosciences..................................................... 160
NASA's Nuclear Systems Initiative................................ 176
Nuclear:
Hydrogen Initiative.......................................... 175
Physics...................................................... 139
Power 2010 Initiative........................................ 175
Pioneering the Human Genome Project.............................. 166
Restoring Sight to the Blind..................................... 167
Safeguards and Security.......................................... 140
Science........................................................184, 188
Accomplishments.............................................. 135
Achievements................................................. 164
Education.................................................... 171
In an Underground Laboratory................................. 173
Laboratories Infrastructure................................140, 174
Program Direction............................................ 141
Programs..................................................... 136
University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support................... 178
Uranium-233...................................................... 179
Workforce Development............................................ 140
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Additional Committee Questions................................... 110
Animas-La Plata.................................................. 114
Budget Highlights................................................ 98
Bureau of Reclamation............................................ 89
California:
Bay-Delta.................................................... 118
Restoration.............................................. 103
Central Utah Project............................................. 108
Completion Act............................................... 90
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.......................... 103
Conservation Grants.............................................. 92
Conserving Wildlife and Fisheries................................ 92
Cooperative Conservation Initiative.............................. 92
Demonstrated Commitment and Accomplishments...................... 100
Departmental Budget Overview..................................... 89
Desalination...................................................119, 120
Drought:
Assistance.................................................115, 124
Emergency Assistance Program Weather Modification............ 116
Energy and Water Development Act................................. 117
Fiscal Year:
2002 Accomplishments Highlights and Future Planned Activities 104
2004 Planned Activities...................................... 105
Flaming Gorge EIS................................................ 109
Helping to Meet the Nation's Energy Needs........................ 94
Indian Education................................................. 95
Interior's Trust Responsibility.................................. 122
Law Enforcement and Security..................................... 96
Loan Program..................................................... 103
Middle Rio Grande Levees......................................... 112
Ongoing Projects................................................. 116
Other Partnerships............................................... 93
Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART)......................103, 121
Policy and Administration........................................ 103
President's Management Agenda.................................... 104
Preventing Water Management Crisis Monies........................ 107
Reclamation's Core Mission....................................... 123
Recreation....................................................... 95
Red River Valley................................................. 123
Rural Water Legislation.......................................... 121
Salt Cedar on the Pecos River.................................... 113
Santa Fe Wells................................................... 114
Science.......................................................... 96
And Technology Budget........................................ 124
Section 208...................................................... 114
Security Issues.................................................. 109
Silvery Minnow on the Rio Grande................................. 110
Specific Project Requests........................................ 87
Sumner Peck.....................................................88, 120
Taking Care of Parks............................................. 95
Title XVI--Water Reclamation and Reuse....................117, 119, 120
Trust Programs................................................... 90
Underfinancing................................................... 122
Water:
And Related Resources........................................ 100
Initiative................................................... 86
Western:
Area Power Administration.................................... 118
Water Initiative.................................102, 115, 116, 120
Wildland Fire and Healthy Forests...............................93, 106
-