[Senate Hearing 110-1094]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1094
THE NOMINATION OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL
ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP, JR., TO BE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS AND COMMANDING
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 18, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-926 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
APRIL 18, 2007
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 2
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 4
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia.... 5
Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana..... 6
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia..... 14
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho....... 16
WITNESSES
Antwerp, Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Jr., To be Chief of
Engineers and Commanding General of the United States Army
Corps of Engineers............................................. 20
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Carper............................................... 20
Senator Cardin............................................... 22
Senator Vitter............................................... 23
THE NOMINATION OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP, JR., TO BE
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS AND COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chair
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Cardin, Craig, Inhofe, Isakson,
Vitter, Warner, Whitehouse.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Good afternoon, everybody. Today, the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works meets to consider the
nomination of Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp, Jr., to
be Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
General, congratulations on your nomination. I am pleased
to welcome you to this committee and your wife, who I just had
the pleasure of meeting. I thank you for offering your service
again to the people of this country. This committee has broad
jurisdiction over the infrastructure of America. It is the
authorizing committee for the Civil Works Program of the
Nation.
Last month at our first legislative business meeting of the
year, this committee, in a bipartisan, unanimous way, reported
the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 to the floor of the
Senate. Senators Inhofe, Baucus, Isakson, and I are committed
to expeditiously moving WRDA on the floor of the Senate,
through conference, and to the President's desk for signature.
The position of Chief of Engineers is of utmost importance
to all of us. In your capacity as Chief, you will oversee the
feasibility, accountability and environmental acceptability of
Army Corps civil works projects around the country. We all know
how important projects of the corps are. Projects under your
jurisdiction include flood control projects that protect
communities from catastrophic storms and flooding; navigation
improvements that keep America's commerce moving; environmental
protection, preservation and restoration projects for the
Nation's natural resources, particularly America's once vast
wetlands.
In these and many other projects, the corps contributes
positively to America's way of life. Now, unfortunately, we
have also seen the impacts of corps projects that don't
perform. As the world watched in horror and agony at the events
surrounding Hurricane Katrina, we all learned of the
consequences of neglecting our water infrastructure needs or
making mistakes or just not being vigilant enough.
General, the task to which you have been assigned is an
immense one. In my home of California, the lives of hundreds of
thousands of people are at risk from catastrophic flooding in
the Sacramento area. We cannot afford to wait any longer to get
needed flood control improvements, nor can we afford to get it
wrong.
General, your background and experience give me comfort
that you are up to this challenge. Let me briefly share this
background with my colleagues and for the record. Lieutenant
General Robert L. Van Antwerp currently commands the U.S. Army
Accessions Command based at Fort Monroe, VA. Prior to this
current assignment, he served as the Commanding General of the
U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center and Commandant of the U.S.
Army Engineer School at Fort Leonard Wood, MO.
He also served as an engineer officer with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District during the Northridge
earthquake of 1994. Given the events of recent years, I am very
pleased that you have had the on the ground experience with the
challenges of natural disasters. I can say for everyone, in
California we have had a lot of problems, but in the Northridge
situation, it was an amazing response and I want to thank you
for what you did back then.
The General also served in the 326th Engineer Battalion,
101st Airborne Division during Operations Desert Shield and
Desert Storm.
So he is a real hero and once again, welcome to the
committee. I look forward to your testimony.
Senator Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I would like to ask first the progress of your son. How is
your son doing?
General Van Antwerp. Thank you very much for asking. He was
discharged on the 18th of January and is now settled in Ohio
and has a job and is starting his second career. So we are very
pleased.
Senator Inhofe. That is good. That is good. Well, we are
all concerned. Of course, and I say this to you, Madam
Chairman, you have dramatically shortened my opening Statement.
I was going to talk a little bit about him, too, but now that
we know.
As some of the other members of the committee may not be
aware of, Senator Warner and I already had the hearing in the
Armed Services Committee, and of course there was no opposition
at that time.
I have to agree with the Chairman. I think you have an
ideal background to do this job. I am looking forward to
working with you in both capacities on both of our committees.
You will be facing difficult decisions and management
challenges in the Civil Works mission. As the Chairman said, we
are trying to get this WRDA bill done. Frankly, I think we are
going to do it. I think we ought to have it on the floor
sometime in the first part of May, I can hopefully say.
In which case, your job is going to be in some ways easier
and in some ways it is going to be more difficult because there
will be more activity, but it is activity that needs to take
place.
More specifically to my State of Oklahoma, as you well
know, for the past 4 years the State and Federal agencies have
devoted a lot of resources and effort to the remediation of the
Tar Creek problem. In fact, when I became Chairman of this
committee 4 years ago, that is when we got you guys and the
Department of Justice and the Department of Interior and the
Corps of Engineers and everybody in one room together, only to
find they had not been in that one room together before.
We are doing very well now. I would certainly hope that you
would continue in your new capacity in seeing that through to
its completion. I think that will happen.
Thank you.
[The prepared Statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Thank you Madam Chairman for holding this hearing today. As
has been noted, Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp is
currently Commander of the U.S. Army Accessions Command. His
nomination to be Chief of Engineers comes at a very challenging
time for the Army Corps, but he is certainly well qualified and
highly regarded. I have no doubt that he will be successful at
this new post.
Although General Van's nomination is officially the
jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee, I think it is
important that this committee have a chance to hear from him
prior to his confirmation. The Armed Services Committee, of
which I am also a member, held a hearing and approved his
nomination last month. There we heard from General Van on the
wide range of issues that are the responsibility of the Chief,
but it is this committee that has the expertise regarding the
Civil Works mission of the Corps of Engineers.
The new Chief will face many difficult decisions and
management challenges just within the Civil Works mission. He
will need to oversee the continued rebuilding and improvement
of the hurricane protection system in South Louisiana, with all
of the engineering difficulties that presents. He will need to
continue implementation of the many changes that have begun as
a result of the hurricanes down there, such as the emphasis on
integrated water resources management and the use of risk
assessment tools to guide our decisions and inform the public.
As the new Chief, General Van would take charge of a vast
regulatory program that needs to begin providing clarity and
certainty to the regulated community in the wake of two Supreme
Court decisions that haven't seemed to clarify much of
anything.
The new Chief will need to implement whatever new policy
provisions are included in the WRDA bill we all hope to have
enacted as soon as possible. In particular, both House and
Senate bills include various so-called ``Corps reform''
provisions. Whatever the final mix is, General Van as Chief of
Engineers would be responsible for ensuring that these items
are incorporated into the corps procedures efficiently and
effectively.
Finally, on a note specific to my home state of Oklahoma -
General Van, over the past four years, state and federal
agencies have devoted much resources and effort to remediation
and resident assistance at the Tar Creek Superfund Site in
northeastern Oklahoma. I want to get your commitment to make
the work at Tar Creek a top priority and to ensure timely
cooperation with state agencies that are involved in assisting
the area residents.
General Van, upon confirmation you will face many difficult
tasks, but I have every confidence that you will meet these
challenges and be a strong leader for the Corps of Engineers.
General Van Antwerp. Thank you, sir.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cardin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Again, I
thank you for having this hearing to give me chance to go over
some of the priorities of Maryland.
General, you and I had a chance to talk yesterday. I am
going to start off with a problem that affects one of our
smaller municipalities in Maryland, Chesapeake City. It has a
population of a little over 735 people. Several years ago, the
Army Corps in deepening the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal,
removed the water line between the town. The town is divided by
the C & D canal. Therefore, the ability of having one water
supply was compromised. They have to have separate facilities
on both sides of the canal. As I explained to you yesterday,
the work that you do is so important to the people of Maryland.
We are looking forward to your leadership at the Army Corps.
Marylanders depend upon the work of the Army Corps for
flood control in the western part of our State, to the
importance of the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay is a
wonderful natural treasure for the people of Maryland, but it
has significant environmental risks and is very vulnerable to
erosion. We need to deal with the erosion problems of the bay.
It is also a shipping channel. It is a shipping channel for
126 miles of shipping that lead into the Port of Baltimore.
There are 70 small navigation projects around the Chesapeake
Bay and Atlantic Ocean that are in the State of Maryland. We
need to continuously work on the balance between the
environment and the commerce.
I mentioned to you yesterday Poplar Island. I do that
because we are very proud of what has happened at Poplar
Island. At one time, Poplar Island was 1,100 acres. It eroded
down to five acres. What we were able to do through the
authorization of Congress and the work of the Army Corps is
develop a dredge site location that was also environmental
restoration.
So we had a win-win situation, and it is progressing better
than any of us had expected at the time. Wildlife is returning.
The acreage is there. It is a real asset to the bay and a real
asset to the commerce of our State. It has been a model program
for our Nation, and actually we have gotten a lot of
international visitors who come by and see Poplar Island.
We are in the midst of authorizing, we hope, a second
location in the mid-Chesapeake Bay, James Island. As I have
mentioned to you earlier, and I will ask you during the
questioning, the timeliness of the Chief's report is very
important to us in getting that project moved forward.
So I look forward to this hearing, but I particularly look
forward to your continued service to the people of this
country. I thank you and your family for your dedicated service
to our country.
[The prepared Statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator from the
State of Maryland
Thank you for holding this hearing today.
I represent a state which relies heavily upon the Army
Corps of Engineers' civil works programs.
Maryland has 31 miles of Atlantic Ocean coastline, which
are the site of two critical corps projects--a hurricane
protection project at our premier beach resort community, Ocean
City, and a mitigation project at Assateague Island National
Seashore.
The Chesapeake Bay is America's largest estuary. The corps'
oyster and habitat restoration, shoreline protection, and
sediment management programs are integral to our efforts to
restore the Bay.
We have a geography and topography which makes the
Chesapeake Bay particularly susceptible to erosion. This
erosion contributes millions of cubic yards of sediment
annually to the bay, adversely affecting water quality and
clogging navigation channels.
The Port of Baltimore is one of the largest ports on the
east coast and a vital engine of economic activity,
contributing $2 billion to the State's economy and employing
18,000 Marylander's directly and tens of thousands more
indirectly.
There are 126 miles of shipping channels leading to the
Port of Baltimore. Maryland also has more than 70 small
navigation projects around the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic
Ocean. These navigation projects are critical to commercial and
recreational fisherman, to local and regional commerce and to
local economies.
We rely heavily on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
flood protection in communities in Western Maryland and for
water supply.
In short, the Corps of Engineers has projects and provides
assistance to virtually every jurisdiction in the State of
Maryland
Our efforts in Maryland focus on four areas:
maintaining the navigational channels serving the Port
of Baltimore and numerous communities in our state, and finding
responsible and environmentally sound solutions for disposing
of the dredged material from these channels,
restoring the Chesapeake Bay and the rivers and streams
which flow into the Bay,
addressing the shoreline erosion problems on Maryland's
Atlantic Coast , and
mitigating for previous construction of civil works such
as the rewatering of the C&O Canal in Cumberland.
I have talked with met with the nominee and reviewed his
impressive background. We need a Chief of Engineers that
understands the importance of the range of issues facing
Maryland and the nation. I think that Lieutenant General Van
Antwerp has the potential to bring to the job a strong
background and a willingness to work with us that will combine
to make him an excellent chief. I look forward to asking the
nominee a few questions, and I anticipate working closely with
him in the years ahead.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Senator Warner.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER, U.S.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have had the
privilege, as my distinguished colleague said, Senator Inhofe,
to vigorously question this candidate before the Armed Services
Committee. We have screened him and put our stamp of approval
on him.
I would simply like to exercise a little bit of a
prerogative to ask one issue about the acceleration of funding.
I don't want to get into the politics, but if Congress decides
to accelerate the funding to get started on that new hospital
to eventually replace a good portion of Walter Reed, are you
able to give this committee some estimates of the amount of
advance funding that you would need to get that underway?
General Van Antwerp. Senator, I would have to take that for
the record.
Senator Warner. I would suspect you would.
General Van Antwerp. That is a really great question and
important to the country.
Senator Warner. It is an important question.
General Van Antwerp. Right.
Senator Warner. I represented to the Congress that we can
save some time if we move ahead on that project so that we can
have a seamless turnover, a closing down under BRAC of Walter
Reed and the functions at that distinguished institution
transferred to Bethesda and to this new facility.
I would appreciate that, General.
I thank the Chair and the Ranking Member.
General Van Antwerp.Thank you, sir.
Senator Boxer. Senator Vitter, an opening Statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking
Member Inhofe, for having this confirmation hearing. I think it
is very, very important.
And General, thank you for being here. I appreciate it.
I put a technical hold on this nomination some time ago,
March 15th, not as any negative Statement about anything, but
simply to ensure that all of us could have an appropriate
opportunity for full due diligence. I had a personal meeting
with the General and discussion in my office even before that,
on March 7th. This hearing, which I urgently requested, and I
thank the Chair again for agreeing to that request, I think is
another important step in that very important due diligence. I
look forward to our continued discussion here.
Obviously, my background and concern about this position
and the work of the corps is dominated by the experience of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. So certainly my comments and
questions are focused on that.
Just as obviously, that has national import and
significance as well. The future of the Civil Works Program
certainly must correct the mistakes of the past that were
uncovered specifically following Hurricane Katrina. Those
lessons were unbelievably painful in many ways. The loss of
1,200 lives brought attention to some of these concerns. But I
continue to have concerns even as we try to improve coming out
of that experience. My questions will go to those concerns.
Two of them I will mention right off. One is that the
traditional corps process of identifying and refining work is
just too long and bureaucratic and cumbersome. It simply takes
way, way too long a period of time for a legitimate corps
project to be identified and get underway. Unless we correct
that fundamental problem, there are other problems related to
that. Maybe we throw too much on your plate and don't focus on
the real top concerns; asking you to do too much with too
little. But unless we identify that fundamental problem, there
are going to be more system failures in the future.
A second concern is that even in post-Katrina South
Louisiana, where we have a clear emergency situation and where
coming out of the hurricanes we have emergency work that has to
be done in a super-expedited way, that sense of urgency I think
has been lost. It was there right after the hurricanes, but
fairly soon after that, in a matter of months, my perception is
that the bureaucracy, many, many bureaucracies, including the
corps, has drifted back into business as usual, which doesn't
reflect the sense of urgency that is required. So a lot of my
concerns will go to all of these concerns.
But again, General, thank you for your history of service.
Thank you for making yourself available again.
Chairwoman Boxer, thank you for this hearing.
Senator Boxer. You are very welcome.
Senator Inhofe has a meeting to go to with the Armed
Services Committee, so he has asked if he can go first with
questions.
Senator Inhofe. I will just do one question, because I do
have to go down to the Armed Services Committee. I appreciate
that very much.
I know Senator Vitter is very much concerned. He is going
to cover a lot of these things in his questions. But I had just
one that was called to my attention. I have been there twice
since this happened, kind of overviewing what is going on. In
terms of the safe cleanup, it has been the corps'
responsibility to remove and haul the hurricane waste to
designated landfills.
Now, allegations have been made that some unsafe old
landfills have been reopened--Old Gentilly was one that people
were talking about--and that new landfills have been created,
like the Chef Menteur under suspect contracts. There have been
some articles written that would certainly make me wonder if
everything is really on the up and up.
Now, this happened while there are perfectly good
landfills. I actually saw a couple of those that were down
that, that could take some of this capacity. Now, I would ask
you, since it would be premature to ask if you have done
anything or been down there looking at this, but I would like
to ask you to, if you have any comments to make about that, go
ahead and make them. And if you don't, make a commitment to go
down.
We get criticized a lot. That is not the State that I
represent, but certainly my heart goes out to Senator Vitter
for all the problems that he has. It is our responsibility to
make sure that funds and resources that are used down there are
used most efficiently and effectively. So that is one area.
Are you familiar with any of the accusations that there are
perfectly good landfills that are not at capacity right now
that could be used?
General Van Antwerp. Yes, I believe I probably read the
same article as you did. I am committed to going down.
Actually, I am going to go down on Friday. I will make that
part of our trip.
Senator Inhofe. That would be good. That would be good. If
you would let me know so we can follow-up on this. And there
are some other areas, too, that we will be able to talk about
in more detail later.
Good luck. I asked all the questions I could ask of this
young man during the Armed Services hearing, so I will go ahead
and give it to you.
Senator Boxer. All right. Very good. Thank you, Senator.
General, in order for our committee and other committees to
exercise their legislative and oversight responsibilities, it
is important that committees of Congress are able to receive
testimony, briefings and other communications from you. Do you
agree, if confirmed as the Chief of Engineers, to appear before
this committee or before designated members of this committee
and other appropriate committees of the Congress, to provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security
protection, with respect to your responsibilities as Chief of
Engineers?
General Van Antwerp. I do, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. All right.
And then this is a question you answered at the Armed
Services Committee, so I wanted to pose it to you today. Do you
agree when asked to give your personal views, even if those
views differ from the Administration in office at the time,
whatever Administration that might be?
General Van Antwerp. I agree.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, documents
and electronic and other forms of communication of information
are provided to this committee and its staff and other
appropriate committees in Congress in a timely manner?
General Van Antwerp. I agree.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Do you know of any matters which you may or may not have
disclosed that might place you in any conflict of interest if
you are confirmed as Chief of Engineers?
General Van Antwerp. None.
Senator Boxer. Excellent.
Now, I just want to ask you a question about my big worry
in California, which is the Sacramento area. General, at last
month's hearing on the Army Corps' budget and WRDA, I discussed
with Secretary Woodley a critical public health and safety
issue in my State: the threat of catastrophic flooding faced by
the people of Sacramento. I would like to take a few moments to
discuss it with you now.
As you well know, Sacramento is situated at the confluence
of two great rivers, the American and the Sacramento. This
large floodplain is home to nearly 500,000 people and contains
165,000 homes, 1,300 Government facilities, including the State
Capital, and businesses providing 200,000 jobs.
This area is as big as some States. Throughout its history,
Sacramento residents have lived with devastating flooding, the
last in 1986. The cost in lives and treasure can be enormous.
It is estimated that a major flood could cause between $7
billion and $16 billion in direct property damage. That doesn't
even include indirect.
Thankfully, the people of Sacramento, including the Mayor
and city government officials, have worked together with the
corps in a very cooperative way to develop a plan to greatly
improve Sacramento's flood control. It is called the Joint
Federal Project at Folsom Dam.
I understand that the proposed Folsom Dam Improvement
Project is in the final stages of review. It has been a little
bit difficult for me because, frankly, I have heard it is in
the final stages of review for how long now, Jeff? The last
year or so. Oh, you are going to get it tomorrow and the next
day and the next day.
And so I need to ask you at this time. Do you support this
project?
General Van Antwerp. I do, ma'am.
Senator Boxer. Good. And will you visit Folsom Dam and
Sacramento with me?
General Van Antwerp. I will.
Senator Boxer. That is good. And what steps will you
personally take to make sure this project stays on track?
General Van Antwerp. As I understand it right now, the
post-authorization report will be rendered in June, which I
think is excellent. That puts us on the way, and then it is a
902 issue, which makes the adjustment so that it can be funded.
So what I have been told by the corps is that they anticipate
that this project is going to move absolutely on schedule,
working out all the details with the Bureau of Reclamation and
other things as well.
It sounds like it is on track. I will do everything if
confirmed to make sure it stays that way.
Senator Boxer. I am very grateful, because there, but for
the grace of God. We need to be thankful that we have not been
hit like Louisiana was hit. I share Senator Vitter's and
Senator Landrieu's deep concern about making sure that those
good people there get the protection they deserve and the
justice that they deserve.
And also Senator Feinstein and I are focused like a laser
beam on this particular area because we know. All you have to
do is just look at the maps and look at the photographs to know
what we are dealing with here. We have a solution, a very good
solution.
By the way, it was just very tough to get the political
will to come together around this solution. So we have solved
that problem. The reason I am pushing so hard not to see any
slippage here is that the WRDA bill, as you know, is going to
come to the floor--I knock on wood on that; that is the promise
I have been given--in May. And then we will try to go to
conference very quickly, because we all view the WRDA bill as
old business. We are going to need WRDA II right behind it.
So we need to get WRDA I done here. It is the first time in
6 years we will have a bill. But I need to know the dollars so
that I can now make sure that project is on track. So that is
the reason it is so important we don't have any delays, saying
Senator, I can't give you a number; I think it is this or that.
I am going to need you to say, this number will cover it. And
then we can move on and then make sure that we get you all the
funding that you need.
I just want to thank you very much. We are so optimistic
that you are the right person for this job. I am really looking
forward to working with you.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Again, I
thank you for having this hearing to give me a chance to go
over some of the priorities of Maryland.
General, you and I had a chance to talk yesterday. I am
going to start off with a problem that affects one of our
smaller municipalities in Maryland, Chesapeake City. It has a
population of a little over 735 people. Several years ago, the
Army Corps in deepening the sea and the canal, removed the
water line between the town. The town is divided by the sea and
the canal. Therefore, the ability of having one water supply
was compromised. They have to have separate facilities on both
sides of the canal.
The Water Bill in 1999 authorized the corps to evaluate the
town's claim of damages to its water supply. The Philadelphia
District Engineer determined in September, 2003 that replacing
the water line and making the system whole again was
appropriate. He recommended that a mitigation package move
forward. There has been no progress since then.
At the current time, there is bridge work being done which
would give us an opportunity at the time that that work is done
to correct the situation and connect both sides of the canal.
I would like to have your assurance that this matter will
be given immediate attention, and that if we can move forward
in this way, that you will do everything you can to make sure
that we can get this issue behind us.
General Van Antwerp. Senator, if confirmed, you have my
assurances on that. Post our conversation yesterday, we did go
back to the district to make, No. 1, sure that they understood
the time lines that they we were under here, so not to we don't
miss a window of opportunity if that is the right way to go.
Second, they are being encouraged them to put together a
meeting right away, face to face, and make sure they we have
all the information to make this decision.
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, General.
The second issue I want to cover is one that I mentioned in
my opening Statement. That is the moving forward with the mid-
bay James Island site. This would be the second project. The
first, of course, is Poplar Island, that I mentioned in my
opening Statement, which has been an extremely successful
program. As I said, we had 1,100 acres that was eroded to five
acres. At one time, there was residential life on Poplar
Island.
What we are doing upon completion, it will have a half
upland habitat and half wetlands. Trees, shrubs and grasses
will be planted. We expect it will support terrapin, birds,
mammals, including foxes, raccoons, squirrels and deer. So this
is a real win-win situation. We are also going to be restoring
wetlands. There will be habitats for fish, shrimp, crabs, shore
birds, wading birds, and mammals.
We want to move forward with a second project, as I
mentioned before. The mid-bay project is on track, but we need
to get the Chief's report in time, prior to the end of the
fiscal year. I know that there is always some degree of
uncertainty, but I would like to have your commitment that you
will do everything you possibly can so that that report can be
completed in a timely manner prior to the end of the fiscal
year, so that that project can be properly considered by
Congress.
General Van Antwerp. Senator, you have my commitment. I
might just add, after our conversation, my aide pulled up
Poplar Island, and what was done there is just a magnificent
project. On this particular project, I am told by the corps
after we checked on it yesterday, was that everything is there
for the Chief's report. All the information is there, so that
it will go before a review board in July, and there is a strong
likelihood by Labor Day, you could have the Chief's report.
Senator Cardin. I thank you for that. It will be extremely
helpful for the work of this Congress in dealing with the
authorization. I thank you for that.
Just generally, tell me your view as to the use of dredge
materials for this purpose. It seems to me that Poplar Island
demonstrates that this is a real win-win situation. I would
hope that we would be looking for other opportunities where we
can help commerce as well as help the environment.
General Van Antwerp. I think in the right circumstances, it
is an excellent model. The disposal of the dredged materials is
a huge issue, and it is going to become an even bigger issue as
we are able to dredge ports and harbors. The recreation of
something that existed before, the restoration, the positive
environmental impacts of it are all excellent. And then it
gives you other kinds of protection as to the meandering of the
river and other things. That now forms what was natural in that
river to begin with.
So I am a big fan of it and in favor of it. I hope the
corps can move forward with James Island.
Senator Cardin. I thank you for that. I don't want this
opportunity to go by without me extending an invitation to join
us in hopefully touring the bay area, the waterways around
here, to get a better understanding of what I think our
challenges are, so that we can work together. I would enjoy an
opportunity for us to be able to do that.
General Van Antwerp. I will do that. I thank the Senator.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. General, get ready. You are going to see the
country with us. We are very excited.
General Van Antwerp. That is why I love this work.
Senator Boxer. I know. It is very exciting, isn't it? I
think the one thing that pulls the country together is people
everywhere want the same thing. They want a good quality of
life with their families, in good communities, solid, and not
to have to worry about things that they really don't have
control over, which is where we come in.
General Van Antwerp. Right.
Senator Boxer. We have to give them that solace. They pay
their tax dollars in order for us to do that. So it is going to
be an interesting time for you.
Senator Vitter, you have 10 minutes. Please go ahead.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Chairman Boxer.
Again, General, thank you.
I wanted to start very broad brush in terms of the Katrina
experience, and ask you what is your general understanding of
the causes of flooding in Greater New Orleans immediately
following Hurricane Katrina?
General Van Antwerp. I think probably on the large scale,
it was because it didn't operate as an integrated system. That
was one of the issues. You certainly had the levee breaches,
which were catastrophic. Once that happened, it changed the
dynamics of other things, like whether the pumping stations
would operate properly.
I think in the future, one of the things, and it will be
one of the areas that I will be committed to, is to get an
integrated system; you have the right levees with the right
armoring on the back side and the right erosion protection. I
think that was part of the problem. They were inundated for a
long time, and that caused more erosion than was expected, and
that did it. And then you had the severe breaches.
Pumping stations, there is no question that is a problem. I
think the loss of wetlands over time, and the loss of wetlands
in this storm is something that needs to be dealt with. Those
wetlands dissipate the storm, as you know. They take a lot of
the heat, if you will, out of the surge.
And then there are other things like floodgates and those
things that I understand the corps is building now, and needs
to be in place and operating so that that all can operate as a
system.
And then you have the monitoring of the storm. You have to
know where it is coming, when it is coming, and be able to
predict, so you know to start the pumps and close the gates and
do those things.
Senator Vitter. Let me focus my question a little bit more.
What is your general sense of the natural factors which led to
the catastrophic flooding, versus man-made issues and factors?
General Van Antwerp. I see.
Senator Vitter. Where do you place the corps in that?
General Van Antwerp. I guess as you look at the storm
surge, the direction of it, the high winds, and then some of
the manmade things, the subsidence of some of the levees, that
storm was something that was larger than I think we had
predicted. As weather patterns change in the United States, I
think one thing we learned from it is that you have to adjust
your thinking as time goes on because weather patterns do
change. If you are now expecting more winds, high storm surges,
that has to be accounted for.
I think one of the challenges in process reform, as we look
at the processes, how do you account for that in projects that
are authorized and built? How do you account for those new
things that are just in the weather predicted?
Senator Vitter. I know you are going down to the area in
the next few days, General. I thank you for that. I would
encourage you to get a full briefing from your folks on the
ground about exactly what happened in different parts of the
city. The main point, which I think is all too often forgotten
in discussions up here in Congress, as well as in different
agencies, including the corps, is that for the great majority
of the city, everything west of the industrial canal, the levee
system was not over-topped. The levee system was not overcome
by anything which was above its design.
It failed from below, and specifically on the three outfall
canals which accounted for the huge majority of the flooding,
at least west of the Industrial Canal. There was no over-
topping. There was no new weather pattern that was beyond
design. The system literally failed from below because of poor
design.
The reason I start here is because I think that is a pretty
darn important point to understand in terms of where we are
coming from, to understand where we need to go. There is a big
difference between a storm that was just greater than the
design, which is arguably was east of the Industrial Canal, to
a storm that wasn't, but a system that failed because of design
flaws west of the Industrial Canal.
So I would really encourage you to enter into a full
discussion of that when you are down there, because that is at
the heart of this experience and the heart of a lot of my
constituents' loss of everything they had.
You have described yourself since your nomination as a
change agent for the corps. What are two or three of the top
priorities for reform and change you have for the corps?
General Van Antwerp. That is a great question, Senator.
First of all, I would say I am going to have to do a lot of
assessing, because I am right now the Commander of Accessions
Command so I have been looking at it from the outside. But I
think a couple of the areas that are already in progress, and
those are areas of review, peer review, outside review. I think
those are good things. I believe in the biblical principle that
there is wisdom in other counselors, and I think that is good.
I think it is OK to check your work on science. I think,
another issue is, we talked in your office, the planning
process, the length of time. As your Statement mentioned, that
has to be taken a good look at.
And then, how we do the cost benefits. There is no question
in my mind that public safety is an important, if not the
important issue. It is job one. Other things revolve around
that, especially when it has to do with the coastal areas.
So those are three areas that I would think that I am going
to take a look at very early on.
Senator Vitter. Great. The current Administration coming
out of Katrina, starting with the President, out of his mouth,
made a very crystal clear commitment to a 100 year level of
protection in Greater New Orleans by 2010. Do you have any
reason to believe that the Administration or the corps has
backed off of that commitment in any way?
General Van Antwerp. I have no reason to believe they have
backed off that.
Senator Vitter. OK. Do you have enough information to make
an assessment of how we are getting to that goal by 2010?
General Van Antwerp. I do not have that information now. I
believe in a day or two, I will be much clearer on that.
Senator Vitter. Again, I would invite you to visit our
State with that in mind, because I have a great concern that
while that crystal clear commitment has been made, starting
with the President, we are not near on track for that.
In the last year in particular, it has become very clear
that the initial cost estimates of that work are low. It may be
because they were made very quickly to begin with, and it may
also be because Katrina put a big increase in both labor and
material costs, so maybe both of those things together.
One thing we need to do to get back on track is get new
reliable cost numbers. Do you know, and I have been pushing the
corps for it, what those are? Do you know when the corps will
be prepared to update those cost figures?
General Van Antwerp. Senator, what I am being told is that
in July, there will be some of those estimates that should give
us a very close picture of that. And then in December 2007 will
be the final report.
Senator Vitter. OK. I think we absolutely need it. A
December, 2007 report I think is looking more long range at it.
General Van Antwerp. For the total system.
Senator Vitter. A new system. Really, what I am talking
about is the first step, not the new system, but the 100 year
level of protection, which is the immediate ongoing work. I
would really encourage the corps to update those cost figures
as soon as possible, by July or sooner, because I think what
you are going to see is additional billions of dollars, several
billion dollars, required. There is a commitment to get there
by 2010, but unless we start addressing a gap of several
billion dollars, I don't know how we can possibly do it.
In that regard, I would again renew my objection to the
Administration's plan in the current proposed budget of moving
money around within the area, but not bringing new money to the
table. If it is going to take $5 billion or $6 billion more,
which is what I am hearing, we need to start producing that
now, to have any hope of coming close to 2010.
I think 2010 is a pipedream as we speak, unfortunately, but
we can come in close to 2010. I am hopeful Congress is going to
start to do that, even over the objections of the
Administration, but I would hope we could all start meeting
that need with this current supplemental spending bill.
Senator Boxer. Your time is up, Senator. Can you submit
your other questions for the record?
Senator Vitter. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Senators Isakson and Craig, you have 5 minutes for an
opening Statement and questions.
Senator Isakson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, U.S.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will probably
try and do both within one 5 minute period, if I can.
Thank you very much, General, for being here. Thanks for
your service to the country, and in particular your command of
all recruiting, if I am not correct, for the past 2 or 3 years,
at a very difficult and challenging time. That is a great
achievement and you have done a great job. We appreciate it.
And thanks for visiting me yesterday. I am going to be very
redundant. It is always nice to get things on the record. I
appreciated your time yesterday.
We have had a 17-year battle going on, so to speak, between
Georgia, Florida and Alabama, with regard to the Chattahoochee
River and the ACT/ACF river basins. We have spent most of our
time in court. Currently, the Chattahoochee River is regulated
by an interim operating plan which was basically directed by a
judge in response to an Endangered Species action regarding a
sturgeon. It has resulted in lake levels and winter pool levels
that are disproportionately out of whack, one lake reservoir to
the other. You have three great States, all who share a
tremendous need for the reliability of that water and its flow.
In the end, two things have to happen. One is the States
have to reach agreements, and I understand that. But there also
has to be a new water control plan. Myself and Senator
Chambliss had met with Secretary Harvey last year and had
innumerable meetings with the corps, and had had an agreement--
and I know he is not here anymore, and that agreement wasn't
with you--to begin the water control plans in January of this
year. That has not happened yet for reasons that have been
explained to me.
But as our conversation indicated yesterday, I would hope--
and you have a million things on your platter, and just
listening to David talk about New Orleans, and obviously the
ramifications of Katrina, and every one of us have projects--
but I hope there would be some way that we could use the water
control plan as a catalyst for improving and expediting the
mediation that the States must do. Because I don't think those
three States can make a final decision for a tri-State compact
without the water control plan at least in tandem, because the
compact won't be final until the water control plan is.
So that is a discombobulated question. It is almost a
political Statement. But your help and attention to that would
mean an awful lot to my State and to the State of Alabama and
the State of Florida.
[The prepared Statement of Senator Isakson follows:]
Statement of Hon. Johnny Isakson, U.S. Senator from the
State of Georgia
Thank you Madam Chairman. Welcome General Van Antwerp to
the committee. I thank you for taking the time to meet with me
yesterday in my office and thank you for your service to our
nation. For those of you on the committee who don't know, 3 of
General Van Antwerp's sons have served or are serving in Iraq,
and I personally would like to take this opportunity to thank
you and you family for your service and sacrifice on behalf of
our nation.
This hearing is a good opportunity for us to learn about
General Van Antwerp's vision for the Army Corps, and about what
we can do as partners with the corps to ensure it meets its
goals. I have a number of issues I am eager to hear from
General van Antwerp on. I am interested in hearing in what
course of action he plans to reduce the corps' backlog of
projects, as well as to improve its business practices. On the
local level, and General Van Antwerp and I spoke about this
issue yesterday, I am very interested in what the corps is
doing to meet its promise of beginning the update of the water
control manuals for the ACT and ACF river basins in my State.
In face to face meetings with the corps, I was promised that
the updates would begin on January 2nd of this year, however to
date no action has been taken. However, as General Van Antwerp
shared with me yesterday, there are steps that the corps can
take to begin the process and I look forward to exploring that
in more depth.
In an effort to move to the witness I will cut short my
statement here, and I thank the Chair for calling this hearing.
I yield back my time.
General Van Antwerp. I confirm that I commit to giving it
that attention.
Senator Isakson. And I appreciate that very much.
My second question is that, well actually, one other
comment and then a question. The State of Georgia and the State
of South Carolina on our eastern border, the two Governors have
reached an bi-port agreement to seek the feasibility of
developing a new port in Jasper County, South Carolina, closer
to the mouth of the Savannah River, between the Port of
Savannah and the Atlantic Ocean. That land area has been under
lease by the State of Georgia from the State of South Carolina
to deposit the environmental dredging that has taken place to
keep the channel clear.
The two States reached a compact and agreed to pay for the
cost of a feasibility study. When Secretary Woodley was here
four or 5 weeks ago, I asked him, and he confirmed that the
corps would certainly agree to spend somebody else's money to
facilitate that. I wanted to make you aware of that.
My question is, and really my only question, the
President's budget, as I understand it, reduces spending for
operations and maintenance in navigation projects. By some
estimates, it spends only about one half of the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund receipts and collections.
Given the tremendous asset of our ports of Brunswick and
Savannah, South Carolina's in Charleston, and the Port of New
Orleans, and you can go around the country, shouldn't we be
investing 100 percent of those proceeds in the maintenance of
those harbors?
General Van Antwerp. There is no question, Senator. As we
discussed, there is a big backlog in the dredging. In our
conversation where I understand the rules and laws to be right
now, is that it is on-budget, has to have appropriated funds
for the trust fund to add to it.
So if there was a way to take it off budget, in that a
project that has zero funds appropriated could draw off the
trust fund, then that would be the mechanism to do it, as I
understand it. I commit to looking at that, too, but that is
how I understand it to work today.
Senator Isakson. I thank you for your time.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you. You got that right
within the 5 minutes.
Senator Craig, you have 5 minutes for opening and
questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I will
try to be a bit more succinct than that, but I do appreciate
the time.
General, it is great to have you before the committee.
This is a comment and question combined, I guess. In the
past, I have had several run-ins with the Army Corps of
Engineers, and their interesting method of accounting.
Specifically, their practice of borrowing from one project to
pay for another. Although I can appreciate accounting
flexibility to enhance efficiency, this practice has caused
significant problems for projects in my State, General. My
frustration lies not with the method of borrowing, but rather
with the method of paying the money back.
Funds that were appropriated for Idaho projects, but then
moved to other projects are not replaced by the corps. I am
required to get another directive--we used to call them
earmarks, OK?--to replace those funds. Therefore, in essence,
Idaho has to have money appropriated for many of its projects
one and a half to two times.
For example, in Fiscal Year 2007, the CR provided
approximately $3.2 million for section 595 environmental
infrastructure projects in Idaho. However, by the time the
corps uses that money to pay back Idaho projects they borrowed
from, only about $1 million will be left. This is frustrating.
This is a frustrating situation for communities that are
struggling to get into compliance with Federal standards and
are depending on this money so they can leverage other
resources.
I know I am not alone. My colleagues have had the same
problem with the process. I am very interested in seeing a
better system put in place.
So General, can you explain the logic of the practice, and
also what you plan to do to address it?
General Van Antwerp. Senator, that is a great question. I
can just draw back on my experience as a division commander in
the Corps of Engineers. I commanded South Atlantic Division. It
had to be absolutely necessary before I would allow a
reprogramming, the reason being just as you stated. Now, there
are times when projects are not ready to accept the funds and
take the funds, and other projects are, that are beneficial and
of a higher priority or of the same priority. That is generally
when that reprogramming is done, but then it causes the
earmarking and another appropriation to go with it.
I understand your frustration and appreciate the
frustration. I would commit, if confirmed, to looking into
that, and to seeing how that can be minimized or decreased as
much as we are able to do it. I think if you are going to buy
down the backlog of projects that this country has, you have to
complete projects and complete them on time and get them off
the books. And then those projects, as you say, the problem
with having to earmark it and do it is whether or not you get
those replacement funds. That is the challenge and it is hard
on the communities. I appreciate that.
Senator Craig. General, thank you very much for that
comment. I know that in civilian life, old habits are hard to
break. In the military sometimes it is nearly impossible.
General Van Antwerp. That is true.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. So I think even in the answer to the
question asked, you have a challenge ahead of you. I will stay
with you on it. It is a tremendous frustration for all of us
who attempt to work cooperatively with the Army Corps and with
our communities of interest, and then to see it somehow not
happen.
I can understand timing and readiness and all of that. At
the same time, a dollar is a dollar, and not effectively spent
in 1 year becomes less than a dollar the next. We understand
that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. I want to thank you, Senator Craig. You
certainly speak for me on this question. It is so frustrating.
It isn't just the corps. It has happened to me in other areas.
And I know a lot of times, it is because they just don't want
to go ask for the money that is necessary.
What I would urge you to do is just simply tell us. Tell us
if you need to have additional funds. Look, it is our job, then
put the problem on us, but don't take away these funds from
other projects because it does disrupt.
I had a situation with the FAA where we had to build a
control tower, and they just took the money and said they would
pay it back, and they didn't have money to pay it back. And
then it means we have to go back once again, when we thought we
took care of the issue.
So I am really happy that you raised it. We want to work
with you in a cooperative way. We know sometimes there is a
legitimate reason, but at least it ought not to blindside us,
and we ought to be working with you.
So thank you, Senator.
I would just like to say, General, if you have any
additional remarks you would like to offer at this time, feel
free to do it.
General Van Antwerp. Ma'am, thank you very much. I am very
honored to be here today. This committee is very important with
the Corps of Engineers. I pledge to work with this committee
and other committees that govern parts of the corps.
I am committed to our coastal regions. I understand the
cultural, historical, environmental and economic impact and
importance they have to the country.
I am committed to partnering at the local level, at the
State, at the Federal, with Congress. As I Stated earlier, I do
believe that public safety is a very, very important aspect of
what we do. We have to be reminded of that.
I am also committed, and I want you and the committee to
know, I am committed to what I would term ``transparency.''
Senator Boxer. Good.
General Van Antwerp. That is where we let people know the
risks that they have. In fact, I don't know that you can ever
totally say you are risk-free, but people ought to know. People
can take that. I would rather have them know.
So I am committed to making sure people know the risks that
they are taking, and that as we talk of those risks, it is
backed up with good science. That doesn't mean that we are
never going to discover a dam that has seepage or a levee that
has problems the way it was built, but I think the corp is well
on the way to fixing some of those issues right now.
I think Katrina, as bad as it was, it certainly positioned
the corps to look at some things it should have looked at for a
long time. I think that is good.
And then the final thing I would say. I am committed to
disaster preparedness. I hear this conversation. My experience,
of course, was with the Northridge earthquake. As you cited, we
had an excellent relationship with FEMA. We had an excellent
relationship with the local decisionmakers and everything.
One thing I learned from that, you have to have the
jurisdiction thing figured out well ahead of time. You have to
have redundant communications. You have to have teams that are
in areas not affected to be able to come to the affected area
without having to worry about their own families.
I think what happened in California, my experience there
was that we practiced that preparedness. The local authorities
and State authorities and everyone, we practiced it to the
point that when it really hit, it was just execute what you
knew to do. So I think in many ways, it is what we say in the
Army, you are going to fight like you train. So that is part of
it for me.
I am committed, and the corps has already got some
innovative practices here. I am committed to that.
So I just wanted to make that as a Statement of my
commitment to you and to this country.
Senator Boxer. I want to thank you. I know Senator Isakson
and I are the last few here, but on behalf of the committee, we
are very appreciative. We really appreciate your experience,
and we appreciate your openness. I personally feel your
comments about coastal areas are so important because that is
where people have moved to, and for a reason, the beauty, and
being closer to God's natural environment. So it does pose
issues for us, but we have to step up to the plate and be
prepared to do what we have to do.
I also so appreciated your comments on restoring our
wetlands, because to me that is one of the great American
tragedies that we don't think about that often. I think that we
have lost about 90 percent of our wetlands across the country,
and it is just tragic because as you say, they serve for so
much good.
I see the Senator Whitehouse has come. I am going to ask
you to take the gavel from me, Senator, so come sit over here,
because I am on my way out. We have basically completed, but
before Senator Whitehouse takes over the gavel--please sit
right here, and I will just pass it on to you.
Senator Whitehouse. I am here until 5 minutes of four. Is
that going to be a problem?
Senator Boxer. No. You will be done.
Senator Whitehouse. Great.
Senator Boxer. We are finished. You are it.
General Van Antwerp. Thank you, ma'am.
Senator Boxer. This is what I want to say in conclusion. I
want you to know that I strongly support this nomination, and I
will do everything I can to move it to the floor and get it
done. This is a position that is so critical to us. As I say,
you are the right person at the right time. Your views, your
commitment to openness and transparency, your experience--all
of this adds up to me to be very promising.
Before I leave, I just want to ask everyone to join me in a
moment of silence for those lost at Virginia Tech in a
senseless violent act. So let's just take a minute to think
about them.
[Moment of silence observed.]
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
I am going to pass the gavel over to you, Senator. You have
a lot of power. Don't let him stage a coup. All of you who are
militarily trained, I am counting on you. Take action if he
starts waving that gavel like I do. Take immediate action.
[Laughter.]
Senator Whitehouse. [Presiding] Civilian control.
Senator Boxer. Civilian control. There you go.
Senator Whitehouse, thank you so much. If anyone does come,
they get 5 minutes to make a Statement and to ask their
questions, but you will be free, I am sure, in just a few
minutes.
Senator Whitehouse. Very good.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT L. VAN
ANTWERP, JR., TO BE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS AND COMMANDING GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
General Van Antwerp. Ma'am, as you leave, if I could make
one statement. General Strock's son goes to Virginia Tech and
lost 10 friends yesterday. So the Strocks are headed that way
as we speak. As you remember, the faces are with the tragedy,
but their experienced in that, and his son is grieving, as you
can imagine.
Responses by Robert L. Van Antwerp, Jr., to Additional Questions
from Senator Carper
Question 1. Land use decisions, building codes and other
state and local policy decisions have a huge impact on the
effectiveness of corps flood control projects. But the corps
has no role in those decisions, nor do they appear to
necessarily be a part of the design of particular flood control
projects. How could better coordination with state and local
development decisions increase the effectiveness of corps'
projects?
Response. In the United States, the responsibility for
managing flood risks is shared across the Federal, state and
local levels of government. Even in areas where a Federally
constructed flood control structure may reduce the likelihood
of flooding, sound floodplain management choices at the State
and local level are critical for protecting public safety and
effectively managing flood risk.
It is my understanding that the corps is working to improve
coordination with state and local governments through meetings
that allow both corps and FEMA senior leaders to meet on a
regular basis with stakeholder groups representing the non
Federal perspective to receive feedback on specific policy and
implementation issues faced at the State and local level.
Along with these steps to improve coordination with State
and local Governments, the corps also supported and
participated in discussions with other Federal, State, local
and private sector experts at a December 2006 National Flood
Risk Policy Summit, sponsored by the Association of State
Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) and the National Association of
Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA) to discuss
new policy options for improving national flood risk
management. Many of the ideas raised involved measures to
improve Federal support of sound floodplain management planning
at the State and local level. Such suggestions included:
-Adopting mechanisms to create incentives at the State,
regional and local levels of government to encourage the use of
sound floodplain and flood water management measures.
-Improving the communication of residual risks, including
the mapping of areas subject to residual risk and requiring the
purchase of flood insurance in such areas
-Better integration of Federal, State, regional and local
planning by providing the corps, and other Federal agencies,
with the authority and funding necessary to participate in
locally driven, comprehensive water resources planning.
Question 2. We have had people testify before this
committee that levees should be considered an option of last
resort and used only to protect existing communities. What is
your opinion on this statement and why this is not the case in
our current flood control program? How does the current
structure of the federal flood insurance program impact flood
control project decisions?
Response. From my understanding, the corps concurs that
levees should not be used as a means to promote the development
of currently undeveloped floodplains. The corps only constructs
levees where there are benefits to the nation that exceed the
costs of the levee. When evaluating the benefits of preventing
future flood damages to homes, business and other structures,
the corps only calculates damages prevented to the existing
community. The corps does not count benefits that might accrue
to future development for justification.
Nonetheless, in cases where a corps levee is justified and
constructed to provide benefits to an existing community, it is
the State and local governments that will decide what future
development may be allowed in the affected area. In my opinion,
it is critical that the corps and FEMA remain engaged in
ongoing coordination with State and local governments to
support sound floodplain management decision making and to
accurately communicate the ``residual'' risks associated with
developing in areas behind levees.
Question 3. The Federal dredge fleet has been used to
respond to emergencies in recent years. This includes the
Wheeler in New Orleans that has been used beyond its maximum
number of days--set when it was put into ``ready reserve''
status--in recent years. Considering that, how small can the
federal dredge fleet be and still ensure the necessary response
to emergencies? And should there be a federal dredge on the
East Coast?
It is my understanding that the corps relies first on the
private sector and second on the minimum fleet of corps dredges
to perform dredging, including emergency response. In June
2005, the corps submitted a report to Congress that recommended
the hopper dredge McFarland be retired as the private sector
has proven its capability to address the Nation's dredging
needs, including emergencies. The corps continues to operate
the McFarland while it awaits Congressional direction. If
Congress directs implementation of this recommendation, the
corps would have 2 dredges on the Pacific Coast and the dredge
Wheeler on the Gulf Coast. The dredge Wheeler was designed for
operating characteristics of the Mississippi River, but is
capable of mobilizing on short notice and deploying to other
locations when needed.
I have been informed that the private sector dredges have
demonstrated the ability to meet the vast majority of dredging
needs. Private sector dredges accomplished 89 percent and 83
percent of the work by cost and volume, respectively, over the
past ten years.
The corps report mentioned above recommended a plan that
would schedule the corps hopper dredge Essayons for 215 days
annually, schedule the Yaquina for 178 days annually, keep the
Wheeler in ready reserve, retire the McFarland, and continue
the initiatives from the Industry Corps Hopper Dredge
Management Group. According to the report, this plan would
result in a $10.1 million annual net reduction in the total
cost for hopper dredging, offer approximately 55 days
additional work to the industry annually, ensure that there is
a viable reserve capability ready to respond to unforeseen
requirements, and ensure that Federal projects requiring hopper
dredging can be accomplished in a timely manner and at
reasonable cost.
If confirmed, I will continue to evaluate the situation and
implement what is ultimately recommended by Congress.
Question 4. In March 2006, the government Accountability
Office has testified that corps studies are often ``fraught
with errors, mistakes, and miscalculations'' and use ``invalid
assumptions and outdated data.'' GAO also said that these were
recurring problems indicate that the corps' planning and
project management processes ``cannot ensure that national
priorities are appropriately established across the hundreds of
civil works projects that are competing for scarce federal
resources.'' What changes do you think will be necessary for
the agency to ensure that the corps can be relied upon to make
important policy decisions?
First, maintaining the technical competence of the corps is
of paramount importance. Attracting and retaining highly
skilled and talented employees is critical to maintaining
technical competency. The corps must train, equip and challenge
its people properly, and continue to move forward as a
recognized leader in developing and implementing the best
technology. The integrity of the Corps of Engineers rests on
the objectivity, transparency and scientific validity of its
analytical processes.
Another major issue relates to the ever changing nature of
the missions assigned to the corps and the changing
expectations of the nation. I believe the outputs expected from
the corps, the tools it uses in delivering those outputs and
the nature and composition of partners it works with, will all
continue to change dramatically. I foresee a need for more
collaboration and comprehensive water resources and
infrastructure solutions, new and innovative approaches and the
likelihood of situations where the corps may serve as a member
of a team, rather than having plenary control over development
of solutions, as was common in the past. Determining the right
strategic direction will be a major challenge, but it is
essential to success.
My understanding is that the corps has made substantial
changes to assure that projects are appropriately analyzed and
justified. The corps has strengthened its own procedures for
internal peer review and adopted procedures for external peer
review under guidance issued by the Office of Management and
Budget. The Directorate of Civil Works now houses an Office of
Water Project Review that is separate from project development
functions. It is my understanding that a significant program of
planning improvement is being undertaken that includes
training, model certification, and centers of planning
expertise.
Finally, if confirmed, I will insure that corps technical
analyses are sound and the project evaluation process is
transparent. The Chief of Engineers must be trusted with the
technical discretion essential to meeting our nation's water
resources needs. External reviews can contribute to reducing
controversy and risk, but these reviews must be integrated into
the project development process not added at the end of the
process. Integration of external review will improve projects
and will assist the corps in meeting urgent needs in a timely
manner.
------
Responses by Robert L. Van Antwerp, Jr., to Additional Questions
from Senator Cardin
Question 1. The Town of Chesapeake City, Maryland, sits
astride the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, which is the
shipping channel that connects Delaware Bay to the Chesapeake
Bay. Originally, Chesapeake City had a drinking water line that
ran under the C&D Canal. When the Corps of Engineers deepened
and widened the Canal several decades ago, the corps removed
Chesapeake City's water line, essentially leaving the community
with two separate water treatment and distribution systems. In
the 1999 WRDA bill, Congress authorized the corps to evaluate
the town's claim of damage to its water supply system. The
Philadelphia District Engineer determined in September 2003
that replacing the water line and making the system whole again
was appropriate and he recommended that mitigation package.
Since that time, Corps Headquarters has refused to compensate
the Town pending ``additional documentation to support its
claim.'' The Town of Chesapeake City has a population of 735
people. Some of the issues surrounding this issue go back
decades, and the tiny town staff does not have the resources to
undertake extensive additional research. You already have a
District Engineer report that clearly determined the validity
of the compensation. That report contains a statement from
Corps Counsel that the report was fully reviewed and approved.
Can I have your assurance that the corps will waive any
additional requests for documentation and get on with making
Chesapeake City's water system whole again?
Response. If confirmed, I assure you that I will do
everything possible to move this effort along. As you state,
the issues surrounding this project are decades old. The
specific issue at hand is not whether the Town of Chesapeake
City deserved compensation for damages to its water system.
Because that is the case, the corps, at Federal expense,
provided the town with a water tower and ultimately a
modification to its distribution system. The issue raised with
the 1999 authority is whether additional compensation is
necessary. It is my understanding that in January 2004, as part
of the review process for the decision document under the 1999
authority, the Corps headquarters determined that the
information provided in the report did not adequately support
the recommendation that additional compensation is required. As
you and I discussed, the corps, the town, and your staff have
been working to bring this matter to closure. Information that
has been provided by the town is being used to address the
outstanding review comments, hopefully it will be sufficient to
address those comments and substantiate a compensation amount,
if one is warranted. If confirmed, I assure you that I will
move quickly on the recommendations contained in the final
report.
Question 2. What is the status of the feasibility study on
the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project?
Specifically, I would like to know: Aside from questions which
may arise during your considerations, do you have all
information, reports necessary for processing a Chief's Report
for the Mid-Bay Islands project? What procedural steps remain
before the corps can issue a Chief's Report? What is your
current schedule for issuing a Chief's Report for the Mid-Bay
Islands project, and if the project is reviewed by the Review
Board on July 19th, can you issue a Chief's Report before Labor
Day?
Response. From what I understand, the Corps of Engineers,
Baltimore District, is currently addressing comments from the
Corps Headquarters. This revised information will be included
in a presentation before the Civil Works Review Board,
currently scheduled for July 19, 2007. As a matter of general
practice, subject to approval by the Board, the feasibility
report is distributed for a 30-day state and agency review.
Once any comments are addressed, the final Chief's report is
prepared and forwarded for consideration by the Chief of
Engineers. This process will likely take longer to produce a
final report than by Labor Day; however, if confirmed, I am
committed to ensuring that this process moves forward as
expeditiously as practicable.
------
Responses by Robert L. Van Antwerp, Jr., to Additional Questions
from Senator Vitter
Question 1. General Strock, the current Chief of Engineers,
admitted that the corps erred in some decision regarding the
design and construction of the protection system in the New
Orleans area. I appreciated the General's comments.
Response. While the corps acted with urgency immediately
after the storm, the work has returned to a business as usual
pace with urgent work still incomplete. This pace is not
entirely the fault of the corps. Both the ASA and OMB play
significant roles in these delays. Noting the corps' fault
acknowledged by Gen. Strock, can you explain to the committee
what steps you would take to ensure that the corps will
accelerate their work under your command?
It is my understanding that the Corps of Engineers is still
committed to proceeding with the urgency necessary to provide
system protection in the greater metropolitan area. This
includes bringing three major projects to the 100-year level of
protection (Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, New Orleans to
Venice, and West Bank and Vicinity). The corps team, including
the Mississippi Valley Division, Task Force Hope, New Orleans
District, and devoted employees throughout the corps has worked
diligently to assure the greatest degree of protection
available for the 2007 hurricane season. All 40 outfall canal
pumps were online by June 1, 2007. These pumps were mandatory
to protect from ponded rainfall flooding should the level of
Lake Pontchartrain necessitate the closing of the newly
constructed floodgates at the three Outflow Canals in Orleans
Parish. The Corps of Engineers was delayed for a short period
of time as it was unable to fund contracts for restoring levees
and floodwalls to authorized grades and to accelerate the
completion of uncompleted portions of authorized projects. With
your help in the passage of the ``U.S. Troop Readiness,
Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007'', the corps has the funding to move
forward and is reconfirming the priority project lists as the
teams begin to advertise contracts. If confirmed, you have my
firm commitment to continue the task of bringing the system to
the 100-year level of protection as a top priority and will
continue to push forward to complete this work as soon as
possible.
Question 2. The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet is
responsible for the loss of tens of thousands of acres of
coastal lands and serves as a conduit for storm surge into St.
Bernard and Orleans parishes. The corps spent about $4 million
studying this in the late nineties and again early this decade.
Unfortunately, neither study yielded a report.
The channel needs to be closed. I passed an amendment that
requires a closure plan, but am told the corps cannot produce a
final version until December.
In cases like this where the need is unquestionable, do you
think that it is necessary to drag out these conclusions?
Response. The Corps of Engineers is committed to meeting
the Congressionally mandated reporting schedules established
for the de-authorization of the MRGO. From what I understand,
language in the 4th Supplemental (P.L. 109-234) directed the
Chief of Engineers to prepare a comprehensive plan for de-
authorizing deep draft navigation on the MRGO between the GIWW
and Gulf of Mexico. The language called for submittal of an
interim report in December 2006 and integrating a final de-
authorization plan into the Louisiana Coastal Protection and
Restoration (LACPR) final technical report due to Congress in
December 2007. The corps submitted the interim report ahead of
schedule and the report highlighted total closure of the MRGO
as the most promising alternative. Recently the corps released
a draft executive summary of the final report and hosted a
public information meeting in Chalmette, Louisiana, to present
the draft plan for de-authorizing the MRGO. More than 100
citizens attended the meeting. The corps is working to complete
an Environmental Impact Statement and to incorporate the de-
authorization plan into the final LACPR report. This is an
important component of this work because it provides an
opportunity for public involvement and will help ensure that
plans are considered from a systems perspective. If confirmed,
I will ensure that the corps continues to work with a sense of
urgency on this issue and will meet or beat the Congressional
deadline for submittal of the final MRGO de-authorization
report.
Question 3. Debris removal is a very complex process.
Following Hurricane Katrina, 3 federal agencies have been
involved in the removal of disaster waste. In some cases, these
practices have appeared to conflict with other corps missions
such as wetlands and hurricane protection. I have asked the
federal agencies to conduct a review of state practices to
ensure these are environmentally sensitive. Can you commit to
this?
Response. I believe the corps must execute all of its
missions and projects in an environmentally sustainable manner.
If confirmed, I am committed to reviewing the current policies
and procedures and practices, both within the corps and with
the other agencies involved, to ensure that the debris removal
mission is being conducted in accordance with environmental
laws, regulations, and policies.
Question 4. Coastal wetlands are governed under the same
rules as traditional, inland wetlands. However, in Louisiana we
are losing 35 square miles of land per year. In some cases,
small projects to protect and restore coastal Louisiana have
been stopped due to 404 wetland permits.
Do you believe that the rules should be different for
threatened coastal wetlands versus inland wetlands?
Response. I do believe wetland restoration projects,
particularly those within coastal areas, should receive
streamlined and flexible permitting processes to encourage
their construction. It is my understanding that the corps has
already taken steps to improve the flexible permitting through
its revised Nationwide Permits, and encouraging the development
and use of Regional General Permits for streamlined permitting
of similar activities within a specified region or state.
Additionally, it is my understanding that the corps and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are evaluating the use of
the watershed approach to mitigation. By evaluating impacts and
mitigation at the watershed level, areas with the need for
coastal wetland restoration and mitigation can be prioritized
and directed quickly and efficiently.
Question 5. We lost 217 square miles of coastal Louisiana
over two days in 2005--the two days that our state was hit by
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We normally lose around 35 square
miles of land per year. The primary cause of this annual
erosion is the installation of levees on the lower levee system
by the Corps of Engineers.
South Louisiana is a very dynamic and productive coastal
area that provides our nation with over 20 percent of this
nation's energy, hosts the world's largest port system and is
one of the top fishery producers in the country.
The traditional corps process of studying, designing,
authorizing and constructing projects is not the solution to
our rapidly-changing area.
Members of the Administration have recognized the fact that
the stovepipe project process is not a solution and have
advocated a programmatic authority to protect and restore
coastal Louisiana. Do you believe that a broad, flexible
approach to protecting and restoring coastal Louisiana is
preferable?
Response. Yes, I do believe that a broad and flexible
approach is preferable. It is my understanding that the Corps
of Engineers, in cooperation with its partners and
stakeholders, is looking at all alternatives for hurricane and
storm damage reduction on our coasts, realizing the importance
of system-wide approaches that incorporate a variety of
protection techniques that do not rely solely on the more
traditional structural measures such as levees or floodwalls.
The Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Program
(LACPR) is doing just that. In partnership with the State of
Louisiana, LACPR is looking at innovative alternatives to
reduce risk from future storms, including natural methods such
as wetlands, as well as nonstructural measures such as
elevation, buyout, relocation, and/or flood-proofing of
buildings and structures and improved flood plain/flood risk
management. LACPR is working with experts from federal, state
and local agencies; academia; private industry and even
international professionals to ensure that the corps includes
the best ideas for a full range of protection alternatives. The
corps is also continuing to support and work with the Louisiana
Coastal Area (LCA) Ecosystem Restoration Program to provide
wetlands restoration techniques and methods to maintain and
restore coastal wetlands.
Senator Boxer. I am going to write them an immediate note
and just say in many ways, there is a lot of post-traumatic
stress going on even for people who didn't know people who were
lost there. In my own case, we have had so much gun violence in
California. One particular case was at a law firm, where a
killer came in with an automatic weapon and just mowed
everybody down, including one of my son's best friends from law
school. Just looking on the news, so many years later, this is
a long time ago, I want to say 10 years, maybe more, it just
brings it back. I could barely watch.
So this is an area we have just got to do something about,
but that is the subject of another day and another hearing in
another place. But thank you for sharing that information.
Senator Whitehouse, thank you.
Senator Whitehouse. General, thank you. I don't mean to
hold you much longer. I know I stand right now between you and
the exit. I know it has been a long day for you.
I did want to touch on two things that pertain to Rhode
Island, now that you are here. One is that in Woonsocket, which
is a proud city in the northern part of Rhode Island, a very
strong working class city, there is a levee project around the
edges of the Blackstone River. Woonsocket is, to put it mildly,
not a wealthy town. I think the average income in Woonsocket is
about $16,000 a year. It is very economically depressed. It has
been hit hard by the trade policies the country has followed
for many years. Many of the jobs that were there in the past
have been exported.
Now, they find that the levees are in substantial
disrepair. It is going to be very important to us to work with
you and to work with the Army Corps to see that those repairs
get made. I know that my senior Senator from Rhode Island, Jack
Reed, is working very hard, and I am doing what I can to help
him, to make sure that there is supplemental funding so that we
can help Woonsocket with its share of the project.
But it is one of these things where even with the very best
intentions, you get a city with a long tradition, but a city
that has suffered some economic distress in the past, and it
has been hard for them to keep up the maintenance. And now we
are presented with a situation that could be a real public
health problem and a public safety problem. We need to get on
it. I hope that that will have your attention and interest.
General Van Antwerp. Yes, sir, it will.
Senator Whitehouse. Very good.
General Van Antwerp. I am familiar with it, too. I think it
is an area where you have some of that depressed economy, and
you have requirements to maintain the levees. That is a
challenge today, no question, yet the public safety is still at
stake.
Senator Whitehouse. So between you and me and Senator Reed
and the city of Woonsocket, we will work our way through this.
But I wanted to let you know how significant that was in our
State.
The other thing is that we have kind of an odd situation.
Rhode Island is the Ocean State. A great number of people find
both recreation and make their livelihoods on Narragansett Bay
and Mount Hope Bay and the waters of Rhode Island, Block Island
Sound. The marina business is quite an active one. There have
been substantial problems with dredging in Narragansett Bay, as
you may know. We have recently made a lot of progress on
dredging out the main channel and setting up CAD cells for
disposal of the dredged spoils.
At the same time, with the disposal sites opening up, many
of the marinas have invested substantial resources. These are
small businesses, family owned businesses, and they have
invested substantial resources in dredging out what they own
and what they are licensed to control, which is the marina
space that they have. But between the main channel and the
marina space, there is very often such silting that they can't
get customers in and out from their marinas.
It is that sort of secondary branch dredging that we need
to work on and enable that to move forward. I understand that
over the years, and they don't hesitate to remind me, an
enormous amount of money has been accounted into a fund for
this purpose. However, the cash didn't stay there. Like the
Social Security reserve fund, it is gone. It is just an
accounting entry, and when you open up the box and look for the
money, what you see is a note saying, IOU, Uncle Sam.
So despite the best efforts of the industry to contribute
over the years, to have this funding there when they need it at
moments like this, it isn't there. My predecessors in this
building have spent it on other things, and now we have to cope
with that project, too.
But for some of these small businesses, which have invested
substantial, substantial resources in the hope and promise that
this would come to pass, we now need to move on to the next
step there as well. I hope I can have your help with that.
General Van Antwerp. Yes, sir. I commit to looking into
that. I think there is an enormous dredging backlog in this
country. I am aware of that. I would welcome to take a look and
look into this particular situation.
Senator Whitehouse. Good. We will follow-up.
I wish you well.
General Van Antwerp. Thank you, sir.
Senator Whitehouse. As the new member and the junior member
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I expect we may
have a long career together. I look forward to working with
you, and congratulations on your nomination.
General Van Antwerp. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Whitehouse. There may be further comments, so the
record of this hearing will be left open for 2 weeks.
The hearing stands adjourned.
Thank you, General.
General Van Antwerp. Thank you, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m. the committee was adjourned.]